Sony approach is not ANTI-Consumer, but...
Microsoft approach is pro-consumer. they want to fade-out support gradually. They deserve praise.
Microsoft approach is pro-consumer. they want to fade-out support gradually. They deserve praise.
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.
The problem is there are no real world situations where creating and releasing two versions of a game does not take additional time, money, and manpower over releasing just one version. Games being completely finished and then not released is an incredibly rare thing, and even in those cases, releasing a game still costs a ton of money and effort. If there were a situation where it would require no resources at all to create and release another version of a game, I would be more amenable to your position, but the reality is that's just not the case. It will always take money, time, and manpower, all of which a company can better allocate to things they actually want to do.I see it more from the consumer side; if something would favor consumers while not unduly harming the company, and they choose not to do it.. it's anti-consumer.
It's all going to be subjective. I'll make a really obvious extreme example of what I'd consider an anti-consumer exclusive:
Game Company A literally has a build of Game1 ready to go for GameBox1. GameBox2 is nearing release; they decide not to release on GameBox1 and instead move that to GameBox2. This exclusivity does not favor consumers in any way, and releasing the game on both systems would not unduly harm Game Company A.
I'm not saying that's what all early gen exclusive games are; especially the "build ready to go thing" just making an extreme example. I think plenty of early-gen exclusives probably aren't too far off from the above though... exclusivity is rather arbitrary, many of those games could be cross-gen without great cost to the companies.
And like I've been saying; I'm not going to call a company immoral or unethical for making those types of decisions, but I'd still call those decisions anti-consumer.
I don't think Sony/Nintendo being exclusive to their hardware is anti-consumer at all though, because I think quite possibly them releasing all of their games on PC or whatever might actually do undue harm to the companies . But if they did do that.. I'd certainly call it pro-consumer.
No worries there, I am enjoying this conversation and do intend to reply to your own words and positions, so please let me know if I am not.Nope; but thanks for reducing my arguments to that so Matt can respond to what I am not saying.
People always ignore that question. It's hilarious to see.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?
Another thing we're trying to make happen "pro-consumer" and "consumer neutral". Lol
Trying to frame moves from companies as benevolent or judge them by how benevolent or "friendly" they seem is a weird trend.
MS is offering their games on gamepass to multiple consoles and devices not out of benevolence or to be best buds with the consumer. They want to sell you something just like Sony, just like Nintendo. It's just a different strategy; it's not because one side is the good guys and the other are the villains.
Right; in my example loads of time and manpower and money has already been be applied to the older-generation version. Or at the very least the effort could easily be shared; essentially: the game is really close to being able to be released.The problem is there are no real world situations where creating and releasing two versions of a game does not take additional time, money, and manpower over releasing just one version.
I explicitly stated that I'm not saying this is common or anything. While there are other cost advantages to not releasing on an older-gen, I certainly wouldn't consider those costs undue harm to the company involved. I do software development, and understand that certification, testing, support costs, etc. are different.. marketing/release/etc. In my scenario those might be plusses for the company, but not the driving force behind the decision. If the driving force is marketing / forced exclusivity, I'd find that anti-consumer.Games being completely finished and then not released is an incredibly rare thing, and even in those cases, releasing a game still costs a ton of money and effort.
If Nintendo never publicly promised to deliver BotW to Wii U owners, I don't think it would have been anti-consumer to not release that version.
This right here is a really good way of looking at it.Sony approach is not ANTI-Consumer, but...
Microsoft approach is pro-consumer. they want to fade-out support gradually. They deserve praise.
If a company is actively damaging your property after they sell it to you for no reason other than to force you to spend more money, that is anti-consumer. I don't think it's anti-consumer if the natural forces of the advancement of technology eventually make your purchase less useful.Matt i mean the latter yeah, taking action to reduce usability in order to urge the consumer to buy another;
Yeh this is basically the context where i come from, and im still struggling how one can rate egs exclusives as anti-consumer while ps exclusives are not
This is such an asinine statement...like holy fucking shit.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.
can we ban sites like this and dual shockers?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.
It's more that I think the term should only be used when it involves harm being inflicted on the consumer, and I generally don't consider not having access to a game in the way you would most want to be harm.Right; in my example loads of time and manpower and money has already been be applied to the older-generation version. Or at the very least the effort could easily be shared; essentially: the game is really close to being able to be released.
I explicitly stated that I'm not saying this is common or anything. While there are other cost advantages to not releasing on an older-gen, I certainly wouldn't consider those costs undue harm to the company involved. I do software development, and understand that certification, testing, support costs, etc. are different.. marketing/release/etc. In my scenario those might be plusses for the company, but not the driving force behind the decision. If the driving force is marketing / forced exclusivity, I'd find that anti-consumer.
And I think it would; I completely understand your position, my thoughts are just tweaked more towards consumers. I also believe that making those decisions in the long run benefit companies so there's that.
We basically agree on everything but when this term should be applied. I find those decisions understandable, not necessarily unethical, etc. but still anti-consumer. You find those decisions understandable, not unethical, and not anti-consumer.
Basically I think you only think the term should be used when something is unethical.
Makes a platform holder draw people to its console, creates a stronger ecosystem for it and it turn makes it more likely they will not only continue to fund those games but also invest more in their entire platform from games to consoles.
If a company is actively damaging your property after they sell it to you for no reason other than to force you to spend more money, that is anti-consumer. I don't think it's anti-consumer if the natural forces of the advancement of technology eventually make your purchase less useful.
I think at the point maybe your struggle is you don't think EGS exclusives are anti-consumer, and I honestly think you can make a reasonable argument to that effect. I wouldn't agree with that position, but I think it could be internally logically consistent.
Do you have an explanation for how EGS fits this? (I asked in another post so no need to reply to both)It's more that I think the term should only be used when it involves harm being inflicted on the consumer, and I generally don't consider not having access to a game in the way you would most want to be harm.
or port beggars
I honestly think the EGS situation is an edge case. I don't really think companies making their games EGS exclusive is inherently anti-consumer unless those games had previously been advertised or sold as being available on other platforms, in which case the harm is in the deception. But I think you can make the argument that Epic is acting in an anti-consumer manner by explicitly paying for games to not be available on other platforms when they otherwise would have been, without having any hand in those games' creation or execution. At that point Epic is spending money specifically to make the experience worse for consumers, and then I think it could be considered an anti-consumer action.Matt: Is EGS taking advantage of it's customers and doing undue harm to them? (or the publishers agreeing to the deals)
I really don't see how your litmus test applies.
Mine certainly does; I don't think EGS exclusives are really doing undue harm to me.. but it certainly would be better for me if those games released on Steam, and I don't think that does undue harm to the publishers involved. They are making a decision because it benefits them, it's commerce. Commerce that is anti-consumer without taking advantage of them or doing undue harm to them.
At that point Epic is spending money specifically to make the experience worse for consumers, and at that point this becomes an anti-consumer action.
Matt i mean the latter yeah, taking action to reduce usability in order to urge the consumer to buy another;
Yeh this is basically the context where i come from, and im still struggling how one can rate egs exclusives as anti-consumer while ps exclusives are not
Again, it's an edge case, but the intention and execution of their action plays a part here for me. In this case I'm not expecting Epic to provide labor they don't want to. Epic is giving these companies money to remove options from consumers, options said companies would offer had Epic not intervened. It's judgeing an action Epic is actually taking, rather than judging them for not doing something I want them to do but they don't.But how does it take advantage of them or do undue harm to them?
Money-hatting games doesn't take advantage of consumers or do undo harm to them either..
Actually, I think in this case I would call Epic's actions anti-consumer but not unethical or immoral, as the actual harm inflicted remains low or non-existent, but the motivations for their actions is, in fact, to actively limit consumer options that would otherwise exist.
riotous said:While there are other cost advantages to not releasing on an older-gen, I certainly wouldn't consider those costs undue harm to the company involved. I do software development, and understand that certification, testing, support costs, etc. are different.. marketing/release/etc. In my scenario those might be plusses for the company, but not the driving force behind the decision. If the driving force is marketing / forced exclusivity, I'd find that anti-consumer.
It's not really about ownership, it's the simple fact that creating another version of a game takes labor, and Sony does not inherently owe anyone their labor. If Sony does not owe us anything, they can't be harming us by failing to provide said labor.They just aren't doing exactly what we want, and that's ok.This brings me back to the idea of ownership being a determining factor for anti-consumerist acts. But i dont understand how a corp's "right" to sell the fruits of their own labor really comes into the conversation. I get the characterization of sony having always done this and this being a standard practice that they are allowed to engage; it's their own shit their making. But how does that take away from the physical reality that consumers need to throw down hundreds on a console for access? Im not saying this is a super evil conspiracy thing, just trying to draw a parallel in consumer experience with being forced to use egs for access and being forced to use ps4 for access, and not understanding what a company being shady or less shady has to do with the consumer experience in these examples
You'd think that, but the threads here in the coming months will blow that theory out of the water.It's just a different strategy; it's not because one side is the good guys and the other are the villains.
Being made? the simple fact of existing? Otherwise, they would not be made.
It's not really about ownership, it's the simple fact that creating another version of a game takes labor, and Sony does not inherently owe anyone their labor. If Sony does not owe us anything, they can't be harming us by failing to provide said labor.They just aren't doing exactly what we want, and that's ok.
See above. To me there is an essential difference between not taking an action (deciding not to commit the labor and resources to develop and release another version of a game) that happens to be not in line with what some consumers want, and deliberately taking an action to limit customer choice that would have existed otherwise.I mean.. the motivation of their action is commerce, to grow a store, to make money they wouldn't be making otherwise. Their motivation is not to remove options, they are removing options for commerce reasons. Which is exactly what I was saying in this example:
See above. To me there is an essential difference between not taking an action (deciding not to commit the labor and resources to develop and release another version of a game) that happens to be not in line with what some consumers want, and deliberately taking an action to limit customer choice that would have existed otherwise.
Yep, which is why I support console manufacturers doing what they do, it makes sense, and I want those unique games that their block buster sellers allow. Dreams look amazing, they spent all gen developing it, and I hope they are ok if it doesn't sell too well.Makes a platform holder draw people to its console, creates a stronger ecosystem for it and it turn makes it more likely they will not only continue to fund those games but also invest more in their entire platform from games to consoles.
Not hard to understand and how the industry has worked for decades.
This is how I view it.Sony spending every dollar and minute of development time to make a game as good as possible for the PS5 sounds Pro consumer to me.
i mean when "my plastic box anad giant company that doesnt care about me" and "your box and company" are at odds, and websites like this use that type of language... then yep. thats what they do.Motherfuckers just calling anything they don't like "anti-consumer" to sound more objective again?
Sony approach is not ANTI-Consumer, but...
Microsoft approach is pro-consumer. they want to fade-out support gradually. They deserve praise.
When the end of humanity finally comesMan this anti-consumer talk about Sony, out of all companies, is laughable. The one company that for years on end has supported their consoles waaay after the release of a new console.
The last PS2 game game came out in 2014...
The last PS3 game?
How the hell anyone can accuse Sony of being anti-consumer, out of all companies, is just fucking insane to me.
So are those people anti-progress? Anti-technology?
There's a reason games aren't still made for the Atari 2600!
Are we going to act like this isn't PS4's 7th year? It's time to move on, people.
Heck, developers are equally excited to move on, they want to create things they haven't been able to before! Just look at the reports about Lockhart... No one seemed on board, no one!
If your argument is that people might've just bought a PS4, and they don't want to be left behind... Well, they have an entire generation's worth of content (that's now infinitely cheaper) to look forward to.
And Sony always goes out with a bang, just look at their releases this year!
FF7:R, TLOU2, GoT, RE3, Cyberpunk 2077 are all coming out this year - No one is being left behind.
What would've been anti-consumer, is Sony deciding to cancel this year's exclusives because of the PS5, but they don't. They easily could, but they don't - It's the right approach. And it wouldn't be wise to ignore that huge install base this year.
The PS4 gets it's last hoorah and a proper send-off, and we move on. We let developers who feel restrained, move on.
We need to progress, otherwise generations are meaningless. Progress is meaningless.
If anyone, it's Sony that ought to be the one to cling to this generation, but they don't.
They understand the importance of a new generation, and they understand that console's have a lifecycle.
Besides, a new geneation is what generates excitement about the future and it's why most of us keep ourselves invested in this medium.
Otherwise we'd stick to our old consoles. If you like/prefer Microsoft's approach? Fine. I don't personally agree with it, but if people who want it, so be it.
Just don't say that Sony is anti-consumer, because that's horseshit.
Earth: Legacy EditionWhen the end of humanity finally comes
there will be only roaches and FIFA around
But it doesn't really matter, because it's still performing an action vs. not performing an action.And that fits both of my examples so I'm not sure what your point is. In my exclusive for next-gen game example the primary motivator for the decision was not the cost of releasing it on the last-gen system.
Pre-order now and get "The last gamer on earth" DLC