I'm starting to think that in 2018, that Sony may start to relent on Cross-Platform play as more and more developers start speaking out about it.

arstechnica

- No text -

I'm starting to think that in 2018, that Sony may start to relent on Cross-Platform play as more and more developers start speaking out about it.

arstechnica

Good for one of the Mustards speaking out about it. I hope Sony crumbles regarding this. I'd love to play w/ y'all xboxers.

Edit: course then there's Activision & their playstation exclusives getting in the way.. <grubles>

(also, I'm becoming a chronic post-post editor of posts... ugh).

I'm starting to think that in 2018, that Sony may start to relent on Cross-Platform play as more and more developers start speaking out about it.

arstechnica

Good for one of the Mustards speaking out about it. I hope Sony crumbles regarding this. I'd love to play w/ y'all xboxers.

Edit: course then there's Activision & their playstation exclusives getting in the way.. <grubles>

(also, I'm becoming a chronic post-post editor of posts... ugh).

I would still play with you peeps.

I'm starting to think that in 2018, that Sony may start to relent on Cross-Platform play as more and more developers start speaking out about it.

They won't. They can easily afford not to, and the article that you link to explains why.
Xbox sales have nowhere near begun to catch up to PS4. There is more than likely not a single cross-platform game where XBox players make up the larger playerbase, which is the only way that it might be appealing to Sony (Even with the 360's vastly superior population over the PS3 taken into account, Playstation still had a majority of the playerbase for Destiny 1, back when DestinyTracker still had those numbers. PC has no doubt only further diminished the Xbox's numbers).

I'd love for it to happen, even if we could only do it in a specific playlist that locked us out of our exclusive weapons, maps, etc... But it won't. Sony just doesn't back out of their own philosophies (remember, being able to change our Gamertags is still something that they won't allow, and not for technical reasons).

For what it's worth, though, Sony's never been against PC crossplay, so that may be possible (although PC Destiny has a separate balancing system and runs on a different version of the game, so crossplay may be impossible unless Bungie stops doing PC Hotfixes (they won't).

We'll probably get Music of the Spheres before we get crossplay.

It's sort of funny, because when MS tried to push the digital game thing Sony was treated like the good guys. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

You say that this is "a reason not to buy PS4". But if they did allow Crossplay, then they'd be giving you a reason to not buy a PS4, since you'd have access to the same friends in multiplat games. They literally can't win thanks to your mentality.

It's sort of funny, because when MS tried to push the digital game thing Sony was treated like the good guys. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

I really don't see how. What business would be stupid enough to say "we have millions more customers than our leading competitor, so we should let them get access to all of our profits and customer base, because their customers feel too lonely without their friends."

They'd be shooting themselves in the foot just for the sake of some temporary good PR.

You won't buy a PS4 either way, so why would they even cater to such entitlement for free (not even for free, it would be at a great cost to them)?

You say that this is "a reason not to buy PS4". But if they did allow Crossplay, then they'd be giving you a reason to not buy a PS4, since you'd have access to the same friends in multiplat games. They literally can't win thanks to your mentality.

It's sort of funny, because when MS tried to push the digital game thing Sony was treated like the good guys. Now the shoe is on the other foot.

I really don't see how. What business would be stupid enough to say "we have millions more customers than our leading competitor, so we should let them get access to all of our profits and customer base, because their customers feel too lonely without their friends."

They'd be shooting themselves in the foot just for the sake of some temporary good PR.

You won't buy a PS4 either way, so why would they even cater to such entitlement for free (not even for free, it would be at a great cost to them)?

They would lose some players because of it. But the reason they have such a high player base it more to do with the hardward and exclusives than anything. The reason they should do it is not because they would make more money if they didn't do it. They should do it because it's the right thing to do for gamers of both consoles.

You won't buy a PS4 either way, so why would they even cater to such entitlement for free (not even for free, it would be at a great cost to them)?

They would lose some players because of it. But the reason they have such a high player base it more to do with the hardward and exclusives than anything.

True, but by its very nature, the 2:1 sales mean that even the worst-selling multiplat game has a higher playerbase on Playstation. People with both consoles are far more likely to buy the Playstation version. Even Developers themselves have been seen to opt for Playstation as well (yeah, that is Xbox fanboy Ryan McCaffrey bashing xbox players over install base. That should tell you something), it's a no-brainer.
Think about the Game Awards last night. Was a single true Xbox exclusive even mentioned once? Much less nominated for anything? The only game even associated with Xbox was the non-exclusive Cuphead, while Sony had multiple exclusives competing against each other for awards (including GoTY), so Sony's not exactly being pressured to look better than it is (I mean, they did have an eight-minute long trailer for a true exclusive, and an entire tribute dedicated to Sony's Andrew House)...

The reason they should do it is not because they would make more money if they didn't do it. They should do it because it's the right thing to do for gamers of both consoles.

I too would love to live in this world of sunshine and rainbows, but corporations are not people. No company (outside of Volvo) is going to throw away a huge profit over doing "the right thing", especially when it's mainly the hard-headed userbase of its main/ailing competitor crying for it.

You won't buy a PS4 either way, so why would they even cater to such entitlement for free (not even for free, it would be at a great cost to them)?

They would lose some players because of it. But the reason they have such a high player base it more to do with the hardward and exclusives than anything.

True, but by its very nature, the 2:1 sales mean that even the worst-selling multiplat game has a higher playerbase on Playstation. People with both consoles are far more likely to buy the Playstation version. Even Developers themselves have been seen to opt for Playstation as well (yeah, that is Xbox fanboy Ryan McCaffrey bashing xbox players over playercounts. That should tell you something), it's a no-brainer.
Think about the Game Awards last night. Was a single true Xbox exclusive even mentioned once? Much less nominated for anything? The only game even associated with Xbox was the non-exclusive Cuphead, while Sony had multiple exclusives competing against each other for awards, including GoTY) so Sony's not exactly being pressured to look better than it is (I mean, they did have an eight-minute long trailer for a true exclusive, and an entire tribute dedicated to Sony's Andrew House)...

I wonder how many players they would actually lose due to it (and thus money). True, money is money and they have competitors.

The reason they should do it is not because they would make more money if they didn't do it. They should do it because it's the right thing to do for gamers of both consoles.

I too would love to live in this world of sunshine and rainbows, but corporations are not people. No company (outside of Volvo) is going to throw away a huge profit over doing "the right thing", especially when it's mainly the hard-headed userbase of its main/ailing competitor crying for it.

Okay, I wouldn't go so far as to say this is a thing of "sunshine and rainbows". The reason it is such a big deal is because it wasn't a standard to begin with a long time ago. I personally believe it should have been. But because there was no way to enforce it, console developers could use it as just one more tool to man-handle gamers into buying their console. Gamers shouldn't be punished for choosing their preferred piece of hardware.

Yes, I'm talking far more ideals than reality, but eventually the consumers have to give the developer a middle finger when they are being manipulated enough.

I too would love to live in this world of sunshine and rainbows, but corporations are not people. No company (outside of Volvo) is going to throw away a huge profit over doing "the right thing", especially when it's mainly the hard-headed userbase of its main/ailing competitor crying for it.

A happy medium would be to allow cross platform saves and data. So while you might not be able to play with your Xbox friends while on your PS4, you could take your character, items, and saves and get online later on your Xbox to do so.

It would be very helpful in Destiny for example - being able to log into your character on whatever platform you want.

Yes, I'm talking far more ideals than reality, but eventually the consumers have to give the developer a middle finger when they are being manipulated enough.

I am more concerned with the lack of splitscreen multiplayer in modern games. It is a huge deal when you live with someone else, or have a family.

Fun fact: the PSP version of Halo 2 had splitscreen local multiplayer. This is 100% true. There is a video somewhere :-)

I too would love to live in this world of sunshine and rainbows, but corporations are not people. No company (outside of Volvo) is going to throw away a huge profit over doing "the right thing", especially when it's mainly the hard-headed userbase of its main/ailing competitor crying for it.

A happy medium would be to allow cross platform saves and data. So while you might not be able to play with your Xbox friends while on your PS4, you could take your character, items, and saves and get online later on your Xbox to do so.

It would be very helpful in Destiny for example - being able to log into your character on whatever platform you want.

And that would be great, but at the same time, it would greatly increase the value of timed exclusive content, since that would be something that could be lorded over people, and no doubt Xbox players would throw a fit about things being unbalanced. I mean, look at how indignant they act now about content that doesn't affect them directly at all, because "I paid the same amount for less content".

Sure, Bungie could lock the Playstation exclusive content (I'd be perfectly fine with that, as long as it's for weaponry, not armors, since those don't grant advantages). But then it opens a whole new can of worms regarding content that you paid for (such as Eververse content)...

I dunno. It's all a bitmore complicated issue than "it's the right thing to do".

That said, I'm pretty sure Bungie could circumvent the entire thing with their own system and a simple understanding with the community (DE's done it with PC/Playstation before)...

... Sony just doesn't back out of their own philosophies (remember, being able to change our Gamertags is still something that they won't allow, and not for technical reasons). ...

You make some good points, but I think you're 100% wrong about this portion I quoted. It is well documented that there are significant technical hurdles that Sony has to overcome -- and has been working on overcoming -- to give us the ability to change our PSN IDs. Shuhei Yoshida and other power-players at Playstation have made it clear that they hear us on that issue and have been exploring fixes.

It comes down to the fact that they made a decision - which in hindsight was (and probably should have been obvious at the time) a completely boneheaded decision to make your selected PSN ID string the identifier itself instead of connecting your selected ID to a unique number (that would allow you to change your name without messing with the number that is hard-coded to your account).

The only game even associated with Xbox was the non-exclusive Cuphead [...]

Cuphead is an exclusive. If a PC release disqualifies a game from being considered exclusive, we can't even have the exclusives argument concerning Xbox anymore, as MS is pushing for Xbox exclusives to also exist on PC.

And that would be great, but at the same time, it would greatly increase the value of timed exclusive content, since that would be something that could be lorded over people, and no doubt Xbox players would throw a fit about things being unbalanced. I mean, look at how indignant they act now about content that doesn't affect them directly at all, because "I paid the same amount for less content".

A wrinkle yes, but easily fixed if the items are just greyed out and unusable on Xbox.

Sure, Bungie could lock the Playstation exclusive content (I'd be perfectly fine with that, as long as it's for weaponry, not armors, since those don't grant advantages). But then it opens a whole new can of worms regarding content that you paid for (such as Eververse content)...

Presumably you could only buy platform exclusive content if you have that platform. Not seeing the can of worms here…

That said, I'm pretty sure Bungie could circumvent the entire thing with their own system and a simple understanding with the community (DE's done it with PC/Playstation before)...

if Bungie had an understanding of the community, they would not be making Destiny the way they are re: loot boxes and DLC content locking.

The only game even associated with Xbox was the non-exclusive Cuphead [...]

Cuphead is an exclusive. If a PC release disqualifies a game from being considered exclusive, we can't even have the exclusives argument concerning Xbox anymore, as MS is pushing for Xbox exclusives to also exist on PC.

Cuphead is not an exclusive. I can play it on PC, which I am doing when I have the time. And you are 100% right about the rest. The few Xbox One games I have any interest in are also on PC, so zero reason to buy an Xbox One.

... Sony just doesn't back out of their own philosophies (remember, being able to change our Gamertags is still something that they won't allow, and not for technical reasons). ...

You make some good points, but I think you're 100% wrong about this portion I quoted. It is well documented that there are significant technical hurdles that Sony has to overcome -- and has been working on overcoming -- to give us the ability to change our PSN IDs. Shuhei Yoshida and other power-players at Playstation have made it clear that they hear us on that issue and have been exploring fixes.

It comes down to the fact that they made a decision - which in hindsight was (and probably should have been obvious at the time) a completely boneheaded decision to make your selected PSN ID string the identifier itself instead of connecting your selected ID to a unique number (that would allow you to change your name without messing with the number that is hard-coded to your account).

Huh. Last I remembered, the (terrible) excuse that we were given had to do with griefing and such, but that was admittedly a while back. Haven't heard of any updates since then.

Hopefully they are making some headway there, then. I'm hoping to reclaim KornyMunky from that one crappy PS2 player who just spent his time getting his butt kicked at fighting games...

... Sony just doesn't back out of their own philosophies (remember, being able to change our Gamertags is still something that they won't allow, and not for technical reasons). ...

You make some good points, but I think you're 100% wrong about this portion I quoted. It is well documented that there are significant technical hurdles that Sony has to overcome -- and has been working on overcoming -- to give us the ability to change our PSN IDs. Shuhei Yoshida and other power-players at Playstation have made it clear that they hear us on that issue and have been exploring fixes.

It comes down to the fact that they made a decision - which in hindsight was (and probably should have been obvious at the time) a completely boneheaded decision to make your selected PSN ID string the identifier itself instead of connecting your selected ID to a unique number (that would allow you to change your name without messing with the number that is hard-coded to your account).

Huh. Last I remembered, the (terrible) excuse that we were given had to do with griefing and such, but that was admittedly a while back. Haven't heard of any updates since then.

Hopefully they are making some headway there, then. I'm hoping to reclaim KornyMunky from that one crappy PS2 player who just spent his time getting his butt kicked at fighting games...

Yeah, I'm really hoping they release names that haven't been used in some number of years -- like this guy.

The only game even associated with Xbox was the non-exclusive Cuphead [...]

Cuphead is an exclusive. If a PC release disqualifies a game from being considered exclusive, we can't even have the exclusives argument concerning Xbox anymore, as MS is pushing for Xbox exclusives to also exist on PC.

Cuphead is not an exclusive. I can play it on PC, which I am doing when I have the time. And you are 100% right about the rest. The few Xbox One games I have any interest in are also on PC, so zero reason to buy an Xbox One.

Also the reason I didn't bring up games such as Nier: Automata, or Hellblade (both of which won well-deserved awards); they aren't true PS4 exclusives, but you won't be getting either on Xbox anytime soon (though I'd love for Hellblade to be available on Xbox, because it deserves even more success), but even if you didn't count them, Sony was looking good for audiences last night with true exclusives like Persona 5 and Horizon Zero Dawn both up for the GotY.

"we can't even have the exclusives argument concerning Xbox anymore, as MS is pushing for Xbox exclusives to also exist on PC"

Right, which only makes Xbox look worse, since the console itself is not a priority for Microsoft anymore, which can only further hurt its playerbase (good luck to those who invested in the Xbone X...).

Point is, I just don't see how people are still wondering why Sony isn't throwing the Xbox crowd a bone, when Microsoft themselves seem content enough with kicking their own dog. How come nobody is crying about them being the "bad guy"? Is it Stockholm syndrome, or something?

I honestly don't know, man.

The only game even associated with Xbox was the non-exclusive Cuphead [...]

Cuphead is an exclusive. If a PC release disqualifies a game from being considered exclusive, we can't even have the exclusives argument concerning Xbox anymore, as MS is pushing for Xbox exclusives to also exist on PC.

Cuphead is not an exclusive. I can play it on PC, which I am doing when I have the time. And you are 100% right about the rest. The few Xbox One games I have any interest in are also on PC, so zero reason to buy an Xbox One.

Also the reason I didn't bring up games such as Nier: Automata, or Hellblade (both of which won well-deserved awards); they aren't true PS4 exclusives, but you won't be getting either on Xbox anytime soon (though I'd love for Hellblade to be available on Xbox, because it deserves even more success), but even if you didn't count them, Sony was looking good for audiences last night with true exclusives like Persona 5 and Horizon Zero Dawn both up for the GotY.

"we can't even have the exclusives argument concerning Xbox anymore, as MS is pushing for Xbox exclusives to also exist on PC"

Right, which only makes Xbox look worse, since the console itself is not a priority for Microsoft anymore, which can only further hurt its playerbase (good luck to those who invested in the Xbone X...).

Point is, I just don't see how people are still wondering why Sony isn't throwing the Xbox crowd a bone, when Microsoft themselves seem content enough with kicking their own dog. How come nobody is crying about them being the "bad guy"? Is it Stockholm syndrome, or something?

I honestly don't know, man.

How is caring more about the platform than the hardware a "bad thing?" Microsoft's trying to make it easier to play games, they just want you to play on their OS, essentially. I mean, it sounds like you're defending exclusivity? Last I checked, that was something we all universally hated?

The best case scenario for gamers is to be able to play what we want, when we want, where we want, on whatever hardware we want. Microsoft is moving in that direction, Sony is not. How does that make Microsoft "the bad guy?" It's not like they're abandoning Xbox as a piece of hardware or as a platform?

I don't think Sony should throw anyone a bone, but when every platform is now cross-platform capable except PS4, the amount of players on every other platform other than PS4 is much larger than PS4's install base.

I’m a little flabbergasted that Microsoft making all their games available on PC as well as Xbox could be viewed as a bad thing, when it’s anything but that.

How is caring more about the platform than the hardware a "bad thing?" Microsoft's trying to make it easier to play games, they just want you to play on their OS, essentially.

I mean, they could do both, yeah. But as we've already seen with Destiny 2's hitches on Xbox, it feels like they're starting to put Xbone players to the wayside in favor of PC, which has the far larger install base. Sure, Play Anywhere is great if you have a PC, but odds are the folks who have a PC that can play the games aren't likely to buy an Xbone when they can snag all of the "exclusives". It just hurts the Xbone-only playerbase.

I mean, it sounds like you're defending exclusivity? Last I checked, that was something we all universally hated?

Nooooo. I think exclusivity is great. I'm very much pro-competition, and exclusives kind of force competitors to improve and deliver better products. If everyone has the same things, what incentives are there for them to improve, or to retain their own markets? Monopolies invariably mean a weaker product, less innovation, and ultimately less user choice (sure, there's far more stuff to choose from, but how much of that is crap?).

I mean, yeah, I want everyone to experience something like The Last of Us or HZD, but I don't know if they'd be as good as they are if SIE didn't have a direct incentive to make sure that these games were as polished as they could be (both TLoU and HZD were delayed multiple times).

The lack of competition is what led to stuff like EA Sports, or the annual CoD release, where only minor changes have been made between releases (Treyarch aside).
I mean, even amongst its own platform. Look at the MCC. It was a mess, but rather than fixing it, Microsoft decided to sweep that version under the rug as quickly as it could in order to build hype for Halo 5, and only now, three years later, they announce that they're finally getting around to fixing it. Where was the direct competition that would have pushed 343 towards innovation? Where is the need to make sure that MS continues to deliver better, polished exclusives? I mean, a lot of people hated Halo 4, but at least that was a result of 343 knowing that (and reacting to the fact that) Call of Duty was direct competition.
What's weird is that Microsoft used to know this for their console, but then they cancelled Project Spark, then they killed off Fable, and just when it looked like Xbox would have their own answer to Horizon Zero Dawn, they killed off Scalebound. I can all but guarantee that Halo 6 will be on PC, and since it will have splitscreen, I worry about what the base Xbox owners will have to deal with.

What incentive will Microsoft have to ensure that the people who have a base Xbone get treated as a priority for games? As it stands, best case scenario is that the base Xbone will just be a more expensive Playstation with far less games. The Xbone X will be nothing but a gilded cage for the people who don't realize that they could get a far more versatile PC that would have far more games, but they'll say "boy, look at these NATIVE FOUR KAY GRAFIX"!

Ultimately, exclusivity is great for the market, and the fact that Microsoft has pretty much given up on it for the Xbox is proof, since there are a lot of unique experiences that will no longer see the light of day.

I don't think Sony should throw anyone a bone, but when every platform is now cross-platform capable except PS4, the amount of players on every other platform other than PS4 is much larger than PS4's install base.

The PS4 has supported cross-platform play with PC since launch. Microsoft only somewhat recently decided to start supporting it (remember that Halo Wars 1-2 didn't support crossplay, even between different PC versions), and they decided to make a big deal about it. Sure, the excuse that Sony gave for not supporting it between consoles was dumb, but people act as though Sony is keeping all of the balls to itself and going home. As it stands, the real winners of cross-plat play are the PC players, since their platform doesn't compete directly with either Sony or Microsoft, and nowadays they have been getting more games that used to be exclusive to Xbox.
If anything, I hope that remaining closed-off will force Sony to improve on their exclusives, to avoid the stagnation and arrogance that comes with being on top. If the bad PR that comes from not playing ball with Microsoft forces them to put more effort in their games, or to snag better timed exclusives, then I'm all for it.

So yeah, I'm not against exclusives, for good reason.

Yeah, I'm really hoping they release names that haven't been used in some number of years -- like this guy.

I mean, I would love to see this guy find a new name but how could they do that without just arbitrarily closing peoples accounts?

Yeah, I'm really hoping they release names that haven't been used in some number of years -- like this guy.

I mean, I would love to see this guy find a new name but how could they do that without just arbitrarily closing peoples accounts?

They could do it in a manner similar to how Microsoft has done it at least twice in the past.

Yeah, I'm really hoping they release names that haven't been used in some number of years -- like this guy.

I mean, I would love to see this guy find a new name but how could they do that without just arbitrarily closing peoples accounts?

This guy too.

At least I have it on the xbox.

Sure, the excuse that Sony gave for not supporting it between consoles was dumb, but people act as though Sony is keeping all of the balls to itself and going home. As it stands, the real winners of cross-plat play are the PC players, since their platform doesn't compete directly with either Sony or Microsoft, and nowadays they have been getting more games that used to be exclusive to Xbox.

Not really following how this isn't Sony keeping all of the balls to itself and going home.

I just think it should reflect poorly on Sony that they're doing this. I think it's ok to be frustrated with Sony's splintering of communities. It'd have been cool to enjoy all of the PS4 exclusives and to have paid Sony money instead of Microsoft to play Destiny 1 on the console it was clearly optimized for, if they didn't have this arbitrary rule that I can't play cross-platform, let alone use my character across platform. As it stands, Sony hasn't gotten any money from me for D1 or D2, and I rarely play my PS4 because of that...

When companies pour money into exclusives and great games come out of it, I'm pretty supportive of that. But when companies take multiplatform games and hobble them in bizarre ways, especially multiplayer ones, to eke out some edge, for no good reason, then they draw my ire.

They were sooooo cool when PS4 launched. The indie games they were signing for PS4 and Vita were amazing and made the Vita a must have for me for so long. If you had me rate the major platform holders at PS4 launch, it would have been Sony > Microsoft > Nintendo. Nowadays it's Nintendo >= Microsoft > Sony.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony doesn't reverse their decision. I'm just hopeful and think it would be better for everyone if they did. If they do, I'd bother to renew my PS+ and upgrade to a PS4 Pro.

Sure, the excuse that Sony gave for not supporting it between consoles was dumb, but people act as though Sony is keeping all of the balls to itself and going home. As it stands, the real winners of cross-plat play are the PC players, since their platform doesn't compete directly with either Sony or Microsoft, and nowadays they have been getting more games that used to be exclusive to Xbox.

Not really following how this isn't Sony keeping all of the balls to itself and going home.

Because they do support PC crossplay. Just because they aren't giving up their huge playerbase to Xbox doesn't mean that they aren't willing to play ball with others.

I just think it should reflect poorly on Sony that they're doing this. I think it's ok to be frustrated with Sony's splintering of communities. It'd have been cool to enjoy all of the PS4 exclusives and to have paid Sony money instead of Microsoft to play Destiny 1 on the console it was clearly optimized for, if they didn't have this arbitrary rule that I can't play cross-platform, let alone use my character across platform. As it stands, Sony hasn't gotten any money from me for D1 or D2, and I rarely play my PS4 because of that...

Huh... Kind of hard to believe that, when crossplay only became a recent conversation, and Destiny 1 came out in 2014, when Microsoft was the one explicitly preventing crossplay while Sony was explicitly open to it at the time. Where was your anger towards Microsoft then? .. but whatever you say, man.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony doesn't reverse their decision. I'm just hopeful and think it would be better for everyone if they did. If they do, I'd bother to renew my PS+ and upgrade to a PS4 Pro.

Honestly, if the exclusives or PS+ games aren't getting you to play the PS4 or upgrade to the Pro, then that's entirely on you, and not a result of their crossplay decisions, I think. It's clearly not hurting them any, so no, they'll likely never reverse that decision. I just think the Xbox fanboys should stop being salty about it, because it's a good business decision to keep the Xbox playerbase out of its cookie jar.

Sure, the excuse that Sony gave for not supporting it between consoles was dumb, but people act as though Sony is keeping all of the balls to itself and going home. As it stands, the real winners of cross-plat play are the PC players, since their platform doesn't compete directly with either Sony or Microsoft, and nowadays they have been getting more games that used to be exclusive to Xbox.

Not really following how this isn't Sony keeping all of the balls to itself and going home.

Because they do support PC crossplay. Just because they aren't giving up their huge playerbase to Xbox doesn't mean that they aren't willing to play ball with others.

I just think it should reflect poorly on Sony that they're doing this. I think it's ok to be frustrated with Sony's splintering of communities. It'd have been cool to enjoy all of the PS4 exclusives and to have paid Sony money instead of Microsoft to play Destiny 1 on the console it was clearly optimized for, if they didn't have this arbitrary rule that I can't play cross-platform, let alone use my character across platform. As it stands, Sony hasn't gotten any money from me for D1 or D2, and I rarely play my PS4 because of that...

Huh... Kind of hard to believe that, when crossplay only became a recent conversation, and Destiny 1 came out in 2014, when Microsoft was the one explicitly preventing crossplay while Sony was explicitly open to it at the time. Where was your anger towards Microsoft then? .. but whatever you say, man.

Yeah, it was an obnoxious decision then, and as I said, at the launch of PS4, I thought Sony were CRUSHING it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sony doesn't reverse their decision. I'm just hopeful and think it would be better for everyone if they did. If they do, I'd bother to renew my PS+ and upgrade to a PS4 Pro.

Honestly, if the exclusives or PS+ games aren't getting you to play the PS4 or upgrade to the Pro, then that's entirely on you, and not a result of their crossplay decisions, I think. It's clearly not hurting them any, so no, they'll likely never reverse that decision. I just think the Xbox fanboys should stop being salty about it, because it's a good business decision to keep the Xbox playerbase out of its cookie jar.

Why should we be complacent on not being able to play together? Judging from the FTB, it looks like we could (both platforms) have DOUBLE the fun together! What's in it for you for us to stop being salty about it? Have you considered the concept that you're a Sony fanboy for defending a bad, for us, decision?

Also, why couldn't it be this cross platform decision that's blocking me. At this point, 90% of my playing is with a steady crew of people and my family. I can't play with them on PS4, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm just glad that finally XB1X has pulled even with regards to performance.

Though who am I kidding, I'm probably getting a PS4 Pro just to rock No Man's Sky in HDR...

I mean, even amongst its own platform. Look at the MCC. It was a mess, but rather than fixing it, Microsoft decided to sweep that version under the rug as quickly as it could in order to build hype for Halo 5, and only now, three years later, they announce that they're finally getting around to fixing it.

I've agreed with you on all levels in every post you've made until this point. Even now, they aren't fixing anywhere close to all the problems. All they've announced is that they're going to magically somehow "fix" the networking issues that still plague a ton of people who try to play MCC (though in all fairness to the failure known as 343, bunches of those problems have been fixed for a ton of people from their previous over 9000 patches [which is still not good enough, and they know it, hence the supposed alleged action they'll be taking 3 years later]). The crashes, UI issues, icon issues, and I could go on and on and on about so many other major and minor issues in their trash product, have not been stated in the slightest as a thing that they are going to be addressing. Basically, Halo is dead and 343 is still garbage.

/rant. Carry on Korny, keep up the great work with the exclusivity stuff.

I mean, even amongst its own platform. Look at the MCC. It was a mess, but rather than fixing it, Microsoft decided to sweep that version under the rug as quickly as it could in order to build hype for Halo 5, and only now, three years later, they announce that they're finally getting around to fixing it.

I've agreed with you on all levels in every post you've made until this point. Even now, they aren't fixing anywhere close to all the problems. All they've announced is that they're going to magically somehow "fix" the networking issues that still plague a ton of people who try to play MCC (though in all fairness to the failure known as 343, bunches of those problems have been fixed for a ton of people from their previous over 9000 patches [which is still not good enough, and they know it, hence the supposed alleged action they'll be taking 3 years later]). The crashes, UI issues, icon issues, and I could go on and on and on about so many other major and minor issues in their trash product, have not been stated in the slightest as a thing that they are going to be addressing. Basically, Halo is dead and 343 is still garbage.

/rant. Carry on Korny, keep up the great work with the exclusivity stuff.

If what you do for a living is as tone deaf and persistent as your hatred of 343, I wouldn't be throwing stones in your glass house.

Honestly, if the exclusives or PS+ games aren't getting you to play the PS4 or upgrade to the Pro, then that's entirely on you, and not a result of their crossplay decisions, I think. It's clearly not hurting them any, so no, they'll likely never reverse that decision. I just think the Xbox fanboys should stop being salty about it, because it's a good business decision to keep the Xbox playerbase out of its cookie jar.

It's kind of hard to tell when you are just trollin' — especially when it comes to console wars — but since you keep saying this, I fell like I should point out there is a business justification for them going cross platform even though they have a larger installed base right now. Several, in fact.

1. "For now" — Like you posted, this used to be MS with the lead that they were trying to protect with a walled garden, and you don't need to look very far back to see how things can flip. The Walled garden does not keep people in or guarantee that your lead won't dramatically flip in less than the course of a few months.

2. Looking like the good guys is important. — Generating goodwill DOES keep people on the platform. Another phrase for "Console Zealot" is "Loyal Customer". A lot of people bought an XBONE despite having a higher price and worse performance. It didn't "win the war", but it did save the platform and give MS time to make adjustments to strategy and eventually hardware. A lot of that was born on the back of goodwill from popular and likely unprofitable ideas like backward compatibility, etc.
Especially dangerous is the fact that this is not only making them look like the bad guys, but it is making the developers look like the good guys. If your fear is people discovering that their game play can be portable between platforms, you sure as hell don't want to shift people's platform loyalty to developer loyalty. Developers only make games for consoles because they don't think they could sell enough units on PC/iOS where the development restrictions are way lighter, you don't need to submit for (as extensive) review and there is no console maker to take a cut of every unit with a platform tax. This leads to…

3. Gillette does not want to sell more handles. — Playstation is not in the business of selling consoles, they are in the business of taking fees for games sold to play on their consoles. They lose money on consoles. They should be doing everything they can to convince people who bought their console to buy and play games online (which requires PS+ Subscriptions). Having more potential people to play with is a thing that can do that.

4. You lose 2-front wars by pretending they are 1-front wars — This is similar to #2, but slightly different. The danger is not just losing people to X Box, the danger is fairly real from he PC front. Enabling cross play with PC is just as much of a risk, as once people all have stem accounts enabled, that steambox suddenly becomes a much more likely competitor.

You can argue that these don't sum up to more than the cost/risk — obviously someone at Sony has — but the reasons to support it exist.

- No text -

Yeah, it was an obnoxious decision then, and as I said, at the launch of PS4, I thought Sony were CRUSHING it.

And yet, you apparently still fully supported Microsoft, and one can only assume that you bought D1 on their console then, even though you have such admirable principles against companies that prevent crossplay.

Why should we be complacent on not being able to play together? Judging from the FTB, it looks like we could (both platforms) have DOUBLE the fun together! What's in it for you for us to stop being salty about it?

Heh, you have twice admitted to being an Xbox fanboy already. Anyway, people being salty about corporations refusing to make dumb business decisions just to cater to them is dumb. OBVIOUSLY I would love for everyone to play with everyone else. It's not an exclusionary thing at all. But this is one of those instances where every time the whining starts, everyone is quick to say "why don't they just do it?" "it's the right thing to do!" "a reason to not buy a PS4". And it's asinine. It's not gonna happen.
Would I love to be proven wrong? Absolutely! Serve me up a bag full of Funkmon brand socks!

But name a single instance in history where a corporation decided to simply hand over its customer base to a competitor simply because "it's the right thing to do".

Have you considered the concept that you're a Sony fanboy for defending a bad, for us, decision?

The entire time I've been speaking from a purely business-oriented perspective. Nothing to do with favoring a specific company over another, whereas you've been vilifying Sony as a whole over a smart business decision. There's clear fanboyism in this thread, yeah, but not from my end, because with every single thing that I've said, you could swap out Sony with any other corporation, and the logic and points are all the same. It's common sense.

When Microsoft had the larger playerbase (and they were staunchly against crossplay to a degree where several developers simply refused to even try to launch games on their console), I would have made the exact same points then. It's odd that none of you folks were whining about it against them for the past decade, but they're the "good guys" now that they're far behind in sales and have had to try to scrounge up some goodwill.

So yeah, the saltiness is stupid, but I understand where it comes from... But it would be a bad business decision for them to allow crossplay, and if I was the boss watching Microsoft's console division slowly crumble in favor of PC, I'd never say yes. I'd simply wait them out, because the handful of salty Xbox fanboys whining about it are nothing compared to the nearly 71 million units sold, and that's a simple fact.

I mean, remember Cody's post here recently? Not a single Xbox player could provide a single convincing reason for him to pick up an Xbone, and some even told him just to grab a Switch instead. Imagine what it's like outside of this forum, where Nintendo is far more appealing to the average customer, and there's not a single ad anywhere pitching Xbox exclusives. Sony is perfectly happy sitting on their laurels (which I think is dumb, and it's historically led them to make dumb decisions, but not allowing crossplay is not one of those dumb things. It is objectively a good decision FOR THEIR BUSINESS).

And again, brand loyalty has absolutely nothing to do with it. How is it so difficult to understand?

Yeah, it was an obnoxious decision then, and as I said, at the launch of PS4, I thought Sony were CRUSHING it.

And yet, you apparently still fully supported Microsoft, and one can only assume that you bought D1 on their console then, even though you have such admirable principles against companies that prevent crossplay.

I did it to play with my friends... I bought a PS4, played the Alpha and Beta on PS4, and then ended up getting it on XB1 because that is where my main crew was playing. I didn't fully support Microsoft at the time, I thought they had really screwed up with the Kinect and lackluster performance and picked up my first Sony console ever because of it.

Why should we be complacent on not being able to play together? Judging from the FTB, it looks like we could (both platforms) have DOUBLE the fun together! What's in it for you for us to stop being salty about it?

Heh, you have twice admitted to being an Xbox fanboy already.

Yeah, because I have some self awareness. I was a Nintendo and Mac fanboy. I begrudgingly got an XBox to play Halo and loved it. I thought PS4 and D1 was going to have the same shift, but it turned out that the people I played XBox with, were going to stay on XBox even if half of us also got PS4s. I'm still an XBox Fanboy in so much as, it's where I play most of my games, and I'd like for that experience to be even better.

Anyway, people being salty about corporations refusing to make dumb business decisions just to cater to them is dumb. OBVIOUSLY I would love for everyone to play with everyone else. It's not an exclusionary thing at all. But this is one of those instances where every time the whining starts, everyone is quick to say "why don't they just do it?" "it's the right thing to do!" "a reason to not buy a PS4". And it's asinine. It's not gonna happen.
Would I love to be proven wrong? Absolutely! Serve me up a bag full of Funkmon brand socks!

You're out here saying we need to accept Sony's anti-consumer decision because it's just good business? Either you're a cigar smoking robber baron or a sony fanboy... I'm not sure. It's a bad decision, back when Microsoft made it and now while Sony is making it.

But name a single instance in history where a corporation decided to simply hand over its customer base to a competitor simply because "it's the right thing to do".

Corporations make all sorts of decisions they don't want to under pressure from their consumer base, Star Wars Battlefront 2 just being the most recent example. I don't think they'll make it because "it's the right thing to do", I think they'll make it because we keep on making noise about it.

Have you considered the concept that you're a Sony fanboy for defending a bad, for us, decision?

The entire time I've been speaking from a purely business-oriented perspective. Nothing to do with favoring a specific company over another, whereas you've been vilifying Sony as a whole over a smart business decision. There's clear fanboyism in this thread, yeah, but not from my end, because with every single thing that I've said, you could swap out Sony with any other corporation, and the logic and points are all the same. It's common sense.

Whoa there, I'm not vilifying Sony as a whole, where do you get that from?

When Microsoft had the larger playerbase (and they were staunchly against crossplay to a degree where several developers simply refused to even try to launch games on their console), I would have made the exact same points then. It's odd that none of you folks were whining about it against them for the past decade, but they're the "good guys" now that they're far behind in sales and have had to try to scrounge up some goodwill.

Lets make it clear, Microsoft is not "the good guys", they're a company that made some really bad decisions driven by the hubris of their domination over the PS3. They're now suffering for it, and rightly so, and are trying to make back the ground with savvy decision making. Though, they are continually face planting, their whole approach to VR and AR is slapshod whereas the PSVR is, available, competent, affordable, and has GAMES. This thread is about 1 decision. If you want me to take a step back, I don't think Microsoft has done nearly enough to knock Sony off it's perch, just enough to rattle it a bit.

So yeah, the saltiness is stupid, but I understand where it comes from... But it would be a bad business decision for them to allow crossplay, and if I was the boss watching Microsoft's console division slowly crumble in favor of PC, I'd never say yes. I'd simply wait them out, because the handful of salty Xbox fanboys whining about it are nothing compared to the nearly 71 million units sold, and that's a simple fact.

I mean, remember Cody's post here recently? Not a single Xbox player could provide a single convincing reason for him to pick up an Xbone, and some even told him just to grab a Switch instead. Imagine what it's like outside of this forum, where Nintendo is far more appealing to the average customer, and there's not a single ad anywhere pitching Xbox exclusives. Sony is perfectly happy sitting on their laurels (which I think is dumb, and it's historically led them to make dumb decisions, but not allowing crossplay is not one of those dumb things. It is objectively a good decision FOR THEIR BUSINESS).

That's because his question was about exclusives. I felt like there were plenty of people in the thread who got XB1Xs and had good reasons for doing so. Outside of this forum is a widely massive variety of things. There is a group of gamers who care about exclusives, there is a group of gamers who have no idea what exclusive is on what console unless you're talking about Mario and Zelda. I've talked about wanting to pick up Horizon Zero Dawn with some co-workers and they had no idea what it was. Until someone makes FIFA or Madden a console exclusive, I doubt it has a measurable effect on the general populace.

I think we'll see the slightest shift this holiday season (possibly imperceptible) based on the only thing that has actually changed recently, when someone asks what the most powerful console is, it won't be a PS4. I don't think it'll change much.

And again, brand loyalty has absolutely nothing to do with it. How is it so difficult to understand?

If you think that brand loyalty has nothing to do with the content you post on this forum, I am just jaw on the floor surprised.

I did it to play with my friends...

And there it is. See, you say that you do things out of principle, when in reality, you are basically Cody-level when it comes to so-called "principles". Your decisions were influenced by your desire to play with others, most of whom likely have zero idea about company policies, sales, or even your own principles. Those people greatly outnumbered you to the point where you went along with them.

Not a bad thing, but it goes to show you how much numbers ultimately are the deciding factor sometimes, and as you further illustrate with the Battlefront example, money talks louder than people who disapprove of something.

You're out here saying we need to accept Sony's anti-consumer decision because it's just good business? Either you're a cigar smoking robber baron or a sony fanboy... I'm not sure. It's a bad decision, back when Microsoft made it and now while Sony is making it.

It's bad for us, the players who are aware of it, yes. I keep trying to illustrate that yeah, it'd be great to be able to enjoy it, but from an outside perspective, and objective angle, yes, this anti-consumer angle is good business for them, and the vast majority of their userbase is either completely fine with it, is entirely unaware of it, or simply doesn't care at all.

Look at landscaping businesses. They have certain measurements that they cut lawns at to make sure that they will be needed sooner rather than later. Most customers aren't aware of this, but they are completely satisfied with the service provided, so they hire them again and again.
The landscaping business makes way more profit by manipulating their users this way. Is it anti-consumer? You could argue that it is, but for the business, it maximizes profits, and the customers are happy.

Bad analogy? I dunno. Point is, I'm aware of it, I don't like it, but I understand it, and I know that from a logical standpoint, Sony has pretty much zero incentive to change the policy.
Xbox players who already weren't going to buy the console won't be buying it anyway, so why give them more reason not to? PS4 players who don't like it will likely stay on PS4 because of their friends already being on the console (we've already seen how that works, right?). And by simply looking at the sales figures, why would they try to fix what isn't broken?

Does a simple understanding of business, marketing, and strategy make me a cigar-chomping baron/fanboy? Apparently.

But name a single instance in history where a corporation decided to simply hand over its customer base to a competitor simply because "it's the right thing to do".

Corporations make all sorts of decisions they don't want to under pressure from their consumer base, Star Wars Battlefront 2 just being the most recent example. I don't think they'll make it because "it's the right thing to do", I think they'll make it because we keep on making noise about it.

Right, but that's not the question I asked. You're talking about pushback and the potential failure of a product from vocal outrage. That's a very real thing, yeah, and making noise does indeed do far more than simply "voting with your wallet"... But at this point, Sony isn't receiving pushback on something they want to impose, it's people complaining about the status quo, which means very little to the majority of the 70+ million customers who are fine with the product, and have already kept it from failing. It will take far, far, far more to get Sony to budge, and it will have to be an impending screwup that actually affects its existing userbase. Crossplay is such a minor and insignificant thing that I'm sure most people aren't even aware of it as a thing.

I mean, just think about how little people are ever aware by things when they aren't being directly affected by them. Apparently single-player games are disappearing. I didn't know about that, and you'd think I would. But it's apparently enough of a thing the the Game Awards had to repeatedly point it out with ads and everything, (and some Sony folks made a joke about it last night after listing off a bunch of their single-player exclusives). Is it really a thing? It seems to be, but I have heard pretty much nothing about it other than a passing mention once or twice from somewhere I can't even recall.

Now think about the millions of CoD players who are happy with the way things are. If you run up to them on the street telling them about how much they're being screwed over by a lack of crossplay, how many do you think would care? How many would drop what they're doing to join you all "I'm as mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

More than likely none.
But who knows, prove me wrong.

Lets make it clear, Microsoft is not "the good guys", they're a company that made some really bad decisions driven by the hubris of their domination over the PS3. They're now suffering for it, and rightly so, and are trying to make back the ground with savvy decision making. Though, they are continually face planting, their whole approach to VR and AR is slapshod whereas the PSVR is, available, competent, affordable, and has GAMES. This thread is about 1 decision. If you want me to take a step back, I don't think Microsoft has done nearly enough to knock Sony off it's perch, just enough to rattle it a bit.

Right, so why should Sony give them a hand? Because "it's the right thing to do"?
They are both corporations that don't care about you. They are both corporations whose decisions are based pretty exclusively around profits. You gain nothing for having loyalty towards one or the other. You gain nothing by using your energy to rail against one in favor of another, simply because you don't approve of a business decision made by the one you don't favor. That's what I'm trying to get across.

And again, brand loyalty has absolutely nothing to do with it. How is it so difficult to understand?

If you think that brand loyalty has nothing to do with the content you post on this forum, I am just jaw on the floor surprised.

Pretty much everything that I've said on this thread comes from an objective view of the way things work. And just because I like to poke at others in good fun over their gaming choices doesn't mean that I'm going out there standing in the street waving Anti-this, Pro-that signs like some of the cringe-worthy folks on this forum seem to be doing in their own not-so-subtle ways.
Heck, for all intensive porpoises, I should be one of those PCMR neckbeards now, right? I finally built a PC that can play games "IN GLAWRIUS 4K!" but you don't hear me making desperate-sounding posts about it (In fact, I'm still very much against 4K being a priority for publishers and devs over performance, even if that's not really an issue on PC at all).

Just saying...

Lets make it clear, Microsoft is not "the good guys", they're a company that made some really bad decisions driven by the hubris of their domination over the PS3. They're now suffering for it, and rightly so, and are trying to make back the ground with savvy decision making. Though, they are continually face planting, their whole approach to VR and AR is slapshod whereas the PSVR is, available, competent, affordable, and has GAMES. This thread is about 1 decision. If you want me to take a step back, I don't think Microsoft has done nearly enough to knock Sony off it's perch, just enough to rattle it a bit.

Disclaimer : though I'm an employee, the below is my perception of the decisions Microsoft has made and are my own opinion, not based on any internal info, etc.

Microsoft's foray into VR is less, I think, about gaming than it is about facilitating AR. It was clever, really. VR tech is cheaper and more accessible than AR tech but it allows for AR software development (and to a lesser extent, use) on the cheaper hardware. As an added bonus, MS is now in the VR space and can leverage it any way they wish.

... Sony just doesn't back out of their own philosophies (remember, being able to change our Gamertags is still something that they won't allow, and not for technical reasons). ...

You make some good points, but I think you're 100% wrong about this portion I quoted. It is well documented that there are significant technical hurdles that Sony has to overcome -- and has been working on overcoming -- to give us the ability to change our PSN IDs. Shuhei Yoshida and other power-players at Playstation have made it clear that they hear us on that issue and have been exploring fixes.

It comes down to the fact that they made a decision - which in hindsight was (and probably should have been obvious at the time) a completely boneheaded decision to make your selected PSN ID string the identifier itself instead of connecting your selected ID to a unique number (that would allow you to change your name without messing with the number that is hard-coded to your account).

Huh. Last I remembered, the (terrible) excuse that we were given had to do with griefing and such, but that was admittedly a while back. Haven't heard of any updates since then.

Hopefully they are making some headway there, then. I'm hoping to reclaim KornyMunky from that one crappy PS2 player who just spent his time getting his butt kicked at fighting games...

It's funny how timing works with these things sometimes... Friday night at the opening panel of PSX, Shawn Layden hinted that name changes might finally be coming within the next year.

I did it to play with my friends...

And there it is. See, you say that you do things out of principle, when in reality, you are basically Cody-level when it comes to so-called "principles". Your decisions were influenced by your desire to play with others, most of whom likely have zero idea about company policies, sales, or even your own principles. Those people greatly outnumbered you to the point where you went along with them.

I'm really curious about your use of the word principle here. I like playing with my friends, you could say it's my desire to do so. Oooooooo, how scandalous. I'm not sure what you've caught me in here. I like playing with my friends, and I'd like to have cross-play so I could play with more of my friends. I could post-rationalize my PS4 purchase any number of ways, it could be because of how No Man's Sky showed, it could be because PS4 was where Destiny was meant to be played, it could be because I loved my Vita, it's really hard to say. I hadn't considered that at the center of this was a kind of "principled" approach to picking which system I was going to play. Reflecting on it, I'm not happy that my PS4 is relegated to playing blu rays... The only good part of my PS+ expiring and me not renewing it is I save $50, I'm definitely bummed that I haven't been playing my PS4 more than I intended, regardless of the "principles" of the situation.

Not a bad thing, but it goes to show you how much numbers ultimately are the deciding factor sometimes, and as you further illustrate with the Battlefront example, money talks louder than people who disapprove of something.

You're out here saying we need to accept Sony's anti-consumer decision because it's just good business? Either you're a cigar smoking robber baron or a sony fanboy... I'm not sure. It's a bad decision, back when Microsoft made it and now while Sony is making it.

It's bad for us, the players who are aware of it, yes. I keep trying to illustrate that yeah, it'd be great to be able to enjoy it, but from an outside perspective, and objective angle, yes, this anti-consumer angle is good business for them, and the vast majority of their userbase is either completely fine with it, is entirely unaware of it, or simply doesn't care at all.

Look at landscaping businesses. They have certain measurements that they cut lawns at to make sure that they will be needed sooner rather than later. Most customers aren't aware of this, but they are completely satisfied with the service provided, so they hire them again and again.
The landscaping business makes way more profit by manipulating their users this way. Is it anti-consumer? You could argue that it is, but for the business, it maximizes profits, and the customers are happy.

Bad analogy? I dunno. Point is, I'm aware of it, I don't like it, but I understand it, and I know that from a logical standpoint, Sony has pretty much zero incentive to change the policy.
Xbox players who already weren't going to buy the console won't be buying it anyway, so why give them more reason not to? PS4 players who don't like it will likely stay on PS4 because of their friends already being on the console (we've already seen how that works, right?). And by simply looking at the sales figures, why would they try to fix what isn't broken?

Does a simple understanding of business, marketing, and strategy make me a cigar-chomping baron/fanboy? Apparently.

No understanding that doesn't make you a cigar-chomping baron/fanboy, snidely telling people to get over it while calling them fanboys does... My main issue with you is that you're a troll.

But name a single instance in history where a corporation decided to simply hand over its customer base to a competitor simply because "it's the right thing to do".

Corporations make all sorts of decisions they don't want to under pressure from their consumer base, Star Wars Battlefront 2 just being the most recent example. I don't think they'll make it because "it's the right thing to do", I think they'll make it because we keep on making noise about it.

Right, but that's not the question I asked. You're talking about pushback and the potential failure of a product from vocal outrage. That's a very real thing, yeah, and making noise does indeed do far more than simply "voting with your wallet"... But at this point, Sony isn't receiving pushback on something they want to impose, it's people complaining about the status quo, which means very little to the majority of the 70+ million customers who are fine with the product, and have already kept it from failing. It will take far, far, far more to get Sony to budge, and it will have to be an impending screwup that actually affects its existing userbase. Crossplay is such a minor and insignificant thing that I'm sure most people aren't even aware of it as a thing.

I mean, just think about how little people are ever aware by things when they aren't being directly affected by them. Apparently single-player games are disappearing. I didn't know about that, and you'd think I would. But it's apparently enough of a thing the the Game Awards had to repeatedly point it out with ads and everything, (and some Sony folks made a joke about it last night after listing off a bunch of their single-player exclusives). Is it really a thing? It seems to be, but I have heard pretty much nothing about it other than a passing mention once or twice from somewhere I can't even recall.

Now think about the millions of CoD players who are happy with the way things are. If you run up to them on the street telling them about how much they're being screwed over by a lack of crossplay, how many do you think would care? How many would drop what they're doing to join you all "I'm as mad as Hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

More than likely none.
But who knows, prove me wrong.

Yeah I felt relatively hopeless about it as a topic and thought a developer commenting on it in a very public way was an interesting boost, hence the thread.

Lets make it clear, Microsoft is not "the good guys", they're a company that made some really bad decisions driven by the hubris of their domination over the PS3. They're now suffering for it, and rightly so, and are trying to make back the ground with savvy decision making. Though, they are continually face planting, their whole approach to VR and AR is slapshod whereas the PSVR is, available, competent, affordable, and has GAMES. This thread is about 1 decision. If you want me to take a step back, I don't think Microsoft has done nearly enough to knock Sony off it's perch, just enough to rattle it a bit.

Right, so why should Sony give them a hand? Because "it's the right thing to do"?
They are both corporations that don't care about you. They are both corporations whose decisions are based pretty exclusively around profits. You gain nothing for having loyalty towards one or the other. You gain nothing by using your energy to rail against one in favor of another, simply because you don't approve of a business decision made by the one you don't favor. That's what I'm trying to get across.

I'm confused about what you actually want. Should I just not complain about Sony policies? Like really, what do you want? I just want to say "it would be better if cross play happens and I'm hopeful about more and more game developers raising the issue".

And again, brand loyalty has absolutely nothing to do with it. How is it so difficult to understand?

If you think that brand loyalty has nothing to do with the content you post on this forum, I am just jaw on the floor surprised.

Pretty much everything that I've said on this thread comes from an objective view of the way things work. And just because I like to poke at others in good fun over their gaming choices doesn't mean that I'm going out there standing in the street waving Anti-this, Pro-that signs like some of the cringe-worthy folks on this forum seem to be doing in their own not-so-subtle ways.
Heck, for all intensive porpoises, I should be one of those PCMR neckbeards now, right? I finally built a PC that can play games "IN GLAWRIUS 4K!" but you don't hear me making desperate-sounding posts about it (In fact, I'm still very much against 4K being a priority for publishers and devs over performance, even if that's not really an issue on PC at all).

Just saying...

The idea that your trolling is ambivalent and that you're able to hide behind the notion of objective based posting is almost delusional. Even if you truly are just trolling from an almost nihilistic perspective, that's just obnoxious. I know someone who was able to legally prove that they weren't racist to one of their employees because they proved that they were just awful to everyone. Every time I think about them, I'm glad that I never have to see them again.

Honestly, I think you're playing up the notion that we have fanboys posting here so you have more trolling fodder.

We'll probably get Music of the Spheres before we get crossplay.

#KornyWasRight

Now the fans just have to leak crossplay :-p