Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So, I'm beginning to get more and more annoyed by the lack of cross-platform games. For example, I play bad company 2 on PS3. My friend just got it on 360... for some reason, we cannot play against eachother. I know its not an issue of intercompatibility between the consoles, there are games out there/on the horizon that ARE capable of cross-platform gaming between the PS3 and 360. Why aren't more games made like this? I know that cross-platforming is usually limited between console and pc because of a perceived imbalance in skill or some bs like that. It seems to hinder the success of the game more than it helps it from a marketing/business standpoint.

Does anyone have any insight into this trend?

chaos0xomega wrote:So, I'm beginning to get more and more annoyed by the lack of cross-platform games. For example, I play bad company 2 on PS3. My friend just got it on 360... for some reason, we cannot play against eachother. I know its not an issue of intercompatibility between the consoles, there are games out there/on the horizon that ARE capable of cross-platform gaming between the PS3 and 360. Why aren't more games made like this? I know that cross-platforming is usually limited between console and pc because of a perceived imbalance in skill or some bs like that. It seems to hinder the success of the game more than it helps it from a marketing/business standpoint.

Does anyone have any insight into this trend?

I imagine because both Microsoft and Sony are corporate rivals that want consumers to purchase their hardware/games/online service instead of they're rivals.

If Player X wanted to play against Player Y on Xbox Live but didn't own an Xbox, he/she would need to purchase one along with the Xbox version of the game which means money for Microsoft.

But if the game for was multi-platform and had cross-system play, Player X wouldn't need to purchase an Xbox thus Microsoft losses out on the potential sale of a console and video game.

Yeah... but the problem is that a small select few games do support this or will upon their release, so clearly its not an issue of corporate rivalry.

chaos0xomega wrote:Yeah... but the problem is that a small select few games do support this or will upon their release, so clearly its not an issue of corporate rivalry.

In that case than I imagine it's simply that most developers either don't have the time/or don't want to take the time to implement cross-platform multiplayer.

You have to get certifications and approval to get patches though Sony, not sure about Live. PC doesn't have to deal with any of those middlemen and also offers an additional advantage of more precise input devices (mouse and keyboard > controller, except for certain genres like fighters and racing).

Seems like too much of a pain in the ass if you're a developer and until someone comes out with a game that proves its really worth it...it'll probably stay that way.

chaos0xomega wrote:Yeah... but the problem is that a small select few games do support this or will upon their release, so clearly its not an issue of corporate rivalry.

Really now? I beg to differ, point to a single game...

Both platforms currently do not allow this on a corporate level only. In the office we cross platform our multiplayer games all the time. When it comes to ship time though, its all locked up and shutdown in order to pass the requirements to ship on each of those platforms. The only games you see are PC to Xbox and that is because both use LIVE (Xbox or Windows versions). And interestingly enough you will see less of those because MS keeps finding out that PC gamers will rock console gamers every time due to input devices and causes them to lose sales on the console side because of it. They have tested this out with Shadowrun and Halo 2 and were thinking of making it easy to do within Live, but after both of those experiements and watching PC players destroy console players they have since pulled the plug on that project.

So in the end we are left with no cross platform games not because of physical inability, simply due to corporate politics. And I don't see that changing any time soon.

Sorry.

Cane wrote:You have to get certifications and approval to get patches though Sony, not sure about Live. PC doesn't have to deal with any of those middlemen and also offers an additional advantage of more precise input devices (mouse and keyboard > controller, except for certain genres like fighters and racing).

Seems like too much of a pain in the ass if you're a developer and until someone comes out with a game that proves its really worth it...it'll probably stay that way.

Live requires the same certifications, if not more stringent ones(not 100% sure on that. The guys from THQ who did Metro 2033 at least implied that).

Kanluwen wrote:

Cane wrote:You have to get certifications and approval to get patches though Sony, not sure about Live. PC doesn't have to deal with any of those middlemen and also offers an additional advantage of more precise input devices (mouse and keyboard > controller, except for certain genres like fighters and racing).

Seems like too much of a pain in the ass if you're a developer and until someone comes out with a game that proves its really worth it...it'll probably stay that way.

Live requires the same certifications, if not more stringent ones(not 100% sure on that. The guys from THQ who did Metro 2033 at least implied that).

Correct both have their own set of requirements and oddities. Patches are a whole other issue and have their own set of requirments beyond the release requirements. Nintendo and most hardware companies (Apple for example) have these kinds of hoops to jump through in order to have some semblence of quality control.

Strimen wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Yeah... but the problem is that a small select few games do support this or will upon their release, so clearly its not an issue of corporate rivalry.

Really now? I beg to differ, point to a single game...

DC Universe Online (cross platform servers between PS3 and Windows)

Portal 2 (Valve wants to get cross platform play between PS3 and Windows, no word on PS3 and 360 but if they can do PS3-Windows, it seems silly not to do PS3-360)

Dust 514 (or so they say)

Final Fantasy 11 was also cross-platform between PS2 and windows, no idea if this carried over to the xbox version of the release

You're right, it seems theres no direct cross between PS3 and 360, but there certainly is between PS3 and Windows.

So yeah, theres a few right there. Otherwise, I found the rest of your post fairly interesting, I long suspected that it was not a case of hardware/software limitations, and you basically just proved that (just to clarify, do the requirements to ship on PS3/360 require there to be no cross-platform functionality or is it just made more difficult?). I don't really buy the input device thing though. I don't own a 360, but the PS3 certainly has support for a mouse and keyboard.

chaos0xomega wrote: I don't really buy the input device thing though. I don't own a 360, but the PS3 certainly has support for a mouse and keyboard.

For genres like MMO's, RTS's, and FPS - the mouse and keyboard wins out if all things are equal. Doesn't mean you can't have fun with a controller though.

Yeah all of those PS3 to windows games don't use windows live. And all of the PC to 360 game do use Live. Again, there will pretty much never be 360 to PS3 though. It has nothing to do with hardware/software. Its simple a requirement to not have it. Anyone can make a game that simply uses tcp/ip or anyother simple networking protocal to hook the consoles/PCs/iPhones/Wii together over the internet and play. But they aren't allowed do to restrictions setup by the hardware manufacturers, accoet in the PCs case since their is no overseeing hardware manufacturers that can force you to obey them (like on consoles and the handhelds). Its unfortunate that the corps get in the way of good gaming, but that is how it is.

In regards to the input device issues, its not that they can't work in the same game at the same time (heck PS3 has support for both as does PC) its that mouse keyboard give an advantage for most types of games over joysticks and therefore people get upset getting their butts kicked because they can't turn around fast enough. And bad user experience even in a decent game (halo 2, shadowrun) cause poorer sales. So they just avoid it by not making it standard.

Bah, that upsets me to no end. I wonder if someone could get away with suing the corps over this, citing anti-trust laws, etc?

No, because there's no trust being formed.

There is, actually, one example of a cross-platform game that runs on PS2/PS3, PC, and X-Box 360 simultaneously, and that game is Final Fantasy XI. I assume that XIV will follow the same business model.

Other than that, it's horrible business to support your competitor in any way, and that includes bridging the gap between the X-Box 360 and the PS3.

Chrysaor686 wrote:There is, actually, one example of a cross-platform game that runs on PS2/PS3, PC, and X-Box 360 simultaneously, and that game is Final Fantasy XI. I assume that XIV will follow the same business model.

Other than that, it's horrible business to support your competitor in any way, and that includes bridging the gap between the X-Box 360 and the PS3.

Its funny because I remember pointing this out while at work. The response...... 360 needed an MMO so they let it go. Hahaha, so as with anything they can break their own rules just don't expect it to happen often or regularly. They have done it with other "Requirements" for key games that they need to have on their platforms. So I guess I shouldn't say its set in stone, just unlikely to change or become regular since it doesn't make good buisness sense from the console creators point of view to play nice with the competition. At least, not yet. Perhaps the cloud systems will change this. Time will tell.

Kanluwen wrote:No, because there's no trust being formed.

Anti-trust laws deal with more than just the formation of monopolies. You would be surprised what they cover and what they can be used for. Likewise, Copyright law can also come into play in this situation. In this situation(this is the first example that comes to mind, I'm not a lawyer, but I very briefly studied law, so it might not be a strong argument, but its still an argument), the regulations barring cross-platform play between the 360 and ps3 can be cited as a barrier to entry into the video game industry by a startup developer that can't afford to maintain seperate online servers for each system.

Other than that, it's horrible business to support your competitor in any way, and that includes bridging the gap between the X-Box 360 and the PS3.

Not necessarily. While it isn't generally an intelligent move, with a good head on your shoulders you can actually make it work to your favor, and with some recently set US legal precedents (mainly the decision regarding jailbreaking the iPhone), it may be possible to do something as ridiculous as making Xbox Live/PSN available on the opposite console, or... dare I say it, a third part service available on both consoles that WILL allow for cross-platform play. Actually, I wonder what the possibility of that last option might be. Certainly whoever implemented such a thing could make a nice chunk of change (I should get on that...), but would developers get behind that? I know that jailbreaking the PS3 has JUST become an option (really, as of today I think, and yes I realize that Sony is raving mad about the situation, but again, if the iPhone is any indication, they can do nothing about it within the United States), and I believe its been an option for 360 owners (who are willing to risk a ban).