entitled gamers? a good example going on right now

[Branindain]

It's funny because I just came across from reading this and walked right into this thread, not knowing what it was about. I was surprised by the number of bitter people in the forum, I just don't think that way I guess. Spread the wealth and all that. The only thing I would point out is that Riot can't reduce the value of these skins because they're not saleable, they're attached to your file. Unless collectors exist who would buy your entire file after you're done to get rare skins, and heaven knows they probably do because people will collect just about anything.

 

[Bix96]

"For the past year, we've been exploring ways to solve a conundrum with Limited Edition skins. Here's the crux of the issue:
-During events from December 2009 through October 2011, we released 34 skins for a limited time and communicated they wouldn't come back into the store.
-Since then, our playerbase has grown so much that these skins are virtually never seen in game

-Every day we receive heartfelt emails with compelling stories from players asking for the chance to own or gift their favorite skin, either because they missed the brief store window due to travel, illness, deployment, etc., or because they hadn't joined the LoL community yet."

These are Riot's own words from the page about the event, They told people it would not be made available again so basically they lied. They can go on about these "heartfelt" e-mails and skins like bewitching Nidalee only being seen every thousand games (I've only played for about a year and personally I have seen this skin used more than just about every Lux skin) but they are doing for one thing GREED they want the all the monies. I don't own any of these skins in fact I don't own ANY skins and while I have always wanted Christmas Sona and kittykat I'm still more upset than happy.

If people bought something under the assumption that it would not be for sale again and then it is of course they get angry or feel "entitled" as you put it but to me entitlement looks more like "Why do these guys who played for years and years get something I don't? I WANT IT RIGHT NOW!"

 

[Undomesticated Equine]

The same thing happened when TF2 went free to play. People are like that. I personally thought it was a good thing as it would bring more targets for me to gib other people thought that if they payed for it and now someone gets it for free it will diminish the value of their game or something.

 

[Rednog]

People's complaints about this giants a giant MEH from me.
They would have a leg to stand on if Riot just put up the old skins and did nothing else, but they're getting so much back in return. They're basically getting those skins for free now. At that point it just becomes omg look at this super rare skin I have that you can never have nah nah!
And let's be honest here, Riot pretty much has to at some point or another re release skins because they've started visually updating champions, they're wasting time and money updating skins that such a minuscule fraction of the player base uses.

 

[Forobryt]

To me limited edition doesnt mean one off, it just means its there for a limited time then gone with nothing saying it wont come back.
The amount of times ive seen limited edition flavours on Frijj milkshakes only to have the same flavour come back later as a limited edition again has shown this to me.

Unless Riot specifically said that the skins were part of a one off sale and would never be sold again then they can do what they want in bringing them out for sale again. If Riot did say it was a one off then yeh i could understand the annoyance but its just a skin and you even get a marker showing you were an original owner.

 

[WeepingAngels]

So these skins do nothing, right? Purely cosmetic items?

If so, then yes they are being whiny manchildren.

I don't understand the term manchildren, what does it mean and is there a female equivalent?

On topic, this is the problem with limited edition shit, retailer specific pre-order bonuses and related shit.

If they are going to use "exclusive shit" as bait then it needs to remain exclusive but that sucks too. I propose they just put out a damn game like they used and forget all the "buy it before the reviews" bullshit.

"


The use of the general "man" as he used it is linked back to old german, where "mann" was used to refer to human beings, not males specifically. Human. You were probably being fasetious, but whatever. Not sexist

EDIT: Better way to explain it. You know how in english we use "one" in the sense of "one does not simply"?
That's how "man" is used in german. English comes from german (England being named after one of the two german tribes that invaded and successfully conquered and were quickly consumed into the culture of Britton, the Angles), so that particular word usage holds over. Complaining about the sexism of saying mankind would be like complaining about how saying "one does not" is prejudiced against groups of people. "Man" in "mankind" is essentially a weird translation of "onekind", ie, people who are the same as me.

Using the word "man" to describe things that are not gender exclusive has become sexist over time. We don't say "policeman" or "mailman" anymore because that's considered sexist.

 

[Cybylt]

They're complaining that others shouldn't get something for free that they worked for.

Nobody did any work for it at either time, in both cases they're just putting money down and the people who did so earlier are now getting a refund because Riot feels a little bad about the situation.

