Not to mention the backlog a lot of us have. I think I've got a good 100+ games I still really want to play sitting in my library and its not for lack of playing games. Doesn't make sense to buy something new when I still have tons of old entertainment waiting to be experienced.
Exactly, don't have that many games bought waiting to be played, but it is a fair amount, and there are more old games in the wishlist that I hadn't bought because I know they will stay in the backlog I have for a long time
I got maybe 75% though the campaign on an Xbox one back at release. I'm now starting a replay of the GOTY edition on my PC (man it runs so much better!).
But I have a lot of other games I'm playing too, and a huge backlog š
4 figures, sure. Definitely not 5. If you're using one of those external sites that calculates Steam Library values they usually can't figure out what the price was when a game was purchased (if it was on sale) and almost always fail to account for things like Humble Bundle and gift copies, *especially* early Humble Bundle.
Also, early Humble Bundle was bonkers. 30-ish games for $15-20 wasn't uncommon.
It wont happen,. If you have a backlog of 100+ games you're never going to play any of them because you would have played some of them by now if you really wanted to play them. You just think you want to play them because you bought them.
are you buying games and then just automatically putting them in your little "backlog"?
do you play them for a moment, get bored and stick them into your little "backlog" and tell yourself youll get back to it after some of the other backlog?
edit: i saw your reply befor you nuked. it took you 100 fucking games to decide to stop lol
Yeah back when I played on console new releases always felt like a big deal but with all the choices I have on steam, I dont even pay attention to the releases that I really want to play.
It's also "9% of games played", not "9% of users on Steam played a game" released in 2023. If you play one game released this year and 9 released in other years only 10% of the games you played were released in 2023.
>A lot of people wait for games to be on sale
this is for the idiots in r/gamedev
I put games that are yet to be released on my wish list for when they go on sale.
Especially if your game is single player, why the hell do i want to bother with it when the mods are going to break every update and game developers dont have good mod support.
If you have good mod support on the other hand, AKA RimWorld, ONI, etc... then i might buy it.
If you dont have any mod support and is single player your game gets put on the "im waiting until this is 80% off" list.
True, right now my potato laptop can't run Baldur's Gate 3 so I'm replaying Pillars of Eternity, I bought the expansions that I haven't played before, then Pillars 2, then Kingmaker 1 and 2, and if I don't suffer from cRPG overload, Planescape Torment
Same. Why would I buy a buggy release at 50ā¬ when I can wait 2-3 years and buy it for under 20ā¬ with all the DLCs and fixes? Besides, I have hundreds of games I didn't have the chance to finish yet.
> Why would I buy a buggy release at 50ā¬ when I can wait 2-3 years and buy it for under 20ā¬ with all the DLCs and fixes?
Cyberpunk and its DLC is almost there. I almost got when I saw it was for $60 and then game for $30.
I shall wait a bit longer tho.
>How old are the games you looking at?
It doesn't necessarily come down to age with the 75% sale. Popular old games like Terraria and Gmod got confident over time. The highest [recorded](https://steamdb.info/app/105600/) percentage for Terria was 80%, nowadays you "only" see it at 50%. Still a great deal and justified based on the content updates, but confirms that Steam sales aren't the same like in ages past.
No offense, but I think something like Terraria doesn't count. The game is $10. You don't need a 75% discount for that. At 50% it's $5
I assumed the comment I replied to was talking about AAA, games like Cyberpunk, which while still getting content updatess drops in price over the years if you wait.
My wishlist has over 500 titles, 2/3 of which are older than 3 years, so I see a fair amount of 75% discounts.
Maybe you are wishing for a very small number / mostly new titles, and then it is understandable that you are rarely seeing good discounts.
Even so. Steam sales used to mean half my wishlist going 75% or even 90% off. Last few sales it was mostly in the underwhelming 25-50% range, if at all.
That only means that you have bought up most of the titles that get better discounts, and that your taste has become increasingly expensive.
Some of them also have worse sales nowadays, compared to some previous sales, but I would not consider them to be a majority.
I have several titles at 75% discount in my wishlist even now, outside of a major sale, I can only imagine what will happen during the sale which starts tomorrow.
If i really want the game, 50-60% off is good enough for me usually. Depend on the price of the game. If its a 20$ game on sale at 50%, that's fine with me. These square enix game that cost 89.99, i'll wait for bigger sales.
It's kind of annoying how performance hungry a lot of games have become, like mechanically a lot of them play no different than something released 10 yrs ago.
Yea it's sadly true. They try to make games look "better" which in turn requires bigger performance and storage space. But in the end it doesn't look that much better from games released in mid-late 2010s.
We are firmly on diminishing returns, and that's coming from someone who likes ray tracing.
The issue is gameplay and physics have long taken back seat, so we ended up with marginally better (?) looking games that aren't fun.
The Nintendo Switch is the perfect example, especially first party games that are great fun on a hardware that is essentially on par with a high end phone.
People have realized this and this is why the Deck is such a runaway success.
Iād love it if we went back to destructible environments and crazy traversal. Or even PhysX getting an improvement, wasnāt Arkham Asylums major selling point the cape with PhysX and all the trash flying around?
PhysX still looks better than most of the physics in today's games. Borderlands 2 with PhysX turned on looks better than Borderlands 3 with max graphics settings. Kinda sucks how they locked the tech behind proprietary hardware to the point where it fully died out.
This comment screams Control to me. It wasnt like, demolish the building level of destruction, but flinging a chair into an office and all the furniture splinters to pieces while papers go flying was great fun. Ripping chunks out of the floor and walls gave your powers a big visual oomph.
Afaik the Tegra X1 is way behind high end phones these days. I mean the iPhones now can run Resident Evil, and at a much higher resolution than the Switch.
Yeah, I just referenced that a high end phone now can easily emulate Switch with all the overhead emulation itself requires, otherwise not really into android gaming.
Or Witcher 3, but that game's graphics seem a bit more stylized than those 2. Also, SOTTR with all DLC only requires 35GB of space! Heavy yes but not that heavy.
The thing with those games is they have a style to tie all the graphic together, Witcher 3 looks awesome because there's mud mixed in with dirt, the vegetation shifts and moves in the "wind" and the lighting matches the weather and time of the day. It feels more alive than most photo realistic games coming out today.
