-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Who is preventing online cross-play from happening?
- Thread starter Blak_Status
- Start date
Melchiah
Member
It offers a wider variety of games, just like Netflix offers a wider variety of entertainment than, say, HBO. Especially, when EA has nothing else than Bioware's games to offer for me, and I don't have any objections against playing indies.
Starbuck2907
Member
In March 2016, Microsoft said they were open to cross-platform play.
Source: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/were-ready-microsoft-says-about-xbox-one-ps4-cross/1100-6438654/
Edit: Rocket League is already a PC/Xbox cross play game.
Also, Sony issued a response to MS basically saying they would think about it and that they already support cross platform play with PC.
There was a thread about all this on GAF a few months back.
Source: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/were-ready-microsoft-says-about-xbox-one-ps4-cross/1100-6438654/
Edit: Rocket League is already a PC/Xbox cross play game.
Also, Sony issued a response to MS basically saying they would think about it and that they already support cross platform play with PC.
There was a thread about all this on GAF a few months back.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
That's funny you mention that, because Sony allows Screambox, HBOGo, PopcornFlix, SnagFilms, Crackle, Epix, Hulu, CrunchyRoll, Amazon Video, and VUDU HD Videos to exist with Netflix; while they have their own proprietary PlayStation Vue as an option.
You make it seem like they're doing you a favor by taking away a potential choice that you don't have to necessarily even use yourself. A potential inclusion would continue to not matter to you at all. Those other video app options aren't ruining your Netflix usage, is it?
Melchiah
Member
There's only Netflix, Viaplay, HBO, Mubi, Crunchy Roll, and Yle Areena in Finland. USA ≠ world. The last three aren't really competing with the first three.
That's hardly the same thing, as studios/publishers creating their own services, and pulling their products from the existing ones. I don't see how it would serve me as a consumer, that I would have to pay for two services, if I wanted to stream two studio's movies.
wonderful103
Member
You know what offers lots of variety? Cable.
Your cable provider should certainly deny you access to Netflix and HBO and all those things due to the fact that it's got all the variety and the backing of all studios. Why would you want Netflix when you have cable? They deny you for your own good, making that decision for you.
Bl@de
Member
Sometimes it's Sony, sometimes it's Microsoft. But it's always a company that has a current-gen console.
Or a lot of console players would be very angry and frustrated if they have to compete against people with M+KB and higher framerete
Think Overwatch for example.
That's why every game with cross-play should let the player decide what plattforms can join a server.
Or a lot of console players would be very angry and frustrated if they have to compete against people with M+KB and higher framerete
Think Overwatch for example.That's why every game with cross-play should let the player decide what plattforms can join a server.
TheHellsLord
Member
Right now it seems that Microsoft and Sony are both open to the idea of CrossPlay. Both support it with PC. Given that Windows 10 has Xbox Live to a certain degree baked in that doesn't come as that big of a surprise.
What might be a bit more problematic is CrossPlay between Xbox Live and PSN. Currently a PC might be connecting to Xbox Live the same way an Xbox does. It gets a bit more difficult when you think about where to host games that Xbox and Playstation Players play. Will it run on Microsoft's servers? Sony's? How will authentication work for players from the other Network who don't have an account on the other one?
Those are all issues that can be resolved of cause but it will take time and a real willigness on both sides. Just saying you'll allow it is not the same as actively working towards making it happen and I think that's the problem right now.
What might be a bit more problematic is CrossPlay between Xbox Live and PSN. Currently a PC might be connecting to Xbox Live the same way an Xbox does. It gets a bit more difficult when you think about where to host games that Xbox and Playstation Players play. Will it run on Microsoft's servers? Sony's? How will authentication work for players from the other Network who don't have an account on the other one?
Those are all issues that can be resolved of cause but it will take time and a real willigness on both sides. Just saying you'll allow it is not the same as actively working towards making it happen and I think that's the problem right now.
Head.spawn
Junior Member
Whether USA ≠ world or not is completely besides the point, not sure why you decided to go down that route. The point is they have competing services that cater to different crowds and none of them adversely affect your Netflix usage.
The inclusion of EA Access would not affect you in any way; you aren't obligated to subscribe.
I don't understand how a limited choice is somehow better.
We already have developers that have said they have developed solutions already. RocketLeague dev said they are simply waiting on the "okay" to flip some switches which they said they could have up and working in a matter of hours.
That's the thing. Game by game solutions are not really the answer. You don't really want to sign up to a third party dev account for every other game to do cross play with separate friends lists that maybe adhoc sync and whatnot do you? Before either Sony or MS dive into cross play between PSN/Xbox Live head on there needs to be unified standardisation of their network protocols and codecs so that it can in some fashion be integrated on a system level and hook into their native services, and all this is what's holding everything up.
Developing these systems (and in unison with each other as platform holders) is costly and time consuming with arguably little benefits outside of the already existing market in their respective ecosystems. Most consumers don't care about it to be any issue for them if the feature doesn't exist (outside of maybe with titles that have declining or old playerbases).
There's also the looming question of who will manage the PC or Mac platform side of the equation, Valve?
LastCupOfSorrow
Banned
Nintendo allows cross-play with all consoles. Pure Chess is a fantastic example of this.
KonradLaw
Member
Even that is bad idea for something like Overwatch, as it would require them to essentially create and maintain two separate versions of the game for PC.
