Bioware has been crap for years, you would have be by definition stupid to buy anything new from them, while they operate as a division of EA.

Oh, this topic again.
How i love those anti 'bitching' and 'whining' theads. What pisses me more than people who are always unhappy with something, are people who apparently have too much time, and go on a crusade against people with more or less legitimate concerns.
I mean, if i decided to make an, for example, XCOM, and decided to add, i don't know, unicorns farting rainbows to it, would You be happy? Would You voice Your concerns over this direction? And how would You feel when someone told You, You're whining and bitching, and You're an over entitled bastard?

While paying for a game does entitle You to a fully working product, it does not entitle You to dictate where the game's direction 'should' go. But that's a different thing. Sating a concern or a legitimate criticism over a product is not a crime, it's a sign of care actually. Behind every frown there's a motive, just because You don't see the reason doesn't make it wrong. So yes, taking ME3 as an example, the ending does suck, it's lazy, half baked, nonsensical even, and actually it's better that it'll be changed, because the game will not be remembered as the most anti climatic fan screwing trilogy finale ever[?].
Now, while a petition of angry customers, saying 'i bought it, therefore i demand a change' is silly, thing is, what else can be done? I mean, You seriously think people should bend over and take it all the way down without question? Like, buy ME1, then ME2, and then just swallow up the ME3 mess? Why?
A similar example is JA:BiA, where the fans were actually asked for their opinion, then screwed, and the game was a mess, and we had the same 'stop bitching' circus.
It's kinda like watching Your favorite band changing direction, without changing their name [it's surprising how many problems that solves], and slowly go down from some kickass metal, to some uninspired alt-crap.

Sorry for the chaotic mess of a post.
Disclaimer: the world "You" is used without anyone particular in mind, so don't take it personally.
TL;DR: I kinda find this 'i don't really care, and nor should you' attitude silly.

I think part of it is a reaction to companies becoming more and more authoritarian and arrogant. Not to mention being caught red handed blatantly lying to their customers *cough*ME3 ending*cough*

Oh, and I find it interesting to note that a lot of the "self-entitlement" people complain about are actually genuine concerns which people label self-entitlement in order to discredit them.

I have to wonder about the motivations behind such behaviour...

Indeed, however, if it's the 2nd best selling game it does mean that it's the one that's 2nd most likely to be owned. Or put away the one that results in the 2nd largest number of people receiving nothing.

That being said, now that I know why I'm reasonably OK with that, I suspect in the future that GOG will be handling it in a different way, hopefully one where more people are included.

As for the topic, I was pleasently surprised that the OP wasn't just trolling about the recent giveaway complaints. It's getting old having people imply that it's somehow self entitlement to expect to be included in things that target 90% of the users here.

There's been nerd rage as long as there has been nerds, nothing new here.

Within reason here I agree with you. I stopped playing one of my favorite online games because the developers became obsessed with forcing people to spend time in areas that weren't any fun. They could have fixed the zones so that people wanted to play there or put something in there that would make doing so beneficial, instead they made it a turn burning sink.

I don't necessarily think that developers should cave, but I do think they should consider the complaints before rejecting them. Some things like a poor control set up can be fixed reasonably easily and make a huge difference.

HAN SHOT FIRST!

The point of the "Retake Mass Effect" movement is that Bioware promised that the choices you made during the course of all three games would have an impact on how your game ended, and then when you finally got to the ending, you had to choose from three predetermined options which were all basically the same, just resulting in a different colored explosion at the end. None of the ending choices have anything to do with any decision you made at ANY point in ANY of the games. THAT'S what people are mad about.

...and who said anything about the OP, or I, or, anyone else "trying to shut someone up"? We're not saying that you don't have a right to your opinion -- in the end, we're all entitled to our opinion, regardless of how valid they are, within reason of course -- and we're not trying to actively ban people from saying what they want to say. The OP and others are voicing an opinion that gamer entitlement has become a real problem on the GOG forums.

If anything, from the tone you've taken and way you've addressed the OP's points, if there's anyone here who's trying to shut down the discussion, it's you.

I disagree, up until the very last secod many of your choices do effect the outcome. I liked how they took all minor variations into the game with the war asset score. I often hear "But it's only text", well, some of the best games of all time had only text. And considering the hundreds of different combinations possible, you can't really expect everything getting their own cutscene. Especially Rannoch and Tuchanka had massively different outcomes depending how you played the other two games. And the choices you made there directly influence the last missionm, even down to dialogues and cutscenes.

And your final military score does influence the final ending. Similar to PS:T the journey is important, not the last cutscene.

Bioware made essentially two games with ME 3, you will only see about 30% in one playthrough.

I don't like the ending to ME 3 too, but for other reasons. The choices and consequence were masterfully implemented by Bioware into the series (a lot better than in DA or any other game). Some "ending slides" would have been great, of course, but they probably had the choice of doing them text only (maybe voice) or not at all. I'm guessing they were afraid if they did only text of VO people would have complained about them being cheap...

No. Now give me my System Shocks and bundle HoMM V with DMoMM now please. ty

Don't get me wrong. Mass Effect 3 was an incredible ride all the way through, right up until the final choice. That's what I meant when I said "ending choice." None of those three options felt in-character for any alignment of Shepard. Plus, the side effect you get in all three basically screws the entire galaxy over, and especially the relay systems.

EDIT: How do you mean "two games?" The dichotomy between the Paragon and Renegade dialog options?

Well, that is pretty much what I think ;-). So I withdraw my disagreement.

And by two games I mean not only the Paragon/Renegade choices, but the amount of extra voiceovers for all the different possible characters. With Kaiden/Ashley there are basically two squadmates of which you will always only see one. And I think, while it might not "play" very different, the game will get a whole different feel if you let most of your squad died in ME 2.

No, it doesn't.