Support NeoGAF

[bender]

Guarantee you at least 80% of the people saying "No" are lying.

93% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[Rocco Schiavone]

Nope because I'm a member of the physical gaming brotherhood.

 

[Vyse]

Nope.

 

[Papa_Wisdom]

As soon as there’s a machine around the same size and form factor as my Alienware alpha r2, with a decent amount of power in it I’m switching to pc.

I am aware there are small form factor pcs, I haven’t looked in a while. Can anyone recommend any?

I’ll still buy an Xbox towards the end of the gen for cheap for my legacy collection of games.

There’s hardly any PlayStation exclusives that I like so I don’t miss much from not having one, any I do want to play will most likely come to pc.

 

[WitchHunter]

Would you cut off your little finger for 1 million bucks?

 

[sachos]

As a long time PC gamer i moved to PS5 as my first main console since my PC was getting pretty old and at the time of buying it was cheaper than an equivalent PC. If every game was day 1 on PC it would make me really think about it (i voted yes), but i must admit its kinda nice knowing every game works without configuring anything on the console even if i have to get used to lower graphics/lower FPS.

 

[stuminus3]

Only mental cases buy games day 1 on PC either way.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

Pc would have to get simpler, I don’t have time for that shit. Even the PS5 is a bother, Xbox got it right.

That said, it’s the better value to go pc.

 

[Badlucktroll]

 

[Kokoloko85]

Yeah. As much as I prefer to play on consoles

People saying theres no downsides to PS doing this are just in denial or dont see it clearly. Ive seen some hardcore Ps gamers leave already
And take there money to Steam.

Id do the same

 

[SenkiDala]

No because after trying PCs on TVs for decades, yes it is better than before, but also yes a lot of features are missing, not stable, HDR integration is still shit... and a lot of other things. And still games crash times to times on PC, like onces every 50 launches, and to me it is unacceptable, my tolerance percentage for this kind of things is close to 0%.

So I'm good on my good old PlayStation, sure I'd have better graphics on PC (even though the ratio perf/€ is WAY better on consoles) but in the end it's a matter of preference, nothing is objective in all that shit. Like I will always pick performance mode (if the performance mode is stable) even though I go from 4K to 1440p or even 1440p to 900p, it's a matter of what feels better to your eyes.

And I always like the "plug and play" feeling of consoles, on every games, not having to configure many things. I'm an "eternal dissatisfied", on PC I spend more times into settings than into the game, the bios, that actually playing, I fought this shit for years to finally focus on actually playing games, so I won't go back to those old demons. =)

 

[Kokoloko85]

A truckload of people would. Sony understands this better than anyone else. This is why, outside of a GAAS or MP title, you won't see them exploring day & date.

Nintendo understands it way better.

If Sony understood is more they wouldnt even bother releasing single player games on PC, or make comments like we want to expand aggressively on multiplatform

 

[Kokoloko85]

The fifa crowd isn't what brings in the big money. Loosing high spending customers is the talking point.

This 100%.

Hardcore fans like myself spend thousands a generation on 1st and 3rd party games. That money would go to Steam if we went to PC.

Judging by comments on here, reddit and a few friends leaving PS for PC "because theyd rather just wait till it releasing on PC' its not good for PS. And day 1 would lose them alot of fans and potential fans.

Im convinced the people who dont see this are either blind to it, or purposefly ignoring what Nintendo and to some extend what Playstation see.
Maybe they are PC fans who want to make it sound like its not an issue for a platform like Nintendo or PS to release games on PC.

 

[Kokoloko85]

Many PS players say this as a way to try and prove that Day 1 PC would hurt console sales. So, i think I should straight up make a poll. Would you jump ship to PC? Do you think friends who play on PS5 would do the same thing too?

Yes Id move.
I know friends a who already have.
And plenty people online have.

And even though PS will always have new fans. There gonna lose some
Potential fans because it would no longer be the only place to play certain games

 

[Guilty_AI]

Only mental cases buy games day 1

fixed

 

[jimmypython]

I will still get the console but probably will move to PC as the primary machine

 

[Taycan77]

When I think of those 40 minuted Digital Foundry videos explaining the complexities of optimising a game, often just to match the console experience. It reaffirms my decision to ditch PC after an 18 month dalliance with the platform! That's before factoring in the superior couch/TV/controller experience after getting in from a days work.

