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

[Viptorian]

I really isn't difficult.

A good consumer understands that when you buy something, you're buying what is in the package you had in your hand when you got to the register. When you went to the counter, you basically said, "I would like to buy this exact thing and nothing further, otherwise I would be paying for something further." For example, as much as I hate pre-order bonuses, if you didn't pre-order, you didn't fill the second half of the purchase agreement, regardless of if the code is on the disc. Why? Because the publisher said well in advance of your purchase of the box with product inside, "We would like to sell you this neat add-on, but you will have to pay more."

An entitled consumer believes that a transaction extends well beyond the actual exchange of goods, which is a falsehood. They believe that if something is not as good as they thought it would be, they are owed compensation, which is something that is almost never offered. Entitlement literally means tat you feel you have some innate claim to something. Very rarely is one entitled to anything in a barter system.

When I bought my first car that I actually owned and paid for, I didn't do a good enough job of checking all the options in the car before signing the bill of sale and other contracts. See, I had test driven a car I loved, but I hated the color, so I swapped out. I checked the one in the color I wanted out, but neglected to check for a built-in Bluetooth connection that the first one had; my new car does not have one. I am not entitled to the Bluetooth because the specifics of the car were detailed in the documents I signed (though, making the car buying process take 5 hours is an EVIL, albeit effective, negotiating tactic). I could have probably fought for it, but I knew I wasn't entitled to it, given the contact (in other words, transactional agreement - like exchanging cash/credit for a video game).

 

[Zayle79]

People who think they have authority over developers aren't entitled. That's what makes them, you know, wrong. They're self-entitled. Huge difference.

Anyhow. I think that you're self-entitled if you think that you're entitled to more than you got when you purchase a product. You pay $60, you get a game. That's it. The only exception is if you've been lied to--not just misled, but outright lied to--by advertisement. In that case, you deserve your money back if you want it, but you still don't deserve to get more than what you already got. That's it.

You're not self-entitled, however, if you start a petition to get obstructive DRM removed from a game, boycott a company because you don't agree with the way they do business, etc. The cause doesn't matter--for instance, they could be trying to get a company to make another game for a certain franchise. They're just pressuring companies to do what they want by showing them how many people agree with them. Here, the line is between those who think that they actually have the authority to tell a developer/publisher what to do and those who are just asking.

So, in the case of ME3, the difference is between saying "BioWare should really clarify the ending," and "BioWare must clarify the ending because I say so."

 

[Vegosiux]

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

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

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

Incorrect.

Entitled: Qualified for by right according to law; eligible - qualified for or allowed or worthy of being chosen

As consumers, we are all entitled to things that are covered by our consumer rights.

And I seriously wish people stopped using the word because they think it makes them look smarter and more classy. It doesn't. "Oooo look at me, look at me, I'm using a cool word."

Well you are using it wrong. Stop. It.

 

[Unsilenced]

A good customer says what they think and stop buying if the company blows them off.

An entitled customer gets morally outraged about it.



Companies aren't obligated not to be money-grubbing dicks.

You aren't obligated not to tell them to go fuck themselves and never buy from them again.

Morality has very little to do with it.

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.

So entitlement is literally defined as the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy and pretty much nothing else at all?

Good to know.



Captcha: Panic button

I hit it when I saw this thread.

 

[Agayek]

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?

Then raise the price of the full game /shrug. Like I said, there's no reason to not include on-disc DLC in the full game aside from a transparent cash grab. That's quite literally the only reason on-disk DLC exists.

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.

This is true, I had forgotten about certification. That's what I get for being a primarily PC gamer.

That said, I fully understand that there's downtime in the process that the team can use to make DLC. That I have no problem with. I do take issue with them having finished it early enough to include on the disc, but purposefully charging extra for it. It's their prerogative and all, but it's nothing more than a transparent cash grab and really shouldn't be encouraged.

 

[370999]

I hate people employing the word entitled, at least preface it with a nice "self" or something otherwise it doesn't really make sense.

I think generally it's a very much elastic line between reasonable and unreasonable demands. What is reasonable is up to you to determine. Take ME 3, I think they should change the ending, and if they do I would be more likely to buy future DLC and future games set in that universe, as well as future Bioware products. Don't and I won't. However someone else might think I am being silly here, so it's very much up in the air.

 

[Blade_125]

Good customer, bad customer.

Entitled or not.

All of it is unimportant. As a customer you decide what you buy. If it doesn't meet your expectations then you either voice them and possible ask for corrections, or you take your business elsewhere.

The multiple threads on this don't really do anything. This is just the way business works. Wha is going on in the gaming industry is nothing new.

 

[allinwonder]

en·ti·tle   [en-tahyt-l] Show IPA
verb (used with object), en·ti·tled, en·ti·tling.
1.
to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something; furnish with grounds for laying claim: His executive position entitled him to certain courtesies rarely accorded others.

Entitled just means deserving.

It has no negative meanings.

It is the right wing politics agenda that tries to demonize this word (c.f. Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell).

Demonizing "entitled" "entitlement" to make little people (consumers, non-rich citizens) feel that they deserve nothing, no matter how much they put into it, to make them subjugated to powerful entities.

 

[allinwonder]

If there is really one entitled party, it's the publisher. They think they are entitled to make a shitty game, charge you $60 for it, and charge you for on-disc DLC.

 

[rigabear]

Firstly, and fundamentally, beyond what is enshrined in law and assuming they are not outright lied to; no consumer is ever entitled to anything.

Why? It's obvious, but once they have your money, you can **** off. They don't need to pay any attention to you what so ever.
So you can feel entitled all you like but at the end of the day it doesn't matter.

'Entitled' consumers forget the above.

But so long as they are voting with their wallets entitled consumers are good consumers, just with poor PR.

Also, I'd like to add to this:

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.

What people seem to forget is that this absolutely your right. You aren't (and can't) forcing them to do anything - all you are saying 'I didn't like it; change it or I won't buy again'.
And this applies for any conceivable issue you have - maybe you didn't like the main character's haircut - doesn't matter; it is your RIGHT.
Once we start accepting anything because it was the 'author's vision' or because we loved the original or some crap we become bad consumers.

 

[Vegosiux]

Firstly, and fundamentally, beyond what is enshrine in law and assuming they are not outright lied to; no consumer is ever entitled to anything.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Consumers are entitled to a whole lot of stuff, covered by consumer rights. For example, as a consumer I am entitled to the product that I bought, and I am entitled to that product doing stuff I was told it was doing. I am also entitled to the product not doing stuff I was told it would not be doing. And if the seller fails to deliver what they promised me, I am entitled to compensation. I am also entitled to do the transaction privately should I so desire, and I am entitled to warranty stuff. I'm entitled to them acting professionally.

If I was entitled to nothing, then they could take my money and go "Thanks for the money, now fuck off we dun owe ya nuthin'! Be glad we didn't rip your balls off and sold them!"

 

[TehCookie]

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.

Well what's a good consumer? Someone who doesn't complain and throws their money at companies or someone who tries to get the most bang for their buck and/or a satisfying product? Entitled gamers can be good or bad consumers, it just means they think they have a right to something. I believe when I buy a game I'm entitled to that copy, and should be able to resell it afterwards. Does that make me a bad consumer? Though in Xenoblades case I don't think it was entitled since it seems like most didn't think they had a right to an stateside release, but rather just really wanted it.

 

[Stravant]

A good consumer complains about a game that has bugs, is broken in some way, or just doesn't function well.

An entitled person complains about a game that works fine, but isn't what they wanted it to be.

That's how I see it

 

[Kargathia]

Why exactly does this distinction matter in the first place? Customers have no obligation whatsoever to be "nice".

It's common decency to not be a jerk towards the individual (i.e. retail or helpdesk staff), but other than that you're perfectly entitled to demand the company to deliver you the moon on a silver platter - just as they're perfectly entitled to decline, or charge an exorbitant sum for it.
After all: nobody is forcing either of you to enter in this completely voluntary agreement called "selling stuff".

 

[rigabear]

Firstly, and fundamentally, beyond what is enshrine in law and assuming they are not outright lied to; no consumer is ever entitled to anything.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Consumers are entitled to a whole lot of stuff, covered by consumer rights. For example, as a consumer I am entitled to the product that I bought, and I am entitled to that product doing stuff I was told it was doing. I am also entitled to the product not doing stuff I was told it would not be doing. And if the seller fails to deliver what they promised me, I am entitled to compensation. I am also entitled to do the transaction privately should I so desire, and I am entitled to warranty stuff. I'm entitled to them acting professionally.

If I was entitled to nothing, then they could take my money and go "Thanks for the money, now fuck off we dun owe ya nuthin'! Be glad we didn't rip your balls off and sold them!"

To emphasise:

"beyond what is enshrined in law and assuming they are not outright lied to"

Of course you are entitled to everything you listed (as per the law). However that does not extend the particular demands made by those who stand accused of being 'entitled'. Well, pending the FTC complaint...

 

[Elamdri]

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?

Then raise the price of the full game /shrug. Like I said, there's no reason to not include on-disc DLC in the full game aside from a transparent cash grab. That's quite literally the only reason on-disk DLC exists.

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.

This is true, I had forgotten about certification. That's what I get for being a primarily PC gamer.

That said, I fully understand that there's downtime in the process that the team can use to make DLC. That I have no problem with. I do take issue with them having finished it early enough to include on the disc, but purposefully charging extra for it. It's their prerogative and all, but it's nothing more than a transparent cash grab and really shouldn't be encouraged.

You do realize that just because you keep saying "Transparent" doesn't actually make something more or less transparent. It's like when people say "Clearly" when making an argument when it is in no way clear exactly what is happening. Just say you think it is a cash grab, you don't have to keep saying "Transparent" to try and re-enforce your argument.

 

[Agayek]

You do realize that just because you keep saying "Transparent" doesn't actually make something more or less transparent. It's like when people say "Clearly" when making an argument when it is in no way clear exactly what is happening. Just say you think it is a cash grab, you don't have to keep saying "Transparent" to try and re-enforce your argument.

I'm not using it to reinforce my argument. I'm saying what it is. Whoever made the decision to charge for content already on the disk is making a blatant attempt to get more money out of the work already completed. There's really nothing else to it. They completed all of the work in time for it to be put on the disk (and thus be included in the actual product), but are charging extra for it. Thus, a transparent cash grab.

That's not necessarily a bad thing either. From a business perspective, the whole point is to maximize profit on a given amount of work, and it's succeeding wildly. It's just not very customer friendly. But hey, if the customers are willing to put up with it, all the more power to them.

 

[Elamdri]

You do realize that just because you keep saying "Transparent" doesn't actually make something more or less transparent. It's like when people say "Clearly" when making an argument when it is in no way clear exactly what is happening. Just say you think it is a cash grab, you don't have to keep saying "Transparent" to try and re-enforce your argument.

I'm not using it to reinforce my argument. I'm saying what it is. Whoever made the decision to charge for content already on the disk is making a blatant attempt to get more money out of the work already completed. There's really nothing else to it. They completed all of the work in time for it to be put on the disk (and thus be included in the actual product), but are charging extra for it. Thus, a transparent cash grab.

That's not necessarily a bad thing either. From a business perspective, the whole point is to maximize profit on a given amount of work, and it's succeeding wildly. It's just not very customer friendly. But hey, if the customers are willing to put up with it, all the more power to them.

I still stand by the fact that is perfectly reasonable for a game publisher to decide that content produced after a certain point cannot be included in the game at the standard price.

I agree with you that extra content should just raise the price of the game, rather than be separate, but we live in a world where all games cost 60 on release.

 

[Agayek]

I still stand by the fact that is perfectly reasonable for a game publisher to decide that content produced after a certain point cannot be included in the game at the standard price.

I agree with you that extra content should just raise the price of the game, rather than be separate, but we live in a world where all games cost 60 on release.

It really doesn't bother me either way. Their business practices are there business, and to be honest, I have no issue with it.

That said, I definitely do not approve of the anti-customer sentiment that it is a symptom of. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that publishers (if not developers as well) are taking customers for granted. In essence (and somewhat ironically), they seem to think they're entitled to continued customer support regardless of their idiotic, draconian, or outrageous changes to the business model, and it really needs to stop.

 

[emeraldrafael]

I think when you go as far as the ME protest or when you say you should be able to pirate because you either dont want to pay but want to play or because you feel that because its a certain developer, then you reach entitlement, and both for different reasons.