Jim: Ok. Right. Well, I guess I'll do a little intro, and then we can get on with...

with whatever it is you'd like to talk about. We'll let this be your day. I'll just
say hello, Hello I'm Jim Sterling, many of you will know me from videos what I
do on this channel what you're presumably watching it on now, unless Digital
Homicide wants to host it on their website. They're more than welcome to do
so. I'm here with Digital Homicide themselves, hello.
Digital Homicide: Hello, this is Robert.
Jim: "This is Robert", hello Robert. I am, first of all, somewhat relieved that I'm
hearing the voice of an adult man. I was expecting to not hear the voice of an
adult, so this makes me feel a little bit better about things.
DH: Oh yeah, I have 3 kids, I'm 35, I'm definitely an adult.
Jim: Oh dear. Okay then, you requested this interview, I guess we can call it
an interview, after today's video where i covered Medieval Mercs (that's
presumably short for mercanaries) and... you... seem quite eager to have a
freeform discussion about things.
DH: Oh yeah, absolutely, because every time that you do a video it's always a
one-sided conversation, and your audience comes and attacks me based on
your one sided conversation.
Jim: Sure, sure.
DH: So I wanted to make sure we can talk and get both sides of everything,
so everybody knows.
Jim: No, I mean, I fully agree with you there, it's... It's really been two different
one sided conversations, because as you quite correctly point out when I do a
video on a Digital Homicide game, it is a very one sided issue because I'm
just speaking directly to my audience, and then when you go on the steam
forums for your games, you are talking to yourDh: No I'm talking to your audience, too. Because your audience comes to MY
forums, and attacks me on a regular basis. I'm not talking to just my
audience, I'm talking to YOURS, because I have to deal with your audience
EVERY SINGLE DAY.

Jim: Mmm. Mmm. And uh... my main question would be, with that issue there,
is uh, can your audience, uh... well let me rephrase that. Does your audience,
outside of my audience... exist?
Dh: Oh yeah, totally. There is people that enjoy our games. You might be
surprised at the amount of games that we have sold. You'd be surprised that
theres actually people that defend against the people that come and attack
and spout off your nonsense. Let's talk specifically, about your nonsense. Just
go ahead and start all the way back at the beginning and go ahead and
ramble off all your accusations and stuff, and I will address every one of your
issues specifically, step by step. Start from the beginning, the first thing,
whatever you want.
Jim: Ok. When you say right back at the beginning, are we talking specifically
about The Slaughtering Grounds?
DH: Sure, we can talk about The Slaughtering Grounds
Jim: Ok. Now was that your very first foray into creating a game?
DH: Second game.
Jim: That was your second game. What was your first?
DH: The first one was Forsaken Uprising.
Jim: Mmhmm. Ah yes, yes, I do recall.
DH: How, how long have you been doing videos?
Jim: How long have I been doing videos?
Dh: Yeah, lets just give some perspective. How long have you been doing
videos? This is what you do for a living, correct?
Jim: This is, that's absolutely correct
DH: Ok, so you've been probably doing this for a while, I'm guessing ten
years, maybe? Videos?
Jim: Nnnnnot videos specifically. I've mostly, for most of my career I've been a
writer, and I've been writing for... lets say professionally within the realm of
games, about 8 years.
Dh: Ok, so how long have you been doing videos?
Jim: How long have I been doing videos. Umm...letsDH: Five years?

Jim: -be generous and say... five? Lets' say five.

Dh: Ok. So you've been making videos for five years. Were your first videos
absolutely professional quality?
Jim: Absolutely not!
Dh: Ok, thank you. Alright.
Jim: But they were on a youtube channel and I wasn't charging money for
them.
Dh: But have you taken those videos off your youtube channel? Are they
available for people to watch? Because you have advertising revunue being
generated from those unprofessionally done videos, correct?
Jim: No, no. BecDH: Theres no ad revenue being generated from those?
Jim: Uh, they might be generated for somebody, but not me. Uh, I was
experimenting, Destructoid, when I first started working at Destructoid was
doing very experimental stuff, and just kind of, they would throw up any old
shit to see what sticks. It was all kind of, uh, free of charge, and everything.
DH: But you did make money off of that? Cos you worked for Destructoid, so
you did earn your salary from Destructoid, or however they paid you, so in
some form or manner, you were paid for those unprofessional products, were
you not?
Jim: That's actually not true, that's actually not true. I was paid a salary for
my reviews work, I worked as reviews editor for Destructoid for several years,
and that's what I was paid for.
Dh: You just said that you did it forJim: Destructoid is an independent website, and at the time I wasn't making a
huge deal of money, and they were trying to get video production off the
ground. All of the video work I did for them was pro bono.
Dh: All of the video work you did for them was pro bono?
Jim: Yes, yes.
Dh: But you just associated it to Destructoid, as in "well, that was my
reasoning, is I did it under Destructoid so it's not associated".
Jim: No, no, what I'm saying is, is you asked if I was getting ad revenue for
those videos, which I don't and didn't. Only when the videos reached a level

of quality I was happy with did I then move the Jimquisition to the Escapist,
where I signed professional contracts and actually made money off it. And
have continued to, in the face of criticism, (which you know, I get just as
much as you), continued to evolve and improve the product, over many many
years by listening to feedback. Not, say, censoring comments, not banning
people from forums that have problems with the work and no matter how
innocuous because lets face it, the innocuous stuff gets banned on a Digital
Homicide game forum Dh: No no, wait wait wait, we can totally address the whole banning thing.
Like for instance when you said that I ran a contest during Slaughtering
Grounds, and that i was just indiscriminantly banning people. Which is a total
lie. We can bring up a steam moderator, one of your people went and posted
on the steam community forums, and the moderator glocked his thread, and
told him, "no, he is totally following his rules and guidelines for the contest".
They can talk all the trash they want, there was very few people banned. I
gave three keys away, to the people who talked the *most* trash in that. But
this goes along with everything else you do. You spout a whole bunch of
unalleged facts, things that you conject as being fact Jim: Well, they are alleged.
Dh: What about today? What about your video today? Your headline for that
video... nothing in it was true. Your timeframe, in yearJim: Well, the headline for it was, um, "Bullshit" and Dh: "In a year and a half, Digital Homicide has put out four games" You didnt
get the timeframe correct, we have five games. This shows the level of
commitment you do for your stuff. You just don't investigate anything, and
just spout out information and hopefully someone will believe it, which you've
quoted in your videos, saying that people will believe anything that you say
as long as you do it artisically, it doesn't matter if what you say is true, you
just throw it out there, and people gobble it up.
Jim: I'll cop to that mistake, I'll happily, I'm a man who cops to his mistakes,
you're absolutely right, you have five games including Six Nights At Suzie's,
which obviously didnt go upDH: You're saying I dont cop to my stuff? When have I notJim: Sir? In an unscripted environment obviously mistakes get made, and I do
cop to those mistakes when they are made. The main problem with that is I
was pointing out... I wasn't saying that as a good thing, how many games you
were doing, uh, I was actually pointing it out as a negative. So I'm more than
happy to say that in a year and a half you've done five games. Four sounds a

