There will be games that you can only play on the PlayStation 5 when Sony’s next-gen system launches this holiday, and that’s anti-consumer according to some enthusiasts. While the Japanese giant is merely following the natural order of all hardware transitions, Microsoft has thrown a spanner in the works by revealing that it will release all of its Xbox Series X titles for the next year and a bit on the Xbox One and PC.
There’s an obvious advantage to the Team in Green’s strategy: no one will be left behind. Halo Infinite, which will presumably be the next Xbox’s flagship foray, will be playable on crusty old Xbox One from 2013 – and that’s neat. But while I’m not a programmer, it’s probably safe to assume that the overall package will be compromised on Xbox Series X as a result; developer 343 Industries will be able to up the resolution and effects for the next-gen version, but the game design will need to be consistent across all consoles.
Will this matter? Well, the Redmond organisation presumably feels not, but I think it may give Sony an advantage – even if it’s only a small one. The manufacturer has talked at length about how, for example, the superfast SSD hard-drive in the PS5 can fundamentally change the design of open world games like Marvel’s Spider-Man; in order to take advantage of that fully, it obviously needs to ensure that it ditches PS4 entirely. You could argue this is pro-consumer, as it effectively ekes all of the features out of its new appliance.
Whatever your thoughts, I personally don’t have a problem with it; while I accept that truly great launch titles are a rarity, I always appreciate having something like Killzone: Shadow Fall to showcase what my expensive new toy can do. I’m expecting the long-rumoured Demon’s Souls remake to fill that void on PS5; the real positive here is that Bluepoint’s going to be working from the blueprints of an already outstanding game, and it’s going to have plenty of time to “pretty” it up, so to speak.
To be clear, I don’t think there’s a problem with Microsoft’s approach at all; the organisation has Xbox Game Pass subscriptions to sell, and the biggest audience for those is going to remain on Xbox One for at least a couple more years. But I think the two gaming juggernauts are moving in different directions, and Sony’s goal is to get as many PS4 owners playing on PS5 as quickly as possible. It’s going to achieve that through eye-catching exclusives, sequels to popular series, and backwards compatibility. That's not anti-consumer, it's just an alternative approach.
I’m excited. There’s been lots of chatter about which console will be more powerful: PS5 or Xbox Series X. But if Microsoft remains tethered to its existing range of devices, then Sony has the best opportunity to showcase what its new machine can do. Personally, this is what I want from a next-gen experience, and while I can respect Redmond’s decision, I’m feeling more favourable about PlayStation’s approach here. Now I just want to see the lineup.
Where do you stand on this debate? Is Sony being anti-consumer by bounding its PS5 launch titles to its next-gen hardware? Or do you want software that effectively showcases what the system can do? Share your sentiments in the comments section below.
Comments 89
Wow, so far it's pretty conclusive.
Give us a good reason to upgrade asap.
Like Horizon Zero Dawn 2 for example.
😉
I want horizon 2, gow 2 and the next bloodborne to be in their absolute best form only possible with stronger hardware.
I'd much rather have games that are designed to take full advantage of the new hardware, not games which are limited by having to run on the quite ancient CPU's in the current generation
Buy PS5 after about a year from release, that way, you're guaranteed
1. to pay less for it
2. To have a back catalogue of games
3. Many of those games will be a bit cheaper
I have plenty of PS4 back catalogue games to keep me busy in the meantime
In my mind if it releases on both new and old hardware, then it's not a next gen game.
If current hardware is perfectly capable of running it then I'll be assuming it's not making much use of the new tech that's been made available.
I think most people, when they buy a new console would be excited to play a game that really shows what the new kit can do. Otherwise it would be rather anticlimactic.
ofcourse this is a good thing.
what kind of stupid logic would it be to have zero ps5 only games at launch?
i mean the goal is to sell the system as much as possible from the start and not to keep it on store shelves for about a year untill next gen is truly established.
The Switch is proof that this notion that you need the most powerful hardware to run games is just a marketing spin.
Do they run worse? Yes, but they run.
Still don't see series X as ps5 main competitor...and Sony strategy seems a good one but for me personally I won't be buying any new ps4 games from now on as I don't want to buy them again for ps5
If you could play ps5 games on the PS4 just what would be the point of buying a ps5.
that would be like saying Netflix is anti consumer, nobody would ever say that in a million years
My question is why is this anti-customer now, and not last week when the rumour was the series X would have loads of exclusive's at launch?
Of course it isn't. It gives people a reason to upgrade to the new thing. If new games didn't come out for upgraded hardware, we'd be stuck playing asteroids.
