Introduction
Recent events surrounding Fortnite has once again brought “Cross-Platform Gaming” to the forefront. This issue had been getting notable attention since Rocket League, but it has existed for much longer.
Cross-platform is actually one of the few (out of perhaps THREE) topics that I feel very strongly about, but I had hesitated talking about it on my blog until now for a few reasons:
One, to understand why cross-platform gaming is an issue on consoles, you need to understand the respective first-party platform holders' policies toward cross-platform gaming & the business reasons why they are not happening. Discussing these may have required breaking confidentiality on my part.
Two, I am personally involved in a game project that bets heavily on cross-platform gaming, and out of simple selfishness, I didn't want to share this massive opportunity that I was seeing (my “secret sauce”) with you folks.
Three, it's not a simple topic, and I still haven't fully figured out how to articulate the issue clearly. And having already written two blogs that I felt went way over a reasonable length, I was concerned I may write an even longer rant this time.
But, here’s how I feel about those reasons now:
One: This is no longer an issue: the most important factors have already been mentioned by others in the industry in recent weeks (or as they say in NDA terms, it “subsequently became publicly available without my breach of any obligation”), so I am confident I am safe.
Two: I decided this is too selfish and short-sighted of me. Besides, the chances of my own project becoming ultra successful is pretty slim (it’s just the reality of the games industry), and I’d rather we all work together to achieve this cross-platform future.
Three: What the heck. I think the topic is more relevant now than ever, and sooner or later I'm going to have to figure out how to talk about this coherently. As they say, “that which does not kill you can only make you stronger!” (note: this ended up being the longest blog I’ve written to date)
Supposedly, "most gamers don't really care about this issue", with 58% of gamers feeling indifferent toward cross-platform play. But that's TODAY. Broadband internet (and subsequently the ability to stream videos over the internet), smartphones, 1080p screens all faced similar apathy by consumers before being widely adopted and transforming their industries and more.
I see cross-platform gaming as being equally important, and I believe that it will make just as big an impact to the games industry as the other revolutions did.
But whereas most articles and blogs I’ve read lately have focused on WHY cross-platform gaming is good, I will also talk about the past and current realities of cross-platform gaming, how much progress has been made already, how far we still have left to go, and how we may get there sooner.
Defining Cross-platform gaming
So what *IS* cross-platform gaming?
The definition for “cross-platform” on Google and Wikipedia are a bit too broad (IMO), and refer to software that are “implemented and able to be used on different types of hardware (paraphrased).” In the gaming space, this is already defined as “multi-platform”.
The definition for “cross-platform PLAY” is much closer: “the ability of a video game with an online gaming component that allows players using different video game hardware to play with each other simultaneously.” However, this is still too narrow (again, IMO). As odd as this may sound, “playing” is only a part of the “gaming experience”, and this definition likewise overlooks the aspects of gaming outside of the moments of gameplay.
For this blog, my definition of a cross-platform game is simply a “fully platform-agnostic (multiplayer) game” With a fully cross-platform game, you should not only be able to play WITH other players that are on different platforms than you, you should also be able to play FROM any platform (on the same account).
Benefits of cross-platform gaming
So let me start with the obvious and break down the reasons why games should be cross-platform.
More players to play with/against
The most direct and fundamental benefit of cross-platform gaming is that players have access to a larger pool of players. Players who log on to play the game will see more friends connected online since they would see ALL of their friends who are online, as opposed to seeing only those players play that game on the same platform. Additionally (and equally importantly IMO), players have access to a much larger pool of people whom they can recommend the game to.
Let’s compare this to today’s reality: You pick up Destiny 2 and really enjoy it. So you tell your friends who played Halo with you back in college that they should all play D2 with you. The problem, however, is that only a third of them would be able to play the game with you because the game is available on three separate platforms (PS4/XB1/PC). So, the effectiveness of your word-of-mouth recommendation is drastically reduced instantly.
Also, even if your entire Halo crew from college bought D2 and played the game every night, you’d only see a third of your friends each night, giving the impression that the community is smaller than it actually is. Combining them all into one a single community would make it more attractive AND active for both existing and new players.
Single community
Aside from “appear larger” as mentioned above, single/unified gaming communities have a couple of essential benefits.
The first is the ability to form groups with anyone. Using the Destiny 2 example above, many players who reach the end-game find themselves without enough friends to form a full raid party, effectively getting locked out of one of the most exciting features of D2. After a few nights or a few weeks like this where they fail to form raid groups due to “lack of friends”, people would all eventually lose interest, and move on to other games. It’s worth noting that, in this case, people stopped playing DESPITE (1) wanting to continue playing the game, and (2) there actually being enough players (but hidden by artificial barriers).
Separating players by platform can have devastating negative effects to longer-term engagement, especially when a game is designed around forming groups and playing TOGETHER. And the above scenario could have been avoided if you weren’t limited to playing with friends on the same platform.
The second benefit of single communities is that certain important features become possible when communities aren’t split. The simplest example is a global leaderboard in competitive games where players may want to know who is a better player (or group/guild). Ranking players that compete in entirely separate communities is simply not possible, yet for games that are built on skill-based competition, this is an essential feature if your game aspires to become an eSports title one day.
Let’s me draw an analogy using American Football. IMO, the thing that makes the NFL truly exciting is the Super Bowl. Whereas the league is split into two separate “conferences (leagues)”, the champions of those conferences ultimately meet at the Super Bowl each year to determine who the best team is. Effectively, what the NFL has done is use the Super Bowl to “bridge” the two competitive communities (“conferences”) to form one larger community of teams. Now, imagine an NFL without the Super Bowl; each season ending with the two conferences crowning their respective champions. It would be a lame change, to put it mildly. I believe that’s exactly what we are doing to videogames until we solve the cross-platform gaming issue.
Higher engagement
My earlier example showed how NOT being cross-platform could hurt your user engagement. That example mostly had to do with the availability of OTHER players, and its impact on engagement. However, there are ways that being cross-platform can lead to higher engagement EVEN IF the game isn’t built around playing with other people.
Above: Anecdotal internet comment following the launch of Fortnite on Switch
If I were able to play my game on one platform, then continue playing it on any of my other gaming platforms (per my earlier definition of cross-platform gaming), I will most likely end up playing it more, simply because I CAN; it is physically more accessible!
While many of us own multiple gaming-capable hardware (just to list the obvious: your desktop PC, your gaming console, your mobile phone and your laptop from work), our games are typically only playable on only one of those. What this means is that when we think about playing a game, we typically associate that experience with a specific machine that we own, and WHERE that machine is. So, if it is a console game, you won’t even think about playing it until you’re back home (and the wife isn’t using the TV).
But imagine how your gaming habit may change if you could play your favorite game on ANY of these gaming-capable machines you own? You wouldn’t have to wait until you’re home; just play on your PC at work (but keep that alt+tab key ready for the boss), or on your phone while you’re riding the subway home. And if your wife is using the TV, you could simply move over to your home desktop PC to play there while you wait for the couch to free up. Would you play that game MORE or LESS? The answer seems obvious.
More revenues with cross-platform
Some of the points I’ve already raised explain how being cross-platform can lead to greater revenues (i.e. better word-of-mouth reach & longer engagement). However being cross-platform can also increase a player's general willingness to spend money on a game.
One of the interesting comparisons people have made between Fortnite and PUBG is with their respective iOS revenue. While both iOS versions were released around the same time, Fortnite was monetizing significantly more per player than PUBG (x33 more?!). There are many other factors that contribute to this difference, including facts that players are more willing to buy in-game currency for Fortnite since it’s is a F2P title (i.e. unlike PUBG which costs $30 up-front) as well as that Fortnite’s BattlePass system was simply designed much better for monetization.
However, one factor that I want to highlight is that, on Fortnite, purchases made on one platform carry over to other platforms as well (with some minor caveats due to Sony’s policies). In other words, when you know that the cool costume you’re tempted to purchase would be usable on ALL platforms, it’s much easier for you to make the decision to do so. And that appears to be showing in Fortnite’s revenues as well.
I even argue that many of the biggest titles in gaming today have all benefited from being cross-platform, intentionally or not.
One of the earliest mega hits in mobile, Candy Crush Saga allowed players to play from their smartphones, tablets AND PCs (via Facebook), and compete against their friends even if they were not on the same mobile OS platform (i.e. iOS vs Android)
The two biggest eSports titles, League of Legends and DOTA2, are both cross-platform
All of the biggest hits on mobile are cross-platform between iOS and Android
I suspect these titles would not have been nearly as successful without their cross-platform foundation.
Why is cross-platform gaming not allowed?
So, now that we’ve established that cross-platform is the way to go, what’s stopping us? I thank others on the internet who have answered this question already and making this public knowledge; it was due to the platform holders’ policies effectively banning game developers from enabling such features.
“But whyyyy??!!!”, you may ask.
I’ll break down the biggest reasons, since if we are to solve this problem, we’d first need to understand exactly what the concerns and arguments against them are, both openly-stated and unspoken.
User Experience & Safety
Some of you may be familiar with the phrase “certification” or “compliance” as it relates to submitting games to console platforms. The intent of the certification process is to ensure that every game behaves in a way that a player may expect of a game running on that platform. These expectations are set by the platforms (as “requirements”), and they span across a broad range of topics.
Some of those topics relate to the experience that a user may have when interacting with other players in the game. As an example, a platform holder may request that players cannot harass another player in the game, or that you cannot allow a penis-shaped custom map to be uploaded/download by other players (especially minors). These are all well-meaning policies, even if they may not always be practical to enforce.
"We have a contract with the people who go online with us, that we look after them and they are within the PlayStation curated universe. Exposing what in many cases are children to external influences we have no ability to manage or look after, it's something we have to think about very carefully." – Jim Ryan (Sony’s global marketing boss)
On the other hand, some can be rather petty. As an example, let’s say you have an online game that’s cross platform between platform A and platform B. Platform A’s policy may say “I don’t want to see my competitor’s logo on my machine”, meaning the developer may need to come up with a creative way to show the players that some other players are playing on platform B. Even worse, Platform A’s policy may even say “I don’t want people who don’t own my platform playing in the same game those who do”, which is far more explicit in preventing cross-platform play. In both of these examples, however, the justification provided is the same: “We want to create the best possible experience for our customers, and allowing players from other platforms to play with ours limits our ability to do so”.
Brand Loyalty & Engagement
“Engagement” has always been an important metric, but in the world of in-game monetization and F2P titles, it’s become ever more important. Platform holders have started to realize this as well, and are getting even more sensitive to where players spend their time. Whereas they used to address the engagement issue through platform-exclusive titles, now it is although through this.
What this means is that the whole concept of “play your game on whatever platform you want!” goes directly against their strategic interests. They want to ensure that people spend as much time on their platform, or better yet, play ONLY on their platform. They want gamers to associate themselves with their console’s brand (i.e. “PlayStation” or “Xbox”), because that keeps players from migrating to other consoles. And as long as players stay on those platforms, it should eventually lead to more monetization on those platforms as well.
And speaking of monetization…
Monetization
Finally, we’ve arrived at the juicy part, and ultimately the real reason why we’re talking about this.
It’s not controversial to say that the platform holders’ interest boils down to their financials. And regardless of how a platform holder may try to explain away the reasons for an anti-cross-platform policy, the fact of the matter is that it’s because they THINK they will lose revenue if they allow cross-platform gaming.
I can understand their concern, but I feel that it’s unnecessarily pessimistic. Of COURSE, once you open up the borders between platforms, some people will spend money on a platform where they may have previously not done so. But most platforms should BENEFIT, not lose, from open borders (this is starting to sound like a political blog!).
First, as I mentioned during the definitions, a cross-platform title is much-better positioned to maximize revenue. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Second, even if people start “playing (on) other platforms”, when it comes to SPENDING MONEY (e.g. purchasing premium virtual currency), most will continue performing those tasks on their main platform. In other words, if you have a PSN account, XBL account, Steam account, Nintendo account, AppleID and GooglePlay account and are playing a game across all 6+ platforms, real-money transactions are more likely to happen on your favorite/most-used account (<- pure speculation. Unfortunately there is no hard data on this).
Third, while it is entirely possible that some users will migrate to another platform entirely as a result, such a drastic change would only happen if the other platform is considerably better than their current platform. I’d actually argue that type of migration should be encouraged, and that it would be inappropriate for a platform holder to try to artificially mitigate that through protectionist policies.
What’s interesting about this part is that, when it comes to policies addressing monetization, platform holders are more direct about the reasons: that they’d lose out on revenue. Let’s look at some specific examples of what’s generally scorned by platform holders.
At the simplest level, here is how the platform holders think: If a piece of content costs money to access, they want to ensure that players who access that content while on their platform have paid that platform the corresponding cost. Under the traditional business environment, this makes sense. If someone plays KickAssGame on a PS4, Sony would like to have been paid for it. Microsoft would feel the same about someone playing KickAssGame on an Xbox One.
This stance becomes very messy, however, once you add DLC to this equation. Let’s hypothetically assume KickAssGame allowed cross-platform play between PS4 and XB1, meaning that if I owned both consoles, I could buy TWO copies of KickAssGame (one for PS4 and another for XB1) and play the game on whichever machine I want to use at the moment. So far, there are no issues with Sony nor Microsoft because they both got paid for the game (while I, as the consumer, paid twice).
But what happens once I purchase a piece of DLC for the game? For argument’s sake, let’s assume I bought a legendary costume that costs $20 for my main character in KickAssGame while on my PS4. What happens when I log onto my XB1? Sony would not care what happens, because they already got paid for that costume. However, Microsoft will object to the content being accessible on the XB1 because the player has not yet paid Microsoft for it. So, they will require that the user purchase the costume AGAIN in order to be able to use this while on an XB1.
To make this even more challenging, this applies to paid virtual currency as well. So, if you purchased virtual currency on one platform, another platform will object to the user having access to that currency while on their platform. To make this even worse, this applies to items purchased with that virtual currency as well. So, technically speaking, if you purchased a costume with virtual currency that you paid for while on a PS4, you wouldn’t be allowed to use it while on an XB1.
Are you having fun yet? I’ll throw in another curveball. Thankfully(?), the platform holders do not mind EARNED currencies carrying over to another platform. That makes sense because from their perspective, there is no money paid for that currency. HOWEVER, what happens when a game allows the in-game currency to be both earnable and purchasable (like Fortnite’s V-Bucks)? Both rules will still apply, so if you earned 200 V-Bucks and PURCHASED another 300 V-Bucks while on your PS4, when you get on your XB1, you’ll only see the 200 V-Bucks that was earned, and not the 300 V-Bucks that you’d bought.
Note: In my examples, PS4/Sony and XB1/Microsoft are entirely interchangeable.
Note: Some readers may speculate that this is about Sony, but in my experience ALL platforms have similar policies, just contextualized differently. The fact that Sony is winning means they are more incentivized to enforce these types of policies.
As you can see, when it comes to the concerns with monetization, it is largely a PHILOSOPHICAL debate rather than a logical one. It is about whether or not a consumer should have to pay for the same piece of content multiple times (i.e. for each platform). And while I can certainly understand the traditional philosophy, ultimately I once again defer to my “the rising tide lifts all boats” argument. Because regardless of whether the consumer should or should not pay, if the platform holders make more money, this is a moot philosophical debate; ultimately, the platform holders will be convinced to choose the approach that makes them more money. And as I mentioned in the “benefits of cross-platform” above, going cross-platform is far more likely to increase revenues to most if not all players involved.
Different aspects of cross-platform gaming
Up to this point, I’ve used “cross-platform gaming” to refer to everything, but for the sake of clarity, I think it’s important to establish the different components that make up cross-platform gaming as a whole. All of these concepts have been referred to already in this blog, so I am merely giving them names and discreet definitions.
Matchmaking
The first and most important is the ability to play a game (in real time or asynchronously) with or against a player that is on another platform. This even has a common term for it: “cross-platform PLAY.”, and is typically what people think of when they hear “cross-platform gaming”.
Account Portability
The second is the ability to play FROM any platform with the same identity (user account). It refers to being able to progress in the same game/account regardless of the platform you are using at a given moment. Sony uses the term “cross-play” to refer to games that run on both the PS4 and PSVita which allow you to progress through the same game (via a shared save game). Functionally speaking, that is exactly what account portability means, except that it would need to be portable across all platform borders, and not just within PlayStation platforms.
Entitlement Portability
The third is the ability to access any content you purchased FROM any platform ON any platform. (The word “entitlement” referring to the user’s right to access a piece of content). It’s worth noting that the game must first have account portability in order for entitlement portability to be possible.
Universal Wallets
This is similar to “entitlement portability”, but for virtual currency. And, in particular, any PAID currency. A user should not have to track how much paid currency he has on each platform he is playing the game. Like “entitlement portability”, this requires that the game first allows account portability.
Without providing all four of the above, a game is not fully cross-platform, and would be limiting its potential to varying degrees.
Where we are today
Let’s look at how some of the best-known cross-platform titles have embraced it:
Some observations:
While there have already been a number of fully cross-platform mega-hit titles, they traditionally have only covered PC/Desktop or Mobile platforms (Candy Crush Saga being a notable exception covering both PC/Desktop AND Mobile platforms)
Console games typically cannot go beyond cross-platform matchmaking
Final Fantasy XIV was very ahead of its time
Fortnite is a major anomaly, not only for consoles but also for the broader games industry
Regarding Fortnite, there are a number of reasons why I suspect it was able to make far more progress than others. First, Epic Games (who owns Fortnite) is now so deeply embedded into the industry thanks to their Unreal Engine 4, and they are now “too big to piss off”. As a result, some things that would normally have been promptly rejected at certification (e.g. portable entitlements) seemed to have been allowed to “slip through”. Second, Fortnite was a game that every platform wanted. PUBG was still the king of Battle Royale when Fortnite’s Battle Royale mode was hitting consoles, and platform holders were all too happy to add a AAA free-to-play shooter to their catalog (high-quality F2P games were rather lacking on consoles). However, I don’t think they realized until too late that the Fortnite Piñata was actually a Trojan’s Horse.
Either way, it’s clear that we still have a long way to go as an industry. It’s also clear where our challenges remain.
Remaining hurdles, what we can do from now & what to expect from the market
The world is much more cross-platform today than it was five years ago, and I feel that we are at a cusp of a huge philosophical shift for our industry. Soon, cross-platform gaming will be expected from everyone, similarly to how multiplatform development used to be a big challenge in the 2000s, but is now expected even from indie games.
But there is still a long way to go. And until the day comes when every game allows you to do this, we need to continue pushing the industry players:
I am playing my favorite game, KickAssGame, at home on my PS4 which is my main gaming platform. I’m in a party with my best friend, Dood, who is playing on his XB1.
Dood suggests I come over to his place so we can order pizza and play next to each other. I log out of my PS4 and head over to the subway station. While in transit, I am still playing with Dood, but from my Nintendo Switch (or Mobile phone).
On the subway, while still on my Nintendo Switch, I decide to purchase a costume that was just released, with virtual currency I’d previously purchased while on my PS4.
I arrive at Dood’s place. He offers to let me use his PC, which is more powerful than the Switch. I log onto my account from his PC, put on the new costume I bought on my way to his house on the Switch, then continue playing the game with him. Dood likes my new costume that he sees on his screen.
Dood's friend Gal makes an unplanned visit. Gal doesn't yet play KickAssGame. You lend your Switch to her so she can try the game on the couch sitting next to Dood, who coaches her while he continues playing on the big screen.
The challenge is, if and when we reach that point of full cross-platform, consoles will merely become another platform that the game runs on, and that is precisely what the console manufacturers don’t want. They envy Steve Jobs’ walled-garden strategy because it’s easier to keep a consumer trapped in their eco-system. So, while supporting cross-platform matchmaking may become “standard” soon, things like account/entitlement portability will face much greater challenges, and universal wallets will likely come very last.
Even in the best-case scenario, I think we’re still at least 2 years away from reaching that ultimate goal, and I think that 2020’s next-gen launch window might be a great time for console manufacturers to implement a broad policy update around cross-platform gaming, then generate great excitement going into their new platform launches by announcing it along with their console debut/announcements at E3 2020.
But, if I’m being honest, even the progress we’ve made so far is much more than I’d expected to see by today. And that is thanks almost entirely to Fortnite. And that in itself might be the greatest lesson for us; this change will not happen naturally. We as developers and consumers will need to drive this change by (a) creating games that take advantage of and demonstrate the benefits of cross-platform gaming, and (b) support titles that are cross-platforms by participating in them AND speaking up about any good cross-platform experiences we had. Because the longer people think that cross-platform gaming is unnecessary, the longer it will take for us to achieve it.
Conclusion
When I took over as the Producer for Street Fighter V in early 2014, making the game cross-platform was one of my biggest initiatives. In my view, having a single competitive community was essential for SFV’s eSports enterprise, and I still stand by that. But the concept of cross-platform gaming on console was extremely rare back then; Rocket League wasn’t released until Summer of 2015. I met A LOT of resistance, both internally and externally, and for a while even the fans seemed to question it. But, four years later, with SFV now having gone through two full Capcom Pro Tours, even the fans now acknowledge its benefits. And Street Fighter’s eSports scene is stronger than ever.
As I said in my introduction, cross-platform gaming is like broadband internet, 1080p video or Smartphones; until you experience it, it will only seem like an unnecessary luxury. But once you do, it becomes a basic need.
I truly believe that this is the next great barrier for the games industry, and I look forward to the day when the word “cross-platform” enjoys the same fate as the word, “multi-platform”; obsolete because it is now taken for granted by everyone.
Related Links:
Sources: