Support NeoGAF

[Yearsoflurking]

It is understandable, if the player from other console is reported for harassment by a psn player, Sony will be the one responsible, but Sony will have to rely on another company for the ban.

I don't think MS will let Sony ban Xbox live player and vise versa.

crazy the lengths people go through to defend this garbage smh

 

[Synth]

Sony trusts Sony's security and QA/QC, no one else. That's probably a pretty unfounded belief, but most companies view the world that way. I personally think Blizzard is far more capable of QA/QC on Overwatch patches than Sony, yet Sony still makes them jump through the same hoops to patch the game.

Where is this QA/QC argument even coming from?

Why would crossplay necessitate them bypassing the standard approval processes? This isn't a game where new updates are being pushed to it in a matter of hours.... they'd just co-ordinate future updates between the platforms as damn near every multiplat does regardless of being crossplay or not (at least when content isn't being moneyhatted for timed exclusivity).

And why would this magically not be an issue for stuff like Street Fighter V and Rocket League with the PC versions?

What you're suggesting makes no sense at all.

 

[Drek]

It's not just crossplay though. It's a relaunch of Minecraft and all versions with the exception of PS4 are now the PC version. The PS4 version is going to be missing a ton of features.

Did Sony promise to give you a new version of Minecraft should it be released with your PS4 version purchase? I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the fine print.

They sold a product, it's still operating exactly as advertised. There is a superior version out, but then that's been true of the PC version since day one. Just because everyone else gets an upgrade doesn't mean you get a downgrade, that's just a failure to keep perspective.

Sony are literally taking a whole fucking update away and screwing over their own customers.

Where and when was this update promised? If Sony didn't make such a promise I fail to see how they're screwing their customers.

You buy something like Minecraft on a closed platform you're taking a risk of it fracturing and drifting away from the more progressive core version. That's just reality.

You don't need a IT background to know the "security loophole" excuse is completely bogus and makes no sense whatsoever.

Great, then by all means explain how it's completely bogus. I do have something of an IT background so don't get shy on the technical details. I'd love to know how local code running on the hardware through a signed application without any QA/QC control by Sony isn't a valid security risk for a company that saw it's three hardware platforms prior to the PS4 cracked via this exact method.

 

[Drek]

Where is this QA/QC argument even coming from?

Why would crossplay necessitate them bypassing the standard approval processes? This isn't a game where new updates are being pushed to it in a matter of hours.... they'd just co-ordinate future updates between the platforms as damn near every multiplat does regardless of being crossplay or not (at least when content isn't being moneyhatted for timed exclusivity).

And why would this magically not be an issue for stuff like Street Fighter V and Rocket League with the PC versions?

What you're suggesting makes no sense at all.

No, you simply don't understand what crossplay for Minecraft equates to and how that differs from Street Fighter V and Rocket League.

Competitive crossplay is an exchange of user input and response data happening in real time, being directly processed through controlled operations by the program in question, then being dumped as soon as it is no longer needed. It is a constant stream of non-retained data with no actual user control on execution.

Minecraft crossplay explicitly involves sharing user created worlds, digital content, etc.. That means downloaded and saved local storage that can then be called up at a user's whim for local operation through the application. This is exactly how the save hacks that first cracked the PSP worked. Users accessed the software via the PC compatible memory stick format, uploaded modified save files for the exploited games in question, then used that game program to run the save file that was, in reality, an executable giving firmware access.

Player v. player digital communication is low risk. Letting people take their time in designing code, getting it over to your platform, then running it on your platform in various test forms is something else entirely.

I'll add the caveat that I don't think Sony is particularly right to be concerned in that
1. Sony's QA/QC is by all examples we have shit
2. MS' net security has been demonstrably superior
3. MS would likely be just as active in policing this as Sony as piracy on PS4 this late in life wouldn't help MS in a meaningful way, would be gated by Sony almost immediately after first occurring and therefore not particularly repeatable after a narrow window, and the end result would be a massive industry-wide black eye for MS.

But it'd be really hard anyone at Sony to say "it wasn't our fault!" in a shareholder meeting if Minecraft content was used on a network attack or firmware crack on the PS4. Look at how many people got fired over their film studio leaks. Now imagine if that was a product of joint casting directory sharing with 21st Century Fox and that joint casting directory was what the hackers used to get in.

 

[MUnited83]

Did Sony promise to give you a new version of Minecraft should it be released with your PS4 version purchase? I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the fine print.

They sold a product, it's still operating exactly as advertised. There is a superior version out, but then that's been true of the PC version since day one. Just because everyone else gets an upgrade doesn't mean you get a downgrade, that's just a failure to keep perspective.


Where and when was this update promised? If Sony didn't make such a promise I fail to see how they're screwing their customers.

You buy something like Minecraft on a closed platform you're taking a risk of it fracturing and drifting away from the more progressive core version. That's just reality.


Great, then by all means explain how it's completely bogus. I do have something of an IT background so don't get shy on the technical details. I'd love to know how local code running on the hardware through a signed application without any QA/QC control by Sony isn't a valid security risk for a company that saw it's three hardware platforms prior to the PS4 cracked via this exact method.

