Modders negate God of War Ragnarök PSN requirement after a brief review bombing

[Cal Jeffrey]

A hot potato: Well, it didn't take long to see how PC gamers would react to needing a PlayStation Network account to play God of War Ragnarök. It only launched last Thursday and has already been review-bombed to "Mixed" reviews. Unsurprisingly, most negative reviews were rants and gripes about needing a PSN account to play the single-player title.

God of War Ragnarök is an excellent game; most honest Steam reviews indicate as much. It was also voted "Most Wanted Game" by the Golden Joystick Awards two years before Sony released it as a PlayStation exclusive. Post-launch, it earned the most nominations and awards of any other title at DICE 2023, winning seven of its 12 nominations. However, it lost the DICE GotY to stiff competition from Elden Ring.

The main problem is that some players felt burned by the PSN requirement, even though this prerequisite was well-known before the PC port launched. Sony clearly noted it in its PC announcement. Several outlets, including TechSpot, also publicized the requirement. So it wasn't like Sony blindsided players with a post-release restriction like it did with Helldivers 2.

It's also not anything new. Ghost of Tsushima's multiplayer mode requires a linked PSN account. Granted, that game has a multiplayer aspect, unlike Ragnarök. However, Sony confirmed that Bloodborne and the Until Dawn remake will have this stipulation upon release, and both are single-player games.

Part of the problem is that at least a few people have conflated PSN with PlayStation Plus. To be clear, PlayStation Plus is Sony's PlayStation subscription service, similar to Microsoft's Game Pass. It offers perks and the ability to purchase games through the PS Store. The PlayStation Network (PSN) is Sony's free online gaming platform.

"PSN requirement is ridiculous," one reviewer says. "It's a shame. I'm a big fan of the God of War series, but I'm not on board with this ransom approach."

The user complains about signing up and having to enter "PII" (personally identifiable information) and upload ID photos for "age verification." I don't know where this user lives, but US accounts do not require any of that for a PSN account. I confirmed this by creating a dummy account.

Here is the only information Sony asks users for to create a PSN account:

• Country/Region
• State or Province
• Preferred language
• Date of Birth
• Valid email
• Password

That said, there are people with a legitimate gripe, mainly those who live in a region without access to PSN. I feel that it's also a ridiculous ask for a single-player game. Helldivers 2 and Ghost of Tsushima multiplayer is somewhat understandable – at least there is a valid reason to sign in other than data collection.

Fortunately, it's a PC build we are talking about, and what's a PC game without mods? Modders were almost as quick to post a simple modification on Nexus that strips the PSN requirement out of the game. Users just copy a couple of DLLs into the game directory, launch it, and then click "No" when it asks to link PSN and Steam accounts. Problem solved, even for those in out-of-bounds regions.

Watch for our benchmark review, which is coming later this week.

Permalink to story:

Modders negate God of War Ragnarök PSN requirement after a brief review bombing

 

[redgarl]

Review bombing a game like God of War Ragnarok is beyond stupid.

It is easily one of the best game ever made, and surprise, surprise, no need for stupid Ray Tracing for being the best looking game to date.

The game is also running really well when looking at the lows for all GPUs.

So if your only grudge is a PSN account, which you probably already have anyway, then you are nothing more than a fanboy.

 

[redgarl]

"That said, there are people with a legitimate gripe, mainly those who live in a region without access to PSN. I feel that it's also a ridiculous ask for a single-player game. Helldivers 2 and Ghost of Tsushima multiplayer is somewhat understandable – at least there is a valid reason to sign in other than data collection."

Jesus, you guys are making me laugh. I am playing Jedi Survivor at the moment, and I need to deal with the EA App which is 10 times worst. I cannot even use my VPN for playing the game, for god sake. Not to mention Ubisoft and origin which is also as bad.

Are you reporting the need to use a second layer of DRMs with a proprietary APP at every new EA or Ubisoft release? Ah yeah... no you don't...

Sony is not even there. They don't force a stupid app for all your single player gaming on PC, just that you log on.

 

[poshflamingos]

It is easily one of the best game ever made

LOL
It's just Sony "cinematic" slop. Linear story game with over 50% of it being cutscenes, annoying "puzzles" that add no value to actual gameplay, and unsatisfying combat against sponge enemies. At least they improved the awful enemy variety from the first game a bit, but that's still a far cry from making Ragnarok more than just cinematic Sony slop. It's a game for people who don't like games, with how much it tries to be a movie instead.

and surprise, surprise, no need for stupid Ray Tracing for being the best looking game to date.

LOL again. LMAO even.
In an age where there are literal path traced games, reading someone claim a game with PS4 graphics is "the best looking game to date" is just incredibly hilarious.
You can't even make the claim it has some form of timeless stylized visuals, like Okami or Journey. It's just ordinary, realistic-style 3D graphics like 90% AAA games today. It impresses neither in the technical aspects, nor in having a distinct original style.

The game is also running really well when looking at the lows for all GPUs.

Of course it is. Why would a PS4 game not run well?

So if your only grudge is a PSN account, which you probably already have anyway

No, buddy, PC players do not "already have" a Sony account that, as a PC player, you have no reason whatsoever to ever create before this. I don't understand what could have given you this incredibly dumb idea.

 

[Benses]

LOL
It's just Sony "cinematic" slop. Linear story game with over 50% of it being cutscenes, annoying "puzzles" that add no value to actual gameplay, and unsatisfying combat against sponge enemies. At least they improved the awful enemy variety from the first game a bit, but that's still a far cry from making Ragnarok more than just cinematic Sony slop. It's a game for people who don't like games, with how much it tries to be a movie instead.


LOL again. LMAO even.
In an age where there are literal path traced games, reading someone claim a game with PS4 graphics is "the best looking game to date" is just incredibly hilarious.
You can't even make the claim it has some form of timeless stylized visuals, like Okami or Journey. It's just ordinary, realistic-style 3D graphics like 90% AAA games today. It impresses neither in the technical aspects, nor in having a distinct original style.


Of course it is. Why would a PS4 game not run well?


No, buddy, PC players do not "already have" a Sony account that, as a PC player, you have no reason whatsoever to ever create before this. I don't understand what could have given you this incredibly dumb idea.

The hate for PlayStation is strong with this one.

 

[Kirby1]

Review bombing a game like God of War Ragnarok is beyond stupid.

It is easily one of the best game ever made, and surprise, surprise, no need for stupid Ray Tracing for being the best looking game to date.

The game is also running really well when looking at the lows for all GPUs.

So if your only grudge is a PSN account, which you probably already have anyway, then you are nothing more than a fanboy.

You think GOW:R is one of the best games ever made and you're calling other people fanboys?

Laughable. GOW is a very average franchise. 7/10. It's tomb raider with more combat.

 

[VaRmeNsI]

The free version has no such requirement.

 

[poshflamingos]

The hate for PlayStation is strong with this one.

I don't hate Playstation. Demon's Souls and Bloodborne were great, Returnal was great, Shadow of the Colossus was great, Journey was great, Gran Turismo is the best racing franchise there is. Astro Bot is not really my style but seems like a very respectable, high quality platformer too. But notice how none of those are the typical cinematic slop from Sony.

Then you have stuff like God of War, The Last of Us, Uncharted, Spiderman, Horizon, and so on. They're all the same kind of generic third-person action cinematic brainrot which, like I said, are games for people who don't really like games. They're all mediocre at best in gameplay systems, and all of their appeal comes from story cutscenes and "production value", I.e. they could be movies instead and you wouldn't be missing much.

 

[Nobina]

If I was to protest something in gaming it would be shitty products at record high prices, game menus looking like AliExpress with the amount of cosmetics they are trying to sell you, not this meaningless shite.

GoW Ragnarok is decent so far but playing on the highest difficulty it's stressful trying to wrestle with camera when fighting multiple enemies and the whole soulslike style is getting so old.

 

[Puiu]

Review bombing a game like God of War Ragnarok is beyond stupid.

It is easily one of the best game ever made, and surprise, surprise, no need for stupid Ray Tracing for being the best looking game to date.

The game is also running really well when looking at the lows for all GPUs.

So if your only grudge is a PSN account, which you probably already have anyway, then you are nothing more than a fanboy.

Or you know... forcing PSN on a game on steam is stupid and the review bombing is warranted. It's a single player game limited by the PSN's location coverage and it forces PC gamers to make another account to another platform.

 

[Felusy]

Review bombing a game like God of War Ragnarok is beyond stupid.

It is easily one of the best game ever made, and surprise, surprise, no need for stupid Ray Tracing for being the best looking game to date.

The game is also running really well when looking at the lows for all GPUs.

So if your only grudge is a PSN account, which you probably already have anyway, then you are nothing more than a fanboy.

Absolutely not one of the best games ever made. But yeah its pretty good.

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/god-of-war-ragnarok-fps-performance-benchmark/5.html

Nvidia destroys AMD in this game tho. Funny considering its a console port made for AMD hardware in the first place. But this is common to see today. Nvidia is just faster at executing the code.

 

[MasterAce]

”My favorite game is better than your favorite game”, ”your favorite game is just a slop of poo”, ”my favorite game is the best game ever made”, ”ofcourse my system runs this game better than yours, my brand of system is always better than your brand”

Just listen to yourself guys…

 

[Felusy]

AMD GPU performance is in this game is extremely bad. This is nothing new tho. Most new games simply run better on Nvidia these days and DLSS/DLAA is magic.

Personally I use DLAA in all DLSS games. Beats native with ease. Native looks blurry in comparison.

 

[Namtrooper]

AMD GPU performance is in this game is extremely bad. This is nothing new tho. Most new games simply run better on Nvidia these days and DLSS/DLAA is magic.

Personally I use DLAA in all DLSS games. Beats native with ease. Native looks blurry in comparison.

Seems to be running perfectly on my 6800xt 1440p Ultra. But I am right in the beginning. No stuttering or anything so far. Haven't checked the framerate yet but definitely "feels" above 60fps.

 

[Felusy]

Seems to be running perfectly on my 6800xt 1440p Ultra. But I am right in the beginning. No stuttering or anything so far. Haven't checked the framerate yet but definitely "feels" above 60fps.

Running perfectly? AMD performs severely worse than Nvidia, just like in most new games:

God of War Ragnarök Performance Benchmark Review - 35 GPUs Tested

+

God of War Ragnarök: DLSS vs. FSR vs. XeSS Comparison Review

DLSS/DLAA beats FSR
Nvidia FG beats AMD FG

Sure you don't just have low expectations? Personally I don't play games below 100 fps

 

[Theinsanegamer]

I don't know why people are surprised, always online DRM for a single player game has ALWAYS been controversial and hated in the PC community. Especially with how ban happy Sony is if you make someone have the sads, then they ban your account and everything tied to it.

Remember, with helldiver's 2, the multiplayer worked fine with no PSN account. The mods admitted they wanted PSN for more efficient banning. Not for any benefit to the player, just so they could ban more people.

Gee I wonder why players don't like it.....

 

[emmzo]

I don't hate Playstation. Demon's Souls and Bloodborne were great, Returnal was great, Shadow of the Colossus was great, Journey was great, Gran Turismo is the best racing franchise there is. Astro Bot is not really my style but seems like a very respectable, high quality platformer too. But notice how none of those are the typical cinematic slop from Sony.

Then you have stuff like God of War, The Last of Us, Uncharted, Spiderman, Horizon, and so on. They're all the same kind of generic third-person action cinematic brainrot which, like I said, are games for people who don't really like games. They're all mediocre at best in gameplay systems, and all of their appeal comes from story cutscenes and "production value", I.e. they could be movies instead and you wouldn't be missing much.

"People that don't really like games?" Define games, buddy. Cinematics and graphics enhance immersion. Gameplay is solid for all the games you listed, because they're a certain type of game. I suppose by your standard a heavily cinematic game like Metal Gear Solid 5 is pure nonsense. But oh, I see, you like Souls type games, where you die a hundred times just to cross a bridge. I would say that is complete trash, but that's as subjective as your claim. That's why there are genres and people like what they like.

 

[Felusy]

"People that don't really like games?" Define games, buddy. Cinematics and graphics enhance immersion. Gameplay is solid for all the games you listed, because they're a certain type of game. I suppose by your standard a heavily cinematic game like Metal Gear Solid 5 is pure nonsense. But oh, I see, you like Souls type games, where you die a hundred times just to cross a bridge. I would say that is complete trash, but that's as subjective as your claim. That's why there are genres and people like what they like.

I hope no-one dies 100 times to cross a bridge in a souls game tho.

 

[emmzo]

I hope no-one dies 100 times to cross a bridge in a souls game tho.

It was a hyperbole, but you get the point. I don't take offense with your opinion on those games, but with characterizing people that love those games as mere id1ots.

 

[Felusy]

It was a hyperbole, but you get the point. I don't take offense with your opinion on those games, but with characterizing people that love those games as mere id1ots.

In the end, people will play what they like to play, yeah

 

[poshflamingos]

Cinematics and graphics enhance immersion.

Sure. But when cinematics is literally all you have, it hardly registers as a game to begin with.

Gameplay is solid for all the games you listed

They are absolutely not "solid". God of War is a completely uninspired action/combat game, with awful puzzles on top (not that it matters that much, because your party members will spoil the puzzle solution for you after 10 seconds). Spiderman is a completely uninspired beat-em-up, literally just a reskinned Batman Arkham, with some Ubisoft-esque open world collectibles on top. The Last of Us is the blandest survival game in existance. Uncharted is literally a Tomb Raider clone, and Tomb Raider was obnoxious already. Horizon is the least awful of them gameplay-wise, with the machine takedowns being an interesting idea, but literally everything else in the game is generic open world slop like Ubisoft towers and base clearing with generic human enemies. All of those games are carried by their cinematics, take the cinematics away and you're left with bland games that are mediocre at best. Hence, "games for people who don't like games", because the actual game portion of them is the worst part.

I suppose by your standard a heavily cinematic game like Metal Gear Solid 5 is pure nonsense.

At least outside of cutscenes MSG5 has pretty good open-ended sandbox missions that you can tackle in a multitude of different ways. Not my favorite game, but you can see effort went into the gameplay portion of it.

But oh, I see, you like Souls type games, where you die a hundred times just to cross a bridge.

Unlike you, none of my examples of bad gameplay revolve around a completely ridiculous exaggeration.
But yes, Souls games and Elden Ring in particular are masterpieces build around excellent gameplay mechanics. So were Zelda BOTW and TOTK. So was Baldur's Gate 3. So was Shadow of the Colossus. And I haven't played it myself, but as it seems from the reception, so is Astro Bot. None of those games can be turned into movies without losing all the appeal of playing them. Unlike Sony slop, which you can make into a movie and end up with a product that is actually better than the game that originated it.

 

[Nobina]

Running perfectly? AMD performs severely worse than Nvidia, just like in most new games:

God of War Ragnarök Performance Benchmark Review - 35 GPUs Tested

+

God of War Ragnarök: DLSS vs. FSR vs. XeSS Comparison Review

DLSS/DLAA beats FSR
Nvidia FG beats AMD FG

Sure you don't just have low expectations? Personally I don't play games below 100 fps

It runs flawlessly on my AMD card as well, so who cares, shill?

