Cross-Play & Cross-Save Megathread - The Soonening(TM)/Public Test Edition

[(XBOX)Lady Ukita]

14 minutes ago, (PSN)Zero_029 said:

what if cross save requires you to give up all your platform exclusives?

What platform exclusives?

[vanaukas]

7 minutes ago, (XBOX)Lady Ukita said:

What platform exclusives?

Cosmetics. It also needs to be carefully done because platinum and the market uses completely different approach on consoles and PC. You get sicounts for anything in the market, we have discounts for platinum. Tennogen in consoles is with platinum, on PC it's real money through steam.

They need to unify those systems across platforms first and my guess is that they are going to use Regal Aya for it.

[(PSN)Zero_029]

1 hour ago, (XBOX)Lady Ukita said:

What platform exclusives?

Cosmetics mainly. Skins, Noggles, Glyphs, etc. All stuff that was paid for and has been used for a lengthy period of time so the "Refund me then" arguement is invalid.

Also plat prices are different.

I'm making the following numbers up because I'm too lazy to look it up and do the math but let's say...

On Console you had 10,000 plat, but due to price differences, you swap to PC and log in to find you now have 4500 plat. 

[NecroPed]

22 minutes ago, (PSN)Zero_029 said:

Cosmetics mainly. Skins, Noggles, Glyphs, etc. All stuff that was paid for and has been used for a lengthy period of time so the "Refund me then" arguement is invalid.

Also plat prices are different.

I'm making the following numbers up because I'm too lazy to look it up and do the math but let's say...

On Console you had 10,000 plat, but due to price differences, you swap to PC and log in to find you now have 4500 plat. 

Just thought I'd add some more accurate numbers and extra info, also I'm going to use AUD because I'm Australian. Xbox prices are about $1 higher for the lowest pack ($6.65 for Xbox, $5.49 for PC) and the highest costing pack that is the same amount of platinum on both PC and Xbox is about $29 more expensive ($139.95 for xbox, $110.49 for PC - also there's a sale on right now for xbox cutting off about $55 for this pack and about $92 on the highest costing pack on console)

And the highest platinum pack on Xbox is 3210 platinum (1200 platinum lower than PC), but is about $35 cheaper than PCs 4200 platinum.

[(PSN)iuvenilis]

1 hour ago, (PSN)Zero_029 said:

Also plat prices are different.

I'm making the following numbers up because I'm too lazy to look it up and do the math but let's say...

On Console you had 10,000 plat, but due to price differences, you swap to PC and log in to find you now have 4500 plat. 

There's about a 0% chance that plat will be cross-platform. They've basically ruled out cross-platform trading (apparently it was mentioned on an international stream), so it wouldn't surprise me if there's other things like tennogen that may also not come across from console to PC. There may also be other aspects of our inventory that is exempt from cross-save.

[NecroPed]

3 minutes ago, (PSN)iuvenilis said:

There's about a 0% chance that plat will be cross-platform. They've basically ruled out cross-platform trading (apparently it was mentioned on an international stream), so it wouldn't surprise me if there's other things like tennogen that may also not come across from console to PC. There may also be other aspects of our inventory that is exempt from cross-save.

Using other cross save games as an example this is likely the case. Genshin Impact don't just stop you from spending currency on a platform it wasn't purchased on, they also restrict your account from even being able to purchase currency/battlepass/etc. on other platforms other than the one you started the account on (except for PC accounts and maybe android accounts). And for example if you purchased the battlepass on iOS you wont even be able to redeem the rewards from it on playstation (not sure if this is iOS and Sony specific, might also be for android/PC > sony/iOS).

[Marvelous_A]

2 hours ago, NecroPed said:

Using other cross save games as an example this is likely the case. Genshin Impact don't just stop you from spending currency on a platform it wasn't purchased on, they also restrict your account from even being able to purchase currency/battlepass/etc. on other platforms other than the one you started the account on (except for PC accounts and maybe android accounts). And for example if you purchased the battlepass on iOS you wont even be able to redeem the rewards from it on playstation (not sure if this is iOS and Sony specific, might also be for android/PC > sony/iOS).

Sounds logical and fair enough. You can only trade with players that started on the same platform and any platinum gained from trades are bound to said platform. But other items in your inventory are shared among all platforms.

[NecroPed]

39 minutes ago, Marvelous_A said:

Sounds logical and fair enough. You can only trade with players that started on the same platform and any platinum gained from trades are bound to said platform. But other items in your inventory are shared among all platforms.

I think some of it is fair when it comes to restricting trading. But, I don't think it's really fair to restrict the use of the paid currency across platforms (though I can see this being restricted for other reasons, like manipulating sale prices on other platforms or something) or to restrict where you can spend your money though. It shouldn't really matter where you use it after you spend your money. If the items that are bought with the currency are universal across the platforms then the currency surely should be as well, the companies have already made their money, right? So it shouldn't really matter what's happening with the currency after it's bought. And we definitely shouldn't be locked out of spending money on other platforms just because of where we started. That's seriously anti consumer (And sony is the big one for this who are currently trying to get FTC to sue microsoft for anti consumer stuff while they're actually being the opposite so I find it pretty disgusting for Sony to be doing this when they're actively trying to prevent people from being able to leave playstation). Just for an example of where this would be a problem: Lets just say you started on playstation 4, your PS4 breaks, you don't want to buy a PS5 because you're genuinely not interested in it, if you want to keep being able to spend money on your account or to use the currency you already paid for you need a playstation, so you either have to fix your ps4, buy a new ps4 or buy a ps5 even though you don't want it, just to keep access to spending money on your account. And if you don't fix the ps4, get a new one or get a ps5 your alternative is to just abandon your playstation paid currency because you literally wont see it/be able to use it unless you're on a playstation. And warframe doesn't have a paid battlepass so it's not a problem in warframe specifically, but buying something like a battlepass and then not being able to get the reward from it unless you're on the platform that paid for it is genuinely silly. You pay for a battlepass, you should be able to use it regardless of platform. Could you imagine buying say a prime access pack, and then not being able to equip any of the cosmetics unless you're on playstation even though they're universally available across all platforms and can't be purchased a second time? (Only similar warframe example I could think of, I doubt this will be the case though)

Edited December 20, 2022 by NecroPed

[(PSN)iuvenilis]

1 hour ago, NecroPed said:

It shouldn't really matter where you use it after you spend your money. If the items that are bought with the currency are universal across the platforms then the currency surely should be as well, the companies have already made their money, right?

DE might’ve made some money from you, but the respective console manufacturers certainly haven't. That's why Sony was pushing Epic for revenue sharing when they first wanted fortnite cross-platform. 

If I have a subscription for Netflix, that doesn't entitle me access to other video services even if they have the same movie/show. If I've bought a product from one major retail chain and I want a refund/repair, I can't just go to a completely different retail chain, even if they sell the exact same product. And I can't take my Audible credits and use them on Spotify.

The only way something like that works is if there's an agreement in place between these separate companies e.g. revenue sharing. Revenue sharing isn't anything new, it exists in many different industries, although it's probably not common amongst gaming publishers. And what Sony had originally wanted from Epic was outright heinous. 

1 hour ago, NecroPed said:

we definitely shouldn't be locked out of spending money on other platforms just because of where we started.

I honestly hadn't considered that aspect, I hope that's not a thing if/when cross-save is enabled. That said, it may simply become too difficult to manage (i.e. keeping a unified inventory and also keeping separate inventories of things which aren't cross-platform compatible e.g. plat), or they may not get all the different parties to agree. If this does indeed become how it functions, it's likely outside DEs control.

[Skoomaseller]

Soon™ brother inshallah.

[NecroPed]

Just now, (PSN)iuvenilis said:

DE might’ve made some money from you, but the respective console manufacturers certainly haven't. That's why Sony was pushing Epic for revenue sharing when they first wanted fortnite cross-platform. 

If I have a subscription for Netflix, that doesn't entitle me access to other video services even if they have the same movie/show. If I've bought a product from one major retail chain and I want a refund/repair, I can't just go to a completely different retail chain, even if they sell the exact same product. And I can't take my Audible credits and use them on Spotify.

The only way something like that works is if there's an agreement in place between these separate companies e.g. revenue sharing. Revenue sharing isn't anything new, it exists in many different industries, although it's probably not common amongst gaming publishers. And what Sony had originally wanted from Epic was outright heinous. 

 

I would have thought that the console companies make their money from the platinum being purchased on the respective platform. It was my understanding that platforms take a specific % cut (like 30% I believe) of each charge made through the platform, whether it's a game purchase, DLC purchase or microtransaction. If you know of any sources with exact information on this I'd like to see it just so I know how it works. But, I was under the impression that they take a cut from all purchases.

You don't need an entirely new netflix subscription to watch netflix on a different console though (Which is what would be more comparable in my opinion). I don't think this is a very good analogy for what you're trying to say. Netflix have made the money from the subscription, so netflix do not need to charge me just to use netflix on another platform. 

Spoiler

I honestly hadn't considered that aspect, I hope that's not a thing if/when cross-save is enabled. That said, it may simply become too difficult to manage (i.e. keeping a unified inventory and also keeping separate inventories of things which aren't cross-platform compatible e.g. plat), or they may not get all the different parties to agree. If this does indeed become how it functions, it's likely outside DEs control.

I also hope that it's not a thing when it happens, I believe stuff like this is why it's taken so long to get to cross save. But yes, it likely is outside of DEs control other than if they want to accept or turn down the agreements, though it is possible they could suggest a counter offer or something should they decline the offer etc. I'm sure this is all being worked through internally and I'm glad I don't have to make this decision myself hah. It honestly seems like hell trying to work this stuff out. Though I think separate platinum inventories is possible because it already is a feature with paid vs free platinum and could potentially be extended to platforms, I'm no expert though and this is just my speculation.

 

 

[(PSN)iuvenilis]

11 minutes ago, NecroPed said:

I would have thought that the console companies make their money from the platinum being purchased on the respective platform. It was my understanding that platforms take a specific % cut (like 30% I believe) of each charge made through the platform, whether it's a game purchase, DLC purchase or microtransaction. If you know of any sources with exact information on this I'd like to see it just so I know how it works. But, I was under the impression that they take a cut from all purchases.

Correct, which is why it wouldn't make any sense for Sony to allow me to use an item I've purchased on Xbox. Similarly, if I've bought a game/dlc which is available on multiple platforms, i can't just download it and play it free on both platforms, just because I've bought it on one of them.

12 minutes ago, NecroPed said:

You don't need an entirely new netflix subscription to watch netflix on a different console though (Which is what would be more comparable in my opinion). I don't think this is a very good analogy for what you're trying to say. Netflix have made the money from the subscription, so netflix do not need to charge me just to use netflix on another platform. 

Netflix have made their money sure, and sony/xbox don't care since they don't make any money regardless. If there's a show/movie that's available on two different streaming services, I can't watch it on both simply because I've paid a subscription to one of those services. Maybe netflix wasn't a good example because it's uncommon for the same show to be available on different streaming services? But hopefully the other examples I mentioned made more sense. 

[NecroPed]

1 minute ago, (PSN)iuvenilis said:

Correct, which is why it wouldn't make any sense for Sony to allow me to use an item I've purchased on Xbox. Similarly, if I've bought a game/dlc which is available on multiple platforms, i can't just download it and play it free on both platforms, just because I've bought it on one of them.

 

I still don't understand how you're looking at this as why sony wouldn't allow it. They've made 30% off the purchase of the platinum, it shouldn't matter where it's then spent in game, especially since you'd be buying items that are universal across all platforms. What's the difference between buying platinum on playstation but spending it on the market on PC getting an item you will have access to on both platforms OR buying platinum on playstation, spending it on the market on playstation getting an item you will have access to on both platforms? You shouldn't be able to buy playstation exclusive stuff from other platforms sure, but you shouldn't be restricted from buying things from the in game market because your platinum was bought on another console. You bought the platinum, the company profits, so where is the issue?

Comparing a free game that doesn't need to be purchased to play it on any platform to games that need to be purchased is a bit odd don't you think? We're talking about a game that is going to let you use the same account across all platforms after all.

"why it wouldn't make any sense for Sony to allow me to use an item I've purchased on Xbox" 
Why though? It doesn't make sense to me for a cross save game to do this at all. It doesn't make sense to me to prevent the use of something because of the platform of origin when it is available on both. Are you suggesting that people should have to buy multiple copies of anything that costs platinum to achieve actual cross save? Considering one of the biggest reasons people want cross save IS to be able to use the stuff from their account on all platforms. It kinda defeats the purpose, no? 

[(PSN)iuvenilis]

32 minutes ago, NecroPed said:

They've made 30% off the purchase of the platinum

If I bought plat on PC/switch/xbox and tried to bring it across to PSN, that's lost revenue to Sony. It's not about moving plat out, it's about moving it in. It's lost revenue. 

If we look at the original account migration, plat wasn't part of that either.

35 minutes ago, NecroPed said:

Are you suggesting that people should have to buy multiple copies of anything that costs platinum to achieve actual cross save?

I'm not suggesting they should have to. Just that from a business standpoint, it's a very real possibility. Hopefully, prime access/accessories are not excluded from cross-save, but it'll likely require some sort of revenue sharing agreement.

[(PSN)SonOfCzarnian]

On 2022-12-19 at 7:09 PM, (PSN)Zero_029 said:

Let say they caved and did it. But because they rushed it, your account got corrupted/overwritten with your other account and you've now lost everything/are stuck with the account you don't want.

What then? 

It's for the best they take their time. Additionally, what if cross save requires you to give up all your platform exclusives?

true....but damn how many years do we have to wait *cry*.

[OnEpLayerPrime]

I have a ps4 warframe account that would be better for me to play

[(PSN)AnimeX42]

No. Cross save isn't available yet, and is TBA

[(XBOX)CosmicMerkin]

7 hours ago, OnEpLayerPrime said:

I have a ps4 warframe account that would be better for me to play

RTFF

[NecroPed]

On 2022-12-20 at 9:17 PM, (PSN)iuvenilis said:

If I bought plat on PC/switch/xbox and tried to bring it across to PSN, that's lost revenue to Sony. It's not about moving plat out, it's about moving it in. It's lost revenue. 

That's not lost revenue. That's revenue they weren't even necessarily going to get. If they're considering revenue that they were potentially never going to get as lost revenue then I'd argue that their mentality is scummy. What's the difference if they consume the platinum on PC/Switch/Xbox then use the bought item on playstation? 

If the platinum is bought on playstation they earnt their money from the platinum purchase. They already gained revenue. That platinum being consumed on playstation or another platform is then irrelevant is it not? Since they've already profited from the purchase of the platinum. They don't make anything from the platinum being consumed in game. What's the difference between me buying platinum on playstation, buying a prime warframe on playstation and using that prime on xbox, and buying platinum on playstation, skipping the step of consuming it on playstation, then buying and using the prime on xbox? There is no real difference to the end result except sony wants to force you to stay on playstation even if you don't want to or even can't (For example broken playstation and don't want to pay $900 for a PS5 or whatever just to have access to your free to play cross save account), which is anti consumer as far as I'm concerned.

And in regards to "If we look at the original account migration, plat wasn't part of that either" This doesn't necessarily mean sony weren't scummy and anti consumer in making this happen or that it's inherently right. I personally think this is wrong, DE probably couldn't do anything about it, but not letting paid currency transfer is wrong as far as I'm concerned. If you migrated your account and lost paid currency that's the equivalent of stealing in my opinion. They've already profited from the purchase, and wont let you use it unless you basically stay on playstation. If you're already trying to leave playstation and go to another platform (in the general sense of only owning a single console etc.) because of their scummy practices etc. this kind of stuff is trying to keep you trapped and sony know it and you have to decide between staying with something you don't want to because you lose if you leave, or leaving and losing it. It's a lose lose situation for consumers. 

Edited December 28, 2022 by NecroPed

[(XBOX)EternalDrk Mako]

my only complaint on crossplay has been an odd desynchronies going on in longer term missions or unstable hosts net 

its an issue ive noted when xbox -pc started 

basicly you will be playing fine, normal play , then all of the sudden your down, other team mates go down, host stays alive

never take damage or any form of fatal hit , you just drop and are waiting for a revive. and the enemies ai/behavior seems to become lagy or blipy  

 ive seen some others bring it up on discord and i can only assume its a de-sync between non host ->to host-> server issue that occurs a blip of lag , as it settles and dosnt occur again for a while on a long term missions. its annoying on SP and archon hunts when it occurs 

beyond that ive been having a lot of fun playing with tenno from all over and other platforms 

[(PSN)iuvenilis]

On 2022-12-28 at 4:23 PM, NecroPed said:

That's not lost revenue. That's revenue they weren't even necessarily going to get. If they're considering revenue that they were potentially never going to get as lost revenue then I'd argue that their mentality is scummy. What's the difference if they consume the platinum on PC/Switch/Xbox then use the bought item on playstation? 

If the platinum is bought on playstation they earnt their money from the platinum purchase. They already gained revenue. That platinum being consumed on playstation or another platform is then irrelevant is it not? Since they've already profited from the purchase of the platinum. They don't make anything from the platinum being consumed in game. What's the difference between me buying platinum on playstation, buying a prime warframe on playstation and using that prime on xbox, and buying platinum on playstation, skipping the step of consuming it on playstation, then buying and using the prime on xbox? There is no real difference to the end result except sony wants to force you to stay on playstation even if you don't want to or even can't (For example broken playstation and don't want to pay $900 for a PS5 or whatever just to have access to your free to play cross save account), which is anti consumer as far as I'm concerned.

And in regards to "If we look at the original account migration, plat wasn't part of that either" This doesn't necessarily mean sony weren't scummy and anti consumer in making this happen or that it's inherently right. I personally think this is wrong, DE probably couldn't do anything about it, but not letting paid currency transfer is wrong as far as I'm concerned. If you migrated your account and lost paid currency that's the equivalent of stealing in my opinion. They've already profited from the purchase, and wont let you use it unless you basically stay on playstation. If you're already trying to leave playstation and go to another platform (in the general sense of only owning a single console etc.) because of their scummy practices etc. this kind of stuff is trying to keep you trapped and sony know it and you have to decide between staying with something you don't want to because you lose if you leave, or leaving and losing it. It's a lose lose situation for consumers. 

Imagine you're a business owner of "Company A" and you provide a product/service for a fee. There's also another business, "Company B" which provides the same product/service. 

Now imagine a customer comes to you (Company A) and says "I've already paid Company B for this product/service so now I want you to to give me your product/service for free". 

Do you see how silly that sounds? 

If there were some agreement (e.g. cost/revenue sharing agreement) between these two companies, then they might. Otherwise, it's ridiculous to think any company would just give out stuff for free because you've already paid some other unrelated company.

Edit: for stuff like prime access/accessories and even in-game purchased boosters, I would hope these work across platforms. However, I'm not going to hold my breath. I'm primarily referring to platinum not being cross-save. 

Another way to look at it, at least one of the console manufacturers will be concerned people will buy plat/prime bundles directly from DE, indicating a risk to their revenue stream. Most people are aware that the consoles take a cut of the revenue. So there's the very real possibility, if plat were cross-platform, they'd lose out on revenue (and that's not even considering the PC login-vouchers for discounted plat which consoles do not get). If plat were cross save and those login vouchers remained in-game, I rekon there'd be a fair few of us console players logging in daily on PC just for a chance at those discounts.

Tin-foil hat on:

Nintendo would probably be on-board for most "cross platform" games, as they'd hope to increase their playerbase, and they'd be unlikely to lose too many. Overall a net gain.

Xbox and Sony would probably be more concerned about losing players/revenue from any cross-save, so they'll want some sort of reassurances. While cross-play may have alleviated some of their concerns (i.e. cross-play possibly reduced the number of people intending to switch to PC), they would still want to avoid any risk to their revenue, so they would likely seek some sort of assurances/agreements to help mitigate their risk. 

Call it anti-consumer if you want, I'm just not sure there's too much to support that opinion. In their eyes, plat etc IS money. I think if you were a digital company, this is basic business.

Edited December 31, 2022 by (PSN)iuvenilis

[(PSN)Hammerfist1991]

As someone who still got a old, long unused PC account i mostly worry about my arcane helmets if cross save is gonna happen.

Given, im not using my pc account anyways, but it would still be a shame to loose those. I kinda like the thought that i still have those 'ancient' items laying around somewhere.

Since the console releases happened way later, i dont know if they even have data for those still in the game. Same goes for the Excalibur Primes, even thoug i am not sure if they made those return for console. Back then, you needed to become a part of the founders programm to actually get one of those, and that opportunity is long long gone now.

 

Also, considering that i again needed 3 tries to join a mission just now, and needed to leave it after 5 min because someone decided to extract and i basically need to fear every host migration, id much rather have them work on stability, before they do anything else.

[NecroPed]

4 hours ago, (PSN)iuvenilis said:

Imagine you're a business owner of "Company A" and you provide a product/service for a fee. There's also another business, "Company B" which provides the same product/service. 

Now imagine a customer comes to you (Company A) and says "I've already paid Company B for this product/service so now I want you to to give me your product/service for free". 

Do you see how silly that sounds? 

If there were some agreement (e.g. cost/revenue sharing agreement) between these two companies, then they might. Otherwise, it's ridiculous to think any company would just give out stuff for free because you've already paid some other unrelated company.

Edit: for stuff like prime access/accessories and even in-game purchased boosters, I would hope these work across platforms. However, I'm not going to hold my breath. I'm primarily referring to platinum not being cross-save. 

Another way to look at it, at least one of the console manufacturers will be concerned people will buy plat/prime bundles directly from DE, indicating a risk to their revenue stream. Most people are aware that the consoles take a cut of the revenue. So there's the very real possibility, if plat were cross-platform, they'd lose out on revenue (and that's not even considering the PC login-vouchers for discounted plat which consoles do not get). If plat were cross save and those login vouchers remained in-game, I rekon there'd be a fair few of us console players logging in daily on PC just for a chance at those discounts.

Tin-foil hat on:

Nintendo would probably be on-board for most "cross platform" games, as they'd hope to increase their playerbase, and they'd be unlikely to lose too many. Overall a net gain.

Xbox and Sony would probably be more concerned about losing players/revenue from any cross-save, so they'll want some sort of reassurances. While cross-play may have alleviated some of their concerns (i.e. cross-play possibly reduced the number of people intending to switch to PC), they would still want to avoid any risk to their revenue, so they would likely seek some sort of assurances/agreements to help mitigate their risk. 

Call it anti-consumer if you want, I'm just not sure there's too much to support that opinion. In their eyes, plat etc IS money. I think if you were a digital company, this is basic business.

I get that they're businesses who are going to want to make their own money. But, if they'd already made their money on the purchase and don't make money on the items you obtain with that already paid for currency there is literally no difference to obtaining it on the playstation or obtaining it on the xbox after you've paid for the platinum. And you are comparing a hypothetical business that is not cross platform. We are talking about something that is explicitly becoming cross platform. They're not just two different companies providing their own alternative to their competition, they're both hosting the exact same product that is being shared across those companies. It would be more like if xbox game pass didn't let you use EA play to play any games that you haven't bought on EA already, rather than copmany A and company B giving you what their competitor has been paid for. That's honestly a really poor analogy in my opinion. And if Sony restrict things like how they do with playstation then it's seriously anti consumer (Like limiting where you are allowed to spend money to buy platinum with your account to playstation only). They're trying to control their consumers and basically trap them into committing with sony regardless of if sony is worth committing to. They can basically do what they want and you're basically just stuck with them unless you want to potentially abandon things/currency you already paid for because of stuff like this, that is anti consumer as far as I'm concerned even if it is widely accepted/common. The choice to leave a platform (for example if you wanted to leave sony because you're not happy with what they're providing) should not be directly impacted by the fact that you literally cannot spend what you've already paid for when the items you could pay for would still be accessible. If I played on playstation and it broke and I thought it was unreasonable to the point I would switch platforms, I would feel cheated out of my currency if I couldn't spend it on another platform just because I started on playstation. And I would never touch a sony product again if I was locked out from spending money on my account because I'm on a different platform. If the games aren't crossplay then I'd have to accept losing the accounts, but if it's crossplay there's no good reason to restrict accounts like that, it's basically done in a way to try and trap you on their platform even though it's technically cross play.

[(PSN)iuvenilis]

5 hours ago, NecroPed said:

there is literally no difference to obtaining it on the playstation or obtaining it on the xbox after you've paid for the platinum

There is no reason Sony should give you credit for platinum you've purchased on another storefront. To the end user it might feel like the "same platinum", but to a business, it is most definitely not. If you've got an example of where premium currency (or any sort of paid content) is cross platform (and there isn't a revenue sharing arrangement in place) I'm more than happy to change my opinion. 

I expect there could be some sort of agreements in place to allow purchased items (e.g. prime access) to be cross-platform. It's possible they may come to some sort of agreement to allow cross-platform plat, but I highly, highly doubt it. It's just far too difficult to get all the parties to agree. There's almost definitely not going to be any cross-platform trading, so it's going to be very interesting to see what aspects of our inventory is cross-platform (I think it's been suggested that perhaps trading could be limited to your original platform, guess we'll see).

5 hours ago, NecroPed said:

copmany A and company B giving you what their competitor has been paid for.

But that's exactly what you're asking for by having cross-platform plat. You're asking for company A to give you credit for plat you've purchased from company B. You may as well be asking Sony to accept Xbox gift vouchers.

5 hours ago, NecroPed said:

xbox game pass didn't let you use EA play

Xbox/Microsoft and EA have had sharing arrangements in place for almost 20 years now. Unfortunately, you've chosen a bad example. They very much have all kinds of agreements in place to share resources, revenue etc.

5 hours ago, NecroPed said:

seriously anti consumer

You keep saying that, but it seems your argument is based on not much. Loosely speaking, anti-consumer is about company behaviours to benefit their profits at the expense of user experience. However, there's currently no agreements in place between any of the console manufacturers to "share" anything. We don't have cross-platform plat/trading, and very likely we'll continue to not have those things. We haven't lost any part of our experience. If you've bought plat on Xbox, you're still fully entitled to spend that plat on Xbox, just as it is today, as it will be in the cross-save era.

5 hours ago, NecroPed said:

The choice to leave a platform (for example if you wanted to leave sony because you're not happy with what they're providing) should not be directly impacted by the fact that you literally cannot spend what you've already paid for when the items you could pay for would still be accessible. If I played on playstation and it broke and I thought it was unreasonable to the point I would switch platforms, I would feel cheated out of my currency if I couldn't spend it on another platform just because I started on playstation.

You're free to leave a platform (or game) at any time you wish, but you're not entitled to refund for anything. I can't just write an email to Xbox and say, "My PS4 broke/I'm not happy with Sony, can you give me all the same games etc for free". Not going to happen.

If a product is faulty, you're usually protected by consumer rights to get a refund. But other than that, I'm not aware of many (any?) games where you have any recourse to request a refund (except for Steam for <1? hour played or something). When you make a purchase on the Psn storefront, you're specifically shown a disclaimer which basically reads "all purchases are final" (if you haven't started the download, I think there might be some allowances for refunds, don't quote me on that though). 

The only way you could move plat would be if you applied for a refund (which would be denied anyway), and then buy it on another platform. If your playstation breaks and it's no longer under warranty, too bad, you can't just port all your purchases to a completely different platform. If you don't like a game, too bad. If the game is grossly different to what was advertised, or broken/faulty, then you might be able to get a refund, but unfortunately your examples of a broken playstation or "not happy" aren't usually grounds for a refund.

 

Xbox, Sony and Nintendo all have their own completely separate consoles, networks and storefronts. You could pose the question, should they be forced to allow 3rd party access, e.g. should they allow different storefronts onto their networks (for a fee of course, similar to utilities like electricity and telecommunications networks). That has some merit for arguing they're anti-consumer. I think you'd lose that argument, though. From what I recall, Epic tried to sue Apple and Google of a similar thing, Epic lost. That said, Microsoft apparently came out with some new guidelines that basically said they would allow alternative storefronts, though given how popular their phones are, it was mostly an empty gesture. And Apple agreed to lower their cut from 30% to 15%, but that was it. I also have vague recollections that Steam? changed their % cut as well, so it's not a flat %, but rather a sliding scale, so indie devs can get a larger slice of their revenue.

