-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
“As a consumer...”
- Thread starter Durden
- Start date
Maybe some people are here but are using....shady means to get their games with no need to spend a single cent, so by this definition they are, in fact, not-consumers
Consumer does mean something, but I agree with your stance that pro/anti consumer are often personified as a company being nice and/or a bastard, when really it's just trying to make money
The real issue is sometimes a company will do something that is pretty bad, predatory or exploitative. This kind of behaviour is often called anti consumer, which is probably not the best term for it, but if a company is exploiting their customers then that is pretty anti-consumer, in that it's bad for the consumer
Someone who feels compelled into spending £10,000 on FIFA packs that mean nothing when the next game comes out hasn't been treated that well by a company using gambling mechanics to make spending all their money on tat enticing
You do also see a lot of people on Era, who do seem to be huge fans of certain companies to the point they will defend anything they do
People were even defending Nintendo for not allowing people to cancel digital pre-orders, which is fucking bonkers
There is nothing wrong with being critical of dodgy practices within the industry, and that goes from poor working practices to exploitative financial models, and as people who consumer video games, these are things we should be aware of, and things we should be happy to discuss
You've ignored all the substance of my post.... so OK.
It is OK to not think about anyone else's pockets but as I pointed out originally, it goes beyond that.
The coarse use of the language means that we end up splitting into tribes. Much as you are describing here. People then use those positions to attack others.
Just because I don't bash EA (or whatever company) on everything they do, doesn't make me a "fanboy". I may disagree with a commonly held conceit among the community. For example, I've got not ideological problem with lootboxes.
I do think there are dscussions to be had about how they are employed and whether regulation is needed for younger users.
Have you ever tried to have that discussion. Well, I have and it's hard because as soon as your not totally on the side of "the consumer" you've already become an opponent for some people.
What I'm saying is, the language matters and the gaming community does a lot of policing of each others habits based on the use of this language.
If everyone was just "looking after their own pockets" then when EGS bought exclusivity to a game, people who didn't like that would simply say "I'm not gong to buy it".
What actually happens is we have multiple cascading threads where arguments rage as to how much damage those consumers who don't on board with EGS are doing to gaming as a whole. Same with lootboxes, same with numerous graphical downgrade storms and "they lied to us" controversies.
It all gets worked back to "consumer rights" but this is often a cover for whipped anger over other issues or just adds to the general distrust between the gaming community and the establishment that provides much of it's entertainment.
Exactly this, many here behave as a shareholder / as if they were the company itself. I don't care if giant corporation _____ will make more money doing _____ if that won't benefit me.
So nah, OP, you're wrong.
Sure, negative practices exist. As a community we should totally call out and discuss them. The problem, I think, here is two fold:
1- Gamers consider consumption as an two way honorific act.
2- Tribalism quickly develops when we split something into two quickly definable camps.
So to point 1, which is clumsily worded. Many gamers are quick to vent their rage at any imagined deficiency in a product and there are numerous over the top examples of this. They also often want to be rewarded for supporting a game. They also often get this, what other medium continues to update a product long after the initial sale. What other medium changes essential details of the product based on consumer feedback without demanding further purchase.
Point 2, which feeds into 1, by labeling all companies as pro and anti consumer we are ignoring any nuance. It makes it easy for those who demand both an excellent product and/or continued after care to feel aggrieved if they are not being completely catered for. As I said originally, they've deified their position as consumer. So anything that is anti- consumer must not just be shunned but attacked.
All this would be fine if it resulted in reasonable discussion and/or sensible boycotts etc. The reality is, it makes gaming a febrile atmosphere for bad actors to weaponise consumer rage against those working within it.
Once death threats became a regular response to controversy in gaming, we all should have stepped back and had some introspection, instead we still strive to make sure that we always headline consumer rights along with human rights.
Anyway, this has dragged out long enough, hopefully you see that I'm not suggesting we don't criticize companies, only that we do it sensibly and specifically. In my opinion, pro/ anti consumer labels just worsen the situation for all of us.