This is a joke. Of course it should have exclusives! Just like every console ever made. I’m mad at myself for even commenting it, that’s how stupid it is. Just because Microsoft keeps sabotaging itself doesn’t mean Sony should too.
@banacheck Because Internet. You see, Internet just cannot make up its collective mind.
why don't EA, ubisoft et al. release their games to support my 2012 graphics card?. what do you i mean i have to upgrade my motherboard, graphics card, and O/S at a cost of hundreds of pounds just to play jedi fallen order, or watch dog legions?. that's anti-consumer!
sony could possibly have held back the last of us 2 and/or ghost of tsushima for PS5 launch and released it as "cross-gen" exclusive. that fact it isn't can be seen as good sign.. being delivered on current gen as promised, and not needing to be held back to boost PS5 launch. i wouldn't rule out an upgrade patch later on for PS5 to boost resolution/framerate when played through backwards compatibility.
@leucocyte Yeah, the fact that TLOU and Ghost are still coming to PS4 (first) and are not used as launch titles for the PS5 shows they're the opposite of ''anti-consumer''. It would've an easy choice to delay TLOU another couple of months and release it as a launch game to increase the sales, but they didn't do that.
“Full exclusives”
Will you lot get over this. We get that Sony exclusives rarely come to pc which is understandable but Xbox do... doesn’t cheapen the exclusives at all.
Forza Games maybe playable on PC or Halo but that’s still a big draw for console users. Only the most ardent Sony fan boy can’t see that.
I will agree though that also having all games come to Xbox1 and no console exclusives is a massive mistake.
I own all three consoles this gen and end up buying pretty much all main consoles that come out in one shape or another and have come back to 90s - however I need a reason to choose which to adopt first - exclusives and launch titles are all I have to seperate - I’ll add backwards compatibility as having more access to classic games on one machine is very desirable - so all in all looks like Sony wins again this gen. have to question the research the Xbox team has done and what they think this strategy will do.
But please push square stop cheapening Xbox exclusives if the come to pc. It makes no difference. It’s a different beast.
Microsoft’s plan hurts game growth, and some people are too stupid realize it. Just look at what’s possible with the Xbox One’s CPU vs what could be possible with the new CPUs.
Haha, "enthusiasts", basically people who havent got a clue.
New hardware absolutely needs exclusives. Its got nothing to do with shinier graphics.
It IS about showing what the new box can do thats new. Giving you new experiences that simply were not possible on the previous gen. Otherwise...whats the point of upgrading? My backlog is large enough that i wouldn't need to buy a PS5 for at least a decade. But i will because i want to see where developers can take us next.
In no way is launching a new console with exclusive software anti-consumer. Sony arn't forcing you to upgrade, and will continue to support PS4 like they have with every new generation they have launched. If they released a firmware update on PS5 release day that bricked your PS4. THAT would be anti-consumer.
Sony releasing exclusive software for PS5 is not. And ultimately, this year PS4 owners are still getting Dreams, Yakuza 7, LOU2, Ghost of Tsushima - exclusive games (although likely to get ported), iron man vr, final fantasy 7, persona 5 royal, persona 5 scramble, tales of arise, cyberpunk watch dogs 3, dying light 2, gods and monsters, resident evil 3, Nioh 2, Doom Eternal, Predator, Spelunky 2, Twin Mirror, Psychonauts 2 and (hopefully???) Trails of Cold Steel 4......i dont think PS4 owners are going to be feeling left out!
At least 95% has some sense.
I wouldn't buy a 4k TV to watch VHS on. Ps5 needs games only for ps5. Simples.
Day one exclusive Metal Gear Solid remake please.
I'm not sure how you don't see it as a bad idea what MS is doing. It's going to put them at a disadvantage and will be bad for the long-term sales of the Series X. MS hasn't proved themselves to be better next-gen, if anything they're already making mistakes and not learning enough from last gen, from a muted confusing console reveal to not having games actually be next-gen.
As a Playstation fan, competition for Sony is good. As a PC owner, great games from MS come to me anyway.
So basically, I think what MS is doing is bad news for PS fans in a way.
OMG some people wont be able to play gimped versions of some of my next gen games when I get the PS5.
Its......disgusting!!! ...🙊🙈🙉 hahaha
Yea no. The virtue signaling gamers or those who feel entitled even if that slows down gaming innovation 🧟♀️🧟♂️
No issue with games exclusive for the next consoles as long as it wasn't a game announced for current hardware that's only on next gen
It's the one and only reason to buy a console at launch.
