Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated]

The Steam Game and Player Statistics page shows Valve's Steam service has set another new record for concurrent users, reporting the service broke the 8.5 million mark around noon PST yesterday, peaking at 8,500,222. Earlier this week we reported a new peak of 8,357,541, and yesterday the new high-water mark was 8,466,441. The two most played games they list remain Dota 2 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive. Update: The peak number they are reported is now 8,500,096. There's no word on how or why this would be revised. Update 2: The peak total they now report is 8,500,035. My advice as your broker is to sell if it drops below 8.5M.
View : : :
46 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older
46.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 5, 2015, 12:13
Quboid
 
46.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 5, 2015, 12:13
Jan 5, 2015, 12:13
 Quboid
 
If developers were in charge of big budget games, there would be more risks taken. When it works out we get creative, innovative classics like Star Citizen but when it fails, we get overly ambitious, unfocused train wreaks like Star Citizen.
Avatar 10439
45.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 5, 2015, 09:03
45.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 5, 2015, 09:03
Jan 5, 2015, 09:03
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 5, 2015, 00:43:
And if the devs were in charge, we'd have a lot better games than we do.

That didn't work out so great for Ion Storm and Daikatana. If the STALKER devs remained in charge the game never would have come out. Perhaps you should open your eyes to the numerous indie devs already out there.

Most good game developers aren't good business people.
Avatar 15920
44.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated]
Jan 5, 2015, 00:48
44.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated] Jan 5, 2015, 00:48
Jan 5, 2015, 00:48
 
Quboid wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 21:31:
Technology has already made numerous jobs obsolete yet employment rates have remained relatively steady. Not even third world countries employ lamplighters for example, but the person who used to go around town and light street lights every evening might now sell mobile phone cases at a shopping mall. Individually it's not a big change but the economy is that bit bigger as a result of electric street lights.

The money saved by companies using ever more automated systems gets reinvested. When one company uses this money on Research and Development, others have to to stay competitive - and while I think too much money goes into too few pockets, those who funnel too much into the yacht industry will get out-innovated and find that they are obsolete (at which point, they prolong their existence by suing the innovators).

The jobs will change but I don't think they will disappear.

Essentially quoting so called "economists" to the letter here... Thing is, the tertiary sector is the last bastion, once this gets automated, the current system, relying on wages, is fucked. And that's a good thing imho...

At first, "progress" was meant to free us from menial meaningless tasks and drudgery in order to usher in a new era of leisure time, art, creativity, culture and personal growth. That was the idea... but as long as we rely on wages and human workers, it will NEVER HAPPEN, just the hamster wheel of economy going on and on endlessly, senselessly, barely making any progress forward on a few fronts while taking huge steps backs on most fronts.

The endgame of technological unemployment is basic guaranteed income in a currency based economy, its unavoidable... Either that or massive depopulation, starvation and collapse will need to happen to keep the hamster wheel going.
43.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 5, 2015, 00:43
43.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 5, 2015, 00:43
Jan 5, 2015, 00:43
 
Jerykk wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 18:49:
Why is DLC evil? If it adds meaningful and worthwhile content to the game, is that bad? Are expansion packs bad too? I thought the DLC for Dishonored was great and worth every penny. If it hadn't been made because someone arbitrarily decided that post-launch content was evil, I would have missed out on a quality experience.

There is great DLC. I enjoyed Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep more than the BL2 main story. The artist's hand is still at work after all. But the way it's implemented is designed to extract maximum cash. Think about day one DLC. If you had it ready to go, why not include it? Or think about map packs: It cost $30M to make BLOPS2 ($60), but then it cost only a million or two to make a DLC ($15). The end result of the main game + 4 DLC is 20 maps. That's fewer maps than the base game of UT3 shipped with. And the reason they don't allow modding (either by making it difficult code-wise, or by attacking modders with their legal team) is to maintain the monopoly on the maps, and manipulate people's FOMO (fear of missing out) into buying them. It also fractures the game community into haves and have-nots. Even the BL2 DLC, which I love, pisses me off. Had it been integrated into the main game, or included in a future game, it would have been better integrated. I'm never the correct level when I start them and it's either too easy or too difficult.

