The Cross-Play Thread

[Havok83]

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

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

well, one can always remain optimistic............

it's not optimistic, it is unrealistic. why do you care though? are you planning on buying an xbone again? don't you already have the game on Ps4/PC?

 

[Iceman]

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

 

[X Knight]

it's not optimistic, it is unrealistic. why do you care though? are you planning on buying an xbone again? don't you already have the game on Ps4/PC?

well, I was being sarcastic.

and no, I'm not planning on buying an X1 again. and yes, I already have the game for PS4.

however, I'm just not a fan of taking traditionally multiplat games and making them console exclusives, timed or otherwise.

feel the same way about Rise of Tomb Raider.

 

[X Knight]

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

of course.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

well, I was being sarcastic.

and no, I'm not planning on buying an X1 again. and yes, I already have the game for PS4.

however, I'm just not a fan of taking traditionally multiplat games and making them console exclusives, timed or otherwise.

feel the same way about Rise of Tomb Raider.

rotr was a completely different case, I told you this before x. sf5 is console exclusive because capcom needed funding for the game to happen. rotr was gonna come to Ps4, mS moneyhatted square to not let it go there for a year.

 

[X Knight]

rotr was a completely different case, I told you this before x. sf5 is console exclusive because capcom needed funding for the game to happen. rotr was gonna come to Ps4, mS moneyhatted square to not let it go there for a year.

they may be different cases with different reasons for going exclusive ( timed or otherwise ).

but they were both multiplat games that went exclusive. and I don't really like that.

that's what I am saying.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

they may be different cases with different reasons for going exclusive ( timed or otherwise ).

but they were both multiplat games that went exclusive. and I don't really like that.

that's what I am saying.

if that's what you're saying i can tell you a lot of the times there are games that were once multiplatform that went exclusive, just purely because of sales.

persona used to always be a playstation exclusive. persona 4 arena was released on 360 and apparently it flopped really hard so it went back to being exclusive.

digimon games a lot of the time were on nintendo platforms but a lot of the latest installments are playstation exclusive, which makes sense because most of the hardcore nintendo fans are probably more into playstatiob.

and street fighter 5, although a lot of people on xbox played it i'm pretty sure most of its sales last gen were also on Ps3 anyway.

it's just business.

 

[X Knight]

if that's what you're saying i can tell you a lot of the times there are games that were once multiplatform that went exclusive, just purely because of sales.

persona used to always be a playstation exclusive. persona 4 arena was released on 360 and apparently it flopped really hard so it went back to being exclusive.

digimon games a lot of the time were on nintendo platforms but a lot of the latest installments are playstation exclusive, which makes sense because most of the hardcore nintendo fans are probably more into playstatiob.

and street fighter 5, although a lot of people on xbox played it i'm pretty sure most of its sales last gen were also on Ps3 anyway.

it's just business.

if it's because of sales, then I can understand that decision.

but if it's because one platform company throws money at the publisher to prevent it from going to other platforms, that's what I don't like.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

if it's because of sales, then I can understand that decision.

but if it's because one platform company throws money at the publisher to prevent it from going to other platforms, that's what I don't like.

then we're back to square one because this only happened with rotr.

 

[X Knight]

then we're back to square one because this only happened with rotr.

well, I feel that Sony offering to fund SF V is essentially them paying for console exclusivity and preventing it from going to other platforms.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

well, I feel that Sony offering to fund SF V is essentially them paying for console exclusivity and preventing it from going to other platforms.

it was either that or the game may not have even been made. sony was putting their own money into development, while mS was putting money into not letting Ps4 owners play the game for a year. sony didn't pay to prevent it from going to other platforms. they paid to have the game created and as a result, the game was a console exclusive. why would they put money into creating an xbone port?

 

[X Knight]

it was either that or the game may not have even been made. sony was putting their own money into development, while mS was putting money into not letting Ps4 owners play the game for a year. sony didn't pay to prevent it from going to other platforms. they paid to have the game created and as a result, the game was a console exclusive. why would they put money into creating an xbone port?

by funding the game's development, Sony is essentially guaranteeing that it won't come to the X1. so, indirectly, they are preventing it from going to another console.

Sony didn't have to fund the game - it's not a 1st party title after all. but by doing so, they made the calculated move that they would gain a console exclusive.

it's not the same tactic as what MS did with TR, but it's another way of gaining an exclusive title. MS directly paid to keep it off of the PS4 for a year, while Sony indirectly paid to keep it off other consoles by actually funding the game.

from an exclusivity point of view, Sony got the better deal. You are forced to have a PS4 if you want to play SFV on a console. MS should have paid for full exclusivity for TR.

however, from a consumer point of view, MS's TR is slightly better because it's only for a year, whereas Sony's SFV deal is worst because SFV won't be going to the X1.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

by funding the game's development, Sony is essentially guaranteeing that it won't come to the X1. so, indirectly, they are preventing it from going to another console.

so what? would you rather the game not be made at all instead of being a playstation console exclusive?

Sony didn't have to fund the game - it's not a 1st party title after all. but by doing so, they made the calculated move that they would gain a console exclusive.

and they deserve it since they did fund it. so it's fair.

it's not the same tactic as what MS did with TR, but it's another way of gaining an exclusive title. MS directly paid to keep it off of the PS4 for a year, while Sony indirectly paid to keep it off other consoles by actually funding the game.

sony paid to have the game made. capcom wasn't in a great financial state so there might not have even been a sf5 for a while had it not been for sony. and since they're funding development, they are in the right for making it a console exclusive. it's their money. what sense would there be in them funding an xbone port?

from an exclusivity point of view, Sony got the better deal. You are forced to have a PS4 if you want to play SFV on a console. MS should have paid for full exclusivity for TR.

a better deal in terms of what, exactly? what they want is good reception and more importantly sales, and rotr was near-critically acclaimed while sf5 is constantly trash talked, and both sold lower than expected.

however, from a consumer point of view, MS's TR is slightly better because it's only for a year, whereas Sony's SFV deal is worst because SFV won't be going to the X1.

which consumers are we talking about here? Ps4 owners? xbone owners? console owners? if one doesn't own the other they can purchase the other one if they really wanted to. rotr was always going to be on Ps4 but it mS paid to have it not be there for a year because they wanted their own uncharted.

 

[X Knight]

I'm talking about consumers in general.

anything that takes away or limits consumer choice, I don't like.

and I never said anything about Sony funding an X1 port of SFV - that wouldn't make any sense at all.

of course, as a PS4 owner, I'm glad we got SFV. However, given the bare bones state it was released in, my enthusiasm about has dropped significantly and so I'm not exactly pleased with how it turned out. But that's probably more on Capcom than on Sony.

anyways, it looks like we see the issue differently, so we'll just have to agree to disagree ( even though I don't really disagree with what you are saying ).

otherwise, we'll just be going around and around in this circle and hopelessly derail the thread........lol.

 

[Tron Bonne]

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.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

I'm talking about consumers in general.

anything that takes away or limits consumer choice, I don't like.

exclusives are a touchstone of the video game industry. it's what gives platforms their distinction and definition. if you don't like that they exist, then you should reevaluate what it means to you to be a gamer.

and I never said anything about Sony funding an X1 port of SFV - that wouldn't make any sense at all.

then what was your point this entire time? you were basically saying sony denied xbone owners the ability to play the game on their platform when really sony brought to light the possibility of getting sf5 into gamers' hands at all.

of course, as a PS4 owner, I'm glad we got SFV. However, given the bare bones state it was released in, my enthusiasm about has dropped significantly and so I'm not exactly pleased with how it turned out. But that's probably more on Capcom than on Sony.

anyways, it looks like we see the issue differently, so we'll just have to agree to disagree ( even though I don't really disagree with what you are saying ).

otherwise, we'll just be going around and around in this circle and hopelessly derail the thread........lol.

the state of sf5 as a product is a different subject, but I agree with you there.

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.

yeah I wasn't really saying it was about sales but I think sf5 did sell lower than they wanted it to.

 

[Havok83]

Sony did more than just fund SFV. They co-developed it with Capcom. People seem to forget that. Its not going to X1 unless Capcom were to redo it from the ground up (in which case they might as well add enough significant tweaks and call it SF6) or Sony were to somehow allow it. Both scenarios seem extremely unlikely

 

[X Knight]

exclusives are a touchstone of the video game industry. it's what gives platforms their distinction and definition. if you don't like that they exist, then you should reevaluate what it means to you to be a gamer.

then what was your point this entire time? you were basically saying sony denied xbone owners the ability to play the game on their platform when really sony brought to light the possibility of getting sf5 into gamers' hands at all.


the state of sf5 as a product is a different subject, but I agree with you there.
yeah I wasn't really saying it was about sales but I think sf5 did sell lower than they wanted it to.

well XB, I'll try to explain my reasoning again, because I don't really know how else to explain.

I don't have a problem with exclusives. I do have a bit of a problem when a traditionally multiplat game suddenly goes exclusive. Whether it's MS paying for a year exclusivity for TR or Sony gaining full console exclusivity for SFV by funding it and helping to develop it.

