"Entitled gamers" starting to remind me of "frivolous lawsuits".

[thehorror2]

The thing to remember with the XBone (pre-180) is that every personal anecdote about a user's spotty, unreliable internet service that will make them forgo the console is an argument against its policies. Every anecdote about the user's solid, dependable internet service is NOT an argument in favor of it, because the console installed restrictions where there were none before.

RE: "Entitled Gamers"

I do think that the term gets misused. Someone above said that entitled is often used where spoiled is meant, and I think that's accurate. Are some gamers "spoiled"? Absolutely. Often, as was the case with the ME3 ending, the majority voice IS spoiled. But even then there are those with legitimate grievances. For example, my friends run the gamut on the ME3 ending. None of them liked it, but they exemplify the different reasons people might or might not complain about something like this. Some didn't like it because their favorite characters died (the fandom of Joss Whedon holds little sympathy, guys) some because it wasn't "happy" like they hoped (I admit, that includes me) others disliked it for its thematic divergence (a game all about preparing for the war to end all wars ends with all of your other choices rendered obsolete by a push-button plot device to trigger color-coded fireworks.) They all felt that the ending was unsatisfactory, for different reasons that are more or less legitimate based on subjective opinion. They all joined their voices, however, which lead to a real reaction. Some consumers are spoiled, sure, but not everybody involved in this kind of protest is.

 

[faefrost]

I'm starting to get the same vibe from the term "entitled gamers". Given the way Microsoft treated us (and really continues to treat us, if their unapologetic backtracking is any indication), and in light of Adam Orth's stated intent to deliver a speech entitled "Mob Rules: The Destructive Power of Opinion and Online Community", I can't help but feel like the industry is attempting to marginalize the "core gaming demographic" as a bunch of whiny entitled brats. Are we precisely that sometimes? Of course. Reliably so, given the breadth of our opinions? Yes. But just as there exist legitimate checks against actual frivolous lawsuits, so too are there sensible people in the gaming community who will diligently eject idiocy and bigotry.

I feel like Microsoft did nothing but screw up, and gamers did nothing but correctly and forcefully call MS on their bullshit. Yet you still see people, even prominent members of the gaming "media", lamenting the victory. You see all these quotes from industry people trying so goddamn hard not to call us a bunch of whiny little shits. It's clear as day that they're thinking it, and they want so badly to just ignore all of us and plow ahead with their own (extremely lucrative) visions for this hobby. Meanwhile, we're the ones supporting THEM. They owe US their very fucking livelihoods, yet any reasonable expectations on our part are now met with "can't please the whiny entitled gamer crowd".

If someone wants to dismiss criticism, fine. Have grounds for dismissal. Present a compelling argument to the contrary. The moment you utter anything along the lines of "blah blah entitled gamers", you've lost my respect and forfeited the debate.

This post is the very definition of what people mean when they talk about gamers with a sense of entitlement.

Here's a reality check: gaming enthusiasts (the so-called "hardcore gamers") make up a small, shrinking portion of Microsoft's constituency. Casual users, streaming video consumers and others make up a much larger portion than hardcore gamers. And that's just consumers. Beyond that, as a platform/ecosystem provider, Microsoft has to consider its publishing, retail, manufacturing development partners who play a much larger role in Microsoft's success than gaming enthusiasts ever will.

You don't matter nearly as much as you think you do, but guys like you yell and whine the loudest. That's why you are said to be so entitled.

Actually no. Casual users, streaming video users etc are what MS sees as their only potential growth area. But at least in XBox land it is still the more dedicated gaming enthusiasts who pay the bills, both today and tomorrow. Those who buy the 10+ games and justify the costs of console development. Mom and her Netflix don't do that. And that strategy of pissing off the current cash cow in order to hyper cater to what is viewed as a potential growth market is a theme that has sadly been running through MS during the Balmer years. Windows 8 being the biggest example. (In trying to compete with Apples more casual and personal user base MS among other things really pissed off the business users that rely on them and form the bulk of their own business. They gave people who were by nature content producers an OS that was really only geared or applicable for content consumption. And then tried to force it on them.)

While a company should always seek growth, and always watching for and being mindful of a new and expanding source of customers. Failing to listen to your existing customers, the ones that are actually paying your bills, in the process is a guaranteed recipe for failure on multiple fronts.

 

[senordesol]

"The Customer is always right." This adage seems to be lost on the modern-day video game product provider.

Now, it's important to unpack what this means. 'The Customer is always right' does not mean 'the customer is always correct', but that as the people who -at the end of the day- fund a company's ability to produce, our happiness and satisfaction should always come first. It doesn't matter what feature or product you 'thought' was cool or necessary, when all is said and done there is only one truth: either they'll pay for it (or continue to pay for it) or they won't.

Always-on DRM now sends a cold shiver down everyone's spine. After the Diablo and SimCity debacle, who in their right mind would consider buying another AAA/AO-DRM title on launch day? It's not like you're going to be able to play it. When we heard that an entire GAME SYSTEM was threatening to do the same damn thing, we stood up and said "No, thank you. I'm not taking that deal." We, as customers, didn't change a damn thing: we just let Microsoft know what we were and were not willing to pay for.

The ME3 ending is a great example of this concept working in reverse. Bioware openly said when promoting ME3 that the 'choose one of three endings' style ending WOULD NOT HAPPEN. But we, as consumers, let them know that we were mad as hell for having paid for a game, based on that promise, and getting completely ripped off. There is nothing wrong with being mad about NOT GETTING WHAT YOU WERE PROMISED. Same thing with A:CM. Gearbox made major promises in its demos, but those promises bore out to be completely unrepresentative of the final product. Now they've got a lawsuit on their hands.

