It’s like the Helldivers 2 incident, but for a single-player game, there’s no excuse.

  • lud@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    26
    ·
    2 months ago

    How much of a problem is it really though?

    I don’t like it but eh.

    • helenslunch@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Its a huge problem, for a variety of reasons.

      1. It means Sony won’t sell the game in countries where they don’t allow PSN accounts.

      2. Their servers suck ass. I’m literally unable to play this game, even if I wanted to, because I get one generic server error after another when trying to make an account. This is the same reason it was originally removed from Helldivers 2.

      3. Sony has a horrific track record of data breaches.

      4. They’re collecting and selling data about you for profit.

      5. Its a completely arbitrary and anti-consumer requirement that has zero benefits to you as the consumer.

      • lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        36
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago
        1. It means Sony won’t sell the game in countries where they don’t allow PSN accounts.

        That isn’t a problem for all the users that review the game though.

        1. Their servers suck ass. I’m literally unable to play this game, even if I wanted to, because I get one generic server error after another when trying to make an account. This is the same reason it was originally removed from Helldivers 2.

        I don’t know about that since I have never connected my PSN account. The only game I own which supports it is Ghost of Tsushima and I haven’t connected my account to that game.

        1. Sony has a horrific track record of data breaches.

        2. They’re collecting and selling data about you for profit.

        3. Its a completely arbitrary and anti-consumer requirement that has zero benefits to you as the consumer.

        Fair enough but I don’t think it’s actively anti consumer, I place that bar higher than this.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Publishers are trying to exclude “review bombing” because they think it’s just social manipulation, while just casually ignoring that there are actual problems with the game. Review bombing used to be something else, but now be wary of it because it’s usually them just trying to discredit actual concerns.

      • Chozo@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        You can have actual concerns without abusing the review function, though. If you don’t own and never planned to play the game and are “reviewing” it because something on the internet made you angry, then that just discredits the actual review platform as a whole.

        Reviews should be an actual review, not a tweet reply. If you haven’t actually played the game, don’t review it.

        • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          Sure - problem is that publishers are not making that distinction and calling any mass negative review (like a bad release, or game crashing bug) “review bombing”.

    • SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      How much of a problem it is will vary by how much it impacts and upsets a customer. For you, sounds like it’s not that big of an issue.

      But the fact that they pulled out the “review bombing” exscuse means that it qualifies as a problem to a significant percentage of customers.