The Cross-Play Thread

[XtremelyBaneful]

yeah, Tron. you are saying what I've been trying to say.

I'm not sure if "cancel" is the right word to use, since an X1 port of SFV most likely wasn't in development. And I've never said that Sony caused the X1 version to be cancelled.

then why is it even relevant? if sony is funding the game, why is it unfair to have it be a console exclusive?

however, even so, MS was most certainly denied the chance to ever get SFV on their console once Sony stepped in to fund the game. and that's what I've been trying to say. Sony took away the opportunity for MS to get the game by funding the game with Capcom.

Sony certainly didn't offer to fund and develop the game for free. the price Capcom had to pay was that they agreed to release the console version of SFV only on the PS4.

this is so nonsensical. like I said, since this was a project that sony was involved in, an xbone port was never in the picture. sony didn't deny anyone anything, what they did was make sf5 a reality at this point of the generation.

making the game a console exclusive for Ps4 makes sense if sony is pouring their own money into the development of the game. this is just business and it is fair. rotr wasn't.

trust me x I understand what you're saying. I think what it is is that you're talking about in theory and i'm talking about in practice. as in, you're saying, if sony didn't come in the picture now, then later on down the road if capcom figure their stuff out then sf5 would've been multiplatform etc.

whereas i'm telling it like it is with the facts whereby not thinking about what could've and happened and what actually did happen and it is not remotely the same as rotr

 

[X Knight]

let me try to use this analogy.

Let's say Coke is coming out with a new line of soda.

Let's say Walmart gets word of this and approaches Coke. Walmart says to Coke that we will help you fund and market the new soda in exchange for selling this new soda exclusively at Walmart.

Coke and Walmart agree and form a partnership. The new soda is made and is sold exclusively at Walmart stores.

Walmart absolutely denied other retailers something. Normally, Coke products are sold at various retailers. But, by acquiring exclusive rights to this new soda, Walmart denied other retailers the chance or opportunity to sell this new soda. It is a loss of opportunity and profit for other stores since they will miss out on selling this potentially hot new soda product. Walmart absolutely took that away from its competitors by striking this deal with Coke.

Normally, Coke products are "multiplat." But this new soda is only sold through Walmart.

From Walmart's perspective, it's good because they have an exclusive item to sell. That's smart business practice on their part.

From their competitor's perspective, it's bad because they are not allowed to sell this new soda and thus miss out on sales. So they are absolutely being denied something - opportunity and profit. It's a loss for them.

And from a consumer's choice perspective, they are denied something too. they are denied the choice to buy this new soda from whatever store they want, as they normally would with Coke products. They've lost that choice because they are forced to buy this soda from Walmart.

It doesn't matter that this new soda wouldn't have existed without Walmart's funding. That has nothing to do with it.

This is a "proactive" move on the part of Walmart to make sure their competitors don't get access to this new soda.

Same with Sony. They saw the opportunity with Capcom and took it and did so to acquire a console exclusive game with SFV. And by doing so, they made sure MS would never see this game on their console.

it's a "proactive" denial or prevention so to speak.

Just like if you are starting a company, you register you company's name, file for trademarks, acquire a web domain name, etc.

You take all those proactive moves to make sure other companies can't use your name, product, website, etc. for themselves.

Or, put another way, here on the Hype, when we choose our Hype names, we are claiming that name for ourselves and thus denying other posters the chance to use that name.

the names didn't exist until we created them. but once we created them and claimed them, we ensure other posters can't claim that name. we prevent others from using that name.

no other poster can use the name X Knight. just like no other poster can use the name XtremelyBaneful.

same with our PSN and Xbox Live names. when we create and claim our user names, we are preventing and denying others from using those names.

 

[Iceman]

The SFV thing wasn't really motivated by sales. The PS3 and 360 versions of the game sold about the same. It was motivated by Capcom's financial situation. They're basically at a point now where they have to focus at one major project at a time, so they had to make a choice: Either partner with one of the platform holders and release the game now, or wait until after RE7 is done and then start on the game, which would have meant the game wouldn't have released into way later, like 2018 or something.

So would this mean that SFVI could be up for grabs or might just be made for both if the timing is right and Capcom don't have another project at the same time?

 

[BattleCat]

He can play with the best (me) if it goes through. Ain't nothing more important than that!

Daigo? I didn't know you were on the hype.

 

[Iceman]

Daigo? I didn't know you were on the hype.

That is one of my names yes. I have multiple champion aliases but out of modesty and generosity prefer to keep them quiet when given the opportunity of anonymity on a forum, so I don't get treated differently from the average pleb poster/commoner. Let the little man have a voice too!

