What is anti-consumer behavior to you?

[8byte]

Anti-consumer, to me, is a practice that leaves me without options or choices. I know that's vague, but to give a better example:
When a company buys out competitors to corner the market, that's anti-consumer.

Alternatively, practices that force the hand of the consumer in particular instances are also poor, and can be considered anti-consumer. This includes things like timed exclusive DLC for particular platform users or demographics (subscribers, etc). Things that effectively put one consumer in a different class because they spent their money in a particular area. It's not necessarily "anti-consumer" in that you still have the option to simply wait or not support that kind of behavior, but at the end of the day: it sucks.

 

[Puffy]

- Not lowering prices of old games
- Not having an Internet browser

Both are anti-puffy and I'm a consumer, so...

 

[Deleted member 42]

i'm sure the fluff is there to hide that hank hill-esque backside of yours

Click to shrink...

He's the worst. <3

Click to shrink...

Stop throwing pancakes at me wtf

 

[Deleted member 48897]

I believe there's also anti-consumer actions without the intent to be anti-consumer directly. Some companies value a certain image at the detriment to consumers options.

Click to shrink...

Yeah like there are some cases of just being blithely condescending towards customers that don't necessarily involve much material harm but which are still basically impossible to stomach





Twitter made me see this yesterday and now you all do too

 

[Woozies]

Anything that impact my person in relation to the product that I purchase/intend to purchase.

Is the thing i purchase poisonous without proper warning/safety measures? Anti-consumer

Is the thing I purchased have an incredibly short shelf life and that is not conveyed to me? Anti-consumer

Is the thing i purchased, not the thing that was advertised to me? Anti-consumer

 

[Zafir]

I mean it's over used because it's not strictly defined. It's a vague term and so of course it's used loosely. The fact people get so hung up over its use seems bizarre to me.

Definition of anti-consumer

: not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers

Click to shrink...

I think something else that's missed here is cultural differences too. Consumer rights are completely different in the US compared to most of Europe for example. So you'll get different answers as to what they feel is right/wrong.

 

[GhostTrick]

Anything that limit my options, choices or give me a worse deal is by definition anti-consumer.

Basically something that goes against my interests.

 

[Canucked]

Deception is a pretty big one. Being Xbox exclusive is not one of them.

I'm gonna need you to eleborate. Are you talking about companies buying another studio, or you as an individual purchasing a game on sale?

Click to shrink...

No I'm talking about situations where companies profit off consumers where consumers end up with a poor deal. Some cases of loot boxes, presenting unclear road maps etc, unfair refund policies.

Deception or Lies to consumers is a bigger deal. I wouldn't use something tame like "anti-consumer" for that. That is called false advertising, and sometimes fraud.

 

[ShinUltramanJ]

Definition of ANTI-CONSUMER

not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Improperly favoring the interests of businesses over consumers.

It's exactly how I feel, and a good reason why the term is thrown around so much. It happens now more than ever.

 

[Remo Williams]

This is why being informed is so important. I bought the Seasons Pass for Smash despite my hatred of passes for things no one knows what they are because the last pass got me Cloud and because Nintendo tends to be pretty good on that front. Context, track record, and looking at material ahead of time (although some of it is faked, something I feel gaming enthusiasts still give way too much leniency on) helps inform these choices.

Xenoblade 2 was crazy good post launch support.

Witcher 3 had great post launch support and incentive to spend.

Warframe does a great job of ensuring that purchases are made worth it, while adding coupons and dev streams to constantly show you where your money is going towards in development, allowing for a consumer to make a decision to either continue supporting or stop supporting the game.

So I spend on those games. None of those purchases are against my rights or interests as a consumer, who wants to support game devs to keep making good stuff.

Click to shrink...

Right. Use positive reinforcement instead of punishing me for making a "wrong" choice, and you are more likely to get my money. Take advantage of your position of power to basically subdue me into choosing your product, and it still might work occasionally, but I won't appreciate it, and I'll be more likely to abandon your services for someone else's.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

When companies ask me to spend money, and the more money they ask for the more anti-consumer it is

 

[NoUse4AName]

False advertising, that's it. anything else IMO is just in the Bad services/product offer.

Companies are not here to be our friends and work in our interest. they have an offer and is up to us if we take it or not.

 

[LazyLain]

I'll go with the dictionary definition, which lines up with the obvious meaning that's inferred from "anti-consumer": Not favorable to consumers.

But I don't generally apply the term quite that broadly, nor do I see many other people applying it that broadly either. Under that definition, a price raise is arguably anti-consumer.

Compromising the quality of the product in an effort to try and ruthlessly nickel and dime, charging money for hot air, whale hunting, witholding information, artificial scarcity (particularly the explicit Limited Run variety)... these are all things that I would consider anti-consumer practices.

 

[Ocean]

The only genuinely anti-consumer behavior I can think of from a company is presenting misleading information or not being as transparent as they should be.

Adding randomized loot boxes? All good. Not disclosing what the drop rates are? Not cool. Casinos can't get away with this, I don't see why video game companies should.

 

[Carolina Reaper]

Charging a monthly fee to play peer to peer online games.

 

[Deleted member 176]

corporations doing something objectively bad for everyone except for their executives

 

[Deleted member 984]

Any commercial practice that places the consumer at genuine risk. Not a business practice or marketing strategy somebody dislikes.

In gaming I see this primarily as the manipulation of mechanics to entice a certain type of consumer group that are at risk of addictive behaviours to either spend excessive amounts of money be that via content such as loot boxes or recurring subscription fees, or spend excessive amounts of time on their product that negatively affects that persons life/mental state/health.

 

[Kodros]

Definition of ANTI-CONSUMER

not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Improperly favoring the interests of businesses over consumers.

It's exactly how I feel, and a good reason why the term is thrown around so much. It happens now more than ever.

Click to shrink...

Wouldn't a business always favor the interest of itself over consumers? Whoops, missed the word "improperly". That could mean tons of things though.

 

[Deleted member 42]

Wouldn't a business always favor the interest of itself over consumers?

Click to shrink...

Yes, but there's a balance to strike there

 

[hey it's that dog]

When a company lies, deceives, or tries to hide information a consumer would want. Outside of that I wouldn't use the term.

 

[Deleted member 1003]

Withholding pertinent information on a product or service with the intent to deceive.

A business making a decision I don't like isn't anti consumer. It isn't tied to my perception of the company but to product / service only

edit: I think most who abuse the term should be pema'd. A lot of complaints about "anti consumer" come from folks who knew exactly what they were getting and what they were paying for it.

Click to shrink...

This. This is damn good. It's the truth. Not liking a decision made by a business is not anti-consumer. Deception and manipulation with the intent to deceive.

Damn good sir, damn good.

 

[Deleted member 8001]

I mean it's over used because it's not strictly defined. It's a vague term and so of course it's used loosely. The fact people get so hung up over its use seems bizarre to me.



I think something else that's missed here is cultural differences too. Consumer rights are completely different in the US compared to most of Europe for example. So you'll get different answers as to what they feel is right/wrong.

Click to shrink...

This is the best post of this thread so far.

 

[hey it's that dog]

Yes, but there's a balance to strike there

Click to shrink...

There is, but is it "anti-consumer" when a consumer disagrees about whether the balance is right? That would be a low-ass bar.

 

[Deepwater]

Wouldn't a business always favor the interest of itself over consumers? Whoops, missed the word "improperly". That could mean tons of things though.

Click to shrink...

Improperly favoring the interest of itself over consumers.

Edit: you caught it

 

[Deleted member 42]

There is, but is it "anti-consumer" when a consumer disagrees about whether the balance is right? That would be a low-ass bar.

Click to shrink...

Man I dunno :p

 

[NoUse4AName]

When a company lies, deceives, or tries to hide information a consumer would want. Outside of that I wouldn't use the term.

Click to shrink...

Agree 100% the term I wildly used here.

 

[Meatwad]

It's any business transaction a company engages in where the company stands to gain more than the consumer.

This can be deceptive practices,
artificially inflating the cost of a product. Artificially shortening the life of a product by intentionally designing it to function poorly after a set amount of time, etc

For me, it's Nintendo disapproving of fan games. It shows that they care more about Mario's "console exclusivity" than the fandom celebrating Mario when they don't allow free PC fangames of him (that oftentimes don't hold a candle to official releases).

Click to shrink...

This on the other hand is not a good example of anti consumer behavior, not even in the ballpark

 

[bbq of doom]

I'm seeing the phrase anti-consumer used more and more lately around these parts

As someone who absolutely despises phrases being overused, like 'disingenuous', 'bad faith', and 'No, Bronson, we are still not developing the MintPad 2 and renaming it the BronPad', I do still recognize that it has its' use case more and more these days.

So what constitutes anti-consumer behavior from a company to you? Is it locking a game behind an exclusive platform/device? Is it not dropping the price of games/not having enough sales? Is it not having things like backwards compatibility as a priority, and vice versa? Cough it up, what ya got?

Click to shrink...

I think the best example in gaming is when third party games are exclusive to platforms, launchers, consoles, etc. God of War being exclusive to PlayStation is defensible because God of War is a Sony property; I'm fine with creators wanting to use their own marketplace or platform for the distribution of their own work. But when Microsoft secures Rise of the Tomb Raider for X months, Sony gets certain missions/equipment for Destiny for X months, and Epic gets Metro Exodus for 12 months at the 11th hour, that type of behavior purposefully deprives the consumer of choice and thereby goes against the general consumer's interest.

 

[Deepwater]

It's any business transaction a company engages in where the company stands to gain more than the consumer.

This can be deceptive practices,
artificially inflating the cost of a product. Artificially shortening the life of a product by intentionally designing it to function poorly after a set amount of time, etc



This on the other hand is not a good example of anti consumer behavior, not even in the ballpark

Click to shrink...

"Artificially inflating costs" implies that there is a cost that happens naturally.

 

[Cellsplitter]

DRM that makes games unplayable. Especially on Linux.

 

[hey it's that dog]

Also I find irony in this whole 'anti-consumer' thing. Like... why would you see view yourself as a consumer. How demeaning.

Click to shrink...

Being a consumer, which we all are, does not mean you are *only* a consumer. That seems like pretty basic logic.

 

[kittens]

For me it's impossible to talk about anti-consumerism without talking about anti-capitalism. All the exploitative, deceptive, and power mongering issues in the industry are characteristic of capitalism and are in no way exceptional. It will only get worse as media corporations continue to merge and consolidate power, and it will only get better as we organize.

 

[Meatwad]

"Artificially inflating costs" implies that there is a cost that happens naturally.

Click to shrink...

True, just scratch that

 

[Syril]

Lot of good responses in here and then there's Slayven's

For me, I think my big ones would be:
Deceptive trailers/marketing
Abusive DLC and/or lootboxes all left to chance

Most companies aren't really pro-consumer per se, but it's a balancing act kinda thing IMO

Like Sony isn't really down with crossplay, but are down with lots of sales
Nintendo is down with crossplay, but keeps their pricing up

etc etc

Click to shrink...

Excessive DRM like required internet connections on non-online games or activation limits is a big one for me. It's anti-consumer when piracy yields a better product.

 

[Deepwater]

Also I find irony in this whole 'anti-consumer' thing. Like... why would you see view yourself as a consumer. How demeaning.

Click to shrink...

Because people project themselves onto things they consume and "consumer" is a label that carries legitimacy based on its context.

It's actually a little sad

 

[ghibli99]

Beyond obvious things like flat-out lying, deception/misrepresentation, or not offering refunds/cancellations, I find most usage of the term to basically just be a way to explain away things someone doesn't agree with, usually stemming from their own personal perspective, not a wider/objective one that would affect everyone. The rest of it are things I read as practices, decisions, and deals companies make in order to highlight certain platforms or products to be more appealing and attractive than their competition.

 

[NinjaScooter]

It's been so overused around here to describe any and every little thing people simply don't like that it's lost any legitimate purpose or meaning. It's a worthless phrase.

 

[Hayvic]

Anything a company does that inconveniences me as a consumer while there exist examples that showcase said act is not a necessity. Or if a company artificially lowers the value of the product to benefit itself.

 

[Deleted member 23046]

Something that affect all consumers on a market and not only customers of a product.

 

[benzopil]

When I can't choose "Very hard" before I finish the game on Hard

 

[Deleted member 42]

When I can't choose "Very hard" before I finish the game on Hard

Click to shrink...

You gotta learn first!

 

[oni-link]

I mean it's over used because it's not strictly defined. It's a vague term and so of course it's used loosely. The fact people get so hung up over its use seems bizarre to me.



I think something else that's missed here is cultural differences too. Consumer rights are completely different in the US compared to most of Europe for example. So you'll get different answers as to what they feel is right/wrong.

Click to shrink...

This

People will often say things like this:

Withholding pertinent information on a product or service with the intent to deceive.

A business making a decision I don't like isn't anti consumer. It isn't tied to my perception of the company but to product / service only

edit: I think most who abuse the term should be pema'd. A lot of complaints about "anti consumer" come from folks who knew exactly what they were getting and what they were paying for it.

Click to shrink...

If Sony can up the cost of PS Plus and lower what they provide, then that is anti consumer, in so far as it's not favorable to consumers (or it's at least less favorable)

Equally, using a lootbox model so your players will end up spending more on cosmetics than if you'd let them buy them outright, is also anti consumer, again, in so far as it's also not favorable to consumers

"Anti consumer" is up there with "character action" as a term that absolutely causes people to lose their minds, and it's weird as hell. You can't even say anything is anti consumer without people flipping a desk over and screaming that they can't even listen to you anymore (like the quoted post backseat modding and wanting people who use the term banned)

Ultimately, discussing the term isn't as important as discussing the actions of some of these companies, but that can be difficult when you have people just as willing to defend a company to the hilt for almost any transgression, as long as they're a fan of the games that company makes

 

[Jakisthe]

Deviating from established practices for monetary gain while adding no/limited consumer benefits.

 

[Bakercat]

"Fuck you give me money."

 

[m_dorian]

Withholding pertinent information on a product or service with the intent to deceive.

A business making a decision I don't like isn't anti consumer. It isn't tied to my perception of the company but to product / service only

edit: I think most who abuse the term should be pema'd. A lot of complaints about "anti consumer" come from folks who knew exactly what they were getting and what they were paying for it.

Click to shrink...

People drive to Canada to buy drugs like insulin because they are way much cheaper there. The US companies that sell insulin at that high price made a business decision, very much disliked i guess yet that does not mean they are untouchable to criticize. They ARE anti-consumer because they fuck the consumer and, at worst, make him walk the extra mile.

EGS is forcing you to buy products they imprisoned, through moneyhat, on their inadequate, for now, environment. The other option, if you want are interested in the game, is to wait for a year or so which means to make that extra -unnecessary if logic prevailed- mile.
It IS a business decision, It IS unpleasant and it IS anti-consumer practice.

But some of you exist in the reality of "gotta have muh gamz now and play them" like your life depends on this and that, if we think hard about it, is is fine. It is also understandable since it is your time and money.

But it is not the best option for you neither for the rest of us.

 

[Chase Lebowski]

Everything I don't like.

 

[Crayon]

It's a spectrum. Companies can make moves that exhibit more or less responsibility or Goodwill you could say. They're required to make moves that benefit them, but not necessarily to make those moves also benefit their customers.

It's obviously a little more complicated and takes more creativity to please both parties rather than just yourself. It's obviously beneficial to please both parties. But if you can't hack that, you can sacrifice the experience of your customers as long as you come up at the bottom line.

Let's look at some examples moves with different levels of proconsumerness or whatever you mouth-breathers call it:

Valve has decided it would help their business to not to buy exclusives. They very easily could, but they don't seem to think it's going to help their business perhaps in the long-term or the short term. This is kind of neutral on the spectrum. They're doing something for their benefit, but it's sort of an inert thing. We don't get anything out of it, but we don't get put out either. We might get a little bit benefit from being reassured that they're not going to do that. But overall it's kind of neutral; neither pro consumer or anti-consumer.

Now look at proton. It's not quite exactly clear how valve is going to benefit from this or when. This is a ton of work that is a breakthrough for everybody. Literally everybody seemingly benefits to at least the same extent that it would benefit valve. This move is way over on the highly responsible, pro-consumer end of the scale.

 

[Deepwater]

People drive to Canada to buy drugs like insulin because they are way much cheaper there. The US companies that sell insulin at that high price made a business decision, very much disliked i guess yet that does not mean they are untouchable to criticize. They ARE anti-consumer because they fuck the consumer and, at worst, make him walk the extra mile.

EGS is forcing you to buy products they imprisoned, through moneyhat, on their inadequate, for now, environment. The other option, if you want are interested in the game, is to wait for a year or so which means to make that extra -unnecessary if logic prevailed- mile.
It IS a business decision, It IS unpleasant and it IS anti-consumer practice.

But some of you exist in the reality of "gotta have muh gamz now and play them" like your life depends on this and that, if we think hard about it, is is fine. It is also understandable since it is your time and money.

But it is not the best option for you neither for the rest of us.

Click to shrink...

Comparing EGS to Insulin prices is...a lot and I think speaks to volumes on how oppressed gamers feel about video game companies

 

[DaciaJC]

I mean it's over used because it's not strictly defined. It's a vague term and so of course it's used loosely. The fact people get so hung up over its use seems bizarre to me.



I think something else that's missed here is cultural differences too. Consumer rights are completely different in the US compared to most of Europe for example. So you'll get different answers as to what they feel is right/wrong.

Click to shrink...

People will often say things like this:



If Sony can up the cost of PS Plus and lower what they provide, then that is anti consumer, in so far as it's not favorable to consumers (or it's at least less favorable)

Equally, using a lootbox model so your players will end up spending more on cosmetics than if you'd let them buy them outright, is also anti consumer, again, in so far as it's also not favorable to consumers

"Anti consumer" is up there with "character action" as a term that absolutely causes people to lose their minds, and it's weird as hell. You can't even say anything is anti consumer without people flipping a desk over and screaming that they can't even listen to you anymore (like the quoted post backseat modding and wanting people who use the term banned)

Ultimately, discussing the term isn't as important as discussing the actions of some of these companies, but that can be difficult when you have people just as willing to defend a company to the hilt for almost any transgression, as long as they're a fan of the games that company makes

Click to shrink...

Good posts both, well said.

 

[zenosparadox]

For me, it is whenever the product/service exists only to extract money from consumers without any merit on its own. With video games, this is seen when it becomes more about the business logic of exploiting consumers rather than delivering a complete, cohesive experience. This includes games as a service, gacha mechanics, loot boxes, micro transactions, season passes, DLC, day one patches, pay-to-win, free-to-wait, etc (of course there are a few notable exceptions where these things are done well--if ever).