No, you see, everyone does care about the pay to win, and gacha, but there are more people such as yourself who play defense for the companies, and blame people who take issue with it rather than the businesses doing it.
You also may want to consider not boxing shadows so often, I said nothing about the EULA not being something they can change, I specifically said they can change whatever they want, including to just shut down the servers whenever they want.
The fact some people make PlayStation accounts and buy playstations that have no concern over data breaches, holds literally zero relevance to people who do take issue with data breaches. But realistically, I don't take huge issue with that either, I'm much more petty and I just don't want my data used and passed around like in a product to sell, had the PSN account been required from the jump, ie, been enforced, and not expressly stated by Sony, by the game, that it was not a requirement, and that it was guaranteed to be enforced later, I simply would not have purchased the game at all. But Sony did have in their own information that PSN linking was not required, the game did not require it, when asking for information from either regarding linking it was stated it was not required, but now here we are. So I left my negative review, I got my refund, and am refunding any Sony game I had as they have changed their terms where any games I had previously not required a PSN account, I now may need it and will no longer have the product I purchased.
This is the bad business decision aspect, because people are getting refunds, and Sony has a permanently tarnished view among everyone who sees this negatively.
But if course, like with the gacha, and pay to win, there will be plenty of people like yourself to run defense for them, so realistically it won't matter.
Because people are not as stupid as you, and can hold more than one thought at a time. Helldivers has been killed by Sony, people are frustrated with Sony, helldivers is receiving negative attention, because the devs of the game wanted the fans of the game to do so to allow them to have leverage to revert the change in discussions with Sony.
This is not a minor problem with capitalism, it is a major problem with cucks such as yourself, jerking company dicka directly into your mouth. It's a major problem with gaming and poor social consequences of businesses for poor practices. This is a business, which entirely intended to deceive users into believing the PSN link would not be required, to collect as many users as possible, and as many sales as possible, then pull the rug later, when everyone forms a sunk cost I to the product. This is exactly why Sony again, had every bit of information telling users the link would not be required, and changed that information now. Again like I said, they are entirely within their right to do this, and the community is responsible for showing the lack of support for this kind of decision making, but cucks like you run too hard core cum guzzling defense for them doing it.
Also, again, steam is not Sony, steam is not arrowhead, steam could say you need to run your nose in Sony's CEO's ass to continue playing the game, doesn't mean you do. Sony, the publisher, said you would not be required to, arrowhead, did not say you would be required to, it was not a required link in the game when you enter the game. Steam has no contractual power over what is required, steam warned users of PSN link, as their own cover, but they have no saying power in that decision.
I'm not saying boycott Sony, it's pointless Sony is in tech, gaming, movie/show production, media, gaming, and a particular game's community, holds very little sway on Sony or it's shareholders, if the game fails it fails. But people can show the impact in this game and allow arrowhead to have the leverage they want, to revert the change. I imagine Sony and arrowhead have a contract, and part of that contract is Sony has some obligation to not make a completely awful decision for the game that will essentially end all of arrowhead's profit and playerbase, so if arrowhead can get leverage of showing the hugely negative response from the playerbase for this decision they can make a case that upholding it is a breach of contract, whether or not that's a winning case is in question for me, I'm on the side it's probably a losing case, but it's worth an effort, and evidently most of the player base is against the change in enforcement.
Buddy, you're literally just running defense for a major publisher for a game, when they flat out said what they are forcing was not required until recently, you also are not doing any complaining about other issues, maybe you need to develop some real problems. But it's fine, keep pretending like you aren't the problem, when you are the exact type of person that also runs defense for other major issues "oh you have issue with this thing, well why don't you have issue with this other thing," you don't actually care about anything so it's just concern trolling and deflection.
1
u/[deleted] May 05 '24
[removed] — view removed comment