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)

So basically every tweet the official Playstation twitter account posts is just getting bombard with replies about the Epic Accounts and Cross Play.

https://twitter.com/PlayStation



Around the Network
Biggerboat1 said:
quickrick said:

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?

I'm just posting cause my fortnite bundle thread was locked down because of this. other wise i wouldn't even have posted.



It honestly feels like Sony got away with this one. Mainstream media moving on and a vocal minority who imo mostly don't game or intend to game on ps4 still carrying it on. Can't see epic or Sony budging on this.



Nuvendil 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?

It's a confirmation that both sides are in perfect relationship and nobody is bothered by this cross-platform stuff.

Why nobody is asking Epic about comments ? Where are their comments on this ? Nowhere. They want to wait till this topic dies, it will take like 2 weeks I guess. 

The only bad thing is that exclusive skin and digital currency is now worth to make a bundle,tho.



EricHiggin said:
KLAMarine said: 

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: 

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:

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:

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:

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?

"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."

>Well I'm seeing opportunity: a chance for Epic Games, Nintendo, and Microsoft to slam Sony for their policy.

"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'."

>I'm sure there's a divide but it's never good for business to have such a divide. Never good for business to piss some people off, they might spread their negativity to others.

"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."

>I don't see the need for this metaphor but I'll play along: the country that used its leverage to impose its anti-consumer will and abduct any accounts that associated with them is at fault.

"If that were the case, then why work on a Fortnite bundle for PS4?"

>Sony's paying for it?

"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?"

>Because PS4 does not have PUBG. Epic Games doesn't have to try as hard on PS4 than they do on X1. Switch doesn't have PUBG either.

animegaming said:
So basically every tweet the official Playstation twitter account posts is just getting bombard with replies about the Epic Accounts and Cross Play.

https://twitter.com/PlayStation

Good.



Around the Network

As PS4, Switch, and Gaming PC owner this is nice to know. I don't plan to play Fortnite, but in the future I'd like to be able to play my games on both PC and Switch. So this tells me never to allow any third party accounts onto my PS4 without checking to see if there are irreversible effects due to Sony's policies.

It seems like each platform-manufacturer takes one step forward and two step back when it comes to consumer-friendliness. If I were one of the people who spent hundreds of dollars on this game to have my account locked to certain platforms, I'd be looking into a class-action lawsuit.

Last edited by sc94597 - on 23 June 2018

sc94597 said:

As PS4, Switch, and Gaming PC owner this is nice to know. I don't plan to play Fortnite, but in the future I'd like to be able to play my games on both PC and Switch. So this tells me never to allow any third party accounts onto my PS4 without checking to see if there are irreversible effects due to Sony's policies.

It seems like each platform-manufacturer takes one step forward and two step backs when it comes to consumer-friendliness. If I were one of the people who spent hundreds of dollars on this game to have my account locked to certain platforms, I'd be looking into a class-action lawsuit.

Knowledge is power.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_9C84pyjFE



KLAMarine said:

"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."

>I don't see the need for this metaphor but I'll play along: the country that used its leverage to impose its anti-consumer will and abduct any accounts that associated with them is at fault.

The need is to point out it's the device makers that are at fault, even if they have been given false information leading them wanting to cause chaos. If they didn't seek out all information available and analyze it properly and come to the conclusion that the info they were given is wrong and they shouldn't do it, it's their fault. If they were forced to do it, with their lives at stake, that's tougher, but knowing the potential outcome of something like this, agreeing to do it would be extremely selfish.

I think it's pretty fair to say Epic wasn't forced to make Fortnite or a battle royale mode or was looking for chaos and wanted everyone to enjoy the game. That would be the main goal, because happy gamers usually means more money, to a certain extent. They do not have the ability to get that game to those gamers without going through hardware providers though. I'm sure when they found out what PS expected that they most likely didn't want to have to go that route, but they did anyway, probably because if they didn't agree, they would be leaving out 60 million gamers and growing.

By agreeing to the terms, they were given the opportunity to get the game into those 60+ million gamers hands, even though it might anger a few million gamers later on. They simply ran the numbers and were easily able to decide that for the greater good, they should work with PS. If they hadn't, both the PS gamers and Epic income would greatly suffer. It was a win win. They could have chosen to side with MS and Nin, eventually, but what if they lost that battle? What if PS4 just kept chugging along like it is now anyway? PS stock fell a couple percent lately, and it could be for many reasons, but let's assume it's due to the controversy. It made that back up in no time and is now at a 10 year high. This would have made things very very tough for Fortnite back then, and could have meant PUBG dominating it far beyond what it is now. How good would that have been for Epic and the gaming community?

When people get married, they aren't perfect for each other in every way and things don't always go exactly to plan. You need them and they need you. Sometimes you disagree and get nowhere, sometimes you both agree, and sometimes both need to compromise for the greater good so both are as happy as possible. Even with children, married couples don't always agree on what's best for the kids and sometimes have to back down for the overall good of the child as well as the relationship. Does it also hurt everyone slightly at times and into the future? Yes, but that's because life is super complicated and far from perfect. Most try their best to do as little damage as possible while also not screwing themselves over.

Business relationships aren't much different. Everyone has certain needs and if you want to do what's best for the majority, sometimes you have to compromise, as long as everyone wins as much as possible. That's also why PS is no doubt being very careful about how they are handling cross accounts and cross play. If they give in too much, and make it clear they have no back bone, there's a good chance that their new found relationship with MS and Nin, could mean one of them see's this weakness and uses it to walk all over PS. This happens in some relationships and can destroy them, or just leaves one of the individuals extremely depressed.

SNY requires PS to remain making significant profits for the overall company to thrive and if that changes, SNY will suffer, which leads to PS suffering, which leads to their customers suffering. MS does not require XB at all. If XB was sold off or simply folded tomorrow, it wouldn't matter to MS one bit. Heck, their stock might actually rise if they sold XB since many of their investors aren't exactly thrilled about that portion of the company. This all leads to the compromises that are happening in the industry today, like the Fortnite controversy. Right here and right now, it seems like a horrible thing, but in the grand scheme it's not that big of a deal and given time, it's likely PS can figure out a way to allow CP. 

What I will point out, is that by constantly bringing up stuff like cross accounts and cross play, over and over, will lead to things staying exactly the same. PS will not change this while the controversy is in people's recent memory. If they are going to allow it, it's going to happen when the dust has long settled, and they can make it look like it was 100% their idea and 100% for the gamers. They will not allow MS and Nin to claim a PR victory from it. You can almost bet they will follow that up with something new to draw in customers to make up for the losses, that is also 'anti consumer' because they will be the only one's who have it. That's just how things work though.



EricHiggin said:

KLAMarine said:

"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."

>I don't see the need for this metaphor but I'll play along: the country that used its leverage to impose its anti-consumer will and abduct any accounts that associated with them is at fault.

The need is to point out it's the device makers that are at fault, even if they have been given false information leading them wanting to cause chaos. If they didn't seek out all information available and analyze it properly and come to the conclusion that the info they were given is wrong and they shouldn't do it, it's their fault. If they were forced to do it, with their lives at stake, that's tougher, but knowing the potential outcome of something like this, agreeing to do it would be extremely selfish.

Last I checked, we don't know what happened behind closed doors between Epic Games and Sony so trying to find fault in what happened behind closed doors is doomed from the start.

What we DO know is EG has pointed the finger at Sony for imposing restrictions and it being beyond EG's control to change that. What we also know is Nintendo and Microsoft allow for console cross-play and cross-platform EG account access. Sony does not.

If Epic Games can provide for Microsoft and Nintendo to share Fortnite accounts, why can't the same be done for Sony? Gonna guess this is Sony's fault, not Epic Games's.

EricHiggin said:

I think it's pretty fair to say Epic wasn't forced to make Fortnite or a battle royale mode or was looking for chaos and wanted everyone to enjoy the game. That would be the main goal, because happy gamers usually means more money, to a certain extent. They do not have the ability to get that game to those gamers without going through hardware providers though. I'm sure when they found out what PS expected that they most likely didn't want to have to go that route, but they did anyway, probably because if they didn't agree, they would be leaving out 60 million gamers and growing.

By agreeing to the terms, they were given the opportunity to get the game into those 60+ million gamers hands, even though it might anger a few million gamers later on. They simply ran the numbers and were easily able to decide that for the greater good, they should work with PS. If they hadn't, both the PS gamers and Epic income would greatly suffer. It was a win win. They could have chosen to side with MS and Nin, eventually, but what if they lost that battle? What if PS4 just kept chugging along like it is now anyway? PS stock fell a couple percent lately, and it could be for many reasons, but let's assume it's due to the controversy. It made that back up in no time and is now at a 10 year high. This would have made things very very tough for Fortnite back then, and could have meant PUBG dominating it far beyond what it is now. How good would that have been for Epic and the gaming community?

When people get married, they aren't perfect for each other in every way and things don't always go exactly to plan. You need them and they need you. Sometimes you disagree and get nowhere, sometimes you both agree, and sometimes both need to compromise for the greater good so both are as happy as possible. Even with children, married couples don't always agree on what's best for the kids and sometimes have to back down for the overall good of the child as well as the relationship. Does it also hurt everyone slightly at times and into the future? Yes, but that's because life is super complicated and far from perfect. Most try their best to do as little damage as possible while also not screwing themselves over.

Business relationships aren't much different. Everyone has certain needs and if you want to do what's best for the majority, sometimes you have to compromise, as long as everyone wins as much as possible. That's also why PS is no doubt being very careful about how they are handling cross accounts and cross play. If they give in too much, and make it clear they have no back bone, there's a good chance that their new found relationship with MS and Nin, could mean one of them see's this weakness and uses it to walk all over PS. This happens in some relationships and can destroy them, or just leaves one of the individuals extremely depressed.

SNY requires PS to remain making significant profits for the overall company to thrive and if that changes, SNY will suffer, which leads to PS suffering, which leads to their customers suffering. MS does not require XB at all. If XB was sold off or simply folded tomorrow, it wouldn't matter to MS one bit. Heck, their stock might actually rise if they sold XB since many of their investors aren't exactly thrilled about that portion of the company. This all leads to the compromises that are happening in the industry today, like the Fortnite controversy. Right here and right now, it seems like a horrible thing, but in the grand scheme it's not that big of a deal and given time, it's likely PS can figure out a way to allow CP. 

What I will point out, is that by constantly bringing up stuff like cross accounts and cross play, over and over, will lead to things staying exactly the same. PS will not change this while the controversy is in people's recent memory. If they are going to allow it, it's going to happen when the dust has long settled, and they can make it look like it was 100% their idea and 100% for the gamers. They will not allow MS and Nin to claim a PR victory from it. You can almost bet they will follow that up with something new to draw in customers to make up for the losses, that is also 'anti consumer' because they will be the only one's who have it. That's just how things work though.

Eric, with all due respect, try to keep your posts short and to the point. I thank you for all the info but it's hard to follow your thought process since it feels all over the place and there's so much that I lose interest in reading it all.