Am I the only one that gets triggered whenever he reads the words "entitled gamers"? Since GG I've seen this definition used by the press, the developers... Hell, sometimes even by gamers itself (two days ago here in a Doom thread, referring to PC gamers criticizing the beta).
My point is, does this people realize that we gamers are the actual reason this whole industry exists? Whenever a shitty Kotaku article criticizes how the so called "entitled" audience reacts to something (for example, DmC and Donte), it's basically insulting all of us. And I'm not saying that it's prohibited to discuss about some trend, but they look like they're saying "shut the fuck up, you have no right to criticize what a developer does, or a journalist writes".
tl;dr: what do you think about a good chunk of the industry calling us gamers "entitled"? It's almost like they hate us, forgetting that it's thanks to our money that they work.
>>334578938
These images aren't funny.
>>334578938
>My point is, does this people realize that we gamers are the actual reason this whole industry exists
So? the market has no obligation to keep targeting you if a more lucrative demographic is identified. They don't need your money any more.
Most classic, gamer-beloved icons were made by groups of less than twenty people. Hell current socmed darling Undertale was done largely by one guy.
If you really want games that cater to you, either make them yourself or invest thousands on dollars in kickstarters for the specific kinds of games you want. Show some guts, anon. Make waves.
>>334578938
http://vocaroo.com/i/s1gEvj7vJzyr
>>334580729
>cater to you
What, he's clearly talking about criticizing games. For the example of DMC and Donte, it wasn't a question of other groups being catered too, it was a question of the developer frankly making a shitty game that sold poorly, and the right for people to criticize their decisions.
Furthermore it's unreasonable to ask 1 person to make any game they want. It's possible but i t's still unreasonable, because making games takes a lot of time and learning skills. You're asking someone to give up an enormous chunk of their life, which is reasonable to refuse. Especially since most 1-man games are 2D indie games, what if his dream game is something more like Dark Souls or Bloodborne? Good fucking luck making that as a single person.
>>334580953
Who's revoking your rights to criticize and if you are truly on the higher moral ground, how are you not convincing others you're right? Don't they agree with you? Otherwise the game wouldn't have sold poorly.
The journalist is just wrong and stupid, don't listen to them and don't give them money. Easy.
>>334578938
"Entitled" gamers have been a label that's been in widespread use since around the time ME3 came out. That was also around the time the word "entitled" was popular among the right-wing media to label anyone who wasn't satisfied with their lot in life.
It just stuck with the gaming press, is all. Ironic that the left-wing gaming press has appropriated a term used by the right-wing to dismiss the left.
There is such thing as entitled gamers. We, as gamers, as customers, are entitled to our views and opinions. It is our god-given right to bitch and complain and give feedback to devs/publishers. Yes, even negative feedback.
Don't let them convince you entitlement is a bad thing.
>>334580729
This is utter bullshit when we're talking well established IPs with significant fanbases. As the consumerbase, we were here first, we've effectively been banking these IPs for their entire lifespan, and we deserve games that continue to cater to us, SO LONG AS WE KEEP BUYING.
It's natural to want more money, but too many companies are outright abandoning their fanbase in favor of courting buyers that care little about their IPs. To put it another way, they're quitting a steady $100k a year job in the hopes that they'll win the lottery.
Your advice is fucking terrible. We can't all make games, and kickstarter is anything but a sound investment. The correct answer is buy what caters to us and do not buy what does not. Vote with your fucking wallet.
If you're not sure whether or not you'll like a game, wait until it's cheap. Do not pony up for that $60 price tag if you think it looks horrendous. At the very least, wait until a month after release. Publishers mostly care about sales in the initial few weeks to begin with.
![1457228480930[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/lFbZryQ.jpg "1457228480930[1].jpg")
>>334581374
>As the consumerbase, we were here first, we've effectively been banking these IPs for their entire lifespan, and we deserve games that continue to cater to us
As much as I wish corporate entities would feel morally obligated to do that, and as much as I wish corporate entities were as altruistic as this, you are simply incorrect. You are not always going to be the target audience of a franchise, that will change as soon as the highest bidder puts himself forth.
My favorite game or mod if you will died as a result of this. It's a hard truth you're forced to swallow.
>>334581535
Read my post again, nowhere did I imply that devs/publishers felt any form of obligation.
I simply said we deserve to be catered to so long as we keep buying. Which is true.
Corporate being shitheads and losing sight of this does not change that.
I'm well aware of the truth. Which is why I live by the last words I gave. I do not give my money to just anyone. Maybe if more people spent like I did, we could see some real change.
I support games I like by preorder/buying at release. If I get burned, I don't buy again. If it looks like shit, I don't buy to begin with. Closest I've ever come to breaking this rule is FO4. I enjoyed 3 and NV, and I got a little impatient. Bought it used off ebay for $30. Bethesda didn't get my money, some poor sap on ebay did. I can live with this.
>>334581374
>and we deserve games that continue to cater to us, SO LONG AS WE KEEP BUYING.
not when other people start spending more
>We can't all make games
yeah you can. any old monkey can learn to code
>>334582109
>Semi-large, dedicated fanbase supports game franchise for at least a full decade
>Suddenly the game experiences a large boost in popularity, reaches new audience
>With a game that catered to the old fans anyways
>But nah, let's change everything anyways
>Act surprised when casuals have moved on to the next big thing and your fanbase is too pissed off at you to buy the new shitheap you made to appeal to the new customers
Your logic is flawed. Even if you argue that they were trying to ATTRACT the larger consumerbase, it's still utterly retarded to toss out a SURE THING in favor of a CHANCE at hitting it big. Especially in an industry where one bad release can send your entire company in a downward spiral of garbage.
There's a serious disconnect between the execs that make the decisions and gamers in general. They all insist on copying the big dog, but most of the time it only hurts them.
CoD is a good example here. No point in trying to copy Call of Duty with your shooter. The Call of Duty audience wants Call of Duty, not your rip-off. Now apply this to anything else in the industry.
>>334578938
You sound like an extra-entitled pretentious faggot.
>>334578938
Post more of those images faggot
>>334578938
The real irony is that it's the game companies acting entitled.
>Waaa, waaa, we should be able to release any crap we want and you should give us money for it!
>People shouldn't be able to complain about the things we're charging them for!
The gamers are the ones with the money, so they can ask for anything they want. The game companies are the ones trying to get this money, but they act as if they have the real power. They're whiny, entitled brats.
>>334578938
No it's a reasonable reaction.
Calling somebody "entitled" is just trying to pre-empt people calling them out on bad games or bad business practice.
They know they've done wrong but they'll try to call you an entitled baby immediately so you can't point it out to them.
Fuck that. Call bullshit what it is.
Any website that uses entitled or problematic is something you should avoid.
>BAAAAAAAAWWWWWWW WHY AREN'T DEVS MAKING EXACTLY WHAT I WANT
When you buy a game, you're paying for the game, not bankrolling the devs' future projects you idiot. If someone works hard to make something, charges you for it, then decides to do a 180 and make something completely different using the money they earned for the work they did before, that's their choice.
>>334586057
And it's our right to call their new project shit and not buy it.
But yes, we actually are bankrolling their future projects when we buy their games. Especially if it's an established franchise.
They can't make more if we don't buy.
>>334586057
Yeah you know I'm inclined to agree with you but then they shut down projects that make a true spiritual successor to the one the fans want (see >>334581535) that's just bullshit.
Anyway yeah thanks I'm not giving you money so bye
>>334580264
The original ones with Vietnam and Jew jokes were, now they're just meh.
>>334578938
You're making the mistake of thinking "entitled gamers" is calling all gamers entitled, instead of referring to the subset of gamers who are entitled.
>>334578938
>>334587818
And, frankly, trying to claim exclusive rights to the title of "gamer" in order to claim that you're by definition the only sort of person any video game developer ought to pander to is pretty damn entitled.
