The level of GREED in the game industry is sickening

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Scardelli1
#1 Posted by Scardelli1 (25 posts) -

I looked at my Live dashboard today and saw the Spring Sale campaign which is chock full of DLC 'VALUE' Packs. I don't know about you but I'm sick to death of seeing this s**t. Don't get me wrong, if a game developer works hard on a game for years, then continues working on new content after release and puts out some DLC for $10, I have no problem with that. It's up to the individual gamer to decide if they want to splash out more cash for extra content.

However, what I do have a very big problem with is companies like Capcom charging for s**tty DLC which should have been in their s**tty game in the first place. Sorry, but if you're going to release a god awful POS like Resident Evil 6 then charge people for each multiplayer mode on an individual basis, I am going to call bulls**t. That is brutal.

What's next? They're gonna start charging to unlock each button on the control pad? "Unlock aiming down the sights with the left trigger for 50msp and unlock the ability to shoot your gun with the right trigger for another 50msp...... Or get them both in the 'Aim and Shoot VALUE PACK' for only 95msp!!!!! What a deal!!!!!!".

A 'value pack' for something that we know full well is just an unlock for something that's already in the game? Don't feed us this diarrhea and tell us it's honey. If the industry standard is the multiplayer and single player go hand in hand, don't try to charge for them separately. ESPECIALLY when your game got universally panned by critics (It's not just my opinion that RE6 stunk).

Game devs/publishers need to wake up and start paying attention to how their games are being received because they are not going to do themselves any favors by releasing garbage games then trying to charge for extra features after the fact. They would have saved a little face by giving their tacked on DLC away for free as an apology for giving us a brutal game in the first place.

This kind of greed and ignorance of feedback has put many, many publishers on my s**tlist of companies I will never give another red cent to. I think we as gamers need to band together and stop being so forgiving. The reality is, if we continue buying the shined up turds these companies are producing, they will continue releasing them.

Consumer sentiment is turning very negative in the past few years. There has been a crash in the industry before for this very same reason of cashing in on what they thought were gullible consumers (see ET the game circa 1982). If they continue along this path of greed over quality, I would not be surprised to see another crash in the future.

Avatar image for Scardelli1
#2 Posted by Scardelli1 (25 posts) -
Sorry for the wall of text.... I don't know what's up with this forum but I put spaces in between my paragraphs, it won't save them.
Avatar image for warriorsq
#3 Posted by warriorsq (565 posts) -

As a more mature gamer (44) I remember the when companies released free add-ons and enhancement packs. In the days before some people even had dial-up internet they even put the upgrades on disk forn you

Avatar image for Scardelli1
#4 Posted by Scardelli1 (25 posts) -
Amen bruddah. That was back when the companies still felt like they needed to earn your business. Now there's too many people eager to throw cash at them so why give it away?
Avatar image for The_Last_Ride
#5 Posted by The_Last_Ride (76371 posts) -
i try to avoid those type of stuff. I will pay for dlc when i think the game has done enough to get my attention
Avatar image for Gallowhand
#6 Posted by Gallowhand (592 posts) -

As a more mature gamer (44) I remember the when companies released free add-ons and enhancement packs. In the days before some people even had dial-up internet they even put the upgrades on disk forn you

warriorsq

I remember those days too.  And the game demos, patches and bonus content that came free on discs attached to PC gaming magazines...

Avatar image for Michael0134567
#7 Posted by Michael0134567 (28651 posts) -

I hate when developers release downloadable content right after their game releases.

Avatar image for Vari3ty
#8 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Speaking of the spring sale, I'm really f*cking sick of Microsoft using the stupid points system. Just use actual currency, goddamn it. 

Avatar image for Rattlesnake_8
#9 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18452 posts) -

As a more mature gamer (44) I remember the when companies released free add-ons and enhancement packs. In the days before some people even had dial-up internet they even put the upgrades on disk forn you

warriorsq
Those were amazing times.. sad how now you don't get anything free.. the worst is when the dlc you pay is already on the disc and was purposely locked out to make you pay extra.
Avatar image for wiouds
#10 Posted by wiouds (6233 posts) -

I remember when they would just add a character or two to the game and release it at full price for a second time.

Company has always been about money. It is a responsibility to do so. The cost of games has gone up but the sell price of games have not gone up. How else will they off set the change in the cost. In fact, I think DLC is best option for all parties.

Avatar image for Legolas_Katarn
#11 Posted by Legolas_Katarn (15556 posts) -

[QUOTE="warriorsq"]

As a more mature gamer (44) I remember the when companies released free add-ons and enhancement packs. In the days before some people even had dial-up internet they even put the upgrades on disk forn you

Rattlesnake_8

Those were amazing times.. sad how now you don't get anything free.. the worst is when the dlc you pay is already on the disc and was purposely locked out to make you pay extra.

The only ones we will see free things from now is quality developers like CD Project and Kickstarter developers.

No chance of getting anything for free from AAA game makers who need to sell 4 or 5 million copies of their mediocre games that they spent 100+ million to make to satisfy publishers.

Avatar image for blueboxdoctor
#12 Posted by blueboxdoctor (2549 posts) -

It's hard to blame them.  If people are willing to pay for map packs then why not charge them?  Sadly, the ones on the forums realizing this is an issue are still a minority.  There are a lot of people who only play a game or two a year and end up getting all the DLC for it (I've met a good amount of casual gamers who do this with games like COD). I'd much rather put that money towards a new game as I want to play something different, but as sales have shown with a game like Sleeping Dogs, not everyone is doing that (even though SD is a pretty awesome game).  But to each their own, I'm sure there is probably Gears of War DLC currently on sale, and it will likely sell and as much as I don't like Gears, if people are going to buy it then I can't argue the logic of it all.

I appreciate the current sale for DLC, as I want to pick up the Dragonborn DLC, which is more along the lines of a proper expansion, and Bethesda tends to be pretty good with making the DLC worth it, or at least most of their DLC worth it.

Plus, it's not like other forms of media aren't as greedy.  One of my favorite up and coming bands, Mutiny Within, are no longer a band due to sales of their first album.  Most good music coming out isn't supported by huge corporations.  A lot of creative games now are coming from indie devs, so it's not that different or a unique situation to video games that big companies are after more and more money.

I'm interested in seeing if anyone buys the Tomb Raider MP DLC, because that is a complete joke, and is the only instance in which I question the people who made that decision, unless of course it was already made and they have to release it.

Avatar image for chaplainDMK
#13 Posted by chaplainDMK (7004 posts) -

As a more mature gamer (44) I remember the when companies released free add-ons and enhancement packs. In the days before some people even had dial-up internet they even put the upgrades on disk forn you

warriorsq
I remember how when you bought a Gold or Game of the Year edition of a game back then... hell, a few years ago... you would get so much content you didn't know what to do with it all. Now all you get is a few new guns/maps/tracks/cars/armors/characters. I got the Medal of Honor: Allied Assault Warchest, you had the base Allied Assault + 2 whole campaigns, loads of new guns, maps, ability to drive vehicles in MP etc.. I played that for like a month without stopping and never ran out of new things to do. Nowadays you get a few skins and MP maps, if you're lucky.
Avatar image for Lulekani
#14 Posted by Lulekani (2318 posts) -
Hmmmmm. . . . Ignorance is Bliss.
Avatar image for HipHopBeats
#15 Posted by HipHopBeats (2850 posts) -

I hate when developers release downloadable content right after their game releases.

Michael0134567

Lol, what's your take on season passes? You know...announcing a chance to save on future DLC for an unreleased game? Pre-order a season pass now and get a few cheat code bonuses to boot!

Avatar image for LazySloth718
#16 Posted by LazySloth718 (2345 posts) -

Recently bought Sims 3, then found out they have like 20 DLC and you have to purchase some items via a points system.

I hate game developers.

Rather give up gaming than deal with this stupidity.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#17 Posted by lamprey263 (36180 posts) -
RE6 wasn't as bad as everybody made it sound, and doubtful many people will waste money on the multiplayer.
Avatar image for SpartanMSU
#18 Posted by SpartanMSU (3440 posts) -

They won't give you content for free which they created and they're the greedy ones? People are willing to buy what they put out, that's how supply and demand works idiot. Go read a book. You seem pretty selfish.

