Support NeoGAF

[Crossing Eden]

Did Jim really just solely blame devs for increasing graphical fidelity and complexity in games as if the audience constantly demanding more had nothing to do with it? Citing minecraft and PUBG, ignoring the success of GTAV, aka one of if not literally the most detailed game that released during it's gen and also the most successful title in that studio's history.

 

[Daffy Duck]

That was a damn good video.

The part where Jim points out that it's always the guaranteed million sellers doing this reminds me of what I said recently about Battlefront II. The previous game sold 14 million copies within its first six months on market, yet we're to believe that EA needs to insert pay-to-win lootboxes (lootboxes in BF2 contain stat boosts for characters and material to craft new weapons) into the sequel to offset the lack of a season pass, otherwise Battlefront II's release would financially devastate EA. As I said before, I don't have an issue with post-launch monetization methods, but the idea that pay-to-win lootboxes are the only possible alternative to a season pass for one of the biggest games this year is ridiculous.

Yeah this hit home hard, it's like when people talk about game development being expensive, it's like they are trying to make out that EA/Acitivison etc are having to re-mortgage their own house to put out the new CoD/BF title.

 

[Arkeband]

Might be one of his best videos he's ever made.

I'd rather have loot boxes in a game than having to pay another 50$ upfront to get the full experience.
Yes, they may have found ways to make the games more expensive without raising the base price of 60$, but I don't really want to spend that. If they find ways to grow and nourish whales to make some decent cash, then I would be the last to complain.
I can sit here laughing in my sleeve, enjoying more content than I otherwise would get, and I feel no shame.

I mean Forza has a staggering amount of over 700 cars without DLC. Who even cares about loot boxes at that point, outside of (understandable) ideological concerns? If I have the option to grind for the cars instead of paying upfront, then that's what I'm gonna do, RNG or not.

Here is what you're missing - you're grinding for rewards rather than paying for them, that's fine. However, to make the prospect of buying your way out of the grind more enticing, developers actually balance your rewards-per-hour to be somewhat lacking.

Look at SFV. You can spend all day fighting people online (when not fighting their shitty netcode) and still not make enough to unlock a single costume for a single character, let alone extra colors for that costume. They drip-feed you fight money and make sure you get nothing if you lose. After all, a loss can be valuable to a player in learning to get better, but if you get money by losing, there's a chance some people will just AFK and lose on purpose, which means people will be less likely to give them money instead.

The point is, you're spending more time grinding than you would if lootboxes didn't exist. Your time is sacrificed so that other people are more justified in giving more money to a massive corporation.

This is why these companies put money into psychology, because they are tweaking your experience to maximize the chances you give them money. You buying the game is good, but playing it after you bought it isn't doing them any extra favors.

 

[Markitron]

Might be one of his best videos he's ever made.

The JQ last week was particularly good as well.

 

[border]

A game is worth $40-60 for most people.

For the diehard fans of that game, it is worth far more. Possibly $90-$200.

Largely these shifts have been about extracting more money from the diehard fans, while still giving "most people" a low base price.

So long as there's the fanbase that is going to pay for Season Passes and Microtransactions, developers are never going to leave money on the table. Nor are they going to alienate mainstream consumers by raising base price.

 

[Stone Ocean]

I'm glad that Jim brought up that we didn't ask for this pitiful arms race that AAA development has become. Its not our problem if publishers want to all in on massive games and complain games are too expensive afterwards.

 

[Chezzymann]

Did Jim really just solely blame devs for increasing graphical fidelity and complexity in games as if the audience constantly demanding more had nothing to do with it? Citing minecraft and PUBG, ignoring the success of GTAV, aka one of if not literally the most detailed game that released during it's gen and also the most successful title in that studio's history.

Yeah that last argument was super flimsy and I didnt buy it. Rest of the video was good though.

 

[Kanann]

You are really doing a god’s work here, Jim S Son.

 

[OmegaTreeFish]

For me the myth is stranger because in the UK its not true at all. Last gen games cost about £40 brand new in store. Now they are £50 on average. They have gone up. Digtal start at £55 quite often on the sony store.

I have heard Jim talk about this before and i partialy agree with him. However I dont care so much as him about cosmetic loot boxes as long as they are implemented right. I also dont mind DLC, again, as long as its implemented right.

