KLAMarine said:
Cerebralbore101 said:
That's nice and all but who cares what indifferent people think? They're indifferent. Baddman below on the other hand seems to have enough reason to care about this.
You are missing the point. Most people don't care about crossplay. So it was never worth going about making mountains out of molehills over it anyway.
No but DRM and cross-play are different. Clearly.
It doesn't matter if they are different. If the argument is invalid for one thing it is invalid for all things.
"No true man owns a dog."
No true Scotsman eats porridge.
"Oh, but dogs and eating porridge are different. Clearly!"
Good games die faster too so that's neither here nor there.
A game with 500,000 players is not going to die anywhere near as fast as a game with 100,000 players. I don't care if a game that came out in 2010 dies out in 2015 instead of 2025. Publishers do care if their crappy MTX infested game dies out in six months though. If crossplay means they can keep that game on life support for another six months of course they are all for it.
To benefit themselves and benefit consumers as well. Baddman's kids below look to benefit from cross-play. Good on Microsoft, they deserve every bit of praise. Sony on the other hand was hijacking Fortnite accounts at their worst.
Well, I agree that Sony should not have hijacked Fortnite accounts. If somebody wants to log into another system and play their profile they should be able to. That's a bit different than having separate servers for online matches though, and not the same as crossplay.
But it was not to benefit consumers. If MS was out to benefit consumers they would never have standardized paid online. They would never have pushed for DRM on Xbox in 2013. They would never have started pumping MTX into their flagship titles. They are out for themselves, simple as that.
|
"You are missing the point. Most people don't care about crossplay. So it was never worth going about making mountains out of molehills over it anyway."
>I know that most don't care about crossplay but if they don't care about it, why care about what they have to say on the matter? The people who DO care about crossplay are the ones who are potentially being denied a benefit.
"It doesn't matter if they are different. If the argument is invalid for one thing it is invalid for all things."
>You're missing the point: Sony pushed back against DRM which is good so Sony should not have caved into that demand. Cross-play on the other hand is a good thing for the consumer but Sony did not champion it as much as their competition.
"A game with 500,000 players is not going to die anywhere near as fast as a game with 100,000 players. I don't care if a game that came out in 2010 dies out in 2015 instead of 2025. Publishers do care if their crappy MTX infested game dies out in six months though. If crossplay means they can keep that game on life support for another six months of course they are all for it."
>And let them keep it on life support. If there are people who enjoy that game, they should be able to play it. If YOU think it's a crappy game, good for you. You don't have to play that game.
"If MS was out to benefit consumers they would never have standardized paid online. They would never have pushed for DRM on Xbox in 2013. They would never have started pumping MTX into their flagship titles. They are out for themselves, simple as that."
>Microsoft is ultimately looking to profit, no differently than Sony or Nintendo. If something they do stands to benefit the consumer however, I'm going to applaud it regardless.
|
I know that most don't care about crossplay but if they don't care about it, why care about what they have to say on the matter? The people who DO care about crossplay are the ones who are potentially being denied a benefit.
Well as long as you agree that most people don't care about crossplay, I'm good.
You're missing the point: Sony pushed back against DRM which is good so Sony should not have caved into that demand. Cross-play on the other hand is a good thing for the consumer but Sony did not champion it as much as their competition.
They didn't champion it, because it wasn't a very big issue.
And let them keep it on life support. If there are people who enjoy that game, they should be able to play it. If YOU think it's a crappy game, good for you. You don't have to play that game.
No, I just have to live in a world where that crappy game hurts game franchises I like. Mass Effect Andromeda was so underwhelming because EA decided that Bioware's main team needed to work on Anthem instead. Bethesda has wasted resources on Fallout 76 that could have been used to make Fallout 5. Wolfenstein Youngblood was saddled with MTX so badly, that the progression system was completely unbalanced.
Not to mention that the more games come out with MTX, the more other publishers will try the same dirty tricks.
The number of people that are indirectly or directly inconvenienced by the existence of these shitty games far outweighs the scant few that genuinely enjoy them. So, no they should not be able to play it.
Microsoft is ultimately looking to profit, no differently than Sony or Nintendo. If something they do stands to benefit the consumer however, I'm going to applaud it regardless.
MS is looking to profit by any means possible. Sony and Nintendo have standards. Neither company is perfect. Nintendo should fix the Joycon issue. Sony's PS4 UI should be streamlined. But MS makes them both look like saints.
Edit: PS, I'm fine with crossplay. I'm not saying it shouldn't exist. I'm just sick of people treating it like it's a dire issue that Sony should have fixed right away, when it clearly wasn't.
Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 05 October 2019
Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions
