Power to the...Gamers?

[Agente L]

First of all, English isn't my first language, so bear with me.

On the last few months, the word "Entitlement" and its variations use in Online Forums and Gaming Journalism skyrocketed. After Mass Effect 3, even more.

Taking the Bioware case specifically, whenever someone complained about the ending, certain people felt, yes, you guessed it! entitled to call OTHERS as "Entitled Gamers". Many people have entered the discussion. Can a consumer truly be entitled? Is it wrong to complain about something you disliked in a game? Is it wrong to demand it to change?

I can guarantee you I used the timeless Inigo Montoya quote "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.". More than a few times in such discussions.

While peole took its sides, the "professionals" also discussed about it. I'm going be very sincere, I can't remember a single gaming-specialized sites (Gizmodo, The Escapist, Kotaku, etc) going "against" Bioware or agreeing with the gamers.

The only site where I saw remotely positive things about the "Retake Mass Effect" idea was Forbes.

Let me say it again.

Forbes.

Honestly, I didn't even knew that forbes had a video game section on its site before this all happened.. As far as I know, forbes has absolutely no "tradition" in gaming journalism, so to speak.


But time and time again, article after article, I've seen something I never see in gaming sites. They were posting articles with coverage about what the fanbase wanted to happen, unlikely other journalists who simply smeared what "Retake Mass Effect" was aiming for, instead of simply defending bioware (indirectly or directly). Their contributors actually SUPPORTED their efforts and agreed with what they were doing. And they also CALLED OUT bioware and EA doing damage control. I never seen anything like that

http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2012/04/09/what-do-the-fans-want-talking-with-retake-mass-effect/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/04/08/bioware-entering-full-damage-control-mode-with-mass-effect-3-resurgence/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2012/03/30/the-real-precedent-being-set-by-mass-effect-protests/


Instead of simply activating "Entitled Gamers" mode, like a certain contributor from a certain site I frequent, who wrote about Reetake Mass Effect, in his own word, "angry gamers", "silly", "nonsense" "I want to point and laugh at the petition". Also, in that VERY article, he said "Let me be clear right from the get-go that I've just started playing Mass Effect 3, so I have no idea how it ends. "


Of course, he also said he was impressed that they were raising money for charity for such a goal, and he even congratulate and thanked all those who contributed. Not gonna lie. He had a bit of a duality on that article.

Or like another contributor of this site (Which I share many opinions, actually), who said the following about the Retake Mass Effect charity drive: "precious eggshell princes", "The arrogantly named "Retake Mass Effect"", "Here's the story "proving" you're not entitled,", "which fans are now cynically using to deflect criticism".

But back to the point.

Today I saw a new article about all this all. About Gaming Entitlement.

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/345396/features/have-gamers-got-too-much-power/

The article not only call the gamers a entitled bunch, but go as far as saying we, gamers, have TOO much power.

Too much power? Gamers have absolutely NO power in this relationship. 90% of the publishers see us as nothing more than a walking wallet filled with cash. If we had power, Xbox Live would be free. If we had power, Online Pass wouldn't exist. If we had power, we wouldn't have In-Disk DLC.


Let me post a image I found pretty nift. It's a really big image, so I'm going to put it into spoilers.

Spoiler

Of course, the image is flawed. Video Games isn't a service like a restaurant is. Video Games have a very special definition. They are a fusion of service and product. They are different from buying a table, which is a product. But they are also different from going to a restaurant, which is a service. But it still shares many common things with both.



So Escapist, let me hear your voices. Are gamers truly entitled? Is the Gaming Journalism being impartial about the whole "Gaming entitlement" thing? Do gamers have too much power? Is the Gaming Journalism nowdays anything more than a joke?

 

[Erttheking]

I think I'm done with EA and Bioware games...no seriously I'm done with them. And before anyone says anything about "oh, look at the big man boycotting EA" no. I've seriously lost faith in them, I don't want anything to do with them, I don't want to waste anymore money on the games they churn out, Hell I probably won't like them anyway. I'm getting tired of people calling me entitled for being upset with a shit ending. EA was voted the worst company in that contest and from what I heard their stocks are in the toilet. Well, they're not getting any support from me. Nice going jackasses, I used to be on your side. I really should thank you for what you did to ME3. You opened my eyes.

 

[worldruler8]

I'd like to start with saying that, although you put some though into this post, some people will ignore it because this conversation has been going on for a grueling 2 months. But I really think we should go more into it. Is gaming more an art, or a business? Because it seems that we built it up as an art made like a business, yet the consumer (the Gamers) tend to think in a rather business style method, and those against them think in a rather art style method. As in, the Gamer will say "they should either fix this, or I'm going", while the naysayers (I'm not saying those who say this are wrong) say "it's their game, it's their choice".

I don't know, this has been a long running thing, and the ME3 endings was the anvil that broke the camels back. I just hope this doesn't hurt the industry overall.

 

[Calcium]

Too much power? Gamers have absolutely NO power in this relationship. 90% of the publishers see us as nothing more than a walking wallet filled with cash. If we had power, Xbox Live would be free. If we had power, Online Pass wouldn't exist. If we had power, we wouldn't have In-Disk DLC.

This part caught my attention. Gamers do have power - their wallets. If gamers as a whole were seriously pissed off at say, xbox live costing, then for them to organise not to pay (or perhaps to have organised a petition before buying the console saying we won't buy iunless it is free) would be using their power.

But they don't. At least not in any number to cause an impact. By paying for xbox live (following this example), they forfeit their power. And thus things don't change because companies can get away with it because consumers let them.

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I think people need to stop abusing the word entitled as it has become another English language casualty on the internet with its over use along with fail, epic and win. Yes that is over top but it was used way too much. Now I know I have already stated this in a good few ME 3 threads and I'm glad that we have by and large stopped using it with the frequency and fervour from before.

I do agree with you on your post though and no I do not feel Gaming Journalism is impartial or even tries to see two sides at times. This may be me having some wounds over how the MW 2 boycott was handled and what I perceived to be sly digs at the boycotters in articles. Maybe it was just too close to the L4D boycott but I was not happy with the representation of it by and large.

No gamers do not have too much power they have exactly enough power but many don't have the presence of mind or the will to use. That or they get flooded by people just buying it anyway who may have no idea of the boycott.

No I don't think that Gaming Journalism is a joke but I do wish there were more pieces that tried to be impartial and see both sides. The highly opinion driven pieces are good as regardless different opinions are needed and people need to give a stance on how they feel but that said I don't think both sides get evenly represented.

That said I do not feel hard done by what so ever but I would like in the future to have both sides of such arguments be given a better and more in depth look than a by large support for one side in articles.

That's how I feel about the whole thing so far.

 

[BreakfastMan]

Of course, the image is flawed. Video Games isn't a service like arestaurant is. Video Games have a very special definition. They are a fusion of service and product. They are different from buying a table, which is a product. But they are also different from going to a restaurant, which is a service. But it still shares many common things with both.

I think this is the key point of the discussion: what people consider video-games. Many (including myself) consider video-games a product, not a service. So, when people complain about video-games as a service, those who consider it a product don't understand. They argue and, as things tend to go on the internet, it starts flame wars. I actually think this is the whole reason behind the ME3 debate: those who consider it a service feel it was a bad service and demand reparation (like one gets in other services), and those who feel it is a product generally think that view is silly. Really makes you think, huh?

 

[Darknacht]

Too much power? Gamers have absolutely NO power in this relationship. 90% of the publishers see us as nothing more than a walking wallet filled with cash. If we had power, Xbox Live would be free. If we had power, Online Pass wouldn't exist. If we had power, we wouldn't have In-Disk DLC.

Of course publishers see gamers a walking wallets to a company that is what everyone is. Gamers have all of the power they just have to choose to exercise it, if you don't like what a company does don't by their games its as simple as that. You have the money they want the money if you give them money you are telling them that you approve of how they act. The problem is shown in the last panels of your comic if some one went a restaurant and they treated them like shit they would stop going to that restaurant but for some reason gamers don't seem smart enough to get this, until they do this will not change.

 

[JediMB]

Too much power? Gamers have absolutely NO power in this relationship. 90% of the publishers see us as nothing more than a walking wallet filled with cash. If we had power, Xbox Live would be free. If we had power, Online Pass wouldn't exist. If we had power, we wouldn't have In-Disk DLC.

This part caught my attention. Gamers do have power - their wallets. If gamers as a whole were seriously pissed off at say, xbox live costing, then for them to organise not to pay (or perhaps to have organised a petition before buying the console saying we won't buy iunless it is free) would be using their power.

But they don't. At least not in any number to cause an impact. By paying for xbox live (following this example), they forfeit their power. And thus things don't change because companies can get away with it because consumers let them.

The problem being, of course, that if you don't pay for Xbox Live you simply won't be able to play your Xbox games online. There's no alternative to go to.

Similarly, you can vote with your wallet and refuse to buy the next BioWare game, but once again you're left without a proper alternative. There are other similar games, certainly, but you won't find something that's close enough to be considered "the same".

Such is the nature of the entertainment industry. It's harder to pretend that we can get the same thing at a lower price or of higher quality elsewhere.

 

[Ryotknife]

if gamers had power, consoles would be backward compatible. something that nearly every gamer wanted in their systems, but knew it would never happen. why? because they want to milk their consumers for as much money as possible, and they dont have to spend extra for this feature. a win/win for them.

instead, what do we get to look forward to? anti used game features? who does that favor to? certainly not gamers. there are only a scant few (major) game companies out there that at the very least on the surface seem to care. there is a bit of hope from the indy/smaller developers at least. I am also hoping that kickstarter for games might help the industry (so long as major developers dont get the idea of holding a franchise hostage via kickstarter)

 

[Rednog]

I've written this and deleted it several times...honestly there is no point to dredge this out again.
Yes gamers can be entitled, the is the end of the story right there.
Are they entitled in every case? No. But there are plenty of example of gamers being entitled, don't pretend otherwise.
And no gaming is not a service, or a hybrid of a product/service. It is a straight up product.
And no, just because people don't like a word used to criticize them doesn't make the word overused, it is used with the correct meaning/intent.

 

[Calcium]

This part caught my attention. Gamers do have power - their wallets. If gamers as a whole were seriously pissed off at say, xbox live costing, then for them to organise not to pay (or perhaps to have organised a petition before buying the console saying we won't buy iunless it is free) would be using their power.

But they don't. At least not in any number to cause an impact. By paying for xbox live (following this example), they forfeit their power. And thus things don't change because companies can get away with it because consumers let them.

The problem being, of course, that if you don't pay for Xbox Live you simply won't be able to play your Xbox games online. There's no alternative to go to.

Similarly, you can vote with your wallet and refuse to buy the next BioWare game, but once again you're left without a proper alternative. There are other similar games, certainly, but you won't find something that's close enough to be considered "the same".

Such is the nature of the entertainment industry. It's harder to pretend that we can get the same thing at a lower price or of higher quality elsewhere.

But people buy the consoles knowing that they have to pay (well, I'm assuming that most people are aware of this). If gamers want to play online on a 360 the cost of live is something that the consumer has to factor in to their decision. Sure it's okay to complain even if they use it, it just has reduced (to some degree) the power of their argument when they saying "this is bad" but paying anyway. I wouldn't want people to stop voicing their complaints, just pointing out it puts them in a weaker position.

There's no pretending either with the Mass Effect thing about getting something of lower price/higher quality. You could say that a lot of people had the argument that the ending wasn't of good enough quality. Although direct "same" alternatives don't exist, not everyone has the money to buy what they want right away: you might decide not to buy Mass Effect 3 and instead try something different and buy (for example) Kingdom's of Amalur instead.

Another alternative would be to hold off on buying a game you don't completely agree with for a few months - let your delayed purchase be demonstrated on the publisher/developers' initial sales figures.

 

[ElPatron]

I think this is the key point of the discussion: what people consider video-games. Many (including myself) consider video-games a product, not a service. So, when people complain about video-games as a service, those who consider it a product don't understand. They argue and, as things tend to go on the internet, it starts flame wars. I actually think this is the whole reason behind the ME3 debate: those who consider it a service feel it was a bad service and demand reparation (like one gets in other services), and those who feel it is a product generally think that view is silly. Really makes you think, huh?

There is a certain dualism in this argument.

A flawed product is often called back and replaced for free/small fee if the flaw doesn't interfere with the function.

But at the same time, modern EULAs and TOS make it seem like you are "renting" the privilege of playing the game, instead of owning it. To me, that makes it a service.

Also, IWnet is a service. I was mostly displeased with it and found an alternative in AlterIW. A lot of pirates and legit owners played there because they offered a better service - at one point they made dedicated servers available for MW2.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I've written this and deleted it several times...honestly there is no point to dredge this out again.
Yes gamers can be entitled, the is the end of the story right there.
Are they entitled in every case? No. But there are plenty of example of gamers being entitled, don't pretend otherwise.
And no gaming is not a service, or a hybrid of a product/service. It is a straight up product.
And no, just because people don't like a word used to criticize them doesn't make the word overused, it is used with the correct meaning/intent.

Actually it's not. An entitlement is a legal right to something -- in fact, I would agree that gamers are often entitled in that sense. The way it's used online, the way you just used it, is a misunderstanding of the word via the phrase "a false sense of entitlement," i.e., a false belief that you have a right to something which, in reality, you have no right to. The problem here is gamers on the whole don't know their own rights; nine times out of ten, the ones screaming "entitled" are denying things they literally are entitled to.

 

[BreakfastMan]

A flawed product is often called back and replaced for free/small fee if the flaw doesn't interfere with the function.

Entirely true, and game makers do often do that. I mean, patches anyone?

But at the same time, modern EULAs and TOS make it seem like you are "renting" the privilege of playing the game, instead of owning it. To me, that makes it a service.

Well, I think that is something else: the idea game makers wanting to turn games into a service without fully realizing the full implications what that means. If they did, I think things would be quite different.

Also, IWnet is a service. I was mostly displeased with it and found an alternative in AlterIW. A lot of pirates and legit owners played there because they offered a better service - at one point they made dedicated servers available for MW2.

That brings up another point: can products contain a service? For instance, is a multiplayer mode a service but a single player mode a product?

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Too much power? Gamers have absolutely NO power in this relationship. 90% of the publishers see us as nothing more than a walking wallet filled with cash. If we had power, Xbox Live would be free. If we had power, Online Pass wouldn't exist. If we had power, we wouldn't have In-Disk DLC.

This part caught my attention. Gamers do have power - their wallets. If gamers as a whole were seriously pissed off at say, xbox live costing, then for them to organise not to pay (or perhaps to have organised a petition before buying the console saying we won't buy iunless it is free) would be using their power.

But they don't. At least not in any number to cause an impact. By paying for xbox live (following this example), they forfeit their power. And thus things don't change because companies can get away with it because consumers let them.

The problem being, of course, that if you don't pay for Xbox Live you simply won't be able to play your Xbox games online. There's no alternative to go to.

Similarly, you can vote with your wallet and refuse to buy the next BioWare game, but once again you're left without a proper alternative. There are other similar games, certainly, but you won't find something that's close enough to be considered "the same".

Such is the nature of the entertainment industry. It's harder to pretend that we can get the same thing at a lower price or of higher quality elsewhere.

There is alternatives. Xbox? Get a PS3, it offers a free online service and a completely optional +membership for added perks. Is it perfect? No. But it's free and functional and is constantly updating. Game wise, the roster is identical beyond a few exclusives (both ways).

Or get a Wii? But that might not be ideal.

Or get yourself a decent gaming rig? It's not as expensive as it once was and the variety of games available on PC is monumental... but its still coming back from a decade of relatively poor support game wise.

Don't want to encourage EA? Buy 2nd hand. It's NOT illegal and you shouldn't feel morally ashamed of doing it. That is what EA wants you to think, but EA doesn't care about you, instead they want to guilt you out of your money. Bioware will suffer for it though, but that's the price of choice. They too have a choice... cut their losses and leave EA (if they think its best for their integrity) or stay with them for the perks they offer.

 

[Agente L]

This part caught my attention. Gamers do have power - their wallets. If gamers as a whole were seriously pissed off at say, xbox live costing, then for them to organise not to pay (or perhaps to have organised a petition before buying the console saying we won't buy iunless it is free) would be using their power.

But they don't. At least not in any number to cause an impact. By paying for xbox live (following this example), they forfeit their power. And thus things don't change because companies can get away with it because consumers let them.

Yes, I agree! Not only I agree with that, but I actually did that.

I refuse to buy Mass Effect 3 because I refuse to support or condone Bioware anymore. And I really like Mass effect series. After what they did with DAII, what they did at SWTOR, I just can't lend them my money anymore. So, around january/february, I decided I wouldn't buy mass effect 3.

The thing is, the gaming community is so big, that I hardly believe that would work. Because most people won't want to give up their online for protesting. Most people don't want to give up their next (Insert AAA-developer name here) game for protesting.

 

[Vault101]

I dont see why having a promlem with ME3 ending makes me entitled

because its FIXABLE

A. lets say we all did nothing...what would happen then? nothing. No annoying threads, nothing, the game stays "ruined" we stay unhappy and what was suposed to be somthing awsome remains a great big anticlimactic mess

the world goes on

B. or we rage....what happens? well in this case the developers throw us a bone..its not much, but its SOMTHING, its a chance to fix ME3...so we annoyed a few people along the way? well I dont care if you got a little annoyed over a few ME3 threads (just like you dont care about ME3..fine by me)...we arnt demanding anything, we are begging, because Bioware didnt have to do a godamn thing, they could have said "whats done is done" and that owuld be the end of it

granted the damage may already be done...salavaging this mess seems an impossible task and many have sworn off Bioware/mass effect forever

not me though, even if it is "all said and done" I still like Mass effect, I still am interestedin Bioware games

I dont want be unhappy or angry with Mass effect....so I'm not

 

[Veylon]

Gamers, as consumers, have all the power in their relationship with the companies. This is as it should be.

The "problem" is that this power is rarely if ever exercised. Unless people refuse to buy games at X price or without Y feature, they empower the companies to continue to offer them that way. When games fly off the shelves at $60, why should a company offer them at $20?