Poll: Are gamers today too self entitiled?

[Chairman Miaow]

This is a thread about gamer entitlement. Your post was saying that this wouldn't happen in other mediums. But it has. It's irrelevant whether or not it's ok, it has happened.

I hope to fucking God you're kidding. My point was that this happens far more frequently in gaming rather than it never happens anywhere else. I was using hyperbole to emphasise my point.

Name me any examples other than ME. People complain about these things all the time, in all mediums, for something to be demanded changed is rare, in all mediums. and no need to be rude about it.

L4D2 (they wanted it as a free expansion).
Day-1 DLC (like it or not, it happens, and your aren't ENTITLED to that content for free).
MW2/MW3 dedicated servers.
Dark Souls PC port.
Pre-Order DLC (believe it or not, I still hear bitching about this).
Online Passes.
Annual Sports Games as roster updates.

And these are just things off the top of my head. Not really even thinking that hard... But, Should I continue?

Bitching is not the same as demanding it be changed. I never heard anything about the L4D2 thing, and I could understand why it should be DLC rather than a new game, it's basically the same, but definitely not for free. I definitely don't see what's wrong with wanting dedicated servers or to be able to play a game on a certain platform. Pre-order DLC is perfectly fine, and I don't understand why people complain about it, same for sports games, but it's just people voicing complaints, it does no harm. I can understand why people complain about online passes, but I disagree, I think used games are bad for the industry, but that's a discussion for another time. I wasn't saying people didn't *****. People ***** about everything. Hell, people ***** about people bitching, and about people bitching about people bitching. I was saying that people don't demand for things to be changed anymore than in any other medium. And besides, you are on a games site, I bet if you were in a book club there would be just as much complaining.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Even more deluded words.

No, you have the power to complain when you dislike the game and that's it, even when they falsely advertise. Yes, they have to pander to the market but if you didn't like it then they don't have to change it. They don't even have to change it if the entire market complains because they already have their money, you've already given them all the reason you felt so entitled in the first place.

Why do you think having money makes you so fucking special? You're not the only one and mainstream games can fuck up and still be successful regardless of what you think of them. You don't have any power with regards to the games design aside from 'will they like this feature?' Your after release opinion is worth jack shit once you've given them your money.

All this entitlement you claim because you're the consumer is gone because you've already consumed. How much more can I drive the point into you that you as an individual have absolutely no way of controlling a company's creative endeavours and therefore have no individual entitlement. The only entitled party is the market, which you make up a meagre percentage of, and they're entitled to a game the company has advertised; the only thing that matters pre-release is demand.

False advertisement is different. Then you have a legit complaint and should talk to the relevant administrations to deal with it. One thing you can't do is demand a game be changed so it suits the advertisement. Bioware and EA are just saving face with this DLC.

Name me any examples other than ME. People complain about these things all the time, in all mediums, for something to be demanded changed is rare, in all mediums. and no need to be rude about it.

My sincere apologies for any offence but you have to realise that this topic is ridiculous. The notion that the consumer preference should have any sway past 'lots of people use this way' for distribution is ridiculous; the idea that consumers have the power to change creative works is equally stupid too.

I'm not going to name examples though, I simply can't. I'm only human so I haven't remembered each case and I don't really want to spend my time trawling the internet searching for examples. I think the fact that 40% of people think that it's a problem is evidence enough that it is. It might not be a majority but it's still large enough to constitute acknowledgement that there is an issue.

 

[Chairman Miaow]

Name me any examples other than ME. People complain about these things all the time, in all mediums, for something to be demanded changed is rare, in all mediums. and no need to be rude about it.

My sincere apologies for any offence but you have to realise that this topic is ridiculous. The notion that the consumer preference should have any sway past 'lots of people use this way' for distribution is ridiculous; the idea that consumers have the power to change creative works is equally stupid too.

I'm not going to name examples though, I simply can't. I'm only human so I haven't remembered each case and I don't really want to spend my time trawling the internet searching for examples. I think the fact that 40% of people think that it's a problem is evidence enough that it is. It might not be a majority but it's still large enough to constitute acknowledgement that there is an issue.

I'm really sorry but I just can't understand why consumer preference should have no sway. The product is being made FOR the consumer, surely they should listen to what the consumer wants?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

I'm only human so I haven't remembered each case and I don't really want to spend my time trawling the internet searching for examples. I think the fact that 40% of people think that it's a problem is evidence enough that it is. It might not be a majority but it's still large enough to constitute acknowledgement that there is an issue.

Am I the only one who finds this hilarious, given the context of this discussion?

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I really have to ask, are you kind of stupid? Because I haven't once said that I ALONE make some kind of huge difference. Seems you have some major reading comprehension issues buddy.

You never said it because it was implied in the issue. It isn't a market entitlement, if it were a market entitlement then it wouldn't be an issue: the market is always only entitled to what the producer promises. It takes an individual's own entitlement to make problems like that in the OP. Certain people feel they personally deserve more from the producer, not the market.

 

[Squidbulb]

As far as I'm concerned, you're entitle to everything on the disc, as long as it's functional. If it's not functional (i.e. it's so buggy it's unplayable) then you deserve your money back. If you don't like it, tough, sell it. If it's good but not what you expected, tough.

 

[Sutter Cane]

I know I'm not part of the conversation, but I always viewed the consoles as a product that was "easier" to deal with. In which I mean, with a computer, you have all your personal things on it, and you need to have knowledge of computers in order to make the most of it (and most people don't. My mother still doesn't know what a "tab" is on internet browsers, let alone that Internet Explorer isn't the only internet browser). It's sort of a trade-off, and when I was younger, the Xbox seemed to be the simpler choice. The PC's market always seemed (when the 360 came out) that you got what you paid for, and if you wanted something with more flexibility and more computing power, well, you better pay up. Now I'm on my way to getting a job, and I already can tell that despite the extra strings, the PC market is something I'd like to join, especially since I'll hopefully be getting a job soon. But once again, consumers will gravitate to what they prefer. If consumers want consoles, they want easier, albeit more constricted, gameplay platforms. If they want PC games, they want more flexibility, and games that reach the epitome of the technology they have. If they have something twice as powerful as a 360, they want a game that has twice the computing power. It's just expected.

Yep. You elucidate nicely one of the perfectly legitimate reasons why the console market is bigger than the PC market. Bigger just doesn't mean better, necessarily, and it certainly doesn't mean the PC market is doomed to extinction. It's just a smaller market aimed a slightly different demographic.

Besides which, a true gaming enthusiast goes multi-platform anyway! =D

acting like you should have authorial control over a work simply because you're a fan = entitled.

Ya know, this has been bugging me for some time now. No one is asserting authorial control. If they were, they'd be insisting that they be allowed to write the ending themselves. They are attempting to assert authorial influence. Which is perfectly commonplace.

well I have actually seen several people make the argument that because they sunk x amount of hours into the game, and that because the choices you make influence the way the story is told, that they (the player in general) should be considered a co-author and thus be able to tell bioware how to end their game.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

well I have actually seen several people make the argument that because they sunk x amount of hours into the game, and that because the choices you make influence the way the story is told, that they (the player in general) should be considered a co-author and thus be able to tell bioware how to end their game.

To be honest, if you want to blame anyone for introducing the concept of co-authorship into the equation, blame Bioware. They're the ones (Casey Hudson and Mike Gamble specifically) who have been quoted as saying they consider the players to be co-authors.

Realistically, though, I think it's fairly evident the players want BIOWARE to write them a new ending. Not write it themselves. Which is why they're pestering Bioware with cupcakes and charitable donations like the entitled monsters they are.

Mind you I've seen some of the endings written by fans, and they were a damn sight better than the one we got.

Go on then, enlighten me as to why this is hilarious.

I'm pretty sure you can figure that out for yourself.

 

[AnarchistAbe]

I really have to ask, are you kind of stupid? Because I haven't once said that I ALONE make some kind of huge difference. Seems you have some major reading comprehension issues buddy.

You never said it because it was implied in the issue. It isn't a market entitlement, if it were a market entitlement then it wouldn't be an issue: the market is always only entitled to what the producer promises. It takes an individual's own entitlement to make problems like that in the OP. Certain people feel they personally deserve more from the producer, not the market.

Sorry, but no, you're just plain wrong. The producer doesn't decide what the Market is entitled to, the Market does that, it's how the entire system works.

Obviously this is NOT how the system works, or we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Obviously this is NOT how the system works, or we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

The market says "We want a widget".

The producer/developer sees a market for widgets, and goes into business delivering widgets to the populace.

If they make widgets that satisfy consumer desires, they sell lots of widgets and everyone is happy.

If they make widgets that don't satisfy consumer desires, they call the consumers entitled babies and implore them to buy widget DLC.

Can you see at which step the consumer/developer relationship is breaking down in this particular circumstance?

 

[NiPah]

So I guess entitlement is the new catch-all term people will use against others who argue against an aspect they didn't like in a game? Seems like a pretty shitty cop-out when you don't argue against the actual point they're making (the ME3 ending what shat, G4WL will break the port), now all you have to do is personally insult them like a parent scolds a child.

Gamers might be whiny, god knows a lot of us complain, but we certainly aren't entitled, that would require game companies always drop what they are doing and give us exactly what we want.

 

[Mau95]

This:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/comics/critical-miss/9541-Mass-Effect-3-Retake-This

 

[kickyourass]

Yes not all of us are, or even close to the majority, the 'entitlement' mostly comes from a minority just large enough and vocal enough to make all of us look bad.
But yes many, MANY gamers are entitled shit heads, using your example of Mass Effect, being disappointed in a game's ending is fine, saying the ending should be changed is also fine (God knows I've seen stuff I wish they'd change). DEMANDING it be changed because you think you somehow have a 'right' to the game same as the developer, is entitlement with a healthy dose of 'no-idea-how-the-world-works.'

 

[DSK-]

No, I don't think they are. The majority of the time there are arguably legitimate concerns. I think the terminology 'gamer entitlement' is something the bribed, game-reviewing hyenas have created.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

I want good entertainment, if you don't provide me good entertainment i wont give you my money.
Easy as pie. Works with every good i purchase - not only games.


Ah jeah, and i remember. If your last game was shit, i'll very likley not buy your next unless i could test it somewhere.
EA has to go through this with every game. That's probably why - with the exception of Mass Effect - Spore was the last game i bought from them.

If i'm entitled when i don't like to get false promises and bad products.. then yes i am. And with everything anyone tries to sell me.

 

[AnarchistAbe]

I really have to ask, are you kind of stupid? Because I haven't once said that I ALONE make some kind of huge difference. Seems you have some major reading comprehension issues buddy.

You never said it because it was implied in the issue. It isn't a market entitlement, if it were a market entitlement then it wouldn't be an issue: the market is always only entitled to what the producer promises. It takes an individual's own entitlement to make problems like that in the OP. Certain people feel they personally deserve more from the producer, not the market.

Sorry, but no, you're just plain wrong. The producer doesn't decide what the Market is entitled to, the Market does that, it's how the entire system works.

Obviously this is NOT how the system works, or we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

You do hopefully realize that you and the unworthy fellow being ignorant as to how the system works does not make me wrong, right? I really hope you realize that, because anything else would truely be sad.

What is truly sad is that you have made that statement. Obviously, some random guy on the internet has not changed my opinion. Also, the idea of an argument is that we have opposing ideas/opinions that we both believe to be correct. From my point of view, you are the one who is being stupid. And, as you have been so eager to inform us of, from your point of view, I'm being stupid. I'm just going leave that there.

 

[AnarchistAbe]

Obviously this is NOT how the system works, or we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

The market says "We want a widget".

The producer/developer sees a market for widgets, and goes into business delivering widgets to the populace.

If they make widgets that satisfy consumer desires, they sell lots of widgets and everyone is happy.

If they make widgets that don't satisfy consumer desires, they call the consumers entitled babies and implore them to buy widget DLC.

Can you see at which step the consumer/developer relationship is breaking down in this particular circumstance?

You're operating under the assumption that the publisher can't sell the widget elsewhere. Let's say the widget has performed very well on certain platforms (Xbox, Playstation, iOS, etc.) and has failed to sell on other platforms (PC, Android, Linux, etc.).

From the publisher's perspective, they can either A) research WHY the widget failed in those alternative markets, or B) stop developing for those markets in the first place. Depending on the market, the market size, hassles/problems with said market, and/or miscellaneous other factors, it might just be worth it to go with option B, and let other publishers figure out how to sell to those markets.

 

[AnarchistAbe]

...game-reviewing hyenas...

The easiest way to obtain credibility. Conspiracy theories about "game-reviewing hyenas"...

 

[BloatedGuppy]

You're operating under the assumption that the publisher can't sell the widget elsewhere. Let's say the widget has performed very well on certain platforms (Xbox, Playstation, iOS, etc.) and has failed to sell on other platforms (PC, Android, Linux, etc.).

From the publisher's perspective, they can either A) research WHY the widget failed in those alternative markets, or B) stop developing for those markets in the first place. Depending on the market, the market size, hassles/problems with said market, and/or miscellaneous other factors, it might just be worth it to go with option B, and let other publishers figure out how to sell to those markets.

Well yeah, at the end of the day, that's what you've got when customers/developers come to loggerheads. You have a mexican standoff. The customers can try to leverage the developer into providing what they want by threatening to take their money elsewhere, and the developer can try and decide whether it makes fiduciary sense to abandon X percentage of their potential fan base in order to stick to their guns.

Again, this is a time worn tradition, though. There's nothing new, or pernicious about it. It's certainly not going to devastate the medium, or denigrate art, or destroy the viability of a platform.

 

[Agow95]

Yes people have a right to complain and criticise games, but they shouldn't get to demand that the game be changed because they didn't like it, well, yn fy marn i that is.