I have owned Stellaris for a long time. I think it was an Amazon giveaway or some such thing. All I can say about it is that it is the most annoying game in the library getting updates so often that I get tired of seeing it pop-up. It might be a good game.....might. However, for a free title, it has certainly worn out its welcome from me.

Well, I'm glad they are working to earn their keep, but based on the number of Steam reviews (close to 125k), I don't think it is a niche game at all. In fact, between the interest in the game and the number of dlcs they released, I gather they made quite a fortune with this game. This ain't a charity case.

I get your enthusiasm.

I was always more of a finish them and then on to the next one kind of guy (the sense of continuous discovery and evolution you are talking about here, I tend to experience by playing different games), but when I had more time, there were a few games that were close to that for me: X2, MOO 2 and Utopia come to mind... Factorio would definitely had been another if I had come out when I was younger and had fewer responsabilities. As it is, I played that game for an entire weekend (even though I really meant to play only Saturday morning) and then after that weekend, I put the game down and said to myself "I can't, I have a life to attend to" so now Factorio is one of those games I play when select people are available, but I won't play it alone.

Temperament plays a big part, but also, a lot of people just have phases in their life when they can afford to spend that much time and energy in leisure and phases where they can't. I am very much at a can't phase right now.

And finally, yes the Stellaris journey will complete at some point. There will be a last DLC (of that, I'm certain). Things don't last forever. Sometimes, you've gone pretty much as far as you can meaningfully go iterating on something (either you realise it or else your users will let you know) and the next logical step is something completely new (often taking lessons learned from past projects, sure, but also unconstrained by decisions made in those projects).

125K is not really a lot in the scale of things. It's obviously great for a small indie team but if you need to pay a whole development team with designers, graphic artists, software developers and so on continuously over several years money goes away really, really fast.
And as you see here and in similar threads: a lot of people really enjoy crapping on anything Paradox with a passion. And the base game has been very cheap or free several times in the past, so a lot of people can crap in the reviews for free or with minimal investment.

We are talking 4X and grand strategy after all. Compared to the likes of FIFA and shooters and whatever the cool kids are playing these days, they are extremely niche. According to a quick Google search, the entire Civilzation series with decades of name recognition sold less than 30 million copies. FIFA well above 300 million. Call of Duty above 500 million.

You can certainly do well in a niche, especially if you have some good ideas. Unlike those other markets, you can do reasonable well with a modest investment if you don't have to worry that some big player suddenly decides to throw a few 100 million investment into the ring to drown you out of the market.

You can certainly do well there, but you won't be printing money like those others.

I'm naturally skeptical of corporations, but maybe you're right that they are just passionate about working on games for a very long time, who knows. I'm not looking at their books. Could go either way, but I'm very skeptical.

I doubt anyone who is not incredibly wealthy would pay money to write a review, good or bad.

I can't talk for anybody else, but my criticism stems from being an earlier purchaser of the game (on GOG anyways, back when they had maybe a couple of species packs), thinking they'd do the standard dlc fare bigger releases tend to do... then realizing they did more than average, but ok (I was already in the wagon at that point) and finally, realizing that this might be even bigger than Crusader King 2 (which I've yet to buy even at 60% off).

I get what you are saying that for you, it is an incredible journey to be savored one dlc release at a time (you are at that stage of your life and that's fine), but for me, I don't see myself playing that game over and over for 300+ hours (I've gone through that with games like MOO 2 already when I was younger). Doesn't mean I won't enjoy it. Just means that I'm busy and life is short and while I'm sure the 101rst hour playing the game would bring me something new and differnet, it wouldn't be as new or different for my brain as adapting to an entirely different game.

So, all I'm saying is that the next big release from Paradox, I certainly won't say the game is not for me. I'll say that this is a game I'll play a couple of times (maybe a good 50-60 hours given the scope of the game after they've added all the dlcs, let's still enjoy it) when I have the time and I'll play that game in 10-15 years, maybe, when I can get all the dlcs at 65%+ off. Savvy :)?

An immediate difference I see in what you're saying here is that every game in the Civilization series is quite different from every other. A screenshot from one is instantly identifiable as to which entry in the series it came from. For the most part, you cannot say the same about the other series you mention. One reason is that those series are often built on the bones of their predecessors, to the extent that some reviews have even told players there's not enough new stuff in a new version to bother purchasing unless you're a die-hard fan of the series. I can't recall ever seeing a review of a Civ game that said something similar, because each one is a major re-imagining of what came before.

In other words, games like the Civilization series require a lot more originality of thought and ideas to create new versions when compared to series like FIFA and CoD, which pump out new, slightly-different versions year after year.

Also, I'm not sure where exactly your Google search led you, but it seems to have given you mixed results. My own search confirmed your numbers for FIFA and Call of Duty, but according to what I found your data for the Civilization series is less than half of the real number, which is between 70 and 75 million copies across the entire series. No, that still doesn't compare to CoD's totals, but it's not quite as niche as you're making it seem. Indeed, Civilization ranks ABOVE such well-known franchises as The Elder Scrolls, Diablo, and Fallout, all of which I would have considered less niche than Civilization is.

Hell, the sources I looked at make series like Zelda seem niche compared to CoD, at 170ish million sales. I would be willing to speculate that the Zelda series has had more of an impact on gaming than CoD ever will, even with 330 million fewer sales.

TLDR: I don't think I buy the idea that a game is "niche" just because it can't match the sales of the likes of CoD, FIFA, or some of the other big players in the industry that are known for mass-marketing very similar games. I don't think any franchise that sells tens of millions of copies fits well into the definition of "niche" for that matter.