Quantcast
View Post
EricHiggin said:
KLAMarine said:

The PS4 platform we have now but this is a superficial thought experiment and nothing more. The fact of the matter is the PS4 platform we've had and still have is increasingly anti-consumer and regularly associated with some negative maneuvers in the industry.

We don't have to arrange our purchasing agreements to such an extent. We can provide feedback in other ways. In this case, blast a company for when they start to shit on the consumer and have them suffer backlash to show them that their lead is not as concrete as they think. Don't let them think they can get away with abducting third-party accounts for example and Microsoft blasting them for this policy would do good.

At its core, this industry is a business and without a contract or written agreement, no one owes anyone anything.

Was it scummy for Microsoft to deny PUBG on PS4? Absolutely and it would be fair game to blast Microsoft for that maneuver. Just the same, it's completely fair game to blast Sony for hijacking people's EG accounts.

At the end of the day, what I want is for these companies to compete and blast one another and try their very best to one-up one another all the while benefiting the consumer instead of burning the consumer in the process.

I was just trying to point out that PS helped in the battle royale/PUBG scenario early on and didn't try to lock it down. If they had tried to lock it down it would be somewhat anti consumer, contract or not.

Otherwise I pretty much agree with everything you said. Unfortunately the way the system as it exists now is the best we've come up with so far. It's a lot better than most as well. Hopefully it can continue to progress in a civil manner for the good of everyone. Until then though, sometimes it's just going to suck, but that dip will always at some point be balanced out by a peak. Just gotta stay as positive as possible and not get dragged down in the negative times.

"I was just trying to point out that PS helped in the battle royale/PUBG scenario early on and didn't try to lock it down. If they had tried to lock it down it would be somewhat anti consumer, contract or not."

>That's nice and all but it's not much help for people whose EG account is under Sony's thumb.

"Otherwise I pretty much agree with everything you said. Unfortunately the way the system as it exists now is the best we've come up with so far. It's a lot better than most as well. Hopefully it can continue to progress in a civil manner for the good of everyone. Until then though, sometimes it's just going to suck, but that dip will always at some point be balanced out by a peak. Just gotta stay as positive as possible and not get dragged down in the negative times."

>I prefer to think the consumer is more able to affect change than to just shrug and act passively. These multi-billion-dollar conglomerates don't need to be handled with kid gloves. Sometimes, when they act with a heavy hand like Sony has here, they need to be treated just as firmly if not more.

twintail said:
All this talk about anti consumer this and pro consumer that just hides the fact that every decision these companies make are designed.to be pro company first and foremost.

>Of course it's all profit driven at the end of the day but some seek profit by looking after the customer, others by locking them down.