Pika

you are misunderstanding. I’m saying pick a region for the guideline, if its $5 on that region the game has that refund period. Then apply regional pricing. There’s zero reason to apply a framework for every region that’s more work then needed. the lower regional price would have the same refund period as the standard pricing as its following the same framework. The fact its lower price does not matter, as regions do not matter.

Then the only time it would need to be region based, is if they sold a region specific SKU such as some Japanese or Australian releases instead of having to go in and select refund periods for every period in every region. That’s way more work than is needed.

you are forgetting though that a 5$ USD game isn’t going to magically becomes < 5$ USD though. if its using the same framework even if the game is only worth 2$ native, its still 5$ USD and therefore would be the same. Regional pricing doesn’t matter in the scenario.

That would be too easy to game or abuse by the devs

I don’t see how this would be too much of an issue. If it’s that way in one region, then it would be unilateral all across all regions. Price wouldn’t really matter at that point as long as you’re using the same guideline

The people who legitimately do this are the ones who make the rest of the gamers look bad.

If you bought a game, especially for $3, played it from start to finish over the course of an hour and a half, and then bragged about it when you refunded it. You fully deserve to have your refund capability disabled.

The thing is, though, I don’t really know a way that this can be implemented without allowing publishers to game the system. I do personally think that Two Hours is a little generous for the overall story because I will generally know whether or not I’m going to like a game within 35 minutes of playing.

I think a good alternative to it is have your refund window be based off of the current sale price of the game.

So for a game that’s less than five bucks, you would only have somewhere between 30 minutes to an hour of a refund window.

Then for your typical indie window, which would be like fifteen to thirty dollars, you have an hour to hour and a half then your AAA title pricing of ~60, you have two or three hours.

I can understand refunding a game if it’s broken on your system or just trash, but it feels real sleazy to me to spend money on a game, play it to completion, and then refund it anyway.

I don’t have netflix but, I sometimes will use my parents or grandparents account if i’m visiting their house.

I never got into netflix series mostly due to what has been said here already. There’s no point of investment into a series with a company that has an ongoing reputation of cancelling shows even if they go well, and the ones that do get another season can have multi-year delays between it.

It’s the same issue that a lot of the lesser known Anime’s have, They get greenlit for 1 or 2 seasons, and by the time they get greenlit for s3 all momentum for people wanting to watch it is dead.

To me I would rather just wait and invest my time into something that is actually going to go somewhere, not get pitfalled into a cliffhanger and then never know what happens.

it’s actually the recommended way if you use jellyfin, theres a few security/privacy vulnerabilities with publicly exposing the jellyfin server anyway, they are being worked on but, the safest way to do it is just use a vpn regardless.

part of it was yes

they made the statement with apple but then decided the exact opposite with google. I think Sony will run into similar issues as google, but we will see

I do have a strong suspicion that the end of the road of this type of move is going to end with an anti-trust case. Like, I don’t see any way to avoid that.

You can’t have a platform dictate everything about how it sells merchant wise without having an antitrust involved.

It may not be the US doing it, but I do think that some country is going to antitrust them.

I’ve always experienced a, if it has a Linux distributable, and it launches, I have no issue, but it actually launching is maybe a 60% chance. It’s also super rare that it either gives an error log at all or gives an error code that is able to be deciphered/any value to the consumer

They actually just integrated the initial framework for this with the last major PS5 update.

They threw it in under the guise that it was a check to make sure that your downloaded games were legitimate, but they added but they added in a required 30-day timer that after 30 days it checks the license on a downloaded piece of software. And if your account doesn’t have the license, or the system isn’t online. It fails to work. This was originally expected to be a constant every 30 days thing, but at last minute they clarified that it was a one-time check to make sure that you didn’t return the device under their return policy.

I have no doubt in my mind that they were originally intending on having this be in every 30 days requiring the PS5 to have to be online every 30 days in order for it to function, but decided to change it last minute when major media companies started reporting that the PS5 was going to officially require online

They will never do this, but we can dream.

If valve released a “exchange program” that allows you to trade digital licenses, even for a fee, it would be revolutionary.

I mean it’s a no brainer. if you are forced digital anyway, PC has both steam and gamepass (for pc or ultimate if you also have an xbox). Why lock yourself into an ecosystem that provides no value, when you can go into an ecosystem that not only provides you with most of the Xbox catalog if you want to pay a sub, but also all of the other PC storefronts.

The only reason people ever went console was for the low price, exclusives, the convienence and the physical market. The exclusives have sucked, the price is no longer low, and the physical market has been nuked by an atom bomb.

The question Sony should really be asking here is “why do people buy into our market” because they are actively destroying it.

I’m not sure, I was running 2.7.5 myself but i am not sure what version of immich I started with. I didn’t think this would effect fully docker setups much. I think this would mostly effected people who had configured with a preexisting database. I believe the docker edition with postgres built in upgraded for you awhile back unless you supplied an environment variable telling it to do otherwise.

yea but that doesn’t matter, if people just didn’t buy it in favor of just playing the ones available, the ps7 would backtrack heavy and have a disk reader. Hell I firmly expect they would actually make a mid line change to provide a ps6 with a disk reader if they felt that it was a primary reason people wern’t buying.

sadly… the same could be said about most of the industry. So with subscriptions, with licenses, with micro-transactions…

The consumers strongest weapon is their wallet, if they don’t buy then the company is forced to innovate or die. Yet people don’t seem to realize that

yea figured. I still can see someone thinking that it would be a good marketing term.

I expect this is a joke but, I could see some mid to upper level exec thinking this would be an amazing marketing term somehow so until proven otherwise I can see it.

This is something I don’t think should be legal under false advertising laws as well.

When fortnite was super popular, they would release “physical” releases of their cosmetics dlcs. We would have grandmas coming in wanting to get little timmy the game they wanted, and would choose the 40$ DLC thinking it was an actual game when in reality it was a plastic case with a download code in it. We would explain “hey btw just incase you didn’t know, this isn’t actually a game, its 40$ for some skins on a free to play game that they already have”

9/10 customers would be like “Wait what really? thats so shitty thank you for informing me” and would choose another game from the selection.

It’s blatant false advertising and super deceptive marketing tactics. A physical release should not be a code to use a license. It should be the actual game.

Honestly, in this case I think its time based licensing that is the issue. This would be very limited as an issue as a whole if publishers/creators couldn’t say “yea so you have the ability to sell this, but after X years you lose the ability to host it period”

Currently big companies like sony can just offload the blame to the license holder saying “yea we cant host it anymore” when in reality it shouldn’t matter.

Licensing that expire over time shouldn’t be legal. If you bought a license to use a product, you should be allowed to keep that product. Don’t provide updates if don’t want to, but if you paid for the ability to have and use a product (in this case media) it shouldn’t be legal to retroactively pull it without compensation.

Said compensation should also at minimum be a percentage of the product based off how much it was used, with the overall refund not allowed to go under half the price of the product paid. The fact they can be like “yea we don’t wanna host this anymore but we aren’t going to provide refunds” is ridiculous.

Being said, I agree with your sentiment. I firmly believe bypassing DRM for a product you bought and have the right to use should be legal. I don’t agree that Ripping a movie that you purchased that has a DRM component should be illegal, just like I don’t agree that removing a DRM component from a game I own should be illegal. If you own the product, you should be allowed to use it how you want. I can understand the exception of distribution(this doesn’t mean I agree with it), because I get it $$$ but the fact I can potentially be charged criminally for ripping a 4k disk, and then putting it on my private media server that only I have access to, is insane to me.