Steam hits 8.5 million concurrent online users

[Shadow-Phoenix]

It's not the Escapist without someone (with their own bias) posting PC gaming news and somehow always including consoles into the mix.

Seriously it's good news to see the numbers and all but I'll always roll my eyes whenever I see someone deliberately trying to provoke others into a pointless argument of PC vs consoles, just bloody game on what you want and be happy with it, gaming is supposed to be about the games, not the systems.

Makes me glad I'm a multi platform gamer.

 

[Vigormortis]

Hopefully, this will make more Japanese games come to Steam.

Given the recent influx of Japanese games from Capcom, Sega, Konami, and several others, I'd be shocked to NOT see many more titles over the next year.

Plus, with recent efforts to port arcade games to the PC, we may see even more Japanese games from smaller, more niche developers and publishers.

valve's iron-tight grasp on the PC market grows stronger. Hurray for monopolies!
Fuck the freedom of choice, nobody wants that shit anyways.

Ugh. Can we all at least learn what the actual definition of 'monopoly' is before we start throwing the word around on a whim?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

I mean, really. In a world where Origin, Uplay, GoG, GMG, Impulse, D2D, and dozens to hundreds of other store-fronts and digital distribution platforms exist on the PC, OSX, and Linux environments, what Steam has is anything but a fucking monopoly.

Hate on the platform all you want. I don't care. I just can't stand hyperbolic misuse of terms.

That kind of term abuse is what lead to this nonsense:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/literally

Err Origin has 50 million accounts and has hit 4 million concurrent users. Its not a monopolie

Precisely.

No, people on this site just go on about how a pc is the only way to play games and consoles are terrible.

Don't get me wrong, I game on my pc and consoles. I like them all. Sue me.

Egh, I dunno. I think one's far more likely to see a poster complaining about PC gamers complaining about consoles. For every legitimate post I've seen wherein the poster made a "PC gaming master race!" comment I've seen dozens of posts from people saying all they ever see is PC gamers trash talking on this forum.

Maybe it's two-way confirmation bias. Who knows?

 

[Rozalia1]

I don't find it odd at all. Each console generation has provided somewhere in the realm of <=5 games that I think "I wouldn't mind playing that". As in, "I wouldn't mind playing that at regular prices". Throw in a $200-400 console purchase, and the game is effectively priced outside of my interest. I imagine many other people are the same. I did end up playing The Last of Us when I got a PS3 for free, but I found it ultimately a bit on the disappointing side. Journey, while I was curious, I couldn't be assed to go and get, and that about summed it up for PS3 exclusives.

I *did* buy an XBOX 360 years back so I could play NHL Hockey, as EA does not see fit to provide a PC version of that franchise, a decision that was bolstered by a desire to try Guitar Hero and an affection for the Katamari Damacy series. Even then, it required a trade-in of an old PS2 console, my PSP, and a lot of old games to bring the price down to something I felt was reasonable for the investment.

As I said I was talking of others where their lists of wants is beyond a handful. Its ultimately all anecdotal in regards to that so I'm not dwelling on that point further.

Nope. I don't get involved in platform wars, save fallaciously. This discussion is about as deep into the issue as I've ever gotten. I do consider exclusives to be an antiquated and distasteful method of driving hardware sales, however.

You will if you make barbs that fit the bill. How can the best method be antiquated? Besides as I always have to point out third party exclusives do exist you know, and they aren't all paid like people the common conception of it all is.

You know what would be a more coherent way to say this? "I own multiple platforms, and do not feel a singular loyalty towards any one of them". All this babbling about warriors and armor seriously obfuscates your ability to make a cogent argument. I appreciate that you find the metaphor amusing, but it shouldn't take a sequence of long, rambling posts for someone to finally comprehend what it is you're trying to communicate.

I actually took to using "warriors" as my other efforts were considered harder to understand... I thought as consoles warriors was a think at one point that perhaps the connection would often be made... and yes I very much like metaphors.

I hate to say it, but you still come off as EXTREMELY defensive. People who are NOT defensive do not usually write lengthy screeds about the quality of their armor and their immunity to insult. The fact that you apparently have nothing to even feel defensive about makes this behavior all the more confounding. You also seem singularly incensed by PC/Console comparisons, which makes me believe you're probably having these arguments all over the place and are lugging around a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

Writing loads is the norm for me, not alone in that. I like to organise/picture things in other terms with wrestling being the most confounding to most. I can come off confrontational many times, but I do try to avoid it.
I've been known to argue on that subject but it has been a long time since I've had something spanning half a dozen pages. I'm not incensed as I'm quite confident in being immune to any possible barbs... what I don't like is being jumped by PC vs Console posts.
I like to talk about other things but it seems someone is always looking to get me really going on that.

I didn't "attempt to paint you" as anything. You painted yourself as a "platform wars warrior" by wading into this thread swinging. You also do nothing to discourage interpretations of you as a "warrior" when you half a dozen loquacious paragraphs about the quality of your armor. If you don't want to fight about platforms, stop fighting about platforms.

No that doesn't work. If I have no loyalty to a platform by virtue of owning all those sweet platforms I cannot be a warrior.
I'm not "fighting" about platforms, I'm "fighting" those "fighting" about platforms as I find it distasteful. However I don't go searching for it if that is what you're implying, these things find me.

A) Not a PC only gamer, just primarily a PC gamer. My first gaming platform was an Intellivision, followed by a Commodore 64. I've played on everything from Amigas to Nintendos to mobile devices.
B) Think exclusives in general are bad if the only reason for those exclusives is to drive hardware sales
C) Have no problem with "exclusives" if the reason for exclusion is that the platforms in question can't handle the software, IE Star Citizen
D) Would have absolutely no issue with lower requirement PC games getting ported to consoles...in fact I applaud it, because unnecessary exclusives are idiotic

Make sense? Yes? No? Need more clarification?

Need more clarification than that, playing the Fairchild many moons ago doesn't exactly say much. Mobile with all due respect never really factors in these things... and as I can already tell what is coming no that isn't an invitation to tell me about glorious mobile gaming and how it will replace handhelds/consoles/PC. I've heard it from that guy who used to do the rounds here enough times.

Ignoring the exclusives that are simply exclusives... common.

Common excuse.

Spoiler: some examples

- Prove you can put anything on anything pretty much... and no the difference between top PCs and next gen isn't as vast as the game featured in the image and its original.

Minecraft wouldn't be possible on console... when it came... well its a crippled version... result? Success.

Additionally you could take the ROTK games which were all on PS2 in addition to the PC even though a game like that would normally be PC only... I played the PS2 version of 8 and it seemed to play fine. Later versions I played on PC as you know... Europe. From what I can see playing it on console is likely more work due to controller to mouse differences... however it works... they always seem to put a console version out no problem.

Your stance is common, not saying its rare (which should be clear)... but as ever with that I don't see it as strong. You want a game on everything than fine just dandy, but make these exceptions with an excuse that is easy to defeat with a couple of examples and... well its quite obvious gaping holes.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

That is why when some developers PR bullshit modding out the window with "Herp Derp Modders cant understandz ze engine" I get quite annoyed.

I get a laugh thinking of all the bedroom coders who've just taken the statement as a challenge.

So which annoyed you more, iD's "our megatextures are just too mega" or DICE's "the production pipeline is too expensive and high tech for modders"?

 

[NPC009]

The PCs biggest strength IMO is modding. Not power, not user friendliness, not cheapness even. It is modding.
That is why when some developers PR bullshit modding out the window with "Herp Derp Modders cant understandz ze engine" I get quite annoyed. Especially if what they have done... is not that technologically impressive.

But modding is only relevant to communities surrounding certain games and perhaps hardcore gamers as a whole, isn't it? The product as published seems to be good enough for most people.

 

[Roxor]

8.5 million concurrent users, huh? Well, that's nice for you, Valve. Now how about you ban the use of third-party accounts and DRM for games sold on Steam so we have fewer headaches, hmm?

 

[Tayh]

Ugh. Can we all at least learn what the actual definition of 'monopoly' is before we start throwing the word around on a whim?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/monopoly

I mean, really. In a world where Origin, Uplay, GoG, GMG, Impulse, D2D, and dozens to hundreds of other store-fronts and digital distribution platforms exist on the PC, OSX, and Linux environments, what Steam has is anything but a fucking monopoly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_using_Steam_authentication
How about you read the definition, look at this list, and then tell us what it is called when steam is the sole distributer and controller of those games.
Specifically, these definitions seem to fit:

: complete ownership or control of something
: exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action
: exclusive possession or control
: a commodity controlled by one party

steam-key resellers can't be considered viable "competition", which leaves only Origin and GOG - and uPlay to a degree, must admit I've no personal experience with it.
The only exclusive games you can find on Origin are the ones made or owned by EA - which I can't fault them for, and likewise for valve and their own games being steam-exclusives.
GOG is decidedly anti-drm, which is in direct contradiction to valve's policy, which means there's little to no crossover in the games they carry.
Neither Origin or GOG carry games that require steamwork drm, which still leaves no alternative way to legally acquire those games if you don't want to support and install steam.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Neither Origin or GOG carry games that require steamwork drm, which still leaves no alternative way to legally acquire those games if you don't want to support and install steam.

short of its own first party titles, steam doesn't have any type of ownership or say on 99% of games on steam, most publishers just choose to use steam as it is still drm that covers their ass "enough" while also hitting the largest userbase possible short of not having drm, publishers/devs just choose not to put it on other sites (or their own) because they'd have to spend money to rework the game and/or have to spend money to host it themselves.

now if steam was bullying or "persuading" devs/pubs to release their games only on steam, then yeah, you'd absolutely have a point, but that isn't the case.


steam most definitely has a huge chunk of the pc market pie, but a monopoly? they do not.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

That is why when some developers PR bullshit modding out the window with "Herp Derp Modders cant understandz ze engine" I get quite annoyed.

I get a laugh thinking of all the bedroom coders who've just taken the statement as a challenge.

So which annoyed you more, iD's "our megatextures are just too mega" or DICE's "the production pipeline is too expensive and high tech for modders"?

while this is true, and I get a laugh out of it myself, we've hit very little (next to nothing) in terms of mods for DA:I, which compared to origins is a really sad statement in itself. That game could heavily use some mods to trim the fat and deepen the gameplay (point allocation, MAYBE fix that abominable tactical camera, fix party control/command queue).

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Platform wars. Its actually gaming related so...

okay that makes more sense now, would it have hurt to simply say "console vs pc" or something of the sort? that's much more usual when someone is giving context to what they are talking about.

The "laugh" is you just stated something plainly untrue. Handheld versions of games exist, different versions of games across generations exist, and even games that were completely from the ground built up to get on another platform exist.
You talk as its some sort of unbelievable incident... but history proves you wrong.

As for the rest. We're not talking watered down, we're talking non existence... bit different. I'll take an exclusive game over a non existent game thank you very much.

I'm not purposefully trying to backtrack here, and I apologize, but I didn't mean literally all games and that it doesn't happen, closer to what I meant was it is NOT the norm for publishers to release games (within a similar time frame) across multiple platforms that aren't the same game, just ported and ran like shit. Handheld versions of games do exist, and different versions do exist across generations, but they are typically released years later (such as handhelds becoming more powerful to be able to handle the game) or cross generation to hopefully catch the same fanbase plus more of the game with an HD version (it's been proven to be a cheap and effective way to make money, sell an HD version of a game and it'll grab from that same crowd plus more. look at the master chief collection or the final fantasy HD versions.)

the instance I listed with D3 was rare, there are very few games that were built for one platform/strength and then rebuilt to accompany another (as mentioned, in a set time frame, not years later for some HD version.).

Now I'm a bit confused on that last part..what would be non-existent? different platforms? different companies? different games? which game would be non-existent that wouldn't be an exclusive otherwise?

 

[Vigormortis]

snip

No. You're purposefully ignoring or trying to misinterpret what actually constitutes a monopoly.

Is Microsoft a monopoly for having a wealth of titles that can only be obtained and played on the Xbox? Is Nintendo a monopoly for having titles that can only be played on it's systems? Is Sony a monopoly for similar reasons? Is EA?

Unless you want to argue against the existence of games like Minecraft, World of Tanks, Titanfall, Battlefield 4, Torchlight 2, Terraria, Diablo 3, World of Warcraft, and thousands of others that don't use or don't require Steam to purchase and play, then you're argument is invalid.

Hell, here's a list of games on Steam that don't require Steam or any other form of DRM to run - http://steam.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games

You're just demonstrably wrong.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Fallacious arguments like "Steam is a monopoly!" are the very thing that undermines any meaningful discussions and criticisms of or against Steam. There are plenty of things to criticize Steam over, many of which are in desperate need of addressing (I'm looking at you steamwebhelper.exe >:[ ), but if everyone keeps screaming about "MONOPOLY! MONOPOLY!" the discussion never gets anywhere.

Hyperbole serves no one. And you're being as hyperbolic as they come.

 

[NPC009]

Modding is always relevant. Some of people's favourite games like Team Fortress, Counter Strike, Portal, Left 4 Dead, Killing Floor, Red Orchestra, Day of Defeat and others had their life start as a mod by a community.
Other games like STALKER Call of Pripyat and Company of Heroes 2 were heavily influenced by popular mods at the time.