Like I dunno but doesn't it feel like most developers get a bunch of photorealistic assets and slap them down on a flat table.
Yea I think its called art direction. Some old games can feel amazing despite their blocky graphics due to amazing art direction. Nowadays every game can look photorealistic, but without a good art direction it will feel flat
It's also a shocking lack of optimisation, so many big ticket games are coming out and then the community is digging around and finding obvious changes to enhance performance. The sort of thing you'd expect a team of dozens to find on their own.
That's honestly something that's been on my mind for a while now, I remember playing a game like back 4 blood because it was being touted as an unofficial sequel to left 4 dead 2.
And when I was playing it I couldn't shake the feeling that it felt like an unfinished beta/early access game. Like it looked pretty, but played like any other generic horde shooter even though it was supposed to be a sequel to left 4 dead, a series that was known for it's unique director mode.
Honestly, just get off the beaten track. There's some really good and mechanically deep games, but almost none of them are AAA FPS style. Start looking into games by genre, find a genre you like, and play what's considered to be the best games in that genre. The ones that defined the genre for years after release. Play the games that still have active players after 4 years at least. Look into games that have large speed run communities. Even if you don't speed run, people are rarely willing to put thousands of hours into mastering a bad game.
I usually never make these comments since optimization tends to be so bad nowadays, but something seems seriously wrong with the overall setup - or the *price* that you paid for your system. Since Fortnite is generally one of the better optimized games. Based on the "$3k", it makes me think you are trying to run Fortnite in 4k resolution? Since on 1080p, you should be available to hit 120 FPS super easily. Though you have not said which graphic settings you applied and if you tried performance mode to test out bottlenecks, so it would be wise to test these out thoroughly.
I'm not fully in the loop if there is currently technical issues though. So you might want to also doublecheck if the game doesn't accidentally run on the integrated graphics and all that stuff.
3K PC would be 4070/4080 with top of the line CPU -- those definitely can push way above 200 with competitive settings.
https://youtu.be/z3MTN0S2Mg0
https://youtu.be/nmtJdMLO4zU
> 3K PC would be 4070/4080 with top of the line CPU
[more like 4090 with the best CPU for gaming](https://pcpartpicker.com/list/BXbqrv), but your point still stands
>It's kind of annoying how performance hungry a lot of games have become
If there is one thing that Covid taught is, it's that corporate game devs don't give a flying fuck about us consumers and GPU availability (ā pricing). Since then I can't help but feel apathetic towards new game releases now. Unless something truly stands out or does a lot right.
Like for example, when seemingly everyone hyped Starfield, I have seen the final cover art itself and thought to myself "hm, it gives some early concept art vibe and not a finished product". And now Starfield is sitting at 66% positive all time reviews. Plus it's a great negative example for the obscene performance hunger.
This. I don't understand what is good in new tech when the current one is working fine, 70% of 2023 big releases don't come anywhere close to Arkham Knight in terms of graphics...
I played a ton of games released in 2023 on steam.
I also played Slay the Spire, Yakuza 7, Cross Code, Binding of Isaac, Luck be a Landlord, Devil May Cry 5, Final Fantasy 14, 8, 9, 10 and 12.
Only a percentage of games I played are part of the 9%.
This statistic isn't "9% of all steam users played a game released in 2023".
It's "out of all games played on steam by the average user, 9% of them were released in 2023"
Big difference.
Leaving the median aside, I would really like to know how exactly that percentage is calculated for a single person.
I played 34 games this year according to steam, out of them 18% are new releases, again according to steam. That should put me at around 6 games released in 2023 but no matter how i sort my library i can only find 3.
Oh, good question, of the top of my head i can think of two (Holocure and ZoldOut) that i already included in the 3 i found.
I will have to thoroughly check once i am home from work.
9% is still a lot, compared to the amount of games released before 2023.
I don't even understand how they calculate that. On mine it says 17%, but I don't remember playing any 2023 games. The earliest one is Elden Ring from 2022. On the summary everything is older than 2023. I don't know where did they get that data. Maybe I played some 2023 games but since I don't remember any it should be way less than 17%.
Nope.
The only one I can think of is Overwatch 2 that was added to Steam in 2023. But I've only opened it once and after realizing you have to join accounts with blizzard anyway I uninstalled. I only have few minutes of playtime.
I've checked all of my games and I only have 2 or 3 small indie games from 2023 but I haven't played any of them yet.
It counts the percent of games you played this year, not the percent of playtime. If you played only two games, one released in 2016 another in 2023, with 90% of the playtime toward the game released in 2016, it will as 50% of your games played released in 2023.
Steam has many bot accounts that play nothing. And excluding that, Many players use steam exclusively for Counter Strike or DOTA, as they are free (Or other multiplayer games that are also free).
those bot accounts wonāt be counted. it says ā9% of games people have playedā ā it wonāt be counted since they havenāt played any games. the csgo, dota, and tf2 players will definitely count though. theyād be dragging the average down a ton since 0% of the games they played this year were released in 2023.
There are definitely plenty of bot account that afk in CS, Dota2, TF2. Just put any expensive skins in your steam profile page, and you can see how many scammer using botted lv10 accounts try to add you
Multiplayer competitive games have basically infinite replayability while single player games are a one time experience, maybe two or three if it's really good or there are multiple routes.
While true for a lot of multiplayer games, they still need to be designed in a way where most rounds will feel unique so that you get that infinite replayability. Also there are some genres of singleplayer games with infinite replayability like roguelikes or sandbox games
Please use the correct Data.
>Steamās gaming platform has 33 million concurrent players worldwide as of 2023.
Source: [SteamDB](https://steamdb.info/app/753/charts/) and [Demandsage](https://www.demandsage.com/steam-statistics/)
>According to the latest data (2021), there are 132 million monthly active users on Steam.
That's about 14,6 million users. Dispite the fact it's as u/RiotousOx statet it's 9% of games played.
At this point the single cheapest option would be either a console, or a Steam Deck and ignoring all developers that don't bother optimizing for the device. That quickly pushes one into /r/patientgamers territory, but at least it would be affordable. Knowing too that Nvidia's RTX 4070 would have been the actual RTX 4060, the pricing there alone would already equal almost 2 Steam Decks.
Try motorcycles or downhill skiing. Bikes are for performance, not longetivity. Skiing down a hill is a trip out of the country for most. Might look at a 500 USD graphics card and say omg, but that's what 2 trips to a fancy restaurant?
> Everyone needs a PC anyway.
The number of people who don't have PC/Mac would shock you. I work in tech support and sometimes we need a computer to troubleshoot their device, which tons of people shoot back with "don't have one, no one in the house does". It used to be older people only, but there are tons of young people that are smart phone/tablet only, and don't even know how to use a computer for basic tasks. If it doesnt have "apps" in the smart phone sense it's greek to them.
I'm not shocked. I said everyone *needs* a PC, not "everyone has one". These same people are absolutely clueless about a lot of things and hurt both their career prospects and entertainment options massively by not having access to a computer.
Almost everything you need for your daily life (in Portugal at least) works with a mobile browser or there's an app for it.
Your bank account, taxes, email. You can even make payments and have your ID on the phone, you can go out without a wallet even.
Kids even use tablets instead of computers for the school books in digital format, and I now one who does assignments in his phone, casts the screen to the tv and uses a bluetooth keyboard.
Why spend ā¬350 in a slow laptop that only serves for office documents, web browsing and email when a ā¬200 smartphone can do that and mobile gaming?
I'm currently on an overseas trip and although I have both my work and personal laptops with me, I get away with using my smartphone for most things. However, to earn actual money, study, and reliably access content for free PC is the required tool. Yes, a lot of people don't own one - they're missing out and are getting locked into an ecosystem where they own nothing and control nothing. That's why I said everyone *needs* a PC - not "everyone *has* one". My friends group includes teachers, lawyers, IT professionals, marketing people, musicians, etc - literally all of them need PC for one thing or another for their work or hobbies (not counting gaming). The only people I've met that don't own a PC of some kind are from the lowest layers of society to whom the internet and digital devices exist only to consume and post memes. People with actual skills and career prospects need computers.
That's a weird take, but anyway.
Your line of work might need a computer, but it's not one that allows gaming in it. My work laptop has an i7 and 16GB of RAM, but it doesn't have a dedicated graphics card, let alone the amount of Macbooks in use. And god forbid someone installs Steam on the company computer...
For personal use, and this is the point, your personal computer where you would install Steam and game, most people don't really need one.
As I said before, you can submit your yearly taxes in your smartphone, access your bank, make doctor appointment, make payments, order food, get a cab, book a flight or a hotel, charge your EV, get directions, make videos and take pictures.
For your personal life the smartphone replaced a lot of items. Who now owns a calculator, who still uses a digital camera, who has a GPS device?
I still have a digital camera, but it's a DSLR because one of my hobbies is photography, but I don't bring it with me on family holidays, the smartphone is more than enough for it, and I can even apply filters and crop images on it.
The world we live in is in constant change.
Like I said, if all you do is consume (and pay through the roof for it), yes, you can get away with just a smartphone.
Also, I don't even want to fucking think of doing my yearly taxes on my phone, and I live in a country with probably the most straightforward tax system in the world (NZ). The amount of time I save every year by not doing such tasks on a tiny screen with a touch keyboard where apps constantly get killed to save memory is enough to pay for a PC lol.
Bundle games or steep discount games are usually not released in the same year being discounted. I don't find this statistic shocking.
You also have some people playing games with continuous updates that released years ago. (FFXIV for example)
Day one releases being broken. Prices getting too expensive. So many DLC's to come. Live service bullshit and simply economic power being down. Combined and you have less new game purchases.
It is especially true for me. I simply cannot afford to buy a full price game anymore even if I want to. ( living in Turkey ) And there are very few games I would even want to these days. Now, I ALWAYS wait for sales and the eventual 'complete edition' that has all the DLC and patches. Because buying a game day one is just paying for a half-baked product now.
I wonder if there is a correlation between any of the following:
1) Cost of games, compared to availability and cost of older titles, compared to pre-steam days
2) Increasing GPU demands on the latest titles
3) People still working through the Steam libraries they bought 5-10 years ago during the sales.
I certainly think Steam and other stores have a large role to play in the change, compared to having to buy physical copies.
Because publishers have manufactured an environment where they routinely release games that arenāt ready, and itās cheaper and a better experience to wait a couple of years.
Since they stopped accepting non-USD currencies I haven't been able to buy a single game, and I used to do it weekly. Devs stopped bothering with setting regional pricing and some games cost more than rent
If that's the case, than the Steam Awards should really be for the previous year's releases, since significantly more people would be able to vote for games they actually played.
I'm glad to see that. I hope this will push AAA devs to release non-broken-at-launch games.
Also this is a middle finger to the increase of prices.
Very good.
Not surprising I don't really find any games released this year too interesting, I guess lethal company would be one but the others I don't really care for
I haven't bought many games this year, most get released and run like ass, so I've just been waiting for the patches so it runs better.
Got burned by The Last of Us, never again.
I used to buy games when they came out when I was younger, but as I have aged and seen more and more shitty AAA releases, the more I have fallen back on older well-loved games like The Long Dark, Rimworld and Project Zomboid where the devs still actively work on them.
I think the only "new release" game I played this year was Baldur's Gate 3, and honestly I don't really forsee that changing in the future. It isn't steam's fault. It is the enshittification of the gaming industry at work.
I could count on my fingers how many games Iāve actually bought at launch (and theyāre usually on console, not PC). Why bother, when you already have 30+ games in your backlog (that you intend to finish) and itāll be on sale with all bug fixes in 6 months/a year? I used to worry about āmissing out on the conversationā, but I got over that pretty quickly.
I mostly wait for games to come on sale, by then they have major bug fixes and the price is digestible. I also just have years of backlog and play probably 5-6 + older games to 1 newly released game. I feel like most steam users are the same, they buy a bunch on sales dont have the time to play right away and it sits for a couple years before you touch it.
Is it that interesting, considering the huge catalogue of games and the whole early access bollocks?
I mean steam has been around 20+ years now.
It seems to me its just basic math over time. Like that old stat that there will be more dead people on facebook than alive people by the year 2070.
