@Notorius
Well that problem is going to exist on any platform in regards to this law. People will lie to get around it.
@Class
But Sony would be able to simply automatically block those features based on the birthdate to adhere to the law.
I don't really play multiplayer and either do my children, but when I set up their child accounts ... I can disable basically all of the social aspects of it. I don't know how that works in practice, but why wouldn't that be sufficient to be compliant with the law?
Because a company running their business the way they want is comparable to those things. Genius.
Come on, let's see your average playtime. I'll be waiting.
Low likelihood that anyone responding here actually uses the service, let alone uses it that much. Whiney gamers as usual.
6% of theirs users would be affected by this.
That other "analyst" suggesting GP didn't hurt them, while waiting to the very last sentence to admit that sales were down on Xbox only... now this.
Anyone who thought literally giving away a game (and yes I know you have to pay for the service, don't be that guy) wasn't going to lower the sales... riiiighhht.
And what proof is there that MT purchases are going to cover the losses? None.
Anyone who is going to buy the MT would have paid full price for the game. Just like PC and PS.
Literally the last sentence says that sales are down on Xbox. Contradicts the whole article.
Of course it didn't hurt sales on PC and PS. It did on Xbox.
There is no proof that Gamepass subs went up to account for the loss on sales
Man you have some terrible reading comprehension/interpretation.
Them having plans for the Pro while the PS5 was in development doesn't mean they made any games any worse on purpose. How did you even get that?
What the hell are you talking about them saying ps1-4 games were bad? They literally were talking about the size of the company. Nothing about the quality of any of the product.
Yes, PS5 can last 10 years. PS3 last 12 year...
Profitable? Having increased revenue at the cost of 80+ billion in costs means jack squat.
@porkChop you're quoting rumors with that Hulst thing.
Jim was the one who pushed live service. Jim was the one who bought Firewalk.
If you have a legit gripe, it isn't review bombing.
If you change your score from a 10 to a 1 because they implemented something YOU KNEW was a requirement before you purchase it.... that is review bombing.
It isn't hard to understand the difference.
Why do gamers not understand that companies exist to make money?
You hold companies accountable by not buying the game. Helldivers 2 for example.
PSN was always a listed requirement. So you had the choice right then and there to not purchase the game. The devs temporarily removed the requirement, while also warning that it would be coming back.
When they did bring it back, that is when all the BS review bombing began.
People could have simply stopped playing the game and stopped buying it. It wou...
If Last Guardian was delayed for 12 years and Sony was collecting people's money the whole time over it... people would be pissed. So what the hell are you even talking about?
Last Guardian delay was only 5 years and they didn't take a dime from anyone.
Dear god please solo the writer of this article.
The question was horribly worried and the answer was pointless.
The question should have been "how much would a comparable PC cost?". But instead they just asked how much a maxed out PC cost, which is kind of a stupid question.
How much money have you dumped into this game? Have you been paid by the piblisher by any means?
After 30 years and like 100 games, author finally figured this out?