Minecraft Switch Players Can Finally Play With Their PS4 Friends From Tomorrow

I guess this means even faster matchmaking when I play survival games!

Definitely seems like a riff on the commercial Nintendo and XBox did for their cross play to make fun of Sony for not allowing it, lol. Glad to see all three of the consoles are finally on-board!

The block reminds me of N64 logo.

And seriously, what a world we live in now to be able to cross plat play.... if you woulda told me this in the 90s I would have said you were blowing smoke and/or on something.

I have only ever played Minecraft solo. As a parent, the silence is MAGIC and the villagers don't talk back.

@GhostGeneration omg, that’s one of the big things no one warns you about as a parent... the cacophony of sounds you’ll plod through day in and out. I told the wife I’d PAY for hour blocks of silence. (Stay home dad here, with 4yr old and 1yr old daughters)

@Dm9982 Yep! Wow, you must be some kind of zen master, staying at home with TWO under the age of 5. (My daughter is 4 and our son is 2).

Hope in the future these 3 companies can make it easier for Indie devs (other 3rd parties too) to do crossplatform. Its a shame when a playerbase is really dead and has no one to play with so a wider range of players would help.

@GhostGeneration iPads and separate corners when things get chaotic. 🤣 Otherwise just having a couple hours a night playin a game (currently Pokemon) certainly helps the psyche. Bahahaha

Right on, gotta keep ourselves sane somehow!

This all explains why my parent's generation was told to play out in the yard lol

Well, better late than never, I suppose.

Although, there's fashionably late and then there's Sony's version of late, specifically concerning cross-play on more than a dozen of titles, if not more...

This makes me really happy.

took long enough to convince Sony

Minecraft: the game that may yet achieve world peace.

... Among gamers, at least.

I love the thumbnail for this video. The Switch guy looks totally chill/casual/rooftop party ready. The XBox gal looks intensely engaged in gameplay. The Playstation gal looks like she's in a stress-induced trance, numbed by popping Xanax like candy.

I still can't believe they discontinued the Nintendo themed version.

@KingBowser86 Yup, I remember being told to go out and ride my bike now I know why

Once Activision wanted to do Call of Duty: Modern Warfare cross platform, SONY would cave. What Microsoft wanted from day 1

With 1 move they erased SONY's PS+ base advantage and put Nintendo on the defensive (if all the big shooters/racing/sports games not on Switch go CrossPlay) right before Next Gen starts

You know the next advert will be how you can play them on Microsoft Project Xcloud.

about dang time Sony got their act together

@Agramonte It breaks Sony's protectionism of it's customer base, sure, but I don't see how it erased any PS+ benefit for PS owners or put Nintendo, already having supported cross play with MS on the defensive. Sony was the only one with something to lose here, but it was an arbitrary limitation based on being the leater.

And sure, you can play on XCloud....or whatever Sony's new streaming service is going to be called (though they do pay MS to host it... )

Now if only they’ll allow Crossplay for Games like Overwatch and BFV

Yes it's nice that Sony is allowing crossplay but the fact it took them so long when Microsoft and Nintendo had no issues is pathetic

@Dm9982 my son has been singing all day every day for a week, practicing for his school play, and earlier I had to actually say ‘son, please just stop, just for a little bit!’ 😂 ❤️

@SquareOneMJ Bose Qc35, pricey, worth every penny. Great noise canceling. 😂

@NEStalgia What is Sony paying MS for in terms of streaming? They already have a streaming service that was out long before XCloud and such. Did I miss something?

Title of the post implies PS4 owners have friends. Given how toxic Sonys fanbase is on social media, I find that difficult to believe.

@NEStalgia When any of my Fam want to play online they go PS right now. Simply because All of us are locked in PS+... so if they wanted to play me on F12019/Madden this Sunday or join our Division 2 squads - that is what they need to buy. 9-10 times that beats them wanting to play Forza. Just like I could have played MH: World 10X better and for FREE on PC. But still got it on PS4 and where I thought most fans would be.

As for the Switch - it will be the same as all the press with Call of Duty (the biggest and best selling game with crossplay of the holidays) They mention PS4 and X1 - and how not even available on Switch. Same as the Destiny 2 and BorderLands 3 rumors - It is basically the reverse from what was happening before.

Yep, everything is streaming on their stuff... so not like SONY can claim theirs is "better" - they took that off the table also. Microsoft is ruthless man 😅

Here is the thing. On my way to Boston - TERA on Xcloud over my TMobile LTE worked better than WarFrame over the GoBus Wi-Fi on the Switch.

@Agramonte It certainly dents Sonys protectionism, but I still don't see it hurting switch so long as it's the only portable option to join in.

@Rafie Now/Gaikai was/is run by Google..... Which is kind of last choice in terms of big data hosting. Sony has a new/upcoming streaming service more like XCloud that presumably will replace Now and is hosted by Microsoft. (The other choice is Amazon, but I don't think any gaming companies want to help them get a handle on game streaming.., once they do, they'll make a monopoly play and use game retail sales as hostages.

@NEStalgia This on Switch with PS4 crossplay 😍

https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2019/12/mlb_the_show_is_no_longer_a_playstation_exclusive

@Dm9982 ha ha, good man!

@Agramonte Wow that's an incredible surprise. I'm sure their hand was forced by MLB in the form of "either get this on more platforms or we're giving the contract to EA, choose one", but it's still surreal to see Sony bringing a first party title outside Playstation or PC for what might be the first time ever. I'd like to say it's the Phil Spencer effect moving through the industry, but it's probably just MLB threatening to take the license

@NEStalgia More likely they asked for so much money it is the only way to make it financially viable.

2K needs to find 157 Million a year just for the NBA and Players Association Licensing. I can only imagine what FIFA cost.

Either way, rather SONY expand by making a full Switch game and not go making Mobile games like MarioKart Tour

@Agramonte It's kind of funny. After years of "Nintendo should just go thrid party and put their games on PS4", and long after Sony tried to grab the royalties on Mario with the Nintendo Play Station, it's Sony becoming a third party vendor of games on Nintendo consoles....

@NEStalgia I don't think it's MLB threatening Sony. These giants are business conglomerates. MLB is owned by the MLB. They want their franchise to expand. I'm sure the business side of it was fruitful enough for Sony to still have their hand in a piece of the revenue that the other platforms will have. Seeing as Sony San Diego develops for the game. I'm sure they (SIE San Diego) will develop for the Xbox. The Switch is a different tho. We'll see if they will develop for Switch as well. Exciting news either way.

@Rafie I can't imagine Sony willingly volunteering to take one of their big name high attraction first party exclusives to other platforms. Exclusivity of the only licensed MLB game was a big differentiator for Playstation to push the platform. So if they did so it's very unlikely it was done without being pushed to by MLB, or as @Agramonte said, the licensing fee was so high it was the only way to make a return on it. Even then I can't imagine they'd not have taken a loss on a game to retain exclusivity of such a big title if they were given the choice.

You're right though I can't imagine SIE will develop the Switch version in-house. Not unless they were looking into the architecture to resurrect PSP in a similar way, but they've really tried to distance themselves from the portable market.

@NEStalgia You've missed what I said. I said it was a business deal that the MLB presented to Sony because THEY (MLB) owns the license, not Sony. All of that 1st party jazz don't mean anything when the franchise isn't officially yours to begin with. Sony still will make money off of the franchise going forward to other platforms. That's why their name and studios are still on it. The licensing fee could be high, but we're not sure if that's the main reason. It's a plausible one though. I just feel like the MLB wants money from the others as well. Not to mention some fans wanting the game on their system of choice. While Sony still has their deal renewed with the MLB whilst getting a bit of revenue from the others....this satisfies all parties.

While Sony developers are great ones, they may have to get in touch with those who are much experienced with the Switch to make it just as great as the other 2 moving forward.

@Rafie That's more or less what I originally said in terms of MLB being the ones pushing/threatening them to do it.

