Slashdot Mirror
Why Is It So Difficult To Allow Cross-Platform Play?
cookiej writes "I just got the most recent version of the Madden franchise ('10) for the PS3. Can somebody explain to me why EA has separate networks for the different platforms, only allowing players to compete with people using the same console? Back in the day, there were large discrepancies between the consoles, but these days it seems like the Xbox and the PS3 are at least near the same level. After so many releases for this franchise, they've got to have a fairly standardized protocol for networking; it seems arbitrary not to let them compete. Or am I just missing something obvious? Is it just a matter of Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network not working together?"
One may be more comfortable, decreasing the cognitive dissonance associated with translating mental (re)actions to hand actions.
That's not what cognitive dissonance is. Cognitive dissonance is when you take an action that contradicts or is not explained by your beliefs about how you should have acted, and you change your beliefs after the fact in order to explain the action you took. It is not just when you have some kind of mental uncomfortableness. I'm sure wikipedia has examples.
That's pretty much it. My buddy is a test coordinator at EA, and his stories about games failing for the stupidest guideline violations never ends.
And I think that's what it's really about: each company has their own guidelines (from Nintendo's save screen longer than 0.15 seconds has to have a message that you can read, to Sony's all of "PLAYSTATION 3" has to be capitalized). If a version of the game was submitted to one console maker, got passed, but failed at a different one, that means they need to change code for a version and still make sure it's compatible with the older versions that passed under someone else's watch.
And never mind shinanigans related to updating the game (or virtual lack of ability in Nintendo's case).
Where did you see that?
I'm pretty sure Microsoft by default handles all of the server for matchmaking and leaderboards. I remember back with the first Xbox that Microsoft had to develop a protocol to allow Live games to communicate with the game company's server. This was done at the insistence of EA, who would not release titles with online play unless they could control the servers. This is why you have to accept a separate EULA and make a separate account to online with some EA games. I remember games like Burnout 3 and Revenge not working right for a few days after launch because of problems connecting to EA's servers. This is also why old EA games like Timesplitters 3 no longer work on the Xbox while you can still play all(?) of the older games that rely on Microsoft's servers.
As shown by what they've already done, EA has enough leverage to force Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo to allow cross-platform play. I doubt you'd find any resistance from Nintendo, as they lack a truly unified online play system like Microsoft and Sony have.
This is truth. I've worked on networking on a 360/PS3 title at EA.
MSFT does NOT allow going outside of their secure gateway based networking system. No exceptions unless you want to pay huge amounts of money to convince them to allow otherwise (I think only Final Fantasy XI has done this). It is possible for games that use Games For Windows Live because it implements the same kind of secure gateway networking environment that Xbox360 uses.
Sony is not as strict, and the PS3 SDK implements traditional socket based networking API.
Microsoft does allow cross-platform play, though—see Shadowrun and Lost Planet. It was Capcom's choice not to include it in Street Fighter IV.
Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
It's short for "verisimilitudinously".