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?
People had the same reaction, but it was long enough ago to be forgotten old news.
I will absolutely be playing this game.
I will not be purchasing it, however.
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
It’s their game, they can do what they want
But why is a steam account necessary to run the game
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.
I mean at some point gamers need to vote with their money if Sony keeps ignoring common sense requests.
Your shiti data mining for 70 bucks product is disgusting, corpo creeps need to get a reality check.
Deny the parasite profit folks!
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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
It was also perfectly clear the first time, the CEO of Arrowhead chose to not make the information as readily available as HE should have. Sonys always had the same stance, but one CEO decided to try and stick it to them, and unfortunately, it worked, but they likely won’t get more work.
He chose to turn the requirement off to fix a glitch on their system. It was a requirement, it was listed, Arrowhead is wholefully to blame
Who gives a shit. Arrowhead made a good game. Fuck Sony. No one wants your dumbass PSN account.
They also willfully broke their contract obligations, the game was only made because of the investment by Sony as well. So they took their money and gave them the middle finger and got their fan bases to bash Sony when it was their doing. But sure make fun of an account I guess?
Good. Again, fuck Sony
I like the idea of Kratos being 100% aware of everything and him just being disappointed in IRL people
Welcome to the bait and switch.
Doesn't it have Denuvo too?
Looking at the RUNE release seems there's only Steam DRM so no Denuvo
Nice
Did people not see this coming? The other ported games have psn requirements, HD2 seems to be the only exception.
No, that's incorrect. None of the previous games required it, except for multiplayer. For example you could play the Ghost of Tsushima campaign just fine without an account. This one seems to be entirely singleplayer and yet requires an account for no reason.
Not a good sign for the future of GOG games either, which has had single player games be released on GOG after a delay. Wonder how adamant Sony is about PSN.
I'm sure that Sony is bitter about giving in to the HD2 backlash and will never allow that to happen again.
I mean they are requiring PSN for single player now when they used to only require it for online play.
Don't buy sony slop!
They don't respect the gamer. Fuck em
Til.
Yes they did. Should they not be upset about it because they knew it was going to have it?
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules: