Support NeoGAF

[tr1p1ex]

Why does OP get so little likes after so much work? Show some gratitude ppl.

tl;dr. The real work is whittling it down to 1 page from 30.

 

[simpatico]

For me it's also about just having something interesting to discuss. I can look at and talk about older console designs practically forever. Like the SEGA Saturn, N64, Jaguar, PS3...not just about the architectures themselves but getting into the reasons why certain choices were made, what problems they sought to tackle vs. how effective they were in tackling them, the differences in their solutions vs. competing products, the effect those choices had on game design for those systems etc.

The wonder years are the best for discussion. In a lot of ways, Saturn, N64 and PSX were the last real generation of inventive gaming machines.

Here's a kicker: all the money and time spent console-ifying those APUs is to literally reduce functionality. They can place every PC game out of the box and connect to multiplayer servers free of charge. So Sony and Microsoft hire giant teams of engineers to strip functionality out of those chips to install paywalls at every turn. "Oh you've got a copy of FEAR for your PC, which this APU can run. Gotta make sure you can't play it so we can charge you $39.99 for the handicapped remake."

So there's a good little knife twist at the end to go along with the less inspired scope.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

Mmm....if a company thinks they can deliver well on a mobile/hybrid system concept, I don't see why they shouldn't try. If it gives some competition for Nintendo, that'd be great, as it means more for gamers at the end of the day.

feel like pc is basically the expensive "premium" version of ps5/xbox these days, and consoles going hybrid will only widen the gap.
i want a home console that out-consoles a pc.

sure, PCs have $2000 monster GPUs and 32-core watercooled CPUs... but they still chug when running physx in software mode.
and PS3 cell SPEs are still performant by todays standards.
if consoles specialize/innovate in the software/hardware space enough, they can still shine.

 

[QLQ]

Not many people voting higher prices. Naive wishful thinkers

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

Nintendo has you covered.

When you get done with your work Zoom meetings. You can fire up your Switch 2 for some game Zoom meetings.

 

[bitbydeath]

IMO it's down to three simple things: budget costs, amount of required manpower, and required time of development (in part influenced by scope).

Budget, time and manpower isn't deep enough. If everyone made games with the scope of:

GTA San Andreas: less than 10M spent, 2 years dev time, 50 people

That should be much bigger than what most studios achieve today.

How we jump from that to smaller games costing more, and taking more time should be studied.

Imagine if an indie pulled off something like San Andreas, graphics and all, it would be a hell of an achievement compared to what they turn out today.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Your crusade against the Sony PC ports are admirable, but the evidence we have at hand indicates it won't stop. It has been almost 5 years since the first PC port with Horizon. Here is what happened:

- Sony MAU is at an all-time high.
- The PS5 is selling better than the PS4 in its largest market, and is now closing the gap between it and the PS4 worldwide, and will likely overtake it, despite the shortages and issues from covid. At this point in the PS4 lifecycle, it was also significantly cheaper, especially in non US countries. If the PS5 had a decent price cut this gen, it probably would have exceeded PS4 easily by this point.
- There has been no significant increase in the CCU count of the Sony ports to PC. This goes to show, while a profitable porting market exists on PC, no major exodus from Playstation to PC is occurring. For those PC gamers that picked up the Playstation for exclusives and no longer will, it hardly matters to Sony, mostly because that addressable market is very small, and because they will still pick up those same exclusives on PC anyway. People entrenched into their respective ecosystems are hardly going to be swayed to switch primary platforms because of a handful of games, especially in the increasingly digital age.
- Most critically, despite what us armchair analysts might think, the data Sony themselves has indicates this is a winning strategy so far. They will only change when the market forces them to change, and right now PS5 is setting record revenues, highest MAUs, and billions from the PC ports. Perhaps if the PS6 is a total disaster, but I'm going to bet that won't happen.

As for securing third-party exclusivity, this is getting increasingly harder to do. Western Studios are well aware that skipping PC equals a ton of lost sales, but Eastern companies are hardly asleep to that fact. More than 50% of Capcoms revenue comes from PC now. Monster Hunter Wilds sold the most on PC. Skipping PC these days can potentially mean hundreds of millions in lost revenue.

OK, let's break down every point you mention. Not because I believe they'll stop the PC initiative (they likely won't), but because I want to show where that initiative is or isn't affecting PS5 in a substantive way.

-MAU: More people are on PS4 at this point launch-aligned than were on PS3 during the PS4 generation. That means, a lot of PS4 owners haven't upgraded, but many still have PS+ in some form. That contributes to MAU. Anybody buying a PS game on Steam, EGS, GOG etc. with a PSN login also counts towards MAU, even if absolute numbers in purchases are declining with each new release.

Interestingly, Marathon doesn't have a PSN requirement on Steam OR Xbox, so there's a chance SIE are internally shifting away from that metric as a focus. Otherwise, why remove the requirement? Especially on Xbox?

-PS5 Sales: Yeah, it's keeping 7-8% ahead of PS4 launch-aligned in America, despite the fact it should probably be more given what's happening with Xbox, and even Switch sales are slowing down (America's one of the markets where sales slowed down first, by around mid-2023). But to do that, they are basically sacrificing ROTW, including pushing MSRP increases for everywhere else but America, and massive PS+ sub price increases for everyone but America too. The latest round of that was maybe to offset tariff effects, but SIE have done it at other points this gen when tariffs weren't even in the picture.

As for PS5 overtaking PS4 globally...that's going to depend a LOT on growth in emerging markets like China. The sales in US aren't high enough to accomplish that, they are very low now in Japan and could hit even lower (so PS4 will increase its lead launch-aligned sometime in May if it hasn't happened already), they're down across much of Europe too, maybe even the UK. Sales in Brazil have slowed down since the big price increases, too.

So any hope of PS5 overtaking PS4 launch-aligned globally, will likely come down to how well sales are in places like Saudi Arabia, UAE, South Korea and most importantly, China. There are other emerging markets like India and South Africa, but the numbers aren't large enough to push much movement yet. And for China, what's going to be toughest for PS5 is justifying the value proposition over PC, which is huge there, when all the big games that matter (like Black Myth Wukong) are on Steam & PC Day 1. Add potential price increases there (for whatever reason) as another potential roadblock.

The way things are, I think PS5 finishes out this gen at 105-110 million, assuming it goes 'till late 2028. Just baking in another round of potential price increases with that, and scale down of production as they ready for PS6. It's not impossible they hit 115-120 million, which would be around PS4's number, but they'd have needed an extra year to do so.

-If the CCU growth on PC is stagnant or declining, then isn't that more a reason to not bother with the strategy? It would either prove that it worked in getting PC gamers to get a PS5 to play those games (when you say the PS5 is still selling record amounts, you're kind of supporting that idea), or the games aren't appealing to that audience in generating sufficient additional revenue. So why continue the strat if it's either no longer needed or no longer beneficial?

-Dude, they are not making "billions" from the PC ports, that's cap. In one fiscal quarter last fiscal year, they generated around $250 million from PC, despite several ports flopping and Destiny missing its targets. Helldivers 2 contributed the lion's share to that number. And for FY '24, I think they generated ~ $700 million from "other platforms" but that doesn't simply include PC, while on the PC side most of that again came from Helldivers 2.

So no, they aren't making "billions" from PC, not even close. At least not when you look at it from quarterly and annual accounts comparative to what they make off their console in the same time frames.

I'm happy to see Sony is doing more PC ports than they did in the past, and they are coming more quickly. I hope that continues. I'm fine with waiting 6-12 months to get a PC version if it means I don't have to buy future PlayStation hardware. I'm happy to have TLOU on PC. Now if they could just give me Demon's Souls and Bloodborne...

You'll probably get your wish and for players who want that for genuine reasons, great. Personally it'd just mean more reasons to not buy a PlayStation, but ultimately that's a question SIE have to ask themselves over time: is it worth it?

In part one, you repeat a common misconception concerning Sony's PC port strategy. Shawn Layden put it best: "The strategy as we were developing it when I was there was that we need to go out to where these new customers are, where these new fans could be. We need to go to where they are... Because they've decided not to come to my house, so I've got to go their house now. And what's the best way to go to their house? Why not take one of our top-selling games?"

Isn't that what it evolved into (after he left), and not what it initially was? Because I very clearly remember back when they launched Predator: Hunting Grounds, that the goal was to entice PC gamers into getting a console. And when you consider what part of the PS4 Pro's purpose was (to retain PS4 players from deserting to PC, and to lure back some PC gamers to console), that would make sense.

I know the quote you're referring to, I think it was on a podcast called WUPS where Layden appeared, but I also think that was partly Layden speaking from the POV of what SIE management were moving like by that time, to justify the strategy as they were implementing it and changing aspects of it around. The very initial point of the ports wasn't to basically go "they don't want our console, so let's bring them the games".

And if it was, well, that's an extremely short-sighted POV to take, IMO.

From the outset, they recognized that there was a large hitherto untapped audience on PC that was not interested in purchasing console hardware -- they were plenty content with all the advantages afforded by the PC platform, why spend extra money on what they considered to be an inferior platform? -- but might shell out cash for quality first-party games made available to their preferred platform.

And where was that large untapped audience to save Concord? Rift Apart? Sackboy's Big Adventure? Will it finally show up for Marathon?

This fantasy that Sony hoped to entice PC gamers with late ports to buy a Playstation system for subsequent exclusives needs to be put to rest already.

It wasn't a fantasy; that was literally the point at least initially. The idea being, people will go where the games are. And if a platform has enough exclusives to draw them in, those people will buy the platform to play those exclusives. PC gamers have done this for decades, they didn't suddenly "just stop".

The reason it would stop working for PlayStation, is because SIE conditioned PC gamers to expect all the games, not just some, and to expect shorter windows. Or for GAAS titles, Day 1. With the amount of games PC gamers already have, yes they can afford skipping FOMO and just wait on the ports, and MAYBE play the port if some new releases aren't competing for their attention by then.

Which, with PC, is something quite easy to happen, because any random game can just go viral and become a sensation there, taking the wind out of a 12-month old port. So then if the "solution" is to make those ports Day 1, well now SIE jeopardize even more the value proposition of their own gaming hardware, especially if those moves are done at the start of a new generation. We've already seen how this played out for Xbox.

Consider the recent economic backdrop: heavy inflation has been putting a strain on many people's budgets, apparently there's a recession looming on the horizon, prices for certain PC components are ludicrous. If anything, I expect that at least some PC players will switch to consoles full-time simply because they offer the most bang for your buck; but setting aside hundreds of dollars to get a secondary system for just a handful of exclusives? Very few people would fall into that bucket.

Well all of those outside factors aside, there are a myriad of ways something like SIE can respond to them. They don't HAVE to keep increasing prices, but that's the easiest answer due to an influx of shareholders and board members who want to maintain & increase profit margins.

They don't HAVE to keep excusing America from those price increases, but SIE have tunnel vision for the market even at the expense of others, primarily against a console brand that's already dead globally and is on the decline in America (and if it's not, why would SIE enable cash flow & a potential comeback for that console brand by having them release all their games on PlayStation hardware?).

 

[rm082e]

You'll probably get your wish and for players who want that for genuine reasons, great. Personally it'd just mean more reasons to not buy a PlayStation, but ultimately that's a question SIE have to ask themselves over time: is it worth it?

I think the big factor there is timed exclusives. If their single-player games are PS hardware only for a long enough time (9-12 months), they get the bulk of their sales on their hardware. If they release on PC later, that's an added bonus.

I thought it was crazy when Xbox went day 1 PC with all of their first party games. That seemed like they were giving away the game. Putting all their first party games on Game Pass day 1 was also crazy. I'm not surprised that neither of those strategies have worked out for them. But I don't see Sony going down those paths with their PC ports.

 

[Crayon]

Poll too long/didn't vote.

Instead of asking for anything from new consoles, I'm going to ask for new games that genuinely require new consoles.

 

[ReasonBeing]

The only three things we can expect off this list are "Higher Prices", "More Remakes and Remasters", and "More Powerful Consoles".

 

[MagnesD3]

Gaming is too big to fail now and is set to rot just like movies. Mainstream audiences kill Triple A gaming. The masses always enable the way for things to be ruined you can look at anything and this is true.

 

[Ironman_Bad]

Then we need a viable VR/AR system with sunglasses that are the headset at best and a pair of small swim goggles at worst wireless ofcourse and priced competitively...then we can start cooking otherwise best you'll get is ray tracing 3.0 lol

 

[Matsuchezz]

I want a 1500 dollars console and 150 dlls games. I am ready. Let it be made by NVIDIA. And run games from every developer in the world.

 

[PurePlatinum]

I really like Sony's approach of using the new technology and compute power to do things that aren't necessarily graphics...like 3D audio and haptics. More stuff in that direction.

I would like them to expand greatly on their 3D audio initiative. There's no easy way to tell which games have it and which games don't.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

tl;dr. The real work is whittling it down to 1 page from 30.

Is Chat GPT up for the challenge?

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

The wonder years are the best for discussion. In a lot of ways, Saturn, N64 and PSX were the last real generation of inventive gaming machines.

I'd say almost last real generation for that; 6th gen had some inventive stuff between PS2, Dreamcast etc. (though maybe less inventive than 5th gen, simply because companies weren't trying to solve for "how do we do 3D?" question anymore, as that question was basically answered the gen prior between PS1 & N64 mainly, or Direct3D and 3Dfx on PC).

And PS3 is such an interesting design to me thanks largely to the Cell; I really do wish they could've done the 2x Cell setup with the second acting as the GPU, like they originally wanted.

Here's a kicker: all the money and time spent console-ifying those APUs is to literally reduce functionality. They can place every PC game out of the box and connect to multiplayer servers free of charge. So Sony and Microsoft hire giant teams of engineers to strip functionality out of those chips to install paywalls at every turn. "Oh you've got a copy of FEAR for your PC, which this APU can run. Gotta make sure you can't play it so we can charge you $39.99 for the handicapped remake."

So there's a good little knife twist at the end to go along with the less inspired scope.

Yeah, in a way that's a valid form of looking at modern systems. Sure they aren't straight-up desktop equivalents just slapping off-the-shelf CPUs & GPUs in the system, but modern consoles are much more strongly derivative of x86/x86-64 and PC-centric GPU designs than in the past. And that does make it a lot more boring.

But also, like you said, quite restrictive. I won't say all the customizations are to scale back options (things like the PS5's cache scrubbers for example, are genuinely beneficial and still not common on PC), and I understand units like SIE not wanting to use OSes like Windows for their consoles. But you'd think the similarities in technologies now between consoles & PC would afford some benefits of the latter to the former.

To their credit, that's why I'm interested in what MS tries doing with the next Xbox hardware...even if I still think Valve are many steps ahead and will ultimately do it better. And at some point, I think SIE will need to try their own version of that, because eventually consoles will need more substantive value-add considering so much of a shared library they have with PC these days.

feel like pc is basically the expensive "premium" version of ps5/xbox these days, and consoles going hybrid will only widen the gap.
i want a home console that out-consoles a pc.

sure, PCs have $2000 monster GPUs and 32-core watercooled CPUs... but they still chug when running physx in software mode.
and PS3 cell SPEs are still performant by todays standards.
if consoles specialize/innovate in the software/hardware space enough, they can still shine.

They definitely would shine, but I think the issue is platform holders didn't invest enough in their own foundries and graphics technologies units to keep compute logic & GPU designs (and production) in-house. One could argue the pace of technological advances made that hard for all but the largest of foundries (i.e TSMC) and the most singular-focused tech firms (i.e AMD with CPUs, Nvidia with GPUs), and companies like Sony & MS figured it better to leverage them than keep things in-house since many divisions would be needing that tech & production capacities anyhow.

But still, it could've been great to see them retain that stuff in-house. I know Sony have their own semiconductor branch, but talk is they're going to spin it off. Hopefully they invest in it to make things more competitive with TSMC, Samsung etc. And of course, they have people like Mark Cerny around, but they are still mainly designing architectures based around provided AMD technologies...though they've also had input and influence into the actual core of some designs, like what they're going to be doing with Project Amethyst.

I can also understand that the degree of AAA dev these days, and the need for studios to have stable (and mostly similar) target platforms for their engines & pipelines to optimize for, also necessitates to some level less "hardcore", esoteric custom designs vs. older gens. Doesn't mean we can't miss the older approach all the same; I actually think if a smaller market segment aimed at, say, retro gaming hardware, were to establish itself, we could get some of that higher custom/exotic designs to come back.

We'd just probably be looking at devices with a TAM of 100K - 1 million, vs. 100 - 250 million PS, Xbox & Nintendo can target in a typical gen.

Budget, time and manpower isn't deep enough. If everyone made games with the scope of:

GTA San Andreas: less than 10M spent, 2 years dev time, 50 people

That should be much bigger than what most studios achieve today.

How we jump from that to smaller games costing more, and taking more time should be studied.

Imagine if an indie pulled off something like San Andreas, graphics and all, it would be a hell of an achievement compared to what they turn out today.

Well, I can think of some reasons. If we're talking smaller games that are AA in scale, we have to consider costs of inflation today vs. when SA was made. And those type of AA games, are still targeting higher resolutions and fidelity than SA ever could, so that will require higher-fidelity assets. Same can go for stuff like animations. I guess engine costs could come into play too; I don't know what costs were associated to the engine SA used, but I suspect part of the reason it may not have been costly is because a lot of the engine work was already done for GTA3.

Definitely would be cool to see a modern indie-style take to GTA San Andreas though, with a similar level of fidelity & whatnot. But I guess the people who'd do that, would rather just work on a modern GTA and get employed at Rockstar, so not a lot of folks in the indie scene left to tackle a game like that.

I think the big factor there is timed exclusives. If their single-player games are PS hardware only for a long enough time (9-12 months), they get the bulk of their sales on their hardware. If they release on PC later, that's an added bonus.

I thought it was crazy when Xbox went day 1 PC with all of their first party games. That seemed like they were giving away the game. Putting all their first party games on Game Pass day 1 was also crazy. I'm not surprised that neither of those strategies have worked out for them. But I don't see Sony going down those paths with their PC ports.

Well for now the 12-18 month gap seems to be doing...okay. And yeah if they stick with that, majority of the sales will still happen on their console, at least in terms of revenue. But what if total unit sales on console go down because more people wait for the PC port, and then buy the PC version super-cheap (or just pirate it)?

I still think we're gonna need more time to see how SIE's current porting strategy to PC actually shakes out, how it could affect their console. Maybe they are counting on Xbox no longer being a viable traditional console option (and Nintendo being perceived as not a direct competitor) to offset most negative drawbacks and retain console players even if they keep the PC strategy as-is (or even accelerate it). Personally, I don't think that'll work out so well, but we'll see.

Poll too long/didn't vote.

Instead of asking for anything from new consoles, I'm going to ask for new games that genuinely require new consoles.

Damn the poll too? What is happening ...

Gaming is too big to fail now and is set to rot just like movies. Mainstream audiences kill Triple A gaming. The masses always enable the way for things to be ruined you can look at anything and this is true.

I agree that gaming's "too big" to just fail outright...so I guess saying there'd be a crash is too hyperbolic. But it can definitely see a major contraction, and the AAA space is quite vulnerable when you invest so much into a game that needs to see big returns else it fails and could take a whole studio (or even publisher) with it.

I really like Sony's approach of using the new technology and compute power to do things that aren't necessarily graphics...like 3D audio and haptics. More stuff in that direction.

I would like them to expand greatly on their 3D audio initiative. There's no easy way to tell which games have it and which games don't.

Good point; personally I'd like to see something truly pushing forward WRT physics and NPC AI logic. Characters that feel more nuanced and complex in their behaviors, and real/genuine interactivity with the environment (including objects in it big and small) that doesn't just rely on destruction (but that too, of course )

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

They definitely would shine, but I think the issue is platform holders didn't invest enough in their own foundries and graphics technologies units to keep compute logic & GPU designs (and production) in-house. One could argue the pace of technological advances made that hard for all but the largest of foundries (i.e TSMC) and the most singular-focused tech firms (i.e AMD with CPUs, Nvidia with GPUs), and companies like Sony & MS figured it better to leverage them than keep things in-house since many divisions would be needing that tech & production capacities anyhow.

But still, it could've been great to see them retain that stuff in-house. I know Sony have their own semiconductor branch, but talk is they're going to spin it off. Hopefully they invest in it to make things more competitive with TSMC, Samsung etc. And of course, they have people like Mark Cerny around, but they are still mainly designing architectures based around provided AMD technologies...though they've also had input and influence into the actual core of some designs, like what they're going to be doing with Project Amethyst.

I can also understand that the degree of AAA dev these days, and the need for studios to have stable (and mostly similar) target platforms for their engines & pipelines to optimize for, also necessitates to some level less "hardcore", esoteric custom designs vs. older gens. Doesn't mean we can't miss the older approach all the same; I actually think if a smaller market segment aimed at, say, retro gaming hardware, were to establish itself, we could get some of that higher custom/exotic designs to come back.

We'd just probably be looking at devices with a TAM of 100K - 1 million, vs. 100 - 250 million PS, Xbox & Nintendo can target in a typical gen.

its kind of crazy how sony has stepped away from its manufacturing capability over the decades. imagine a world where the world's most advanced node was from a sony foundry.

and yeah, homogenizing console hardware has big cost-saving dev benefits.

but its just so boring.
console hardware these days is basically off-the-shelf stuff, with just a couple custom bits and custom packaging.
ooo sony wow, you made a custom power supply for your ps5 chassis. big deal. old sony would'nt've even commented on that.
ooo your shaders are a little different from the PC standard. snore.

it's ultimately the games that matter, but if everything is on pc, and everything looks and plays better there... the main thing consoles specialize in is value.
and value does bring increase the player-base, which encourages devs to make more games... but consoles as merely econo-boxes is a fate i hate.

 

[simpatico]

If Xbox spent the same effort they'd need to make that walled garden for the AMD APU they could make a Windows dashboard to console-ify a PC gaming box.

1. I think with that monetary effort you could make it pretty damn seamless for the people who are happy to not mess with PC stuff and stick to games with Xbox 4 branding (which would automatically adjust settings, never require a mouse or launcher etc) could get a gaming console experience. The ones who want to become power users could then tap in deeper. Make an easy api for third party devs to make their games Xbox 4 verified.

2. "1,000,000" games available at launch is a pretty tough act to follow for Sony. Especially considering many Sony games would be available.

 

[rm082e]

Well for now the 12-18 month gap seems to be doing...okay. And yeah if they stick with that, majority of the sales will still happen on their console, at least in terms of revenue. But what if total unit sales on console go down because more people wait for the PC port, and then buy the PC version super-cheap (or just pirate it)?

I still think we're gonna need more time to see how SIE's current porting strategy to PC actually shakes out, how it could affect their console. Maybe they are counting on Xbox no longer being a viable traditional console option (and Nintendo being perceived as not a direct competitor) to offset most negative drawbacks and retain console players even if they keep the PC strategy as-is (or even accelerate it). Personally, I don't think that'll work out so well, but we'll see.

If I don't have to buy PS hardware anymore, that would be great for me. But I'm also probably in the minority who will spend 5x as much on a PC, and wait all that time to get a port. I doubt there are many people like me out there.

And yes, I think the smaller the Xbox footprint is in the market, the more room PlayStation has to grow and take over those users. Nintendo is great for what they are, but no one is selling their Series console to make Switch 2 their primary gaming platform.

 

[Mercador]

Please, no 8K @ 30 fps...

1080@120 and 4K@60, natively, no gimmick.

 

[Zacfoldor]

I remember when the pejorative "graphics whore" had some juice.

Now everybody is one.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

its kind of crazy how sony has stepped away from its manufacturing capability over the decades. imagine a world where the world's most advanced node was from a sony foundry.

and yeah, homogenizing console hardware has big cost-saving dev benefits.

but its just so boring.
console hardware these days is basically off-the-shelf stuff, with just a couple custom bits and custom packaging.
ooo sony wow, you made a custom power supply for your ps5 chassis. big deal. old sony would'nt've even commented on that.
ooo your shaders are a little different from the PC standard. snore.

it's ultimately the games that matter, but if everything is on pc, and everything looks and plays better there... the main thing consoles specialize in is value.
and value does bring increase the player-base, which encourages devs to make more games... but consoles as merely econo-boxes is a fate i hate.

Trust me, I feel similar xD. On the tech side of things, a lot of what we're hearing about PS6 is just kinda "more of the same", part of the reason I didn't focus this thread on spec talk. I think consoles need more than that, especially going forward which, as you've said, many of the games are also on PC. And with SIE, they'd made a mistake (IMHO) just creating the expectation of all their games to get ported to PC. Can a traditional console really sustain its model as a 1-2 year timed-exclusive box, especially if prices keep increasing?

Well, maybe PlayStation can manage that. But if that's basically the path with it, then I'm personally not very interested, I don't have FOMO, so I can just wait for eventual ports. Even just a couple years ago I was dreaming maybe with PS6 we'd see standardized VR/AR (even as a very cheap entry model headset); that dream's dead. And a part where I get a bit worried for consoles going forward is, if you look back at arcades, by and large they failed to find another advantage over consoles once systems like Dreamcast, PS2 etc. were able to match or exceed arcade tech in graphics.

Companies tried, but in hindsight I think things like the NAOMI system...that synergy between arcade and console didn't go far enough. And stuff like F355 Challenge (there was a fantastic GameSpy article on "fall of arcades" written a long time ago, but I haven't been able to find it in over a decade ) just doubled-down on high prices per-play (plus exuberant costs for the cabinets), just drove more people to consoles by the early '00s. Ironically it was the arcade games focused on innovative-but-affordable controller & feedback systems that were able to thrive for a good while; even if there were home versions, they were generally much inferior, like with DDR.

Dunno, I just am concerned to some level if history is starting to repeat itself with console gaming (mainly PlayStation, since it benefits most from the current AAA model, while Xbox is basically an also-ran and Nintendo are insulated due to weaker specs & unique 1P brands driving most of their sales) in comparison to the "good enough" tech floor being reachable with more economical PC devices for gaming. It might look spooky in the PS6 gen if, say, Steam Machines come back and are roughly within the ballpark of PS6 for pricing & performance, or they produce scaled-down versions for cheaper entry points.

Some people keep saying console gaming, even AAA gaming, is too big to fail, but I doubt that. Maybe it won't result in a crash, but there could be a major fallout a few years from now with the way certain things are trending. And if that happened, with everything that's happened with PS5 during this gen, could I confidently say today that PS6 would weather that storm or take only a small hit? Honestly, I can't.

If Xbox spent the same effort they'd need to make that walled garden for the AMD APU they could make a Windows dashboard to console-ify a PC gaming box.

1. I think with that monetary effort you could make it pretty damn seamless for the people who are happy to not mess with PC stuff and stick to games with Xbox 4 branding (which would automatically adjust settings, never require a mouse or launcher etc) could get a gaming console experience. The ones who want to become power users could then tap in deeper. Make an easy api for third party devs to make their games Xbox 4 verified.

2. "1,000,000" games available at launch is a pretty tough act to follow for Sony. Especially considering many Sony games would be available.

If some of the rumors are true, that's basically what Microsoft are trying to work towards: a way of bringing the Xbox console usability experience & performance optimizations (for gaming) to Windows. The question I think, is if they can succeed doing that before Valve make big headway with Steam OS adoption rates for gaming thanks to Steam Deck devices and (very likely) new Steam Machine systems.

Because right now, both Valve and Microsoft are working towards something of the same goal of "console-fying" PC gaming; it's just that Microsoft wants to do so while shoring as much of that market share & retention towards Windows, and Valve couldn't care less about enabling Window's vice grip on PC gaming, hence Steam OS and the reason for devices like Steam Deck.

Considering the direction Windows is going in, my personal money is on Valve, but I can't ignore the resource advantages Microsoft has, including their experience from making mass-market consoles. Their traditional advertising, for example, may suck compared to SIE and Nintendo's, but it's still leagues ahead of Valve, who have basically none. Same with direct brick-and-mortar retail sales distribution chain experience & relationships. Where, on that note, it's good Valve are partnering with OEMs to build Steam Deck variants, because those OEMs have that type of experience Valve can learn from, as they get Steam devices to market at larger volumes.

But again, I think it's who gets there first successfully, and while Microsoft in theory have the best shot, Valve has significantly more active experience, cache (among PC gamers and gamers in general), and success in that long-term strategy in practice. So it's an interesting thing to consider.

If I don't have to buy PS hardware anymore, that would be great for me. But I'm also probably in the minority who will spend 5x as much on a PC, and wait all that time to get a port. I doubt there are many people like me out there.

And yes, I think the smaller the Xbox footprint is in the market, the more room PlayStation has to grow and take over those users. Nintendo is great for what they are, but no one is selling their Series console to make Switch 2 their primary gaming platform.

I actually think quite a few are selling their Series S systems to move over to Switch 2. Especially if they know all or most of the games they value as to their tastes from MS are coming to Nintendo platforms, then why not?

As for Xbox footprint being smaller, in theory I think it should be netting more growth for PlayStation than has actually been happening, so at least some of that would-be growth is going towards platforms like PC instead. Which IMO gets back at the idea of PC being more of a competitor to PlayStation than maybe SIE want to admit, and probably a reason why they've taken that stance was to justify the OK with porting to PC.

 

[simpatico]

If some of the rumors are true, that's basically what Microsoft are trying to work towards: a way of bringing the Xbox console usability experience & performance optimizations (for gaming) to Windows. The question I think, is if they can succeed doing that before Valve make big headway with Steam OS adoption rates for gaming thanks to Steam Deck devices and (very likely) new Steam Machine systems.

Because right now, both Valve and Microsoft are working towards something of the same goal of "console-fying" PC gaming; it's just that Microsoft wants to do so while shoring as much of that market share & retention towards Windows, and Valve couldn't care less about enabling Window's vice grip on PC gaming, hence Steam OS and the reason for devices like Steam Deck.

Considering the direction Windows is going in, my personal money is on Valve, but I can't ignore the resource advantages Microsoft has, including their experience from making mass-market consoles. Their traditional advertising, for example, may suck compared to SIE and Nintendo's, but it's still leagues ahead of Valve, who have basically none. Same with direct brick-and-mortar retail sales distribution chain experience & relationships. Where, on that note, it's good Valve are partnering with OEMs to build Steam Deck variants, because those OEMs have that type of experience Valve can learn from, as they get Steam devices to market at larger volumes.

But again, I think it's who gets there first successfully, and while Microsoft in theory have the best shot, Valve has significantly more active experience, cache (among PC gamers and gamers in general), and success in that long-term strategy in practice. So it's an interesting thing to consider.

Valve does not have the unquenchable urge to expand infinitely. That is why they won't be able to compete with Microsoft in that arena. They simply do not want to and will not expend the effort required to do so. They're not a machine because their culture doesn't demand it. Valve just wants to make great products. They have no plans or desire for world domination. If anything I could see them partnering with Microsoft to some extent with this endeavor.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Valve does not have the unquenchable urge to expand infinitely. That is why they won't be able to compete with Microsoft in that arena. They simply do not want to and will not expend the effort required to do so. They're not a machine because their culture doesn't demand it.

Well here's the thing: they don't need to expand infinitely to compete with Microsoft or beat them in the market. They just need solid partners and a great product, and they already have the latter (at least in terms of a portable). Microsoft may have the capacity to expand near-infinitely, but it won't mean anything if the demand simply isn't there.

Like, they already have that capacity in the traditional console space, and look at how well that's been going for them this gen. Performing quite worst than even XBO, against significantly smaller companies in SIE/Sony and Nintendo. Ultimately, this is a customer-driven market, and you have to provide something customers actually want in order to leverage whatever capacities you can afford.

Valve just wants to make great products. They have no plans or desire for world domination. If anything I could see them partnering with Microsoft to some extent with this endeavor.

Again, they don't need to have desire for world domination to beat Microsoft in the "console-fication" PC gaming space. They just need a superior product, and solid partners who can help in terms of volume and distribution, which would help with better saturation. So far they seem to be doing a good, gradual build-up of this.

As far as them partnering with Microsoft, I don't see that really happening. Microsoft would need Valve much more than other way around, because Steam (and associated products) are things PC gamers actually care about, not Xbox and PC Game Pass (well, they might like PC Game Pass somewhat more than Xbox, but not significantly more or on the level of Steam). Not to mention, that type of partnership would probably just be worst off for us as gamers and customers; this stage of consolizing PC gaming is a very early market to some extent, and to have the best solutions, you need actual competition.

Plus historically, at least in other sectors, when such early markets have formed, Microsoft's answer to that competition has been to "embrace, extend, extinguish", as a way of pacifying them. It's something they can do given their size, but the targets have to actually fall for the offer first. Valve being privately owned means they aren't suspect to shareholders who might guide them in the wrong direction and have them compromise themselves into a position to be EEE'd.

 

[iQuasarLV]

Not since the iPhone introduction has the public and corporate worlds united in embracing a technology advancement. Its been too long. AI is a one sided corporate buzzword trying to convince the public its the next evolution.

Before the iPhone I would say GPUs, and before that public internet. Those two were 10 years apart. Now its been what 17 years since the iPhone intro?

 

[simpatico]

Well here's the thing: they don't need to expand infinitely to compete with Microsoft or beat them in the market. They just need solid partners and a great product, and they already have the latter (at least in terms of a portable). Microsoft may have the capacity to expand near-infinitely, but it won't mean anything if the demand simply isn't there.

Like, they already have that capacity in the traditional console space, and look at how well that's been going for them this gen. Performing quite worst than even XBO, against significantly smaller companies in SIE/Sony and Nintendo. Ultimately, this is a customer-driven market, and you have to provide something customers actually want in order to leverage whatever capacities you can afford.



Again, they don't need to have desire for world domination to beat Microsoft in the "console-fication" PC gaming space. They just need a superior product, and solid partners who can help in terms of volume and distribution, which would help with better saturation. So far they seem to be doing a good, gradual build-up of this.

As far as them partnering with Microsoft, I don't see that really happening. Microsoft would need Valve much more than other way around, because Steam (and associated products) are things PC gamers actually care about, not Xbox and PC Game Pass (well, they might like PC Game Pass somewhat more than Xbox, but not significantly more or on the level of Steam). Not to mention, that type of partnership would probably just be worst off for us as gamers and customers; this stage of consolizing PC gaming is a very early market to some extent, and to have the best solutions, you need actual competition.

Plus historically, at least in other sectors, when such early markets have formed, Microsoft's answer to that competition has been to "embrace, extend, extinguish", as a way of pacifying them. It's something they can do given their size, but the targets have to actually fall for the offer first. Valve being privately owned means they aren't suspect to shareholders who might guide them in the wrong direction and have them compromise themselves into a position to be EEE'd.

Theoretically sure, but look at the $15/mo they all have to charge. I don't think Valve wants to flop around in that mud. Imagine the size of the 24/7 multilingual customer support staff required to deal with such fuckery. I wouldn't want to deal with it. Certainly they already get a taste of that and I think it's why they just decided on automated refunds. Something no console maker would consider because they have to claw back every fucking cent they can out of those customers to keep the lights on. It's a sweaty job.