Support NeoGAF

[leeh]

Rocket League uses the platforms friends system for party play, partying with players from other platforms would need an in-game friend system, which is something that Rocket League devs would have to implement, I guess.

If MS isn't stopping in-game communication (in-game text chat), then I don't see why they would be stopping an in-game friend system.

There's a bit of a difference between an in-game text chat and a whole new social platform specifically for a game.

It won't happen for these reasons IMO:
- Large development effort for teams to re-invent what's already present to them: XBL, PSN, Steam etc all have a platform which they hook into. Why re-do that?
- Creates segregation within platforms: Since the 360, all titles have hooked into XBL and only XBL for social actions. Moving away from that would segregate player bases, add complexity for the end user and would be up to the developer to maintain rather than the platform holder (Could go down etc).

 

[blue_phazon]

So your solution to the question of the value of cross-play is to not use cross-play...?

I thought you were saying that crossplay has to benefit for you specifically because of lack of social features, etc. So I'm saying you don't have to use it, but crossplay should still be there for others.

In terms of solutions, there could be dev ones like standardized messages binded to buttons. For example, the voiceline wheel in overwatch, or the "NICE SHOT" in rocket league and such. Obviously it's not as good as voice chat.

For playing with friends over crossplay, there could be dev solutions as well. IIRC, you can play with friends in private matches in Rocket League if you make a lobby with a password. People on other platforms can view the lobby as well, so if you have a friend on another platform, they can enter if they know the password. I'm sure there could be a way a dev can take this concept, where you make a lobby, have your friends from other platforms join (via password or whatever), and then search matchmaking together. Not sure if there's any restrictions, but it could be a loophole that enables playing with friends through crossplay.

 

[ezodagrom]

Sony just needs to come out and tell the truth, whatever it is. Something along the lines of:

"Microsoft is our direct competitor and as they will require our customers to create/log into a Microsoft account in order to cross-play, we will not be allowing this. This may seem unfair, but as a business we cannot help promote our competitors ecosystems"

That isn't true at all, Minecraft needs MS accounts because it's a MS game.

Let's say a Battlefield game had crossplay, for it to allow people from different platforms to form a group together, the game would need its own account/friend system, and with this being an EA game, naturally it would use EA's Origin accounts.

 

[TheGreyHulk]

I'm sorry but even being a Sony fanboy this whole thing is completely fucked up and saying otherwise is 100% irrational. Fuck any developer that doesn't want cross play implementation, I hope this continues and eventually bites them in the ass. If anything I hope it does too Sony what the Xbox one reveal did to microsoft.

I seriously can't believe anyone defends Sony or any other platform not allowing cross play on the games the third party DEVELOPERS make. WTF is wrong with some of these people? Is Sony paying your mortgage or are some of them so far up one companies ass they can't figure out what's good for the community anymore?

100% agree.

It's shocking that anyone would defend Sony on crossplay. There's nothing to defend. Who cares about their damn business model and shit. They don't care about yours. It means nothing to us gamers. The PS4 is selling like mad regardless of crossplay.

As a gamer, you want crossplay. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It has the potential to prolong the life of MP games by giving you a larger base to connect with instead of splitting them by platform.

There's always going to be a toggle to disable it and communications would be handled in game since you cant do platform specific thinks like party or invites through the OS, but that's fine. Devs can do in game versions of this that dont rely on the OS features.

Sony is just saying no as a business tactic, i get it, we all get
it, but it doesn't make it right for us gamers.

 

[Rogue Agent]

This is why I say, meaningful social interaction features. Like voice chat, party chat, friends lists, player invites etc..

There's no point in doing that until there's unity for crossplay. Once there's unity (all platform holders support it for each other), then more features would be introduced. Until that happens, it probably wouldn't be worth it.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

If you want better social interaction in crossplay, then you have to push for all platform holders to support crossplay.

No developer is going to bother jumping through the hoops to make this work, when they have no guarantee platform holders will support their effort.

Its as simple as that.

It's strange that you use current limitations as an excuse for not doing it at all... when going all-in on crossplay would allow these limitations to be removed.

I don't see it like that.

Cross-play without meaningful social interaction is simply diluting a pool of players who can interact with each other with a bunch who can't. I see it as a net-negative, as opposed to a "net-positive" situation.

Sure you can just say, "then turn off cross-play in the menu", but then if you're agreeing that cross-play without social features is so worthless that you should turn it off then why even bother in the first place?

Honestly, I think your argument of "Sony needs to agree to it" before devs put in any effort to make it not worthless" is seriously flawed.

Currently Sony allows cross-play with PC. MS and Nintendo all also allow cross-play with PC and each other. We already have cross-play. Everyone is already on board in some form. So it's not as if developers efforts for creating a social platform for cross-play would be in vein... actually the complete opposite. All of the players on all of the systems which benefit from existing cross-play between systems would benefit.

I'm really failing to see how Sony is preventing devs like Psyonix from doing this now. And in my mind, if they aren't putting the work in to develop those features now, increasing the value of cross-play so that it actually becomes something useful, then how do we know they will once Sony have agreed to play ball with the other consoles?

Sorry, but I just don't share your optimism here.

 

[ezodagrom]

There's a bit of a difference between an in-game text chat and a whole new social platform specifically for a game.

It won't happen for these reasons IMO:
- Large development effort for teams to re-invent what's already present to them: XBL, PSN, Steam etc all have a platform which they hook into. Why re-do that?
- Creates segregation within platforms: Since the 360, all titles have hooked into XBL and only XBL for social actions. Moving away from that would segregate player bases, add complexity for the end user and would be up to the developer to maintain rather than the platform holder (Could go down etc).

Inviting people from the same platform should still be done through the platform's own features of course, it's only inviting people from other platforms that would need an in-game system, be it a friend system, a search system, or a history/favorites system.

By history/favorites system I mean the game having a list of the last people (let's say 10~20?) the player played with either through random matchmaking or private match/password and being able to save those players in a favorite list so they can invite them for party in the future.

Cross-play without meaningful social interaction is simply diluting a pool of players who can interact with each other with a bunch who can't. I see it as a net-negative, as opposed to a "net-positive" situation.

Many games don't even need meaningful social interaction, for example, 1 vs 1 fighting games or racing games, these wouldn't need anything more than random matchmaking and some form of friends/favorites system for invitation or challenge purposes, and the more niche of these could really use a bigger players pool.

 

[Alienous]

Unless Sony is paying you, why should you care? There are plenty of other reasons to own a PS4 that I think they'll be just fine supporting this. Continuing to block this could also hinder their business, so the corporate cheerleading isn't necessary.

Also if two of the three console providers mandated no microtransactions, there would definitely be a demand for the third to do the same. So your analogy doesn't really work here.

I care, not because I'm cheerleading for Sony (I own all of the current-gen platforms) or against crossplay (it would be great), but because I'm not dealing in fantasy - companies don't act against their financial self-interests. That isn't how they are run. Unless you're advocating for a boycott of Sony hardware and software, something that would show up on their graphs, it doesn't matter how much you say "Aw, come on Sony, please".

And you're missing the point of my analogy - companies mandating no microtransactions would benefit consumers, much like crossplay. But banning microtransactions won't happen because it isn't a profitable decision - how great it would be doesn't factor into the equation. Microsoft stand to gain from crossplay - they aren't being charitable. Sony, it would seem, would be on the losing side of that deal.

They ARENT trading their markshare. This argument is vastly overstated. They are creating a better environment for developers, and extending the lives of games their customers play. They'd also ensure that people don't have to avoid Sony to get the features they want- islands trap people in AND keep people out.

The "I buy what my friends have effect' doesn't go away with crossplay - as Sony DOES have games and content that are exclusive to their platform. Not only that, but the PS4 value proposition still resonates.

I'm talking about Sony trading a competitive advantage for something that isn't one. A better environment for third-party developers is something that equally benefits their competition, ergo not something worth forfeiting part of your competitive advantage for.

 

[Trup1aya]

There's a bit of a difference between an in-game text chat and a whole new social platform specifically for a game.

It won't happen for these reasons IMO:
- Large development effort for teams to re-invent what's already present to them: XBL, PSN, Steam etc all have a platform which they hook into. Why re-do that?
- Creates segregation within platforms: Since the 360, all titles have hooked into XBL and only XBL for social actions. Moving away from that would segregate player bases, add complexity for the end user and would be up to the developer to maintain rather than the platform holder (Could go down etc).

Disagree... with proper support from platform holders, developers would be able to engineer in-game systems that are seemless to the end user.

You'd need the 3rd party system to create a unique, platform agnostic identifier for each player.

So gamerbob(Xbox) could meet gamerbob(ps) in matchmaking and add him to his in-game (insert game that has crossplay here) friendslist.

If gamerbob(Xbox) wants to send an invite to gamerbob(PS), he does so from inside the game. Then 3rd party system then would push an invite to Gamerbob(ps) via PSN. Accepting the invite would like gamerbob(ps) to the lobby that gamerbob(Xbox) created.

It would work the same for messages and wouldn't have any of the segregation you speak of. It would still be up to platform holders to uphold their end as always.

Regarding chat, there's no reason in-game chat couldn't be handled crossplatform over dedicated servers that the devs maintain. Platform holders won't have to get involved at all, since they just control party chat.

 

[Hilbert]

If crossplay becomes popular, third party solutions to cross platform communications will come out very quickly. The Unity of game communications just need some motivation!

 

[Crayon]

If crossplay becomes popular, third party solutions to cross platform communications will come out very quickly. The Unity of game communications just need some motivation!

I would love to have outside chat apps available on console. Teamspeak, discord, etc.

 

[Alucardx23]

I see the comments against crossplay turning into "It won't be perfect day one, so I don't want it" type of comments. People seem to forget that unified friends list, text messaging, game invites and voice chat were not there since day one. What people want from crossplay is to be able to play with their friends regardless of platform. The other things can be added in time.

 

[CookTrain]

I see the comments against crossplay turning into "It won't be perfect day one, so I don't want it" type of comments. People seem to forget that unified friends list, text messaging, game invites and voice chat were not there since day one. What people want from crossplay is to be able to play with their friends regardless of platform. They other things can be added in time.

What do you mean, we've always been at war with Eas... I mean always had fully fledged online systems.

 

[leeh]

Disagree... with proper support from platform holders, developers would be able to engineer in-game systems that are seemless to the end user.

You'd need the 3rd party system to create a unique, platform agnostic identifier for each player.

So gamerbob(Xbox) could meet gamerbob(ps) in matchmaking and add him to his in-game (insert game that has crossplay here) friendslist.

If gamerbob(Xbox) wants to send an invite to gamerbob(PS), he does so from inside the game. Then 3rd party system then would push an invite to Gamerbob(ps) via PSN. Accepting the invite would like gamerbob(ps) to the lobby that gamerbob(Xbox) created.

It would work the same for messages and wouldn't have any of the segregation you speak of. It would still be up to platform holders to uphold their end as always.

Regarding chat, there's no reason in-game chat couldn't be handled crossplatform over dedicated servers that the devs maintain. Platform holders won't have to get involved at all, since they just control party chat.

You're really underestimating the complexity, flakiness and how much time this would take to develop; for hardly any return. Especially considering this wouldn't be something a game dev could just create, you'd have to get lengthy sessions with both MS and Sony together, and every other platform holder involved. You'd also have to constantly maintain the solution which then would mean eventually that game will just break when the developer moves away from it.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Many games don't even need meaningful social interaction, for example, 1 vs 1 fighting games or racing games, these wouldn't need anything more than random matchmaking and some form of friends/favorites system for invitation or challenge purposes, and the more niche of these could really use a bigger players pool.

I wouldn't argue with that. But a lot of the talk about cross-play is about, universal, unilateral, cross-play.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I care, not because I'm cheerleading for Sony (I own all of the current-gen platforms) or against crossplay (it would be great), but because I'm not dealing in fantasy - companies don't act against their financial self-interests. That isn't how they are run. Unless you're advocating for a boycott of Sony hardware and software, something that would show up on their graphs, it doesn't matter how much you say "Aw, come on Sony, please".

And you're missing the point of my analogy - companies mandating no microtransactions would benefit consumers, much like crossplay. But banning microtransactions won't happen because it isn't a profitable decision - how great it would be doesn't factor into the equation. Microsoft stand to gain from crossplay - they aren't being charitable. Sony, it would seem, would be on the losing side of that deal.



I'm talking about Sony trading a competitive advantage for something that isn't one. A better environment for third-party developers is something that equally benefits their competition, ergo not something worth forfeiting part of your competitive advantage for.

Well said.

 

[CookTrain]

I wouldn't argue with that. But a lot of the talk about cross-play is about, universal, unilateral, cross-play.

Not at this point, it's not. Right now, the first step on the road, is us looking to have every platform hook up. That's it. The rest is all speculation and daydreaming, boundless optimism. (Far better than modern day cynicism if you ask me)

But right now, we just want to see all platforms pulling together for once. That is the first step towards any of the loftier expectations one may have.

If you think that's pointless, if you think it's worthless, if you see no value to that endeavour whatsoever... that's fair enough and your prerogative. You can jump in down the line after the foundations have been laid and more robust interaction is possible.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I see the comments against crossplay turning into "It won't be perfect day one, so I don't want it" type of comments. People seem to forget that unified friends list, text messaging, game invites and voice chat were not there since day one. What people want from crossplay is to be able to play with their friends regardless of platform. The other things can be added in time.

You're contradicting yourself somewhat.

How can you play with friends cross-platform if there are no social features available to communication with them?

It defeats the entire point of wanting to play with friends on different platforms.

Either way, people can already play cross-platform, just not with every platform. So we're not at "day one".

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Not at this point, it's not. Right now, the first step on the road, is us looking to have every platform hook up. That's it. The rest is all speculation and daydreaming, boundless optimism. (Far better than modern day cynicism if you ask me)

But right now, we just want to see all platforms pulling together for once. That is the first step towards any of the loftier expectations one may have.

If you think that's pointless, if you think it's worthless, if you see no value to that endeavour whatsoever... that's fair enough and your prerogative. You can jump in down the line after the foundations have been laid and more robust interaction is possible.

When I said "universal, unilateral cross-play" i meant cross-play between ALL platforms, across ALL games. So exactly what you and many others are talking about.

 

[CookTrain]

When I said "universal, unilateral cross-play" i meant cross-play between ALL platforms, across ALL games. So exactly what you and many others are talking about.

That's the end game. That's not where we're at now though and it's not like if we can't achieve that exact thing right now, we should go home.

Right now, the focus is on getting the platforms working together. That's how you get from where we are now to "universal, unilateral cross-play" if such a thing is every going to happen.

 

[JaffeLion]

I'm sorry but even being a Sony fanboy this whole thing is completely fucked up and saying otherwise is 100% irrational. Fuck any developer that doesn't want cross play implementation, I hope this continues and eventually bites them in the ass. If anything I hope it does too Sony what the Xbox one reveal did to microsoft.

I seriously can't believe anyone defends Sony or any other platform not allowing cross play on the games the third party DEVELOPERS make. WTF is wrong with some of these people? Is Sony paying your mortgage or are some of them so far up one companies ass they can't figure out what's good for the community anymore?

so true. 100% agreed.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

That's the end game. That's not where we're at now though and it's not like if we can't achieve that exact thing right now, we should go home.

Right now, the focus is on getting the platforms working together. That's how you get from where we are now to "universal, unilateral cross-play" if such a thing is every going to happen.

Not following...

Sony disallowing cross play on PS4 with anything other than PC is what people like you are looking to change.

Sony reversing that and allowing PS4 cross-play with every platform under the sun (i.e. a change in policy), IS what I mean by "universal, unilateral cross-play".

It's a policy change. Sony could change their mind overnight and then we'd have what I'm talking about.

You're confusing what I'm saying here (ii.e. "universal, unilateral cross-play") with the social features, which is a separate discussion I'm also having in this thread.

You with me?

 

[CookTrain]

Not following...

Sony disallowing cross play on PS4 with anything other than PC is what people like you are looking to change.

Sony reversing that and allowing PS4 cross-play with every platform under the sun (i.e. a change in policy), IS what I mean by "universal, unilateral cross-play".

It's a policy change. Sony could change their mind overnight and then we'd have what I'm talking about.

You're confusing what I'm saying here (ii.e. "universal, unilateral cross-play") with the social features, which is a separate discussion I'm also having in this thread.

You with me?

I'm not following either unfortunately.

The social features are a later discussion. If that's not enough for you, then you'll have to wait for further down the line when everything else is ready for that to progress. Especially if those social features are to be some kind of overarching system. (Others may disagree on that, I can only speak for myself)

The policy change is the important thing right now. Even if it doesn't immediately apply to all games.

 

[leeh]

Inviting people from the same platform should still be done through the platform's own features of course, it's only inviting people from other platforms that would need an in-game system, be it a friend system, a search system, or a history/favorites system.

By history/favorites system I mean the game having a list of the last people (let's say 10~20?) the player played with either through random matchmaking or private match/password and being able to save those players in a favorite list so they can invite them for party in the future.

That is a good point, but I've got a feeling that this will only work for private games, due to the in-game parties potentially tying into platform specific API's.

If this wasn't the case, I could imagine they would of implemented doing this for matchmaking in RL.

 

[Alucardx23]

You're contradicting yourself somewhat.

How can you play with friends cross-platform if there are no social features available to communication with them?

It defeats the entire point of wanting to play with friends on different platforms.

Either way, people can already play cross-platform, just not with every platform. So we're not at "day one".

Dude, you need to stop talking like you are representing what everyone else thinks. When you're going to say things like "It defeats the entire point of wanting to play with friends on different platforms", you need to add "For me" first. RIGHT NOW I WOULD LIKE to be able to play Tekken 7, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Titanfall 2 and other games with all of my friends on all platforms, and I CAN wait for other things like text messages and voice chat to come later. That was the whole point about mentioning that online play didn't always had the features that you say "defeats the entire point" if they are not there. You can always excuse yourself from any service/options/features if you don't like them, but to say that it shouldn't be available to others that don't have the same needs that you have is pushing it a little bit.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

so true. 100% agreed.

I think it's far more irrational to scream "fuck developers" and "people disagreeing with cross-play are corporate apologists" without even trying to even attempt to understand both sides of the argument.

I see a thread here full of posters calmly discussing the benefits and drawbacks of cross-play to both Sony, MS, Nintendo and gamers. And then the odd shit post like the one you quoted which adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

 

[ezodagrom]

Not following...

Sony disallowing cross play on PS4 with anything other than PC is what people like you are looking to change.

Sony reversing that and allowing PS4 cross-play with every platform under the sun (i.e. a change in policy), IS what I mean by "universal, unilateral cross-play".

It's a policy change. Sony could change their mind overnight and then we'd have what I'm talking about.

You're confusing what I'm saying here (ii.e. "universal, unilateral cross-play") with the social features, which is a separate discussion I'm also having in this thread.

You with me?

One step at a time, crossplay is in its infancy, there's not many games that support it, and just because social features are currently lacking when it comes to crossplay, doesn't mean it'll always be the case, if more developers start implementing crossplaying features, the more likely more social features will be implemented (and this would become even more likely if all platform holders were on-board).

Some crossplay games already have all the social features that they truly need, PC/PS4 online RPGs such as Final Fantasy XIV and Phantasy Star Online 2 have their own accounts/friends systems, party systems, and text based chat (voice chatting is something these games don't truly need).

 

[daman824]

I think it's far more irrational to scream "fuck developers" and "people disagreeing with cross-play are corporate apologists" without even trying to even attempt to understand both sides of the argument.

I see a thread here full of posters calmly discussing the benefits and drawbacks of cross-play to both Sony, MS, Nintendo and gamers. And then the odd shit post like the one you quoted which adds nothing constructive to the discussion.

This is a strange post. And it's really annoying to see this "drawbacks to crossplay" narrative pop up. As more and more games include crossplay, social features will be incorporated. We already see one games solution to this (minecraft). Sony is actively hindering these features from coming to fruition.

There really isn't a "both sides" here. One side has been incredibly consistent with their arguments since this issue gained traction while the other "side" is constantly changing their footing every time one of their "arguments" gets destroyed.

 

[Alucardx23]

I'm sorry but even being a Sony fanboy this whole thing is completely fucked up and saying otherwise is 100% irrational. Fuck any developer that doesn't want cross play implementation, I hope this continues and eventually bites them in the ass. If anything I hope it does too Sony what the Xbox one reveal did to microsoft.

I seriously can't believe anyone defends Sony or any other platform not allowing cross play on the games the third party DEVELOPERS make. WTF is wrong with some of these people? Is Sony paying your mortgage or are some of them so far up one companies ass they can't figure out what's good for the community anymore?

Amen brother.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I'm not following either unfortunately.

The social features are a later discussion. If that's not enough for you, then you'll have to wait for further down the line when everything else is ready for that to progress. Especially if those social features are to be some kind of overarching system. (Others may disagree on that, I can only speak for myself)

The policy change is the important thing right now. Even if it doesn't immediately apply to all games.

In the original post your quoted, I was discussing the value of cross-play that I perceive across all games. The other poster I was talking to, made an excellent point that some games like 1on1 fighters and racing games don't need social features, and this to counter my point about the value of cross-play without social features being little in my view.

I clarified to the other poster that I was discussing my perceived value of cross-play on the basis of universal, unilateral cross-play across all platforms and all games. And so I recognize that some games which don't inherently benefit from social features will of course benefit from an implementation of cross-play that is void of social features.

I completely understand the point you're making to me, but it's tangential to the original post of mine that you were replying to.

 

[leeh]

One step at a time, crossplay is in its infancy, there's not many games that support it, and just because social features are currently lacking when it comes to crossplay, doesn't mean it'll always be the case, if more developers start implementing crossplaying features, the more likely more social features will be implemented (and this would become even more likely if all platform holders were on-board).

Some crossplay games already have all the social features that they truly need, PC/PS4 online RPGs such as Final Fantasy XIV and Phantasy Star Online 2 have their own accounts/friends systems, party systems, and text based chat (voice chatting is something these games don't truly need).

In all fairness, FFFXIV, PSO2 are 7, 5 years old respectively. When these were released, PSN was rather infant and lacked a lot of social features itself, same for Steam (I think? Not too clued up here).

Considering platform holders are going for unification and integration, I really doubt we're not going to see that level of separation again in games and the platforms. Especially from MS as it's their whole business model.

 

[CookTrain]

In the original post your quoted, I was discussing the value of cross-play that I perceive across all games. The other poster I was talking to, made an excellent point that some games like 1on1 fighters and racing games don't need social features, and this to counter my point about the value of cross-play without social features being little in my view.

I clarified to the other poster that I was discussing my perceived value of cross-play on the basis of universal, unilateral cross-play across all platforms and all games. And so I recognize that some games which don't inherently benefit from social features will of course benefit from an implementation of cross-play that is void of social features.

I completely understand the point you're making to me, but it's tangential to the original post of mine that you were replying to.

That's fair enough then. All I can say is that the point cross play is currently moving towards in the plausible near term may be premature for your tastes.

 

[Trup1aya]

I'm talking about Sony trading a competitive advantage for something that isn't one. A better environment for third-party developers is something that equally benefits their competition, ergo not something worth forfeiting part of your competitive advantage for.

1) I don't believe they are trading a competive advantage. They still leverage the "my friends play here" thanks to there exclusive games and features like party chat that wouldn't work crossplatform.

2) creating a better environment for developers would help Sony more than anyone else. With twice the installed base of their nearest competitor, they stand to make the most money out of the increased viability, longevity and DLC sales of games that have their lives extended due to crossplay.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Dude, you need to stop talking like you are representing what everyone else thinks. When you're going to say things like "It defeats the entire point of wanting to play with friends on different platforms", you need to add "For me" first. RIGHT NOW I WOULD LIKE to be able to play Tekken 7, Call of Duty, Battlefield, Titanfall 2 and other games with all of my friends on all platforms, and I CAN wait for other things like text messages and voice chat to come later. That was the whole point about mentioning that online play didn't always had the features that you say "defeats the entire point" if they are not there. You can always excuse yourself from any service/options/features if you don't like them, but to say that it shouldn't be available to others that don't have the same needs that you have is pushing it a little bit.

Lol, no I don't need to preface every single post with "I think". That's implied. You're not being reasonable here.

If a poster is expressing something, that is their opinion. I should think that doesn't need to be stated.

 

[ezodagrom]

That is a good point, but I've got a feeling that this will only work for private games, due to the in-game parties potentially tying into platform specific API's.

If this wasn't the case, I could imagine they would of implemented doing this for matchmaking in RL.

If it's possible to match players from different platforms through matchmaking, I don't see why a party feature can't be doable.

No idea why Rocket League doesn't have such a feature though, I guess maybe they just want to get matchmaking between all platforms up and running before they expand upon it?

In all fairness, FFFXIV, PSO2 are 7, 5 years old respectively. When these were released, PSN was rather infant and lacked a lot of social features itself, same for Steam (I think? Not too clued up here).

Considering platform holders are going for unification and integration, I really doubt we're not going to see that level of separation again in games and the platforms. Especially from MS as it's their whole business model.

The PC version of PSO2 may be 5 years old, but the PS4 version is only 1 year old.
Also FFXIV was completely remade almost 4 years ago, with the PS4 version being released 3 years ago.

 

[Trup1aya]

You're really underestimating the complexity, flakiness and how much time this would take to develop; for hardly any return. Especially considering this wouldn't be something a game dev could just create, you'd have to get lengthy sessions with both MS and Sony together, and every other platform holder involved. You'd also have to constantly maintain the solution which then would mean eventually that game will just break when the developer moves away from it.

I don't underestimate anything.

Platform holders would just have to allow their APIs to handle pushes from 3rd party services. The 3rd parties would then engineer systems that work within the requirements of the platform holders individual APIs- this is what already occurs to make crossplay happen, it would just need to be extended to social features.

Beyond that it would be up to developers to maintain their own solution... several developers have already expressed interest in doing just that.

 

[KageMaru]

I care, not because I'm cheerleading for Sony (I own all of the current-gen platforms) or against crossplay (it would be great), but because I'm not dealing in fantasy - companies don't act against their financial self-interests. That isn't how they are run. Unless you're advocating for a boycott of Sony hardware and software, something that would show up on their graphs, it doesn't matter how much you say "Aw, come on Sony, please".

And you're missing the point of my analogy - companies mandating no microtransactions would benefit consumers, much like crossplay. But banning microtransactions won't happen because it isn't a profitable decision - how great it would be doesn't factor into the equation. Microsoft stand to gain from crossplay - they aren't being charitable. Sony, it would seem, would be on the losing side of that deal.



I'm talking about Sony trading a competitive advantage for something that isn't one. A better environment for third-party developers is something that equally benefits their competition, ergo not something worth forfeiting part of your competitive advantage for.

It could very well hurt their business as well if it catches on. I've mentioned it before, and sure it's anecdotal, but my Minecraft loving buddy is not happy about this and is talking about double dipping on the XBO version. That's money Sony isn't getting from skin packs and such. It's not like MS stands to gain much from allowing Rocket League crossplay since their users have a healthy user base but they allowed it anyways.

The attention this has gotten hasn't done Sony any favors either and I hope it keeps up. Regardless of the realities of business, we shouldn't be supporting anti-consumer decisions. We've seen before that with enough push back, companies can change their stance.

Also I got the point you were trying to make but it just doesn't fit. In this situation we have two of the three console providers being open to crossplay. That in no way goes along with your analogy.

 

[leeh]

If it's possible to match players from different platforms through matchmaking, I don't see why a party feature can't be doable.

No idea why Rocket League doesn't have such a feature though, I guess maybe they just want to get matchmaking between all platforms up and running before they expand upon it?

That's what I mean, I don't think that is possible, or it would of been integrated already.

The way private matches work is that code simply drops you into that designated server, where no platform specifics are involved. Whereas a in-game party is P2P and the functionality probably relies on specific platform API's to get you there. The people within an in-game party probably speak to each other in a specific format/protocol.

I don't underestimate anything.