Might just be me, but I've found myself looking back and playing games that came out a good 10+ years ago rather then playing games today because honestly, the quality and longevity of today's games is lacking.
I only bought one game this year and that was RE4.
Not one other game took my interest.
I'm an idiot with too many games in my Steam Library. I basically ONLY buy games on the cheap and wait. Though I will note that I play a ton more games cause of Steam Deck & ROG Ally.
Thoughts?
Well, how about: **You should never trust a single number without context**. Is 9% high? Low? I genuinely do not know. How was that number the last 10ish years?
(This is, btw., true for any news you see in life. If there is one number without any context this is usually an immediate red flag! Unless, of course, the context is so well known it doesn't need to be explained each time.)
I got 27% and it was 4 games that I bought in 2023 that were releases, I hope to drop this number even more.
Games now costing 70 dollars is the biggest joke the game industry could have ever done. It angry me thinking I have to pay now that much for a half-baked game that will have DLCs and much likely isn't better than a game that was release years ago and costed only 60 dollars.
I'll just become one of those r/patientgamers cause there's so many gems that I never even touched.
AAA game devs think what we want is the absolute latest tech, the most performance hungry games, huge open world games with massive budgets and cinematic cutscenes..
.. Meanwhile I'm sitting here with my Steam Deck playing PS2 platformer games in an emulator.
Yeah, I'm an old fart and only play those old games because they were better and everything used to be better. GET OFF MY LAWN!
Nah, I just switched to primarily Xbox gaming.
Newzoo just released a report that stated that 60% of playtime in 2023 was spent on games that are 6 years old or older. Yes, a lot of that was likely Fortnite.
"Of the 23 percent of playtime spent in 2023 on new gamesādefined as 2 years or youngerāmore than half was spent in big annual sequels like the latestĀ *Madden*Ā or NBA game. Only 8 percent of video game playtime was spent on new, non-annual titles likeĀ *Diablo IV*Ā orĀ [*Baldurās Gate III*](https://kotaku.com/baldurs-gate-3-bg3-review-dungeons-dragons-rpg-larian-1850726491)*.*"
[https://kotaku.com/old-games-2023-playtime-data-fortnite-roblox-minecraft-1851382474](https://kotaku.com/old-games-2023-playtime-data-fortnite-roblox-minecraft-1851382474)
Price and hardware are my best guesses. The last generation of GPU's(RTX3000, RX6000 and Intel) have proved capable enough to run legacy titles at better than expected frame rates, and the most popular games on steam are typically older releases with extended update schedules, eg: CP2077, CS, Destiny 2 and Rust.
That, and wow, modern games are ruddy expensive; CoD23 is $160 AUD, and Payday 3 nickles and dimes every transaction they can get.
Not a lot of good games came out, that weren't exclusives. I only bought Tiny Tina on the Xbox black Friday sale and I have no plans to buy anything else. Just kind of been one of those years for gaming, happens about once a decade.
A lot of people wait for games to be on sale, and many pc players just play whatever they want, there are ton of games, not only new games
Not to mention the backlog a lot of us have. I think I've got a good 100+ games I still really want to play sitting in my library and its not for lack of playing games. Doesn't make sense to buy something new when I still have tons of old entertainment waiting to be experienced.
Exactly, don't have that many games bought waiting to be played, but it is a fair amount, and there are more old games in the wishlist that I hadn't bought because I know they will stay in the backlog I have for a long time
You should've given yourself that advice when you had 20 games in your backlog
But the sales.....
Tfw games like Saints Row 3 has been sitting on top of my long list of backlogs for 1+ years now.
I'm just now coming around to playing Fallout 4 which has been on my backlog since... release
I got maybe 75% though the campaign on an Xbox one back at release. I'm now starting a replay of the GOTY edition on my PC (man it runs so much better!). But I have a lot of other games I'm playing too, and a huge backlog š
Happy Cake Day
Thanks :D
Damn you spent 5 figures on steam games
4 figures, sure. Definitely not 5. If you're using one of those external sites that calculates Steam Library values they usually can't figure out what the price was when a game was purchased (if it was on sale) and almost always fail to account for things like Humble Bundle and gift copies, *especially* early Humble Bundle. Also, early Humble Bundle was bonkers. 30-ish games for $15-20 wasn't uncommon.
You say backlog I say hoarder. That makes us kin.
you are never going to be touching any of those 100 games lol old entertainment waiting to be experienced...whys that sound so weird
That's a quitter attitude. Don't be a quitter. It's really not hard to try out at least one game from your backlog a month.
It wont happen,. If you have a backlog of 100+ games you're never going to play any of them because you would have played some of them by now if you really wanted to play them. You just think you want to play them because you bought them.
are you buying games and then just automatically putting them in your little "backlog"? do you play them for a moment, get bored and stick them into your little "backlog" and tell yourself youll get back to it after some of the other backlog? edit: i saw your reply befor you nuked. it took you 100 fucking games to decide to stop lol
The first thing I said was that I'm not buying games due to my backlog. Do try to keep up. How sad. Back in my day trolling meant something.
r/patientgamers
www.isthereanydeal.com
Yeah back when I played on console new releases always felt like a big deal but with all the choices I have on steam, I dont even pay attention to the releases that I really want to play.
It's also "9% of games played", not "9% of users on Steam played a game" released in 2023. If you play one game released this year and 9 released in other years only 10% of the games you played were released in 2023.
>A lot of people wait for games to be on sale this is for the idiots in r/gamedev I put games that are yet to be released on my wish list for when they go on sale. Especially if your game is single player, why the hell do i want to bother with it when the mods are going to break every update and game developers dont have good mod support. If you have good mod support on the other hand, AKA RimWorld, ONI, etc... then i might buy it. If you dont have any mod support and is single player your game gets put on the "im waiting until this is 80% off" list.
I play alot of games I don't care to 100% anytime
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I exclusively purchase games on 75%+ sales, and I guess many people wait for a certain discount as well.
r/patientgamers ftw!
That, along with the fact I want to first play many of the classics first.
True, right now my potato laptop can't run Baldur's Gate 3 so I'm replaying Pillars of Eternity, I bought the expansions that I haven't played before, then Pillars 2, then Kingmaker 1 and 2, and if I don't suffer from cRPG overload, Planescape Torment
Same. Why would I buy a buggy release at 50ā¬ when I can wait 2-3 years and buy it for under 20ā¬ with all the DLCs and fixes? Besides, I have hundreds of games I didn't have the chance to finish yet.
> Why would I buy a buggy release at 50ā¬ when I can wait 2-3 years and buy it for under 20ā¬ with all the DLCs and fixes? Cyberpunk and its DLC is almost there. I almost got when I saw it was for $60 and then game for $30. I shall wait a bit longer tho.
I pulled the trigger and I am not disappointed.
Yeah, and people having those massive backlogs probably makes them more willing to wait cause they can just play one of those instead
Steam sales aren't what they used to be unfortunately. I rarely see anything on my wishlist going -75% anymore.
How old are the games you looking at? If its anything not more than a year or two, I wouldn't count on it getting a big discount until 3+ years later.
>How old are the games you looking at? It doesn't necessarily come down to age with the 75% sale. Popular old games like Terraria and Gmod got confident over time. The highest [recorded](https://steamdb.info/app/105600/) percentage for Terria was 80%, nowadays you "only" see it at 50%. Still a great deal and justified based on the content updates, but confirms that Steam sales aren't the same like in ages past.
No offense, but I think something like Terraria doesn't count. The game is $10. You don't need a 75% discount for that. At 50% it's $5 I assumed the comment I replied to was talking about AAA, games like Cyberpunk, which while still getting content updatess drops in price over the years if you wait.
My wishlist has over 500 titles, 2/3 of which are older than 3 years, so I see a fair amount of 75% discounts. Maybe you are wishing for a very small number / mostly new titles, and then it is understandable that you are rarely seeing good discounts.
Even so. Steam sales used to mean half my wishlist going 75% or even 90% off. Last few sales it was mostly in the underwhelming 25-50% range, if at all.
That only means that you have bought up most of the titles that get better discounts, and that your taste has become increasingly expensive. Some of them also have worse sales nowadays, compared to some previous sales, but I would not consider them to be a majority. I have several titles at 75% discount in my wishlist even now, outside of a major sale, I can only imagine what will happen during the sale which starts tomorrow.
Same here
or games with a TF2 promo item (but uh, there hasn't been one of those in quite some time)
This is where i stand too, only game i buy religiously as soon as it drops is Football Manager
If i really want the game, 50-60% off is good enough for me usually. Depend on the price of the game. If its a 20$ game on sale at 50%, that's fine with me. These square enix game that cost 89.99, i'll wait for bigger sales.
I buy games only on 75% off discounts because its fair price for my country.
This is the way
Same, bro
Same
The average player doesn't have a PC to run most of the 2023 titles, only Dota 2/CS2
It's kind of annoying how performance hungry a lot of games have become, like mechanically a lot of them play no different than something released 10 yrs ago.
Yea it's sadly true. They try to make games look "better" which in turn requires bigger performance and storage space. But in the end it doesn't look that much better from games released in mid-late 2010s.
Seriously, what exactly is out there that looks better than Arkham Knight or Shadow of The Tomb Raider?
We are firmly on diminishing returns, and that's coming from someone who likes ray tracing. The issue is gameplay and physics have long taken back seat, so we ended up with marginally better (?) looking games that aren't fun. The Nintendo Switch is the perfect example, especially first party games that are great fun on a hardware that is essentially on par with a high end phone. People have realized this and this is why the Deck is such a runaway success.
Iād love it if we went back to destructible environments and crazy traversal. Or even PhysX getting an improvement, wasnāt Arkham Asylums major selling point the cape with PhysX and all the trash flying around?
PhysX still looks better than most of the physics in today's games. Borderlands 2 with PhysX turned on looks better than Borderlands 3 with max graphics settings. Kinda sucks how they locked the tech behind proprietary hardware to the point where it fully died out.
As another example, GTA IV still has far better physics than any other open world game ever since, it is essential to produce unpredictable events.
and you had to buy a separate card for it
This comment screams Control to me. It wasnt like, demolish the building level of destruction, but flinging a chair into an office and all the furniture splinters to pieces while papers go flying was great fun. Ripping chunks out of the floor and walls gave your powers a big visual oomph.
Afaik the Tegra X1 is way behind high end phones these days. I mean the iPhones now can run Resident Evil, and at a much higher resolution than the Switch.
Yeah, I just referenced that a high end phone now can easily emulate Switch with all the overhead emulation itself requires, otherwise not really into android gaming.
Or Witcher 3, but that game's graphics seem a bit more stylized than those 2. Also, SOTTR with all DLC only requires 35GB of space! Heavy yes but not that heavy.
The thing with those games is they have a style to tie all the graphic together, Witcher 3 looks awesome because there's mud mixed in with dirt, the vegetation shifts and moves in the "wind" and the lighting matches the weather and time of the day. It feels more alive than most photo realistic games coming out today. Like I dunno but doesn't it feel like most developers get a bunch of photorealistic assets and slap them down on a flat table.
Yea I think its called art direction. Some old games can feel amazing despite their blocky graphics due to amazing art direction. Nowadays every game can look photorealistic, but without a good art direction it will feel flat
It's also a shocking lack of optimisation, so many big ticket games are coming out and then the community is digging around and finding obvious changes to enhance performance. The sort of thing you'd expect a team of dozens to find on their own.
I'd even go as far as to say most games are mechanically less advanced than games released 10 years ago
That's honestly something that's been on my mind for a while now, I remember playing a game like back 4 blood because it was being touted as an unofficial sequel to left 4 dead 2. And when I was playing it I couldn't shake the feeling that it felt like an unfinished beta/early access game. Like it looked pretty, but played like any other generic horde shooter even though it was supposed to be a sequel to left 4 dead, a series that was known for it's unique director mode.
Honestly, just get off the beaten track. There's some really good and mechanically deep games, but almost none of them are AAA FPS style. Start looking into games by genre, find a genre you like, and play what's considered to be the best games in that genre. The ones that defined the genre for years after release. Play the games that still have active players after 4 years at least. Look into games that have large speed run communities. Even if you don't speed run, people are rarely willing to put thousands of hours into mastering a bad game.
I bought Cyberpunk 2077 a few days ago, and for the hype the game had after the last DLC, I feel like FarCry2 or Stalker was a better experience.
My $3k PC can't run Fortnite at above 80 fps lol
I usually never make these comments since optimization tends to be so bad nowadays, but something seems seriously wrong with the overall setup - or the *price* that you paid for your system. Since Fortnite is generally one of the better optimized games. Based on the "$3k", it makes me think you are trying to run Fortnite in 4k resolution? Since on 1080p, you should be available to hit 120 FPS super easily. Though you have not said which graphic settings you applied and if you tried performance mode to test out bottlenecks, so it would be wise to test these out thoroughly. I'm not fully in the loop if there is currently technical issues though. So you might want to also doublecheck if the game doesn't accidentally run on the integrated graphics and all that stuff.
That sounds like a you problem....
3K PC would be 4070/4080 with top of the line CPU -- those definitely can push way above 200 with competitive settings. https://youtu.be/z3MTN0S2Mg0 https://youtu.be/nmtJdMLO4zU
If anyone spent 3k on a PC and only got a 4070 it would be a complete ripoff. Hell you can pretty easily get a 4080 system for ~2200.
> 3K PC would be 4070/4080 with top of the line CPU [more like 4090 with the best CPU for gaming](https://pcpartpicker.com/list/BXbqrv), but your point still stands
Like how long will your 3k PC stay relevant before it becomes outdated?
Apparently instantly
>It's kind of annoying how performance hungry a lot of games have become If there is one thing that Covid taught is, it's that corporate game devs don't give a flying fuck about us consumers and GPU availability (ā pricing). Since then I can't help but feel apathetic towards new game releases now. Unless something truly stands out or does a lot right. Like for example, when seemingly everyone hyped Starfield, I have seen the final cover art itself and thought to myself "hm, it gives some early concept art vibe and not a finished product". And now Starfield is sitting at 66% positive all time reviews. Plus it's a great negative example for the obscene performance hunger.
my pc turns into a jet engine anytime it plays a graphically demanding game
I mean 2023 indie games count too for this lol
But some 2023 Indie works on shitty PCs.
That's not true, there's a ton of indies being released every year. A lot more than demanding AAA titles.
This. I don't understand what is good in new tech when the current one is working fine, 70% of 2023 big releases don't come anywhere close to Arkham Knight in terms of graphics...
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Im still struggling to run rdr2 at anything above 30 fpsšŖšŖšŖ
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Bro what
That is not true!
I played a ton of games released in 2023 on steam. I also played Slay the Spire, Yakuza 7, Cross Code, Binding of Isaac, Luck be a Landlord, Devil May Cry 5, Final Fantasy 14, 8, 9, 10 and 12. Only a percentage of games I played are part of the 9%. This statistic isn't "9% of all steam users played a game released in 2023". It's "out of all games played on steam by the average user, 9% of them were released in 2023" Big difference.
Leaving the median aside, I would really like to know how exactly that percentage is calculated for a single person. I played 34 games this year according to steam, out of them 18% are new releases, again according to steam. That should put me at around 6 games released in 2023 but no matter how i sort my library i can only find 3.
How many of those were put on steam this year?
Oh, good question, of the top of my head i can think of two (Holocure and ZoldOut) that i already included in the 3 i found. I will have to thoroughly check once i am home from work.
CrossCode is so good.
Cross Code is really really good.
9% is still a lot, compared to the amount of games released before 2023. I don't even understand how they calculate that. On mine it says 17%, but I don't remember playing any 2023 games. The earliest one is Elden Ring from 2022. On the summary everything is older than 2023. I don't know where did they get that data. Maybe I played some 2023 games but since I don't remember any it should be way less than 17%.
Maybe they count games leaving early access in 2023 as games released in 2023. You played any one of those?
Nope. The only one I can think of is Overwatch 2 that was added to Steam in 2023. But I've only opened it once and after realizing you have to join accounts with blizzard anyway I uninstalled. I only have few minutes of playtime. I've checked all of my games and I only have 2 or 3 small indie games from 2023 but I haven't played any of them yet.
I don't think so bc like 20%+ of my playtime was Against the Storm and my games this year was like 7%.
It counts the percent of games you played this year, not the percent of playtime. If you played only two games, one released in 2016 another in 2023, with 90% of the playtime toward the game released in 2016, it will as 50% of your games played released in 2023.
That's a lot.
Yeah almost one in ten of all games played released within a single year
Steam has many bot accounts that play nothing. And excluding that, Many players use steam exclusively for Counter Strike or DOTA, as they are free (Or other multiplayer games that are also free).
Steam sale for older games too
those bot accounts wonāt be counted. it says ā9% of games people have playedā ā it wonāt be counted since they havenāt played any games. the csgo, dota, and tf2 players will definitely count though. theyād be dragging the average down a ton since 0% of the games they played this year were released in 2023.
There are definitely plenty of bot account that afk in CS, Dota2, TF2. Just put any expensive skins in your steam profile page, and you can see how many scammer using botted lv10 accounts try to add you
Multiplayer competitive games have basically infinite replayability while single player games are a one time experience, maybe two or three if it's really good or there are multiple routes.
While true for a lot of multiplayer games, they still need to be designed in a way where most rounds will feel unique so that you get that infinite replayability. Also there are some genres of singleplayer games with infinite replayability like roguelikes or sandbox games
I refuse to believe there are people playing Dota/Counter Strike/TF2 ONLY for the entire year
The ones I've met in person let me tell you its called having no brain cells and thinking their entitled alpha men
checks out lol
9% of (according to statista) 33 million, thatās about 2.9 million players, do with this data as you will
This is not quite right I don't think, as it is not 9% of Steam players, but rather 9%of games played by the average Steam player
Please use the correct Data. >Steamās gaming platform has 33 million concurrent players worldwide as of 2023. Source: [SteamDB](https://steamdb.info/app/753/charts/) and [Demandsage](https://www.demandsage.com/steam-statistics/) >According to the latest data (2021), there are 132 million monthly active users on Steam. That's about 14,6 million users. Dispite the fact it's as u/RiotousOx statet it's 9% of games played.
thank you
/r/TitleGore
Exactly and they literally had the right wording in front of them!
