What If All PS4 Games Were Also On PC?

[Moonface]

I had this thought the other night after watching an interview by Giant Bomb with Phil Spencer, and how he said that he wants to bring games to as many people in as many ways as possible, and is why Xbox games are also on PC. It got me wondering what the gaming landscape would look like if Sony were to start bringing all their PS4 games onto PC too, as now the choice wouldn't be between a PC or an Xbox, but a PC or an Xbox/PS4. Would it cause the console market to vastly dwindle as people would see a PC as better value due to getting essentially three different libraries on it, or would the ease and convenience of consoles allow that market to remain viable like it currently does for the Xbox One?

Would Sony find a new way to implement PS+ as PC doesn't charge you to play any games online? What if they and companies like Ubisoft and EA only let you buy their games from them, and even begin to offer subscription packages to try and encourage more people to come to their product over the others, as now there being more games available people would be spreading their money even further than before, so how do you get as much of that money coming to you as possible?

If there were multiple subscription services and they became hugely popular, people would be accessing games for far less than their retail value. Xbox Game Pass lets you play games for $10 a month, where a lot of games are $60 or more in value. Would this eventually hurt companies enough that they have to scrap such a thing, or would they double down on finding other ways to make money from their games, like how free-to-play games like Fortnite turn a profit?

Remember, this is all entirely hypothetical of how things could pan out if Sony took an approach similar to Microsoft.

[Dragon Lord]

I dunno man, that would be pretty awful. If PS4 games were available on PC, I wouldn't get the joy of listening to the crying of PC children whenever there is a PS4 exclusive that they want to play.

But being serious, it wouldn't really matter to me. If all PS4 games were available on PC, I'd still play them on PS4. That's just where I enjoy playing games the most.

[lp0 on fire]

companies like Ubisoft and EA only let you buy their games from them, and even begin to offer subscription packages to try and encourage more people to come to their product over the others

..EA...already does that, most EA games are now only on the shit that is Origin (and there was a mass amount of data compromises last year that I ranted about on the old forum, basically even if you had 2FA enabled you account would just keep on getting compromised). EA also has had a service for a few years now in Origin where you get most/all games for "free" (out side of the monthly fee) and some extras.

I dunno man, that would be pretty awful. If PS4 games were available on PC, I wouldn't get the joy of listening to the crying of PC kiddies whenever there is a PS4 exclusive that they want to play.

I believe console exclusives hurt gaming as a whole, as you are limited to what the console is, at lease with PC you can always upgrade hardware or change computers and still come back and play that game even 20 years down the line* If you sell your PS4 for a PS5 there will be no guertee your new console will play PS4 or PS3 or PS2 or PS1 games. Hell the PS3 at first didn't have PS2/1 backwards compatibility and that really hurt the PS3 for a long time( and at the same time it was servery lacking games)

I'll just wait until a PS3 emulator is made and play RDR then (well I do own the disk but I dont know what my ex did with it). Its not like I don't have a huge ass backlog of games to play that are on PC anyways


*may require emulator (DOSBox), or compability mode, or a VM, or scarficing a virgin errrr... I mean looking up on the PCGamingWiki for a work around.

[Dragon Lord]

That's why I don't sell my old systems, so that I can go back and play games on them if I want.

Also I don't have that problem, because I game on consoles and PC ,so I have all of the options open to me. People who choose to stick to just one platform only have themselves to blame for being limited.

[lp0 on fire]

People who choose to stick to just one platform only have themselves to blame for being limited.

whoa....so blame the poor for being poor? Blame the lower classes for not having Economic opportunities other have? (hell right now its looking like the only way I can get an IT job is moving out of state...fuck, which requires a whole hell of a lot more money then I have)

Not every one is so lucky, hell I had a full time job making a lot more then min wage (and even then it was still shit for an IT job) and even if I wanted to I could not afford a PS4/XBOX1/Switch all at the same time. And I am living with my parents, if you take rent in to account there is no way I could have afford that, and quite honestly the only reason why I bought a laptop was because I could have used it for working from home if I needed to.

[Dragon Lord]

I don't get paid a lot and I have to pay rent as well, but I've still managed to buy a PS3, PS4, Vita (twice), a 3DS (three times), along with hundreds of games over the last few years, many of them being Limited/Collector's Editions. Gaming is an expensive hobby and if you want the most out of it, you're going to have to pay for it. People who are in such dire situations where they barely have enough money to live day to day probably shouldn't be gaming to begin with.

Blaming the companies for exclusives is a poor excuse to hide behind. If there were no exclusives, then there'd be no innovation in the gaming world. There needs to be competition in order to keep good games coming out, and competition is generated by exclusive games.

[lp0 on fire]

I don't get paid a lot and I have to pay rent as well, but I've still managed to buy a PS3, PS4, Vita (twice), a 3DS (three times), along with hundreds of games over the last few years, many of them being Limited/Collector's Editions. Gaming is an expensive hobby and if you want the most out of it, you're going to have to pay for it. People who are in such dire situations where they barely have enough money to live day to day probably shouldn't be gaming to begin with.

Blaming the companies for exclusives is a poor excuse to hide behind. If there were no exclusives, then there'd be no innovation in the gaming world. There needs to be competition in order to keep good games coming out, and competition is generated by exclusive games.

1) So poor people don't deserve a chance to escape the world and have some enjoyment?
1.5) most of my money seems to go to 1) Health Insurance and 2) Medical payments my health is shit why the hell shouldn't I be able to decompress and forget about my back pain or just for a second be able to not worry about if my cancer should ever come back?
2) It is not a poor excuse, its being pro consumer, If people had choices, there would be better competition. There was a time in the early-mid 00s to maybe early 2010s where PC gaming was being held back by the out of date consoles graphics and programing were at a standstill and all PC ports were being held back "To not piss off the console owners". That is stagnation, not innovation.

Competition is not generated by exclusive games, Halo 1 and 2 had a PC port, but you don't really hear about them (outside of people talking about CE and retrospectives bitching about how 2 was Vista only in the PC space). Yet Halo 1 (and 2) was still the "This is the game you get a Xbox for".

Competition is generated by being better in some way (be it hardware wise, how easily it is for a dev to make a game for your system. etc). [Being paid 5 million to keep your game on PS4 only or XB1 only is not "being better in some way")

Steam made the steam link to compete with the "convenience" of consoles (sitting in living room with big screen TV and controller). They also made the piss poor marketed (shame on the OEMs for that) Steam Machines.

3) It can be a non-expensive hobby PC gamers have time on their sides (more then console gamers) we have steam sales, we have Gog.com and their sales, we have multiple market places be it steam, gog, origin, itch.io, humblebundle (every now and then a PlayStation bundle goes though), Amazon, et al. Sure the up front set up may seem high (600/700 dollars for a some what decent Desktop, but if you get a cheap ass laptop for work/school/taxes/etc and then a XB1 or PS4 you are spending about the same upfront, and that 600/700 dollar computer can game AND do work/taxes/etc...) We can find a physical release of a PC game for cheaper then steam often (even though the CD is just a steam installer... )
And if you only want to play classic PC games you can go a bit cheaper on the Desktop.

PC offers you more choices then PS4/PS4 Pro or XB1/XB1 Elite will ever will.

[queenzelda]

Impo, I feel that if PS4 games were on PC & I could play them I would. I'd still get a Playstation console, but it's only because I feel that high end PC's aren't worth the investment. (But that's just me.)

[Dragon Lord]

1) So poor people don't deserve a chance to escape the world and have some enjoyment?
1.5) most of my money seems to go to 1) Health Insurance and 2) Medical payments my health is shit why the hell shouldn't I be able to decompress and forget about my back pain or just for a second be able to not worry about if my cancer should ever come back?
2) It is not a poor excuse, its being pro consumer, If people had choices, there would be better competition. There was a time in the early-mid 00s to maybe early 2010s where PC gaming was being held back by the out of date consoles graphics and programing were at a standstill and all PC ports were  being held back "To not piss off the console owners". That is stagnation, not innovation. 

1) Of course they deserve a chance to have some enjoyment. They just need to find a form of enjoyment they can afford. Not that difficult to understand. If I couldn't safely afford to spend money on gaming like I do, I sure as hell wouldn't be. I'd find something else that I enjoyed doing that I could safely afford.

2) People do have choices, they just choose to limit themselves to one system. Nothing stops someone from saving up for a system of their choice. Put aside a mere $5 a month towards a fun to buy the system. Sure, it'll take them a few years to get there, but it's one way of getting what they want. If someone can't afford to put $5 a month aside, then as I said before, they should probably be finding a cheaper hobby.

"PC offers more choices..."


And by playing on both PC and Consoles, I get all of the choices.

[lp0 on fire]

1) So poor people don't deserve a chance to escape the world and have some enjoyment?
1.5) most of my money seems to go to 1) Health Insurance and 2) Medical payments my health is shit why the hell shouldn't I be able to decompress and forget about my back pain or just for a second be able to not worry about if my cancer should ever come back?
2) It is not a poor excuse, its being pro consumer, If people had choices, there would be better competition. There was a time in the early-mid 00s to maybe early 2010s where PC gaming was being held back by the out of date consoles graphics and programing were at a standstill and all PC ports were  being held back "To not piss off the console owners". That is stagnation, not innovation. 

1) Of course they deserve a chance to have some enjoyment. They just need to find a form of enjoyment they can afford. Not that difficult to understand. If I couldn't safely afford to spend money on gaming like I do, I sure as hell wouldn't be. I'd find something else that I enjoyed doing that I could safely afford.

2) People do have choices, they just choose to limit themselves to one system. Nothing stops someone from saving up for a system of their choice. Put aside a mere $5 a month towards a fun to buy the system. Sure, it'll take them a few years to get there, but it's one way of getting what they want. If someone can't afford to put $5 a month aside, then as I said before, they should probably be finding a cheaper hobby.

"PC offers more choices..."


And by playing on both PC and Consoles, I get all of the choices.

...Not every one chooses to not be able to afford ALL THE CONSOLES! ALL THE GAMES! etc , You also forget that as time marches on consoles get more expensive (because older units get destroyed/die/collectors gobble them up, assuming the console is End of Life) that 5 dollars a month may not offer some one enough time to get the consoles before its EoL.

Also in choice catagory the PC has a selection spanning from the 80s to today of games to choose from, even longer if you include emulators that emulate consoles form the 70s...

How about this: Games are on all platforms and you get to choose what platform you use (granted some titles may not be able to handle lower powered systems like handhelds...). PC, Xbox, Switch, PS4.

[Nightingale]

I think that, by doing that, Sony would just drop the upper hand they currently have... and I just don't see any reason at all for them do so. Besides, that's kind of what I like about them anyway; creating and sticking to a business model all the way thru is respectable, even admirable when taken in the context of a video-game industry that just seems unable to make their damn minds about anything.

That said, I agree with PM on every and all their points. Good stuff, dude!

[Dragon Lord]

...Not every one chooses to not be able to afford ALL THE CONSOLES! ALL THE GAMES!

Welcome to the real world. Not everyone can control what happens in their life and be able to do everything they want and get everything they want. Most of us have to choose certain things over others, whether that's choosing life over hobbies or one hobby over another. That's just the harsh reality of our world. Saying that every single game should be on PC so you can pirate it and not have to pay for it because you can't/won't get a PS4 is not a good reason.

Also your point of not being able to afford to buy a PS4/Xbone/Switch all at once doesn't really hold. No one said you had to buy all of them at once, or even right when they come out. I didn't buy a PS3 until 2013. PS4 I didn't buy until 2-3 years into its life cycle. Didn't buy the 3DS until several years into its life cycle. Same with my Vita. I bought them at different times, after having saved up money for each one specifically.

What I say might be harsh, but that's the way it is. There's plenty of things I wish I could do, but can't, mainly because I had to give those up to support my gaming hobby. I'm so tired of people crying about exclusives because they either can't or don't make any attempt at saving up for a system.

[Kazan X. Lemuris]

Truthfully, if all games were available on all platforms it would only affect me negatively, rather than positively. There are various titles available on the Switch, the Wii-U, the Xbox One, and the PC that I am unable to play due to either lack of ownership of the consoles, or in the PC's case by not having a powerful enough system to run them adequately. As a result of this, I do not purchase said games, and focus solely on titles for systems I do have.

In effect, the exclusivity of certain titles saves me money, because I'm not willing to throw down bank on another new system or upgrading my shitpiece PC until absolutely necessary. Whereas if games were available for everything I'd have less reason to avoid spending money on them.

Besides, exclusives do no harm to gaming on the whole. Sure, you get the idiotic "console wars" that go on, and the "I spent five grand on my PC so I'm better than you" crap, but at the end of the day all that is, is cancerous idiots being cancerous. Exclusive releases are one of the main reasons people purchase one system over another; the games they're able to play, coupled with which console their friends have (in the case of primarily multiplayer gamers) determines their system choice. It also keeps the industry from getting complacent. Look at the multiplatform titles that come out; drab shooter after drab shooter, or HD remasters of games we played five years ago. Compare that to the quality many exclusive titles have, and it's fairly obvious that exclusivity keeps the market fresh.

As an aside, not being able to afford things isn't the fault of the gaming industry. You either deal with the hand you've been dealt, or you push to get a better one. My PS4 is currently dying and I need to replace it. But, rather than replacing it I spent the money I had saved up to repair the boiler at my house so my daughter can have hot baths. I made a sacrifice, choosing something over something else.

And that's what you should do. If you want to play the Newest Great Thing, but you can't because it's on a console you don't own, either put down money on it and play the game, or suffer in silence. Entitlement is a childish trait.

[lp0 on fire]

...Not every one chooses to not be able to afford ALL THE CONSOLES! ALL THE GAMES!

Welcome to the real world. Not everyone can control what happens in their life and be able to do everything they want and get everything they want. Most of us have to choose certain things over others, whether that's choosing life over hobbies or one hobby over another. That's just the harsh reality of our world. Saying that every single game should be on PC so you can pirate it and not have to pay for it because you can't/won't get a PS4 is not a good reason.

Also your point of not being able to afford to buy a PS4/Xbone/Switch all at once doesn't really hold. No one said you had to buy all of them at once, or even right when they come out. I didn't buy a PS3 until 2013. PS4 I didn't buy until 2-3 years into its life cycle. Didn't buy the 3DS until several years into its life cycle. Same with my Vita. I bought them at different times, after having saved up money for each one specifically.

I said everyone should get a chance to play the game on the console they want...
I never said anything about pirating, and you can pirate console games too I don't just mean retro games but current gen games. But you needed to pull a straw man argument, really?
That 5 dollar a month example you gave would have caused that person to wait until ~7 years to buy the PS4 pro at launch and 5.5 years at its current price. Those are both well in to the console's life cycle and the 7 year one would be near the death kneel (assuming a 10 year life cycle, which is about average)

[Mr EliteL]

Very good points being made here. Agree on exclusive titles bringing the flavour to consoles, but to see the idea of all games being one place could be a good thing. Key word being 'could' though. Like it's been said, everyone gets to choose where they want to play and where not. If PS4 made the move, not sure what would become of their IPs and studios. Could go any way.

Quite frankly I'd be done with gaming if this was done. Grown up on consoles, and prefer to play on them. Will be a while until I get anything else other than my PS4, even the Switch is still unlikely despite how I felt during E3. I have limited interest in PC gaming myself, and don't see myself buying a better PC for gaming. Would only play what I currently own anyway, maybe an odd few others. Just realised I seem to be taking this as if it was PS4 only on PC, but I would still use my PS4 and 3DS as my current main sources for gaming than anything else.