Support NeoGAF

[Yarbskoo]

As much as I'd love to play every game ever made on my PC, I really don't think this would benefit consoles in any way. I know I'd never buy another one if exclusives weren't a consideration.

 

[Corine]

Piracy would kill the gaming industry wouldn't it?

The gaming industry didn't die when the 360 and ps3 were pirated to hell so not sure why it would now.

 

[Kai200X]

How about every games will be available on PS4? How you like em' apples?

 

[Bergerac]

I am so tired of seeing this repeated. The hypothetical single-console isn't one where only one single box exists run by one single monolithic entity. That is a misrepresentation of the situation people are arguing towards.

A "single console future" is one where games are built towards a set standard, like DVD players. The sort of competition you clamor for would still exist - Nintendo could build a "gamebox" to compete against Sony's "Gamebox," there would still be budget boxes to keep prices low.

How on Earth can you make the comparison between DVD player manufacturers and gaming first party studios where there is creative content being directly marketed? Of course film media players are standardised - they're not produced by Warner Bros. etc.

 

[Foxyone]

Would first-party devs even really be capable of decently optimizing their games to run well on PC (since they generally work with a single set of hardware, unlike multi-plat devs)?

 

[Krejlooc]

How about every games will be available on PS4? How you like em' apples?

Sure, if anybody could produce a PS4. That'd be great.

 

[LX_Theo]

Lol... an anti-consumer... consumer.

Only on GAF.

Goodness you must be stupid if that's what you took from it

 

[rambis]

Having every game come out on every system would be terrible in my opinion. Development cost and time would significantly increase for previously exclusive developers which would likely domino all the way down to every game trying to be the same cookie cutter bs instead of just most of them.

 

[Krejlooc]

How on Earth can you make the comparison between DVD player manufacturers and gaming first party studios where there is creative content being directly marketed? Of course film media players are standardised - they're not produced by Warner Bros. etc.

Note the way third party exclusives are largely a thing of the past save for very specific, extraordinary examples like Bayonetta where the console maker itself actually pays for development. They're not doing this because they just love competition. They're doing this because the return isn't "not anywhere near as great," they do this because the return is the difference between being viable and not being viable.

I think many people here don't understand the ways in which console makers make their money. First party endeavors aren't meant to make hand over fist money - Sony isn't looking at Uncharted to keep the entire company afloat from sales. Console makers make money from taxing the development of games on their system. Which is to say they make money from others making games for their system. First party games exist to draw people to their machines, such that they have an audience which cannot be passed up, such that developers need to develop for their machines to reach an audience necessary to remain viable.

The only way a mutual standard like the one being proposed could ever exist is when such platform has no licensing fees associated with development (like PC), or when the "platform" is owned by a consortium where all members equally divvy up licensing fees so that everybody profits - like the DVD forum. DVD compatibility isn't free, manufacturers have to pay to have their machines able to play DVDs.

Assuming a "one-console" future, either we've moved towards a platform where licensing largely does not exist anymore (yay!) or we move towards a future where the "console" standard is jointly owned by microsoft, sony, nintendo, amazon, etc.

Further, yes, Warner Bros is a member of the controlling DVD Forum.

 

[Nyoro SF]

As much as I'd love to play every game ever made on my PC, I really don't think this would benefit consoles in any way. I know I'd never buy another one if exclusives weren't a consideration.

The question is based on a consumer level. As a consumer, you should be advocating open platforms and having console manufacturers fight on affordability and features.

A console is just a customized mid ranged PC now that is priced for your everyman, and that's how it should be sold.... not as a closed ecosystem where games are bought off other platforms. The manufacturer helping fund the game is a different story of course, as well as companies that can only work on one platform at a time.

 

[derExperte]

If every platform got the exact same offerings gaming would be so boring doe. Games like Bayonetta 2, Bloodborne, Mario, Zelda, Halo etc wouldn't get made to sell us on a specific console. Most would be like a boring derivative of each other cuz no one takes risks to set them apart. Its impact on creativity and competition would be tragic.

Or the exact opposite could happen because every game would compete with every other game in existence and would need to differentiate itself from them. Not to sell consoles but to sell .... SURPRISE .... the game.

Still I don't think everything should be on everything (or PC). Would be convenient but I can live with not playing some stuff.

 

[copelandmaster]

Nah, competition is a good thing, it helps creativity.

Competition is pro-consumer.
What is anti-consumer is monopoly.
Consumers should be glad there is competition.

I'm sorry, I really hate that this argument has been used as a justification multiple times in this thread.
The PC is an open platform capable of hosting several competitive game distribution services across a multitude of operating system environments.
You don't need consoles to foster competition.

