Top
30°

Tired of this Schmidt: Staying Solo on Console Cross-Play

[NOTE #1: It’s fair to note Sony has a plethora of online games with PS4/PC cross-play enabled. Any time “cross-play” by itself is stated it’s not trying to pull a sleight of hand, but rather for brevity’s sake.]

This issue sure has reared its ugly head again! And before having to deal with the sneering rebukes from the crowd, as I'm riding the enthusiasm of this regurgitated topic, it's fair to note this wouldn't exist were it not for more nonsense PR on the topic. But I also wanted to discuss the issue of Sony's (console) cross-play restraint—along with their overboard grip on Fortnite—as an exercise against faulty takes I've seen. Perhaps also as a catalog when this debate comes up.

A preface before starting: no matter how stupid the action, company execs and/or PR will say whatever they must to save face. This is not exclusive to any one company. All have done it in the past and will do so in the future. And no poster is immune from maintaining a vendetta-based rationale on this console war stuff so hopefully nothing gets too personal. Fair enough? Okay. Onto the meat of this blog.

This past weekend, The Independent ran an article quoting Sony's Yoshida about why they don't allow cross-play on Fortnite. To no one's surprise, it was a silly response:

“On cross-platform, our way of thinking is always that PlayStation is the best place to play. Fortnite, I believe, partnered with PlayStation 4 is the best experience for users, that's our belief.” (1)

The topic of cross-play has gradually gained popularity, especially over the past year as Switch has opened its doors for console cross-play on Minecraft and Rocket League (2) (3). And there were the subsequent blunders from Sony damage control back then (4). But today, I want to use some generalized stances and attempt to rebut them. Let's get started.

1.). "You're only interested because of who's being targeted!"

Rebuttal #1: The tactic of distraction. We should focus on the PRINCIPLE of the matter & whether this consumer-friendly idea should be implemented more broadly. Personifying the company not doing the beneficial thing in question as a victim of selective criticism continues to be ridiculous.

2.). "Convenient timing to start talking about it now, ain’t it?!?!"

Rebuttal #2: For starters, *see Rebut #1*. The trend of recycling this discussion is heavily inspired by games’ online-only setup much more often today. Such ‘subtle’ suggestions disregard the history of cross-play’s popularity among vocal developers as well, which is why I can only recall learning about this stuff during the 8th generation. It’s a topic that hadn’t really latched on with mainstream outlets outside the rare examples of 7th gen console MMO’s anyways; expecting the same kind of firestorm as there is today isn’t reasonable given those circumstances.

3.). "That's funny. I don't remember PlayStation fans causing a ruckus about this when M$ put hurdles on potential cross-play titles!"

Rebuttal #3: Again, *see Rebut #1*. You're also incorrect, as there's proof on this very site. While it's harder to track down cross-play articles from 7th gen, many posters took issue with MS when Square Enix discussed it as the reason FF14 Online didn't get a Xbox One version years ago (5) (6). Even if you want to decry how YOU personally weren't engaged in that discussion, strengthening my Rebuttal #2 in the process, the fact remains: it was talked about here and the majority thought it was a foolish stance to have. If you have now read this portion and seen the easily-provided links I ask you to stop spreading disinformation.

4.). "Wow...MS was initially the problem when it comes to this but now the tables have turned and Sony's just doing the same business."

Rebuttal #4: In my view there's two strands of reactive arguments going on here: comeuppance and financial.

In respect to getting back at MS: then you're implicitly agreeing that having a walled garden from other consoles IS a blemish. You see where this goes, right? If such an action by MS is considered a dark blot on their past—with similar reasoning as Yoshida currently has—then why should it be hunky-dory now? You can't have it both ways.

Further, one can now posit the claim that Sony may not have been all that sincere in suggesting cross-console play with the 360 were the roles different. After all, why not?

