Support NeoGAF

[BennyBlanco]

I don’t understand why MS, Nintendo, and Sony haven’t taken this cue from Valve.

Pros:

- generates hype. everyone saw and Helldivers 2 blowing up in realtime and it no doubt lead to way more sales.
- lets you see if a multiplayer game you wanted to play is already dead.
- gives you a general idea of how well a game is selling if you’re the type to care.
- shows you where games are popular. some games peak when asia is awake, some when NA is awake.
- Publishers obviously don’t care about this data being public.
- All the platform holders are tracking this data anyway.

Cons:

- you will see 14 people playing are playing Destruction All Stars and Bleeding Edge


It’s just interesting data and you stand to gain more from making it public than you do to lose. I don’t get it.

 

[elbourreau]

No.

Spoiler: spoiler

But maybe yes...

 

[poppabk]

- lets you see if a multiplayer game you wanted to play is already dead.
- gives you a general idea of how well a game is selling if you’re the type to care.

These are the reasons why. If your game has a poor start you can hide it and grind out some sales. If it does well you can always release carefully curated info to generate hype.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

It probably also has the effect of taking players from one title to the next - meaning that games, multiplayer and single player alike would have less chance of being a slow burn that gradually built a following.

Videogames are faddy enough - most of the sales are in the early days (or before a release) as it is, if you start helping people drop the titles that don't have explosive launches you could end up with fewer games taking ever larger slices of the pie - bad news all round.

 

[Paltheos]

- Publishers obviously don’t care about this data being public.

Source? I think it's more likely they find Steam's sharing tolerable.

The obvious downside to publicizing the data is that makes direct comparisons easier for the layman ('do most people know how to look up stats'?). I doubt developers want people to know if their game is dead in the water.

 

[Jaybe]

Before we get to that point, it would be really great for Xbox to share its consoles sold, even if just yearly at the end of their fiscal years (June).

 

[winjer]

It's a shame that the gaming industry is so secretive about itself.
It would be nice to know more about how much games sold, revenues, etc.

Instead, we get idiots talking about engagement and mau.

 

[cormack12]

Yes. I agree and will stroke your beard in solidarity.

 

[Iced Arcade]

Can't pad your numbers like that

 

[Fess]

I can see it turn into a negative on console if it clearly shows that PC is a bigger platform.

 

[DaciaJC]

I don’t understand why MS, Nintendo, and Sony haven’t taken this cue from Valve.

Because this information benefits the consumer, which may not necessarily be in the best interests of the publisher.

 

[Jigsaah]

I don't think this benefits anyone. The "Monkey see monkey do...or don't" is far too much a risk for most games I would imagine.

Add in the community apparent obsession with "The game is dead" will just create a domino effect that will hurt the industry.

If you like the game, play the damn game. Don't worry about what everybody else is doing.

 

[BennyBlanco]

Source? I think it's more likely they find Steam's sharing tolerable.

The obvious downside to publicizing the data is that makes direct comparisons easier for the layman ('do most people know how to look up stats'?). I doubt developers want people to know if their game is dead in the water.

My source is that every big publisher puts their games on Steam

 

[Denton]

Valve's transparency about games on Steam and Steam itself is refreshing, it is a shame others don't follow suit indeed.

 

[StueyDuck]

But we have the magic of player engagement numbers

 

[ReBurn]

There's little need other than for platform wars. That's pretty much all that the Steam numbers are used for.

 

[Heisenberg007]

Agree.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I can then use that number to justify paying more or less for a game.
I am not paying full price for your Mario vs Donkeykong game, (actually I did but I regerts)

 

[S0ULZB0URNE]

In game numbers would be great.

 

[SmokedMeat]

There's little need other than for platform wars. That's pretty much all that the Steam numbers are used for.

There’s currently 70 people playing CoD Ghosts, yet Activision still sells the expansions for full price.

So, there’s benefits as a paying customer in seeing player counts before plunking money down.

 

[Tiago Rodrigues]

That's what we need. More threads about numbers and statistics and engagement.

 

[Laptop1991]

I agree but they won't do it because it will show the truth and then they can't lie about how successful the games are NOT! lol.

 

[Skifi28]

As said above, it would only lead to more platform wars and 95% of the front page would be that X game has Y users vs Z platform that has less.

 

[Paltheos]

My source is that every big publisher puts their games on Steam

And that's why I said 'tolerates'. This isn't a zero-sum game where you have to pick one or the other. Games are put on Steam because PC is a big enough market to put on PC and because Steam is the biggest player in town. Maybe publishers don't like everything about Steam but they're not going to turn down that market entirely because of something relatively small like Steam stats being publicly available information.

 

[Yonyx]

- you will see 14 people playing are playing Destruction All Stars and Bleeding Edge

We can see the people who is playing Bleeding Edge right now in Steamdb:
1 person. Really. Imagine being that person.

Peaked at 3 people in the last 24 hours.

 

[BennyBlanco]

And that's why I said 'tolerates'. This isn't a zero-sum game where you have to pick one or the other. Games are put on Steam because PC is a big enough market to put on PC and because Steam is the biggest player in town. Maybe publishers don't like everything about Steam but they're not going to turn down that market entirely because of something relatively small like Steam stats being publicly available information.

So you think if the console manufacturers went to EA and said they were doing this they would stop putting out console games? Just like with Steam they might not be thrilled about it but they would allow it.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

Both consoles already have a form of this in the top played charts on their stores. They’re both full of the typical crap.

It would be nice to see how many are playing certain games, though what if it’s multi platform? That probably falls to the dev or publisher, not the console companies. Though I guess they could dictate support.

I would love to be able to log onto Factions and see if it’s worth trying to find a Survivors game or not.

 

[Mr Reasonable]

It's a shame that the gaming industry is so secretive about itself.
It would be nice to know more about how much games sold, revenues, etc.

Instead, we get idiots talking about engagement and mau.

It's hardly a surprise - I have a few hobbies where multiple companies compete for business in a particular field, but video games is the only one where fans constantly bring up sales figures, declare companies and their products trash or dead, cheer failures or constantly criticize and nitpick every single thing their employees say or do.

 

[DenchDeckard]

We had this exact conversation in work yesterday.

I agree op, they should do it.

 

[nial]

I don’t understand why MS, Nintendo, and Sony haven’t taken this cue from Valve.

Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently asked questions about SteamDB.

steamdb.info

⚠ SteamDB is not affiliated with Valve or Steam.

 

[tusharngf]

I think Valve is a much more OPEN platform than the other 3.

 

[Kenpachii]

- They don't want too because it will show how dead there games are and sales will drop even further as result.
- It will also result in people moving from low player count games to higher player count games because nobody wants to waste there time on a game that's not going to last which again anybody but the top dog wants.
- sony and microsoft and nintendo doesn't want the next COD, to showcase 10k players on microsoft online and 100k players on sony playstation. People could shift platforms because of it.

I highly doubt publishers like that steam has tracking solutions of how much there game sells and how dead there games are, but they are forced to deal with it because they have to deal with steam if u want to sell to pc gamers.

 

[March Climber]

- They don't want too because it will show how dead there games are and sales will drop even further as result.
- It will also result in people moving from low player count games to higher player count games because nobody wants to waste there time on a game that's not going to last which again anybody but the top dog wants.
- sony and microsoft and nintendo doesn't want the next COD, to showcase 10k players on microsoft online and 100k players on sony playstation. People could shift platforms because of it.

I highly doubt publishers like that steam has tracking solutions of how much there game sells and how dead there games are, but they are forced to deal with it because they have to deal with steam if u want to sell to pc gamers.

Agreed with this take. It will cause even more of a popularity contest on consoles, who already have more of a casual audience than PC/Steam to begin with.

 

[MonkeyClaw36]

Microsoft be like:

 

[BennyBlanco]

Frequently Asked Questions

Frequently asked questions about SteamDB.

steamdb.info

Steam Charts

Top selling and top played games across Steam

store.steampowered.com

 

[ArtHands]

I believe they won't because the numbers will look devastatingly bad compared to Steam.

 

[Lucifers Beard]

This really helps on PC because if i fancy buying an older multiplayer title, I can see how many people are usually playing. On Xbox the only way you can get any indication is by checking the most played titles and it isn't really that helpful.

 

[crackajack]

con is also that it exagerates the sheep behavior of people with that info. Winners win even more while those barely making the cut drift away from potential borderline success faster. So especially from a gamer standpoint who wants some variety and not everyone chasing the very same trends it is probably detrimental. Only if servers are actually empty and waiting is pointless some info about that might be fair to not make you sour about the wasted time. But matchmaking should then just work differently. Allowing you to be in training mode in fighting games or doing some sp content if available. Should anyway be standard to make sp and mp a smooth transition.

 

[calistan]

It's mostly just fuel for fanboy bullshit. Every time there's a thread on here about how many people are playing Game A on Steam, it usually degenerates into comparisons with whatever Microsoft has done recently.

I'm not sure what benefit Valve gets from doing it, when other launchers/stores don't make their tracking data available to the public. Streaming TV services don't announce viewing figures unless they have a massive hit that they want to shout about.

 

[GymWolf]

We can see the people who is playing Bleeding Edge right now in Steamdb:
1 person. Really. Imagine being that person.

Peaked at 3 people in the last 24 hours.

More like bleeding player base.

 

[64bitmodels]

As said above, it would only lead to more platform wars and 95% of the front page would be that X game has Y users vs Z platform that has less.

You are literally one of the platform warriors. Don't act like this doesn't benefit you

 

[lefty1117]

It seems like it would be more fuel for companies to avoid taking bets on niche titles as the COD type games will dominate the numbers, probably leading to more layoffs and consolidation. I think it would also spur even more live service / customer retention game systems to keep the numbers up. Do we want more of that?

 

[Interfectum]

Most platform holders and publishers like to control the narrative with their own "truths" and spin. Hard to do that with the raw data just sitting out there. Valve gets away with it because they are far more libertarian than any other platform holder out there and publishers have to suck it up if they want in on Steam.

 

[Skifi28]

You are literally one of the platform warriors. Don't act like this doesn't benefit you

Cool, but for which platform?

 

[Bond007]

I dont think i need that.
Play what i want regardless of hype or who else is playing what. Ultimately, the data will be weaponized by fanboys.

 

[64bitmodels]

Cool, but for which platform?

Playstation, duh. Unless you turned to Nintendo?

Either way, more console warring on the board makes it more active and lively as a result, plus you get more iconic board moments like green rats and shit.

 

[Skifi28]

Playstation, duh. Unless you turned to Nintendo?

I'm on PS /PC / Switch and I play most games released from all three main publishers, but thanks for stalking me

 

[Mr Reasonable]

Playstation, duh. Unless you turned to Nintendo?

Either way, more console warring on the board makes it more active and lively as a result, plus you get more iconic board moments like green rats and shit.

I think it's the opposite, tbh.

I check in far less often than I did a while back because the console warring is so boring, predictable and chokes out any real debate and enthusiasm for games.

 

[Holammer]

The numbers are trade secrets, but Steam shows they can be an invaluable part of marketing and hype machine for a game, as Benny noted about Helldivers 2's ongoing gigaton success. Top selling global for over two months now.
But people will mine undesirable trends and other data out of it, then Draugoth will post a X game lost 95% of players thread here on GAF contributing further to an ongoing death spiral narrative for a game.

Game developers/publishers should look into being more public with information about sales milestones, like the Valheim guys did when the game was an ongoing success. Such information filters to forums, social media and will contribute to GENUINE visibility & trending potential.
Not the bot farms trying to game the trending algorithms, looking at you Ubisoft.

 

[64bitmodels]

I think it's the opposite, tbh.

I check in far less often than I did a while back because the console warring is so boring, predictable and chokes out any real debate and enthusiasm for games.

Fair, I used to complain about that too. But at this point it's a predictable and frankly expected thing with the territory, plus it keeps the forum funny and iconic.

There are honestly better places on the internet if you wanted more serious and genuine discussion on games IMO, like Discord.