Support NeoGAF

[doicare]

I see you don't realise but we are users. Customers.

We don't give one single shit about Sony's profits, we want cross play to take on. If we can get it to happen via being the most annoying pieces of shit in existence and complaining about it 24/7, we will. I would love to play games with my PS4 friends.

You can explain why it doesn't make financial sense 5000 times and we won't give one single fuck even once.

Exactly and that's why at times companies don't care about customers like yourself because you don't give a f*ck about them. I love the world we live in <3.

 

[Shari]

I'm not sure how or why my comment makes me anti-consumer or pro Sony. Nowhere in my comment was I defending their decision nor was I endorsing there choice. I'm guessing it's because I'm not raw raw for crossplay, nor am I part of the lol sony brigade. I guess that automatically puts me on the opposite side of the spectrum?

Of all the sony brigade vs consumers this has hit me the most.

How does someone not want crossplay? Is there someone who believes communities would be better without crossplay?

I mean at this point feels like the advantages would be obvious but i'll go right ahead and point out the single most important reason why this should not only be enforced but mandatory: The lifespan of a game's online community would simply multiply.

Now please someone explain me how someone would be against crossplay because I simply don't get it.

Exactly and that's why at times companies don't care about customers like yourself because you don't give a f*ck about them. I love the world we live in <3.

Oh boy. You should be holding the flag, you're the herald, the chosen one!

Edit: Can't believe the "why dont we just ask for free consoles?" argument has had any legs, amazing.

 

[Siege.exe]

I'm pointing out the flaw in yours and others stance where you say you don't give a shit and it doesn't matter how it affects the company, you're going to scream as loud as you can to get what you want. But the fact is, you do factor it in because you don't make other demands like the example I put out. To say you don't factor in the feasibility is wrong, otherwise you would be asking for bigger things too.



If nobody ignores that then maybe people should stop saying as a consumer, you don't give a shit or factor in their profits. You do. You even just admitted it in this post by saying nobody really ignores it.

I've said numerous times that Sony's official response is bullshit. Nobody is buying that. It's a shitty response. I've also said numerous times that I disagree with the choice but I at least understand their motivation behind it just like I would about why they would never give us free upgraded consoles. That doesn't mean I like, agree, or support that decision.

You don't see the problem with treating those two things equally though? Crossplay doesn't cost Sony a penny to implement, the developers are the ones doing all of the work. It's nowhere near the same thing as demanding that they send out hardware, the things they actually spend time and money producing, for free. The only thing they gain by being obtuse about crossplay is ill-will from their community.

 

[Oersted]

I'm pointing out the flaw in yours and others stance where you say you don't give a shit and it doesn't matter how it affects the company, you're going to scream as loud as you can to get what you want. But the fact is, you do factor it in because you don't make other demands like the example I put out. To say you don't factor in the feasibility is wrong, otherwise you would be asking for bigger things too.



If nobody ignores that then maybe people should stop saying as a consumer, you don't give a shit or factor in their profits. You do. You even just admitted it in this post by saying nobody really ignores it.

I've said numerous times that Sony's official response is bullshit. Nobody is buying that. It's a shitty response. I've also said numerous times that I disagree with the choice but I at least understand their motivation behind it just like I would about why they would never give us free upgraded consoles. That doesn't mean I like, agree, or support that decision.

Cross play, if Microsoft, Valve, Nintendo, Google and Apple are any indication, is not as severe as an impact as giving away your console for free.

 

[binarymelon]

Cross play, if Microsoft, Valve, Nintendo, Google and Apple are any indication, is not as severe as an impact as giving away your console for free.

You shut your mouth! All 5 of those companies are clearly heading for financial ruin.

 

[Marty Chinn]

You don't see the problem with treating those two things equally though? Crossplay doesn't cost Sony a penny to implement, the developers are the ones doing all of the work. It's nowhere near the same thing as demanding that they send out hardware, the things they actually spend time and money producing, for free. The only thing they gain by being obtuse about crossplay is ill-will from their community.

I didn't say the scenarios are equal. I'm saying people saying they shouldn't factor in or don't factor in the logistics are wrong. They do factor it in. Once you realize you do factor in, then you need to decide at what point is it no longer a reasonable request for Sony to implement because of the ramifications to their business as a result. The scenarios are different, and not equal, but how you judge the rationality of it should be the same.

Cross play, if Microsoft, Valve, Nintendo, Google and Apple are any indication, is not as severe as an impact as giving away your console for free.

But it is an impact for Sony in this case being the market leader. Sure it's not as severe or as obvious as giving away a console. It's a much more nuanced business hit than the obvious giving everyone $400, but that doesn't mean it's not a negative impact on Sony's business. So to the first point, consumers do factor it in despite claims in this thread they don't, and then second, at what point of how much it hurts Sony's business would make you at the very least understand why they wouldn't cross that line. That doesn't mean you agree with it, but you understand it's not a reasonable thing for Sony to do, just like giving everyone $400 consoles. There's gotta be some threshold.

I still say this being business motivated, one of the strongest things you can do is speak with your wallet. Sell your PS4 if you have it and support the competition if this angers you so much.

 

[CookTrain]

I didn't say the scenarios are equal. I'm saying people saying they shouldn't factor in or don't factor in the logistics are wrong. They do factor it in. Once you realize you do factor in, then you need to decide at what point is it no longer a reasonable request for Sony to implement because of the ramifications to their business as a result. The scenarios are different, and not equal, but how you judge the rationality of it should be the same.



But it is an impact for Sony in this case being the market leader. Sure it's not as severe or as obvious as giving away a console. It's a much more nuanced business hit than the obvious giving everyone $400, but that doesn't mean it's not a negative impact on Sony's business. So to the first point, consumers do factor it in despite claims in this thread they don't, and then second, at what point of how much it hurts Sony's business would make you at the very least understand why they wouldn't cross that line. That doesn't mean you agree with it, but you understand it's not a reasonable thing for Sony to do, just like giving everyone $400 consoles. There's gotta be some threshold.

And what about the flip side. You must then acknowledge that turning down crossplay is just as much a business risk? Being the odd man out for connectivity could well turn PSN into another betamax or memory stick duo.

 

[Marty Chinn]

And what about the flip side. You must then acknowledge that turning down crossplay is just as much a business risk? Being the odd man out for connectivity could well turn PSN into another betamax or memory stick duo.

I do, and have said there are pros and cons to both sides. They are taking a gamble. Right now it's clear that Sony feels they come out ahead compared to going the other route. That doesn't mean they are right. If their analysis that they've run or considered has them coming out ahead with their decision over the decision that you guys all want, can you really fault them? That doesn't mean you agree with them.

 

[binarymelon]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/binarymelon/status/875332884051226624[/tweet]

 

[CookTrain]

I do, and have said there are pros and cons to both sides. They are taking a gamble. Right now it's clear that Sony feels they come out ahead compared to going the other route. That doesn't mean they are right. If their analysis that they've run or considered has them coming out ahead with their decision over the decision that you guys all want, can you really fault them? That doesn't mean you agree with them.

Sure, it's their party and they'll cry if they want to, I get it. But at the same time, we're not here to look out for Sony's business interests. Obviously no-one wants to see them go up in flame (one would hope, at least, I know GAF gets... passionate) but crossplay, to many of us, has many upsides and few downsides. It has literally no downsides as a consumer.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Sure, it's their party and they'll cry if they want to, I get it. But at the same time, we're not here to look out for Sony's business interests. Obviously no-one wants to see them go up in flame (one would hope, at least, I know GAF gets... passionate) but crossplay, to many of us, has many upsides and few downsides. It has literally no downsides as a consumer.

And I completely agree with that. I've never said otherwise.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

I didn't say the scenarios are equal. I'm saying people saying they shouldn't factor in or don't factor in the logistics are wrong. They do factor it in. Once you realize you do factor in, then you need to decide at what point is it no longer a reasonable request for Sony to implement because of the ramifications to their business as a result. The scenarios are different, and not equal, but how you judge the rationality of it should be the same.



But it is an impact for Sony in this case being the market leader. Sure it's not as severe or as obvious as giving away a console. It's a much more nuanced business hit than the obvious giving everyone $400, but that doesn't mean it's not a negative impact on Sony's business. So to the first point, consumers do factor it in despite claims in this thread they don't, and then second, at what point of how much it hurts Sony's business would make you at the very least understand why they wouldn't cross that line. That doesn't mean you agree with it, but you understand it's not a reasonable thing for Sony to do, just like giving everyone $400 consoles. There's gotta be some threshold.

I still say this being business motivated, one of the strongest things you can do is speak with your wallet. Sell your PS4 if you have it and support the competition if this angers you so much.

Come on, selling a PS4 at a loss and having to re-buy all of my games shouldn't be the only/best option two days after the news was released. A strong and clear voice from the community can impact the decision making of Sony and possibly reverse things before it's too late. Why start off with the nuclear option?

 

[jonscrambler]

And I completely agree with that. I've never said otherwise.

yes we know it's a business decision. so what side are you on? Sony or PS4 consumers?

 

[Marty Chinn]

Come on, selling a PS4 at a loss and having to re-buy all of my games shouldn't be the only/best option two days after the news was released. A strong and clear voice from the community can impact the decision making of Sony and possibly reverse things before it's too late. Why start off with the nuclear option?

There are people who feel really angry and violated by this. The Artisan stands out as one of those people. I'm saying if Sony has pissed you off this much, then the best thing you can do is speak with your wallet and support the competition. I'm not saying everyone should. I'm not selling my stuff even though I support that we should have all consoles as cross play compatible. I will speak with my wallet and buy games from other platforms that do support cross play though. Then again, I'm not nearly as angry as The Artisan about it either.

yes we know it's a business decision. so what side are you on? Sony or PS4 consumers?

From a consumer, gamer, and personal self interest, I want cross play across all platforms. As a person who also looks at the situation from all angles and tries to understand why things the way they are and question if what I want is reasonable, I understand Sony's position too. I don't agree with them, but I understand. So I'm on the rational understanding side of things?

 

[Oersted]

I do, and have said there are pros and cons to both sides. They are taking a gamble. Right now it's clear that Sony feels they come out ahead compared to going the other route. That doesn't mean they are right. If their analysis that they've run or considered has them coming out ahead with their decision over the decision that you guys all want, can you really fault them?

Yes

 

[Marty Chinn]

Yes

That's irrational.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

That's irrational.

It's not though. At some point, if you want to be a tech leader, you have to prioritize innovation over profit...even if it's a gamble.

 

[Oersted]

That's irrational.

You are. I, like everyone else, can fault a company when I think they take the wrong gamble and don't act in my own interest. Xbox One DRM, Vita memory cards, you name it.

 

[Grady]

Let's look at all the 12 yr olds cussing up a storm and making racial remarks on call of duty everyday. Lame excuse.

 

[Siege.exe]

I didn't say the scenarios are equal. I'm saying people saying they shouldn't factor in or don't factor in the logistics are wrong. They do factor it in. Once you realize you do factor in, then you need to decide at what point is it no longer a reasonable request for Sony to implement because of the ramifications to their business as a result. The scenarios are different, and not equal, but how you judge the rationality of it should be the same.



But it is an impact for Sony in this case being the market leader. Sure it's not as severe or as obvious as giving away a console. It's a much more nuanced business hit than the obvious giving everyone $400, but that doesn't mean it's not a negative impact on Sony's business. So to the first point, consumers do factor it in despite claims in this thread they don't, and then second, at what point of how much it hurts Sony's business would make you at the very least understand why they wouldn't cross that line. That doesn't mean you agree with it, but you understand it's not a reasonable thing for Sony to do, just like giving everyone $400 consoles. There's gotta be some threshold.

I can say with 100% confidence that the negative impact crossplay would have on Sony is not appreciably high in any regard, certainly not enough for anyone who's against their position to back off. It absolutely does not make sense to apply the same rationale you would for the idea of them giving away $300-$400 hardware for free, because one is simply allowing a third party to use their own servers the way they wish to, and the other is literally flushing money down the toilet. They're two completely different scenarios that you're forcing together to push the weak narrative of "just because people want something doesn't mean it's good for them to do it". Yes, there are business realities that people need to understand when companies make decisions, but crossplay is not one of anywhere near enough sacrifice on Sony's side to make anyone say "oh, well I guess they're really in a bind in that regard". It requires no effort on Sony's part. It doesn't require that Sony allow other platforms into its network infrastructure. They literally just have to say yes, and the developers will take care of the rest on their end. They do not stand to gain anything from blocking crossplay other than upset customers. They do stand to lose their 30% cut on digital purchases when people decide to buy those games elsewhere, how ever much of a cut they receive from physical purchases, and any other licensing or royalty payments they would receive otherwise. But hey, apply the same rationale that you would to giving away systems for no reason, it makes a ton of sense when you're looking at it from barely even surface level.

 

[The Artisan]

I'm pointing out the flaw in yours and others stance where you say you don't give a shit and it doesn't matter how it affects the company, you're going to scream as loud as you can to get what you want. But the fact is, you do factor it in because you don't make other demands like the example I put out. To say you don't factor in the feasibility is wrong, otherwise you would be asking for bigger things too.

Why would I factor it in? Neither Nintendo nor mS are giving out Switches or Xbones for free so I got no reason to demand a free Ps4. If they did offer it for free then you can bet your ass Sony would feel the pressure but that's not a reality and irrelevant here. What is the reality and the relevant topic is cross play is happening and Sony is shutting their base out of it.

Well yeah, MS is trying to put the screws to them via a super popular game.

They gave Sony two shit pies to choose from. It's just that one is far bigger than the other, so if course they'll eat the smaller one, while people here are screaming for them to eat the big one.

How is cross play and the best version of Minecraft a shit pie? Are saying Nintendo ate said shit pie?

There are people who feel really angry and violated by this. The Artisan stands out as one of those people. I'm saying if Sony has pissed you off this much, then the best thing you can do is speak with your wallet and support the competition. I'm not saying everyone should. I'm not selling my stuff even though I support that we should have all consoles as cross play compatible. I will speak with my wallet and buy games from other platforms that do support cross play though. Then again, I'm not nearly as angry as The Artisan about it either.

I love playing my Ps4 games, but now I'm starting to hate Sony. If Sony does not budge with cross play, perhaps I will buy an Xbox Two instead of a Ps5.

