Undue Entitlement: A Growing Issue?

[spartandude]

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.

We have a winner!

I was about to post this my self, alot of people have used ME3 as an example of "i dont like the ending so i want a refund" when it was really (for the most part) people complaining about the broken promises they made.

(link to list of things devs said that did not come true http://alizrak.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/the-broken-promises-of-mass-effect-3-spoilers/ )

Ok sure it got out of hand but that doesnt change the fact there is a case of false advertisement here and my god do i hate it when people use the word "entitlement" as an insult against any criticism.

 

[Cecilo]

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.

That was a part of the issue, yes. As Forbes put it:

The choice to allow players to carry decisions through multiple games has always been what defined Mass Effect. As early as the first game, what made the system of choices so engaging was the promise that every single decision the player made was going to culminate in one giant, magical ending that wrapped up one?s own, personal story of Commander Shepherd and the reapers.

It?s now seeming like it was all setup and no payoff.

Other common complaints about the ending were perceived plotholes, out of character actions, an immersion breaking tonal shift, a hijacking of the central conflict during the climax, failure to adhere to narrative structure (specifically a lack of falling action and/or denouement) and an overall loss of narrative cohesion.

To be fair, our choices DID have a impact on the ending. Your war score changed based on what you did in the previous games, if you saved the Rachni you got war score, if you didn't then you'd get negative war score because the Queen the Reapers created was indoctrinated.

It was a cheap way to go about it, it was a stupid way to go about it, but they did make it so your previous decisions affected your ending. And there was more than three endings. They were all the same except for a few color swaps and a few swapped scenes.

People were expecting vastly different endings, but they didn't promise that. It was a scum tactic, but they did provide what they promised.

 

[veloper]

Can we call it dissatisfaction instead of 'entitlement' ?

Yes, most of the time the angry gamers go on about game X being shit and less about "I deserve Y for for no extra charge" and when they do, it's usually asking for patches to buggy games, which IS entitlement, but the right kind.

 

[Bruce]

You know, you keep coming back at it, but I don't know how Mass Effect 3 equates to "not working properly".

In the case of games and other software products, not working properly means game breaking bugs, it means a game overheating your video card, formatting your disk, locking your OS or simply not running. It does not mean "I didn't like how it turned out".

1) Not everything in his list is about Mass Effect

2) A game doesn't have to be doing damage to your computer to not be working properly. If it's supposed to have X feature, and it doesn't have X feature, then it isn't working properly. And the ending to a very narrative-focused game series is a very important feature- it's not just any random 1% of the game, it's the 1% of the game that is supposed to resolve and put final context on the other 99%. A story is like a air plane flight- it doesn't matter how well 99% of it goes if the last 1% involves a fiery crash.

1) Based on your response, I will assume it does.

2) If I have to review the definition of "entitled", you might want to review the definition of "feature". Multiplayer is a feature, Voice Acting is a feature, being playable is a feature... Having a story that will satisfy 100% of the audience, 100& of the time is not a feature, its a pipe dream. GTA V Online not working was a problem and people should complain about it, Batman Origins having a bug that prevented a lot of people to complete the game was a problem and they should complain about it. Having a problem with the way a story was resolved is an opinion, and while you are free to complain as much as you want, they are free to frame your complains as an opinion.

Except...

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2012/01/10/mass1525-effect-3-cas5ey-fdsafdhudson-interviewae.aspx?PostPageIndex=2

The ending was specifically what Casey Hudson of Bioware claimed it would not be. So in other words, it was supposed to have a specific kind of ending, one that didn't fall under an A, B or C ending.

How the story plays out is ultimately a feature, and in Mass Effect 3s case, the major selling feature. It was advertised as one thing, and what was sold was completely another.

 

[spartan231490]

I have to disagree with you guys saying that entitlement doesn't apply here.

From Merriam-Webster:
"Entitlement: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)", which would extend to special treatment as well.

Special treatment could be mean that the games industry (or other large body) should bow to a sole person's (or interest group's) will. That just because they don't like something, everyone should just throw everything away to placate them. That includes patches, glitches, prices, writing, etc.

It's amusing, but their posts really just serve to underscore the reality of your post. There is most definitely a growing trend of false entitlement, but it isn't just in gaming culture, it's in modern culture at large. Look at all the stupid lawsuits, look at the backlash over the reasonable request that we ensure people on federal aid don't blow their aid money on drugs, look at the massive number of people in this generation who refuse to take minimum wage jobs. How many of the people on this site would go to a college that didn't offer internet in the dorm rooms? How many expect to be given free cable at college? Look at how many complain about the quality of the food the get from dining halls. Hell, I can't even begin to tell you the times I've seen a student throw a tantrum in public because X fast food chain doesn't accept meal plan. I remember a couple of years ago, my niece, 9 years old but well behaved, and not at all whiny, threw a fit for hours because she was told she couldn't get an iphone for Christmas.

I mean, thinking back to when I was 9, if I had thrown a fit or even been ungrateful for my Christmas presents just because I didn't get a play station, my parents would have taken every gift I got and probably given me a well-deserved spanking besides, and I was spoiled rotten.

The comments booing the OP just go to show that it has become such a big part of our culture that we don't even recognize it anymore. It's gotten completely out of control, and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

[Ziame]

Let me pitch in (formatted because ohmygodallthemwords)

Spoiler: First, ME3 issue

that was brought up (the definitive start of "entitlement movement" as I call it):

Bioware advertised ME3 as having an ending that is not A,B,C and heavily dependent on player choices.
Bioware delivered ME3 with A,B,C ending (even aside from the fact it was idiotic)
Thus, false advertising in most basic form :
ad:"product has X" reality: product does not have X.

Granted, fan outrage was very over the fucking top,

Spoiler: not relevant

but let's be honest -- Mass Effect could become something bigger, and now it probably won't.

Compare with Fallout 3 situation. FO3 has bad ending -> fans demand a change -> Bethesda releases a change.

Spoiler: Second, customer-seller relationship

I am a customer, and game's producer is the seller. I pay for features X,Y,Z. When X,Y,Z is delivered, I should not DEMAND REFUND NAO, because the transaction is valid. However, when those features are not delivered, I, as a paying customer, cannot be ridiculed for demanding my money back.
(There's of course a list of "generic features", that don't have to be stated explicitly, as in: game has to work, not crash every ten minutes, actually deliver the features properly, not in a limited way etc (Skyrim at launch fails here) )

On the other hand, when someone goes on Steam Early Access, buys an alpha game and is bitchy about it not working properly, it of course does not stand, because he has been informed about the state of the product.

Compare with any other product.
Producer offers a vacuum cleaner capable of vacuum cleaning and features blowjobs.
Case 1:
You buy it and find that it does sloppy blowjobs. --> sucks to be you. You can complain, but should not demand refund nao, because it delivers both features.
Case 2:
You buy it, and find that the blowjob feature is not present --> you should demand a refund, as the transaction is not valid.

Spoiler: Third, the stance on complaints

I cannot wrap my head around some of you guys. I can't complain, because... because of what, exactly? Most of you say that only whiny bitches complain. I have to concede that most vocal complainers are idiots and foul-mouthed people. But just because John is an idiot, that means I cannot complain? What kind of an argument is that?!

Furthermore, the 'constructive criticism' rhetoric. You can't seriously expect everyone to suddenly start writing essays on what is wrong and how it should be improved, let's be serious! No one bothers with "game was boring" complaints, but I have the right to say that it was boring, that I did not like it, without the need to write a book about my feelings. What if I don't like a game... just because? I can't find joy in it, and I don't know why? I am a customer, not company's tester for fuck's sake.

And why exactly are game producers to be excluded from complaints? Are they holy people with no flaws?

John states that he watched a movie and found it to be boring. <- this is acceptable
John states that he played game X and found it to be boring <- 'whiny ***** entitled fuck' reactions, while that reaction should be reserved to:
John states that he played game X, and found it to be boring. He immediately proceeds to demand a refund, even though he cannot point out any objective flaws in the product. <- THIS is an entitled ***** (bonus points for being a rude, spoiled kid). Of course, he just hopes to get a free ride.

Spoiler: Fourth, the DLC

While I am in the pro-DLC camp, as I like inexpensive, frequent expansions, I can understand and concede that old days were better in this regard. General logic was (not exact numbers ofc)

Game release $50
Expansion pack release $25
And expansion pack was along the lines of XCOM: Enemy Within DLC, or bigger.

Now the logic is:
Game release $50 + day 1 DLC $10
1-3 DLCs important for the story $20ea.
Cosmetic DLCs $5ea.
(optionally microtransactions, but I won't count it because they didn't matter that much in any game I played)

While day 1 DLC is something I oppose (if only because it's rude as hell... they can wait at least a week, seriously), in the other cases, one has to understand that production of games nowadays is much, much more expensive than it was (not judging if for the right reasons), thus games need to be more expensive... and noone will buy a game containing all that content, at one time, for $120-$150. It decreases the budget limitations of the customer base, because it's easier to fork out $5 a month, than to shell out $120 at one given time.

Spoiler: Fifth, "Freemium" games

Comparison between a freemium game (let's say - Warthunder) to a paid game is necessary.
Warthunder generates costs (servers, updates, websites etc) while it is offered for free. Player may opt to throw some money towards the developer, in exchange for certain privileges. It's a healthy practice, IMO, as long as it doesn't lead to Pay2Win situations (a'la World of Tanks or Planetside 2).
Now, a paid game -- I already gave my money for the product that is the game. I should not be required to pay more, in order to play the game that I bought (fe. pay $5 to get the key to this door, that will lead you to next area). As I said before - I have not, personally, met such a game. I am just theorising here.

Spoiler: Sixth and last-th, games' release state

This is a big one. Skyrim(just an example) was downright unplayable for the first days after release, so was Oblivion and a lot of other games. However, one should understand that the more features the product offers, the more prone it will be to failure. And it really is applicable to any product, not only games. It is also not financially possible for any company, save maybe Microsoft, to test for every possible bug the program might have.
ON THE OTHER HAND. The games are _notoriously_ released in a buggy state, if not simply unworkable. That entitles us(see what i did thar?) to complaining - why didn't you say, Mr Seller, that I am not buying a finished product? Had you said so, I wouldn't mind (case in point: Steam Early Access, various Kickstarters) or would have waited with the purchase.
Technically speaking, Skyrim's release was a fraud, as they were selling non-functional product.
Comparison:
John buys a Mercedes, on his way home, he notices that rear left window does not open. He returns to Mercedes and demands a refund/replacement/fix NOW. <--this is acceptable. Also, demands are met immediately, not "when there's time"
John buys a ballpen. On his way home, he notices the ballpen does not write. He returns to shop and demands replacement.<-- also acceptable, and fixed on the spot.

John buys a game. The game crashes on start. John demands fix. -- The fix "will be done when it's done".
John is not satisfied with the company and demands refund <-- "whiny ***** can't wait for fix omg"

Spoiler: tl;dr

1. ME3 ending complaints were justified, their tone however was inacceptable
2. A game is a product, produced and advertised to be sold. As a customer, I have a right to demand some sort of recompense for lacking features and/or other mistakes on the producer's side.
3. As a paying customer, I have the right to point out the flaws of the product I bought, without fear of mockery.
4. DLC exists because games aren't as cheap to make as they used to be. Thus, DLC is not the problem, costs are.
5. Microtransaction seriously affecting gameplay have no place in paid-for games
6. Buggy releases are a problem wtih communication. Had Skyrim(example) been released as some kind of Early Access(preferably with lower price, as it is not the final state of the game), it would not be immoral to sell such product.

Spoiler: Conclusion

The entitlement/complaints are not the problem, the Internet (broadly speaking) is. Complaints made by spoiled kids and rude idiots are what created the gamer image - the entitled child/brat, demanding God knows what, thus leading to company policies being as dismissive as they would be towards such kids.

The DLC is not the problem - the ever-increasing costs of making a game nowadays are the problem. That's why indie developers are thriving - they don't require Hollywood voices, ultra-realistic looks and music from Heavens themselves.
However! (there is always a but), series such as Call of Duty, Assassin's Creed, and Battlefield, prove to industry that this is the right direction for business - it turns in a big profit. Indie games also show that this is the right direction for a single man, or a few people to make a living.
Who said there's only one way, right?

And the problem on the other side of the fence, is that game IS a product. Of course, it can be a work of art, but art encompasses almost anything today. Who says that a piece of art cannot be sold? But when it goes on sale, it becomes a product, and is liable to all the laws and rules of being such. (definition of art - the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination).

 

[KazeAizen]

For me the most recent example of seeming entitlement was the DoTA Diretide situation. I don't play DoTA but from what I gather there wasn't even an announcement that the event would not be happening this year. I'm not sure if at some point though between last year and this year they promised it. So that will be the deciding factor I suppose. If they did promise it and then didn't deliver its one thing. It is another thing to suggest that it should happen even if they never said a word about it just for that fact that they did it the previous year. Anyway fans pissed and moaned and even got the car company Volvo drawn into it. Heck you gotta give Volvo props for thinking on their feet and siding with and giving their "support" to the Diretide fanboys. I mean what did Volvo do to have raging internet dwellers come knocking at their door? I'm not sure ultimately how it turned out. If Valve did Diretide this year or not. However to me this came off as fanboy entitlement. It also didn't help I bet that Riot went full steam ahead with their very first Halloween event called "The Harrowing" this year.

I even just got into a spat with my friend over this very thing last night and the idiot sided with the raging fanboys. For me personally I was just trying to make a joke or something about the whole situation and point out how ridiculous the whole fiasco with the DoTA fans was in the end but he surprisingly took me at face value, then proceeded to defend their actions and get all serious about it. Even with Mass Effect 3 because I brought that up and he pretty much had the same opinion as everyone who was pissed off about the ending. All gamer communities have bad eggs and sure we may even get pissed off when certain franchises do certain things that upset us but I'd like to think that we could admit when we are acting like self entitled brats.

 

[Atmos Duality]

To be fair, our choices DID have a impact on the ending. Your war score changed based on what you did in the previous games, if you saved the Rachni you got war score, if you didn't then you'd get negative war score because the Queen the Reapers created was indoctrinated.

It was a cheap way to go about it, it was a stupid way to go about it, but they did make it so your previous decisions affected your ending. And there was more than three endings. They were all the same except for a few color swaps and a few swapped scenes.

People were expecting vastly different endings, but they didn't promise that. It was a scum tactic, but they did provide what they promised.

^Bingo.
The word I see used to describe this is usually "misdirection", which in this context is different from "lie".

A falsehood isn't technically a lie (absolute falsehood) if requisite truths technically exist within it.
Even if the outcome is far less desirable than what was "expected".
Analogous to the old myths of those dealing with an evil Djinni, who takes a desire and twists it into an undesired outcome.

Wherever there is room for interpretation, there's room for misdirection, and boy does AAA exploit it.

 

[sweetylnumb]

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.

Even if they are "optional" your still getting bugged for money whether you like it or not. Thats not optional. And its disgusting in a full priced game.

I noticed the other day that Call of duty Black ops was more expensive that ghosts ($100 to $90) in this country. Not to meantion how high the base costs are in the first place. Its friggen nuts. Especially considering call of duty is basically multiplayer only (or the single player isnt worth mentioning)

 

[GladiatorUA]

Once again I find whining about whining even more obnoxious than actual whining.
There is nothing wrong with complaining. There is nothing wrong with wanting wanting a refund. There is nothing wrong with demanding a refund.
Threats and harassment are wrong. Not learning a lesson when you don't get a refund is stupid.
Bleeding hearts are annoying and should find something else to do.

 

[thatonedude11]

For me the most recent example of seeming entitlement was the DoTA Diretide situation. I don't play DoTA but from what I gather there wasn't even an announcement that the event would not be happening this year. I'm not sure if at some point though between last year and this year they promised it. So that will be the deciding factor I suppose. If they did promise it and then didn't deliver its one thing. It is another thing to suggest that it should happen even if they never said a word about it just for that fact that they did it the previous year. Anyway fans pissed and moaned and even got the car company Volvo drawn into it. Heck you gotta give Volvo props for thinking on their feet and siding with and giving their "support" to the Diretide fanboys. I mean what did Volvo do to have raging internet dwellers come knocking at their door? I'm not sure ultimately how it turned out. If Valve did Diretide this year or not. However to me this came off as fanboy entitlement. It also didn't help I bet that Riot went full steam ahead with their very first Halloween event called "The Harrowing" this year.

The Diretide situation could have been easily prevented with some communication. If Valve had released a blog post saying that there would be no (or delayed) Diretide because they were working on a huge update, the whole thing would have blown over. If Valve talked to their fans about Diretide, they may have realized that people really liked that event, were expecting it, they could have delayed the big update in favor of releasing Diretide.

The thing to understand is, Valve has no PR. Getting any information out of that company is a frustrating experience (see Half Life), and yelling seems to be the only way to get them to respond at all. And in defense of the 'Diretide fanboys,' the whole give Diretide thing was pretty tongue-in-cheek, although it did get a bit extreme.

Also, Volvo actually really seemed to like this whole deal, as it got them a lot of free traffic and posts on their Facebook page.

 

[KazeAizen]

The Diretide situation could have been easily prevented with some communication. If Valve had released a blog post saying that there would be no (or delayed) Diretide because they were working on a huge update, the whole thing would have blown over. If Valve talked to their fans about Diretide, they may have realized that people really liked that event, were expecting it, they could have delayed the big update in favor of releasing Diretide.

The thing to understand is, Valve has no PR. Getting any information out of that company is a frustrating experience (see Half Life), and yelling seems to be the only way to get them to respond at all. And in defense of the 'Diretide fanboys,' the whole give Diretide thing was pretty tongue-in-cheek, although it did get a bit extreme.

Also, Volvo actually really seemed to like this whole deal, as it got them a lot of free traffic and posts on their Facebook page.

There is no way I could defend any of that behavior. It was unacceptable. Of course Volvo liked it because they got a bunch of free publicity. Still the fact remains the fans over reacted and acted like a bunch of babies over not getting something that wasn't even promised to them in the first place. It was all unacceptable.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

There is a war between the gamer culture and the publishers/dev's. It may not seem like a war, but it is there. Gamers (not as a whole, but in part and loud enough to be recognized) seem to believe that a dev must make games exactly the way the "customer" wants. In essence the "customer is always right" angle. Dev's make games, sometimes they don't have all the time they need, or the budget to put things in that they want to (indie studios have an easier time at this). Sometimes they make poor decisions that make an otherwise stellar game disappointing. Disappointment can lead to rage, which leads to hate, which can lead to "YOU OWE ME CUZ I PAID!!!"

I feel that buying a game comes with a connotation that you don't always know what you're getting because of the whole "mystery box" feel of a first playthrough. If the game functions and is able to be finished, then by definition its a whole product, even if it has glitches. Publishers support these games with patches, which isn't exactly a new concept but a wholly more deliverable concept. But in no way shape or form are you guaranteed to enjoy your experience or have fun. Those feelings are not quantifiable, and therefore don't really give a customer solid ground to demand more. Its when you have games like the WarZ or Aliens: Colonial Marines, when you get into an area where customer paid for something that definitively wasn't delivered or was misled about said product. But ME3's ending doesn't fit.

I'm also of the mind that the hostility toward dev's/pub's is a direct catalyst for MORE animosity between the two and without diplomacy, it will spiral downward.
Also customers in general think they're special because they paid for something...

 

[thatonedude11]

snip

There is no way I could defend any of that behavior. It was unacceptable. Of course Volvo liked it because they got a bunch of free publicity. Still the fact remains the fans over reacted and acted like a bunch of babies over not getting something that wasn't even promised to them in the first place. It was all unacceptable.

The thing is, if one or two people were to post a few comments on some website saying "Give Diretide," that would be a bit silly, but it would not be morally objectionable. It is just someone voicing their desire to play some Diretide. Yet when a few thousand people do it, suddenly it's a huge unacceptable thing. Most people in the Give Diretide movement just thought to themselves "I would like Diretide," then they signed a petition and posted a comment or two. That is perfectly normal and acceptable behavior. I find it hard to criticize a group of people when a majority from that group did nothing wrong.

As a side note, I think this is, at least partially, what happened with the Mass Effect 3 ending debacle. A lot of dissatisfied customers sounds a lot like an angry horde when heard through the internet.

 

[AlbertoDeSanta]

Yes how dare gamers expect a company to release a competently made and functioning product, to exercise good and ethical business practices and to charge a fair price for their product. I mean who do they think they are? Game companies can do whatever they want and to question or to criticise them is unwarranted entitlement.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. However, I'm inclined to disagree with the ME3 debacle and anytime where a story is changed because of fan backlash. Fans didn't like your game's conclusion? Boo hoo for them. It's going to be an ever increasing problem too, because there is now a precedent of Devs backing out of their decisions. I will say that I've not played the ME games, but the backlash was (in my opinion) probably a bit too much. Again, though, the onus is on the devs for deciding to change it, so yeah... silly devs, stick to your guns, and show the gaming industry that your artistic licence is yours and not theirs.

 

[Something Amyss]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. However, I'm inclined to disagree with the ME3 debacle and anytime where a story is changed because of fan backlash. Fans didn't like your game's conclusion? Boo hoo for them. It's going to be an ever increasing problem too, because there is now a precedent of Devs backing out of their decisions. I will say that I've not played the ME games, but the backlash was (in my opinion) probably a bit too much. Again, though, the onus is on the devs for deciding to change it, so yeah... silly devs, stick to your guns, and show the gaming industry that your artistic licence is yours and not theirs.

If you're really worried about precedent, Shakespeare changed many of the endings of his plays, often due to audience reception. Are you really saying that Mass Effect is so sacrosanct that it deserves loftier treatment than William Shakespeare?

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I have to disagree with you guys saying that entitlement doesn't apply here.

From Merriam-Webster:
"Entitlement: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)", which would extend to special treatment as well.

Special treatment could be mean that the games industry (or other large body) should bow to a sole person's (or interest group's) will. That just because they don't like something, everyone should just throw everything away to placate them. That includes patches, glitches, prices, writing, etc.

I am entitled to several things on a regular basis. Being entitled to things isn't inherently bad - when I buy anything, I am entitled to its use; when I enter into a contract, I am entitled to the benefits that contract provides for, etc.

Undue entitlement is a separate issue - a feeling that one deserves things to which they are not actually already entitled or have earned and such.

What the conflict point seems to be is how much we, as consumers, are actually entitled to legitimately vs. how much we believe we should be entitled to exceeding that amount.

(Numbers added for clarity)

1) "That ending sucked! I want a refund!"

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

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

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

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

etc, etc.

I mean, what is UP with this? Seriously?

1) Dissatisfaction with a product. People have been returning various products for this reason for time immemorial. My grandmother once returned a bruised peach to a street fruit vendor. Reasons vary from the ridiculous to the completely understandable.

Now, if you'd put "That ending sucked! Change it!" That's a whole different discussion entirely.

