"Just get it on PC" isn't exactly a valid response to people who can't justify the expense of a second console. Gaming PCs are an expensive-ass hobby to upkeep.
-
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.
PlayStation-only players, have you had trouble getting into The Outer Worlds because of the potential sequel's Xbox-exclusivity?
- Thread starter Deleted member 58846
- Start date
"Just get it on PC" isn't exactly a valid response to people who can't justify the expense of a second console. Gaming PCs are an expensive-ass hobby to upkeep.
Get a cheap PC and play it on low to medium settings. You'll be getting the console experience and everything.
It's crossed my mind and i am worried about MS being an ass about it, but it's not why I haven't jumped in. The games length isn't enough to warrant a full price purchase from me. So I am waiting for a price drop or a sale.
A "cheap PC" is still around $600. Not really worth the investment, especially with how uneven if not HIDEOUS games look on low settings.
Low settings? Yeah no, you'd be getting worse then console experience on low, and even a mid-range PC will cost more than a console, and folks simply don't want to game on desktop PC's. It's as simple as that. Was a long time PC gamer but got sick of it tbh.
Someone wouldn't play what by all accounts is a pretty good game because there's a chance the sequel will be console exclusive? Weird.
Not playing a game, that you were interested based on the fact that it *might* be console exclusive or even an Outer Worlds 2 in the future just rings hollow for me TBH.
Unless it is marketed as a part one and the second part is going to be a console exclusive, I could see that. But everything I've read is this is a self-contained game.
Unless it is marketed as a part one and the second part is going to be a console exclusive, I could see that. But everything I've read is this is a self-contained game.
I paid $2500 for a gaming PC in the same year as PS4 released (2013) containing a gfx card that was $1000 at the time (gtx 690), and I can barely run Outer Worlds on medium settings :(
I know it's considered pretty amateur to not upgrade my PC over about 6 years, but still...PCs just age quicker than consoles imo.
I'll probably shell out $2000 for another PC soon though, and go through it all again lol.
Worrying about compatibility issues and spending more time playing with settings than the game definitely sounds like the PC experience to me
I bought a game I wanted to play on the platform I wanted to play it on. No other concerns were in my mind while buying it or while playing it. Weird question is weird.
Neither of these address the point I made. I already said that some people simply can't maybe because they can't afford it or something restricting like that and that is a valid reason. I was talking specifically about people who have interest in this game (or any game for that matter) but refuse to buy it simply because of the sequel not being on a platform they like. It's pathetic reasoning. Should I have not bought Bayo on PC because the 2nd and 3rd games are exclusive to Nintendo platforms? Hell no I was interested so I downloaded it. That's what enthusiasts do. Only fanboys wouldn't buy it for retarded reasons like that. I bought my PS4 for a game I was interested in (and friends), same for my Switch for Astral Chain at launch, same for my OG 360 because of that Gears 2 and Halo 3 hype, same for my PS3 for FIFA (though I sold that one shortly after but received a slim for free off a friend a few years later). I consider myself an enthusiast, I love games, I love PC gaming especially and all the fancy tech you can like have like 144hz monitors and all that. I would definitely jump onto a system for literally 1 game if it really really interests me and I would think most other enthusiasts would agree because we love this hobby. Restricting yourself simply because of brand loyalty is retarded and that's what I'm saying. I don't particularly like Sony for some things they've done to the industry however I can put that aside if I want to enjoy the games. It's not Insomniacs fault for why I have feelings like that towards Sony and their game was a good game (Spiderman) and everyone agrees good games deserve sales.
I game, therefore I am. Its OK to enjoy just one title. I have no intent (right now) of going back to Xbox, but that wont ever effect my fun.
Would be silly decision and I think it's some sort of tribal loyalty leading people to reject a game they want to play rather than any legit reason of substance. OW is a self contained story. In addition, you could play it on your PC or stream the sequel for whatever monthly Game Pass promo Microsoft runs in the future. By the time the sequel rolls around, latency for online gaming will be lower. Regardless, it's not a latency sensitive game. If it's just a refusal to buy any Microsoft product even when they're essentially giving that shit away to you on devices you already own....well that's just silly.
