I think you´re misunderstanding. Ofcourse it goes both ways would be dumb to have a Xbox one Epic games account you log it into a friends PS4 and then you lose all your stuff on xbox doesn´t it? Thats just protection from your main platform. All accounts can be shared except with sony´s. Sony´s is a special little angel that can do no wrong in this subs eyes.  We´re not talking about crossplay we´re talking about having to lock accounts from Sony´s services. I don´t know why people blame EG. What is Epic supposed to do, not release their game on the most popular console this gen? But ofcourse seeing what all people defending this are saying about it that´s Sony´s good fucking right because they are bigger then the rest. Sony pulled so much shit last gen that I´m super sceptical about stuff like this and noone should be even half accepting shit like this. If Nintendo or Xbox were doing it I´d say the exact same thing. 

For anyone saying this is all Epic´s fault. Why the hell would they allow account sharing on everything with Xbox and Switch except Playstation and limiting Playstation players to PC and IOS? 

The Switch version came nine months after the console versions. It's not impossible for EG to have been blindsided by Sony's policy.

No, my conclusions is: There is way too much money to be made, exactly as you are saying. Therefore both Sony and EG must have agreed to the terms, no problems and no questions asked because again, there is way too much money to be made. EG can apply pressure to Sony as Sony would TOTALLY be scared of losing Fortnite on their platform and Sony can apply pressure on EG cause there is a huge lot of players to be lost should EG NOT play ball. So both agreed to it and both are accomplices of the "crime".

That's what I have ALWAYS been saying since the beginning of this thread. That's pure logic and that makes total sense. It's OTHERS who try to say otherwise, to lay the blame on Sony ALONE. So to show how wrong they are I made my previous post where I demonstrate that their theory is NOT a "realistic option". Exactly as you put it. At that point all I'm saying is, should Sony not be scared of entirely losing Fortnite, the current backlash which is way smaller in proportion would then not scare them at all.

I don't know if logic should be taught in school or if it's a concept not many people actually can grasp but I wish people did cause this reply I'm typing right now is to explain what I have explained several times before and it seems I must explain it again and again.

I feel again, that you are complicating things with extranious points.

You can call Sony & EG accomplices but the only party in the agreement demanding the tethered account is Sony.

So unless you expect Epic to walk away from potentially hundreds of millions of dollars out of principal then I don't see how you can fairly libel them as a guilty party...

And let me just say this to finish - you absolutely have not been saying the same thing since the beginning of this thread, here are just a few quotes:

"At best it's Nintendo that should be blamed for not letting people on THEIR platform log on a game for whatever reason."

"Even if it's Sony's fault, Sony has NO POWER WHATSOEVER on what happens on a Switch or an Xbox so at best Sony asked Nintendo and Microsoft to block Fortnite accounts created on PS4 and both Nintendo and Microsoft are then accomplices to this."

"So to summarize, Sony is guilty of not wanting cross-platform or allowing it on Sony's machines. But whatever does not work on OTHER machines is primarily those machine's fault and problem."

"Yeah just as I'm amused to see how you guys get blocked by (in this case) the Switch and somehow accuse Sony of mysteriously having magic powers that allow Sony to block something on Switch. "

"Sony is indeed the one not wanting cross-platform, nobody is denying that. But what is blocked on Switch is blocked by Nintendo, what's blocked on Xbox is blocked by Microsoft and what's blocked on Playstation is blocked by Sony end of story."

And my personal favourite "Nope but I'm probably the only person in this thread that thinks before throwing wild accusations."

And that's just from the first 3 pages of this 39 page thread...

So I find your superior tone a bit misplaced tbh, when as far as I can see the majority of users on this thread grasped the fundamentals of this issue much quicker than yourself.

I'm not trying to be mean here, it's just that when you're inferring other users haven't been educated properly, you really need to be flawless & consistent in your own arguments - which as we can see above is far from the truth...

Oh man you are so making my point.

First you quote me on hypotheses I made because I clearly explained I do not know the exact situation so not knowing the details of something means I engage in speculations, check your dictionary, there is a difference between speculations and accusations, others engage in accusations (it's Sony's fault, end of story) I engage in speculations which is the LOGICAL thing to do when you do NOT have all the part of the story. Not knowing who did what but knowing that for example the game's account is blocked on the Switch OBVIOUSLY leads to speculation as Nintendo has at least something to say about what happens on their OWN system don't you think?

From there it is revealed that it's just the EG account of the game that is blocked on Switch so from there I CLEARLY said: it's then most likely both Sony and EG that are part of the issue here, if so then Microsoft and Nintendo have probably nothing to do with this. I find it interesting that you so thoroughly checked my posts in this thread but totally ignored this line about me saying if so then it's not Microsoft nor Nintendo that are at fault here. So ignoring that and only seeing the parts where I speculate to use them against me when it's clearly speculation and not a statement of fact, is kind of purposefully MEAN of you. YOU are definitely complicating something that is not.

And to finish this rejoinder, when I read some comments here (including yours) I can't help but wonder about people's sense of logic, NOT their education in general, JUST their LOGIC. Is there ANYTHING I said that you understood properly? Perhaps English is not a language you wield proficiently enough to understand the finer details and intricacies of the conversation?

Just to be clear I am not judging your education in general, I'm sure you are good in that department but you and everybody MUST understand that in order to have a seamless conversation in a forum you need to both master the language used in it and have a fairly strong sense of logic. Otherwise you are complicating and obfuscating. That applies to everybody, I will NOT engage in, say a political conversation in an Italian forum because my Italian is really bad so I could not understand exactly what is said and that would ONLY lead to redundant replies and counter-replies as we are doing right now.

So back to topic: Sony is guilty of WANTING to limit cross-play, EG is just as guilty of accepting in THIS CASE Nintendo and Microsoft have nothing to do with this. I can't be any more clear. Sony can pressure EG because Sony is market leader and EG can pressure Sony cause Fortnite is such a HUGELY POPULAR game on the PS4 that removing it would mean a HUGE shit storm for Sony. THEREFORE both companies did what anyone with a sense of business would do: they AGREED and when you agree you are part of whatever happens in that agreement and thus you are responsible for the consequences.

Now what part don't you understand here? It's clear as day, it's as logical as it can ever be and it's in clear English.

Yes, the X1 and PS4 versions. Sony policy with regards to the Switch version might not have been a topic of discussion prior to Switch porting efforts getting underway.

We had no problem playing on Switch as my kid used his PC account. I also don't let them spend any money on nonsense so it doesn't matter anyway. Yet the Switch did warn about a paywall coming in September when we were going through the lengthy process of making a child nintendo account and attempting to link the Epic account. Is it not staying free to play on Switch like on PS4 and PC?

Xbox and PS4 are not free. XBOX LIVE and PSN

That is what the warning is about. Nintendo's paid online starts in September. At that point, all games, Fortnite, Mario Kart, Splatoon, ect will require you to pay $20 a year for Nintendo's online service. Same as Sony and Xbox. It's the cheapest of the three if that helps.

But only free online is as it always has been PC gaming.

Yes but playing Fortnite online on PS4 is free as PS+ is not required (I assume it's the same on Xbox).

The question is: Is this going to be free too on Switch or will it be locked behind their paywall? That's what we don't know yet. Time will tell.

I can see this back and forth growing arms & legs so I'm going to end on these last points - feel free to respond but I'll most likely not take this debate any further.

A couple of posts ago you said "That's what I have ALWAYS been saying since the beginning of this thread." referring to your view of this whole Fortnite debacle.

I then posted a handful of comments showing that this was very much not the case... I don't see how you can pretend otherwise. Theories / speculation or otherwise, your argument has inarguably changed since your first post - full stop.

And you now say that your earlier theories and speculation shouldn't be used against you as you essentially didn't know the full story.

You do know that nobody is forcing you to post half-baked theories based on insufficient information? Calling out Nintendo & Microsoft as the guilty parties when, you yourself admit to not knowing enough about the situation is not the best approach in my opinion and is likely to be interpreted as inflammatory to everyone who isn't aware that you're shooting from the hip without the facts...

It does speak volumes though, that without knowing the facts, your instant, instinctual reaction was to defend Sony... Again, blind loyalty to a corporation who just wants your money is a bit absurd in my opinion.

And also, we're on page 39 of this thread and you're still using the term 'cross-play' - this isn't anything to do with cross-play!!

Lastly, to your point about Sony & EG both being guilty, as they essentially both have leverage over each other. This is true to an extent, although Sony has way more leverage over EG than vice-versa & most importantly, it is Sony who is pushing this agenda. If you want to attribute blame then it's 99% Sony, 1% EG - but that's just my opinion.