It's not "entitlement"

#1 Posted by rogue81 (738 posts) -

People need to stop throwing this word around. When a game company says they're taking an IP in a new direction, and gamers lose their minds over fear that the title will be destroyed, that's entitlement. When a game company releases DLC to compliment a full game and people get upset, that's entitlement. When a game company releases a game for $60-$80 dollars, then fails to deliver a working product and gamers get angry, that's not entitlement. That's called being ripped off. If you decided to go to any company (gaming or otherwise) and tell them you were just going to take their product without paying, would you call their angry reaction "being entitled"? If you pay good money for a product that doesn't work, you have every right to be upset. That doesn't change just because the product happens to be a video game.

#2 Posted by vahram90 (119 posts) -

I agree entirely.

And the solution is really quite simple: organization.

Anytime the common rabble has in any way been exploited or ripped off the solution has always consisted of organized desent. The labor rights movement of the thirtys stands as a perfect example of this fact. A union should be established wherein every disenfranchised consumer of goods made by EA signs an oath that states that they will no longer purchase any goods made by this organization until they swear to abide by a set of guidelines.

We wouldn't do this place the losses in persepctive for EA. I'm sure EA knows exactly how much money they're losing as a consequence of this, and that figure is trivial compared to how much money they have already made through pre-orders and people who just shop blindly.

We would do this to attract like-minded individuals, to organize, to enlighten, so that this absurdity which is pre-ordering video games without any foreknowledge can come to end. So that we can, even if it is only slightly, tilt the favor to the side of the consumer.