The days when PC was a massively superior graphical experience are long behind us. It's taken 3 years for high-end PC's to show tangible improvements over their console equivalent. Then we'll be back to square one when PS5 Pro is released. So I have the option of purchasing a £2000 gaming PC, or trade in my PS5 and put £200 towards a PS5 Pro. It's not a difficult decision.

 

[SF Kosmo]

I would have trouble thinking of a good excuse not to. I have a good PC in the game room with my PS5, and the PC is definitely more capable.

 

[baphomet]

In a heartbeat.

Why wouldn't I want to play games at the best possible quality, for cheaper, and with limitless options?

 

[Yoboman]

Nah I like being hygienic

 

[ArtHands]

I already bailed from the sinking ship to PC long ago, as I have saw the writings on the wall.

Everything transpired so far isn't shocking: Sony and Microsoft struggles to grow the Xbox/Playstation pool while PC gaming balloons like no tomorrow. And both Sony and Microsoft have to start selling their 1st party games on PC to survive. I told myself that I want to be in the right place when it happens, so I made that choice.

 

[MonkeyClaw36]

Yea for most games, it's sufficient, right? I think my concern is really about future UE5 games. While games like Remnant 2 played great after a bit of tinkering with the settings I feel like there's gonna be some games coming out within the next year or so that might push things to the limit.

I hope Sony continues to go day and date with PC after Helldivers 2 success, but if they keep a wide gap between releases I might just say fuck it and get the Pro.

Robocop runs 60fps at 4k with dlss. Some bits I had to tone down like shadows etc. Some others are maxed.
Runs buttery smooth!

 

[rofif]

PC: buy, dump, emulate

I like pretending that anyone is buying and dumping Nintendo games. Emulation is mostly piracy

 

[Team Andromeda]

No, the deal originally was that Core Design wanted TR to be a Saturn exclusive, but Eidos, their publisher, didn't think it was a good idea financially, so they made Core build a PS1 version of the game. And to combat that, SEGA arranged a 6-month timed exclusivity deal, IIRC.

Once the PS1 version came out, it rapidly outsold the Saturn one and PS1 became the lead platform for Tomb Raider 2. Once Stolar made that infamous comment, lots of 3P who were already weary about Saturn began dropping Saturn altogether for their games, so PS1 (and to a lesser extent, N64) got defacto exclusives. That's when Sony and Eidos made the exclusivity deal.

As for Tomb Raider on N64...so what? For starters like RE2 it would've required an insane amount of rework to fit on a regular cartridge, and Core Design's engine was tailored specifically for PlayStation hardware starting from the second game. Eidos also probably felt N64 made no commercial sense for the game given the effort that'd of been required to handle the port, vs. making new installments. And FWIW, the Sony/Eidos deal didn't stop Tomb Raider 4 from coming to Dreamcast, now did it?



I'm not system-bashing, I'm just being direct and upfront about the situation. RE1 Saturn was given to Tose because Capcom had no experience doing 3D on the Saturn at that time. And once they did release a 3D Saturn game, it was a mediocre fighter spinoff of Final Fight.



Lol no; Kalinske's probably the main reason SEGA of American had so many financial problems during the late Genesis/32X/CD era aside Bernie Stolar coming in and screwing things up even further with Saturn after Kalinske resigned.

Dunno what bringing HOTD2 or Hundred Swords into this accomplishes; they were made on hardware even more powerful than the Dreamcast, of course they'd look better at a technical level than PS1 games.



IMO when you consider all the benefits you'd get going PC in that scenario, just makes too much sense to switch that way if you're a hardcore or core enthusiast. Casuals and mainstream, I can understand more wanting to stick with the console regardless.

SEGA just wanted to make Tomb Raider a timed exclusive that was for the 1st game and the game was already right at the tail end of development on the PC, Saturn and PS by the time SEGA Europe came in looking for a timed deal
This is made very clear in the various articles and Retrogamer/Eurogamer interviews on the making of Tomb Raider. Stolar silly (but truthful) comments had no impact on Tomb Raider 2 on the Saturn SONY had made its move and it wasn't just the Saturn but SONY made sure no consoles could have Tomb Raider as part of the deal

Tomb Raider 2 ran on the same Quad based engines from the 1st game it was hardly super optimised to take full advantage of the PS. You talk out the music and FMV and TB2 isn't that big and would be more than possible.
If you could get the likes of Nuclear Strike, C&C on the N64 you could get Tomb Raider 2 on the system. RE was outsourced for various reasons not just to do with 3D but also because Capcom was so busy on various other projects at the time, which is why Code Veronica was outsourced.

