Support NeoGAF

[Synth]

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

I wasn't referring to critics as in the media, but what a lot of posters on forums like this were saying. There has been numerous threads in the past discussing Microsoft's place in the market, where many posters expressed a desire to see them gone, or to see Sony return to the unchallenged dominance they had during the PS1 and PS2 era's because they felt MS doesn't provide any benefits to the industry, and that Sony dominance doesn't come with any negative aspects.

The PS2 is frequently cited as proof of this, but is usually just a case of people that owned the dominant platform believing that the industry as a whole was better for that dominance, simply because they viewed that console as being better. It's not that different from how some people in this thread argue in favour of Sony's decision simply because they consider themselves as part of the larger pool (the "winning team" so to speak).

It's easy to point at the PS3 as an example of "arrogant Sony" not being the best thing for the industry, primarily as a result of the 360 finding success, but this probably wouldn't have been the case if the 360 had gotten "Dreamcasted" by the PS3 that generation... people would likely today still be arguing entirely in its favour as a result of all the defacto exclusives it would have received due to the failure of the other systems, and the Sony wouldn't have had to worry about correcting their approach for the PS4, or even dealing with any negative criticism of decision like this since.

 

[Head.spawn]

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

Next up Sony is going to demand Microsoft and Nintendo pay for a firewall Jim Ryan builds to block bad Xbro-hambre's and cheeky Nintenditos from entering their network. The great greatest firewall you've seen, it'll be glorious, believe me.

 

[Liliana Eileen]

Please stop talking nonsense.

When mods are saying these things, you know there's a problem.

Can't believe people are so brainwashed by Sony that they're thinking about Microsoft using this as a hostage/ransom situation. I mean, what...?

 

[foolishoptimist]

It's easy to point at the PS3 as an example of "arrogant Sony" not being the best thing for the industry, primarily as a result of the 360 finding success, but this probably wouldn't have been the case if the 360 had gotten "Dreamcasted" by the PS3 that generation... people would likely today still be arguing entirely in its favour as a result of all the defacto exclusives it would have received due to the failure of the other systems, and the Sony wouldn't have had to worry about correcting their approach for the PS4, or even dealing with any negative criticism of decision like this since.

That kind of ignores the problems devs faced with the shift to HD. Games development got significantly more expensive than the previous gen, so having a platform that was difficult to develop for just made development even more expensive.

Also, the PS3 was still ultimately successful. The Cell not being adopted by other tech didn't have anything to do with the 360's presence.

A change in approach to hardware and dev environments was going to be needed regardless.

 

[Daffy Duck]

I wonder if I would be able to request a refund for this on my PS4, and I wonder if other people could request a refund.

 

[Skux]

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.

It's not anti-consumer just because you want something and the company doesn't give it to you.

 

[Planet]

Can't stand any more of these defending of corporate bullshit, abandoning thread...

 

[Teran]

I hope Sony continues shitting down their customers' throats so people will remember that they're a scummy corporation like the rest of them. Sony is the type of company that has used a fucking rootkit as DRM in the past, why should anyone be surprised that they'd tell their customers to go fuck themselves the moment they have a dominant market share?

 

[Planet]

fucking rootkit

Thanks for the time travel, haven't seen that in a while, LOL!

The rootkit was from Sony BMG (which doesn't exist anymore), a 50-50 daughter of Sony Global and Bertelsmann AG (a german company with other very shady activities). Sony Computer Entertainment - the PlayStation department that was later renamed to SIE - had absolfuckinglutely nothing to do with that terrible rootkit.

And I have yet to see anyone online blaming Bertelsmann for that abomination...

EDIT: Whoops, forgot the abandoning part... XD

 

[jsnepo]

I believe Jim Ryan is one of the last remnants of the arrogant Sony period.

 

[Teran]

Thanks for the time travel, haven't seen that in a while, LOL!

The rootkit was from Sony BMG (which doesn't exist anymore), a 50-50 daughter of Sony Global and Bertelsmann AG (a german company with other very shady activities). Sony Computer Entertainment - the PlayStation department that was later renamed to SIE - had absolfuckinglutely nothing to do with that terrible rootkit.

And I have yet to see anyone online blaming Bertelsmann for that abomination...

I know it was a different department, but they're all under the same umbrella of Sony. I mean, I don't want to bring up a laundry list of stupid things Kutaragi said in public at this point because it would just be too much work. Basically long story short Sony is just as bad as MS, and I'm sad that people bought into their nice guy act at E3 2013.

