Doubt it. Halo 5 came out too long ago to save Halo 6 for next gen.
It doesn't necessarily. But in this case it is. Larger server farms has advantages over a much smaller one that isn't even owned by the company that is using it.
Pointing out an error. How's that bitter? PSN isn't hosted on the largest server infrastructure in the world so how can it have caught up?
“While Xbox Live is still going strong, the PlayStation Network has now caught up,"
Wait, PSN is now on the largest server infrastructure in the world? This is news to me.
If it was all about the hardware and software, PC would be the market leader and consoles would be the generic brands of gaming.
If the tables were turned there would be the same arguments reversed.
Xbox gamers did buy it. PC just has a larger fanbase. Also the narrative to push on gaming sites is that Xbox gamers are shallow and only play fps. Yet games like Inside sold 1 million on Xbox before being released on PC the following week.
No. Because if you suck at video games, you can't play them the way the devs intended them to be played.
Not at the beginning of the gen. As admitted by its head exec.
Nobody cares about Xbox but it sells 10s to 100s of thousands of consoles per month.
Sony also boasted about it. PS4 was their first time have the most powerful/better performing console after all.
I disagree. I just want a stable frame rate. Doesn't have to be 60 unless its competitive or a skill based game. Other than that I could care less what the frame rate is as long as it's stable. Give me the eye candy. The better the graphics, the more immersive the game is for me.
How would it help the competitor? Crossplay isn't going to all of a sudden increase sales for Xbox. Nor will it decline the sales of the PS4.
Sony or MS isn't going to lose are gain sales by allowing crossplay. People will continue to buy whatever console they were intending to buy. If one of my friends wanted to play with me on Xbox, but grew up playing PS then he can still do so. Crossplay won't put a scratch on PS' fanbase and you all know it.
"crossplay just isn't a subject that gets many people riled up to do so...."
Really? When the news got out a couple months a...
It isn't about what Sony wants. It isn't about what MS wants. It's about what gamers have been asking for since online capability arrived on consoles. This is supposed to be fan service. Not a way to monetize games more than they already have.
What crybaby mentality? I'm blaming both of them for being arrogant during times of favor. You're the only one trying to defend your precious company. I'm not giving either of them any slack. It's both their faults for why we don't have crossplay. The only thing you're focused on is how Sony can benefit which is not the purpose of crossplay at all. It's about how gamers are going to benefit.
Both companies are dirty. This isn't about what the companies can get out of accepting crossplay. It's about what the gamers want. Neither have the right to refuse. If the gamers want crossplay, both companies should be trying their damned hardest to provide it for the people who make them rich.
Your comment is just as ignorant as his.
Some people are so far up their favorite company's @ss that they don't realize that crossplay is not supposed to be beneficial to any of the gaming companies. It's supposed to be fan service. It's meant to be a convenience for the gamers. Not the companies. All of the hostility towards it is fanboy talk. REAL gamers would love to play with their friends who own a different console. What fanboys, execs, etc have to say about it is irrelevant.
Size can be for more than meeting demand. Say for example a certain region of a country is having trouble going online. They'd be able to stop that problem from spreading to more regions by cutting off those servers with from the rest. More servers means more time allowed to take care of it.
More servers also benefit multiplayer. Less distance between the server and the client means less lag and rubberbanding.
It definitely does matter who owns it. T...