Tom left SEGA in a mess and dealt Bernie a bad hand but to his credit, he did turn SEGA America around in terms of bleeding money and got the sports range back on track, even on a reduced budget and massive layoffs. His big mistake was to make that silly speech in public when everyone knew the Saturn wasn't the future. Hell even SEGA Japan was putting some of its biggest upcoming titles on the Dreamcast instead of the Saturn even Sonic and to make matters worse Bernie picked a silly fight with WD over E3 booth funding.

Having WD on the Saturn in late 97 and 98 alone would have made such a difference Whatever you think of Vic or the corp they had some serious nice games and without the silly fight, I bet WD would have brought over Grandia, Gun Griffion 2, Silloute Mirage both Lunars and maybe the likes of Prices Crown. But Vic confirmed to EDGE mag that he had the Battle Garrega, Souky, Thunder Force V Sengoku Blade and more all licenced and ready to be brought to the USA Nothing to change the fortunes of the system but very nice for owners of the Saturn who didn't like reading Japanese.
I always liked WD packaging even over the Japanese originals. Their Lunar 1 and 2 PS1 games were so good for extra stuff and packaging.


In keeping with SEGA I never had any issue when they were porting many of their Saturn games to the PC. Never looked to compare PC's to consoles and see them as completely different and separate systems and not rivals
Now if SONY was porting some of its games to rival consoles that would be a different matter

 

[Team Andromeda]

I just enjoy the console experience more, so it’s a no for me. Especially with me otherwise having no need for a PC at home given how strong mobile devices are these days.

No issues with whatever Sony wants to do with bringing games to PC. If PC Gamers want to pay $69.99 for day one releases for narrative driven single player games, then go ahead Sony, add to that ROI so we get more and better games.

Spot on post.

 

[Blueghost]

Nope, I like the easy of use of consoles and i also appreciate not having to worry about upgrading certain parts, with a console I know that any game that comes out for it will run without issues.

 

[Mr Hyde]

Yes, most likely. I'm already in the process of transitioning to PC anyway. I think PS5 will be my last console, unless Sony doesn't come up with something truly innovative with PS6 (and have BC with PS4 & 5).

 

[skit_data]

 

[IDKFA]

I've toyed with the idea, but my game library is on my Playstation. Not to mention I can't really justify paying a four figure sum for a gaming PC.

 

[64bitmodels]

Yeah. As much as I prefer to play on consoles

People saying theres no downsides to PS doing this are just in denial or dont see it clearly. Ive seen some hardcore Ps gamers leave already
And take there money to Steam.

Id do the same

You prefer to play on consoles but would jump to PC because.... reasons???????

 

[xrnzaaas]

I didn't jump ship when Microsoft did it and I wouldn't do it for Sony. Buying a console is still significantly cheaper than buying a good PC to ensure the same or better performance than on the consoles. Not to mention I'm used to using consoles and I don't want to fuck around with "optimal" drivers and all that other crap.

 

[Caio]

I'm not impressed by the PC versions of Sony's 1st Party Games. Basically, you could trade in your PS5 and add $200 to own a PS5 Pro. Then, with the upcoming PS6, I don't see any issues in playing all of them on a Playstation. I believe it's the most sensible way to go.

 

[Fabieter]

I'm not impressed by the PC versions of Sony's 1st Party Games. Basically, you could trade in your PS5 and add $200 to own a PS5 Pro. Then, with the upcoming PS6, I don't see any issues in playing all of them on a Playstation. I believe it's the most sensible way to go.

What? The pc version of helldivers is like night and day.

 

[hinch7]

I'm not impressed by the PC versions of Sony's 1st Party Games. Basically, you could trade in your PS5 and add $200 to own a PS5 Pro. Then, with the upcoming PS6, I don't see any issues in playing all of them on a Playstation. I believe it's the most sensible way to go.

Can do the same with PC components. Trade in your GPU (for example) to a local broker or sell on a marketplace and get most of your returns back to invest in an upgrade. You have way more flexibility and options as upgrades go. And you're not locked into hardware or particular software platform/vendors on PC, unlike on consoles.

 

[Majormaxxx]

I don't have a gaming pc and I don't have time to play that many games either. I'm fine with buying console games on sale.

 

[Gaiff]

Nope…I don’t have $1,000+ every six months to upgrade. I like to come home after 10-12 hours at work, boot a console and play a game for a couple of hours. I guess I’m not “die hard” enough.

I wish there was a new $1000 GPU every 6 months.

 

[Darkkahn]

No, why would I?

 

[Gaiff]

I'm not impressed by the PC versions of Sony's 1st Party Games. Basically, you could trade in your PS5 and add $200 to own a PS5 Pro. Then, with the upcoming PS6, I don't see any issues in playing all of them on a Playstation. I believe it's the most sensible way to go.

It’s almost by design. Can’t make the PC version too much better than the PS5 one.

What? The pc version of helldivers is like night and day.

Not really. Higher IQ without the need to drop to 30fps but that’s a given. No temporal upscalers, no RT, no Reflex, no significantly better visuals, nothing.

 

[Caio]

Can do the same with PC components. Trade in your GPU (for example) to a local broker or sell on a marketplace and get most of your returns back to invest in an upgrade. You have way more flexibility and options as upgrades go. And you're not locked into hardware or particular software platform/vendors on PC, unlike on consoles.

Both alternatives are viable; I lack familiarity with PC gaming, and there is a "potential investment" of time required to configure optimal settings or address minor issues. A certain inclination exists within me to acquire a beefy PC, particularly for games such as Doom, FH, Flight Simulator, and other multiplatform games that exhibit their true brilliance on PC.
A PC built around a RTX 5090 could tempt me

 

[Kokoloko85]

You prefer to play on consoles but would jump to PC because.... reasons???????

Because I want to

 

[Fabieter]

Or another question ps5 is at 54 million consoles shipped rn. Their best selling console the ps2 is basically three times the ammount. Do you guys think that ps5 would sell better if every single dev/franchise that was exclusive to ps2 would only make games for ps5? If the answer is yes than you have to admit that exclusives matter if you answer is no you are delusional.

 

[Hudo]

I have 2 PS5

Scrub.

 

[midnightAI]

Guarantee you at least 80% of the people saying "No" are lying.

If we are going to make up random stats, I guarantee at least 80% of people saying Yes either don't even own a PS5 or are mostly PC gamers anyway

 

[Bert Big Balls]

Nah, I have a PC and a PS5. Certain games I just prefer playing on console. Sitting on the couch, chilled, playing some PS.

 

[Johnny Concrete]

It would still require me to buy a €2000+ pc, so no.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

SEGA just wanted to make Tomb Raider a timed exclusive that was for the 1st game and the game was already right at the tail end of development on the PC, Saturn and PS by the time SEGA Europe came in looking for a timed deal

Cool so at least we've established that Sony were not the only platform holders back in the day to do timed exclusivity deals

This is made very clear in the various articles and Retrogamer/Eurogamer interviews on the making of Tomb Raider. Stolar silly (but truthful) comments had no impact on Tomb Raider 2 on the Saturn SONY had made its move and it wasn't just the Saturn but SONY made sure no consoles could have Tomb Raider as part of the deal

So Sony isn't allowed to make a deal with Eidos for the sequel, when SEGA did one for the first installment? Also very likely Eidos shopped a deal around to both Sony and SEGA, nothing prevented SEGA from putting up a higher price. Except perhaps the fact, that Tomb Raider sold significantly more on the PS1 than the Saturn, so that's just Sony leveraging the reality of the situation and SEGA suffering negative consequences from providing inferior competition to the PS1 at that point in the market.

Tomb Raider 2 ran on the same Quad based engines from the 1st game it was hardly super optimised to take full advantage of the PS. You talk out the music and FMV and TB2 isn't that big and would be more than possible.

Sure, that's like saying you can strip out all the CG FMVs and replace the detailed textures with blurry bitmaps in FF VII and it'll run "just fine" on the N64. C'mon.

