Support NeoGAF

[Bartski]

As discovered in SPider-man PC game code, Sony could be planning a PSN to PC integration offering players additional rewards for doing so.

Sony could introduce PSN account linking for PC games and rewards, files suggest

References to PSN integration have been discovered inside Spider-Man’s game files…

www.videogameschronicle.com

According to the game files – which have been viewed by VGC – Sony could be planning to allow PC players to link their PlayStation Network accounts to specific games and offer in-game bonuses as a reward for doing so.

While neither Marvel’s Spider-Man nor any other PlayStation Studios PC game currently allows connectivity with PSN accounts, Spider-Man’s files contain multiple references to “PSNAccountLinked” and “PSNLinkingEntitlements”.

Furthermore, references in Spider-Man’s files to “LevelCapExtras” in relation to “PSN Linking bonuses” appears to suggest that developer Insomniac was either experimenting or planning to give players extra skill points for linking their accounts.

UPDATE: References to a Playstation PC launcher also found in the game files

Now reference to a ‘PlayStation PC launcher’ has been discovered in Spider-Man PC | VGC

Sony could soon introduce its own launcher for its PC games, following the footsteps of Ubisoft, Rockstar and Activision Blizzard.

www.videogameschronicle.com

While neither Marvel’s Spider-Man nor any other PlayStation Studios PC game currently allows connectivity with PSN accounts, Spider-Man’s files contain multiple references to “PSNAccountLinked” and “PSNLinkingEntitlements”.

Thus far, all of Sony’s PC games have been released on Steam and the Epic Game Store. While PlayStation has a PlayStation PC brand, it is generally used as a collective term for all PC rereleases, rather than a launcher.

It’s possible that these references could suggest a bespoke version of the PlayStation Store could come to PC. This, coupled with the references to account integration, could eventually lead to cross-purchasing for titles on PS5 and PC.

It’s unlikely the first party would keep its games exclusive to this launcher. While Microsoft offers its games on its own store, it also releases its games on Steam.

However, some publishers, such as Rockstar, require a reduced version of the launcher client to be active, even when launching a game from Steam, as a means of verification.

 

[The_Mike]

This is probably just like the Xbox app on pc, where you can see friends, news and achievements.

Nevertheless, pretty cool Sony is full on board now.

Now we only need Nintendo.

Can't wait til 2042

Edit: edited a joke because its 2022 and people gets offended.

 

[Skifi28]

 

[Sentenza]

As long as it's just a login integration and they don't try to sell me a fucking launcher, no problem here.

 

[Wohc]

Good to see them going all in on pc and no launcher, no problem.

 

[Bartski]

doesn't it make the most sense for Sony to make a launcher with full trophy integration?

 

[Sentenza]

doesn't it make the most sense for Sony to make a launcher with full trophy integration?

As long as they are willing to print it on paper, roll the page tightly and then shove it in their asses, sure.

P.S. Woodcarving is fine, too.

 

[SeraphJan]

doesn't it make the most sense for Sony to make a launcher with full trophy integration?

I think if they ever make a launch for PC, the reason would be not wanting to share a 30% cut with other platform not because they care about trophy.

Which make sense for them, don't get me wrong, its just that the interests between the companies and consumers sometime contradicts each other. its all about perspective.

For consumer we want as less launcher as possible, but for them, every company deep down wants their own platform.

A launcher is extremely cheap to make but hard to market, which in case for Sony the latter would be less of a problem since their brand itself is a marketing tool.

Hate it or not, it might just happen, sharing 30% cut with Steam is the last thing they want.

 

[JackSparr0w]

As long as they are willing to print it on paper, roll the page tightly and then shove it in their asses, sure.

P.S. Woodcarving is fine, too.

I would like a launcher just to see the Steam fanboys cry.

 

[Bernd Lauert]

doesn't it make the most sense for Sony to make a launcher with full trophy integration?

Not really. 99% of PC players will reject the launcher.

 

[Bartski]

I think if they every make a launch for PC, the reason would be not wanting to share a 30% cut with other platform

yeah and offer more benefits for using said launcher. They will stay on Steam obviously but if they are all in on PC a launcher seems like a certainty down the road

 

[Graciaus]

doesn't it make the most sense for Sony to make a launcher with full trophy integration?

No one wants any other launchers. If a company is willing to get less sales for 100% of the profit that's their choice.

 

[Sentenza]

I would like a launcher just to see the Steam fanboys cry.

I would like to smack you around like a bitch, but we have to do with the hand that fate served us, sometimes.

 

[Topher]

Trophy integration with Steam would be awesome.

 

[Bartski]

what if they go for integration with Epic, Jimbo and Timbo are good homies after all

runs away

 

[Skifi28]

Trophy integration with Steam would be awesome.

And save file transfer from one platform to the other would be God tier.

 

[reksveks]

Imo there will be a Sony store/launcher but it will be optional cause they will still release on Steam. Whether that pisses off people, who knows?

 

[Holammer]

Those are probably a sneak peek at systems developed for all the Sony GaaS titles in the pipeline.
I can imagine ads where a player seamlessly moves from his Steam Deck to PS5 in Ratchet and Clank: Totally Royaled.

 

[ArtHands]

doesn't it make the most sense for Sony to make a launcher with full trophy integration?

PS6 gonna be a PC tower with keyboard mouse support?

 

[Bartski]

PS6 gonna be a PC tower with keyboard mouse support?

PS6 might as well be an online streaming platform and PSN hybrid

 

[Fuz]

I think if they ever make a launch for PC, the reason would be not wanting to share a 30% cut with other platform not because they care about trophy.

OR they can sell it DRM free. No fucking launchers at all.

 

[01011001]

best case scenario would be a PC launcher supporting cross save and cross buy with PS5... but I feel like that's not gonna happen

 

[SeraphJan]

OR they can sell it DRM free. No fucking launchers at all.

Its another contradiction between the consumer and company, we all want DRM free version, but DRM free is the last thing they want

 

[SmokedMeat]

Some form of Sony Rewards would be great.

 

[BlackTron]

If it linked up trophies AND automatically synced latest save data between PC and console play, I wouldn't even be mad about the launcher.

 

[Smokeberry]

Could I quickly ask why PC players dislike other launchers?

 

[HeisenbergFX4]

 

[Bartski]

Could I quickly ask why PC players dislike other launchers?

 

[Guilty_AI]

Its another contradiction between the consumer and company, we all want DRM free version, but DRM free is the last thing they want

DRM free doesn't hamper your game's performance, doesn't require extra work with integration, developing DRM software nor paying for a third party one.
There are plenty of advantages for the publisher to make it DRM free too, and majority of the supposedly disadvantages are just neurosis and misconceptions.

 

[Mibu no ookami]

Could I quickly ask why PC players dislike other launchers?

Cause they're spoiled by steam and one ecosystem.

They want all their games playable from one launcher, similar to why people get upset if a game doesn't come out on their console.

They fear multiple launchers like console users fear sub-models taking over completely.

It makes perfect sense for Sony to come out with their own launcher.

A 70-dollar game on its own launcher is 70 dollars of revenue. That same game makes 21 dollars less on Steam. Sell 10 million copies of a game and that is 210 million dollars. Sell 20 million copies and you're looking at 420 million dollars of lost profit.

They'd be fools not to launch their own platform, especially when you start selling for other publishers as well.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

Good.

Let the hardware agnostic future begin.

 

[Midn1ght]

PS plus sub required for future MP games incoming.

Because of course...

 

[DenchDeckard]

Give it me, Do cross saves.

 

[Midn1ght]

Cause they're spoiled by steam and one ecosystem.

They want all their games playable from one launcher, similar to why people get upset if a game doesn't come out on their console.

