Player stats, sales, and reception speculation thread

[Xur]

Keep that up and in a few hundred years ‘civ” Vii will get to an over all positive review score

It would only take ~22 years.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Big deal!
Counting those 2 weeks starting on a Tuesday.

I think it will be easier for you to understand each other, if you drop the term "week" completely from this discussion. @IntelligentDisk is talking about 14 day period. It doesn't matter when it starts.

So far it's one big heap of misunderstanding.

Keep that up and in a few hundred years ‘civ” Vii will get to an over all positive review score

That's not the point of the discussion.

 

[Wrenched]

It's always interesting to see which reviews are okay to undermine, discount or otherwise put down, and which ones are sacrosanct and must be respected.

That's a good point!

It reminds me of a time in this thread of repeated claims that there were far more console purchasers/players. That theory was used to undermine, discount, or otherwise put down Steam data for a while. Now we are back to Steam data being the gold standard. Maybe that's progress.

 

[AD1730]

Nitpicking little upticks in reviews this late in the game doesn't do anything to change anything about the status of Civ 7, and it honestly leaves a lot of people curious as to what the point or benefit of that is. What benefit comes from denying that the game hasn't done well and isn't well liked by possibly a majority of its intended audience?

It’s so they don’t have to admit that the design decisions that they agree with led the game to have the reception and performance it’s had thus far. If everything is is fine, then they never have to deal with that problem.

I bring up Bethesda a lot here (particularly regarding Starfield), because so much of the attitude of Civ 7’s developers and the game’s biggest proponents mirrors what I’ve seen with Starfield. That game cannot and will not improve much because the devs and proponents cannot admit the underwhelming performance of the game, let alone the fact that the underwhelming performance flows from poor design decisions.

This reality is why I believe some sort of apology, statement, or whatever you want to call it is essential. Many here have cited No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk 2077 of games making a turnaround. However, in both of those cases the devs admitted they screwed up, and just doing that provides some guidance for how to proceed.

Several here have noted that the ongoing development of Civ 7 seems untargeted or aimless. I believe at least some of that stems from the refusal to admit the game’s fundamental brokenness. Since Firaxis refuses to make that admission, they proceed through development scared of hurting people’s feelings, both inside the company and outside of it.

 

[Gorbles]

I bought the game from a key site, purely because it was cheaper.
Does that make my review any different than anybody else's?

No. Wrenched seems to think it does, though.

Yeah the content of all reviews matter but Steam makes a distinction on which ones count towards the official Steam store aggregate.

Which is a little distinction to keep in mind when discussing trends or what counts to moving the needle on the principle storefront.

Why? Don't all player opinions matter? Who cares what Steam chooses to do?

I believe people have answered your question in depth over and over again, and it's a bit tiresome to hear you accuse all of those people of not actually addressing the issue.

We believe that Civ 7 is a flop, because there are poor design choices, unfinished features and UI, and an objectively poor reception. We want for this to be officially acknowledged, both in the community discourse and by the developers (publisher etc.), and for substantial changes to be pursued. This is because we want the game to succeed, and it's pretty clear that it just never will otherwise.

Nitpicking little upticks in reviews this late in the game doesn't do anything to change anything about the status of Civ 7, and it honestly leaves a lot of people curious as to what the point or benefit of that is. What benefit comes from denying that the game hasn't done well and isn't well liked by possibly a majority of its intended audience?

I didn't question what people believed in, or negative sentiments about Civ VII. Nor did I say anything about people wanting substantial change. None of this has much to do with a thread about player statistics (except in tangents, which I'll admit to happily being involved in a few of!). Nothing is about an "accusation" about addressing any "issue".

We're just talking stats.

If the stats don't matter, why argue against them?

If the stats do matter, why is there seemingly only an effort to argue against positive indicators? Or am I wrong in believing that? Have I hallucinated the past few pages Did the same posters say the same things to any negative trends? Did you?

Nobody is denying the game's reception. Most of the argumentation around the positive uptick has come from critics of VII. And pointing out said uptick doesn't "deny" that the game hasn't done well. It's a very weird claim for you to make. Sub 50% user reviews on Steam is very much not good! Any sign that it could be improving is, in fact, good. First images are hard to shift. Firaxis have an uphill battle ahead of them (and have since release).

If the statistics are showing improvement, however minor, and you want the game to succeed, isn't that something to share in?

It reminds me of a time in this thread of repeated claims that there were far more console purchasers/players. That theory was used to undermine, discount, or otherwise put down Steam data for a while. Now we are back to Steam data being the gold standard. Maybe that's progress.

All data is the gold standard. Data is data.

I get that you're trying to suggest some kind of hypocrisy, but that only works if the posters involved did the thing. I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Console players are an important demographic whether you like it or not. Steam players are an important demographic whether anyone likes it or not. Discounting stats you don't like is a very flawed approach to any form of statistics.

Putting down reviews because you're choosing not to value the source catches people sympathetic to your arguments, like Smeggers, in the crossfire.

Now, if you could prove that people were buying the game to achieve a specific review percentage outcome, that'd be different. But you didn't. And to be honest, you probably can't. Can you?

 

[Wrenched]

Why? Don't all player opinions matter?

You had more than enough opportunity to bring that energy earlier in the thread. Now it just feels like crying wolf.

Looking at the the Console reviews of Civ VII I can see why folks pivoted back to Steam though. Cheers.

 

[Gorbles]

You had more than enough opportunity to bring that energy earlier in the thread. Now it just feels like crying wolf.

Looking at the the Console reviews of Civ VII I can see why folks pivoted back to Steam though. Cheers.

If you can find any post where I don't value player opinions, my PMs are always open (seems pretty tangential at this point).

And yeah, the PlayStation release in particular had a load of teething issues!

 

[PlatinumPoster]

No. Wrenched seems to think it does, though.


Why? Don't all player opinions matter? Who cares what Steam chooses to do?


I didn't question what people believed in, or negative sentiments about Civ VII. Nor did I say anything about people wanting substantial change. None of this has much to do with a thread about player statistics (except in tangents, which I'll admit to happily being involved in a few of!). Nothing is about an "accusation" about addressing any "issue".

We're just talking stats.

If the stats don't matter, why argue against them?

If the stats do matter, why is there seemingly only an effort to argue against positive indicators? Or am I wrong in believing that? Have I hallucinated the past few pages Did the same posters say the same things to any negative trends? Did you?

Nobody is denying the game's reception. Most of the argumentation around the positive uptick has come from critics of VII. And pointing out said uptick doesn't "deny" that the game hasn't done well. It's a very weird claim for you to make. Sub 50% user reviews on Steam is very much not good! Any sign that it could be improving is, in fact, good. First images are hard to shift. Firaxis have an uphill battle ahead of them (and have since release).

If the statistics are showing improvement, however minor, and you want the game to succeed, isn't that something to share in?


All data is the gold standard. Data is data.

I get that you're trying to suggest some kind of hypocrisy, but that only works if the posters involved did the thing. I'm pretty sure I didn't.

Console players are an important demographic whether you like it or not. Steam players are an important demographic whether anyone likes it or not. Discounting stats you don't like is a very flawed approach to any form of statistics.

Putting down reviews because you're choosing not to value the source catches people sympathetic to your arguments, like Smeggers, in the crossfire.

Now, if you could prove that people were buying the game to achieve a specific review percentage outcome, that'd be different. But you didn't. And to be honest, you probably can't. Can you?

This.

 

[King Flevance]

I will say that I am someone who wants the game to succeed and I am one that would like Civ 7 to forge a path into new territory with civ switching and ages. (I do not want 8 to do this though) However, celebrating 2 extra positive reviews this week or that week is seeing what you want to see. Speculating, ideally, means you shouldn't let your preference bias your judgements. A couple reviews one way or the other means nothing. There have been no trends in these numbers since the reviews initially trended downwards before they plateaued at just under 50%. That is a trend.

Cheerleading the numbers is not going to convince the product to do better or anyone to suddenly like it. All it will do is satisfy your own bias by attempting to convince yourself. Stats are just stats, they go obsolete tomorrow. 2 more reviews today just means maybe 2 more opposite reviews tomorrow. Arguing over it is meaningless. Daily stats are irrelevant for a discussion like this unless the margins are huge. Civ 7 has trended downwards and has yet to trend upwards. 1.2.5 has been out for a month and it has not trended upwards. It was a nice patch, but it wasn't the miracle cure people want it to be.

Acknowledging this does not mean I am not hopeful. It means the game has not proven itself yet - statistically. That is just a fact based on how statistic work. (I would have been shocked if 1.2.5 was the turning point, honestly.) If you think the stats are wrong or invalid or whatever, no one can prove it so it is just an opinion, not even speculation as you can't support the claim. Speculation at least requires circumstantial evidence, which we have none other than Steam.

Nobody is denying the game's reception. Most of the argumentation around the positive uptick has come from critics of VII. And pointing out said uptick doesn't "deny" that the game hasn't done well. It's a very weird claim for you to make. Sub 50% user reviews on Steam is very much not good! Any sign that it could be improving is, in fact, good. First images are hard to shift. Firaxis have an uphill battle ahead of them (and have since release).

If the statistics are showing improvement, however minor, and you want the game to succeed, isn't that something to share in?

I disagree with the sentiment here. If Bob from Arkansas clicks "Recommend" on Steam, I don't consider it something to celebrate. Firaxis' uphill battle is at least partly their own fault. A project lead needs to make sure the project does not get too ambitious for the time allocated. Civ 7 had so many "loose strings" on launch in its design it is OK IMO to hold them to the fire they created. 2K no doubt played a part but they may have been better off if they had only 15 working features rather than 30 broken ones. That was a decision that was made. Perhaps it was the right call, who knows? But this game launched pretty broken and it is hard to turn the ship around.

Giving yourself placebo doesn't turn the ship around. To turn the ship around, Firaxis needs to understand its market (the current) and figure out how to navigate it. Applauding a couple positive reviews does not help them see clearly. It is like cheering for them because they simply touched the steering wheel. However, if they don't steer correctly, this will still crash. The have to actually follow through. They have to correct it, then you cheer. Nothing has changed regardless of how many of us want it to. A large portion of the people who care enough to review it (their audience), do not like it currently.

I still have not reviewed it on Steam because I am undecided, in a nutshell. I can't give it a thumbs up or down yet and feel good about it. These stats are just something to fight over right now, which doesn't produce anything worthwhile. Being clear about feedback is probably the most important thing right now and not everyone is good at communicating their thoughts or views well. I want Firaxis to succeed, but celebrating a victory to early is often times detrimental. I am enjoying the game for what it is right now and waiting to see what Firaxis does. I will agree with anyone who says Civ 7 had a poor launch and has been failing steadily ever since. Acknowledging the problem is the first step to fixing it, and I certainly recognize Civ 7 has a lot of problems. I also refuse to celebrate Firaxis for releasing a broken product (That they charged top dollar for!) and then have been scrambling to justify it ever since. This game was expensive to buy-in. It did not deliver on that for many people.

 

[Kwami]

It's amazing that a tiny bit of good news has produced such a backlash. Y'all are here for the bad news, but good news must be denied at all costs.

 

[King Flevance]

I dont consider 2 steam reviews "news".

 

[Wrenched]

If you can find any post where I don't value player opinions, my PMs are always open (seems pretty tangential at this point).

And yeah, the PlayStation release in particular had a load of teething issues!

Not tangential at all! Agreeing on a standard data point would be helpful. Worth discussing openly and not in PMs.

You had plenty of chances to correct Stealth_nsk and others while they undermined Steam data a few months ago. If you really cared about about all opinions Spring/Summer 2025 was the chance to be heard.

I suggested an emphasis on Steam store aggregate. Which, should be noted, is not pegged to Civ VII doling better or worse...that value may include all outcomes! Though if we want to all agree to SteamDB being the more important measure over Steam Official I will happily take that as standard of measure. Congrats on the 47.15% Steam DB rating.

