this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
385 points (93.3% liked)
Games
31411 readers
1083 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:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
As much as I theoretically agree, I can immediately think of two problems:
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.
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
Yeah, but why would you want to? If you're going to play with a controller, why not just play on console?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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...
Sure, but itd still be nice to have the option ya know.
Because you would need to buy an extra console.
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.
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.
When I buy a new set of tires for my truck, I don't get a free set of tires for my car as well.
no but if you wanted you could put your tires on your car
Yes, all tires are interchangeable, I forgot.
Maybe with the help of an angle grinder, but sure you could get those wheels on there if you wanted to.
Tires cost materials and labor to manufacture, but digital games cost nothing to copy.
True, but you create a game for system A, it's not going to work with system B or C, without additional work required.
Sure, but GTA 6 is 100% already working on PC. Not just because they develop the game on PC, or because they're building on top of the RDR2 engine (which is already ported to PC), but because they planned to support PC from the beginning, and that type of engine work usually gets ironed out early during development or in pre-production.
I was just pointing out the flaw in your tire analogy though. TBH I'm not saying they should give free copies to people who bought it on other platforms. That's unprecedented for giant publishers like this. But I am pissed that they're delaying the PC version since you can be sure it's a calculated plan to ensure PC gamers buy the game twice. They collected enough analytics and surveys to know that a significant amount of GTA5 PC gamers also own a next-gen console. It's all very nefarious.
It runs on their specific hardware under specific situations, not any PC. I am just pointing out the flaw in your en-tire logic.
I actually have experience porting games and engines to consoles. If it runs on a development PC (likely Windows), they have the build system and platform layer implemented, which is the hardest part. Porting the content is also an important step, but really only for consoles, which usually have limited memory and power.
Typically the only problem with "PC ports" today is when the game wasn't designed around mouse/keyboard, or when the devs didn't make an effort to optimize it on consumer specs (although nowadays console architecture isn't too different from PCs so there are more optimizations that work across platforms). Another potential problem is when the game gets a lot of last minute hacks to fix bugs in order to ship on a console and those hacks don't survive a platform transition, then the publisher just tells them to ship as is since there's no certification process on PC. Basically, the problems are almost always logistical/business decisions due to a lazy/cheap publisher.
None of that is going to apply to this game. Rockstar has always intended to ship and fully support PC from the beginning. They had the technology, the talent, the incentive, and the time to do it. The most realistic explanation (IMO) for the PC delay is that they're trying to double-dip.
That's not how game development using an engine works... RAGE likely compiles code for at minimum a majority of modern computer hardware with next to no tweaking, and probably the same with Xbox & PlayStation consoles.
Most game engines used on large projects generally are made to handle as much of a variety of hardware as possible with little to no changes in the code – if you make a game using Unreal Engine or Unity for example it will almost certainly be able to work on Xbox, Playstation, and most PCs just fine. Most of the performance optimization for different hardware can then be offloaded to the engine. It's likely the same with RAGE.
Valve's steamplay already gives you access to win/mac/linux versions with one purchase so its not like its unheard of.