If you could get the likes of Nuclear Strike, C&C on the N64 you could get Tomb Raider 2 on the system. RE was outsourced for various reasons not just to do with 3D but also because Capcom was so busy on various other projects at the time, which is why Code Veronica was outsourced.

Nuclear Strike & C&C weren't immersive adventure games, so cutting back on FMVs or cinematics in games otherwise not really driven by their story, could be considered justifiable. As for Capcom, you say it's various reasons why RE on Saturn wasn't handled by them, but we can both agree at least one of those reasons was due to their inexperience in doing 3D on Saturn at that time.

Tom left SEGA in a mess and dealt Bernie a bad hand but to his credit, he did turn SEGA America around in terms of bleeding money and got the sports range back on track, even on a reduced budget and massive layoffs. His big mistake was to make that silly speech in public when everyone knew the Saturn wasn't the future. Hell even SEGA Japan was putting some of its biggest upcoming titles on the Dreamcast instead of the Saturn even Sonic and to make matters worse Bernie picked a silly fight with WD over E3 booth funding.

Yeah, he "turned" SOA around to stop bleeding money, by killing distribution of most SEGA games in the West, killing their relationship with Working Designs, killing localization of MANY Japanese games because they apparently weren't "good enough" for the Five Star Policy, and killing their presence in retail for over an entire year between 1998 and Dreamcast's NA release in September 1999.

It's easy to save costs on a console, when you cut back production of units purposefully and limit print runs of games to the low thousands, at best. But all that said, I'll at least say that a lot of Bernie's decisions probably weren't solely his, but rather directives from SOJ. After Kalinski left, Nakayama had to go look at things and saw how bad the money situation was. Bernie was probably heavily encouraged to curb "excess spending" for Saturn as much as possible.

Having WD on the Saturn in late 97 and 98 alone would have made such a difference Whatever you think of Vic or the corp they had some serious nice games and without the silly fight, I bet WD would have brought over Grandia, Gun Griffion 2, Silloute Mirage both Lunars and maybe the likes of Prices Crown. But Vic confirmed to EDGE mag that he had the Battle Garrega, Souky, Thunder Force V Sengoku Blade and more all licenced and ready to be brought to the USA Nothing to change the fortunes of the system but very nice for owners of the Saturn who didn't like reading Japanese.
I always liked WD packaging even over the Japanese originals. Their Lunar 1 and 2 PS1 games were so good for extra stuff and packaging.

Nothing really to add on this point, at least we can both say we immensely respect and appreciate Working Designs! And yes, if SEGA hadn't screwed things over with them, WD would've brought a lot more titles to the Saturn, which was sorely needed.

In keeping with SEGA I never had any issue when they were porting many of their Saturn games to the PC. Never looked to compare PC's to consoles and see them as completely different and separate systems and not rivals
Now if SONY was porting some of its games to rival consoles that would be a different matter

Exactly. The reason why it wasn't such a big deal when SEGA was doing it, or would have been if they went full-tilt back in the day with PC ports, is because console & PC were legit two very different gaming audiences. Plus, GPUs alone were way more costly than entire consoles, not to mention when a new console used to release, it legit was ahead of PC gaming technology for at least a couple of years (and this continued up until the 360 & PS3, the last consoles to really have those type of advantages over equivalent PC cards).

It wouldn't be the case if Sony decided to do Day 1 on PC for all their games because unlike back in the '90s, there aren't a boatload of console-exclusive and PC-exclusive devs/pubs; vast majority of 3P these days release their games on both consoles and PC, and yet PC still has a good number of exclusives that have never been released on console, from the tons of indie games and fan mods, to big games like League of Legends, VALORANT, Counterstrike 2, DOTA 2, etc.

So if I'm in the neighborhood for a platform that can give the most bang for my buck, and give me as many games in one place as possible...why the hell would I choose a PlayStation over a PC in the scenario Sony put their stuff Day 1 on the PC platform? This is already the reality Microsoft have created for themselves with their console/PC strategy, and we can see the results in console market decline at least partially due to that fact.

It's insane to think so many feel that wouldn't happen to PlayStation as well. Sure, it wouldn't be "as bad" in terms how much the rot would kick in, but you would still see a mass of hardcore & core gamers opt to go PC if they could get all of Sony's games there Day 1. Heck, we are seeing some already do so and that's with there being a 2-year window between PS5 & PC versions of newer games.

