Perrott
Member
Day and date as well, in the case of Until Dawn remake and LEGO Horizon Adventures; and live-service games, of course.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
ToadMan
Member
Sony made a mistake borne out of the problem that AAA games cost a ton of money to make these days and you need enough customers using your storefront to offset that cost. Customers they didn't have while Xbox was still alive.
Xbox made the same mistake - their solution was to rent games for below the viability value, buy 90bn worth of third parties, and day/date their games on PC thinking this would offset the acquisition costs.
That single handedly killed their console business to the extent they're putting their games on other consoles now. It becomes a race to the bottom. MS are well in the lead of that race, Sony should let them win.
Sony cannot continue down that path. all they'll do is reduce the numbers using their storefront in turn choking off their own revenues while Steam takes the lions share. It will end the idea of AAA games on PS and since PS is the only high performance console left, it will end the idea of AAA console gaming.
I think they've spotted the problem though and are course correcting already - Japanese management is a good step - but let's see.
Last edited:
HogIsland
Member
every point in this post is wrong, including the idea that Japanese management opposes PC ports.
Here's the newly appointed (Japanese) CEO of Playstation Hideaki Nishino:
PlayStation’s co-CEO insists consoles will remain the core of its business | VGC
Hideaki Nishino believes PlayStation continues to offer a more convenient experience than PC…
www.videogameschronicle.com
Last edited:
Speaking of Sony in particular, that means PS agreeing no further hardware where this gen is already the most profitable, giving up 30% cut of every game / microtransaction on it's platform and committing to day and date for the other ecosystems.
Right now It's closest rival is willingly porting its games to PlayStation hardware.
So the question from a business and strategic point of view why would they give up on such an advantageous position to drop all that and go third-party?
Porting games to PC caused some wild conclusions on the future direction of PS.
Owning a large platform eco is far more lucrative for future growth than going third-party only. Shouldn't need to be said.
looking at posts in this thread with pc gamers day-dreaming of day-one PC ports the strategy works. Additional longtail revenue + strong demand for future PS games on PC + having the most profitable PS generation. Thats exactly what Sony wanted.
And that's all before a new PS Cloud gaming app gets rolled out.
Edit: Just to add don't be surprised to see Sony port games to Mac / iOS in addition to PC at some point in the future.
Last edited:
HogIsland
Member
"There's a synergy to it"
WhiteWaterM00se
Member
So two things.every point in this post is wrong, including the idea that Japanese management opposes PC ports.
Here's the newly appointed (Japanese) CEO of Playstation Hideaki Nishino:
PlayStation’s co-CEO insists consoles will remain the core of its business | VGC
Hideaki Nishino believes PlayStation continues to offer a more convenient experience than PC…
1.) I 100% believe Sony will at least bring older titles to all consoles and that includes Switch 2. I expect to see Rachet and Clank on Switch 2.
Remember there was a quote from a previous executive at Sony that they “Wanted to be represented in the next Smash Bros.”.
2.) There is a rumor percolating that Apple and PlayStation have come to some form of partnership.
Lord Malachite
Member
We can't even get them to port the Motorstorm and Resistance quintologies to PS5 and you"'re expecting PC releases?
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
every point in this post is wrong, including the idea that Japanese management opposes PC ports.
Here's the newly appointed (Japanese) CEO of Playstation Hideaki Nishino:
PlayStation’s co-CEO insists consoles will remain the core of its business | VGC
Hideaki Nishino believes PlayStation continues to offer a more convenient experience than PC…
Yeah, the GAAS titles will still be "multiple platforms". Specifically those not tied to PS identity by the hip (like GT7, hence why that one might've had its port cancelled).
Chances are they are doing what they should've done from the start: put most GAAS on PS/PC Day 1, some on Xbox/Nintendo Day 1 (i.e Marathon), keep the non-GAAS exclusive at least for several years (literally 4-6 or more years, some obviously even longer). But much smaller AA remakes or ports of old PS1/2/3/PSP/Vita games in collections or whatever? Can probably use some of those as multiplatform releases on PS, PC or even other consoles (i.e Nintendo) but within a year or two of some new installment or equivalent exclusively for their own console.
It's the only long-term PC/multiplat strategy that makes sense where SIE still lack their own storefront on PC, and both Nintendo and (seemingly) Microsoft still have (or plan to have) gaming hardware on the market. It's just common sense, so if this rumor's true, hopefully it means they're taking an approach like outlined above.
If/when SIE do put out their own PC storefront, the strategy can change dramatically because by then, any shift of console players to PC still means a mostly lateral transfer, i.e they aren't losing that customer to outside ecosystems. The only thing they potentially lose is a console sale, but if they sell the console at-cost or a loss, shifting that player to a PS PC storefront/launcher is probably a net positive (saves money on hardware production). They'd just have to figure out pricing, cross-platform features/benefits (PS console & PS launcher), and monetization (i.e can't really charge for online play on PC).
Those are probably among the reasons a PS launcher is still at least several years away.
Last edited:
GigaBowser
The bear of bad news
thank you my friends
Come On Tars
Member
Hell yeah dude
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Will rather they focus on pushing out future releases faster. Maybe when port the older games when there's a drought period of new 1st party games
DenchDeckard
Moderated wildly
When is Sony's financial call? - I imagine they will have an update on their PC plans then.
yurinka
Member
Feb. 13.