The idea about visuals and game costs going up is also way more complex than anyone seems to let on. There are a lot of factors involved. For a start these games that cost more are also expected to sell more and overall make more money. Also people do demand this. If everything came out with the same visuals as last gen there would be a lot of people crying about it. There are a lot of reasons for all this mess with loot boxes that is happening right now and pointing at one and blaming that is shortsighted.

 

[Tigress]

People that still justify all those mts an gamblingboxes by saying that the gamedev costs are constantly rising should be tied to a chair and forced to watch that video.

You know what, I'm going to say I say this. I don't like MTs and gambling boxes. But I do want my nice graphics (I know it's not popular to say you want pretty graphics) and all the stuff they put money in to make the game look more advanced and justify the new game. And well, the games I like are large open world games that probably do take more to put into them (and have to get more out of them to justify them). And if you think that doesn't matter... look at all the time people bitch about how a game didn't look next gen or the graphics weren't as good as they were expecting or the praise a game does get for looking really really good.

I'd rather them up the price of games or do expansions/DLCs, stuff that encourages them to make the game so fun I want to pay more. Not stuff like MTs that encourage them to design the game to be slightly annoying to get me to pay to skip playing the game but not annoying enough to outright make me realize the game is badly done (*cough* GTA online has been doing this from the start but getting to the point that it's too obvious and people are noticing *cough*). Or stuff that gets them to design the game to exploit a gambler's personality vs. a game designed for fun.

I mean in the end they are companies and are there to make money, they're not our friends. So I expect they are going to try to make more money if they can. But I can object to how they do it and if they offer me a crappier product in order to do it.

But, it's a losing battle because the crappier ways of "raising prices" (without raising the game price) is way more lucrative than raising the game price or adding on expansion packs so while I may think it sucks, I don't see it going away no matter how much I bitch (hell, even if I don't buy the games. The people who will pay for the lootboxes/MTs make them way more than enough money to lose the few who will put their money where their mouth is. And good luck convincing those people to stop). Which kinda sucks.

 

[border]

I'm glad that Jim brought up that we didn't ask for this pitiful arms race that AAA development has become. Its not our problem if publishers want to all in on massive games and complain games are too expensive afterwards.

Did Jim really just solely blame devs for increasing graphical fidelity and complexity in games as if the audience constantly demanding more had nothing to do with it? Citing minecraft and PUBG, ignoring the success of GTAV, aka one of if not literally the most detailed game that released during it's gen and also the most successful title in that studio's history.

Jim complains that Battlefront 1 was only barely half a game, and then claims he has no part in bloating up production budgets. Picking at extraneous nonsense like hair modeling in Tomb Raider is going for the low-hanging fruit.

The drumbeat of "MORE CONTENT" has been ever-constant for more than a decade. People want more worlds, more spaces, more modes, more activities, etc in every sequel or followup. If you ship with less Feature checkboxes than your previous game or your nearest competitor, you have failed. The fact that a lot of people are content to endlessly replay the same content in PUBG or Minecraft doesn't really change that.

 

[SuperEpicMan]

I agree with a bunch of things he said regarding dodging taxes and the like, but I also think some of his arguments were a bit flawed. For instance, DLC can't simultaneously be carved up from the complete game, whilst also being 'not yet made'. I also don't agree with the assessment that $60 only gets you access to a game, and not the full experience.

99.99% of the time when I buy a game, I get the standard version and I do not feel like I am particularly missing out. Most of the time, the extra stuff offered in loot boxes, limited editions and gold editions just seem to be fluff. That being said, obviously there are good and bad ways to approach additional monetisation schemes. Personally I think SW Battlefront 2 is a good way of approaching it, since the base game already seems full of content, and I love that I do not need to buy a season pass. Whereas something like this years COD seems pretty excessive by having both loot boxes and a season pass.

 

[Snefer]

For me the myth is stranger because in the UK its not true at all. Last gen games cost about £40 brand new in store. Now they are £50 on average. They have gone up. Digtal start at £55 quite often on the sony store.

well, the worth of the pound is that much lower now compared to last gen. So going from 40 to 50 puts it prett much exactly in line if you compare USD/GBP now vs say 5 years ago.

 

[Peroroncino]

Did Jim really just solely blame devs for increasing graphical fidelity and complexity in games as if the audience constantly demanding more had nothing to do with it? Citing minecraft and PUBG, ignoring the success of GTAV, aka one of if not literally the most detailed game that released during it's gen and also the most successful title in that studio's history.

Most popular games in existence [pubg, cs, lol, dota, wow, minecraft] are average looking at best and one shiny gta title doesn't really offset the balance in my opinion.

Besides, it can be argued that GTAV's continued succes stems from its multiplayer component, not its graphics.

 

[Snefer]

I have never seen DLC starting production before finishing a game though. I get that people want to think corporations are evil and DLC is cut from the main game, but I have never seen that happen, ever. DLC is budgeted separately, produced separately.

 

[LordRaptor]

Is there any actual research done about budget increases from generation to generation versus end user cost, or is it the usual forum level commentary because pundits aren't journalists and don't need to do things like fact check?

 

[Chessr]

I never felt that i missed out on content if i did not buy season pass or whatever.
Season pass is expansed content.
If anyone can prove that any publisher/dev have pulled some content out from a game just to sell as dlc, i will change my mind. on disc dlc do not count. Even if it is on disc it doesnt mean it have been pulled from main game.

 

[univbee]

A bit surprised he didn't touch on the season passes being digital-only in most cases (i.e. you have to pay the company directly for that content, can't buy it second-hand), but was very thorough otherwise.

 

[Irminsul]

Tsk, showing an Ubisoft game when talking about Nintendo... Also, I'd say amiibos make for a far better argument than season passes, which aren't in that many Nintendo games.

Did Jim really just solely blame devs for increasing graphical fidelity and complexity in games as if the audience constantly demanding more had nothing to do with it? Citing minecraft and PUBG, ignoring the success of GTAV, aka one of if not literally the most detailed game that released during it's gen and also the most successful title in that studio's history.

Well, the argument usually is that devs need to increase graphical fidelity and complexity. Minecraft and PUBG are counter-examples to that, showing that no, other factors can be far more important. Nice-looking games selling well hasn't got anything to do with the argument being made. You would need to find games that didn't sell well because they looked dated for that.

Beside the fact that I'd argue that GTA sells because it's in the category "games where you can do a lot of stuff". Pure graphical fidelity is another category.

 

[Kanann]

Did Jim really just solely blame devs for increasing graphical fidelity and complexity in games as if the audience constantly demanding more had nothing to do with it? Citing minecraft and PUBG, ignoring the success of GTAV, aka one of if not literally the most detailed game that released during it's gen and also the most successful title in that studio's history.

Did every AAA titles have to be technical marvel like GTAV? They bullshit on us and avoid the taxes as smooth as criminal ass.

 

[Cmagus]

I rarely if ever buy AAA games anymore it's become too much. Here in Canada your looking at anywhere from $100-$130 for games with season passes and it's imo is too much. I've been playing a lot of indies and tbh I've been having more fun with them then I've had with recent AAA games and I much rather give a few indie devs the money than most of the AAA devs.

 

[Peroroncino]

A bit surprised he didn't touch on the season passes being digital-only in most cases (i.e. you have to pay the company directly for that content, can't buy it second-hand), but was very thorough otherwise.

That's never gonna happen becuse one of the big reasons for season passes as a whole is to prevent your from selling your copy of the game in the first place, so allowing you to also sell season passes would be counter-intuitive for those poor, poor companies.

 

[ItIsOkBro]

he makes it sound like you're getting some shell of a game for $60 that you need to pour more money into to get a worthwhile experience.

 

[Kiddy Dong]

I'm glad we have someone like Jim who plays hard ball with this industry. Say what you want about his character but his message is on point.

 

[MercuryLS3]

What Jim is talking about, and 'well it didn't bother you in this game, so why should it bother you now' are the only two arguments I have heard for MTs and lootboxes in games.

They are both a load of total bollox. The last few months have really opened my eyes to the corporate apologists on this forum.

The biggest problem with these things is that they start to fuck up the game, you have grindy bits that can be circumvented for money or special weapons and gear that can only be acquired by random loot boxes (basically gambling). Fuck these companies.

 

[Stone Ocean]

The drumbeat of "MORE CONTENT" has been ever-constant for more than a decade. People want more worlds, more spaces, more modes, more activities, etc in every sequel or followup. If you ship with less Feature checkboxes than your previous game or your nearest competitor, you have failed. The fact that a lot of people are content to endlessly replay the same content in PUBG or Minecraft doesn't really change that.

