After 2 weeks, 2.0 impact on players is low

[AliceInDystopialand]

from behind 10years old victoria 2 to behind 9years old ck2 - wow amazing

I'm sorry but what were you expecting? There was no way that IR was going to overtake ck2 after the patch.

CK2 is a game that, as you say, has 9 years of content development put into it, with a lot of people who have incredibly fond memories of it. You can argue it's one of the paradox games with the most replayability in it right now. Compare that IR, which, let's face it, is a game that's still very barebones in a lot of ways, needs a lot of work and has the disadvantage of a disastrous launch and the resulting bad reputation. Honestly the fact that two weeks afterwards, IR still had enough playing it to be close to CK2 is a win for the game in and of itself.

Honestly you have to be realistic. IR is never going to have a spectacular comeback where it gets into the realm of the big paradox games. If it ever gets to that level, it'll be through a long cycle of good development and word of mouth advertisement that gradually increases the player counts.

 

[Daft]

In the end, the only question I care about is "is it fun?"

And to me that's a resounding yes. Even if it doesn't get any more DLC, ever again.

 

[stratigo]

maybe I read numbers differently than others but... 2.0 QUADRUPLED the concurrent numbers of player!

that's not small feat, consider it's a well round 400% increase, reaching one of the most beloved paradox games of all time (ck2)

count that I don't think IR will EVER reach the 10k players, because it's a deep and complex game set in a period that IMHO it's not very popular at the moment.
vikings, knights, kings, queens, space and even fantasy themes are far more popular atm.

it could change if movies and series of high popularity will start being produced.

Are you kidding? Rome will never NOT be popular.

Like, people love rome.

Imperator is one of the denser Pdox games though. Least now it is. It feels really good when you've grasped the mechanics of the game though.

 

[master_kong]

Are you kidding? Rome will never NOT be popular.

Like, people love rome.

In Western Europe mostly. It's not comparable to the Medieval, Renaissance, Modern eras or even sci-fi popularity-wise. But a single popular Netflix show about Rome(especially the republican era of course) would nudge the balance.

 

[stratigo]

In Western Europe mostly. It's not comparable to the Medieval, Renaissance, Modern eras or even sci-fi popularity-wise. But a single popular Netflix show about Rome(especially the republican era of course) would nudge the balance.

Umm... no Rome is vastly more popular than Medieval or Renaissance history. By a fair margin. I think you might be mistaking fantasy for medieval. They're not the same thing. GoT wasn't a medieval show about the medieval period catering to interests in the medieval period. It's was a fantasy show.

Roman history is the juggernaut of premodern history, and garners more pop culture attention than anything, probably challenged only by vikings in tv and film. And there's like, no challenge when we talk academics, or the influence of academics on culture, politics, or society. Modern western states are still drawing on the idea of the grecoroman world for legitimacy, and a lot more ink has been spilled about the importance of grecoroman philosophy than there has ever been medieval, or even renaissance thought.

 

[schultz]

It's a shame they cancelled the HBO Rome series after 2 seasons.
It was a fantastic show.
In the meantime, that Britannia series and Spartacus are absolutely awful.
I can no longer trust Hollywood to make anything remotely interesting.

 

[stratigo]

It's a shame they cancelled the HBO Rome series after 2 seasons.
It was a fantastic show.
In the meantime, that Britannia series and Spartacus are absolutely awful.
I can no longer trust Hollywood to make anything remotely interesting.

Spartacus was very entertaining as trash. Like it was as trashy as it gets, but it embraced that trash whole heartedly.

The cancelation of Rome was a tragedy.

Movies and shows about Rome or based on roman myth (a lot of movies featuring greeks are taken largely from Roman mythologizing. Like 300 bears more similarity to Plutarch's fawning on Sparta than Sparta as it was as a state... ever) are still made semi regularly.

 

[maxk94]

I'm sorry but what were you expecting? There was no way that IR was going to overtake ck2 after the patch.

Stellaris also overtake EU3 or CK1^^

I dont think this means all that much, as long as the devs arent forced to drop it to prioritize more popular games.

That's right, if the active number of players is completely irrelevant for the further development of the game, this thread is irrelevant.

 

[master_kong]

Umm... no Rome is vastly more popular than Medieval or Renaissance history. By a fair margin. I think you might be mistaking fantasy for medieval. They're not the same thing. GoT wasn't a medieval show about the medieval period catering to interests in the medieval period. It's was a fantasy show.

Roman history is the juggernaut of premodern history, and garners more pop culture attention than anything, probably challenged only by vikings in tv and film. And there's like, no challenge when we talk academics, or the influence of academics on culture, politics, or society. Modern western states are still drawing on the idea of the grecoroman world for legitimacy, and a lot more ink has been spilled about the importance of grecoroman philosophy than there has ever been medieval, or even renaissance thought.

We aren't talking about academics, we are talking about the popularity of historical eras. No fantasy was not included, pure historical medieval era. Roman/Classical era is as popular as the others only in Western Europe.

 

[Lord Lambert]

That's right, if the active number of players is completely irrelevant for the further development of the game, this thread is irrelevant.

This implies the inverse, that if the active number of players is relevant, then this thread is relevant... and let me tell you for an absolute fact... that just ain't true, buddy! This thread is irrelevant regardless of any other factor.

 

[stratigo]

We aren't talking about academics, we are talking about the popularity of historical eras. No fantasy was not included, pure historical medieval era. Roman/Classical era is as popular as the others only in Western Europe.

And, like, the Americas.

But yes, it's probably not more popular than local histories outside the west for obvious reasons. But neither, I imagine, is other European historic periods.

 

[TheMind]

+306.00%

In the last 30 days. It's not that bad I think

 

[Daft]

It's a shame they cancelled the HBO Rome series after 2 seasons.
It was a fantastic show.
In the meantime, that Britannia series and Spartacus are absolutely awful.
I can no longer trust Hollywood to make anything remotely interesting.

I loved that show. It wasn't until recently I got how f****** expensive it was to produce. I think it was like the most costly series ever or something like that. Too bad it had to be cancelled, because it really was great.

 

[Spike05]

Umm... no Rome is vastly more popular than Medieval or Renaissance history. By a fair margin. I think you might be mistaking fantasy for medieval. They're not the same thing. GoT wasn't a medieval show about the medieval period catering to interests in the medieval period. It's was a fantasy show.

Roman history is the juggernaut of premodern history, and garners more pop culture attention than anything, probably challenged only by vikings in tv and film. And there's like, no challenge when we talk academics, or the influence of academics on culture, politics, or society. Modern western states are still drawing on the idea of the grecoroman world for legitimacy, and a lot more ink has been spilled about the importance of grecoroman philosophy than there has ever been medieval, or even renaissance thought.

Are you kidding? Rome will never NOT be popular.

Like, people love rome.

Imperator is one of the denser Pdox games though. Least now it is. It feels really good when you've grasped the mechanics of the game though.

You're speaking THEORIES here.... in PRACTICE right now (thanks hollywood, thanks pay per view services) it is simply not.

Look at the player numbers on the recent release of total wars, that ARE CONSISTENT with the ones from paradox games:
https://steamdb.info/graph/?compare=214950,281990,394360,594570,779340,1158310,859580,203770 (click only the last year or even better the last 3 months, the data would be almost unreadable otherwise)

Warhammer, a fantasy, is EXTREMELY more popular than Rome 2.
Heck, even three kingdoms, while it was a flop, is still better shaped than Rome...

Crusader kings 2 was always a great success until CK3 took over, and now the total of the two playerbase are around the level of Stellaris (sci-fantasy)

Hoi4 and Warhammer 2 are on a league of their own, and neither is from roman time...


it's not just a matter of "good games" but in general medieval court/conquest stuff and fantasy stuff beats ancient history (by far)
huge non-sensical descrutionary wars (like ww2 or warhammer) beats everything else...

 

[schultz]

Those games were all released much more recently.
The newer release -- all other things being equal -- , is going to have more players than an older release.
Three Kingdoms is doing as well as it is because the subject matter has tapped into the huge Chinese player base.
Otherwise I think Three Kingdoms is pretty mediocre, as far as CA titles go. I've played it a few times, but always quickly go back to WH2 or Rome 2.
If Creative Assembly ever goes for a Rome 3, I'm pretty sure the player count for it will exceed Warhammer and Three Kingdoms, on the virtue alone of it being the newest release.

 

[Spike05]

Those games were all released much more recently.
The newer release -- all other things being equal -- , is going to have more players than an older release.
Three Kingdoms is doing as well as it is because the subject matter has tapped into the huge Chinese player base.
Otherwise I think Three Kingdoms is pretty mediocre, as far as CA titles go. I've played it a few times, but always quickly go back to WH2 or Rome 2.
If Creative Assembly ever goes for a Rome 3, I'm pretty sure the player count for it will exceed Warhammer and Three Kingdoms, on the virtue alone of it being the newest release.

I would agree IF the player base of Rome would have decrease with time... it hasn't. It is what was mostly at the beginning. Use the tool an press "all" to see it.


PS I never count the "sparks" in playerbase at the release. All games have those, but then retain usually only around 25-30% of said spark.

A NEW release of total war rome, will "spark" the player base... but I can bet its "real" playerbase would be still around 10.000, less than fantsy/sci-fi/ww2

Add to the count the playerbase of warhammer 1 and you'll get the whole picture

https://steamdb.info/graph/?compare=214950,281990,394360,594570,779340,1158310,859580,203770,364360

 

[Paghalay]

Heck, even three kingdoms, while it was a flop, is still better shaped than Rome

I mean, Three Kingdoms was only their biggest release ever (the new Chinese market certainly plays a major factor but still), so very much NOT a flop. Rome was a flop on launch.

 

[stratigo]

You're speaking THEORIES here.... in PRACTICE right now (thanks hollywood, thanks pay per view services) it is simply not.

Look at the player numbers on the recent release of total wars, that ARE CONSISTENT with the ones from paradox games:
https://steamdb.info/graph/?compare=214950,281990,394360,594570,779340,1158310,859580,203770 (click only the last year or even better the last 3 months, the data would be almost unreadable otherwise)

Warhammer, a fantasy, is EXTREMELY more popular than Rome 2.
Heck, even three kingdoms, while it was a flop, is still better shaped than Rome...

Crusader kings 2 was always a great success until CK3 took over, and now the total of the two playerbase are around the level of Stellaris (sci-fantasy)

Hoi4 and Warhammer 2 are on a league of their own, and neither is from roman time...


it's not just a matter of "good games" but in general medieval court/conquest stuff and fantasy stuff beats ancient history (by far)
huge non-sensical descrutionary wars (like ww2 or warhammer) beats everything else...

Again, fantasy is not, in fact, medieval history. Warhammer isn't even particularly modeled off of medieval history, it's early modern.

Rome is more compelling for most people than any concrete medieval society, though people are also feel a romantic connection to the ideals of chivalry (which is a very narrow period of medieval history). Rome has a far outsized influence over the public conscience than any medieval state, and the ancient period a far outsized influence on modern society than the medieval period.

I mean, Three Kingdoms was only their biggest release ever (the new Chinese market certainly plays a major factor but still), so very much NOT a flop. Rome was a flop on launch.

Rome 2 wasn't a flop either. It was just a mess and so lost people pretty hard and fast. A bit like Imperator. But the first Rome literally made CA as a company.




However, the success of Lord of the Rings and subsequent fantasy media has dwarfed the historic epic hard in the past 2 decades. It's amusing because 30 to 50 years ago fantasy was relegated to low budget B movies, while the historic epic was big premier business. There's dozen of famous HUGE budget roman epics and other ancient epics. They outnumber anything about the middle ages in hollywood. But people realized fantasy was cool, and so fantasy has overtaken the historic epic in almost its entirety really. I can't remember the last historic epic that was an actual success at the box office, or was a true everyone watches juggernaut like a GoT (or the sopranos).

Vikings have also gotten their due, in large part due to the success of marvel in the box office verse the relative failure of DC.

But, ultimately, western culture remains fascinated with the idea of rome far FAR FAAAAAAAAAAAAR more than it has any attraction to the middle ages, much to my chagrin cause there's a lot lost in translation. The popular imaginings of Rome aren't particularly accurate.

Also, like, a lot of people who look to the middle ages do so cause of the crusades, and hoo boy, you do not want to hang out with those people. The deus vult crowd sucks.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Vikings have also gotten their due, in large part due to the success of marvel in the box office verse the relative failure of DC.

eh? How are these related?

 

[KuwabaraTheMan]

Quadrupling the active player base doesn't seem like "low impact" to me. Is it still lower than their other games? Yes, but they have a foundation to build on now.