| Azzanation said: I am curious to why you would think Cross Play will be overpriced? Its a free feature this gen and last gen. I dont think Sony will go down that path next gen. I cant see why Cross Play is an issue for Devs and Pubs. They probably want to link there games up to support bigger communities and increasing there life span of there games. I agree that once you open the door its very hard to close. Probably why Sony is getting alot of flak for it these days, they heavily supported it last gen. They even claimed they supported cross play this gen with Rocket League. There quick to turn down Minecraft and now Fortnite which seems to contradict what they claimed in the past. Anyway im not taking sides here but as some like me who has a brother and sister who all own different systems, it kills me hearing one doesnt want to participate for reasons only for greed. Which it is a buisness afterall. In cases like this its best to just stay quiet rather than claim market superiority. |
PS online was free, and is now a paid service, and let's be honest, it's because MS got away with it so PS wasn't leaving that stable income on the table. If PS feels they need or have to offer cross play, but don't really want to, whatever their reasons, they can just offer it at unreasonable prices and can have a much more justified reason as to why cross play basically doesn't exist on it's platform. It's much like PS Now. I'm sure they could do a lot more to make that service much better in many ways, but because the service isn't all the great, people just ignore it for the most part. They will just ignore cross play in this situation. The only problem I can see at this point in time, is if PS allowed expensive cross play on PS5, MS could make moves like removing the paywall for free to play games like Fortnite that have accounts, which would again turn up the heat on PS on both fronts. I would assume MS would instead follow the money and keep their paywall and charge (a reasonable amount) for cross play, since they have a valid reason without looking greedy.
If your a dev or pub who has a hit game that can stand the test of time, then cross play makes more sense, but if your games don't last that long, or you go through a rough period for whatever reason, cross play would hurt. You would want people to be looking for the next new game and be willing to drop what their playing now. It could become a big problem for the studios who don't find success early on. There are no doubt devs and pubs who don't mind making a game for PS4 and XB1 since they are so similar, and selling a copy for each platform to gamers who own both, which no longer happens with cross play across the board. Some devs and pubs will want it, other won't.
MS said some things and made some policies with XB1 that they revamped to fix the platform. They didn't do this out of the good of their hearts, and they didn't even really do it for the gamers, they did it because they flat out made terrible decisions, plain and simple, which led to a lot of hate. PS never said anything about cross play for PS4 early on and they've kept their word based on what they originally offered. PS never said they wouldn't have third party exclusivity, or account exclusivity. If people have such a problem with it, they will speak with their wallets, and you can be sure PS is watching, and obviously what they see are steady sales, so clearly people aren't that upset. It's not what you say that matters, it's what you do.
I agree that PS should have stayed silent, or had used a much more reasonable explanation. Truthfully, they should be on the offensive calling out XB on their own issues, and putting the ball back in their court, but for some reason they have gone from being aggressive, to being petty sometimes. There is almost no doubt in my mind that they responded this way, at this specific time, because of MS saying their gamers are more hardcore, just days earlier. It's like Trump vs the left. It's not a good look for PS.
| Mnementh said: First: you argue from your own standpoint, that crossplay would influence your decision AFTER other points like exclusives. That's basically it, there are so many points more important for platform-decisions than crossplay. Casuals basically don't even know what it is, until it bites them in the ass, because they wanna play with their friend and can't or they wanna play their Fortnite-account on the new Switch and they can't. But the real business effect is pretty small, there are many things before it. Most of all brand power. Remember early PS4 days? Held up mostly by ports from PS3 and weak exclusives like The Order? Still the PS4 sold extraordinarily. Why is that? Brand power. The people believed the games will come, because it is PS. A friend of mine actually said to me how he excited he is with his new PS4 - and that he rebought a game he already played on PS3 because he wanted something to play with his new PS4. So yes, pure brand power. And now this discussion? MS don't care about a few thousand people that actually would switch their platform because of crossplay. But this is an opportunity to get an attack on the Playstation brand. Because Sony left themself open for attack on this issue. That is the real reason MS is following up on this topic, because it is a good opportunity to reduce the brand power of PS, and that is something real in terms of customers. Secondly: you argue that if MS would offer you a better value next gen than Sony, why would you stay with Sony if they don't employ tactics to keep you. That boggles my mind. You actually wanna give a company a tool that allows them to bring you in as a customer, even if they offer lesser value? Why would you want it? It is in all our interest that Sony, MS and Nintendo try their best to offer the best value to us, they can muster. Because that is the situation in which they think about the players. Third: Even if crossplay has an effect, let's take an example of a business practice that actually makes the companies a lot of money: lootboxes. Basically foreverclouds argument could be applied here: we cannot criticize game companies for lootboxes, because it makes them money so they are excused. Everyone criticizing lootboxes is actually childish, like a child in a store crying for candy. Is that really a side we wanna take? |
PS4 did not win because of brand power. It helped though. By that logic PS3 should have crushed the 360, but it didn't. Why? It's because the 360 was a decent platform and was worthy competition. The XB1 was a drunk, smelly, weak, living on the street, bum of a console at launch. The PS4 simply had to show up for work and it won. Which it did and more. Once PS5 cross play was a thing, and free or cheap, you can bet those same casuals who buy a PS4, XB1, Switch, etc, because their friend(s)/family did, would now buy whatever platform was cheaper. What this can lead to is a price war, which in the long term hurts both companies, or more likely, they decide to launch weaker cheaper hardware to gain sales, while holding games back in the process. Either that or new cheap upgraded hardware every other year.
You say there are so many other points other than cross play, and it wouldn't hurt MS or PS much, if at all, so then why did it take MS as long as it did to allow it, and why hasn't PS done it yet? It's because it's a risky move, and a risk MS needed to take, that PS doesn't. While I mentioned exclusives, I also explained how that advantage can be neutralized, and so can just about everything else, which is why a point like cross play is something you want to keep in your back pocket.
You say having advantages is bad thing? So what, we should make wages for every working man and woman exactly the same, no matter what they do, so that we aren't choosing partners based on anything to do with wealth? So that some people can't buy nicer more expensive things because they earned them through whatever means? Should we make everyone wear the exact same clothing so people aren't choosing friends based on their chosen style?
Are you saying if PS is going to lose a bunch of money due to allowing cross play, that they should be forced to add in loot boxes to make that money back? Well I for one don't pay for them at all, and many of my friends don't either, so how much lost profit will they be able to get back? Even worse, if they go about applying those loot boxes in the wrong way, I nor most of my friends would buy that game, regardless of whether it's a blockbuster first party exclusive. Considering PS needs to sell a tonne of consoles to also sell a worthwhile amount of first party exclusives, less hardware sales due to cross play means, less first party game sales. There goes that money and potentially those game franchises. Bye bye advantage.
What I get from your arguments, is that you want cross play because it benefits you in whatever way, and if that means more/harder work for PS to figure out how to make it happen, then too bad for them, just get it done now. If it means other PS customers or gamers disagree, then too bad, deal with it. I thought this was about what's best for everybody. The only way to do that is to make things as fair as possible, which means giving 'people' choices within reason, which means PS can choose to stay more exclusive, and you can choose MS or Nin instead since they offer the most important thing to you, cross play.
