[elithrar]

> Ahh, gamers, they're so cute. Poorly-informed over-entitled misanthropes, but cute.

As a gamer, I completely agree with you here. The entitlement has grown rapidly over the past 2-3 years, and in my opinion is only hurting those in the industry looking to be adventurous.

Something like Minecraft might be the exception, but look at the shenanigans surrounding the Mass Effect 3 ending (which was not as bad as some would have you believe)—BioWare is releasing DLC to re-work something that was just a clash between (entitled) gamers who interpreted advertising in their own way, and the artistic direction of those who made the game. Considering the backlash, do these gamers think a studio like BioWare (or publisher like EA) will risk a game that isn't just a Call of Duty sequel again? Sure, but the chances are less, and the resultant game is going to tread a significantly less-risky path.

The comments regarding the $1000 (nothing!) spent on iPad hardware are just inane.

[danilocampos]

The Mass Effect 3 ending was shit. Not artistic, not creative. Shit. A piece of storytelling so completely divorced from the previous narrative tapestry as to make even professors of English literature wince with disappointment. Its only explanations are rushed development or a lapse in creative oversight.

On top of being shit, it was not at all what was described by the project leads in interviews or in advertising. Game consumers are "entitled" to receive what is advertised – return policies don't let them vote with their dollars once a deception is unmasked.

You sound like you're parroting the narrative of an industry-captured press, rather than detailing first-hand knowledge of the situation.

[asynchrony]

Doesn't it seem slightly bizarre to claim entitlement to an entertainment product? At least as bizarre as lobbying a film maker/author into re-editing some content that was found wanting.

[danilocampos]

Nope.

I have money.

I give it to you for a product you have promised me, according to certain specifications we have agreed upon.

Here you go.

I am now entitled to the product as described for that money. Mass Effect's epic conclusion was hyped for five years. It was the central selling point of the series. A version of Excel that doesn't calculate things correctly is broken. Similarly, an interactive story that fails to deliver on the promise of complexity and interactivity in its most glorified and advertised of moments is also broken.

Films and books don't belong in this discussion – they are not interactive media. They stand no valuable comparison. This situation is more like a piece of software that ships broken and needs a patch to sort things out. That happens so often as to be unremarkable.

[rmc]

return policies don't let them vote with their dollars once a deception is unmasked

Games are not exempt from consumer law that requires retailers to give a refund if a product is not as described. Retailers may claim that "their policy" doesn't include that, but the law is superiour to that.

However "not as described" almost certainly does not cover an unappeal ending to an artistic product. It's not the same thing.

[danilocampos]

> However "not as described" almost certainly does not cover an unappeal ending to an artistic product. It's not the same thing.

Oh, I can assure you, in this case it does.

Casey Hudson, the creator and director of the series, said explicitly, emphatically, multiple times to the press: "The ending will not be as simple as A, B, or C."

The ending is literally as simple as picking A, B, or C. If that isn't a misrepresentation of a product, nothing is.

[sesqu]

The third installment of a series that has received universal critical acclaim and inspired several spinoffs, books and movies is hardly a risk, no matter what ending you put on it.

I have no idea what the meat of the argument was over, but it seems like the fans complained about the ending taking it too safe. I don't see how that supports your argument.