Jump to content

Dead Game News: Godfall lies, PC Gamer repeats it

New Dead Game News! I was not planning on making this at all! This news emerged yesterday and bugged me so much I decided to slap together a video on it as soon as I could. Hopefully more like this are not needed! Freeman’s Mind still coming and work will be resuming on Halloween stuff!

  Reply to post

Recommended Posts

I don't brother with a lot of news articles anymore, too much bullshit and clickbait.

"I don't trust a man that doesn't have something strange going on about him, cause that means he's hiding it from you. If a man's wearing his pants on his head or if he says his words backwards from time to time, you know it's all laid out there for you. But if he's friendly to strangers and keeps his home spick-and-span, more often than not he's done something even his own ma couldn't forgive." -No-bark Noonan

Share this post


Link to post

I think people nowadays understand live service game as game that generates  continued revenues to the developer and publisher to create new content.
So technically game can require online connection for drm and/or anti-cheat purposes and not be a live service game, like Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands for example. I don't think anyone would call Forgotten Sands live service game just because it requires a permanent internet connection.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, theSG said:

I think people nowadays understand live service game as game that generates  continued revenues to the developer and publisher to create new content.
So technically game can require online connection for drm and/or anti-cheat purposes and not be a live service game, like Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands for example. I don't think anyone would call Forgotten Sands live service game just because it requires a permanent internet connection.

from what i understood it's more about pc gamer being hypocrites, for calling out one company, but ignoring the other, plus words lose meaning over time anyway, we can't just rely on some vague definition forever in my mind

 

plus a live service implies it in the word, "live", it's always live

 

and if your game is "always online" then, you can't have a game that's "live" and not have it be "online", so that's another contradiction you could point out

 

so like, saying "not live" and "always online" is kinda dumb, you can't have an "always online" game that's not "live"

 

it means that if they can shut it off and you are left with nothing at all, then it is a service most likely, i mean you rely on them to keep up the servers, that's a pretty huge service they are doing for you, but to me the term gets kinda blurry, i feel like we are crossing the line between "service", "drm", and "assholes"

Edited by RaTcHeT302 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I don’t want to defend the company, but making it out that the definition of “service game” is as clear as 2+2=4 is just wrong. Neologisms like this tend to be very malleable. You seem to think that the exclusive definition for a live service game being that it connects to a server. But even the Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service), a source that is written by the general public and as such should obviously reflect the most common definition in use, says games as a service are defined by their revenue stream, not by being connected to a server.
 

I think very often, you assume that your own definition of a word it’s so obvious that everyone should understand it the exact same way as you and that anyone who disagrees is not only wrong by trying to drive you insane. This game marketing guy is being sleazy by using the definition of a game as a service that best fits his needs at the moment, but that doesn’t mean he is trying to gaslight you.

 

 

Edited by daisekihan (see edit history)

My little gaming blog

https://corktowngaming.wordpress.com

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

i feel like the word "game" and "service" leave little room for interpretation if anything, plus why would anybody defend this? it's horseshit either way and i fucking hate this always online bullshit, one day ubisoft IS going to MURDER THE CREW IN COLD BLOOD

 

AND I DON'T WANT THEM TO DO THAT

 

i mean does MURDER count as a service now? i would consider that to be a pretty big service, if i can't even play the fucking game i bought in the first place

 

i mean i feel like at its core, "service" is what it implies to be, we are we allowing dumb marketing idiots to reshape our dictionary

it's a thing and i have to rely on your bullshit to be able to play, and if you drop it dead on the floor then i don't get anything out of it

 

we should stop relying on words and call them out for what they are, giant assholes, that's what

 

if they DO have an end game plan to ALLOW the game to be playable in the future, then, sure, i'll take it back

 

either way no matter how they spin it, you can never justify bullshit on this level

 

i mean, guy gives me the thing, which is needed for other thing to work

oh no, guy no longer gives me thing, that service is no more

 

now my other thingy is useless and worthless and i shold burn all my belongings along with the trash

