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)

Biggerboat1 said:
quickrick said:

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. 

I brought that up has a point, about companies doing things that are not good for gamers, if enough people don't like it and it effects sony it will change, but if people don't care enough  like they do with nintedo games, then sony will keep its way of doing things just like it's been doing since it existed.

About the maniac defensive, I don't see your point, the majority  playstation owners/sony fans  don't care for cross play hardly any games support cross play on consoles, so why shouldn't they defend their favorite console that gives them what they want, when it has 0 effect on them. you have people paying full price for old games and happy to support there company even if there getting ripped off, so how does this surprise you?

Last edited by quickrick - on 22 June 2018

Around the Network

So many fake niggas in this thread you'll should be ashamed



”The environment where PlayStation wins is best for this industry” (Jack Tretton, 2009)

FATALITY said:
So many fake niggas in this thread you'll should be ashamed

I'm quite proud actually. Unlike Sony, I'm looking out for the consumer.



KLAMarine said:
twintail said:

and because EG were ultimately ok agreeing with it.

I assume they have to or else no PS4 release.

 

Nuvendil said:
twintail said:

and because EG were ultimately ok agreeing with it.

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?  

There is no denying that obviously EG needs to comply with Sony's policy.

The reality is that EG did indeed comply because they wanted the userbase and of course the massive financial gain that came with it. So EG are not without fault, and anyone trying to cushion them from the backlash is either oblivious to the obvious or are set on making Sony the sole target.

Sony set a policy, and EG agreed to it. They are both a fault in one way or another.

And yeah, at least the NDA suggestion is a lot more of an answer than 'maybe EG just didnt know what they were getting themselves into because they are a small little company who dont know any better'



twintail said:
KLAMarine said:

I assume they have to or else no PS4 release.

 

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?  

There is no denying that obviously EG needs to comply with Sony's policy.

The reality is that EG did indeed comply because they wanted the userbase and of course the massive financial gain that came with it. So EG are not without fault, and anyone trying to cushion them from the backlash is either oblivious to the obvious or are set on making Sony the sole target.

Sony set a policy, and EG agreed to it. They are both a fault in one way or another.

And yeah, at least the NDA suggestion is a lot more of an answer than 'maybe EG just didnt know what they were getting themselves into because they are a small little company who dont know any better'

This still does not eliminate the possibility that the agreement between EG and Sony on how Fortnite would be handled on PS4 had been concluded long before a Switch port even started consideration... By the time Switch port started work, dealings with Sony may have already concluded. Too late then, Switch access to a PS4-associated EG account was not discussed at the first round of dealings.

I sincerely think EG wants cross-platform and cross-access so that their players can move freely across platforms. It only makes sense to have this to maximize playtime and therefore, transactions. To lock players down to a platform and place limits, on the other hand, benefits a platform since players are now forced to use that platform.

EG has some blame sure but it doesn't make sense to me that they would ever want this situation to occur. I cannot say the same for Sony that has the greatest clout out of the big three.



Around the Network
quickrick said:
Biggerboat1 said:

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. 

1) I brought that up has a point, about companies doing things that are not good for gamers, if enough people don't like it and it effects sony it will change, but if people don't care enough  like they do with nintedo games, then sony will keep its way of doing things just like it's been doing since it existed.

2) About the maniac defensive, I don't see your point, the majority  playstation owners/sony fans  don't care for cross play hardly any games support cross play on consoles, so why shouldn't they defend their favorite console that gives them what they want, when it has 0 effect on them. you have people paying full price for old games and happy to support there company even if there getting ripped off, so how does this surprise you?

1) I don't disagree with this, apart from the fact that we don't know how much Nintendo's pricing policy effects sales. It's true their games sell well under the current pricing model, though they could sell even better if they changed to a model more similar to Sony / Microsoft.

2) Again, this thread isn't about cross-play. And again, comparing game prices to the surreptitious locking of a 3rd party account is disingenuous. If I perceive a game to be too pricey I can choose not to buy it. If I've unwittingly locked my account to PS4 there's literally nothing I can do to retrieve it.  One is a straight up choice for the consumer to make, the other is a malicious, underhanded move to screw Nintendo & MS at the expense of gamers, including Sony's own.

And the idea that 'if it ain't happening to me then it doesn't count' is a bit self-centred & very short-sighted. I don't play Fortnite at all but I can still damn this behaviour which is blatantly anti-gamer. Same with SWBF2, I've never played it but I can see how problematic EA's strategy was with that game. Just because these particular slimy moves haven't impacted you on this occasion, doesn't mean that they won't in the future, especially if they remain unchecked by us, the gamers.

It's like saying that if the government starts locking homeless people in detention centres, that you can't or shouldn't have a view if you have a home...



Biggerboat1 said:
quickrick said:

1) I brought that up has a point, about companies doing things that are not good for gamers, if enough people don't like it and it effects sony it will change, but if people don't care enough  like they do with nintedo games, then sony will keep its way of doing things just like it's been doing since it existed.

2) About the maniac defensive, I don't see your point, the majority  playstation owners/sony fans  don't care for cross play hardly any games support cross play on consoles, so why shouldn't they defend their favorite console that gives them what they want, when it has 0 effect on them. you have people paying full price for old games and happy to support there company even if there getting ripped off, so how does this surprise you?

1) I don't disagree with this, apart from the fact that we don't know how much Nintendo's pricing policy effects sales. It's true their games sell well under the current pricing model, though they could sell even better if they changed to a model more similar to Sony / Microsoft.

2) Again, this thread isn't about cross-play. And again, comparing game prices to the surreptitious locking of a 3rd party account is disingenuous. If I perceive a game to be too pricey I can choose not to buy it. If I've unwittingly locked my account to PS4 there's literally nothing I can do to retrieve it.  One is a straight up choice for the consumer to make, the other is a malicious, underhanded move to screw Nintendo & MS at the expense of gamers, including Sony's own.

And the idea that 'if it ain't happening to me then it doesn't count' is a bit self-centred & very short-sighted. I don't play Fortnite at all but I can still damn this behaviour which is blatantly anti-gamer. Same with SWBF2, I've never played it but I can see how problematic EA's strategy was with that game. Just because these particular slimy moves haven't impacted you on this occasion, doesn't mean that they won't in the future, especially if they remain unchecked by us, the gamers.

It's like saying that if the government starts locking homeless people in detention centres, that you can't or shouldn't have a view if you have a home...

I'm sorry but i don't take gaming that seriously lol.

As for the lock account thing, sony will probably change that in the future, its most like a problem they didn't forthcoming  and sony and epic will get it fixed hopefully.



You guys are still debating over this?

It’s summer FFS, go swim in the pool, eat hamburgers, play video games, ANYTHING.



quickrick said:
Biggerboat1 said:

1) I don't disagree with this, apart from the fact that we don't know how much Nintendo's pricing policy effects sales. It's true their games sell well under the current pricing model, though they could sell even better if they changed to a model more similar to Sony / Microsoft.

2) Again, this thread isn't about cross-play. And again, comparing game prices to the surreptitious locking of a 3rd party account is disingenuous. If I perceive a game to be too pricey I can choose not to buy it. If I've unwittingly locked my account to PS4 there's literally nothing I can do to retrieve it.  One is a straight up choice for the consumer to make, the other is a malicious, underhanded move to screw Nintendo & MS at the expense of gamers, including Sony's own.

And the idea that 'if it ain't happening to me then it doesn't count' is a bit self-centred & very short-sighted. I don't play Fortnite at all but I can still damn this behaviour which is blatantly anti-gamer. Same with SWBF2, I've never played it but I can see how problematic EA's strategy was with that game. Just because these particular slimy moves haven't impacted you on this occasion, doesn't mean that they won't in the future, especially if they remain unchecked by us, the gamers.

It's like saying that if the government starts locking homeless people in detention centres, that you can't or shouldn't have a view if you have a home...

I'm sorry but i don't take gaming that seriously lol.

As for the lock account thing, sony will probably change that in the future, its most like a problem they didn't forthcoming  and sony and epic will get it fixed hopefully.

It's the same principal, that's what I'm getting at - as I think you are well aware.

And if you don't care because it doesn't effect you then why are you posting in this thread?



 

KLAMarine said: 
EricHiggin said: 

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.

The MS business relationship with Epic wouldn't be near as close and important as PUBG though. PUBG is like what Playground Games was to MS up until they outright purchased them and MS wouldn't really want Fortnite to show up PUBG, especially on their own platform. With Nin it's like Epic is married to PS and is cheating here and there with Nin. Just look at COD on PS4 and BF on XB for marketing. They purposely take a side, just not entirely so they don't lose out on other platforms.

KLAMarine said: 

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

Ya ok, but what about everyone else? It's not the norm for the people who don't care or are ok with the situation to make a fuss about it on YouTube or wherever. It's like election polls sometimes. Looks like it's pretty one sided one day, the next day you have no idea how the tables 'completely turned'.

KLAMarine said:

EricHiggin said: 

and this negative press being backed by MS and Nin.

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

If a group of people today built an explosive device that was much more devastating than a nuke, and a certain Country was willing to pay for the rights to a key factor in that tech that was necessary for it to work fully as intended, but wouldn't exclude other Countries from getting most of the tech, and that group knew that certain Country was going build many devices and use them to hold the rest of the world hostage with their time advantage, who would be more at fault? The group that created it and sold it, or the certain Country who used a type of leverage to gain an advantage over it's rivals?  Epic is the device maker and PS is the certain Country.

KLAMarine said:

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.

It also doesn't make sense why some woman can marry men who beat them or treat them like dirt. You can only assume sometimes that the fact he is super rich and she lives a life of luxury way more often than not, must be enough for her to deal with the negativity here and there. Is it right? Is it ok? Most would say no, but it's her life and her choice. It's Epic's game and it's their choice. If they are willing to take the 'abuse' from PS and/or the fans so they can live large, then so be it.

KLAMarine said:

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.

If that were the case, then why work on a Fortnite bundle for PS4? Why wouldn't they make bundles for XB and Nin instead? Probably because XB has PUBG and Switch may be getting it. With XB and Nin getting all cozy with Minecraft and cross play, it wouldn't be crazy to think Epic see's this and figures PUBG may end up the same between them. Why try and fight PUBG on other platforms while you have the entire PS4 platform to yourself?