How much can it continue to grow before companies like EA to realise that they might be losing money by not allowing their games on Steam?
Pretty sure they are not losing that much money.
How much can it continue to grow before companies like EA to realise that they might be losing money by not allowing their games on Steam?
There are plenty of games on Steam with a smurf culture.It's also worth noting that many people have multiple PSN accounts that adds to that 70 million value while most steam users at least in my experience at least are somehow unique to one person
There are people with multiple accounts on both sides.It's also worth noting that many people have multiple PSN accounts that adds to that 70 million value while most steam users at least in my experience at least are somehow unique to one person
It's really a shame that Steam has practically a monopoly on the PC gaming market.
How much can it continue to grow before companies like EA to realise that they might be losing money by not allowing their games on Steam?
Great to see such strong numbers for everyone involved. PC was in a pretty iffy place before Steam took hold and made being legit as easy as piracy, and seems like it's paid off really well for them.
"In general, we think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy," Newell told The Cambridge Student, via VG247. "Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem.
"For example, if a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24x7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate's service is more valuable. Most DRM solutions diminish the value of the product by either directly restricting a customers use or by creating uncertainty.
"Our goal is to create greater service value than pirates, and this has been successful enough for us that piracy is basically a non-issue for our company.
There are people with multiple accounts on both sides.
However, it should again be repeated that Steam's numbers only include users who played a game in the last month.
(Notice how the wording is 'monthly active players' for Steam and 'monthly active users' for PSN? But for real, does anyone know what Sony counts as an 'active user'?)
What if that's the only way for Half-Life 3 and other long-awaited sequels to happen?
Pretty sure they are not losing that much money.
I'm surprised Steam wasn't bigger than PSN for the last several months. Healthy numbers for both ecosystems imo,
They don't loose money at all, if anything they earn more, EA, Blizzard and Ubisoft games have huge market, they don't need Steam visibility, people buy them on PC regardless the Steam support, and by using their own client those companies don't have to pay that 30% royalties to Valve so they make more money than they would on Steam.
I'd like to have every game on one client too, and Steam is the best one there, but not gonna happen
If they truly see PC as competition they absolutely should pay more attention to backwards and forwards compatibility. It's why I tend to favour buying the PC version in most cases despite my PC now having to run some recent games at below PS4 settings. Long term access to my purchases is important to me.Backwards Compatibility should be a huge issue at Sony right now. That's really what they are competing with if they want to compare themselves with Valve. The value proposition of buying a piece of hardware like a new PC with tons of games already on the system (that you own) is enormous.
Steam doesn't count people who play only EA games, like Battlefields and FIFAs, Ubisoft games like Rainbow Six Siege,or Blizzard games since they uses Origin, Uplay etc instead, so if you add those you can tell that PC gaming is Huge
An app you install on your computer vs. $400 hardware. I'm actually impressed PSN still has more active users.
It's funny because I am pretty sure I am not an active user in Steam right now, despite owning 1400 games on the service and browsing the client daily. Just haven't had the time to play any games as of late.
How much can it continue to grow before companies like EA to realise that they might be losing money by not allowing their games on Steam?
Now if people would actually be spending the same amount, we would be gold. But most of these accounts are probably used mainly for very specific games.
Yes, this is pulled out of my ass, but if sales for PC games are always that much lower despite these healthy monthly numbers, then I don't know what else to deduce from this.
Now if people would actually be spending the same amount, we would be gold. But most of these accounts are probably used mainly for very specific games.
Yes, this is pulled out of my ass, but if sales for PC games are always that much lower despite these healthy monthly numbers, then I don't know what else to deduce from this.
I actually can't tell if this is sarcasm, so good one?Not very impressive for Steam considering it has a virtual monopoly on PC gaming that doesn't reset each generation.
Valve is a private company, so financials aren't made available to the public unless Valve feels like it. We know Gabe is worth more than $1 billion though so... its doing well.Bit sure if this has been bought up but how much revenue are the two making?
I actually can't tell if this is sarcasm, so good one?
Because if you're serious, Steam doesn't have a monopoly.