Publisher X: Began a hardline stance of keeping online service a walled garden, which has now changed its tune and has been open to cross-play across virtually everything (when appropriate like with Minecraft).
Publisher Y: Began with a more open stance to cross-console play, which has now changed its tune to remain a semi-walled garden (with the same flawed reasoning from publisher X of years past)

Neither have remained consistent in their intentions; only one has moved forward in a positive way.

And if we're going to provide defense for Sony based on a business lens well...you're hitting a few inconsistent strands here:

• If taking down the walled garden with other consoles SUPPOSEDLY is like helping your competition, then why did MS get dragged through the mud on this to begin with?
• If you're striving to be consistent, finding the ideal most beneficial for consumers should be the focus. It’s easy to decry yet another round of EA’s newfound DLC tactics, yet the tune becomes more relaxed and considerate of how this effects Sony’s bottom line.
• BONUS: If the PS4 is “the best way to play” then their business should continue to flourish regardless of enabling cross-play.

5). "This is essentially a non-issue that I, and many others, don't see what the ruckus is about."

Rebuttal #5: Well, if you're one of those who's never had a strong opinion on it—regardless of who looked worse at the time—then I appreciate the honesty; but at the same time, just because you're apathetic to the issue doesn't mean we're all now obligated to be in lockstep with you. This is the strangest phenomenon when looking at this topic too: the bizarre demand for everyone else to have the same indifference as you do.

We can simply look at the issue, acknowledge how it one less functional thing that COULD be in this version of the game, and how obnoxious justifications have been for this in the past (1) (4). If it's just a minor deal then it should be of no concern to acknowledge this chink in the armor.

If you're one of those apathetic to this whole charade perhaps I can implore you to have a more comprehensive approach too. You see...maybe consider less of the topic of cross-play itself and more of the arrogance that seems to be guiding the decision. Because hubris has a nasty habit of not staying in one place forever. Fortnite on PS4 is an example. This issue doesn't/didn’t only include cross-console play but also the locking of Epic accounts on their system (7).

What's important—and also somewhat depressing—is this topic isn't of earth-shattering infamy. Even I knew this before typing. I've expanded my thoughts on the topic just as a send-off from this previous week's top article (8). Even if minor, their stance is looking more archaic as more of the industry harps on it (9), and the reasoning utilized to support said decision mirrors the same sneering attitude that *enter your most hated game publisher here* has employed before. When you see others criticizing such actions consider this: whataboutism may not be the best way to approach this going forward.

Links:

1. https://www.destructoid.com...
2. https://www.theverge.com/20...
3. https://www.windowscentral....
4. https://www.eurogamer.net/a...
5. https://kotaku.com/final-fa...
6. http://n4g.com/news/1793171...
7. https://www.polygon.com/201...
8. http://n4g.com/news/2199069...
9. https://www.polygon.com/201...

Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

Other
Lame. Yea were all sick of talking about cross play and the same stupid argument from the same people over and over. And yes it is an issue of bias.
gamerzero10d ago WhoDisagree(2)Agree(0)
+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community10d ago
The story is too old to be commented.
coolbeans14d ago

Hey! Hope everyone enjoyed the blog. Feel free to leave comments and/or questions below. If it's about butting heads on the topic: hopefully it's straightforward & good-natured (but not without some bite).

So...in the context of what's been stated by other people/businesses, it's unsettling as to how conveniently how this blog and my next planned one fall into place. I've kinda had a blog like this in mind in the past--though wasn't too bothered to make it; but then, as vaguely referenced in the blog, I was unable to respond to that popular cross-play on here this past weekend ( http://n4g.com/news/2199069... ) after my first reply. Kept getting a server error message only on THAT specific article for some reason. I'm just one of those weird guys who HAD to respond in some way or another.

So, that's a rare glimpse behind-the-scenes as to why I wanted to discuss this.

gamerzero10d ago

How long are you going to harp on this issue, you blog plus three other articles all approved with in an hour of each other.

I'm sure there is no bias among the mods.

coolbeans10d ago (Edited 10d ago )

I don't have any current plans to continue blogging about it, as there's other topics I'd like to touch on. As I've suggested in the blog (which I'm sure you read twice over!) and comments below is I don't register this as a BIG gaming issue anyways. Having said that, I can't deny that some of the new material here is quite juicy.

-"you blog plus three other articles all approved with in an hour of each other."

What do you know! Maybe this topic IS of greater interest to users on here then you let on from your report! :D

-"I'm sure there is no bias among the mods."

Well, if you're so certain I won't try to talk you out of it. ;)

gamerzero9d ago

Or maybe people just have an agenda and a bias and are fishing for clicks and attention.

coolbeans9d ago

Er...ok then? As I said in the blog: See Rebuttal #1.

gamerzero9d ago (Edited 9d ago )

My point is this topic has been talked about for well over a year, the same arguments have been made over and over again Sony has made their position clear.

At this point there is little point in discussing it over and over again. The people who are making the articles are not going to change the issue nor do they think they are. They keep making the articles because they know it's what is going to get clicks or because of other biased motivations.

Bating people into having the same argument that has happened hundreds of times is not going to change it, and as a moderator you should see what's happening. Instead of becoming an instigator you should have the good sense to see what I am saying is actually correct. Moderation should have put this topic behind the site months ago.

But perhaps your personal need for attention (note your smarmy reply seeking to inflame) is the real reason why you felt this blog was needed.

coolbeans9d ago (Edited 9d ago )

-The topic has been drummed up for over a year, but I don't believe certain parts of my arguments have been made quite like this. Were that the case, I wouldn't see a bunch of false statements regurgitated like "Sony fans never said anything bad about MS over this topic." I use a site-specific example to show that clearly isn't the case. And I'm not really following this logic of a current topic having this expiration date, as you're suggesting.

-"They keep making the articles because they know it's what is going to get clicks or because of other biased motivations."

Even people not beholden to clicks, like Jim Sterling, have ranted openly about this being an anti-consumer move so there's already some cracks in your argument. To smash it to smithereens: neither you nor I have the ability to read someone else's mind so maybe argue against the points being raised rather than suggesting everyone has a biased motivation. You're throwing shade at this blog for having underhanded intentions when I've already been clear as to what compelled me to write it.

-"Instead of becoming an instigator you should have the good sense to see what I am saying is actually correct. Moderation should have put this topic behind the site months ago."

I have the good sense to see how misguided this suggestion is. Only under rare occasions have there been limitations on specific game-related topics. But cross-play? The Independent literally got a new quote from Yosh just over a week ago. They're not supposed to run it because...it's been talked about before? Look at the site you're on. Dozens of topics stay in circulation when new games, quotes, etc. are released. If the plethora of different articles on this topic is annoying you the best advice I can give is for you to ignore it.

-"But perhaps your personal need for attention (note your smarmy reply seeking to inflame) is the real reason why you felt this blog was needed."

Big talk coming from someone who's been pestering me with inane replies on my previous blog.

Hah! Seeking to inflame. Within THIS reply-chain you're insinuating that I'm biased and just desperate for attention. There's something you should prepare for: if you're going to play the sarcastic/subtle accusatory game with me I'm not going to act like a limp-wristed milksop in my replies back. I'm just as capable of firing back within the confines of this site's guidelines. And, lest we forget, my initial comment is pretty kind and easy-going. There's not a HINT of venom to be found there.

Want to have a more calm conversation/debate? Feel free to respond back, or begin a new comment, that gets us back on that track. Until then, I'm not going to let someone walk over me who's had a pretty deliberate angle to argue with me in bad faith (and report my blog in bad faith).

gamerzero9d ago (Edited 9d ago )

Jim Sterling has brought up the issue 2 maybe 3 times over the past year and change and what he does is irrelevant to this site in which the whole purpose is for other sites to use this site to generate clicks visibility and ad revenue. This site had more cross play articles on the top list in the past 24 hours than Jim Sterling has done total in over a year.