As for money, you are aware that developers have bills to pay? Money is how game development gets funded. Without money, your favorite games would not exist. No Planescape: Torment, no Fallout, no Elder Scrolls, no Dishonored, no Far Cry, no Half-Life, no Wasteland, no Divinity, etc. Are there developers willing to work solely for passion and expect nothing in return? Sure, but those aren't the developers making the games most people love.

Of course I realize that devs gotta eat, but that doesn't mean that the need for money doesn't color the way games are developed. And if the devs were in charge, we'd have a lot better games than we do. However, the suits are in charge, and require X% return on their investment. So games aren't designed purely as games, but usually as cash extraction machines. Thus, DLC. Thus, microtransactions. Thus, no modding. Thus, cease and desist letters. Thus, DRM and viewing all gamers as pirates. Thus, shoehorning in SP into a primarily MP game, and vice versa. Etc. Etc. So while money is necessary, it is evil. A necessary evil. In a society where devs didn't need to worry about eating or rent at a base level to build their game and weren't beholden to investors, you'd get much purer gameplay. That's the appeal of KS, for example. Look at what a pure gaming experience FTL was. No one was standing between the gamers and the devs, and the devs were beholden to the gamers, not some suit. And the DLC for that game, a massive overhaul with tons of new content, was free.

You mention the mod community and that's a good example of why money is important. Most ambitious mods never see the light of day. Game development is hard and when you're not getting paid, it's even harder to justify spending your time on it. Even if you persevere and eventually finish the project, it's never going to be as polished or as big as games that have funding. Modders are never going to make the next Skyrim or the next Arkham or the next Assassin's Creed. There's a reason why the Black Mesa guys are going to release a paid, standalone version of the mod. The funding will allow them to expand and improve the mod beyond what was viable without funding.

By the time I get around to talking about the mod community, I'm in Utopia, a future world (not in our lifetime) where armies of largely self-sustaining robots are providing food, power, housing, etc. for human beings. In that world, I absolutely think that Skyrim, Arkham, etc. would get made. If people don't have to work (although many of them still would) people, especially young people, would follow their dreams. Josh Parnell wouldn't have had to go to KS and get funding for LT, he could have just started working on it. And people with like interests would come together spontaneously to work on projects. In that world, game experiences are more pure, uncolored by the need to generate income for their producers.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
42.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated]
Jan 4, 2015, 21:31
Quboid
 
42.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated] Jan 4, 2015, 21:31
Jan 4, 2015, 21:31
 Quboid
 
Technology has already made numerous jobs obsolete yet employment rates have remained relatively steady. Not even third world countries employ lamplighters for example, but the person who used to go around town and light street lights every evening might now sell mobile phone cases at a shopping mall. Individually it's not a big change but the economy is that bit bigger as a result of electric street lights.

The money saved by companies using ever more automated systems gets reinvested. When one company uses this money on Research and Development, others have to to stay competitive - and while I think too much money goes into too few pockets, those who funnel too much into the yacht industry will get out-innovated and find that they are obsolete (at which point, they prolong their existence by suing the innovators).

The jobs will change but I don't think they will disappear.
Avatar 10439
41.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 4, 2015, 18:49
41.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 4, 2015, 18:49
Jan 4, 2015, 18:49
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 01:18:
Jerykk wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 22:38:
So to sum up:
- DLC is evil.
- Money is evil.
- Everything should be free (except for DLC which shouldn't exist).

Gotcha.

Honestly, it's all true.

DLC is evil. DLC is a necessary evil which allows companies to recoup the investment they made in the base game, and allow enough profit for the the development of future games.

Money is evil. In games it is. It has a nasty corrupting influence on the way games are developed. It changes gameplay, distribution, design, graphics, etc. etc. Is this even a question?

