Entitlement

For those of you too lazy, tl;dr:

1) is expecting what was available in past games to be in the present iterations entitlement, and...

2) is expecting games to work on day one also entitlement?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been hearing the big "E" word used more and more frequently, and it's got me thinking where the line is drawn from where it's a valid moniker or just an overused cop-out.  I'm going to use the recent release of the new Simcity, because it perfectly exemplifies the issue at hand.  

Let's put aside SC's broken launch for a moment and take a look at when entitlement is warranted when a game actually functions as intended.  I just bought Simcity 4.  Very cool game with tons of features and in-depth tools for creating virtually anything I wish.  Now, I hear features have been removed from the new version that were present in the last release which came out a decade ago.  Terra-forming for one.  I have no doubt that it will be eventually implemented in future DLCs.  My question is, is it entitlement to expect what was available 10 years ago to be present in each subsequent release, much less asking for some improvements?  If yes, why?  How is the simple expectation of progress considered "spoiled brat" behavior?  Especially when that previously free material is now removed only to be nickel and dimed to us?

In my view, entitlement is, "wah, more more!" beyond reason.  Not, "We don't want less".  When a game regresses from its past versions that enabled more freedom, functionality, and playability 10 YEARS AGO, only to be sold as "bonus" content (or restricted to one install or AO DRM), I'd appreciate hearing how that's considered entitlement.  Would people feel the same if movies went back to black and white with no CGI (which were available a decade ago), and they were charged extra to get what they had in the past?  Wtf?  On what ground can anyone argue such, much less why would they even wish to?

Which brings me to my other point: people being claimed entitled when a product that they paid for doesn't even work properly for what....weeks after launch, ala Simcity?  I keep seeing people who rightfully express discontent about this as being labelled "spoiled entitled brats".  Really? :?  It boggles my mind that people can even begin to try to do this.  Don't they realize they are their own worst enemy?  I'm more and more finding the term entitlement to be the "poor man's defense", because they have no position except one that comes down to personal attacks.  It is a term utilized to try to defend the indefensible by disregarding the argument at hand and instead appealing to ad hominem by trying to instill shame.  Someone on Reddit put it perfectly:

"Disagree with a complaint?  Your opponents are "entitled" brats, no longer merely wrong, but also wallowing in the muck beneath your lofty presumption of moral high ground.  It's a magnificent bit of verbal slight of hand, not least because it's so often effective at engendering the desired effect (shame) in your adversary, as well as others who would buck the status quo.  It smothers a reasonable inquiry into differing opinions under a choking smog of irrational, juvenile base emotion.  It's poison, and it is doing damage to the critical dialogue between developer and consumer."

This is 100% spot on.  I'm not at all saying entitlement doesn't happen (it's rife in this industy), but a line must be drawn between reasonable, constructive discourse, and true whining.  There is a HUGE distinction between the two and many have passed it because they themselves are unable to support their ridiculous positions. I think ME3's ending uproar was absurd and warrants the term.  And I'd like to think so many would be just as pissed at this always-online BS going around which has led to broken products, which sadly isn't the case yet those who are frustrated towards it are unjustly labelled the same.  As it stands, people are going much too far with the entitlement card, and I've long past tired of it.

Thoughts?

For those of you too lazy, tl;dr:

1) is expecting what was available in past games to be in the present iterations entitlement, and...

2) is expecting games to work on day one also entitlement?

MirkoS77

1. No, I don't think so because people know what they like, and generally expect new games in specific series to at least have some similarities to previous titles, otherwise there's no relation to them.

2. That's just expecting a finished product and a standard in any trade of business across the board.

Customers are entitled to the value they expect when they pay for it.

Agree with both of you.  I suppose this would be better suited for a blog entry as it's more of an observation than material conducive to debate (so mods lock?).

Agree with both of you.  I suppose this would be better suited for a blog entry as it's more of an observation than material conducive to debate (so mods lock?).

MirkoS77

Your first point.

I view games like any other form of entertainment.  It is the developer's job to provide entertainment, and hopefully try to appeal to their target audience.  The creative vision is theirs, and much like a movie director they should explore story, setting, characters, and gameplay mechanics in any way they see fit to fulfill that vision.

We can debate and critique the content of a game, just as we can with movies, but demanding that X, Y and Z are changed is unreasonable.  Would you ask a movie director to go back and swap out characters, change the tone, and re-shoot or re-edit their movie just to suit your individual needs?  That's simply prostituting your art to appease the critics.  The only time things should be radically changed is if the publisher views it and considers it not to be of a high enough quality for release.  That is what quality control is for - or supposed to be, at any rate.

The other thing with games is that most of the time you know beforehand what the game mechanics and feature-set will be.  You should already be aware of what is not included prior to purchase.  So again it is unreasonable to complain that feature X is missing if it was never included in that particular product in the first place.  If you didn't want the kind of experience they were offering, then you shouldn't have bought it.

Having said that, if a certain feature was advertised prior to sale, and then omitted or altered in the final product without warning, then you do have a right to complain.  The same goes for any kind of technical issue.


Your second point.

Everyone who buys a product (or service) is entitled to have it:

(i) work in the way it was intended,
(ii) be feature complete as advertised prior to sale **

These are basic consumer rights, and written into the law (sale of goods) in many countries, and that trumps anything written in an EULA.  You cannot sign away your consumer rights.

Unfortunately the gaming/software industry tries every means possible to squirm out of their responsibilities, thinking it's okay to release sub-standard or broken products because they can 'patch them' at some later date, and their legal team has formulated some ridiculous 'get-out' clauses in an EULA (that isn't even legal in many countries).

** In this instance, 'feature complete' refers to the core game, and does not relate to any DLC or content that is locked behind a pay-wall (micro-transaction).  It's up to the consumer to find out what is and is not included in the 'core' product - and that should be made clear by the developer/publisher prior to sale.

So yes, gamers are entitled to have their games work as advertised.  But that's where the entitlement should end.  If the content of a game is crap, then you can say the creative vision failed, the 'director' didn't do their job, or whatever else.  But all of that is subjective, and down to personal preference.

1. Sequels should be an improvement over their prequels. Removing features is the opposite of improvement. 2. Developers should be able to correct small issues post release through patches, but games should be fully functional on day one (i.e.: able to be played from start to finish without game-breaking bugs). The fact that so many games today aren't is inexcusable. Publishers are saving on their QA departments by releasing unfinished games and having consumers test them for bugs for free.Black_Knight_00

You took the words right out of my mouth on both points.

For those of you too lazy, tl;dr:

1) is expecting what was available in past games to be in the present iterations entitlement, and...

2) is expecting games to work on day one also entitlement?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

I've been hearing the big "E" word used more and more frequently, and it's got me thinking where the line is drawn from where it's a valid moniker or just an overused cop-out.  I'm going to use the recent release of the new Simcity, because it perfectly exemplifies the issue at hand.  

Let's put aside SC's broken launch for a moment and take a look at when entitlement is warranted when a game actually functions as intended.  I just bought Simcity 4.  Very cool game with tons of features and in-depth tools for creating virtually anything I wish.  Now, I hear features have been removed from the new version that were present in the last release which came out a decade ago.  Terra-forming for one.  I have no doubt that it will be eventually implemented in future DLCs.  My question is, is it entitlement to expect what was available 10 years ago to be present in each subsequent release, much less asking for some improvements?  If yes, why?  How is the simple expectation of progress considered "spoiled brat" behavior?  Especially when that previously free material is now removed only to be nickel and dimed to us?

In my view, entitlement is, "wah, more more!" beyond reason.  Not, "We don't want less".  When a game regresses from its past versions that enabled more freedom, functionality, and playability 10 YEARS AGO, only to be sold as "bonus" content (or restricted to one install or AO DRM), I'd appreciate hearing how that's considered entitlement.  Would people feel the same if movies went back to black and white with no CGI (which were available a decade ago), and they were charged extra to get what they had in the past?  Wtf?  On what ground can anyone argue such, much less why would they even wish to?

Which brings me to my other point: people being claimed entitled when a product that they paid for doesn't even work properly for what....weeks after launch, ala Simcity?  I keep seeing people who rightfully express discontent about this as being labelled "spoiled entitled brats".  Really? :?  It boggles my mind that people can even begin to try to do this.  Don't they realize they are their own worst enemy?  I'm more and more finding the term entitlement to be the "poor man's defense", because they have no position except one that comes down to personal attacks.  It is a term utilized to try to defend the indefensible by disregarding the argument at hand and instead appealing to ad hominem by trying to instill shame.  Someone on Reddit put it perfectly:

"Disagree with a complaint?  Your opponents are "entitled" brats, no longer merely wrong, but also wallowing in the muck beneath your lofty presumption of moral high ground.  It's a magnificent bit of verbal slight of hand, not least because it's so often effective at engendering the desired effect (shame) in your adversary, as well as others who would buck the status quo.  It smothers a reasonable inquiry into differing opinions under a choking smog of irrational, juvenile base emotion.  It's poison, and it is doing damage to the critical dialogue between developer and consumer."

This is 100% spot on.  I'm not at all saying entitlement doesn't happen (it's rife in this industy), but a line must be drawn between reasonable, constructive discourse, and true whining.  There is a HUGE distinction between the two and many have passed it because they themselves are unable to support their ridiculous positions. I think ME3's ending uproar was absurd and warrants the term.  And I'd like to think so many would be just as pissed at this always-online BS going around which has led to broken products, which sadly isn't the case yet those who are frustrated towards it are unjustly labelled the same.  As it stands, people are going much too far with the entitlement card, and I've long past tired of it.

Thoughts?

 

MirkoS77

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]1. Sequels should be an improvement over their prequels. Removing features is the opposite of improvement. 2. Developers should be able to correct small issues post release through patches, but games should be fully functional on day one (i.e.: able to be played from start to finish without game-breaking bugs). The fact that so many games today aren't is inexcusable. Publishers are saving on their QA departments by releasing unfinished games and having consumers test them for bugs for free.Metamania

You took the words right out of my mouth on both points.

The thing is, the difference between "reasonable complaints" and "whining" can be pretty subjective. I'll hear people whine about stuff that I think is trivial as hell, but ultimately that doesn't matter. From the perspective of the people complaining, it doesn't matter if they are "overly self-entitled" or not. The bottom line is that they've reached their limit and (presumably) refuse to continue to support such practices. Gamers aren't entitled to progress or quality, but developers and publishers aren't entitled to our money. "Entitlement" has nothing to do with it, it's simply a question of what people are willing to put up with. Whether peoples' complaints are "reasonable" or "valid" isn't relevant, they're simply gonna buy the games or they won't.MrGeezer

This is pretty much what it all boils down to.

1. As far as sequels are concerned, I'm just concerned with how they are similar they are to their predecessors. I don't mind if features are removed, if other equally good features take their place, if other features still in the sequel are expanded upon to be better, or if the removed features really didn't add much to the predecessor, or worse, was a detriment to the overall, and thus the game is better despite having less features. For me, as long as the sequewl bares some resemblence to its predecessor(s) and is an overall enjoyable experience, that is all I can ask for in a sequel.

2. A game should be functional as soon as I buy it. Perhaps some smaler aspects don't work or are faulty and need to be patched, but I should be able to actually play and enjoy whatever the game currently offers whenever I desire. How the new Simcity was handled was BS and the game deserves the criticism's it gets.

I hate that word.

When people pay you money? They ARE entitled to a good experience.

If you can't provide that, then you're just stealing from them, defrauding them.

Granted not every game will please every person who buys it, but the consumer is entitled to good faith best effort.

People are entitled to what they paid for.

So in the case of Sim City, gamers are entitled to a game that runs/works properly. But they are not entitled to a game that specifically has the content and mechanics they want.

I fully agree with the first two posts and mrgeezer on this one.

Your first point.

I view games like any other form of entertainment.  It is the developer's job to provide entertainment, and hopefully try to appeal to their target audience.  The creative vision is theirs, and much like a movie director they should explore story, setting, characters, and gameplay mechanics in any way they see fit to fulfill that vision.

We can debate and critique the content of a game, just as we can with movies, but demanding that X, Y and Z are changed is unreasonable.  Would you ask a movie director to go back and swap out characters, change the tone, and re-shoot or re-edit their movie just to suit your individual needs?  That's simply prostituting your art to appease the critics.  The only time things should be radically changed is if the publisher views it and considers it not to be of a high enough quality for release.  That is what quality control is for - or supposed to be, at any rate.Gallowhand

There's a large distinction between altering your own content to appease the masses as opposed to removing already established content that existed before to only charge extra for at a later date.  Rest assured, terra-forming is an element of EA's vision for Simcity, it has been for a while now, and I'm almost 100% certain at some point it will be reintroduced as "bonus" content.  I believe the hacker that found out how to play it offline indefinitely and outside the boundaries discovered in the code a ready made "plug-in" that would enable it with relative ease.

To look at this is another way, take books for example: if they started to be released sans tables of contents and indexes that would then be charged for as extras, would you say requesting them back for free would that then fit the definition of entitlement?  And if publishers did so would that then entail prostituting their vision for those people?  No, because their vision is already there, separated only by a $ bill.  If terra-forming was there in previous games, but then taken away only to be dangled above it with a money sign, in my eyes THAT is prostituting their vision to be able to pass the buck onto and exploit the gamer for something that once was offered for free.  They're not changing their vision at the request of the consumer.  They themselves are willingly compromising it outright at the expense of them.

Again, this is not about "more".  It's about "not less".  It's about expanding upon the foundation of that vision, not regressing it and prostituting it for the almighty buck.  

Now I understand it's murky water when trying to see what vision a developer is attempting to make with their product, and what could (and should) be claimed to be part of it or not.  But I'm talking about sequels here, which have already established visions and have demonstrated progression with it throughout the years with each subsequent release.  I chose Simcity as an example, because I find that terra-forming (and city size) are integral elements that make the game so enjoyable, dynamic, and varied.  It is part of a vision long ago realized.  Having such features is a no-brainer in such a "God" type of game, it has existed before, and one has been outright eliminated and one drastically reduced (no doubt to be DLCs later on). I simply don't consider it entitlement to be disgruntled and wish for what we had before at no additional cost.  Things are supposed to move forward, not back.

The other thing with games is that most of the time you know beforehand what the game mechanics and feature-set will be.  You should already be aware of what is not included prior to purchase.  So again it is unreasonable to complain that feature X is missing if it was never included in that particular product in the first place.  If you didn't want the kind of experience they were offering, then you shouldn't have bought it.

Having said that, if a certain feature was advertised prior to sale, and then omitted or altered in the final product without warning, then you do have a right to complain.  The same goes for any kind of technical issue.

Gallowhand

People can tell me, "You don't like, then don't buy."  And they're right, but that's besides the point.  The point at hand is, is it entitlement to wish for such things?

People are entitled to what they paid for.

So in the case of Sim City, gamers are entitled to a game that runs/works properly. But they are not entitled to a game that specifically has the content and mechanics they want.

_BlueDuck_

I should've clarified in my OP: when stuff is removed in new releases that was present in previous versions only to be turned into DLC, is wanting to have that back in the initial purchase entitlement?

I fully agree with your second point, but your first point isn't quite so cut and dry. Tough I do think I agree with where you intend to go with it.

I don't expect a sequel to have everything the predecessor did if the change was truly made to improve gameplay or if it was just something no one was using. For example, I'm playing (read: currently addicted to) the Fallen Enchantress: Legendary Heroes beta. A couple of people on Stardock's forums were lamenting the loss of different damage types (piercing, slashing...and I forget the last one, bashing maybe) and the effect it would have on various armors. But the developers pointed out that, while it was removed, it was removed because changing some of the stats behind the scenes didn't feel like visceral or important enough to notice. So they took out the damage system but in its place, gave each weapon a unique trait that can be used in battle. For example, if you have spearmen, they have an Impale ability which allows them to attack a unit and the one behind it in one blow.

If I see dropped elements/features in the context of "we changed/dropped it because we truly feel that this is improving the overall experience," then for me, I just decide whether I'm interested in the features offered by the game. I loved Morrowind, but I've not enjoyed the simplification of skills in the Elder Scrolls since and as a result, haven't picked up Skyrim yet. But I can look at that situation and say, "I see what they're trying to do," so I would think it'd be entitled of me to go whine directly to the developers about the product.

But I don't think it's whining if, on the developer's forum, you provide constructive criticism about why older systems/features were better in hopes of influencing the next game.LongZhiZi

Agreed, if it's a change that's beneficial to gameplay I'm entirely OK with that.  I've not yet played the new Simcity, but to expand upon your point I hear that in it the varioius RCI (Residential, Commercial, and Industrial) zoning levels have been eliminated, and a building's growth and expansion is now contingent upon land value, which can be improved upon through landmarks, parks, etc. Which is similar to how it was in the last game, so an unnecessary, tedious step has been done away with. 

Thing is, such things as terra-forming are only a benefit, and to take that out completely for no other reason than to be able to throw it back in for an extra charge is terrible.  It makes Simcity 4 very fun being able to change the environment around you, add animal, trees, lakes, rivers, ridges, valleys, etc etc, and it had a direct impact on gameplay.  And this is my whole point: I don't think wishing for this to be there from the get-go is entitlement.  It's a realistic expectation from general progression.

[QUOTE="_BlueDuck_"]

People are entitled to what they paid for.

So in the case of Sim City, gamers are entitled to a game that runs/works properly. But they are not entitled to a game that specifically has the content and mechanics they want.

MirkoS77

I should've clarified in my OP: when stuff is removed in new releases that was present in previous versions only to be turned into DLC, is wanting to have that back in the initial purchase entitlement?