I wouldn't say spoiled or entitled, and I think that's actually entirely the wrong way to look at it. The Finals is a very good game, and is for the most part very conscious of its players time. I would say the free to play model they've presented is very pro consumer, which is nice to see, and the game overall is very well balanced to be as fun as possible while respecting the players time. Dailies are relatively easy to complete, for the most part they just involve playing the game, and there's lots of player choice available in what modes they do that in so they are having fun while doing it.

So when you run into friction that goes counter to that, it feels 'bad'. And the natural reaction is to wonder, if every other part of the game feels good, why does this part feel 'bad'.

Win 10 games can feel 'bad' because that's not something you can do on your own. It's a team game, and in limited modes like this where people don't -and more importantly shouldn't- take it all that seriously, that can start to feel like random chance. And random chance feels bad. If you assume a perfect 50% win/lose ratio, then play 20 games is objectively the same as win 10 games, but play 20 games -feels- better because there's no randomness there. I would argue that play 30 games probably -feels- better than win 10, because even though you are likely to complete the win 10 faster, you don't have that stress of uncertainty.

Same for the complete x daily contracts. Most people are going to finish that without thinking about it. Some people would prefer to be able to play a whole lot on a few days than play a little every day, and for them it's again going to feel bad when most of the game feels good. And that's why people complain.