Without needing to sell hardware, many of those games would not exist at all
SEGA is a great example here. Back when they made hardware, and especially when they didn't get as much 3P support as Nintendo or Sony, they had to make games to satiate niches that otherwise 3P would've. That's why stuff like Rent-A-Hero, Panzer Dragoon, Landstalker, Dragon Force, Chu Chu Rocket, Crazy Taxi, Jet Set Radio etc. existed.
Once they stopped making consoles, we got sequels & updates to SOME of those, but only because they were originally Dreamcast titles moved over to other consoles. After that, many of those IP went away. We can argue that poor sales contributed to that, but SEGA hard-splitting their once-unified console fanbase among a whole bunch of different platforms actually ruined the IP brand synergy many of their IP benefited from when they were exclusive to their
own hardware!
And I'd argue that was a major contributor to the non-SEGA console installments of some of those games underperforming, not so much that quality took a dip (tho it's a case-by-case thing: Toejam & Earl 3 was objectively worst than the first two, and Crazy Taxi was a weaker installment than 1 & 2, just as examples).
The obvious implication of this is that they KNOW that porting their games to PC harms the value of the PS5, yet there are dopes on this website trying to convince me of the opposite. They're trying to walk a tightrope and prediction - it's not going to work.
Especially since, people aren't that stupid, and that includes customers too. If someone's observant and notices a pattern, they will expect that pattern to play out. For these people, it doesn't matter if SIE avoid saying "All our games are coming to PC Day 1" or "All our games are coming to PC within 1-2 years", because that person will have already noticed the pattern and (most likely correctly) assume it's going to happen again.
That's kind of the negative in SIE not just coming right out and giving a definitive stance on their multiplat strategy: yeah it keeps people guessing and some of them will fail to connect dots & buy where the game's first available due to FOMO, but the longer they do that, the more people who will pick up on the pattern and become less suspect to FOMO as a result, so eventually what happened with Xbox would happen in some form to PlayStation. It'd just have taken longer and been more gradual.
Also it's not very hard to give a definitive stance that's effective for at least a few years time, because other companies in various entertainment spaces (or even in gaming, i.e Nintendo or Take-Two) have no problem with it. Yes there'll be some crybabies online for a bit, but they're a very small vocal minority, and don't have much sway. Needn't but simply look at Switch 2's strong sales in spite of hate grifters with anti-Switch 2 videos, to realize how little people like that matter.
Sure, shoot PS6 with a fatal shotgun blast right at the start of the gen. Great strategy.
The best thing that happened with Xbox was when Microsoft decided to release Xbox games at the same time on PC because it meant I got a better looking, better running, cheaper version of the game.
The worst thing that happened with Xbox was when Microsoft decided to release Xbox games at the same time on PC because it meant that there was now more reasons to not even own an Xbox console at all. My Xbox Series X has not been used in over a year since I upgraded my PC with an RTX 4080 graphics card.
I own a PS5 Pro and bought the PS5 at launch (but not the Xbox Series X) based on the amount of enjoyment I got from my PS4/PS4 Pro which had fantastic first-party single player exclusives that appealed to me a solo-only gamers who has zero interest in any type of online multiplayer or live service titles.
While the early days of the PS5 were a bit lacking with the cross-gen period and limited number of exclusives, I still felt that the console at least delivered a worthwhile next-gen experience with gems like Astro's Playroom, Ratchet & Crank: Rift Apart, Returnal, etc. and that awesome DualSense controller, certainly in comparison to the massively disappointing Xbox Series X which launched with basically no exclusives for the first two years of its existence. It was why I didn't buy an Xbox Series until over a year after its release and then I only bought one because my old PC couldn't run new games and it was during COVID when it was hard to buy a new GPU nevermind at actual MSRP (which ironically is still happening now!).
When Sony started releasing games on PC, I was happy because being released later meant that I still had a reason to own a PS5 plus games like Astro Bot and Gran Turismo 7 have yet to appear on PC. I think that releasing PS5 games on PC 12 to 18 months later is the best strategy personally. I think that if Sony started releasing games on PS5 and PC that it would not only damage sales of the console but could also lead to a drop in quality in the games themselves as developers have to support two formats (plus PC is a platform that requires significantly more effort due to the near infinite number of hardware combinations).
A lot of the people who keep saying they (SIE) should just port their non-GAAS to all platforms Day 1 because it's "leaving money on the table" (speaking like typical shareholders...weren't these shareholders also responsible for things like ABK and Embracer which these same people supposedly hated?), don't seem to understand the increase in burden that'd be unto the teams.
Optimization resources aren't finite, and targeting all platforms Day 1 means it's harder to decide which platform is your lead. You have to start considering your scope, and the game's scalability, part of which will depend on the engine. Even if you choose a highly scalable engine, you have to worry about the parts of your game which aren't easily scalable, then ask how scalable other parts are while still allowing the original vision to not be compromised. QA for simultaneous multiplatform optimization also massively increases costs if you want a performant game on all platforms. Truth is very few studios in the industry are equipped to do that at the scale of big AAA titles the sort we see from studios like SIE's. Even Rockstar aren't able to do it with games like GTA6 or RDR2, but suddenly people expect Housemarque or Bluepoint to do so?
IMO lots of people who keep insist on multiplatform Day 1 from SIE (but never Nintendo), are doing it out of selfishness or, even worst, doing it because they either don't know or don't care how it was a contributing factor to Xbox's decline as a console platform this gen, when they started prioritizing Day 1 Steam support for all their titles. Are those
really the sort of people worth listening to on this topic? I don't think so.
Translation: we may quit doing pc ports if the next Xbox runs Steam.
They would have to, if they wanted to put action to those words. Because despite what some were trying to say, SIE can't arbitrarily just "block Xbox devices" running Windows from accessing their games through Steam, when neither Microsoft nor Valve would be interested in enforcing that block. Microsoft because there's no commercial incentive or legal requirement to doing so; Valve because they have to uphold a promise to Steam customers they can assess their purchased games wherever Steam is available, unless the game can't be made compatible purely for technical bottleneck reasons.
I mean sure, SIE could try to block access of their games on Xbox anyway, but how would they do that without Valve providing them the backend access to doing so? Do they threaten to remove Microsoft's publishing license on PlayStation? Because then that creates a really messy legal situation that could see them going to court. They aren't going to chance such a thing into happening.
So the only viable option, if they don't want a scenario where those future Xboxes can play PlayStation 1P single-player games....is to simply stop porting those 1P single-player games to Steam and Windows. Or at least to Steam & any storefront that isn't SIE's own
).
www.videogameschronicle.com
