Slashdot Mirror


Xbox Live Now Supports Cross-Platform Multiplayer With PS4 (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader writes from an article on TechCrunch: Microsoft just announced that game developers can now create cross-platform multiplayer modes that work with other consoles and operating systems. So it means that the next Call of Duty or FIFA could feature a multiplayer mode that works with both Xbox and Playstation gamers. It just depends on developers now. Microsoft has historically restricted cross-platform play as the Xbox Live was the first successful multiplayer network for consoles. And yet, Microsoft is now lagging behind the Playstation 4 with its Xbox One. By opening up cross-platform multiplayer, Microsoft could convince late adopters to buy an Xbox One even though their friends have a PlayStation 4. It's also a way to make sure that there are enough plays for less popular games. It's unclear how developers are supposed to deal with duplicated PlayStation Network and Xbox Live screen names.

105 comments

  1. PC: Cross platform from day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And you don't have to pay extra for the privilege either.

    1. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by newcastlejon · · Score: 2

      PC: Cross platform from day one
      And you don't have to pay extra for the privilege either.

      The last cross-platform multiplayer experiment involving PCs that I remember was Quake III on the Dreamcast. It didn't end well.

      I can compete with other PC users when I play on my PC, and I can play against other Xbox players with my Xbox. The only difference I've seen is that the Xbox users seem to be about twenty years younger than me, and seem to think that "faggot" and variations thereon are the height of wit.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    2. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last cross-platform multiplayer experiment involving PCs that I remember was Quake III on the Dreamcast. It didn't end well.

      They're not especially great games by today's standards but the cross-platform MMOs Pocket Legends and Star Legends have been available on Windows, Mac, iOS and Android for like eva. I'm sure there are plenty of other cross-platform games out there.

    3. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      MMOs are one thing but twitch games hinge more on the controller than the device you happen to be playing on. PS4 and Xbox players may well be able to compete fairly, but putting keyboard+mouse into the mix is very much like throwing a cat among the pigeons. FIFA might be playable I suppose (I've never played any of them), but CoD not so much.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    4. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by skids · · Score: 1

      I think kb+mouse will always have the advantage but if game devs would stop making dead zones designed for senior citizens it could narrow the gap a bit.

    5. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by shione · · Score: 1

      Cross platform could also be between PC operating systems. Like for example on Steam doesn't care if you run Mac, Linux or Windows. If a game on steam is available on two or all of those platforms you still only have to pay for it once. And a person playing a Steam game on Mac, Linux or Windows can play with any other Steam player playing the same game in a different OS.

      But yea, playing a cross platform FPS game between PC and console players is gonna suck for the console player.
       

    6. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by GNious · · Score: 1

      This news includes that people using Microsoft Live (lots of "PC" games do) can now play with non MS-Live players on other platforms - so, no "PC" (Windows) isn't/wasn't full cross-play.

    7. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, not sure how to tell you this but microsoft cut and slashed live a long time ago leaving its GFWL userbase high and dry so they could focus on xbox live. The number of pc 'live' players is pretty much zilch. The games using that were either tossed into the corner when the 'live' authentication servers went down or the developers (at their own expense) patched the game and moved it to steam so that people could continue playing the games that they had paid for.

    8. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To GNious again. If by 'live' you mean the windows 10 app store, the userbase on that is non existent.It has practically no serious top tier games and the only 2 big ones out and coming (Rise of the Tomb Raider and Quantum Break). Microsoft had to shovel a lot of money into them to get them on there. By the way they ditched GFWL and left gamer and developers alike high and dry, it is no surprise that developers aren't flocking to their games on the windows 10 app store.

    9. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The last cross-platform multiplayer experiment involving PCs that I remember was Quake III on the Dreamcast. It didn't end well.

      There are many more recent ones. Like Final Fantasy 11 (PC, PS2, Xbox360) and 14 (PC, PS3, PS4).

    10. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can already use a mouse and keyboard with any game on the xbox. You just need an IOGear Keymander or similar device to translate the mouse movements in to joystick movements. It's a bit of effort to set it up the first time, but when you get it right there's very little difference.

    11. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are plenty of cross platform multiplayer games, its just that most developers don't do it because it's extra work for no extra financial benefit

    12. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      I'd stay far away from anything on the app store, since you'll most likely be left holding the bag in the end. Microsoft announces new platforms all the time, and abandons them just as fast when they don't immediately become dominant. The xbox being somewhat of an exception. The expedient time to adopt their new platforms is when forced too and not a moment earlier.