 

this is on par with demolishing your house just because you were one payment late with your manicure

 

also wikipedia is the opposite of the public opinion, if anything it's edited by a small close minded group, it just happens to be made up by morons who know each other, what bullshit people put up on it is not reliable at all

 

the internet has proven to me, that history often gets dilluted when you allow idiots to catalogue it, and things soon lose their original intended meaning, since nobody truly ever understood what the hell it meant in the first place anyway

 

i mean jeez look at the bible, boy i sure nobody will ever MISUNDERSTAND IT and GIVE IT A DIFFERENT MEANING

for all we know it could've been "ye olde" fairly tales, so... you spin more bullshit, you get more bullshit, i think it's pretty simple

 

so if we allow people to say bullshit, we might actually start to believe some of it, some of that bullshit might start sounding plausible at one point or hell, downright reasonable, and we don't want that

 

NO YOU PUT THE BULLSHIT DOWN, AND YOU TELL IT

BAD BULLSHIT, BAD

 

tl dr:

wikipedia is bad

and it's editors suck donkey kong and we can't rely on them to be factual

Edited by RaTcHeT302 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, theSG said:

I think people nowadays understand live service game as game that generates  continued revenues to the developer and publisher to create new content.
So technically game can require online connection for drm and/or anti-cheat purposes and not be a live service game, like Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands for example. I don't think anyone would call Forgotten Sands live service game just because it requires a permanent internet connection.

 

2 hours ago, daisekihan said:

I don’t want to defend the company, but making it out that the definition of “service game” is as clear as 2+2=4 is just wrong. Neologisms like this tend to be very malleable. You seem to think that the exclusive definition for a live service game being that it connects to a server. But even the Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service), a source that is written by the general public and as such should obviously reflect the most common definition in use, says games as a service are defined by their revenue stream, not by being connected to a server.
 

I think very often, you assume that your own definition of a word it’s so obvious that everyone should understand it the exact same way as you and that anyone who disagrees is not only wrong by trying to drive you insane. This game marketing guy is being sleazy by using the definition of a game as a service that best fits his needs at the moment, but that doesn’t mean he is trying to gaslight you.

You guys might want to check out my "Games as a service is fraud" video, I address these points head-on in that.

 

Some quick points:

-Wikipedia can sometimes be a good reference, in this case, it's not.  It looks like they've changed it, but when I made my GAAS video, the first sentence contained factually inaccurate information, stating that games as a service started in 2004 with World of Warcraft.  That's demonstrably false, there were games using subscription models and in-game monetization options well before that. The fact that false information remained on the entry until literally last year year suggests this is underdeveloped an not an authoritative source on this topic.

 

-Even if wikipedia has corrected all mistakes, the fact that we're seeing active propaganda in the wild means it could have bled into there also.  In other words, if the only metric is general public consensus, well then that's malleable.  The whole purpose of this video is meant as anti-propaganda.  If it's that up in the air, maybe in a few years time it reflects how I define it instead.

 

-You say my definition of a service game is wrong, but I argue in the GAAS video it's the only one that holds up and I give examples in it, since I can come up with exceptions to every other definition (they're in the video).

 

-Going with your example saying that games as a service are defined by their revenue stream, that's a definition that is often true, but doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  For example, would you consider Oblivion games as a service?  It had many pieces of DLC for sale, but had no online requirement.  It had a revenue stream very similar to many GAAS models.  What about Metal Gear Solid V?  It's possible to play that offline and it has many microtransactions to purchase.  If we're going ONLY by public opinion, I think most agree those are NOT games as a service, yet they use that business model under the definition you're referring to.

 

-Finally, it's important to not lose the forest for the trees.  The ONLY reason I care about

this is that graphic in the video showing that THESE GAMES DIE.  Games as a service is practically synonymous with game destruction.  Games as a service destroys games in ways that were never possible in the past, is unchallenged by the legal system, and it would almost certainly be illegal in any other industry.  I can play games from decades ago, but many games only a few years old are completely unplayable.  I find this abhorrent.  There's an active effort from the industry to normalize the destruction of gaming, which just has a shock value to me I can't get over.  This has practice has caused more damage to games than anything else in history.  You mention how this is malleable.  Fine, give NO QUARTER on this, push BACK against dishonest narratives.  The people who want you to second guess this are the same ones that have zero problem destroying games people love sometimes with tens of thousands of hours and millions dollars of assets behind them.  Don't get bogged down by the semantics, it's a trap.  Again, my definition is extremely consistent and logical.  It requires a SERVICE from the publisher in order to function.  If you don't like it, fine, but consider what the cost is for giving benefit of the doubt to the other side.

 

 

Edited by Ross Scott (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post

As you yourself have said on multiple occasions, there is nothing special about the gaming industry – its problems are just a manifestation of universal problems found everywhere in society. Doublethink and double standards have long since become an omnipresent and “normal” thing in journalism, so I don’t understand why you’re surprised to see something like this in gaming journalism (especially considering that it is probably the least professional out of all types of journalism out there).

Come the full moon, the bat flies whose boiling blood shall stem the tide.

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Ross Scott said:

You guys might want to check out my "Games as a service is fraud" video, I address these points head-on in that.

It can often save a lot of time and nerve tissue to check who you are arguing with.

Come the full moon, the bat flies whose boiling blood shall stem the tide.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe we can call it red journalism, since red is the color that gets your attention the most and that's all they really want in an article. It's meant to be red, not to be read.

World's largest wildfire is happening right now in Montana.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ScumCoder said:

It can often save a lot of time and nerve tissue to check who you are arguing with.

did u have that post bookmarked or something?

 

anyway it took me a million years to realize that he was talking about the user, not the post

 

i don't think you can really avoid talking to certain people when you truly believe in something, i mean i feel the need to call people out, since i don't care about what people think about me, it gets to a certain point where, sometimes the urge to speak up is stronger than having to stay silent forever

 

i wouldn't call typing on the internet "arguing", i see it more like, confirmation to myself that i'm not crazy by writing it all out

 

see i don't actually care about what most people think of my opinions if anything, it helps me realize that none of this really matters that much and that it's not worth getting upset if some dumb idiot on the internet disagrees with me, or if he's just downright trying to manipulate me, i see relief in the fact that, hey at least i'm not the crazy one here

 

but you know sometimes i just feel the need to say stuff out loud, reading it back sometimes helps, but the point for me isn't to get high praise or anything, to me it's more of a way to confirm my own beliefs or, to lay it all down and, if i do notice that i'm actually wrong or, if i do find a contradiction, i can correct the mistake and i can use the new info in the future, so that's cool

 

if anything ignoring people and never putting your own take out in the wild, even when you KNOW that you've got something going, is truly what it'll drive you towards madness, since if you never say anything, NOBODY ELSE will ever know how much they might end up relating to you, so they never say anything, and YOU START TO WONDER, IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY THE CRAZY ONE

 

sometimes though, people are just dumb fucking assholes and there's no winning move there, sometimes people manage find every reason in the world to disagree with you, no matter how well put, or how well thought out your arguments may be, because it's easier to just say, "no", and that's when you know, that it's best to just move on and mind your own business

 

but at least you know that you are not the crazy one

besides if you never make any mistakes, then you won't ever learn NOT to be crazy, only psychopaths think they are "perfect"

 

what i hate the most about the internet is, how easy it is to antagonize people, and i feel like, sometimes the best path is the one where, you just take it with stride, and you just stay confident, and you say your own thing, because if you focus on the person alone, then you've already lost, to me that means that, your thoughts are mostly fueled by hatred, that you want to be right because you want the other guy to be wrong, not because you truly believe that your thoughts hold any actual value

Edited by RaTcHeT302 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, cutiepyro said:

Maybe we can call it red journalism, since red is the color that gets your attention the most and that's all they really want in an article. It's meant to be red, not to be read.

i dunno, i feel like saying that it's bullshit is much more elegant, i don't think there's a better word for this sorta thing

 

1 hour ago, ScumCoder said:

As you yourself have said on multiple occasions, there is nothing special about the gaming industry – its problems are just a manifestation of universal problems found everywhere in society. Doublethink and double standards have long since become an omnipresent and “normal” thing in journalism, so I don’t understand why you’re surprised to see something like this in gaming journalism (especially considering that it is probably the least professional out of all types of journalism out there).

am i the only one who hates this attitude? we should just act like it's all normal and then we should pretend that this is fine so we never point it out?

