Cyclists travel at speeds they can easily slow down or stop if some blind person walks into the lane, sighted people do it all the time anyway. The typical long sight lines give plenty of time for a cyclist to spot someone sporting a red and white cane.
“We don’t have any evidence at this time that there is an injury collision problem."
Buy successful indie game and studio, run the IP into the ground or just lay the workers off and keep the IP. Much cheaper to keep good games out and make room for your shitty AAA title than actually compete with them in the market.
I’m curious, what’s the problem? There was an upsetting change, review was negative. That change was walked back and not happening. What would the reason be to keep it negative?
In the compromise model, Sony gets the interaction data they want and pad their account numbers for investors. Players get sustained access to the game. Win-win.
I think those people that will no longer be able to play it, because Sony doesn’t let them do the thing that they now require, deserve refunds. I will leave a negative review when the update drops if they don’t, despite really enjoying this game, because it’s not fair to those who bought it and will be locked out. If they can make it such that you can have a placeholder Sony account that can’t access all PSN features, for the sole purpose to play this and other Sony games on Steam, that anyone in the world can access, that would be an acceptable compromise to me.
I understand EULA and account creation fatigue. It’s just that it’s not the accounts themselves that are the worrisome part of the change for me is what I’m saying. If it’s for specific reasoning (console crossplay), is unobtrusive, and maintains access for existing Steam purchasers then I don’t have a real problem. If they use it to limit people’s access that’s where I have a problem.