| KLAMarine said: But Sony does have power over (1) PlayStation and how third parties are to interact with the PlayStation platform. (2) I highly doubt EG would want their own accounts restricted like this. I expect them to want players to be able to play their account regardless of what hardware they're playing on so as to maximize investment and engagement. Sony stands to benefit from this restriction and (3) EG does not by making any Sony-associated EG accounts only playable on PlayStation and, to Sony's credit, PC and smartphones. No X1 or Switch.
|
(1) Yes absolutely, ON THEIR platform, not on others which again is what makes no sense here: How can Sony decide what can be seen on Switch on a game Sony does not own?
(2) EXACTLY! EG stands to gain nothing from doing this, yet the only one that can do this is EG as EG totally can block accounts made for their games on any system they want, it's their game. Sony on the other hand cannot.
(3) ABSOLUTELY, This benefits Sony but not EG so again I'm asking a question I asked earlier: Why would EG agree to this when EG does not benefit at all form this? Makes no sense.
We have a "murder" case where the main suspect (Sony) wasn't in town when the murder took place. So I submit this to logic and reason: Either Sony is guilty but with the consent of the others (Microsoft, Nintendo, EG or at least just EG) or Sony did this on their own and they are like super powerful for having access to Switch and Xbox and deciding what happens on Switch/Xbox or maybe hacking the Switch/Xbox servers? So powerful that Nintendo and Microsoft do not even sue them cause why? They are scared of Sony? I think we can agree that this is pure fantasy so we are left with logic and reason only: Sony wanted this, asked for this and the OTHERS AGREED to it for whatever reason that is unknown to us. So Sony is guilty of wanting this and the others are accomplices which was my first theory and the most logical one.
Last edited by CrazyGamer2017 - on 17 June 2018
