Is Stellaris running out of steam? (pun intended)

[Imp0815]

I have the feeling that the new DLC and the season pass are not a good idea and are not overall interesting. The upcoming Storms seem like a mixture of gimmicks and artificial modifiers to somewhat forcefully shake up the combat.
Overall, I'm a bit burned out on the direction of development and feature focus. I think it was a mistake to announce DLC for the rest of the year because if Storms are not well received, the other following ones do not look like they could drag the cart out of the mud. And I don't know how well the season pass has sold, but if it was not enough, you might face troubles with Quater earnings if the following DLCs also result in duds.

With these gut feelings, I took to Steam and saw that the current player numbers are at a 4-year low. HoI IV is still going strong, even though the last DLC was badly received. The last Stellaris DLC was not, though. And I would argue the replayability of Stellaris is far higher than HoI. I personally think the core mechanics in HoI are more solid and fun to engage with, and the overall development had far more focus on increasing complexity and content rather than gimmicks that do not disrupt the core gameplay loop.

I personally would not have sacrificed flexibility for the short-term gains of a season pass, as there is a risk that this could be the end of the project if all DLC bomb. And i can see this happen.

I would be interested in hearing about your overall thoughts on the upcoming DLC, the season pass decision, and the current interest and engagement with Stellaris. Am I the only one who is concernd about this?

 

[namewhichisnottakenyet]

Well I guess the devs have largely tapped most common science fiction tropes that would make sense in a game except for playable energy beings.

I can still think of playable alternative dimensions, time travel and energy beings, but opening up alternative dimensions (and therefore a second map or something like that) im the middle of the game might be a bit much, plus we already have some level of alternative dimension flavor in the shape of the astral and psionic planes, the mirror Empire from a parallel universe and whatever it is your transdimensional portal leads to in any given playthrough.Time travel would be really difficult to implement to begin with. Playable energy beings could work though.

I vote for playable energy beings as part of the next major expansion.

 

[Imp0815]

Well I guess the devs have largely tapped most common science fiction tropes that would make sense in a game except for playable energy beings.

I can still think of playable alternative dimensions, time travel and energy beings, but opening up alternative dimensions (and therefore a second map or something like that) im the middle of the game might be a bit much, plus we already have some level of alternative dimension flavor in the shape of the astral and psionic planes, the mirror Empire from a parallel universe and whatever it is your transdimensional portal leads to in any given playthrough.Time travel would be really difficult to implement to begin with. Playable energy beings could work though.

I vote for playable energy beings as part of the next major expansion.

That's again bordering on a gimmick.

I'm talking about mechanical expansions and changes to the core gameplay loops.

For example, the HoI IV supply rework with hubs and trains was a major addition and expanded the game with more complexity.

Adding new portraits and some minor changes to how resources and science generation leads to more fleet power is all we've gotten in the past years. The last major change or addition was the economy rework, and that "saved" the game. The past DLCs just rode the wave of that change, and it has no more momentum to give.

P.S. If the supply system for HoI is a bad example in your opinion, take the rework of the tank designer, the ship designer, the plane designer, or the completely unique political systems for major nations. And maybe I'm being too harsh or forgot the good things, but Overlord also expanded the whole vassal mechanics, which was a good thing—not really major, but nevertheless good.

 

[Cleaving3]

I don’t really care about the DLC, I just want the custodian updates

 

[namewhichisnottakenyet]

That's again bordering on a gimmick.

True, energy beings alone wouldn't be much of a full scale DLC yet - maybe a species pack.

That's why I suggested them as part of a new DLC, not the entire DLC.

I'm mostly fixated on playable energy beings because I've been roleplaying as a collective of energy beings for an RP game set in Star Trek for a while, and I want to model them as a Stellaris empire.

For example, the DLC could also rework hive mind empires and allow for sort of a mix between hive and individual empires, or maybe an ascension path for hive minds to become somewhat more individualistic, similar to the advanced government forms which turn individualistic empires into something closer than hive minds in the last major DLC.

I'm bringing that up because the collective I talked about is somewhere between a Gestalt consciousness and an individualistic empire, and could reasonable be considered a Gestalt consciousness or a fanatic materialist/xenophile individualistic empire, but is really somewhere in between.

But mostly, I just want playable energy beings.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

I wouldn’t give much thought to concurrent player count for a largely single-player game.

It’s true that 10,000 players is less than 15,000 players, but since this isn’t the kind of game where you’re meant to log in daily and spend money on microtransactions, this number is less significant than it is for, say, League of Legends.

As long as people are actually buying DLC, that’s what matters, not concurrent player count.

Also, the game’s highest player count post-launch was in March 2020. Nearly as many people played in March 2020 as they did in May 2016. That was undoubtedly because of the pandemic, and while I’m sure Paradox would love for the game to reach pandemic-level player count, basically every tech company everywhere has given up on chasing their pandemic all-time highs.

 

[PK_AZ]

The upcoming Storms seem like a mixture of gimmicks and artificial modifiers to somewhat forcefully shake up the combat.

I will be honest. From my perspective, that is like definition of most Stellaris DLCs and free patches.

The last major change or addition was the economy rework, and that "saved" the game.

Arguable. For me, economy rework screwed the game to the point where I cannot play it anymore. I know three people of play Stellaris, one of them preferred tile system, one stay neutral (but still dissatisfied with general tendency to change things) and one know only new economy (and still not fan of current development policy).

 

[3ishop]

It’s true that 10,000 players is less than 15,000 players, but since this isn’t the kind of game where you’re meant to log in daily and spend money on microtransactions, this number is less significant than it is for, say, League of Legends.

Yep. I bought DLC in the Winter sale, played one game. Bought more in the Summer sale and still haven't gotten around to playing it. So I can say they are still managing to shift product even if I can't get around to a campaign lol.

For me it's not good to compare Stellaris to HoI. While they might be in a similar genre they end up being very different games. HoI has a predefined start, Stellaris doesn't. This means Stellaris can do DLCs that change how you start and what you will see as species a lot more than HoI can. As such HoI instead needs to focus on other areas.

 

[mrt1212]

I wouldn’t give much thought to concurrent player count for a largely single-player game.

It’s true that 10,000 players is less than 15,000 players, but since this isn’t the kind of game where you’re meant to log in daily and spend money on microtransactions, this number is less significant than it is for, say, League of Legends.

As long as people are actually buying DLC, that’s what matters, not concurrent player count.

Also, the game’s highest player count post-launch was in March 2020. Nearly as many people played in March 2020 as they did in May 2016. That was undoubtedly because of the pandemic, and while I’m sure Paradox would love for the game to reach pandemic-level player count, basically every tech company everywhere has given up on chasing their pandemic all-time highs.

I Am not some ImperiCorp chart reader, but OP couldnt see a floor even if they were standing on it.

 

[HFY]

I feel like some of the recent DLC have been too much about 'marketing focus' and a few gimmicks rather than the sort of deep integration that I saw in some other games and their expansions.

As an example, Cybernetic Creed looked in preview like a re-work of the Faction system (which desperately needs a re-work) to be deep enough that Cyborg Spiritualists were supported. That sounded awesome and far-reaching. Instead it's an isolated origin which does not interact with the base Faction system at all, has fixed outcomes, and annoyingly limited replay value.

I want new content which adds replay value in a better form than "try this one isolated thing once".

Nemesis is an example of deeper replay value because it's fun when one of the genocidal AIs decides to take it -- that's a new and organic challenge for a variety of different games, even if I don't really feel like taking the Galactic Nemesis perk again as a player.

I Am not some ImperiCorp chart reader, but OP couldnt see a floor even if they were standing on it.

I'm sure that's intended as an insult, but it reads like you're saying OP is too deep, which is usually non-insulting.

 

[mrt1212]

Lol, the point was that theres a pretty obvious floor on player activity despite peak activity never matching a magical time when many of us had to stay home without a job.

And that floor kinda signals they can keep releasing into the ecosystem and it hasnt given up on the game yet from DLCitis (too much DLC at bad price points)

And yes, the trend is your friend until it bends in the end. This could change over the next two DLCs with a lower activity floor established, I just wouldnt bet on it.

 

[DukeLeto42]

I know I haven't kept up on the DLC (might catch up somewhat on the 50% off offers in the next sale, might not), but as someone who still pops in now and again it seems to sell well enough and add in enough new content to currently be viable, but isn't riding the hype of the earliest updates that really shook up the game.

