Perhaps streamers impact on game playernumbers is overestimated. Or, people simply watch other playing it, instead enjoying the game themselves.
- 1
-
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.
this has far, far less impact than
considering "other youtubers" in this instance is Laith with his 169k subs and truly terrifying rate of edited content.
- 3
- 1
Some players have started to play the game in the recent weeks, they ask many questions and the lack of community support is also a drag to growth.
Like EUIV and HOIV, you need a critical mass to teach the game so more players can teach others to play the game or else the initial engagement is lost in all the complexity. Specially when there are other very similar games that players already know how to play.
Only those things that make this game different (ancient times, civ builder) could entice new players to keep learning the game against all dificulties.
PS: IMHO that’s the reason Vic3 going original was a good decision, but only time will tell if the implementation will be good enough.
- 2
- 1
Good morning and welcome back from holidays or great holidays if you start them this month.
The GSG pick up this week to keep the long term trend (+0,38%) and PDX (+2,16%). The top games evolution chart is the following, with all top games gaining players this week:
I:R decreases this week again (-2,82%)
Victoria 3 gets some players back (+5,65%)
Age of Wonders 4 remains its downward trend (-9,58%)
The GSG pick up this week to keep the long term trend (+0,38%) and PDX (+2,16%). The top games evolution chart is the following, with all top games gaining players this week:
I:R decreases this week again (-2,82%)
Victoria 3 gets some players back (+5,65%)
Age of Wonders 4 remains its downward trend (-9,58%)
- 4
almost a year, I started on the 30th of August last year. I have been thinking about the seasonality of the data. Maybe producing a chart like this for the oppening post:
In this period there has been an increase of the total number GSG from 128 to 151:
And the average 24h peak player has decreased in the same period:
In general, we could say that the increased numbers of GSG has increased the playerbase, catering to smaller communities of players. The big GSG with more than 9,000 24h Peak players remain a rara avis, with the majority of games being in the first bin:
Last edited:
- 4
Honestly surprised there wasn't a greater gain for GSG as a whole. Nobunaga's ambition has had a really good 2 weeks (peaked at 11k maintaining a bit more than vic3 at ~6.5k). I guess I thought those may have been net new players.
I find modern games take so long to complete that it starts to feel like a job more than a pleasurable pastime.
I miss Civ2, Star Trek Birth of the Federation and Rome Total war the first version. I could complete all of them in one weekend if I did nothing else.
I miss Civ2, Star Trek Birth of the Federation and Rome Total war the first version. I could complete all of them in one weekend if I did nothing else.
One week in August and we have a huge decline in peak players in all GSG (-9,79%) and PDX (-9,82%). I do not have data from last year to confirm if this is a seasonally effect due to the start of the summer holidays for many people. I suppose we regularly play games during the year and we stop for our holidays if we go somewhere else. We should see players coming back at the end of this month if this is the case.
All top GSG lose players this week with an average loss of -11,79% 24h peak players from last week.
I:R follows the trend with similar amount (-8,40%)
Victoria 3 as well (-12,66%)
Age of Wonders 4 keeps a more pronounced decline (-36,49%) that seems to see no bottom
All top GSG lose players this week with an average loss of -11,79% 24h peak players from last week.
I:R follows the trend with similar amount (-8,40%)
Victoria 3 as well (-12,66%)
Age of Wonders 4 keeps a more pronounced decline (-36,49%) that seems to see no bottom
- 3
Mid August and the summer holidays trend keeps going down (-3,01%) for all GSG and PDX (-1,83%).
All top GSG go down except for EUIV that is celebrating its 10 year release anniversary and has gone free to keep.
I:R increases players this week (+1,33%)
Victoria 3 keeps its playerbase intact this week (+0,29%)
Age of Wonders 4 reverses its long decay and the summer trend, increasing players this week (+9,87%)
All top GSG go down except for EUIV that is celebrating its 10 year release anniversary and has gone free to keep.
Victoria 3 keeps its playerbase intact this week (+0,29%)
Age of Wonders 4 reverses its long decay and the summer trend, increasing players this week (+9,87%)
Last edited:
- 4
- 1
It is intentional, those games are below 9000 24h peak players and I am following them but not showing on purpose.
The line was to be drawn somewhere or else I would have to plot all other games that are at 600 24h peak players and that will clutter the chart.
The idea to plot the top GSG is to understand how they behave compared to GSG with less audience. So far, the only conclusion I can take from a game like I:R is that they follow similar trends but a completely different level of players.
PS: the exception being HOIV that has increased players steadily
Last edited:
- 3
The downward trend for the month of August is still strong (-3,21%) for all GSG and (-1,50%) for PDX. We are on the lowest numbers seen in this series except for february for all GSG. For PDX we are low but not near the lowest points we had at the start of this year.
For the top GSG we see HOIV stabilizing this week. I have a wild theory about the always improving perfomance of this game that is the increased interest in modern warfare, it is already 78 years since WWII was over and there is no more living memories of that time.
