Alright, as CGI points out, I see how that might be seen as upsetting due to the explicitly negative connotation, so let me rephrase. I think you're making these arguments out of an emotional loyalty to Sony rather than any sincere belief that Sony's brand didn't suffer during the PS3 era. I also think you don't sincerely, on an intellectual level, believe that Sony's choices to overprice the console and tell fans to get a second job didn't play a part in that sales drop. Or their expectation that expensive, advanced hardware that only 1st parties could figure out would sell as well and have superior ports to a less expensive, easier to program for console. I say this as someone that preferred Sony to Microsoft. I think they're making a mistake and I think people that defend them unreflectively and refuse to take valid criticisms seriously only hold them back.

Edited for clarity.

I am just saying that there were so many internal and external factors going on in what was a financially turbulent world during that gen. The World was in a recession and that definitely effected sales of all sorts of electronic industries. That is maybe one of the biggest reasons why the vastly cheaper and Unique Wii experience appealed as an alternative to costly hulking hardware, plus....Nintendo. A price tag of $600 was always going to slow down the speed of which the console could sell. Historically the sweet spot for consoles has been around the $200 mark. The 360 was a very comparable and cheaper alternative, that was also out for an entire year gaining a sizable lead that then created a domino effect of "My friend has X already, I'll get that". All these things are what effected the PS3, not statement backlash or implied arrogance. This is further reinforced by all things considered the PS3 still caught up to the competition.

Take the Xbox One situation at the beginning of this gen. Sure, lots of media backlash about  "TV TV TV" and "Always Online". Them saying it didn't effect the sales, it was the fact that most realized they would be incapable of playing a console that is Online required. There is a sizable portion of America that doesn't even have high speed internet infrastructure (Ironically Fallout 76 takes place in West Virginia which is one such place but is Online required).It's performance is due to stiff competition that debuted not just at a cheaper price but also technically more powerful and a longer/stronger pedigree in the industry. I sell Video Games for a living so I also have first hand knowledge of game buying consensus. Just today I had a guy return an XB1 because he had not realized it is inoperable the first time booting up without connecting it to internet.....still. Its the real world ramification of their actions taking effect, not some petty spiteful protest.

Do you think that if Sony didn't make that comment about getting a Second Job the PS3 wouldn't have still struggled to sell at $600? That's what I'm saying, what they said didn't mean crap, it was the overall choices in price, timing, and tech constraints. Just like what they are saying now about crossplay doesn't mean crap. Not having crossplay doesn't harm those who have a PS4....just those who don't/won't. Think about which Sony cares about..... which SHOULD they be caring about? Like should Sony be really making decision based on people who can't/won't/don't own their devices unless it is in the vein to attract them? The paradox of this whole debate is the idea behind Sony allowing Crossplay is to ensure some gamers DON'T have to buy a PS4. LOL whut!?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why you should care about Console Manufacturers Business model

And some keep saying "Well I'm not an investor, I'm a Gamer and Gamers should want this." and i find the stance so child like. Its like you don't care about the practicality you are just having a tantrum on the grocery store floor because you want something. "I want candy! I want candy!", with no consideration for the fact your parents have finite funds to ensure you survive.

I like having everything I want too but not at the detriment of internal collapse. Every single gamer is indeed an investor when you buy a console. How well that console does is your "return". When they do well, your gaming health is doing well. Sony knows opening the Crossplay doors to their competitors is bad for future business and as an investor I back their sentiment.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As Far as me being a Fanboy.....

Sony's effectiveness in the last 4 console generations has allowed me to own one console every gen and pretty much never go without a gaming experience that I wanted. Zero need to buy multiple consoles. I can maybe count on one hand how many gaming experiences I felt I missed out on by not having the other consoles. Some might call that Fanboy Loyalty but It is actually a well thought out and well informed buying decision everytime. I am a frugal person in general. I COULD afford multiple consoles, but I have consolidated my buying practice so the need is unnecessary. If that makes me a fanboy than so be it.

Indeed.

And the illogic of the anti-consumer criers.

First and foremost i am gamer, a hobbyist. When i go to the super market, looking for some product low priced i am a mere consumer. But i'm not interested in mere convinience and as low as possible prices when it comes to games.

I support those who cater to my preferences. Im about 95% single player gamer. Triple A Single player games, pure traditional quality solo experiences. The type of games that have it quite hard these days. Why should i have a positive attitude towards something  that undoubtedly bolster the other type of games that have no problem thriving. Some trendy, cheesy Battleroyale game of all things. So some spoiled whale brats can conviniently play with their spoiled whale brat friends? The audacity of people.

Why would i want to support videogame companies with detrimental agendas, detrimental to my preferences and to quality of videogames as a whole.

Consume and support blindly, say yes to everything for the sake of fake superficial harmony, that is what  transpires from CrossPlay supporters here.

Ah, sorry if I seemed a bit heated. I didn't feel that way with you (although if you read my answer earlier to another person - that answer was kind of heated). Anyway, no worries!

You do notice, I am not talking about Cross Play.  I am talking about the practice of locking the account to the PS4 thus not allowing you to use the same account on a 3rd party game with another device.  That part of this whole issue is really the key, not Sony not wanting cross play.  Also, how is MS influencing other companies to support cross play.  I have no clue where you get that conclusion.  MS and Nintendo support cross play because it benefits them, no one is forcing Sony to do cross play.  If anything this probably was something developers have reached out to the different console makers more than any one console maker trying to force the others to comply.  Developers would love for cross play if all platforms supported it because it gives a much bigger player base for their games.  It can give more legs to games that do not sell well on different consoles.  Cross play in general is more for developers and gamers then it is for the console maker.  As a gamer why should I care about the companies politics especially money moves to force PS4 players to only use their console for a 3rd party game account you create.  I do not know about you but I have all the gaming systems.  If I want to play Fortnight on my phone, my switch, my PS4 or X1, why the hell would I want my account locked to the PS4 only.  Why should I care if this make sense for Sony to do because it keeps their market share somehow.  As soon as you start to think about a company protecting their marketshare more than you rights as a gamer is when you just become a tool of that company.

You can defend Sony not wanting cross play on their system but defending them on locking accounts to only their system is going on cult status.  I have purchase a Sony system since the PS1 and I will continue to purchase a system for as long as they have great games.  What I will not do is condom any practice Sony does because I purchase their console. This is a bad move no matter how you look at it as a gamer.  I guess if you are a fan of Sony you can look past this act but you only give them more leeway to do even more non consumer actions.  

So does this mean we can take the M$ money sign off of MS and put it on Sony brand P$.  Since a console is an investment as gamers we should support all money moves made by that corporation since it protects their product.  Maybe I am old and this new generation forget how MS was beat up on those types of practices in the past.  Hell, I believe even within this thread people brought up MS doing the same thing.  I guess when its your console of choice you forget why you play games only only tout the company line as you state blindly following whatever they do and defending it as if you work for them.

