5 ms·

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

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.
    - mirceal 8y ago
      sure. from a technical point of view their approach sucked (and the market "punished them" for this, right?) but at least at a philosophical (how things should work) they did the right thing in helping you move your licenses over.
- kamikaz1k 8y ago
  I believe the Xbox Live criticism is unfair. The reason the service gained popularity is because it added value. Because XBL centralized the online gaming experience, a lot of benefits were realized including centralizing your multiplayer experience (community and content), and not having to maintain multiple subscriptions for different game services. That is and was worth the premium, atleast for me personally. For Nintendo, I think your criticism is valid, but only first party games. In the case of Sony, they are blocking (what seems to be) Epic's intention of allowing cross platform. And this is different since it's a policy choice, rather than having to invest development hours or something.
  - taurath 8y ago
    It also took some value that used to be free away. It was expected before Xbox Gold that you be able to play games you bought online.
  - robertony 8y ago
    > Because XBL centralized the online gaming experience Gamespy and Steam's multiplayer system already did that for free. > a lot of benefits were realized including centralizing your multiplayer experience (community and content) Again, same thing. > not having to maintain multiple subscriptions for different game services I never needed to ever, except for MMOs, which I was still required to pay for on XBL at the time. > That is and was worth the premium No it wasn't, the fact you had to play multiplayer hosted on your own console, hosted on your own internet connection, by software you already bought is ridiculous. They offered "free updates", community features and other services completely free. But, multiplayer, the only thing most of us wanted and none of this "value add", you had to pay.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  Sony isn't in a dominant position. If I were to buy a new console Sony isn't even a contender.
  - wmeredith 8y ago
    What? Last time I looked the PS4 was outselling the Xbox 1 by a 2:1 ratio and the switch was selling about a 10th of that. Sony doesn't care about cross play because it doesn't benefit them. Your personal feelings aside, Sony has absolutely dominated this latest round of the console wars. It wasn't even close.
    - paulie_a 8y ago
      I really don't care about their sales numbers. Personally I don't consider them a contender for myself. Because Sony doesn't support proper cross play, among many other reasons they are out.
      - mirceal 8y ago
        I guess the point was that right now, they have the most consoles and games out there. That being said I think they have repeatedly pissed off enough people that they will not be seriously considered when the time to buy a new console comes.
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.

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.
  - mirceal 8y ago
    sure. from a technical point of view their approach sucked (and the market "punished them" for this, right?) but at least at a philosophical (how things should work) they did the right thing in helping you move your licenses over.
kamikaz1k 8y ago
I believe the Xbox Live criticism is unfair. The reason the service gained popularity is because it added value. Because XBL centralized the online gaming experience, a lot of benefits were realized including centralizing your multiplayer experience (community and content), and not having to maintain multiple subscriptions for different game services. That is and was worth the premium, atleast for me personally. For Nintendo, I think your criticism is valid, but only first party games. In the case of Sony, they are blocking (what seems to be) Epic's intention of allowing cross platform. And this is different since it's a policy choice, rather than having to invest development hours or something.
- taurath 8y ago
  It also took some value that used to be free away. It was expected before Xbox Gold that you be able to play games you bought online.
- robertony 8y ago
  > Because XBL centralized the online gaming experience Gamespy and Steam's multiplayer system already did that for free. > a lot of benefits were realized including centralizing your multiplayer experience (community and content) Again, same thing. > not having to maintain multiple subscriptions for different game services I never needed to ever, except for MMOs, which I was still required to pay for on XBL at the time. > That is and was worth the premium No it wasn't, the fact you had to play multiplayer hosted on your own console, hosted on your own internet connection, by software you already bought is ridiculous. They offered "free updates", community features and other services completely free. But, multiplayer, the only thing most of us wanted and none of this "value add", you had to pay.
paulie_a 8y ago
Sony isn't in a dominant position. If I were to buy a new console Sony isn't even a contender.
- wmeredith 8y ago
  What? Last time I looked the PS4 was outselling the Xbox 1 by a 2:1 ratio and the switch was selling about a 10th of that. Sony doesn't care about cross play because it doesn't benefit them. Your personal feelings aside, Sony has absolutely dominated this latest round of the console wars. It wasn't even close.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    I really don't care about their sales numbers. Personally I don't consider them a contender for myself. Because Sony doesn't support proper cross play, among many other reasons they are out.
    - mirceal 8y ago
      I guess the point was that right now, they have the most consoles and games out there. That being said I think they have repeatedly pissed off enough people that they will not be seriously considered when the time to buy a new console comes.

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.