The Case for PC or Console upgrades *spin-off*

  • Thread starter Deleted member 11852
  • Start date
Especially with Microsofts PlayAnywhere concept, buythe game once and play on xbox or PC.

I don't think this works as well as you think. Most people don't want to hassle with PC games in the MS store. It is really console and Steam, not console and PC.
 
It's a newborn baby, of course it can't run yet.
Don't think that analogy works. It's a product/service competing with other products/services in a competitive market. It should be developed to a reasonable quality when it can operate successfully before being released. Releasing an incomplete, not-working product is just going to discourage people unless you are selling it as a pre-release alpha/beta.
 
I don't think this works as well as you think. Most people don't want to hassle with PC games in the MS store. It is really console and Steam, not console and PC.

It's still a tremendous value if you have both platforms, even for people like me for whom Steam is always the choice when that choice is available. And for me with Forza Horizon 3 it worked exactly the way he thinks. Download the game on both systems play it on whatever one you want, which has mostly been the One S because of HDR. If the PC version ever gets HDR, I'll probably play it there instead.
 
Don't think that analogy works. It's a product/service competing with other products/services in a competitive market. It should be developed to a reasonable quality when it can operate successfully before being released. Releasing an incomplete, not-working product is just going to discourage people unless you are selling it as a pre-release alpha/beta.

I don't disagree completely, but Steam was a steaming pile at first and they turned that around by iterating, so it's not like you get one shot to get it right or you're screwed forever. If they keep releasing free (with an Xbox One version purchase) and exclusive games gamers will keep giving them chances to get it right.
 
I don't disagree completely, but Steam was a steaming pile at first and they turned that around by iterating.
What was Steam's competition? If I wanted to start a new social network to usurp Facebook and Twitter, or a new search engine to usurp Google, and whatever I create and release is complete crap, how likely am I to succeed? I mean, yes, keep plugging away and you can turn it around, but you make your journey longer and harder. Is the Store wasn't ready, MS should have kept it under wraps and worked harder to get it ready (enough).
 
What was Steam's competition? If I wanted to start a new social network to usurp Facebook and Twitter, or a new search engine to usurp Google, and whatever I create and release is complete crap, how likely am I to succeed? I mean, yes, keep plugging away and you can turn it around, but you make your journey longer and harder. Is the Store wasn't ready, MS should have kept it under wraps and worked harder to get it ready (enough).

The analogies don't really work because tying the service to content that people want will absolutely get people to use that service. Half Life 2 got a lot of people to reluctantly and even angrily put Steam on their PCs. But they still did it. I wasn't looking for a Steam alternative when I put BattleNet and Origin on my PC. But I needed to do that to play Diablo III/HearthStone and Mass Effect: Andromeda, so I did.
 
Sony themselves said that they bleed users to the PC platform as their tech gets old. PS4 Pro is a mid-gen. Four years for another console seems decidedly risky for what Sony want to prevent. When rumours of Pro was originally circulating, many didn't think it'd be launched in 2016 yet that's right where they launched it. Sony's reasons for Pro are likely to Microsoft's reasons for XBOX.
I wish I could see their data, ok there is a loss toward PC gamers but at the same time I don't think PC gamers that are into high-end give up on their hobby because they own a console. I'm not sure technical prowess is what drives gamers that are willing to shift back and forth from PC to consoles.

As a generation advance (and drive development) competitive PC parts are getting cheaper for people on a budget it is a good time to upgrade and access a lot of games sold significantly cheaper on the PC /if not play some older games. It could be that update cycle for lots of PC gamers (with reasonable gaming budget) is shifted from the console pace of release, that does not means that higer performances is the driver for them to move back to PC and let their console collect dust:
PC can be a cheaper alternative.
In the console realm neither the hardware cost nor the software follow the aggresive reduction found on PC.

I might be off but manufacturers are more and more about high-end and they are aligning their expectations and line of product on the request of a limited but wealthy group of gamers (wealthy or with a significant budget inested in gaming). I don't know if it a good or a bad strategy BUT clearly I think a lot of people that are more price sensitive are attracted to PC, the price to get in is a little higher but it has its benefits in the long run (on top of providing the functionality a PC provides outside of gaming).
Now consoles manufacturers are moving toward foward/backward compatible products, they have the higer end cover but if they want to avoid the leak toward PC they might think about covering the lower end better along with more aggressive price reduction for the software.
Yesterday I've only bought middle-earth:LOTR BUT for 10€ I could also have bought brutal Legend, a good sonic racing game , new games no online fee (ultimately I hesitated too long and the callig of the bed got the best out of me). On steam I received for free updated edition for darksiders games and titan quest, such thing may happen with other releases. I'm an extreme case and not that profitable as a costmer, I'm litterarily one generation behind but thare are many shades of grey between "software early adopters" and "last gen enthusiasts".
 
Last edited:
Releasing an incomplete, not-working product is just going to discourage people unless you are selling it as a pre-release alpha/beta.

Eh? What about Play Anywhere is incomplete or not-working? I've used it for all the titles I own that are compatible and it works perfectly fine and I can seamlessly jump from XB1 to PC whenever I want, playing with the same people with the same saves.

What benefit do I have to purchase those titles on Steam instead, unless I wanted to limit myself to playing only with people who play on Steam and I only want to play on the PC? Sure, there's a pricing structure issue in terms of sales, but that issue is a console/PC issue existing with PS4 games as well and isn't a function or factor in Play Anywhere's performance or completeness.
 
I wish I could see their data, ok there is a loss toward PC gamers but at the same time I don't think PC gamers that are into high-end give up on their hobby because they own a console. I'm not sure technical prowess is what drives gamers that are willing to shift back and forth from PC to consoles.

This keeps being repeated and focused on as the point of argument, but it's not what Sony said and it's not what DSoup is claiming they said. Sony said, and DSoup related, that their purported goal with PS4Pro was to prevent their console owners from switching over to the PC. It wasn't to gain users back that had PS4's and switched to the PC. It was to stop them from switching to the PC initially.
 
Releasing an incomplete, not-working product is just going to discourage people unless you are selling it as a pre-release alpha/beta.

I'm sorry, but that statement doesn't apply to Play Anywhere. It is a solid and complete product and works great for the titles I've tested it with, Recore, Gears 4, Forza Horizon 3.
 
At this point DrJay24 probably needs to clarify, because it's unclear what he meant by hassle and then what Rancid meant by baby-like which may not even fit DrJay's point.
 
Honestly... that thing is pittyful as a mobile platform I can't comment on its merits as a Desktop/laptop interface...
It is bad and it is no longer that new (it sadly a heir of previous MSFT efforts which I tried to like... without much succes as soon as novelty ran off).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There have been some legitimate issues with both UWP as a platform and the Windows Store as a storefront. UWP still doesn't have complete feature parity with WIN32. Things like initially games not being able to operate with VSYNC disabled, for example. I am not sure if SLI/CrossfireX work with UWP games even now. There were issues with the Windows Store incorrectly pushing out a forced update to Forza Horizon 3 that had people download a stupidly large patch that then, if they played at all on that version, broke their save when the patch was reverted. It hasn't been problem-free by any stretch.

I disagree that PC gamers can only cope with one content source, though. I prefer Steam and in some cases if I'm on the fence about a game that game not being on Steam might be enough to make me pass, but if I want to play something and one of the other stores is the only place I can get it, it not being on Steam is no impediment.
 
Back
Top