We have for too long been asked to meekly accept the grinning promises and insistence of our media creators despite the fact that we know they're bullshit. There is after all, a fine line between marketing speak and full-blown lies, but when their statements directly conflict with what's being presented -when what is being presented demands far more from the consumer than is expected of the provider- we have every right to whine and complain and moan, because at the end of the day: we ARE ENTITLED to a positive, beneficial, and satisfactory customer experience.

 

[J Tyran]

I am convinced people start throwing around the "entitled" argument because they have nothing unique to say and think its a loaded word they read from somewhere thats the ultimate undefeatable argument.

The instant they use it they lose.

Throwing "pretentious" into a debate is rapidly approaching the same status.

 

[Alexi089]

Frankly, Microsoft should be grateful that their potential customers were interested enough in their work to bother explaining why they wouldn't buy it. In many industries, a lot of customers would simply cease trading with a company that showed that much contempt for it's customers. You wouldn't have the luxury of knowing precisely why they weren't seeking your services anymore; and once you'd figured it out, few would give you the opportunity for another chance without some significant gesture of goodwill. Granted, some of the criticism was on the ranty side; and the middle finger text thing was less than thorough in it's criticism, but it still gave some indication of just how many future customers they would be alienating and why.

Would they prefer that their diehard fans shower praise, while the dissatisfied sit in silence; and they spend the days running up to launch period tearing their hair out, wondering why their pre-order figures are well under forecast whilst Sony's skyrocket and it's much too late to correct whatever the hell it is that's turning potential customers away from their console? I can't think of another realistic alternative.

On the topic of entitlement: I ignore people who trot that one out. That's just about someone looking for an excuse to act self-righteous and condescending. Personal opinion is irrelevant when talking about what you are and aren't entitled to when purchasing a product. Sales law and the customer-supplier agreement take care of all of that.

If anyone has an issue with self-entitlement, it's Microsoft for throwing tantrums when their target market told them they wouldn't spend the money Microsoft wanted on a product those people (and me) didn't want.

 

[votemarvel]

DRM only ever affects the people who pay for the products. Remember those unskippable anti-piracy ads at the start of DVDs? The only people who ever saw them were the people who had a genuine copy, the pirates could either skip them or had it ripped out entirely.

I can understand why DRM is used, to try and protect first week sales and to prove to shareholders you are trying to protect your product, but surely there has to be a better way than punishing your paying customers. I suppose that is why the DRM that is Steam is so well accepted, it gives back to the customer as well as just being DRM.

Back to topic though. I don't think people are becoming more frivolous or "entitled whiners", rather it is just that the internet has given people a way to directly communicate with the creators behind the product.

I've chatted on Twitter with a Bioware dev (not about a Bioware game but the tat that was Need for Speed: The Run.) I've talked on Facebook with Walt Simonson about comics. Previously I'd have had no way to do that other than snail mail letter that in all likelihood would never be read.

The people sending death-threats to developers are idiots and they would have been idiots sending hate mail by post if there was not a thing called the internet to do it over.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

By essentially pulling reasons out of your hindquarters to support the hardline position you were taking.

You have no credible evidence to support your continued assertions about the nature of the family-share feature. You have an unsourced pastebin post that you could have written yourself for all anyone knows, and you have your own incredible fantasies about Microsoft's business goals. That's it. You used that to construct a giant red-herring you could beat into submission. And meanwhile you ignored the only credible information we had about it--directly from Microsoft--because it didn't fit with your paranoid delusions of big bad Microsoft out to ruin everything about gaming.

That is exactly how "entitled gamers" behave.

So Microsoft had this killer replacement for game sharing, one that would have quelled the majority of complaints leveled at them at E3, only they couldn't articulate something as fantastically simple as "you and 10 friends can play one copy of any game you buy if you take turns!" because everyone who works at a megabillion dollar corporation is apparently a tongue-tied imbecile.

Yeah, that makes sense. I'm switching from "family-share made no economic sense for publishers whatsoever" to "UnnDunn's magic mystery of the tongue-tied PR platoon: revenge of the conspiracist forumites".

Thank fucking god I can think for myself instead of relying on corporate press releases.

 

[Joffas16]

I agree with the original post, I have lately started to hate the word "entitled". People often use it to discredit people complaining about genuine problems.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

While a company should always seek growth, and always watching for and being mindful of a new and expanding source of customers. Failing to listen to your existing customers, the ones that are actually paying your bills, in the process is a guaranteed recipe for failure on multiple fronts.

I like this point. Reminds me a lot of what happened with Dragon Age 2 and Dead Space 3. These companies take for given the sales of any game in a franchise, then rework and even completely alter aspects of the game for a second or third installment under the guise of "bringing in more players". They're basically trading on the goodwill they accumulated with the previous entry and assuming we are complete automatons with the sole purpose of devouring whatever content they deign to provide.

If you want to turn DA:O into DA2, go right ahead. But be honest about what you're doing or an average game (DA2) will be treated like an abomination... because that's the only feedback a publisher will understand. If you want to turn a survival horror game into a COD brofest, go right ahead. But don't expect the survival horror fans to tag along, and don't expect the ones who unwittingly do to be very happy about it. And if you want to alter the consumer/publisher bargain in your favor, be prepared to explain why it is also in our best interest.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills because all of this is so exceedingly basic in the business world. When someone starts ignoring the basics, you know they've gotten too big for their britches.