Undue Entitlement: A Growing Issue?

[rumdumconundrum]

Hi there. I have a fun picture for you that I think sums up your post:

I feel that I can equally apply that image to you, you seen to inventing a sort uber entitled gamer who I feel simply does not exist, or at least exists in a very tiny minority that cannot be said to be an issue let alone a growing issue.

Very well, I will concede that. I was more conglomerating (I'm not sure that's the right word) the various opinions I've seen widely and rather commonly spread throughout the internet.

it seems certain companies and a certain section of the gaming press will exaggerate/focus on claims of entitled gamers or trolls and then lump legitimate dissent together with these to ignore said dissent.

This begs the question: where does the vocal minority end and the actual majority begin?

I hope I am not the only one who remembers the DmC fiasco where not only were people called whiny for complaining about how much Ninja theory had disregarded the fans of DMC but were actually called entitled for simply not buying the game.

I'd actually like some clarification on that. If it's because Dante isn't white haired and his backstory is different or something like that, that just seems childish. So what if the backstory's different? Lots of medias do that. If it doesn't SIGNIFICANTLY change the character in some way (like making Commander Shepherd being a psychologist with no military training or something), that shouldn't pose an issue. I'm not sure what makes video games all that special in that regard. Maybe the game is still good, despite the changes?

Though I will agree that calling people "entitled" because they didn't buy a game is definitely using the term incorrectly.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

Imagine if you had to go online to activate your new vacuum cleaner. What if they tried to limit where you could use it? What if the attachments that used to come with a vacuum were now only available if you pre-ordered the vacuum and then the attachments were different depending on which retailer you pre-ordered from.

Would those vacuum cleaner consumers be entitled for complaining?

The problems with your example are:

A. Many games don't require you to "go online to activate".

B. I don't know of when they "limit where you could use it". Ever. Really.

C. Those "attachments" usually come out later for a few bucks to buy a la carte, regardless of where you bought them.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Imagine if you had to go online to activate your new vacuum cleaner. What if they tried to limit where you could use it? What if the attachments that used to come with a vacuum were now only available if you pre-ordered the vacuum and then the attachments were different depending on which retailer you pre-ordered from.

Would those vacuum cleaner consumers be entitled for complaining?

The problems with your example are:

A. Many games don't require you to "go online to activate".

B. I don't know of when they "limit where you could use it". Ever. Really.

C. Those "attachments" usually come out later for a few bucks to buy a la carte, regardless of where you bought them.

1) Some do

2) Digital titles fall into this category, especially Nintendo

3) They use to come with the vacuum

 

[Vylox]

The difference between paying $60 for a game that also has micro transactions and a FREE game that has them is pretty cut and clear.
I'm not against micro transactions, I'm just against them in games that have purchase prices already.
The micro transaction system is used as a way for the developers and publishers to make money from the game that they provide free of charge. Games that have an initial purchase price have already made the money, so it isn't necessary itself.
Again, not complaining about micro transactions themselves, just them being in games that already have an initial purchase price.

I see your point there. Granted, I feel like people go crazy any time the price of a game goes up (whether by poor planning or simple programming cost increases), so sometimes I can see their reasoning for doing this. Also, those microtransactions are almost always completely optional.

Those micro transactions are optional in the free games, however in the games that cost money to purchase, they aren't entirely optional if you want the full experience of said game. DLC and the like are basically micro transactions, where a person purchases additional content for a game that they have already bought.

As for the initial price points of games, that is mostly a non-issue. While there will be a vocal outcry against an industry-wide increase in game costs, that outcry will quickly settle down as long as the publishers and developers can ensure that their games merit such an increase. Right now, in the current gaming environment and industry, the publishers are deliberately forcing the price of PC and console games to stay static (and the $60 price tag has been applied to video games since 1987). With that static price, they are basically cutting corners and quality across their games. Several factors are in play for this... development costs are some, in terms of the cost to program, additional development costs coming into play as technology changes also produce an effect.

I wouldn't care if the price of PC games or console games were to increase as a whole, it wouldn't prevent me from purchasing games, however there needs to be an amount of improvement in quality of games in accordance with said price increase. Both in the quality of the games themselves, and in the quality of the service from the publishers.
There has been a remarkable trend in the gaming industry of putting out inferior products over the last decade, and that is a real issue which could be addressed by those publishers. Point in case, there is absolutely no reason that a game which sold 6.5 million copies on its initial launch weekend @$60 per unit should be deemed a failure. There is no reason for that very same game to not have turned a decent profit considering that nearly 75% of the overall game itself was cloned from a previous version of the franchise.(same engine, same mechanics, almost entirely the same graphics.)

Things like this is what makes gamers seem entitled, as they are just not getting what they paid for. Publishers themselves are feeling entitled to gamer's money because those gamers keep shelling out that cash for products that are inferior in quality than what they used to ge.


As for the whole Mass Effect 3 debacle, if the developer had stood behind its initial product, then e issue itself would not have been blown out of reasonable porprtion. However, they made a change. A very quick change considering. Which is why there was additional outcry about the game's endings. Its more like that the updated ending was what the developers wanted to ship in the first place, however they bowed to publisher pressure and put in what is considered a sub-par ending (both story and graphically BTW) to keep the other ending as some kind of DLC or purchasable content.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Also, I never said anything against criticism of the finished product. In fact, criticism is a GOOD thing as long as it's REASONABLE.

Reasonable is subjective. People will apply their own personal standards when issuing criticism.

If you have a criticism of a game or its content, explain it reasonably. Do not demand that the developers bow to your will because you bought their game (just like thousands of other customers who all usually have different opinions on a subject).

I've never really understood this argument about demanding. Customers are free to demand whatever they want from companies. That is an entirely valid and DESIRABLE form of customer feedback. A customer howling at your gates with a list of demands is a returning customer who is maintaining a dialogue with you. Most unhappy customers just disappear like ghosts in the wind.

As others have posted out, you are misusing the word "entitlement". In almost every case where that word has been applied to gamers, they were actually entitled to things they were asking for. To say nothing of the fact that labeling your consumer base as "entitled" for asking you to up your quality control or adopt a less predatory pricing scheme is not exactly the pinnacle of deft customer relations.

 

[JazzJack2]

I'd actually like some clarification on that. If it's because Dante isn't white haired and his backstory is different or something like that, that just seems childish. So what if the backstory's different? Lots of medias do that. If it doesn't SIGNIFICANTLY change the character in some way (like making Commander Shepherd being a psychologist with no military training or something), that shouldn't pose an issue. I'm not sure what makes video games all that special in that regard. Maybe the game is still good, despite the changes?

But it goes beyond that anyway. Ninja theory essentially made it clear they didn't care about the games fans at all by frequently insulting them over twitter e.g. calling the sad or nerds.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

Also, I never said anything against criticism of the finished product. In fact, criticism is a GOOD thing as long as it's REASONABLE.

Reasonable is subjective. People will apply their own personal standards when issuing criticism.

If you have a criticism of a game or its content, explain it reasonably. Do not demand that the developers bow to your will because you bought their game (just like thousands of other customers who all usually have different opinions on a subject).

I've never really understood this argument about demanding. Customers are free to demand whatever they want from companies. That is an entirely valid and DESIRABLE form of customer feedback. A customer howling at your gates with a list of demands is a returning customer who is maintaining a dialogue with you. Most unhappy customers just disappear like ghosts in the wind.

As others have posted out, you are misusing the word "entitlement". In almost every case where that word has been applied to gamers, they were actually entitled to things they were asking for. To say nothing of the fact that labeling your consumer base as "entitled" for asking you to up your quality control or adopt a less predatory pricing scheme is not exactly the pinnacle of deft customer relations.

And as I have stated before, you are entitled to a functioning and accurately represented (such in a demo, for the most part) game. You also have the right to not buy the game.

That is it.

A consumer's power over the finished product stops there. You can make criticisms known to the developers to tell them "Hey, I don't quite like this choice you made. Could you explain why you chose that?" or "I don't think that design choice was the best idea. How about (insert suggestion here)?"

Then the developers can decide whether or not to explain their reasoning or to implement the suggestion you gave. That's their right. It's their product. The consumer has to learn to deal with that.

