Quantcast
Fortnite - warning DO NOT play on PS4, or you can't play on Switch (and quick start guide if you're sheltered like me, and didn't know about this game before)

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Fortnite - warning DO NOT play on PS4, or you can't play on Switch (and quick start guide if you're sheltered like me, and didn't know about this game before)

KLAMarine said:
twintail said:

It is their game. They do indeed have to play by the rules set by each platform provider. But this means that they do indeed know how the account system will work between platforms. They arent being blind sighted by anyone. The weird stipulations for account transfer by Sony is something they would have known when bringing teh game to the PS4 in the first place.

So no, trying to shield EG from blame makes zero sense here. The reality is that they would have known and agreed (even begrudgingly) to how this all worked. After all we already known that cross-play can work and that while the decision comes from Sony the actual implementation comes from EG. So again... they know how this all works.

Its rubbish that Sony locks the content. Its just as rubbish that EG promotes the game, allows account transfer but conveniently dosnt mention any issues when connecting to the PS4 version. EG has allowed these restrictions to exist. 

"the actual implementation comes from EG."

It's not entirely EG's implementation if EG wants Fortnite available on PSN. Sony gets a say on how Fortnite will work on and with their network and it's Sony that stands to benefit from these restrictions, not EG.

There are rules they are required to follow and decided to comply. This is EGs implementation of their game. Sony getting a say means that Epic knew.

They then advertising the game, selling microtransactions and not telling their own customers that there are limitations to previous platform transfer (which is a service they provide for their customers playing the game) is just straight up shameful.

Suggesting that they bare little of the responsibility is merely you pushing an agenda and allowing EG to be given some kind of free pass, which frankly hey don't deserve.

As you even suggested, EG would have known before the Switch version released.

They knew. They kept quiet. They didn't warn anyone. They share as much responsibility for this situation as Sony does.



Around the Network
CrazyGamer2017 said:
Biggerboat1 said:

The game being on PS4 means far more to EG than it does to Sony, thus giving Sony more leverage to push the deal through on their terms.

You can say EG are complicit and should share some of the blame but nobody can expect them to sacrifice a huge revenue stream for a principal.

If you do want to apportion blame to both then it should be something like 99% Sony - 1% EG.

If EG were now to approach Sony & give them an ultimatum of including untethered accounts or lose Fortnite, I wouldn't be surprised if Sony told them where to stick it, just to show other developers/publishers that you don't fuck with Sony on their platform - will keep others from trying something similiar in the future.

And to your point about the situation being complex - it's not really.

Sony has weighed up the pro's (an attempt to reduce the number of players spending time & money on other consoles) and the cons (pissing of everyone who owns a PS4 & Switch, plus anyone who made the mistake of logging in to PSN without any intention of making the PS4 their preferred platform of choice) & decided that the former outweighed the latter. Simple.

And now they're reaping the criticism that they duly deserve.

Well if it is as you say then that would be very bad news for those pissed off by this controversy.

You and others are basically saying that Sony is not afraid of what could be the biggest backlash in gaming history by completely removing Fortnite from the Playstation if Epic Game decided to not play ball and agree to block Fortnite accounts on other systems. We are talking about telling some 30 million Playstation players (Probably more) of Fortnite that their favorite game is gone from their Playstation.

So if such a huge shit storm does not scare Sony then imagine how little they will care about the current fortnite account being blocked on Switch backlash. In other words don't bother appealing to Sony cause they won't care cause they're totally not afraid... Or at least that's what your theory entails.

I'm not saying that this could be the biggest backlash in gaming history because there is zero chance that either company will choose for the game to be pulled. There is way too much money being made.

So your conclusion that if Sony isn't scared of the backlash of the game being pulled then why would they be scared of the smaller backlash of untethering the EG account doesn't really hold true, because the first isn't realistically an option.

Companies do care about there brand but they also care about money and so they have to weigh up the implications of any action on both. In this instance Sony has concluded that the amount of extra money they will make is worth the tarnishing of there brand. Or at least they did when setting out their terms to Epic. Perhaps they didn't foresee the backlash being as big as it is, which may lead them to rethink their position, or not...



Lauster said:
Mcube said:

You can from Xbox still connect to both Nintendo PC and mobile the fault is at sony´s there is no denying it. 

Maybe I misinterpreted it, but I thought in the context of your previous text that actions were done one after other.

(1-Create your account on PC

2-Connect to your Xbox/Switch

3-Connect to your PS4

4-Can't reconnect to your Xbox/Switch because of your previous connection to PS4) 

That's why I made the precision in my first sentance. In this case, the step 3 is impossible.

 

You're confusing between Sony's position on the Crossplay (attackable in its posture, but maybe you do not know all the ins and outs behind this case, are you a little bit aware of the Microsoft Crossplay terms before you make your opinion?) and not to warn about the consequences of an account assignment for which only EG is responsible.

I think you´re misunderstanding. Ofcourse it goes both ways would be dumb to have a Xbox one Epic games account you log it into a friends PS4 and then you lose all your stuff on xbox doesn´t it? Thats just protection from your main platform. All accounts can be shared except with sony´s. Sony´s is a special little angel that can do no wrong in this subs eyes.  We´re not talking about crossplay we´re talking about having to lock accounts from Sony´s services. I don´t know why people blame EG. What is Epic supposed to do, not release their game on the most popular console this gen? But ofcourse seeing what all people defending this are saying about it that´s Sony´s good fucking right because they are bigger then the rest. Sony pulled so much shit last gen that I´m super sceptical about stuff like this and noone should be even half accepting shit like this. If Nintendo or Xbox were doing it I´d say the exact same thing. 

For anyone saying this is all Epic´s fault. Why the hell would they allow account sharing on everything with Xbox and Switch except Playstation and limiting Playstation players to PC and IOS? 



twintail said:
KLAMarine said:

"the actual implementation comes from EG."

It's not entirely EG's implementation if EG wants Fortnite available on PSN. Sony gets a say on how Fortnite will work on and with their network and it's Sony that stands to benefit from these restrictions, not EG.

There are rules they are required to follow and decided to comply. This is EGs implementation of their game. Sony getting a say means that Epic knew.

They then advertising the game, selling microtransactions and not telling their own customers that there are limitations to previous platform transfer (which is a service they provide for their customers playing the game) is just straight up shameful.

Suggesting that they bare little of the responsibility is merely you pushing an agenda and allowing EG to be given some kind of free pass, which frankly hey don't deserve.

As you even suggested, EG would have known before the Switch version released.

They knew. They kept quiet. They didn't warn anyone. They share as much responsibility for this situation as Sony does.

The Switch version came nine months after the console versions. It's not impossible for EG to have been blindsided by Sony's policy.

Last edited by KLAMarine - on 20 June 2018

Biggerboat1 said:

I'm not saying that this could be the biggest backlash in gaming history because there is zero chance that either company will choose for the game to be pulled. There is way too much money being made.

So your conclusion that if Sony isn't scared of the backlash of the game being pulled then why would they be scared of the smaller backlash of untethering the EG account doesn't really hold true, because the first isn't realistically an option.

Companies do care about there brand but they also care about money and so they have to weigh up the implications of any action on both. In this instance Sony has concluded that the amount of extra money they will make is worth the tarnishing of there brand. Or at least they did when setting out their terms to Epic. Perhaps they didn't foresee the backlash being as big as it is, which may lead them to rethink their position, or not...

No, my conclusions is: There is way too much money to be made, exactly as you are saying. Therefore both Sony and EG must have agreed to the terms, no problems and no questions asked because again, there is way too much money to be made. EG can apply pressure to Sony as Sony would TOTALLY be scared of losing Fortnite on their platform and Sony can apply pressure on EG cause there is a huge lot of players to be lost should EG NOT play ball. So both agreed to it and both are accomplices of the "crime".

That's what I have ALWAYS been saying since the beginning of this thread. That's pure logic and that makes total sense. It's OTHERS who try to say otherwise, to lay the blame on Sony ALONE. So to show how wrong they are I made my previous post where I demonstrate that their theory is NOT a "realistic option". Exactly as you put it. At that point all I'm saying is, should Sony not be scared of entirely losing Fortnite, the current backlash which is way smaller in proportion would then not scare them at all.

I don't know if logic should be taught in school or if it's a concept not many people actually can grasp but I wish people did cause this reply I'm typing right now is to explain what I have explained several times before and it seems I must explain it again and again.



.

I'm sleepy, time for a nappy!

Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
twintail said:

There are rules they are required to follow and decided to comply. This is EGs implementation of their game. Sony getting a say means that Epic knew.

They then advertising the game, selling microtransactions and not telling their own customers that there are limitations to previous platform transfer (which is a service they provide for their customers playing the game) is just straight up shameful.

Suggesting that they bare little of the responsibility is merely you pushing an agenda and allowing EG to be given some kind of free pass, which frankly hey don't deserve.

As you even suggested, EG would have known before the Switch version released.

They knew. They kept quiet. They didn't warn anyone. They share as much responsibility for this situation as Sony does.

The Switch version came nine months after the console versions. It's not impossible for EG to have been blindsided by Sony's policy.

This has been a known problem for months with the X1 and PS4 versions. So not only did EG accept the policy from Sony many months ago (like a year), but they have kept quiet about it too.

Last edited by twintail - on 20 June 2018

CrazyGamer2017 said:
Biggerboat1 said:

I'm not saying that this could be the biggest backlash in gaming history because there is zero chance that either company will choose for the game to be pulled. There is way too much money being made.

So your conclusion that if Sony isn't scared of the backlash of the game being pulled then why would they be scared of the smaller backlash of untethering the EG account doesn't really hold true, because the first isn't realistically an option.

Companies do care about there brand but they also care about money and so they have to weigh up the implications of any action on both. In this instance Sony has concluded that the amount of extra money they will make is worth the tarnishing of there brand. Or at least they did when setting out their terms to Epic. Perhaps they didn't foresee the backlash being as big as it is, which may lead them to rethink their position, or not...

No, my conclusions is: There is way too much money to be made, exactly as you are saying. Therefore both Sony and EG must have agreed to the terms, no problems and no questions asked because again, there is way too much money to be made. EG can apply pressure to Sony as Sony would TOTALLY be scared of losing Fortnite on their platform and Sony can apply pressure on EG cause there is a huge lot of players to be lost should EG NOT play ball. So both agreed to it and both are accomplices of the "crime".

That's what I have ALWAYS been saying since the beginning of this thread. That's pure logic and that makes total sense. It's OTHERS who try to say otherwise, to lay the blame on Sony ALONE. So to show how wrong they are I made my previous post where I demonstrate that their theory is NOT a "realistic option". Exactly as you put it. At that point all I'm saying is, should Sony not be scared of entirely losing Fortnite, the current backlash which is way smaller in proportion would then not scare them at all.

I don't know if logic should be taught in school or if it's a concept not many people actually can grasp but I wish people did cause this reply I'm typing right now is to explain what I have explained several times before and it seems I must explain it again and again.

I feel again, that you are complicating things with extranious points.

You can call Sony & EG accomplices but the only party in the agreement demanding the tethered account is Sony.

So unless you expect Epic to walk away from potentially hundreds of millions of dollars out of principal then I don't see how you can fairly libel them as a guilty party...

And let me just say this to finish - you absolutely have not been saying the same thing since the beginning of this thread, here are just a few quotes:

"At best it's Nintendo that should be blamed for not letting people on THEIR platform log on a game for whatever reason."

"Even if it's Sony's fault, Sony has NO POWER WHATSOEVER on what happens on a Switch or an Xbox so at best Sony asked Nintendo and Microsoft to block Fortnite accounts created on PS4 and both Nintendo and Microsoft are then accomplices to this."

"So to summarize, Sony is guilty of not wanting cross-platform or allowing it on Sony's machines. But whatever does not work on OTHER machines is primarily those machine's fault and problem."

"Yeah just as I'm amused to see how you guys get blocked by (in this case) the Switch and somehow accuse Sony of mysteriously having magic powers that allow Sony to block something on Switch. "

"Sony is indeed the one not wanting cross-platform, nobody is denying that. But what is blocked on Switch is blocked by Nintendo, what's blocked on Xbox is blocked by Microsoft and what's blocked on Playstation is blocked by Sony end of story."

And my personal favourite "Nope but I'm probably the only person in this thread that thinks before throwing wild accusations."

And that's just from the first 3 pages of this 39 page thread...

So I find your superior tone a bit misplaced tbh, when as far as I can see the majority of users on this thread grasped the fundamentals of this issue much quicker than yourself.

I'm not trying to be mean here, it's just that when you're inferring other users haven't been educated properly, you really need to be flawless & consistent in your own arguments - which as we can see above is far from the truth...



Biggerboat1 said:

I feel again, that you are complicating things with extranious points.

You can call Sony & EG accomplices but the only party in the agreement demanding the tethered account is Sony.

So unless you expect Epic to walk away from potentially hundreds of millions of dollars out of principal then I don't see how you can fairly libel them as a guilty party...

And let me just say this to finish - you absolutely have not been saying the same thing since the beginning of this thread, here are just a few quotes:

"At best it's Nintendo that should be blamed for not letting people on THEIR platform log on a game for whatever reason."

"Even if it's Sony's fault, Sony has NO POWER WHATSOEVER on what happens on a Switch or an Xbox so at best Sony asked Nintendo and Microsoft to block Fortnite accounts created on PS4 and both Nintendo and Microsoft are then accomplices to this."

"So to summarize, Sony is guilty of not wanting cross-platform or allowing it on Sony's machines. But whatever does not work on OTHER machines is primarily those machine's fault and problem."

"Yeah just as I'm amused to see how you guys get blocked by (in this case) the Switch and somehow accuse Sony of mysteriously having magic powers that allow Sony to block something on Switch. "

"Sony is indeed the one not wanting cross-platform, nobody is denying that. But what is blocked on Switch is blocked by Nintendo, what's blocked on Xbox is blocked by Microsoft and what's blocked on Playstation is blocked by Sony end of story."

And my personal favourite "Nope but I'm probably the only person in this thread that thinks before throwing wild accusations."

And that's just from the first 3 pages of this 39 page thread...

So I find your superior tone a bit misplaced tbh, when as far as I can see the majority of users on this thread grasped the fundamentals of this issue much quicker than yourself.

I'm not trying to be mean here, it's just that when you're inferring other users haven't been educated properly, you really need to be flawless & consistent in your own arguments - which as we can see above is far from the truth...

Oh man you are so making my point.

First you quote me on hypotheses I made because I clearly explained I do not know the exact situation so not knowing the details of something means I engage in speculations, check your dictionary, there is a difference between speculations and accusations, others engage in accusations (it's Sony's fault, end of story) I engage in speculations which is the LOGICAL thing to do when you do NOT have all the part of the story. Not knowing who did what but knowing that for example the game's account is blocked on the Switch OBVIOUSLY leads to speculation as Nintendo has at least something to say about what happens on their OWN system don't you think?

From there it is revealed that it's just the EG account of the game that is blocked on Switch so from there I CLEARLY said: it's then most likely both Sony and EG that are part of the issue here, if so then Microsoft and Nintendo have probably nothing to do with this. I find it interesting that you so thoroughly checked my posts in this thread but totally ignored this line about me saying if so then it's not Microsoft nor Nintendo that are at fault here. So ignoring that and only seeing the parts where I speculate to use them against me when it's clearly speculation and not a statement of fact, is kind of purposefully MEAN of you. YOU are definitely complicating something that is not.

And to finish this rejoinder, when I read some comments here (including yours) I can't help but wonder about people's sense of logic, NOT their education in general, JUST their LOGIC. Is there ANYTHING I said that you understood properly? Perhaps English is not a language you wield proficiently enough to understand the finer details and intricacies of the conversation?

Just to be clear I am not judging your education in general, I'm sure you are good in that department but you and everybody MUST understand that in order to have a seamless conversation in a forum you need to both master the language used in it and have a fairly strong sense of logic. Otherwise you are complicating and obfuscating. That applies to everybody, I will NOT engage in, say a political conversation in an Italian forum because my Italian is really bad so I could not understand exactly what is said and that would ONLY lead to redundant replies and counter-replies as we are doing right now.

So back to topic: Sony is guilty of WANTING to limit cross-play, EG is just as guilty of accepting in THIS CASE Nintendo and Microsoft have nothing to do with this. I can't be any more clear. Sony can pressure EG because Sony is market leader and EG can pressure Sony cause Fortnite is such a HUGELY POPULAR game on the PS4 that removing it would mean a HUGE shit storm for Sony. THEREFORE both companies did what anyone with a sense of business would do: they AGREED and when you agree you are part of whatever happens in that agreement and thus you are responsible for the consequences.

Now what part don't you understand here? It's clear as day, it's as logical as it can ever be and it's in clear English.

Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 20 June 2018

.

I'm sleepy, time for a nappy!

twintail said:
KLAMarine said:

The Switch version came nine months after the console versions. It's not impossible for EG to have been blindsided by Sony's policy.

This has been a known problem for months with the X1 and PS4 versions. So not only did EG accept the policy from Sony many months ago (like a year), but they have kept quiet about it too.

Yes, the X1 and PS4 versions. Sony policy with regards to the Switch version might not have been a topic of discussion prior to Switch porting efforts getting underway.



Watching the Sony fans [Not all of them since some of them have this thing called common sense] defend Sony on this and blame Epic is so much fun! .