yea just like Xbox One and Wii U, Sony was overdue for a humbling. They played their cards very well with the Ps4 but that success they took for granted. It’s exactly why I still root for Xbox to make a good comeback because without good competition companies start doing greedy anti consumer shit because they can get away with it.
Edit: I’m hoping we finally find out Obama’s bankai and his last name in the last two episodes of Bleach next month
People forget that Sony has to compete with PC too not just Xbox (hence why Xbox is kinda going the mini PC route). Nintendo are the only big ones who have their own thing with handhelds (Steam Deck just doesn't have enough pull yet to overtake them).
It’s mostly price. If steam decks got the price down I’m sure it would do wonders. But that’s aside from Nintendo being king of IP, that is one of the things that will keep them in the game forever.
Yeah anyone who thinks the Steam Deck is even remotely capable of "overtaking" the Switch simply hasn't looked at the numbers.
Contrary to how it seems online, SD is an incredibly niche console.
Given that the appeal of the steam deck to most people is PC gaming on a handheld, it would always remain niche as a lot of popular PC games arent exactly always controller/linux friendly.
Its also the fact that the switch 2 just simply outperforms the steam deck since developers are properly optimizing for it. Only thing steam deck has over the switch is niche/indie games on steam.
Its also the fact that the switch 2 just simply outperforms the steam deck since developers are properly optimizing for it.
...I mean the Deck launched years before the Switch 2 and it wasn't using bleeding edge architectures to begin with. The Switch 2 should out perform it just by virtue of having more modern hardware.
The Deck is older hardware now and has some higher system overheads.
Zen 2 came out 7 years ago. RDNA2 came out 6 years ago.
Not at all. It has great value for pc gamers as they got their entire library there without needing to repurchase the games with the switch game tax as games are often more expensive there than on steam.
I have both the steam deck and switch 2. As much as I love my steam deck, it's very underpowered. I have to play many newer games by streaming from my PC with moonlight. The steam deck itself just isn't powerful enough for many modern games.
For a while I kind of that that was point, install indie and older titles direct to it, and then for new titles it cant really handle stream direct from from your pc.
Same here. I initially wanted a deck as a separate device for gaming, but it's hard to justify having two kinds of PCs for that. Cheaper (or it used to be, anyway) to just have one PC that can play everything and then stream into another device, but for that purpose, a Steam Deck is just far too expensive, especially compared to a phone + telescopic controller (though you really can't beat a genuine handheld for comfort and everything else).
Me personally, I'd only buy a steam deck if my PC decides to die on me. I could get a laptop but I don't like the inherent flimsy-ness most laptops are.
But the same argument could be said for the switch 2, as the switch library would have carried over and value yada yada yada.
The argument being made is the consoles themselves, not the consumer behind them. If you don't have a library, the switch 2 is significantly more optimized and faster than the steam deck, and it's $200 cheaper.
You can split hairs on sales and savings on the store fronts, but that still means the breakeven point is several games deep. And, on top of that, most indie games have the same price across both platforms. For that matter, a lot of third party games do too after they've been released a few months. Final Fantasy VII Remake was in sale $13.99 for both steam and Nintendo 3shop, for example.
There’s also a huge gap in release dates between the two, it’s not really a direct comparison. Rather surprised there hasn’t been a new gen Steam Deck yet but the market is already strained.
That really highlights the value of the switch 2. It's newer, faster, and cheaper than the steamdeck. And, again, many third party games share the same price across both platforms
I don't own either yet, but if I had a Steam Deck, I'd be playing Sega Saturn and Playstation 2 games on it. Plus you can finagle it to do keyboard and mouse games with mapping keyboard buttons to the gamepad buttons. Which I do on PC with things like Minecraft/Vintage Story. So moddable / java versions of games are also there (Skyrim / Fallout 4). Especially if you're interested in things like Enderal, Fallout London, or New California
Nintendo will win for people who only care about Nintendo exclusives and just want to buy a ready-game from the market. But for anyone wanting anything more is going to need to choose Steam Deck every time because Nintendo is going to limit your options left and right
Sure but on average anyone who used bought a game on steam in the past 20 years can play it on the steam deck assuming no anticheat issues.
Can you play a switch game from 20 years ago? ofcourse not as the switch didn't exist back then. and its not like nintendo is making your old purchases from the wii work on the switch.
That's still an argument against consoles in general, and I don't argue against it. Obviously I can't play my 20 year old wii games on my switch, but I can still play them on my wii, and that includes accessing my digital purchases made 20 years ago.
Steam obviously has the advantage their with their legacy storefront. That's a well earned point to Steam. But it's not like Nintendo is alone on the other side. Nintendo, Xbox, PlayStation, Sega, and all other hardware manufacturers have that problem.
Thats the issue still isn't it? If your wii dies in a way that is unrepairable, what then? get another wii to play your old games? they are becoming hard to get.
The argument doesn't go nearly as far though. It's more like if the DS, Wii, Wii U, DSi, and 3DS games were all still playable on the Switch 2, because remember, Steam is old by now. They opened it up to third parties in 2005, and plenty of games that are WAY older than that have released on Steam in post. A lot lot of those are runnable on the Steam Deck.
Also, it doesn't stop you from installing third party launchers as well...
It's crazy expansive what kind of mileage you can get. Of course specialized hardware with specialized development will always be some amount faster or more stable, I'm not going to deny that.
It might not be great for long in hand play sessions from a form factor point of view but it invites itself to be played because it’s much thinner and lighter.
I also think it’s a better travel device because you can snap off the joy cons and sit it on a desk and not even have to worry about the weight of the console. The switch might not be comfortable when it’s fully assembled but when you’re doing joy cons in hand without a cradle or attached to the console it feels pretty amazing.
It's much more than that. Reddit significantly overestimates how much pull "adult" gamers have. Switches are very attractive to parents because you can hand it to a kid and it's so locked down you know they aren't doing anything wrong with it. Even though I use my Steam Deck exclusively now, the kids get the Switch to play with. It's a different market entirely and one that is much, much more profitable to conquer as Nintendo has.
Yeah, outside of emulation (which no American company can legally promote) Nintendo is safe as hell with their IP. People aren’t buying the switch because it’s the best handheld console, their buying to because it’s priced decently and can play the newest Pokémon
I was going to start saving for a Steam Deck after starting my new job but then the price went up massively so my money's going to Nintendo now instead. Shame as I'd love my Steam library on a portable but at least the Switch 2 only increased a little bit.
Even in a world where PC components weren’t insanely priced, a future Steam Deck can never compete with a future Switch on price, because Switch’s whole thing is “we sell you mid hardware that we make excellent games for,” and Steam Deck’s whole thing is “a handheld that can play most of your Steam Library.” Steam hardware needs to be beefier in order to play more AAA games without porting ans optimizing.
For Nintendo, the Switch 2 is all they have right now so they pull out all the stops. For everyone else, consoles are a side project. The Steam Deck exists to sell more Steam games and it's great at that. The Xbox exists to sell Game Pass and that strategy isn't really going so well. Sony is in a weird position where gaming was a side project when they were working with Nintendo on a CD add-on for the SNES, but has become vital pillar after the others collapsed. As of late, Playstation is at risk of becoming as irrelevant as Walkman.
The Switch 2 is all Nintendo has? Which of the three gaming companies has its own theme parks? Museum? Movies? I get your sentiment but Nintendo has the world’s biggest media franchise. The Pokémon games make the least money from the games by a mile. Nintendo is the king of selling merchandise.
I mean I've never heard anyone say that about Nintendo either.
They still technically own a theme park nonetheless, have museums, and a massive presence in movie making. Sony's holdings are just under other parts of the company or other names, and most that stuff is on the film-making side of the company.
Okay..? I mean I'd wager most people haven't heard of half the shit Nintendo or Sony are involved with and this is just getting off topic.
Person up there was acting like only one major gaming company had such a presence, which was technically false. I have no opinions specifically on the merits of either corporations' theme park ventures and exhibits.
The switch exists to sell Nintendo games. The attachment rate for first party games is absolutely insane and they basically pocket 100 percent of that. Now they're expanding to basically what Disney does and it's going quite well so far. Them and Valve are probably the best positioned business in gaming period
Handhelds have only gotten bigger though, lots of competition in that market now. From AYN Thor to the Retroid pockets, there’s competition and it’s only getting bigger. Though non are investing in games like Nintendo so there’s not much reason to go with anything but switch 2.
AYN and Retroid are still niche devices used a by a niche group of a niche community. They’ll never have the pull of a Steam deck, let alone the Switch
It might get big enough but currently there is no real competition to Nintendo in that market (Steam Deck is the only one selling millions). Nintendo has strong IPs no doubt about that but they also sell consoles at a low cost coz they make money back in their store. If Steam Deck was cheaper (that dream is gone now with memory prices) it would have sold much better most likely. Hard to compete with both strong IPs and price.
Even the steam deck I would consider an enthusiast device. If the switch sold what the steam deck has sold everyone would be saying it was one of the biggest flops in consoles ever
Not true, I used to buy every Playstation console and all my games on it. Now thanks to competition from pc I moved to steam and pc and Sony lost my recurring revenue. They absolutely compete
It really does seem like there's a lot of internal politicking at Microsoft and Xbox is getting a lot of pressure for underperforming.
There definitely seems to be a back and forth on whether Microsoft wants to stay in the hardware game at all. For a while it really looked like they were spreading out games to other consoles as a way of testing the waters and discontinuing the Xbox.
Then they retracted, say they don't plan on releasing Xbox games on other platforms, which suggests a move to wanting to focus on Xbox the physical platform more going forward.
Then they just announced the time limits on streamed games. Which, feels like a bad decision for one, but also is confusing. In my head I think that suggests they want to move away from hardware again. They want people streaming Gamepass games, and paying to stream them, and not having an Xbox to download them on. But it also could push players to get an Xbox to download their games and play them without the streaming fees.
Then they bought all those studios, then shuttered a ton of them. And that suggests they're considering a move away from the video games industry entirely.
It just seems like internal bickering causing these issues. Xbox is a big part of their brand, but a smaller part of their overall portfolio, it's not performing the way they want, that gets executives to start stirring the pot, and the executives don't agree on the direction to go.
I chuckled reading that. Although another way of putting it is that Xbox's biggest hindrance is themselves. I've never seen such a self sabotaging company in the gaming industry.
Xbox "lost" arguably the most important generation. I say "lost" and it's the wrong word as I moreso mean that they weren't even competitive. They didn't have to "win" that generation they just needed a better foothold than they ended up with.
That was the generation people began building a digital library and that allowed Sony to fuck up quite a lot as console generations aren't a clean start anymore.
You're in a way losing all your previous purchases if you jump to a competitor unless you keep hold of an old system (many want to sell if newer are backwards compatible) and have it permanently set up (not everybody wants generations worth of consoles set up and ready to go). Not to mention, cross-generation support has been better than ever which is likely to be a trend moving forward.
There's still only so much shit Sony can get away with and they're seemingly trying to find that limit, but it isn't like prior generations where one bad play can throw a whole console comfortably into lowest sales. They can get away with more, and only time will tell if they've fucked it bad enough.
Phil Spencer said this but honestly, "losing" a digital library by switching platforms is no different than losing a physical library by doing the same thing.
I feel it joins with the points of many just not wanting multiple systems set up when the could be condensed into a handful, especially when they're backwards compatible and literally play the exact same versions. Convenience, basically, alongside having less clutter.
As with the longer cross generational support, the convenience comes back in. Rather than hopping between Xbox One and PS5, just have the Series X/S. Or whatever combination.
Convenience and less clutter are bigger selling points than people might realise, especially in a gaming sub-reddit where people are probably more likely to keep hold of older consoles and have 10 systems to hand. That's not the average customer, though, and to them, it'll feel like losing a library rather than just needing to have the system to hand.
But the digital library being stuck on a physical system is mentally a whole different thing. The major part being that you can't recoup any of those digital game purchases if you wanted to. If you're somebody who replaces rather than upgrading when you get the chance, there's absolutely a difference at that point.
Switching platforms when you can sell or trade your console and most or all of your existing collection is way easier than when you have to start from scratch without the starting funds from cashing in your old platform. You aren't just losing your physical collection and calling it a day. You're losing it because you exchanged it for money to buy stuff on the new platform. With digital, you just lost it.
This is a big part of why I was adamant about getting a disc PS5. I've never been a day 1 guy for most games so the resale market is very important to me, regardless of if I'm switching consoles. I like getting my games cheaper and trading them in when I'm done or if I dislike it. Then when I am upgrading I definitely take advantage of that extra funding from selling my games.
Plus it's becoming more widespread general knowledge that no one owns their digital library. They can and will rip those games from us when they feel like so since I don't actually own my digital library, that is not something that will play into my decision on a new console
I feel like it will take sometime before they fully face the consequences of what they're doing, all things considered. It'll probably be more of an Ubisoft-type fall from grace than an Xbox One fiasco.
First signs are already there: people is still pissed at the disc stuff, about the Destiny stuff, about the generation feeling expensive and unmemorable, etc.
If the overall mood wasn't so bad, I think Wolverine would have probably achieves an 80 or 81. But reviewers are people, many are also gamers, so if they're in a foul mood they'll pay more attention to flaws they'd have relatively overlook.
I personally think the impact in the next 18 to 24 months won't really be that big. They'll keep the reputational hit, they may lose some PS+ subs, and they could see slightly lower sales of their next big releases because people is just pissed of and disengaged.
But there are 90 million PS5s out there, and I don't think most of these people, even the ones that care about this, will completely disengage with the console they already own. The real results will be seen when disc is phased out in early 2028 and next gen launches in 2028 or 2029.
Corporate executives ruin everything with their greed. They consistently ruin dependable and profitable businesses only to squeeze an extra few percentage points profit. It's so myopic.
Having a xbox and pc is actually far more worth jt than I thought, I didnt know about the "xbox play anywhere" but a lot of really good games come with it
I bought onimusha on xbox and it lets me download it and play it on pc as well, and the games upload save to the cloud so its seemless
No clue how you were on -3 with that. It's true that if you want a console on top of a pc then Xbox gives you a lot more, though I suspect that is the problem for many and why they might choose Playstation instead since ther are experienced there not available on pc and unlike something like the steam deck the Xbox does not really fill a different niche from your pc to necessarily make it worth owning separately.
Xbox and Pc are already very tied to each other. If you virtually wanted to experience the best of gaming has to offer then you can leave the Xbox console itself out of it. I'd include PC, and then Switch and PlayStation for their exclusives
Also PC player here but even as a PC player, at least Xbox puts all of their first party exclusives on PC day one, meanwhile Sony and Nintendo are intentionally saying “fuck you” to PC.
yea that’s fine it doesn’t really matter to me the overall point is that these companies could do timed exclusives with PC versions coming even years later but choose not to, Playstation already did that but backpedaled on it.
Microsoft gets at least some points on that for me, even if I haven’t played many Xbox exclusives recently either.
Why are pc gamers so entitled. Nintendo does not owe pc games anything, nor are they saying "fuck you" for not putting their games on it. They make hardware to sell games, and the make games to sell hardware that is their business model
And if the hardware still doesn't move a person to purchase it, why would they NOT want to STILL sell the software? The cross section of people who want a switch, versus the people who want gaming PC, and those who can afford both is not endless.
I just think it's a short sighted outlook. What do they care where people purchase their stuff, as long as it's on a (relatively) neutral platform? The people that were going to buy Nintendo (or Sony) hardware, were already going to do it. They're not losing customers.
It's like the piracy argument all over again: the people pirating stuff WERE NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THE COMPANY WITH MONEY ANYWAY. Same thing with expecting (hoping) everyone will buy 3 consoles. I don't know about you, but with the price of gas and food lately, expecting that is madness. Why wouldn't a company just hedge their bets and increase their odds to make money by offering it in more places that don't directly compete?
And for what it's worth, I generally don't give a shit about Nintendo games, it's Sony I was interested in, and that I think is making a bigger mistake. Also..you know, what the post was about. You responded to someone complaining about Sony and Nintendo, and you just singled in on Nintendo for some reason.
The switch 1 is like a few million away from being the best selling console of ALL TIME. The switch 2 is the fastest selling console of ALL TIME. I think their strategy is working. Their first party games have insane attachment rates on their consoles which means people buy nintendo hardware to play Nintendo software. And they pocket the revenue from first party 100 percent. Why would they then turn around putting games on pc where they would then have to pay a cut to Valve or whoever and give less reasons to pc players on buying their hardware. That makes zero business sense. Not to mention the fact that it would increase development costs and lengthen development time. There is no upside or advantage for then to go pc. Literally zero
DOG I AM RESPONDING TO YOUR COMMENT ON NINTENDO THAT'S WHY. AND YOU STILL DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY THAT MAKES NO BUSINESS SENSE EVEN THOUGH I JUST TIKD YOU EXACTLY WHY THEY WILL NOT DO THAT. THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO TRADE THE PC PLAYERS THAT DO BUY THE HARDWARE AND GAMES FOR JUST THE CUSTOMERS THAT WOULD BUY THE GAMES. OVERALL REVENUE WOULD DECREASE AS THEY LOSE ON HARDWARE SALES AND SOFTWARE DUE TO PAYING VALVE AND OTHER STOREFRONTS A CUT. NOT TO MENTION THEY LOSE CONTROL OF THEIR IP WHICH THEY ARE VERY PROTECTICE OF SEEING AS THEY HAVE A FAMILY FRIENDLY IMAGE AND MODDEDS WOULD MAKE SOME WEIRD SHIT AND POST IT ONLINE.
