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

[Monsterfurby]

...

I agree that calling it "artful" is stretching it. Mind you that "artistically sound" means nothing else than "it is a plausible option for the authors to let it end like this".

Again, I am not saying that this was a great or even good ending, but that the reaction to it was simply completely out of line. Entertainment is still very much a subjective thing. Some people like RPGs and hate shooters, some people like Shooters and hate RPGs, some people like both, some people hate both - I find it very irritating that people claim to be able to have some "objective" view on something as subjective as story or gameplay. It's a matter of taste.

I am not going to get into metaphors here, because those fall flat into anyway, but why do people insist on there being some sort of objective measure of quality than something that depends on personal taste? It's not just this - if I wanted to start a flame war, all I needed to do is claim that I find MLP childish and moronic (note: this is an EXAMPLE, NOT AN ACTUAL OPINION) or that Apple products are inferior to Windows-based systems by a long shot (dito).

Key principle to being taken seriously in any such debate: just don't claim higher truth. This is and can only be a matter of taste and opinion, and taste and opinion do not legally entitle you to anything.

 

[anthony87]

Because gamers will complete a 25-30 hour game then apparently look for their money back because it didn't end the way they wanted it to.

It's like those girls on MTV who get a car then freak out because it's the wrong car.

This is worse than my dishwasher analogy.

Yeah....I wasn't happy with it even as I was typing it but it was the first thing that came to mind.

Still though, you can't say that completing a game you think is fantastic only to look for money back simply because you didn't like the last 10 minutes isn't acting a tad entitled/spoiled/whatever.

If you buy a fantastic meal and then find a bit of rabbit poo or something at the bottom of the plate it will leave a sour taste in your mouth and ruin the entire meal, no matter how good the rest of it was.

Except The ending to a game does not PHYSICALLY harm/repulse you in any way.

"I DID NOT QUITE LIKE THE ENDING, GIVE ME ALL TEH MONIEZ BACK FOR MY 40-HOUR EXPERIENCE!"

Seriously, if you played to the end you obviously liekd the rest of the game.

If you ate to the end of the meal, you obviously liked the rest of it, the poo in your food means nothing as long as the rest of it was fine okay?

Not liking how a game ends and getting poisoned from eating shit are so far away from being similar that I'm amazed you think your analogy makes sense.

 

[Teh Jammah]

I think the Dishwasher DLC analogy doesn't hold up. I think a better analogy would be a burger van. You go to a local burger van and order a cheeseburger and chips/fries. You've been doing this regularly for years. The burger man always asks you if you want sauce and condiments (salt, vinegar, etc) on your chips and sauce, onions, lettuce, etc on your burger. This doesn't cost you anything, but adds to the flavor of the thing.

Then, one day you turn up as usual, only this time he tells you that if you want salt on your fries it'll cost you 10p extra. Sauce? That'll be another 20p mate. Lettuce? Onions? Gotta charge for them too mate. What do you mean you should have them for free, just because you used to get all that back in the day? It's the new additional flavor content policy. Gotta make money somehow man, this stuff isn't cheap. Plus you've got the basic product anyhow, right? Now stop acting entitled and give me yer money!

 

[WanderingFool]

Why are gamers specifically targeted as being entitled?

Because some fans take criticism of their game as a personal attack. I couldn't tell you why this is the case, but...yeah.

And what's more: that specific sort of fan seems to respond in an especially negative manner to constructive criticism. It comes off almost as "if you like something, you're not allowed to admit that it's less than perfect."

Yeah, pretty much this...

Imagine if EA/BioWare made Baldur's Gate 2 today...$10 for being able to use Viconia and have her character-specific events happen, $10 for the Sahuagin City (that can easily be skipped and isn't exactly plot relevant so it can be taken out, right?), $10 for Lilarcor, $10 for a side quest pack in Athkatla (you don't need them all to raise enough gold to continue anyway, right?)...

...that's basically the problem. We used to get a full game that was a lot bigger and offered a lot more playtime. Now, some studios seem to be hell bent on stripping it down to the skeleton, offer that skeleton as the "game", while everything that fleshes it out is just a "bonus" that they don't "owe" to us, and anyone who still thinks some meat should come on those bones if only so we don't break our teeth when we bite in is "entitled".

I like this whole post.

Spoiler: My personal Opinion on DLC

Good DLC is always additional content. ITs not stuff that was worked on before the game was released, during that time where the game is finished but not out (though that not to say that kind of DLC is bad). Its content that comes out several months after the game is released, and adds new stuff to it. Like the various DLC for FO3 and NV, adds whole new area and gear to the game. OR the DLc packs for Borderlands (Knoxx's was awesome.) I never hear about people complaining about DLC like that.

Its always DLC thats overpriced when compared to what you are getting (like map packs for COD), stuff that is actually on the disc and is locked (I dont know this personally, as I havent baught a Capcom game in ages...), or, like with ME3 now, DLC thats released the same day as the game. Now, I had no problem with Day 1 DLC for DA:O or ME2, I baught both games new, and thus got said DLC for free. I actually supported the "Project $10" idea EA was using, as its just incentive to buy the game new, and isnt that vital to your enjoyment (unless it is, in which case you should just buy the game new, but whatever).

Anyways, as to the point at hand.

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

Why are gamers specifically targeted as being entitled?

Im curious, who all says gamers are entilted? From what I see, its other gamers. So from that, one could assume that theres a group of gamers who are satisfied with the product they got. Yet they see people complaining, and are annoyed by this. Really it makes sense, lets say you buy yourself a new car. You love it, its what you always wanted. Than some guy comes up and starts pointing out various flaws about it.

People dont like the idea of their investment being bad, as it calls into question their judgement and taste, plus, like with a car, its a massive investment, which makes it much more damaging to a person. So the use of "entitles" is simply a way to put down gamers who are complaining, by gamers who dont want to think that they made a bad investment.

I know this as a fact almost, I baught both Homefront and Brink, and loved both of them when they first came out. Thus, when people were stating about how much they sucked, I defended them. Eventually, I found that most of the complainers were right... Save Homefront's MP, which until they let the PC version go to hell was still fun. Evetually, the people shouting entitled will stop, either because they realise the fact that the game they're defending isnt as gold as they first thought, the complaints stop as people just stop caring, or something else happens and everyone starts bitching about that.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'll agree with you when you say that a game costing more should be worth more, unfortunately we don't live in an ideal world like that. We can always dream eh?

Also, where exactly do you buy your games? I got ME3 on PC for ?36 or so, in fact I can't remember the last time I paid ?60 for a game.

Debit card ftw perhaps?

I didn't buy ME3, just saying that an AAA price should offen an AAA experience and from the feedback I see that's not the case, so I'm glad I did not buy it.. I buy my games here and there, wherever I get good deals.

see thats only one factor, there are hundreds of rpgs which have 100+ hours of pointless sidequests, but that can't be argued to be worth it as most sidequests suck balls. The amount of enjoyment had is an important factor, and why certain short games that were amazing, felt worth it to some people.

Yes, there being "hundreds of" RPGs have sucky grinds and sidequests, and "some" people having tought that "certain" short games felt amazing and worth it completely invalidates my point.

I concede.

 

[Chemical Alia]

It's not so much that gamers shouldn't be able to expect certain standards and voice their opinions, but that they tend to behave like maladjusted troglodytes over everything.

 

[Elamdri]

Even your analogy is incorrect. The DLC squadmate was already in the distribution disc. A lot of people have proven this by editing config files.

So the more appropriate analogy would be: paying to unlock extra space that's definitely already in the dishwasher, and that you can probably unlock yourself if you knew what you were doing.

Christ, I'm so tired of seeing this argument. It needs to die in a fire because it's wrong. It DOES NOT MATTER if the DLC is on the disc or not. When you buy a game with DLC on the disc, you only get a license for the main content on the disc. They could have ALL the DLC that they will ever make for the game on the disc, it wouldn't matter because you don't own a license to use it. Just because you possess a copy of software does not mean that you have the right to use it. That's how licenses work.

 

[SextusMaximus]

For fuck's sake, English isn't even my first language and I know the difference between being entitled and having entitlement issues...

Being entitled means having a legal right to something, i.e. you are entitled to seeing a lawyer if you are arrested.

Having entitlement issues is acting like you have a legal right to something when you clearly don't, i.e. registering a motherfucking complaint to the FTC because you don't like how a video game's story ended.

Please learn your own language, people.

OT: The subgroup of gamers you are referring to have entitlement issues because they complain about artists not respecting the fanfiction they built in their heads and demand that they modify their own creation.

