Console games on average outperform their PC counterparts by like a lot.

All systems have shovel ware but  by and by the PC would have the most of it.  And like you stated, the existence of crap games doesn't mean there are not ones of real quality. I'm just saying usually the ones of real quality get ported to console, Divinity II comes to mind. 

When I say inefficient I am speaking of the fact that for price, a Console is cheaper than what you can build yourself(at official retail pricing because sales are subjective) at the same power level. Which is pretty much why they exist. When a console is purchased you know exactly what will and won't work on it. This is unfortunately not true for PC because you can have an extremely powerful and costly rig that won't run a particular game due to some weird way they coded it. It is all very loose and open. I don't idealize spending a lot of time tweaking and optimizing my rig to get a game to work.

Genre of games is important. A lot of what pads the PC libraries is Indie Side Scrollers(there are so many I never want to play another one in my life), RTS , and MMOs. Three genres I am not particularly a fan of. 

My top genres would be...

1. Jrpg

2.Western Rpg (3rd Person view REQUIRED)

3. Narrative Driven Action

4. Passive Story Manipulation/Detective Games

5. 3D Platformers

The First of which until recently was exclusive to consoles. All the biggest IPs of note for these genres are Console native and sometimes exclusive.

By sheer numbers alone?, gods no. PC and mobile outright dwarf console gaming. PErforming wise, I'm not sure what specific set of data you're likely to look at, but PC gaming makes a lot of money, as again does mobile gaming.

PC has it's own deal of it because it's not gone through gens like consoles always have. When you look at consoles combined with all their libraries, you start to see a large amount of shovelware piling up. It's only because it's broken down by gens does it appear small. If you're also going to combine console userbase numbers at this point, you may as well do the same for games and the shovelware that comes with them.

Yes, but the quality games still exist on PC. Having a console game ported to PC or a PC game ported to console does not stop that game from being good on it's respective platform. Divinity is still a good PC game to this day.

Price is subjective, as you buy what you want when building a PC, thee is no objective price point to choose from, but there is with a console that you buy brand new. You're also forgetting paying for online, the higher price range for brand new games both physical and digital on consoles. Heck, you have to pay for online just to access being able to get that discount. 

You can also look at a PC specs to get an idea of what will and what won't run with it as well. It's not rocket science or mystic arts you know. We're not living in the 90's anymore. We also have plenty of benchmark data and hardware/gaming reviews to go by as well.

Actually, those that run bad are due to it being a bad port, and yes, consoles can get those as well. If my beastly rig cannot run the game that a console can, then it's mostly down to the devs and not the hardware itself. Not sure why you talk of game code being "very loose and open", I don't think you know how coding actually works, let alone PC's for that matter.

Yeah, I've seen this same song and dance before. You name genres you hate and loathe and stamp them to PC, while ignoring everything else. I've seen many a eprson try to claim that PC games are only MMO's, RTS and Mobas, but they aren't.

PC has those genres btw, and plenty of third person games. Also limiting yourself to just 3rd person RPG's is very narrow minded btw.

PC also has plenty of detective based games, just in case you didn't already know.

I just think you dislike PC and that's fine to have such an opinion as I think consoles are like that in my view, but PC is definitely not some little pathetic unsupported minority like you claim it to be, and others here can attest to that like Pemalite.

Sure. The market didn't punish Sony with less sales in the PS3 era, it only it rewarded Sony in every era, PS3 included for having all the things you believe make Sony superior. Got it.

That's the most ridiculous stuff I read in recent time. The business model doesn't break down because of crossplay. The actual effect of crossplay on business is pretty small for the platform holders. 3rd-party devs profit more from it, that's why some of them argue for it. But PS4-sales will not take a nosedive if they allow crossplay, there is no fucking risk of 'internal collapse'.

And no, it is not child-like. Your argument sounds like: "Yeah, Monsanto might cause cancer with their stuff, but they just wanna make money. So everyone criticizing them is childish." Yeah, we are forbidden to criticize company for bad practices? That is childish? Sorry, I'm not a company bot, I am a human, I certainly think we should try to achieve a betterment in companies for the general public. And no, believing this would cause "internal collapse" is just childish bullshit.

I agree with this.

If adding cross play would cost Sony money or lose support than i kind of see Sonys decision, but Cross play has no baring of any mean to effect Sony or Play Station in any way where its a negative. 

Infact not allowing cross play has probably hurt Sony more due to the buisness model aswell as locking peoples accounts.

In my opinion, Sony know how big Fortnite is, and they want to rake in all the revenue for it, afterall Sony dont have many MP games on the market of there own. This is a typical greedy strategy which isnt just exclusive to Sony. I am sure any company with huge support will do the same thing.. But as gamers we should be against corps forcing these anti consumer rules and believing there so called excuses to there reasonings. Its as obvious as the sun why Sony wont do it, not because its a better experience. 

I typically only buy one console, which is normal for many casuals. If the next XB is what it should be, and nothing like the XB1 was, and has strong first party support, there is pretty much a 50/50 chance I buy it instead of a PS5, if the PS5 has cross play that is. If the PS5 doesn't have cross play, unless PS screws it up royally, odds are higher I will buy the PS5.

Why? If I can play with my friends who decide to get a PS5 (which some almost definitely won't if PS5 cross play is enabled and will go back to XB), and the consoles and games are similar in many ways, or XB seems like the much better deal overall, then what's the major selling point of the PS5? If the PS5 is a closed system and I have to buy it to play with my friends who own a PS5, well then that's considerable leverage to get me to buy the PS5 one way or another, even if I decide to buy an XB first.

While this scenario can play out in many ways, like for example you could say, PS has more stronger first party exclusives and XB can't compete, which would be true right now, but based on the moves and acquisitions MS has been making, that gap could close significantly next gen, and who's to say that trend doesn't continue and MS takes that entire advantage away from PS? MS is rich beyond rich. If PS officially opens the cross play doors, it's basically impossible for them to close them again, and they lose that leverage forever.

If I buy the XB (first), then you can bet it's because I plan to buy and play it's exclusives and third party titles on it, and the PS5 would only be for it's first party titles. Now multiply this by how many casuals buy consoles, and you can easily see just one major problem this could cause for PS. Just think about all of the leverage they have to get exclusivity and preferential third party treatment on their platform, which leads to a tonne of money being made off those games for PS, which it can pocket or use in many ways to strengthen and grow it's own platform.

Cross play may be a good idea for certain devs and pubs, but for others, and the hardware suppliers especially, it would be a hassle and a risky move. If PS ever allows it, you can bet it comes with a steep cost. I wouldn't put it past PS to offer cross play with PS5 just for PR, but charge so much for it that very very few can afford it. That way they can say we've given you the option. If free to play games behind a paywall, etc, is worthy of sweeping under the table, then so is overpriced cross play.

I am curious to why you would think Cross Play will be overpriced? Its a free feature this gen and last gen. I dont think Sony will go down that path next gen.

I cant see why Cross Play is an issue for Devs and Pubs. They probably want to link there games up to support bigger communities and increasing there life span of there games.

I agree that once you open the door its very hard to close. Probably why Sony is getting alot of flak for it these days, they heavily supported it last gen. They even claimed they supported cross play this gen with Rocket League. There quick to turn down Minecraft and now Fortnite which seems to contradict what they claimed in the past.

Anyway im not taking sides here but as some like me who has a brother and sister who all own different systems, it kills me hearing one doesnt want to participate for reasons only for greed. Which it is a buisness afterall. In cases like this its best to just stay quiet rather than claim market superiority.

First: you argue from your own standpoint, that crossplay would influence your decision AFTER other points like exclusives. That's basically it, there are so many points more important for platform-decisions than crossplay. Casuals basically don't even know what it is, until it bites them in the ass, because they wanna play with their friend and can't or they wanna play their Fortnite-account on the new Switch and they can't. But the real business effect is pretty small, there are many things before it. Most of all brand power. Remember early PS4 days? Held up mostly by ports from PS3 and weak exclusives like The Order? Still the PS4 sold extraordinarily. Why is that? Brand power. The people believed the games will come, because it is PS. A friend of mine actually said to me how he excited he is with his new PS4 - and that he rebought a game he already played on PS3 because he wanted something to play with his new PS4. So yes, pure brand power. And now this discussion? MS don't care about a few thousand people that actually would switch their platform because of crossplay. But this is an opportunity to get an attack on the Playstation brand. Because Sony left themself open for attack on this issue. That is the real reason MS is following up on this topic, because it is a good opportunity to reduce the brand power of PS, and that is something real in terms of customers.

Secondly: you argue that if MS would offer you a better value next gen than Sony, why would you stay with Sony if they don't employ tactics to keep you. That boggles my mind. You actually wanna give a company a tool that allows them to bring you in as a customer, even if they offer lesser value? Why would you want it? It is in all our interest that Sony, MS and Nintendo try their best to offer the best value to us, they can muster. Because that is the situation in which they think about the players.

Third: Even if crossplay has an effect, let's take an example of a business practice that actually makes the companies a lot of money: lootboxes. Basically foreverclouds argument could be applied here: we cannot criticize game companies for lootboxes, because it makes them money so they are excused. Everyone criticizing lootboxes is actually childish, like a child in a store crying for candy. Is that really a side we wanna take?

PS online was free, and is now a paid service, and let's be honest, it's because MS got away with it so PS wasn't leaving that stable income on the table. If PS feels they need or have to offer cross play, but don't really want to, whatever their reasons, they can just offer it at unreasonable prices and can have a much more justified reason as to why cross play basically doesn't exist on it's platform. It's much like PS Now. I'm sure they could do a lot more to make that service much better in many ways, but because the service isn't all the great, people just ignore it for the most part. They will just ignore cross play in this situation. The only problem I can see at this point in time, is if PS allowed expensive cross play on PS5, MS could make moves like removing the paywall for free to play games like Fortnite that have accounts, which would again turn up the heat on PS on both fronts. I would assume MS would instead follow the money and keep their paywall and charge (a reasonable amount) for cross play, since they have a valid reason without looking greedy.

If your a dev or pub who has a hit game that can stand the test of time, then cross play makes more sense, but if your games don't last that long, or you go through a rough period for whatever reason, cross play would hurt. You would want people to be looking for the next new game and be willing to drop what their playing now. It could become a big problem for the studios who don't find success early on. There are no doubt devs and pubs who don't mind making a game for PS4 and XB1 since they are so similar, and selling a copy for each platform to gamers who own both, which no longer happens with cross play across the board. Some devs and pubs will want it, other won't.

MS said some things and made some policies with XB1 that they revamped to fix the platform. They didn't do this out of the good of their hearts, and they didn't even really do it for the gamers, they did it because they flat out made terrible decisions, plain and simple, which led to a lot of hate. PS never said anything about cross play for PS4 early on and they've kept their word based on what they originally offered. PS never said they wouldn't have third party exclusivity, or account exclusivity. If people have such a problem with it, they will speak with their wallets, and you can be sure PS is watching, and obviously what they see are steady sales, so clearly people aren't that upset. It's not what you say that matters, it's what you do.

I agree that PS should have stayed silent, or had used a much more reasonable explanation. Truthfully, they should be on the offensive calling out XB on their own issues, and putting the ball back in their court, but for some reason they have gone from being aggressive, to being petty sometimes. There is almost no doubt in my mind that they responded this way, at this specific time, because of MS saying their gamers are more hardcore, just days earlier. It's like Trump vs the left. It's not a good look for PS.

PS4 did not win because of brand power. It helped though. By that logic PS3 should have crushed the 360, but it didn't. Why? It's because the 360 was a decent platform and was worthy competition. The XB1 was a drunk, smelly, weak, living on the street, bum of a console at launch. The PS4 simply had to show up for work and it won. Which it did and more. Once PS5 cross play was a thing, and free or cheap, you can bet those same casuals who buy a PS4, XB1, Switch, etc, because their friend(s)/family did, would now buy whatever platform was cheaper. What this can lead to is a price war, which in the long term hurts both companies, or more likely, they decide to launch weaker cheaper hardware to gain sales, while holding games back in the process. Either that or new cheap upgraded hardware every other year.

You say there are so many other points other than cross play, and it wouldn't hurt MS or PS much, if at all, so then why did it take MS as long as it did to allow it, and why hasn't PS done it yet? It's because it's a risky move, and a risk MS needed to take, that PS doesn't. While I mentioned exclusives, I also explained how that advantage can be neutralized, and so can just about everything else, which is why a point like cross play is something you want to keep in your back pocket.

You say having advantages is bad thing? So what, we should make wages for every working man and woman exactly the same, no matter what they do, so that we aren't choosing partners based on anything to do with wealth? So that some people can't buy nicer more expensive things because they earned them through whatever means? Should we make everyone wear the exact same clothing so people aren't choosing friends based on their chosen style?

Are you saying if PS is going to lose a bunch of money due to allowing cross play, that they should be forced to add in loot boxes to make that money back? Well I for one don't pay for them at all, and many of my friends don't either, so how much lost profit will they be able to get back? Even worse, if they go about applying those loot boxes in the wrong way, I nor most of my friends would buy that game, regardless of whether it's a blockbuster first party exclusive. Considering PS needs to sell a tonne of consoles to also sell a worthwhile amount of first party exclusives, less hardware sales due to cross play means, less first party game sales. There goes that money and potentially those game franchises. Bye bye advantage.

What I get from your arguments, is that you want cross play because it benefits you in whatever way, and if that means more/harder work for PS to figure out how to make it happen, then too bad for them, just get it done now. If it means other PS customers or gamers disagree, then too bad, deal with it. I thought this was about what's best for everybody. The only way to do that is to make things as fair as possible, which means giving 'people' choices within reason, which means PS can choose to stay more exclusive, and you can choose MS or Nin instead since they offer the most important thing to you, cross play.

Lets be honest here. Any company approaching next gen with some sort of fee/service to cross play will be kicking themselves in the butt especially when your competitors will be offering it for free (If they offer it for free).

Cross Play should be all about weather the Pubs/Devs want to implement it on there own games, not the platform maker to make that decision for them which seems to be the case in this thread. This is Sony not wanting it on a game they don't own or make. This is simply, we want the money and punish anyone who doesn't play this modern phase on our system which is obvious to just about everyone. 

Competition is a good thing and its great to see them pushing eachother into doing things better for the people. It seems to be always the case, who's ever in front tends to care less. That wont change next gen either however we have seen positive signs this gen with Xbox and Nintendo starting to work together to make there platforms even greater than what they are, they are striving to be better.