shio said:
So your only evidence is an interview which provides no hard facts, and financial figures from Console-centric publishers which not only do they often not include digital sales in the PC section, but they also don't post the profits of each platform, which would significantly enhance the PC platform in those financial reports due to the fact that the profit margin of PC games are in a whole different level compared to console games. As for the Steam active accounts, I don't remember where I read that they're accounts with bought games, but it's already the common opinion. Either way, if those 25 millions were accounts logged into the last 30 days, it would further help my point, because then it probably means that even more people are on Steam than just 25 millions. As for how many people are playing on Steam, the truth is, not only it does not count the people offline on Steam (which I currently have been recently), but it also doesn't count the people that playing non-Steam games while being online on Steam (very common, especially considering that Steam allows you to add non-Steam games to Steam). It's funny that you seemed to forget Civilization V, among other Steamworks titles that are coming soon. This year Steam has had far more Steamworks titles than ever before. This past few weeks Mafia 2, Worms Reloaded and, just yesterday, R.U.S.E. came out. And this year we're still going to have these Steamworks titles: It's funny that you somehow think Steam isn't doing exceptional, but in truth, Steam has had a 100% growth every year. In 2009, Steam increased 205!!! http://www.shacknews.com/featuredarticle.x?id=1271 |
For the first paragraph:
you are just assuming things here. again. Why do you think are PC games more profitable? And if this was the case, why would publishers not support it in a way they do with consoles?
And financial reports do include the revenue of digital sales. They just have to. There are laws for this. I already proofed you wrong about this with EA in another thread. There is no distribution division that creates any revenue. :-/
And financial reports ARE hard facts.
For the 2nd paragraph:
Why am I not surprised that you can't remember where you read this stuff. And no, it is NOT common sense. If it were, you would find a link. You are not providing hard facts.
And what the hell means that: "Either way, if those 25 millions were accounts logged into the last 30 days, it would further help my point, because then it probably means that even more people are on Steam than just 25 millions." Yeah, but they are not. Your point?
For the 3rd paragraph:
Are there many non-steam games that sold decent amounts? Steam is by far the biggest platform for digital distribution of videogames on PC and there are more than 1000 games available. So the number of people using steam for non-steam games might be tiny. Offline is a possibility, but as you can see by the numbers, much more people are logged in than people actually playing. Again playing offline on steam might account for a very small percentage. Steam is a platform that requires internet-connection (unlike consoles). So every PC that runs steam has an internet-connection, why would they log out to play the games?
For the 4th paragraph:
Yeah I forgot Civ 5. My bad.
The games you listed aren't huge, sorry. Mafia II for example had 13k people (peak in the past 24 hours) playing on steam. And Ruse peak did not even croo 4k. Not a huge number that makes a difference. Maybe Fallout will make the chart bump a little bit, but that is it. So Civ 5, Black Ops and maybe Fallout have a chance to make the chart jump. I can't wait to see the stats when they are released.
And why do you think I am against steam? I am not. It does well and is the best digital distribution platform for full games. I prefer XBLA for smaller games, because there always is a demo and it works just perfect. But overall steam is a nice platform.
Imagine not having GamePass on your console...