MS has a console plus a PC operating system they want to support with games. They don't want PC games to shift to something else.
-
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.
Sony Is Not Anti-Consumer for Making PS5 Exclusives - Push Square
- Thread starter Angie
- Start date
And if it's PS5-only, I'm really hoping they put some stuff in there that fully utilize the SSD and faster CPU.
Article should've quoted his anti-consumer rant and made him famous lol. People in this thread seems to not believe that the idea of anti-consumerism with launch exclusives was seriously pushed around on Era.
The rumor about a Demon's Souls remake has been around for at least a year, so I'm sure Bluepoint has had a lot of time to take advantage of that PsV devkit
Best for you is what I mean, not necessarily technically best. Like take for instance the Switch; the Switch is unique in that its games can be played on a normal TV as a console and on the go as a handheld. This gives the Switch functional uniqueness that makes it appealing for people to buy games on even if the same games are available on other better hardware. In this instance, one has a choice of deciding whether they want games to look and run better or to be optionally portable.
Or if we go farther back, the Wii was functionally unique in being the only motion control console when it came out. It wasn't much of a powerhouse though, so if people wanted a powerhouse they'd go for a PC, 360, or PS3. What I'm saying is that hardware can make itself appealing without the need of exclusivity.
Then you can't read.
It's not the idea of exclusive that is seen as anti-consumer by some, but the idea of next gen exclusive (the idea of having to buy a new box, when your old one could play the same game, only scaled down on fidelity)
Based on the threads this article is most likely based on, I think pushsquare felt into the fallacy of thinking that if something is pro-consumer, something else is anti-consumer in return. Additionally, in this very thread as seen here...
..., some folks assume that saying "exclusives suck" somehow means they think it's anti-consumer. There's a big difference here and it's hyperbole to insinuate that everyone disliking exclusives automatically thinks they are anti-consumer, or in this very case thinks people are saying Sony is for making PS5 exclusives.
As for my own opinion, I don't think Sony is anti-consumer for making PS5 exclusives. I think Microsoft is pro-consumer for supporting their old platforms, but that doesn't mean the competition is anti-consumer as a result. It's never such a black and white situation.
The article itself is fanboy drivel that hardly invites any productive discussion as it is essentially vague passive aggression. The only thing it does is invite pointing fingers at others about whether or not people truly think a certain thing, something I am with this post guilty of myself. I just think Pushsquare ain't a good source this is not the first time they just wrote an article that has as much substance as your average fanboy post here on Era.
..., some folks assume that saying "exclusives suck" somehow means they think it's anti-consumer. There's a big difference here and it's hyperbole to insinuate that everyone disliking exclusives automatically thinks they are anti-consumer, or in this very case thinks people are saying Sony is for making PS5 exclusives.
As for my own opinion, I don't think Sony is anti-consumer for making PS5 exclusives. I think Microsoft is pro-consumer for supporting their old platforms, but that doesn't mean the competition is anti-consumer as a result. It's never such a black and white situation.
The article itself is fanboy drivel that hardly invites any productive discussion as it is essentially vague passive aggression. The only thing it does is invite pointing fingers at others about whether or not people truly think a certain thing, something I am with this post guilty of myself. I just think Pushsquare ain't a good source this is not the first time they just wrote an article that has as much substance as your average fanboy post here on Era.
It's been more widespread than that, but as the saying goes the hit dog will yelp.
This is a dumb article that really didn't need to be made. I can't at someone literally taking a bunch of derlicks seriously about their childish obsession of calling anything that anyone invest their own money to produce on their own system as "anti-consumer".
Delete this.
Delete this.
What would it shift too? It has ton's of ways to play games either through different stores, or dedicated publisher launchers? Browser based F2P games as well. VR is still going, with Quest selling out, same with Valve's Index Headset.
What would it shift too? Microsoft is trying to makeup for lost time, and blunders of their windows store that they have re-booted more than once. Now that people still are not buying games in the quantity that they would like, they added gamepass. On top of bringing most if not all first party titles to steam.
I don't think Sony fans are upset. Just bewildered at how nonsensical and transparent this entire argument is.
A couple of cherry-picked opinions on ResetERA is not article worthy, laughably disguised as "some enthusiasts"
So then why did you ask me for receipts if you already know damn well they are there.
Nah, it depends on the consumer. I want next gen exclusives built from the ground up for PS5.
It is in the interest of owners of a Xbox One to be able to play those games. But it did not violate your rights when Microsoft released games for Xbox One, which were not playable on 360.
Damn, it isn't a bad idea either way. Like the games not being exclusive helps the game sell, the games being exclusive helps the hardware sell. Halo Infinite should have an amazing launch population across platforms for this, for example.
But surely the only difference at this stage, is the look? The game won't play different or have more features just because of the machine, not between current and next. Maybe in the past, but not now.
But surely the only difference at this stage, is the look? The game won't play different or have more features just because of the machine, not between current and next. Maybe in the past, but not now.
It's just pretty disingenuous to act like this is a news worthy opinion, then follow up by using it to push an agenda like you did about the XBX.
What are you going on about launchers, stores, VR still going, Quest selling out for?
I'm talking about the OS, the operating system. MS is just bolstering the platform to ensure there isn't a drift. There was an idea 5-10 years ago before MS went all accommodating to maybe steer away from Windows for general PC gaming.
Last edited:
Well it's more like Apple TV+. They are requiring you to own an Apple device to view their content.
Dude what the hell are you talking about? Are you sensitive about the story? I didn't comment on the "news worthy-ness" of it, I read it and said it was an excellent article. It delivered it's points well. I'm not CNN and neither is video game journalism. So if you want to talk "news worthy" none of this shit about video games is "news worthy," the fires in Australia are news worthy. I read it as an entertaining article about my entertainment hobby of video games. I got a laugh out of it actually. Anything beyond that is your agenda, not mine.
I mean, it's not like exclusives are good for us, but I can see why calling it "anti-consumer" goes too far for some.
They fund exclusives to try and lock you into the hardware box they're selling at a slim margin -or even a loss- in the hope of locking up your purchases for the next five or more years.
Would many people choose a weaker PlayStation 5 over a stronger Xbox Series X if they both cost the same and could play the same games? It seems unlikely.
They're using exclusives to convince you to buy their (potentially) inferior product, instead of making you want one by improving the product itself.
It's also terrible for game preservation.
Just look at how many people are hyped up for a Demon's Souls remake… because the original game is locked to PS3 hardware.
Would there be the same demand a remake if the game was easily accessible on multiple platforms and playable today? Would it be a bad thing if it was?
What if it was backward compatible on Xbox, but not PlayStation? Wouldn't that pressure Sony to actually put some effort toward supporting older games?
Why is it that Sony didn't offer PlayStation Now on the PS3 as a way to play PS4 games, instead of requiring owners to buy new hardware?
I wonder if they'll allow you to stream PS5 games on PS4/PC at launch.
Wouldn't it be better if the same game was available on PS5/XSX/PC and Streaming platforms?
Exclusivity itself is never a good thing.
You can make the argument that perhaps the game wouldn't have had the same budget, or maybe Sony just wouldn't try making games any more if they weren't using them to sell hardware, but the exclusivity of a game is bad for us.
You say that their exclusive content is good, but don't you remember when shows were accessible on multiple platforms?
It's all bad.
Even if you have the money to spend where you can subscribe to every service and buy all the hardware out there, the experience of finding and playing content is awful when it's split across so many platforms.
They fund exclusives to try and lock you into the hardware box they're selling at a slim margin -or even a loss- in the hope of locking up your purchases for the next five or more years.
Would many people choose a weaker PlayStation 5 over a stronger Xbox Series X if they both cost the same and could play the same games? It seems unlikely.
They're using exclusives to convince you to buy their (potentially) inferior product, instead of making you want one by improving the product itself.
It's also terrible for game preservation.
Just look at how many people are hyped up for a Demon's Souls remake… because the original game is locked to PS3 hardware.
Would there be the same demand a remake if the game was easily accessible on multiple platforms and playable today? Would it be a bad thing if it was?
What if it was backward compatible on Xbox, but not PlayStation? Wouldn't that pressure Sony to actually put some effort toward supporting older games?
Why is it that Sony didn't offer PlayStation Now on the PS3 as a way to play PS4 games, instead of requiring owners to buy new hardware?
I wonder if they'll allow you to stream PS5 games on PS4/PC at launch.
Why do you care that it's exclusive?
Wouldn't it be better if the same game was available on PS5/XSX/PC and Streaming platforms?
Exclusivity itself is never a good thing.
You can make the argument that perhaps the game wouldn't have had the same budget, or maybe Sony just wouldn't try making games any more if they weren't using them to sell hardware, but the exclusivity of a game is bad for us.
Are you saying that people like having to subscribe to multiple services to access content now, instead of paying a single subscription like they used to?
You say that their exclusive content is good, but don't you remember when shows were accessible on multiple platforms?
It's all bad.
Even if you have the money to spend where you can subscribe to every service and buy all the hardware out there, the experience of finding and playing content is awful when it's split across so many platforms.
Im really not sure why some people are complaining about Push Square publishing this article.
It is a sentiment that has been posted multiple times since Xbox announced their games would initially be cross gen, both here and elsewhere.
If the owner/writer for the site thinks this is something they can comment on they are perfectly fine to do so.
Just because you dont think its worth talking about (or pretending people haven't said this before) then that's up to you but its not your website so who cares what you think.
It is a sentiment that has been posted multiple times since Xbox announced their games would initially be cross gen, both here and elsewhere.
If the owner/writer for the site thinks this is something they can comment on they are perfectly fine to do so.
Just because you dont think its worth talking about (or pretending people haven't said this before) then that's up to you but its not your website so who cares what you think.
Anti-consumer is when Microsoft bought the Xbox exclusivity of tomb raider when that game was always supposed to be multi platform
No, games will most likely be designed with base hardware limitations.
*Next gen software. I don't mind if it isn't an exclusive, just that it's made from the ground up for next gen hardware.
I think it's newsworthy.
focusing on the conclusion of whether or not the move is anti-consumer perhaps isn't important.
But rather the topic of continued platform exclusives as they become so rare and whether or not they continue to make sense from a consumer and business standpoint is a perfectly valid topic to discuss.
Maybe the argument could be framed better. But it's certainly a discussion to be had whether or not Sony should be porting their games to PC or offering a PS NOW type service on PC.
That was a move against the interest of Playstation buyers, but it did not violate their rights. Once upon a time anti-consumer meant a rights violation. Not business move which sucks for some.
This anti-consumer madness has been going on for too long! How dare these companies support their new consoles with new games!
the game was never announced for ps4 when it was first announced people assumed it was
Well, the definition of "Anti-consumer" according to Merriam-Webster is not favorable to consumers. Improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers.
So I'd say it fits the definition well in the case of money hatting third party exclusives.
I can watch For All Mankind on my Roku though. (The rest is not directed at you)
This whole thing, as has been said countless times in here is ridiculous. MS gets to be "Pro-Consumer" for not locking anybody out, and I appreciate that but at the same time would love to see a next gen unleashed Halo at launch and not hamstrung by previous gen.
Sony is not anti-consumer for not doing the same and it's stupid to think they are.
You can watch apple+ on samsung tv, amazon fire stick tv...
Also you can play some ps exclusives on pc via ps now. Is obvious that PS exclusive will be exclusive to their platform (hw o service: ps now).
What I'm wondering is if games have gotten to a point of scalability that creating the perception that a PS5 is required to play X game is simply a marketing scheme. If Hellblade II looks like that and is coming to Xbox One as well, I question the idea of exclusively making games for next-generation hardware. This is why the Switch, as underpowered as it is, is receiving PS4 games. Sony has every right to market their PS5 and I am curious to see the results of this.
No shit? No company is anti-consumer for making a platform exclusive. (Yes, not even the Stadia studios.)
