• 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.

SuikerBrood

Member
Jan 21, 2018
15,487
You know what Epic game I would like to have played? Gears of War. It looked fun as hell to play, but I had a Sony console and couldn't. Guess why? It wasn't even cross-play I wanted - I just wanted to play it period. And when their deal with Microsoft was up, I kept thinking 'Hey, maybe I can play it now!' Then Microsoft bought the IP so I couldn't again.

As a PlayStation gamer, I don't ever want to be lectured again on how consumer-friendly Microsoft is in the console space. ESPECIALLY not with an Epic Games property.

This is a shrewd PR move and i wont begrudge them that. But come on now.

Oh jeez.
 

Lethologica

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,178
Don't miss an all new episode of "The Shareholders™", premiering tonight @ 8/7 CST, only on NBC.

Reading through this thread has been an adventure. The large amount of defense being run for Sony, and their decision to not allow you to play with more people (for better, faster, more accurate matchmaking), because they produce a piece of plastic that some are overly attached to is kind of amazing.

Ain't tribalism grand.
 

Deleted member 36086

User requested account closure
Banned
Dec 13, 2017
897
Sony need to get of their goddamn high horse.

They lose nothing at all by allowing cross play. Nothing.

Instead they get access to a wider player base which means people stick around playing their games longer.
Not to mention the good press and goodwill they will accumulate.

At the moment they just look like childish arseholes.

I don't believe this to be true. If you read any of the Monster Hunter threads where people ask which platform they're going to buy MH on, the vast majority say PS4 because of the bigger user base.
 
Nov 12, 2017
2,877
You know what Epic game I would like to have played? Gears of War. It looked fun as hell to play, but I had a Sony console and couldn't. Guess why? It wasn't even cross-play I wanted - I just wanted to play it period. And when their deal with Microsoft was up, I kept thinking 'Hey, maybe I can play it now!' Then Microsoft bought the IP so I couldn't again.

As a PlayStation gamer, I don't ever want to be lectured again on how consumer-friendly Microsoft is in the console space. ESPECIALLY not with an Epic Games property.

This is a shrewd PR move and i wont begrudge them that. But come on now.
Ahahahahahahaha omfg is this a parody?
 

Zappy

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
3,738
What really pisses me off about this is how quick people are to defend said corporation when Cross Platform benefits everyone. Stop looking at this through corporate specs and see this as a consumer.

Just recently, playing Sea of Thieves with my mates on Xbox whilst I was on PC was such a great feeling. Playing Fortnite on PC with my mate on PS4 was so good, particularly when I found out that voice chat was working.

This would be a MASSIVE game changer for me and my mates, who are on various different platforms. If this artificial barrier is lifted, gaming would be so much more cohesive and just great for all.

Until Sony reconsider their stance on this, they can shove their "For the Players" motto up their arses.

Yeah, its amazing how many are more invested in the console wars than they are in the ability to actually play and enjoy games. It seems that their company "winning" matters far more to them than actually having an option to enjoy this game with the widest possible group of friends. I do find it funny.
 

hanmik

Editor/Writer at Popaco.dk
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
1,436
It is going to be hard deciding what console to buy in the future.. because we almost always hear: "Buy the console where all your friends are playing", when we ask if we should buy this or that console.. now they can play anywhere, any console etc.
 

Starlatine

533.489 paid youtubers cant be wrong
Member
Oct 28, 2017
30,373
Why would I not be serious? Microsoft has LONG been on the leading edge of anti-consumer for years, especially in gaming. And now they are the good guys? The fact that people are lionizing them fro trying to co-opt a PSN playerbase as some pro-consumer mandate is odd to me. It's not something they would have allowed when they were the market leader - hell, they weren't even pro-consumer to their own consumers between the 360-XB1 jump. NOW they're the good guys? They're all the bad guys. Except maybe Nintendo - I really believe that they are pretty pro-consumer as a corporate culture. But come on.

Because you're saying microsoft are bad for having exclusive games. As a playstation player. You're saying Microsoft is bad and anti-consumer because you couldn't play Gears of War on your playstation. If you don't realize how baffling this sounds i don't know what to tell you.

And here comes the old "microsoft did it in the past!!!!!!!!" strawman again. Quick, post the FFXIV 2013 link as well
 

Swanlee

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
939
I am one of those people. I did and still do think it was good from a personal prospective as I don't like the precedence it sets with digital and potential for multiple pub sub offering however I didn't/don't think as a owner of a marketplace they should decide if it's good value for the consumer. For better or worse ultimately it's up to us to buy into a product/service and decide it's worth.

And I still do despite what value I know EA access and now Xbox game pass represents at this time.

Arguing against even having a choice is ridiculous to me, let them choose and if people don't find it a value the service will fail.
 
Last edited:

BiggStankDogg

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
87
We aren't asking for God of War on PC or Xbox. We are asking for Sony to embrace the changes developers want. Your analogy makes no sense at all.

God of War is a first party title. Gears of War wasn't.

Am I living in some weird upside down world where paying to keep games off of one console in perpetuity is not anti-consumer? Is that really the gymnastics routine I'm watching?
 

Jagernaut

Member
Oct 27, 2017
758
This is objectively false. The people in this thread relentlessly defending Sony at every turn are not ones that "DONT GIVE A FUCK". If they didn't, they literally wouldn't be in this thread, time and time and time again.

There are games that don't have a PS4 port and won't have a PS4 port because of this policy, so yes, there's a substantial market consequence.

What games aren't coming to PS4 because of the lack of cross platform play? If you are talking about the updated version of Mine craft, the older version is still on PS4. Any other games?
 

ghostcrew

The Shrouded Ghost
Administrator
Oct 27, 2017
30,351
God of War is a first party title. Gears of War wasn't.

Am I living in some weird upside down world where paying to keep games off of one console in perpetuity is not anti-consumer? Is that really the gymnastics routine I'm watching?

Are you really going to try and derail the thread to talk about why a game released TWELVE YEARS AGO was exclusive to the Xbox 360 and didn't come to the PS3? What even is this?
 

Zappy

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
3,738
"Artful writer" - is it alright that I take that as a compliment?

I'm not denying the impact the Xbox brand has had so far. What I am saying is, that what they're trying to do now seems more like opportunistic but unguided exploration of potential, rather than focused delivery of new experiences (which is actually the one thing you could credit their attempt at Kinect for).

They aren't doing much to innovate as opposed to simply integrate all sorts of functions into their system. Having Windows apps on your Xbox doesn't actually make for a better gaming experience. Sure, it makes the Xbox a system with more to offer besides gaming. That's alright. It may work, but I doubt it, seeing as they're just entering a new competitive market (their attempts at trying to differentiate themselves from Sony, by offering the same value proposition as a PC, but on a closed platform, is pretty damn risky and I don't get it)

I don't believe that their efforts can work longterm. Unless they manage to fool people into thinking that regression is somehow a good thing in terms of what they offer (remember that Microsoft OS is far more open than say Apple, and it's a reason a lot of people like it - there's more stuff!) Microsoft has really tried to make a closed PC platform for years. Several professionals have clandered them for that. They do that not to avoid piracy (or whatever people think), but because a closed platform creates that interdependent relationship I'm talking about and creates monopoly like status; this is why Microsoft succeeded with Windows in the first place - also, see case United States v. Microsoft Corp. 2001. You might think I'm out of my mind for making these assumptions, but it's irrational to run a business and not want monopoly profits. This is a legal way of getting it. Playstation nows this. Nintendo had it, if you believe they don't compete with Playstation and Xbox (I personally don't)

It's why Apple prefers a closed ecosystem; gives them monopoly like profits. The sole difference is the fact that Apple offers you hardware too, and not just the operating system. Take a guess as to why Microsoft would want to try an build hardware like the Surface - sure as hell isn't because billions of dollars in R&D and distribution is a fun expense; They really want to create a closed platform and ecosystem, but they can never achieve that in a million years, unless they fool people into thinking that the current state of Windows is worse than what they can build for the future. And maybe they can people a better OS, but they will have to convince us to compromise.

But yeah. It's the very reason why Playstation is avoiding crossplay; if you're the bridge between customer and developer, you get the big bucks.

Xbox could undercut Playstation (it tried to by making all Xbox consoles a devkit, although that turned out to be a rushed idea that they couldn't afford), but once you undercut, you automatically reach a point where it's not affordable anymore. Both are already forced to sell at a loss, so this isn't a strategy they can keep going for.

My initial point was simply that Phil Spencer and Xbox knows that 4 years of straight competition hasn't proved itself of any value. I don't know what the future brings, but I would argue that their biggest issue is in fact the lack of games offered on the console. They have zero grip on the Asian market, which by default gives Playstation a huge advantage. But the fact that they can't push out a wide variety of games, that seems to also be a crucial factor to this whole fiasco. Even if Xbox manages to sell consoles, then they will still have to have people buy a couple of games before they profit. I know all too many people who bought an Xbox One only to play Forza and Halo. Financially this isn't good enough for Xbox.

And then you write that none of this has an impact on the fun you have with Fortnite. But that's the point. You don't need a Playstation specifically to play Fortnite. The game is even free to boot up! The only barrier to entry would be the actual ownership of a console and there for a platform; any newcomers will have to pick, and so long as the player base is radically larger on Playstation, there's a chance your friends (or future relations) might own it, there's probably more games and variety (there is) and the prospects of a better future on the platform is there. Both companies know this, but Playstation managed to serve the customers with what they wanted - games! There are people who want other things (like television and Windows apps, and of course hardware design), but that doesn't really seem to influence overall and it never has.

The vast majority of people are persuaded to buy your system, if you can offer them games. So it's of crucial importance to Playstation to catch people and keep them on their platform playing. By offering exclusives, they can manage to do this effectively. And now that Fortnite is so popular, it just wouldn't make any sense for Playstation to offer crossplay, seeing as that game trumphs the popularity of any of their own titles (however, these can play into the equation when newcomers are to pick consoles - and it will)

It's not just jank I'm throwing out there, although I'm not really doing a good job a crediting those I should (I know - look up the book called Business Model Generation by Alexander Osterwaler and Yves Pigneur. It's some introductory material, but it's really insightful and co-created with the help of 470 other people from around the world!)

I mean, we always go into great detail when we discuss and analyze the success of consoles here on ERA (or that other place we used to do it). Talk about hardware design, PR, time of execution so and and so forth... However, many of these factors needs to be excused to explain the failure or success of certain consoles. One thing that's very true of all the best-selling consoles however, is the fact that they have a vast and expansive library of games.

And by the way, I'm not denying your preferences, or the fact that choice is often of better value to the paying customer. I'm just saying that this is what it is about. And I'm not for this specific thing, but that's because it doesn't change the game at large, but I believe it can impact the industry more than people like to think (as stated in my previous message)

The trouble with this argument is that it boils down to "Sony should do everything they can do gain competitive advantage - that is only fair". In that scenario on the flip side MS should do the same. So if MS were to open their war chest and sign up a few timed exclusives or even full ones they should just do it and nobody could complain because they are just "gaining their competitive advantage". Perhaps that's what will happen. I'll await the lack of moans with great anticipation.
 

SuikerBrood

Member
Jan 21, 2018
15,487
Gears of War 4; October 11, 2016

Are you saying this is not the case to this day?

So.. platform holders aren't allowed to buy IP's and/or studios now? Where is this argument going? If Sony had bought the Crash IP, I wouldn't scream about anti-consumerism. That's business and part of this industry.
But sure; console exclusives are stupid. I'd love to play God of War on my PC.
 

Starlatine

533.489 paid youtubers cant be wrong
Member
Oct 28, 2017
30,373
Gears of War 4; October 11, 2016

Are you saying this is not the case to this day?

You do realize the IP is microsoft owned for quite some time, done by a microsoft studio and still released with crossplay on PC as well, right?

Do you really want me to list all the non first party series that never left playstation to refute your asinine point about gears of war?
 

BiggStankDogg

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
87
The trouble with this argument is that it boils down to "Sony should do everything they can do gain competitive advantage - that is only fair". In that scenario on the flip side MS should do the same. So if MS were to open their war chest and sign up a few timed exclusives or even full ones they should just do it and nobody could complain because they are just "gaining their competitive advantage". Perhaps that's what will happen. I'll await the lack of moans with great anticipation.

That's my point. They should. The have. It sucked, but I bought my console and was ultimately fine. But let's not pretend they are pro-consumer. THAT'S my point.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,733
Everyone gave several reason why money wise Sony benefits from not doing Xplay, you just dont want to listen to em
2i91i7b.jpg

Nah I heard, I just feel like it's not weighting to the final definition that this decision was purely done out of greed.

I guess, I just can't see greed on a f2p game. Timed exclusives, additional dlc ala Destiny...all those things definitely shows their greed...but this? Idk, I don't see it...the numbers don't add up to me.

From the examples you put forth, buying a PS4 for fortnite isn't exactly something everyone is doing out tbe buttload and if we want to add microtransactions to the equation, there's already devices the system is playing nice with that already makes a ton more hand over fist in microtransactions than a console.....so is the final answer really greed? I'll honestly say that I might be being naive but I really don't see it. A single console sale just doesn't seem worth blocking out one competitor if it wasn't for the fact that they just don't want to share their userbase with them.

I don't really know what to tell you. Historically -- whether it's misguided or not -- Sony has not considered the PC to be a direct competitor. For instance, when Sony provided partial funding for Street Fighter V and locked up console exclusivity, they still allowed a Day One PC port and cross play.

Hmmm this is true. So then with Microsoft it is about leveraging positions and piggybacking. That's what it has to be for....because there's a lot thar Microsoft has brought to the table including a more powerful console, but sales wise, sony is comfortable, isn't worried about them jumping ship sincethey try to keep them engaged somehow, but still no Xbox.
 

Deleted member 896

User Requested Account Deletion
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,353
Honestly, I find bringing up Microsoft's transgressions mostly baffling. I mean, I'm sure there's some topics worth discussing. But in terms of irrelevant derailing it's super irrelevant to the topic at hand. Like, the goal here is "I want crossplay." People are challenging Sony because they think Crossplay is a good thing. They're not trying to smear Sony's good name to prop up MS as the saviors of this great hobby. Like, the endgame here isn't "everyone that owns a PS4 but not an XBO should trade in their PS4 towards and XBO! Everyone that owns both should sell their PS4!"
 

BiggStankDogg

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
87
User Warned: System Wars + Off Topic Commentary
You do realize the IP is microsoft owned for quite some time, done by a microsoft studio and still released with crossplay on PC as well, right?

Do you really want me to list all the non first party series that never left playstation to refute your asinine point about gears of war?

It's not asinine. It's literally the whole point. They bought Gears of War from Epic to keep it off of Playstation. Is this not registering? It's done by a Microsoft Studio BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT IT TO KEEP IT OFF OF PLAYSTATION. Literally to exclude half the gaming community from playing it.
 

BernardoOne

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,289
I don't really know what to tell you. Historically -- whether it's misguided or not -- Sony has not considered the PC to be a direct competitor. For instance, when Sony provided partial funding for Street Fighter V and locked up console exclusivity, they still allowed a Day One PC port and cross play.
This is incorrect. They consider PC to be a direct competitor. They specifically said this was their main reasoning for the PS4 Pro.
 

BiggStankDogg

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
87
Gears of War 4 is a first party game. Microsoft own Gears of War. Of course it's exclusive to Xbox and Windows 10. They make it.

And how did that happen?

And when you answer that, why did they buy the IP? Minecraft is now a first party Microsoft title. Since we're coming full circle. Why not let PS4 play. What does it hurt them? (These are all cross-play arguments, too if you can't tell where I'm going with this).

Why can you justify one, but not the other?
 

rakkadakka

Member
Oct 25, 2017
115
If the main allure of Sony consoles is the exclusives then third party crossplay shouldn't be an issue.

But it's a theoretical threat so they won't do it.
 

SuikerBrood

Member
Jan 21, 2018
15,487
Don't know if anyone is arguing either company is 100 percent pro consumer. Individual policies can be though and cross play is one of those. That's the point.

This. Let's not pretend Microsoft is holy. Or even close to that. This topic is about cross play. Just as the other topic is about charging for FTP online. Both topics are fine and these topics should be discussed. It makes consumers more aware of the issues that are facing console gaming.
 

Septic

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,071
Nov 12, 2017
2,877
It's not asinine. It's literally the whole point. They bought Gears of War from Epic to keep it off of Playstation. Is this not registering? It's done by a Microsoft Studio BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT IT TO KEEP IT OFF OF PLAYSTATION. Literally to exclude half the gaming community from playing it.
You mean like every third party exclusive ever created?
 

Deleted member 18951

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,531
Wasn't the Parity Clause thing about Microsoft forcing developers to have to make a game look worst on the competitions hardware so that the game could be on par with there's?

I think that's a gravity ton difference compared to cross platform play which is not hinder the way the game functions, looks and plays fundamentally.

No, no it wasn't. Time to get better informed :)
 

Deleted member 896

User Requested Account Deletion
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,353
This is incorrect. They consider PC to be a direct competitor. They specifically said this was their main reasoning for the PS4 Pro.

Ok. But clearly there's something different there. Why go to the trouble of funding a lot of the development and locking up exclusivity on consoles just to allow the game to release on PC with seemingly no limitations?
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,733
It's not asinine. It's literally the whole point. They bought Gears of War from Epic to keep it off of Playstation. Is this not registering? It's done by a Microsoft Studio BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT IT TO KEEP IT OFF OF PLAYSTATION. Literally to exclude half the gaming community from playing it.

So this is completely seperate from this conversation. I know you think you got em with this but are we really arguing exclusives now? Sony has paid for a lot of exclusives to be off other systems, however this has absolutely NOTHING to do with Crossplay. Those decisions are entirely out of greed....wtf?
 

ghostcrew

The Shrouded Ghost
Administrator
Oct 27, 2017
30,351
No, but they are only arguing that one company is ANTI-consumer. I'm saying they all are, lol.

People are upset that a specifically pro-consumer feature is being apparently blocked by one platform holder. It's not about picking sides, it's about raising issues and trying to make changes that will benefit gamers. I know you want to divert attention towards bad things that Microsoft does/has done but there are other threads about that. There is an active thread right now about Microsoft requiring Xbox Live Gold for F2P games that and if you want to create a thread to discuss why Microsoft bought the Gears of War license from Epic nobody will stop you. I don't think it'll get much traction though, it's a weird thing to be complaining about in 2018.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Sony blocking cross-play in Fortnite.
 

christocolus

Member
Oct 27, 2017
14,932
You know what Epic game I would like to have played? Gears of War. It looked fun as hell to play, but I had a Sony console and couldn't. Guess why? It wasn't even cross-play I wanted - I just wanted to play it period. And when their deal with Microsoft was up, I kept thinking 'Hey, maybe I can play it now!' Then Microsoft bought the IP so I couldn't
again.

As a PlayStation gamer, I don't ever want to be lectured again on how consumer-friendly Microsoft is in the console space. ESPECIALLY not with an Epic Games property.

