gshc2020.com

The latest entity to join these lawsuits is the Stop Killing Games movement, a consumer-led initiative working to end the trend of developers ‘killing’ online or live-service games once official support for them has ended. Formed in 2024, Stop Killing Games has made its way to the European Commission and garnered over 1.2 million verified signatures on a petition as part of its European Citizens’ Initiative — and now, it’s joining the fight against Sony’s plans for a future without physical games.

As presented in a YouTube video uploaded on August 10, 2026, Stop Killing Games announced its plans to join Dutch consumer organization Stichting Massaschade & Consument, which filed a $457 million lawsuit against Sony back in February over claims of artificially inflating their prices on the PlayStation store for users in The Netherlands.

In its video, Stop Killing Games described the increased cost of these digital titles as an unlawful “Sony Tax,” saying it wants to fight for fair game prices and “real alternatives” to the online PlayStation store, making specific mention of Sony’s plans to shift to a fully-online shopping experience.

It’s also demanding that Sony repay the money they allegedly made from Dutch players who bought games on its digital platform, with Stichting Massaschade & Consument saying this amount adds up to hundreds of millions of euros.

As previously mentioned, Stop Killing Games and SM&C aren’t the only entities taking legal action against Sony; Mexican lawmakers have submitted a formal complaint to Mexico's National Antitrust Commission, requesting an investigation into Sony for alleged “anti-competitive practices” due to its plans to end physical disc production.

A class-action lawsuit was also filed against Sony within the U.K. in March 2026, alleging that millions of users in the region were subjected to "excessive and unfair" charges through the PlayStation store. And in May, PlayStation console owners launched a lawsuit against Sony to try and claim refunds after the company increased PS5 prices due to tariffs in 2025.

While not all of these suits are dealing with the death of physical discs specifically, it’s clear that consumers aren’t happy with this shift in policy and are making their voices heard, whether that be through a flood of comments on PlayStation’s social media posts or in the court of law.

Sony, for its part, has made no motion to backtrack on this decision, with CFO Lin Tao saying it plans to "cautiously move this forward" in a call with investors.

Virginia (she/her) is IGN’s News Editor. With ten years of experience reporting on games and entertainment, she’s got a storied background in the fighting game community, influencer news, and viral online trends. Find her on Twitter at @TheeMissGlaze. %!s()

But the behavioral record is messier than that. Some of the habits that reliably separate people who build interesting careers from people who plateau look, in the moment, like bad decisions. They violate the norms of prudence. They make colleagues wince. And they work — not because recklessness is a virtue, but because a certain kind of caution is far more expensive than it appears.

Here are two of them.

Habit 1: Quitting Things That Are Still Working

The conventional read on quitting is that its what happens when something fails. Quit a job that’s gone sour, a project that’s stalled, a plan that’s obviously dead. Walking away from something that is going fine — a steady role, a decent income, a path with no visible problem — strikes most people as squandering something of value.

Psychologists would point out that the opposite error is far more common and much harder to see. A 2018 study published in Academy of Management Annals describes this pattern — known as escalation of commitment — as the well-documented tendency to keep investing in a course of action precisely because so much has already gone into it. The years already served start functioning as an argument for serving more. What’s sunk feels like it should count, even though it can’t be recovered either way.

There’s a second reason “fine” can be dangerous for growth. Decision researchers describe a basic tension they call the exploration-exploitation tradeoff — between sampling new options and squeezing returns from a known one. A 2023 study published in Frontiers in Psychology found this exact tension shaping real decisions among organizational leaders, not just abstract models.

Exploiting a good option feels rational at every individual moment, which is exactly why people over-exploit. Every year spent doing something adequate is a year of information not gathered about what else might have fit better, and the cost never shows up on a balance sheet. It shows up as a narrowing sense of possibility.

What looks reckless here is really just a willingness to treat “good enough” as a decision rather than a default. People who leave functional situations tend to do it while they still have energy, options and goodwill, which is the only time leaving is cheap.

Habit 2: Committing Before You Feel Ready

The second habit is saying yes to something one cannot yet do — the talk you haven’t written, the role a level above your experience, the client you’re not even sure you can serve.

The standard objection is obvious: this is how people embarrass themselves. And sometimes it is. But the alternative strategy — wait until the skill is in place, then commit — rests on a model of learning that research doesn’t support. Competence rarely arrives before the demand for it. It’s built by the demand.

Self-efficacy research, one of the most durable areas in psychology, points consistently in this direction. A 2017 meta-analysis of academic self-efficacy, published in the Journal of Counseling Psychology, found that belief in one’s own capability is built primarily through mastery experiences — actually doing hard things and surviving them. Confidence isn’t the prerequisite for the attempt. It’s the by-product of it. Which means anyone waiting to feel ready is waiting on a supply that only the attempt itself produces.

There’s a motivational layer here too. A 2023 meta-analysis published in the Journal of Vocational Behavior found that people are most engaged in a state psychologists call flow when a task sits just past their current ability — enough challenge to feel like growth, not so much that it reads as threat. Fully comfortable work isn’t safe. It’s flat, and flatness has its own long-term costs.

Public commitment adds one more mechanism, an unglamorous one: a deadline someone else is holding. Most people work differently when a date and an audience exist than when the project lives quietly in a notebook.

The distinction that matters is between a bet that’’ survivable and one that isn’t. Taking on a stretch project is not the same as taking on a risk that would end a career if it broke. Reckless-looking people who do well are usually running small, recoverable experiments in rapid succession, not one enormous gamble.

What These 2 Habits Share

Both are refusals to let short-term comfort make a long-term decision. Staying in the working job and waiting until you’re ready are both locally sensible and globally expensive, and both feel like wisdom while they’re happening.

That’s the part worth noticing. The absence of these habits almost never looks like fear. It looks like patience, loyalty, diligence, even professionalism. Someone can spend a decade being unimpeachably responsible and end up somewhere they never chose.

None of this is an argument for impulsivity. It’s an argument that risk is symmetrical, and most people only audit one side of it. The cost of a bad move is vivid and immediate. The cost of never making one accrues quietly, in a currency nobody thinks to count until much later.

Wonder why some people leap before they feel ready while others have a habit to wait for conditions that never come? Find out how you approach challenges and growth with this science-backed test: Growth Mindset Scale %!s()

The nature of the sport tends to be that one team finds an advantage that others didn't and they have to work all season to maintain that advantage. Passing has been difficult in this series since before I started watching, and worsened as the cars got bigger, longer, and heavier. More than anything, though, F1 fans love to kvetch about how these cars sound. The current turbocharged V6 doesn't cause hearing damage every lap, so naturally the fans are upset about that. 

Most of the answers to my query boiled down to good ideas, ideas that were almost there but not quite, and truly awful ideas. It might be harder to find a rulebook that appeals to every F1 fan out there than it would be to ensure global peace. Maybe F1 should stop trying to dumb down its on-track product in an effort to make everyone happy and just focus on ways to make the racing better. In my opinion, that begins and ends with having good cars and better drivers.

There are so many ways to improve the pinnacle of open-wheel racing that we haven't even touched on here. If you have input, or didn't get an opportunity to answer this question when it came around the first time, jump in the comments and let us know. Let's dig in. 

The really good ideas

Clive Mason/Getty Images

I'd give the teams more technical freedom under a budget cap. I'd make B teams illegal. I would allow for more testing but not the 24/7 stuff we saw in the 1990s. I'd bring back the tire wars but tire companies would not be allowed to make a tire for only one team. I'm sure I could think of other things...that's just a start.

Suggested by Music Teacher 17

This is a really good start. Technical freedom is a great one, especially as it would see some cars making their lap time in a completely different way from other competitors, so you could see some really good on-track battles. Good start. 

One new rule: if there is a safety car with five laps or less to go, it's an automatic red flag. This would negate the "some cars dash to the pits for new tires but don't have time to use them" problem, and would eliminate the possibility of ending a race under the safety car. Red flag, everybody pits, everybody gets fresh(er) tires, and you get an exciting dash to the end.

Suggested by Evildad

The fact that this wasn't 100% clarified after the sham that was the 2021 season finale, I still can't comprehend. Honestly, I think allowing teams to work on their cars during red flags is the bigger concern. 

My current kick is what I call '1000hp Formula Ford.'

Obviously I don't mean that literally, but the intent is definitely a car with more power than grip. More than you can really use. Maybe that's 500, and not 1000. No wings.

Much longer braking distances, for sure.

I want them to be fast, but difficult, so you can see the skill needed to drive them well.

Suggested by Poorsche

Unsurprisingly, I absolutely love this. F1 cars should be laying strips of rubber on the ground at every corner exit, and the drivers should be fighting the controls to keep the car pointed in a straight line. That's when wheel-to-wheel racing is at its best. More power, less grip, good racing. You'll see who the seriously talented drivers are immediately.

Bring back fueling during pitstops. Teams can use different fuel loads at different parts of the race. This will increase strategies from the pit boxes.

Suggested by Angel Rivera

I couldn't agree more. Sports car teams and IndyCar squads with smaller budgets manage to run refueling pit stops safely hundreds of times per season. F1 could easily slow down its pit stops and require a standardized safety interlock for fuel rigs. The cars would be lighter and smaller if they didn't have to carry a full race load of fuel. Tire wear would be less of a problem, and strategy would be even more important. This should have been implemented years ago. 

The ideas that could use some workshopping

Motorsport Photography F1/Shutterstock

Overall smaller car, no engine capacity or type limit, but limit the amount of the fuel available per race weekend (conversion calculated for diesel, electric, nuclear or exlazer, whatever). No little detail legal languages on the aero but set the maximum surface area allowed on a car. There are other things, but this is where I'd start.

Suggested by JBJB

A smaller car is a given, the current cars are just too big. You could do the fuel limits by restricting races to a certain number of kilowatt hours of energy deployment, and the fuel source wouldn't matter. I don't dislike the surface area rule, but I worry about the ways it could be gamed. Maybe that's the point. 

Go back to naturally aspirated V12s. Let the drivers race. Also, put the races on for free on Youtube so I can actually watch them.

Suggested by ChaosphereVIII

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the problem with F1 isn't its powertrain. Apple TV is good, actually, and it's worth the $12.99 per month. 

Require all of them to install drone capabilities and give them missiles also make it on the moon.

Suggested by Russell Garcia

I don't hate this, but the logistics are a nightmare. 

1) No more B teams

2) More variables as others have mentioned. Allow each team to choose V10, V8, V6 or V12 engines, up to 2l max for turbo, 3l for normally-aspirated

3) Make the cars smaller, like 2000 size. The current ones are too big and prevent overtaking

4) Fire that clown Hermann Tilke out of a cannon and get a real track designer who can make challenging circuits that allow for overtaking

5) Get rid of all of that energy recovery junk

6) Bring back Kyalami and other classic circuits (provided that they can be upgraded to spec)

Suggested by QADude

I agree that B teams should be banned. I do think, however, that factory teams should be allowed to run a third car if they choose, and smaller budget teams should be allowed to focus on one car instead of being forced into fielding two. 

Ban carbon brakes, ban the hybrid electric, enforce track limits. This will make the drivers drive the track, making many more passing opportunities.

Suggested by Jeff OBrien

Track limits are dumb and bad. If it's paved you should be allowed to race on it. If you don't want drivers putting a wheel there, make it gravel. Hybrids are good, actually, and make the cars significantly faster than internal combustion alone. Carbon brakes should be outlawed in general, for all racing and street applications. 

Three things

1. Cut amount of mechanics to service the car during a pit stop in half. No more three men per wheel and such and stops will get longer.

2. reduce front and rear wing size by 35%

3. shrink overall car size by 20%.

Suggested by monsterajr1

If you ask me, F1 teams should be aiming for 10 second pit stops instead of two seconds. Smaller wings will probably look ridiculous, I would personally go for a no-wing design to ensure the cars are too powerful and don't have a ton of downforce. 

The ideas that we need to have an argument about

Mark Thompson/Getty Images

Do away with regulations for engine like unlimited displacement, the way they did with Group 7

Suggested by Luc Desaulniers

Group 7 (Can Am and Interserie) collapsed in on itself within eight years because Porsche built a car nobody could catch. Speed increases as a function of dollars spent, and bigger engines won't make the sport cheaper, that's for sure. 

No point [in a budget cap].

Nascar has indirectly tried it. All that resulted was each of the mega teams having satellite teams.

If Ford, GM, Mercedes, etc want to spend a billion out of their budget on aero, another billion on horsepower, etc, f*** it, go for it.

Suggested by MustangIIMatt

A budget cap is nice for the sport, because spending just got way out of hand in recent years. This is already a sport that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to run. There has to be a cutoff point, or it'll just be the team that spends the most will win every year.

If it was just for 1 day: Replace every motor with a Honda D series, add a turbo, NOS, and a rattle can exhaust. Also, more decal stickers and everything that's hella flush, yo. Obligatory "VTEC kicked in!" from the announcers.

Suggested by Chantha Proeung

Could you tell me right quick what would be a better motor for my F1 car? A Gallo twelve or a Gallo twenty-four? %!s()