Melchiah
Member
Not around here in Finland. I used to have a channel package before Netflix, and it's a huge difference between the variety of their offerings; 8 channels versus all that Netflix offers. Not to mention the cost, as the package cost me 2½ times the amount of Netflix.
I'm not against EA's service per se, I'm against the possibility that all major publishers would create one of their own, and as a result stripping the value of the one I'm paying for.
I went that route, as you listed several services that aren't available around here, or outside of USA.
It's not a limited choice, if every movie studio / game publisher puts their products in the same service, and it saves me money as I only have to pay for one. It's limiting my choice of entertainment, and costing me more money, if I have to subscribe to several services to get all that used to be available on one.
I wouldn't call EA's offerings that varied; action, shooting, racing, and sports (the latter couldn't interest me less), with only few games, like Unravel, which go outside the norm.
Wow dude give it up! You don't have to brown nose everything Sony does. Sometimes, and this is one of those times, a company can make a decision that is really anti-consumer.
What is wrong with the consumer having more options? Who cares if that might devalue PS Plus? If anything the competition would result in Sony having to put better games on Plus.
I'm sure EA would still gladly put games on PS Plus but seeing as how Sony have shifted focus from AAA games to indie titles I doubt that's an issue anyway.
Just look at how badly it has affected Games with Gold! Oh wait, it hasn't and Games with Gold is better than ever.
I wish they would.
The best things on GWG/PSP are indies anyway.
I'd love to pay £20 to get every Ubisoft game every year for example.
Melchiah
Member
I'm not interested in Ubisoft's games myself. Actually, I don't think I've bought a single game of theirs. However, I'd hate it, if eg. Capcom went that route (as unlikely as that might be), and never put their games on PS+ again.
Whilst I agree that it's not ideal to have unique implementations for each game, it's evident not what's holding things up, as that's how console + PC crossplay is being done already.
It is a limited choice because not everything is being placed on PS+ regardless of if every publisher is. You wanna play Need for Speed without buying it outright? You don't have that choice as a PS4 player, whereas EA Access gives you that choice as a XB1 player. If you don't care for EA's offerings, then you simply ignore EA Access, but its absence isn't strengthening PS+'s offerings, which have been worse than GIG'S recently.
Also EA has still put stuff up on GWG post-EA Access... so give that argument up.
How often do you get a Capcom game on PS+?
Melchiah
Member
It's stating the obvious, that not all games are put on PS+. You're speaking for everyone, and concentrating solely on EA's service, when I've been talking about it from a personal perspective, and the possibility of several different services scattering the available offerings in the future. From my point of view, it's better to have one service that offers more, than several that offer less. It's a completely valid argument from my perspective.
EDIT:
Just checked, and it seems Bionic Commando Rearmed 2 was the only one this year. Funnily enough, I thought there was more.
But it relies on the assumption that content can't hit more than one service (which is proven wrong in both cases of Netflix and GWG). PS+ and Gold are essentially mandatory, EA nor any other publisher would see sense in trying actually pull customers directly off them. What determines the games on those services is how much Sony or MS are willing to pay to attract bigger name games. As of right now Sony is comfy (and has no other service to be compared to), and so they're not bothered with stumping up the cash for the sorts of offerings we had in the PS3 days. The selection of games is deteriorating and a lack of services like EA Access sure isn't given them a reason to step it back up. That one services isn't offering more at this point. It's offering a subset of what GWG + EA Access does, and the remainder is simply off the table entirely.
The games are already scattered, because nobody ever needs to offer their games on PS+, they can simply leave people to have to buy them outright, which is the case with basically everything that's not an indie right now, and indies would be the least possible affected group by the introduce of publishers based services.
Not allowing them at all is just crappy. Rather than worry about subscribing to all of them, you could just hop between the ones that have what you want to play currently, because unlike PS+ and GWG your selection isn't dogshit unless you remain subscribed perpetually.
SlipperyFishes
Banned
PlayStation Network (and general infrastructure of XBL) wasn't able to support it back then. In that era they were still refining it.
I mean, ask yourself whether you'd seriously have a problem playing against Xbox users
Bits N Pieces
Member
Flak and balls, that's what we need more of!
I don't think any platform holders are against PC <> "their platform" in any way are they? That's up to developers to invest in and host the infrastructure to accomplish - which is what existing games that do that facilitate.
It's the PSN <> XBL cross-play that is held up due to in some ways incompatible protocols and questions regarding data/server hosting, ownership of customer data, responsibilities regarding quality of the experience etc. not the PC <> console linkage. For the latter Microsoft also has the upper hand as they already own both sides of that experience via Windows 10 and can manage it on their own.
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
Wait, EA Access is a bad service now? Hahahahahaha
Yea, but regardless of if it's PC or Xbox, Live is Live. It's not really crossplatform in the way that MS is advertising with their new initiative, as XBL was the platform before, and that's been done going back to the early days of the 360. Nothing new there.
What MS is allowing now is crossplay with non-XBL services. So in the case of something like Rocket League, it uses the developers own implementation. If the XB1 were to have Street Fighter V, then you would be using a CFN ID. There's no mystery as to how XBL and PSN would interact, as the PC implementation is already the middleman.
Isn't this a positive then? I mean it sounds like you'd be bothered by EA games showing up on PS+. With EA access you could choose if you want their games or not.