And yet, we continuosly get less and less for the sake of making games prettier. The bolded is the biggest issue, how often do you hear of sequels having barely as much if not less playable content and features than its predecessors?

Cheat codes, extra modes, characters, costumes, levels, all of that has faded away over time or turned into extra paid DLC. AAA games have become more and more iterative and homogenous over time, Its really ironic to hear this type of argument after a game like Destiny 2 got heavily criticized for being more of the fucking same or how COD was declining for being the exact same shit every year. Games like GTAV are rare and the price is very apparent considering how many years it takes for Rockstar to release a game. Meanwhile the rest of the industry keeps shitting the same thing every two years and expects us to pay because their new engine that can barely do 30fps on consoles makes the game look prettier.

 

[shaneo632]

The new music was absolutely terrible so glad to see the old back.

 

[border]

Beside the fact that I'd argue that GTA sells because it's in the category "games where you can do a lot of stuff". Pure graphical fidelity is another category.

"Graphical fidelity" is not the only thing that ramps up production costs though. Being able to do a lot of stuff costs money.

 

[d9b]

Jim for president!

 

[Valtýr]

Jim's perspective of the industry chasing technical and graphical benchmarks on their own is a bit off the mark in my opinion. The fanbase most definitely demands the leaps we see every generation. People salivate over the minuet detail poured into every game and respond to it, thus others follow suit.

 

[Markitron]

I have never seen DLC starting production before finishing a game though. I get that people want to think corporations are evil and DLC is cut from the main game, but I have never seen that happen, ever. DLC is budgeted separately, produced separately.

You think if they actually did this they would advertise it? Capcom in particular are notorious for this. What about when Ubisoft released a Prince of Persia game and sold the actual ending as DLC 2 months later?

 

[Bits N Pieces]

Will watch later tonight.

I know people will disagree strongly here but I dont mind lootboxes all that much and have even spent real money on a few of them myself.

Fucking shoot me! lol

 

[Screaming Meat]

I didn't think of it like that. Nice one, Jim.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Did every AAA titles have to be technical marvel like GTAV? They bullshit on us and avoid the taxes as smooth as criminal ass.

People complain when the resolution isn't high enough and constantly prop up the highest budget games as what more devs should do....what do you think? Avoiding taxes doesn't mean that budgets haven't been going up, games are harder to make, teams are larger, etc. It's a new gen, meaning more things are possible. So audiences expect more and devs and pubs accommodate. The blame for increased development costs and time is certainly not solely on developers.

Well, the argument usually is that devs need to increase graphical fidelity and complexity. Minecraft and PUBG are counter-examples to that, showing that no, other factors can be far more important. Nice-looking games selling well hasn't got anything to do with the argument being made. You would need to find games that didn't sell well because they looked dated for that.

Beside the fact that I'd argue that GTA sells because it's in the category "games where you can do a lot of stuff". Pure graphical fidelity is another category.

Both of these concepts cost a lot of money. Those flip flop gifs people love posting in attention to detail threads, yea those cost money, that rock sliding gif in Uncharted 4, yea that cost money, those little ants on the trees in horizon zero dawn, yea those cost money. Audiences constantly praise and then subsequently expect other titles to nail those small little details. Successful indie games are typically exceptions to the rule in the context of this industry as for every indie game being a huge deal that sells millions of copies and makes headlines, there are tons upon tons that aren't doing that, compared to the triple A industry, they don't represent the market or context as a whole.

 

[Steve Youngblood]

I'm glad we have someone like Jim who plays hard ball with this industry. Say what you want about his character but his message is on point.

I honestly feel the exact opposite. As increasingly dubious products come out that actually probably do require me raising a more suspicious eyebrow (like Shadow of Mordor or Forza), I feel like I've become increasingly numb to voices like Jim's that are just perpetually angry about everything. It's a "boy who cried wolf" problem to me just in that it's very difficult for me to take notice to new consumer rights threats because the loudest voices are always people like Jim that seem to be able to find a brand new "this time the games industry has gone too far!!!!" thing to rant about each and every week.

 

[KingBroly]

he makes it sound like you're getting some shell of a game for $60 that you need to pour more money into to get a worthwhile experience.

They market the rest of the game to customers. It's not like it's hidden away or anything, whether it be DLC or Loot Boxes.

I think this video is a nice jumping-off point, but each individual subject (tax evasion, royalties, the need for graphical fidelity (which I think is bogus and has been since the Wii/DS) could all be their own, at-length videos.

I don't know why Jim used Mario+Rabbids picture as an example for a Nintendo game when it was made by Ubisoft, but Breath of the Wild might've been a better example, although it's still not perfect.

 

[border]

And yet, we continuosly get less and less for the sake of making games prettier. The bolded is the biggest issue, how often do you hear of sequels having barely as much if not less playable content and features than its predecessors?

Cheat codes, extra modes, characters, costumes, levels, all of that has faded away over time or turned into extra paid DLC. AAA games have become more and more iterative and homogenous over time, Its really ironic to hear this type of argument after a game like Destiny 2 got heavily criticized for being more of the fucking same or how COD was declining for being the exact same shit every year.

I was largely thinking of Destiny 2 here.....a sequel which was derisively referred to as an expansion pack because it didn't have a new enemy faction, huge graphical upgrade, new classes/subclasses, or a ton of new weapon archetypes. If you want more out of sequels that's fine, but you don't get to pretend like those demands aren't pushing production budgets upwards. It would have taken significant time and money to go back and re-do all of Destiny's models and animations......I'd rather have them focus on playable content.

 

[horkrux]

Here is what you're missing - you're grinding for rewards rather than paying for them, that's fine. However, to make the prospect of buying your way out of the grind more enticing, developers actually balance your rewards-per-hour to be somewhat lacking.

Sure, but that needs to be evaluated on a per-game basis. Of course the grind should be within reason (which differs greatly from person to person lol).

 

[Kiddy Dong]

God, I'm so bored of hearing Jim talk about loot boxes and microtransactions and game company greed all the time. Stop standing up for my rights as a consumer, you fat fuck. I don't pay you to produce well-researched and important content that deconstructs industry myths surrounding important issues that have become too-widely accepted as fact (or at all, since I obviously don't contribute to your Patreon - I have loot boxes to buy).

Now put on your cornflake bag and play some asset flipped shit from Steam for my amusement.

Well said.

 

[Sesha]

Another thing worth mentioning is, while I haven't looked up the numbers for this right now, I'm pretty sure your average chart-topping AAA release these days sells more copies than those did previously. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Did Jim really just solely blame devs for increasing graphical fidelity and complexity in games as if the audience constantly demanding more had nothing to do with it? Citing minecraft and PUBG, ignoring the success of GTAV, aka one of if not literally the most detailed game that released during it's gen and also the most successful title in that studio's history.

No, he's blaming publishers.

 

[Crossing Eden]

No, he's blaming publishers.

Publishers responding to market trends and more importantly demands.

 

[NathanS]

I REALLY wish he would stop using the anti-semantic caricature orc when talking about greedy business practices.

 

[Snefer]

You think if they actually did this they would advertise it? Capcom in particular are notorious for this. What about when Ubisoft released a Prince of Persia game and sold the actual ending as DLC 2 months later?

I mean in my experience as AAA developer.

 

[Crossing Eden]

You think if they actually did this they would advertise it? Capcom in particular are notorious for this. What about when Ubisoft released a Prince of Persia game and sold the actual ending as DLC 2 months later?

If this was as common as the gaming community would have you believe then it would've been talked about at length at a much higher frequency. Hell there'd probably even be GDC talks about how to properly factor dlc development into the dev pipeline long before the actual game is finished.

 

[Markitron]

It's a "boy who cried wolf" problem to me just in that it's very difficult for me to take notice to new consumer rights threats because the loudest voices are always people like Jim that seem to be able to find a brand new "this time the games industry has gone too far!!!!" thing to rant about each and every week.

It's mostly a consumer watchdog show, and it's not his fault the industry is constantly providing him with subject matter. He does do positive episodes when the situation arises, his Hellblade episode a few weeks back is a good example

If this was as common as the gaming community would have you believe then it would've been talked about at length at a much higher frequency. Hell there'd probably even be GDC talks about how to properly factor dlc development into the dev pipeline long before the actual game is finished.

I don't think it's anywhere near as common as it used to be, it was really just a couple of repeat offenders, I was just pointing out the naivety of the guy I was quoting. It was quite a statement to say this type of practice never happened.

 

[LordRaptor]

Another thing worth mentioning is, while I haven't looked up the numbers for this right now, I'm pretty sure your average chart-topping AAA release these days sells more copies than those did previously. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

You're right.
But there are fewer total games being released, so the successful titles take a bigger slice of the smaller pie.

e: And they're potentially not actually selling more, just making more money from the copies they do sell. NPD changed its reporting to solely revenue and not unit sales for a reason.

 

[Lord_Balkan]

Yeah that last argument was super flimsy and I didnt buy it. Rest of the video was good though.

The problem with those examples are they are the exception, not the norm.

 

[freeofgreed]

Did Jim really just solely blame devs for increasing graphical fidelity and complexity in games as if the audience constantly demanding more had nothing to do with it? Citing minecraft and PUBG, ignoring the success of GTAV, aka one of if not literally the most detailed game that released during it's gen and also the most successful title in that studio's history.

No not really. His argument here is completetly sound. If the production values of modern game development really is as an unsustainable as publishers make it seem. Then they should scale back on it. Him ignoring GTA doesn't mean shit. GTAV was successful because it was GTA period. The fact that games like PUBG and Minecraft can be so monumental successfully fully proves his point that games can be completely successful without being technical showcases. I have no idea why your being willingly obtuse here.

 

[Tapejara]

Jim complains that Battlefront 1 was only barely half a game, and then claims he has no part in bloating up production budgets. Picking at extraneous nonsense like hair modeling in Tomb Raider is going for the low-hanging fruit.

The drumbeat of "MORE CONTENT" has been ever-constant for more than a decade. People want more worlds, more spaces, more modes, more activities, etc in every sequel or followup. If you ship with less Feature checkboxes than your previous game or your nearest competitor, you have failed. The fact that a lot of people are content to endlessly replay the same content in PUBG or Minecraft doesn't really change that.

To be fair, Battlefront 2015 was severely lacking compared to not only other modern games in its genre, but even it's own predecessor.

Compared to Battlefront II (2005) Battlefront 2015 only had one era. There were nineteen maps in the 2005 game, while Battlefront 2015 only launched with five (though there were smaller variants of each for game modes that had smaller player count). In addition there was no single-player campaign in the 2015 game, while one existed in 2005 game. Even taking Battlefront II out of the picture, this is still a fraction of the content found even in DICE's own Battlefield games (Battlefield 1 launched with 10 maps and a single player campaign) or other contemporary shooters (Call of Duty), and it released at the same $60 price. I don't think Jim harping on Battlefront 2015 for not having enough content doesn't invalidate his argument, because that game was barebones without the season pass content.

 

[Goldfishking]

I've not watched much of jims stuff before, but here are a number of things I disagreed with/picked up on:

At about 3:45 he states that the base price will only buy you the 'skeletal package' of the game. I have to disagree with calling it just the skeleton of the game. Most games with season passes don't feel like a shell of the game with DLC. The DLC is just more added onto the game.

Calling games like witcher 3 or even watch dogs 2 (using the example he gave) at launch a 'skeletal package' just feels weird to me. He then furthers this retoric by calling NBA2k18 a 'simulation of a shitty mobile free to play game'. Calling and dismissing games and their developers just because you don't want to buy the dlc just makes this guy seem petty.

At about 8:10 it also seems like he is implying that open world games have less varied missions because they dole out the good missions in DLC? Which is just wrong.

The whole video he calls out how games that use micro-transactions and DLC are rubbish games that we should hate, but then at 12:20 acknowledges that the biggest and most popular games use them.

As others have said also, the conclusion is the most baffling part, saying that 'we' didn't want better looking higher fidelity games.

Overall I get what Jim is saying. I think the points about publishers dodging taxes and not paying actors royalities are things that should be brought up more often. But the arguments that games containing Season passes or lootboxes are somehow lesser games and that developers shouldn't strive to make games higher fidelity and all games should be clunky like PUBG or basic graphics like minecraft is not something I can get behind. Some of the points in this video are good ones but they are backed up with weak arguments and contradictions and some arguements just make no sense and are likely just a figure of a wild imagination. I can't imagine I'll be watching any more of jims videos anytime soon.