The only reason anybody is upset is now they don't feel as special for being a fan before the massive exponential growth the fanbase underwent between the time the skins were first released and now. Even though they get a special mark that says they are one of the people who bought the skin during original circulation.

 

[Launcelot111]

I can't speak specifically about LoL, but I've been playing WoW since day 1 and I still play my Warlock/Warrior that I've had since that day. I have always been a hoarder of sorts and a collector of in game cool thingies. A lot of those items became unobtainable in game through various patches and changes to the world. Some items were available through world events and the like and several gave you a Feat of Strength for having obtained them.

If Blizzard came out and said "Oh btw, we're now making the Spirit of Competition and the 2007 Brewfest Stein available through our store but don't worry, you guys that already have it have a Feat of Strength" I'd be pretty mad. There's something about owning something that others can't have that makes it special and makes it feel yours.

But you earned those things by doing events and stuff and actually participating in the game. I completely agree that you should be a little miffed if Blizzard allowed all your achievements to be diminished by making the rewards a generic purchasable item.

The LoL skins are rare just because they were offered only during Halloween a few years ago or whatnot, but aside from that, they're the same as almost every other skin in that someone bought it with money. The only reason someone I see for defending their exclusiveness is as a "look how long I've been playing to have bought this skin" badge, but a) that's a lame argument when compared to the masses of newer players who think that the old skins are pretty cool and would like a chance at getting them, and b)Riot is giving them an actual badge that says that the skins are old and that they're league veterans. The handful of skins that are actually meaningful (ie. making gold tier or attending cons) aren't getting sold, so all the rest of the complaining is a bunch of hot air.

 

[Lightknight]

Even if they were children, you're still talking about customers, aka, people who paid money for the experience. These are inherently entitled individuals even if what they feel entitled to is too much.

 

[Bombiz]

Using the word "man" to describe things that are not gender exclusive has become sexist over time. We don't say "policeman" or "mailman" anymore because that's considered sexist.

but....we do still say mailman and policeman. unless you're joking in which case this is me right now:

 

[WeepingAngels]

Using the word "man" to describe things that are not gender exclusive has become sexist over time. We don't say "policeman" or "mailman" anymore because that's considered sexist.

but....we do still say mailman and policeman. unless you're joking in which case this is me right now:

Some do and some don't. I think you are missing the point though.

 

[Vegosiux]

These are Riot's own words from the page about the event, They told people it would not be made available again so basically they lied.

When I was 9 I was very loud about how I'll never smoke. Lo and behold, when I'm 20, I light one up. Or uh, if I remember every time back in college when I was swearing to myself "I'm never gonna get this drunk again!"

Guess that makes me a dirty liar, huh! I mean, I obviously deliberately deceived people in order to take advantage of them later, obviously!

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

This is precisely like all the rage over the Halo 4 GotYE having access to LE in-game content.

Even ignoring that it's all purely cosmetic surely the fact that you've had access to this for longer and these new people are still paying money for it has some value.

 

[Playful Pony]

Well, if the promise was that the skins would never be available again, then I would agree they shouldn't really show up again. That was the promise they gave when they sold the item, and it is perfectly reasonable for customers to be upset when they learn what they payed for isn't what they actually got. I don't know the particulars of this case though, so I won't say I agree or disagree with any of the two sides...

A good example is what went on with the 3 pre-order packages available for World of Tanks. The CEO of Wargaming talked about them on camera, telling the players that these 3 vehicles would be 1-time-only offers and after release they would NEVER be available again. Suddenly they showed up in the gift store half a year or so after release, and I find it perfectly reasonable that people got pissed off... Wargaming did back down on that one and removed the vehicles from their gift shop.

I also understand the people arguing that these "entitled twats just want to keep their special tank for themselves", but I think its shameful that they were encouraging Wargaming to break their original promise to those early customers just because they were late to the party now want in. I totally understand why people wanted to defend their unique tank; its fun to feel special, even for silly reasons!

 

[deleted_by_strongbad]

All limited means is that is isn't always available, "limited edition" items come, go, and come back in every market.

It works because consumers feel that limited means unique, and that makes us feel special, because we (myself included) are dumb (or more generously, influenced by obsolete survival mechanisms) when it comes to material goods and self-identification, in exploiting this, the companies suck just a little more than the consumer.

Lastly, is anyone actually surprised that the online community with the most vile, irredeemable, arrogant, sacks o' crap that you can find this side of 4chan, has people openly raging &/or weeping over some trivial event?

I do actually love lol

 

[Eve Charm]

Well whats the value of having a skin that's not used anymore. They aren't thinking of bringing them back because everyone is using them that has them, they've been replaced with different and better skins to the point where no one sees them, so why not rerun them.

 

[Petromir]

"For the past year, we've been exploring ways to solve a conundrum with Limited Edition skins. Here's the crux of the issue:
-During events from December 2009 through October 2011, we released 34 skins for a limited time and communicated they wouldn't come back into the store.
-Since then, our playerbase has grown so much that these skins are virtually never seen in game

-Every day we receive heartfelt emails with compelling stories from players asking for the chance to own or gift their favorite skin, either because they missed the brief store window due to travel, illness, deployment, etc., or because they hadn't joined the LoL community yet."

These are Riot's own words from the page about the event, They told people it would not be made available again so basically they lied. They can go on about these "heartfelt" e-mails and skins like bewitching Nidalee only being seen every thousand games (I've only played for about a year and personally I have seen this skin used more than just about every Lux skin) but they are doing for one thing GREED they want the all the monies. I don't own any of these skins in fact I don't own ANY skins and while I have always wanted Christmas Sona and kittykat I'm still more upset than happy.

If people bought something under the assumption that it would not be for sale again and then it is of course they get angry or feel "entitled" as you put it but to me entitlement looks more like "Why do these guys who played for years and years get something I don't? I WANT IT RIGHT NOW!"

The words there suggest that they said one thing and then circumstances changed and they changed their mind. This means that one thing they did not do following the info in those statements is lie, as lie suggests that at the moment the original communication was made they knew it to be false (i.e. they always intended to resell latter). In this case your evidence provides no evidence they lied, just that they at least changed their mind, possibly they lied but there is no evidence there.

Note this doesn't mean I agree with the decision, merely that I disagree that they nesserially lied here.

 

[ERaptor]

They didnt do any extra work to get these things. Its a matter of being at the right place at the right time, to get some stupid vanity-item that has NO impact on the game. I know a lot of people who joined LoL pretty late compared to others, and were very diasspointed they couldnt get any of the skins. And i myself had some skin i couldnt get, because i didnt have the money at the time. So i think its cool of Riot to give others another chance. Besides, they are refunding people who had them beforehand, which means those entitled little Crybabys got the thing for free. I have a difficult time taking people seriously, who want exclusive vanity-content just for the sake to boast about it. "Look at me, i have it and you dont!". It just underlines how freaking toxic the LoL-Comm really is.

 

[KillMeOnceMore]

I had a similar discussion/debate with someone about consoles exclusives. My argument was that exclusives pose no benefit to users and the only benefactors are console manufacturers who actually lose out software sales in the long run through such a model. His argument basically boiled down to "I don't want Xbox users playing as Nathan Drake because it would make my console seem less special, so therefore exclusives are good". Same difference: he doesn't want a certain kind of person having what he has as he feels it will taint what he has (in riots case it's noobs, in this case, Xbox users)

People attach value and meaning to all kind of things and through all kinds of processes, and if you apply cold logic to it they can come off as petty, selfish and entitled when they feel it's being eroded. But from their point of view such things are sapping at their identity and that is a very human thing to want to protect, so such reactions are to be expected and natural to some degree.

Doesn't mean they have to be dicks about it, mind. That still makes them dicks however you look at it.

 

[Vegosiux]

I would say yes, you are liar.

And I would say I'm not, seeing as there was no way of knowing whether or not what I said is true until months or years into the future.

Call it "dishonest" if you want, I'm going to tolerate that, but calling Riot "liars" for this is nothing but self-ingratiating ego stroking.

The words there suggest that they said one thing and then circumstances changed and they changed their mind. This means that one thing they did not do following the info in those statements is lie, as lie suggests that at the moment the original communication was made they knew it to be false (i.e. they always intended to resell latter). In this case your evidence provides no evidence they lied, just that they at least changed their mind, possibly they lied but there is no evidence there.

Note this doesn't mean I agree with the decision, merely that I disagree that they nesserially lied here.

See, this guy gets it and uses his brain instead of crying bloody murder and jumping on the hate bandwagon.