Steam 설치
로그인
|
언어
简体中文(중국어 간체)
繁體中文(중국어 번체)
日本語(일본어)
ไทย(태국어)
Български(불가리아어)
Čeština(체코어)
Dansk(덴마크어)
Deutsch(독일어)
English(영어)
Español - España(스페인어 - 스페인)
Español - Latinoamérica(스페인어 - 중남미)
Ελληνικά(그리스어)
Français(프랑스어)
Italiano(이탈리아어)
Bahasa Indonesia(인도네시아어)
Magyar(헝가리어)
Nederlands(네덜란드어)
Norsk(노르웨이어)
Polski(폴란드어)
Português(포르투갈어 - 포르투갈)
Português - Brasil(포르투갈어 - 브라질)
Română(루마니아어)
Русский(러시아어)
Suomi(핀란드어)
Svenska(스웨덴어)
Türkçe(튀르키예어)
Tiếng Việt(베트남어)
Українська(우크라이나어)
번역 관련 문제 보고
토론 규칙 및 지침
게시글 신고
There are many reasons you could have listed.
- them being free instead of them requiring an upfront purchase
- them being popular and popular things getting all the popularity
- them being log going and people feeling time comitted or have social contacts in those games
Instead you reasoning is
They have much players because they need much players?
Unless there is a constant baseline provided by the studios behind them, when did this ever work? And none of them actually *needs* so many players. Healthy multiplayer doesn't need millions of players.
Also the point is not that they are the most popular games, but the best selling games. Meaning they made more money then most single player games this year.
Did he really try to imply that Steam doesn't do anything about gambling sites because it makes them money?
Did Steam suddenly stop suspending accounts that use those sites for trading, stop blocking those links, and remove the part of the ToS that forbids using those sites?
It's because user preferences do not affect certain sections of the store. That, of course, should change if you ask me.
Because they OP is whining about 'player count'
The only way you can have those kinds of games work, is to have high player counts because they are designed that way. No one is going to play PUBG if you only have 50 people in a lobby.
They're whining that 'popular MP games that require sustained populations are popular' is so earth shatteringly brain dead.
Im not sure why you'd think that. Updates for games isnt free. Providing content isnt free. If you want a "publisher" supported MP environment, then yes, you need functionally millions of players now. If you want to just play CS1.6 with your friends that's a different thing. That is not how modern MP games work. Especially from AAA publishers. Every other MP game is pumping out new content constantly, so all MP game basically have to do the same. This means unless you are pulling in money to sustain this constant stream of updates, your game simply won't survive.
Popular modern MP games are going to have the highest sustained player count, because, again, to be a popular MP game, you need high sustained player counts. And that the top 10 of any player count list, is going to, by definition be dominated by such games. Because 500k people don't need to be playing Elden Rign 24/7/365 for that game to be good. You're not going to see giant sustained playercounts for other kinds of games. Because other kidns of games are not designed nor are required to have that.
Whining the Steam top 10 player count has lots of popular MP games that require high player counts, is like going to a dog show and wondering why there are so many dogs.
"To enable: give (someone) the authority or means to do something; make it possible for."
That's been conveniently left out. Like Valve actions against those sites.
https://www.polygon.com/2016/7/20/12240606/valve-cease-and-desist-letter-csgo-betting-sites
An event that interestingly enough marked the total explosion in creation of these sites.
While he is wrong about the API enabling gambling sites, Steam's trading mechanics, the community marketplace and Valve offering "rare" loot to begin with did certainly enable those gambling scams.
Wow, you decided to double down on that, didn't you?
So why do games like EVE that actually do profit from a higher player count don't make the list?
And no, you still don't need millions of players for the multiplayer to be fun. 10,000 players in PUBG are enough to completely fill out 100 lobbies. Which should be enough to keep downtime low if you happen to get killed in the first few minutes. And yes, 50 people in a lobby are enough given how fast the remaining player count can dip to this number.
And that's a BR with a preferred lobby size of 100. DOTA 2 needs 10.
Which is totally not the point you were trying to make earlier. Also as we are talking about FREE to play games, no you do not need millions of players to create content. You need enough players that are willing to spend money.
Player number/popularity is one factor on why people spend money on a game. But I never heard anyone whaling because "the game was designed around me needing to spend money and keep playing it instead of doing something else."
And still no explanation how these games top Elden Ring or Mass Effect Legacy in terms of spending.
And it's not like single player games are not required to make money for new content, patches, or even a sequel.
Even corrupt cops sometimes catch a few bad guys, you know.
Not surprised. However, 99.99% of the gaming community now relies on youtube, twitch and twitter for their gaming news. since gaming journalists on legacy gaming media are all too busy writing inflammatory, toxic and divisive click bait articles. Although you can find some of this toxicity on youtube as well, with channels like Extra Credits.
Perhaps dismissing youtube and streamers was the reason you were so ill informed about Diablo Immortal in the past when you said It's only pay to win "to you" (me), at the time when the entire gaming community was revolting against in on youtube, twitch and twitter and providing non-stop evidence of just how terribly and disgustingly monetized that game was.
Youtube is great way to get the finger on the pulse of the gaming community, I recommend you stop dismissing so you can get a clearer picture on where gamers draw the line when it comes to microtransactions in F2P games, and in this case, how valve benefits from enabling a gambling scene to emerge surrounding their games. really recommend you watch the video I linked you.
Where are the EPIC GAMES and RIOT gambling sites? Notice that this is a "problem" only Steam has.
I personally wouldn't mind trading being completely deprecated and Steam moving all item exchange to the Marketplace.
But if EPIC had a market like Steam's and developed games featuring skins that can gambled for and exchanged for money, and were designed in such a way that they feature multiple rarity tiers which further contribute to their artificial scarcity... then their API would enable similar gambling sites to exist. Pretty Simple.
Valve shaking their finger at gambling sites in 2016 and saying they'd do something about it was an empty threat, just a PR move to make it look they disapprove of gambling when they built the casino.
Valve will never do anything about it until regulation comes for them because they ultimately profit from it. They are the ones the skins need to be bought and gambled from to begin with.
The irony of Gaben talking about "bad actors" when it comes to Crypto, while Valve leaves thei backdoor wide open for children to gamble.
This is terrible for principled gamers such as myself, because I genuinely enjoy CSGO but I rarely buy skins, because every time I do, I know I'm rewarding Valve for being a naughty, naughty company. I'd probably have 3, 4 times the amount of skins I do now if it wasn't for their gambling addiction.