70,000 players down to 5000 4 months in. What turned you off the game?

[Dcethe]

The main problem I had was with the war system, it was my only gist with super slow moving frontlines but the economy part of the game was a little fun.

Sure the diplomacy had its kinks and A.I nations barely did anything but atleast you could focus on improving your country for a little while.

What do you guys think Vic 3 devs can improve to bring back / more players?

[Dcethe]

Originally posted by BOOM:

This company is not crazy.

This company pays influencers to increase the statistics of all their games.

(EXAMPLE) = They pays influencers to keep their computer open for the game in question to increase statistics and make people believe that the game is well designed and that there is many players playing their games. That make you beleive the game is a jewel and that boost the sales of the game in question.

After a few months of contract and they have sold several TRILLIONS of copies and their contract is over.

We can see that the game stats are starting to decline. So as you so well mention. The number of players decreases drastically.

This is a pressure selling technique.

800,000* copies is not a lot to bank on... you can look up online to know they made roughly 30 million dollars so far on Vic 3.

Slightly better than the failed game that is Imperator rome, which sold 700k copies and made them 20 million.

Which puts into the question on whether they will continue development or not but I am hopeful that they will atleast try to fix the game and release some more content until then.

Also to put into perspective of PDX more successful games.
HOI4 - 5 Million Copies, roughly over 100 Million$ in Revenue with 32,000 players
CK3 - 2.6 Million Copies, roughly 93 Million$ in Revenue with 10,000 players

[--Nico--]

IA is totally braindead ( produce nothing )

Game is full of bugs

Game that is not supposed to be a map painter, is in fact a border gore map painter where the war is the least interesting feature of the game

When you have done one or two campain, you have no reason to play more, you have seen enough

[TigerRus]

What do you guys think Vic 3 devs can improve to bring back / more players?

Probably go straight to Victoria 4 and start again

[D34DLY]

well, I played the game so crazy much (474 hours), I feel I have mastered it in its current form. so, my usage is down because the game is very good. Even if I never play the game again, I got enough usage to justify the cost of the game.

waiting for mods, dlc, or changes to come back to it.

oh, and I have major depression which will make you not want to do things. this game kept me busy for a couple of months, so it was good enough to keep me from writing troll posts on game forums for games I don't even play, like the OP is doing.

note for OP: if you want some real fun, find a Star Citizen forum and taunt them about how that game will never be released, yet has spent more than any other game on development. good times.

[BadWizard]

they havnt fixed warfare yet

[Inquerion]

Originally posted by Dcethe:

Originally posted by BOOM:

This company is not crazy.

This company pays influencers to increase the statistics of all their games.

(EXAMPLE) = They pays influencers to keep their computer open for the game in question to increase statistics and make people believe that the game is well designed and that there is many players playing their games. That make you beleive the game is a jewel and that boost the sales of the game in question.

After a few months of contract and they have sold several TRILLIONS of copies and their contract is over.

We can see that the game stats are starting to decline. So as you so well mention. The number of players decreases drastically.

This is a pressure selling technique.

880,000 copies is not a lot to bank on... you can look up online to know they made roughly 30 million dollars so far on Vic 3.

Slightly better than the failed game that is Imperator rome, which sold 700k copies and made them 20 million.

Which puts into the question on whether they will continue development or not but I am hopeful that they will atleast try to fix the game and release some more content until then.

Also to put into perspective of PDX more successful games.
HOI4 - 5 Million Copies, roughly over 100 Million$ in Revenue with 32,000 players
CK3 - 2.6 Million Copies, roughly 93 Million$ in Revenue with 10,000 players

Source for 880k sold copies? Paradox confirmed 500k (CK3 sold 1 million during similar time). I think something like 600k max is more realistic.

And I think that they look more at active playerbase (concurrent players; only ~6000 for V3 currently) than number of copies sold when they decide to continue development of the game. So a game that sold only 200k copies BUT has 30k active players will likely get new DLCs rather than a game that sold 600k but has 5k players.

Imperator sold ok on release, but lost 96% of playerbase in 3 months. V3 88% which is also bad.

[Inquerion]

It's worth to add that they are obliged to release (no matter the active playerbase numbers and sales):
1 Major Expansion
1 Immersion Pack DLC
1 Art Pack DLC
1 Music Pack DLC

Since they already got the money through pre order "Grand Edition" of V3.

It's unknown if they will make more content for this game after that though.

[Dcethe]

Originally posted by Inquerion:

Originally posted by Dcethe:

880,000 copies is not a lot to bank on... you can look up online to know they made roughly 30 million dollars so far on Vic 3.

Slightly better than the failed game that is Imperator rome, which sold 700k copies and made them 20 million.

Which puts into the question on whether they will continue development or not but I am hopeful that they will atleast try to fix the game and release some more content until then.

Also to put into perspective of PDX more successful games.
HOI4 - 5 Million Copies, roughly over 100 Million$ in Revenue with 32,000 players
CK3 - 2.6 Million Copies, roughly 93 Million$ in Revenue with 10,000 players

Source for 880k sold copies? Paradox confirmed 500k (CK3 sold 1 million during similar time). I think something like 600k max is more realistic.

And I think that they look more at active playerbase (concurrent players; only ~6000 for V3 currently) than number of copies sold when they decide to continue development of the game. So a game that sold only 200k copies BUT has 30k active players will likely get new DLCs rather than a game that sold 600k but has 5k players.

Imperator sold ok on release, but lost 96% of playerbase in 3 months. V3 88% which is also bad.

https://vginsights.com/game/529340 - 807k Units sold my bad. You can use VG insights which uses steam sales, doesn't count other platforms like humble bundle.

Game is following a similar pattern with imperator rome, except they had several reworks until its deadend, so far Victoria 3 hasn't had much done.

[Inquerion]

Thanks! I never heard of that site before. In the past I used SteamDB and SteamSpy.

Yeah, V3 follows Imperator pattern but numbers are not as bad (yet).
Imperator had only 2k players after 3 months since release (few months later it was just 1k!). 2.0 Rework increased numbers to 3-4k for a few weeks, but then it was back to 1k.

We have to wait how (if) patch 1.2 for V3 will help.
1.1 had no real impact on numbers though.

If numbers will stay below 5k active players after 1.2 patch I think that they will decide to abandon the game (they will release all promised pre order DLC first of course which will take them 1-2 years).

[salad fork]

Lack of content. Too easy.

[heres johnny3112]

Originally posted by D34DLY:

well, I played the game so crazy much (474 hours), I feel I have mastered it in its current form. so, my usage is down because the game is very good. Even if I never play the game again, I got enough usage to justify the cost of the game.

How the hell do you put over 400 hours into this game? I played 4 different countries to gneeral completion past 1900 to 1910 or 1920 or so in 70 hours and that was enough. How many countries did you need to play that operated entirely the same with minimal flavour?

I really hope you just left the game open a lot and did other things - rather than spend 19.74 days in game in 3 months. That's be close to 25% of all your time since the game released has been in game LOL

[Getti]

Played 1.3 hours. Had a few bugs, more crashes and reloading than playtime. It's a joke

[morganjah]

For me, it is a total fail. It is not even the tiniest, slightest bit an historical simulation of the Victorian Era. It can't be fixed because the systems themselves are so badly thought out and designed, and so completely unrelated to the time period.
They will never make a Victorian Age game at Paradox because they lack anyone who is interested or knowledgeable in the period: the history, economics, transportation, invention, social movements, government, or any of the literally millions of other aspects of the age that made it so fascinating.
It is encouraging that so many people bought it. There is obviously interest in what Paradox claimed this game would be. That Paradox made exactly zero effort in putting out the game they promised, instead piecing together whatever mobile port it turned out to be, out of spare parts, is why no one is playing it.
We are all still waiting, though we have given up on Paradox. Hopefully someone else who actually cares about the period will see their opportunity.

[Echo]

I must be a total baffoon then. Y'all all speak of it being so easy and I cannot for the life of me do anything. Watched a ton of videos and blah blah but GDP never keeps up with anyone else, outpaced in literacy, oh and I cannot ever win a war no matter what because the great powers ALWAYS intervene and kick my ass. Even played as Prussia, almost had Germany reformed and got drug into a war with Austria and they walked me like I was using sticks and stones. Hate this game

[geoffalrich]

I still play. However large problems that need to be addressed include
1. No challenge in the mid to late game, way to easy to snowball your economy. Ie I am yet to play a game where I do not have 3 to 4 times the GBP of the next Competitor by 1900, include a play through as Australia.
2. The aggressive expansion system does not work. By the time your diplomatic reputation gets to pariah level, your country is normally strong enough to fight anyone off. This system should stomp you down hard. Don't know why it is so under powered Paradox has systems that Work in there other games.
3. Military, I personally do not mind the land battle system, has some bugs but for land war it can work. The navy side needs a major re-work, need to be able to better assign units to more obvious tasks. Be able to create fleets regardless of where a naval base was built. There is no blockade option, raiding commerce is not the same as a blockade. Also naval invasions are overpowered and way to easy to do.
4. Last AI is too stupid, needs to better grow economies, build the right buildings, actually be competitive.