The other top GSG lose players this week (-2,23% on average) except for CKIII (+2,79%).
I:R loses big players this week (-14,47%) and sadly I do not see classic studies in Universities increasing the player numbers for this game beyond what we already have.
Victoria 3 follows the weekly trend (-3,25%) ahead of next week patch 1.4 and beta for 1.5. I expect to see a big jump on players next week. The game will surely benefit from universities using it to teach basic economics.
Age of Wonders 4 loses players above the trend of the week (-10,15%) but still remains above the median weekly players of all GSG (232) but below the average (1735) with 1160 24h peak players.
For the top GSG we see HOIV stabilizing this week. I have a wild theory about the always improving perfomance of this game that is the increased interest in modern warfare, it is already 78 years since WWII was over and there is no more living memories of that time.
The other top GSG lose players this week (-2,23% on average) except for CKIII (+2,79%).
I:R loses big players this week (-14,47%) and sadly I do not see classic studies in Universities increasing the player numbers for this game beyond what we already have.
Victoria 3 follows the weekly trend (-3,25%) ahead of next week patch 1.4 and beta for 1.5. I expect to see a big jump on players next week. The game will surely benefit from universities using it to teach basic economics.
Age of Wonders 4 loses players above the trend of the week (-10,15%) but still remains above the median weekly players of all GSG (232) but below the average (1735) with 1160 24h peak players.
- 1
- 1
Thanks for the analysis. Can't believe I:R is down when I try to play!!!
Not sure I got the logic here. Because there are even less living memories from period of Vic3, EU4, CK3, I:R (or Stellaris)^^
- 2
Modern warfare, HOIV GSG theme is war and it hasn’t changed much from WWII, except for drones and IT.
Last edited:
First of all, thank you for that weekly updated comparison, @IsaacCAT ! I'm looking forward to it each week...aside from simply liking diagrams, it is interesting to follow the player counts over time.
Strategy games (be it 4X or GSG...and likely most other sub genres as well) are always subject to an inherent snowball effect. It is their DNA. Take it out and you conflict with the principle of a good decision having good effects helping with you in future when the next decision comes. As a developer you can and have to limit it, but you can't escape it. And anything related to warfare is the snowball effect on steroids: You invest and if you win, you not only gain X (which you might get with peaceful buildering as well), but also an "Y" by damaging the opponent (taking land, destroying stuff or causing whatever cost warfare creates in any game). The overall process is also called map-painting and it is something any game has to deal with. And here HoI4 has a huge strategic advantage: It can technically celebrate that "snowball painting the map" as long as the loose historic boundaries it tries to follow permit it, but no one will ever critize the game for being "war centered", "war being the (only) way to play the game" or "map painting being the goal" (ok, if you RP, the latter is not realistic for every nation). So HoI4 can solely focus on getting the math&mechanics behind warfare right and sparsely sprinkle in other stuff (ironically even up to experiments in the direction of allowing to become an arms trading tycoon in the upcoming AAT expansion via the new International Market feature)
Every other Paradox GSG OTOH has the challenge to keep warfare as an element within other features, topic and approaches, so it should not become too powerful and dominating - and while that goal is pursued with all the devs effort and varying success, IMO it can never be perfectly achieved...which is not the devs faults, but caused by the the initially meantioned snowballish nation of the games and the fact that war is being the fastest way to enlarge your snowball. So while every other game constantly needs to pull the breaks here, HoI4 can give full speed - and maybe the dynamic this absolute coherence between the main topic and the main gameplay mechanic creates attracts people. You are in for strategic action, you get it - and you don't have to regret anything because of the absent feeling of "Hmm, shouldn't [Insert any other Paradox GSG except HoI4] reward stuff aside from war more?"
I'm looking forward to it each week...aside from simply liking diagrams, it is interesting to follow the player counts over time.You likely have a point here, though I would add another, purely game-mechanic related one:
Strategy games (be it 4X or GSG...and likely most other sub genres as well) are always subject to an inherent snowball effect. It is their DNA. Take it out and you conflict with the principle of a good decision having good effects helping with you in future when the next decision comes. As a developer you can and have to limit it, but you can't escape it. And anything related to warfare is the snowball effect on steroids: You invest and if you win, you not only gain X (which you might get with peaceful buildering as well), but also an "Y" by damaging the opponent (taking land, destroying stuff or causing whatever cost warfare creates in any game). The overall process is also called map-painting and it is something any game has to deal with. And here HoI4 has a huge strategic advantage: It can technically celebrate that "snowball painting the map" as long as the loose historic boundaries it tries to follow permit it, but no one will ever critize the game for being "war centered", "war being the (only) way to play the game" or "map painting being the goal" (ok, if you RP, the latter is not realistic for every nation). So HoI4 can solely focus on getting the math&mechanics behind warfare right and sparsely sprinkle in other stuff (ironically even up to experiments in the direction of allowing to become an arms trading tycoon in the upcoming AAT expansion via the new International Market feature)
Every other Paradox GSG OTOH has the challenge to keep warfare as an element within other features, topic and approaches, so it should not become too powerful and dominating - and while that goal is pursued with all the devs effort and varying success, IMO it can never be perfectly achieved...which is not the devs faults, but caused by the the initially meantioned snowballish nation of the games and the fact that war is being the fastest way to enlarge your snowball. So while every other game constantly needs to pull the breaks here, HoI4 can give full speed - and maybe the dynamic this absolute coherence between the main topic and the main gameplay mechanic creates attracts people. You are in for strategic action, you get it - and you don't have to regret anything because of the absent feeling of "Hmm, shouldn't [Insert any other Paradox GSG except HoI4] reward stuff aside from war more?"