 

[X Knight]

So would this mean that SFVI could be up for grabs or might just be made for both if the timing is right and Capcom don't have another project at the same time?

wonder if Sony will try to make a play for VI and keep the SF franchise PS exclusive.

 

[Iceman]

wonder if Sony will try to make a play for VI and keep the SF franchise PS exclusive.

I hope not, but it is a huge franchise to have as an exclusive so I wouldn't blame them for trying. If it's on pc though I'll still be happy.

 

[X Knight]

I hope not, but it is a huge franchise to have as an exclusive so I wouldn't blame them for trying. If it's on pc though I'll still be happy.

I hope not, too. SF is too big of a franchise to remain console exclusive. if I own another Xbox console in the future, I'd want to be able to play SF on it.

though it would be a huge get if Sony did pull it off.

 

[Iceman]

Ideal for me would crossplay taking off, even if it takes years/generations and rather than the populations of people playing these games being restricted, being enhanced by anyone who plays a particular game being able to play against anyone else. Might be interesting to see if there is any trend as to who does better at certain types of games out of PS players and XBox. I wouldn't be surprised to see PS players better at beat'em ups and Xbox guys better at shooters.

 

[X Knight]

Ideal for me would crossplay taking off, even if it takes years/generations and rather than the populations of people playing these games being restricted, being enhanced by anyone who plays a particular game being able to play against anyone else. Might be interesting to see if there is any trend as to who does better at certain types of games out of PS players and XBox. I wouldn't be surprised to see PS players better at beat'em ups and Xbox guys better at shooters.

I'm sure that would be the case.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

let me try to use this analogy.

Let's say Coke is coming out with a new line of soda.

Let's say Walmart gets word of this and approaches Coke. Walmart says to Coke that we will help you fund and market the new soda in exchange for selling this new soda exclusively at Walmart.

Coke and Walmart agree and form a partnership. The new soda is made and is sold exclusively at Walmart stores.

Walmart absolutely denied other retailers something. Normally, Coke products are sold at various retailers. But, by acquiring exclusive rights to this new soda, Walmart denied other retailers the chance or opportunity to sell this new soda. It is a loss of opportunity and profit for other stores since they will miss out on selling this potentially hot new soda product. Walmart absolutely took that away from its competitors by striking this deal with Coke.

Normally, Coke products are "multiplat." But this new soda is only sold through Walmart.

From Walmart's perspective, it's good because they have an exclusive item to sell. That's smart business practice on their part.

From their competitor's perspective, it's bad because they are not allowed to sell this new soda and thus miss out on sales. So they are absolutely being denied something - opportunity and profit. It's a loss for them.

And from a consumer's choice perspective, they are denied something too. they are denied the choice to buy this new soda from whatever store they want, as they normally would with Coke products. They've lost that choice because they are forced to buy this soda from Walmart.

It doesn't matter that this new soda wouldn't have existed without Walmart's funding. That has nothing to do with it.

This is a "proactive" move on the part of Walmart to make sure their competitors don't get access to this new soda.

Same with Sony. They saw the opportunity with Capcom and took it and did so to acquire a console exclusive game with SFV. And by doing so, they made sure MS would never see this game on their console.

it's a "proactive" denial or prevention so to speak.

Just like if you are starting a company, you register you company's name, file for trademarks, acquire a web domain name, etc.

You take all those proactive moves to make sure other companies can't use your name, product, website, etc. for themselves.

Or, put another way, here on the Hype, when we choose our Hype names, we are claiming that name for ourselves and thus denying other posters the chance to use that name.

the names didn't exist until we created them. but once we created them and claimed them, we ensure other posters can't claim that name. we prevent others from using that name.

no other poster can use the name X Knight. just like no other poster can use the name XtremelyBaneful.

same with our PSN and Xbox Live names. when we create and claim our user names, we are preventing and denying others from using those names.

per your analogy, the new coke soda would only make sense if it translates to a new IP in the gaming industry. but that's not what you're talking about.

x, I get what you're saying but I don't agree with you. I think you're wrong. you're talking about in theory and i'm talking about in practice.

in theory, if sony didn't offer to fund sf5 then later on if capcom got their ish together and released it and it would've been multiplat. or in another theory, mS jumped to the opportunity to help capcom financially and they were the ones who made sf5 console exclusive. or if this, or if that, or this, or that.

in reality, capcom was in a bad financial position and sony decided to step in for their own gain. they allowed street fighter 5 to be a reality in 2016 and as business goes, made it a console exclusive to the platform that they push.

your sentiment of "denying xbone users" the game isn't relevant here. it wasn't moneyhatting. in this reality, it was either sony helped fund the game and had it exist at this time, or they didn't, and we wouldn't have street fighter 5. sony didn't deny anyone anything. so the only relevant question you should ask yourself is: would you rather street fighter 5 didn't exist at all, or exist and be exclusive to one console platform?

now, you can keep going and thinking what you want but i'm convinced you don't have the right mindset about this. which is fine, you have the right to think what you want, it's not gonna change anything between us, so if you concur here we can just agree to disagree.

 

[X Knight]

per your analogy, the new coke soda would only make sense if it translates to a new IP in the gaming industry. but that's not what you're talking about.

x, I get what you're saying but I don't agree with you. I think you're wrong. you're talking about in theory and i'm talking about in practice.

in theory, if sony didn't offer to fund sf5 then later on if capcom got their ish together and released it and it would've been multiplat. or in another theory, mS jumped to the opportunity to help capcom financially and they were the ones who made sf5 console exclusive. or if this, or if that, or this, or that.

in reality, capcom was in a bad financial position and sony decided to step in for their own gain. they allowed street fighter 5 to be a reality in 2016 and as business goes, made it a console exclusive to the platform that they push.

your sentiment of "denying xbone users" the game isn't relevant here. it wasn't moneyhatting. in this reality, it was either sony helped fund the game and had it exist at this time, or they didn't, and we wouldn't have street fighter 5. sony didn't deny anyone anything. so the only relevant question you should ask yourself is: would you rather street fighter 5 didn't exist at all, or exist and be exclusive to one console platform?

now, you can keep going and thinking what you want but i'm convinced you don't have the right mindset about this. which is fine, you have the right to think what you want, it's not gonna change anything between us, so if you concur here we can just agree to disagree.

well, XB. we'll just have to agree to disagree. we obviously have different perspectives on this. I do get what you are saying, but I just disagree and see it differently.

so yes, let's call a truce on this - otherwise we'll just be going around and around in circles.

as for your question on whether I'd want SFV to not exist at all or exist and be exclusive to one platform...........

I'm not sure.......lol.

Let's just say, in its current state, with how it seemed rushed out to meet the tournament scene, I would rather have had them wait another year and release a more complete game, perhaps as a multiplat title. but even as an exclusive title, I would have been fine waiting a bit longer for a more complete package.

so, to rephrase your question a bit, I'd rather the game not exist at all rather than be released as bare bones as it was.

does that make sense?

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

well, XB. we'll just have to agree to disagree. we obviously have different perspectives on this. I do get what you are saying, but I just disagree and see it differently.

so yes, let's call a truce on this - otherwise we'll just be going around and around in circles.

as for your question on whether I'd want SFV to not exist at all or exist and be exclusive to one platform...........

I'm not sure.......lol.

Let's just say, in its current state, with how it seemed rushed out to meet the tournament scene, I would rather have had them wait another year and release a more complete game, perhaps as a multiplat title. but even as an exclusive title, I would have been fine waiting a bit longer for a more complete package.

so, to rephrase your question a bit, I'd rather the game not exist at all rather than be released as bare bones as it was.

does that make sense?

yeah, the product that is street fighter 5 in and of itself is a different discussion and one that i went on record saying i agree with you on in its thread. but seeing as how that went down, we might as well not keep going down that road either, lol.

peace and truce

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/03/14/idxbox-introduces-cross-network-play-for-the-first-time

I thought that article warranted a bump in this thread

oh snap, i didn't see this bump. i'll ask a mod to merge the threads

 

[X Knight]

yeah, the product that is street fighter 5 in and of itself is a different discussion and one that i went on record saying i agree with you on in its thread. but seeing as how that went down, we might as well not keep going down that road either, lol.

peace and truce

 

[Iceman]

Nintendo could benefit here as well as pc by getting a bigger population for certain types of games. Although I'd be worried about hackers from pc infiltrating the currently more closed off console multiplayer systems.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

"We were prodding everyone all the time," Jeremy Dunham, the studio's vice president, told Mashable.

"Today is the first day that anyone outside of Psyonix and Microsoft is aware of this," he said. "So obviously Sony is still getting as much information as they can and understanding the situation before they can really talk about it."

Dunham — and the rest of Psyonix — remains optimistic. He spoke glowingly of how Sony's always been a "good partner." There are just questions that need to be answered.

"The main process is now we have to talk about it," Dunham said.

"We have to discuss what [cross-platform play] means, what the implications are for PlayStation Network users and what the implications are in terms of the existing security protocols. Very similar to what happened with Microsoft and our long discussions with them."

Now, those discussions need to happen all over again, with Sony.

"We understand that Sony's got to evaluate everything that this means for them," Dunham said. "This is the first time in history that this is even a legitimate possibility for anybody. So we understand that it's going to take some discussion, but we're also really optimistic."

http://mashable.com/2016/03/14/rock...w/?utm_cid=mash-com-Tw-main-link#LC7mQtAviOqa