"Gamer Entitlement": Current state of gaming journalism and industry

[userwhoquitthesite]

The hobby is being throttled by laziness and greed. The companies are experimenting with lazy design decisions, and fans are buying them because we're lazy and don't make them change. They're overcharging for content, then instead of forcing them to change, we make a token complaint and buy the shit anyway.

This may be the last generation for me. If the rumors about the new xbox are true, I won't purchase it EVER, and honestly, given the customer service I've seen lately, I can believe such things would come to pass.

 

[Olikar]

Strawmen

You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I think quite honestly that if you're going to release an installment in a series, you have to consider that there are fans who are invested in it, who have expectations and who will be vocal if they don't like what you've done. You can't just say "Treat it as if it were a standalone game" and immediately categorise all complaints related to ruining series integrity, alienating fans, screwing with lore, changing gameplay mechanics, etc. as invalid.

As far as entitlement is concerned, actually, it links in with my view of a game in a series vs a standalone game: If fans have invested time and money into a series, and support that series, they are right to expect that any changes to the series are done with respect, and with their interests in mind. Otherwise, you don't buy in, you don't get out, as far as I'm concerned. If they make a shitty game, who cares, as long as they haven't built up any expectations, they shouldn't have to meet any. But a series comes with its own expectations before money is handed over. Mass Effect is the perfect example, because it's central 'gimmick' was based on expectations. Every fan of that game expected their choices to matter, expected an ending that was fulfilling and didn't create any plot holes, and expected Bioware to put in a bit of fucking effort in areas like...Tali's photo, for instance. I think Mass Effect fans ARE entitled to a decent game when there's been two games leading up to it. As for DMC, I'm not invested, so I wouldn't be surprised if my opinion wasn't considered when they were deciding what to do with the next game. They're allowed to insult me with it, I'm not in a position to care. But antagonising fans is never the right thing to do, and certainly not when they've taken a reboot poorly. That's when you should be explaining, or in some cases apologising, for the changes you've made and assuring fans that most of what they love about the series has been kept intact.

And as for fans actually impacting the game's sales, for fuck's sake. How does anyone propose they did that? They're perfectly allowed to not exchange any money for a reboot they don't want, and I highly doubt compromising previous games is going to weigh heavily on a prospective player. Fans are not a guaranteed source of income that you can treat however you want, and they're not mandated to buy your product because they bought the last one.

 

[Olikar]

Strawmen

You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Strawman
A misrepresentation of an opponent's position

for example

So you blame the fans for not buying a game from a company that specifically said it doesn't care about the fans or their money and was looking for mainstream appeal?

My definition is pretty solid.

You might be the one who doesn't know.

Oh right I see you do know what it means you just use it incorrectly because you have no other means to defend your idiotic ramblings.

 

[Olikar]

Strawmen

You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Strawman
A misrepresentation of an opponent's position

for example

So you blame the fans for not buying a game from a company that specifically said it doesn't care about the fans or their money and was looking for mainstream appeal?

My definition is pretty solid.

You might be the one who doesn't know.

Oh right I see you do know what it means you just use it incorrectly because you have no other means to defend your idiotic ramblings.

Ad hominum

The last resort of a man without an argument.

No the resort of a man without an argument is to constantly spout 'Hurr ad hominum' 'Hurr strawman' even when there isn't one so he doesn't have to address the points given to him.

 

[Milanezi]

I think you are missing the overall message of the articles.

The companies are not entitled to the money. They are not even trying to argue that.

What is going is being highlighted is a direct fan vendetta to a reboot.

We are going to us DmC as an example.

DmC is a solid game it its own right. It has its problems ofc, but solid non the less. However there is an utter refusal to judge DmC on its own merit because there is an entitlement of the old fans to right of ownership. They are fans and therefore DmC was theirs. And so a game wont get judged on its merits, but rather on how much homage the fans receive.

Essentially a fan scorn is a destructive force to your sales beyond the one sale they represent.

So many "fans" dont just want to pay the ticket and get a show. They want an ego stroke along with their ticket. And when their ego stroke is denied they rage. "How dare they change the franchise I helped build! How dare they not make the game for us! We made the game succeed!" and thus the quality doesn't come into the picture anymore. It just become an issue off how much the core can be catered to.

