@Fryboy101: "For a change".

The company/consumer rights bit is kinda the underpinning of my point, so I can understand if you see this as hypocrisy when you can't fathom that fact. Also, me wanting to screw someone who screws me isn't hypocrisy, it's a response. Ideally neither would need to screw the other. Me wanting to screw someone but feel I should be immune to being screwed would be hypocrisy. (Though even then the entities would need to be perceived as equals, something I don't subscribe to)

Right now, I only see you as a corporate apologists (Makes dealing with my apparent hypocrisy easier I guess...)

@joalopes: They didn't ask for authorisation though did they? That's why he knew nothing about it. That's why he's angry. I'm not sure they'd need to have such authorisation either way though, depending on what rights each has respectively.

There's certainly a wrong and right here. It's all dependant on what was agreed/promised at the outset.

To me it sounds like Jeremy's remorseful of selling something he loved. As sad as that might be it's really not his any more, nor should its use require his authority/oversight.

@streamline: I wouldn't expect Bethesda to breach usage rights, given how aggressive they in regards to such cases.

I disagree with a lot about how this seems to have transpired, but that disagreement lies primarily with how careless and naive the artist must have be in order to believe his involvement should mean anything.

He should count his lucky stars if Bethesda don't get him in a court room for slander. (He's implying that the concert is of less value because he's not involved, which is false, the entire point of the concert is about celebrating the game and music, not the artist)

Stop selling rights if you don't like people using them.

@Fryboy101: So you think that players should keep having to pay for a premium service that ultimately adds little/nothing to end users experience?

I mean, paying for PS+ is comparable to needing to pay for Steam from a PC users perspective. Sony's profits from online transactions alone would likely far exceed the operational costs of their entire freaking online infrastructure given how inflated the prices are.

I don't think the little guy getting one over on Sony for a change would be a bad thing in any regard.

It's called a hostile takeover for a reason. No good will come of it.

Let the people who care about the company keep the company.

@megantereon: I couldn't imagine them not going that way at this point. They're certainly in a better position to pull it off than Nintendo.

@bdrtfm: Aha, I seriously wish that were the case! Sadly most politicians are people of business :(

@burasta: Not really dude. It's called a delay, not a scam. Also, your dates are wrong as far as I'm aware.

@geminij13: True enough. Though I'd rather debate the sentiment that leave it to linger.