You dont think a 30 to 40 hour game with multiple pathways through is worth Full price?
ehh not really, You could easily grab a new gfx that will run it on high for about 250 to 300 as long as your cpu is still up to it.
I think were more likely to upgrade our PCs cause the way the market is and the standards we hold on PC (60fps MIN , ect)
Consoles run TOW at 30fps right? And Base Ps4 if that what were comparing is 1080p on the high end so im sure your pc will manage that but 30fps isnt really acceptable on any decent monitor itll look just gross lol.
Point is i think PCs age about the same but we ask more from it and theres more options so we end up upgrading more often. But youd be suprised what could run a game at 1080p 30 fps. Also heavily depends on the game
Again I could have buy an xbox One for one game Sunset Overdrive. I did not buy it, because this is a bad investment on my side. I will never buy a machine for one game. If someone does not want to invest his time inside a game with sequels already announced to not release on his platform because he is only gaming on one platform this is understandable. And Outer worlds is an RPG where the story is important. Knowing he/she prefers the exclusive game on the platform he/she plays and the are more important than Outer worlds I can understand to not invest your time in a franchise you will never play again. And this is the same for all platform. For example people liking Halo and other Xbox franchises and Sunset Overdrive are now deprieved of a Sunset Overdrive sequel or Occulus player will never see the next part of Stormland. I can understand if someone knowing Insomniac will be buy by Sony they wouldn't play the game because they can only afford one system. At least it seems Sunset Overdrive will not have sequels at all.
EDIT: Another things this is not like he/she can't play another games.
Last edited:
Nope, not really worried about it.
Considering how much I am enjoying playing Outer Worlds, I will definitely figure something out if they release a sequel. Honestly think it is weird that people would worry this much about something that may never happen or if it does will happen years from now.
Considering how much I am enjoying playing Outer Worlds, I will definitely figure something out if they release a sequel. Honestly think it is weird that people would worry this much about something that may never happen or if it does will happen years from now.
I haven't played the game yet but does it feel like it's only 1/2 of a complete narrative or is it a standalone experience?
if it feels like a standalone game and not just one slice of a larger narrative I don't see the trouble of getting invested into the game as a PS4 player.
if it feels like a standalone game and not just one slice of a larger narrative I don't see the trouble of getting invested into the game as a PS4 player.
Again that's silly logic if you consider yourself an enthusiast and don't have any other restrictions. Do you consider yourself a gaming enthusiast? Y/N.
No. I need roughly 75-100hrs out of a game in order to justify me spending $60. Everything else I just Gamefly or buy on sale.
And I'm not saying Outer World's isnt worth the money for everyone else. By everything I have seen and heard it's a fantastic game. It's just not a full price game for me personally.
This is how I would feel. Is it the start of a new franchise of games without feeling like it gives a conclusion to the story it starts or is it a singular experience with sequel potential?
Again the problem with all this discussion about whether people can afford PCs or whether it makes sense to buy a console for one game is that we are talking about a hypothetical, unannounced project, which will be released for a console generation that hasn't even started yet, if it happens at all.
And if an Outer Worlds sequel seems like a sure thing, imagine going back in time and telling your 2013 self that Elder Scrolls and Grand Theft Auto are going to be skipping an entire console generation.
There is no Outer Worlds franchise (yet). There is a game that exists right now, and that game is multiplatform.
And if an Outer Worlds sequel seems like a sure thing, imagine going back in time and telling your 2013 self that Elder Scrolls and Grand Theft Auto are going to be skipping an entire console generation.
There is no Outer Worlds franchise (yet). There is a game that exists right now, and that game is multiplatform.
I mean i can respect that. But that means you miss out on some really good games, at least on launch where all the talk and hype is.
Also is gamefly still a thing? Holy crap i need to check this out if so.
honest reaction to the question asked:
why the fuck should i care about a "potential sequel" which may also never come? the game never even hints at a sequel and is a complete game.
also, this
why the fuck should i care about a "potential sequel" which may also never come? the game never even hints at a sequel and is a complete game.
also, this
That'd be weird and a sign of taking this stuff too personal, we're not talking about something completely open ended or even planned as a series like Mass Effect.
The 690 is a dual-chip card which have always had horrendously bad price/performance ratios and you had to count on games supporting SLI. Something almost no games do anymore and I doubt Outer Worlds does so your card runs literally at half speed. I'd say that that was more a questionable investment than evidence of PC hardware ageing faster.
