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.
Why do so many people mistake the pay models as the reason we call players entitled?
Who do I call entitled? Those that bitch and whine that things need to be nerfed , lowered in difficulty, or given to players that would rather have crap given to them with the least amount of effort.
You want to know why Vanilla WoW is regarded as so much better than modern WoW? its simple, You Had To Earn EVERYTHING. Nothing was just given to you. now in WoW you get gold dropping like wine. many mounts and pets you get for little to no effort. and many other things.
Oh and then in WOD they are going to make the lazy even more lazy.. you wont have to bother spending hours farming ore/leather/etc... no you'll just have to log in, go to your garrison, and send off your minions. All because the games too difficult for players... Oh yeah, the Garrison NPCs will be able to run instances for loot also... how far into lazy does it have to get?
You want to know why some of us call players "Entitled" or even better... "The gimme generation"? Its because many players earned it.
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 don't think that the word has lost all meaning. You've given a couple good examples, but they're positive. Also, just FYI, you are NOT entitled to have a game that doesn't require an always-on internet connection. That's right, you are NOT entitled to that. This is exactly what we're talking about with entitled. You THINK you are entitled to that, but you're not. If you don't like that a game has DRM, then don't buy it. However, you are not entitled to that. The company dictates how they choose to protect their IP and if they choose an always-on Internet connection for DRM then they will live or die by that, but the customer has no right to it, and it's the "right" part that people often stake claim to without any right whatsoever.
It is NOT your right to have all your bag slots. It is NOT your right to have access to all races, classes, etc. I think that when we talk about entitlement, it's those who believe that by playing the publishers game, they are somehow doing them a favour. Similarly, people believe that by buying a game they should have a right to DRM-free software. Again, that should not be an expectation. In fact, it will state clearly on the system requirements whether or not an Internet Connection is required to play the game. If you make the decision to purchase, knowing full well that requirement is in place, then you have accepted that requirement.
This whole article is just proof of the entitlement that you so decry. Consumers only have 2 real choices to make about an product:
1. Is it worth my time.
2. Is it worth my money.
It us up to the consumer to determine if a product works for them. In the case of gaming entertainment, the basic question is does it provide satisfaction in exchange for time used (that is the desired functionality of the product). If you believe that you can spend time with the product, and receive sufficient satisfaction.... then the product may be for you.
The next evaluation, is determining if the cost of the product is worth the satisfaction received. If you have lots of money, and the product is cheap, perhaps it is worth it, even if it is not that much fun. However, if the product is more expensive, then it has to provide a better in exchange for your money (especially if hard earned).
The 'entitlement' comes in when consumers think that they have any say in the product, or the business model... that is not covered by #1 or #2. If you are spending time and/or money on a product, you are providing the only feedback that has any merit. If you are not spending money, or time, then you are also providing the only feedback that has any real merit. Opinions on how the product should change, or how they should use a different business model are all irrelevant, and stem from a sense of entitlement.
This is also why many people are frustrated about the state of gaming. They think that they have an input that is relevant... and are frustrated that the feedback is not changing anything. The reality is that they have a form of feedback (time/money), but are instead focused on something that only exists in their mind.
This whole article is just proof of the entitlement that you so decry. Consumers only have 2 real choices to make about an product:
1. Is it worth my time.
2. Is it worth my money.
It us up to the consumer to determine if a product works for them. In the case of gaming entertainment, the basic question is does it provide satisfaction in exchange for time used (that is the desired functionality of the product). If you believe that you can spend time with the product, and receive sufficient satisfaction.... then the product may be for you.
The next evaluation, is determining if the cost of the product is worth the satisfaction received. If you have lots of money, and the product is cheap, perhaps it is worth it, even if it is not that much fun. However, if the product is more expensive, then it has to provide a better in exchange for your money (especially if hard earned).
The 'entitlement' comes in when consumers think that they have any say in the product, or the business model... that is not covered by #1 or #2. If you are spending time and/or money on a product, you are providing the only feedback that has any merit. If you are not spending money, or time, then you are also providing the only feedback that has any real merit. Opinions on how the product should change, or how they should use a different business model are all irrelevant, and stem from a sense of entitlement.
This is also why many people are frustrated about the state of gaming. They think that they have an input that is relevant... and are frustrated that the feedback is not changing anything. The reality is that they have a form of feedback (time/money), but are instead focused on something that only exists in their mind.
Except that MMO developers have, traditionally and continue to do so today, always asked for input from their player base on many if not all aspects of their product and services. Whether in the form of forums, polls or events. Once you request feedback from your customers, it opens up the floodgates of criticism, well deserved or not.
On top of that, you have an industry that has always embraced gaming sites which from the very beginning have written articles and provided bulletin boards for the specific purpose of critiquing MMOs, development processes and the industry as a whole.
The people that started 'playing' games from 2000 on feel entitled. The really sad part is, this has nothing to do with games and everything to do with this actual generation. Your generation feels entitled for doing nothing, offering and presenting nothing, but wanting everything and, on top of that, for free. The premise of those who play Free to play games gives you a glimpse into this 'mind state'; you want everything that you would get from a paid game but do not want to pay for it. There is a saying, 'You get want you pay for', and F2P games do exactly that; they give you nothing and you pay for nothing.
Honestly, look at what 'indie' games, all from this generation, offer: the same boring ideas, thought of as being 'inventive' though actually derived from the 80s (your generation loves the 80s yet refuse to acknowledge that everything you do comes from the proverbial jockstrap of the 80s...), 'retro' (lazy) graphics, and even the situations are pointless. Your sense of entitlement clouds every action, in and out of the game industry; unfortunately, game companies realise you have more money than sense, riddled with ADHD (too bad Ritalin was not mandatory), and feel that your are excellent at games that require 2 minutes of your time and last for 2 hours.
I am very sorry that the 'writer' (for lack of an more accurate word) cannot see that, not only do you feel entitled, but this generations' mindset and being oozes with self- and overall entitlement that it erodes all attempts of reasonable and rational thought, which could be used to make better games.
WoW has set a standard for games for a great deal of time; it is sad that, since BC, this feeling of entitlement saturated this and many other games. There were games like FFXI, Everquest 1 and 2, Eve and others that remained true. Many of these later games have gone the way of the former group and become supersaturated with entitlement. The companies cater to the entitled plebs and the other 2% have to look for challenges, content, and story.
My advice would be, instead of getting tired of hearing it, realise that this generation is the cause of the 'entitlement' label, and actually do something about it. For once think: why would games on consoles and PCs made before the 2000s (when most of the problems were either born or 3-6 yo) required more ability, skill and were harder than ANY made now?!
Originally posted by ojustaboo Ah Lotro, a once great game.
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.
I couldn't agree more with this post. If you want the reward, you put in the effort. Wanted everything for free/in the cash shop/ easy to obtain is what is destroying the genre and taking games that used to last years and build wonderful vibrant communities last 2 or 3 months and everyone moves on to the next big thing. It's pretty disgusting to someone who was watched the genre devolve over the last 15 years.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV Have played: You name it If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
I totally disagree with this column. Why? Because people HAVE gotten the 'Entitled' attitude more now. Why? Jut look at kids who get A's for just showing up to class and do nothing. It used to be that you earned your grades and moved on. Not so any more.
We as a world seem to have gotten more spoilt, more out of touch with each other, more rude also.
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.
I blame the devs for the player sense of entitlement. Players want something and the devs give in and give it to them. Nerf the dungeons? Okay. Make a mount available even though you didn't earn it? Sure.
I don't necessarily blame the players for asking. They aren't the professionals in the equation.
I got called "entitled" on facebook after I made a post about a friend of mine fell through the world in TESO and got banned as a suspected gold farmer ( she did get her account back after a week ) . Apparently I was "entitled" because I thought she should get her time compensated to her and in this guys view the "free month" was a "privilage" . My view is that "free month" is advertised as 30 days of game time included and is thus not "free" . Needless to say the guy had a weight problem of gargantuan proportions and I wasted no time in suggesting he should not feel entitled to eat as much food as he possibly could .
I don't think gamers are anymore entitled now than they were before they are just more aware of what is value for money and are not willing to put up with a load of s**t from gaming companies . Lets face it mmo gamers have taken the standardized 15 dollar a month fee model for far far too long . Why hasn't there been a price war over the subscription fee ? It would have been preferable to buy to play but developers don't think to try dropping the price first . I would pay 7.50 a month for the likes of TESO or Darkfall because I would feel I was getting my monies worth .
To me anyone who uses the term "entitled" to describe another game who probably has time constraints as to how much they can play and who is looking for the best value for money needs to get a life .
I am "entitled" to determine when, where and on what I spend my money and my entertainment time. With very few exceptions, I generaly avoid spending either on any F2P title. That is because, with very few exceptions, I find F2P to have a strong negative effect on my play experience of the game. I have found it leads to poor game design decisions and poor communities in most cases that I have experienced and compromises, what I feel, games should really be about.
F2P advocates and developers are free to disagree and do whatever they like. They can just do it without me or my dime. I've lived too long to waste my time and money on things that don't deliver the experience I want.... and nobody else is "entitled" to tell me otherwise.
Edit: LOTRO is one of the games that went seriously downhill after they took the F2P plunge. I won't claim to know that F2P is the cause of it but F2P certainly detracted from my play experience. I probably could have tolerated the "Buy Me" buttons everywhere, if they hadn't made the content so easy I could play it while asleep and had made some of it geared toward a group or even a small group instead of solo.
I don't believe I've ever used the term 'entitled' to mean what the author characterizes it as.
To me, the following are examples of an "entitled attitude".
1. 'I have a busy life, a job and a family and I don't have the time I used to to play these games, so it's not fair that others with more time can get farther along than me. I should be able to progress faster so I can catch up with them". That's someone believing their personal life circumstances somehow entitle them to a faster/easier ride than others.
People with lives, families, careers and such have always played MMOs, even as far back as UO and EQ1. They had limited time, too. Yet, they played and enjoyed themselves. Why? Because they set their expectations more realistically to the time they had to play. They didn't expect the developers to change the game around to cater to them. They weren't self-entitled.
2. "I just started playing the game a year after it came out. It's not fair that people who've played longer than me are farther along and are doing things I can't do right now. They should speed the game up so I can catch up and do the same content they're doing." -- That's someone reacting on a perceived "disadvantage" against people who've been playing longer. They feel that starting after everyone else entitles them to a faster/easier ride to the end, simply because they don't feel they should have to go through what everyone else did to get there. They often characterize themselves as a victim of some horribly unfair treatment... and occasionally pre-emptively lash out at anyone who would disagree.
3. An entitled person is someone who wants to play a game, clearly has an interest in it, but feels they shouldn't have to pay for it, because "it's not worth the money" to them. They like the game. They want to play the game... they just feel they're entitled and shouldn't have to pay for it. In those cases, they want something for nothing, that's it.
There are other examples, but those are 3 common ones.
As for the article, again, I don't know if I would ever characterize what they're discussing as "entitlement". That's imply wanting games to be F2P.
I will also say, their characterization of F2P becoming popular because "it's better for the players!" is horribly naive. It's giving developers and, more specifically, publishers far more credit than they deserve.
The F2P model has been around for a long time in the East. It was even present in a few MMOs that were available here in West before Turbine hopped on board and made it "okay" in the West. Certainly, developers and publishers were well aware of this. If it was so clearly the "better" approach, then why did it take them so long to adapt it?
I'll tell you why...
because F2P/Cash Shops are little more than sanctioned RMT. It's the same concept as eBaying or buying money from some website... activities developers used to actively fight and prohibit. The difference now? They're the ones raking in the money, not some 3rd party. So of course now, they argue it as being the "best thing for the players". Illegal RMT and Cash Shops are basically the same thing; the same concept. The only difference is who's cashing in. Meanwhile, gullible gamers with no critical thinking skills just lap up the PR about it being "a better revenue model for the players!" as "fact".
The truth is entitlement doesn't exist. It's a belief of wanting to feel special,right, justified, deserving of something whether perceivably earned or not. Everyone is guilty of this belief in one way or another in some area of their life, including video games. There is no exception to the rule, not even mmos.
Multitudes have died over this belief. It's a fact.
As far as the state of the mmorpg dying or evolving. Everything is dying moment by moment. Everything is also being birthed moment by moment. What is good or bad is up to the interpretation of each individual.
Gamers have expectations, developers have expectations. Many of those expectations aren't being met. What choice does one have when their expectations are not being met?
1.Accept it
2.Change it
3.Remove oneself from the situation
4.Blame other people(This one doesn't solve anything but gives the blamer the illusion of being right.)
On the issue of payment models or budgets being indicative of quality/value or vice versa. That can be true but isn't always true. As reviews on games and the comment section have argued time and time again regardless of score. One guys pile of gold is another guys pile of poop, and to another guy it might be a pile of gold slightly glazed with poop.
Is it wrong or not nice to put people in boxes? I leave that up to you. But it isn't going away.
Do gamers feel entitled? You bet a sweet ass they do. And developers feel entitled too.
Well, gamers have the privilage of complaining/calling for game changes, until the devs/forum mods say that they dont, and remove their ability to do so. They never do, so the devs have to live with what they've got. Of course, if they did, they'd probably get a social media campaign against them.
The problem is, the devs, like most other businesses, dont get to choose their customers, they have to adapt to the environment.
Most devs won't do that because they are trying to maximize profit. They need to practice integrity though regardless of potential profit. There has to be a line that when crossed is, you refuse service.
A business can choose the type of customers they wish to attract. As long as the service is top notch and they accept that their business will soar or plummet based on their performance versus the competition.
These days games are not realy made anymore for gamers it's made for the bussiness man who have stock in the company that published it.
Games these days are made to make as much money in short time as they can.
Im entitled to say anything about game i maybe wanne play if not i act with my wallet in sense im most powerfull of them all if i don't pay less money.
Sure it make maybe no difference but im almost convinced that if i dont pay many others also don't pay and that hurts the publisher and stockbrokers and the developers.
Im entitled ALWAYS im the one who need to spent time with product im the one who throw money at it.
So im entitled.
Luckly i still got a lot power ay my disposal, do i pay or do i pay not.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
Originally posted by TangentPoint I don't believe I've ever used the term 'entitled' to mean what the author characterizes it as.To me, the following are examples of an "entitled attitude".1. 'I have a busy life, a job and a family and I don't have the time I used to to play these games, so it's not fair that others with more time can get farther along than me. I should be able to progress faster so I can catch up with them". That's someone believing their personal life circumstances somehow entitle them to a faster/easier ride than others. People with lives, families, careers and such have always played MMOs, even as far back as UO and EQ1. They had limited time, too. Yet, they played and enjoyed themselves. Why? Because they set their expectations more realistically to the time they had to play. They didn't expect the developers to change the game around to cater to them. They weren't self-entitled. 2. "I just started playing the game a year after it came out. It's not fair that people who've played longer than me are farther along and are doing things I can't do right now. They should speed the game up so I can catch up and do the same content they're doing." -- That's someone reacting on a perceived "disadvantage" against people who've been playing longer. They feel that starting after everyone else entitles them to a faster/easier ride to the end, simply because they don't feel they should have to go through what everyone else did to get there. They often characterize themselves as a victim of some horribly unfair treatment... and occasionally pre-emptively lash out at anyone who would disagree. 3. An entitled person is someone who wants to play a game, clearly has an interest in it, but feels they shouldn't have to pay for it, because "it's not worth the money" to them. They like the game. They want to play the game... they just feel they're entitled and shouldn't have to pay for it. In those cases, they want something for nothing, that's it. There are other examples, but those are 3 common ones.As for the article, again, I don't know if I would ever characterize what they're discussing as "entitlement". That's imply wanting games to be F2P. I will also say, their characterization of F2P becoming popular because "it's better for the players!" is horribly naive. It's giving developers and, more specifically, publishers far more credit than they deserve. The F2P model has been around for a long time in the East. It was even present in a few MMOs that were available here in West before Turbine hopped on board and made it "okay" in the West. Certainly, developers and publishers were well aware of this. If it was so clearly the "better" approach, then why did it take them so long to adapt it? I'll tell you why... because F2P/Cash Shops are little more than sanctioned RMT. It's the same concept as eBaying or buying money from some website... activities developers used to actively fight and prohibit. The difference now? They're the ones raking in the money, not some 3rd party. So of course now, they argue it as being the "best thing for the players". Illegal RMT and Cash Shops are basically the same thing; the same concept. The only difference is who's cashing in. Meanwhile, gullible gamers with no critical thinking skills just lap up the PR about it being "a better revenue model for the players!" as "fact".
Best description of entitlement and current problems with mmo's I've read yet
People - not just gamers - are entitled to clear and honest marketing.
The idea that when people pay a sub they are paying for new content is "untruthful".
If a company wants to charge a sub - fine. Charge a sub but make it clear that it is a "green fee". Stop pretending that new content is cheap and they will roll it out on a regular basis whether they get 10M subs or 10k.
Originally posted by gervaise1 People - not just gamers - are entitled to clear and honest marketing.
The idea that when people pay a sub they are paying for new content is "untruthful".
If a company wants to charge a sub - fine. Charge a sub but make it clear that it is a "green fee". Stop pretending that new content is cheap and they will roll it out on a regular basis whether they get 10M subs or 10k.
You work as a game developer right? That's how you know this... Oh wait, you don't.
New content takes time, projects take time, and individuals, bill companys, and insurance plans all have to be funded.
You sound like an ENTITLED individual without any real world experience of limited if that.
I don't believe I've ever used the term 'entitled' to mean what the author characterizes it as.
To me, the following are examples of an "entitled attitude".
1. 'I have a busy life, a job and a family and I don't have the time I used to to play these games, so it's not fair that others with more time can get farther along than me. I should be able to progress faster so I can catch up with them". That's someone believing their personal life circumstances somehow entitle them to a faster/easier ride than others.
People with lives, families, careers and such have always played MMOs, even as far back as UO and EQ1. They had limited time, too. Yet, they played and enjoyed themselves. Why? Because they set their expectations more realistically to the time they had to play. They didn't expect the developers to change the game around to cater to them. They weren't self-entitled.
2. "I just started playing the game a year after it came out. It's not fair that people who've played longer than me are farther along and are doing things I can't do right now. They should speed the game up so I can catch up and do the same content they're doing." -- That's someone reacting on a perceived "disadvantage" against people who've been playing longer. They feel that starting after everyone else entitles them to a faster/easier ride to the end, simply because they don't feel they should have to go through what everyone else did to get there. They often characterize themselves as a victim of some horribly unfair treatment... and occasionally pre-emptively lash out at anyone who would disagree.
3. An entitled person is someone who wants to play a game, clearly has an interest in it, but feels they shouldn't have to pay for it, because "it's not worth the money" to them. They like the game. They want to play the game... they just feel they're entitled and shouldn't have to pay for it. In those cases, they want something for nothing, that's it.
There are other examples, but those are 3 common ones.
As for the article, again, I don't know if I would ever characterize what they're discussing as "entitlement". That's imply wanting games to be F2P.
I will also say, their characterization of F2P becoming popular because "it's better for the players!" is horribly naive. It's giving developers and, more specifically, publishers far more credit than they deserve.
The F2P model has been around for a long time in the East. It was even present in a few MMOs that were available here in West before Turbine hopped on board and made it "okay" in the West. Certainly, developers and publishers were well aware of this. If it was so clearly the "better" approach, then why did it take them so long to adapt it?
I'll tell you why...
because F2P/Cash Shops are little more than sanctioned RMT. It's the same concept as eBaying or buying money from some website... activities developers used to actively fight and prohibit. The difference now? They're the ones raking in the money, not some 3rd party. So of course now, they argue it as being the "best thing for the players". Illegal RMT and Cash Shops are basically the same thing; the same concept. The only difference is who's cashing in. Meanwhile, gullible gamers with no critical thinking skills just lap up the PR about it being "a better revenue model for the players!" as "fact".
To be 100% fair - that argument does hold weight in games like EvE that are so innately hardcore PvP, but don't have a character progress cap. Do you really expect gamers to play with one arm tied behind their back for their entire career because they joined 7 years later?
You can also flip that around to make anyone wanting the opposite seem entitled.
"I've been playing this game for 5 years longer than you. I've put in the time. Who cares if I keyboard turn and you're more skilled? I'm entitled to beat you - play as long as I have if you want to have a chance vs. me."
I agree, your entire article just reinforces my opinion that Free to Play players are like Kevin Federline. They talk too much about what they deserve but never actually do anything to deserve it. It's okay to be entitled if you buy something, you are rightfully entitled to that thing at that point. When you do nothing but wait until Dad brings home dinner then complain that you didn't want ketchup or that your brother who went with him got a sundae and you didn't, yea you are acting like an entitled brat. In my opinion, pure free to play players should have no voice in the game or it's community, if you wan't be involved, put in the work. Money=work, I know this concept is lost on many people but money is a token we use to universally barter. All things in life are bought, sold or processed. Nothing is free, support the things you like with your money or lose them forever.
Originally posted by gervaise1 People - not just gamers - are entitled to clear and honest marketing.
The idea that when people pay a sub they are paying for new content is "untruthful".
If a company wants to charge a sub - fine. Charge a sub but make it clear that it is a "green fee". Stop pretending that new content is cheap and they will roll it out on a regular basis whether they get 10M subs or 10k.
You work as a game developer right? That's how you know this... Oh wait, you don't.
New content takes time, projects take time, and individuals, bill companys, and insurance plans all have to be funded.
You sound like an ENTITLED individual without any real world experience of limited if that.
Actualy, I'm the biggest supporter of subscriptions there is and he's got a point. It's called truth in advertisement. Content takes a heck of alot of time and effort and expense to produce. The problem here isn't so much with the people building the content but with the people marketing these sorts of games and adverstising things that the developers can't possibly deliver. If you run an auto-shop and sell a customer a maintenance agreement and your mechanics can only reasonably deliver 1 tune-up a month, you don't let your marketers run around advertising that the customer will get 3 tune-ups a month with thier agreement. Many game developers/publishers have serious problems with thier marketing that goes beyond hype and frankly into borderline fraud.
If you promise a customer something and can't deliver, then you really don't deserve to be in business in the first place. The solution is simple, don't make promises that you don't have the resources fo fullfill. It's why it's so refreshing to see the occasional Dev, usualy indie's, who actualy engage in straight talk an tell you up front "It'll be ready when it's ready, IF we can get it to work at all." I'd much rather have that then piles of slick marketing hype.
So, what, since the Pokket experiment didn't work out. Is this the new high school student girl gamer expert dating the head moderator again? Wait please tell me she has released some videos of gameplay, that should be a laugh. Who cares what she thinks, shes old enough to spank for gods sakes. I play FTP and PTP games and dont have a complex about it or need to quantify my existence based on a payment model, any more than I compare my manhood to the size of my cable bill.
Comments
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.
I do believe that there is a missed que here.
Why do so many people mistake the pay models as the reason we call players entitled?
Who do I call entitled? Those that bitch and whine that things need to be nerfed , lowered in difficulty, or given to players that would rather have crap given to them with the least amount of effort.
You want to know why Vanilla WoW is regarded as so much better than modern WoW? its simple, You Had To Earn EVERYTHING. Nothing was just given to you. now in WoW you get gold dropping like wine. many mounts and pets you get for little to no effort. and many other things.
Oh and then in WOD they are going to make the lazy even more lazy.. you wont have to bother spending hours farming ore/leather/etc... no you'll just have to log in, go to your garrison, and send off your minions. All because the games too difficult for players... Oh yeah, the Garrison NPCs will be able to run instances for loot also... how far into lazy does it have to get?
You want to know why some of us call players "Entitled" or even better... "The gimme generation"? Its because many players earned it.
Played: UO, LotR, WoW, SWG, DDO, AoC, EVE, Warhammer, TF2, EQ2, SWTOR, TSW, CSS, KF, L4D, AoW, WoT
Playing: The Secret World until Citadel of Sorcery goes into Alpha testing.
Tired of: Linear quest games, dailies, and dumbed down games
Anticipating:Citadel of Sorcery
I don't think that the word has lost all meaning. You've given a couple good examples, but they're positive. Also, just FYI, you are NOT entitled to have a game that doesn't require an always-on internet connection. That's right, you are NOT entitled to that. This is exactly what we're talking about with entitled. You THINK you are entitled to that, but you're not. If you don't like that a game has DRM, then don't buy it. However, you are not entitled to that. The company dictates how they choose to protect their IP and if they choose an always-on Internet connection for DRM then they will live or die by that, but the customer has no right to it, and it's the "right" part that people often stake claim to without any right whatsoever.
It is NOT your right to have all your bag slots. It is NOT your right to have access to all races, classes, etc. I think that when we talk about entitlement, it's those who believe that by playing the publishers game, they are somehow doing them a favour. Similarly, people believe that by buying a game they should have a right to DRM-free software. Again, that should not be an expectation. In fact, it will state clearly on the system requirements whether or not an Internet Connection is required to play the game. If you make the decision to purchase, knowing full well that requirement is in place, then you have accepted that requirement.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Exactly.
Except that MMO developers have, traditionally and continue to do so today, always asked for input from their player base on many if not all aspects of their product and services. Whether in the form of forums, polls or events. Once you request feedback from your customers, it opens up the floodgates of criticism, well deserved or not.
On top of that, you have an industry that has always embraced gaming sites which from the very beginning have written articles and provided bulletin boards for the specific purpose of critiquing MMOs, development processes and the industry as a whole.
The people that started 'playing' games from 2000 on feel entitled. The really sad part is, this has nothing to do with games and everything to do with this actual generation. Your generation feels entitled for doing nothing, offering and presenting nothing, but wanting everything and, on top of that, for free. The premise of those who play Free to play games gives you a glimpse into this 'mind state'; you want everything that you would get from a paid game but do not want to pay for it. There is a saying, 'You get want you pay for', and F2P games do exactly that; they give you nothing and you pay for nothing.
Honestly, look at what 'indie' games, all from this generation, offer: the same boring ideas, thought of as being 'inventive' though actually derived from the 80s (your generation loves the 80s yet refuse to acknowledge that everything you do comes from the proverbial jockstrap of the 80s...), 'retro' (lazy) graphics, and even the situations are pointless. Your sense of entitlement clouds every action, in and out of the game industry; unfortunately, game companies realise you have more money than sense, riddled with ADHD (too bad Ritalin was not mandatory), and feel that your are excellent at games that require 2 minutes of your time and last for 2 hours.
I am very sorry that the 'writer' (for lack of an more accurate word) cannot see that, not only do you feel entitled, but this generations' mindset and being oozes with self- and overall entitlement that it erodes all attempts of reasonable and rational thought, which could be used to make better games.
WoW has set a standard for games for a great deal of time; it is sad that, since BC, this feeling of entitlement saturated this and many other games. There were games like FFXI, Everquest 1 and 2, Eve and others that remained true. Many of these later games have gone the way of the former group and become supersaturated with entitlement. The companies cater to the entitled plebs and the other 2% have to look for challenges, content, and story.
My advice would be, instead of getting tired of hearing it, realise that this generation is the cause of the 'entitlement' label, and actually do something about it. For once think: why would games on consoles and PCs made before the 2000s (when most of the problems were either born or 3-6 yo) required more ability, skill and were harder than ANY made now?!
Something to think about, huh?
I couldn't agree more with this post. If you want the reward, you put in the effort. Wanted everything for free/in the cash shop/ easy to obtain is what is destroying the genre and taking games that used to last years and build wonderful vibrant communities last 2 or 3 months and everyone moves on to the next big thing. It's pretty disgusting to someone who was watched the genre devolve over the last 15 years.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
I totally disagree with this column. Why? Because people HAVE gotten the 'Entitled' attitude more now. Why? Jut look at kids who get A's for just showing up to class and do nothing. It used to be that you earned your grades and moved on. Not so any more.
We as a world seem to have gotten more spoilt, more out of touch with each other, more rude also.
^ this.
I blame the devs for the player sense of entitlement. Players want something and the devs give in and give it to them. Nerf the dungeons? Okay. Make a mount available even though you didn't earn it? Sure.
I don't necessarily blame the players for asking. They aren't the professionals in the equation.
http://gnomophobia.com
I got called "entitled" on facebook after I made a post about a friend of mine fell through the world in TESO and got banned as a suspected gold farmer ( she did get her account back after a week ) . Apparently I was "entitled" because I thought she should get her time compensated to her and in this guys view the "free month" was a "privilage" . My view is that "free month" is advertised as 30 days of game time included and is thus not "free" . Needless to say the guy had a weight problem of gargantuan proportions and I wasted no time in suggesting he should not feel entitled to eat as much food as he possibly could .
I don't think gamers are anymore entitled now than they were before they are just more aware of what is value for money and are not willing to put up with a load of s**t from gaming companies . Lets face it mmo gamers have taken the standardized 15 dollar a month fee model for far far too long . Why hasn't there been a price war over the subscription fee ? It would have been preferable to buy to play but developers don't think to try dropping the price first . I would pay 7.50 a month for the likes of TESO or Darkfall because I would feel I was getting my monies worth .
To me anyone who uses the term "entitled" to describe another game who probably has time constraints as to how much they can play and who is looking for the best value for money needs to get a life .
I am "entitled" to determine when, where and on what I spend my money and my entertainment time. With very few exceptions, I generaly avoid spending either on any F2P title. That is because, with very few exceptions, I find F2P to have a strong negative effect on my play experience of the game. I have found it leads to poor game design decisions and poor communities in most cases that I have experienced and compromises, what I feel, games should really be about.
F2P advocates and developers are free to disagree and do whatever they like. They can just do it without me or my dime. I've lived too long to waste my time and money on things that don't deliver the experience I want.... and nobody else is "entitled" to tell me otherwise.
Edit: LOTRO is one of the games that went seriously downhill after they took the F2P plunge. I won't claim to know that F2P is the cause of it but F2P certainly detracted from my play experience. I probably could have tolerated the "Buy Me" buttons everywhere, if they hadn't made the content so easy I could play it while asleep and had made some of it geared toward a group or even a small group instead of solo.
I don't believe I've ever used the term 'entitled' to mean what the author characterizes it as.
To me, the following are examples of an "entitled attitude".
1. 'I have a busy life, a job and a family and I don't have the time I used to to play these games, so it's not fair that others with more time can get farther along than me. I should be able to progress faster so I can catch up with them". That's someone believing their personal life circumstances somehow entitle them to a faster/easier ride than others.
People with lives, families, careers and such have always played MMOs, even as far back as UO and EQ1. They had limited time, too. Yet, they played and enjoyed themselves. Why? Because they set their expectations more realistically to the time they had to play. They didn't expect the developers to change the game around to cater to them. They weren't self-entitled.
2. "I just started playing the game a year after it came out. It's not fair that people who've played longer than me are farther along and are doing things I can't do right now. They should speed the game up so I can catch up and do the same content they're doing." -- That's someone reacting on a perceived "disadvantage" against people who've been playing longer. They feel that starting after everyone else entitles them to a faster/easier ride to the end, simply because they don't feel they should have to go through what everyone else did to get there. They often characterize themselves as a victim of some horribly unfair treatment... and occasionally pre-emptively lash out at anyone who would disagree.
3. An entitled person is someone who wants to play a game, clearly has an interest in it, but feels they shouldn't have to pay for it, because "it's not worth the money" to them. They like the game. They want to play the game... they just feel they're entitled and shouldn't have to pay for it. In those cases, they want something for nothing, that's it.
There are other examples, but those are 3 common ones.
As for the article, again, I don't know if I would ever characterize what they're discussing as "entitlement". That's imply wanting games to be F2P.
I will also say, their characterization of F2P becoming popular because "it's better for the players!" is horribly naive. It's giving developers and, more specifically, publishers far more credit than they deserve.
The F2P model has been around for a long time in the East. It was even present in a few MMOs that were available here in West before Turbine hopped on board and made it "okay" in the West. Certainly, developers and publishers were well aware of this. If it was so clearly the "better" approach, then why did it take them so long to adapt it?
I'll tell you why...
because F2P/Cash Shops are little more than sanctioned RMT. It's the same concept as eBaying or buying money from some website... activities developers used to actively fight and prohibit. The difference now? They're the ones raking in the money, not some 3rd party. So of course now, they argue it as being the "best thing for the players". Illegal RMT and Cash Shops are basically the same thing; the same concept. The only difference is who's cashing in. Meanwhile, gullible gamers with no critical thinking skills just lap up the PR about it being "a better revenue model for the players!" as "fact".
The truth is entitlement doesn't exist. It's a belief of wanting to feel special,right, justified, deserving of something whether perceivably earned or not. Everyone is guilty of this belief in one way or another in some area of their life, including video games. There is no exception to the rule, not even mmos.
Multitudes have died over this belief. It's a fact.
As far as the state of the mmorpg dying or evolving. Everything is dying moment by moment. Everything is also being birthed moment by moment. What is good or bad is up to the interpretation of each individual.
Gamers have expectations, developers have expectations. Many of those expectations aren't being met. What choice does one have when their expectations are not being met?
1.Accept it
2.Change it
3.Remove oneself from the situation
4.Blame other people(This one doesn't solve anything but gives the blamer the illusion of being right.)
On the issue of payment models or budgets being indicative of quality/value or vice versa. That can be true but isn't always true. As reviews on games and the comment section have argued time and time again regardless of score. One guys pile of gold is another guys pile of poop, and to another guy it might be a pile of gold slightly glazed with poop.
Is it wrong or not nice to put people in boxes? I leave that up to you. But it isn't going away.
Do gamers feel entitled? You bet a sweet ass they do. And developers feel entitled too.
Well, gamers have the privilage of complaining/calling for game changes, until the devs/forum mods say that they dont, and remove their ability to do so. They never do, so the devs have to live with what they've got. Of course, if they did, they'd probably get a social media campaign against them.
The problem is, the devs, like most other businesses, dont get to choose their customers, they have to adapt to the environment.
These days games are not realy made anymore for gamers it's made for the bussiness man who have stock in the company that published it.
Games these days are made to make as much money in short time as they can.
Im entitled to say anything about game i maybe wanne play if not i act with my wallet in sense im most powerfull of them all if i don't pay less money.
Sure it make maybe no difference but im almost convinced that if i dont pay many others also don't pay and that hurts the publisher and stockbrokers and the developers.
Im entitled ALWAYS im the one who need to spent time with product im the one who throw money at it.
So im entitled.
Luckly i still got a lot power ay my disposal, do i pay or do i pay not.
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
Best description of entitlement and current problems with mmo's I've read yet
People - not just gamers - are entitled to clear and honest marketing.
The idea that when people pay a sub they are paying for new content is "untruthful".
If a company wants to charge a sub - fine. Charge a sub but make it clear that it is a "green fee". Stop pretending that new content is cheap and they will roll it out on a regular basis whether they get 10M subs or 10k.
LOL yes you are.
You work as a game developer right? That's how you know this... Oh wait, you don't.
New content takes time, projects take time, and individuals, bill companys, and insurance plans all have to be funded.
You sound like an ENTITLED individual without any real world experience of limited if that.
To be 100% fair - that argument does hold weight in games like EvE that are so innately hardcore PvP, but don't have a character progress cap. Do you really expect gamers to play with one arm tied behind their back for their entire career because they joined 7 years later?
You can also flip that around to make anyone wanting the opposite seem entitled.
"I've been playing this game for 5 years longer than you. I've put in the time. Who cares if I keyboard turn and you're more skilled? I'm entitled to beat you - play as long as I have if you want to have a chance vs. me."
Actualy, I'm the biggest supporter of subscriptions there is and he's got a point. It's called truth in advertisement. Content takes a heck of alot of time and effort and expense to produce. The problem here isn't so much with the people building the content but with the people marketing these sorts of games and adverstising things that the developers can't possibly deliver. If you run an auto-shop and sell a customer a maintenance agreement and your mechanics can only reasonably deliver 1 tune-up a month, you don't let your marketers run around advertising that the customer will get 3 tune-ups a month with thier agreement. Many game developers/publishers have serious problems with thier marketing that goes beyond hype and frankly into borderline fraud.
If you promise a customer something and can't deliver, then you really don't deserve to be in business in the first place. The solution is simple, don't make promises that you don't have the resources fo fullfill. It's why it's so refreshing to see the occasional Dev, usualy indie's, who actualy engage in straight talk an tell you up front "It'll be ready when it's ready, IF we can get it to work at all." I'd much rather have that then piles of slick marketing hype.