PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds Now Has More Concurrent Players than All But Two Games on Steam

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds Now Has More Concurrent Players than All But Two Games on Steam

playerunknowns-battlegrounds-320

Smash hit PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds is now the number three most-played game on Steam, behind just two Valve games.

It's only been a couple of weeks since PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds surpassed GTA 5 on SteamSpy's concurrent players chart. At the time, it was about 100,000 players behind Fallout 4, but that's already changed. According to SteamSpy, 481,291 people were playing together at PUBG's peak, placing it squarely above Fallout 4, and giving it sole possession of third place.

That means that there are only two games with more players: DOTA 2 and Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, both Valve titles. Creator Brendan Greene cheered the news on Twitter, as you'd imagine.

It's also worth noting that SteamSpy's charts show that six million people now own PUBG, a number that continues to grow quickly. There are plans for mod support, new maps, and more before the game's planned full launch out of Early Access, which is planned for late this year.

Permalink

Funny that the microtransaction issue has had people giving negative reviews on Steam with pleas not to buy the game to punish the developers, but it doesn't seem to have kept the already-existing playerbase from still playing.

The Rogue Wolf:
Funny that the microtransaction issue has had people giving negative reviews on Steam with pleas not to buy the game to punish the developers, but it doesn't seem to have kept the already-existing playerbase from still playing.

I mean, regardless of how the players feel about it, the developers already have their money. And it's unlikely at this point that they haven't played over 2 hours. So might as well keep playing if you enjoy the game if you can't get your money back for a principle.

Going to be interesting to see how much a hit the numbers take once all the end of year releases drop.

I feel like a big factor to this games success was the timing. This year has been bereft of decent new MP games, especially in the AAA space. Publishers really need to dump the 4th quarter logjam they've created and start staggering their releases.

Also don't get how major publishers/studios have been so blind to the rise of the survival/battle royale genres. Nothing but early access games dominating the space. A well budgeted studio could easily blow all these current games out of the water by releasing a polished, finished product. Instead we have broken, permanent betas raking in millions, due to nothing but the appeal of the genre itself.

ron1n:
Also don't get how major publishers/studios have been so blind to the rise of the survival/battle royale genres. Nothing but early access games dominating the space. A well budgeted studio could easily blow all these current games out of the water by releasing a polished, finished product. Instead we have broken, permanent betas raking in millions, due to nothing but the appeal of the genre itself.

That's the primary reason why I haven't picked up PUBG myself. It looks to me like a buggy, unpolished mess that people only play because it scratches an itch that nothing else does.

I'd love to play a game like it, but one with decent production values that PUBG just doesn't have right now.

SlumlordThanatos:
That's the primary reason why I haven't picked up PUBG myself. It looks to me like a buggy, unpolished mess that people only play because it scratches an itch that nothing else does.

I'd love to play a game like it, but one with decent production values that PUBG just doesn't have right now.

The physics on cars are a bit iffy but otherwise it's not a buggy mess at all. I've got 180 odd hours in the game and have quite a varied playstyle depending on if I go solo or who I play duo/squads with and can't really say that I've encountered any bugs. Fixes and refinements are released weekly and monthly so I'd say your assessment is completely wrong.

It's a great game and a lot of fun.

It's poorly optimized, giving a decent pc a slow performance even with low grapichs.
Despise this I personally enjoy playing it. It's good alone and with friends, works as a nice short snack during 30 min breaks.

I'm just waiting for polish to the vehicle mechanics and more maps.

The game engine works fine for me and I enjoy the function of going third person and first person during firefights and breaching moments.

I have seen the game in action, my brother plays it. I honestly do 'get it'. What's the attraction, what's the draw over other co-op multiplayer survival-ish games?

008Zulu:
I have seen the game in action, my brother plays it. I honestly do 'get it'. What's the attraction, what's the draw over other co-op multiplayer survival-ish games?

It's not really a 'survival-ish' game. Basically think of it as a deathmatch/team deathmatch game, only with a massive map, a single life and an inventory system.

The appeal I guess, is the adrenaline rush of sudden death mixed with a vast map which creates choices and options.

The genre of Battle Royale itself is sound, I just think there's a lot more you could do with it and a lot more depth that can be added. H1Z1 and PUBG are really just cashing in on the new car smell of the core gameplay loop. There's nothing particularly special or inspired by their design.

patronscorn:
It's poorly optimized, giving a decent pc a slow performance even with low grapichs.
Despise this I personally enjoy playing it. It's good alone and with friends, works as a nice short snack during 30 min breaks.

On my 6600 1070 I get fps of 80 with a mix of ultra/medium graphics settings.

ron1n:
Also don't get how major publishers/studios have been so blind to the rise of the survival/battle royale genres. Nothing but early access games dominating the space. A well budgeted studio could easily blow all these current games out of the water by releasing a polished, finished product. Instead we have broken, permanent betas raking in millions, due to nothing but the appeal of the genre itself.

The problem with a 'well-budgeted studio' doing it is the lack of time. DayZ came out in 2013, and that's the first big one in the genre I can think of. Greene has been involved with at least 3 different BR games in the past couple of years (the original H1Z1 mod, the standalone in development, and PUBG), all built off the ARMA engine.

The time it takes for a studio to decide what to do, get a team together, build out a map and all the gameplay features, giving it the appropriate amount of 'polish'... all that takes time, and a willingness to bet that your game will be able to dethrone every other BR that has been made by indie devs with much less overhead. Even if they decided to start rocking on one as soon as DayZ hit the ground, it's a lot to do in less than 4 years if you want to make something that's more than the 'basic shooter engine+inventory system' of all the ARMA mods.

Thunderous Cacophony:

ron1n:
Also don't get how major publishers/studios have been so blind to the rise of the survival/battle royale genres. Nothing but early access games dominating the space. A well budgeted studio could easily blow all these current games out of the water by releasing a polished, finished product. Instead we have broken, permanent betas raking in millions, due to nothing but the appeal of the genre itself.

The problem with a 'well-budgeted studio' doing it is the lack of time. DayZ came out in 2013, and that's the first big one in the genre I can think of. Greene has been involved with at least 3 different BR games in the past couple of years (the original H1Z1 mod, the standalone in development, and PUBG), all built off the ARMA engine

DayZ is not part of the Genre, however, it's the Survival game genre. So this, H1Z1 King of the Hill and The Culling are more or less the only three games in this genre "Battle Royale".
Just because they look similar doesn't mean they are the same.

Bindal:

Thunderous Cacophony:

ron1n:
Also don't get how major publishers/studios have been so blind to the rise of the survival/battle royale genres. Nothing but early access games dominating the space. A well budgeted studio could easily blow all these current games out of the water by releasing a polished, finished product. Instead we have broken, permanent betas raking in millions, due to nothing but the appeal of the genre itself.

The problem with a 'well-budgeted studio' doing it is the lack of time. DayZ came out in 2013, and that's the first big one in the genre I can think of. Greene has been involved with at least 3 different BR games in the past couple of years (the original H1Z1 mod, the standalone in development, and PUBG), all built off the ARMA engine

DayZ is not part of the Genre, however, it's the Survival game genre. So this, H1Z1 King of the Hill and The Culling are more or less the only three games in this genre "Battle Royale".
Just because they look similar doesn't mean they are the same.

Ron1n said "survival/Battle Royale" genres, and given how one is an outcropping of the other it makes sense to still lump them together.

I don't get why these types of games are so popular. They look tedious as fuck.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here