The 690 is a dual-chip card which have always had horrendously bad price/performance ratios and you had to count on games supporting SLI. Something almost no games do anymore and I doubt Outer Worlds does so your card runs literally at half speed. I'd say that that was more a questionable investment than evidence of PC hardware ageing faster.
I do like to keep all my games ordered by system and library, and there is something to be said about a "Outer Worlds" series that would all be part of, say, my Xbox shelf.
But that's really it. It's actually really funny to see my adventures through many great series on entirely different systems.
If it's good, it's good, no matter the platform it's on. So long as it doesn't have a save transfer like Mass Effort or something, it shouldn't matter.
But that's really it. It's actually really funny to see my adventures through many great series on entirely different systems.
If it's good, it's good, no matter the platform it's on. So long as it doesn't have a save transfer like Mass Effort or something, it shouldn't matter.
Yes, I consider myself as enthusiastic because I played as many games as I can compare to my time constraint. But I have other hobbies in life than gaming and a family too. Spend 300 or 400 dollars in a console for one game is not interesting in my case. There are tons of games, I have a backlog. I can find another game to play on Playstation or other ecosystem if I change in the future.
I have no qualms with picking up The Outer Worlds on PS4 at some point in the foreseeable future since I go for those types of games, but if I end up really liking it then I'm pretty much screwed when it comes to a potential sequel. It's far more likely that I'd buy a next-gen Xbox than ever invest in a gaming PC, but I'd rather do neither. It's much easier on the wallet that way. It's not like the PS5 is going to be chump change.
Really? First time hearing that. What kind of deal is this?
OP
OP
I've been wanting to get it but I haven't yet. One of the reasons is that I'm worried it's not going to be self contained enough and that it'll end on an open enough note that the sequel will be continuing the same story.
Last edited:
I'd rather not buy a whole machine just to play one video game, that's honestly ridiculous.
*slaps forehead.
Right. Totally removed this ever happening.
Does Outer Worlds end on a cliff-hanger or something?
Is it an incomplete game on it's own?
Because unless the answer to those questions is a definite "yes", I don't see what the hell a far off sequel on a different console has to do with my enjoyment of the game now. Kind of a dumb question.
Is it an incomplete game on it's own?
Because unless the answer to those questions is a definite "yes", I don't see what the hell a far off sequel on a different console has to do with my enjoyment of the game now. Kind of a dumb question.
Heck yeah! I go where the games go! Well, more like where the developer's go. If I have the budget to get all available platforms, I'll certainly do it. If I don't, then I'll go for the platforms that have the most games I want to play on them. Between PlayStation, Switch, and my gaming PC before it died, I was covered. I'll eventually rebuild my gaming PC, but I've been in no hurry these days.
So for those of who won't buy the game on the PS4 due to the potential that a sequel will be a Xbox, PC, phone and toaster exclusive...do you only buy games if you're confident they will produce a sequel?
Such a loaded language. Isn't the use of the underlined word actually against the TOS?
You know what's silly? That kind of black and white logic. Skipping a singular title for whatever reason doesn't disqualify anyone from being an enthusiast.
A thread like this only spurs console war attitudes. I don't think this should be discussed on here, quite honestly. It's a stupid thought to have anyways.
MS should be applauded for sticking to previous commitments, also in the case of Psychonauts 2 or The Bard's Tale IV. They could have killed some of the remaining releases, not all of them. XGS has been very clear in their messaging what will happen now vs. what will happen in the future.
MS should be applauded for sticking to previous commitments, also in the case of Psychonauts 2 or The Bard's Tale IV. They could have killed some of the remaining releases, not all of them. XGS has been very clear in their messaging what will happen now vs. what will happen in the future.
Your answer to a legitimate and interesting question is to shut down the conversation? Seems pretty dense.
As for the question itself, no I do not have a problem picking up the game even if a sequel is exclusive. I have yet to play the game but that's because I'm playing Medievil and MW right now. I'm still very excited to try.
Skipping something because the sequel might not come to your beloved platform does. How can anyone call themselves a gaming enthusiast if they actively miss out on games because of what is basically brand loyalty (and assuming they have the time and money for it).