ampersandrew

I don't think the Xbox or PlayStation brand will end anytime soon, but trying to keep doing things the way they've been done makes about as much sense as a cable company fighting against the rise of streaming television. PC is the largest single platform and is still growing, and even despite the complete obliteration of Sony's closest competitor, PlayStation 5 hasn't grown compared to 4; their growth has only come from selling at higher prices to the same number of users and from microtransactions from games that they don't make themselves which are available on many platforms. Which doesn't mean that they don't still have their customers like yourself, but if I already decided to play my games on PC, how on earth are they going to convince me to start buying third party games on PlayStation, where their money is actually made? At the very least, they can offer me the ability to buy their big blockbusters (which often cost more to make than they're seeing back in returns these days) on PC to recoup some of what they spent.

I don't think keeping the single player games exclusive makes much sense either. Sony's bread is buttered by taking the same 30% Valve makes on each game sale. If they're only converting you for single player games, you're buying...what...5 games on the platform, lifetime? And they're all Sony published? Realistically, on PC, you're probably already playing everything else on PC with no subscription fee that they would want to get a cut from. I think Sony has reached everyone they're going to reach, and you're just leaving money on the table by not bringing those games to PC, even if they come late.

A friend and I just started playing it co-op, and what's really going to affect our enjoyment of the lore is that only one person can be involved in an NPC conversation.

They’ve been practically waiting for a way to kill the PC industry and take the profits from it.

I have nothing but anecdotes to base this on, but charging for PS+ in an era where Steam offers a similar service for free has seemingly been one of the biggest drivers of converting people into PC gamers. Back when Xbox first charged for Live, it at least offered a far better experience than what you'd find elsewhere, but only a few years later, that was no longer the case.

I can afford it, and I'll bet I'm far from alone, but I'd essentially be buying a dedicated computer that can only play a handful of games, and it would play them worse than my PC could if they'd only make the game available there. There's no shortage of stuff to play, so it ends up just being a bad value even when you've got the money.

From my time hands on with it, it will be. Maybe a mechanic or two needs an adjustment post launch, but the core is excellent.

I emulated the game a few years ago, because the alternative was dealing with the lousy DRM on the Steam version, and it's weird (in a good way) to now play this game and see the battle transition animation run at higher frame rates. You can also use the analog stick. 3x speed is nice, but I can already do that on emulators. I know my brother got very into the modding tools for the Steam version of the game, so I wouldn't be surprised if those tools work on the GOG version already or in the near future.

I can highly recommend this game, and my IsThereAnyDeal extension says it's currently $3.58 at GameBillet, though I'd say it's worth every penny of the $20 they're asking.

Plus PC is the largest platform, and it's only leaving money on the table to not make a PC version.

PC might be implied in "console games". It's actually insane to not make a PC version these days if you're targeting console.

For a number of these, they're often games that had GameSpy servers or otherwise the online multiplayer portion of it was shut down, yet the game and multiplayer remain playable, and that's what SKG is about.

My family share for GOG is an SFTP server, which I'm pretty sure you can also do just using FileZilla and forwarding one port. Or you hand them the files on a flash drive.

There are a number of old LAN games there too. It's basically the only place I can feasibly shop for multiplayer shooters at the moment. The sad part is that I think the newest one is Crysis Wars, from 2008.

The difference is that even with the convenience of a launcher, I can decline an update that would undo DRM-free rather than manually copying every vetted DRM-free game on Steam to another directory every time there's a patch. And that's only to entertain this apocalyptic what-if that would never happen because it would trigger false advertising law suits that would instantly destroy the company.

Undoing DRM-free quickly enough that I couldn't download my remaining installers would be speedrunning the failure of a company faster than Unity, but other than that, they can't take away what I and others have already downloaded.

The reason why this doesn't concern me at all is that the very nature of the business they run means that I explicitly don't have to trust them.

Considering games with no DRM can have it added retroactively, that Steam pushes updates I may not want with no option to decline, and that that wiki can't even load in its entirety without erroring out for me and comes down to user submitted data, GOG's DRM free promise is more than just advertising.

I suppose so, but even if that bothered me, it would still mean I'm not owning the games I buy when I shop elsewhere.

I know it, but I'm not sure why one would affect the other. I still get DRM free games on GOG that I'm not going to find on itch.io or elsewhere.

Thanks for the link, though the store page does still say it requires an EA account. Is that just outdated? Dragon Age: The Veilguard also doesn't have an EA app requirement, so this is a thing they're doing with studios they own too.