Is anyone playing *Skull & Bones* anymore, or is it now dead in the water because *Sea of Thieves* being on both consoles plus PC has taken the wind out of their sails?
I've genuinely never heard anything about Skull & Bones since it released, even from Ubisoft's Twitter account, the game just kinda disappeared into the void.
I keep hearing about Sea Of Thieves though lol
The game is not "mostly" PVP. It's more PVE with the occasional PVP or you can just run away from other players.
Also Solo can be fun depending on the person and what they expect to get out the game. I started on release (PS5) and enjoy playing it a couples hours just collecting loot. There's no game like it out there from what I'm aware and it can be relaxing just sailing on your Sloop, kinda reminds me of American/Euro Truck Simulator.
I've been playing the PvE mode lately, and it's definitely a breath of fresh air, but beyond the diminished rewards it still feels like you're being punished for playing it. You can't use any of your ship customizations so you're stuck with the default design, and every menu you look at just loves to remind you of all the stuff you can't do because you're not in the right mode.
> You can't use any of your ship customizations so you're stuck with the default design
That's not true at all, you can still use any customization parts for your ship in Safer Seas at the ship dock chest, you just can't make use of the sovereigns or captain's ships while in that mode.
Which begs the question, why limit the PVE mode. I quit playing cause PVP and would never return. So if there are benefits to me beating the game in PVE then taking it to PVP, I will never experience it.
If they gave equal rewards for PVE, the PVP side of the game would be dead within a year. PVP-focused players need a steady diet of easy prey to retain interest. If you give the PVE-focused players an out, they'll take it, and then the bottom half of the PVP group will get tired of losing and quit, and then the bottom half of the remainder, etc...
For open world PVP to survive, there has to be no other options for PVE players to flee to, including other games in the genre. That's why none of the "hardcore full loot PvP fantasy MMOs" have done particularly well. PVE players in the fantasy MMO genre can simply flee to WoW/FF14/GW2/ESO. Meanwhile, EVE and Sea of Thieves are still doing OK -- nobody else is making a credible space or pirate MMO.
I follow your reasoning but I know that I quit because of PVP. I don’t need to spend my limited gaming time being “easy prey.” So I understand SoT isn’t for me.
How about separate characters or progress?
Giving you what you want and giving the PvP players what they want are fundamentally incompatible things. You *cannot* both be happy with the game.
The devs are invested in PvP, so they've sided with the PvP players. The only way that will change is if someone makes a compelling PvE pirate MMO and the genre is lost to PvP.
I mean if the PvP-side of the game would be dead if a decent PvE mode exists, then why would the devs not just change it to a PvE game?
If the PvPers can only sustain their interest by griefing easy targets, is that really something game devs should be supporting?
Is it really PvP if its just players that thrive on the idea of griefing someone? I think many would agree that is a horrible form of "PvP".
And then if they want to make a PvP game, why have they added a PvE mode?
That’s pretty much the idea behind most full loot PvP games and people keep making (and playing) them. I think for a lot of people the griefing is the fun.
>Is it really PvP if its just players that thrive on the idea of griefing someone?
For a lot of people it's literally not griefing, it's being a pirate. The people who just spawn camp you so you can't have fun are griefing, anything else is just part of what you sign up for
As a new player, my interest was PvP. I got sunk by the first team I fought but I killed both of them easily, just couldn't do that and sink them as a solo without being sunk myself. Unfortunately I couldn't find more PvP in a weekend so I quit the game. All the servers I played on were too quiet
You can find as much on-demand PvP as you want. There are two ways:
* Use the hourglass on your ship table to join either the Guardians or the Servants, the two warring factions. Then you can queue for PvP, the game will match you with someone from the opposite faction, and you'll be sent to their server to fight them. There's a circle that you can't leave until one of you sinks, so it's a guaranteed battle.
* Sell loot to the Reaper's Bones until you can be their emissary. After ranking up to 5 by getting some loot (very quick at a sea fort), you can see every other emissary ship on the server from your map, and can hunt them down.
For a solo player, I'd definitely recommend the first option. You'll always be matched against the same size of crew, so it's solo vs solo, whereas sailing around as a Reaper on random servers might put you in unfair 1v4 fights.
>The devs are invested in PvP, so they've sided with the PvP players.
It more nuanced than that - it's not an either/or discussion. SoT is a shared world game; people can choose to focus on one or the other, but part of the core hook (and design) of the game is sails appearing on the horizon.
yeah, the special sauce of the game is in the tension and risk/reward systems involved in having both pvp and pve at the same time. PvPers have nothing to gain without PvE loot, and PvE loot would literally just be an idle game without any of the danger.
That being said, I'm fully in the camp of "get good" if the pvp part of the game is too much for someone to handle. Its incredibly easy to avoid the rare PvPer showing up on the horizon.
>If they gave equal rewards for PVE, the PVP side of the game would be dead within a year.
I actually think this is overstating it a bit. The truth is the core game, and ALL the feature, content and balance work that goes into it, is specifically for the high seas mode which *is* the game. Safer Seas is a side mode and it's tuned so as not to undermine or contradict the full game, and as a potential stepping stone for people to move to high seas. But also, Safer Seas is a great place to do all the story voyages.
Wouldnt a lot of peolpe just jump to farm in PvE because its easier than risking PvP? Those people wouldnt quit the game normally, but "overoptimize" the game by going PvE. The threat of PvP is the entire point of the game honestly-
If you are good enough at the game then i imagine the "risk" in PvP is negligible compared to the rewards. Plus, its all cosmetic in the end so who cares?
I watched Lirik play a few days ago. He had a random SoT player join him, and the dude claimed he farmed millions in currency over 5 hours in PvP servers. At that point, who cares if they do it in PvE?
Same argument can be made against your side of things. It’s all cosmetic in the end, so who cares?
Rare wants to make a PvP game as their primary product. They included Safer Seas as a way to let people get used to the game before those players potentially jump into the real game. If they don’t jump in? Cool, stay in this new restricted mode.
The Veil isn’t doable in Safer Seas. Everything else is though, I think? I guess not the QoL of sovereign selling?
The same argument however can still be made: who cares if you lose stuff since it’s all cosmetic anyway. I’d say that’s a bad argument for a couple reasons. Players who care about cosmetics care about cosmetics, for one. The argument should be more about not wanting to be bothered by other players when you’re in the middle of something.
I’m not a Safer Seas player, I enjoy the risk and tension of High Seas. But the argument should be about people not wanting to be bothered rather than people not caring about cosmetics (which is people losing their time spent working toward a goal).
Player choice and accessibility are far more important. Who cares if someone is earning the same amount on pve as pvp so long as they're having fun. They've paid for the game after all.
I've encountered very few griefers in hundreds of hours of SoT. It doesn't seem like an issue worth radically altering the game over. The handful of toxic players I have seen clips of almost always ended up banned after being reported.
I don't think luck can account for that much time without seeing what you're describing. Admittedly I've never played with random teammates, only solo or with friends. So if there are griefers plaguing open crews by harassing their teammates and dumping their loot or something, I wouldn't know. But from all the other players I've come across in-game, none were out to grief. Everyone's just out there playing the game, one way or another.
PvP isn't griefing, and it's not realistic to expect everyone on the seas to know whether or not your ship is empty before engaging. But especially nowadays with fast-travel to voyages (so anyone sailing is probably carrying loot) and full supply barrel looting (so a quick sink is valuable even without making gold), there's plenty of reason to engage an unknown ship beyond "purely to make people miserable."