 

[vpance]

It's not though. At some point, if you want to be a tech leader, you have to prioritize innovation over profit...even if it's a gamble.

Why do they need to gamble at all? The people who don't like this policy are free to go to Xbox or PC.

They aren't going to gamble because they think A <<< B. People here are saying no, A >>> B.

 

[Marty Chinn]

It's not though. At some point, if you want to be a tech leader, you have to prioritize innovation over profit...even if it's a gamble.

The problem with most companies is they're short sighted, and mostly because that's how stock and shareholders work. I don't think they need to be the tech leader on this one though. They can come in at any time and will probably do so on their timeline, not someone else's.

You are. I, like everyone else, can fault a company when I think they take the wrong gamble and don't act in my own interest. Xbox One DRM, Vita memory cards, you name it.

I didn't say you had to agree with the decision. I think they're on the wrong side of history in this case, but I cannot fault them for the decision if their analysis clearly shows that they have more to lose than gain from this. It would be irrational of Sony to allow it if it's going to hurt their business model. Plus, it's much easier for Sony to backtrack on this and open the door than it is to shut the door once it's open. So strategically, it's safer to wait and then do a 180 when it becomes clear they made the wrong choice. There's no real motivation for them to rush into this rather than do it at their own pace.

 

[Van Bur3n]

Sony's decision is wrong and irrational.

 

[Elandyll]

Exactly and that's why at times companies don't care about customers like yourself because you don't give a f*ck about them. I love the world we live in <3.

I don't understand...
Maybe it's me, or maybe you didn't express your idea correctly, but why should we, as customers, "care" for a multinational?

I don't even play Minecraft or Rocket League (or online MP in general), but I want those who do on PS4 (and everywhere) to enjoy the same benefits as other platforms.
It's basic empathy.

Now maybe Sony has a profound distrust of MS's practices (and I wouldn't blame them), but it's their problem and up to them to solve to make their consumers happy.

MS is dying to have Minecraft on every single platform out there, I'm sure Sony can sit down with them and figure out a "secure" way that works for everybody.

And once they do (on a "political" level) it will open the doors to every other title out here for full MP X play.

 

[MikeE21286]

I feel they will be pressured to reverse course here.

Just for the PR of it all.

 

[PrivateWHudson]

The problem with most companies is they're short sighted, and mostly because that's how stock and shareholders work. I don't think they need to be the tech leader on this one though. They can come in at any time and will probably do so on their timeline, not someone else's.



I didn't say you had to agree with the decision. I think they're on the wrong side of history in this case, but I cannot fault them for the decision if their analysis clearly shows that they have more to lose than gain from this. It would be irrational of Sony to allow it if it's going to hurt their business model. Plus, it's much easier for Sony to backtrack on this and open the door than it is to shut the door once it's open. So strategically, it's safer to wait and then do a 180 when it becomes clear they made the wrong choice. There's no real motivation for them to rush into this rather than do it at their own pace.

So you're saying that they are short sighted, but fear the long term affects of opening the floodgates? Either way, I agree that they are on the wrong side of history, and instead of hiding from the future, they should be embracing it and throwing resources toward being a co-lead with MS. If not, I fear they will be left behind by the time it reaches critical mass and they will get bent over by MS.

 

[Oersted]

I didn't say you had to agree with the decision. I think they're on the wrong side of history in this case, but I cannot fault them for the decision if their analysis clearly shows that they have more to lose than gain from this.

You keep repeating that over and over. I can fault someone for being on the wrong side of history. Just you who can't.

 

[Liliana Eileen]

You keep repeating that over and over. I can fault someone for being on the wrong side of history. Just you who can't.

Can't believe he's so adamant about sticking up for a corporation that doesn't care about him.

 

[UserNameStolen]

I can hardly believe some of the comments in these crossplay topics. Personally, I play pretty much all systems new and old. I play primarily single player games, however I agree with numerous posts on why crossplay should be embraced.

The protection of users excuse is laughable at best. Considering the amount messages sent to psn users for "free psn codes". Am I also to believe there are no racist, sexist, homophobic or just plain horrible people playing online on psn?

So that leaves me to feel this over the perceived fear of losing consumers and/or giving up having the larger online player base. However, that seems stupid. Take minecraft for example, Sony will have the smallest online community by far. Will no PS4 minecraft play be looking elsewhere to play?

Some may feel it doesn't matter, but I think to especially Sony it should and will matter. Because come next generation if everyone has crossplay but Sony some consumers will look elsewhere. This seems to me a shortsighted corporate move that will do more harm than good.

 

[vpance]

How is cross play and the best version of Minecraft a shit pie? Are saying Nintendo ate said shit pie?I love playing my Ps4 games, but now I'm starting to hate Sony. If Sony does not budge with cross play, perhaps I will buy an Xbox Two instead of a Ps5.

Then you should, Sony has lost you as a consumer and they are willing to accept that vs the other potential future reality they see.

 

[jonscrambler]

From a consumer, gamer, and personal self interest, I want cross play across all platforms. As a person who also looks at the situation from all angles and tries to understand why things the way they are and question if what I want is reasonable, I understand Sony's position too. I don't agree with them, but I understand. So I'm on the rational understanding side of things?

you are more than just saying you "understand", you are here defending them saying they are making a reasonable and rational decision aren't you?

 

[Marty Chinn]

I love playing my Ps4 games, but now I'm starting to hate Sony. If Sony does not budge with cross play, perhaps I will buy an Xbox Two instead of a Ps5.

So you're going to reward Sony for it by continuing to give them money with your PS4. So really, why should they cave to your demands if you're going to reward them anyway if they don't? How does that benefit them?

Also, I have to ask, why do you abbreviate Microsoft as "mS"? I thought it was a typo at first, but you seem to always do it. I've never seen anyone do it that way before so I'm just curious.

So you're saying that they are short sighted, but fear the long term affects of opening the floodgates? Either way, I agree that they are on the wrong side of history, and instead of hiding from the future, they should be embracing it and throwing resources toward being a co-lead with MS. If not, I fear they will be left behind by the time it reaches critical mass and they will get bent over by MS.

They are short sighted for the long term effects past this generation. They are more or less locked into this generation. The affects of opening up cross play affect the rest of this generation, so that's part of being short sighted. They're looking at what's going to happen this generation, not beyond. So it's not a contradiction to say they are being short sighted with cross play but looking at how it affects other games after Minecraft and Rocket League.

You keep repeating that over and over. I can fault someone for being on the wrong side of history. Just you who can't.

I can fault someone for being on the wrong side of history, which I've already said I think Sony is on. I also said I can't fault their decision because of how they think it will impact them in the current generation. If the decision is going to negatively impact you and outweigh any benefits, then how can I fault them for coming to that conclusion?

you are more than just saying you "understand", you are here defending them saying they are making a reasonable and rational decision aren't you?

I'm saying I'm not nearly as outraged as some of you even though I disagree with the decision. I'm not outraged because I understand the decision. I hope they change their mind, but I'm not throwing my arms up wonder how this happened and can't believe why they wouldn't allow it. I'm honestly more outraged by Jim Ryan's official explanation than the fact that they aren't going to allow it.

 

[shiyrley]

It's not a logical fallacy. I'm asking if you don't care what's rational for the business, what stops you from making bigger demands?

Common sense? I don't care about the potential money they would lose from enabling crossplay but I don't want Sony go going bankrupt because I want them to continue to exist and make consoles and games, lol. Yes, it is a fallacy.

Should people stop demanding Mother 3 or a new Mother game because it probably doesn't make financial sense for Nintendo? Some might even say Metroid Prime 4 doesn't make financial sense either. (Prime 2 & 3 didn't sell well). Yet people demanded them because we don't care about that, and MP4 is coming.

People complained about MS trying to kill the second hand market and they managed to force them to change everything on the last second.

Remember that one time MS tried to make PC online game paid with GFWL, the PC community responded with "fuck off" and they made it free? The same thing could have happened in the OG Xbox / maybe 360 era. Instead people embraced it for some reason and we now have paid online on every current gen console.

Exactly and that's why at times companies don't care about customers like yourself because you don't give a f*ck about them. I love the world we live in <3.

No no, you are wrong. They care about anyone who gives them money. This is such a dumb response I don't even know how to continue this post lol

 

[Marty Chinn]

Common sense? I don't care about the potential money they would lose from enabling crossplay but I don't want Sony go going bankrupt because I want them to continue to exist and make consoles and games, lol. Yes, it is a fallacy.

Should people stop demanding Mother 3 or a new Mother game because it probably doesn't make financial sense for Nintendo? Some might even say Metroid Prime 4 doesn't make financial sense either. (Prime 2 & 3 didn't sell well). Yet people demanded them because we don't care about that, and MP4 is coming.

Where did I say or suggest to not make your voices heard? By all means, make sure they hear you but at the same time understand why things are the way they are and why you may not get what you want. Lots of us want Mother 3, but you understand it might not make financial sense for them to do it and as a result aren't outraged if they don't and understand if you never get it. That doesn't mean to stop letting them know you want it.

 

[Trup1aya]

Well yeah, MS is trying to put the screws to them via a super popular game.

They gave Sony two shit pies to choose from. It's just that one is far bigger than the other, so if course they'll eat the smaller one, while people here are screaming for them to eat the big one.

How is a simple account a big piece of shit pie? In what way would it harm Sony?

And how is having the worst version of the most popular game a smaller peice of shit pie?

 

[shiyrley]

Where did I say or suggest to not make your voices heard? By all means, make sure they hear you but at the same time understand why things are the way they are and why you may not get what you want. Lots of us want Mother 3, but you understand it might not make financial sense for them to do it and as a result aren't outraged if they don't and understand if you never get it. That doesn't mean to stop letting them know you want it.

So what argument are we even having then?

Of course I understand it, I have a functional brain, but that won't stop me in demanding functionality I want or games I want.

And don't misuderstand me, I want every game company to be healthy because that's good for videogames. Sometimes I have purchased things merely to support a game IP or a certain company. But I am a customer and I will ask for what I want, not for what will make the most profit. Supporting a company doesn't mean approving of an action that isn't good for us.

 

[Oersted]

So you're going to reward Sony for it by continuing to give them money with your PS4. So really, why should they cave to your demands if you're going to reward them anyway if they don't? How does that benefit them?

Also, I have to ask, why do you abbreviate Microsoft as "mS"? I thought it was a typo at first, but you seem to always do it. I've never seen anyone do it that way before so I'm just curious.



They are short sighted for the long term effects past this generation. They are more or less locked into this generation. The affects of opening up cross play affect the rest of this generation, so that's part of being short sighted. They're looking at what's going to happen this generation, not beyond. So it's not a contradiction to say they are being short sighted with cross play but looking at how it affects other games after Minecraft and Rocket League.



I can fault someone for being on the wrong side of history, which I've already said I think Sony is on. I also said I can't fault their decision because of how they think it will impact them in the current generation. If the decision is going to negatively impact you and outweigh any benefits, then how can I fault them for coming to that conclusion?



I'm saying I'm not nearly as outraged as some of you even though I disagree with the decision. I'm not outraged because I understand the decision. I hope they change their mind, but I'm not throwing my arms up wonder how this happened and can't believe why they wouldn't allow it. I'm honestly more outraged by Jim Ryan's official explanation than the fact that they aren't going to allow it.

"I understand the decision. You guys don't. I'm outraged about the right thing. You guys don't. "

The same condoscending crap I loved to pull.

You defend Sony. Get over yourself.

 

[fbutron]

Sony's decision is wrong and irrational.

Not irrational by any means, is a business decision

 

[Marty Chinn]

So what argument are we even having then?

Of course I understand it, I have a functional brain, but that won't stop me in demanding functionality I want or games I want.

And don't misuderstand me, I want every game company to be healthy because that's good for videogames. Sometimes I have purchased things merely to support a game IP or a certain company. But I am a customer and I will ask for what I want, not for what will make the most profit. Supporting a company doesn't mean approving of an action that isn't good for us.

Well this all started when you said you don't give a shit about their profits and put no consideration into it and yet you just said in this response that you want every game company to be healthy. That's a contradiction to me which is what I was trying to point out. We do care and we do factor it in when we weigh the feasibility. That's all I was trying to point was incorrect. I never said that you have to agree to profits at your expense; I was merely trying to point out that we do need to factor that in when coming to our conclusions and you do. So we're in agreement.

"I understand the decision. You guys don't. I'm outraged about the right thing. You guys don't. "

The same condoscending crap I loved to pull.

You defend Sony. Get over yourself.

How am I defending Sony when I said they're wrong, and they're on the wrong side of history and that this is bad for consumers and gamers? It's not a binary situation either. You can disagree and understand at the same time. That's not being a company defender. That's understanding the situation.

 

[Siege.exe]

Well this all started when you said you don't give a shit about their profits and put no consideration into it and yet you just said in this response that you want every game company to be healthy. That's a contradiction to me which is what I was trying to point out. We do care and we do factor it in when we weigh the feasibility. That's all I was trying to point was incorrect. I never said that you have to agree to profits at your expense; I was merely trying to point out that we do need to factor that in when coming to our conclusions and you do. So we're in agreement.



How am I defending Sony when I said they're wrong, and they're on the wrong side of history and that this is bad for consumers and gamers? It's not a binary situation either. You can disagree and understand at the same time. That's not being a company defender. That's understanding the situation.

You're dramatically overstating the apparent financial risk, which you have not cared to elaborate on, that allowing crossplay would pose by comparing it to investing money in development and localization of a niche product and literally giving away products that cost hundreds of dollars to produce for free. If you gave a reasonable explanation for why it would be such a detriment to Sony's business, you wouldn't be catching as much heat as you are. What exactly is Sony losing? Why is it in anyway comparable to the other two examples of financial risk you've given? Why ignore what they stand to lose by not supporting crossplay (ie, their cut of a game's sales on their platform from each unit sold) and continue to push the vague narrative that it's only bad for them while providing absolutely no detail as to why that would be the case?

 

[doicare]

No no, you are wrong. They care about anyone who gives them money. This is such a dumb response I don't even know how to continue this post lol

I don't understand...
Maybe it's me, or maybe you didn't express your idea correctly, but why should we, as customers, "care" for a multinational?

I don't even play Minecraft or Rocket League (or online MP in general), but I want those who do on PS4 (and everywhere) to enjoy the same benefits as other platforms.
It's basic empathy.

Now maybe Sony has a profound distrust of MS's practices (and I wouldn't blame them), but it's their problem and up to them to solve to make their consumers happy.

MS is dying to have Minecraft on every single platform out there, I'm sure Sony can sit down with them and figure out a "secure" way that works for everybody.

And once they do (on a "political" level) it will open the doors to every other title out here for full MP X play.

If cross play is to be the future then overall Sony loses and they're in such a bad place financially they need every penny they can get. If you no longer need a Playstation to play against fellow Playstation owners then people will buy other consoles instead of the one that most of their friends have or the one with the highest user base aka the PS4. It also means that you can own both consoles but you only need to pay one monthly network fee and you only need to buy one version of a multi-format game for that console. Right now if you want to play with and against Playstation users you have to buy a ps4 and sign up to PSN and Sony gets 100% of that money, by changing to cross play Sony can only lose money as some people will go else where. Over the last decade Sony have been doing very badly and it's the PS4 division that's propping them up. You can laugh and scoff and not care all you like about this situation but the reality is one more bad product launch like the PS3 and that's the end of Sony. All three of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo do stupid anti consumer things and it's the fact that all three exist that keeps them in check. If there was no Sony right now we'd be living in a world of uber DRM and nobody actually owns any of their games anymore thanks to Microsoft. Between Microsoft being the most anti consumer and Nintendo being the most backward thinking, while Sony is FAR from perfect i'd rather they stick around the longest. This decision to change the way Minecraft is made is as much to do with wanting to make the game a new way as it is a way to artificially increase the number of Xbox Live users.

 

[Oersted]

Well this all started when you said you don't give a shit about their profits and put no consideration into it and yet you just said in this response that you want every game company to be healthy. That's a contradiction to me which is what I was trying to point out. We do care and we do factor it in when we weigh the feasibility. That's all I was trying to point was incorrect. I never said that you have to agree to profits at your expense; I was merely trying to point out that we do need to factor that in when coming to our conclusions and you do. So we're in agreement.



How am I defending Sony when I said they're wrong, and they're on the wrong side of history and that this is bad for consumers and gamers? It's not a binary situation either. You can disagree and understand at the same time. That's not being a company defender. That's understanding the situation.

Its a CEO job to say please understand. See Iwata.

Its a consumers option to say no. See Wii U.

Consumer say no here. You say please understand.

This decision to change the way Minecraft is made is as much to do with wanting to make the game a new way as it is a way to artificially increase the number of Xbox Live users.

It isn't just Minecraft pushing for crossplay. We are at 5 games and it won't stop.

 

[vpance]

How is a simple account a big piece of shit pie? In what way would it harm Sony?

And how is having the worst version of the most popular game a smaller peice of shit pie?

I'll try to explain it in a way that may not have been covered yet.

Maybe Sony just doesn't want to give in to MS demands out of principle, or have anything to do with them? Maybe at a later date, MS could make more demands to keep the same level content flowing? They do own the game after all. In other words, they don't want to be held hostage, and still see MS as a threat.

 

[Oersted]

I'll try to explain it in a way that may not have been covered yet.

Maybe Sony just doesn't want to give in to MS demands out of principle, or have anything to do with them? Maybe at a later date, MS could make more demands to keep the same level content flowing? They do own the game after all. In other words, they don't want to be held hostage, and still see MS as a threat.

How again are the other devs holding Sony hostage?

 

[Robottiimu2000]

Of all the sony brigade vs consumers this has hit me the most.

How does someone not want crossplay? Is there someone who believes communities would be better without crossplay?

I mean at this point feels like the advantages would be obvious but i'll go right ahead and point out the single most important reason why this should not only be enforced but mandatory: The lifespan of a game's online community would simply multiply.

Now please someone explain me how someone would be against crossplay because I simply don't get it.



Oh boy. You should be holding the flag, you're the herald, the chosen one!

Edit: Can't believe the "why dont we just ask for free consoles?" argument has had any legs, amazing.

It should be part of the decleration of human rights: a person is entitled to play with friends and/or PUGs no matter what the platform of theirs is.

 

[Siege.exe]

If cross play is to be the future then overall Sony loses and they're in such a bad place financially they need every penny they can get. If you no longer need a Playstation to play against fellow Playstation owners then people will buy other consoles instead of the one that most of their friends have or the one with the highest user base aka the PS4. It also means that you can own both consoles but you only need to pay one monthly network fee and you only need to buy one version of a multi-format game for that console. Right now if you want to play with and against Playstation users you have to buy a ps4 and Sony gets 100% of that money, by changing to cross play Sony can only lose money as some people will go else where. Over the last decade Sony have been doing very badly and it's the PS4 division that's propping them up. You can laugh and scoff and not care all you like about this situation but the reality is one more bad product launch like the PS3 and that's the end of Sony. All three of Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo do stupid anti consumer things and it's the fact that all three exist that keeps them in check. If there was no Sony right now we'd be living in a would of uber DRM and nobody actually owns any of their games anymore thanks to Microsoft. Between Microsoft being the most anti consumer and Nintendo being the most backward thinking, while Sony is FAR from perfect i'd rather they stick around the longest. This decision to change the way Minecraft is made is as much to do with wanting to make the game a new way as it is a way to artificially increase the number of Xbox Live users.

By that logic, not even PC cross play should be supported then. There are already millions of people playing Rocket League with PS4 players without owning a PS4 or paying for PS+, exactly how much damage do you think it's going to do to Sony to allow a few million more? Why would anyone who already owns a PS4 stop buying games for it if crossplay is allowed? Why do you think people are just gonna stop buying PS4's just because there's universal multiplayer? Do its excellent exclusive games suddenly stop existing? Does it suddenly become more expensive to buy a PS4/PS4 Pro than to buy an X1/X1X or build a PC? Hell, you can get a PS4 Slim for cheaper than a Switch, a console that doesn't have and likely isn't going to get a lot of the multiplatform games that the PS4 does. What the hell is this weird narrative that crossplay would kill Sony entirely? It certainly isn't one based in reality.

 

[Marty Chinn]

You're dramatically overstating the apparent financial risk, which you have not cared to elaborate on, that allowing crossplay would pose by comparing it to investing money in development and localization of a niche product and literally giving away products that cost hundreds of dollars to produce for free. If you gave a reasonable explanation for why it would be such a detriment to Sony's business, you wouldn't be catching as much heat as you are. What exactly is Sony losing? Why is it in anyway comparable to the other two examples of financial risk you've given? Why ignore what they stand to lose by not supporting crossplay (ie, their cut of a game's sales on their platform from each unit sold) and continue to push the vague narrative that it's only bad for them while providing absolutely no detail as to why that would be the case?

I actually did, much earlier in the thread. I'll quote myself:

Sony doing this opens up the other platforms to 60 million more users which is a huge benefit to the other platforms and gives one less reason for someone to move into the PlayStation eco system. Those people won't be paying for a game with a royalty to Sony nor will they be getting any PS+ subscription money. That is just one example of where Sony probably feels they have very little to gain and more to lose. Not to mention, this opens up the flood gates to other titles as well. Once you open that door, Sony knows they can't shut it. They can always open it later if they so choose. There's a lot more nuances with this of where the gains and losses are but Sony must clearly feel that they have more to lose than gain.

I'll reiterate again, that doesn't mean Sony is right or making the right choice here, but there are financial realities involved. Before you throw out, but they could lose people to as a result, they must feel that they'll gain more people jumping in over the number of people they'll lose from this business decision. Heck, look at this thread where people aren't willing to stop giving Sony money over this decision. The Artisan pretty much says he likes playing his PS4 too much and will still reward Sony. So what's the alternative reason they are doing this; they're doing this out of spite their consumers? To spite Xbox players?

As for how it's comparable, it is only comparable in the fact that in each scenario is a situation where the consumer benefits and the company loses. That is to the extent that they are comparable situations and is the only aspect I was getting at. The amount of gain and loss is irrelevant.

 

[doicare]

By that logic, not even PC cross play should be supported then. There are already millions of people playing Rocket League with PS4 players without owning a PS4 or paying for PS+, exactly how much damage do you think it's going to do to Sony to allow a few million more? Why would anyone who already owns a PS4 stop buying games for it if crossplay is allowed? Why do you think people are just gonna stop buying PS4's just because there's universal multiplayer? Do its excellent exclusive games suddenly stop existing? Does it suddenly become more expensive to buy a PS4/PS4 Pro than to buy an X1/X1X or build a PC? Hell, you can get a PS4 Slim for cheaper than a Switch, a console that doesn't have and likely isn't going to get a lot of the multiplatform games that the PS4 does. What the hell is this weird narrative that crossplay would kill Sony entirely? It certainly isn't one based in reality.

Sony doesn't see PC as a direct competitor so that's why it allows cross play with some PC games. In the western world the average person is hurting financially, it's a very turbulent time and people have to make serious choices what they spend their money on and gaming is a luxury. Forget thinking like a hardcore gamer chatting on a forum and realise that to the casual gamer there's absolutely no need to use or pay for two network services if you don't have to, most casual gamers just play multi-format games they don't give a stuff about exclusives. Cross play doesn't kill Sony but it weakens it, unless Sony pulls off perfect product launches across most of its divisions over the next decade then the next big PS3 like slip up will likely be the end of Sony as we know it and they'll become a Sega.

 

[Oersted]

Marty, we all know it is a business decision. And, just like you, we have blind trust in them that it won't backfire for them.

But you must know, this isn't relevant for anyone except for "Sony over myself" fans.

We represent our interests.