Removal of concurrent player counts?

[mitropower]

What's this weak demand via social media from **** companies to remove concurrent player counts because it makes them look like failures?

Is this true?

If so, we need to show our voice in refusal to do so.

Stay true Valve, do not give in to them. Protect the interests of your customers, not your vendors, its why we stayed here during the Epic freebie times. I have no doubt they would have removed them on demand (if the had them in the first place). Dont be like them.

[xBCxRangers]

Oh they're trying that angle now? Hm, well, how would folks know to buy a MP game if they don't know how many are playing? More refunds is all that means.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by mitropower:

its why we stayed here during the Epic freebie times.

Errm, I simply collect the freebies on Epic as well. I didn't know I was supposed to only use Steam. If so, sorry, but I failed that from the get go as I don't limit myself in such regards.

[mitropower]

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Originally posted by mitropower:

its why we stayed here during the Epic freebie times.

Errm, I simply collect the freebies on Epic as well. I didn't know I was supposed to only use Steam. If so, sorry, but I failed that from the get go as I don't limit myself in such regards.

There is no such thing as free lunch in the world. The costs of those "free" games were covered by hopelessly addicted kids on forknite, so there is a bigger failing to your choice than not limiting yourself.

But that's completely irrelevant to this topic, so kindly stop trolling it. You saved 50 bucks, good for you, moving on.

[Crazy Tiger]

Originally posted by mitropower:

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

Errm, I simply collect the freebies on Epic as well. I didn't know I was supposed to only use Steam. If so, sorry, but I failed that from the get go as I don't limit myself in such regards.

There is no such thing as free lunch in the world. The costs of those "free" games were covered by hopelessly addicted kids on forknite, so there is a bigger failing to your choice than not limiting yourself.

But that's completely irrelevant to this topic, so kindly stop trolling it. You saved 50 bucks, good for you, moving on.

You named it in your OP, so it's part of the thread. Why did you mention it if you don't like people addressing it?

And no, there is no failing in my choice. Especially since Steam is build on Valve getting young people addicted to skins gambling, so the irony is quite big there, dear.

[Mailer]

I doubt game companies can do much other than complain to Eric Wolfpaw XPaw and his SteamDB project in charge of hosting most historical player counts for Steam games that people point to.
This has actually happened with some developer of a Left 4 Dead succeeding game taking place in space(?) but I've forgotten the details.

I agree that it is a statistic that should stay though, despite some people reading into them a bit too much.

And for what it is worth, Epic has kind of already neutered their own review system so it doesn't exactly present itself as a storefront with transparent numbers, likely for the same reason that YouTube no longer has dislikes shown.

Still, I wouldn't blame game companies for not coming out on social media saying their game sold poorly though. You're only going to see positive achievements in sales numbers being presented and that's how it is with social media. No matter what Steam does.

[Ben Lubar]

Originally posted by Mailer:

I doubt game companies can do much other than complain to Eric Wolfpaw and his SteamDB project in charge of hosting most historical player counts for Steam games that people point to.

Erik Wolpaw did not make SteamDB. He made Team Fortress 2.

Originally posted by Mailer:

This has actually happened with some developer of a Left 4 Dead succeeding game taking place in space(?) but I've forgotten the details.

Are you talking about Chet's video about how he added a slowly updating live player count to Left 4 Dead 2 in order to show players that just because the lobbies filled up quickly there wasn't nobody playing the game? That's the opposite of the claim you're making, but it's the only thing I can think of that could be related.

[Mailer]

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Originally posted by Mailer:

I doubt game companies can do much other than complain to Eric Wolfpaw and his SteamDB project in charge of hosting most historical player counts for Steam games that people point to.

Erik Wolpaw did not make SteamDB. He made Team Fortress 2.

Oh yeah, that's the wrong "paw". I meant XPaw, aka "Pavel Djundik". My bad.

[AirDrifter]

Originally posted by mitropower:

What's this weak demand via social media from **** companies to remove concurrent player counts because it makes them look like failures?

Is this true?

If so, we need to show our voice in refusal to do so.

Stay true Valve, do not give in to them. Protect the interests of your customers, not your vendors, its why we stayed here during the Epic freebie times. I have no doubt they would have removed them on demand (if the had them in the first place). Dont be like them.

I'd honestly be shocked if Valve removed it. It was based on a rumour from Ubisoft, it wasn't confirmed if its true or not

[RPG Gamer Man]

Originally posted by mitropower:

What's this weak demand via social media from **** companies to remove concurrent player counts because it makes them look like failures?

Is this true?

If so, we need to show our voice in refusal to do so.

Stay true Valve, do not give in to them. Protect the interests of your customers, not your vendors, its why we stayed here during the Epic freebie times. I have no doubt they would have removed them on demand (if the had them in the first place). Dont be like them.

I think UBISOFT is trying this with their games now..lol.

https://gamerant.com/ubisoft-limit-steam-concurrent-player-count-data-report/

[RPG Gamer Man]

Originally posted by AirDrifter:

Originally posted by mitropower:

What's this weak demand via social media from **** companies to remove concurrent player counts because it makes them look like failures?

Is this true?

If so, we need to show our voice in refusal to do so.

Stay true Valve, do not give in to them. Protect the interests of your customers, not your vendors, its why we stayed here during the Epic freebie times. I have no doubt they would have removed them on demand (if the had them in the first place). Dont be like them.

I'd honestly be shocked if Valve removed it. It was based on a rumour from Ubisoft, it wasn't confirmed if its true or not

Oh it is true. This is something ubisoft actually tried. Read the news article i posted above. It says it is rumour, but considering how bad ubisoft is doing recently, i would not be suprised if they did this to try to hide how bad their games are doing..lol.

[Nx Machina]

Originally posted by mitropower:

If so, we need to show our voice in refusal to do so.

We? Relevance is decided by the individual.

[Kargor]

Originally posted by mitropower:

Protect the interests of your customers, not your vendors,

Steam has two sets of customers, and the publishers are one of them. Steam is selling games, and without publishers, they wouldn't have anything to sell (except for their own junk).

its why we stayed here during the Epic freebie times.

People and their "staying" again. This isn't a town that's hit by flooding or something; it's a gaming platform. I don't have to "leave" anything to get stuff on other platforms; in fact, I still collect all the Epic and GoG freebies.

[AirDrifter]

Originally posted by RPG Gamer Man:

Originally posted by AirDrifter:

I'd honestly be shocked if Valve removed it. It was based on a rumour from Ubisoft, it wasn't confirmed if its true or not

Oh it is true. This is something ubisoft actually tried. Read the news article i posted above. It says it is rumour, but considering how bad ubisoft is doing recently, i would not be suprised if they did this to try to hide how bad their games are doing..lol.

That's still known as a rumour as they're no solid evidence to back it up. I don't like Ubisoft at all and they're a chance it is true but without evidence it's just a she said, he said, scenario.

[CANCELCULTURE]

Originally posted by mitropower:

What's this weak demand via social media from **** companies to remove concurrent player counts because it makes them look like failures?

Is this true?

When is Valve going to stop? Isn't up to Steam partnered developers to opt in or out to player counts, or is Valve forcing them to show player counts via Steam API? I've always thought player count to be consumer informative. However...

Originally posted by Crazy Tiger:

And no, there is no failing in my choice. Especially since Steam is build on Valve getting young people addicted to skins gambling, so the irony is quite big there, dear.

Appreciate the honesty. The FTC probably does too. Now that they seem to finally want to take an interest in the subject.

"The Attention Economy: Monopolizing Kids’ Time Online"
https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/events/2025/02/attention-economy-monopolizing-kids-time-online

https://store.steampowered.com/charts


love Steamdb for listing the failures to monopolize the most user time
https://steamdb.info/upcoming/?lastweek

I guess the only way Steamdb or others Steam Player Count doesn't get concurrent player time per game from Steam API, is if everyone privates their games? Or Valve gives it up anyway because its aggregate data, combined, meaning no individual players information is shared. Is this the same player count each partnered dev gets for their game in their Steam partner tools summary?