Monday November 9 2009
Counter-Strike
Official Design Partner

GotFrag eSports Forums

Attn: Steam stats are wrong

1
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
+42 Frags
+   -

We all know about steam putting there stats back up and to put it simply they are pretty questionable -.-

anyway at the moment steam says this:

52,447 Counter-Strike: Source
50,574 Counter-Strike

source has more players apparently and 1.6 has lost way more then 50% of its previous numbers =/

steam stats have always been pretty buggy, and they have always stated that on their forums ~ fortunetly the moderators have been giving out other sites that track servers and players playing games, heres a few:

Game-monitor dot com
A decent site which shows how many players and servers there are and to make it easier for you here is:

the 1.6 results:
http://www.game-monitor.com/search.php?=u..

the cs:s results:
http://www.game-monitor.com/search.php?=u..

online gaming zeitgeist
The top chart is the main chart you want to be looking at, and as you can see they keep a very up to date graph.

http://www.onlinegamingzeitgeist.com/games/

---

the numbers will vary from each site, but the two i mentioned above say different to what steam claims about css having more players.


--------

Valve has given out the IP to the Steam master servers in their developers wiki, this gives you the chance to query the server and get back information regarding number of players, servers etc. Game-monitor use this for their website, they query the steam master servers and bring back results directly.

http://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/M..

so either theres a quite a few bugs around or valve don't query their own master servers? :S

This comment was edited at 07/11/2008 9:34 AM
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
2
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
+9 Frags
+   -

Just thought i would post this in case cs:s trolls start coming in and claiming they have more players ;)
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
3
33% Ranking 33% Ranking 33% Ranking 33% Ranking
+7 Frags
+   -

Earth shattering
4
20% Ranking 20% Ranking 20% Ranking 20% Ranking
+10 Frags
+   -

yeah we all know valve are a bunch of D0UCHE bags who are just trying to push their shi77y game
5
40% Ranking 40% Ranking 40% Ranking 40% Ranking
+3 Frags
+   -

valve are trying to kill 1.6!!!!
http://xrl.us/bea8e - HOLY SMOKES!!!
6
2% Ranking 2% Ranking 2% Ranking 2% Ranking
+1 Frags
+   -

www.csgoodies.com/source.jpg

added to the burn

look at this graph
http://www.onlinegamingzeitgeist.com/games/

looks like the graph is slowly but surely going down... source struggling hard just to maintain even

/waits for all the typical source playing kiddy nubs to talk about graphics over gameplay

This comment was edited at 07/10/2008 6:58 PM
7
30% Ranking 30% Ranking 30% Ranking 30% Ranking
+1 Frags
+   -

If you actually read the thing you click on that steam page you'd see that it says "Players per game" NOT, I mean NOT, NOT!!!! total players, fuc­king hell.

Why would steam do this? maybe to make CSS more appealing without really 'cheating' ie. making up fake figures to make source look like it's got more players, like some have suggested.

let me dumb it down

1.6 has 100 players and 700 servers

Source has 50 players and 60 servers.

Players per game would be higher for Source. The figures aren't incorrect.

/paste

This comment was edited at 07/10/2008 7:06 PM
8
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

how is players per game different to total players playing a game?

im saying steam stats were incorrect before they took them down and are still incorrect now

This comment was edited at 07/10/2008 7:03 PM
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
9
30% Ranking 30% Ranking 30% Ranking 30% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

i updated my post #8
10
16% Ranking 16% Ranking 16% Ranking 16% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

#9 making no sense
11
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

what und@ said

This comment was edited at 07/10/2008 7:15 PM
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
12
5% Ranking 5% Ranking 5% Ranking 5% Ranking
+11 Frags
+   -

Ok guys, seriously, before I left to the Finnish army which happened almost exactly 6 months ago (my service is OVERRRRRRRRR ;)) the only thing on these forums was 1.6 vs. CS:S. I came back from the army and STILL the same thing.

Now don't get me wrong, CS:S is horrible and 1.6 possibly the greatest game ever (been playing cs since -98), but seriously WHO CARES? I used to be pretty much the worst 1.6 vs CS:S fanatic here but I guess the military service finally made me realize one thing: IT DOESN'T FUKKIN' MATTER EITHER WAY!!!1 Just play what you like.

Source blows, 1.6 rules, and the guys at Valve are a bunch of g4yw4ds but as long as people who love 1.6 keep playing it source will never overcome it, or even come close. Grow up.
"You sir, are an ignorant SOB who will not get anyhere in the eSports community."
13
40% Ranking 40% Ranking 40% Ranking 40% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

ok m8 #12 thanks for the sound advice haha m8 ;) ;) keep on living it
http://xrl.us/bea8e - HOLY SMOKES!!!
14
5% Ranking 5% Ranking 5% Ranking 5% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

#13 hehe after a night of bbq, drinking & drunk skateboarding the only thing in my mind is PEACE AND LOVE ;)

Especially considering how I'm THIS close on scoring a -984 chick (4 years older than me ;))
"You sir, are an ignorant SOB who will not get anyhere in the eSports community."
15
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

this isn't really about 1.6 vs cs:s its about valve manipulating numbers
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
16
10% Ranking 10% Ranking 10% Ranking 10% Ranking
-1 Frags
+   -

well i just looked and it was

70k for 1.6

39k for source

so looks pretty obvious your stats were a fluke
17
88% Ranking 88% Ranking 88% Ranking 88% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

yeah, i dont care much wth people think what game is the better game. i just play the game, not prove something.... its a waste of time to prove something to someone.



watch tho, cs;s is going to die, and all the css lovers are going to come back to 1.6 and join the bandwagon once 1.6 gets admitted into cgs play.
18
5% Ranking 5% Ranking 5% Ranking 5% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

Valve su cks, it's a known fact, it wasn't too long ago when Valve removed 1.6 altogether from the statistics just to make CS:S appear dominant.

Which it isn't, cause nobody plays it.
"You sir, are an ignorant SOB who will not get anyhere in the eSports community."

wtf happened in october? both graphs went \ and hit lows
has anyone seen my buttseks?
20
12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking
-6 Frags
+   -

The numbers are fine and right now it shows 42,901 CS:Source, 41,657 CS 1.6. There was never anything nor is there anything wrong now with the numbers. Steam tracks all the players playing the game because it goes without saying that all the data goes through Steam. Any 3rd party program is skewed and you should take with a grain of salt because it tracks what THEY can analyze. They don't have all the data.

In my opinion, it's the exposure. CS:S has gotten a shit ton of exposure from television and CS has just been dwindling down.
21
8% Ranking 8% Ranking 8% Ranking 8% Ranking
+2 Frags
+   -

#20 ummm no

youre assuming hundreds of thousands of 1.6 players quit and that all the 3rd party sites are incorrect at the same time. thats a little too much of a coincidence dont you think

This comment was edited at 07/10/2008 7:57 PM
22
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
+2 Frags
+   -

actually #20 3rd party programs monitors the same data steam does
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
23
18% Ranking 18% Ranking 18% Ranking 18% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

I playED 1.6 and source, but to keep posting statistics on what game has the most players is pretty immature.
Asus S2F mobo | q9550 quad @ 3.14ghz | ATI 4870 dk 1gb | 4gb DDR21066 | WD300GB 10kRPM

LULZ U NOOBS U DONT KNOW WUT MAKES A GOOD GAME KTHX? SOURCE OWNS 1.6 GRAPHICALLY GAME PLAY EVERYTHING. IN SOURCE KYOU CANT SHOOT 50 WALLS KTHX? IN SOURCE THE PLAYER MODELS LOOK REALISTIC KTHX THATS WHY DEY R SO BIG IN REEL LIFE U DONT SHOOT AT A BUNCH OF MIDGETS OK? IN SOURCE YOU CANT CROUCH HOP WHICH CROUCH HOPPING IS UBER GHEY LOOK HOW BAD ASS THE GUN MODELS LOOK IN SOURCE? LOL U NOOBS DUN NO CGS IS LIKE 20 TIMES BETTER THAN CRAPPY EURO TEAMS.VENOM COULD PWN LYKE FNATIC SK AND ALLTHOSE BADDIE CLANS IN 1.6 AND CS, 16K IS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY CS ECO ROUNDS ARE JUST FREE ROUNDS LOL HAVENT YOU READ THE ARTICLE BY CS MASTERMIND BOOTMAN? WHO EVERY WINS PISTOL WINS 1.6 1.6 IS DYING FAST LOOK AT THE PLAYERS LULZ YOURE ALL 40 AND BALDING GTFO
25
12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking
-3 Frags
+   -

3rd party programs cane never be reliable because they don't get all the data.
26
78% Ranking 78% Ranking 78% Ranking 78% Ranking
+4 Frags
+   -

yes because there's a few thousand players PER game... LOL are you on crack brainkiller?

I don't need stats to know source is a terrible game.
sup bro
28
18% Ranking 18% Ranking 18% Ranking 18% Ranking
-1 Frags
+   -

Christ on a cracker, is ridiculous how threatened some of you monitor-tan nerds are by a bunch of meaningless statistics on the internet. Listen to #12.


#18 CS:S's pub numbers are usually about a third of 1.6's pub numbers, and never more than one-half.

But even one-third of 1.6's pub numbers already makes Source's pub numbers exponentially more than almost any other shooter on the market. Like, for example, CoD4 on the PC -- CS:S's pubbers usually double CoD4's pubbers on the PC.

So to say that no one plays CS:S is pretty stupid of you. It's not intelligent to compare Mount Everest to Mount McKinley, and then assert by comparison that Mount McKinley is only a foothill. No man, it may have nothing on Everest, but it's still a big f*cking mountain in its own right.
29
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

#25 I've asked the one of the game-monitor admins before (on their old website) where they get their stats from and why do they differ from steams stats. They didn't know why steam stats were different because they monitor the same servers as steam/valve does.

This comment was edited at 07/10/2008 8:03 PM
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
30
12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking
-5 Frags
+   -

Listen, a few months ago there were source players posting 3rd party programs posting increased stats for source. And you know what? They were Unreliable, just like what you've posted is. Everyone wants to argue their game and when the numbers aren't in favor of it, it means something's changed. The only source you can trust is the official stats What you need to be asking is why the numbers are off and what you are contributing to the numbers. The forums are almost a clear reflection of that. They are barely tolerable now that the people trying to get the spotlights are nobodies.
31
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
+1 Frags
+   -

You can't trust the official stats because valve have said themselves on their own forum, that their stats are buggy/bugged/inaccurate, thats why they removed them in the first place.

and if you can trust the "official" stats why are they so drasticly different from last time?

This comment was edited at 07/10/2008 8:09 PM
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
32
31% Ranking 31% Ranking 31% Ranking 31% Ranking
+2 Frags
+   -

just go play whatever damn game you want and stop flaming ya fegs.

and i play both on a regular basis.

This comment was edited at 07/10/2008 8:16 PM
I play 1.6 and Source pretty badly, so my opinion doesn't really matter
33
12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking
-2 Frags
+   -

I already told you, I think it's the TV exposure. And the state of the community has been dwindling as of late, which is clear from the forums.
34
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

so 1.6 lost over 50% of its community in that short amount of time AND cs:s has LOST players too?

so TV exposure of cs:s has made the player numbers go down too? makes sense

are you just an idiot on purpose or do i need to get you a bib you dribbler

Here il make it even more clear

1.6 = lost players (apparently)
cs:s = has also lost players (apparently)
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
35
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

#33 I see where you are going with that, I actually knew nothing about poker until it was shown on tv.
36
18% Ranking 18% Ranking 18% Ranking 18% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

ITS A D***GAME. Lol.
Asus S2F mobo | q9550 quad @ 3.14ghz | ATI 4870 dk 1gb | 4gb DDR21066 | WD300GB 10kRPM
37
11% Ranking 11% Ranking 11% Ranking 11% Ranking
+1 Frags
+   -

the only reason they have more players per game is because source has those 100 slot servers filled with bots. gg
38
12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking
-2 Frags
+   -

#34 You're clueless.
39
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
+1 Frags
+   -

I was expecting an explination to why I'm clueless but you didn't give one so I'l just make the assumption you're a moron

This comment was edited at 07/10/2008 8:35 PM
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
40
11% Ranking 11% Ranking 11% Ranking 11% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

#39

#38 is obviously a moron
41
12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking 12% Ranking
+5 Frags
+   -

42
55% Ranking 55% Ranking 55% Ranking 55% Ranking
+3 Frags
+   -

http://www.gotfrag.com/cs/forums/thread/2..

I'm sure it isn't exempt of logical errors so let me know if you find one.

August 2007

2.21 million players for 1.6 (Since March, 1.6 sold 0.0024 million more copies then Source... meaning source is decreasing in its proportion vs 1.6)
0.47 million players for Source (There are an average of 7,250 source bots online)
0.45 million players for the rest of the HL games
43
64% Ranking 64% Ranking 64% Ranking 64% Ranking
+1 Frags
+   -

"this isn't really about 1.6 vs cs:s its about valve manipulating numbers"

"I don't need stats to know source is a terrible game."

i believe steampowered/valve have been bribed by cgs/directv to show deceiving game statistics in order to heighten the morale of the Source community and encourage the argument that Source is more popular than 1.6 (which is entirely false).

this just goes to show the incredible unreliability of steam/valve and their incompetence of handling/revealing data from their own games. which is truly sad, corrupt, and lamentable.

in this Digital Age, trust is getting harder to find and even harder to built. 1.6 was a great game, but the corporate yahoos in Steam/Valve can't even get their game straight (maybe they don't want to, who knows!).
44
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
+1 Frags
+   -

I doubt something as elaborate as that is happening #43
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
45
35% Ranking 35% Ranking 35% Ranking 35% Ranking
-1 Frags
+   -

BUTTS
BUTTS
BUTTS
BUTTS
BUTTS
BUTTS
BUTTS
BUTTS
BUTTS
BUTTS
BUTTS
(>._.)>
46
1% Ranking 1% Ranking 1% Ranking 1% Ranking
+2 Frags
+   -

#45 I agree

also you guys, I hope you realise that like 2 years ago, valve gave an update to the Source Engine (CS:Source specifically) which counted BOTS in-game as REAL players within the system.

That means 50,000 ppl could include someone dodging around with 31 bots, or their servers filled with bots.
47
34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking 34% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

#46 yeah i remember that but i couldn't find the "press release" thing, i searched for it but couldn't find it Q_Q
Potti: Why are you trying to prep-talk me you idiot
48
6% Ranking 6% Ranking 6% Ranking 6% Ranking
0 Frags
+   -

#27 thats what i was thinking lol
49
64% Ranking 64% Ranking 64% Ranking 64% Ranking
-1 Frags
+   -

#47 steam/valve obviously erased it from public view to prevent detective like you to solve the Case of the Manipulated Game Statistics
50
55% Ranking 55% Ranking 55% Ranking 55% Ranking
+1 Frags
+   -

#49 they did so too late... look @ #42 :) 1.6 was still outselling source back then, and, on average over long periods of time, that margin will only increase in favor of 1.6.

More Pages

Submit Comments

Registered Users Only

In order to post comments, you must be a registered member. If you have not registered, it's free and easy!

Latest Poll