The truth is the people going 'Hell yea!' For cross gen now will be the same ones going 'Hell yea!' When they announce it's all next gen in a couple years...
Haha
Hmm, is Don Mattrick running the Xbox brand again???
@PcTV while I do agree and am not that fussed with the best graphics (I played Doom 2016 and Wolfenstein 2 on Switch for example), I think this is another issue entirely.
The Switch lets you play the same game in worse quality but makes up for it with portability; an entirely new console needs to be more powerful and run games better in order to justify their existence, otherwise why not stick with PS4 and XB1?
"according to some enthusiasts"
Sammy's way of being nice to the Xbox fanbois.
I can't wrap my head at all around the no exclusives logic, if you don't have any exclusives then people don't need to buy a new console, the end.
@clvr I agree that the new consoles need to be more powerful, but that's not what I'm saying.
The marketing angle that new games wouldn't be possible without the generational jump is so blatantly untrue when you have PS4 and XB1 games running on Switch in a playable state.
Even worse for PS5 and Series X, since they'll run in very similar hardware.
This move by Microsoft is very consumer-friendly since you can still enjoy the new games in next gen hardware if you do choose. But it's up to you to make that choice.
Read some of the comments on this article alone and how borderline dellusional they seem. I do wonder if they'd be singing a different tune if Sony did this.
@PcTV I think you're wrong on 2 counts.
1. The Switch mostly got the same games as the Wii U, tons of ports, b/c it's basically a portable Wii U. And in another year Nintnedo will be selling it as a next gen 3DS, so they NEEDED new more powerful hardware for their games than 3DS was capable of. How many new 3DS games has Nitneod released recently?
2. For every Doom and Wolfenstein and Witcher 3 there are still probably several games Switch didn't get b/c it probably wasn't capable of running them. Cyberpunk for 1.
I didn't down vote you, just disagreeing. There is some merit to your side of the discussion.
@Shirayuki And yet you can play your Xbox and 360 games on Xbox One. No such feature on PS4.
@rjejr The Wii U comparison fits in terms of power, but in terms of architecture the Switch is completely different. Shares more in common with the Nvidia Shield and it's much easier to develop for. Hence why some Switch ports rival console releases with such a power difference.
I agree that more powerful hardware is necessary to meet certain demands overtime, but the jump between 3DS and Switch was huge, while the upcoming gen looks to be the smallest generational jump in gaming history. Sony could easily have PS4 ports (specially PS4 Pro) for a while if they wanted.
I'm not fussed about power, but the games I know are coming will certainly utilise PS5 full potential and it makes sense that new hardware has exclusive software. In no hurry to get a PS5 as I've a huge backlog but the minute HZD2 releases I'll most likely cave and give Sony my cash!
@Shirayuki PS2 BC on the original PS3s was cut due to a bug they couldn't resolve. (Custom firmware has since solved it though)
It displayed horribly, custom firmware has fixed it though.
The PS5 will have PS4 bc, fairly easy given how similar they'll be.
@BarefootBowser It’s annoying and stupid as he’ll isn’t it?
@PcTV oh don't get me wrong, I'm sure many games will be cross-gen in the next year and that many next-gen exclusives will actually be portable to current-gen hardware on a technical level, but I don't think it would necessarily be a good idea.
I'm sure Sony could squeeze Babylon's Fall (or whatever other launch exclusive they might have) enough to have it run on a PS4, much like Switch ports do, but why would they do that if they want to sell their shiny new PS5?
Anyone thinking it is anti consumer is a moron.
@NEOTDS That example kinda falls apart if you buy a movie that came out on VHS back then on Blu-Ray 4K. And if what you're saying that they're not worth watching on 4K, then I disagree.
If the only difference with most exclusive games are the visuals then they kind of have a point. Does the PS5 really stand that far above? Feels much like the skip from PS4 to the Pro. Or how some companies are too lazy to port to Switch even though it could be done.
I'll be getting a PS5 straight away anyway so it doesn't matter much to me.
Games are scalable and that includes adding Ray Tracing and Variable Rate Shading for GPU's that can offer that without needing to buy a different version to have those features. In PC games, its a simple case of turning those on in the menus.
MS also need to make their games scalable for their PC users and their streaming service so it doesn't necessarily mean the games will be compromised just because of needing to scale them back for the XB1. Obviously dropping the resolution, implementing rendering techniques like Chequerboard rendering and limiting the frame rate to 30fps will help to get the games running on inferior hardware and we saw with Gears 5, one of the best visual games of last year running at 4k/60 on X and 1080/30 on S.
Sony perhaps could also make their games scalable too BUT it may not be in their best interest as they want/need people to upgrade. 3rd Party devs were still making multi-platform versions of their games for several years after the launch of the new hardware - some with limitations (like online lobby sizes in Battlefield, 1st person in GTAv, AI creatures in Titanfall etc) and Sony could as well if they thought it was in their best interest. The reason to upgrade could be better performance (30fps vs 60fps) as well as all the visual bells and whistles that the new hardware offers - Ray Tracing, better draw distances with no pop-in, higher quality textures, better loading times etc etc - much like we got at the start of this gen with nearly all the multi-generation 3rd party games that were released.
Its anti-consumer in that its probably more a business decision, making you upgrade to play their games but its an established structure. People expect exclusives that only they can play on their shiny new console as a way to justify their expense - even if they do get numerous other upgrades over those who play on the older hardware. Both the Pro and X offer upgrades too over the base console but it seems that some are happy with lower visual quality and performance and need 'new' games to consider upgrading - whether they are kept from the older hardware for that purpose or actually couldn't run on that hardware for some reason.
@CmShepard Facts
It's absurd that Microsoft are doing this. Back in 2005 and 2006, it was obvious Microsoft and Nintendo needed to move on from their previous consoles and put everything into the 360 and Wii. Nobody complained then and it had to be done. I would understand if the X1 was a massive success and Microsoft wanted to support it because so many people had the console but that's not the case. It's pretty much the same again as it was for them in 2005 and Microsoft need to just abandon the X1 and go all out on the new machine, just like Nintendo did in 2017 with the Switch.
New consoles mean supporting the new ones. I honestly can't see that many Xbox fans being happy with this especially if it leads to a lot of compromised games because no matter how powerful the X1 is, the next one will be far more powerful and the games need to show that if Microsoft have any chance in the next gen.
Anything that takes advantage of RayTracing and the Fast loading storage I am not playing a PS4 version anyway.
@PcTV (specially PS4 Pro)
I've been thinking that about X1 and XSX. I'm sure it would be easy to get a game on the new XSX to run on X1, but could it easily run on X? Will be interesting to see if after that year is up MS makes games that run n both X1 and XSX but not plain old X.
I think PS4 and Pro are probably close enough that a PS5 game running on Pro could run on PS4 as well, but I expect at least 1 Sony game to look like it can't run well enough on the base PS4 to be both enjoyable and run as smoothly. Spiderman, HZD2 or GoW2. It only takes one to justify a purchase. I bought Switch for Pikmin 4, still waiting.
After the cliffhanger post ending sequence in GoW I feel like they owe me the sequel on PS4, and Squenix owes people ALL the parts of FF7R on PS4 as well, but I understand that's not how the industry works. New hardware, better looking and running games. That's how it should work.
I'm still expecting a plethora of dual systems games. New CoD games will release on 100m PS4 for a few more years, same for Madden and FIFA. So not EVERY game needs to be a next gen exclusive, but 1 should be at launch, then another say 6 months after. Did PS4 have many new games? Everybody on here called it the Portstation for at least a year, maybe 2. But PS4 had Killzone and inFamous Second Son. A little of everything for everyone I think is the way to go.
it’s definitely anti consumer in this day and age. i’m glad microsoft is so forward thinking. good job, microsoft!
and no, this isn’t a meme post. i’ve been against the idea of exclusives since day 1.
Guys remember the PS3 and PS2 were receiving exclusives games a year after launch. It's silly to think they would stop with the PS4 after the PS5 launches. Microsoft is doing a smart move because neither the PS5 or The Series X are going to be worth buying until 2022 at the earliest.
This is bull, Untill Microsoft starts publishing its first party games on Playstation they need to STOP with the virtue signaling! If we are talking about consoles exclusives leave PC out of it. Microsoft makes PC games they are a big part of the PC world. They are doing nothing special by boosting games revenue on PC.
@PcTV After constraining the vision, older PS4 games run on the Switch. I'd like to see RDR2 try to run on the Switch, or Horizon: Zero Dawn with all of its complicated machines running around.
We also have cross-gen games that say otherwise. Shadow of War's main gameplay feature, the nemesis system was gone on Xbox 360 and PS3 because of power. I have a Switch, but the games it has are already constrained enough that more ambitious games wouldn't be able to run on it.
When we get to the PS5 era, and games aren't on the PS4, you can bet the vast majority won't be running on the Switch.
@JohnKarnes I believe that the developers they bought are just finishing the multiplatform work they've already gone so far into. Them releasing those games (the one's where most of the work was already done) on all systems may have been a condition for the studio being bought. We can expect not to see Outer Worlds 2 and such on PS5.
@PcTV What is ypur point?
@teknium_ Sony announced last year during a wired article a bunch of ps5 features one of which Is full backwards compatibility with ps4 games so you won't have to buy them again.
@carlos82 Exactly.
I don't see the point in releasing new hardware if you're not going to actually take advantage of it. The new Halo should be Xbox SEX exclusive. But since it's not and they have to make sure it runs on the Xbone from 2013, the only improvement it will get is better visuals. It's not going to utilize that nice new Ryzen CPU at all.
@BAMozzy Why waste all those manhours too bring a inferior version? I dont understand why you would want see all those options. In the end it will always be a lesser version.
@Jaz007 I hope this isn't particularly controversial, but I think The Witcher 3 is one of the largest, most complex games out there. Larger than HZD or RDR2. And BotW is more complex in a lot of the gameplay mechanics and terrain properties it has. Not visually as complex as these games but that's besides this particular topic.
Visually and mechanically speaking, of course.
They run just fine on Switch.
It's true that they completely butchered the nemesis system in last gen's version of Shadow of Mordor (Shadow of War didn't get a release on PS3/X360, I don't think). Given the publisher, I wouldn't put them above them to just make such differences to intice consumers into getting the next gen version, which at that point was more of a risk given the smaller install base.
All of that being said, even that generational jump was more significant than this one.
I say gimme a reason to upgrade, so bring on the PS5 exclusives! I mean, I was already going to get a launch PS5 because of backwards compatibility with PS4, but if there’s some killer apps that come out at launch then you bet I’ll be there! Meanwhile with Xbox Series X, I have no reason to get it right away over the PlayStation because none of the “exclusive” games are going to take advantage of the so called “most powerful console ever” right out of the gate. Halo Infinite isn’t enough of a reason for me to want to go buy it at launch either. I’ll keep playing my backlog of Gamepass freebies until tax season 2021, then I’ll look microsoft’s way.
@PcTV The Witcher 3 is what now? It has a simple open-world. What everyone's doing is simple, monsters aren't really fighting each, they're in appropriate spots but not exactly dynamic. Aside from fairly simple walking around not much is going on in the open-world of the Witcher 3. It's has an amazing story with lots of consequences, but the technical aspect we're talking about.
RDR2 on the other hand, has dynamic events, an insane number of reactions going on (if you've committed a crime in a set of clothing at a given location, changing your clothes will help you get away with another crime around there), more dynamic people, people reacting to each and you in many different ways, investigating crimes and reporting and general witnesses, lots of animal behavior down to some playing dead I've read, etc. As well as how much of the vision and quality is in the details it provides graphically and the view draw distance of the landscapes.
Horizon has beat pack roaming around, killing each other, fleeing, if only 1 is left after you kill it'll go find another pack, just tons of behaviors that are happening regardless of you and make up the bigger picture of the game and give you the feeling of hunting animals when you confront them. That takes a lot of power to get going.
Graphically it also has all the parts of the machine that need to be able to fall and alter it's behavior even further to work on a gameplay level.
The Witcher 3 is not as big or complex as either of those games at all. In fact, it's a relatively early PS4 game at this point. An early gen that has that higher chance at running on the Switch with a number of compromises to the game.
@Jaz007 You haven't actually played The Witcher 3, have you? Oh and also some of the stuff you said about RDR2 isn't actually true. Bunch of people have debunked it on YT.
If Sony is “anti-consumer” then Hollywood is anti-consumer for making films that you have to go to the movie theater to see. It’s not anti-consumer when the consumer is given a choice; go to PS5 if you want the new game, or stick with PS4 until you’re ready to move up.
Are cell phone makers anti-consumer for putting new features on new phones and not putting them in old ones? I feel like all the bad press being pushed toward Sony is to try to make the PS5 stumble out the game a la Xbox One.
@PcTV I've put a 100 hours in the Witcher 3 (PC version) and RDR2 each. Both are in my top ten games of all time. (and 15-20 I think in Horizon.)
And I'm not exactly sure what's supposed to have been debunked allegedly with RDR2 or how I'm wrong about the Witcher 3.
@Jaz007 Am I to believe that in a 100+ hours you never saw a monster hurt another or even throw them at Geralt? The exact same things happen in BotW, btw. A Switch exclusive.
