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.What I find the funniest about this discussion:
It was not that long ago that MS's E3s were considered exciting because they were talking about their "best line-up ever" and that Tomb Raider/Halo/Gears/Fable/Forza could only be played on the Xbox.
Now the corporate PR-speak changes and so do the posts (it doesn't matter if you buy an Xbox, exclusives are bad, etc.).
L
o
L
This article and the resulting thread is a perfect example to why they should be banned.
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.
The hell is wrong with people. Even one person calling it anti-consumer is too much. This stuff should be called out.
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 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
I've seen lots of people claim exclusives of all kinds are anti-consumer.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?
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 Ps5Well, Ps5 is no secret, you buy a Ps4 knowing that it will "only" play Ps4's games.
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.
Is this sarcasm? I can't tell in this day and ageI 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.
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.
Like...why do I have to pay for games?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.
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.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
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
Do tell me how exclusive games benefit the costumer?
Why not answer the question instead of these drive-by posts?So ... it wasn't sarcasm? Good Lord, and I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
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.
Being made? the simple fact of existing? Otherwise, they would not be made.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.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
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.
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
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
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?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.
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 this tasty salty?
Oh my god I'm so glad you found a post of someone saying it because I really could not be arsed to look.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.
If I own a furniture store where I sell pieces I create, am I anti-consumer for not also selling my work at Target?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
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.
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.Oh my god I'm so glad you found a post of someone saying it because I really could not be arsed to look.
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.
Oh my god I'm so glad you found a post of someone saying it because I really could not be arsed to look.
Is your argument that Sony, MS & Nintendo should no longer release hardware and only focus on software available to all humans on all devices?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.
Is your argument that Sony, MS & Nintendo should no longer release hardware and only focus on software available to all humans on all devices?
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.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.
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.Being made? the simple fact of existing? Otherwise, they would not be made.
I don't want a playstation. Its inferior to my already bought PC. how is gaming in on inferior hardware costumer friendly/neutral?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.
So are you saying all games are designed to maximize revenue/profit except exclusives?They wouldn't be made the way they're currently desired if they were made for the sole purpose of maximizing revenue/profit
Excluding others is good. Awesome opinion to have.In case it's not clear, I've dismissed your question as ridiculous: it doesn't merit a response.
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.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.
It is a companies right but just because its their right doesn't mean they benefit me as a costumer.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.
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
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.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?
It is a companies right but just because its their right doesn't mean they benefit me as a costumer.