14 ms·

Helldivers 2 PSN account linking update will not be moving forward

168 points by tech234a 2y ago

two_handfuls 2y ago
Good choice.
danpalmer 2y ago
I doubt this is a controversial point, at least not in this crowd, but I'd love to see some good legislation around what it means to sell digital products, and how they are allowed to change or not allowed to change over time, whether they can be retracted, etc. We see companies retracting licences for content regularly now (probably because we're 10+ years into these services being popular and contracts once deemed "long" are starting to expire), and we see unreasonable requirements being put on consumers after purchase. While all cases I've seen so far have been well within the terms of sale/service, they clearly go against user expectations, and consumers are clearly not accounting for these possibilities when purchasing (rightly so in my opinion). Just saying "that's the contract" isn't working, it's time for governments to step in and lay down some ground rules.
- caseyy 2y ago
  UK government has commented on this in a bit of a non-answer compared to other petitions: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071. However, it seems like there is legislation around intentionally omitting material information at the time of sale where there are plans to break or worsen the quality of a game later. It is prohibited by UK law. There is now a movement called “Stop Killing Games” which seeks to clarify what the laws are for these sorts of scenarios worldwide, and to establish at least a weak precedent for a publisher being penalized for such behaviour.
- j16sdiz 2y ago
  It is not controversial here, but I don't think it have been thought thoroughly here. You are asking for legislation forbidding hostile (or unexpected) updates. But how about exemption for (or even mandating) "good" (e.g. security) updates? We all know that the botnet from IoT device is a real problem. What about the nuisance from the "security best practice"? Like, disabling SSL1.0 for the best of security and break compatibility?
  - danpalmer 2y ago
    I see your point, I wasn't trying to say that all updates should be prevented, but more that I think legislation is needed to categorise different types of updates, and then set requirements around each. For example, I think it could define a "security update" and require security updates for the reasonable lifetime of the software/device (the EU already requires warranty repairs for reasonable device lifetime). It could define "content" and make clear the expectations around removing access to content when licences expire or how companies must communicate timelines to buyers. I imagine it would explicitly not cover all updates though as for almost any update there will be some category of users who perceive it to be "hostile" because they don't like it, but I think that's just how software evolves and not something worth changing.
- OtomotO 2y ago
  Not only technical challenges, e.g. disabling some feature for the sake of security which will lock out some players... But what about content updates? What if one is really unpopular? Don't take me for a troll, I mean, what is a good update? Objectively!? Because there would be this giant loop hole if you say "every content update is fine", that a studio wanting to kill off a game, they could just create a shitty update that most players hate and say "creative freedom" What is really needed imo, is having technical updates distinct from content updates as much as possible and the ability to choose the content version for players... And self hosting servers etc.
  - danpalmer 2y ago
    You're right, this is absolutely something that needs to be figured out. People buy apps, get an update, and dislike the re-design. I think this is a place where legislation should probably be explicitly hands-off, I could see something in legislating differently between access and usability, i.e. allowing apps to change pretty much however they like as long as users are fundamentally able to access the same product as before. Users wouldn't like this, but it would protect companies in some way.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Good in spirit, but I don't really see how you'd get a government to care unless the company is dumb and makes a false advertisement ("we guarantee 10 years of service!" cancelled after 6 months). It'd be hard to enforce a company to make them keep a service they don't want to maintain up. And then there are simply some borderline content that isn't technically out of service. e.g. You may have bought a digital version of Final Fantasy VII on the PS3 (and PSP/PSV), but it didn't entitle the user to own the PS4, nor PS5 version of FF7 (Which IIRC, each are separate releases you need to pay for). It's sucky, but your PS3 version is still downloadable, and playable on those older platforms. And based on history, it should still be downloadable for an extended period even when the PS3 store shuts down.
- jonhohle 2y ago
  It would certainly take legislation (because companies have chosen that customer hostile, one sided contracts are currently in their interest), but I think extending something like first sale doctrine to “digital goods” would almost immediately open markets for format and resale. In my opinion it doesn’t matter that there isn’t a fool proof way to prevent copies because companies have burned their goodwill and destroyed any post-sale value. Customers don’t understand that they are “licensing” content when the buttons they click on literally say “buy the digital version” (Nintendo), Buy (Xbox), Purchase (Steam), “Buy Now” (PlayStation), “Rent or Buy” (Amazon). They also have been burned over and over again through no fault of their own (except believing companies wouldn’t screw them over ) going all the way back to at least 2003 with PlaysForSure™ when Walmart decided to shut down their license servers and anything anyone had bought was no longer playable. Likewise, if license servers need to be shuttered, customers must get the right to remove DRM encumbrance. Companies that sell DRMd content should be required to put unlock methods in escrow in case of bankruptcy. So I agree. Long past time. Balance needs to be restored toward the public interest. While I don’t like current copyright terms, if customer right to resell, format shift, etc. are restored, I feel like that at least brings us back to the state of the world 25 years ago. It wouldn’t make pirated copies any more legal than they are today (or selling a copy while keeping a “backup”), but all of that can be dealt with separately.
- scanny 2y ago
  This has been brought up by a collective, in response to Ubisoft removing an online-only racing game from players libraries after purchase when they shut it down. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ https://www.stopkillinggames.com/
all2 2y ago
I think it might be too late. I know it's a popular game, but this really killed its momentum.
- ok_dad 2y ago
  Nah, everyone still loves the game and the studio, so I think it'll be okay. In the future, though, they will be less likely to buy a Sony published game. It was all Sony with this decision, and the studio was publicly upset and in some opposition to what was happening. Personally, I think we need: 1) Data protection laws so it isn't profitable anymore to attach useless accounts to games or make games online-only for a similar reason. 2) Consumer laws so that if a change happened with a digital product that removed a feature or made the product worse in some way that they'd have to offer refunds for users. Those two things would go a long way in today's digital world. Perhaps there could be an omnibus bill to enshrine these ideas into law, and maybe a few others like net neutrality and dare I say some law to prevent cloud providers from holding your data hostage for extreme outbound transfer fees.
  - tstrimple 2y ago
    Yes. I think this just reinforces the DEMOCRACY message.
- senectus1 2y ago
  nah, its already getting reviews flipped. It'll come back.
  - Hamuko 2y ago
    I'm seeing 82% of recent reviews being negative on Steam.
    - Dylan16807 2y ago
      Check back in 12, 24, and 48 hours.
Ekaros 2y ago
Consumer activity and protest does work from time to time. One lesson to learn about these sort of statements here is not to make them during weekend. In the end backing down here at least for a while is a sensible action.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  There should be no "for a while" here. People did not buy the game with that requirement, so it can't rightfully be added later.
  - behindsight 2y ago
    > People did not buy the game with that requirement That requirement/disclaimer was present on the Steam store page the entire time the game was actually available for purchase. The main issue was that it was not actively enforced due to server issues at the time - which the studio CEO acknowledged: > I do have a part to play. I am not blameless in all of this - it was my decision to disable account linking at launch so that players could play the game. I did not ensure players were aware of the requirement and we didn't talk about it enough. We knew for about 6 months before launch that it would be mandatory for online PS titles. https://twitter.com/Pilestedt/status/1787076609188483254 https://twitter.com/Pilestedt/status/1787076609188483254
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Idk about Steam but even if that's true, some people bought physical copies of the game not expecting that bullshit. Many were not in countries where PSN even operates. It's bad business for sure. If it needs PSN then that needs to be the first thing you see in the description, like "Now available exclusively on PSN..."
      - Hamuko 2y ago
        They have physical copies of the PC version?
theogravity 2y ago
Who allows these bad decisions to happen in the first place? How much engineering / design time was wasted on such a bad idea?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  I think the decision here was bad or more than a bad decision. From what I read, this was always the plan, but the overloaded servers at launch had them remove authentication to more quickly ramp up to the unexpected player count. If this was all settled at launch, it wouldn't be any worse than a blizzard or Ubisoft release, which do requires their respective accounts.
- atoav 2y ago
  Who would have such ideas that worsen the product to extract more profits in a capitalist system? A true miracle.. Cynicism aside, that record has been played a thousand times. There is a certain manegerial class who are unable to create anything of lasting value themselves, so they fooled themselves into believing that the destructive skill of milking money out of good things until they are broken is somehow a merit. The value they create is always based on exhausting external resources, be it the environment, safety culture or brand trust. The good kind of business person would be able to take a thing and make money while creating value that lasts for society, employees and the company alike. Those have become rare however.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  >Who allows these bad decisions to happen in the first place? The people who make them. Usually middle managers with some metric they want to show off to justify a bonus or promotion, not someone connected at all to the creation or usage of a thing, just one of the somewhat useless phase transition between stockholder and individual contributor.
  - theshrike79 2y ago
    100% there was a middle manager at Sony whose KPI and bonuses were tied to "new PSN accounts in a quarter"
ChrisArchitect 2y ago
Related: Helldivers 2 Removed from Purchase on Steam in over 150 Countries https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40263289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40263289
johnnyanmac 2y ago
(Disclaimer: never played Hell divers 2, not a shooter fan, and I have had PSN since near the beginning) I'm surprised they cancelled it. Sony finally had their popular GaaS, one that released under their helm, and it seemed to be their big portal into getting more sign-ups from a platform they were starting to experiment with. I guess they didn't want to risk the PR hit in this tumultuous year, especially after having to layoff so much talent not even a few months ago. That said, I'll still make my hot take here and say how I hate how gamers will praise review systems to help organically inform each other if products, but then abuse it (and likely bot it) whenever any slight inconvenience makes it way in here. Review bombs are a tool that get weaker the more it is utilized, and we've already seen them being used previously to protest political decisions tangentially attached to the game. Or even review bomb unrelated games who simply have the same publisher. The tumultuous user review system with little oversight makes me understand why Epic was hesitant to put that into their storefront roadmap for years, and why Sony/Nintendo (AFAIK) don't make it easy to change your reviews retroactively.
- OtomotO 2y ago
  > especially after having to layoff so much talent not even a few months ago. Excuse me, this is a sincere question, as I am not too familiar with Sony's numbers. Why did they have to? Did they write red numbers?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Probably not the best of phrasing. They probably didn't have to (they can definitely keep people employed for years to come if push came to shove), but to give some official details: - Sony lost some valuations due to needing to lower their PS5 hardware sales projection from 25m to 21m for 2023 - Sony's YoY operating margin fell from 9% to 6% The reasons for these are a topic of its own (and I'm sure I can dig up a HN post on that very subject), but in a nutshell: the number did not go up, and as usual these "low" numbers are made up for by letting go of labor, the highest expense in any given company.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  >That said, I'll still make my hot take here and say how I hate how gamers will praise review systems to help organically inform each other if products, but then abuse it (and likely bot it) whenever any slight inconvenience makes it way in here. Your "slight inconvenience" is someone else's dealbreaker. Everyone has a right to an opinion. If many people are pissed off, especially about legitimate gripes like privacy-invasive accounts and subscription schemes being sprung on them, then they deserve to be heard. If they bought the game (or someone bought it for them) then they deserve to give a review, even if it's a review that you'd rather not hear.
seattle_spring 2y ago
I get that linking a PSN account is kind of annoying, but what about it warranted the uproar that it received? Genuinely asking, not concern trolling or whatever.
- Tiberium 2y ago
  The problem is that they sold the game in a lot of countries where you couldn't register a PSN account, including a few countries in the EU. In specific cases like Ukraine you have to own the console to be able to register a PSN account. They've changed the Steam game entry to not allow selling in those countries, but some people from them already bought the game. PSN is only available in like 1/3 of all the countries Steam supports. And if you use a VPN or something, they can ban you for breaking ToS.
  - DangitBobby 2y ago
    Also not cool for a ban on PSN to mean a ban on your PC game .
    - polski-g 2y ago
      Its not cool to get a ban from any game unless they give you a refund.
      - seattle_spring 2y ago
        If the ban was for cheating, then it's very much "cool". Cheating in an online game should earn you a ban from all online games, period. Any other argument is akin to saying "people who do not cheat deserve a worse experience than those who do."
