By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 on 21 August 2014
naruball said:
curl-6 said:

Being good business doesn't mean something isn't anti-consumer. In fact, good business is often anti-consumer, because good business is about making the most money, and exploiting people is a very effective way to do that.


Still waiting for an example, though. You cannot expect a company to warn you against buying one of their products. Simple as that. That's not anti-consumer. It's how things work. If businesses listened to gamers they would have all gone bankrupt by now, me thinks.

Announcing the game for both PS3 and PS4 so that gamers can make an informed choice would have been the consumer friendly move. What they did instead was an anti-consumer cash grab.



Around the Network
naruball on 21 August 2014
curl-6 said:
naruball said:
curl-6 said:

Being good business doesn't mean something isn't anti-consumer. In fact, good business is often anti-consumer, because good business is about making the most money, and exploiting people is a very effective way to do that.


Still waiting for an example, though. You cannot expect a company to warn you against buying one of their products. Simple as that. That's not anti-consumer. It's how things work. If businesses listened to gamers they would have all gone bankrupt by now, me thinks.

Announcing the game for both PS3 and PS4 so that gamers can make an informed choice would have been the consumer friendly move. What they did instead was an anti-consumer cash grab.

For the last time, if you're gonna accuse a company of something completely unrealistic, then at least provide an example of a better company to prove your point. If you can't think of a comparable case, then please avoid quoting me and repeating the same point.



curl-6 on 21 August 2014
naruball said:
curl-6 said:

Announcing the game for both PS3 and PS4 so that gamers can make an informed choice would have been the consumer friendly move. What they did instead was an anti-consumer cash grab.

For the last time, if you're gonna accuse a company of something completely unrealistic, then at least provide an example of a better company to prove your point. If you can't think of a comparable case, then please avoid quoting me and repeating the same point.

Nintendo didn't try to hide Smash Bros U until after the 3DS version had come out. 



naruball on 21 August 2014
curl-6 said:
naruball said:
curl-6 said:

Announcing the game for both PS3 and PS4 so that gamers can make an informed choice would have been the consumer friendly move. What they did instead was an anti-consumer cash grab.

For the last time, if you're gonna accuse a company of something completely unrealistic, then at least provide an example of a better company to prove your point. If you can't think of a comparable case, then please avoid quoting me and repeating the same point.

Nintendo didn't try to hide Smash Bros U until after the 3DS version had come out. 

Not even remotely comparable and you know it. Two different versions of the game on two very different platforms. They are also both launching a few months apart. What did you expect Ninty to do? Launch smash on 3ds and then announce smash wiiu a week later? Or do you think wiiu owners would have been ok with smash being announced only for 3ds with no version announced to be coming to the home console?



curl-6 on 21 August 2014
naruball said:

Not even remotely comparable and you know it. Two different versions of the game on two very different platforms. They are also both launching a few months apart. What did you expect Ninty to do? Launch smash on 3ds and then announce smash wiiu a week later? Or do you think wiiu owners would have been ok with smash being announced only for 3ds with no version announced to be coming to the home console?

Nintendo gave its consumers the informed choice of which versions were coming so they could decide which to get, instead of trying to under-handedly manipulate gamers into double dipping.



Around the Network
naruball on 21 August 2014
curl-6 said:
naruball said:

Not even remotely comparable and you know it. Two different versions of the game on two very different platforms. They are also both launching a few months apart. What did you expect Ninty to do? Launch smash on 3ds and then announce smash wiiu a week later? Or do you think wiiu owners would have been ok with smash being announced only for 3ds with no version announced to be coming to the home console?

Nintendo gave its consumers the informed choice of which versions were coming so they could decide which to get, instead of trying to under-handedly manipulate gamers into double dipping.


Sure, let's go with that.



outlawauron on 21 August 2014
curl-6 said:
naruball said:
curl-6 said:

Your attempt to try to turn this into a console war is misguided and unnecessary. 

None of the 8th gen systems deserve to be selling as the PS4 is. Wii U deservedly suffered in its first year due to a lack of games. Now PS4 is committing the same sin, but it somehow gets a free pass cos it's the "cool" console. This tells the industry, "hey, don't bother actually giving us games, just give us an expensive box that plays PS3 games with a marginally cleaner picture and we'll be happy". I for one demand more than that.

I have to disagree. What the the success of the ps4 is telling the industry is:

1. Talk to third parties before making a console

2. Find a good balance between respectable hardware and price.

3. Support your latest console until the end of its cycle

4. Don't take anti-consumer measures

5. Don't force peripherals/expensive media on gamers.

It seems a bit anti-consumer to me to let people run out and get TLOU on PS3 and not tell them it's coming to PS4 a year later. That's tricking people into double dipping to get more cash out of them.

How is it any different of releasing two versions of the same game at the same time forcing your hardcore fans to buy the same game twice. I'd argue that's far more anti-consumer than a GOTY edition on the new console that people wanted.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Augen on 21 August 2014
Kantor said:
I don't really understand it either. By this point in the PS3's lifecycle, the PS2 was dead in the water as far as games were concerned. By contrast, the PS3 and Xbox 360 are still getting a significant amount of third party support. None of last year's big titles were exclusive to current gen, and even some of this year's big games are on 7th gen hardware.

God of War II was the big game on the PS2 in 2007, after that in 2008 had one of my favorite PS2 games Persona 4 release.

The big difference I see is far more "cross gen" titles. Actually pretty crazy to me that the next Mortal Kombat and Tomb Raider will be on any last generation systems in 2015.



Alby_da_Wolf on 21 August 2014

The good thing for gamers is that HW success will attract many 3rd party devs, so, even if Sony doesn't fully understand everything, nevertheless with time a large game library will be created, able to cater for the tastes of a large range of users. After all, even IBM didn't fully understand its own PC, but this didn'prevent it from becoming the most successful personal computer architecture ever.



Stwike him, Centuwion. Stwike him vewy wuffly! (Pontius Pilate, "Life of Brian")
A fart without stink is like a sky without stars.
TGS, Third Grade Shooter: brand new genre invented by Kevin Butler exclusively for Natal WiiToo Kinect. PEW! PEW-PEW-PEW!   


curl-6 on 21 August 2014
naruball said:

curl-6 said:

Nintendo gave its consumers the informed choice of which versions were coming so they could decide which to get, instead of trying to under-handedly manipulate gamers into double dipping.


Sure, let's go with that.

Yes, let's. It's clear we're not going to see eye to eye on this.