Sales for pc games aren't "always lower", they're predominantly lower within the genre of good looking but shallow cinematic experiences because of a difference in audience.
Gameplay focused games (Dark Souls, NuDoom), especually RPG and strategy titles (DOS, XCOM) complex multiplayer titles (PUBG, Dota) and nearly all indie games sell on par or often far above their console versions.
That's a really easy one. Nier is a personal GOTY candidate, but Square's handling of the PC version was (and still is) utterly abysmal and let's not even start with the stupidity they pulled in the Asian countries. The entire marketing leading up to the release was a shitshow.I hear this kind of elitism often, but what if I brought up Nier, which sold more than 2x as many copies on PS4
how will you counter this
That PSN figure includes last gen MAU as well (PS3, PSP, Vita). The only discontinued "platform" is PS mobile.Not very impressive for Steam considering it is the most popular PC gaming service and it doesn't reset its user base each generation.
I hear this kind of elitism often, but what if I brought up Nier, which sold more than 2x as many copies on PS4
how will you counter this
Bit sure if this has been bought up but how much revenue are the two making?
This is why reading is a valuable skill:Very confusing.
you can log on Steam via your smartphone.
You can log on PSN/XBL via your PC,even if you havent bought a game or console for years.
Also XBL merges both Xbox and Windows10 users
Valve is actually relatively open about this number, relative to their console counterparts. They count "Active Users" as someone who owns a game and has played a game within the last month. So "Total Users' is actually significantly higher.
Very confusing.
you can log on Steam via your smartphone.
You can log on PSN/XBL via your PC,even if you havent bought a game or console for years.
Also XBL merges both Xbox and Windows10 users
It's not elitism, its a fact that these two markets have different preferences
Nier is not a particular complex game and very narratively focused, the opposite of what I've been talking about.
In addition to that, the pc version received no marketing and was pretended to not be existent more often than not.
Every single trailer and ad exclusively mentioned the ps4 version, willfully omitting the existence of a pc release, even live on stage the game was once called PlayStation exclusive.
Furthermore, the game launched with delay and little fanfare as a bad port whose issues have not been fixed to this very day, including crashes, resolution locks and a missing online feature.
It also happened to be the 4th game In a franchise that had all games releasing on PlayStation platforms but not a single one on pc prior.
The same goes for the developers own pedigree who just now started releasing their games like vanquish and bayonetta on pc, meaning their was no platinum fanbase garnered on pc over the years the same way it was on console.
These sales are hardly comparable.
If they truly see PC as competition they absolutely should pay more attention to backwards and forwards compatibility. It's why I tend to favour buying the PC version in most cases despite my PC now having to run some recent games at below PS4 settings. Long term access to my purchases is important to me.
I'm sure PSN active users count will drop soon for some "Plus" reason...
There is such thing as opinion you know.?
You don't have to be a fanboy to think Steam and PSN are the two best gaming platforms, all you need is to have eyes. They get the most consistent high quality releases.
Sonys G&NS made ~$14 billon the last 12 months
Valve made ~3 billion on game sales in 2016 according to Steamspy (does not include F2P and MTX money)
Microsofts gaming division made ~9 billon
I'm sure PSN active users count will drop soon for some "Plus" reason...
Every time there's a Steam thread people have to explain how it doesn't actually have a monopoly.
It objectively is a monopoly (controlling 70%+ of the market and having no major competitors), explaining it doesn't have it is more like finding excuses for it.
Cool, thanks. So Monthly active users does mean much if one is making more revenue (by a lot) I guess? someone else could explain it better.
It objectively is a monopoly (controlling 70%+ of the market and having no major competitors), explaining it doesn't have it is more like finding excuses for it.
I phrased that wrong. They don't have a monopoly, but a huge percentage of PC gamers do use their services primarily along with others.
It objectively is a monopoly (controlling 70%+ of the market and having no major competitors), explaining it doesn't have it is more like finding excuses for it.
It objectively is a monopoly (controlling 70%+ of the market and having no major competitors), explaining it doesn't have it is more like finding excuses for it.