If a game is functional, you can't demand a refund (or for them to make a change) because you didn't like the ending or the plot.
If a game is expensive, that doesn't give you the right to steal it.
If a game is patching, there's usually a good reason for it.
If a character design/game concept is bad (in your opinion), that doesn't mean you can threaten or insult the creator.
If they're releasing DLC, they usually are things they didn't finish in time for the final product.

People constantly quoting EA's bad business practices is understandable, but I'm almost starting to equate it to Godwin's Law. Just because one company is making some REALLY bad choices, doesn't mean that ALL of them are.

Also, I'm confused as to your usage of "predatory pricing scheme". Could you give me some more definition on this? Predatory pricing usually means (from what I understand) taking advantage of a person's economic or social situation.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

I'd actually like some clarification on that. If it's because Dante isn't white haired and his backstory is different or something like that, that just seems childish. So what if the backstory's different? Lots of medias do that. If it doesn't SIGNIFICANTLY change the character in some way (like making Commander Shepherd being a psychologist with no military training or something), that shouldn't pose an issue. I'm not sure what makes video games all that special in that regard. Maybe the game is still good, despite the changes?

But it goes beyond that anyway. Ninja theory essentially made it clear they didn't care about the games fans at all by frequently insulting them over twitter e.g. calling the sad or nerds.

Well, that's uncalled for. Then again, do we know what the fans were saying that sparked this response? How did they word their grievances?

 

[Phrozenflame500]

"That ending sucked! I want a refund!"

Agreed, asking for a refund is stupid. That being said, being upset about the ending isn't.

"Why are they CHARGING for the DLC? This is ridiculous!"

Most people don't mind post-release DLC, it's Day-One DLC people interpret as "lets sell this on the side to make more money".

"I'm pirating this game because $60 is too expensive!"

To be fair, digital games costing the same as physical games is complete bullshit.

"I didn't like how this person wrote this character! BURN THE WITCH!"

Customers have the right to express their opinion about a product. Companies have the right to ignore them.

"Why do I have to sit here and patch my game? I wanna play NOW!"

I'd make a snide "how dare we want a finished product" remark, but it's been made a thousand times already.

Pestering companies to improve (in their opinion) their products is entirely valid as long as it doesn't cross over into harassment. Fans may demand unreasonable things, but it's the companies job to determine how realistic those demands are and implement them to the best of their ability.

Pictured: the pinnacle of civil discourse and maturity.

 

[Tsukuyomi]

It's tough to say. I can cite times where I personally have felt like the people in question are crying needlessly and just being spoiled brats. But at the same time I can also cite times where it seems that the consumers have had valid points to justify their attitudes.

There are some people who don't seem to give a damn that making games is NOT an easy task, or that servers and online content require maintenance whose costs may exceed what the game initially brought in in terms of profit. There are people who whine about every little thing simply because those things aren't the way THEY want them, and they're not interested in hearing any arguments otherwise.

But there are also good, honest people who are angry because they HAVE gotten ripped off, or developers or publishers HAVE treated them poorly. These people have every right to be angry because they have legitimate concerns.

The trick is separating the two, and identifying which situation is which. Unfortunately, the more vocal the former are, the more annoyed developers and publishers and community managers get, leading to their attitudes going down the toilet with all their customers, giving the latter group reason to complain. It's not surprising when you consider someone like Blizzard's employee Ghostcrawler. He's spent almost a decade dealing with WoW's communtiy. Watching almost EVERY SINGLE DECISION they make cause wailing and crying and flailing and gnashing of teeth from one of those groups or sometimes even both. It's hardly surprising that he's long since lost his patience and his veneer is wearing thin. It's not right, but it's no surprise.

To know if Undue Entitlement, as you see it OP, is a growing issue, or an issue at all, we need to be able to better separate what's a valid problem or complaint from what's not.

....dunno if any of that makes any sense, I am REALLY tired right now.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

"Why do I have to sit here and patch my game? I wanna play NOW!"

I'd make a snide "how dare we want a finished product" remark, but it's been made a thousand times already.

Yes, because a "finished" product is always going to be considered much better than a buggy and glitchy game that requires several patches for game breaking bugs and major glitches. I mean, it's not like there's an incredibly successful game, and that the parent company just stopped patching that REALLY buggy game after a while because they figured the fans could do it, right?

Oh, wait.

Fans may demand unreasonable things, but it's the companies job to determine how realistic those demands are and implement them to the best of their ability.

And fans don't have the right after that to complain about how these unrealistic demands were not met.

Pictured: the pinnacle of civil discourse and maturity.

Pictured: something that has already been covered and admitted to be rather hypocritically used.
or, better yet:
Pictured: equally immature picture in response to a post obviously not contributing to civil discourse, oddly sans original post.

edit: sorry about that. Screwed the closing of that quote there.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Yes, because a "finished" product is always going to be considered much better than an buggy and glitchy game that requires several patches for game breaking bugs and major glitches. I mean, it's not like there's an incredibly successful game, and that the parent company just stopped patching that REALLY buggy game after a while because they figured the fans could do it, right?

Oh, wait.

I don't understand. You literally just agreed with me that it's bullshit companies don't release their games in a workable state.

And fans don't have the right after that to complain about how these unrealistic demands were not met.

As I said, fans can complain about whatever they want. Companies can ignore them. If the fans are displeased about the company's response they can stop buying it. Capitalism.

Pictured: equally immature picture in response to a post obviously not contributing to civil discourse, oddly sans original post.

Well, an eye for an eye I suppose.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

Yes, because a "finished" product is always going to be considered much better than an buggy and glitchy game that requires several patches for game breaking bugs and major glitches. I mean, it's not like there's an incredibly successful game, and that the parent company just stopped patching that REALLY buggy game after a while because they figured the fans could do it, right?

Oh, wait.

I don't understand. You literally just agreed with me that it's bullshit companies don't release their games in a workable state.

What I'm saying is that just because it needs to be patched doesn't make it an unfinished product. It means it has issues that needed to be ironed out. This is to be expected. Game developers can't test for everything.
Also, how it's funny that Bethesda does this constantly and nobody really seems to care, and yet when there's one major glitch in another game, it seems the internet goes positively insane.

And fans don't have the right after that to complain about how these unrealistic demands were not met.

As I said, fans can complain about whatever they want. Companies can ignore them. If the fans are displeased about the company's response they can stop buying it. Capitalism.

And now I'm the one that doesn't understand. I have previously stated that people have the right to not buy the games. What I'm saying is that whining about companies "ignoring" these demands is absurd. Sure, they can complain about it. Nothing is going to be accomplished other than making the community look petty and childish.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A consumer's power over the finished product stops there.

According to what, exactly? Consumers have as much power over a product as the creator of that product is willing to grant them. When you are in situations where the purchase of that product is paying the rent and putting food on the table for the creators, you're in a position where the consumer has ENORMOUS power over the 'finished product', especially as games are a mutable medium and through DLC and patches are in a near constant state of flux.

Then the developers can decide whether or not to explain their reasoning or to implement the suggestion you gave. That's their right. It's their product. The consumer has to learn to deal with that.

Well, yes, it's their product. And if the consumers dislike what's been done with it, they take their consuming dollars elsewhere, and developers tend to go out of business. That's not a winning situation for anyone.

If a game is functional, you can't demand a refund (or for them to make a change) because you didn't like the ending or the plot.

Yes you can. You can demand a refund for anything. Whether you GET one or not is another matter entirely, but there's nothing stopping you from demanding one.

If a game is expensive, that doesn't give you the right to steal it.

No, of course not. Are you discussing gamers, or thieves?

If a game is patching, there's usually a good reason for it.

Well...yes. All too often that reason is the game was launched way too early, because the producer got tired of writing cheques or the developer ran out of money to pay the rent. Patches HAVE become a crutch to fix games released in alpha/beta condition.

If a character design/game concept is bad (in your opinion), that doesn't mean you can threaten or insult the creator.

Technically there is nothing stopping anyone from insulting the creator other than maturity. Threats, as always, are illegal.

If they're releasing DLC, they usually are things they didn't finish in time for the final product.

I'm actually SUPER forgiving on the subject of DLC, but this is achingly naive. DLC, particularly day one DLC, has shown to be pretty shifty. I just pay for it and consider it part of a price bump for the overall product, but I can see why it sours the relationship some gamers have with the developers/producers when it happens.

People constantly quoting EA's bad business practices is understandable, but I'm almost starting to equate it to Godwin's Law. Just because one company is making some REALLY bad choices, doesn't mean that ALL of them are.

It's hardly just EA. EA just shows a comical inability to course correct their own idiocy.

Also, I'm confused as to your usage of "predatory pricing scheme". Could you give me some more definition on this? Predatory pricing usually means (from what I understand) taking advantage of a person's economic or social situation.

I consider games designed with baked-in tedium that can be shortcut with microtransactions, or games that have (arguably) primary content removed and parceled off as high priced DLC to be predatory. While I do think gamers tend to be a bit overly dramatic when they bemoan the state of the industry, and while gaming is arguably cheaper now than it has ever been as a hobby, there's most certainly some DEEPLY cynical business practices at work out there.

I think there's a fine discussion to be had about the increasingly suspicious/hostile relationship between gamers and game providers, certainly. The article posted earlier in the thread is excellent and speaks to the topic quite well. I just think "entitlement" is not the right word for that discussion. It was poorly employed during the ME3 debacle, and has become a stupid buzzword that is perpetually misused every time a furor pops up between game developers and their customers. Customers ARE entitled to complain. They ARE entitled to ask for refunds. They ARE entitled to make demands of the creators, even if those demands seem crazy to you. Whether or not the sort of person who would do all those things would be the sort of person you'd like to hang out and have a beer with is beside the point. They're ENTITLED to it.

I think gamers can be drama queens. I think gamers can be big babies. I think they can be pedantic, fussy, and impossible to please. But that doesn't mean they're not ENTITLED to be those things. There's no law that says customers have to be well behaved and polite and chummy, particularly angry customers who have had enough of your bullshit. Anyone who has worked a day in any kind of customer facing position realizes this.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

If a game is expensive, that doesn't give you the right to steal it.

No, of course not. Are you discussing gamers, or thieves?

I'm more discussing overly-entitled gamers and pirates, both of which tend to overlap to a fair degree.

If a game is patching, there's usually a good reason for it.

Well...yes. All too often that reason is the game was launched way too early, because the producer got tired of writing cheques or the developer ran out of money to pay the rent. Patches HAVE become a crutch to fix games released in alpha/beta condition.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding this, but people don't tend to complain to the publishers about the games (the ones deciding the release time and budget most of the time), they complain to the developers. I don't see how that situation is necessarily the developer's fault.

Customers ARE entitled to complain. They ARE entitled to ask for refunds. They ARE entitled to make demands of the creators, even if those demands seem crazy to you. Whether or not the sort of person who would do all those things would be the sort of person you'd like to hang out and have a beer with is beside the point. They're ENTITLED to it.

I think gamers can be drama queens. I think gamers can be big babies. I think they can be pedantic, fussy, and impossible to please. But that doesn't mean they're not ENTITLED to be those things. There's no law that says customers have to be well behaved and polite and chummy, particularly angry customers who have had enough of your bullshit. Anyone who has worked a day in any kind of customer facing position realizes this.

I've worked with customers in the sales sector, at a store as a cashier and floor clerk. For two months I constantly dealt very angry and unreasonable customers at a liquidation sale who demanded I give them discounts for no reason whatsoever. It didn't make me think, "Well, these people are just exercising their rights as free citizens and I should be okay with that", I thought "These are the most insufferable and brain-dead people I've ever met! I don't even think these people are even fully human. In fact, I'm fairly certain these are some kind of ogre/human hybrid that only comes out of their caves to come to liquidation sales!"

In fact, one customer told me that she was entitled to a discount because she had been shopping at that particular store for 5 years (the store had only been there for 3, so she was either misremembering or lying. Experience tells me it was more likely the latter). When I told her we couldn't do that, she flew into a rage and told us, "I've bought hundreds of dollars of *bleep* from this store. You *bleep*ing owe me!"

So, in short, yes. Customers have the right to be petty, whiny, and childish. In doing so, however, they will also further influence the community around them (most often for the worse), whether it be the stores or the other customers.

 

[ERaptor]

I absolutely agree on the ME3 thing. People putting around 60 hours into the game and then demand a refund because they didnt like the ending. The stupidity of that notion expands on a lot of other games where people, or Fanboys more adequatly, were unhappy with the direction a games story or its character took. It is, however, not unusual for discussions to escalate into borderline-retarded shitstorms in a matter of days on the Internet. As soon as a train like that gets moving, people will jump on.

