D
Rift Apart PC requirements
- Thread starter JAHGamer
- Start date
Can't wait to see this sell less than 10k ... Should be totally worth it to Hermen Spencer.
This one?Not even worth torrenting for me. Pre ordered HZD and days gone though.
They’re not ”anti PlayStation“ This is one of the biggest PS fanboy sites out there. These PS fanboys are just mad that these games won’t be exclusive to their favorite plastic box anymore. Lol
The games are already made. these PC ports are not costing 300M.
Bruh. Nobody is reading all that, and I’m someone that likes to read. You just wasted your time. Lol,It's not an experiment. It's a policy position by an idiotic leadership that does not understand the PC market nor how indirect competition works - that's the positioning of PC Windows Gaming vs Consoles. Both platforms represent hardware/software ecosystems that compete for a finite (as opposed to infinite) pool of dollars and consumers - allocation of which go to different companies and not to Sony's pocket. It's a zero sum game against both Xbox (direct) and PC (only slightly indirect). When the very top at Sony (CEO), oblivious to the inner workings of the gaming industry, tell the idiots under him (SIE - Jim Ryan) to do something on PC, Sony's CEO has no fucking idea how that will take shape. What Sony's CEO does expect is for Jim Ryan to increase shareholder value - bottomline - cause that is what investors fuck Sony's CEO with (revenue/profit growth). And so Sony's CEO expects underlings in charge of the subsidiary, aka SIE CEO Jim Ryan to come up with a brilliant strategy that is as successful on PC as that of its golden goose - PlayStation. Just so happens, the underlings come up with the most self-defeating, simplest, most barebones, thoughtless strategy there is yet. A fucking 2 year old could come with it. It's literally "just port".
When SIE is pushed to deliver, with an expectation to deliver - complex, and investment heavy strategies go out the window quick - specially when you consider the average SIE leadership tenure is around 5-6 yrs or so. If you're Jim Ryan and you don't want to jeopardize your tenure and cut it shorter than 6 years, you have to deliver quickly. As is often the case in business you see that these CEO's try to deliver with little planning involved, and thus with little to no room for complex strategies - which is verbatim what we're seeing from SIE's PC policy - "just port". So what you have here is the very top at Sony (CEO) creating the wrong incentives for their SIE underlings - all of it with a potential to undermine the golden goose, with no long term strategic effect and with potential for a self defeating effect.
I see this shit all the fucking time - how common does it have to be for big conglomerates to fall for it again, and again? As long as humans are involved - forever. The kicker, after Jim's 6 years are in - he unloads the bag and mess to the next in line. With a potential crises slowly metastasizing. Will the new leadership take the difficult decisions required to revert back to sound policy making? It's specially hard to explain to your boss that while the money is fine, what has been created has planted silent bombs beneath their feet and an adjustment is required. So what will that new leadership decide? Rock the boat? or just go along, be happy you got the job, serve the term and continue to allow the slow poison to work its way - "kicking the can down the road" paradigm? These are all common problems of corporate leadership. It's why you hire folks to review subsidiary operations - unfortunately often done when shit hits the fan which is the point where the very top doesn't even know what the fuck is going on or how it got to a crises state to begin with. As is often the case when these crisis reviews hit; by the time you do the correct introspection you're picking up pieces and trying to stitch something together. You rather fight the cancer early cause if you do it late, well, it's too late.
That's why I often say fire Jim Ryan. Completely inadequate leadership. Sony's CEO is obviously ignorant of many things of the gaming market so he too is at fault here (how can he be OK with a "just port" strategy - that tells you all) but it falls most of all on Jim to set Sony's CEO straight and not lead the golden goose down a perilous path, despite the uncomfortable nature of the process in telling Sony's CEO that. Now if Sony's CEO decides to find another man to carry out stupidity, aka fire your ass, you can at least go into the sunset with the individual satisfaction that you did what you thought best with your advice. Of course if your long career dream as a life-long employee was to be a CEO well, you can see how ambition can get in the way of good things. Ambition and greed - powerful motivators but also powerful death sentences so to speak if not managed properly.
If you want to grow outside the console box, expand wings so to speak to PC and you want to do it right you have to leverage your ecosystem to the max. And so for Sony it has to leverage PSN - and the way to do that is with a PlayStation store launcher with full third party support in direct competition to Valve's Steam and Epic Games Store. That is the only semi-correct solution. Anything short of that is a strategic failure in the making shoring up competing storefronts with ecosystem loyalty and money, and thus strengthening your competitors and their base to better compete against consoles - aka PlayStation, for peanuts. The "go where the customer is" mantra is defeating BS and lingo from suits of third-party publishers who do not have responsibilities towards nurturing and caring for their own ecosystem/platform, nor with the responsibility to grow them. For platform holders, it's a sort of admission of defeat, by the individual in mention, in the effort he or she may have given to incentivize consumer flight out of the indirect competitor (in this case PC). But that's, like anything, just an opinion of said individual - it's not the law of the land - thus the opinion can and should be discarded. Bottomline it should be taboo speak - and you have to wonder what has fundamentally changed in the market for it to no longer be taboo - cause nothing has fundamentally changed (unless MS distracting shenanigans in the media space in an effort to change public perception are considered such - which is not).
Ideally, you take stock of the PC gaming market, you identify its weaknesses, its current state and instead of wasting time shoring it up, you capitalize on its current heightened weakness (poor affordability, and poor standardization) and pounce on it by doubling down on the differentiating strengths of the PlayStation ecosystem - content exclusivity being the draw - affordability being the sale. You pounce now that the PlayStation ecosystem is at a high but instead the total opposite is being done. "Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" sort of speak. When the other side barks loud against exclusives - it means it's working idiot - to the point where they're making a concerted effort to out their dissatisfaction in desperation and defiance. How obvious does this have to be?
It's however much easier - instead of being the ultimate competitor, and the effort that it requires to be in a constant state of war footing - much easier to give up, and not go into a meeting and explain to Sony's CEO why his mandate for doing something on PC is idiotic, at this current time most of all, and to explain that the best way to go about it, even if he's still hellbent on pursuing a growth strategy on PC after such explanation is that of PS PC store launcher to leverage PSN, and that it will require significant investment and allocation of resources to that effort - which amounts to a loss leading strategy gunning for a solidified potential long term (not short term) gain - which runs the risk of no success since you'll be seeking to dethrone and steal away consumers from both Valve's Steam (the defacto software distribution monopoly on PC) and Epic Games Store (the fart in the wind) from the starting point of 0. It takes a commitment to really compete. Now that's more serious.
SIE already missed revenue targets with their PC push despite putting their best intellectual IP out there. No amount of downplaying will sweep that under the rug, no amount of spin by idiots online will either. Most of the revenue got inflated by Destiny and its successful expansion. So the actual revenue and profit for the IPs in question is literally and without an exaggeration peanuts in real terms. The development cost of those PC ports incurred an opportunity cost - that is the alternative of using those resources spent on making the PC port elsewhere - to say speed up the development of existing titles on PlayStation, or allocating that money for an HD remake or whatever your business creativity fancies when milking IP... on the very successful platform you own, control, and profit the most, without eroding your differentiating platform advantages to indirect competitors.
What's happening at Sony is a very common problem faced by conglomerates - and Sony is not an exception. The CEO has a knowledge gap of the market its subsidiary operates yet gives out generalized mandates without knowing full well what that will entail. Nintendo, a company without such disconnect - there is only 1 CEO, not several- is by that very fact more savy, more fearful of making strategic mistakes of this nature and of eroding its differentiation strengths. Thus, with Nintendo, you don't see that approach to PC - it's literally speaking, heresy. So when the "investor class", seeing Nintendo on the ropes after the Wii U, almost down and out, starts to clamors for "Mario everywhere" (aka "commit suicide"); Nintendo kindly said fuck you, and fuck no. Mario stays where he should be and belongs.
