It does not change history, you’re right - which is exactly why it’s absurd to say the game was “seemed dead on arrival.” There is no read of the situation where that’s true - the game made truckloads of cash despite the well-publicized issues, had an ardent and oftentimes too rabid fanbase, and absolutely captured…

“Universally panned” does not equal “Dead on arrival.” There is no reasonable perspective wherein a game that made multiples of its development cost back before it was even released was “dead on arrival.”

“Seemed dead on arrival?” Holy hell, really? Who, besides people with a hate boner for the game, thought it was dead on arrival?

I literally have no dog in this fight, but you’re just being a dick for no reason. Here, there’s a pill for you. It says “chill” on it. You might want to take it.

Why Mirror’s Edge? It only contains asynchronous multiplayer, which they could just turn off. Why remove it from the storefront? That seems really dumb. I can’t believe EA would be so oh right I can see it now. Nevermind.

Sure, but this is a crisis that took place over days and with a solution that needed to be implemented within hours - there wasn’t time to go through and make any sort of value judgement on which accounts were “worthy.” I mean, could you imagine the shit show that would have been?

Wow, this is just an uninformed take. The banking part is being helped, which is the part where people gave them money and said, “hey, keep this money safe for me so I have it available for my financial responsibilities, like payroll.”

They’re worried about buggy software? Gee, if only there was some way they could, like, check the game before it was released for bugs. Like, they could test it, or something? I mean, maybe they could even refuse to license it for release if it didn’t meet their standards? Some kind of certification process?

That wasn’t an excuse. That was the legit truth. The Cell architecture was a bear to develop for and Sony didn’t exactly roll out the red carpet for developers. There’s a reason why they switched to x86.

So, obviously that’s not what the article is saying, but whatever. No one here is pretending you read the thing.

Hehehehe you think they read it. That’s funny.

It’s entirely possible that the specific technique they used could find a certain class of exploit, and they let it run long enough to round up the majority of players u sing that class of exploit. So, say that the first week it was active they pulled in 20,000 cheaters, and the next week it snagged an additional…

From my limited understanding, they are fishing for something called “teh lolz.”

That’s too bad. Honestly, though, first-party Sony game with an established and well-regarded IP, on a new Sony product? I wonder why it wasn’t a pack-in.

Is this a regular, $60, game? Or are we talking somewhere in the $30-$40 range?

What a weird way to position the PSVR2 as if it’s only intended audience is children.

If your experience of work is that you’re doing stuff and not getting paid, then you’re the one doing capitalism wrong.

Fair enough, I wasn’t aware that devs from this game had said that. It’s been relayed to me from people working on AAA games that bonuses were a substantial part of their compensation package, and were based on how well the games performed. Of course, those were different studios - so if you’re saying Avalanche devs…

People understand that Rowling’s already been paid, right? That’s already baked in to the cost of development, so it’s not as though avoiding this game means “not paying Rowling.”

Asking the real questions here.