Heh you aptly pointed the kind of behavior that keeps pushing me farther and farther away from this kind of "entitled" gamer. They're all more than willing to pre judge the product, sometimes because it's a reboot, sometimes because a certain company bought its rights. Sure, sometimes they're right, but sometimes they see flaws that they wouldn't see unless they WANTED to find them only so they can say the product is a failure. Much like the stupid comparisons between PS3 and Xbox 360, with people complaining about levels of pixels and whatnot that can only be perceived by someone who's using an specific software that will enhance the image so much more so than the best HD TV around.

 

[Frybird]

I have yet to see a decent title destroyed by idiot haters; if a good game tanks, it's usually due to poor advetisement.

I can remember Mirror's Edge, wich has been hated upon because apperantly it is blasphemy to even try to make Jump n Run Gameplay in First Person work, and because it was "Trial and Error" (you know...like most Games). I can remember how the Internet hated on the Prince of Persia Reboot for "not having death", even though this was only theoretically true and in practice the outcome of failures wasn't much different to it's predecessors. I remember "Enslaved" failing because you can't double-jump around freely. I remember Rayman Origins underperforming because as it seems once you make a 2D Game, it must be sold for ten bucks.

I am aware that none of the games mentioned have been "destroyed by idiot haters" alone, but i am pretty sure each game suffered unfairly from the overexaggeration of minor nitpicks that have been blown out of proportion because everyone gets to stand on the soapbox for a second.



I am sorry that i am not going to reply in-depth for the rest of your answer.
I find some of your points agreeable and well made, but it seems we indeed do have a very different perception of the whole thing overall.

It might be easy to pick out biases and well made criticisms in a single thread, but from the standpoint of the industry, wich does not have the luxury of picking out a few favorite message boards, i can understand how they get increasingly pissed at thier fanbase. You may not agree, but in my experience, the pointless nitpicking and unfair bitching is of a FAR greater quantity than understandable concerns, wich, combined with the fact that every so often, the sales numbers (the most important numbers in the end, because everyone's got bills to pay) speak a much different language, makes the "hardcore crowd" as a whole look unreliable and annoying.


And even i, who has nothing to do with the industry outside of being a constant customer, am just so tired of the constant negativity, the predictability of that negativity (There was no way DmC wouldn't have been met with negative hype unless it was the exact same game as DMC 3), and the not rarely complete lack of levelheadedness (wich is especially evident when it comes to anything DLC), that i just don't feel like the creators of games "owe" the "Gamers" nearly as much as we all seem to think.

 

[PortalThinker113]

snip

Wow, when did Forbes become such a bastion of reasonable, level-headed discussion about video games? I never once thought of them as a go-to site for video games until the ME3 fiasco happened, and suddenly there were lots of really well-written, reasonable articles about fan-developer interaction that didn't just descend into "Screw you, fans!" And apparently they did it again with DmC. I love those two articles you posted. Well played, Forbes. Well played.

OP: I think there is a fine line to walk here. I cannot deny that I got quite sick of the sheer, mind-numbing amount of angry complaining about Mass Effect 3 prior to release. Some Bioware fans (not all of them, of course- sweeping generalizations are bad) really got out of hand with childish complaints, and I don't blame Bioware for being angry and frustrated at the masses of the internet.

However, ignoring any and all complaints about the game and dismissing them to a pile of "haters" is also not something you can afford to do. Many fans had very reasonable arguments against ME3 and DmC, and constructive criticism about flaws in the product should be noted and observed rather than completely dismissed. The problem becomes sifting through the waves of knee-jerk bullshit to find the serious criticism, but those with a reasonable degree of experience with the internet should probably be able to find what they're looking for. Mishandling the reaction to a game and just dumping all blame on the fanbase should not be how things are handled.

Bioware is a perfect case in point here. I was very much waiting for them to actually make a definite statement about the ending that isn't just "artistic integrity!" or the frankly nasty and juvenile comments that the OP showed. (Like I said, I don't blame them for feeling that way, but you do need to act with some professional decorum on a stage that big. Don't sink to their level.) This is not out of hate- I'm genuinely curious as to what the thought process was that went into designing the ending, and I would love to hear their defense of their own work. But to date, I really haven't seen anything, and that plus other aspects of their initial reaction really disappointed me and turned me a bit away from one of my favorite developers.

Like the Forbes article said, fans voted with their wallets as far as DmC goes, and apparently that's bad? What are they supposed to do, then? Should every single fan of Devil May Cry that didn't like the look of DmC say, "Well, I don't think this game looks very good, but as a fan I am obligated to purchase every single game that comes out in that series new, for $60, so I have experience with every title?" No. Granted, you should not then go post a 0/10 review on Metacritc complaining about how much the game sucks, because that is also juvenile, but you are under no obligation to buy it, and you shouldn't be "blamed" for that.

 

[Callate]

I'm as tired as anyone of the word "entitled" being swung around like the great all-purpose bludgeon to belittle all grievances into submission. But let me play devil's advocate for a second, here. For the games industry, every AAA title is an enormous investment of time and money that they really, really need to pay off if they're going to have a chance to make more games in the future; it doesn't take a whole lot of failures to completely sink even a company of significant size.

By comparison, it takes very little time and effort to complain about a game and to find others who will either join in with those complaints or at least give them an audience. It's one thing, I think, to complain about something like Mass Effect- which had two games before it to foster expectations as well as the words of its developers which players not entirely unfairly viewed as promises, and which received comparatively little negative attention until well after the game was in people's hands. It's another thing to see a game set up to fail long before it ever reaches its gold master disk. If you spent thousands of hours of people's lives and millions of dollars in capital on bringing something into being, only to see it being sabotaged before it even seemed to have a chance to stand on its own merit (or so it would likely seem to you from the developer and publisher's point of view), how would you react?

No, seriously. Not a rhetorical question. How would you react? I think there's certainly reason to feel that game companies PR departments have often failed in their relations with the public, either by sending out the wrong message, not sending out a message at all, or failing to impose any kind of discipline in the way the (understandably emotionally invested) creators of a game interact with those who comment upon it. But I think it's pretty clear that in the face of that huge investment, just standing by and letting an invisible army tear your work to pieces isn't a good response, either.

As far as the journos go, I suspect it's too easy when "looking down from on high" to crush everyone together into as few categories as possible, such that people who are complaining about minor cosmetic details get lumped in with people who are fed up about well-established trends of abuse. I'd hesitate to make the assertion that company tampering with game journalists is the standard and the expectation- yet. If you take the public as a block, game journalists are in a hard place- if they rank big games well, it's implied that they're the publisher's pawns, but when a publication like Edge dares to give a fan favorite a 7/10, they're pilloried for that. It's understandable that games journalism would need to comment about fanbases when their reactions unquestionably have a real effect on the market today; I just think some would do well to remember that they aren't so far removed from the crowd they comment upon for standing atop a soapbox.

 

[Krantos]

I actually think there are a couple of dynamics at work here.

First off, let me make my opinion on what developers/publishers and game journalists should and should not say clear: DON'T INSULT YOUR CUSTOMERS!

I think that about sums it up (seriously, this is business 101).

Anyway, the dynamics I talked about earlier. The first dynamic we're seeing is related to PR. Marketing and PR is the art of making other people see things the way you want them to see them. If your marketing/PR is alienating a large section of your consumer base, you're doing it wrong. There is a very good reason that many large companies are highly restrictive about who can represent their company publicly. Anyone visible to the public eye will reflect their actions and words on the whole company. This why people are continually being fired/reprimanded for their twitter/blog/etc. The public sees this, knows they are part of x organization and it reflects on the organization.

This is why companies have PR departments. It's their job to manage the company's public image. The saying that there is no such thing as bad press is demonstrably wrong. Ask Bank of America about its Debit Fees. Bad PR can ruin a company.

The trouble is many game companies are not being careful enough with their public image. If you work in a restaurant, it doesn't matter how rude the customer is, you keep your mouth shut. A lot of game companies, however, don't seem capable of doing this. When an outcry occurs, rather than trying to pacify the vocal parties (this doesn't mean changing the game, simply influencing public perception), game company representatives strike back. This in turn make the rage greater and gives the company even more bad PR.

So, why are game companies so bad about this? Well, that has to do with the other dynamic I talked about. Gamers are wising up. Historically, publishers and developers didn't need to worry about what core gamers thought. For AAA titles, they could count on them buying the game anyway. This was especially true for a longstanding franchise, or a popular developer (see BioWare). With that setup, these companies could focus their marketing on non-core gamers. In the case of franchises, you didn't need to sell to the people that liked the last game, you just had to sell to the people who didn't (see Dragon Age 2).

That's starting to change, it seems (FINALLY!). With all the options gamers have, it's becoming less and less unthinkable to not buy the next game in your favorite franchise. Why spend money on a game that doesn't provide the engagement you want, when you can buy a game that does instead. Why be loyal to a franchise if you don't like it anymore.

