More PlayStation games are headed to PC (God of War next, Jan 2022)

[fyiByas]

I never really cared for Days Gone but it looked fun to watch someone play, as for other 'Sony Exclusives' I think it's honestly fine and better off if it was on Computer.

That being said it's inevitable that consoles will be the less compared to what Steam has to offer, much like how Handheld was overshadowed by Smart Phones. IMO

 

I do like Handhelds and consoles they had their own charm but with the release of PS5 I had no interest because there was no first party games that I had much interest in.  Not to mention Scalpers bought off alot of the PS5s meaning there is less players to play PS5 games and some  developers may have no reason to make the games for the platform if most were scalpers.  It's unfortunate that most Stores like Gamestop/Best buy and others are lacking in PS5 inventory because most  of it was you can buy a PS5 on Amazon or other online outlets. One reason why Nvida's 3060,3070 & 3080 along with previous GPUs  are also mostly out of stock is because of scalpers.

 

With less stores to buy physical copies and the rise of early access/digital along with Console's Paid Online Subscription less people will have a reason to buy console. Handhelds might survive but it's gonna be hybrids of smart phone or console.

 

Sony should just focus on making games and hardware/software that appease customers but... 

with the current direction of sony I see only a consumer future.   heh

 

 

It's like why bother playing Dreams if they gonna abandon the I.P.  like they did with LittleBigPlanet.

[Darling Baphomet]

2 hours ago, fyiByas said:

That being said it's inevitable that consoles will be the less compared to what Steam has to offer, much like how Handheld was overshadowed by Smart Phones. IMO

 

Well, PS5 still has the advantage of a more convenient gaming setup, while PC can be something of a hassle, plus it's more affordable than PC because it's competitively priced - PC retailers make money off of hardware, and thus sell their hardware for a profit; console retailers (well, besides Nintendo, cheap asses that they are) sell at a loss, to give you an attractive, cheap entry into their gaming marketplace, and then they have your money for years to come. PSVR is also competitively priced to PC.

 

2 hours ago, fyiByas said:

It's like why bother playing Dreams if they gonna abandon the I.P.  like they did with LittleBigPlanet.

 

Well, ideally you'd play Dreams for the user generated content, or to make your own content, in one of the most powerful yet accessible game creation suites available, and basically the only one available on PS4.

[fyiByas]

5 minutes ago, Darling Baphomet said:

 

Well, PS5 still has the advantage of a more convenient gaming setup, while PC can be something of a hassle, plus it's more affordable than PC because it's competitively priced - PC retailers make money off of hardware, and thus sell their hardware for a profit; console retailers (well, besides Nintendo, cheap asses that they are) sell at a loss, to give you an attractive, cheap entry into their gaming marketplace, and then they have your money for years to come. PSVR is also competitively priced to PC.

 

 

Well, ideally you'd play Dreams for the user generated content, or to make your own content, in one of the most powerful yet accessible game creation suites available, and basically the only one available on PS4.

 

Been hesitant I just don't think I'm going to get a PS5 & Switch, PSVR is something I want to see if any good puzzle games come out I think that would be alot fun.

 

I haven't played Dreams yet but I saw footage of it, looked fun. I just hope it's creator content stays around for a long time and if I have time maybe create something of my own. Sony is lucky to have Media Molecule imo I just wish they got more marketing but I'm not a Dev guy or involved in that realm. I wouldn't be surprised if Japan Studio has been losing faces. Studio Liverpool gone and doing their own thing,  

 

I just have a lack of time so I'm picky.

[Darling Baphomet]

1 minute ago, fyiByas said:

Been hesitant I just don't think I'm going to get a PS5 & Switch, PSVR is something I want to see if any good puzzle games come out I think that would be alot fun.

 

Pretty sure they're doing a PSVR 2 for PS5, so I'd hold off if you're still iffy on it. I'll probably get it in a few years - both due to expenses and having a fair few PS4 VR games stuck on my backlog. There are a fair few good puzzle games on PSVR already, though.

[Rozalia1]

20 hours ago, Darling Baphomet said:

 

Well, PS5 still has the advantage of a more convenient gaming setup, while PC can be something of a hassle, plus it's more affordable than PC because it's competitively priced - PC retailers make money off of hardware, and thus sell their hardware for a profit; console retailers (well, besides Nintendo, cheap asses that they are) sell at a loss, to give you an attractive, cheap entry into their gaming marketplace, and then they have your money for years to come. PSVR is also competitively priced to PC.

 

I wouldn't use the word "cheap" to describe Nintendo. They're the top video game company in the world, their name possesses legendary status, and have several of the most well-known characters. Nintendo consoles are "underpowered" because they do not require power, the Nintendo brand is overwhelmingly strong. That means Nintendo is being smart, not cheap.

[Darling Baphomet]

4 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

I wouldn't use the word "cheap" to describe Nintendo. They're the top video game company in the world, their name possesses legendary status, and have several of the most well-known characters. Nintendo consoles are "underpowered" because they do not require power, the Nintendo brand is overwhelmingly strong. That means Nintendo is being smart, not cheap.

 

Please tell me this post is satire, because it really reads like it. Their consoles are extremely underpowered - they consistently produce consoles which are much weaker than the competition's, years after the competition launches, relying on gimmicks and name branding to keep themselves afloat. When was the last time a Nintendo console was cutting edge? Surely not anytime in recent history. And you can't tell me that Nintendo's so called Labo VR kit which the Switch could barely run wasn't cheap. Xenoblade Chronicles X, which had to run at 720p and 30 fps because of how weak the Wii U was, certainly needed more power. And let's say nothing of the shitty online subscription which gives you access to... nes games. That's to say nothing of how Nintendo games are consistently more expensive than other companies' games; basically the equivalent of Apple if Apple was selling low-mid range Android phones.

 

Whether or not Nintendo is the top video game company in the world (which I doubt), that has nothing to do with them being cheap. "Legendary status" is also not a factor that has anything to do with being cheap. Having well known characters also has nothing to do with being cheap. Being smart also has nothing to do with being cheap - most corporations are being smart when they shortchange consumers; they're being smart by being cheap.

[Z1MZUM]

1 hour ago, Rozalia1 said:

 

I wouldn't use the word "cheap" to describe Nintendo. They're the top video game company in the world, their name possesses legendary status, and have several of the most well-known characters. Nintendo consoles are "underpowered" because they do not require power, the Nintendo brand is overwhelmingly strong. That means Nintendo is being smart, not cheap.

 

I wouldn't use the word Cheap, I'd use the words Rip Off, Limited, Consumer products, Trends, and last of all the easiest consoles to hack which you probably still wouldn't use with the entire library. 

 

Every Nintendo product can be emulated and the end results are far better then the original console.

[Rozalia1]

1 hour ago, Darling Baphomet said:

 

Please tell me this post is satire, because it really reads like it. Their consoles are extremely underpowered - they consistently produce consoles which are much weaker than the competition's, years after the competition launches, relying on gimmicks and name branding to keep themselves afloat. When was the last time a Nintendo console was cutting edge? Surely not anytime in recent history. And you can't tell me that Nintendo's so called Labo VR kit which the Switch could barely run wasn't cheap. Xenoblade Chronicles X, which had to run at 720p and 30 fps because of how weak the Wii U was, certainly needed more power. And let's say nothing of the shitty online subscription which gives you access to... nes games. That's to say nothing of how Nintendo games are consistently more expensive than other companies' games; basically the equivalent of Apple if Apple was selling low-mid range Android phones.

 

Whether or not Nintendo is the top video game company in the world (which I doubt), that has nothing to do with them being cheap. "Legendary status" is also not a factor that has anything to do with being cheap. Having well known characters also has nothing to do with being cheap. Being smart also has nothing to do with being cheap - most corporations are being smart when they shortchange consumers; they're being smart by being cheap.

 

??? I think you need to reread the post because you clearly have not understood it to have rattled off that stuff. You're not wrong sure, but I've already addressed all that in the previous post.

 

It does actually. If Sony could put out underpowered hardware for cheap and make more money they would. Nintendo has no reason to put out powerful hardware as it likely will not translate to making more money. Nintendo works smart and their games are some of the best crafted out there. 

 

5 minutes ago, Z1MZUM said:

I wouldn't use the word Cheap, I'd use the words Rip Off, Limited, Consumer products, Trends, and last of all the easiest consoles to hack which you probably still wouldn't use with the entire library. 

 

Every Nintendo product can be emulated and the end results are far better then the original console.

 

Some fun stuff here I'll address.

 

Trends? A fun one that as Nintendo often gets called both old fashioned and also a company that is always looking for the next gimmick. I'll remind you that plenty of trends/gimmicks die, and die quickly. Look at Google and their Stadia for example of something that even with all that money and marketing behind it just crashed and burned. Nintendo meanwhile succeeds when they push stuff.

Cheap? They make money on their console sales and they've had massive success, being one of the richest gaming companies out there off the sheer strength of the 1st party. 

Limited? Nintendo makes games which are good studies for anyone wanting to get into making games. They may not have the flashiest graphics and POWER behind them, but many of them are expertly crafted. Being less limited means little if you don't know what to do with it all as we've seen with many companies and their games, which is not an issue Nintendo faces.

Rip off? The fact their games hold their value and they back the strength of their brand? Does it affect their sales in any way? Fewer people buying? No? Then there you go. A good element that is forgotten often is their games holding their value so well is actually pro-consumer in a certain manner. Early buyers can be assured that what they've bought will hold it's value and Nintendo won't just devalue it massively in future. If other companies could trust their brand to do what Nintendo does they would by the way.

Easily hacked/emulated? What a strange mention. Sure, but in what way has that affected Nintendo's numbers? I mean let's compare Nintendo to say Steam on PC for example who you could say have the same problem. Valve's response to the issues PC faced was that there was a service problem and that if PC games were sold in big sales at big discounts then people would buy games with no problem. This in turn fostered a culture among many of "I'll not buy this as there will be a sale that will discount this heavily". Games on there in short are considered by many to simply not be worth their value. Now, Nintendo, which you say has this hacking/emulation problem. Do they sell their games in deep cuts to beg people to buy their games and not steal them? Nope. 

 

[Darling Baphomet]

3 minutes ago, Rozalia1 said:

It does actually. If Sony could put out underpowered hardware for cheap and make more money they would. Nintendo has no reason to put out powerful hardware as it likely will not translate to making more money. Nintendo works smart and their games are some of the best crafted out there. 

 

So you admit Nintendo is cheap, then?

[Rozalia1]

Just now, Darling Baphomet said:

So you admit Nintendo is cheap, then?

 

You appear to just be ignoring what I'm saying if this keeps being your response. Nintendo has put out a product that matches the specifications that their games require, as have the other platform holders. Sony needs more power for their titles and because they need to keep within range of Microsoft or their reputation will suffer. Microsoft meanwhile also needs to stick within range of Sony and are all about that POWER which you know, has only gotten them last place in the platform holders rankings. Nintendo meanwhile does not need POWER, they do not need to compete on that front with them as their brand is so strong and innovative.

 

I simply reject your claim they're cheap in the negative terms you place on it. It'd be like looking at say... the Herman Miller Aeron chair and some other much cheaper chair and saying the company doing the cheaper chair is cheating out because it doesn't cost a fortune. Silliness. They're targeting different things and the chairs are made with the parts to match that target. It's not a matter of the company putting out the weaker product being "cheap".

[MidnightDragon]

Is it so bad more people get to play these awesome games?

[RadiantFlamberge]

The exclusivity period on these games has served its purpose already. Sony had that initial rush of sales... now if they want to release a PS game on another platform (PC), let them. Microsoft has let their Halo Master Chief collection go to PC after having it be X1 exclusive for a few years.

[Darling Baphomet]

5 hours ago, RadiantFlamberge said:

The exclusivity period on these games has served its purpose already. Sony had that initial rush of sales... now if they want to release a PS game on another platform (PC), let them. Microsoft has let their Halo Master Chief collection go to PC after having it be X1 exclusive for a few years.

 

It's a dangerous game; if it becomes regular enough that PC gamers can just say, "eh, in a few years I'll be able to play it in 8k) then their exclusives start to become less of a system seller.

 

That being said, both of the once-exclusives ported to PC (HZD and Days Gone) were new IPs; a PC launch might help to get those franchises out there, so to speak, for marketing purposes. Porting an iconic Sony franchise like Uncharted or God of War to PC would be an entirely different matter.

[DaivRules]

3 hours ago, Darling Baphomet said:

It's a dangerous game; if it becomes regular enough that PC gamers can just say, "eh, in a few years I'll be able to play it in 8k) then their exclusives start to become less of a system seller.

Worrying about a fraction of a percent of people seems to be more effort than it’s worth in this case. The 1% of gamers that have 8k gaming ability who are also a cross section of PS4/5 gamers that watch AAA titles on PS, but aren’t concerned with playing them at launch would end up being a rounding error. 
 

 

[Dreakon13]

2 hours ago, DaivRules said:

Worrying about a fraction of a percent of people seems to be more effort than it’s worth in this case. The 1% of gamers that have 8k gaming ability who are also a cross section of PS4/5 gamers that watch AAA titles on PS, but aren’t concerned with playing them at launch would end up being a rounding error. 
 

 

 

In fairness, it could potentially apply to all PC gamers... not just the ones seeking out 8K.

 

Though I agree if people on PC are waiting years for exclusives to maybe port over, they were likely never interested in those games enough to buy those consoles and buy those games on launch anyways.  In all likelihood, they wrote those games off as something they'll just never play, and any ports are just a pleasant surprise.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Dreakon13

[DaivRules]

2 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

In fairness, it could potentially apply to all PC gamers... not just the ones seeking out 8K.

 

Though I agree if people on PC are waiting years for exclusives to maybe port over, they were likely never interested in those games enough to buy those consoles and buy those games on launch anyways.  In all likelihood, they wrote those games off as something they'll just never play, and any ports are just a pleasant surprise.

 

Yes, I was responding to the specific claim made about a specific subset of people (mythical 8K pc gamers).

 

And the second part of your post is exactly the reason these PC ports make sense. The majority of people willing to wait years for a PC release were going to wait until the game was less than $20 on PlayStation anyway, if they were going to purchase it at all. More likely they'd just complain every month that it hasn't been released on Now or Plus yet.

 

 

[EDGES]

11 hours ago, RadiantFlamberge said:

The exclusivity period on these games has served its purpose already. Sony had that initial rush of sales... now if they want to release a PS game on another platform (PC), let them. Microsoft has let their Halo Master Chief collection go to PC after having it be X1 exclusive for a few years.

this mentally makes no sense, the "exclusivity period"? what  is that exactly? because these games were advertised as exclusive, period, not exclusive for a period, and if (in your opinion) a game is not providing value anymore on the platform that it is on, the answer to that is not to put it on another platform, the answer to that is to make it valuable again, and I will explain this with a perfect example that completely destroys your narrative

 

two games, Horizon Zero Dawn, Final Fantasy 7 Remake, you can argue that both these games lost their value on PS4, they've been offered free and on PSNow with HZD and FF7 on PS+, both sold sold 5-10+ million, so what next from here? Horizon was ported on PC, most pirated game on PC at its launch, what did that do for PS4 and PS5 owners? absolutely nothing good, in fact the support required for the PC version has delayed the development of Horizon 2 for PS5

now, FF7R, what did they do? did they just put the game on PC and Xbox to make money since it has already done everything it can on PS4 and the actual 1 year advertised "exclusive period" expired? which is the logical thing to expect here? surprisingly, no, you know what they did? a new, dedicated from the ground up PS5 version, free to existing owners, and new DLC for it, what has this done? 1. the sales for the PS4 version skyrocketed on amazon and sold out, 2. incentive for PS5 owners, 3. incentive for FF7 fans with new DLC, 4. experience for the devs for the full sequel on PS5 development, 5. money for Square and more

now compare how Sony utilized their IP vs how Square utilized their IP, with FF7, you get a free next gen version and DLC on PS5, what do you get from Horizon on PS5? a big fat nothing

 

and for the 2nd part of your comment about MS/Halo, that is a completely different situation, MS is not "letting" anything, they have completely changed their strategy to day one on other platforms period, no such thing as exclusive for xbox anymore, everything is day one on PC

 

Sony is selling a Platform, and games for that Platform, and right now they are sending mixed messages with their resource utilization in supporting that platform

 

sure, some people were never going to buy a PS4 and exclusives anyway, so Sony is getting the money out of those people, but at what cost? I'll tell you, 1. at the cost of giving 30% of that money to Steam, 2. at the cost of eliminating the PS has exclusives narrative they've built for 25 years, 3. at the cost of development delays for PS5 games, 4. at the cost of the people that caved in and did buy a ps4 and exclusives, now they know to just wait

 

from all that, I have a question for people that are pro Sony 1st party games releasing on PC, with the above information, how is this helping PlayStation gamers?

Edited May 12, 2021 by LockheedPrime

[DaivRules]

2 minutes ago, LockheedPrime said:

from all that, I have a question for people that are pro Sony 1st party games releasing on PC, with the above information, how is this helping PlayStation gamers?

 

Please explain in what way Sony "helps PlayStation gamers"? They are a business selling products. They're not your friends trying to protect your feelings and helping you feel good about yourself.

 

When Sony has a product that their core consumer group have largely stop purchasing after several years, and there is another consumer group that are looking to purchase that product, but haven't had access previously, Sony should address the unfulfilled demand for their product.

 

They kept the game on PlayStation for as long as PlayStation gamers were willing to purchase it. Keeping it longer and throwing away potential to bring in more revenue to put back into 1st party studios to make more products for PlayStation gamers first ultimately helps them as a company and that's all they care about and have to care about. If some gamers think they're being "helped" by Sony having more revenue to put back into 1st party studios, then they can convinced this helps them.

 

 

[TJ_Solo]

Quote

Sony should address the unfulfilled demand for their product.

 

If Sony can't get those consumers to buy into the Sony ecosystem and buy games(1st and 3rd party) in that ecosystem then what is the point of just porting 1st party games? 

Just saying it is "more money" for Sony neglects to mention that making that money also came at a cost as the creation and marketing of the ports are not free. Revenue is cool but were there profits? Were the profits the above or below the projected amount? Maybe if Sony just made games then putting games every where would make sense even though that still goes against how marketing and distribution deals are designed in many cases.

I don't get how Sony is obligated to reachout to all consumers even those that show 0 interest in the Sony ecosystem. Looks like chasing a matter of chasing two rabbits to me. 

 

What I was taught about demand and supply, I was under the impression that not all demand will be met. Either because the price at certain levels of demand is too low or because the number of people will to buy high prices is too low. The case of consumers on PC waiting for deep, deep discounts falls to the former as far as book learning goes. Sony putting more games on PC at lower prices would put them in the same boat as Xbox. A devalued ecosystem and devalued games.  Poor sales all-around. 

[EDGES]

20 minutes ago, DaivRules said:

 

Please explain in what way Sony "helps PlayStation gamers"? They are a business selling products. They're not your friends trying to protect your feelings and helping you feel good about yourself.

 

When Sony has a product that their core consumer group have largely stop purchasing after several years, and there is another consumer group that are looking to purchase that product, but haven't had access previously, Sony should address the unfulfilled demand for their product.

 

They kept the game on PlayStation for as long as PlayStation gamers were willing to purchase it. Keeping it longer and throwing away potential to bring in more revenue to put back into 1st party studios to make more products for PlayStation gamers first ultimately helps them as a company and that's all they care about and have to care about. If some gamers think they're being "helped" by Sony having more revenue to put back into 1st party studios, then they can convinced this helps them.

 

 

"Please explain in what way Sony "helps PlayStation gamers"? "

funding a game like God Of War, 5-6 years to make, huge budget, huge risk, paid off, gamers won a great game, as a business they could've easily tasked that dev with making online games till they got a hit and profit from microtransactions, but instead they aimed to make a masterpiece, why? to have incentive, for what? for selling a platform, how? by that game being exclusive to that platform, that's why they can afford to take risks and fund these type of games, because the aim of a game like GOW is not just to make money, it is to sell the platform, which is the stategy they followed for 25 years

 

"When Sony has a product that their core consumer group have largely stop purchasing after several years, and there is another consumer group that are looking to purchase that product, but haven't had access previously, Sony should address the unfulfilled demand for their product."

Sony's has only one consumer group, and that is the PlayStation consumer, if you think that is wrong, please tell me to what consumers is Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart sold to

 

"They kept the game on PlayStation for as long as PlayStation gamers were willing to purchase it."

really? that the case with Infamous 1/2 ? God Of War 1-2-3+, Resistance 1-2-3, and the other hundreds of games they have been making exclusive for PlayStation over 25 years? what about Bloodborne? Uncharted 4? are you sure about that?

 

"Keeping it longer and throwing away potential to bring in more revenue to put back into 1st party studios to make more products for PlayStation gamers"

 

maybe next time fully read my comment before replying, I already explained how the action of putting Horizon 1 on PC has delayed the release of Horizon 2 for PS5, the PS5 consumer suffers because of that action, and Sony 1st party games have been funded well for 25 years without 700k-30% cut for Steam worth of profit they made for Horizon, I'm sure they'll be fine with just selling 10-20 million copies on PS 100% profit as they've been till now

[Dreakon13]

18 minutes ago, TJ_Solo said:

Just saying it is "more money" for Sony neglects to mention that making that money also came at a cost as the creation and marketing of the ports are not free. Revenue is cool but were there profits? Were the profits the above or below the projected amount? Maybe if Sony just made games then putting games every where would make sense even though that still goes against how marketing and distribution deals are designed in many cases.

