Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Sony Is the Only Remaining Obstacle To PS4-Xbox Cross-Play (kotaku.com)

Posted by msmash on from the who's-at-fault? dept.

In March, Microsoft announced native support for cross-platform play between Xbox One and Windows 10. At the time, the company also added that this support could be extended to "other console and PC networks," something which led people to wonder if truly cross-platform gaming, on any platform, was next. When asked, Sony did say that it was open to the idea. "PlayStation has been supporting cross-platform play between PC on several software titles starting with Final Fantasy 11 on PS2 and PC back in 2002. We would be happy to have the conversation with any publishers or developers who are interested in cross-platform play." But since then, it appears that Sony has had a change of heart, which has resulted in developers asking the company for an update. Kotaku reports: In recent days, the developers behind Rocket League and The Witcher 3 have both called for Sony to break down the walls separating PlayStation Network and Xbox Live and allow cross-platform multiplayer. What's changed in the last few days are developers making an open call for Sony to make good on having that conversation with publishers and developers. In an interview with IGN, Psyonix president Jeremy Dunham explained how the Rocket League developer had already taken care of the technical side of things. "We're literally at the point where all we need is the go-ahead on the Sony side," said Dunham, "and we can, in less than a business day, turn it on and have it up and working no problem. It'd literally take a few hours to propagate throughout the whole world, so really we're just waiting on the permission to do so." In another statement to IGN, CD Projekt RED CEO Marcin Iwinski supported Psyonix.

57 comments

  1. Microsoft is the only obstacle to gpled windows by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    frist psot!

  2. Leader at the top is probably clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The guy in charge of making this decision at Sony still probably thinks that forcing people to buy a PS4 means more sales.

    The opposite is true. People will not buy a PS4 because it means they can't play with their Xbox and PC friends.

    1. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't understand how allowing Xbox and PS4 cross platform gaming would benefit Sony in any way, shape, or form. They are direct competitors. I could potentially see some upsides to being able to game with PC but never Xbox.

    2. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by PingSpike · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a reason that MS came up with this idea, and its not because they're such great guys. Its because this benefits the weaker player and they're that guy this time. The advantage of the dominate position is people will buy games for your system first because these systems are multiplayer and other players are part of the value. Less players on the less popular console, less valuable. I wouldn't accuse the Sony execs of not being dumb enough to take the bait, but I think they're greedy enough they won't.

    3. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Forcing people to buy"? Everyone has a choice between Xbox and PlayStation. They've had the same choice for decades. Sony doesn't want to be "embraced and extended" by Microsoft that's also their choice. There is a long list of former Microsoft partners who probably regret their decision to partner with them.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    4. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Potential PS4 buyers may have Xbox One and/or PC friends and still want to play with their friends.

      Let's say you have four friends with Xbox One and twelve friends with PCs. Right now, with Sony's decision, buying a PS4 means you're not being to play your friends. To do that you must buy either Xbox One or PC. You're not going to force your 16 friends to buy a PS4.

      And that's how it benefits Sony: staying a valid buying option.

    5. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Last generation, Sony was pushing for it and MS were balking. Because of exactly what you said. The higher selling system doesn't see any need for it.

    6. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great example, but while we see it cited, I suspect the more common situation (given that PS4 sales FAR exceed Xbone sales, is that you're the one with the Xbone, have 12 friends on PC and 4 friends on a PS4 - the PS4 and PC guys are all happily playing and you're the one stuck only being able to play with 12 instead of 16 friends. The PS4 guys are able to play with 15 of the 16, all because one schmuck bought a Xbone. :)

    7. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. This has everything to do with Microsoft trying to remove reasons for people not to buy the XBone, such as that its market share is abysmal compared to that of the PS4, and that XBone buyers thus have far fewer of their friends to play games against.

    8. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by gweilo8888 · · Score: 1

      And given that PC gaming has only *just* fractionally overtaken console gaming as the dominant platform last year and PS4 has outsold XBone by almost two to one, I'd say that figures are much more like 12 PC gamers to 8 PS4 gamers and 4 XBone gamers. (And many of those PC gamers will simultaneously by PS4 / XBone gamers, so you can already play against them on many of your games.)

