PSUni: 5 Signs You’re an Entitled Gamer – Stop Whining

"The word “Entitlement” is thrown around a lot these days, be it as an argument on what is ruining our youth or how it is ruining our games. It is becoming increasingly obvious that gamers feel that they deserve special treatment, be it from the outcry to change the Mass Effect 3 ending or unceasing bemoaning about Skyrim on the PS3. This type of behavior is starting to make developers nervous, fearing that an innovation or new story direction will be crushed by the tidal wave of whine."

[EdgarNygma]

I dont know man, seems like you are going to make a lot of ppl angry lol. If I could approve it though I would.

[coolbeans]

-"The problem is that the money you spend for a game is just buying access to the game, not everything on the disk."

Gamers have the right to express their views about corporate greed when it comes to this. The very notion that every consumer must now know that shiny disc they just paid $60 for withholds content is insulting. The reason your argument for this does 'seem' to go against common sense is because...it DOES go against common sense. Since the "on-disk DLC" is really just a key to unlock the rest of the disk, rather than being "downloadable content" (you know...like it should be), posters are constantly wondering about the legality of it.

Since the developers don't NEED to immediately appease fans with DLC, there's no real reason for defending them in this situation.

-"[ME3 controversy]. . .If you were happy for this artistic compromise because you (the most special-est consumer ever) paid for a video game then you might be an Entitled brat."

I was cautious about that at first, but now I can't really find this compromise WITH art to be a compromise OF it. If a group of fans feel distaste for an ending they were hyped about and incessantly moan about it isn't a completely unreasonable action. In fact, their vitriol combined with how fast Bioware came in to promise more shows that, as a group of artists, Bio wasn't satisfied either. The artists themselves never tried to stand by their conviction of the possible thematic elements of what they had produced.

In that case, I don't believe the art was compromised.

[EdgarNygma]

As for your first point I think that it is less about corporate greed and more about personal greed. As the article states some things on the disc and somethings that are available as DLC immediately are not produced when the game is originally made; instead they are add after the game is rated and going through the finishing phases of production. These are additional works and as such asking the developer to include them because they didnt sit on their thumbs while the game was being finished seems assine and selfish.

As for the legality of it, this should not be questioned. Like the article says you are buying access to the game, not access to everything on the disk. Buying the Game as a digital copy is the same as buying it on the disk, both are access to their IP.

Developers may not "need" to release stuff immediatel; but working on new content when their is time and wanting to keep fans appeased with content is obviously desirable. Developers wanting to pleases their customers seem a noble goal to defend.

In regards to the ME3s art compromising I think that you are confusing writers with the heads of the development team and their owners EA. If fans dont like an ending then fine, it was a bad ending. Feeling entitled to having it changed to fit your vision; come on it has entitled in the sentence.

Their outcry and the immediate change offers no real insight to whether the writers were dissatisfied but rather points to EA thinking "we are going to milk this series with 30 more games we need their continued support". Furthermore how much the original artist tried to defend their work is impossible to know for certain. They are employees, if their employer says we are doing X then it is their job to do it.

The important part is being missed here in regards to this though: not liking something does not give you the right to change it. In the future it might, heck in the present maybe it does, but I feel that sets a bad precedent for gaming

[coolbeans]

"As the article states some things on the disc and somethings that are available as DLC immediately are not produced when the game is originally made"

Yet they're still pre-planned as being included with the original cost of the game. No guilty party (that I've seen) has ever stated separate funds or manpower were required in order to produce this disk-locked content.

Even what you've stated has often come under question: Bioshock 2's Sinclair Solutions DLC was $10 and only ~100KBs of MP goodies; Gears of War 3's Horde Command Pack was $10 for co-op extras; and Capcom's business in just about every game.

With these examples, and more, of sleazy business dealing it's not out of the question to wonder if disc-locked content was done during that "down time" or finished content before certification that publishers decided to lock out for extra profit.

