By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Fortnite - warning DO NOT play on PS4, or you can't play on Switch (and quick start guide if you're sheltered like me, and didn't know about this game before)

EricHiggin said:
flashfire926 said:

Investors will rather have account switching allowed rather than swaths of bad PR at Sony's faces.

By the way, Sony stock was down 2% because of this. How ironic.  We can't screw up PS investors if PS already is doing that themselves.

SNY Corp is back up and hit $50 per share today, the highest the stock has been since 2008.

TheBlackNaruto said:

Well this was obvious from the start that it was about money lol.

SNY stock price agree's.

KingofTrolls said:

Money talks bullshit walks, they are even going to make PS4 Forntnite bundle.

KingofTrolls said:

3rd party developers are happy to make PS4 bundles since launch ( remember that Watch Dogs ye ), also Fortnite is a big dog right now so it is a good partner for Sony.

Ultimately, both sides have to agree to make a deal.

So is PS going to allow cross accounts but make up the difference by selling Fortnite bundles, or is this because Fortnite now owes PS due to the recent backlash that's being kept hush hush for whatever reason, or is PS and/or Epic simply throwing this in MS and Nin's faces to spite them?

Nuvendil said:

Yeah, and I'm sure Sony merely asked nicely and didn't basically hold their 80mil user install base to ransom.  You can give EG 20% of the blame if it makes you feel better.  80% belongs with the platform holder.  Sony makes the rules, Sony came up with this policy.   Sony can be rid of it with the snap of a finger, EG can't do shit.  

And about all your posts about EG not warning people...do you really think Sony wouldn't wrap such a deal in an ironclad NDA?  Do you think they are that freaking dense?  

Well you could also say it's actually 27% the consumers fault, since they have given PS4 a 60% majority portion of the console market as of this point in time. The PS4 customers have given PS this position which has led to these rules and policies.

Edit* changed 33% to 27%. 33 would be an equal third, 27 is everyone above that.

So now customers should be held responsible for companies being dicks?  They should decide what console they buy based on market share?  Come on, that's straight bs.  Yes, people buying a lot of PS4s created the circumstance, but assigning RESPONSIBILITY  to them - and thus taking some AWAY from Sony - would suggest consumers had an intention behind their actions to create this circumstance rather than just buying what they liked.  A "guilty mind" to go back to the earlier - and inaccurate - crime analogy.

 

Also, you are conflating correlation with causation.  Implying that Sony HAD to do this, that it was inevitable and foreseeable, if they achieved a high market share.  Which is nonsense, this is a choice made by Sony.  Not just an inevitable end result of a chain reaction set into motion by outside factors.



Around the Network
Nuvendil said:
Nem said:

 

Almost every few pages there is a post saying how funny it is to see sony fans defending this, but what they don't get is that the joke is on them. It is exactly as you say.

You can look out for the company and not be an asshole about it.  The adversarial approach that some companies take with regards to consumer relations is short sighted, foolish, and unnecessary.

Like nintendo charging 60$ for ports that came out years ago at 50$, and taking advantage of their fan base? or keeping there games at 50-60$ even after a year or 2 after release, personally this effects me way more as a consumer then having cross play with xbox or switch which i don't care about. point is companies will do what they want, if you don't like it, then don't buy it.



Nuvendil said:
Nem said:

 

Almost every few pages there is a post saying how funny it is to see sony fans defending this, but what they don't get is that the joke is on them. It is exactly as you say.

You can look out for the company and not be an asshole about it.  The adversarial approach that some companies take with regards to consumer relations is short sighted, foolish, and unnecessary.

 

Pretty much. I don' think there's anyone defending this position, only rationalising. The money speaks louder. It's not morally right, but it's all there is to it.

quickrick said:
Nuvendil said:

You can look out for the company and not be an asshole about it.  The adversarial approach that some companies take with regards to consumer relations is short sighted, foolish, and unnecessary.

Like nintendo charging 60$ for ports that came out years ago at 50$, and taking advantage of their fan base? or keeping there games at 50-60$ even after a year or 2 after release, personally this effects me way more as a consumer then having cross play with xbox or switch which i don't care about. point is companies will do what they want, if you don't like it, then don't buy it.

There's a difference between stubborn pricing practices and actively and intentionally screwing over players to try and coerce them into purchasing and playing on your platform.  One is certainly annoying but can be compensated for through used games and the like.  The other is deliberately consumer hostile.  

 

Also, bringing up something negative about another company doesn't negate the badness of another.  So instead of derailing the thread with nonsense comparisons, either make an actual case for Sony or don't bother.



KLAMarine said:
EricHiggin said:

So is PS going to allow cross accounts but make up the difference by selling Fortnite bundles, or is this because Fortnite now owes PS due to the recent backlash that's being kept hush hush for whatever reason, or is PS and/or Epic simply throwing this in MS and Nin's faces to spite them?

Why would Epic spite MS or Nintendo?

Could have to do with PUBG and it's deal with MS since it's competition, and this negative press being backed by MS and Nin. While for some people this seems like PS is the only one in trouble, for others like myself, it means Epic is in more trouble than PS. If this negative press leads to MS and Nin gamers boycotting Fortnite at some level, then it wouldn't be a dumb idea for Epic to strengthen their locked down player base on PS4 to make up for those losses. There have also been rumors of PUBG coming to Switch, so all the more reason for Epic to perhaps double down on PS4 since PUBG doesn't and may never exist on that platform.

Nuvendil said:
EricHiggin said: 

Well you could also say it's actually 27% the consumers fault, since they have given PS4 a 60% majority portion of the console market as of this point in time. The PS4 customers have given PS this position which has led to these rules and policies.

Edit* changed 33% to 27%. 33 would be an equal third, 27 is everyone above that.

So now customers should be held responsible for companies being dicks?  They should decide what console they buy based on market share?  Come on, that's straight bs.  Yes, people buying a lot of PS4s created the circumstance, but assigning RESPONSIBILITY  to them - and thus taking some AWAY from Sony - would suggest consumers had an intention behind their actions to create this circumstance rather than just buying what they liked.  A "guilty mind" to go back to the earlier - and inaccurate - crime analogy.

Also, you are conflating correlation with causation.  Implying that Sony HAD to do this, that it was inevitable and foreseeable, if they achieved a high market share.  Which is nonsense, this is a choice made by Sony.  Not just an inevitable end result of a chain reaction set into motion by outside factors.

That 27%, is also the reason that XB has become super pro consumer in comparison to the start of the gen, as well as Nin becoming more pro consumer as well. To say that those consumers had this intention when they bought a PS4, also then means that PS had this intention the entire time as well, yet why wasn't it present at launch then? It would be like saying XB customers had the intention of buying an XB1 knowing BC and CP were coming, yet they most certainly didn't, and XB may not even have known themselves. The consumers of both platforms unknowingly led to some anti consumer and pro consumer tactics, but that doesn't take all responsibility away from them. Saying as a human being I have no reason to think of the future consequences for anything I do and shouldn't be held responsible, is asking for a world full of chaos.

If you are going for the source of the blame, I guess you could go back to the PS4 launch and say it was PS that offered the better platform which has led to their higher market share. You could also say while PS had the better platform, it was XB who basically screwed their platform up so bad that it seemed like a no brainer to buy the PS4. So is it the fault of PS then or XB? I would say in this case if you had to divvy it up, at the very least it was XB who is 60% the cause and PS 40%.

If you don't want to go that far back, and stick with the more recent year that battle royale has been a big deal on console, then if you want to divvy that up, you could say it's maybe 20% the consumers fault for over buying PS4's, 20% PS's fault for having a larger user base and being to greedy, 20% Epic's fault for being to greedy or spineless, 20% XB's fault for keeping PUBG off of PS4 and having a smaller user base, and 20% Nin's fault for launching Switch so late into this gen and not pushing to get Fortnite on their platform sooner.

You can slice it up however you like, but in reality, what led to this issue is much more in depth than most would like to admit. 



Around the Network
Nuvendil said:
quickrick said:

Like nintendo charging 60$ for ports that came out years ago at 50$, and taking advantage of their fan base? or keeping there games at 50-60$ even after a year or 2 after release, personally this effects me way more as a consumer then having cross play with xbox or switch which i don't care about. point is companies will do what they want, if you don't like it, then don't buy it.

There's a difference between stubborn pricing practices and actively and intentionally screwing over players to try and coerce them into purchasing and playing on your platform.  One is certainly annoying but can be compensated for through used games and the like.  The other is deliberately consumer hostile.  

 

Also, bringing up something negative about another company doesn't negate the badness of another.  So instead of derailing the thread with nonsense comparisons, either make an actual case for Sony or don't bother.

The case should be obvious. sony has nothing to gain from this, playstation is a huge chunk of sony profits, while xbox is a fart in the wind for Microsoft, thats why are their exclusives are on PC, plus with sony having the biggest user base, the competitors  get free advertisement, especially nintendo with there weak online infrastructure, and community. it's not a smart business move.   

Last edited by quickrick - on 22 June 2018

quickrick said:
Nuvendil said:

There's a difference between stubborn pricing practices and actively and intentionally screwing over players to try and coerce them into purchasing and playing on your platform.  One is certainly annoying but can be compensated for through used games and the like.  The other is deliberately consumer hostile.  

 

Also, bringing up something negative about another company doesn't negate the badness of another.  So instead of derailing the thread with nonsense comparisons, either make an actual case for Sony or don't bother.

The case should be obvious. sony has nothing to gain from this, playstation is a huge chunk of sony profits, while xbox is a fart in the wind for Microsoft, thats why are their exclusives are on PC, plus with sony having the biggest user base, the competitors  get free advertisement, especially nintendo with there weak online infrastructure, and community. it's not a smart business move.   

Maybe it's because it's late where I am but how on God's green earth does Nintendo's online position & Microsoft's financial non-reliance on xbox explain or justify Sony's surreptitious locking of a 3rd party account...?

 

Honestly, this thread is like a litmus test of fanboyism!

 

If Sony had been up front about locking accounts when logging in that would be one thing but doing it on the sly is just indefensible!



Biggerboat1 said:
quickrick said:

The case should be obvious. sony has nothing to gain from this, playstation is a huge chunk of sony profits, while xbox is a fart in the wind for Microsoft, thats why are their exclusives are on PC, plus with sony having the biggest user base, the competitors  get free advertisement, especially nintendo with there weak online infrastructure, and community. it's not a smart business move.   

Maybe it's because it's late where I am but how on God's green earth does Nintendo's online position & Microsoft's financial non-reliance on xbox explain or justify Sony's surreptitious locking of a 3rd party account...?

 

Honestly, this thread is like a litmus test of fanboyism!

 

If Sony had been up front about locking accounts when logging in that would be one thing but doing it on the sly is just indefensible!

The locking account thing should be fixed, i was talking only about crossplay.

no need to jump to conclusion about fanboyism, its also easiest way to get banned here.



EricHiggin said:
KLAMarine said:

Why would Epic spite MS or Nintendo?

Could have to do with PUBG and it's deal with MS since it's competition

But MS and Nintendo are EG's business partners.

EricHiggin said:

and this negative press being backed by MS and Nin.

Negative press that reflects badly on Sony, not Epic Games.

EricHiggin said:

While for some people this seems like PS is the only one in trouble

A lot of people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1N-TTwYIJw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2Oyh7eZQRA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A4y7qsDR88

EricHiggin said:

for others like myself, it means Epic is in more trouble than PS. If this negative press leads to MS and Nin gamers boycotting Fortnite at some level, then it wouldn't be a dumb idea for Epic to strengthen their locked down player base on PS4 to make up for those losses.

I suppose if you twist logic far enough, it could seem like Epic is in more trouble but it makes no sense for Epic to do this to their own playerbase and account holders. It makes sense why Sony would want to do this.

EricHiggin said:

There have also been rumors of PUBG coming to Switch, so all the more reason for Epic to perhaps double down on PS4 since PUBG doesn't and may never exist on that platform.

Or perhaps more reason for EG to not worry about Fortnite on PS4 since PUBG won't be coming to that platform and aim towards making sure X1 and Switch Fortnite players invest more time towards Fortnite than PUBG.



quickrick said:
Biggerboat1 said:

Maybe it's because it's late where I am but how on God's green earth does Nintendo's online position & Microsoft's financial non-reliance on xbox explain or justify Sony's surreptitious locking of a 3rd party account...?

 

Honestly, this thread is like a litmus test of fanboyism!

 

If Sony had been up front about locking accounts when logging in that would be one thing but doing it on the sly is just indefensible!

The locking account thing should be fixed, i was talking only about crossplay.

no need to jump to conclusion about fanboyism, its also easiest way to get banned here.

Nuvendil's comment to which you were replying wasn't about cross-play though, but rather the shadier practices involving the account locking, so I'm not sure how your comment could have been interpreted any other way...

 

Indeed that's what this entire thread is about, nothing to do with cross-play.

 

I'll take your comment on board about the f-word but I do have to repeat my disbelief at some of the manic defensive maneuvering going on here.

 

Like your other comment about Nintendo's game pricing - it has absolutely no relevance! 

 

It's akin to someone posting on a thread about Nintendo's poor online showing, that it doesn't matter because Sony overcharged for PSP storage. It's purely diversionary.