Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Is there anyone who still doesn't realize that victoria3 has failed?

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.
Victoria 3 11370 Bug Reports 6948 User Mods 519 Multiplayer 61 Suggestions 3049 Tech Support 858 After Action Reports (AARs)
IsaacCAT said:
Not true, Vic3 players numbers have been always 10x those of I:R.
Click to expand...
Prior to being abandoned in May 2021. Imperator Rome's player numbers ranged around 2k.

In the past 3 months Vic3's player numbers have ranged from 8k at peak hours to 6k at low hours. An average of 7k a day. A whopping 3.5 times greater than Imperator Rome's.
 
  • 5
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm not too worried about vic3's future. Part of this is because the studio wants it to be a successful, long-term game.

In corporate terms, they really want another revenue stream. The Ck, Eu, and HoI franchises, as well as Stellaris, are their main money makers that are propping up the company with constant DLCs. Having another profitable franchise means another major source of income and better cash flow, which is important to their investors. It seems they're commited to have Victoria be one of those franchises.

Vic3 may be or may not be doing well, I don't really know. But what I do know is that when a corporation goes for a gimmick or larger strategy to make money, they can be really, problematically stubborn about letting it go.
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Azgabeth said:
Prior to being abandoned in May 2021. Imperator Rome's player numbers ranged around 2k.

In the past 3 months Vic3's player numbers have ranged from 8k at peak hours to 6k at low hours. An average of 7k a day. A whopping 3.5 times greater than Imperator Rome's.
Click to expand...
For context, the 2k was the peak of 2.0 sustained for 2 months only.

Imperator: Rome - Steam Charts

An ongoing analysis of Steam's player numbers, seeing what's been played the most.
steamcharts.com steamcharts.com

Vic3 has had 10x more players in average. When there is a content release there are peaks as well.

Victoria 3 - Steam Charts

An ongoing analysis of Steam's player numbers, seeing what's been played the most.
steamcharts.com steamcharts.com
 
  • 5
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Meneye said:
I'm not too worried about vic3's future. Part of this is because the studio wants it to be a successful, long-term game.

In corporate terms, they really want another revenue stream. The Ck, Eu, and HoI franchises, as well as Stellaris, are their main money makers that are propping up the company with constant DLCs. Having another profitable franchise means another major source of income and better cash flow, which is important to their investors. It seems they're commited to have Victoria be one of those franchises.

Vic3 may be or may not be doing well, I don't really know. But what I do know is that when a corporation goes for a gimmick or larger strategy to make money, they can be really, problematically stubborn about letting it go.
Click to expand...

The question is: How big is the V3 team even? After the initial development, how much of the team is left in place to keep the patching and content running. If the team is just a quarter or third of the one size of the other branches, it can operate with profit margings even with a small player base.

And if you want to analyze how good new addons may sell, plaese do not look at numbers in content dry months or averages. The hikes after releases are interesting, when V3 goes back to reasonable player numbers with the 1.9 release it all fine. 90% of the players do not play these games as main games, they come and go with the releases and new content.
 
Azgabeth said:
IMO that's not really true.

Consumer's don't have infinite money. Everything has an opportunity cost. Paradox GSG gamers generally are happy to pay for dlc to continue the development of the games.

But when you have access to a clearly better game, why would you spend your money on an old game when you can spending on the new one and help it's development?

IDK, but Imperator's abandonment kind of scared me. Victoria 3's player numbers are already approaching Imperator Rome's. I'm sure the sale's aren't growing either.

I just don't see many people spending their money on Vic3 DLC to help fund the game's development when EU5 is right there.
Click to expand...
Dog, they are different games. They have different fundamental designs, and different appeals. They are not interchangeable.

This is why I can’t wait for EU5 - all of you who see GSGs as just being EU with different coats of paint can do what you’ve been wanting to do all along - leave and go play EU5 and stop crying on this forum all day about how Vic isn’t EU.

I don’t want it to be. I play Vic because I don’t care for EU much. The idea that EU is objectively better is absurd - it’s better at being EU, which is simply not something we all want, and I’m so tired of discourse that assumes we do.

Is it so hard to believe that people who play this game… like it? EU has more wide appeal, sure, but I doubt many people are playing Vic waiting for it to magically turn into EU. And I can’t imagine the people complaining about it online are the ones actively playing it.

If Vic 3 was more like EU the way you lot keep asking for, that would be the truly dangerous thing - because there would be no reason for anyone to stay once EU5 dropped.
 
Last edited:
  • 18
  • 14
  • 1
Reactions:
Meneye said:
I'm not too worried about vic3's future. Part of this is because the studio wants it to be a successful, long-term game.

In corporate terms, they really want another revenue stream. The Ck, Eu, and HoI franchises, as well as Stellaris, are their main money makers that are propping up the company with constant DLCs. Having another profitable franchise means another major source of income and better cash flow, which is important to their investors. It seems they're commited to have Victoria be one of those franchises.

Vic3 may be or may not be doing well, I don't really know. But what I do know is that when a corporation goes for a gimmick or larger strategy to make money, they can be really, problematically stubborn about letting it go.
Click to expand...
The problem is that we are reaching 3 years since release, we are currently in vic3's "future".
 
  • 11
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Amina144 said:
The problem is that we are reaching 3 years since release, we are currently in vic3's "future".
Click to expand...
Yeah but that just means there is a future for this game. This discussion about V3 going the way of IR has been going on since like year 1, and here we are with a full year worth of DLCs still ahead of us. So far I see no reason to expect it to stop. I'd only start to question V3's future if this cycle's mechanic reworks bomb and don't change things up enough, but ownership, discrimination, movements and now trade reworks for me at least seem like continuous and proper improvement. It's not perfect yet, but it can absolutely get as close as reasonably possible if/when these recent reworks click.
 
  • 11
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Just give me more map interaction, a ship builder, delete the universal q and allow for 1 build per city at a time, and in-game tech customization, and 'poof' game is fantastic!

Oh, and stop railroading reforms.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Vic3 will finally be "great" when limited Navy range and logistical supply limits are introduced. Still can't believe we're playing a 19th-century game where coaling is not even a thing.
 
  • 21Like
  • 1Love
Reactions:
Drakken said:
Vic3 will finally be "great" when limited Navy range and logistical supply limits are introduced. Still can't believe we're playing a 19th-century game where coaling is not even a thing.
Click to expand...
Sir this is an economic game. I don't want to micro coaling stations /s
 
  • 5Haha
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
agonistes said:
Yea, me.

Potential is still insanely high. I'm not done with her yet.
Click to expand...
Despite me being very negative about the way the game was initially designed and a lot of their philosophy behind it, I’m still here very often because of the crazy potential the game’s systems have. I still really, really want this game to succeed and still get more hopeful each dev diary.

I do worry that the game’s underlying systems are probably why development has been slower than a lot of people hoped, it seems like it would be a nightmare to balance and test.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
cdub8d said:
Sir this is an economic game. I don't want to micro coaling stations /s
Click to expand...
I mean naval stations should provide range- but yeah no click to coal button lol
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Building coal/refuelling/actual naval bases in general to explicitly paint the seas with areas you can feasibly reach and exert power over, or otherwise having treaties with others for the same would be very fitting and good for the game. Makes all the tiny islands matter more.
 
  • 11Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Superdark33 said:
Building coal/refuelling/actual naval bases in general to explicitly paint the seas with areas you can feasibly reach and exert power over, or otherwise having treaties with others for the same would be very fitting and good for the game. Makes all the tiny islands matter more.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! It would help make geography matter more too.
 
  • 8Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Bisonmask said:
Far more people start as England or Prussia than as Bolivia and Brazil and more people play as those than play as Haiti or Paraguay
Click to expand...
I played almost all little nations and never played France, the US or England. Which doesn't disprove the point but in general it is actually the mediium nations are the most popular ones
 
  • 3
Reactions:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back