      Microsoft is hoping its negative PR campaign will spur Sony to give its one-third of console gamers access to the two-thirds of console gamers it has lost in this round of the war. That's the *only* reason for this story, and it's important to remember that. Why should Sony just hand over the keys to Microsoft and surrender their hard-fought advantage? Answer: They shouldn't.

    9. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      Last generation, Sony was pushing for it and MS were balking. Because of exactly what you said. The higher selling system doesn't see any need for it.

      The funny part of this statement is the XB360 outsold the PS3 ~2:1 in the first few years. The later years devs caught on that the PS3 was a very capable machine and it eventually caught up to (or depending on source, outsold) the XB360. The last generation wasn't just the little guy asking for a part of the big guys multiplayer fun to try to push more hardware.

    10. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      PS4 sales may exceed Xbox One sales but that depends heavily on the region and most of all it depends on your friends.

      I have four friends with an Xbox One and one of them also has a PS4. I don't know anyone who only has a PS4.

    11. Re:Leader at the top is probably clueless by JThundley · · Score: 1

      Not to mention how Microsoft has treated its past business "partners".

  3. Common Ground by TFlan91 · · Score: 1

    This destroys what consoles gave, common ground.

    No longer will everyone playing a single game be running the same hardware. With these cross-platform features, consumers will be looking at which platform provides more frag than lag.

    Sony has historically provided better hardware, but Microsoft has provided a better network.

    Decisions, decisions...

    1. Re:Common Ground by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

      You ISP / network is driving the lag not ps or xbox.

    2. Re:Common Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In most games its the poor kid who has the best internet connection of the group which is driving the lag; someone starts up netflix on his connection or he dc's and everyone has to wait for the new host migration process. Avoiding this kind of nonsense was the whole reason for a paid service like XBL in the beginning but once MS had everyone's money they decided that maintaining a quality service level wasn't important. PSN was never really meant to be a premium service so I don't know if they even intended to host games.

      It does raise an important question though; when 80% of the players are on PS4s and those systems are better hardware what does Sony have to gain from "sharing" the environment with a worse system. Will the better systems be burdened with hosting more often, will Sony pick up most of the bill and host them themselves?

    3. Re:Common Ground by barc0001 · · Score: 1

      ? How does Microsoft's "network" come into it when someone plays Rocket League? I play Rocket League on a PC against Psynet (PS4) players all the time and there's not material difference. They are not routing through Sony's network, the connection is from their PS4 through their ISP to the Rocket League server directly, just like my PC's is. Xbox would work the same.

      There's the side issue of the console players not being able to properly compete with the PC Master Race in things like 1st person shooters but that doesn't come into play with RL or games like it.

    4. Re:Common Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about Sony and Microsoft. I cannot think of any other company that has expended more effort to shit on standardizations and commonality than these two.

    5. Re:Common Ground by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      Xbox Live has historically been a much better service than PSN, based on speed and availability.

      I work at an ISP and I often I hear about XBox Live being down, I rarely hear the same about PSN.

    6. Re:Common Ground by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No longer will everyone playing a single game be running the same hardware.

      Perhaps you haven't read the specs on the latest generation consoles. The main hardware difference is the shape of the controllers.

  4. They should fix their user schema first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sony used the psn account name as a primary key; it's obviously a major fsck-up. Apparently their retarded developers do not know how to create proper databases, nor can they handle history changes [admitted by their CEO].

    1. Re:They should fix their user schema first by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      This is one of the major reasons i stopped buying digital games from Sony or investing any money on my PSN account. I simply dont trust them to properly run a network. The inability to change the names at all is a HUGE red-flag. On top of that the 'primary console' nonsense where you can lose access to your stuff because you changed hardware too often or in the wrong way.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:They should fix their user schema first by sexconker · · Score: 1

      Sony used the psn account name as a primary key; it's obviously a major fsck-up. Apparently their retarded developers do not know how to create proper databases, nor can they handle history changes [admitted by their CEO].

      If you guarantee it's unique, what's the issue? You can even allow it to be changed. Your relationships will cascade the change to any other table referencing it.

      What would you propose?
      An unnecessarily long UUID that penalizes performance on every direct lookup, join, or LIKE query?
      An integer with the IDENTITY flag set that auto increments and has no actual meaning?

      Change tracking / historical retention can be achieved in many ways. Depending on what you want to preserve and how you expect to need to recover it, you can simply backup the transaction logs, regularly backup the database itself, or create a history table for each table you need historical data on and create a trigger that copies affected rows, along with a timestamp column with a default of SYSDATETIME() or similar, on UPDATE or DELETE.

      What would you suggest? Polluting the main table with a timestamp / rowversion column and only selecting the latest one OVER (PARTITION BY {your dumbass UUID PK column})? Do you even care about performance or size? Yes, size matters, because we want to be able to keep the whole table, or at least the whole file for the commonly-accessed columns, in memory. (Let me guess - you've got wide tables and you're NOT splitting out the rarely-used columns off in a separate file.)

    3. Re:They should fix their user schema first by tepples · · Score: 1

      sexconker ( 1179573 ) wrote:

      What would you propose?
      An integer with the IDENTITY flag set that auto increments and has no actual meaning?

      Yes. For example, a user with username sexconker could have user ID 1179573. Store user ID in most places, and the username is an INNER JOIN psn_users_basic away. Here, psn_users_basic holds the most commonly used columns of a user's profile, with less commonly used ones in a separate table, whether flat or sparse (EAV).

    4. Re:They should fix their user schema first by sexconker · · Score: 1

      You're adding a useless column that has no actual meaning.

      It's simpler to use the actual user name and make it unique. Your PK index then also serves as an index on the user name for sorting/searching purposes against the user name.

      The downsides are that the tables referencing the user name have to store the user name (but that's probably capped at 30 characters or so) and that equality comparisons for a string are worse than for an int (but only by a few cycles since you'll return a false 99.999% of the time and do it after a couple of characters).
      These would be more than offset by the fact that you can completely avoid a join in many cases since you already have the user name directly in the table you're querying.

      As long as you've got a sane length limit, properly set up your relationships, and make sure your collation makes sense (unicode/accents, capitalization), there's no real reason to introduce another column that's simply a proxy for the value you want. Even if you're encrypting the user name it doesn't matter.

    5. Re:They should fix their user schema first by tepples · · Score: 1

      You're adding a useless column that has no actual meaning.

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you're saying you're opposed to surrogate keys in principle. The foreign key link to the users table is what gives a surrogate key meaning.

      The downsides are that the tables referencing the user name have to store the user name (but that's probably capped at 30 characters or so)

      A column holding up to 30 UTF-32 characters takes 120 bytes, compared to an integer that takes 8, or 4 if you don't expect half the global population to create an account. Even if you use UTF-8, you still have to allocate 120 bytes because code points above U+10000 (mostly emoji and lesser-used Chinese and Japanese ideograms) take four code units.

      These would be more than offset by the fact that you can completely avoid a join in many cases since you already have the user name directly in the table you're querying.

      And then you have to balance the practical problem that propagating a primary key change places locks in the majority of tables in the system against the cost of a join to a table that's probably already cached in all servers' RAM. In fact, factoring usernames out to a separate table could be seen as compression for all other tables, allowing more of their rows to be kept in RAM.

    6. Re:They should fix their user schema first by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      Change tracking / historical retention can be achieved in many ways. Depending on what you want to preserve and how you expect to need to recover it, you can simply backup the transaction logs, regularly backup the database itself, or create a history table for each table you need historical data on and create a trigger that copies affected rows, along with a timestamp column with a default of SYSDATETIME() or similar, on UPDATE or DELETE.

      Or... instead of triggering a database wide update because a user changed their name.. just use a key like everybody else in every other database schema.

    7. Re:They should fix their user schema first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sexconker ( 1179573 ) mooooooooooooooooed:

      Mooooo moooo moooooo moooooing? An integer with the IDENTITY flag set that auto increments and has no actual meaning?

    8. Re:They should fix their user schema first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollocks.

      There are lots of reasons.

      Not having to update all cascading tables, not having to update all backups, complying with data protection, ensuring
      And also the performance. An explicit UID lookup is likely faster.

  5. eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ehhhhhhhhhhhh

  6. Bad business for Sony by oic0 · · Score: 2

    Microsoft has always been against cross platform and all about walling in their xbox garden to push proffit. This time around they are losing badly on market share and suddenly it makes more business sense to push for cross platform. If they were back on top again they would cut it right back off and tell everyone to stuff it. The articles like this are nothing but a business strategy to put social pressure on sony.

    1. Re:Bad business for Sony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah its more that MS is trying to unite XB and Win10 gaming into one with the problable end goal of 1 more console, and then steambox type things. Expect more and more PC/XB crossplay games especially from 1st party developers.

    2. Re:Bad business for Sony by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 1

      If cross-platform was possible, I wouldn't have an Xbox One. I bought a PS4 first, but friends wound up with XBox One, so I had to pick one up so we can co-op game. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

    3. Re:Bad business for Sony by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      So instead of half-baked console ports that are near unplayable with a keyboard/mouse setup with a "one resolution fits all" mentality that act like there is nothing running but THAT very game (perish the thought that you'd want a firewall), we now get half-baked console games that are shoveled onto the PC without any care because you don't even have to PORT anymore.

      Please excuse me when I don't jump in joy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:Bad business for Sony by floodo1 · · Score: 1

      Phil Spencer basically said all first party games will support crossplay between PC/XB and MS is actively encouraging developers to support it.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    5. Re:Bad business for Sony by CronoCloud · · Score: 1

      we now get half-baked console games that are shoveled onto the PC without any care because you don't even have to PORT anymore.

      Or vice versa! There are some half-baked buggy and/or badly designed indie/kickstarter/unity/budget game crap that was first released on PC and then later on PSN.

      Please excuse ME while I don't jump for joy for that sort of thing.

    6. Re:Bad business for Sony by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You don't expect sympathy that you don't get a decent port of some half-baked kickstarter project when I don't get a decent port of AAA games, do you?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  7. They misread Sony's comment by svanheulen · · Score: 2

    Sony's original comment was obviously talking about Playstation PC cross-platform play. Nothing in their comment indicated they were willing to work with other consoles. Obviously it would be good if they would all play nice together but it's silly to act like Sony had a "change of heart."

    1. Re:They misread Sony's comment by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      Also the game they mention (Final Fantasy XI) was forced to drop console support earlier this year for some reason. As of April this year, it's now PC-only. Maybe Sony isn't quite as open to cross-platform play any more as they once were.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    2. Re:They misread Sony's comment by svanheulen · · Score: 2

      Actually that decision was made by SquareEnix, not Sony. They greatly reduced the amount of resources they're investing in FFXI (since it's a 14 year old MMO) so they dropped support for the PS2 and Xbox 360 versions.

    3. Re:They misread Sony's comment by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      I don't buy that explanation because they already stopped updating the game last year. If they're keeping the servers running (they are) and they're no longer doing any development (they aren't) there's no reason to arbitrarily kill cross platform support. Unless they're being forced to by some outside party.

      It's not like they updated the PC client in such a way that the PS2 client stopped working. They actively removed support for a previously functional PS2 client, for no explained reason.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    4. Re:They misread Sony's comment by svanheulen · · Score: 1

      Actually they do still update the game, with new features and content even. They release a new update every month. It's funny because it used to be when new features where requested by players they would often give the excuse "PS2 limitations." One of those limitations was inventory space, which apparently the PS2 didn't have enough memory for more. Now they've added quite a bit more inventory space, which has been sorely needed. Also the last expansion (Seekers of Adoulin) was never released for PS2 because it couldn't handle it.

    5. Re:They misread Sony's comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFXI supported cross platform play between ps2 and pc, so every time the pc game was updated they also had to push an update to the ps2 version. They couldn't have just 'stopped updating the ps2 version' without also starting to host dedicated ps2 servers.

    6. Re:They misread Sony's comment by Megane · · Score: 1

      They also supported a client for Xbox 360 which they dropped support for at the same time as PS2. Rumors I had heard were that MS wasn't happy (at the time) that it supported cross-platform play, but somehow it happened. Both clients could be easily overloaded with lots of players and effects nearby, and good luck finding a working fat PS2 with a hard drive. You could use a first gen PS3 in emulation mode, but it had the same poor performance.

      As for just stop updating the PS2 version, they had sort of already done that (the final expansion only had a Japan version), but I get the idea that they were dependent upon their PS2 development systems for creating 3D assets, and that they were using the last working PS2 development systems left in the whole world. They are still releasing updates, but only for things that re-use existing 3D models. The most recent update even listed a bug that sounds like they found a wall hole somewhere in a zone (and a clone of it) that lets you go outside the normal area, and that they can't fix it any time soon.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  8. Microsoft just trying to level the playing field by YourMissionForToday · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Microsoft has been uninterested in cross-platform gameplay since....well, forever. They've actively tried to kill PC gaming (or at the very least, make it a second-class gaming experience to the Xbox). Not to mention they double-dip with their accessories ( For example, Xbox One Kinect having a proprietary connector so they can sell the USB 3.0 Windows Kinect).

    Now Microsoft has suddenly seen the light! They want to enable cross-platform play with Sony! Hmm, I wonder if that has anything to do with the low sales for Xbox One compared to PS4. Sony's refusal makes them the "closed" bad guy now. Great marketing, but it doesn't actually improve anyone's gaming experience. Psyonix's leadership is either naive about the console business or willfully acting as Microsoft's proxy to attack Sony.

    --
    Liberate your mind in two clicks or less.
  9. American product image problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You forget that Americans trust American products less; when Toyota and GM were making cars in NUMI at Fremont where two identical cars with different brand badges slapped onto them at the end of the line, the one with Toyota brand still out sells and had better resell value than the American branded car, despite both being manufactured by the same workers using same parts at the same plant.

    If Sony PS4 becomes binary compatible with XBOX One, it will start eating into XBOX One sale. Microsoft should pray very hard that Sony's Not Invented Here mental block continues to hold out.

  10. What about Win 7,8, Linux, Mac? by iampiti · · Score: 2

    The title says it all. If Microsoft are now such good people why isn't this cross platform play supported on Windows 7,8 or Linux or Mac? Couldn't it be that Ms is trying to make Windows 10 and Xbox more appealing than the PS4 and just trying to make more money?

  11. First Past the Post by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Like so many things, this is a general principle of why change is hard. Take electoral reform. The weaker party always wants electoral reform because they have trouble getting elected in the current system. However the folks that more less have the ability to make the change just used said system to get elected so why would it be in their best interest to change anything? Hence we've been stuck with first past the post electoral system for so long. Reverse the situation, and now the once weaker party will have second doubts about making the change as they are now in the dominate position. Rinse, and repeat....

    Meanwhile it is the voters, or in this case the console users who suffer.

  12. thats what we need by bobmajdakjr · · Score: 1

    pc-console crossplay - getting even people who cant aim in our pc quickmatch queues. crossplay has be done before i think microsoft forgot how much pc people hate console people. hell even when it doesnt get in the way of the gameplay pc people hate console people; see also the fallout 4 modding drama.

    1. Re:thats what we need by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i think microsoft forgot how much pc people hate console people.

      Not everyone out there cares about 'pc masterrace' bullshit.

  13. May not be as exciting as it seems by sjonke · · Score: 1

    The PS4/PC cross-play in Rocket League just means that you randomly get some PC players in the mix. Not only isn't their cross-platform voice chat, there isn't even the ability to group up with friends on the other platform. It is a good thing anyway because it means more players in the community, but if this is all we get with PS4/Xbone cross-play, it's not something to get terribly excited about.

    --
    --- What?
  14. Crossplay? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You keep using that word.
    I do not think it means what you think it means.

  15. Playing X-platform FFXIV by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

    I'm currently playing a cross platform game: Final Fantasy 14. I'm in game with people on PS4, PS3 and PC. Isn't this more an issue with the game developers themselves and game server APIs that are agnostic to the platform rather than Sony not wanting this?

    1. Re:Playing X-platform FFXIV by Agripa · · Score: 1

      You can be sure that even if there were not technical reasons under control of Sony which would prevent this, part of the agreement allowing games to be made for the PS4 includes requiring Sony's approval for such a feature.

      Like the other poster said, cross platform play is only an advantage to the console with less market share. It does not matter if Sony would gain from this even if they gained more than Microsoft; what matters is that Sony has all of a smaller market. To Sony, good will means fucking their customers.

  16. EVE/Dust514 by Lordpidey · · Score: 1

    This is unexpected, as Sony systems had not only the first example of crossplay, but also the most interesting. Eve/Dust514. Two different MMOs, set in the same persistant universe, that could interact with each other. (The interaction is admittedly limited, but it is there.) I would have expected a company to pioneer not just once, but twice to remain open. I guess I was wrong.

    --
    Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
  17. Weak? by phorm · · Score: 1

    I don't think it's because they're weak, but more because they already control two platforms (both PC and XBox) so can benefit from sales and play on both.