Avatar image for Blueresident87
#19 Posted by Blueresident87 (5825 posts) -

When people complain about the industry, I laugh. Consumers made it what it is

Avatar image for kickingcarpet
#20 Posted by kickingcarpet (570 posts) -

TL:DR, game companies make games to make profit, some companies make games purely for profit...and some make games for both profit and pride, they back their games and stand behind their masterpiece

FOR INSTANCE

 

EA vs. Blizzard Entertainment 

Avatar image for Archangel3371
#21 Posted by Archangel3371 (28403 posts) -
I don't find it nearly that bad myself. While I certainly wouldn't say that there isn't some greed out there I think that for the most part companies are generally pretty fair. Also I don't think that it's fair to compare content that may have been given away for free in previous gens to the content of today given the huge cost discrepencies of making that content.
Avatar image for The_Last_Ride
#22 Posted by The_Last_Ride (76371 posts) -

I hate when developers release downloadable content right after their game releases.

Michael0134567
This is a practice that needs to stop
Avatar image for unrealtron
#23 Posted by unrealtron (3148 posts) -
What I hate is when the release a game and dlc at the same time. That's just greedy.
Avatar image for Venom_Raptor
#24 Posted by Venom_Raptor (6959 posts) -

I agree, the level of greed is disgusting. A love single player DLC if it's worthwhile (such as Bioshock 2: Minerva's Den) but some can be a joke even if they're fun. Dead Space: Awakened is basically the last chapter of the main game chopped off and made DLC just for money. The worst is multiplayer DLC. I feel sorry for the pathetic amounts of people who pay crazy amounts for a few extra maps, and give the developer's something to think about every time.

Avatar image for rastotm
#25 Posted by rastotm (1380 posts) -

The level of greed in any industry is in direct relation with the level of stupidity among consumers.

Avatar image for Blueresident87
#26 Posted by Blueresident87 (5825 posts) -

[QUOTE="Michael0134567"]

I hate when developers release downloadable content right after their game releases.

The_Last_Ride

This is a practice that needs to stop

If people continue to buy them, this practice won't stop. Money is an easy thing to waste and too many people seem to be eager about doing that.

Avatar image for Shinobi120
#27 Posted by Shinobi120 (5678 posts) -

The level of greed in any industry is in direct relation with the level of stupidity among consumers.rastotm

Amen to this.

Avatar image for Scardelli1
#28 Posted by Scardelli1 (25 posts) -

They won't give you content for free which they created and they're the greedy ones? People are willing to buy what they put out, that's how supply and demand works idiot. Go read a book. You seem pretty selfish.

SpartanMSU
Did you not read my post or are you just so stupid that you don't understand? How is it that you are justifying a developer charging MORE money to unlock content that's already on the disc that we already PAID $60 for??? Tell me how that benefits you or any of us? ...........And I'm the idiot?
Avatar image for wis3boi
#29 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

Recently bought Sims 3, then found out they have like 20 DLC and you have to purchase some items via a points system.

I hate game developers.

Rather give up gaming than deal with this stupidity.

LazySloth718

Buy what you want, ignore the rest.  No one's forcing you to buy the addons, especially where there are literally hudnreds of thousands of free items and content made by the modding community

Avatar image for wiouds
#30 Posted by wiouds (6233 posts) -

The greed of gamers is also sickening.

The cost of creating the higher end games has incresed but the number buy the games has not. By some reports the number has gone down. There are some games that demand everything to be added to the game and they will also whine if theprice of games goes up.

Avatar image for Scardelli1
#31 Posted by Scardelli1 (25 posts) -

The greed of gamers is also sickening.

The cost of creating the higher end games has incresed but the number buy the games has not. By some reports the number has gone down. There are some games that demand everything to be added to the game and they will also whine if theprice of games goes up.

wiouds
I don't disagree with publishers charging for legitimate DLC content that they have put work into post release. That makes sense and I think there is will always be a market for that. What I have a problem with is paying full price for a game that upon first play is sloppily designed , was clearly done as a cash grab, lasts 5 hrs then having 'extra dlc content' come out the day of release. That's a blatant rip off and I think there is probably a correlation between the sagging sales in the industry lately and the amount of garbage being released.
Avatar image for Michael0134567
#32 Posted by Michael0134567 (28651 posts) -

[QUOTE="Michael0134567"]

I hate when developers release downloadable content right after their game releases.