I think we mostly agree with each other, and thanks for actually putting time and effort into your posts
I agree bad actors use anything and everything to attack developers. Just look at the quantity of embarrassing posts in all the recent Pokémon threads
But that alone isn't a good reason to never be critical of developers/publishers, as sometimes they do things that warrant criticism. Trying to discuss these matters is further complicated by the fact there are a lot of posters who will defend a developer/publisher they like for doing anything. There really is a defence force for everything
So you have a debate that is worth having, and people on both sides with an agenda, along with a smattering of trolls who just want to stroke fanboy flames
I agree we should take a step back, but I acknowledge it can be hard when you have so many posters essentially commenting in bad faith. They just can't let people criticise their favourite company on the internet and get away with it, no matter what
In an ideal world everyone would put a lot of thought into their posts and try to explain their position well, whereas in reality most posts tend to be shorter or inflammatory
The reason accusing posters of being a shill is such a common occurrence now (so much so that it's bannable) is because there are so many posts from people defending something it seems absurd they'd defend without them having a vested interest in it
Consumer protections are important. It just means you're thinking of something from the perspective of when you're purchasing something, rather than the perspective of the ones selling it. Any additional meaning you give it is your own cynicism.
I think it is a perfect way of establishing the perspective through which a following topic should be interpreted.
As a consumer, I want to buy great games.
As a developer, we want to create great games.
As a publisher, we want to sell great games.
In each case, the word "great" may have a different meaning.
Some examples:
For a consumer, a game is great if it provides a great experience.
For a developer, a game is great if it reviews well by critics.
For a publisher, a game is great if it achieves a dedired profit target.
As a consumer, I want to buy great games.
As a developer, we want to create great games.
As a publisher, we want to sell great games.
In each case, the word "great" may have a different meaning.
Some examples:
For a consumer, a game is great if it provides a great experience.
For a developer, a game is great if it reviews well by critics.
For a publisher, a game is great if it achieves a dedired profit target.
This.
I agree OP, 100%.
It definitely comes across as "but MY opinion is more valid!" when in reality, life is not all about the so-called "consumer." We are all consumers so no it doesn't need to be called out or framed to make your point stick. What's valuable in helping to understand some decisions is considering and discussing certain things from different perspective.
I always get a good chuckle out of posters here saying YOU ARE NOT A SHAREHOLDER like it's some elusive and esoteric club to get into with membership only provides to the chosen ones(tm). 1) In many cases it costs mere dollars to become a "shareholder" and 2) just because someone wants to discuss the business side of things doesn't make their discussion invalid or less valuable than "muh consumer standpoint".
You wouldn't have a single product for sale without the business side so why is it so taboo to consider it a relevant discussion point?
Last edited:
i used it when people are defending a corporation.
A few examples:
That's the reason i don't buy EA, ubisoft,etc. games anymore. It was also the reason I quit console gaming.
A few examples:
- as a consumer: I extremely dislike that the PS4 and switch don't allow for the use of xbox one controller. Instead i'm forced to buy their propretary stuff.
- As a consumer EGS is taking away features i use on steam for no reason than to enrich both epic and the devs. there is 0 benefit for me to buy in the EGS store
- as a consumer more video game platforms should be following steam guidelines. That is the minimum aceptable standard for a digital store.
That's the reason i don't buy EA, ubisoft,etc. games anymore. It was also the reason I quit console gaming.
"As part of the people who want to partake in this hobby, but are continuously feeling pressured by manipulative business practices to fork over cash for what I feel is worsening products and services" doesn't really roll off the tongue.
Maybe it has something to do with a large part of the games industry being so aggressively anti-consumer.
Here's a typical example:
Poster A: I wish company wouldn't lock DLC to a specific platform.
Poster B: Hey, stop right there! Think about all the money company would lose without those marketing deals. Platform pays good cash!
Poster A: As a consumer, my interests differ from company shareholders'.
----------
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with this way of thinking. I agree that maybe it's a kinda boring phrase, but in this context the truth is most of us are just consumers, and yet some folks tend to forget it anyway, so...
Poster A: I wish company wouldn't lock DLC to a specific platform.
Poster B: Hey, stop right there! Think about all the money company would lose without those marketing deals. Platform pays good cash!
Poster A: As a consumer, my interests differ from company shareholders'.
----------
Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with this way of thinking. I agree that maybe it's a kinda boring phrase, but in this context the truth is most of us are just consumers, and yet some folks tend to forget it anyway, so...
Last edited:
Can we take a minute to talk about here's why we need to talk about consumerism. Here's why.
Most used excuse to shield someone's ego from the fact that they're broke and can't afford the hobbie as much as they'd like
That's it
That's it
I'll be clear that I'm not saying that we should never criticize, I'm only suggesting we criticize specfici issues. Rather than label everything bad.
As such all criticism should be self moderated and we should try to be aware when "I'm unhappy with product X" becomes "I'm unhappy with product X and someone's got to pay".
Overall, my point is that the focus on the consumer being so pivotal to this particular industry (and I also blame the companies making those games in this) is detrimental to the entire experience.
As you say, part of the issue is the nature of online interaction, its mostly just single line drive bys and there a small group of people who get their kicks from riling everyone up intentionally.
What I can say, is don't assume bad faith. Be wary of it but if someone is discussing something you're interested in maybe they have a good point. Perhaps they have a useful perspective and they are defending something for the right reasons.
Anyway, I'm getting preachy here, don't want to tell you how to internet.
This reminds me of my line of work.
SCRUM userstories:
Bad: As a developer, I want to refactor the code, so it's not spaghetti.
Good: As a consumer, I want the code to be optimized, so I can get future updates in timely manners.
Doing anything as a developer, you have to be able to justify your actions and not twiddle your thumb for 2 weeks on something no one asked for. There has to be value, so proper evaluations can be made on how much worth the task at hand is and how much priority it needs. Refactoring code is one of the biggest problems developers have because it's clearly not a direct added user value. So it needs to be explained very clearly that if you do not do this now, every update in the future will take forever because the code is a mess. (Of course, not allowing unscalable/unmanagable code in the first place is the most desirable outcome but not every developer is at that level)
Now this is a real world example, but it translates quite well to the gaming community. You have games where updates really excite you, because they properly convey the value added to the software that impacts you, as a consumer.
Then there are updates that just make you go say 'okay, yeah, so?', because they cannot convey what is in it for you. Sometimes it's just bad communication and the value is there, and sometimes developers in those companies have too much power and do too many useless things. When they're so out of reality that thinking their 5 months of work is applaudable, when in reality you as a gamer have no use for it, or finish the new content in 10 minutes.
This brings us to the mentality of replying with 'as a consumer' in a gaming forum. Basically, sometimes decisions are made for games that can be great for the gamer, but not conveyed directly or correctly. You could use 'as a consumer' to highlight it. And sometimes decisions are made for games that has no value whatsoever for the gamer. However, due to this being a gaming forum, people sometimes argue for the sake of the company. In this case, 'as a consumer' would be used to convey that someone is practically an unpaid shill, aka fanboy, because a consumer gains nothing from it. When people are in the circle too long, sometimes they forget that they're arguing against consumerism.
However, friction also occur when there's a blurred line between arguing for a company and for a consumer. Unsustainable requests like adding the whole Pokémon roster is a good example. Is it bad for the consumer? Yes and no. Yes it's bad because it's less Pokémon. No because more time and effort can be put into other things. (That said, it doesn't seem really clear they the extra manpower and budget they have freed up went to anything mind blowing, so people got, IMO righteously, upset)
SCRUM userstories:
Bad: As a developer, I want to refactor the code, so it's not spaghetti.
Good: As a consumer, I want the code to be optimized, so I can get future updates in timely manners.
Doing anything as a developer, you have to be able to justify your actions and not twiddle your thumb for 2 weeks on something no one asked for. There has to be value, so proper evaluations can be made on how much worth the task at hand is and how much priority it needs. Refactoring code is one of the biggest problems developers have because it's clearly not a direct added user value. So it needs to be explained very clearly that if you do not do this now, every update in the future will take forever because the code is a mess. (Of course, not allowing unscalable/unmanagable code in the first place is the most desirable outcome but not every developer is at that level)
Now this is a real world example, but it translates quite well to the gaming community. You have games where updates really excite you, because they properly convey the value added to the software that impacts you, as a consumer.
Then there are updates that just make you go say 'okay, yeah, so?', because they cannot convey what is in it for you. Sometimes it's just bad communication and the value is there, and sometimes developers in those companies have too much power and do too many useless things. When they're so out of reality that thinking their 5 months of work is applaudable, when in reality you as a gamer have no use for it, or finish the new content in 10 minutes.
This brings us to the mentality of replying with 'as a consumer' in a gaming forum. Basically, sometimes decisions are made for games that can be great for the gamer, but not conveyed directly or correctly. You could use 'as a consumer' to highlight it. And sometimes decisions are made for games that has no value whatsoever for the gamer. However, due to this being a gaming forum, people sometimes argue for the sake of the company. In this case, 'as a consumer' would be used to convey that someone is practically an unpaid shill, aka fanboy, because a consumer gains nothing from it. When people are in the circle too long, sometimes they forget that they're arguing against consumerism.
However, friction also occur when there's a blurred line between arguing for a company and for a consumer. Unsustainable requests like adding the whole Pokémon roster is a good example. Is it bad for the consumer? Yes and no. Yes it's bad because it's less Pokémon. No because more time and effort can be put into other things. (That said, it doesn't seem really clear they the extra manpower and budget they have freed up went to anything mind blowing, so people got, IMO righteously, upset)
Came in here to say something like this, yeah. Gamers in general seem to love caping for soulless corporate interests so it's weirdly necessary to phrase your viewpoint that way.
Only tangentially related, but I'm reminded of how I want to make a thread about how weird it is to me that it's become so commonplace in the last ~3 years (or, more likely, I've only started noticing it then) for normal people (for "consumers") to talk about enjoying various forms of entertainment as "consuming" "content" rather than "playing a game" or "watching a movie" or "listening to a song" or whatever.
For me, at least -- particularly in situations where it's clear we're talking about one specific category, i.e. specifically games, rather than needing a shorthand for multiple forms of media at once -- just referring to it as "content" seems a bit cold and clinical and referring to "consuming" it highlights the disposable "get through it and move on to the next thing" side of entertainment rather than the entertaining side. Being an eating metaphor, it evokes a mental image somewhat like Gluttony from FMA just mindlessly stuffing his face with as much as possible. "I MUST CONSUME. MOAR, MOAR!"
Not being an unfeeling marketing executive driven by the almighty dollar, I find it incredibly off-putting to talk about art in such a cold and distancing way, and it weirds me out that seemingly no one else is bothered.
For me, at least -- particularly in situations where it's clear we're talking about one specific category, i.e. specifically games, rather than needing a shorthand for multiple forms of media at once -- just referring to it as "content" seems a bit cold and clinical and referring to "consuming" it highlights the disposable "get through it and move on to the next thing" side of entertainment rather than the entertaining side. Being an eating metaphor, it evokes a mental image somewhat like Gluttony from FMA just mindlessly stuffing his face with as much as possible. "I MUST CONSUME. MOAR, MOAR!"
Not being an unfeeling marketing executive driven by the almighty dollar, I find it incredibly off-putting to talk about art in such a cold and distancing way, and it weirds me out that seemingly no one else is bothered.
Ok Moneybags
Well, to give a bit of perspective
I was born in 1986, started gaming at 7 years old. Back in Neo geo times, Metal Slug was worth 125,81€ (price adjusted with inflation)
Any new n64 game also was as costly.
Any new ps1 game was 67.64€, I don't remember exactly Dreamcast / ps2 / xbox / gamecube prices but it was more expensive I think
So you know ? you know. Its always been expensive, EXCEPT that nowadays you can get a lot of brand new games for 35 - 40€ on pc, everything else is 70€ on console, and depending of where you live you get it for less
If anything, gaming is more affordable now that it ever was before, yet you see the "as a consummer !!!" popping a lot. There has been a thread around the forum about pricing not too long ago and its what I've always suspected, lot of people just can't afford to follow the "new" releases / market on a constant basis and don't like to be reminded of it
I'm not a consumer. I've never consumed a single game in my life. I've played lots, but never eaten any. It seems a lot of people here have, so I guess Nintendo was really onto something when they made their carts taste terrible. Games are for playing, not consuming! They don't even have any nutrients!
EDIT:
1000000% this:
Seems like the marketers convinced us we don't play, read, or watch various forms of entertainment anymore. I don't know about you, but when I play a game, read a book, or watch a movie/TV show, it's still there after I'm done. It's not consumed in any way. Others can still read/watch/play it. Food, on the other hand, is not available for anyone else after I eat it. Don't let the marketing clowns win and subvert language for their own nonsense!
EDIT:
1000000% this:
Seems like the marketers convinced us we don't play, read, or watch various forms of entertainment anymore. I don't know about you, but when I play a game, read a book, or watch a movie/TV show, it's still there after I'm done. It's not consumed in any way. Others can still read/watch/play it. Food, on the other hand, is not available for anyone else after I eat it. Don't let the marketing clowns win and subvert language for their own nonsense!
if you say "consumer protections" you're directly referring to the legal language that is used in this situation. if you just adopt consumer as a common use noun, you're getting creepy.
As a consumer, video games should be free and instead make profit by harvesting all of my data and selling it to the highest bidder who wants to use it to push targeted political propaganda.
Anything else is just anti-consumer.
Anything else is just anti-consumer.
I hate when people use literally for mundane things like. "My game literally glitched". It's like okay, no one is going to have a hard time believing you, just say it glitches up.
and i said that the way you used the term is one that doesn't carry that connotation for me. ergo i am not a robot who flags that word as meaning something without considering context. the fact that you gave an example that sounds obviously normal and default is implying things about my "cynicism" that i never stated.
Last edited:
Well, that's the thing. As a dev myself (heh), but also an avid gamer, I often have conflicted feelings on some industry topics, hence sometimes needing to specify if I'm talking "as a consumer" or "as a developer". In my case the "consumer" opinion usually wins, but that's often more because of my left leanings than anything else.
For people that aren't developers, "as a consumer" often means they're talking exclusively about what's convenient for them, not necessarily what is good for developers. So if anything, it's not meant to signify that their opinions are more important, as much as warn that what they're saying may only be beneficial for consumers, and detrimental to developers.
(It can, of course, be argued that in the long run, practices that are sufficiently bad for developers are also bad for consumers, because if the former can't afford to stay in business, the latter don't have any products to buy).
As a consumer, I'm really tired of dorks on internet forums sucking on the soles of large companies like their identity depended on it.
If Sony could make more money running a ad that said " go fuck yourself Michael" they wouldn't think twice about doing it.
What needs throttling is the idea that multi billion dollar companies give a fuck about people, because if they did they'd treat their employees way better.
What needs throttling is the idea that multi billion dollar companies give a fuck about people, because if they did they'd treat their employees way better.
I've personally noticed it gets used a lot when people complain about companies not doing specific things they want them to (make a new F-Zero game, where's Mother 3, why aren't N64 games on the Switch yet, why can't I just buy the NES games wholesale, why are they charging so much for a game that's old) and feel (in those contexts) it often gives the poster a very selfish and entitled tone.
I'm more annoyed by people who start posts with something being the 'worst' anything ever when we live in an industry where the worst version of anything is probably in some unknown phone game or deep in the bowels of Steam.
I'm more annoyed by people who start posts with something being the 'worst' anything ever when we live in an industry where the worst version of anything is probably in some unknown phone game or deep in the bowels of Steam.