4 ms·

These are not winner games these days. Gaming trends are so fast that indie games like the one where you play a duck with a gun is what's driving the gaming com

by wraptile 11mo ago

These are not winner games these days. Gaming trends are so fast that indie games like the one where you play a duck with a gun is what's driving the gaming community these days.

itsn0tm3 11mo ago
I would say that‘s a bit overly simplified, as much as the indie or indie like game scene is thriving, so is the online multiplayer scene. Gaming is huge and just because one thing is big doesn’t mean another is not. Not a zero sum game here.
- wraptile 11mo ago
  Sure but not being able to play 4 games is not an indication of success either way. It's not 2012 when you had to have Call of Duty - you can not have battlefield, cod or fort nite and still never run out of incredible, popular games to play.
  - SkiFire13 11mo ago
    If you have a bunch of friends that have battlefield/cod/fortnite and want to play them, they will still do so without you, or at least heavily pressure you into getting them.
    - wraptile 11mo ago
      I'm not sure what could that even mean from consumer pov - I'm not going to buy a platform because some of my friends might want me to play a specific game with me? The pressure to get more games on your platform has never been as low as it is today and has never been this low on Steam itself. You could spend a lifetime with the current Steam library and never feel bored. From product pov Valve feels very comfortable and I bet they have the data to back up this move with basically unlimited war chest. If anything I feel like Valve is pressuring game developers of these major games here - not the other way around.
      - SkiFire13 11mo ago
        > I'm not sure what could that even mean from consumer pov - I'm not going to buy a platform because some of my friends might want me to play a specific game with me? Yeah exactly. Depending how much you care about playing with friends compared to playing at all you might make that choice.
      - dgfl 11mo ago
        That’s exactly the thought process of every teenager ever, and also most people who want to connect with their friends through gaming beyond their teenage years. Not everyone experiences gaming the same way.
      - swiftcoder 11mo ago
        > I'm not sure what could that even mean from consumer pov - I'm not going to buy a platform because some of my friends might want me to play a specific game with me? That's exactly how console sales worked in the past. I bought an Xbox because all my friends were playing Halo, and I wanted to join in... The recent phenomenon of games supporting cross-play out of the gate is probably eating into this, but exclusives were a hell of a moat back in the day.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
      - skinnymuch 11mo ago
        Yea as a casual I only care about gaming with others. I don’t care about doing it on my own so my consumer behavior depends on social stuff
bloqs 11mo ago
thats not accurate. they have improved, but the market does not look as you described
crote 11mo ago
Sure, but those AAA games still exist, and people still want to play them. As a gamer, why would you want to spend a few hundred bucks on a gaming box, when it isn't able to play the biggest hits? Who would want to deliberately limit their ecosystem to indie games? There's a nonzero chance that BF6/GTA6/etc becomes a thing that everyone wants to play. If all your friends are raging about how much fun it is and are all playing together, aren't you going to regret buying a Steam Machine? Sure, you can still play Super Meat Boy, but that doesn't matter - they regret what they can't do.
- dontlaugh 11mo ago
  Exactly, this competes with a second hand PS5.
- chmod775 11mo ago
  Nonsense. People don't buy a PS5 and regret they can't play League of Legends. There's been games exclusive to one platform or the other since the dawn of time, yet people still buy them for the games they do have. That thing is going to run a ton of games that other consoles don't. Few customers are going to replace their PC with it, but if you have the cash and want to add a sleek console to your living room that will also stream from your desktop in a pinch, it's probably a great deal.
- unionpivo 11mo ago
  >As a gamer, why would you want to spend a few hundred bucks on a gaming box, when it isn't able to play the biggest hits? Who would want to deliberately limit their ecosystem to indie games? ??? Look at steam top 100, sure there are 2 or 3 games you wont be able to play on there, but there rest work just fine. And sure there are popular games outside steam, but even if none of them worked (which is not true), for most gamers its a non issue. (And Valve is probably not really concerned about them) The only games this limits are online competitive (most of the time FPS) games. There are plenty of gamers, myself included, that have 0 interest in such games. In short even if 0 online FPS games are playable on steam console(which is not true), there are still 10s of millions of gamers, who wouldn't care. As far as why wouldn't people pick something that can play 100% of games is because they cant. Even the best PC cant play Nintendo games, not all PS games are on PC or xbox, etc. You always have a trade off. And plenty of people still buy PC's,Deck, PS5's and Switch consoles. My guess id more people won't buy it because, they want better specs, not because a few games wont work on them. But that still leaves millions, potentially tens of millions of people.
slightwinder 11mo ago
That's a misconception. Majority of players are with the big Franchises, and they stay with them. The variety-gamers who are playing multiple different games are a minority, though they are a big crowd, loud and have for obvious reasons more attention, leading to this misconception. For example, Escape from Duckov, which you are speaking about, had at it's peak "just" roughly as many players as Battlefield 6 has on average every day. And Battlefield is the smaller one of the big games.
- Aerroon 11mo ago
  I don't think it's entirely the case. They are on franchises, but not the ones you think of - they're playing live service games that have been around for years. Games like League of Legends, Counterstrike, Fortnite, Dota, WoW, PUBG etc. Games like Battlefield are up there, but I don't think they're the games people mainly play over the years. (Although Fifa and GTA definitely are.) For example, the top 10 games in Korean PC bangs last week were: 1. League of Legends 2. PUBG (I think) 3. Fifa 4. Valorant 5. Overwatch 2 6. Sudden Attack (a KR FPS game) 7. Maple Story 8. Lost Ark 9. Dungeon Fighter Online 10. StarCraft (Brood War, I believe) The next 15: Diablo 2 Resurrection, World of Warcraft, Diablo 4, Lineage, Eternal Return, Path of Exile, Warcraft 3, Black Desert, Cyphers, Aion, Path of Exile 2, Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, Tales Runner, Final Fantasy 14. Lineage and Brood War weren't even made in this millennium!
  - slightwinder 11mo ago
    > I don't think it's entirely the case. They are on franchises, but not the ones you think of I didn't name any franchise. I only mentioned Battlefield to compare it with the mentioned Duck-Game, as they are both on Steam where everyone can see the numbers. I mean if we are talking about the real big numbers, then we would be with Minecraft, Roblox, Fortnite, LoL, which are all not on Steam; making number-checking a tad harder. > Games like Battlefield are up there, but I don't think they're the games people mainly play over the years. As a Franchise it seems moving Fifa, very popular, but also seasonal peaks. Each new version shoves in players for a while, until they are satisfied again. Though, I don't really play them, so it's just external observation.
zyx321 11mo ago
Duckov is not indie. It's a reasonably sized game backed by a large (Chinese) publisher.

These are not winner games these days. Gaming trends are so fast that indie games like the one where you play a duck with a gun is what's driving the gaming community these days.

itsn0tm3 11mo ago

I would say that‘s a bit overly simplified, as much as the indie or indie like game scene is thriving, so is the online multiplayer scene. Gaming is huge and just because one thing is big doesn’t mean another is not. Not a zero sum game here.

wraptile 11mo ago
Sure but not being able to play 4 games is not an indication of success either way. It's not 2012 when you had to have Call of Duty - you can not have battlefield, cod or fort nite and still never run out of incredible, popular games to play.
- SkiFire13 11mo ago
  If you have a bunch of friends that have battlefield/cod/fortnite and want to play them, they will still do so without you, or at least heavily pressure you into getting them.
  - wraptile 11mo ago
    I'm not sure what could that even mean from consumer pov - I'm not going to buy a platform because some of my friends might want me to play a specific game with me? The pressure to get more games on your platform has never been as low as it is today and has never been this low on Steam itself. You could spend a lifetime with the current Steam library and never feel bored. From product pov Valve feels very comfortable and I bet they have the data to back up this move with basically unlimited war chest. If anything I feel like Valve is pressuring game developers of these major games here - not the other way around.
    - SkiFire13 11mo ago
      > I'm not sure what could that even mean from consumer pov - I'm not going to buy a platform because some of my friends might want me to play a specific game with me? Yeah exactly. Depending how much you care about playing with friends compared to playing at all you might make that choice.
    - dgfl 11mo ago
      That’s exactly the thought process of every teenager ever, and also most people who want to connect with their friends through gaming beyond their teenage years. Not everyone experiences gaming the same way.
    - swiftcoder 11mo ago
      > I'm not sure what could that even mean from consumer pov - I'm not going to buy a platform because some of my friends might want me to play a specific game with me? That's exactly how console sales worked in the past. I bought an Xbox because all my friends were playing Halo, and I wanted to join in... The recent phenomenon of games supporting cross-play out of the gate is probably eating into this, but exclusives were a hell of a moat back in the day.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - skinnymuch 11mo ago
      Yea as a casual I only care about gaming with others. I don’t care about doing it on my own so my consumer behavior depends on social stuff

