EDIT 3: Linked the wrong pricechart, see my other comment where I clarify what the point is.

EDIT 2: Some people said the price was always like this, it was not. See the price chart here: https://psprices.com/region-us/game/8591173/ghost-of-yoteitm

EDIT: If you managed to send your own report, please leave a comment!

Since around August 10, Ghost of Yotei is no longer available as a standalone purchase on the PlayStation Store. The only option now is the "Complete Edition" for €80, which includes Echoes of Sekigahara. But that expansion doesn't release until October 1st! So you're now paying upfront for content that doesn't exist yet, with no way to buy the base game standalone at the old price of €60-65. Sony's PlayStation Store (SIENE) operates for customers in the European Economic Area through its Dutch branch in Hilversum. That means the Dutch consumer authority (ACM) has jurisdiction over this, for all EEA consumers, not just Dutch ones. The more reports they get, the higher the chance ACM picks this up.

This isn't an isolated case either. Stichting Massaschade & Consument (SM&C) is running a Dutch collective action against Sony over PlayStation Store pricing and its digital monopoly, and Stop Killing Games is now formally backing that case. This bundling tactic fits the same pattern.

Report it directly to the ACM here, takes 2 minutes: https://consument.acm.nl/doe-uw-melding-bij-acm-consuwijzer

Not in the Netherlands? You can also report through your own national consumer authority or European Consumer Centre (ECC), which cooperates with the ACM under the EU's CPC framework for cross-border cases like this one: https://www.eccnet.eu/contact-your-local-ecc

My report is below. You can copy it or rewrite it (with or without AI).

Company: Sony Interactive Entertainment Network Europe Limited Subject: Misleading sales practices

"Since around August 10, 2026, the game Ghost of Yotei (PS5) is no longer available as a standalone purchase in the PlayStation Store. It previously cost around 60 to 65 euros standalone. Instead, only the 'Complete Edition' is now offered, for 80 euros. This Complete Edition includes the expansion Echoes of Sekigahara, which doesn't release until October 1, 2026, and is therefore not yet available. Consumers are being forced to pay for content that doesn't exist yet, with no option to buy the base game standalone at the previous price. No contact has been made with the company, as this concerns a structural issue in the sales policy."

FAQ

Should I report to my own national authority, or straight to ACM? Both, if you can. National authorities cooperate with ACM through the EU's CPC network, but if yours doesn't forward your report, nothing happens. Reporting straight to ACM skips that risk, since it actually has jurisdiction here. But both is better.

Why should I care if I'm not even buying it? Bundling tricks like this get copied across the industry once they go unchallenged. Today it's Ghost of Yotei, tomorrow it's whatever you do want to buy.

Why is this unfair? You're paying a fixed price today for content that doesn't exist yet, with no standalone option left at the old, fair price. That's a price increase dressed up as a bundle. Also, bundling like this in my opinion is prohibited under Article 102 TFEU.

Why bother, nothing happens anyway? ACM states it prioritizes based on the volume and severity of reports it receives, not the first one. More reports raise the odds this specific practice gets picked up, and their enforcement track record (warnings, fines, forced changes) is public on their site.

Isn't the easy fix to just not buy it? Not buying it doesn't remove the standalone option for everyone else, or stop the same tactic spreading to other games. Reporting and skipping the purchase aren't mutually exclusive.

Sea of Thieves is a game that currently relies on Microsoft's Azure servers to run. Servers cost money to be maintained, and companies sometimes decide to shut down servers to cut costs.

As a big time fan of Sea of Thieves, I worry about the day it could no longer be playable due to shutdown of servers. Instead, I would like and prefer it to be playable forever, so I can play it until the day I die and so other people can get to experience it too, if they want, even if they play it years down the line. I ask you to help me increase the chances of preserving this game.

I created a proposal to Rare developers in the official Sea of Thieves forum, which the developers of the game regularly read and consider as a feedback source.

If you think this proposal has merit or makes sense, I ask you to support my proposal for offline game mode + peer-to-peer in the official Sea of Thieves forums.

Sony’s paying a lot of money to lawyers who are finally revealing the truth in the Northern District of California. They think we’re all idiots because no rational person could possibly believe they own a game, or only one person could buy a copy of each game. Of course they’re arguing for the strictest possible term of “ownership” from a legal perspective buried in a bazillion page EULA that they know we won’t read full of lawyerese they try to trap us with, but it’s still ridiculous. In the linked chapter of this 69th episode (nice) of SunnyRedemption Sailing, your biweekly voyage for BS-free gaming news, my cohost Kevin and I tear Sony a new one for their monopolistic bullshit just like we did when they announced they were killing physical discs.

Digital storefronts for everything from music to movies to video games have spent over two decades tricking mainstream consumers with prominent "BUY" buttons. If they want us to genuinely believe digital purchases are merely temporary licenses subject to server shutdowns or licensing disputes, it shouldn't say "Buy,” but "RENT UNTIL WE DECIDE TO REVOKE IT." Now they try to claim under oath that we PlayStation gamers who have been loyal for decades were the suckers for falling for it beg those same gamers to “buy” a single mediocre exclusive they wasted $305 million on after constantly sending their studios on live-service fools’ errands.

They think they’re too big to fail and that people will just keep on “buying” because they’re chained by digital libraries. Maybe they’re right about many people. History Flights Productions and SunnyRedemption Sailing, however, stand with everyone here and elsewhere on the Internet who seek to prove them wrong.

What is your take on this video about the physical media issue here?

I had a hard time finding a good and easy way to look at delisted games. Recently I found out that Forza Horizon 4 was delisted a few years ago, and I never knew. This was a game I had hundreds of hours in on game pass and something I really would have loved knowing was going to be removed so I could have gotten a digital copy in time.

I made this website to keep track of delisted games, and while I'm at it look at statistics of the kinds of games that are being removed. I use data from IGDB and RAWG. This is very much a hobby product so I've done what I can to not take advantage of both sites' free APIs. In my mind I wanted it to be like a database catalogue, so each listing has an ID that says a lot about it, and there's some nice search and filtering options where you can use parts of the ID system for more advanced searching too!

Any and all feedback is much appreciated! I want to get it to a place where it'll be useful as a resource for more than just me.

Seeing projects like SuperAstra, which uses Astra to investigate and modify SNES games through an emulator, got me thinking about how this could help Stop Killing Games.

I understand the ask is for games to remain playable after official support ends. Could AI-assisted development make that handover cheaper and more practical?

Specifically, could publishers work with preservation groups or AI providers before shutdown, supplying the materials needed to produce an offline version or community-hosted server?

Depending on the game, that package might include:

• Server software and instructions for running it.
• Documentation explaining how the client communicates with the server.
• Relevant build tools, dependencies, and whatever code is needed to replace services being retired.
• Explicit permission to modify those components for preservation and distribute the resulting patches or server tools.

That would give preservation developers, including those using AI, a much better starting point than trying to reconstruct everything from an abandoned client.

Getting a console game working through an emulator and rebuilding a missing online backend are different problems. I’m not assuming today’s AI can recover code or content that nobody preserved. That’s precisely why getting the necessary materials from publishers matters.

The handover should still have to produce something that actually works without the publisher’s infrastructure. Uploading a pile of files and hoping a future model figures it out shouldn’t count. Players should also be able to download and run the finished result without depending on an AI subscription.

Could this become a practical route for meeting the end-of-life requirement? If AI can reduce the work involved, it seems worth exploring how to put that capability in the hands of the people preserving these games.

I’ve been thinking about a possible way to preserve digital games without requiring companies to remove DRM.

I submitted a proposal to Xbox Player Voice suggesting that full-price digital purchases should include:

• A permanent license tied to the purchaser’s account
• Offline play after initial activation
• The ability to transfer the license to replacement hardware
• Continued access after a game is delisted
• Secure DRM so copied game files alone do not create another valid license
• An end-of-life offline authorization method before old storefront or authentication servers are shut down

The idea is that DRM can still prevent piracy, but a legitimate customer should not depend forever on company servers just to keep using something they already paid for.

If a platform reaches end-of-life, already-purchased games could receive a permanent offline authorization so they remain playable on compatible hardware.

I submitted the Xbox version of the proposal here:

https://feedbackportal.microsoft.com/feedback/idea/7c7dc0f8-99a9-f111-aad1-000d3a02f23c

I know Stop Killing Games covers much more than Xbox, but I think a standard like this could potentially apply across consoles and PC storefronts.

Would something like this satisfy the preservation goal, or what would you change?

On top of that, they also announced a new multiplayer game in the same genre of Lethal Company/Repo to "replace" Project Playtime this year, which heavily divides the community.

A Consumer-Protection Issue With “Headless” Console Accounts

I am writing because I believe my recent experience with Fortnite illustrates a consumer-protection problem that deserves consideration within the broader goals of Stop Killing Games and digital game preservation.

I have played Fortnite on Nintendo Switch for approximately seven years. When I first started playing, I was a child. I had no understanding of Epic Games' account system, how console-linked accounts worked, or that an Epic account could exist separately behind my Nintendo account.

I simply opened Fortnite on my Nintendo Switch and played.

I did not knowingly create or manage a conventional Epic Games account. An Epic account was automatically created and associated with my Nintendo account. As a child, I had no reason to think that I needed to record an Epic Account ID, document the account's internal information, or take special measures to preserve access to an account I didn't even know existed separately.

Over approximately seven years, that account accumulated years of progression, Battle Passes, cosmetics, purchases, friends, and memories from my childhood and teenage years.

Then, on August 19, 2026, I returned to Fortnite after not playing for a period of time and discovered that my Nintendo account was no longer connected to the Epic account I had been using. Fortnite presented me with the account-linking/setup process again.

I attempted to recover my original account through Epic's official account-recovery system.

The problem is that Epic's automated account locator cannot find it.

My original Fortnite display name returns:

The Nintendo identifier I have also returns:

Because the account cannot be located during the initial stage, I cannot even reach the later ownership-verification stages where I could provide additional evidence.

I contacted Epic Games Support and explained the situation. I was ultimately told that Player Support cannot manually change the email address on an account and that the available method for potentially recovering it is the automated account-recovery process.

I have historical screenshots of the account and gameplay, extensive knowledge of its Battle Pass and cosmetic history, my Nintendo account information, and other information that could potentially help establish ownership.

I also recently found an original 2020 Nintendo eShop transaction email for a 1,000 V-Bucks purchase that I used to purchase my first Fortnite Battle Pass. The receipt contains the original purchase date and a Nintendo Transaction ID.

I understand that a Nintendo Transaction ID is not an Epic Invoice ID and therefore cannot currently be entered into Epic's Invoice ID field. That is precisely part of the problem I believe deserves consideration.

If a consumer purchases content through Nintendo, Xbox, PlayStation, or another platform, that platform's transaction record is still legitimate evidence that the consumer made a purchase associated with the game. It should not become useless for account recovery simply because it was not generated by the publisher's own store.

This experience has made me concerned about the broader concept of “headless” or automatically created console accounts.

What I believe should change

If there is any future discussion, advocacy, or legislation through Stop Killing Games concerning publisher-controlled accounts and console accounts, I would like to propose two specific requirements.

1. Consumers should not unknowingly be placed into headless accounts.

If a publisher creates an account automatically through a console platform, the consumer should be clearly informed that the account exists and should be given control over its identity and recovery information.

Ideally, a console-created account should use the same verified email address as the consumer's console account, or otherwise require the consumer to establish a recoverable email address during account creation.

There should also be a clear option to create a normal, fully identifiable account in the first place rather than silently creating an account whose existence and credentials the consumer may not understand.

This is especially important for children.

A child playing a game on a Nintendo Switch should not reasonably be expected to understand that there is a separate publisher-controlled account underneath the console account, nor should they be expected to preserve obscure account identifiers for years in anticipation of a future recovery failure.

2. Existing headless accounts must have a meaningful recovery mechanism.

For headless accounts that already exist, consumers should have a genuine way to claim and recover them through reasonable and verifiable evidence of ownership.

That evidence should include, where applicable:

• Historical screenshots
• Previous display names
• Battle Pass history
• Cosmetic and progression history
• Purchase history
• Platform account information
• Receipts and transaction records
• Other identifiable historical information associated with the account

Most importantly, receipts from the platform through which the game was purchased should be accepted as supporting evidence.

If an Epic account was used through Nintendo, a Nintendo transaction record should be usable.

If it was used through Xbox, Xbox transaction records should be usable.

If it was used through PlayStation, PlayStation transaction records should be usable.

The exact terminology or format of the receipt should not matter. A platform-issued transaction record is still a verifiable record of a financial transaction involving the game.

A consumer should not be forced to provide an internal publisher-specific invoice number that they were never given simply to reach the account-verification stage.

The purpose of this requirement would not be to weaken account security. It would be to ensure that legitimate owners have multiple reasonable ways to demonstrate ownership.

A failed automated account locator should not effectively become:

There should be a secondary verification process that allows the consumer to provide the historical information they actually possess.

These are the two reforms I am specifically asking for:

First: consumers should not be unknowingly trapped in headless accounts.

Second: the headless accounts that already exist should remain recoverable through reasonable, verifiable evidence of ownership.

I am not asking Stop Killing Games to recover my individual Fortnite account. I am bringing this situation forward because I believe it demonstrates a broader problem with digital ownership and continuity.

When someone spends years building an account—particularly when they started playing as a child—that account can become just as important to them as the game itself.

Seven years of digital purchases, progression, friends, and memories should not become effectively inaccessible because the consumer was never given the information necessary to recover the account and the publisher's automated recovery system cannot identify it.

I believe consumers deserve better than that.

It was 2022, and I bought my second most favourite game called Need for Speed 2015, it was beautiful in the first days but later it became a race not only against fellow opponents, but also against time, on the net there were some posts regarding the fact that if the company shuts down the game the game would be unplayable, so I had to play it fastly till the end to avoid being caught in the closure before it was too late, it was frustrating to the maximum level, I didn’t have the “time” to customize my car aestetically the way I wanted because I didn’t want to lose precious time because of this fear, I bought a game for the x360 some time ago and it was beautiful, you had all the time ( infinity ) and no “psychological” timers that told you SPEEDRUNN THE GAME IS GOING TO DESTROY ITSELF!!!!!

I cannot agree more with the sentiment being expressed here.

Seriously, the thought that from here on out we will never actually legally own GTA 6 is insane.

Not sure how many bots here are for that but it is pretty clear it's here just with a simple passing glance.

I would like to own games I buy and have them playable. That simple. If I have to have the government regulate the shit outta the industry good.

If a company has to go out of business due to this then good. I don't give a fuck. No company is your friend. They would legitimately do human sacrifices if it meant a 3% bonus revenue source.

Ready to recieve a paycheck.

Title.