What is the line between being "entitled" and being "a good consumer"?

[BreakfastMan]

So. I was looking at the gamestop page for Xenoblade Chronicles the other day, wanting the game real damn bad. It looks awesome, I have heard loads of good things about it, it is from a company I like in a genre I like... I just really want the game damnit! As I was thinking about it, my mind wandered to the history surrounding it. Mainly Project Rainfall, what with it's internet petitions and such. This was bringing up questions in my mind: how come when stuff like PR is going down we are being "good consumers", but when we are complaining about on-disc DLC, we are "entitled"? What is the line here? Why is a petition for one thing good, while another bad? Is it because with one, we can all agree that we want it (moar good games), but with another, it is wrong because the morality of the matter is fairly controversial (on-disc DLC)?

My ultimate question to you, after than ramble-tastic paragraph is this: What is the line between being "entitled" and being "a good consumer"?

NOTE: If I see this devolve into another damn discussion about whether those in Retake ME are entitled nits, I swear to god I will PM a mod to lock this thread. I am dead fecking serious. If you want to discuss that crap, do it in one of the other billions of threads here. This thread is not about that.

 

[tippy2k2]

*If I agree with you, you're being a good consumer
*If I disagree with you, you're being an entitled whiner

*Note: Not I as in "Tippy2K2", just a generic definition above

This is the only difference I can see between the two. People can do whatever they want to but I'm guessing this is what it ultimately will come down to when someone calls someone entitled...

 

[BreakfastMan]

*If I agree with you, you're being a good consumer
*If I disagree with you, you're being an entitled whiner

*Note: Not I as in "Tippy2K2", just a generic definition above

This is the only difference I can see between the two. People can do whatever they want to but I'm guessing this is what it ultimately will come down to when someone calls someone entitled...

That seems silly. I mean, people who do call other entitled must have an idea of what "entitled" and "being a good consumer" is, and what the difference between the two is, right?

 

[Waffle_Man]

The line between being a good consumer is not buying the products of companies that disappoint you. Being entitled is demanding stuff for free (such as post release alterations). Perhaps it is best described as "expecting something for nothing."

Keep in mind that this doesn't make someone entitled simply if they request changes.

 

[Austin Howe]

Entitled: Believing for one second that you have any right to canonically alter the vision of a piece of work's original creator.

Good Consumer: Constructive criticism of the product.

 

[tippy2k2]

snip

That seems silly. I mean, people who do call other entitled must have an idea of what "entitled" and "being a good consumer" is, and what the difference between the two is, right?

I 100% agree that the definition I gave is silly but that seems to be the attitude that people are taking.

I really like Waffle_Man's definition and is how I wish the game consumers would act with...instead, people seem to act with my stated definition in mind.

 

[skywolfblue]

The line between being a good consumer is not buying the products of companies that disappoint you. Being entitled is demanding stuff for free (such as post release alterations). Perhaps it is best described as "expecting something for nothing."

Keep in mind that this doesn't make someone entitled simply if they request changes.

This.

It's the difference between asking nicely for a cherry on top of your ice cream...
...or recruiting a giant mob to storm the icecream maker's home and business in protest over what an insult it was that the icecream person didn't put a cherry on top.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

Entitled= saying you deserve something for free or they you have right to change the product because you felt disapointed in it.

Good consumer= giving constructive criticism to a company not going out and making a petition. Demand change with your wallet don't go and continue buying products from a company if it is doing shit you do not like.

 

[Indecipherable]

A lot of times people see complaints and write them off as entitled - but if people didn't complain and just went elsewhere with their dollars, the businesses would never have a chance to rectify the problem. I've worked in customer service a long time, and sure some people are entitled, but really if you make the effort to get to know the real problem it is infinitely better than acting holier than thou and having one less person paying you.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

The line between being a good consumer is not buying the products of companies that disappoint you. Being entitled is demanding stuff for free (such as post release alterations). Perhaps it is best described as "expecting something for nothing."

Keep in mind that this doesn't make someone entitled simply if they request changes.

This.

It's the difference between asking nicely for a cherry on top of your ice cream...
...or recruiting a giant mob to storm the icecream maker's home and business in protest over what an insult it was that the icecream person didn't put a cherry on top.

Unless the ice cream man promised you a cherry, and you paid for it. Then the angry mob is justified.

OT: Entitled - "You are doing your job as a consumer, instead of the industry's job as a producer. I'm an industry apologist, and I want to belittle you."

Good Consumer -- "You are doing your job as a consumer, instead of the industry's job as a producer. I am a consumer, and I approve of this."

 

[Sexy Devil]

There's no such thing as an entitled consumer. They're buying the product, they have every right to piss and moan until it meets their standards. The company most certainly doesn't have to listen, but wanting a product that better suits your interests isn't being entitled.

 

[Starik20X6]

I think it's ultimately how you present yourself/your argument. If you keep your dignity and argue like a rational human being using proper logic, you're ok. If you make like a chimp and start flinging poop at people for slighting you, then you'll just come across like an entitled child. I dunno, it's kind of a hard line to draw.

 

[wintercoat]

The company most certainly doesn't have to listen, but wanting a product that better suits your interests isn't being entitled.

No, there ARE entitled consumers. They're the ones that forget this simple fact, and think that just because they demand it, the company has no choice but to do it.

Handy Rule of Thumb:
Good consumers start petitions, and speak with their wallets when their petitions fail.
Entitled consumers complain, and file those complaints with the FTC.

And to add to that:

Good consumers will start a charity drive to show their displeasure, donating the money to a good cause while getting attention for their issue.

Entitled customers think said charity drive is paying to force the company to do what they want.

Entitled fucktards are the ones who, after finding out that they weren't in fact paying to force a company to bend to their will, ask for their money back.

 

[Agayek]

Handy Rule of Thumb:
Good consumers start petitions, and speak with their wallets when their petitions fail.
Entitled consumers complain, and file those complaints with the FTC.

Eh, not really sure these definitions work, as "Starting petitions" and "speaking with their wallets" is complaining. It's literally saying "X does not meet my standards, go fix it if you want my money".

In the vast majority of cases, at least on the internet, it really does come down to exactly what tippy2k2 said. If you agree with someone's position, it's being a good consumer and if you disagree it's being entitled.

Mostly because there really isn't such a thing as an entitled customers. Remember the old adage, "the customer is always right". This is very much true from a business perspective. It's really hard to stay in business when your consumer base hates your product. Thus, what the customer wants is what the customer gets.

Now, this isn't a blanket statement that all companies must strictly adhere to the whims of their consumers. Simply that businesses must be aware of the general consumer attitude, and address any large-scale issues the customers have with their product. Otherwise they won't stay in business for long.

 

[The Madman]

Pretty much what Tippy said; If someone agrees with me clearly they also have excellent taste in games and are a good consumer, eager to point out flaws or to comment on a product in order to better inform other fans and perhaps even direct some positive change within the company in question.

When someone disagrees with me however they're clearly entitled whiny socially inept neckbearded nerds with nothing better to do but complain about stupid crap. No surprise, what a bunch of entitled babies!

 

[Kapol]

For me, the line is roughly about the point between when consumers ask for something and when consumers demand something. The difference between them is really when a consumer repeatedly yells at or flames a company if they're not given what they want, acting as if not getting what they want is the end of the world and a horrible thing compared to when consumers simply express disappointment. I suppose you could say the level of rage, or the way it's expressed, is the difference. Consumers aren't being 'entitled' if they say they want something changed or express anger at a situation. But they are if they repeatedly bring up the subject just to complain, attack the company every chance they get, and purposefully cause problems just to 'get even.'

Or, in another way beyond that, between when consumers complain about something and when consumers ***** about something. The first can be done in a polite way that shows feelings without being rude or acting as if you deserve you're opinion is the most important one that exists. The latter normally leads to things I mentioned before. Attacking a company that produced a product, bringing anger into any place that's even remotely discussing a subject somewhat dealing with the product, and so forth.

It also makes a difference if the whatever is being discussed has actually been released, or at least talked about enough for a knowledgeable opinion to be formed. This, to me, really covers the instant anger over all day-1 DLC. Many will attack any day-1 DLC no matter what it is, knowing nothing about it at all other then that they think it 'could have been released with the game.'

 

[Saulkar]

While one could argue that there are or are not valid ways to define the difference between the two I personally see it, as others have pointed out, that it is massively in part but not exclusively relative. If you agree with me you are a good consumer, if you oppose my opinion you are being entitled.

CAPTCHA: enjoy life. Somehow I feel that is relevant to this thread's topic, indirectly of course.

 

[ASnogarD]

Its my opinion that the very idea of there being a concept as a 'good consumer' is wrong, it sounds like the customer has obligations to the supplier... customers are only obligated to pay for goods, if they are not satisfied they can and should convey that dissatisfaction to the supplier in a socially accepted manner ( ranting , stealing ( or piracy in the case of IP ), etc etc is not acceptable ).

I feel that somehow fans have been manipulated into defending exploiting by large corperate entities, calling dissenters 'entitled' and telling others that if they are dissatisfied they should merely not buy the product ( "if you dont like the DLC dont buy it, simple" comments ) which doesnt work as the market hype is simply so strong the masses tend to buy ... then complain, too late shareholders got thier cut and the PR will fix up bad customer relations with some BS or other.

Gamers are often accused of being entitled but its not that gamers want MORE, its that publishers are releasing LESS value for content and often holding back valuable content to sell later, or removing features of a long running IP to cut costs and max profits.

Like for example : COD , the customer used to get the game , server software they could use to host dedicated servers , modding tools to add new content , ability to control the server to cut out unwanted features / add new features , a browser that let the customer select servers they want / return to servers they had fun at in prior sessions , options to tweak the games performance to suit your system and personal preferences...

... now we get no options , matchmaking + client hosting , map packs , no control over servers , no user generated content , a level grind for items and weapons , achievements ( that encourage achievement hunting over teamplay ) , shorter campaigns and less MP maps on release ... etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

In brief: I think the market has devolved to a state where bad business practises are being defended by over zealous fans who a) ensure the practises continue as they throw money for poor products and b) lable any who disagree with the products as entitled whiners who expect too much.

Hmmm, actually if you think about it... doesnt it also reflect the differences between the older gamer from the pong era , and the new generation of xbox / ps1 era gamers ? I would bet a study would reveal that the older gamers expect more, whilst the new gamers are brought up to believe that is all that is possible.