More Sony first-party PlayStation games coming to PC

Is what I said anything other than personal speculation?

 

Well the answer is 'yes' if the monetary cost of doing business was the same. If they are moving their exclusives to steam in which Valve is taking a 30% cut of profits - then it doesn't matter that people are using windows, that is a 30% loss.

The only reason we don't see the games on Mac and Linux in native format is because
a) it's going to be costly to port
b) the drivers and APIs are not mature to run on _any_ linux or mac setup.

The likely main reason MS is willing to port to Windows PC is because it's cheap for them, everything runs on Direct X. You will see xCloud as their method of porting to platforms that are too challenging to reach natively.

The introduction of exclusives on PC does not indicate the death of consoles. Quite the opposite. It is an excellent feeder system that allows them to net additional profits with some side possibilities of netting some cross technologies. PC games also get the most coverage on streaming and eSports - so there are those net bonuses as well.

Lets be real; the cost of building a PC to equate to the power of PS5 and XSX will be tremendous. Anyone crushing out the math will promptly stay in console land. Only those who just have too much money to burn will be willing to pay for the hardware and the games to play on equal or better settings on PC. PC is good marketing for your titles as well as some additional profits.

And if you're forward looking about it; having Nvidia do DLSS modelling for your exclusives can't be a terrible idea either. Would be a useful thing to pay them for the model and back port it to console. AFAICS, nvidia currently does not have a competitor in the area that is competing to build up-resolution anti-aliasing NN models. Owning the processing power to do it is one thing (MS, Google, Amazon have it) experience, process, tools, talent and labour is another.

I'm in alignment with @chris1515 ; I'd say in 4 years we might see PS5 exclusives on PC. It took MS a while, about 5 years, even though they announced in in 2016.

 

This. At this point in the content industries, loss leading a growth towards dominance is seen as key. Mega-profits from that is to come later. Spotify has taken 13 years to turn a profit. and since then, loads of rivals have appeared that they don't own the space despite all that investment.

 

I'm sure Microsoft would much rather you buy their games in their console Xbox ecosystem because on Windows there is no guarantee that somebody will buy through Microsoft's store (unless they do store exclusivity) so if a consumer buys through Steam, EGS or any other store, Microsoft lost the retailer cut. Microsoft would also prefer you buy other third party games on their console Xbox ecosystem because they get a licensing cut that doesn't exist on Windows and the retailer cut.

Nobody is suggesting it will be "all" games, most or even more than a handful of PS4 games. There is also nothing to suggest that PS5 games will be ported to PC. Given what we know about PS5's esoteric solid state storage, even if there was a will, depending on the game it may not be viable to port it to PC until the vast majority of PCs share an I/O capability equivalent to what appears in PS5 (and possibly XSX).

Yeah, could be. I'm not sure what is it in for Sony, though. Plus the ecosystem space is becoming very crowed. The majority of Sony's profits come from software sales (retailer cut and licensing).

 

I never said it wasn't your speculation or had any issue with it. How could it not be your personal speculation anyway?

I probably should of used reading to much into it instead of overreacting.

I disagree with this. It's not on those platforms because they don't have Windows as an operating system.
You want to use a PC as a gaming system you need to buy a Windows license.

 

I had zero interest in buying XBSX. Then the latest rumored spec came out and I now have interest based on the upper range of what I assume the retail price will be as an alternative to upgrading my gaming PC in the short term. That's what should sell a console. Value. That and the experience it provides in its intended function, meaning it's easy to get into games and there are thoughtful "quality of life" features that enable and enhance the gaming experience.

 

MS doesn't really profit from Windows unless it's an enterprise offering (support licensing), most OEMs will offer it with the systems. And MS has been good with Win7 upgrades and holding digital keys in your locker.
Windows 10 is low on their stack, and very soon users won't have to pay for Windows (when 10X releases).
https://www.extremetech.com/computi...-longer-the-most-important-layer-at-microsoft
^^^
So I mean, I know people on those windows teams that were merged and separated out. There is no longer a windows team. This is very real and it's been like this from much before this article.

Windows is going the way of MacOS and IOS. It's not meant to be profitable for them it's just a way users can get to their apps. Their goal is subscription services now.

You see xbox exclusives on Nintendo Switch (another one is coming soon), so in this scenario you are wrong.
Switch is an easier to code, easier to support, and more profitable platform than Mac or Linux.

Minecraft is on PS4. But Sony blocks Mixer from being on PS4. Otherwise you'd see Mixer there too.

 

Yep. It's not true that an Xbox owner and a Windows user are equally valuable to MS. There evaluation is probably: committed GamePass subscriber>Xbox Owner>Windows PC user.

 

That's not what's happening here, in the last couple of years alone we had over a dozen PS exclusive titles come over to PC, that's more than what happened over the entire PS3 cycle and even half of the PS4 cycle, something has changed in a big way, something got these developers riled up to port their exclusive PS portofolio on PC, and PC alone, not Xbox.

Something also happened with Sony, releasing official statements about porting some of their games on PC, then acting on these statements with actual game announcements, If HZD releases on PC in 2020, it would have been a PS4 exclusive for only 3 years, Detroit and Nioh didn't even complete 2 years.

 

Most gaming rigs built normally aren't OEM PC's so license still need to be bought which cost about $150 - $200 in my country but there are other reasons they want you on there OS also.