A lot of those same people complain about day-one DLC while still buying it, or complain about streamlining role-playing elements while still buying the game.
I can have some measure of respect for someone who considers those things unethical and don't buy the game and/or DLC in consequence, but if you bought them, you have no right complaining about EA's practices, and if you do, that makes you a prick... with entitlement issues!

Also, congrats to the OP for making a Mass Effect 3 thread without mentioning Mass Effect 3.

He put it in quotation marks, implying gamers feel they are entitled. That's as good as the use of the term "entitlement issues", not that it would've mattered anyway. Calm down.

 

[Aeonknight]

What I will never understand:

Gamers defending Corporations as if they had something to gain from doing it.

Even if you disagree, getting more bang for your buck is always a good thing, why on earth would you not just go with it?

And remember, these Corporations don't give a shit about you, so no appeals to emotion please.

Because entitled pricks are on the opposite end of the spectrum of the oh so evil faceless heartless corporations. Both extremes are terrible.

Also, it's a matter of representation. I'd rather not be thrown in with the same crowd that will throw an absolute fit when their banana split doesn't come with hot fudge, nuts, sprinkles, and marshmallows for free.

Edit: should probably flesh my point out a little bit more. It's also a matter of feedback. Most developers do at least try to take their fanbase's feedback into account both when deciding if a franchise is successful and what to improve on in the next one (if there is a next one.) You don't have to like the corporation to like the games they make. If all they hear is bitching/complaining, they may abandon ship on a franchise you personally like. So here we are.

 

[Vegosiux]

If all they hear is bitching/complaining, they may abandon ship on a franchise you personally like. So here we are.

Yes, Harbinger forbid they make that leap of logic from "Gamers are complaining, the ungrateful little fucks" to "Gamers are complaining, let's see why they feel let down and where we made mistakes".

 

[lord.jeff]

I think it comes from the way people state there opinion as fact to a point of being ridiculous, look at the way some people argue or the review bombing that happens for popular games. This isn't a rule for everyone but it was/is prevalent enough for a while that it became a stereotype of the gaming community, that is even believed within the gaming community itself.

 

[Aeonknight]

If all they hear is bitching/complaining, they may abandon ship on a franchise you personally like. So here we are.

Yes, Harbinger forbid they make that leap of logic from "Gamers are complaining, the ungrateful little fucks" to "Gamers are complaining, let's see why they feel let down and where we made mistakes".

And if it's a brand new franchise?

It'd be easier to just write it off as a "bad idea" and move on to the next idea/sequel. Not every developer has the resources to try and force a franchise to work and redo it 30 times before getting it right.

 

[Autofaux]

Snip

Not to come off as rude.. but I don't see a purpose in this thread. This topic could of be said in a related thread about Mass Effect and I know it's based on that for sure. But who am I to say, I am after all posting in this thread giving it more attention so might as well tribute.

OT: Must say, it's not the fact we fans are entitled to anything since fans will always complain about something that didn't go their way... but when you have over 90% of the whole community hating Mass Effect 3's ending.. you know it's fact that Bioware screwed up. Let me repeat, over more then 3/4ths of a hundred thousand people and counting all agree that the ending was disappointing, hollow, and screws up everything you've accomplished in the last 3 games of 300 hours invested.

Whether they screwed it up or not, Bioware doesn't owe anybody a new ending. Their fiction, their rules. All the decisions possible, governed by their writing. If there was a protest for every time a major title was released sans something that was promised during development, nobody would take our community seriously.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

That's a pretty limited version of "core experience."

What about story driven games where part of the story is removed and sold as DLC? Not only did Assassin's Creed do this with memory sequences, they were originally required to 100% the game (I think this was changed).

Instead of being snide, care to give an example of when a core part of the game has been withheld only to be later released as DLC?

Instead of accusations of a snide attitude, why not actually add to the discussion?

"Never" was a pretty wild assertion. I don't know why I'm being vilified for acting as such. That's hardly snide.

 

[Something Amyss]

What I will never understand:

Gamers defending Corporations as if they had something to gain from doing it.

Even if you disagree, getting more bang for your buck is always a good thing, why on earth would you not just go with it?

And remember, these Corporations don't give a shit about you, so no appeals to emotion please.

Because the concept of "brand loyalty" has been completely perverted to the point the default position is loyalty for no benefit and all others are ingrates.