@pasquinelli:

I think you're discounting the effect it would have on consumer uptake. Why would consumers continue to support the difference when they would feel that, essentially, there is little to no difference between the two services, given that they 'play the same people anyway'. The basic premise to these services is online play. Regardless of whatever differences there actually are, consumers wouldn't care for the most part. Cross platform play would eventually lead to a unified service, it doesn't matter whatever bells and whistles the competitors add. That's Capcom's strategy.

Given how disgruntled you sound, I can only gather that the majority of your argument comes from wanting a unified service yourself. Sorry, but NO. I also find your understanding that Capcom's deliberately anti-consumer strategy would not be 'hurting anyone' to be completely astounding. Where did you buy your logic?

Bergerac

@Lessthan_tom: no. developers still need to sell games.

pasquinelli

@Bergerac: okay

"Sorry, but no. Segmented multiplayer is like the differing consoles. It offers another area for companies to compete, and, where the consumer is concerned, means improving their online service."

and if there was interoperability between consoles online they'd have no reason to improve their online service? no, they would still have every reason to, as it would still give them a competitive edge over their competition.

"This is an entirely selfish attitude. This is Capcom pandering for university to drive down their production costs. They're not interested in the consumer's needs AT ALL."

no shit, but that doesn't mean it would hurt anyone.

pasquinelli

I think that comeptition drives inovation. If all gaming were unified I think all developers would become lazy.

Lessthan_tom

I can see an MMO succeeding, but in any kind of fast action based game, the technological edge that you can get with the PC will always cause an uneven experience, not to mention the increased chance of cheating. There is no reason that turn based games couldn't work though.

kingofallcosmos

As much as I'm a MS fanboy I'm a GAMING fanboy first and fore most. Having different online services that are not compatible does segment gamers.

I long for the day where games are compatible across different platforms.

Something's got to give. Let us have a universal console already !!!

(I know I'm dreaming, so what? let me dream)

ysleiro

If microsoft is smart, they'll allow 360/PC crossover for SF4.

That will help both those versions out, and hurt the PS3 version.

arstal

@Clushje: There's nothing to suppose about it. As you said it was possible to play Q3A between PC and DC players but it was soon stoped because there was no way DC players could win against keyboard and mouse users.

Shadowrun tried it again recently but the had to gimp the PC controls and use aim assist on the Xbox side to even things up, but no one played that game anyway...

Narishma

Whenever a game is released on 360/PS3, the 360 version always comes out on top in sales. So does anyone with both a 360 and PS3 ever choose the PS3 version of a game?

M

@Billkwando: "piracy ads value to your product"

Please explain, cause no it doesn't. Only in screwed up little minds does that logic work.

Edge of Blade

Funny, that's sorta what EA was doing way back in the day, and why they practically boycotted Live for so long. They wanted to use their own servers so their PC games could connect to their PS2 games to their XBox games... but MS wanted to control their Live servers, and EA finally capitulated.

(Think the only game they ever managed to get out that was interconnected was one of the Need for Speeds, before they capitulated to MS and gave up on the whole thing)

GnatB

Capcom sure likes to talk the talk, but they need to start walking the walk. And that means releasing goddamn Monster Hunter Frontier outside of Japan. D:

Revenge_of_Nekojin

@Bergerac: "Segmented multiplayer is like the differing consoles. It offers another area for companies to compete..."

Exactly. There's no way this will ever happen. The reason this idea won't work is the same reason that we will never see one console that plays all games: money. The companies know that there's money to be had and they're not going to suddenly turn away from that.

Silent Predator

Honestly, I don't see how a console MMO could survive WITHOUT something like this. Then again I think they're a bad idea anyway, but I digress ...

I too don't see this happening, even though it would be great for the industry. Reason being is that console manufacturers would NEVER benefit from it because their games are exclusive. 3rd parties would DEFINITELY benefit, though.

DARTH_TIGRIS

Oh and I meant "add" with 2 Ds. Maybe I have ADD?

Oh and it would also help if they would allow you to see lobbies that are in session (unjoinable) so that at least you have an idea of how many people are actually playing. With most fighting games, you can only see open lobbies, so there could be 200 people playing games at that moment and you'd never know because you can't see that they're there.

(Is there any way I can tie this into bitching about how Samurai Shodown II hasn't come out on XBLA yet? No, I don't think there is.)

Billkwando

@pasquinelli:

Wow, that was convincing.

Bergerac

What they're saying applies especially to fighting games like Street Fighter, that have limited/niche audiences and short (as in amount of time spent playing the game per sitting) play sessions.

As I was trying to tell another hardheaded/dense kotaku poster (who's since been banned) months ago, anything that puts players in separate lobbies is essentially fragmenting the player-base, and giving the false illusion that less people are playing/interested than actually are.

This leads to the decline of people regularly playing online due to the appearance that "nobody's playing it" when in fact many people could be playing it but just can't see each other.

As much as I've loved Xbox Live in the past, it's seeming to me to be more and more of a waste of time and money, since you pay $60 for the "Game of the Week" to play online, then everybody moves on to the next big thing and your $60 purchase becomes a ghost town, or populated only by elitist assholes (at worst, i.e. Gears) and/or people who've mastered the game and play it 24/7 and just kick your ass all over the place (at best, i.e. Lost Planet).

So some great games get left behind because people are so fickle, yes, but also because (unlike the PC) we can't all just jump on Gamespy together and play, with no thoughts about hardware compatibility.

Lack of piracy also hurts the multiplayer player-base on consoles, because there aren't as many people out there playing it as there would be if you could just torrent it and jump on. Let's see Capcom's solution to THAT dilemma! (piracy ads value to your product, and gives it a longer lifespan!) LMAO

Sorry I wrote a book.

Billkwando

@Bergerac: sorry, but no.

pasquinelli

+1 for the unified platform.

mustang

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS STRIKES AGAIN!!!! If you take players and restrict the groups they can play with then those groups are smaller then what they would be together. Really? NO DUH!

The problem here is you have GameSpy (IGN network), Xbox LIVE, and No man's land PC existing under separate echo systems.

Using dedicated servers may make this problem go away but who (what publisher) wants to pay for the network infrastructure that allows three different platforms to communicate for a software which they know has a very finite (18 months max) life cycle. XBLA can go on for a significantly longer period as MS handles the back-end perpetually (unless said publisher kills it... I'm looking at you EA) but GameSpy will host things as long as publisher keeps paying and there's always a point of diminishing returns for this from the publisher's perspective; this is also true with proprietary hosting by publishers themselves. I believe that these smaller network groups are actually more beneficial to the health and sustainability of multi-player in the long run at the price of smaller communities.

okenny :)

Someone is going to figure out that you can have a title with a long tail in terms of sales as long as the multiplayer servers aren't totally empty.

There is really no good reason for 3rd party developers to accept that PS3 and 360 owners can't play together. Multiplayer games with healthy communities sell *much* longer than anything else, and communities start to die if you chop them into pieces.

DrFresh

@Bergerac: Every attempt at "unifying" or streamlining the online gaming experience on PC has failed miserably, while PC remains the undisputed king of online gaming.

futurebiblehero

Q3A cross-platform multiplayer between the Dreamcast and PC gave me such high hopes that a trend would be set, but alas it was not meant to be.

Hasn't the excuse always been so far that supposedly a KB/M set-up offers an advantage over console controllers?

Clushje

First they need to start releasing their games to multiple platforms.

Dead Rising for PS3 and Monster Hunter for all!

And then Power Stone 3 for 360/PS3 with cross-platform online.

Kanik

I been saying this for a long time. Multiplayer spawned on PC where, yeah, you can consider it as a single platform, but the fact that everyone has a different and almost unique set-up across the board kinda puts it in its own league. Yet a dude running Win98 on a 667Mhz system plays Starcraft just the same as a Core 2 Duo or whatever they're calling 'em these days. Granted, this changes over time, but multiplayer can certainly keep your old machine kicking games around a lot longer than anything else. I don't see how it's detrimental for cross-platform multiplayer considering the backbone, TCP/IP, is universal.

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

It would be nice, but I don't see it happening in the near future.

EmeraldDragon

Well duh. Everyone wants to make money. I'm sure the folks at Rockstar would also want to distribute the Xbox-only online content if it weren't for the oodles (lots and lots of oodles) of cash from MS.

Also Brian I think you mean IMAGINE instead of IMAGE, no?

goldwings

This uptoic world sounds wonderfull. I am, sadly, living in the real world and know that there will never be enought harmoy between differente hardware comapnies to make this real. Wich is a shame, because no one is really thinking about whats best for the end user, us!

As an It professional, I know that the "magic" is truly all down to , as stated by IronsUK, the good ol TCP/IP protocol. I've seen it emerge, all the way from Quake, thus, online gaming on the consoles doesnt fell like something really new or unique, and I was never taken by Live! as a paid service, because... well , I've always had for free for the last decade or so. Don't even get me started on payed DLC (Namco Skins for AC6 spring to mind).

True, they are out there to make the producers money, but still... I choose to exercise my right to say "no" to this type of policies, but I fear I may be a minority, and lone scream of disgust, a tiny spec on their maps, one wich is easy to ignore, thus, makign things continue the way they are heading.

Anyway, kudos, Capcom. Hope to see some more devs with similar speeches in the near future.

Shiryu

@IronsUK: FFXI did PS2 PC 360 while doing multi-regional on the same servers.

Nothing beats FFXIs cross platform cross country play yet.

Black-Dog-Howls

Well I had this discussion at a board meeting 2 years ago. We called it the Gaming Tower of Babel. Great in theory so that all platforms would get to play "n" games, online, as the games were based online only (the console was just a buffer and controller).
Much to those that already commented, it is a great theory, slow to the table and doubtful all sides will agreed on centralizing.

But when you look at the numbers, the money is in providing a title for ALL platforms. (Would GTAIV raked in as much if just PS3? or just 360? Would Halo 3 have doubled its take if it were on PS3 as well? All about numbers...)

SigmundTheSeaMonster

There's really very little stopping games from supporting cross-platform play, technically. Shadowrun has already shown it can be done between the Xbox 360 and PC platforms.

At the end of the day they are all using TCP/IP. Hardware differences should be as insignificant as choosing which browser to view a web page with.

IronsUK

Well, everyone wants to hold the keys to the kingdom, so there will never be the 'one' solution.

FightingChance

Sorry, but no. Segmented multiplayer is like the differing consoles. It offers another area for companies to compete, and, where the consumer is concerned, means improving their online service.

This is an entirely selfish attitude. This is Capcom pandering for university to drive down their production costs. They're not interested in the consumer's needs AT ALL.

Bergerac

Bit of a Duh statement, but definitely nice to hear it from one of the big boys.

cynopt

As another poster mentioned, Final Fantasy XI already does this on multiple consoles and PC.

dirkxxdiggler

Specific consoles and exclusives could still exist if the console industry were to adopt an industry standard spec to make development of games easier, cheaper and quicker. No one with an iota of logic can disagree with the benefits of this. Whether or not console manufactures can stop waving their wangs around for 5 seconds is another problem entirely.

Replica23

I disagree.

Imagine putting Playstation fanboys (see Sony Defence Force) on Xbox live.

mcderek3000

fewer fanboys maybe but not all totally gone though!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

freespeech