Buying companies to make them exclusive is anti-consumer. Starting first party studios to facilitate unique games being made on your platform is not anti-consumer. If anything, it should create competition for high quality exclusives by investing in unique game designers. When Microsoft just buys Rare, Mojang, Activision, Blizzard, King, Bethesda, Arkane, Alpha Dog, etc, it’s not to create competition.
Comment on [deleted]
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 9 months agoconsoles are purposefully made to run only the software specifically made for them.
xbox and PS are basically mini PCs that can run the same stuff with relatively minimal tweaking. exclusive games of both platforms are pure anti-consumer bullshit.
halvo317@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
nope, both are anti consumer.
halvo317@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
I don’t think it’s a fair comparison. I’ve never had a PC that has worked for 7 years without replacing significant parts. I’ve only had 5 PlayStations total since I was 5. I’ve had at least twenty computers during the same time frame.
There’s investment made by Sony for games on their hardware. If the hardware were bad, developers wouldn’t use it.
I work for a start up, and I loved getting the opportunity to build a tech platform while not having to build up the business from the ground up. I can’t do human resources, marketing, sales, yaddah yaddah. I don’t have any way of just getting my product into retail. Two years in, and we’re about to land a $125M contact. It’s green energy, so I feel like I’m saving the world.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
frankly I don’t understand your point. Recently both companies have been porting games to PC, but NOT the other console. If Sony can port Spiderman, God of War, etc to PC there’s absolutely no reason they can’t port them to xbox as well, except to force consumers to buy a playstation. That’s why it’s anti-consumer.
WhiteHawk@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Assuming you’ve had every PS since the first one, released in 1994, that’d mean you had 20 computers in at most 29 years, meaning they lasted on average just under 1 1/2 years. What the hell are you doing to your computers?
abbotsbury@lemmy.world 9 months ago
Starting first party studios to facilitate unique games being made on your platform is not anti-consumer
I mean, it kinda is. The end result is the same: a product that can only be used in a closed ecosystem.
halvo317@sh.itjust.works 9 months ago
There’s a practical and ethical difference between creating something for a closed ecosystem and taking a product in an open ecosystem and closing it.
abbotsbury@lemmy.world 9 months ago
But they have the same result, so ultimately it has the same rating of consumer friendliness, which is “non”
NuPNuA@lemm.ee 9 months ago
It’s not anti-consumer, people know the market they’re buying into when they buy a console. If you want to play everything, buy a PC.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world 9 months ago
That’s how anti-consumerism works. Corporations abuse their power to force consumers into buying more shit for no reason, and feel good while doing it.
BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 9 months ago
Maybe Valve should take another crack at the console market.
Sitkemkev@lemmy.world 9 months ago
With the Steam Deck and how that is, I would actually be excited for a desktop version of SteamOS. Such a great little device.
BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 9 months ago
Yeah it really is, I jump on protondb and read like 2-3 reviews to make sure the performance is adequate and there’s no major game breaking bugs and it’s fine.
tal@kbin.social 9 months ago
Honestly, there are very few games I have seen that don't work on Proton today. You might need to update to the latest experimental or use the GloriousEggroll build of Proton, but I don't even bother checking ProtonDB any more.
I will say that one of the games I really would like to run on Linux, Command: Modern Operations (and its predecessor, Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations) does not run on Proton. But aside from that...
maynarkh@feddit.nl 9 months ago
Isn’t this it? store.steampowered.com/steamos/buildyourown
DonnieDarkmode@lemm.ee 9 months ago
I wonder how much sense that would actually make for them. All the major console makers subsidize their products through game sales and online subscriptions. Valve already does the former, but that’s because they’re a game marketplace and it’s how they make money to begin with. I’m not sure what a steam subscription service (that’s not a game pass) would look like, since Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo offer online play and cloud saves for the cost of a subscription, whereas Valve makes those available for free.
serratur@lemmy.wtf 9 months ago
I don’t believe game pass is even profitable, its just to grow the platform, when its big enough they will turn up the price.
tal@kbin.social 9 months ago
I mean, you can just plug a PC into your television.
BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 9 months ago
I don’t think the point was ever to have to buy the hardware from valve, or that’s not how I saw it anyway. They wanted other manufacturers in on the steam machines, I think there were even units produced. The idea (aside from more steam sales) was to standardise PCs around specific performance levels so developers could target them without the faff of having to know how a 12900K stacks up against a Ryzen 7 7800X3D or a 13700 with a 3080, 4070Ti or a 7800XTXxXTTX.
This game is certified steam medium tier, I have a steam high tier machine, I will get xyz performance.
phillaholic@lemm.ee 9 months ago
That’s a lot of work for Valve for little to no benefit.
Lojcs@lemm.ee 9 months ago
And lose the pc neutrality?
BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk 9 months ago
So long as it’s a standardisation process I think it’s fine. Most are using prebuilt anyway so having a few standard levels SIs certify to makes it more consoley and anyone who’s rolling their own can use it as a guide or not and it’s exactly the same as the status quo.
magic_lobster_party@kbin.social 9 months ago
Gabe is already the wealthiest in the video game industry. He’s good.