All Sony had to do was make account linking optional and give a cosmetic to those who linked, and there would have been zero issues.
this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
153 points (100.0% liked)
PC Gaming
10661 readers
229 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Exactly. If they'd gone with the carrot approach rather than the stick, I bet way more people would've just gone with it for way less fuss
I’m confused, wasn’t Sony against crossplay for decades?
I linked mine because I want to play with my little brother on PS5.
Maybe I'm just jaded, but I wonder how long it will be until Sony 'changes their mind' and tries to enforce contractual obligations again. I'm going to guess 6 months to wait for the negative PR to cool.
Like TV manufacturers who wait until the product return period is over before enabling ads.
That's exactly why you never connect your TV to the internet
People keep saying this, but when you only want to use the TV for online streaming apps, it makes it quite difficult to keep it offline.
That's why you plug in a streaming device to the TV...
"Buy two things instead of one"
Yes, exactly.
If your $20 streaming device starts fucking with you, rip it out and replace it. If your several hundred (thousand?) dollar device decides it's going to fuck you with rampant ads and user data collection and forced arbitration you didn't agree to when you bought it 6 months ago, well now you have a much bigger problem.
What streaming device is $20? Amazon firestick is close to that but still more and has all the ads and tracking we're complaining about. Chromecast, a used crappy version, is $50+ after taxes it looks like, then Roku seems to be even more. I mean I get it and we all want to stop ads. I personally have pihole and just blocked the Samsung telemetry stuff but not everyone is that savvy. That's the point of the first comment of this chain. Most people just want a simple single device to watch what they want without all the ads and tracking. All these companies suck, let's unite over that!
What streaming device is $20?
Most people just want a simple single device to watch what they want without all the ads and tracking.
Unfortunately that's unlikely to ever be the case. You can use a Linux PC but it will not be a great experience.
Using the one in your TV is most likely to get you the most ads and tracking because they know they can implement them in such a way that the only recourse you have is to succumb to their demands or buy a new TV. Roku has already begun this.
All these companies suck, let's unite over that!
Sure.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I pretty much have always had an Xbox connected to every TV I've had, but ever since owning a Smart TV, with the streaming apps are all there the moment you turn on the TV, why would I add an extra level of booting up, signing in and starting the app on my Xbox (which will then probably run worse and lower quality than my native TV app)?
If you buy a proper streaming device instead of an XBOX you will have an identical experience as you would just using your TV.
As for why, it's already been explained: there's a precedent that's been set that these companies can change the terms of service on you at will (to, for example, show you an ever-increasing frequency of ads or collect your data), and that you can choose to either accept the new terms or throw that shit in the garbage because it is suddenly not functional and it is past the return period.
Aside from all of that, you can choose what kind of user experience you want, rather than having it chosen for you. Most of the cheap streaming boxes will deliver a better experience than whatever comes on your TV.
If you buy a proper streaming device instead of an XBOX you will have an identical experience as you would just using your TV.
Got it, so I don't need to buy a seperate streaming device.
I get where you're coming from with the privacy aspects and whatnot, but I very much doubt that a seperate streaming box will get me a better experience than turning on my TV and having Netflix booted in 3 seconds.
Got it, so I don't need to buy a seperate streaming device.
...huh? No, not strictly. I'm just telling you it's in your best interest.
I get where you're coming from with the privacy aspects and whatnot
I don't think you do. This is about much more than privacy.
I very much doubt that a seperate streaming box will get me a better experience than turning on my TV and having Netflix booted in 3 seconds.
In regards to that specific function, it will likely be identical or better, depending on exactly what streaming box and TV we're talking about. You can choose to not believe me, but you do so at your own potential peril.
load more comments
(7 replies)
If anything the power of the external device is much more than the native TV app shoehorned on there, especially an Xbox or even a roku that can do 4k streaming for $50
load more comments
(6 replies)
Connect it to a small PC or a used laptop. It will be a million times better than the 8 year old phone CPU inside your Roku TV. I'm honestly surprised by the number of people I interact with who don't have their TV connected to a computer.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I hear you. I want to be positive about this because I want to keep playing, and the reversal (for now) makes me OK with doing so.
But Sony has a horrid track record. Edit - so does Msoft, people often forget how bad both of them are.
I also expect they'll try to work it back in somehow to capture more revenue and/or data. If it's not this again in a stealthier form, then it'll be something similar. No crossplay without PSN or no credit store without PSN, something like that.
I also expect they'll try to work it back in somehow to capture more revenue and/or data. If it's not this again in a stealthier form, then it'll be something similar. No crossplay without PSN or no credit store without PSN, something like that.
This is moreorless what I'm expecting. They will either strongly incentivize it when the publicity dies down or place restrictions on those that don't link accounts.
They might require it for crossplay or give some goodies for linking, but there's no fucking way they try to make it retroactively mandatory just to play at all again. After this statement, there would be ACTUAL grounds for a class action lawsuit if they did.
They've already announced that they'll be requiring the service again for Ghosts of Tsushima's online component. The only thing Sony learned is to never let a game launch without making sure the account service works day 1.
Frustrating that they made the decision in the first place. I'm still skeptical about their games in the future.
Rest assured, they'll never temporarily remove this restriction again.
Somewhere at Sony, an MBA committed seppuku.
Typo in the title, it'll let you edit it
Glad Sony was able to make the obvious decision. Hopefully all the people defending them feel a bit silly.
Typo in the title, it’ll let you edit it
Done, thanks
"We swear we won't try again for 6 months!"
"How did we not see this coming?" - Some asinine executive at Sony who apparently sees Origin and UbisoftConnect as success cases. I know it's not directly related, but several games on Steam from EA and Ubi require you to also have their launcher and people complain about that all the time.
This from a company so user-toxic that it created a rootkit. And who sued some kid because he cracked the PS3 (the details of that trial really show how Sony fights its battles).
A shame those working on the actual game are thrown under the bus by Sony through all this and have to eat all that negative feedback. Sony will just walk away but the damage to that brand is substantial, and lasting. I honestly hope Helldiver's stakeholders sue them. Sony can't just brazenly destroy a game's momentum and then just say "oh well, we tried, fine we won't do that you big babies, bye."
Also, how in the actual fuck does a company institute a change worldwide when parts of that world clearly do not have a PS Network. Like I want an explanation for that one thing. That Sony made changes to account linking in parts of the world that do not have the new account we want to link it to. And never had And never will have. My guess is they probably said, "oh well, fuck those guys."
What an absolute clusterfuck.
They were gonna pull helldivers from steam in all countries without PSN, and that's what they did. They didn't care for reimbursements once the game got popular.
They just didn't expect it to be very popular, which is probably why AH agreed to it in the first place
I truly hate companies get away with this kind of shit…
load more comments
(2 replies)
Sony has a history with PC gaming they try to pretend never happened (SOE/Sony Online Entertainment, and the big Rootkit scandal.)
They've always shat on PC gaming, they're just coming to terms with the fact that consoles are practically just PCs at this point and they need to pivot to stay relevant.
This is how it should be; companies learning their place, knowing we consumers have power over them and not the other way around
This is how it is and will be when consumers don't tolerate bullshit. The world is a better place when consumers don't lick boots.
Making a PSN account wasn't the main issue it was players that can't officially make an account no longer being able to play. If it went ahead, player numbers would've gone down substantially, hurting the game in the long run.
Exactly, Sony played bait-and-switch tactics. If the requitement had been there from launch, people just wouldn't have been able to buy it and would have stayed away.
But this forced people to throw away money, or at least try to get a refund for the base game.
Not sure if those stupid credits were refunded to people who were gonna get screwed by this but I doubt it (yet another reason never to do micro transactions).
People barely like signing in for one service how did they think people would react to having to sign into two?
what a stupid move, glad they got shouted back into sanity.
view more: next ›