Sony’s Protective Stance on Crossplay

[hanselthecaretaker]

Continues -

Borderlands 3 maker forced to block cross-play on PS5, PS4

PlayStation fans will miss out once again

www.polygon.com

Every time they make decisions like this, I almost instinctively think that another PSN hacking will be around the corner.

At the end of the day they really need to ask themselves if a thing they do is hurting their image, or helping it. Because that’s what’s going to translate to their bottom line in the long run.

Anyways as a consumer, do you agree with how they handle this? At most I could see their reasoning from a business sense, but not sure how much it would really pay off in the grand scheme of things.

 

[laggyteabag]

"Play Has No Limits" is a slogan that is ringing increasingly untrue.

 

[CriticalGaming]

I see this as a stranglehold attempt on the market.

Because Sony is the console king currently (at least when compared to Microsoft), they do not feel the need to let the games on their platform also talk to Xbox users.

If Microsoft presented itself as a real threat competitively, then I think their cross-play stance would be very different.

 

[Xprimentyl]

Anyways as a consumer, do you agree with how they handle this? At most I could see their reasoning from a business sense, but not sure how much it would really pay off in the grand scheme of things.

I think cross-platform play does little more than shine a light on how trivial console differences are. When you can have not only an identical experience, but the literal same experience on a PS 5 as a Xbone SX or Switch or PC, what's the point in owning one over the other? We're coming to that head effectively, I think console devs just don't want to accept it; opting out of cross-play is just emblematic of that fact.

 

[BrawlMan]

Arrogant Sony is back at it again.

 

[hanselthecaretaker]

"Play Has No Limits" is a slogan that is ringing increasingly untrue.

It’s probably their dumbest slogan to date.

Arrogant Sony is back at it again.

See above for further proof.

 

[CriticalGaming]

It’s probably their dumbest slogan to date.

It's better than, "E! A! Sports! It's in the game.......for an extra $49.95"


Honestly though. Can someone explain to me why this is such a problem for people? Cross play throughout gaming history hasn't really been a thing ever in the console market. So what is the big deal that people have with Sony who just maintains that stance? I really don't understand.

What business incentive would Sony ever have to allow for Cross-play with Nintendo or Microsoft?

Again you might have an argument if Sony was on the bottom of the console war to try and grasp for some life in the industry, but Sony is on the top (or arguably 2nd place to Nintendo who isn't really apart of the "war" imo anymore) . And Microsoft isn't even prepared to fight yet it would seem.

https://www.denofgeek.com/games/xbox-series-x-ps5-2021-console-war-sales/

According to the sales reports. The PS5 has outsold the xbox and the switch in the same release time frame. Which is interesting that the Xbox sold over 2 million FEWER units and is still just as hard to get a hold of as the PS5.

And we rag on Xbox and PS5 about not being available, but to be fair you can't find Switches anywhere either. The switch just has the luxury of being 4 years old at this point so everyone already has one.

So I ask again, what would be the business benefit of allowing cross play for Sony?

 

[Xprimentyl]

It's better than, "E! A! Sports! It's in the game.......for an extra $49.95"


Honestly though. Can someone explain to me why this is such a problem for people? Cross play throughout gaming history hasn't really been a thing ever in the console market. So what is the big deal that people have with Sony who just maintains that stance? I really don't understand.

What business incentive would Sony ever have to allow for Cross-play with Nintendo or Microsoft?

Again you might have an argument if Sony was on the bottom of the console war to try and grasp for some life in the industry, but Sony is on the top (or arguably 2nd place to Nintendo who isn't really apart of the "war" imo anymore) . And Microsoft isn't even prepared to fight yet it would seem.

https://www.denofgeek.com/games/xbox-series-x-ps5-2021-console-war-sales/

According to the sales reports. The PS5 has outsold the xbox and the switch in the same release time frame. Which is interesting that the Xbox sold over 2 million FEWER units and is still just as hard to get a hold of as the PS5.

And we rag on Xbox and PS5 about not being available, but to be fair you can't find Switches anywhere either. The switch just has the luxury of being 4 years old at this point so everyone already has one.

So I ask again, what would be the business benefit of allowing cross play for Sony?

The "problem" it appears is simply unwillingness to be available for joint operations. I've bought consoles in the past because my friends were relegated to one system or the other or because I wanted certain exclusives; cross-play has never been a consideration let alone a selling point, but if it was on offer and Sony said "no," while not a deal-breaker, it's just evidence that they want to be their own thing. Which is fine; don't get me wrong, but if a developer has the capability and willingness to make their title cross-functional and you say "no," it's pretty clear that you're making a business play.

 

[CriticalGaming]

The "problem" it appears is simply unwillingness to be available for joint operations

So what? How often do you see McDonalds and Burger King team up? It's business competition.

Which is fine; don't get me wrong, but if a developer has the capability and willingness to make their title cross-functional and you say "no," it's pretty clear that you're making a business play.

Which is the better business play.

Look it's one thing to cross play with PC, because Sony already does that with Final Fantasy 14. PS and PC players play together on the same servers and you can't tell the difference. So it's not that they don't want to cross play, it's that they don't want to cross play with the business rival because there is no positives for Sony in that regard.

Meanwhile Microsoft has nothing to lose because they have nothing to offer. So anything they can do for positive looks towards their platform is a win for them.

 

[BrawlMan]

Honestly though. Can someone explain to me why this is such a problem for people? Cross play throughout gaming history hasn't really been a thing ever in the console market. So what is the big deal that people have with Sony who just maintains that stance? I really don't understand.

What business incentive would Sony ever have to allow for Cross-play with Nintendo or Microsoft?

​

Either you get it, or you don't. There is no in-between and don't ever excuses for shitty business practices.

 

[laggyteabag]

Honestly though. Can someone explain to me why this is such a problem for people? Cross play throughout gaming history hasn't really been a thing ever in the console market. So what is the big deal that people have with Sony who just maintains that stance? I really don't understand.

Why do we always have such opposite opinions on things?

Onto the point though:

If I have a game, and my friend has the same game, and we want to play with each other, the only thing that should matter, is that we both own the same game - not what platform we play on.

From my understanding, achieving crossplay isn't even that hard, either. From listening to various developers who have implemented crossplay in the past, it is allegedly no more difficult than just "flicking a switch". Hell, im pretty sure the Unreal Engine comes with built-in tools to allow console crossplay.

Sony is already getting a player's £40p/y or whatever for a PS+ subscription, and they are already getting their cut from whatever purchases a person is making on their store. Why should they then get to meddle with who that person is allowed to play with?

All this is, is Sony trying to force people into their ecosystem, holding the ability to play with people's friends hostage. They do this, because they are the market leader, and so they can get away with it.

It also benefits the games themselves. If 1000 people are playing a game, but that population is spread across Xbox/PS/Switch/PC, suddenly that 1000 population isn't quite so tenable. Merge them all together, and suddenly you have a reasonably healthy multiplayer population.

At the end of the day, I shouldn't really need to explain why crossplay has its benefits, because everyone else is already having fun playing with each other, like one big happy family. Meanwhile, Sony is sitting in the corner, throwing a tantrum.

With all due respect to you, they don't really need you defending and justifying their greedy, anti-consumer practices. Along with things like competent backwards compatibility support, these should be basic features that you should expect, these days. Not ones that you are ready to jump to Sony's defence for omitting.

 

[CriticalGaming]

Why do we always have such opposite opinions on things?

Because if we agreed on everything it would be a boring forum.

If I have a game, and my friend has the same game, and we want to play with each other, the only thing that should matter, is that we both own the same game - not what platform we play on.

From my understanding, achieving crossplay isn't even that hard, either. From listening to various developers who have implemented crossplay in the past, it is allegedly no more difficult than just "flicking a switch". Hell, im pretty sure the Unreal Engine comes with built-in tools to allow console crossplay.

Sony is already getting a player's £40p/y or whatever for a PS+ subscription, and they are already getting their cut from whatever purchases a person is making on their store. Why should they then get to meddle with who that person is allowed to play with?

All this is, is Sony trying to force people into their ecosystem, holding the ability to play with people's friends hostage. They do this, because they are the market leader, and so they can get away with it.

Right but again, cross play has never been a thing in gaming history before. And the chance are that if you are playing with friends, you and your friends are likely buying the same console. Even if this is strictly an online-only friend, one has to assume you would talk about things and base purchase decisions on like-minded desires to play together.

So I don't really think there is much social pressure for cross play.

It also benefits the games themselves. If 1000 people are playing a game, but that population is spread across Xbox/PS/Switch/PC, suddenly that 1000 population isn't quite so tenable. Merge them all together, and suddenly you have a reasonably healthy multiplayer population.

At the end of the day, I shouldn't really need to explain why crossplay has its benefits, because everyone else is already having fun playing with each other, like one big happy family. Meanwhile, Sony is sitting in the corner, throwing a tantrum.

i never said cross play wasn't a benefit to games. I said it wasn't a benefit for Sony.

That being said, Sony does allow cross-play on dozens of games. https://www.psu.com/news/all-ps4-crossplay-games-a-complete-list/

So there has to be something specific going on with Boarderlands 3 that they do not want it.

With all due respect to you, they don't really need you defending and justifying their greedy, anti-consumer practices. Along with things like competent backwards compatibility support, these should be basic features that you should expect, these days. Not ones that you are ready to jump to Sony's defence for omitting.

It's not that I'm defending them. I just don't see this as being an issue. Crossplay is an entirely new concept in the console space, and demanding it now seems just arbitrary simply because it's been offered on a few previous things.

Sony's backwards compatibility thing also isn't a big deal to me. But it is at least something I understand why people would want it. I can see the practical market for it and that's a justified demand in my eyes. Personally I think the Backwards compatibility is in a fine state as it is now, but that's just me.

And it's not even like i hate Microsoft either. I don't have a problem with Microsoft, I just wish they would DO SOMETHING, that would make them relevant. It's very cool that you can play a bunch of old titles on the newest system. But I think it's silly to buy a top of the line 4K console / PC so you can play Knights of the old Republic again.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Crossplay is an entirely new concept in the console space, and demanding it now seems just arbitrary simply because it's been offered on a few previous things.

