He's just on a temp ban, I'll see what we can do.
Jim Ryan confirms that PC is a direct competitor to Playstation in FTC documents.
- Thread starter nongkris
- Start date
He's just on a temp ban, I'll see what we can do.
PC gaming is inevitable. Jim Ryan can put all the fight he wants but in the end he will also be assimilated.
He wants it. There's a bigger margin in being the best publisher in the game than repackaging PC hardware at a loss.
lol there literally isn't
Sony makes the bulk of their money by taking 30% of every new game sale and microtransaction. No massive install base = no 25 billion dollar annual revenue.
lol there literally isn't
GQ: Releasing PlayStation games on PC was something that Sony PlayStation held back on for a long time. Now it sounds like you’re very much on that bandwagon. What changed?
Jim Ryan: I think a few things changed. We find ourselves now in early 2021 with our development studios and the games that they make in better shape than they’ve ever been before. Particularly from the latter half of the PS4 cycle our studios made some wonderful, great games. There’s an opportunity to expose those great games to a wider audience and recognise the economics of game development, which are not always straightforward. The cost of making games goes up with each cycle, as the calibre of the IP has improved. Also, our ease of making it available to non-console owners has grown. So it’s a fairly straightforward decision for us to make.
PlayStation’s Jim Ryan: ‘We’re making a completely new VR format for PS5’
Surprise! PlayStation head honcho Jim Ryan has some news to share on PS5 stock, Sony’s 2021 release schedule and a new PlayStation VR headset.www.gq-magazine.co.uk
That doesn't contradict what I've said in the slightest. Sony makes more in 1 week from their PSN store than all of their PC ports combined will make in an entire year. That's not even an exaggeration.
You're arguing against reality. Playstation makes PC games. The initiative is accelerating.
Of course, this was the case. Anyone who supports PlayStation games being ported to PC is either delusional at best or arguing for it in bad faith
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
30/70 split in favor of bad faith.
FWIW I've never been 100% against Sony porting PS 1P games to PC. I can understand why they'd want that for GaaS titles, for example. I can understand the advertising potential with marquee AAA traditional games, too. At least to a decent extent.
But they have got to do things in a way that's fair to console owners. The fact PC players don't have to pay for online while console players do is kind of messed up. A the very least, tie some damn good perks to console players to make it a bit more balanced, if you're not making the game F2P. The marquee 1P traditional titles need to be much further spaced out between console and PC. 2-3 years isn't really enough considering for most of these games they take 5-7 years to make now.
At best, PC shouldn't be getting a port of that game until within 1-2 years of a new installment in that IP (or a new 1P traditional AAA from that studio) coming exclusively to console. They can pack in all the QoL updates, released content (up to that point), resolution & framerate options etc. and maybe some new content sampling from the sequel or new game coming, at a more reasonable price (say $50 or $55). But, they should also provide equivalent updates of new features and content (to where it makes sense) for console buyers who purchased the game by a certain date near the game's original release. They should be able to get those features on console either for free or a much lower price. Reward your early adopters. But it also ensures they'll get the sequel or new game Day 1, and you'll get people on PC who might not want to wait 5 or so years to play it there so they get the next game on console.
So ideally like that HFW PC port? That shouldn't be a 2024 release; say it takes 5 years for Horizon 3 (it'll probably take like 6 years actually). The PC version of HFW should come 2025 or 2026, IMHO. Bundled with Burning Shores content of course, and maybe some new content too. If they feel they have to bring their non-GaaS titles to PC, and don't have plans for a storefront/launcher anytime soon, then this feels like it'd be the best option. Of course, there are still select games they could just not bring to PC at all.
So you aren't satisfied with a 2yr release window? I've heard it all.
And I'm sure there are certain games that aren't worth porting in the first place like Demon Souls.
No it's not. Console players decided that paying a monthly fee to play lots of games online is a key aspect of the console gaming experience.
PS owners in particular decided that in 2013. They were too busy playing console wars with Xbox one users to realize they were getting shafted as well.
I blame PS users most of all because they had 8 extra years to realize the online paywall is a scam, since they had free online on the PS3. Xbox users paid for online since the very beginning.
Oh sweet. I've made some simillar posts on the board mentioning him coming back.
Going back to the idea of IE debates. I sort of mean like an event, "teams" picked to represent a side of the debate, as we see some posters agreeing and other posters agreeing together against the point.
Structured opening remarks/discussion points and summaries... I often think the discussion is still good but emotions can run high, and the structured discussion/team aspect would help.
I believe this post to be somewhat misguided.
Back then on PS3 the free monthly games were good enough quality to make PS+ a worthwhile purchase in its own right. That it was now required for online play (but not to use media apps, or for f2p games, like MS at the time), it was like "shoulder shrug" get some easy money, Sony, held out long enough. It wasn't like they were asking me to pay a gold online paywall and then a seperate pass for streaming games.
Contrast to today though, where PS games are cheaper on PC and PC has no online paywall, and service's QOL needs to be re-addressed again.
I would get PS3 BC sorted first. Throw developers at that, get them games working on PS4/PS5/digital/streaming and make them downloadable. AND fuck PC/Deck off. With that, you take away the paper barrier between Games Collection (PS4/PS5) and Classics Collection (PS1, PS2, PSP, PS3, which can now download the games under my scenario). They're just all gen's of PS games available to stream, dl or purchase, inside of one tier instead of splitting-off into a 3rd tier. As you all know, I'd then release PS4P and stem Valve and friends' inroads.
Certainly for 1P games, and if I could work deals with 3P pubs, I'd make "early access" into a perk of PS+. It releases on the 15th, but if you had PS+ you could be playing on the 10th. I'd also do PS+ server rentals and allow people to cottage industry keep a game alive even if Sony moves on. Pass that server cost onto the players, but at least we'd all able to organise and daisy-chain game sessions or tournaments together for some otherwise "dead" games.
Playstation Plus was such a GREAT and valuable service in 2013 it had all the good will going for it. Paying for Online with it actually didn't even matter for me as I got so much value out of it. Between 2011 and especially in 2012 - 2013.
The plathtora of AAA games I got off the service in 2013 was crazy. Then they had such a great pitch of even giving out Day One AAA PS4 games.... yeah I will admit it didn't bother me.
And honestly I still don't mind paying for Online, yeah sue me?
But they should have definitely found a way to keep online play alone at $60 at least instead hand ringing their loyal customers into paying $80 for it or risk losing their PS+ catalog and cloud storage as well.
That's Scummy.
$60 = cloud storage + Online play and access to all games you added to your library from PS+ over the years...
I swear I dunno how these Corp board rooms guys get paid so much to fuck up. When us gamers would do a better job.
I kinda feel maybe they regretted diving head first Into this PC port race. Though they can still simply stop outside of when try to appease people like Kojima.
Launch the GaaS games day one but they really should have kept PS5 Tentpole games off PC till the end of this generation.
PS4 games were fine since we had move on to PS5... they royally fucked up.
Launch the GaaS games day one but they really should have kept PS5 Tentpole games off PC till the end of this generation.
PS4 games were fine since we had move on to PS5... they royally fucked up.
On the whole "pay for online", why are some people still strawmaning this shit? The reason why people are upset is quite simple to understand:
- Sony controls the platform (PS) and develops the games
- Sony can choose not to charge for online by not requiring a Plus subscription
- This will have them at parity with a PC solution
- Charging for online access on PS + the prospect of the game being more expensive on that platform (not guaranteed) make this a shitty value proposition for PS players
- Offer the game at the same price both in PS and PC. This will either imply charging a premium on PC or lower than normal on PS
- charge for an online "maintenance" fee on PC that matches PS Essential (yearly) or offer online for free on PS.
No, it is what it is. PS3 era plus offered pretty good games, but you could still play all games online for free. Paying for ps plus past late 2013 is not the same as paying for it before.
Sony customers decided that paying twice to use their own internet was a wise decision. And they had 8+ years of Xbox users paying for gold to realize it was a scam.
What should have happened: PS users drop the brand for a while in retaliation for the online paywall (they go to PC as by that time an entry level PC could beat a PS4 for the same or a couple more dollars)
Sony feels the hit in sales and differentiates from MS by allowing free online on the PS4, just like it was on the ps3. They could have sold 160M ps4 and grow the market.
Ms sells even less Xboxes and is forced to drop Xbox live gold to recoup sales.
The customer wins.