And my friend, there are mods that rival official DLCs and expansion packs put out right now for many games. Some of the things I have seen are downright amazing works of passion.
Sometimes some mods are VERY different to the core game they were based on. Some of them may be of different genres even. Effectively, free unique content.

"If you only knew where I have been and what I have seen!"

Yeah, like I said, relevant to communities surrounding certain games. The games I play (mostly adventure games, small and quirky indie stuff) don't attract a modding crowd. Or am I doing PC gaming wrong by not really playing many of the PC masterrace's darlings?

Look, I'm not saying modding is useless, it absolutely isn't, but don't overrate it. Especially not in this day and age when people have the tools to create and publish their own semi-professional games.

 

[Bat Vader]

snip

No. You're purposefully ignoring or trying to misinterpret what actually constitutes a monopoly.

Is Microsoft a monopoly for having a wealth of titles that can only be obtained and played on the Xbox? Is Nintendo a monopoly for having titles that can only be played on it's systems? Is Sony a monopoly for similar reasons? Is EA?

Unless you want to argue against the existence of games like Minecraft, World of Tanks, Titanfall, Battlefield 4, Torchlight 2, Terraria, Diablo 3, World of Warcraft, and thousands of others that don't use or don't require Steam to purchase and play, then you're argument is invalid.

Hell, here's a list of games on Steam that don't require Steam or any other form of DRM to run - http://steam.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_DRM-free_games

You're just demonstrably wrong.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Fallacious arguments like "Steam is a monopoly!" are the very thing that undermines any meaningful discussions and criticisms of or against Steam. There are plenty of things to criticize Steam over, many of which are in desperate need of addressing (I'm looking at you steamwebhelper.exe >:[ ), but if everyone keeps screaming about "MONOPOLY! MONOPOLY!" the discussion never gets anywhere.

Hyperbole serves no one. And you're being as hyperbolic as they come.

One thing I hate about Steam, Origin, and U-Play is how most disc based PC games I buy these days are tied to their services. I feel that if I buy a disc based PC game I should not have it tied to a digital distribution platform.

 

[Bat Vader]

To all you idiots who think consoles are worthless and PC gaming is the only way. Your not really gamers just overly entitled jackasses.


The true master race are those who love games regardless of platform and want to fully enjoy the artform.

OT: I got a ton of good games this year from steam sale that I been wanting. And my B day coming up and me getting a Wii U for myself I'm going to be super busy with games in coming months with all the exclusives coming out.

That's kinda rude isn't it. What about console gamers who think that PC gaming is worthless. Surely everything you said should apply to them too.

 

[Rozalia1]

We were already through the old "It can be ported to everythingz!" thing, were we not?
There is a limit, where a game turns into something else. Not a port, a different game. And we are talking about porting, so its not what you want.
Also, please, stop the wrestling lingo! Normal English. You are a native, are you not? I've had less problems with A2 level speakers then you.

We'll see what the response is shall we.
Used none in this thread from what I remember.

okay that makes more sense now, would it have hurt to simply say "console vs pc" or something of the sort? that's much more usual when someone is giving context to what they are talking about.

A bit more unwieldy to string all that out. Besides identification really isn't needed here, no doubt everyone knows who the guys referred to belong to. Many are proud to be warriors as their platform is just so grand after all...

I'm not purposefully trying to backtrack here, and I apologize, but I didn't mean literally all games and that it doesn't happen, closer to what I meant was it is NOT the norm for publishers to release games (within a similar time frame) across multiple platforms that aren't the same game, just ported and ran like shit. Handheld versions of games do exist, and different versions do exist across generations, but they are typically released years later (such as handhelds becoming more powerful to be able to handle the game) or cross generation to hopefully catch the same fanbase plus more of the game with an HD version (it's been proven to be a cheap and effective way to make money, sell an HD version of a game and it'll grab from that same crowd plus more. look at the master chief collection or the final fantasy HD versions.)

the instance I listed with D3 was rare, there are very few games that were built for one platform/strength and then rebuilt to accompany another (as mentioned, in a set time frame, not years later for some HD version.).

Now I'm a bit confused on that last part..what would be non-existent? different platforms? different companies? different games? which game would be non-existent that wouldn't be an exclusive otherwise?

Well actually currently the norm is to make sure you have a PS360 version ready to go with your next gen/PC version, though they sometimes release the month after (PC included) to drive up sales of the next gen. Though I see what you mean and I'll not push it.

That's kinda rude isn't it. What about console gamers who think that PC gaming is worthless. Surely everything you said should apply to them too.

It isn't hard to surmise friend, though I have had that line thrown at me so I'll answer. We don't hate PC, we game on PCs... we hate platform wars as by owning all that we do we know them to be pointless (well people should just know to begin with but lets be nice)... now which one camp of warriors do you see on this site, while the others are pretty much non-existent? Its the Xbox guys right?

 

[Bat Vader]

We were already through the old "It can be ported to everythingz!" thing, were we not?
There is a limit, where a game turns into something else. Not a port, a different game. And we are talking about porting, so its not what you want.
Also, please, stop the wrestling lingo! Normal English. You are a native, are you not? I've had less problems with A2 level speakers then you.

We'll see what the response is shall we.
Used none in this thread from what I remember.

okay that makes more sense now, would it have hurt to simply say "console vs pc" or something of the sort? that's much more usual when someone is giving context to what they are talking about.

A bit more unwieldy to string all that out. Besides identification really isn't needed here, no doubt everyone knows who the guys referred to belong to. Many are proud to be warriors as their platform is just so grand after all...

I'm not purposefully trying to backtrack here, and I apologize, but I didn't mean literally all games and that it doesn't happen, closer to what I meant was it is NOT the norm for publishers to release games (within a similar time frame) across multiple platforms that aren't the same game, just ported and ran like shit. Handheld versions of games do exist, and different versions do exist across generations, but they are typically released years later (such as handhelds becoming more powerful to be able to handle the game) or cross generation to hopefully catch the same fanbase plus more of the game with an HD version (it's been proven to be a cheap and effective way to make money, sell an HD version of a game and it'll grab from that same crowd plus more. look at the master chief collection or the final fantasy HD versions.)

the instance I listed with D3 was rare, there are very few games that were built for one platform/strength and then rebuilt to accompany another (as mentioned, in a set time frame, not years later for some HD version.).

Now I'm a bit confused on that last part..what would be non-existent? different platforms? different companies? different games? which game would be non-existent that wouldn't be an exclusive otherwise?

Well actually currently the norm is to make sure you have a PS360 version ready to go with your next gen/PC version, though they sometimes release the month after (PC included) to drive up sales of the next gen. Though I see what you mean and I'll not push it.

That's kinda rude isn't it. What about console gamers who think that PC gaming is worthless. Surely everything you said should apply to them too.

It isn't hard to surmise friend, though I have had that line thrown at me so I'll answer. We don't hate PC, we game on PCs... we hate platform wars as by owning all that we do we know them to be pointless (well people should just know to begin with but lets be nice)... now which one camp of warriors do you see on this site, while the others are pretty much non-existent? Its the Xbox guys right?

I'm talking about console elitists. They are the same as PC elitists but the other way around. I don't hate on any. I have a great PC gaming rig, PS4, X-Box One, PS3, PS2, X-Box 360, PSX, and an X-Box Original.

 

[Rozalia1]

I'm talking about console elitists. They are the same as PC elitists but the other way around. I don't hate on any. I have a great PC gaming rig, PS4, X-Box One, PS3, PS2, X-Box 360, PSX, and an X-Box Original.

So you think the guy should have added in a line about a group (Console elitists as you put) that isn't even represented on this site? If someone is against platform wars and is ragging on PC guys due to them you know, being the only guys who indulge themselves in that on here... what you want is implied and doesn't need to be said.

Saying one group is wrong/bad doesn't mean you find all the rest right/good. That is platform wars thinking my friend.

 

[Bat Vader]

I'm talking about console elitists. They are the same as PC elitists but the other way around. I don't hate on any. I have a great PC gaming rig, PS4, X-Box One, PS3, PS2, X-Box 360, PSX, and an X-Box Original.

So you think the guy should have added in a line about a group (Console elitists as you put) that isn't even represented on this site? If someone is against platform wars and is ragging on PC guys due to them you know, being the only guys who indulge themselves in that on here... what you want is implied and doesn't need to be said.

Saying one group is wrong/bad doesn't mean you find all the rest right/good. That is platform wars thinking my friend.

I'm not talking about just on here. I'm talking about console elitists in general on every gaming website. PC elitists and Console elitists are both equally wrong in their viewpoints and both need to equally wake-up and realize their platforms aren't superior or inferior to any others.

People can't just fucking play games anymore instead people have to argue and complain about which platform they like more and feel offended when their purchasing decisions are attacked. I'm sick of it. It's all a bunch of senseless fighting and it needs to stop.