2) Finding pricing unfair for a product. Also extremely common, also a timeless complaint in all sectors of consumerism. Again, reasonability varies, but it's hardly a plight of the video game industry specifically or exclusively.

3) See above.

4) THAT is a complaint exclusive to entertainment media at least - books, television, plays, video games, etc. It seems more vitriolic in the video game sector? until you join a message board for "cult" following television shows or books. People used to throw rotting fruit at actors on stage y'know? I blame the quantity and intensity of this recently on the Internet and the ability to voice opinions (especially negative opinions) with a degree of anonymity and form "mob" mentality with unprecedented speed.

Furthermore, to the more general topic, I think we're seeing more feedback (both positive (it exists) and negative) towards the game industry because the consumer base has "grown up" into adult consumers who feel they do and should have a voice. Twenty years ago, when I - and many others here - started playing games, we were children and games were universally considered "toys" - parents buy toys for children, they do not buy for themselves until they have reached an age where they can obtain an income with which to do so; many parents were not terribly invested in these purchases, beyond buying something to placate their children's desires; complaints were not commonly about the game construction or quality, but about how the media effected their kids (see the movement against violent games, etc.). Now, the consumers are the players and we are invested in the quality and the purchase is ours to complain about, should complaints arise. Moreover, we have the outlet of the Internet to access these companies, rally others to our cause if we are ignored individually, and so forth.

Additionally, the nature of video games as "interactive" tends to encourage an interactivity beyond gameplay in the industry. Part of the games are us playing them, why shouldn't part of making them be? That logic isn't perfect, but it's an emotional and intuitive response to the media. Now, this is an area where we risk exceeding the borders of our rightful entitlements as consumers and breech into possibly the "undue entitlement" you were originally referring to, in that we are not entitled to be part of the creation, development, or engineering processes by virtue of being consumers. Nevertheless, there is some overlap between issues that fall under our consumer umbrella entitlements that obviously originate in those processes, and so it becomes a bit of a gray area.

 

[AlbertoDeSanta]

Yes how dare gamers expect a company to release a competently made and functioning product, to exercise good and ethical business practices and to charge a fair price for their product. I mean who do they think they are? Game companies can do whatever they want and to question or to criticise them is unwarranted entitlement.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. However, I'm inclined to disagree with the ME3 debacle and anytime where a story is changed because of fan backlash. Fans didn't like your game's conclusion? Boo hoo for them. It's going to be an ever increasing problem too, because there is now a precedent of Devs backing out of their decisions. I will say that I've not played the ME games, but the backlash was (in my opinion) probably a bit too much. Again, though, the onus is on the devs for deciding to change it, so yeah... silly devs, stick to your guns, and show the gaming industry that your artistic licence is yours and not theirs.

Please don't the art card because many works have been changed throughout history so what makes video games different?

Going off that: Why should anyone have to change their creative vision just because people complained? Yes, boycott Bioware games just because they didn't change the endings, until the next game comes out and you all go "OMG NEW BIOWARES". What makes video games different? Nothing. But no one, no one who is a 'creative' should HAVE to change their creative works just because a few people, who didn't create it, decided to whinge. That's my view.

 

[TehCookie]

The thing I find most annoying are when people complain and keep throwing money at games. If you don't like it don't buy it. If publishers see people aren't buying their product for x reason they'll be more likely to change than when people buy and complain. They still get your money that way.

Now if it's unpredictable I can understand. Then there are some people who expect huge open world games to be released bug free in this day and age? It would be nice if that were true but look at reality. It should be common sense there will be patches down the line.

 

[wulf3n]

Going off that: Why should anyone have to change their creative vision just because people complained? ... But no one, no one who is a 'creative' should HAVE to change their creative works just because a few people, who didn't create it, decided to whinge. That's my view.

They didn't have to change it, they chose to. "Had to" implies they had no choice.

Yes the fans complained, something every consumer is entitled to do, Bioware were free to take from that what they wished.

You'd have a point if Bioware were issued a court order to change the ending, or someone was taken hostage.