Admit that you lost some faith in humanity after reading some answers here, I certainly lost.
-
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
Yes i agree completely, i can understand why someone would reserve more vitriol for egs than sony (for their in-house games). But i feel like the act of exclusivity is fundamental to the customer...thats the main part im getting confused by
Also if someone could help me understand the push article...i basically got nothing from it
You can play those games, you are choosing not to. No one is preventing you from buying a PlayStation, you just don't want to.
Which is fine, but it's not anti–consumer to not cater to your individual whims.
Exclusives are made to maximize profit long term rather than short term like every other game by making you want to buy into the ecosystem in the first place. In the case of Sony, only a handful of games actually make money by themselves while they take loses on every other games they make.
OK, think of it this way:
Creating and selling a game on multiple platforms required more and different labor than doing it for just one.
Why is Sony obligated to expend that labor if they don't want to?
I think this is where i basically lose the plot. So what is the actual difference between egs and ps exclusives here? The ownership or labor put into the product seems besides the point for the consumer, but the act of exclusivity remains.
I agree that i prefer control of the product to be in the hands of the laborer (arguable for any capitalistic company ofc), but i dont see how that affects things on the consumer side in the short term. I can see the argument that sony is making ppl buy their console for exclusives and converting the earnings to better products for the consumer but i think you can say that about every attempt at exclusivity?
Also to add one more thing, im not really trying to talk about what a conpany owes or anything like that, just literally what a customer has to reckon with when a product is exclusive.
Because EGS didnt create those games and Sony did. It's the difference.
And as a creator they have all the rights to do anything with their product. Sell them anywhere they like.
I feel like the writer of this article read this forum recently then dangled the bait for clicks.
Well played.
Well played.
LOL yeah, I edited after I realized it was backwards.
Why does anyone have to be "mad" or "upset"?
I'd be thrilled if BOTW came out on PC, thrilled if Sony's exclusives came out on PC.
Those would be pro-consumer moves... not sure how anyone could frame them any other way.
I'm not going to bash Sony or Nintendo for not releasing their games on PC; but I'd praise them if they did.
(to be clear I'm not the person you were responding to, just chiming in)
Netflix doesn't let me watch Stranger Things on Amazon Prime, therefore they are anti-consumer scum. Why should I subscribe to Netflix when Amazon Prime is supposed to have everything? How is that fair?
I could actually feel myself getting dumber typing that out
As long as Sony is making those games than all is fine. Moneyhating third party games suck regardless of who does it
Im not trying to argue the rights of the companies or whether one company os doing it better than the other, just the fundamental relationship consumers have with exclusive products
Like i understand the difference between first party ip creation vs. third party title poaching, but i dont understand the difference of having to use ps4 to play death stranding fot a year and having to use egs to play hades for a year. I know that these deals were made differently and that the latter is more distasteful, but i dont understand the difference on the consumer end; both include getting things you dont want in order to play a game
See above. "Anti-consumer" means the consumer is being taken undue advantage of.
Not giving every consumer exactly what they want exactly how they want it is not taking advantage of anyone. It's offering a product for sale that, for one reason or another, a given consumer doesn't want to buy. Just like the vast, vast majority of other items available for sale.
It's how I feel when PC gamers complain that Sony or Nintendo is losing money by not releasing their games for PC.
Yeah i think this is probably a big part of what i was missing, as my definition had more to do with something like "beneficial vs. not beneficial to the consumer" and that seems to be the wrong definition, thx for clearing that up
I hate the words anti-consumer and pro-consumer, mostly because the people who use them seriously sound like idiots. Everything is anti-consumer to fucking people nowadays. It's just thinly masked, "if I don't have immediate, easy, or free access to it, then it's anti-consumer." People feeling entitled to fucking everything.
Another example of a word or phrase being used to dilution. Your description between anti consumerism and commerce are spot on.
I use these words. Thanks for calling me an idiot, really constructive.
Not all users
users unite !!!!
unfortunately we live in a...anti consumer society
No shit. Wild that this is even a debate. You've more than gotten your money's worth as a current gen consumer with vast libraries of incredible games - many of which can be had at exceedingly reasonable prices. The actual consumer friendly move is giving the early next gen adapters a reason to feel their purchase is warranted.
There's just levels to it; another way to look at it: stop getting so aggro and defensive over someone calling something anti-consumer.
If a game could easily have come out on ConsoleBox2, and for marketing/forced exclusivity reasons GameCompanyX decides to move that game to ConsoleBox2 rather arbitrarily, that is an anti-consumer move. It would be better for consumers to release the game on both systems and let them choose. That has likely happened before in the console industry.
It's not anywhere near as bad as many other anti-consumer moves; loot boxes and the like, but it's still anti-consumer. Which isn't the end of the world.
Much of commerce is anti-consumer. "Next-gen exclusive games" aren't at face value; but some probably are.
As a consumer, i want games that will try to take ground up advantage of the hArdware im spending hundreds on. Just personally. That is what ive always liked about gens
You can argue its anticonsumer but not having all games on all platforms is also considered anticonsumer. For people with the last hardware its a proper aspect of the market and consumerism inherently
You can argue its anticonsumer but not having all games on all platforms is also considered anticonsumer. For people with the last hardware its a proper aspect of the market and consumerism inherently
They wouldn't be pro-consumer long-term because the reasons Sony invests so much money in their first party exclusives is that they want to move and maintain their hardware attach rate. Sure, it would be nice if every game was available on every platform - but that is just not a reasonable and sensible way to look at this. It's just wishful thinking.
Competition benefits us a customer. If there was just one 'platform' that we would all game on - I'm not so sure if we would be better off as a consumer.
Calling something as basic as this 'anti consumer' isn't good because it dilutes the meaning and impact of that term.
I absolutely disagree.
Again, games are a luxury good. No organization has any moral or ethical mandate to make a luxury good in exactly the way a given consumer wants it made. It's their product, it's their choice how to expend their resources and what to create with those resources. If you don't want to pay the asking price for that item, fine, that's your decision. No one has been taken advantage of or abused in that situation, and the consumer who has not purchased that item won't be harmed by acquiring it.
After many bad experiences with Steam Customer Service I've tried to find alternatives to buying Steam versions of games wherever I could find them. EGS offering at least one alternative for AAA games a possibility in the future, even if Steam version is later for now.
I wish all games showed up on Linux natively so I can ditch Windows OS. Linux should be where PC games are anyway, it makes so much sense. I hate having to go through the Windows optimization routine whenever there's a update that turns on or adds new bloat.
Even though I have a lot of wishes for PC I understand why Sony might not put all it's games on Windows. I think they should have a Linux distro or store of sorts though. That way they get to have full control of their product.
You can't please everyone.
Well you set the bar at "someone being taken advantage of or abused."
I set the bar differently I guess; I'd definitely say those are far worse, more anti-consumer.. but in the tech space when you do something for marketing reasons rather than technical reasons you are tipping that balance towards being anti-consumer. Not all exclusives fit that mold, some do.
Your view is incredibly pro big business, mine isn't quite as pro big business. Yours also creates way more gray area and makes it pretty difficult to discuss this personally.
Push square is hardly objective in this.
Still, I'd say the Sony app to approach is largely consumer neutral. It's the old way of doing things. But forgetting tech for a second it's obviously more pro consumer to do it the way MS is doing it. There's obviously some push back from some quarters because there's a good chunk of gamers still wedded to older concepts such as console launch exclusives, physical media and non subscription based game ownership.
Still, I'd say the Sony app to approach is largely consumer neutral. It's the old way of doing things. But forgetting tech for a second it's obviously more pro consumer to do it the way MS is doing it. There's obviously some push back from some quarters because there's a good chunk of gamers still wedded to older concepts such as console launch exclusives, physical media and non subscription based game ownership.
more like Burger King is anti-consumer for making you go to Burger King 2 for your Whopper+ (Witch is a whopper with extra ray traced pickles)
I'm not a shareholder or care for the profits of these companies either, but I'm also realistic and understand how business works. What you're basically suggesting here is that everything should be made available to everyone regardless of what platform, service or product they are using. That's ridiculous, and ironically goes against the spirit of competition in the marketplace, which is what this and many other industries are built on.
No one cares if your PC is superior to a PlayStation. If Sony (or any platformholder) is investing their own capital to create software to drive adoption of their own services and platforms then it's okay for them be strict about where the fruits of that investment end up. As 'consumers', people need to accept that while our voices are hugely important, we are part of a financial ecosystem which is too complex for companies to bend to our every will and want, no matter how much it may convenience us on an individual basis.
If all you argument boils down to is 'I should be able to play what I want, where I want' then you're being grossly ignorant. Ultimately these are luxury entertainment products. No one is excluding you from playing PlayStation games except you.
I need a little more clarification, sorry!
So using the definition of "taking undue advantage of consumers" for "anti-consumer", is the reason that egs is anti-consumer for buying out Hades that ppl were expecting to use Steam but had the rug pulled under them, while ps4 explicitly will create games or buy timed exclusivity for their own hardware? And while both acts have the goal of directing consumers to their hardware/service, egs does it by taking undue advantage of the consumer, whereas sony is more upfront about it? Im admittedly still kinda lost
I also dunno when a consumer begins to exist, i guess thats kind of abstract, i want to say when preorders (or kickstarters in egs's case) begin to be available, when a financial transaction is first available. Sorry for using yall as my personal business class lol. but i do feel like it is important to get at, to understand when anti-consumer actions can begin to be enacted
So using the definition of "taking undue advantage of consumers" for "anti-consumer", is the reason that egs is anti-consumer for buying out Hades that ppl were expecting to use Steam but had the rug pulled under them, while ps4 explicitly will create games or buy timed exclusivity for their own hardware? And while both acts have the goal of directing consumers to their hardware/service, egs does it by taking undue advantage of the consumer, whereas sony is more upfront about it? Im admittedly still kinda lost
I also dunno when a consumer begins to exist, i guess thats kind of abstract, i want to say when preorders (or kickstarters in egs's case) begin to be available, when a financial transaction is first available. Sorry for using yall as my personal business class lol. but i do feel like it is important to get at, to understand when anti-consumer actions can begin to be enacted
I would've thought this was a complete joke topic based on an argument nobody was actually having, but here we are, people actually arguing this opinion on this forum no less.
Sony can make exclusives and that's totally fine, nobody is adversely affected. MSs path could be called proconsumer and that's fine as well, they're just different tactics of getting you to wiggle your wallet. There is no harm in either strategy.
Sony can make exclusives and that's totally fine, nobody is adversely affected. MSs path could be called proconsumer and that's fine as well, they're just different tactics of getting you to wiggle your wallet. There is no harm in either strategy.
It's not, I just don't think an organization inherently owes you labor to suit your own desires. If their labor creates a product you want for a price you want, great. If it doesn't, that's also fine.
The idea that a luxury good company isn't doing anything wrong by creating a product they want to create and selling it for a clear price isn't "incredibly pro big business," it's the most basic idea possible in commerce.
Why does a company owe you the creation of a luxury product they don't wish to create?
I'm not saying WoW should or shouldn't be exclusively be on PC. I'm saying the exclusive status isn't anti-consumer.
The whole purpose of a business is to profit, regardless if it benefits the consumer or not. To claim that every decision is anti-consumer when it doesn't benefit every consumer is a bit...misguided. My comment of them not owing you anything stemmed from your claims that you're "forced" to buy their system when you're not forced to do anything. At the same time, sony is free to do what they like with their products.
I lose a little faith in humanity every time I go on the internet in general lol
I don't think so either; not sure how that relates to this as I am certainly not using that as my basis for what makes something anti-consumer.
Never said they owed me anything, never called it a moral or ethical issue either.
Then how is it "anti-consumer"? What does anti-consumer mean if not an action taken that causes undue harm to the consumer?
Burger King does sell their version of the Big Mac, called the Big King 🤓
It's embarrassing, and all this port begging here lately is destroying the forum.
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.
Any luxury good, sold for a reasonable price that provides its advertised functionality is not "anti-consumer".
That term has been overused to uselessness. Find another way to refer to a product that you personally don't like because you happen to be loyal to another brand.
That term has been overused to uselessness. Find another way to refer to a product that you personally don't like because you happen to be loyal to another brand.
Which doesn't make any sense at all, because, at least when it comes to luxury goods, the creation of a good the consumer wants for the price a consumer is willing to pay is, in and of itself, a benefit to the consumer. And the creation of a good that the consumer, for whatever reason, does not want or is priced higher than the consumer is willing to pay is not a detriment to the consumer in any way. It's just another item amoung billions of other items that consumer does not want.
Depends what you mean. If a manufacturer is dishonest or misleading about the life span of a product, or takes action to reduce the usability of an item for no practical reason other than to force a consumer to buy another item, sure, I'd say that's anti-consumer.
Matt: Here's a TLDR version.
If Nintendo had cancelled the Wii-U version of BOTW I'd call that anti-consumer.
And again, that does not mean I believe Wii-U owners were entitled to buy BOTW. It just obviously was a move that favored them, and didn't harm Nintendo.. but they could have decided to not do it.
If Nintendo had cancelled the Wii-U version of BOTW I'd call that anti-consumer.
And again, that does not mean I believe Wii-U owners were entitled to buy BOTW. It just obviously was a move that favored them, and didn't harm Nintendo.. but they could have decided to not do it.