And it's not that the issue shouldn't ever be discussed, I didn't comment about it until literally dozens of articles had gone through the site in the past week(s) which is after hundreds of articles in the past year. And all of them have had the exact same unchanging argument among the users here and none of it has changed anything. It's just arguing for the sake of arguing and that's why the sites keep writing them not because they care but because they know the same people are going to say the same things every single time thus generating clicks with out any kind of journalism. All you have to do is say "cross play" in your title add a few sentences and boom top list article. Just look, you sourced 9 articles that all say the same freaking thing.

And lets not ignore why I made the comment I made in the previous topic. I made the reply due to unfair moderation which I felt was bias towards certain users. Users who were clearly trolling despite your "bent rules" interpretation. Which I literally cut and pasted in effort to show you how inane and trolling it was. So I'm glad you finally noticed.

And note who approved your article when I talk about bias, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out you PM'd them to approve your article that had been sitting in the queue for 4 days with zero approvals before I reported it yet somehow the two of them just happened to find the article within a few minutes of each other.

coolbeans9d ago (Edited 9d ago )

-And I've brought it up once in my own words here and approved probably 1 article on it within that same timeframe (to the best of my recollection). With that stated, it seems like your dig at me is unjustified esp. when lumping me into that same click-driven sites you're so disparaging. And if we're going by this logic, you must've carried the same kind of disparaging attitude against any user that wanted to blog about XJuan's DRM back in 2013, right? It was one of the biggest click-driven topics in all of 2013 that makes cross-play's popularity look like a pittance worth in comparison.

And remember: clicks are a two-way street here. If so many people didn't feel compelled to dive into cross-play comment sections, tell everyone they think it's "totes not a big deal," and repeat, then you wouldn't incentivize more articles to be made. If so many people have truly had enough...ignoring it sounds like the best approach. Heck, maybe go out with a bang by bottling up your thoughts, blogging about it, and leave it to rest after that.

-"And it's not that the issue shouldn't ever be discussed..."

Huh? But you just advocated that moderation, me being part of it, "should have put this topic behind the site months ago." That language seems pretty clear to me. But if I've misinterpreted, feel free to clarify.

-"Just look, you sourced 9 articles that all say the same freaking thing."

I'm not really sure why that's a gotcha. I mean...yeah wanting to have a heavily-sourced blog on a topic means I'm going to grab a bunch of examples on the topic. And they're only recycled in that cross-play is the motif spanning them, but there's different PR quotes from execs, different games touching on it, older articles where the roles were reversed for context (MS slammed for disallowing it), etc.

-"And lets not ignore why I made the comment I made in the previous topic...."

I'm not ignoring, just discrediting based on the shallow appeals in your previous comment. I provided my reasons for why it wasn't in the ticket, left it open for any mod to reconsider, and you seemed eager to vent.

-"Which I literally cut and pasted in effort to show you how inane and trolling it was."

Just one little hitch in the plan: I still didn't find it to be trolling when considering the context of the blog. It's unmarked within that blog's comment section, I responded to it like any other, and we both went about our day. But I don't deny it being inane. ;)

-"And note who approved your article when I talk about bias..."

I haven't sent or received a PM from gangsta_red in over 100 days though. You're free to investigate at your leisure. But if we're going down THIS road, bias should also be considered as for why approval would be withheld from those who'd seen it beforehand, despite meeting the guidelines on blog posts. I don't mean this as pouting; just that when you're tossing "teh bias" accusation around at least consider it from another point of view.

