Gamers and Entitlement Issues

[-Drifter-]

[HEADING=3]Disclaimer:[/HEADING]​

Before we start I feel I should mention that I left this site about a month an a half ago. However, after looking high and low I can honestly say that there aren't many good gaming forums around outside of this one (except maybe the review with extreme prejudice one, but it doesn't have many members.)

On to the subject at hand.

There's a question that's been bothering me lately, so I'll just go ahead and ask it: Why are gamers such a bunch of self-entitled pricks?

It comes to mind because Rockstar recently announced their future DLC plans. They're releasing four DLC packs for $10 dollars each (well, the third one's price is TBA but I think it's a safe bet that it'll be $10.) So, how does the gaming public react? By complaining that they should be free and stating that the fourth one (zombie back) will be the only one worth buying.

Now, for reference, here's what the first pack includes.

-Nine new multiplayer map locations
-Eight new multiplayer characters, including some from Red Dead Revolver
-New projectile weapon, The Tomahawk, with corresponding multiplayer and single-player challenges
-New Achievements and Trophies

So, nine new maps, eight new characters, a new weapon and new achievements. Now, I don't know about you, but that seems like a pretty fair amount of content. There are plenty of companies that would charge you the same price or more for just a few new maps. Here's the second pack.

-Attack and Defend multiplayer competitive mode and challenges
-New multiplayer horse races, with mounted combat
-Play as ?the heroes and villains? of Red Dead Redemption, as well as eight new multiplayer characters
-Multiplayer versions of Liar?s Dice and Poker from the single-player game
-New weapon, The Explosive Rifle, with corresponding multiplayer and single-player challenges
-New Achievements and Trophies

Again, that's not bad for ten dollars. New modes, new weapon, new characters, gambling in multi-player, and achievements. So, why are people bitching?

I'm not sure, but if I had to guess, I'd say that it was because the Outlaw to the End co-op pack was free. Rockstar did something nice for the players, and in turn the players got all bent out of shape when they actually expected some money for future content. They're like a bunch of spoiled children. You give 'em something nice, and instead of being thankful they expect more.

But my question, again, is why? Does this problem extend beyond gaming? Is this just the attitude of the new generation?

This is just a specific example, used because it's perhaps the most recent. There are plenty of other examples worse than this one.

 

[Radeonx]

Because people like money, and don't want to give theirs to others.
That's probably why.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

It's the attitude of people in general these days, you only notice it about games because that's where your interests are.

Also, no "new generation" crap-I've seen people of all ages act entitled to stuff that isn't theirs or their right to be given for free.

 

[Jonluw]

I suppose gamers are used to getting updates for free. *shrugs* I don't know really.

 

[Broken Orange]

People don't understand the work that goes into making DLC. They believe that additional content should be free.

 

[Maldeus]

Why do people feel like they're entitled to free healthcare? It used to be that poor people got no healthcare at all, but now we're giving them discounts on a few things and they feel like they're entitled to get everything free!

To be less sarcastic: They paid for the game and that's what they expected to get, the entire game. It does tend to irritate people when they expect us to buy stuff that would at one point have been put in the original release.

 

[Thaius]

Well the general idea is that this stuff should have been included in the original game in the first place. But that's bull.

I can understand this kind of frustration to an extent if the DLC was released for a price at the same time as the game, or even soon after the game's release. But at this point, it just makes sense. They're not going to do the work and take the time and money to make more content just to give it out for free; that makes no sense.

So why? No idea. Because humans are stupid, selfish idiots, I guess.

 

[Kpt._Rob]

Yeah, that definately doesn't just apply to gamers. All humans, myself included, can act like that without even realizing it. It's not a pretty side of our nature, but it is a side of our nature nonetheless.

As for whether or not it's a recent development of our generation, I can not say, as I have lived only in my own generation, and as such am unable to contrast it with previous generations. Certainly if you're judging generations that are currently young against generations that are currently old it would make sense that you see an incongruity. But, if you wait for our own generation to age, with time we'll mature and a smaller percentage of our generation will act like this. The other possibility, and I do hate to blame Hollywood, but the truth is that we have been raised on stories about people who always get a happy ending. We've come to expect that the happy ending is the norm and not the exception, and so when things don't go our way we believe it (on a subconscious level of course) to be the exception when it is actually the rule, and as such we complain about it.

 

[Kashim117]

To be fair ALOT of the time this kind of content is nothing more than features that werent ironed out or finished in time for the release date. As such its essentially content that the developers didn't finish in time or didn't make the deadline.
So you're having to pay in addition to the charge of owning the game.
Granted this isn't always the case but I get the feeling this is the case with Rockstar.
Btw you're talking about Red Dead Redemption right?

 

[Radeonx]

Well the general idea is that this stuff should have been included in the original game in the first place. But that's bull.

I can understand this kind of frustration to an extent if the DLC was released for a price at the same time as the game, or even soon after the game's release.

Even then, that argument doesn't work.
Most people don't understand it, but games don't just get released onto the shelves once they are created. There must be packaging, shipping, and all of the other stuff that can happen before a game hits the shelf. Because of this, some games can be finished a month before release, so, instead of doing nothing, the developers work on DLC for the game they just finished. The DLC can be finished close to the release date of the game, but does that mean they are going to give it to you for free? Why should they have to? If it was released 3 months later, no one would question paying for it.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

Me personally, I'd rather a game either include the DLC with the retail game at a higher price, or just no DLC at all. I hate micro-transactions. Megaman 9 was a perfect example of this. 20 points for a different suit of armor? No thanks!

A good game shouldn't need the excuse of DLC to keep people playing it. It's like multiplayer. It should be a small feature; part of a bigger picture. With a game like GTA, on the other hand, you have a relatively average game that at best would've lasted 2 or so years before fading. But because developers can't be bothered to actually make a full game, they take one or two aspects not in the original game, and charge $10-20. It's pure greed.

tl;dr: I don't like DLC at all.

 

[Radeonx]

A good game shouldn't need the excuse of DLC to keep people playing it. It's like multiplayer. It should be a small feature; part of a bigger picture. With a game like GTA, on the other hand, you have a relatively average game that at best would've lasted 2 or so years before fading. But because developers can't be bothered to actually make a full game, they take one or two aspects not in the original game, and charge $10-20. It's pure greed.

tl;dr: I don't like DLC at all.

The GTA IV DLC had a lot to do with the original game. It took minor characters that interacted with Niko, and expanded on their back story. Not only that, but it added new weapons, vehicles, and characters for the player to interact with.

 

[Breaker deGodot]

Me personally, I'd rather a game either include the DLC with the retail game at a higher price, or just no DLC at all. I hate micro-transactions. Megaman 9 was a perfect example of this. 20 points for a different suit of armor? No thanks!

A good game shouldn't need the excuse of DLC to keep people playing it. It's like multiplayer. It should be a small feature; part of a bigger picture. With a game like GTA, on the other hand, you have a relatively average game that at best would've lasted 2 or so years before fading. But because developers can't be bothered to actually make a full game, they take one or two aspects not in the original game, and charge $10-20. It's pure greed.

tl;dr: I don't like DLC at all.

There's a simple solution for you. If you hate the concept of DLC that much, don't buy it.

Here's a simple reply for you; I don't.

 

[likalaruku]

I've always felt that since developers spend thousands or millions making a game & I'm only paying $40, that I'm not really entitled to anything.

Sofar the only DLC I've paid for is Neverwinter Nights premium mods; I actually felt like some of them were worth more than what I paid for.

 

[Rarhnor]

I sense this is more of a retorical thread. A thread supposed to make us feel guilty.