When did this "entitled" thing start in the gaming community? (I think it was the Mass Effect 3 fiasco that popularized it but I could be wrong)
Every time you say something about a company and people people don't like it, you have 5 people down your throat claiming "entitlement" just as an automatic response. How does criticizing a company mean you feel "entitled"?
Entitlement has existed long before any of us. In terms of gaming, I'd say it's become very rampant starting this past generation. Companies make decisions, some gamers get upset, and a handful among those claim that they deserve better. In some cases they can be right, but in others they often go too far.
The best example is probably the Club Nintendo reaction. Some gamers post that they spent over $500 on games, so they somehow deserve more complimentary stuff. What they often don't mention is how said $500 was spent on a product that they received, but somehow they expected to be treated better in a complimentary program they didn't actually pay for.
In most cases however, frustration is stemmed at companies that make decisions that gamers in general do not like. A simple "I do not agree" "I do not like this" or "I do not support this" or some variant is a reasonable reaction, but "OMG, I've been a fan for 40 years and I deserve better." or "why is everyone anti-consumer?" or some exaggeration beyond simple joking is not as reasonable. It's no secret that most people in general often put themselves in the center of their opinion, but it's become more of a trend on the internet lately. However, everyone needs to realize that companies do not put you in the center alone. They have investors, developers, publishers, etc. to also please, and lastly they want money. And yet some gamers want to live in a world where all decisions will please them. Is this reasonable? Is this entitlement? Honestly, it's a case-by-case and post-by-post conclusion.
Entitlement has always existed, rampantly accusing people of it has only come into play fairly recently in the gaming community. 99% of the time all I see is somebody criticizing a company's decisions, and then all of the defenders jump to accuse "entitlement". I don't even understand how "entitled" is even an insult or negative term.
If gamers don't like what a company is doing, why can't they call them out on it? I don't see how that's gamers feeling entitled. If somebody is "entitled", to me that would entail somebody actually claiming that they are, in fact, entitled to something, rather than just having expected to be treated better by company X, Y, or Z.
I'll just get the console that the game is on instead of staying upset and throwing tantrums.
Wait, buying video game consoles to play video games? Pfft, that's crazy talk.
I suppose next you're gonna tell me I can own more than just one current gen console.
It really depends on the case. Yes, even the naysayers will go overboard with terms like "entitlement", but the internet does that with just about every argument. Remember when terms like "boycott" meant something? Now it is so overused and misused that no one really takes it seriously.
Just to name some examples:
-EA decided that SimCity should be always online...with little reason. Consumers buy the game and it doesn't work for the first few days. Are they entitled to an apology? Yes. In this case, they bought a product that didn't work, and even in the corporate world, making a product that backfired is always a bad idea. Are they entitled to free stuff? Maybe, if the company feels like they deserve something.
-Aliens: Colonial Marines was notorious for false advertising and fooling its consumers. Are said consumers entitled to a good product, apology, etc.? To an extent, yes. The industry is notorious for shoving pre-orders down consumers' throats that consumers are used to pre-ordering them and buying day one. With this said, Sega and Gearbox are responsible for all advertising on said product, and such companies who falsely advertise their games are responsible for the backlash that they got. This is also a company that consumers trusted, and that trust was broken. The consumers are not entirely at fault here, so backlash is necessary and entitlement is reasonable. In terms of entitlement, the consumers that trusted the company deserve the product they were promised for a while. (On a side note, I don't buy this crap that Sega isn't responsible)
-Dreamfall Chapters (title?) was recently funded for a PC/Linux version. A Wii U version was promised without any direct quotes or confirmation from the developer itself. Said developer then struck a deal with Sony to make it exclusively for the PS4 (consoles only, not PC). Wii U fans were upset about this and voiced their opinion. Is it reasonable to be upset? Sure, you can be upset about any decision. Is it reasonable to be entitled to a version that was "promised"? No, in this case the developer itself never claimed to have made a promise, and even if they did, plans change and the original Kickstarter didn't even mention a Wii U version. This is probably a good example of consumers not being in the direct center of decisions unless the consumer funded said decision (Kickstarter).
-Kickstarter is a tough nut to crack in general. The extent of entitlement I'm willing to claim to be reasonable is what is directly promised on the front page of said project. However, there is the risk of certain plans not working out or something else working better. Despite popular belief to the contrary though, funded projects must be finished as promised or the developers can face a lawsuit from Kickstarter (terms and conditions).
The best way to put this is entitlement is different depending on the situation.
I get what yer sayin' now. I just think the internet has really blown the word out of proportion. But you're right in saying that the internet does that to a lot of words, lol.
Was there ever a point where "boycott" meant something in most gamedom? If there was, that was before my time.
I don't know about you guys, but if I really want to play a game, I'll just get the console that the game is on instead of staying upset and throwing tantrums. I've bought most of my game consoles solely for 1~3 games that was exclusive on it.
I can't justify that even a little. To me, I have to make a reasonable commitment to a console to actually buy it. There's like 3 exclusives on the 360 that I actually want to play, but I'm not buying a $200 machine to clog up shelf space in my living room to play 3 games. I already have 5 machines surrounding my TV in a fit of wires and plastic cases (2 of which are consoles), I don't need a 6th. I have my PS2 and Gamecube connected to a different TV in a different room, but putting a 360 in there would be sacrilege!
So Anakin kneels before Monster Mash and pledges his loyalty to the graveyard smash.
Not really. I mean, ya, it technically was confirmed. Sony just threw enough money at them to get it exclusive. That's all. I just wonder if it will sell well enough for the company that made it on only PS4. I feel like they would be making more money if it was available on all the consoles it was originally going to be on, including Wii U. I honestly don't even get why Sony would throw so much money at a smaller indie studio, TBH. They did this with No Man's Sky and Rime.
I don't think it will pay off.
Qwest
3DS Friend Code: 4253-3737-8064 | Nintendo Network ID: Children
I get what yer sayin' now. I just think the internet has really blown the word out of proportion. But you're right in saying that the internet does that to a lot of words, lol.
Was there ever a point where "boycott" meant something in most gamedom? If there was, that was before my time.
At one point something being 'epic' meant something. Dang internet takes everything and ruins it
You're making a big deal out of something that's not.
Just for you. "I'm just a musical prostitute, my dear." - Freddie Mercury
Forums
Topic: New Tomb Raider is an Xbox exclusive
Posts 121 to 130 of 130
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.