Don't get me wrong, Sony etc get labelled as anti-consumer a LOT. But it's for stuff like squashing newer/smaller companies preventing them from entering the market, or misinformation. Not honouring purchases you've made on an entirely different platform is not anti-consumer.

Revenue/cost sharing arrangements are very common across many different industries, but not so common across directly competing companies; except in the cases of direct investment and/or mergers and acquisitions. 

Edited December 31, 2022 by (PSN)iuvenilis

[NecroPed]

1 hour ago, (PSN)iuvenilis said:

 

I guess we're just going to disagree then because there's nothing you can say to me to make me think that restricting what I've already paid for is not anti consumer. I wholeheartedly believe that restricting currency like this is anti consumer. Regardless of the companies justification behind it or how often it's done.

No it's not the same. I'm not asking company A to give me credit. I'm asking company B to honor what I've already paid them for and not restrict it when I use it on platform A (or restrict where I can even spend money) because they've already profited from the purchase so in reality it should not matter where I spend it since I would be spending it on the same thing that crosses over. 

There's no good consumer sided reasons for sony to restrict what I can do with currency I've already paid for, let alone to try and twist my arm to make me to stay on their platform. That's anti consumer as far as I'm concerned. Actively trying to push your customers away from being able to comfortably leave their platform is anti consumer as far as I'm concerned. I might not have a current example, there might not be any, but that doesn't mean what they're doing is inherently right. Just because it's what's been done and continues to happen doesn't mean it's right. Doesn't mean it isn't anti consumer. Just because arrangements are made (Because it's basically tough luck if you don't cave in to these companies) doesn't mean it's not anti consumer.

There's no difference between me spending it on something then using the item on another console to spending it on another console. They made their money either way, they're just trying to do whatever they can to stop you from being able to leave their platform even if you have the justification to do so. They already profited from the platinum purchase, they shouldn't care what I do with it after that.

When it comes to something that's not even owned by that company and is available to be used across any platform, I shouldn't have to abandon paid currency when the items I would buy with it are still accessible if I have valid reasons for leaving their platform. Them having an inferior product that does not work well enough or properly is enough reason for me to leave the platform and I shouldn't be forced into abandoning something they've already profited off just because they want me to stay on playstation even though the account and the items I would buy with said currency is available elsewhere (and I believe could be argued (depending on region maybe) that I am actually entitled to a refund if the product that makes it usable failed and can no longer be used and would need to be purchased again). 

It's not true cross platform if it restricts you like this as far as I'm concerned. Cross platform is a pretty newish thing so I don't expect things to be just instantly changed or anything but I will always think that this kind of thing is anti consumer no matter how long it happens and what justification they put behind it. Restricting where you can use what you already paid for in something that is accessible elsewhere while the items that could be purchased are available regardless is anti consumer. It is not in any way favorable to the consumer to restrict your currency like this. And you can't compare it to games that aren't cross platform, it is not the same and is not going to be the same (also doesn't mean that isn't anti consumer, it could also technically be considered anti consumer that you aren't entitled to accessing a game on another platform even though it's widely). I don't expect my ps4 game saves to all transfer to xbox but if a game has cross platform accounts then I would hope to be able to use it fully, especially including everything I've paid real money for in that account. And if I'm buying physical copies I can sell those games to someone else to technically refund myself, which is what would be considered the more pro consumer side of things. 

It's a practice that is done to benefit the companies profits at the cost of the consumers user experience. That is anti consumer. It is a decision that is not driven by what is good for the consumer(which can be done alongside taking profits into consideration), it is only dictated by profits. It is anti consumer. 

 

And I believe the Epic Games suing apple etc. wasn't quite this specific issue and was a bit more complicated. And I believe they won 1 of their 10 points. I think most of it was more specific towards the 30% cut and inability to bypass apples payment systems from memory.