In the interests of full disclosure, I personally don't buy new video games very much.
Neither do I and when I do buy Triple-As or Double-As or even an A-title I know they are bad but I have to buy them because if I don't then I won't be able to have fun with my friends for a very long time.
Mind you I never blame a company for making a bad game. The only time I put blame on a company is when it uses a sales tactic or device that I disagree with strongly. Such as On-disc DLC or outright dishonest marketing.
Can I buy a game that had either of those and STILL feel like I have the right to complain? actually yes. Flaws are flaws even if it isn't a flaw big enough to stop me from buying it.
Just because you buy something it doesn't mean you "bought into" everything on it. I have plenty of games where I think the DLC is overpriced and underdeveloped. Do I think they should make DLC that is closer to its real value? Yeah. Why would I not just because I bought it?
This is the other way where the Entitlement arguement just falls flat. You can buy something yet still find faults, even serious ones.
The Third way is what I call "Small pool". In The Sims 3 several expansions flat out do not work on many people's machines and it isn't their fault. This pool is too small to alter the sales. Or rather "What is a problem for someone isn't a problem for everyone, yet it doesn't mean it isn't a problem".
THEN there is the idea that just because it isn't a problem for an individual person it doesn't mean that individual cannot see it as a flaw. For example a rich person can recognise when something is overpriced and say that it is a flaw. Does it being overpriced effect them? No. Does buying it invalidate their arguement? No. It isn't a fault that effects them enough to change their purchace but they are perfectly capable of rational thought.
Then there is Dishonesty. If the company is being dishonest and someone buys into that dishonesty. Are they at fault for not doing further research? No, if they are being lied to they have a justified expectation. If someone promises you a lake but gives you a glass of water, there is a failure to meet the expectations.
Five ways Entitlement arguement is invalid.
I do feel there is a difference between being entitled and being spoiled. On the surface they are similar- they're both complaining about something you've received. The thing is, with the latter your cause for complaint is something trivial, while with the former your cause is serious. I consider most of the issues raised in this thread to be serious not just because of the gravity of the issues themselves, but because they are largely endemic to the games industry as a whole
Here is kind of the thing. The Developers and producers WANT this feeling of spoilness and Entitlement. They foster it and use it to sell their games.
What makes Gamers feel more entitled then everyone else? because gamers still arn't in the popular consciousness. Everyone complains about movies and books but not everyone complains about videogames.
Yet they arn't so small as to be invisable. They are just large enough to be noticed but small enough to be abnormal. The arguements are not understood because they arn't seemingly the same as arguements made against movies and books. As well games have some aspects to them that are unique such as the EULA and On-disk DLC. Which to someone who watches movies a lot may not understand because if their movie had it they wouldn't buy it, yet it isn't a feature of a movie and the market will never change to include it.
You have to understand games as games first and what it is. You have to understand what a game does and how it is advertised before you can just claim the userbase is outright spoiled.