    13. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      That depends on "Which" console and "which" game. For PSN:

      1. PS2 network play was free, except for the 2 subscription based MMO's.

      2. PS3 online play is free, except for the subscription MMOs

      3. PSP/Vita online play is free.

      4. The PS4 is different, it depends on the game.

      a. Turn based PBEM style games don't require PS+
      b. F2P games where you don't buy the game don't require PS+ (examples being War Thunder, Onigiri, Warframe.
      c. games where you buy the game require PS+ for online play.

      Personally I consider PS+ to be more akin to a continuation of the Playstation Underground than actually "paying for online play", since you get other things with it.

      1. Instant game collection alone is easily worth the 49.99 a year.
      2. Discounts and PS+ exclusives
      3. Early access to Demos/Betas.
      4. Cloud save storage

    14. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      There are these things called USB ports, the PS2, PS3, and PS4 have them for a reason.

    15. Re:PC: Cross platform from day one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're holding the bag in the end then you are doing it wrong. I don't normally get all judge-y about what people like but this is just bad form!

  2. Unique names by mattventura · · Score: 1

    It's unclear how developers are supposed to deal with duplicated PlayStation Network and Xbox Live screen names.

    The same way Steam does it, i.e throw out the assumption of unique names entirely.

    1. Re:Unique names by darkain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or just handle the way Email/Jabber does. name@service

    2. Re:Unique names by skids · · Score: 1

      Couldn't hurt to use a different font for each participating network.

    3. Re:Unique names by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Stop being logical, this is a FUD piece! It is IMPOSSIBLE to tell two people with the same name apart!

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    4. Re:Unique names by almitydave · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm pretty sure that all the PS4 player's names will just be automatically prefixed with "FAG_" on XBox Live players' screens. On PS4 player's screens, the XBL player's names will be appended with " (I'm 13)".

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
  3. Assuming Sony lets them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's great that Microsoft will let Xbox One games play with PS4 games, but doesn't Sony have to do the reverse? Given that it's Sony, and that the article mentions this as a potential selling point for the Xbox One, I can't see why Sony would allow it.

    1. Re:Assuming Sony lets them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sony doesn't have any qualms about cross platforming. The only reason Elder Scrolls Online does not cross platform was because Microsoft didn't want their players playing with PS4 players. Sony was willing to do the cross platform.

  4. April Fools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it a few weeks early for that?

  5. open platforms by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

    This nicely demonstrates the benefits of open systems, that are free of arbitrary restrictions placed to hinder competition.

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
    1. Re:open platforms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course! That's why Linux is the overwhelming favorite gaming platform! 10x more popular than windows, 100x more popular than Playstation!

  6. Console Sales Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In case anyone's interested, VGChartz has recent sales figures for consoles and games. The PS4 is well ahead of XBox One and Wii U.

    1. Re:Console Sales Figures by aliquis · · Score: 1

      In case anyone's interested, VGChartz has recent sales figures for consoles and games. The PS4 is well ahead of XBox One and Wii U.

      3DS outselling the Playstation 4 with 30 million units or over 50% but both staples are equally high ..

    2. Re:Console Sales Figures by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      The 3DS has around 5 years on the market, while the PS4 has just under two and a half. If you look at the historic performance of the 3DS, it was more or less matching the PS4 at this point in its lifespan (actually, somewhat below the PS4's current 38 million).

      Plus handheld consoles historically have higher sales than home consoles anyway (unless they crash and burn). That's down to lower unit-costs and the fact that families are more likely to buy a handheld for each member who plays games, whereas they'll only get a single home console. The fact that handhelds are more likely to get lost or broken is also a (small) factor.

      In addition to all this, the 3DS had needed extremely aggressive price-cutting to get those sales figures over the first two and a half years, after a very slow launch. The price of the PS4 has held up much better.

      So taking those factors into account, the PS4 looks far more successful than the 3DS. Historically, only the Wii has outpaced PS4 sales, though again that was a much cheaper console. In addition, Wii sales effectively flatlined after a few years and second half of the system's lifespan was marked by a miserably low software attach rate.

      The historic comparator to beat is the PS2, which had a slower start than the PS4, but maintained very strong sales across its lifespan, with a marked acceleration in sales at around the two and a half year point. That went on to manage 155 million units shipped, which holds the record for a home console. It was also the most expensive (and least powerful) home console of its generation.

