Edit History

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.

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, they're basically trying to circumvent the traditional definition 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.  You can say there are multiple definitions of "a service game", but to DENY the others like they did is where I see it as getting dishonest.  The fact that this type of framing normalized the image of games being destroyed is what I can't let go.

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, they're basically trying to circumvent the traditional definition 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.  You can say there are multiple definitions of "a service game", but to DENY the others like they did is where I see it as getting dishonest.  The fact that this type of framing normalized the image of games being destroyed is what I can't let go.