Support NeoGAF

[gerg]

These things are all three. Region-locking is just about the most unambiguous and pure expression of contempt for the consumer that exists in the gaming world and only Nintendo has doubled down on it. The lack of a legitimate storage solution is similarly implemented in a way that serves only to reduce the consumer's options without providing any end-user benefit (as opposed to, say, the friend codes system, which is an extremely dubious tradeoff but still at least implemented with a specific end-user "benefit" in mind.)

These actions don't reduce the consumer's options because they have the option to not buy systems that have these features. What would be anti-consumer would be if Nintendo made it such that the only consoles you could buy did not have legitimate storage solutions, or if all consoles were region locked and no one were able to launch a console without region locking.

"Reducing consumers' options" does not mean "reducing what the consumer can do with a product" (this is poorly phrased, so forgive the ambiguity), but "reducing what the consumer can do in regards to what is essentially buying a product". "Anti-consumer" more accurately regards the removal of competition in the marketplace.

How do we understand what benefits the consumer? How do we prioritise the desires of the company against those of its customers? How do we recognise the standards of the industry and evaluate "anti-consumer" behaviour against those?

It seems to me that, by your logic, I could argue that Nintendo is being anti-consumer by not allowing me to play HD games on the Wii. Nintendo is perfectly capable of launching an HD Wii at the price of a regular Wii (and was perfectly capable of doing so), so it seems that they're reducing my options as a consumer by designing their console in a manner so as not to allow it. I recognize the danger of conflating "anti-consumer" with "anti-competitive", but, as I have mentioned, it seems to me that a definition of the former that is not (partially) reducible to the latter makes too many demands on subjective qualities such as "benefits" and "desires" that we cannot properly evaluate.

Oh! I also forgot the Wii's inability (or Nintendo's unwillingness) to tie purchases to an account, thereby forcing you to go through Nintendo's specific process and pay their specific prices to recover content that you own upon a system failure. Also extremely anti-consumer.

I'd have to think over the concepts of ownership before considering that "anti-consumer" or not. It's a shit system, of course, but I think I might have a hard time calling it "anti-consumer".

 

[donny2112]

Now you're blaming first-party output?

No, I'm blaming Nintendo's actions, which happen to include output, but I'd say that's a relatively minor part. No price cut in Japan for three years (U.S.? Sure, waiting three years is fine. Japan? It needed one 18 months ago.), no big advertising pushes for general console awareness (e.g. Sony does "PlayStation" ads where they're just advertising the console), refusing to do "easy" sequels (e.g. A real Wii Sports 2/Advanced), not pushing key third-party games that were already coming to the system. As you mentioned, bundling in Japan to raise sales in early 2008 might've been a good idea, too.

Does Nintendo even want 3rd parties to be successful? A sale for a 3rd party title is potentially a sale less for a 1st party title.

If you assume that Wii has maxed out its total possible software sales for a given period, then yes. That's not a good assumption, even in the U.S. where it's selling near PS2 levels, though. In Japan, there should be no question that the Wii could be selling a lot more software, as well.

 

[duckroll]

Where is Yoboman and why is he not returning to this thread to respond to the corrections to his inaccurate view of franchises selling more? :lol

 

[ethelred]

A consumer having a choice not to buy something does not mean that the company selling it is not practicing anti-consumer measures. If that was the case, nothing in the world would be anti-consumer. What a stupid defense. "Oh look a company is using DRM that installs viruses on your computer! But it's not anti-consumer because you don't have to buy it!"

 

[Regulus Tera]

Eh, I don't like that line of thinking. Just because there might be "2.2 to 2.5M potential FFXIII purchasers" it doesn't mean that all of these people are interested enough in the game to buy a PS3 because of it. In that case you're assuming that everyone who bought previous FF games is a hardcore FF fan and therefore buys even a new console just to play the newest game. That's not a very likely scenario, if you ask me. It's more likely that many people only bought previous FFs because they already owned the console it was released on.

It kinda reminds me of the guy (with one important difference: that guy was absolutely dumb and you're not) who said that Blue Dragon will sell a million 360s. Why? Because every Sakaguchi game sells at least a million copies in Japan. It was a given to him that Blue Dragon will sell at least a million units, so people also have to buy a million 360s in order to play it. That was what he called "logic".

Why Blue Dragon failed so badly is what I wanna know. It had Sakaguchi, Uematsu, Toriyama, and a big marketing push. Was it that it came from a new developer house? The 360? If so, how do we factor the DS games?

Why?

 

[duckroll]

Why Blue Dragon failed so badly is what I wanna know. It had Sakaguchi, Uematsu, Toriyama, and a big marketing push. Was it that it came from a new developer house? The 360? If so, how do we factor the DS games?

Why?

Is this a serious question? It's pretty obvious what happened to the Blue Dragon franchise...

 

[Regulus Tera]

Is this a serious question? It's pretty obvious what happened to the Blue Dragon franchise...

Well, I wasn't around here during Blue Dragon's original release.

 

[shinshero]

Is this a serious question? It's pretty obvious what happened to the Blue Dragon franchise...

XBOX 360. :lol

 

[Kurosaki Ichigo]

So prediction set finished, thanks for the help, thought we should go with these 4.

[NDS] Professor Layton and the Flute of Malevolent Destiny (Level 5)
[PSP] Higurashi Daybreak Portable: Mega Edition (Alchemist)
[WII] Karaoke Joysound Wii DX (Hudson)
[WII] Momotaro Railway 2010: Sengoku Ishin no Hero Daishuugou! no Maki (Hudson

Its been a busy weekend, so a bit late but should be ok since it isn't maaany people predicting after all. Up to Famitsu leak. Check usual places and such.

 

[A Twisty Fluken]

I guess I don't see how the list of anti-consumer tactics in active use by all three platform holders (and hey, pretty much every PC game publisher) doesn't grow so long as to nullify the entire discussion.

 

[Dragona Akehi]

Yeah I dunno how you can call strict region encoding and failed localisations anything but anti-consumer. Fuck you Nintendo.

 

[Spiegel]

So prediction set finished, thanks for the help, thought we should go with these 4.

Its been a busy weekend, so a bit late but should be ok since it isn't maaany people predicting after all. Up to Famitsu leak. Check usual places and such.

[NDS] Professor Layton and the Flute of Malevolent Destiny (Level 5) - 320k
[PSP] Higurashi Daybreak Portable: Mega Edition (Alchemist) - 12k
[WII] Karaoke Joysound Wii DX (Hudson) - 20k
[WII] Momotaro Railway 2010: Sengoku Ishin no Hero Daishuugou! no Maki (Hudson) - 15k

 

[duckroll]

Well, I wasn't around here during Blue Dragon's original release.

Okay then. Here's how it is. Blue Dragon on it's own was not a failure at all. It single handedly created a surge in 360 sales, and completely sold out the bundle package. But here's the thing to understand. The 360 is the successor to the Xbox in Japan. It is the console no one wants, coming from the company which released the previous console no one wanted. Not many people are going to buy a console to play a single game. So yeah. The game eventually sold over 200k in Japan, and is the second highest selling 360 game in Japan ever. That's hardly a failure. But it's unreasonable to expect it to do much better on the platform it's on. That's just too bad.

As for the DS versions. Let's see. We have a shitty looking RTS spinoff developed by Brownie Brown and published by AQ Interactive. AQI is pretty much the worst publisher in Japan. Worse than MMV even. You cannot expect a game like that to sell. It's a genre no one wants, based on a game which was on a console most people don't have, and it's by a publisher which sucks balls at marketing or sales. Doomed.

By then they series is pretty much dead in Japan. There isn't much Namco could have done to save it for the recent release, but even then they did even less than what was expected of them. So yeah. Bomba. Whatever.

Not a mystery at all!

 

[gerg]

A consumer having a choice not to buy something does not mean that the company selling it is not practicing anti-consumer measures. If that was the case, nothing in the world would be anti-consumer. What a stupid defense. "Oh look a company is using DRM that installs viruses on your computer! But it's not anti-consumer because you don't have to buy it!"

Here we might see a breach of morality, especially if the virus is malicious (perhaps an immoral intrusion of privacy) and if the game was not advertised as containing that virus (immoral lying). The problem is that the other examples that have been brought up in this thread have got nothing to do with morality, so that may have been the reason as to why I forgot to mention this (sufficient, but not necessary) condition.

So we have two conditions for "anti-consumer" behaviour:

1. Anti-competitive behaviour.
2. Immoral behaviour.

 

[donny2112]

Why not.

[NDS] Professor Layton and the Flute of Malevolent Destiny (Level 5) - 395K
[PSP] Higurashi Daybreak Portable: Mega Edition (Alchemist) - 20K
[WII] Karaoke Joysound Wii DX (Hudson) - 50K
[WII] Momotaro Railway 2010: Sengoku Ishin no Hero Daishuugou! no Maki (Hudson) - 40K

 

[Kaworu]

[NDS] Professor Layton and the Flute of Malevolent Destiny (Level 5) - 378k
[PSP] Higurashi Daybreak Portable: Mega Edition (Alchemist) - 9'5k
[WII] Karaoke Joysound Wii DX (Hudson) - 47k
[WII] Momotaro Railway 2010: Sengoku Ishin no Hero Daishuugou! no Maki (Hudson) - 65k

 

[DR2K]

Poor, poor PSP Go! :lol

This is how the launch of a new portable SKU is supposed to look like: http://www.famitsu.com/game/news/1229831_1124.html

It looked like that for PSPgo. :lol

 

[Regulus Tera]

Okay then. Here's how it is. Blue Dragon on it's own was not a failure at all. It single handedly created a surge in 360 sales, and completely sold out the bundle package. But here's the thing to understand. The 360 is the successor to the Xbox in Japan. It is the console no one wants, coming from the company which released the previous console no one wanted. Not many people are going to buy a console to play a single game. So yeah. The game eventually sold over 200k in Japan, and is the second highest selling 360 game in Japan ever. That's hardly a failure. But it's unreasonable to expect it to do much better on the platform it's on. That's just too bad.

As for the DS versions. Let's see. We have a shitty looking RTS spinoff developed by Brownie Brown and published by AQ Interactive. AQI is pretty much the worst publisher in Japan. Worse than MMV even. You cannot expect a game like that to sell. It's a genre no one wants, based on a game which was on a console most people don't have, and it's by a publisher which sucks balls at marketing or sales. Doomed.

By then they series is pretty much dead in Japan. There isn't much Namco could have done to save it for the recent release, but even then they did even less than what was expected of them. So yeah. Bomba. Whatever.

Not a mystery at all!

Well that makes sense.

Poor Sakaguchi and co. though.

 

[Road]

[NDS] Professor Layton and the Flute of Malevolent Destiny (Level 5) - 310,000
[PSP] Higurashi Daybreak Portable: Mega Edition (Alchemist) - 10,000
[WII] Karaoke Joysound Wii DX (Hudson) - 30,000
[WII] Momotaro Railway 2010: Sengoku Ishin no Hero Daishuugou! no Maki (Hudson) - 25,000

Low-balling this time.

 

[Kurosaki Ichigo]

Just thought about it but since the famitsu leak rounds to the hundreds when its a 4 digit number, we can do so too. 5 digits rounded to thousands, 4 digit numbers rounded to hundreds and 3 digit numbers rounded to tens. Thought about it because, unlike other weeks, this one could have sub-10k predictions.

Something unrelated, but I just saw last Bandai Namco shipment predictions for the fiscal year ending in March 2010, didn't know where to put it other than here, its in japanese only at the moment so I'll translate:
http://www.bandainamco.co.jp/ir/presentation/index.html

360/PS3 Tekken 6 - Worldwide - 2,500,000 (shipped already, digesting well <- their words)
Multi Ben10 Vilgax Attacks - EU/NA - 1,300,000
360/PS3 Dragon Ball Raging Blast - Worldwide - 1,100,000
WII Family Trainer 2 - Worldwide - 800,000
WII Taiko 2 - Japan - 500,000
PSP Tekken 6 - Worldwide - 500,000
Multi Secret Saturday - EU/NA - 500,000
Multi Astroboy - EU/NA - 450,000

Pretty confident on Taiko 2. Also seems like overshipment on Tekken 6 despite what they say. Confident on DB, Family Trainer 2, Tekken 6 PSP and such too. No God Eater 500k just in Japan prediction to my surprise

 

[DNF]

would it be useful if all predictions would be written in italic or something like that ?
i think it is a bit confusing if these numbers aren't specially marked as predictions and could be misrecognized (from those who don't know all the release dates from memory) as real numbers.

 

[Of All Trades]

Here we might see a breach of morality, especially if the virus is malicious (perhaps an immoral intrusion of privacy) and if the game was not advertised as containing that virus (immoral lying). The problem is that the other examples that have been brought up in this thread have got nothing to do with morality, so that may have been the reason as to why I forgot to mention this (sufficient, but not necessary) condition.

So we have two conditions for "anti-consumer" behaviour:

1. Anti-competitive behaviour.
2. Immoral behaviour.

Ok, remember that other thread where you asked if people thought you were a Ninthing? Posts like these are why you didn't get a response: you're so obviously willing to twist and twist in order to defend Nintendo that the fact that you had to ask if you're a fanboy was more scary than laughable.

Region-locking is anti-consumer. "Consumers don't have to buy it" is a retarded argument, down there with "gay people have the same marriage rights as straight people because a straight dude can't marry another dude, either".

 

[ethelred]

Ok, remember that other thread where you asked if people thought you were a Ninthing? Posts like these are why you didn't get a response: you're so obviously willing to twist and twist in order to defend Nintendo that the fact that you had to ask if you're a fanboy was more scary than laughable.

Pretty much.

Region-locking is anti-consumer.

Not only that, but introducing region-locking in a gaming arena where it's never been before, and introducing it in a new model of a system that didn't have region locking previously. That's pretty bad. And for as much as the PSP Go gets (rightly!) slagged on, Nintendo's approach to digital distribution is even worse. Introducing multiple models and colors of your devices while now along for any portability of your DD purchases amongst these machines because the games are linked to systems rather than accounts is so awful. And any time anything breaks, you'll need to contact Nintendo or send it to the manufacturer to get the thing fixed in order to retrieve the stuff you legally purchased, or it's gone forever. It's a crazy awful DRM setup.

"Consumers don't have to buy it" is a retarded argument, down there with "gay people have the same marriage rights as straight people because a straight dude can't marry another dude, either".

What a wonderful analogy. Brilliant. :lol

 

[oneHeero]

Fighting games have taken the greatest hit. I guess SF/Tekken was more of a mid to late 90's thing. :lol

Actually, I'm interested to know why. Does anyone have any information which could give us an idea as to why fighting games on home consoles have declined so greatly.

I'm 25yrs old and kinda grew up during the great times of the arcade fighter. As I got older, 18+ was when Tekken was the best thing going, but thats also when FPS games started skyrocketing on home consoles, along with Madden. So that instead of going to the arcade to play Tekken 5(?) or an old SF game, you had growing interest in fps games and football games, along w/ online play. At least that's how it has happened in my experience and with the people I grew up with.

EDIT: Unless this is JP only question :|

 

[cvxfreak]

"Consumers don't have to buy it" is a retarded argument, down there with "gay people have the same marriage rights as straight people because a straight dude can't marry another dude, either".

:lol

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I think anti-consumer has been used more in this thread than any in GAF history. And it's really going nowhere, since we don't seem to have a shared clear definition.

 

[cvxfreak]

I think anti-consumer has been used more in this thread than any in GAF history. And it's really going nowhere, since we don't seem to have a shared clear definition.

In my opinion, nothing stated in this thread has remotely approached a serious case of anti-consumer behavior, which makes the whole debate amusing.

 

[gerg]

Ok, remember that other thread where you asked if people thought you were a Ninthing? Posts like these are why you didn't get a response: you're so obviously willing to twist and twist in order to defend Nintendo that the fact that you had to ask if you're a fanboy was more scary than laughable.

Pretty much.

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to defend Nintendo as being "right" here. In fact, there is often no "right" or "wrong" at all. Most of the time, this is a completely amoral situation.

The point being, I'm certainly not trying to say that what Nintendo is doing is beneficial to the consumer. I'm not suggesting that the people who think that what they're doing is shit and may affect them negatively don't have a valid opinion. But doing something which isn't beneficial to the consumer doesn't immediately mean that you're doing something which is anti-consumer.

Furthermore, don't pretend like I'm solely protecting Nintendo from claims of "anti-consumer" behaviour here, either. Many people have suggested that the PSPgo is an "anti-consumer" product, too, and I find it hard to believe that.

Not only that, but introducing region-locking in a gaming arena where it's never been before, and introducing it in a new model of a system that didn't have region locking previously. That's pretty bad. And for as much as the PSP Go gets (rightly!) slagged on, Nintendo's approach to digital distribution is even worse. Introducing multiple models and colors of your devices while now along for any portability of your DD purchases amongst these machines because the games are linked to systems rather than accounts is so awful. And any time anything breaks, you'll need to contact Nintendo or send it to the manufacturer to get the thing fixed in order to retrieve the stuff you legally purchased, or it's gone forever. It's a crazy awful DRM setup.

As I responded to charlequin about the matter of digital content on the Wii, the "anti-consumer" nature of this depends on our understanding of digital ownership. On the one end of the scale, Nintendo might be depriving you material that you own, which would almost certainly be an immoral, anti-consumer line of action. On the other hand, we may need to evaluate the demand that Nintendo should provide this service, and whether or not they are failing at an obligation.

Region-locking is anti-consumer. "Consumers don't have to buy it" is a retarded argument, down there with "gay people have the same marriage rights as straight people because a straight dude can't marry another dude, either".

What a wonderful analogy. Brilliant. :lol

Why are we applying morality to mostly amoral situations again?

I don't really see how region-locking is at all comparable to gay marriage. I presume the implication is that people don't have to buy hardware that supports region-locking in the same way that gay people don't have to get married, but I think the analogy breaks down when we realise that one is a situation of morality and the other isn't. When we make the jump from an amoral situation to a moral one, our standards of what is right and wrong change. It's like how cultural relativism is completely reprehensible (and unsupportable) from a moral perspective, but entirely defensible from the perspective of language (and, well... culture).

In my opinion, nothing stated in this thread has remotely approached a serious case of anti-consumer behavior, which makes the whole debate amusing.

Stop twisting and twisting to defend Nintendo, you Ninthing!

 

[velvet_nitemare]

"Consumers don't have to buy it" is a retarded argument, down there with "gay people have the same marriage rights as straight people because a straight dude can't marry another dude, either".

Oh shit:lol

 

[ethelred]

In fact, there is often no "right" or "wrong" at all. This is a completely amoral situation. ... which would almost certainly be an immoral, anti-consumer line of action. On the other hand, we may need to evaluate the demand that Nintendo should provide this service, and whether or not they are failing at an obligation. [...] Why are we applying morality to mostly amoral situations again?

No one else, really, is turning this into a morality play. I suspect this is your overeducation in the useless and twat-developing anti-scientific field known as "philosophy" speaking here. It's not about morality.

Anti-consumer behavior is behavior which attempts to shift an overabundance of power onto the corporation in violation of certain consumer rights or regresses industry standards that favored (to some extent) the consumer in order to alter the standard industry practices in a more harmful direction which maximizes corporate profit at the expense of the people buying the product. No one talks about DRM in terms of morality because it isn't a moral issue -- it's a pro-consumer or anti-consumer issue. Companies which utilize aggressive and restrictive DRM schemes that deprive legal buyers of their ability to utilize the products they paid for, or make those products essentially expire, are being anti-consumer. Companies that restrict the span of consumer choices are being anti-consumer. Companies that eliminate a consumer's right to own the stuff he's buying and instead provide it on a company's discretion lease model where the user rights aren't clearly defined, can be modified after the fact by the company without the buyer's input, and where the buyer loses his ability to have access to something he paid money for... that's all anti-consumer.

Monopolies are considered anti-consumer not because they're immoral but because they eliminate or severely restrict consumer choice, and that's why behavior like strict licensing controls (we don't like the game you're making so we won't let you put it on our platform; or, we have an image to uphold so you need to censor your product or it won't appear on our platform) are anti-consumer, and that's another area where Nintendo has a long history. I'm not sure if Nintendo's refusal to localize the vast majority of titles it publishes really qualifies here, but it's close to the border line, at least. But the DRM and region locking stuff does, absolutely, qualify. I would say ducky's comments about their online infrastructure and the lack of parental control options, instead opting for the most regressive model for all users, is also a bit questionable but I'd err on the side of classifying that as fairly anti-consumer as well.

Pro-consumer or anti-consumer market practices are not, obviously, related to gay marriage. Someone was making an analogical point -- a very good one, too, since opponents of gay marriage often say that choice is not being restricted since a gay person has the choice to marry a person of the opposite gender and two straight men also lack the choice to marry one another. The analogical point here is that it's pretty stupid to say anti-consumer measures aren't being practiced because the consumer has the choice not to buy anything at all. Someone can choose not to buy something because it's designed in an anti-consumer fashion. Plenty of people chose not to buy Spore because the DRM was anti-consumer; you can't really turn that around and say it wasn't anti-consumer because they had the choice to not buy it. What would an anti-consumer product be, one that forces itself into the home and installs it against the person's will? Again, this isn't about morality.

 

[gerg]

No one else, really, is turning this into a morality play. I suspect this is your overeducation in the useless and twat-developing anti-scientific field known as "philosophy" speaking here. It's not about morality.

If it isn't about morality, then how do we understand what a company "should" or "should not" do?

Anti-consumer behavior is behavior which attempts to shift an overabundance of power onto the corporation in violation of certain consumer rights or regresses industry standards that favored (to some extent) the consumer in order to alter the standard industry practices in a more harmful direction which maximizes corporate profit at the expense of the people buying the product.

How do we measure "overabundance" of power?
What are consumer rights?
How do we understand what are "standard industry practices"?

No one talks about DRM in terms of morality because it isn't a moral issue -- it's a pro-consumer or anti-consumer issue. Companies which utilize aggressive and restrictive DRM schemes that deprive legal buyers of their ability to utilize the products they paid for, or make those products essentially expire, are being anti-consumer.

And I would agree, as to me this would appear to be a moral issue dependent upon our understanding of ownership - essentially, the companies are depriving the consumer access to a product that they may own. I'm not prepared to make sweeping statements on the matter as my knowledge of the issue is slim, but it appears that there may have been a misunderstanding, so I apologize.

Companies that restrict the span of consumer choices are being anti-consumer.

I agree with this; anti-competitive behaviour is also anti-consumer behaviour.

Companies that eliminate a consumer's right to own the stuff he's buying and instead provide it on a company's discretion lease model where the user rights aren't clearly defined, can be modified after the fact by the company without the buyer's input, and where the buyer loses his ability to have access to something he paid money for... that's all anti-consumer.

This all seems reasonable, but this nevertheless seems to be an issue of morality (such as false advertising or denying access to property).

On the other hand, if the user agreed to give away their rights by buying the product with full knowledge that his rights weren't well defined (and subsequently that they couldn't be changed), then I may say that this isn't anti-consumer.

Monopolies are considered anti-consumer not because they're immoral but because they eliminate or severely restrict consumer choice,

I never denied this. As I said, there are two conditions for anti-consumer behaviour.

and that's why behavior like strict licensing controls (we don't like the game you're making so we won't let you put it on our platform; or, we have an image to uphold so you need to censor your product or it won't appear on our platform) are anti-consumer,

I think you're oversimplifying the situation here. If Nintendo's censoring policy comes at the expense of a developer being able to release a game at all, then it's anti-consumer. If it does not, then it isn't. I don't know enough about Nintendo's corporate practices in the era of the NES and the SNES to make a judgment on the matter, I'm afraid.

and that's another area where Nintendo has a long history.

That Nintendo was actively anti-consumer has no bearing on whether or not they are now, so I'm struggling to see the relevance here.

I'm not sure if Nintendo's refusal to localize the vast majority of titles it publishes really qualifies here, but it's close to the border line, at least.

Why? These are titles that it has developed or has some control over. It can choose what it wants to do with them.

I would say ducky's comments about their online infrastructure and the lack of parental control options, instead opting for the most regressive model for all users, is also a bit questionable but I'd err on the side of classifying that as fairly anti-consumer as well.

Why?

Nintendo, like any other company, has no obligation to provide the most up-to-date online infrastructure.

Pro-consumer or anti-consumer market practices are not, obviously, related to gay marriage. Someone was making an analogical point -- a very good one, too, since opponents of gay marriage often say that choice is not being restricted since a gay person has the choice to marry a person of the opposite gender and two straight men also lack the choice to marry one another.

Our definition of whether or not it is right that a choice is being restricted may change when we move from an amoral situation to a moral one.

The analogical point here is that it's pretty stupid to say anti-consumer measures aren't being practiced because the consumer has the choice not to buy anything at all. Someone can choose not to buy something because it's designed in an anti-consumer fashion. Plenty of people chose not to buy Spore because the DRM was anti-consumer; you can't really turn that around and say it wasn't anti-consumer because they had the choice to not buy it. What would an anti-consumer product be, one that forces itself into the home and installs it against the person's will? Again, this isn't about morality.

I probably shouldn't have made reference to the ability to choose whether or not to buy something, as this seems to have been a very vague phrase that has muddied the water considerably.

On the other hand, my formal definition of "anti-consumer" behaviour made no reference to that, so I see no problem there.

 

[ethelred]

You're right. Sorry for questioning the moral turgidity of St. Iwata, son of Our Lord Yamauchi, he who delivered us from our sins.

 

[gerg]

Nevermind.

 

[duckroll]

If it isn't about morality, then how do we understand what a company "should" or "should not" do?

By looking at what we as consumers want out of a product? How fucking hard is that to understand? We're not sheep, we don't have to be programmed to accept what is "right" or "wrong". This is about a fucking hobby, not some political election or a vote on a human rights law. It's really simple, some company is offering a product, and I ask myself if I want to pay the money they're asking. What the company "should" do is to align the product with my best interests and offer it at a price I find reasonable. Otherwise I don't buy it. Economics, not morality.

 

[schuelma]

I feel like I'm back at undergrad

 

[Somnid]

Most anti-consumer arguments are retarded because they paint it so black and white (Ethelred's christian religious parody hits it on the head, even if he doesn't realize it). Large face-less organizations are just out to get you, it doesn't matter that your entire life is built on them and as a result we enjoy a higher quality of life than people who don't. It's such a stupid way to frame it, especially with things so trivial as video games.

 

[gerg]

By looking at what we as consumers want out of a product? How fucking hard is that to understand?

I want my PS3 to cook me breakfast in the morning. That Sony has not included that ability is clearly anti-consumer.

My problem with making reference to consumer's expectations as the standards for what a company "should" or "should not" do is that we get into the business of prioritising a company's desires against those of a consumer. This inevitably leads into a discussion of what a valid expectation is, and how we can know that fact. This may or may not make reference to current standards, majority opinions, and so on and so forth. And then this essentially becomes the "Nintendo should have included online in Mario" discussion all over again.

Until the demands of those discussions can be satisfied, I generally dislike using consumer expectations as arbiters of right and wrong.

We're not sheep, we don't have to be programmed to accept what is "right" or "wrong". This is about a fucking hobby, not some political election or a vote on a human rights law. It's really simple, some company is offering a product, and I ask myself if I want to pay the money they're asking. What the company "should" do is to align the product with my best interests and offer it at a price I find reasonable. Otherwise I don't buy it. Economics, not morality.

What a company should do is make money. No more, no less.

The two limitations our society seems to place on this are either that of morality (as in the case of health and safety regulations), or that of competition (as in the case of antitrust lawsuits).

 

[zoku88]

I love how ppl are so willing to defend corporations right to attempt to screw you over! :lol

 

[Orgen]

[NDS] Professor Layton and the Flute of Malevolent Destiny (Level 5) - 335,000
[PSP] Higurashi Daybreak Portable: Mega Edition (Alchemist) - 12,000
[WII] Karaoke Joysound Wii DX (Hudson) - 42,000
[WII] Momotaro Railway 2010: Sengoku Ishin no Hero Daishuugou! no Maki (Hudson) - 18,000

 

[gerg]

I love how ppl are so willing to defend corporations right to attempt to screw you over! :lol

I think it's an interesting matter, especially in regards to health and safety. How do we reconcile a company manager's autonomy with the interests of the public?

 

[cvxfreak]

Stop twisting and twisting to defend Nintendo, you Ninthing!

Don't get me wrong. I have lots of issues with how the various companies I do business with often (Apple, Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, United Airlines, etc.) do business from my standpoint. I just don't find it very productive to even think of these issues as anti-consumer because people less invested in the relevant industries will simply think of me as a spoiled brat rather than someone with a valid argument (cvx didn't get his free upgrade from SFO to YVR because United doesn't post Region 1 upgrades until a week after qualifying travel?! ANTI-CONSUMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!).

In the end, these are businesses, and often conceding many of the points argued in this thread will result in other sacrifices. Let's light a candle in memory of Lik-Sang here for a moment before we enjoy our region-free Sony systems.

 

[duckroll]

I'm not sure why he keeps bringing up morality over and over again. It's really creeping me out. How hard is it to understand that my stand as a consumer has nothing to fucking do with the company's mission to make money? They're free to do that, but it is of course in their best interest to do that while ensuring a majority of consumers are actually happy, or they won't be consumers of that product for very long. It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with best interests. My best interest is to put my money into products I feel are aligned with my needs and wants. Their best interest is to capture as large an audience as possible who feel this one. WHERE IS THE MORALITY HERE? THERE IS NONE! WE ARE WASTING MONEY ON VIDEOGAMES WE COULD BE PUTTING TO BETTER USE. Jesus!

 

[gerg]

I'm not sure why he keeps bringing up morality over and over again. It's really creeping me out. How hard is it to understand that my stand as a consumer has nothing to fucking do with the company's mission to make money? They're free to do that, but it is of course in their best interest to do that while ensuring a majority of consumers are actually happy, or they won't be consumers of that product for very long. It has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with best interests. My best interest is to put my money into products I feel are aligned with my needs and wants. Their best interest is to capture as large an audience as possible who feel this one. WHERE IS THE MORALITY HERE? THERE IS NONE! WE ARE WASTING MONEY ON VIDEOGAMES WE COULD BE PUTTING TO BETTER USE. Jesus!

I'm sorry if I have been sounding purposefully obtuse, but it simply seems like people are expecting a resolution from an unresolvable issue by calling what Nintendo (or any other company, for that matter) does "anti-consumer".

How do we resolve the interests of the corporation against those of the consumer? We don't.

It's really troubling. Even after everyone says "we're not talking about morality," he insists on coming back with a reply completely centered around... morality. As if to say "you are talking about morality!" like none of us actually knows what we're talking about or comprehends the points we're raising, but we need moral philosopher gerg to shed some enlightenment for us.

First of all, I never mean to portray myself as some font of knowledge, so I apologize if I have created this perception.

I think my confusion has been spurred by the fact that people are denying that this is an issue of morality, and yet they keep on using the term "anti-consumer", which to mean intrinsically holds moral weight. If it's not an issue of morality (and not an issue of creating a monopoly), it's not anti-consumer.

Alternatively, if all people are using "anti-consumer" to mean is something that doesn't necessarily benefit the consumer, then, yes, lots of what Nintendo does (and what other companies do) fits this description, but that fact alone is no bad thing.

 

[ethelred]

I'm not sure why he keeps bringing up morality over and over again. It's really creeping me out.

It's really troubling. Even after everyone says "we're not talking about morality," he insists on coming back with a reply completely centered around... morality. As if to say "you are talking about morality!" like none of us actually knows what we're talking about or comprehends the points we're raising, but we need moral philosopher gerg to shed some enlightenment for us.

 

[zoku88]

I think it's an interesting matter, especially in regards to health and safety. How do we reconcile a company manager's autonomy with the interests of the public?

If you're talking about the gov't, the gov't exists to protect its people, not its corporations.

If the gov't finds a corporation that is trying to limit consumer choice (artificially,)* then the corporation ought not be allowed to do it.

*By artificial, I mean things like, cellphone locking, region locking, software locking (to particularly systems) that are all created not out of necessity (like, for example GSM phones don't work with CDMA networks because they don't have the hardware for it) but created to protect their (or others') business.

 

[timetokill]

If you're talking about the gov't, the gov't exists to protect its people, not its corporations.

... so naive.... :lol :lol :lol

How are those corn subsidies working out for us? ... actually, there are so many examples here of how that is an incorrect statement, at least in practice, that I won't really bother.




I'm not going to say much more on the anti-consumer thing beyond this post. If somebody wants to keep thinking that a company not including a variety of extra features that aren't inherent to the operation of the system as designed and advertised is anti-consumer, you guys go on ahead.

It's just amazing... there's a good argument for region-locking being an anti-consumer practice, and even locking games to a system. And I've even agreed on these points. But saying "OMG friend codes are so annoying!" is not a valid reason for them being anti-consumer.


I will respond to this, though:

Are you seriously comparing the online infrastructure of a console that launched 9 years ago (and did not natively support online out of the box) with a console that launched 3 years ago that was supposed to support online out of the box?

The reason I made that comparison is because it is ridiculous to compare every platform in a market, compare their features, and insist that they all have the same ones just because you want them, and regardless of target market, price, or the entirety of the product itself. This is exactly what is happening when people say, "Well Nintendo's online is sooo crappy!" It's crappy compared to Xbox Live and PSN today, yes. It's pretty great compared to the online of the previous generation of systems.

It's a low bullet-point feature of a system that is not pushing the online service as its main selling-point anyway. If you're a core consumer, and you decided to buy the Wii and you were expecting Xbox Live out of its online service, how does that make Nintendo anti-consumer?

I bought a toaster, and it only toasts 2 slices of bread instead of 4, but man doesn't everybody make toasters that toast 4 slices nowadays? fucking anti-consumer whores!

It's totally ridiculous to talk about features of a product that are part of the definition of the product and are malicious in practice or intent to consumers. Region-locking could be considered anti-consumer by preventing them from buying perfectly usable software, legally, and using it with their console. Makes sense. Not including features that were never present, never intended to be present, and deemed unnecessary for their perceived target market is NOT anti-consumer.

You guys are the core market, and you want a lot of features that the general market doesn't care that much about. Nintendo has no interest in getting into an arms race with Microsoft and Sony over features that most of the market doesn't care about. They have no interest in fighting Microsoft and Sony over you guys. I know it hurts, but you have to come to that realization someday.

Nintendo cut a lot of traditional features in order to hit a lower price point (while still making a profit, of course) and in order to promote new features that would attract brand new customers. They were successful in this.

Do you guys complain that Southwest doesn't offer in-flight movies? I mean those are practically standard, right? They just took them out to screw over the consumer and make them entertain themselves for the duration of the flight!

Also, why do people like charlequin keep bringing up a "lack of a legitimate storage solution." Downloading games directly to SD card, as well as loading them directly from SD card, is not a legitimate storage option?

 

[ethelred]

I never mean to portray myself as some font of knowledge, so I apologize if I have created this perception.

Don't worry. You haven't created that perception.

 

[duckroll]

I'm sorry if I have been sounding purposefully obtuse, but it simply seems like people are expecting a resolution from an unresolvable issue by calling what Nintendo (or any other company, for that matter) does "anti-consumer".

How do we resolve the interests of the corporation against those of the consumer? We don't.

I explained clearly how we resolve the interests of the corporation against those of the consumer. You choose to ignore it time and time again and go back to the MORALITY route. It's stupid and it's old. It is in the best interest of the corporation to at very least consider the interests of the consumers because we're the ones BUYING the shit.

When a game bombs really badly, it means consumers decided not to buy it, because it was not aligned with their interests. Who suffers there? Clearly not the consumer, it's the corporation. The PSP Go is a failure, and that represents that it is a product which most consumers felt they either had no need for or simply did not want to support. Who suffers there? The corporation. If they had made the products more appealing to consumers, and actually made something people wanted to buy, then they would have made more money.

See how it works? Making money is not mutually exclusive from taking care of consumer needs and interests. In fact, making money is often aligned WITH taking care of consumer needs and interests. When you release something people actually want or need, you make lots of money! Shock and awe.

 

[gerg]

I explained clearly how we resolve the interests of the corporation against those of the consumer. You choose to ignore it time and time again and go back to the MORALITY route. It's stupid and it's old. It is in the best interest of the corporation to at very least consider the interests of the consumers because we're the ones BUYING the shit.

When a game bombs really badly, it means consumers decided not to buy it, because it was not aligned with their interests. Who suffers there? Clearly not the consumer, it's the corporation. The PSP Go is a failure, and that represents that it is a product which most consumers felt they either had no need for or simply did not want to support. Who suffers there? The corporation. If they had made the products more appealing to consumers, and actually made something people wanted to buy, then they would have made more money.

See how it works? Making money is not mutually exclusive from taking care of consumer needs and interests. In fact, making money is often aligned WITH taking care of consumer needs and interests. When you release something people actually want or need, you make lots of money! Shock and awe.

I agree. Very often pro-corporation action coincides with pro-consumer action. However, a company will never be able to serve all its consumers all the time, and this is where the dilemma seems to occur. People have been criticising NSMB Wii, for example, for not having online play, and this very much seems to represent a conflict of interest between Nintendo and its consumers.

And here I thought such things were resolved by not buying shit that pisses us off.

I've been advocating this viewpoint all the time (although I would call such a result a dissolution of the problem).

 

[androvsky]

How do we resolve the interests of the corporation against those of the consumer? We don't.

And here I thought such things were resolved by not buying shit that pisses us off.