 

[IntelligentDisk]

I believe people have answered your question in depth over and over again, and it's a bit tiresome to hear you accuse all of those people of not actually addressing the issue.

We believe that Civ 7 is a flop, because there are poor design choices, unfinished features and UI, and an objectively poor reception. We want for this to be officially acknowledged, both in the community discourse and by the developers (publisher etc.), and for substantial changes to be pursued. This is because we want the game to succeed, and it's pretty clear that it just never will otherwise.

Nitpicking little upticks in reviews this late in the game doesn't do anything to change anything about the status of Civ 7, and it honestly leaves a lot of people curious as to what the point or benefit of that is. What benefit comes from denying that the game hasn't done well and isn't well liked by possibly a majority of its intended audience?

While you might believe Civ VII is a flop (or as a failure as some put it), others do not. The design choices are subjective, the unfinished features & UI are pretty objectively bad. I've never seen anyone say the game was fine at launch. The game should never have been released in February. It should've been released this month. I haven't seen one person say the reception has been good either. They aren't "little upticks" though. Ignoring or denying this is just putting your head in the sand. As for the game "hasn't done well" - in terms of player retention it is directly in the middle between Civ VI & Beyond Earth, better than most games released this year and better than several strategy games which have had 80-85% positive reviews including Age of Wonders 4, Manor Lords, Stellaris and recently Endless Legend II. It also sold pretty well as far as we know despite it being more unaffordable compared to Civ VI (and V).

That's a good point!

It reminds me of a time in this thread of repeated claims that there were far more console purchasers/players. That theory was used to undermine, discount, or otherwise put down Steam data for a while. Now we are back to Steam data being the gold standard. Maybe that's progress.

Two things can be true. It's inevitable that consoles have taken away some players from Civ VII. For example, anyone who wanted to play Civ V or Civ VI in the past had to buy it on Steam to play it (in the first 2/3 years for Civ VI). I was one of those people who bought Civ V on an old laptop to play it when I would've bought it on a PS3 if it was released on it. Now for Civ VII that isn't the case. Any console players don't need to buy it on Steam, they can just buy it on their console.

I dont consider 2 steam reviews "news".

What 2 Steam reviews?

It’s so they don’t have to admit that the design decisions that they agree with led the game to have the reception and performance it’s had thus far. If everything is is fine, then they never have to deal with that problem.

I bring up Bethesda a lot here (particularly regarding Starfield), because so much of the attitude of Civ 7’s developers and the game’s biggest proponents mirrors what I’ve seen with Starfield. That game cannot and will not improve much because the devs and proponents cannot admit the underwhelming performance of the game, let alone the fact that the underwhelming performance flows from poor design decisions.

This reality is why I believe some sort of apology, statement, or whatever you want to call it is essential. Many here have cited No Man’s Sky and Cyberpunk 2077 of games making a turnaround. However, in both of those cases the devs admitted they screwed up, and just doing that provides some guidance for how to proceed.

Several here have noted that the ongoing development of Civ 7 seems untargeted or aimless. I believe at least some of that stems from the refusal to admit the game’s fundamental brokenness. Since Firaxis refuses to make that admission, they proceed through development scared of hurting people’s feelings, both inside the company and outside of it.

I don't see why or how the devs "admitting they screwed up" would help Civ VII. They just need to keep listening, delivering good updates and acting on feedback. From what I've seen so far, they have done exactly that. They need to continue though, they can't stop now.

I will say that I am someone who wants the game to succeed and I am one that would like Civ 7 to forge a path into new territory with civ switching and ages. (I do not want 8 to do this though) However, celebrating 2 extra positive reviews this week or that week is seeing what you want to see. Speculating, ideally, means you shouldn't let your preference bias your judgements. A couple reviews one way or the other means nothing. There have been no trends in these numbers since the reviews initially trended downwards before they plateaued at just under 50%. That is a trend.

