The entitlement generation (up to and including mid-20's) is starting to realize what the world thinks by and large of their generation. Never in history has the "younger" generation had so little influence on the world today...except maybe during the wars and the no-nonsense draft system. Other then that...
If you purchase a game (or an expansion) once per year and then pay $15 per month to access that game, you're looking at $240 per year to play that one game. For the same amount of money, you can purchase 4 games at $60, all of which we can assume has some type of online play. If you do your research, there is the potential to get hundreds of hours of gameplay out of each of those games as well. If those 4 games are from different genres of games, then you're also getting a very wide variety of gameplay options from those 4 games as well. An MMO experience starts to look less appealing to the less hardcore mmo player when you're looking at it from that angle.
In terms of cost effectiveness, P2P mmos practically don't make any sense in comparison to being able to purchase 3-4 games across the year for the same cost (that doesn't include sales or games sold for less than $60), unless you are a die hard fan of the mmo genre (or the specific mmo title).
Any MMO has way more than 4 times the content of most single player games. Most games have some form of static multiplayer where you run around and shoot dudes which is fine if that what you want but it's not really fair to compare that to an MMO. How many single player games can you pour hundreds or thousands of hours into?
My rule of thumb with MMOs is if I don't think I'll play and enjoy it for at least 60 hours it's not worth subscribing to but most of the ones I have subbed to in the past have at least delivered that much. While I'm sure some people argue for cash shops as an actual alternative payment model a lot of people want to just play for free and game quality is suffering as a result.
A good article with many good points, unfortunately it was very painful to read in places. You might want to put some additional work into proper sentence structure and have one or two others do some early editing before you post future articles. This thing reads like you dropped out of english class, or at the very least you wrote it up at the last minute.
Here's wishing you all the best for the next one.
Sorry couldn't resist -
We are entitled to a well written article on MMORPG.com.
Urr, it's free so I think it's more a matter of "You get what you pay for." I didn't pay for her course in English so this is what I have to settle for. I wish I was entitled to well written articles...but I'm not. If I was paying for a subscription on this site then I could demand all articles be well written. This site is the internet's version of F2P and is an example of why I prefer my games being P2P or B2P. You actually have a say in something when you put your money into it.
I could go on and express rotten opinions about certain people and services at this point, but I think we all could so I'll just close and leave you to reflect on your own individual experiences.
I've got a feevah, and the only prescription... is more cowbell.
Originally posted by Alverant I agree the whole "entitled" label has lost all meaning. It's just a way to justify dismissing an argument you don't like. I don't think most people really understand what it means. Random house dictionary defines it as "to give (a person or thing) a title, right, or claim to something;" Being entitled is not a bad thing as in "I am entitled to be treated like a person." or "I am entitled not to be treated like a software pirate unless you have proof I was doing it." or "If I buy your game, I am entitled to play it whenever I want and not when your always-on, internet required, DRM says I can."
I completely agree. It's almost always used thoughtlessly to auto-dismiss or negatively categorise a point of view or a group of people (typically 'this generation of gamers' - the rose coloured glasses assumption is that their generation is superior).
You are talking about normal gamers and normal expectations, Christina.
Well, when a guy I know stated that 'Archage' is 'pathetic surrogate' and he is 'interested in virtual worlds' (yeah, kudos; and that's after me explaining it to him for 10 years; five years later - he tells me my words). Another genius on massively.com stated about that game that it is WoW clone with bleak storyline.
Both morons did not even bother to try and appreciate what they have. And that's in my book entitlement. For some reason those gamers think that they should be nurtured like babies and treated like they are royalty.
Superman0Xmade valid point. Actually, after his post I could just say 'kudos' to him and move on, but I'll babble a little more.
For all those people who don't like this and that, who post one wall of text after another endlessly criticizing games they hardly played I have one question: Who. Are. You?
Seriously, why people think they get to have anything? I don't know, maybe it's everywhere? Maybe people write about restaurants same way, complaining about lightning, length of forks and coloring of plates instead of actually trying the food because they never bothered to buy a single meal? I don't know. But I know this: people who do not appreciate what they have are challenging destiny, teasing fate and also karma will bite them in the ass. Me - I see Renascence of MMORPG genre and a lot of whining morons who are perfectly blind to new wave and behave like spoiled kids. On the other hand I met a lot of no less then brilliant people playing MMORPGs. So I think it balances out.
Thing about spoiled brats they are extremely vocal, very persistent and has nothing better to do then write one whiny text after another everywhere they can. And that how we, decent MMORPG gamers, who appreciate our virtual food so to speak, get 'entitled' reputation.
I would only place the "entitled" label on anybody who says something like "I pay the same amount as everybody else, I should be able to complete the current content"
I can fly higher than an aeroplane. And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes. Hurt - Wars
I believe the use of the word "Entitled" has been taken to a different strata by the writer of the above article. When I see it used within MMOs, it almost always entails a player believing they DESERVE to have things everyone else has, just because they are paying a "subscription" or are in any other way investing money.
M
The word is applied toward what some believe are players who feel they deserve a very specific type of game or focus just as much.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
If you purchase a game (or an expansion) once per year and then pay $15 per month to access that game, you're looking at $240 per year to play that one game. For the same amount of money, you can purchase 4 games at $60, all of which we can assume has some type of online play. If you do your research, there is the potential to get hundreds of hours of gameplay out of each of those games as well. If those 4 games are from different genres of games, then you're also getting a very wide variety of gameplay options from those 4 games as well. An MMO experience starts to look less appealing to the less hardcore mmo player when you're looking at it from that angle.
In terms of cost effectiveness, P2P mmos practically don't make any sense in comparison to being able to purchase 3-4 games across the year for the same cost (that doesn't include sales or games sold for less than $60), unless you are a die hard fan of the mmo genre (or the specific mmo title).
Any MMO has way more than 4 times the content of most single player games. Most games have some form of static multiplayer where you run around and shoot dudes which is fine if that what you want but it's not really fair to compare that to an MMO. How many single player games can you pour hundreds or thousands of hours into?
My rule of thumb with MMOs is if I don't think I'll play and enjoy it for at least 60 hours it's not worth subscribing to but most of the ones I have subbed to in the past have at least delivered that much. While I'm sure some people argue for cash shops as an actual alternative payment model a lot of people want to just play for free and game quality is suffering as a result.
We're not talking about the amount content exclusively here though. An mmo might have "more" content, but how much of that is throwaway one and done type of content? The entire questing/leveling experience in any mmo is effectively a "one and done" scenario and only gets replayed depending on how many alts you roll up. Raids are typically only played until you outgear them or until the next one comes out. PvP is more akin to any FPS game where you are more often than not limited to a smallish number of maps to replay over and over.
If we're talking about total game hours dumped into game. Many RTS, FPS, MOBA and even SRPGS can rival a number of mmos. People regularly dump hundreds of hours into the latest releases. Hell, there are people who have dumped hundreds of hours into Mario Kart 8's online racing.
The flaw with your argument is thinking that everyone is looking for a large number of things to do within a game. The reality (as seen by the number of users in games like LoL or the latest FPS releases) is that many gamers are wanting a more insular style of gameplay now. They want to get into the action right away, pour hundreds of hours into the game and then move onto the next game (which there is always something else on the horizon).
Hell, I'd be willing to wager that the number of users in GTA V Online would rival that of most mmos that are out currently.
I think people get called entitled because they test a game then come and post how they liked it but don't want to pay the sub, they'll just wait til it's F2P
I'd say that covers it and there are ALOT who do that, find mmo's they would like to play but won't pay the sub for and I'd say it's because they know if enough people act the same, they can choke the game into going F2P .. Then they can moan about limitations, cash shop etc
I've lost many great games cause "other people" weren't happy and i've seen many good MMORPG's ruined cause of things others consider unbalanced I considered balanced.
Long story short, people suck and only want what benefits them, then they want change when it doesn't wholly. Developers need to learn to stick to their guns and damn what people say, they don't have the good intentions of everyone in mind, only a select few, usually the "popular".
Where I see balance, others see lack of opportunity. Quite literally i'm sick of peoples bullshit.
hint: it is nothing more than a buzzword. research when it was used by some *peep* politicans and when it was used in terms of mmos. then think about how easy people are influenced by "their" *roflmao* party. and guess which party they vote for or which basic world view the people using said buzzword represent
I mostly agree gamers have a right to have some entitlement. A lot of times people allow companies to pretty much abuse the crap out of the consumer which to me bothers me a lot. Blizzard continues to be disgusting with their charging of a monthly fee with a cash shop mixed in and services that a F2P game would be called out in outrage over the rediculous prices.
That said there are many cases that make me want to facepalm.
1.) People who feel the game should run 100% perfect otherwise its unredeemable. Seriously, mmos will have issues, expect them. Complain about those issues of it not working, but don't treat it like the end of the world. They will have issues, expect them, mention it as a complaint but don't bash a game down as being 'unacceptable' for it.
2.) "I pay for it, so I should be able to experience it all." No, you shouldn't. This attitude is what helped make wow such a laughing joke of an MMO experience. Its so hollow with everything being seen by everyone it takes the sense of wonder. In fact, I'll be so bold to say those people who want everything handed to them will actually be MORE REWARDED if they had to work a bit towards it. People don't realize at all they are ruining their own experience with this mentality.
3.) Alpha/Beta are in fact testing phases. EXPECT ISSUES. Don't be ignorant bashing people expecting a flawless system jumping into it right away. That said, I can excuse it when its a beta you pay entry for (which then its just a released game) or if there is a cash shop (aka released game). Once money is being taken or spent towards the experience, I can see more merit to this area.
- Player should be able to experience the game fully, and thats mean doing raids and so on. It could be hard, it could be very hard but player should be able to at least try.
- If you can spend real money on product IT IS NOT A BETA/ALPHA!
Few things piss me off more than someone outright dismissing with labels because they cant wrap their heads around simple facts.
Most calls for a game to go F2P is not due to not being able to afford it, or wanting something for nothing. Its because the game just plain is not worth paying a subscription for.
As for games like LOTRO, they went F2P because it was the only way to monetize as the game isn't that good. Now, if we could only get gaming sites and players to call them what they actually are, freemiums, and stop calling them F2P as companies demand, perhaps we can end this issue with calls for F2P and the idea people want everything for nothing.
These games are not F2P, they are paywalled games with a sub option.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
I agree that the term 'entitled' is becoming so overused as to be completely absurd. You've got people on these forums calling others 'entitled' in a derogatory fashion simply for wanting to receive the products they've paid for. If I buy a game and it keeps crashing, why the hell am I derided as being 'entitled' because I want the manufacturer to provide what I've purchased, namely a functioning piece of software?
The software industry is the only one in which companies can release products that either don't work, work poorly, or are completely different from what was advertised with little to no penalty. The massive amount of equipment configurations on PC is no excuse; if you can't properly program for PC then don't make PC games. Like those idiots who created Dungeonland; after two months and an extremely buggy launch, they basically said, "Durrr, this is too hard for us. Bye!", and dissolved their company, getting away scot-free with releasing a product buggier than a big bug bugging out on a dune buggy.
Wanting to hold software companies accountable when they release crap isn't entitlement. It's consumer protection, period.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
While this is a good article, and opens strong; It has a very weak closing argument. In fact the closing argument contradicts itself.
"To blame the gamers for now wanting what companies have given them" helps to point to the very entitlement the author claims 'doesn't exist'. There's nothing wrong with wanting more. However, we don't tend to stop there. We demand more, we expect features X, Y, and Z; and if any of those are missing we claim it's crap. The problem is, everyone has their own unique feature list that they expect each game to cater to.
The article also tried to make a comparison to Kodak. This is very much faulty. Out of all current forms of creative medium, games are perhaps the most uniquely suited to a sense of entitlement. This is because games have basically become a feature list. A combination of mechanics, features, and services. And with every new game, this list grows. And with it, our expectations.
Kodak, on the other hand, sells tools. These are about opening options for the consumer, and promise nothing else. Whether it be to make taking photos easier, or to provide various types of film, or to process your film for you. It's ultimately up to the consumer to determine what to do with it. And you don't see people blaming their camera's manufacturer for them taking a bad photo. Not so with games.
- It's no secret that today's games have evolved into much more social experiences. As such, it seems a bit naive to assume that the societies that form around these games bear no influence for how those very same games progress. It's been said many times by developers that they do what they can to listen to their players. And indeed some mistakes that have been made in the past have been as a result of devs listening to the players, though the 'wrong' ones.
Expecting to be given something, no matter how justified or realistic you may think that is, is a form of entitlement.
"the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something"
To pretend we don't have that seems a bit naive. Granted, different people have different levels of entitlement, and some are more justified than others. We are a community of multiple minds, opinions, tastes, and expectations. We are entitled, and we are partially responsibile for the state of games today. We ask / demand certain things and devs try to deliver upon them. Devs try new things, and we reject or accept them. Just look at the latest Xbox console, they tried to impose a set of features we gamers didn't want, we rejected them for it, and they were forced to change their console as a result.
All humans are entitled - some of us are just more accepting of it, the rest are more in denial about it.
To be human is to feel entitled - entitlement was born out of human delusion of self-importance.
This ^
When we expect to be given something (which happens multiple times daily), that's a form of entitlement. No matter how justified it may be.
Entitlement isn't inherently bad, but it can easily become a bad thing when we expect too much. Which also tends to happen more often than not. As we are given more and more things every year, our expectations rise with them. And thus, our sense of entitlement.
I prefer subscription based mmo's, this way I know what I have to pay each month rather than play a game for free only to hit a pay wall every 5 minuets of playing the game like some so called free to play games.
"Oh you want to explore this dungeon? That will cost you £5 please. "
"Oh you want more backpack space?" Hand over your cash."
I have left more mmo's over the years as they have gone free to play than I care to count because they have moved away from subscription based payments.
Do I think gamers who demand games go free to play as a plague to the industry? Yes they are, when a subscription based game goes free to play its failed and needs to be shut down.
Why does every staff member from MMORPG.COM continue to post that LOTRO is a success? Do you guys really think the game is doing great when WB gaming division has been losing money ever since the Turbine purcahse? This is public information that should have been researched.
The article made no sense to me. Seems like a language barrier on one side (me or the author).
Can somebody explain what it was all about ? The author is jumping between unrelated topics and different entitlements (or none at all) between paragraphs and sometimes contradicting herself.
I foolishly wasn't against it going F2P with all their promises of regular content etc.
How wrong I was, it completely ruined the game, none of the promises materialised, every single decision has been designed to part people from their money.
Sure they are a business but theres a balance between getting money coming in and having a product people are happy with and Turbine missed this by miles.
Now you have the die hard Tolkien fans left, roleplayers on one server and few others.
F2P games attract many players that don't want a challenge. They want to be able to buy their way through the game. This then leads to crafting being dumbed down, leveling being dumbed down, everything being dumbed down.
Why waste time making a new raid that most of the F2P crowd don't want when instead you can dedign a few costumes and sell for more.
And as the F2P crowd gets used to being able to pay a few pounds/dollars to get anything they want, they do feel entitled to be able to do anything with no effort. They don't understand why someone who spends 30 hrs a week doing the hardest raids get the best gear, they think it should be available to everyone even if they log in for 5 mins a month. And usually F2P games happily oblige via their stores etc.
End result is you have a game with zero appeal to anyone that enjoys a slight challenge.
It's exactly due to watching what Lotro became that I hope my curent mmo (ESO) never ever goes F2P.
And in ESO, they produce one land thats designed for 4 man groups and you get people complaining that they pay, hence they should ge entitled to do that area solo and I bet most such people think this due to the F2P trend over the past few years.
I personally would rather pay £50 a month for a good sub based game than a F2P one that has zero game play.
It's a combination of companies selling all they can in their stores which gets players used to geing able to do whatever they want with zero effort.
It might be the company's doing, but thats played a big part in turning people into the entitlement crowd we have today.
Comments
The entitlement generation (up to and including mid-20's) is starting to realize what the world thinks by and large of their generation. Never in history has the "younger" generation had so little influence on the world today...except maybe during the wars and the no-nonsense draft system. Other then that...
The geese are getting cooked. :-)
*Grabs a napkin and fork.*
Any MMO has way more than 4 times the content of most single player games. Most games have some form of static multiplayer where you run around and shoot dudes which is fine if that what you want but it's not really fair to compare that to an MMO. How many single player games can you pour hundreds or thousands of hours into?
My rule of thumb with MMOs is if I don't think I'll play and enjoy it for at least 60 hours it's not worth subscribing to but most of the ones I have subbed to in the past have at least delivered that much. While I'm sure some people argue for cash shops as an actual alternative payment model a lot of people want to just play for free and game quality is suffering as a result.
Urr, it's free so I think it's more a matter of "You get what you pay for." I didn't pay for her course in English so this is what I have to settle for. I wish I was entitled to well written articles...but I'm not. If I was paying for a subscription on this site then I could demand all articles be well written. This site is the internet's version of F2P and is an example of why I prefer my games being P2P or B2P. You actually have a say in something when you put your money into it.
I could go on and express rotten opinions about certain people and services at this point, but I think we all could so I'll just close and leave you to reflect on your own individual experiences.
I've got a feevah, and the only prescription... is more cowbell.
I completely agree. It's almost always used thoughtlessly to auto-dismiss or negatively categorise a point of view or a group of people (typically 'this generation of gamers' - the rose coloured glasses assumption is that their generation is superior).
You are talking about normal gamers and normal expectations, Christina.
Well, when a guy I know stated that 'Archage' is 'pathetic surrogate' and he is 'interested in virtual worlds' (yeah, kudos; and that's after me explaining it to him for 10 years; five years later - he tells me my words). Another genius on massively.com stated about that game that it is WoW clone with bleak storyline.
Both morons did not even bother to try and appreciate what they have. And that's in my book entitlement. For some reason those gamers think that they should be nurtured like babies and treated like they are royalty.
Superman0X made valid point. Actually, after his post I could just say 'kudos' to him and move on, but I'll babble a little more.
For all those people who don't like this and that, who post one wall of text after another endlessly criticizing games they hardly played I have one question: Who. Are. You?
Seriously, why people think they get to have anything? I don't know, maybe it's everywhere? Maybe people write about restaurants same way, complaining about lightning, length of forks and coloring of plates instead of actually trying the food because they never bothered to buy a single meal? I don't know. But I know this: people who do not appreciate what they have are challenging destiny, teasing fate and also karma will bite them in the ass. Me - I see Renascence of MMORPG genre and a lot of whining morons who are perfectly blind to new wave and behave like spoiled kids. On the other hand I met a lot of no less then brilliant people playing MMORPGs. So I think it balances out.
Thing about spoiled brats they are extremely vocal, very persistent and has nothing better to do then write one whiny text after another everywhere they can. And that how we, decent MMORPG gamers, who appreciate our virtual food so to speak, get 'entitled' reputation.
I can fly higher than an aeroplane.
And I have the voice of a thousand hurricanes.
Hurt - Wars
The word is applied toward what some believe are players who feel they deserve a very specific type of game or focus just as much.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Exactly my friend. That's why I *optionally* sub to TSW. It's the perfect mix in my book. Love the damn game. Waiting to get off work now...lol.
We're not talking about the amount content exclusively here though. An mmo might have "more" content, but how much of that is throwaway one and done type of content? The entire questing/leveling experience in any mmo is effectively a "one and done" scenario and only gets replayed depending on how many alts you roll up. Raids are typically only played until you outgear them or until the next one comes out. PvP is more akin to any FPS game where you are more often than not limited to a smallish number of maps to replay over and over.
If we're talking about total game hours dumped into game. Many RTS, FPS, MOBA and even SRPGS can rival a number of mmos. People regularly dump hundreds of hours into the latest releases. Hell, there are people who have dumped hundreds of hours into Mario Kart 8's online racing.
The flaw with your argument is thinking that everyone is looking for a large number of things to do within a game. The reality (as seen by the number of users in games like LoL or the latest FPS releases) is that many gamers are wanting a more insular style of gameplay now. They want to get into the action right away, pour hundreds of hours into the game and then move onto the next game (which there is always something else on the horizon).
Hell, I'd be willing to wager that the number of users in GTA V Online would rival that of most mmos that are out currently.
I think people get called entitled because they test a game then come and post how they liked it but don't want to pay the sub, they'll just wait til it's F2P
I'd say that covers it and there are ALOT who do that, find mmo's they would like to play but won't pay the sub for and I'd say it's because they know if enough people act the same, they can choke the game into going F2P .. Then they can moan about limitations, cash shop etc
I've lost many great games cause "other people" weren't happy and i've seen many good MMORPG's ruined cause of things others consider unbalanced I considered balanced.
Long story short, people suck and only want what benefits them, then they want change when it doesn't wholly. Developers need to learn to stick to their guns and damn what people say, they don't have the good intentions of everyone in mind, only a select few, usually the "popular".
Where I see balance, others see lack of opportunity. Quite literally i'm sick of peoples bullshit.
I mostly agree gamers have a right to have some entitlement. A lot of times people allow companies to pretty much abuse the crap out of the consumer which to me bothers me a lot. Blizzard continues to be disgusting with their charging of a monthly fee with a cash shop mixed in and services that a F2P game would be called out in outrage over the rediculous prices.
That said there are many cases that make me want to facepalm.
1.) People who feel the game should run 100% perfect otherwise its unredeemable. Seriously, mmos will have issues, expect them. Complain about those issues of it not working, but don't treat it like the end of the world. They will have issues, expect them, mention it as a complaint but don't bash a game down as being 'unacceptable' for it.
2.) "I pay for it, so I should be able to experience it all." No, you shouldn't. This attitude is what helped make wow such a laughing joke of an MMO experience. Its so hollow with everything being seen by everyone it takes the sense of wonder. In fact, I'll be so bold to say those people who want everything handed to them will actually be MORE REWARDED if they had to work a bit towards it. People don't realize at all they are ruining their own experience with this mentality.
3.) Alpha/Beta are in fact testing phases. EXPECT ISSUES. Don't be ignorant bashing people expecting a flawless system jumping into it right away. That said, I can excuse it when its a beta you pay entry for (which then its just a released game) or if there is a cash shop (aka released game). Once money is being taken or spent towards the experience, I can see more merit to this area.
@Purutzil
Couple things:
- Player should be able to experience the game fully, and thats mean doing raids and so on. It could be hard, it could be very hard but player should be able to at least try.
- If you can spend real money on product IT IS NOT A BETA/ALPHA!
No, it is not too expensive. But the feeling most people get with a subscription, is that they have to play a lot or else they've wasted it.
I am a pro subscription guy but I will say this.
Few things piss me off more than someone outright dismissing with labels because they cant wrap their heads around simple facts.
Most calls for a game to go F2P is not due to not being able to afford it, or wanting something for nothing. Its because the game just plain is not worth paying a subscription for.
As for games like LOTRO, they went F2P because it was the only way to monetize as the game isn't that good. Now, if we could only get gaming sites and players to call them what they actually are, freemiums, and stop calling them F2P as companies demand, perhaps we can end this issue with calls for F2P and the idea people want everything for nothing.
These games are not F2P, they are paywalled games with a sub option.
"People who tell you youre awesome are useless. No, dangerous.
They are worse than useless because you want to believe them. They will defend you against critiques that are valid. They will seduce you into believing you are done learning, or into thinking that your work is better than it actually is." ~Raph Koster
http://www.raphkoster.com/2013/10/14/on-getting-criticism/
I agree that the term 'entitled' is becoming so overused as to be completely absurd. You've got people on these forums calling others 'entitled' in a derogatory fashion simply for wanting to receive the products they've paid for. If I buy a game and it keeps crashing, why the hell am I derided as being 'entitled' because I want the manufacturer to provide what I've purchased, namely a functioning piece of software?
The software industry is the only one in which companies can release products that either don't work, work poorly, or are completely different from what was advertised with little to no penalty. The massive amount of equipment configurations on PC is no excuse; if you can't properly program for PC then don't make PC games. Like those idiots who created Dungeonland; after two months and an extremely buggy launch, they basically said, "Durrr, this is too hard for us. Bye!", and dissolved their company, getting away scot-free with releasing a product buggier than a big bug bugging out on a dune buggy.
Wanting to hold software companies accountable when they release crap isn't entitlement. It's consumer protection, period.
AN' DERE AIN'T NO SUCH FING AS ENUFF DAKKA, YA GROT! Enuff'z more than ya got an' less than too much an' there ain't no such fing as too much dakka. Say dere is, and me Squiggoff'z eatin' tonight!
We are born of the blood. Made men by the blood. Undone by the blood. Our eyes are yet to open. FEAR THE OLD BLOOD.
#IStandWithVic
Short answer: NO, we are not entitled, just like they are not entitled to our money.
Slightly longer answer: If it is affordable, playable and fun, then just maybe, we will spend and they will receive MONEY!!!
While this is a good article, and opens strong; It has a very weak closing argument. In fact the closing argument contradicts itself.
"To blame the gamers for now wanting what companies have given them" helps to point to the very entitlement the author claims 'doesn't exist'. There's nothing wrong with wanting more. However, we don't tend to stop there. We demand more, we expect features X, Y, and Z; and if any of those are missing we claim it's crap. The problem is, everyone has their own unique feature list that they expect each game to cater to.
The article also tried to make a comparison to Kodak. This is very much faulty. Out of all current forms of creative medium, games are perhaps the most uniquely suited to a sense of entitlement. This is because games have basically become a feature list. A combination of mechanics, features, and services. And with every new game, this list grows. And with it, our expectations.
Kodak, on the other hand, sells tools. These are about opening options for the consumer, and promise nothing else. Whether it be to make taking photos easier, or to provide various types of film, or to process your film for you. It's ultimately up to the consumer to determine what to do with it. And you don't see people blaming their camera's manufacturer for them taking a bad photo. Not so with games.
- It's no secret that today's games have evolved into much more social experiences. As such, it seems a bit naive to assume that the societies that form around these games bear no influence for how those very same games progress. It's been said many times by developers that they do what they can to listen to their players. And indeed some mistakes that have been made in the past have been as a result of devs listening to the players, though the 'wrong' ones.
Expecting to be given something, no matter how justified or realistic you may think that is, is a form of entitlement.
"the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something"
To pretend we don't have that seems a bit naive. Granted, different people have different levels of entitlement, and some are more justified than others. We are a community of multiple minds, opinions, tastes, and expectations. We are entitled, and we are partially responsibile for the state of games today. We ask / demand certain things and devs try to deliver upon them. Devs try new things, and we reject or accept them. Just look at the latest Xbox console, they tried to impose a set of features we gamers didn't want, we rejected them for it, and they were forced to change their console as a result.
That's the way the world works.
This ^
When we expect to be given something (which happens multiple times daily), that's a form of entitlement. No matter how justified it may be.
Entitlement isn't inherently bad, but it can easily become a bad thing when we expect too much. Which also tends to happen more often than not. As we are given more and more things every year, our expectations rise with them. And thus, our sense of entitlement.
I prefer subscription based mmo's, this way I know what I have to pay each month rather than play a game for free only to hit a pay wall every 5 minuets of playing the game like some so called free to play games.
"Oh you want to explore this dungeon? That will cost you £5 please. "
"Oh you want more backpack space?" Hand over your cash."
I have left more mmo's over the years as they have gone free to play than I care to count because they have moved away from subscription based payments.
Do I think gamers who demand games go free to play as a plague to the industry? Yes they are, when a subscription based game goes free to play its failed and needs to be shut down.
The article made no sense to me. Seems like a language barrier on one side (me or the author).
Can somebody explain what it was all about ? The author is jumping between unrelated topics and different entitlements (or none at all) between paragraphs and sometimes contradicting herself.
I foolishly wasn't against it going F2P with all their promises of regular content etc.
How wrong I was, it completely ruined the game, none of the promises materialised, every single decision has been designed to part people from their money.
Sure they are a business but theres a balance between getting money coming in and having a product people are happy with and Turbine missed this by miles.
Now you have the die hard Tolkien fans left, roleplayers on one server and few others.
F2P games attract many players that don't want a challenge. They want to be able to buy their way through the game. This then leads to crafting being dumbed down, leveling being dumbed down,
everything being dumbed down.
Why waste time making a new raid that most of the F2P crowd don't want when instead you can dedign a few costumes and sell for more.
And as the F2P crowd gets used to being able to pay a few pounds/dollars to get anything they want, they do feel entitled to be able to do anything with no effort. They don't understand why someone who spends 30 hrs a week doing the hardest raids get the best gear, they think it should be available to everyone even if they log in for 5 mins a month. And usually F2P games happily oblige via their stores etc.
End result is you have a game with zero appeal to anyone that enjoys a slight challenge.
It's exactly due to watching what Lotro became that I hope my curent mmo (ESO) never ever goes F2P.
And in ESO, they produce one land thats designed for 4 man groups and you get people complaining that they pay, hence they should ge entitled to do that area solo and I bet most such people think this due to the F2P trend over the past few years.
I personally would rather pay £50 a month for a good sub based game than a F2P one that has zero game play.
It's a combination of companies selling all they can in their stores which gets players used to geing able to do whatever they want with zero effort.
It might be the company's doing, but thats played a big part in turning people into the entitlement crowd we have today.