Should Sony & Nintendo be considered anti-consumer for having exclusives?

  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for ahmedkhan1994
#1 Posted by ahmedkhan1994 (714 posts) -

This is something that I always end up thinking about when I hear some news about Epic vs Steam exclusives war. The entire PC community is up in arms regarding how anti consumer Epic and the developers that launch their games on EGS are but I always end up coming back to the same conclusion. The game is still playable on PC and its not like i have to go out and buy a $400 console just to be able to play a game so why should i be mad? Yes i know steam has better features and all that stuff but you still get to play the game...

Which brings me to the topic, why are Sony & Nintendo exempt from being called anti consumer even though they are essentially doing what Epic does if not worse (locking the game behind a $300-$400 system) and should they be called out for it? I would include MS in the debate as well but imo, its only a matter of time (maybe a generation) until their games are available on all platforms, including Playstation and Switch.

Avatar image for DonaId
#2 Posted by DonaId (96 posts) -

Nah, pro consumer. They are investing in new games for consumers to enjoy. It’s just Microsoft has the benefit of two platforms and is even more pro consumer as a by product of this.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#3 Posted by lundy86_4 (53374 posts) -

This is... Absurd.

Epic is money-hatting and it's entirely different from releasing legitimate exclusives. Furthermore, the Epic Store is a complete trojan, and that's another reason why people are up-in-arms.

Avatar image for nerdrage
#4 Edited by NerdRAGE (27 posts) -

I think the only anti-consumer thing about Nintendo is their inability to listen to consumers concerning their Nintendo ONLINE service. Most of us know it's BAD and a lot of us are screaming for features that fall more in line with working models that we already have with XBL and PSN.

For folks like me, it's really frustrating. And by folks like me, I mean the ones who don't care about the classic games that are part of the ONLINE service package.

Avatar image for ahmedkhan1994
#5 Posted by ahmedkhan1994 (714 posts) -
@lundy86_4 said:

This is... Absurd.

Epic is money-hatting and it's entirely different from releasing legitimate exclusives. Furthermore, the Epic Store is a complete trojan, and that's another reason why people are up-in-arms.

So i have been trying to get some clarity on "Epic Money Hatting". I know Epic takes a smaller cut of the sales than steam does but is Epic out here writing checks to developers on top of that to secure exclusitivity? If not, and its just that they take a smaller cut of the sales than Steam, then im afraid that i don't see that as money hatting, that's just business...

Now if Epic is telling those devs that they cant get that lower rate unless they release on EGS as an exclusive, than i can somewhat see that as moneyhatting.

Avatar image for Gatygun
#6 Posted by Gatygun (1527 posts) -
@ahmedkhan1994 said:

This is something that I always end up thinking about when I hear some news about Epic vs Steam exclusives war. The entire PC community is up in arms regarding how anti consumer Epic and the developers that launch their games on EGS are but I always end up coming back to the same conclusion. The game is still playable on PC and its not like i have to go out and buy a $400 console just to be able to play a game so why should i be mad? Yes i know steam has better features and all that stuff but you still get to play the game...

Which brings me to the topic, why are Sony & Nintendo exempt from being called anti consumer even though they are essentially doing what Epic does if not worse (locking the game behind a $300-$400 system) and should they be called out for it? I would include MS in the debate as well but imo, its only a matter of time (maybe a generation) until their games are available on all platforms, including Playstation and Switch.

Obviously they are more anti consumer then Epic.

@DonaId said:

Nah, pro consumer. They are investing in new games for consumers to enjoy. It’s just Microsoft has the benefit of two platforms and is even more pro consumer as a by product of this.

Always makes me laugh how people on this forum always set the bar by there favorite club as being the moral high leader or standard and ignore the reality around them completely because it doesn't fit there bill.

The only thing epic should be doing is pay those devs 1 buck for there development and suddently anti consumer label goes away instantly.

Anybody shouting how anti consumer epic is, but has a console is just honestly a joke entirely.

Avatar image for XVision84
#7 Posted by XVision84 (16239 posts) -

Sony and Nintendo fund and create their own exclusives. Without them, Mario or uncharted wouldn't exist.

Epic is taking games other people make and throwing money at them to lock it into their crappy store.

Avatar image for lundy86_4
#8 Posted by lundy86_4 (53374 posts) -

@ahmedkhan1994: It appears to be a minimum sales guarantee. In other words, if the devs/pubs don't sell the promised amount, then Epic makes up the difference.

Avatar image for boxrekt
#9 Edited by BoxRekt (1745 posts) -

System wars threads are getting even more stupid from people that wish for shit that will eventually erode the quality of games they complain about not having on another platform.

When all Sony and Nintendo games are community funded, that's when you can rant on them about them for CREATING games and not allowing everyone who didn't contribute a dime in it's production for being anti-consumer.

I guess idiots will be happy if they start shitting out turds like Sea of Thieves and State of Decay 2 if only they let everyone play them.

Avatar image for ahmedkhan1994
#10 Posted by ahmedkhan1994 (714 posts) -
@DonaId said:

Nah, pro consumer. They are investing in new games for consumers to enjoy. It’s just Microsoft has the benefit of two platforms and is even more pro consumer as a by product of this.

Correction 3 platforms and more to come imo. Currently they are releasing games on xbox, PC, and switch (some but i expect more games to be available on switch if MS gets xcloud up and running).

Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
#11 Edited by WitIsWisdom (5246 posts) -

Anti-consumer for having exclusives... lmfao... just stop. Is McDonalds anti-consumer for not selling Whoppers? Is Ferrari anti-consumer for not selling their cars for the price of a Prius? This shit has to stop. This over the top entitlement is killing everything from business and originality to governments and countries.

Bad mouthing and putting down companies fronting their OWN money for their OWN products is mind blowing to me. Does anyone really want that to stop? Do you really want everything to be tossed in a hat and see what rises to the top? I can guarantee you that's a taco Tuesday aftermath you don't want to be running to a port-a-potty on a sunny August day in...

Reminds me of the recent college "story" where the lady from Full House paid to get her daughter in college or something, and people started throwing fits... who in the flying rat's balls cares? If you want more you have to pay more, that's the way it works. If you don't have the money too damn bad.. that's the way it is, always has been, and always will be. Choose the console or PC that is best for YOU, and if that isn't enough, then SAVE for another.

Things will not suddenly change just because everything is accessible from anywhere on "any" device (which does nothing but dumb things down overall). All it will do is force more shovelware and push microtransactions even further, all while production values get worse and worse. Competition is healthy and a GOOD thing. Just wait until everything is all-encompassing, and watch the prices soar and the quality decreases to 20-30 year lows. At this rate, there will be no AAA games within a matter of 10-15 years (not that I care all that much since those aren't the games I usually care the most about.. but the point stands regardless). I am so glad a lot of you on this site (all like 47 of you on this dead site.. lol) don't make the calls.

Who the hell is asking for this or wants this? It's like politicians pushing Socialism... I swear some people were made to be corporate puppets and town criers for everything shit.. lol

Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
#12 Edited by WitIsWisdom (5246 posts) -

@XVision84 said:

Sony and Nintendo fund and create their own exclusives. Without them, Mario or uncharted wouldn't exist.

Epic is taking games other people make and throwing money at them to lock it into their crappy store.

Bingo

Avatar image for WitIsWisdom
#13 Posted by WitIsWisdom (5246 posts) -

@boxrekt said:

System wars threads are getting even more stupid from people that wish for shit that will eventually erode the quality of games they complain about not having on another platform.

When all Sony and Nintendo games are community funded, that's when you can rant on them about them for CREATING games and not allowing everyone who didn't contribute a dime in it's production for being anti-consumer.

I guess idiots will be happy if they start shitting out turds like Sea of Thieves and State of Decay 2 if only they let everyone play them.

Double Bingo

Avatar image for saltslasher
#14 Posted by SaltSlasher (1142 posts) -

Just cause something isn't pro-consumer, doesn't make it anti-consumer.

What "works" for Xbox isn't gonna work for everyone.

Microsoft is just swaying away from traditional console and either it is reason they rise to top or reason they remain mediocre in gaming. Of course they probaby don't care about consoles as much as, which is odd cause they still plan to make them.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#15 Posted by Random_Matt (4244 posts) -

PC have the most exclusives, don't they? I hear it all the time, which would mean it is anti-consumer right? What a shit thread.

Avatar image for son-goku7523
#16 Edited by Son-Goku7523 (955 posts) -
@boxrekt said:

System wars threads are getting even more stupid from people that wish for shit that will eventually erode the quality of games they complain about not having on another platform.

When all Sony and Nintendo games are community funded, that's when you can rant on them about them for CREATING games and not allowing everyone who didn't contribute a dime in it's production for being anti-consumer.

I guess idiots will be happy if they start shitting out turds like Sea of Thieves and State of Decay 2 if only they let everyone play them.

^ ^ This X 100

Avatar image for osan0
#17 Posted by osan0 (15439 posts) -

it's not ideal. the holy grail, from a consumer standpint, is that someone can buy a game and play it on whatever they want and use whatever service they want for online. It should be more like the DVD player market. i.e. im not restricted to playing movies from sony on only sony DVD players.

that's the holy grail. the reality is that its not the most effective way for companies to make money. the games industry is about entertainment and in entertainment content is king. content is that attracts people to platforms and services for entertainment. its why Netflix is ploughing stupid money into their own content: the lack of it is their biggest threat. its why networks like sky bid huge sums of money for sports....content.

and its why we have exclusives on consoles. games sell consoles. games get people to use their respective services more and subscribe. exclusives, time and again, have proven to be the most effective way to get people bought in to an ecosystem.

it's not ideal. it means people need to get several platforms and subscribe to several services to get all the best content. it would be nice if business separated their content, hardware and services sides of the business and mad them all agnostic of each other. but its not going to happen. from a business standpoint it just doesnt make sense.

Avatar image for robert_sparkes
#18 Posted by robert_sparkes (3075 posts) -

The leading Console in the generation usually always had the best exclusives in my opinion. Apart from the Wii which was a freak exclusives are hugely important proved this generation.

Avatar image for true_link
#19 Edited by True_Link (243 posts) -

Lol this is one of the dumbest threads I've ever seen

Avatar image for aia89
#20 Posted by aia89 (2827 posts) -

I'd wonder, though, if Microsoft does intend to bring all their services and games to all platforms, competitors included, then what's gonna be their business strategy concerning their own consoles from here on out?

Avatar image for kali-b1rd
#21 Posted by Kali-B1rd (2197 posts) -
@aia89 said:

I'd wonder, though, if Microsoft does intend to bring all their services and games to all platforms, competitors included, then what's gonna be their business strategy concerning their own consoles from here on out?

They will be going the Google Stadia route...

Google just beat them to the announcement.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#22 Posted by lamprey263 (36143 posts) -

Nope, but they should be considered anti-comsumer for not honoring rights to purchased digital content between systems or even just not even trying to carry over digital BC libraries between generations.

Avatar image for Pedro
#23 Posted by Pedro (34925 posts) -

@Gatygun said:

Obviously they are more anti consumer then Epic.

@DonaId said:

Nah, pro consumer. They are investing in new games for consumers to enjoy. It’s just Microsoft has the benefit of two platforms and is even more pro consumer as a by product of this.

Always makes me laugh how people on this forum always set the bar by there favorite club as being the moral high leader or standard and ignore the reality around them completely because it doesn't fit there bill.

The only thing epic should be doing is pay those devs 1 buck for there development and suddently anti consumer label goes away instantly.

Anybody shouting how anti consumer epic is, but has a console is just honestly a joke entirely.

I can't say that I disagree. :)

Avatar image for pyro1245
#24 Posted by pyro1245 (5056 posts) -

Is it anti-consumer to limit player choice?

I know they have mid-range, proprietary computer hardware they want to sell you. Gotta sell those - but you gotta keep them locked down so no one tries anything funny.

I think some people on this forum have Stockholm syndrome.

Avatar image for techhog89
#25 Posted by Techhog89 (3743 posts) -

You're missing the point. It's simple:

Making or funding the development of games = good

Paying for exclusivity of already made games = bad

Stop playing dumb. You know the score here.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#26 Edited by uninspiredcup (33668 posts) -

Nintendo make NIntendo games exclusive, on a closed platform.

Epic want all games, bought as exclusive, on an open platform.

Much like NIntendo the only games Valve have made exclusive is their own creation, Steam is open, pro-consumer, masses of built in features with an emphasis on user created content.

Avatar image for raining51
#27 Posted by Raining51 (1124 posts) -

There's no basis for this so no.....

HOw do dyou define anti consumer? I guess here it means simply not listening to one person x or Y... whoever demands this.... but basically there are many peoiple who may prefer it the other way

so it would be anit anti consumer to ignore them essentially.

Avatar image for onesiphorus
#28 Posted by onesiphorus (2898 posts) -

What kind of stupid question is that? It is a stupid as asking whether water is wet.

Avatar image for Basinboy
#29 Posted by Basinboy (13898 posts) -

I mean, yes, by definition. But exclusives are the pressure point where manufacturers squeeze you and are always going to exist. You have to pay to play, and makers have the right to dictate how they want to offer their wares.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cd08b1605da1
#30 Posted by deactivated-5cd08b1605da1 (9317 posts) -

One thing is funding exclusives, the other is buying exclusives and making them hostage to a given platform. I've no problem with the 1st but the second is a d*ck move, no matters who practices it. In other words, 1st and 2nd party exclusives are ok, 3rd party exclusives are not

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#31 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3244 posts) -

This “anti-consumer” crybaby bullshit needs to stop. “Entitled gamers” need to get over themselves.

Avatar image for xantufrog
#32 Posted by xantufrog (11513 posts) -

It boggles my mind that people rationalize on behalf of companies finding ways to take away consumer voice and features.

None of these companies likes us or wants to do is any favors. Literally our only defense against getting screwed into the dirt is speaking out and then putting our money where our mouth was. The only reason any of the big 3 are worth a damn is because they need to woo our money. Every little thing they can get away with that saves a buck without costing sales is a win for them - so it's OUR job to keep the pressure on them.

Stop supporting products that don't give you what you are looking for. We don't owe any of these companies a f*cking dime unless they have exactly what we want. Screw anyone who thinks they have the right to tell me to shut up and donate my money to a service I consider inferior and even borderline spyware.

You can throw your money down for whatever product you want, but I'm not obligated to game at all, let alone lower my personal standards.

Avatar image for techhog89
#33 Posted by Techhog89 (3743 posts) -
@Basinboy said:

I mean, yes, by definition. But exclusives are the pressure point where manufacturers squeeze you and are always going to exist. You have to pay to play, and makers have the right to dictate how they want to offer their wares.

If that's your "definition" then pretty much everything is "anti-consumer" unless it's given away for free and available on everything under the sun.

Avatar image for Xabiss
#34 Posted by Xabiss (2699 posts) -

Easy answer, NOPE!

Avatar image for Coolyfett
#35 Posted by Coolyfett (6046 posts) -

@WitIsWisdom said:

Anti-consumer for having exclusives... lmfao... just stop. Is McDonalds anti-consumer for not selling Whoppers? Is Ferrari anti-consumer for not selling their cars for the price of a Prius? This shit has to stop. This over the top entitlement is killing everything from business and originality to governments and countries.

Bad mouthing and putting down companies fronting their OWN money for their OWN products is mind blowing to me. Does anyone really want that to stop? Do you really want everything to be tossed in a hat and see what rises to the top? I can guarantee you that's a taco Tuesday aftermath you don't want to be running to a port-a-potty on a sunny August day in...

Reminds me of the recent college "story" where the lady from Full House paid to get her daughter in college or something, and people started throwing fits... who in the flying rat's balls cares? If you want more you have to pay more, that's the way it works. If you don't have the money too damn bad.. that's the way it is, always has been, and always will be. Choose the console or PC that is best for YOU, and if that isn't enough, then SAVE for another.

Things will not suddenly change just because everything is accessible from anywhere on "any" device (which does nothing but dumb things down overall). All it will do is force more shovelware and push microtransactions even further, all while production values get worse and worse. Competition is healthy and a GOOD thing. Just wait until everything is all-encompassing, and watch the prices soar and the quality decreases to 20-30 year lows. At this rate, there will be no AAA games within a matter of 10-15 years (not that I care all that much since those aren't the games I usually care the most about.. but the point stands regardless). I am so glad a lot of you on this site (all like 47 of you on this dead site.. lol) don't make the calls.

Who the hell is asking for this or wants this? It's like politicians pushing Socialism... I swear some people were made to be corporate puppets and town criers for everything shit.. lol

End of Thread.

Avatar image for valgaav_219
#36 Posted by Valgaav_219 (2434 posts) -

@goldenelementxl said:

This “anti-consumer” crybaby bullshit needs to stop. “Entitled gamers” need to get over themselves.

Avatar image for fedor
#37 Edited by Fedor (5149 posts) -

Those damn companies funding their own ip's. The bane of gaming confirmed.

Avatar image for sovkhan
#38 Posted by sovkhan (1271 posts) -

@true_link said:

Lol this is one of the dumbest threads I've ever seen

This ^^ //nuff said!!!

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#39 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3244 posts) -

@xantufrog said:

Literally our only defense against getting screwed into the dirt is speaking out and then putting our money where our mouth was.

Stop supporting products that don't give you what you are looking for. We don't owe any of these companies a f*cking dime unless they have exactly what we want. Screw anyone who thinks they have the right to tell me to shut up and donate my money to a service I consider inferior and even borderline spyware.

You can throw your money down for whatever product you want, but I'm not obligated to game at all, let alone lower my personal standards.

That's the problem. The vocal gamers are on message boards bitching about games they don't play and don't buy. When you speak out, you're preaching to the entitled gamer choir. Do you really think people are out there buying games or DLC they don't want in order to support a corporation? People spend their money on what they want. Plain and simple. It sucks for you that those things aren't something you're interested in. But calling exclusives "anti consumer" is freakin' insane.

Avatar image for true_link
#40 Edited by True_Link (243 posts) -

@xantufrog said:

It boggles my mind that people rationalize on behalf of companies finding ways to take away consumer voice and features.

None of these companies likes us or wants to do is any favors. Literally our only defense against getting screwed into the dirt is speaking out and then putting our money where our mouth was. The only reason any of the big 3 are worth a damn is because they need to woo our money. Every little thing they can get away with that saves a buck without costing sales is a win for them - so it's OUR job to keep the pressure on them.

Stop supporting products that don't give you what you are looking for. We don't owe any of these companies a f*cking dime unless they have exactly what we want. Screw anyone who thinks they have the right to tell me to shut up and donate my money to a service I consider inferior and even borderline spyware.

You can throw your money down for whatever product you want, but I'm not obligated to game at all, let alone lower my personal standards.

If it wasn't for exclusivity, we'd never have games like God of War or Zelda BOTW. Exclusivity breed competition. Exclusivity is not a shady practice, unless you're saying that Netflix,Amazon video exclusive content, ABC's and HBO's exclusives TV shows are anti-consumer too.

Is Game of Thrones being exclusive to HBO anti-consumer?

Avatar image for xantufrog
#41 Posted by xantufrog (11513 posts) -

@true_link: this isn't the same thing. Technically, yes - HBO and console exclusives ARE a negative for consumers. You think people like buying multiple consoles to play games? Bullshit.

That being said, HBO and Sony MAKE their exclusive products or pay someone to make exclusives for them.

That is not what is happening here. In fact, in egregious cases promised platforms are being taken away from people who CROWD FUNDED them to be on those platforms.

It's anti-consumer. I'm sorry, but it's not helping you. It's not helping me.

Avatar image for robbie23
#42 Posted by Robbie23 (367 posts) -

Exclusives are good for sales, not only that developers only need to optimize on one system saving costs and time.

Avatar image for xantufrog
#43 Posted by xantufrog (11513 posts) -
@goldenelementxl said:
But calling exclusives "anti consumer" is freakin' insane.

It's not freaking insane.

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#44 Edited by uninspiredcup (33668 posts) -

@xantufrog said:

It boggles my mind that people rationalize on behalf of companies finding ways to take away consumer voice and features.

It seems obvious why gamers/sites do this. Steam is generally viewed as 4chan/right wing, and against many Publishers, as well as the gaming media itself. While the gaming media are basically (including personally) buddies with them.

So, regardless of Epic being a steaming pile of shit, those guys are the enemy, therefor we support you, regardless of how it is objectively detrimental to the consumer.

Jim Sterlings argument particular is, fucking stupid, deliberately ignoring the consumer in order to try make his argument valid. Using a tiny, tiny minuscule example to remove the open nature of the platform that has given us so much.

Avatar image for true_link
#45 Posted by True_Link (243 posts) -

@xantufrog said:

@true_link: this isn't the same thing. Technically, yes - HBO and console exclusives ARE a negative for consumers. You think people like buying multiple consoles to play games? Bullshit.

That being said, HBO and Sony MAKE their exclusive products or pay someone to make exclusives for them.

That is not what is happening here. In fact, in egregious cases promised platforms are being taken away from people who CROWD FUNDED them to be on those platforms.

It's anti-consumer. I'm sorry, but it's not helping you. It's not helping me.

You know what's funny? You people say you like capitalism, but in truth, you hate capitalist practices. This is what capitalism truly is.

Monopoly, market share, control of production, capitalizing, doing everything to get more money.

So, maybe you all should review your beliefs, because from where I stand, almost all complaints coming from gamers are derivative of capitalist practices.

In the end, almost everything enterprises do is anti consumer.

Avatar image for xantufrog
#46 Posted by xantufrog (11513 posts) -

@true_link: who is "you people"? You don't know who I am.

As to your last sentence - yes, I've said that. In the post you originally replied to.

Avatar image for Willy105
#47 Posted by Willy105 (24836 posts) -

I'd say Microsoft was anti-consumer for being incompetent.

Avatar image for AgentA-Mi6
#48 Posted by AgentA-Mi6 (16680 posts) -

This has been debated many times and the answer has always been no. There are many angles to this , but for the sake of giving you a concise answer competition is the primary reason why there is absolutely nothing wrong with releasing a propietary home console and building multiple studios and development teams to create games exclusively for said propietary console. It provides different options, approaches and focus within the video game industry which translates to different genres, titles and services being provided in healthy competition to fulfill the needs and tastes of different players. Exclusive games have always defined systems and arguably entire generations of home consoles, ¿Would Bayonetta 2, God Of War, Uncharted or Smash Bros even exist? If it wasn't for the exclusivity of inhouse development that brought them to life in the first place, i mean, or the support from a third party perspective, in Bayonetta 2's case.

Avatar image for cainetao11
#49 Posted by cainetao11 (36594 posts) -

I love the Epic game store making exclusives a thing amongst PC market. I don't care if they're "money hatting" them.

This is the business world not play school.

Avatar image for that_old_guy
#50 Posted by That_Old_Guy (1236 posts) -

No.