They fear multiple launchers like console users fear sub-models taking over completely.

It makes perfect sense for Sony to come out with their own launcher.

A 70-dollar game on its own launcher is 70 dollars of revenue. That same game makes 21 dollars less on Steam. Sell 10 million copies of a game and that is 210 million dollars. Sell 20 million copies and you're looking at 420 million dollars of lost profit.

They'd be fools not to launch their own platform, especially when you start selling for other publishers as well.

Doesn’t work like that:

Valve presently reduces the revenue share to 25 percent only after a game crosses $10 million in net sales, and 20 percent after a game crosses the $50 million.

I also love how people dismiss those who prefer Steam thinking Steam is only a launcher, ignoring the incredible amount of other features it brings to the table.

I could see Sony having a login integration for MP, Trophies, collecting data, etc... They can also sell PC version from the existing PS Store. Hell, they could sell Steam keys on their store, I don’t think Valve would gives two shit about it.

A store/launcher to compete against Valve and Epic and where their games would be exclusive would be a bad idea i think but what do I know?

 

[Hari Seldon]

Cause they're spoiled by steam and one ecosystem.

They want all their games playable from one launcher, similar to why people get upset if a game doesn't come out on their console.

They fear multiple launchers like console users fear sub-models taking over completely.

It makes perfect sense for Sony to come out with their own launcher.

A 70-dollar game on its own launcher is 70 dollars of revenue. That same game makes 21 dollars less on Steam. Sell 10 million copies of a game and that is 210 million dollars. Sell 20 million copies and you're looking at 420 million dollars of lost profit.

They'd be fools not to launch their own platform, especially when you start selling for other publishers as well.

It entirely depends on whether they are going to start launching these games Day 1 with console or not. If not, they should stick with steam and the massive amount of marketing you get by being on steam. If they are going to roll their own launcher, then they need to be Day 1 with console so that the console marketing can also be the pc marketing, otherwise no one on PC will even know the game exists if it is not on steam.

 

[SeraphJan]

DRM free doesn't hamper your game's performance, doesn't require extra work with integration, developing DRM software nor paying for a third party one.
There are plenty of advantages for the publisher to make it DRM free too, and majority of the supposedly disadvantages are just neurosis and misconceptions.

I think most people knows that, so your point?

 

[01011001]

Could I quickly ask why PC players dislike other launchers?

because all of them except for Steam have been pure shit.
they are slow, lack features like family sharing and have zero benefits.

Steam at least tries to add value to having a launcher with community features like Steam Workshop and community forums or family sharing where you can play games your friends and family own.

and then there's the usability part.
the Epic Games launcher for example is just a chore to use. your game library loads super slowly and is laggy as fuck.
starting a game takes a long time... and the layout is also really bad.

as a comparison,
it takes me maybe 10 seconds after booting my PC to start Steam and launch a game with it.
it takes me more than 10 seconds to even launch the Epic Games Launcher, then it will refuse to actually start a game for like 10 to 20 seconds where clicking on the game to start it will simply be unresponsive and do nothing

the Ubisoft and EA launchers aren't much better. they also don't offer anything like family sharing, meaning if you buy a game, even on the same PC, only your account can play that game.

the only launcher besides Steam that actually has family sharing is the Xbox launcher/Microsoft Store. that one has its own set of issues, like a random issue where you can't install games.

GoG has a great launcher, and GoG's launcher is also completely optional and you can simply download a normal install from the GoG website and completely ignore the launcher.
meaning family sharing is basically a standard due to no DRM of any kind

 

[Guilty_AI]

Could I quickly ask why PC players dislike other launchers?

Its not so much disliking other launchers as much as its the fact most launchers tend to be rather subpar when compared with Steam.

Honestly, none of these would matter if competitors at least adopted DRM free policies like GOG, that way the launcher/store would be just a place to buy and download the game and i could forget it exists, unfortunately lots of these launchers tend to be very adamant on requiring logins, to be online and shit, all while delivering rather half-baked experiences when compared with what steam offers.
Have you ever tried dealing with MS store? Its a nightmare on multiple levels.