The 1st party issue does involve Sony heavily. There's a reason they have wanted the game and retained it exclusively all this time. They most certainly would not want it to be multi-platform if they were given a choice (by MLB.) Sony's retaining the game for now, but I imagine by the next license renewal they will think hard if it's really worth it to them to be in the business of developing multiplat games. It doesn't fit their business model to date.

They no doubt, however, retained a lot of leeway to add exclusivity of content, DLC, etc on their own platform. Perhaps enough to make the other platforms "much worse versions." I really can't see Sony approving the deal if it didn't benefit their platform growth still.

@NEStalgia Again..I don't think they were threatened. The use of that word changes things. Now if Sony didn't come to an agreement, then yes I can see how things would have gotten threatening.

I still think you're missing what I'm saying here, but now on a different point. Let me explain. What I meant by the first party bit is that the MLB controls the narrative with their own franchise. It's theirs. Not that it being first party to Sony didn't matter. However, Sony doesn't have complete control over the "The Show" series because they themselves don't own the franchise it's tied to.

Now you're right about Sony not being the ones approached about this. MLB did it. Like I said before, it was them that wanted to maximize their franchise on all markets. However, they still had a deal with Sony in place. So renegotiating the contracts to include other platforms while Sony still has a hand in receiving some of the revenue was probably a deal Sony couldn't refuse. It certainly wasn't out of the kindness of their hearts. Then again, all 3 companies do this. It seems like Sony gets more of the bad rep about it when everyone does it. Meaning make deals that make sense to the company that is.

I doubt there will be exclusive content if it's not a PlayStation Plus jersey or anything of that nature. Also I'm confident that the MLB will want parity across the platforms to avoid backlash. The Switch will be the weakest graphically and resolution wise, but still should perform almost on par with what the console hardware could do.

Btw I agree with what you said earlier about Sony not having a choice here. That really goes back to what I was saying about the franchise not really being Sony's to begin with. If Sony had complete control over all of the teams on the game, we wouldn't be seeing a multiplat "The Show" game.

@Rafie To a point we're saying the same thing. "Threatening them" with "we won't renew your license unless you accept these terms, and will give it to someone else" is threatening in business terms.

As for The Show, Sony does have complete control over The Show. The "The Show" brand is theirs alone. They of course need to follow the licensing terms of MLB itself (game rules, venue likenesses, player likenesses, names, uniform specifications, team logo design guidelines, etc. etc. They pay for the license and are checked for compliance to the branding terms. But no other company can make "The Show" just like no other company can make "SW: Battlefront" but EA - someone else could get the SW license in the future, but they can't make Battlefront. That's an EA property, just as The Show is a Playstation property.

So all MLB could do is say "The terms of the license will include multiple platform support. Period. Otherwise you don't get to license MLB."

But otherwise we're in agreement. This was certainly MLB forcing the issue against Sony's protests, no doubt. AKA, threatened with non-renewal.

As for exclusive content, hard to say. Sony's not exactly inept at negotiations, nor are they famous for being very open and clear about the darker loopholes in their verbiage. I'd say Sony has a lot more power at the negotiating table, and a lot more skill than MLB given the bredth of global scope of their company, and that their core business is really financial services and insurance underwriting. They've got GOOD lawyers and negotiators. MLB's not exactly small, but they're a US domestic sports organization, not a global electronics/film making/insurance/financial institution. Never put it past Sony to sneak in a "we can do unique content in a way that undercuts everyone else" clause buried will in obscured wording

@NEStalgia Sorry I had to go to work. That's why I didn't respond right away. Anyway I do have more to say, but I don't want to seem combative and argumentative...so I'll end it here on this particular subject. I will say this though. Yes the name "The Show" concerning the video game is tied to Sony, but Sony doesn't completely control the game because of the licensing franchise intertwined with it. Essentially like we've both been saying.

Again, I don't think it even went far as the MLB having to threaten Sony with going elsewhere. They've reached a deal before that happened. Still, I know what you meant. Anyway...good chat man.