darkSpyro

We're all trapped between two scenarios:

1. We are puppets. Little sheep who blindly obey publishers because they hold brand-names we're fans of, thus, making us easy to exploit. Publishers and retailers make bets on that we "****-munchers" will do this or that, they blow their whistles and we jump through hoops like the well-trained doggies we are. Same goes with "whales" regarding the AAA-industry abusing the F2P-model. The Internet (any and all of us) see one another as "fanboys" because we defend what we like to an unhealthy degree.

2. We're spoiled entitled, impossible-to-please brats. We get angry over any change in our games, big or small. We threaten people who probably have no little power or make decisions that not all of us agree with. We're monsters in the eyes of the media for all that and the idea of us being violent because we play games with bad content, that real life society looks down on.

There is no good outcome for any of us. We're always gonna be branded as slaves or entitled. We're screwed.

P.S. I know this doesn't apply to all gamers but still, I feel I needed to say how I feel.

P.S.S. I'm not looking to start a flame war but I do wanna know whether or not you all feel the same way as me.

I definitely feel a mix of both. on one hand, I feel the preorder problem, but if you've been a fan of a respective franchise for a relative amount of time, I think you're entitled to preorders.
But on the other hand, gamers are the CORE of the gaming industry, but we can get far too picky when it comes to stuff like graphics, frame rates, ect.

Yay, another gaming conspiracy topic.

Really, it's just everything in moderation. There is nothing inherently wrong with dedication to a franchise. There is also nothing inherently wrong with asking for things to be the way you want them to be. It just depends on the context and how frequently you do it.

Using the Sonic fanbase as an example:

-Whining about Sonic's eyes being green or whatever IS being overly entitled and isn't justified, because it's an aesthetic difference that has no impact on the game or your long term enjoyment of it's mechanics.

-However, right now, a lot of people are complaining about how Sonic Runners handles it's F2P system, and it's justified. The game pulls stuff like putting new characters on a roulette for a limited time with a 6% chance of landing on them. This is the only way to unlock new characters, and you have to spend 50 Red Star Rings for one spin. While you can naturally earn them in-game, it takes a while especially later on into the game, and while you can buy a ton of them with real money if you want, you have no guarantee of getting the character you want no matter how many times you spin, so you're essentially gambling. A lot of people just want the ability to be able to straight up buy the characters they want, and it's a justified request - gambling that can involve real money shouldn't exist in a game targeted towards a young/family audience. The strategy doesn't even benefit SEGA, at least not in the long run, as most people are only frantically playing the game right now to get Classic Sonic while he's available. Most people plan to boycott the game as soon as his event is over. This isn't even getting into the plethora of other issues the game has, that people are justified in complaining about

-Defending Sonic '06 and Rise of Lyric as "good games" is being a slave, because there is no way to justify that argument. You can PERSONALLY like the games, but trying to say they are objectively good is just wrong, and delusional.

-Defending Sonic Unleashed is fine because the game actually gets a lot of unjustified hate. People see the Werehog and assume the game is bad just because they think the idea looks silly, and don't give it a second thought. In actuality, Sonic Unleashed is one of the most ambitious titles SEGA have ever published, and the game had a lot of love put into it, even having a development blog before it's release. You can't really say that about other Sonic games, so objectively, you can defend Unleashed because it's a fantastically made game. You can dislike the game personally, but you shouldn't claim it's bad, because again, that's just wrong and delusional.

Quote: sonicbrawler182

Yay, another gaming conspiracy topic.

Really, it's just everything in moderation. There is nothing inherently wrong with dedication to a franchise. There is also nothing inherently wrong with asking for things to be the way you want them to be. It just depends on the context and how frequently you do it.

Using the Sonic fanbase as an example:

-Whining about Sonic's eyes being green or whatever IS being overly entitled and isn't justified, because it's an aesthetic difference that has no impact on the game or your long term enjoyment of it's mechanics.

-However, right now, a lot of people are complaining about how Sonic Runners handles it's F2P system, and it's justified. The game pulls stuff like putting new characters on a roulette for a limited time with a 6% chance of landing on them. This is the only way to unlock new characters, and you have to spend 50 Red Star Rings for one spin. While you can naturally earn them in-game, it takes a while especially later on into the game, and while you can buy a ton of them with real money if you want, you have no guarantee of getting the character you want no matter how many times you spin, so you're essentially gambling. A lot of people just want the ability to be able to straight up buy the characters they want, and it's a justified request - gambling that can involve real money shouldn't exist in a game targeted towards a young/family audience. The strategy doesn't even benefit SEGA, at least not in the long run, as most people are only frantically playing the game right now to get Classic Sonic while he's available. Most people plan to boycott the game as soon as his event is over. This isn't even getting into the plethora of other issues the game has, that people are justified in complaining about

-Defending Sonic '06 and Rise of Lyric as "good games" is being a slave, because there is no way to justify that argument. You can PERSONALLY like the games, but trying to say they are objectively good is just wrong, and delusional.

-Defending Sonic Unleashed is fine because the game actually gets a lot of unjustified hate. People see the Werehog and assume the game is bad just because they think the idea looks silly, and don't give it a second thought. In actuality, Sonic Unleashed is one of the most ambitious titles SEGA have ever published, and the game had a lot of love put into it, even having a development blog before it's release. You can't really say that about other Sonic games, so objectively, you can defend Unleashed because it's a fantastically made game. You can dislike the game personally, but you shouldn't claim it's bad, because again, that's just wrong and delusional.

THIS IS A VERY GOOD POST