• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Today's Worst Thread: Sony should release PS4 games on PC

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think the biggest (incorrect) assumption the OP has other than the claim that anyone with a Gaming PC isn't going to buy a next-gen console (LOL) is that it will be effortless to release a PS4 game on the PC platform. That is extremely far from the truth. Releasing a game on the PC means supporting a wide spectrum of hardware, even if there are minimal requirements. There's a ton of different driver issues and compatibility to consider. If you're a third party developer, that's just part of your development cycle. So what you're suggestion is basically "why doesn't Sony go third party" which is kinda... lol. :P

For some reason people forget why about a billion consoles (and handhelds) have sold the past few decades.
 
Steam is a different situation. They aren't receiving license fees, they are making the retailers cut for the games bought from their store directly. Most of the games in their store can be bought elsewhere, even Steamworks games. They do have reason to entice people to their store but I think the situation is quite different.

You are wrong. What the heck do you think "Steamworks" is?

They get a cut from a Steamworks game no matter where the game is sold.
 
It's not a really good question. But some of the responses are interesting. GAF would have me believe that PC gaming is far too complicated for most people and that's why they get consoles in the first place. So how would this very small fraction of PC gamers with a PC decent enough to run the games in the first place effect the systems ability to sell?
 
Like what? I'm seriously trying to think of any non-downloadable/retail games first party games MS has put on PC this gen. I guess Gears 1, then again that's second party?
Fable series, Age of Empires series, Viva Pinata, Gears, Mark of the Ninja, Deadlight, etc.
 
No. That's wrong. Steamworks is completely free. I think it helps the argument if you get the facts right first!

Are you telling me that Steam provides Steamworks DRM and all the services of Steamworks completely free with no costs to the developer? Are you sure about that?
 
Are you telling me that Steam provides Steamworks DRM and all the services of Steamworks completely free with no costs to the developer? Are you sure about that?
http://www.steampowered.com/steamworks/

It’s free: There’s no charge for bandwidth, updating, or activation of copies at retail or from third-party digital distributors.

It’s freeing: With Steamworks you avoid the overhead and delay of certification requirements—there are none. Distribute your game on your terms, updating it when and as often as you want.
 
Are you telling me that Steam provides Steamworks DRM and all the services of Steamworks completely free with no costs to the developer? Are you sure about that?

Yes. 100% certain. It's Valve's way of basically Trojan Horsing their way into into becoming the #1 preferred PC service. While the developers pay nothing, the more games which use Steam as a mandatory feature, the more people will be forced to have Steam on their PCs, and the more likely they will check out the Steam store in future. There's a reason why Steam got so huge so quickly.
 
It's not a really good question. But some of the responses are interesting. GAF would have me believe that PC gaming is far too complicated for most people and that's why they get consoles in the first place. So how would this very small fraction of PC gamers with a PC decent enough to run the games in the first place effect the systems ability to sell?

PC gaming is a growing market. Whatever obstacles there are, people are getting past them and I don't think the console manufacturers are in a spot right now to bolster the PC platform, even if it still only accounts for a modest percentage of the AAA blockbuster sales.
 


My bad apparently on that one, but I do find this perplexing.

So why in the hell would any company releasing a PC version not use Steamworks over some other form of DRM unless they have their own storefront to pimp? I mean you have a completely free service that features copy protection, cloud saving, hosts game updates and game files for download, and it's totally free. Why would you ever NOT use that?
 
Are you telling me that Steam provides Steamworks DRM and all the services of Steamworks completely free with no costs to the developer? Are you sure about that?

That's exactly how it works, dude. The money they make stems from games that they sell directly and DLCs, which is huge. A game being Steamworks is a huge draw for the majority of PC gamers nowadays. Having the feature be available for devs to integrate into their games creates an enticing situation for consumers, which in turn rakes in cash for Valve.

My bad apparently on that one, but I do find this perplexing.

So why in the hell would any company releasing a PC version not use Steamworks over some other form of DRM unless they have their own storefront to pimp? I mean you have a completely free service that features copy protection, cloud saving, hosts game updates and game files for download, and it's totally free. Why would you ever NOT use that?

Because they want a cut of the huge profits Steam gets. It may be free, but they still lose a little to Valve from selling the game. That's why EA and Ubisoft are trying to cut into the digital distribution market with their own clients. If they're selling their games directly along with other smaller publishers' games, then they rake in profit just like Valve. Not too hard of a concept to grasp.
 
Thread title reminded me of "bleem!".

WOW, haven't heard that name in several years. I used that shit to play Tekken 3 on my Dreamcast, lol

My bad apparently on that one, but I do find this perplexing.

So why in the hell would any company releasing a PC version not use Steamworks over some other form of DRM unless they have their own storefront to pimp? I mean you have a completely free service that features copy protection, cloud saving, hosts game updates and game files for download, and it's totally free. Why would you ever NOT use that?

Too logical for some companies. Better to go with GFWL.
 
Undoubtably that is the biggest roadblock to the actual implimentation. But the OP is right that it is closer to being possible now than before.

I was simply arguing that from a business/economic angle it makes total sense even if it couldn't not easily be practically accomplished.

But imagine this:

AMD is already planning on selling the "cut down" version of the chip combo featured in the PS4. What if they simply offered the full feature set and with an OS boot option into Playstation's OS.

Basically you would be selling a "PS4 kit" for PCs or PS4 ready PCs. You supply your own case, drives, power supply, but the guts are virtually the same. This model is already in place pretty much everywhere else. DVDs and BluRay players all have the proper physical requirements to run the software and the company that licenses DVD and Bluray tech gets a cut no matter what system you are running it on.

Another way to think about this is, assuming the streaming service actually works the way they want (a big "if," I know), imagine a situition where Sony becomes a service basically like Itunes or Netflix that you can use on any device.

The OP's idea may be too ambitious to be implimented any time soon. But I don' think the idea is anything to laugh at. Sooner or later, in fact, I think it is reality that these first parties become more and more a service and less and less a specific piece of hardware. The ones that don't start thinking that way now, are the ones that will die.

I don't disagree with any of these points in general. In fact, I think most people do realize that we're moving towards a service-orientated industry for gaming, since that's how you hook people to retain invested in a company. But at the same time, the day where Sony, MS, and Nintendo abandon hardware is not going to come anytime soon. In fact, some of them might opt to die rather than to go in that route (hello Nintendo!), while MS will probably be the most likely candidate to be able to evolve the quickest.

I just think it's really silly to expect that the PS4 using a x86 CPU would be any indication that Sony is remotely interested in bringing Uncharted to PC audiences. There are way too many hurdles to overcome for it to be a reality in the next generation. Maybe the one after that, who knows.
 
My bad apparently on that one, but I do find this perplexing.

So why in the hell would any company releasing a PC version not use Steamworks over some other form of DRM unless they have their own storefront to pimp? I mean you have a completely free service that features copy protection, cloud saving, hosts game updates and game files for download, and it's totally free. Why would you ever NOT use that?

I'm not 100% sure. But I believe it does take some work to get these features working. Stuff like Windows Live is relatively easy to implement since it's all coming from the 360 version anyways. I don't think there is any PC exclusive that uses Live.

I am also under the impression that Microsoft pays people to use it.

EDIT: CatPee covered the more obvious answer.
EDIT: Coded close to the metal? What the hell does that even mean?
 
I think the OP's question has been soundly critiqued.

The bigger issue, though, is why in the future - say a decade or so ahead - closed ecosystems need be limited to consoles specifically - rather than say operating as digital platforms that aren't restricted by a singular piece of hardware.

In the 2020s, what benefits will be maintained by only having games attached to a single piece of hardware? Wouldn't it make more sense for "Playstation" to operate as a constantly evolving platform that would work on certain PCs, tablets, phones -- all of which would require specific hardware standards and compatibility with certain controllers - in addition to a console that also ran the games and perhaps offered specific functionality.

Sony makes no money on the boxes, but the boxes themselves have, in the past, been the clearest way to produce a closed ecosystem in which Sony takes a cut of software along the way. In a few years from now, I don't think that will be necessary anymore. It's the direction Valve are going in. I'd bet my bottom dollar MS are thinking this way long-term too (though not with 720.)
 
That's exactly how it works, dude. The money they make stems from games that they sell directly and DLCs, which is huge. A game being Steamworks is a huge draw for the majority of PC gamers nowadays. Having the feature be available for devs to integrate into their games creates an enticing situation for consumers, which in turn rakes in cash for Valve.

Well that makes sense and it seems like mostly a win/win for anybody not interested in opening their own storefront (EA, Ubisoft, etc.).

Anyway but that is massively deviating from the topic.

The OP is still right in the long term that this is the direction this stuff is heading. The top tier companies will become brands/services that they can license. The lower tier companies will be the "slave" companies that make the physical goods that they then have to slap someone else's brand/service on.

Maybe it won't happen this gen. That is very likely. But it will absolutely be true in my life time that I will buy a TV or a computer or a tablet or phone and just be able to access "Xbox Live" or PSN through it. MS and Sony are too smart not to realize that that is the future of brands.
 
That's exactly how it works, dude. The money they make stems from games that they sell directly and DLCs, which is huge. A game being Steamworks is a huge draw for the majority of PC gamers nowadays. Having the feature be available for devs to integrate into their games creates an enticing situation for consumers, which in turn rakes in cash for Valve.



Because they want a cut of the huge profits Steam gets. It may be free, but they still lose a little to Valve from selling the game. That's why EA and Ubisoft are trying to cut into the digital distribution market with their own clients. If they're selling their games directly along with other smaller publishers' games, then they rake in profit just like Valve. Not too hard of a concept to grasp.

And you're wrong as well. It's FREE to use Steamworks. It's not free to sell your game on the Steam web store. That's the difference. You can sell your game yourself on your own website, get 100% profit, and use Steam as the distribution software without them taking a cut. It's just your game won't be featured on their storefront for sale unless you want them taking a 30% cut.
 
And you're wrong as well. It's FREE to use Steamworks. It's not free to sell your game on the Steam web store. That's the difference. You can sell your game yourself on your own website, get 100% profit, and use Steam as the distribution software without them taking a cut. It's just your game won't be featured on their storefront for sale unless you want them taking a 30% cut.

Umm, that's exactly what I meant if you read the rest of my post. The "losing a little" means the 30% cut that Valve gets from the game being sold through Steam, is what I meant. I already know that considering the top part of my post is regarding whether Steamworks is free. :P
 
Maybe it won't happen this gen. That is very likely. But it will absolutely be true in my life time that I will buy a TV or a computer or a tablet or phone and just be able to access "Xbox Live" or PSN through it. MS and Sony are too smart not to realize that that is the future of brands.
Sony brought up that idea during the PS4 unveil.
 
I don't disagree with any of these points in general. In fact, I think most people do realize that we're moving towards a service-orientated industry for gaming, since that's how you hook people to retain invested in a company. But at the same time, the day where Sony, MS, and Nintendo abandon hardware is not going to come anytime soon. In fact, some of them might opt to die rather than to go in that route (hello Nintendo!), while MS will probably be the most likely candidate to be able to evolve the quickest.

I just think it's really silly to expect that the PS4 using a x86 CPU would be any indication that Sony is remotely interested in bringing Uncharted to PC audiences. There are way too many hurdles to overcome for it to be a reality in the next generation. Maybe the one after that, who knows.

You are probably right it is a "too soon" type scenario.

However the fact that AMD will be selling the integrated chip/processor combo featured in the PS4 separately opens some interseting possibilities sooner rather than later. I can forsee "PS4" branded Laptops with that kit in them. Maybe they even just feature a dual boot: one into Windows or iOS and one into Sony OS.

Stranger things have happened. In fact, if AMD was smart, I think they would cut just such a deal for themselves.
 
Like what? I'm seriously trying to think of any non-downloadable/retail games first party games MS has put on PC this gen. I guess Gears 1, then again that's second party?

Gears would not fit in 2. party category since Microsoft doesn't own the IP.

MS published games on PC: Gears of War, Viva Piñata, Shadowrun and Fable III.
Microsoft also published Alan Wake for PC in Australia.

Well I said this gen, so far there's Fable 2/3 and shadowrun for first party. Might be missing another.
Fable 2 isn't for PC.
 
