Undue Entitlement: A Growing Issue?

[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.

 

[DjinnFor]

Ever since the whole snafu with Mass Effect 3's ending and that ludicrous "Take back Mass Effect" campaign, I'm starting to notice more and more of a feeling of (unearned, in my opinion) entitlement on the part of gamers. Granted, I'm sure it's been a large issue before this, but I've been more aware of it recently.

I've seen hundreds of posts about different games to the effect of:

"That ending sucked! I want a refund!"

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

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

"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?

None of that is really entitlement with the exception of pirating a game. When you pay for a product, its not entitlement to expect some minimum standards, especially when you have other products to compare to. It's especially not entitlement to expect the product to deliver on its core value product. Expecting that Mass Effect ought to have a quality ending is like expecting a baseball bat to help you hit home runs; its tied into the very product you're buying. Not only are AAA titles like Mass Effect some of the most expensive games on the market, but when your game focuses on delivering a quality roleplay narrative experience, you don't want to screw up said narrative experience.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

I think the false and useless labeling of the term "entitled" at the drop of a hat is a far larger problem.

So what if people got mad? The have the right to get mad. Just like they have the right to demand a refund or rewrite. Just like Bioware has the right to ignore them.

People are entitled to speak out in whatever way they choose.

Besides, even if you can somehow make the case that they feel entitled to something they aren't actually entitled to, so fucking what? How is that a problem? People ask for things they can't have every nanosecond of every day.

In fact, i think holding thing to a higher standard no matter what is overall a good thing. Always aim for perfection and never let something go criticized even if it's nearly perfect.

As for piracy, people are "entitled" to exactly as much as they can take. It's a simple fact and my opinion and yours makes absolutely no difference on the matter.

 

[Elfgore]

Can I just say I despise the word entitlement? It just has a negative feel to it. But anyway...

All of your examples are perfect examples of undue entitlement, but there are an a very high amount of due entitlement. The Mass Effect ending is a good example. We were told that we would not get an A, B,and C ending... we got exactly that. That is just entitlement. We were told we were to get something, we did not get it. Now going ahead and filing a lawsuit is taking it way to far, but the claims against the ending were not entitled.

But I do see undue entitlement as a small issue, but one that can be easily ignored by avoiding internet forums. If people want to go ahead and ***** over DLC costing money or waiting for patches that's fine by me. Makes for some entertaining reading.

 

[Something Amyss]

As for piracy, people are "entitled" to exactly as much as they can take. It's a simple fact and my opinion and yours makes absolutely no difference on the matter.

There's still a sizable chunk of the community who believe they are owed or deserve games. This does fit with the concept of entitlement, whether we can do anything about it or not.

Can I just say I despise the word entitlement? It just has a negative feel to it. But anyway...

Isn't spin a magical thing?

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Maybe I am alone in thinking entitlement is actually the right word to use.

"That ending sucked! I want a refund!"

This was one series. If it happened to pretty much any other, that would be a ridiculous complaint to have. Some games have bad endings, deal with it. But considering it was Mass Effect, a trilogy that sold itself on in-game choices having consequences, for it to contradict that is a legitimate complaint.

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

Four kinds of DLC: DLC that is extra content deliberately crafted as an expansion to the experience. I have no problem with this. DLC that is inconsequential and ridiculously priced for how shallow it is (and I'll group DLC that exists only to give players an advantage out of the gate that regular players don't have). In this case don't buy it. DLC that was probably cut from the game during production. This is vague, if the development cycle was shorter and the game less extensive than previous games in the series, it could be a legitimate complaint, seeing as it's going for the same price. Lastly, DLC that is content that was part of previous games in the series, and has been made a paid feature. Legitimate complaint.

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

I happen to think it is too expensive for many games, but whether people pirate it or not is neither here nor there.

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

What is this one from?

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

It is not unreasonable to expect a product that is released to function as intended, and publishers have a moral responsibility to make sure a game isn't broken on release, and can be played by someone without modification adequately. In the case of things like weapon balance or small bugs, it's fine, although patches still shouldn't be mandatory before the game is started. In the case of things like malfunctioning DRM and game-breaking bugs that don't allow the player to proceed past a certain point, that's pretty inexcusable. At launch this is especially true, because people bought a game new to experience it as soon as possible rather than look around for a better price.

 

[Kaymish]

since mass effect 3 was used as an example i am going to say: come on mass effect 3 is not and was never art like most (if not all) AAA titles they are entertainment products not art just like Hollywood blockbusters and mass market paperbacks and the devs hiding behind the excuse ooh its art was just insulting just as as insulting as trying to fob people off with that lazy bull shit they called an ending and i seriously question the mental age of people who say calling for a change was "entitled"
hell the gaming industry doesn't know how good it has it they have this massive resource telling them what they did wrong and instead of listening to the hell mouthed beast they are poking it with a stick and the media is worse since they are doing the most insulting calling us entitled pah i don't think most of what is called entitlement is any such thing consumers are putting their money down and demand a quality product and i reiterate it is a product not a piece of art

OFC on the other hand you do have idiots who do want something special but that is much fewer and further between than most people who have an issue with it seam to blow it out of proportion that LoL Halloween event was the most recent one that springs to mind well its the only one that springs to mind and even then there are levels of subjectivity here
but bandying around a word like entitled is not helping anyone

 

[Ruzinus]

Yeah, it's not like the fans explained in great detail how ME3 was the exact opposite of a number of specific promises made by the designers.

No, the reality is that ME3 was made in a vacuum, no promises were made to the fans, and so the game could be whatever it wanted.

And then that vocal minority which comprised most of the fans rose up in an angry wave of entitled entitlement and tried to ruin it for the poor innocent developer by doing things like raising money for charity and sending cookies to said poor innocent developer.

Cookies of pure hatred.

What could Bioware have possibly done but turn on its fanbase and crucify them in the media? What could the gaming media have done but follow their lead? Media is, after all, not meant to be for the benefit of the public. Nay, it is just a tool for selling Doritos and Mountain Dew, and anyone who expects anything else is just an entitled whiny baby who whines and babies.

Down with the evil consumer. It is time for the corporation to finally rise up.

 

[Mangod]

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.

Hate having to rain on your parade, but Merriam-Webster isn't exactly a reliable dictionary. Proof:

Definition of LITERALLY
1: in a literal sense or manner: actually, "took the remark literally", "was literally insane".

2: in effect: virtually, "will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice".

 

[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.

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.

Sorry, but I am not accepting that "false advertisement"-stuff as an excuse for the huge retardation that ensued afterwards.

We had Bioware threatened with harm, whole Forums flooded with insults and the Internet pretty much grinding to a halt for a few days, to watch the ME3-Fanboy parade waltz around. And again, its fine to call out Bioware for bullsh*t like delivering a substandard of what you expected (Even if its just the very last part), but in my eyes one has absolutely NO right to demand money back for a game, after he sunk so many hours into it allready.

"Yeah, so i played the game you put a metric fu*kton of hours into, but the ending wasnt what you said it would be, so I will take my money back now, please."

I've said it somewhere else allready, thats the equivalent of eating in a restaurant, a whole 4-part menu, and then demand your money back because the cook delivered a bad dessert. If you want to make a stand against stuff like that, dont buy their sh*t anymore until they fix it.

To be honest, I had a hard time understanding the "refund"-part, even _if_ you agree that the ending alone would justify one. We had games that were delivered in a much worse condition (i.e. Buggy, with goadwful DRM etc. etc.) and you didnt get a refund on those either. What made people think that they would get a refund on an absolutely functional game, AFTER they allready played trough it? Thats just delusional.