Civ V Has 50% The Player Count Of Civ 7. Civ 6 Has 20% More.

[taomastercu]

We are finally in the phase when the number start to look brutal for Civ 7.

From this point on till the next major DLC at a minimum Civ 5 will consistently have around 50% of the number of players that Civ 7 does and Civ 6 will consistently outperform Civ 7 in daily peaks.

Civ 7's sales number are no longer moving noticeably per day and likely won't crack 1 million in the first month.

Note that this is all Steam information.

The news is much worse on console. While the Steam rating is only slowly dipping below 50% the average rating is dropping significantly faster on both the XBox and Playstation storefronts. And the projected sales totals there are less than 10% of what the Steam numbers are.

Sales on Epic are anemic, as expected.

Metacritic is one 6/10 away from dropping below 80%, and it is already ~11.5 points worse than the average for a Civ release. Luckily very few outlets are adding new critic reviews.

Streaming stats are anemic as well. On average views on Civ 7 content are not beating Civ 6 views and this is with many major streamers still ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ out there pre-done content for Civ 7 that they have on backlog.

[Santa Klaus]

OOF.

[Dr. Cheesefart]

Who would have thought that a second part after Humankind would be a bad idea?

[Rex Bellator]

None of this is new or surprising. Older strategy games always retain bigger numbers. I remember similar claims about Civ VI when it was the new kid on the block.

When you hear game dev insiders tell you that strategy games are niche, they really are niche.

Games like Civ 6 and 7 are built for long-term steady growth instead of explosive growth. Anyone who thinks that Civ 7 was going to explode like a Call of Duty games was either lying or fooling themselves or both.

See you in 10 years when Civ 8 is out and you'll be complaining about how its numbers don't match Civ 7 rofl

[Darkboss]

Originally posted by Rex Bellator:

None of this is new or surprising. Older strategy games always retain bigger numbers. I remember similar claims about Civ VI when it was the new kid on the block.

When you hear game dev insiders tell you that strategy games are niche, they really are niche.

Games like Civ 6 and 7 are built for long-term steady growth instead of explosive growth. Anyone who thinks that Civ 7 was going to explode like a Call of Duty games was either lying or fooling themselves or both.

See you in 10 years when Civ 8 is out and you'll be complaining about how its numbers don't match Civ 7 rofl

This is false

Civ 6 peak numbers was the first day of release (162k, and its the same "niche" genre)

Same with Civ 5

Games in general never reach the same numbers than when they are launched and have the whole marketing behind (and Firaxis did A LOT of marketing, millons spent on it)

This is the worst Civilization launch, close in numbers with Beyond Earth but with a lot more spent on marketing and with numbers in general rising over the whole industry

The problem isnt the genre, CIV 7 is a bad game, and its not even a Civilization game, its Humankind 2, and its getting Humankind numbers

[The Doctor]

I'm no Canute and I recognise that there is no way to stop this so we're going to see a constant stream of posts interpreting the player numbers and any other information that makes its way into the public domain in the most negative light. What I can try to do is present a reason for why it is happening that is not based on schadenfreude.

There definitely are a few hardly souls who believe that Civ VII is just treading the exact same path as both Civ V and VI did when they were released but I think almost all of us, positive and negative, recognise that there's something different this time. The world is a very different place in 2025 than it was back when Civ 6 was released.

This game has abandoned the traditional Civ style of play, to build an empire to stand the test of time for era shifting and, more controversially, culture shifting. You have to be real sweet summer child not to recognise how that's going to trigger a lot of folks in 2025, far more than 1UPT, unpacking cities or a cartoon-style graphics set ever did.

I'm not going to go into any detail here but it should be as plain as the nose on your face that there are also some particularly controversial Leader choices this time around. It doesn't matter if you think they are deserved or not, they ARE controversial to a portion of the community.

So now, to those figures. I have no evidence to offer for what follows other than my own 'reasonable' inferences draw from posts made by angry people and how radicalised we have become in the last 10 years. It's terrifying just how bad this has become but that's another story.

I'd guess quite a few folks who hate Civ 7 will play Civ 6, or at least open it up and start a game every day to inflate those numbers. Culture wars are very easily fought and require almost no effort on anybody's part yet are very effective. And coupled with the depth of the outrage that is on display, I think there is plenty of motivation for these folks to do the bare minimum and to continue to do so for a long time to come so I think Civ VI will continue to be more played than VII for a good while to come.

Anticipating the bleeding obvious reaction to this, (not that it will matter as it will be said regardless) of course, I'm not claiming that that is the sole reason for the numbers being higher. I'm sure plenty of folks simply prefer the old traditional style of Civ play to the new and that factor alone is the one most responsible for the differences we're seeing.

Neither can I state with any certainty what proportion of Civ 6's numbers are from such but I believe it IS a factor which combined with the traditionalists numbers is enough to keep Civ 6's player numbers higher and is something that is worth considering when 'interpreting' these numbers. It's certainly easier to perform this simple action every day than it is for the OP and others to make yet another post about these numbers. And it provides impetus for others to make such posts as well.