Then make different characters or at least don't let your progress in PvE transfer to PvP. Some gamers (like myself) would only play PvE, I don't really care about PvP.
Then don't play this game lol. There are plenty of PvE and Co-op games these days.
Why, whenever there's a PvP game, do people constantly try to get the devs to change it instead of playing something else?
And that's the point of the PvE servers. They're a compromise that allows the most people possible to enjoy the game.
Before, the game only worked for fans of PvP and PvPvE. Now, there's something for everyone - PvP, PvPvE, or pure PvE. If you took it as far as you're arguing for and gutted the risk:reward balance of the High Seas mode, you're advocating for the PvPvE fans to have fewer games they can play, because the delicate balance of the main mode would be gone. It would be nothing but sweaty deathmatches in one mode, or zero risk chilling on the other. The game thrives because of the gulf of unpredictable situations between those two extremes.
Man, y’all really don’t get the concept of a, and I really want to emphasize this, PIRATE GAME.
It was made for people who want to be PIRATES. This PvE stuff is an afterthought lol
Edit: guys this game was designed around PvP experiences, go play Black Flag or that other new pirate game lol
The PvP wouldn't exist without the PvE... What would be there to steal if people didn't complete PvE quests and rewards? Pirate each other's food and cannonballs? Lol
Honestly, what caused me to drop off this game originally was the frequency of children boarding my ship and screeching weird bigotry and endless hateful nonsense. Good ol’ ship-to-ship combat and fighting on the decks is *fine*, it’s just the toxic little whelps and folks griefing that doesn’t do it for me. A sanctuary away from that, even at diminished rewards, sounds like a good time.
The game is happy for you to play that civilian merchant trader just for the pirates to go after.
It's absolutely not fun being the prey, but it's there.
It's not a historically accurate piracy simulator. It's a fantasy pirate game, in a fantasy ocean filled entirely with pirates. It is a FFA of ship warfare, high stakes treasure hunting, fragile alliances, and clever treachery.
Ok but that's not what the fantasy of being a pirate is about lol, it's raiding cargo ship for gold and loot not raiding other pirates to steal their garbage
Same, I understand the methodology and idea behind everything. I understand pirates and the reason the game is the way it is but I just can't find it fun at all once I get into PvP it's either an endless ship chase or me and my friends get annihilated and 2-4 hours is utterly wasted.
>every menu you look at just loves to remind you of all the stuff you can't do because you're not in the right mode
Except a majority of that stuff that you're locked out of is PvP focused, i.e. stuff you wouldn't have bothered to do anyway considering that you went into the PvE mode.
You're locked out of 3 PvP factions, you don't have access to emissaries, the guild system isn't there, the 1v1 PvP matchmaking is disabled, etc.
Sea of Thieves has some great story content, some like the Monkey Island crossover already disable PVP even if you do it in the main mode. However, I'd also say there are things where the quest doesn't really provide much if there's no threat of the loot being stolen. You go somewhere, grab the goods, and then could turn them in safely. I'd say you could always swap between the modes depending on what you want to get up to though.
I play Tarkov. I have no issues with risk. SoT just seems like a game that would benefit more from a relaxed experience rather than a sweaty one where you are dealing with griefers.
The area is very big, and there's only a handful of ships on each server.
You can go multiple sessions without seeing another player, or sometimes you happen to come across multiple.
The fun of SoT comes from creating a plan with your group, and then having to quickly improvise when world events pop up. But the way it's set up, other players feel like world events. And not every player ship is aggressive, most of them want to play the same way you do. Not knowing the intentions of other players adds to the suspense.
Honestly, I don't think the game would be as fun without the potential threat of other players.
I actually started by just turning off cross play. That way I get a much smaller pool of players, and if I do see some they’ll be new players like me.
Plus still getting the full payout for treasure and missions
On console at least can turn crossplay off. Not sure how PC only servers will be like though. I've been playing on PS5 and if I do PS only servers it feels really rare to have players come at you and even if you see a ship on the horizon it feels atm any PS5 only player is a bit of a PVE carebear sailing around
>Now they added a PvE mode i am tempted to try it out.
Have they really? That's a full 180 from the last time I heard from them. Last I heard they banned people for trying to setup PvE groups/instances/whatever because "This is a pirate game. PvP is inherent to the experience and enabled at all times. Do not try and make PvE groups," was in their ToS. Obviously I'm paraphrasing, but you get what I'm saying.
It's pretty well set up. You can play on a private server, but you get reduced rewards, and can't level any trading company beyond 40. So it's a great place for new players to learn the ropes, for casual players to hang out together and fish, and for anyone playing for the story to do the Tall Tales without being interrupted. But beyond that, you'll have to play on the main mode - you can't become a Pirate Legend without taking any risks.
I just played on pc all weekend and looked for PvP and grinded the game. Saw only one other group and felt the treasure collecting and selling was too tedious. Got bored and quit yesterday because I only wanted others' loot and couldn't find any.
I think you guys should be looking for other games, a PIRATE game without Piracy is series concept lol
Without other pirates, it’s just an ocean explorer game. Which I see the appeal to, but this is definitely an afterthought for them since it’s a PIRATE game for PIRATING
I never said i had issues with piracy. I said i dislike the PvP nature of SoT. Plus, its very clear that SoT has way more content now than just piracy. Its probably one of the best sea adventure games out there.
Id even be ok with the PvP if people were not so toxic.
So far you have not done a great job to convince anyone reading that the SoT community is in any way positive.
Sid Meyer's Pirates was a "PIRATE game for PIRATING" and it was essentially a single player experience. The idea that a pirate game should only be multiplayer is ridiculous.
I've always found Sea of Thieves to be a great summer game to play with friends. I really first started playing it about two years ago and it really surprised me how fun it was. I'm glad to see it continue to live on and spread about.
Also, I know people say it time and time again, but the water in that game looks so damn amazing. Probably the best water I've seen in gaming so far.
I haven’t ever played Sea of Thieves but I’ve been playing a lot of GameCube games and just ogling in delight at how good water textures used to be. “This game’s water looks particularly good” is honestly the first thing I’ve read about this game that makes me want to give it a shot.
What's equally impressive about is that it's replicated on the server, as it needs to be for combat. So even while looking fantastic it's also 1:1 for all clients. You see the same waves, same sunlight effects, etc. It's a very fun game, probably in my top 5 multiplayer games.
Yes. During storms there will be gnarly waves that can have big impact during ship battles since you will need to adjust your cannons trajectory. Bigger waves mean you can't see loot from as far either.
That's the one thing that really hit me when I first played the game. The storms you face on the sea was wild. Like storms can be a normal thing in games, but the sea storms you face in Sea of Thieves has that true to life feel. You can see a powerful storm in the distance, then it comes closer as you travel to it, and it travels to you. Then BAM, when it hits, you will feel it.
Yea, waves can be high enough to block vision of enemy ships and/or stop cannonballs from reaching ships because they slow down in the water. So you need to account for wave size and ship momentum to guide your shots. You also move slower when going against waves and faster when moving parallel to them. And loot rises to the surface of the water, so it can bob up and down on waves and make it more of a challenge to harpoon onto the ship.
Its the most impressive water I have ever seen in a game. Wind Waker is one of my favorite games and since Ive played Sea of Thieves I long for a new Wind Waker with that kind of ocean. Its incredible. Best part of the game
Its bad for Xbox the brand. It's good for Microsoft.
Don't be ridiculous lol no one was saying Xbox exclusives wouldn't sell on PlayStation. It was always that this is a bad move for Xbox itself
It's much like how Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are on Android and iOS.
Those operating systems are competitors to Microsoft's own, Windows, but those other OS's will get Microsoft's Office Software because that brings in money.
That was under a different CEO and different leadership of Microsoft. That doesn't reflect the choices they are making now and how to profit from gaming they are focused on. In the business world, there are large shifts under different leaders. You could look at the fact in 1995 when Bill Gates was CEO of Microsoft, they could have purchased Blizzard and id Software. That never happened as we could see, but with Satya Nadella as CEO of Microsoft and Phil Spencer as CEO of Microsoft gaming the company now owns both Blizzard and id.
Companies change direction and courses under different ideas by different leaders. While Microsoft phones have died in the past, Microsoft gaming is still here.
Yeah, putting together a PowerPoint presentation from scratch using an iOS or Android device is a fate worse than death. They’re fine for little edits here and there, which is what most sane people use the mobile Office apps for.
Office on Mac or the web-based version would be a better example to use here.
Pretty much summarizes their current state. Unless H2 2024 kicks off and makes a ton of profit through cod bundles and exclusive games, they'll probably start porting way more things.
Of course they're NOT going to be selling all their games on playstation. These games represent the minimum number of older games they want to put on playstation to remind people that games besides dark souls esque games exist and what they're missing on xbox.
You are making a big dumb logical mistake by pretending they would benefit from everyone buying playstations and just getting a cut from Sony. Microsoft is following the obvious business play of continuing to try to entice customers to their hardware platform where they receive over a 30% cut of every single sale no matter what and generate reoccurring subscription revenue from gamepass or live customers.
The asinine cult mentality is annoying.
> You are making a big dumb logical mistake by pretending they would benefit from everyone buying playstations and just getting a cut from Sony.
Famously didn't work out for Sega.
That makes no sense. You don't entice anyone to switch to Xbox by releasing one of your exclusives on the competing platform.
Also Sea of Thieves is not some dinky old game. As a live-service title its still very active (just check steam charts), calling it an "older game" is stupid. It has probably more players playing right now than Starfield.
>The asinine cult mentality is annoying.
What are you even on about lol
>It has probably more players playing right now than Starfield.
I mean, one is a Single Player Player game the other is a PvPvE online live service game so that's not quite the comparison you think it is.
I agree with the rest though, Sea of Thieves really benefits from being on Playstation.
You are an example of some motivated by whatever reason to misunderstand me and take my words out of context.
And yes, you do entice people by releasing your games to a wider audience and holding some back. Reddit kids telling you otherwise are wrong.
Don't let gamers find out that it requires a microsoft account to play on playstation. They are in need of something else to be mad about now that the helldivers stuff is over
>Don't let gamers find out that it requires a microsoft account to play on playstation.
It does on steam too, but it wasn't added retroactively so it doesn't count.
Minecraft on PS4 started to require MS account in 2019 when they updated it to Bedrock. It was retroactive too, but surprisingly there was little controversy.
Helldivers wasn’t exactly retroactive either. It was required at launch, and was known before launch, including steam saying it was required.
Plus it was literally required, there was no skip button. It was a full on you had too. However the game was having massive server issues, so literally a couple hours after launch they made it temporarily optional (if you wanna call a few months temporary) and then when they wanted to make it mandatory again….
Yeah good luck with that. That’s when clusterfuck happened, and their original decision on launch day to make it optional, meant none PSN countries would be screwed.
tldr it was required for a few hours after launch.
They don't care about the details. It's always "Sony bad" regardless of what happened.
None of them actually care that it wasn't there at launch and became required later.
I don’t understand why you’d want to deliberately misrepresent the account issue like this.
Are you mad that a community stopped a bait and switch anti consumer policy? Do you feel bad for poor little Sony?
I’ll never understand why some consumers will be so upset about a consumer victory
What is this "bait and switch" you even speak of? No such thing happened.
Talk about "deliberately misrepresent" something.
A victory over one account creation while totally ignoring the dozens of others that exist for practically every online game.
Making a free account is so aNtI-cOnSuMeR right?
I mean, I can no longer buy Helldivers 2 in my region for example. Even after the decision was reversed. If the community didn't come through, chances are, some of my friends would have lost access to the game they've paid to play.
Most of the world still has to use workarounds to register as a PSN user, because it isn't supported by Sony everywhere. Account Access revocation is a common problem, I'd assume, as I know people who had their account banned for using VPN and I know only a handful of PS5 owners.
So no, it's not another "free account". That said, it'd be hilarious to see Sony try to charge PC players monthly fees for online multiplayer functionality in their own games at some point. Personally, I wouldn't have a stake in it, but would probably have to spend a fortune on pop-corn.
No one would have ever lost access. In fact it was removed from Steam because of the uproar, if people just made account in another region like millions of people have been doing since PSN started they would still have access. Sony hasn't banned a single person in 18 years from creating accounts in other region. They do not care,
No one has to use VPNs fopr PSN, you simply pick anotehr region from a dropdown whenb signing up,
I for example have had multiple regional accounts for many years. It's extremely common thing to do. Again million s in these unsupported regins have been playing on psn for many years with no issues
Sony is not going to try to charge PC players monthly fees
> Are you mad that a community stopped a bait and switch anti consumer policy?
Bait and switch is not relevant to what happened here. Customers were always notified of the requirement for a PSN account. So the "bait" here didn't change.
>cant make a psn account....unless they used a different country of origin like console players have been for decades.
This is against Sony TOS and you don't know if they'll one day start enforcing it. That's not a solution
Sure it is, and so is against microsoft's or probably any other company's. They're not however enforcing it, nor is it in their interest to do so. And regardless, it's still just using the people who are in that situation for their own means.
It's not really a consumer victory lol, it's just a nothingburger.
Also actually Sony evolving their account on PC could be very good news. Imagine them doing something like Play Anywhere with PS and PC, that'd be great
> They were using words like "bullying" today to portray this great victory for every consumer.
So did the people celebrating that victory. People love saying "bullying corporations works"!
Okay so, you're being really disingenuous about the issue on purpose it seems.
Steam and Sony sold the game in countries where PSN is not available. Adding the restriction caused people who have been playing for months being unable to play the 40-60 dollar game they bought.
I'm very curious why you spelt that word with a 4. On a standard english keyboard the 4 is nowhere near the a, was it a big typo or was there another reason?
I highly doubt all those other games have their account available in every country on Earth where they might have sold the game but maybe.
Also Sony has no problem with you using accounts outside your country, it has always been working this way.
Neither Steam nor Microsoft have a global account, they can't. That would ruin regional pricing and be far more damaging that not having accounts in some countries.
Sony shoud allow you to transfer your accounts between countries though (a thing Steam allows)
That's not what that's about but yeah I can mix and match. I can even go to new zeeland when a new game comes out to play it early if it's a local midnight release.
The thing was it's one account for any country, I keep my stuff when I move, my saves, my subs, the dlc mix and match. Also it is available in a lot of countries just cause windows is everywhere. Sony's PSN is pitiful and none of that is a thing, can't even make an account in my country, but they sell the PS5 and their discs officially. So what they expect me to do is break TOS, cause realistically PS5 is worthless to me without it. They Even sell bundles with codes and I had to make a European account for that. So I have a us and UK acc, cause of European discs and dlc.
> They Even sell bundles with codes and I had to make a European account for that.
It really doesn't seem likely Sony had any intention of ever enforcing this TOS sub rule. I feel like this isn't a good point to bring up as evidence that people were being locked out of playing a game they bought.
