Consoles reset every few years to a new generation while Steam obviously has an advantage of not having to do this. Also Steam didn't get its 100mil plus userbase all in 1 gen, took them like 20 years.
Jim Ryan confirms that PC is a direct competitor to Playstation in FTC documents.
- Thread starter nongkris
- Start date
yeah, that's part of the problem for consoles. my steam library is like 400 games, while any one console is a big hit if I've got like 50 games. And old games get better on PC while they're stuck in time on console. My Steam library is by far my most valuable collection of games. With Valve continuously improving both software features and hardware there's every reason its my first choice for multiplatform games.
I own nearly 400 games between both PS4 and PS5, slowly but surely Steam will no longer have that advantage, infact one could argue that advantage is already gone.
And there are games on Steam that don’t work on current OSes but are still sold anyway, because Gabe the fat fuck is ex-Microsoft and loves money as much as he loves stuffing his face.
Please elaborate on how PC for some reason will lose on backwards compatibility vs any console.
Nah, just speaking from a standpoint of modern AAA games through bc on consoles is a thing now.
It's sort of dumb to argue graphics comparison since we all know the PC runs with better quality (assuming no bugs) so I'll digress.I agree, they're not.
Is there a link to the source with the full interview of this supposed quote?
If he knows this then why does he continue to port the Playstation exclusive library to a competitor platform?
I'm sure his defenders will come in this thread saying how PC ports are still excellent because "reasons".
It can be fake, since I don't see it in any other gaming media or forum.
Last edited:
Some games for which Windows 11 broke compatibility ironically run reliably on Linux distros through Proton.
I honestly don't understand. Why is Sony wasting time with these unnecessary pc ports?
You're talking like Bethesda, but if Starfield has shown us anything, it's that quantity != quality. How many of those 400+ games have you actually played through to completion? That you plan to play through to completion? That you have any genuine interest in playing to some significant level at all?
You seem as though people with a PS5, don't have a PS4, or a PS3, or even a PS2 or PS1. Having a digital library available to you in one spot is a nice convenience, but having a mix of digital & physical libraries that can be fired up almost anytime across a range of platforms offers its own conveniences that something like Steam simply can't. Also the way you measure 'value' is subjective; you're going by quantity of games, when I doubt you even genuinely care about even half of those 400+ titles. If we're talking in that regard, someone could have a collection of just 40 games on a system and have gotten more out of even a fraction of that, than you may have with your 400.
And that doesn't even get into the market valuation aspect of what could be considered 'valuable'; your Steam games aren't resellable, they don't accrue dollar value over time, either. I could buy a single rare PS1, PS2, PS3, or Saturn game and money-wise would be worth more than your entire Steam collection by at least 2x the dollar amount.
Because it gives them extra hundreds of millions of revenue/profit with little effort/budget required, and help them reach many millions of players who never would buy a console.
Specially in strategical countries where they want to grow like Asia (particularly outside Japan) and Latin America.
They see it as a great opportunity to highly grow their business with very little risk, and no signs to negatively affect their console business (which continues growing too). Same as expending to make more MP & GaaS games, mobile gaming, adapting their gaming IPs to movies/tv shows/theme park rides/etc.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 223
Guest
I concurr we need the source for this, if anything for posterity.
If he knows this then why does he continue to port the Playstation exclusive library to a competitor platform? nongkris, pull up.
I'm sure his defenders will come in this thread saying how PC ports are still excellent because "reasons".
It's a catch-22 and almost self-defeating ideology though, not to mention wrong on some level. A lot of today's PC gamers WERE console players in the 360/PS3 and PS4/XBO gens. But because of various reasons on those respective platform holders alongside Steam growth, they moved from console and went to PC.
In other words, the platform holders could've done more to retain those players. Sony could be doing more today; porting at least non-GaaS titles to PC does not help them in that regard and it also shifts potential customers out of their direct ecosystem (PS console & storefront & subscription service & peripherals). At least with the trend they have been increasingly shifting towards the past couple of years.
People in these countries, the Middle East, Africa, etc. have always had means of access to some extent to prior consoles. Let's not pretend consoles have been complete non-factors here, particularly when it comes to Sony. In places where there were laws preventing legal console sales for a while, like China, those laws have since been removed.
If you don't condition customers to buy a certain way and at a certain place for a period of time, then of course you won't convince them to buy in where you retain the most control as the product's owner. But people in these various other countries are not inherently against getting a console for gaming needs, even if the console is supplementary.
Dunno, sounds like there is some inherent notable risk if even Jim Ryan is now saying PC directly competes with PlayStation (and it does).
The console business is growing but that's partly due to inflation, partly due to increased costs in areas and now we are seeing Sony get more aggressive with pricing deals and discounts to shift units for meeting fiscal targets. How much of that is proactively planned well ahead of time vs. how much is reactive to possibly lessening demand (even if only slightly) is up for debate.
Doing more MP/GaaS titles in itself is a good thing, just depends on how fresh the game concepts are, if they're being smart leveraging legacy IP, and try not entering too many saturated genre markets in that regard. Same with the mobile games. Gaming adaptations to shows/films/theme parks etc. makes sense but again, there has to be a balance of variety and in ways that make sense. As an example, that Gravity Rush adaptation should've been at least a CG anime, IMO.
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.
I always remembered a major factor in people not committing to PC was missing out on awesome console exclusives, primarily PlayStation. Not sure why you’d eliminate that edge.
View attachment 2367
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
You should read the date. It's not even fine print; right there in the article. Market realities and variables change a lot in simply a year, let alone 2+.
Granted I think PC will always remain a part of Sony's focus. But, people who think there won't be some adjustments going forward, to potentially shift even more value towards the console itself (which should always be the priority), are in for a few sobering surprises.
Sorry did game production costs come down between 2021 and now? Has Sony signalled any change in approach? No. Games cost more to produce. Ryan reiterated "incremental growth" from traditional first party single player games coming to PC in the Fidelity investor interview. More importantly, service games will be day 1 on PC, where Ryan expects growth on "another level".