By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
S.T.A.G.E. on 05 July 2017
Edit Thread
vivster said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:

Interesting. Bottom tier.... this obviously does not explain nintnedo or sonys situation in internal output and reception this gen. So... console that traditionally excel  brand identity and exclusivity  in and of itself aren't consumer friendly ? 

 

As for adoption of the online model, it can only worked on a closed platform, not an open one. This is why it's not on PC. PC gamers spoke and Xbox gamers foot the bill. I'd say thank Sony for turning Xbox lives venture which gave little back to a discounted game venture wheee you could amass a library just by paying for online.

Read my first comment. Console gamers have been conditioned to love their brand overlords. They don't see anything wrong with exclusives and are even demanding it. That's why sales do not reflect consumer friendly behavior. I mean look at the richest companies in this world, most of which behave like complete assholes to both consumers and competitors.

I mean look at you, actively trying to justify paid online. They got you too.

I have no brand overlord. I give my money to whoever gives me what I want. 

I never justified online gaming either. when I was first on this site I had no PS3 only had a 360 and still was against paid online gaming. It's just known logic that you can only hold people to certain experiences  with a monthly price of admission. When I argued last gen against online paywalls 360 gamers came at me with the argument about server. It's such a funny thing because no one talks about the servers today. The narrative has changed to the cloud. The narrative with PlayStation and Nintendo has never really changed. It's always been about the games.

 

For growth to ensue the deal between consumer and console makers has to be more even. If you take from them their individuality you take away their survival and in a way that's anti business or just anti capitalist in general.