Ross Scott

That crashed the game.

I really just have lots of ideas and got more ambitious than I should have (I was working MILITANTLY this past month), but I admit, that thought has crossed my mind once or twice this year.

New Game Dungeon! This is an intentional post-Halloween episode since I felt like this game had a good Halloween vibe to it, but wasn't spooky enough in itself to qualify. It's been kind of intense coming out with this many videos, I started it all pretty much after the Sonic episode and the past 2 weeks it's basically been almost all I've been doing. More videos coming, but I'm going to have to slow down the pace a bit! I'm definitely looking forward to the next non-Game Dungeon, it's one I've been trying to make for a year or two now. This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

Ask questions or topics to discuss here for the next videochat with fans on 6:00pm UTC on November 7th at twitch.tv/rossbroadcast. New Game Dungeon coming soon! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

Halloween Game Dungeon! This is a game I was always considering making an episode of before, so this year I tackled the beast head on. Have a Happy Halloween! New special "Halloween hangover" episode coming in a few days! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

First Halloween Game Dungeon! This is sort of a warm up to a bigger one coming soon! This may have more minor editing errors in it than perhaps any other episode, but I've been trying to break my perfectionist tendencies anyway so I have more time to eventually throw at the movie. Additionally, due to the way this video was made, fixing them would have delayed its release a full day and I have to push forward with the next one into Halloween! More Halloween coming! This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

We'll figure something out in-game, if people are there, but in separate instances, we can figure out another way to group together. Feel free to spearhead efforts to make it easier.

As a reminder, I'll be doing a stream of Secret World: Legends tomorrow at 5pm UTC. I normally don't announce the streaming sessions here (except in the upper right corner), but I was hoping to get a few more people to join in on this one to maybe do raid content. It's free to play, but you may not be able to join in everything if you have a low level character, though I'll do some stuff that lvl 1 people can do also. In the game, we'll meet at the fountain outside of the Templar building in London. My character name is Griddlecakes and I'll be wearing a hazmat suit. This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

If anyone wants to send a keypad with analogue keys, I'll be happy to use it in FM. I heard about it on a kickstarter mentioned in the Strife video, then I think it got scrapped for full keyboards, which I doubt would be as nice for typing. Also feel free to post a video of someone using a gamepad to move with one hand and a mouse to aim with the other, it doesn't sound particularly ergonomic to me.

Glad you knew it was E-ZPass.

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.

Wasn't planning to, it's in the upper right on the front page though + I'll mention it on twitter before I start.

I've gotten sloppier with the mouse recording actually, I can try to make it better in the future. The best thing I can do is lower the sensitivity so motions come out smoother. Rewatch the Strife RGD if you want to see how it would look using a gamepad, I use it in one portion of that.

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. 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.

The head is to distinguish more visually between FM1 and FM2, but maybe I should get rid of the episode text also, I'll see, I can always tweak it later.

Freeman's Mind 2! This took WAY too long, but a whole lot happened in the meantime to cause that. I wasn't joking in the past when I said working on this affects where I can live due to the shouting, but everything seems to be back in place. I've also changed the thumbnail style, something I've been meaning to do for a year or two to be honest. I plan to retroactively change the others later on, but who knows when I'll get to that. This is a blog post. To read the original post, please click here »

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?

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?

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.