Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

I:R comparative performance with other GSG

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Imperator: Rome 9109 Bug Reports 3722 Suggestions 2407 User Mods 691 Tech Support 530 Multiplayer 56 After Action Report (AAR)
Show only dev responses
Today marks the 1year anniversary of this chart and we can celebrate the end of the August gloom and doom for GSG with an increase of 10% of total GSG 24h Peak players both for PDX and all publishers.

All top GSG increase their numbers with biggest increases for CKIII (12,89%), Sid Meier Civ VI (11,61%) and HOIV (10,63%).

After GAMESCON 2023 I am very hopeful that new games like Endzone 2 or Ara: history Untold can make it to the top of GSG category, contributing to make this genre more popular.

1693415201214.png

I:R increases players at the same speed like the champs (+13,65%)

Victoria 3 with a new DLC released just yesterday and one open beta with many radical changes has a big increase (+25,02%)

Age of Wonders 4 also has a big pick up after holidays (+21,47%)
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Already in September 2023 and a big drop of players this week for PDX (-10,08%) since last week uptick. This has an effect on overall GSG 24h peak players (-3,99%) too.

If we look at the top GSG we find an explanation in a sudden drop of players in CK3 (-13,06%), HOIV (-11,73%), EUIV (-8,36%), Sid Meier CIV V (-7,96%) and Stellaris (-7,62%). On the other hand, Total WAR: Warhammer III has increased players a lot (+31,29%) as well as Sid Meier Civ VI (+5,94%).

Is a recent release affecting 24h peak players? If this was the case for Starfield I would expected more drop in Stellaris than CK3 or HOIV. It is true that last year there was a significant drop of players on the first week of september compared to the last week of august, maybe this is start of school/university effect.

1693996866167.png

I:R has lower drop of players this week (-2,37%)

Victoria 3 has a drop of players after 1.4 and 1.5 beta releases last week (-4,27%)

Age of Wonders 3 is also losing players this week (-2,41%)
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Yet another week with a decay of 24h GSG peak players (-4,49%) and PDX (-4,63%).

All top GSG decline, except for EU IV that increases players this week (+1,79%), the average decline is -4,20% for all TOP GSG. Last year lowest point was in september, let's hope this is seasonal.

Next month we will see the release of the Stellaris Spin-off https://store.steampowered.com/app/1622900/Star_Trek_Infinite/

1694606206275.png

I:R loses players this week -12,65%

Victoria 3 also loses players this week -9,14%

Age of Wonders 4 loses players this week: -20,44%
 
  • 3
Reactions:
IsaacCAT said:
I:R loses players this week -12,65%

Victoria 3 also loses players this week -9,14%
Click to expand...
You know whats funny?

when you put the % in Numbers Vic3 losses more Players so I:R still stands stronger! hehe :3

Thats how Spartan Discipline works xD
 
  • 4Haha
Reactions:
This week we come back up in general (+3,35%) and PDX (+4,20%)

The top GSG show a recovery of the big boys except for Sid Meier Civilization VI (-8,54%), still the top dog. The average change this week is +2,04% with the most increase for Stellaris with +8,00%.

1695208873962.png


I:R this week increases players too +6,55%

Victoria 3 decreases some players -2,50% (not everyone is willing to play the beta and 1.4 is not revolutionary enough)

Age of Wonders is in line with the average increase this week +1,92%
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Yet another week of decrease of 24h Peak Players (-2,59%) and PDX (-2,55%), we are moving laterally.

All the top GSG show the same down tendency on average of -2,08%, except for Sid Meier Civ V (+2,39%) and EU IV (+0,13%).

With the news of MILLENIA hitting the market last week, I am eager to see how it will impact both CIV Games, if at all. Remember that HUMANKIND is on the low average of 24h Peak Players with 1,693 this week.

Another big experiment is Star Trek: Infinite, releasing the 12 october 2023. What will be the impact on overall players? and Stellaris proper?

1695810131282.png

​
I:R this week gains players (+10,43%) strongly reversing the trend of the top GSG

Victoria 3 follows the general trend this week (-4,84%)

Age of Wonders 4 keeps stable this week (+0,72%)
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
Ir0nSlug said:
Why does your chart always starts at 9000? Is it a DBZ reference? Because it makes it so I:R doesn't even appear on it, in an I:R thread.
Click to expand...
This chart is only for top games as per my definition, above 10,000 24h peak players. This makes it easier to see the evolution in the chart week to week as well as depict the most important players.

The 7 Top GSG represent the 63% of all 24h peak GSG players.

The comparative analysis is done by comparing week by week the evolution of players to see I:R relative performance.

If the chart would include I:R range of games with similar 24h peak players, there would be too many lines. If I were to depict only I:R, Victoria 3 or Age of Wonders 4, the chart would be the following. Because the 24h peak players difference between top GSG and I:R is one or two orders of magnitude bigger, the nuances of the line are lost:

1696328923262.png


Alternatively, I could use a log scale but people tend to misinterpret the results when using log scales:

1696329075542.png
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
IsaacCAT said:
If the chart would include I:R range of games with similar 24h peak players, there would be too many lines. If I were to depict only I:R, Victoria 3 or Age of Wonders 4, the chart would be the following. Because the 24h peak players difference between top GSG and I:R is one or two orders of magnitude bigger, the nuances of the line are lost:
Click to expand...
I know it is a kind of pick-your-posion situation, but starting the Y-axis at 9.000 or 10.000 bears another problem: It visually distorts the fluctuations happening especially in the lower parts of the chart - e.g. a rise from 20k to 25k looks much more impressive, when the axis starts at 10k compared to a chart where it starts a 0. To me this distortion is a bigger issue then too many graphs, but I concede thats this is a purely subjective opinion :) It is also the reason why I don't think a log scale would be a good idea here.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Herennius said:
I know it is a kind of pick-your-posion situation, but starting the Y-axis at 9.000 or 10.000 bears another problem: It visually distorts the fluctuations happening especially in the lower parts of the chart - e.g. a rise from 20k to 25k looks much more impressive, when the axis starts at 10k compared to a chart where it starts a 0. To me this distortion is a bigger issue then too many graphs, but I concede thats this is a purely subjective opinion :) It is also the reason why I don't think a log scale would be a good idea here.
Click to expand...
Indeed. However, for a relative comparison it maybe a good idea to show TOP GSG and selected games including I:R in log scale, as this is the only way we can see the evolution of both. We are not interested in the absolute numbers but the relative performance between games during a period of time.

I am mostly convinced by Ironslug commentary that I:R graph should be displayed. For clarity I would start the vertical scale at 400 but after your commentary maybe the best chart would be log 10 with the vertical axis starting at 1. Do you still think is better?

1696330115319.png
 
Hmm, I still can't say that I like the log display - the log 10 thing has the additional problem of a lot of unused space in the 1-100 section, while it compresses and flattens the many graphs of the comparable GSG in the mid five-digit range. I still would prefer the current chart just with Y starting by zero 0, even if that comes at the price of flattening I:R's curve...at least for the time being (I still have high hopes the Imperatrix Victoria once released might add significantly to the player base. I know that we have fantastic Invictus around and don't want to belittle it in any way, but it is probably more of a thing for the core I:R playerbase crying for content, while I:V might access a whole new playerbase of Victorians looking for warfare on a more tactical level etc.)

But it's your graph and idea, so feel free to pick what ever you think is best - and probably for the intention to make development of player numbers for I:R over time better visible the log approach is fine...I just think that any non-strictly proportional Y-axis hurts the aspect of comparison between the games too much. But as said - that's a personal bias probably. Be sure that I will continue to watch your chart week by week with interest, regardless in which way you rework it exactly :)
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
I can see how log10 can be harder to understand, after staring at it I think I get it, but yeah it is visually misleading for my ape brain.

Maybe, if it's not too much work, having two graphs? One for the top dogs and one around I:R? So we can experience vain surges of hope when our beloved game gain a horde of 12 players?
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Good morning,

This is an upside swing week, with an overall increase of GSG 24h Peak Players (+6,20%) and PDX (+6,53%).

This week I will try a new way to report with a chart showing the top GSG evolution with games above 10,000 24h peak players and another chart with games below 10,000 24h peak players. PS: considering @Herennius commentary I have updated the first chart to show all points from 0 to max:

1696498217536.png


For this second chart, I have added CK2, Victoria 2 and Age of Wonders III for comparison between PDX games that are not in the top GSG:

1696498191885.png
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1Love
Reactions:
juanen said:
Hi Isaac, are you sure the graph is the right one? Cause I see all the games going down, and the last point is in September
Click to expand...
You are right, it is not updated to the last point. Sorry. I will update the charts asap.

EDIT: the charts are updated. Thank you for pointing that out.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
I reaaaally like two-graphs-approach you have picked, as I have now even two Y-axis striking my personal ideal of starting at 0 and stretching proportionally in length :D
The higher granularity of the display of both graphs is also giving new insights IMO:

- I'm especially glad to be able to see Vic3's fate playerbase-wise. Even with it currently not exceeding 10k the sharp spikes the graph shows indicate for me that breaking that mark again is possible in the future.
- AOW4 OTOH does not seem to fall under the usual lifecycle of a GSG. Aside from a hardcore playerbase most inital players seem to have left it. I haven't followed its development, release and the patch DLC/situation...but it would be a great surpise to me if a bigger DLC will suddely multiply the playerbase with factor 5 or 10 again. To make it clear: I'm not saying that it is a bad game - just pointing out that most of the player don't seem to attribute it that longterm replayability the pdx GSGs have.
- I:R is rocksolid on its low level with some positive fluctuation around Invictus releases. Again - I'm curious for the day Victoria Imperatrix will release. And with @IsaacCAT having split the graph we are perfectly prepared for seeing the impact.
- HoI4 continues to impress with increasing the playerbase overtime when comparing in from DLC to DLC release. The war effort initiative in spring 2023 further helped this process. Really anticipating to see post AAT figures. I see it taking over the top position of Civ6 at some point for a longer spell than just around a DLC release. The window of opportunity is there until Civ7 drops.
- Ck3 and EU4 rather seem to fall in the pattern of having a solid mid-size player base spiking for a month or two after patches/DLC, then returning back to core level. The long term trend is rather stagnation. I haven't played EU4, but because of its age I doubt this will change. For CK3 a future DLC might ignite a longterm upward trend; what currently leads me following the overall trend with my personal playing behaviour is a mixture of the game not being challenging enough while having too many bugs, oddities and shortcomings. It easily motivates me for one or two playthroughs after a release, but it is (sadly) not in the shape to be played regularly without the "release motivation".
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Wow I love the new charts. Thank you so much for doing this, makes my inner data nerd very delighted!

I'm really not surprised by the AoW4 falloff..It just doesn't really feel much like an AoW game at all except in name only and has very little to offer in replayablitity vs the rest of the series, so after the initial release burst its not surprising at all to see it drop like that. It will have it's advocates as most games do, but when it drops to AoW3 levels that quickly after release, that says something and it isn't good. Also makes me wonder where planetfall would fall on this plot. Full disclosure: I was part of that AoW3 bump after AoW4 shipped.:p

Civ IV still being so strong actually surprises me quite a bit. I bounced off of it completely after one game, which easily puts it as my least played entry in the series. Just couldnt stand districts, but apparently I'm in the minority on that. Civ VI gave me a chance to revisit and appreciate Civ V more though, and I haven't even started playing Vox Populi yet.

Very cool stuff, thanks again!
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back