Platform holders would just have to allow their APIs to handle pushes from 3rd party services. The 3rd parties would then engineer systems that work within the requirements of the platform holders individual APIs- this is what already occurs to make crossplay happen, it would just need to be extended to social features.

Beyond that it would be up to developers to maintain their own solution... several developers have already expressed interest in doing just that.

Trust me, you are.

For cross-play at the minute, they're simply removing the artificial barriers which separate player bases. Once you're in the game, all the platforms are speaking the same language.

I'm not expanding further than that cause I don't have the time.

 

[Alucardx23]

Lol, no I don't need to preface every single post with "I think". That's implied. You're not being reasonable here.

If a poster is expressing something, that is their opinion. I should think that doesn't need to be stated.

Cool, we can agree on that. I just don't think that your argument doesn't holds a lot weight. I will always say yes to more options to play with my friends.

 

[Kayant]

OMG i agree with leeh on something 😛 😁 👍.

I will just leave these posts from the horse's mouth to show what leeh is trying to put across -

This was from June 2015 -

Parties are entirely implemented via platform-specific services. So when you party up with your friend on PS4, all the data that goes back and forth to make parties work - "This guy joined our party. We're joining this server." etc. goes through Sony's system.
There's no way to send that data to a Steam user because Sony's system does not know Steam exists, much less who your friends are on it.
The only way to do cross-platform parties is to have your own independent friends list and party system backend that handles it all separately from Sony/Steam/etc. Unfortunately this is a big system and as an indie developer we have to pick our battles on what we spend our time and resources on. We weren't even sure cross-play would be approved until very recently, so it would have been a bad decision to invest heavily in a multiplatform party system only to be told it wasn't approved. It would also be an additional risk at launch for us because if our party servers couldn't handle the load, it could break everyone's ability to party up and play together, not just cross-platform, whereas relying on Sony and Steam services is a much safer and more reliable choice.
We realize that it's still disappointing and are looking into workarounds as well as considering whether we can take on a full party/friends system overhaul to allow cross-plat partying.

This was from May 2016 -

It's not nearly that simple. You still need a communication layer for the party to operate on. Platform-specific friends lets you bypass any kind of name/pw entry, but either way it still has to connect you into a standalone service for transmitting party data (player data, matchmaking status, what server you're going to, etc.).
The bulk of the work in attempting any kind of cross-plat party system isn't necessarily a friends list, it's building a scalable, reliable "party server" that keeps everybody in sync in the party, works 100% of the time, doesn't go down, etc.
The separate issue is approvals, and platform owners currently treat "cross play" entirely separately from "cross party." They're becoming okay with "cross play" - matching against other platforms - but platform-agnostic friends and parties is a totally separate animal.

Look at the source if you want more context for the questions asked.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

1) I don't believe they are trading a competive advantage. They still leverage the "my friends play here" thanks to there exclusive games and features like party chat that wouldn't work crossplatform.

2) creating a better environment for developers would help Sony more than anyone else. With twice the installed base of their nearest competitor, they stand to make the most money out of the increased viability, longevity and DLC sales of games that have their lives extended due to crossplay.

I get the points here, but they're ultimately speculative, as are the arguments that Sony stands to lose potential PS4 buyer who can simply buy a competitor's box with cross-play.

I'm sure Sony has access to sales and marketing data to inform whether or not "where my friends are playing" is a competitive advantage for them that is driving PS4 sales. We don't, so can't say conclusively either way.

Equally, Sony would have weighed the benefits to their business of your point (2) against their data to inform their decision.

It's easy to be an armchair commentator and think up as many reasons why cross-play would be beneficial to Sony as reasons it wouldn't be. What we do know for a fact is that Sony has chosen to block it and businesses don't make those kinds of decisions on whim.

So if that's what they've chosen, it's more likely that they've seen business reasons for blocking cross-play as a bigger trade-off than any potential benefits they can gain from not blocking it.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

I don't underestimate anything.

Platform holders would just have to allow their APIs to handle pushes from 3rd party services. The 3rd parties would then engineer systems that work within the requirements of the platform holders individual APIs- this is what already occurs to make crossplay happen, it would just need to be extended to social features.

Beyond that it would be up to developers to maintain their own solution... several developers have already expressed interest in doing just that.

This is great and would go a long way to making cross-play something I personally consider valuable.

 

[Trup1aya]

I don't see it like that.

Cross-play without meaningful social interaction is simply diluting a pool of players who can interact with each other with a bunch who can't. I see it as a net-negative, as opposed to a "net-positive" situation.

Your missing the point. The lack of social features is a consequence of a lack of buy-in from platform holders. If platform holders agreed to support crossplay, the social features can then be built.

Sure you can just say, "then turn off cross-play in the menu", but then if you're agreeing that cross-play without social features is so worthless that you should turn it off then why even bother in the first place?

Some people would turn it off. Most would not. Even if I only want to team with players on the same system with me, there are benefits to having opponents on other platforms- most games don't allow communication with opponents anyway so the better matchmaking quality and times would be a net benefit.

Honestly, I think your argument of "Sony needs to agree to it" before devs put in any effort to make it not worthless" is seriously flawed.

Explain how? What developer would undertake the enourmous task of developing a proprietary crossplatform social system, if the large majority of console gamers can partake?

Currently Sony allows cross-play with PC. MS and Nintendo all also allow cross-play with PC and each other. We already have cross-play. Everyone is already on board in some form. So it's not as if developers efforts for creating a social platform for cross-play would be in vein... actually the complete opposite. All of the players on all of the systems which benefit from existing cross-play between systems would benefit.

Agreed, but the lack of participation from the biggest players dampens any potential rewards. I wouldn't be surprise to see someone create such systems, but they wont be in a rush.

I'm really failing to see how Sony is preventing devs like Psyonix from doing this now. And in my mind, if they aren't putting the work in to develop those features now, increasing the value of cross-play so that it actually becomes something useful, then how do we know they will once Sony have agreed to play ball with the other consoles?[/b]

Priorities... the majority of their player base is in PS4. If anyone is going to spear head this effort it'll be Psyonic, but let's not pretend they don't have a lot of fish to fry before they begin to tackle additional feature that won't even touch the majority of their player base.

[qoute]

Sorry, but I just don't share your optimism here.

No worries, without buy-in there's little to be optimistic about.

 

[BennyBlanco]

There's a bit of a difference between an in-game text chat and a whole new social platform specifically for a game.

It won't happen for these reasons IMO:
- Large development effort for teams to re-invent what's already present to them: XBL, PSN, Steam etc all have a platform which they hook into. Why re-do that?
- Creates segregation within platforms: Since the 360, all titles have hooked into XBL and only XBL for social actions. Moving away from that would segregate player bases, add complexity for the end user and would be up to the developer to maintain rather than the platform holder (Could go down etc).

Plenty of games have what you're describing and they didn't seem like huge efforts to implement. PUBG for instance.

 

[longdi]

Not this xplay discussion again. Like i said, unless all platform holders agree to a unified console OS, half ass xplay is like taking potshots from the dark just because, why not.

 

[CookTrain]

Not this xplay discussion again. Like i said, unless all platform holders agree to a unified console OS, half ass xplay is like taking potshots from the dark just because, why not.

Of course you don't need a unified OS to get it to work. It works across more disparate platforms than Xbox and Playstation. It's about a willingness to make it work.

 

[Alucardx23]

It could very well hurt their business as well if it catches on. I've mentioned it before, and sure it's anecdotal, but my Minecraft loving buddy is not happy about this and is talking about double dipping on the XBO version. That's money Sony isn't getting from skin packs and such. It's not like MS stands to gain much from allowing Rocket League crossplay since their users have a healthy user base but they allowed it anyways.

The attention this has gotten hasn't done Sony any favors either and I hope it keeps up. Regardless of the realities of business, we shouldn't be supporting anti-consumer decisions. We've seen before that with enough push back, companies can change their stance.

Also I got the point you were trying to make but it just doesn't fit. In this situation we have two of the three console providers being open to crossplay. That in no way goes along with your analogy.

It should ring an alarm on any smart company, if you see all of your competitors unifying into a single pool of players. Sooner than later that will affect your sales. I haven't seen a single article defending Sony's stance on crossplay.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Cool, we can agree on that. I just don't think that your argument doesn't holds a lot weight. I will always say yes to more options to play with my friends.

And of course you're entitled to your opinion, as am I (but not according to some posters here).

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Your missing the point. The lack of social features is a consequence of a lack of buy-in from platform holders. If platform holders agreed to support crossplay, the social features can then be built.

How?

Why?

I don't see it. The reasons you've given aren't really convincing me of this.

I think at this stage it's better that we simply agree to disagree. However, I appreciate that you're obviously somewhat informed on the matter (you sound like a dev yourself?)

 

[Trup1aya]

That's what I mean, I don't think that is possible, or it would of been integrated already.

The way private matches work is that code simply drops you into that designated server, where no platform specifics are involved. Whereas a in-game party is P2P and the functionality probably relies on specific platform API's to get you there. The people within an in-game party probably speak to each other in a specific format/protocol.


Trust me, you are.

For cross-play at the minute, they're simply removing the artificial barriers which separate player bases. Once you're in the game, all the platforms are speaking the same language.

I'm not expanding further than that cause I don't have the time.

Are we even talking about the same thing?

For the actual gamplay, they are speaking the same language.

But we are talking about unifying social features. As far as social features- those are handled through platform specific APIs. In order for social features to work across platforms, platform holders would need to allow 3rd party services to act as a liaison between the platforms. Once that functionality built in to Xbl/PSN/whatever, it would be up to individual developers to decide to use the functionality or not.