But the non-story aspects you mentioned, like DLC, Patches and the whole pirating-thing, isnt really about entitlement in my eyes, even if people are acting retarded nonetheless. At least you could ignore the mass of ME3 Fanboys who dominated the Internet for a few days, you could drown out the angry screams of DMC-kiddies leaving not one good hair on the game out of rage. But what pisses me off is the people who cry about bad business practices, patches, day-one DLC and the like, but then STILL walk to the next store and buy the damn games. Im fine with letting your voice be heard and complain about stuff you dont like, but its a giant doublestandard to just cry, ***** and moan about something, but still throwing money at the guys you are complaining about. We just reached a point where people like to rant and whine all day long, but actually do something that helps? Fu*k no. I NEED that new Capcom/EA-Activision-game, even though i will write the first whine-post before I even finish the tutorial.

 

[Smooth Operator]

ME3 no doubt broke the camels back, but not the one you are looking at.
ME3 was the point where review houses that were previously breaking down the corporate PR bullshit went over the fence and started beating down the userbase instead, a new corporate defense force has arisen... looks like it's super effective.

So now we arrive at the point where complaints of any sort are "entitlement", and should you find yourself under said banner you are a heretic to the gaming community and killing the industry as we know it...

 

[Entitled]

If a game is expensive, that doesn't give you the right to steal it.

No, of course not. Are you discussing gamers, or thieves?

I'm more discussing overly-entitled gamers and pirates, both of which tend to overlap to a fair degree.

Not really.

Unlike the rest of your examples, piracy as an "entitlement issue" is mostly based on an Extended Analogy Fallacy, taking figures of speech about Intellectual Property and comparing it to actual property, to make it sound like piracy apologists are talking about taking away stuff from others that they want, i.e. receive stuff for free.

The phrase "entitlement" only applies to positive rights, to things that you want to actively receive from a government or from a corporation for free (like gratis, free as in beer). For example "I am entitled to free public education" is a correct sense of entitlement. "I am entitled to unemployment benefits" is a correct sense of entitlement. "I am entitled to $100.000 per month in unemployment benefits" is an undue sense of entitlement. "I am entitled to have the government silence anyone who criticizes me" is an undue sense of entitlement.

But negative rights, where you feel that you have a right to freely do something, (like libre, free as in speech), are not matters of entitlement in the first place. They might still need to be limited by law, after all you don't have a "freedom to use any drugs", or a "freedom to cry fire in a crowded theatre", but believing that the regulations are wrong and you should have that freedom right, is not a matter of feeling entitled to receive something "for free".

Piracy can be worded as a form of "theft" through a series of analogies, but given that the "stolen" games that we are talking about are strings of digital information being copied, piracy apologism is really a debate about exactly how far "the freedom to receive and impart information" should expand, and a matter of people awnting to receive and impart information freely, not about wanting to get information for free.

 

[manic_depressive13]

How is complaining about bad writing or exorbitant and tacked on costs "entitlement"? Isn't a bunch of CEOs thinking they can engage in whatever whatever shitty business practices they want, while still expecting their customers to remain loyal and refrain from any criticism, more a matter of "entitlement" than anything you stated above?

 

[manic_depressive13]

I absolutely agree on the ME3 thing. People putting around 60 hours into the game and then demand a refund because they didnt like the ending. The stupidity of that notion expands on a lot of other games where people, or Fanboys more adequatly, were unhappy with the direction a games story or its character took. It is, however, not unusual for discussions to escalate into borderline-retarded shitstorms in a matter of days on the Internet. As soon as a train like that gets moving, people will jump on.

I never played Mass Effect because it was boring as fuck, so correct me if I'm wrong. But I thought the outrage was less about disliking the ending, and more about the fans feeling like they had been lied to about the nature of the ending. For example, weren't they promised that there would be at least 7 endings or something, and each one would be based the player's previous choices? To me the ME3 debacle seemed like the developers getting away with misleading advertising. They should have come forward and revised their previous statement, making it clear that there would only be two endings.