this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
385 points (93.1% liked)

Games

32906 readers
1669 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm confused why Kotaku mentioning next gen in the title when Rockstar only commented on current generation PS5 and Xbox Series X/S.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] QubaXR 46 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Naturally. Rockstar likes to resell their titles no less than Bethesda. They will sell it to you on PS5 and series x/s, then again on PS6 and whatever Xbox will be around. Then probably Nintendo platform, finally PC.

This way they maximize the amount of times some people will buy the same game, each time with minimal quality upgrade.

Same as their previous titles. It's not that they didn't learn. They have the numbers and know very well what they're doing.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 1 year ago (3 children)

imo buying a copy for one platform should entitle to play on every platform it is released on. The crucial aspects of the work are the same. adapting to different hardwares and making controls for gamepads and mouse and keyboard only plays a small part in the total effort. Also you can play with a controller on pc in most cross platform games.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As much as I theoretically agree, I can immediately think of two problems:

  1. The storefronts would have to communicate

It's against their own interest to do this. Imagine you buy all your games on Steam because of the sales (although the creators of the game of course decide the prices, but still) and then play them on your Xbox. No profit at all for Microsoft, yet they're the ones providing all the additional services like the actual game hosting, friends system, etc. It's not much by any means, but it does add up. The money all goes to Valve. You could even buy the games via the Steam mobile app if you don't even own a PC. Also, even if they were theoretically fine with this, even coordinating it would be a pain. Since you could put a game on the Google Play Store, the App Store, hell maybe even F-Droid, Epic Games, GoG, Steam, the Xbox Store, and the Play Station store, and I am absolutely certain I forgot multiple other options, all of them would need to be able to communicate and decide on if you actually own the game. This would be a logistical and technical nightmare.

  1. Companies would just sell mildly different versions and claim it's a new game

You know how for example Undertale has a slightly special Nintendo Switch version where there's... I can't even remember, but I think it's an additional boss. That's just something small and cute, but let's go with the GTA example. I have played about five hours of 5 and dropped it, so excuse me if this isn't the best theoretical example, but let's say the PS5 and Series X/S get the base game. Then the PS6 and new Xbox get maybe five additional cars and the game they're selling is GTA 6 Expanded. Afterwards on switch (although by that time Nintendo's new console would've released) you get blue and red weapon skins or whatever and it's GTA 6 Switched Up. And then finally on PC you get the GTA 6 Ultimate Edition with expanded settings, better graphics, and maybe five more cars on top of those from GTA 6 Expanded. These are all technically not the same game, so you would not be able to claim them. Sure, you could argue they're similar, but where is the exact line? That's quite impossible to figure out - is it a cheated rehash or a mediocre remaster? Who knows

[–] aulin -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Also you can play with a controller on pc in most cross platform games.

Yeah, but why would you want to? If you're going to play with a controller, why not just play on console?

[–] force 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Because a PC can do everything a console can do, but way better, plus way more, lol

Consoles are completely redundant, you can get a better performing PC for the same price or lower if you wait for sales (especially when you consider the $60-120/year premium you have to pay to play console games online, Microsoft & Sony sell consoles at a loss because they know they'll suck way more money out of you from subscriptions & other "fees" you experience from console)

Consoles are just shit value, you can't use them for anything other than what, gaming and TV? And their specs are worth less than just buying similar parts separately and putting them together. So why would I spend up to $500 plus $80 every year on a shitty console just to play a new game because of artificial exclusives that will come to PC anyways? Assuming you use your PS5 or Xbox Series X or whatever for 6-7 years, that's $1000 down the drain. And then after that you'll still have to spend a few hundred on a laptop or PC or whatever to, you know, do your job or uni or whatever, because your console that costs over $500 can't do any of that.

[–] aulin 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I didn't know console games had subscription costs in ways the PC equivalents don't. I'm a PC gamer myself, and wouldn't buy a console precisely because it's a unitasker. But the one task it does do well is couch gaming with a controller, and that's not how I'd use a PC. Fair, if that's someone's thing, but I would just think a console was better for that usecase.

[–] force 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There's not really anything that makes using your PC in the same way inconvenient, you can connect it to your TV and wirelessly connect controllers, even more conveniently. Although switching between games or using different apps while doing so means you'd have to have a m&kb beside you I think, so if you're playing with friends it might be less convenient (personally I only use controller on games that are unplayable on M&KB though, mainly emulated games)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The one thing consoles have had for a long time over PC is physical disks. Fuck what I wouldnt do to have non-steam required disks. Btw I know itd be slow I dont care.

[–] force 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm sure you could burn a game onto a CD/DVD, although I'm not sure there's any benefit to doing that compared to just storing it on an HDD...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Sure, but itd still be nice to have the option ya know.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because you would need to buy an extra console.

[–] aulin 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you only play that particular game with a controller, sure. My point was that if you're a controller player, I'd think you'd have a better time on a console, since they and their games are made for it. Mouse and keyboard controls with key remapping are the biggest reason I play on PC.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

There is also hybrids.

Some people i used to play battlefield with played infantry and ground vehicles with mouse and keyboard but used a controller for planes and helicopters.

I could also see controllers to be nicer for racing games and simiiar considerations. At the end of the day even a pure controller player still needs a PC for non gaming. So might as well have one device for everything.

[–] Exusia 12 points 1 year ago

And pc always last because they can only sell it to them once and they'll have it until steam/epic dies.