Support NeoGAF

[Azurro]

"Noooo, i dont want to play with my friends on other platforms, noooooo i need to pump up sonys stocks, noooo sorry my friends on pc and xbox its a good thing i cant play with you since Sony makes money from itttt!!!!"

I swear to godddddddd you guys are such insane bootlickers that i have to honestly wonder if you are paid by the post astroturfers.

Who gives a SINGLE fuck about any of these corporations profits, it should be what benefits you as a consumer that matters, nothing else should matter

I don't see a single benefit to cross play for me. I don't own a Switch, and the few times I do multiplayer I see PC players cheating, reducing the quality of my experience on PS. This only benefits platforms with smaller userbases and no one else, it's phrased as some moral thing because it benefits the lesser platforms and they can't provide the same player pool.

 

[Banjo64]

Yeap... believes that won't affect consumers lol
You know you only invest in your platform if you have money to.
If your userbase doesn't generate money to your platform you are dead.

At the end all these business decisions affect consumers.

But we all know that Sony have record breaking profits at the moment.

You said the other day that Sony can’t possibly dedicate a small team to back compat because that will take resources away from game development, and now you’d rather defend their bottom line instead of them making a relatively minor loss which would result in everyone being empowered as consumers without being locked in to a walled garden.

I don’t know why you try to paint PlayStation as some small brand struggling to break even whenever it suits you in order to justify all of their anti consumer moves.

 

[elliot5]

In addition to this, on the techy side to 'translate' from a network to another (let's say from PSN to XBL or from PSN to Steam) creates an overhead that increases input lag, so for the player iself the gameplay quality becomes a little worse even if may not be something most players would notice.

Er... do you have any examples of multiplayer titles that have crossplay using Xbox Live and PSN servers? As far as I know, cross play enabled titles are running servers off a separate stack (i.e. Epic, EA, Ubisoft, whatever) running servers through a cloud provider or otherwise.

 

[yurinka]

Just before others comment, you explained why it fucks Sony, not the consumer

Yes, these mails are from a negotiation between 2 companies, each one fighting for its own interests. Companies aren't charities, they do stuff to earn money and not 'to benefit the consumers'.

They do stuff 'to benefit the consumers'/consumer friendly when it's something that directly or indirectly improves their business. And the main reason is that it's something that will make them earn more money, not because it's something that will benefit the consumer.

Er... do you have any examples of multiplayer titles that have crossplay using Xbox Live and PSN servers? As far as I know, cross play enabled titles are running servers off a separate stack (i.e. Epic, EA, Ubisoft, whatever) running servers through a cloud provider or otherwise.

All of them, every single crossplatform game. Even if they don't have dedicated servers for gameplay and are P2P. The data has a platform specific layer.

As an example, Street Fighter V has crossplay between Steam and PS5. For security reasons PSN protects its communications (to avoid cheaters, hacks, etc) and at the same time it has its own way to handle stuff like usernames, player IDs, voice chat, etc. Steam has its own way to handle these things.

So in order to make these platforms access and understand each other, there is some kind of 'translation' that doesn't exist when two players of the same platform play each other.

But we all know that Sony have record breaking profits at the moment.

You said the other day that Sony can’t possibly dedicate a small team to back compat because that will take resources away from game development, and now you’d rather defend their bottom line instead of them making a relatively minor loss which would result in everyone being empowered as consumers without being locked in to a walled garden.

I don’t know why you try to paint PlayStation as some small brand struggling to break even whenever it suits you in order to justify all of their anti consumer moves.

Most of the record PlayStation revenue comes from game revenue. Most game revenue comes from 3rd party multiplatform games (FIFA, AC, GTA, Fortnite, etc). The biggest platform for most of these games -like Fortnite- in terms of revenue or userbase is PlayStation. So Sony tries to keep their related business here safe. Sony wants to keep having the biggest market share of these games because it means a shit ton of money for them. To implement crossplay would reduce Sony's market share lead here, which means them earning less money. And nobody likes to earn less money.

Backwards compatibility with PS4 is very useful for them during the first few years of PS5 to save them the cost of crossgen ports. Looking at previous BC attempts on PlayStation or Xbox, seems that other than for that BC doesn't generate a lot of revenue, so they may consider investment on native PS3 and older BC wouldn't be profitable. So they wouldn't invest on it (and well, because with the current technology it's impossible to emulate all the main PS3 games properly even in high end PCs).

Btw, compared to the other console platform holders PlayStation is the brand that makes more money, sells more consoles and sells more games. They are the ones who get the biggest consumer support. So maybe they are offering something the consumers prefer over their competition, and maybe most consumers don't give a shit about crossplay (but I assume everyone other than the company losing money with it would welcome crossplay).

 

[ethomaz]

But we all know that Sony have record breaking profits at the moment.

You said the other day that Sony can’t possibly dedicate a small team to back compat because that will take resources away from game development, and now you’d rather defend their bottom line instead of them making a relatively minor loss which would result in everyone being empowered as consumers without being locked in to a walled garden.

I don’t know why you try to paint PlayStation as some small brand struggling to break even whenever it suits you in order to justify all of their anti consumer moves.

I hope Sony never put any team in BC.
Give me new games... put the money where matter.

It is the best for us PS consumers.

More money from PlayStation = more money being invested in PlayStation = more games being made = more PS gamers happy

That is the actual 4ThePlayer.

You guys talk like Dreamcast was a good platform for it consumers lol

PlayStation should be the best platform for PlayStatiom gamers... if you want to be part fine but if you don’t want fine too... just don’t try to fuck the platform to us PlayStation players because your platform is not being good for you.

I hope PlayStation keep having record breaking profit because that way I’m sure I will be playing PS6 in six-seven years.

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Crossplay Controversy Shifts to Sony Being Only Company to Enforce Clause

Interesting clause sheds light on Sony's approach

www.pushsquare.com

So, what’s going on here? Well, the document refers to something called 'Cross-Platform Revenue Share', and it’s basically a clause that ensures Sony is paid royalties by developers if there’s a disproportionate ratio between PlayStation playtime and overall game revenue in a crossplay release. You’re still confused, aren’t you?

So, let’s imagine Fortnite flogs $1,000,000 worth of V-Bucks in a month, but only $50,000 was spent through the PS Store. That’s just 5 per cent of the game’s overall revenue being purchased through PlayStation, right? Now let’s pretend that, in this scenario, 75 per cent of Fortnite’s overall playtime was on PS5 and PS4. In that case, the publisher would be required to pay Sony royalties based on the total revenue earned and PlayStation’s overall gameplay share.

Why, you may be asking, is Sony doing this? Well, because if 75 per cent of Fortnite’s playtime is being played through PSN but only 5 per cent of its revenue is being earned on Sony’s storefront, then the clause exists to protect the platform holder, as it’s providing the infrastructure and player base while others, in this example, would be profiting from it.

But, let’s say that Fortnite is generating $1,000,000 of revenue a month, and $900,000 is being spent on the PS Store. That’s 90 per cent of the game’s overall revenue. So, what if 95 per cent of the game’s playtime is being logged on PlayStation? Well, in this scenario, developers wouldn’t have to pay royalties because it falls within the boundaries of what Sony considers to be fair.

It’s an interesting clause, but it makes sense from PlayStation’s perspective: if it’s providing the majority of the playerbase, then it stands to reason that it would expect a roughly comparative share of the revenue. It’s worth noting that, for the vast majority of people, they’re most likely to purchase microtransactions on the system they play on, so we’d be shocked if there was ever a large enough difference between revenue share and gameplay time to enforce royalties on a developer.

The way this has been framed on social media has been misleading, with many believing that Sony is charging developers to implement crossplay in the first place. Based on the slide, this is not the case. It’s also worth stressing that these documents are dated 2019, and the company is yet to comment whether this clause still exists or not.

 

[reksveks]

Yes, these mails are from a negotiation between 2 companies, each one fighting for its own interests. Companies aren't charities, they do stuff to earn money and not 'to benefit the consumers'.

They do stuff 'to benefit the consumers'/consumer friendly when it's something that directly or indirectly improves their business. And the main reason is that it's something that will make them earn more money, not because it's something that will benefit the consumer.

I know but the original comment suggested that crossplay fucks over Sony consumers as well as their business.

 

[Banjo64]

I don't see a single benefit to cross play for me. I don't own a Switch, and the few times I do multiplayer I see PC players cheating, reducing the quality of my experience on PS. This only benefits platforms with smaller userbases and no one else, it's phrased as some moral thing because it benefits the lesser platforms and they can't provide the same player pool.

The Switch has sold 80m consoles and is well on its way to surpass PS4 sales quite soon. There’s what? An estimated 1b PC players world wide? What are you talking about smaller user bases for?

Well if there’s no benefit to you personally we all better just shut up shop and remember to consult you for all future planning

People who are fake outraging at the same ones who wants Microsoft to buy every single studio on the planet to keep games off PlaySation.

A low effort post from a low effort poster.

 

[DForce]

A low effort post from a low effort poster.

You know its "anti-consumer" and worse than blocking cross-play, but you would rather be upset at the truth. lol

 

[Banjo64]

I hope Sony never put any team in BC.
Give me new games... put the money where matter.

It is the best for us PS consumers.

More money from PlayStation = more money being invested in PlayStation = more games being made = more PS gamers happy

That is the actual 4ThePlayer.

But ethomaz , you can have both. PlayStation can afford it. Instead of using their profits to invest in anime and shit they can allow you to play and improve your previous video game purchases rather than charging £70 for reskins.

 

[Banjo64]

You know its "anti-consumer" and worse than blocking cross-play, but you would rather be upset at the truth. lol

Studio acquisitions are anti-consumer now (apart from when PlayStation organically and holistically spunk millions of dollars up Guerrilla, ND & Insomniac’s arse because feelings).

 

[mckmas8808]

Big yikes. As anti-consumer as it gets. From removing old storefronts to money hatting timed exclusives to price increases. I would not feel comfortable if giving this corporation any more of my money.

So now we making up lies? Like where does the hyperbole go next?

 

[DForce]

Studio acquisitions are anti-consumer now (apart from when PlayStation organically and holistically spunk millions of dollars up Guerrilla, ND & Insomniac’s arse because feelings).

Is Microsoft blocking Fallout and Elder Scrolls from appearing on PlayStation an "anti-consumer" move or not?

 

[mckmas8808]

Studio acquisitions are anti-consumer now (apart from when PlayStation organically and holistically spunk millions of dollars up Guerrilla, ND & Insomniac’s arse because feelings).

So you think MS buying Zenimax and Bethesda was pro-consumer? Is that the lie that we are telling ourselves now?

 

[Perrott]

Woah, it's fascinating how Epic threw a "we might even develop a game for the launch of PSVR2" just like that

Hopefully Sony wasn't stupid and took that deal, as it would be nice to have something from Epic other than Fortnite.

 

[Banjo64]

Is Microsoft blocking Fallout and Elder Scrolls from appearing on PlayStation an "anti-consumer" move or not?

It’s not anti-consumer, in the same way that it’s not anti-consumer that Xbox players will never see a Sunset Overdrive 2 and that ND, Guerilla and Insomniac lost their agency to ever release a game on another platform when they agreed to their respective Sony sales.

Is it unfortunate for Sony players who are already invested in these franchises? Absolutely. But MS are just using their owned studios to create games for their platforms in the exact same way that Sony and Nintendo are.

 

[DForce]

It’s not anti-consumer, in the same way that it’s not anti-consumer that Xbox players will never see a Sunset Overdrive 2 and that ND, Guerilla and Insomniac lost their agency to ever release a game on another platform when they agreed to their respective Sony sales.

Is it unfortunate for Sony players who are already invested in these franchises? Absolutely. But MS are just using their owned studios to create games for their platforms in the exact same way that Sony and Nintendo are.

It's funny watching you deflect from the question being asked.

We're not talking about Insomniac Games, we're talking about Microsoft buying studios and then keeping the game off the PlayStation platform. What you're doing is this, "It's the same way as Sony buying Insomniac Games because Xbox Gamers won't see Sunset Overdrive 2".

I'm not asking you to compare, I'm asking you is it anti-consumer or not.

So it is anti-consumer? Pro-consumer? What is it.

Answer directly.

 

[Gaz]

Pathetic Sony....

 

[Banjo64]

So you think MS buying Zenimax and Bethesda was pro-consumer? Is that the lie that we are telling ourselves now?

I’ve got a really straight forward opinion on this, and it doesn’t bend.

These are business transactions.