SIE's saving grace for the time being will continue to be the troubles of PC hardware makers and the skyrocketing consumer facing cost of PCs. The very reason why Sony should double down on platform exclusivity strengths to incentivize consumer flight from PC is the very reason shoring up PC is not having a detrimental effect to consumer adoption of PlayStation (for the time being). That is to say, were Gaming PCs affordability be high, and standardization simpler, consumer flight from PlayStation consoles to PC would be clear to all - in numbers and revenue/profit by pursuing this PC policy. If it were to get to that point, it would also, although not too late to revert and shift course back become a hard momentum to blunt. Add to that the distraction of the Xbox Trojan horse by Microsoft and you can see how SIE leadership has all it can handle.
So you wake up in 2023, and you find out you're no longer in 2019/2020. You find out platform differentiating strengths (aka exclusives) do matter in 2023 and not only do they matter, the direct and indirect competitor participant (Xbox and PC Windows Gaming - aka MS) is seeking to asphyxiate you by depriving PlayStation of content from your "partners". And you also happen to have bitten the PC bait, full line and sinker during the "exclusives are bad" "follow Microsoft to PC and profit" feint. SUCKERS!!!!
You also find out the old adage of killing PS still holds at MS, no matter the resource cost - $7.5 Billion? $70 Billion? Whatever it takes -"All in on gaming" - and not because Microsoft gives a shit about Xbox or consoles, they don't - but they do give a shit about PC Windows Gaming - which is why, out of many reasons, you create Xbox - to protect Windows Gaming from consoles, erode console differentiation vis a vis PC and prevent console standards from deviating too far away from PC (and Windows by extension) - cause consoles, unlike PC, drive the premium software gaming industry. It was as clear as day in 2001, and if you thought the market and the players had changed in 20 years, well, the wake up call can't be any clearer with the Bethesda/ABK back-to-back moves and the inner chatter of consummate strategist Phil Spencer and crew - that they can do - can't manage for shit tho.
As for the commentariat - it's always going to be polluted by PC first gamers (and Xbox fanboys in tow) who have a vested interest in seeing Sony become a third party publisher and the erosion of consoles strengths, slowly - it's a slow, poisonous death. Console Exclusives not on the PC platform hurt PC gamers, not just for the want of them, but for the image of PC gaming's appeal and long term viability. It's that simple. It will always be that simple. The talking points of the pro-PC policy will always find mouths that will spout it. We've many here in this very thread - they're easy to identify and stand out. There are also other kinds of commentators of "pro-PC" policy. These are PlayStation fanboys fearful and uncomfortable hearing negativity thrown at Sony by other PS fans due to this PC policy. These PS fans are uncomfortable hanging out with others within the community who criticize Sony for this. So these PS fans give out their opinion on the matter in support of Daddy Sony out of a poor understanding of the topic, out of fear and against their own best interests as console first/PlayStation first players. What do you gain? And thus these PS fans latch at flawed talking points and align themselves with PC/Xbox gamers who support it due to the obvious. Common lingo describes these sort of people as "useful idiots"... although it's a harsh term I prefer not to use even if it's accurate. These PS fans "hold the line" and try to "herd the sheep" for Daddy Sony gratituously out of some false sense of duty. Low IQ in short - that I'm comfortable in saying. Also none of Sony's direct or indirect competitors, and their media shills and apparatus are going to criticize Sony's PC policy either - to the contrary you loud it and insert pro talking points to that effect to incentivize that behavior or say nothing. If it bothered Valve or Microsoft, you would hear growling and criticism by their media plants - as is usual when Sony does something that sticks it to them and hurts. So it's obvious what the play is here. It's the old adage of not interrupting your enemy when he's busy making a strategic mistake all on his own. Although it had a little nudging by MS - but that's their job so - all is fair in love and war.
