Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Artificial Scarcity being anti-consumer is not within the definition
You're also using a definition conjured up by some guy on wiki. Not really going to take that seriously
Last edited:
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Anyone else kinda sad that new Nvidia GPU are much more powerful than PS5/XsX?
- Thread starter Klik
- Start date
Artificial Scarcity being anti-consumer is not within the definition
You're also using a definition conjured up by some guy on wiki. Not really going to take that seriously
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Definition of ANTI-CONSUMER
not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers… See the full definition
Definition of anti-consumer
: not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers
favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers
It is in Sony's business interest to make exclusive games for their platforms and keep them exclusive forever. This is not in my interest as a consumer if I don't have a PS or can't afford one.
Bryank75
Banned
You're contradicting yourself all over the place now...
Charging people for hardware is 'anticonsumer'.
But when I say MS could offer free gaming on PC as an incentive through streaming you totally change your tune.
So basically....you want the games and don't give a crap how you get them as long as you don't have to buy a PlayStation. That is your position and you could at least have the conviction to type it out.
There are very few people that have that much contempt for a brand that they will avoid paying a fair amount for great games and content.
If you're not willing to pay a fair amount you're not much value to them...
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Definition of ANTI-CONSUMER
not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers… See the full definitionwww.merriam-webster.com
Definition of anti-consumer
: not favorable to consumers : improperly favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers
favoring the interests of businesses over the interests of consumers
It is in Sony's business interest to make exclusive games for their platforms and keep them exclusive forever. This is not in my interest as a consumer if I don't have a PS or can't afford one.
Do you think its anti-consumer that Nvidia doesn't share their technology with AMD?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
No I'm not. You're not understanding.
Charging people for stuff isn't "anticonsumer" on its own merits. You need to evaluate the context of the rest of the environment.
No tune changing. They're not comparable. Your example is ridiculous. Sony easing up their exclusives policy does not eliminate their direct revenue. MS making Game Pass free does. This comparison is absurd.
Wrong again. I want the games, and I care about how I play them. The PS only comes into play for other reasons like, "I can't afford a PS", or "I want to play this game in a different way that I can't do on a PS". I give lots of craps as to how those games are birthed.
That is what my position is in your imagination. Not how I'm writing it. You might need some conviction for better reading comprehension.
OK. What does that have to do with my position?
Komatsu
Member
The last time we had console technology significantly ahead of the PC market was in 1996 with the Nintendo 64. The N64's GPU was a 64-bit SGI coprocessor and it could do things no PC GPU could do at the time: a 128-bit internal data bus that provides 1.0 GB/s of bandwidth, advanced lighting calculation, rasterization, all of this while processing up to 100 channels of PCM audio - yes, the RCP handled audio as well.
That said, less than 6 months later Vodoo Graphics came out with their chipset, which was used in many consumer cards such as Diamond's Monster 3D, etc.
That said, less than 6 months later Vodoo Graphics came out with their chipset, which was used in many consumer cards such as Diamond's Monster 3D, etc.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
If their practices result in increased profits for them at the expense of customer choice, then yes.
Real world example: G-sync is proprietary. Free-sync is royalty free/open standard.
AMD's tech and business decision is more consumer friendly than Nvidia's.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Free sync is not open source, and it exists because of G-Sync.
That's called friendly competition.
You should look at your definition again more closely. You'll notice the keyword "improper". You're looking at the definition but you're not thinking about what it means
So i'll ask you again. Is it anti-consumer that Nvidia does not share their tech with AMD?
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Woops, typo. I meant "royalty free". Propriety tech is almost always more anti-consumer, all things being equal.
You can't say that Free sync exists because of G-Sync. It might have lit a fire under AMD's ass, but they're perfectly capable of creating VRR tech on their own.
What is or isn't "friendly competition" has no relevance on this discussion.
Yes, I noticed "improper" because I did look at it closely. It's in the quote.
The answer is still the same.
It is if their practices result in increased profits for them at the expense of customers.
Bryank75
Banned
Aaron Greenberg himself admits they make nothing from Game Pass, so giving it away to people would not really make a difference.
It would create incentive to use PC over any other platform for gaming and increase PC sales.
They could then charge a few dollars for mobile / phone based cloud gaming.
Maybe you'd be afraid of that destroying Steam though?
PlayStaytion
Member
Ps5
PS5 pro and xbox series z are gonna happen no matter what, remember that sony and ms are aware of folks who are looking for highend specs and willing to jumpship at anytime no matter what .
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
You should always take PR speak with a grain of salt, but if that's true then it would make a big difference. You'd be negative millions of dollars instead of breaking even. C'mon.
It would increase PC use incentive, and potentially PC sales. It does not create incentive to use PC over any other platform.
They could, but that renders your "MS should make it all free" argument pointless.
Why would I be afraid of that? Stop trying to be a mind reader and discuss the actual points on the table.
Demon2blades
Member
No I'm not sad it was always going to be this way it's a console and is an unrealistic way of looking at things if you thought otherwise.
Dave_at_Home
Member
This dude is gonna be real sad once Nvidia releases a GPU that's 3D stacked.
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Free sync is proprietary
Yes I can say that, because that's exactly why AMD developed Free-sync in the first place. To combat Nvidias option. Just like how Nvidia and AMD are capable of lowering their prices. Do you think they'd do it without a catalyst though? No. Same applies to the GPU tech we get.
If you noticed the word then you obviously didn't stop to think what it means. What you're talking about is just consumer entitlement. Not anti-consumerism. You're looking at it from the perspective of an individual selfish need, and that's a gross misunderstanding of the definition
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Not requiring proprietary hardware does not make free-sync non-proprietary
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Nope
Definition of PROPRIETARY
of, relating to, or characteristic of an owner or title holder; used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right; privately owned and managed and run as a profit-making organization… See the full definition
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
Nope
Definition of PROPRIETARY
of, relating to, or characteristic of an owner or title holder; used, made, or marketed by one having the exclusive legal right; privately owned and managed and run as a profit-making organization… See the full definition
Why do you think FreeSync has AMDs logo plastered everywhere?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Because they can. It doesn't change the fact that I can implement it in my products without being gatekept or paywalled.
Last edited:
Ass of Can Whooping
Gold Member
That doesn't make it non-proprietary
Non-proprietary means no one has exclusive ownership. Free-syn is exclusively owned by AMD, hence why the trademark is in their name
It's free to use at their discretion
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
It is for the context of this discussion vis-a-vis "anti-consumerism".
One implementation requires licensing fees, the other is an open platform and does not.
Allnamestakenlol
Member
Lotta gold in this thread.
ResilientBanana
Member
Unless you don't use it that way. Unlike console gamers, PC players can change their settings and Mod their games.