The issue of gamer "entitlement".

[renegade7]

The customer is ALWAYS entitled. Sort of how it works.

But with entertainment the waters kind of get muddied...you are legally protected from defective or unsafe products, such as spoiled meat or cars whose brakes don't work.

But with games, all the game really needs to do to qualify as a functional product is turn on. Let's say for instance that the game you just bought only runs at 12 FPS and has shitty previous generation graphics. Unless the company specifically said "Runs at 60 FPS on Xbox 360" or something like that, the product is otherwise functional. Even that would be a stretch, really.

Games that just aren't fun are protected because they are technically art...you may not like the game, but if you complain they'll just argue that it was "The developer's artistic vision". It's the dark side of the games as art debate.

So if Mass Effect 3's ending is so bad that it ruined the whole game for you (a little silly because it's actually a very good game despite a piss poor ending), well, you should have done your research before buying the game.

And also, the people asking for "Alternate Ending" DLC...you guys aren't helping.

 

[Da Orky Man]

I'm also proud to have not bought horse armour.

People bought horse armour? Well, you learn something every day...

 

[Glademaster_v1legacy]

I want us to stop using the word entitled on this forum for a month or more as thus far it has lost all meaning to me with how frivolously we have thrown it around in respect to ME 3.

thats fair
so long as we stop talking about mass effect 3 for a couple months so everyone can get over their hissy fits
fair trade?

Yes. Yes it is and I am willing to do it for the sake of the language.

 

[Tuesday Night Fever]

However, when someone says "DAY ONE DLC? I DESERVE IT FOR FREE!" You are an entitled little shit and need to get some reality. You don't deserve shit, if you want it - pay for it. As we are not talking about the Ethics of Day One DLC, but the entitlement of you deserving something. By "You" of course, I am talking about the general, not you specifically. Just needed to point that out.

I'm mostly inclined to agree with you on every point... except this one (maybe).

When it comes to Day 1 DLC, I agree, pay for it... unless it's already on the disc. If the Day 1 DLC is already on the disc, and paying the $10 or whatever does nothing but unlock it... that's shady as all hell, and I'm kinda inclined to side with the gamers who don't want to pay for something that's already on the disc that they already paid for.

It'd be like going to the grocery store to buy some Lucky Charms cereal, taking the box up to the register, then finding out you need to pay an extra 1/6th of the price if you want the tasty little marshmallows... and if you don't want to pay the extra, all you get is the bland cereal part that no one actually likes. Or something. Probably a bad analogy, but I have a craving for Lucky Charms right now and those delicious marshmallows are all I can think about.

 

[Matt King]

somebody else on the escapist put it well
"i went to mcdonalds to buy a burger, i asked them to put cheese on it and they said that would cost extra, i mean how dare they charge for somthing extra especially when they had the cheese right there"

whoever said that i love

 

[MomoElektra]

somebody else on the escapist put it well
"i went to mcdonalds to buy a burger, i asked them to put cheese on it and they said that would cost extra, i mean how dare they charge for somthing extra especially when they had the cheese right there"

whoever said that i love

Well, I suppose the Day 1 DLC feels more like you buy a burger with cheese on it and pay for it and then they let you eat it but don't let you swallow the cheese unless you pay 99 cent extra.

 

[Gamergeek25]

Gamers are entitled to what was promised to them, but when they start demanding because they do not like something and they want it change to how they want to be or like casuals and hardcore mmo players saying "I want a raid only us 10% of hardcore gamers get to see." The line between Entitlement and irrational behavior is a tricky one, but when Players demand the devs to bow to their wishes and try to dictate how they create games is when it goes too far.

 

[a ginger491]

I believe that a player is entitled to any content that was payed for with the original production budget not including pre-order bonuses like weapons and armor or physical content not in the game (art book, statue etc.) Anything else should be allowed to be played by the consumer, period. I am in favor things such as the Cerberus Network or the Karkand unlock keys because they give incentive to buy the game new by being a little generous. I am not in favor of locking away content such as multiplayer or day one DLC that requires you to pay for it(this is assuming the DLC was made using the original budget.) Those punish the people who can not afford the game day one or have to buy used. And on the used game issue, why don't retailers have to give a portion of their used game sales to publishers or developers? Doesn't that violate some sort of copyright law? Because you get the FBI warning for films, why not the same with games? Just a question.

 

[rbstewart7263]

In my god honest opinion.

The only thing a human is ever entitled to are nourishment and survival. anything else is extra and you should be grateful. There are people killing themselves so that you can access facebook from anywhere using the latest iphone why in gods name does this game have to represent the entirety of the human condition for you.


Bioware did a damn fine job and Id shake there hands for working so hard on this game when so many people wanted to niggle over every little thing. they deserve gratitude. period.


I havent seen the ending but Im gonna wager that people were disappointed in that it falls under one or both of these categories.

it was either really short

or it wasnt the super happy everyone lives cause I did all the stuff right. Endings like that are how you get saturday morning cartoon stories like gi joe a story like this is compelling cause of the things lost as well as the things that are gained.

 

[a ginger491]

The customer is ALWAYS entitled. Sort of how it works.

But with entertainment the waters kind of get muddied...you are legally protected from defective or unsafe products, such as spoiled meat or cars whose brakes don't work.

But with games, all the game really needs to do to qualify as a functional product is turn on. Let's say for instance that the game you just bought only runs at 12 FPS and has shitty previous generation graphics. Unless the company specifically said "Runs at 60 FPS on Xbox 360" or something like that, the product is otherwise functional. Even that would be a stretch, really.

Games that just aren't fun are protected because they are technically art...you may not like the game, but if you complain they'll just argue that it was "The developer's artistic vision". It's the dark side of the games as art debate.

So if Mass Effect 3's ending is so bad that it ruined the whole game for you (a little silly because it's actually a very good game despite a piss poor ending), well, you should have done your research before buying the game.

And also, the people asking for "Alternate Ending" DLC...you guys aren't helping.

Well, people whined about Fallout 3 for long enough and they got their non crap ending(Personally I found it to be all right I just didn't understand why I couldn't send in Fawkes to deal with it. And I understand people didn't want to just start the game over.) I think the ending will be dealt with eventually considering the consumer backlash surrounding it.

 

[XandNobody]

I'd like to start by saying this is not a thread strictly about the mass effect 3 ending, but take a look at this video and then have a go at answering my question(s).

(The video contains no spoilers for the story of Mass Effect 3)

http://uk.ign.com/videos/2012/03/12/mass-effect-3-opinion-video

Seen it?

OK, my question is, what exactly is a gamer actually entitled to when they buy a game?

Are you allowed to voice your displeasure about an aspect of a product or service? Be it the narrative, framerate issues, face import issues, day one DLC?

Are you allowed to ask for a change to one of those issues but not another one?

Is there an artistic element to a game, that it's unacceptable to criticise, but a technical element that is?

I hear the term "entitled gamer" getting thrown around a lot, and wonder what the community's opinion is.

Captcha: Just Dance

I must obey the captcha!

I was reading on Forbes today and there was actually an article in response to the question of entitlement IGN brought up, let me see if I can track it down real quick...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/13/mass-effect-3-and-the-pernicious-myth-of-gamer-entitlement/

There we go, just throwing that out there as sort of a counterpoint to IGN, and honestly, I agree with this Forbes article more myself.

 

[Gorilla Gunk]

Anybody remember the Left 4 Dead 2 boycott?

"We bought the first game so we deserve this one for free!"

 

[wicket42]

I'd like to start by saying this is not a thread strictly about the mass effect 3 ending, but take a look at this video and then have a go at answering my question(s).

(The video contains no spoilers for the story of Mass Effect 3)

http://uk.ign.com/videos/2012/03/12/mass-effect-3-opinion-video

Seen it?

OK, my question is, what exactly is a gamer actually entitled to when they buy a game?

Are you allowed to voice your displeasure about an aspect of a product or service? Be it the narrative, framerate issues, face import issues, day one DLC?

Are you allowed to ask for a change to one of those issues but not another one?

Is there an artistic element to a game, that it's unacceptable to criticise, but a technical element that is?

I hear the term "entitled gamer" getting thrown around a lot, and wonder what the community's opinion is.

Captcha: Just Dance

I must obey the captcha!

I was reading on Forbes today and there was actually an article in response to the question of entitlement IGN brought up, let me see if I can track it down real quick...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/03/13/mass-effect-3-and-the-pernicious-myth-of-gamer-entitlement/

There we go, just throwing that out there as sort of a counterpoint to IGN, and honestly, I agree with this Forbes article more myself.

Great link, thanks very much!

 

[a ginger491]

By all means dislike dlc, but DO NO claim that its all bad, its simply not true.

>implying that I consider GTA IV's expansion packs "dlc"

If I get what can be considered a "full game" it's an expansion pack by my 2000's standards.

I'm not a fan of beat 'em ups or RPGs so forgive me for not knowing about those examples.

you are forgiven, i have no issue with people disliking dlc, just don't make blanket statements.

In fact just in general blanket statements aren't good anyway ^^

HA! I get it! Kudos to you for your contradictory statement.

 

[renegade7]

The customer is ALWAYS entitled. Sort of how it works.

But with entertainment the waters kind of get muddied...you are legally protected from defective or unsafe products, such as spoiled meat or cars whose brakes don't work.

But with games, all the game really needs to do to qualify as a functional product is turn on. Let's say for instance that the game you just bought only runs at 12 FPS and has shitty previous generation graphics. Unless the company specifically said "Runs at 60 FPS on Xbox 360" or something like that, the product is otherwise functional. Even that would be a stretch, really.

Games that just aren't fun are protected because they are technically art...you may not like the game, but if you complain they'll just argue that it was "The developer's artistic vision". It's the dark side of the games as art debate.