Gamers are also starting to recognize and fight back against bad PR. BioWare is a PERFECT example of this. Most people I talk to who are no longer BioWare customers didn't abandon it because of their games (there's an element of that, though), it's because of how abysmal their PR has been. Former fans have gotten tired of their opinions being marginalized. Tired of being called names. Tired of a company that is no longer making games for them, but expects them to buy them anyway.

These dynamics, taken together, are going to start having serious repercussions in the games industry. It used to be the games industry only sold to the core gamers since few others were likely to buy the games. That changed when gaming started becoming more popular. Then, in the transition, the industry discovered that many/most core gamers would buy a AAA title even if it wasn't really marketed towards them, so the industry started to ignore them. We're currently experiencing the blow-back from that. Core gamers are realizing they're being ignored and are striking back against it. The industry, meanwhile, is starting to see a market share that was previously guaranteed falling away. Not knowing how to deal with that, they are striking back in response, which is just making the rift greater. I'm interested to see how this plays out in the long run.

TL;DR The industry has been trying to have it's cake and eat it. Rather than placating angry customers, they're lashing back, which never works. Gamers, meanwhile are finally starting to speak with they're wallets. Combined we're seeing an interesting conflict in the industry as the companies abandon their traditional customer base for a deeper, but more fickle popular market.

Oh and:

Spoiler

I have no words. Fans owe a franchise nothing. It doesn't matter how you alienate fans, or what it's about. They are under no obligation to buy anything. If you want to ignore fan feedback, more power to you, but you don't get to complain when they don't buy the game. That's just how economics works. The games industry has to follow the same rules as everyone else.

 

[xPixelatedx]

"How dare they change the franchise I helped build! How dare they not make the game for us!

In no context is that part of your post an argument against fans, but kind of helps their case. I don't understand why it's an alien concept that you make a particular kind of game for the people who want to play that kind of game ...? I don't know, am I missing something here? I mean, is there a reason why this cannot be done anymore? Yeah, the fans of the old DMC aren't buying the new one, and while their complaining is indeed annoying, they have every right to still not buy the new game. They are in no way 'in the wrong' for that. They are not being sold the product they want, therefor they have no reason to put money forth or like anything about it. That's the thing to, people are often vocal about what they don't like, particularly if it's an icon that's being defiled.

Remember American Godzilla?

How about the universally despised redesign of the loony tunes?

Why isn't anyone saying these things bombed because we just want our egos stroked? Because they aren't video games. Video games are still considered a silly, frivolous thing. The characters synonymous with gaming are still, by the majority, considered interchangeable, changeable and otherwise disposable. Some people however see gaming the same way they see other media, and to them a defamation of their favorite game characters is just as insulting as a defamation of Bugs Bunny. This was the inevitable conclusion gaming was going to reach now that so many gamers are growing up with this hobby, and I imagine to them someone like Dante really is their generation's Bugs Bunny, Godzilla, etc.

 

[ChristopherT]

Companies release footage - teaser images, trailers, snips of information, for people to talk about them, in hopes to get people excited about the product. We, as a people, as those who invest in video games, read these interviews, watch these trailers, and we do what they want, we talk about them. It's hardly ever clean, simple to read, point by point opinion pieces - because there are a lot of people all wanting to get their thoughts out there. And the majority of those thoughts are usually left in the dust, the larger amounts of "meh" and "looks okay" "not sure" are over looked, forgotten about in favor of the "I hate this!" and "They ruined it!", "The Devs should DiE!" and so, the other group comes in "ENTITLED!" "Stop Whining!" "You Ruin everything" and then it's a shouting match. And, that's just what we do to ourselves, without the journalism's "Okay kids, Daddy's home!" bullshit.

The journalists who pop up, the paid professionals who sweep right in, with their heads up their asses, "I saw the same video you saw, and it was fucking AWESOME! If you don't like the games then you are all dumb snot nosed kids and should be ashamed!" and the 2nd group goes "YES! We love you journalist! You tell those plebs!" and the 1st group responds with their bile.

Which leaves the in betweeners watching on, looking, they get into the argument, because they want their voices heard "Well, that part is different from what we've seen." "I really hope that part works" "I'm not sure this is for me." "Looks alright, I guess" and the second hand journalists come in, "Oh dear god, it's worse then I've thought, they've multiplied!" And it then becomes an idea of, we like it, or you HATE it - that is to the small 2nd group that's shouting as loud as they can, "Problem!? Go die in a fire and let us real gamers enjoy our games!" "If this game fails it's all your faults!"

Then the in betweeners decide to leave, they say screw this, I said my peace, I'm out, have fun. And the others carry on, and add the in betweers' numbers to the hater side, and "Look at all these whining losers!" when most of those are the in betweeners.

IN SHORT - Pre Release footage is released so we can talk about it, anyone says anything negative at this stage is labeled a whiner, so folks step in to call them out, this erupts, anyone at this stage who comes in and doesn't either post "Whiners!" or doesn't post something positive is then added to the ranks of whiners by default - which makes it seem the like Whiners are this large entity when out of the 200 hundred or so, only 10 of which actually hate the game at this stage.

It's become fuck anyone who doesn't say anything positive

 

[Sonic Doctor]

This is not exactly a new thing though; Mass Effect 3 had many fans riled up for various good reasons (such as plagiarism, cut out content sold as on disc DLC, using stock photos from the internet, lackluster visuals etc.) while the developers tried to downplay all controversy and openly insulted their fanbase in the process. Didn't like the game? You're just mad about the ending! And you hated Dragon Age 2? You're just a homophobe misogynist who doesn't like Hepler's writing because she is a woman!

Spoiler: Fan vs. Bioware reactions *click to expand*

Due to Bioware's horrible PR I decided to abstain from buying both of those games (and Bioware titles in future), though I didn't pay much attention to how stuff developed after that. I wasn't much a fan of their games in the first place despite enjoying both the original ME and DA so the controversy didn't manage to hold my interest and I thought that this was just one unfortunate case.

I will just touch on the Bioware stuff, since in that is the only thing I care about from what you discussed.

For the most part I agree with what David Gaider says in the spoiled Fans vs. Bioware bit.
The stuff that Aaryn Flynn said was out of order; he should never have said such things.
Stanley Woo, I agree with him too, especially the part about, "talented, creative individuals who have ideas of their own that they would like to implement in the game. etc. etc."

I feel one of the reasons that the game market seems stagnant in some areas, if not all, is that instead of trying to create their own thing from their ideas, game developers/creators have decided to, though sometimes forced to by publishers, cater to what the fans want and continue to try and do so and change each iteration of a game very little. For the most part the industry has become one that asks itself, "what will make the players/customers buy the game," instead of in the past when it was more like, "what will make this game cool, interesting, and feel new, we hope people like what we are doing, if they don't, we move on." The main arm of the industry has become less about creativity, and more about supposed customer "enjoyment".

What the industry needs to do is think about and nurture the creative minds it uses to create the games, instead of doting heavily on fans.

I have always felt that the main "fan" outcry about the end of the Mass Effect 3 was blown way out of proportion, and found the calls for refunds, petitions to change the game, and more to be quite silly. I for one would never change something I created because some group of people didn't like some of the things I came up with to add to my stories. I also for one have always believed that the creator of a story is the one that has the final say in what something means and why it is there in the story and if it should be there. If some people don't like it, tough cookies, they can move along to something else and let the people that are fine with it have their thing.

Finally, I would say that there are gamers that feel/act entitled. I saw plenty of people saying that because they were "loyal" fans and paid EA/Bioware money for the past installments of ME that they should have gotten all the different endings that they wanted. The problem is that these people don't understand that because they bought past games means jack-crap. These people decided to buy a game because they were interested in it, that is it. That money did not buy them some kind of creative say/right to the franchise. If the creators want to take the franchise/story in a different direction and feel that they only have the time to make the game a certain way, then that is the way it is.

(A bit off-topic, though it relates) It is similar to how some gamers think that because they are interested in buying a game, they think that they are entitled to test it out, that if the creator doesn't release a demo for the game, that it is okay to pirate the game to test it out to see if they want to purchase it. If there isn't a demo, then there are plenty of other ways to find out if a game is good.

Journalists and the gaming industry aren't wrong in saying some gamers are acting entitled and being "crybabies". They would only be wrong if they said that "all" gamers act entitled and are "crybabies".

 

[Vegosiux]

There are "fans" who will actively seek the games destruction in an effort to vindicate their opinions.

And they intend to bring about said destruction...how exactly? I mean, just badmouthing and metacritic abuse obviously isn't going to make a game bomb if it wasn't abysmal to begin with. That's what I don't get, really, all this talk about "actively seeking destruction" and "actively trying to destroy a franchise", what do you mean by it? What are these people doing that could actually achieve those goals?