Can someone explain why it's Microsoft's fault? IIRC Shadowrun on the 360 was x-play with PC. Have they come out and said they don't want it? If anything I'd be expecting MS to push for alignment with PC, given that's where their strategy is headed.
I don't get what they get out of this stance. Comes across as incredibly stupid and offers no benefit to them at all besides bad word of mouth.
you can chat in DCU Online, FFXIV, etc just fine between the two platforms. Hell, in DCU O you can ONLY chat between platforms, as you can't actually play between platforms (again, technical reason). So yeah... I would make a ban bet on the lack of chat coming from the devs themselves, and not from Sony.
Probably none, I think it's likely there are people in MS as frustrated as anyone about the situation (post 86).
For everyone saying Microsoft, I read it as the OP wants cross play between consoles. I highly doubt Sony, MS or Nintendo want or will allow cross play between their systems.
I think It's basically down to whichever platform receives the title first, Gets cross play rights to PC.
As to who is preventing Cross Play between PS4 & XB1, Pretty sure, Both, Sony & MS would rather keep their player base separate from each other.
IIRC Killer Instinct is launching with Crossplay, so it's not a matter of MS being totally against it as much as against it with Sony versions.
I'm looking at it more like my friend bought a Papa Gino's pizza and I bought a Papa John's pizza. I'm able to eat a slice of his pizza and he's able to eat a slice of mine. Both of those companies got their money.
That metaphor doesn't really work since neither company need to work together in that scenario.
And nothing indicates Sony doesn't regard MS the same way. It's a two way street, but the "Its all MS" posts are always amusing.
So we're just gonna ignore FFXIV case?
And the old Burnout Paradise case (new for me)?
Except that has already happened with Nintendo and Sony. See Pure Chess. Has cross play among literally every platform including mobile, except for Xbox.
Why do people keep repeating this provably false rhetoric? FF14 shows that it's literally just MS.
There are crazy people (cough, Jeff Gerstmann) who play with a controller on PC after all.
If a developer wanted, and had the back of Sony and Microsoft they could feasibly tap into both to create a cross platform game. I'm not sure what the point of this post is you're saying we shouldn't absolve Sony, but providing no actual reason why? Sony have shown they're OK with cross platform with Steam and Wii U which are completely different systems. Microsoft only with Windows App Store titles.Everyone is always quick to jump onto blaming Microsoft for this, because of the context in which this comes up all the time.
The actual answer here is that PSN and Xbox Live standards are directly incompatible with each other. That is, if you want cross-platform play, you effectively have to pick either Xbox Live or PSN, and then they can also play with PC (since there's no effective standard there, unless you're working through Steam - or you go with Xbox Live, which is supported in the OS as of Windows 10).
This comes up and people blame Microsoft specifically because it's something that was implemented between PC and PSN first. I can guarantee that the same thing would be happening if a PS4 version of a game launched after the X1 and PC versions already are out and have cross-platform multiplayer.
The user-facing quality standards are a big thing for Microsoft and Xbox Live, which is another reason why it's difficult for developers to add in support for that post-release for the purposes of making it cross-platform. When games implement this sort of thing from the start, it actually works quite well - for example, in Shadowrun (PC balance issues aside), Skulls of the Shogun, and Fusion: Sentient/Genesis (though those were a different type of cross-platform interaction).
Yes, Microsoft is in part to blame, because of the way their service is set up, and because of the standards and requirements that they have. However, to completely absolve other platform holders from blame in this topic is intellectually dishonest, at the very least.
It's Microsoft.
Pure Chess has cross platform multiplayer across PS3, PS4. PS Vita, Wii U, 3DS, iOS and Android.
There is no Xbox version of Pure Chess.
Microsoft won't even allow online multiplayer across Xbox and PC unless the PC version is specifically sold through the Windows App Store. The market for games on the Windows App Store is tiny compared to the rest of the market, especially Steam.
Microsoft's refusal to allow cross-platform play between Steam versions of games and Xbox versions of their games is why there are far more devs supporting PC > console crossplatform play on Playstation than there are on Xbox. Sony have no such policy regarding Steam.
I think this is fairly backwards thinking from MS, but those are their policies.
Well, going by the Paragon thread, gamers might also be preventing it.
There were actually some complaints about cross platform PC/PS4 play.
That was me. Not sure why it doesn't make sense. MS has put a shitload of effort into making a secure gaming network (Live) and hosting platform (Azure), and adequate security is a cornerstone of a reliable service. I think it's highly likely that one or more of the parties in MS involved in doing the due diligence on a crossplatform deal with products whose reliability and security controls are (to MS) completely unknown is probably a major factor in MS's reticence in this area. I see third party vendors being turned down for that kind of thing all the time.And for the person on the first page saying "MS doesn't allow it because security reasons"... what? That makes no sense whatsoever.
That was me. Not sure why it doesn't make sense. MS has put a shitload of effort into making a secure gaming network (Live) and hosting platform (Azure), and adequate security is a cornerstone of a reliable service. I think it's highly likely that one or more of the parties in MS involved in doing the due diligence on a crossplatform deal with products whose reliability and security controls are (to MS) completely unknown is probably a major factor in MS's reticence in this area. I see third party vendors being turned down for that kind of thing all the time.
Well said.snip
Can someone explain why it's Microsoft's fault? IIRC Shadowrun on the 360 was x-play with PC. Have they come out and said they don't want it? If anything I'd be expecting MS to push for alignment with PC, given that's where their strategy is headed.
FF14?
So we're just gonna ignore FFXIV case?
And the old Burnout Paradise case (new for me)?
I find your lack of willingness to accept basic observations and real-life examples in these threads that refute your claim amusing. This isn't "MS hate" but rather pointing out that they have wanted and continue to maintain a "closed" community, with quotes from devs, and that it wasn't the case in the past (for a single instance).
Quite frankly if we want this to change, people should be more vocal about it with MS (and Sony) so that amazing games like Rocket League benefit from larger player pools!
Can someone explain why it's Microsoft's fault? IIRC Shadowrun on the 360 was x-play with PC. Have they come out and said they don't want it? If anything I'd be expecting MS to push for alignment with PC, given that's where their strategy is headed.
I could be remembering incorrectly but I remember an interview with Criterion back when paradise city was being released saying they actually had it in the game until MS told them they can't do it. Somebody want to jog my memory on this. Any past/present Criterion employees about?
At this point I don't think either party wants it anymore.
I think that in particular, "crossplay" in this context means the interaction between two separate online networks (such as Steam and PSN). The same network on two distinct HW platforms is different.Shadowrun was crossplay because it was confined to the Live ecosystem. It's barely the definition of crossplay, in which people think more of complete hardware agnostic game.
They also broke it years ago and never came back to fix it (you can't voice chat anymore)
I would be fascinated to see a quote that has Sony or a partnered developer saying they'd be fine letting a PlayStation title connect to a game running on XBL.
These developers are talking about the PC ports of their games before anything else. It takes two haves to shake. MS doesn't want XBL linking up to PSN and I can't imagine Sony doesn't feel the same, but they're lucky in that they've never really been asked, near as I can tell.
That doesn't explain them allowing cross plateform in the past.
Especially since FFXI didn't even use Xbox servers.
FFXI was a sole exception made back in an era where Microsoft thought they might actually be able to make the Xbox relevant in Japan.
There's company policy, and then there's management who have the authority to grant exceptions. The ones that happened could have been authorised exceptions, proof of concepts, a myriad of reasons. MS is a big complex company and is well known for not being cohesive across its divisions. It's not really surprising that things look so messy.That doesn't explain them allowing cross plateform in the past.
Especially since FFXI didn't even use Xbox servers.
I think that in particular, "crossplay" in this context means the interaction between two separate online networks (such as Steam and PSN). The same network on two distinct HW platforms is different.
There's company policy, and then there's management who have the authority to grant exceptions. The ones that happened could have been authorised exceptions, proof of concepts, a myriad of reasons. MS is a big complex company and is well known for not being cohesive across its divisions. It's not really surprising that things look so messy.
I'm not saying it's right that they don't support it, I'm just trying to give some context for why they may have made that decision, to contrast with the frankly infantile "MS hates the customer" nonsense that gets spouted.
That was me. Not sure why it doesn't make sense. MS has put a shitload of effort into making a secure gaming network (Live) and hosting platform (Azure), and adequate security is a cornerstone of a reliable service. I think it's highly likely that one or more of the parties in MS involved in doing the due diligence on a crossplatform deal with products whose reliability and security controls are (to MS) completely unknown is probably a major factor in MS's reticence in this area. I see third party vendors being turned down for that kind of thing all the time.
I'm not sure if MS would even allow that, if the developers wanted to integrate a PC game on e.g. Steam with XBL.Because PS4-PC crossplay is a thing MS doesn't seem to want to interact with.
I'm sure if companies were running PC-only and wanted to let XBO in on it, MS would go for it.
as has been said. FFXIV's producer has already said it's MS' policy preventing FFXIV on XBONE.I would be fascinated to see a quote that has Sony or a partnered developer saying they'd be fine letting a PlayStation title connect to a game running on XBL.
Ironically, cross play was coined by Sony as a phrase to describe cross platform play between the Vita, the PS3 and the PS4. It's since caught on as a short hand for cross platform play in general, probably because all of the cross platform play games in recent years has involved Sony consoles in some way. If anything needs renamed, it's going to be the term for cross ecosystem play.Yeah, I'd personally define crossplay as that. It has to play across different networks entirely.
People really should call two versions of a game on the same network something else, like ecosystem play or intraplay or (someone come up with something better)
It's not a security problem cause it would be the same as connecting to Netflix or hulu on the one.
It's deeply rooted in Microsoft's corporate culture. Go look up how they behaved with Internet Explorer, Word, etc etc.
Can someone explain why it's Microsoft's fault? IIRC Shadowrun on the 360 was x-play with PC. Have they come out and said they don't want it? If anything I'd be expecting MS to push for alignment with PC, given that's where their strategy is headed.
Microsoft.
Everyone is always quick to jump onto blaming Microsoft for this, because of the context in which this comes up all the time.
The actual answer here is that PSN and Xbox Live standards are directly incompatible with each other. That is, if you want cross-platform play, you effectively have to pick either Xbox Live or PSN, and then they can also play with PC (since there's no effective standard there, unless you're working through Steam - or you go with Xbox Live, which is supported in the OS as of Windows 10).
This comes up and people blame Microsoft specifically because it's something that was implemented between PC and PSN first. I can guarantee that the same thing would be happening if a PS4 version of a game launched after the X1 and PC versions already are out and have cross-platform multiplayer.
The user-facing quality standards are a big thing for Microsoft and Xbox Live, which is another reason why it's difficult for developers to add in support for that post-release for the purposes of making it cross-platform. When games implement this sort of thing from the start, it actually works quite well - for example, in Shadowrun (PC balance issues aside), Skulls of the Shogun, and Fusion: Sentient/Genesis (though those were a different type of cross-platform interaction).
Yes, Microsoft is in part to blame, because of the way their service is set up, and because of the standards and requirements that they have. However, to completely absolve other platform holders from blame in this topic is intellectually dishonest, at the very least.
How did it work with FFXI being on PS2/PC/X360?