Yes, they are different scenarios and different types of exclusivity deals, but both are multiplat games that went exclusive. And I don't really like that in either case. I would have preferred both games to be multiplat releases.

That's all I'm trying to say.

And yes, Sony did deny MS from getting SFV by the very nature of them deciding to fund and help develop the game. And that's been my point. In their own way, Sony paid for console exclusivity by funding and co creating the game. They basically told Capcom "We'll come in and fund the game and help it get made in exchange for console exclusivity." That was part of the deal, I'm sure.

I never said Sony should fund an X1 port of SFV - that was never my point.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

well XB, I'll try to explain my reasoning again, because I don't really know how else to explain.

I don't have a problem with exclusives. I do have a bit of a problem when a traditionally multiplat game suddenly goes exclusive. Whether it's MS paying for a year exclusivity for TR or Sony gaining full console exclusivity for SFV by funding it and helping to develop it.

Yes, they are different scenarios and different types of exclusivity deals, but both are multiplat games that went exclusive. And I don't really like that in either case. I would have preferred both games to be multiplat releases.

That's all I'm trying to say.

And yes, Sony did deny MS from getting SFV by the very nature of them deciding to fund and help develop the game. And that's been my point. In their own way, Sony paid for console exclusivity by funding and co creating the game. They basically told Capcom "We'll come in and fund the game and help it get made in exchange for console exclusivity." That was part of the deal, I'm sure.

I never said Sony should fund an X1 port of SFV - that was never my point.

I understood what you said the entire time and the bold is where you do not make sense. Sony didn't deny mS anything, because mS never had the opportunity of getting sf5 in the first place. What Sony did was help make the next street fighter game come to fruition. There might not have been a street fighter 5 this soon if it weren't for sony. so that's where your sentiment of "multiplatform game going exclusive" falls apart.

 

[Tron Bonne]

I understood what you said the entire time and the bold is where you do not make sense. Sony didn't deny mS anything, because mS never had the opportunity of getting sf5 in the first place. What Sony did was help make the next street fighter game come to fruition. There might not have been a street fighter 5 this soon if it weren't for sony. so that's where your sentiment of "multiplatform game going exclusive" falls apart.

That's a debatable thing to say. Considering how well the 360 sold, and the 360 versions of IV were the ones that were featured at tournaments, I see no reason to believe their wouldn't be a Xbone port of SFV had this situation with Sony not arisen. Sony may not have directly taken a contract away from MS exactly, but indirectly they most likely did.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

That's a debatable thing to say. Considering how well the 360 sold, and the 360 versions of IV were the ones that were featured at tournaments, I see no reason to believe their wouldn't be a Xbone port of SFV had this situation with Sony not arisen. Sony may not have directly taken a contract away from MS exactly, but indirectly they most likely did.

i don't think street fighter 5 was in development before sony got in the picture. there's no way to verify otherwise.

street fighter 5 is the same thing that's been going on with the ffs7 remake and kojima's new IP. all these games are console exclusives because sony is funding them, but doesn't own them

 

[Tron Bonne]

i don't think street fighter 5 was in development before sony got in the picture. there's no way to verify otherwise.

street fighter 5 is the same thing that's been going on with the ffs7 remake and kojima's new IP. all these games are console exclusives because sony is funding them, but doesn't own them

You're missing the point. No one is disputing that SFV wasn't in development in Xbone first, it most likely wasn't. But had Sony not got involved and SFV had come out later, there's also no reason to expect that a Xbone version wouldn't be produced. We can't know for sure, of course, but looking at how IV performed on 360 and how it was the preferred version of the tournament circuit there's nothing pointing to it being a potential exclusive. So, yeah, again, Sony may not have directly been responsible for having a MS version canceled, but indirectly, they most likely were. Pretty sure that's what X Knight is trying to say, but you're taking what's been said too literally

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

You're missing the point. No one is disputing that SFV wasn't in development in Xbone first, it most likely wasn't. But had Sony not got involved and SFV had come out later, there's also no reason to expect that a Xbone version wouldn't be produced. We can't know for sure, of course, but looking at how IV performed on 360 and how it was the preferred version of the tournament circuit there's nothing pointing to it being a potential exclusive. So, yeah, again, Sony may not have directly been responsible for having a MS version canceled, but indirectly, they most likely were. Pretty sure that's what X Knight is trying to say, but you're taking what's been said too literally

if I'm understanding you correctly then I don't see why that's relevant. there's no xbone version of street fighter 5 to cancel if there wasn't an xbone port in development to begin with.

 

[X Knight]

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.

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.