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

[DonFerrari]

RaptorChrist said:

I saw this after it was first posted, and I thought it was a "quoted for truth" type of thing, until a couple hours later I revisit the thread and notice upon closer inspection that pretty much everything I said was disagreed with, even the things that I had not intended or imagined would be debatable. Now whenever something like this is disagreed upon in it's entirety, I tread carefully, as it's generally difficult to reason with people that have a very strong bias in favor of one thing or another.

But then I noticed that it was from none other than the legendary Don himself. It would be a disservice to not engage in friendly discourse with a god among men. I'm truly not worthy.

(I'll try to remove some paragraphs so the quote isn't too long.)

DonFerrari said:

It isn't uncommon to take risks even when you don't need it. Or would you say put Guerrila Games that were having mild success with FPS to make an open world RPG is not taking risk? To put Insomniac that made good platformers and FPS to make SpiderMan? Or Sucker Punch to make Ghost of Tsushijima? Or give the money to cover the dreams of Kojima (who were forced out of Konami exactly because he outspent budget). Making PSVR, an accessory in excess of 300 USD price and support it with games?

All of that are risks that Sony didn't need to take since they were already dominating the gen when they decided to take these. So I don't see the contradiction in it. It seems they played safe because all these bets had payed out.

Nintendo Inovates and takes risks on their HW, you can see by change of format, controler, etc. But they don't really take much risk on SW, they are still putting their flagships on the market with lower budgets than other companies and much higher sales than most.

Sure I will agree that Sony is more reliant on 3rd parties than Nintendo. But if they were reliant as it seemed you implied then they would be more close to Xbox level of sales instead of dominating console game HW sales since they entered the market.

The Nintendo bringing the market back happened in the 80's not consecutively on 90's and 00's so I don't know why you have put 3 decades worth of Nintendo bringing the market and expanding. More or less Nintendo+Sega on NES and SNES gen were about stable, big growth (and transfer of marketshare) came with PS1, further growth on PS2, then on PS3 the growth came basically from Wii bringing new audience (PS3+X360 more or less equal PS2+Xbox), this gen we have seem a reduction because WiiU weren't able to keep what it brought (so you can see in the end of gen somewhat PS4+X1 = PS3+X360).

I have consoles from Sony (PS1,2,3,4 PSP and Vita), Nintendo (NES, SNES, N64, GC, Wii, DS, 3DS, Switch), MS (X360) and Sega (Genesis, Saturn, DC). I do like Nintendo as company and developers (even though I game little on it, mater of taste, and think they charge more than others), several of their games I enjoyed in the past and still value today. I have no issue acknowledging I'm biased in favor of Sony, I don't try to say I'm neutral as some in vgc falsely claim to themselves.

And since you didn't understand the last point I made it was that you seem to agree that a very big bunch of people have a Sony+Nintendo or MS+Nintendo in the gen but few would have Sony+MS, and researches and surveys posted in VGC among 7 and 8 gen show it (haven't seem for Switch yet, but possibly it also have a lot of owners from Sony and MS). Thus Nintendo leaving the market wouldn't make it significantly shrunk (or not have someone target that spot), because plenty of the Nintendo owners already own HW from other companies. I didn't imply the market wouldn't miss Nintendo titles or even HW, but that it leaving the market wouldn't be apocalyptic (as seem by we still getting healthy market when they done bad on N64, GC and WiiU).

If you have anything else that didn't made sense to you, I'm certainly open to friendly exchange of ideas.