It's a Q3 report, and in Q1/Q2/Q3 reports regarding PC they only report their 'other software' revenue, which is the revenue made by 1st party games outside PS (PC+Xbox+Switch).
When they sometimes talk about PC plans is in Q4 reports, when they share the results of the complete fiscal year and mention plans for the next fiscal year. Their PC initiative is being very successful and the PC/'other software' revenue keeps growing a lot every year and for them is very profitable because each port only cost them a handful million dollars and only need to sell a few dozen thousand units to make them profitable. Plus had no negative effects in their console business: the opposite, most console metrics keep growing and some of them (including active userbase) recently reached all time high records for any PS console, or in some cases for any console in gaming history.
So since their PC strategy works, they won't make big changes. If something they'll continue doubling down on it, porting more old games and maybe reducing the PS vs PC window for non-GaaS titles, plus to continue working on integrating PSN on their PC games, which may end having their own PC PSN store & launcher in a year or two.
Last edited:
KungFucius
King Snowflake
If PS console owners who don't currently have PCs switch to PC on a Sony Store then Sony loses licensing revenue on the 3rd party titles they used to buy on PlayStation. Unless by store you mean a full platform of games tied to their PS accounts with cross play to PS consoles. Basically what Xbox does for most titles. This actually adds a chance that gamers with families have a PC for Dad and a PS5 for the rest of the family.
tmlDan
Member
can you give examples of people saying this? or are you referring to what Hermen said himself. Nobody on this forum said that would happen, especially not to a large degree
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
I agree, but there's a caveat: those switching do their purchasing outside of SIE's own PC launcher/storefront. Which is why their strategy up to this point has made little sense; they are completely reliant on Valve, and to a lesser extent Epic and GOG, for their PC software sales. And that's on top of being reliant on Microsoft for the dominant OS on PC for gaming (for now).
When you're that dependent on other companies within your ecosystem the way SIE are with PC ATM, the chances of losing a console owner who not only gives you less money for B2P sales, but also less in peripheral sales revenue, subscriptions revenue, MTX revenue, and as you said losing 3P revenue cuts too off that customer...it's a lot that adds up.
The idea I had for a PS storefront on PC is that SIE would leverage it and their console position to incentivize 3P to put their games on the storefront as well. You are right about them risking those players using the storefront for SIE 1P games but getting 3P games from other places like Steam....I didn't necessarily think of that earlier. Which is why I feel such a storefront on PC is many, MANY years away, if ever.
Honestly, things could just get to a point where, again, SIE just makes PlayStation into something of a microcomputer type of platform. Performance will get good enough to where scalability is possible at price points from low to high, which would be one of the requirements. From there they'd just need to open up bringing more productivity tools, programs/utilities, multitasking support, and modular upgradability. They could even grant licenses to other companies to manufacture PlayStation variants with the same performance, but various extra features or pseudo-form factors.
Basically what I was thinking Microsoft would do for 10th-gen Xbox devices, but (obviously) many years later. And with SIE/Sony, since PlayStation has such a big global audience, they could probably have a model closer (conceptually) to say Amiga or Commodore, or Sharp or Fujitsu. Microsoft's would be more like the PC market we know today, just using Xbox as the bridge.
Feb. 13.
It's a Q3 report, and in Q1/Q2/Q3 reports regarding PC they only report their 'other software' revenue, which is the revenue made by 1st party games outside PS (PC+Xbox+Switch).
When they sometimes talk about PC plans is in Q4 reports, when they share the results of the complete fiscal year and mention plans for the next fiscal year. Their PC initiative is being very successful and the PC/'other software' revenue keeps growing a lot every year and for them is very profitable because each port only cost them a handful million dollars and only need to sell a few dozen thousand units to make them profitable. Plus had no negative effects in their console business: the opposite, most console metrics keep growing and some of them (including active userbase) recently reached all time high records for any PS console, or in some cases for any console in gaming history.
So since their PC strategy works, they won't make big changes. If something they'll continue doubling down on it, porting more old games and maybe reducing the PS vs PC window for non-GaaS titles, plus to continue working on integrating PSN on their PC games, which may end having their own PC PSN store & launcher in a year or two.
Zero chance they have a PC launcher in 2 years. For one they don't need it. Second, and I'm glad
KungFucius
mentioned it, is that when SIE do put out a PC launcher, they still risk having some subset of console owners who switch to PC and shift their third-party software purchases & MTX spending outside of that storefront. Truth is, I don't think an opportune time is present for a PS PC launcher unless sometime in the future, Steam goes to shit and sees a major drop-off. But in the small chance that ever happens, chances are one of the alternatives already present like EGS or GOG, would reap the benefits of that. Heck, even PC Game Pass or Windows Store would reap the benefits of that, ahead of a PS launcher.
The more I think about it, SIE are probably better off fortifying their console hardware, and in maybe another generation or two, iterate on it to have a lot more PC-like productivity functionality but keeping the business model/platform closer to that of what older microcomputers were doing before PC/Wintel took off in the mid '90s. And PS as console hardware would have the global install base/presence to do that; something stuff like Amiga, Sharp 68K etc. could have only dreamed of (even though for their markets at the time, those devices had pretty strong market share).
And if need be, do what SEGA did during the MegaDrive/Saturn days and partner with a handful of manufacturers to produce hardware variants. Once PSSR upscaling has fully matured, once other relevant technologies are mature, I think that is when the time comes. When software development pipelines have stabilized and are consistent, and we finally reach the point where even on low-end graphics/fidelity are "good enough" (which I think is happening very soon, personally), then we'll probably see SIE do that. Ultimately I think SIE and Sony still want a future where PlayStation hardware is at the center of everything, and ultimately SIE/Sony are the ones developing, producing, and controlling that hardware (with maybe a very small selection of partner brands/manufacturers).
It's just that, for now, Microsoft would have more of a need to do something conceptually equivalent, to justify even keeping Xbox gaming hardware alive. They need something to jolt life back into the hardware devices side, which is why I was mentioning that stuff about them a long time ago and why I think the Discord leak with the OEM rumors could be true. Though, it could easily not end up happening, either. Or they just skip the Xbox hybrid part, and simply push Xbox features/integration wholly into Windows, sort out the issues there, and let OEMs run with the hardware from that point on.
Last edited:
Goalus
Member
It might be a good strategy for Sony to release future games first on PC and a year later on Paystation.
WhiteWaterM00se
Member
Sony won’t be doing the porting, they will staff it out to some porting studio. Sony themselves will focus on their 1st party games.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Sony has been utilizing their own in-house studios to do the PC releases so far.
WhiteWaterM00se
Member
I understand. I will be surprised if they handle the Switch 2 and Xbox ports as well.
Or if the Apple partnership rumor is true, I’m sure they will use outside studios due to the volume of work.
yurinka
Member
It's coming, we saw in job offers that they are working on it. Which makes sense, because obviously prefer to skip to pay Valve 20-30% (in fact is less, because part of that are taxes/currency exchance/payment platform fees they'll pay anyways) of at least part of their PC sales, and on top of that to throw there extra money from 3rd party games they could sell in their PC PSN store.
A good moment to do so would be when releasing their own PC handheld and/or when releasing PS6 in order to simplify its marketing.
They could do a 'one PSN for all devices' messaging. All PS6 games (plus from all previous PS gens avalaible in both PS and PC stores) would be cross-buy, cross-play, cross-save, shared trophies and friendlist between their home console, portable console and PC store. You buy the game once and play it where you want day one, natively in console or PC, or (if you have PS+ Premium) via cloud gaming also in phones, tablets or tvs.
The PC store would be their current PS Store website, and would launch with the PS6 late 2027. The portable would release 2 or 3 years later as PSPlayer next gen replacement, and would play natively all PS1-PS6 games available in their PC store. Including new PS6 games thanks to evolved portable hardware and evolved upscaling and frame generation thanks to next gen PSSR.
The SP games that get late PC ports are made by dedicated teams while the teams who did the original games keep focused on making new ones.
Sony's PC ports have been made by Nixxes, Iron Galaxy, Sumo or Jetpack Interactive. Out of them Sony only owns Nixxes.
In case of Helldivers 2 and Destiny 2 expansions, the PC version has been done by the same Bungie/Arrowhead team.
Last edited:
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
Plans change, though. Timescales change, get pushed back, get cancelled and so on. Like the rumor saying PC ports for Demon's Souls and GT7 are cancelled; that's an example of plans changing.
SIE don't really need a PC launcher right now, and if they were to do one, I don't see a reason to leverage it outside of GAAS titles. Sort of like how ABK utilize Battle.NET. Yes in theory they skip paying Valve a cut of the software sales, but if having their own storefront/launcher right now galvanizes a console owner to shift to PC because SIE feel compelled to push everything Day 1 to their launcher, then without mass 3P support in that launcher off jump, SIE risk those same players doing their 3P purchases on Steam or EGS instead.
So it's still a losing proposition for them, because competing storefronts like Steam are just too stable and massive right now. They'd have to wait until Steam took a bit hit in its revenue and player metrics AND one of the other storefronts like EGS or GOG are too slow to capitalize off of such. Too many things outside of SIE's control would have to magically go their way for a PC launcher/storefront to both launch and not risk major drop inn 3P/services/peripheral sales of a console-to-PC customer.
Not a good moment. For starters that rumored handheld won't be a PC device; it'll be based on PS5/PS6 tech because that simply makes more sense and SIE will want something that more fully complements their console hardware than something that can potentially subvert it (i.e PC hacking to bypass PSN/PS+ and just easily provide Steam as the storefront instead).
Another reason that wouldn't work for timing is down to what I was just saying above: no way to guarantee massive 3P support from the get-go on a PC launcher means aside from 1P ports, SIE risk losing 3P B2P & MTX sales to competing launchers/storefronts. And since 3P B2P, MTX etc. sales make up most of SIE's gaming revenue & profits, suffice to say they'd want it to be similar on PC.
However, unless they're willing to risk cannibalizing their console sales and revenue and putting up with a money-losing front on a PC storefront until they get lucky and gain major market share, it's just not something I think SIE should pursue.
All of this supposes the idea a new PC storefront launching against Steam, EGS, GOG etc. can just get major market share and 3P support by competing on features. That is not reality. Features alone won't get them anywhere; having all the same 3P titles as Steam won't get them too far on its own unless paired with better-than-Steam features/QOL, and them getting all the same 3P as Steam or even GOG would be a very uphill battle.
Steam has TONS of defacto exclusives and that's in addition to having features/QOL that vast majority of its audience are happy with. So then SIE would be left to compete on exclusives; unfortunately it doesn't seem most of their 1P have major appeal to Steam audiences, outside of select titles like Helldivers 2, and it's not like SIE are going to remove that game from Steam to make it exclusive to their PS launcher on PC.
Are you saying this because you think/want SIE should/to acquire more porting studios? Personally I think that'd be a terrible decision. Again, they don't NEED PC; PlayStation as a console is more than enough for their growth goals, especially seeing Xbox's console market share cratering this gen.
Now's the time for SIE to solidify things with console and triple-down on it with laser focus, not splinter dedication with a PC initiative that's increasingly causing complications and shrinking rewards relative the effort required. Especially considering, that companies like Valve and Microsoft will likely look to leverage PC as a pseudo-consolized indirect competitor with increasingly more direct consolized form factors/features.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Your source for this is LITERALLY
Bryank75
. A man who like you turned into a human shaped pile of pure sodium when Sony started doing PC ports.
HogIsland
Member
Selling a $70 game to a PC player who brought their own hardware
vs
Selling a $70 game to a PS5 player for whom you subsidized their hardware
Even with the 20-30% Steam revenue take, the PC customer is still attractive to Sony.
Last edited:
Kacho
Gold Member
SavageYour source for this is LITERALLY
BennyBlanco
gives me life
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
Your source for this is LITERALLY
Zathalus
Member
That forum is something else alright. I’d say it’s an echo jerk, as it perfectly combines a circle jerk and echo chamber into one.
Rawbutt Jellybean
Member
Can't charge PC players $80 to go online but I agree they're going to be prioritizing the PC ports more than ever. They just need to stop doing a piss poor job on the ports.
HogIsland
Member
Currently, most ports are outsourced after the PS5 version is complete. They've got to get the 1st party teams maintaining their own PC build during the whole dev cycle. Nixxes should mainly consult on best practices and develop middleware all teams can use (API translators, Dualsense implementation, etc)
yurinka
Member
Yes, plans frequently change, get tweaked, and some things get delayed, cancelled or added.
I think these ports never existed. At least the GT7 one as of last year according to its director, and bizarrely not having ported Bloodborne and Demon's Souls being two games that would perfectly fit on PC better than most of the other ones already released, I think it has to be because Miyazaki wants to address himself once he has available resources, or maybe Sony wanted to save them to release them close to some movie/anime adaptation, sequels, Kadokawa acquisition or Sony PC store release.
Regarding a Bloodborne remaster, Miyazaki said that he thought it would be too early and would make more sense to keep two generations of difference as happened with Demon's Souls to keep a more noticiable difference.
Sony had this growth in PC until FY22, in FY23 they ended making $678M (also counting Xbox & Switch) and in FY24 they continue growing fast:
Even if this growth decreases (which I assume would make sense to happen soonish), they will be making almost a billion per year on PC and more than in console. A lot of money, which would be 20-30% higher if not paying the Valve fee.
A -let's say 25%- of $1B/year they could be making in the mid-term is $250M/year. You can fund a AAA game with that. With that yearly money they could fund and mantain the PC store plus on top to fund a medium sized game every year, just from the money they could potentially make by having their own store/launcher.
Obviously the transition wouldn't be instantaneous, they'd need some time to grow their PS PSN userbase and make the transition, they'd be still minimum a couple years on Steam.
Stores like Battle.net or other ones like the EA, Ubisoft, the MS PC one, etc. are worth for them because even if they represent a small percent of their revenue, each copy sold there is more profitable than when sold in Steam or in console, and since aren't on somebody else's platform/store, means other people can't track their metrics there. So the more copies they sold there, the better for them.
In fact, I think MS has to optimize this: they should have a single store and launcher for all their PC games, they should merge everything into their Xbox ecosystem, which should be the same than in console. For them it would be better to have a single bigger ecosystem than multiple ones.
They can't just leave Steam once they release their PC store/launcher, because a ton of players are on Steam and don't want to move anywhere else. What would be smart, and what I think they are planning, is to take over the PC market step by step:
- Create a PC fanbase inside Steam, Epic, etc. releasing games there
- Integrate PSN support (trophies, etc) inside these without using their own launcher
- Once they have a big enough fanbase, release their store but continue in the other ones
- Once the userbase in the PC PSN store/launcher is big enough, release their PC ports first on their own store
- Once the userbase in their own store reaches a certain point, to stop releasing new games in rival PC stores
- Once reached other milestone, stop selling older games in rival PC stores
PS5/PS6 tech are tweaked PC devices, like Xbox, Steamdeck and the upcoming MS and Sony handhelds.
PS is the main platform for most 3rd parties. If Sony merges their PS and PC stores, and considering almost all 3rd parties also release their games on PC, for 3rd parties it would mean that releasing their PC game there they'd be also reaching PS, and that their PS sales would be bigger because also would be selling on PC.
If Sony implements cross-buy + cross-save, it would make more appealing for PC players get a PS because they'd have already a personal catalog, or to allow PS players to also play in a PC handheld or PC they may also have.
Big publishers and platforms pursue userbase and playtime, to have players with them and not with the competition, and to be where players are. So if Sony is smart and combines their console and PC games under the same ecosystem, 3rd parties will see it more appealing because more userbase and playtime will be there.
