Undue Entitlement: A Growing Issue?

[rumdumconundrum]

Ever since the whole snafu with Mass Effect 3's ending and that ludicrous "Take back Mass Effect" campaign, I'm starting to notice more and more of a feeling of (unearned, in my opinion) entitlement on the part of gamers. Granted, I'm sure it's been a large issue before this, but I've been more aware of it recently.

I've seen hundreds of posts about different games to the effect of:

"That ending sucked! I want a refund!"

"Why are they CHARGING for the DLC? This is ridiculous!"

"I'm pirating this game because $60 is too expensive!"

"I didn't like how this person wrote this character! BURN THE WITCH!"

"Why do I have to sit here and patch my game? I wanna play NOW!"

etc, etc.

I mean, what is UP with this? Seriously?

 

[Zhukov]

Umm... I'm not entirely sure "entitlement" means what you think it means.

The word was frequently (but not always) misapplied during the whole ME3 thing and doesn't seem to have quite recovered.

I mean, how is being grumpy about downloading a patch a sign of entitlement? That's just being impatient. Not liking how a writer wrote a character and going on a witch hunt isn't entitlement, it's overreacting.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

I have to disagree with you guys saying that entitlement doesn't apply here.

From Merriam-Webster:
"Entitlement: the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges)", which would extend to special treatment as well.

Special treatment could be mean that the games industry (or other large body) should bow to a sole person's (or interest group's) will. That just because they don't like something, everyone should just throw everything away to placate them. That includes patches, glitches, prices, writing, etc.

 

[Rutabaga_swe]

People not satisfied with the products they are buying or feeling they are not getting value for their money are complaining? OMG what a bunch of spoiled brats! What have we come to.

 

[JazzJack2]

Yes how dare gamers expect a company to release a competently made and functioning product, to exercise good and ethical business practices and to charge a fair price for their product. I mean who do they think they are? Game companies can do whatever they want and to question or to criticise them is unwarranted entitlement.

 

[Asita]

This seems very relevant

Short version is that gamers, developers and the gaming press all actually have fairly good reasons to be skeptical (disdainful, even) of one another, and at least part of that is a cycle of hatred fueled by that very distrust and scorn.

 

[Vylox]

If gamers would actually get what they paid for, then that sense of entitlement would change.

Its not enough for the publishers that gamers spend money on their product, the publishers want to use micro transactions and other money generating concepts.

Its not enough for gamers to be happy with the product they purchase, after they have to jump through hoops to play or use said purchase.


I have entirely skipped the PS3 and XBox360 consoles, instead preferring to play my PS2, my Sega Genesis, and my Super Nintendo, and my Nintendo DS, because when I choose a game for those systems, I can play it. I don't have to go online and download data/patches/content, I don't have to input registration codes, I don't have to input online passes or any of that other stuff. I put the game in, I play it. Its just that simple. Even if it could be difficult for me to find a game, or that in the case of most of those systems, there is no new content being created/published, I can still play games without problems or hassles that are inflicted upon me by the publishers and developers outside of the game's world or environment.

Of course, the fact that I can also choose from hundreds of millions of FREE games on my android tablet or android phone doesn't factor into this........


And that is the root cause of the issues between gamers and publishers. The publishers are mostly just not listening to or respecting their paying customers, and the gamers are mostly stuck being sheep about it, because they don't look for alternatives. Not that there are a plethora of alternatives to some games, depending on its specific genre.
If gamers were really and truly upset by the amount of crap that publishers keep shoving into their faces, they would look elsewhere, or support different publishers, instead of continually giving their money to those that they don't like.
If publishers actually respected their customers, then they would start to offer things differently.

Its a give give situation, gamers want to get their stuff, publishers want to get their money. Neither side wants to share responsibility for both sides being stupid or going about things the wrong way.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

Yes how dare gamers expect a company to release a competently made and functioning product, to exercise good and ethical business practices and to charge a fair price for their product. I mean who do they think they are? Game companies can do whatever they want and to question or to criticise them is unwarranted entitlement.

Hi there. I have a fun picture for you that I think sums up your post:

Allow me to explain:

I never said anything about a game not working nor about it being overpriced compared to the amount of effort or "competence" put in. I'm talking about people who go "I don't like that design choice. I DEMAND A REFUND!". You ARE entitled to getting a (mostly) functional game (with the few hiccups that obviously come with it) for the price you pay. That's basic logic. You're not stating anything new here. However!

The game designers are entitled to make those design choices for good or for ill.

Also, I never said anything against criticism of the finished product. In fact, criticism is a GOOD thing as long as it's REASONABLE. To say, "that's different! I don't like it! Fix it because all of my demands must be met for me to be satisfied!" is not a valid criticism. If you have a criticism of a game or its content, explain it reasonably. Do not demand that the developers bow to your will because you bought their game (just like thousands of other customers who all usually have different opinions on a subject).

So the best response to that is to... steal it? I fail to see your logic here. Couldn't you just, I don't know... NOT BUY IT? Wouldn't that send more of a message to the developers than stealing it?

Since I know you're going to bring it up, I'm going to beat you to it: Aliens: Colonial Marines. Yes, the game was bad. Yes, the game was glitchy. Yes, there was a bait and switch most likely involved. The reputation of the companies involved were most likely greatly tarnished. That's an extreme circumstance that goes a bit further than just petty complaints of an overly entitled consumer base.

Still, I have to thank you for you post, as it helped me refine my point a bit more.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

This seems very relevant

Short version is that gamers, developers and the gaming press all actually have fairly good reasons to be skeptical (disdainful, even) of one another, and at least part of that is a cycle of hatred fueled by that very distrust and scorn.

Thank you for posting this. I actually found this rather enlightening.

 

[Comocat]

I think you are probably just seeing selection bias in a medium driven by page clicks. Nobody did a cover story on me, an average guy disliking the ending to ME3, but mail some cupcakes to a company and you suddenly hit the front page of every gaming site. Forums are primarily echo chambers of discontent, so without solid numbers I can't really conclude anything.

I do think the internet has enabled anyone with an opinion to voice it, whereas in most situations said individual would probably do the most good keeping their mouth shut. Especially as connections become cheaper and more widely used, the most vocal will be the most visible.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

If gamers would actually get what they paid for, then that sense of entitlement would change.

Its not enough for the publishers that gamers spend money on their product, the publishers want to use micro transactions and other money generating concepts.

Of course, the fact that I can also choose from hundreds of millions of FREE games on my android tablet or android phone doesn't factor into this........

But don't most of those free games have those exact same microtransactions that you're complaining about?

Its a give give situation, gamers want to get their stuff, publishers want to get their money. Neither side wants to share responsibility for both sides being stupid or going about things the wrong way.

I'm... actually in agreement with this statement. Well put. Well put indeed.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

I think you are probably just seeing selection bias in a medium driven by page clicks. Nobody did a cover story on me, an average guy disliking the ending to ME3, but mail some cupcakes to a company and you suddenly hit the front page of every gaming site. Forums are primarily echo chambers of discontent, so without solid numbers I can't really conclude anything.

I do think the internet has enabled anyone with an opinion to voice it, whereas in most situations said individual would probably do the most good keeping their mouth shut. Especially as connections become cheaper and more widely used, the most vocal will be the most visible.

Very well. I concede that point. I admit that selection bias probably clouded my logic there.

The only problem I have: how exactly do you tell the majority from a really vocal minority with several different forum accounts?

I'm not criticizing your point. I'm really not. I'm just curious as to how I'm supposed to judge the majority of a subculture that mostly uses the internet and social media without falling into selection bias again.

 

[JazzJack2]

Hi there. I have a fun picture for you that I think sums up your post:

I feel that I can equally apply that image to you, you seen to inventing a sort uber entitled gamer who I feel simply does not exist, or at least exists in a very tiny minority that cannot be said to be an issue let alone a growing issue.

It should be noted though that my reply was not a direct response to you but more about how I feel the word entitlement is generally used nowadays in gaming circles. A issue more concerning to me than a few pissed off neckbeards is that it seems certain companies and a certain section of the gaming press will exaggerate/focus on claims of entitled gamers or trolls and then lump legitimate dissent together with these to ignore said dissent. I hope I am not the only one who remembers the DmC fiasco where not only were people called whiny for complaining about how much Ninja theory had disregarded the fans of DMC but were actually called entitled for simply not buying the game.

 

[Vylox]

If gamers would actually get what they paid for, then that sense of entitlement would change.

Its not enough for the publishers that gamers spend money on their product, the publishers want to use micro transactions and other money generating concepts.

Of course, the fact that I can also choose from hundreds of millions of FREE games on my android tablet or android phone doesn't factor into this........

But don't most of those free games have those exact same microtransactions that you're complaining about?

Its a give give situation, gamers want to get their stuff, publishers want to get their money. Neither side wants to share responsibility for both sides being stupid or going about things the wrong way.

I'm... actually in agreement with this statement. Well put. Well put indeed.

The difference between paying $60 for a game that also has micro transactions and a FREE game that has them is pretty cut and clear.
I'm not against micro transactions, I'm just against them in games that have purchase prices already.
The micro transaction system is used as a way for the developers and publishers to make money from the game that they provide free of charge. Games that have an initial purchase price have already made the money, so it isn't necessary itself.
Again, not complaining about micro transactions themselves, just them being in games that already have an initial purchase price.

 

[rumdumconundrum]

The difference between paying $60 for a game that also has micro transactions and a FREE game that has them is pretty cut and clear.
I'm not against micro transactions, I'm just against them in games that have purchase prices already.
The micro transaction system is used as a way for the developers and publishers to make money from the game that they provide free of charge. Games that have an initial purchase price have already made the money, so it isn't necessary itself.
Again, not complaining about micro transactions themselves, just them being in games that already have an initial purchase price.

I see your point there. Granted, I feel like people go crazy any time the price of a game goes up (whether by poor planning or simple programming cost increases), so sometimes I can see their reasoning for doing this. Also, those microtransactions are almost always completely optional.

 

[WeepingAngels]

Imagine if you had to go online to activate your new vacuum cleaner. What if they tried to limit where you could use it? What if the attachments that used to come with a vacuum were now only available if you pre-ordered the vacuum and then the attachments were different depending on which retailer you pre-ordered from.

Would those vacuum cleaner consumers be entitled for complaining?

 

[EternallyBored]

Asita already beat me to the article, but it's a pretty good start to a complex problem. Publishers have gotten greedy, and push questionable practices on gamers, they also lavish personal attention on the press, and try to put as many as they can in their back pocket. They implement practices to try and control what we play and how we play, then implement transactions psychologically aimed at trying to make the most money out of us while constantly flirting the ethical lines of honest business practices.

These practices make gamers cynical and angry, in that anger they lash out at those they see as taking advantage of them, and they see the press falling behind the publishers and developers, posting pictures of press events where they are allowed to review games or make interviews in only very controlled circumstances, and they feel betrayed. As if games journalism is little more than a propaganda arm of big publishers. Some let that anger and cynicism spill over into outrage, death threats, and increasing demands, they want to change things, but realize on an individual level they really have no power except to rage against the system.

The journalists are trapped between a public that hates them and is either accusing them of being attention whores digging on popular games for attention, or corporate shills giving terrible games good scores. All the while, the publishers actually are courting the bigger names and sites, with exclusive interviews and coverage, and some following it up with subtle threats to blacklist reviewers if they step too far out of line, essentially cutting off a reviewer's lifeblood and making them persona non grata to the industry.

The anger and resentment from all sides causes them to lash out. Publishers and developers treat their customers like children or walking wallets who should just lap up everything they are given with an enthusiastic "May I have another sir!", some also have a monomaniacal obsession with controlling information, and push that obsession into controlling the journalists that review their games and systems. Gamers lash out in anger and cynicism at almost all industry and journalistic practices, inventing elaborate theories for why the whole games industry is full of terrible people, and sometimes turning the publishers and journalists into vaudeville corporate villains. The journalists are bitter at accusations hurled at them whether true or not, but are also under constraint from publishers and developers with a fetish for controlling any information surrounding a game, to the point of hobbling the journalists, trapped between honest journalism, and the demands of a corporate structure that seems obsessed with controlling them.

It is what is colloquially known as a clusterfuck.