It’s probably the refund.
You’re likely right. If I recall correctly, the decision to do a refund is entirely steam’s and the publisher has no choice but to foot the bill because of steam’s tos. To add to that, refunds don’t include the 30% cut steam makes on the sale, so the publisher actually loses that money if they have to cover a refund.
Say the game costs $50. Steam takes $15 of that and the other $35 goes to the publisher. If steam decides a refund is in order, the publisher must pay back all $50.
So yeah, Sony was losing money for every copy that got refunded due to a reason steam found justified. Given the sheer publicity of this whole thing, someone up top probably realized that if they carried through with it it’d cost way more than the pennies they’d squeeze per player by force linking their accounts.
People shit talk steam being a tyrannical monopoly all the time, but they are pretty consistent when it comes to treating their users fairly. This is a prime example of steam using its leverage to stop something really shitty.
I love steam. I’m okay with the monopoly until it stops protectecting its users.
The reason steam has managed to remain consistently relevant and beloved by its users is for sure the fact that it is not a public company, but owned by nerds and the people working there. Makes for a great employee retention, and without being hounded by shareholders they can operate properly and with long term plans.
Yep. If they ever go public, we’re all fucked. Shareholders and quarterly reports ruin everything.
Was thinking the same thing. If steam goes public and gaben moves on to whatever, enshittification will begin.
God, hopefully someone else can take up the torch if that ever happens.
Yeah. Part of me is uneasy with the monopoly, but unless they start abusing it I don’t think there’s really a problem. Besides, they’re not the same as a railway: nothing’s stopping a game company from directly providing executable downloads, and some do.
I watched a few videos of some indie dev team as they released a game. It basically boiled down to wishlisting is a huge plus, and issuing refunds is the biggest thing you can do to hurt a company.
So what you are saying is… refund the game. Then buy it again? ;)
Steam might not have considered refunds if it wasn’t for the tidal wave of negative feedback. So users’ collective action is worth something.
Honestly if steam did not start issuing refunds, I dont think that Sony would have changed their mind.
Yeah especially all the people that bought it in countries now delisted. And in the EU…
There is some upcoming drama around the crew… in the question if the company was clear enough in communicating that the game could be disabled. As even though their eula says one thing… these things need to be made extra explicit if you want to be able to enforce it… it goes to ownership.
What was the plan exactly? Force gamers into the Sony ecosystem, overload their email with advertising, make them switch to playstation and profit? Sounds like something the marketing guys would dream up.
The plan is to make some number go up.
Some completely random number, that we have no chance to guess from the outside. It probably did go up, because those people are very competent on making random numbers go up.
Just don’t forget to give the game a positive review now that Sony backpedalled. That way we can be ready for next time.
Emmm not really. They haven’t regained trust by simply backpedalling on a very stupid decision.
It’s not about trust, of course they don’t deserve trust. It’s about showing them that players have influence when it comes to their bottom line and that they can’t just get away with anything they want to do without it hurting their main objective.
In other words, be nice to the community and they are going to be nice to you. Be shitty to the community and they are going to be so shitty towards you that it hurts your profits. That’s the only motivation that makes them go back on something that they want to do.
If they think that people are going to behave negatively towards them and review bomb their games regardless of how they act, they will just keep acting however they want.
I disagree.
If all people would immediately reward them with a positive review after backpedaling, then their learned lesson would be “just try it out, worst case we can backpedal”. By leaving up a negative review, they might realize that they should not even try it if they want to keep the goodwill.
I will leave my negative review standing, although I also have other points of criticism.
If all people would immediately reward them with a positive review after backpedaling, then their learned lesson would be “just try it out, worst case we can backpedal”. By leaving up a negative review, they might realize that they should not even try it if they want to keep the goodwill.
They are always going to have this mindset, companies will never “learn it”, they will always try to push anti-consumer bullshit onto consumers if they think it benefits them and if they think they can get away with it.
They don’t care about goodwill, they care about numbers. It’s a business.
I will leave my negative review standing, although I also have other points of criticism.
And that’s perfectly fine, people can leave whatever review they want to leave. But I think for the people who specifically changed their review or left a negative review specifically to protest this specific issue, it makes sense that they change it back to an actual review of the game to signal that their actions have an impact.
if they think it benefits them and if they think they can get away with it.
Thats exactly my point. If everybody just “forgives” them right away, then they got away with trying. Then they have no reason not to try a different approach later. What would be needed for this cycle to stop is to actually show them that it does not benefit them and they have a lasting negative effect on their business just for trying.
And in a mid-budget game like this, player goodwill is a part of the numbers. This is not (yet?) a big brand like CoD or something that people will buy and support no matter what. They have to keep their community together or they do not have a business.
(That does not mean that people cannot review however they want of course, I am just putting my thoughts out there.)
They have a legal responsibility towards investors, they only moved back because refunds started happening, they didn’t give a crap about the reviews, they had made their money already… Until that got taken away from them.
they only moved back because refunds started happening,
Kind of, but refunds only started happening because steam allowed it. And steam only allowed it because there was enough of a shitstom.
Negative reviews by themselves don’t do much, you are right about that, but they do kinda show a community’s mood (especially to other gamers in the community).
they had made their money already
Helldivers is a game that has a lot more monetizing potential than just the initial sales.
Negative reviews do discourage other people to buy the game. So saying they don’t do much, is half wrong
And the people who were going to spend extra money aren’t the ones who would have asked for a refund in the first place.
This again? They don’t have a legal responsibility, it’s just if the CEO isn’t making investors money, he could get ousted.
Especially if this much backslash (and extraordinary steam refunds) was needed for them to reevaluate their choices
No. Find ways to say “this is why I didn’t buy (unrelated Sony product). I didn’t go see (movie made by Sony pictures), I bought other brand’s consumer electronics instead of Sony, I’m not even entertaining the thought of buying (game somehow owned by Sony) because look at what they pulled with Helldivers 2. Sony’s brand is that of betrayal and I don’t want to be betrayed.”
Actually do this, and say on product reviews that you are doing this, until the news gets bored of reporting “Another Sony executive found dead at his desk.”
Then it might get better.
Good idea. Then they know backpeddling works, and thus any initial decision has no consequences.
You must be a genius!
Arrowhead deserves a second chance. It’s a great game.
Arrowhead are the ones who signed a contract with Sony in the first place, they deserve zero sympathy.
It seems a bit petty. It’s a small company with 100 employees trying to make a game, and a deal with Sony probably gave them the investment to do that. 7 years of development cost a lot of money.
It seems a bit petty
It is.
No matter the size of the company, if they adopt anti-consumers practices (directly or indirectly) why should they be rewarded for it? They signed the contract knowing that was part of it.
Nobody is rewarding them for signing a deal with Sony. People are rewarding them for making a really fun game for a reasonable very consumer friendly price point. I can’t think of a newly released game, that’s perfectly ethical. Even Larian signed a deal with Hasbro to make Baldurs Gate 3.
Indie games: am I a joke to you?
If you give them money or good reviews even though they spat in your face, what do you think the lesson is?
Hmm. This specific meme makes me wonder if its creator doesn’t quite grasp the inherent satire of the source material…
I’d say the choice of format is driven more by the similarity between ST and HD, and less about an accurate analogy with the source material
Fair, though this specific one hit a little closer to home considering its topic and the source material.
That’s not really how memes work. Or do you comment that every time you see that steven crowder douche? Actually steven crowder doesn’t play mario kart on the wii, therefore he would never debate you.
Well, memes are a complex phenomenon, but anyway adding more depth by using contextually related material never hurts
When the only swimming pool around is also the kiddie pool, the adults invariably risk wading into floating turds like your gem, kiddo. Your internet high fives from other shit muppets aren’t the accolades you think they are. Stay in school.
What movie is it? Is it worth watching?
Starship Troopers. Yes it’s worth watching. It’s both an excellent satire of a society dominated by its military (it’s portrayed as if it’s an in-universe propaganda film) and an extremely well crafted action film.
It was directed by Paul Verhoeven, the same guy who directed RoboCop and Total Recall.
If you play Helldivers, you have to watch Starship Troopers.
HD takes its tone, premise, and many more things from that movie (and a bit from the book the movie satirizes).
It’s Starship Troopers, one of the inspirations for Helldivers, afaik
It was good when I last watched it, but that was quite a while ago, the movie is from 1997, after all
That movie holds up really well imo. The sequels were never great. I don’t want to shit on them too much, because they were basically very low budget and it seems like they tried
Repeat after me: There were no sequels
The animated ones with Big Boss Rico and the power armor were all right.
Thanks!
Oh you’re in for a treat!
Haven’t been playing/following HD2 for a while now. What happened?
Edit: nvm, a quick google answered this, ps account linking stuff.
