Atmos Duality said:
While I admire your ability to argue semantics, you are still arguing semantics.
EDIT: Upon re-consideration. I see how this would go in circles.
I'm still calling bullshit on anyone using "Entitlement" as a copout argument, since it's ultimately futile, and not helpful in the slightest. Customers have a right to be happy/unhappy with the deals EA (or anyone else) is offering; calling them entitled for saying why they reject those offers is in itself childish and blatant trolling.
The whole topic has lead to a lot of disrespectful name-calling, as is the wont of the Internet.
I posit again that if they hate such things, they should just reject doing business with such models to begin with, lest they encourage and enable them. If you buy the DLC, expect more of future games to become DLC.
I see what you're talking about. I think you're giving more benefit of the doubt to people than I do. Where you're seeing people rejecting the DLC and explaining why, I'm not seeing people rejecting the DLC, so much as insisting they should get it for $0. This not-so-subtle difference seems to be where our opinions veer off.
The initial responses (and I'm generalizing terribly here, but it's pretty close to what I've seen on these forums) are those who say "There is optional content I can pay more money for? It is not enough for me to ignore it and vote with my wallet; I must call everyone who buys it brainwashed and demand I get it for free, because I heard it is part of the original game, and therefore it must be."
The reaction to this being, "Stop acting like you're entitled to the content; buy it or don't."
For my part, at least, I do not intend the use of the word "entitlement" as a pejorative, although you rightly point out how it can be one. To me, I'm simply labeling the behavior in the hopes that the behavee will understand Bioware doesn't owe them that content in any way shape or form. I suppose it would be more helpful to the situation to take a nicer tact, but since we're talking about this on a technical level, I still posit the use of the term to be correct.
I liken it to calling someone "cheap" for leaving a 2% tip for a waitress. Not because her service was bad, but so that the meal would cost less. Is labeling that person cheap somewhat of an insult? Yea, I suppose so. But it's an accurate label because that person was actively engaging in the behavior of being cheap. COULD one use a better term? "Oh, you're a careful spender, my friend." Sure. But that doesn't invalidate the accuracy of that initial term.
I'm guessing this is where we agree to disagree. Ultimately, I would give a nod to you that there are better ways to reply to this situation than to just call people entitled and be done with it. It does inherently bring some baggage with it. But I'm still sticking to my guns that it is (mostly) what is happening in these forums.
It is a pleasure having a meeting of wits. You are a far wiser and more agreeable chap than many I've met on this wild and crazy internet. I salute you.