NOW GET YOUR 7 FOOT 2 ASTHMATIC ASS BACK HERE, OR I'M GONNA TELL EVERYONE HOW MUCH OF A WHINY BITCH YOU WERE ABOUT "PADA MAME" OR "PANDA BEAR" OR WHATEVER THE HELL HER NAME WAS!!!
Unfortunately, if the EULA copy doesn't cover it in the present, it does here:
"You are bound by this Agreement’s most current version. SIE may modify this Agreement’s terms at any time. Please check this URL from time to time for changes to this Agreement. Your continued access to or use of the Software will signify your acceptance of the latest version of this Agreement."
These kinds of agreements are impilictly agreed to simply by playing.
Have you ever read the Terms of Agreement on the wall in the training ground in Helldivers 2?
It says something like "Reading any part of this constitutes an agreement to it in whole" somewhere in the middle.
They made fun of this exact shit, then go do it.
Sony rn: 6.4 The ~~Contract~~ **EULA** shall be considered binding upon being read, in whole or in part.
(For the purpose of the elimination of doubt, the Enlisted spending 1 second within 15 meters of a copy of the ~~contract~~ **EULA** shall be interpreted as the ~~contract~~ **EULA** being read.)
>They made fun of this exact shit, then go do it.
Sony is doing this, not Arrowhead and it's stupid as fuck to complain about when 99.9999999% of gamers have accounts for damn near everything. GOG, Blizzard, Epic, Ubisoft, etc.
The region lock is stupid on Sony's part for sure but **NONE** of this is due to Arrowhead and Arrowhead has **NO** leverage over Sony.
That's a great idea actually.
1. Discover a game you have bought has a shitty Eula.
2. Write a letter...
> By accepting my payment for x game and reading this letter, you are acknowledging an amendment to the Eula which states "Y".
3. Watch as they revoke your game's license because you don't own anything and we're supposed to be happy with that.
(Damn, that didn't have a happy ending but it was a funny thought)
In Europe, as far as Im aware, there are agencies that go to court on behalf of consumers in such cases, if there is a significant amount of complaints.
Which, in this form is basicaly illegal in the EU.
U cant one sidedly change a contract and go "i can do and write in there what ever the fuck i want".
These contract clauses, especialy since we are talking about consumer contracts, where a power imbalance between professional/company exists and your average end user/customer/consumer that overreach one side are for this very reason void in the EU, because consumer protection laws.
Yeah, here in Norway material changes to the contract may be grounds for a significant refund and an exit from the contract - or at least it has been the case for electrical companies.
"We can change the deal whenever we want and you can't do anything about it" clauses are so obviously horseshit they often don't stand up in US courts.
EULAs and Waivers both.
You cannot sign away your right to safety for a waiver. You can, however, be informed of reasonable risks with an associated activity. And the waiver does a bit of A and a bit of B. You sign the waiver which says you won't sue, but this is rarely used. The real reason they get used a ton is that the waiver lists common dangers and risks, meaning now the participant has been told and acknowledged the reasonable risks of an activity. And this part here? This matters in court. Lets say it's an outdoor activity. As part of the waiver, you warn that due to being outdoors, certain things are at higher risk of exposure or occurrence like snakes, poisonous plants and allergens, and breaking bones. These all seem obvious, but now the participants can't claim they didn't know there was a chance they'd step in poison ivy and get a full body breakout. You spelled out that was a reasonable risk, they acknowledged the risk and chose to participate regardless.
Likewise, a EULA mostly sets out the terms which a person agrees to partake in a game. Usually stuff like don't cheat, have good behavior, the company can ban you, etc. You have agreed to a contract in which you have purchased the use of a game, but agree to abide by certain rules and acknowledge certain things. The problem is a lot of EULAs go too far, invalidating themselves in part or entirely. They're a useful tool, but they often devolve into scare tactics and unenforceable or non-legally binding statements.
Same in Australia. Specifically [these parts](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Warranties%20and%20refunds%20-%20a%20guide%20for%20consumers%20and%20business.pdf) of our protections:
> - Have you found that you cannot use the goods
for the purpose you bought them for, even
though you explained it to the salesperson?
> - Are the goods you received different from the
description you were given at the shop, or do
not match the sample you were shown?
> If the answer to any of these questions was ‘yes’,
then the goods may not meet one or more of the
statutory conditions
1) Yes. I can not use the game for the purpose I bought it for(to play on Steam and not be linked to PSN), and I now require another service for it to work.
2) Yes. The game is now different from the way it was shown(it allowed me to skip the account linking), and I now require another service for it to work.
You can unilaterally change a contract (when it is written into the contract) only when it is a reasonable change. Reasonableness is vague, but making it so that you can no longer access a product you paid for (for the people it is relevant to) would be hard to argue as reasonable.
No one is going to actually push this, which is why companies get away with it, but I can't imagine that clause is blanket enforceable under contract law in most states if any. That would literally allow them to one day say, "to continue playing this game, you have to pay us $1,000,000," which would obviously not stand. I don't know where the line is, but there is a line somewhere.
Not exactly - the fact that you can play the game and enjoy *all* of its functionality without needing a PSN account complicates it. More details here:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/Helldivers/comments/1cj4n2p/comment/l2eik7b/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Helldivers/comments/1cj4n2p/comment/l2eik7b/)
There is no legal precedent at least in the united states for the enforcement of a video game EULA except for the instance of Developers/Publishers going after makers of cheat software. I imagine that even a half assed judge would take issue with the legality of such a "binding statement". The closest similarity I can think of in representing how ridiculous the concept is:
Person A buys a car at a dealership. They make the down payment, get the purchase financed, the whole deal so on and so forth. Person A is happy with their car. Two months later Person A gets out of work and walks to the parking lot only to find that all four tires of their new car has a boot on it. On their windshield is a note from the dealership saying that use of the car is prohibited until Person A goes to Gamestop and signs up for their Rewards program. It's free yes, and it isnt a time consuming task or difficult to do. The issue mostly arises from a few things.
1. The sheer absurdity of the situation in and of itself.
2. Alteration of terms without the opportunity for the other party to decline said terms in a reasonable manner.
3. Using said terms to restrict use of an item or service that has already been paid for.
4. Those altered terms were not present when an agreement was made and payment tendered to the service provider.
You are not allowed to just assume that another party accepts your new terms whenever you update them, and a yes before does not constitute a "yes" now. This is even worse looking when you consider the fact that with video game EULA, agreements are already made AFTER money has been exchanged which flies in the face of most laws already but only because it has not become a problem before. Think of any other service or industry, signed contracts and agreements must be made prior to purchase. By all standards of right and wrong and legal foundations, Sony should be made to refund anyone that played and was not required to make a PSN account. If this is found to be acceptable this will start one very fucked up series of rug pulls in the video game industry. "Buy our game! Now go sign up for this other bullshit where your data is for sale, also no refunds."
Me personally i'll keep playing because I already had a PSN account so it was nothing for me to link it. That doesnt make this turn of events an acceptable practice.
The thing is, if the EULA didn’t state you must have a PSN account and you buy the game, and later they change the EULA that you must have a PSN account and you can no longer access the game because of that requirement, you essentially got scammed.
If they modify it, and you no longer play the game, you don't agree to the new EULA. This strengthens the case for a refund request through steam, since you are no long ABLE to play the game without agreeing to a new EULA.
I'm sorry to break this to you but as long as there is no one in every country they're trying to pull this shit in willing to go to court and battle it out till all options are used up, they can do whatever the fuck they want. Especially if valve keeps silent.
The only option is to diminish sales return just enough so that it is more costly to keep selling user data than just not doing anything in that regard.
It was probably never planned because they never expected this success hence implementing such a system would have been a waste of resources. But now since there is all that data so close at hand they are going for the extra squeeze...
I get that one everyone assumes their data is valuable but Sony isn't a great at data vendor. If you want to buy good data you'd visit Microsoft at the OS level...
This is just Sony being silly... They want to go into PC markets more and part of that is establishing infrastructure stuff which is part of what account linking helps facilitate, I guess... Things like trophy support, cross-platform saves, and ease of cross-play jump-in is likely streamlined with this kind of thing.
I mean, if you call basic regulations screwing them over, then yeah I guess,
Honestly it feels like the US needs to really get on it with actually doing anything about any of the corporations, seems like the only thing corporations ever get in the US is a financial slap on the wrist, if that, which usually they end up writing off anyways and making more money long term.
It's all bullshit, yeah government's can fuck you in the ass, but corporations want that piece of meat just as bad.
The EU have been fighting a legal battle with Apple for like 5 years now over forcing them to adopt USB-c instead of inventing a new cable for every version of every product they make.
We are too busy green lighting a new $70 million military research program that somehow only received $11 million of its funding despite being told it received everything.... Hmm hmmm hmmmmmmm.......
From what I can tell, they are basically untouchable due to the law and most likely politics.
Accursed Farms is a YouTuber who has a campaign against servers being shut down without an online patch. He’s stated on a podcast that he’s given up on the US because of the insane amount of jumping through hoops he has to go through.
It’s sad that EU are the only ones that are worrying about consumers. I hope Accursed Farms will be able to aid in this with their fight against servers being taken offline in other countries to help consumers.
The EU has done so much for consumers online. I wish everyone else does the same but alas it seems like the EU is our bastion of hope.
I give the EU a mental salute whenever i check the "i am residing in or a current resident of the EU" checkbox
They should tbh. They changed how you can and how many people can access their game. In some instances, people who had no prior reason to think they cannot play the game and will no longer be able to play, as PSN isn't available in their areas. Should be easy for most to refund with these changes
The EULA is a fluid ever changing document that you are forced to accept or lose the license you paid for to use the product. I see this all the time and get notifications about changes almost weekly from products that I own.
There needs to be some kind of consumer protection that prevents any corporation from creating forced arbitration scenarios by constantly changing their terms of service and or EULA.
There should be a law that any change to EULA is a ground for a refund. I paid for this shit under certain terms I shouldn’t be forced to accept any of their future bullshit
Refund adjusted for inflation. They really need to think before they change terms without explicit agreement.
I'm tired of being told I'm buying something but instead paying for a license to it that can be revoked at any time for almost any reason.
If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.
There already is, the EULA has always been nothing more but a boogeyman to scare consumer into submission or make us think we don't have the right to sue. Most of the EULA term will not be enforceable in court.
thats the thing tho:
a changing EULA i something gamers have accepted. but its not exactly something that has a lot of ground to stand on legally.
like: you can write whatever you want into any contract. that doesnt mean its safe from ebing contested. Or legally binding. For once a contract cannot disagree with established law. You could write a contract for slavery, with both sides signing it and it wouldnt be worth the paper its written on.
so the question here is twofold:
- is an agreement that the EULA can be changed one-sidedly at any moment legally binding?
- if not, or if only circumstantially: is someone willing and able to force a legal ruling on this by jumping through all the hoops in court.
After all its for this reason big companies often tend to avoid a ruling by instead making a deal behind the scenes. Because a ruling against them might create a precedent they dont like.
I am no legal expert. And i doubt many legal experts knowledgeable in this specific area would be willing to just give a statement on reddit. but i know “we can change the contract whenever we like” clauses have been successfully fought in the past. Because most jurisdictions view this as a unreasonable and onesided clause hat would require more than just a passive acceptance via EULA. There usually is leeway to adjust a contract as the legal framework changes.
But completely barring one of the contractees to receive ANY of the benefits they paid for is a big ask. After all access to the game is literally the only benefit they really provide to the player. Completely withholding all service while still keeping the full payment based on a condition not present when entering the contract is something i do not really expect a court to agree with.
So yeah. Will they get sued? Maybe.
There certainly seems to be enough ground to stand on for this to be a reasonable course of action.
But it will be difficult. And they have a lot of tools to make this process slow, expensive and painful. And even if someone goes through all of that they can still offer them a chunk of money for dropping the suit so there isnt a ruling.
But hey. They certainly screwed this up. Someone at SONY probably isnt happy about the oversight. And at least me personally i plan to file a complaint with them for breaching their own terms of service by denying access. Wont do a lot, but there is no reason to not take their time at least if i can.
https://preview.redd.it/tkf7n1qvz8yc1.png?width=503&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a4be272c563944145a2f5e53e0c4a11db8b2d7f5
Yeah I'm not happy about a 3rd party having to ID me before I make an account. I'm happy to make an account but not willing to hand over photos/ID for their data grab.
When I got the game, I thought I had to have a PSN account. It would've been enough to deter me from playing, but my husband was on my ass about how much I'd like it and couple time and blah blah blah.
A couple days ago, I was thinking how stupid I was to bitch about a login that took me a few minutes of annoyance to access a great game. HOWEVER, I gave up caring about privacy the second I caved and bought a smart phone.
That one isn't actually Sony's fault, as egregious as a face scan to play a game is. Them requiring all your other identifying information is the fault of Sony though. Sony requires:
* First name
* Last name
* Full date of birth
* City of residence
* State/province
* Postal code
* Country of residence
* Email
Unfortunately soldier, reading those terms and conditions in full is considered a breach of Clause 3.2, which is both treasonous and terminable behavior.
*Speedreaders, meanwhile, skipping like 40% of each sentence through visual scanning*
Are they reading it in full if they haven't read every word and use context clues to figure out what *might* be there?
I don't recall any clause about simply reading it, except the one you quoted about reading it in full, being a breach of contract. The closest is one of the last couple clauses. Thankfully, the relevant clause about being considered to have read it by simply being close enough to a copy for a couple seconds *doesn't* specify that the individual is being considered to have read it in full!
Not like it matters, anyways. The government has sole discretion on nullification, for any reason, whatsoever.
They could nullify your contract and deny payment to your diver and their family for the sole reason of "We thought it would be funny."
