For a long time, I wanted to get a PS5 or “the new xbox”, whatever the heck it was named. I was in a big box store and saw what I thought was one of the new ones when they were still hard to find. But, I had no cell signal in the store, so I couldn’t look up info on it. I couldn’t verify if it was the new one, or the old one, since their stupid naming scheme was so arbitrary and hard to remember if you weren’t already in their ecosystem. I didn’t buy it, and later found the one I saw was the newest one. I ended up eventually finding and buying a PS5. I doubt I am the only one, but even if so, they did not make a sale to one person because of their stupid naming scheme. With Playstation system naming, there is no confusion.
According to SteamDB at the time of this writing, the all-time peak player count for Pac-Man Mega Tunnel Battle: Chomp Champs on PC has yet to reach the game’s 64-player quota. Only 52 players have ever been recorded to be playing the game on Steam simultaneously since its debut
I thought this might be a similar situation to Ghost of Tsushima where a PSN account is only required for online play, but Ragnarok has no multiplayer.
I don’t understand why Sony is so insistent on this. PSN is still unsupported in 170+ territories; this requirement is just going to turn most of those “would-be” buyers in those territories into pirates.
At this point I’m convinced that companies intentionally reduce access to their properties because making examples of a few pirates by making them pay millions of dollars is more profitable than legitimately selling games to a few thousand people
Would bet my life that that is why you can’t legitimately buy most old Nintendo games online
My theory is that it’s middle-mamagement nonsense. There are too many execs running around with nothing to do, so they come up with little projects to justify their jobs, and it always defaults to stuff like requiring PSN accounts that will fuck up their brand on PC long-term, but will make the numbers go up for this quarter so the one exec stands out. Or like you say, going after a pirate which generates a bunch of headlines but ultimately makes no real difference to piracy in general.
I suspect it’s more about tracking users. By requiring psn accounts they can see who also has a ps4/5 but is also buying for PC. In addition gives them more insight into the different markets, etc.
I mean, the whole point of a PSN account is to collect data on you and have greater control over their software.
Sony's not set up to do business in those countries to begin with, so they're not really losing anything to piracy from those users. They've already had to issue refunds to buyers from those regions with the Helldivers fiasco, so it's pretty clear that there is something blocking Sony from selling games in those countries. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the required account linking is why Sony can't sell to those areas.
Wait, a nameless hero will rise? Why would I want to play some no name character when I could be Guan Ping with a massive buster sword rampaging across a Chinese battlefield?
Pls Rito don’t ban the toxic players, keep them in League and Valorant you’e like the SCP foundation or some shit. Don’t just release them inters back into the real world I BEG YOU RITO PLESAE
Who defines toxic behaviour? Is that definition clearly stated to players in a way that is not hidden? Is every report case of toxic behaviour carefully reviewed by a human?
This is an interesting idea but I can totally see this being maliciously abused.
Before you first launch the game, you must agree to the Riot Games terms of service. The terms very clearly state what is toxic behaviour and are pretty easy to read through. After the tutorial and before you queue for the first time, you must agree to an in game code of conduct, which is a summary of what “[good in game conduct]” (paraphrased) is.
Although it’s not confirmed, players seem to be punished based on the volume of in-game reports and some sort of review. When you report a player, there are categories you can choose that describe their conduct. There’s also a text box where you can type out what you feel they did.
For text chat violations, this sometimes happens automatically, and even without reports. For example, if you use a racist term, you will be immediately muted in text chat for a time.
Although it hasn’t been confirmed, Riot has been trailing a system where they actually record and transcribe in game voice chat. The rumour is that an in game report will trigger an automated and/or manual review of the transcript. For most reports, you’ll get a confirmation in a few hours that the player was punished and a thanks for the feedback that will help the community.
Punishments range from a competitive queue cooldown (these get progressively longer the more you repeat the behaviour, and reset after a stretch of good behaviour) to hardware ID bans for the worst cases. A hardware ID ban prevents the player from playing on any account on a PC with the same hardware fingerprint for at least 5mo, and, in some cases, permanently closes accounts that are suspected to be theirs.
If someone bought a bunch of in-game cosmetics, this will very likely cause them to move on to another game. But, of course, the worse offenders will find a way.
And btw, the terms also make it clear that when you buy in game cosmetics, you’re actually buying a non-transferable, revocable license to use them in-game. This license can be revoked at any time; for example if you violate the terms of service.
And also, Riot’s support site gives players a way to dispute bans, just in case a player was banned by mistake.
It’s not perfect (and the game isn’t even perfect in any way… far from it) but they at least make it clear what is toxic behaviour, and have put some thought into this system for trying to handle it. I think the video/article is more about stepping up manual review and scale of punishments for the worst offenders.
x.com
Oldest