Time alone will tell whether Civ VII has real legs. For now, I don't care about the numbers because as long as the content keeps coming and selling well, Civ VII will do fine.

[Darkboss]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

I'd guess quite a few folks who hate Civ 7 will play Civ 6, or at least open it up and start a game every day to inflate those numbers. Culture wars are very easily fought and require almost no effort on anybody's part yet are very effective. And coupled with the depth of the outrage that is on display, I think there is plenty of motivation for these folks to do the bare minimum and to continue to do so for a long time to come so I think Civ VI will continue to be more played than VII for a good while to come.

Thats very easily debunked

Civ 6 has not see an increase of players since the release of Civ 7, it actually continues its very slow decline in active players that had before Civ 7 launch

I understand you like the game and want to find excuses to the massive failure in numbers, but the truth is, Civ 7 has less players than Civ 6 because its a worse game, and Civ 7 is the worst performing Civ launch since Beyond Earth, because players are NOT having fun

Thats the reason, there is no conspiracy

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Darkboss:

Originally posted by The Doctor:

I'd guess quite a few folks who hate Civ 7 will play Civ 6, or at least open it up and start a game every day to inflate those numbers. Culture wars are very easily fought and require almost no effort on anybody's part yet are very effective. And coupled with the depth of the outrage that is on display, I think there is plenty of motivation for these folks to do the bare minimum and to continue to do so for a long time to come so I think Civ VI will continue to be more played than VII for a good while to come.

Thats very easily debunked

Civ 6 has not see an increase of players since the release of Civ 7, it actually continues its very slow decline in active players that had before Civ 7 launch

I understand you like the game and want to find excuses to the massive failure in numbers, but the truth is, Civ 7 has less players than Civ 6 because its a worse game, and Civ 7 is the worst performing Civ launch since Beyond Earth, because players are NOT having fun

Thats the reason, there is no conspiracy

Not really. I'm sure quite a few of those Civ 6 players playing before release are now playing Civ VII. The Civ VII player base is not ALL new players. How many are all-new? I have no idea.

It's not a conspiracy at all but if you disagree with my observations, fine.

[Darkboss]

Originally posted by The Doctor:

Originally posted by Darkboss:

Thats very easily debunked

Civ 6 has not see an increase of players since the release of Civ 7, it actually continues its very slow decline in active players that had before Civ 7 launch

I understand you like the game and want to find excuses to the massive failure in numbers, but the truth is, Civ 7 has less players than Civ 6 because its a worse game, and Civ 7 is the worst performing Civ launch since Beyond Earth, because players are NOT having fun

Thats the reason, there is no conspiracy

Not really. I'm sure quite a few of those Civ 6 players playing before release are now playing Civ VII. The Civ VII player base is not ALL new players. How many are all-new? I have no idea.

It's not a conspiracy at all but if you disagree with my observations, fine.

So you think enraged players open Civ 6, just enough to keep the same slow decline that had before?

I thik you are seeing ghosts when there is a much more likely explanation. One that matches the terrible reviews, the low amount of players that Civ 7 has, and all the criticism we see everywhere

Civ 7 is not fun for players. We tested it (like i did), we didnt like it, we moved on to other games

Some might go back to Civ 6, some might be playing other games.

[seven_stars]

Originally posted by Darkboss:

Originally posted by The Doctor:

Not really. I'm sure quite a few of those Civ 6 players playing before release are now playing Civ VII. The Civ VII player base is not ALL new players. How many are all-new? I have no idea.

It's not a conspiracy at all but if you disagree with my observations, fine.

So you think enraged players open Civ 6, just enough to keep the same slow decline that had before?

I thik you are seeing ghosts when there is a much more likely explanation. One that matches the terrible reviews, the low amount of players that Civ 7 has, and all the criticism we see everywhere

Civ 7 is not fun for players. We tested it (like i did), we didnt like it, we moved on to other games

Some might go back to Civ 6, some might be playing other games.

The amount of cope from some civ players, trying to justify a bad game is crazy. Are there some people who like it? Sure. I have been warning people off this unfinished beta test, since before the pre release. But to bother opening up Civ6 just to inflate the numbers, that is a whole new level of cope. I hope civ 7 numbers continue to drop, and sales are so bad of their nickel and dime dlc plans, that the management team goes down in flames for this. But I never would have thought about opening up Civ6 right now. Crazy.

[The Doctor]

Originally posted by Darkboss:

Originally posted by The Doctor:

Not really. I'm sure quite a few of those Civ 6 players playing before release are now playing Civ VII. The Civ VII player base is not ALL new players. How many are all-new? I have no idea.

It's not a conspiracy at all but if you disagree with my observations, fine.

So you think enraged players open Civ 6, just enough to keep the same slow decline that had before?