EDIT: Believe this'll count as comment #10 so I'm not sure if I'll be able to respond. A shame we didn't talk more about the topic at hand, but appreciate the conversation nonetheless.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 9d ago
Apocalypse Shadow14d ago

It was not silly for the Sony Rep to promote his product as it is the largest console network to play games on. This manufactured PR outrage is also not growing in popularity. Only the hot air from smaller communities who have dying player bases because of lack of game sales compared to their competition. They love to play online but the lobbies are dwindling and they want added support. If their offline campaigns in their games were well made and not just relying on multiplayer, they would have more sales. Because even with Sony's massive 82 million players, more than half don't play online. And as we have seen recently,single player games still sell when it's well made. That's money left on the developer's table.

But if it happens, it happens. PS4 gamers don't care either way. But entitled developers and gamers have to understand that the logistics isn't as easy as flipping a switch. Commentors always ignoring how the networks will be connected and how to handle dlc and micro transactions sold going forward. I would gather that there is a percentage of PS4 gamers that used to be Xbox gamers,left their friends behind,but now want to play again with their friends but eat their cake too(Sony exclusives)

But I'm going to leave this discussion with this. These developers who have a problem with Sony or any company saying, "No.""I'll think about it." could create their own consoles and own networks if it's such a big deal. But they don't and won't. They'd rather Sony take the financial risk spending billions of dollars creating the console and network and make it a success. Then make demands on how it should be run and ride Sony's success. That's entitlement.

This reminds me of a moment in history when Americans(I'm American. Black actually) and Europeans forced their way into Japan. Not for the well being of Japan and it's **walled garden.** But to make massive profits and sell their goods by force. Because the money they made was not enough at home.
http://afe.easia.columbia.e...

Don't think for a minute that Microsoft is just doing this "4 the players." Or out of the kindness of their hearts. There's an agenda as there always is. And it's called MONEY.

coolbeans14d ago (Edited 14d ago )

-"It was not silly for the Sony Rep to promote his product as it is the largest console network to play games on."

No, it was silly to present this kind of argument in the context of cross-play because it bespeaks the arrogance whilst maintaining a position that looks more old-hat with each passing year.

-"This manufactured PR outrage is also not growing in popularity. Only the hot air from smaller communities who have dying player bases because of lack of game sales compared to their competition."

Seems like you're the one blowing hot air. For one, this year & last are the two most popular years when it comes to discussing this topic (Minecraft, Rocket League, etc.). However smaller-in-size they are--which is probably exaggerated in scope, it still hasn't stopped the same companies from shuttering servers across ALL platforms. Also, this is means of distraction. Popularity shouldn't matter but rather the principle of whether this is a beneficial thing to have.

-"But entitled developers and gamers have to understand that the logistics isn't as easy as flipping a switch. Commentors always ignoring how the networks will be connected and how to handle dlc and micro transactions sold going forward."

Uh virtually no one of significance has suggested no work is needed to accomplish this; devs like Psyonix have already done the work necessary and Sony's 'political barrier' is the only thing keeping it from happening. https://www.polygon.com/e3/...

-"These developers who have a problem with Sony or any company saying, "No.""I'll think about it." could create their own consoles and own networks if it's such a big deal. But they don't and won't. They'd rather Sony take the financial risk spending billions of dollars creating the console and network and make it a success. Then make demands on how it should be run and ride Sony's success. That's entitlement."

1.) Okay...now you're just presenting this rosy lens of how Sony's reacted to this. What they're doing behind closed doors is a different story, but personifying them as anything other than digging their heels at every public opportunity (atm) is being too generous.
2.) "You want cross-platform play then make your own console!" kind of reveals just how off-course your thinking is atm. You're building this warped narrative of how the free market works with gaming: 3rd party devs house teams with various artists looking to make games, Sony/Ninty/MS/etc. have experience, R&D, etc. in hardware to get said games to more people, both give the other advantages by one now having more valuable hardware (plus skimming money from physical or digital copies sold) and the other has eyeballs to reach a mass market.
3.) This loopy thinking also feeds into what you determine as "entitlement" here. It's especially harmed since devs like Psyonix house THEIR OWN servers here, so that work is offloaded to them. All they've been waiting on is a thumbs-up from Sony.

