egosoft.com

According to the Steam Charts site here: https://steamcharts.com/app/392160

X4 Foundations had: 2,214 players 12 min ago with a 3,942 24-hour peak.
Starfield had 5,192 players 12 min ago & 6,424 24-hour peak.

If we all make a point of playing this weekend then I think we can beat their numbers.

When 7.0 releases I think X4 will top their numbers daily.

=Baddieus=

I'm not sure what the point of such a short-term 'statistic' would really be. More specifically, betas are for testing and reporting rather than for long term gaming. I play released games as and when I want entertainment and not to the needs of some external 'agenda'. I select which game according to the type of entertainment I want at that time.

Perhaps a more meaningful statistic would be taken from players who own both games and which shows for which game their long-term playing preference turned out to be.

I'd say leave those "player count discussion" to the Steam boards. Those "statistic" evaluations are full of flaws and only are done on a small potion of the data. (doesn't take into account other distribution platforms, doesn't take into account no-steam.exe players ...) Yet they try to draw a picture or "conclusion" - without hinting the lack in accuracy. Which is dangerous these days - people just grab the gist of it and run around, multiplying flawed results based on flawed data.

Someone posted it already at X4 Foundations steam discussion board - this video should explain why it is absolutely useless to waste time with guessworks on that topic: steam://openurl/https://www.youtube.com ... Jo_d9HyIDA ("Why Is Every Game Dying?")

What would be the point of beating Starfield? They are two games that have practically nothing in common...

Paradoxically, X4 has more in common with Stellaris than Starfield.

To be honest, looking at all the feedback and reviews on Starfield (i'm really glad I resited the impulse to buy it) - a wet paper bag could beat Starfield.

I remember when X4: Foundations came out and I kept saying that "foundations" was to be intended like a container that needed to be filled... many years later the container has been - almost - filled.

I've played Starfield (ended it, almost 100% achievements, still playing NG+) and I find it, again, like a container. The container is nice and perfect, big, shiny, full of interesting mechanics and characters, and this is from the beginning, unlike X4.
BUT (a big but) it will never be filled with interesting stories, since the scripted ones are 20% of the game while the remaining 80% is just procedurally generated content (i.e. a far away, inabitable, small moon has the same generated content as a faction capital, earth-like, planet. Shame). I like it very much, but it will never become what it could have been.

X4, instead, has slowly become, and probably will fully be in the near future, a masterpiece in our hands. I love it. It has already beaten Starfield.

I don't care what the Steam charts or any charts say. I know X4 is way and above better than Starfield in every way... Even on release I just liked how I could run onto a spaceship straight off the platform and fly, and the LOGO customisation had me right away. Starfield has nothing that grabbed me at all.

Even in landing on planets since X4 doesn't try to pretend to do that then drown me in Loading screens and boring copy/paste maps that aren't even a planet. And NPCs are literally as cardboardy as X4's anyway!

When you compare that to Bethesda's apparent years making it and money/House behind it, to the tiny X4 crew, it's shameful that Bethesda ended up with that garbage.

Nuff said.

Socratatus wrote: ↑

Wed, 10. Apr 24, 01:00

I don't care what the Steam charts or any charts say. I know X4 is way and above better than Starfield in every way... Even on release I just liked how I could run onto a spaceship straight off the platform and fly, and the LOGO customisation had me right away. Starfield has nothing that grabbed me at all.

Even in landing on planets since X4 doesn't try to pretend to do that then drown me in Loading screens and boring copy/paste maps that aren't even a planet. And NPCs are literally as cardboardy as X4's anyway!

When you compare that to Bethesda's apparent years making it and money/House behind it, to the tiny X4 crew, it's shameful that Bethesda ended up with that garbage.

Nuff said.

It's not shameful, it shows what trying to appeal to every single player will get you. They redid the space flight and combat several dozen times and the same for simple things like stats and debuffs...they were trying to make them as inoffensive as possible and ended up making them mean nothing. The outpost building...all the systems tied to it...they mean very little. It ended up being a very bland game that not many people got excited about.

Starfield isn't "bad" it just doesn't fulfill any specific niche or longing that any audience member had and that's what's got people so up in arms. The mentality that it was Bethesda and it should have been better in every way than every Bethesda game that came before it...they didn't actually promise that but I guess it was implied by the marketing in some way. Starfield is just an "OK" game and not really special.

Slashman wrote: ↑

Wed, 10. Apr 24, 01:15

Socratatus wrote: ↑

Wed, 10. Apr 24, 01:00

I don't care what the Steam charts or any charts say. I know X4 is way and above better than Starfield in every way... Even on release I just liked how I could run onto a spaceship straight off the platform and fly, and the LOGO customisation had me right away. Starfield has nothing that grabbed me at all.

Even in landing on planets since X4 doesn't try to pretend to do that then drown me in Loading screens and boring copy/paste maps that aren't even a planet. And NPCs are literally as cardboardy as X4's anyway!

When you compare that to Bethesda's apparent years making it and money/House behind it, to the tiny X4 crew, it's shameful that Bethesda ended up with that garbage.

Nuff said.

It's not shameful, it shows what trying to appeal to every single player will get you. They redid the space flight and combat several dozen times and the same for simple things like stats and debuffs...they were trying to make them as inoffensive as possible and ended up making them mean nothing. The outpost building...all the systems tied to it...they mean very little. It ended up being a very bland game that not many people got excited about.

Starfield isn't "bad" it just doesn't fulfill any specific niche or longing that any audience member had and that's what's got people so up in arms. The mentality that it was Bethesda and it should have been better in every way than every Bethesda game that came before it...they didn't actually promise that but I guess it was implied by the marketing in some way. Starfield is just an "OK" game and not really special.

'Ok' is not good enough for what we were told to expect. They made terrible decisions (which any smart person could have told them if any were left in Bethesda). I agree with you that they turned it into `safe` blandness though. No grit, no guts, no nothing. And it is shameful for a company of their experience and years, especially when compared to other sci-fi games and X4.

Baddieus wrote: ↑

Tue, 9. Apr 24, 03:18

When 7.0 releases I think X4 will top their numbers daily.

I'm sure that will happen. I'm also sure Starfield will be the tar out of X4 when its DLC shows up (if it shows up).

It will be good for a few laughs, but that's about it.

Since we are now discussing Starfield more than X4, this can move to Off Topic.

X4 is already much better sandbox than Starfield could ever be.
It's probably much easier to make "walking simulator" better in X4 than to improve "space gameplay" in Starfield.
Even New Game + is better in X4 since budgeted custom gamestart, branching plotlines and dynamic universe.


I vote with my wallet - I have X4, all DLC and eager for Timelines.

I haven't spent a penny on Starfield, after watching gameplay and reviews I won't even consider it until il will be -75% sale + Creation Engine + big library of mods.

Quite enjoyed Starfield myself. It's nowhere near as good as X4, but that doesn't mean it wasn't fun. Particularly enjoyed the ship building & boarding other ships (vicious fights in close quarters, often heavily outnumbered). Got to level 182 before X4 7.0 beta arrived. Now I play that instead...

GCU Grey Area wrote: ↑

Wed, 10. Apr 24, 11:35

Quite enjoyed Starfield myself. It's nowhere near as good as X4, but that doesn't mean it wasn't fun. Particularly enjoyed the ship building & boarding other ships (vicious fights in close quarters, often heavily outnumbered). Got to level 182 before X4 7.0 beta arrived. Now I play that instead...

Same - although I never reached > lvl 80 or so as I like to start new characters.

Wandering among the simulated star system with it's dynamic lighting is just awesome - and that bit X4 doesn't have (and prolly never will have).

I vote for both games with my wallet and get all CEs / SEs I can get my hand on. (as I want those types of games) Bought both the CE and Planet edition for X4 (@GOG) as well as the CE for Starfield. Consider buying yet another full bundle @Steam once Timelines is out (if crisis get an overhaul).

In general I mostly buy other games on sales (except those titles I like to support or some indys which I never get on sale on purpose)

Let sey im not 100kh gamer, there are tons of games its just random selection to play, let sey im 100kh gamer, tons of games, very very fev to play. Good game is good game, someone dence to forget somon dence to remember. X4 is not for NON intel inside

I played Starfield a lot. 734 hours in total. And i played X games since almost 20 years. X4 has gotten me for insane 4666 hours already. Although there are many flaws, it is an outstanding game. And theres no need to beat Starfield.