This is a shrewd PR move and i wont begrudge them that. But come on now.
What is this post about? Lmao xD
 

Deleted member 2172

Account closed at user request
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,577
It's not asinine. It's literally the whole point. They bought Gears of War from Epic to keep it off of Playstation. Is this not registering? It's done by a Microsoft Studio BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT IT TO KEEP IT OFF OF PLAYSTATION. Literally to exclude half the gaming community from playing it.
Are you for fucking real? Microsoft funded the development of the GoW series, much like what Sony did with Street Fighter V. Once Epic were finished with the IP, Microsoft purchased it with the intentions to keep making games for it. They created a new studio just to make new GoW games. If you really are that bothered, buy an xbox and get over it. There would be no Gears of War games if it wasn't for Microsoft. Your double standards are embarrassing to witness.

This thread is about crossplay, cry over this somewhere else.
 

Buckley

Banned
Nov 20, 2017
487
The trouble with this argument is that it boils down to "Sony should do everything they can do gain competitive advantage - that is only fair". In that scenario on the flip side MS should do the same. So if MS were to open their war chest and sign up a few timed exclusives or even full ones they should just do it and nobody could complain because they are just "gaining their competitive advantage". Perhaps that's what will happen. I'll await the lack of moans with great anticipation.
Uhhh, the shareholders would complain. Buying up a bunch of exclusives is kind of why MS is getting trounced this gen.
 

BiggStankDogg

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
87
You mean like every third party exclusive ever created?

YES. EXACTLY. Why do they do it? Either company? Because they felt it's good for their business.

I get that cross-play in and of itself is good for consumers. I'm not ANTI-cross-play. I'm not PRO-corporation. But everyone is yelling at a monolith for being uncaring and it's silly. Cross-play doesn't effect Sony's bottom line one way or the other and it give the competition a chance to justify staying on their console. Why get a PS4 if you can play with them on Xbox. They literally have no incentive and Xbox has ALL the incentive, corporately speaking.

It's not a pro-consumer move that they are kindly giving. It's a smart PR move, that's all I'm saying.


If you really are that bothered, buy an xbox and get over it.

Your double standards are embarrassing to witness.

Now imagine Sony saying that and tell me about double standards, lol.
 

Zappy

Banned
Nov 2, 2017
3,738
That's my point. They should. The have. It sucked, but I bought my console and was ultimately fine. But let's not pretend they are pro-consumer. THAT'S my point.

No company will ever be entirely pro-consumer. Right now MS are offering more to the consumer than Sony. Cross-play, play anywhere, back compat (free), EA access etc....(what they haven't got is the AAA exclusives but that's a different point)

This will always be in flux, but right now in terms of pure "consumer friendly" initiatives MS are ahead. May be out of necessity but that doesn't really matter.

The point is that we should hold everyone to account on things like cross-play that will happen anyway and will benefit gamers for generations. Its like the Berlin wall, it just needs to be pulled down and the floodgates opened now.
 

BiggStankDogg

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
87
No company will ever be entirely pro-consumer. Right now MS are offering more to the consumer than Sony. Cross-play, play anywhere, back compat (free), EA access etc....(what they haven't got is the AAA exclusives but that's a different point)

This will always be in flux, but right now in terms of pure "consumer friendly" initiatives MS are ahead. May be out of necessity but that doesn't really matter.

The point is that we should hold everyone to account on things like cross-play that will happen anyway and will benefit gamers for generations. Its like the Berlin wall, it just needs to be pulled down and the floodgates opened now.

This I can agree with.
 
Nov 12, 2017
2,877
I was explained so it's cool but the definition of the situation is still not the same a cross platform play. The PS4 version of Fortnite is not holding back Xbox players from playing the game at all.
Fortnite dosnt need Crossplay at all ..and Ms with their moves on windows/Xbox integration and the crossplay with Nintendo even less than Sony ......here the things is more about niche games or devs that go through for any reasons problems with their release (as example see Lawbreakers)