-"Don't think for a minute that Microsoft is just doing this "4 the players." Or out of the kindness of their hearts."

Oh shoot! I knew there was one distracting argument I forgot to list in the blog. I don't care how sweet & genuine the intentions are of someone like MS doing this, the pro-consumer principle remains the same.

Apocalypse Shadow13d ago (Edited 13d ago )

It is not arrogant no matter where he said it. He believes PlayStation is the best place to play. That's called an opinion.
https://www.theverge.com/20...
***On cross-platform, our way of thinking is always that PlayStation is the best place to play. Fortnite, I believe, partnered with PlayStation 4 is the best experience for users, that’s our belief.***

***I BELIEVE** That's not arrogance. You just read it the way you wanted to.

That's his belief. He didn't say his network is SUPERIOR like some Xbox sites made it out to be. He's more than entitled to have an opinion for his company and his product. Nintendo or Microsoft are more than entitled to say that about their networks. It's not arrogant.

It's only discussed because Microsoft brought it up and went to twitter to push forth their agenda. And, developers making Xbox games that want a united base of gamers for their games off the back of someone else's network(Sony's). To make money off of one large pool of gamers.

Actually yes. Gamers think it's easy because of companies like Epic that showed you can play across networks using fortnite as an example. But it doesn't take into account dlc and micro transactions sold on each network. It should be in game or from the developer's own cloud service. Some can't afford that so they need a host. And companies like Microsoft would be more than willing to host for a small fee for major profits going forward.

The course is Sony's to make. It's not EA's, Activision's, Ubisoft's, etc network. It's Sony's. They abide by the rules or don't sell their games on the network. That's what you don't get. You don't tell someone else how to run their network.

And gamers need to understand that someone saying "No!" for their console,their network and their player base is not anti consumer. It's theirs to decide. You're not entitled to a say in their business matters. Only on if you want to buy their product or not. Stop feeling entitled. They don't have to connect their network to anyone unless they wish it. And they do for PC and mobile. Until otherwise.

coolbeans13d ago (Edited 13d ago )

-"***I BELIEVE** That's not arrogance. You just read it the way you wanted to. "

First issue: It's rather funny for you to be criticizing my skewed interpretation after what you stated in your previous comment. Personifying it as "No. I'll think about it" is WAY more flimsy than assessing arrogance in this situation.

Second: Also funny for his BELIEF to be stressed by you as though that magically disregards the context around the question or their actions. I'm not buying this Kool-Aid being tossed around of context being totally skewed here. To put to the test: "Question: In regards to Fortnite [Cross-Play issue] why not allow it? Answer: Because our thinking is always that PlayStation is the best place to play." This is literally the FIRST sentence of the response with only the unnecessary fat removed. Obviously there is more to it, but none of what's stated afterwards directly contradicts this line of thinking; such thinking and action which has gone above and beyond with Fortnite and the controversy of chaining down Epic accounts to PS4. You can bleat contrary all you like, but it's simply arrogance.

-"And, developers making Xbox games that want a united base of gamers for their games off the back of someone else's network(Sony's). To make money off of one large pool of gamers."

What do you mean? Most examples we're talking about are multiplatform games. And in respect to cross-play on Rocket League (which I've highlighted before), Psyonix handles Psynet so you're bringing up this woe-is-Sony narrative about others piggy-backing off their network even when it doesn't apply.

-"Gamers think it's easy because of companies like Epic that showed you can play across networks using fortnite as an example. But it doesn't take into account dlc and micro transactions sold on each network."

*Sigh* I'm not really sure what invisible hurdle I'm going to have to cross here, First, you generalize gamers as thinking it's like "flipping a switch" and how they don't consider auxiliary factors. Really, it's more a case of them knowing it CAN be done by talented devs, would like to be done, and let the companies figure DLC stuff out. It's not THAT difficult--especially with how Psyonix talked about it on their end ( https://www.polygon.com/e3/... ).

-"And gamers need to understand that someone saying "No!" for their console,their network and their player base is not anti consumer. It's theirs to decide. You're not entitled to a say in their business matters. Only on if you want to buy their product or not. Stop feeling entitled."

Yeesh! I had planned for the more...'dedicated' to take an apathetic tone regarding the situation, but never a fully-fledged opposite reaction. "Hey want to know what criticizing the stick in the mud on a beneficial feature to consumers really is? Entitlement!"

And can we get past these empty retorts like "it's their network" as if this hasn't been a foregone conclusion in the minds of everyone? XBL, PSN, Steam, GOG, etc. We all now they have patents and everything. That doesn't mean no criticism can be aired about this now. And that's the weird thing: developers wanting the most people to get the most out of their game are considered entitled for considering the benefits too? I guess THIS would be the new strangest phenomenon: lambasting vocal gamers and devs alike for recognizing and wanting added functionality that's a general positive moving forward.

Apocalypse Shadow13d ago

Name this multitude of developers asking for it? Show me a list. Remember, there's hundreds of developers. The outspoken you've heard from is less than 20. Probably even 10. But you use that as many developers are asking for it. Show the list.

Show me on Sony's request site that it's the most requested feature by gamers. Show the numbers.

Don't use clickbait sites looking for hits and ad revenue as proof.

What company initiated it this gen? Why do you believe they have no ulterior motives? Remember,this is Microsoft. The king of misleading PR. Do I really need to present examples?

You continue to ignore that it's their network. You buying their product doesn't give ownership. The fact that it disappears from being spoke about means it's not that big a deal as you make it. You didn't buy a PlayStation assuming that it was going to play with Microsoft or Nintendo. No one says it's a bad idea. Just the motive behind the company known for lying, misleading and manipulating gamers on a continual basis for their own gain.

The fact that your opinion article was all but ignored by everyone on this site says it's not a big issue. But I'm done until another PR article tries to make it a big deal for clicks.

coolbeans12d ago

-"Name this multitude of developers asking for it? Show me a list. Remember, there's hundreds of developers."

1.) To list out the instances I'm aware of devs touching on the matter in 7th gen & 8th gen: Trion Worlds intent with Defiance, Square Enix with Final Fantasy 14 Online, Epic Games (Fortnite), Psyonix (Rocket League), Microsoft (Minecraft), Wildcard Studios (ARK: Survival Evolved), Bethesda's Todd Howard (Fallout 76). I've provided info for most of these already.

https://www.polygon.com/201...

2.) Argument from popularity is still fallacious reasoning. What arbitrary threshold must be met by you before you reconsider the validity of the issue? 25, 50, 100? Why not focus on what the current developers have said on the issue, consider the principle of the issue, and judge its validity from there?

-"Show me on Sony's request site that it's the most requested feature by gamers. Show the numbers."

Building a strawman, I see. A quote from the blog I'm sure you read very carefully: "What's important—and also somewhat depressing—is this topic isn't of earth-shattering infamy. Even I knew this before typing."
I've never over-exaggerated to the point of declaring this Sony's most critical issue or most fan-demanded feature; in fact, my argument against those who find it to be a non-issue: if it doesn't affect you deeply then you should have no problem acknowledging this minor chink in Sony's armor. Then again, perhaps I was being too naive to believe it was that simple.

-"What company initiated it this gen?"

Umm...Sony was literally the one open to it during the beginning of this gen with FF14 Online. It's linked in the blog, along with N4G posters' reactions to that news. lol

-"Why do you believe they have no ulterior motives?"

So now you're not even reading my replies fairly. I never stated MS didn't have ulterior motives (all companies do). To repeat: I don't care how sweet & genuine the intentions are of someone like MS doing this, the pro-consumer principle remains the same.

coolbeans12d ago

(Part 2)

-"You continue to ignore that it's their network. You buying their product doesn't give ownership."

Not really, but you continue to ignore and/or twist what I've said across several comments now. I've only touched on it in passing because your premise was built on a house of sticks. You made it out as though these "entitled" devs just wanted more & more out of Sony's network investment. I'm not going to follow this trail b/c it disregards basic free-market ideas in the gaming market. Both have something to give to the other. And these devs aren't leeching off of Sony to make the effort for cross-play. As I've stated before, all the backdoor technical stuff has been done and tested by developers like Psyonix; plus, they handle those servers (which are called Psynet) so your network argument doesn't even universally apply.

-"No one says it's a bad idea. Just the motive behind the company known for lying, misleading and manipulating gamers on a continual basis for their own gain."

Except that's just a shallow excuse. Now we're at this neutral stance ("not saying it's a bad idea") but hesitant to say much else just b/c the boogeyman changed their mind and is moving forward with the concept? By this logic, any pro-consumer decision made by them is more tainted b/c of past actions, not on more rational, objective considerations.

-"The fact that your opinion article was all but ignored by everyone on this site says it's not a big issue."

Eh...I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. You're disregarding the fact that user-submitted stuff is tougher to keep tabs on now versus the site's previous setup. It's not uncommon for user blogs to be over 1 day old upon reaching the front page.

Apocalypse Shadow12d ago (Edited 12d ago )

Yup. It's Friday. And which site creates another article about this for clicks?

Gamebolt.

If a thousand straws were placed next to each other, you could lay on it as a bed. That's how strong those straws are.

Read console gamer's comments in it that mirror my thoughts on the matter. No matter how cool it would be, financially it negatively benefits Sony.

Possible

One less console sold
One less subscription sold
One less game sold to collect royalties on
One less dlc and micro transaction sold
One less exclusive sold
One less dollar made that could go into creating more 1st party content,support the hardware and maintenance the network

Doesn't matter what gamers want when it comes to connecting to other consoles that weren't connected before. Financially it doesn't make sense to say yes when you calculate how much potential loss it would be to them. PC is excluded as it is not a console or direct competitor.

Microsoft's next move would be,and I've said it before in the past in a thread

"Play all your cross play multiplatform games on the most power console in the world."

Yoy know they will say it. Because, as a business, I would do the same thing to increase xbox sales. And those gamers will buy dlc on the most powerful console in the world. Making Microsoft money and Sony less money.

It doesn't benefit Sony. End of.

coolbeans11d ago

-"Read console gamer's comments in it that mirror my thoughts on the matter. No matter how cool it would be, financially it negatively benefits Sony."

So...I was able to do that after digging through the main page (other priorities have gotten in the way since your response). And the stuff you throw here and him about potential financial loss strikes me as more tenuous armchair-economist reasoning. The reason I don't feel very comfortable with delving into these hypotheticals is that at the end of the day it's an unknown. It really is. Heck, if you want to discuss financial repercussions surrounding this let's go to Fortnite BR:

-News gets widely circulated of how PS4 is locking Fortnite accounts out
-It becomes one of the most talked about subjects around E3 (when news broke)
-Less people are compelled to place their Fortnite accounts on PS4 in the future, and thus put their $$$ towards battle passes on other more-open systems, due to this.

I know this is only tangentially tied to cross-play news, but there's already more texture with this deduction in comparison to more abstract "well they won't be compelled to pay for this or this on a more-open system" which can only be hypothesized. That's why I'm more interested in the consumerist principle about this relatively new functionality: because we can all understand the concept and what's beneficial for online communities in the long term.

-And if we are going to go on and on about the financial impacts of cross-play, is it fair to say MS got an unfair shake with their previous approach to this based on your reasoning here?

http://n4g.com/news/1793171...

Understand: I don't what YOU alone to have to personally atone for what others have said on here. You don't even have to directly respond to this portion of comment. Only providing some context as what partly compelled me to make this blog in the first place.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 11d ago