The_Last_Ride

This is a practice that needs to stop

A more recent example of this would be Tomb Raider. There's already add-ons for it.

Avatar image for Minishdriveby
#33 Posted by Minishdriveby (10519 posts) -
Why limit it to just the game industry? It's a flaw of humans not videogames.
Avatar image for wiouds
#34 Posted by wiouds (6233 posts) -

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

The greed of gamers is also sickening.

The cost of creating the higher end games has incresed but the number buy the games has not. By some reports the number has gone down. There are some games that demand everything to be added to the game and they will also whine if theprice of games goes up.

Scardelli1

I don't disagree with publishers charging for legitimate DLC content that they have put work into post release. That makes sense and I think there is will always be a market for that. What I have a problem with is paying full price for a game that upon first play is sloppily designed , was clearly done as a cash grab, lasts 5 hrs then having 'extra dlc content' come out the day of release. That's a blatant rip off and I think there is probably a correlation between the sagging sales in the industry lately and the amount of garbage being released.

If it completely on the disk then I understand being mad.

It is a very good ideal to work on at least one DLC while making the game. Keep in mind there are stages of game development.

The problem is that there are gamers that see all DLC as being rips off and should have been in the game from the start while not asking what about the game developer side.

The worse is when gamers whine about skin not being with the game or code block when they are worthless and does nothing for the game and can be skipped.

Avatar image for Allicrombie
#35 Posted by Allicrombie (26217 posts) -
gordon gekko.jpg
Avatar image for wis3boi
#36 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

gordon gekko.jpgAllicrombie

lol

Avatar image for turtlethetaffer
#37 Posted by turtlethetaffer (18790 posts) -

Tons of games don't have DLC, namely on Ninty systems.  Don't care about why, the fact of the matter is that, at least in the Wii's and DS lifespans, all DLC has been pretty much free. Take Dragon Quest IX.  Perfect example of DLC done right.  each week since it was released, they would give players a new quest FOR FREE.  In total, there were 64 new quests, giving players a whopping 184 quests to complete on top of all the conten present in the game.  Not only that, but they'd have daily deals on tough to find items  for in game currency.

I think more games need to adopt that kind of DLC styIe.

Avatar image for AlexKidd5000
#38 Posted by AlexKidd5000 (2975 posts) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZxXEidtxHk Once again, this video talks about everything in your post. Gamers are just used to getting ripped off, and don't see a problem with it. They are oblivious.
Avatar image for Bigboi500
#39 Posted by Bigboi500 (35550 posts) -

When people complain about the industry, I laugh. Consumers made it what it is

Blueresident87

Truth. For every internet complaint there's 1000 people who buy DLC swimsuits and season passes.

Avatar image for Grammaton-Cleric
#40 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7515 posts) -

The level of greed in any industry is in direct relation with the level of stupidity among consumers.

rastotm

Actually, greed is a condition predicated on the motivation of financial acquisition and propagated through the ideology of free-market capitalism. Since all companies that are not denoted as non-profit by default exist to achieve profit, the central and unyielding propellant of any business is to generate money, thus greed is a natural byproduct of such a construct and thereby pre-exists independently of consumer predilections.  

The consumer does have a direct influence on the nature and type of the products sold as they essentially vote with their wallets (and purses) but to suggest that consumer malfeasance is the cause of corporate greed is ridiculous.

The greed is always present within the corporate construct; it merely responds to a dearth in the marketplace and provides the necessary product or service to fill the void and generate revenue.

Avatar image for Grammaton-Cleric
#41 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7515 posts) -

[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

When people complain about the industry, I laugh. Consumers made it what it is

Bigboi500

Truth. For every internet complaint there's 1000 people who buy DLC swimsuits and season passes.

Value is relative; you yourself have defended the Wii U as a sound purchase and yet I would argue that such a purchase is a far bigger waste of money than some vapid DLC.

However, if you enjoy the system and feel the price was justified then, from your perspective, the value is fair.

DLC is a mixed bag; sometimes an awesome and reasonably priced addition, other times ridiculously overpriced superficialities. But if people find value in overpriced skins, that is their prerogative.

With very few exceptions, DLC has done little to damage gaming.

Avatar image for rastotm
#42 Posted by rastotm (1380 posts) -

[QUOTE="rastotm"]

The level of greed in any industry is in direct relation with the level of stupidity among consumers.

Grammaton-Cleric

Actually, greed is a condition predicated on the motivation of financial acquisition and propagated through the ideology of free-market capitalism. Since all companies that are not denoted as non-profit by default exist to achieve profit, the central and unyielding propellant of any business is to generate money, thus greed is a natural byproduct of such a construct and thereby pre-exists independently of consumer predilections.  

The consumer does have a direct influence on the nature and type of the products sold as they essentially vote with their wallets (and purses) but to suggest that consumer malfeasance is the cause of corporate greed is ridiculous.

The greed is always present within the corporate construct; it merely responds to a dearth in the marketplace and provides the necessary product or service to fill the void and generate revenue.

The average consumer doesn't portray the economic process you described as greedy, they accept the fact that it is a business which needs money to cover costs and has to make a profit in order to sustain. Furthermore consumers acknowledge that their products offer value, as they are willing to pay a certain price. There may be times however, when consumers do not regard the value of the products as high enough. The price is perceived as excessive and that is where the 'greedy business' concept comes from. Simply said, if it's not perceived as excessive than it isn't greed.

The stupidity claim comes from the following concept, consumers are satisfied with price and value of a certain product, the product changes, this change resulted in a division among consumers. Some accept the price and value of the changed products, others regard the price as excessive and believe that their product used to offer more value for their money. Naturally this last group will complain about the new consumers being stupid, as the former product was better and they will complain about the business being greedy, as the new product isn't better while asking for the same.

Avatar image for Blueresident87
#43 Posted by Blueresident87 (5825 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bigboi500"]

[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

When people complain about the industry, I laugh. Consumers made it what it is

Grammaton-Cleric

Truth. For every internet complaint there's 1000 people who buy DLC swimsuits and season passes.

Value is relative; you yourself have defended the Wii U as a sound purchase and yet I would argue that such a purchase is a far bigger waste of money than some vapid DLC.

However, if you enjoy the system and feel the price was justified then, from your perspective, the value is fair.

DLC is a mixed bag; sometimes an awesome and reasonably priced addition, other times ridiculously overpriced superficialities. But if people find value in overpriced skins, that is their prerogative.

With very few exceptions, DLC has done little to damage gaming.

DLC has done nothing to damage gaming, except on-disc dlc which I see as stretching out the process of buying a game and that's not fair to the consumer. Otherwise, nobody forces a gamer to buy extra DLC and DLC is never required to play the game. People can spend their money on what they want and if you don't want it then don't buy it.

At the same time though, with the way dlc is going currently I can see it doing tremendous damage in the future. Developers won't get any less interested in getting money and they know video games are a lucrative business these days.

Avatar image for Grammaton-Cleric
#44 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7515 posts) -

 The average consumer doesn't portray the economic process you described as greedy, they accept the fact that it is a business which needs money to cover costs and has to make a profit in order to sustain. Furthermore consumers acknowledge that their products offer value, as they are willing to pay a certain price. There may be times however, when consumers do not regard the value of the products as high enough. The price is perceived as excessive and that is where the 'greedy business' concept comes from. Simply said, if it's not perceived as excessive than it isn't greed.

The stupidity claim comes from the following concept, consumers are satisfied with price and value of a certain product, the product changes, this change resulted in a division among consumers. Some accept the price and value of the changed products, others regard the price as excessive and believe that their product used to offer more value for their money. Naturally this last group will complain about the new consumers being stupid, as the former product was better and they will complain about the business being greedy, as the new product isn't better while asking for the same.

rastotm

How consumers view capitalism is incidental; my point is that your attempt to correlate greed with consumer stupidity is intellectually fallacious. By default greed is the central and pre-existing propellant of a free-market, deregulated capitalist construct thus attempting to foist the proliferation of said greed onto the consumer is erroneous and illogical.

If your point is that consumers propagate certain products and trends with their purchases then I agree as that is simple economics.

As to your example of consumer division over a perceived decline or alteration of a product, you would first have to demonstrate that videogames as a product currently offer less value than software from an earlier era. When examining the matter objectively, such an argument is difficult to sustain given that this generation has afforded games rich with content along with the ability to play smaller titles at a lower price point. At this point in history the consumer has been given a great wealth of choice and options and yet somehow these options have been perverted into something overtly negative by those who insist gaming has gotten worse.  

As nebulous as your initial statement was, it would appear you were taking a swipe at gamers as a whole and I continuously caution people about broad and sweeping generalizations, especially those tinged with pejoratives. Even if most gamers indulged in the purchase of overpriced DLC, you and others who share your views have yet to demonstrate, precisely, why DLC is such a significant detriment to this medium.

Militant cynicism is fine but at some juncture those of you decrying this medium and the gamers who enjoy it must offer up something more substantial than maxims and vague diatribes of righteous indignation. Im not asserting that this industry is altruistic but having been a gamer for some time and being somebody who funnels a considerable amount of money into this medium each and every year I have yet to read a compelling argument that gaming is the abysmal anti-consumer screw job so many of you keep asserting.

And please note, if you want to offer up such an argument I'll happily read and respond to it.

Avatar image for Grammaton-Cleric
#45 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7515 posts) -

DLC has done nothing to damage gaming, except on-disc dlc which I see as stretching out the process of buying a game and that's not fair to the consumer. Otherwise, nobody forces a gamer to buy extra DLC and DLC is never required to play the game. People can spend their money on what they want and if you don't want it then don't buy it.

At the same time though, with the way dlc is going currently I can see it doing tremendous damage in the future. Developers won't get any less interested in getting money and they know video games are a lucrative business these days.

Blueresident87

On-disc DLC is most certainly a murky area. As I understand it, assets from games are often used in conjunction with DLC but there have been those games where the content in question appeared to be included but locked and thus became a way to siphon off even more money from the consumer who, by all rights, should have been granted full access to their software.

DLC, like so many other things, is rife for abuse but can also facilitate some brilliant and inexpensive additions to quality games. If developers and publishers in the future choose to abuse and squander the potential of DLC, then I feel confident consumers will respond accordingly.   

Avatar image for Blueresident87
#46 Posted by Blueresident87 (5825 posts) -

[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

DLC has done nothing to damage gaming, except on-disc dlc which I see as stretching out the process of buying a game and that's not fair to the consumer. Otherwise, nobody forces a gamer to buy extra DLC and DLC is never required to play the game. People can spend their money on what they want and if you don't want it then don't buy it.

At the same time though, with the way dlc is going currently I can see it doing tremendous damage in the future. Developers won't get any less interested in getting money and they know video games are a lucrative business these days.

Grammaton-Cleric

DLC, like so many other things, is rife for abuse but can also facilitate some brilliant and inexpensive additions to quality games.

The Fallout 3/New Vegas dlc and Alan Wake dlc are two that I can think of being done well, and there are many others. Both single player games, and I think this has something to do with it too.

Avatar image for Grammaton-Cleric
#47 Posted by Grammaton-Cleric (7515 posts) -

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Blueresident87"]

DLC has done nothing to damage gaming, except on-disc dlc which I see as stretching out the process of buying a game and that's not fair to the consumer. Otherwise, nobody forces a gamer to buy extra DLC and DLC is never required to play the game. People can spend their money on what they want and if you don't want it then don't buy it.

At the same time though, with the way dlc is going currently I can see it doing tremendous damage in the future. Developers won't get any less interested in getting money and they know video games are a lucrative business these days.

Blueresident87

DLC, like so many other things, is rife for abuse but can also facilitate some brilliant and inexpensive additions to quality games.

The Fallout 3/New Vegas dlc and Alan Wake dlc are two that I can think of being done well, and there are many others. Both single player games, and I think this has something to do with it too.

Multiplayer gaming has opened up a proverbial can of worms that allows publishers to micro-transaction the hell out of players by charging for skins, weapons, perks, etc. As somebody who primarily plays single player games and campaigns, this uglier side of DLC is largely irrelevant to me, though I can certainly understand how some could see such content as an egregious nickel-and-diming of the consumer.