While some old gamers still believe in the so-called “console war,” industry decision-makers remind us every now and then that times have changed. Today in the role of matchmaker, Phil Spencer.
If cross-platform play is not yet the norm, the head of the Xbox branch would like to work with his direct competitors to agree on a blocking of the most toxic players. Invited to talk about the changes brought by the “metaverse” to the microphone of the New York Times (via the Sway podcast), Phil Spencer has indeed pleaded for a collaboration worthy of the name.
By the Phil of the Sword
On paper, the idea is as simple as it is laudable: an insulting player on any platform should stay that way by switching creameries. Therefore, why not identify it as a whole, and ban it from all media without any other form of summons:
It would be difficult industry wide, but there is one thing I would like to do. When someone is banned on one of our networks, is there a way for us to ban them on others? We are a platform for entertainment and interactions, so we are not here to allow certain discourses to proliferate.
Realistic, Phil Spencer rather imagines a sort of list of players identified by another as undesirable, and who could accompany us from one console to another, the idea being not to stuff the same trolls already sidelined by simply changing the medium.
I’ll send an SOS to the world
But beyond a publicly displayed goodwill, would Phil Spencer’s idea be feasible? Difficult to imagine when you know how Sony is trying to slow down as best it can the democratization of cross-platform gaming on its various consoles. And this is obviously without counting on the technical challenges to be taken up behind the scenes, since each manufacturer structures the profiles of the players differently, and it would therefore be necessary first to think of agreeing on some common bases before being able to imagine the continuation. .
The paving stones are all the same, and we are obviously anxious to discover whether or not this bottle by the sea will meet with a favorable echo or not. In the meantime, you can still debate the relevance of this proposal in the comments below.
While some old gamers still believe in the so-called “console war,” industry decision-makers remind us every now and then that times have changed. Today in the role of matchmaker, Phil Spencer.
If cross-platform play is not yet the norm, the head of the Xbox branch would like to work with his direct competitors to agree on a blocking of the most toxic players. Invited to talk about the changes brought by the “metaverse” to the microphone of the New York Times (via the Sway podcast), Phil Spencer has indeed pleaded for a collaboration worthy of the name.
By the Phil of the Sword
On paper, the idea is as simple as it is laudable: an insulting player on any platform should stay that way by switching creameries. Therefore, why not identify it as a whole, and ban it from all media without any other form of summons:
It would be difficult industry wide, but there is one thing I would like to do. When someone is banned on one of our networks, is there a way for us to ban them on others? We are a platform for entertainment and interactions, so we are not here to allow certain discourses to proliferate.
Realistic, Phil Spencer rather imagines a sort of list of players identified by another as undesirable, and who could accompany us from one console to another, the idea being not to stuff the same trolls already sidelined by simply changing the medium.
I’ll send an SOS to the world
But beyond a publicly displayed goodwill, would Phil Spencer’s idea be feasible? Difficult to imagine when you know how Sony is trying to slow down as best it can the democratization of cross-platform gaming on its various consoles. And this is obviously without counting on the technical challenges to be taken up behind the scenes, since each manufacturer structures the profiles of the players differently, and it would therefore be necessary first to think of agreeing on some common bases before being able to imagine the continuation. .
The paving stones are all the same, and we are obviously anxious to discover whether or not this bottle by the sea will meet with a favorable echo or not. In the meantime, you can still debate the relevance of this proposal in the comments below.
While some old gamers still believe in the so-called “console war,” industry decision-makers remind us every now and then that times have changed. Today in the role of matchmaker, Phil Spencer.
If cross-platform play is not yet the norm, the head of the Xbox branch would like to work with his direct competitors to agree on a blocking of the most toxic players. Invited to talk about the changes brought by the “metaverse” to the microphone of the New York Times (via the Sway podcast), Phil Spencer has indeed pleaded for a collaboration worthy of the name.
By the Phil of the Sword
On paper, the idea is as simple as it is laudable: an insulting player on any platform should stay that way by switching creameries. Therefore, why not identify it as a whole, and ban it from all media without any other form of summons:
It would be difficult industry wide, but there is one thing I would like to do. When someone is banned on one of our networks, is there a way for us to ban them on others? We are a platform for entertainment and interactions, so we are not here to allow certain discourses to proliferate.
Realistic, Phil Spencer rather imagines a sort of list of players identified by another as undesirable, and who could accompany us from one console to another, the idea being not to stuff the same trolls already sidelined by simply changing the medium.
I’ll send an SOS to the world
But beyond a publicly displayed goodwill, would Phil Spencer’s idea be feasible? Difficult to imagine when you know how Sony is trying to slow down as best it can the democratization of cross-platform gaming on its various consoles. And this is obviously without counting on the technical challenges to be taken up behind the scenes, since each manufacturer structures the profiles of the players differently, and it would therefore be necessary first to think of agreeing on some common bases before being able to imagine the continuation. .
The paving stones are all the same, and we are obviously anxious to discover whether or not this bottle by the sea will meet with a favorable echo or not. In the meantime, you can still debate the relevance of this proposal in the comments below.
While some old gamers still believe in the so-called “console war,” industry decision-makers remind us every now and then that times have changed. Today in the role of matchmaker, Phil Spencer.
If cross-platform play is not yet the norm, the head of the Xbox branch would like to work with his direct competitors to agree on a blocking of the most toxic players. Invited to talk about the changes brought by the “metaverse” to the microphone of the New York Times (via the Sway podcast), Phil Spencer has indeed pleaded for a collaboration worthy of the name.
By the Phil of the Sword
On paper, the idea is as simple as it is laudable: an insulting player on any platform should stay that way by switching creameries. Therefore, why not identify it as a whole, and ban it from all media without any other form of summons:
It would be difficult industry wide, but there is one thing I would like to do. When someone is banned on one of our networks, is there a way for us to ban them on others? We are a platform for entertainment and interactions, so we are not here to allow certain discourses to proliferate.
Realistic, Phil Spencer rather imagines a sort of list of players identified by another as undesirable, and who could accompany us from one console to another, the idea being not to stuff the same trolls already sidelined by simply changing the medium.
I’ll send an SOS to the world
But beyond a publicly displayed goodwill, would Phil Spencer’s idea be feasible? Difficult to imagine when you know how Sony is trying to slow down as best it can the democratization of cross-platform gaming on its various consoles. And this is obviously without counting on the technical challenges to be taken up behind the scenes, since each manufacturer structures the profiles of the players differently, and it would therefore be necessary first to think of agreeing on some common bases before being able to imagine the continuation. .
The paving stones are all the same, and we are obviously anxious to discover whether or not this bottle by the sea will meet with a favorable echo or not. In the meantime, you can still debate the relevance of this proposal in the comments below.
Discussion about this post