So your point?

The point is your previous point is incorrect as there are no real disadvantages for the publisher to making their game drm free, all while saving up on work and budget.

 

[Fuz]

ignoring the incredible amount of other features it brings to the table.

 

[SeraphJan]

The point is your previous point is incorrect as there are no real disadvantages for the publisher to making their game drm free, all while saving up on work and budget.

My previous point was:

"Its another contradiction between the consumer and company, we all want DRM free version, but DRM free is the last thing they want"

How did you prove me incorrect? If they truly want DRM free, why they bother with DRM in the first place?

 

[Guilty_AI]

How did you prove me incorrect? If they truly want DRM free, why they bother with DRM in the first place?

Usually either because software companies like denuvo try pushing it to game devs, trying to convince them its something beneficial, or just insiders with very backwards conceptions on how the market works making noise. As i said, there is no real advantage to using DRM and it'd be on their best interest to make games DRM free.

Not to mention we have shittons of companies that don't use DRM, use it only partially, or just temporarily. So "last thing they want" it is not.

 

[mansoor1980]

 

[SeraphJan]

Usually either because software companies like denuvo try pushing it to game devs, trying to convince them its something beneficial, or just insiders with very backwards conceptions on how the market works making noise. As i said, there is no real advantage to using DRM and it'd be on their best interest to make games DRM free.

Not to mention we have shittons of companies that don't use DRM, use it only partially, or just temporarily. So "last thing they want" it is not.

Most triple A title have some form of DRM, the conversation started with launch the game without Steam thus making it DRM free, by this context meaning steam is also consider a type of DRM, not only Denuvo

Now if you look at games on GOG, so many games are absent, especially game with big budget (their own game doesn't count), even game that do release there its mostly few years old (PC wise, meaning games like Persona 4 that are previously console exclusives but debuted on PC for the first time will likely use some sort of DRM and unlikely to release on GOG). And since we are talking about Sony's first party, these are triple A title with big budget, assuming they would not want DRM free is not crazy. What do seems a bit crazy is assume "most company wished their triple A title to be DRM free"

Or else most games would also release on GOG alongside steam if they truly don't care about DRM, its a 30% cut anyways, by that logic, more platform equals better sales.

What I'm saying is that admitting there are contradictions between consumer and the companies is not unreasonable. I don't like DRM in my game, I prefer to buy a game on GOG if possible, but that's me from my consumer perspective.

And games like Hitman that use online check for its major feature is also consider an alternative to DRM

 

[CeeJay]

Could I quickly ask why PC players dislike other launchers?

On the one hand they say that they want freedom from a single corporate overlord walled garden yet on the other hand don't want all those launcher splash screens slowing down boot time and using up their resources

 

[Guilty_AI]

Most triple A title have some form of DRM, the conversation started with launch the game without Steam thus making it DRM free, by this context meaning steam is also consider a type of DRM, not only Denuvo

Steam's drm is the equivalent of placebo medication. Any game that uses steam's drm is cracked day 0, its basically useless and only meant to stop the noobiests of noobs. Its what i meant by "partially".

Now if you look at games on GOG, so many games are absent, especially game with big budget (their own game doesn't count), even game that do release there its mostly few years old (PC wise). And since we are talking about Sony's first party, these are triple A title with big budget, assuming they would not want DRM free is not crazy.

Metro Exodus, Control, Horizon Zero Dawn (Sony first party), No Man's Sky, The Outer Worlds.... Not to mention even on steam, plenty of these triple A only use Steam's placebo DRM (if even that), like all sony first parties released so far, or Elden Ring.

 

[Shifty]

Could I quickly derail this thread into platform wars?