Btw Placidusa, I just used your post to write this "manifesto". Don't worry about it.
OP
OP
Well said but a PC launcher isn’t a good solution either, expand the brand through TV shows and movies like they did with TLOU. Both games were back on the best selling charts after years. Same with Nintendo and Mario, they saw a huge boost with their movie. Or release a proper handheld. PC support is never a good option in any scenario.It's not an experiment. It's a policy position by an idiotic leadership that does not understand the PC market nor how indirect competition works - that's the positioning of PC Windows Gaming vs Consoles. Both platforms represent hardware/software ecosystems that compete for a finite (as opposed to infinite) pool of dollars and consumers - allocation of which go to different companies and not to Sony's pocket. It's a zero sum game against both Xbox (direct) and PC (only slightly indirect). When the very top at Sony (CEO), oblivious to the inner workings of the gaming industry, tell the idiots under him (SIE - Jim Ryan) to do something on PC, Sony's CEO has no fucking idea how that will take shape. What Sony's CEO does expect is for Jim Ryan to increase shareholder value - bottomline - cause that is what investors fuck Sony's CEO with (revenue/profit growth). And so Sony's CEO expects underlings in charge of the subsidiary, aka SIE CEO Jim Ryan to come up with a brilliant strategy that is as successful on PC as that of its golden goose - PlayStation. Just so happens, the underlings come up with the most self-defeating, simplest, most barebones, thoughtless strategy there is yet. A fucking 2 year old could come with it. It's literally "just port".
When SIE is pushed to deliver, with an expectation to deliver - complex, and investment heavy strategies go out the window quick - specially when you consider the average SIE leadership tenure is around 5-6 yrs or so. If you're Jim Ryan and you don't want to jeopardize your tenure and cut it shorter than 6 years, you have to deliver quickly. As is often the case in business you see that these CEO's try to deliver with little planning involved, and thus with little to no room for complex strategies - which is verbatim what we're seeing from SIE's PC policy - "just port". So what you have here is the very top at Sony (CEO) creating the wrong incentives for their SIE underlings - all of it with a potential to undermine the golden goose, with no long term strategic effect and with potential for a self defeating effect.
I see this shit all the fucking time - how common does it have to be for big conglomerates to fall for it again, and again? As long as humans are involved - forever. The kicker, after Jim's 6 years are in - he unloads the bag and mess to the next in line. With a potential crises slowly metastasizing. Will the new leadership take the difficult decisions required to revert back to sound policy making? It's specially hard to explain to your boss that while the money is fine, what has been created has planted silent bombs beneath their feet and an adjustment is required. So what will that new leadership decide? Rock the boat? or just go along, be happy you got the job, serve the term and continue to allow the slow poison to work its way - "kicking the can down the road" paradigm? These are all common problems of corporate leadership. It's why you hire folks to review subsidiary operations - unfortunately often done when shit hits the fan which is the point where the very top doesn't even know what the fuck is going on or how it got to a crises state to begin with. As is often the case when these crisis reviews hit; by the time you do the correct introspection you're picking up pieces and trying to stitch something together. You rather fight the cancer early cause if you do it late, well, it's too late.
That's why I often say fire Jim Ryan. Completely inadequate leadership. Sony's CEO is obviously ignorant of many things of the gaming market so he too is at fault here (how can he be OK with a "just port" strategy - that tells you all) but it falls most of all on Jim to set Sony's CEO straight and not lead the golden goose down a perilous path, despite the uncomfortable nature of the process in telling Sony's CEO that. Now if Sony's CEO decides to find another man to carry out stupidity, aka fire your ass, you can at least go into the sunset with the individual satisfaction that you did what you thought best with your advice. Of course if your long career dream as a life-long employee was to be a CEO well, you can see how ambition can get in the way of good things. Ambition and greed - powerful motivators but also powerful death sentences so to speak if not managed properly.
