Quote Originally Posted by Spuuky View Post
What is your basis for the belief that only necessities can be subject to anti-consumer decisions? I truly can't imagine thinking that. It is an anti-consumer decision for a company to refuse to let you repair devices you buy from them, or to use exclusively proprietary ports that offer no additional functionality over industry standard ports, for instance, on electronic devices. Why would it matter whether I "had to" buy it or not?
because, by definition, raising prices on games isn't "anti" anything. "Anti" means "opposed to" or "doing harm to", etc. Companies STILL want to sell video games, even if they're exclusives, have a $10 price hike, etc. They're only raising prices to match inflation. They're only doing exclusives b/c it's their prerogative to make money and the "consumer" still has all options available to play their game (even if it means spending more money or waiting). They aren't saying "hey, let's do harm against the interest of our consumers". $10 won't bankrupt a single consumer. I'd say these types of decisions are more about being "out of touch" w/ what the consumer wants, rather than being actively against the consumer.

Plus, again, luxury good. Not a necessity, therefore it's all optional anyway, so the consumer has no "right" or legal/ethical claim to it anyway. So, "no harm, no foul" if I can't play God of War Ragnarok on launch since I don't own a PS4/5. I don't need it anyway. Of course, I would even argue a littlbe bit against my own point, since I DO believe that entertainment SHOULD be considered a necessity, to a degree. But I'm simply explaining a defition as it exists. I get how terms can easily be misunderstood.

(it's akin to "anti-social" being another phrase that has lost its meaning in today's generation. Ppl use it in place of "UNsociable", which is actually the correct term. "Anti-social" actually means wanting to do harm/"anti" to society/"social", related to psycho/sociopathy)

As for your example, I can't really say much about ports. I think that's a bit of a rabbit hole I'd have to think more on. I have no issue if my phone or someone else's had some exclusive port. But not repairing devices...I'd say that depends on what sort of small print is in the agreements that always come w/ hardware. And if it's that relevant of an issue, the consumer should research first whether or not repairs are offered. Not offering repairs at all (charged or otherwise) is definitely a bad business practice. Not sure i'd say it goes "against" or "harms" the consumer, since it's sort of presumed, even expected, for electronics/devices/hardware/etc to all be at risk of breaking, so it's always a "buyer beware" type of thing.

Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Acula View Post
While I understand why people would call for boycotts, I don't think it's helpful overall. Regardless of what company heads are doing, there are still hundreds of employees that are just trying to make great games; deciding to boycott a company affects them, too.
Yeah, that is a good point. Ppl who boycott games potentially punish the employees/developers for decisions made by the suits/publishers. It's definitely something I think about if I'm in a salty mood against a company lol.