Gamers and the Idea of Entitlement

[Ryukouki]

​

Looking back over the past several years, gaming communities have changed drastically. With each new generation of gamers, the complaining seems to increase as people demand more instant gratification. It is astounding to look at some of the gaming community reactions over some developer choices over the past several years, with death threats being considered perfectly common. In some gaming communities, you could have full on "player versus player arguments." This goes into the idea of entitlement. Is there an instance where this sense of entitlement can go so far as to actually be justifiable? Could entitlement be a gray area where there are instances where people should be able to speak up?​

​

[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]​

​

Entitlement Being Not Okay to Do​

​

Gamer entitlement as a whole revolves around the concept of the customer feeling that they have a right to something, broadly speaking. This idea has been widened to include game mechanics, features, and customization elements for a particular title. A lot of times these comments appear on the web as users feel that they could hide behind this veil of anonymity and hurl obscene comments at developers who, at the end of the day, are human beings like us; they are beings that have lives and duties to attend to. Part of me is grateful that I never got interested in game design due to the aspect of community outrage. Some say though that the ones that complain are the vocal minority and the majority of players have a vastly better experience. This idea of entitlement can nowadays be attributed to the average consumer who wants what they paid for.​

​

In one way, customers pay for this item and now, with the age of cloud gaming and downloadable content, AAA titles are appearing on the market half-finished or padlocked behind a cage of paywalls. In one hand I see people who have paid good money for a title, and I do not blame them for asking for the content, but on the other hand, I abhor seeing gamers hurling obscenities over developer decisions and factors beyond consumer control. Look at Mass Effect 3 and how the game turned out. Massive fan rioting forced the developers to essentially release an alternate ending as downloadable content. The idea of bowing to public demand here just hurts inside, as the developers had to essentially shoehorn an ending built to satisfy a crowd.​

​

Better yet, if you want this in more "relevant" terms, look at the releases of Pokémon X and Y and the Pokémon Bank/Transporter applications. Considering the games wanted everything to be on an even footing, the idea failed miserably when several territories did early releases breaking street date, and the issue of the Bank and Transporter not working for over a month in North America/Europe left Japan once again in the seat of domination on the WiFi ladders with their awesome creatures from previous adventures. You even get people complaining about the inconvenience of the procedures used to transfer the creatures around, again underlining the idea that gamers are becoming more demanding and wanting things instantly.​

​

Looking at another case of entitlement, we need not look further than the GBATemp and MaxConsole forums and the Gateway 3DS debacle. Looking at the release of their beta firmwares, and the issues it has caused, the end result seems not worth it, as communities were in an uproar over the Gateway team not implementing certain features in time, panicking whenever the site goes down, being angry about release dates not being fulfilled, etc. I wonder whatever happened to the concept of "patience," because it certainly appears that people have no patience whatsoever. While some can argue that they paid good money and that they have some right to be able to demand excessively, on the other hand the end decision is in the hands of the developer. The way I see it now, the debacle is just a result of people's impatience and excessive demands placing unwanted pressure on a team to perform. However, can there be ways in which complaining is justified?​

​

Can We Justify Being Entitled to Something?​

​

From another angle, the entitlement theory can definitely be a gray area which in some cases can be completely justifiable. In one idea, entitlement may be justifiable in the instance of inequality. Game releases that are halted or ceased in one region over another for little explanation could definitely qualify here. With Nintendo, there's the idea of region locking, which many gamers have taken arms over. Seeing games getting released overseas with no hope of seeing the light of day here on the other side of the pond definitely is heartbreaking, especially since some of these games have received such fantastic input from the community. Another case is Nintendo's failure to release Rune Factory 4 to the European territories, or the release of exclusive limited edition hardware overseas. As a better example, I'll discuss the latest controversy of the Puzzle and Dragons mobile game. To sum it up, mass rioting in the community pages led to better content for North America.​

​

Another recent example of gamer entitlement being entirely justifiable is the case of the mobile game called Puzzle and Dragons, a small but incredibly complex dungeon crawling RPG with Bejeweled elements. Three major territories have seen releases that garner lots of discussion: Japan, Europe, and North America. (I would totally suggest trying this game out if you have it in your area...) Japan is always the territory which receives the best benefits, and having played solely on the North American side, if I had known that I would be neutered with my experiences, I would have never played here. Basically, what happened recently was a huge debacle over the withholding of content, the silence of the North American branch in comparison to other branches, and the absolutely terrible treatment of the North American players in terms of features, events, and loot. For a more thorough rundown, you can go here. In the end, after essentially mass-rioting on the community Facebook page and threatening with boycotts for in-app purchases and the removal of means to access informational archives (a devastating move as the game is almost unplayable without outside help) from almost all communities, the North American branch started to treat the player base better with an event that rivals other territories. To drive the point home, on one side the North American branch does not make enough money as other branches, but on the other hand we are still customers, some of us having paid into the thousands for the content. Being treated as the red-headed stepchild and watching as we are fed table scraps while watching our big brothers eat with a gold spoon in their mouths makes for an agreeable justification, no?​

​

I kid you not when I say that people were rioting over this cute egg-shaped creature. Any player of the game knows its immense value, and seeing other communities getting it free while North America was being withheld led to some very serious debate.​

​

So there we have it. We have cases where being entitled is wrong, and cases where entitlement could be right. In essentiality, we have a gray area again! Personally, I find that entitlement is a double-edged sword that can be useless in getting a developer to give or perform some act that players think they have the right to, and other instances entitlement could be beneficial to put something on a more even footing in the face of inequality.​

​

Summing this monster of a piece up, where are you guys on the idea of entitlement in gaming? What does the concept mean to you? Do you see gaming entitlement being a necessary factor or something that has no meaning? Do you have any further input to provide on? Whatever you have, feel free to comment below. Keep it clean though!​

 

[Necron]

I need to point out that using Gateway as an example is very bad. Them being a flashcard makers, and the "bad" reputation they got, could lead them to disappear without trace overnight, so that is why people were always concerned about the site being down or them not releasing the firm on the date themselves put.

 

[ferret7463]

I have to say the DLC stuff is a croc. When i buy a game, it should be the whole game not just a piece of one. This kinda like buying candles and then the candle seller will say, "You'll want to buy the wicks for those."

 

[Ryukouki]

I need to point out that using Gateway as an example is very bad. Them being a flashcard makers, and the "bad" reputation they got, could lead them to disappear without trace overnight, so that is why people were always concerned about the site being down or them not releasing the firm on the date themselves put.

I'm actually not calling them out on anything. I merely used that whole bricking nightmare as an example and the community hostility as part of the discussion at hand.

 

[Deleted-236924]

Stuff like this?

And when people whine that transferring Pokémon from Gen. V to Gen. VI with PokéTransfer is too slow and too inconvenient.

 

[Ryukouki]

Stuff like this?

And when people whine that transferring Pokémon from Gen. V to Gen. VI with PokéTransfer is too slow and too inconvenient.

Don't even get me started on that. I could easily have discussed that, but I felt that I was already winding too long.

EDIT: Now you've tempted me. BRB, collating, collating...

 

[Necron]

I'm actually not calling them out on anything. I merely used that whole bricking nightmare as an example and the community hostility as part of the discussion at hand.

Oh, that makes more sense. Should have read twice there.

 

[Tom Bombadildo]

This may or may not be so much about entitlement, mostly because I don't have any arguments about it because I don't give a fuck about half the shit people whine about because I like playing games, not masturbating over XYZ feature....

But there are a lot of people who seem to think they're entitled to X, Y, Z game company's attention, that they're entitled to get what the want because "we buy your things, therefore you should listen to me (even if I'm in the minority!)" For example, you have those people who get all pissy when "Japanese Game Company Example" doesn't release "Popular Game In Japan, but Nowhere Else Example 12" in the US, or translated in English etc. They think because they and 100 odd people would buy the game, it would be feasible to package it, translate it, and put it out in the US. But the reality is, a majority X/Y/Z game company doesn't give a single solitary fuck about all of their fanbase, they care about money. It's always been about the money, it's always going to be about the money, and it won't ever change.

I have to say the DLC stuff is a croc. When i buy a game, it should be the whole game not just a piece of one. This kinda like buying candles and then the candle seller will say, "You'll want to buy the wicks for those."

There's a difference between DLC, and on-Disc/Day-One DLC. I would understand people against day-one DLC, that's fine and all, but being against extra content devs make for their games because they want to give their customers more of their game/want to make money off of it, I see no problem with.

 

[Ryukouki]

This may or may not be so much about entitlement, mostly because I don't have any arguments about it because I don't give a fuck about half the shit people whine about because I like playing games, not masturbating over XYZ feature....

But there are a lot of people who seem to think they're entitled to X, Y, Z game company's attention, that they're entitled to get what the want because "we buy your things, therefore you should listen to me (even if I'm in the minority!)" For example, you have those people who get all pissy when "Japanese Game Company Example" doesn't release "Popular Game In Japan, but Nowhere Else Example 12" in the US, or translated in English etc. They think because they and 100 odd people would buy the game, it would be feasible to package it, translate it, and put it out in the US. But the reality is, a majority X/Y/Z game company doesn't give a single solitary fuck about all of their fanbase, they care about money. It's always been about the money, it's always going to be about the money, and it won't ever change.



There's a difference between DLC, and on-Disc/Day-One DLC. I would understand people against day-one DLC, that's fine and all, but being against extra content devs make for their games because they want to give their customers more of their game/want to make money off of it, I see no problem with.

In regards to your second point about people who are entitled to XYZ company's attention, I came up with a rebuttal to that, of sorts, in regards to the Puzzle and Dragons incident. What ended up happening was that North America was being treated like jack shit; Europe was getting far more content than us despite hosting a smaller player base, and Japan was the king of the crop getting everything very quickly. In this case, couldn't we say that the issue is justifiable and that we deserve the chance to argue that our voice means something?

 

[Punkonjunk]

This is a bit of a sticky thing. Gamers ranting is important, but market research is JUST as important. I haven't played ME3, but I heard about the terrible ending, and the outcry.

For me, Deadspace2 had juuuust about the worst ending ever. I looked up some dev's emails and wrote them extremely vulgar emails about how incredibly dissapointing it was. I mean, seriously, spoilers, survival horror game where everything is made of meat and nightmares and body horror and then you fight your fucking girlfriend and some smoke inside your own head? And then you sit down and cry for a while until a helicopter comes and bam, yay, everyone is great!

Now, who knows if that ending was put to focus groups and tested great. Maybe it was a cop out, maybe they just didn't have money for more assets by the time they got to dev work on the end game.
I have no idea, but shit was I pissed.

But.... this sentiment hasn't really been echoed even by my friends, and I haven't seen much ranting about it, either. (even Gamefaqs is pretty clean of rage at the ending)
When it boils right down to it, it was an amazing game otherwise.

Now, paper mario sticker star, that I have no idea how that made it to the masses in it's current state. I heard some things about miyamoto stepping in and buggering everything up, but I can't find any reasonable source on that. I imagine they either focused on a much younger generation, or....
Really I have no idea. I do feel entitled to get a good game out of a series I have loved for a long time, though.

I also feel entitled to a complete game. DLC should be a bonus, but not a mandate.

It's VERY important to differentiate the extremely loud minority and your target demographic, and it's also important to remember that your target demographic isn't always JUST your fans.... but from my eyes, I always feel like keeping the fans behind you is generally a better idea than trying to expand or hone your demographic in a new direction.
I definitely won't be buying another paper mario until there is a reasonable lets play available for me to judge gameplay with great scrutiny, and I am sure many, many folks are in that same boat.

On the other hand, if another M&LRPG rolled out today, I'd buy it without needing to know anything.

When a game costs 50+ dollars, I'm entitled to be upset if it fucking sucks, is what I'm getting at as a whole. I'm also entitled to contribute to the potential upset on the internet. I don't think I'm entitled to a "fix" for the problem, like ME3 apparently offering a DLC fix'd ending, but.... I have no idea if that ending was literally at the request of almost all the fans.

Our entitlement versus responsible market research is where the whole thing gets really messy.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Well people need to realize that a game is someone's child. Gamers need to stop thinking they can do it better because they can't. Someone spent tons of hours crafting a universe, writing a narrative, making levels, and then some random guy just says "NO YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG"? Fuck off.

Consumers are pretty much supposed to be entitled. Not rightfully so but that's typically how business works. "The customer is always right" and shit like that. But I think the fact is that, honestly, gamers are a terrible group of people. Incredibly entitled, more so than other hobbyists, offensive, abrasive, just irritating. They have a right to cry out over shitty business practices but when it comes to something like a narrative, it's not in your hands. That's someone's baby righ there and you're telling them you can raise it better.

 

[Ryukouki]

This is a bit of a sticky thing. Gamers ranting is important, but market research is JUST as important. I haven't played ME3, but I heard about the terrible ending, and the outcry.

For me, Deadspace2 had juuuust about the worst ending ever. I looked up some dev's emails and wrote them extremely vulgar emails about how incredibly dissapointing it was. I mean, seriously, spoilers, survival horror game where everything is made of meat and nightmares and body horror and then you fight your fucking girlfriend and some smoke inside your own head? And then you sit down and cry for a while until a helicopter comes and bam, yay, everyone is great!

Now, who knows if that ending was put to focus groups and tested great. Maybe it was a cop out, maybe they just didn't have money for more assets by the time they got to dev work on the end game.
I have no idea, but shit was I pissed.

But.... this sentiment hasn't really been echoed even by my friends, and I haven't seen much ranting about it, either. (even Gamefaqs is pretty clean of rage at the ending)
When it boils right down to it, it was an amazing game otherwise.

Now, paper mario sticker star, that I have no idea how that made it to the masses in it's current state. I heard some things about miyamoto stepping in and buggering everything up, but I can't find any reasonable source on that. I imagine they either focused on a much younger generation, or....
Really I have no idea. I do feel entitled to get a good game out of a series I have loved for a long time, though.

I also feel entitled to a complete game. DLC should be a bonus, but not a mandate.

It's VERY important to differentiate the extremely loud minority and your target demographic, and it's also important to remember that your target demographic isn't always JUST your fans.... but from my eyes, I always feel like keeping the fans behind you is generally a better idea than trying to expand or hone your demographic in a new direction.
I definitely won't be buying another paper mario until there is a reasonable lets play available for me to judge gameplay with great scrutiny, and I am sure many, many folks are in that same boat.

On the other hand, if another M&LRPG rolled out today, I'd buy it without needing to know anything.

When a game costs 50+ dollars, I'm entitled to be upset if it fucking sucks, is what I'm getting at as a whole. I'm also entitled to contribute to the potential upset on the internet. I don't think I'm entitled to a "fix" for the problem, like ME3 apparently offering a DLC fix'd ending, but.... I have no idea if that ending was literally at the request of almost all the fans.

Our entitlement versus responsible market research is where the whole thing gets really messy.

That is a great response, and I very much agree with what you said about Sticker Star. I also agree with how DLC should just be there to augment but not mandate. I just find DLC in general to be a terrible institution overall.

 

[Gahars]

As a consumer, you are entitled to certain things. If you make a purchase, you're entitled to a working, fully functional product. If you pay for a season pass, you are entitled to the content that you paid for. I think that's pretty fair.

So take that Puzzle and Dragons example. NA customers, despite fully supporting the game, were receiving a subpar, inferior experience. They were treated unequally despite paying for the game just like customers from other regions. They were justifiably pissed.

However, if you have not bought the game, you are not entitled to anything. Even a preorder doesn't count; technically, you haven't purchased the game, you just put the money on reserve for when the game is available for purchase. The developers don't owe you anything, not yet.

I think the problem just comes from people seeing examples from the first case and thinking it applies to everything. "Those guys got treated this way, so I should, too! All the time, in fact!" There's a million comedy routines out there about kids getting medals for everything, and while there's a lot of exaggeration, there's a nugget of truth there, too. A lot of people believe they're special and expect the world around them to treat them as such. Mix these together and you have a recipe for disaster. You have groups demanding that developers pander to their agendas and wants. You have people harassing volunteer translators (it happens all too often here). It's just a mess.

 

[avran89]

I could agree that SOME gamers today act spoiled/entitled/whiny/etc. I'm not stating it as a broad generalization that every video game player is a whiny kid. They can be very picky and fickle over video games over the most silliest flaws and make a big deal out of it. We live in the information age where info can travel around the world in seconds, so some players feels like their games should be instant regardless of the time the devs took to make it and complain about the dates getting pushed back. Some would even complain over free stuff a company might give out even though they don't have to. Maybe it's the culture we live in where parents treat their kids too special that fosters such an entitled attitude towards the video game markets. Maybe it's the players who set their standards too high and need to stop comparing every game to some title they really love as a gold standard. or maybe it's the Internet environment that gives players the platform to vent their frustrations out towards despite how it's perceived. Whatever is the case I would say that some video game fans today are too whiny and have a sense of entitlement like a little kid that crying at their mother for candy.

@ the OP the Mass Effect 3 example is a perfect case of whiny fans who act like children over the most petty reasons.

 

[Hop2089]

The things I'm entitled to is a game without loads of often overpriced DLC or required paid DLC, good gameplay, and high replay value. As an import gamer I can spend upwards of $80 for a console game, I want it to be either one, no DLC, or two, has only optional DLC that's free or at a reasonable price (1-5 dollars US).

 

[aphirst]

Look at Mass Effect 3 and how the game turned out. Massive fan rioting forced the developers to essentially release an alternate ending as downloadable content. The idea of bowing to public demand here just hurts inside, as the developers had to essentially shoehorn an ending built to satisfy a crowd.

Oh boy, you never played Mass Effect, did you? There was a LOT wrong with ME3, believe me. Shitty, pulled-out-of-ass ending, and trash writing quality across the board. Tons of the setting's internal consistency was thrown away and ignored.

...argh, I'm too mad to write anything cogent. ME1 was a flawed but promising RPG/TPS. ME2 watered the shit out of the RPG side, and threw away some of the "sense" of the setting, but had slightly more refined TPS elements (not that I gave a shit about that; I was in it for the chance of seeing a genuinely grand SciFi RPG). ME3 was basically a cash-in generic TPS.

Also, there's a fundamental problem with our society, the fact that we can pay for media, but have no right to refund if we genuinely didn't enjoy it. We should have grounds for "not fit for purpose" that account for whether it turned out to either a) be a pile of shit, or b) fail to meet your (yes, your own, not someone else's) standards for what qualifies as "entertaining".

 

[Pedeadstrian]

The things I'm entitled to is a game without loads of often overpriced DLC or required paid DLC, good gameplay, and high replay value. As an import gamer I can spend upwards of $80 for a console game, I want it to be either one, no DLC, or two, has only optional DLC that's free or at a reasonable price (1-5 dollars US).

I've got some bad news if you think you're entitled to high replay value...

Just like you said, entitlement is a grey area. Sometimes it's good, and other times it isn't. Take, for example, Arkham Origins. The developers have been making news lately because they have basically stated "Hey, we know there are serious problems with our game, but we'd rather make DLC because money > customer satisfaction." If you paid for a game, you should be able to finish that game without being stuck at certain parts with no way to go forward. This would be a situation where entitlement is a good thing. It's not like they put on the cover of the game "If you play this game, you may end up being stuck and unable to proceed." Gamers should get working products.

Then, of course, there's all the bitching. I played ME3, but only after the new ending(s) came out. So I can't really comment on all the outrage, but similar outrage is evident pretty much everywhere. There's games like Final Fantasy XIII that deviate from previous installments and people go nuts. Then there's games like Megaman Legends 3, which I'd talk about, but other people in this thread may be more qualified in doing so.

 

[Ulieq]

In one way, customers pay for this item and now, with the age of cloud gaming and downloadable content, AAA titles are appearing on the market half-finished or padlocked behind a cage of paywalls. In one hand I see people who have paid good money for a title, and I do not blame them for asking for the content,

This^

Also, Fox News may have got to you a bit.

 

[goober]

The fact that entitlement skyrocketed once DLC skyrocketed, is no coincidence. The gaming industry used to seriously value their customers and didn't overly abuse them. Costs were realistic and fair, even though - technically - costs were higher "back in the day". But those costs went to actual manufacturing (carts, chips, etc.) and distribution costs. Not outsized exec pay and crazy ridiculous overhead.

But really, the basic facts are simple:

Developers are screwing up more with their games and designs. Hello! Diablo 3. Hello! SimCity. Hello! Mass Effect 3. and the list goes on. (Just shut up about the "success" of D3 and SC. The attachment rates after launch and players after launch are abysmal for the sales they have. Which explicitly points at hype and misconceptions selling the game and not the games themselves. Sure, it made them money, but will it continue to be as successful? No, it's already showing that. Just imagine if they did it right, though. The follow-up numbers to that would be amazing)

There's less "new" things to do now that this industry has matured. Therefore, tastes and consumer demands have matured. Thus, higher expectations.

There are more gamers now than ever. Bigger audience means more opinions. Larger demographic spectrum means more differing opinions.

Game companies, and people, went from making games for pleasure and visions to making games for money and more money. That's the biggest, most significant and alarming difference. Most people now make games to make money first and foremost. So instead of being rewarded for making a good game and having good ideas, they're now chasing lottery statistics and trends. Which sometimes makes a fun game, but it also makes a tired industry and the perception of milking. Mix that up with a matured market, and it's a recipe for conflict.

There's less positive passion in this industry because of that. Obviously, people made games before to make money too, but you didn't do it unless you had a PASSION for it because you were very, very likely to struggle and have hard times while doing it. That passion showed in the games and it's proof enough when almost every game follows the basic designs from the earliest heydays of this industry.

When Arcades were super popular people went into that model with the awareness and acceptance of being "milked" for money. It was understood and accepted, and enjoyed. Then home consoles came around and said, "hey, keep your quarters and just enjoy yourself!" Now, this industry is taking the Arcade approach with consoles and people aren't as readily accepting to that because they are traditionalist and didn't sign up for it. The reason why it is working, though, is because there are people who don't care, and most importantly, there's so much new blood and kiddies that never knew how things were. They're also taking over the "old timers".

So, you have those who are "entitled" that want the days of old back and fight screw ups and milkings and then the new kiddies that are, well, spoiled entitled brats on any day of the week. Even the old timers fit that bill because seriously, we're almost out of generations of people that have had legitimate, truly tough, unimaginable times. Instead of cities, towns, and states, it's mostly families and communities. Which is a much smaller scale and indeed affects the country as a whole differently than things like world war, economic depressions where people literally starve because there is no food to BUY, instead of not being able to afford it. Just imagine knowing that even if you had money, you couldn't buy the food anyway. It's an entirely different desperation than knowing there is food out there to buy but you just can't afford it enough.

 

[Ryukouki]

The fact that entitlement skyrocketed once DLC skyrocketed, is no coincidence. The gaming industry used to seriously value their customers and didn't overly abuse them. Costs were realistic and fair, even though - technically - costs were higher "back in the day". But those costs went to actual manufacturing (carts, chips, etc.) and distribution costs. Not outsized exec pay and crazy ridiculous overhead.

But really, the basic facts are simple:

Developers are screwing up more with their games and designs. Hello! Diablo 3. Hello! SimCity. Hello! Mass Effect 3. and the list goes on. (Just shut up about the "success" of D3 and SC. The attachment rates after launch and players after launch are abysmal for the sales they have. Which explicitly points at hype and misconceptions selling the game and not the games themselves. Sure, it made them money, but will it continue to be as successful? No, it's already showing that. Just imagine if they did it right, though. The follow-up numbers to that would be amazing)

There's less "new" things to do now that this industry has matured. Therefore, tastes and consumer demands have matured. Thus, higher expectations.

There are more gamers now than ever. Bigger audience means more opinions. Larger demographic spectrum means more differing opinions.

Game companies, and people, went from making games for pleasure and visions to making games for money and more money. That's the biggest, most significant and alarming difference. Most people now make games to make money first and foremost. So instead of being rewarded for making a good game and having good ideas, they're now chasing lottery statistics and trends. Which sometimes makes a fun game, but it also makes a tired industry and the perception of milking. Mix that up with a matured market, and it's a recipe for conflict.

There's less positive passion in this industry because of that. Obviously, people made games before to make money too, but you didn't do it unless you had a PASSION for it because you were very, very likely to struggle and have hard times while doing it. That passion showed in the games and it's proof enough when almost every game follows the basic designs from the earliest heydays of this industry.

When Arcades were super popular people went into that model with the awareness and acceptance of being "milked" for money. It was understood and accepted, and enjoyed. Then home consoles came around and said, "hey, keep your quarters and just enjoy yourself!" Now, this industry is taking the Arcade approach with consoles and people aren't as readily accepting to that because they are traditionalist and didn't sign up for it. The reason why it is working, though, is because there are people who don't care, and most importantly, there's so much new blood and kiddies that never knew how things were. They're also taking over the "old timers".

So, you have those who are "entitled" that want the days of old back and fight screw ups and milkings and then the new kiddies that are, well, spoiled entitled brats on any day of the week. Even the old timers fit that bill because seriously, we're almost out of generations of people that have had legitimate, truly tough, unimaginable times. Instead of cities, towns, and states, it's mostly families and communities. Which is a much smaller scale and indeed affects the country as a whole differently than things like world war, economic depressions where people literally starve because there is no food to BUY, instead of not being able to afford it. Just imagine knowing that even if you had money, you couldn't buy the food anyway. It's an entirely different desperation than knowing there is food out there to buy but you just can't afford it enough.

I actually have an article idea planned next with the changes in the gaming industry over the past several years. I miss back in the day when you could just buy a cartridge or disk and not have to worry about excess content being locked behind walls. Very interesting points though with the arcade analogy and comparing to people who want the old days back though.