I thik you are seeing ghosts when there is a much more likely explanation. One that matches the terrible reviews, the low amount of players that Civ 7 has, and all the criticism we see everywhere

Civ 7 is not fun for players. We tested it (like i did), we didnt like it, we moved on to other games

Some might go back to Civ 6, some might be playing other games.

I certainly don't think ALL enraged Civ 6 players do that. However, my post might even have inspired some of you to do just that too as it's so obviously a good way of fighting back against Civ VII.

As for the declining numbers, I've already offered an explanation for that so I'm not repeating it.

And, funnily enough the terrible reviews, the criticism we see everywhere and maybe even the current Civ VII player numbers are all offered as support for my observation along with how I think we are all much more polarised than we were in 2016. 2016! Think about it. :D

Civ 6 sold in massive quantities as a result of years of heavy discounts and bundles so if every one of you who bought Civ 6 and are angry about the changes were to do this, that disparity in the player numbers would become even more striking. But it's not so obviously there's no conspiracy. Positive or negative, we're all acting on our own.

[Ashrock]

yeah...and that's what you get for making a bad game, and I'm not surprised anymore. From the string of crappy releases lately this is just another turd on pile. Not saying that this game doesn't have some good qualities, it's just their overshadowed by several facts. One, everything you work hard to build is going to get wrecked...and there is a timer ticking away to remind you of it. Two, you don't get to pick the who you want to play...but you get to unlock your next choices based off what you do. Three, if your being forced to pick a new culture anyways, why don't you get to pick a new leader? I mean immortal leader but not an immortal nation. That's a minor gripe, but still. And even then the graphics updates are nice, but still not remarkably better. For the price they charged for this game, and all the DLC they plain to milk us for, you woulda' thought we'd have gotten better. 2/10 can't recommend. And, I am feeling that most of the fan base aren't feeling the age reset either, I for one don't like have everything wreck and rearranged. I hop on to play one continuous game....not forced mini games with a guaranteed crisis coming once the timer hits 70ish % and disasters popping off on your city every other turn.....no literally every other damn turn. if it's not a flood, it's a tornardo, or a haboob, or a damn storm, or a fire, amazingly no drought yet......did I mention a river flood...cause I don't think that's a flood I think that's just the normal cycle of that river.

[Mockingcrow]

As someone who played around 1500 hrs on Civ 5, and now about 1000 hours on Civ 6... I was VERY critical of Civ 6 when it launched. The AI was ABYSMAL and game breaking. There were a lot of bugs, the art style was horrendous, and the content just felt lacking. It took me a YEAR to finally put in my first 100 hours into Civ 6.

Civ 7, which I have stopped playing FOR NOW, got 90 hours out of me, simply thanks to mods. The smaller maps with fewer civs, short eras even on marathon with longest era setting, no "one more turn"(which is why I stopped my current game at the last era), and the era clean slate mechanic are BAD.

Mods can at least fix the small map issue and the era length(think I have a mod that lengthens it by 20%.) Clean slate era's still annoyed the hell out of me though. I was in the middle of a 150+ turn war with Catherine, and Lafeyette(sp?) completed the math victory path and just upended my entire war. Pissed me right off, as I was besieging her capital and two other cities, which I would have conquered with maybe 5 more turns. Lost about 1/4 of my army due to having 7 or 8 commanders vs 40+ units on the map. Was an EPIC fight that started at the east coast, pushed along to the north, then directly to the center of the continent. 10+ cities were razed in that great war......

I have faith in this game over the long run, with maybe 1 or 2 course corrections, but I feel as though the damage from Civ 6 launch is what really set this game back from the big numbers that Civ 6 saw(due to Civ 5's popularity).

[taomastercu]

Originally posted by Rex Bellator:

None of this is new or surprising. Older strategy games always retain bigger numbers. I remember similar claims about Civ VI when it was the new kid on the block.

When you hear game dev insiders tell you that strategy games are niche, they really are niche.

Games like Civ 6 and 7 are built for long-term steady growth instead of explosive growth. Anyone who thinks that Civ 7 was going to explode like a Call of Duty games was either lying or fooling themselves or both.

See you in 10 years when Civ 8 is out and you'll be complaining about how its numbers don't match Civ 7 rofl

The level of cope here is so intense. As are the rhetorical tricks and lies.

No one thinks Civ 7 is going to be as popular as major FPS games. Literally no one has ever even mentioned such games in that context until you.

BY the time Civ 8 releases, especially if it is 10 years, no one's going to care about it, because the series has already been hit so hard by Civ 7.

At this point we are looking at the potential for a Civ game to no longer be the single most popular strategy/4x game.

This is absolutely uncharted territory.

[Mike]

man, this series really has something for everybody, so much so that you don't need to blindly upgrade to the next version when the old ones are still so quality they hold up years later. personally i play each one to death and then move on to the next! this game/series will be raking in the moolah for generations yet

[Skull]

Oh look. The same exact topic every day since the game came out.