- 2
Not enough to explain the ever increase of players. Other GSG have war as the main drive: EUIV, March of the Eagles, Age of Wonders, but do not share this capacity to increase players overtime.First of all, thank you for that weekly updated comparison, @IsaacCAT !
You likely have a point here, though I would add another, purely game-mechanic related one:
Strategy games (be it 4X or GSG...and likely most other sub genres as well) are always subject to an inherent snowball effect. It is their DNA. Take it out and you conflict with the principle of a good decision having good effects helping with you in future when the next decision comes. As a developer you can and have to limit it, but you can't escape it. And anything related to warfare is the snowball effect on steroids: You invest and if you win, you not only gain X (which you might get with peaceful buildering as well), but also an "Y" by damaging the opponent (taking land, destroying stuff or causing whatever cost warfare creates in any game). The overall process is also called map-painting and it is something any game has to deal with. And here HoI4 has a huge strategic advantage: It can technically celebrate that "snowball painting the map" as long as the loose historic boundaries it tries to follow permit it, but no one will ever critize the game for being "war centered", "war being the (only) way to play the game" or "map painting being the goal" (ok, if you RP, the latter is not realistic for every nation). So HoI4 can solely focus on getting the math&mechanics behind warfare right and sparsely sprinkle in other stuff (ironically even up to experiments in the direction of allowing to become an arms trading tycoon in the upcoming AAT expansion via the new International Market feature)
Every other Paradox GSG OTOH has the challenge to keep warfare as an element within other features, topic and approaches, so it should not become too powerful and dominating - and while that goal is pursued with all the devs effort and varying success, IMO it can never be perfectly achieved...which is not the devs faults, but caused by the the initially meantioned snowballish nation of the games and the fact that war is being the fastest way to enlarge your snowball. So while every other game constantly needs to pull the breaks here, HoI4 can give full speed - and maybe the dynamic this absolute coherence between the main topic and the main gameplay mechanic creates attracts people. You are in for strategic action, you get it - and you don't have to regret anything because of the absent feeling of "Hmm, shouldn't [Insert any other Paradox GSG except HoI4] reward stuff aside from war more?"
I am not talking popularity, every game has its own level of popularity measured by active players. I am speculating that warfare IRL has an increasing interest lately and HOIV is one of the best/fun simulators of global conflict with modern warfare. Although, I hope I am wrong with this one.
PS: I guess the only way to prove my point is that PDX develops a cold war GSG.
Last edited:
Hrm I don't think EUIV has war as main drive as much as war is most engaging beyond number stacking.
EUIV is also a famously dense game that scare off new comers with classic PDX tutorials and dlc lock QoL mechanics. It also fewer popular overhaul mods than other PDX titles.
My pet theory for HOIV growth is some combination of:
- WWII is an extremely popular genre
- HOIV overhaul mods bring in large followings
- HOIV has decent multiplayer
- HOIV is the most "war-game" of all PDX games and war gamers are a larger audience (look at War Thunder, consistently >70k players)
- 1
I agree with your points about popularity but it does not explain the steady increase of players. My speculation is not about the recent war but the idealisation of warfare when the fading memory of what war represents allows for its romanticism.
If we look at steamdb definition, war thunder and HOI IV are not wargames. Both are ranked as simulation category, with War Thunder being a MMO. Wargames have very low player base in steam. If we look at simulation category top played games:
I would say the only realistic war game of global warfare is HOI IV while war thunder is more arcade type.
Last edited:
I don't think this has changed too much although I am not on the younger socials, war has always been glamorized to varying degrees.
And while massive global hot conflicts have decreased, and even accounting for the skew of gamers in EU/US/CH/JP, Iraq and Afghanistan were what 20 years ago and ended 10 and 1 year ago? Would be depressing if they were memory-holed that quickly. Not to mention things like the Syrian & Somolian civil wars which have at times involved multiple foreign operations.
I see both war thunder and HOIV in the war tag https://steamdb.info/charts/?tagid=1678
- 2