Entitlement: You Should Know These Definitions

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

So I saw yet another person utterly failing to use the word "entitled" properly, and my brain finally popped.

So, let's just straighten it out now.

Entitled: A legal term that means you ARE OWED something.

Correct use: "I've purchased "Heroes of Might and Magic 3: Complete", so I am entitled to the main game and its two expansion packs, as well as the fourth game in the series."

Incorrect use: "You want the fourth game in there as well? Quit being so entitled." What you've actually said: "Quit being in the status of having purchased something." That doesn't make any sense!

Sense of Entitlement: A state of mind in which you FEEL YOU ARE OWED something.

Correct use: "I think that my copy of "Heroes of Might and Magic 3: Complete" should work when I run it, but it doesn't, so I have contacted technical support due to my sense of entitlement."

Incorrect use: "Gah! Gamers today all seem to have a sense of entitlement." What you've actually said: "Gah! Gamers today all feel that they are owed something." Well, if they've ever purchased something, then you're technically correct, but that's not what you intended to convey.

False Sense of Entitlement: An INCORRECT state of mind where you feel you are owed something.

Correct use: "You think that "Heroes of Might and Magic 4" should be included in your complete set of the third game? That's a false sense of entitlement if I've ever seen one."

Incorrect use: "Your game doesn't work? Well, you have a false sense of entitlement if you think that the dev should give you a functional copy." Please punch this guy in the face if you see him.

Entitlement Issues: Where your false sense of entitlement colors your opinions on what should be included in other products.

Correct use: "Your insistence that "Complete" sets should include other games from the relevant series just makes you look like you have entitlement issues."

Incorrect use: "You want an extra piece of DLC that wasn't included in your "Complete" set? Geez, entitlement issues much?"

So, let's start using the various forms of "entitled" CORRECTLY now, shall we?

(All of the above functions on the assumption that games should work before being sold and that extra games should not be included in "complete" sets.)

Any suggestions/permutations of "entitled"/frothing rages to add to the above?

And I was about to make this exact same thread regarding "pretension" too. At least it's straight forward enough that there shouldn't be much arguing in the thread.

Can we get this stickied?

Then placed at the top of the gamer forum?

Then highlighted in fluorescent everything?

Look, I came here to tell you not to use the E word because you'll just confuse people but...well, keep it up, I guess. I haven't got much to add.

Daystar Clarion:
Can we get this stickied?

Then placed at the top of the gamer forum?

Then highlighted in fluorescent everything?

Motion seconded.
An addendum proposal: The adding of obnoxious animated gifs to further draw attention to this thread. Yay or nay?

DustyDrB:

Daystar Clarion:
Can we get this stickied?

Then placed at the top of the gamer forum?

Then highlighted in fluorescent everything?

Motion seconded.
An addendum proposal: The adding of obnoxious animated gifs to further draw attention to this thread. Yay or nay?

I support the addendum.

I propose we use this gif.

image

Daystar Clarion:

DustyDrB:

Daystar Clarion:
Can we get this stickied?

Then placed at the top of the gamer forum?

Then highlighted in fluorescent everything?

Motion seconded.
An addendum proposal: The adding of obnoxious animated gifs to further draw attention to this thread. Yay or nay?

I support the addendum.

I propose we use this gif.

snip

While it doesn't move, it's technically in .gif format, so there.

image

And the "lacktheknack Threads That I've Bookmarked" Counter finally goes up to 2. The hero the Escapist forums deserves.

Phlakes:
And the "lacktheknack Threads That I've Bookmarked" Counter finally goes up to 2. The hero the Escapist forums deserves.

Oh come now. I don't become "that hero" until the fifth bookmarked thread.

A vocal minority of gamers do feel they are entitled to something - it just happens to be more than what they paid for.

Clearing the Eye:
A vocal minority of gamers do feel they are entitled to something - it just happens to be more than what they paid for.

That would be "false sense of entitlement", then. Like the guy who wants there to be the fourth HOMAM game in his complete HOMAM 3 set.

lacktheknack:

Clearing the Eye:
A vocal minority of gamers do feel they are entitled to something - it just happens to be more than what they paid for.

That would be "false sense of entitlement", then. Like the guy who wants there to be the fourth HOMAM game in his complete HOMAM 3 set.

It is only false entitlement from our perspective; they believe they are fully entitled to all the DLC on the disc.

The terms are more subjective than you allude to.

Clearing the Eye:

lacktheknack:

Clearing the Eye:
A vocal minority of gamers do feel they are entitled to something - it just happens to be more than what they paid for.

That would be "false sense of entitlement", then. Like the guy who wants there to be the fourth HOMAM game in his complete HOMAM 3 set.

It is only false entitlement from our perspective; they believe they are fully entitled to all the DLC on the disc.

The terms are more subjective than you allude to.

I operate under the assumption that you are entitled to a functional version of what you paid for, no more, no less.

If the dev/publisher wants to sell extra content for more money, then they may, and if they put the content on the disk, then they're tools, but you didn't pay for it, so you're not entitled to it.

There's some merit to the "I bought the disk, so I should get everything that's on it", but really, you didn't. You bought MOST of the content on the disk. If you don't like it, then you just shouldn't buy the game in the first place.

lacktheknack:

Clearing the Eye:

lacktheknack:

That would be "false sense of entitlement", then. Like the guy who wants there to be the fourth HOMAM game in his complete HOMAM 3 set.

It is only false entitlement from our perspective; they believe they are fully entitled to all the DLC on the disc.

The terms are more subjective than you allude to.

I operate under the assumption that you are entitled to a functional version of what you paid for, no more, no less.

If the dev/publisher wants to sell extra content for more money, then they may, and if they put the content on the disk, then they're tools, but you didn't pay for it, so you're not entitled to it.

There's some merit to the "I bought the disk, so I should get everything that's on it", but really, you didn't. You bought MOST of the content on the disk. If you don't like it, then you just shouldn't buy the game in the first place.

I agree with you. But in their opinion, they paid for the disc (or digital download) and are entitled to the whole contents of said disc.

There's been countless arguments about it and neither side ever really comes out ahead. It's basically a stalemate between literal thinkers and those who believe it's the "spirit of the thing." We argue the words as they are written, they argue the morality and no one gets anywhere, lol.

lacktheknack:

Daystar Clarion:

DustyDrB:

Motion seconded.
An addendum proposal: The adding of obnoxious animated gifs to further draw attention to this thread. Yay or nay?

I support the addendum.

I propose we use this gif.

snip

While it doesn't move, it's technically in .gif format, so there.

image

Anything other than condescending prick of a waterfowl and you've got yourself a deal.

Clearing the Eye:
A vocal minority of gamers do feel they are entitled to something - it just happens to be more than what they paid for.

I thought I paid for the disk?

Or maybe I just don't like companies that cut out parts of the game for no better reason than to charge extra for it.

Clearing the Eye:

lacktheknack:

Clearing the Eye:
It is only false entitlement from our perspective; they believe they are fully entitled to all the DLC on the disc.

The terms are more subjective than you allude to.

I operate under the assumption that you are entitled to a functional version of what you paid for, no more, no less.

If the dev/publisher wants to sell extra content for more money, then they may, and if they put the content on the disk, then they're tools, but you didn't pay for it, so you're not entitled to it.

There's some merit to the "I bought the disk, so I should get everything that's on it", but really, you didn't. You bought MOST of the content on the disk. If you don't like it, then you just shouldn't buy the game in the first place.

I agree with you. But in their opinion, they paid for the disc (or digital download) and are entitled to the whole contents of said disc.

There's been countless arguments about it and neither side ever really comes out ahead. It's basically a stalemate between literal thinkers and those who believe it's the "spirit of the thing." We argue the words as they are written, they argue the morality and no one gets anywhere, lol.

Sounds about right. We'll leave whether or not it's a "false sense of entitlement" to the threads that actually fight about it.

lacktheknack:
I operate under the assumption that you are entitled to a functional version of what you paid for, no more, no less.

If the dev/publisher wants to sell extra content for more money, then they may, and if they put the content on the disk, then they're tools, but you didn't pay for it, so you're not entitled to it.

There's some merit to the "I bought the disk, so I should get everything that's on it", but really, you didn't. You bought MOST of the content on the disk. If you don't like it, then you just shouldn't buy the game in the first place.

You see that's all well and good but if they put locked up DLC on the actual disc then I don't want to hear them crying when someone unlocks said DLC on their own and tells them to sit and spin if they expect to be paid for it. Anything they put on that disc is pretty much fair game and if they don't want people accessing it without an extra fee then they ought not put it on the disc.

Xanthious:

lacktheknack:
I operate under the assumption that you are entitled to a functional version of what you paid for, no more, no less.

If the dev/publisher wants to sell extra content for more money, then they may, and if they put the content on the disk, then they're tools, but you didn't pay for it, so you're not entitled to it.

There's some merit to the "I bought the disk, so I should get everything that's on it", but really, you didn't. You bought MOST of the content on the disk. If you don't like it, then you just shouldn't buy the game in the first place.

You see that's all well and good but if they put locked up DLC on the actual disc then I don't want to hear them crying when someone unlocks said DLC on their own and tells them to sit and spin if they expect to be paid for it. Anything they put on that disc is pretty much fair game and if they don't want people accessing it without an extra fee then they ought not put it on the disc.

...in thy opinion.

I'd prefer if this argument was left to a more appropriate thread.

DVS BSTrD:
I thought I paid for the disk?

Or maybe I just don't like companies that cut out parts of the game for no better reason than to charge extra for it.

You don't have to like it. Doesn't mean you have any more right to something on the disc. You paid for certain content, not the entirety of the data. Game companies can cut up the content as much as they like and charge whatever they want for it--so long as they don't advertise the game incorrectly.

When you purchase, say, Call of Duty, you purchase certain content on that disc but not all of it; you don't have the rights to the engine, for example, and you can't take apart the information and do whatever you please.

It's a misconception that purchasing a game means you own the entirety of the disc. It stems from not understanding the way data works and confusing the delivery method with the product. Think of a game disc as a car delivering a pizza. If you order a pizza with certain toppings, you get that delivered to you in a car. They can charge you extra to add things to it and you don't get anything in the car just because you ordered the pizza. In the same way, people purchase a game and not the disc and all of its information.

Your feelings on it are irrelevant. Simply don't support them if you want it to change. If you think paying extra for certain toppings is wrong and that they should be part of the pizza to begin with, don't order from that restaurant. But simply disliking it doesn't change the facts.

Clearing the Eye:

DVS BSTrD:
I thought I paid for the disk?

Or maybe I just don't like companies that cut out parts of the game for no better reason than to charge extra for it.

You don't have to like it. Doesn't mean you have any more right to something on the disc. You paid for certain content, not the entirety of the data. Game companies can cut up the content as much as they like and charge whatever they want for it--so long as they don't advertise the game incorrectly.

When you purchase, say, Call of Duty, you purchase certain content on that disc but not all of it; you don't have the rights to the engine, for example, and you can't take apart the information and do whatever you please.

It's a misconception that purchasing a game means you own the entirety of the disc. It stems from not understanding the way data works and confusing the delivery method with the product. Think of a game disc as a car delivering a pizza. If you order a pizza with certain toppings, you get that delivered to you in a car. They can charge you extra to add things to it and you don't get anything in the car just because you ordered the pizza. In the same way, people purchase a game and not the disc and all of its information.

Your feelings on it are irrelevant. Simply don't support them if you want it to change. If you think paying extra for certain toppings is wrong and that they should be part of the pizza to begin with, don't order from that restaurant. But simply disliking it doesn't change the facts.

Your analogy seems flawed to me. When you buy a game, you also buy the disc, and the disc becomes your property. You own it. The game company can't take the disc away from you. What you don't necessarily own are the licenses to the software on the disc. So by your analogy you would own the delivery car but could have the ability to drive it revoked by the pizza company if you violate their terms?

I don't really like your analogy lol... But I do somewhat agree with you in principle. On disc DLC is still a dick move though IMO.

It's like the false sense of entitlement I have to functioning riot servers to play LoL on, even though thy have never seen a penny of mine during the week I have played. Although, they have set a pretty poor impression on me as a company, and I am unlikely to give them any money because of that.

this is only tangentially related to this thread isn't it? : \

OT:
Yes, it sort of bothers me when people go on about entitlement when other go on about how the product they paid for isn't being fully delivered on (Blizzard is terrible with this).

Just a vague, one word header? I think you have titling issues, good sir.

lotr rocks 0:

Clearing the Eye:

DVS BSTrD:
I thought I paid for the disk?

Or maybe I just don't like companies that cut out parts of the game for no better reason than to charge extra for it.

You don't have to like it. Doesn't mean you have any more right to something on the disc. You paid for certain content, not the entirety of the data. Game companies can cut up the content as much as they like and charge whatever they want for it--so long as they don't advertise the game incorrectly.

When you purchase, say, Call of Duty, you purchase certain content on that disc but not all of it; you don't have the rights to the engine, for example, and you can't take apart the information and do whatever you please.

It's a misconception that purchasing a game means you own the entirety of the disc. It stems from not understanding the way data works and confusing the delivery method with the product. Think of a game disc as a car delivering a pizza. If you order a pizza with certain toppings, you get that delivered to you in a car. They can charge you extra to add things to it and you don't get anything in the car just because you ordered the pizza. In the same way, people purchase a game and not the disc and all of its information.

Your feelings on it are irrelevant. Simply don't support them if you want it to change. If you think paying extra for certain toppings is wrong and that they should be part of the pizza to begin with, don't order from that restaurant. But simply disliking it doesn't change the facts.

Your analogy seems flawed to me. When you buy a game, you also buy the disc, and the disc becomes your property. You own it. The game company can't take the disc away from you. What you don't necessarily own are the licenses to the software on the disc. So by your analogy you would own the delivery car but could have the ability to drive it revoked by the pizza company if you violate their terms?

I don't really like your analogy lol... But I do somewhat agree with you in principle. On disc DLC is still a dick move though IMO.

You don't own the disc entirely-you rent it. Just like you rent the delivery car to have the pizza delivered to you. It's an issue that's caused a fair amount of legal back and forth over the past decade or so.

Needless to say, people need to stop complaining and stating that they have a right to content they don't. While I agree that it can be a dick move, that doesn't mean shit. We need to either put up and shut up, or stop supporting the companies doing it. The continuous stream of whining in forums isn't changing anything.

But, hey, who am I kidding. 'Sif gamers would actually take a stand and miss out on that big release they want. It's easier to complain in a forum and hope someone else does something about it, lol.

Scars Unseen:
Just a vague, one word header? I think you have titling issues, good sir.

Ooh, that stings.

There, I'll fix it...

lotr rocks 0:

I don't really like your analogy lol... But I do somewhat agree with you in principle. On disc DLC is still a dick move though IMO.

Hes not very good with analogies :P

OT: I guarantee you even with the great OP people will still whine about gamer entitlement because they don't have a real argument to make and just want to sound superior.

lacktheknack:

Clearing the Eye:
A vocal minority of gamers do feel they are entitled to something - it just happens to be more than what they paid for.

That would be "false sense of entitlement", then. Like the guy who wants there to be the fourth HOMAM game in his complete HOMAM 3 set.

lacktheknack:
Entitled: A legal term that means you ARE OWED something.

Correct use: "I've purchased "Heroes of Might and Magic 3: Complete", so I am entitled to the main game and its two expansion packs, as well as the fourth game in the series."

Maybe my reading comprehension isn't working today, but are you not saying that the guy is owed HOMAM 4 because it is included in the HOMAM 3 value pack? Because it seems like it says that he should right there in the definition, so I'm confused as to why people are reaming him out for it in the rest of the examples. Are you saying that, for false entitlement, someone thinks it should be included, regardless of whether it actually is included or not?

lotr rocks 0:
Your analogy seems flawed to me. When you buy a game, you also buy the disc, and the disc becomes your property. You own it. The game company can't take the disc away from you. What you don't necessarily own are the licenses to the software on the disc.

How about this - you get a copy of Free But Limited Software and the devs offer to unlock the full version if you pay them? Or there are two deifferent "levels" of full versions - let's call them "basic" and "complete" - one gives you just the essential features for $10, the other gives you extra goodies but it cost's pay $20. The difference is which paymen'y you'll choose and that's it - the binaries are still the same. Are you entitled to the full version, too, because some functionality has been blocked off from you?

