I will absolutely be playing this game.
I will not be purchasing it, however.
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
261 points (99.6% liked)
PC Gaming
8256 readers
928 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.
- 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Arrrrr you ready kids?
One thing that immensely frustrates me about this is we don’t get this reaction from Ubisoft where an account is required to play pretty much all their games. Nor Activision with Call of Duty.
It’s not great that Sony is doing this, but at the same time the horse has already left the barn and people are just jumping on the rage bandwagon.
I’m not saying don’t be mad at Sony, but can we get this outrage at the other companies too?
This is a single player game that wants me to log in. I won't buy something like that, irrespective of what company it's from.
Fair, that’s why I don’t buy anything Ubisoft like Assassin’s Creed.
Those are multiplayer games. Totally different.
Call of Duty uses it for crossplay. Totally different.
People had the same reaction, but it was long enough ago to be forgotten old news.
There is no good reason, even with plenty of advance warning, to require a third party account for a single player game.
I mean, I like to think Sony made it perfectly clear this time around. There's really no excuse this time. People were warning other people, Sony had it on the system requirements sheet, and Steam had it listed as soon as the page went up. So if you still picked up the game and then decided to bitch about the PlayStation Network requirement because you didn't know, that's on you.
Flipside, if you bought the game just to bitch about the PlayStation network requirement, knowing full well this would be a requirement, you're way more privileged than me. When I don't like how someone does something, I typically don't give them money unless I don't have a choice.
Honestly I appreciate them buying it and expressing the disappointment in Steam reviews. It is the best way to get attention to it since people aren't going to refrain from buying it. Boycotts don't work so people expressing their thoughts is the best we got.
"boycotts don't work" lmao
The gaming community is incapable of executing an effective boycott because they cannot go 5 minutes without the thing they like. So they'll pre-order garbage, never learn their lesson, and complain the whole time while paying a premium, instead of exercising restraint and playing something else - like one of their 4,000 unplayed games in their bought library.
Boycotts only work when the group boycotting is large enough to impact the bottom line.
Most gamers just don't care enough about accounts and launchers to boycott a game or company. They just want to come home from work and play games.
Yeah, they left off the rest of that lesson, which is "boycotts don't work if you don't fucking do them". Boycotts work when they happen, and it's still a good thing to personally boycott a game you feel isn't up to your standards even if the broader community isn't, but it's been consistently shown nonetheless that gamers are horrible at wide-scale boycotts.
What do you think I meant by people won't refrain from buying. People not buying products they weren't going to buy anyways isn't a boycott. Do you trust the gaming community to actually not buy something they want?
People are misunderstanding that boycotts won't work in this case means a boycott isn't going to happen.
The gaming community is incapable of executing an effective boycott
If that's the case, then explain exactly why Sony backed off of the account requirement for Helldivers 2
If people don't refrain from buying then boycotts won't work. Gaming community is more effective at creating noise than not buying a product they want.
You don't need to be "privileged". You buy the game, play it for an hour, leave a negative review, then refund it.
I did this too much and got a message from steam. I think the refund feature is not intended for testing any game and getting money back. :)
I think the refund feature is not intended for testing any game and getting money back.
This is the first sentence from the Steam Refunds Policy page: https://store.steampowered.com/steam_refunds
You can request a refund for nearly any purchase on Steam—for any reason.
Yeah but not as often as you want. If you do that for a few games per week, they will get tired of you and ask you to stop.
"Don't make me tap the sign."
Steam refunds are easy and convenient. I wouldn't personally bother doing that just to post a "protest review" either, but it's definitely possible to do without losing any money.
This is my exact reaction. The issue with HD2 was the bait and switch of adding the requirement at a later date, particularly since they had already sold copies in places where people literally could not make PSN accounts.
Not that I agree with Sony's decision to require the account for GOW, but at least they're being up front about it this time. If you don't want the account, there are 500 billion other quality games you can buy that don't require one.
HD2 had a linking requirement that was disclosed on Steam from day 1.
Technically yes, but they didn't actually require it in the beginning and they even sold it in regions without PSN.
It had it in the beginning. They disabled it because it was adding to the long list of technical issues.
Which is yet another reason not to have it in the first place.
Could be people who already have the PSN account. Linking it was never the problem. I don't want the account
load more comments
(7 replies)
Are people this mad about Microsoft accounts? I picked up Forza Horizon 4 and couldn't play at all until I signed in with one. However I already had one from using OneDrive.
Rockstar too. Can't even play RDR2 solo without creating an account.
I do hate Sony extra because they're the fuckwits behind some particularly stupid DRM schemes. But some of the games they've been publishing lately are good and very welcome on PC aside from this account crap.
Did it count as being mad, that I just don't play any games that require linking accounts? There's plenty of games that don't require it that I can pay, and missing out on some high budget good games that everyone is talking about isn't a big enough deal to me that I will be fine with just skipping it.
Nah, IMO that's pretty reasonable. I would say "mad" here means someone bought the game and then gave it a negative review over the account linking.
If I bought the game without realizing this, I would definitely give it a bad review because of it.
Have you had that happen with Microsoft / Rockstar / Ubisoft / EA / whatever accounts? That was my actual question.
Some old Ubisoft game pissed me off like that I think, required their account and launcher and pissed me off. I think I left a bad review in that one because of it, unless I was too lazy to.
This game annoyed me. The first was so so good and the second felt like two games rushed and crammed into one for the sake of ending the Nordic story, so Kratos can move on to another Pantheon
I like the idea of Kratos being 100% aware of everything and him just being disappointed in IRL people
It’s their game, they can do what they want
But why is a steam account necessary to run the game
view more: next ›