I am so tired of seeing this repeated. The hypothetical single-console isn't one where only one single box exists run by one single monolithic entity. That is a misrepresentation of the situation people are arguing towards.

A "single console future" is one where games are built towards a set standard, like DVD players. The sort of competition you clamor for would still exist - Nintendo could build a "gamebox" to compete against Sony's "Gamebox," there would still be budget boxes to keep prices low.

Or you can blow as much money as you want and go crazy building a home render workstation that also plays Metro LL at 4k@60fps. Its your choice! That's the best part! Both can co-exist AND get the same games!

Thank you, somebody else puts it better than I ever could!

 

[GifGafIsTheBestGaf]

No.

Unless they bring Dota2 over the ps4 I wouldn't care then.

 

[Nzyme32]

To clarify, I get the distinction that has been made - largely by press - but it's not a distinction valve themselves made to developers in person. The impression I got walking away from dev days was that steam machines are anything running steam. And, to be fair, valve themselves haven't begun pushing steam machines in any way, so the distinction isn't coming from their direction. In fact, I think that distinction is one they're going to work to dissolve in the future.

I swear I'm not pulling this stuff from my ass, I wish I could find the specific materials I'm referencing from CES about this, where they definitely unveiled an iBuyPower build running windows under the Steam Machine branding, but google-fu isn't perfect and searching for the specific materials I'm looking for brings up a lot of obfuscating results about the general announcement of steam machines in general. As in, not dual booting like the Digital Bolt build.

The point I walked away from dev days specifically is that the heart of the steam machines initiative is the steamworks API itself, not the OS. This is because they very much encouraged devs to build against the steamworks library, not any specific OS libraries, to ensure cross-compatibility among hardware.

That's absolutely fine man, and you're more likely to be right. I could be very wrong but we seem to have got very different impressions. I'm recalling a very specific quote that was something along the lines of "anyone can build a steam machine. As long as it has steamOS, its a steam machine", which is why I figured they were being cagey with these machines that no longer have it. A good example would be CyberpowerPC - now using the brand Syber to advertise their machine - never calling it a Steam Machine, just weird crap like "PC gaming console" http://www.cyberpowerpc.com/landingpages/VenomX/SYBER/

Again I havent followed it for quite a while so I'll take your word.

 

[daninthemix]

I would like that, definitely.

But it would harm console sales - to what extent I'm not sure. Some people simply don't want the hassle or cost of a PC, and prefer consoles for both gaming and TV/movie streaming. That market wouldn't just disappear without exclusives.

 

[TC McQueen]

I'm fine with PC getting every console exclusive game a few months after consoles do.

 

[Lernaean]

Lol... an anti-consumer... consumer.

Only on GAF.

Competition is pro-consumer.
What is anti-consumer is monopoly.
Consumers should be glad there is competition.

 

[Krejlooc]

Competition is pro-consumer.
What is anti-consumer is monopoly.
Consumers should be glad there is competition.

You're promoting a closed garden approach and claiming it promotes competition over an open garden where literally anybody can make anything without needing permission.

 

[StrongBlackVine]

No I like having games built for specific specs. The console exclusives would suffer if the games had to be built to scale to PCs.

 

[laughingmood]

There are so many implications on why console exclusives are important. Other than what I've already mentioned, the single greatest reason is because console gaming is accessible to not only hardcore gamers, but the larger consumer market as a whole. PC gaming is niche and will remain so for the forseeable future. This is why, pre PS4/X1, whenever I would read something like "next gen is already here, it's called a high end PC", I would think to myself, "this person just does not get it." High end PCs of those eras were not next gen. They were insanely powerful, and rad, current gen machines. Any new generation does not truly begin until console developers have new hardware to work with to push the industry, and the art of gaming forward. That is where the market is. So that will always be where the focus, and innovation will remain. Gaming should be for everyone, it's for the people. This is why consoles will always lead the way for new gaming concepts. The day you could hook up an Xbox controller to a PC and finally play a non-PC game on one must have been a super annoying day for the industry as a whole.

 

[StuBurns]

You're promoting a closed garden approach and claiming it promotes competition over an open garden where literally anybody can make anything without needing permission.

They don't need permission, but they need money.

First parties make games to promote their platform. Would anyone have given Tequila Works the cash to make Rime which everyone is creaming for? Would Bloodborne have got the funding plus the additional needed for more SKUs and support?

We can always speculate, but many of the best games I've ever played have been first party games, and I seriously doubt that's a coincidence.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Every game should be on every plattform so everyone can enjoy them imo.

Every third party game. You can't expect every first/second party game to be on every platform. The console manufacturer is the one putting out the game to make their system more appealing, why should they pay to have a game on another platform (outside of Microsoft since they also own the OS that most PCs use).