 

what the hell kinda thinking is this away? no i'm not gonna just stand here and pretend this is normal, what the hell, sorry if i don't accept being lied to in my face, or that i refuse to not be played around with, this is horshit is what it is

 

i really don't understand the point of this... to me this is on par with just shrugging and going, "OH WELL, COULD BE WORSE"

or "EVERYTHING IS SHIT SO WHY BOTHER DOING ANYTHING"

 

i don't know, i... what?

 

i'm sorry did i misunderstand this or something? am i putting words in your mouth? i don't think i read this wrong, i mean it is what it says on the tin, isn't it?

this just screams lazy to me

 

we shouldn't do anything because you said so? because... society = bad? WHAT

our society is bad so we should accept that everything else is also always bad and that no positive changes can ever come true?

 

???

Edited by RaTcHeT302 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Ross Scott said:

 

  In other words, if the only metric is general public consensus, well then that's malleable.  The whole purpose of this video is meant as anti-propaganda.  If it's that up in the air, maybe in a few years time it reflects how I define it instead.

 

Ross, the problem is, you opened this can of worms about language and the meaning of words.

 

I am not saying that your definition of games as a service is wrong. I am saying that it is one of many definitions. Definitions of words are not attempting to give us an absolute philosophical truth. Do you think dictionaries get their definitions based on absolute philosophical propositions? They don’t. They base their definitions on the way people use words. The tweet in question is using a definition of “service game” that people do use. So saying it is equivalent to 2+2=5 is just not a very serious argument. If you were attempting to use this as propaganda for your cause—and I think it’s a good cause as far as things go—I don’t think it’s especially convincing. And I don’t think you can call this getting bogged down in semantics—you were the one who made definitions of words the start of your argument. And personally, I like your definition of games as a service; but it is by no means the only definition that exists. I wasn’t the person you needed to convince however, since I already was convinced of it. But I don’t think anyone who wasn’t convinced of your argument is going to be persuaded by this.



 

 

Edited by daisekihan (see edit history)

My little gaming blog

https://corktowngaming.wordpress.com

Share this post


Link to post

Also, if I were you, I would focus on the human stories of the creators of games who have had their work destroyed. When you put a face and a story onto a narrative, It becomes real to people in a way that abstract argumentation won’t. You seem to have at least some contacts within the gaming industry from the interviews you’ve been able to do on Moon Gaming, And you seem more than willing to go the extra mile to make contact with creators and others who work on games as part of Game Dungeon. Why not use your platform to tell their stories, since they’re the victims of this more than anyone else.

My little gaming blog

https://corktowngaming.wordpress.com

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, daisekihan said:

Also, if I were you, I would focus on the human stories of the creators of games who have had their work destroyed. When you put a face and a story onto a narrative, It becomes real to people in a way that abstract argumentation won’t. You seem to have at least some contacts within the gaming industry from the interviews you’ve been able to do on Moon Gaming, And you seem more than willing to go the extra mile to make contact with creators and others who work on games as part of Game Dungeon. Why not use your platform to tell their stories, since they’re the victims of this more than anyone else.

what are they, world war 2 victims? i mean jeez, it's just dumb videogames, i want to do something about it but i sure as hell wouldn't take this seriously if it turned into a parody of itself, like, are we really gonna pull the, "look at dese sad pipol" card now? what?

 

so we are just gonna defeat the lies with our own lies? nobody's life is getting destroyed over this crap jeez, i mean it sucks and it bothers me when a game fucks off and dies and i'd like for that to stop but come on this is the wrong approach and to me this is bordering on overreaction

 

i mean good god the people who made these games still got paid, and i bet your ass 99% of the people who work in the industry don't actually give a shit and to them this is just another paycheck, people who are passionate about videogames are not in the game industry, they are not vocal because those people don't exist, nobody in the industry is secretly frustrated, they just don't give a shit, this is just another job to them, it's nothing more than, "fuck you, pay me" and that's that, there's no need for it all to be so dramatic though, it just makes the whole thing look a bit ridiculous at that point

 

i know that you said work but, come on, that's still pretty ridiculous, considering the way you put it overall, it felt less like you were talking about their "work" and more about their lives to me, that's what i got out of this anyway

 

again people got paid anyway but, nothing was destroyed, this is just the game industry as a whole being assholes about it, nothing more - it sucks for those mmo games i guess, but, eh? destroyed? what are we, burning books or something

 

why do we have to build a narrative anyway? what the fuck, like why do we need to? we have proof that this is bullshit, why do we need to construct things? to me this just sounds like lying with more steps than anything

 

why complicate things so much? jeez

 

i don't understand, seriously i don't feel like the message is so damn complicated, to the point where you need something this ridiculously insane, like come on give people some credit, they are not fucking stupid, they are just lazy bastards

 

PEOPLE ACCEPT THIS BECAUSE THEY ARE OKAY WITH IT, IT'S NOT, AND IT WAS NEVER, OUT OF IGNORANCE

THEY JUST DON'T CARE, NO MATTER WHAT REASONS YOU GIVE THEM

 

you can't convince the zealots man, i mean they are zealots for a reason, they'll never budge, why do we need to convince people anyway? IT'S THE LAW WHICH NEEDS CONVINCING, NOT PEOPLE, PEOPLE ARE USELESS

 

narratives, jeez

 

i mean do some of you guys honestly believe, that you can just whine all your way to the higher ups?

 

hilarious, but... no, not gonna happen, we need the law, spreading more bullshit won't help us at all, if anything it would backfire and people like us would just look like giant assholes instead (not that, people's opinions would matter much in this case)

 

we either change the law or nothing else will change

THE INDUSTRY WILL NEVER CHANGE, UNLESS YOU FORCE THEM TO CHANGE

 

if you think that you can just talk them out of killing games, honestly, you are an idiot

unless your plan is to somehow humiliate them to death, but the game industry has proven to have no shame

 

again, loot boxes? they started giving a shit, once the fucking government got involved, not because some dumb moron on the internet was outraged, people are fucking stupid, they get bored of whining after 3 days, nobody has such a long attention span, and the industry knows it, so they have the freedom to not give a shit about what some morons on the internet say

 

because they know that most people have the attention span of a fish, most people have already run off to whine about something else anyway, why would they care about the PR side of things? the PR basically solves itself since people just get literally too bored to death to complain and they just move on, and this is how you end up with idiots who suddenly believe that EA is actually a good company again, cuz they literally forgot, and they don't care enough to remember in the first place

 

 

i mean hey, going by your strategy, we have a trillion videos going off about how loot boxes are bad

do you think that making a few trillion more will help our cause?

 

mh, i sure wonder jolly gee if new games stopped adding bullshit gambling mechanics

 

spoiler alert

THEY WON'T, THEY HAVEN'T

 

oh look it's FORTNITE

look guys, kids can steal their parents credit cards and they can buy stuff on the internet! oh no! let's be outraged!

xYCTXlS.png

 

(it didn't do anything)

 

i mean, fucks sake, people act like this is normal, and you just want to, change a couple billion's people minds overnight?

yzv9YCb.png

 

sure good plane dude, it won't fail spectacularly or anything

 

at least if you are gonna convince someone, CONVINCE THE RIGHT PEOPLE

DON'T CHANGE EVERYBODY'S MINDS, WE DON'T NEED THAT (and it's basically impossible, considering how DEEPLY INGRAINED this shit is)

 

WE JUST NEED, TO CONVINCE, THE RIGHT PEOPLE

what are some dumb idiots in the industry gonna do? whine some more?

 

game developers are fucking useless, we need real lawyers, not this shit

 

guys, we are a minority, remember that, our opinion makes up, like, maybe 0.1% of the planet, THAT'S IT

seriously don't act like suddenly we have the power to move mountains, what the hell, this isn't the plot of STRIFE

 

we aren't gathering some dumbass movement, we just want the law to stop being fucking retarded

Edited by RaTcHeT302 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

now i'm sure someone will pull the "BUT WHAT ABOUT THEIR PROFITS" argument out of nowhere but, man, i want to see you stopping all the fortnite kids from throwing billions of dollars on games

 

look unless you can convert the whole planet into a literal hive mind, the whole "hurt their profits" bullshit has literally 0 impact at all

 

SO NO YOU CAN'T JUST DRY THE MONEY WELL CUZ YOU SAID SO, AGAIN, YOU ARE SO INSIGNIFICANT, YOU ARE JUST THE 0.1%

LITERALLY, NOBODY

 

people who buy games are dumb, here's proof

 

VgxwwtF.png

 

seriously i've seen this dumbass argument a million times already, come up with something more creative at least jeez

 

there's always another dumb idiot around the corner who's ready to throw his money away, so unless you can convince literally 90% of the potential buyers to NOT BUY ANYTHING, then good fucking luck

 

i mean do people honestly believe that anthem was not profitable? of fucking course it was, it just didn't make enough billions for EA to be happy with, because that company is ran BY GOD DAMN PSYCHOPATHS, WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO SELL THEIR MOTHERS, JUST FOR THAT EXTRA 2% PROFIT

 

here's how you look to average joe

 

"BIG COMPANY DID SOMETHING BAD, DON'T BUY ENJOYABLE PRODUCT FOR YOUR KIDS"

ayZkpcZ.png

Edited by RaTcHeT302 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, daisekihan said:

Ross, the problem is, you opened this can of worms about language and the meaning of words.

 

I am not saying that your definition of games as a service is wrong. I am saying that it is one of many definitions. Definitions of words are not attempting to give us an absolute philosophical truth. Do you think dictionaries get their definitions based on absolute philosophical propositions? They don’t. They base their definitions on the way people use words. The tweet in question is using a definition of “service game” that people do use. So saying it is equivalent to 2+2=5 is just not a very serious argument. If you were attempting to use this as propaganda for your cause—and I think it’s a good cause as far as things go—I don’t think it’s especially convincing. And I don’t think you can call this getting bogged down in semantics—you were the one who made definitions of words the start of your argument. And personally, I like your definition of games as a service; but it is by no means the only definition that exists. I wasn’t the person you needed to convince however, since I already was convinced of it. But I don’t think anyone who wasn’t convinced of your argument is going to be persuaded by this.


 

Yeah I may not have the best point on the semantics, but here's the simple version:

 

I'm not convinced nor have I seen any evidence that the the publishers nor the games journalists involved with this are using that definition in good faith.  So unless they show evidence of taking that approach, it's meaningless to me to entertain them, let alone defend that line of thinking.  It's the difference between a skeptic of global warming who is genuinely confused about the data versus a skeptic who is a paid lobbyist for Exxon-Mobile.  One of them is completely fake and has zero interest in having an honest conversation, they just want to perpetuate doubt as it benefits their financial interests at a high cost to others.

 

Plus as long as we're talking definitions:

Ubisoft defines their monetization plan for Trackmania requiring periodic, ongoing payments over a specified length of time as not a subscription.

EA defines lootboxes that require money for random prizes balanced around predetermined odds are not gambling.

Godfall defines requiring their SERVER to SERVE the game as NOT a SERVICE game.

 

Why they hell should I give them the benefit of the doubt and just use the common sense definition instead?

 

Edited by Ross Scott (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.