1478
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 May 2024
1478 points (98.9% liked)
Games
30466 readers
781 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This shows the power of steam reviews with it being driven by the actual community. People tried to downplay and belittle its effectiveness, but it being front and center on the store page does have more impact than there would be without steam reviews. If there were no steam reviews the PSN requirement would have been pushed through with it being easier to ignore some random internet comments on social media than a store page.
Reviews aren't pointless, but their impact only goes so far. I am assuming the massive amount of refunds had more to do with it, tbh.
I suspect someone in accounting ran the numbers and decided they stand to lose more to reduced microtransaction sales than they would have gained via selling scraped data.
Though I agreed with you. It's still a win, but we have to be careful not to conflate this with Sony "caring".
I still think the biggest reason why they wanted to push their shitty platform is to artificially push player numbers. "Look how many people use our scam network, see?"
Now the hilarious part is that hopefully someone has to explain why people go these lengths, just to not join their shitty service.
That isn’t why. PlayStation doesn’t view this as a problem and in fairness, I don’t either. If the game had shipped with this requirement, it would’ve been fine. Many people put up with Ubisoft and they have a whole separate account plus launcher.
What Sony actually wanted was to make it easier on their server side to authenticate purchases and then to use the same PSN account systems to matchmaker for easier cross-play.
Would they collect data? I guess. They can already do that if they want as a publisher. So yeah it’s purely just to use their ecosystem, which makes sense.
Insane take imo. How does purchase authentication or cross play suddenly become "easier" with this change? Either it works or it doesn't; having PC players connected to a PSN account doesn't alleviate server load.
Did I mention server load? What I mean is that having a PSN account means that whatever game is processing your account details doesn’t have to deal with Steam accounts, it just deals with a PSN account the same as it would if you were on PS5.
What I’m saying is it streamlines the code on the developers side of the games they’re publishing and again if Sony is using systems already to authenticate purchases or whatever that can be collected in systems they already have.
This isn’t rocket science, PSN may just be a translation layer.
It absolutely has to deal with a Steam account every single time I log in to confirm ownership of the title. And then again every time I make a purchase from my Steam wallet. And again every time I connect to a friend through my Steam friends list.
It's literally adding another potential point of failure and removes none of the necessities of dealing with the other service. I only suggested the server load bit because I can't for the life of me understand how you can think it's "easier" to insist that these two systems interact in a new way when they're already up and functioning, and the original reason account linking was disabled was to make the game more stable.
Because those systems already exist for the console players. All they’re doing is switching it over to steam but they likely had a translation layer there before to do all the things you’re saying but through PSN instead. Why? Because that system already exists for consoles.
So their options here are that they can take the netcode for consoles and modify it to utilize SteamIDs and fetch data from Steam or they can just turn your Steam ID into a console ID and treat all of the inputs to their systems exactly like they would on the PS5 while fetching them from Steam.
I’m not saying it’s a good idea, I’m saying you’d think that just trying to match the console and the way it handles players would be simpler. Especially when you’re trying to make cross play work. Clearly it wasn’t so they temporarily ditched it. Maybe Sony does just want your data but if that’s true, why would the telemetry gathering be such a big deal? And they also could just use your SteamID for that data gathering. So clearly PSN used to be more integrated than people here are suggesting
But..... that's the exact opposite of what actually happened. The PSN requirement was so buggy they had to disabled it for the game to work.
Correct, I never said it wasn’t buggy either. I’m just pointing out that if you have cross play and you already have console support with console user IDs then it makes sense to just convert PC players into that same console user system.
This is what Xbox used to do when publishing games on Steam and still do with their GamePass stuff. And very similarly, that system also broke things and still breaks things for people.
Like fraud prevention?
Easier cross play?
I mean yeah this is especially true for online games as this is a form of DRM for Sony and it gives them control to easily reject or accept keys and ban users using their pre-existing systems.
Same thing with cross-play, it’s possible that some of these games were designed to use PSN systems and so that makes integration easy. No clue, but if true it makes sense from Sonys perspective on both of those fronts.
It was not “someone in accounting”
This shit goes all the way to the top. Every manager in the chain will have their take and influence on the numbers.
Sure, and I'm not suggesting said bean counter was responsible for the decision. What I am suggesting is that the only thing that influenced the decision was bottom line finances. Someone ran the numbers, and when the suits discovered that they stand to lose more money than they'd gain, they reversed the decision. Never mistake this as Sony "listening" to anything more than their investors and their bottom line.
It's probably a bit of this and a bit of that. I mean the game went from one of the best revied games to one of the worst in a day. There were refunds and a drop in players all at the same time.
My prediction is that the game will rebound, certainly, but will not reach back to the levels it had before. A percentage of people who refunded won't be buying again and another section probably will quit the game altogether, now or as soon as something newer and shinier shows up. Lots will forget to change their review.
Sony actively hurt their own game and probably made irreparable damage.
I'd imagine that there's math to be done on sales for a mixed review game vs. a overwhelming positive one, and its not favorable.