Sony won't be doing PC ports for big single player games anymore

[Davy]

BraLoD said:

Chrkeller said:

My experience is limited, but the little experience I had with EA and Ubi, both auto started when my PC launched, both took resources.  It was super annoying.  

As for passwords, I still take a different view.  Why do I need to login?  So, developers can sell my personal information?  If there was a reason to justify logins for games, I would not push back.  But there is ZERO benefit to me.  Zero.  Developers are going to need to justify the extra instead of forcing it with zero tangible benefit.    

RE9 success is multi reasons.  No launcher, no stupid login, well optimized and a great game.  I think it all plays a role.  

Why not separate launchers?  Because it takes additional system resources for no reason.  It takes up HDD space.  It takes up RAM.  It adds yet more DRM, which reduces fps.  And if servers are down, it can prevent me from playing games.  Also, what happens if Ubi goes under?  Will my games stop working?  Will someone else buy their IP and still support their launcher?  There is no benefit for gamers.  Zero, none, zilch.  

The world has moved to convenience.  Amazing, Netflix, Spotify, etc.  The gaming industry can start realizing people want convenience or they will fall behind.  I still think the Switch's success is largely convenience; it is way more adaptable than a standard home console.  

And what happens if Steam goes under? You are still buying licenses and not ownership, we have GoG supposedly offering ownership to their games, Steam does not, so why not support GoG instead of Steam if a company going under is a fear?

That's actually a legitimate fear I also share, thus why nearly all my games are physical except things I paid very little for, I can still play the vast majority of my games on my systems if Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo all go under today at the same time. Some will be lost, but nearly all of them will be at my leisure to do as I please. To play or turn them into money if I need to.

I agree the world has moved to convenience, tho, and I can understand the appeal, it's not like I want to not have it, but minimal stuff like setting up a free account doesn't really bother me that much to prevent me from playing a game I think I'll like. And regarding streaming services for example as you are listing them, those are paid services, so needing more them 1 becomes an actual money drain and yes, having a Netflix and Spotify and so on is an excellent way to keep expenses on check.

I do not disagree with you that if Steam alone is enough that's ideal tho.

GoG releases 10% the amount Steam releases, many companies don't like the drm-free strategy. 

You just risk losing the games, it is not practical every game developer to upload patches on their site and after to go manually and check if there is a recent patch for each game you play.

I don't think Steam will ever close. They have very few employees, so low expenses and 30% per game is very profitable. They could survive even with 10%.