Gamers and Entitlement Issues

[UberNoodle]

It happens in everything. That's why 'everbody hates everything' nowadays. Movies/games/whatever are all "crap" because they don't DO EXACTLY what one wanted them to do.

There are some times when complaints and disastisfaction are wholely justified, but more of than not, good products get crucified for selfish reasons.

"Me me me, I I I, my my my" - this about sums it up.

 

[Zaik]

it's less of an issue when the DLC is an actual addition. It's more of a problem when there are big gaping holes cut out of the main game that get filled with dlc later.

 

[-Drifter-]

I read through all the comments and it doesn't seem anyone 'bitched' about that certain DLC, where did you see the gaming community spit the dummy?

I'm talking more about people on Gametrailers and Kotaku than here.

 

[Nigh Invulnerable]

I think the problem with DLC is that there's really no standard for amount of content and price. You can get a pack of a half dozen songs for Rock Band or Guitar Hero for $4 or whatever. Games like GTA charge $10 for some new map material and a few achievements/trophies. The problem is that the perceived value for a bunch of new map area isn't usually quite as high as something like a full one song for Rock Band. Maybe I'm mistaken though. Also, PC users may be a little spoiled since updates like "The Passing" for the Left 4 Dead games is free, while console users got charged $7 for the new content. PC users tend to be a little bit entitled in that way.

 

[Lightslei]

The only DLC I won't pay for is that which has been inherently ripped from the initial game. Otherwise I don't see a problem with it, to me it's the same as paying for expansions.

 

[Therumancer]

[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.

Well, as a gamer who has been around since the Commodore 64 I'm a bit believer that a game should be released as a complete "stand alone" product. Add ons should be along the lines of full fledged expansion packs, which themselves should provide a substantial amount of content for no more than half the price of what the game costs.

Things like extra multi-player maps, skins, or an odd new weapon or two are the kinds of things that have been traditionally provided for free by companies as part of supporting what is a pretty expensive product. A way of making fans feel they got their money's worth.

The thing is that the various content that I was getting for free has now become a paid service. What's more in many cases it seems like the content that is being provided are things that should have been part of the game to begin with. Without talking about RDR specifically I will point out that there are games out there that have tried to get people to pay extra money simply to get multi-player modes. This is to say nothing of "day one" DLC where there is no reason why it shouldn't have been included with the game.

I don't think it's a sense of entitlement as you put it, more than feeling like we're being taken advantage of. As game companies have gotten bigger, they have also gotten far greedier. Why provide something for free when you can charge money for it? What's more it seems like the attitude is to increasingly provide as little as they can get away with as part of a main product so they can get as much additional money as they can by fulling enabling all the features and content that arguably should have been there from the beginning, and probably would have been years ago.

A big part of the problem is that games are not cheap. Your shelling out $60 for a game, and then might very well be paying another $40 to get the entire package depending on the game.

This isn't nessicary either, when you consider that this is an industry that is making billions of dollars in profits. Yes, some game companies claim they are in trouble, but the industry as a whole is booming. What's more when you look at things like the battles involving Activision/Infinity Ward and it's employees where hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses are at stake, it's easy as a consumer to feel like I'm being taken advantage of. Hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses for coding video games? Me and John Funk go back and forth about how much people in the industry actually make, and truthfully they sit on the numbers (and I believe they do so for good reason) which is why most analysts can't give a solid estimate of how much it's making. 2009 for example seemed to have a huge variation ranging from 19 billion to 50 billion in profits for the industry as a whole for example.

Now, understand that I'm a capitolist (albiet an American one, who doesn't believe in Monopolies or Cartels). I do not believe that the gaming industry is a public service, and I understand they are out to make money. However there is a point at which the industry starts to treat their customers like exploitable sheep, and when people realize this they tend to get upset. As "Ryan Quickbender" starts his segements in "ENN" referring to the viewers as "Cashbags" I believe the dark humor is accurate to how the gaming industry is viewing
it's consumers.

Basically when you dish out $60 for a game like RDR, and then right on the heels of it's release you have a handfull of minor enhancements being sold for $10, that tends to irritate people. There is no real reason why that shouldn't be part of the game to begin with, and I doubt anyone believes that this content was not already developed when the game was released.

In general when I look at paid expansions I believe they should include substantial content. The standard I tend to use are actually the first well known game add ons, "Forge Of Virtue" and "The Silver Seed" for Ultima 7/Ultima 7 part 2. Those were worth the money they cost for the time as they involved a decent amount of gameplay and additions... even if the "Test of Truth" was ridiculous and an attempt to get people to call a paid hint line (old contreversy). That kind of thing is worth $10-$15, however the last substantial expansion that wasn't a drop in the pan was probably "Dragon Age: Awakenings" and that cost two thirds of the price of the whole game for what turned out to be a fraction of the content.

The bottom line here is that what some might view as "entitlement" I think is more along the lines of "justified resentment over being gouged and exploited".

See, part of the trap is that when someone has already bought in to a game for $60 they want the whole thing, and as much as it might annoy them they are going to pay the extra money for the features they were missing.... or at least so far, I'm wondering if there is going to be some inevitable backlash since each year games become more and more exploitive, and the customers get more and more angry.

 

[Zhalath]

To me, DLC seems like something removed from the game or that should have been added, and then sold to you later. It's like having to buy some of the Pokemon in a Pokemon game (but none of the good ones, so you can still go through the game just fine).

Oh, yeah, and Valve.

 

[Tom Phoenix]

Valve spoiled us.

Yeah, pretty much this. We've just gotten used to the awesome kindness that is Valve. I still refuse to buy map packs for COD6 when I got them for free in COD4.

?? Cod 4's "Variaty Map Pack" was 5 bucks. Thats five dollars more than free

It was free on the PC, where there was no point to try and charge for maps when mapmakers were already busy making custom content that was just as good, if not better. That was probably one of the reasons why Infinity Ward removed dedicated servers and mod support from Modern Warfare 2; an ultimately futile attempt to try and make map packs commercially viable for the modern PC market.

On topic, I think the main issue is that most gamers aren't used to the idea of companies creating additional content for existing games. PC gamers, of course, are well-versed to this idea, having existed for a long time on the PC market in the form of expansion packs (and also in the form of map packs back in the late 90's; Red Alert and Sudden Strike being examples of this). However, until the advent of online services and additional hard drives, there was no practical way to apply and distribute additional content for console games. For that reason, console gamers have only become exposed to the trend relatively recently.

Now, do not misunderstand me, I am not trying to imply that console gamers are whiny brats who expect everything for free. I am just saying that they are just not used to such a business model and a lot of them probably still hold the traditional mentality of "I pay once and I have all the content that game has to offer". Assuming that is the case, it doesn't come as a suprise if they see payable DLC as a game company being "cheap" and trying to "milk" a specific title for all it's worth.

Another problem, I think, has to do with the size. Expansion packs are preety big and cost a fair bit of money. As such, you can at least reasonably expect them to have a significant impact on the gameplay and they sometimes qualify as games in their own right (which they sometimes do, if they are standalone). Plus, they take a significant amount of time to make, so it is much easier to feel like it is content that the developers made additionally, after the core game was released.

In comparison, DLC comes in small, bite-sized chunks and is sometimes available for purchase on day one or shortly after. Beacuse of this, it becomes more difficult to assess whether it is a significant enough change to the core game to be worth your money. It also, beacuse of it's small size and price, becomes more difficult to tell whether it is truly content the development team worked additionally on or if it was something that was "trimmed" from the core game in order to obtain additional profit.

Overall, I think the primary problem here is how the concept is presented to gamers. Games are a significant investment and cost a fair bit of money. As such, once gamers have purchased an expensive core game, it becomes difficult for them to tell if a whole bunch of smaller investments for additional content is going to bring them any value. In addition, beacuse the core game is so expensive, it is very easy to end up feeling "cheated" when the developers offer something small for an extra bit of money.

 

[Drexlor]

I, for one am thankful that Rockstar gave us a free co-op pack and although I would be thrilled to have more free DLC, I understand that it is expensive to produce and think that $10 is a good deal for the amount of add-on content.

 

[nuba km]

I've only heard of the zombie dlc but the other stuff sounds fun and fairly priced

 

[-Drifter-]

To me, DLC seems like something removed from the game or that should have been added, and then sold to you later. It's like having to buy some of the Pokemon in a Pokemon game (but none of the good ones, so you can still go through the game just fine).

I think it's already been established that that's not the case.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

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.

That's the thing though, we don't actually know that that content would have been in the original release. The technology to add content to a game after it has already been released via download has only recently become common place and it certainly is a new thing for as far as consoles are concerned. So in the "old days" if a member of the dev team got a brilliant flash of inspiration and came up with an awesome idea to add to the game when the game was already in post production, chances are his brilliant awesome idea would have fall by the wayside. But wait, now we can add content to the game later. Now if some member of the dev team gets that same brilliant flash of inspiration, they can add his brilliant idea to a DLC pack and release it for download. So who wins? I'd say we the gamers do. And since it costs money to develop this additional content, it's only natural that the company would want a return on that investment. So DLC potentially allows the publisher an additional chance to make a profit and gives us gamers access to content we wouldn't see otherwise, win-win.
True there is the potential for abuse, but for once couldn't we give these guys the benefit of the doubt eh?

 

[Irridium]

This confuses me quite a bit as well.

People seem to not realize that content stops getting added to the game many months before the game is actually released.

In between the date no new content gets in, and the game gets releases, they polish and test the game to crush bugs.
And while thats going on, the designers, artists, writers, and quite a few other people aren't doing anything. At this point there are a few options; fire the employees who have families to feed, let them sit on their asses doing nothing, or have them work on brand new content.

So thats where DLC comes from. But why do we have to pay? Simple: It takes money to develop this new content, and how do they make this money back? Why they charge it.

Simple as that.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

People are stupid. Also, because they gave out free DLC. Adam Sessler had a video about gamers feeling entitled. He hit the nail on the head. http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/696648/sesslers-soapbox-to-the-left-4-dead-2-petitioners.html

 

[Twilight_guy]

All gamers are entitles brats and have been for a few years as far as I know. I blame it on the demographics. Gamers (the vocal ones that do the complaining no the 30 year old ones) are mostly white middle class kids. These kids are part of a generation that expects hand-outs and freebies. On top of that the previous demographic tends to produce self absorbed yuppie pricks. In the end we are just lucky Enough to have a hobby heavily populated by assholes that are entitled and also seem to be trolls and curmudgeons that make gaming forums into cesspools of stupidity, bitching, and trolling. In addition, there are lots of very vocal idiots on the internet and lots of them are immature and thus ***** about games which attract an immature audience. Gaming is cursed and anyone who has traversed a gaming forum or gameing network (such as X-box live) knows that games are assholes.

 

[atomictoast]

I feel things should be free that are already built into the game at launch. Day-One DLC pisses me off because that really is just the developer attempting to grab a few more bucks from you for something that should have been part of the game already.

DLC after the game's launch that was built to expand the original game can be charged if the developer feels that's right. For this example, I feel that the price is justified, but in some cases there really is unfair DLC prices, the best example still being $10 Horse Armor for Oblivion.

In the end though, it's just the mentality of this demographic. Plus Valve keeps us PC gamers spoiled as hell with DLC. We've gotten about, maybe 12 major free updates now to TF2?

 

[godofallu]

Because us gamers can still remember when DLC was ALWAYS FREE. If a company 10 years ago said they were going to charge for DLC, that would be the end of that company.

I can remember when games were advertised with the downloadable content sticker on them, and it meant that you could expect to recieve a few updates to the game for free. It was kind of like a warranty or a promise that helped sell the game to people.

5-25 dollars for what is usually 1-2 hours of playtime is the new average for DLC packs. Not to mention I have to download them, oh and thats fun when you have no HD space left.

You can't play the "I remember card" and completely forget about expansion packs from the days of yore. Guess what, that was essentially pre-internet DLC.

Most DLC is pretty damn fair, and in some cases a great bargain. For ten bucks, you're getting quite a bit with RDR's DLC for instance. If you want criminal DLC, Modern Warfare 2 takes the cake by having half of it just be recycled maps and still trying to charge people for it. THAT is a ripoff.

Gamers in general seem to think that they "deserve" to play games. That the companies owe them something. Get over yourselves, the stuff they're making isn't cheap to produce and it's hard for them to put out freebies like they used to.

EDIT:

Yeah, there was. It was called expansion packs.

Damn you Drifter, you beat me to it! Hive mind, etc.

Sure 1 in 1000 DLC bundles will be worth the money, but lets talk for a moment about Horse Armor in Oblivion or the Submarine ride in Fable 2.

These days companies sell incomplete games and then try to sell the missing pieces to us a month later, oh whats that RE5 you forgot to add multiplayer which is listed on the back of the box? Don't worry $5 is all it takes to download that missing stuff.

Oh and don't talk about GTA DLC like it is worth it, remember having to pay money for extra guns?

 

[Anezay]

If I paid $50+ on a game, I'd damn well better get the whole game. You can't buy a movie where they cut out fifteen minutes from the middle, so why can they do it with a game? Maybe I'm just bitter because I have to pay $7 if I the Kasumi DLC for Mass Effect 2...

Valve spoiled us.

That too.

 

[Jimmy_Mac]

DLC is just a way of making more profit, We buy a game and at the average point when most people have and are playing the game DLC is introduced thus they get a profit of around (£/$)5 - 20 extra from a few million people which is a lot of money.

So basically DLC will most likely never be Free.