So if Sony tells Blizzard " FUCK OFF WE'RE NOT LET YOU UPDATE THE GAME ANYMORE" and stops Overwatch updates they are not screwing over their customers? That makes no fucking sense at all.

And your "technical details" don't make any sense either. Why would cross-play mean that the game doesn't get through Sony's QA?

No, you simply don't understand what crossplay for Minecraft equates to and how that differs from Street Fighter V and Rocket League.

Competitive crossplay is an exchange of user input and response data happening in real time, being directly processed through controlled operations by the program in question, then being dumped as soon as it is no longer needed. It is a constant stream of non-retained data with no actual user control on execution.

Minecraft crossplay explicitly involves sharing user created worlds, digital content, etc.. That means downloaded and saved local storage that can then be called up at a user's whim for local operation through the application. This is exactly how the save hacks that first cracked the PSP worked. Users accessed the software via the PC compatible memory stick format, uploaded modified save files for the exploited games in question, then used that game program to run the save file that was, in reality, an executable giving firmware access.

Player v. player digital communication is low risk. Letting people take their time in designing code, getting it over to your platform, then running it on your platform in various test forms is something else entirely.

If you can inject code with the game files, cross-play isn't going to fucking matter for that to begin with.

 

[The Artisan]

And that's not anti-consumer.

Yes it is. As I explained in the thread before, I have a good friend who plays Minecraft on Xbone and here mS presented the opportunity for me to be able to play the game with him possible, and shut it out. Why? No good reason.

By this argument, Xbox Live (and now, PS+) are anti-consumer because you can't play multiplayer on current systems without them. We all sighed, and some raged, when Sony announced PS+ was required for online multiplayer with the PS4, something Xbox Live had been doing since 2002 that only a few people hated.

forcing people to pay to play online you can argue also was anti-consumer. playing online for free was one of the best things about playstation. I hate the fact that I have to pay for it now; if I want to play online with my friends, I don't have a choice but to pay for psplus.

Again, I feel like the term aniti-consumer gets thrown around very casually on the internet, particularly here on GAF, because gamers seem entitled to everything in the world. We don't even know what actually led to Sony not allowing crossplay, as I found the word "refused" to be not carefully chosen for facts, but very carefully chosen to draw a particular reaction. This thread is incredibly evident of that.

Let's all jump to conclusions.

if it's a credible source, then OP is just said it in a way everyone will understand: sony refused. while the actual details could explain more, it doesn't change the fact.

the word "fanboy" has gotten thrown around the internet too let alone this thread.

 

[leeh]

Great, then by all means explain how it's completely bogus. I do have something of an IT background so don't get shy on the technical details. I'd love to know how local code running on the hardware through a signed application without any QA/QC control by Sony isn't a valid security risk for a company that saw it's three hardware platforms prior to the PS4 cracked via this exact method.

Read my post above.

Feel free to question, I love a good tech discussion.

 

[Synth]

No, you simply don't understand what crossplay for Minecraft equates to and how that differs from Street Fighter V and Rocket League.

Competitive crossplay is an exchange of user input and response data happening in real time, being directly processed through controlled operations by the program in question, then being dumped as soon as it is no longer needed. It is a constant stream of non-retained data with no actual user control on execution.

Minecraft crossplay explicitly involves sharing user created worlds, digital content, etc.. That means downloaded and saved local storage that can then be called up at a user's whim for local operation through the application. This is exactly how the save hacks that first cracked the PSP worked. Users accessed the software via the PC compatible memory stick format, uploaded modified save files for the exploited games in question, then used that game program to run the save file that was, in reality, an executable giving firmware access.

Player v. player digital communication is low risk. Letting people take their time in designing code, getting it over to your platform, then running it on your platform in various test forms is something else entirely.

I'll add the caveat that I don't think Sony is particularly right to be concerned in that
1. Sony's QA/QC is by all examples we have shit
2. MS' net security has been demonstrably superior
3. MS would likely be just as active in policing this as Sony as piracy on PS4 this late in life wouldn't help MS in a meaningful way, would be gated by Sony almost immediately after first occurring and therefore not particularly repeatable after a narrow window, and the end result would be a massive industry-wide black eye for MS.

But it'd be really hard anyone at Sony to say "it wasn't our fault!" in a shareholder meeting if Minecraft content was used on a network attack or firmware crack on the PS4. Look at how many people got fired over their film studio leaks. Now imagine if that was a product of joint casting directory sharing with 21st Century Fox and that joint casting directory was what the hackers used to get in.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how crossplay is even a factor here. Either the game on all platforms behaves as intended and the PS4 version interacts with them safely, as approved via QA... or it doesn't and you're fucked regardless. "User created content" on Minecraft boils down to a bunch of positional data (this block exists here), which is not really any different to playing any game that has character customisation... just on a larger scale. People aren't importing their own models, skins, textures, animations and other shit into Xbox or Switch Minecraft... the only place you could realistically be concerned with any unplanned fuckery going on with the game files is on PC... where it DOES happen with games like Street Fighter V, but for clearly logical reasons has no bearing on the PlayStation version of the game.

The Xbox version of Minecraft isn't going to send one player's fucking savefile to another on PS4. A PS4 player joining the game would simply be receiving the current game's worldstate (or at least the bits relevant to what the player can see), like it does with every other online game it joins.

