Rated: 100% (3 votes)
Loading ...CoD 2 more popular than CS: Source
garethogden
Many of you probably spat out a mouthful of tea in disgust when you read the title of this blog, but before you and your CS: S clanmates descend on the CPC office en masse shouting ‘Go, go, go!’ as you burst through the Labs door and lob in a flashbang, I should add that this isn’t my opinion, but that of users of game browser/monitor X-Fire.
According to games news site Gamesindustry.biz, the X-Fire servers recorded that Call of Duty 2 was played, on average, for a cumulative total of 173,355 hours per day, compared to 158,714 hours per day for Counter-Strike: Source.
This I find quite strange, since, in my experience, CS: S is massively more popular than CoD 2. Of course, these results are obviously skewed in favour of what X-Fire users play, although considering that there are now 8 million registered X-Fire users, you’d expect the sample size to be fairly representative of the ‘typical’ online gamer (especially since 60% of these users are based in Europe).
Nevertheless, these numbers fly in the face of what Valve (the developer of Counter-Strike) says about how popular CS: Source is on www.steampowered.com, which states that Source is played an average of 1,055,737 hours per day – nearly 7 times higher than the X-Fire statistic.
So, who is right? Is Source the Alpha and the Omega of online shooters, or is Steampowered hopelessly biased and X-Fire is right than CoD 2 is the mutt’s? Bet CT all…
Easy, 99.99% of CS:S games are run through Steam.
Not everyone has Xfire….
You do the math.
This gap will grow now the Steam Community has launched.
So - how’s about a CoD 2 readers’ night, then? 
For those of us who don’t like CS and fancy a change from BF2?
if you have steam you don’t need xfire hence the low turn out.
Steam has its own contacts list games list etc.
Xfire is just an iritating program i uninstall (i have at least 3 reged accounts)
I be they dont have even half the number of active users that they have reged acounts.