So if Mass Effect 3's ending is so bad that it ruined the whole game for you (a little silly because it's actually a very good game despite a piss poor ending), well, you should have done your research before buying the game.

And also, the people asking for "Alternate Ending" DLC...you guys aren't helping.

Well, people whined about Fallout 3 for long enough and they got their non crap ending(Personally I found it to be all right I just didn't understand why I couldn't send in Fawkes to deal with it. And I understand people didn't want to just start the game over.) I think the ending will be dealt with eventually considering the consumer backlash surrounding it.

I really hope they do, but this is EA we're talking about...if they catch even a scent of people willing to pay for an alternate ending, they'll make us pay for it

And if that happens, it will set a precedent that it's okay to release a crappy game and then make people pay extra for the 'alternate' (good) version. And take a wild guess who will be first in line to take advantage of that...

 

[a ginger491]

In my god honest opinion.

The only thing a human is ever entitled to are nourishment and survival. anything else is extra and you should be grateful. There are people killing themselves so that you can access facebook from anywhere using the latest iphone why in gods name does this game have to represent the entirety of the human condition for you.


Bioware did a damn fine job and Id shake there hands for working so hard on this game when so many people wanted to niggle over every little thing. they deserve gratitude. period.


I havent seen the ending but Im gonna wager that people were disappointed in that it falls under one or both of these categories.

it was either really short

or it wasnt the super happy everyone lives cause I did all the stuff right. Endings like that are how you get saturday morning cartoon stories like gi joe a story like this is compelling cause of the things lost as well as the things that are gained.

Actually it's because the ending made no sense whatsoever and was not coherent to the story at all. Felt a lot like Halo 2, and I mean that as in I think they ran out of time and weren't allowed to delay. The game itself is awesome up until the last ten minutes, and then it gives us this insulting and stupid twist that adds more holes to the plot than a wheel of swiss cheese

 

[Megalodon]

snip

There is a difference between voicing your displeasure over how something was handled and acting like a 12 year old asshat just because a game didn't live up to your expectations.

From what I've seen, its a majority of 12 year old asshats.

This is the thing, from what I've seen people who claim "gamer entitlement" as a negative thing are trying to taint quite often legimate complaints with the stigma of 12 year old asshats. Not to say there aren't 12 year old asshats, but not being happy with product and voicing that objection is not the same.

 

[a ginger491]

The customer is ALWAYS entitled. Sort of how it works.

But with entertainment the waters kind of get muddied...you are legally protected from defective or unsafe products, such as spoiled meat or cars whose brakes don't work.

But with games, all the game really needs to do to qualify as a functional product is turn on. Let's say for instance that the game you just bought only runs at 12 FPS and has shitty previous generation graphics. Unless the company specifically said "Runs at 60 FPS on Xbox 360" or something like that, the product is otherwise functional. Even that would be a stretch, really.

Games that just aren't fun are protected because they are technically art...you may not like the game, but if you complain they'll just argue that it was "The developer's artistic vision". It's the dark side of the games as art debate.

So if Mass Effect 3's ending is so bad that it ruined the whole game for you (a little silly because it's actually a very good game despite a piss poor ending), well, you should have done your research before buying the game.

And also, the people asking for "Alternate Ending" DLC...you guys aren't helping.

Well, people whined about Fallout 3 for long enough and they got their non crap ending(Personally I found it to be all right I just didn't understand why I couldn't send in Fawkes to deal with it. And I understand people didn't want to just start the game over.) I think the ending will be dealt with eventually considering the consumer backlash surrounding it.

I really hope they do, but this is EA we're talking about...if they catch even a scent of people willing to pay for an alternate ending, they'll make us pay for it

And if that happens, it will set a precedent that it's okay to release a crappy game and then make people pay extra for the 'alternate' (good) version. And take a wild guess who will be first in line to take advantage of that...

Sad thing is that if they sell it for a profit, like they did with broken steel mind you, I'll probably still pay for it. T~T

 

[Blayze]

The concept that I'm allowed to complain about glitches but not allowed to complain about plotholes is absurd. Games may indeed be art, but it still doesn't stop someone's creative work from being shit.

 

[guitarsniper]

I believe that the customer is entitled to a game that WORKS. They are entitled to complain about, and request patches or fixes for things like a face import glitch, framerate issues, and other such technical complaints. That's like buying a car, realizing that the gearbox doesn't work at all, taking it back to the shop and saying "hey, the gearbox doesn't work. put in a new one."
On the other hand, while I don't feel like gamers are entitled to get whatever narrative they want, they ARE entitled to voice an opinion on it. I, for one, think that ME3 was one of the best twenty-some-odd hours of game I've played in a long time, followed by some of the worst ten minutes or so. Actually, scratch that, if it had been another series, I'd have had no problem whatsoever. In this case, if gamers want an alternate ending, they can damn well shell out for it. I probably will, if I'm entirely honest, because I admit to myself that I am more than a little bit of a bioware fanboy.