Dead Game News: Godfall lies, PC Gamer repeats it

I don't brother with a lot of news articles anymore, too much bullshit and clickbait.

Our hero Ross here fighting the good fight!

I think people nowadays understand live service game as game that generates  continued revenues to the developer and publisher to create new content.
So technically game can require online connection for drm and/or anti-cheat purposes and not be a live service game, like Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands for example. I don't think anyone would call Forgotten Sands live service game just because it requires a permanent internet connection.

I don’t want to defend the company, but making it out that the definition of “service game” is as clear as 2+2=4 is just wrong. Neologisms like this tend to be very malleable. You seem to think that the exclusive definition for a live service game being that it connects to a server. But even the Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service), a source that is written by the general public and as such should obviously reflect the most common definition in use, says games as a service are defined by their revenue stream, not by being connected to a server.
 

I think very often, you assume that your own definition of a word it’s so obvious that everyone should understand it the exact same way as you and that anyone who disagrees is not only wrong by trying to drive you insane. This game marketing guy is being sleazy by using the definition of a game as a service that best fits his needs at the moment, but that doesn’t mean he is trying to gaslight you.

 

 

2 hours ago, theSG said:

I think people nowadays understand live service game as game that generates  continued revenues to the developer and publisher to create new content.
So technically game can require online connection for drm and/or anti-cheat purposes and not be a live service game, like Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands for example. I don't think anyone would call Forgotten Sands live service game just because it requires a permanent internet connection.

 

2 hours ago, daisekihan said:

I don’t want to defend the company, but making it out that the definition of “service game” is as clear as 2+2=4 is just wrong. Neologisms like this tend to be very malleable. You seem to think that the exclusive definition for a live service game being that it connects to a server. But even the Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service), a source that is written by the general public and as such should obviously reflect the most common definition in use, says games as a service are defined by their revenue stream, not by being connected to a server.
 

I think very often, you assume that your own definition of a word it’s so obvious that everyone should understand it the exact same way as you and that anyone who disagrees is not only wrong by trying to drive you insane. This game marketing guy is being sleazy by using the definition of a game as a service that best fits his needs at the moment, but that doesn’t mean he is trying to gaslight you.

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.

 

 

As you yourself have said on multiple occasions, there is nothing special about the gaming industry – its problems are just a manifestation of universal problems found everywhere in society. Doublethink and double standards have long since become an omnipresent and “normal” thing in journalism, so I don’t understand why you’re surprised to see something like this in gaming journalism (especially considering that it is probably the least professional out of all types of journalism out there).

8 minutes ago, Ross Scott said:

You guys might want to check out my "Games as a service is fraud" video, I address these points head-on in that.

It can often save a lot of time and nerve tissue to check who you are arguing with.

Maybe we can call it red journalism, since red is the color that gets your attention the most and that's all they really want in an article. It's meant to be red, not to be read.

This is entertaining

2 hours ago, Ross Scott said:

 

  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.

 

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.

 

 

Also, if I were you, I would focus on the human stories of the creators of games who have had their work destroyed. When you put a face and a story onto a narrative, It becomes real to people in a way that abstract argumentation won’t. You seem to have at least some contacts within the gaming industry from the interviews you’ve been able to do on Moon Gaming, And you seem more than willing to go the extra mile to make contact with creators and others who work on games as part of Game Dungeon. Why not use your platform to tell their stories, since they’re the victims of this more than anyone else.

@Ross Scottcompletely agree with the video!
Also were you playing a Descent remake?

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?

 

6 minutes ago, RaTcHeT302 said:

i don't really disagree but... eh, do you really have to call it "propaganda"? i mean it's your choice, but i just thought it sounded a bit silly

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?

Also yeah, Ultima Online is GAAS and it's been around since 1997

Quote

By December 1998, Ultima Online had reached 100,000 subscribers.. ..IGN's staff wrote that its users "pay $9.95 a month to play the game. That's a million dollars in revenue a month. Twelve million dollars a year."

 

1 hour ago, Ross Scott said:

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?

 

 

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. The examples you give in this particular instance are a lot closer to that. But the definition of a “service game” or “games as a service” is a lot vaguer, at least in terms of how different people use it.

 

Anyway, I don’t want to push back on this too much sense like I said I ultimately do agree with you.

9 hours ago, daisekihan said:

I don’t want to defend the company, but making it out that the definition of “service game” is as clear as 2+2=4 is just wrong. Neologisms like this tend to be very malleable. You seem to think that the exclusive definition for a live service game being that it connects to a server. But even the Wikipedia article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service), a source that is written by the general public and as such should obviously reflect the most common definition in use, says games as a service are defined by their revenue stream, not by being connected to a server.

4 hours ago, daisekihan said:

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.

 

I think that's part of the problem right there. Until a concrete definition can be agreed upon, people are going to operate in that grey area to suit whichever side of the issue they are on, whether noble (like Ross's is, in my opinion) or more devious (the industry destroying your games to line their pockets). While I agree in the extremely broad sense speaking that dictionaries, as you put it, are not based on philosophical absolutes, there eventually needs to be some level of "social contract" in what we determine the "proper" definition to be (like just about everything else). There is the Wikipedia article like you mentioned, but that doesn't go deep enough in my opinion. This is why I like Ross's definition, since it's more all-encompassing in a sense, because it doesn't stop at "it's a revenue model", but follows the trail further down to what the actual implications of that are, which I think is important if we're going to define something.

 

While there could very well be multiple "proper" definitions, that can still contribute to a grey area, and depending on what the issue or topic is in question, and the context of that debate being discussed, still leads us back to square one. While I can appreciate the aspect of "zooming out" and looking at the big picture in the philosophical sense you mention (more than you'd think actually; don't think that I am mocking you for bringing that up), with most things, we eventually have to "zoom back in" though if we're going to get anything done (with anything in life really, not just this topic).

 

 

2 hours ago, Ross Scott said:

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?

 

While I totally agree that it completely is propaganda, I think the usage of that term itself can be detrimental to "the cause", for lack of a better term, since when most people hear someone else say that something is "propaganda", they tend to just dismiss what that person is saying, thinking that they're a conspiracy nut, or are just blowing things out of proportion. The more rational people might not, and would probably be willing to listen to the merits of the argument itself first before coming to a conclusion, but most people I imagine won't.

 

Basically, I think how the message is conveyed is just as important as what the actual message is.

On 10/6/2020 at 9:57 PM, Ross Scott said:

 

You guys might want to check out my "Games as a service is fraud" video, I address these points head-on in that.

 

-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).

I'm not saying that your definition of game as service is wrong. Over the last 15 years I watched most of your videos. I'm also not defending wikipedia, gearbox or pcgamer and I hate games as a service as much as you do.

 

I'm saying that your definition of "service" from developer tweet and pcgamer article is wrong.

The point is that when most people talking about service games they mean "live service game" or "live games"

https://old.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/bdpmfj/can_someone_explain_what_live_service_games_means/

https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2020-05-06-crash-course-on-live-service-game

and that has nothing to do with "is game a service or a good?"

 

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"

 

I just thought about something. Why hasn't extra creditz done a video on games dying?

The developer probably referred to a DRM (as is - the game itself doesn't use any service, but the copy protection does, which is much easier to fix). And the PC Gamer just quoted the twitter post entirely and copy-pasted a generic "about the game" block afterwards. I don't think there have been any malign intent in either post.

And to answer the question "how you call that kind of journalist" - "lazy". Or "cheap". Or, you know, "game journalist"