E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

[ODogg]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

Sony don't give a **** about that minecraft crossplay. I don't either. I'm actually in agreement with daniel here, holy hell.

I agree with you guys too. Minecraft is just a game for kids, I couldn't care any less about crossplay for Minecraft, LOL

[Skyboxer]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

Minecraft is one of my favorites. I don't think it's simply a "game for kids"...
With that said I couldn't care less for cross play personally.

[ExtremeGamer]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

I think you guys are missing the bigger point than it being a "game for kids".


Sent from my iPad using Operation Sports

[Flawless]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

I don't care about something, screw everyone else! I swear the length at which some will go to defend their favorite plastic box.

Let make me break it down for those that just want to act obnoxious.

The Better Together update is bringing Realms, Infinite Worlds where you can play with hundreds and thousands of people, dedicated servers, independent servers, and sever browser to all platforms. Also, more parental controls and safety measures to protect the children, Jim Ryan.

With Minecraft, it's what's coming because of the unification of all platforms. The engine is getting revamped to bring feature parity and so they no longer have to support so many versions individually. And with how this all works, denying cross-play means PS4 players don't get any of this.

One doesn't need to have played Minecraft or care about it to understand that this decision is only harming PS4 players. This is why I think an exception should be made for Minecraft cross-play regardless of whatever business reasons Sony have to not do so.

[daniel77733]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

I understand extremegamer.

Allowing Minecraft to be cross-played would be the RIGHT thing to do but let's be realistic...when was the last time any publisher did the right thing for the consumer?

---

Jim Ryan should have just said no comment. Bottom line is that while it's WRONG and gamers who play Minecraft on PS4 will be mad and angry, the fact of the matter is that these people aren't exactly going to run out, buy the opposite console and sell their PS4.

Besides, unless you only own a PS4, why would you even want to buy it for that console in the first place when it's a Microsoft owned IP? Even having a Microsoft owned IP on a Sony console is a shock in of itself.

Conclusion.....Sony is WRONG but don't hold your breath expecting them to do the RIGHT thing.

[mestevo]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

EA Access is the last time that jumps out at me that a publisher did something so consumer-centric. Coincidentally another Sony bungle and the oft-hated EA.

People are entrenched in each side like the recent BC debate, so not going to try and convince anyone any different about the Minecraft bit. More/better games and options is almost always better, some seem to disagree.

[daniel77733]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

EA Access is the last time that jumps out at me that a publisher did something so consumer-centric. Coincidentally another Sony bungle and the oft-hated EA.

People are entrenched in each side like the recent BC debate, so not going to try and convince anyone any different about the Minecraft bit. More/better games and options is almost always better, some seem to disagree.

Yeah, I would love to know the real story behind Sony declining EA Access as there has to be more to what was reported because EA Access has no affect on PS NOW whatsoever. If I had to guess, I would say money.

I agree that for us gamers, the more options we have, the better but the problem is that not a single publisher or hardware manufacturer will ever see it that way simply because they have investors and stock holders and in the end, all they care about is money and profits. That's it. They don't care about us. They're not our friends.

But just watching a Phil Spencer GameSpot interview, he's just as full of crap as Jim Ryan or anyone else that works for these publishers. He talks about hating the "exclusive" one year content Sony has for Destiny 2 but I don't see him complaining about when he had the first two expansions for The Division a month early or has timed exclusive games like Dead Rising 4 and ROTTR. That is okay, I guess.

Like I said, they are ALL full of crap.

[mestevo]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

The content exclusivity in the first Destiny, which is rather content sparse IMO, is years, not months. I struggle to find a worst exclusive deal.

You must be joking comparing that to a 2 month exclusive or 'exclusively keeping all the PS4 minecraft players from the big bad outside world'

[87Birdman]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

Yeah tomb raider was helped publish by Microsoft. Would it have still come out without them? Probably but most likely at a later date.

Month exclusivity sucks and I view as being pointless, but it makes sense and is only a month. Destiny year long makes the items useless once they come out and then they also got stealth extended. It is the reason destiny isn't going to see a dime from me.

And to be fair it looks like Phil means what he says I didn't see any exclusive content on any of the marketing deals on those big games.

The timed ones all look like indie type games which tend to be smaller and it would make sense those would work on one than priced to working on the next version once the game was released using the money from that to help make the new port.

Overall I think exclusivity sucks but in the end I understand why it is done and they probably have data to back it up.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[daniel77733]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

The content exclusivity in the first Destiny, which is rather content sparse IMO, is years, not months. I struggle to find a worst exclusive deal.

You must be joking comparing that to a 2 month exclusive or 'exclusively keeping all the PS4 minecraft players from the big bad outside world'

I see timed exclusive games as being far worse than the Destiny 1 deal simply because a full game will always be far superior to some DLC content which let's be honest, you could probably avoid, save your money, not miss much and still upgrade your stats/abilities via grinding. A year is bad but Microsoft beat that last gen with the GTA IV DLC deals. One was 14 months and the second was 6 months.

Point is that all the exclusive deals that Sony is doing now, Microsoft STARTED last generation on Xbox 360. Can't complain about the other company doing what you did years earlier.

As for Minecraft, I would be shocked if Sony changes their mind on cross play. Not going to lie, I would be doing the same thing if I was Sony for two reasons - first, it doesn't benefit me in any way and I wouldn't be concerned about consumers leaving my eco system because it would be few/if any and second, I know that if the roles were reversed, Microsoft would be pulling the same crap.

Now if Microsoft wanted to PAY ME (meaning Sony) like they paid TTI for GTA IV DLC which was reported to be $10M, then I would be more than happy to make the game cross play.

What's truly funny is that I see more Xbox fans complaining about this then I do PlayStation fans. LOL.

As for all and any timed exclusivity in general, I personally would never waste a penny on it because I just don't see the point. Now, FULL exclusivity, that's a different story and actually makes sense to me.

[daniel77733]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

Yeah tomb raider was helped publish by Microsoft. Would it have still come out without them? Probably but most likely at a later date.

Month exclusivity sucks and I view as being pointless, but it makes sense and is only a month. Destiny year long makes the items useless once they come out and then they also got stealth extended. It is the reason destiny isn't going to see a dime from me.

And to be fair it looks like Phil means what he says I didn't see any exclusive content on any of the marketing deals on those big games.

The timed ones all look like indie type games which tend to be smaller and it would make sense those would work on one than priced to working on the next version once the game was released using the money from that to help make the new port.

Overall I think exclusivity sucks but in the end I understand why it is done and they probably have data to back it up.

ROTTR was well into development at Crystal Dynamics. Square Enix didn't need Microsoft's or anyone's help for that matter. Game would have come out the same time but once Fallout 4 was announced for November 10th, I think that Square Enix would have delayed the game to early 2016. Microsoft wanted a game to go head to head with Uncharted 4 but then it got delayed seven months, Fallout 4 came out on the same day, Microsoft refused to move up/back the date and the game was killed.

Phil says that NOW but he somehow forgot all the deals he's made in the last three years? Can't have it both ways and that's what Spencer is trying to do. The only reason why Microsoft isn't doing any "deals" is simple....they're losing money from doing them and they don't gain anything. Sony on the other hand do gain and make money which is why they keep doing it.

Basically, it's the opposite of last generation.

[87Birdman]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

I see timed exclusive games as being far worse than the Destiny 1 deal simply because a full game will always be far superior to some DLC content which let's be honest, you could probably avoid, save your money, not miss much and still upgrade your stats/abilities via grinding. A year is bad but Microsoft beat that last gen with the GTA IV DLC deals. One was 14 months and the second was 6 months.

Point is that all the exclusive deals that Sony is doing now, Microsoft STARTED last generation on Xbox 360. Can't complain about the other company doing what you did years earlier.

As for Minecraft, I would be shocked if Sony changes their mind on cross play. Not going to lie, I would be doing the same thing if I was Sony for two reasons - first, it doesn't benefit me in any way and I wouldn't be concerned about consumers leaving my eco system because it would be few/if any and second, I know that if the roles were reversed, Microsoft would be pulling the same crap.

Now if Microsoft wanted to PAY ME (meaning Sony) like they paid TTI for GTA IV DLC which was reported to be $10M, then I would be more than happy to make the game cross play.

What's truly funny is that I see more Xbox fans complaining about this then I do PlayStation fans. LOL.

As for all and any timed exclusivity in general, I personally would never waste a penny on it because I just don't see the point. Now, FULL exclusivity, that's a different story and actually makes sense to me.

The difference is in one situation both pay the same amount one gets less the other situation the one person doesn't pay until the game is there for them to buy. Like I said in the other post I understand why they do it and they most likely have data to back it up.

But Destiny is by far the worst I've ever seen done. A year in a game like that means by the time the other group gets it it is outdated. Plus add in when the year was up they stealth extended it which is just a poor look for a company. And looks like destiny 2 is following the same model so because of that practice I'm voting with my wallet and will not purchase it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[daniel77733]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

The difference is in one situation both pay the same amount one gets less the other situation the one person doesn't pay until the game is there for them to buy. Like I said in the other post I understand why they do it and they most likely have data to back it up.

But Destiny is by far the worst I've ever seen done. A year in a game like that means by the time the other group gets it it is outdated. Plus add in when the year was up they stealth extended it which is just a poor look for a company. And looks like destiny 2 is following the same model so because of that practice I'm voting with my wallet and will not purchase it.

If you're truly not buying the game because of their business practices, I respect you 100% because few/if any are actually able to do that.

For clarification, it was Titanfall 1 that was literally saved by Microsoft, not ROTTR. Also, according to some on neogaf, it appears that the exclusive content that Sony has in their contract as part of their marketing deal is literally something that they (Sony) are paying for. If this is true and Sony is literally paying for that exclusive content, then I can't get mad at Sony whatsoever for this because after all, they're paying for it and if they didn't, it simply wouldn't exist. In this situation, it's up to Activision not to allow it.

[ExtremeGamer]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

I get it, but the bigger picture here is more than Minecraft. It's Rocket League, maybe it's Call of Duty? Maybe it's Madden. What it opens the door for is true cross play where the plastic box you choose only really depends on exclusives and marketing deals. I fully expect PC/Switch/Xbox to have many further discussions down the road of cross-network outside of Minecraft and Rocket League. And unfortunately, Sony won't be in these discussions. Good for their financials, I understand that, but for the gamer? Not at all.

[ODogg]

Re: E3 2017 - Microsoft Discussion Thread

EA Access is the last time that jumps out at me that a publisher did something so consumer-centric. Coincidentally another Sony bungle and the oft-hated EA.

People are entrenched in each side like the recent BC debate, so not going to try and convince anyone any different about the Minecraft bit. More/better games and options is almost always better, some seem to disagree.

I'm not entrenched in any position, I just couldn't care less about Minecraft. I do wish they'd allow crossplay in general though. It'd be great to play Injustice 2 against my friends who bought it on Xbox One for example.

But I see why they won't so to me its not worth being unhappy about. Hard to get too upset about something that has, at least in consoles, never really existed in any meaningful way.