This.Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
And that's why EGS is shit
This.Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
He already made one about the word "consumer" and that he prefers to say "customer" instead.Jim Sterling should make a video about the word "anti-consumer".
But this whole silly debate sprang out of people using the term in suggested opposition to what Sony was doing.
Hahahha of course
It certainly isn't pro consumer that's for sure.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.
Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
People are putting way too much stock into this
It's cool the PS5 will have PS5 exclusives, but people seem to forget early console exclusives tend to suck
PS4 had what, Knack, Infamous, Killzone?
Were any of the early PS3 Sony exclusives great?
XB1 had Ryse, so another classic there
I could be wrong but unless Sony can buck a decade long trend I'm pretty sure the PS5 exclusives from the first year will be among the weakest of the systems exclusives
Even Nintendo haven't started off with a 10/10 exclusive since what, Mario 64?. The Wii launched with a GCN game and the Switch with a Wii U game, so cross gen
I can see why people are disappointed the new Xbox won't have early exclusives, but history would indicate that's not going to be a massive loss, all things considered
Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
Yup.Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
I believe there are some that have given them shit for it yeah.Does Nintendo suffer the same treatment because of Mario and Zelda, to name but two of their exclusives?
the source isn't exactly well known for insightful articles.Anti-consumer lost all its meaning here ages ago.
That being said however would I fail to see the insightfulness of this article.
Didn't bother going into those threads but did that actually become a sentiment or something?
Bizarre.I believe there are some that have given them shit for it yeah.
Yeah, that whole anti-consumer argument is pretty insane if you ask me
It's PushSquare. The biggest surprise is that they are still not banned on Era.
Idk is that shockgamer website banned still?
This whole thing got started because Xbox Series X launch games will also be playable on Xbox One. They're still console-exclusive to Xbox but people are worried about the games being "held back" by the previous gen machine.
Game pass - ?Using unique and exclusive ip / content to entice people to your platform and service varies.
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?
This.Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.
Funding games and making them exclusives is not anti-consumer.
Moneyhatting 3rd party games is.