Are Gamers feeling overly-entitled?

With the recent ruination of Project Zomboid, when thinking about the backlash, whenever gamers are feeling overly-entitled or not, and from the more vocal ones, they are. A handful of people pledged a bit under ten dollars, which is less than what minimum wage pays per hour in the United States, and can buy you something to eat at KFC, but the amount of fork-flipping has made igxpro rethink how immature some gamers can be.

Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
vortis2928d ago (Edited 2928d ago )

It's not over-entitlement to request and complain not to be wallet-raped every other big budget release.

Remember when Tie-Fighter released back in the early 90s and it made SNES and Sega games look like crap by comparison? There were no hidden fees, no VIP passes, no DRM, no ridiculous BS. You bought the game and had fun. If you were really into it you could join a modding community and download and share some great player-made content.

Nowadays it's not about that...many newer games are bad ports for one system or another (usually the 360 version is the most "polished") we have to pay all sorts of crazy fees just to access multiplayer, single-player content or DLC that is on the disc but not accessible (i.e., Need for Speed (pick one)). Retail and digital prices have skyrocketed to $60 a pop and oftentimes the game is broken out of its digital box, requiring a few weeks (or months) until a proper fix comes along.

No, gamers aren't overly entitled, they're being corporately man-handled and raped of the quality that they were used to during the golden age of gaming. I almost feel sorry for complacent gamers who eat their poop on a stick and think that's the way it should be.

MattS2928d ago

Just one point, in regards to the cost of buying a game.

How much did it cost to make Tie-Fighter? How much does it cost to make something like Skyrim?

Gamers often forget, amongst all those complaints, that if a developer and publisher goes bankrupt, they're not going to get many more games from them.

vortis2928d ago

Dude, don't even give me that.

UDK is free.
Gamespy cross-platform multiplayer API is free.
Unity is free.
There are all sorts of video compression, animation suites and audio studio programs available for free.

A game only costs a ridiculous amount of money because of poor business management and a lack of resource outsourcing. If a company throws $100 million down the drain to a make a game that originally would have only cost $10 million then that's not the consumers fault.

Look at what happened to Team Bondi and L.A. Noire cost $60. On the other hand, look at Frictional Games who make stuff that puts big budget titles to shame yet they sell well and costs a fraction of most digital and retail titles.

The "cost of development" argument was fine up until middleware tools to make triple-A looking games all went free. Heck, a few of them are available on Steam right now for $19 and they look like something that any other big publisher would put out there.

It's not the fault of gamers that some business just mishandle their finances and it shouldn't be a burden on the gamer's shoulders to make up for those mistakes.

MattS2928d ago


Interesting that you think you know better than the management of not just one or two, but dozens of large multinational corporations.

I take it you sit on a few boards and have a phd in commerce or economic theory?

vortis2928d ago

Rockstar and Team Bondi had a falling out because of Bondi's poor management, so yeah, that speaks for itself. It was the same for Realtime Worlds and Zero Point Software.

Just because a lot of these guys are savvy game designers doesn't always mean they know how to handle their finances. As unfortunate as that seems it's a very sad truth.

On the flipside, though, sometimes it's not even about development costs but publishers just cutting costs to post higher profits and slice off operating costs during certain periods of the year (i.e., Activision killing off Bizarre Creations and Budcat Studios, Microsoft axing Ensemble Studios).

But come on, let's be honest: do you really think Halo: Anniversary and Halo 3: ODST are really games that justify the $60 price tag? Especially given that ODST was directly built on top of the Halo 3 design structure. That's just one example of gamers footing an unnecessary bill.


@ MattS

yes it's a good point, but the answer is not to make your customers feel like they are nothing but cows who only exist for the milking. Thats a sure way to get consumers to dislike your product and then you will still go out of business.

Tuxedo_Mask2928d ago (Edited 2928d ago )

Judging from the complaints I've read about developers not having enough money to make as good of a game as they intended, and I'm talking about games for the NES, I'd assume the cost of making a game hasn't changed all that much over the years.

You may think that the graphics, the motion capture, and the voice actors would make the costs rise for developers, and they do add to the amount, but good developers stay within a budget and still deliver quality games. At the time, with Nintendo's vice grip on games released for its system, new technology (for the 80s), and programming immense games which when beaten usually only rewarded the player with a line or two of text cost a substantial amount of money.

Remember, Final Fantasy was named as such because it was the last game Square thought they would be able to afford to make. So are gamers feeling overly entitled? Perhaps, games today are a lot better in a lot of ways than they were back then, but the developers need to look in the mirror too.

HeavenlySnipes2928d ago

not crap, it will sell well. you act as if devs are making the best shit ever and not getting any money off of it. Look at Rocksteady. They come out of nowhere and make a fantastic Batman game, now they are well known (and probably rich).

Publishers can't be trying to nickel and dime people to buy games new when we aren't sure about the quality of the games. I'd sure as hell be pissed if Brink had an online pass and I bought it new (or at all lol, I knew the game would flop) just to be severely disappointed in the gameplay.

Anon19742928d ago

To the point raised above, yeah - Unity is free. Try making a game without shelling out for Unity Pro though, or buying the Xbox or PS3 license. You can get some basic things done, but good luck with that. UDK being free - that's great! Now you're making money, time to sign up to UDK for a commercial agreement and pony up 25%. What, you thought they just make development tools for nothing?

And consider that the average "AAA" game had a couple of years and at least 150 programmers, testers, marketers, artists, animators, sound engineers, etc..etc. You'll trying to tell me that this isn't necessary, and a small team working out of their garage with free Unity can put similar quality titles?