    3. Re:Console Sales Figures by aliquis · · Score: 1

      The 3DS has around 5 years on the market, while the PS4 has just under two and a half.

      That's irrelevant, everything else seem to be drawn to scale but PS4 and 3DS are the same size even though the numbers are completely different on them. I don't give a rats ass about how each of them has been around, that's not what the chart are supposed to show.

      the PS4 looks far more successful than the 3DS.

      I don't give a fuck, the chart is lying.

      The historic comparator to beat is the PS2

      It's not part of this chart about how well current gen dedicated gaming gear sell though. There likely is completely different charts for how well the PS2 sold such and such time after release but this isn't that chart and it has nothing to do with this chart.

    4. Re:Console Sales Figures by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

      Having done the maths quickly on the Wii-U vs PS Vita bars, it is very clear that what the chart is actually showing is unit sales divided by months on sale. That's an interesting chart, but I agree it should have been clearly labelled as such.

      However, your own original post wasn't particularly clear, hence why I misinterpreted it. You might want to work on your own literacy before angrily berating others for mislabelling charts.

    5. Re:Console Sales Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DS outselling the Playstation 4 with 30 million units or over 50% but both staples are equally high

      It's comparing consoles to consoles and handhelds to handhelds in two separate charts. Don't worry about it and just look at the numbers. Obviously 81.3% 3DSes plus 53.9% PS4s doesn't equal 100% and they are not in the same chart.

    6. Re:Console Sales Figures by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      Which is the real reason Microsoft has started this now. Playstation is kind of in critical mass territory. There doesn't seem to be much difference between the consoles so in my mind if you want to play online games you'll just go with the most popular one. And that one ain't Microsoft this time around.

      Anyway, Microsoft isn't really doing anything here. They say all kind of things, following through with them? Well, not so much. Sony is going to have to do likewise I'd imagine for this to even happen, and that have nothing to gain by doing so. So they won't. Microsoft will certainly tie the PC side to the windows store boat anchor, because they are arrogant enough to think tying two of their losers together will create something desirable instead of increasing their suck factor exponentially.

      And since it sounds like its up to developers to do all the work anyway I doubt many will take the bait regardless. For every customer that wouldn't buy a game because of the lack of cross platform play on the Xbox I bet there's at least 3 that would just buy it on playstation instead or maybe end up buying it on both effectively increasing sales.

    7. Re:Console Sales Figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the fuck cares? I only own the consoles I do because those are what the games I wanted to play came out on.

    8. Re:Console Sales Figures by aliquis · · Score: 1

      It's comparing consoles to consoles and handhelds to handhelds in two separate charts.

      Oh, if so it's alright, I thought it all looked like it was on the same image.
      I don't think I watched (cared for) any percentages, just colored staples and number of millions.

  7. Duplicate Names by watice · · Score: 1

    you COULD deal with the "duplicate names" by adding a prefix of XBL or PSN to the usernames before a cross platform game starts... problem solved?

  8. Its a trap!! by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 1

    There is nothing in the linked article about the MS cross platform code being open source, or even free to use. I would bet the API needed for cross platform play.will be licensed, cheap at first but more expensive later.

    1. Re:Its a trap!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would bet .

      means you're just talking out of your ass. Get facts. They never said it would be open source or free. Why would you even expect that? FYI you forgot to use the $ instead of the S in MS..

  9. Why would Sony Agree? by oic0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Microsoft needs this because they have lost the market share battle. Why on earth would Sony agree though? They only stand to lose sales, not make gains.

    1. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by Microlith · · Score: 1

      Sony already does this. Street Fighter V is cross-platform play between PC and PS4.

    2. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only stand to lose sales, not make gains.

      The PS4 is well ahead on sales. I don't think cross platform multiplayer support will make a meaningful change to the status quo.

    3. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because consoles are dying and everyone knows it.

      Other than the Wii, which is considered to be a fluke, combined console sales between the 3 companies have been on a downward scale ever since the PS2. The three companies are either moving towards the PC, the handheld/mobile space or some kind of set-top media device.

    4. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people buy a gaming platform that is not their preferred choice just so they can play with their friends. Xbox is the largest platform ergo people that want to play with friends usually choose it. Sony benefits here by gaining some of those customers. Both Microsoft and Sony gain by having higher player counts in their games, making them more appealing.

    5. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than the Wii, which is considered to be a fluke

      If the Wii was successful, then so was the PS3 and the XBox 360. Look at the actual numbers. Wii - 101 million, PS3 - 86.4 million, and the Xbox 360 - 85.4 million.

    6. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Cross-platform between the PC and their own console. NOT cross-platform between their console and their competitor's console.

      Sony would be an idiot to allow it.

    7. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " Xbox is the largest platform ergo people that want to play with friends usually choose it. "

      No it is not. In terms of consoles sold, there are way more PS4s out there than xbox. In terms of network size, xbox live isn't the biggest there either. PSN is, so your whole argument is invalid.

    8. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. You can't do crossplay without both MS and Sony agreeing. Sony do not agree. We went through this for our game. We were allowed to do PS4/PC but not PS4/XB1. Our code was already set up for it (and the screenname duplication thing is hardly a massive issue; we use PSN! and XBL! prefixes on the name internally, and we display a customized name as a gamer tag anyway). But Sony would not allow it and neither would MS. Now one half of that issue is solved. We still can't do PS4/XB1 crossplay though.

    9. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Look, this is simply factually incorrect. PS4 has sold just as many consoles in 27 months as PS2 did, and PS2 went on to sell 155m units worldwide. Check the figures for yourself. Everyone who's read the sales figures knows this, so I'm not sure which "everyone" you refer to, unless you mean the great unwashed ignorant mass you belong to.

      Sony are not moving towards PC or mobile. SCE is still the most profitable arm of Sony, by a wide margin. And what do you think a "set-top media device" is other than a console? A large part of Sony's future market is people who want a device for Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc. that isn't a one-trick pony. Those £40s add up if you need one device per service, and people still like to have DVD/BD players.

      Once the PS4 hits £200 you will see remarkable sales ... not that sales to date haven't been fairly remarkable on their own.

      And yes, I'm a PS4 developer, so I'm biased yada yada yada. But the above are simple facts.

    10. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      anyone that still buys an xbox is still retarded and will continue to be at least until the next gen consoles hit

    11. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by nhat11 · · Score: 1

      And with Final Fantasy 14 too

    12. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      The question is, now that Microsoft is allowing cross-platform games, will Square Enix make FF XIV for the Xbox One? That would make their game available on three* platforms.

      * I don't count the PS3 as being another platform, just an older generation. And the Mac version isn't really a Mac version since it's an emulated port that sucks.

    13. Re:Why would Sony Agree? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      If you're using something as power-hungry as a game console for Netflix, you're doing it wrong.

  10. This might backfire on MS by Dorianny · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Cross platform development studios rarely dedicate resources to optimize their games for the Xbox one funky slow memory and super-fast cache architecture as a result titles often experience more graphic slowdowns and stutters on the Xbox one than the PS4. . This will put FPS players and other Fast action titles on the Xbox one at a disadvantage over the PS4 owners. If players feel that they can't compete with their friends because of the deficiency of their console Microsoft is going to be blasted with negative publicity

    1. Re:This might backfire on MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Negative publicity? I'm sorry, but those who live in these walled gardens shouldn't complain about dust and debris when the builders decide to put in a gate...

    2. Re:This might backfire on MS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slowdowns and stutters? You talk like someone who hasn't actually used either of these consoles. The comments around here get dumber by the second.

  11. Re:The very first original xbox "one" is still bet by Khyber · · Score: 4, Informative

    "because the hardware was actually leagues ahead of pc's at the time"

    No it wasn't. The original XBox was a gimped 733 MHz Celeron with a modded GeForce 3 (only had specular capabilities added) and shipped in November 2001 - in a time when PCs were already using Pentium 4 (November 2000) processors and their GeForce 3 had the same power, and the GeForce 4 was literally right around the corner. PCs had typically double to triple the RAM an XBox had.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  12. Re:The very first original xbox "one" is still bet by aliquis · · Score: 1

    because the hardware was actually leagues ahead of pc's at the time. By allot.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    "Retail availability
    NA November 15, 2001[2]
    JP February 22, 2002
    AUS March 14, 2002
    EU March 14, 2002"
    "CPU Custom 733 MHz Intel Pentium III "Coppermine-based" processor"
    "Memory 64 MB of DDR SDRAM @ 200 MHz"
    "Graphics 233 MHz nVidia NV2A"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    "The second version, codenamed Coppermine (Intel product code: 80526), was released on October 25, 1999, running at 500, 533, 550, 600, 650, 667, 700, and 733 MHz. From December 1999 to May 2000, Intel released Pentium IIIs running at speeds of 750, 800, 850, 866, 900, 933 and 1000 MHz (1 GHz)."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    "Performance is similar to the GeForce 3 Ti500 desktop GPU"
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    "The GeForce 3 (NV20) is the third generation of NVIDIA's GeForce graphics processing units. Introduced in March 2001"

    So no, it had the graphics performance of the then high-end Geforce 3 Ti500 graphics card and a two year old Pentium III processor and 64 MB of RAM which was quite little.

    So what you really ...
    http://www.gamespot.com/articl...
    "by Sam Parker on April 23, 2001"
    "The GeForce3 was initially expected to cost $500 to $550, but its new suggested price is $399"
    http://www.gamespot.com/articl...
    "The Xbox will be launched in North America on November 8, 2001, with a retail price of $299" ... really got was a computer like complete gaming console which at most cost as much as only the graphics card in it would had cost separately.

    It wasn't ahead of the PC, it "was a PC", but it was a cheap PC.

  13. Dreamcast Was First... Or Was It? by nz17 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Xbox Live was the first successful multiplayer network for consoles."

    I'm calling bologna on that. SEGA's network, SegaNet, was the first successful multiplayer network for consoles... by a 1st-party company in all three major regions. But before that, Sega Meganet was the first successful multiplayer network for consoles... by a 1st-party company (Japan and Brazil). But before that, Xband was the first successful multiplayer network for consoles... and it worked on multiple platforms (Nintendo's SNES + SEGA's Genesis / Mega Drive).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    --
    Most men are not thought unwise until they speak.
    1. Re:Dreamcast Was First... Or Was It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They used the word "successful". The dreamcast was ultimately not successful, and neither was its online component. It was a complete financial failure that ended Sega in the console market.

    2. Re:Dreamcast Was First... Or Was It? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      It was a "successful" launch of service which took actual payment for rendered services. None of it was vaporware hypothetical. it was real.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Dreamcast Was First... Or Was It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seganet started on Saturn, which was actually not to bad.

    4. Re:Dreamcast Was First... Or Was It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just over a month after launch, by October 27, 2000, SegaNet had 1.55 million Dreamcast consoles registered online,

      From the GP's first link. Whether or not Sega decided to compete with Sony after the Dreamcast was outsold by the PS2, is unrelated to the success of Seganet.

    5. Re:Dreamcast Was First... Or Was It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it wasn't "successful" unless you count the ability to have the system up and running.

      It took money but nobody looks back and goes, "boy that Dreamcast online experience was certainly the reason we all remember the console today".

  14. Finally by Archfeld · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd love to be able to finally silence my console retarded brother and his buddies in a true first person shooter environment. I am so tired of hearing how they think they are superior players when I can see them unable to perform movements and shots that are regular things amongst PC gamers. I've been a 1st person shooter lover and a pretty dang good player since Unreal Tournament came out and our team started having organized practices many years ago. UT offered the option for combo shots that detonated for extra bang, such as the pulse rifle and the ability to shoot the nuke flown by another team member, and we could and did regularly do it. That kind of precision is rarely seen in console games, not that there aren't some out there more than capable. Note I am not nearly as dexterous now as I was 20 years ago, and I hate console controllers so I just don't play them, but I've watched a lot of my younger brother and his friends play such and listened to them crow on about how good they are but they won't get on the PC and I don't own a either console, so my opinion 'might' be a bit slanted, and I am an old guy, so get off my lawn.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Finally by NoZart · · Score: 1

      Get $shooter released after 2010 for the PC and let your brother play on a gamepad. That will show the difference within a few seconds :D
      The beauty of the PC platform is that it itself is crossplatform, i.e you can have console style gameplay on it if you want (what i do for couch purposes)

    2. Re:Finally by GrandCow · · Score: 1

      Show them you're a better player on the same format then or shut up. Cross-platform for XBox only means PS4, not PC/Mac/Linux.

      There were studies done years ago when (I believe) Xbox was originally being developed, it was cross-platform with PC. There are (obvious) differences in control styles, and the PC people just destroyed the console players in every situation. That's why you don't have console/PC cross-platforms now. There are things you simply can't do with Xbox/PS that you can with a mouse/keyboard on PC. It's up to the individual user to decide what they prefer more.

      They may very well be superior players on console but suck on PC. You might be a pro gamer on PC but totally blow on console. There's no comparison between the two because there's no valid comparison between the two. Stick a professional swimmer against a professional sprinter on land and I guarantee there's no contest. People are trained for different situations.

      --
      "Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try." -Homer Simpson
    3. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are things you simply can't do with Xbox/PS that you can with a mouse/keyboard on PC.

