Edit History

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?

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 require ongoing timely payments 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?

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 require ongoing timely payments as not a subscription.

EA defines lootboxes that require money for random prizes 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?