Everything should be free. Well...that's a bit Utopian, but I imagine a future society where an abundance of riches and technology provides base needs, and people only work that wish to exceed that. But for many, many people that base level would suffice if it allowed them to pursue non-material dreams. I imagine game-making to be one of the many arts that like-minded groups would spontaneously come together to produce, and these games would be much different than they are today. We already see evidence of this in the modding community where passionate people donate their time part time to develop mods like FAForever, Black Mesa, and many others. In a Utopian society people would be able to dedicate their entire lives to such pursuits, and the games would be pure; unfettered from the need to make the producers any money. This is the ideal.

Why is DLC evil? If it adds meaningful and worthwhile content to the game, is that bad? Are expansion packs bad too? I thought the DLC for Dishonored was great and worth every penny. If it hadn't been made because someone arbitrarily decided that post-launch content was evil, I would have missed out on a quality experience.

As for money, you are aware that developers have bills to pay? Money is how game development gets funded. Without money, your favorite games would not exist. No Planescape: Torment, no Fallout, no Elder Scrolls, no Dishonored, no Far Cry, no Half-Life, no Wasteland, no Divinity, etc. Are there developers willing to work solely for passion and expect nothing in return? Sure, but those aren't the developers making the games most people love.

You mention the mod community and that's a good example of why money is important. Most ambitious mods never see the light of day. Game development is hard and when you're not getting paid, it's even harder to justify spending your time on it. Even if you persevere and eventually finish the project, it's never going to be as polished or as big as games that have funding. Modders are never going to make the next Skyrim or the next Arkham or the next Assassin's Creed. There's a reason why the Black Mesa guys are going to release a paid, standalone version of the mod. The funding will allow them to expand and improve the mod beyond what was viable without funding.

This comment was edited on Jan 4, 2015, 18:59.
Avatar 20715
40.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated]
Jan 4, 2015, 18:32
40.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated] Jan 4, 2015, 18:32
Jan 4, 2015, 18:32
 
As for the no trade/currency based economic system. See "ressource based economy", you'll probably end up on Buckminister's Fuller, the Venus Project or The Zeitgeist Movement website. Check'em up on youtube instead, their arguments are devoid of fallacies, unlike the current arguments in favor of a currency/trade based economy.

And no it isn't socialism, it isn't welfare, it isn't communism, it isn't whatever'ism. All those economic ideologies have always been about managing a currency based economy and have only been tested under a currency overlord... Ofc they fail to work with the overarching system upon which they are dependent, they also inherit the flaws from the currency/trade system from which they are merely subordinate and fully dependent upon. Wherehas those more aligned with the overlord, like neolib/capitalism flourished, BUT also failed to work in regard with reality, that is, science, our current knowledge about reality and its physical laws.

Problem is right now, the neolib/capitalism ideologies are aligned with our "immediate" environment, the economic system, but not the "actual" overarching environment, upon which the economic system is dependent upon, that is "reality".

This comment was edited on Jan 4, 2015, 18:44.
39.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 4, 2015, 18:27
39.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 4, 2015, 18:27
Jan 4, 2015, 18:27
 
Creston wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 14:54:
panbient wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 07:59:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 01:18:
but I imagine a future society where an abundance of riches and technology provides base needs, and people only work that wish to exceed that. But for many, many people that base level would suffice if it allowed them to pursue non-material dreams.

So... the ultimate welfare state?

No joke, there has been a Dutch politician who actually said this. I think somewhere in the early 90s or so. Paraphrased: "Everyone has the right to a basic income (from the government.) People who want to have more than that basic income can choose to go to work and earn more, and get taxed."

Needless to say, even his own fellow members from their ultra-ultra-socialist party practically choked on that, because with such a system everyone would simply sit at home and collect their wellfare check, and (SURPRISE!) nobody would go to work, so nobody would get taxed, so there wouldn't be any money to pay everyone's wellfare from.

When that particular point was explained to him, the imbecile looked extremely confused, as if he was thinking "But...but... don't people love to go to work just to pay taxes???"


Actually, the people would still go to work, there was an experiment in the 80's in an english town in Canada with a guaranteed basic income. It went for a few years and the unemployement rate did not went up, it actually WENT DOWN. Also pretty much every other public health indicators were either on the rise for the positive ones, or in decline for the negative ones.

So much for the liberal/neoliberal bullshit.

Some PARTIAL info ( and probably biased, with the propaganda war going on in wikipedia, as usual, do your own damn research before spouting insane illogical babble, the kind of which I see regularly here, to fix this, see: http://www.triviumeducation.com/ for starters ) ( sorry can't find the link for the employement rate coverage ): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

This comment was edited on Jan 4, 2015, 18:46.
38.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated]
Jan 4, 2015, 17:30
38.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated] Jan 4, 2015, 17:30
Jan 4, 2015, 17:30
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 16:55:
It will result in a much more vibrant kind of business world, as people will pursue business interests about which they're passionate about instead of having to work some job they hate to feed themselves or pay their health insurance.

The ONLY way that would ever actually work is if human nature itself changed and we all stopped wanting more than we need. Otherwise there will still be people who will be jealous and greedy of another individual's achievements and accomplishments, regardless of material wealth. There will always be a rat race to keep up with the Jones' in one way or another.

That's the inherent flaw most idealistic people never want to see and can't just brush away with more idealistic hopes and dreams.
37.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated]
Jan 4, 2015, 16:55
37.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users [Updated] Jan 4, 2015, 16:55
Jan 4, 2015, 16:55
 
We're already moving towards a larger and larger welfare state as we get richer and richer. It's an inevitable march in that direction, regardless of our opinion of it. Look at what the government provides today vs. what it provided 200 years ago.

Once robots are producing the majority of the products we buy, and robots are maintaining those robots, there will be less and less need for people to work, people will need to be provided for. There will always be a need for human workers in some fields (such as nursing and product designers), so of course capitalism will continue to thrive. Just imagine it similar to today, but with an expanded welfare system that applies to all citizens, not just ones below a certain income threshold. It will result in a much more vibrant kind of business world, as people will pursue business interests about which they're passionate about instead of having to work some job they hate to feed themselves or pay their health insurance.

It's hard to see exactly how this would work, but as Horrorscope said, something will have to give eventually. It would most likely result in extending existing gov't programs, but initially not at a sustainable level, so everyone would still have to work part time at least.

All of this assumes that global warming or some other disaster won't completely throw society into a new dark age. Civilization is a pretty fragile construct after all.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
36.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 4, 2015, 14:54
36.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 4, 2015, 14:54
Jan 4, 2015, 14:54
 
panbient wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 07:59:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 01:18:
but I imagine a future society where an abundance of riches and technology provides base needs, and people only work that wish to exceed that. But for many, many people that base level would suffice if it allowed them to pursue non-material dreams.

So... the ultimate welfare state?

No joke, there has been a Dutch politician who actually said this. I think somewhere in the early 90s or so. Paraphrased: "Everyone has the right to a basic income (from the government.) People who want to have more than that basic income can choose to go to work and earn more, and get taxed."

Needless to say, even his own fellow members from their ultra-ultra-socialist party practically choked on that, because with such a system everyone would simply sit at home and collect their wellfare check, and (SURPRISE!) nobody would go to work, so nobody would get taxed, so there wouldn't be any money to pay everyone's wellfare from.

When that particular point was explained to him, the imbecile looked extremely confused, as if he was thinking "But...but... don't people love to go to work just to pay taxes???"

Avatar 15604
35.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 4, 2015, 13:32
35.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 4, 2015, 13:32
Jan 4, 2015, 13:32
 
Vio wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 11:59:
When robots and AI (eventually) create all products where would the people get the money to buy any of said products, and if it is free why would anyone make it?