      You know, from PS2 generation consoles supported USB keyboards and mice. No one cared though.

    4. Re:Finally by ndavis · · Score: 1

      Show them you're a better player on the same format then or shut up. Cross-platform for XBox only means PS4, not PC/Mac/Linux.

      There were studies done years ago when (I believe) Xbox was originally being developed, it was cross-platform with PC. There are (obvious) differences in control styles, and the PC people just destroyed the console players in every situation. That's why you don't have console/PC cross-platforms now. There are things you simply can't do with Xbox/PS that you can with a mouse/keyboard on PC. It's up to the individual user to decide what they prefer more.

      They may very well be superior players on console but suck on PC. You might be a pro gamer on PC but totally blow on console. There's no comparison between the two because there's no valid comparison between the two. Stick a professional swimmer against a professional sprinter on land and I guarantee there's no contest. People are trained for different situations.

      Yup like jump and look around at the same time. After playing on a PC for a decade I moved to a console that my friends had and could not figure out why I was so bad until I realized I could not hit the jump button while changing where I looked. On the PC you have all the controls at your fingertips with the Console you need to make choices.

    5. Re:Finally by rhazz · · Score: 1

      While technically true, the implementation was terrible. Mouse/keyboard didn't work well or consistently across games, was only supported by a couple games, and also had issues with all but the simplest devices. I tried playing FF7: Dirge of Cerberus (FPS) with a mouse and keyboard but the movements were erratic and unstable.

      Fast forward to today where modern consoles have real mouse/keyboard support built in, and the game developers still won't support it because it would give an unfair advantage (see Destiny). Anyone buying a device to emulate mouse/keyboard support is considered a cheater by the handicapped controller users.

    6. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone buying a device to emulate mouse/keyboard support is considered a cheater by the handicapped controller users.

      They aren't handicapped. Handicapping is placing someone at an intentional disadvantage, and on consoles the exact opposite is happening. Shooters on a console use a variety of 'aim assist' features to help overcome the imprecision and slower movement speed of the controllers.
      On the PC, we call that kind of thing an "aimbot" and it's considered cheating.

      But I think people are far too focused on FPS games. There's a lot of other online gaming that would benefit from full cross-platform play, for example a variety of MMO's and "social" type games.

    7. Re:Finally by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      It really depends on how they do this. On consoles, FPS games just flat out don't work without aim assist. On PC's, aim assist is typically considered cheating. If they give everybody aim assist, the console users might have a fighting chance, however if nobody has aim assist then the console users would probably quit in frustration.

    8. Re:Finally by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      tried playing FF7: Dirge of Cerberus (FPS) with a mouse and keyboard but the movements were erratic and unstable.

      Maybe your devices had issues? Or more likely you needed to tweak settings though mouse/keyboard with DoC was clunky. It's been a while but IIRC I found that it is better to use hybrid control with that game and NOT use WASD. What you do is use the dual shock to move, but the mouse to aim.

      You would have found that it worked better for Tribes (though Tribes on the PS2 commits the cardinal sin of not having voice chat), UT, Deus Ex, or Half Life.

    9. Re:Finally by dave562 · · Score: 1

      UT? Newbie. I was honing my railgun skills playing Quake on an IPX LAN.

      Get off my lawn.

    10. Re:Finally by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Jump wasn't on a shoulder button? But if you cant hit jump and move the right stick, your right thumb might be a touch on the slow side. Then again, PC gamers aren't really sed to using the right thumb much.

    11. Re:Finally by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Too bad Quake didn't have the features he was talking about in UT - he didn't say UT was his first FPS (Wolfenstein 3D [when it was brand new], here, so yeah, my lawn only wants to see your feet if they are following a mower, TYVM) just that he could do things that consoles even today could only dream of doing without 'assists'. I didn't play multiplayer until Doom ... those were the days.

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    12. Re:Finally by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I played Wolfenstein on a 286, so I'll share my lawn with you. I did play multi-player Doom though. But that barely qualified as 3D. For me, Quake was real 3D because you had the Y-axis to work with.

    13. Re:Finally by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      I've great memories of Lan parties. It was so much more fun frag'n someone and then hearing them yell from across the room, "NO WAY!!!"
      Remember Zork ? or Heath kit and Tandy computers
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      I've been eaten by a Grue many a time :)
      Good times...

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    14. Re:Finally by Mryll · · Score: 1

      Agreed they're different things. I hadn't touched a modern console until a couple of years ago, used to be decent at TF in the QW days. I felt like a poorly abled fool using the controller until I played through RAGE a couple of times with no sort of aiming assist. It's still clumsy relative to KBM and I don't see cross play in FPS games working very well in the near future.

    15. Re:Finally by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I have to admit that I did not play Zork until well after it was new. I do remember the Tandy computers though. They were the Radio Shack PCs. I seem to remember that they had similar hardware specs as other PCs at the time, but came with their own version of DOS.

    16. Re:Finally by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      Yup, yup, I was in college when Quake came out & work study in the IT; many a Friday afternoon were spent owning the 'old men' I worked with (heh, who were far younger than I am now, funny how perspective changes as you age).

      As much as I liked Quake and Quake 2, UT was my game & I played it for almost a decade regularly on my IBM mechanical keyboard with mouse nub between G & H keys. Pre-WASD, I actually crossed my wrists playing so my left hand could do the arrows while my index finger did the pointing and thumb did the shooting (after a couple hours, I'd usually switch to aiming with my middle finger as my index would get quite sore). Thumb meant I couldn't put rockets in a spiral (couldn't hit left & right keys simultaneously reliably) & using a single finger means I have arthritis today (mainly in those two fingers), but man, good times :)

      My second child has shown interest in gaming, so I have decided to start her off with the original UT which I have started playing again - I own 2004, black, etc but the despite them being better in pretty much every measurable way, I still like the original (the newest one looks really nice, though).

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    17. Re:Finally by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Since you like FPS and the UT engine, you might consider checking out Insurgency. I just started playing it about a month ago and I really enjoy it. The game is fairly 'realistic' in that you cannot hit much of anything unless you aim down the sights, and it only takes a couple of bullets to kill someone. The learning curve is pretty steep until you figure out the maps, but once you get a handle on them it is a lot of fun.

      I mention it because it is slower paced than UT and the other twitch based FPS games, and they are also in the process of converting over to the Unreal 4 engine.

      http://www.pcgamer.com/insurge...

      I think I peaked at Q3 and into CS1.1 / 1.2. I was very competitive at Q3, to the point where I beat Fatal1ty on pub DM servers from time to time. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnathan_Wendel)

    18. Re:Finally by JazzLad · · Score: 1

      I will, thanks!

      --
      "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
    19. Re:Finally by rhazz · · Score: 1

      What you do is use the dual shock to move, but the mouse to aim.

      The fingers on my left hand cramp up just thinking about that.

    20. Re:Finally by rhazz · · Score: 1

      Handicapping is placing someone at an intentional disadvantage, and on consoles the exact opposite is happening.

      I think it's arguable either way - e.g. Bungie "intentionally" did not support mouse/keyboard on a platform that natively supports it. As for aim assist, I consider it a crutch that is necessary just to make games playable with controllers for the average player.

    21. Re:Finally by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      How so, you just hold the left half of the dual shock in your left hand. It looks something like this:

      https://forum.warthunder.com/i...

      On a PS3 or PS4, you can just also use the Move Navigation controller in place of the left side of the dual shock. (Because the Dual Shock 3 and Dual Shock 4 are heavier than the Dual Shock and Dual Shock 2)

    22. Re:Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I played Rogue on an abacus. It was slow but we liked it!

      Kids these days.

    23. Re:Finally by rhazz · · Score: 1

      I think holding a DS4 in one hand would be very uncomfortable for my limp gamer hands - I think it would take far more muscle engagement for a single hand to stabilize the controller. Also what about buttons? A DS4 has 8 buttons which might be part of the game (4 buttons, 4 bumpers), more if you include the analog stick press. If you limit to mouse and analog side you probably have at most 6 (two bumpers and 4 mouse buttons). Having a keyboard for the left hand gives you access to plenty of keys.

    24. Re:Finally by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      If you limit to mouse and analog side you probably have at most 6 (two bumpers and 4 mouse buttons)

      .

      Actually you have slightly more:

      Analog stick movement
      L3 button (press in stick)
      L1
      L2
      4 d-pad directions (which can be used as buttons)
      Select button
      Mouse movement
      mouse button left click
      mouse button right click
      mousewheel up
      mousewheel down
      mousewheel click

      How well it works, depends on the game.

  15. Re:The very first original xbox "one" is still bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OTOH, it ran most games at 480 resolution, so it was good enough for the time.

  16. Meh by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

    I have the same screen name on Xbox, PSN, Steam and Origin. and it's a nice short one that's not full of dig1t55555

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  17. Re:The very first original xbox "one" is still bet by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    It also had a unified memory architecture, and more importantly, it was a rock-solid, stable platform with a console mindset. You never had to worry about drivers, hardware revisions, and so on. The NVAPU was pretty cool too.

    It also introduced a lot of things to the console world that are now considered standard; persistent onboard storage, built-in networking, an external ecosystem.

    It's interesting how the ball keeps getting handed off between the companies. Sony ate Nintendo's lunch with the simple, easy to use PS1 compared to the harsh certification requirements and high costs of Nintendo. Microsoft ate Sony's lunch with the xbox vs the PS2. The Xbox360 carried on that trend vs the PS3. Then Sony did it right back to Microsoft with the PS4 vs the Xbone. With Nintendo quietly sitting in the corner and making a killing with the Wii and DS series.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  18. Re:The very first original xbox "one" is still bet by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "It also introduced a lot of things to the console world that are now considered standard; persistent onboard storage, built-in networking,"

    Networking was done with the Dreamcast well before the XBox.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  19. Too little too late by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

    It's about damn time this was implemented... It should have happened with the PS2, though. Anyway, I'm done with consoles - too short of a lifespan. Too limited in what it can do. I've moved on to PC, and I hope that's the way more people start to go - especially now that there are a few solid options for controllers. PS: The article calls out Xbox Live as the "First Successful Multiplayer Network for Consoles" but I remember playing some pretty hefty games of Quake, UT, and Phantasy Star Online on my Dreamcast. That being said, maybe they're referring to the fact that XBL has more of a social side and hub interface to it, where multiplayer gaming on the Dreamcast was akin to using Gamespy on PC.

    1. Re:Too little too late by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      Anyway, I'm done with consoles - too short of a lifespan.

      What do you mean by that? The generational duration has been around 5+ years for a long time now. In fact, some Slashdotters think it should be shorter. Using SCEA as an example:
      PS1 September 9th, 1995 eNOS Lives!
      PS2 October 26, 2000
      PS3 Nov 17, 2006
      PS4 November 15, 2013

      That being said, maybe they're referring to the fact that XBL has more of a social side and hub interface to it, where multiplayer gaming on the Dreamcast was akin to using Gamespy on PC.

      Probably, I played some pretty hefty games of SOCOM, EQOA and FFXI on the PS2 and like the Dreamcast it was more akin to Gamespy. Some PS2 games actually used Gamespy for network services, notably the Star Wars Battlefront games.

    2. Re:Too little too late by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      Whoa! I didn't realize the PS3 was that old :\ I retract my statement about life span.

  20. Referrals and pro-gaming might make it worthwhile by Henarchaga · · Score: 1

    I could see where Sony might gain sales. I play on xbox, and have a handful of friends that bought a PS4 instead of a an xbox1. I know we'd all still like to game together, and if, say, the next Call of Duty or Destiny was something that the PS4-owner friends were on the fence about but wanted to play with myself or others, it would be a great incentive for them to be able to play with me, and vice-versa.

    What I don't know and cannot intelligently comment on are: license and royalty fees, implementation costs, difficulties in network coding with cross-platform, and whether the marginal profit exists to to make this worthwhile to a developer or to a publisher, let alone to Microsoft or Sony.

    I think it'd be pretty awesome if it meant that historically brand-locked franchises like Halo, Gears of War, Ratchet & Clank, or Resistance became cross-platform. I doubt that it would happen, but for the big multiplayer games, there might be enough monetary incentives from MLG/pro competitions, for titles like Halo, CoD, or Tears of Bore.

  21. Re:The very first original xbox "one" is still bet by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

    And before the Dreamcast with the Saturn Netlink.

    And even before that there was the Xband modem.

  22. Re:The very first original xbox "one" is still bet by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

    Sure, with a modem. Ethernet was a paid addon. And it was still not nearly as integrated into the platform as the Xbox did, and as every other device since does.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  23. Re:The very first original xbox "one" is still bet by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

    Yet with less hardware, most consoles games, especially around that time, were faster, because the console OS was/is more efficient and game code was heavily optimized

  24. What took so long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are basically both the same x86 hardware, so what took Sony/MS so long?

  25. Re:The very first original xbox "one" is still bet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Microsoft ate Sony's lunch with the xbox vs the PS2"

    You got that backwards. PS2 is literally the best-selling console of all time. 155+ million units sold compared to Xbox's paltry 24 million.