Why can't games of different platforms play with each other?

[Jacco]

I've been trying to understand this for a while, but all the info that comes up on Google is a little over my head in terms technical jargon.

So maybe someone here can explain for me.

Why aren't games like Call of Duty universal for their online play? For instance, why can't a PS3 Call of Duty play with an Xbox Call of Duty? Is there a problem with the coding?

Theoretically, the servers should be able to lump everyone together right?

 

[Lilani]

IIs there a problem with the coding?

I'm no coding expert, but it certainly is possible, just difficult and I imagine costs more to develop and achieve. I played the MMO Final Fantasy XI for a long time, and PC, PS2, PS3, and Xbox360 players all played on the same servers at the same times. And its spiritual sequel releasing in August, Final Fantasy XIV, will work the same way. It'll play on the PS3 and PC, and likely the PS4 in the future. Originally, a 360 version was in the works, but apparently the devs of the game had problems dealing with Microsoft and the Xbox Live system, so it was cancelled.

Anyway, that's my answer. It's possible, but likely requires a pretty big investment going in. So big that lots of developers just don't want to divvy up the money to do it.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

Hmm, yeah, the only game I can think of that has cross-platform multiplayer is the PC/PS3 version of Portal 2. Worked great and I had a lot of fun screwing over my friend in co-op, me on PS3, he on PC.

I suppose it's not done more because it's not practical, or enabling cross-platform functionality takes too much development time/money that could be spent elsewhere. Maybe some licensing issues as well. Can't really tell, I'm not exactly well-versed on the subject.

 

[DoPo]

Is there a problem with the coding?

Technically - no.

Theoretically, the servers should be able to lump everyone together right?

In theory, yes. However, that's in theory - you certainly could have cross-platform multiplayer if you wish but in practice, as you see, that's rarely the case. Here is few major reasons why this is the case:

1. Platform exclusivity (sort of) - if you, with an Xbox 360 and your buddy, who has a PS3 both get Amazing Game X which has cross-platform multiplayer, then there is no incentive for either you or him to buy the other console. If you have 10 buddies with a PS3, you'll probably want to buy one, too. Money for Sony.
2. Difference in skill levels - that's more of a PC/console thing. And I know how it sounds, I'm not here to bash anything, I'm laying down the facts - mouse aim is inherently superior to a controller and in shooters, PC gamers would have a big advantage over the rest. As I said, I know how it sounds but it's how it is. Same goes for RTS games, controllers are not well equipped for them, so while average players will have around 100-200 APM, doesn't allow for as much actions or micro (then again, I don't think there are as many cross-platform RTSes). Simply put, one platform has an advantage in those cases. Now, you could make the case of "Why not have Xbox and PS players play together" but refer to 1. and take a look at the next
3. Different patch levels. Or in other words, the coding is the problem. Well, normally a patch should be rolled out to all platforms, yet it can also go out at different times. It does take some effort to keep them all in sync and also there needs to be an assurance that the games aren't ever so slightly different (imagine there is a glitch on one platform that gives an unfair advantage or disadvantage against the rest, or maybe one platform is more difficult to maintain). So while not a big factor, definitely a consideration.

Now, there are more reasons, sure, but these are the big three I can think of from the top of my head. I doubt either of these is The Answer? it's probably a combination of degrees of these and other factors. Also, it's simply easier to not do it.

 

[Erttheking]

I think in part because of the trouble of connecting multiple networks, and another part being the different interfaces of consoles and PC arguably causing balance issues.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

Well, I can't remember much about it, but I did read once that some console gamers and some PC gamers had a bit of a competition against one another on some FPS game, and the console players got absolutely annihilated because a mouse is vastly superior to an analog stick as far as control and fluid aiming is concerned. So if that is to be believed, then it would create huge balancing issues to cross platform games.

 

[Kungfusam]

The biggest issue is Sony/MS don't want their consoles being able to connect to each, MS in particular are very fussy about what you can do over XBL

After that its more technical, as both consoles might not be able to run on par with each other

 

[PyromaniacLVI]

OP

It's because when you play multiplayer on say Xbox 360 you are using Microsoft's servers for at least matchmaking and sometimes for hosting of games.

Because you are going thru their servers on some level they do not want you to be able to connect with others on other consoles because then they lose 1 of their competitive edges. (the ability to play with your Xbox live friends)

The only example I can think of off hand was portal 2 with you being able to install steam (a lobotomized version, but still steam.) on the PS3 and play with PC players.

TLDR: Competitiveness between platforms makes it so you cannot play with others on other platforms.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Nope no problem in coding at all (it takes more work but we are about a decade past the point where that was figured out), only problem is that every console wants it's user base locked down.
If MS got all your friends playing on Xbox what options are you left with? Absolutely none, you will be pressed to join and never leave which is exactly what they put money on.

So that cross platform feature looks like a loss to them, much like backwards compatibility, cheats, mods, free online play,... why give you any of that when they can have you pay extra for what little they do.

 

[Johann610]

From a code standpoint, "these bytes in these packets"? No, no reason it oughtn't be too hard--player telemetry, gun choice, aim, etc., is pretty simple to sync up among the various game releases.
Porting, though, is where the games' packets get their shape. Remember that each game has to call the drivers of the platform on which it runs, so the drivers for, say, rendering, have to be called differently for each. Something like 50-90% of the code has to be re-written for each port, and they don't always work--an example may be the loads-and-loads-of-loading problem on PS3 port of Bayonetta (Yahtzee noticed it). If all THAT code is re-done, it's possible that the same platform-centric quirks find their way into the network packets.
And I would agree with Mr.K that we HAVE figured it out, but code is money, and the user base will put up with no wasted money on the way to the gaming--things like cross-platform cooperation may well be chucked in favor of bug fixing or better hanar jiggles.

 

[Gatx]

It's a business thing I think for the most part. The fact that they can't play with one another is all the more reason for you to "choose a side" as it were when it came to what console you were going to buy.