
Wolvesville is a multiplayer game for up to 16 players. Each game has different teams such as villagers or werewolves all fighting to be the last team standing. Use special abilities to uncover the roles of other players and convince your fellow players to work with you.
Revenue comes from in-game items and microtransactions, which our price-based model doesn't estimate. The player count below is how many people own it, not what they spent.
Prices
The United States storefront in every case, so this compares stores and not countries.
About
Genres
Stats
Languages: English, French, Italian, German, Spanish - Spain, Arabic, Danish, Dutch, Finnish, Greek, Hungarian, Japanese +12 more
Sums Steam only; App Store publishes no volume signal, so the true total is higher by an unknown amount.
| Store | Price | Audience | Score | Chart | Est. revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
SteamYou are here | Free | 0reviews | 79% | — | $0 |
| Free | 6.8Kratings | 91% | — | not modelled |
Engagement
Reviews
Themes across 75 recent reviews and how positive each mention is. A keyword signal, not full sentiment analysis.
Reviews
people are baldphobic
After being punished for making a mistake in a social deduction game, I have completely lost confidence in this game’s developers and their understanding of the genre. A social deduction game is built on uncertainty. Players are expected to lie, deceive, manipulate, accuse innocent people, and make difficult decisions with incomplete information. Mistakes are not an exception—they are a fundamental part of the experience. Yet this game punishes players for doing exactly what the genre requires them to do. I was banned for shooting the wrong villager. Think about how absurd that sounds. The entire purpose of the role is to make a judgment call without knowing the truth. If every decision had to be correct, there would be no deduction, no tension, and no gameplay. This punishment system demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of basic game design principles. It actively discourages participation in the very mechanics the game is built around. At this point, I can no longer recommend this game to anyone. I will be sharing my experience and leaving negative reviews on every platform where this game is available, including Steam, the App Store, Google Play, and any other review platform that allows users to provide feedback. Not because I lost a match. Not because I made a mistake. But because the developers chose to punish players for engaging with the core gameplay loop exactly as intended. There are countless social deduction games on the market that understand a simple fact: players are human, and humans make mistakes. This game apparently expects players to be omniscient. Until the developers address this fundamentally flawed punishment system, I cannot in good faith recommend this game to anyone. A game that punishes players for being deceived in a game about deception is not merely frustrating. It is a failure of design.
Media

Related
Related
Price dynamics, follower growth, revenue and sales trajectories with interactive tooltips
This and every other Pro feature is free until October 20, 2026. A free account is all it takes.
Matched by title — a reused name can pair the wrong games. * is a critic aggregate. Prices and positions are each store's United States storefront; Epic charts worldwide. Audience and Score too, except Steam's, which is worldwide.
Hours played at review time, across 75 reviews with recorded playtime.
positive critical· bar length = how often the theme comes up
Congratulations to the developers for creating the first social deduction game where you’re apparently not allowed to be deceived. What a revolutionary concept. The entire genre is built around lying, manipulation, misinformation, false accusations, and imperfect information. Players are expected to make decisions without knowing the truth. Sometimes they’re right. Sometimes they’re wrong. But not in this game. Here, if you make a mistake, the game treats you like a criminal. Got tricked by a convincing liar? Banned. Misread a situation? Banned. Shot the wrong target in a game specifically designed to make you doubt everyone around you? Believe it or not, banned. It’s genuinely impressive how the developers managed to misunderstand the core concept of their own genre. Imagine if a poker game banned players for making bad reads. Imagine if a chess game banned players for blundering a queen. Imagine if a racing game banned players for crashing. That’s roughly the level of design logic we’re dealing with here. The punishment system doesn’t improve gameplay. It destroys it. Instead of encouraging deduction and decision-making, it teaches players to be terrified of making any move at all. Why take risks when a single mistake can get you punished? The funniest part is that other social deduction games figured this out years ago. They understand that mistakes create memorable moments. Wrong accusations create drama. Bad shots create tension. Failure is part of the experience. This game, however, seems to believe that every player should somehow possess supernatural knowledge and never make a wrong call. Maybe the developers should spend less time handing out bans and more time learning what genre they actually made. Getting fooled in a game about fooling people should not be a punishable offense. The fact that this needs to be explained is a review in itself.
Moderation is horrible, balance is horrible, boosting is literally allowed, progression is horrible (yes there's progression on a social deduction game) they added FOMO event roles just pack it up
adamın birini sırf kürt olduğu için astık dayanışma 10/10
moderation so good i got banned for confronting a pdf
i love this game seriously i played it on mobile since 2019 but the pc version is quite buggy, assets not loading in the thumbs up/ down questionmark indicators) and recently i got to play as ferryman and i was unable to even choose a player to ferry the whole game.
A decent idea for a social deduction game, but one that I personally didn't enjoy. The core gameplay is there: identify the werewolves, eliminate threats like arsonists or bombers, and figure out who is lying. The variety of roles can create interesting situations, but the reliance on written communication is also its biggest weakness. Playing with random people can make or break the experience. Some players are great, but others can make games frustrating through aggressive behaviour, poor decisions, or intentionally ruining the experience. Even honest mistakes can quickly lead to accusations of teaming, griefing, or cheating. The reporting system also feels more like a placebo than a genuine safeguarding tool. Problematic names, avatars, and behaviour seem to remain common, which makes it difficult to believe reports have much impact. The game appears to focus more on battle passes, cosmetics, and adding new roles rather than improving the community issues that affect the overall experience. ⭐ 4/10 - the biggest threat isn't the werewolves, it's the players.
Allah'a Peygambere Atatürk'e sülalenize annenize babanıza veya akrabalarınıza küfür yemek istiyorsanız oynayabilirsiniz tavsiye ederim
uzun zamandan sonra oyuna gireyim dedim ve hiçbir şey değişmemiş. abartısız en kötü kitleye sahip oyun olabilir. genelde 16 kişinin yarısı sırf trolüne oyundan çıkar. diğerleri de ayrı kafalarda takılır ve ben burada bunlarla ne yapıyorum diye düşünerek oyundan çıkarsın.
Selling now
See how fast this game is selling right now — estimated copies and revenue per day from recent review growth.
Active players
Estimated daily and monthly active players (DAU/MAU) modeled from peak concurrency.
Players by region
Where this game's players are, estimated from review languages.
Players also reviewed
The games this title's players most often review too — audience affinity.
Related
| Game | Estimated lifetime revenue | Reviews | Review score | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $18.8K | 108 | 94% | $5.99 | |
| $83 | 1 | 100% | $4.99 | |
| $0 | 71 | 69% | Free | |
| $0 | 83 | 94% | Free | |
| — | 667 | 67% | — | |
| $0 | 95 | 75% | Free |