That being said, I question how that applies in this context. Corporate leadership doesn’t exactly strike me as trustworthy nor worthy of mercy, although that could be a lean toward cynicism on my part.
They’ve been convicted in the court of public opinion. This reversal doesn’t make them innocent of their crimes, but it does justify reducing the sentence to parole.
The black mark stays on their record, but they have the opportunity to start rebuilding trust. If they want good reviews on future titles they need to avoid squandering the chance to prove they deserve them.
Omg, yes, game theory applies everywhere. No, the correct strategy isn’t universally “reciprocate in kind and always enable kindness”. There is no universal game with a universally correct solution.
“A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses”
Yes, I AM a shill. A shill for meaningful, productive conversation on Lemmy. We don’t all have to agree for that to happen. I’ll point out that @[email protected]’s comment quality is far better when they put some thought into it. I would suggest the same to you.
You can’t deliver on a promise that something won’t happen. You can keep it, but you can’t deliver on it. It could always happen later. At what point do you think it’s done?
They had their chance, they failed, there’s thousands of devs doing better but you guys are too busy kissing their feet to see you’re being played for fools.
Think of it like this: Arrowhead, the developers, spent almost 8 years developing the game, getting funding throughout from Sony, which managed the publishing side of things so they could focus on game development.
Then, around 6 months before release, over 7 years of development up to that point, Sony wanted PSN to be required for the game, and clearly by release time, that was not enough time to even implement or test that well enough.
Their hands were tied years in advance, they couldn’t just let almost 8 years of their development time go to waste over one decision by their publisher, nor could they reasonably go against the publisher or get a new publisher only about 6 months before release.
On their end, they didn’t do anything particularly wrong, unless they could see the future over 7 years before and realize Sony was going to practically pull the rug out from under them with everything in Sony’s favor, a decision only actually made far more recently.
Oh, I don’t know, what do you think will teach them a lesson between losing sales for a few days or losing sales long term? 🤔
The financial impact will have been minimal and that’s what’s important to them, they were expecting to make X$ from this game this year, now Sony will have lost a week’s profit from few players because people are jumping back in when they could have made Sony lose years of profit from a lot of players by leaving negative reviews and by not playing or paying for currencies anymore.
It’s corporations we’re dealing with, not people, we don’t owe them anything, especially not pardon.
Helldivers 2 required PSN from the moment it became available, it was just put on hold while the servers were catching up to the demand.
As I said, they didn’t learn a thing and will learn even less if people just go back to rewarding them with money because they put PSN implementation on hold for a single game.
The game was made available in countries where PSN isn’t available and people don’t read requirements because they assume that if it’s available to them then they just need to have a PC that can run it and PC players hate having to use a bunch of services to play their games.
If the consequences are definitive, we are less likely to see this again.
If the consequences can be reverted, we are more likely to get out of these situations again.
Both methods work
Or better yet, never update your review because fuck them.
Game theory says to always reciprocate in kind and always enable kindness.
They punch you, punch back, then be friends
That being said, I question how that applies in this context. Corporate leadership doesn’t exactly strike me as trustworthy nor worthy of mercy, although that could be a lean toward cynicism on my part.
If we don’t change reviews back then they have no reason to keep their word. Lose lose
We do change reviews back they have good reviews and need to keep their word to ensure this doesn’t happen again. Win win
We change reviews back they lie, we just change ours back to negative again and go about our days. Lose lose
You’ve got that backwards.
They’ve been convicted in the court of public opinion. This reversal doesn’t make them innocent of their crimes, but it does justify reducing the sentence to parole.
The black mark stays on their record, but they have the opportunity to start rebuilding trust. If they want good reviews on future titles they need to avoid squandering the chance to prove they deserve them.
We’re dealing with a faceless corporation here, not a reasonable person.
That isn’t a universal conclusion…it applies to multi trial prisoners dilemma. This isn’t that.
It applies everywhere, the whole movie a beautiful mind is based around game theory.
The scene where they cooperate means someone goes home with the girl but if they fight no one does etc.
Seriously look it up, it applies everywhere.
Here I did the hard work now you just watch and pay attention.
https://youtu.be/mScpHTIi-kM?si=DJM_Ze98ISUQXdz2
Omg, yes, game theory applies everywhere. No, the correct strategy isn’t universally “reciprocate in kind and always enable kindness”. There is no universal game with a universally correct solution.
That’s why it’s still just a theory.
Edit: /s was just a joke because it’s got theory in the name.
“A theory is a carefully thought-out explanation for observations of the natural world that has been constructed using the scientific method, and which brings together many facts and hypotheses”
Another explanation is here,
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory
Theory doesn’t mean what you think it means in the context of “Game Theory”
It was a joke.
So is gravity. Outside colloquial usage, a Theory is well-substantiated with empirical evidence. Game Theory is one of those.
Was just poking fun.
Found the shill
Can you please contribute more to your Lemmy conversations than going around calling people shills and other things? Thank you.
deleted by creator
Yes, I AM a shill. A shill for meaningful, productive conversation on Lemmy. We don’t all have to agree for that to happen. I’ll point out that @[email protected]’s comment quality is far better when they put some thought into it. I would suggest the same to you.
deleted by creator
You can’t deliver on a promise that something won’t happen. You can keep it, but you can’t deliver on it. It could always happen later. At what point do you think it’s done?
It’s not capitulation it’s co-operation.
We change reviews back they don’t enforce PSN.
They go back on what they said we change reviews back to negative afterwards.
It’s the simplest solution
deleted by creator
I get called a bot and tons of other things all over Lemmy. So no, I’ll say what I want to say.
Silence, Bot!
It’s still a good game, and Arrowhead is trying to do right.
They had their chance, they failed, there’s thousands of devs doing better but you guys are too busy kissing their feet to see you’re being played for fools.
Think of it like this: Arrowhead, the developers, spent almost 8 years developing the game, getting funding throughout from Sony, which managed the publishing side of things so they could focus on game development.
Then, around 6 months before release, over 7 years of development up to that point, Sony wanted PSN to be required for the game, and clearly by release time, that was not enough time to even implement or test that well enough.
Their hands were tied years in advance, they couldn’t just let almost 8 years of their development time go to waste over one decision by their publisher, nor could they reasonably go against the publisher or get a new publisher only about 6 months before release.
On their end, they didn’t do anything particularly wrong, unless they could see the future over 7 years before and realize Sony was going to practically pull the rug out from under them with everything in Sony’s favor, a decision only actually made far more recently.
Yeah they released the game to markets where PSN isn’t available
Womp womp
No pity from me.
Want a protest like this to work next time?
Oh, I don’t know, what do you think will teach them a lesson between losing sales for a few days or losing sales long term? 🤔
The financial impact will have been minimal and that’s what’s important to them, they were expecting to make X$ from this game this year, now Sony will have lost a week’s profit from few players because people are jumping back in when they could have made Sony lose years of profit from a lot of players by leaving negative reviews and by not playing or paying for currencies anymore.
It’s corporations we’re dealing with, not people, we don’t owe them anything, especially not pardon.
Wanna see how much they learned their lesson?
https://kotaku.com/ghost-of-tsushima-pc-playstation-network-steam-psn-1851457950#:~:text=Sucker Punch’s open-world samurai,to access its multiplayer mode.
You linked a different game which we seem to know will require PSN before it’s sold.
So don’t buy games which require PSN?
If people don’t buy it and tell Sony it’s because of the PSN requirement, it will reinforce the point made during the Helldivers debacle.
Helldivers 2 required PSN from the moment it became available, it was just put on hold while the servers were catching up to the demand.
As I said, they didn’t learn a thing and will learn even less if people just go back to rewarding them with money because they put PSN implementation on hold for a single game.
So the product was going to be changed to match what was advertised as a requirement?
What was everyone mad about?
The game was made available in countries where PSN isn’t available and people don’t read requirements because they assume that if it’s available to them then they just need to have a PC that can run it and PC players hate having to use a bunch of services to play their games.
If the consequences are definitive, we are less likely to see this again. If the consequences can be reverted, we are more likely to get out of these situations again. Both methods work