-
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.
Jim Ryan: Sony wants cross-play in more games – Policies are consistent across all publishers and partners
- Thread starter nolifebr
- Start date
Am I the only one who think the fee is reasonable?
If I play 90% of my time on a game on a PlayStation, but make 100% of my purchases in the game with my phone, then why should Sony get 0% of that money?
Remember that the fee is only applied when the relation between play time on PlayStation and money spent on other platforms is disproportionate.
If I play 90% of my time on a game on a PlayStation, but make 100% of my purchases in the game with my phone, then why should Sony get 0% of that money?
Remember that the fee is only applied when the relation between play time on PlayStation and money spent on other platforms is disproportionate.
Last edited:
Because that's not where you're purchasing it? No one else is doing this nonsense? It gives them access to how spending and time is spent across various platforms for those games, information that shouldn't have to be available to them at all? Sony isn't owed anything here
He's a financial guy through and through just like Kotick and doesn't play games. They are more similar than you might think.
It isn't just a fee but demands of data that would normally be private. On top of that, Sony is literally providing zero service to the developer when things are purchased elsewhere. Why does Sony deserve anything?
Why should the developer be punished for your own buying habits?
I'm sorry but that is such a crock of shit. If they wanted more cross-play then they'd get rid of their MTX clause that came out of the Apple v Epic trial.
Like most CEOs in the industry then lol that's not really a Kotick-specific trait. Not sure where you got the idea that he doesn't play video games but I get what you're saying.
Publishers aren't owned anything here.
Crossplay is Sony forfeiting some of their market advantage. Of course they would mitigate the impact of that.
It's because Sony thinks 100 million console owners = 100 million potential players when in reality they have the math behind the scenes that shows there is no millions difference in multiplayer games player base in any series. Maybe Fortnite? But acting like there are millions of more say….Destiny players on PS than there is on pc and Xbox is silly
Inclusivity benefits all, and seeking compensation for opening the gates to your walled garden, in exchange for financial restitution shows that Sony are short sighted to their bottom line, it is whatever serves the business needs that comes first, not the player base, which arguably is the more profitable priority in the long term.
Sony got big, Sony became market leader, Sony got greedy.
And thus, the cycle continues.
How so, Jim?
Bold statement to be making without anything to back it up.
It's not short sighted - it's how deals are made.
If you give up your advantage for the disproportionate benefit of competitors you ask for something in return. You would lose your job otherwise.
For instance the Marvel Studios / Sony Spider-Man deal benefits everyone, but it wouldn't just be handing the character over for a decade then benefitting from the increased popularity then. You offset the immediate losses, and both sides are happy to do that.
If it were that simple, then publishers would just agree to Sony's deal since they'd never have to pay the fee.
Let me give you an example. Just imagine Nintendo and Epic deliver a Splatoon or Mario DLC, which is then getting a discount on eShop, because it's Nintendo. Now millions, who usually play on PS Rocket league purchase the DLC on eShop... Why should Sony earn money from a Mario DLC/MTX? Explain this to me.
- Do they own the IP? Nope.
- Did they have anything to do with the deal? Nope.
I believe every company should entice consumers to purchase something on their platforms. This is how the market works, but apparently Sony doesn't agree with it. They act like a spoiled child.
I spend more on Microsoft and Nintendo platforms, because there is a reward program here in Germany. For instance I just bought games for ~30€ just with reward points from MS. Let's just say millions would use this and millions would have spend the 30€ on MTX? Why should Sony earn the money? What have they done to entice me to spend on PSN? Nothing.
Why shouldn't we as consumers rather demand Sony to be bringing their US reward program over to entice us to spend on PSN?
Last edited:
You don't think that cross play would rengage a games community, and promote more opportunities for Sony to profit regardless?
There's knock on effects at play, and happy customers spend more. Sony doubling down on business first, player second, isn't the way to make your customer base happy. It's short sighted in my opinion.
What's Jim Ryan wanting cross play have anything to do with you wanting to spend money on psn?
Every time.
If a dev wants to implement crossplay Sony forces a clause on them that says something like
"If a user spends more MTX money in other platforms while playing more on PS devices, the dev has to pay Sony".
Are you just coming into a thread just to whine about a contract between to companies that has nothing to do with you when the thread is about having more games with cross play?
No it's not reasonable. They can demand it's sold at the same price as competition as a poster above said.
Publishers have no control of how customers chose to pay for MTX. If it's easier on other platforms, they may buy from there. Why not do things to encourage people to buy from your platform.
So essentially Their payment service may be the problem but they will make publishers pay for it. It's honestly ridiculous
Because the clause is likely imo to be the problem for more cross gen games. Not every publisher will agree to share their private information and metric about games on other platforms. And Sony demands this, so they can then proceed to calculate if someone playing on PS bought more on other storefronts for the same game.
Again, I ask. Have we heard of this stopping anything? With epic fiasco none of this would be known and we'd still be getting cross-play games.
I didn't say it's a fact that this is stopping more cross games. I said it's "likely imo". Why? Because companies (2K, devs of Genshin impact and everyone else) love secrets, the clause is bullshit and Sony has nothing against cross play otherwise. So why would Borderlands not allow cross play? When the game literally can do it based on their wording that they had to disable it and based on the fact it works between Xbox/PC?
So something has to be the cause and who knows what this is about. It's not technical, it's not Sony cross play stance (cause they allow it), so the cause has to be something else. And that could very well be the shit clause imo.
Last edited:
The outlier across a bunch of cross-play games, and you think the only reason is a clause we recently stumbled upon and nothing to do with the publisher as well?
Last edited:
It's not just Borderlands that has cross play on multiple platforms and not on PS.
Edit: And are you saying the problem is the publisher, when said publisher literally implemented crossplay between other plattforms? Seems very realistic indeed.
Last edited:
Ah, so there are games with cross-play on NSW/PC/XBOX excluding PS?
That would point to a legit barrier then.
If the publisher/dev seem to be unable to get cross-play on PS despite multiple games ranging from small to large having it implemented. Then it's only logical to assume some there's some fault with the pub/dev and not just the service provider.
One example that come to my mind straight away is Genshin Impact. Cross play between Smartphones and PC, while PS users only play with themselves.
It's very reasonable especially when you take into account it's the other platforms and the publisher that benefit the most from crossplay. If you have something someone else wants in business you have leverage.
Even in everyday life there aren't many people who would let someone sleep at their house, eat their food and drive their car and not expect a little money here and there.
Crossplay seems only relevant for:
Why does it matter for the general gamer that only has one copy/platform?
- Gamers who have multiple formats of the game
- Businesses who want to put their userbase together for commercial reasons
Why does it matter for the general gamer that only has one copy/platform?
Because some people have friends that own other platforms and it's nice to play games with your friends. In addition, it can bolster the active user base of the game if the user base is fairly evenly distributed.
With Sony being the lead platformer here, they'd want that friend of yours to buy a PlayStation to join the rest. It doesn't seem to be in their best interest to lose that potential new customer. Charging a fee for it seems completely reasonable from their perspective.
Sure, but you asked why it matters to the general gamer if cross-play is present, not what a business case for/agaisnt it is.
Last edited:
Why would my friend want to pay $70 for first party games though. It becomes more and more of a stretch. I know his budget better than Sony, he wants the most bang for his buck and that's Gamepass.
There is zero reason to be opposed to full crossplay for PVE games. PvP, sure, whatever, (though I don't agree with most of those, and any concerns about kb/m should be addressed via input-based match making, because, surprise surprise, there are plenty of people who pay with controllers on PC). But really, the entire Sony thing is REALLY about cross-progression, not cross-play, and there is absolutely no valid objection to that in any configuration.
Jim seems to be trying really hard to shake his well-earned bad guy image, but without actually changing anything he is, you know, doing.
At the end of the day, maybe Sony is getting better about allowing cross-play, but they are for sure not as open or easy as Xbox and PC. Otherwise, there wouldn't be games like Borderlands that have issues with it. There are still roadblocks that only exist on Playstation.