I haven’t cared about a nintendo exclusive game in over a decade and I’m more than okay not playing one ever again, the last Nintendo console I owned was a gamecube and it will stay that way.
All I’m saying is at least Microsoft made the conscious choice to not alienate PC players while Sony backpedaled on PC support and Nintendo never cared about it at all.
So yea, from a consumer POV, it kind of is a “hey either buy our console or fuck you”, is it not? They have the option to do timed exclusives but consciously choose not to, yes or no?
Also how pathetic to be defending one of the worst, most anti-consumer company in the industry.
Microsoft sells games on pc because they one own windows and want people using it and two need pc sales since their games have a smaller customer base if it was just on Xbox. Sony is done with pc because reportedly the next Xbox will be able to run pc games so people buying an Xbox will be able to play Playstation games and they're not having that.
And like you said you're a consumer, either consume or shut the fuck up with the complaining. I'm not defending a corporation I'm telling you, a grown ass adult with access to this information how these companies are making their money.
Nintendo shareholders would literally revolt at Nintendo games on pc, because that would most definitely lead to less hardware sales, longer development times, and buggy games seeing as it's much harder to optimize for pc compared to what they do on their own hardware.
Play on pc all you want but it's pretty pathetic to be taking business decisions so personally especially when said company has literally never released on pc. It just comes off as entitlement and that's weird and childish behavior
It's so annoying. It's like...free money they're turning down. Tons of the PC people won't ever buy the hardware anyway, so it makes no sense to not take the money.
lol oh nooo. And the downvoting doesn't even make sense on a "sony doom and gloom topic."
I have a PS5 haha. I just don't use it after I finished the game I bought it for! And I had a series X that wasn't getting used (because PC), and a switch that was just sitting there. I sold em both and bought a new SSD for my rig. And until Ocarina of Time, I saw no reason to even want a Switch 2.
When hardware sales slow down again, because they keep jacking up the price to PC levels, they'll all act surprised and betrayed when Sony starts trying to port to PC again.
No he got down voted by people with critical thinking skills. Literally no evidence to back up pc players wouldn't buy nintendo hardware. In fact the evidence points to the opposite, nintendo literally has a reputation as the "second console". The hardware people who own a pc or main console buy specifically to play the games they make.
What evidence? The same imaginary "Facts" could also "literally" show that those PC gamers AREN'T buying Nintendo hardware. lol feel free to drop some direct market research showing it, because there isn't any.
Former head of Sony Shawn Ladyen came out in June, during an interview, arguing AGAINST what he called Sony's short-sighted" cancellation of pc ports as a bad move. He specifically stated that porting a game to PC around 18 months after release has zero negative impact on console sales because "they were never going to buy a console anyway," and console sales go flat X amount of time after launch.
He straight up said that not porting to PC was a strategy to "not make money."
Show me some "evidence" for Nintendo that this demographic cross-section we're talking about here, for game sales for Nintendo hardware as "a primary second console" (which is debatable because as just as many people with PCs could choose to buy PS5s instead of Nintendo hardware), would cannibalize sales a year and a half after release?
The sales are the evidence. Sony said pc sales sucked so their was no real loss or worth in continuing pc ports for single player games. And Nintendo is not fucking with pc, get over it already. Please use some critical thinking it's humanity's greatest asset 🤣
It literally takes two seconds to look this shit up. The original goal of selling PS5 games on PC wasn't even to make "block buster" profit and sell shit loads. They knew going in, that staggering the release 12-18 months would cause the PC variant titles to have less sales. And even then it added 1.2 billion in revenue because of those sales.
