Gaijin CEO Anton Yudintsev said that the studio would be very happy if Sony lifted PS4 cross-play limitations beyond just Fortnite, but he isn't celebrating just yet.
I hope they do!
Tired of baby steps.. These are grown people it is time for them to take at least teenage steps
I can't see any reason for them to test this out with one game, then just keep it restricted to that one game. I think even Sony knows that would actually cause more controversy than the original topic at hand brought upon them. Not just from the community, but from developers as well, as it would make it appear that Sony is playing favorites. My guess is that Epic worked with them to use their game as a test bed to get it to happen. Epic, being Epic, probably did put in a lot of the ground work on how it would be handled, and in the industry they are pretty influential and could easily mediate the policies and discussion between the console makers for them to come to an amicable solution. The beta to me is probably more of a way for them to make sure the API's and policies actually work properly before rolling out a full release on the API itself, but it seems silly for Sony to put out an open beta for one game, make a press release about it, know they'll gain some good will from it, then just do nothing with it. The only reason I can see that happening is if something comes up in the beta which they didn't foresee happening that has something to do with some business side of things. Beta will probably go on for a month or two, with some adjustments if necessary, then when they're satisfied, they'll roll out the full API that can be used by any developer to use it in the same way they do the PC cross play functionality.
I'm sure it's coming eventually!
I too fear Fortnite will be the only allowed game for quite some time
Then Microsoft would have been included in all the hate articles about “crossplay” instead of just Sony. I
Hoping Rocket League is next on the list. WT is cool and all, but not my personal fave.
Sony follows the money and Fortnite is a juggernaut of cash at the moment for Sony not to listen. Sux for the little devs that don't have the ample cash to also get Sony to listen to them.
You're probably right.
More likely it was Epic having enough influence in the industry to bring the companies together to an agreeable solution. I don't see any reason Epic would have to dish out money to make this feature happen, particularly since Fortnite is quite popular on PS4. Fortnite is a juggernaut as you say, but it is that regardless of the cross play feature. If anything, Epic probably makes more money through the lack of cross progression, but Epic has gone on record saying they'd like to see it happen. Unlike some other companies or developers though, they didn't make snide comments about it, blame Sony, and let the media and forums take their course. They were proactive, and just do what they do, and that's influence the industry. This is what can be done if you have the influence and connections to make it happen. Just having a successful game, then being passive aggressive to the company in question while not even actively talking to the company....much less both companies as a mediator if need be about the subject probably isn't going to get you anywhere. When you have the most popular game engine, and have close ties to every console maker and GPU maker, you can get things done...or at least get your foot in the door to have the discussion. Just having a popular game isn't a guarantee that you can get jack squat beyond some marketing rights money....particularly if its from the stand point of demanding or threatening. Pete Hines is influential enough, but he went about it the wrong way, and realistically, why would Sony talk to him if he already went on record saying that its all Sony's fault, and they should be shunned, all with empty unveiled threats of abandoning support for the console. Or it could be a simpler reason that MS and Sony were already working on this for months now, and they went to Epic to test it, because Epic provides a game with both CP and Cross progression, and they already showed they had a working solution, and were trusted enough that they could adapt to any needed changes quickly enough to implement it for a beta....something the smaller devs wouldn't be able to do or understand....nor could they be trusted to keep their mouths shut. Likely this whole thing was being worked on before Fortnite became so big, or even released the BG on PS4, and it certainly was being worked on long before the cross play discussion hit the game, because that's a rather recent event, and these kinds of changes to policy just don't happen overnight for either MS or Sony.
You're comment is pretty much making a lot of excuses that don't actually tell the real reason of what was actually happening here. Fortnite made just about as much fuss as Pete Hines and other devs did. So "snide remarks" or your repeated blame of the media is baffling as the media covered each story form each developer the same. And there was nothing snide about the remarks, it was what it was. It also wasn't security reasons, looking out for the children or being afraid of the PS network getting hacked as certain users on this site kept saying was the possible reason as to why Sony may be blocking Fortnite. Even when journalists were providing the real answers as to why, it's still funny to see this attitude that they were against Sony along with other conspiracies of what may have been happening to no ones knowledge.
Sorry. I guess your assertions are much more valid than mine. Calling me an apoligist somehow negates anything I said. SO, lets bring some facts into the picture to discredit yours properly. -July 21, 2017. Fortnite:BR launches. Before this time, there wasn't a whole lot of controversy over the topic in relation to Fortnite. Just the general controversy that surrounded the topic in general. -April 1, 2018, Cut off compliance acceptance date to use the newly mandated PS4 standards. Actual API's and descriptions of standards were sent out in late January, as that lines up with the time for implementing the new networking API's, which had unspecified features added. 3 months lead time is typical for mandates like this. But this mandate is why games before this date may not work with the name change thing. I knew that the compliance standards changed in January, but I put two and two together to realize this was one of the changes. -June 2018, Controversy erupts over the fortnite issue with cross platform/play, mainly due to the conflating of cross buy and cross play. -September 2018, Sony launches a beta to test out their new cross play features. Lets look at the updated compliance standards, which is where my argument is based, and yours is completely dismantled. They mandated them April. Sent out In january. Sony doesn't do anything quickly when it comes to these things unless it involves a serious security flaw, which CP isn't relevant to. They were likely working on these API's for months, and testing it internally for another few months, and then having to make sure MS was OK with it as well. MS was probably doing the same thing on their end, because its not a one way street. But, lets say 3 months on the low end to be fair. If the updates were sent out in January, that means they were ready to start implementing a solution around Aug/Sep 2018, ignoring the time before that they discussed the topic with MS, that puts them either before, or right at F:BR release. But the more important point is that THEY WOULD HAVE STARTED WORKING ON IT LONG BEFORE F:BR CP BECAME THE ISSUE IT DID, OR BEFORE IT EVEN RELEASED. Not just the implementation, but what they needed to do along with MS to make it happen. So.....how did Sony do this purely for money, because the timeline doesn't add up. I feel my excuses are at least backed up with some facts, and extrapolated data which I can't fully confirm one detail of, but I'm sure any reasonable person can stipulate to.
As far as the media goes. Sure, whatever. The media had a completely negative spin towards Sony the entire time. They didn't bother researching. I heard in late 2016 through developer forums that the two companies were working on something, and made mention of it around here long before Fortnite got the attention it does or even released, even before PUBG became such a big topic in the console space. I can't substantiate that as fact, just what I heard. I mentioned it, many people(you included) decided not to believe it. I thought that died out because I hadn't heard anything for a while, and I saw MS making a fuss about it. But that obviously didn't happen. But surely you don't think that this just became a thing MS and Sony worked out recently? I know you aren't that naive. I know reasonable conclusions get in the way of naked hate, but at least try to say why my analysis is wrong in some way. Leave the other stuff out, it's a distraction, and was more a rant on my part for how so many people just completely ignore anything other than what they want to believe. I hope this backs up my much more simpler reasoning. Why am I wrong, and tell me what exactly am I apologizing for with my more detailed comment? Edit:Removed unnecessary confrontational comments about other issues. I shouldn't have written them.
"..how did Sony do this purely for money, because the timeline doesn't add up." Sony caved in on their stance for Fortnite because (Epic) has the hottest game on the market at the moment pulling in millions of dollars a day. Sony had to listen as it gained way too much media attention specifically for this game, this is where the follow the money comment comes in. Sony is willing to bend for Epic because it's the most played game($$$) at the moment and they're able to stonewall other devs who aren't as high on the food chain as Epic. Your timeline doesn't really explain or shed any facts over your own original assumptions and personal opinions. In fact all it does is hammer your own apologist attitude on what you think happened. This is backed up by your continued stance of constantly blaming the media for trying to harm Sony. We've been through this before, many times and it's obvious you'll make up anything you think might be the reason Sony waited this long for Fortnite or wont allow crossplay with other games. Even when every dev involved in this fiasco pointed at Sony as the culprit, you still made unjustified excuses on behalf for Sony, just like your doing here. How can anyone discuss anything with you when you make up your own reasons and pass them off as some type of fact in order to defend Sony?
"How can anyone discuss anything with you when you make up your own reasons and pass them off as some type of fact in order to defend Sony?" You mean like you did in your original post, or a few follow up comments? I provided facts, and used those facts along with reasonable assumption to assert an argument. One which you completely failed to counter. You didn't even attempt to. You just, once again, resorted to trying to call into question my personal credibility, as if that somehow negates the rasonable assumptions or actual facts that I made...not just now, but over the past couple years. You think I made everything up? Like all those actual dates which correspond to events which actually don't line up very well with your original comment? I know without fail, I go into excessive detail on how I derive my assumptions(see above and now). So much so they fall into the TL:DR category, and I assume that was the case for many of the arguments we've had on this topic. If you can't respond with any counter argument to any of the facts I posit, and how I derived my conclusion(the point you failed at in your response), then don't even bother responding. You're just making it more and more apparent you just want to criticize, instead of look at it any other way than what you want to believe. Not once in your reply did you respond with anything meaningful or substantial, and once again, you decided to try and make it personal. I'm not going to get into that kind of tit for tat discussion with you. Arguing with willfully ignorant people who wish to remain on the side of their bias isn't that appealing to me. I'm only making it personal now, because I'm tired of this constant discrediting of others arguments by the same means. We're here to discuss things. So discuss them. When reasonable arguments come up, discuss them, counter them, change your mind and agree with someone with a different viewpoint. But it's not about discussion is it? It's about making sure you are seen as right, and get in the last word, until the next article where it can all start anew. What a great community to thrive in huh? One of our own making. One of no discourse, just a bunch of echo chambering and completely close-mindedness. I can admit when I'm wrong. But thus far, it's been rare that I am on many topics which end up coming to pass, and it's not that often that someone changes my mind on a subject because they can't bother to actually try and be more critical in how they come to their conclusions. Now that we got that off topic stuff out of the way, lets break it all down. Your position in the 5 months that F:BR released(9/2017), Sony worked with MS, developed an API, tested the API, worked with MS some more to make sure everything was on board....since MS would be doing the same on their side, established and released policies related to implemeting it that required compliance by a date of April 1st 2018 coupled with the release of a new API earlier that same year(Jan 2018), all because F:BR was the juggernaught that it is? You do realize how that time frame defies any and all sane reasoning on how these businesses operate, and this is despite Sony's own comments which the media made out to say they weren't on board at all.
I'd rather have a well reasoned apologist assumption than your rampant disregard for any critical thought, and complete abandonment of any reasoning about how businesses work. My timeline doesn't prove any of my original assumptions wrong or right. You seem to think because I can't prove them beyond a shadow of a doubt that my argument isn't even worth listening to, despite always using new information to put things in context. I did explain how those few facts and reasonable assumptions fit a lot better than you have. Particularly since you haven't backed up how Sony have gained money through this. I explained my assertions, you just say your right and discredit others through complete lack of rebuttal. Like so many times, your counter-argument is "you're wrong because I say so, and I don't have to give any reason other than that." Not once have you bothered to try and see anything different. You know near the end there, I actually thought Sony might be actively blocking it. After the "best place to play" and Bethesda comments. Now, I know I was probably more right before than I was at that point. I say that the media has no interest in actually getting the facts. They haven't for a couple years. Two years now we've been hearing about this story, and not a single media outlet cares enough to really dive into why it isn't happening. You can't counter a single argument or state why my assumption is wrong. You won't even attempt to say how Sony could make all this work in the short time that BR released, and the time they released an appreciable solution for compliance reasons. Ask any network specialist, and they will say me saying three months was extremely generous. All you do is call into question my credibility. You stand fast in your belief that despite the reasonable time lines I've given for the things we don't know, that Sony somehow did this in reaction to FN:BR, which didn't even really begin to receive much controversy on that game until AFTER they released their mandated API update? You make your assumption based on even less things we know. Leave me out of it, because I don't want to explain why your actually worse than I am in terms of presenting bias, and I'm not going to spend another comment showing you why that is. I'm sorry I even brought that up in my comment, but after two years of this same BS, it gets rather tiring, and I don't even know why I keep tryig to respond to arguments which don't bother with any reason such as yours. One last time WHY IS MY ARGUMENT WRONG? If you can't refute my reasons, and leave my apoligist attitude out of it, then don't bother responding, as my attitude is beside the point. The argument of one is not credible because its from bias only works when that bias isn't backed up. I backed up mine, I've given enough information to make yours questionable and show its more from bias than reasonable thought. now its your turn to refute my actual argument.
What do you think was costing Fortnite more players, no cross play or people who had to pay to play on xbox? At least people could play the game for free with out cross play, where as live is an actual barrier to play.
Yeeeeaah, not really sure what any of that has to do with this here other than deflection. But if you believe that most people own a Xbox/PS4 without having a subscription then by all means be upset.
"Sony follows the money and Fortnite is a juggernaut of cash at the moment for Sony not to listen." Not sure what you are trying say? You're saying that Epic paid Sony to make it happen? Or that the lack of crossplay was hurting Sony's bottom-line? I don't see either or as being true.
I'm saying that Fortnite is huge, probably the biggest game of this gen by far. Sony has to react to a game that is that big, pulling in that much money and more than likely has a lot of influence because of it.
That might be why Fortnite is getting the first crack at it, but I doubt that's Sony's overall reasoning for doing it in general. Once a dev comes out and says that Sony said no to crossplay after a supposed policy change, they'll have bad PR all over again. Might as well have stood you're ground in first place if that were the case.
Sony isn't the only one "following the money" bud.
Never said they weren't pal
You know what implied means? And oddly enough you've never said anything like that about Microsoft, in fact its very telling that you're never critical of Microsoft but always of Sony but then again everyone here already knows where you stand that's why you get so many down votes..
"And oddly enough you've never said anything like that about Microsoft, " Maybe because MS is actually allowing cross progression with Epic, hey...right... Never critical of Microsoft? (in a sony article to boot, lmao) I've criticized microsoft on lack of games, cancelling games, lack of 1st parties, not taking a bigger risks for already established IP's, i've commented on how I believe they could fix their dire Japanese support situation and a host of other opinions I have left on here about Microsoft. Everyone seems to agree or ignore those comments though. Which is strange. But for some reason when I apply any criticisms or opinions to Sony I get a bunch of comments like yours all upset, angry, foaming at the mouth, and pm'ing the mods crying about me. Then again why should I expect any different from fanboys who worship a piece of plastic that goes boom, pip, pow? And if my downvotes are because of where people think I stand then that's even sadder on their part.
"in a sony article to boot, lmao" I wasn't talking about in a Sony article genius. "pm'ing the mods crying about me" And yet you never get banned despite all the trolling you do, very telling indeed.
We found the next complaint. Lets get this ball rolling. We need 20 of these articles by the end of the day, or it's a fail.
Bu(f)t you(2) and I(p) kn(games)ow wha(behind)t articl(a)es you will(pay) neve(wall)r see. Just got to read between the lines.
It'll be short lived. Sony loves its betas. I think its fine to test it out, because essentially, it's a beta for all the platforms involved. It may have been easier for MS to get this going with MS, as they helped Nintendo with their network, and probably were discussing it during the development of said network. Sony is pretty protective of its network too, and I have a feeling they had more points of contention to iron out than Nintendo would have had.
Ugh stop with this. Devs wanting more features shouldn't be talked down to by your console warrior nonsense.
Rocket League cross play is already in the works, so what is this guy talking about?
Didn't Psyonix already have cross-play working and they said something along the lines of "it simply being a button press away"? Then they "accidentally" activated it for like a few hours then deactivated it because of Sony's stance on cross-play at the time?
That happened with Fortnite. Not sure about RL. MS told Epic to turn it off. But Sony would have done so themselves eventually. And herein lies a problem with the blame game on the issue. They articles, and forum critics are assuming that Sony is saying no because they were against cross play. Maybe they were, but the articles and criticism didn't move beyond that. But the reality is, is that they don't allow cross play because of their compliance standards. Compliance standards are in place for every console maker. It's a set of guidelines which a dev is required to follow in order to publish a game on the system. Nintendo implemented the idea after the video game crash, and it became known as the "Nintendo Seal of Quality" for the layman. It says that the game itself was properly licensed, and approved to run on a system, and will operate properly. When Psyonix went to Sony, they were going to say no. The reason is that the standards themselves didn't allow for it. It's nice to think that if they had just said yes, then it would have happened, but that discounts the fact that MS had the exact same policies in place preventing cross play. It wasn't until after the first eruption from the RL dev that Spencer started saying he for it. Before that, there is absolutely no indication if the two companies ever talked about it for this gen, or ever. There is no indication of what transpired after Spencer said they were open. Some vague comment about Sony being worried about the children, which translates to anyone who can read between the lines and is knowledgeable on the subject as them wanting to insure proper moderation for the security of it's users, and not too long ago where they said they felt that PS was the best place to play, which is why it wasn't there....which confuses me why they'd say such a thing since they obviously would have been working on it at that point. But to get back to my point, all these other devs that said that Sony was resistant also fell into the same category. They asked, Sony said no....with what I have to guess would be a typical response about how it doesn't meet compliance standards, But Bethesda's comment on the issue seemed more hostile, and Pete Hines has a history of being negative towards Sony. But, if you ask MS the same question during this time, they're going to give the same answer. Not because they don't want to allow it, but because it's a two way street for implementation. Couple that with the fact that neither company allows for independent implementation of network regulatory connections, it means that both companies would have to work to make an compatible API. Something that is apparently now available, although undocumented. In January this year, there was a huge API update, with a new networking API being a big focus. It was mandated that this new API be in full use for any game seeking compliance after a certain date(4/1/2018). This isn't atypical, as a few months is customary to allow devs time to implement. What's atypical is that there were three undocumented network features included in the API. One was the name change support. One is unknown. The third, which actually isn't required to be used, I can only assume is a cross play support API. If it's not, then Sony has at least two more features coming to their network, and they're big enough that they are trying to keep it from the public because the only reason they don't say what something does, is because they want to make an announcement later when the time is right....something that wouldn't be prudent on the cross play issue because people have been so irrational about it for a couple years now.
Doesn't make sense to restrict it to one game or a few select games or else people will just be on their asses all over again. They are just testing it out now and should in theory lift the limitations after the tests are done.
I don’t see why they wouldn’t after allowing Fortnite cross play. It would be a PR nightmare if all the sudden they decided not to allow cross play for other games after Fortnite. I’m hoping for Destiny 2 ti be next.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.