You all know by now that Sony has changed its policy on cross-platform play, right? The bombshell dropped earlier in the week, but why did it take the company so long to implement the change? Well, according to PlayStation boss Shawn Layden, enabling cross-play isn't an easy process, despite what you may have read in comments sections on the internet.
"Now, enabling cross-play isn't just about flipping a switch and 'there you go' -- it's a very multi-dimensional kind of attribute or feature," Layden states on the latest PlayStation Blogcast. "So we had to look at it from a technical point of view, we have to work with our partners from a business point of view, we have to make sure that if we enable this, do we have the right customer service support, do we have the right messaging out there, do we have all these different things that you have to get in line, and it's rather ordinal. They have to go in a certain order to get them set up." Yeah, doesn't sound simple, does it?
Layden continues: "It's taken us longer, certainly than I would have wanted, but it took as long as it was gonna take to get it ready and get it done, which is why we were able to announce it last Tuesday, but also enable it at the same time." In other words, it sounds like Sony could have rolled out the announcement ahead of time, but it wanted to get it all sorted in one go.
So Sony may have been pigheaded in its approach to cross-play -- even though it made sense from the business perspective of the market leader -- but the Japanese giant has clearly put a lot of time and effort into changing its stance.
We've said it all along -- we doubt that enabling cross-play was ever as easy as some people liked to make out.
[source soundcloud.com]
Comments 52
In all fairness, he's never going to say it's easy, even if it was. Because then you have people wondering why it took them such a long time. So either way the answer will be that it's a difficult process. You shouldn't always take the things companies say at face value.
I agree in part with @Octane that I don't think it's too difficult, but only technically speaking.
I do believe this "we have to work with our partners from a business point of view" is true and important. The decision to allow cross-play is going to have financial consequences. There's no way Sony's going to make such a decision overnight, only because some hardcore Fortnite players are clamoring for it.
So I don't think Sony was slow to respond actually.
my guess is the issue was connecting PSN to XBL and Nintendo Online
whike he released that statement he was also answering an internal email asking when can we flick the switch boss to enable cross play. lol
Of course I doubt it was as easy as just flipping a switch. A lot of the things Shawn is talking about though is aspects outside of the mechanics of actual cross-play. The messaging, the customer service support etc are not actually aspects that affect cross-play itself.
Working with Business Partners may well be something like whether or not its better to offer cross-play than have continued 'negative' press by not offering it. Its not just the press though that have pressurised Sony but Devs too - Bethesda, with Elder Scrolls Legend, were saying that Sony could miss out if they don't change their stance on cross-play. As we know, Sony has had cross-play with PC so its not something entirely 'new'.
As far as Cross-Play affecting their sales, their lead - that is absolutely rubbish. People will buy the PS because of the exclusives, because they prefer the controller etc and will be less likely to buy a 2nd console to play MP games with friends on other consoles. It benefits the games too because you have a much bigger user base rather than splitting them up into individual platforms.
From Sony's perspective, I can see why they may be reluctant. They can't exactly ban other users for trolling or abusive behaviour. Can't control where you buy add-ons or micro-transactions - although I doubt many PS4 owners would buy these on XB1/Switch/PC and then play on PS4.
Anyway, that's getting a bit off topic. The aspects around cross-play, more than the actual mechanics of it maybe were difficult discussions but the mechanics probably was a relatively simple procedure.
@Kidfried Yeah, because I recall Epic allowing cross-play accidentally last year. The same happened with Minecraft last year. I'm certain there's stuff to figure out on the business side. But you have to wonder when the one company that's 20 years behind everyone else is able to do it, and Sony isn't. So I do think that they didn't start working on it until Nintendo and MS allowed cross-play back in June.
@BAMozzy There is a good financial reason. For every vBuck someone buys on the PlayStation Store, Sony makes money. So, I can see why, for instance when Switch came around, they wanted to lock people to their platform.
But but but people on the internet said it was simple....
I stand by my previous statement on the matter.
I can buy that the difference between, er, different online infrastructures played a part in the time needed for cross-play to be a thing, the fact that it has still taken longer than expected - especially considering PS4's allegedly superior online experience - comes off as curious to say the least; no one should give its competition enough time to make a commercial campaign taking potshots at the fact, and yet it happened.
So, while I can understand there are issues with online gaming (there always have been, there will always be) I can chalk up most of this as PR-talk, mostly given how the whole thing has been mishandled in the aforementioned (second link in this comment) statement: how can we not say this is just backpedaling, given it has first been said that PS4 online is supposed to be PS4 only, while now crossplay is suddenly described as part of the plan all along?
Unless, then again, Sony meant to be the first to pioneer cross-play this month, only for Nintendo and Microsoft to beat them to it. Who knows? I'm raising my hands if this turns out to be the case.
As mentioned I think it's definitely the business side of things that's the hard part.
There's a reason Sony changed its entire policy.
@AlexSora89 It's just impossible for a company like Sony (or Nintendo for that matter) to publicly state they're looking into it. Because consumers and shareholders will always see that as a promise.
That's why they're going to say hollow phrases like "X is the best place to play" or whatever, even when they're looking into the stuff. That's what they all do all the time.
A good example is changing your PSN username. Last year at PSX Layden said something along the lines that they're looking into PSN name changes. So, with every press conference, every interview, every firmware update, PS fans are disappointed when it's not there. Layden should have never said that.
(Unrealted, but it's a bit the same with Nintendo and Metroid by the way. They should have announced Prime this early, without anything to show, because now people are expecting its reveal every Direct.)
So, until a policy change is completely worked out with all financial partners, they aren't going to say anything about it. And they'll repeat the motto that "PlayStation is the best place to play", which they probably have said at every E3 since 1995.
So, what I'm saying is: this is closer to the truth than the other remarks.
@Kidfried
That's a clever analysis of the situation. Mad props to you.
It also depends on how committed a company is to making it work
@Kidfried I never said there wasn't. We all know that Sony (as well as Nintendo and MS) make money from their store so why would they want you to buy from a rival and play on their platform. Its not that different from buying physical from a retailer in concept BUT even then the manufacturers get some money from Physical sales too but they won't get anything from purchases for other platforms but their rivals will. Sony may well ave the biggest console install base currently but they also have the smallest brand in terms of 'value' and annual profits. You certainly don't want to give Nintendo or MS more profit when you are behind both. Chances are though, that the majority of players on PS4, that play on PS4 will buy on PS4 - not on Nintendo or MS and then play on PS4. By being late to the party so to speak, they could find that 'some' people may have bought stuff on their rivals because of the cross-play, because they played on Switch/PC/Xbox but most people will buy on the platform they play most on. Unless Sony don't have competitive prices in their store, if items are cheaper elsewhere, it doesn't make sense to buy on a rival platform if you play most on PS4. Its more likely that some will buy on Switch whilst out and about and maybe play on PS4 when at home.
I felt he meant its not as simple as a one off for one game. It obviously implies setting a precedent that will have big ramifications on multiplaform games.
@JJ2 Fair.
@BAMozzy Yea, I think I agree with you on most of what you're saying.
Now that cross play is a thing in Fortnite, how about a 3 team Battle Royale with perhaps between Blue, Green and Red to settle this fanboy war once and for all 😆😆😆
@Kidfried
When I heard that ' flipping a switch' phrase I knew that would make people go wild and media go clickbait fun though. Haha
Specially since Epic did just that a few times
@Kidfried Spot on.
I think it's fair enough what he's saying personally. We all probably thought Sony was deflecting when it said it was looking into it, but the fact that it actually was is a good thing.
"[Insert topic] isn't an easy process, despite what you may have read in comments sections on the internet."
Ah, the perennially shocking revelation.
Don't you know everyone on the internet has a degree in network engineering/quantum physics? Just ask people in the comments sections, it's easy!
I probably said the exact same thing more times than I can count to Xbox fanboys and Nintendo fans (given they don't understand s***). Doesn't matter if Shawn Layden confirms what I say, because to them, Shawn Layden is no one.