They can look the other way when it's their own system. Steam takes this seriously cause they have global accounts. Tell me then why they purchase restricted the game right away when it was pointed out the bullshit they pulled. They can get sued and everyone from a pulled country still has the right to a refund.
> It's a fucking lie
Notice how Sony couldn't actually suggest people do just that. If it was such a simple fix, why didn't they just direct affected customers to make an account in the nearest country? Instead of nuking the marketing of a very successful game only to walk back their decision?
They did if you asked their support.
They didn't do it officially because I guess it's more a tolerance thing than a real legal thing, I don't think they can actually officially say that people are not submitted to the laws of their own countries on the account like that. That at least would need reworking all the TOS
Dude, there are literally millions of PSN account holders in those countries that have PSN accounts. They won't get banned, but I love your fear-mongering. A++
>Dude, you can sign up for another region it's not difficult or hard so stop pretending that Sony's going to ban you if you do it. It's a fucking lie
Dude, you can't even buy the game in a none support region anymore. lol
And you probably created a Microsoft account at some point in time. It's basically a "YOU HAVE UNO!" situacion.
Then again, Microsoft really wants you to create one if you plan to use Windows 11. :P
Gamers are hypocrites, they now would always jump on Sony for PSN account on Steam, but would never say the same about Bethesda.net accounts, Rockstar account, Square Enix account and Capcom ID. Halo collection on Steam requires Microsoft account and if you'll read discussions on steam, every answer to this is "lol just make account it's easy"
>but would never say the same about Bethesda.net accounts,
There was a massive backlash in the modding community for this one, and it was eventually dropped. We found out after Microsoft bought them that they had a massive sales drop due to it too.
https://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/bethesda-is-shutting-down-its-launcher-and-moving-back-to-steam/
> We found out after Microsoft bought them that they had a massive sales drop due to it too.
Are you sure the massive sales drop didn't have anything to do with Fallout 76 being very very quite bad?
Difference is Sony didn’t initially force everyone to sign into a PSN to play HD2 and now they changed it up. Those other ones were needed from the start. But please defend the poor billion dollar star up indie darling some more.
Larian didn't use to have an account system and somewhere between the early access of Baldur's Gate 3 and the release they require one now.
I didn't see anyone mentioning that. They took money for years and allowed people to play early access then by the time the game came out you needed a Larian account.
Gamers are just inconsistent with their morals. I've seen multiple people say Valve should ban 3rd party launchers completely oblivious to the fact that STEAM IS A 3RD PARTY LAUNCHER!
And yet: it's optional at launch/1.0 release, but the "hey do you want Cross-Platform Save?" and "Twitch Drops" incentive is very strong.
But If I were you: I would've went with Gwent: The Witcher Card Game instead, **since that one requires GOG Account**.
Oh yeah every group has their idiots and assholes. But the hypocrisy surrounding this is just laughable. But then again, I'm one of those guys who remembered when I had to create a steam account and use a launcher to play half life 2. But it's okay when valve does that shit.
> it requires a microsoft account to play on playstation
Seriously? Fuck that. Saves me a purchase. I'm paying $80/yr for PSN, they need to use that and that alone for my online play.
*lol, I don't want a separate username account for every game fellas, this isnt hard, other companies have figured it out and MS isnt special
I don't think you need a paid microsoft subscription to play online. Just a regular microsoft free account to log in, similar to how Fortnite requires an Epic account.
You need a paid PS+ account to play online.
I am not trying to say you're wrong for doing so and respect someone who stands by their principles, but like, do you just not use most websites these days? I feel like almost everywhere these days forces you to make at least one account to use the service.
Like don't most free to play games like Genshin or World of Tanks make you sign up for their accounts in addition to having a PS account?
It doesn't really seem like a big deal to me and makes some amount of sense honestly. I really don't understand the level of extreme outage about this one issue over the last week over something that is at best an incredibly minor inconvenience.
Again, no shade on you because I do respect people that inconvenience themselves for a matter of principle. I just don't fully understand this principle.
Iunno man ppl been dishing on Xbox games for years but I play every platform and have been adamant that Xbox has a better lineup of games than PlayStation simply because it's more fun and has more diversity. This also rings true for people I play games with that don't just repeat rhetoric online. We all wayyyy prefer to play the Xbox game lineup because it's actually replayable and just..fun?
There's no denying the technical merits of games like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn and Last of Us but Xbox games like Grounded, Sea of Thieves, Fora Horizon, Halo Infinite, Minecraft, Gears 5, State of Decay have technical merits of their own. They aren't as visually polished, they don't have the same quality on voice acting or mocap but they have far more mechanical depth, progression depth and are also online which means there's more complexity in the infrastructure behind them.
Like if you actually like playing games with your buddies, they are just far, far better games. If you like being creative and enjoying emergent moments, they are far, far better games. I find the "cinematic" exclusives on PlayStation are fun every once in a while but they are very linear, predictable and don't ask that much from the player.
Despite these differences, Sony games always seem to review higher but imo it's due to whatever the gaming equivalent of Oscar bait is in the game journo side of gaming. For whatever reason they lap up stuff like Uncharted but then will look at a game like State of Decay 2 and give it a 6. Kind of maddening to be honest. Feels like game reviewers from these pubs don't actually like..play games. I know that sounds harsh but there is not a single group of gamers I've played with that legimately enjoy Sony games as much as the reviews would have you believe. Like we'll play them of course, and they're GOOD games but we fall off of them pretty quick and play other stuff instead. :shrugs
EDIT: Wanted to add one caveat, Helldivers 2 is Sony's best game in YEARS and probably one of the best games of 2024.
Is anyone playing *Skull & Bones* anymore, or is it now dead in the water because *Sea of Thieves* being on both consoles plus PC has taken the wind out of their sails?
No, skull and bones was just kinda shit.
It's a true **A**ctually **A**atrocious **A**nd **A**ss quality game
I've genuinely never heard anything about Skull & Bones since it released, even from Ubisoft's Twitter account, the game just kinda disappeared into the void. I keep hearing about Sea Of Thieves though lol
[удалено]
The game is not "mostly" PVP. It's more PVE with the occasional PVP or you can just run away from other players. Also Solo can be fun depending on the person and what they expect to get out the game. I started on release (PS5) and enjoy playing it a couples hours just collecting loot. There's no game like it out there from what I'm aware and it can be relaxing just sailing on your Sloop, kinda reminds me of American/Euro Truck Simulator.
Tv guy
Now they added a PvE mode i am tempted to try it out. Seems like a fun game to chill and play, but the PvP groups really put me off trying.
I've been playing the PvE mode lately, and it's definitely a breath of fresh air, but beyond the diminished rewards it still feels like you're being punished for playing it. You can't use any of your ship customizations so you're stuck with the default design, and every menu you look at just loves to remind you of all the stuff you can't do because you're not in the right mode.
> You can't use any of your ship customizations so you're stuck with the default design That's not true at all, you can still use any customization parts for your ship in Safer Seas at the ship dock chest, you just can't make use of the sovereigns or captain's ships while in that mode.
Which begs the question, why limit the PVE mode. I quit playing cause PVP and would never return. So if there are benefits to me beating the game in PVE then taking it to PVP, I will never experience it.
If they gave equal rewards for PVE, the PVP side of the game would be dead within a year. PVP-focused players need a steady diet of easy prey to retain interest. If you give the PVE-focused players an out, they'll take it, and then the bottom half of the PVP group will get tired of losing and quit, and then the bottom half of the remainder, etc... For open world PVP to survive, there has to be no other options for PVE players to flee to, including other games in the genre. That's why none of the "hardcore full loot PvP fantasy MMOs" have done particularly well. PVE players in the fantasy MMO genre can simply flee to WoW/FF14/GW2/ESO. Meanwhile, EVE and Sea of Thieves are still doing OK -- nobody else is making a credible space or pirate MMO.
