zero129 said:
More Anti Consumer measures it seems. Now Sony is locking such a well known character as Spiderman their platform.. |
Let me ask you something: when you go to McDonald's and get a Big Mac, do you think McDonald's is "anti-consumer"? I mean, the Big Mac is exclusive to them. Burger King doesn't get to make Big Macs.
Or when you watch Netflix and see Daredevil or Orange is the New Black, do you say they're "anti-consumer"? Daredevil and OITNB are exclusive to Netflix. Hulu can't air them.
Why do people say that exclusivity is "anti-consumer"? I thought competition was pro-consumer? Well guess what? Competition implies exclusivity. Companies want to provide something their competitor doesn't have. This is what makes you choose them over the other. Otherwise, you're not really "competing" if you offer all the same stuff.
Are you upset just because it's Spider-Man? So, because it's a Spider-Man game, these are "anti-consumer measures"? What if it was Ratchet and Clank? Same studio making the game. Exclusivity status would still be the same. But when Insomniac decides to make a different game, it's "anti-consumer"? What sense does that make? The moment they make something other than Ratchet and Clank, it's "anti-consumer"? You're just being whiny.
Sony and Insomniac don't own the IP. Acitivision could make a Spider-Man game or license the IP out to a plethora of other studios. But because Sony is the one publishing the game instead of Activision this time around, with a studio that they've published other franchises with (Ratchet and Resistance), it's "anti-consumer"? That makes absolutely no sense.
