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.