@bigbadboy333 yea I know but there will be the inevitable ports of PS4 games which Is what I was meaning,would be nice if devs on this year's PS4 games were taking ps5 into account by coding in stuff that makes the game smoother and better looking on ps5 not sure they will though..if we want the last of us2 in 4k I guess we will be buying the ps5 remaster
@PcTV I remember a little bit of monsters attacking each other, but the simplicity of that compared to the roaming packs of Horizon are incomparable. Having two mobs happen to fight like that isn't nearly the same as what's going on in Horizon.
Of course Breath of the Wild can have enemies fight each other. It's not that power-consuming to have two differing NPC factions fight each on a surface level.
It's the roaming packs, the hunting, the corpse you find that we're dynamically created, the finding another pack after only one is left, those types, those types of things that wouldn't be so simple to do on the Switch.
But yes, on occasion two monster in the Witcher 3 have their AI set to be hostile to each other just like they're set to be hostile to you. It's not all that common though. Hence why I'm not really thinking about it.
I suspect many of the games will be released on PS4 with an enhanced version/mode for PS5 but of course there will be exclusives for the PS5 - it's shiny new hardware shouldn't be held back by the ageing (but still brilliant) PS4 where the games demand it.
It's such a silly argument. I've been seeing it on Twitter for days.
How could it be considered anti-consumer? Is what Microsoft's doing consumer friendly? What about when they start having exclusives? What's the cut-off? A year? Two?
It's a new console playing new games the way God intended. I don't want my PS5 games holding back so they can run on PS4. I'm going to catapult my PS4 into the sea the second I get my PS5 and then it's all future baby
Maddening to think anyone could consider this anti-consumer, but gamer outrage knows no limits.
Just look at the original PS5 Wired article. They said about how in Spider-Man they could move as fast as a fighter jet on PS5 because it could render the city so much faster, whereas Spidey's swing is literally the fastest the PS4 can possibly handle. So if you were to take this idea and make a new game, it would be impossible to do it across both platforms. Therefore, it's pretty clear that committing to previous hardware to such a degree is detrimental to creative potential and the progress of the medium.
There will be exceptions of course, but I want new and exciting titles that push games further than I've seen before. I remember how I felt when I first saw Mario 64, for example. Or Shenmue. They were mindblowing and you just don't get that sense of wonder as much these days. And we won't if we're not prepared to leave old tech behind.
I'm interested in how Xbox's approach will work with sports titles like Madden and FIFA.
It's not anti-consumer at all. They're releasing new hardware which they've invested a significant amount of money in, and they obviously want people to buy that hardware. No exclusive games means no reason to buy means restricted sales.
I'm guessing Sony have seen a relatively low/slow uptake of PS4 Pro, possibly because of their decision that there will be no Pro-exclusive titles... which made sense for a mid-gen upgrade. However, it doesn't make sense for a new generation of hardware. What's the point in trying to sell people a new system if it's only going to have games designed for the last one?
Presumably these "enthusiasts" who are saying it's "anti consumer" are the same morons who pay £300 for a new console only to complain that is it isn't backwards-compatible and won't play their 30-year-old retro collection.
@psoneboi Yeah I prefer to play most multiplats on PC too.
@Flaming_Kaiser Lesser versions (as you call it) exist across multiple platforms. The Pro for example offers a better quality image and performance - maybe not to the same extent as the X to the XB1s or a high end PC vs low end PC.
Multi-platform devs all spend time making their games scaleable for the highest spec PC down to the lowest hardware they release on. The Switch too has 'inferior' ports of games like Doom or Wolfenstein and the reason they do it is because it opens up a much larger market.
Sony have sold over 100m PS4's and that is a massive potential market that could make any additional 'work' worth doing. Some games only need to sell a million or so to be profitable and making their exclusives multi-generational - at least where possible could easily double if not triple the sales of that game.
All Devs/publishers (except Sony) will release a LOT of the games on older hardware - games that will be 'inferior' as you put it with scaled down visual quality and performance. You could have a native 4k/60 with Ray Tracing on PS5, a CB1800/30 no RT on Pro and 900/30 on PS4 versions - much like we had PS3 versions released of many games for a few years too that still 'sold' - obviously 'inferior'. Sony are planning to support the PS4 for years too so why not scale some exclusives down if they can be - no doubt we will see scaled up versions of PS4 games coming with the 'remastered' tag...
I am not saying 'every' exclusive should (or could) be scaled down but I expect quite a few 'could' be if Sony wanted. Some may well be impossible to scale due to the hardware limitations but by reducing resolution and frame rates, games don't 'need' the power and speed of the CPU/GPU. For example, 4k/60 requires ~8x the power as 1080/30 - 4x the resolution and twice as many frames. Its not that simple as other factors come into play too but I am trying to be illustrative. In essence, just cutting the resolution and frame rate down, you don't need anywhere near the power so they 'could' without too many compromises.
Obviously, its not in Sony's interest as they will want to encourage you to upgrade sooner - establish a decent user base as quickly as possible to build on. Obviously they see the 'superior' version of games as not being enough of a reason to upgrade so they have decided that its the 'only' version they will release and the 'only' way to play will be to upgrade. Its not unusual at all as this has been common practice for years....
Exclusives are anti consumer by design.
However, exclusives move hardware so I mean. It is completely understandable why they do it.
Who are these "enthusiasts"?
It only makes sense to generate software to show off your hardware. Why would you want to take a game and water it down for last gen? Not only that given that every PS5 will have an SSD it may not be easy to recreate for the PS4, unless you are willing to make concessions to the initial game design to allow for PS4. At that point you are not showing off the prowess of the new hardware but you are showing how well the new hardware can play last generation games.
@Grimmy001 In a marketplace full of options creating exclusive content for a specific system is just a means of generating value on that system. I don't see it as anti-consumer as much as it is pro-specific platform. When a developer creates a game specifically for a specific platform they will generally use the tools available to them to show off what that platform can do.
Otherwise the developer has to make concessions to support multiple platforms which could diminish the original ambition of the game.
If you want a platform with lots of gaming options PC is your way to go to complete that mission. If you want a platform that developers have created specific content for, thus taking advantage of the hardware in an optimal matter consoles may be a better bet.
I don't understand how having options is anti-consumer? I think your argument is way to vague and comes off as a straw-man.
@SegaBlueSky Nice to see someone with some critical thinking skills around here. Thank you for echoing my sediments!
@DarthDiggler Well said. The problem with such a sweeping statement is you can’t define its boundaries. Otherwise you just keep going further down the rabbit hole until you label every single commercial transaction “anti-consumer”. No one is ripping you off by making a game exclusive to one platform or hardware cycle.
@DarthDiggler
You do not know what a straw man argument is do you?
And its really quite simple.
Exclusives are not options. They are in fact the opposite as they force the consumer to opt in a different system just for being allowed to play a game. Ambition doesn't come from just being exclusive. Otherwise all exclusive games would be ambitious simply for being exclusive.
Also what a platform can do these days is very irrelevant. There is no secret tech in these machines. During the PS3 you had the cell and it was so complicated most games didn't utilise its capabilities. That's not the case with these consoles anymore. The reason why these developers make good games is because they are talented at making games and in that sense, for console manufacturers, it is in their best interest to make those games exclusive to sell hardware. I already acknowledged this.
However, that doesn't change the fact that Exclusives are by design anti consumer. They are made to exclude people from your game unless you buy a new machine. That's where the term exclusive comes from in the first place.
And to be clear. I am not saying Sony is anti consumer. Exclusive games on any platform are anti consumer. Why should it matter if I play on a pc or ps4 or switch or Xbox?
@BAMozzy I rather see them bring the best version too one platform. The PS4 games still look fantastic because less setups.
I understand that power is a factor; I just find the idea of exclusivity in general to be fundamentally anti consumer behavior in the sense that it removes consumer choice. Make me want a PS5 because the PS5 is unique and good hardware, not because games are locked to it.
The idea of games being built for more powerful hardware is fine and makes sense; its not so much that the games are not on PS4 as it is that the games are locked to the Playstation environment that troubles me.
@AhmadSumadi Hollywood would be anti consumer if it made me buy a specific bluray player (instead of any bluray player) to play their films.
@PcTV Psst.
BotW was on the Wii U too.
Lol xbox fanboys on resetera secret discord therapy group crying for a ban on pushsquare for this.
couple of mods included BTW... pathetic
@Grimmy001
"You do not know what a straw man argument is do you?
And its really quite simple."
I am well versed in logical and rhetorical fallacies, which includes the straw-man. I said it comes off as a straw-man. In the manner that you are buying into a presumption of entitlement which is a misrepresentation of a marketplace.
"Exclusives are not options."
False, every item in any given marketplace is an option. You don't seem to know what an option is.
"They are in fact the opposite as they force the consumer to opt in a different system just for being allowed to play a game."
