| JinxRake said:
You did not buy a game to play on a PS4. You bought it to play it on a PS2. That's it, nothing else. It is not ANTI-Consumer for a company to take a decision to not support a previous platform's software on a current platform. Why is that so hard to understand? You even acknowledge that nobody is obligated to give you this.
I am not saying that people are wrong to want the option. I am saying that people are wrong to demand it as something that is rightfully theirs, when it's not.
Anti-cosumer would be if a company would take away your right to play your games on the platform you've bought them on. However Sony chooses to offer BC, as long as they do not mess with what they've previously done, they are doing no wrong. I would stand behind this for any of the Big Three. As long as you buy a game for a specific platform, that is all there is to it. As long as the game works on the platform you've bought it for, that is as far as anyone owes you anything. |
Nor did I buy a Wii U to play Wii games. It doesn't mean it isn't a nice feature to have, and one for which the companies should compete.
It is anti-consumer when they choose not to because they want to resell the games instead. You'd have a point if there were extra costs involved in allowing off disc play, but there are not. Meaning Sony wants to maximize producer surplus at the expense of consumer surplus, making it indeed - anti consumer.
Again, what is obligated is not the same thing as what is right for the consumer. I already explained this. Sony was not obligated to drop the price of the PS3 when it failed, but they did because they wanted to sell PS3's and please their consumer-base.
Nobody is demanding it as rightfully ours. We are criticizing Sony for a decision that reduces consumer surplus to bolster producer surplus.
Anti-consumer is much greater than fraud. That would be a very specific type of anti-consumer activity which is illegal. That doesn't mean that there aren't forms of anti-consumer activities and decisions which aren't fraud.
So did Microsoft not do anything wrong when they decided people couldn't sell used games? (You bought that game to play it, not sell it.) Or did Nintendo not do wrong when they decided to region-lock their platforms? (You bought that console to play games released in your region.) These are decisions which we criticize them for, because they limit the options of consumers to benefit the producer. The same is true when Sony produces an emulator, but restricts that emulator to only games that a repurchased digitally through them.