 

[Not]

Wow, Nintendo actually did something cool here in this situation where I would not expect them to do something cool

 

[hikarutilmitt]

Yes it is. As I explained in the thread before, I have a good friend who plays Minecraft on Xbone and here mS presented the opportunity for me to be able to play the game with him possible, and shut it out. Why? No good reason.

I'm still not sure this is a good reason, tbh. Is a PS4 literally the only device you own that can play Minecraft? Are you posting on GAF from a PS4? You have options outside of the PS4, it seems likely.

forcing people to pay to play online you can argue also was anti-consumer. playing online for free was one of the best things about playstation. I hate the fact that I have to pay for it now; if I want to play online with my friends, I don't have a choice but to pay for psplus.

That's kiiind of why I brought it up. It could be looked at as anti-consumer, but the argument for it is always infrastructure costs and upkeep. It's a fine line, because it's a legit thing but it also shifted a paradigm when Xbox Live went, well, live on the Xbox back in 2002. Online play was mostly a PC thing back then so paying for online sounded insane. It still kind of does, because lord knows I didn't use most of the features on Live and PS+ was better for me when it wasn't tied to online play. Now they're at major feature parity with each other. The mindset of most of us has shifted that it's very nearly a necessary evil. At least MS removed the Gold requirement for accessing things like Netflix.

if it's a credible source, then OP is just said it in a way everyone will understand: sony refused. while the actual details could explain more, it doesn't change the fact.

the word "fanboy" has gotten thrown around the internet too let alone this thread.

My point about the wording choice is very specific, actually. It's a specific psychological choice because saying someone refused versus declined or simply said no (they do all mean the same thing) brings a different level of rejection to some people. It has a much stronger (read: harsher) meaning to it.

We are, of course, missing that part, still, about why. I think everyone would like to know why. I think it would be really shitty for people who own the game already and expect updates if it's just Sony being dicks about it, which is why it feels like there was something in the deal regarding it that Sony didn't like or wouldn't allow. I mostly just don't like people jumping to conclusions about this a crying foul and flinging colorful words around based on a single statement on social media with zero other information to explain it.

 

[DopeyFish]

Wow, Nintendo actually did something cool here in this situation where I would not expect them to do something cool

Minecraft is a phenomenon well beyond any one platform and they recognize how important it is

Sony will be getting a lot of heat for this and they should be. It really only hurts their fans.

 

[Drek]

So if Sony tells Blizzard " FUCK OFF WE'RE NOT LET YOU UPDATE THE GAME ANYMORE" and stops Overwatch updates they are not screwing over their customers? That makes no fucking sense at all.

In that the customer should understand that by buying it on PS4 they're willingly placing an intermediary between themselves and Blizzard, yes. If the game still plays and has server support I'd have a hard time seeing the rationale to how people were truly screwed. The PS4/XB1 versions have been inferior from day one, no one has denied that fact on any platform, and everyone acknowledges that the PC version gets better support.

The entire PS360 era is checkered with games that saw their PC counterparts move past the console versions in short order due to this exact phenomenon, though typically the 3rd party dropping support for the console versions and not the hardware manufacturer barring support. It's a risk you take when you buy theoretically evergreen software outside the main platform.

I really enjoyed Sacred 2 for example. It's a bummer all the additional content and stability patches never made it to consoles. I don't feel ripped off because I knew there was always a risk in buying it on a console to begin with.

Conversely I knew what I was getting with Diablo 3 on consoles - a version inferior in featureset to the PC version but with couch co-op. That was more important to me. It's great that now Blizzard has brought the two far closer to parity, including ladder play, but I didn't expect it or feel ripped off because it wasn't there to begin with. I got what I paid for when I paid for it.

And your "technical details" don't make any sense either. Why would cross-play mean that the game doesn't get through Sony's QA?


If you can inject code with the game files, cross-play isn't going to fucking matter for that to begin with.

1. the entire point to the "Better Together" feature is for this content to be readily shared by users across all platforms as it's created. Do you think MS will sit on every update for Sony to QA it before releasing on PC?

Also, you never know what an executable can allow for until it's used for it. Maybe there is no way to inject code via Minecraft on PS4. Maybe there won't be one ever. But you can't prove an across the board negative on this. Sony's QA/QC program is basically saying "to the best of our ability this specific item won't cause a security breach". Nothing more, but that is an added layer Sony has been unwilling to part with.

Read my post above.

Feel free to question, I love a good tech discussion.

As clearly outlined Minecraft crossplay will include a substantial amount of local content with use controlled execution. It is not remotely analogous to PvP gameplay.

 

[Nanashrew]

Did Sony promise to give you a new version of Minecraft should it be released with your PS4 version purchase? I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the fine print.

They sold a product, it's still operating exactly as advertised. There is a superior version out, but then that's been true of the PC version since day one. Just because everyone else gets an upgrade doesn't mean you get a downgrade, that's just a failure to keep perspective.


Where and when was this update promised? If Sony didn't make such a promise I fail to see how they're screwing their customers.

You buy something like Minecraft on a closed platform you're taking a risk of it fracturing and drifting away from the more progressive core version. That's just reality.


