Gamer Entitlement?

[Hussars 511]

Wandering around the interwebs, saw a link (to all things) a Gamespot article that I actually decided to read...

http://www.gamespot.com/features/the-dangers-of-gamer-entitlement-6350732/

Of which this gem really stood out:

"[...]The savagery displayed this week flows not from specifics but from the sense of ownership that makes some gamers believe that they own the games they play. That's a common mistake; gamers buy games, so naturally they feel entitled to them. But games are, and have always been, the property of the people who made them.[...]"

Looking at the trend towards crowd-sourcing (i.e. Kickstarter) more games, or any long term "paid-for" project really, I'm thinking this is an issue that is only going to continue to get worse.

Lets look at some of these crowd "funded" games, like Star Citizen (SC) or even one that graced the forums here, Greed Monger (GM).

Starting with the most locally..."discussed"... Greed Monger.

No matter what you may think about it, or like/dislike about the project, the owner or the company. The owner of the game/company is trying to make a game that fits his vision, and brought in a team that shares that vision.

But look at the progression of events: (Where' not talking about who did what or who escalated first, just the general overview)

• They reached out to their target audience
  
• received responses (to both extremes of good and bad)
  
• Some of the folks in the conversations continued to "hammer" their feedback in multiple venues
  
• Dev team responded
  
• escalation continued
  
• Dev Team withdrew from open public view to more controlled venues
  

Star Citizen:

Again, the owner built a team who shared his vision (or could get onboard with it)

• They reached out to their target audience
  
• received responses (to both extremes of good and bad)
  
• Some of the folks in the conversations continued to "hammer" their feedback in multiple venues
  
• Dev team responded
  
• escalation continued
  
• Dev Team withdrew from a more open public view to more controlled venues/information releases
  

Seeing a pattern yet?

We can take this a step back and say, sure, the players are investing their money or donating to a "cause", but you can just as easily say they paid their $1, $5, $30, $40 or $60 etc... for a finished game with content that is usually reserved for collector's editions. (A side note: Crowd Sourcing is taking on a more "Pre-order" mentality recently, which is also adding to the overall issues, when you are simply providing funds for the team to use for development, big difference)

What makes this an even larger concern for me is.. a lot of the folks voicing their opinions and (in some cases) demanding a response are not even a donator. They might donate at some point, or just wait for the game to launch if it supposed to be F2P, or never intend to play it but just enjoy the "lulz".

I've said before, I work in the industry, and have been for more than a decade now, with time spent at most of the levels between QA grunt (was a contractor) upto design. I'm currently a professional project manager for a company and I've seen the ways these trends impact a lot more then people seem to believe. The sheer risk involved from allowing a completely anonymous group to have this much control means you need to limit your interaction with your prospective client base (which tends to be even worse long term) or your design/planning better be ready for where this lynch mob is running to.

And it is just that, a lynch mob.

Want proof of this mentality, just look at the last few dev posts. Instead of asking/waiting for more information, a couple of folks jumped straight to the "worst case" and it took on a life of its own.

For those that really want to know why dev teams tend to be "gun shy", take a look back at your own behavior, or the behavior of those in the forums you frequent, you might start to understand it a bit better.

[yarnevk 257]

On the topic of kickstarter I would have to agree that people think they bought the game, when they should be thinking what it is supposed to be that they bought the collector edition things, and be happy with that even if the game never comes out.

But I would go further and say this idea of 'its my game' is even there for f2p games, that somehow the devs owe those who do not even pay for the game, and they should be allowed access to the entire game for free. I don't care how broke you are, if the devs are broke because you are broke, well they are not going to make the game you want. It is that simple.

I just went into my first kickstarter paying as much as I have spent on Wurm so I could get the book and figurines in the collector edition, but would never have done it based on an idea or lack of resume. I did it because the devs are already a published game studio, and have already release a working alpha that is for the most part playable. I can see where they are going, what they need to polish it, and did not mind throwing them some bucks. As was mentioned to some of the devs you speak of, go make a facebook game or even just a mod, and get your feet wet and make your mistakes and learn something about development before you even attempt an international sandbox MMO.

As for lynch mobs, its the internetz. Would people act this way at work with their colleagues? I highly doubt it but they should act as if the devs are their colleague if they want to pitch an idea to them.

Edited March 22, 2013 by yarnevk

[Hussars 511]

Just to clarify, and making a new post to not change or imply I changed any of the original post content.

I'm not attempting to "out" anyone with this line of discussion. We all jump on the hype bandwagon at some point, for good or evil as it were. But the idea that you can do what you want without repercussions has to change. Because even if an individual poster/internet troll/forum warrior/whatever you want to call yourself or others, is not directly smacked on the back of the head, it doesn't mean there wasn't a repercussion somewhere for that post.

It's this lack of "bigger picture", which when talking about the "Digital Age" of the internet is more true than ever before, that really needs to be kept in mind.

I think just about every nation on the planet is considering more "control" options/better accountability tracking in some form. We give up freedoms not only be surrendering them willingly, but by misusing them indiscriminately.

:edit insert::

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-03-21-entitled-gamers-corrupt-press-and-greedy-publishers

Is a bit more polite about it than I am lol

Edited March 22, 2013 by Hussars

[thenewcndo 528]

tl;dr

[Hussars 511]

But wasted your time posting, my job is done

[Gramuly 171]

the player is not in charge and should treat the game and forum with respect.

Its wrong to be rude to others.

Its wrong but..

"It has the right to pursue legal action against Hepler's attackers."

this is not good.

freedom of speach is important.

It helps us keep safe.

Dont add fear to talk about things. Ban these people but dont make laws and involve the goverment.

Dont play the blame game. She blamed no fastforward button they blamed her and now you blame them. Dont make laws or you will only blame yourself.

[Wulfgar 1,128]

Gamer entitlement is everywhere, from Wurm players threatening to quit the game because they didn't get 5 hours of sleep bonus after a server crash, to SimCity buyers threatening to sue EA and contacting the EU parlament because they have been refused a refund. Its just a game and its just 50$, I had worse meals in restaurants or seen crappier movies in the cinema for 50$, but I guess those people also make a scene at these places? Guess its just a global problem with lack of good upbringing, where children are treated like princes and princesses from day 1.

[Hordern 2,177]

I had worse meals in restaurants or seen crappier movies in the cinema for 50$, but I guess those people also make a scene at these places?

Not if you're British you don't, you grin, nod, make appreciative noises, and then vomit when the waiter has turned away

[atazs 965]

But look at the progression of events: (Where' not talking about who did what or who escalated first, just the general overview)

• They reached out to their target audience
  
• received responses (to both extremes of good and bad)
  
• Some of the folks in the conversations continued to "hammer" their feedback in multiple venues
  
• Dev team responded
  
• escalation continued
  
• Dev Team withdrew from open public view to more controlled venues
  

Star Citizen:

Again, the owner built a team who shared his vision (or could get onboard with it)

• They reached out to their target audience
  
• received responses (to both extremes of good and bad)
  
• Some of the folks in the conversations continued to "hammer" their feedback in multiple venues
  
• Dev team responded
  
• escalation continued
  
• Dev Team withdrew from a more open public view to more controlled venues/information releases
  

Star Citizen didnt do anytthing like that. Not sure where you got that from... As for Greed Monger... Well what do you expect from a bunch of fools with no experience buying pre made models and faking their facebook Likes? I wouldn't be suprised if it was cancelled already

Edited March 23, 2013 by atazs

[Bagsecg 110]

tl;dr, but 'Gamer Entitlement' tends be used for people who talk about how terrible a game is, looks or plays, I cba to read that trainwreck of a post but if thats what you mean, then what are you expecting? You can say that a chef makes food in his artistic vision and thats cool and all, but if he's just sitting in the kitchen squeezing out turds and calling it spaghetti he's only going to have a job past the first plate if he pays off IGN to give his turds a 10/10

[Hussars 511]

Star Citizen didnt do anytthing like that. Not sure where you got that from... As for Greed Monger... Well what do you expect from a bunch of fools with no experience buying pre made models and faking their facebook Likes? I wouldn't be suprised if it was cancelled already

http://www.robertssp...s-Roberts-dream

This post points out some of the changes in the information flow from CR and the CIG team. Also, check the CommLink section, they released a logo, had "a couple" of people who did nothing but question the design (some less rudely than others) and CR had to change their planned information flow again to better explain the idea to those few people.

As for Greed Monger, again, no matter if you like them or not, that was not the point. They can do business however they choose, we're not talking about the financial choices they made/make, just how gamers react/behave and how a dev team has to counter/or plan around those reactions.

::Edit Insert::

Chris Roberts replied 3 pages into that thread above:

http://www.robertssp...ull=1#post13475

And for more fun reading, he has 11 posts on that userid, most of them are him having to come in and explain something to people.
/>http://www.robertsspaceindustries.com/forum/search.php?searchid=107329

As the owner of the company and head of the product design, he's doing everything right on the follow-ups. However every one of these posts specifically will have lingering impact on the rest of the information flow. Because now they cannot simply release "cool stuff" for people see/read/whatever, they will have to take additional time to vett these updates or spend additional time doing "damage control".

Go through the history of the forum, there or here, and watch the information flow/format change. In Wurm's specific case, yes we do get more information now, but in the case here, it hasn't done much to reduced the "lynch mob" mentality.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Hussars

[Gramuly 171]

Is it ok to look at a game world as a country or community?

You can move from rome to usa if you want but in boath places you have a say in how the goverment is run and how the place is built over time.

Is the world of mmorg any different.

[Hussars 511]

But in both places, your "voice" is filtered, sometimes heavily. While the US claims to be a democracy, it is actually a republic (you vote for elected officals who vote on your behalf). Rarely do you get a direct line to the President in an unfiltered venue, or the Pope if you want to discuss Rome lol

In the digital age, you do get this direct line, and the impact from it can be seen by simply taking a 6 month segment of any forum and watching the changes in tone and conversation. The sad part is, the more the leadership of any organization responds to the pressure, the more pressure the "plebs" can exert, because you now have precident of response to support new arguments.

It's the misuse of this "power" system that is at least one cause for a lot of Dev teams to shy away from more open interaction. Try treating them the same way you would a loved grandparent, see if the response you get is different when treating them as an enemy.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Hussars

[Gramuly 171]

This thread has inspired me to make a thread where I run for president of Wurm and put Rolfs face on KingKong.

I understand game worlds are not real worlds.

mmorg are the creaters design and idea; such as a painting.

Unlike paintings the ones who look at a mmorpg are drawn into the feeling of being part of, not just looking.

I feel safe with Rolf having the final say on what happens in Wurm.

Its a sort of protected feeling that people under dictators would have.

Will there ever come a time when Rolf does not care so much about the communtiy and more about the money.

When this time comes and the game is hurt by it.

Will it be an ok thing to have a feeling of entitlement?

To overthrow the dictator?

In the games Ive played, I have just left when it changed to a point that I did not enjoy.

What IF i so loved the game and the people in the game that I felt I did not want to run and I wanted to protect the game from Rolf.

I could buy it, but most dictators do not sell countrys and no one has enough to buy them.

Is entitlement such a bad thing? Or is it the natural progression to a well crafted enviorment.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Gramuly

[Rathgar 959]

Hussars, but they are not our beloved grandparents, they are not our co-workers and they are certainly not our friends (or enemies).

They are salesmen, and they are trying to sell a product. So if a person is a consumer and is not pleased with the product, he is 100% entitled to complain, and sometimes, like I see in Wurm, the CONSUMER is gracious enough to try to help the developing team enhance their product, by coolaborating ad honorem, pitching ideas whenever these are requested, etc.

