8 ms·

The issue of Sony disallowing cross-play is not the reason for controversy in this case. It's actually because logging in to a Fortnite account on PS4 irrevers

by lebrad 8y ago

The issue of Sony disallowing cross-play is not the reason for controversy in this case. It's actually because logging in to a Fortnite account on PS4 irreversibly locks that account to Sony's walled garden. I created my Fortnite account on PC and played there. Then I logged in on PS4, and played there. Now when I try to log in on Switch, I'm not able to. Here's the actual error message given: "This Fortnite account is associated with a platform which does not allow it to operate on Switch. Neither the Fortnite website nor Epic Customer Service are able to change this. To play Fortnite on Switch, please create a new account." The problem is that even disassociating the account from Sony won't then allow me to use my Fortnite account outside of Sony's walled garden. The account is permanently tainted by PlayStation. Most importantly, the irreversibility of Sony's taint upon your account isn't disclosed until after the fact. It's a classic anti-user misdeed. Anyway, Hacker News seems like the right place to ponder SaaSS user account foibles.

mirceal 8y ago
To me it's common sense to allow me to take my stuff from one platform to the other. Microsoft gets it, Nintendo gets is. I have lost any kind of trust in Sony. After the massive hacks, shitty anti-customer attitude and now locking the Fortnite accounts, I will never buy another Sony product in the future.
- ribosometronome 8y ago
  Everybody understands the value of crossplay and portability of 'stuff'. It's just not particularly valuable when you're in a dominant position. All of these companies have had pretty shitty, anti-customer attitudes. Microsoft popularized pay-for-online services with Xbox Gold and now it's standard to have to pay a monthly fee to play your console games online. Conservely, crossplay would be the standard now is Microsoft has jumped on board when Sony was supporting it last generation. Nintendo hasn't been able to maintain a reasonable level of presense-across-device, creating a massive headache when changing devises or getting a new console and having to repurchase things you shouldn't have to. I can't really see the justification for not buying a Sony product but continuing to support Xbox or Nintendo given all of their attitudes over the years.
  - mirceal 8y ago
    I'm confused. What's Nintendo's attitude? Not being successful in the market? I get the whole 'dominant position' argument. It just seems dumb to me to behave like this when you're in a dominant position. Seems that big corporations learn the same lesson over and over again - in the meantime customers are left holding the bag. BTW, full disclosure: I'm a Nintendo Switch fanboi, so take everything that comes out of my keyboard with a pinch of salt.
    - CrazedGeek 8y ago
      As a fellow Switch fanboy: Nintendo's online purchasing systems have (until the Switch) been extremely weird. Purchases on the eShop (or equivalent) on Wii, DSi, 3DS, and (IIRC) Wii U weren't tied to an account, they were tied to a console. If your console died, you couldn't just buy another one and automatically get all your games back, you'd have to call Nintendo customer support and get them to move your licenses over. The Switch fixed that but has the new problem that save data can't be backed up (until their paid online service starts in a couple months).
      - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
        Not just this, but the other mystifying bit is that titles had to be repurchased for different types of devices. Not only did you have to physically migrate your games between consoles, but like, virtual console titles might be available for both 3DS and Wii platforms, but you'd have to buy them separately on each. And the Switch doesn't have "virtual console" persay yet, but will sell some legacy titles, like the new Donkey Kong release under the "arcade archives" label. In most other companies, like Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, etc., if you buy a title, you can play it on any platform that supports it. The fact that Nintendo players can't accumulate a library of legacy Nintendo titles and play them on any Nintendo console they port it to demonstrates Nintendo has a strong interest in repackaging and reselling the same games over and over again.
        CrazedGeek 8y ago
        The one notable exception to this was that you were given a decently steep discount on "upgrading" Wii VC titles to their essentially identical Wii U versions, like 80% off or so. Still, it really shouldn't have been paid at all.
- taurath 8y ago
  > To me it's common sense to allow me to take my stuff from one platform to the other. Microsoft gets it, Nintendo gets is. You haven't really looked at app platforms before, have you. If you buy evernote on IOS, you're sure not getting it on android. MS is being friendly to it because they're behind. In the Xbox 360/PS3 days, it was Sony asking to do cross-play and Microsoft denying it. Its a PR play, and you're buying it.
  - graeme 8y ago