Example: here on PushSquare, we concluded that they would enable crossplay based on the response from Shawn. But everyone outside this community didn't either read it or understood what he said and they actually believe Playstation took this decision from one day to another, when it actually took 4 months to execute the changes.
Please mind the language - Quintumply
One part of this story that hasn't really been discussed and would like Sammy to do a soapbox if he has any thoughts is what does Sony actually changing a major policy mean going forward? Not in the sense of cross play but the key business decisions over the next few years.
Well, there probably is a lot of non-technical business processes too, but they do want to avoid any embarrassments of a botched cross-play. It may be different to their PC cross-play and so they may have wanted to make sure that there was as little security risks as possible. Wouldn't want a repeat of the large scale hack that happened a number of years ago.
I think Kenichiro Yoshida comments didn't help, because he didn't seem to be informed of what PlayStation was actually doing.
But who knows what Sony have been doing. A lot of us are really just speculating.
Bit odd how this website has gone from "It doesn't need it and would have huge ramifications, we agree they shouldn't" to "It's good they did, let's see where it goes from here."
I distinctly remember staff saying if they do, the "floodgates" will open, and Sony would be stupid to do so as market leader.
Funny how that works.
Still nice to see some explanation. On a technical level, no, it's not difficult. If phones and a tablet with a potato for netcode can do it from the offset, then there is no reason the PS4 can't, and it's happened "Accidentally" repeatedly, with numerous developers saying it's easy to activate, so if he ever pretends it's difficult on a technical level, slap him with a large trout.
On a business level, yeah it probably has ramifications.
But that fear that people won't buy a PS4 because you can play with anyone anyway is dumb. You could just as easily not buy a PS4 BECAUSE you couldn't play with everyone when this wasn't a thing.
And then we come down to them not wanting to say anything: Horsecrap.
The amount of times Jim Ryan or Kenchiro Yoshida said something that presented them with an ego the size of a supernova is incredible for something they were "looking into" and either reeks of "Upper management has no idea" or "We are actually thick". Better to say nothing than dig deeper and backpedal later.
Anyway, cross-platform play isn't yet a thing. Of all the games that currently support it across other platforms, only one does on PS4, and is currently being evaluated in BETA, I hardly call that flipping the switch and changing policy.
That's pussy-footing around it and seeing if it agrees with the grouchy old businessman at the top.
@BAMozzy "Chances are though, that the majority of players on PS4, that play on PS4 will buy on PS4 - not on Nintendo or MS and then play on PS4."
If I'm interpreting this correctly, you seem to be confused about what cross-play means.
You cannot buy on Xbox/Switch and play on PS4. If you want to play on PS4, you have to buy on PS4.
Cross-play simply means that people who buy and play on PS4 will be able to play online with/against people who bought on Xbox/Switch.
This is not cross-play in the traditional Sony sense, whereby you've been able to buy a game once and play it on PS4/PS3/Vita. What you buy is not portable between platforms.
@Paranoimia I am NOT referring to the 'game' itself but any add-ons, DLC, Micro-transactional content. Fortnite is free regardless of what platform you play on and can sign in to your 'fortnite' account regardless. If you opt to buy any extra skins, they are linked to your fortnite account and theoretically should be available on what ever platform you sign in on.
Sony were not happy for you to buy micro-transactions on Switch/PC/Xbox and have access to any of those on PS4. That was one of the big reasons that cross-platform gaming was not welcomed. Basically every multi-player game has extra content - and especially cosmetic micro-transactions which must be bought through a digital store.
Its this content I was referring to - not like buying CoD, Battlefield or RDR2 on Xbox and playing that on PS4 - but all the 'digital' content that is associated to an account rather than platform.
@BAMozzy I agree. I mean, given their last comment, it's "hard" so to speak. It may not be flipping a switch easy, but remove the business perspective and just focus on allowing it, and I doubt it was ever hard. Almost nothing is slip a switch easy in life, but that doesn't mean it's hard though. (Please note something not being hard doesn't make it easy.)
@BAMozzy Right, gotcha. I did think it strange. Apologies.
I think for the most part that will remain unchanged. I'm sure each company will agree that such things will need to be purchased on the system on which the game is played or the account was created. It's got to be one of the things they are trying to work out.
A very basic layman's guide to cross play issues
List of typical things that make cross play difficult to implement:
Control schemes - mouse/keyboard advantage has to be ironed out
Network protocols - all platforms need to use the same
Game balance - a widely used glitch on one platform might already be fixed on others
Hardware limitations - that mountain you see on the PS4 Pro might not be there on the Switch version, if hardware acts as local server then lobby sizes can be affected, etc.
Updates/New Content - developers need to be totally in-synch, especially where multiple studios work on different platforms at the same time
Business - co-operation between rivals is necessary
'Friends' - found a new friend? Each platform has easy ways of adding them to your friends list instantly. But not in cross-play unless it's designed in from the ground up.
Best example in the genre of well-implemented cross play:
Final Fantasy XIV (Microsoft Windows, PS4, PS3, Mac OS X all play together, it's both cross play and cross generation and talks are still ongoing re: XBoxOne and Switch versions)
Reason Cross Play is so important:
Gamers get to play together. That was once a big dream of SEGA.
Servers are instantly more populated. Forget server lag, think about longevity - an online FIFA title might stay up for 4 years instead of 2.
So flip that switch, see what happens. Feel free to add a zillion more issues that I haven't thought of off the top of my head. I'm no developer so my gut tells me there are a lot more
@FantasyMeister Great comment.
@FantasyMeister Sony already did cross-play with PC, iOS and Android. I doubt Xbox and Switch would add more difficulties than those platforms do.
@DMG361132 The only thing they care about is Sony making money, they don't inform their shareholders on every decision they make. That's simply impossible.
@Octane
Sarnanes-Oxley makes full disclosures a legal requirement, so yes, Sony must notify shareholders of all decisions.
@Callmegil You are a genius (not)..
@DMG361132
It's really sad, the impact shareholders have on the industry. Anytime Nintendo announces something less-than-conventional, the stock market people duly empty their collective bowels and someone loses a little bit of hope in humanity.
@premko1 it's about having common sense. Anyone would come to the same conclusion if they just thought about it from more than 2 seconds, you know? But I digress.
So it was 2 or more switches 🙃
Uh, if it's easy enough for NINTENDO of all companies to figure it out, I don't think Sony would have any trouble. Nice try though, Shawn.
Seems like he's calling the Rocket League devs liars, then.
@Octane 20 years behind on what they have a platform longer then Sony? Or is Windows not a platform at with all their "goodwill" still release games on the Windows store exclusive? Last generation they where not so consumer friendly because they said no. Final Fantasy 14 online is not on Xbox because they would only allow it with Xbox Live.
@Flaming_Kaiser What? I was talking about Nintendo
@Octane Ninty does not care about money ofcourse holding backups for your saves hostage behind a paywall and Ninty showed how nice they where in the past. Microsoft does not care about money somehow they have every terrible thing is their triple A games microtransactions, lootboxes, plus acting like the good guy.
They should add comments behind the comments you answer to.
@Octane I thought Xbox my mistake.
@Knuckles-Fajita Ah our anti Sony guy i was looking for you. 😁 😃
Lets turn it around if MS was in top would they have changed their ways no that was shown last generation.
Ninty is acting like the good guy well and somehow they let you pay for a online service that was always there. With back-up saves that dont work for every game which they will delete the day that your subscription ends. Plus why cant you make a manual backup. And lets not go back when they where the topdog they where the worst. 😜
Good day hater. 😉
@Flaming_Kaiser I'm sorry, but I don't think I'm following what you're trying to say!
@Flaming_Kaiser Uh dude, your English is a bit broken tonight I'm also having trouble understanding what you're trying to say.
@Flaming_Kaiser cloud saves are kept for 6 months on switch
@Flaming_Kaiser Now you're just making stuff up. Nintendo doesn't just delete your saves when your subscription ends.
Except when Epic turned crossplay on accidentally last year. If you can turn it on by accident, can't be that hard, can it?
I mean, cross play is off....just turn it on :v
I'm just glad everyone will stop begging for cross play, was getting sick and tired of it.
Tap here to load 52 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...