It also makes possible a wildly larger community for some games than traditional exclusivity ever could, which can be important to a lot of people.

 

[CriticalGaming]

It also makes possible a wildly larger community for some games than traditional exclusivity ever could, which can be important to a lot of people.

That is true, except what reason does an exclusive have to be cross-play if that title is exclusive to one system?

 

[sXeth]

Arrogant Sony is back at it again.

Err.... Every Epic game, Rocket League, Outriders, Minecraft, fortnite, Destiny, FF14,


Off the top of my head. All have crossplay on PS4/5.


Even from the article, they said this was a 2K mandate, not Sony's. so idk how we're pulling Sony out of this. I dobut BL3 is such a keystone piece that they're going out of their way to specially select it to withold on either.

 

[BrawlMan]

Even from the article, they said this was a 2K mandate, not Sony's. so idk how we're pulling Sony out of this.

I did not read the article until just now. So okay....fuck Randy Pitchford again, and 2K. Does not stop Sony from being arrogant on several things nor excuse their no crossplay stance a couple years ago.

 

[laggyteabag]

Even from the article, they said this was a 2K mandate, not Sony's. so idk how we're pulling Sony out of this. I dobut BL3 is such a keystone piece that they're going out of their way to specially select it to withold on either.

Well, 2K is happy to offer BL3 cross platform to Xbox and PC players - but not PS.

So the reasonable conclusion here, is that there is some kind of disagreement between 2K and Sony.

And thanks to the Epic v Apple lawsuit, we can make a reasonable guess as to why there may be a disagreement.

As it turns out, for Sony to enable crossplay, they are now asking for compensation/royalties, to "offset the reduction in revenue."

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.

Obviously this specific circumstance does not apply perfectly here, but now we know that Sony is asking for money, to allow cross platform play. It wouldn't surprise me if they were doing the same thing, here.

2K must have not found Sony's terms agreeable, and backed out of the deal. Sony's loss, I guess.

 

[laggyteabag]

Right but again, cross play has never been a thing in gaming history before. And the chance are that if you are playing with friends, you and your friends are likely buying the same console. Even if this is strictly an online-only friend, one has to assume you would talk about things and base purchase decisions on like-minded desires to play together.

...

It's not that I'm defending them. I just don't see this as being an issue. Crossplay is an entirely new concept in the console space, and demanding it now seems just arbitrary simply because it's been offered on a few previous things.

You are right that crossplay has (hardly) been done before - but it is being done now, and it is apparently a feature that people like enough, for it to be newsworthy when it isn't included.

Crossplay will become a market standard in the near future - at least for the consoles that aren't uptight about it. Sony is just looking increasingly conservative about "the way consoles have always been", and it just is not a good look for them.

As for the "just buy the same console" argument, that might have held up a few generations ago, but these days... well, it just doesn't. Crossplay is starting to become common enough where all needing to be on the same platform is becoming less and less of an issue, and everybody has their reasons for preferring their platform of choice. I prefer to play on PC, my friend prefers to play on their Xbox, and my other friend is a PS guy. "Compromise" is not something that you want to consider, when you are dropping at least £300 on a new device - just because Sony is being a dick about it.

And the fact of the matter is that Sony is massively lagging behind the competition in the "not being a dick to your customers" department, but they can get away with it, because they are currently the market leaders.

I think this is going to bite them in the ass, and Sony is going to have a lot of catching up to do, when one of their competitors finally start to do something, this generation.

 

[Xprimentyl]

So what? How often do you see McDonalds and Burger King team up? It's business competition.



Which is the better business play.

Look it's one thing to cross play with PC, because Sony already does that with Final Fantasy 14. PS and PC players play together on the same servers and you can't tell the difference. So it's not that they don't want to cross play, it's that they don't want to cross play with the business rival because there is no positives for Sony in that regard.

Meanwhile Microsoft has nothing to lose because they have nothing to offer. So anything they can do for positive looks towards their platform is a win for them.

At what point in my original post did I say Sony was wrong for their decision? The second word was "problem" (in quotes, nonetheless.)

 

[sXeth]

Well, 2K is happy to offer BL3 cross platform to Xbox and PC players - but not PS.

So the reasonable conclusion here, is that there is some kind of disagreement between 2K and Sony.

And thanks to the Epic v Apple lawsuit, we can make a reasonable guess as to why there may be a disagreement.

As it turns out, for Sony to enable crossplay, they are now asking for compensation/royalties, to "offset the reduction in revenue."

Obviously this specific circumstance does not apply perfectly here, but now we know that Sony is asking for money, to allow cross platform play. It wouldn't surprise me if they were doing the same thing, here.

2K must have not found Sony's terms agreeable, and backed out of the deal. Sony's loss, I guess.

Ah, well you're not the OOP, but maybe thats the rticle they should've led with to make the point.


Though from the quote you've provided, its something to do with microtransactions rather then strictly the enabling of crossplay "if someones playing on playsation, but paying on mobile"