 

[emmzo]

Sure. But when cinematics is literally all you have, it hardly registers as a game to begin with.


They are absolutely not "solid". God of War is a completely uninspired action/combat game, with awful puzzles on top (not that it matters that much, because your party members will spoil the puzzle solution for you after 10 seconds). Spiderman is a completely uninspired beat-em-up, literally just a reskinned Batman Arkham, with some Ubisoft-esque open world collectibles on top. The Last of Us is the blandest survival game in existance. Uncharted is literally a Tomb Raider clone, and Tomb Raider was obnoxious already. Horizon is the least awful of them gameplay-wise, with the machine takedowns being an interesting idea, but literally everything else in the game is generic open world slop like Ubisoft towers and base clearing with generic human enemies. All of those games are carried by their cinematics, take the cinematics away and you're left with bland games that are mediocre at best. Hence, "games for people who don't like games", because the actual game portion of them is the worst part.


At least outside of cutscenes MSG5 has pretty good open-ended sandbox missions that you can tackle in a multitude of different ways. Not my favorite game, but you can see effort went into the gameplay portion of it.


Unlike you, none of my examples of bad gameplay revolve around a completely ridiculous exaggeration.
But yes, Souls games and Elden Ring in particular are masterpieces build around excellent gameplay mechanics. So were Zelda BOTW and TOTK. So was Baldur's Gate 3. So was Shadow of the Colossus. And I haven't played it myself, but as it seems from the reception, so is Astro Bot. None of those games can be turned into movies without losing all the appeal of playing them. Unlike Sony slop, which you can make into a movie and end up with a product that is actually better than the game that originated it.

You can’t “take cinematics away”, they are part of the game. The blend between cinematics, graphics and gameplay IS the game. That’s the experience. You think that if gameplay is not on par to other games, then it’s not a game and people playing it are not really players and they don’t even like games. Furthermore, you bring in your subjective standards to say which gameplay you prefer and what should be disconsidered! This is ridiculous! I have been a gamer since the early ‘90s and I’ve been playing anything under the sun. I greatly enjoyed both TLOUs, I got bored by the middle of GOW, Uncharted was a nice fun ”Tomb Raider”, I could never get into the hours of any Souls game and I found them all extremely tediously boring, but again, that is personal preference. Unlike you, I have played Shadow of Colossus and it is indeed a masterpiece. But you can’t bring the reception argument only when it suits you. Because TLOU was massive. So, to say players who loved it aren’t gamers, because the gameplay is not up to your standards it’s nonsensical.

 

[poshflamingos]

You can’t “take cinematics away”, they are part of the game. The blend between cinematics, graphics and gameplay IS the game.

Cinematics are the literal opposite of a game. Something that is not interactive cannot be a game. The more something relies on cinematics, the less of a game it is.
This isn't exclusive to Sony either. It's the exact same reason Final Fantasy 16 is an awful game.

Unlike you, I have played Shadow of Colossus and it is indeed a masterpiece. But you can’t bring the reception argument only when it suits you.

????
I did play Shadow of the Colossus. Read that comment again. I said I didn't play Astro Bot, becase 1) I don't like platformers, and 2) it literally just came out a week ago.

Because TLOU was massive. So, to say players who loved it aren’t gamers, because the gameplay is not up to your standards it’s beyond stupid.

I'm gonna respond to the rest of your comment with an analogy.
I love yellow mustard. The cheap supermarket yellow mustard you can buy anywhere. The kind that probably cannot even be labeled "mustard" in EU countries with strong regulations. I like the cheap yellow mustard more than the more expensive, higher quality dijon mustard. It is trash and I love it and I'd pick cheap yellow over dijon any day of the week.
But if someone comes to me and says "this mustard you're eating is trash, dijon is much better, dijon is the real mustard", I will not argue back. Do you know why? Because they are absolutely right. Dijon mustard is undeniably much higher quality than yellow supermarket mustard, in every way. The fact that I like trash mustard doesn't make it stop being trash, it just so happens that I like the trash.
The point is, there is a difference between you liking something, and something being good. Cinematic Sony slop is the videogame equivalent of yellow supermarket mustard. Some people like it despite the low quality, just like some people like McDonalds, or Forever 21, or american piss beer. All those things are popular, but that doesn't mean big macs are quality food or Coors Light is a quality drink.
Yeah, TLOU was massive. It was massive exactly because it appealed to the casual userbase by not really being a game. It's just a bunch of cinematics with very milquetoast gameplay sections in between. It is so much "not a game" that they literally did exactly what I said, they took the gameplay bits out and made a successful TV series out of it.
I love Skyrim, and Skyrim was outstandingly popular. Does that mean Skyrim is good? Hell no, Skyrim is a much worse version of Morrowind, which was the game that actually was genre-defining in the 2000's. Skyrim was more popular exactly because it stripped most of the gameplay elements that made Morrowind so great, and that's why the casuals who don't really like games that much liked Skyrim. It's literally less of a game than Morrowind is.

 

[emmzo]

Cinematics are the literal opposite of a game. Something that is not interactive cannot be a game. The more something relies on cinematics, the less of a game it is.
This isn't exclusive to Sony either. It's the exact same reason Final Fantasy 16 is an awful game.


????
I did play Shadow of the Colossus. Read that comment again. I said I didn't play Astro Bot, becase 1) I don't like platformers, and 2) it literally just came out a week ago.


I'm gonna respond to the rest of your comment with an analogy.
I love yellow mustard. The cheap supermarket yellow mustard you can buy anywhere. The kind that probably cannot even be labeled "mustard" in EU countries with strong regulations. I like the cheap yellow mustard more than the more expensive, higher quality dijon mustard. It is trash and I love it and I'd pick cheap yellow over dijon any day of the week.
But if someone comes to me and says "this mustard you're eating is trash, dijon is much better, dijon is the real mustard", I will not argue back. Do you know why? Because they are absolutely right. Dijon mustard is undeniably much higher quality than yellow supermarket mustard, in every way. The fact that I like trash mustard doesn't make it stop being trash, it just so happens that I like the trash.
The point is, there is a difference between you liking something, and something being good. Cinematic Sony slop is the videogame equivalent of yellow supermarket mustard. Some people like it despite the low quality, just like some people like McDonalds, or Forever 21, or american piss beer. All those things are popular, but that doesn't mean big macs are quality food or Coors Light is a quality drink.
Yeah, TLOU was massive. It was massive exactly because it appealed to the casual userbase by not really being a game. It's just a bunch of cinematics with very milquetoast gameplay sections in between. It is so much "not a game" that they literally did exactly what I said, they took the gameplay bits out and made a successful TV series out of it.
I love Skyrim, and Skyrim was outstandingly popular. Does that mean Skyrim is good? Hell no, Skyrim is a much worse version of Morrowind, which was the game that actually was genre-defining in the 2000's. Skyrim was more popular exactly because it stripped most of the gameplay elements that made Morrowind so great, and that's why the casuals who don't really like games that much liked Skyrim. It's literally less of a game than Morrowind is.

Again, I don't judge your opinion on certain games or their mechanics, that is purely subjective. It's like saying: well, if it's not chess, it's not really a game, because you know... chess it's the ultimate game of tactics and strategy. Ok. I'm only hang up on the statement that people playing these games don't know what a game is, moreover they hate games. Well, TLOU on higher difficulties it's really challenging. I've played it for hours and skipped the cinematics (because I knew the story already). So, there's no problem playing without cinematics and really be engaged into it. But skip the cinematics in Souls or any game and you don't get into the same vibe. Cinematics are part of the game because a game is not only when you literally play, but an experience. And if players would have just pressed X to see the next cutscene and Game Over, I would have agreed, but you're nonsensical because you acknowledge they do have a gameplay, it's just not up to your standards.