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:

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.

If the narritive is just about the games then I wonder why online gaming is not excluded from the paywall.

I think the value of PSN Plus is already fine even without the forced online. But Sony saw that console gamers forfeited and wanted to get in on the action. Now Nintendo is following. Of course it was never about servers. It was always about money and extracting as much of it as possible without gamers revolting. It's even easier when you already have a very shitty environment that conditioned people to lie down and just take it. Which Nintendo and Sony are doing with their exclusive and very restrictive closed boxes.

Why do you think it's so hard to do the same on pc? Because there, people are used to the highest freedom and consumer choice. On console there never was much choice and there isn't to this day. Which makes Sony and Nintendo bottom tier in consumer friendliness and choice.

What do competing brands do? They come up with their own features and if competitors features become popular they adopt them while implementing something new for taking something in return (it all goes back to touting exclusive features). You can break the cycle until it comes back. The PS3 had an image problem with online gaming because from the consumer perspective if something doesn't have a price it's not worth it. PC gamers know that's bullshit and I did too as I was a PC gamer until midway through the first gen of the Xbox. Xbox gamers voted for paid online to get to play cod, battlefield, gears and halo and since the venture worked (where as it wouldn't on PC because of being an open system) Sony and nintnedo had to follow to compete.its just how competition works. It was Microsoft who brought that into the industry.

 

To your last question, the reason  PC cannot be controlled like console  is because there is no unified brand controlling 100% of the content. It's an open platform with a bunch of competing hubs and the consumer wins there. There is no exclusive but there also no identity outside of what is exclusive to PC. Thee being games only a PC can play like the premier rts and strategy games that can be consumers properly rather than half assed with a controller like halo wars. Star craft is a game that has to be named in the same breath as it is an industry gem that is one of the reasons to go PC. It is a PC gaming selling point.

 

with everything the product that is easiest comes with the least choice and the most barrier but people are happy with the convenience since they have busy lives. The product for the connoisseur demands some level of complexity. PC gaming at a high level is essentially the epitome of used control over their experience.

 

consumer friendly and pro consumer are two different things, but wouldn't it be great if we could get both? Lol every company has something great about them just like you have something great about you. Your individuality is what makes you special. Harness it.