This thread deserved a much better response than it got. It's not really obvious that Sony sticking to operating the way it has previously is at all the right decision. In fact recent history suggests that staying the course is absolutely the wrong decision for the company. Expanding "Playstation" to be a cross platform branding and having their software running on more devices isn't a priori a bad idea, and it's the kind of thinking Sony needs if they want to stop their decline.
 
Umm, that's exactly what I meant if you read the rest of my post. The "losing a little" means the 30% cut that Valve gets from the game being sold through Steam, is what I meant. I already know that considering the top part of my post is regarding whether Steamworks is free. :P

I know what you're saying. I was just making it clear that if you're purchasing a Steamworks title from the developer's website and not from the Steam storefront, the developer is getting 100% of the profit while Valve gets 0.
 
And you're wrong as well. It's FREE to use Steamworks. It's not free to sell your game on the Steam web store. That's the difference. You can sell your game yourself on your own website, get 100% profit, and use Steam as the distribution software without them taking a cut. It's just your game won't be featured on their storefront for sale unless you want them taking a 30% cut.

But if I remember right, they are not allowed to have their game connect to an outside store service from in game if it uses Steam functionality. I think that is what initially caused the tiff between Valve and EA.

But I'm on Valve's side on that one. If you are going to take advantage of that kind of free feature set it seems only polite not to hawk a competing store front from within your game. If you want to sell the DLC separately on your own site, though that is your own MO.
 
But if I remember right, they are not allowed to have their game connect to an outside store service from in game if it uses Steam functionality. I think that is what initially caused the tiff between Valve and EA.

But I'm on Valve's side on that one. If you are going to take advantage of that kind of free feature set it seems only polite not to hawk a competing store front from within your game. If you want to sell the DLC separately on your own site, though that is your own MO.

I'm pretty sure you can buy DLC on GFWL games just fine.

Edit: In-game might be true. I don't think you can buy DLC within the game without using Steam. But you can buy DLC from Microsoft's website and it'll download from GFWL.
 
I'm pretty sure you can buy DLC on GFWL games just fine.

Valve was actually wishy-washy on that for a long time. Originally they didn't really care, so we have a lot of legacy games on Steam which connect to GFWL and have DLC which is only available that way. They've since tightened their policies significantly, and we can see some examples of that in Capcom's games. The newer releases of Street Fighter IV on Steam sell DLC directly on Steam, as opposed to using GFWL.
 
PC gaming is a growing market. Whatever obstacles there are, people are getting past them and I don't think the console manufacturers are in a spot right now to bolster the PC platform, even if it still only accounts for a modest percentage of the AAA blockbuster sales.

Serious question, are PCs a growing market because "people are getting past" the obstacles or because this console generation has been around so long that each new game is only able to wring diminishing returns from the hardware and people are looking for a bigger jump in performance? Surely people will continue to buy PCs, but will the recent increase largely drop away in favor of new consoles once they arrive? (Eventually picking back up of course as the years age these consoles)

I'm one of those people who would rather buy a console despite the understanding that they will be outstripped in power in short order because I know it will be cheaper (the PC that PC gamers would actually want to play on certainly is more expensive than whatever the PS4 will be), simpler, and barring hardware failure will last me a long while. Sure the returns on subsequent games through the lifespan will be overcome by what's on a pc, but I won't have to worry about updating my rig to match those gains either. That's a fight I've no interest in fighting every year or every few years. Pair that with the exclusives the OP suggests Sony should give up, and consoles easily come out as the easiest and most cost effective way for me to game (Personal lifestyle choice).

I don't see this ebb and flow changing unless PC gaming becomes even cheaper and even more stream lined (Consider construction, compatibility, and performance. Maybe potentially something an actual full-on valve-made steam box could fix). As long as first party exclusives exist and consoles remain the easiest to use box, shouldn't this always be the way?
 
Valve was actually wishy-washy on that for a long time. Originally they didn't really care, so we have a lot of legacy games on Steam which connect to GFWL and have DLC which is only available that way. They've since tightened their policies significantly, and we can see some examples of that in Capcom's games. The newer releases of Street Fighter IV on Steam sell DLC directly on Steam, as opposed to using GFWL.