bloqs 11mo ago

thats not accurate. they have improved, but the market does not look as you described

crote 11mo ago

Sure, but those AAA games still exist, and people still want to play them. As a gamer, why would you want to spend a few hundred bucks on a gaming box, when it isn't able to play the biggest hits? Who would want to deliberately limit their ecosystem to indie games? There's a nonzero chance that BF6/GTA6/etc becomes a thing that everyone wants to play. If all your friends are raging about how much fun it is and are all playing together, aren't you going to regret buying a Steam Machine? Sure, you can still play Super Meat Boy, but that doesn't matter - they regret what they can't do.

dontlaugh 11mo ago
Exactly, this competes with a second hand PS5.
chmod775 11mo ago
Nonsense. People don't buy a PS5 and regret they can't play League of Legends. There's been games exclusive to one platform or the other since the dawn of time, yet people still buy them for the games they do have. That thing is going to run a ton of games that other consoles don't. Few customers are going to replace their PC with it, but if you have the cash and want to add a sleek console to your living room that will also stream from your desktop in a pinch, it's probably a great deal.
unionpivo 11mo ago
>As a gamer, why would you want to spend a few hundred bucks on a gaming box, when it isn't able to play the biggest hits? Who would want to deliberately limit their ecosystem to indie games? ??? Look at steam top 100, sure there are 2 or 3 games you wont be able to play on there, but there rest work just fine. And sure there are popular games outside steam, but even if none of them worked (which is not true), for most gamers its a non issue. (And Valve is probably not really concerned about them) The only games this limits are online competitive (most of the time FPS) games. There are plenty of gamers, myself included, that have 0 interest in such games. In short even if 0 online FPS games are playable on steam console(which is not true), there are still 10s of millions of gamers, who wouldn't care. As far as why wouldn't people pick something that can play 100% of games is because they cant. Even the best PC cant play Nintendo games, not all PS games are on PC or xbox, etc. You always have a trade off. And plenty of people still buy PC's,Deck, PS5's and Switch consoles. My guess id more people won't buy it because, they want better specs, not because a few games wont work on them. But that still leaves millions, potentially tens of millions of people.

slightwinder 11mo ago

That's a misconception. Majority of players are with the big Franchises, and they stay with them. The variety-gamers who are playing multiple different games are a minority, though they are a big crowd, loud and have for obvious reasons more attention, leading to this misconception. For example, Escape from Duckov, which you are speaking about, had at it's peak "just" roughly as many players as Battlefield 6 has on average every day. And Battlefield is the smaller one of the big games.

Aerroon 11mo ago
I don't think it's entirely the case. They are on franchises, but not the ones you think of - they're playing live service games that have been around for years. Games like League of Legends, Counterstrike, Fortnite, Dota, WoW, PUBG etc. Games like Battlefield are up there, but I don't think they're the games people mainly play over the years. (Although Fifa and GTA definitely are.) For example, the top 10 games in Korean PC bangs last week were: 1. League of Legends 2. PUBG (I think) 3. Fifa 4. Valorant 5. Overwatch 2 6. Sudden Attack (a KR FPS game) 7. Maple Story 8. Lost Ark 9. Dungeon Fighter Online 10. StarCraft (Brood War, I believe) The next 15: Diablo 2 Resurrection, World of Warcraft, Diablo 4, Lineage, Eternal Return, Path of Exile, Warcraft 3, Black Desert, Cyphers, Aion, Path of Exile 2, Diablo 3, StarCraft 2, Tales Runner, Final Fantasy 14. Lineage and Brood War weren't even made in this millennium!
- slightwinder 11mo ago
  > I don't think it's entirely the case. They are on franchises, but not the ones you think of I didn't name any franchise. I only mentioned Battlefield to compare it with the mentioned Duck-Game, as they are both on Steam where everyone can see the numbers. I mean if we are talking about the real big numbers, then we would be with Minecraft, Roblox, Fortnite, LoL, which are all not on Steam; making number-checking a tad harder. > Games like Battlefield are up there, but I don't think they're the games people mainly play over the years. As a Franchise it seems moving Fifa, very popular, but also seasonal peaks. Each new version shoves in players for a while, until they are satisfied again. Though, I don't really play them, so it's just external observation.

zyx321 11mo ago

Duckov is not indie. It's a reasonably sized game backed by a large (Chinese) publisher.