 

I made some edits above to my post. i get that it's expensive if you have to buy a new license. Most people only need to buy 1. It does a lot more than just play games. And most folks have upgraded to Windows 10. You can also get it cheaper on deal days. Though I understand how it's annoying to have to pay so much for it in your country (it is not the same price everywhere). But its not reflective of how MS has been changing it's business.

 

Most those exclusive were timed exclusives and the difference in numbers being ported is because porting from PS4 to PC compared to PS3 to PC is possibly because it's much easier.

 

At this point, as much testing the waters? As you say, the ecosystem space is becoming crowded, and we know the market will generally only support two or three big players. If Sony are happy to stay a big fish in the console space, and then the industry moves to content ecosystem, someone else will be the ecosystem leader. They probably need to make a play for that now; a real one and not their half arsed attempts from the past. I think they need to work hard on the PC/mobile platform side without cannibalising their PS console business. PS5 is nicely suited to be a stand-alone box still, no ports, because of the SSD and features, but past that, Sony may need to be transitioning towards a different model, hedging both sides (keep PS6 going, grow PC and mobile content and give users a reason to invest).

Ultimately the most profits come from being an Apple or Valve, getting 30% from everyone else's work. Being that person without having to invest in lossy hardware is gravy. Using PS exclusives to launch yet another Windows game store would be one way to try that. Unlike EGS, Sony can provide a full user experience from the off - account, social features, achievements, etc. But they'd have to get that going pretty quick while the door's open and people aren't entirely entrenched in Steam and Uplay and EGS etc.

It's been funny introducing cloud saves to my game ionAXXIA. You have a load of different accounts - iOS, Google, Steam, XBLive. To sync between them, you need a unifying ID, so I use the player's email and can link that to other accounts. Which is exactly what XBLive and PSN were created to avoid, so you didn't need specific publisher accounts for online features. With cross-platform, that goes out the window. I wonder if we'll ever have one universal game ID, used across every device, or if it'll always be fractured (up until the robots take over)? At this point I'd be happy to have Live or PSN or someone become King and all networking go through their managed service. I guess it needs a universal open-source standard something-or-other.

 

And no games you talk about are first party game. The only first party game is HZD and he is rumoured three years after release and will release in 2020 or maybe 2021 just before the release of a new hardware and the next game in the franchise.

 

See Netflix. Everyone selling content wants to replicate this.

 

This.
Many analysts write this is why Epic is so aggressive with EGS. Eventually Fortnite will decline and the profits too with it. By securing a foothold in the store space, they are taking a foothold to have stable consistent income like Valve has largely been riding for all these years without competition. Games can and will make or break profits and it doesn't help that Gamers are fickle. A bad balance patch, poor launch, gamer gate, poor response on twitter or a community manager and etc, all your investments turn to poop. A store is stable, a store makes money and you don't have to make the games.

This is diversification 101. And this is Sony diversifying as I see it so far.

 

I don't think anybody who understands the Netflix economics (adjusted for inflated prices of games compared to movies) model believes Microsoft's goal for Game Pass is to turn a profit, either now or in the future. Game Pass is not a service with an infrastructure overhead that becomes more profitable as more and more people subscribe, Game Pass is a service where Microsoft lose more and more money as people subscribe and play games. Given the number of publishers content to release new games on Game Pass, it's clear that Microsoft is taking the hit here.

The reason why is probably Microsoft's current position in the console market. They're currently second but probably not for long given how crazy Switch is selling. When you trail, you try harder. Game Pass feels like PS3-era PS+++++

Unless they are stupid people, i.e. folks who subscribe but do not play many games or certainly do not play more than one AAA/AA (basically a full-priced game) a year.

Fundamentally, you pay a flat fee and Microsoft are always offering new subscribers three months at a super low price like $1 or £1/month. You can't even buy a decent coffee for that amount but for that amount you can play as many games as if offered on Game Pass. If you play a lot of new games on Xbox then you to be an idiot not to subscribe to Game Pass.

Game Pass will need to change unless Microsoft are content to lose more in perpetuity. If I'm Rockstar, Warner Brothers, EA, Activision, CD Project Red, Square Enix, Bethesda or Ubisoft, and Microsoft wants my new game on Game Pass within the launch window, Microsoft are picking up the cost of a lost sale fully - which is more than the total of several months of Game Pass subscription. The reason all-you-can-eat buffet subscription services aren't a thing for videogames is because it's not economically sustainable. It works for movies and music because both cost less represent less hours of engagement per dollar than the majority of games and this is a very important metric when negotiating costs.

 

this is your retirement plan if you build it

 

Yea that's debatable. If you're looking at infrastructure costs, it's probably rolled in with the rest of Azure. This is their competitive advantage here. The capital has been and is always under investment for them.
If this were Sony trying to do the same thing, they would be eating tons of bandwidth costs back to AWS.

 

You guys need to grasp the big picture here and not be so fixated on the games being 3rd party or 1st party.

Fact1: flock of games transitioned to PC
Fact2: Sony expressed the desire to officially transition some of their 1st party IP to PC
Fact3: a number of 1st party IPs was announced to be in transition already (or heavily rumored to be in transition), with more titles to come

Why is this happening now?