▲ 501 ▼ Steam is now refunding Ghost of Tsushima for people in affected countries. (lemmy.ca) submitted 2 years ago by alessandro@lemmy.ca to c/pcgaming@lemmy.ca 107 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 113 points 2 years ago (17 children) Remember the people suggesting to change the Hell Divers negative reviews because Sony listened? They have learned nothing permalink fedilink source hideshow 17 child comments replies: [+] Trikami@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 47 points 2 years ago (3 children) Sounds like they will be bringing the PSN requirement back for future games maybe. The only thing they probably learned was to announce the requirement for account linking from the start and make it more vissible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Shyfer@ttrpg.network 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Is that worth the loss of sales from those 177 or whatever it was extra countries? That's the part that confuses me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago Sony has written off those countries for years of PS sales, its been a resounding yes for them since long before they started inching into the PC market permalink fedilink source parent [–] Swarfega@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago It seems the answer is yes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I think for the executives the only reason to release old games on pc is to bring more players to their console, and if they can't have a psn account that means they will nvr buy a PlayStation. That's my guess permalink fedilink source parent [–] MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Definitely the third option. They're going to wait until Helldivers hype dies down then quietly reimplement the requirement when much less people are tuned in. Guaranteed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] saigot@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* Probably bullshui but there's a 3rd option that they have legal reasons not to operate servers in some of those regions and helldivers was violating those restrictions. It takes more than a week to review the legal code in 180 countries, review the internal policies in place and audit the game for any violations all with the added complexity that arrowhead and sony are independent entities. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (8 children) Yeah I'm sure changing negative reviews is a factor here and totally wouldn't have been an incentive for future good behavior permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago (7 children) Their incentive is money. All this is teaching them is that they need to find a different approach to do the same thing. The AAA outfits are trash and should die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (6 children) Bad reviews tend to lead to worse sales... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (5 children) Sorry, the argument is they should have zero consequences for trying something reviled because they abandoned it later? And that will make them not try similar things later, because of reasons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (4 children) The "argument" is that a few people said people should reward them doing the right thing eventually but others somehow think that's evil or some weird ass shit. It's not complicated, as much as Internet weirdos want it to be permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) They are being rewarded for doing the right thing simply by people not continuing to refund. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Ok it's just weird to me that people like you have some moral objection to a slightly different attitude applied to reviews. It's not something worth talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody cares what attitude to apply to reviews. You decided to have a conversation. You don't have to continue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Trikami@lemmy.world 31 points 2 years ago (7 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 47 points 2 years ago (3 children) Sounds like they will be bringing the PSN requirement back for future games maybe. The only thing they probably learned was to announce the requirement for account linking from the start and make it more vissible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Shyfer@ttrpg.network 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Is that worth the loss of sales from those 177 or whatever it was extra countries? That's the part that confuses me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago Sony has written off those countries for years of PS sales, its been a resounding yes for them since long before they started inching into the PC market permalink fedilink source parent [–] Swarfega@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago It seems the answer is yes. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I think for the executives the only reason to release old games on pc is to bring more players to their console, and if they can't have a psn account that means they will nvr buy a PlayStation. That's my guess permalink fedilink source parent [–] MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Definitely the third option. They're going to wait until Helldivers hype dies down then quietly reimplement the requirement when much less people are tuned in. Guaranteed. permalink fedilink source parent [–] saigot@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* Probably bullshui but there's a 3rd option that they have legal reasons not to operate servers in some of those regions and helldivers was violating those restrictions. It takes more than a week to review the legal code in 180 countries, review the internal policies in place and audit the game for any violations all with the added complexity that arrowhead and sony are independent entities. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] cosmicrookie@lemmy.world 47 points 2 years ago (3 children) Sounds like they will be bringing the PSN requirement back for future games maybe. The only thing they probably learned was to announce the requirement for account linking from the start and make it more vissible permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Shyfer@ttrpg.network 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Is that worth the loss of sales from those 177 or whatever it was extra countries? That's the part that confuses me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago Sony has written off those countries for years of PS sales, its been a resounding yes for them since long before they started inching into the PC market permalink fedilink source parent [–] Swarfega@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago It seems the answer is yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Shyfer@ttrpg.network 9 points 2 years ago (2 children) Is that worth the loss of sales from those 177 or whatever it was extra countries? That's the part that confuses me. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago Sony has written off those countries for years of PS sales, its been a resounding yes for them since long before they started inching into the PC market permalink fedilink source parent [–] Swarfega@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago It seems the answer is yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 years ago Sony has written off those countries for years of PS sales, its been a resounding yes for them since long before they started inching into the PC market permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Swarfega@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago It seems the answer is yes. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Dagnet@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago I think for the executives the only reason to release old games on pc is to bring more players to their console, and if they can't have a psn account that means they will nvr buy a PlayStation. That's my guess permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Definitely the third option. They're going to wait until Helldivers hype dies down then quietly reimplement the requirement when much less people are tuned in. Guaranteed. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] saigot@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* Probably bullshui but there's a 3rd option that they have legal reasons not to operate servers in some of those regions and helldivers was violating those restrictions. It takes more than a week to review the legal code in 180 countries, review the internal policies in place and audit the game for any violations all with the added complexity that arrowhead and sony are independent entities. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world -5 points 2 years ago (8 children) Yeah I'm sure changing negative reviews is a factor here and totally wouldn't have been an incentive for future good behavior permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 8 child comments replies: [–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago (7 children) Their incentive is money. All this is teaching them is that they need to find a different approach to do the same thing. The AAA outfits are trash and should die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (6 children) Bad reviews tend to lead to worse sales... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (5 children) Sorry, the argument is they should have zero consequences for trying something reviled because they abandoned it later? And that will make them not try similar things later, because of reasons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (4 children) The "argument" is that a few people said people should reward them doing the right thing eventually but others somehow think that's evil or some weird ass shit. It's not complicated, as much as Internet weirdos want it to be permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) They are being rewarded for doing the right thing simply by people not continuing to refund. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Ok it's just weird to me that people like you have some moral objection to a slightly different attitude applied to reviews. It's not something worth talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody cares what attitude to apply to reviews. You decided to have a conversation. You don't have to continue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] frezik@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago (7 children) Their incentive is money. All this is teaching them is that they need to find a different approach to do the same thing. The AAA outfits are trash and should die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (6 children) Bad reviews tend to lead to worse sales... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (5 children) Sorry, the argument is they should have zero consequences for trying something reviled because they abandoned it later? And that will make them not try similar things later, because of reasons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (4 children) The "argument" is that a few people said people should reward them doing the right thing eventually but others somehow think that's evil or some weird ass shit. It's not complicated, as much as Internet weirdos want it to be permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) They are being rewarded for doing the right thing simply by people not continuing to refund. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Ok it's just weird to me that people like you have some moral objection to a slightly different attitude applied to reviews. It's not something worth talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody cares what attitude to apply to reviews. You decided to have a conversation. You don't have to continue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (6 children) Bad reviews tend to lead to worse sales... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (5 children) Sorry, the argument is they should have zero consequences for trying something reviled because they abandoned it later? And that will make them not try similar things later, because of reasons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (4 children) The "argument" is that a few people said people should reward them doing the right thing eventually but others somehow think that's evil or some weird ass shit. It's not complicated, as much as Internet weirdos want it to be permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) They are being rewarded for doing the right thing simply by people not continuing to refund. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Ok it's just weird to me that people like you have some moral objection to a slightly different attitude applied to reviews. It's not something worth talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody cares what attitude to apply to reviews. You decided to have a conversation. You don't have to continue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (5 children) Sorry, the argument is they should have zero consequences for trying something reviled because they abandoned it later? And that will make them not try similar things later, because of reasons? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (4 children) The "argument" is that a few people said people should reward them doing the right thing eventually but others somehow think that's evil or some weird ass shit. It's not complicated, as much as Internet weirdos want it to be permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) They are being rewarded for doing the right thing simply by people not continuing to refund. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Ok it's just weird to me that people like you have some moral objection to a slightly different attitude applied to reviews. It's not something worth talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody cares what attitude to apply to reviews. You decided to have a conversation. You don't have to continue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (4 children) The "argument" is that a few people said people should reward them doing the right thing eventually but others somehow think that's evil or some weird ass shit. It's not complicated, as much as Internet weirdos want it to be permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) They are being rewarded for doing the right thing simply by people not continuing to refund. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Ok it's just weird to me that people like you have some moral objection to a slightly different attitude applied to reviews. It's not something worth talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody cares what attitude to apply to reviews. You decided to have a conversation. You don't have to continue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) They are being rewarded for doing the right thing simply by people not continuing to refund. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Ok it's just weird to me that people like you have some moral objection to a slightly different attitude applied to reviews. It's not something worth talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody cares what attitude to apply to reviews. You decided to have a conversation. You don't have to continue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago* (2 children) Ok it's just weird to me that people like you have some moral objection to a slightly different attitude applied to reviews. It's not something worth talking about. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody cares what attitude to apply to reviews. You decided to have a conversation. You don't have to continue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent
[–] barsquid@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Nobody cares what attitude to apply to reviews. You decided to have a conversation. You don't have to continue it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago Lol permalink fedilink source parent