"PS5 has no games"
This is what everyone always says. It's the big punchline of this console generation.
They say it as if they meant "Sony hasn't made or published any games worth playing since November 2020." That's definitely not true. Sony's released several great, critically acclaimed games on PS5: Returnal, Horizon 2, God of War Ragnarok, and just recently they had Helldivers 2. They've had a PS5 game get nominated for Game of the Year every year.
What people have really complaining about is "Sony doesn't keep their games solely on the PS5, instead they've also been bringing them to PS4 and/or PC when able." Isn't that... good?
I remember during the PS3 and PS4 generations, it sucked that you'd have to buy a whole console for that 1 exclusive you were interested in. I had a friend who got a PS4 solely to play Bloodborne. I saw a lot of people back then interested in these exclusives coming to PC. For convenience, for better graphics and frame rates, for the novelty, for game preservation, for any number of reasons.
Now it's finally happened, Sony's big IPs are pretty much all on PC. You can go buy God of War or Ratchet and Clank on Steam. That's awesome! 15-years-ago me would've never believed that could happen in a million years.
And how did people react? "Why would I buy a PS5? It has no games!" It has games, they're just not keeping the games locked up there serving a life sentence, maybe getting a remaster 20 years later if they're lucky. I also find it odd how the Series X has even less exclusives, releasing games day-and-date on PC, but nobody jokes about that.
So, I don't really have a dog in the fight. I'm a PC gamer and I don't own a PS5 but I do get the benefits of Playstation exclusives trickling onto PC.
That being said, one legitimate gripe is that they keep releasing PS5 games on the PS4, which means you are really only getting PS4 games and this late into a console generation that just kinda sucks. Sure "it's really just downscaling graphics" but it still probably hold back developers.
For a majority of games (at least right now) it probably is "just downscaling graphics" (or reducing NPCs, etc). But there are cases where core game designs cannot be achieved with weaker hardware, especially if they're dependant on CPU which is famously "trash" (for lack of better word) on PS4/XBO.
However these kinds of games are few and far between and likely won't be seen regularly until the end of the generation anyway considering how long games take to develop, but it's definitely a possibility that at least 1 game released so far has been held back to some degree from a design perspective due to being a cross-generation title.
Unfortunately they're all being made worse for PS4. The PS5 has a unique way to access large amounts of memory very quickly and the PS4, graphics turned down or not, can't compete.
Things like hills, closed doors, hallways, rocks, etc. are often put in place to save memory. They obscure your view so the console doesn't have to load a bunch of other stuff. Even your character's maximum speed is limited to ensure there is enough time to load assets.
To be fair, Nintendo has demonstrated twice now that brilliant devs can push a console to the absolute max by using clever tricks and workarounds (Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom), and Rockstar did the same on PS4 with Red Dead Redemption 2, but we haven't seen any equivalent on the PlayStation 5. Grand Theft Auto 6 might change that?
I’d add Splatoon to the list of impressive Switch titles. Sure it has a toony style which helps, but it still looks unreasonably good and is shockingly smooth for how ridiculously underpowered Switch hardware is.
Third party Switch ports on the other hand are another matter. So many of these struggle and look terrible, even relatively undemanding titles like anime-styled games with small maps.
It's pretty incredible what some specialists have been able to get out of the switch! There's this interesting article interviewing the head of Saber Interactive, the studio that ported Witcher 3 and World War Z: https://wccftech.com/saber-interactive-interview-world-war-zs-success-10m-registered-players-and-beyond/
To further your point: Breath of the Wild was released on the WiiU at the end of its lifecycle and played reasonably well.
Haha, I always forget that! Absolutely unbelievable that they accomplished such a feat.
Which is even more insane when you consider that the Wii U was an amped up Wii, which was an amped up GameCube. Nintendo certainly got their money’s worth out of that GameCube architecture.
I think the problem as well is it's not just the PS4, but the Series S that is going to continue to constrain game design. The Baldur's Gate 3 local co-op showdown was one case where a developer squared off with "look, we just can't have feature parity on the series S to the series X/PS5/PC", but most developers aren't going to risk their xbox revenue. A lot of devs would just constrain local co-op to keep players on the same screen, or drop the feature for consoles altogether.
That hasn’t been true for a while. What recent AAA release had a PS4 version? The main console bottleneck is the Xbox Series S.
Hogwarts Legacy had (delayed) last gen versions, but that was nearly a year ago now. Starting last summer we stopped really seeing cross-gen AAA games, and I don't think we're going to se any this year.
Am I the only one who thinks "3 years into a console generation" is still very early? Especially given how the first year was the wild west for even finding a PS5 at MSRP. They weren't direct ports, but the PS2 kept running for half of the PS3's lifetime, and likewise I know some Japanese PS4 games with PS3 ports (they usually didn't localize the PS3 version for western release).
It's crazy we're this early in the lifetime and we're already talking about pro versions, just as supplies let up, but also far from when devs are getting the full power out of a PS5. I guess even optimization is falling down the wayside this gen if Sony would rather throw more power at whatever issues top studios run into.
I think a lot of the disappointment is coming from people who have both a gaming PC and a PS5. It wasn’t that uncommon for people to have both a PC and PS4, because the latter had a decent number of exclusives, and so a number of people bought a PS5 to compliment their PC with similar expectations.
With so few exclusives, the PS5s owned by people in this group have been mostly gathering dust or gotten used as PS4 Ultras, which makes them feel like a bad investment when they could’ve gotten similar benefit from taking their old PS4/Pro, cleaning it out, repasting it, and replacing its HDD with an SSD.
I’m in that boat, but with the added bonus of a PSVR2 also collecting dust because….. no games!
At least PSVR2 is officially getting support for PC! The firmware version adding support for Nvidia GPUs was released 1 or 2 days ago. It's not fully supported on PC yet, but hopefully it should be able to be used with SteamVR etc. later this year.
That is positive as the hardware is great for the price. Already got a PC headset though so I’m personally lukewarm on the prospect.
Same here, I have a PSVR2 and it’s great hardware, but the lack of compelling titles is discouraging. Also, as much as I enjoy a good VR experience, I have to rearrange my living room to make space for it, and put everything back afterward… it’s a silly thing but that’s a legitimate inconvenience that makes me not want to play.
I've always maintained a gaming rig and a playstation. This PS5 generation is getting much more use from me than any of the other playstation generations for a couple reasons
But I like my PC for certain types of games, for multiplayer. Because the PC is upstairs in an office when I want a real "gaming sesh" I have fewer distractions, a darker room, etc.
It really doesn't bother me that the PS5 doesn't have exclusives. In fact I'm glad it doesn't because I can pick the right platform for the game. I wouldn't play Helldivers on the PS5, but Elden Ring (which I own on both) is much better on the Playstation.
I mean, the answer to all of those is just having another PC in the living room.
Not to be glib, as my entertainment stand is full of Consoles up to eighth Gen, but most of them are basically decoration at this point since I can have all the same experiences from the SFF PC I've got hooked up to the TV. Hell, a Steam Deck with HDMI dongle could serve as the Deck can serve up all the couch play goodness and still run Elden Ring.
Assuming I can source similarly performant parts at a competitive price point. I still lose out on the OS and plug-and-play ease of use. Your points are well made, but at their price point I think consoles still provide value in simplicity.
Yeah, this is my setup too. Not even SFF, it’s an ATX mid tower sitting beside my entertainment console. Combine with controllers of your choice and Steam and you’ve got a near-console experience with much better graphics.
Which is why it’s a bit of a bummer to have so few games that are PS5-only. There’s little reason to fire the PS5 up when a more capable PC is sitting right there and can play that game better than the PS5 can.
I would agree with you except I have two major issues:
The games that get ported have a bad habit of being poorly optimized for PC. Sometimes I want something that just "works" on the platform because the devs already know the specs. Before my current overbuilt rig, I constantly had to fiddle and tweak to run the ported games.
I love the PlayStation controller design. Every generation, it's been my favorite. The only controller that I may like just as much is the GameCube one. Regardless, I love the PS controller. In recent years, I even enjoy the fact that I can plug in my PS4 or PS5 controller into my PC with a USB and it. just. works. It's been awesome because I'm not required to have the XBOX controller that I just do not enjoy. Unfortunately, even with all these awesome advances in tech, I really am continually upset that games on PC do not tend to carry the PS button icons by default. I do not know the XBOX ABXY layout by default. In fact, I am more inclined to use the ABXY from my Switch, which is reversed. I bought Hi-Fi Rush on launch because that game looked so much damn fun, but it took me 6 months to be able to actually play the game because it did not come with the PlayStation buttons and I had to mod them into the game. Now the game finally came out to PlayStation and I honestly just wish I waited until then and bought it there.
I can agree with you on both accounts! I have a DS5 on my desk and have mainly transitioned my Xbox controllers to the big TV, though I mostly play myself with an 8bitdo Pro 2. I rarely have an issue with the glyphs because I know what they translate to for the most part but whenever a good Switch game has me on my Switch for a while, there's usually growing pains going back to an Xbox glyphed game.
Honestly, if Sony would've just been more into PC a while ago we could've been past this. I hate that Ubisoft games seem to story PlayStation controllers really well because it means I have to play Ubisoft games...
A 2nd PC would be the PS5. It's one of the better devices from a price to graphics ratio. I don't have a gaming rig, but my Laptop is $2500 and I definitely wouldn't spend another $2500 for "a spare pc in the living room" when a PS5 does 99% of what I want to do for AAA gaming. If I really need to I can hook my laptop up to the TV but I sure can't keep that tethered there long term.
I have a PC and PS4. PS4 is worth it for Spider-Man. Even after the PC release. That and being a blu-ray player makes it worth the cost. But now that Spider-Man 2 is most likely going to get a PC release eventually, then I don't feel the need to upgrade to a PS5.
So yea, I agree that the complaint OP mentioned is from PC people that own PS5. People who are console only wouldn't or shouldn't care what isn't exclusive.
That's because (and notice the nuance here) it's correct, and as a console that legitimately makes the PS5 a failure. The key selling point of game consoles have always been 1) the hardware capabilities (consoles were purpose-built for games and could deliver graphics that PCs of the same price simply couldn't), and 2) the exclusives (which were built around the console's hardware).
To repeat that: consoles justified buying one instead of PCs, because they out-innovated them. If consoles in the 1980s were just locked-down PCs with worse value for money, then they would never have taken off and they would have been obviously illegal. We collectively accepted consoles despite their anti-competition because it delivered clear benefits to the consumer.
Nowadays consoles are just PCs in a box, they don't have exclusives, and what exclusives they do have could easily just be PC games. Which means that in a traditional 'console' sense, today's consoles are abject failures.
The value of consoles nowadays is in their reliable delivery of value (i.e. you don't need to know anything about specs, just buy the latest Xbox or whatever and you'll get value-for-money), and their network lock-in (i.e. if your friends are all on PSN then you can't just buy a PC).
In other words, all their current value is artificial, and the 'reliable delivery of value' is just because they shift the screwing-over to the lock-in section rather than screwing you upfront on the hardware. Also, their hardware isn't necessarily good, they're just (tuned-up, "semi-custom") normal hardware that's artificially subsidized.
So quite frankly the entire concept of a modern console does not adequately justify its own existence. The PS5 isn't a bad modern console, but modern consoles are bad.
Do note that I'd happily exclude nascent consoles of non-traditional form-factor (such as VR headsets) from my criticism, but we all know damn well that the PS6 and next Xbox will not fit that description; not even remotely.
I agree with some of what you are saying, but I'd argue that the reliability of a modern console is real value, for the right people.
I think the industry sort of concluded that PC is the defacto platform for hardcore players, developers and content creators. Hardware is expensive and enthusiast gamers can't justify a good PC for most games and a bad PC for 2 games. I do think the age of the exclusive is over and multi-platform is smarter for everyone.
But in gaming, there's also the substantial casual market. They only know mobile gaming and are far more competent with a phone than they ever will be with a PC. This includes kids playing Roblox, the surprisingly large mobile BR market and the countless victims of pay-to-win scams. (unrelated, but if you want to get someone out of a mtx spiral, try showing them Stardew Valley. Literally saved my mom)
It feels like the current console market are the people in between. I'd classify one group as people wanting more fidelity or sophistication than the mobile market offers. And I think it's a valid group with how manufacturers are trying to court more premium experiences onto their devices and the growing support for controllers in mobile games. The other group would be the pop-gamers. People who just want to play CoD, their sports title, racing games, fighting games, GTA or some nostalgic franchise. People who just want to plug and play (after system update, game download, than anther update and download textures...). Like my youngest brother who owns every Playstation and has only ever played Fifa and the Arkham series.
The closest to a PC I'd recommend to these people is a Steam Deck and even that has its limits. People already have phones for all their computation needs and a company machine for work. Just like how a console is an underspeced PC to a serious player, a PC is just and overspeced console to this middle ground player.
I think that we, the tech-literate, more serious gamers, Tildes users, under value and underpopulate this demographic when we think about how people game. The five or so people I game with regularly are in the same demographic as me (and probably many of us having this conversation): decently specced gaming PC and a Nintendo Switch. But when I talk to people outside of that immediate group I am commonly surprised with how many of my friends own a PS5 only for one or two games (and not even the "exclusives"!) For someone who just wants to play FIFA, a computer seems inscrutable.
I think it also under highlights how this saavy group defines "no games". A casual COD players isn't she'll out for a $2000 pc just to get maybe 15a slightly better picture they barely notice. Sports games are very PC hostile as of now so that's not an option for your parent who just wants to game on the newest NBA 2k.
And for my POV as a JRPG enthusiast who is constantly consuming content in and outside the game: timed exclusives do matter. no, I'm not waiting 1-2 years to play FF7R. That game is going to be cracked wide open and spoiled given the way I browse games. Some otherwise unrelated JRPG podcast can make a vague reference to something happening later in FF7R and that's it. They are usually polite the first 2 months or so, but you can't spoiler context the internet forever.
Part of the reason I buy certain single player games at launch is precisely so I can avoid the intent inevitably spoiling me, and of course becsuse it's nice for me to join the discourse early and see what people who otherwise would not stick around long would think.
I don't know how much of this is sustainable for a console, but you should indeed keep certain groups and genres of game in mind that you may otherwise cast off as not being interesting to you personally. I'll likely never play Gran Turismo 7, but I completely understand why the argument of "well it came out on PC 5 years later! (it's not out as of now, for non-racing fans)" would ring hollow to someone who will spend years playing such a game. And why "well just play Forza" may be sacrelidge to them.
That seems to be a werid way to phrase it. Remember that the NES was marketed as a toy. We didn't need nor could afford every piece of hardware to have generic support for hardware/software tinkering. There wasn't even a PC standard to support yet in those days.
That's also one angle that was taken that has only now, 40 years later, started to be viable on PC: portability. The Switch is a hybrid portable that was only matched by some Chinese hobbyist devices 3 times its cost in 2017. And before that there was virtually no other PC that has tried to target the portable market. But those were squeezed out by the mobile market, so they adapted or died.
Only if you need every device to be general purpose. From a development standpoint, one target hardware eases and speeds up development time. Being able to optimize for a system that gives you all its power instead of fighting with an OS scheduler for resources let's you get a lot more out of otherwise inferior hardware to the top of the line consumer hardware. But those optimizations don't just come out the box; it's up to devs to research and figure out the hardware. That's why there's always such a difference between launch and late gen games.
I compare it to a PC because a PC of comparable specs is a substitute - if you own a PC then you can just buy the PC version of all the games you play, and save yourself $500. $X per console in fact, because if you want to play Mario Kart and Bloodborne then you're shelling out for two consoles. Or just using an emulator on your PC, if you can find a copy of Yuzu.
This is true but irrelevant - if you only target one console, then you're sacrificing at least 2/3 of the market (and profits). Which is exactly why no gamedevs today are making exclusives unless the platform holders pay them big bucks to do so.
Also, having a single platform for devs to target isn't exclusive to consoles - the Steam Deck is "not a console" (you can install whatever on it) and yet is a single platform for devs to target. Ditto for the Raspberry Pi (not that devs necessarily are targetting the Pi, just that they could and it has some crazy market penetration as a single device). If I steelman your comment I would assume you're talking about the incentive structure that consoles create, where the console itself is not the actual source of profit, but that argument goes both ways - consoles selling very-stable-experience boxes at a loss absolutely destroys the market incentive for gaming PC sellers to produce a very-stable-experience box, because they can't compete on upfront price. We don't actually know whether the console incentives are necessary here.
I also feel like you're missing the forest for the trees, here - while I'm sure there are arguments for consoles here and there, when they exist they're weak and the important question is whether they're strong enough to justify the drawbacks of the anti-competition.
...also also, if you really want a stable development platform on PC then you could just target an emulator. Nobody does, but they could. If it's a valid argument for the Switch then it's a valid argument for Yuzu.
That's the rub, "if you own a PC (with your desired specs)". Most don't. And these days the replacement cost won't exactly outpace a console. You replace a GPU in 7 years around the PS6 release and it might be cheaper, or might be the cost of the console.
IMO with the current PC market it comes down to preference more than savings. I use a gaming laptop for development and occasional PC gaming, but I prefer my Switch and PS5 when I could for gaming.
Okay, that's the usual ebb and flow of development. Sometimes if you chase two rabbits you get none. You can have a great game ruined or compromised because you couldn't handle all the console bugs before ship, or because a low powered target like the Switch limited graphical techniques you could use.
Despite the outcry, you can indeed work on another port after the first one proves itself. People won't refuse to buy your game because their platform of choice wasn't first priority. I'm not a fan of port begging, at the end of the day, people wanting to have your game on their platform is a good sign, not a bad PR sign to bet it all in one go next time.
Sure, but that's a spec target, not a console target. The whole allure of Steam Deck is that you can run a windows build on it and test accordingly. So it's less "test steam deck" and more "test steam deck specs", ideally only hitting a few quirks to quickly adjust.
If Pc Devs had to target and test every little spec, they'd go insane (and waste a lot of time. a 3080 and a 4080 aren't going to have specific differences outside of slightly faster performance).
Yeah, sounds like good business for console developers. Undercut the competition and promise support and stability. A tactic as old as time. You were mentioning that you can replace a PS5 with a similar specc'd PC, but as of now the pricing optics + stability are good arguments for getting a console.
With all due respect, this perspective is extremely myopic. I'm a dev so clearly I can modify and tinker with my computer until the cows come home. And I've done it dozens of times.
But some 95% of the population cannot, does not know how to, nor wants to do that. As long as convinience is preferred, there's a market to tap into. That's how Mac and especially iPhones got their traction, that's how popular social media got their traction. That convinience in and of itself is the answer and justification. You can call it weak, but you're ultimately making a judgement call on people who simply have different priories in their lives. To each their own.
I don't really see the anti-competiton angle either. If Pc really is "2/3rds of the market" then there's not much angle to stand on just because it doesn't literally have 100% of the games you want to personally play. A console manufacturer choosing to release a game on the console they made to justify its console doesn't seem anti-competitive. A business choosing to take a deal to release on a console first isn't anti-competitive, especially when some studios historically stagger their ports anyway (several Japanese studios employ this).
I imagine there are too many legal and logistical issues with this (let alone technical quirks) to ever risk this. Devs need to sign contracts and work with dev kits and throwing out a rom that works on a modern system emulator seems like easy lawsuit fuel (probably. I haven't looked at that contract in a while).
Compare the output of a game console in 2003 to 2024 and it's absolutely pathetic. There was a time you could get an entire trilogy of games from an IP in 5-6 years (one console gen, or into the next one).
Now current gen consoles are out for 5 years, with maybe one game in a franchise, and it's multi-platform. You will also be lucky if that one game isn't a "remake" that released last gen.
The last generation of consoles worth owning was 7th generation, but the rot of the video game industry began to take hold a few years into that gen.
I was recently reminded that with the rate of development on these FF7 remake games, each entry in this three-part remake will be on a new console generation.
To be fair to the remake, each part of the remake trilogy is just as long as, if not longer than, the original game!
https://howlongtobeat.com/?q=final%2520fantasy%25207
And you can really tell - they finally have enough time to breath in the remakes. Seriously, the way Midgard plays in the original feels almost hilariously short and undercooked in FF7 when you've played remake. The pacing and gameplay are much improved as a result.
...and absolutely ruined the story and gameplay pacing as a result.
It's just culture. Ever since the days of "the PS3 has no games," that phrase has followed the consoles generation after generation. Doesn't matter whether it's true or why.
To be fair, the (launch-year) PS3 did have no games (i.e. exceptionally few, not literally zero) - the PS2 was the best-selling console of all time, and Sony was arrogant enough that they didn't even bother trying to sell devs on the PS3 (and it had both a lack of hardware documentation and an infamously inscrutable architecture to code for, whereas the 360 was much more similar to stanard PC hardware), and as a result on launch day and for a few months later it had almost no exclusives.
That was PS3-launch-day Sony though; they responded by basically begging anyone to develop PS3 games and offering to put a first-party Sony developer onto a plane and shipping them over next-day to any studio willing to write a PS3 game (and they did claw back a fair bit of dev mindshare), and when the PS4 launched Sony were very attentive to dev studios.
For the PS4 generation, MS in their own stroke of arrogance shot themselves in the foot with their original plan to lock discs to consoles. Even though they quickly backpedaled on that, the reputation damage was huge and was likely a factor in the PS4’s success.
Right, I'm not disagreeing. It was pretty true back then; I'm just saying that there's a good portion of people who chanted "PS4 has no games", chant "PS5 has no games", and will chant "PS6 has no games" just because it's culture. Reality doesn't have to factor into it.
Right? I figured that this was going to be a deep dive into the roots of "Sony Console has no games" not a literal taking of it at face value.
Guess two console generations is old enough to become a creation myth now. Like the first time I saw "Press F to Pay Respects" said without irony.
I think the PS3 era was especially bad optics-wise, because we were transitioning from the PS2 having a huge number of games available in-stores. I remember in general retail stores like Target or Walmart, the PS2 game shelves could easily take up a whole aisle. Then PS3 came along, and it's shelf-space often took up a quarter or less than the PS2's. And even as more games got released for PS3, that dynamic took a long time to shift. You couple that factor with the gradual shift towards digital distribution in the next-gen, and it's easy to see where perception issues come from. Now the whole PS4/PS5 section can take up like half an aisle.
Not saying that's the whole explanation of course, but I think it's a factor.
I expect a lot of the complaining comes from those us us who were brought up during the "console wars" era- the days of trash-talking other systems and saying the one you had was better because "xyz game is better". And because at that time you could generally only afford one console... well, you would go for the one that had the best games.
But now that you have so many games that are cross-platform... well, that means you lose bragging rights. Which was the whole original point of exclusive games- the bragging rights.
Back in the day I got a Playstation Vita and was into Japanese games like the Neptunia Series, Akiba’s Trip 2, Persona 4 Golden, etc. My understanding was that most of those games used the Phyre Engine and were written in C# so they were potentially portable to many platforms such as the PS3/4, various Xbox, PC, etc.
I was glad that these publishers were quick to move onto the PC as these games still exist and are being published on that platform.
I’d also point out that the Xbox exclusive situations is a joke. I wound up picking an Xbox for the wrong reason (I thought it would work perfectly with Plex but it didn’t and I gave up on Plex when it started spamming me with ads for off-brand streaming services, what a lack of comprehension that the whole reason I was running.a Plex server). I look at what is on the shelf for PS4/5 I think it is a much better story than the Xbox even discounting that I am into Japanese games.
Also the PS5 is not really a revolution over the PS4, sure it is going to offer 4K but what game is going to (1) really need a PS5 over a PS4 and (2) not be better on the PC? Xbox now just seems to be a vehicle for Microsoft’s vainglorious plan to turn games into cable TV. If the PS4+ and incomprehensibly named Xboxes (Good thing kids aren’t playing it anymore because no way your mom is going to understand an Xbox One is better than an Xbox 360 or if an Xbox Series X is better or worse than an Xbox Series S) are just PCs under the hood why subtract value instead of just making a Steam Box, Steam Deck or something like that?
Xbox hasn’t been too interesting to me for a long time. The 360 had a legitimately great library, but everything since the Xbox One onward hasn’t been on my radar at all, with how its library has consisted mostly of shooters and esports shooters, most of which can be played elsewhere.
The comments make me feel like I'm in bizarro world. I have no concerns about games for my PS5, and I find it weird that people are upset that Sony and their publishing partners now generally opt for timed exclusives instead of outright exclusives. Games, especially AAA games, are ludicrously expensive to create these days, OF COURSE they are going to try to eventually sell them on every platform possible.
I have a gaming PC, PS5, and Switch and I use the PS5 about as much as my PC (Switch is a distant third place). My PC is even hooked to the same TV as my PS5 and I prefer the PS5 for lot of games. The PC ports are almost always more prone to bugs/evil-DRM/incompatibility edge cases and publisher's haven't priced PC game MSRP lower in a good decade.
There are definitely some good reasons/situations that I'd choose to play a game on PC over a console such as games where I'd prefer to use a mouse and keyboard, Steam Deck usage, and for multiplayer games as I have no interest in paying for the privilege of online multiplayer.
If anything, I feel like people will be shifting more and more to consoles because I don't think many people can stomach getting their next gaming GPU for twice the price of an entire console.
Is this a symptom of AAA game quality rushing towards MTX laden annual release games? I feel like the single player experience for both consoles has been lacking for quite some time. Yet major release after major release is a medicore reviews of an unfinished or watered down AAA. It’s like single player only exists to sell a multiplier experience geared towards whaling money out of players for $20 character skins.
I struggle with indie releases. Yes they’re cheaper and when I find a gem it’s amazing, but sifting through countless demo-less duds hasn’t been worth the risk for me. I’ve had a few games that looked homeruns to me from trailers and screens but fall flat once I get actual hands on, and refunding console games is a horrid experience riddled with anti-patterns and strict conditions.
I wonder if it’s better in PC land where steam refunds are a thing.
I feel like Sony is one of the devs and publishers least guilty of these complaints? If anything, their first party titles take too long between sequels, have surprisingly low amount of MTX, review fairly well, and are known for having barely any multiplayer modes. One of their most anticipated multiplayer games, TLOU Factions, was cancelled, and they recently released Helldivers 2, which from what I heard is a fun game that doesn't have predatory MTX issues.
For indies, I generally go with ones that I've heard other people recommend instead of going in blind based on trailers. I would definitely look up reviews over official trailers, maybe even ask here on Tildes if someone's tried a specific game. I haven't returned any digital games on console (as on console I usually go physical or get games from PS Plus), but can confirm on Steam that refunds are super easy and painless.
Reading between the lines, that TLOU Factions saga may be more complicated than it seems on the tin.
It was specifically focused on as a premiere live service game that built upon the first TLOU's excellent multiplayer. At the time, PlayStation was headed up by Jim Ryan, who was actively pushing live service gaming and maximizing revenue which is why he led the acquisition of Bungie and got them to start work on the extraction shooter Marathon game.
What I find curious is that TLOU Factions development was stymied and eventually halted due to input from Bungie, when they expressed concern about how TLOU Factions would keep players engaged over a long period of time.
Bungie, who have become infamous and diminished by their approach to live service with the Destiny games and the amount of microtransactions in them, were expressing concern and Jim Ryan's PlayStation listened to them. I think they would have said the exact same thing about Helldivers 2 but that probably slipped by because HD2 wasn't expected to be a huge AAA success so whatever money its "meagre" MTX model would bring in would be a bonus on a low-to-mid selling game.
It's a shame TLOU Factions is effectively cancelled because the bones from the first game's multiplayer could really be fleshed out with TLOU2's mechanical gameplay improvements and provide a compelling experience that hasn't been seen since Metal Gear Solid 3's multiplayer. Hopefully with the runaway success of HD2 and its much lighter and shitty approach to live service than Bungie takes will show the new PlayStation bosses that worrying about trapping players in endless Skinner boxes is not the key to success.
As a sidenote, Naughty Dog's previous multiplayer modes actually had examples of Pay2Win DLC but they went under the radar since their multiplayer modes were never very popular or widespread outside of dedicated communities. I'd hope any future and focused multiplayer effort from them would do away with such nonsense.
It's good but it means that if you have a PC (or PS4) it feels wasted to have bought the PS5 (why do you need a PS5 if you have the other two, especially the PC cause at least one could argue the PS4 has worse graphics and honestly it also runs a lot slower <- why I justified a PS5 originally).
I mean, I admit I have to tell myself that a big reason I bought the PS5 was the ps4 was getting unbearably slow. Even so... I feel PS5 has been the most disappointing Playstation in more ways than one. This is the first time I've had to replace a PS5 console cause my first one broke and it never worked right from the start but the things that didn't work from the start at least were tolerable <- it was either return it and wait months or longer and have to be constantly on the lookout for my chance to get one or tolerate the problems. I decided to go with tolerate the problems. I still have my launch day PS2 and 4 (never bought ps3 or 1 launch day and got rid of the 1 when 2 was backwards compatible) and all the ps3s I bought and they all still work today. And yet I had to replace my newest playstation already.
I mean Horizon Forbidden West DLC was the first thing i bought that I couldn't have just used my PS4 to play (I think still almost everything else I could have played on PS4. Sure, Dragon's Dogma II which I just got and FFVII remix but those were both this year and I could have gotten DDII on PC). I really do wonder if the few PS5 only games were worth buying a crappy console I already had to replace. Sure the PS4 was getting very annoyingly slow.. but it still works at least!