    I'm not on Sony, but I think the appropriate analogy would be making an evernote account on google, then logging in on ios, and then subsequently being unable to use that account on google.
    - taurath 8y ago
      I think you’re right actually. One expects subscription services to still function.
jbigelow76 8y ago
The issue of Sony disallowing cross-play is not the reason for controversy in this case. Hmm, so I wonder what the cause of the controversy really is. It's actually because logging in to a Fortnite account on PS4 irreversibly locks that account to Sony's walled garden. Oh, so it is Sony. Regardless of how Sony went about the cause I don't see how you can make a distinction regarding the effect.
- tdbgamer 8y ago
  Uhhh did he say it wasn't Sony's fault? His point was cross-play isn't the worst part, but the way Sony locks your account in. Don't see how that exonerates Sony.
madrox 8y ago
Getting into even MORE nuance. Having worked on federated login with Sony, I suspect this "account taint" behavior is because Epic is using Sony's payment platform for loot crates. It's against Sony's policy to be able to pay for things to be used outside their ecosystem...mostly because that opens up a whole can of legal worms. It's for the same reason Spotify subscriptions use in-app purchase but you put your credit card into Uber and Lyft. Allowing cross-play means the in-game items you paid for with loot crates should transfer. Aha, HN devs say, why don't you just carry a bit with those items that were paid for and hide them on other platforms? This is, more or less, how Blizzard deals with this. However, if that's not how you set it up out of the gate, that can be a painful thing to do retroactively. That's why I feel it's a bit disingenuous to heap ALL the hate on Sony. Epic could possibly work around this. That said, everything about the account is cosmetic-related. You'll have to start all over getting your John Wick skin...but how big of a deal is that really? It doesn't affect gameplay. That's probably what Epic is thinking.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  >You'll have to start all over getting your John Wick skin... But you can't. It would not only cost money to, but it is also time gated, and once that gate closes you can't open it back up. No new account can have a John Wick skin because it requires buying something no longer for sale and then completing challenges that are no longer part of the game.
- wyldfire 8y ago
  >I suspect this "account taint" behavior is because Epic is using Sony's payment platform for loot crates. But Sony's response says "We also offer Fortnite cross-play support with PC, Mac, iOS, and Android devices". It seems like consoles in their target market are specifically excluded for portability here.
  - madrox 8y ago
    Interesting, I didn't see that. In that case, it makes the account lockout case even weaker. There really is no technical reason for it. However, that makes it Epic's issue, since they clearly have means of handling it.
PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
It seems that Epic is partially to blame for this. If they just required PS4 accounts only for PS4 it would cause far less problem for people. Epic could also allow the transfer of all unlocked items and such between accounts, but chooses not to because they benefit from people being forced to buy it a second time as well. That Epic would have to implement this functionality is the fault of Sony, but that they implement it in the way they current do is the fault of Epic, and so consumers should be mad at both Epic and Sony.
ktosobcy 8y ago
For that very reason I refuse to buy Sony products. For ages they forced they (incompatible, proprietary, overpriced memory cards) and PS is sooo locked that it doesn't make sense to invest (even if they have exclusive titles)
dawnerd 8y ago
I don't really see how Epic can't fix this. Are they deleting your account on their servers when switching to Sony? Seems like an absolutely ridiculous thing to do.
- esrauch 8y ago
  They probably are contractually bound to have this behavior with Sony in exchange for promotion or cash. It doesn't benefit Epic in any way and it benefits Sony a lot.
  - dawnerd 8y ago
    I mean they still could have just not linked accounts and made everyone make a new account just for Sony. Really only Epic to blame here.
    - esrauch 8y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean. If they have a business arrangement it probably explicitly includes a one way transfer of accounts into PS4. Sony would clearly be willing to pay for this (both minimize friction getting in and maximize it getting out).
tehwebguy 8y ago
Holy shit, now I’m pissed. Been playing this on PS4 & pretty beyond annoyed to learn that stepping foot inside their garden is having effects outside of it. I think Epic should pull a power move while they have the most popular game in the world and pull it from Sony with no notice.
dogma1138 8y ago
If you can file a complaint, a few of my friends already filed a complaint with their local EU anti-trust and consumer protection agencies. As you said they were quite annoyed that an account that they’ve spent a lot of time and also money on is now essentially locked out and irreversibly so without any warning or consent.

