Minecraft's Better Together Update Could Yet Come to PS4

The pro-crossplay faction would like to say: you're welcome.

I haven’t played Minecraft in years, a friend of mine actually bought for me on Xbox One. I could never really get into though.

I'm pretty sure the Xbox Live sign in requirement must be a non-starter for Sony, and I don't blame them. I don't blame MS either though, after paying for it, they can do what they want.

Demanding an XBL account is a no no

Having to log-in to a Xbox account isn't going to happen with Sony.

Maybe Minecraft players after the update can log-in to a Mojang account on PS4 that can connect to the servers for crossplay?

I'm assuming it's more complicated than that, lol.

Require Xbox account is unacceptable.
Micro$oft just wants to steal players from PS4 and Switch.

I'm so tired of the words cross play. Or is it one word...

@AlexSora89 For what Minecraft and Fortnite the two games i hate? Annoying the 🤬 out of me with crying about the worst thing that happend to gaming Battle Royale? For wasting time with a non issue i dont care about with a free to play game. Well i just like to tell you go 🤬 yourself.

The only time that Minecraft has ever looked fun is when Ashly Burch plays it.

they can keep it, i have this version on the XB1 (as it was free to owners of the Minecraft XB1 Edition) and it plays like crap, it's slow, the controls are floaty and the damn maps don't work properly

the stand alone versions are 10x better

The crossplay cancer community has spread.
We srsly need to Eradicate them with fire.

@Flaming_Kaiser
I see the first-comment syndrome is striking here as well, my jab proved to be effective judging by the apparent wording of your comment.
That said, however, as said and repeated, nothing bad can come out of cross-play being a thing, for one.
Even then, should you not give a crap about battle royale games, you have the eternally forgotten option to continue doing so without addressing the issue - why a mere "see, crossplay is good" on my part got you so riled up is beyond me, although as @Hapuc suggests, there seems some kind of "pureblood supremacism" concerning crossplay that I can chalk up as either remnants of fanboying over poorly worded PR talk or just plain elitism over a console based on its own install base. Look, I might be a Nintendo guy (should you even need reasons for that, good news - I got ya covered!), but I know I can give Sony credit whenever it's due.
Cross-play is good for everyone, and should you not feel that way, then joke's on you.

On a more serious note, I see many people here complaining about the need of an Xbox account. To the best of my knowledge, being also an Xbox user myself, an Xbox account should be free to open - what I know for sure is that Xbox accounts and Microsoft accounts are one and the same, so if you have any PC with Windows on it, there you go: e-mail address first, password second, and you should be good to go. Hope this helps!

I don't think most of minecraft users (little kid) understand what cross-play is.

@AlexSora89 Oh man I can't wait when crossplay becomes the norm and devs start to eat out money from publishers which in turn they will eat out from our wallets.

MIcrotransactions are okay guys only cosmetics right...right????? Publishers won't create anything bad with them "cry.mp3" let's trust them like we trusted them with DLC not becoming pure cancerfest and cash grab (Snoop Dog DLC voicepack starting at 4.99$)

@Hapuc
And now we have an opening quote for the slippery slope fallacy article on Tv Tropes, thank you!

@AlexSora89 Yeah like that whole controversy stopped EA from putting in Mtx and Lootboxes the only one putting on a fight against these Publishers lmao is that Chinese Guy..YeahYon or something and that fat guy whose wife is cheating on him and he knows it.

But I would love if Crossplay became the norm and went the route MTX and Dlc had so we can finally learn hey We don't need to be buddy buddy in everything when it comes to gaming and I hope those who promote united gamers will Fu** Off once and for all.

@Hapuc
Implying the only way for cross-play online multiplayer gaming for multiplatform titles boils down to microtransactions for cosmetic gaming. What about a FIFA title where matchmaking allows you to play against someone who has a console different than yours? Or Overwatch, for that matter? Would that be the end of the world?

@AlexSora89 YES very much so if the player base on one community is low while on the other ones is high most devs in todays gaming will cut their losses short and say hey guys we know not a lot of you play on that system so we are gonna stop putting updates and new content for your Console but hey you can still play with other communities so we won't have to kill our game right away we are gonna milk you dry till the last breath(And Of course you will be able to purchase MTX that already released etc etc)

@get2sammyb a slightly inferiour version that gets all the awesome new content is much better than a slightly superiour version that gets no support anymore at all.
For anyone that doesn’t like the bedrock edition, just keep playing the console edition. And for anyone buying it after the update and still wanting to play the console edition, just buy it physical, this option is availabe on any playtform except switch where the physical version is bedrock.

@get2sammyb it had, and still has, some major performance issues, with bugs that haven't been present in Java or Console for years being a big issue until very recently, but they're slowly bringing things back to standard.

It's also the branch with a ton of neat new gameplay modes and features being added to it, so if you're into Minecraft, you're getting an inferior experience by missing out on it.

Oh, and the cross-platform multiplayer aspect, while not something I've dabbled in too heavily, is super seamless and basically transparent, which is what you want it to be.

@AlexSora89
Thank you faction!
https://media.giphy.com/media/4bvQltmMAbbEY/giphy.gif

@Hapuc
There, the reasoning is based on one community being bigger than the other. Joke's on you - if anything, a unified userbase is an incentive for devs to develop for all consoles, rather than an excuse for not supporting their games at all.

@JJ2
Now you're making me blush!

@Flaming_Kaiser god dude how triggered can you be? 😂
It’s not even bad news (in fact it’s the opposite), and you go on a blind rage like that over an innocuous comment? 😂
You must’ve had a really frustrating day, my friend.

@AlexSora89
Just had a good laugh man. Hope I didn't offend anyone with JC gif. Haha

@AlexSora89 Your comments can be just a tad inflammatory, don't you think?

But to address the actual content of your comments (and keep in mind I generally advocate for cross-play, not against), there are downsides to cross-play being the norm. Developers charging for access to their servers is an obvious one. It could just be for cross-play servers, or even for all. $10 extra a month to level up your gaming experience with Activision Pro is a very obvious step to take. If you don't believe that companies would do that just take a look at PS3 online passes to see how they handled pre-owned games.

It also puts a hard bar to potential competition. If a new console were to come around, why should the big 3 cross-play with it? If they don't, it dies instantly because no one will buy third-party games on it. I understand this one is minor but it's definitely a point.

Lastly I'll state bugs. This one is also developer specific (looking especially at you Bethesda), but bugs in games tend to be different console-to-console. With cross-play, that just gets exacerbated. The people on switch bring their invisible character glitch, PS4 with an infinite reload animation, and Xbox players are falling through the floor. Patches tend to come slow with many devs, and now they potentially have 3x as much to fix before any community is happy. Adding mods into the mix however make that problem exponentially larger.

Like I said, I'm for cross-play, but its introduction does add a lot of uncertainty and room for developers to really let players down. Although I think it's a good thing, it is definitely not all sunshine and rainbows, and it's understandable that some people would be leery of it.

@Cloud7794 great comment mate!
I too am in favor of cross-play, but as you correctly put it, it comes with its truckload of worries, just like any innovation does.
I feel your points are all valid, but unfortunately we’ll just have to wait and see how it turns out.
Let’s not forget that, in its early days, DLC used to be perceived as the the end of gaming or something like that; a decade or so later there certainly are a lot of developers overusing the concept, but also a fair share of companies who price them correctly and don’t withhold already completed contents from the base games just to sell them later.

I can't wait until cross-play gets going properly. It will be beautiful to see gamers of all persuasions playing their favourite games together, making new friends in the process.

Reads this article's comments section

Erm

@AlexSora89 Yes because in todays corporate world Devs are going to go out of their way to fix everything they can instead of just shutting it down and minimize the losses.
That gaming that you still think exist is dead there are far few devs that are genuinely making games first then money comes second.

I think crossplay is a good idea! Thank you very much!

This server is for the PC version originally IP: 158.69.25.99:25602 but I think it would receive users from other plataforms.

@JJ2
Why should it offend anyone? It was all in good fun...

@Cloud7794
... which then abruptly stopped. My first comment was a bit of a zing, but most definitely not as inflammatory as some of the more toxic comments against crossplay and port-begging, which gives the impressions that going against whatever Sony advocates is a no-no here. I've always voiced my complaints about Nintendo's wrongdoings over at NintendoLife, most infamously about the Switch Online Service which is itself another nasty beast to deal with altogether (and let's leave it at that, mostly for the sake of staying on topic).
That said, your analysis of the situation put another legitimate worry under the spotlight (which, again, proves how much more useful rationality is than a generic "no, you're wrong, shut up"); I, for one, think that scenario would eventually come to pass if cross-play became the norm for every multiplatform game with online play, but even then I doubt anyone except the greediest software houses would do that. Similarly, that could be much more acceptable if fewer games did cross-play (not to mention that, should software houses decide on whether or not to implement crossplay rather than the Big Three, it would give more healthy freedom to the industry as a whole), which at the moment seems the more likely option. I guess time will tell, however.

@Hapuc
I guess I can blame this on me being a Ninty guy, they're still kind of old school on most aspects of the gaming spectrum - for better and for worse. If the (cue Jim Sterling voice) tchee-paul-aye industry is that bad out there, then Fallout has become a metaphor for gaming itself: a cartoony, plump guy acting as the friendly mascot of a vault, with a barren wasteland outside.

@AlexSora89
Cool. I was being sarcastic BTW haha
I think cross play is a good thing overall especially for small user base like VR. And it's a shame only one console is pushing it. As for Minecraft is just not acceptable for users being on PSNfor years playing being asked to log in XBL whether it's an easy thing to do is irrelevant. (and no, not everyone has a Ms account or even remember their Ms details, many are also moving from Windows, many kids including mine don't have XBL either but play on their psn acc) Fortnite proved everyone can cross play from different networks.

@AlexSora89 Speaking of giving Sony credit when it's due, they are the only ones making any real immediate sacrifice to keep gamers happy with cross play. Good on them!

@clvr Some of the DLC content created at launch is actually understandable. When a budget is given for a game and an employee is given a window of time to create content, their pay is part of the budget for the game. When an employee finishes work on the main game and the labor has been paid, they then need something to do or else they have no income. They can then begin working on DLC which brings in more revenue and therefore has a new budget. If the content was not going to be paid for separately, and did not bring revenue, the content would never exist at all, so in that case just because it is available at launch does not mean it should be part of the main game. In cases like this, DLC at launch is not just fine, but even awesome to have more optional content right off the bat.

Problem is we can't know when it is done right and some people tend to assume the worst habitually. Call of Duty tends to have season pass content at launch like the Classified Zombies map in Black Ops 4, but who's to say how budget factored in? Not like skeptics would take Activision at their word. I consider myself open minded and even I wouldn't trust Activision lol. I'd trust Treyarch though. They always do their fans right.

I think a good example will be Fallout 76's microtransactions at launch. I'm sure a team was given a budget for microtransaction cosmetics and whatnot. That budget was issued based on the expectation for additional revenue. Those cosmetics will be in the game at launch, but very likely would not have been if no additional budget was granted.

@KleebanKliban
Er... yes and no. Between doing an immediate "sacrifice" to make players happy and being the only ones to do so there is a pretty wide gap.

@JJ2
Of course it's possible to have cross-play from all networks. The anti-crossplay faction is under the belief this will quickly derail into microtransaction-fueled, cosmetic-driven anarchist nonsense, but I can chalk that up to denial - namely, denying the fact that now having online multiplayer tied to a single console userbase is going to need a valid reason.

@KleebanKliban yes, of course the subject’s more complex than I depicted it, but mine was merely an example of one practice that was feared at first, and later became the norm, just like crossplay might become in the not-so-distant future.

Other than that, I actually agree with your assessments on DLC; it’s important to remember that nothing’s ever black or white in and of itself. We’re talking practices here, so we should judge how they’re implemented, not their inherent nature.

@AlexSora89
Well I said everyone can cross play from different networks because apparently Ms wants ps gamers to log in XBL for Minecraft.
That goes to show they are just being greedy.
Leave me out of your imaginary factions please haha

@JJ2
Well, to me not having cross-play at all, or worse, not having Minecraft on PS4 in its entirety, could be seen as a greedier move on Microsoft's part given they own the IP (which, contrary to how jokingly I suggested it in another thread, is the equivalent of God Of War becoming available on other platforms; the case could be made about Minecraft not having been born as a MS IP per se, but contrary to other exclusivity cases such as Bayonetta on Nintendo consoles, Rise of The Tomb Raider on Xbox One or Castlevania Requiem on PS4, where exclusivity has more or less been bought, here the IP itself had been bought - seeing Minecraft on non-MS consoles is a luck of itself).
So yeah, considering the alternative, it's an update coming to PS4 thanks to PS4 opening itself to cross-play; the XBL account is definitely the lesser of two evils. Besides, to the best of my knowledge, having an XBL account shouldn't cost you any money, so any problem you might have with that - again, should memory serve right - can only be summed up as a matter of principle (or pride) and not much else.

And "faction" is a catch-all term for the two sides that have been taken on cross-play. Uniting gamers across all consoles isn't a bad thing to me, but you do you, of course.

@AlexSora89
'any problem you might have with that - again, should memory serve right - can only be summed up as a matter of principle (or pride) and not much else.'
Well it looks like you don't even read my replies telling many reasons. Theres no way I create two xbl acc for me and my kid. I dont want a game I bought forcing me to change and open the acc I already use. Pride my @ss. Its customer respect. I m not going to repeat myself. I see your right into a promotion mode rather than discussion. Minecraft was already or about to be released (ps4) on PS platform before Ms bought it. You can't retroact exclusivity. That would look really bad and get the gaming community outrage.
There's no 'side' and even less 'factions'. Only random people on the internet expressing their opinions.

@JJ2
Again, mine was more of a catch-all term than anything else! Thing is, people are either for crossplay, or against it. Hence the term "side", or "faction".
As for the promotion mode... what do you mean with it?
Last but not least, I didn't remember exactly when the Minecraft buyout happened, so there's that. Hope this helps clarify things!

@AlexSora89
It's not at all what you describe. It's not like people are debating and militants for some cause. It's just random opinions on the Internet. It's not a black and white situation either. Not yes or no but more or less open with shades of grey. Most of all, I think the majority doesn't care.
The point here, and on topic, is XBL is not required for cross play to work no matter how you spin it or try to defend Ms.
PS gamers should not be forced to create or use XBL accounts.on a PlayStation console, especially not for a game they've been using for years with psn acc.

@JJ2
I'm not advocating for the console wars at all! Anyway, the group-of-people-in-favor-of-crossplay (GOPIFOC) and the group-of-players-against-crossplay (GOPAC) have clearly been at odds on the issue, and the GOPAC has since been in denial of the good effects crossplay is bringing on the table. That's all.
Does the lack of "warring" nouns help matters?
About the XBL debacle, again, you haven't mentioned whether the account requires spending money or not, which impacts the argument considerably.