I think the only response to this is for us all to remember that businesses are not our friends.
Spencer can talk the talk about wanting games to be everywhere for anyone to play them but his words are meaningless if Microsoft published titles are getting caught up in PC and Xbox exclusivity arrangements.
Sony can say what it wants about the dangers of Microsoft making games like CoD exclusive, but to this day they're doing work behind the scenes to keep major titles like FFXVI to themselves for as long as possible.
At this point I'm more concerned with Windows exclusivity. Obviously there's a financial incentive for Xbox to only release on Windows, but it's hard to argue you're not locked into a platform in a similar way.
When games are developed for "PC" that means "Windows" unless otherwise noted. If something works on Linux or OSX that is usually specifically called out on the game.
The direction Windows is going with Win11 is concerning enough that a non-trivial number of people (myself included) are planning a move to Linux for desktop workstations once Win10 goes EOL next year. At that point I'd be locked out of games that only work on Windows in the same way I'm locked out from console exclusives. (And yes, I know it's possible to emulate/Wine/dual boot - all of those options still require a license that I'm not interested in.)
Steam seems to be pushing Linux pretty hard, and it's working for a lot of develoeprs, but there's still a lot of AAA games not jumping on that bandwagon.
Now, i did mean exclusivity deals, because developers being contractually obligated to not develop for apple or linux, is very much different from developers not wanting to.
EDIT: Yeah, it can. It's even in the title of the winehq.com main page.
Valve may not have people working on making it a seamless experience a la Linux, but I bet that one can get most of the same games working if one bangs on it.
Mac users with M1 chips powering their sleek hardware but still hankering to run Windows apps on it take note: software compatibility layer Wine, which is definitely not an emulator, has made this possible in a recent update.
Wine 6.0.1 is a maintenance release, but the ability to run 64 bit Windows apps on MacOS Big Sur for M1 Macs (along with more than 60 other bugfixes) is a bit of a big deal, as it doesn’t support Boot Camp, and none of the big virtualization apps has managed to get X86 Windows running yet, only the Insider Preview version of the ARM port.
Valve has Steam run Windows games on Linux under Proton, their version of WINE.
There are a couple of notable games that don't run under it (Command:Modern Operations is a notable one that drives me nuts), but these days, pretty much everything works.
Define "a lot of AAA games" ? Because right now almost everything on Steam just works on Linux besides the odd multiplayer games, and even that is slowly getting support. Heck, I even installed the just out Lies of P demo the other day, worked first try, no glitch, very good performance, like a native game.
I don't entirely disagree with you but there's a huge difference between a company making a game or two exclusive, versus a company outright buying an entire publisher and making all their games exclusive for the rest of time.
When games take 2-5 years to make, it’s essentially the same as buying the company. ESPECIALLY when multiple canes in a row are released only for one platform.
To me, this sounds like legal ass-covering to be used as a defense should Microsoft ever be investigated for attempting a sort of gaming monopoly. "No, we're not buying out all the big developers so that we control the AAA playing field, we just don't like exclusivity!"
I mean, if they don't like exclusives, why go on to complain about how much they're losing by putting their games on the competing console? Sure sounds like they'd rather not pay those fees at all, maybe... by making their new games exclusives? Hmmm...
I don't think you want that. The availability of consoles at different price points (all lower than a typical PC setup) lowers the barrier to entry for games and makes it viable for new games to be developed. Eliminating consoles would have severe implications to the industry.
Im not getting a console instead of a PC. I have a PC, that I use for many things other than games. If I had no PC, I'd still have my dirt cheap pre-paid phone, that's still plenty capable of playing surprisingly demanding games. And I need this phone at a bare minimum, for work and emergencies, this is the lowest barrier to entry I can go for games. Every generation of every console is an unecessary, additional barrier to entry for whatever corner of gaming they're gating off. PC isnt trying to gate off anything, PC price is purely selling the capability to play more demanding games, run more demanding software, and I can pay for whatever level of gaming thats right for me. And there is no "typical" PC setup, you're thinking of the most up to date and modern PC's that are overkill for anything. Graphics card from 7 years ago and you can play Elden Ring. I dont need or want an iPhone 14, and I dont need or want a 3080. Imagine every single game out or announced so far was available for PC, any game I would want to play, my PC could handle.
We're not talking about you (1 consumer). You're reading too much into this and you're missing (or purposely ignoring) the general economics of purchasing a console versus a computer.
Im an exemplary consumer if you care about financial barriers to entry. I do not make much money, and thus i do not get to play many games that are gated by console exclusivity, if you care about barriers to entry. I do not think you do.
A console will offer higher performance at similar price points
Building a PC evens out the cost (or pushes it in the consumer's favor), but requires both knowledge and time to plan and execute a build
Improper hardware purchasing decisions (which is likely given unfamiliarity with PC setups) can render certain games impossible to play without additional investment
Maintaining a gaming PC involves managing OS updates, driver updates, chipset and hardware compatibility troubleshooting, navigating increased security risks (uninformed users accessing online services through their web browsers; scams, phishing, viruses)
Non-standardized hardware configurations means manually tweaking settings of every game, which means again an investment of time and knowledge
Lack of cross-platform support leading to separation from friends
Lack of standardized support: going on sparse tech help forums versus contacting Microsoft or Sony's customer service
I could go on. The point is, there's a LOT that makes consoles a much more feasible option for someone who does not own a gaming-capable PC and lacks knowledge about PCs. These people are the majority of people, because people who invest time and effort into learning a topic are naturally the minority. Of course PC is the superior choice - IF and only IF you already are ingrained into the PC hobby, or are willing to invest significant time and effort into learning it. To someone who isn't into tech spheres and just wants to play games, it's console or nothing.
Now if you want to argue that gaming as a whole would be less toxic and more consumer-friendly without the patronage of console gamers, feel free, but don't insist that it's likely (or even possible) that console gamers would simply convert to being PC gamers if consoles went away. They would switch to other hobbies that require similar [minor] levels of investment. They only have so much time and effort to spare, after all.
The main wedge here is you are only considering the most advanced systems to be "gaming capable". I dont have a PC that you would certify as "gaming capable" yet I play surprisingly modern games. It's a bullshit term that doesn't exist in reality, any PC can play games, pre-built sub $100 mini PC's can play games. And again, and you completely ignored, my cheap ass phone can play games, you cannot get lower than that.
Add comment