Support NeoGAF

[Giftofgab24]

Yeah. Just in the case of Xbox and PlayStation it benefits Microsoft doubly compared to Sony.
30million install base versus 60million.

That's a 3x increase versus 1.5x.

Sure. That would be the case if the attach rate for software was exactly 1:1. That's obviously not the case. For pretty much every game I've seen, Xbox one has a relatively higher attach rate. A lot of PS4 hardware is definitely selling, but that doesn't mean games are at all. It's gonna be different for every game. Same thing that happened with the Wii, but obviously not as close to extreme. PS4 software sales are still great whereas that wasn't the case for Wii.

I've never had trouble on x1 finding a match in any game besides deformers. PS4 overwatch takes between 1 and 5 minutes to find a match every match. I'm sure it could use a healthier player base to reduce wait times.

 

[fabricated backlash]

Shh, you're distracting from the message. If you continue this, your anti-consumer comment will be noted.

Now everyone repeat after me: Arrogant Sony is back.

If ever you needed an example of persecution complex.

 

[FX-GMC]

Sure. That would be the case if the attach rate for software was exactly 1:1. That's obviously not the case. For pretty much every game I've seen, Xbox one has a relatively higher attach rate. A lot of PS4 hardware is definitely selling, but that doesn't mean games are at all. It's gonna be different for every game.

I've never had trouble on x1 finding a match in any game besides deformers. PS4 overwatch takes between 1 and 5 minutes to find a match every match. I'm sure it could use a healthier player base to reduce wait times.

Not to mention a larger skill base for better skill-based matchmaking.

 

[phanphare]

No it wasn't and you can keep pretending it was, but that doesn't change anything. The argument always boils down to it's okay that Microsoft is removing features while the people saying it are too ignorant to see their own hypocrisy. Not arguing in good faith is getting all up in arms about anti-consumer practices and then going ahead and supporting it when someone else does it.

it was in this thread

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1393164

I remember you having a long back and forth with CookTrain where you just kept digging your heels in despite being explained in detail multiple times about why your comparison wasn't valid

I'm literally not pretending anything

 

[Shrennin]

If they brought it over, charged full price, then stopped adding features that were being added on the other platforms, fuck yeah I would complain. So would you.

PS4 players paid for the game they are playing. They are still getting updates. The Bedrock engine is a free update that Sony chose not to receive. And I wouldn't complain about SE, I would complain to Microsoft. Because Microsoft's policies prevented it. Just like Sony's are now.

 

[Synth]

Yeah, tell the kid that buys Minecraft for the same price as everyone else that him not getting the features everyone else is, is good for them.

Yup you should be happy kid that you can't have the new graphics engine, unless you're a stock holder or an anti-consumer fanboy, suck it up.

Stop it. They get the updates that the other team (4J Studios) develops. Mojang is creating the version Sony just blocked. A different branch of the game developed by a different team ends up with a different feature set. If you're going to argue that MS are screwing their customers in this case, then you'd be arguing that they've been screwing all console version up until this point of unification... or hell, screwing even the Win10/Pocket Edition versions for not having all the features of the Java version.

It's a bullshit argument. Sony shouldn't get to block a unified version that one team creates, and then expect a piecemeal bespoke version of that update to be created by a magical fourth team, established purely to facilitate their decision to impede the game's overall direction in the first place. Just as nobody blames SquareEnix for skipping over Xbox for FFXIV for issues created by MS themselves, nobody should be asking MS to bend into the shapes Sony demands.

 

[Marty Chinn]

Why should Microsoft create a special version of the engine when the engine's purpose is unification and simplification?

Because consumers and gamers want it? Isn't that the argument people use as to why Sony should bend over backwards against their own interests?

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Sure. That would be the case if the attach rate for software was exactly 1:1. That's obviously not the case. For pretty much every game I've seen, Xbox one has a relatively higher attach rate. A lot of PS4 hardware is definitely selling, but that doesn't mean games are at all. It's gonna be different for every game. Same thing that happened with the Wii, but obviously not as close to extreme. PS4 software sales are still great whereas that wasn't the case for Wii.

I've never had trouble on x1 finding a match in any game besides deformers. PS4 overwatch takes between 1 and 5 minutes to find a match every match. I'm sure it could use a healthier player base to reduce wait times.

I know from experience, and Bioware devs probably have this somewhere on their forums, but Xbox and PC players on Dragon Age Inquisition MP were much lower than PS4. It's the only game that I played that had community challenges, all split up, and all requirements listed. PS4 had to do so much more to complete it's weekly challenge.

 

[CookTrain]

Because consumers and gamers want it? Isn't that the argument people use as to why Sony should bend over backwards against their own interests?

Saying "Ok, go for it" isn't bending over backwards.

 

[SenjutsuSage]

Has he suggested that this whole cross-play stuff is an evil plot by Microsoft to force everybody to use Xbox Live or Windows yet?

 

[Shrennin]

Because consumers and gamers want it? Isn't that the argument people use as to why Sony should bend over backwards against their own interests?

So you're saying Sony would allow Minecraft PS4 players to log into XBL to access its servers, where the update is required to access things like infinite worlds?

This is literally not Microsoft's fault that Sony won't accept a free update that includes consumer friendly features like CROSS BUY DLC that requires multiple systems to talk with each other.

 

[Gestault]

I'll say this:

Someone who made a platform buying decision based on the absense of cross-play who might have been happier with a different platform otherwise would be more likely to rationalize this policy situation to validate that decision. Right or wrong, it's just the way people work.

 

[Lifeline]

I remember you having a long back and forth with CookTrain where you just kept digging your heels in despite being explained in detail multiple times about why your comparison wasn't valid

Nice assessment of that argument. Obviously, I had a different point of view and my point was never disproven. Considering your post history, it's not to surprising you point of view of that argument was different.

Just as nobody blames SquareEnix for skipping over Xbox for FFXIV for issues created by MS themselves, nobody should be asking MS to bend into the shapes Sony demands.

I'm pretty sure if Square ported FFXIV over, updated it the same as other consoles and then one day stopped porting some features over to the Xbox version while still charging the same amount, people would be complaining.

I believe the term "anti-consumer" would be used.

PS4 players paid for the game they are playing. They are still getting updates. The Bedrock engine is a free update that Sony chose not to receive. And I wouldn't complain about SE, I would complain to Microsoft. Because Microsoft's policies prevented it. Just like Sony's are now.

Show me how crossplay is required for them to make the graphics better.

"PS4 players paid for the game they are playing" is such bullshit. People bought in expecting to be updated the same as other consoles.

I'll say this:

Someone who made a platform buying decision based on the absense of cross-play who might have been happier with a different platform otherwise would be more likely to rationalize this policy situation to validate that decision. It's just the way people work.

Yeah i chose my console based on what my friends were playing on. Just like i'm sure the majority of people do. Show me where i'm saying this policy is okay. I've only said two things about crossplay.

1. I don't expect business's to care about consumers over their business interests
2. I find it weird that the same people calling out Sony for anti-consumer practices are supporting Microsoft's anti-consumer practices.

 

[Shrennin]

Show me how crossplay is required for them to make the graphics better.

"PS4 players paid for the game they are playing" is such bullshit. People bought in expecting to be updated the same as other consoles.

We actually don't know if the graphics update may one day come to PS4. As of right now, Mojang is working on the Bedrock engine that facilitates the Better Together update, which includes things like parity updates between all Bedrock platforms (as they are now connected). PS4 could eventually get it from the other team, but it'll be slower thanks to Sony not accepting a free update by the Mohang team whose purpose is to work on the Better Together platforms.

Again, this is totally on Sony.

 

[Yearsoflurking]

Nice assessment of that argument. Obviously, I had a different point of view and my point was never disproven. Considering your post history, it's not to surprising you point of view of that argument was different.



I'm pretty sure if Square ported FFXIV over, updated it the same as other consoles and then one day stopped porting some features over to the Xbox version while still charging the same amount, people would be complaining.

I believe the term "anti-consumer" would be used.



Show me how crossplay is required for them to make the graphics better.

"PS4 players paid for the game they are playing" is such bullshit. People bought in expecting to be updated the same as other consoles.

ps4 players will still have the legacy edition of minecraft, unfortunately sony didn't want the new edition. ps4 minecraft fans should take that up with sony, who wants a developer to conpromise their vision.

 

[Synth]

I'm pretty sure if Square ported FFXIV over, updated it the same as other consoles and then one day stopped porting some features over to the Xbox version while still charging the same amount, people would be complaining.

The PS4 version is being updated in exactly the same way it always was... the way all the versions of Minecraft that aren't/weren't linked have been. Xbox 360./ Xbox One Minecraft has not been on par with the Windows 10 version at any point previously, because it's been maintained by a different team, and is a separate branch of development. This is how the PS4 version launched also, and this is how it remains.

 

[vpance]

Because consumers and gamers want it? Isn't that the argument people use as to why Sony should bend over backwards against their own interests?

The truth is, there would be no need for any special version if MS remained an outside party and let Mojang make the game server agnostic. Those conversations at the beginning of development must have been interesting.

 

[phanphare]

Nice assessment of that argument. Obviously, I had a different point of view and my point was never disproven. Considering your post history, it's not to surprising you point of view of that argument was different.

you're welcome to read through the exchange again, I believe it was quite clear

I'll link posts that address your specific concerns if you'd like but it'll have to wait until later in the day. I'll respond though if you want to go ahead and post those concerns.

 

[CookTrain]

The truth is, there would be no need for any special version if MS remained an outside party and let Mojang make the game server agnostic. Those conversations at the beginning of development must have been interesting.

But wouldn't we be in the same position we're in now with Rocket League?

 

[WaterAstro]

If that were the case Sony wouldn't publish minecraft on PS at all.. 70% of those proceeds go to MS anyway and Minecrafts population is massive w/o Sony.

I'm not thinking of the game itself. I'm thinking of the Xbox Live login.

Seeing the words "Xbox Live" on a PlayStation is damaging for the PSN brand.
It's why there are strict guidelines for game submissions that specifically say that you can't have hardware competitors branding anywhere in a PlayStation game.

I'm surprised that Nintendo would allow, though they might backpedal when it goes into Nintendo QA. Perhaps Nintendo are desperate to recover from the Wii U.

 

[Shrennin]

But wouldn't we be in the same position we're in now with Rocket League?

Yup.

 

[Synth]

But wouldn't we be in the same position we're in now with Rocket League?

Nobody who's been posting in numerous of these threads is truly unaware of that at this point. It's just being purposely ignored.

 

[Alucardx23]

Tim Sweeney should ask Sony directly to see if he also gets the "For the children" answer.

 

[mrmickfran]

"Sony is only losing by allowing crossplay. Instead of buying a PS4 to play with your friends, you can buy an Xbox and Sony loses a sale. Good on Sony for sticking to their consumer base."

Lmfao holy shit

 

[jonscrambler]

this fake outrage about PS4 Minecraft not getting updates... PS4 version of minecraft is just going to be a different branch like it is now, some features in the upcoming update like graphics pack may or may not later on come to PS4, we just don't know because it's just going to stay a separate version worked on by a different developer.

 

[Future]

Switch population will probably be low for lots of online games. Necessity to allow cross play whenever possible to benefit its users. Xbox One not doing great, and more people having PS4s. Cross play is a benefit to increase odds they can stick with Xbox by allowing people to play with their PS4 friends

Sony though...they have the most users. Odds are your friends have ps4s. They want you to rebuy the content on PS4 if / when you eventually get a ps4. They want you playing on PS4 so they get a cut of the profit when you buy the dlc. What incentive do they have to change this really.

 

[Gestault]

This doesn't apply to the broader cross-play situation, but specifically for the Minecraft example:

Imagine if Sony blocked any other publisher's game or update because it had a third-party account login or dedicated servers. Those are effectively an industry-standard practice, and it's not a case where a dev is trying to circumventing the paid PS+ service. From what we understand, even with the unified purchase system, the marketplaces are still getting their cut of whatever is purchased through that platform.

 

[CookTrain]

This doesn't apply to the broader cross-play situation, but specifically for the Minecraft example:

Imagine if Sony blocked any other publisher's game or update because it had a third-party account login or dedicated servers. Those are effectively an industry-standard practice, and it's not a case where a dev is trying to circumventing the paid PS+ service. From what we understand, even with the unified purchase system, the marketplaces are still getting their cut of whatever is purchased through that platform.

Especially bizarre as when Portal 2 came out, they actively encouraged people to make Steam accounts.

 

[Shrennin]

Especially bizarre as when Portal 2 came out, they actively encouraged people to make Steam accounts.

And they now consider the PC platform to be a competitor to the PS4 Pro yet they still allow cross platform play with the PC. So strange. There's definitely mixed messaging with Sony.

 

[Giftofgab24]

I know from experience, and Bioware devs probably have this somewhere on their forums, but Xbox and PC players on Dragon Age Inquisition MP were much lower than PS4. It's the only game that I played that had community challenges, all split up, and all requirements listed. PS4 had to do so much more to complete it's weekly challenge.

Sure. As I said, it's gonna vary wildly on a game by game basis. The point I'm trying to make is that it's not only beneficial to Xbox, switch, and PC members. There's a lot of games in which crossplay is just as beneficial for PS4.

 

[LukasTaves]

Nice assessment of that argument. Obviously, I had a different point of view and my point was never disproven. Considering your post history, it's not to surprising you point of view of that argument was different.



I'm pretty sure if Square ported FFXIV over, updated it the same as other consoles and then one day stopped porting some features over to the Xbox version while still charging the same amount, people would be complaining.

I believe the term "anti-consumer" would be used.



Show me how crossplay is required for them to make the graphics better.

"PS4 players paid for the game they are playing" is such bullshit. People bought in expecting to be updated the same as other consoles.



Yeah i chose my console based on what my friends were playing on. Just like i'm sure the majority of people do. Show me where i'm saying this policy is okay. I've only said two things about crossplay.

1. I don't expect business's to care about consumers over their business interests
2. I find it weird that the same people calling out Sony for anti-consumer practices are supporting Microsoft's anti-consumer practices.

Because they are bringing the PC version to other platforms, which among other things has mod support which the previous console version lacks.

They are not going to re implement features on a legacy branch that wasn't even made by the same company, nor will they strip down and create a unique version when the point of this new version is precisely to unify development and features across all supported platforms.

And, no, just because MS is a huge company, and Minecraft sells a lot that does not mean they have to create yet another branch just to please sony users that don't want to miss on the updates.

Edit: I also forgot that the mod support is tied to the in game store, which is tied to the MS account. Ms implemented mod support because they want to get a cut on the mods people create, without the ability to get that cut you get no mods.

 

[vpance]

But wouldn't we be in the same position we're in now with Rocket League?

Maybe, maybe not. PS4 is far from being the most popular platform for MC so the situation is different.

Of course there's a degree of self protectionism from Sony when it comes to user base, but it's also myopic to think that MS couldn't have also made a more palatable situation for all parties with MC, from the beginning of development. Instead they choose to go the punishment route full on.

 

[CookTrain]

Maybe, maybe not. PS4 is far from being the most popular platform for MC so the situation is different.

Of course there's a degree of self protectionism from Sony when it comes to user base, but it's also myopic to think that MS couldn't have also made a more palatable situation for all parties with MC, from the beginning of development. Instead they choose to go the punishment route full on.

Punishment is spin at best and intentionally souring the conversation at worst. PS4 will still be getting updates, just on a different workflow. Whether 4J can add hosted servers and indulgent graphical upgrades remains to be seen, but it's not like they've been cut off.

 

[Gestault]

Show me how crossplay is required for them to make the graphics better.

Lifeline, Mojang is investing in a new engine and update platform to simplify future improvements. One platform holder has a policy blocking part of that update, so they don't get the improvements yet. Working around it would mean developing a separate pipeline to service that one platform, which defeats the point of the initiative. This is Sony being at odds with a publisher, for features that comply with requirements for iOS, Android, PC, Switch, and Xbox. This is Sony's decision, and Sony's consequence.

 

[boneyjangles]

Remember back when playing games with friends was messaging them on <whatever> and saying - "hey - i'm playing quake on the <whatever> server, come join me if you want!"

I remember even playing Quake 3 cross-play on my friends dreamcast with controller, against PC people. It was literally like bicycling over to a car race to try to take part and getting run over by a lambroghini. I thought 'what a bag of poorly thought out dogshit.'

But then again, the concept of crossplay was so simple back then. Social gaming wasn't a thing. Parties were barely a thing, voice chat didn't exist really. I think dreamcast quake just bombed you into the nearest PC server. Basically any kind of game that had a fleshed out multiplayer either had nothing, or it had game specific account bullshit.

So I continued to play on PC, which had me logging on to all sorts of multiplayer account systems to get anything going, and was a complicated mess. It's been streamlined somewhat, but you still need a steam account, a uplay account, an EA account, a battle.net account, a discord account, a skype account, a teamspeak account, and westwood chat (ok i'm trolling now).

When the Xbox game along with Live, it was a breath of fresh air, a paired down, simple intuitive way to play with friends, party chat, headset in the box (completely separate audio output from game sounds - cool!) which since then has been pretty much ripped by Sony (for good reason), and has become a ubiquitous part of gaming. Friend requests, invites, parties, joining games together, playing together - no bullshit, no pecking out messages and coordinating with third parties.

No wonder most of the western world plays on these setups. Complexity is a curse.

Now if Sony/Microsoft/Steam got together and hashed it out, I'm all for it, it would be a lot of work, but I wouldn't say it's impossible. Sony has done it with certain titles and Steam, etc, in the past. Microsoft have always been obstructionist traditionally. This is a new world of potential since they overturned their stubbornness a few months back (after Don Mattick wrecked their brand).

So things are changing, MS are keener, Sony are as keen as they've always been, more keen than MS of the past, but apparently less keen than a MS with a dwindling market share.

But if you dig into what is ACTUALLY on the table here. It's rocket league, minecraft, and a maybe 1 or 2 other potential titles.

First of all, Rocket league does not have crossplatform play, and not because of Sony, they pretty much don't have it at all. It has a crossplatform matchmaking pool only. Go ahead and try it out. Good luck inviting your Steam friend to your Xbox Party. All you can muster is a dopey little private head-to-head game, if you name and password protect a private game lobby and coordinate a third party communication. 99% of what people expect from the crossplatform rocketleague dream is not this.

Minecraft crossplatform is basically 'please create and sign in with an xbox live account on that PS4 to play minecraft with other people'. Sure, maybe Sony should allow this, but is it so crazy to understand if they are hesitating to do it? It might end up making whoever is in charge the worst Sony CEO of all time long term. You think if Sony bought Call of Duty during it's (and the xbox 360's) prime, then announce crossplatform, (all you have to do is sign up with a playstation account on your Xbox) - you really think MS would have allowed that?

Whatever way this swings, to me, unless some omnipotent programming being comes down and dictates to everyone, this isn't going to happen at any speed. If anything happens it's going to have lots of bullshit third party publisher accounts per game, and it's not going to be as good as partying up and playing with people on your native ecosystem.

For the media, and everyone else to spin this as a simple 'sony are douchebags, they just have to let psyonix flick that switch!' is just not helping progress this, it's confusing everything.

 

[LukasTaves]

The truth is, there would be no need for any special version if MS remained an outside party and let Mojang make the game server agnostic. Those conversations at the beginning of development must have been interesting.

If Ms remained an outside party there's nothing indicating Mojang would'nt just continue working on the java version, and the 4j guys working on the consoles.

It was Ms push to develop a new PC version based on c++ and uwp, which btw, was met with criticism, because people though they would lock it up and kill the java version, and that's the version they are pushing now to other consoles. So even without Ms into the play the playstation version would be the same as it's now.

 

[vpance]

Punishment is spin at best and intentionally souring the conversation at worst. PS4 will still be getting updates, just on a different workflow. Whether 4J can add hosted servers and indulgent graphical upgrades remains to be seen, but it's not like they've been cut off.

That's not very reassuring. Remains to be seen = buyer beware.

Like I've said before, Minecraft fans, pretend the PS4 version doesn't exist. You'll never know how gimped it could become. Or at least don't pay anywhere near full price for it.

 

[CookTrain]

That's not very reassuring. Remains to be seen = buyer beware.

Like I've said before, Minecraft fans, pretend the PS4 version doesn't exist. You'll never know how gimped it could become. Or at least don't pay anywhere near full price for it.

I agree with your assessment although it isn't gimped, it's just not changing trajectory. The PS4 is going to fall behind very, very quickly. The next 4J update adds a few more Java features. The Better Together update is probably as close to Minecraft 2 as consoles will ever see.

And that's why I think it's going to bite Sony hard whenever the update drops.

 

[Shrennin]

But if you dig into what is ACTUALLY on the table here. It's rocket league, minecraft, and a maybe 1 or 2 other potential titles.

For now. Now that Nintendo is on the table, we'll see more and more multiplayer titles cross play between Xbox and Switch.

First of all, Rocket league does not have crossplatform play, and not because of Sony, they pretty much don't have it at all. It has a crossplatform matchmaking pool only. Go ahead and try it out. Good luck inviting your Steam friend to your Xbox Party. All you can muster is a dopey little private head-to-head game, if you name and password protect a private game lobby and coordinate a third party communication. 99% of what people expect from the crossplatform rocketleague dream is not this.

Crossplay the way you want it has to start from somewhere. Sony won't even allow crossplay at its most basic between consoles, so if Sony won't be willing to go even that far then you'll never see crossplay the way you want it. Minecraft actually does go as far as you want.

Minecraft crossplatform is basically 'please create and sign in with an xbox live account on that PS4 to play minecraft with other people'. Sure, maybe Sony should allow this, but is it so crazy to understand if they are hesitating to do it? It might end up making whoever is in charge the worst Sony CEO of all time long term. You think if Sony bought Call of Duty during it's (and the xbox 360's) prime, then announce crossplatform, (all you have to do is sign up with a playstation account on your Xbox) - you really think MS would have allowed that?

If CoD was popular enough, and it cleared the security concerns Microsoft had, and if it is this version of Microsoft under Spencer, then yes. Microsoft would probably allow it.

Minecraft's cross play is allowed and follows the requirements of not only Xbox of course, but Nintendo, Android, and Apple. Those are competitors to Microsoft and all three allow it!

 

[TechnicPuppet]

I'm sure MS will be expecting extra revenue across all platforms that support the update. They wouldn't do it othwise.

I imagine its not financialy viable to bring certain upates to one platform.

 

[rokkerkory]

I'm sure MS will be expecting extra revenue across all platforms that support the update. They wouldn't do it othwise.

I imagine its not financialy viable to bring certain upates to one platform.

In the very least, more sales of their biggest game... Minecraft

 

[Fallout-with-swords]

I'm sure MS will be expecting extra revenue across all platforms that support the update. They wouldn't do it othwise.

I imagine its not financialy viable to bring certain upates to one platform.

Weren't they already bringing updates to several different platforms before the update?

 

[LukasTaves]

I'm sure MS will be expecting extra revenue across all platforms that support the update. They wouldn't do it othwise.

I imagine its not financialy viable to bring certain upates to one platform.

It's not just more sales, it's revenue from mods.

The new version allows content creators to release mods on all better together platforms, and Ms receives 30% of the mods being sold.

 

[Cert.in.Death]

Not stunned - Sweeney has been a hyperbolic critic, IMO, of walled garden ecosystems. But I disagree that it benefits everyone and it isn't without its drawbacks.

 

[VlaudTheImpaler]

lmao, man that is so true. The more i see these threads and how the people respond in it, the less I care about this "movement". I said I supported crossplay, but didn't expect a business to help out it's biggest competitor. Got called an anti-consumer fanboy.

Don't worry dude. Your constant participation in these threads makes it Krystal clear how much you don't care.

I like that the main thread about crossplay on this forum talks about how if you make memes and complain, you'll get cross save which isn't even on the table. Not even Microsoft or Nintendo are talking about doing crossave with their games. Read like one of those BS infomercials.

I gave the Wikipedia definition of crossplay as a general term specifically so that people wouldn't get hung up on just Minecraft and Rocket League. I wanted people to understand what crossplay becoming more of a standard could mean for everyone. The point was to encourage people to look ahead. As a community worker in my city I know how hard it is for a LOT of people to do that.

These guys care so about anti-consumer practices, but don't think it's anti-consumer that Microsoft is blocking features on the PS4 version of Minecraft while charging the same amount as other versions.

This has already been explained to you so many times I don't want to waste my time doing it again.

The same guy that wrote that main thread told me that kids should be happy that they're not getting these features and I should tell kids who want these features on PS4 (which don't require crossplay) about how cool crossplay is and tell the kids to go complain to Sony.

You where putting words in my mouth then and you are still doing it now. Let me show you and everyone else what actually happened...

I've made it pretty clear here: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241022859&postcount=701



You're right it's not anti-consumer at all to hold off features on a version of the game where your 3rd largest playerbase is, while charging the same amount.

Next year when CoD:WW2 holds off features on the Xbox One, it won't be anti-consumer either right?



I don't know why you are so obsessed about the features I'm interested in. Am i only person playing Minecraft on PS4? I've already told you multiple times, I don't care about Minecraft at all.

Just because I don't personally care about the game, doesn't mean that it's okay too hold off features for the millions of people that paid full price for it on the PS4. That's as anti-consumer as it gets. If this was any other company in any other situation, everyone would be calling it anti-consumer.



Right because holding off Minecraft features for the third largest playerbase of Minecraft benefits the consumers.

It absolutely does benefit more people if it pushes Sony to enable crossplay. EVERYONE but Sony, a corporation, would win in that scenario.

But I actually don't think it would even be that bad for them like I said earlier,

Even if it bites them later. It's up to consumers to make things like this as standard as possible if we like it even when it might not be the most beneficial thing for whatever company isn't on top.

Thing is, Sony might not be on top forever, so eventually this may benefit them just as much as it would MS, Nintendo etc now and vice versa.

When looked at this way, this is actually a good thing for the industry as a whole.

Genius argument. Let me just go tell all the kids that bought Minecraft that even though they're stuck with a inferior version they paid the same amount as everyone else, they should be happy. This is good for them.

They should be grateful that Microsoft isn't updating their games with these new features in the off chance that Sony changes their mind and the few people that wanted cross play get it.

Wow, what a pro-consumer move.

That's not at all what I said but ok.

What you could do though since you seem so keen to help is tell the kids about this cool pro consumer thing called crossplay that enables gamers from outside of the island to be able to play with them too. To complain to Sony so that crossplay can benefit them and EVERYONE else as well. This only makes life easier for everyone. Devs included.

Also, MS isn't the only one who wants crossplay for goodness sakes.

You'll notice that not once did I say that kids should be happy that they are not getting the features.

This seems to me to be a case of confirmation bias.

Seriously some weird ass shit.

You got that right.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

One of the biggest gaming franchise in the world can't be bothered to pay for PS4 updates. They can't be bothered to make updates for their 3rd largest playerbase even though they still charge the same amount and profit off them.

In this same thread all of you want Sony to lose their playerbase advantage, lose the money they get from being the "place where your friends are". You want Sony to act against their own business and strengthen their competitors.

But you think it's crazy to expect features that all other versions of the game get when you paid the same amount.



No it wasn't and you can keep pretending it was, but that doesn't change anything. The argument always boils down to it's okay that Microsoft is removing features while the people saying it are too ignorant to see their own hypocrisy. Not arguing in good faith is getting all up in arms about anti-consumer practices and then going ahead and supporting it when someone else does it.

lol, you really are going all in on this one aren't you, even when it is being pointed out that your logic is flawed and incorrect.

What a weird stance for a gamer to take.

 

[The Albatross]

There was a poster that mentioned their friends play on different platforms than PC. The poster would like to play games like Overwatch, Battlefield 1, and some other games with them with cross play. And for a lot of the games listed I was thinking, no. A fighting game, sure, a racing game ok, but shooters?

There is no reason that you shouldn't want the platform to support cross-platform play. This doesn't mean that a software developer necessarily has to support it or even that a player would necessarily want to use it. For instance, when I started in Rocket League, I didn't want to do cross-platform with PC because that player base was way more advanced than I was... but a month later I did because I got the benefits of it.

If the platform can support it, then it should support it, or, at least, platform developers shouldn't put up blocks preventing developers from supporting it.

That doesn't mean that as a player you have to play cross-platform. Most games that have cross platform functionality give you the option in the matchmaking as far as I can tell.

 

[Theswweet]

Worst, none of you will play Minecraft and Rocket League if you're not playing it already.

No crossplay is going to change your mind about these titles.

I'm finally getting Rocket League for Switch, partly because it has cross-play.

 

[gogosox82]

Why isn't paragon on xbox then if he believes this?

 

[The Albatross]

Worst, none of you will play Minecraft and Rocket League if you're not playing it already.

No crossplay is going to change your mind about these titles.

I would not get Rocket League for Switch if it didn't have cross play. With Cross Play, I would get it, because I could play a mobile Rocket League with my friends, who are predominantly on X1 or PS4 (I'm the only one with a Switch).

I kinda doubt it will but I hope Player Unknown Battlegrounds supports cross play on X1 -> PC. My friends play that on PC but I don't have a computer that can really play games. I will definitely buy PUGB if it's cross-play enabled, if not, I probably won't (have no interest playing alone)