It still sounds like you're trying to rationalize the bad things Sony is doing and have done. They lost tremendous marketshare in the PS3 era, you can't just write that off as the economics of a $600 console. It wasn't just the price, it was the marketing behind the price, and the reality that the price wasn't worth it. The marketing was arrogant, simply pricing it at $600 at all when it wasn't really the better hardware for most games was arrogant, and flaunting the hardware like it was some godlike thing that was going to change gaming when most programmers didn't want to take the time to learn its intricacies, thus making for inferior 3rd party ports, just taking for granted that their hardware would make better games was arrogant, and it all led to a console that should have sold better than the Wii barely beating its competitor. It had inferior 3rd parties and a higher price for no reason, and fans that were upset were told to get another job. That harms the brand. Lots of people own multiple consoles because they disagree with you that there's nothing the other two have to offer, or PC and mobile for that matter, and Sony refusing not only to do cross platform play, but also locking 3rd party accounts to its platform, just serves to piss those people off. If you're a Sony-Nintendo gamer, and Sony locks your account to the Sony console, it would be completely rational to switch to be a PC-Nintendo or Xbox- Nintendo gamer. As someone who's been a Sony-Nintendo gamer since PS1, this bullshit is seriously making me consider switching to PC-Nintendo, because quite frankly, if you think you're not missing out by not having a good gaming PC, you're pretty objectively wrong. Maybe subjectively you feel there's not enough PC exclusive experiences to make it worth it, but objectively, there are a lot of them out there, and if you really can afford multiple consoles, you might actually like some of them if you weren't too busy trying to rationalize your PS4 purchase. Owning multiple platforms doesn't mean your favorite console isn't a good purchase. But whatever, you do you man, I'm just saying, endlessly rationalizing Sony's actions on a gaming forum doesn't help Sony, or you. Sony can't hear your praises, and you just burrow deeper into your bubble of thinking. If that bubble pops in some future generation, it'll be a rude awakening.

I said influencing, not forcing. MS has been pushing this through interviews and social media. Ybarra just recently stuck his nose into PS's business and made it clear that they aren't listening to their fans and gamers. Maybe Mike should pay more attention to his own companies problems and then maybe he wouldn't have to worry about what he perceives to be issue's for others.

Want to know what else would be better for devs and pubs? A lot of things. Maybe MS should tweet about how PS should take a smaller slice of the pie when it comes to third party game sale profits. Maybe MS should be doing a lot more to get PUBG on PS4 asap for the devs sake...

You should care about a companies policies, because the PR and profit they make due to those policies, will help to make or break the next gen system. The PR/profit balance needs to be maintained for the best chance at success next gen. PS is doing a pretty good job of that overall.

As for 'what people want', how about this for example. You have two couples. One couple are swingers, the other couple are mainly exclusive, but are open to 'new experiences' from time to time. Both these couples meet. The swingers like them, the exclusives not so much. The swingers offer to swing, but the exclusives pass. The swingers go on social media and explain how horrible the exclusives are and how they should open up more for the good of everyone else. Who do you side with? I side with the exclusives. It's their body/console, so it's their choice what to do with it. If you don't respect that, then that's just too bad, and also questions your logic/humanity.

If PS doesn't want to allow cross play or cross accounts, but allows free to play games, that's their choice. If MS wants to allow cross play and cross accounts, but holds free to play games hostage behind a $60 online paywall, that's their choice.

Things don't exist simply for your sake. They exist for the owners/makers sake. If your lucky enough to be able to participate, then consider that a gift, not a privilege.

It's you who is trying to rationalize this romanticized notion of Divine Market Justice. I have explained the plethora of ways and reasons more tactile real world situations effected the PS3's performance. There are so many there is no need to even attribute something as unprovable as Market punishment.

You forget, its only the hardcore of gamers who even keep up with what the game developers say on such topics because we are the core "investors". Most casuals are completely oblivious to these semantics. 

And like I stated, my buying purchases are meticulously calculated for my tastes. The day I see more JRPGs come to any other platform at the pace they come to playstation will be a day indeed. PC offers likely the most games by a country mile, but statistically it is mostly filled to the absolute brim with indie level shovelware the likes of which only the Wii has ever experienced. Quantity over Quality. The games that are of extreme quality on PC usually get ported to console....most of which I am still not that interested in. Consoles are the big leagues of gaming, PC is minor and honestly the most cost inefficient of the options.

PC isn't all shovelware crap though...

It's like saying Sony consoles are filled with shovelware crap when you add all the games on all Sony systems all at once.

There are also quality games to be found on PC, just as much as you can on a console, even genres that aren't fully supported by consoles as well. Some games do egt proted to consoles, but not every single one of them.

Also, no, PC isn't "minor" in gaming, not by a long shot. Also "cost inefficient" is entirely subjective, especially when you throw in the costs of paying to play online with those consoles and the extra price tag for physical/digital games on them.