It remains because it evens the playing field between console and PC players-- it doesn't make playing on console superior. The increased ability for precision for KB&M is still superior in many situations in the game-- especially in distance fights. Do what you will, but phrasing it as though cross-platform is a dumb idea in a casual, non-competitive arena is silly.
If the playing field needs to be evened, then cross platform is a dumb idea. Even in a casual, non-competitive anything. If both sides aren't playing the same game, why have them play the same game? That's silly. Defending it is stupid. It isn't the same game, because one is different. So stop putting them together.
Proposing the idea that they're not playing the same game is stupid and is an obvious mischaracterization. It's quite clear they value the ability to mix cross-platform players, and that players find that unique utility more important than a non-competitive game being perfectly balanced.
How are they not different games? Games are more than objectives. Games are mechanics. Win conditions are objectives. If you play chess and allow your opponent's pawns to move three spaces on opening, and you only two, you've changed the mechanics of the game, and you are playing different games. Even on the same board, even with the same win conditions. If you allow both sides to open with three spaces, then you're playing variant chess, but you're both playing the same game, the same mechanic. If a console player has a different mechanic than a desktop player, they are playing different games, because one has a different mechanic. If players are playing different games, and aware (which we are) we should be given the option to not play and wow, we are... ON MULTIPLAYER. Which is also not competitive. We are not, on Warzone. "They" know it is a different game. "They" allow it because Warzone wasn't sold, it was free, and because console players are the largest demographic. There are plenty of COD players who play multiplayer with cross play off. On both sides, on console because hackers are more rampent on desktop, and on desktop because every console player has an aimbot.
Tried to play Warzone last night... 48 GB update needed. Thought to myself “no worries, my internet is fast as [uck fay]. This will be quick.” Did a speed test on the Xbox, and it was pulling 801 mbps down. Go to start the download.... 20-30 mbps down, and it’s gonna take like, 8 hours. [uck fay] Warzone.
There are countless games where players have differing mechanics-- in other FPSs, no less. The most popular game in the world revolves completely around this concept of each player having different mechanics. Just a downright terrible and lazy argument. The rest is you apparently trying to make a different, but still silly, argument. Nobody said you couldn't choose to play. Your arguments about it being a shitty variant were.. well, shitty.
Name the game where players have different mechanics, where the other mechanic is not achievable on the same hardware? Name it. No where am I talking about me just not playing it. What I'm saying is that InfinityWard CREATED the ability to say NO to cross play WITHIN call of duty's multiplayer, but not within warzone. Follow along: I launch Call of Duty on my computer. I choose Options -> Account -> Crossplay -> Disabled Or as defined by InfinityWard: "Matchmaking only uses your current gaming platform." This is a choice within multiplayer COD, but not warzone.
It's a simple thing to disable. Hell, you can disable it... if you have a PlayStation. Such a bizarre thing. Because its poor design.
Keyboard and mouse is objectively superior to a controller, so that would be stupid. The entire point is to even the playing field-- which is what it's done.
Then you're using the wrong terminology. Mechanics refers to how the game functions. You're complaining about the hardware and even used an illustration in chess talking about players' pieces following different rules as if that doesn't actually exist in a shit ton of other games. As for the inability to choose which platform players are from, great. There's nobody arguing the other side of that issue.
Mechanics is how the game functions. The game functions differently if you are on a console, using the base hardware of the console. Meaning I'm controlling FOR the hardware, which means that the different thing is the function, ie: the aim assist. This isn't hard to follow, but let's try it anyway. If you are using base console hardware, you get aim assist. Tracking? If you are using base desktop hardware, you don't get aim assist. Tracking? So no, I'm not talking about hardware, I'm talking about the mechanics of the game. The game functions differently on base console hardware than on base desktop hardware. Tracking? If you're still with me, because apparently this is very complicated, give me an example, as I asked for last time, of a game that is played on only console, or only desktop hardware, where the rules are different, and not achievable. In other words, I, on a desktop, using base desktop hardware, cannot, under any circumstance, get aim assist. Ever. Name a game where that exists, where if everyone logs in from a desktop, one party gets something that the other party can never get. Name. One. Game. They don't exist. Nobody arguing the other side of what issue? What? I don't even know what "As for the inability to choose which platform players are from, great. There's nobody arguing the other side of that issue." means, but luckily, I don't think you do either.
Video games in general aren't necessary. Let's try using a decent argument. Or they can just do what they did and join platforms with the vast majority being perfectly content with the good idea.
Phew, a bunch of text but literally no substance was added. I'm not going in circles. You're redefining "mechanics" because you've got some severe fixation for hating on cross-platform capacity. Great, you don't like it, but it's a stupidly petty reason as outlined above. The platform comment is pretty clear. Try reading it again, I guess. Or don't.
Wow. No, video games aren't necessary. But that doesn't mean that simply because video games aren't necessary, that video games should also employ unnecessary things as well. It is possible to have an unnecessary thing not have additional unnecessary things within its structure, especially when it can easily avoid it. So I agree, let's have you try forming a decent argument, which is not to back up and just say "well, this unnecessary thing is in an unnecessary thing, so its ok." It's a dumb idea, and unnecessary.
I agree, all you have done is write things you clearly have no understanding about. The mechanics are different, thus the game is different. It was done to level the field, but not necessary, and as a result, doing so was stupid. The platform comment is not clear at all. I'm speaking on who I'm playing WITH not who can use what. Have you actually played this game, and are knowledgeable in any way about how it works?
For the third time I ask @JudgmentVol, name a game that exists, where if everyone logs in from a desktop, one party gets something that the other party can never get.
Then find a good reason and state it. Saying "cross platform is dumb just cuz" is ssmiff-level commentary. The controller debate is to even the playing field and it achieves it, but your only retort is "it's unnecessary.." No shit, Sherlock, but in the same vein, so is everything about entertainment. Cross platform is to enhance people's experiences by including otherwise excluded parties and it achieves that splendidly. You don't like it because.. you don't like a mechanic that balances the game and choose to overstate its significance. Brilliant.
