Quantcast
Cross-play on PlayStation 4 is now available for all developers to use in their games

Forums - Sony Discussion - Cross-play on PlayStation 4 is now available for all developers to use in their games

Cerebralbore101 said:
FloatingWaffles said:

Microsoft's first party output this gen was stumbling way before they made the decision to put their games on PC, so no that's not the reason they dropped in quality. Hell, that idea doesn't even make sense. If developing a game for PC at the same time as console meant it dropped in quality then 99% of multiplatform games would not be good according to that logic since they all have PC versions as well.

Crackdown, State of Decay 2, and Sea of Thieves came out either at the same time MS started putting its games on PC, or a little after. 

Developing for multiple platforms isn't the issue. The issue is not caring enough to make the games as good as they can be, because they are no longer meant to sell consoles. 

Okay we need to address your post.

I am going to start off with guessing you haven't played any of the games you mentioned above correct? If so please correct me with your reply. As someone who has played and finished all 3 of the games you mentioned let me explain.

Crackdown 3 is not a service based game, has no MTX and Lootboxes and wasn't even made by Xbox. CD3 was criticised as it had a messy development. It switched hands, was delayed multiple times and due to the investment MS have put into it, wasn't as easy to cancel as well as the promises. And please don't use Scalebound as a reason why they could of cancel CD3. Scalebound was cancelled for a completely different reason and that was a falling out with MS and Platinum Games. Platinum Games came out and admitted it. Unfortunately that was a business disaster.

https://www.windowscentral.com/platinumgames-says-scalebound-was-cancelled-because-both-sides-failed

State Of Decay 2 is another none service based game with no MTX, Lootboxes in it. It again wasn't made by Xbox and only recently the company who made SoD2 was brought by MS. Also lets add Undead Labs is a small Indy company so we shouldn't be expecting a full fledged AAA game from them in the first place. SoD2 was criticized for its buggy launch. It has nothing to do with it being developed for multiple platforms. Sony's very own Zombie game made by one of there big AAA branches in Bend Studios made Days Gone which only received a 72 on Metacritic.

Sea Of Thieves Is another game that offers no MTX and Lootboxes and yes this game is a service based game. The game launched like majority of service based games which tend to fall over the starting line with its lack of content like Fallout 76, Drive Club, No Man Sky, Street Fighter 5, Destiny, Gran Turismo Sport and Anthem etc. SoTs has evolved and became one of MS's best selling games this generation. There best selling new IP anyway.

https://au.ign.com/articles/2018/03/28/sea-of-thieves-is-microsofts-fastest-selling-new-ip-of-this-generation

Gears 5 Is living proof that Xbox can make amazing games. Its campaign is up there with the best of them however its MP mode offered online issues which happens to a lot of MP games. Gears 5 does offer MTX however its redundant if you play Gears for the campaign mode. Most big MP games offer a store front and this is nothing new. TLOU had Pay to Win elements in its MP mode and yet that game is praised so lets not act like MS are the only brand to do it and act like you cannot have success with the method either. 

Xbox has always been a multiplayer focus brand, since the OG Xbox they have more passion in making a good MP game than there direct competition. Only Nintendo can really compete on the MP front when they want to however Sony just doesn't do it and when they did, they didn't do it well or at least at the same level as Xbox. That's why majority of Sony's 1st party line up don't even offer a MP mode for there biggest games, so Sony is actually dodging bullets here because they cannot cop any criticism for having MP modes where as with Xbox games do. Also Xbox try to have a genre for everything as we have seen with games like Sea of Thieves being there online service game and Halo Wars offering there RTS style game and with Flight Simulator coming out being a full fledge Simulator game. In my personal opinion, Xbox has been more ambition this gen than Sony mainly because they took greater risks. Sony kept it safe by removing MP in most of there big budget titles and stayed with there story telling 3rd person games. Xbox went out and dipped there toes in genres that wouldn't be popular on consoles and they still continue to this day by including MP and SP in there games while bringing in newer services like Backward Compatibility and GamePass etc.

We also need to understand that Xbox has been going through a complete overhaul this generation by closing and buying new studios, creating newer services and polishing up the XB1 brand. Normally companies aren't expected to do well in these events. Next gen will be Xbox's big test because now they have got all the hard stuff out the way this gen, they should have nothing holding them back in Gen 9.

Anyway that's my thoughts and personal experience with the games mentioned above. 

Last edited by Azzanation - on 09 October 2019

Around the Network

The usual suspects in here downplaying the innovation Sony has brought this gen. Everything Sony has done this gen is safe? Ridiculous. PSVR + VR software alone trumps any innovative attempt MS has made this gen in terms of development.

All the hand waving of SIE first party games because they're "third person games focused on narrative" is such a weak excuse, especially since actial game elements are ignored, and omissions of games like Dreams, The Last Guardian, Gravity Rush 2, MLB The Show, R&C, Concrete Genie, are done in order to make this narrative work.

And then these same suspects want to applaud MS for making generic multiplayer games?



PotentHerbs said:
The usual suspects


these are the usual suspects:

you seem to be complaining about one persons post 🤷🏻‍♂️ Haven’t seen anyone else discuss the safety or ambition of Sony titles.



LudicrousSpeed said:

PotentHerbs said:
The usual suspects


these are the usual suspects:

you seem to be complaining about one persons post 🤷🏻‍♂️ Haven’t seen anyone else discuss the safety or ambition of Sony titles.

Yet, you "especially" disagreed with Horizon being ambitious on the previous page.



PotentHerbs said:
The usual suspects in here downplaying the innovation Sony has brought this gen. Everything Sony has done this gen is safe? Ridiculous. PSVR + VR software alone trumps any innovative attempt MS has made this gen in terms of development.

All the hand waving of SIE first party games because they're "third person games focused on narrative" is such a weak excuse, especially since actial game elements are ignored, and omissions of games like Dreams, The Last Guardian, Gravity Rush 2, MLB The Show, R&C, Concrete Genie, are done in order to make this narrative work.

And then these same suspects want to applaud MS for making generic multiplayer games?

I am going to guess this post was a reply to mine. I don't care if you agree with my personal opinion about the two brands, however my post was aimed at the 3 Xbox games that were mentioned and were put in a firing line. Pinning the blame on XBox's lack of quality when 2/3 of the games mentioned weren't developed by Xbox and all 3 games don't offer MTX and Lootboxes. However a poster was blaming the lack of quality because he believed it was due to Xbox focusing on multiplatforms like PC. If you agree with him go for it, however that is incredibly wrong as all 3 games he mentioned were criticized for all different reasons. Nothing to do with there PC counter parts.

Also Sony is still innovating but they play it more safe in my eyes, there big hitter games tend to follow the same genre where as all their smaller games do offer different genres. But I clearly mentioned there bigger games, games like Horizon, GoD, TLOU, Uncharted, Spider Man etc were all based around either an openworld narrative or a 3rd person action narrative. Sure VR is a big step, so was Kinect in many ways so they both equal each other out there and I would say VR was a safer play than Kinect since VR had multiple studios developing there own VR device and all launched together to help each other out. Kinect was very unique and was always going to be a harder push which is exactly how it worked out, Kinect failed at launch while VR wasn't exactly successful but its growing yearly.



Around the Network
PotentHerbs said:
LudicrousSpeed said:


these are the usual suspects:

you seem to be complaining about one persons post 🤷🏻‍♂️ Haven’t seen anyone else discuss the safety or ambition of Sony titles.

Yet, you "especially" disagreed with Horizon being ambitious on the previous page.

Because it was a direct reply to me. And I agreed to disagree. You make it seem as if everyone in the thread is going out of their way to poop on Sony’s ambition and risk taking, Ive seen one person do it. And even that is replying to someone over-selling it. And idk where the stuff about MS deserving praise for MP titles comes from. Probably the same post?

Just seems like instead of being vague in your reply you should have just quoted the person you were actually talking to.



zero129 said:
Wow. I honestly can't believe some people still buy the bullshit that "Games wouldn't be as good if they weren't made to sell consoles". This is a fallacy as yes maybe a small few exclusive games that didnt have a good publisher/developer, might not have turned out as good. But many more would have turned out the exact same. I honestly don't know how the movie or music industry survived for so long without needing to sell tapes/cd's/DVDs etc and the players to go along with them.

It is fact. The inadequate comparison to other media doesnt change that. And why DVD? When is a movie considered a flop?

Exclusives are meant to move hardware. To ensure people want those games they have to outshine not only the console competitor, but also every other competition products.

And how to make sure the gamer people turn their heads? Showing of the technical capabilities of the hardware. Graphics, gameplay innovation and improvement to advertise the hardware. Meaning the hardware holder has to have eye on his studios and give them the necessary resources and beyond. Alternatively a company can rely solely on its money prowress. But that doesnt go so well for Microsoft, does it?

Rembering the Killzone2 gameplay demo shown E3 2006. The final product wasnt inferior, nevertheless Sony didnt want the debacle to repeat, since perceived downgrades would be a lot more damaging when associated with specified hardware. Impossible to blame others for the shortcomings (eg. when it was revealed the 2013 Witcher3 demo was "fake").



Hunting Season is done...

Here's the way I sort of see it: (I have a hunch that I'm going to say things that are unpopular, but I think that's because some of the things that people may view as a negative are not necessarily negative in my eyes. I'd like to see your take on this.)

I agree that Sony has generally been the one to play it safe, but it's mostly because of the part of the market that they have control of. It's not that they aren't a creative company, but that their product is targeting a market comprised of people that want a traditional gaming experience. They are not so much trying to invent something new as they are simply trying to perfect said experience.

Relatively speaking, in a market with only three major players, Nintendo has historically been the one to take risks. As a result, I think this is why Nintendo is overrepresented in gaming communities, as they are an easy company to like (don't take that the wrong way). In other words, I think Nintendo "appears" as though they deserve the most market share (let me explain).

Sony and Microsoft have created eco-systems that rely largely on third party software, and as such, the overall size of that market is less volatile than what Nintendo aims for. Nintendo has had major successes and major defeats, while the disparity between Microsoft and Sony's biggest defeat compared to biggest success is not as large.

Here's what I think, although I'm curious if people agree or not: Hypothetically speaking, if Sony disappeared, another company (possibly Microsoft, maybe a newcomer) would fill most of that gap. Contrastly, if Nintendo disappeared, the market would shrink drastically. And this is one of those negatives I mentioned in the beginning of the post. I think some may read this as if I'm saying "anyone can do what Sony is doing", and that's not at all what I mean. The reason Sony is where they are at is because Sony has done it best. So much so that Nintendo seemingly decided to re-strategize and focus more on their own thing. But if they disappeared, whoever is next best would have to suffice. That's what I'm saying. :)

Both companies have separate goals, and provide consumers with vastly different products. So much so that owning both a Nintendo console and a Sony console is common compared to owning a Microsoft console and a Sony console (no source; assuming this based on anecdotal evidence).

(Anyways, it's late, and at this point I don't know which side I've upset more. :P)



RaptorChrist said:

Here's the way I sort of see it: (I have a hunch that I'm going to say things that are unpopular, but I think that's because some of the things that people may view as a negative are not necessarily negative in my eyes. I'd like to see your take on this.)

I agree that Sony has generally been the one to play it safe, but it's mostly because of the part of the market that they have control of. It's not that they aren't a creative company, but that their product is targeting a market comprised of people that want a traditional gaming experience. They are not so much trying to invent something new as they are simply trying to perfect said experience.

Since they put PSVR, something entirely new on the gen, and make games for it, plus have plenty of different genres and games released (new IPs as well) the only way to say Sony is playing safe is because they released less games and most if not all have done very well commercially and critically. But having success in all you have launched doesn't make playing safe, more like playing smart or just succeeding. And when game development take longer to do it is kinda hard keep similar output to last gen, and since they don't need to convince people to get back to Playstation they also don't need to bet on the 60% of their output making loss and only 20% profiting. Still we got Racing game, Open World, FPS, Action, Platformer, Hero Games, etc. Hardly less than MS output or "risks".

Relatively speaking, in a market with only three major players, Nintendo has historically been the one to take risks. As a result, I think this is why Nintendo is overrepresented in gaming communities, as they are an easy company to like (don't take that the wrong way). In other words, I think Nintendo "appears" as though they deserve the most market share (let me explain).

Risk on HW maybe, risk on SW nope. Their games use less resources and sell more than most titles from other companies. Just look to the thread where someone said Sony is reaching Nintendo level of sales of SW and all the denial it received.

Sony and Microsoft have created eco-systems that rely largely on third party software, and as such, the overall size of that market is less volatile than what Nintendo aims for. Nintendo has had major successes and major defeats, while the disparity between Microsoft and Sony's biggest defeat compared to biggest success is not as large.

You can say rely, but since Sony have made several blockbusters and steady launching them, plus GOTY contenders and winners in spade on the gen (some years with over 3 contenders) it is more like that at this moment the platform is where 3rd party can thrive not one that depends heavily on them.

Here's what I think, although I'm curious if people agree or not: Hypothetically speaking, if Sony disappeared, another company (possibly Microsoft, maybe a newcomer) would fill most of that gap. Contrastly, if Nintendo disappeared, the market would shrink drastically. And this is one of those negatives I mentioned in the beginning of the post. I think some may read this as if I'm saying "anyone can do what Sony is doing", and that's not at all what I mean. The reason Sony is where they are at is because Sony has done it best. So much so that Nintendo seemingly decided to re-strategize and focus more on their own thing. But if they disappeared, whoever is next best would have to suffice. That's what I'm saying. :)

How would the market shrink so drastically (talking about consoles) if it haven't shrink at all when they failed on N64, GC and WiiU? And since Nintendo isn't doing Handhelds exclusively as far as we know then that major shrink wouldn't really happen.

Both companies have separate goals, and provide consumers with vastly different products. So much so that owning both a Nintendo console and a Sony console is common compared to owning a Microsoft console and a Sony console (no source; assuming this based on anecdotal evidence).

No need for source (it may have changed this gen who knows) but we have seem plenty of sources on Wii and WiiU that a lot of its owner also had A PS3/4 or X360/1, which would defeat your previous point.

(Anyways, it's late, and at this point I don't know which side I've upset more. :P)



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Hope this carries over to the PS5.