Sony Is Not Anti-Consumer for Making PS5 Exclusives - Push Square

Dec 4, 2017
5,309
Brazil

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,113
People operating in the real world take nuanced views on the value of things based on their price. The only people to whom it is useful to frame the argument as a black & white 'principle' are those who are so wealthy that the actual price is meaningless.
What a ridiculous, insulting straw man. You should be ashamed of yourself for making assumptions about my income that are completely untrue just because I disagreed with an argument that makes no sense and pointed out that you can't compare a recurring payment of $10 a month to a one-time purchase of $400. Clearly many people who are not wealthy feel the value proposition of a one-time $400 purchase is worth it for the ability to play years and years of exclusive games, not to mention the fact that most people do not buy these consoles at full price.
 

Kage Maru

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,790
Another perfect example of why this site is a joke. Who is saying it's anti-consumer? I've read comments saying MS' is pro-consumer but that doesn't automatically make other approached anti-consumer. Everything doesn't have to be viewed in absolutes, this is not an either or topic.

All this drama over maybe 4 or 5 titles out of a whole generation of games. SMH.
 

Sanka

Member
Feb 17, 2019
1,433
It only applies to first party. Third party studios still can, and will, make games that can only be played on Series X and PS5. It may be an issue for Microsoft first party, but they're not gonna come out and attack their own company's policy.
Any developer who worked on AAA games(only talking about budget and scale here) should be able to make a comment on this.
 

InsaneTiger

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
5,411
That's what happened multiple times. Posts here on Era, twitter, etc.

Yep.
It doesn't help that now that stream of thought has now left this tiny place and is now floating around. No disrespect to the author but the Matt Booty/Kotaku threads about cross-gen/not cross-gen really didn't need more exposure.

Anti-consumer does not mean what some folk here think it means. Exclusivity is not Anti-consumer.
 

tulpa

Member
Oct 28, 2017
3,113
Any developer who worked on AAA games(only talking about budget and scale here) should be able to make a comment on this.
Ah, gotcha. You just mean a general insight into the premise. I thought you meant more of like, someone reporting their specific experience of developing a game for Series X and being mandated to use Xbox One as a baseline rather than just discussing the concept.
 

entrydenied

The Fallen
Oct 26, 2017
2,705
being annoyed because you can buy at your favorite store is ok i guess, while death threats and meltdowns aren't.
Death threats and meltdowns are never ok.

Personally I only consider practices that punishes customers who already bought into your eco systems or that are buying your products/services as anti consumer. Such as bad warranty exclusions or duration and not doing refunds. Having to buy a console to play a game is not anti consumer as there's no loss on the consumers if they don't buy the game or the console.

Another pet peeve of mine is when people say that Nintendo not reducing prices is them being anti consumer.
 
Oct 28, 2017
550
Of course not, this argument never held any water is not at all applicable in the real world. They own a portfolio, and get to choose their channels. Gamers acting entitled doesn't change a damn thing.
 

Sanka

Member
Feb 17, 2019
1,433
Why? It's not that there is any doubt about it. Games like Dead Rising 3 and Ryse Son of Rome weren't possible on 360 back in the days. Spider-Man's speed has been limited due to HDD limitations. The Nemesis system in Shadow of Mordor needed to be altered on last gen. Guerilla tried to implement flying mounts in Horizon Zero Dawn, but the CPU and HDD bandwith were just not there. Novigrad in The Witcher 3 has been designed to reduce drawing distances, so PS4 and Xbox One could handle it.

There are countless examples and the difference next gen will be a lot bigger because of the storage being WAY faster.
Well, because people in the other thread were downplaying the extent to which nextgen games would be held back by the xbox one. Some used the pc with its unlimited hardware combinations to make the case that it's not a big deal.

I want to read first hand experiences from people who actually have to deal with this.
 

TrishaCat

Member
Oct 26, 2017
508
United States
I understand that power is a factor; I just find the idea of exclusivity in general to be fundamentally anti consumer behavior in the sense that it removes consumer choice. Make me want a PS5 because the PS5 is unique and good hardware, not because games are locked to it.

The idea of games being built for more powerful hardware is fine and makes sense; its not so much that the games are not on PS4 as it is that the games are locked to the Playstation environment that troubles me.
 

BAD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,707
USA
What authorities are claiming it is anti-consumer? Who are they citing that we should care about? Who are they defending Sony from?
 

Cactuar

Member
Nov 30, 2018
3,307
Some tasteful discourse taking place in here, I see.
Excellent article, Sammy. Every significant console known to man has had exclusives either at launch and most definitely within their first two years. Funny how this decades old tradition only became "anti-consumer" in the minds of some once Microsoft revealed XSX will not have any exclusives.

I agree with what you wrote about the different directions. Sony wants you to buy PS5 (thus the exclusives), while Microsoft wants you to buy their subscription (thus nothing's exclusive). Nothing wrong with different companies having different goals.
 

Kyry

Member
Oct 27, 2017
543
If anything I find it anti consumer to invalidate the purchase of a console by not creating exclusive content.
 

R0987

Avenger
Jan 20, 2018
1,106
Its not anti consumer from sony to release ps5 exclusive games however if they plan to abandon the ps4 completely after the ps5's launch now that would be a bad move.
 

Calverz

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,122
Hahaha the way they try to say that by ditching ps4 is pro-consumer is hillarious. Id expect nothing less from them.
 

TheRealTalker

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,630
Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
one and done

game needs funding to even exist/get made is different from an already well funded game with no money or development help/issues being money hatted just for the fact that said whatever console/platform company doesn't want said 3rd party game on other platforms (PS, Nintendo, Xbox, Epic Game Store, Steam, etc...)
 

PSOreo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
730
How dare they have their own decent original games with a reason to buy their system!

Next you’ll tell me I can only play Mario, Zelda, Pokemon, Metroid, Donkey Kong and Smash only on a Nintendo devices!
 
Aug 23, 2018
425
Literally no one outside a handful (as in literally 3-4) forum posters are saying otherwise. This article and narrative that people actually think it’s anti-consumer is already exhausting.


But they don't quote or link to any sources. Push Square is a Sony focused outlet so any soapbox articles like this (literally published as "Soapbox:" aren't holding anyones feet to the fire without actually referencing anything other than a few disaffected posters on forums like this and Twitter.

That they made a whole article out of this is ridiculous.
This.
 

LumberPanda

Member
Feb 3, 2019
570
It is more anti-consumer than EGS exclusives. Whether or not that bar is set in the "not anti-consumer" side of things is up to you.
 

TrishaCat

Member
Oct 26, 2017
508
United States
If anything I find it anti consumer to invalidate the purchase of a console by not creating exclusive content.
Imagine if the film industry was like this
"You have to buy the Sony BDPS1700 Bluray player to watch Avengers: Endgame and the LG BPM350 Bluray player to watch Frozen 2, and people cheer this on as being good for consumers"
Obviously this isn't a 1:1 situation, the industry is a little different in how development works, but the thing is is that you're saying that a console isn't worth it if it doesn't have exclusive games.Wouldn't you want the console to sell itself on its own hardware? Like imagine if all games were multiplat; you'd choose what platform to play on based on what has the best hardware for the best price most suited to you, wouldn't you? Wouldn't it be better for hardware to sell itself on its own merits?
 
Jan 10, 2018
4,809
Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
Anti-consumer violates the rights of consumers, usually when they are forced to agree to contracts which come with the purchased or used product. Other example would be faulty products which limit the lifespan of said product.

Not even your example is anti-consumer. It simply isn't in the interested of all consumers.
 

hrœrekr

Member
May 3, 2019
587
Using unique and exclusive ip / content to entice people to your platform and service varies.

Netflix - Outstanding
Amazon - Excellent
HBO - Epic
Sony - Anti Consumer
This is a nonsense comparison.
Amazon doesn't lock content to the new version of their Fire Stick or just new Fire TV models.
Let's compare it to other hardware oriented products. Does Apple lock their apps to only new Iphone models?
 

Kyry

Member
Oct 27, 2017
543
Imagine if the film industry was like this
"You have to buy the Sony BDPS1700 Bluray player to watch Avengers: Endgame and the LG BPM350 Bluray player to watch Frozen 2, and people cheer this on as being good for consumers"
Obviously this isn't a 1:1 situation, the industry is a little different in how development works, but the thing is is that you're saying that a console isn't worth it if it doesn't have exclusive games.Wouldn't you want the console to sell itself on its own hardware? Like imagine if all games were multiplat; you'd choose what platform to play on based on what has the best hardware for the best price most suited to you, wouldn't you? Wouldn't it be better for hardware to sell itself on its own merits?
I think the console isn't worth it if it doesn't have exclusive games. For example there is no way i'd buy a Switch if that content was available elsewhere.
The hardware is only important to me in that it is capable of playing the games designed for it.

If I wanted the best hardware, I wouldnt bother with consoles.
 

OG_Thrills

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,052
This is a nonsense comparison.
Amazon doesn't lock content to the new version of their Fire Stick or just new Fire TV models.
Let's compare it to other hardware oriented products. Does Apple lock their apps to only new Iphone models?
It would seem the vast majority of gamers polled think that exclusive ip on a new platform is ok so the semantic argument isn't necessary.
 

Burrman

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
7,635
Anyone who said they were is stupid. Buying timed exclusives is what makes them anti consumer
 

BAD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,707
USA
This thread seems odd cause I've seen plenty of people complain that any and all exclusive stuff was anti-consumer both on ERA and beyond. But people acting like that totally isn't a thing.
Sony first party being exclusive to their current system being called anti-consumer is one thing, while third party bought exclusives and timed exclusives being called anti-consumer is another.

A game like Destiny 2 having its DLC locked to PS4 exclusively was called anti-consumer a lot. I don’t think many people, if any, have been saying a game like Horizon which is totally made by Sony, is anti-consumer as the article claims people are saying.
 

DumpsterJuice

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,122
California
Yep, new console cycle is upon. You can tell by the ridiculous articles that are being written.

I think gamers lose brain cells the year new consoles are set to release. This one here makes no sense to me. Anti customer because they invest in their own platform and studios? Ludicrous to think this.
 

hrœrekr

Member
May 3, 2019
587
It would seem the vast majority of gamers polled think that exclusive ip on a new platform is ok so the semantic argument isn't necessary.
We are ok with this because hardwares in the past were so different between generations and we didn't have scalable games. Now that all consoles are basically PCs with different specs, it does not make sense to lock ALL games to new hardware versions only. I can see this happening after some years, and with only games the push the hardware limits. For all the other games it's just a business oriented anti-consumer decision.