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.
And you don't have to pay extra for the privilege either.
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.
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.
This nicely demonstrates the benefits of open systems, that are free of arbitrary restrictions placed to hinder competition.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
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?
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.
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.
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
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 ..
"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.
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 ... ... 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.
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"
It wasn't ahead of the PC, it "was a PC", but it was a cheap PC.
"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.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
And before the Dreamcast with the Saturn Netlink.
And even before that there was the Xband modem.
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.
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
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
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.
"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.