And I'm not saying any of this to gloat or because it's what I prefer; I want a very competitive PlayStation and that means a PlayStation that understands Xbox isn't their only competition. But ultimately it's about what the suits determine, and if they listen to feedback from people saying they'd still get a PlayStation if all 1P games were Day 1 on PC, then they'd be dooming their console's relevance.

I don't want that to happen. It's already happened with Xbox, I don't need to see it happen twice.

 

[hinch7]

Both alternatives are viable; I lack familiarity with PC gaming, and there is a "potential investment" of time required to configure optimal settings or address minor issues. A certain inclination exists within me to acquire a beefy PC, particularly for games such as Doom, FH, Flight Simulator, and other multiplatform games that exhibit their true brilliance on PC.
A PC built around a RTX 5090 could tempt me

That's true. PC's aren't as hard to make out nor figure out and quite a few people here are going off limited experience with gaming on PC.

Outside the initial investment which can be a few times to several times more than a console. You get an experience that can vastly differ and improve (and also vice versa) upon them. Also consoles have hidden costs like online paywalls, game prices and propritary peripherials; for that SKU and gen. That many don't factor in. You also don't need a high end or flagship PC either to play most games at higher than console settings with way better performance. A 4070 Super/7800XT is more enough for a great experience with 1440P and 4K gaming. Would recommend the latter 16GB+ VRAM minimum at those prices though.

That and they can be used for more than just game with the odd Netflix on the side.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

If consoles will eventually shrink than people will excuse it with market change or whatever instead of that sony and ms got rid of themselves.

Yep; these companies love to kick the accountability down the road and lay the blame on anything but themselves when results don't pan out. We saw Xbox do that in real-time on Thursday; somehow the problems specific & unique to Xbox consoles are the entire industry's.

It's bogus and deflects accepting responsibility for their own missteps fully. And without doing that, I dunno if they can truly resolve their issues. But a part of me thinks most of that event was theatrics for the public and diehards in the fanbase; BTS they might be a lot more blunt about their own mistakes as a platform and that probably has bigger ramifications for the larger scope of changes than they let on.

Exclusives aren’t what makes Sony gaming money.
Exclusives stimulates console sales. Overall software sales is how the money is made. A Sony game gets you to buy the system. The 6-10 games the average gamer buys for the system over its life span in addition is what makes Sony its money. They more consoles in peoples homes, the more games (exclusive and not) that are sold.
You stop having exclusives and you lose a very large reason to buy the system. It’s just that simple.

This. The 1P exclusives don't generate most of the sales or most of the money (though they can generate a sizable portion of it; wasn't it one year recently that Sony 1P contributed almost 20% of all software revenue for PlayStation in a FY?), but they do accomplish two things:

1: Attract in hardcore & core enthusiasts to the platform because those exclusives...

2: Act as differentiators for that platform versus rivals

If you don't have 1P exclusives, why would 3P make exclusives for your console? Why try getting 3P exclusives when you put all your 1P on PC Day 1, especially if those 3P exclusives end up excluding PC? That just makes the platform holder look hypocritical.

I've been playing on console for around 40 years. It suits me, plus I prefer buying physical games. As well, as important as first-party games are, they're not the primary reason I play on PS.

Very much prefer physical as well and that's a big reason console-wise I prefer PlayStation a lot more over Xbox. But I can trade away that convenience for the various things that come with PC for gaming, if Sony were to for whatever insane reason do Day 1 on the platform (I'm assuming the question in OP is framed around Sony not doing that with their own launcher/storefront, either).

Missing the point. Not everyone has $2000 computers that can run these games at 4K. The reason why consoles are popular is not just because of game exclusives. It's also cost to performance.

The current consoles can't run most games at 4K, and definitely not 4K 60 FPS. Honestly, to match the typical current-gen experience you just need a system that can reliably do 1440p60 at Medium to High settings.

 

[TheTony316]

Guarantee you at least 80% of the people saying "No" are lying.

Guarantee you at least 80% of people saying "Yes" are PC gamers already who don't have a PS5 anyway.

 

[DonJimbo]

No i dont like pc gaming
When Sony stops releasing their first party games on the Playstation i will quit gaming totally