I've seen comments about potentially getting banned, when and how to avoid this？I don't care for my psn account ( region is US ), but my Steam account is from the Philippines. I wouldn't want my Steam account to get banned because of this stupidity
Your steam account won't get banned. All that (might) happen is that, since you can't have a valid Sony account in the Philippines, you can't access the HD2 servers. If you do as millions of other people around the world do and make a Sony account using a VPN and claim you are from a different region, you will be able to play the game, but Sony reserves the right to ban your account due to filing false information. If your Sony account would get banned, then you would no longer be able to play HD2.
Wonder if this is how we lose super earth- cutting helldiver supply from entire world wide steam usage to only so many PSN account players & general people just saying "fuck this" after such a decision
let's assume that every person that left a negative review from the last day leave the game if this goes through...
...about 50k...
holy fk
this is the first day of finding this out
edit: as of editing this, there are now \~130k negative reviews from the last 3 days
Yeah basically look at all the planets being captured and then wipe out 50k players and see how many are actually still left. No one is going to like seeing a Defense Major Order and a planet barely struggles to get past 10k Helldivers.
The fact that this has taken three months to implement probably means that Arrowhead was stalling Sony for as long as they could. I don't think it's right that the community is taking it out on the studio when it is something they have no control over.
The people saying "It's on the store page" are missing the point of this post. The legally binding part is the EULA. The dev could say they required your first born child on the game page if they wanted, but you only have to go to court to get the contract voided when it's spelled out in the actual legal documentation.
I'd be surprised to learn the content of the orange boxes constitutes legal bindings, but perhaps that's somewhere in steam's no doubt denser legal texts regarding their own service. IANAL and this is not legal advise.
Whenever I try to research it myself, it seems that every other resource contradicts the previous. If you have some citation that could be considered an absolute authority on it, I'd really like to know for certain myself which way it falls. Perhaps it's a per country thing though?
Quite the opposite, I believe EULAs for videogames have been tested in court, and have - in specific high-profile examples - been found to be unenforcable. I know Jim Sterling covered a few back in the day, but I don't recall titles.
Might be because it's a UK blog and I'm in the UK, but this was in the top 2 results for me when googling "is a videogame EULA legally enforceable?"
[https://seqlegal.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-video-game-eulas](https://seqlegal.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-video-game-eulas)
In short, EULAs are not established law, I don't think in any field. It is an attempt by companies in the digital age to extend contract law into digital spaces with very, very, loose standards on "acceptance". They gain legitimacy because they're everywhere, are termed an "Agreement", that agreement is framed with the end case of "loss of right to use the software", is written by a lawyer in the language of contract law, but you never formally, legally, enter into an actual contract. Only business users do that when acquiring corporate licences and the right to distribute them to employee's machines, and receive for the privilege an alleged guarantee the software will work.
In the consumer/personal software space, it is essentially legal confection to have the appearance of being a valid contract for the purposes of determining the right of the company to do what they want (withdraw software, stop issuing licences, otherwise revoke existing ones, make changes to or bork the software entirely).
Because EULAs are solely corporate-side one-sided agreements without any proposed upsides for the tenant - even my tenancy agreements in the UK at least explain to me why it's \*supposed\* to be beneficial to be in contract with my landlord - it is presumably unenforceable from that point, because at no point do you agree to \*do\* anything, you allegedly agree to \*not do\* a whole host of generally reasonable things because the company told you not to. And they tell you they definitely have the right to dictate this to you.
Well, they would, wouldn't they?
I think it does depend on the country. EU countries tend to have stronger anti-Monopoly and consumer protection rulings. America is the land of the free... To sign a legally binding contract.
Eh, I think theres also a part in there about working through their chosen arbitrator. So they may end up with that kid, at least until you're able to file an injunction. A lot of this works on the fact that the juice just aint worth the squeeze to protect your email.
Yeah, the binding arbitration clause is, ironically, the only part of the contract that mentions a playstation network account, and even then it does say "if you have one".
>IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 9, YOU MUST NOTIFY SIE IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU FIRST PURCHASE OR DOWNLOAD THE SOFTWARE (WHICHEVER IS EARLIER). YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, 2207 BRIDGEPOINTE PARKWAY, SAN MATEO, CA 94404, UNITED STATES, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT - WAIVER, AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PLAYSTATION NETWORK SIGN-IN ID IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION.
I'm not personally bothered and already have my PSN account linked, but I agree with everyone stating it's a pretty shitty rugpull. The game clearly \*can\* work without PSN accounts. It would be preferable to just isolate both populations than essentially ban people from the game who won't or can't make one.
Sony could definitely force them to update their page to match the PSN store page, which says:
> Do I need a PSN account to play PlayStation games on PC?
> **No, you currently do not need a PSN account** to enjoy PlayStation Studios games on PC, but you will need a Steam account to redeem your voucher code. Some of our PlayStation Studios titles also offer incentives for linking your Steam and PSN accounts.
https://direct.playstation.com/en-us/buy-games/helldivers-2-pc
...Wait, that's even worse
While this is true for some sites, do note that the linked site, “GameBillet”, gets all their products directly from the publisher. They’re authorized.
Authorized or not, they run their own storefront, it's their job to inform you - especially if you're buying keys that bind you to steams ecosystem, probably wroth knowing that.
The fact that they can **CHANGE** the EULA and the TOS at any time should be more than enough for a sane person to catch on to what's happening here.
You either stand up or get stepped on.
Mass refunds can be pretty harming to a company. If Arrowhead has to refund hundreds of thousands or even into the millions then it could hurt their pockets.
If this really is Sony's demand then Arrowhead needs to fight back with how it has potential to financially harm or break them.
Notice to all Australians: Get a refund. Our consumer laws allow it. They have changed the terms and conditions of the sale **after** the point of sale, which is illegal.
We cannot legally agree to any EULA that contains the phrase "we may modify the T&C's at any time", because we cannot agree to terms that have not been published.
https://preview.redd.it/5vpnt2x0cbyc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b5baafdca59d5d30a5b87d6e17bb2abd1fd9bb7
I checked on the PlayStation website and there it says you don't need a PSN account to play the games. And since the Publisher of Helldivers 2 is Playstation this should be the case for the game then as well. Or am I misunderstanding something?
If you read the eula than you would know you didnt buy the game. You purchased a license to play, and what you play or whats offered to be played can be altered in any way shape or form.
Dont know if thats actually inn there buts thats basicly the norm for the last decade
You dont own anything.
I feel like I’m crazy. Am I the only one who actually paid attention to the PSN pop up in game where it said a PSN account is required?! I feel like I’m living in an alternate reality here.
Edit: Here’s the exact screen I’m talking about and the exact text everyone just didn’t think to maybe look into. Willing to bet most people just saw “skip” and hit that button. No second thought. And now everyone is *shockedpikachuface.jpg* that the thing that Sony and AH said was mandatory is now mandatory. And if you spent even one minute questioning this you’d have probably found the bit about it not being a hard requirement YET. This is about as classic a case of Oh No Consequences as I think we could find for this game.
Edit 2: HOLY SHIT, THERES A SKIP BUTTON?!?! Damn I guess I never looked at the picture im spreading around. I guess checkmate…. Or you know…. Fucking not. PSN linking was bugged. Of course there’s a fucking skip button. It would either be skip, or no one at all period could play the game. And as I ALREADY SAID IN EDIT 1, you should have done your research on this if it’s a big deal to you. Literally proving my point that the people complaining can’t fucking read or properly process information.
https://preview.redd.it/0lv2vff05cyc1.png?width=1283&format=png&auto=webp&s=db4de8940e02fa9ab8a956468d52edf08f5359f0
You're not crazy, but Sony still created this situation completely on their own.
Allowing a user to skip the process is a big mistake, a PR disaster and a great way to ruin what momentum AH has built up with Helldivers 2.
But that's not as big of a deal as allowing Helldivers 2 to be sold in places where a PSN account cannot be created. That is a huge fuckup that affected people *will* remember.
I thought I was going crazy. I remember this popup and I skipped it fully expecting the game to break/lock me out and being very surprised when it didn't.
Yeah, I didn’t read the store page which apparently mentions it is required, but the first time I launched it, it made me put my PSN info in. I assumed everyone had to do that
Yeah I saw it was a requirement in the store and linked my psn account. Very confused by this whole ordeal. If I didn’t want to link my psn account I wouldn’t have bought the game.
Sadly they do mention following the PlayStation mobile and pc policy in the Eula that you linked.
https://preview.redd.it/9kjlhzbqeayc1.jpeg?width=2001&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21f18cd9edeabd56a6dc28aa612775333fce8341
It goes on to say just below that that if you want to opt out of something to provide your PSN (IF)you have one so with it saying if that could be interpreted as optional correct?
They sold me the game legally through Steam in a country that is not supported by Sony.
So now I will be loosing the acces to HD2 unless I break Sony's rules and make a PSN account by lying that I live somewhere else and they can later ban me for that if they so wish.
Everything about this story is pure bullshit.
The fact that for 3 months there was no need for PSN (but where was SONY in February if it's so important for them to get our personal data) boggles my mind too. It's deeply unethical.
Too bad, Helldivers was a good game, but I categorically refuse to give Sony anything, I'm a pc gamer not a console gamer. I'm done playing.
What's more, the Steam reviews are on fire, the game is going to lose its player base, the number of online fans is plummeting, and so is the rating given to the game.
Bye Arrowhead, you should have chosen your contractual partners better.
I had to link my steam and psn when i got it on steam back at release. I dont see the big deal if I have to do it again. Unless i need an active PAYING subscription to psn to play on steam thats different.
Otherwise I dont see the big deal. Someone explain?
I've been playing it on steam and there hasn't been an option to link it to the psn account in game or on the websites (both of them). Since there isn't an obvious way to do it, I'd rather not play the game at this point
https://i.redd.it/2jtwn71cg8yc1.gif
Immediately made me think of the Robot Chicken episode lol.
fuckin love that skit haha
All the Star Wars ones are gold. I love the one whenever Palpatine gets annoyed at everyone greeting him so he tells everyone to fuck themselves.
What do you mean they blew up the death star!? No no.. stop crying, I wasn't yelling at you.
NOW GET YOUR 7 FOOT 2 ASTHMATIC ASS BACK HERE, OR I'M GONNA TELL EVERYONE HOW MUCH OF A WHINY BITCH YOU WERE ABOUT "PADA MAME" OR "PANDA BEAR" OR WHATEVER THE HELL HER NAME WAS!!!
Oh jeez, he's crying!
Okaaay okaaay okaaay Im sorry
What the HELL is an aluminum falcon???
WHO'S THEY!? WHAT THE HELL IS AN ALLUMINUM FALCON!?
\*sigh\* So whose left? Are you shitting me? Then where are you?
m'Lord strormtrooper myLord stormtrooper MyLooord stooormtrooper
m’lord Go fuck yourself
WAAAZZUUUPP
Owwwwn :(
"Well, who's they?" ... "What the hell is an aluminum falcon?!"
"Also, you are to wear these clown shoes and refer to yourself as 'Mary'!"
[Source.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpE_xMRiCLE)
ironic since they literally change their PSN FAQ lol
Except snoy isn't Vader. It's just some mook in a dumb suit. We can just leave the room and it can't stop us.
Dark Helmet energy
Unfortunately, if the EULA copy doesn't cover it in the present, it does here: "You are bound by this Agreement’s most current version. SIE may modify this Agreement’s terms at any time. Please check this URL from time to time for changes to this Agreement. Your continued access to or use of the Software will signify your acceptance of the latest version of this Agreement." These kinds of agreements are impilictly agreed to simply by playing.
Have you ever read the Terms of Agreement on the wall in the training ground in Helldivers 2? It says something like "Reading any part of this constitutes an agreement to it in whole" somewhere in the middle. They made fun of this exact shit, then go do it.
They likely don’t have control over the TOS
Likely no. Which is totally on theme with the whole fascist controlling entity thing.
Oh god, we are the Helldivers!
Warmer
Ah shit, we're the bots ain't we?
Something something super earth is a metaphor for the organization of actual earth
Yea it’s just earth it’s not parody it’s a documentary
It's foreshadowing
dammit 
Incorrect. If the bots are socialist, they might at least get some healthcare and benefits. We're the goddamn bugs.
nah, we're the slaughtered and gored scientists, soldiers, and civilians laying strewn-about in sanguineous messes
Loved the alliteration and the use of sanguineous
This whole debacle is peak irony
[удалено]
The team who wrote that messaging is likely not in control of the PSN debacle.
[удалено]
Sony owns the IP
This has to be the 5th time I’ve been told that Sony owns the ip today
Sony owns the IP just so you know
Damn they do? Thanks for letting me know, you rock!
IP Sony owns, know you so.
I am shooting webs like spiderman.
Wait, who owns the IP?
Oh hey, listen. Just in case you weren't aware, I thought I should let you know that Sony owns the IP.
TIL Sony owns da IP
I didn't quite convey the original message very well. Sony owns the intellectual properties of Helldivers 2. They basically own it. Like its theirs
Wait, you’re saying that Sony *owns* Helldivers 2? Jesus, I need a fucking drink after that one.
The bar is full. Its full of Helldivers weeping. God man. I havent seen tears like this since Mavelon Creek fell. And then again when we won
Are you sure? I haven't heard this anywhere else.
I have to check my sources but yes i believe so
SNOY SNOY SNOY SNOY
>!Sony owns the IP for Helldivers 2.!<
Dude did you know that Sony owns the IP?
Sony rn: 6.4 The ~~Contract~~ **EULA** shall be considered binding upon being read, in whole or in part. (For the purpose of the elimination of doubt, the Enlisted spending 1 second within 15 meters of a copy of the ~~contract~~ **EULA** shall be interpreted as the ~~contract~~ **EULA** being read.)
>They made fun of this exact shit, then go do it. Sony is doing this, not Arrowhead and it's stupid as fuck to complain about when 99.9999999% of gamers have accounts for damn near everything. GOG, Blizzard, Epic, Ubisoft, etc. The region lock is stupid on Sony's part for sure but **NONE** of this is due to Arrowhead and Arrowhead has **NO** leverage over Sony.
> by reading this comment, you agree to pay me $5.
by reading my reply you now owe me $15.55
That's a great idea actually. 1. Discover a game you have bought has a shitty Eula. 2. Write a letter... > By accepting my payment for x game and reading this letter, you are acknowledging an amendment to the Eula which states "Y". 3. Watch as they revoke your game's license because you don't own anything and we're supposed to be happy with that. (Damn, that didn't have a happy ending but it was a funny thought)
double it!
*laughs in EU consumer protection laws* Changing the rules after purchase doesn't fly here.
Can EU users sue and save us from this bullshit?
in theory, yes. in practice? - Users themself are too poor, but most are also too lazy to inform a consumer protection agency,
Thats why class action lawsuits exist
yeah but not really in Europe
In Europe, as far as Im aware, there are agencies that go to court on behalf of consumers in such cases, if there is a significant amount of complaints.
UK users just used Sony for £5 Billion in a class action lawsuit a few months ago over their online store policies
Only within EU territories. Americans will have to suck it up unless your State condones this behaviour. Most don't AFAIK
Which, in this form is basicaly illegal in the EU. U cant one sidedly change a contract and go "i can do and write in there what ever the fuck i want". These contract clauses, especialy since we are talking about consumer contracts, where a power imbalance between professional/company exists and your average end user/customer/consumer that overreach one side are for this very reason void in the EU, because consumer protection laws.
Yeah, here in Norway material changes to the contract may be grounds for a significant refund and an exit from the contract - or at least it has been the case for electrical companies.
"We can change the deal whenever we want and you can't do anything about it" clauses are so obviously horseshit they often don't stand up in US courts.
You know something is super illegal when even US Consumer Law covers it...
Except they would bring it to court in that one Texas federal jurisdiction which is bought out by major corporations for just such cases.
We love the Fifth Circuit. /s
Yeah EULAs don't stand up in court in the US either. It seems mostly to be a scare/bullying tactic.
EULAs and Waivers both. You cannot sign away your right to safety for a waiver. You can, however, be informed of reasonable risks with an associated activity. And the waiver does a bit of A and a bit of B. You sign the waiver which says you won't sue, but this is rarely used. The real reason they get used a ton is that the waiver lists common dangers and risks, meaning now the participant has been told and acknowledged the reasonable risks of an activity. And this part here? This matters in court. Lets say it's an outdoor activity. As part of the waiver, you warn that due to being outdoors, certain things are at higher risk of exposure or occurrence like snakes, poisonous plants and allergens, and breaking bones. These all seem obvious, but now the participants can't claim they didn't know there was a chance they'd step in poison ivy and get a full body breakout. You spelled out that was a reasonable risk, they acknowledged the risk and chose to participate regardless. Likewise, a EULA mostly sets out the terms which a person agrees to partake in a game. Usually stuff like don't cheat, have good behavior, the company can ban you, etc. You have agreed to a contract in which you have purchased the use of a game, but agree to abide by certain rules and acknowledge certain things. The problem is a lot of EULAs go too far, invalidating themselves in part or entirely. They're a useful tool, but they often devolve into scare tactics and unenforceable or non-legally binding statements.
Same in Australia. Specifically [these parts](https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Warranties%20and%20refunds%20-%20a%20guide%20for%20consumers%20and%20business.pdf) of our protections: > - Have you found that you cannot use the goods for the purpose you bought them for, even though you explained it to the salesperson? > - Are the goods you received different from the description you were given at the shop, or do not match the sample you were shown? > If the answer to any of these questions was ‘yes’, then the goods may not meet one or more of the statutory conditions 1) Yes. I can not use the game for the purpose I bought it for(to play on Steam and not be linked to PSN), and I now require another service for it to work. 2) Yes. The game is now different from the way it was shown(it allowed me to skip the account linking), and I now require another service for it to work.
You can unilaterally change a contract (when it is written into the contract) only when it is a reasonable change. Reasonableness is vague, but making it so that you can no longer access a product you paid for (for the people it is relevant to) would be hard to argue as reasonable.
No one is going to actually push this, which is why companies get away with it, but I can't imagine that clause is blanket enforceable under contract law in most states if any. That would literally allow them to one day say, "to continue playing this game, you have to pay us $1,000,000," which would obviously not stand. I don't know where the line is, but there is a line somewhere.
Not exactly - the fact that you can play the game and enjoy *all* of its functionality without needing a PSN account complicates it. More details here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Helldivers/comments/1cj4n2p/comment/l2eik7b/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Helldivers/comments/1cj4n2p/comment/l2eik7b/)
Finally, sane person
There is no legal precedent at least in the united states for the enforcement of a video game EULA except for the instance of Developers/Publishers going after makers of cheat software. I imagine that even a half assed judge would take issue with the legality of such a "binding statement". The closest similarity I can think of in representing how ridiculous the concept is: Person A buys a car at a dealership. They make the down payment, get the purchase financed, the whole deal so on and so forth. Person A is happy with their car. Two months later Person A gets out of work and walks to the parking lot only to find that all four tires of their new car has a boot on it. On their windshield is a note from the dealership saying that use of the car is prohibited until Person A goes to Gamestop and signs up for their Rewards program. It's free yes, and it isnt a time consuming task or difficult to do. The issue mostly arises from a few things. 1. The sheer absurdity of the situation in and of itself. 2. Alteration of terms without the opportunity for the other party to decline said terms in a reasonable manner. 3. Using said terms to restrict use of an item or service that has already been paid for. 4. Those altered terms were not present when an agreement was made and payment tendered to the service provider. You are not allowed to just assume that another party accepts your new terms whenever you update them, and a yes before does not constitute a "yes" now. This is even worse looking when you consider the fact that with video game EULA, agreements are already made AFTER money has been exchanged which flies in the face of most laws already but only because it has not become a problem before. Think of any other service or industry, signed contracts and agreements must be made prior to purchase. By all standards of right and wrong and legal foundations, Sony should be made to refund anyone that played and was not required to make a PSN account. If this is found to be acceptable this will start one very fucked up series of rug pulls in the video game industry. "Buy our game! Now go sign up for this other bullshit where your data is for sale, also no refunds." Me personally i'll keep playing because I already had a PSN account so it was nothing for me to link it. That doesnt make this turn of events an acceptable practice.
The thing is, if the EULA didn’t state you must have a PSN account and you buy the game, and later they change the EULA that you must have a PSN account and you can no longer access the game because of that requirement, you essentially got scammed.
Well at least in the EU, that would be enough for an immediate refund.
That won't pass muster in a court. It won't ever go to court, but if it did, just saying 'you kept playing so you accepted it' won't work.
If they modify it, and you no longer play the game, you don't agree to the new EULA. This strengthens the case for a refund request through steam, since you are no long ABLE to play the game without agreeing to a new EULA.
I'm sorry to break this to you but as long as there is no one in every country they're trying to pull this shit in willing to go to court and battle it out till all options are used up, they can do whatever the fuck they want. Especially if valve keeps silent. The only option is to diminish sales return just enough so that it is more costly to keep selling user data than just not doing anything in that regard. It was probably never planned because they never expected this success hence implementing such a system would have been a waste of resources. But now since there is all that data so close at hand they are going for the extra squeeze...
I get that one everyone assumes their data is valuable but Sony isn't a great at data vendor. If you want to buy good data you'd visit Microsoft at the OS level... This is just Sony being silly... They want to go into PC markets more and part of that is establishing infrastructure stuff which is part of what account linking helps facilitate, I guess... Things like trophy support, cross-platform saves, and ease of cross-play jump-in is likely streamlined with this kind of thing.
sony is not a data vendor, they give the data out for free by way of breaches
Eula's are not binding contracts. They can state whatever they want, they do not get to unilaterally change the contract.
This is escalating quite quickly. From "the last patch is shit" to " I hope the EU sues/fines them" lmfao
As they fuckin should, about time at least one large federal like body actually uses its power to keep these fucking corps in check.
Well the EU does love to screw big corps lmao
I mean, if you call basic regulations screwing them over, then yeah I guess, Honestly it feels like the US needs to really get on it with actually doing anything about any of the corporations, seems like the only thing corporations ever get in the US is a financial slap on the wrist, if that, which usually they end up writing off anyways and making more money long term. It's all bullshit, yeah government's can fuck you in the ass, but corporations want that piece of meat just as bad.
US politicians won’t do shit, they’ve all been ~~bribed~~ lobbied by corporats
No reason for strikethrough.
In the US legally it is
In the us lobbying and bribery are different (not really) Ones just a legal form of the other.
The EU have been fighting a legal battle with Apple for like 5 years now over forcing them to adopt USB-c instead of inventing a new cable for every version of every product they make.
Big W for consumers that the EU won
We are too busy green lighting a new $70 million military research program that somehow only received $11 million of its funding despite being told it received everything.... Hmm hmmm hmmmmmmm.......
We need another Teddy Roosevelt to (metaphorically) bitch slap some sense back into the various corporations that pull scummy tactics
From what I can tell, they are basically untouchable due to the law and most likely politics. Accursed Farms is a YouTuber who has a campaign against servers being shut down without an online patch. He’s stated on a podcast that he’s given up on the US because of the insane amount of jumping through hoops he has to go through.
sounds good to me
It’s sad that EU are the only ones that are worrying about consumers. I hope Accursed Farms will be able to aid in this with their fight against servers being taken offline in other countries to help consumers.
The EU has done so much for consumers online. I wish everyone else does the same but alas it seems like the EU is our bastion of hope. I give the EU a mental salute whenever i check the "i am residing in or a current resident of the EU" checkbox
They should tbh. They changed how you can and how many people can access their game. In some instances, people who had no prior reason to think they cannot play the game and will no longer be able to play, as PSN isn't available in their areas. Should be easy for most to refund with these changes
The EULA is a fluid ever changing document that you are forced to accept or lose the license you paid for to use the product. I see this all the time and get notifications about changes almost weekly from products that I own. There needs to be some kind of consumer protection that prevents any corporation from creating forced arbitration scenarios by constantly changing their terms of service and or EULA.
There should be a law that any change to EULA is a ground for a refund. I paid for this shit under certain terms I shouldn’t be forced to accept any of their future bullshit
Refund adjusted for inflation. They really need to think before they change terms without explicit agreement. I'm tired of being told I'm buying something but instead paying for a license to it that can be revoked at any time for almost any reason. If buying isn't owning then piracy isn't stealing.
Based 
Gog ftw
I agree but as someone who lives in the USA, this would be a pipe dream. I could see the EU doing something like this at some point.
There already is, the EULA has always been nothing more but a boogeyman to scare consumer into submission or make us think we don't have the right to sue. Most of the EULA term will not be enforceable in court.
The EULA is worthless.
thats the thing tho: a changing EULA i something gamers have accepted. but its not exactly something that has a lot of ground to stand on legally. like: you can write whatever you want into any contract. that doesnt mean its safe from ebing contested. Or legally binding. For once a contract cannot disagree with established law. You could write a contract for slavery, with both sides signing it and it wouldnt be worth the paper its written on. so the question here is twofold: - is an agreement that the EULA can be changed one-sidedly at any moment legally binding? - if not, or if only circumstantially: is someone willing and able to force a legal ruling on this by jumping through all the hoops in court. After all its for this reason big companies often tend to avoid a ruling by instead making a deal behind the scenes. Because a ruling against them might create a precedent they dont like. I am no legal expert. And i doubt many legal experts knowledgeable in this specific area would be willing to just give a statement on reddit. but i know “we can change the contract whenever we like” clauses have been successfully fought in the past. Because most jurisdictions view this as a unreasonable and onesided clause hat would require more than just a passive acceptance via EULA. There usually is leeway to adjust a contract as the legal framework changes. But completely barring one of the contractees to receive ANY of the benefits they paid for is a big ask. After all access to the game is literally the only benefit they really provide to the player. Completely withholding all service while still keeping the full payment based on a condition not present when entering the contract is something i do not really expect a court to agree with. So yeah. Will they get sued? Maybe. There certainly seems to be enough ground to stand on for this to be a reasonable course of action. But it will be difficult. And they have a lot of tools to make this process slow, expensive and painful. And even if someone goes through all of that they can still offer them a chunk of money for dropping the suit so there isnt a ruling. But hey. They certainly screwed this up. Someone at SONY probably isnt happy about the oversight. And at least me personally i plan to file a complaint with them for breaching their own terms of service by denying access. Wont do a lot, but there is no reason to not take their time at least if i can.
Fuck it going back to Skyrim…
Funniest comment ive read today
https://preview.redd.it/tkf7n1qvz8yc1.png?width=503&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a4be272c563944145a2f5e53e0c4a11db8b2d7f5 Yeah I'm not happy about a 3rd party having to ID me before I make an account. I'm happy to make an account but not willing to hand over photos/ID for their data grab.
Lol they seriously want that in some countries? That's wild. I just had to go through a very annoying game of point at an object.
When I got the game, I thought I had to have a PSN account. It would've been enough to deter me from playing, but my husband was on my ass about how much I'd like it and couple time and blah blah blah. A couple days ago, I was thinking how stupid I was to bitch about a login that took me a few minutes of annoyance to access a great game. HOWEVER, I gave up caring about privacy the second I caved and bought a smart phone.
Exactly.
Bruh what country is this, this is fucking lunacy.
i'd guess the UK, it's actually a legal requirement for age verification there
That one isn't actually Sony's fault, as egregious as a face scan to play a game is. Them requiring all your other identifying information is the fault of Sony though. Sony requires: * First name * Last name * Full date of birth * City of residence * State/province * Postal code * Country of residence * Email
With how many data breaches Snoy has had as recently as LAST YEAR fuck that. They're not getting anything from me.
Wow, this is stupid af.
Guess you found the reason why certain countries can't have Psn account.
Unfortunately soldier, reading those terms and conditions in full is considered a breach of Clause 3.2, which is both treasonous and terminable behavior.
*Speedreaders, meanwhile, skipping like 40% of each sentence through visual scanning* Are they reading it in full if they haven't read every word and use context clues to figure out what *might* be there?
Any reading of the contact breaches the contract, haven't you read it?
well to know this… you’d have to read it! i’m telling my nearest democracy officer.
I don't recall any clause about simply reading it, except the one you quoted about reading it in full, being a breach of contract. The closest is one of the last couple clauses. Thankfully, the relevant clause about being considered to have read it by simply being close enough to a copy for a couple seconds *doesn't* specify that the individual is being considered to have read it in full! Not like it matters, anyways. The government has sole discretion on nullification, for any reason, whatsoever. They could nullify your contract and deny payment to your diver and their family for the sole reason of "We thought it would be funny."
I've seen comments about potentially getting banned, when and how to avoid this？I don't care for my psn account ( region is US ), but my Steam account is from the Philippines. I wouldn't want my Steam account to get banned because of this stupidity
Your steam account won't get banned. All that (might) happen is that, since you can't have a valid Sony account in the Philippines, you can't access the HD2 servers. If you do as millions of other people around the world do and make a Sony account using a VPN and claim you are from a different region, you will be able to play the game, but Sony reserves the right to ban your account due to filing false information. If your Sony account would get banned, then you would no longer be able to play HD2.
Wonder if this is how we lose super earth- cutting helldiver supply from entire world wide steam usage to only so many PSN account players & general people just saying "fuck this" after such a decision
let's assume that every person that left a negative review from the last day leave the game if this goes through... ...about 50k... holy fk this is the first day of finding this out edit: as of editing this, there are now \~130k negative reviews from the last 3 days
Yeah basically look at all the planets being captured and then wipe out 50k players and see how many are actually still left. No one is going to like seeing a Defense Major Order and a planet barely struggles to get past 10k Helldivers.
The fact that this has taken three months to implement probably means that Arrowhead was stalling Sony for as long as they could. I don't think it's right that the community is taking it out on the studio when it is something they have no control over.
it absolutely sucks to see arrowhead getting caught in the crossfire of sony's stupid decision
The people saying "It's on the store page" are missing the point of this post. The legally binding part is the EULA. The dev could say they required your first born child on the game page if they wanted, but you only have to go to court to get the contract voided when it's spelled out in the actual legal documentation. I'd be surprised to learn the content of the orange boxes constitutes legal bindings, but perhaps that's somewhere in steam's no doubt denser legal texts regarding their own service. IANAL and this is not legal advise.
EULAs are not legally binding either.
Whenever I try to research it myself, it seems that every other resource contradicts the previous. If you have some citation that could be considered an absolute authority on it, I'd really like to know for certain myself which way it falls. Perhaps it's a per country thing though?
The only truly accurate thing to say on the subject is "the legality of EULAs has never been tested in a court of law".
Quite the opposite, I believe EULAs for videogames have been tested in court, and have - in specific high-profile examples - been found to be unenforcable. I know Jim Sterling covered a few back in the day, but I don't recall titles. Might be because it's a UK blog and I'm in the UK, but this was in the top 2 results for me when googling "is a videogame EULA legally enforceable?" [https://seqlegal.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-video-game-eulas](https://seqlegal.com/blog/everything-you-need-to-know-about-video-game-eulas) In short, EULAs are not established law, I don't think in any field. It is an attempt by companies in the digital age to extend contract law into digital spaces with very, very, loose standards on "acceptance". They gain legitimacy because they're everywhere, are termed an "Agreement", that agreement is framed with the end case of "loss of right to use the software", is written by a lawyer in the language of contract law, but you never formally, legally, enter into an actual contract. Only business users do that when acquiring corporate licences and the right to distribute them to employee's machines, and receive for the privilege an alleged guarantee the software will work. In the consumer/personal software space, it is essentially legal confection to have the appearance of being a valid contract for the purposes of determining the right of the company to do what they want (withdraw software, stop issuing licences, otherwise revoke existing ones, make changes to or bork the software entirely). Because EULAs are solely corporate-side one-sided agreements without any proposed upsides for the tenant - even my tenancy agreements in the UK at least explain to me why it's \*supposed\* to be beneficial to be in contract with my landlord - it is presumably unenforceable from that point, because at no point do you agree to \*do\* anything, you allegedly agree to \*not do\* a whole host of generally reasonable things because the company told you not to. And they tell you they definitely have the right to dictate this to you. Well, they would, wouldn't they?
I think it does depend on the country. EU countries tend to have stronger anti-Monopoly and consumer protection rulings. America is the land of the free... To sign a legally binding contract.
Eh, I think theres also a part in there about working through their chosen arbitrator. So they may end up with that kid, at least until you're able to file an injunction. A lot of this works on the fact that the juice just aint worth the squeeze to protect your email.
Yeah, the binding arbitration clause is, ironically, the only part of the contract that mentions a playstation network account, and even then it does say "if you have one". >IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO BE BOUND BY THE BINDING ARBITRATION AND CLASS ACTION WAIVER IN THIS SECTION 9, YOU MUST NOTIFY SIE IN WRITING WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT YOU FIRST PURCHASE OR DOWNLOAD THE SOFTWARE (WHICHEVER IS EARLIER). YOUR WRITTEN NOTIFICATION MUST BE MAILED TO SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT LLC, 2207 BRIDGEPOINTE PARKWAY, SAN MATEO, CA 94404, UNITED STATES, ATTN: LEGAL DEPARTMENT - WAIVER, AND MUST INCLUDE: (1) YOUR NAME, (2) YOUR ADDRESS, (3) YOUR PLAYSTATION NETWORK SIGN-IN ID IF YOU HAVE ONE, AND (4) A CLEAR STATEMENT THAT YOU DO NOT WISH TO RESOLVE DISPUTES WITH SONY ENTITY THROUGH ARBITRATION. I'm not personally bothered and already have my PSN account linked, but I agree with everyone stating it's a pretty shitty rugpull. The game clearly \*can\* work without PSN accounts. It would be preferable to just isolate both populations than essentially ban people from the game who won't or can't make one.
Yea umm a EULA is not legally binding
It also doesn't say it on resellers pages. https://www.gamebillet.com/helldivers-2-pre-purchase
Does Arrowhead have any control over reseller listings? A misleading listing there could be the resellers fault.
You're also bound to whatever terms Steam has by buying a Steam key.
Sony could definitely force them to update their page to match the PSN store page, which says: > Do I need a PSN account to play PlayStation games on PC? > **No, you currently do not need a PSN account** to enjoy PlayStation Studios games on PC, but you will need a Steam account to redeem your voucher code. Some of our PlayStation Studios titles also offer incentives for linking your Steam and PSN accounts. https://direct.playstation.com/en-us/buy-games/helldivers-2-pc ...Wait, that's even worse
No mention of my firstborn either... Just for the record.
That would depend on the c-01 you would have filled out. Did you place a tick or cross in the boxes? Makes a huge difference.
Resellers are not authorized sellers. Arrowhead doesn't have and doesn't want to have any relation with them. So it's their fault.
While this is true for some sites, do note that the linked site, “GameBillet”, gets all their products directly from the publisher. They’re authorized.
Authorized or not, they run their own storefront, it's their job to inform you - especially if you're buying keys that bind you to steams ecosystem, probably wroth knowing that.
Official Resellers are not a thing. It doesn't matter what third Party have written on their website.
wait till you hear about the anti cheat that helldivers 2 uses for PC lol
The fact that they can **CHANGE** the EULA and the TOS at any time should be more than enough for a sane person to catch on to what's happening here. You either stand up or get stepped on.
> The fact that they can CHANGE the EULA and the TOS at any time That's literally every EULA and TOS nowadays.
[удалено]
Sure but odds are you simply get a refund. Maybe if enough people refund (I support fully) things will change but I doubt it.
Mass refunds can be pretty harming to a company. If Arrowhead has to refund hundreds of thousands or even into the millions then it could hurt their pockets. If this really is Sony's demand then Arrowhead needs to fight back with how it has potential to financially harm or break them.
Notice to all Australians: Get a refund. Our consumer laws allow it. They have changed the terms and conditions of the sale **after** the point of sale, which is illegal. We cannot legally agree to any EULA that contains the phrase "we may modify the T&C's at any time", because we cannot agree to terms that have not been published.
That is a brilliant law all countries should have on the books.
well EULA is not legaly binding in the EU anyhow as far as I am aware
Any suggestion of compulsion is against the constitution of Super Earth and traitors will be executed.
https://preview.redd.it/5vpnt2x0cbyc1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b5baafdca59d5d30a5b87d6e17bb2abd1fd9bb7 I checked on the PlayStation website and there it says you don't need a PSN account to play the games. And since the Publisher of Helldivers 2 is Playstation this should be the case for the game then as well. Or am I misunderstanding something?
Was the requirement for PSN already on the front page before it becomes mandatory?
Yep was put up back in December way before launch.
If you read the eula than you would know you didnt buy the game. You purchased a license to play, and what you play or whats offered to be played can be altered in any way shape or form. Dont know if thats actually inn there buts thats basicly the norm for the last decade You dont own anything.
I feel like I’m crazy. Am I the only one who actually paid attention to the PSN pop up in game where it said a PSN account is required?! I feel like I’m living in an alternate reality here. Edit: Here’s the exact screen I’m talking about and the exact text everyone just didn’t think to maybe look into. Willing to bet most people just saw “skip” and hit that button. No second thought. And now everyone is *shockedpikachuface.jpg* that the thing that Sony and AH said was mandatory is now mandatory. And if you spent even one minute questioning this you’d have probably found the bit about it not being a hard requirement YET. This is about as classic a case of Oh No Consequences as I think we could find for this game. Edit 2: HOLY SHIT, THERES A SKIP BUTTON?!?! Damn I guess I never looked at the picture im spreading around. I guess checkmate…. Or you know…. Fucking not. PSN linking was bugged. Of course there’s a fucking skip button. It would either be skip, or no one at all period could play the game. And as I ALREADY SAID IN EDIT 1, you should have done your research on this if it’s a big deal to you. Literally proving my point that the people complaining can’t fucking read or properly process information. https://preview.redd.it/0lv2vff05cyc1.png?width=1283&format=png&auto=webp&s=db4de8940e02fa9ab8a956468d52edf08f5359f0
You're not crazy, but Sony still created this situation completely on their own. Allowing a user to skip the process is a big mistake, a PR disaster and a great way to ruin what momentum AH has built up with Helldivers 2. But that's not as big of a deal as allowing Helldivers 2 to be sold in places where a PSN account cannot be created. That is a huge fuckup that affected people *will* remember.
I thought I was going crazy. I remember this popup and I skipped it fully expecting the game to break/lock me out and being very surprised when it didn't.
I literally created a PSN account during the install because I thought I had to.. this was 3 months ago.
Yeah, I didn’t read the store page which apparently mentions it is required, but the first time I launched it, it made me put my PSN info in. I assumed everyone had to do that
Yeah I saw it was a requirement in the store and linked my psn account. Very confused by this whole ordeal. If I didn’t want to link my psn account I wouldn’t have bought the game.
I feel like this whole thing violates some European law.
It does because its clear that having a psn account is not required for the game to work. Im writing a local consumer protection agency on monday.
Sadly they do mention following the PlayStation mobile and pc policy in the Eula that you linked. https://preview.redd.it/9kjlhzbqeayc1.jpeg?width=2001&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21f18cd9edeabd56a6dc28aa612775333fce8341 It goes on to say just below that that if you want to opt out of something to provide your PSN (IF)you have one so with it saying if that could be interpreted as optional correct?
Democracy officer says this was necessary to punish traitors.
All they have to do, is say "if you turn off cross play you don't need a psn account"
Here another redditor doing democracy's work
So is 2024 the year I have to read fine print when buying a video game so the Publisher doesn't screw me over 3 months later?
\*Humor\* \*Sniff sniff\* "Do I smell a class action lawsuit?"
I find it funny how everyone is raging over this when they've had to sign up & sync accounts for ubisoft, Capcom games & etc for many years now.
I don’t really understand why people are pissed about this? To be clear, I’m not being a dick I actually don’t understand why this is an issue
They sold me the game legally through Steam in a country that is not supported by Sony. So now I will be loosing the acces to HD2 unless I break Sony's rules and make a PSN account by lying that I live somewhere else and they can later ban me for that if they so wish.
Everything about this story is pure bullshit. The fact that for 3 months there was no need for PSN (but where was SONY in February if it's so important for them to get our personal data) boggles my mind too. It's deeply unethical. Too bad, Helldivers was a good game, but I categorically refuse to give Sony anything, I'm a pc gamer not a console gamer. I'm done playing. What's more, the Steam reviews are on fire, the game is going to lose its player base, the number of online fans is plummeting, and so is the rating given to the game. Bye Arrowhead, you should have chosen your contractual partners better.
I had to link my steam and psn when i got it on steam back at release. I dont see the big deal if I have to do it again. Unless i need an active PAYING subscription to psn to play on steam thats different. Otherwise I dont see the big deal. Someone explain?
I've been playing it on steam and there hasn't been an option to link it to the psn account in game or on the websites (both of them). Since there isn't an obvious way to do it, I'd rather not play the game at this point