That's in some ways for the best - the game's settled into itself and matured nicely - but it's also just over 8 years old, making it younger than EUIV but older than CK2 was when it was retired. It might live for a while yet, or it might be on the block for the next sequel game after Project Caesar comes out. Personally, I'd love to see what a pass at a Stellaris 2 might bring with all the lessons (and far less of the technological debt) from Stellaris.

 

[Ashantai]

Speaking as a player, I thought Synthetic Age was one of the best DLC they've done in years. However, the Astral Planes DLC looked kinda meh and I did not get it.

As others have mentioned, player counts are much less important in a single player game. However, I will agree that the storms DLC doesn't look especially interesting for most players.

The good thing is that aside from a couple of vital options, most of the DLC is optional.

I do expect we'll see a finishing of Stellaris in a couple of years, but I personally think it's the best its ever been now. In contrast to EU4 where endless DLC have added buttons and missions and bloated the whole UI. Not for me.

 

[Dr. B]

It is just the same problem that all the major Paradox strategy games share, because of their business model.
Ever more DLCs, more content stacked on top of each other, more buttons to push = more micromanagement.

Because Paradox games are never truly finished, they will grow into games that can only be completed by the most refined gamers.
Consider a more streamlined, simplified game with defined focus that is relaxing to play vs. an ever-growing feature bloat that will burn out most players.

Stellaris is now a great game, but at the cost of the Paradox curse of micromanagement hell. And the micro burden will only grow.

 

[exi123]

I wouldn’t give much thought to concurrent player count for a largely single-player game.

It’s true that 10,000 players is less than 15,000 players, but since this isn’t the kind of game where you’re meant to log in daily and spend money on microtransactions, this number is less significant than it is for, say, League of Legends.

As long as people are actually buying DLC, that’s what matters, not concurrent player count.

Also, the game’s highest player count post-launch was in March 2020. Nearly as many people played in March 2020 as they did in May 2016. That was undoubtedly because of the pandemic, and while I’m sure Paradox would love for the game to reach pandemic-level player count, basically every tech company everywhere has given up on chasing their pandemic all-time highs.

This is the most relevant factor if you look at current player numbers. From 2020 to early 2023 everything is super inflated because of Covid. The whole gaming sector is now adjusting again.

Cosmic Storms seems also not so super relevant for me. I bought the pass. The game is still fun, but the current DLCs just attach new stuff to game, nothing underlying is reworked.

 

[PK_AZ]

It is just the same problem that all the major Paradox strategy games share, because of their business model.
Ever more DLCs, more content stacked on top of each other, more buttons to push = more micromanagement.

Respectfully disagree. My experience is not that each new free patch increase amount of micromanagement. My experience is that patch accompanying Megacorp (i.e. new economy) was massive surge of micromanagement, that was never repeated (or at least not before after Overlord; I didn't played since then).

 

[Dr. B]

Respectfully disagree. My experience is not that each new free patch increase amount of micromanagement. My experience is that patch accompanying Megacorp (i.e. new economy) was massive surge of micromanagement, that was never repeated (or at least not before after Overlord; I didn't played since then).

Perhaps you are correct. I may just be too old for this, I get overwhelmed by micromanagement in mid-game.

 

[HMS Enterprize]

Astral Planes was a bit underwhelming in my opinion. And I never liked the Astral Fleet bit. A free 200K power fleet for everyone...(rolleyes)

Broadly speaking, this game needs a paid, full combat overhaul expansion first and foremost. Space & Ground combat is woefully undeveloped for a game of this age, even compared to old games like HOI2.

Second, perhaps a new expansion like 'Mysteries of the deep core'? New places to explore, hidden empires, new alien lifeforms to interact with etc etc. Nothing revolutionary, just some more flavour.

 

[Bitzo]

As an example, Cybernetic Creed looked in preview like a re-work of the Faction system (which desperately needs a re-work) to be deep enough that Cyborg Spiritualists were supported. That sounded awesome and far-reaching. Instead it's an isolated origin which does not interact with the base Faction system at all, has fixed outcomes, and annoyingly limited replay value.

I want new content which adds replay value in a better form than "try this one isolated thing once".

This is honestly one of my biggest gripes.

Spiritualists are defined in part by their hatred of robots and cybernetics, which is arbitrary and makes any attempt at making a faith of cybernetics (or any religious institution that is ambivalent on the topic of synthetics because "machines doing the menial labor nobody wants to do for us so we don't have to" isn't a cardinal sin in their creed) janky at best. Luckily, the developers heard our prayers to fix this arbitrary limitation - and made it an isolated Origin with it's own singular predetermined government type that's the exact same across all authorities, in the DLC that gives the all new and reworked Cybernetic and Synthetic Ascensions new and varied government forms across (almost) all authorities.

You can play an authoritarian dictatorship that commits slavery and genocide and does generally heinous things on a galactic scale, but as long as two Pops on each planet are moderately happy, pretty much regardless of the number, type and treatment of all other Pops, said planet, and by extension the whole empire, is perfectly stable. If only there was some way for there to be some sort of internal opposition that doesn't require you to intentionally play bad and go out of your way to tank Stability below 25% to see anything interesting happening that isn't an outside invasion!
Fret not, dear player! We got Under One Rule for that. Internal management, power struggles, calls for reform and potentially, revolution, complete with the player getting to choose either side in the civil war, should it happen. Except you cannot play Habitat-dwelling, Ringworld-borne or, say, cybernetic monk people at the same time, because all of those are also Origins and you cannot mix and match those.

They are taking steps in new and interesting directions, but limit those steps to isolated, mutually exclusive parts of your empire creation process, which pre-determines which mechanics and interactions you will get that game, rather than having them emerge organically for any one empire that broadly fits the criteria (i.e.: Empire with Spiritualist Governing Ethics that nonetheless takes The Flesh is Weak, which is more than enough proof that their Spiritualist Faction is approving of cybernetics, actually, since they were the ones to start embracing them to begin with/Reforms from one government type to another (such as UOR's shift from Dictatorial to Imperial kicking off all the unrest) having greater long-term effects than maybe forcing you to pick a different stat modifier Civic).

 

[yangzilata]

... I personally think the core mechanics in HoI are more solid and fun to engage with, and the overall development had far more focus on increasing complexity and content rather than gimmicks that do not disrupt the core gameplay loop...

View attachment 1182577

As far as I understand, core mechanics refer to the essential systems and gameplay loops that define how a game functions at its most fundamental level. These mechanics are what you engage with throughout the game and shape your overall experience. For example, in HoI4, the core mechanics revolve around military strategy, resource management, and diplomatic maneuvering during World War II. The game is praised for its solid and focused mechanics, making it an engaging and replayable experience.

Comparatively, Stellaris offers a different set of core mechanics, centered on empire management, exploration, and galactic warfare. While Stellaris is a very unique game, it may appeal to a smaller audience since space empires aren't everyone's interest. Just as antiquity isn't loved by many, which could partly explain the failure of Imperator: Rome, space empire themes might not resonate with a broad audience.

-Even if the game is well-designed, the company might not benefit as much from games focused on antiquity or space empires because of their limited appeal.

Perhaps Stellaris isn't as popular among the newer generation for this very reason—space empires and related themes might not be at the top of their interests. Would this be true?

Now, Victoria 3 presents an interesting case. Unlike the straightforward military focus of HoI4 or the exploratory nature of Stellaris, Victoria 3 emphasizes socio-economic development, political reform, and the complexities of industrialization. The core mechanics here are more about managing the intricate web of societal and economic factors over time, which can feel bizarre and unfamiliar compared to traditional grand strategy games.

Some players criticize Victoria 3 for not fitting into the typical mold (Victoria 3 doesn’t follow the conventional or traditional approach that most grand strategy games use. It suggests that Victoria 3 is different or unusual compared to what players might usually expect from games in this genre) of a grand strategy game, arguing that its focus on socio-economic simulation lacks the excitement and clarity of other titles like HoI4 and Stellaris. This has led to debates about whether the core mechanics of Victoria 3 might be considered a failure or if they simply push the boundaries of the genre in a way that not everyone appreciates. Personally, I prefer playing Cities: Skylines 2 instead of experiencing Victoria 3, as it feels like a more advanced and enjoyable game in many ways.

What do you think? Why do fewer people play Victoria 3 compared to HoI4? Could it be that the core mechanics of Victoria 3 are fundamentally flawed, or is it just too different to appeal to the traditional grand strategy audience?