Oh no I got that it was a percent, but does it mean like if the amount of players before cross play went down to 85% or lower after cross play, the devs pay a royalty?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Epic lawsuit shows Sony asks publishers for compensation if MTX / playerbase ratio falls below certain amount compared to the cross-platform revenue
- Thread starter eonden
- Start date
Yeah I don't think so. Its the only sports game on the market that not only has cross-play but cross-everything. Cross progression, purchases work on both, currency carries over on both (for the most part).
lmao
This is such a totally anti-#4ThePlayers bullshit answer from Gio Corsi.
I hope this stuff teaches certain folk a valuable lesson: these corporations don't give a flying fuck about you, stop contorting yourself into defending them.
This personally lessens the blow for me. if you're saying that this would probably only apply to existing games with a cross play impact when it's enabled. It's still a little scummy to me but business is business I guess. At least this doesn't outright discourage cross play in the future.
User Banned (1 Day): Platform Warring
There is nothing the SDF won't defend.
I haven't followed closely 100% the US situation, but I remember some stuff related to Japan. From the top of my head:
- Their decision to standardise X/O accross regions and ignore the cultural meaning of O/X got them some criticism in Japan. Kotaku
- Their decision to downscale Japan Studio, creator of some beloved Playstation IP (wikipedia says Ape Escape, LocoRoco, Patapon, Gravity Rush), leading to a lot of big figures quitting, garnered criticism worldwide. IGN
- Their reviewing process of games in japan now having to go trough english (since they moved headquarters), with unclear or harsher restriction got them criticism from japanese developers. Apparently japans's culture of Eroge etc. is also in conflict with the new direction. NicheGamer
Last edited:
I see this thread is full of people who don't actually understand what they're reading. Reading it further though, I'm failing to see anything 'scummy' here when it's ultimately a business protecting their bottom line. If my platform and services which I operate at cost have more users but those users spend their money elsewhere disproportionately then I'm obviously not going to just accept that.
This just seems like smart, albeit shrewd business.
This just seems like smart, albeit shrewd business.
Uh, do you have any kind of documents saying others do this as well? Or did you pull this out of your a**?
I don't think the population of the majority of crossplay games sway to the Switch side.
There must be more to this. Why would someone sign an agreement like this?
I keep thinking this was put into place when Epic was trying to move vbucks system to their website. You know, the thing that got Fortnite kicked off of Apple devices. Sony negotiated a 15% cut in exchange for allowing items to be used on their platform?
I keep thinking this was put into place when Epic was trying to move vbucks system to their website. You know, the thing that got Fortnite kicked off of Apple devices. Sony negotiated a 15% cut in exchange for allowing items to be used on their platform?
Wait. Wait wait wait.
Are you telling me that this company wants to make money for their services/platform?
Impossible. Next you're gonna tell me they want customers to pay for things too.
Are you telling me that this company wants to make money for their services/platform?
Impossible. Next you're gonna tell me they want customers to pay for things too.
Nah, unless you guys think that 1. mtx/dlc would be cross platform on Strive and if so 2. People would massively buy it on playstation, buy the PC version, buy the MTX on pc but then only play on playstation. I really doubt that'd be the case. Considering the crossplatform requires buying 2 full price copies instead of say Apex Legend where it is free already you've massively cut the amount of player that would bring MTX across another platform. And then, on top of that, they would have to play pretty much only on playstation but buy all mtx on steam.
Title is fine. This underlying monetization at the expense of customers is garbage. The fact that Sony uses cross-play, a significant improvement to game engagement and community vitality, as a weapon or monetization mechanism is gross. To further say they don't see how it benefits themselves versus customers - almost car sales gross - just makes all this even worse.
Business-wise? Sure, it makes sense, but as a consumer this probably means more companies (especially smaller ones and/or games that have a small playerbase) are likely to be more reluctant when it comes to offering cross-play on PS4. As a fighting games fan, this certainly isn't good news if that's what's stopping Guilty Gear Strive from having crossplay at launch.
That's some scummy ass shit
I wonder if that's in place on top of console exclusives for cross play games (COD for example)
I wonder if that's in place on top of console exclusives for cross play games (COD for example)
that makes sense actually. Problem with this stuff people don't look at the full context.
Sony is doing this because they're the only one in this situation that can lose out on revenue.
Xbox and Nintendo (at the time) had a much smaller userbase so it was highly unlikely that they would lose money on cross play because it would allow their users to spend money on GAAS without worrying on finding games. Sony on the other hand didn't need players from outside ecosystems to sustain their userbase.
They're actively putting in roadblocks to developers and publisher so they won't bring crossplay to their games while at the same time slinging shite like "4theplayers" when this is clearly not for the players
You've seen those documents? They mention that MS and Nintendo also do a similar practice?
Everything a business does it to protect their bottom line. Does that mean anything a business does is free from criticism?
Cross play should be standard on every third party multiplayer game, it should be optional, but it shouldn't have any strings attached.
Hard to believe there are people dismissing this, or just being fan boys and making shitty drive by comments. Sony and anyone else doing this should be called out.
Hard to believe there are people dismissing this, or just being fan boys and making shitty drive by comments. Sony and anyone else doing this should be called out.
Daily reminder that not all monopolies are illegal.
I'm not supporting this, btw; but illegal and immoral are very different things.
If they do, fuck them too.
But knowing how Xbox benefits more from crossplay because they sell ~half the consoles it would be really stupid to discourage crossplay behind fees.
There's no chance GG would get ever close to 0.85 because you need to buy two full price copies. In fact I'd be surprised if it went below 0.99.
Considering Genshin does have crossplay, I feel like it really is about the cross-save aspect now. They don't want you going outside PSN to buy your waifu-currency. The genie is already out of the bottle with Fortnite but yeah Genshin basically stops this. I wonder if this is also part of why we haven't heard anything on a Switch port because I'm sure Nintendo also has restrictions.
Though I think you can do iOS/Android cross save? So it seems like Apple let them go off and do that.
This lawsuit has given us some absolutely fascinating looms behind the curtain of the gaming industry.
