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

[Owyn_Merrilin]

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.

More Xbox era than PS1 era. Those of us who can remember the PS1 know better. And you pretty much described a good consumer: one who doesn't take any crap from the producers, and knows how to play his part in the eternal power struggle that is capitalism. The bad consumers are the ones defending the publishing companies.

 

[Agayek]

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.'

Well, to be fair, if it's prepared early enough to be on the disk at release, there's absolutely no reason to not include it in the base game beyond a transparent cash grab. You don't really need any more knowledge of it than that to ***** about on-disk DLC.

Day-1 DLC is (potentially) somewhat different, but most of the time the same argument applies, as most Day-1 DLC is finished (if not fully tested) before the game starts being printed.

 

[Elamdri]

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.

One is a consumer asking to localize a game for North America so they can purchase it. You're just asking for an opportunity to purchase the product.

The other is telling a developer that you deserve content for free merely because the producer packages the content on the same disc as the game. It generally stems from a lack of understanding about how licensing software works.

The on-disc DLC argument is silly because it states that if a developer creates content and puts it on the disc, then they deserve it for free, but if they keep it off the disc and force you to download it, then it's ok to pay for it. That's an incredibly naive way of looking at the situation.

The reality is that a producer is perfectly within their rights to package a product with content that is subject to a separate licensing agreement. You either agree to purchase that separate licenses or you don't get to use the content. Just because it is on the disc does not mean that you are authorized to use it.

 

[Elamdri]

Well, to be fair, if it's prepared early enough to be on the disk at release, there's absolutely no reason to not include it in the base game beyond a transparent cash grab. You don't really need any more knowledge of it than that to ***** about on-disk DLC.

What if the company has determined that including the content within the full game would not adequately compensate the company for the cost to make the extra content?

 

[Rawne1980]

It has no meaning. None whatsoever.

It's like Wrestling, hold on i'll explain....

People watch publishers, devs, game reviewers, critics and other game related news just like people watch wrestling.

When a word comes up they can latch on to they like to chant it, even if it means nothing.

Stone Cold Steve Austin's "what" chant still goes on today when some people cut a promo.

Folks heard someone say "entitled" and like to chant it wherever possible.

I like to think that whoever started the entitled chant is on commission. Every time it gets used he has a few quid thrown his way. I also like to think it's the same guy who came up with Crazy Frog because that was just as irritating.

 

[ThriKreen]

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.

Yeah, but you don't go around demanding they change an FPS game into an RTS.

I said this before and I think it's applicable here: "Like (or dislike) the game for what it is, don't hate it for what you think it should be."

A good customer is of the former, who can say "There were some rough spots here and there, but overall I enjoyed the game." or "While I like this genre, I feel this game didn't appeal to my tastes." or the like.

An entitled customer is of the latter who rages on the forums about how the studio has somehow wronged him by including/excluding a certain sexual preference for an NPC or didn't do X exactly like Y and expects their $60 allows them to boss a team of 50+ people around.

And that they should exclusively cater to their wishes and only theirs, at the exclusion of every one else who has bought the product and might have a difference of opinion.

Day-1 DLC is (potentially) somewhat different, but most of the time the same argument applies, as most Day-1 DLC is finished (if not fully tested) before the game starts being printed.

You're missing an important aspect of the game dev process, that what is sent to the console certification process is locked down, meaning no new stuff can be added to the disc image for what will eventually be send to the manufacturers. Sony, MS, Nintendo are very strict about this and trying to insert new stuff often causes the cert period to reset and they now have to account for the new content and how it could possibly affect the game's stability and such.

Seeing as the cert process can take from 2-3 months, then add in the lockdown/polish phase before you even submit it of another 2-4 months (or more!), there's a lot of time for some departments to develop new content (aka DLC). Hooks for the new content can be done before hand, adding an NPC that will launch the new quest if the necessary resources were found, etc.

On disc DLC on the other hand, like Street Fighter alternate costumes, is done to prevent fragmentation of the player base. Sure you could make it if Player A lacks the plaid Ryu costume that Player B bought and unlocked, then Player A merely sees the default Ryu costume. But that sort of defeats the purpose of a cosmetic feature, trying to entice people to go "Hey, I want that costume too! Only $2? Eh... sure why not?"

Not saying it's a good system - I'd prefer if the alt costumes could be unlocked in the game or pay for all character X's costumes, not pay only.

 

[Waffle_Man]

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

Anger at the person selling ice cream would be justified, because that would be a breach of contract. Keep in mind that it is only a breach of contract if the contract states it in the terms. For example, if someone tells you that they will sell you a sundae, you had better make sure that the description specifically says that a cherry is present. You don't have the right to complain because "cherries aught to be included with sundaes." What you do have the right to do is stop doing business with the vendor and the right to find a vendor willing to provide the service you desire. Granted, you could receive the sundae and then ask for the cherry. As a business owner, it is important for the vendor to maintain customer satisfaction.

I could go on, but I'd just end up writing a massive explanation of economics and how the consumer effects the market with such a metaphor, but I think the point is clear enough. The only thing that a consumer can provide a company with after a purchase is loyalty, so unless a contract is breached, never do business with someone who doesn't respect your desires as a customer unless you're willing to be delivered a product that doesn't meet your explications from time to time.

Lastly, mob justice (if such a thing can exist) isn't the way to influence markets under any circumstance. It disrupts the system and makes the communication of the free market no longer function. The proper way to respond is a boycott, and not a stupid "I'm not going to buy this one product" boycott. It has to be a total disassociation of a company. If the company can survive without you, it's probably best that you not grow dependent on them, because you have nothing to bargain with. If, on the other hand, they need your patronage (you personally and those with similar motives, not just the vague concept of "customers"), they will either cave in or go out of business. That's how the market (usually) functions. When it doesn't, it's usually the result of either a misjudgment of the way the market is supposed to function or an outside interference.

 

[repeating integers]

Good consumer:

"This game doesn't have a feature that was promised. It's also got some very irritating bugs. Hey, , fix this please."

Obviously few people IRL are this mild-mannered, but this is the basic premise IMO.

Entitled brat:

"WHAT! Fuck, the game has CHANGED since the last instalment? FUCK YOU STUDIO! CHANGE IT BACK RIGHT NOW, FOR FREE! I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE ELSE WANTS!"

Yeah, my fellow Halo fans annoy me. It's why I rarely visit the Bungie forums.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

What is it with this word 'entitled'.It seems to have only appeared this year. First I see feminists start using it. Then the mass effect thing happens, some reviewers throw the word about and now everyones using it.

It just seems weird that I've only noticed this term since the start of this year...

 

[floppylobster]

When we show our voice by voting with our wallets we are being "good consumers".

When we ***** and moan and demand a game be changed to suit our preferences we are being "entitled".

Anyone who claims to like or love something, that they didn't produce themselves, then have the audacity to try and tell the creator how it should have been made is being entitled.

I love Star Wars. I didn't love the prequels. I've watched the originals possibly hundreds of times. I watched the prequels twice at most. I talked with my friends about how I didn't like certain things and what I would have rather had happened. I did not write to George Lucas and demand he change them. They're his goddamn films. I am just a consumer of them. I think the line is there.

 

[StriderShinryu]

Personally, I feel it's the difference between expecting a quality product and expecting every game to be made specifically for you. The first is only logical if you're spending $50 on something. You should be getting a complete working solid experience. Itmay do some things you don't particularly like or enjoy but it's just reality that something designed according to someone else's plabs and designed for enjoyment by potentially millions of people isn't necessarily going to tick all of your personal boxes. Once you start complaining because not enough of your personal boxes have been ticked in an otherwise solid game that's when you start getting into entitled territory.

 

[Squidbulb]

A good consumer is disappointed at things like dlc or a bad ending, but either ignores them due to the game being generally good or stops buying games from that developer (if you're angry about on-disc dlc, the correct response would be to not buy that dlc and play the game as normal).
An entitled person will demand that this be changed and they will keep complaining until they get it just as they wanted.
As StriderShinryu said, it's okay to complain about bad design or game-breaking bugs, but not okay to complain about something like bad dlc, a bad sidequest, or a minor plot hole.
You're allowed to complain but you start to look a bit presumptuous when you act like you own the thing.

 

[Dogstile]

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.

Not going out and making a petition? Why not? Isn't a petition a way to let them know how many people care about an issue without having any legally binding repercussions if the company ignores them? What's wrong about that?

You might as well say its entitled to let them know you and your friends didn't like what you brought.

 

[DoPo]

Completely agree with this. The fucking word is so overused it makes me lose almost all the respect I have for the person uttering it at this point. It's become a yet another meaningless buzzword to throw at the opposition.

And I completely agree with you. I saw a thread where, I swear, there were at least half a dozen people in a row who used "entitled" and meant entirely different things. I didn't read long enough to see if there were two people who used it for the same thing.

Yeah, and the worse part was that even those who were on the same side of positive/negative meaning didn't seem to have the same idea for it.

I applaud the TC for breaking the normal "entitlement thread" mould, though.

However, my advice is for everybody to erase this word from their vocabulary. We should come up with something new that describes the meaning better.

CAPTCHA: creative vision

 

[Xanthious]

Entitled is just a word that publishers and developers started throwing around which then caught on with and started to be repeated by their mouth breathing unpaid PR team like little kids that suddenly discover how to cuss.

It's one of a few words that if I see in a given thread online I know it's probably not worth the time to respond. Because much like my aunts parrot that used to call people "stupid" the neck bearded automatons throwing around the word "entitled" have no actual grasp on it's meaning.

 

[The Funslinger]

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.

This is good (if a little case specific)

Being a good consumer is encouraging a dev to keep pushing its boundary, and not stagnate Call of Duty style.

Being an entitled little ***** is whining when a game you anticipated doesn't fulfill your mental image of how it should be, and acting as though your personal preferences are gospel. Which A LOT of people do, even/especially (take your pick) on this website...

 

[Lt._nefarious]

If you demand or boycott something for an addition you don't like you are being entitled but if you simply say you don't like it and say it would be nice if it were changed you are being a good consumer