Star Citizen Stats

rpmcmurphy

CIG produced a nice stat list for the period Jan 2019 - Oct 2019

rpmcmurphy

What we can glean from this is that the game has an average concurrency of 1290 people.

We can also say that if all 1.5 million paying backers have tried the game over the last 10 months it would mean they played for roughly 6 hours each, aka 2 evening play sessions out of 300 potential evening sessions.

Oof

Kyleran

Actual in game progression to date.

Zero.

There is no game yet, just one big, never ending play test.

  

Vrika

Average Star Citizen player kills one enemy every 32 minutes, and spends $1.49 on the game for each kill he makes

Sources for funding stats:
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tMAP0fg-AKScI3S3VjrDW3OaLO4zgBA1RSYoQOQoNSI/edit#gid=1694467207
  https://robertsspaceindustries.com/funding-goals

Babuinix

Nice "math"   

ohioastro

Those stats are quite low for a game claiming millions of users.  Starting with minutes played is a real tell.  For reference, I play a cool indie roguelike (TOME).  Great game!  But a small community, and the dev did note when he passed the 1000 player years threshold.  One might think that a mass market space sim would have more actual play time than a roguelike; so the current state of play reflects that SC is certainly currently only something that a small group does.

rpmcmurphy

Babuinix said:

Nice "math"   

Yeah I agree. When marketing dresses up numbers like this, it certainly is "nice maths".

Vrika

Now that we've got a player number for Star Citizen, it's a good time to take a new look at Babuinix's Twitch stats:

Babuinix said:

Based on Steamcharts numbers:

Atlas and EVE Online have twice as many players as Star Citizen
Elite: Dangerous has 3 times as many players as Star Citizen
No Man's Sky has 4 times as many players as Star Citizen
Fallout 4 has 10 times as many players as Star Citizen

To get player numbers for those games I took average Steamchart number for January - September, except for Atlas where I took March - September due to game's launch screwing up numbers for January and February. Steamcharts sees only people playing the game through Steam.


Star Citizen is a game that gets a huge number of Twitch views despite having a smallish number of people actually playing it.

rpmcmurphy

@Vrika said "Steamcharts sees only people playing the game through Steam."

This can't be overstated. Steam absolutely accounts for a lot of player but if games are selling via GOG, the compay's own store, on PS4 / XBox stores etc then it only reflects a portion of their numbers. I am sure I have seen Elite devs say the Steam store accounts for about 40% of their PC players (this was some time ago so don't hold me to it).

"Star Citizen is a game that gets a huge number of Twitch views despite having a smallish number of people actually playing it."

Don't forget Babs likes to grab those stats just after a patch is released when viewership is at its highest. Doing CIG's marketing for them...

Babuinix

Again, nice "math". As in...made with made up numbers.

Its almost as good as the math for renting ships thread 

Whatever helps ya sleep better while waiting for those carriers and iceplanets 

rpmcmurphy

Babuinix said:

Again, nice "math". As in...made with made up numbers.

Its almost as good as the math for renting ships thread 

Ah, Babs and his turnabouts. When you selectively use twitch numbers it is ok, when someone uses numbers correctly you imply it's fake....

Where else do we see that sort of method being used, ah yes, the MO of right leaning politics....

Babuinix said:

Whatever helps ya sleep better while waiting for those carriers and iceplanets 

Is that all you've got? because taking swipes at another game does nothing for Star Citizen.

Babuinix

How ironic acusing me of using selective numbers when it's exactly what you're doing here. Even worse, you're making up numbers on the go to try to make up some kind of conclusion lol

How desperate ...

And how is it selective sharing Twitch stats that measure, daily, weekly and anually activity?

MaxBacon

@Vrika @rpmcmurphy

The numbers of the game currently are not much relevant, after all the game is still doing major wipes every main update so it's not to expect any serious sinking of time on the game as is.

I mean simply put yourself on that position, you play such but the game will wipe all your progression soon, isn't it logical you won't sink much time on the game?

I know for myself I don't play much because next month, again, all my progress is wiped so I'm waiting until there is more persistency between patches. For others, this varies from wanting more content to a more stable experience.

This is why this debate (how many playing the game) does not reflect the interest in the game or its popularity.

Babuinix

It's all fudged math based on whims lol
Desperate but funny. 

rpmcmurphy

Babuinix said:

How ironic acusing me of using selective numbers when it's exactly what you're doing here. Even worse, you're making up numbers on the go to try to make up some kind of conclusion lol

Go on...

Taking numbers provided by CIG and simply dividing them over the time period is not making anything up. Perhaps you find that complicated and that is why you think it's fake but it really is basic maths.

All it is doing is adding a relatable persepective to things. 995 million minutes means nothing but divide it into something relatable and it is useful. Only a fanboi would be upset by the truth...

Babuinix said:

How desperate ...

And how is it selective sharing Twitch stats that measure, daily, weekly and anually activity?

Because we know that you take Twitch stats from just after a patch release which is when viewer counts are at their highest and you compare them to games which are in their mid-patch slump. It is the textbook example of selectiveness.

How desperate indeed...

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

@Vrika @rpmcmurphy

The numbers of the game currently are not much relevant, after all the game is still doing major wipes every main update so it's not to expect any serious sinking of time on the game as is.

I mean simply put yourself on that position, you play such but the game will wipe all your progression soon, isn't it logical you won't sink much time on the game?

I know for myself I don't play much because next month, again, all my progress is wiped so I'm waiting until there is more persistency between patches. For others, this varies from wanting more content to a more stable experience.

This is why this debate (how many playing the game) does not reflect the interest in the game or its popularity.

You'd be better off telling CIG they are not relevant, they are the ones making a big deal out of irrelevant numbers and using them for marketing purposes...

MaxBacon

rpmcmurphy said:

MaxBacon said:

@Vrika @rpmcmurphy

The numbers of the game currently are not much relevant, after all the game is still doing major wipes every main update so it's not to expect any serious sinking of time on the game as is.

I mean simply put yourself on that position, you play such but the game will wipe all your progression soon, isn't it logical you won't sink much time on the game?

I know for myself I don't play much because next month, again, all my progress is wiped so I'm waiting until there is more persistency between patches. For others, this varies from wanting more content to a more stable experience.

This is why this debate (how many playing the game) does not reflect the interest in the game or its popularity.

You'd be better off telling CIG they are not relevant, they are the ones making a big deal out of irrelevant numbers and using them for marketing purposes...

They are doing what any game company has interest in doing as far as promoting their game goes, I don't see the problem?

Anyway, any logical and informed person overall knows the reasons (frequent wipes, waiting for more content / stability) for the in-game activity currently and knows how pointless it is trying to hook that into the player interest or popularity of the game.

Hatefull

rpmcmurphy said:

MaxBacon said:

@Vrika @rpmcmurphy

The numbers of the game currently are not much relevant, after all the game is still doing major wipes every main update so it's not to expect any serious sinking of time on the game as is.

I mean simply put yourself on that position, you play such but the game will wipe all your progression soon, isn't it logical you won't sink much time on the game?

I know for myself I don't play much because next month, again, all my progress is wiped so I'm waiting until there is more persistency between patches. For others, this varies from wanting more content to a more stable experience.

This is why this debate (how many playing the game) does not reflect the interest in the game or its popularity.

You'd be better off telling CIG they are not relevant, they are the ones making a big deal out of irrelevant numbers and using them for marketing purposes...

Not really no. You see YOU are making a big deal out of the numbers for some unknown reason as you seem to care nothing for the game. CIG is using the numbers to provide people that DO care about the game a bit of irrelevant information.

While I do applaud your math, your numbers are still inaccurate as you only pulled from one source and I know I bought SC and play it through a stand-alone launcher. Not that one player is going to change your math drastically in this made-up numbers mud-slinging contest, but I am sure I am not alone in that, even you admit that your numbers are not accurate.

So what you are saying is essentially you come here to waste your time arguing about a game you don't care about, with inaccurate numbers you try to pawn off as facts and defend this as if it made any difference at all...to what ends?

I am no huge fan of this game, but I bought and intend to play it assuming I am still alive when it finally releases. But as @MaxBacon said, this is an absolutely pointless discussion made even more so by the obvious fact all you want to do is sling mud even though I would bet you have never even logged into the game.

rpmcmurphy

MaxBacon said:

They are doing what any game company has interest in doing as far as promoting their game goes, I don't see the problem?

So it's ok for a company to dress up numbers for marketing purposes because that's what they all do but if somebody disects those numbers to get through the marketing spin they are now irrevelant and they should feel bad....

MaxBacon said:

Anyway, any logical and informed person overall knows the reasons (frequent wipes, waiting for more content / stability) for the in-game activity currently and knows how pointless it is trying to hook that into the player interest or popularity of the game.

Max you're building a strawman... the reasons for low play times are irrelevant. CIG are advertising these numbers as if they are huge deal, "1064 years (60 longer than the Roman Empire)" being a prime example.

Cutting through the marketing crap is useful regardless of the game or advert or whatever.

sgel

MaxBacon said:

Anyway, any logical and informed person overall knows the reasons (frequent wipes, waiting for more content / stability) for the in-game activity currently and knows how pointless it is trying to hook that into the player interest or popularity of the game.

Yeah sure.. "any logical and informed person"... apart from the part where you guys like to chant about the bazilions of people playing the game and how amazingly popular it is.

I LOVE how the company you've spent years defending is the one shutting you up.

Even Babz seems to have had an aneurysm and has gone back to bashing Elite

sgel

I'm sure that the gameplay being mind-numbingly boring and devoid of any innovative ideas has nothing to do with the fact that only a very small fraction of it's millions of backers actually bother to play the game.

Remember... it already has more content than other AAA games... right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWq8ynUq7wM

Babuinix

rpmcmurphy said:

Babuinix said:

How ironic acusing me of using selective numbers when it's exactly what you're doing here. Even worse, you're making up numbers on the go to try to make up some kind of conclusion lol

Go on...

Taking numbers provided by CIG and simply dividing them over the time period is not making anything up. Perhaps you find that complicated and that is why you think it's fake but it really is basic maths.

All it is doing is adding a relatable persepective to things. 995 million minutes means nothing but divide it into something relatable and it is useful. Only a fanboi would be upset by the truth...

Babuinix said:

How desperate ...

And how is it selective sharing Twitch stats that measure, daily, weekly and anually activity?

Because we know that you take Twitch stats from just after a patch release which is when viewer counts are at their highest and you compare them to games which are in their mid-patch slump. It is the textbook example of selectiveness.

How desperate indeed...

Many numbers in your math are "supositions" and not based on concrete facts . That's why it's fudged.

And no updates have nothing to do with it when Twitch stats that record daily, weekly, monthly, yearly data and that's exactly what I post.

That updates excuse is moot. Elite also had an update recently and it's twitch numbers remained the same.

Just check any of the twitch stat sites:

https://sullygnome.com 
https://twitchtracker.com
https://twitchstats.net

Go ahead, tell me what numbers have I "selected" 

MaxBacon

My point has been made.

I actually play the game, I know the reasons why I don't play it as much, that is while you can currently progress to even buy ships, and I have fun with the game, it's all wiping next month so I won't sink serious time.

Now If you prefer to go into petty and pointless arguing over game activity numbers as is vs your opinion of it that's up to you. I'm going back to play some games, this type of discussion is meh

rpmcmurphy

Hatefull said:

Not really no. You see YOU are making a big deal out of the numbers for some unknown reason as you seem to care nothing for the game. CIG is using the numbers to provide people that DO care about the game a bit of irrelevant information.

You're reading far too much into this. Posting a thread and breaking down 1 number is not making a big deal at all.

CIG are not providing the numbers for those who care (unless you mean for shills so they can brag)? They are posting it as a marketing infographic to make their game appear more successful to impress potential backers.

Hatefull said:

While I do applaud your math, your numbers are still inaccurate as you only pulled from one source and I know I bought SC and play it through a stand-alone launcher. Not that one player is going to change your math drastically in this made-up numbers mud-slinging contest, but I am sure I am not alone in that, even you admit that your numbers are not accurate.

I don't even know what this means. There is only one source and there is only one way to play Star Citizen and that is through CIG's launcher.

Hatefull said:

So what you are saying is essentially you come here to waste your time arguing about a game you don't care about, with inaccurate numbers you try to pawn off as facts and defend this as if it made any difference at all...to what ends?

I am no huge fan of this game, but I bought and intend to play it assuming I am still alive when it finally releases. But as @MaxBacon said, this is an absolutely pointless discussion made even more so by the obvious fact all you want to do is sling mud even though I would bet you have never even logged into the game.

And here we go...

Save the attempts at shaming or trying to make this personal mate, I really don't care about your opinion of me or your assumptions as to why I call out bullshit marketing numbers.

If you and every other fanboi find these threads so useless and irrelevant you can probably guess exactly what you need to do, it only requires 2 words...

sgel

MaxBacon said:

My point has been made.

I actually play the game, I know the reasons why I don't play it as much, that is while you can currently progress to even buy ships, and I have fun with the game, it's all wiping next month so I won't sink serious time.

Now If you prefer to go into petty and pointless arguing over game activity numbers as is vs your opinion of it that's up to you. I'm going back to play some games, this type of discussion is meh

So don't join the discussion then.
The lesson here is: don't use numbers when you think it suits you then get shut up by the same company you're defending.
It's fine if you enjoy whatever gameplay there is, just don't pretend it's more popular than it is.

rpmcmurphy

Babuinix said:

Many numbers in your math are "supositions" and not based on concrete facts . That's why it's fudged.

Prove it then, show where the maths is wrong if you want to make that claim.

Here's my maths in case you find this too difficult.

432,000 minutes in 10 months. 559,523,154 / 432,000 = 1295 = average concurrency.

1,500,000 backers playing 6.2 hours = 9.3 million hours. CIG's graphic showing hours played as 9,325,386 hours.