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

[DonFerrari]

Cerebralbore101 said:

LudicrousSpeed said:
We can debate why Nintendo games sell at higher prices. You can say it’s because of a consistent and reliable history of quality, I think it’s partly that and it’s also partly the fact that Nintendo games face less competition from third parties in their ecosystems. But it’s not really relevant to what I posted or you replied. All that really matters is that what I said is correct, compared to MicroSony, Nintendo titles don’t follow the same sales model. So comparing a title from these companies to Nintendo is a waste of time and doesn’t support any argument you’ve made. Would you not argue that Sony has garnered trust with gamers to deliver quality titles? Yes? Then why do their games get massive price drops routinely just like everyone but Nintendo?

It’s not as if publishers don’t factor in price drops and sales into their revenue projections. You aren’t losing revenue by selling to more people, you’re making more money, which allows you to invest more money into the product.

Again, what would have changed with Witcher 3 had it been designed to “sell consoles”? What does that even mean? Still waiting on any actual substance behind this theory.

Also those MS titles “plummeted” compared to what? Nothing changed about these titles except they are offered at retail AND Gamepass. They are still making games they hope you’ll go out and spend money on and buy consoles for, but you can now play them in other ways too.

????

Switch has the best 3rd party support of any Nintendo home console in the last 13 years. GBA, DS, and 3DS all had phenomenal 3rd party support, yet Nintendo games still sold well. 

Again though, even accounting for Nintendo's abnormally high sales BotW is a sales monster. It doubled the old sales record set by OoT, before it ever even went on sale. 

I'm not comparing Microsoft/Sony sales to Nintendo in this argument. I'm comparing Nintendo sales to Witcher 3. 

Sony's titles get price cuts, because Sony would rather make less money directly on sales and more money from pumping up their YTD platform totals and raking in more publishing fees from 3rd parties as a result. They discount their games to entice people to buy a PS4, and then when those people get four or five 3rd party games Sony makes more than its money back from publishing fees and/or console royalties. 

It’s not as if publishers don’t factor in price drops and sales into their revenue projections. You aren’t losing revenue by selling to more people, you’re making more money, which allows you to invest more money into the product.

Witcher 3's heavily discounted 20+ Million is way way way less money than BotW's full priced 15 million. BotW has to have made at least double the amount of money as Witcher 3, if not triple or quadruple. 

Again, what would have changed with Witcher 3 had it been designed to “sell consoles”? What does that even mean? Still waiting on any actual substance behind this theory.

I'd basically have to have a crystal ball to know. Any specifics would be speculation on my part so I'll pass. 

Also those MS titles “plummeted” compared to what?

Compared to the previous games in the series for SoD2, and Crackdown 3. Compared to what MS's 1st party output was like in the 360 era.

Azzanation said:

A few things wrong with your post.

For one, Nintendo and Sony develop majority of there games inhouse so comparing an Indy game to a AAA studio is differently far fetched. 66 vs a 71 and one game probably costs 6x more to developer is not a good sign for a AAA developer.

Xbox actually give faith to outside dev teams, that's a very good thing, it shows they are willing to take the risk for award method, something Sony tends to play it safe with. Killer Instinct is considered one of the best fighting games this generation and that was based on that exact method. 

Was Sea of Thieves bad? Have you played it to cast that judgement? The game is incredibly popular just like SoD2 which only got criticized due to its buggy launch. SoTs lacked content at launch which was rightfully criticized for. Today if the game got reviewed again, the results would be different but you wouldn't know that because you most likely have not played it. GTS lacked content at launch so did SF5 and majority of other games this gen with a MP focus. 

Sea of Thieves sales included Game Pass members? What? Fastest selling and most played are two differently things.

Don't need to make excuses for TLOU MTX, doesn't matter about when it comes out, its the thought behind it that matters more and they thought pay to win was the way to go to make the easy dollar. So if you hate MTX's in games than expect to put TLOU on that list because it has MTX in its MP mode, just like majority of MP modes.

Multiplayer is easy to make? If thats the case than Sony would add it in.. but they don't because majority of games that include MP modes get critized due to it so there goes your point of MP is easy to make. Its a lot easier removing MP from games as it is including it. Sorry but that logic made me chuckle.

Good on Nintendo, they are the Disney of the gaming industry and they know how to get there sales and profits. Not sure how that point affects this debate. I love my Switch and its definitely worth its price.

For one, Nintendo and Sony develop majority of there games in house so comparing an Indy game to a AAA studio is differently far fetched. 66 vs a 71 and one game probably costs 6x more to developer is not a good sign for a AAA developer.

There are tons of Indies that crush AAA games in reviews. For an Indie with a small budget to get better reception than a AAA is not uncommon at all. Look at Stardew Valley, Celeste, Hollow Knight, etc. Days Gone was a new IP. SoD2 was not. The gap between 66 and 71 is wider than the grand canyon. Most reviewers prefer not to rate a game below 7/10, because that is usually the point at which consumers stop buying the product. 

Yes, KI was good. No argument there. 

Was Sea of Thieves bad? Have you played it to cast that judgement? The game is incredibly popular just like SoD2 which only got criticized due to its buggy launch. SoTs lacked content at launch which was rightfully criticized for. Today if the game got reviewed again, the results would be different but you wouldn't know that because you most likely have not played it. GTS lacked content at launch so did SF5 and majority of other games this gen with a MP focus. 

No, I haven't played it. I also haven't used a telescope to personally verify the orbit of Jupiter. Guess I can't believe astronomers since I didn't personally verify it myself right? Do you agree that it had little content at launch? If so, then what's the issue? As far as playing it now goes, you have a good argument, when it comes to those early launch reviews not being a good barometer of the game as it is now. The game could have gotten better over time. Or it could have gotten worse. I should play it, and plan on playing it eventually. 2019 is a crazy year for games though, so it might take me until the middle of next year to get around to it. But again, at launch the reviews were accurate and trustworthy. At launch it was a bad game. And that was what I was arguing for. 

Sea of Thieves sales included Game Pass members? What? Fastest selling and most played are two differently things.

"A week after release, the game has hit 2 million players - although it's not clear how much of a proportion of that player base is accessing the game through the Xbox Game Pass, which offers Sea of Thieves as part of a monthly subscription. IGN has contacted Xbox for comment on that." - IGN 

I slightly misread the above, and should have gone to the source article on  Xbox.com. Anyway, fastest selling new IP isn't very impressive because wtf did SoT have to compete with? 

Don't need to make excuses for TLOU MTX, doesn't matter about when it comes out, its the thought behind it that matters more and they thought pay to win was the way to go to make the easy dollar. So if you hate MTX's in games than expect to put TLOU on that list because it has MTX in its MP mode, just like majority of MP modes.

I currently look at TLoU as a game that has had its multiplayer servers shut down. Just like how you can't play Uncharted 2 multiplayer anymore. But does that make Uncharted 2 a game not worth enjoying? No, because Uncharted 2 is still a great single player experience. Same goes for TLoU. Do I hate that they added them in a year and a half after launch? Yes. Am I going to throw away my copy, even though I flat out don't care about multiplayer? No. 

Multiplayer is easy to make? If thats the case than Sony would add it in.. but they don't because majority of games that include MP modes get critized due to it so there goes your point of MP is easy to make. Its a lot easier removing MP from games as it is including it. Sorry but that logic made me chuckle.

No, Sony would not add it in due to it being easy to make. Tacking on Multiplayer to games intended largely as single player experiences is a waste of development time, and a trend that thankfully ended in the PS3/360 era. Look at Metroid Prime 2's multiplayer. Did that add anything of worth to MP2? Nope. The majority of games that include MP get criticized due to it? Care to elaborate? I'm not going to address that point without you explaining what you meant by it in detail. 

Uh no, because if you remove the MP element from a game you have to make the single player even better in order to account for it. So, no taking MP out of a game is not easier than adding it in. 

Good on Nintendo, they are the Disney of the gaming industry and they know how to get there sales and profits. Not sure how that point affects this debate. 

Because you were trying to use MS's gaming division overhaul as an excuse for their lack of good 1st party games. But Nintendo proved that that isn't a valid excuse. 

LudicrousSpeed said:
lol @ Sumo Digital being unproven. They were good enough for Sony to trust them on LBP 3 🤷🏻‍♂️

Interesting about SoD2’s user scores. Wonder what they say? Oh, shocked. Just a bunch of console warz nonsense. My favorite was the review that sounds glowing and ends with “worth your time!”. Score: 0 😆

Media Molecule helped an undisclosed amount on LBP3. It wasn't a solely Sumo Digital Effort. Unless they are making a racing game Sumo Digital can't make a good game on their own. 

There are always reviews like that on MC. I bet I could find a bunch for Days Gone too. 

Will address just 2 points you put.

On first party benefits. When the company make games to push consoles instead of push that specific game they may be more generous on the budgeting, more careful in the development to ensure people look forward to the platform (just like instead of people trusting only ND, they ended up trusting all outputs of Sony this gen, most if not all have sold splendid and also reviewed great), in a manner that they don't care as much if the game only sell 1M if it serves as a great show-off of what the system is capable off and also give variety on the library. On PS3 Sony had to do it more and learn more, they matured as publisher and each dev that remained also improved their game, so on PS4 we have less games, bigger budget and much higher success.

On the Sumo Digital, I'll have to disagree with you, as far as I know they have developed more than just racers, but sure they aren't on the leagues of AAA exclusives of Sony. And when MS is touting their investment in exclusives that shouldn't be used as excuse. Just look at Bend Studio (not talking about PS1 time doing Syphon Filter, miss it) moving from small portable games to Days Gone, they met their proposition even though review score is unfavorable (for me it is a 85 game) or Insomniac releasing Spider-Man (compare it to Sunset Overdrive who many say shares many things in common) how much have they improved in a short time through the right investment and mentoring.