How comes gamers are "entitled" when they don't get what they expect from a product?

[Rylian]

I consider it unethical for a company to make one aspect of a game the crux of their advertising campaign only to fail to deliver that aspect altogether.

That is the point of the FTC complaint.


*Hyperbole alert*
Would you have been okay with purchasing Skyrim after seeing all the beautiful ads, only to come home, load up the game, and find out that it's actually just Pong?


Maybe I'm just 'entitled' but I expect a higher-quality product throughout for my money. Ninety-nine percent awesome does not make up for the climax falling pathetically short.


Capta: "road rage" WTF!?!

 

[zachusaman]

DLC? dlc has always been minor things. a few maps here, a sidequest there, yada yada.
this DAY 1 DLC though ON THE DISK (IE its right freaking there on your disc but we moved it to a different place) is like getting a smart phone and having to pay 10 bucks to be able to get access to the browser.its like buying a computer and having to pay 10 bucks for them to unlock the disk drive.

and the endings, good god for a slap in the face while hitting you in the nuts with a hammer on a cold and rainy day.

5 years, and the ending to this trilogy is a middle finger courtesy of the development team, and a middle finger from EA as well as them reaching into your pocket to take more money.
want closure? want choices to matter? sorry, you chose the wrong game. go plays gears of war instead.
oh and tali? yep, we photoshopped her face in like 5 minutes.
oh and another kid just died, but you dont care, its too deep and edgy for you to understand.

the game just feels so unpolished, and half baked as if the team was in the middle of development and got told that the game is going to be released a month later.

 

[AdamRhodes]

Now ME3 follows that same Logic. Good Game, but the Ending was terrible. So People are hoping it can be fixed with DLC. Thats a Problem, may i point out its Arrival all over again, it doesnt need to exist, not because the Endings were good by any means in ME3, but that we should have to pay to get the complete Game that we should be having already. DLC is added Bonus, Content beyond the mainstory, in-between, before, after, either is fine, but if it has a big Impact on the storyline of the mainstory, it should be in the Game already from the start, and not held hostage behind a pricetag.

This. This. This. A thousand times, THIS!

ME3's ending isn't an ending. There is no closure, no denouement. The ending given is not an ending, the ending given is just when the game chooses to stop happening.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

Ok, another question. At what point was Mass Effect 3 'incomplete'? I played through the game without any DLC and I still got a complete story.

That's because it isn't incomplete without the From Ashes DLC.

I'm nearing at the end of the game, and Prothy the Prothean(Javik), has done jack-crap story wise. He just has some funny dialogue, has a superiority complex, and he basically reveals that Protheans are really just a bunch a jerks, just like every other race in the galaxy has proven they can be.

Nothing more. He isn't even of any use in helping with the Crucible.

So, I can easily say that I was right that the whining about the oh so important DLC they "took away" from the main game, has nothing to do with the main game. If anything, by buying the DLC, you are buying an extra mission where you find and revive some extra comic relief that happens to be a soldier that can fight in your squad.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Title says it all, why do people complain about gamers being so entitled?

If I buy a dishwasher, and it doesn't wash dishes correctly, or I have to buy $10 add on so that I can wash forks with it, and I said "NO THESE THINGS SHOULD BE STANDARD!", would that make me entitled? I don't think so, so why is it the case with games?

Why are gamers specifically targeted as being entitled?

No, of course not. Whining like a spoiled brat child because a game doesn't end the way you'd have liked it to makes you "entitled."

 

[Freechoice]

OH MY CHRIST YES WE KNOW MASS EFFECT 3'S ENDING SUCKS JESUS LET'S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE PLEASE
Sorry, I just got a bit worked up.

It was so bad we're still recovering from the fallout. Every game forum is going to look like Chernobyl for the next month.

Funny that you mention crappy endings and Fallout!

 

[Provident]

Are you seriously suggesting that Mass Effect 3 without DLC is a skeleton of a game? The 26 hours I spent diving into it suggest otherwise. Now, if you aren't talking about Mass Effect 3 (I presume you to be since it's what everyone is talking about right now), what games are you talking about since none come to mind for me.

Well, I remember logging over 80 hours on Baldur's gate 2 on one playthrough...I remember logging a good 50 in Mass Effect 1.

What I'm "seriously suggesting" is that some gaming studios are going into that direction - how far they will go down that road is up to us. The actual game time of the "core game" is decreasing yet the price doesn't reflect that, that's what my beef is with.

And, also, I suppose in essence I meant about what A-D. posted a few posts back (though I would have a thing to say about capitalizing every noun), that the process of developing a game has changed, and that, as a gamer, I do not consider such change to be good.

While I see your point, you're ignoring quite a few significant factors.

Baldur's Gate had a fixed camera, used 2d sprites on a 2d pre-rendered backdrop and really didn't have a physics engine to speak of. Modern games like Mass Effect are real-time rendered 3d games in high definition with complex physics engines, particle effects, animations, dynamic shadows etc. Not to mention that since the development of Baldur's Gate the global game market has hugely expanded, vastly increasing the salaries of developers, making development vastly more expensive. All this, while the developers for modern games still have to write all the code, build the engine etc from the ground up just like the Baldur's Gate team did.

This all means that the length of Baldur's Gate is attributed to the relative ease at which the base of the game was developed. Mass Effect games, however, take huge amount of time and resources to just make the engine. The length of modern games is amazing considering the amount of work that needs to go into them. There are of course exceptions to this - quite a few. But the Mass Effect games have an absolutely incredible play time, despite being shorter than Baldur's Gate. I'd call the length of ME more than an achievement than the length of Baldur's Gate.

Even the difference between ME and ME3 are significant. Not anywhere near as big as Baldur's Gate to ME, but it's significant.

 

[Metalix Knightmare]

Are you seriously suggesting that Mass Effect 3 without DLC is a skeleton of a game? The 26 hours I spent diving into it suggest otherwise. Now, if you aren't talking about Mass Effect 3 (I presume you to be since it's what everyone is talking about right now), what games are you talking about since none come to mind for me.

Well, I remember logging over 80 hours on Baldur's gate 2 on one playthrough...I remember logging a good 50 in Mass Effect 1.

What I'm "seriously suggesting" is that some gaming studios are going into that direction - how far they will go down that road is up to us. The actual game time of the "core game" is decreasing yet the price doesn't reflect that, that's what my beef is with.

And, also, I suppose in essence I meant about what A-D. posted a few posts back (though I would have a thing to say about capitalizing every noun), that the process of developing a game has changed, and that, as a gamer, I do not consider such change to be good.

While I see your point, you're ignoring quite a few significant factors.

Baldur's Gate had a fixed camera, used 2d sprites on a 2d pre-rendered backdrop and really didn't have a physics engine to speak of. Modern games like Mass Effect are real-time rendered 3d games in high definition with complex physics engines, particle effects, animations, dynamic shadows etc. Not to mention that since the development of Baldur's Gate the global game market has hugely expanded, vastly increasing the salaries of developers, making development vastly more expensive. All this, while the developers for modern games still have to write all the code, build the engine etc from the ground up just like the Baldur's Gate team did.

This all means that the length of Baldur's Gate is attributed to the relative ease at which the base of the game was developed. Mass Effect games, however, take huge amount of time and resources to just make the engine. The length of modern games is amazing considering the amount of work that needs to go into them. There are of course exceptions to this - quite a few. But the Mass Effect games have an absolutely incredible play time, despite being shorter than Baldur's Gate. I'd call the length of ME more than an achievement than the length of Baldur's Gate.

Even the difference between ME and ME3 are significant. Not anywhere near as big as Baldur's Gate to ME, but it's significant.

I'd also like to mention that the combat in Baldur's Gate was a LOT slower than Mass Effect. Granted it wasn't Fallout slow, but I could get through two separate midgame shootouts in Mass Effect in the time it took me to get through one average encounter in Baldur's Gate.

No telling how many hours that added.

 

[Vern]

I bought a book and it didn't end how I wanted it to! I bought a DVD and I didn't like the story! I deserve my money back because I paid money for a thing I didn't research and didn't like!

 

[shadow skill]

I bought a book and it didn't end how I wanted it to! I bought a DVD and I didn't like the story! I deserve my money back because I paid money for a thing I didn't research and didn't like!

Research has nothing to do with anything.

 

[TheDutchin]

I'm amazed no one pointed out Call of Duty Elite, it's a 60$ DLC (yes the same price as the game itself) and it does nothing useful, not even new maps, but actually to buy the new maps, you have to have already bought Call of Duty Elite, so to have the ability to pay them you have to pay them, AND buy the game... x.x

 

[TheDutchin]

Are you seriously suggesting that Mass Effect 3 without DLC is a skeleton of a game? The 26 hours I spent diving into it suggest otherwise. Now, if you aren't talking about Mass Effect 3 (I presume you to be since it's what everyone is talking about right now), what games are you talking about since none come to mind for me.

Well, I remember logging over 80 hours on Baldur's gate 2 on one playthrough...I remember logging a good 50 in Mass Effect 1.

What I'm "seriously suggesting" is that some gaming studios are going into that direction - how far they will go down that road is up to us. The actual game time of the "core game" is decreasing yet the price doesn't reflect that, that's what my beef is with.

And, also, I suppose in essence I meant about what A-D. posted a few posts back (though I would have a thing to say about capitalizing every noun), that the process of developing a game has changed, and that, as a gamer, I do not consider such change to be good.

While I see your point, you're ignoring quite a few significant factors.

Baldur's Gate had a fixed camera, used 2d sprites on a 2d pre-rendered backdrop and really didn't have a physics engine to speak of. Modern games like Mass Effect are real-time rendered 3d games in high definition with complex physics engines, particle effects, animations, dynamic shadows etc. Not to mention that since the development of Baldur's Gate the global game market has hugely expanded, vastly increasing the salaries of developers, making development vastly more expensive. All this, while the developers for modern games still have to write all the code, build the engine etc from the ground up just like the Baldur's Gate team did.

This all means that the length of Baldur's Gate is attributed to the relative ease at which the base of the game was developed. Mass Effect games, however, take huge amount of time and resources to just make the engine. The length of modern games is amazing considering the amount of work that needs to go into them. There are of course exceptions to this - quite a few. But the Mass Effect games have an absolutely incredible play time, despite being shorter than Baldur's Gate. I'd call the length of ME more than an achievement than the length of Baldur's Gate.

Even the difference between ME and ME3 are significant. Not anywhere near as big as Baldur's Gate to ME, but it's significant.

Buy you've ignored the fact that these days the dev teams are MASSIVE in comparison, and on top of that ME3 didn't exactly have to build from the ground up, considering that they could take the graphics/physics/etc engine from ME2, or for that matter any game, but really all of this is incredibly off topic

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

The whole idea of gamers being entitled by demanding a better product is absurd. It is something that the game publishers basically made up. Gamers are probably the most walked over customers of any business ever. They continue to let it happen by spending all their time arguing amongst each other instead of being a united force against publishers.

 

[Monsterfurby]

No, but as a consumer, I deserve a game which is high-quality from start to finish. Just as I expect a book I purchase to be well-written and edited until the end and have some final resolution, so I expect with a game.

Settling quietly for mediocrity begets more mediocrity.

So, as Bioware has burned me twice in a row now with games which did not feature quality throughout, they will not receive one more penny from me.

You are well within your rights to decide that a company's previous product did not satisfy you and that you therefore will not purchase their next one.

You are not within your within your rights trying to derive some sort of legal authority to force a company to change the ending to their game when the core product is exactly what could have been reasonably expected and more.

Finally, to get a bit more into content: because of this debate, I spoiled the ME3 ending by reading up on it. Thanks folks. Anyway, reading it on Wikipedia, it seems like a good ending to me. It is quite vague, but honestly, I would have it no other way. There is plenty of variety in there based on player action, even in the summarised last paragraph on the 'pedia. Yes, it is an ambiguous ending, but I think that this is quite artistically sound. It is not like they went completely out of line with it - they made a conscious artistic decision to end it that way, which I think fits the theme quite well.

 

[Fappy]

OH MY CHRIST YES WE KNOW MASS EFFECT 3'S ENDING SUCKS JESUS LET'S TALK ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE PLEASE
Sorry, I just got a bit worked up.

It was so bad we're still recovering from the fallout. Every game forum is going to look like Chernobyl for the next month.

Funny that you mention crappy endings and Fallout!

I didn't even mean to do that haha

 

[Smeatza]

You are well within your rights to decide that a company's previous product did not satisfy you and that you therefore will not purchase their next one.

You are not within your within your rights trying to derive some sort of legal authority to force a company to change the ending to their game when the core product is exactly what could have been reasonably expected and more.

Finally, to get a bit more into content: because of this debate, I spoiled the ME3 ending by reading up on it. Thanks folks. Anyway, reading it on Wikipedia, it seems like a good ending to me. It is quite vague, but honestly, I would have it no other way. There is plenty of variety in there based on player action, even in the summarised last paragraph on the 'pedia. Yes, it is an ambiguous ending, but I think that this is quite artistically sound. It is not like they went completely out of line with it - they made a conscious artistic decision to end it that way, which I think fits the theme quite well.

"As Mass Effect 3 is the end of the planned trilogy, the developers are not constrained by the necessity of allowing the story to diverge, yet also continue into the next chapter. This will result in a story that diverges into wildly different conclusions based on the player's actions in the first two chapters." - Casey Hudson

?There are many different endings. We wouldn?t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can?t say any more than that?? ? Mike Gamble

"Whether you are happy or angry at the ending know this: It is an ending. Bioware will not do a "Lost" and leave fans with more questions than answers after finishing the game." - Mike Gamble

My issue comes from the fact that the above 3 promises were made during development and none of them were delivered on.
To be honest I'm more angry at the video game reviewing community for describing the endings as "artful" etc. When what they meant was crap.
Could have saved myself £35.

 

[Emiscary]

Because gaming moguls think it's okay to lie to their customers on account of them being pathetic desperate nerds who'll accept whatever they're handed. Or not.

-Hold the line.

 

[Something Amyss]

Why are gamers specifically targeted as being entitled?

Because it's easy.

Also, because the gaming community loves to pick up buzzwords and drive them into the ground. Innovation, IP, immersion, entitled, and several more I'm sure I missed. Usually, these are used incorrectly (with the possible exception of IP, though many people don't understand what an intellectual property references).

Dlc never takes a core part out of the game.

Oh, come now.

 

[Vegosiux]

ok show me the shooters wihout shooting as standard

or the platformers without music

or the rythem games without music.

As much as people like to whine the core experience remains there.

Yes, if "core experience" is supposed to be "you push buttons then stuff happens".