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

2 minutes ago, Ross Scott said:

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

i don't really disagree but... eh, do you really have to call it "propaganda"? i mean it's your choice, but i just thought it sounded a bit silly

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, RaTcHeT302 said:

i don't really disagree but... eh, do you really have to call it "propaganda"? i mean it's your choice, but i just thought it sounded a bit silly

Yeah the actual stakes I agree are silly in comparison to most uses of propaganda, but going back to definitions, that's actually what this is.  I mean what's a better term for false information repeated over time for the purposes of influencing public opinion?

Share this post


Link to post

Also yeah, Ultima Online is GAAS and it's been around since 1997

Quote

By December 1998, Ultima Online had reached 100,000 subscribers.. ..IGN's staff wrote that its users "pay $9.95 a month to play the game. That's a million dollars in revenue a month. Twelve million dollars a year."

 

Share this post


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

Yeah the actual stakes I agree are silly in comparison to most uses of propaganda, but going back to definitions, that's actually what this is.  I mean what's a better term for false information repeated over time for the purposes of influencing public opinion?

i'm sticking to "bullshit", i just... can't think of anything better which sums up my overall frustration and how i feel about this whole thing

 

or you could be inspired by the prisoner, i'm sure you could pick something from out of there

 

i mean this guy's face sums it all up for me, it says everything i could ever say, in a thousand words

 

2iv00Xi.png

Edited by RaTcHeT302 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

or you know, "that would be telling", "information" - this whole thing feels like a giant mind game and i don't like it at all

 

Edited by RaTcHeT302 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ross Scott said:

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?

 

 

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying on the whole, but when you add hyperbole like the 2+2=5 it hurts your overall argument. The examples you give in this particular instance are a lot closer to that. But the definition of a “service game” or “games as a service” is a lot vaguer, at least in terms of how different people use it.

 

Anyway, I don’t want to push back on this too much sense like I said I ultimately do agree with you.

My little gaming blog

https://corktowngaming.wordpress.com

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
9 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.

4 hours ago, daisekihan said:

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.

 

I think that's part of the problem right there. Until a concrete definition can be agreed upon, people are going to operate in that grey area to suit whichever side of the issue they are on, whether noble (like Ross's is, in my opinion) or more devious (the industry destroying your games to line their pockets). While I agree in the extremely broad sense speaking that dictionaries, as you put it, are not based on philosophical absolutes, there eventually needs to be some level of "social contract" in what we determine the "proper" definition to be (like just about everything else). There is the Wikipedia article like you mentioned, but that doesn't go deep enough in my opinion. This is why I like Ross's definition, since it's more all-encompassing in a sense, because it doesn't stop at "it's a revenue model", but follows the trail further down to what the actual implications of that are, which I think is important if we're going to define something.

 

While there could very well be multiple "proper" definitions, that can still contribute to a grey area, and depending on what the issue or topic is in question, and the context of that debate being discussed, still leads us back to square one. While I can appreciate the aspect of "zooming out" and looking at the big picture in the philosophical sense you mention (more than you'd think actually; don't think that I am mocking you for bringing that up), with most things, we eventually have to "zoom back in" though if we're going to get anything done (with anything in life really, not just this topic).

 

 

2 hours ago, Ross Scott said:

Yeah the actual stakes I agree are silly in comparison to most uses of propaganda, but going back to definitions, that's actually what this is.  I mean what's a better term for false information repeated over time for the purposes of influencing public opinion?

 

While I totally agree that it completely is propaganda, I think the usage of that term itself can be detrimental to "the cause", for lack of a better term, since when most people hear someone else say that something is "propaganda", they tend to just dismiss what that person is saying, thinking that they're a conspiracy nut, or are just blowing things out of proportion. The more rational people might not, and would probably be willing to listen to the merits of the argument itself first before coming to a conclusion, but most people I imagine won't.

 

Basically, I think how the message is conveyed is just as important as what the actual message is.

Edited by Generic-User (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, daisekihan said:

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying on the whole, but when you add hyperbole like the 2+2=5 it hurts your overall argument. The examples you give in this particular instance are a lot closer to that. But the definition of a “service game” or “games as a service” is a lot vaguer, at least in terms of how different people use it.

 

Anyway, I don’t want to push back on this too much sense like I said I ultimately do agree with you.

man you are really stuck on that part, but can't we just look at the point itself, and at the fact that they are silently denying something that's fairly negative, by not even pointing it out in the first place? like they just sorta handwave it away like it's meaningless? so like, they hide behind a term that's honestly quite worthless, with this really vague meaning to it, just to throw you off and confuse you, about the real issue?

 

"oh it's not a live service game, that's good!"

 

what? ok let's just delete the word "live service", we are left with "always online" - let's declare this word for what it is, meaningless marketing speak

 

ok now you tell me, what stopped pc gamer from going, "this may not be a live service game, and yet you somehow need a constant online connection to play a SINGLEPLAYER game" - why isn't PC gamer calling it out for what it is, bullshit DRM, which will kill off the game in the future?

 

why is nobody pointing out the fact, that this is the worst thing possible on the planet, why isn't pc gamer pointing out the fact that, "hey, if this isn't a live service game, then how come i need a constant online connection? isn't that technically a service they are providing me with? to be able to play?"

 

why do we just ignore these blatant contradictions? why the fuck do we keep trying to give trillion dollar worth game companies the benefit of the doubt, they are ran by fuckng assholes, they don't deserve that type of forgiveness

 

i'm sorry am i the only who still remembers Darkspore? i am still upset that i cannot replay that game, i REALLY wanted to try it again and, nope, i was too late, it was already dead, AND I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT, i just woke up one day and ross made a video about it and i went, "oh that game, i wanted to replay it" and then i was like "oh... that game is dead". yeah that was fun and satisfying.

 

why do you guys focus so much on the "live service" bullshit so much, can we just call it for what it actually is? it's drm, it's fucking drm, they are hiding behind some marketing bullshit, to hide the fact that this is the worst kind of fucking drm which will kill off the game, once they get bored of keeping the servers on, it's fucking bullshit

 

LIVE SERVICE IS JUST ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING, IN A VERY VAGUE WAY, THAT OUR GAME HAS THE WORST DRM ON THE PLANET

 

LIVE SERVICE IS VAGUE AS FUCK BECAUSE IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY MEAN ANYTHING, IT'S JUST A TERM COMPANIES USE TO HIDE BULLSHIT BEHIND IT

 

"oh we have microtransactions, IT'S A LIVE SERVICE"

"oh it's always online, IT'S A LIVE SERVICE"

"oh we have microtransactions, IT'S NOT ALWAYS ONLINE, IT'S NOT A LIVE SERVICE"

"oh we don't have microtransactions, IT'S ALWAYS ONLINE, IT'S NOT A LIVE SERVICE"

 

seriosly live service means nothing at all, it's some artificial, made up term, with no real meaning with it, like "blockchain" or any other marketing buzzword, it's fucking worthless and we need to stop using the term

 

now let's look at the original context, LET'S LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL QUESTION, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I'M ACTUALLY GOING INSANE TRYING TO POINT THIS OUT

 

0qfOHai.png

 

why did they add, "it's not a service game"? the guy asked, "is this an always online game?"

how did they respond? they started off with... "no, it's not a..."

 

why would they do that? why didn't they just say, "you need an internet connection to play this game"

 

why did they start it off with a denial?? how is that not suspicious at all?

jesus christ, i mean how does that not hint, that THIS MIGHT ACTUALLY TURN OUT TO BE, WHAT THEY ARE DENYING IT, TO NOT BE

 

what the hell is this horseshit jesus, who talks like that? it really screams "manipulative" to me, like this is a really weird way to start off a sentence, and it's a really weird way to word things, it really feels like a very carefully written message to me, like it looks really cautiously written to the point of borderline ridiculousness

 

my point is, why would that hurt his argument? if anything it reinforces just how meaningless the term actually is, and how we should just ignore it, and read the sentence, for what it is

 

bullshit

 

WE NEED TO STOP USING THE TERM, LIVE SERVICE, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T, MEAN, A DAMN THING

IT'S ONLY PURPOSE, IS TO CONFUSE YOU, THAT'S IT, IT'S FUCKING WORTHLESS

  

7 hours ago, Generic-User said:

they tend to just dismiss what that person is saying, thinking that they're a conspiracy nut, or are just blowing things out of proportion.

i mean i was gonna say the "conspiracy" thing but i dropped the line since, i feel like it's easier to say that we just look kinda goofy and a bit stupid instead, and it's more like, cringy than anything else if anything

Edited by RaTcHeT302 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 10/6/2020 at 9:57 PM, 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.

 

-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).

I'm not saying that your definition of game as service is wrong. Over the last 15 years I watched most of your videos. I'm also not defending wikipedia, gearbox or pcgamer and I hate games as a service as much as you do.

 

I'm saying that your definition of "service" from developer tweet and pcgamer article is wrong.

The point is that when most people talking about service games they mean "live service game" or "live games"

https://old.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/bdpmfj/can_someone_explain_what_live_service_games_means/

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-05-06-crash-course-on-live-service-game

and that has nothing to do with "is game a service or a good?"

 

So when most people read that tweet/article they see "the game has always online drm garbage, also don't expect any post launch content" and not "service is not a service"

 

Edited by theSG
typos (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post

I just thought about something. Why hasn't extra creditz done a video on games dying?

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

Share this post


Link to post

The developer probably referred to a DRM (as is - the game itself doesn't use any service, but the copy protection does, which is much easier to fix). And the PC Gamer just quoted the twitter post entirely and copy-pasted a generic "about the game" block afterwards. I don't think there have been any malign intent in either post.

And to answer the question "how you call that kind of journalist" - "lazy". Or "cheap". Or, you know, "game journalist"

Share this post


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

The developer probably referred to a DRM (as is - the game itself doesn't use any service, but the copy protection does, which is much easier to fix). And the PC Gamer just quoted the twitter post entirely and copy-pasted a generic "about the game" block afterwards. I don't think there have been any malign intent in either post.

And to answer the question "how you call that kind of journalist" - "lazy". Or "cheap". Or, you know, "game journalist"

why the hell aren't they saying that then? why do we always need to immagine what the hell they are thinking, why don't they just clearly state what the hell they are talking about, without this whole roundabout bullshit

 

i hate filling the gaps when people are vague as fuck on purpose, i'm not gonna magically infer a whole new meaning from some vaguely confusing sentence, i'm not gonna do the thinking for them, how about they just express themselves clearly without going for this dumb manipulative route

 

no, i hate this whole, "well they probably meant"...

why are we defending this? how about they just say it, clear and cut? why do they need to be so vague about it? it's just weird man

 

i'm not going to write an explanation for them, to hell with that, seriously guys stop thinking for them, i get giving them the benefit of the doubt, but come on don't default to being submissive and just accepting their bullshit as is, call them out on this shit, like, no, ask them to clarify themselves, stand your ground, don't just give up because they just hide behind some vague shit

 

you guys give up too easily and you keep obsessing over the meaning of some dumb word, and i feel like that's not the point at all, who the hell cares what some dumb word means, the point to me is that, this game has a ticking time bomb, built into itself, and we are just waiting around like a buncha dumbasses waiting it for the clock to go down and we just wait for the bomb to explode, and then we act all sad and we wonder, where we went wrong

 

at least if pc gamer had some fucking balls, who knows, maybe the game company would actually do something about it, IF THEY WERE CALLED OUT ON IT, it's the least we can do, but if even game journalists can't be bothered to have the minimum level of integrity, then what the hell hopes do we have?

 

seriously you guys sound like a broken record, you keep going on over the definition of some dumb made up word, and i feel like everyone is ignoring the real problem at hand

 

either way this whole thing sucks

Edited by RaTcHeT302 (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post

Journalist 1 is a Broadsheet journalist.

Journalist 2 is a Tabloid journalist.

 

😁(double plus good emoticon).

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, chiefwhosm said:

double plus good emoticon

Nice reference

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

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 10/7/2020 at 7:39 AM, theSG said:

So when most people read that tweet/article they see "the game has always online drm garbage, also don't expect any post launch content" and not "service is not a service"

Yeah, this is exactly how I read it.

 

The entire issue here comes down to what you mean by "service game" . For Ross, always online = service game. So he interpreted what they said as "not service game, but is service game". That's understandable but the problem here is he acts like that's literally what they said and accuses anyone that doesn't agree with his interpretation as intentionally spreading lies and propaganda. This level of dogmatism is kind of insane and only seems to be getting worse with each video he releases.

 

I would also add that "games as a service" is actually a broad concept and not a explicit category or label. And "service game" usually has a much more specific meaning, but Ross is conflating the two ideas here.

Edited by Isaiah (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 10/7/2020 at 3:18 AM, daisekihan said:

I don’t disagree with what you’re saying on the whole, but when you add hyperbole like the 2+2=5 it hurts your overall argument.

I realized I failed at clarifying this, but my actual purpose in using that example wasn't to equate it on the same level as 2+2=5, but to distinguish between a journalist interjecting his opinion v. clarifying a fact.  Saying 2+2 does not equals 5 is not an opinion.  So this was sort of a sub-clarification even if the service definition didn't exist.

 

On 10/8/2020 at 8:08 PM, Isaiah said:

Yeah, this is exactly how I read it.

 

The entire issue here comes down to what you mean by "service game" . For Ross, always online = service game. So he interpreted what they said as "not service game, but is service game". That's understandable but the problem here is he acts like that's literally what they said and accuses anyone that doesn't agree with his interpretation as intentionally spreading lies and propaganda. This level of dogmatism is kind of insane and only seems to be getting worse with each video he releases.

 

I would also add that "games as a service" is actually a broad concept and not a explicit category or label. And "service game" usually has a much more specific meaning, but Ross is conflating the two ideas here.

Few points:

1. I would be AMAZED if the writer at PC Gamer was completely unaware of this interpretation and just put that headline showing off the contradiction using that.  It comes across as way too intentional for them to paraphrase it the way they did.  I get it, this stirs up controversy and gets clicks.  Hey, if you think I'm wrong, as a journalist, they could CLARIFY what they mean by a "live-service game" (PC Gamer's words, not Godfall's) as they flatly state Godfall is NOT that.

 

2. My definition is the original.  Again, a SERVICE game requiring company SERVERS.  From the GAAS video, the earliest "service games" had NO microtransactions, sometimes had NO updates, but they DID require an ongoing connection to the server.  There is an active effort from the industry to get gamers to change their standards of expectations from games and changing the language is part of that effort.  You may disagree, but this really IS propaganda when it comes from the source and from people who should know better.

 

3.  You say I accuse "anyone" of using that term as intentionally spreading lies and propaganda.  Well now you're making up stuff I never said!  If some random gamer uses that term and doesn't know any better, he's not intentionally spreading propaganda, he's repeating what he's heard, probably from publishers.   That's EXACTLY why I made the video, to try and illuminate that this is an active effort to change how games are defined!  If a game PUBLISHER and JOURNALIST uses that with no clarification in an industry that has a growing history of destorying games, damn straight I say it's intentional.  This is the process of how this behavior is normalized! 

 

4. You accuse me of dogmatism, feel free to point to other videos where it's been "getting worse", but here's the thing.  I get why you think I'm being dogmatic, however, you're trying to be "fair" to people who are not being honest and are trying to normalize the destruction of games.  The more this is normalized, the less pushback there is from publishers destroying games, which means more games get destroyed.  There is quite literally a path from giving the benefit of the doubt to publishers engaged in this to more games destroyed total.  You're damn right I'm dogmatic AGAINST that practice and behaviors that I'm enable it.

 

Many publishers are liars.  I saw a video by Jim Sterling not long ago showing one caught in a bold-faced lie over it being "impossible" to upgrade a game.  Godfall is being published by Gearbox, I imagine they have some straight up lies under their belt.  In the video I pointed out how Ubisoft was lying about a game not being a subscription because they wanted to REDEFINE THE TERM.  This happens too often AND this leads to greater acceptance of anti-consumer behavior, you can almost assume the publisher is acting in bad faith until proven otherwise.  If they want to have a rational discussion about this and show I'm being unfair, fine. My ONLY goal here is to stop games from being destroyed.  You may think I'm going beyond that, but I really don't think I am, it's connected.

Edited by Ross Scott (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

P.S. I figured out what's bugging me so much about the statement regardless if you want to focus on the monetization definition of Games as a Service:

 

They're saying it's NOT a service game.  By doing this, it's easily interpreted as denying all definitions of a service game. Whether you lean towards requiring a server or it being a monetization model, both of these definitions are heavily intertwined.  There are almost no GAAS games that do NOT require a constant online connection.  So the language used subtly "erases" the classic definition of the game being a service.  It's misleading in its nature. 

 

I have almost a perfect analogy to this:

 

"It's not a rectangle, it's a square."

 

A square only means one shape.  A rectangle means a range of shapes, but squares are ONE of them.  So that statement DOES establish that it's not the usual use of the word "rectangle", but it's also incorrect in that it DENIES that a square is a rectangle, which is incorrect.  Now that's a relatively innocent example, but if you consider how the industry is using the wording, there should be no slack given at all to publishers and gaming media on this.

Edited by Ross Scott (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post

uh

 

i hope ross hasn't lost his mind, i mean he's talking about triangles and shit LUL

 

what's next, someone is gonna tell me that cheetos are non euclidian?

 

anyway i wouldn't be surprised if the whole thread turned geometry crazy and if we got to the point where we compared games as a service to this sorta thing

 

tDWk6Ei.png

 

either way i'm gonna preserve my sanity since i already feel like i've said way more than i should have, it feels like it's mostly going in circles

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, RaTcHeT302 said:

either way i'm gonna preserve my sanity since i already feel like i've said way more than i should have, it feels like it's mostly going in circles

Couldn't agree more. The discussion we have right here is going kinda like this:
People: this game is good (not bad)
Ross: no this game is not good (it is a service)

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, theSG said:

Couldn't agree more. The discussion we have right here is going kinda like this:
People: this game is good (not bad)
Ross: no this game is not good (it is a service)

i mean i'm not saying that i disagree with ross, but i'm just bored xD

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.