@Dezzy never understood ea's reluctance to bringing the trilogy over. It would be an instant cash infusion with minimal effort especially if they outsourced it. They did bring up Burnout so I guess that's a sign their changing on that front. Would love to be able to play through the whole trilogy again on the ps4.
Sony says "maybe" for crossplay. I find it ridiculous. As if allowing crossplay is going to suddenly make 40 million people buy xboxes and make them lose the generation. They're way past the point of winning by now. Shame on them. tsk tsk
^It was certainly a weird position for them to have when a lot of the popluar games that offer crossplay were big hits on PC, and offering crossplay can be seen as a way to help foster the console community that inevitably sprung up afterwords. There are some competitive games that might suffer from the mouse vs controller bit, but...that's up to the devs to figure out. Gating it off completely just doesn't help Sony at all...
I think they said they were concerned that it was a security risk? I don't know enough about that stuff to comment further, so I'm just leaving that here.
@CanisWolfred All we have to go on is a former executive who said at the time of working there, it was a money thing. They just didn't want people having access to a Playstation product if they were on xbox. Makes sense for the PS3, when they were losing. Now it doesn't. I assume that's still the main reason, otherwise it just sorta makes them look incompetent at security, if that was the case
@MisterPi@CanisWolfred There are several reasons why they wouldn't do it (from a business perspective). It's not going to make them lose this generation, but it's part what made them be successful this generation. And it can make a difference going into next gen.
It's not beneficial to them in any way whatsoever. Since they're the market leader, they have little to worry about with 80 million units, and more active users than Xbox (probably even Switch and Xbox combined). Whereas it is beneficial for the smaller players. They get access to a much larger online playerbase. Same reason why Microsoft declined last gen when they were on top.
I think they also view their online playerbase as something they've cultivated over the years with PS+. To them, they're investing into PS+, trying to make that successful, and the result is a large playerbase. Why give that away for nothing? To them it's just another selling point of the PS4, just like their games are.
Plus there was this issue with needing Xbox Live for Minecraft.
Of course, this doesn't take public image into account. Then the question is, which one is more important? All three companies are a business in the end, so I can see the benefits of both sides. I mean, I think it sucks Nintendo is selling 5-year old Wii U games for more than what they were priced on the Wii U. But that's business I guess.
It's also like Pandora's box, once opened, you cannot go back. I think all three companies would've done the same in Sony's position. I don't think Microsoft really cares at the moment, since they're fine with switching everyone over to a digital, streaming-based GamePass feature. Preferably on PC, because they own Windows anyway. And Nintendo has the advantage of handheld gaming, so there will always be a market for that. Maybe they fear for their future position in the console market? I don't know. But I can understand if they wanted to cling on their exclusive playerbase for a while longer.
What's up with Fortnite, I don't know. But maybe people should also tag Epic into the conversation, because they've been awfully quiet too.
Anyway, TLDR, it's a double-edged sword for Sony, and I personally don't care enough about cross-play to make a huge fuss about it. If it allow it? Cool. If they don't. Too bad I guess, but it won't affect me.
It affects me in that I might not care that much, but going into next gen, I know xbox is going to be the best option if I ever do want to play with the most people. I imagine many feel that way. They're on their way to a repeat of the PS3. I hope they don't, but recently they've done nothing to show me they care about me as a customer. Great games, but even that won't save them if they show me they won't play ball.
Not that MS or Nintendo particularly care about -me-, but they know when it'll do more harm to them than good. At least for this case.
Me Yesterday -> "Man, I don't think I'll ever go back to Overwatch. I had fun, but I don't think I could ever get used to that intense pace again."
Announces that the next character is a Giant Hamster in a High-Mobility Wrecking-Ball-esque Mech today -> "Man, I can't wait to play Overwatch again! It's gonna be super fun zipping around and crashing full-force into enemies!"
This is interesting. The newest Tomb Raider does seem to be graphically worse than the previous one. I wonder what's going on there. I don't really care that much about this level of nitpicking but it is curious as to how that could happen:
Depends what they were aiming for I guess. If their intention was to make it look realistic, then I'd say it's worse. If they just wanted a slightly differently style, it just looks different.
Forums
Topic: The PlayStation Fan Thread
Posts 9,121 to 9,140 of 16,269
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic