The hardware sells the software and PSN
For now.
All Future Sony first-party PlayStation games coming to PC
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
For now.
Thinking about it, currently people can play PS2 games on an unofficial emulator. Sony could have a portal and an official emulator and sell the entire PS back-catalogue for one. Also, the install base for PCs is hundreds of millions (Steam and EGS both have >100 million registered users) and is always hundreds of millions. When PS5 comes out, PS5 games will have an audience of a few million to sell to. When 'PS6' comes out, games targetting it can also reach 100 million PC owners. As such, for every Sony produced title, the market size on average will be far bigger than just the PS audience. They can also reach out to mobile with franchise cross-overs. Plus, China hasn't adopted consoles, so releasing on PC and mobile opens up that market.
I don't think it's impossible for Sony to make money from being platform agnostic than their own devices (same argument more frequently aimed at Nintendo), but it'd take some work and flawless execution. I thought Tencent made more money than Sony but googlage suggests that's not clearly the case. I guess over a five year period or something, they do - Sony's current high profitability is after years of growth.
It is not only a question of experience and OS. But buying a gaming PC is often more expensive.
Most of people have a very low power PC for using word or print things most of the time. Other usage are on smartphone or tablet or a smart TV. Read internet, watch a movie and so on.
Whatever we think about console they are cheap and powerful for the price(399 or 499 dollars). This enthusiast continue to be interesting because it is the people which spend on average 1600 dollars into the PS4 ecosystem without counting money spend for buying hardware. It comes from a financial report to shareholder/investor by Sony about the day one buyer of PS4.
Last edited:
Yeah, I just thought about the value of console hardware design. As long as users are tied to it, it's worth it. The moment users start to migrate to PC, the investment in discrete boxes should make a lower ROI. Certainly for a good while yet, there's clearly room for a discrete box, and I expect Sony to treat it as the platform and sell older titles to PC for a generation or two. It's not like PS5 is going to be still-born thanks to this news.
But you also have to wonder about both MS and Sony wanting cost-effective solutions. Is Sony still going to want their own OS created every generation, and then to port between that and Windows? Or will they want a Windows box? Will they end up cooperating with MS to unify the gaming experience and reduce barriers to people buying content?
But you also have to wonder about both MS and Sony wanting cost-effective solutions. Is Sony still going to want their own OS created every generation, and then to port between that and Windows? Or will they want a Windows box? Will they end up cooperating with MS to unify the gaming experience and reduce barriers to people buying content?
That doesn't come across as discussing possibilities to me but it could be a reading comprehension fail on my part.
You don't need plus to play HZD, or any of the AAA games.
This and other parts by different users.
Unless I have a different understand of what a sea change means.
Edit: nevermind I didn't read your entire post. You say what overreaction and then proceed to what in my eyes seem to be an overreaction.
There is a massive meltdown on resetera for example. It is much better here where we can discuss in more normal ways what the possibilitys are.
True, but atleast it has improved alot for PC if you look 25 years back, or so. It has never been easier to be a pc gamer then before, even though less has happened in the past 10 years compared to the early 2000's. PC's basically are plug/play these days.
This. Sony probably has a whole team of experts thinking about things like that. Their current slow approach of bringing games to PC is more of a proving grounds. They don't want to do everything at once perhaps and slowly entertain the idea of releasing on PC/PSnow. Sony could even have their own store on PC. Guranteed attractive to anyone, with all their quality PS games.
That way, people that like to play console will play them on PS hardware, people that want more or even better experience, or just want to play on PC, can subscribe/buy those games on the PS store on pc.(or even other hw).
It is more expensive on launch, but a year or two in, the pc becomes very competitive in price, whilest later becoming more powerfull for the same money.
Like most people will be on PS4 in the first PS5 years. I think most PC's are more capable then base PS4's by now.
From your part though, it could be seen as denial to a possibility like that.
Later very hard to find a PC for 299 or 199 dollars or probably 149 dollars at the end of the PS5 life no more mechanical HDD and probably 99 dollars if Sony release a PS5 without Bluray disc.
https://www.amazon.fr/dp/B01N6JQS8C/?tag=b3dfr-21
At end of life SSD are very cheap.
When you begin to update part of the PC it is competitive but do you think all people want to update part and so on. I am sure there is place for people wanting a consle hardware and not a PC. Console are plug and play no need to open it for update a part and so on. It is convenient.
If we compare a PC with Xbox Series X : A 1700 X CPU, a GPU equivalent of a 12 Tflops RDNA 2 GPU RT and VRS with 16 GB of DDR4 and 12 GB of GDDR6 of VRAM and a 1.6 or 2 GB/s SSD NVMe will be expensive much more than the 499 dollars of the console or worst like for people like me in Europe 499 euros with PC part much more expensive than in US.
Last edited:
Really? I feel like a real tit having paid for plus while I could of played uncharted and Gran Turismo multiplayer for free.
How is that possible? I didn't write it.
You're denying the possibilities Shifty presented.
A console will always be cheaper, in special in the first years, but a 99 or149 dollar PS5 i don't see it happening, not even 199. After almost 7 years the PS4 is still rather expensive.
There is a place for people wanting a console instead of pc, but also vice versa.
Yes the XSX will have a greater value then a pc for that price of 499 (if that will be the price). It will be mid-range hardware by 2021 though. Highly doubt there will be 16GB DDR4/12GB GDDR in there tho. More like 16GB GDDR6 total, which pales to a 11GB GDDR6 GPU/16GB sysram or more. I think a late 2020 pc would be more in the 32GB main ram area, for the higher end stuff. There's already a game requiring that for the best experience.
A base PS4 still costs about 350 dollars here, with one controller included. We are in the 7th year of the PS4 now. Sony has kept the pricing higher this generation.
The PS4 will be 199 dollars when the process node used will be 7nm. It will make a good low price console for the end of the generation and every black friday it will cost 149 dollars. The PS4 MSRP in US is 299 dollars not 349 dollars.
I never said than it will be 16 GB of RAM and 12 GB of GDDR6 but the memory is not unified on PC.
You have some copy of data between the main RAM and the VRAM. And console don't need more RAM with a SSD correctly use.The Xbox One digital was discounted at 99 dollars/euros without the Bluray drive and the handicap of the mechanical HDD with uncompressible cost above 30 dollars. And without being in the 7nm node.
That's also a full 7 years after it's release. You buy seven year old hardware by then, IF that will happen. Here a PS4 retails for 350 still, that's a massive decrease very fast then.
I never said than it will be 16 GB of RAM and 12 GB of GDDR6 but the memory is not unified on PC.
Ah ok true. It is a advantage and disadvantage i guess. If you have a PC with atleast 11GB GDDR6/HBM or more dedicated to the GPU, and let's say 16GB DDR4 or more for system ram, some advantages could be more bandwith, and more ram to play with. I doubt XSX or PS5 will allocate 11GB for the vram alone.
I'm no expert but that sounds abit odd, i always thought that you couldn't replace DDR ram with an SSD, even if it is as fast as they say it will be. DDR ram is going to be better in almost every way except size. For some things an SSD could help im sure. Aside from that, if i understand correctly, pc will see 7000mb/s SSD solutions this year, i guess that's fast enough for most games, even those PS5 exclusives that end up on pc
That's also a full 7 years after it's release. You buy seven year old hardware by then, IF that will happen. Here a PS4 retails for 350 still, that's a massive decrease very fast then.
Ah ok true. It is a advantage and disadvantage i guess. If you have a PC with atleast 11GB GDDR6/HBM or more dedicated to the GPU, and let's say 16GB DDR4 or more for system ram, some advantages could be more bandwith, and more ram to play with. I doubt XSX or PS5 will allocate 11GB for the vram alone.
I'm no expert but that sounds abit odd, i always thought that you couldn't replace DDR ram with an SSD, even if it is as fast as they say it will be. DDR ram is going to be better in almost every way except size. For some things an SSD could help im sure. Aside from that, if i understand correctly, pc will see 7000mb/s SSD solutions this year, i guess that's fast enough for most games, even those PS5 exclusives that end up on pc
You need so much RAM because many data are preloaded because storage support are slow. And with virtual texturing we will not need more RAM.
First the SSD is slower than the solution on PS5 and other stuff a big part of the SSD solution is software. And no one will launch for the few peoples having a SSD so fast. I think PS5 games will arrive on PC like PS4 will arrive on PC when the next hardware will arrive or when the transition to a new model will be done. We have time for this.
How a SSD work technically
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22054600
https://www.neogaf.com/threads/next...lation-analysis-leaks-thread.1480978/page-395
This things is true too.
EDIT: Here the ARM CPU will not emulates HDD bloc device.
No I'm questioning them and asking for a valid reason for it to happen. I've stated why I don't think it will happen.
It is a possibility, for perhaps how Sony might do with PS5 or even later like PS6. Hardware isn't all, i think there much more growth in the softare market. A potentional PS Store on the PC, competitive with EGS, steam origin etc might become a thing. Yes PC will most likely recieve the games at a later date then the PS hardware itself, but there is still the possibility, it is basically already happening now. Steam seems to be earing massive amounts, so do others or are going to. The pc market is big, 100's of millions of users there. Not all are going to play HZD perhaps but it is a market share sony wants to take some off.
Honestly i don't think there is anything to worry about for the PS5 atleast, it will recieve it's amazing first party games designed for the hardware, that eventually will land on pc at a (much) later date, but in a better form technically if you have the hardware.
What else is it?? I'm just talking about what I anticipate the outcome to be. Over reacting would be sending hate-mail, selling shares in Sony, burning one's console, or even just writing angry words. There's none of that happening here.
Yeah but that counts only for historical Playstation games. Once Sony stops making hardware, there is no Playstation back catalogue to build on. i.e if PS5 is Sony's last console, Sony will be left with PS1-PS5 games, of which the majority exist on PC, where they have higher settings to run better and probably require some bureaucracy with the original developers to list them in a service that competes with Steam, Origin etc. So what will be left for Sony after PS5 are those old games and nothing new to build on except for the new games their studio make which will be now on PC. I mean....that back catalog of old games is better to and can co-exist as platform agnostic titles but also with hardware in the market where it keeps the tradition.
Those old games wont sell forever. Its a library that needs to grow and it grows with the existence of a Playstation.
Basically what they do now with PSNow with the difference that it is no longer a streaming service
Last edited:
Well that's not how I would define overreacting.
Sony releasing an over three year old game on PC and that leading to statements like yours of "Now it's started. Whether it takes one year or ten, PS as a console platform is going to change completely" as overreacting or reading to much into it but that's just me.
mmm yes.The numbers for GamePass do not add up. People are consuming more games for less than the full price of 2 new games a year. Who do you think are surrendering profits, publishers?Who does that leave? GamePass is insanely good value and by that I mean it's obviously impossible for it to be running at profit. Numbers!
I do apologize, when I wrote that Matt wouldn't understand it was just really late for me (1am).
He's not wrong that it's not profitable and It's clearly not profitable today. Whether it was intended to be profitable today is what he could not possibly know.
IMO, Game Pass follows a J curve trajectory like any other new product. Technically speaking it is cheap to build, but no one knows the retention rates, the rates people are willing to pay, what types of software curation is required to reduce the amount of monthly churn. The losses that MS are incurring is to figure that out. I would caution anyone looking at Game Pass and say that was a product that needed to be profitable from the get go they are investing hard to:
a) gather customers
b) gather a lot of data on how customers use their service
c) change the service accordingly
d) reinvest back into the service through library curation
e) seeing how many players are doing additional purchases of DLC etc with game pass titles
f) attach rates of players going back to buy titles after leaving Game pass.
If instant profitability was the goal then we'd see a different behaviour from MS; likely a more mild behaviour like we see from PS Now: not a lot of new AAA titles, no dramatic $1 month deals. The goals of MS are entirely different and they are more than willing to pony millions (maybe billions) into figuring out the service (curation for 2 PC and Xbox) and to have them both ready in time for XCloud which has just moved into its next phase (everyone in the Xbox Insider Program now has access to it).
The idea that it's impossible for it to be running a profit is perhaps just the way that MS is running the service currently.
The way we understand it works today is that MS pays out publishers for their titles to be on the service for a period of time. It shouldn't matter how many people do or do not play their game. The revenues from game pass come from the subscribers. In the most simple formula, If revenue of the subscribers > the total contract costs to keep the games on Game Pass then they are officially running a profit.
Whether MS has actually run a profit, no one actually knows, because a company looking for growth should be driving those revenues back into the product (in this case, investing to curate a better library) in turn to improve their customer retention. By default, they should be profitless.
I suspect, few people know the real PnLs for Game Pass except for the analytics team and the executives at MS. They are the only ones that have any idea what their run rates are like and whether they are hitting their goals (whatever those goals may be). It is likely too soon for investors to be asking for Game Pass to be profitable when they've only started investing into this product for 1 year now. I suspect It's probably got at least a runway of 3-4 years before they ask for profits. Some examples of companies doing the same thing: EGS, 108 Million users, handing out free games to all of them every 2 weeks, paying for exclusivity. Look at Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc etc, list goes on. If growth is the metric that they are focusing on, a company like MS will be more than willing to absorb the costs.
They've certainly the money for it and they've certainly spent more breaking into the console business.
Yes. At which point Sony can focus on being a publisher, funding, releasing and selling lots more games. They could also use it to try and spearhead a general Sony content platform. The long-distance future is streaming content. Sony don't have an iTunes or a Netflix or a Spotify. they can use home grown content to attract portal users, and then get them consuming more and more content including third-parties. That's kinda what everyone else seems to be gunning for, save maybe MS who will be happy taking money running the cloud back-end to all these.
An important consideration of SIE's profitability is how stable it is or isn't. It's ben growing up to a high, but is that income sustainable for decades, or will it give way to other forms of consumption? If the latter, Sony need to get ahead of the game. Same as MS seeing the living room content portal as the threat and introducing XBox. As it turns out, mobile happened and it was Apple and Google from out of nowhere that grew to dominance. Whatever the future is, these companies can't sit back expecting the same old strategy to last forever. We can even look Nintendo and think, "they'll never stop producing their own hardware and selling games on it," but Nintendo has adapted considerably over the decades and they used to sell cross-platform games before their own consoles; everyone and everything in this industry is going to change at some point.
Similar threads
