Why do so many posters defend anti-consumer practices when it comes to video games?

[oni-link]

I suppose this also applies in other mediums and elements of tech as well, but it's something I think is worth discussing (Mods, feel free to lock if you disagree)

Whether it's Nintendo using DMCA strikes to shut YouTubers (who are not infringing their copyright) up, storefronts offering an all around worse experience for people on PC, predatory lootboxes being pushed into games, people being upset at game preservation attempts, or just people upset a financial model is being criticised

There are always a vocal section of people who are happy to defend huge corporations and argue against their own consumer rights when it comes to these kind of topics, or they'll try and change the conversation to dismiss any legitimate criticism entirely

I get that we all enjoy video games and like seeing the companies that release products we enjoy doing well, but that doesn't mean they're beyond criticism when they do mess up

At the same time we also have a lot of posts where one user will accuse another of being a shill or astroturfer because of their blatant disregard for their own self interest in favour of a corporations (Which is also unhelpful and not really conductive to having a sensible discussion)

Is this just what being a fanboy looks like when you grow up, or is this down to people cultivating certain companies and products into their own identity to the point where they feel criticism levelled against a company is criticism levelled against themselves?

What do you think, Era?

 

[Deleted member 42]

Cause they like whatever that company makes
Cause they like the company
Cause they like fighting people on the Internet
Cause they like

 

[jerfdr]

I'm 100% with you, OP. I'm baffled at what some people here say in defence of EGS, loot boxes and other anti-consumer practices. I honestly don't understand this.

 

[Rodjer]

Because as long as these anti-consumer practices are not in their games or from their favorite platform holder or publisher they won't care and they will raise their shields and swords to defend the poor publishers or developers.

 

[The Cellar Letters]

Because competition.

 

[Kolx]

Because how would my poor company survive with only 1 billion in profit instead of 1.5 billion? huh? ANSWER ME

 

[Chairmanchuck (另一个我)]

Fanboyism.

 

[TronLight]

Some people feel validation based on what they own, so they can't accept that their favorite brand is doing something wrong. Nerds are particularly susceptible to this.

 

[signal]

people being upset at game preservation attempts

Click to shrink...

lol @ painting all of the possible issues people might have with this as "anti-consumer"[/QUOTE]

 

[oni-link]

Cause they like whatever that company makes
Cause they like the company
Cause they like fighting people on the Internet
Cause they like

Click to shrink...

I love Nintendo and Sony but I'm still really critical of them

I do like to fight people on the internet though...

 

[Lkr]

Corporate defense force. Weird that it's only in video games, and weird how Nintendo is the primary, repeat offender in terms of punishing fans paying tribute to them.

 

[KushalaDaora]

Company-worshipping.

 

[Deleted member 42]

I do like to fight people on the internet though...

Click to shrink...

I know

 

[ApeEscaper]

Maybe they have stock in those companies, maybe their uncle and best friend works there

 

[Fire Bocchi]

because people like you have destroyed the meaning of anti consumer

storefronts offering an all around worse experience for people on PC,

Click to shrink...

like really? a new product not being as good as something thats existed for much longer is anti consumer,? fuck off with that fucking bullshit

 

[Gale Moran]

It depends on what we're talking about, the reason is likely not the same for each issue. Saying fanboyism for every situation is too simpleminded. I'm against all forms of hacking so I have no problem with nintendo shutting down youtubers who promote that. Even if they don't really do anything bad with it, others will.

 

[Deleted member 274]

They're all shareholders, clearly

 

[oni-link]

lol @ painting all of the possible issues people might have with this as "anti-consumer"

Click to shrink...

Yeah that's a fair point, but it's hard to shoehorn everything into one thread

I mean the people that would rather games are lost forever than someone dump a ROM for preservations sake, they just love these corporations and their rights so much, games being lost forever is preferable to attempts at preservation

You can see examples of that in the thread I linked in the OP

 

[signal]

EGS is pro consumer. Proof!:

Yeah that's a fair point, but it's hard to shoehorn everything into one thread

I mean the people that would rather games are lost forever than someone dump a ROM for preservations sake, they just love these corporations and their rights so much, games being lost forever is preferable to attempts at preservation

You can see examples of that in the thread I linked in the OP

Click to shrink...

I think many of the issues have pros and cons on both sides but as usual with internet discussions it just devolves into total black and white shitposting wars. I'm sure there are many people that end up defending blatantly anti-consumer practices in these threads but there's also the issue that people will come in and treat any defense of a company as paid shill corporate bootlicking or whatever.

 

[oni-link]

like really? a new product not being as good as something thats existed for much longer is anti consumer,? fuck off with that fucking bullshit

Click to shrink...

No need for the spicy language friend, again, I wanted the OP to be less than 10,000 words, and I didn't want to lay the entire Epic vs Steam thing out again, but there are elements of what Epic are doing that could be seen as anti consumer

I don't hate Epic as much as some people though, but they're not bringing more choice, better prices, peace and harmony to the PC space either

 

[Asriel]

because people like you have destroyed the meaning of anti consumer



like really? a new product not being as good as something thats existed for much longer is anti consumer,? fuck off with that fucking bullshit

Click to shrink...

Pretty much. Threads like this are fodder for comedy from me nowadays. Gamers are quite naive.

 

[Siggy]

Too much brand identification.

 

[jett]

Corporate apologists, fanatical about their favorite brand.

 

[Deleted member 8593]

like really? a new product not being as good as something thats existed for much longer is anti consumer,? fuck off with that fucking bullshit

Click to shrink...

This is rich. The people that used the same defense for Nintendo's pitiful online service were rightfully laughed at.

 

[Hu3]

Corporate defense force. Weird that it's only in video games, and weird how Nintendo is the primary, repeat offender in terms of punishing fans paying tribute to them.

Click to shrink...

Have to agree with this, the corporate apologists here are a strong force., people need to realize that corporations are not your family not your friend they do not care about you. They are companies selling a service and you are the customer. But instead we act here like they are doing us some kind of favor or good charity it's just baffling some times.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

like really? a new product not being as good as something thats existed for much longer is anti consumer,? fuck off with that fucking bullshit

Click to shrink...

What a neat microcosm of exactly what this topic is about, in one succinct post. Intentionally ignorant about people's complaints, and incredulous at that.

 

[Haze]

Come on just talk about the GAMES

because people like you have destroyed the meaning of anti consumer



like really? a new product not being as good as something thats existed for much longer is anti consumer,? fuck off with that fucking bullshit

Click to shrink...

No what's anti-consumer about it is that new platform strongarming consumers into using it instead of allowing them to choose. Don't be dense.

 

[Rodjer]

EGS is pro consumer. Proof!:

Click to shrink...

This post is really, really sad.

 

[signal]

This post is really, really sad.

Click to shrink...

As is taking it seriously.

 

[KushalaDaora]

Cause they like whatever that company makes

Click to shrink...

This explain why barely anyone defended EA, Activision, or WB here.

Have to agree with this, the corporate apologists here are a strong force., people need to realize that corporations are not your family not your friend they do not care about you. They are companies selling a service and you are the customer. But instead we act here like they are doing us some kind of favor or good charity it's just baffling some times.

Click to shrink...

But they made game that I love

 

[Rodjer]

As is taking it seriously.

Click to shrink...

Can't tell sarcam on ERA, i've seen worse in EGS threads.

 

[cw_sasuke]

Often people take being neutral or stating facts as "defending" especially on boards like Era - you are either as disgusted or you are defending it.

See the cross plattform Sony issue - many PS4 owners had no issue saying that the feature isnt AS important to them on a personal level compared to other things Sony offers - but they were called out as defending Sony, being fanboys etc.

Too many users being insecure about their own opinions so they feel slighted whenever, not everyone is on the same train they are on.

 

[Skux]

Because

1) Platform exclusivity is not an anti-consumer practice
2) Understanding and explaining a business practice is not the same as supporting it

 

[Deleted member 12790]

Because

1) Platform exclusivity is not an anti-consumer practice

Click to shrink...

yes it is

 

[signal]

Can't tell sarcam on ERA, i've seen worse in EGS threads.

Click to shrink...

Well I was joking but for some people I could see that being all it takes.

 

[Haze]

1) Platform exclusivity is not an anti-consumer practice

Click to shrink...

Moneyhatting exclusives that would otherwise not be is absolutely

 

[Zafir]

Games require more investment than general media, between higher introduction costs (£300 for a console, £50 for a game) and a higher time investment. I think that can sometimes make people feel like they have to defend their investment. Combine that with other issues like anti-consumer meaning different things to different people, and then some people just being pro-capitalism anyway.

like really? a new product not being as good as something thats existed for much longer is anti consumer,? fuck off with that fucking bullshit

Click to shrink...

If that's your take away why people have an issue with what EGS is doing, then I'm not really sure what to say.

 

[entremet]

yes it is

Click to shrink...

You're missing a key point. Some games would not exist if they didn't platform holder funding. See Bayonetta 2 and 3.

SFV is another. SFV would've launched 3 years later, to be fair.

 

[Master Alucard]

people have different opinions

 

[oni-link]

You're missing a key point. Some games would not exist if they didn't platform holder funding. See Bayonetta 2 and 3.

SFV is another. SFV would've launched 3 years later, to be fair.

Click to shrink...

While true, this doesn't apply to any of Epic's timed exclusives

 

[Zafir]

You're missing a key point. Some games would not exist if they didn't platform holder funding. See Bayonetta 2 and 3.

SFV is another.

Click to shrink...

I don't think that's quite comparable to the EGS situation though.

The games already existed and were coming onto other PC storefronts... Until they weren't because they got their exclusivity bought.

 

[Jawmuncher]

Most of it falls into a bad case of "fuck you, got mine" typically.

 

[Tyaren]

Cognitive Dissonance
The thing someone loved for many years, identifies with, invested a lot of money in mustn't be bad or it brings that someone great discomfort. Defending and sugar coating it in front of others and to themselves brings them great comfort.

Because as long as these anti-consumer practices are not in their games or from their favorite platform holder or publisher they won't care and they will raise their shields and swords to defend the poor publishers or developers.

Click to shrink...

Often enough it is in their games, they are directly affected and they still defend it.

 

[tzare]

Not everything is anti consumer though.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

You're missing a key point. Some games would not exist if they didn't platform holder funding. See Bayonetta 2 and 3.

Click to shrink...

It's still anti consumer. Nintendo is dumb in this case, they could make more money by selling a game they funded on multiple platforms.

Not to mention that the case of shit like Bayonetta 2 is not the type of exclusivity being discussed here. I can still buy Bayonetta 2 and 3 from multiple stores.

 

[Gale Moran]

No what's anti-consumer about it is that new platform strongarming consumers into using it instead of allowing them to choose. Don't be dense.

Click to shrink...

Everyone pretty much does that, so you'd have to complain against Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft as well, but people never make as big of a deal when they do it.

 

[AmbientRuin]

Everyone pretty much does that, so you'd have to complain against Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft as well, but people never make as big of a deal when they do it.

Click to shrink...

Except I can go to a walmart or I can go to a mom and pop shop and buy Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft games, whereas I have to go to EGS if I want to buy a game exclusive to EGS. It's more comparable to walled gardens like the Apple Store or what Microsoft was attempting with the Windows Store which Uhhhhh do we really wanna defend those?

 

[oni-link]

people have different opinions

Click to shrink...

Yeah this is true, I'm not trying to say I'm always 100% right, but a lot of people will stand up for a huge corporation against general consumers, and that's the part I find odd

These are billion dollar companies a lot of the time, and you have people saying Sony are right not to offer crossplay, or EA need to put a casino in their games to make profit on a Star Wars game, or Xbox are right to lock free to play games behind a paywall

These are all opinions, sure, but they're weird opinions that favour these huge companies over general consumers

It's weird to me anyway

 

[illamap]

Shipping a bad/mediocre game is anti-consumer.

If something is legal, I don't consider it anti-consumer at all.

 

[Deleted member 12790]

Would you like to know the real reason so many on this board """"defend"""" the EGS? They let their mentality out all the time in certain threads. Here's the real reason:

Valve gets off WAYYYY too easy on this forum.

Click to shrink...

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend." It's nothing more than the same always-dumb console warring.