Games are more complicated, and thus, more expensive to make than ever before and riskier than ever before. Gamers don't know what they want, they don't know what they like, they don't give any feedback - but do something wrong in their eyes and there's hell to pay! All you have to do is read any random post on n4g and you'll see more than enough evidence of gamers moaning about the smallest things. Hell, the backlash against Bioware is a perfect example. They've been crucified as Dragon Age 2 was merely good, not great like DAO. Thus, it's an abomination that should be shunned, and the company should be blasted at every turn.

When I created my game company, I sat down with my partner, artists and programmers and right from the start we decided to make games for casuals. The main reason - casuals have a more open mind. Make a FPS shooter and your market is people who have played every first person shooter out there. Deviate a little and they'll ruin you. Make a RTS and you're market is RTS players. Deviate a little from what they're expecting and your done. RPG, same thing - strategy, same thing. Small, nitpicky crap will ruin you. Now casuals, they're in it to have fun and they don't really care how.

Look at how many good fps/rpg/strategy/etc have come and gone and been ignored because they weren't COD. Hell, I remember trying to get my friends to play Killzone 2 and they complained, the button layout isn't like COD, the guy doesn't float around the levels like COD, the game's too dark. It all boiled down to, we hate this game for not being COD.

But what can you do? Gamers like what they like. They want change, complain about lack of new IP's but when something new comes out they all flock to COD12 or Madden38 or some such thing. It doesn't pay to take chances, unless you keep it small - like a Flower or a Braid.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 2928d ago
Hufandpuf2928d ago

I agree, but I also disagree. Gamers get what they pay for. If they shell out the money, but don't receive the product at that time(pre order) They think they have the right to DEMAND, which they dont. Gamers get what is given to them and if they don't like it, them they don't have to pay for it. The thing is that back in the 90s, video games weren't the dominant form of entertainment. Back then people made games as a hobby and to get money. Today, it's not a hobby. It's a Businesses and companies will do anything to get the consumer to pay more. Especially with the cost and time it takes to make a game, they want the maximum in return.

Christopher2928d ago

***Retail and digital prices have skyrocketed to $60 a pop***

In the 1980s, an NES game ran me $60-80. Take into account inflation, and that's upwards of three figures for a game that cost a lot less to develop.

It was the PS1 that provided a medium that was easy to mass produce alongside third-party engines and APIs popping up that could be used aid in game development.

The cost of games now isn't a skyrocket, far from, when you take into account the cost of games in their first four generations, inflation, technology and the increased workforce behind each game.

vortis2928d ago

Completely agreed.

I think it's a big slap in the face when publishers complain about development costs these days, yet all over the place you can see free tools being made available or at affordable prices that do a lot of the work for the devs.

As you mentioned, back in the day they didn't have procedural AI/environment/texture mapping/generation. It was all hand-programmed from scratch.

When I see college students and young devs pump out budget-priced titles like The Ball or Dungeon Defenders it starts to make the big budget games look like they're designed with spit-shine and slapped with a $60 price tag just because they can get away with it.

M-Easy2928d ago

Gamers cry just as much as music/movie fans but they/we do seem to take things more personally and it makes us come off as entitled.

3GenGames2928d ago

No, business are with their games and all DLC that is just left out release content to get more $$$ from you.

jeeves862928d ago

Gamers sometimes do give off the impression of being whiny, entitled little pricks. It probably has a lot to do with them being consumers - just like in any other medium. They don't often consider the time or effort that goes into making something (Heaven forbid if it's something that they don't like) because they've never had to do it. Their argument is "you get paid to do it, so you should do exactly what the consumer wants."

Additionally, and I'm not just making a generalization - a lot of gamers are kids who we don't expect to understand the value of the work that goes into a game.

zero_gamer2928d ago (Edited 2928d ago )

"As for how far some over-entitled idiots can go, around this time last year, Minecraft was smashed with a DDOS attack from scumbags who thought they were entitled to more updates, attacking an indie developer who has enough money in his holdings to hire a professional assassin, the greatest legal team on the planet, or to commission an ion cannon strike."

The Minecraft excerpt was a very well said statement. Entitlement idiot gamers do give developers some hell and I feel especially for the indie developers that take risks expressing themselves through the art of computer games, then break silence over the most trivial things, like updates. Seriously?

Here is an example I want to add: Spring of 2011, PSN got attacked and went offline for an extensive amount of time, some vocal minority were crying about not being able to play their copy of Generic Shooter CLXVII online, so they end up being little b****es on the PS Blog comments and threatened SONY they'll sell their PS3s to buy an Xbox360. These idiots felt they were entitled to PSN access, but we know the reality about that. At least they had games of their own they can play offline and dig up a Platinum.

I was fortunate enough to be a massive single player gamer to be able to collect 3 Platinum trophies on Sly Cooper Collection, and own a robust gaming PC for SP and online play. Nobody is entitled to online access on PSN as it is a free service, and SONY pays for your PSN access.

Then we had Insomniac on their decision to go multiplatform. Some gamers on the Internet were vocal lunatics raging about Insomniac wanting to expand their studio to other platforms and reach new markets. They felt entitled to all of Insomniac's games that Xbox360 owners shouldn't get any support by a long time PS third party. They felt "betrayed" although they should be happy Insomniac still develops games for their PS3, but god forbid a company wanting to grow.

Some of my fellow members of our nation as gamers can really disgust me.

Show all comments (18)