264
Ghost Of Tsushima PSN Account Linking Requirements Prove Sony Learnt Nothing From Helldivers 2
(www.kotaku.com.au)
this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
264 points (97.5% liked)
Games
16409 readers
668 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Of course they did. Don’t change it after release. In the future with a game like this they should make the singleplayer side part of the base game and move the multiplayer to a free “DLC” and just not offer that “DLC” where psn isn’t available if that is going to be a thing.
OBVIOUSLY it would be better to not have that requirement at all.
Not sure what the hell they are thinking. Also wonder how much money was refunded. Doesn’t even get into the number of buyers they are excluding.
The personal data of each player they do coerce into signing into PSN is far more lucrative than said game sales. Sony is into gaming as much as Santa is into manufacturing toys, FFS. 🤦🏽♂️
They give that data away to hackers for free almost every year too!
Except it isn't. On average you can make a couple bucks extra on each person.
But if they don't try to double dip, that's a couple bucks left on the table, and that's worse than death, apparently.
Nevermind that by trying to double dip they lose money in the short run, but if they can push the standard practice towards it even half a step, that's fine.
It's one of the few things corporations seem to be able to see the long view on.
Assuming you're not high as balls, please cite your sources. Additionally, by implying that each individual "person" is not already commodified as a body of data in a collection of similar is woefully naive. I know it's a common desire to weigh in on topics and feel that one's contribution is valid and worthy, but please look into this subject further before pulling sentences like these outta your ass. 🤪
Elaborate, this sentence doesn't seem to make sense. Typo?
I'm saying, on average, per person, collecting a bunch of people's data, and putting that data to work, you're not gonna make money hand over fist out of nowhere.
When it comes to data-brokers, the worth of personal data on individuals is that of cents. Not even whole bucks.
Data mining only brings in the big bucks at scale. At stupid, scale.
Gaining data on a million users will never cover the loss of losing out on a million game sales. The math simply doesn't work that way.
The reason they do it is because they can get away with doing both. Eventually they will get both the game sales, and data.
Losing out on some money now, is inconsequential as they will get ALL the money, later.
Beyond addressing your actual retort, could you have resisted being rude? "Naive" and idiot emojis?
Not to mention the hypocrisy of "look into it before pulling shit out your ass" when that's exactly what you did, in response to which I commented because I do actually have an idea of the numbers involved.
Lastly, trying to shut someone down by asking for sources without bothering to check them yourself first, to make sure you're not the one incorrectly assuming the facts will back you up... I could throw those first and last sentences of yours right back at you, word for word.
That might be an argument to not offer the games on Steam in countries where PSN is available, but I don't know why they'd do the opposite. Those people aren't gonna get the game for the PSN.
The "argument" is to set precedent for denying refunds when they attempt to force users to sign into PSN before playing. Before, the simple fact that this was not made clear at point of purchase is a breach of contract on the part of the seller, and grounds for immediate refund of the improperly described terms of use. 😶