Steam has all that 3rd party support and exclusives because outside mobile they have the biggest revenue/userbase/playtime. The second is Sony with PS/PSN.
If Sony brings PSN to PC, not as a separate different thing but the whole package, it would be the first serious competitor for Steam in Steam.
I never said that. But I think it's a good idea what Sony does: to keep some teams dedicated to PC ports and other teams dedicated to GaaS, different of the teams they have focused on making new console games. With separate investments made on top that don't replace the ones they had making SP console games, which also has been growing.
They need PC because SIE's SP AAA won't exist next gen without PC and GaaS:
The AAA budgets keep increasing every generation, nowadays they cost around $300M and need to sell around 8-10M copies to become profitable, something most SIE AAA games across their history didn't sell. On top of this, the game revenue keeps shifting from the game purchase to add-ons, and from non-GaaS to GaaS. Same goes with the playtime, keeps focusing more and more in a few games, most of them GaaS.
Console userbase kept having the same size during a few decades, can't grow it. So they kept growing their marketshare inside that finite space: last gen kicked out Nintendo from home consoles and now are kicking out MS. So won't be able to grow it in a post Xbox stage: they'll need to get players somewhere else: and this is why they -and the rest of console publishers- are expanding to GaaS, PC, mobile or movies: because they need money to pay these dozens of games they have under development that cost hundreds of millions each.
BennyBlanco
aka IMurRIVAL69
Savage
I don’t mean to come across as rude but it’s just completely absurd. This would be like me saying “rumors are swirling that hermen hulst slipped on a banana peel and pooped his pants in front of ana de armas, now ps6 is cancelled.” Source -
Little Chicken
adamsapple
Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
I don’t mean to come across as rude but it’s just completely absurd. This would be like me saying “rumors are swirling that hermen hulst slipped on a banana peel and pooped his pants in front of ana de armas, now ps6 is cancelled.” Source -
brb making a thread.
Sentenza
Member
Jesus Christ, people, get a grip.
Some of these games are barely selling anything ON STEAM and the "sensible solution" some of you keep coming up with is "Do your own store!".
I'm going out of my way to guess that 99% of the people making this suggestion DO NOT play regularly games on PC, otherwise they would understand that in the current climate coming out with "another front store" is a suicide.
It will mean selling virtually NOTHING.
They need to find a way to make their current pipeline work better, not worse.
deeptech
Member
First you got to seriously lack braincells in order to be a fan of something, especially a brand or a corporate business. Then add insecurity around personal identity which is "escaped" by identifying with the brand, with the special in-group, the "us" versus "them". Basically only a delusional, mentally challenged, immature person can want games to be exclusive. I personally enjoy it so much, TLOU, GoT, GoW on PC are great, and I can't wait for more of them, like the new Naughty Dog game.
Another thing is that they will never make me buy a console ever, if these games never came out on PC, I would never ever play them and be fine, although would be a shame perhaps.
HogIsland
Member
absolutely correct.
it could be that Sony is actually satisfied by these numbers, since it's practically free money and PC ports are greenlit via email. but if sony wants to maximize PC sales, the answer is day 1 releases on steam. any attempt to "support" PC off of steam is a wasted effort.
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
If they want to maximize PC sales they need better selection of games.
I would love an official answer as to why Demon's Souls hasn't released on PC or why a finished Dreams PC port wasn't released.
HogIsland
Member
Not doing Dreams on PC was bonkers. You have a better-than-Roblox, better-than-Minecraft, live service creation + community game ready to go and just let it die instead. Sucks, man.
They fucking did a PSVR update.
Last edited:
Sentenza
Member
They need both. Faster re-releases (or even better concurrent ones) and to pick their options (or if nothing else their priorities) a bit better.
It's baffling that so far the only two games where I could have comfortably betted on 100k+ concurrent users (Bloodborne and Demon Souls) are still nowhere to be seen on Steam.
And then you have Gran Turismo (not my cup of tea, but it would definitely find an audience there) and Shadow of the Colossus, which I also have a hunch would do decent numbers if priced aggressively) completely forgotten, while they keep throwing at us sequels of games that already performed so-so in the first round.
Oh, and they also need to get fucking real with setting full price on a 2-3 years old port.
It's not a linear progression with these things. You knock down 10 or 20 dollars from the price tag, you get a SIGNIFICANT increase in copies sold, not as marginal one.
Some of these titles should launch at 29 dollars, not almost 60.
Last edited:
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
They would need to acquire first the talents who are experienced on these hardwares to prepare for day 1 release on these platforms. Like Nixxes who have been transiting Sony's studios to multi-platforms, such as updating their game engine to facilitate PC release, and training Sony's 1st party studios on PC development.
Last edited:
Mibu no ookami
Demoted Member® Pro™
At the end of the day, MM probably didn't have a sufficient plan for monetization.
frequently change, get tweaked, and some things get delayed, cancelled or added.
I think these ports never existed. At least the GT7 one as of last year according to its director, and bizarrely not having ported Bloodborne and Demon's Souls being two games that would perfectly fit on PC better than most of the other ones already released, I think it has to be because Miyazaki wants to address himself once he has available resources, or maybe Sony wanted to save them to release them close to some movie/anime adaptation, sequels, Kadokawa acquisition or Sony PC store release.
Regarding a Bloodborne remaster, Miyazaki said that he thought it would be too early and would make more sense to keep two generations of difference as happened with Demon's Souls to keep a more noticiable difference.
Sony had this growth in PC until FY22, in FY23 they ended making $678M (also counting Xbox & Switch) and in FY24 they continue growing fast:
Even if this growth decreases (which I assume would make sense to happen soonish), they will be making almost a billion per year on PC and more than in console. A lot of money, which would be 20-30% higher if not paying the Valve fee.
A -let's say 25%- of $1B/year they could be making in the mid-term is $250M/year. You can fund a AAA game with that. With that yearly money they could fund and mantain the PC store plus on top to fund a medium sized game every year, just from the money they could potentially make by having their own store/launcher.
Obviously the transition wouldn't be instantaneous, they'd need some time to grow their PS PSN userbase and make the transition, they'd be still minimum a couple years on Steam.
Stores like Battle.net or other ones like the EA, Ubisoft, the MS PC one, etc. are worth for them because even if they represent a small percent of their revenue, each copy sold there is more profitable than when sold in Steam or in console, and since aren't on somebody else's platform/store, means other people can't track their metrics there. So the more copies they sold there, the better for them.
In fact, I think MS has to optimize this: they should have a single store and launcher for all their PC games, they should merge everything into their Xbox ecosystem, which should be the same than in console. For them it would be better to have a single bigger ecosystem than multiple ones.
They can't just leave Steam once they release their PC store/launcher, because a ton of players are on Steam and don't want to move anywhere else. What would be smart, and what I think they are planning, is to take over the PC market step by step:
- Create a PC fanbase inside Steam, Epic, etc. releasing games there
- Integrate PSN support (trophies, etc) inside these without using their own launcher
- Once they have a big enough fanbase, release their store but continue in the other ones
- Once the userbase in the PC PSN store/launcher is big enough, release their PC ports first on their own store
- Once the userbase in their own store reaches a certain point, to stop releasing new games in rival PC stores
- Once reached other milestone, stop selling older games in rival PC stores
PS5/PS6 tech are tweaked PC devices, like Xbox, Steamdeck and the upcoming MS and Sony handhelds.
PS is the main platform for most 3rd parties. If Sony merges their PS and PC stores, and considering almost all 3rd parties also release their games on PC, for 3rd parties it would mean that releasing their PC game there they'd be also reaching PS, and that their PS sales would be bigger because also would be selling on PC.
If Sony implements cross-buy + cross-save, it would make more appealing for PC players get a PS because they'd have already a personal catalog, or to allow PS players to also play in a PC handheld or PC they may also have.
Big publishers and platforms pursue userbase and playtime, to have players with them and not with the competition, and to be where players are. So if Sony is smart and combines their console and PC games under the same ecosystem, 3rd parties will see it more appealing because more userbase and playtime will be there.
Steam has all that 3rd party support and exclusives because outside mobile they have the biggest revenue/userbase/playtime. The second is Sony with PS/PSN.
If Sony brings PSN to PC, not as a separate different thing but the whole package, it would be the first serious competitor for Steam in Steam.
I never said that. But I think it's a good idea what Sony does: to keep some teams dedicated to PC ports and other teams dedicated to GaaS, different of the teams they have focused on making new console games. With separate investments made on top that don't replace the ones they had making SP console games, which also has been growing.
They need PC because SIE's SP AAA won't exist next gen without PC and GaaS:
The AAA budgets keep increasing every generation, nowadays they cost around $300M and need to sell around 8-10M copies to become profitable, something most SIE AAA games across their history didn't sell. On top of this, the game revenue keeps shifting from the game purchase to add-ons, and from non-GaaS to GaaS. Same goes with the playtime, keeps focusing more and more in a few games, most of them GaaS.
Console userbase kept having the same size during a few decades, can't grow it. So they kept growing their marketshare inside that finite space: last gen kicked out Nintendo from home consoles and now are kicking out MS. So won't be able to grow it in a post Xbox stage: they'll need to get players somewhere else: and this is why they -and the rest of console publishers- are expanding to GaaS, PC, mobile or movies: because they need money to pay these dozens of games they have under development that cost hundreds of millions each.
Even you don't believe you are writing. PCMR don't want log in PSN accounts, no way PSN could compete with Steam on PC.
The cross play thing is another stupid argument. Why would you buy a console and PC to play the same games? that is stupid and only a marginal base of users do it.
Last, what would you expect for Playstation users buying an expensive PC when they compare prices on PSN and Steam? They will become a new Steam clients.
Last edited:
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Even you don't believe you are writing. PCMR don't want log in PSN accounts, no way PSN could compete with Steam on PC.
The cross play thing is another stupid argument. Why would you buy a console and PC to play the same games? that is stupid and only a marginal base of users do it.
Last, what would you expect for Playstation users buying an expensive PC when they compare prices on PSN and Steam? They will become a new Steam clients.
That explains why Playstation players want cross-buy with PC. They want to reap the benefit of cheaper game price of PC on their console.
yurinka
Member
They will once they have the full feature set and perks.
You should be new to videogames or authistic, people were asking it for a couple generations. They want it to play with their friends who are in other platforms and to find more players of their same level / lower ping in competitive games.
Most PS users will continue getting their games on PS only. Some would be interested to be able to get them on PC to play them in a portable, or a minority to play them in higher settings if they are part of the tiny portion of PC players who has a rig capable to run them in better conditions than in a PS5.
If they have both PS and PC they'd prefer to buy it on PSN instead of in Steam in case it gives them cross-buy, cross-save, shared trophies etc.
Last edited:
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
Even you don't believe you are writing. PCMR don't want log in PSN accounts, no way PSN could compete with Steam on PC.
The cross play thing is another stupid argument. Why would you buy a console and PC to play the same games? that is stupid and only a marginal base of users do it.
Last, what would you expect for Playstation users buying an expensive PC when they compare prices on PSN and Steam? They will become a new Steam clients.
The most likely future scenario is likely just PSN remaining optional for Playstation PC games with free online.
thicc_girls_are_teh_best
Member
They existed. GT7 was in that Nvidia leak which was right about other SIE games in it that did get Steam ports. Demon's Souls, I can't recall if it was in the leak but there was fine print in the first few trailers mentioning a PC port date. SIE scrubbed that after a few days though, but at the time I don't think it was because they decided not to port it. Rather, they didn't want word of such a planned port getting out there and causing bad optics for the brand among core console owners.
With Bloodborne PS4 emulation how being about solid, the window for SIE to port the game there has passed. The audience that would have wanted such a port are going to use emulators to play the PS4 version and just stick with that. Such a lot would probably rather that than give SIE money for an official port. As for a port of Demon's Souls Remake, for some reason I get the feeling PC players have sticks up their ass about being purists when it comes to Soulsborne games, so many would likely stick to the original game running mods for resolution and textures on RPCS3.
And all as well; the customer base mostly interested in playing, say, a Bloodborne remake or Demon's Souls Remake, either already have a PS5 or are more firmly in the console ecosystem (say, they have a PS4) and are highly likely to upgrade to a PS5 at some point to play such games (among others). Why give them two less reasons to upgrade to a PS5?
Cool, that's his choice. But in the meantime PC players are going to hack and mod Bloodborne via PS4 emulation.
Sony had this growth in PC until FY22, in FY23 they ended making $678M (also counting Xbox & Switch) and in FY24 they continue growing fast:
Even if this growth decreases (which I assume would make sense to happen soonish), they will be making almost a billion per year on PC and more than in console. A lot of money, which would be 20-30% higher if not paying the Valve fee.
Not "just" PC; PC and other platforms. Remember, SIE recently merged the platforms in a previous fiscal report and have stuck with it since.
You do know the $1 billion would be revenue, right? Not net profit? So it's the net profit percentage you should look at. And if that net profit were just 25% of the $1 billion, there is no chance SIE use ALL of that $250 million to fund a new AAA game. Some (a lot) of it has to go towards other things, and maybe they want to use some of it for bonuses or such.
The difference between Battle.NET, Origin, Uplay, and a PS PC Launcher, is that ABK (specifically ABK here; ignoring MS for a moment), EA, Ubisoft don't have hardware platforms to manage alongside their launcher. Those companies are wholly 3P publishers, and their main platform is hardware-agnostic.
Also, for companies like EA and Ubisoft, their launchers are literally just bonuses/additives on top because they make the vast majority of their money elsewhere, such as B2P sales on PlayStation consoles. So their launchers aren't presenting a big conflict point with their main revenue streams. A PS launcher would be prioritizing B2P sales, when SIE gets most of their B2P sales and software revenue cuts from B2P sales on PlayStation.
So, you can start to see the issue where SIE have a PS PC launcher that's behind competitors in offering 3P software (and then, even if it were to get 3P support comparable or exactly like Steam, would just now mean PS PC launcher having a lot of 3P games not available on the console, which negatively hurts the console hardware), has all their 1P games, and pulls away console owners to the launcher for 1P but also places those console owners on PC where they can get the 3P games from competing launchers like Steam or EGS.
The issue for MS there is that there are literally Xbox games with no compatible versions on Windows and vice-versa. So there comes a messaging issue in how to communicate that certain games and apps are only playable here, vs. over there. For a PC user, that is probably just an annoyance, but for a console user, it can heavily dilute the QOL and ease-of-use a console is meant to provide.
Well, uh, it's not going well with them ATM on this, because they're already revoking PSN login requirements for single-player games on Steam. And again, your vision for a PS launcher on PC is too idealistic, not to mention unnecessary.
Console-wise the only serious options left are SIE and Nintendo, who do very different things. Xbox may continue to have gaming hardware, but it won't be a "console" anymore in the traditional sense. So in a way, SIE have it much easier now to build PlayStation console hardware by innovating with the hardware and expanding its portfolio. This is not the time for them to undercut that with a haphazard PC focus when PC may not even be necessary for serious gaming growth, if SIE do things the right way.
Let's not also forget, Valve are continuing with Steam Deck and will probably re-introduce Steam Machines in 2026/2027, building off what they're doing with Steam Deck. If anything, SIE should be fortifying the QOL and features on PlayStation hardware to be more competitive with storefronts like Steam and things like PC in general (within reason, specifically in relation to gaming and secondary with graphics/audio/media-centric productivity). What you're suggesting is a long-con play in PC that offers no guarantee it will work, but will definitely divert resources and attention from the console side at the very least.
Kinda like how their GAAS gambit was doing...and you see how they're significantly changing that now, don't you?
You're grossly oversimplifying these devices from SIE, at times it makes me wonder if you even know when you're discussing SIE/PlayStation hardware. PS5 isn't a "tweaked PC"; it's a gaming console that uses some shared AMD architecture at is base which also happens to be used within the PC space, but in SIE's case is customized specifically for high-performance console gaming, including customizations not present in the PC equivalents (i.e cache scrubbers, or PSSR with PS5 Pro).
What's more, they are not devices designed around running a Windows OS or PC-centric libraries like DX12U, CUDA, etc. PS6 and the PS handheld aren't going to be designed to run flat-out x86/x86-64 or UWP apps like PC devices do, or run a Windows kernel for that matter. They'll be using technology designed between AMD and SIE/Sony that in some cases will also serve as a basis for equivalent product lines for PCs.
Okay then, good luck convincing SIE to build out native PC versions of all their PS4 & PS5 games in time for a launcher by 2026 as you still seem to think will happen for some reason. Let alone native PC builds of all the 3P games on just PS4 that never got PC versions fully built out and compiled.
Let alone somehow superseding the 3P rights owners of those 3P titles, who may have PC versions on other storefronts (even their own) and could refuse SIE from integrating PS4/PS5 versions of the same game to a merged PS Store/PC PS storefront.
And who are the 3P that will go along with cross-buy and cross-save? Why would SIE want to do that when they thrive off B2P sales and make more money from distinct versions on each platform than tying them to a universal one-time purchase?
Has cross-buy massively grown Microsoft's B2P sales of 1P titles pre-Zenimax or pre-ABK? No; in fact I'd argue it caused them to decrease, which is part of the reason they felt they had to go buy big 3P publishers. Why would you want SIE to follow the same path? What 3P would join them who are big enough to want to do so, and risk cutting off double-dipping funds? What if that 3P needs the unique B2P revenue from a PS5 sale and a PS PC launcher sale? What if clauses from other PC storefronts prevent them from enabling cross-buy with PS PC launcher?
Do you think the reason for decreasing Steam sales of most SIE ports is because they don't feature cross-buy? What would be the purpose of cross-buy for a Steam customer who in theory likely doesn't have a PS console, therefore the port should be seen as a new game by them? Why would SIE push for cross-buy of a game on Steam for a PS console owner over potentially getting money on a double-dip, especially when they have to pay Valve a cut of the game's sales?
3P literally won't.
Also because Valve founded and grew Steam during a time period when most other would-be PC platform holders gave up on PC gaming. They took a gamble for many years on something that was mainly just a passion for them, and it eventually paid off.
There is no vacancy period on PC like that anymore for gaming. That's why even stuff like EGS (backed by Fortnite) and Game Pass (backed by MS, a not-so-small company) have struggled so badly to establish market share for years compared to Steam.
What features does PSN have that Steam does not? What exclusive games does PSN offer that Steam does not?
Then ask the inverse: what features does Steam have that PSN does not? What exclusives does Steam offer that PSN does not?
Problem is, as we're finding out now, SIE simply don't have enough teams among their studios to provide a sufficient amount on all of these front without one taking the hit.
We literally just found out that Bend and Bluepoint's GAAS are cancelled, and they are one-team studios. So guess what they won't be providing until at least PS6? A new single-player console game.
This is a a false claim.
Part of the reason for those cost increases are because of things like overpriced licenses, overpriced consultancy agencies, opening studios in overly expensive locations (LA, California in general), and spending too much on Hollywood writers and actors/actresses. If SIE were to sort those things out, costs could come down considerably. Further investment into technologies like PSSR, and training models for accelerating parts of game development like texture generation, automated coding, model generation (i.e better technologies for generating meshes from image scans or dialog prompts) will also help bring costs down.
A lot of the things contributing to budget bloat aren't fixed in, they don't simply "exist" where nothing can be done about them. Inflation itself is one of the few things outside of anyone's control, but besides that such a list isn't that large. Also you shouldn't try applying modern sales requirements to sales targets of the past; many of SIE's games from older gens didn't do 8-10 million but they didn't NEED to do 8-10 million to be successful. The budgets were significantly lower back then, even for the PS3 gen, let alone PS2 or PS1.
There's also the fact a game can be more successful selling 5 million at full price, than 10 million where 80% of the copies were sold at 50% - 75% off.
Console base not growing could very easily also be explained by "certain" consoles (i.e Xbox) completely failing to keep pace in the market, and other consoles (i.e PlayStation) failing to innovate enough on the approach to draw in new groups of players. That lack of innovation could be explained by aspects of the hardware design, business model, software offerings, or a mix of all three.
Again, these aren't "fixed" things; they can be changed, they can be improved, you just need the right people with the right vision in the right positions. Nintendo exited the traditional home console market last gen not because the market hit some arbitrary number forcing a platform out, but because Wii U was a colossal failure in appealing to the vast majority outside of hardcore Nintendo diehards. Same thing is happening this gen with Xbox consoles.
You have got to stop listening to everything certain analysts say and taking it completely on the face; there's a lot of nuance often left out, especially when it comes to attributing controllable blame to specific companies instead of an enigmatic "the market".
Similar threads
- Poll