-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Can't we all finally agree that the PC Gaming Market doesn't threaten the Console market?
- Thread starter thomasmahler
- Start date
I disagree completely and I think you're missing the big picture. Yes, there are game stores with games that are not on Steam. But when you get to mega-corporation level and you have mega-profits to bring mega-earnings to shareholders - there really are only a few business models that can bring that much money. You need money that a singleplayer 20h game with no battle-pass or IAP cosmetic stuff just can't bring, no matter how much it sells.
So, then you're either Ubisoft that keeps pumping out these Assassin's Creeds or Far Crys with stores and microtransactions - or you are Sony or Nintendo - that uses these games to bring in people to their platform and THAT is where the money is. Do you think Sony doesn't have microtransactions in their games out of the goodness of their hearts? Because of their artistic vision? No, it's because the most important money is not coming from these games themselves (of course they bring a lot of money, I mean, Sony isn't giving them away for free) - but from the fact that they sell consoles which, in turn, get people to buy the games on these consoles and not competing ones. So their goal is to get you locked on their console. The store on that console is their business. These exclusives have a "higher purpose" (figuratively speaking) and this is the reason they exist in this form (and are not Assassin's Creeds)
My argument is that the moment they sell these games on PC, they have to change the business model. And that brings us to Horizon Zero Dawn 7 with a store and 20 armor sets for Aloy. $5.99 each. Because as much money as Horizon brings - it doesn't bring the IAP money or the "lock more people to our store money". It's one or the other, really.
It's about the lock-in. It's either IAP or lock-in. You choose - but you have to have one or the other. And there is no lock-in on PC.
But ok, if I'm wrong, then explain to me why Sony and Nintendo haven't released one single main-franchise game on PC? I mean, there must be a reason? When you look at their profits, you'll see they earn much more money from software sales than hardware - so why not sell their best software on PC too - it wouldn't affect Playstation sales or Switch sales - so why not?
Last edited:
It doesn't threaten the console market and this coming gen the consoles are going to be giving you great value at the start, compared to what PC offers (unlike the start of last gen where it was 1:1 parity for price and performance on PC).
A few enthusiasts make the switch over/add PC to their systems when the performance is much higher for not much more in a year or two. But they have mid-gen console upgrades now as well, which might keep them in the console ecosystem. Only in the tail end does it seem really in favor of PCs - but then you get less out of your PC as the new console specs go up and for less than PC prices.
Let's see what GPUs are available and for what price in 2020-2021. Prices might go down significantly after the bitcoin bubble burst, and now that AMD is rumured to be more competitive with Nvidia.
A few enthusiasts make the switch over/add PC to their systems when the performance is much higher for not much more in a year or two. But they have mid-gen console upgrades now as well, which might keep them in the console ecosystem. Only in the tail end does it seem really in favor of PCs - but then you get less out of your PC as the new console specs go up and for less than PC prices.
Let's see what GPUs are available and for what price in 2020-2021. Prices might go down significantly after the bitcoin bubble burst, and now that AMD is rumured to be more competitive with Nvidia.
steam is literally a competing storefront with their own 30% cut.
MS are GAAS focused, so getting a large playerbase is their goal.
For sony, their exclusives are designed to make the playstation more appealing so that more people get locked into that ecosystem.
the only way I see someone like sony going full PC is by having their own storefront.
MS are GAAS focused, so getting a large playerbase is their goal.
For sony, their exclusives are designed to make the playstation more appealing so that more people get locked into that ecosystem.
the only way I see someone like sony going full PC is by having their own storefront.
This argument is on the same plain as "singleplayer games don't sell," as the entire argument revolves around this fictional notion that the game won't sell without a MTX / loot box model attached to it, which we all know is bullshit.
Because Sony and Nintendo's mission is to maximize revenue in a very specific way that involves hardware, software, and their own ecosystem. They want to be able to control every aspect of it. Not to mention that it probably saves them millions of dollars because they only need to develop for one platform, rather than a secondary one that involves millions of configurations.
And it's okay that their philosophy is different. But it is complete and utter bullshit that they would suddenly feel forced to change how these exclusives are monetized because an extra platform is introduced, and thus ruing the quality of their exclusives. Not every game and company set out wanting MTX and loot boxes in their game, despite that historically the data pretty much says you can make hella fucking money with those models.
While of course some people won't buy a console if they can get the games on PC I do believe the crossover between both player bases isn't that high. The argument of "who would buy consoles without exclusives" seem to ignore the fact that third party games still sell well on them despite being available everywhere.
MS has made the calculation that they aren't losing anything by catering to PC gamers as most of them were hardly in thier ecosystem to begin with. That's absolutely true in my case. I bought one of thier games for the first time since Halo 2 this year.
MS has made the calculation that they aren't losing anything by catering to PC gamers as most of them were hardly in thier ecosystem to begin with. That's absolutely true in my case. I bought one of thier games for the first time since Halo 2 this year.
You're missing the fact that every sale on a competing platform is 30% less revenue.
Game budgets take this into account.
That's a substantial loss, one which would be covered up by microtransactions.
Last edited:
You're missing the fact that every sale on a storefront that isn't Sony's is whatever percentage less revenue as well, and yet they still sell on those platforms and MTX is nowhere to be found.
You're missing the fact that there are hundreds of singleplayer games that don't have MTX in them, and ones from even this year alone that has done incredibly well (one even won the GOTY award) without having that monetization model added to it.
What you guys are assuming is that
1. If the exclusives become available on PC, it MUST be on Steam
a. if it is on Steam it MUST have MTX, because now they are losing millions in revenue and MUST make up for it
And yet plenty of singleplayer games don't have these models attached to them and sometimes soley exist on the Steam store.
You're missing the fact the games you list have budgets designed around it.
Sony know they get a 100% share for each sale, and that the game is designed to make playstation more appealing (which inturn generates PS+ revenue),
so they get far larger budget/polish than most single player games.
Sony should just make a PC storefront.
And PlayStation games...don't? I don't understand how I missed that multiplatform games have budgets.
Ah the mythical evil shareholder borg that are so often used on this site to create an "argument".
Normal shareholders have no say in day to day operations and also aren't the borg.
Companies are interested in one thing and that thing is profit, companies don't refrain from micro-transactions because they are so nice they refrain because they think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
You mentioned EA - where are the micro-transactions in Fallen Order?
Which series, outside of sport games, comes out every year?
Only one that comes to mind is CoD (AC is close).
That's the unbelievable amount of 1-2 examples meeting that criteria.
You also want to tell me that if instead of 1 Uncharted or GoW this console gen, people would see it as a negative if 2 or 3 of these games came out this gen?
i don't think PC "threatens" the console market, it just chafes it very uncomfortably. sony admitted themselves PS4 Pro was to stave off PS4 --> PC adoption, which was a verifiable concern then as PC accounted for like a quarter of major multiplats, and i'm guessing PC has an even bigger piece of the pie now
the fundamentals are the same. most prefer a $500 game box to dicking around with PC but the 2010s was massive for PC gaming and that's not going away
the fundamentals are the same. most prefer a $500 game box to dicking around with PC but the 2010s was massive for PC gaming and that's not going away
This reminds me that I only picked Playstation for games before, though I was gifted a 360 kinect combo last gen I still only played games on PS3 (and a bit of PC). Then Sony did the xbox thing of charging for multiplayer and I moved fully to PC and never looked back.
I have a PS4 but I didn't play much of it just like I didn't play much of Xbox 360. The major reason I didn't mess with the 360 much was because 360 needed xbox live gold to get access to most of the games functions. At least PS4 allow some games to be played without PS+, free to play games, subscription based games like MMORPGs, and games like No Mans Sky, Dreams, and Death Stranding.
On PC I can play console exclusive games like Street Fighter V with PS4 players without paying for PS+, and boy did having cross play with PS4 help PC SFV feel full, even now. That user base is nice, it was the same for Paragon (the Epic Moba third person game, I miss that game), mostly every game was full of PS4 players.
To add on to my previous post, PC gaming didn't become a bigger market for consoles because of the ability to be more powerful. The various advantages are combined with the fact that consoles are banned in certain countries for one reason or another as well. PC as a threat to the console is in the same way as smartphone is a threat to the DSLR camera. There is a reason why we are starting to see mid-gen consoles, and why PC is starting to see console exclusive titles being ported over in recent years. Lots of gamers went to PC, and developers/publishers are following.
This kinda question is exactly why Microsoft are on the right track, and Sony are sleeping.
It's less about the device, and more about the software.
It's less about the device, and more about the software.
sony doesn't own the OS that essentially runs the world. naturally they'll veer you towards their own hardware
The mobile market wasn't a threat to the console market either....
It just helped normalize micro transactions, and reduce the handheld market considerably.
PC gaming isn't a threat to console gaming...
But it helped normalize the 'live service' games, and early access style releases.
Steaming isn't a threat to console gaming....
If it becomes successful, it will help reduce the amount of time sensitive gameplay designed games that get released on all platforms. Things like Rhythm games, Fighting Games, Twitch shooters, etc. will be severely hurt by steaming services.
Consoles aren't a threat to PC/Mobile/etc....
Except when it comes to exclusives, console->PC ports, and so on....
Basically, I don't believe there is any 1:1 threat between markets, but the effects of said markets _do_ effect the other markets.
It just helped normalize micro transactions, and reduce the handheld market considerably.
PC gaming isn't a threat to console gaming...
But it helped normalize the 'live service' games, and early access style releases.
Steaming isn't a threat to console gaming....
If it becomes successful, it will help reduce the amount of time sensitive gameplay designed games that get released on all platforms. Things like Rhythm games, Fighting Games, Twitch shooters, etc. will be severely hurt by steaming services.
Consoles aren't a threat to PC/Mobile/etc....
Except when it comes to exclusives, console->PC ports, and so on....
Basically, I don't believe there is any 1:1 threat between markets, but the effects of said markets _do_ effect the other markets.
a problem for who exactly? sure it'd be great to play GoW with my 2080 ti blazing, i guess it's a "problem" that isn't a possibility
but sony sells shitloads of hardware, that's their wheelhouse. they're almost reliant on that front as much as nintendo - i guess they're "sleeping" as well?
Well I played on my LG C9 with mouse and keyboard and found 120hz made the game just look amazing in motion. I like HDR. But more keen on having better performance than aesthetics. For me it's a nice bonus to have HDR on top of outstanding performance.
Obviously can't predict the future, but Microsoft are thinking much further ahead than Sony are.
Luckily you can enjoy both at the same time on PC. That's the beauty of PC: options. You can have it all if you have the high end hardware, but if not then you can choose which to prioritise; whether framerate, resolution, and a plethora of graphics settings. You can customise it to your preference.
Regardless, I love both consoles and PC for different reasons and I'm sure they'll continue to coexist for the foreseeable future.
Some of these people don't even have a PC. You can tell by some bullshit they post.
I would have bought an xbox this gen if Microsoft didn't decide to bring all their exclusives +gamepass to pc. Pc is definitely a competitor.
PC gaming and consoles occupy slightly different markets, but there is a lot of overlap, and in that overlap competition exists.
PC gaming and consoles occupy slightly different markets, but there is a lot of overlap, and in that overlap competition exists.
A comparison to mobile hardware makes this difficult, but from some research it seems the Geforce GT 830M is a decent GPU equivalent. Here's some gameplay on a similar GPU, albeit with a CPU that I'm guessing is above the X1 and more RAM:
Did you work on the Switch version of Ori? I'd love to hear about your experiences on that port, or even just differences between the Xbox One and PC versions of the game.
My tv pc is on par with ye olde ps4 pro and cost about 600. Bring your own controller i guess. That will get you witcher 3 at 1080/60. So its probably more expensive in terms of performance, on balance.
But then save 200+ bucks for online fees, cheap games, any controller you want, emulation, mods, indefinite legacy compatibilty...
Lots of a milder gaming pcs out there. They make alot of sense. And yeah, core users are going to cross shop that with a console.
But then save 200+ bucks for online fees, cheap games, any controller you want, emulation, mods, indefinite legacy compatibilty...
Lots of a milder gaming pcs out there. They make alot of sense. And yeah, core users are going to cross shop that with a console.
To each their own. One of the main reasons I don't like PC gaming is the plethora of graphic settings. I keep going back and forth, tweaking the settings to find the best quality/performance ratio, only to find that my settings drops a lot of frames in certain situations and then I go back to tweak it again, etc. I'm not debating you here - I know a lot of people like this flexibility, and I can understand why. I really dislike it. There are numerous reasons why I prefer playing on consoles, and not everyone cares about the same things - so, I just don't like this attitude that PC is an obvious choice for everyone. It isn't for me.
As for the example of RE2, yeah, if I hooked the PC to the TV, I could've played in HDR I guess (if the PC version supports it). I wasn't clear in my post, sorry, I meant that I prefer HDR to fps, that's all. And you can have both on a PC, but only in a game that supports it (most PC games don't).
Nothing mythical or evil about shareholders, it's just how things work. Gaming is a business.
Fallen Order is an exception to every other recent EA game, and if you're expecting this to become the norm for EA, you'll be disappointed.
Well, ok, maybe every other year, they certainly come out more frequent than GoW, that's for sure - and they all have microtransactions.
But ok, if I'm wrong, then you tell me why we don't have these games on the PC. As the OP correctly said and I think we all agree - having these games on PC would not slow down console sales and, also, Sony and Nintendo don't earn the majority of profits from hardware sales anyway - so why not have these games on the PC? Why can't you play Zelda or GoW or Smash or TLOU on PC?
Sony and Nintendo don't like money?
Last edited:
Unless you have some hard data for that, we're both just speculating. The truth is probably more complex than either of our theories, but the fact is - if it brought them more money in the long term, both Sony and Nintendo would publish their games on the PC. Or at least some of the games. It's not trivial to port them, but it's not that complicated either and doesn't cost that much compared to potential sales. So there must be another reason why they categorically refuse to do so. And yes, the control of the entire ecosystem is probably the reason as you say, and that's basically what I said. It is also a fact that the level of polish seen in Nintendo and Sony first party exclusives is rarely seen elsewhere - and the reason can't be "because N and S have better developers", that's just not true. It's because of time and money that these developers are given, which is rare for the rest of the industry and rarely seen outside exclusives. Therefore my conclusion that it has to do something with Sony/Nintendo business model, and that business model very categorically excludes the PC, unfortunately.
Par for the course with these threads. Just like with EGS topics, people come in to spout their garbage shitposts and then run off like the annoying little trolls they are.
I don't need an Xbox, because I have a relatively high end PC, and to keep it relatively modern, I'll already have to be spending an additional $500+ (around the cost, or more of a console) next year, although I never really looked at it as a competition, and I'm not sure why it ever needed to be one (I grew up on consoles, and eventually played on both PC and consoles regularly). I wouldn't buy any console if I didn't need to to play certain exclusives on it, but that's not a slight on them. For the cost, they are usually the best bang, and also a lot easier to transport.
As long as there are enough exclusives that I can't play on PC (until a decade later on an emulator), I'll still end up buying whatever console I need to.
edit: It doesn't feel like a competition now I suppose, but early last gen it kind of did. Or rather, it seemed as though developers were much less interested in leveraging the PCs power when it came to games like many had in the past, and it started to become a "console first" mindset, with the PC getting a bare bones port, if even that quite often. This is actually the reverse of what the OP is talking about though. We seem to be way beyond that now though, and even if game development is still primarily focused on the consoles (AAA development at least), the PC ports have usually been solid, if not excellent for a long while now.
That was my take on it as well, and because I had also just recently ended up having to go from a 1080p screen to a 4K one five months before it launched, it was my main reason for wanting a Pro. Sony was one of the first to release a consumer 4K TV, and they were wanting to move as many of those as they could.
I still don't see how it's a direct competition. Yeah sure, many did switch to PC mid-gen last gen because of how long it was going, the available PC ports, and how it was getting cheaper to put together a decent gaming PC compared to at the start of that gen. But so what? We were already what, three years into last gen before the Pro launched? One would think that someone really interested in a PS4 might have purchased one by then. I had a regular PS4 and a gaming PC and I still got a Pro...simply because it was better than the base version (checkerboarding), but it still had exclusives I could not play anywhere else.
