Ok. so here is my thing. I avidly support cross-network play. Having those walls broken down eliminates that feeling in my gut every time someone wants to play a game with me and I have to ask them.. what console did you buy it for.
But I think we all need to look at what Cross-Network means.
1.) It will change, forever, what is important to the console brand. I think this actually works in Sony's favor, because rather than looking for multiplayer products that are "better" on PS4 - they will be looking into multiplayer products that are "only" on PS4.
2.) But because of the previous point - it will no doubt lead to either fewer 3rd party multiplayer titles as every company tries to produces MP on their console only... or we will transition to 1st party offering single player and 3rd party having the only means to offer MP. Again.. I'm not sure I like either of those options.
3.) It will change multiplayer forever. For developers and gamers. And it isn't all for the best. The size and scale will no doubt increase, and we can play anyone as long as they own the game... But we have double digit GB patches every month as it is. Can you imagine what the mess it would be when 3-4 different networks are piling in, together?
Cross Network sounds good on the surface, but ultimately I think Microsoft is pushing this as a red herring to make Sony look bad. If Sony calls their bluff... or keeps out - both don't go well for them.
Now if they will hop on the couch co-op need and plug some experiences like The Last of Us and HOrizon into a co-op kind of game then that would be AWESOME! Even couch competitive story driven campaigns. I'd love to see something like that.
I have an app on my phone that keeps track of the games on my wishlist. As soon as this game was announced, it went on that list. I knew it was being geared toward on online experience, and living in the country of the US, internet is not a thing we can rely on. Nevertheless it went on the wish list because it had an offline single player campaign and that campaign could be played co-op splitscreen. Since adding this game to the wishlist they have cut the split screen co-op and now this... Removing from my wish list in 3...2...1... gone.
Many have said it already, and I'll just say it again. I would take slightly worse graphics and even a slightly lower frame rate if they give me couch split screen co-op. My interest in this game has significantly decreased. I live in a rural area where internet is not really all that quick. Online co-op is worthless to me.
I live in the country in the US. We have satellite internet where real time online games are not possible. Knights, Samurai and Vikings seemed like an amazing concept but when I heard it was multiplayer focused, I thought "great another battlefront situation here". Ever since hearing that it had a single player I have been devouring any content I can about it and this is pretty much the nail in the coffin for me. Did you know that the single player is also co-op splitscreen? Yeah... sad that that is a rare thing these days.
I love how there is no news source out there that actually analyzed what Bethesda said. I was hoping push square would have noticed it. I guess everyone is scared of taking Sony's side in this because they will be labeled a fanboy. I think I came up with a good analogy for what is actually happening here. If a toddler wanted to use your game system to exclusively play violent video games and you as the parent had already decided that they can't play those until they were older. You would tell them no for playing those games on your system. And it wouldn't matter what they said or how long they asked - you would still say no. You did offer them to play a fun platformer though- which they said no to. It was either the violent game or nothing. So you as a parent choose nothing. So in that instance, it is the parent's "fault" but not really. Bethesda is saying my way or the highway - so is Sony. But no one blames the developer because they love Skyrim (btw so do I)
Comments 159
Re: Opinion: Why Sony Won't Support Cross-Console Play
Ok. so here is my thing. I avidly support cross-network play. Having those walls broken down eliminates that feeling in my gut every time someone wants to play a game with me and I have to ask them.. what console did you buy it for.
But I think we all need to look at what Cross-Network means.
1.) It will change, forever, what is important to the console brand. I think this actually works in Sony's favor, because rather than looking for multiplayer products that are "better" on PS4 - they will be looking into multiplayer products that are "only" on PS4.
2.) But because of the previous point - it will no doubt lead to either fewer 3rd party multiplayer titles as every company tries to produces MP on their console only... or we will transition to 1st party offering single player and 3rd party having the only means to offer MP. Again.. I'm not sure I like either of those options.
3.) It will change multiplayer forever. For developers and gamers. And it isn't all for the best. The size and scale will no doubt increase, and we can play anyone as long as they own the game... But we have double digit GB patches every month as it is. Can you imagine what the mess it would be when 3-4 different networks are piling in, together?
Cross Network sounds good on the surface, but ultimately I think Microsoft is pushing this as a red herring to make Sony look bad. If Sony calls their bluff... or keeps out - both don't go well for them.
Re: Ubisoft Made a Funny with This E3 2017 Teaser Trailer
@Flaming_Kaiser LOL I literally did just laugh out loud!!! Silly Trump.
Re: Ubisoft Made a Funny with This E3 2017 Teaser Trailer
I'm American so I don't get to watch this
Re: Opinion: Why Sony Is Zagging While the Industry Zigs
Now if they will hop on the couch co-op need and plug some experiences like The Last of Us and HOrizon into a co-op kind of game then that would be AWESOME! Even couch competitive story driven campaigns. I'd love to see something like that.
Re: For Honor's Single Player Campaign Trailer Readies for War
@playstation1995 It is. The article from before said that in order to play the single player campaign you would need to be connected online.
Re: For Honor Will Require an Internet Connection on PS4
I have an app on my phone that keeps track of the games on my wishlist. As soon as this game was announced, it went on that list. I knew it was being geared toward on online experience, and living in the country of the US, internet is not a thing we can rely on. Nevertheless it went on the wish list because it had an offline single player campaign and that campaign could be played co-op splitscreen. Since adding this game to the wishlist they have cut the split screen co-op and now this... Removing from my wish list in 3...2...1... gone.
Re: For Honor Spilt-Screen Co-Op Cut Completely, Not Just From Online Play
Many have said it already, and I'll just say it again. I would take slightly worse graphics and even a slightly lower frame rate if they give me couch split screen co-op. My interest in this game has significantly decreased. I live in a rural area where internet is not really all that quick. Online co-op is worthless to me.
Re: For Honor's Single Player Campaign Won't Disappoint, Says Developer
I live in the country in the US. We have satellite internet where real time online games are not possible. Knights, Samurai and Vikings seemed like an amazing concept but when I heard it was multiplayer focused, I thought "great another battlefront situation here". Ever since hearing that it had a single player I have been devouring any content I can about it and this is pretty much the nail in the coffin for me. Did you know that the single player is also co-op splitscreen? Yeah... sad that that is a rare thing these days.
Re: Bethesda Speaks Out: Sony Will Not Allow Fallout 4 or Skyrim Mods on PS4
I love how there is no news source out there that actually analyzed what Bethesda said. I was hoping push square would have noticed it. I guess everyone is scared of taking Sony's side in this because they will be labeled a fanboy. I think I came up with a good analogy for what is actually happening here. If a toddler wanted to use your game system to exclusively play violent video games and you as the parent had already decided that they can't play those until they were older. You would tell them no for playing those games on your system. And it wouldn't matter what they said or how long they asked - you would still say no. You did offer them to play a fun platformer though- which they said no to. It was either the violent game or nothing. So you as a parent choose nothing. So in that instance, it is the parent's "fault" but not really. Bethesda is saying my way or the highway - so is Sony. But no one blames the developer because they love Skyrim (btw so do I)