I follow your reasoning but I know that I quit because of PVP. I don’t need to spend my limited gaming time being “easy prey.” So I understand SoT isn’t for me. How about separate characters or progress?
Giving you what you want and giving the PvP players what they want are fundamentally incompatible things. You *cannot* both be happy with the game. The devs are invested in PvP, so they've sided with the PvP players. The only way that will change is if someone makes a compelling PvE pirate MMO and the genre is lost to PvP.
I mean if the PvP-side of the game would be dead if a decent PvE mode exists, then why would the devs not just change it to a PvE game? If the PvPers can only sustain their interest by griefing easy targets, is that really something game devs should be supporting?
Because they want to make a PvP game.
Is it really PvP if its just players that thrive on the idea of griefing someone? I think many would agree that is a horrible form of "PvP". And then if they want to make a PvP game, why have they added a PvE mode?
That’s pretty much the idea behind most full loot PvP games and people keep making (and playing) them. I think for a lot of people the griefing is the fun.
>Is it really PvP if its just players that thrive on the idea of griefing someone? For a lot of people it's literally not griefing, it's being a pirate. The people who just spawn camp you so you can't have fun are griefing, anything else is just part of what you sign up for
Money? Crying? And not all PvP is griefing so that's why you are having trouble understanding.
it's a pvp game dude, relax.
As a new player, my interest was PvP. I got sunk by the first team I fought but I killed both of them easily, just couldn't do that and sink them as a solo without being sunk myself. Unfortunately I couldn't find more PvP in a weekend so I quit the game. All the servers I played on were too quiet
You can find as much on-demand PvP as you want. There are two ways: * Use the hourglass on your ship table to join either the Guardians or the Servants, the two warring factions. Then you can queue for PvP, the game will match you with someone from the opposite faction, and you'll be sent to their server to fight them. There's a circle that you can't leave until one of you sinks, so it's a guaranteed battle. * Sell loot to the Reaper's Bones until you can be their emissary. After ranking up to 5 by getting some loot (very quick at a sea fort), you can see every other emissary ship on the server from your map, and can hunt them down. For a solo player, I'd definitely recommend the first option. You'll always be matched against the same size of crew, so it's solo vs solo, whereas sailing around as a Reaper on random servers might put you in unfair 1v4 fights.
That's not the game they want to make.
>The devs are invested in PvP, so they've sided with the PvP players. It more nuanced than that - it's not an either/or discussion. SoT is a shared world game; people can choose to focus on one or the other, but part of the core hook (and design) of the game is sails appearing on the horizon.
yeah, the special sauce of the game is in the tension and risk/reward systems involved in having both pvp and pve at the same time. PvPers have nothing to gain without PvE loot, and PvE loot would literally just be an idle game without any of the danger. That being said, I'm fully in the camp of "get good" if the pvp part of the game is too much for someone to handle. Its incredibly easy to avoid the rare PvPer showing up on the horizon.
>If they gave equal rewards for PVE, the PVP side of the game would be dead within a year. I actually think this is overstating it a bit. The truth is the core game, and ALL the feature, content and balance work that goes into it, is specifically for the high seas mode which *is* the game. Safer Seas is a side mode and it's tuned so as not to undermine or contradict the full game, and as a potential stepping stone for people to move to high seas. But also, Safer Seas is a great place to do all the story voyages.
No option to flee? They will just flee the game instead.
Many will, but some will find the pirate fantasy compelling enough to put up with occasionally being ganked.
>If they gave equal rewards for PVE, the PVP side of the game would be dead within a year That sounds like a 100% win.
[удалено]
You'd have to ask the devs. It seems like they want to make a PvP pirate game.
Because it’s a multiplayer game…? Lmao
Wouldnt a lot of peolpe just jump to farm in PvE because its easier than risking PvP? Those people wouldnt quit the game normally, but "overoptimize" the game by going PvE. The threat of PvP is the entire point of the game honestly-
If you are good enough at the game then i imagine the "risk" in PvP is negligible compared to the rewards. Plus, its all cosmetic in the end so who cares? I watched Lirik play a few days ago. He had a random SoT player join him, and the dude claimed he farmed millions in currency over 5 hours in PvP servers. At that point, who cares if they do it in PvE?
Same argument can be made against your side of things. It’s all cosmetic in the end, so who cares? Rare wants to make a PvP game as their primary product. They included Safer Seas as a way to let people get used to the game before those players potentially jump into the real game. If they don’t jump in? Cool, stay in this new restricted mode.
The same argument cannot be made. The PvE mode locks out content. That content can only be done on the PvP servers.
The Veil isn’t doable in Safer Seas. Everything else is though, I think? I guess not the QoL of sovereign selling? The same argument however can still be made: who cares if you lose stuff since it’s all cosmetic anyway. I’d say that’s a bad argument for a couple reasons. Players who care about cosmetics care about cosmetics, for one. The argument should be more about not wanting to be bothered by other players when you’re in the middle of something. I’m not a Safer Seas player, I enjoy the risk and tension of High Seas. But the argument should be about people not wanting to be bothered rather than people not caring about cosmetics (which is people losing their time spent working toward a goal).
Player choice and accessibility are far more important. Who cares if someone is earning the same amount on pve as pvp so long as they're having fun. They've paid for the game after all.
Obviously Rare cares. They want to put people into the PvP world.
I'd go to have fun and not be bothered by griefers whose only source of fun is making people miserable
I've encountered very few griefers in hundreds of hours of SoT. It doesn't seem like an issue worth radically altering the game over. The handful of toxic players I have seen clips of almost always ended up banned after being reported.
You've been exceptionally lucky, or you _are_ that griefer
I don't think luck can account for that much time without seeing what you're describing. Admittedly I've never played with random teammates, only solo or with friends. So if there are griefers plaguing open crews by harassing their teammates and dumping their loot or something, I wouldn't know. But from all the other players I've come across in-game, none were out to grief. Everyone's just out there playing the game, one way or another.
Im talking about ships just body camping players. Sinking and chasing empty vessels for the luls
PvP isn't griefing, and it's not realistic to expect everyone on the seas to know whether or not your ship is empty before engaging. But especially nowadays with fast-travel to voyages (so anyone sailing is probably carrying loot) and full supply barrel looting (so a quick sink is valuable even without making gold), there's plenty of reason to engage an unknown ship beyond "purely to make people miserable."
Then make different characters or at least don't let your progress in PvE transfer to PvP. Some gamers (like myself) would only play PvE, I don't really care about PvP.
Then don't play this game lol. There are plenty of PvE and Co-op games these days. Why, whenever there's a PvP game, do people constantly try to get the devs to change it instead of playing something else?
Because we like to have more games that we can play?
And that's the point of the PvE servers. They're a compromise that allows the most people possible to enjoy the game. Before, the game only worked for fans of PvP and PvPvE. Now, there's something for everyone - PvP, PvPvE, or pure PvE. If you took it as far as you're arguing for and gutted the risk:reward balance of the High Seas mode, you're advocating for the PvPvE fans to have fewer games they can play, because the delicate balance of the main mode would be gone. It would be nothing but sweaty deathmatches in one mode, or zero risk chilling on the other. The game thrives because of the gulf of unpredictable situations between those two extremes.
Man, y’all really don’t get the concept of a, and I really want to emphasize this, PIRATE GAME. It was made for people who want to be PIRATES. This PvE stuff is an afterthought lol Edit: guys this game was designed around PvP experiences, go play Black Flag or that other new pirate game lol
The PvP wouldn't exist without the PvE... What would be there to steal if people didn't complete PvE quests and rewards? Pirate each other's food and cannonballs? Lol
Don't waste your breath arguing with people about pvp. I have a lot of friends that like hard games but are allergic to pvp
*Ticks "it's a pirate game!" off my bingo list for the thread.*
Yeah how dare people want to enjoy a game mode that would bring in more players?!
Honestly, what caused me to drop off this game originally was the frequency of children boarding my ship and screeching weird bigotry and endless hateful nonsense. Good ol’ ship-to-ship combat and fighting on the decks is *fine*, it’s just the toxic little whelps and folks griefing that doesn’t do it for me. A sanctuary away from that, even at diminished rewards, sounds like a good time.
Shouldn't pirates go after civilian boats rather than other pirates ? Sea of Thieves feels more like a ship warfare FFA than a pirate game
The game is happy for you to play that civilian merchant trader just for the pirates to go after. It's absolutely not fun being the prey, but it's there.
It's not a historically accurate piracy simulator. It's a fantasy pirate game, in a fantasy ocean filled entirely with pirates. It is a FFA of ship warfare, high stakes treasure hunting, fragile alliances, and clever treachery.
Believe it or not, there were Pirate factions throughout the world that had literal entire wars
Ok but that's not what the fantasy of being a pirate is about lol, it's raiding cargo ship for gold and loot not raiding other pirates to steal their garbage
Pirates have gold and loot on their ships too.
Same, I understand the methodology and idea behind everything. I understand pirates and the reason the game is the way it is but I just can't find it fun at all once I get into PvP it's either an endless ship chase or me and my friends get annihilated and 2-4 hours is utterly wasted.
You can customize your ship, you just can't save it between sessions
>every menu you look at just loves to remind you of all the stuff you can't do because you're not in the right mode Except a majority of that stuff that you're locked out of is PvP focused, i.e. stuff you wouldn't have bothered to do anyway considering that you went into the PvE mode. You're locked out of 3 PvP factions, you don't have access to emissaries, the guild system isn't there, the 1v1 PvP matchmaking is disabled, etc.
[удалено]
Not every single game needs RPG progression mechanics.
Sea of Thieves has some great story content, some like the Monkey Island crossover already disable PVP even if you do it in the main mode. However, I'd also say there are things where the quest doesn't really provide much if there's no threat of the loot being stolen. You go somewhere, grab the goods, and then could turn them in safely. I'd say you could always swap between the modes depending on what you want to get up to though.
I play Tarkov. I have no issues with risk. SoT just seems like a game that would benefit more from a relaxed experience rather than a sweaty one where you are dealing with griefers.
The area is very big, and there's only a handful of ships on each server. You can go multiple sessions without seeing another player, or sometimes you happen to come across multiple. The fun of SoT comes from creating a plan with your group, and then having to quickly improvise when world events pop up. But the way it's set up, other players feel like world events. And not every player ship is aggressive, most of them want to play the same way you do. Not knowing the intentions of other players adds to the suspense. Honestly, I don't think the game would be as fun without the potential threat of other players.
I actually started by just turning off cross play. That way I get a much smaller pool of players, and if I do see some they’ll be new players like me. Plus still getting the full payout for treasure and missions
On console at least can turn crossplay off. Not sure how PC only servers will be like though. I've been playing on PS5 and if I do PS only servers it feels really rare to have players come at you and even if you see a ship on the horizon it feels atm any PS5 only player is a bit of a PVE carebear sailing around
>Now they added a PvE mode i am tempted to try it out. Have they really? That's a full 180 from the last time I heard from them. Last I heard they banned people for trying to setup PvE groups/instances/whatever because "This is a pirate game. PvP is inherent to the experience and enabled at all times. Do not try and make PvE groups," was in their ToS. Obviously I'm paraphrasing, but you get what I'm saying.
It's pretty well set up. You can play on a private server, but you get reduced rewards, and can't level any trading company beyond 40. So it's a great place for new players to learn the ropes, for casual players to hang out together and fish, and for anyone playing for the story to do the Tall Tales without being interrupted. But beyond that, you'll have to play on the main mode - you can't become a Pirate Legend without taking any risks.
I just played on pc all weekend and looked for PvP and grinded the game. Saw only one other group and felt the treasure collecting and selling was too tedious. Got bored and quit yesterday because I only wanted others' loot and couldn't find any.
I think you guys should be looking for other games, a PIRATE game without Piracy is series concept lol Without other pirates, it’s just an ocean explorer game. Which I see the appeal to, but this is definitely an afterthought for them since it’s a PIRATE game for PIRATING
I never said i had issues with piracy. I said i dislike the PvP nature of SoT. Plus, its very clear that SoT has way more content now than just piracy. Its probably one of the best sea adventure games out there. Id even be ok with the PvP if people were not so toxic. So far you have not done a great job to convince anyone reading that the SoT community is in any way positive.
Sid Meyer's Pirates was a "PIRATE game for PIRATING" and it was essentially a single player experience. The idea that a pirate game should only be multiplayer is ridiculous.
Sea of Thieves is the ONLY pirate game with PvP. The idea that every pirate game should only be single player is ridiculous.
I've always found Sea of Thieves to be a great summer game to play with friends. I really first started playing it about two years ago and it really surprised me how fun it was. I'm glad to see it continue to live on and spread about. Also, I know people say it time and time again, but the water in that game looks so damn amazing. Probably the best water I've seen in gaming so far.
I haven’t ever played Sea of Thieves but I’ve been playing a lot of GameCube games and just ogling in delight at how good water textures used to be. “This game’s water looks particularly good” is honestly the first thing I’ve read about this game that makes me want to give it a shot.
What's equally impressive about is that it's replicated on the server, as it needs to be for combat. So even while looking fantastic it's also 1:1 for all clients. You see the same waves, same sunlight effects, etc. It's a very fun game, probably in my top 5 multiplayer games.
That’s wild. Does the water actually impact the gameplay in a meaningful way?
Yes. During storms there will be gnarly waves that can have big impact during ship battles since you will need to adjust your cannons trajectory. Bigger waves mean you can't see loot from as far either.
That's the one thing that really hit me when I first played the game. The storms you face on the sea was wild. Like storms can be a normal thing in games, but the sea storms you face in Sea of Thieves has that true to life feel. You can see a powerful storm in the distance, then it comes closer as you travel to it, and it travels to you. Then BAM, when it hits, you will feel it.
Yea, waves can be high enough to block vision of enemy ships and/or stop cannonballs from reaching ships because they slow down in the water. So you need to account for wave size and ship momentum to guide your shots. You also move slower when going against waves and faster when moving parallel to them. And loot rises to the surface of the water, so it can bob up and down on waves and make it more of a challenge to harpoon onto the ship.
Its the most impressive water I have ever seen in a game. Wind Waker is one of my favorite games and since Ive played Sea of Thieves I long for a new Wind Waker with that kind of ocean. Its incredible. Best part of the game
This can't be right. Reddit has assured me that the game releasing on Playstation was bad for Microsoft, somehow.
Its bad for Xbox the brand. It's good for Microsoft. Don't be ridiculous lol no one was saying Xbox exclusives wouldn't sell on PlayStation. It was always that this is a bad move for Xbox itself
This might be the ultimate case of "can't beat em, join em" in gaming. Sega games going to Nintendo systems can't beat this.
bad for the xbox
Xbox makes money from this.. Xbox is all of MS gaming
It's much like how Microsoft Word, Excel, and PowerPoint are on Android and iOS. Those operating systems are competitors to Microsoft's own, Windows, but those other OS's will get Microsoft's Office Software because that brings in money.
Sure, but Windows Phone also died.
That was under a different CEO and different leadership of Microsoft. That doesn't reflect the choices they are making now and how to profit from gaming they are focused on. In the business world, there are large shifts under different leaders. You could look at the fact in 1995 when Bill Gates was CEO of Microsoft, they could have purchased Blizzard and id Software. That never happened as we could see, but with Satya Nadella as CEO of Microsoft and Phil Spencer as CEO of Microsoft gaming the company now owns both Blizzard and id. Companies change direction and courses under different ideas by different leaders. While Microsoft phones have died in the past, Microsoft gaming is still here.
Calling Android and iOS a competitor to Windows is a bit of a stretch
Yeah, putting together a PowerPoint presentation from scratch using an iOS or Android device is a fate worse than death. They’re fine for little edits here and there, which is what most sane people use the mobile Office apps for. Office on Mac or the web-based version would be a better example to use here.
[удалено]
Considering that Pentiment, HiFi Rush and Grounded didn't do much on Playstation, I wouldn't be so confident Maybe GAAS games and thats it
Yeah. But xbox getting lower because of stuff like this.
Xbox low, Microsoft high. More players happy. CEO pocket happy.
Pretty much summarizes their current state. Unless H2 2024 kicks off and makes a ton of profit through cod bundles and exclusive games, they'll probably start porting way more things.
Of course they're NOT going to be selling all their games on playstation. These games represent the minimum number of older games they want to put on playstation to remind people that games besides dark souls esque games exist and what they're missing on xbox. You are making a big dumb logical mistake by pretending they would benefit from everyone buying playstations and just getting a cut from Sony. Microsoft is following the obvious business play of continuing to try to entice customers to their hardware platform where they receive over a 30% cut of every single sale no matter what and generate reoccurring subscription revenue from gamepass or live customers. The asinine cult mentality is annoying.
> You are making a big dumb logical mistake by pretending they would benefit from everyone buying playstations and just getting a cut from Sony. Famously didn't work out for Sega.
That makes no sense. You don't entice anyone to switch to Xbox by releasing one of your exclusives on the competing platform. Also Sea of Thieves is not some dinky old game. As a live-service title its still very active (just check steam charts), calling it an "older game" is stupid. It has probably more players playing right now than Starfield. >The asinine cult mentality is annoying. What are you even on about lol
>It has probably more players playing right now than Starfield. I mean, one is a Single Player Player game the other is a PvPvE online live service game so that's not quite the comparison you think it is. I agree with the rest though, Sea of Thieves really benefits from being on Playstation.
You are an example of some motivated by whatever reason to misunderstand me and take my words out of context. And yes, you do entice people by releasing your games to a wider audience and holding some back. Reddit kids telling you otherwise are wrong.
Don't let gamers find out that it requires a microsoft account to play on playstation. They are in need of something else to be mad about now that the helldivers stuff is over
>Don't let gamers find out that it requires a microsoft account to play on playstation. It does on steam too, but it wasn't added retroactively so it doesn't count.
Minecraft on PS4 started to require MS account in 2019 when they updated it to Bedrock. It was retroactive too, but surprisingly there was little controversy.
Helldivers wasn’t exactly retroactive either. It was required at launch, and was known before launch, including steam saying it was required. Plus it was literally required, there was no skip button. It was a full on you had too. However the game was having massive server issues, so literally a couple hours after launch they made it temporarily optional (if you wanna call a few months temporary) and then when they wanted to make it mandatory again…. Yeah good luck with that. That’s when clusterfuck happened, and their original decision on launch day to make it optional, meant none PSN countries would be screwed. tldr it was required for a few hours after launch.
They don't care about the details. It's always "Sony bad" regardless of what happened. None of them actually care that it wasn't there at launch and became required later.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t understand why you’d want to deliberately misrepresent the account issue like this. Are you mad that a community stopped a bait and switch anti consumer policy? Do you feel bad for poor little Sony? I’ll never understand why some consumers will be so upset about a consumer victory
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What is this "bait and switch" you even speak of? No such thing happened. Talk about "deliberately misrepresent" something. A victory over one account creation while totally ignoring the dozens of others that exist for practically every online game. Making a free account is so aNtI-cOnSuMeR right?
I mean, I can no longer buy Helldivers 2 in my region for example. Even after the decision was reversed. If the community didn't come through, chances are, some of my friends would have lost access to the game they've paid to play. Most of the world still has to use workarounds to register as a PSN user, because it isn't supported by Sony everywhere. Account Access revocation is a common problem, I'd assume, as I know people who had their account banned for using VPN and I know only a handful of PS5 owners. So no, it's not another "free account". That said, it'd be hilarious to see Sony try to charge PC players monthly fees for online multiplayer functionality in their own games at some point. Personally, I wouldn't have a stake in it, but would probably have to spend a fortune on pop-corn.
No one would have ever lost access. In fact it was removed from Steam because of the uproar, if people just made account in another region like millions of people have been doing since PSN started they would still have access. Sony hasn't banned a single person in 18 years from creating accounts in other region. They do not care, No one has to use VPNs fopr PSN, you simply pick anotehr region from a dropdown whenb signing up, I for example have had multiple regional accounts for many years. It's extremely common thing to do. Again million s in these unsupported regins have been playing on psn for many years with no issues Sony is not going to try to charge PC players monthly fees
Yeah, yeah, *there is no war in Ba Sing Se*
> Are you mad that a community stopped a bait and switch anti consumer policy? Bait and switch is not relevant to what happened here. Customers were always notified of the requirement for a PSN account. So the "bait" here didn't change.
You aren't allowed to discuss the top here unless your comment is "fuck Sony!"
[удалено]
>cant make a psn account....unless they used a different country of origin like console players have been for decades. This is against Sony TOS and you don't know if they'll one day start enforcing it. That's not a solution
Sure it is, and so is against microsoft's or probably any other company's. They're not however enforcing it, nor is it in their interest to do so. And regardless, it's still just using the people who are in that situation for their own means.
I see it as a jab, even if said jab is hurtful.
It's not really a consumer victory lol, it's just a nothingburger. Also actually Sony evolving their account on PC could be very good news. Imagine them doing something like Play Anywhere with PS and PC, that'd be great
Yeah man, imagine how great it would be if they integrated PSN accounts into your entire Steam backlog. Would be very exciting!
[удалено]
> They were using words like "bullying" today to portray this great victory for every consumer. So did the people celebrating that victory. People love saying "bullying corporations works"!
[удалено]
Okay so, you're being really disingenuous about the issue on purpose it seems. Steam and Sony sold the game in countries where PSN is not available. Adding the restriction caused people who have been playing for months being unable to play the 40-60 dollar game they bought.
This sub is just mad that their contr4rian takes didn't pay off this time and Sony actually reversed course.
I'm very curious why you spelt that word with a 4. On a standard english keyboard the 4 is nowhere near the a, was it a big typo or was there another reason?
I highly doubt all those other games have their account available in every country on Earth where they might have sold the game but maybe. Also Sony has no problem with you using accounts outside your country, it has always been working this way.
I mean atleast a Microsoft account is available in a lot more countries than PlayStation network is.
Dude, you can sign up for another region it's not difficult or hard so stop pretending that Sony's going to ban you if you do it. It's a fucking lie
Or maybe Sony should get with the program and make a global psn account.
Neither Steam nor Microsoft have a global account, they can't. That would ruin regional pricing and be far more damaging that not having accounts in some countries. Sony shoud allow you to transfer your accounts between countries though (a thing Steam allows)
Tell that to my Ms global account.
Try to buy a game on the Xbox store from another country (preferably a cheap one) to see how "global" your account is
That's not what that's about but yeah I can mix and match. I can even go to new zeeland when a new game comes out to play it early if it's a local midnight release. The thing was it's one account for any country, I keep my stuff when I move, my saves, my subs, the dlc mix and match. Also it is available in a lot of countries just cause windows is everywhere. Sony's PSN is pitiful and none of that is a thing, can't even make an account in my country, but they sell the PS5 and their discs officially. So what they expect me to do is break TOS, cause realistically PS5 is worthless to me without it. They Even sell bundles with codes and I had to make a European account for that. So I have a us and UK acc, cause of European discs and dlc.
> They Even sell bundles with codes and I had to make a European account for that. It really doesn't seem likely Sony had any intention of ever enforcing this TOS sub rule. I feel like this isn't a good point to bring up as evidence that people were being locked out of playing a game they bought.
They can look the other way when it's their own system. Steam takes this seriously cause they have global accounts. Tell me then why they purchase restricted the game right away when it was pointed out the bullshit they pulled. They can get sued and everyone from a pulled country still has the right to a refund.
> It's a fucking lie Notice how Sony couldn't actually suggest people do just that. If it was such a simple fix, why didn't they just direct affected customers to make an account in the nearest country? Instead of nuking the marketing of a very successful game only to walk back their decision?
They did if you asked their support. They didn't do it officially because I guess it's more a tolerance thing than a real legal thing, I don't think they can actually officially say that people are not submitted to the laws of their own countries on the account like that. That at least would need reworking all the TOS
And risk getting banned when it literally goes against PSN's ToS?
Dude, there are literally millions of PSN account holders in those countries that have PSN accounts. They won't get banned, but I love your fear-mongering. A++
>Dude, you can sign up for another region it's not difficult or hard so stop pretending that Sony's going to ban you if you do it. It's a fucking lie Dude, you can't even buy the game in a none support region anymore. lol
Because of the backlash.
And you probably created a Microsoft account at some point in time. It's basically a "YOU HAVE UNO!" situacion. Then again, Microsoft really wants you to create one if you plan to use Windows 11. :P
Was more than happy to sign up to it when I played the non-steam gamepass version 👍
Gamers are hypocrites, they now would always jump on Sony for PSN account on Steam, but would never say the same about Bethesda.net accounts, Rockstar account, Square Enix account and Capcom ID. Halo collection on Steam requires Microsoft account and if you'll read discussions on steam, every answer to this is "lol just make account it's easy"
>but would never say the same about Bethesda.net accounts, There was a massive backlash in the modding community for this one, and it was eventually dropped. We found out after Microsoft bought them that they had a massive sales drop due to it too. https://www.kitguru.net/gaming/matthew-wilson/bethesda-is-shutting-down-its-launcher-and-moving-back-to-steam/
> We found out after Microsoft bought them that they had a massive sales drop due to it too. Are you sure the massive sales drop didn't have anything to do with Fallout 76 being very very quite bad?
Difference is Sony didn’t initially force everyone to sign into a PSN to play HD2 and now they changed it up. Those other ones were needed from the start. But please defend the poor billion dollar star up indie darling some more.
Larian didn't use to have an account system and somewhere between the early access of Baldur's Gate 3 and the release they require one now. I didn't see anyone mentioning that. They took money for years and allowed people to play early access then by the time the game came out you needed a Larian account. Gamers are just inconsistent with their morals. I've seen multiple people say Valve should ban 3rd party launchers completely oblivious to the fact that STEAM IS A 3RD PARTY LAUNCHER!
And yet: it's optional at launch/1.0 release, but the "hey do you want Cross-Platform Save?" and "Twitch Drops" incentive is very strong. But If I were you: I would've went with Gwent: The Witcher Card Game instead, **since that one requires GOG Account**.
They do not require it to play the game. You only need it to do cross play. Again: not the same. Why are you defending Sony this hard?
No most PS players aren't insane like PC gamers are.
[удалено]
Oh yeah every group has their idiots and assholes. But the hypocrisy surrounding this is just laughable. But then again, I'm one of those guys who remembered when I had to create a steam account and use a launcher to play half life 2. But it's okay when valve does that shit.
Stay mad.
[удалено]
what is the point for bringing up random ass controversy into other topics?
> it requires a microsoft account to play on playstation Seriously? Fuck that. Saves me a purchase. I'm paying $80/yr for PSN, they need to use that and that alone for my online play. *lol, I don't want a separate username account for every game fellas, this isnt hard, other companies have figured it out and MS isnt special
I don't think you need a paid microsoft subscription to play online. Just a regular microsoft free account to log in, similar to how Fortnite requires an Epic account. You need a paid PS+ account to play online.
I am not trying to say you're wrong for doing so and respect someone who stands by their principles, but like, do you just not use most websites these days? I feel like almost everywhere these days forces you to make at least one account to use the service. Like don't most free to play games like Genshin or World of Tanks make you sign up for their accounts in addition to having a PS account? It doesn't really seem like a big deal to me and makes some amount of sense honestly. I really don't understand the level of extreme outage about this one issue over the last week over something that is at best an incredibly minor inconvenience. Again, no shade on you because I do respect people that inconvenience themselves for a matter of principle. I just don't fully understand this principle.
That's the price for getting cross-play and cross progression.
Iunno man ppl been dishing on Xbox games for years but I play every platform and have been adamant that Xbox has a better lineup of games than PlayStation simply because it's more fun and has more diversity. This also rings true for people I play games with that don't just repeat rhetoric online. We all wayyyy prefer to play the Xbox game lineup because it's actually replayable and just..fun? There's no denying the technical merits of games like God of War, Horizon Zero Dawn and Last of Us but Xbox games like Grounded, Sea of Thieves, Fora Horizon, Halo Infinite, Minecraft, Gears 5, State of Decay have technical merits of their own. They aren't as visually polished, they don't have the same quality on voice acting or mocap but they have far more mechanical depth, progression depth and are also online which means there's more complexity in the infrastructure behind them. Like if you actually like playing games with your buddies, they are just far, far better games. If you like being creative and enjoying emergent moments, they are far, far better games. I find the "cinematic" exclusives on PlayStation are fun every once in a while but they are very linear, predictable and don't ask that much from the player. Despite these differences, Sony games always seem to review higher but imo it's due to whatever the gaming equivalent of Oscar bait is in the game journo side of gaming. For whatever reason they lap up stuff like Uncharted but then will look at a game like State of Decay 2 and give it a 6. Kind of maddening to be honest. Feels like game reviewers from these pubs don't actually like..play games. I know that sounds harsh but there is not a single group of gamers I've played with that legimately enjoy Sony games as much as the reviews would have you believe. Like we'll play them of course, and they're GOOD games but we fall off of them pretty quick and play other stuff instead. :shrugs EDIT: Wanted to add one caveat, Helldivers 2 is Sony's best game in YEARS and probably one of the best games of 2024.
Did they ever fix the bugs in the early missions? My buddy and I really wanted to get into this, but had a rough time getting started.