 

[Opiate]

There are so many implications on why console exclusives are important. Other than what I've already mentioned, the single greatest reason is because console gaming is accessible to not only hardcore gamers, but the larger consumer market as a whole. PC gaming is niche and will remain so for the forseeable future.

What is your evidence for this?

This is why, pre PS4/X1, whenever I would read something like "next gen is already here, it's called a high end PC", I would think to myself, "this person just does not get it." High end PCs of those eras were not next gen. They were insanely powerful, and rad, current gen machines. Any new generation does not truly begin until console developers have new hardware to work with to push the industry, and the art of gaming forward. That is where the market is.

And for this?

 

[Saty]

No, It would hurt hardware sales. I have a great PC, I wouldn't own the consoles I own if every game was on PC.

People are mixing different things.

1. Why own a console when i can own PC if all games are available to both - do i really need to explain that? Go to every Console vs PC threads and you'll see countless reasons why people argue in favor of owning a console over PC that have nothing to do with the library of games.

2. Why buy one console over the other if all games are available to both - Because the games runs better on one console. Because one console have better online servers. Because one console has free MP. Because one console has BC. Because one console has something akin to Playshare. Because one console has 'Family Sharing'. Because one console has VR mode for the games. Because one console is better as a media hub. Because one console has better streaming. Because one console is cheaper. Because one console has a better subscription program. Because one console offers online play against PC users. Because one console has a good peripheral. Because one console incorporates mods.

Should i go on? When exclusive games aren't the be all and end all the battle switches to how well you can run the game and to the myriad of features and services and offers that can easily tip the balance.

(and again, there could still be exclusives. They would simply be a 100% choice made by the devs to go that route).

 

[Zia]

How are the best studios in the world, such as Valve, FROM, Platinum and Nintendo EAD going to Push the Medium Forward without the benefits exclusivity brings?

 

[Lernaean]

You're promoting a closed garden approach and claiming it promotes competition over an open garden where literally anybody can make anything without needing permission.

I just see the software quality of Atari, SNK and Sega, now that they don't need their software to sell hardware units.
I'm also talking about the way the market works in real life and you are wishfully thinking while stealthily portbegging.
In the real world, if there is only one cheeseburger recipe, and you can eat the exact same cheeseburger in every chain restaurant, be it McD's, Wendy's or Burger King, there won't be any reason to make something groundbreaking in the burger business.
And if BK has the fastest service (that's PC in our case), there won't be any reason to eat at the others.

 

[paperspace]

This question is the same as asking if we should have 1 gaming system. If all games are on all platforms whats the point of having separate platforms?

You're not thinking outside the box.

Several platforms can co-exist within one open platform like PC, without being regarded as a monopoly.

It's just that people in general have a very conservative way of thinking.

 

[Wenger'sBakedBaguettes]

Nope, that would hurt the sales of the consoles more than anything.

 

[Altered Juice]

are you serious?

 

[Camp Lo]

I'd never buy another console if that were the case. So, no?

 

[Altered Juice]

Stealth port-begging for all platforms at the same time?

gotta justify that $1000 investment

 

[Krejlooc]

I just see the software quality of Atari, SNK and Sega, now that they don't need their software to sell hardware units.
I'm also talking about the way the market works in real life and you are wishfully thinking while stealthily portbegging.
In the real world, if there is only one cheeseburger recipe, and you can eat the exact same cheeseburger in every chain restaurant, be it McD's, Wendy's or Burger King, there won't be any reason to make something groundbreaking in the burger business.
And if BK has the fastest service (that's PC in our case), there won't be any reason to eat at the others.

Your analogy is absolutely terrible. An open platform would allow for an infinite number of hamburger recipies.

 

[adj_noun]

It doesn't really affect me one way or the other, so sure. Why not.

 

[El Sabroso]

nope, but multiplatforms should target PC too

 

[Mister0079]

im kind of getting mindfucked by the amount of anti-consumer responses in this thread worried more about console sales rather than a wider audience.

 

[Krejlooc]

They don't need permission, but they need money.

Lol yes, you need permission.

 

[Zia]

im kind of getting mindfucked by the amount of anti-consumer responses in this thread worried more about console sales rather than a wider audience.

"But then if I didn't need a console I wouldn't buy one!"

This thread is absolute insanity.

Followed by shit like this:

gotta justify that $1000 investment

People are way, way too invested in corporations, and how their affiliation with these corporations define them as a Gamer.

 

[Lernaean]

Your analogy is absolutely terrible. An open platform would allow for an infinite number of hamburger recipies.

They aren't even bothering making anything groundbreaking now, in the midst of all the competition. No business works this way.

