wesleyshark
Banned
No, but I also don't buy your conspiracy theories either.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Sony defends decision to block crossplay: "A responsibility to our install base."
- Thread starter Cerium
- Start date
Regardless of their motivation, this benefits the players and thats why people support their decision.
tiredheadcrab
Member
But think of the corporation and whats at stake for them!!
Yes I will have the gimped version of Minecraft but so what!! Sony needs to think of security. Instead of investing into better security to assure consumers that wont happen again, its best if we cut off all outside access to the possibly inferior Xbox live rather than investing into our security and network as the market leader.
Woo what a corporate ass kisser.
Microsoft is doing it because it will allow them to easier loose their customers wallets when they realize that dlc they buy is available everywhere...people will pay for more realms servers when it becomes super easy to play with all their friends
Nintendo is doing this so that Minecraft sells well on their platform
Did anyone post this:
https://www.cnet.com/news/sony-still-blocks-cross-platform-multiplayer-xbox-nintendo-e3-2017/
CNET ripped them apart for this decision. lol. Hope the pressure continues. Bigger player base can only be a good thing and give games a longer life span. Titanfall on PC needs this bad.
https://www.cnet.com/news/sony-still-blocks-cross-platform-multiplayer-xbox-nintendo-e3-2017/
CNET ripped them apart for this decision. lol. Hope the pressure continues. Bigger player base can only be a good thing and give games a longer life span. Titanfall on PC needs this bad.
Ooh yes, more pressure like that!
wesleyshark
Banned
Straight fire. Good on them. More people need to rip into them over this.
I was just going to post this
Sgt.Pepper
Banned
Corporations are my friends. 😚
tiredheadcrab
Member
When they said PlayStation island, it reminded me of Colin and Gregs vita island. There is no leaving vita island btw.
The Artisan
Member
? we have the xbone because of the 360, we have the switch because of the wii u. we have the Ps4 because it's Ps3's successor. what is your point?
Legitimately none of that is conspiracy. They are all sound reasons why a business would be hesitant.
I'll simplify.
Every decision is based on gain/loss. Does the business gain more than it loses because of this decision? That's as simple as it is. At this point Sony gains very little.
If MS had stated that "every game from this point is now crossplay compatible" we'd have a different situation on our hands with justifiable outrage.
This is a handful of titles, and at that, the solutions to enable crossplay are on a game-by-game basis. Not a uniform standard system.
As for that CNET article, it's good but that first paragraph is incredibly misleading. No, we probably wouldn't be playing Overwatch or Destiny cross platform, because not a single developer or publisher has hinted at that broad level of system wide crossplay.
Stop trying to convince us Sony is greedy and therefore doesn't act in the interest of consumers.
TrebuchetGames
Member
Personally I don't mind at all. I can see the benefits and the disadvantages. From both a user numbers and business perspective. I think some of the hate that I've seen is a little over the top...
The Artisan
Member
i don't care what mS's reasonings are. i don't give a fuck what they stand to gain from marketing or MAU or any of that fuckin shit. i as a consumer stand to gain from them joining the communities and i want it on my Ps4, it's also Psyonix volunteering and enthusiastically pushing for it too. they got no stake in who wins this godforsaken console war
Cross-play personally doesn't affect me. I don't see the value of cross-play for other PS4 players nor do I have the minimum amount of empathy to care about such trivial matters. I really don't care about the fact that a company, given the opportunity to improve their service, decided not to do it and additionally blatantly lie about their reasoning for not doing so. Additionally, to show how much I don't care about this, I decided to post in this thread and, lol, look at how mad other people are for laying valid criticism.
Sony is a business, why should they allow for cross-play? Where's the money value in that? You guys are children. Why are you criticizing their decision to not improve their service for the consumer? I care a great deal about Sony receiving criticism in this matter and felt compelled to keep you in check for beneficial reasons only known to me.
I have a butthurt, reactionary perspective on MS being perceived more favourably than Sony in this particular context and feel the need to bring up history. See? Microsoft was even worse! Look at them trying to weasel their way into looking good in this situation! Wake up, people. WHERE was this criticism for Microsoft for situation X, about Y time ago????? Now, for beneficial reasons only known to me, stop grilling Sony on this matter, guys.
In conclusion, for beneficial reasons known only to me, stop criticizing Sony on this matter.
Sony is a business, why should they allow for cross-play? Where's the money value in that? You guys are children. Why are you criticizing their decision to not improve their service for the consumer? I care a great deal about Sony receiving criticism in this matter and felt compelled to keep you in check for beneficial reasons only known to me.
I have a butthurt, reactionary perspective on MS being perceived more favourably than Sony in this particular context and feel the need to bring up history. See? Microsoft was even worse! Look at them trying to weasel their way into looking good in this situation! Wake up, people. WHERE was this criticism for Microsoft for situation X, about Y time ago????? Now, for beneficial reasons only known to me, stop grilling Sony on this matter, guys.
In conclusion, for beneficial reasons known only to me, stop criticizing Sony on this matter.
Why? Clearly everyone seems to be missing that point.
No corporation acts in the interests of their consumers. Even this little crossplay initiative on these titles isn't actually in the interests of consumers. It's a calculated hit on Sony. MS makes enough money on Minecraft that they absolutely don't lose anything here, and gain a blow to their biggest competitor that was doing the same shit "hit piece" PR on them years ago.
Everyone seems to think Nintendo and MS are teaming up for consumer good, and that's not the case. They're just waging war on Sony, and this was a small blow.
When this is a big, system wide feature where every game published on these consoles is crossplay compatible (or at least it's supported in the SDK) then there is zero reason for Sony to join the party to protect their business interests.
Samurai G0SU
Member
bye jim ryan. i hate your name
The Artisan
Member
crossplay isn't a trivial matter and if you don't see a value for Ps4 players then you missed the 50+ pages of discussion in this thread
Don't worry, everyone got your point Sony is being greedy and therefore acts against your interests.
What you have to understand is that despite Microsoft and Nintendo being greedy , this move is still pro-consumer, a fact you already admitted.
The Artisan
Member
this. i don't give a fuck if it is a business decision for mS and sony, i'm a consumer and that's why i want this
Nah, fuck this. I've seen this sentiment posted quite a bit and its utter horseshit.
PlayStation players spent the entirety of the previous generation pointing at Xbox players and being all "lol, paying for p2p"... but the moment PS+ was required for PS4 multiplayer, they just fell in line and paid it. Sony don't charge for online because Xbox players were willing to pay for XBLG... they charge for online because they knew that PlayStation players would also pay it. You hae/had the same choices available that Xbox players did. You can choose to not play the games that interest you the most online at all (whether that be Halo, Gears or Gran Turismo or Uncharted), you can move to PC where you don't have to pay, or you could have bolstered the remaining console that didn't require online play (the Wiii U, which everyone left to die worse than any console since the Dreamcast). PlayStation players opted for none of these choices, and just like Xbox players opted to pay in order to play what was important to them, or within the environment that was important to them.
Xbox Live was so successful at getting people to pay for online, because Microsoft created a service that was so much better at the time for online play that it was viewed as worth paying for over the free alternatives. Maybe if Sony hadn't spent an entire generation mostly ignoring the efforts Sega and Microsoft had been making to legitimise online play on consoles, then their free alternative would have been more effective at drawing players (who were likely to have been PlayStation players in the prior generation) to their console instead.
Right.
And I'm saying until MS or Nintendo full on commit to a system wide solution that benefits all games on the platforms, we won't see much change, because the business interests will outweigh the PR backlash for two or three titles that aren't cross play on Sony's platform.
It's not just two or three titles. It's a policy issue that impacts all future multiplatform games, and no party has indicated whatsoever that it's a developer problem. The fact that MS and Nintendo allows for cross-platform multiplayer is about as "system-wide" as it gets. Developers are willing to solve the technical aspects of crossplay themselves, and larger devs can certainly create highly-portable libraries to this effect.
The Artisan
Member
yup. the big 3 has always referred to sony, mS and nintendo, 2 out of the 3 are game for this. also, Psyonix for the record said it's not something they have to solve.
blue_phazon
Member
Crossplay benefits gamers, including you. Let Sony deal with the business perspective.
What is with people defending companies against their own interests?
Well, I just don't see any considerably momentum happening on crossplay titles unless Sony/MS/Nintendo all agree to terms / libraries where every title can play online together, not just a case by case basis where developers are left to figure out the technical side by themselves.
You're asking for all progress to happen overnight. The first step is every platform holder needs to be up for it in the first place. Insisting it has no momentum until it's half complete is myopic.
Sony should allow cross-play. Then have Housemarque develop a series and PS/Switch cross-play titles. Give em want they want and reel them in. Especially since Switch in not a direct competitor per say. Fold for the sake of Minecraft and Rocket League but only foster titles between them and Nintendo. Cross-play is super beneficial still doesn't mean this was not a smart move by MS. Sony is in a tough spot here. You dont have to be friend to want to make money. They should play this smart then just put their foot on the gas.
Possible titles:
Resogun
Matterfall
Possible Vanillaware titles in specific Dragons' Crown.
See in SE can implement some cross-play between PS/Switch for Dragon Quest XI.
Bring back ModNation Racers as a GaaS.
Possible titles:
Resogun
Matterfall
Possible Vanillaware titles in specific Dragons' Crown.
See in SE can implement some cross-play between PS/Switch for Dragon Quest XI.
Bring back ModNation Racers as a GaaS.
Well played Microsoft... that billion dollar acquisition of Mojang is paying off huh?
Companies looking out for their competitive advantage(s) doesn't really need defending.
What you and others perceive as "defending companies" is more like addressing reality.
The Artisan
Member
i dunno about 1st party titles going multiplat bro
If you believe that the underlying issue is a problem with software standards, then yeah that would be true. But no one has made the case that there is one, and in absence of that, there is no such problem needed to be solved. The only thing that's become obvious is that there is a business arrangement aspect to allow for crossplay, and that's mainly with the individual party to lay out the terms that protects the party from business or other harm. Psyonix has asked for that, and Sony basically indicated that they are not interested.
I believe what's happening behind closed doors is that Microsoft is essentially writing the contract that demands they gather and hold all player information.
Nintendo doesn't have a solid infrastructure for online gaming, and hasn't monetized it as well as Valve, Microsoft, or Sony. Of course they'd take the license for a popular property.
I know everyone is angry at Sony here, but there is a considerable conversation about who owns the player data. Cross play will be coming, but legal needs to work on it.
Nintendo doesn't have a solid infrastructure for online gaming, and hasn't monetized it as well as Valve, Microsoft, or Sony. Of course they'd take the license for a popular property.
I know everyone is angry at Sony here, but there is a considerable conversation about who owns the player data. Cross play will be coming, but legal needs to work on it.
I think you might be plucking that one out of thin air. Why would that prevent Rocket League, which isn't any Microsoft contractual obligation?
Look, if Minecraft were the only game this were affecting, then there would be more of a conversation to be had there. Whilst XBL may present a stumbling block to getting Mineccraft crossplay on PS4... it's one that isn't even reached, because Sony isn't allowing crossplay for other games either.
Marty Chinn
Member
Given your stance here and your claims of anti-consumer, at the very least wouldn't Minecraft not being updated for the PS4 minus cross play be held to the same standard of criticism? Microsoft could release an updated version of the game on the PS4 with everything but cross play. It's not some impossible hurdle that they can't overcome. You simply spin up PS4 only servers that the game points to instead of the global ones and then isolate them in that sandbox with all the features and graphical updates.
As a consumer you claim to not give one shit of the business realities because that's not your problem, shouldn't you complain about Microsoft not giving you the updated game still? Isn't that anti-consumer based on your definition of not giving PS4 players an updated version for all the other features since people want it? At some point Sony's hard no may stay so then it's up to Microsoft at that point to choose if they want to give an updated game or not to the PS4 players that want and demand the new features. If you don't care why they make their decision, then clearly Microsoft should execute plan B and give you the updated game without cross play otherwise that's anti-consumer according to you.
The Artisan
Member
good point. i keep forgetting that both rocket league and minecraft cases came to light almost simultaneously. one mS owned, one third party
The Artisan
Member
that's not how this update works though and that has been covered a million times. Cerium would do a better job at explaining it but it's something along the lines of one the Bedrock Engine's point of initiation being to unify all of the user base platforms; that being the point why create an extra strain on the developers for another version of the update specifically for sony platforms when at that point, those versions are dwarfed in user base and all problems would just be solved if sony complied?
So you don't think it's feasible that Sony doesn't want to open their network to others via a 3rd party, "case-by-case" software solution?
I think if pressure is great enough on all of the big 3 to creat a unified standard for cross platform play, we could see real progress.
But until then, I just don't see this really gaming any meangful traction for the majority of games.
Marty Chinn
Member
But you don't care about that though. That's a behind the scenes business decision. Making a PS4 version of the update is not impossible. I get the point of what they're doing with the update, but there is absolutely no technical reason they cannot make a PS4 verison with all these features that stands alone. Why do you care about he strain on the developer when you don't give a shit about the business realities? After all you're a consumer and don't give a shit about that as you've stated so many times. Do you see what I'm getting at?
The Artisan
Member
if the reason the conglomerate is prohibiting cross play is because of arrogance and just an unwillingness to collaborate with the competition and I the consumer am aware of that then it's easy to know who to blame. honestly man you're coming off to me as just coming up with any sort of argument to push devil's advocate from "no one even knows about the minecraft update" to "why aren't you neutral about what the devs have done and can also do"
Marty Chinn
Member
It just seems hypocritical to say you don't care about the business realities as a consumer, when in practice it's one sided. In this case you don't care what the stakes are or the hit that Sony may take from this, but you seem to care about the hit that Microsoft would incur by updating the PS4 version without cross play. Why? Then, you are quick to blame Sony as being anti-consumer for not allowing cross play because it's a benefit to the consumer and consumers want it, but dismiss that Microsoft not giving PS4 players the update as being anti-competitive for not giving the update for business reasons even though consumers want it.
It just seems contradictory to condemn one and not the other on those principles. The fact is, you are ignoring the business realities of Sony and calling them anti-consumer while acknowledging Microsoft's business realities of the impact of updating the PS4 version and ignoring the anti-consumer element of holding back the update from people who want it because of those business decisions. If you didn't care about the business reality, you should be demanding Microsoft to update the PS4 version anyway.
For the record, I understand the business realities of both parties, and acknowledge that they're both anti-consumer to a degree. I'm on Microsoft's side in this case, but at least I'm being consistent in how I view both companies practices.
The Artisan
Member
in this case, most of them are being pro-consumer (by that i mean giving the consumer what they want without any drawbacks) and only one is being anti-consumer. no disrespect but i don't care if it comes off hypocritical in your eyes; i can't tell what your end game is here to initiate and instigate arguments when you also claim to be on the same fighting side as I am
the facts that I know are Psyonix and Mojang have what it takes to make the Ps4 online communities work together and in the former's case, Sony just doesn't want to collaborate with the competition and in the latter's case t's that plus the excuse that Sony doesn't want to help boost MAU and from a consumer perspective neither of those things have an affect in how i indulge in my hobby of playing video games, furthermore then asking about how mojang can and should develop a side update just for playstation is counterproductive for both them and myself since that isn't what they wanted for their user base an it isn't what i wanted out of this "better together" (that's literally what the update is called) deal
Marty Chinn
Member
But there are more changes to the game than just cross play and they're holding those features back from the PS4 version for business reasons. Is that not the case? I'm not saying they aren't justified; I'm saying your argument is weakened when you have a hypocritical stance by siding with one party over the other when they both are doing similar things in the fact that they're doing what's in their best interest as a business. Are you saying Microsoft doesn't have the resources to update Minecraft for the PS4 to have all the other features except cross play? As a business, Microsoft shouldn't be required to incur that cost because of Sony, but if you want to ignore the business reality, then that shouldn't be something you consider.
I feel if you want this to gain better traction, people need a better approach because it's coming off as borderline fanboyism when you are condemning one but not the other based on principles of not caring about what it means to the business and yelling out anti-consumer. Otherwise you get people poking holes in your flawed approach rather than having a sound argument. I've said it before, I'm on your side as far as wanting cross play for everyone, but I think some of your reasoning is flawed when you're trying to present your case. It's disheartening to see in the other thread how many people don't give a shit on an enthusiast board, but if they don't care, the casuals probably won't either so I think a stronger case needs to be made. That's why I'm calling you out on your argument; that and because you seemed at least willing to listen and consider the points being made.
Obviously, I don't have insight into their business itself, but three possibilities come to mind:
1) A policy has not yet been formalized or been considered, and their PR people are not in a position to discuss this on behalf of the business.
2) They have special relationships with certain publishers and/or developers that they are comfortable with negotiating crossplay features, and that is the furthest they will go.
3) They do not want to have crossplay with XBox or Nintendo, period.
Personally, I think it falls somewhere between 1 and 2. They have conceded to some cross-platform multiplayer for Square-Enix MMOs, and it's a matter for them to consider whether that should be broadened.
I do find it a little cheeky that they tweak the render distance in the better looking one as well. That's not part of the fancy dancy pack
Andodalf
Banned
Perhaps it is on console? Or comparing XB1 to XBXI do find it a little cheeky that they tweak the render distance in the better looking one as well. That's not part of the fancy dancy pack
polyh3dron
Banned
Welp, guess I'll be playing Rocket League on my Xbox One X when I get it then.