        DangitBobby 2y ago
        > Cheating in an online game should earn you a ban from all online games, period. That implies a level of consolidation and control that I'm definitely not comfortable with. No, I don't think botting in RuneScape should mean I can't play Helldivers 2.
kioleanu 2y ago
I have no words to describe how much I hate this. I bought a game recently, It Takes Two, also from Steam and I had to create an EA Account in order to be able to start this OFFLINE game. I didn't want to give my infos to EA, so I used an alias adress from Fastmail. I linked the game to the account and, a couple of days later, EA suddenly banned my account, with the game still on it :). Obviously no reason given They said I can still play what I purchased tho, but that really turned me off from the game.
- fbdab103 2y ago
  The EA account linking is the only thing keeping me from purchasing It Takes Two. Companies are so desperate to track my data they would rather not have my sale.
- klipklop 2y ago
  I have not bought a EA or Ubisoft game in years on PC due to stuff like this. They are not worth the hassle.
- woolion 2y ago
  I did the same thing, but AFAICT I don't see any way to continue playing? I've applied for a refund on Steam explaining that due to this requirement it is essentially money stolen, but I got a negative reply based on a high play time (17 hours, including about half idle because I left the house with it running). I was hoping the current situation would relax the refund policy to include account-linking based fraud to be part of the ToS, but that probably won't be the case now.
  - kioleanu 2y ago
    when I log in into the EA Client, it says that my account is banned, but I still see the game and I can start it. Any other function is disabled. Is that not working for you?
    - woolion 2y ago
      I cannot log into the account at all, so I'm stuck with the launcher. Weirdly enough the account is still linked with my Steam account, so I can log from one to the other in the browser, but not in the game.
Contortion 2y ago
I didn't think having to create a PSN account was that bad to be honest. I'd have preferred them to back down about the NProtect GameGuard rootkit that comes with the game.
- returnInfinity 2y ago
  I think PSN account is limited a few countries only. And not allowed in over 190 other countries. So if you already purchased the game and live in the other 190 countries, you are locked out of your purchase.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    A quick Google tells me there's a total of 196 countries. So, are we only talking about 6 countries served by PSN or are there radically different definitions of "country" at work here?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ro_bit 2y ago
      You're right it's more than 6. The 190 figure probably comes from the number of "countries" that were restricted from purchasing the game after (and only after) the PSN account linking was announced. Steam defines a lot of territories and unrecognized regions as "countries". Supported PSN countries are listed here https://www.playstation.com/country-selector/index.html https://www.playstation.com/country-selector/index.html E: Actually some of the countries in the selector aren't supported for PSN either (at least PH), so I'm no longer sure if there is an offical list of supported PSN countries anywhere.
  - Contortion 2y ago
    Ah okay, that's pretty awful and explains the huge backlash. Thanks for the extra info.
Slava_Propanei 2y ago
[dead]
Knajjars 2y ago
Am I the only one who doesn’t care about account linking that much? Like, what are they going to steal from me that Google, Meta, Apple, doesn’t have already. Plus if people wanted to protest, go against PlayStation directly, don't fuck up an indie studio that finally made it after 15+ of releasing games, this decision was made by Sony, not them.
- zik 2y ago
  I think you're missing the point here. Lots of people bought Helldivers 2 and happen to live in countries like Estonia where it'll no longer be possible to play the game because PS doesn't operate there. Even more people don't have PlayStation accounts and specifically don't want them. They bought the game in good faith and now the terms have been changed on them to something unpalatable. This shouldn't be possible. If you buy something it should belong to you. It shouldn't be subject to the whims of companies who simply don't care about you.
  - Knajjars 2y ago
    In the case of not been able to play what you bought legally, I agree, it’s BS. I do remember reading that developers were working on a solution for this. But my point remains for people screwing up the little guy (Arrowhead Studios).
    - Ekaros 2y ago
      With games you often really can not separate the publisher, the studio and the game from each other. And honestly in feedback consumer should not need to care where the demand for change came from. Maybe attacking studio is not fair, but attacking game due to changes by publisher or developer certainly is.
    - aaomidi 2y ago
      They did willfully sign a contract with Sony. Game devs need to think about who they’re using as a publisher. If Sony was willing to take them on, then probably a ton of other publishers were too.
sundvor 2y ago
So good news; the journey of Helldivers 2 has been a beacon of positivity in a very bleak landscape of online gaming, and the entire community got Sony to back down in record time. Their success is proof that if you care for your game and your players first of all, and not micro transactions or "spreading the message", you can truly create something special. To see the community come together for the Major Orders (HD2 rewards everyone if e.g. key planets are taken, creating a sense of urgency rarely seen) has been great. To me, this created the force that came to play this weekend as everyone united in support of those who had no possible way of creating a PSN account - by putting pressure on Sony in any way possible. The Devs recommended updating the reviews and submitting refund requests as a valid way of voicing discontent - so we did. Also, Pilestedt/ Arrowhead took full and complete ownership over missteps around the requirements. This transparency was refreshing to see! It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for the reviews to be updated in the days ahead. The victory will only make the community stronger!
- thefz 2y ago
  I think the review bombing is stupid for many reasons. Is the same game you were posting memes about yesterday, suddenly bad? No longer having fun? Who do you think you are going to hurt between the less-than-30-person studio or the multinational behemoth? Are you going to refund the game today then buy it again tomorrow when the change is reverted? You might be hurting the developer even more. IMO Steam reviews should completely disappear as it's no longer an useful gaugfe of a game quality. Hell, I see people leave negative reviews to co-op games such as "I hAvE No fRiEnDs tO PlAy iT WiTh lOl." Are you stupid? Besides, buy the game, test it and if you don't like refund it.
  - krainboltgreene 2y ago
    > Is the same game you were posting memes about yesterday, suddenly bad? For many people, yes, it did in fact become bad, they had it taken away. > Who do you think you are going to hurt between the less-than-30-person studio or the multinational behemoth? In this particular case the game studio asked for this action.
  - 2y ago
multimoon 2y ago
I hate having to make accounts with publishers for games - so I’m happy that everyone got Sony to back down. I however don’t understand why this game in particular and why Sony in particular received so much backlash, other than it wasn’t required at launch. This isn’t a new practice and most games do this now unfortunately. Microsoft, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc.
- krippe 2y ago
  Just because most games do it doesn't make it right. They allowed sales of the game in countries where you could not make a PSN account for one, only to bait and switch those users long after the grace period for refunds had expired on Steam. Also, there was no need for a PSN account for Steam users. They cite things as "making the game safer for everyone", which doesn't make sense considering how often SONY has leaked user data. The fact they the game is so beloved by a community that is also large and organized is probably what led to such a massive backlash in such a short amount of time.
  - multimoon 2y ago
    All correct, but this still isn’t a unique scenario. Many games that have been very loved with a very active community have had the same requirement over the years, helldivers wasn’t anything new. I suspect this was just a case of the internet caught hold of something and went nuts as it normally does. Was the outcome positive? Absolutely, but it isn’t a new scenario like everyone’s acting it is.
    - bluefirebrand 2y ago
      It is a unique scenario for the following reasons * The game was being sold in regions where players would not be able to make a PSN account, because of PSN's restrictions being tighter than Steams * At launch the account linking was not mandatory. * It was also not clearly communicated at this time that it would become mandatory later. * Even after their public statement that it would be mandatory, Sony's own FAQ still said that PSN accounts were not required to play any games on PC. This was edited after people noticed (Thanks to Arrowhead's CEO calling attention to the FAQ) At this point it would be reasonable for players to assume it was not actually mandatory at all, despite wording saying it was And the worst part is it took months for them to fix so they could make it mandatory. Well outside of the usual return window policy for Steam As I've said elsewhere, this is not just one screw up, it's a bunch It would have been a very different story if the first time you launch the game it did not let you play unless you link your PSN, which is what most games with this requirement will be like. Then you can choose to either link your account or happily get your refund because you haven't actually played
cableshaft 2y ago
Nice, guess I can buy Helldivers 2 and see why everyone loves it so much now. I held back specifically because (despite me already having a PSN account) this seemed like Sony was just willing to torch an incredibly successful game (and double down on that torching) in order to insure it juiced up its PSN signup numbers for its earnings reports, and it made me feel bad to support that. But as shitty as Sony can be, at least they were willing to walk back this decision after such a huge backlash.
- aaomidi 2y ago
  If they didn’t, then they’d ensure these players would literally never buy a PlayStation. Also, what they were doing is outright illegal in Europe.
  - SahAssar 2y ago
    > Also, what they were doing is outright illegal in Europe. Do you mean because they required another unrelated service? Because ubisoft/EA etc. do that too. Or do you mean because they sold a product and then changed it? Because the requirement was documented from the start, just not enforced until the patch.
    - theshrike79 2y ago
      The problem was that they sold HD2 in Estonia and Philippines for example. They don't have PSN access at all. Thus they would have to provide false information when creating an account in a valid country, which is an EULA violation which again will result in a ban if caught.
    - baud147258 2y ago
      > Do you mean because they required another unrelated service? Because ubisoft/EA etc. do that too. An other unrelated service, which is unavailable in many countries (and part of some countries), including countries where you could buy the game.
- righthand 2y ago
moistoreos 2y ago
All this drama over an email. What's categorically worse is Riot forcing kernel level anti-cheat unwittingly to non-technically literate users.
- proxysna 2y ago
  Cutting off access to purchased game in countries where you cannot create a PSN account and you can no longer refund the game, because most likely you've played more than 2 hours. PSN isn't even available in every European country, despite the game being sold globally. And if an email isn't much, then an kernel anticheat won't change much privacy-wise either.
drexlspivey 2y ago
Why do game developers need to partner with publishers like Sony and endure shit like that? What value does a publisher add in the age of online stores like Steam?
- Night_Thastus 2y ago
  Publishers can be a massive boon for developers. They provide a huge advertising presence for one - it's hard not to stand up and take notice when a big company like Sony plasters their front pages with ads about a game. The other benefit is money. Smaller studios often don't have the up-front capital to outright create a game on their own - a publisher can be that stepping stone.
- vidarrapp 2y ago
  Well, in this case Sony funded development on HD2 for about 8 years. That's usually the value they bring.
  - drexlspivey 2y ago
    Do you know what the typical deal is like when that happens? Do they straight up buy the rights to the game beforehand or do the developers get a percentage of the revenue still?
- maverwa 2y ago
  Money. Arrowhead has done a few other (very cool) games before Helldivers 2 (HD1, Magicka) but AFAIK nothing that was popular enough to allow them to finance an expensive product like HD2 on their own. And the success proves them right: ignoring the PSN shitstorm the games is highly liked and got a lot of players. So they where able to use that money to actually build a successful product. That’s what publishers do (or one of the things): financing of projects the developer itself cannot pay for alone.
- belthesar 2y ago
  Quite a bit, believe it or not. It's often an economies of scale problem, as well as a subject matter expertise problem. On the front, working with a publisher can help with funding. A publisher will often times front a fair amount of development costs, which depending on funding sources will often time make up a significant portion of the revenue needed for development. When people see exclusivity deals, that happens because the developer receives advanced funding for development costs, usually a significantly larger amount than one would receive from a publisher that has no platform associated with it. For smaller studios, these teams may not have any marketing expertise. While an independent marketing team may be able to help out with this, the publisher managing this relationship, especially with teams either internal or external that they have experience with, allows the studio to focus on their development efforts. That's not to say this is always sunshine and rainbows. The stories of publisher imposed deadlines, restrictions, etc. are true, usually without a lot of the inside baseball color of the why of these deadlines are required. That said, when Other People's Money comes into play, things always change. The cost of delaying a release is not small, even more so when there are physical products being made and fulfillment to be managed. That's not me being an apologist, just trying to add a bit more color to the social media talking points. To the point I think you're trying to make though, with the amount of self publishing tools available, it's definitely not the necessity that it used to be to be. However, the dynamics of whether one can do something, vs. whether they're the right ones to do so something are always nuanced, especially when it comes down to the calculus of whether the benefits and the trade offs line up.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
vermaden 2y ago
TL;DR?
Biblecampvictim 2y ago
awesome
Biblecampvictim 2y ago
Awesome
Biblecampvictim 2y ago
wooloollooo

168 points by tech234a 2y ago

Good choice.

I doubt this is a controversial point, at least not in this crowd, but I'd love to see some good legislation around what it means to sell digital products, and how they are allowed to change or not allowed to change over time, whether they can be retracted, etc. We see companies retracting licences for content regularly now (probably because we're 10+ years into these services being popular and contracts once deemed "long" are starting to expire), and we see unreasonable requirements being put on consumers after purchase. While all cases I've seen so far have been well within the terms of sale/service, they clearly go against user expectations, and consumers are clearly not accounting for these possibilities when purchasing (rightly so in my opinion). Just saying "that's the contract" isn't working, it's time for governments to step in and lay down some ground rules.

caseyy 2y ago
UK government has commented on this in a bit of a non-answer compared to other petitions: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/659071. However, it seems like there is legislation around intentionally omitting material information at the time of sale where there are plans to break or worsen the quality of a game later. It is prohibited by UK law. There is now a movement called “Stop Killing Games” which seeks to clarify what the laws are for these sorts of scenarios worldwide, and to establish at least a weak precedent for a publisher being penalized for such behaviour.
j16sdiz 2y ago
It is not controversial here, but I don't think it have been thought thoroughly here. You are asking for legislation forbidding hostile (or unexpected) updates. But how about exemption for (or even mandating) "good" (e.g. security) updates? We all know that the botnet from IoT device is a real problem. What about the nuisance from the "security best practice"? Like, disabling SSL1.0 for the best of security and break compatibility?
- danpalmer 2y ago
  I see your point, I wasn't trying to say that all updates should be prevented, but more that I think legislation is needed to categorise different types of updates, and then set requirements around each. For example, I think it could define a "security update" and require security updates for the reasonable lifetime of the software/device (the EU already requires warranty repairs for reasonable device lifetime). It could define "content" and make clear the expectations around removing access to content when licences expire or how companies must communicate timelines to buyers. I imagine it would explicitly not cover all updates though as for almost any update there will be some category of users who perceive it to be "hostile" because they don't like it, but I think that's just how software evolves and not something worth changing.
OtomotO 2y ago
Not only technical challenges, e.g. disabling some feature for the sake of security which will lock out some players... But what about content updates? What if one is really unpopular? Don't take me for a troll, I mean, what is a good update? Objectively!? Because there would be this giant loop hole if you say "every content update is fine", that a studio wanting to kill off a game, they could just create a shitty update that most players hate and say "creative freedom" What is really needed imo, is having technical updates distinct from content updates as much as possible and the ability to choose the content version for players... And self hosting servers etc.
- danpalmer 2y ago
  You're right, this is absolutely something that needs to be figured out. People buy apps, get an update, and dislike the re-design. I think this is a place where legislation should probably be explicitly hands-off, I could see something in legislating differently between access and usability, i.e. allowing apps to change pretty much however they like as long as users are fundamentally able to access the same product as before. Users wouldn't like this, but it would protect companies in some way.
johnnyanmac 2y ago
Good in spirit, but I don't really see how you'd get a government to care unless the company is dumb and makes a false advertisement ("we guarantee 10 years of service!" cancelled after 6 months). It'd be hard to enforce a company to make them keep a service they don't want to maintain up. And then there are simply some borderline content that isn't technically out of service. e.g. You may have bought a digital version of Final Fantasy VII on the PS3 (and PSP/PSV), but it didn't entitle the user to own the PS4, nor PS5 version of FF7 (Which IIRC, each are separate releases you need to pay for). It's sucky, but your PS3 version is still downloadable, and playable on those older platforms. And based on history, it should still be downloadable for an extended period even when the PS3 store shuts down.
jonhohle 2y ago
It would certainly take legislation (because companies have chosen that customer hostile, one sided contracts are currently in their interest), but I think extending something like first sale doctrine to “digital goods” would almost immediately open markets for format and resale. In my opinion it doesn’t matter that there isn’t a fool proof way to prevent copies because companies have burned their goodwill and destroyed any post-sale value. Customers don’t understand that they are “licensing” content when the buttons they click on literally say “buy the digital version” (Nintendo), Buy (Xbox), Purchase (Steam), “Buy Now” (PlayStation), “Rent or Buy” (Amazon). They also have been burned over and over again through no fault of their own (except believing companies wouldn’t screw them over ) going all the way back to at least 2003 with PlaysForSure™ when Walmart decided to shut down their license servers and anything anyone had bought was no longer playable. Likewise, if license servers need to be shuttered, customers must get the right to remove DRM encumbrance. Companies that sell DRMd content should be required to put unlock methods in escrow in case of bankruptcy. So I agree. Long past time. Balance needs to be restored toward the public interest. While I don’t like current copyright terms, if customer right to resell, format shift, etc. are restored, I feel like that at least brings us back to the state of the world 25 years ago. It wouldn’t make pirated copies any more legal than they are today (or selling a copy while keeping a “backup”), but all of that can be dealt with separately.
scanny 2y ago
This has been brought up by a collective, in response to Ubisoft removing an online-only racing game from players libraries after purchase when they shut it down. https://www.stopkillinggames.com/ https://www.stopkillinggames.com/

all2 2y ago

I think it might be too late. I know it's a popular game, but this really killed its momentum.

ok_dad 2y ago
Nah, everyone still loves the game and the studio, so I think it'll be okay. In the future, though, they will be less likely to buy a Sony published game. It was all Sony with this decision, and the studio was publicly upset and in some opposition to what was happening. Personally, I think we need: 1) Data protection laws so it isn't profitable anymore to attach useless accounts to games or make games online-only for a similar reason. 2) Consumer laws so that if a change happened with a digital product that removed a feature or made the product worse in some way that they'd have to offer refunds for users. Those two things would go a long way in today's digital world. Perhaps there could be an omnibus bill to enshrine these ideas into law, and maybe a few others like net neutrality and dare I say some law to prevent cloud providers from holding your data hostage for extreme outbound transfer fees.
- tstrimple 2y ago
  Yes. I think this just reinforces the DEMOCRACY message.
senectus1 2y ago
nah, its already getting reviews flipped. It'll come back.
- Hamuko 2y ago
  I'm seeing 82% of recent reviews being negative on Steam.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Check back in 12, 24, and 48 hours.

Ekaros 2y ago

Consumer activity and protest does work from time to time. One lesson to learn about these sort of statements here is not to make them during weekend. In the end backing down here at least for a while is a sensible action.

wakawaka28 2y ago
There should be no "for a while" here. People did not buy the game with that requirement, so it can't rightfully be added later.
- behindsight 2y ago
  > People did not buy the game with that requirement That requirement/disclaimer was present on the Steam store page the entire time the game was actually available for purchase. The main issue was that it was not actively enforced due to server issues at the time - which the studio CEO acknowledged: > I do have a part to play. I am not blameless in all of this - it was my decision to disable account linking at launch so that players could play the game. I did not ensure players were aware of the requirement and we didn't talk about it enough. We knew for about 6 months before launch that it would be mandatory for online PS titles. https://twitter.com/Pilestedt/status/1787076609188483254 https://twitter.com/Pilestedt/status/1787076609188483254
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    Idk about Steam but even if that's true, some people bought physical copies of the game not expecting that bullshit. Many were not in countries where PSN even operates. It's bad business for sure. If it needs PSN then that needs to be the first thing you see in the description, like "Now available exclusively on PSN..."
    - Hamuko 2y ago
      They have physical copies of the PC version?

theogravity 2y ago

Who allows these bad decisions to happen in the first place? How much engineering / design time was wasted on such a bad idea?

johnnyanmac 2y ago
I think the decision here was bad or more than a bad decision. From what I read, this was always the plan, but the overloaded servers at launch had them remove authentication to more quickly ramp up to the unexpected player count. If this was all settled at launch, it wouldn't be any worse than a blizzard or Ubisoft release, which do requires their respective accounts.
atoav 2y ago
Who would have such ideas that worsen the product to extract more profits in a capitalist system? A true miracle.. Cynicism aside, that record has been played a thousand times. There is a certain manegerial class who are unable to create anything of lasting value themselves, so they fooled themselves into believing that the destructive skill of milking money out of good things until they are broken is somehow a merit. The value they create is always based on exhausting external resources, be it the environment, safety culture or brand trust. The good kind of business person would be able to take a thing and make money while creating value that lasts for society, employees and the company alike. Those have become rare however.
colechristensen 2y ago
>Who allows these bad decisions to happen in the first place? The people who make them. Usually middle managers with some metric they want to show off to justify a bonus or promotion, not someone connected at all to the creation or usage of a thing, just one of the somewhat useless phase transition between stockholder and individual contributor.
- theshrike79 2y ago
  100% there was a middle manager at Sony whose KPI and bonuses were tied to "new PSN accounts in a quarter"

ChrisArchitect 2y ago

Related: Helldivers 2 Removed from Purchase on Steam in over 150 Countries https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40263289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40263289

johnnyanmac 2y ago

(Disclaimer: never played Hell divers 2, not a shooter fan, and I have had PSN since near the beginning) I'm surprised they cancelled it. Sony finally had their popular GaaS, one that released under their helm, and it seemed to be their big portal into getting more sign-ups from a platform they were starting to experiment with. I guess they didn't want to risk the PR hit in this tumultuous year, especially after having to layoff so much talent not even a few months ago. That said, I'll still make my hot take here and say how I hate how gamers will praise review systems to help organically inform each other if products, but then abuse it (and likely bot it) whenever any slight inconvenience makes it way in here. Review bombs are a tool that get weaker the more it is utilized, and we've already seen them being used previously to protest political decisions tangentially attached to the game. Or even review bomb unrelated games who simply have the same publisher. The tumultuous user review system with little oversight makes me understand why Epic was hesitant to put that into their storefront roadmap for years, and why Sony/Nintendo (AFAIK) don't make it easy to change your reviews retroactively.

OtomotO 2y ago
> especially after having to layoff so much talent not even a few months ago. Excuse me, this is a sincere question, as I am not too familiar with Sony's numbers. Why did they have to? Did they write red numbers?
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  Probably not the best of phrasing. They probably didn't have to (they can definitely keep people employed for years to come if push came to shove), but to give some official details: - Sony lost some valuations due to needing to lower their PS5 hardware sales projection from 25m to 21m for 2023 - Sony's YoY operating margin fell from 9% to 6% The reasons for these are a topic of its own (and I'm sure I can dig up a HN post on that very subject), but in a nutshell: the number did not go up, and as usual these "low" numbers are made up for by letting go of labor, the highest expense in any given company.
wakawaka28 2y ago
>That said, I'll still make my hot take here and say how I hate how gamers will praise review systems to help organically inform each other if products, but then abuse it (and likely bot it) whenever any slight inconvenience makes it way in here. Your "slight inconvenience" is someone else's dealbreaker. Everyone has a right to an opinion. If many people are pissed off, especially about legitimate gripes like privacy-invasive accounts and subscription schemes being sprung on them, then they deserve to be heard. If they bought the game (or someone bought it for them) then they deserve to give a review, even if it's a review that you'd rather not hear.

seattle_spring 2y ago

I get that linking a PSN account is kind of annoying, but what about it warranted the uproar that it received? Genuinely asking, not concern trolling or whatever.

Tiberium 2y ago
The problem is that they sold the game in a lot of countries where you couldn't register a PSN account, including a few countries in the EU. In specific cases like Ukraine you have to own the console to be able to register a PSN account. They've changed the Steam game entry to not allow selling in those countries, but some people from them already bought the game. PSN is only available in like 1/3 of all the countries Steam supports. And if you use a VPN or something, they can ban you for breaking ToS.
- DangitBobby 2y ago
  Also not cool for a ban on PSN to mean a ban on your PC game .
  - polski-g 2y ago
    Its not cool to get a ban from any game unless they give you a refund.
    - seattle_spring 2y ago
      If the ban was for cheating, then it's very much "cool". Cheating in an online game should earn you a ban from all online games, period. Any other argument is akin to saying "people who do not cheat deserve a worse experience than those who do."
      - DangitBobby 2y ago
        > Cheating in an online game should earn you a ban from all online games, period. That implies a level of consolidation and control that I'm definitely not comfortable with. No, I don't think botting in RuneScape should mean I can't play Helldivers 2.

kioleanu 2y ago

I have no words to describe how much I hate this. I bought a game recently, It Takes Two, also from Steam and I had to create an EA Account in order to be able to start this OFFLINE game. I didn't want to give my infos to EA, so I used an alias adress from Fastmail. I linked the game to the account and, a couple of days later, EA suddenly banned my account, with the game still on it :). Obviously no reason given They said I can still play what I purchased tho, but that really turned me off from the game.

fbdab103 2y ago
The EA account linking is the only thing keeping me from purchasing It Takes Two. Companies are so desperate to track my data they would rather not have my sale.
klipklop 2y ago
I have not bought a EA or Ubisoft game in years on PC due to stuff like this. They are not worth the hassle.
woolion 2y ago
I did the same thing, but AFAICT I don't see any way to continue playing? I've applied for a refund on Steam explaining that due to this requirement it is essentially money stolen, but I got a negative reply based on a high play time (17 hours, including about half idle because I left the house with it running). I was hoping the current situation would relax the refund policy to include account-linking based fraud to be part of the ToS, but that probably won't be the case now.
- kioleanu 2y ago
  when I log in into the EA Client, it says that my account is banned, but I still see the game and I can start it. Any other function is disabled. Is that not working for you?
  - woolion 2y ago
    I cannot log into the account at all, so I'm stuck with the launcher. Weirdly enough the account is still linked with my Steam account, so I can log from one to the other in the browser, but not in the game.

Contortion 2y ago

I didn't think having to create a PSN account was that bad to be honest. I'd have preferred them to back down about the NProtect GameGuard rootkit that comes with the game.

returnInfinity 2y ago
I think PSN account is limited a few countries only. And not allowed in over 190 other countries. So if you already purchased the game and live in the other 190 countries, you are locked out of your purchase.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  A quick Google tells me there's a total of 196 countries. So, are we only talking about 6 countries served by PSN or are there radically different definitions of "country" at work here?
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ro_bit 2y ago
    You're right it's more than 6. The 190 figure probably comes from the number of "countries" that were restricted from purchasing the game after (and only after) the PSN account linking was announced. Steam defines a lot of territories and unrecognized regions as "countries". Supported PSN countries are listed here https://www.playstation.com/country-selector/index.html https://www.playstation.com/country-selector/index.html E: Actually some of the countries in the selector aren't supported for PSN either (at least PH), so I'm no longer sure if there is an offical list of supported PSN countries anywhere.
- Contortion 2y ago
  Ah okay, that's pretty awful and explains the huge backlash. Thanks for the extra info.

Slava_Propanei 2y ago

[dead]

Knajjars 2y ago

Am I the only one who doesn’t care about account linking that much? Like, what are they going to steal from me that Google, Meta, Apple, doesn’t have already. Plus if people wanted to protest, go against PlayStation directly, don't fuck up an indie studio that finally made it after 15+ of releasing games, this decision was made by Sony, not them.

zik 2y ago
I think you're missing the point here. Lots of people bought Helldivers 2 and happen to live in countries like Estonia where it'll no longer be possible to play the game because PS doesn't operate there. Even more people don't have PlayStation accounts and specifically don't want them. They bought the game in good faith and now the terms have been changed on them to something unpalatable. This shouldn't be possible. If you buy something it should belong to you. It shouldn't be subject to the whims of companies who simply don't care about you.
- Knajjars 2y ago
  In the case of not been able to play what you bought legally, I agree, it’s BS. I do remember reading that developers were working on a solution for this. But my point remains for people screwing up the little guy (Arrowhead Studios).
  - Ekaros 2y ago
    With games you often really can not separate the publisher, the studio and the game from each other. And honestly in feedback consumer should not need to care where the demand for change came from. Maybe attacking studio is not fair, but attacking game due to changes by publisher or developer certainly is.
  - aaomidi 2y ago
    They did willfully sign a contract with Sony. Game devs need to think about who they’re using as a publisher. If Sony was willing to take them on, then probably a ton of other publishers were too.

sundvor 2y ago

So good news; the journey of Helldivers 2 has been a beacon of positivity in a very bleak landscape of online gaming, and the entire community got Sony to back down in record time. Their success is proof that if you care for your game and your players first of all, and not micro transactions or "spreading the message", you can truly create something special. To see the community come together for the Major Orders (HD2 rewards everyone if e.g. key planets are taken, creating a sense of urgency rarely seen) has been great. To me, this created the force that came to play this weekend as everyone united in support of those who had no possible way of creating a PSN account - by putting pressure on Sony in any way possible. The Devs recommended updating the reviews and submitting refund requests as a valid way of voicing discontent - so we did. Also, Pilestedt/ Arrowhead took full and complete ownership over missteps around the requirements. This transparency was refreshing to see! It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for the reviews to be updated in the days ahead. The victory will only make the community stronger!

thefz 2y ago
I think the review bombing is stupid for many reasons. Is the same game you were posting memes about yesterday, suddenly bad? No longer having fun? Who do you think you are going to hurt between the less-than-30-person studio or the multinational behemoth? Are you going to refund the game today then buy it again tomorrow when the change is reverted? You might be hurting the developer even more. IMO Steam reviews should completely disappear as it's no longer an useful gaugfe of a game quality. Hell, I see people leave negative reviews to co-op games such as "I hAvE No fRiEnDs tO PlAy iT WiTh lOl." Are you stupid? Besides, buy the game, test it and if you don't like refund it.
- krainboltgreene 2y ago
  > Is the same game you were posting memes about yesterday, suddenly bad? For many people, yes, it did in fact become bad, they had it taken away. > Who do you think you are going to hurt between the less-than-30-person studio or the multinational behemoth? In this particular case the game studio asked for this action.
- 2y ago

multimoon 2y ago

I hate having to make accounts with publishers for games - so I’m happy that everyone got Sony to back down. I however don’t understand why this game in particular and why Sony in particular received so much backlash, other than it wasn’t required at launch. This isn’t a new practice and most games do this now unfortunately. Microsoft, EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc.

krippe 2y ago
Just because most games do it doesn't make it right. They allowed sales of the game in countries where you could not make a PSN account for one, only to bait and switch those users long after the grace period for refunds had expired on Steam. Also, there was no need for a PSN account for Steam users. They cite things as "making the game safer for everyone", which doesn't make sense considering how often SONY has leaked user data. The fact they the game is so beloved by a community that is also large and organized is probably what led to such a massive backlash in such a short amount of time.
- multimoon 2y ago
  All correct, but this still isn’t a unique scenario. Many games that have been very loved with a very active community have had the same requirement over the years, helldivers wasn’t anything new. I suspect this was just a case of the internet caught hold of something and went nuts as it normally does. Was the outcome positive? Absolutely, but it isn’t a new scenario like everyone’s acting it is.
  - bluefirebrand 2y ago
    It is a unique scenario for the following reasons * The game was being sold in regions where players would not be able to make a PSN account, because of PSN's restrictions being tighter than Steams * At launch the account linking was not mandatory. * It was also not clearly communicated at this time that it would become mandatory later. * Even after their public statement that it would be mandatory, Sony's own FAQ still said that PSN accounts were not required to play any games on PC. This was edited after people noticed (Thanks to Arrowhead's CEO calling attention to the FAQ) At this point it would be reasonable for players to assume it was not actually mandatory at all, despite wording saying it was And the worst part is it took months for them to fix so they could make it mandatory. Well outside of the usual return window policy for Steam As I've said elsewhere, this is not just one screw up, it's a bunch It would have been a very different story if the first time you launch the game it did not let you play unless you link your PSN, which is what most games with this requirement will be like. Then you can choose to either link your account or happily get your refund because you haven't actually played

cableshaft 2y ago

Nice, guess I can buy Helldivers 2 and see why everyone loves it so much now. I held back specifically because (despite me already having a PSN account) this seemed like Sony was just willing to torch an incredibly successful game (and double down on that torching) in order to insure it juiced up its PSN signup numbers for its earnings reports, and it made me feel bad to support that. But as shitty as Sony can be, at least they were willing to walk back this decision after such a huge backlash.

aaomidi 2y ago
If they didn’t, then they’d ensure these players would literally never buy a PlayStation. Also, what they were doing is outright illegal in Europe.
- SahAssar 2y ago
  > Also, what they were doing is outright illegal in Europe. Do you mean because they required another unrelated service? Because ubisoft/EA etc. do that too. Or do you mean because they sold a product and then changed it? Because the requirement was documented from the start, just not enforced until the patch.
  - theshrike79 2y ago
    The problem was that they sold HD2 in Estonia and Philippines for example. They don't have PSN access at all. Thus they would have to provide false information when creating an account in a valid country, which is an EULA violation which again will result in a ban if caught.
  - baud147258 2y ago
    > Do you mean because they required another unrelated service? Because ubisoft/EA etc. do that too. An other unrelated service, which is unavailable in many countries (and part of some countries), including countries where you could buy the game.
righthand 2y ago

moistoreos 2y ago

All this drama over an email. What's categorically worse is Riot forcing kernel level anti-cheat unwittingly to non-technically literate users.

proxysna 2y ago
Cutting off access to purchased game in countries where you cannot create a PSN account and you can no longer refund the game, because most likely you've played more than 2 hours. PSN isn't even available in every European country, despite the game being sold globally. And if an email isn't much, then an kernel anticheat won't change much privacy-wise either.

drexlspivey 2y ago

Why do game developers need to partner with publishers like Sony and endure shit like that? What value does a publisher add in the age of online stores like Steam?

Night_Thastus 2y ago
Publishers can be a massive boon for developers. They provide a huge advertising presence for one - it's hard not to stand up and take notice when a big company like Sony plasters their front pages with ads about a game. The other benefit is money. Smaller studios often don't have the up-front capital to outright create a game on their own - a publisher can be that stepping stone.
vidarrapp 2y ago
Well, in this case Sony funded development on HD2 for about 8 years. That's usually the value they bring.
- drexlspivey 2y ago
  Do you know what the typical deal is like when that happens? Do they straight up buy the rights to the game beforehand or do the developers get a percentage of the revenue still?
maverwa 2y ago
Money. Arrowhead has done a few other (very cool) games before Helldivers 2 (HD1, Magicka) but AFAIK nothing that was popular enough to allow them to finance an expensive product like HD2 on their own. And the success proves them right: ignoring the PSN shitstorm the games is highly liked and got a lot of players. So they where able to use that money to actually build a successful product. That’s what publishers do (or one of the things): financing of projects the developer itself cannot pay for alone.
belthesar 2y ago
Quite a bit, believe it or not. It's often an economies of scale problem, as well as a subject matter expertise problem. On the front, working with a publisher can help with funding. A publisher will often times front a fair amount of development costs, which depending on funding sources will often time make up a significant portion of the revenue needed for development. When people see exclusivity deals, that happens because the developer receives advanced funding for development costs, usually a significantly larger amount than one would receive from a publisher that has no platform associated with it. For smaller studios, these teams may not have any marketing expertise. While an independent marketing team may be able to help out with this, the publisher managing this relationship, especially with teams either internal or external that they have experience with, allows the studio to focus on their development efforts. That's not to say this is always sunshine and rainbows. The stories of publisher imposed deadlines, restrictions, etc. are true, usually without a lot of the inside baseball color of the why of these deadlines are required. That said, when Other People's Money comes into play, things always change. The cost of delaying a release is not small, even more so when there are physical products being made and fulfillment to be managed. That's not me being an apologist, just trying to add a bit more color to the social media talking points. To the point I think you're trying to make though, with the amount of self publishing tools available, it's definitely not the necessity that it used to be to be. However, the dynamics of whether one can do something, vs. whether they're the right ones to do so something are always nuanced, especially when it comes down to the calculus of whether the benefits and the trade offs line up.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

vermaden 2y ago

TL;DR?

Biblecampvictim 2y ago

awesome

Biblecampvictim 2y ago

Awesome

Biblecampvictim 2y ago

wooloollooo