Lmao are you implying that I may get hurt, raped or abducted by crossplay? What
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Fortnite Crossplay XB1 - PS4 | Seems like the ball is in Sony's court ... Again - MOD EDIT: READ OP
- Thread starter Klobrille
- Start date
LOL, you missed my stealth edit. But I think you can understand the underlying point.
Okay so using a more relevant comparison, can you explain why the motives should matter to me
I haven't seen anyone ignoring the reasons why Sony might be stopping crossplay from happening, just that it is something that should be possible and even convenient in the long run for them.
Last edited:
They matter if you're painting two companies as antagonist and protagonist, which many in this thread are. The argument has been made that MS are using this more as a PR boost, knowing Sony won't cave, and less as a gesture of altruistic pro-consumerism, and much of this assumption is based on their past behavior as a market leader, at least in North America.
It's like saying to your friends "I'd beat that bully up if he were here" and them praising you for being brave, except you were only saying that knowing he was on vacation and there was no chance of a confrontation. It's opportunistic, but not indicative of a pattern of pro-consumerism, at least not yet anyways. As this situation develops further, we can more clearly see how pro-consumer they are actually dedicated to being.
The misunderstanding is "Arguing" for them. I am not I am just seeing how logically it makes sense. The time for winning over customer goodwill by any means was at the start of generation. Now their momentum and base is solid it doesn't make much sense to do so. Business wise it is logical why they don't do it. Cross play doesn't make sense, because despite supporters saying it is good for gamers (which I don't deny) they can't really break down why it is good for sales. A poster above tried but also didn't make much sense.
And people try to predict how companies will behave all the time. Sony has been particularly interesting because of the fact that for a long time the entire company did not act as one and would fight with other divisions over control. When looking back and seeing how Nintendo lost industry support or the launch of the PS3 it is always interesting to ask, why a company did something and how you would assume they reached their conclusion. For this particular issue there doesn't seem to be any real traceable financial benefit to the company but merely one that wins over goodwill from gamer.
The truth is, as a gamer there is a couple of questions that you need to challenge. First is the idea that this is good for gamers and it doesn't matter what the effects on the company nor should gamers care. Both Sony and Nintendo turn around and sink alot of money into studios. Nintendo keeps their quality titles coming out and Sony constantly releases new IP and experiments. At times Sony Acquires new studios. For me as a gamer, I care about that alot. I love new IP from any major pub, so the concept of sticking it to the company who is on top for the benefit of the consumer doesn't sit at all with me. Unless the one on top is not making new IP or titles then I want them to turn around and spend their gains on more entertainment and choice for the consumer. If their hand is forced then so be it, but people who view companies and their relative success is very different. Some people honestly cheer for a company, I don't understand it, but I guess it is like sports. For me, a person who owns all the current consoles and has two gaming rigs, I am not worried about something that in the end only benefits a few for a very narrow reason.
With the exception of the switch, the bases of consoles are so large I have a hard time believing that crossplay is a "need" felt by consumers as opposed to a want that would save some consumers money so they can exercise choice not to purchase the device for an ecosystem they are locked out of.
They didn't just talk about "for children" the wording obviously implies they are worried about control and that is the heart of their issue. I cannot argue about whether or not it is a good thing but it is something that is relative to the company itself on how it deals with obligations between company and consumer while balancing the concerns of stakeholders.
It actually may be that MS is serious about this as a step towards making games as service divorced from a particular piece of hardware. If they can make a success off of a netflix like service for games, this would be a great win for them.
Does the PS4 version of Minecraft support PC cross play?
Or this this another attempt to generalize a comment regarding a specific title to apply to all cross-play titles?
I think you are reading in between the lines too deeply in regards to control. Yes, control is important, but the context that they establish control is in regards to Minecraft's young demographic, many whom might be children, and external influences they can't control. If they had established it in a different context, like keeping their large playerbase away from direct competition, then i could understand.
As per the Stakeholders, why exactly are they stopping Sony from enabling Crossplay?
Assuming the subject is still the Jim Ryan interview, Rocket League?
Context is irrelevant to be honest. If it was only really about children why don't they allow console cross play on M rated shooters or third party games? The truth is that the children part was a smoke screen, the terms "contract, curated universe, and no ability to manage or look after ", basically signals at the heart of what is really bothering them. Hence why I find people harping about "the children" excuse as not thinking about it hard enough.
As explained multiple times...
By keeping things the way they are they force people who want to play with each other via a console a binary choice. And just like in the last generation and the 360, that may be a driving motivator for people to purchase a console. It isn't that difficult to see why a stakeholder would want to keep the choice binary.
I agree with you that its not really about the children. However, i will argue that the entire statement was a lie. Unless there is evidence suggesting otherwise, its possible the entire statement was a smokescreen, designed to hide reasons that we haven't learned/processed yet, or something made up on the spot to satisfy the persistent interviewer. Otherwise, we are all just interpreting whatever we want from this lie to further our own viewpoints.
As per the other part, the reasons you've given for Sony\Stakeholders are your personal opinions based on a logical interpretation of the situation. While they are reasonable conclusions to be reached and ones that i agree with, they are your conclusions, not Sony's or their Stakeholders.
Using sources/quotes involving Sony or their Stakeholders, can you tell me why are they stopping Sony from enabling Crossplay at this time?
You mean other than the quote Jim Ryan gave Eurogamer? Because he specifically mentioned them in an answer to a question about why Sony was not allowing crossplay. Even though they did not get into details you are right that we would be using logic to infer reason but it is not as nebulous as you and others are trying to imply.
Let us turn this around on its head and go in the other direction. Technical ability certainly isn't an issue. If this does not relate to money (contractual obligations or otherwise) or control (contractual obligations or otherwise), then why do you think Sony isn't allowing Cross Play? What is your take on this?
First off I just want to say that finally, you have come to a place where you are arguing for your benefit as a consumer. The argument you provide about Sony and it's exclusive output being hindered is the only imo valid argument I've heard regarding this issue.
But that is what you are doing when you say things like, it's because of business decisions, when you don't know what those decisions are. You just know what they have vaguely told you. They are the ones who should be clarifying their stance on this matter.
I don't agree with their decisions or their excuses in this matter.
I don't agree with their decisions or their excuses in this matter.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Any company worth it's salt and it's consumers is going to try to constantly and consistently garner the goodwill of the people.I mean, like I said before, standards and features have historically been implemented that are not the most profitable for companies and are a boon to consumers. Free PC servers and legacy back compat and XB1 Blue Ray drive and back compat come to mind. Are those companies and ecosystems still around? Are we having one of the greatest years in gaming in 2018? Is the sky falling?
Guessing games are fine, fun and important if the information is used wisely. I've never said they weren't. It's when it becomes a roadblock in the path of what is better for consumers that I take issue. I worked with the public once upon a time and let me tell you, a whole lot of people feel like they are powerless sheep when it comes to this stuff because they hear the same things over and over.
We may just have two different mindsets about this. I am consumer first and you seem to be more slanted toward the company to me.
You see, to me, the consumer is paramount after your vision. Your vision being what you are trying to provide to the market. That core thing or idea that you want to show/provide to the world that you remain uncompromised on. But I fully believe that a happy consumer base will make you prosperous. That a flexible, consumer facing business philosophy will propel you into the future and is in fact the only thing that "guarantee's", so to speak, your status and safety getting there. Because if you can't be flexible, and try to buck the trends, then you will get left behind. I see the inability to conform to consumer, and in this case market, trends as a sign of an unstable company. That is not something that I would ever want to invest in personally. MS was there recently and boy did they pay for it. Not just their games division either. Nadal has pretty much shaken up that place from head to toe and transformed it into something that I never thought it would be. It's more consumer facing and open to change with the times atm than I've ever seen. Though it still has a long way to go and people should always be vigilant.
I understand that you are worried about Sony spending money on something that doesn't interest you atm because you want them to keep putting out good exclusives. But I just want to point out that I don't think the reason their exclusives are fantastic has everything to do with money. I think that they have excellent talent and really good creative direction when it comes to those things. For instance, MS has vastly more money to spend than Sony. But MS can't just throw money at something and make it great. It takes far, far more than that.
Success is so fickle and a lot of it is luck and talent based. You can see this in some indie games that have recently launched with crazy small budgets (Hollow Knight) yet are seen as gems and then other games that had much, much larger budgets that failed abysmally (LawBreakers).
I personally don't think that Sony is some glass tower that will shatter if they where to make a consumer faced decision that might in the short term not be good for their bottom line but that would garner them even more consumer goodwill for the future. And I still think that they will be able to produce the same amazing games just as they are now. In fact, I believe they would be in a much better position strategically for next gen if they did so sooner rather than later because they would have plenty of time to get their ducks in a row.
Like I said before, Sony might not be on top forever, so eventually this may benefit them just as much as it would MS, Nintendo etc now and vice versa.
When looked at this way, this is actually a good thing for the industry as a whole and it would be better for it to happen now and participate in working out the kinks while you have a good footing rather than to wait till you are in dire straights to cave and everyone but you has their crap together. This way, no matter who is on top atm, everyone would be able to start on equal ground and have equal opportunity to improve in this area.
Not only that, but it could be good for developers as well. If devs start implementing a Crossplay codebase like Minecraft it would also save devs lot's of resources (time and money) by only having to push one update to their game across all platforms. This would also be nice for the playerbase getting updates at the same time so no one is left behind. I don't know how the many devs that have talked about wanting crossplay have been thinking of utilizing it, but I do know that the majority of them just want more people to be able to access their games easier and I'd wager some smaller devs see it as a potential lifeline.
On it being good for gamers. I posted a scenario a while back that showed what a world with crossplay, and cross progression would look like,
This is what could be. But crossplay would need to come first in order for cross progression to become a reality. But that is the next step.
I for one, wouldn't mind a future where these companies try even harder to wine and dine us with their hardware/software to get us to purchase x thing in conjunction with their brand since we can pick up whatever we want and play software. They just need to make sure that the thing we picked up is the thing we preferred to buy from them because it actually deserved it and not because it puts virtual chains on our wrists.
TLDR; Even if it meant that my favorite game maker had a tiny bit less of a budget now, I'd make that sacrifice for a potentially better future for me and everyone else. This especially becomes apparent to me when I look at my children. I'd really rather not see them be chained into software ecosystems like that and I'd love for them to be able to experience as many games and such as they want to with less of a headache.
If the argument to dismiss "Only ResetEra cares about crossplay" as naive is because multiple execs and major devs argue for it.
I found it also naive to take the words from these multi execs and devs.
Yes. sony and microsoft are multi billion corps. However these 'pro console crossplay' multi exevs and devs are not for charity either.
All parties involved are juggling for better position and more power in future negotiation.
Only resetera cares about crossplay is justified because i dont think there is an organic popular movement from average mass market gamers asking for console crossplay.
I feel the average joe feel more strongly about backward-compatibility than console crossplay.
Microsoft is pushing for it because xbox live players pool size is drawf by psn ( especially outside NA ).
In a world full of walled gardens with paying subscribers, having a bigger players pool size reinforce aka the network effect.
the network effect is a zero sum game.( Very few people pay for both wall gardens). The winner wins big because the network effect is kind of winner takes all Snowballing effect.
Understanding this, any console market leaders will not do anything to reduce the network effect.
Microsoft rejected console Crossplay when they were market leader during ps3/360 era, i will not be surprised at all Microsoft reject console crossplay if xbox two is the market leader next gen.
If Microsoft is so very pro-consumer, xbox should be the first to stop charging for xbox live gold for online network play.
Trying to equate pro-consumer and console crossplay is very annoying to a lot of people in this thread.
Based on where this discussion started, i guess you mean this Jim Ryan quote?
All he mentions is that its a discussion between them and stakeholders, But thats why my question was asking for reasons from Sony and their Stakeholders, and not just Sony.
I think that Sony isn't allowing cross play for the same reasons you think they aren't, as i mentioned in my previous post. However, my overall take is that i do not know why. I am not Sony or their Stakeholders. I am just a forum user.
My end point here will be that i believe you do not know either.
Xbox Live player pool is fine. They aren't shutting down servers for current gen games due to lack of players, so at least theres that.
Just a couple of things since it seem we will have to agree to disagree.
1. Making an educated guess about why a company is doing something is not the same as endorsing what they are doing.
2. I stated gaining customer Goodwill "By any means necessary". All companies balance the needs and wants of the consumer with their ability to make profit. It is never one-sided. You should understand that any company worth their salt will try to gain as much good will from customers without impeding its way to make profit, especially strong point for companies that are publicly traded.
3. My guesses aren't a roadblock for anything the company chooses to act on. The guesses are looking at a situation that is on going and trying to figure out why it has gotten to this point. Hence the talk about "knowing" what a company will do versus making an educated guess on what they already have chosen, are in two different realms of thought.
4. My point wasn't that the profits make the exclusives/IP good. My point is that the profits make the exclusives/IP possible period. It allows them to exist. Whether or not they are good is totally subjective.
5. Good for gamers, is a concept that is different for every gamer. That is why I specifically mention for me. But to be honest about it, if you emphasize crossplay and crossprogression over exclusive titles, you basically negate the reasons for these ecosystems to exists. If you have ever enjoyed an exclusive on any console, you are basically presenting a reality where they may not exist. And for me as a gamer... I would find no reason to own a console. If I could get all my games on a PC.
No company is going to give that information to you, especially if it concerns specific numbers they are not willing to release or private contracts. I don't know, I am making an educated guess and while saying you don't know is a good response, making an educated guess on the matter shouldn't be dismissed especially when there isn't much to counter the guess.
Quote in full please. I said especially outside NA.Also not arguing pool size is not big enough to sustain a game on xbl.
Popular games such as BF or COD probably won't have a big difference. But nichier games will be affected more.
Google network effect for proper analysis.
But briefly larger pool means easier / more likely to
1) quicker time to matchmaking
2) finding players with lower latency
3) most if not all your friends are in the bigger players pool.
So the quality of playing in a bigger pool is almost always better than a smaller one
How can you say this right after laying out an argument that describes how preventing crossplay is a corporate power play to further corporate interest, in spite of user preference to the contrary?
Crossplay is inherently pro-consumer, and preventing it is not. The motives of e.g. Microsoft are not charitable, but that doesn't change this fact.
If you haven't already link his Xbox account to your EPIC account and all the things you buy work on both platforms.
Totally, this is the argument for cross-play on every console. Larger player pools, especially good for niche games etc. Cross-play would be good for everyone.
Yep! This is especially relevant for countries outside of the US where online games die much quicker. Posters who "don't care" don't realise they are benefited by cross play.
What? Why would MS stop being competition the moment the paywall is dropped?
If people choose to play on MS network instead of Sony's due to Sony's being more expensive, then Sony loses out dollars on software sales, hardware sales, and PSN subscriptions.
Sony is not adverse to crossplay with competition. PC is competition to Sony. They are adverse to crossplay with console competition.
Last edited:
I agree that an educated guess, on its own, should not be dismissed. I also agree that in some cases, there isn't much, if anything, to counter the argument from the Sony side. For example, if Sony said that it didn't want to do crossplay because they didn't want to share their massive playerbase with direct competition, i'd be salty, but i wouldn't be able to say they are wrong. To keep it short, that's where i'd use 4TheChildren. Its easy to dismiss a theoretical argument if Sony actually makes one, no matter how bad it is. Alternatively, that's where some would question arguers position and state that it isn't an argument they should be making.
To get back to the first sentence, educated guesses. This isn't the first thread on the subject, and its 61 pages and 2 mod edits in. After a certain point, the educated guesses weren't on their own and began being repeated. I assume people got tired of those being part of this never ending loop, and that's where they started getting dismissed.
Its time for me to hop off Crossplay's wild ride, i'm slowly getting too meta.
Well this is my last post on the matter as well. But the reason it is best to make a guess is because it helps inform a response if you really care about the issue. This is not something that relates to the gaming industry alone. Big corporations make changes when things threaten their income or worth. Boycotts, cancelled subscribers, advertiser losses, stock dropping.
It doesn't matter what people tack on to the guesses or the motivation behind specific posters. What really matters is what you believe and how you can actually bring about change. And since alot of this is driven by money it gives you a couple of specific avenues to try to turn talk into action that Sony will notice.
Its a "If you can't convince, confuse" tactic. They are just trying to mix the two together for no reasons.
The losing side corporate making PR exercise for console crossplay is also corporate powerplay
To me it is annoying Microsoft claim they are promoting console crossplay because they are more pro-consumer than sony . Because we know they do exact some thing if Microsoft is winning the marketbshare.
I asked the mods, for people who feel neutral about this, we have got to be able to have our say and we say this is a lie Microsoft's claim to be more pro consumer.
It is annoying because Microsoft can't claim to be pro something only if the situation benefits you, and not if it hurts you.
Especially in this thread people arguing for console crossplay is so console warrior like ( astro-trolling ?). Claiming everyone including us should care, and u must be a console fanboy / warrior if u dont.
It not because of ignorance, we don't care. It is the opposite we understand the issue thats why we are neutral.
As long as the wall gardens are zero-sum games with a winner takes all scenario, there will never be console crossplay.
One way for Microsoft to do this is stop charging for xbox live, so everyone is on both network.
Its annoying as people and the mods sort of agree neutral people cant have a say.
Neutral people cannot point out the flaws in Microsoft PR exercise and being dismissed as thread whining and / or trolling
For people dont care, we also think if the practicalities of console crossplay. There is varying degree of features support like voice chat, some games only support invites.
So what are the benefits and why we should care if the benefits are so little.
Wow. You need to take a breath, and think about what you're saying.
Crossplay is good for consumers, as it offers choice. Companies that support it are good for the consumer, regardless of reasoning or strategy or anything else.
MS currently is doing a lot of stuff that offers themselves little to no direct tangible benefit beyond goodwill. Such as BC. They might be doing so out of necessity but that isn't really the issue. Why shouldn't pro-consumer moves be praised? Why shouldn't anti-consumer ones be critiqued?
Sony doesn't want to play ball with Nintendo or MS. Fine. But its fair game to criticise that stance. Especially when Sony have offered a bogus reason and are now refusing to comment to the media to explain their stance further.
You seem upset that this is the case. But ultimately it is. Accept it, and move on. Its fine to not care about crossplay. Nobody is saying it isn't. But posting that you don't care as a defence is not fine and makes no sense. Nor does it make sense to try and extrapolate what current MS would do were it the market leader because honestly, nobody knows. Spencer and Nadella have a broad strategy for MS and Xbox and it seems petty console sales wars are fairly low down on that list.
Might've missed this (the thread moves so fast!) but when did Microsoft claim they were 'promoting console crossplay because they are more pro-consumer than Sony'? This whole thread is based purely on the fact that Phil tweeted 'Me 2'. I dunno, they might've made a statement since then but I haven't seen anything. I certainly haven't seen them claim that they're pro-consumer. I think that's just come from gamers.
"Practicality" arguments seem extremely weak when at least 3 developers just have to flip a switch in their software to make cross-play work, and the only reason they cannot is corporate policy.
I honestly think you need to step away, if you truly do not care about cross play let the pople who do care about it express their opinion on why it should be possible. I can get one post saying "i don't really care for cross play, i could understand why sony would say no from a business stand point"
and then move on. All these hypertheticals of "if MS were the market leader" is not a reality we live in. It's also not just on this forum, its been all over social media.
I would like to see crossplay, but I understand the mechanics between both party's sides. A suggestion though, maybe a mod should change the anti Sony title if they want to avoid confrontations. It seems a lot of people are just jumping in with their pitchforks before reading through the thread.
You're not neutral if you don't care, you're clearly chosing a side here. Especially when you're supporting actively that there's only little benefits for crossplay.
Crossplay is pro consumers, regardless of wether Microsoft is or isn't. Plus, if you're adding Windows + Xbox, Microsoft actually has the upper hand in terms of the "marketshare" you speak about. Pubg alone on Windows is 1/3 of PS4 total userbase. Microsoft is also way bigger than Sony, they don't even need the
Xbox brand that much. Sony almost entirely relies on Playstation these days. I'm not a Microsoft supporter, but there's clearly more to it than just needy PR from Microsoft.
As a fighting game player and maker, crossplay is a fantastic thing. I dream it about for years now.
mS was against crossplay last gen but that's in the past. what's important now is that they are for it and are doing it and Sony isn't.
Anti-Sony title? Sony are blocking crossplay. Stating that isn't anti-Sony. The title is actually quite generous.
I wonder how much crossplay and backward compatibility have affected either console's sales trajectory, and also how their next console sales will fair if they keep to how they're both behaving right now.
No it's not. I don't want to play against PC when I'm on PS4 with a pad. I fully support Sony's decision to block crossplay.
Thing is... it's accurate though isn't it? The whole point of the thread is that, once again, there is a conversation around a game not having universal cross-play and the developers and Microsoft have both said that they are fully in support of it. The devs even called Sony out (indirectly I guess?) at The Game Awards. It's only confrontational if you wanna start a fight or if you care too much about Sony.
Interesting, I am not sure if you are aware but ps4 allows full mouse and keyboard support for fortnite. So it actually makes little difference.
But Sony had Cross play with pc from the beginning didn't they? They are literally blocking other consoles. Not pc
Can't quite believe that this thread is still kicking and that there are still those who only want to post that they understand the business thinking behind Sony's stance, like they couldnt be any more transparent lol.
Hopefully more developers can come out and give Sony a gentle push in the right direction.
Hopefully more developers can come out and give Sony a gentle push in the right direction.
I don't disagree. I am just stating why we have people on edge here. In my opinion, I am not sure why people are arguing. There isn't really a positive logical explanation that have have seen why cross play is not positive for gamers. There are obvious corporate motivations of why things are the way they are.
How do you feel about PS4 natively supporting keyboard and mouse in Fortnite? Fortnite will automatically switch all control and key mapping over to a standard PC keyboard and mouse set-up if you plug a K&M into your PS4.
M/KB vs pad is only a shooter problem and it's only a problem when the game is designed around M/KB from the start (like PUBG). In most console shooters, aim assist and bullet magnetism actually favor pad players and mess with M/KB players instinct/muscle memory. You shouldn't worry that much, that's a weak argument.
Sony is open to crossplay with PC, as it has been done numerous times. It's console crossplay they are not allowing. So if gamepads are the issue you take with it, why aren't you okay with crossplay with Xbone & Switch?