Support NeoGAF

[Marty Chinn]

Why would I answer a question you never asked me?

I was asking you right then and there.

You seem to be getting the impression that I'm saying that Sony the reason made the decision they have isn't one of financial risk, and no where have I declared that, so how about you read post instead of making up an argument that I have not said a lick about.

Oh really? Because you said:

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.

You literally say they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by not implementing cross play. In fact they would only have a financial hit because people will buy their games elsewhere. It seems like you're forgetting what you're posting, not me.

I'm saying that it's a weak argument that is not worth being defended so staunchly. You were raising a stink over not caring about the business implications, I'm telling you why that there is no basis for us to think that this particular issue is such a significant risk that we should roll over and accept that it is what it is. You're arguing that ANY potential risk can exist at all, people should care about that more than how insignificant that risk as it is, and greatly over exaggerating the downsides of Sony allowing crossplay, because there are other factors that matter just as much, if not more, than the ever so slight chance that some one who would've bought a PS4 would not otherwise do so if there was a universal online community. It's a shitty excuse, and not one that we as consumers who ask for better to consider reasonable in the slightest.

I'm arguing that for every decision a company makes, before you get outraged, be informed on the matter as best as you can. Consider why these decisions are made. Consider what's at stake. Consider what do they gain. Consider what do they lose. Too many times people have knee jerk reactions without looking at it from all angles because they only want to look at something from their own isolated view point. By no means do I say agree with Sony, but if we're going to have a better discussion on why this is and what we can do about it, I think we should at the very least understand the motivations and understand the feasibility of getting what we desire. Not once have I said I agreed with Sony. Not once have I said that we shouldn't cross play. In fact, I've said we should several times. Not once have I said roll over. In fact, I explicitly said it's good to make your voices heard. I'm just advocating that people understand the situation better and be open minded to why things are the way they are. This very thread has too many people making a definitive statement that Sony has nothing to be gained from blocking cross play and everything to lose. That right there is a declaration that they don't understand the situation.

tl;dr since you seem to be having trouble grasping things and have resorted to accusing people of saying things they did not: I did not say the reason you're suggesting doesn't exist, I'm saying the reason you're suggesting is a shitty one that we absolutely do not have to respect for several other reasons.

Ah, but you did say it and I quoted you. Then, you didn't even acknowledge the fact that I did say things you claimed I didn't even though you claimed you read what I said.

you're in a thread disagreeing with several people and countering them with things you want to say to them because in your mind, you're right and they're wrong. by all means that might as well be the definition of arguing.

I think you're being too quick to reply without comprehending what I'm saying. It's not the first time you've done this in this thread. I'm not disputing that I'm debating/arguing the topic. I'm saying it's not a new argument.

If you mean I'm giving them a pass by not selling them a Ps4, then they win. Yeah. Does that make me feel good about it? No. But I'm a nobody. Just another consumer with an opinion like I told you earlier I have enjoyed the time I've spent this gen on my Ps4. Great games; solely playing online doesn't define a gaming experience. Fyi, I was the most vocal proponent in the "Ps4 won't support 4K blu ray" thread as well. We don't live in a perfect world but we are living in one where several conglomerates are collaborating because they see the future one way, while another conglomerate does not want to collaborate. It isn't a good look, it's caused a lot of bad publicity and thus I've been chiming in my opinion on it all. No amount of trying to explaining why it's a bad idea for Sony is going to get me to agree.

So what you could do is take a stand and not reward Sony for their behavior and advocate and convince others to do the same. Not feeling good about it or admitting defeat by thinking your a nobody doesn't do any good. In fact it just proves that Sony doesn't need to bother. Speak with your wallet and convince more people to speak with their wallet.

 

[binarymelon]

Sony is the Trump of consoles. Seems to fit.

They're all for the wall too.

 

[Crayon]

Nah. I think being vocal about it on social media is the best route for change. Microsoft didn't wait until the Xbox One was out to walk back their DRM strategy. It was public outcry that got them to change their stance.

Iirc, they seemed nonplussed by the outcry but changed course when the preorder came in low.

 

[binarymelon]

Iirc, they seemed nonplussed by the outcry but changed course when the preorder came in low.

I think it was about 1 week after E3 2013.

http://kotaku.com/microsoft-is-removing-xbox-one-drm-514390310

 

[Trup1aya]

It's good, is it neccesary? If Sony views it as something Nintendo and MS will benefit from
more than they will, it makes sense to not be on board. There has to be something more in it for Sony than what you are presenting to make them agree, which is why i imagine they are resistant.

Neccisary? No.
Beneficial? Yes.

For example. Sony wouldn't lose anything by getting access to the best version of Minecraft on the market.

But By rejecting the best version, Sony is pushing Its Minecraft audience to start to play it on a different devices- THIS will only help Xbox/switch/iOS/android/VR take more Minecraft market share from Sony.

If Sony thinks their participation would 'help' MS and Nintendo I would say they are wrong. They don't need Sony's help here. Sure Sony has the largest population of RL players. But the PC and XBL populations are extremely healthy and will only be more so when Switch arrives. Both minecraft and Rocket League are in the top 10 most played Xbox games right now. So the combined populations on these games will be more than fine without Sony's involvement. Sony is simply putting themselves on an island without much benefit in doing so.

 

[black070]

Sony is the Trump of consoles. Seems to fit.

Sony isn't a console.

 

[Vegetable Lasagna]

No not really, right now if you want to play with Playstation users Sony has 100% of the market, you have to buy a PS4 to do that, if you agree to cross play there's now the option for people to go else where. 100% is better than losing even 0.1% of players, it's just a fact.

I'd agree if crossplay was the only defining feature of the update. People will just find another means to play Minecraft and Sony will lose out on revenue.

 

[The Artisan]

Wait, what? That's a huge bummer. I've gotten back to playing Minecraft on the PS4 too. These were things I was looking forward to after the Minecraft bit.

yup. all of these things will be missing on the playstation versions of minecraft:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=240827592&postcount=368

I think you're being too quick to reply without comprehending what I'm saying. It's not the first time you've done this in this thread. I'm not disputing that I'm debating/arguing the topic. I'm saying it's not a new argument.

Oh I see, emphasis on the new, I missed that again for some reason. To be fair though, I have conceded when I've misread your posts before.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=240625370&postcount=1301

So what you could do is take a stand and not reward Sony for their behavior and advocate and convince others to do the same. Not feeling good about it or admitting defeat by thinking your a nobody doesn't do any good. In fact it just proves that Sony doesn't need to bother. Speak with your wallet and convince more people to speak with their wallet.

I play Uncharted 4 online practically every single day. I play Tekken 7; i only play tekken on playstation. i'm very much looking forward to playing yakuza kiwami later this year and then yakuza 6 next year. i've got my reasons to keep Ps4 and again a gaming experience is not defined solely on playing online. Sony very likely will remain in first place whether they change their stance on cross play or not but they may lose the full potential of sales and gain more negative publicity in the process. If they are to change their minds, it's going to be just from uproar from the internet, like my post from the other thread suggested

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=240817248&highlight=#post240817248

you quoted me in that thread and I quoted you back

 

[Siege.exe]

I was asking you right then and there.



Oh really? Because you said:



You literally say they have nothing to gain and everything to lose by not implementing cross play. In fact they would only have a financial hit because people will buy their games elsewhere. It seems like you're forgetting what you're posting, not me.



I'm arguing that for every decision a company makes, before you get outraged, be informed on the matter as best as you can. Consider why these decisions are made. Consider what's at stake. Consider what do they gain. Consider what do they lose. Too many times people have knee jerk reactions without looking at it from all angles because they only want to look at something from their own isolated view point. By no means do I say agree with Sony, but if we're going to have a better discussion on why this is and what we can do about it, I think we should at the very least understand the motivations and understand the feasibility of getting what we desire. Not once have I said I agreed with Sony. Not once have I said that we shouldn't cross play. In fact, I've said we should several times. Not once have I said roll over. In fact, I explicitly said it's good to make your voices heard. I'm just advocating that people understand the situation better and be open minded to why things are the way they are. This very thread has too many people making a definitive statement that Sony has nothing to be gained from blocking cross play and everything to lose. That right there is a declaration that they don't understand the situation.



Ah, but you did say it and I quoted you. Then, you didn't even acknowledge the fact that I did say things you claimed I didn't even though you claimed you read what I said.

To each point:

The words "still haven't" implied that you asked me beforehand, but okay, fair.

Where exactly in that did I say that it wasn't the reason. Again, since you seem to be having trouble getting this part, I'm explaining why it's a shitty reason that we really have no compelling reason to respect. But hey, keep projecting, that'll get you places for sure.

You can look at that position from as many angles as you want and still call it bullshit, because it is for the reasons I've already stated. It's just a shitty defense no matter how you slice it, no reason for us not to poke holes in the rationale.

So you're going to blame your shitty reading comprehension on me and put words in my mouth, got it. Oh and if you'd read my posts like you just love claiming that I haven't read yours, you'd see that I said "nor did I get that impression", and for good reason. You quoted yourself with a post that only considered the position that PlayStation is placed in by allowing crossplay, after I ask why not make that consideration into account for all platforms. But hey, you're not reading and/or understanding the things people are saying to you, so why start now? You can go on projecting, or maybe you might take the time to read things more carefully and be less of a dick about it.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Oh I see, emphasis on the new, I missed that again for some reason. To be fair though, I have conceded when I've misread your posts before.

Oh you're quite reasonable when you get things pointed out. Make no mistake about that; I notice. A lot of other people don't do that, so it's a good trait. I just think sometimes you're a bit trigger happy and react before soaking in that's all. I'm not saying it doesn't happen to me sometimes either.

I play Uncharted 4 online practically every single day. I play Tekken 7; i only play tekken on playstation. i'm very much looking forward to playing yakuza kiwami later this year and then yakuza 6 next year. i've got my reasons to keep Ps4 and again a gaming experience is not defined solely on playing online. Sony very likely will remain in first place whether they change their stance on cross play or not but they may lose the full potential of sales and gain more negative publicity in the process. If they are to change their minds, it's going to be just from uproar from the internet, like my post from the other thread suggested

The thing is, if they have you by the balls now because of software and you're not willing to break free now. What makes you really think you can break free of that same software grip when the PS5 comes around? Clearly the quality and line up of software is keeping you around and there's good reason to think the same could happen again.

Take your stance and then multiply it by thousands who probably do the same thing. They're annoyed, but they don't take the steps to stop rewarding Sony and then once again get drawn in during the next generation for the same reasons. Why should Sony change their behavior if all you do is reward them because the games are too good. Yes it's only one aspect of gaming, but really think about it. Sony has thought about it and they feel there are enough people like you who aren't going to budge over something that is just one aspect. They think people will get over it or it won't be enough reason to move. So what incentive do they have? That's the point I'm trying to hammer home in considering what Sony's viewpoint is.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, but once you understand the viewpoint, then maybe you can truly understand what steps are needed to combat it. If everyone just gives empty threats, then it's meaningless and Sony has no motivation to change because you raise your one fist in anger while using your other hand to empty your wallet to them.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

Sony isn't a console.

Sony is the Trump of Sony (lol)

 

[CookTrain]

Take your stance and then multiply it by thousands who probably do the same thing. They're annoyed, but they don't take the steps to stop rewarding Sony and then once again get drawn in during the next generation for the same reasons. Why should Sony change their behavior if all you do is reward them because the games are too good.

- Sony, 2006

 

[Marty Chinn]

- Sony, 2006

If Sony launches PS5 at $600, you'd have a point for pointing out 2006.

 

[CookTrain]

If Sony launches PS5 at $600, you'd have a point for pointing out 2006.

Or if they do something equally as bone headed, like I dunno...

 

[Marty Chinn]

Or if they do something equally as bone headed, like I dunno...

Yes, if they do something equally boneheaded. Cross platform online play isn't that level of stupidity. It doesn't help, but it's not nearly going to hurt them as some might believe, especially with both companies trying to lock you into an eco system this generation. Look at how many people can't leave Apple because of 99 cent apps no matter how bad some of their choices are.

 

[CookTrain]

Yes, if they do something equally boneheaded. Cross platform online play isn't that level of stupidity. It doesn't help, but it's not nearly going to hurt them as some might believe, especially with both companies trying to lock you into an eco system this generation. Look at how many people can't leave Apple because of 99 cent apps no matter how bad some of their choices are.

Time will tell on how stupid it is to resist. I'm pretty confident that they'll fold long before it actually becomes a point of crisis. The writing will be on the wall long before it causes them trouble.

 

[Skux]

This isn't a big deal and Sony knows it.

It's less than a handful of games. Minecraft and Rocket League. No one is basing their purchasing decision on two crossplay games when there will be dozens of others that require users to own the same console. It'll be seen as a convenient novelty at best, until the Switch owner wants to play ARMS and the Xbox owner can't, so he goes back to playing Anthem.

It is not anti-consumer for Sony to restrict multiplayer services on the network they own to the console they also own. You might as well ask Apple why they don't allow access to Google Play Music.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Time will tell on how stupid it is to resist. I'm pretty confident that they'll fold long before it actually becomes a point of crisis. The writing will be on the wall long before it causes them trouble.

I agree, I think they'll fold long before it becomes a huge issue. However, if people aren't going to leave this generation over it, they can reap the benefits for the remainder of this generation and then implement it for the next one.

You might as well ask Apple why they don't allow access to Google Play Music.

Isn't Google Play Music on iOS?

 

[CookTrain]

You might as well ask Apple why they don't allow access to Google Play Music.

A more fitting example might be asking why Apple don't allow access to crossplaying with games on Android.

... they do.

EDIT: Ah, and as Marty said: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/google-play-music/id691797987?mt=8

 

[OptimusLime]

They're all for the wall too.

Sony built a wall and made gamers pay for it.

 

[Vegetable Lasagna]

Sony built a wall and made gamers pay for it.

lol

 

[Freeman76]

This is simple common sense. Sony dont need to do it, they are doing just fine. If the tables were the other way around MS wouldnt be doing it either.

 

[Magwik]

This is simple common sense. Sony dont need to do it, they are doing just fine. If the tables were the other way around MS wouldnt be doing it either.

That doesn't change how it is now.

Also I still can't comprehend just how much people are willing to defend a corporation.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

That doesn't change how it is now.

Also I still can't comprehend just how much people are willing to defend a corporation.

I still can't comprehend how people explaining why something is the way it is is construed as "defense".

 

[The Artisan]

The thing is, if they have you by the balls now because of software and you're not willing to break free now. What makes you really think you can break free of that same software grip when the PS5 comes around? Clearly the quality and line up of software is keeping you around and there's good reason to think the same could happen again.

Take your stance and then multiply it by thousands who probably do the same thing. They're annoyed, but they don't take the steps to stop rewarding Sony and then once again get drawn in during the next generation for the same reasons. Why should Sony change their behavior if all you do is reward them because the games are too good. Yes it's only one aspect of gaming, but really think about it. Sony has thought about it and they feel there are enough people like you who aren't going to budge over something that is just one aspect. They think people will get over it or it won't be enough reason to move. So what incentive do they have? That's the point I'm trying to hammer home in considering what Sony's viewpoint is.

Again, I'm not saying I agree with it, but once you understand the viewpoint, then maybe you can truly understand what steps are needed to combat it. If everyone just gives empty threats, then it's meaningless and Sony has no motivation to change because you raise your one fist in anger while using your other hand to empty your wallet to them.

Sony has won this generation in every sense of the word. Most people don't believe that the Switch will be able to outpace the sales of the Ps4 enough to outsell it lifetime wise, nor do they think that of Xbone X. The way I'll vote with my wallet is by buying an Xbox Two over a Ps5 (if Sony doesn't change their mind). They have the rest of the generation to flip but as far as the rest of the generation goes; I want my Ps4. A lot of great games in the last 3 years, a lot of great games to come in the next 3-4. If within that time frame they come to their senses about cross play then they'll have won me over and retained a customer. If not, they'll face the consequences - however minimal they may be.

This isn't a big deal and Sony knows it.

It's less than a handful of games. Minecraft and Rocket League. No one is basing their purchasing decision on two crossplay games when there will be dozens of others that require users to own the same console. It'll be seen as a convenient novelty at best, until the Switch owner wants to play ARMS and the Xbox owner can't, so he goes back to playing Anthem.

It is not anti-consumer for Sony to restrict multiplayer services on the network they own to the console they also own. You might as well ask Apple why they don't allow access to Google Play Music.

Leaving out the most complete and up to date version of arguably the best selling game ever on your platforms, is a big deal. It absolutely is anti-consumer because it clearly goes against the wishes of the consumer.

 

[Oersted]

I still can't comprehend how people explaining why something is the way it is is construed as "defense".

Likely because enough people think their explanation is an excuse. Doesn't help matters that the explanations are exclusively used to berate people who oppose Sony's decision, not those who are in favor of it. See Marty Chinn's entire post history in this thread as reference.

This is simple common sense. Sony dont need to do it, they are doing just fine. If the tables were the other way around MS wouldnt be doing it either.

Than, in sake of gamers, lets hope Sony won't win the next generation.

 

[The Artisan]

it should not matter who is winning and who is not, man..

 

[Oersted]

it should not matter who is winning and who is not, man..

No disagreement

 

[The Artisan]

No disagreement

then why "for the sake of gamers" should sony lost next generation?

 

[timetokill]

This isn't a big deal and Sony knows it.

It's less than a handful of games. Minecraft and Rocket League. No one is basing their purchasing decision on two crossplay games when there will be dozens of others that require users to own the same console. It'll be seen as a convenient novelty at best, until the Switch owner wants to play ARMS and the Xbox owner can't, so he goes back to playing Anthem.

It is not anti-consumer for Sony to restrict multiplayer services on the network they own to the console they also own. You might as well ask Apple why they don't allow access to Google Play Music.

The downplaying of Minecraft in here shows that many here never interact with kids.

 

[The Artisan]

The downplaying of Minecraft in here shows that many here never interact with kids.

Rocket League also debuted as a psplus game and featured cross play from the get go. Street Fighter 5 was also treated as a 1st party game by Sony and pushed cross play.

 

[vin-buc]

Take your stance and then multiply it by thousands who probably do the same thing. They're annoyed, but they don't take the steps to stop rewarding Sony and then once again get drawn in during the next generation for the same reasons. Why should Sony change their behavior if all you do is reward them because the games are too good.

You just said it right here. They have so many top tier GOOD games (exclusive at that). They don't need to do this at all.

 

[Synth]

then why "for the sake of gamers" should sony lost next generation?

Because whilst it "shouldn't matter", it clearly does. Every single console manufacturer has done something stupid as a result of feeling themselves a bit too much following success. The majority of the positive changes in our industry have been a result of an underdog trying to make their console more attractive.

 

[Oersted]

then why "for the sake of gamers" should sony lost next generation?

The explanation (often misstaken as defense) by Freeman76 and other is Sony is making this decision against gamers because they are the marketleaders.

I'm pointing out that if that is the case, the logical conclusion is that Sony has to lose to represent the interest of gamers (and developers).

That is not my opinion, I'm showing what posts by Freeman and Co mean in conclusion. I thought this is obvious.

 

[Nanashrew]

From Psyonix about Jim Ryan's quote.

https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/15/...-political-barrier-keeping-crossplay-off-ps4/

“I understand that stance. We want to take care of our players. But from our perspective, if PlayStation already allows cross-network with PC, which is the least regulated of any of the partners, then in theory, having Xbox and Switch in there should be fine. They’re a lot more regulated. From our perspective that concern is already handled. That’s taken care of. Our dream is that true cross-network play — we want it on all the platforms. It’s very important to us, for multiple reasons. One, you can have faster matchmaking. The bigger the pool, the faster the matchmaking. It benefits everybody. Two, you get better quality opponents. In a bigger pool you have better people who are closer to your location.”

 

[The Artisan]

Because whilst it "shouldn't matter", it clearly does. Every single console manufacturer has done something stupid as a result of feeling themselves a bit too much following success. The majority of the positive changes in our industry have been a result of an underdog trying to make their console more attractive.

from Ps1 --> Ps2 there wasn't anything hugely arrogant going on at Sony, granted I was just a kid back then but Sony was ruling consoles until Ps3, when they priced it so high and started saying things - I couldnt believe at first, I thought it was satire. Do we really think that would happen again?

The explanation (often misstaken as defense) by Freeman76 and other is Sony is making this decision against gamers because they are the marketleaders.

I'm pointing out that if that is the case, the logical conclusion is that Sony has to lose to represent the interest of gamers (and developers).

That is not my opinion, I'm showing what posts by Freeman and Co mean in conclusion. I thought this is obvious.

I got you.

From Psyonix about Jim Ryan's quote.

https://venturebeat.com/2017/06/15/...-political-barrier-keeping-crossplay-off-ps4/

I will borrow this quote sir

 

[half a moon]

It's not going to happen after MS holding a content update ransom. They would look weak.

 

[Nanashrew]

It's not going to happen after MS holding a content update ransom. They would look weak.

They're not holding it ransom. Microsoft willingly spoke with Sony about all this stuff for Minecraft and Sony said no.

In fact, Phil Spencer has said he still wants to work this out with Sony.

 

[The Artisan]

It's not going to happen after MS holding a content update ransom. They would look weak.

how is it ransom if it was offered to sony and THEY said no? if anything, sony is holding their minecraft community ransom from having the most complete version of the game available

 

[half a moon]

how is it ransom if it was offered to sony and THEY said no? if anything, sony is holding their minecraft community ransom from having the most complete version of the game available

"You only get this content update if you agree to crossplay" is absolutely ransom.

 

[The Artisan]

"You only get this content update if you agree to crossplay" is absolutely ransom.

"this content update is built for cross play so that comes with it" is not ransom.

"we are holding you back from this content update because we don't want cross play for you" - that's the "ransom" if any such thing exists here.

 

[FyreWulff]

"You only get this content update if you agree to crossplay" is absolutely ransom.

PS4 version will continue to get updates, it'll just still be the 4Jconsole engine because there's no point in taking the cost of an engine switch if one of the main features it brings won't be available.

 

[binarymelon]

"You only get this content update if you agree to crossplay" is absolutely ransom.

They're trying to unify their codebase. Why would the cater specifically to Sony when they're the only holdout?

 

[Archpath1]

Simpsons "think of the children".jpg

 

[TharpDaddy]

If the tables were the other way around MS wouldnt be doing it either.

Then why is Microsoft all for cross-play with the Switch when the Switch has a smaller install base than the Xbox? The Switch will have a smaller playerbase for a game like Rocket League. Microsoft is in the lead vs Nintendo and yet are all for cross-play, so your point doesn't hold, this is purely on Sony atm.

 

[duckroll]

"You only get this content update if you agree to crossplay" is absolutely ransom.

Please stop talking nonsense.

 

[The Artisan]

PS4 version will continue to get updates, it'll just still be the 4Jconsole engine because there's no point in taking the cost of an engine switch if one of the main features it brings won't be available.

important to note, these updates will still leave a huge gap in quality between the playstation and unified versions of the game

 

[Synth]

from Ps1 --> Ps2 there wasn't anything hugely arrogant going on at Sony, granted I was just a kid back then but Sony was ruling consoles until Ps3, when they priced it so high and started saying things - I couldnt believe at first, I thought it was satire. Do we really think that would happen again?

I'm not saying it happens with the first sniff of success. But it has happened with all three of the current players following success.

I don't think they would release a $600 console again no, because they will typically avoid anything that has already proven to harm themselves... but a lot of what Sony is doing and saying currently regarding EA Access, backwards compatibility, cross-play etc are the kind of things that a lot of people would (and did) argue Sony wouldn't do as a result of returning to the top of the pile.

 

[The Artisan]

I'm not saying it happens with the first sniff of success. But it has happened with all three of the current players following success.

I don't think they would release a $600 console again no, because they will typically avoid anything that has already proven to harm themselves... but a lot of what Sony is doing and saying currently regarding EA Access, backwards compatibility, cross-play etc tur the kind of things that a lot of people would (and did) argue Sony wouldn't do as a result of returning to the top of the pile.

I remember when Sony released the PsP Go for $250, at a time when the Ps3 was $300. That to me was Sony repeating something that harmed them (another Ps3 type launch mistake). Could you explain a little what you meant at the end? Sony saying no to EA access, talking down about BC, cross play and what critics are arguing? Not sure what you mean

 

[Seik]

Sony does well to stay away from crossplay.

These outsiders are all aliens looking for trouble, some really bad hombre out there. letting them in would simply harm your safety.

They need to keep that wall standing, doing anything else would strip PSN of it's digital purity.

#MSGA