If you want to grow outside the console box, expand wings so to speak to PC and you want to do it right you have to leverage your ecosystem to the max. And so for Sony it has to leverage PSN - and the way to do that is with a PlayStation store launcher with full third party support in direct competition to Valve's Steam and Epic Games Store. That is the only semi-correct solution. Anything short of that is a strategic failure in the making shoring up competing storefronts with ecosystem loyalty and money, and thus strengthening your competitors and their base to better compete against consoles - aka PlayStation, for peanuts. The "go where the customer is" mantra is defeating BS and lingo from suits of third-party publishers who do not have responsibilities towards nurturing and caring for their own ecosystem/platform, nor with the responsibility to grow them. For platform holders, it's a sort of admission of defeat, by the individual in mention, in the effort he or she may have given to incentivize consumer flight out of the indirect competitor (in this case PC). But that's, like anything, just an opinion of said individual - it's not the law of the land - thus the opinion can and should be discarded. Bottomline it should be taboo speak - and you have to wonder what has fundamentally changed in the market for it to no longer be taboo - cause nothing has fundamentally changed (unless MS distracting shenanigans in the media space in an effort to change public perception are considered such - which is not).
Ideally, you take stock of the PC gaming market, you identify its weaknesses, its current state and instead of wasting time shoring it up, you capitalize on its current heightened weakness (poor affordability, and poor standardization) and pounce on it by doubling down on the differentiating strengths of the PlayStation ecosystem - content exclusivity being the draw - affordability being the sale. You pounce now that the PlayStation ecosystem is at a high but instead the total opposite is being done. "Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" sort of speak. When the other side barks loud against exclusives - it means it's working idiot - to the point where they're making a concerted effort to out their dissatisfaction in desperation and defiance. How obvious does this have to be?
It's however much easier - instead of being the ultimate competitor, and the effort that it requires to be in a constant state of war footing - much easier to give up, and not go into a meeting and explain to Sony's CEO why his mandate for doing something on PC is idiotic, at this current time most of all, and to explain that the best way to go about it, even if he's still hellbent on pursuing a growth strategy on PC after such explanation is that of PS PC store launcher to leverage PSN, and that it will require significant investment and allocation of resources to that effort - which amounts to a loss leading strategy gunning for a solidified potential long term (not short term) gain - which runs the risk of no success since you'll be seeking to dethrone and steal away consumers from both Valve's Steam (the defacto software distribution monopoly on PC) and Epic Games Store (the fart in the wind) from the starting point of 0. It takes a commitment to really compete. Now that's more serious.
SIE already missed revenue targets with their PC push despite putting their best intellectual IP out there. No amount of downplaying will sweep that under the rug, no amount of spin by idiots online will either. Most of the revenue got inflated by Destiny and its successful expansion. So the actual revenue and profit for the IPs in question is literally and without an exaggeration peanuts in real terms. The development cost of those PC ports incurred an opportunity cost - that is the alternative of using those resources spent on making the PC port elsewhere - to say speed up the development of existing titles on PlayStation, or allocating that money for an HD remake or whatever your business creativity fancies when milking IP... on the very successful platform you own, control, and profit the most, without eroding your differentiating platform advantages to indirect competitors.
What's happening at Sony is a very common problem faced by conglomerates - and Sony is not an exception. The CEO has a knowledge gap of the market its subsidiary operates yet gives out generalized mandates without knowing full well what that will entail. Nintendo, a company without such disconnect - there is only 1 CEO, not several- is by that very fact more savy, more fearful of making strategic mistakes of this nature and of eroding its differentiation strengths. Thus, with Nintendo, you don't see that approach to PC - it's literally speaking, heresy. So when the "investor class", seeing Nintendo on the ropes after the Wii U, almost down and out, starts to clamors for "Mario everywhere" (aka "commit suicide"); Nintendo kindly said fuck you, and fuck no. Mario stays where he should be and belongs.
SIE's saving grace for the time being will continue to be the troubles of PC hardware makers and the skyrocketing consumer facing cost of PCs. The very reason why Sony should double down on platform exclusivity strengths to incentivize consumer flight from PC is the very reason shoring up PC is not having a detrimental effect to consumer adoption of PlayStation (for the time being). That is to say, were Gaming PCs affordability be high, and standardization simpler, consumer flight from PlayStation consoles to PC would be clear to all - in numbers and revenue/profit by pursuing this PC policy. If it were to get to that point, it would also, although not too late to revert and shift course back become a hard momentum to blunt. Add to that the distraction of the Xbox Trojan horse by Microsoft and you can see how SIE leadership has all it can handle.
So you wake up in 2023, and you find out you're no longer in 2019/2020. You find out platform differentiating strengths (aka exclusives) do matter in 2023 and not only do they matter, the direct and indirect competitor participant (Xbox and PC Windows Gaming - aka MS) is seeking to asphyxiate you by depriving PlayStation of content from your "partners". And you also happen to have bitten the PC bait, full line and sinker during the "exclusives are bad" "follow Microsoft to PC and profit" feint. SUCKERS!!!!
You also find out the old adage of killing PS still holds at MS, no matter the resource cost - $7.5 Billion? $70 Billion? Whatever it takes -"All in on gaming" - and not because Microsoft gives a shit about Xbox or consoles, they don't - but they do give a shit about PC Windows Gaming - which is why, out of many reasons, you create Xbox - to protect Windows Gaming from consoles, erode console differentiation vis a vis PC and prevent console standards from deviating too far away from PC (and Windows by extension) - cause consoles, unlike PC, drive the premium software gaming industry. It was as clear as day in 2001, and if you thought the market and the players had changed in 20 years, well, the wake up call can't be any clearer with the Bethesda/ABK back-to-back moves and the inner chatter of consummate strategist Phil Spencer and crew - that they can do - can't manage for shit tho.
As for the commentariat - it's always going to be polluted by PC first gamers (and Xbox fanboys in tow) who have a vested interest in seeing Sony become a third party publisher and the erosion of consoles strengths, slowly - it's a slow, poisonous death. Console Exclusives not on the PC platform hurt PC gamers, not just for the want of them, but for the image of PC gaming's appeal and long term viability. It's that simple. It will always be that simple. The talking points of the pro-PC policy will always find mouths that will spout it. We've many here in this very thread - they're easy to identify and stand out. There are also other kinds of commentators of "pro-PC" policy. These are PlayStation fanboys fearful and uncomfortable hearing negativity thrown at Sony by other PS fans due to this PC policy. These PS fans are uncomfortable hanging out with others within the community who criticize Sony for this. So these PS fans give out their opinion on the matter in support of Daddy Sony out of a poor understanding of the topic, out of fear and against their own best interests as console first/PlayStation first players. What do you gain? And thus these PS fans latch at flawed talking points and align themselves with PC/Xbox gamers who support it due to the obvious. Common lingo describes these sort of people as "useful idiots"... although it's a harsh term I prefer not to use even if it's accurate. These PS fans "hold the line" and try to "herd the sheep" for Daddy Sony gratituously out of some false sense of duty. Low IQ in short - that I'm comfortable in saying. Also none of Sony's direct or indirect competitors, and their media shills and apparatus are going to criticize Sony's PC policy either - to the contrary you loud it and insert pro talking points to that effect to incentivize that behavior or say nothing. If it bothered Valve or Microsoft, you would hear growling and criticism by their media plants - as is usual when Sony does something that sticks it to them and hurts. So it's obvious what the play is here. It's the old adage of not interrupting your enemy when he's busy making a strategic mistake all on his own. Although it had a little nudging by MS - but that's their job so - all is fair in love and war.
Btw Placidusa, I just used your post to write this "manifesto". Don't worry about it.
Hopefully the guy after Jim Ryan is more serious about porting games. They should put their games in Switch 2 as well.