 

Why are you assuming Sony isn't making a profit?  The fact they tested the waters with Horizon and continue doing it with Days Gone and possibly others, would imply it's working.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Dreakon13

[DaivRules]

5 minutes ago, LockheedPrime said:

which is the stategy they followed for 25 years

 

And now their platform is practically identical to PCs and the transition of their product from console to PC is the lowest it's ever been. They'll still have platform exclusivity for as long as it keeps selling. Best of both worlds for a company.

 

7 minutes ago, LockheedPrime said:

Sony's has only one consumer group, and that is the PlayStation consumer, if you think that is wrong, please tell me to what consumers is Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart sold to

 

And with Playstation Studios and the move to some PC releases, they're expanding PlayStation consumers to also be people who don't only own PS consoles, but PC users as well.

 

8 minutes ago, LockheedPrime said:

really? that the case with Infamous 1/2 ? God Of War 1-2-3+, Resistance 1-2-3, and the other hundreds of games they have been making exclusive for PlayStation over 25 years? what about Bloodborne? Uncharted 4? are you sure about that?

 

Yes, I'm sure about that.

 

10 minutes ago, LockheedPrime said:

I already explained how the action of putting Horizon 1 on PC has delayed the release of Horizon 2 for PS5, the PS5 consumer suffers because of that action

 

That's part of the problem with your argument. You categorize not getting a new game as "suffering". 

 

13 minutes ago, LockheedPrime said:

Sony 1st party games have been funded well for 25 years without 700k-30% cut for Steam worth of profit they made for Horizon, I'm sure they'll be fine with just selling 10-20 million copies on PS 100% profit as they've been till now

 

They'll still be selling the first 10-20 million copies with their profit margin, and then extend their profit margin once those sales die off. You go ahead and throw away ten million more dollars because you didn't ever do that before.

 

Your argument seems to keep going back to you don't like change. That's not a reason to keep doing things when there's potential to do better.

[You]

I really hate platform exclusives, why punish any potential customers for simply choosing a platform, it's too difficult to own every single system ever made but no matter which you choose you lose out on something. I'd love to play Resident Evil 4 VR, but oh wait, it's exclusive to Oculus for some reason. And many years ago, Resident Evil 7 was exclusive to Playstation VR for a year. I wish it would stop.

 

Everything should be available on everything.

[Dreakon13]

19 minutes ago, enaysoft said:

Resident Evil 7 was exclusive to Playstation VR for a year.

 

Doesn't change your point, but I'm pretty sure RE7 VR is a PSVR exclusive forever.

EDIT: Can't speak for whatever agreements may or may not be out there... but it isn't available on PC at this point and if not out of contractual obligation, then out of sheer indifference, Capcom may never bring it over.

Edited May 12, 2021 by Dreakon13

[You]

11 minutes ago, Dreakon13 said:

 

Doesn't change your point, but I'm pretty sure RE7 VR is a PSVR exclusive forever.

 

My point is valid but RE7 VR should be available on all VR if it isn't already. Everything should be available on everything, what good is hoarding exclusives doing?

 

If all the platforms were open, I could have bought and been playing games like Bayonetta 2, Dead Rising 3, Zelda Musou 1 and 2 and a whole host of other games like all the Mario/Zelda, Pokemon Games from NIntendo, Halo, giving all your exclusives to other platforms means you get theirs, how is that not a win win for everybody?

Sure we eventually got Cuphead on Playstation and I bet there are a whole ton of elitist XBox users whining about that, somewhere.

 

Because I bought a Playstation there are tons of games I miss out on. I mean literally hundreds of games I will never play because of exclusivity, just because I don't have an XBox or a Switch. And on PC there are an insane amount of games that would be cool to play on Playstation.

 

Exclusives are stupid, every single game is made first on a PC. Days Gone was certainly played and finalised on a PC before it ever went near a Playstation Unit.

Imagine if you had Netflix, or used youtube and you could only see about 90% of all the movies because you lived in a certain area of the country?

 

Gone Home going to PC doesn't hurt any owning it on PS4, if anything, the game might make a ton more money and then Gone Home 2 might be an option.

 

Remember that waaaaaay back, Resident Evil 4 was supposed to be a Nintendo Gamecube only exclusive. And of course we're all glad that it got released on every system in the end.

 

Open everything I say.

 

Edited May 12, 2021 by enaysoft