I mean preferably not, but it's not like anyone's going to stop you

 

[ChorizoPicozo]

Ok

 

[SeraphJan]

Steam's drm is the equivalent of placebo medication. Any game that uses steam's drm is cracked day 0, its basically useless and only meant to stop the noobiests of noobs. Its what i meant by "partially".

Of course I know that, but since you are trying to prove my point is wrong, isn't it logical to follow the original context of my point? Because this conversation started with someone assume to release it without Steam to make it DRM free, if you want to point out its placebo effect, its not me you need to convince, because I know that

Metro Exodus, Control, Horizon Zero Dawn (Sony first party), No Man's Sky, The Outer Worlds.... Not to mention even on steam, plenty of these triple A only use Steam's placebo DRM (if even that), like all sony first parties released so far, or Elden Ring.

Yes, but look at how many triple A title that were not released on GOG, or outside a launcher. The games you mentioned is not even a fraction of the total triple A release.

My original point has nothing to do with if the Steam DRM is placebo or not, its that Sony might not like a 30% cut from Steam or other launcher

I think if they ever make a launch for PC, the reason would be not wanting to share a 30% cut with other platform not because they care about trophy.

Which make sense for them, don't get me wrong, its just that the interests between the companies and consumers sometime contradicts each other. its all about perspective.

For consumer we want as less launcher as possible, but for them, every company deep down wants their own platform.

A launcher is extremely cheap to make but hard to market, which in case for Sony the latter would be less of a problem since their brand itself is a marketing tool.

Hate it or not, it might just happen, sharing 30% cut with Steam is the last thing they want.

The only point I'm trying to make is that sometime we just have to live with contradiction, that the interest of consumers and companies might not align. Of course if you think you could convince game company to abandon DRM (even the placebo ones) go for it, I would love to hear if you can make them changing their mind, as it would benefit me as a consumer, I would love to buy every game on GOG if I had the choice.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Of course I know that, but since you are trying to prove my point is wrong, isn't it logical to follow the original context of my point? Because this conversation started with someone assume to release it without Steam to make it DRM free.

My whole argument was refering to "the last thing they want" point. Even best sellers are fine with releasing their games with no drm or just weak drm, so it shouldn't be very high on their priority-list.

My original point has nothing to do with if the Steam DRM is placebo or not, its that Sony might not like a 30% cut from Steam or other launcher

On that note, thats another misconception, though admittedly one that unfortunately even the companies involved might have.
Running your own store isn't free, and to reduce operation costs they might try to cut corners, which in turn might drive costumers away. In general, even if it sounds like making their own store/launcher to escape having to give a sales cut is a natural course of action, it really isn't that good of an idea.

Look no further than MS and EA, one that tried to stand against steam and another that had previously left to sell everything on their own Origin store. Both ended up going back and giving out that %30-20 cut anyway. We can only conclude its worth it one way or another.

 

[SeraphJan]

My whole argument was refering to "the last thing they want" point. Even best sellers are fine with releasing their games with no drm or just weak drm, so it shouldn't be very high on their priority-list.

Look at my previous reply #48 again, I made my point pretty clear. "the last thing they want" is not my point, you are taking a part of my original comment out of context.

On that note, thats another misconception, though admittedly one that unfortunately even the companies involved might have.
Running your own store isn't free, and to reduce operation costs they might try to cut corners, which in turn might drive costumers away. In general, even if it sounds like making their own store/launcher to escape having to give a sales cut is a natural course of action, it really isn't that good of an idea.

Look no further than MS and EA, one that tried to stand against steam and another that had previously left to sell everything on their own Origin store. Both ended up going back and giving out that %30-20 cut.

By misconception do you mean the companies themselves? Because they clearly love doing that, not only in game industry, but also movies and TV.

Making a platform is not more expensive than losing revenue, or else there would be no incentive to do so in the first place, the reason they "ended up going back and giving out that %30-20 cut." is because they are too late to the party and lost their competition against Steam.

Again I would love to hear if you could correct them of their mistake, because that benefits me as a consumer