Poll: Are We Entitled?

[anthony87]

Entitled?

We're spoiled fucking rotten. People seem to forget that the kinds of games we get to play nowadays are the kind of games that we couldn't even have imagined in the days of the N64/PS1 but instead of being happy and enjoying the medium that we're lucky to be able to enjoy, they just fucking ***** and whine and have their little fucking "boycotts".

"Oh noes! This DLC is costing 10 extra dollars! TEH GAME IS RUINED! EVIL EA EVIL CORPORATIONS!!!" etc.

Seriously, if you're getting pissed off that EXTRA content costs EXTRA money then you're just too much of a greedy moron to be worth bothering with.

silly argument. Mediums evolve, that doesnt mean they get to squeeze every last penny out of us. That's like saying modern medicine has advanced, so you aren't entitled to ***** about lack of cough medicine in a pharmacy.

A pharmacy not stocking enough medicine is a completely different issue, as well something that I'd consider many thousands of times more serious than having to pay extra money for extra stuff.

Feel free to edit that "Silly argument" part out of your post so you don't look like a massive fool.

Yes, you got that did you? Its a completely different issue like how the medium improving is a completely different issue from dayone DLC practices.

Plus, the example was used highlight your ridiculous argument not to equate them.

They're different but not unconnected. The medium has evolved to a point where a game can have more content than what it came with, something that we never thought possible back in the old days. People are being entitled by complaining about having to pay for this DLC and saying that it should be in the game already.

What are you talking about? we've have expansion packs for awhile too, they've just been axed because they can squeeze more money out of us using DLC's.

Anything developed by the original budget, during the original budget and by the due date. Should be in the game, yes. Not sure whats so entitled about that. Every other industry works that way.

Do you have proof that this DLC has been eveloped by the original budget, during the original budget and by the due date?

Prothean squademate mentioned in leaks
confirmation of prothean character feb 8th
Game officaly goes gold feburary 13th.

That's pretty good evidence if you ask me.

Prothean squadmate and Prothean character aren't the same. The Prothean was always intended to be a character in the game. The DLC will let you have the Prothean as a squad member. Perhaps in a similar way that the Shadow Broker DLC let you fight alongside Liara .

The character will be in the game regardless if you get the DLC or not. Therefore the character as an actual squadmate is extra. Extra things cost extra money.

Extra things also take extra deve--oh wait, the prothean squademate is ready day of. Your whole argument falls apart there.
Where as Liara became a squadmate from future dlc's. The prothean is a squademate from the beginning of the release.

It's ready when we get the game. Doesn't mean it was ready when the game went Gold.

 

[GonzoGamer]

You've gone and done that thing where the question in the thread title is different to the one above the poll. Now you won't know which one people are answering when they vote.

(Why yes, I am going to point this out every single time someone does it.)

Anyway...

Yeah, gamers, at least those on the internet, have some severe entitlement issues. The idea that we "deserve" anything at all from a luxury goods business is fucking laughable. If video games were somehow vital to one's survival or health, then there might be something to gripe about. As it is, they're just an amusement we use to pass our spare hours. Developers, publishers and the games industry as a whole owes us absolutely nothing.

Video games, for better or worse, are a business. If you don't agree with a company's practices then have the fucking balls to vote with your wallet and don't support them. Don't like the way console manufacturers try to control their products? Don't buy the bloody console. Don't like developers/publishers releasing Day 1 DLC? Don't by the bloody DLC. Don't buy the bloody game. Don't think a particular product is worth the asking price? Don't bloody buy it.

I support and admire people who are willing to withdraw their custom from a given business on principle, even if I personally disagree with whatever principle that may be.

However, I most definitely don't admire those people who whine themselves inside out while still handing over their money, and I fucking despise those who declare their intention to "boycott" something and show those nasty publishers who's boss, then turn right around, bend over and hand over the dough anyway. Yes, I'm looking at you Left 4 Dead 2 boycotters and Modern Warfare 2 we-want-dedicated-servers people.

That's definitely the truth. I long ago vowed to not buy games with online pass and I've stuck by that; except Saints Row 3 which I didn't realize had an online pass. They can go sucka dick anyway with their Season Pass stacked on top of that and a shiton of dlc detailed at launch. That game was obviously butchered.

But if the choice is between being entitled or being a sucker, I'll choose entitled. At least I wont go broke trying to keep up with all the stupid schemes they come up with to get more and more money out of us.

However,

OP-
I think the bigger problem is that gamers lately seem to have the tendency to over/mis-use the term "entitlement."
Here it is being used correctly:
Paying $60 for a game actually does "entitle" the consumer to a complete product that functions properly.
Why give away all you are legitimately "entitled" to, to a company that already makes a hell of a lot of money off you. That part of it, I'll never understand.

In order to have more money for board members, publishers have been getting more and more aggressive about getting more of our money and giving us less in return. As a result their base market has shrunk this generation, so it seems that some are voting with their wallets.

 

[Ciarin]

Oh its been along time since some guru or another came in and "schooled" me on the business/gaming mechanics. Oh and its a long one. This should be good.

All of your posts display a fundamental lack of how business, software development in general, and games development in specific work.

1. A budget does not (except inasmuch as it informs a floor for price) inform costing decisions. A budget only exists internally and is used to determine the assignment of production assets and costs. No consumers do not set budgets, or prices. The business interests of a company set budgets based on a number of factors, and the market sets prices (and yes the market is different from consumers).

Let me get this point straight. A budget does... not inform costing decisions. huh? Like. do I have to just link you the BASIC DEFINITION OF WHAT A BUDGET IS. OF COURSE IT INFORMS COSTING DECISIONS. A BUDGET IS A COSTING DECISION.
I can't believe you said this with a straight face. I dont need to major in business to know what a freaking budget is. Me and my friends pooled together to pay for the groceries, we used 300 dollars to buy the food. Are you honest to god telling me that, the monetary limit did not influence what we bought? You either didn't explain this point properly or you're just lying.

I'm not lying, just boneheaded, and fail at proofreading.

Yes, definitely budgets are costing decisions and I'm embarrassed that I typed that. I meant pricing decisions. Prices are usually set independent of costs beyond the requirement that the price recoup costs and the product remains profitable. The price of two objects with almost identical COGS can be wildly different depending on whether or not it is a luxury brand v. commodity brand. This is the only reason why I say that the budget can't really be taken into considering the cost of DLC, because it's pretty much the same in any consumer goods market that the price is going to be set at whatever the sellers think they can get for it.

It may seem a little snake-like, but it has been shown to work before. If you don't match your price with the consumer value judgement you go under.

 

[Vegosiux]

This "entitlement" talk is slowly starting to bite away at my nerves, since it always gets reduced to "Unless you're 100% happy with the situation you're a self-entitled brat" versus "If you're even 1% happy with the situation, you're a corporate whore"

Oh, and "If you didn't buy it you have no right to complain" versus "If you did buy it you have no right to complain" that one is even better, yeah...

Vote with your wallet - if you don't feel the product offered is worth your time and money, do not buy it. Spend it on other stuff. In a way I'm fortunate to have a lower income, that also makes me not drown in crappy games because I pick and choose carefully what I buy, yet even so I buy a cat in a bag now and then.

Passing up on a title you're not convinced is worth a purchase will not make you any less of a true Scotsman...I mean, true gamer. (See what I did there?)

 

[targren]

OP-
I think the bigger problem is that gamers lately seem to have the tendency to over/mis-use the term "entitlement."
Here it is being used correctly:
Paying $60 for a game actually does "entitle" the consumer to a complete product that functions properly.
Why give away all you are legitimately "entitled" to, to a company that already makes a hell of a lot of money off you. That part of it, I'll never understand.

Well put. I'm glad to see that SOMEONE else on these damn boards recognizes this fact, instead of just picking up on some buzzword from some industry mouthpiece and swinging it around like a rhetorical cudgel. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can be so emotionally invested into something that they'll not only actively argue against their own interests, but demonize those who point out this fact.

Passing up on a title you're not convinced is worth a purchase will not make you any less of a true Scotsman...I mean, true gamer. (See what I did there?)

Sadly, I doubt most of them will "see what you did there..." Because it was wonderfully done.

 

[DementedSheep]

You?re entitled to a product that it actually works and gives you what was advertised and thats about it. That said you are allowed to not like somthing and discus why on gaming forum, that dose make you a whiner. There are some business practices I don?t like so I vote with my wallet. If its a big enough problem or I don't think its worth my money I don?t buy it (but I don?t pirate it either!) if other people are willing to put up with it fine, it is their choice.

 

[bojackx]

Not really, I think games are appropriately priced. You know what you're getting when you buy a console and games, and if it isn't up to your expectations, then that's not their problem.

 

[GonzoGamer]

OP-
I think the bigger problem is that gamers lately seem to have the tendency to over/mis-use the term "entitlement."
Here it is being used correctly:
Paying $60 for a game actually does "entitle" the consumer to a complete product that functions properly.
Why give away all you are legitimately "entitled" to, to a company that already makes a hell of a lot of money off you. That part of it, I'll never understand.

Well put. I'm glad to see that SOMEONE else on these damn boards recognizes this fact, instead of just picking up on some buzzword from some industry mouthpiece and swinging it around like a rhetorical cudgel. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can be so emotionally invested into something that they'll not only actively argue against their own interests, but demonize those who point out this fact.

The irony of it is that they think that it makes them look LESS foolish. I pointed this out in another thread.
The thing is that for most gamers, if they really want to play something, they will pay most anything for it. So when it becomes evident that they've been ripped off, they don't want others to think that they are foolish so they will not only justify their purchase but they will try to grasp at whatever (they think) might be an insult to throw at the people who point out the issues.
It's like the Emperor's New Clothes.
I wish I did know who started this overuse of the term "Entitlement" as I would like to leave a flaming bag of poo at their front door. But it's the bullied nerd mentality that is more troubling: that gamers go against their own financial interests to make excuses for the big guys taking advantage of them. It sort of furthers the stereotype of the nerdy gamer that has no self respect.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Given that gaming is a LUXURY...well no shit, yeah we act "entitled"; that's how luxuries work!
It's not necessarily a bad thing either, at least from an economic perspective (from a "I'm tired of listening to people whine" perspective, it might be).

That's because it's the customer's job (as Demand) to help establish the most efficient price for any given good. This also helps Supply better pace itself so we aren't wasting as many resources and man-hours on products that are unreasonable/unsuitable for the market.
When Supply doesn't listen to them, there's a good reason to whine.

Of course, the customer also has to actually follow THROUGH on their complaints and not buy that luxury at the price they complained about (this only applies to luxuries, not necessities. Nobody buys Petrol at such prices because they WANT to).

Until gamers stop being fucking stupid then no we do not deserve better

Example: People who say Skyrim A game which has a 96 on metacritic from roughly 90 critics is a horrible poorly made and shitty game. Do you have any fucking idea how much effort went into that game. I don't like FF13 but even I know it is not a horrible game, I personally do not like the combat, thats mostly it.

Because people disagree with your opinion (and you cite other *opinions*, ala Metacritic as your sole qualifier), they're fucking stupid?

I'll leave it to you to try to find the flaw in your reasoning. But in the interim, I will say that I agree with your first point; albeit for very ironic reasons, and in the singular.

 

[Erttheking]

It's basic economics, if a person wishes to charge a high price for something he can, and if a person doesn't want to buy something, he doesn't have to. There is no "right" answer to this.

 

[Smithburg]

You deserve better if you vote with your wallet. Its still your choice whether you buy the games or not.

As far as I am concerned the moment you buy ME3 (for example) and the DLC despite bitching about EAs business practices on these forums all the time, you need to shut the fuck up. Dont like it? Buy The Witcher 2 instead.

I wish i could run the Witcher 2 ._.

I think the Mass Effect DLC is bad business, I wont be buying that, but I will be buying ME3, as much as I may want to boycott it, Ive invested time and money into a series meant to be a trilogy, Im going to finish it. But I do not like the unethical business practice of making a 3 part thing, then pushing the cost up for the final installment.

 

[Epona]

You deserve better if you vote with your wallet. Its still your choice whether you buy the games or not.

As far as I am concerned the moment you buy ME3 (for example) and the DLC despite bitching about EAs business practices on these forums all the time, you need to shut the fuck up. Dont like it? Buy The Witcher 2 instead.

I wish i could run the Witcher 2 ._.

I think the Mass Effect DLC is bad business, I wont be buying that, but I will be buying ME3, as much as I may want to boycott it, Ive invested time and money into a series meant to be a trilogy, Im going to finish it. But I do not like the unethical business practice of making a 3 part thing, then pushing the cost up for the final installment.

Sickening.

You don't have to finish the trilogy, it is not a requirement and if you really wanted to boycott, you would. It's not like Mass Effect is a necessity.

 

[Erttheking]

We deserve better, indeed. I am tired of reading these little kiddies defend their favourite cult EA games. Let EA games get away with this, they will not stop.

Why do we 'deserve' better?
Better what?

Besides buying their stuff, what do we do that makes us entitled to anything?

Also, calling people who disagree with your view little kiddies, is not without it's irony.

Thats right. We are only entitled to their product.

When they try to slice and dice it for extra money then i'm not getting the full product, am I? I think you guys are little kiddies not because you disagree with me, but because your arguments are always FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED. I've yet to see a good freaking argument in support of the dayonedlc nonsense.

You've been given good arguments, but you just cover your ear and go; "I don't care what you say, I'm still going to keep saying DLC is taken from the main game, and not added as an extra."

Which basicly makes your own argument invalid, because you still have access to the full product, it just costs 10 euro more.

If you say that day-1 DLC should be part of the main game, buy them both.
Problem solved.
Oh? What's that? You don't want to pay 10 euro more for the "complete" product?
Well... THEN DON'T!

oh yes this "there are good arguments you just don't understand them"

Please man, don't insult my intelligence with this nonsense. If there were good arguments why is it that everytime I engage EVERYONE they always fall to this postion: Oh there are good arguments you just don't get them

imagine that! Good arguments please. they are sucky arguments that why i debunk them. Again, here are my two points into why dayonedlc's are usually subtractive and not additional:

1.One of my most poignant points is the fact that all of this is during the inital development cycle. As in, the same budget. Let's say I grant you the point that these are additions, these are 'additions' that use the original budget. They aren't adding extra money to develop these 'additions'. yet they are charging you more for it. Does that make sense to you? An additional product that is costing the company nothing. If there is time to develop something during the first cycle then the budget had enough room for it. Ergo, there is no 'additional cost'

2. What seems more likely to you? That a company whos number one priority is to profit, would develop extra content for the consumer that would generate no extra profit. OR that they'd mince up some of the product and charge you extra for it.

Now while you're thinking about this. Do know EA games has done the latter many of times before. Example: DA2: Prince Sebastian. All the content was inside the game, you were just paying for the code.

put up or shut up.

your last post completely sidelines the issue: is it right for EA to hold content hostage inorder to squeeze more money out of its customer.

Jesus Christ, do you ever stop to think that the reason everyone says that you ignore good arguments is because everyone thinks you're a ranting maniac? Did you ever stop to think that countless people are saying that there are good arguments that have been presented against you, and no one has said "hey Zeel's got a fair point" or "no there haven't been good arguments against him" despite there being countless other people on this website who don't like what EA is doing? I have only seen the phrase "Good arguments have been presented against you" against you, with the exception of Dexter111 and it happened to him because he basically recreated the same thread he did a month ago. It must be odd to be the only one to be on the receiving end of these arguments, and to have no one agree with you, and STILL think that you're right. I think Penny Arcade said it best.

http://penny-arcade.smugmug.com/photos/i-VfPkQ4N/0/L/i-VfPkQ4N-L.jpg

P.S. I'm not arguing your points if that's what you're thinking, plenty of people doing that already, my post is directed at your immature attitude. Something else you bluntly refuse to acknowledge

 

[Erttheking]

Jesus Christ, do you ever stop to think that the reason everyone says that you ignore good arguments is because everyone thinks you're a ranting maniac? Did you ever stop to think that countless people are saying that there are good arguments that have been presented against you, and no one has said "hey Zeel's got a fair point" or "no there haven't been good arguments against him" despite there being countless other people on this website who don't like what EA is doing? I have only seen the phrase "Good arguments have been presented against you" against you, with the exception of Dexter111 and it happened to him because he basically recreated the same thread he did a month ago. It must be odd to be the only one to be on the receiving end of these arguments, and to have no one agree with you, and STILL think that you're right. I think Penny Arcade said it best.

Yes. noticed how quickly people dismiss an argument when it 'bothers' them. Dexter was also talking about THIS EXACT ISSUE. AND SURPRISE SURPRISE the exact situation. It's amusing that you can just logically bend your way out of this. "Oh yeah it happened to this guy, with the same content but... that doesn't mean your situation is the same"

Plus this argument from popularity is a logical fallacy and incorrect. Many people agree with me. Just not you.

P.S. I'm not arguing your points if that's what you're thinking, plenty of people doing that already, my post is directed at your immature attitude. Something else you bluntly refuse to acknowledge

Yes, I've noticed that. No real points only this critique of my attitude. and when i call this out. "OH NO THATS NOT HOW IT ISSSSSSSS" Full circle friend. full circle.

You misunderstood, he created the exact same thread that he had two months ago almost literally, he pretty much copy pasted 80% of it, perhaps the term "I already gave a good argument" was a bad phrase maybe the term "I already presented my case, go back and check if you forgot" Also that was just in the new thread, it did not happen in the old thread, where I myself and many others presented good arguments and debated with him...by the way I really shouldn't compare you to dexter, he doesn't act like a know it all 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Also I flat out said that people don't like what EA are doing, go back and reread my post or get your eyes checked,, but they don't make the same argument again and again and again and again and then just dismiss counter arguments as bad with no or poor elaboration. By the way, your attitude is still horrible, I see you still can't make an argument without throwing a bucket of slander at someone. I know what you're thinking I do it too, well kindly look through my posts and point out where I insult someone...besides you that is.

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

Since when did it become being "entitled" to expect value for money?
Especially considering we are now getting less product for more money these days.
You know what would have happened if gamers from my day saw the sort of bullshit we have to put up with from publishers? They would not boycott them. They would fucking crucify them. Literally. They would drag them from their offices and execute them in the streets and it would be justified.
The only reason we don't now is because they started slowly, forcing a little more up our asses a little at a time until now, a third of the population does not even know they are being raped while another third goes out of its way to defend the rapists.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

You deserve better if you vote with your wallet. Its still your choice whether you buy the games or not.

As far as I am concerned the moment you buy ME3 (for example) and the DLC despite bitching about EAs business practices on these forums all the time, you need to shut the fuck up. Dont like it? Buy The Witcher 2 instead.

Pretty much what he said. Bitching and complaining about the this or that game or this or that developer/publisher or anything else and then continuing to shell out money for games that do the things you hate or are made by the developer/publisher that you continually complain about not only makes you look like an idiot, but undermines credibility of gamers as a whole. Why should developers/publishers take us seriously when, despite how much we complain, the vast majority of us are still going to shell out for their crap anyway?

 

[JoesshittyOs]

In a broader sense, yes. We have access to a magical box that plays games with us, enough leisure time to use said magic box, and we complain about the pricing model of the games the magic box plays with us.

#FirstWorldProblems #21stCenturyProblems

What this guy said.

It's *not hard to get carried away and actually get mad about things like video games without taking a step back and realizing that it's something where a good majority of the world doesn't have access to.

There's a blurry line between being entitled and... not being entitled.

Did you pay money for the game? Than you are entitled to complain when they with hold some content from you.

 

[Thespian]

Hard to say if we deserve better or not but a certain amount of fuss should be kicked up or progress won't happen.

And in the grand scheme of things, we don't deserve better. A coal-miner from the dark ages wouldn't complain about the mystical story-box that let him control warriors from far off worlds in dazzling colors was written in a way that offered gay relationships in equal quantities to heterosexual ones. But that'd be a facetious answer.

 

[babinro]

No.

We get a ton of entertainment value for our $60.00. I can spend $60.00 on a ton of entertainment out there and rarely will I see 8 - 200+ hrs of enjoyment for my money.

Just because we know so much about the 'behind the scenes' nature of gaming doesn't mean we deserve free access to the DLC content that was built into the disk and planned out in that manor from day 1.

 

[Vault101]

entitlment

what I cant fucking comprehend is why some people get incredibly pissy because a game that is ALREADY critically loves gets a "less than perfect" score somhwere else..like its an insult or somthing (not to mentioned how skewed the scoring systm is)

or just angrey over things..like if x game isnt perfect or somthing