Definitely not a bad thing for the end user though. You see way more DLC sales on Steam than you do on GFWL.
 
Serious question, are PCs a growing market because "people are getting past" the obstacles or because this console generation has been around so long that each new game is only able to wring diminishing returns from the hardware and people are looking for a bigger jump in performance? Surely people will continue to buy PCs, but will the recent increase largely drop away in favor of new consoles once they arrive? (Eventually picking back up of course as the years age these consoles)

I'm one of those people who would rather buy a console despite the understanding that they will be outstripped in power in short order because I know it will be cheaper (the PC that PC gamers would actually want to play on certainly is more expensive than whatever the PS4 will be), simpler, and barring hardware failure will last me a long while. Sure the returns on subsequent games through the lifespan will be overcome by what's on a pc, but I won't have to worry about updating my rig to match those gains either. That's a fight I've no interest in fighting every year or every few years. Pair that with the exclusives the OP suggests Sony should give up, and consoles easily come out as the easiest and most cost effective way for me to game (Personal lifestyle choice).

I don't see this ebb and flow changing unless PC gaming becomes even cheaper and even more stream lined (Consider construction, compatibility, and performance. Maybe potentially something an actual full-on valve-made steam box could fix). As long as first party exclusives exist and consoles remain the easiest to use box, shouldn't this always be the way?

No they are definitely getting way, way easier to manage and that is a real advantage for the platform. Some examples:

1) Steam auto-updates/patches your games. Even when you aren't playing them.

2) Steam will even check for new video drivers for you.

3) Google and Youtube. You can now find a solution to most problems in literally seconds.

4) In game settings have changed Graphics settings often now have a "auto-optimize" and feature "Low" "Medium" and High" settings. Easy to deal with.


Those are just a few very real tangible changes that have occured. The people who still want to get into the nuts and bolts of things or alter .ini files or whatever totally can but it is absolutely optional.
 
Serious question, are PCs a growing market because "people are getting past" the obstacles or because this console generation has been around so long that each new game is only able to wring diminishing returns from the hardware and people are looking for a bigger jump in performance? Surely people will continue to buy PCs, but will the recent increase largely drop away in favor of new consoles once they arrive? (Eventually picking back up of course as the years age these consoles)

I'm one of those people who would rather buy a console despite the understanding that they will be outstripped in power in short order because I know it will be cheaper (the PC that PC gamers would actually want to play on certainly is more expensive than whatever the PS4 will be), simpler, and barring hardware failure will last me a long while. Sure the returns on subsequent games through the lifespan will be overcome by what's on a pc, but I won't have to worry about updating my rig to match those gains either. That's a fight I've no interest in fighting every year or every few years. Pair that with the exclusives the OP suggests Sony should give up, and consoles easily come out as the easiest and most cost effective way for me to game (Personal lifestyle choice).

I don't see this ebb and flow changing unless PC gaming becomes even cheaper and even more stream lined (Consider construction, compatibility, and performance. Maybe potentially something an actual full-on valve-made steam box could fix). As long as first party exclusives exist and consoles remain the easiest to use box, shouldn't this always be the way?

I couldn't tell you how much the long generation impacted the growth but the truth is the majority of the most successful games on PC aren't available on consoles, so I think there is more to it than just console gamers looking to play better looking multiplatform games.
 
2) Steam will even check for new video drivers for you.

4) In game settings have changed Graphics settings often now have a "auto-optimize" and feature.

Those are just a few very real tangible changes that have occured. The people who still want to get into the nuts and bolts of things or alter .ini files or whatever totally can but it is absolutely optional.

Those two points in particular I think are essential; precisely the kind of thing you never have to think about on a console. What I really want though is to look at a new game and know on a very basic level before buying it that it will run 1080p with at least 30fps with good looking textures. That's something I think I'll basically be assured of in the next console generation with every game I put in. Can I be sure or that on a PC without installing the game, trying it, and probably fiddling with settings? The hardware, and underlying software, can just vary so much that I'm not sure any service, even Steam, can offer me that certainty. I don't think Sony could assure that either were it to release its games on PC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom