Giving up seems to be so common now, why?

You can crawl to the shack and then around the map, like you usually do in search for the hatch. You can crawl there in advance, like again, survivors usually do when they camp the hatch. That's still "agency" by your definition: they still can do somewhat meaningful actions.

Pretty sure you're just trolling at this point because you can't counter my argument.

But you are the one who is doing the hairsplitting here, as if "just push them out" is not trolling enough. You are looking for minuscule differences in essentially the same situation to justify the disparity between the freedoms that survivors and killers have. I only show you that two can play this game, and you can "just crawl out" the same way the killer is supposed to "just push them out". It might sound ridiculous only because the original of this mirror reflection is also ridiculous, which you refuse to acknowledge.

The thesis stays the same: survivors can leave when they think they've lost, the killer can't leave until all survivors are done with him. Similar situation, different privileges.The injustice of this is obvious to any unbiased player, but those who only play survivor just want killers to suffer, so they try to "justify" it by saying "hey, just swallow the humiliation :)", an "argument" which somehow doesn't work when used against survivors themselves.

How is it greed? We are far past the time for refunds. Money is not what's stopping changes.

Because this game is frustrating at its core. i came back after a 1 year break and the gen rush is insane. the pallet densitiy makes skill expendable. back then there were strong meta perks to circumvent the core problem. Most perks nowadays feel more like "feel good options" but the anti-gen perks are still the strongest. The problem is, there are extremely strong and oppressive killers and very bad ones who will suffer. Those inconsistencies are the problem, not the perks. You can't balance the game if there are killers who will ignore obstacles and the already weak ones will suffer even more.

I didn't run anything of an end game build whatsoever. Franklin's still makes people drop their item, even if it doesn't drain the charges.

That doesn't refute anything I said. Those perks actively disprove your statement of impossibility, by emphasizing that there IS an available solution that people actively refuse to utilize. And again, the abandon system actively discourages anyone from even making that investment even more than their entitlement already did before it was introduced. Its the same exact argument of "if it bothers you, just bring X" that gets used in every single discussion about any problem in the game for either role regarding a problem that has a cost related solution, and I'm using it for consistency's sake to dispel hyperbole more than as a dismissal.

And my point here is essentially exactly that: this is all base kit for killers.

Thats not a comparable point, since it is something that falls within the structural differences between roles similar to how the killer cannot leave a match that has not fully concluded. You can put it under a microscope to force a false equivalence, but thats like saying survivors can be blinded by flashbangs and therefore it is unfair they cannot have lightborn. And as someone with light sensitivity issues, if I saw multiple flashbangs in the lobby I would waste a perk slot on that. If the killer were elimination based or the survivors were load bearing, it would change the scenario entirely both in its limitations and role specific considerations.

You can hit people out without any perks whatsoever. On every killer.

You can also move your King during a checkmate scenario in chess, but are not required to because the game has officially concluded. No matter whether you're a grandmaster or a beginner. Like I said, there's always such a laser focus on specifics that are used to purposely misrepresent any opposing argument on this subject.

This is still a pvp part of the game. In fact, I'd argue that in a properly balanced pvp game that capitalizing on or even forcing errors from your opponent is a core part of the pvp.

It is, note the forcing part. Survivors gloating and dangling their hand over a lion's mouth before losing said hand is not the same as the lion luring said hand to be within their reach. It is not a scenario that is the killer's to win, it is the survivor's to lose, and there is a massive difference between the two. Anyone who understands how concepts like running the clock in genres like fighting games work is very familiar with how different those two statements are.

The killer has options. You can force them out and shorten your timer and even have the chance to capitalize on mistakes and overconfidence. You can go ignore them completely, and possibly lure them from the exit gate entirely. You can go earn BP.

Again, they are not options any more than something like running around in the finale of a TF2 match choosing when and where someone eviscerates you are options. Trying to use BP as jingling keys does nothing about the actual dilemma at hand, and is often met by survivors spamming loud noise notifications instead of actually leaving. Survivors would not accept being able to play with pogs or jax on the ground while bleeding out for a pittance of BP, they want to be able to leave the moment they feel their win is no longer reasonable to expect.

None of that is available to slugs. The PVP is over for that scenario, there's no base kit mechanic, no capitalizing or forcing mistakes, no way to earn BP or even ignore them entirely since you can't physically even get away.

The hatch can spawn right under your belly, which is again, equally unrealistic as expecting the killer to have any influence over survivors who are on the winning side of a check-mate scenario. You only attribute agency to that because they get to choose the duration of their loss, specifically in a way that is intended to be frustrating. Would you agree to giving killers the ability to end the match the same as swatting all survivors out, but being able to do so in a single action instead of 1-8+? Or do you prefer seeing killers take their frustrations out on the next group of survivors? Would you find it acceptable if survivors had parity with how they needed to take their abandon in terms of activity and submission? Nobody ever answers that question so I would honestly like to know since it gets brought up so often as a thing they're not "allowed" to do, and the choice BHVR made makes sure they would never be expected to.

There is a difference between "I have no options and the game is actually over" and "I have options and think the game is over, but I refuse to even acknowledge those options exist".

Then why are some of the abandon conditions for survivor well beyond the latter? Thats the reason people try to make the case about the exit gates, because there are actual true checkmate scenarios that get ignored in how everything works, while survivors can nope out during a simple check. Its not about attacking the side you don't agree with, its about actually allowing yourself to have logical consistency despite your personal feelings.

That's the issue there is no killer bot in 1v4. when the killer leaves the match just ends, if there was a killer bot in 1v4 I think most people would be ok with more abandon situations for killer.

Because he has been bugged for 9 months and refused to killswitch him.

But when streetwise was a bug or fog-vials were bugged, it got switched or nerfed to the ground. (Same year this happened)

But kaneki got neither, people happily abused a BUG for 9 month until they fixed it.

Not balance issue, Several BUGS.

Negligence is not greed. Please explain the greed? Or does killers having long term bugs represent greed? Those darn Legion mains are very greedy, yeah?

if they killswitched ghoul, people wouldnt have been to incentivised to buy him and his cosmetics.

because he hasnt been killswitched, people happily got their money's worth, bought him and maybe his 15 dollar rize skin, which seems to have worked out with no consequence.

From what I've seen, they mostly do it due to gameplay:

Survivors who get tunneled or slugged to bleed out DC.

Killers doesn't like the map (eg Billy on RPD) and DCs. Or they're trying to do their Adept, so the game is generally rougher when the survivors are playing like they normally would.

Other reasons: cheaters/hackers (who come in surges, even rn in 2v8). People with very high ping / lag. DBD servers being DBD servers, somehow they've gotten worse over the last year.

I'm thinking you don't know what greed means or just using it to flair up outrage because not fixing bugs is not greedy when you cannot explain how it's impacting sales.

Those that wanted the Ghoul have already purchased him and are way outside the ability to get a refund. They could nerf the hell out of him with no financial impact. In fact, that what BHVR did for many killers preceeding The Ghoul leading to many calling it a rug pull.

Don't confuse incompetence for malice.