245
Helldivers CEO speaking to PlayStation partners and Valve to undo de-listing of countries.
(twitter.com)
this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
245 points (96.6% liked)
Games
16796 readers
973 users here now
Video game news oriented community. No NanoUFO is not a bot :)
Posts.
- News oriented content (general reviews, previews or retrospectives allowed).
- Broad discussion posts (preferably not only about a specific game).
- No humor/memes etc..
- No affiliate links
- No advertising.
- No clickbait, editorialized, sensational titles. State the game in question in the title. No all caps.
- No self promotion.
- No duplicate posts, newer post will be deleted unless there is more discussion in one of the posts.
- No politics.
Comments.
- No personal attacks.
- Obey instance rules.
- No low effort comments(one or two words, emoji etc..)
- Please use spoiler tags for spoilers.
My goal is just to have a community where people can go and see what new game news is out for the day and comment on it.
Other communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was part of their contract, of course they are going to want the company they gave funding to make their game hold up their end of the bargain. Or are you suggesting it’s okay for people to just say fuck contracts and do what they want? That can’t be your point here is it?
So why would they go out of their way to undo/reverse something they agreed upon to do in the first place. They saw dollar bills after Sony let them pause it and have now essentially admitted it. And not surprisingly, people are coming out in droves to defend them.
This is going to backfire on arrowhead spectacularly in the future. It’ll take time, but they’ve fucked up royally in the end here.
This is basically no different than what CDPR did, but this is a Sony funded game so they can’t just pull the game.
Illegal contract terms have never been enforceable.
My employment contract has a non-compete clause for the express purpose of trying to depress my wages. Fortunately I can break that shitty term with impunity.
One sided contracts requiring anti-consumer behavior should be illegal too, but until then I support any way of getting out of the offensive clauses.
What was illegal about it?
It hurting your feelings doesn’t make something illegal. They agreed to terms, sucks to be them if they didn’t like it.
And even if it was illegal, getting the public to fight your battle for you is just about the shittiest thing you can do. Don’t agree to the fucking terms in the first place lmfao, or at least educate yourself before agreeing. This is wholly on arrowhead, but defend one corporation while decrying another lmfao.
Anybody ever notice how people like this chap here always seem so...angry in their replies? They'll go all in on insulting you somehow and cry if you respond in kind.
Like...tf?
It's because they are angry trolls who are already angry about something else and are choosing to take it out on others, hence why this guy decided to lash out at you without even paying attention to who he was replying to.
Where is the anger and where is the insulting?
Why are you lying instead of addressing the main point? People always resort to fallacy’s when their point is made out to be irrelevant. It seems you don’t have anything actually to add here…?
So.. what are you going on about here? I’m curious why you think people will believe your obvious lies? Sure yeah you can be mad at me for pointing out the obvious that people painfully missed, but that doesn’t make me angry or insulting lmfao.
So what was illegal about it? Or are you not going to address any points and just whine…?
My dude, that's not even the same user. Get a grip.
So…. because they aren’t the same user they can ignore the discussion that’s already happening and scream whatever they want! And I can’t defend my own points…?
Does that make any sense lol?
What’s wrong with asking them to address what the discussion is about and what’s wrong with pointing out they aren’t adding to conversation…?
Or is this just a circle jerk thread that I waltz into? Do people really detest conversations? Because that’s what I’m trying to have here, but apparently everyone just wants wants to defend arrowheads shitty way of handling contract disputes.
What was illegal about Sony enforcing their contract? Please explain instead of going off on an irrelevant tangent, can anyone answer? Or are people just going to shout without backing anything up? If someone wants to claim something’a illegal, they should be able to at least explain when asked, but I’m the asshole for asking…? Sure lmfao how does that make any sense?
Irregardless of if you're right or not, your comments are pretty aggressive. Maybe you didn't mean it, but people are reading it that way.
Imposing post-sale requirements on your customers like this PSN rug pull should be illegal.
Bravo for anyone thwarting such bullshit.
Post sale…? What are you talking about?
As explained in the first comment, arrowhead knew about this requirement from the start, it was mandatory until their servers couldn’t handle the load. Sony paused the requirement and sent their engineers out for free to deal with it. It was listed on their store page, and they had a very vague splash screen the first time you loaded the game. The splash screen should have mentioned the mandatory requirement, they knew what they were doing when they omitted that part….
They are biting the hand that feeds them, and the public is defending their greed lmfao.
Did you not read the game requirements before purchasing? The amount of people making uneducated purchases on this game is sadly way too high, is that why people are adamant about defending this? So they don’t look bad for not reading multiple warnings…?
When the PSN linkage shit the bed on release they made it optional even though text listed it as required. They also sold it in countries that don't have PSN, furthering the fact that it was optional in practice.
Changing back to the original plan is still imposing a requirement well after release even if they said it was required.
Yeah so that’s exactly where arrowhead fucked up… isn’t it…? They should have been far more upfront to begin with, but they weren’t and have now thrown Sony under the bus. They knew exactly what they were doing while they had dollar signs in their eyes., but sure defend them….
Maybe they shouldn’t have made the issue out to be nothing? Where is their personal responsibility for what they created with this fiasco? They made the splash screen to explain the issue, they didn’t provide the required info did they? Or is it somehow Sonys fault for their splash screen….?
The selling outside of areas where PSN is available, is on the publisher, which is in this case Sony.
It is my laymen understanding they are the ones that control the Steam listing that allowed it to be sold everywhere in the first place. If this is the case, then Sony opened themselves up to a shit ton of liability and blame on that part.
I'm not alleviating Arrowhead of their issue in the matter, especially after they were warned in February that this issue in particular was going to be a shit show.
Sony fanboys are a different breed man.
Why does everyone resort to shill/fanboy when someone points out something? Arrowhead ignored contract terms, how am I fanboy for pointing that out, but no one else is a shill for actively defending a corporation ignoring contract terms and bullying other corporations to get their way?
You can decry Sony for doing it than defend someone else, that’s hypocrisy and everyone is doing it here.
So, sure I’m a fanboy because I’m pointing out how arrowhead fucked up? Sure lmfao.
Yes, I would absolutely love to see small studios taking Sony's money, making a great game, and then using that as leverage to undermine dumb "platform engagement" bullshit which adds zero value to the game. Sony has been cancer to the gaming industry for a long time now, and I give less than zero fucks about whatever kind of metastisized bullshit they had planned here.
Ah so one corporation being greedy is perfectly acceptable, but not for another?
Sure that’s not hypocritical at all….
You misinterpreted the message and are now doubling down like an absolute idiot.
Was user linkage part of their contract? I haven't seen it. Have you?
If it was, I doubt such a clause is illegal, as you say.
Yes, they have admitted it a hundred times.
Arrowhead knows exactly what they were doing with the lack of communication and are now railroading steam and Sony.
The retailer holds responsibility for selling it in non-sellable markets. Steam knew of Sonys account requirements, it was part of the store page, so why would Steam allow sales in those markets? They have at least addressed that issue on their end now, but there’s still a lot to shake down from this.
For all we know, Arrowhead paid to rent Sony moderation infrastructure month-to-month six months in advance and didn't have it as part of their publishing contract and had to cancel the month and ask for a refund.
For all we know…? We know it was part of their contract for months before release lol. What else do you need to know here? And why are you trying to move the goalposts now that I answered you question irrevocably?