• starman2112@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    1 month ago

    At this point I’m convinced that companies intentionally reduce access to their properties because making examples of a few pirates by making them pay millions of dollars is more profitable than legitimately selling games to a few thousand people

    Would bet my life that that is why you can’t legitimately buy most old Nintendo games online

    • exscape@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 month ago

      Are there any cases of such payout actually happening…? I’m not buying it. (Literally and figuratively.)

      • Kelly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        No.

        Commercial pirates or the people who initially leak a title might be targeted, consumers are not expected to pay significant damages.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 month ago

      I suspect it’s more about tracking users. By requiring psn accounts they can see who also has a ps4/5 but is also buying for PC. In addition gives them more insight into the different markets, etc.

      I mean, the whole point of a PSN account is to collect data on you and have greater control over their software.

    • CrabAndBroom@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 month ago

      My theory is that it’s middle-mamagement nonsense. There are too many execs running around with nothing to do, so they come up with little projects to justify their jobs, and it always defaults to stuff like requiring PSN accounts that will fuck up their brand on PC long-term, but will make the numbers go up for this quarter so the one exec stands out. Or like you say, going after a pirate which generates a bunch of headlines but ultimately makes no real difference to piracy in general.