Cheerleading the numbers is not going to convince the product to do better or anyone to suddenly like it. All it will do is satisfy your own bias by attempting to convince yourself. Stats are just stats, they go obsolete tomorrow. 2 more reviews today just means maybe 2 more opposite reviews tomorrow. Arguing over it is meaningless. Daily stats are irrelevant for a discussion like this unless the margins are huge. Civ 7 has trended downwards and has yet to trend upwards. 1.2.5 has been out for a month and it has not trended upwards. It was a nice patch, but it wasn't the miracle cure people want it to be.

Acknowledging this does not mean I am not hopeful. It means the game has not proven itself yet - statistically. That is just a fact based on how statistic work. (I would have been shocked if 1.2.5 was the turning point, honestly.) If you think the stats are wrong or invalid or whatever, no one can prove it so it is just an opinion, not even speculation as you can't support the claim. Speculation at least requires circumstantial evidence, which we have none other than Steam.



I disagree with the sentiment here. If Bob from Arkansas clicks "Recommend" on Steam, I don't consider it something to celebrate. Firaxis' uphill battle is at least partly their own fault. A project lead needs to make sure the project does not get too ambitious for the time allocated. Civ 7 had so many "loose strings" on launch in its design it is OK IMO to hold them to the fire they created. 2K no doubt played a part but they may have been better off if they had only 15 working features rather than 30 broken ones. That was a decision that was made. Perhaps it was the right call, who knows? But this game launched pretty broken and it is hard to turn the ship around.

Giving yourself placebo doesn't turn the ship around. To turn the ship around, Firaxis needs to understand its market (the current) and figure out how to navigate it. Applauding a couple positive reviews does not help them see clearly. It is like cheering for them because they simply touched the steering wheel. However, if they don't steer correctly, this will still crash. The have to actually follow through. They have to correct it, then you cheer. Nothing has changed regardless of how many of us want it to. A large portion of the people who care enough to review it (their audience), do not like it currently.

I still have not reviewed it on Steam because I am undecided, in a nutshell. I can't give it a thumbs up or down yet and feel good about it. These stats are just something to fight over right now, which doesn't produce anything worthwhile. Being clear about feedback is probably the most important thing right now and not everyone is good at communicating their thoughts or views well. I want Firaxis to succeed, but celebrating a victory to early is often times detrimental. I am enjoying the game for what it is right now and waiting to see what Firaxis does. I will agree with anyone who says Civ 7 had a poor launch and has been failing steadily ever since. Acknowledging the problem is the first step to fixing it, and I certainly recognize Civ 7 has a lot of problems. I also refuse to celebrate Firaxis for releasing a broken product (That they charged top dollar for!) and then have been scrambling to justify it ever since. This game was expensive to buy-in. It did not deliver on that for many people.

Who exactly is parading daily stats? Most of the recent discussion has been about the best 2 week period since launch which includes over 400 reviews. It isn't a "couple positive reviews". These stats shouldn't be something to fight over. I have no idea why so many don't want to hear about reviews improving.

1.2.5 is the best reviewed period (so far) since 1.1.1 at the end of March/start of April by the way. A 6-7% increase compared to the last 5 updates is quite significant. It could be the start of a turn around, or reviews could go back into the 30s again.

• 1.2.5 - 948 reviews (45.8%)
• 1.2.4 - 1,441 reviews (38.7%)
• 1.2.3 - 1,191 reviews (39.2%)
• 1.2.2 - 1,387 reviews (38.1%)
• 1.2.1 - 1,804 reviews (25.9%) *was review bombed for a period
• 1.2 - 1,890 reviews (38.4%)
• 1.1.1 - 2,088 reviews (46.1%)
• 1.1 - 3,818 reviews (42.1%)
• Launch - 33,495 reviews (50.7%)

 

[IntelligentDisk]

A hypothetical for the naysayers: if the next 6 months saw the game gain 5,200 reviews at 70% (140 positive, 60 negative each week), would that show a turnaround? The overall would be at 49.3% if that happened.

 

[Wrenched]

Now for Civ VII that isn't the case. Any console players don't need to buy it on Steam, they can just buy it on their console.

Let's take a look at console reviews:

Xbox: 2.6 (out of 5) rating out of 379 reviews.
Playstation: 2.71 (out of 5) rating out of 4.2K ratings.

 

[tman2000]

Several here have noted that the ongoing development of Civ 7 seems untargeted or aimless. I believe at least some of that stems from the refusal to admit the game’s fundamental brokenness. Since Firaxis refuses to make that admission, they proceed through development scared of hurting people’s feelings, both inside the company and outside of it.

The latest patch notes say that they don't want players to have too much information. That makes it perfectly clear what the corporate design intent it. Perfectly.

 

[tman2000]

It's amazing that a tiny bit of good news has produced such a backlash. Y'all are here for the bad news, but good news must be denied at all costs.

Tonedeaf. No ability to read the room. Deliberate avoidance of the discourse.

 

[stealth_nsk]

The latest patch notes say that they don't want players to have too much information. That makes it perfectly clear what the corporate design intent it. Perfectly.

Could you post the exact quote?

 

[KayAU]

As someone who still hasn't gotten Civ 7, I do think recent reviews matter. All time reviews seem pretty much a lost cause. It would take a long, long time for Civ 7 to hit the 70% "Mostly Positive" threshold. I've done the math, it seems unlikely to ever happen. My own loose criteria for jumping on board though, is that recent reviews should be mostly positive, and that the game is significantly discounted. Currently it's NOK 829 for just the base game, which I think is kind of ridiculous, even more so considering how poorly reviewed it is. But I'm glad to see it's at least moving slightly in the right direction.

 

[Gorbles]

I disagree with the sentiment here. If Bob from Arkansas clicks "Recommend" on Steam, I don't consider it something to celebrate.

Agree to disagree then. I can understand the viewpoint here. If the positive review % flattens, inverts, or increases month-on-month, maybe there'll be a difference in your opinion.

I mean, if you think arguing over the reviews in general is pointless, maybe you're in the wrong thread? There are plenty for discussing what people think the game needs to turn the metaphorical ship around. This thread is about stats, which is why folks argue over them

Not tangential at all! Agreeing on a standard data point would be helpful. Worth discussing openly and not in PMs.

You had plenty of chances to correct Stealth_nsk and others while they undermined Steam data a few months ago. If you really cared about about all opinions Spring/Summer 2025 was the chance to be heard.

I suggested an emphasis on Steam store aggregate. Which, should be noted, is not pegged to Civ VII doling better or worse...that value may include all outcomes! Though if we want to all agree to SteamDB being the more important measure over Steam Official I will happily take that as standard of measure. Congrats on the 47.15% Steam DB rating.

I gave you my standard data point. Data is data. You're the one excluding data (and reviewers like Smegger at the same time).

Fixating on some apparent historical claims that other posters "undermined" Steam data isn't really a worthy tangent to me. Why? Well, firstly, it's another unevidenced claim. Secondly, including console stats with the PC stats isn't undermining PC stats. Excluding (some) PC stats because they're not on your preferred platform is undermining the PC stats. Do you see the difference? Including more data tends to get you a more accurate picture (even if the intent behind including that data is optimism!).

All that said, if you prefer Steam stats yourself, fine, valid preference. But other folks are going to have other preferences. I've stated my own preference twice. Unlike the many and varied claims thrown my way, I don't discount stuff because it isn't what I want to see. Am I happy the game is reviewing so poorly? No, of course not. I want the game to be a success too. And I'm ever the optimist. But that doesn't mean that Civilisation VII isn't in trouble (imo), especially compared to its predecessors (though, admittedly, the player ecosystem and indeed video games in general was in a very different place when V launched, and most people know how rough V was at launch).

Tonedeaf. No ability to read the room. Deliberate avoidance of the discourse.

Nobody has to participate in any discourse. You don't have to reply to me. But suggesting other posters are avoiding things, while not following up on tangents you yourself started is . . . funny, to say the least