E3 Thread of Ultimate Hype.

Computer and console game related chat

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: E3 Thread of Ultimate Hype.

#381  Postby aban57 » Jun 11, 2019 6:38 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:For me it's foremost the principle of the thing; rather than making a better product, companies that engage in exclusive practices actively try to limit the consumer's choice.

Indeed. Just a reminder. look at the features list.
Name: Cindy
Posts: 7442
Age: 41

Country: France
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Ads by Google

Re: E3 Thread of Ultimate Hype.

#382  Postby willhud9 » Jun 11, 2019 9:22 pm

Here are my thoughts on exclusives and I will say I have a bit of a hypocritical view because Nintendo is a prime exception for me. I will always view Nintendo IP's as Nintendo's.

However, lets look at a field similar to what we are seeing developing in the video game world. Streaming via Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc.

When Netflix first came out it was amazing. People could watch movies online or rent movies by mail delivery. It opened up a whole library of convenient video entertainment to a lot of people. Hulu, Amazon, and YouTube would quickly try and set up competition, but for awhile Netflix reigned supreme.

But things started to shift and Hulu started buying distribution rights to shows. Notably when Hulu bought the rights to distribute Lost, exclusively on Hulu, it stirred waves.

Then we started seeing the creation of Netflix Originals, Hulu originals, Amazon originals, now even Disney is hopping on board with its massive list of imposing IP's.

The problem becomes the entire market is incredibly diluted and once again we see piracy on the rise due to it. People don't want to spend money on 5 different streaming services. You can say, "Well that's competition. Netflix and Hulu, etc. are directly competing with each other."

But its not. In order for me, as a consumer, to be able to benefit with gains I have to subscribe to both Hulu and Netflix. Otherwise I lose access to shows I may want to watch. The current model of video streaming is a prime example of anti-consumer innovation that seeks to exploit psychological tendencies in market audiences.

The same is proving true for video game markets. If it was a matter of simply buying the system I actually wouldn't object. To me that would be a case of competition, what makes one system better than the other. In the olden days of console wars that was easily fixed by buying more than one console. It gave you access to a wider pool of games.

But no no no. These studios need to make more money. "Online servers" cost too much they say. So they start charging online fees. In order to play games online you have to pay. The problem with this model is the same as the Streaming service. People will not purchase 3-4 online subscriptions consistently. This is not a competitive market. It is a monopolistic market. It is largely anti-consumer.

The response we are seeing and will continue to see is piracy. Emulators will come out, ROMs of games will be uploaded faster than ROM hunters can get rid of them, and people will simply pirate a game, especially if they have a powerful PC.

My biggest fear is the corporate response to piracy tends to affect everyone in regards to internet freedom. Piracy saw a massive decrease with the rise of Netflix and Steam. But with competitors trying to snag exclusives and charge for membership into their exclusive system we are seeing piracy rise again. How long before the corporate lash back cripples the access of the internet behind gated pay walls to curb piracy?
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
Name: William
Posts: 19348
Age: 29

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post


Return to Video Games

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests