this post was submitted on 11 Sep 2023
28 points (78.0% liked)

Games

16651 readers
1063 users here now

Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)

Posts.

  1. News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
  2. Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
  3. No humor/memes etc..
  4. No affiliate links
  5. No advertising.
  6. No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
  7. No self promotion.
  8. No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
  9. No politics.

Comments.

  1. No personal attacks.
  2. Obey instance rules.
  3. No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
  4. Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.

My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.

Other communities:

Beehaw.org gaming

Lemmy.ml gaming

lemmy.ca pcgaming

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
nanoUFO@sh.itjust.works
28
Starfield overtakes Skyrim with concurrent Steam players (www.eurogamer.net)
submitted 1 year ago by geosoco@kbin.social to c/games@sh.itjust.works
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Over the weekend, following the game's full release, it hit a peak of 330,723 concurrent players. That's bigger than Skyrim's 287,411 concurrent player record, though still a way behind Fallout 4, which has a concurrent Steam player count of 472,962

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] geosoco@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'd bet a sizable portion of steam numbers aren't purchases either. AMD was running the promo such that anyone buying AMD hardware from like July onwards got a free copy.

[–] Lazz45@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Actually a very fair point, and something that I do in fact find interesting is that it hasn't breached FO4's numbers. That game burned me so fucking hard lol. I bought that pile of shit at full price (last game I ever purchased at launch), and it ran SOOOOOO bad. Like less than 20 fps in any city bad. I tried to push through the framerate/bugs to get to the good and for me it just never came. I dropped that game after 1 playthrough and I have 0 desire at all to ever pick it up again. I have replayed skyrim (heavily modded at this point) and FO:NV (FO3 didnt work right on my W10 machine, i wonder if it works now with W11 and compatibility mode. I would replay that for sure), but I think with FO4 the charm had worn off. Playing a game that felt like oblivion [Not in a literal sense, but in the "its a bethesda RPG" sense] (with shitty quest writing) in the modern day at sub 20 fps for the price of $60 was one hell of a wakeup call.

So all of that is to say, I find it surprising that their new flagship has not beaten FO4's numbers. Perhaps they burned a lot more people than just me?

[–] ExploratrixLunae@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I'm playing Starfield on gamepass. Fallout 4 was similarly a wakeup call for me: I had pre-ordered it and was mostly disappointed by it. I occasionally try replaying it, but that disappointment sticks with me to this day. This is coming from someone whose first major gaming experience on PC was with Oblivion (which I still play to-date).

So yeah - I'm with you on not buying Starfield new because of FO4's poor showing. I am enjoying it well enough that I may buy it someday (kinda wish I had gotten a GPU bundle including it just because I've been ready to upgrade for a long time), but I'm not in any rush to do so. I just knew I wasn't going to be as interested in it as I was with other Bethesda games of the past.

As an aside, I hope FO3 works better for you these days. A year or two back, Bethesda patched the Steam version to remove the Games for Windows Live requirement, which had foiled many attempted replays of mine (particularly when I made the move to Linux). Now it runs perfectly well.