Imaginedvl said:
Well I believe , the "anti-consumer" term is as much overused (and wrongly used) as some other words like: desperation, trouble, doomed... Hopefully the majority of "consumers" does not rely on internet forums to make decisions.
But at the same time, I understand it is better how it works now (click-bait, sensationalism, etc...).
Just pay 10 more dollars to get the full game without any limitation... No big deal and nothing as sensational as being anti-consumer. |
anticonsumer (comparative more anticonsumer, superlative most anticonsumer)
- Opposing the consumer. [quotations ▲]
- 2000, Roland Francis Stephen, Vehicle of influence: building a European car market...the Commission was aware of the anticonsumer effects of market segmentation...
Which is entirely different from...
Anti-consumerism is a sociopolitical ideology opposed to consumerism, which discourages ever-growing purchasing and consumption of material possessions.
The option misleads consumers into buying a version of the game that expires with PS+ subscription by dressing it up as a typical PS+ discount. This is why the "Just pay 10 more dollars" excuse is invalid. It was advertised as purchasing the full game with a PS+ discount. Ergo it is opposing the consumer a la anticonsumer practices. In fact, Sony themselves realized the issue and rectified it, essentially admitting that they themselves thought the option was opposing consumers, which means any attempts to defend the now defuct option are MOOT.
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=182904&page=1
This incident happened in May of this year. I only necroed it to show the irony that once again people are white knighting defending Sony's mistake, since they are ultimately responsible for making sure the game goes up on PS+, and making excuses such as if you didn't buy it, you don't matter and Sony never promised it would be in PS+. Its eerily reminiscent of the defense of the post E3 Xbox One.