Edit: It seems you came back to defend corporations. ;3

 

[Planet]

Teehee, nah, rather advising putting the blame in the right basket.

 

[Lom1lo]

It's not anti-consumer just because you want something and the company doesn't give it to you.

No but its anti-consumer because it would be better for their customers if they allow it. By not allowing it their customers get a worse Version of the game, a smaller userbase and later Updates (if at all).

What is wrong with you people defending this?!

 

[The Artisan]

It's not anti-consumer just because you want something and the company doesn't give it to you.

Why isn't it anti-consumer?

 

[GiantBreadbug]

It's not anti-consumer just because you want something and the company doesn't give it to you.

It kind of totally fucking is?

It's, like, nearly a textbook definition of it?

Especially when plenty of consumers want it?

And the only downside is "maybe the business possibly in some certain scenarios won't get as much money hypothetically?"

Do you know what anti-consumer means?

 

[Magwik]

I believe Jim Ryan is one of the last remnants of the arrogant Sony period.

He's more like a punching bag they roll out to deflect it off of the other faces of PlayStation

 

[Synth]

That kind of ignores the problems devs faced with the shift to HD. Games development got significantly more expensive than the previous gen, so having a platform that was difficult to develop for just made development even more expensive.

Also, the PS3 was still ultimately successful. The Cell not being adopted by other tech didn't have anything to do with the 360's presence.

A change in approach to hardware and dev environments was going to be needed regardless.

No, because you've seemingly assumed that I'm simply referring to Cell for some reason.

Remember, this was the era of "the first 5 million will buy it even if it has no games", and the the rumbleless Six-Axis. The cost of the PS3 (and the year late launch with aged its specs) was also a result of using the console as a driver for the BluRay format, which whilst far more successful, isn't far removed from MS' TV and Kinect play this gen.

The point is, that if the 360 didn't get that year head start to build library and momentum (especially with XBL), chances are none of the PS3's issues would have been enough to prevent them rolling all over the Xbox again that generation, which would have lead to them keeping the defacto exclusives they'd been receiving up to that point (Final Fantasy, Resident Evil, Devil May Cry, etc), and the console would likely today be looked back on as another shining example of Sony domination being a good thing, because look at all the games it gave us.

Hell, even when you look back on the heralded PS2 era, people will just ignore the memory card situation (which the Vita shows could well have continued on the console side), the lack of online adoption, and the fact that games were being declined for being 2D.

 

[Usobuko]

Part of a console appeal is being on the same platform with all your friends there and it's already mid generation with Sony outselling closest competitor more than 2:1.

I believe this is the main reason why they refuse, it's against their interest as market leader.

From a business point of view, even if this trend persist, it probably won't hurt them. Switch rarely gets western multiplat while Xbox rarely gets Japanese ones. PC on the other hand, they might give in like street fighter V.

Talking out of my ass here.

 

[Skux]

It kind of totally fucking is?

It's, like, nearly a textbook definition of it?

Especially when plenty of consumers want it?

And the only downside is "maybe the business possibly in some certain scenarios won't get as much money hypothetically?"

Do you know what anti-consumer means?

By your definition you might as well say that Nintendo not releasing Super Mario Odyssey on PS4 is anti-consumer.

anti-consumer

improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

Emphasis on "improper". There is nothing improper or illegal about Sony restricting multiplayer to within their own platform. It's their house and their rules. They are not obligated to offer crossplay just because it's a feature of another platform. And for whatever reason, whether it's money, legal reasons, #4thechildren, brand protection, whatever it is - they have chosen not to.

 

[TheYanger]

By your definition you might as well say that Nintendo not releasing Super Mario Odyssey on PS4 is anti-consumer.

Terrible analogy. People that have already bought PS4s and already bought Minecraft are being fucked over by the company they put their faith in. It is LITERALLY "anti-consumer" (Against the consumer, which by definition every PS4 owner is). Mario Odyssey is a product that no PS4 consumer expects to get, and you aren't a consumer of it if you're not already considering playing it on a switch.

This is about companies literally trying to provide superior products at no cost to sony and being told that they can't because of Sony's shareholder logic.

In your textbook definition you think you're rules lawyering people about: "Improperly" is referring to the act itself, favoring business over the consumer's interests is inherently improper.

 

[TsuWave]

Terrible analogy. People that have already bought PS4s and already bought Minecraft are being fucked over by the company they put their faith in. It is LITERALLY "anti-consumer" (Against the consumer, which by definition every PS4 owner is). Mario Odyssey is a product that no PS4 consumer expects to get, and you aren't a consumer of it if you're not already considering playing it on a switch.

to be fair when you bought minecraft on ps4 you weren't "expecting" to have cross platform play, it was not advertised as having it. just because other platforms support it now, it doesn't necessarily translate into you being fucked over or sony misusing/abusing your faith.

 

[TheYanger]

to be fair when you bought minecraft on ps4 you weren't "expecting" to have cross platform play

No, but it's being offered, for free, by the creators of the game. You, as a PS4 owner, expect Sony to have your best interests as a customer in mind when they make decisions like this.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Terrible analogy. People that have already bought PS4s and already bought Minecraft are being fucked over by the company they put their faith in. It is LITERALLY "anti-consumer" (Against the consumer, which by definition every PS4 owner is). Mario Odyssey is a product that no PS4 consumer expects to get, and you aren't a consumer of it if you're not already considering playing it on a switch.

This is about companies literally trying to provide superior products at no cost to sony and being told that they can't because of Sony's shareholder logic.

In your textbook definition you think you're rules lawyering people about: "Improperly" is referring to the act itself, favoring business over the consumer's interests is inherently improper.

Let's see the new Minecraft launch first. It could end up being a mess, and the customer would be stuck with it. It's unlikely but stranger things have happened. Some people avoided windows 10 like the plague, and for good reason at first, but now it's probably good enough, and people know how to get rid of a lot of the crap they have in it. I gave up on Cortana, and some other things (I'm sure there is a way to get rid of it totally, but it removes the search feature that win 7 and 8 had).

 

[m00h]

By your definition you might as well say that Nintendo not releasing Super Mario Odyssey on PS4 is anti-consumer.

This.
I don't understand why people on gaf act like rebellious children sometimes, if it comes to business-decisions. Sony never promised a crossplay feature to you, still you bought their device. You don't like the fact that they are not playing the cross-plattform game? Understandable. Sure thing, let Sony know that you don't like the decision they've met. But don't act like you have any right to have corss-platform multiplayer, just because some other company (companies, but we know who's the influencer here) are at a massive disadvantage because of their "small" userbase and are trying to catch up somehow.
Microsoft, being in Sony's position, selling they console in a 2:1 ratio, would never ever allow cross-platform-multiplayer, so why should Sony? Microsoft has been running Xbox Live since 2002, and there never was any kind of initiative to open up the doors to other networks. Now they are loosing massively, and, oh my, they became the saviour of the gaming world. How kind of Microsoft, how bad of Sony.

 

[TsuWave]

No, but it's being offered, for free, by the creators of the game. You, as a PS4 owner, expect Sony to have your best interests as a customer in mind when they make decisions like this.

I feel the goalposts have shifted here regarding your last post. I expect sony to fulfil their commitments to me regarding the product i paid for.

 

[Septic360]

This.
I don't understand why people on gaf act like rebellious children sometimes, if it comes to business-decisions. Sony never promised a crossplay feature to you, still you bought their device. You don't like the fact that they are not playing the cross-plattform game? Understandable. Sure thing, let Sony know that you don't like the decision they've met. But don't act like you have any right to have corss-platform multiplayer, just because some other company (companies, but we know who's the influencer here) are at a massive disadvantage because of their "small" userbase and are trying to catch up somehow.
Microsoft, being in Sony's position, selling they console in a 2:1 ratio, would never ever allow cross-platform-multiplayer, so why should Sony?

Well then tell Sony to drop the "4 the Players" motto

 

[Usobuko]

Well then tell Sony to drop the "4 the Players" motto

They charge you 60 for online gaming and this is what you wanna them to take down the marketing slogan?

 

[TsuWave]

This.
I don't understand why people on gaf act like rebellious children sometimes, if it comes to business-decisions. Sony never promised a crossplay feature to you, still you bought their device. You don't like the fact that they are not playing the cross-plattform game? Understandable. Sure thing, let Sony know that you don't like the decision they've met. But don't act like you have any right to have corss-platform multiplayer, just because some other company.

Exactly what i'm saying

They charge you 60 for online gaming and this is what you wanna them to take down the marketing slogan?

lmao

 

[Oersted]

Nintendo invested money in the development of Super Mario Odyssey. I can't recall Sony invested money in the development of Tekken, Minecraft, Wargroove, Gwent, Rocket League, Pure Chess and Gunscape.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

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

We have the PS4 because of the PS3. The point should be quite obvious.

 

[GhostTrick]

This.
I don't understand why people on gaf act like rebellious children sometimes, if it comes to business-decisions. Sony never promised a crossplay feature to you, still you bought their device. You don't like the fact that they are not playing the cross-plattform game? Understandable. Sure thing, let Sony know that you don't like the decision they've met. But don't act like you have any right to have corss-platform multiplayer, just because some other company (companies, but we know who's the influencer here) are at a massive disadvantage because of their "small" userbase and are trying to catch up somehow.
Microsoft, being in Sony's position, selling they console in a 2:1 ratio, would never ever allow cross-platform-multiplayer, so why should Sony? Microsoft has been running Xbox Live since 2002, and there never was any kind of initiative to open up the doors to other networks. Now they are loosing massively, and, oh my, they became the saviour of the gaming world. How kind of Microsoft, how bad of Sony.

New features happens. That's why. But yeah, whatever, what a strange reality we live in, when big new features happen, and a subset of consumer are here to claim "Stop whining for the lack of new features ! The company is leading 2:1 so it's good enough ! "
No one's claiming Microsoft is some savior or what.
Heck, Microsoft is not the point here.

The thing here though is major video game actors are opening their network for crossplay between them. The third one refuse.

See where this is fucked up ?

 

[Skux]

This.
I don't understand why people on gaf act like rebellious children sometimes, if it comes to business-decisions. Sony never promised a crossplay feature to you, still you bought their device. You don't like the fact that they are not playing the cross-plattform game.

It's like the next-gen version of port begging. You didn't even know it existed five minutes ago and now that it does, it needs to be on every platform or it's a "betrayal" by the platform owner.

 

[Alucardx23]

This.
I don't understand why people on gaf act like rebellious children sometimes, if it comes to business-decisions. Sony never promised a crossplay feature to you, still you bought their device. You don't like the fact that they are not playing the cross-plattform game? Understandable. Sure thing, let Sony know that you don't like the decision they've met. But don't act like you have any right to have corss-platform multiplayer, just because some other company (companies, but we know who's the influencer here) are at a massive disadvantage because of their "small" userbase and are trying to catch up somehow.
Microsoft, being in Sony's position, selling they console in a 2:1 ratio, would never ever allow cross-platform-multiplayer, so why should Sony? Microsoft has been running Xbox Live since 2002, and there never was any kind of initiative to open up the doors to other networks. Now they are loosing massively, and, oh my, they became the saviour of the gaming world. How kind of Microsoft, how bad of Sony.

The Big difference here is that this is Microsoft saying that they have opened their online borders and any developer can do crossplay if they want. The equivalent example would be if Nintendo says that they want to bring Mario to other consoles, but Sony won't allow it. Would you like to have the option to play with other friends on other consoles or not?

 

[Novocaine]

It's like the next-gen version of port begging. You didn't even know it existed five minutes ago and now that it does, it needs to be on every platform or it's a "betrayal" by the platform owner.

It's nothing like port begging. The concept of cross platform play isn't new, it just wasn't a reality then. Now the technology is here to do it right and companies are willing to work towards it it's becoming a reality, so yeah it's what everyone is talking about.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Nintendo invested money in the development of Super Mario Odyssey. I can't recall Sony invested money in the development of Tekken, Minecraft, Wargroove, Gwent, Rocket League, Pure Chess and Gunscape.

In this case it would be that sony developed PS4 not the games. The games have to be approved by Sony to launch on their console. They can work out agreements and meet requirements on other platforms that don't go by sony requirements. So in essence they do have a say in how games are made for their platform, especially PSN. EA and FIFA have some exploits that got through and that may be looked at strictly from now on.

 

[Hentailover]

I feel the goalposts have shifted here regarding your last post. I expect sony to fulfil their commitments to me regarding the product i paid for.

I dunno, I'm with him. If I bought a product on a sony for the same price as people on competing platforms, and yet, they are now getting a better product, but I don't because platform holder I chose to support doesn't want to. Not a good way to treat your consumer:

"They are getting better deal? why aren't we?"
"Cuz I don't want to, deal with it"

 

[Ploid 3.0]

It's nothing like port begging. The concept of cross platform play isn't new, it just wasn't a reality then. Now the technology is here to do it right and companies are willing to work towards it it's becoming a reality, so yeah it's what everyone is talking about.

What has changed tech wise? It's always been possible, and done. Microsoft just waited too late. Both, all 3 consoles have pay for online now, and sony probably doesn't want to jeopardize that pie (Thanks xbox players for accepting pay for online play...). There were companies wanting to make it happen in the past too. It did happen one time, one single time, when Microsoft wanted Square on their console at any cost. FFXI was cross play with PC, PS2, PS3 (backwards compatible), and Xbox 360. After microsoft got Square accustomed to their platform they were done with deals like that. FFXIV on Xbox 360 rejected, early Xbox One, nope. Probably can't even get it on there now.

 

[wesleyshark]

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

Crossplay is a key feature of the update itself. You can't have one without the other. It's not ransom.

 

[8byte]

If every game releasing from this point forward on xbox / switch were crossplay with Xbox/Swotch/PC...there would be something here to bitch about.

That's not the case.

Nothing is going to change, just buy Minecraft on PC and enjoy your crossplay there. It'll run on a toaster.

This thread is so dramatic and weird, and full of hyperbole.

 

[CookTrain]

If every game releasing from this point forward on xbox / switch were crossplay with Xbox/Swotch/PC...there would be something here to bitch about.

That's not the case.

Nothing is going to change, just buy Minecraft on PC and enjoy your crossplay there. It'll run on a toaster.

This thread is so dramatic and weird, and full of hyperbole.

You know a handful of other games have come out since the Minecraft announcement declaring they'll be cross platform as well? Maybe Sony best hope it doesn't become a trend?

 

[Daffy Duck]

If every game releasing from this point forward on xbox / switch were crossplay with Xbox/Swotch/PC...there would be something here to bitch about.

That's not the case.

Nothing is going to change, just buy Minecraft on PC and enjoy your crossplay there. It'll run on a toaster.

This thread is so dramatic and weird, and full of hyperbole.

Why should I have to abandon all of my progress on the PS4 version to go to another platform and start all over again when Sony are being idiots about this?

 

[wesleyshark]

If every game releasing from this point forward on xbox / switch were crossplay with Xbox/Swotch/PC...there would be something here to bitch about.

That's not the case.

Nothing is going to change, just buy Minecraft on PC and enjoy your crossplay there. It'll run on a toaster.

This thread is so dramatic and weird, and full of hyperbole.

It's more about Sony's stance is the concern. It's not a good look, and it doesn't bode well for things they may do or not do down the line. Microsoft got pretty damn arrogant during the 360 gen. Do you want to see Sony keep going down that path?

 

[8byte]

It's more about Sony's stance is the concern. It's not a good look, and it doesn't bode well for things they may do or not do down the line. Microsoft got pretty damn arrogant during the 360 gen. Do you want to see Sony keep going down that path?

Is that really what you think this is though?

Arrogance?

Let's take a minute to acknowledge that at one point, Sony was on the very brink of bankruptcy and PlayStation was in danger of disappearing (because of real arrogance). They still haven't completely clawed themselves out of the PS3 hole. Potentially giving up users to another platform is a bad business decision, because you're giving up, potentially, $60 a year. It is understandable why Sony would not want to take that risk, especially at a point when "crossplay" is simply a hodgepodge of software solutions from a few smaller 3rd party studios.

Let's also remember that Sony's security was tarnished in 2009 with the hacks that brought their entire network down. I can see them not wanting to potentially compromise their system through 3rd party software that allows access to their network through hardware they don't control. If the Switch / XBO gets hacked and crossplay is enabled, then the PSN user base is then exposed to a compromised online play experience for $60/yr.

Furthermore, Nintendo and Microsoft aren't doing this for you. This isn't about you. This is about enticing people to come to their platforms for their benefit to combat the market leader. They do not care about you. Sony does not care about you. This is about money. It will always be about money. This is not about being consumer friendly. It is about expanding the MAU's and bringing people into the XBL/Switch online ecosystem and making money off of them.

Please understand this.

 

[Widge]

This is about companies literally trying to provide superior products at no cost to sony and being told that they can't because of Sony's shareholder logic.

Microsoft get to advertise their platform on Sony and gain a user registration, which can also then be used for marketing purposes. Also removes a barrier to getting people on said service if they can trojan it in via a game.