-"Developers wanting to pleases their customers seem a noble goal to defend."

Well there's several questions surrounding this notion of "pleasing" the fanbase. Rather then extend the life of a title through adequately-placed DLC over time, why "give" locked extra content to the fan at launch...when they're actually playing the core content? Publishers understand the need to force DLC or profits will sink dramatically.

So, we have the possibility of some disc-locked content being original content locked out to the consumer (making the writer's argument completely flawed), a questionable means of understanding whether the intention is to actually 'appease' the fans at all, and no proof that this 'additional' content demanded additional or separate costs.

The best defense mechanism that gamers are entitled to make is "in order to avoid sleazy business practices, let's just gut disc-locked content altogether." These so called 'whiny, asinine, selfish' posters that demand a fairer incentive for the consumer and fan sounds like a much more noble goal.

From the arguments I've seen made, asking internet-goers to sit on their thumbs while questionable business practices are made sounds either like a negligent willingness to lose more money or...sheer stupidity.

-"In regards to the ME3s art compromising I think that you are confusing writers with the heads of the development team. . ."

Bioware writer Drew Karpyshan left around the time ME3 releases and has not spoken a peep against the idea of adding more to ME3's ending. This alone makes your conjecture baseless.

-"The important part is being missed here in regards to this though: not liking something does not give you the right to change it."

Should this be held for EVERY occasion though? The great thing about art forms is there are no rules. I personally believe an audience can inform a creative piece of entertainment and won't set a bad precedent for gaming, especially when artists involved didn't stand for their own creation.

[jimbobwahey]

Utterly stupid article that has the absurdity to accuse gamers of entitlement for expecting a game that they've spent their hard earned money on to work as advertised.

What trash. I pray that this is a joke article written by some tool dwelling in their parents basement that has a poor grasp of satire, rather than a genuinely serious piece.

[EdgarNygma]

I am sure that this article wasnt written overly antagonistic and focused on the EA buzz words "entitled gamers" to poke fun at the current industry. Who would ever write something that they didn't really believe on the internet, and then poorly argue for it while people agreed with their true goal.

The best way to counter a trend is NOT to poorly defend it and make people think why it is stupid and attack it. That would just be crazy.

[MikeMyers]

This is the list;
1) It is My Money, It is my Game!
2) These Bugs are Bugging Me
3) But I Want It Now!!!!!
4) $5 for Extra Content = Evil Capitalist Pigs
5) This Game Sucks!

Now for my analysis of each

1. We are the fans, so of course there will be a backlash if we don't like how games turn out. Especially franchises and sequels. We have invested in the games and if they all of the sudden take a strange direction fans will talk about it. Doesn't mean we are all entitled, it jut means we have a voice and should use it. Without fan reaction the developers wouldn't have a clue to what the actual consumer wants.

2. Why ship a game just to meet a deadline? How many movies do we see where audio lines are mumbled or the lighting is terrible? So why should gamers be guinea pigs to beta test a game? I see way more games with bugs now than before and that is largely due to the availability to patch games. They save money not delaying games and having better testing. Reminds me of Microsoft Windows.

3. I do agree patience is thin. People expect things instantly. With that said if it relates to #2 then I would expect games to be fixed as soon as possible. Steam gets patches much more quickly than consoles and that is because of a policy process. Too much management gets in the way.

4. Content should come with a fee UNLESS it's content already on the disc. Nobody likes to buy a product knowing that everything isn't included. Can you imagine buying a car and having to pay extra to unlock the radio. That's why you buy various models, you know what you are getting. Gamers should also know from the start what they are getting. If the content is still being made after the game hits gold status then of course they can charge extra for future content. It's up to the consumer to decide its value.

5. We don't all have the same opinions or tastes but I do feel a lot of people never give some games a chance. They move on from game to game far too quickly. If parent A buys their child 4 games per year that child will appreciate those games more versus parent B who buy their child 4 games per month. The child who worked or earned the money to purchase those game will appreciate them even more.