Player retention comparted to CK3 first 2 weeks after release

[johnty5]

Seeing as this thread is getting bumped again, I thought I'd update my chart.

Basically, still the same story as it's been for a few months.

• Victoria 3 is retaining players at the same rate as Stellaris did.
• Victoria 3 is retaining players at a significantly lower rate than EU4, HoI4 and CK3 did.
• Comparisons with Imperator are nonsense.

 

[Lord Lambert]

Victoria 3 is retaining players at the same rate as Stellaris did

I wonder if there is space for huge overhauling updates in Vic3 like there was in Stellaris that completely change the identity of the game.

Vic 3 needs something like that, thats for sure.

 

[johnty5]

I wonder if there is space for huge overhauling updates in Vic3 like there was in Stellaris that completely change the identity of the game.

Vic 3 needs something like that, thats for sure.

I think the comparison to early Stellaris is probably right. Both had/have a few systems that needed/need to be reworked from scratch and also other big gaps where interesting systems should be that didn’t exist at launch.

The fact that there’s a clear recognition of that from the devs - including which specific systems are being prioritised over the next few months - makes me optimistic that it’s heading in the right direction.

 

[Lord Lambert]

The fact that there’s a clear recognition of that from the devs

I don't think there's nearly enough of this to get me optimistic about the future of the game.

 

[johnty5]

I don't think there's nearly enough of this to get me optimistic about the future of the game.

Still early days. I'm happy that there's been a lot of talk from devs about prioritising warfare and diplomacy for changes/additions.

Broad-brush, I get the impression that the areas of the game most of us would like to see improved are also the areas that the devs would most like to see improved. That, along with the high level of interaction with the devs, makes me optimistic.

 

[Brynjar]

Still early days. I'm happy that there's been a lot of talk from devs about prioritising warfare and diplomacy for changes/additions.

Where have you seen that?

 

[johnty5]

Where have you seen that?

Just the impression I've got from dev responses over the last few months.

The dev diary about post-release plans highlighted warfare and diplomacy as the mechanical things they'd focus on.

 

[Cpt.Cross]

Im actually impressed that player counts are still as high as they are.

Really one play though and you've seen it all.

Only one play style is viable other than intentionally being conservative to roleplay.

Every country has the same amount of flavor (none) unless you are Ottomans EIC or Japan and even then.

 

[Brynjar]

Just the impression I've got from dev responses over the last few months.

The dev diary about post-release plans highlighted warfare and diplomacy as the mechanical things they'd focus on.

View attachment 941703

I could be wrong, but isn't that pretty much the only post-release dev diary where warfare and diplomacy are somewhat highlighted? That makes it a bit of a stretch to call it "a lot of talk about prioritising those" to me.

 

[johnty5]

I could be wrong, but isn't that pretty much the only post-release dev diary where warfare and diplomacy are somewhat highlighted? That makes it a bit of a stretch to call it "a lot of talk about prioritising those" to me.

I'm including dev responses in threads too. Still - it's just my subjective, anecdotal impression.

 

[romothecus]

Seeing as this thread is getting bumped again, I thought I'd update my chart.

Basically, still the same story as it's been for a few months.

• Victoria 3 is retaining players at the same rate as Stellaris did.
• Victoria 3 is retaining players at a significantly lower rate than EU4, HoI4 and CK3 did.
• Comparisons with Imperator are nonsense.

Stellaris is very good comparison. Another game that was "technically complete" at launch but absolutely devoid of content or compelling systems, requiring years of DLC and reworks to core systems before it was "good."

 

[durbal]

Stellaris is very good comparison. Another game that was "technically complete" at launch but absolutely devoid of content or compelling systems, requiring years of DLC and reworks to core systems before it was "good."

Stellaris at release was way better than V3.

 

[ironman3112]

Stellaris at release was way better than V3.

Stellaris was novel being a new IP - and had really nothing previous to compare it to. V3 unfortunately has V2 and all its mods to contend with. At this point - Vic2 plus GFM is in my opinion a better experience - hopefully that isn't the case after the updates this game will get though.

 

[Allan Nonymous]

Stellaris at release was way better than V3.

As someone who played early Stellaris, I gotta say, hard disagree. The core game loop of the game... literally ran out before endgame.

 

[durbal]

The core game loop of the game... literally ran out before endgame.

...are you talking about V3 or Stellaris?

 

[Xdevo]

The Stellaris comparisons are also a bit confounded by the fact that HOI IV released within a month of Stellaris's launch. There's a great deal of overlap between the audience of the various PDS games (especially at launch), so Stellaris is going to look much worse by the fact that it had a bunch of its audience leave for another new game a month later.

I don't think Vic 3 is going to do as badly as Imperator, and I think the risk of it getting shunted to the side is pretty low. However, it is pretty clear that the playerbase really isn't staying with the game. Vic 3 had a lot of things going for it schedule-wise (no new DLC from other games to compete against, no new releases to compete against, an early holiday season) and still is struggling to keep its base. The game is developing extremely slowly as it stands (I will never understand why PDS insists on putting its releases so close to its inordinately long simultaneous vacations, but what do I know), and every day that's spent before fixing some of the glaring issues is another day where players cement their opinions of the game.

Victoria will definitely require Stellaris-esque redoing of core mechanics, but I'm not sure if the playerbase would survive the in-between steps, especially given how poorly the dev team has taken to player-feedback in the pre-release period (and frankly the proliferation of sycophants). Given how poorly the new political system works, I'm very concerned that the dev team will overhaul features just to make them worse somehow.

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

Stellaris is very good comparison. Another game that was "technically complete" at launch but absolutely devoid of content or compelling systems, requiring years of DLC and reworks to core systems before it was "good."

I have the exact same problem with Stellaris as I do Vic3. "Click buttons, build stuff, watch numbers go up." Vic3 warfare is sloooooooooooooooooooooow, but Stellaris warfare is exactly everything I hate in a strategy game. Millions of directions for the enemy to come from, literally infinite once gateways start getting activated and the L-Gate is online, and you have to separately recruit a bunch of ground units with no macro builder like the fleet manager, that you then have to babysit while it gets to the planet to invade. "Chokepoints" do nothing. You don't fight on your own ground, you just don't. So the only nations that will actually invade you are crises, who blow through a 70k starbase like it's the first pig's straw house. Oh, and influence and claims are the worst system ever designed, I hate them so much. In the end, every game, I sit around, growing peacefully, doing the ascensions, uniting the galactic empire.

Here, you wait a million years during a """diplomatic""" play to conquer a single state, while all the countries with interest in the region dogpile you, because the Geneva Convention clearly states that you have to give 100 days' warning to a country that you're going to invade them. (This is awful in HoI4, and it's awful here.) Right, warfare's a pain, so what else can you do? Click buttons, wait for reforms, build stuff, watch numbers go up. Pray to RNGEsus that you get an IG leader with the right trait to complete journal entries.

 

[Brynjar]

The game is developing extremely slowly as it stands, and every day that's spent before fixing some of the glaring issues is another day where players cement their opinions of the game.

I think it is more important that the devs takes the required time to ensure that the next couple of patches has a significant improvement on gameplay than to release minor patches in quick succession. There seems to be plenty of people who are interested in playing an improved Vic 3. A month after release there was still 20k-25k people playing the game simulatniously, and the game still sees a significant increase in player numbers every weekend. What will turn people away forever in my experience is updates that doesn't address the biggest issues with the game. If I were playing Vic 3 my biggest worry wouldn't be the player numbers, nor the time it takes for patch 1.2 to arrive, but how the devs are ever going to be able to address both some of the core gameplay issues of the game and the performance issues at the same time. That most likely isn't going to be easy.

I will never understand why PDS insists on putting its releases so close to its inordinately long simultaneous vacations, but what do I know

I think it's more an issue of releasing stuff which requires too much work post release. Even if Vic 3 had been released in late August or early January they would eventually have run into a long vacation hampering post release development significantly. There was simply too much that required attention.

 

[Allan Nonymous]

...are you talking about V3 or Stellaris?

Look, you can argue Vic3 grinds to a halt, but that’s not the fault of the core game loop, it’s the fault of the game lagging to death and the flavor/tech running out. I’m surprised so many people have forgotten how bad pre-2.2 Stellaris was. (Anyone remember planet tiles, or border outposts?) Victoria 3 gives us the benefit of at least a consistent, mostly scalable core loop (build buildings, import any raws, export finished, get improved AI mod). That’s why a lot of people say it has potential, at least the core game loop is interesting (determine what kind of buildings need to be built and where).

Stellaris warfare is exactly everything I hate in a strategy game. Millions of directions for the enemy to come from, literally infinite once gateways start getting activated and the L-Gate is online, and you have to separately recruit a bunch of ground units with no macro builder like the fleet manager, that you then have to babysit while it gets to the planet to invade. "Chokepoints" do nothing. You don't fight on your own ground, you just don't. So the only nations that will actually invade you are crises, who blow through a 70k starbase like it's the first pig's straw house. Oh, and influence and claims are the worst system ever designed, I hate them so much. In the end, every game, I sit around, growing peacefully, doing the ascensions, uniting the galactic empire.

Oh, boy, you dislike Stellaris warfare now? Stellaris warfare pre-updates was a million times worse. I remember the good ole days of warp drive (which, for the record, I loved). If you think the game has no choke points now, it was wayyy worse then. For the record Vic3 has an even worse combat system TBH, but in Stellaris it was a core part of the game (I.e. the only thing to do in endgame) while Vic3 gives us the small grace of at least giving us other things to do and sometimes even letting you avoid combat altogether (backing down from diplo plays is great in the narrow case of annex subject).

 

[Maxwell Tornado]

Oh, boy, you dislike Stellaris warfare now? Stellaris warfare pre-updates was a million times worse. I remember the good ole days of warp drive (which, for the record, I loved). If you think the game has no choke points now, it was wayyy worse then. For the record Vic3 has an even worse combat system TBH, but in Stellaris it was a core part of the game (I.e. the only thing to do in endgame) while Vic3 gives us the small grace of at least giving us other things to do and sometimes even letting you avoid combat altogether (backing down from diplo plays is great in the narrow case of annex subject).

I heavily preferred warp drives. At least that way, the game was honest about the fact that enemies could come from anywhere.