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

[LiquidSolstice]

When was the last time you saw the comments thread for a MW3 article without feeling sick to your stomach about the things that people can say about games?

Hell, I can't remember the last time I've ever felt good about a game I was excited about after reading the comments section. There's always more people who don't seem happy about a game, there's always more people who criticize a game just for being made under a certain publisher, etc etc etc.

I'm just so tired of having my hobby crushed by people who think that they're industry experts if they suddenly toss in the phrase "Fuck EA" into any sort of discussion or thread.

For that reason, I can't quite say that gamers are entitled, but I do think the vast majority are incredibly arrogant.

 

[Filiecs]

To me, it works like this:

Entitlement:
"We DEMAND that you make this change. It is our right and you HAVE to change it!"

A good consumer:
"I would prefer it if you made this change as I/we feel that it would improve the game, however, it's still your choice."

When someone believes they are entitled they are most likely use force to make the change if they could.
When someone is a good consumer they are only ASKING for a change to be made and will never resort to force or rage if the change isn't made.

 

[Baneat]

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

What about Lucas? His vision of his work differed from his first iteration, but people don't feel overly entitled to tell him he can't edit Star Wars to suit his views. Slamming Lucas for this is acceptable but in any other circumstance it's entitlement.

 

[thememan]

To me, it works like this:

Entitlement:
"We DEMAND that you make this change. It is our right and you HAVE to change it!"

A good consumer:
"I would prefer it if you made this change as I/we feel that it would improve the game, however, it's still your choice."

When someone believes they are entitled they are most likely use force to make the change if they could.
When someone is a good consumer they are only ASKING for a change to be made and will never resort to force or rage if the change isn't made.

Complete, utter, and total bullocks.

As a consumer you have every right to voice your opinion however you damn well please. Developers are big boys, and frankly if they can't handle negativity towards their products or their ridiculous comments about said products then they need to get out of the bloody business of consumerism. A consumer who voices their opinion loudly and negatively is no more or less a "good consumer" than someone who gives only "positive feedback"(Which is utter crap in and of itself).

No consumer in the history of ever has seriously attempted to "force" a company to do anything. It is entirely out of their hands to do so. They can make their case loudly and demand all they damn well please, but it's ultimately the company's decision whether to give into said demands (Unless, of course, there is legal recourse).

Rage as well is perfectly understandable as some people feel that they were misled by a product's advertising or through comments made about said product. It is perfectly within their right to rage as they damn well please if they feel they were swindled.

Frankly, the "good consumer" you just described is exactly what's wrong with the entire system. By acknowledging them for giving a "good effort" and simply saying that they could have done better you are validating the incredibly poor and distasteful practices that these businesses employ. Because hey, the at least know now that they can release whatever they damn well please and people will be fine with it and only give "positive feedback" that they won't really do anything about. By being complacent to them your effective continuing shitacular business practices. Good job, what a great and wonderful consumer you are! You are agreeing to being screwed over as much as the company can get away with! Woo-hoo. Here's a Golden Pickle. It's not really gold, just spray-painted, but I'm sure you will cherish it always while giving positive feed back about how I might be able to improve the Golden Pickle in the future.

 

[thememan]

this is the difference between an entitled consumer and a good consumer.

good consumer: hey can we have (blank) because of this well thought out argument i have prepared and the fact that im willing to pay a bit of money for it.
P.S your products are awesome im a big fan

entitled fucktard: HEY YOU SUCK DICK, YOUR GAME IS FUCKING HORRIBLE, IT PRACTICALLY RUINED MY CHILDHOOD, I HOPE YOU DIE IN FACT IM GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOUR RETARDED FUCKING DOG IF YOU DONT GIVE ME (BLANK) YOU FUCKING DICKHEAD
P.S YOUR COMAPNYS IS A FUCKING MONEY WHORE YOU ****

its not the fact that we ask for something its the way we ask for it

Good Consumer II:

Your products are shit. Your misleading comments about the products, as well as baffling reviews for said product, made it seem like the Second Coming of Raptor Jesus. What I got was a fat guy in a lizard suit wearing robes giving me the middle finger. What in the nine hells are you going to do about to ensure that I remain a customer in the future? I sure as hell won't pay for it either, as you released half-baked garbage to begin with.

Your "good customer" is an absolutely wretched example of a customer. "Hey! I know you utterly disappointed me with your original product, but you'll release a small token 'fix' in order to placate me but also I'll give you more money! Rather than, you know, actually doing a half-decent job in the first place that is."

 

[Squidbulb]

You are not entitle to a "good" product. You are entitled to a working product. "Good" is an entirely subjective term and developers are well within their rights to not change a functional product. If the game is full of bugs, then feel free to complain, if it's just bad in some way, you can and should express your concerns but you should not get angry about it or claim that you deserve something better.
The people behind Project Rainfall had entirely legitimate complaints. They weren't getting those games whatsoever. The developers may have thought it wouldn't sell well, but that didn't stop a European release (which is even more risky because it requires more translation). I am fine with that, as it sucks to not get a game that is available in other countries. Getting mad because the game isn't perfect, yet still functional, is just silly.

 

[FoolKiller]

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.

Frankly, its just the era of moving towards online. I remember paying for Xbox LIVE Gold so I could play online as they regulated the servers. It was a feature devs and publishers threw in to attract gamers "Hey.. come play our game with your friend without going to his/her house"

Now there are server shutdowns of franchises less than two years after the game releases to pressure gamers into buying the newer game even though no improvements are given. Hell... I don't even know what Xbox Live Gold is for really. I need it to play online but I also need online passes and extra map packs. And I have to suffer with the incessant ads on it.

But I agree. I grew up in an era where I bought a game and got the whole game. I still wait for complete editions because I don't want to be locked out of content down the line and I don't want to waste a year playing bits and pieces of a game. Just give me the whole thing and let me play.

 

[Elamdri]

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.

I think that's perfectly fair, my issue is with consumers who air grievances with companies and yet continue to purchase their products. Even worse is when a consumer purchases a product and THEN complains about it (mind you this does not include defective products, but rather a customer complaining about a product after purchasing it knowing what they were getting into).

 

[thememan]

this is the difference between an entitled consumer and a good consumer.

good consumer: hey can we have (blank) because of this well thought out argument i have prepared and the fact that im willing to pay a bit of money for it.
P.S your products are awesome im a big fan

entitled fucktard: HEY YOU SUCK DICK, YOUR GAME IS FUCKING HORRIBLE, IT PRACTICALLY RUINED MY CHILDHOOD, I HOPE YOU DIE IN FACT IM GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOUR RETARDED FUCKING DOG IF YOU DONT GIVE ME (BLANK) YOU FUCKING DICKHEAD
P.S YOUR COMAPNYS IS A FUCKING MONEY WHORE YOU ****

its not the fact that we ask for something its the way we ask for it

Good Consumer II:

Your products are shit. Your misleading comments about the products, as well as baffling reviews for said product, made it seem like the Second Coming of Raptor Jesus. What I got was a fat guy in a lizard suit wearing robes giving me the middle finger. What in the nine hells are you going to do about to ensure that I remain a customer in the future? I sure as hell won't pay for it either, as you released half-baked garbage to begin with.

Your "good customer" is an absolutely wretched example of a customer. "Hey! I know you utterly disappointed me with your original product, but you'll release a small token 'fix' in order to placate me but also I'll give you more money! Rather than, you know, actually doing a half-decent job in the first place that is."

actually my good consumer realises that the best way to get what you want is to talk nicely to people and maybe suck up a bit in order to get it because getting angry and cursing at people probably isnt the best way to get them to do something nice for you.

hell if your good consumer came up to me i'd tell them to fuck off, no im not doing anything for you, if you think you can talk to me like that without getting into a unwelcome fight you're testing you're luck and if you expect me to do something for you after you spoke to me like that you are very mistaken

And you, as the Businessman, have not only lost this single customer but anybody he really talks to because you told him to fuck off. Welcome to the wide world of business, where the role of playing nice is squarely on the person trying to sell stuff. It's not possible all the time, but trust me (As someone who has had to deal with plenty of asshole customers) you rarely ever have the option of telling someone to "fuck off". Do that to enough assholes and eventually you start to hurt. Granted, there are cases where it is necessary, but that is the exception to the rule.

That said, being "polite" when you feel swindled is counter productive. As I said in the post before that one, it only validates the shitacular business practices that brought us here any way, and if your "good customer" is any example it means that now the company involved knows that they can get you to pay to "fix" something that they should have done in the first place. So guess what? You are essentially double paying for a product that should have been done right in the first place. You are effectively screwing yourself.

 

[Kapol]

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.

I agree with the fact that, if it is fully prepared by the time it's ready to print to disk (which happens well before the actual release date from my understanding), then it is a blatent cash-grab. But there are reasons to include part of content that may be planned for on the disk. It's possible for some of the content to be ready to print to disk without the full DLC actually being ready.

Like it was mentioned that some of Javic from ME3's walk animations and such were on the disk on release. Now, if they had those things ready by the time it was ready to print to disk, why not include them? It means a smaller download at least. And it's not like they don't still have to have other things done, such as the actual full animations involving him for his character as well as Shephard, his 'stage' (which was a decent size), and such.

Of course, my point was more people who simply assume all day-1 DLC is ready when the disk is printed and could have easily been included and therefore it's awful that the company did it. There are plenty of people like that out there.

 

[ThriKreen]

I agree with the fact that, if it is fully prepared by the time it's ready to print to disk (which happens well before the actual release date from my understanding), then it is a blatent cash-grab. But there are reasons to include part of content that may be planned for on the disk. It's possible for some of the content to be ready to print to disk without the full DLC actually being ready.

I stress again, what is sent to the console makers for certification is only what's allowed when the game has gone gold and the disc image has been sent to the printing press. Even if the day 1 DLC is completed in time, you can't merely "add it in" into the disc image prior to printing - what has been tested is now different than what would be sent to the disc manufacturers, this having to redo the cert process.

Delay game another 2-3 months, studio and publisher probably have to pay extra for redoing the cert process. This is done intentionally for good reason, to discourage developers from doing the aforementioned slipping unauthorized stuff in that could cause instability.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Well, there are differences between petitioning for goods that the publishers don't want to deliver (for whatever reason), and petitioning for better value from upcoming goods.

There's no "entitlement" in an operation like Project Rainfall. The customers aren't making unreasonable demands, they're just telling the publishers that there is a market for their product!

Boolean logic at work: "Game exists in that market, game does not exist in that market"
For some games, they don't market them because of the matter of legality, taxes, or the cost of advertising (quality translation work is dirt-cheap these days) vs the potential earnings.

Sometimes it doesn't make any goddamn sense: (Nintendo, why do you not just translate and release Mother 3 on the virtual console? I swear you'll make your investment back at least tenfold.)
Sometimes it's for reasons that transcend business practices:
(Capcom, why do you continue to troll your customers? Stop fucking around just because you're pissed off at Inafune, and make Megaman Legends 3 already.)

***********************************************

As for the very, very, VERY tired "entitlement" issue...
Sigh...fact is, part of it is subjective because the argument is steeped in qualitative reasoning. Whether you feel something is worth the money or not depends on, well, you.
You can state why you find something to not be worth the cost, and that's a perfectly valid reason to not buy it, or to complain if you did buy it.

However, that is not a good reason to say that you deserve it for free. That's the legitimate use of the word "entitlement".

Sure, they charged you for the rest of the game too which I'm SURE you paid pull price for...
But you might have noticed something: THE PUBLISHER ALSO SET THE PRICE FOR THEIR CORE CONTENT. That is: Publishers determine how much to charge for their content at all times.

Believe me; I don't like most DLC.
I hate DLC that's actually on the disc or already downloaded (thanks for eating my bandwidth Dungeon Defenders. Thanks again for then asking if I want to pay for what was downloaded behind my back. I thought part of the cost was to cover the hosting bill for that DLC? Guess not) but I still need to pay just to legally access it.
Most Day 1 DLC feels like nothing more than a price-hike, which leads to my next point.

The problem with most DLC is in comparison to previous pricing standards, it's just a price hike in disguise for the full experience and no amount of spinning the topic will change that fact.

Don't like it? Don't buy the DLC. It's that fucking simple.

And if the Publisher doesn't want to budge on the issue, just take your business elsewhere.
Games are luxuries and there are plenty of other gaming opportunities out there.

 

[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.

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.

A petition has shown to be pretty much useless because people are not backing it up with their wallets. If every single person took their games back demanding their money back and never bought another ea or bioware game i imagine something would have already been done by now.

The internet has shown that people can do great thing when gathering support for a cause but when it is something as trivial as not getting a "happy ending" for a game these petitions lose credibility.

 

[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.

Frankly, its just the era of moving towards online. I remember paying for Xbox LIVE Gold so I could play online as they regulated the servers. It was a feature devs and publishers threw in to attract gamers "Hey.. come play our game with your friend without going to his/her house"

Now there are server shutdowns of franchises less than two years after the game releases to pressure gamers into buying the newer game even though no improvements are given. Hell... I don't even know what Xbox Live Gold is for really. I need it to play online but I also need online passes and extra map packs. And I have to suffer with the incessant ads on it.

But I agree. I grew up in an era where I bought a game and got the whole game. I still wait for complete editions because I don't want to be locked out of content down the line and I don't want to waste a year playing bits and pieces of a game. Just give me the whole thing and let me play.

Well, online on the consoles, anyway. I've been a PC gamer my whole life, and I remember thinking that Microsoft was crazy for charging for online and pushing matchmaking over dedicated servers. Unfortunately, it looks like they were crazy like a fox.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

The difference is that good consumers don't throw temper tantrums like 3 year-olds whenever something doesn't turn out they way they expected it too, or they're otherwise disappointed with their purchases.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

The difference is that good consumers don't throw temper tantrums like 3 year-olds whenever something doesn't turn out they way they expected it too, or they're otherwise disappointed with their purchases.

Truthfully I think what you're talking about is the difference between a civilised consumer and an uncivilised consumer.

Both are enacting their right to complain about a product, its just that one is doing it like an adult and the other isn't.

And you can talk self-entitlement all you want regarding Mass Effect 3 and the backlash it recieved but in the end, EA/BioWare decided that we were a good (Read: profitable) enough customer base to keep. They are making changes, the outcome of which remains to be seen, to thier product because we have asked them to, in ways ranging from the polite to the vile.

We didn't force them at gun point, we didn't (as far as I know) picket their offices, desecrate their image in effigy or seek and win a binding court order to legally compell them to do this: they chose to do it.

For the record, I wasn't happy with the ending: it really harshed my buzz for the game and left me feeling empty. I didn't donate to the Child's Play thing but anyone that did and asked for their donation back is a bastard who deserves a lick of the cat.