Is it hypocritical to oppose anti-competitive practices but support, purchase, or buy consoles?

With the Epic vs. Apple trial that bring up the issue of closed platforms and online stores, I would be bold to ask: for those of you who oppose monopolies or forms of anti-competitive practices in the gaming industry, is it really hypocritical to support, purchase, or play home consoles while knowing that they are closed platforms?

I've always wondered how to pronounce your user name, and what it means...

It depends.... I am primarily a PC gamer and I don't like to have to waste money on redundant and inferior hardware (consoles) just to play exclusives. However, it is out of necessity to play the games I am interested in. I do it, but I am not happy about it.

Now if someone is primarily a console gamer and is claiming to be against anti-competitve practices, then that would be more hypocritical.

Consoles aren't anticompetitive. If they were... we wouldn't have System Wars. This entire board exists because of competition between the various systems. Thus, there's no hypocrisy.

Enjoy your Epic vs Apple war.

I support competitive practices as I believe that it ultimately benefits the consumer. I'm all for exclusives, even on platforms I don't own. Eventually, if the library is good enough, I'll be motivated to purchase the platform.

What I’ve taken away from that trial so far is that Sweeney just wants to be able to tell other companies what to do.

He even claimed Sony not wanting cross play was ‘illegal’. Not sure how he arrived at that but it sounds like he’s the one being anti-competitive here.

There are three console makers right now and all three of them are fighting for your attention and money. If you don't like Sony games, you can go to MS or Nintendo's platform and play their games. How is that anti-competitive or a monopoly? A monopoly would be Sony being the only console maker left. That would be bad for everyone.

not neccessarily ps2 had a strangle hold monopoly was 299 and a dvd player during the gamecube xbox days...

I like when theres one clear winner sometimes a big bold mover who crushes comp its good for the industry thann everyone can go to that one.

Well, it depends. I see paying for exclusivity on existing games as anti-competitive. The practice doesn't introduce anything new into the industry, it only hurts gamers as a whole. However, if you are funding a game from the start, then I'm okay with it (up to and until the performance gets compromised). Basically, if the game wouldn't have been made without the financial help of the exclusive platform holder, then it's fair and competitive. Though I would still argue the traditional console business is no longer as profitable as releasing your game on all platforms, given the slim-to-none margins on console hardware and the long R&D cycles.

I also figure it's impossible to be human and not be hypocritical at times.

I do my best to not support things I oppose, but I am also incapable of not playing a Souls game at launch ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Honestly there's a lot of convenience in it - like I would never play an Ubisoft game even if the company weren't run by wanks (except maybe Rayman - see, there is it!).

PS2 was popular. It was not a monopoly as Nintendo and Sega were still making consoles and then MS jumped in.

Having one clear winner is why Sega is out of the console market. It could have happened to Xbox as well if it weren't backed by MS.

Well said, agree with this.

Unless....unless SW is itself hypocritical.

No...it couldn't be. Could it?

I'm not sure his intent - but St. Onesiphorus is in the New Testament. He is one of the 70 disciples Jesus sent out to preach the word of God.

Biblically, it's pronounce "on-uh-SIF-uh-ruhs"

Thank you, CCD...

People are anti-competitive around here? Sounds like an oxymoron to me.

@mrbojangles25: Users definitely can be but a forum board? Nope

Thanks for the info.

Most of the criticism, including from me, is that exclusives are inherently anti-consumer. That is not the same thing as anti-competitive.

Pretty much this, also gaming on PC here.

Although with the Switch I gotta admit it's an exception because I love its unique (compared to the competition) form-factor.

Now if my Switch could stream my PC games, that would just take it to another level.

You can be of two (or more) minds on an issue without being hypocritical. I have always found Binary thinking to be a strange thing.

Yes. It’s the height of hypocrisy.

Some of you dont know what the word monopoly means.

Title doesn't make sense.

Define "anti competitive practices".

Is anti competitive the same as anti consumer? Xbox is a closed platform, but is becoming very pro consumer.

A closed platform also makes the system very easy to use. macOS is very simple. I wouldn't even call it anti competitive. You are still allowed to install software from the web, most of the software I use is not from the store. And only their store which is closed like all stores.

It's only an issue on ios and android devices, because they are store only.

But from what I remember, apple never said Epic can't have their own app, they said they can't use their store to make money only for themselves. This was some time ago I read about it, but it sounds like Epic are trying to have their cake and eat it.

one-sif-for-res or one sīf-for-res

All companies have anti-consumer practices. The key as a consumer is: which anti-consumer practices are deal breakers? Which affects you personally? Do I love their product more than I hate their practices?

Nintendo does some things that I dislike, however I like their games and their product more than I dislike their practices. Their games are so appealing to me that their bad practices are worth it.

Business look after their interests and will push things as far as they can. And consumers should look after their own interests too.

The problem is, as brands are marketed in a way that they become part of the consumers identities it hacks consumers brains so that they defend them as if themselves, even against their own interests.

Use whatever product suits you but always demand more, not less.

You can be critical of exclusivity of games whilst still being a console owner.

I do not believe an existing multi-platform game should become exclusive to one platform. It is different for first party games or games that one console owner helps fund.

I fear that MS and my console Sony have their companies filled with people at executive level who have no interest in video games. Nintendo seems to have retained the balance between being a business and still being a company that loves video games.

It is a shame because in the lower levels of MS and Sony there will be people who love games but they will not have any decision making power.

For example I do not agree with Sony keeping Spiderman off the Avengers games for non-Sony editions, FF7R should have been be multi-platform and MS should not have bought Bethesda.

If you want console exclusives then fund and develop first party games.

I am just wondering how someone could possibly equate a single product made by a single company as being a monopoly. A monopoly of what? A monopoly of itself? Wtf?

This

That's the psychology of consumerism and brand loyalty for you.

The best benefit for a company is to get their consumers to stop thinking for themselves and to just buy based on the logo.

I know at least one faction on this site has forfeited the sovereignty of their own minds in exchange of chasing logos like a carrot on a stick held in front of them.