-
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.
Sony Is Not Anti-Consumer for Making PS5 Exclusives - Push Square
- Thread starter Angie
- Start date
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.
There it is.
Plain and simple.
That Sony makes their own games for their own hardware is normal.
That Sony pays for 3rd party games to not release elsewhere isn't.
Just par for the course, reminds me of those articles of INTERNET SLAMS x when all they source are one or two tweets by literal nobodies.
I'd argue that even calling moneyhatting 'anti-consumer' is a bit tenuous. The term has lost all meaning on Era, and instead is just used as a buzzword to describe things people don't like.
Push Square and their articles, can't take them seriously.
OF COURSE IT'S NOT ANTI-CONSUMER.
Push Square editor is on ERA, took a look at the whole "anti-consumer" thread here and made an article because a small, small minority here called PS5 exclusives anti-consumer.
OF COURSE IT'S NOT ANTI-CONSUMER.
Push Square editor is on ERA, took a look at the whole "anti-consumer" thread here and made an article because a small, small minority here called PS5 exclusives anti-consumer.
It's PushSquare. The biggest surprise is that they are still not banned on Era.
Goodness me i don't think Sony's strategy is anti-consumer - it sure is not pro-consumer but it is not anti-consumer at the same time, it is just a decision that they have gone with. However i do view Microsoft's strategy as pro-consumer and it is similar to what they did last generation with a few of their first party titles receiving 360 counterparts. Also citation needed on Pushsquares assertion that:
Because that is just ridiculous to say this far out with no details on how this all works. Forza Horizon 2 for example which was both on 360 and Xbox One was in no way "compromised" as the 360 had its own version to speak of and there is nothing saying that Halo Infinite might go down a similar route or quite simply wont be boxed in by having to port to the Xone.
Because that is just ridiculous to say this far out with no details on how this all works. Forza Horizon 2 for example which was both on 360 and Xbox One was in no way "compromised" as the 360 had its own version to speak of and there is nothing saying that Halo Infinite might go down a similar route or quite simply wont be boxed in by having to port to the Xone.
Really didn't see the anti consumer thing being pushed aside from a couple of notorious posters.
This article has blatantly been inspired the two threads on this site regarding the different strategies of the Series X and PS5.
I think it is. There are consumers who want a new software cycle to go with their new hardware, for the process of what that can do to push the medium forward technically. That's been the convention heretofore. I think 'next-gen' loses some excitement without that. It it 'pro' those consumers to start that transition now rather than to delay it.
It's just 'pro-consumer' in a different way to the approach that seeks to soften the transition and extend legacy platform lifecycles.
But tbh, to a large extent I think this 'pro-consumer'/'anti-consumer' rhetoric has verged into the nonsensical, and has lost all meaning.
I don't understand how this is anti consumer. They make games for their hardware. If you want to play them, buy their hardware. They are not running charity.
Feeling entitled to play all games because you choose a different hardware doesn't make you right.
Feeling entitled to play all games because you choose a different hardware doesn't make you right.
Jesus Christ that post history. Enthusiast press like this shouldn't be celebrated as more than a typical opinion post on ERA. Treating it like a valuable source of information/discussion is definitely poor given they're sourcing from their own conversations on ERA but not linking them and manufacturing some large problem that doesn't exist.
I've seen it pushed elsewhere as well. So it's not just happening here. It's one of the most batshit arguments i've seen.
Using unique and exclusive ip / content to entice people to your platform and service varies.
Netflix - Outstanding
Amazon - Excellent
HBO - Epic
Sony - Anti Consumer
Netflix - Outstanding
Amazon - Excellent
HBO - Epic
Sony - Anti Consumer
The anti-consuner complaints were always laughably misplaced and ridiculous. It's like some people are new to technological and product developments, cycles or advancements, correlating support cut off points, along with the very nature of the relevant business models.
What I find especially amusing is why some are or were seemingly championing only this arbitrary cut off point of 1-2 years of (first party) cross gen games in support of past gen consumers. Why not 4 years of cross gen support? Or 6? Why support cut off generations at all?
What I find especially amusing is why some are or were seemingly championing only this arbitrary cut off point of 1-2 years of (first party) cross gen games in support of past gen consumers. Why not 4 years of cross gen support? Or 6? Why support cut off generations at all?
Last edited:
I think my post is quite clear - just because something is regarded as either pro or anti consumer does not automatically make it the other. I fail to see how the decision by Sony to limit their first party offering to PS5 from now on is "pro-consumer" in the traditional sense of the word - i can understand why certain subsections of the community might "like" the decision made for the reasons you outlined, but again that does not make it "pro-consumer".
Even if it was anti consumer it worked for them this gen, so they'll probably not change their approach with the exception of multiplayer focused games and maybe some of their smaller projects.
OP
OP
When I buy new hardware, all I want is new functions and new games making use of those. We've had seven years already of these old systems. It's good to know there's a real change coming.
PS: Timed exclusives from other companies are positive for your consumers, I'd say this whether is Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony who does it. As long as the terms are clear and known before release (FF VII comes to mind), it's all fair in the game.
PS: Timed exclusives from other companies are positive for your consumers, I'd say this whether is Nintendo, Microsoft or Sony who does it. As long as the terms are clear and known before release (FF VII comes to mind), it's all fair in the game.
By a strict definition or usage of the term in other circles, neither is extending legacy support for older machines 'pro-consumer'. But this whole silly debate sprang out of people using the term in suggested opposition to what Sony was doing.
By the definition that seems to be used in this conversation - of what returns value to the consumer - either of these approaches can be cast as returning more value to the consumer.
Although as I said, I think the whole thing is starting to verge into the territory of abusing terms to mean things they didn't previously, just to goose the console wars.