Support NeoGAF

[Kataploom]

Not really. If someone treats their customers well, it's pro consumer.

If someone is Arrogant and don't give a fuck its anti consumer.

Not exactly, the prefix "Anti" means something that is against something else... In the case of raising prices for making a service or product more profitable or doing something else as MTX for getting more revenues is not anti-consumer even if consumers don't like it.

As long as the target is not to harm some consumers, it's ok to do whatever and without being labelled that all the time.

"Anti-consumer" would be paying for timed or permanent exclusivities, just so actual consumers (of other brands) don't play the games because the games would still come to the paing brand platform, they just want other brands' users not to play those games, that is actually going after consumers.

I thought the same as OP some time ago, and it's actually true like 99% of the times, but cases where one brand pay another to not sell a product to some consumers of another brand is an actual example of what it means.

Edit: I think like "anti" means both "going against" and "indiferent about", I may be wrong, in spanish we make the distinction using "anti-" and "a-".

 

[MHubert]

It is an unintelligent and lazy way of communicating that you like or dislike something. They are made up political terms that have typically been used to stir up support for or generate anger towards an entity or policy.

Phil Spencer and Jim Ryan's jobs are to maximize return to the shareholders.

"Pro-consumer" back compat, smart delivery, PS+ Collection? Maximize return to shareholders.
"Anti-consumer" Spider-Man Remaster, Gold req for F2P? Maximize return to shareholders.

Feedback can lead to change-complain about the Spider-Man situation, Halo's mismanagement, and $70 games. Be vocal and don't purchase things that you disagree with but don't pretend like either company is some hero or villain protecting or fighting against consumers' interests-it is lazy.

Sony and Microsoft are attempting to add value to their platforms such that you will exchange money for their goods and services.

If I wanted to get political here I might even ask if the people that believe the "pro/anti-consumer" story believe that markets work or if they believe in economic fairy tales too...

Thank you for this thread OP. These phrases have lost all their intent and meaning since the video game community stripped away the logic and embraced them as buzzwords; and it has been driving me nuts.

If a company has organized their business in a way that you don't like or simply doesn't give you free stuff they are not being anti-consumer - they are being unappealing. According to you.

Blue is relative. Good pie is relative. Life, amazingly, is relative.

Do you think that unless we can all agree exactly what a word means and what it applies to, that the word shouldn't exist? You can't actually be willing to play along with this argument just to vaguely defend Sony, right?

It is not a question of should/shouldn't exist, but one of does it, when applied, adequately describe reality? Which, in this case, it doesn't.

Of course you can.

There are scenarios where practices that can be categorized as "pro-consumer" or "anti-consumer" can be used to boost revenue and maximize profits. These are all factors that are involved with marketing and public perception, especially when government regulators get involved.

Why you gotta make a claim that is so easy to prove false?

https://www.google.com/search?lr=lang_en&tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22pro-consumer%22+intitle:marketing&tbs=,bkt:b&num=20

https://www.google.com/search?num=20&lr=lang_en&tbs=bkt%3Ab%2Clr%3Alang_1en&tbm=bks&sxsrf=ALeKk02dZmB8yoQNZk40XiC54PY-2GVIvw%3A1601058824748&ei=BThuX7GwEuT19AOTqamoCw&q=%22anti-consumer%22+intitle%3Amarketing&oq=%22anti-consumer%22+intitle%3Amarketing&gs_l=psy-ab.3...773464.773787.0.774039.4.4.0.0.0.0.127.127.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..3.0.0....0.lAhY-r0hQLY

Using these terms as strategic categorizations within a company or other organization is hardly equivalent to fanboys arguing about whose favorite company hates their customers the most.

 

[bender]

You also will not find the words "hookers" or "blackjack" in any business textbook, so how can we trust them?

 

[Thirty7ven]

It’s just another dirty MS tactic.

 

[alabtrosMyster]

Well for once. I think I know what's most pro consumer 60 vs 80 euro.
Second. Giving free upgrades are pro consumer.
Third upgrading old gen games with free graphic updates are pro consumer.

They all give more value to whatever product you are offering, I for one won't get a PS5 any time soon (probably never going to get an xbox... I have a PC yadi yada).

I assumed Sony would patch a couple of their top selling games to run at 4K 60, maybe push some other visual settings higher (the kind of stuff you can normally change on the PC graphics settings, like shadow resolution, contact shadows, level of details, the quality of anything "dynamic" that they may have tweaked during development anyway).

But if people buy in anyway, it's for them to decide on the whole if the product is worth it, in Canada games will be close to 100$ after this change, no way I am paying this, even if I can afford it.

 

[Jigsaah]

Can I choose both?

My point is that you disliking or liking a value proposition or product does not make a company "pro or anti consumer". Complain about it but realize that both the policies you like and dislike are intended maximize income.

So "anti-consumer" and "pro-consumer" as it is used in the gaming community is best defined as the methods companies use to develop their relationships with its customers. You're right, my opinion does not matter in deciding whether a company is anti or pro consumer. It's the companies actions themselves, which when compared with one another, produces those dispositions because there are objective differences in policy, that one can observe being more or less financially, socially or experientially cumbersome to the consumer.

For example Sony's method and price structure surrounding Spiderman PS5 and MM is only anti-consumer when compared to Microsoft's Smart Delivery feature. If viewed in a vacuum it may not be considered that. However the only reason people can even say that is because it makes the product financially more of a financial burden. It effectively splits the experience of the user unless they pay up, which, by itself is not anti consumer, but people look at Microsoft and are like..."Why can't Sony do that?"

 

[Evangelion Unit-01]

Agreed, in essence that people use it very widely to discuss business practices they don't agree with in general

The ideology and bureaus to investigate it actually DO exist



What constitutes as unfair is completely subjective (IE Apple v Epic case, no one is bitching about having to pay stocking fees in Walmart), so people do have a little bit of play with the anti-consumer vocalization, whether or not it's founded in anything logical

Anti-consumerism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Where are you getting morality from?

"A product is either a good or bad value proposition - that's it". Yup. That's what most people mean by "pro-consumer", "consumer-friendly", "anti-consumer", etc. Who's implying morality and who's inferring morality? You're overthinking this.

Definition of ANTI-CONSUMER

not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I suspect that this injection of politics and morality is more a product of your own interpretation, rather than the general zeitgeist.

I don't want to confuse anti-consumer with anti-consumerism they are different.

When people use the term anti-consumer it is political-talking about anti-consumer practices and regulation-thats when we start stepping into antitrust and consumer protection legislation but that doesn't have anything to do with Sony not giving you a free upgrade or Microsoft making you pay for Xbox Live. They are not economic terms, they are used to convey a certain sentiment or morality in political discourse-and whether or not you believe the terms have any meaning at all in that context even would be dependent on where you would place yourself politically.

So "anti-consumer" and "pro-consumer" as it is used in the gaming community is best defined as the methods companies use to develop their relationships with its customers. You're right, my opinion does not matter in deciding whether a company is anti or pro consumer. It's the companies actions themselves, which when compared with one another, produces those dispositions because there are objective differences in policy, that one can observe being more or less financially, socially or experientially cumbersome to the consumer.

For example Sony's method and price structure surrounding Spiderman PS5 and MM is only anti-consumer when compared to Microsoft's Smart Delivery feature. If viewed in a vacuum it may not be considered that. However the only reason people can even say that is because it makes the product financially more of a financial burden. It effectively splits the experience of the user unless they pay up, which, by itself is not anti consumer, but people look at Microsoft and are like..."Why can't Sony do that?"

Exactly. I'm asking for better discussion. Saying "Sony could do better with Spider-Man like Xbox does with Smart Delivery" or "Xbox could do better with Gold for F2P like Sony does with PSN" is the right way to do it. Pretending like Smart Delivery or F2P PSN is something done for customers is the issue; it is done because each one thinks it will generate revenue. People latch onto that idea and then hurl "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" at every decision/policy/product. I'm saying-be better than that; that is lazy and it perpetuates console wars by mischaracterizing one console or the other as being the hero or villain of the story.

 

[ThatGamingDude]

When people use the term anti-consumer it is political-talking about anti-consumer practices and regulation-thats when we start stepping into antitrust and consumer protection legislation but that doesn't have anything to do with Sony not giving you a free upgrade or Microsoft making you pay for Xbox Live. They are not economic terms, they are used to convey a certain sentiment or morality in political discourse-and whether or not you believe the terms have any meaning at all in that context even would be dependent on where you would place yourself politically.

Exactly. I'm asking for better discussion. Saying "Sony could do better with Spider-Man like Xbox does with Smart Delivery" or "Xbox could do better with Gold for F2P like Sony does with PSN" is the right way to do it. Pretending like Smart Delivery or F2P PSN is something done for customers is the issue; it is done because each one thinks it will generate revenue. People latch onto that idea and then hurl "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" at every decision/policy/product. I'm saying-be better than that; that is lazy and it perpetuates console wars by mischaracterizing one console or the other as being the hero or villain of the story.

The problem is that the words have been over used to the point where they don't communicate anything of value now.

Home Slice there made a good point

Spoiler

I also removed your first line on your post because it seems as though English might not be your native language

 

[Evangelion Unit-01]

Home Slice there made a good point

Spoiler

I also removed your first line on your post because it seems as though English might not be your native language

English is my only language lol

I was referring to the fact that anti-consumerism is an ideology that takes issue w/ mass consumption and production for profit, materialism, capitalism, that sort of thing vs. anti-consumer being a term used in antitrust and regulation discussions.

But yes, fair point from SlicedBread. My real issue is that there is this constant implication that these companies are doing things "for the consumer" and not for profit or that they don't consider people's perception of value before creating a product. Without getting even more pedantic, at best people are misusing these words but what we are actual seeing is console warring under the guise of "business discussion".

 

[Grinchy]

The only reason anyone says this shit is because Microsoft was pretending that every game was going to be cross-gen to "leave no Xbox gamer left behind." To get over the horrendous reality that would be, they pushed a brilliant piece of PR that made their fans think it was a "pro-consumer" move. These fans have been parroting "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" ever since. They are the same ones who parrot the word "value" over and over again.

 

[Jeeves]

It's pretty obviously just a less clunky way for people to say "good for consumers" and "bad for consumers". I don't see what's wrong with that.

 

[Evangelion Unit-01]

The only reason anyone says this shit is because Microsoft was pretending that every game was going to be cross-gen to "leave no Xbox gamer left behind." To get over the horrendous reality that would be, they pushed a brilliant piece of PR that made their fans think it was a "pro-consumer" move. These fans have been parroting "pro-consumer" and "anti-consumer" ever since. They are the same ones who parrot the word "value" over and over again.

Yes-both the whole "you don't need to upgrade" and "we believe in generations" were things the fans latched onto and turned into ammo for console wars. Now a lot of them look foolish and have turned to attacking Phil/Jim because they feel "betrayed" after they made fools of themselves talking about how great it was that Horizon was an experience only next gen could deliver or how Xbox first party was ALL going to be cross-gen.

 

[zeorhymer]

Pro consumer means that the company will give you free stuff.

 

[GymWolf]

It's an abstract concept...

 

[ThatGamingDude]

English is my only language lol

Oxford weeps for your soul

 

[ThatGamingDude]

I was referring to the fact that anti-consumerism is an ideology that takes issue w/ mass consumption and production for profit, materialism, capitalism, that sort of thing vs. anti-consumer being a term used in antitrust and regulation discussions.

But yes, fair point from SlicedBread. My real issue is that there is this constant implication that these companies are doing things "for the consumer" and not for profit or that they don't consider people's perception of value before creating a product. Without getting even more pedantic, at best people are misusing these words but what we are actual seeing is console warring under the guise of "business discussion".

On a more serious note, I understand your mentality 100% and agree

However, I have worked for companies where we have taken a specific long term loss because it was just the right thing to do; happened like...twice to me so far

I'm that ass hole dude in a cubicle farm that's "For the customer and voices it," but it HAS to be founded with evidence behind it
Business won't do the nice thing unless there's a foundation of evidence behind it
Which is why everyone is now selling the copious amounts of data we farmed xD