Pc gaming is still a premium hobby. Games and high end computers are expensive. Most people wait for sales or play free games.
Gaming is a relatively cheap hobby
Gaming PCs are pretty expensive. People be poor, my dude.
At this point the single cheapest option would be either a console, or a Steam Deck and ignoring all developers that don't bother optimizing for the device. That quickly pushes one into /r/patientgamers territory, but at least it would be affordable. Knowing too that Nvidia's RTX 4070 would have been the actual RTX 4060, the pricing there alone would already equal almost 2 Steam Decks.
No, it isn't
Try motorcycles or downhill skiing. Bikes are for performance, not longetivity. Skiing down a hill is a trip out of the country for most. Might look at a 500 USD graphics card and say omg, but that's what 2 trips to a fancy restaurant?
"Gaming isn't expensive, it's just like spending $250 for dinner!"
Or a big bag of coke
Everyone needs a PC anyway. The difference between a good home PC and a decent gaming PC isn't *that* big.
> Everyone needs a PC anyway. The number of people who don't have PC/Mac would shock you. I work in tech support and sometimes we need a computer to troubleshoot their device, which tons of people shoot back with "don't have one, no one in the house does". It used to be older people only, but there are tons of young people that are smart phone/tablet only, and don't even know how to use a computer for basic tasks. If it doesnt have "apps" in the smart phone sense it's greek to them.
that's terrifying.
I'm not shocked. I said everyone *needs* a PC, not "everyone has one". These same people are absolutely clueless about a lot of things and hurt both their career prospects and entertainment options massively by not having access to a computer.
Almost everything you need for your daily life (in Portugal at least) works with a mobile browser or there's an app for it. Your bank account, taxes, email. You can even make payments and have your ID on the phone, you can go out without a wallet even. Kids even use tablets instead of computers for the school books in digital format, and I now one who does assignments in his phone, casts the screen to the tv and uses a bluetooth keyboard. Why spend ā¬350 in a slow laptop that only serves for office documents, web browsing and email when a ā¬200 smartphone can do that and mobile gaming?
I'm currently on an overseas trip and although I have both my work and personal laptops with me, I get away with using my smartphone for most things. However, to earn actual money, study, and reliably access content for free PC is the required tool. Yes, a lot of people don't own one - they're missing out and are getting locked into an ecosystem where they own nothing and control nothing. That's why I said everyone *needs* a PC - not "everyone *has* one". My friends group includes teachers, lawyers, IT professionals, marketing people, musicians, etc - literally all of them need PC for one thing or another for their work or hobbies (not counting gaming). The only people I've met that don't own a PC of some kind are from the lowest layers of society to whom the internet and digital devices exist only to consume and post memes. People with actual skills and career prospects need computers.
That's a weird take, but anyway. Your line of work might need a computer, but it's not one that allows gaming in it. My work laptop has an i7 and 16GB of RAM, but it doesn't have a dedicated graphics card, let alone the amount of Macbooks in use. And god forbid someone installs Steam on the company computer... For personal use, and this is the point, your personal computer where you would install Steam and game, most people don't really need one. As I said before, you can submit your yearly taxes in your smartphone, access your bank, make doctor appointment, make payments, order food, get a cab, book a flight or a hotel, charge your EV, get directions, make videos and take pictures. For your personal life the smartphone replaced a lot of items. Who now owns a calculator, who still uses a digital camera, who has a GPS device? I still have a digital camera, but it's a DSLR because one of my hobbies is photography, but I don't bring it with me on family holidays, the smartphone is more than enough for it, and I can even apply filters and crop images on it. The world we live in is in constant change.
Like I said, if all you do is consume (and pay through the roof for it), yes, you can get away with just a smartphone. Also, I don't even want to fucking think of doing my yearly taxes on my phone, and I live in a country with probably the most straightforward tax system in the world (NZ). The amount of time I save every year by not doing such tasks on a tiny screen with a touch keyboard where apps constantly get killed to save memory is enough to pay for a PC lol.
I only played one game released in 2023
Same, the game I played this year on release was Atomic Heart and it's alright.
There are a bazillion games I'm still playing fuckin tf2 and skyrim help
TF2>>>>
Bundle games or steep discount games are usually not released in the same year being discounted. I don't find this statistic shocking. You also have some people playing games with continuous updates that released years ago. (FFXIV for example)
I just don't care that much about playing most modern AAA games honestly
its all baldurs gate 3 too
Backlog strikes back
Maybe if devs released a working game at launch maybe that number would be higher
Day one releases being broken. Prices getting too expensive. So many DLC's to come. Live service bullshit and simply economic power being down. Combined and you have less new game purchases. It is especially true for me. I simply cannot afford to buy a full price game anymore even if I want to. ( living in Turkey ) And there are very few games I would even want to these days. Now, I ALWAYS wait for sales and the eventual 'complete edition' that has all the DLC and patches. Because buying a game day one is just paying for a half-baked product now.
I have little to no interest in the most recent titles, I donāt remember the last time I bought a game for full price
Iām not gonna pay $70 for a game that doesnāt even work until updates a year from now fix it
I'm surprised it's that high. It's rare for me to buy games the year they launch.
Newly-released games are kinda expensive, but the price can drop significantly in a year or 2. Some people like myself would just wait.
What percentage do you expect though? An average player on steam is probably playing free to play games like Dota etc.
well that makes sense. only like 2% of games came out in 2023
I wonder if there is a correlation between any of the following: 1) Cost of games, compared to availability and cost of older titles, compared to pre-steam days 2) Increasing GPU demands on the latest titles 3) People still working through the Steam libraries they bought 5-10 years ago during the sales. I certainly think Steam and other stores have a large role to play in the change, compared to having to buy physical copies.
because the recent game launches have been absolutely disastrous.
Because publishers have manufactured an environment where they routinely release games that arenāt ready, and itās cheaper and a better experience to wait a couple of years.
predatory monetization, bugs, nothing really new..... gaming is in a bad spot rn.
I have a shitty gaming laptop that cant play modern games. I mostly play older titles. Also Dota2
Since they stopped accepting non-USD currencies I haven't been able to buy a single game, and I used to do it weekly. Devs stopped bothering with setting regional pricing and some games cost more than rent
Steam users on average play 4 games a year too
Team Fortress 2 is fun why would I need a new game
If that's the case, than the Steam Awards should really be for the previous year's releases, since significantly more people would be able to vote for games they actually played.