by lebrad 8y ago

mirceal 8y ago

To me it's common sense to allow me to take my stuff from one platform to the other. Microsoft gets it, Nintendo gets is. I have lost any kind of trust in Sony. After the massive hacks, shitty anti-customer attitude and now locking the Fortnite accounts, I will never buy another Sony product in the future.

ribosometronome 8y ago
Everybody understands the value of crossplay and portability of 'stuff'. It's just not particularly valuable when you're in a dominant position. All of these companies have had pretty shitty, anti-customer attitudes. Microsoft popularized pay-for-online services with Xbox Gold and now it's standard to have to pay a monthly fee to play your console games online. Conservely, crossplay would be the standard now is Microsoft has jumped on board when Sony was supporting it last generation. Nintendo hasn't been able to maintain a reasonable level of presense-across-device, creating a massive headache when changing devises or getting a new console and having to repurchase things you shouldn't have to. I can't really see the justification for not buying a Sony product but continuing to support Xbox or Nintendo given all of their attitudes over the years.
- mirceal 8y ago
  I'm confused. What's Nintendo's attitude? Not being successful in the market? I get the whole 'dominant position' argument. It just seems dumb to me to behave like this when you're in a dominant position. Seems that big corporations learn the same lesson over and over again - in the meantime customers are left holding the bag. BTW, full disclosure: I'm a Nintendo Switch fanboi, so take everything that comes out of my keyboard with a pinch of salt.
  - CrazedGeek 8y ago
    As a fellow Switch fanboy: Nintendo's online purchasing systems have (until the Switch) been extremely weird. Purchases on the eShop (or equivalent) on Wii, DSi, 3DS, and (IIRC) Wii U weren't tied to an account, they were tied to a console. If your console died, you couldn't just buy another one and automatically get all your games back, you'd have to call Nintendo customer support and get them to move your licenses over. The Switch fixed that but has the new problem that save data can't be backed up (until their paid online service starts in a couple months).
    - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
      Not just this, but the other mystifying bit is that titles had to be repurchased for different types of devices. Not only did you have to physically migrate your games between consoles, but like, virtual console titles might be available for both 3DS and Wii platforms, but you'd have to buy them separately on each. And the Switch doesn't have "virtual console" persay yet, but will sell some legacy titles, like the new Donkey Kong release under the "arcade archives" label. In most other companies, like Steam, Xbox, PlayStation, etc., if you buy a title, you can play it on any platform that supports it. The fact that Nintendo players can't accumulate a library of legacy Nintendo titles and play them on any Nintendo console they port it to demonstrates Nintendo has a strong interest in repackaging and reselling the same games over and over again.
      - CrazedGeek 8y ago
        The one notable exception to this was that you were given a decently steep discount on "upgrading" Wii VC titles to their essentially identical Wii U versions, like 80% off or so. Still, it really shouldn't have been paid at all.
taurath 8y ago
> To me it's common sense to allow me to take my stuff from one platform to the other. Microsoft gets it, Nintendo gets is. You haven't really looked at app platforms before, have you. If you buy evernote on IOS, you're sure not getting it on android. MS is being friendly to it because they're behind. In the Xbox 360/PS3 days, it was Sony asking to do cross-play and Microsoft denying it. Its a PR play, and you're buying it.
- graeme 8y ago
  I'm not on Sony, but I think the appropriate analogy would be making an evernote account on google, then logging in on ios, and then subsequently being unable to use that account on google.
  - taurath 8y ago
    I think you’re right actually. One expects subscription services to still function.

jbigelow76 8y ago

The issue of Sony disallowing cross-play is not the reason for controversy in this case. Hmm, so I wonder what the cause of the controversy really is. It's actually because logging in to a Fortnite account on PS4 irreversibly locks that account to Sony's walled garden. Oh, so it is Sony. Regardless of how Sony went about the cause I don't see how you can make a distinction regarding the effect.

tdbgamer 8y ago
Uhhh did he say it wasn't Sony's fault? His point was cross-play isn't the worst part, but the way Sony locks your account in. Don't see how that exonerates Sony.

madrox 8y ago

Getting into even MORE nuance. Having worked on federated login with Sony, I suspect this "account taint" behavior is because Epic is using Sony's payment platform for loot crates. It's against Sony's policy to be able to pay for things to be used outside their ecosystem...mostly because that opens up a whole can of legal worms. It's for the same reason Spotify subscriptions use in-app purchase but you put your credit card into Uber and Lyft. Allowing cross-play means the in-game items you paid for with loot crates should transfer. Aha, HN devs say, why don't you just carry a bit with those items that were paid for and hide them on other platforms? This is, more or less, how Blizzard deals with this. However, if that's not how you set it up out of the gate, that can be a painful thing to do retroactively. That's why I feel it's a bit disingenuous to heap ALL the hate on Sony. Epic could possibly work around this. That said, everything about the account is cosmetic-related. You'll have to start all over getting your John Wick skin...but how big of a deal is that really? It doesn't affect gameplay. That's probably what Epic is thinking.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>You'll have to start all over getting your John Wick skin... But you can't. It would not only cost money to, but it is also time gated, and once that gate closes you can't open it back up. No new account can have a John Wick skin because it requires buying something no longer for sale and then completing challenges that are no longer part of the game.
wyldfire 8y ago
>I suspect this "account taint" behavior is because Epic is using Sony's payment platform for loot crates. But Sony's response says "We also offer Fortnite cross-play support with PC, Mac, iOS, and Android devices". It seems like consoles in their target market are specifically excluded for portability here.
- madrox 8y ago
  Interesting, I didn't see that. In that case, it makes the account lockout case even weaker. There really is no technical reason for it. However, that makes it Epic's issue, since they clearly have means of handling it.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

It seems that Epic is partially to blame for this. If they just required PS4 accounts only for PS4 it would cause far less problem for people. Epic could also allow the transfer of all unlocked items and such between accounts, but chooses not to because they benefit from people being forced to buy it a second time as well. That Epic would have to implement this functionality is the fault of Sony, but that they implement it in the way they current do is the fault of Epic, and so consumers should be mad at both Epic and Sony.

ktosobcy 8y ago

For that very reason I refuse to buy Sony products. For ages they forced they (incompatible, proprietary, overpriced memory cards) and PS is sooo locked that it doesn't make sense to invest (even if they have exclusive titles)

dawnerd 8y ago

I don't really see how Epic can't fix this. Are they deleting your account on their servers when switching to Sony? Seems like an absolutely ridiculous thing to do.

esrauch 8y ago
They probably are contractually bound to have this behavior with Sony in exchange for promotion or cash. It doesn't benefit Epic in any way and it benefits Sony a lot.
- dawnerd 8y ago
  I mean they still could have just not linked accounts and made everyone make a new account just for Sony. Really only Epic to blame here.
  - esrauch 8y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean. If they have a business arrangement it probably explicitly includes a one way transfer of accounts into PS4. Sony would clearly be willing to pay for this (both minimize friction getting in and maximize it getting out).

tehwebguy 8y ago

Holy shit, now I’m pissed. Been playing this on PS4 & pretty beyond annoyed to learn that stepping foot inside their garden is having effects outside of it. I think Epic should pull a power move while they have the most popular game in the world and pull it from Sony with no notice.

dogma1138 8y ago

If you can file a complaint, a few of my friends already filed a complaint with their local EU anti-trust and consumer protection agencies. As you said they were quite annoyed that an account that they’ve spent a lot of time and also money on is now essentially locked out and irreversibly so without any warning or consent.