Your account will probably still be there.
www.playstation.com
Yeah, keeping an account active is merely a matter of checking in every few months even for a minute if that, and doesn’t necessitate playing anything for x amount of time, let alone buying anything. I had the same thing happen to one of my Google email accounts, and an old credit union account I used for an auto loan a couple times. The former was closed from non use and the latter I had to make *some* deposit of sorts to keep it from dormancy. I got used to the yearly call, and eventually just let it close.
I think we can all agree it’s still really fucked up.
Not saying it isn't, merely saying that if Zeke has time to post on here then he has time to log in to his PS Account, regardless of what his current living situation is.
According to Zeke its to do with the General Data Protection Regulation laws in the EU. Which makes sense but this is the first time I'm hearing about it in relation to video game accounts so I can't help but think that Sony is attempting to toss an otherwise - as I understand it - solid digital privacy regulation under the bus to keep some of the blame off them.
No, the policy was added in April, as the tweet FakeSympathy posted said. I know it affects the British, who have their own GDPR.
www.playstation.com
www.playstation.com
Who isn't these days? Competition between platform holders currently seems less about finding ways to entice people to your platform and more so walking that fine line between fleecing your existing customers as much as possible, but not so much they jump ship.
"Today, in some parts of the company, work passes through as many as 14 layers of management."
That guy was me. And yes, I was inactive on PlayStation for over a decade, and my account was deactivated, but I was able to reactivate it with a password change. That said, I've not tried to access the handful of purchases I made via my PS3. I honestly don't recall what I bought digitally as I was pretty staunch in my "physical copies only" policy when I got my PS3 in 2009, but I'm pretty sure I bought a couple digital titles, and I'm curious to see if Sony still honors those purchases assuming they're backwards compatible on the PS5. I just had my PS3 plugged in a little over a month ago, but don't recall seeing anything I'd purchased that I still care about, but that's not the point; Sony has my money, I should have my games, or at least credit to their storefront if my "purchases" are no longer available.
Because you had to pay with your own hard earned cash. There's nothing wrong with being passionate. Especially at this point in time with the way Sony is heading.
The cash I spent has nothing to do with it; those games I bought were likely $5-$10 thrown at games out of disposable curiosity. But we're talking about a future where EVERY game is digital, and "ownership" is contingent upon availability allowed by the corporations collecting the money. It's not fair they can charge $80 and not guarantee that purchase will be at your disposal forever. Like I've said in other posts, the cost of digital convenience needs to be matched with significantly lower costs. The consumers shouldn't accept this "logical" evolution of the industry if the only thing evolving is our lack of ownership and the size of their coffers.
I think it's because of how big gaming got amongst the normie ignorant masses who only buy and play two or three games a year. These people are the ones whho play the live service battle pass ridden slop and pay for it over and over again. The Call of Duty folks, the Fifa/Madden Ultimate team idiots, these are the people who are making companies push for live service trash because they pay for the same garbage year after year.
I already had this conversation with someone else at a different place, and I am going to have to do this here:
Funny mentioned that: not many "normies" followed much gaming news back then, and only played what was popular or whatever everyone was talking about. Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Doom, Resident Evil, Sonic, Mario, Zelda, Tekken, FFVII, etc. The cycle always shifts.
This is what needs to happen. The industry needs to recognize that this exchange is a two-way street; they can't just make up the rules that benefit them, and expect the sales that maximize their profit. GTA6 might be the last game to get away with this bullshit, and I'm admitting that as someone who's going to buy it, because there's very little else that entices me to want to buy $80-$100 digital games. Unless publishers are ready to invest $2 BILLION into every AAA title, they shouldn't expect gamers to spend $80 on every digital game just because "another one." My guess is the next move is to kill servers for older games sooner to try and force players to newer titles, and when those same player realize the game they "bought" isn't readily available, they might be a bit more selective with their purchases going forward.
