-
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
it goes the other way to. how many people said they would never pay for online but once sony announced it they no longer cared. or when cross play was being blocked by sony people no longer cared.
its all about message xbox message right now is play our games on xbox or pc
You find a thread you don't like on Resetera.
Do you:
A. Ignore the thread and continue on with your day.
B. Call for the site linked from the thread to be banned from Resetera.
That's an oversimplification of what's going on here. There is a huge difference between not agreeing or not being interested in the topic of the thread and this. The site makes claims but provides no sources to back them up all to stir controversy for clicks over a narrative that doesn't exist. I've seen maybe a few forum posters claim next gen exclusives are anti-consumer. I think they are wrong and misguided for thinking this but a few posters does not make a common narrative, especially for a supposed news site to write a defensive article over.
It's a fanboy driven site that desperately seeks clicks. Why should this site support or defend it?
There is so much noise on the internet, this would be an insurmountable effort.
Stay away from Twitter.
Yep, there have been a few posters claiming this. A few of them are in this thread. Someone at Push Square made an article about it, and that article got linked here in a thread.
How does that lead to "ban Push Square from Resetera"?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying: people are just repeating corporate PR and changing their opinion based on corporate PR.
In fact, I think it makes it more curious if you've been in that ecosystem for three generations, where the Xbox was abandoned after four years and the 360 first party support fizzled in the final years of the 360, to paid online when everyone else was free, to the $500 price tag of the One, to the PR speak about the exclusives early this gen, to suddenly change views about being "pro-consumer" and even misuse the term (as those in the other thread were doing).
I'm know there are some who actually believe this and aren't just on Xbox. But phew, there are many people who had a much different view of this just 2 or 3 years ago until Spencer started selling the Xbox differently.
I've seen lots of people claim exclusives of all kinds are anti-consumer.
There are too many outlets that favour one platform in particular, and many put out great content.You're saying we should ban them for not being impartial enough?
I don't think every single exclusive is going to be Ps5 exclusive, some may be cross gen, but in the viewpoint you posted, yes Ps5 will play Ps4 and Ps5 titles, but it will be significantly more affordable than the Ps5
I don't know if sony exclusives are anti-consumer but they sure are anti-costumer. Playstation hardware is a vastly inferior platform to my PC. I shouldn't be "forced" to buy hardware just to buy the games. Sony "forcing" me to buy a hardware that is inferior to what i already own to line their own pockets is anti-costumer.
Its baffling that many of you are fine with pushing people out from experiencing some games just because sony funded them. As a costumer what does exclusive offer that benefits them? nothing.
Its baffling that many of you are fine with pushing people out from experiencing some games just because sony funded them. As a costumer what does exclusive offer that benefits them? nothing.
I mean this is the conversation people have been having in some form or another here at resetERA.
So an opinion article of what is a narrative being pushed in our discourse shouldn't surprise people.
Edit: I know to a lot of people it's nonsensical and doesn't deserve to even be discussed, but the narrative has taken a certain hold over the last couple days.
Lol how dare they!? Nintendo is all good with me tho
So an opinion article of what is a narrative being pushed in our discourse shouldn't surprise people.
Edit: I know to a lot of people it's nonsensical and doesn't deserve to even be discussed, but the narrative has taken a certain hold over the last couple days.
Lol how dare they!? Nintendo is all good with me tho
I wish those people held out, I had hopes Sony would change it, they do allow you to play free to play games, and subscription based games like Final Fantasy XIV without PS+ (Dreams too apparently), but because of the pay wall for MP I moved far away from PS4. I only buy those single player games on console now.
Do tell me how exclusive games benefit the costumer?
So ... it wasn't sarcasm? Good Lord, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
I read the article and i cant locate where the author makes a point, can someone helo me out? Im in the camp that exclusives are decidedly anti-consumer in the short term but i feel like im uninformed
All i really see is a kind of thin argument that xbox releasing cross-gen games is anti-consumer because it is not utilizing the new hardware well
All i really see is a kind of thin argument that xbox releasing cross-gen games is anti-consumer because it is not utilizing the new hardware well
Exclusive games are often developed with the goal of attracting players and demographics to the wider ecosystem, and are therefore given resources and attention that otherwise might not be warranted given their projected sales.
But even ignoring all that: You aren't owed a game in exactly the manor you want it simply because it exists. It's a game, you will be fine if you never play it, and it's not the creator of a luxury goods' job to "benefit the costumer" at their own expense.
Being made? the simple fact of existing? Otherwise, they would not be made.
I dont see how this differs from, say, the egs strategy of poaching titles for exclusivity. Is it because they are typically sony funded? That, to me, just means "we paid for it, it's our money so it's ok" which doesnt really hold that much water imo
Again, i totally might be missing something
In case it's not clear, I've dismissed your question as ridiculous: it doesn't merit a response.
The article doesn't make that argument. No one here has made that argument.
Can you quote some of them? [edit: I do actually see one earlier on this page and don't deny some exist BTW] I'll admit that I haven't seen every post on the subject but I didn't think it was a common thought at all. I see people saying MS' approach is pro-consumer but that's not the same as saying Sony's approach is anti-consumer. As a community, I think we should be more careful on what's claimed as anti-consumer and next gen exclusives certainly don't fit that description.
I'm also not saying platform specific sites should be banned. There are plenty of great platform specific sites. I see nothing wrong with being a fan site for a platform, I'm a fan of playstation just like I'm a fan of Xbox. It's normal. I'm saying toxic sites should be banned and I would put push square in that category. I've read enough articles that were typed up like some troll blog. I don't understand how we can dismiss or suggest not to post things from crap gamer or foxygames but it's taboo to suggest the same for push square.
Last edited:
What? Sony is making these games themselves. That's inherently different than going out and paying for games that someone else has made and would otherwise have been available on multiple platforms.
You are the kind of person this thread is about. So entitled and borderline delusional. Sony don't owe you videogames at the expense of their hardware business, just because you're supposedly too good to buy a PlayStation.
Should Netflix put all of their originally programming on HBO, Hulu, Disney and Amazon Prime too?
Should Apple make iOS and it's associated features available on Android? Please.
They wouldn't be made the way they're currently desired if they were made for the sole purpose of maximizing revenue/profit. Go and compare Nintendo/Sony to the other megapublishers that dont have their own hardware to push
So basically it's the intent? If something was made with the intent of keeping it exclusive vs. whether that decision is made down the line (both being financial decisions?)? But the end result is still a similar separation from the consumer perspective as far as i can tell, like the end result is still the consumer being forced into a particular ecosystem that they might not be willing to engage in.
If you really think someone should give you something just because you want it ... then you must have been an extremely spoiled child. You have not been taught how to deal with frustrations.
No? Again, you're talking about games Sony made themselves. It's their business and really only their business what they do with the product of their own labor.
And also again, no one is forced to do anything. These are games. Someone's life will go on just fine without them.
You buy or build a PC to play PC games just like you buy a PS to play PS games. No one claims it's anti-consumer that we need a PC to play Wow for example.
Sony funds these games and has every right to keep them on their platforms. They owe you nothing, especially when the entire point in these exclusives is to attract people to their platforms. No different for Nintendo or MS.
I dont mean that they are forcing them, but that the pre-requisite exists in both siutuations. Im not saying that sony cant do what they do; i just dont understand how an exclusive can exist without being anti-consumer. I might be working with a different definition of anti-consumer i guess
Like i dont think egs is forcing you to use it either
My neighbor sells snacks made with her own recipe. Would she be "anti-consumer" for not sharing the recipe with everyone and "forcing me" to go to her restaurant to eat her amazing food?
I understand where you are coming from, i guess in general the idea of exclusive storefronts like the play store or whatever is anti-consumer to me, but it's not for the thread, thats fine
Oh my god I'm so glad you found a post of someone saying it because I really could not be arsed to look.
If I own a furniture store where I sell pieces I create, am I anti-consumer for not also selling my work at Target?
Anti-consumer should be defined as preying on human weakness and using exploitive mechanisms to extract money from customers only somewhat aware of what's happening.
Creating a clear product and selling it for a clear price is not anti-consumer.
Yeah i can see that pov, so essentially ownership is kind of this important factor, capitalistic control of the product allows you to engage in the exclusivity act while lack of ownership (like timed exclusives from egs or ff7r) disallows and makes the act anti-consumer?
I had a good chuckle after reading he asking for examples, he was like "man, I cant believe people are saying things like this" and then the page delivered.
hahahahah
Most of the exclusive games wouldn't exist if they weren't exclusive. It is also within a developer and publisher's right to make exclusivity deals.
Oh my god. This is the peak of gamer entitlement. Just buy a PlayStation if you want to play the exclusives.
LOL I don't doubt that there are some people who think this and even think I said that in my earlier post. I just don't think a few forum members constitutes a common theme or narrative that some fanboy site needed to address. It brings more attention to a non-topic than just ignoring or addressing the few misguided people. It's a BS article that is meant to stir controversy. They are the fox news of playstation sites and I think Era is better than that.
Is your argument that Sony, MS & Nintendo should no longer release hardware and only focus on software available to all humans on all devices?
Im not making an argument, i am legit confused lol
For me the anti-consumer aspect of it comes from the pre-requisite of hardware/service with the idea that exclusives force you onto the hardware/service of their choice. Again, i totally might be missing something here, i want to say it's ownership but i feel like that doesnt hold water
The first paragraph is not important when the company gates their products. It doesn't matter how good a game is IF i'm not allowed to play/buy it.
Yes its the company's choice to do whatever they want, including maximizing profits. This isn't about being "owed" but instead allowing for all to join on an experience. Excluding people from the experience for profits is not consumer neutral/friendly
Nothing from what you said explains how I benefit from a game i can't play.
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.
I don't want a playstation. Its inferior to my already bought PC. how is gaming in on inferior hardware costumer friendly/neutral?
I wouldn't mind buying some sony games for my PC.
But yes to all your questions: Netflix should put their original content on other sites. As a costumer that would be a really good move.
As a costumer i really don't care for the profits of the company, i'm not a shareholder of those companies.
I don't get how saying that exclusives are bad because they exclude people from playing them for profits is me saying that sony owes me video games. Can you explain your reasoning?
So are you saying all games are designed to maximize revenue/profit except exclusives?
it doesn't make sense to me
Excluding others is good. Awesome opinion to have.
I'm not a dev jsut a costumer. From my udnerstanding when WOW launched it was imposible to port it to the consoles. I completely agree that WoW should be on consoles, exclusives.
I don't get how saying that exclusives are bad because they exclude people from playing them for profits is me saying that sony owes me video games. Can you explain your reasoning?
It is a companies right but just because its their right doesn't mean they benefit me as a costumer.
Only reason I asked for examples is because he said "lots" of people have expressed that sentiment and I don't think that's accurate.
I'm not particularly arguing that those examples are anti-consumer, but there is a clear difference between creating something yourself (or even having a hand in its creation) and therefore choosing what to do with it, and paying another party simply to keep their goods off a storefront it otherwise would have been on.
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.