Force who? Does Sony or Microsoft point a gun to your head? They give you options if you are willing to pay the cost. Exclusive games are created specifically to drive business to their platform. This isn't anti-consumer it is a business strategy to generate revenues in order for their platform to survive. This in turn drives competition which creates more options for you as a consumer. Having more options is a benefit to the consumer, one may say pro-consumer.
"Ambition doesn't come from just being exclusive. Otherwise all exclusive games would be ambitious simply for being exclusive."
Honestly I am pretty flabbergasted by your response here. Are you being silly here or are you just trolling me? I never said all exclusives are ambitions, I never said ambition is derived from a game being exclusive. My point was if you wish to support multiple platforms and you have an ambitious title you may have to make concessions to the game design in order to account for those multiple platforms.
"Also what a platform can do these days is very irrelevant. There is no secret tech in these machines."
Each platform holder will insert their own technology into their platforms. I can't say it will all be a big secret and certainly the PS2, N64, DreamCast was more of a golden age for console "secret sauce". MS, Sony and Nintendo definitely have their stamps on everything that goes into their systems. Why do you think it takes so long to design these systems? If what you say is 100% true a new console design would be no more difficult than selecting parts for a PC.
"During the PS3 you had the cell and it was so complicated most games didn't utilise its capabilities. That's not the case with these consoles anymore."
It all depends on the game engine. Sony has quite a few studios that still create their own game engines. Those studios get to focus on getting the most out of a very small range of hardware. That hardware however much it may share with other platforms is still a unique platform. Not having to fuss with the prospects of multi-platform frees them up to get the most out of the platform they do support.
"The reason why these developers make good games is because they are talented at making games and in that sense, for console manufacturers, it is in their best interest to make those games exclusive to sell hardware. I already acknowledged this."
Sure they are talented at making games. What platform holder would want bad studios making bad games exclusively for their platform. The relationships the developers have with a platform holder goes beyond the business. Much of what makes these relationships successful is giving those studios freedom.
"However, that doesn't change the fact that Exclusives are by design anti consumer. They are made to exclude people from your game unless you buy a new machine. That's where the term exclusive comes from in the first place."
OK you are just stating your point of view in a manner that is fact. I think your point of view is very sophomoric and suggests that you are entitled to play any game on any platform you please.
There is no conspiracy to exclude anyone from playing Zelda on the Switch. You are not excluded from playing God of War on PS4. I am not forced to never play the latest Halo on Xbox. We all have a choice here and while we do not have unlimited resources to play everything (including time) it is not anti-consumer because I elect not to pay for a system to play a game. There is no one stopping you from playing ANY game you want. It is up to you to decide which avenue suits your needs the best. Which platform provides the best value for you. Which includes the exclusive content (aka options) available for that platform.
"And to be clear. I am not saying Sony is anti consumer. Exclusive games on any platform are anti consumer."
Sony has Exclusive games hence you are saying Sony is Anti-Consumer. See two can play at that game.
"Why should it matter if I play on a pc or ps4 or switch or Xbox?"
Agreed, why should it matter? If you make your selection based on the best value to you it shouldn't matter at all because you will have your needs met. Just because game X doesn't land on your system doesn't mean you were entitled to it.
Your point of view would suggest Naughty Dog should HAVE to code for Xbox otherwise they are just being jerks to Xbox players. The fact is their relationship with Sony goes back to the birth of the PlayStation and Sony has generally allowed them to create they games they want and sell them on platforms that millions of people own. Given the great job they do on their games I don't think we consumers have the right to tell them where to publish their games if they have a formula for success that includes focusing their efforts on a single platform.
You don't have to like it but not liking something doesn't make it anti-consumer. I for one would hate it if all games had a multi-platform philosophy forced upon them. I have played great games that were multi-plaform. I chose to play on PlayStation because their exclusive games are pretty spectacular. I don't game on other platforms, but that is OK. Good for the other consumers that do and create competition that pushes Sony to keep creating great experiences for the PlayStation die hards like myself.
Competition is a tide that raises all boats.
This gen I have an Xbox one X and a PS4 pro. I'm never buying an Xbox again.
Exclusives are what drives console sales. One exception though is Gran turismo 7. I hope it comes to PS4 because I won't be getting a PS5 for a few years and every Playstation generation has had 2 Gran turismo games.
Just goes to show how relatively small the leap between generations is these days. Can you imagine if all Dreamcast titles had to also run on a Saturn?! Or the same for PS2 vs PS1.
@PcTV not a Switch exclusive actually
@Barryburton97 Right, also on Wii U. More to my point, actually.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...