You are either ok with acquisitions or you aren’t. It’s black and white.

I’m ok with Sony buying ND, Insomniac and Geurilla. I’m ok with MS buying Zeni, Playground and Obsidian.

There’s no arbitrary goal post moving with me. I don’t think buying a studio is fine but a publisher is not fine. I don’t think Sony should be able to buy whoever they want because they had a good working relationship during the PS1 days but Microsoft can’t buy anyone because Don Matrick never bought them dinner.

So to answer your question honestly, it’s not a good move for PS exclusive gamers, but it’s literally exactly the same as PS buying their studios.

 

[Banjo64]

It's funny watching you deflect from the question being asked.

We're not talking about Insomniac Games, we're talking about Microsoft buying studios and then keeping the game off the PlayStation platform. What you're doing is this, "It's the same way as Sony buying Insomniac Games because Xbox Gamers won't see Sunset Overdrive 2".

I'm not asking you to compare, I'm asking you is it anti-consumer or not.

So it is anti-consumer? Pro-consumer? What is it.

Answer directly.

Sorry I thought you’d have the capacity to extrapolate from this sentence;

Is it unfortunate for Sony players who are already invested in these franchises? Absolutely.

Clearly not though so in black and white, it’s anti-consumer for the people invested in those franchise who are PS only customers.

Is that ok for you?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand which is Sony acting like cunts during the cross play debacle

Funny that you want to talk about deflection but your contribution to this thread about Sony’s scummy practices was to barge in and start crying unprovoked about Microsoft’s studio acquisitions. DeFlEcTIOn.

 

[Outrunner]

Of course Tom 'the tool' Warren had to post this today to please the Xbox overlords because PS has been getting a lot of positive talk lately

 

[Three]

So many knights in defending this crap still…..this is why Sony came across as arrogant or unconsumer friendly

Why because Epic told them they would give them good PR if they do it and they have a deal to get lost revenue. Let me tell you something. 360 gen Crossplay was shut down completely. Who was not consumer friendly?

The Switch has sold 80m consoles and is well on its way to surpass PS4 sales quite soon. There’s what? An estimated 1b PC players world wide? What are you talking about smaller user bases for?

Well if there’s no benefit to you personally we all better just shut up shop and remember to consult you for all future planning


A low effort post from a low effort poster.

Do you honestly believe that there are more switch users of fortnite than on PS4? Why don't you try looking up some stats

"Court documents reveal that PlayStation 4 generated 46.8 percent of Fortnite’s total revenues from March 2018 through July 2020, while Xbox One, the second-highest platform, generated 27.5 percent. iOS ranked fifth, with just 7 percent of total revenue. The remaining 18.7 percent would have been split between Android, Nintendo Switch, and PCs."

Not only is PlayStation making them more revenue but they have the most active players too if you look at the documents. Switch has hardly any players.

 

[assurdum]

But we all know that Sony have record breaking profits at the moment.

You said the other day that Sony can’t possibly dedicate a small team to back compat because that will take resources away from game development, and now you’d rather defend their bottom line instead of them making a relatively minor loss which would result in everyone being empowered as consumers without being locked in to a walled garden.

I don’t know why you try to paint PlayStation as some small brand struggling to break even whenever it suits you in order to justify all of their anti consumer moves.

Wait a second...ask money to the developers for crossplay is anti consumer

 

[yurinka]

I know but the original comment suggested that crossplay fucks over Sony consumers as well as their business.

Yep, and I think 99% of the players wouldn't notice quality loss due to crossplay (which exists, I explained why), they would be happy to be able to play with friends and other players from other platfomrs.

My point was that independently of if it was better or worse for the consumers (I think every player would prefer to have crossplay in all games with all platforms), the mails were about companies try to improve their business, protect their interests and make more money and that's why Sony took these precautions. They aren't charities trying to make people happy.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

One interesting thing is that we know that PS has 2.2 times population but 1.7 times bigger revenue than Xbox, meaning that Xbox players pay more than their PS counterparts. I wonder if those clauses are applicable to Epic or it won't be under those 85%

 

[assurdum]

I’ve got a really straight forward opinion on this, and it doesn’t bend.

These are business transactions.

You are either ok with acquisitions or you aren’t. It’s black and white.

I’m ok with Sony buying ND, Insomniac and Geurilla. I’m ok with MS buying Zeni, Playground and Obsidian.

There’s no arbitrary goal post moving with me. I don’t think buying a studio is fine but a publisher is not fine. I don’t think Sony should be able to buy whoever they want because they had a good working relationship during the PS1 days but Microsoft can’t buy anyone because Don Matrick never bought them dinner.

So to answer your question honestly, it’s not a good move for PS exclusive gamers, but it’s literally exactly the same as PS buying their studios.

So ask to developers to pay for crossplay is anti costumers but buy a major publisher to have the exclusive is pro gamers

 

[DForce]

Sorry I thought you’d have the capacity to extrapolate from this sentence;

Is it unfortunate for Sony players who are already invested in these franchises? Absolutely.

Clearly not though so in black and white, it’s anti-consumer for the people invested in those franchise who are PS only customers.

Is that ok for you?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand which is Sony acting like cunts during the cross play debacle

You said it's unfortunate.


If you could read, I asked you if its anti-consumer, I wasn't looking for you to say, "is it unfortunate for Sony players".

You wanted to make it appear not as bad by bringing up Sony and calling it unfortunate when you know it's anti-consumer based on your definition, something that you had a had time saying.

So my post exposed people celebrate Microsoft acquiring studios and call Sony bad for blocking cross-play because it's not "pro-consumers" and not "for the gamers".

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

And another thing is that it might explain lack of cross play in some fighting games - PC fighting game market might be potentially bigger than Playstation.

 

[Banjo64]

So my post exposed people celebrate Microsoft acquiring studios and call Sony bad for blocking cross-play because it's not "pro-consumers" and not "for the gamers".

Who are you talking about who’s done this and is posting in this thread?

It’s not relevant is it? Microsoft are not relevant to this subject at all.

You just felt the need to leap to the defence of your favourite global corporation by posting imaginary whataboutisms.

And it’s a bit rich to say ‘if you could read’ when your sentences are structured like a crack head has written them.

 

[DForce]

Who are you talking about who’s done this and is posting in this thread?

It’s not relevant is it? Microsoft are not relevant to this subject at all.

You just felt the need to leap to the defence of your favourite global corporation by posting imaginary whataboutisms.

You're just upset that I brought up Microsoft.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy. You shouldn't get defensive when you know what I said is true. By definition, both are not for "the gamers".

 

[yazenov]

In case some of you missed the leak documents, this is why other companies want access to Playstation user base:

Fortnite’s total revenues from March 2018 through July 2020

• PlayStation 4 generated 46.8 percent
• Xbox One, generated 27.5 percent.
• The remaining 18.7 percent would have been split between Android, Nintendo Switch, and PCs.
• iOS ranked fifth, with just 7 percent of total revenue

They so thirsty.

 

[Banjo64]

So ask to developers to pay for crossplay is anti costumers but buy a major publisher to have the exclusive is pro gamers

Not necessarily, but if they withheld cross play from their consumers until they were financially compensated, and if none of the other manufacturers did, then yes I would say that is anti-consumer.

As to your second question about Zenimax, I will just flip the question and ask you whether it is pro-consumer that Sony bought Insomniac, ND, Guerrilla and Sucker Punch to have the exclusives? If you’re going to reply with some pie in the sky fairytale about how it’s all ok because Sony groomed these studios from an early age like some sort of sexual predator I would respectfully ask that you don’t, because I won’t read it.

 

[Gone]

"4ThePlayer$$$$$$$"

What a bunch of cunts.

 

[quest]

So ask to developers to pay for crossplay is anti costumers but buy a major publisher to have the exclusive is pro gamers

You mean fight back against a money hat tour that involved that publisher and 2 and would of been 3 games being money hats. Don't get all holy for Microsoft fighting back when Mr money hat tried to content starve them. Remember this gem of the warriors celebrating the money hats. People like me warned you spend it on studios lol. The show boating over the zenimax moneyhatting lol.

Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft

Report: Sony Contacted All Major Third Parties for Exclusivity Deals, Offered More Money Than Microsoft Kinda Funny’s Imran Khan said: There isn’t a major third party out there Sony failed to approach asking what kind of deals they could work out. Some had content, some had games, some had...

www.neogaf.com

 

[yazenov]

"4ThePlayer$$$$$$$"

What a bunch of cunts.

LOL you think Sony's slogan is for the Xbox players or Switch players? Are people really this dumb?

 

[Yselacrey00]

Shocking, you mean all these corporations are driven by money and return on investment for their shareholders?

The horror....

That's obvious, genius. The problem is making a camping about how Sony is "for the players" when in really they are "for the money".

 

[Bo_Hazem]

Wtf. This can’t be real

Bye, Meril, comeback soon with another alt.

 

[Bridges]

Is PlayStation blocking Deathloop and Ghostwire Tokyo and Final Fantasy VII: Remake and Forspoken and Godfall and Kena: Bridge of Spirits from appearing on Xbox an "anti-consumer" move or not?

Can we please stop turning every news story about one of the console manufacturers into "What about the other guy!"?
You can't just bring up Bethesda as a defense every time Sony does something, as if they weren't seeking to be purchased by MS for years and like Sony has never paid to have exclusives or acquire studios.

 

[ethomaz]

"4ThePlayer$$$$$$$"

What a bunch of cunts.

Actually it is 4ThePlayStationPlayers.

It is sad to see these wanting to have access to PlayStation userbase without pay a penny for that.

Shameless.

 

[elliot5]

Pretty poor look for Sony.

 

[Werewolfgrandma]

 

[DForce]

Can we please stop turning every news story about one of the console manufacturers into "What about the other guy!"?
You can't just bring up Bethesda as a defense every time Sony does something, as if they weren't seeking to be purchased by MS for years and like Sony has never paid to have exclusives or acquire studios.

No, because you guys don't want anyone to point out that Microsoft is guilty of similar practices.

It will be easier if you guys acknowledge similar things happen all the time and stop with the fake outrage. It's like one man vilifying another man for cheating on his wife and he's guilty of cheating on his wife, too.

Microsoft is not doing it "for the gamers", they're doing it because they believe it will benefit their ecosystem.

 

[Gone]

LOL you think Sony's slogan is for the Xbox players or Switch players? Are people really this dumb?

And how's allowing PS players to play with their friends on other platforms a bad thing?

 

[Bridges]

No, because you guys don't want anyone to point out that Microsoft is guilty of similar practices.

It will be easier if you guys acknowledge similar things happen all the time and stop with the fake outrage. It's like one man vilifying another man for cheating on his wife and he's guilty of cheating on his wife, too.

Microsoft is not doing it "for the gamers", they're doing it because they believe it will benefit their ecosystem.

Okay, sure, pull up the article that shows where Microsoft, Nintendo or Valve make developers/publishers pay them to enable crossplay.

Pretty poor look for Sony.

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

.

 

[Chukhopops]

Pretty poor look for Sony.

Straight from the horse‘s mouth

 

[DForce]

Okay, sure, pull up the article that shows where Microsoft, Nintendo or Valve make developers/publishers pay them to enable crossplay.

Maybe you should take the time to read my post. I'm talking specifically about cross-play and how people believe Sony denying it is anti-consumer.

 

[ManaByte]

Sony really hated PS4 crossplay, confidential documents reveal

Emails reveal tense exchanges between Epic Games and Sony.

www.theverge.com

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney confirmed in testimony today that Sony is the only platform holder that requires this compensation for crossplay. “In certain circumstances Epic will have to pay additional revenue to Sony,” said Sweeney. “If somebody were primarily playing on PlayStation, but paying on iPhone then this might trigger compensation.” Sweeney also revealed that Epic had to agree to pay these additional fees to Sony in order to enable crossplay in Fortnite.

 

[driqe]

Sony really hated PS4 crossplay, confidential documents reveal

Emails reveal tense exchanges between Epic Games and Sony.

www.theverge.com

Sony going through their villain arc rn

 

[Hawking Radiation]

Maybe you should take the time to read my post. I'm talking specifically about cross-play and how people believe Sony denying it is anti-consumer.

I think the people in here forget these are businesses and businesses are always looking to make $$$.

Most here (like the person you replying to) think businesses should be more like a charity and do things out of the goodness of their hearts.

But then again if you look at the fake outrage posts in here its a who's who of Xbox warriors. So i'm not at all surprised by how this thread is going. Seen it happen many times before with cross-play threads.