There may be no cost, but Microsoft certainly get some business gains out of it. I also highly doubt Microsoft would accept PSN logins on Live.

3rd party, ok yeah, there is a case there but obviously Sony don't feel there is enough of a gain by adopting it.

 

[Novocaine]

What has changed tech wise? It's always been possible, and done. Microsoft just waited too late. Both, all 3 consoles have pay for online now, and sony probably doesn't want to jeopardize that pie (Thanks xbox players for accepting pay for online play...). There were companies wanting to make it happen in the past too. It did happen one time, one single time, when Microsoft wanted Square on their console at any cost. FFXI was cross play with PC, PS2, PS3 (backwards compatible), and Xbox 360. After microsoft got Square accustomed to their platform they were done with deals like that. FFXIV on Xbox 360 rejected, early Xbox One, nope. Probably can't even get it on there now.

I'm unsure at what you're getting at with this FF thing. There has been smatterings of cross play between all sorts of stuff for a while but it's never been something as big as Minecraft, across EVERY platform.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

I'm unsure at what you're getting at with this FF thing. There has been smatterings of cross play between all sorts of stuff for a while but it's never been something as big as Minecraft, across EVERY platform.

I was mentioning a game that proved the tech isn't new, tech that allow cross play between multiple platforms, 4 platforms. I suppose you just talking about Minecraft tech. The cloud thing that store worlds.

 

[wesleyshark]

Is that really what you think this is though?

Arrogance?

Let's take a minute to acknowledge that at one point, Sony was on the very brink of bankruptcy and PlayStation was in danger of disappearing (because of real arrogance). They still haven't completely clawed themselves out of the PS3 hole. Potentially giving up users to another platform is a bad business decision, because you're giving up, potentially, $60 a year. It is understandable why Sony would not want to take that risk, especially at a point when "crossplay" is simply a hodgepodge of software solutions from a few smaller 3rd party studios.

Let's also remember that Sony's security was tarnished in 2009 with the hacks that brought their entire network down. I can see them not wanting to potentially compromise their system through 3rd party software that allows access to their network through hardware they don't control. If the Switch / XBO gets hacked and crossplay is enabled, then the PSN user base is then exposed to a compromised online play experience for $60/yr.

Furthermore, Nintendo and Microsoft aren't doing this for you. This isn't about you. This is about enticing people to come to their platforms for their benefit to combat the market leader. They do not care about you. Sony does not care about you. This is about money. It will always be about money. This is not about being consumer friendly. It is about expanding the MAU's and bringing people into the XBL/Switch online ecosystem and making money off of them.

Please understand this.

>_<

 

[Oersted]

In this case it would be that sony developed PS4 not the games. The games have to be approved by Sony to launch on their console. They can work out agreements and meet requirements on other platforms that don't go by sony requirements. So in essence they do have a say in how games are made for their platform, especially PSN. EA and FIFA have some exploits that got through and that may be looked at strictly from now on.

I know they are restricting it. But thanks for telling me I guess.

 

[8byte]

>_<

You disagree? You think MS/Nintendo doing this is "for the players"?

 

[Oersted]

Is that really what you think this is though?

Arrogance?

Let's take a minute to acknowledge that at one point, Sony was on the very brink of bankruptcy and PlayStation was in danger of disappearing (because of real arrogance). They still haven't completely clawed themselves out of the PS3 hole. Potentially giving up users to another platform is a bad business decision, because you're giving up, potentially, $60 a year. It is understandable why Sony would not want to take that risk, especially at a point when "crossplay" is simply a hodgepodge of software solutions from a few smaller 3rd party studios.

Let's also remember that Sony's security was tarnished in 2009 with the hacks that brought their entire network down. I can see them not wanting to potentially compromise their system through 3rd party software that allows access to their network through hardware they don't control. If the Switch / XBO gets hacked and crossplay is enabled, then the PSN user base is then exposed to a compromised online play experience for $60/yr.

Furthermore, Nintendo and Microsoft aren't doing this for you. This isn't about you. This is about enticing people to come to their platforms for their benefit to combat the market leader. They do not care about you. Sony does not care about you. This is about money. It will always be about money. This is not about being consumer friendly. It is about expanding the MAU's and bringing people into the XBL/Switch online ecosystem and making money off of them.

Please understand this.

I'm a tech noob and even I know how this is not how it works.