-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Sony Is Not Anti-Consumer for Making PS5 Exclusives - Push Square
- Thread starter Angie
- Start date
wtf?
Why complain to anyone? Don't buy the hardware, it's not like they are pulling a fast one
And who is "we"?
I doubt "don't buy it" would work on an xbox enthusiast.
People who think rationally.
There will be games on next-gen but will they be next-gen level games? They're much more likely to be scaled up to the X1X than scaled down ... because of how impossible that is I'm afraid. You can't have a flying ability on XSX if it can't also run on the X1. It has to be scaled up.
You could say that for the first year or two the games won't really be taking advantage of the new console anyway but I'm sure devs will be trying hard to on PS5.
Last edited:
Shuhei Yoshida could break into my apartment, smash my PS4 Pro to smithereens, take a shit on my floor on his way out, and I'd still happily buy a PS5 for exclusives.
Wish he did this to my stuff. I'd record it, and threaten to take him to court unless he gave me a PS5 and 100 games of my choosing over the lifetime of the upcoming generation. Also lifetime PS+. The poop on the floor would be a pain, but it's a small price to pay for 100 games and lifetime PS+. I'd be able to come back to Playstation main gaming without contributing to the list of people paying for PS+.
The availability of exclusive content including exclusive games adds value to the console that the consumer/customer purchased
I'm sure both devs will be "trying hard" so I'm not really worrying at all about it. Could XSX games have marginal improvements if they didn't build for the base consoles as well? Possibly, but they also have a well understood platform to build on while also working on the new one. Given the headaches that new platforms always cause developers leading up to launch, it's not something I'm concerned at all about.
If I had to guess:
Directly consumer beneficial? Products developed purely for the new hardware are less likely to have the constraints of the old hardware holding it back which is good for consumers of the new hardware.
Indirectly beneficial? Desirable products only available on new hardware pushes that hardware, creating a base that makes more development for that platform worthwhile in terms of quantity and expense creating more value in the platform for the user.
The new CPUs obliterate the older ones, the improvements might not be so marginal, even early on.
Hopefully someone will create a Shu Break-in Simulator in Dreams.
I remember this! Well I just remember it from hearing it from everyone's parents. I never thought that it was going around in the news, getting it in their impressionable little heads.
Sony is not forcing you to do anything. If you can't help yourself but buy a PlayStation to play the latest god of war, that's on you. You're not forced in anyway to do this. Do not blame others for your impulses. Neither Sony and Nintendo should put their games on PC ir they don't want to. MS is the only one doing it because windows.
Oh but I don't see PC fans asking for Ms games on mac, linux, ps and switch LMAO.
Valve shouldn't force me to buy a PC to play Valve Index games.
Edit: corrected name of VR kit :)
So this is why my mother didn't get me a Super Nintendo at first. Shows like this were telling parents not to get them, and feeding them lies like the games could easily be made for the NES.
By marginal improvements I was only referring to how much better an XSX exclusive game would be compared to a cross-platform one.
I fully expect the XSX versions of any MS games to look and/or run significantly better than the base versions (XOX included).
I'm sorry who said first party exclusives was anti consumer?
Did this author just make an enemy up to validate his argument and have a reason to write this?
Did this author just make an enemy up to validate his argument and have a reason to write this?
You would have to be the most insane fanboy imaginable to say this was anti consumer. I didn't read that last thread as a whole because it got dumb real fast but WOW if that was an actual argument.
Did you miss this carnival?
We'll see, if not this whole "issue" is for naught. I expect short showcase type games with neat features just to show off what the console is capable of. Games with little substance like The Order: 1886. I hope I am wrong since I am buying the PS5 at launch to play the big games of this year in the best quality. I don't have much faith in any incredible games for launch when Sony is releasing TLOU2 and GOT this year. AAA games take several years to make.
yeah, thats more like what this situation is though. I personally don't think the exclusive games is anti consumer, it's just shitty. Sony anti consumer behavior is more how backwards there digital store front is. I know it's better other parts of the worlds but in the US they still won't refund broken digital games or refund preorders. Also releasing incompatible hardware and charging you again a few months later for one that works doesn't help much either (psvr and PS4 pro).
Not refunding games is 100% anti consumer.
I don't understand your last example though.
PS4 pro and PSvr launched with in a few weeks of each other. People bought both of them yet psvr didn't have a hdr pass thru so killed that feature if used it on the pro. Few months later psvr 2.0 came out with the hdr pass thru and you had to buy psvr again if you wanted it.
They knew PSVR wasn't compatible with there own hardware but instead of delaying it for a few months they just released a broken product and made you buy another one.
I'm not sure I'd say that is an example of being anti-consumer, but as a day one PSVR owner it is quite frustrating to swap cables when I want to play it (which is a large reason why I've barely touched it).
I hear ya so it's either just plain old greed or incompetence.
The store policy is enough of a reason for me to be weary next gen. Spent hours this year trying to get stuff done on the phone with Sony and every time they refused to help. On the other hand with MS, I had to click a button on a website...
Hope that changes for the better this coming gen.
True but why do people think they haven't already been working on them for a couple of years?
It's not just a circle jerk, it's a square, triangle and cross jerk too.
LOL Pretty much the only response. Since the writer is from Era, he didn't just pull the theory out of his butt at least. Sadly, the OP of that thread wasn't the only person saying such things (although they were definitely a minority).
Your comment is exactly what i find baffling here. Why is wishing for all games to be available in all platforms "entitlement"?
Am i suposed to care if sony or other companies are profitable? As a costumer what i want is a good product, the finances if said product is viable is up to the company/shareholders.
In terms of your Microsoft comment, i am happy to inform you that valve made proton so while i haven't tested i'd be surprised if many microsoft games didn't work with it. Multiplayer in some (all?) titles might not work due to GFWL. Which is also very anti-costumer.
Just in case you think i am defending microsoft, i'm not. their windows store is horrible for gaming and their game pass an aberation in the way they treat the files of the games. If you have the patience feel free to search my coments and you will see me commenting that gamepass biggest problems are on the PC. and most people are ignoring them!
But i give credit where credit is due. I prefer PC Microsoft gives me a choice to buy their games on steam, on their store, by subscription or with their console. Is it perfect? nope. Is it a very good step forward? yes it is.
What does sony do, have PSN now much more expensive (through it is much better now) and with very few new releases.
What you say is true but has a lot of nuance that you are not mentioning.
For example red dead redemption 2 has the minimum requirements of a 770, a 2013 GPU; jedi fallen order has at the minimum 2012 GPU. This means that new AAA games are accepting tech from 7-8 years ago.
So yes my 1070 GTX might last to 2027 which is not forever but might be extremely acceptable.
The point is PC gives me the choice whether to upgrade and have these shiny new graphics like Ray tracing or keep my old hardware and play on lesser graphics. PS doesn't give me that choice I either buy the PS5 or not.
I already have a 2Tb NVME SSD (intel 660p). Hell the reason i use an SSD is to decrease loading times. I have used them for months if not years. Maybe you could too if sony didn't have just a dedicated hardware?
I get why sony does exclusives, they get more money by having a bigger install base. What i don't get is everyone here saying that because sony uses exclusives, i get better served as a costumer.
yes i get that some games might not exist (someone mentioned dreams which is a good example) but like i said in previous coments a game existing by itself is not,imo, a benefit. A company making a product for a niche market is not by itself a benefit.
Most of my steam library are niche games, of which many/most don't have OT here. Here is an OT i created of a niche game
Good point.
My counter point is that those that aren't part of the ecosystem because that ecoystem doesn't serve their needs/wishes are excluded from having the possibility to enjoy those games.
This seems to be my fault. In portuguese the use of quotation means to not take the word at literal value but on an metaforical one.
I used "forced" because exclusives require a dedicated hardware to have the opportunity to use them.
Where did i ever mention impulses? I mention that excluding others from a game is anti-costumer
Despite MS doing it because of windows, its still better then not doing anything. Also yo ucan use valve's proton to run those game on linus (SP only due to the shitty GFWL)
And yes i'm asking that if a game can be ported to mac, linux, ps and switch I also wish for it. Sony is just more relavant because they could "active" those games in PSN now so that PC users could experience them too.
People shouldn't need to buy hardware they don't want just because a company wants more profits.
I don't get want you want to say. I am taking 2 meanings:
1- Do you mean that valve has valve index exclusive games?
Valve index esclusive games don't exist, any valve game is playable with any head set VR. The only VR manufacturer that has exclusives is facebook's occulos
2 - Do you mean that games made with steamVR should be compatible with other non PC hardware such as the playstation console?
I absolutely agree with you. VR games shouldn't require a gaming PC instead ,if possible, they should be able to run on other types of hardware such as a playstation console.
I hope you didn't mean the option 1 because if so it really means you are extremely dishonest. I will take you meant the option 2 but wrote it very poorly.
good points. Through i'd argue that those points only benefit the costumer of said ecosystem.
That said both points feel a bit tame because of steam and microsoft.
Microsoft is not the market leader (thus should have less money for improving their ecosystem) yet are slightly more costumer friendly then sony (backwards compatibility, gamepass and play anywhere initiative)
Steam is the market leader like sony YET has more costumer friendly features then sony. Valve also went the extra mile by making their exclusives available on console (through badly supported).
So while your points are logically true I think they aren't as clear cut as they seem to be.
Also how do all of you feel if this comes true?
Sonys ps4 exclusive horizon zero dawn is coming to pc this year sources tell kotaku
How come all you aren't there saying that it is very anti-costumer bringing an exclusive game to another platform?
Because it isn't anti consumer. Sony will do it if they feel they should. Why is it so hard for you to understand it's up to the company to decide if they should or not port their games to PC and stop this ridiculous port begging?
My god. Baffling is your response how can you not see that you are not owed anything games are services you are offered a service from a company that want to create an ecosystem, you "buy" the service if you want if it caters your needs. A company does not owe you "their" services in " every platform " just because you feel like or want to. That's not anti consumer. You are not force to buy their games, they are not forced to offer their services everywhere.
I disagree that just because something is up to the company it makes their decision costumer friendly/neutral.
For example sony chose to remove the online gaming from the free tier of PSN which is costumer friendly/neutral to you.
I'm disappointed you skipped over the Microsoft part. A thank you for informing you would be appreciated.
i don't think I used the word "owed" or something similar.
You are correct that a company doesn't need to offer their services in every platform, nonetheless, i disagree that a company that chooses to ignore other platforms for their profit is not taking an anti-costumer action.
For example PSnow allows me to use any controller i want on the PC platform. In the playstation console with the PSnow subscription i'm limited to PS4 controller. Is this restriction fine to you because "they are not forced to offer their services everywhere."?
Regarding benefitting consumers of a specific ecosystem, yeah, but I don't see the issue there. In theory the players you want to best take care of are the ones throwing the most money at your platform. You also want to ensure your platforms have value for the user.
Steam doesn't have to give a f*** so I'm not sure how they apply. The PC landscape is an entirely different beast that isn't limited to long, hardware locked lifecycles. There is an entirely different industry keeping them performance relevant at a self selected, far more granular level with higher peaks, lower valleys and everything in between. You can't really compare them to consoles as they have nothing to push but their own usefulness as a storefront.
MS is in an interesting spot as they can play both the PC and console side to an extent. They have adopted user friendly features but I'd argue the core product is still games. That said they started attempts in streaming games quite a while ago for a more hardware agnostic approach and the subscription mode for new games is only months old from MS.
Even for those points the gains in specific areas aren't mutually exclusive. You can make new games the best they can be on a new platform while still lacking in other areas and that aspect will still itself be consumer positive.
Because it isn't? We're not talking global booleans here. Sony's PS5 customers will benefit from development from the ground up for the PS5's abilities. Sony's PS4 customers benefited from having access to the game for the entire time it's been out until it comes out on PC. PC users will benefit from it's eventual release there.
Sony doesn't need to really defer to individuals who are not their clientele (they are still a hardware vendor) with their incentives for people who are. At this point, the people who aren't on PS platforms aren't actually their consumers, so they can't be all that consumer friendly to them. And further, if they didn't have something to sell with that game, the game may not have existed at least as it did. We've seen differences this gen between publishers making software to push hardware and developers making software to push itself this gen. Consumer predatory practices have tended to follow the latter so even exclusivity seemingly has its benefits now.
Might want to change that before you get hit with a warning or worse.
"We have a console you can play old games on. Its called the PS4"