Launcelot111:

lacktheknack:

Clearing the Eye:
A vocal minority of gamers do feel they are entitled to something - it just happens to be more than what they paid for.

That would be "false sense of entitlement", then. Like the guy who wants there to be the fourth HOMAM game in his complete HOMAM 3 set.

lacktheknack:
Entitled: A legal term that means you ARE OWED something.

Correct use: "I've purchased "Heroes of Might and Magic 3: Complete", so I am entitled to the main game and its two expansion packs, as well as the fourth game in the series."

Maybe my reading comprehension isn't working today, but are you not saying that the guy is owed HOMAM 4 because it is included in the HOMAM 3 value pack? Because it seems like it says that he should right there in the definition, so I'm confused as to why people are reaming him out for it in the rest of the examples. Are you saying that, for false entitlement, someone thinks it should be included, regardless of whether it actually is included or not?

The idea was that, while it's the correct usage of the WORD "entitlement", it's not a correct statement that he's made. I used it to set up a counterpoint with which to show an incorrect use of the WORD "entitlement".

Also, thinking something should be included in a complete set (ie. HOMAM4 in the HOMAM 3 Complete) doesn't have anything to do with entitlement, it's only "false sense of entitlement" when he starts feeling that he's owed the extra game.

This very much does need to be stickied. People toss "entitlement" around like they even know what it means. If you bought something, you are entitled to what the product says you are buying.

When people say "entitled", they often mean "self-entitled". You might want to add that to the list; I think it's a term the gaming community could certainly stand to learn.

Celi:
When people say "entitled", they often mean "self-entitled". You might want to add that to the list; I think it's a term the gaming community could certainly stand to learn.

Um, "self-entitled" means "being owed something to yourself". It's a bit redundant, to say the least.

It's nothing that "entitled" doesn't cover. And when you say "self-entitled", I think you mean "have a false sense of entitlement", or "have entitlement issues", which I've already covered.

jollybarracuda:
This very much does need to be stickied. People toss "entitlement" around like they even know what it means. If you bought something, you are entitled to what the product says you are buying.

Which is all well and good on the surface, but for one thing, it assumes a clear, definitive line between 'bonus content created after the fact' and 'regular content created during the fact, then cut out and claimed to be bonus content created after the fact', a line whose existence is debatable.

Buretsu:

jollybarracuda:
This very much does need to be stickied. People toss "entitlement" around like they even know what it means. If you bought something, you are entitled to what the product says you are buying.

Which is all well and good on the surface, but for one thing, it assumes a clear, definitive line between 'bonus content created after the fact' and 'regular content created during the fact, then cut out and claimed to be bonus content created after the fact', a line whose existence is debatable.

That's an argument for a different thread, pls. This thread is for definition purposes only.

Daystar Clarion:
Can we get this stickied?

Then placed at the top of the gamer forum?

Then highlighted in fluorescent everything?

Yes please. As the son of an extensive student of language, people misusing words pisses both me and my father off quite a lot.

lotr rocks 0:
Your analogy seems flawed to me. When you buy a game, you also buy the disc, and the disc becomes your property. You own it. The game company can't take the disc away from you. What you don't necessarily own are the licenses to the software on the disc. So by your analogy you would own the delivery car but could have the ability to drive it revoked by the pizza company if you violate their terms?

I don't really like your analogy lol... But I do somewhat agree with you in principle. On disc DLC is still a dick move though IMO.

It really isn't. They could hold that DLC just as long, with it ready from launch, and make you download the entire thing. That not only limits sales to people with unlimited download limits but also makes it dramatically inconvenient. By putting it on the disc they can attract all people with the same content. Simply putting it on the disc, and therefore making it easier to access, does not make them assholes.

Regardless of their analogy their point is still valid and backs up on disc DLC. You buy a license to play the game, not the content on the disc. The disc becomes your property only in the sense that it's used to access the content you've be licensed to play. Then you buy another license to play the extra content on the disc.

OT: I was unaware people didn't know the meaning of entitlement, let alone they were arguing it without that knowledge. I guess more people are stupid than I assumed.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked