Admit that you lost some faith in humanity after reading some answers here, I certainly lost.Only reason I asked for examples is because he said "lots" of people have expressed that sentiment and I don't think that's accurate.
Admit that you lost some faith in humanity after reading some answers here, I certainly lost.Only reason I asked for examples is because he said "lots" of people have expressed that sentiment and I don't think that's accurate.
I'm not particularly arguing that those examples are anti-consumer, but there is a clear difference between creating something yourself (or even having a hand in its creation) and therefore choosing what to do with it, and paying another party simply to keep their goods off a storefront it otherwise would have been on.
You can play those games, you are choosing not to. No one is preventing you from buying a PlayStation, you just don't want to.I can't play them so those games existing don't matter at all. Unless i eventually like a copycat, their very existence is meaningless to me.
Exclusives are made to maximize profit long term rather than short term like every other game by making you want to buy into the ecosystem in the first place. In the case of Sony, only a handful of games actually make money by themselves while they take loses on every other games they make.So are you saying all games are designed to maximize revenue/profit except exclusives?
it doesn't make sense to me
OK, think of it this way:Yes i agree completely, i can understand why someone would reserve more vitriol for egs than sony (for their in-house games). But i feel like the act of exclusivity is fundamental to the customer...thats the main part im getting confused by
You can play those games, you are choosing not to. No one is preventing you from buying a PlayStation, you just don't want to.
Which is fine, but it's not anti–consumer to not cater to your individual whims.
Because EGS didnt create those games and Sony did. It's the difference.I think this is where i basically lose the plot. So what is the actual difference between egs and ps exclusives here? The ownership or labor put into the product seems besides the point for the consumer, but the act of exclusivity remains.
FixedNext: Bugger King anti-consumer for not letting McDonald's sell Whoppers.
LOL yeah, I edited after I realized it was backwards.
You're not owed or entitled to games that Sony develops. Are you also mad that you can't play Breath of the Wild on PC? (And don't start about emulation..)
Are you going to be upset when next-generation games will require you to upgrade your PC to enjoy them properly?
The benefit to you (entertainment) always comes at a cost to you as a consumer, that's just how this works.
Netflix doesn't let me watch Stranger Things on Amazon Prime, therefore they are anti-consumer scum. Why should I subscribe to Netflix when Amazon Prime is supposed to have everything? How is that fair?Next: McDonald's anti-consumer for not allowing Burger King to sell Big Macs?
Because EGS didnt create those games and Sony did. It's the difference.
And as a creator they have all the rights to do anything with their product. Sell them anywhere they like.
See above. "Anti-consumer" means the consumer is being taken undue advantage of.I think this is where i basically lose the plot. So what is the actual difference between egs and ps exclusives here? The ownership or labor put into the product seems besides the point for the consumer, but the act of exclusivity remains.
It's how I feel when PC gamers complain that Sony or Nintendo is losing money by not releasing their games for PC.Netflix doesn't let me watch Stranger Things on Amazon Prime, therefore they are anti-consumer scum. Why should I subscribe to Netflix when Amazon Prime is supposed to have everything? How is that fair?
I could actually feel myself getting dumber typing that out
See above. "Anti-consumer" means the consumer is being taken undue advantage of.
Not giving every consumer exactly what they want exactly how they want it is not taking advantage of anyone. It's offering a product for sale that, for one reason or another, a given consumer doesn't want to buy. Just like the vast, vast majority of other items available for sale.
I hate how "anti-consumer" has been so diluted as to mean almost nothing.
Preying on human weakness and using exploitive mechanisms to extract money from customers only somewhat aware of what's happening is anti-consumer.
Offering a clear product for a clear price? That's just commerce.
I use these words. Thanks for calling me an idiot, really constructive.I hate the words anti-consumer and pro-consumer, mostly because the people who use them seriously sound like idiots. Everything is anti-consumer to fucking people nowadays. It's just thinly masked, "if I don't have immediate, easy, or free access to it, then it's anti-consumer." People feeling entitled to fucking everything.
Not all usersI use these words. Thanks for calling me an idiot, really constructive.
There's just levels to it; another way to look at it: stop getting so aggro and defensive over someone calling something anti-consumer.I hate how "anti-consumer" has been so diluted as to mean almost nothing.
Preying on human weakness and using exploitive mechanisms to extract money from customers only somewhat aware of what's happening is anti-consumer.
Offering a clear product for a clear price? That's just commerce.
Why does anyone have to be "mad" or "upset"?
I'd be thrilled if BOTW came out on PC, thrilled if Sony's exclusives came out on PC.
Those would be pro-consumer moves... not sure how anyone could frame them any other way.
I'm not going to bash Sony or Nintendo for not releasing their games on PC; but I'd praise them if they did.
(to be clear I'm not the person you were responding to, just chiming in)
I absolutely disagree.There's just levels to it; another way to look at it: stop getting so aggro and defensive over someone calling something anti-consumer.
If a game could easily have come out on ConsoleBox2, and for marketing reasons GameCompanyX decides to move that game to ConsoleBox2 rather arbitrarily, that is an anti-consumer move. It would be better for consumers to release the game on both systems and let them choose. That has likely happened before in the console industry.
It's not anywhere near as bad as many other anti-consumer moves; loot boxes and the like, but it's still anti-consumer. Which isn't the end of the world.
Much of commerce is anti-consumer.
After many bad experiences with Steam Customer Service I've tried to find alternatives to buying Steam versions of games wherever I could find them. EGS offering at least one alternative for AAA games a possibility in the future, even if Steam version is later for now.I don't want a playstation. Its inferior to my already bought PC. how is gaming in on inferior hardware costumer friendly/neutral?
I wouldn't mind buying some sony games for my PC.
But yes to all your questions: Netflix should put their original content on other sites. As a costumer that would be a really good move.
As a costumer i really don't care for the profits of the company, i'm not a shareholder of those companies.
I don't get how saying that exclusives are bad because they exclude people from playing them for profits is me saying that sony owes me video games. Can you explain your reasoning?
Well you set the bar at "someone being taken advantage of or abused."I absolutely disagree.
Again, games are a luxury good. No organization has any moral or ethical mandate to make a product in exactly the way a given consumer wants it. It's their product, it's their choice how to expend their resources and what to create with those resources. If you don't want to pay the asking price for that item, fine, that's your decision. No one has been taken advantage of or abused in that situation.
Next: McDonald's anti-consumer for not allowing Burger King to sell Big Macs?
I don't want a playstation. Its inferior to my already bought PC. how is gaming in on inferior hardware costumer friendly/neutral?
I wouldn't mind buying some sony games for my PC.
But yes to all your questions: Netflix should put their original content on other sites. As a costumer that would be a really good move.
As a costumer i really don't care for the profits of the company, i'm not a shareholder of those companies.
I don't get how saying that exclusives are bad because they exclude people from playing them for profits is me saying that sony owes me video games. Can you explain your reasoning?
It's not, I just don't think an organization inherently owes you labor to suit your own desires. If their labor creates a product you want for a price you want, great. If it doesn't, that's also fine.Well you set the bar at "someone being taken advantage of or abused."
I set the bar differently I guess; I'd definitely say those are far worse, more anti-consumer.. but in the tech space when you do something for marketing reasons rather than technical reasons you are tipping that balance towards being anti-consumer. Not all exclusives fit that mold, some do.
Your view is incredibly pro big business, mine isn't quite as pro big business. Yours also creates way more gray area and makes it pretty difficult to discuss this personally.
I'm not a dev jsut a costumer. From my udnerstanding when WOW launched it was imposible to port it to the consoles. I completely agree that WoW should be on consoles, exclusives.
I don't get how saying that exclusives are bad because they exclude people from playing them for profits is me saying that sony owes me video games. Can you explain your reasoning?
Admit that you lost some faith in humanity after reading some answers here, I certainly lost.
It's not, I just don't think an organization inherently owes you labor to suit your own desires. If their labor creates a product you want for a price you want, great. If it doesn't, that's also fine.
The idea that a luxury good company isn't doing anything wrong by creating a product they want to create and selling it for a clear price isn't "incredibly pro big business," it's the most basic idea possible in commerce.
Why does a company owe you the creation of a luxury product they don't wish to create?
Then how is it "anti-consumer"? What does anti-consumer mean if not an action taken that causes undue harm to the consumer?I don't think so either; not sure how that relates to this as I am certainly not using that as my basis for what makes something anti-consumer.
Never said they owed me anything, never called it a moral or ethical issue either.
Then how is it "anti-consumer"? What does anti-consumer mean if not an action taken that causes undue harm to the consumer?
Next: McDonald's anti-consumer for not allowing Burger King to sell Big Macs?
It's embarrassing, and all this port begging here lately is destroying the forum.Can we just ban anti-consumer discussions relating to gaming, period?
Then how is it "anti-consumer"? What does anti-consumer mean if not an action taken that causes undue harm to the consumer?
Which doesn't make any sense at all, because, at least when it comes to luxury goods, the creation of a good the consumer wants for the price a consumer is willing to pay is, in and of itself, a benefit to the consumer. And the creation of a good that the consumer, for whatever reason, does not want or is priced higher than the consumer is willing to pay is not a detriment to the consumer in any way. It's just another item amoung billions of other items that consumer does not want.
Depends what you mean. If a manufacturer is dishonest or misleading about the life span of a product, or takes action to reduce the usability of an item for no practical reason other than to force a consumer to buy another item, sure, I'd say that's anti-consumer.Is planned obsolescense anti-consumer? Or isnt it, because it is a standard practice?