The sense of entitlement is one that is well earned, because without us, the consumers, there would be no market, and all this incredibly artistic and bohemian developers of niche game titles wouldnt make those games, because they need to make money to live off of that that they love the most.

Surprisingly, this annoying and loud consumers are the ones that have somehow balanced the industry, giving small developers a room to grow, where in other media industries is nearly impossible. (music, cinema)

[Gramuly 171]

I dont see the debate over the fact that anyone paid anything!

If you pay for a burger, that does not give you the right to tell the restraunt how to make other burgers.

I do see a debate over if Wurm and other MMOs are Locations.

If you live and work in a location then I feel you are entitled to a say on how that location is run.

If you are not entitled to a say on how it is run then you are a slave.

Pay does not make you entitled to a say.

Being part of that club, community or location does give you a right to suggest changes and even to fight for such changes.

Were the people who posted rude things wrong? In war we kill one another. So posting rude things on forums may be just a step to freedom or change in an enviorment that has gone bad.

for me. its simple. Free speach and freedom to change ones enviorment; not to run but to change.

did they go about it the wrong way? Maybe not. If that is all they could think of, then that is the path.

You cant have the help of the people if you dont allow the people to help.

If you have only one view then you will miss something and that something will hurt.

Edited March 25, 2013 by Gramuly

[Hussars 511]

The point I was attmpting to highlight is that complaints are fine, as long as there is a point beyond complaining.

Or if you prefer, constructive criticism.

With a limited amount of repercussion for comments a person can make, there is no "filtering" (or very limited filtering) of the nature of feedback being provided. My point about the grandparent was more about trying a different tact when interacting with a development team, less flame, more patience.

As said, it is a business, of which a customer should expect a resonable return on money/time/resource expended on a purchase. If you have put nothing into the product (or have implied/stated you have no plan to do so), why should your voice carry the same value as someone who has?

I'm not saying F2P accounts have no say in a game like Wurm for example, I'm saying that if someone who's entire point of interaction with a forum/dev team/whatever is to simply "troll", how do you filter them?

How do you even begin to tell them apart to try and reduce/remove their impact?

How do you present this information to your customer base so they know these posts are from someone with no intent to actually participate in their shared experience/community/gameplay?

These are all things that need to be evaluated in any design at some level, even if it is to simply take on a "Haters gonna hate" mindset and ignore them.

But it does change the nature of the interaction.

Not to wade too far into political content... as to free-speech, yes, most countries allow for this in some manner, but there are very real repercussions for doing so irresponsibly. Also, there is a vast difference from free-speech in a legal definition based on where you are from/live and uncensored content on an internet forum. One does not equate to the other.

To use the US version of free-speech, it is the ability to speak on topics considered to be sheltered, such as religion, politics, or the general state of the country. It is not a license to call someone an idiot, or to use any racial slurs or solely derogatory language in any argument or discussion.

For reference of definition (and exceptions to Free-Speech protections):

Wiki

US Courts.org

This is where we start to get into where that possible sense of "entitlement" is really seen. It would appear that it is In the very nature of the internet, since almost all websites and forums are actually private domains with a "right to pass" clause.

::edit insert::

And I agree, this type of interaction has changed the playing field, and while it may have "leveled" it in some cases, I often wonder if the end result is positive or negative overall...

Edited March 25, 2013 by Hussars

[Gramuly 171]

I think the reason I troll this thread is because of the chatter behind censorship on the web.

I have been reading about it on many fronts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Controls_the_Internet%3F

There is even an international debate on if the US should control the internet as it does now.

"The US has confirmed it would resist efforts to put the internet under the control of the United Nations.

At present several non-profit US bodies oversee the net's technical specifications and domain name system.

They operate at arms-length from the US government but officially under the remit of its Department of Commerce

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19106420

So I am sry but this debate is not limited to the slim line of does free speach hurt game makers.

If you open a debate over such a heavy topic you have to conisder the long reaching problems.

I would suggest that game makers have a forum and a special search engine to filter and find the information they are looking for.

If I make a suggestion about a game change do I think it will happen. No

the best I can hope for is it plants a seed and in the future a version of that idea unconnected to mine will be implimented.

If the game makers have a problem it is their problem not the ones with the big mouth.

Puching them in the mouth will only shut them up for awhile and make others all the more loud.

this thread sounded like a school report.

It should cover the larger aspects not the simple one of did the designers get hurt feelings.

All around the world they are trying to put a muzzle on the internet. Dont join that group. Let us speak.

[Rathgar 959]

@Hussars, you have a big misconception here that I think it should be clarified.

Nothing is free, even if you THINK something is free, whoever is providing it, its getting something in return. It is even more evident when we deal with internet related things, a big userbase equates to muscle in this media, and if giving people the chance to play for free wasnt profitable for the developers, they wouldnt allow it.

Remember that money is not the only thing that has value, publicity, exposition, is as fluid as any currency in this media. So the free players, the ones that state that they will never spend a buck in the game, they are also providing something for the game, otherwise they would be left outside of it.

@Gramuly , yes, you go to a restaurant and get your word to the cook or manager through the waiter, and in any kind of business customer feedback is vital. (unless you are the absolute sole provider of a service, wich is something that happens with tv and other media distribuitors)

[Hussars 511]

Rathgar,

I'm under no such misconception, I think either I did not explain it correctly or my statement was skipped over (I've done that myself before), but as I said previously:

[...]

As said, it is a business, of which a customer should expect a resonable return on money/time/resource expended on a purchase. If you have put nothing into the product (or have implied/stated you have no plan to do so), why should your voice carry the same value as someone who has?

I'm not saying F2P accounts have no say in a game like Wurm for example, I'm saying that if someone who's entire point of interaction with a forum/dev team/whatever is to simply "troll", how do you filter them?

How do you even begin to tell them apart to try and reduce/remove their impact?

How do you present this information to your customer base so they know these posts are from someone with no intent to actually participate in their shared experience/community/gameplay?

[...]

To the topic in general and to hopfully clarify further:

Those who play a game, even F2P accounts, are providing active contribution, their feedback IS important. Those folks who make a new account to post 1 topic/reply simply to "troll" and then are never heard from again, do not. These same people have no desire to actively participate in the game or the game's community, they are simply there to stir the pot.

The problem lies in that even in this day and age of highly visible/available information, those 1 shot posts can carry as much weight or, in some cases, more weight than 1000 posts.

Now, to clarify a few points:

First - I'm not calling for censoring the internet, for governments to take more control of the internet, or fighting against free speech. I am however pointing out that these items are not one in the same. Most services (this includes web based message forums) are NOT a public realm. They are privately owned/operated formats that allows for the operator, or their employees/representatives, to actively monitor, edit, or remove the content posted or to remove access to their service for any reason. We agreed to play by their rules to post in these formats, but someone always tries to make it about free speech when they have a post removed for any reason.

Second - Free speech is something I care enough for that I served in the US Air Force from 1992 to 1996 to defend it. I'll never say that a person should not be able to express an opinion on any topic, as long as they do so under the ideals expressed in the First Amendment. As such, I also expect those opinions to be expressed in a constructive way that is devoid of the personal attack which usually dips into slander on any internet forum. Personal attacks should never be how you try to make/defend a point, and in the US, making those same statements can actually provide the target/addressee with a legal loophole to take a swing on you if it were to happen face to face (concept of "Fighting Words" listed under the exclusions link).

On a personal note, I didn't serve in the military to allow someone to call me a racial slur, question my sexuality, my religion, or any other part of my life on a service like XBox Live.

Third - The original post was to highlight how this lack of accountability in an internet forum allows for a level of speech that few would actually use in a face to face conversation, because there is no "link" between you and your online persona unless you created one. This leads to a (false) sense of security, as any country/government can request of any other country/government/company for enough information to track back to you. It is just too much effort in most cases, but it has happened.

The original story linked, was about a young woman who, as a game designer, was personally attacked for comments made 6 years prior to the first attacking post. The comment she was attacked over was related to her personal views on game design consideration for players who cared less for combat and more for story having an ability to "skip" the combat portions of gameplay, the same way those who don't care about storyline can skip cutscenes.

So if you want a tl:dr version:

Free Speech does not equate to being an unfiltered ass-hat, it does however require that like any other tool, it be used correctly. Because the more it is abused, the more likely it will be changed.

Could you imagine if the internet was more like the version of the web/internet in Ender's Game where you had to apply to a government body which controlled all access accounts, for a user ID?

Edited March 26, 2013 by Hussars

[Ecrir 887]

I'd have to say that sometimes what is said to be gamer entitlement really isn't. Take Simcity for example, that was just one giant bait and switch from EA. They were just trying to improve their numbers just before the end of the fiscal year, so they shoved it out the door when it was months (probably half a year or more) from being ready. You couldn't even play the game at first unless you were very lucky and even now it's still quite defective, some features being completely disabled and save games/cities still being lost left right and center. The EU has laws to protect their citizens from scams like that, so citizens in the EU stand completely in their right to sue EA if EA is unwilling to offer a refund. Those who call this a gamer entitlement issue are really marginalizing the meaning of gamer entitlement...

[Hussars 511]

@Gramuly,

I wanted to address your post specifically, since I seemed to have implied a stance counter to free speech.

Please keep in mind, my initial post had nothing to do with free speech. It had, and still has, everything to do with personal decorum.

My reply addressed your mention of free speech, and I provided some informal links to share my understanding of the definition (and limitations thereof) for the term. I don't think I ever implied that anyone other than the person making a comment should be responsible for their comments, however, I also think a vocally large portion of the internet culture forgets/ignores this.

My personal belief is that the only filter any venue for public (or private) discussion needs is a personal one of thought before comment and of common courtesy.

Please don't take that as I'm saying it directed at you, it is only a generalized statement, and hopefully explains some of my personal behavior (when I'm not acting like an ass-hat lol)

[Hussars 511]

I'd have to say that sometimes what is said to be gamer entitlement really isn't. Take Simcity for example, that was just one giant bait and switch from EA. They were just trying to improve their numbers just before the end of the fiscal year, so they shoved it out the door when it was months (probably half a year or more) from being ready. You couldn't even play the game at first unless you were very lucky and even now it's still quite defective, some features being completely disabled and save games/cities still being lost left right and center. The EU has laws to protect their citizens from scams like that, so citizens in the EU stand completely in their right to sue EA if EA is unwilling to offer a refund. Those who call this a gamer entitlement issue are really marginalizing the meaning of gamer entitlement...

I agree on the point of gamer entitlement being overused at times, and while legal recompense is one thing, in the specific case you cite, it was not a case of bait and switch (which has a very specific legal definition, at least in the US) but more of a failure to meet the terms of the initial service level agreement, and implied expectations of serviceability. I also agree EA was in the wrong on how it handled the situation all around, and with their offering a completely unacceptable "return" policy on the game.

But again, some of the "hate" posts went more than a bit too far.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Hussars

[Hussars 511]

On the topic of posts, thank you all for keeping this as civil as you have. This is a topic (and some of the tangets that have come up are more so) that is easily migrated to the "Oh gawds! We're all gonna die!" levels of flame posting. I personally appreciate the discussion, as it does help me stay better in touch with other gamers "in the wilds" lol

[Hordern 2,177]

tl;dr, but 'Gamer Entitlement' tends be used for people who talk about how terrible a game is, looks or plays, I cba to read that trainwreck of a post but if thats what you mean, then what are you expecting? You can say that a chef makes food in his artistic vision and thats cool and all, but if he's just sitting in the kitchen squeezing out turds and calling it spaghetti he's only going to have a job past the first plate if he pays off IGN to give his turds a 10/10

I can't help but burst out laughing. Such an opinionated post on a topic that isn't at all what the OP is about...