Right that is the part even the pro's moving robotics forward can't even say. Do you believe in NWO Conspiracy? That is when the Purge is to happen. But aside from the fiction, no one knows, but they know owners want to save money, they want to be the one that gets the benefit, but when everyone is of like mind (See stock market/labor today) yes we shall see. Some people like Google's CEO thinks we'll just work less and still get as much or more, just better productivity.
Avatar 17232
34.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 4, 2015, 11:59
Vio
34.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 4, 2015, 11:59
Jan 4, 2015, 11:59
Vio
 
HorrorScope wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 11:02:
panbient wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 07:59:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 01:18:
but I imagine a future society where an abundance of riches and technology provides base needs, and people only work that wish to exceed that. But for many, many people that base level would suffice if it allowed them to pursue non-material dreams.

So... the ultimate welfare state?

Something will have to give when robotics take over a lot more tasks that people do today, plus additional tech advances. It doesn't take a lot to see that there would be a reduced need for humans in the workforce. What mentioned as a replacement "non-material dream", that does sound a bit too ideal, think 60's with even a more focused purpose, yeah we'll fuck that up. we're human. Not really sure how that is all going to play out, those in the most control of that future seem to be unsure as well.

Welfare is a negative word that we like to throw out to stir the pot, but if done for other reasons, it wouldn't have the same negative vibe it has today.

When robots and AI (eventually) create all products where would the people get the money to buy any of said products, and if it is free why would anyone make it?
33.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 4, 2015, 11:02
33.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 4, 2015, 11:02
Jan 4, 2015, 11:02
 
panbient wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 07:59:
jdreyer wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 01:18:
but I imagine a future society where an abundance of riches and technology provides base needs, and people only work that wish to exceed that. But for many, many people that base level would suffice if it allowed them to pursue non-material dreams.

So... the ultimate welfare state?

Something will have to give when robotics take over a lot more tasks that people do today, plus additional tech advances. It doesn't take a lot to see that there would be a reduced need for humans in the workforce. What mentioned as a replacement "non-material dream", that does sound a bit too ideal, think 60's with even a more focused purpose, yeah we'll fuck that up. we're human. Not really sure how that is all going to play out, those in the most control of that future seem to be unsure as well.

Welfare is a negative word that we like to throw out to stir the pot, but if done for other reasons, it wouldn't have the same negative vibe it has today.
Avatar 17232
32.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 4, 2015, 08:47
32.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 4, 2015, 08:47
Jan 4, 2015, 08:47
 
Creston wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 23:44:
Simon Says wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 19:07:
Creston wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 17:57:
CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 15:49:
Many people seem to vastly overestimate the number of units that Steam is moving.

Just because Steam has become a pretty big deal for most of us, doesn't mean it's a big deal for even close to the majority of gamers. It's this typical window syndrome where people believe their limited view is somehow representative of anything when in reality it isn't at all.

Yet Steam makes ~ 1.5 billion dollars in revenue each year, and is still growing double digits. I'm not sure what number that needs to turn into before people start being impressed?

I'll be impressed when numbers don't mean a thing and everyone has equal access to the same stuff without shitty DLC puke on every gamer's plate. And.... it won't probably ever happen again as long as we run our economy using obsolete currency/trade based economic system.

o_O

O...kay.

Guys, he's talking about trading hats. If only there was a marketplace for such a thing.....

Actually, he talking about region based locking and the different prices on games depending on where you live in the world and what currency you use. So what, a uniform currency?

This comment was edited on Jan 4, 2015, 09:04.
31.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 4, 2015, 07:59
31.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 4, 2015, 07:59
Jan 4, 2015, 07:59
 
jdreyer wrote on Jan 4, 2015, 01:18:
but I imagine a future society where an abundance of riches and technology provides base needs, and people only work that wish to exceed that. But for many, many people that base level would suffice if it allowed them to pursue non-material dreams.

So... the ultimate welfare state?
30.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 4, 2015, 01:18
30.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 4, 2015, 01:18
Jan 4, 2015, 01:18
 
Jerykk wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 22:38:
So to sum up:
- DLC is evil.
- Money is evil.
- Everything should be free (except for DLC which shouldn't exist).

Gotcha.

Honestly, it's all true.

DLC is evil. DLC is a necessary evil which allows companies to recoup the investment they made in the base game, and allow enough profit for the the development of future games.

Money is evil. In games it is. It has a nasty corrupting influence on the way games are developed. It changes gameplay, distribution, design, graphics, etc. etc. Is this even a question?

Everything should be free. Well...that's a bit Utopian, but I imagine a future society where an abundance of riches and technology provides base needs, and people only work that wish to exceed that. But for many, many people that base level would suffice if it allowed them to pursue non-material dreams. I imagine game-making to be one of the many arts that like-minded groups would spontaneously come together to produce, and these games would be much different than they are today. We already see evidence of this in the modding community where passionate people donate their time part time to develop mods like FAForever, Black Mesa, and many others. In a Utopian society people would be able to dedicate their entire lives to such pursuits, and the games would be pure; unfettered from the need to make the producers any money. This is the ideal.
To prevent CV-19, avoid the Serious Seven: weddings, funerals, faith-based activities, bars, gyms, house gatherings and other small events.
Avatar 22024
29.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 3, 2015, 23:44
29.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 3, 2015, 23:44
Jan 3, 2015, 23:44
 
Simon Says wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 19:07:
Creston wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 17:57:
CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 15:49:
Many people seem to vastly overestimate the number of units that Steam is moving.

Just because Steam has become a pretty big deal for most of us, doesn't mean it's a big deal for even close to the majority of gamers. It's this typical window syndrome where people believe their limited view is somehow representative of anything when in reality it isn't at all.

Yet Steam makes ~ 1.5 billion dollars in revenue each year, and is still growing double digits. I'm not sure what number that needs to turn into before people start being impressed?

I'll be impressed when numbers don't mean a thing and everyone has equal access to the same stuff without shitty DLC puke on every gamer's plate. And.... it won't probably ever happen again as long as we run our economy using obsolete currency/trade based economic system.

o_O

O...kay.
Avatar 15604
28.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 3, 2015, 22:38
28.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 3, 2015, 22:38
Jan 3, 2015, 22:38
 
Simon Says wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 19:07:
Creston wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 17:57:
CJ_Parker wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 15:49:
Many people seem to vastly overestimate the number of units that Steam is moving.

Just because Steam has become a pretty big deal for most of us, doesn't mean it's a big deal for even close to the majority of gamers. It's this typical window syndrome where people believe their limited view is somehow representative of anything when in reality it isn't at all.

Yet Steam makes ~ 1.5 billion dollars in revenue each year, and is still growing double digits. I'm not sure what number that needs to turn into before people start being impressed?

I'll be impressed when numbers don't mean a thing and everyone has equal access to the same stuff without shitty DLC puke on every gamer's plate. And.... it won't probably ever happen again as long as we run our economy using obsolete currency/trade based economic system.

So to sum up:
- DLC is evil.
- Money is evil.
- Everything should be free (except for DLC which shouldn't exist).

Gotcha.
Avatar 20715
27.
 
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users
Jan 3, 2015, 20:48
27.
Re: Steam Tops 8.5M Concurrent Users Jan 3, 2015, 20:48
Jan 3, 2015, 20:48
 
Mad Max RW wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 19:43:
Simon Says wrote on Jan 3, 2015, 19:07:

I'll be impressed when numbers don't mean a thing and everyone has equal access to the same stuff without shitty DLC puke on every gamer's plate. And.... it won't probably ever happen again as long as we run our economy using obsolete currency/trade based economic system.

Yeah man. When will people get with the program and switch to a smiles and good vibrations based economy?

I thought in the early 70's when Coke wanted to teach the world to sing, we wuz on our way.
Avatar 17232
46 Replies. 3 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  ] Older