Their own hardware sales data, from the quarterly reporting, PROVES that there was no direct impact on console sales, either positive or negative, from releasing those games on PC. I'll say it slowly for you - THE GAMERS THAT BOUGHT THOSE GAMES WERE NOT GOING TO BUY CONSOLES ANYWAY, OR ALREADY HAD ONE. It was direct income that Sony WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN IF THE GAME WAS NOT THERE TO BE SOLD.
The point wasn't to become a huge PC publishing power house. It was to gain additional sales and, PER THE CEO, "introduce the franchises and characters to new audiences that had no intention of entering the console ecosystem."
No one here is arguing that these companies HAVE to do it. We're saying that we think it's STUPID that they don't. If you still don't understand the viewpoint, there's not much more I can do for you.
Yeah me too. Until I wanted to play Ragnarok and it wasn't on PC. So I bought one and now it just collects dust since. I keep saying I'll get around to the things I wanted to try (Astrobot), but I never do.
The greatest part of Nintendo’s hardware has always been Nintendo’s software. Their teams are led by long tenured veterans of the company, and they value play and inventiveness.
yea but with the Wii U, for every Splatoon or Mario 3D World you also had crap like Mario Tennis Ultra Smash, Star Fox Zero, Mario Party 10, and Paper Mario Color Splash being dogass games and wasting space in drought heavy release schedules. Alot of Wii U games Nintendo double’d down on bad ideas from previous games instead of either improving them or going back to what people liked. And I get and respect Nintendo for always doing their own thing but that doesn’t mean their own ideas can’t suck from time to time. (Plus the system had awful loading times.)
Then you had games that were amazing but had blatant corner cutting like Mario Kart 8’s sad excuse of a battle mode and whatever the fuck Smash Wii U’s Classic mode was
personally dont think xbox will make a comeback like people would imagine. but i do feel it stuff stays on course, they might come out as simply the better option.
helix rumored to allow third party stores, and xbox putting in a bit more effort on backwards compatibility. the amount of games available to you from your already existing libraries (if youve collected them), older titles that you can opt-in for a digital license, and gamepass offering its own library to play from.
should be an easy win assuming they play their cards right and don't set absurd expectations or push AI into a lot of it just to boost numbers (which, sad to say, is likely).
And all Xbox has to do is deliberately make choices opposite Sony and advertise the heck out of it: "We still use discs, resale and loan your games because you own them!" "We've dropped Gamepass to be cheaper than PS+ because we see it benefits you, not us!" "We have Fable and a ton of other single player focused games for you to play, we understand live service is only part of the market!" Etc etc. If they could somehow undercut the PS6 for the cost of Xbox Helix by just a little bit they'd also have a huge leg up.
People see the blip of the WiiU's existence and consider it a bomb, but it's different if you look at it through the lens of it just being kind of a Switch prototype that Nintendo somehow found itself mass-producing and selling. Everything they didn't quite get right with the WiiU, they nailed with the Switch, except the shop regression.
Probably says a lot that most of the successful early Switch titles were straight-ass WiiU ports.
Exactly. They had a tremendous run with PS1, PS2 and the PS4. PS3 was a bit shaky from the beginning. They got too arrogant. They need a humbling. Competition breeds excellence.
Their biggest mistake, in my opinion, was overinvesting in live service multiplayer long after that ship had already sailed.
I think that their doubling down on single-player IP makes sense, and I don't think this article is capturing the financial side of this necessarily. The article is written very much from a critic's point of view, acting as though Wolverine is already a failure as a foregone conclusion, and acting like Physint was going to be a financial success as well, which doesn't really make sense necessarily. I think they probably cut their losses on what was going to be a financial wash.
Their biggest mistake, in my opinion, was overinvesting in live service multiplayer long after that ship had already sailed.
I've said before I totally get from a business perspective investing in live service titles, but I would have maybe greenlit 4 or 5 max and wait till 2 or 3 of them released before doing more. Meanwhile Jim Ryan greenlit 14 almost back to back.
There's a tendency in business to trend chase. Once you've seen something successful, you try to replicate that success.
Call of Duty 4 came out, told the whole industry "There's a big appetite for multiplayer modern military shooters" and everyone started making those. Or, when the Popeyes chicken sandwich came out and was a massive hit, and everyone started doing chicken sandwiches.
Live Service games are different. There's room in the market for a good number of multiplayer military shooters, and definitely market space for multiple chicken sandwiches.
But live service games require a massive commitment, both from the company making it and the playerbase. Live service games require the company making it to continue to support it, forever in theory. The company needs a dedicated team to be working on the next battle pass, or banner, or event, until they eventually decide to sunset the project. This is a big, not cheap, commitment. The company needs to invest a lot of resources into it. And continue to do so.
But also the playerbase needs to be willing to come back and buy each new battle pass, or buy pulls on the new banner, or cosmetics for the new event. And do this forever.
And players don't have time to do that for, really, more than one or two live service games. The average person does not have the time to play Fortnite, and Marathon, and Genshin Impact, and Helldivers 2, and Destiny 2, and Call of Duty Warzone. The time commitment asked for by any one game is too much for the average person.
So the average person is going to pick one or two and stick with one or two. And if they pick up another, drop one of the others they were playing. The playerbase will be divided between live service games.
So, by investing in too many, you're guaranteeing too many failures. The playerbase will be split, or they'll abandon some games in favor of others. And now that team continuing to make the new content is making it for fewer players. Costs climb, revenue falls, and the project fails.
And half the players that like live service games are just not going to leave their current one anyways.
Honestly PlayStation went downhill ever since they moved to California. That’s when they shifted to its current model. All the best memories people had of PS was back in the PS1- first half of the PS4 era. Remember that time when they made that ad against Xbox and physical discs? That was when they were still in Japan since Japan loves physical media still.
This is nonsense. Moving to California was a symptom, not the cause.
Few games sold over 20 million copies before the 2000s, and that number has shot up dramatically since. This is due to a lot of outside money with their own standards and agendas. Not all of it is from California.
Just wait until Saudi Arabia continues to buy up companies.
If anyone really cared, we'd have seen something change by now. This is the same kind of argument that's been going on for several years now. I think it's more a pricing issue at best. But no one has stopped buying the same exact kinds of games over and over and over. The whole reason Sony's type of game keeps getting made is because they sell really well. Sure, initial sales have taken a hit on some titles, but after a few months they often more than make their money back. It's just as games got more expensive people have had to save up or wait for sales. I've seen almost no lack of purchasing from many studios (FromSoft, Sony, Nintendo, TakeTwo, etc.) who all have extremely formulaic, and often samey game releases. Until sales AND sentiment actually represent a desire for these companies to do something meaningfully different, I'll just be sitting here.
What’s happening right now? Playstation consoles are sold out everywhere despite a price increase and gta pre orders have probably made them millions already
Everything that's happening? Digital downloads for PlayStation make up roughly 80% of all software sold for that console. They are about to hit the 100 million console mark. You people are literally delusional 😂😂😂😂
Yup, and those numbers are going to go way up for GTA 6, they have literally advertised that the ideal console for the game is PS5. PS5 pros everywhere are sold out. Just Reddit/the internet being delusional as usual.
Reddit loves narratives, doesn’t ever check financials. It’s true that Sony is off record highs from a year ago, but that’s almost entirely due to rising component costs, and even then they’re still doing very well. The PS5 is wildly successful, has been profitable since go, and is one of the best selling consoles of all time (already beaten PS3 lifetime) and has years left of longevity. Their future isn’t riding on Wolverine, or even exclusives generally, they have a well developed ecosystem with nearly 200 million users and growing. People stay in these ecosystems because of their preexisting libraries, same as Steam and Nintendo, or even Apple or Android.
Acting like Sony isn’t far and away the sales leader this gen and PS5s aren’t flying off the shelves for GTA6 right now.
Reddit and some social cares. Nobody else does. You people really need to get off your high horses. The reality is you’re an insignificant spec and you’ll most likely get right back in line when your whole friends list pressures you to.
This isn't about the here and now. It's about the future.
Anyone smart would just save for a PC and leave Sony behind in the dust. You'll be able to pirate the Sony exclusives eventually if they don't bring them to PC.
The future of the PC is bright, even though we are in the hardware apocalypse right now. It still doesore for you dollar for dollar than any console by a large margin.
The unfortunate part is there will always be people willing to sip the shit stew presented to them. They wont stop until people stop supporting them, and they wont.
Yep. Get too greedy, act like assholes and ruin your goodwill and see how fast people drop your ass.
Ps6 is already in the no buy column unless it does something staggeringly original and amazing.
2.0k
u/Reed7525 15h ago
Anything thats happening right now, theyve done to themselves