Great, then by all means explain how it's completely bogus. I do have something of an IT background so don't get shy on the technical details. I'd love to know how local code running on the hardware through a signed application without any QA/QC control by Sony isn't a valid security risk for a company that saw it's three hardware platforms prior to the PS4 cracked via this exact method.

I really do not understand your argument at all. Like, what are you even talking about here that is relevant?

Microsoft offered to bring the PS4 version up to parity with the PC version with a free update like the rest but it requires going the whole way with crossplay because it's a necessary part of the update unifying Minecraft across ALL systems. Sony said no. They denied PC parity.

And do keep in mind that Minecraft is the biggest game in the world right now. And was denied by Sony.

 

[Koh]

There had better be a good reason for this. I'm not a fan of this decision at all.

 

[Nanashrew]

PS4 version will not even be moving to the new bedrock engine because they're not participating in this.

 

[Huge Succeeded]

As clearly outlined Minecraft crossplay will include a substantial amount of local content with use controlled execution. It is not remotely analogous to PvP gameplay.

The way you assume Minecraft works online (because custom content) isn't the way Minecraft actually works online.

 

[leeh]

As clearly outlined Minecraft crossplay will include a substantial amount of local content with use controlled execution. It is not remotely analogous to PvP gameplay.

Sorry but you make no sense...

Local content with controlled execution? It's not compable to PvP? Don't you mean P2P, and it's client-server anyway.

Tell me how there's any possibility that the two networks can talk to each other. Tell me how any potential exploit in PSN can be exploited by said network when you also could packet sniff and exploit the same hole.

Devops and back-ends are my bread and butter. I know the cloud, I know it's technologies, I work in AWS day-to-day. I know API's whether that's REST, SOAP or WSDL.

If you know your shit, don't brush me off, I love talking about stuff like this in a gaming context.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

No, and it doesn't make sense.

Stop making excuses for what appears to be an arrogant and stupidly backwater move.

The more I think about it, it looks really bad for Sony when Apple agrees to it.

 

[Dunlop]

There had better be a good reason for this. I'm not a fan of this decision at all.

What did reason good there possibly be when literally ever other platform out there accepted it?

They are "protecting" you just like they did with EA Access

 

[JamesHolden]

This is bad for gamers in general. Not interested in hearing excuses or rationale for this decision. Sony as the market leader deserves push back for policies that do not benefit its customers.

 

[Ferr986]

I'm a PS4 only user and I have no plans to get a Xbox. That being said, it saddens me seeing people defending this stupid move only because it's Sony (because that's the only reason really, rest is bullshit).

Absolutely terrible move by Sony, especially when last gen we were in the totally oposition place and MS was seen as the bad guys for doing what Sony does now.

 

[The Artisan]

Well Sony can't, from a business relations standpoint, come out and say "EA Access is EA's attempt to circumvent us in the customer relationship, after EA clearly aligned their future plans with MS' DRM scheme for the Xbox One prior to this generation. We're stomping MS into the fucking ground worldwide and even beating them in the U.S. so EA's not going anywhere, but we'll be damned if we give them a back door to try and fuck us some more".

Not their fault you can't read between the lines.

The reason EA access isn't available as an option on Ps4 is because Sony said no. It's got nothing to do with xbone's previous DRM policies

sure it's not sony's fault that I "can't read between the lines" but it is their fault that ea access is an xbone exclusive.

I'm still not sure this is a good reason, tbh. Is a PS4 literally the only device you own that can play Minecraft? Are you posting on GAF from a PS4? You have options outside of the PS4, it seems likely.

What the fuck are you talking about? This is a thread about crossplay, the point of crossplay is to let you play the same software with users on a different platform. Being able to play with my friends on xbox is THE reason to want crossplay.

If that's not a "good" enough reason for you I don't know what is.

That's kiiind of why I brought it up. It could be looked at as anti-consumer, but the argument for it is always infrastructure costs and upkeep. It's a fine line, because it's a legit thing but it also shifted a paradigm when Xbox Live went, well, live on the Xbox back in 2002. Online play was mostly a PC thing back then so paying for online sounded insane. It still kind of does, because lord knows I didn't use most of the features on Live and PS+ was better for me when it wasn't tied to online play. Now they're at major feature parity with each other. The mindset of most of us has shifted that it's very nearly a necessary evil. At least MS removed the Gold requirement for accessing things like Netflix.

it's irrelevant to this thread's topic. both mS and sony can be accused of being anti-consumer when it comes to playing online, but right now, only sony is being anti-consumer in regards to crossplay.

My point about the wording choice is very specific, actually. It's a specific psychological choice because saying someone refused versus declined or simply said no (they do all mean the same thing) brings a different level of rejection to some people. It has a much stronger (read: harsher) meaning to it.

whether sony refused/declined/simply said no/any harsher way the scenario went down, the outcome is the same. there's no Minecraft crossplay on Ps4 because of Sony's decision making.

We are, of course, missing that part, still, about why. I think everyone would like to know why. I think it would be really shitty for people who own the game already and expect updates if it's just Sony being dicks about it, which is why it feels like there was something in the deal regarding it that Sony didn't like or wouldn't allow. I mostly just don't like people jumping to conclusions about this a crying foul and flinging colorful words around based on a single statement on social media with zero other information to explain it.

We know Sony said no. If we learn more about that, the details are going to just make them look worse and worse in this situation.

 

[Elandyll]

What did reason good there possibly be when literally ever other platform out there accepted it?

They are "protecting" you just like they did with EA Access

It all depends on the terms offered by MS here, as they are both the owner of the software, their main hardware competitor and the owners of the OS of the other platform, wouldn't you say?

It remains to be seen what said terms are, and if they are the same for Nintendo.

 

[Vincent4756]

This is even more ridiculous considering all the freaking upgrades the game would get with the update.

I'd actually be able to use the DLC on my switch..

 

[RSTEIN]

And do keep in mind that Minecraft is the biggest game in the world right now. And was denied by Sony.

Really baffling.

MS: Hey Sony! As you know, we own the biggest game in the world, Minecraft. We're also the third biggest tech company in the world with a pretty good history of creating secure network systems and infrastructure.
Sony: Go on.
MS: So we were thinking. Let's get EVERYONE playing together. More options, even bigger worlds. New graphics engine! 4K! And we want to provide it for free. Nintendo is on board. We want you to join the party!
Sony: No.
MS:

 

[The Artisan]

I wonder if there was a poll on this thread, with or against sony on this decision, where most of the votes would lie.

If you ain't with me motherfucker, you're against me.

 

[Dunlop]

It all depends on the terms offered by MS here, as they are both the owner of the software, their main hardware competitor and the owners of the OS of the other platform, wouldn't you say?

It remains to be seen what said terms are, and if they are the same for Nintendo.

Forget Minecraft, why is there no cross play in Rocket League when the functionality is there as confirmed by their devs?

What's the common denominator here.....

 

[batman2million]

Man, only if this was the case with other games. Can you imagine Destiny, Overwatch, GTA, COD all cross platform with Steam/ X1/ PS4?

This would help keeping online communities for games more populated.

I don't think this will really pick up from other devs unless Sony gets on board.

 

[leeh]

Forget Minecraft, why is there no cross play in Rocket League when the functionality is there as confirmed by their devs?

What's the common denominator here.....

Just to be clear, cross-play is technically functionally there in every third party game, developers will actually spend extra effort to split the different platforms up.

Unless the developers are stupid and decide to architect completely different netcode for different platforms.

 

[mas8705]

If you ain't with me motherfucker, you're against me.

That basically summarizes Sony's upcoming conference in a nutshell: Either you say "Sony Wins!" before it starts, or you are a moron for going against them. Hell knows that I want to see Sony's lineup before saying who won (which honestly, the true winner is the gamers), but it is going to be fun this year considering how Sony kind of has that cloud hovering over them with their stances on "Cross Play" and "Backwards Compatibility."

Still, we are about five hours away from their conference. Definitely going to be rushing back and see what they have in store for us when I get out of work.

 

[RedRum]

Man, only if this was the case with other games. Can you imagine Destiny, Overwatch, GTA, COD all cross platform with Steam/ X1/ PS4?

This would help keeping online communities for games more populated.

I don't think this will really pick up from other devs unless Sony gets on board.

This! Someone said what I was thinking. Market leader has a lot of pull. Sony getting on board could open up a lot of possibilities with crossplay. Or it could have.

 

[Drek]

If you know your shit, don't brush me off, I love talking about stuff like this in a gaming context.

If you can't read for content this isn't going to be a productive conversation. You keep acting like this is entirely the same as player v. player games when instead the entire purpose of Minecraft as a community experience is the sharing of content.

That content is not just communication that dissolves when the gameplay session ends. It's designed to be stored and re-accessed locally. Now I'm sure MS feels the way this is constructed is an incredibly safe, non-exploitative feature. It's their product and MS as a company employs more people who would know on this subject than just about anyone, so I'd be inclined to agree.

But that doesn't change the fact that for Sony it constitutes a non-standard risk to their system security. People would be sharing and running content outside of Sony's controlled QA/QC protocols. Simple as that.

As for it being nothing more than world state data, most PSP hacks were using shit like username spaces to cause buffer overflows. One of them if I recall (been a while since I got into any kind of system hacking) literally just overloaded the character limit assigned for usernames.

If you're going to let people send files from PC to PS4, which from all I can see this explicitly part of this program, someone could find a way to push modified data through the network, down to a PS4, and then run it. They could then spend a whole lot of free time looking for exactly how to access to firmware modification via this method, more time and effort than Sony's QA/QC team can spend trying to prove a negative.

It's a valid concern and you can keep referencing SFV all you want but a far more analogous scenario, Fallout 4 and Skyrim mods, has been refused by Sony all along. Even while MS allows it mind you.

Now I'd say that's a pretty strong indication that Sony's QA/QC team are more paranoid than MS' QA/QC team, but then they've been bitten a few times already and honestly, I doubt they're nearly as skilled. This is an advantage MS has over Sony - better staff and infrastructure on system security, network performance, network security, etc.. It makes sense, they're fucking Microsoft, but caution is Sony's prerogative.

I'll reiterate however that I think that is, at best, a secondary concern for why Sony wouldn't do this. Fallout 4/Skyrim modding might be analogous but I think a far more analogous example would be EA Access. Sony simply doesn't want to allow someone else direct access to consumers via a platform that is not PSN, allowing consumer spending to occur outside their control.

And that's inherently part of the deal we agree to when we buy a console: to play within the domain of what that platform holder allows.

 

[The Artisan]

That basically summarizes Sony's upcoming conference in a nutshell: Either you say "Sony Wins!" before it starts, or you are a moron for going against them. Hell knows that I want to see Sony's lineup before saying who won (which honestly, the true winner is the gamers), but it is going to be fun this year considering how Sony kind of has that cloud hovering over them with their stances on "Cross Play" and "Backwards Compatibility."

Still, we are about five hours away from their conference. Definitely going to be rushing back and see what they have in store for us when I get out of work.

honestly man I only really added that line because I wanted to quote the lyrics to this song

 

[Huge Succeeded]

If you can't read for content this isn't going to be a productive conversation. You keep acting like this is entirely the same as player v. player games when instead the entire purpose of Minecraft as a community experience is the sharing of content.

That content is not just communication that dissolves when the gameplay session ends. It's designed to be stored and re-accessed locally. Now I'm sure MS feels the way this is constructed is an incredibly safe, non-exploitative feature. It's their product and MS as a company employs more people who would know on this subject than just about anyone, so I'd be inclined to agree.

But that doesn't change the fact that for Sony it constitutes a non-standard risk to their system security. People would be sharing and running content outside of Sony's controlled QA/QC protocols. Simple as that.

As for it being nothing more than world state data, most PSP hacks were using shit like username spaces to cause buffer overflows. One of them if I recall (been a while since I got into any kind of system hacking) literally just overloaded the character limit assigned for usernames.

If you're going to let people send files from PC to PS4, which from all I can see this explicitly part of this program, someone could find a way to push modified data through the network, down to a PS4, and then run it. They could then spend a whole lot of free time looking for exactly how to access to firmware modification via this method, more time and effort than Sony's QA/QC team can spend trying to prove a negative.

It's a valid concern and you can keep referencing SFV all you want but a far more analogous scenario, Fallout 4 and Skyrim mods, has been refused by Sony all along. Even while MS allows it mind you.

Now I'd say that's a pretty strong indication that Sony's QA/QC team are more paranoid than MS' QA/QC team, but then they've been bitten a few times already and honestly, I doubt they're nearly as skilled. This is an advantage MS has over Sony - better staff and infrastructure on system security, network performance, network security, etc.. It makes sense, they're fucking Microsoft, but caution is Sony's prerogative.

I'll reiterate however that I think that is, at best, a secondary concern for why Sony wouldn't do this. Fallout 4/Skyrim modding might be analogous but I think a far more analogous example would be EA Access. Sony simply doesn't want to allow someone else direct access to consumers via a platform that is not PSN, allowing consumer spending to occur outside their control.

And that's inherently part of the deal we agree to when we buy a console: to play within the domain of what that platform holder allows.

Minecraft content sharing is absolutely not analagous to mods, though. Shit ain't even close, as was explained to you above.

 

[leeh]

If you can't read for content this isn't going to be a productive conversation. You keep acting like this is entirely the same as player v. player games when instead the entire purpose of Minecraft as a community experience is the sharing of content.

That content is not just communication that dissolves when the gameplay session ends. It's designed to be stored and re-accessed locally. Now I'm sure MS feels the way this is constructed is an incredibly safe, non-exploitative feature. It's their product and MS as a company employs more people who would know on this subject than just about anyone, so I'd be inclined to agree.

But that doesn't change the fact that for Sony it constitutes a non-standard risk to their system security. People would be sharing and running content outside of Sony's controlled QA/QC protocols. Simple as that.

As for it being nothing more than world state data, most PSP hacks were using shit like username spaces to cause buffer overflows. One of them if I recall (been a while since I got into any kind of system hacking) literally just overloaded the character limit assigned for usernames.

If you're going to let people send files from PC to PS4, which from all I can see this explicitly part of this program, someone could find a way to push modified data through the network, down to a PS4, and then run it. They could then spend a whole lot of free time looking for exactly how to access to firmware modification via this method, more time and effort than Sony's QA/QC team can spend trying to prove a negative.

It's a valid concern and you can keep referencing SFV all you want but a far more analogous scenario, Fallout 4 and Skyrim mods, has been refused by Sony all along. Even while MS allows it mind you.

Now I'd say that's a pretty strong indication that Sony's QA/QC team are more paranoid than MS' QA/QC team, but then they've been bitten a few times already and honestly, I doubt they're nearly as skilled. This is an advantage MS has over Sony - better staff and infrastructure on system security, network performance, network security, etc.. It makes sense, they're fucking Microsoft, but caution is Sony's prerogative.

I'll reiterate however that I think that is, at best, a secondary concern for why Sony wouldn't do this. Fallout 4/Skyrim modding might be analogous but I think a far more analogous example would be EA Access. Sony simply doesn't want to allow someone else direct access to consumers via a platform that is not PSN, allowing consumer spending to occur outside their control.

And that's inherently part of the deal we agree to when we buy a console: to play within the domain of what that platform holder allows.

You sound like a project manager who's trying to be technical.

You didn't dispute any of my points and gave me no reason to think otherwise. Clients don't send files to each other, it doesn't work like that.

Also, QA or QC aren't the most technical and don't sign off on stuff like this. Its usually done by architects or technical authorities, or even the lead engineer, depending on your model.

I actually got quite excited that I'd have some decent technical discussion...

 

[The Boom Camel]

Man, only if this was the case with other games. Can you imagine Destiny, Overwatch, GTA, COD all cross platform with Steam/ X1/ PS4?

This would help keeping online communities for games more populated.

I don't think this will really pick up from other devs unless Sony gets on board.

That's the thing for me. Even if it was always just like Rocket League where you can only chat with people on the same platform, I would think that it would be a huge win for devs and publishers who could leverage the entire community of a game for multiplayer. I honestly am surprised that Sony/MS/Nintendo don't get more push back from publishers here. It would help their games on all platforms.

It would also be good for gamers because they would know that even if a game didn't sell as well on their system of choice, they would still be able to find a game.

 

[BibiMaghoo]

I think this is a business decision, one that is not about retaliation, being top dog or anything so petty, but rather something else. Whatever the reason they made this choice, it was the wrong one. It hurts their customers who will have a lesser version of the game other people are playing together across platforms. Given the breadth of those available systems, there is no legitimate excuse that makes up for this, so I'm not sure the reason even matters much.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Sony need to comment on this, it's unacceptable to deny us PS4 Minecraft owners this update.

For the record I own it on the XB1 as well but I've put many more hours in on the PS4.

 

[cucuchu]

Certainly some bad PR going into their conference.

I don't play Minecraft but this sets a really bad precedent going forward. Sony is losing sales. If a multiplayer game releases now for all platforms, I would be much more likely to get it for anything BUT the Sony platform because I want the largest community possible. Sony isolating their playerbase is going to likely deal them a major blow in 3rd party software sales if they continue with this ignorant mindset.

 

[Drek]

The reason EA access isn't available as an option on Ps4 is because Sony said no. It's got nothing to do with xbone's previous DRM policies

That's it? Just no. Not any kind of reasoning behind it like EA publicly endorsing the DRM policy, signing Titanfall up as an Xbox One exclusive, signing FIFA Ultimate Team features up as an exclusive, etc. etc.?

This happens every generation. It's like picking teams for kickball in grade school but after recess everyone needs to get along back in the classroom. EA and MS thought they had a winning team to start the generation and instead have gotten pummeled by Sony and their new BFF's Activision Blizzard. As a result EA no longer gets the most favored partner benefits from Sony they experienced throughout the life of the PS2 (after sticking a knife in SEGA's back along the way).

Is that more important to Sony than protecting the walled garden? No. But it's pretty likely another log on the fire.

Really baffling.

MS: Hey Sony! As you know, we own the biggest game in the world, Minecraft. We're also the third biggest tech company in the world with a pretty good history of creating secure network systems and infrastructure.
Sony: Go on.
MS: So we were thinking. Let's get EVERYONE playing together. More options, even bigger worlds. New graphics engine! 4K! And we want to provide it for free. Nintendo is on board. We want you to join the party!
Sony: No.
MS:

So why do you think Sony should put so much implicit trust in their direct competitor?

Would you sit down to a game of poker and when you get up to go to the bathroom just say "hey guys, play the next round with my cards face up, take the chips out of my pile as needed for blinds/bets, I'm sure you'll all run my hand honest and in my best interests. Thanks."

Minecraft content sharing is absolutely not analagous to mods, though. Shit ain't even close, as was explained to you above.

Sorry, I must have missed this enlightening explanation on how Minecraft's world states are magic code that only exists in a secure, immutable nether-realm where they could never be used for maleficence.

It doesn't matter if they're on the scale of a fan texture reskin for Skyrim or not. Locally stored and executed content is the risk here. The PSP was cracked with a save file to fucking Lumines via hex editing. Pretty innocuous code used via a pretty low brow method to blow an entire platform open to piracy early in it's life.

But lets keep beating this drum that I'm the one being obtuse, just make sure it keeps in rhythm with the whole Sony is evil for not letting their direct competitor have free reign to do what they want with Minecraft on the PS4 because 1. it's popular 2. MS tech staff > Sony tech staff and 3. not giving me my favorite all the time is anti-consumer.

You sound like a project manager who's trying to be technical.

You didn't dispute any of my points and gave me no reason to think otherwise. Clients don't send files to each other, it doesn't work like that.

Also, QA or QC aren't the most technical and don't sign off on stuff like this. Its usually done by architects or technical authorities, or even the lead engineer, depending on your model.

I actually got quite excited that I'd have some decent technical discussion...

Well too bad this can't scratch your itch because you're unwilling to see how:
1. you keep dwelling on the P2P communication when it's the local content that'd be the real risk.
2. you keep thinking this is net security alone when it clearly isn't.
3. you didn't make any kind of point worth disputing.

I don't think Sony's concerns would be that some PC Minecraft player has wizard powers in-game to unlock people's firmware during P2P session. I'm pretty sure it would be much more along the lines of their platform wide ban on untested local content being allowed, period. But keep running off in a different direction with the conversation.

You can save the reply if you want though, I've had enough with speaking to this wall.

 

[Jasong7777]

Sony going to Sony.

 

[Huge Succeeded]

I must have missed this enlightening explanation on how Minecraft's world states are magic code that only exists in a secure, immutable nether-realm where they could never be used for maleficence.

Obviously you missed it because its all there in synth's post above. (The one you didn't respond to. Hmm) You're arguing from a position of ignorance re:MC and making inaccurate assumptions about how content is handled.

Give me some examples of Minecraft malfeasance. Minecraft exploits on other platforms. This game has been out for almost a decade. So you can source some, right? Even one solid example???

You keep going on about local content while making it extremely clear you don't actually understand how Minecraft local and online content work to begin with. Its not a good look.


Minecraft worlds are a series of numbers and coordinates that each copy arranges blocks from a preset pool into an order with. Untested local content, right. Like comparing Animal Crossing clothing to Skyrim mods

 

[QuantumZebra]

Because PS4's ancient PSN infrastructure literally cannot handle it.

To be fair - Sony was damn near sinking into bankruptcy from a financial standpoint as recently as 2013. The PS4 literally saved them.

Microsoft on the other hand practically invented cloud streaming/computing/services and have arguably the best infrastructure in the world (maybe Google or Amazon aside) to handle it.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

That's it? Just no. Not any kind of reasoning behind it like EA publicly endorsing the DRM policy, signing Titanfall up as an Xbox One exclusive, signing FIFA Ultimate Team features up as an exclusive, etc. etc.?

Lol come on. You say this while Sony right now is marketing partners with EA for Battlefront and went as far as to bundle and have special versions of the PS4 for the first game. With very few exceptions, these companies don't hold petty fanboy grudges.

 

[Gaenor]

These companies must be laughing their heads off seeing some of their consumers making all the excuses for them for free.

 

[Panajev2001a]

To be fair - Sony was damn near sinking into bankruptcy from a financial standpoint as recently as 2013. The PS4 literally saved them.

Microsoft on the other hand practically invented cloud streaming/computing/services and have arguably the best infrastructure in the world (maybe Google or Amazon aside) to handle it.

I am pretty sure they are nowhere near as close as being considered the inventors of cloud computing as Al Gore was for Internet .

 

[rokkerkory]

I would say that MS and Nintendo should just keep forging on with their partnership in this space. If more and more games are x-platform playable then great for us gamers. Sony may have to come around.

Also a way for MS to make $ off the infra here.

 

[Trup1aya]

Where was an argument about them not trusting MS' security made?

Sony trusts Sony's security and QA/QC, no one else. That's probably a pretty unfounded belief, but most companies view the world that way. I personally think Blizzard is far more capable of QA/QC on Overwatch patches than Sony, yet Sony still makes them jump through the same hoops to patch the game.

You were talking about hacks. Why so, if you don't believe security is a concern?

Regarding QA/QC, they'd still have control over what patches get passed on their network where did you get the idea that they wouldn't?

If your argument is that they can't have enough control because of the connection with other networks, then one can just point to the fact that the same is true with Steam, but they allow crossplay for RL and SFV.

More like just not interested in another witch hunt based on nothing but conjecture and social media astroturfing.

The 'witchhunt' is based on a pattern of Sony preventing crossplay with certain networks, limiting the experience of their customers.

There is no need to speculate that Sony was offered different terms when Sony does not opperate under the same conditions as the other platform providers. The agreement likely simply didn't meet with Sony's specifications for network control.

This would maybe make sense if not for the Rocket League situation where they were ok with the 3rd party handling all the handshaking... until MS came into the picture.

Well Sony can't, from a business relations standpoint, come out and say "EA Access is EA's attempt to circumvent us in the customer relationship, after EA clearly aligned their future plans with MS' DRM scheme for the Xbox One prior to this generation. We're stomping MS into the fucking ground worldwide and even beating them in the U.S. so EA's not going anywhere, but we'll be damned if we give them a back door to try and fuck us some more".

Lol EA access circumvents no one. The transaction still goes through MS' store, MS still gets their cut. The same would be true for Sony.

And you either A. bought it without any promise of crossplay or B. will buy it without any promise of crossplay.

The game was purchased with the promise of continuous updates and improvements. Now, Sony's customers will experience less of those things.

Sony isn't taking anything away, failing to deliver on something they promised, or misrepresenting what you're getting. They're willing to lose sales to customers who value crossplay over playing on PS4 in exchange for not complying with whatever partnership terms MS presented. That's entirely their prerogative and no one has actually lost anything as a result.

Sony customers went from having a product that was on par with that of every other platform to having the worst product.

 

[The Artisan]

These companies must be laughing their heads off seeing some of their consumers making all the excuses for them for free.

Companies? Plural? Nintendo and mS shook hands, Sony is in the wrong here so if there is any conglomerate getting defended here, it's only them.

 

[Gaenor]

Companies? Plural? Nintendo and mS shook hands, Sony is in the wrong here so if there is any conglomerate getting defended here, it's only them.

It was a general comment greater than only the context of this thread.