Sony Is Not Anti-Consumer for Making PS5 Exclusives - Push Square

night814

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,973
Pennsylvania
It's a bad article but there is something to the idea of it. They really shouldn't be basing articles on random people's opinions online though.
 

Dunlop

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,586
It's funny because Sony could have held back games like Death Stranding, Ghosts of Tsushima, and Last of Us 2 as PS5 launch titles, but they didn't. Crazy to see people talk about how anti-consumer they are when they are releasing high profile titles even in the last year of PS4's life cycle.
This whole thing is based off a few people posting anti consumer and then an article being written about it.

It's not like there is a movement going on
 
Oct 27, 2017
16,593
It's a bad article but there is something to the idea of it. They really shouldn't be basing articles on random people's opinions online though.
Is there though? MS is the one doing something different, going without exclusives. For Sony, and Nintendo (pretty much 100% guaranteed), having exclusives like every new generation for the last 3+ decades isn't really newsworthy
 

Megatron

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,139
It's a bad article but there is something to the idea of it. They really shouldn't be basing articles on random people's opinions online though.
Right. And this is a really really outlier opinion and very easily knocked down. Perhaps their next article could be speaking against all those people who like when pressing the start button immediately skips the cutscene, or not being able to pause a single player game.
 

fiveshift

Member
Apr 10, 2018
16
Man this anti-consumer talk about Sony, out of all companies, is laughable. The one company that for years on end has supported their consoles waaay after the release of a new console.

The last PS2 game game came out in 2014...

The last PS3 game?


How the hell anyone can accuse Sony of being anti-consumer, out of all companies, is just fucking insane to me.

So are those people anti-progress? Anti-technology?
There's a reason games aren't still made for the Atari 2600!

Are we going to act like this isn't PS4's 7th year? It's time to move on, people.

Heck, developers are equally excited to move on, they want to create things they haven't been able to before! Just look at the reports about Lockhart... No one seemed on board, no one!

If your argument is that people might've just bought a PS4, and they don't want to be left behind... Well, they have an entire generation's worth of content (that's now infinitely cheaper) to look forward to.

And Sony always goes out with a bang, just look at their releases this year!
FF7:R, TLOU2, GoT, RE3, Cyberpunk 2077 are all coming out this year - No one is being left behind.

What would've been anti-consumer, is Sony deciding to cancel this year's exclusives because of the PS5, but they don't. They easily could, but they don't - It's the right approach. And it wouldn't be wise to ignore that huge install base this year.

The PS4 gets it's last hoorah and a proper send-off, and we move on. We let developers who feel restrained, move on.

We need to progress, otherwise generations are meaningless. Progress is meaningless.

If anyone, it's Sony that ought to be the one to cling to this generation, but they don't.
They understand the importance of a new generation, and they understand that console's have a lifecycle.

Besides, a new geneation is what generates excitement about the future and it's why most of us keep ourselves invested in this medium.

Otherwise we'd stick to our old consoles. If you like/prefer Microsoft's approach? Fine. I don't personally agree with it, but if people who want it, so be it.

Just don't say that Sony is anti-consumer, because that's horseshit.
Preach
 

night814

Member
Oct 29, 2017
7,973
Pennsylvania
Is there though? MS is the one doing something different, going without exclusives. For Sony, and Nintendo (pretty much 100% guaranteed), having exclusives like every new generation for the last 3+ decades isn't really newsworthy
Well there are definitely people that think any kind of exclusive whether it's a full game, content in a game, or timed exclusive is a worst case scenario. Those people are likely missing the forest through the trees though as some games straight up wouldn't exist unless one of the platform holders made it possible through funding.

It's the platforms holders jobs to make sure they have games that people want to play so for myself I'm more than fine with exclusives.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,219
Seattle
But it doesn’t really matter, because it’s still performing an action vs. not performing an action.
I find this really semantic personally so sorry not really sure how to address it. Both an action and a non-action can be anti-consumer. If a game is buggy it's anti-consumer to not fix it. That's a non-action. It's the decisions made and their motivations that are anti-consumer at heart.

This is of course ignoring the fact that what you call forced exclusivity has a HUGE monetary value to it. If only releasing one version of a game causes a user base to transition quicker or increase their investment in a new platform, that has a huge impact for a platform holder.

There is no real world situation where the monetary impact is meaningless or insubstantial.
I'm not trying to ignore that; I just think there are more pro-consumer paths to exclusivity, the elusive "built from the ground up" exclusive should be how a company pushes people to buy a next-gen console not forced exclusivity if they want to be more pro-consumer.

If your business isn't viable without forced exclusivity, then I'd find your business model from the start a bit anti-consumer. If there was no other way to market or push next-gen hardware then yeah, I'd have trouble calling it anti-consumer.

But sometimes being a bit anti-consumer is how you sell things faster, how you make more money.. that doesn't make the decisions you make any less anti-consumer. iOS being depricated on old hardware sells more iPhones.

I think the key difference is you generally only associate actions that are unethical with being anti-consumer so it's a bigger deal for you to call something that; I don't... it's not such a big deal to me if a company is doing something that I deem as anti-consumer because my bar is lower.
 

Kerotan

Member
Oct 31, 2018
3,260
Is there though? MS is the one doing something different, going without exclusives. For Sony, and Nintendo (pretty much 100% guaranteed), having exclusives like every new generation for the last 3+ decades isn't really newsworthy
It's the smart thing too. Sales of the next xbox will suffer because all it's exclusives will be playable on pc and last gen.
 
Dec 4, 2017
5,307
Brazil
They would have access to a lot more customers if they weren't exclusive to a specific platform though...
I agree that there are different business models available and they could go for the multiplatform
But they make a lot of money when you buy their console and buy stuff inside their stores. When EA sell a FIFA ps4 edition they make money and Sony too.
They want you buying inside their store and for that they are willing to pay for studios, investing in exclusives to make their console more appealing than the x or y
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
3,802
I find this really semantic personally so sorry not really sure how to address it. Both an action and a non-action can be anti-consumer. If a game is buggy it's anti-consumer to not fix it. That's a non-action. It's the decisions made and their motivations that are anti-consumer at heart.



I'm not trying to ignore that; I just think there are more pro-consumer paths to exclusivity, the elusive "built from the ground up" exclusive should be how a company pushes people to buy a next-gen console not forced exclusivity if they want to be more pro-consumer.

If your business isn't viable without forced exclusivity, then I'd find your business model from the start a bit anti-consumer. If there was no other way to market or push next-gen hardware then yeah, I'd have trouble calling it anti-consumer.

But sometimes being a bit anti-consumer is how you sell things faster, how you make more money.. that doesn't make the decisions you make any less anti-consumer. iOS being depricated on old hardware sells more iPhones.

I think the key difference is you generally only associate actions that are unethical with being anti-consumer so it's a bigger deal for you to call something that; I don't... it's not such a big deal to me if a company is doing something that I deem as anti-consumer because my bar is lower.
Like I said:
If I punch someone in the face, that’s assault. If I don’t move to stop someone from hitting their face on a doorframe, I haven’t assaulted them. That person may have a broken nose in either case, but my actions are not equivalent. In one case I have done something wrong, in the other, I just didn’t do something right that wasn’t my responsibility to do in the first place.
As for releasing a buggy game, in that case the publisher has taken money from the consumer for a subpar product, and has a duty to make that right. If they don’t, it’s anti-consumer.

That’s not in any way the same as just not producing a product that they are under no obligation to produce. No one has been promised this product, no one has exchanged money for it. It doesn’t exist.
 

riotous

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,219
Seattle
As for releasing a buggy game, in that case the publisher has taken money from the consumer for a subpar product, and has a duty to make that right. If they don’t, it’s anti-consumer.
Sorry but I really don't see how your assault analogy has any relevance. Nobody is trying to equate 2 things. An action can be worse than a non-action, so what? Things don't have to be equal to both be anti-consumer.

And yes.. my point is a non-action can be anti-consumer.. so again, I don't see the relevance to this action vs. non-action thing.
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
3,802
Sorry but I really don't see how your assault analogy has any relevance. Nobody is trying to equate 2 things. An action can be worse than a non-action, so what? Things don't have to be equal to both be anti-consumer.

And yes.. my point is a non-action can be anti-consumer.. so again, I don't see the relevance to this action vs. non-action thing.
Alright. Well, I disagree.
 

CrispyGamer

Member
Jan 4, 2020
86
Sony spending every dollar and minute of development time to make a game as good as possible for the PS5 sounds Pro consumer to me.
Bingo! At the end of the day i'm a console only player and i see the value in purchasing a next gen console and playing a game built from the ground up that can take advantage of the power and its unique feature set that couldn't be done on the previous generation. I consider that Pro-consumer, obviously people disagree but i haven't read a single argument that makes sense.
 

Bknbear

Member
Nov 8, 2017
327
the motivations for their actions is, in fact, to actively limit consumer options that would otherwise exist.
is it "removing consumer options" when the game is available on the same hardware? moving from Steam to EGS just changes the store front, the consumer still is playing it on the same computer, and paying the same price.

and Epic giving these companies a guaranteed revenue for exclusivity means they can rely less on sales, insuring they have the financial stability to make future games. and if a consumer likes that developer, is that not good for the consumer?
 

Matt

The Terror that Flaps in the Night
Moderator
Oct 24, 2017
3,802
is it "removing consumer options" when the game is available on the same hardware? moving from Steam to EGS just changes the store front, the consumer still is playing it on the same computer, and paying the same price.

and Epic giving these companies a guaranteed revenue for exclusivity means they can rely less on sales, insuring they have the financial stability to make future games. and if a consumer likes that developer, is that not good for the consumer?
Maybe. Like I said I think you can make that reasonable argument, I’m just not inclined to.
 

Crayon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
11,119
Write a straight-faced take on an absurd conversation; suddenly highlighting the insanity of it all. Everyone be careful with your rhetorical flailings! Someone might write an article about it!
 

Bknbear

Member
Nov 8, 2017
327
Epic doesn't necessarily need to be involved in development to help a developer succeed. Sure, they benefit with exclusivity, but the developer benefits with guaranteed stability, and the consumer benefits from their favorite dev continuing to work.

For another example: Bayonetta 2 - funded by nintendo, which removed a franchise from other platforms - but also paid to continue the franchise.

how is that any different, and if it's not, why isn't nintendo lambasted for it the way EGS is.
 

GhostTrick

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,979
People complaining about the word anti-consumer:
"Wont you stop bullying my favorite big corporation ???"
 

TheClaw7667

Member
Oct 25, 2017
690
is it "removing consumer options" when the game is available on the same hardware? moving from Steam to EGS just changes the store front, the consumer still is playing it on the same computer, and paying the same price.

and Epic giving these companies a guaranteed revenue for exclusivity means they can rely less on sales, insuring they have the financial stability to make future games. and if a consumer likes that developer, is that not good for the consumer?
Steam is a platform with features like that of a console. The EGS is just a storefront. A lot of people playing on the consoles wouldn't be happy with losing features they've been used to for years even if the game was still playable on that hardware.

And for some EGS is more expensive.
 

MykhellMikado

Member
Jan 13, 2020
485
I attempted to read the last page of this thread and it seems like a mess of key words, somehow I’m seeing assault, smartphones, switch, rhetoric, banning discussions, anti consumer, and bullying corporations all being batted around which what as near as I can tell some degree of sincerity.
What even is this thread?
 

Yogi

Member
Nov 10, 2019
1,226
Let's be real, this only happened because MS said xbox would be cross-gen only. It's spinning a negative (for enthusiasts) into a positive.

We can humour it for a while longer if it'll make people feel better but MS is the one you should be directing the complaints to.

They should be pushed to provide at least one next-gen title. But it's probably too late now.

After the XSX series reveal, the M. Booty comment was quite a sucker punch.
 
Last edited:

MatrixMan.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,799
People complaining about the word anti-consumer:
"Wont you stop bullying my favorite big corporation ???"
This kind of lazy reductive comment is the problem with Era. Some of us want to have an intelligent discussion about this, without people throwing around words that don't make sense in context.

Why is your assumption that, because some choose to call out the misuse of the word anti-consumer', they're corporate apologists?
 

karnage10

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,631
Portugal
You're not owed or entitled to games that Sony develops. Are you also mad that you can't play Breath of the Wild on PC? (And don't start about emulation..)

Are you going to be upset when next-generation games will require you to upgrade your PC to enjoy them properly?

The benefit to you (entertainment) always comes at a cost to you as a consumer, that's just how this works.
That's the thing. i won't need to upgrade my PC will I?
Decrease graphics/resolution and my PC will run any next gen game.

Also i'm not mad. I didn't meant to write anything agressive. if it comes as such do please explain as english is not my first language.
You can play those games, you are choosing not to. No one is preventing you from buying a PlayStation, you just don’t want to.

Which is fine, but it’s not anti–consumer to not cater to your individual whims.
But the playstation will provide an inferior experience then the PC. Its sony choice whether to launch on PC or not. Intentionaly restricting the game to playstation because of profits, is in my view anti-costumer.

Microsoft is allowing me to buy their games where I prefer.


Exclusives are made to maximize profit long term rather than short term like every other game by making you want to buy into the ecosystem in the first place. In the case of Sony, only a handful of games actually make money by themselves while they take loses on every other games they make.
I'll have to take your word for it. IMO it makes 0 sense for a company to do products that are losing her money.
IMO if you what you say is true how come last of us and uncharted have so many micro transactions?
After many bad experiences with Steam Customer Service I've tried to find alternatives to buying Steam versions of games wherever I could find them. EGS offering at least one alternative for AAA games a possibility in the future, even if Steam version is later for now.

I wish all games showed up on Linux natively so I can ditch Windows OS. Linux should be where PC games are anyway, it makes so much sense. I hate having to go through the Windows optimization routine whenever there's a update that turns on or adds new bloat.

Even though I have a lot of wishes for PC I understand why Sony might not put all it's games on Windows. I think they should have a Linux distro or store of sorts though. That way they get to have full control of their product.

You can't please everyone.
linux dextro would be THE DREAM.
I'm not a shareholder or care for the profits of these companies either, but I'm also realistic and understand how business works. What you're basically suggesting here is that everything should be made available to everyone regardless of what platform, service or product they are using. That's ridiculous, and ironically goes against the spirit of competition in the marketplace, which is what this and many other industries are built on.

No one cares if your PC is superior to a PlayStation. If Sony (or any platformholder) is investing their own capital to create software to drive adoption of their own services and platforms then it's okay for them be strict about where the fruits of that investment end up. As 'consumers', people need to accept that while our voices are hugely important, we are part of a financial ecosystem which is too complex for companies to bend to our every will and want, no matter how much it may convenience us on an individual basis.

If all you argument boils down to is 'I should be able to play what I want, where I want' then you're being grossly ignorant. Ultimately these are luxury entertainment products. No one is excluding you from playing PlayStation games except you.
That competition has led to season passes and overly aggressive micro-transactions (for example in the star wars galaxy of heroes it costs several hundred euros to buy a single char; then a few hundred more to level up the char to be useful). EGS for example has removed games from steam store so it could have exclusives.

Competition isn't a magic thing that always leads to something better. Hence why many industry have several alws to protect
the costumer.

"no one cares if your PC is superior to a playsation" -> i said I care. I don't and shouldn't care if sony cares.
I also disagree that there is a need to understand "business", As i said in previous comments i'm a costumer not a shareholder.

"Ultimately these are luxury entertainment products. No one is excluding you from playing PlayStation games except you." Errr do you think i can port these games to the PC? Do you think i hold the IP rights to be able to port the games to the PC?
How am I stoping sony from releasing their games on PC?

If you mean you jsut need to buy a playstation then it needs to have better standards/features. For example my display is 1440p which my playstation can't use because sony says so.

I'm not saying WoW should or shouldn't be exclusively be on PC. I'm saying the exclusive status isn't anti-consumer.

The whole purpose of a business is to profit, regardless if it benefits the consumer or not. To claim that every decision is anti-consumer when it doesn't benefit every consumer is a bit...misguided. My comment of them not owing you anything stemmed from your claims that you're "forced" to buy their system when you're not forced to do anything. At the same time, sony is free to do what they like with their products.



I lose a little faith in humanity every time I go on the internet in general lol
Maybe in English quotation doesn't mean the same in Portuguese.
I used the quotation becasue i am not forced in the literal sense. its a luxury good. I meant that unless I buy into a certain hardware i can't acess a product.

For me exclusive status is anti-costumer when that product would be "easily" available in other platforms but isn't done so for profit reasons. For example sony could easily release their catalogue in PSnow so that PC gamers could play them. They could invest a little bit and port the game to PC.
Obviously certain exclusives are acceptable when the platforms are too different. For example it doesn't make sense to port wii games into the xbox, as the lack of wiimote would make the experience very different;

For me sony chose to keep their games locked in their hardware. Like you say its their choice. I however disagree that that choice is neutral/good for costumer.


This is such an asinine statement...like holy fucking shit.
you are right that the comment is too hyperbolic.
My original comment is that everyone should be allowed to play all games in their platform of choice. My point with that coment is that exclusive games work by excluding people from their platforms of choice so that the platform holder can have profit. AS such their existence is meaningless to me as in I will never play them unless they are ported. Whether they exist or not they don't affect me.
Makes a platform holder draw people to its console, creates a stronger ecosystem for it and it turn makes it more likely they will not only continue to fund those games but also invest more in their entire platform from games to consoles.

Not hard to understand and how the industry has worked for decades.
Just because the industry works like this doesn't mean its good for the consumer. A stronger ecosystem doesn't necessarily benefit the costumer, for example i ahve more rights in steam then in sony network. For example i can't move my accounts's region in the PSN. Despite being the market leaders sony has very barebones features. I don't see that stronger ecosystem benefiting me.
Having more people in a console doesn't necessarily make it better, for example having cross platform gameplay can erase that issue.

IMo what you describe is good for the platform holder. But for the costumer i don't see any benefits. (i don't consider creating a game just by itself as a benefit)
 

Lothars

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
5,824
Epic doesn't necessarily need to be involved in development to help a developer succeed. Sure, they benefit with exclusivity, but the developer benefits with guaranteed stability, and the consumer benefits from their favorite dev continuing to work.

For another example: Bayonetta 2 - funded by nintendo, which removed a franchise from other platforms - but also paid to continue the franchise.

how is that any different, and if it's not, why isn't nintendo lambasted for it the way EGS is.
two totally different things every game that was paid for exclusivity was not exclusive until they paid for it and they have an bad storefront that people are forced to use when the games would have been out on steam otherwise. Bayonetta 2 and 3 wouldn't exist without nintendo.
 

Dirtyshubb

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,065
just because the industry works like this doesn't mean its good for the consumer. A stronger ecosystem doesn't necessarily benefit the costumer, for example i ahve more rights in steam then in sony network. For example i can't move my accounts's region in the PSN. Despite being the market leaders sony has very barebones features. I don't see that stronger ecosystem benefiting me.
Having more people in a console doesn't necessarily make it better, for example having cross platform gameplay can erase that issue.

IMo what you describe is good for the platform holder. But for the costumer i don't see any benefits. (i don't consider creating a game just by itself as a benefit)
But those are issues that aren't related to the issue we are talking about with the benefits of platform holders creating their own exclusive games for said platform.

No one system is the same as another and there are slight differences between them all in what they allow.

Without a successful platform, sony wouldn't have made all of the strides they have in other areas in part because they want to keep their platform in a positive light for the customers they have gained or would like to gain.

As for the creation of games not being a benefit for customers, that seems like a pretty ridiculous idea considering that without the desire to gain customers to their platform, those games probably wouldn't have been made in the first place or at least not in the way they have been.

Dreams as a third party game would never have had the development time allowed by Sony because the extra money gained from selling that single game elsewhere wouldn't make up for the lose in giving people a reason to stay on their platform and thus keep spending money from subscriptions, psn purchases etc.
 

Lothars

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
5,824
For me sony chose to keep their games locked in their hardware. Like you say its their choice. I however disagree that that choice is neutral/good for costumer.
Those games don't exist without sony. The exclusive games are not being made without being only on sony platforms. It doesn't mean that some won't come to pc eventually but they might never as well.
 

Hu3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,175
Microsoft is allowing me to buy their games where I prefer.
Yeah Microsoft is letting you buy their games on pc where the dominant software is guest what ?, windows, don’t fool your self if you are thinking they are being pro consumer with this they are enclosing you still in their ecosystem, witch is the goal of every company.


Just because you don’t have the games you want to play in the preferred platform of your choice doesn’t make a company pro or anti, it’s just your preference and that’s entitlement.
 

inguef

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
14,855
That's the thing. i won't need to upgrade my PC will I?
Decrease graphics/resolution and my PC will run any next gen game.
No, at some point you will need to upgrade your CPU and/or graphics card to enjoy the AAA games. Your gaming PC won't last forever unless you plan to not play new games.
 
Nov 11, 2017
2,479
Just because you don’t have the games you want to play in the preferred platform of your choice doesn’t make a company pro or anti, it’s just your preference and that’s entitlement.
Them not forcing you to spend $500 extra dollars to game in a close garden ecosystem is the very definition of Pro consumer
 

Hu3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,175
Them not forcing you to spend $500 extra dollars to game in a close garden ecosystem is the very definition of Pro consumer

No body is forcing you to anything Jesus some people here, they are products you won’t die if you don’t play certain games. Companies make products to appeal to customers, you like the product you buy it simple as that they are not putting a gun on your head to buy a playstation, also you won’t loose a lung if you don’t play bloodbourne. You play the games that are available in your preferred platform. Because that’s your choosing.
 
Nov 11, 2017
2,479
No body is forcing you to anything Jesus some people here, they are products you won’t die if you don’t play certain games. Companies make products to appeal to customers, you like the product you buy it simple as that they are not putting a gun on your head to buy a playstation, also you won’t loose a lung if you don’t play bloodbourne. You play the games that are available in your preferred platform. Because that’s your choosing.
1st:I never said sony was anti consumer for isolating there games to a close platform.
2nd:MS putting there games everywhere (steam cloud windows store console etc) is the very definition of a pro consumer policy.
 

VanDoughnut

Member
Oct 30, 2017
1,156
I remember when I got pistol whipped by Mark Cerney and he put a PS4 right to my temple and forced me to buy it: it was crazy.
 

Bknbear

Member
Nov 8, 2017
327
two totally different things every game that was paid for exclusivity was not exclusive until they paid for it and they have an bad storefront that people are forced to use when the games would have been out on steam otherwise. Bayonetta 2 and 3 wouldn't exist without nintendo.
yeah I concede removing a game from a store front, esp when it was previously available, is bad PR.

the risk for the developer/publisher is how many sales are they going to lose vs. how much was epic paying for exclusivity. Now, we know they did make the exclusivity deal, so the epic money was enough to offset potential loss. this has two effects, 1) AAA games, with established audiences, bring in customers and 2) smaller games with less sales potential don't need to rely on a finicky market to succeed.

so point #2 is where it benefits the consumer, because it's removing risk for smaller devs, ensuring we get followup games.

also, we dont know bayo 2 and 3 wouldnt have existed. we just know nintendo swooped in to pay for it, making it exclusive.
 

Hu3

Member
Oct 25, 2017
1,175
1st:I never said sony was anti consumer for isolating there games to a close platform.
2nd:MS putting there games everywhere (steam cloud windows store console etc) is the very definition of a pro consumer policy.

Ps. Steam is not a platform steam is a store front tied to windows who guest what belongs to Microsoft.

2. The cloud as you call it, Sony has ps now that you can access in your dear “pc”, mobile and much more just as Microsoft.

3. Again Microsoft store belongs to windows.

But hey “Sony” is the anti cosumer when it has the same choices or more. Just because they put their games that they made in the platform they created to fit those games just as Microsoft is putting their games on Xbox and pc because is their ecosystem.
 

David___

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,134
I'll have to take your word for it. IMO it makes 0 sense for a company to do products that are losing her money.
In the case of a platform holder it makes perfect sense. Make unique games that are only available on your platform and even if monetarily don't profit, the fact is they bring in people into your ecosystem who now
1) Might buy multiplats on your platform. Now every time they buy a multiplat game Sony gets 30% of every single sale.
2) Might buy PS Plus which is a free $60 a year essentially for the most part
3) Buy other exclusives since they got over the biggest hurdle. This could lead to an increase of sales for the sequels, etc.

IMO if you what you say is true how come last of us and uncharted have so many micro transactions?
Because those two are obviously part of the handful of games that they expect to make money? Also the stuff I said came straight from Yoshida's mouth: https://www.dualshockers.com/shuhei-yoshida-only-four-out-of-ten-playstation-games-make-money-but-sony-will-always-support-talent/.

A handful of games profit enough to make all the money to essentially cover the losses of the rest

That's the thing. i won't need to upgrade my PC will I?
Decrease graphics/resolution and my PC will run any next gen game.
Eventually you might since SSDs will become the norm and be the min spec. Even if *you* dont need to upgrade the vast majority will
 
Last edited:

Ploid 6.0

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,907
I wonder how open Microsoft would be to putting their games on Linux natively, not via Proton or some auto emulation like Mac's Bootcamp. Why limit it to Windows? After all Microsoft support and donate to Linux so do it Microsoft. Boost Linux as the gaming platform for PC so gamers can just play games on Linux if they want to. /s

I was really hoping Stadia would become popular so Linux versions of PC games would start being published on a Linux Storefront.
 
Oct 30, 2017
1,043
I believe we have learned ''something'' from Sony's competitors the last couple of years.

1. Games are not the priority for a gaming system, but services are.
2. It is anti-consumer choice to develop next-gen games for a next-gen gaming system.
 

ElNino

Member
Nov 6, 2017
880
Let's be real, this only happened because MS said xbox would be cross-gen only. It's spinning a negative (for enthusiasts) into a positive.

They should be pushed to provide at least one next-gen title. But it's probably too late now.
But there will be next-gen titles at launch for XSX, it's just that you will be able to play some of them on the current consoles as well (scaled down). For me it's a great thing as I will still be able to play games together with my kids after the XSX launches. For the record, I don't find Sony's approach "anti-consumer" at all and I will get a PS5 if it has games I'd like to play at launch as well, but for now XSX is a for sure buy.