As long as there are enough exclusives that I can't play on PC (until a decade later on an emulator), I'll still end up buying whatever console I need to.
edit: It doesn't feel like a competition now I suppose, but early last gen it kind of did. Or rather, it seemed as though developers were much less interested in leveraging the PCs power when it came to games like many had in the past, and it started to become a "console first" mindset, with the PC getting a bare bones port, if even that quite often. This is actually the reverse of what the OP is talking about though. We seem to be way beyond that now though, and even if game development is still primarily focused on the consoles (AAA development at least), the PC ports have usually been solid, if not excellent for a long while now.
That was my take on it as well, and because I had also just recently ended up having to go from a 1080p screen to a 4K one five months before it launched, it was my main reason for wanting a Pro. Sony was one of the first to release a consumer 4K TV, and they were wanting to move as many of those as they could.
I still don't see how it's a direct competition. Yeah sure, many did switch to PC mid-gen last gen because of how long it was going, the available PC ports, and how it was getting cheaper to put together a decent gaming PC compared to at the start of that gen. But so what? We were already what, three years into last gen before the Pro launched? One would think that someone really interested in a PS4 might have purchased one by then. I had a regular PS4 and a gaming PC and I still got a Pro...simply because it was better than the base version (checkerboarding), but it still had exclusives I could not play anywhere else.
Last edited:
I say the console ecosystems should compete with the PC ecosystems on all fields, without exceptions. If one ecosystem has better graphics due to hardware they operate on, the other ecosystems must respond to match or exceed those specs asap regardless of platform (more frequent console releases). If one ecosystem has better pricing and/or sales the other ecosystems should match those prices. Same thing with features such as mods, stats, Crossplay, cross save , etc.
Overall the main issue I have is there is not enough competition going around. The PS4 Pro and Xbox One X was a nice one time thing, but it should have kept going. PS4 Pro 2 one year after Xbox One X, Xbox One X2 one year after PS4 Pro 2, etc. Raytracing become available on PC, get it too on the next iteration, and so on. Trading in the console every 2 years to keep up with the latest graphics would work for me.
Overall the main issue I have is there is not enough competition going around. The PS4 Pro and Xbox One X was a nice one time thing, but it should have kept going. PS4 Pro 2 one year after Xbox One X, Xbox One X2 one year after PS4 Pro 2, etc. Raytracing become available on PC, get it too on the next iteration, and so on. Trading in the console every 2 years to keep up with the latest graphics would work for me.
Most people don't want to buy dedicated gaming hardware every 2 years. Console longevity is one of the reasons they are successful. Of course, if you're in the high-end hardware niche you would want new hardware to follow new advancements, but that's why you have the PC.
I remember listening to some old gaming podcast and the thing that people were fearing about either PC or console gaming going away was the pre-made computers were falling behind cause of Smart phone growth and the mobile games growing. It was the change reaction of computer companies no longer making PCs, meaning drop in interest for powerful GPUs, meaning no good GPU to develop for consoles.
Talking to others about it the thing that change was many mobile games end up failing due to being unstable, the mobile game market introduce people to games and has lead them to play more games on both sides.
I guess another fear from analysis was the current audience wasn't growing but again the mobile market has open it up.
Talking to others about it the thing that change was many mobile games end up failing due to being unstable, the mobile game market introduce people to games and has lead them to play more games on both sides.
I guess another fear from analysis was the current audience wasn't growing but again the mobile market has open it up.
Sony (and MS) don't make most of their money selling exclusives. It's probably a very small fraction.
A large amount of their money is from the cut they get on every sale of all third party games on their platform, and associated downloadables.
Giving PC their exclusives might give some short term sales numbers, but it cedes the relevance and importance of their platform in exchange. If a percentage of people then stop getting the latest COD or FIFA or Battlefield or Ass Creed on PS every year and instead just get them on Steam, because 'everything is on PC now'. and the PlayStation platform becomes less relevant.