 

[rambis]

You're promoting a closed garden approach and claiming it promotes competition over an open garden where literally anybody can make anything without needing permission.

Console gaming isnt a "closed garden", though. Unless you only look at the big three. It seems like today many a company are willing to release consoles. And most of their consoles are basically open platforms, running on OS' like linux and android.

Problem is, most companies arent willing to significantly spend money towards making open platforms. Instead they throw half baked money grabs and call it a day. Meanwhile Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony compete with each other and throw good bits of money at their platforms.

You can call consoles a closed garden, but nothing is prevent customers from buying that ouya. Some people prefer a more controlled enviroment. These consoles are hardly the authoritarian hell hole you are trying to make them out to be.

 

[diaspora]

gotta justify that $1000 investment

Yeah, having the biggest and best lineup of any platform of all time is hard to justify.

 

[StuBurns]

Your analogy is absolutely terrible.

No, it is not.

Do you know why the pharmaceutical industry is treated basically better than any other industry in terms of protection? Because they exist for that window where no one can copy their products. All that research, all that development, if you remove that exclusive window where no one can rip them off by law, and that industry ends over night.

The only reason to develop new and better drugs is because they will be the only company selling them.

Sony and MS (Nintendo is notably different) have gaming divisions for brand awareness and to collect third party royalties. Uncharted isn't to sell Uncharted, it's to sell the console, which then sells massively more games a year, which Sony takes a cut from. Drop the reason to buy the box, you lose the reason to fund the game. Portfolio diversity is no longer of any value to the first party, games purely exist based on P&L. They're making yearly generic trash like CoD and AssCreed, because that's the market that exists for third parties.

Lol yes, you need permission.

You read that wrong, or possibly I phrased it wrong. I meant that in your example they don't need permission, but they do still need money.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

So what would be the point of different consoles?

What indeed.

 

[Krejlooc]

Console gaming isnt a "closed garden", though. Unless you only look at the big three. It seems like today many a company are willing to release consoles. And most of their consoles are basically open platforms, running on OS' like linux and android.

Problem is, most companies arent willing to significantly spend money towards making open platforms. Instead they throw half baked money grabs and call it a day. Meanwhile Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony compete with each other and throw good bits of money at their platforms.

You can call consoles a closed garden, but nothing is prevent customers from buying that ouya. Some people prefer a more controlled enviroment. These consoles are hardly the authoritarian hell hole you are trying to make them out to be.

...I dont think you know what a closed garden is. Somy, microsoft, and nintendo approve or deny every single piece of software that runs on their platform. They are the definition of closed gardens.

 

[Dmented]

Screw all console exclusives being on PC, there should be no exclusives at all IMO. A shame people can't choose which platform they want to play a game on.

Never going to happen though.

gotta justify that $1000 investment

It's always justified.

 

[2+2=5]

Let's be honest here, when Sony and Microsoft tout exclusivity (Microsoft especially) they just mean console exclusive. Most times they don't even acknowledge that the game is also on PC.

Would it really cannibalize sales much if the likes of TLOU/Halo 5 are on PC as well? It's not like there isn't already a precedent for it.

They can still tout their console exclusives games. I think they're different audiences anyway

Damn OP did you really need to pick up first party games? Do you really think that you will ever see a Sony first party game on PC?

If you wanted "console exclusive" games aka games that are on consoles and not on PC then ok, but "first party exclusives" are too much to ask, at ths point why not asking for Halo on Wiiu, Uncharted on X1, Smash Bros on Vita(oh wait)...

 

[BumblebeeCody]

Pft, nope. Exclusives help shape a console's identity.

What if you're someone like me who owns all the consoles, doesn't care so much about PC Gaming despite owning a PC but is very much a console gamer yet wants to just play games?
Basically. What identity?

 

[rambis]

...I dont think you know what a closed garden is. Somy, microsoft, and nintendo approve or deny every single piece of software that runs on their platform. They are the definition of closed gardens.

I dont think you read past the first sentence.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

Real talk tho if i was to game on PC i would torrent all games idc..
Console space is where most of the money is at

Ahem, what? Is this the old "all pc gamers are pirates" bullshit, or is it just you admitting to having low ethical standards?

 

[SolidSnakex]

Yeah, having the biggest and best lineup of any platform of all time is hard to justify.

Then why so much port begging? We've got to the point where we have this thread where people are wanting Sony, Nintendo, and Microsoft to put their games on the PC.

 

[paperspace]

im kind of getting mindfucked by the amount of anti-consumer responses in this thread worried more about console sales rather than a wider audience.

Being selfish is a human treat.

Luckily, it generally gets better with age.