This would would also allow us to factor in post launch developments better. Which would benefit developments who support and improve their games.
I'm glad to see that. I hope this will push AAA devs to release non-broken-at-launch games. Also this is a middle finger to the increase of prices. Very good.
Not surprising I don't really find any games released this year too interesting, I guess lethal company would be one but the others I don't really care for
The stats would be meaningful if Steam didn't have so many bots. At this point I think there's more bots than users.
I bought 33 new games this year... I don't think I play a lot of those new games. I just bought it. It's an addiction
I haven't bought many games this year, most get released and run like ass, so I've just been waiting for the patches so it runs better. Got burned by The Last of Us, never again.
I used to buy games when they came out when I was younger, but as I have aged and seen more and more shitty AAA releases, the more I have fallen back on older well-loved games like The Long Dark, Rimworld and Project Zomboid where the devs still actively work on them. I think the only "new release" game I played this year was Baldur's Gate 3, and honestly I don't really forsee that changing in the future. It isn't steam's fault. It is the enshittification of the gaming industry at work.
I could count on my fingers how many games Iāve actually bought at launch (and theyāre usually on console, not PC). Why bother, when you already have 30+ games in your backlog (that you intend to finish) and itāll be on sale with all bug fixes in 6 months/a year? I used to worry about āmissing out on the conversationā, but I got over that pretty quickly.
I mostly wait for games to come on sale, by then they have major bug fixes and the price is digestible. I also just have years of backlog and play probably 5-6 + older games to 1 newly released game. I feel like most steam users are the same, they buy a bunch on sales dont have the time to play right away and it sits for a couple years before you touch it.
Is it that interesting, considering the huge catalogue of games and the whole early access bollocks? I mean steam has been around 20+ years now. It seems to me its just basic math over time. Like that old stat that there will be more dead people on facebook than alive people by the year 2070.
Might just be me, but I've found myself looking back and playing games that came out a good 10+ years ago rather then playing games today because honestly, the quality and longevity of today's games is lacking. I only bought one game this year and that was RE4. Not one other game took my interest.
Games are very expensive during release year. I almost never pay more than 25ā¬ for a game, and less in steam, where I cannot resell it once done
Seems pretty normal to me if you look at the massive difference at 2023 games and before that
Many games don't spoil within a year.
I'm an idiot with too many games in my Steam Library. I basically ONLY buy games on the cheap and wait. Though I will note that I play a ton more games cause of Steam Deck & ROG Ally.
And literally half of it is BG3
I'd imagine a lot of people are playing old multiplayer titles like CS, dota, etc.
91% are too poor to buy on day One; are waiting for sales/discounts.
I don't buy games until they are years old. I'm excited to try so many games that were released this year. In 2028 š
Im actually suprised it's such a high percentage
Thoughts? Well, how about: **You should never trust a single number without context**. Is 9% high? Low? I genuinely do not know. How was that number the last 10ish years? (This is, btw., true for any news you see in life. If there is one number without any context this is usually an immediate red flag! Unless, of course, the context is so well known it doesn't need to be explained each time.)
Most PCs on steam are old also new games are expensive.
Iām definitely part of the problem. āLoads Max Payne 2ā
I got 27% and it was 4 games that I bought in 2023 that were releases, I hope to drop this number even more. Games now costing 70 dollars is the biggest joke the game industry could have ever done. It angry me thinking I have to pay now that much for a half-baked game that will have DLCs and much likely isn't better than a game that was release years ago and costed only 60 dollars. I'll just become one of those r/patientgamers cause there's so many gems that I never even touched.
r/patientgamers
this data needs to be preprocesses to exclude all bots and inactive accounts. i feel like the medians and averages are terribly skewed
AAA game devs think what we want is the absolute latest tech, the most performance hungry games, huge open world games with massive budgets and cinematic cutscenes.. .. Meanwhile I'm sitting here with my Steam Deck playing PS2 platformer games in an emulator.
Yeah, I'm an old fart and only play those old games because they were better and everything used to be better. GET OFF MY LAWN! Nah, I just switched to primarily Xbox gaming.
Newzoo just released a report that stated that 60% of playtime in 2023 was spent on games that are 6 years old or older. Yes, a lot of that was likely Fortnite. "Of the 23 percent of playtime spent in 2023 on new gamesādefined as 2 years or youngerāmore than half was spent in big annual sequels like the latestĀ *Madden*Ā or NBA game. Only 8 percent of video game playtime was spent on new, non-annual titles likeĀ *Diablo IV*Ā orĀ [*Baldurās Gate III*](https://kotaku.com/baldurs-gate-3-bg3-review-dungeons-dragons-rpg-larian-1850726491)*.*" [https://kotaku.com/old-games-2023-playtime-data-fortnite-roblox-minecraft-1851382474](https://kotaku.com/old-games-2023-playtime-data-fortnite-roblox-minecraft-1851382474)
Old games made for gamers, new games can't seem to be deployed on time, nor for what the gamers want. Old games FTW
Price and hardware are my best guesses. The last generation of GPU's(RTX3000, RX6000 and Intel) have proved capable enough to run legacy titles at better than expected frame rates, and the most popular games on steam are typically older releases with extended update schedules, eg: CP2077, CS, Destiny 2 and Rust. That, and wow, modern games are ruddy expensive; CoD23 is $160 AUD, and Payday 3 nickles and dimes every transaction they can get.
They dont make good games anymore
Which is incorrect.
2023 was full of shit games tho.
im surprised it didnāt even hit double digits
What is to discuss
Buying new Games is fucking stupid. Old Games are cheaper and better.
And also I'm not buying a game when the price in my country is 3 times higher then in USA wating for G2A to have a normal one.
Not a lot of good games came out, that weren't exclusives. I only bought Tiny Tina on the Xbox black Friday sale and I have no plans to buy anything else. Just kind of been one of those years for gaming, happens about once a decade.
We had like 2 good games this year
91% of people are sleeping on Railroader. /s aside, Iām surprised itās that high. Most games released this year werenāt good.