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

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
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
On 10/9/2020 at 1:13 PM, Ross Scott said:

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.

This opinion vs fact example you made was done in direct comparison to what the developer said and how journalist covered it. So you were very obviously equating this to the "same level" as what the developer said, and this was not from "failure to clarify".

 

In other words, the claim that you didn't mean to equate 2+2=5 to what the developer said is a bald-faced lie and Just an attempt here to backtrack without admitting any real fault. You're now being both dogmatic and hypocritical.

 

On 10/9/2020 at 1:13 PM, Ross Scott said:

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 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.

I never said you literally said that, and by "anyone" I meant any game PUBLISHER or JOURNALIST who uses the term without your "clarification". This is completely correct as you have just said yourself.

 

On 10/9/2020 at 1:13 PM, Ross Scott said:

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. 

 

...You're damn right I'm dogmatic AGAINST that practice and behaviors that I'm enable it.

Exactly, I "think" you're being dogmatic here because you are being dogmatic, as you yourself admit.

Share this post


Link to post

The only thing that worries me about dead games is the GasS part. I didn't spend all that money just to stream Crysis Infinity. I'm sure GeForce feels the same way, that's why it's taking longer to implement

Edited by Im_CIA (see edit history)

"You don't get to bring friends."

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, RaTcHeT302 said:

sorry i don't understand what you are trying to say with this post

It's going to be hard for streaming to become commonplace unless all the big hardware developers buy into a more lucrative business model that incorporates streaming. But I'm still worried about it because I want the latest hardware to run the latest games( not necessarily play them). GaaS will take away my consumer incentive to keep my PC up to date and all the dopamine hits of making big purchases that come with it.

"You don't get to bring friends."

Share this post


Link to post

Well there is that side. I just want to keep buying new computer parts so I *could* play the latest and greatest, even though I usually don't. It's a sort of derived hobby that I don't want taken away. 

"You don't get to bring friends."

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/20/2020 at 6:39 PM, RaTcHeT302 said:

maybe i'm weird but, i feel like games are getting dumber and more bloated, but the graphics aren't actually getting any better for me, i feel like we've already reached peak graphics, 10 years ago, and i think these new ray tracing, path tracing, based techniques, look really ugly for the most part

 

all these games just end up looking, really blurry for some reason, and i'm really not the kinda guy who likes reflections that much, i mean jeez, since when was real life THIS REFLECTIVE? that quake 2 demo looked downright retarded to me, it's not even realistic looking, it just looks really stupid to me if anything

 

like yeah the technique is computationally intensive, and... they found some cheats and they figured some tricks to get it to work in real time, but honestly? these raytraced games either look like complete shit, or they are so blurry to the point where, i'd rather play some older looking game instead, even if the graphics aren't as fancy

 

i feel like the grapics craze has created what i call the death of art styles, it really feels like there has been an art dumbening, where details don't matter anymore, and it's all about dumb fancy effects, over any clear style or look or whatever you want to call it

 

also uh, i'd rather not buy computer parts unless i have to? i really don't see the point in constantly upgrading, and i find most big million dollar games to be really ugly looking nowdays, so i basically don't even need the hardware, since some of these games are  too ugly for me to even consider in the first place

 

i mean, beyond the fact that i don't have that sort of disposable income, but even then... i only replace hardware if it fails, not because i can't run the newest call of duty game at more than 240 fps, that's silly

 

most graphics intensive games are not worthy, they are just poorly made, and honestly i think crysis is a shit game, i never saw the appeal

 

like the sandbox was sorta entertaining but, i just thought it was really bad overall, idk, i can't even get past the first area in crysis 2, it puts me to sleep, and i'm never going to play crysis 3, even the cover bores me

 

either way i was able to play total war three kingdoms just fine, with "outdated" hardware

 

idk most games nowdays either do 120+ fps easily, or i can do a mediocre 60 with drops all over the place

 

anyway i don't even see the appeal of playing brand new games, most of them are honestly shit, i find myself enjoying the more niche stuff, i enjoy some of the more mainstream stuff but, i rarely beat these games, like i'm never going to beat a far cry game, or an assassin's creed game, no matter how much i might be enjoying them, i'd rather just delete them and move on with my life, onto better games instead, once they start to bore me

 

i honestly think most of you guys just have bad taste in graphics to be perfectly honest, and what appeals to me really does not appeal to the general public AT ALL, plus i just want some damn good antialiasing already, fucking piece of shit FXAA... also TAA sucks donkey kong too, i'd rather play with jaggies, that shit makes EVERYTHING blurry, it's horrible

 

anyway i'm so god damn tired of modern games, since the average game looks like this shit, i mean this is fucking horrible, i don't see the appeal at all... just slap a nicotine filter, amp up the reflections to 2 billion %, and boom you have "modern day graphics"

 

it's all blurry as fuck, there's no color, the textures are too clean, and then you have some garbage camera effect on top (vignette, chromatic aberration, depth of field) (fuck these 3 effects in particular, jeez, game developers are fucking retarded, SERIOUSLY WHY WOULD YOU EVER USE THIS EFFECT, YOU ARE AN IDIOT, BUAGHH)

 

bleh

 

vZ9oyHR.png

 

man i'll stick to older games, upgrading my hardware for this shit is not worth it at all

 

i mean here's a 2010 console game and... man this looks awesome actually, something about this is really nice and pleasant to me

 

 halo.thumb.jpg.2ca04badf631c499adce78726e2acaba.jpg

 

Upgrading hardware isn't about games( though that's a bonus), it's about flaunting and feeling good about yourself.

"You don't get to bring friends."

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/22/2020 at 12:35 PM, Im_CIA said:

Upgrading hardware isn't about games( though that's a bonus), it's about flaunting and feeling good about yourself.

Unless it's to make your system actually run a game, or run it at a specific setting that the system couldn't before. (like upgrading to a GPU with hardware raytracing)

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

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.