bit better, to be honest, but if you'd like me to add that, I will certainly use
annotations to point out that you guys are just churning game after game
out.
Dh: That's a great point, you make a great point. Let's talk about churning
stuff out. Let's talk about how many videos you do. Talk about substandard
products being delivered on a regular basis, what are your squirty plays, what
is the definition of a squirty play? Your squirty plays are "oh i havent done a
whole lot of investigation into the game". Well why dont you do a quality
review instead of a squirty play? The reason is because you generate views
from your squirty plays. You put your squirty plays out there, snatch up a
whole bunch of views for something that you did not invest a lot of time in. Is
that an inaccurate description?
Jim: Well, the problem with thatDH: Is that an inaccurate description???
Jim: -problem with that allegation is you're assuming that that's all I do. I
actually do fully written, fully researched reviews of many many games.
Dh: I'm not saying you dont.
Jim: A squirty play is something I do on the side, mostly for fun.
Dh: Exactly! And youre generating ad revenue off of that.
Jim: Absolutely! Quite a lot of it.
Dh: Thank you!! Thank you for admitting that. So you make money off of half
done, low effort, stuff. Thank you for admitting that.
Jim: I do. When it comes to covering your videos, I'm making money off of low
effort stuff.
Dh: Well now you're just insulting, rather then trying to have aJim: Wellll, before we started this interview you called me a chickenshit, so I
think you're not one who should be throwing stones in a glass house, sir.
Dh: Well you were being a chickenshit. You totally were being a chickenshit.
We're getting off of the topic though. Keep going with other things that you
say that I've done.
Jim: Ok, let's go with The Slaughtering Grounds because as I said of Forsaken
Uprising, I didnt think it was that bad. Bit boring, but as far as some of your
games go, quite well made, in context. So we dont have to cover that one too
much unless theres anything you'd like to say about it. But I always felt I was

kinder to that one because I felt like you'd put some effort into it. If thats fair
to say.
Dh: I honestly think it was just a little more complicated since its a survival
game, and you really lack in the department of actually playing complicated
games.
jim: Touche. Touche. I mean, I'm a huge fan of Bloodborne and all the Souls
games, to which I dont think your games are comparable in the least, so...
dh: I never said i was a Triple A developer.
Jim: Oh, no one did.
Dh: You know, you can throw your insults but but I have never statedjim: That wasn't an insult, that was a statement of fact.
dh: Well its nice you finally do one, a fact.
jim: Yes yes, if we're going to say thats the first fact of the interview, fine.
heres another one, if we're gonna focus on The Slaughtering Grounds to
begin with, you did take offence at me not putting the effort into covering
your game. But... a lot of people in the aftermath seem to think you didnt put
a lot of effort in yourselves, for example the blood spatter that shows damage
on the game seems to have been ripped from google images to the point
where all of the artefacts from the, uh, I'm assuming you used png images,
are still visible. I'm looking at a screenshot right now that shows the
bloodspatter on google images versus the bloodspatter shown in the
slaughering grounds, where they are covered in artefacts from where you
didnt remove the background of the blood properly.
dh: Yeah thats a good point. uh, back then I was new to stuff, just follow me
for a second, bear with me. So I was new, I didn't realise there was a
copyright on the image, I didn't realise it was an issue. As of today, that
image has been removed. But it brings up a question which is: do you have a
licence for the things you use in your videos? Your songs, your images of
costumes, all of that artwork? Do you have licences for that stuff?
jim: I have licences for the stuff that is tied in to the actual branding, and
everything else is fair use, as I think you found out when you tried to hit me
with a copyright strike for The Slaughtering Grounds.
Dh: Oh yeah lets talk about that since you bring it up. You seem to think...
let's talk about DMCA. So youve heard, I'm sure, about Nintendo and Sega
and they've had successful lawsuits in claiming their content?
Jim: Ummm... no they haven't.

Dh: They haven't had any success?

Jim: Well, none of this stuff has ever been taken to court, so they've not had
any sucessful lawsuits, no.
Dh: Oh the... content that has been claimed on youtube. They have not
claimed that content?
Jim: That's... you're asking different questions. They've been able to use
content ID which is something I very rarely fight, it's a different issue from a
takedown strike. These are two very... you've demonstrated something of a
muddled understnading of the law.
Dh: You guys, TotalBiscuit, everybody, insist that we have no right to claim
content. We have absolutely... I'm so glad you're talking about this. We have
every right to claim our content. The reason that there's an issue is that the
law is grey. What I would like to point out is, take your video, take my
gameplay out of your video and lets seeJim: Well it's not your gamePLAY, its your game but its my gameplay and
commentary, thats what we call transformative work.
DH: Oh! Is that what they do with movies, I don't really think I've seen a live
critique of a movie, showing all of the movie.
Jim: With all due respect, outside of the work of David Cage, most video
games are actually a completely different medium from movies. It's actually a
totally different medium that allows for transformative works. For example,
you know, competitive gameplay, twitch streaming. There's enough input
from the player, which is why there's this grey area here as opposed to
movies.
Dh: If it's so grey then how have they successfully content claimed it?
Jim: ...right. But again, this is a different issue. They've successfully content
ID'd it, which is a different issue.
Dh: If its so grey, how have they content CLAIMED their stuff?
Jim: Well my question to you is, if its so black and white how come you've not
content ID'd my videos?
DH: BECAUSE, just like every other one of the small developers that you shit
on on a regular basis, we dont have the funds to take you to court.
Jim: Content ID is not a court issue. Do you understand the difference
between content ID and an actual takedown strike?

Dh: We have contacted and asked for a content, and they say we should
contact their legal department. So it MUST be a legal issue if youtube is
telling us that it is one.
jim: My confusion there is that you wre so confident that you would take me
to court, like you actually said you were going to do this, you saiddh: And then we realised how the costjim: -you would see me in a court of law. and i waited and waited for this and
neverdh: I'm sure, yeah I'm sure you did.
jim: I had a folder of evidence to absolutely demolish you in a court of law.
dh: We have seventeen pages of stuff, so don't worry, we have plenty of
evidence.
jim: Well where's the lawsuit?
dh: Because we dont have the money! We don't make ten thousand dollars a
month on [mispronouncing Patreon] pat-reone
jim: Pay-treon
dh: We have five videogames but as you've stated, they're low quality
videogames and we don't make that much money. We're these big rich evil
developers? If you saw my income you would be sad at what my income is. I
definitely dont make ten thousand dollars a month by spewing crap on other
people.
jim: I'm sad when i see a lot of your stuff. But thats besides the point. The
point is is that you were very gung-ho, and your reason for not taking me to
court is that you had more important things to do, not that you didnt have
enough money, which was something that I could have respected. My
question is, why were you so confident and so brazen, and I would say
boastful, that you were going to take me to court and hash this out and finally
do rid of the grey area. This could have been a lawsuit that would have
settled a lot of scores for a lot of people. I had TotalBiscuit and various other
youtubers telling me if this goes through it could be a definitive thing. You
were so confident, so i think the world was disappointed when you then
brushed it off as "you've got better things to do and you dont have time to
deal with this", which is very different from the reason you're giving me now
dh: No no no. It's not that we dont have time to deal with it ever, we dont
have time to deal with it right now because I'm trying to be successful and
make a business. You make your money of making our business... i'm glad i

got to that too. If I quit making... if EVERYONE quit making games, does your
job still exist if theres no games to review?
jim: Well...
dh: Answer that question direct, yes or no.
jim: [chuckling] Absolutely no, yeah. You're absolutely right, if there are no
videogames then videogame critics and media dont... Yeah, i'm sorry, I'm
very confused by that point there.
dh: I know, just follow with me. If that is the case... so... I've kind of lost my
train of thought there.
jim: That's alright, that's alright, I'll give you a moment to get it back. You
were saying how, if all of videogames, if the videogames disappeared, I
wouldn't have a job.
dh: Oh yeah, so. I totally don't mind youtube reviewers. The problem is is that
youtube reviewers habitually rely upon games. Game developers. Is that
correct?
jim: Again, to answer the question, are you just going to keep asking it?
Again, the answer to that question is, you're correct, yes. Someone who
reviews videogames cant review videogames if videogames dont exist.
dh: Ok. The problem is that that is the definition of a leech.
jim: ...No it isn't.
dh: Actually it is, we can look it up on google right now, would you like to look
up the definition of leech? "Habitually rely upon" That is the definition of a
leech. "Habitually rely upon" Look it up! I've already looked it up.
Jim: "Leeches are segmented worms that belong to the phylum Analidia"
-sorry hold on let me pronounce that correctly- "Annelida and comprise the
subclass Hirudinea. Like the oligochaetes, such as earthworms, leeches share
a clitellum and are hermaphrodites" apparently.
Dh: Ok, what is the verb usage - look i'm looking right at it. Leech, verb
usage.
Jim: "Leeches do not have bristles and the external segmentation of their
bodies does not correspond with the internal segmentation of their organs."
Dh: Ok. So leech, the verbJim: I'm learning a lot about leeches here.

Dh: Ok. "Habitually exploit or rely upon". Especially the exploit part, because
that's the difference. It's not that all leeches are bad. Leeches have medical
purposes, leeches are good for people, they have all kinds of benefits. The
problem is, the leeches that suck the blood out of their hosts until they wither
and die. That's what you are.
Jim: Right. But now I'm looking at Merriam-Wibster -"Wibster?" Webster. Sorry,
all that latin stuff in the other description. Merriam-Webster (got it right there)
says, lets see... "any of numerous carnivorous or bloodsucking usually
freshwater annelid worms that have typically a flattened lanceolate
segmented body with a sucker at each end"
Dh: Yeah, read the next one, I'm looking at the same thing. What's the next
one say, it's very similar to the other definition. What is the third definition.
Jim: That's "A hanger on who seeks advantage or gain".
Dh: There you go, that is definitely a youtube reviewers description. And its
not that it's bad, you make it bad.
jim: I personally make it bad?
dh: Absolutely! You stifle... ok. I'm not saying any of our games are amazing,
and I never have, but are my games getting better?
Jim: Umm... it's very up and down. Forsaken Uprising was one of your
strongest ones, then Slaughtering Grounds came out and was one of the
worst games of the year, as voted not just by me but by ProJared and Angry
Joe, then came out... what was the next one that came out, that would have
been... Deadly Profits, was it not?
Dh: Yeah.
Jim: Now that one, I liked, I said this before (I say liked, I mean, relatively
liked). Then Temper Tantrum came out and that was fucking godawful, and
then Medieval Mercs, which less said about that one the better. So you've
kind of had an arc, it started up, went downhill dramatically, went back up
and then its just been a slope.
dh: You don't ask any questions, you just spout information that you dont
know anything about. You dont know that Temper Tantrum was actually
finished in December, you dont know the order of which games were
completed. Temper Tantrum sat in Greenlight and was waiting to be, thats
why it's quality was lower than Deadly Profits.
jim: So you're saying, right. If we're going by my personal definitions of which
games are the better ones, you're saying that you developed the games in

this order, and do, again, correct me if im wrong: Uh, lets see, what was the
worst one, that'd be Temper Tantrum, Slaughtering Grounds, Medieval Mercs,
Forsaken Uprising and then Deadly Profits. Am I correct, is that the
development order?
dh: No. Those are all our games. The development order was Forsaken
Uprising, Slaughtering Grounds, Temper Tantrum, and THEN Deadly Profits
and now Medieval Mercs. And Medieval Mercs was started right after Deadly
Profits.
Jim: Right. So it's not been a sliding scale upwards in terms of quality, at least
as far as I'm concerned. Now obviously tastes differ, but at this point were
arguing pure difference of opinion.
dh: Your opinion is that the games are not getting better?
jim: My opinion is, that, judging from the information you just gave me, it's...
you've reshuffled the games but it's still peaks and troughs.
Dh: Slaughtering Grounds and Temper Tantrum... were before Deadly Profits
and Medieval Mercs. So these gmaes are getting better.
jim: Medieval Mercs is shit.
dh: Well you didn't even play it at all. You had - did you know that there's a
help menu? Did you even know there's a help menu?
Jim: To be honest, the sheer geographical chaos that was your menu screendh: That just goes to show why youre a bad person, man.
Jim: Bad person?
Dh: Yes! You're terrible. You are terrible. You're not doing a critique, you're
NOT doing a critique.
Jim: Well that's not what squirty play is.
dh: That was a squirty play?
Jim: ...Yeah.
dh: Well where's the critique of it, cos from what we've been talking about
now, I'd assumed you had done your full critique.
jim: ...No, thatdh: Oh, that'll be the Jimquisition when you crap all over it again, ok. Well at
least i'll know when it's coming.

jim: Oh no no no. your mentions on Jimquisition are, uhdh: Often!

jim: They're numbered. I'd say keep an eye on end of the year for more
mentions of your games on The Jimquisition. Around about award season.
dh: On the Slaughtering Grounds forum, since we were talking about
Slaughtering Grounds. At the very top of the Slaughtering Grounds forum,
have you read the post thats been pinned there where i had a conversation
with another reviewer? Probably not cos you don't follow up on any of your
stuff. So, in that, I talk to another reviewer, and it's a lengthy thing for all of
your people to go and read. Theres tons of information. I even say that
maaaybe my initial video was - I didn't say maybe. My initial video was a little
bit of an overreaction.
jim: This would be the Review The Reviewer video you did, where you coined
the phrase, and, and, I've gotta tell you, thisDh: Thank you for saying I coined that phrase!
Jim: I'm not saying you didn't coin that phrase, everyone's thrilled you did
and i've got to say i'm thrilled as well. "I'm Jim Fucking Sterling Son". I'm not
taking that away from you, that's the best thing you've ever done.
dh: It just goes to show, out of this situation, the whole Review The Reviewer
thing? I'm aware I made my video, then you did your thing, and then kept
attacking over and over. And all the people came, and it's been game after
game after game, and my financial status has been hurt from what you do.
How has your subscriber base done since that first video?
jim: My subscriber base has basically been on a very consistent uptick ever
since I started doing videos. Thats looking before I ever touched your stuff,
it's been a very... I get at least a couple of hundred subscribers, usually a
thousand new subscribers a day, thats mostly ever since I moved The
Jimquisition from the Escapist to my channel, if you're hoping to claim any
credit there.
dh: So this hasnt helped you at all.
jim: I'm not saying it hasnt helped, every single video I do helps.
dh: So... again. What you do to me helps you and hurts me, right?
jim: Righ- welldh: Thanks, you said right. You were gonna agree with me and then you had
to wrap some twisted-

jim: Right, if you believe it hurts you, obviously I've not seen the evidence of
your financial turmoil.
dh: All you have to do is go to my forums and see the people that you have
sent coming to the forums all the time saying stuff, like your lies about me
banning people unfairly.
Jim: There may be correlation, between my audience being upset with your
behaviour and you losing money, but as we all know, as every schoolboy
knows, correlation is not causation. I mean... where is the evidence that you
are directly financially harmed by me? I mean you, by your own admission
your games sell pretty decently well, according to yourself.
Dh: ...Pretty decently well? I'm not going to give you the financial information
because that's a confidential thing between me and Steam. We're finally,
after the fifth game, at the point where I can take time to come and talk to
you now, because I'm not worried about my financial stablehood anymore. I
put everything on the line in order to try and make games, and from the
beginning, just like all these other small developers, this is what i was talking
about earlier with my point that my games are getting better. The problem is
that these indie developers that you crap on? They give up right off the bat,
because they get attacked by this huge horde. You stifle innovation.
Jim: [Laughs]
Dh: You think im joking? You know what, go look at what you do to people.
Jim: [continues laughing]
dh: I'm glad you think that what you do to people... I'm glad you think ruining
people's lives is funny. Remember earlier when I said you were a terrible
person? You just proved what I said. You think ruining people's lives is funny.
jim: Right. My question in response to that is: do you really think that's gonna
play?
Dh: What?!
jim: Do you really think me laughing at your hyperbole, and you twisting it
into me laughing at the financial ruin of small developers is gonna play?
Dh: I did not twist any words. Play it back. There was no word twisting there.
This is exactly the personality and persona that you put on all the time. You
are the biggest hypocrite, ever. You are a total hypocrite. Here's a hypocrite
for you: you talk crap about Six Nights At Suzie's, for blah blah blah abusing
women, which I totally... it should have been a male figure, cos I knew you
were gonna jump all over that crap. The very next video you do, you got a

three foot fuckin' dildo on your shoulder. Quit being such a hypocrite.
Jim: [laughs]
dh: See, and you think it's funny! You think it's hilarious!
jim: I apologise if I sound disrespectful, I'm just trying to parse the logic of
your statements. I'm not sure what the weapon from Saints Row has to do
with a game in which you're beating up the corpses of women.
Dh: Y-you think that a three foot purple dildo on your shoulder is respectful to
your women viewers?
Jim: It's fucking longer than three foot, mate.
Dh: So... again, ok. It just goes to show how much of an asshat you are.
Alright. So let's move on. Lets move on from Slaughtering Grounds, lets keep
going, you've already... this is a blast.
Jim: You're sure you dont want to carry on with The Slaughtering Grounds?
The other artist's artwork that you used?
Dh: What other - oh, the original one. That kind of falls into the whole Google
thing and that was removed several hours from the time that somebody
pointed it out and i realised that it was somebody else's. Similar to the thing
that happened today, with Medieval Mercs, somebody pointed it out that it
was a Magic: The Gathering image? I purchased the licence from
ShutterStock for that image. A commercial licence to use it. Unlike you, who
dont have to purchase anything, cos its ""fair use"". Yeah, you make money
without investing any money, thats why its such a humdug deal.
jim: You should see how expensive my microphone is.
dh: Oh, yeah. One time investment.
jim: Well, I'm constantly upgrading it, so.
dh: So anyway, i purchased a licence to use that. But i still took that image off
of Medieval Mercs, because i didnt want tojim: Wait, pause. Surely there's a trademark issue with using another game'sdh: I have a licence.
Jim: You have a licence, but obviously using a game image in your game is a
conflictdh: ShutterStock is selling commercial licences for copyrighted objects. We're
already going to contact them and get a refund and probably something else

on top of that. If you want to point out some big criminal, point out
ShutterStock. These people that are selling copyrighted images and stuff, and
saying that they have a commercial licence, "here you go, its for a price" but
they don't even have the rights to do that.
jim: Well, that sounds pretty sucky. But I will say that for someone who tells
me that I should be the one poring an intense amount of research into first
impressions videos, you don't seem to be swallowing your own medicine.
dh: What are you talking about?
jim: Everything you talk about here speaks to your own lack of research and i
think when you're actively selling products to people on Steam, I would say
there's a greater impetus for you to make sure you're not treading on any
toes, copyright wise.
dh: So are we talking about Slaughtering Grounds, where I've already
adressed that I was new and didn't know any better at the time, and now that
I have learned my lessons like today, where i have purchased the licence and
the people that issued the licence are actually the ones who are doing
something criminal. That is my fault? If I buy an illegal licence to distribute
something commercially, that's my fault?
jim: Well... yeah. I mean, know who you're doing business with.
dh: ShutterStock! Are they a shady company?
jim: Know who you're doing business with. If they make a habit of this, as
you've accused in this discussion, thendh: Of course you have an opinion on this, even though you don't have to do
that. Because you just take images off the internet and use them without
asking anybody, right?
jim: Again, I use images that - images that are not covered by fair use, I seek
permission. Assets that are not covered by fair use, I seek permission.
dh: So you use lots of other people's work to create your own work?
jim: For sure, yeah.
dh: So that's exactly what I do, with your "asset flip". Let's talk about "asset
flipping". So... you even have your own little art department or whatever
that's made your cover thing?
jim: Yes.
dh: So whats the difference between what you do there and what I do with

the asset store?

jim: The difference is that my entire - an episode of The Jimquisition is not just
the title credits and the end credits.
dh: So youre saying that I put no work at all in my games?
jim: I'm not saying you put no work in, I'm saying that - and this has obviously
been backed up by the number of customers that leave negative reviews you're not putting in the amount of effort that people expect from
professional products on Steam.
dh: How would you have any idea about the effort that goes into making
games? Do you make games?
jim: I've worked with game developers very closely on certain projects.
dh: Do you know how to code, at all?
jim: I personally do not know how to code at all.
dh: Ok. Cos I don't know how to make videos. So I don't know howjim: I thought your Review The Reviewer was quite good.
dh: And that was just a early attempt. I could probably get pretty good if I
tried, but I dont have time to do that. But if i was going to do that, I would at
least put a full amount of effort into it. Just like I put in effort with my games.
You guys say that there's no effort at all put into this. Theres people that
come on the forums and say that we're way undercharging for the value of
code that is involved. Someone posted that they make sixty cents a line for
code. There is hundreds of thousands of lines of code that is involved in
making these games. And all of your followers come and spout and say "oh
it's so easy". If it's so easy, why don't they go do it? I'm not hiding where we
get our stuff from. Go to the asset store, buy some assets. Pick up a program.
Unity is free. Go put something together! Don't stifle somebody because
they're trying to do something new.
jim: No ones stifling you. Criticism is not censorship, let's get that out of the
way. If we're talking censorship, again it would come back to you issuing
takedown strikes.
dh: Again, you refer to what you do as criticism. What you do is NOT criticism.
What you do is attack people. Let's go back to the Slaughtering Grounds jim: Hang on. I don't attack people, i attack products, until the people behind
those products make it personal.

dh: You say that you don't attack people, you attack products.
jim: Until the people behind the products make it personal.
dh: If you were talking about a Triple A company, that is actually a
corporation, that is an accurate statement. If you are talking about an indie
developer? You are directly attacking that person.
jim: Yeah, but I dont talk about the developers when I do my initial videos. I
talk about the product. In the Slaughtering Grounds video I talk about The
Slaughtering Grounds. It was you who then turned it into a people issue.
dh: You criticised my work, I criticised your work.
jim: But then you started talking about what a moron I was dh: Absolutely, I'm not gonna take that back.
jim: But that's the point, you're the one who escalated it into talking about
people.
dh: I escalated? I'm not the one who made the video first, YOU made the first
video, and you labelled it "absolute shit".
jim: Which it is.
dh: Which it... you are saying thatjim: Yeah, but i didn't say YOU were absolute shit. This is the bit that you're
struggling to grasp here. I didnt call you absolute shit, but you called me
absolute shit and thats when we started attacking the people.
dh: You criticised my work, I criticised your work.
jim: No, cos you criticised my work and then you took it one step further and
started levelling personal attacks and strawmen attacks, which is why I then
fired back and did the same, I responded in kind.
dh: It's your job! You're telling me that when you were playing that game, you
couldn't see the ammo counter two inches below the crosshair? I mean come
on. If you're gonna - we're going right back to what you were saying about
how I'm an incompetent developer. As a game reviewer, you should be a very
quality game player. By not seeing an ammo counter two inches below the
centre, it's absolutely terrible!
Jim: I'm sorry, I'm fairly certain I made intense fun of your ammo counters.
Dh: No no. We can go back and watch the video right now if you would like to
do it.

Jim: Because the ammo counter only correlates to the gun you currently
have.
Dh: I don't say something I haven't investigated. U-unlike you, where you just
continually spout off stuff without actually looking into anything. And it
doesn't matter if it's true. Just like the lies on the forums about "you've
banned people unfairly and blah blah blah". These people - there's tons of
people who've offered criticism, and they've pointed out tons of bugs, and
you can go on my Deadly Profits forum, and you can see. They've pointed out
bugs, I've commented in the thread "Hey, thanks man, I fixed this, I fixed this,
I fixed this". Then... that's what you don't do. You don't... as a critique you
need to be saying "This is the positive, this is the negative, you need to fix
this, this, this, this." You're not offering a fair critique.
Jim: But I never reviewed the Slaughtering Grounds.
Dh: You have said what you do is criticism. We can rewind andJim: It's criticism! I criticise what i'm playing in a first impressions
environment. But I have never actually reviewed - I don't know if you've ever
actually been to TheJimquisition.com, (I highly recommend it, it's a fantastic
website) but there you'll see what a review that I produce looks like.
Dh: Ok, so if what you didn't do isn't a critique, then what is it?
Jim: Right... Again, you seem to struggle with definitions. I criticise games
within a first impressions blind let's play. Blind playing is a very popular,
rather ubiquitous form of let's playing. I'm not doing anything particularly
new there.
DH: That's a good point. So... if you take my gameplay out of your video
what's going to happen - if ALL of the gameplay's taken out of videos,
because written reviews are going down the crapper, we know written
reviews are losing drastically to gameplay videos. And why is that? It's
because you're showing tons of gameplay as you go through. If you take the
gameplay out of your video, what's going to happen to your subscribership?
Do you think it will go down? Do you think your views will go down if there's
no gameplay shown?
Jim: I... I'm struggling to see the point. Because we... like if Unity stopped
selling assets would you even have any games? We can all play this, we can
all do this whole "if something else wasn't there, could you do your thing".
DH: Could you draw a banana dude that you use in your stuff? You could
probably do it, I bet you could do it. I bet you could draw a banana guy to use
in your video. But why do you do it? Why do you use somebody else's?
Because it saves you time. It saves YOU time-

Jim: The banana guy's funny. People like banana guy.

DH: Answer my question specifically, don't try to branch off from the subject.
Jim: I answered the question!
DH: It saves you time, is that correct?
Jim: Banana guy's fun- have you seen banana guy?
DH: Does it save you time using the banana image?
Jim: Not really, no, because I have a whole bunch of stock images that I drew
myself that I used to use in the early videos, butDH: Well, then why did you switch?
Jim: Because I didn't like them, I found banana guy and he wasDH: So the other one's better, so you used that one instead of doing it
yourself. So then what is the issue with me paying, (at least I PAY them,) to
use their product.
Jim: Right, again, the difference is, when people pay, say, $10 for the
Slaughtering Grounds, and then are dropped into this huge map where US
post boxes are right next to London phone boxes and none of the enemies
seem to exist in a coherent universe, it just looks like a mess. Now, I have
never said that using, reusing assets is a bad thing. Even UnitZ, which I
criticise a lot, using it as a base and turning it into a coherent product your
own original material, that's not a bad thing. Difference is the stopping point,
it's like where do you stop? And with Slaughtering Grounds, you clearly
stopped after a certain level. And I'm not saying you didn't do coding. What
I'm saying is, you stopped at a level before where the game had any sense of
artistic cohesion, any sense of the disparate elements of the game belonging
in the same world. Which led to a very bad, very alienating product.
DH: So... lets go back a little bit cos you rambled on a bit. It's not $10. It's 99
cents. Slaughtering Grounds is 99 cents. Ok.
Jim: Right, it was $10 though.
DH: It was $10 then. We were also new then. Ok. And just like that, we have
been upfront and fair about everything. We have lowered the prices on our
game because we realised that the value of those games is lower than... we
expected them to be valued higher. Which you see on a lot of developers
doing. They're releasing their games at $9.99, for a low quality product. But
nobody... Steam, nobody tells anybody what the value of their product should
be.

Jim: Ok.
DH: The... 99 cents is a completely fair price. It goes on sale for 20 cents
sometimes. They are getting trading cards that actually end up being worth
more than the game, so they end up getting the game for free. It... all of our
stuff, I have not said "It's a Triple A game", I have actually gone the opposite
direction. I realise there's issues with them. So I have lowered the prices of
those games, so it's more fair and so people are happier, more happy with
their purchase. They don't feel like "Oh I just paid $10 for a turd". It's totally...
they're 99 cents, wait for it to go on sale, you'll pick it up basically for free. Is,
is that not fair to do for the consumer?
Jim: You lowering the price, and again I said this with the Temper Tantrum
thing, it's a fairly commendable thing. I don't... I still don't think it's worth 99
cents, but it's still commendable that you dropped it to that, to a much more
reasonable price.
DH: Is it worth 19 cents? Cos it was just on sale for 19 cents.
Jim: Mmmm... I mean... for your very first game, time was people didn't really
sell them at all, they'd pop them up on Newgrounds.
DH: So if I go to the arcade and I put a quarter in the machine, and I get 10
minutes of play out of the arcade machine - you remember arcade machines,
right? They're not around a whole lot anymore but, even twenty years ago, it
was still a quarter in an arcade machine, right?
Jim: Well it was 50p, would have been 50p for me back in the day. Smash TV,
Final Fight. Great times.
DH: So... so for that ten minutes, it cost you a quarter. So... by saying Temper
Tantrum is not worth 19 cents, you're saying you can't get your videos longer
than ten minutes, isn't it? Doesn't that mean that you've gotten your value
for the money?
Jim: No. No, because simple time is not value. I mean... Final Fantasy 13 can
be played for 80 hours or so, and it's... a trainwreck. Whereas something like
Portal is, y'know, 4 hours or so, give or take, and is a far better quality
product. The quality of time is a lot more important than simply time.
DH: There's, there's no room for anything except Triple A? Right? So if that's
the logic behind what you're saying then there's no room for these lower end
youtube guys. We got Pewdiepie and all them, they do Triple A quality
youtube reviews. Why do we need you then?
Jim: I'm really not sure what you're talking about there. I mean-

DH: Well rewind it back so you can understand it.

Jim: I... you're gonna have to... again, sorry, I apologise for the stuttering, I'm
really just trying to comprehend the logic here.
DH: There's no room for the games that I make because they're too low a
quality. Because there's Triple A studios putting out Triple A quality games.
Jim: No, There's no room... I mean, there's room! There's plenty of room,
Steam's opened the floodgates, there is room. What I'm saying is that it's
very hard to justify a game of your low quality. Not because of Triple A quality,
but because games like Her Story exist, This War Of Mine exists. Because
indie games existDH: All the upcoming youtubers should quit, because there's already Triple A
youtubers making youtube videos. All the guys just starting out, they should
quit right now so that... we already haveJim: Not if they're good. Let's look at someone like Leigh Alexander who's only
just started doing videos, she does low-fi lets plays and... they're fantastic.
And she only started.
DH: You're saying if they're doing good, you are inferring that since I'm not
good at making games what you say, I should quit. But we've already
determinedJim: I never said you should quit.
DH: -that my games are getting better. And they are a little more complicated
than making a video. Cos just like you said, my video earlier, like you said
earlier, my video that I did for Slaughtering Grounds wasn't that bad. And I
haven't even done crap for videos, I've done barely any. Yet you criticise
something that takes a massive amount of effort, work and... you gotta be
smart to do it. It is very frustrating, coding stuff. If you did some, you would
understand it. Whereas you, to make a video, it doesn't take a high level of
skill to make a video. PersonalitiesJim: Really. I'll pass that along to the likes of Angry Joe and TotalBiscuit and let
them know that it takes no real skill for them to do what they do.
DH: It doesn't!
Jim: I think they're very talented people.
DH: Nonononono. Do not twist what I said around. I said it does not take a
high amount of skill to make a video. It's their personalities, is what sells their
product. That is why your audience is sooooo aggressive. Because you spur
on that type of audience. You project your crap and bullshit ideas onto other

people, and they love it because that's how they feel in life at the time. They
have this hate. They're bitter, and then you come along and say "Hey, we can
go crap on this guy," and then that's what they go do for you. You've even
said it in some of your videos. That that's what - "I need a group of people to
go, and attack, and we'll make"Jim: I have never said that.
DH: Well actually, we can link it right now, if you want. It's in one of your
videos, it's actually pretty recent. [muffled talk with friend] Oh it's two years.
Just a second, I'll look it up for you. Cos... y'know, you're saying that you've
never said that but... you have. [typing noises] Let's see, it's from... Escapist
2012. I'm not sure if you're gonna be able to hear it but[Audio from video plays - some jumping back and forth to find correct point in
video]
Dh: Can you hear? Can you hear what I'm putting on?
Jim: Yep, yep.
[video plays]
Video Jim: Oh hello there! You just caught me in the middle of a little bit of an
experiment! I'm trying to create a race of subhuman creatures, who are
subserviant and just about capable of taking simple orders, and demolishing
certain public places,
[video is stopped]
Dh: And that pretty much sums up exactly whatJim: [Laughing extremely hard]
dh: It is so accurate about what you do.
Jim: [still laughing] that's your - that's your smoking gun?!
dh: NonononoJim: Your smoking gun is a joke about me creating a race of creatures?
Dh: There has been ten smoking guns.
Jim: Me parodying science fiction tropes is your... evidence? That I tell people
I need them to go and attack people like you?
DH: You... that's what you do. That is what you do. And you get off on the
attacking of people.

Jim: [laughing] You people are serious.

DH: Whatever happened to that, uh, what was it, PoxelZ guy? I found it so
humorous that you banned him and deleted his comment and were upset
that he was harassing you. What is it you describe you've been doing, for the
past nine months, to me?
Jim: I do not do anything to you. I cover your games, and I actually condemn
harassment.
DH: You condemn harassmentJim: Absolutely, I'm not a big fan of harassment.
DH: There are thousands of games that have been released on steam but you
have managed to do a video on every single one of my games. You don't
think that qualifies as harassment?
Jim: I don't, no. I would... I'd be interestedDH: It's good to live in denial.
Jim: Let's not forget that when, when... oh, there was quite a dip in me
covering your stuff. I hadn't mentioned you for a while, and then you brought
up the whole steam trading card thing and did that, that funny little unity
asset with the russian roulette pose. And that seemed to suggest that you
wanted this to continue.
DH: That I wanted this to continue?
Jim: Apparently so, I mean the fact you're here right now seems to suggest
that you are indulging in the very thing you claim you don't want to happen.
DH: Oh, the fact that I'm here right now? I'm glad you - for you this is
publicity. But this isn't for publicity. This is specifically to make points. It's
gonna be - I'm happy we're doing this. There's tons of stuff, I haven't even
heard anything from you that I haven't had an answer yet. Do you have
anything to say that isn't just complete opinion? Do you have any factual
stuffJim: My business is opinion.
DH: What?
Jim: My business - my business is opinion. Are we, are we at the point now
where we're critisising pundits for having opinions?
DH: Your... your business is criticism, right?

Jim: Which is... an opinion.

DH: Which is an opinion. As long as it's a faaaiiir critique.
Jim: Ah, this comes back to your confusion as to what fair use is.
DH: Nononono. I said have a fair critique.
Jim: When you said fair use has to be fair, that's why it's called fair use.
DH: A quality reviewer will say positive and negative.
Jim: Not if there's nothing positive to say.
DH: If you want me to fix something, post it on my forums and I'll fix it. You
can go through all my forums and see, look at Deadly Profits, I started from
the very beginning, there is development notes all the way back to the
beginning. I list everything that was worked on, I responded to the people
and I fixed everything they posted that was wrong. What... I'm not sure what
it is you're upset about, that I'm... making it so that criticism is not available.
It's not that i stifleJim: I'm not the one getting upset here, you're the one who seemed so
desparate to have this conversation. I'm perfectly fine continuing to look at
your games and say what I think about them.
DH: Well of course you are, of course you're fine. You have no financial
investment in what you do. Yet you affect tons of developers lives. Financially
affect them. That is why, one day, you're gonna have enough subscribers.
You're gonna make enough money on your pat-reone, and somebody's gonna
get tired of your shit and they're gonna sue you. I'm not saying we are, I'm
saying somebody's gonna have the money to do it. And they're gonna win.
Jim: [Laughs]
DH: [Mockingly imitates laugh]
Jim: Oh, is that what we've devolved into, is it?
DH: Exactly! You keep laughing, I don't think anyJim: Because what you're saying's amusing!
DH: No, nothing in this is amusing. The reason it's amusing to you, is that it
doesn't affect you financially. You get off on this crap. This isn't funny; you are
affecting people's lives. You are lying andJim: You just said that I'm gonna get sued and lose, for, for doing my job, the
same job that hundreds of people do.

DH: Nonono, I'm not saying that you're gonna get sued and lose because
you're making a critique, or even a negative critique. I'm saying you're gonna
get sued and lose, because you're using other people's content. That is why
I'm saying you're gonna be sued and lose.
Jim: Right. Right.
DH: Maliciously. Maliciously doing it. No, it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. It's
something that's gonna be brought up years from now. It doesn't - hopefully
the courts and everything will get the grey taken out of copyright stuff,
because the grey area's where the problem is, but it, it'll be taken care of. Is
there anything els- so we've gotten it narrowed down, you've pointed out the
Google image, I haven't denied that. I was new, it's been replaced, it's been
removed from the game and a new image has been put in. Uhh, what else...
you complained about asset flipping, but it's been shown that that's exactly
what you do, except I actually pay for my licences. What else do we got going
on?
Jim: Um, I guess I'm really confused as to why you think that you have to talk
positively about a game even if you don't see any positives in the game.
DH: There's zero positives? Nothing?
Jim: ...about which game are we talking?
DH: Any of them.
Jim: Well, those games where I did have positive things to say, I said it.
DH: So, Temper Tantrum, and Slaughtering Grounds, you say has absolutely
no positive things in it at all. Do you think the gun sounds in The Slaughtering
Grounds are bad?
Jim: ...Yes.
DH: Ok, cos those are done by Boom Library. Do you know who Boom Library
is?
Jim: They're still bad.
DH: You think the gun sounds... Boom Library, does cinematic sounds for
games like Attila, and all - they do professional sound work, look em up, you
don't investigate your stuff, so I know that this is new news to you. But Boom
Library is actually very big in media, go look at their stuff!
Jim: Ok, I don't see how, how being big in media - I mean hell, Warner
Brothers is a massive multi-million dollar corporation, and their game, that
came out on PC, Arkham Knight was a load of shit, so size of business does

not equate quality of product.

DH: They have videos of them doing it, they have mass amounts of sound
equipment, and they fire guns and record the sound. So what you're saying
is, that real bullet sounds, and shot sounds, sound bad.
Jim: They didn't sound good in your game.
DH: [laughs incredulously] They're direct clips! There's no modification, y-you
*know* we don't do any modification to our stuff. Right? There's no
modification so what you're saying is, is that a real gunshot sound sounds
bad.
Jim: Okay but, let me follow up on that question by saying this: you are
suggesting that the positive in The Slaughtering Grounds is somebody else's
work, and that I should be praising that company.
DH: A-At least praise *somebody*. You said the - the whole point was that
there was NOTHING positive about The Slaughtering Grounds.
Jim: I did not find anything positive in The Slaughtering Grounds.
dH: Alright, but, that is why we're talking about gun sounds. Those are
professionally done. Are those gun sounds good? They are REAL gun sounds.
SUPER high quality. Those didn't soundJim: It didn't work with the game that you produced, my friend.
DH: T-t-that is not... those gun sounds specifically. Are those a good sound
effect?
Jim: ...Not in the game that you produced. As I said before, everything's an
artistic mish-mashDH: I'm not talking about any artisticJim: So the elements of the game are so disparate that it doesn't matter even
if you had something good that you bought from someone else in the game.
As a cohesive whole, there is nothing appealing about The Slaughtering
Grounds.
DH: As a cohesive whole? That isn't what I've asked though. I've asked if
there is any positive elements in the game, and you have said no.
Jim: I have said no and I stick by that.
Dh: O-of course you do. I have just shown you that that isn'tJim: No, you haven't. You've said that in your opinion, that the gunshots are

good.
DH: The gunshots are done professionally.
Jim: Doesn't matter. Arkham Knight was done professionally and that was an
absolute mess on PC.
DH: I... I take the time to go look up what other games gun sounds have been
used in, and I bet they've been used Jim: And they probably fit in a lot better, because they've probably beenDH: It doesn't matter how they fit in, it doesn't matter HOWJim: It does matter!
DH: No!
Jim: You're the artist here, surely you understand the benefit of artistic unity.
Dh: I asked you to point out, "is there anything positive in the game" I didn't
ask you "is the whole game positive". I said "is this positive, or is this
positive, or is this positive". You said the gunshot sounds are not positive. So
I'll go up later, and I'll look to see what Triple A studio, because they are used
by Triple A games, has used that, and I bet you've done a *good* review of
them, and you've probably even mentioned that "Wow, those gunshot sounds
were good".
Jim: I... I can guarantee you right now, in a review I have never written "Wow
those gunshot sounds are good".
DH: Ok. Of course not.
Jim: I guarantee it!
DH: Probably just like you've never actually called for a group of people to go
attack somebody, when I just played that for you.
Jim: [Laughing] You seem to think that's real. You seem to think... Do think I'm
actually breeding creatures in a laboratory somewhere to demolish public
property?
Dh: You must not frequent my forums.
Jim: ...Right, but do you think that I actually created those in a lab? Like, say,
breeding them with a howler monkey? I'm definitely not breeding people with
howler monkeys.
DH: No, it's not a mad scientist kind of thing, I know you-

Jim: But that's what I was doing in that video.

DH: You want to do some flair to it, make it seem like something blah blah
blah, but that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that you tell a lot of
false information, and those people then spew that false information, and it
spreads like wildfire, just like, just like Angry Joe. Angry Joe had a problem
with, uh, pro...pro... pro bro bill or whatever the heck his name is... pro bro Jim: Bro Pill Team
DH: Bro Pill Team! Right. So he had a problem with that guy because Bro Pill
Team had him remove an image... he had an image on Angry Joe's video and
he told - he DMCA'd that image, because he said, "something like this can
ruin somebody in hours." Because he did not want to be associated with that.
Jim: Mmmm.
Dh: What you do can ruin people in hours. You seem to think it's amusing,
and that's, that's why this is so malicious. What you do and when you think
"Oh it's no big deal" and you prove it, every time you open your mouth that
what youJim: You would have to prove malice, because there is not malice until, again,
maliciousness has been thrown my way. Again, you are the guys that
escalated this. I covered the game like I cover every game: I went in blind, I
gave my impressions, I didn't like itDH: Thank you. Thank you for saying that. It's not that we're special. You
attack everybody that you come in contact with.
Jim: That's not true at all.
DH: Except games that *you* deem are worthy. But the only reason you deem
that they're worthy is they've already got positive reviews on their thing and
you go with the bandwagon.
Jim: Right, except I was the very first person to review Her Story, and I was
very positive about it and now everyone else is calling it game of the year
material, so that'sDH: Her Story? Her Story? What are you talking about?
Jim: It's a game. It's a videogame.
Dh: Ohhhh, ok, I know what videogame you're talking about. Actually that,
that brings me to something, uh... do you know a Courtney Stanton?
Jim: ...I know of Courtney Stanton, I've heard the name, yeah.

Dh: You're, you're not related to her at all?

Jim: No.
Dh: Ok. Cos you've supported her all over the web, I've seen some posts of
yours where - so you guys *do* know eachother?
Jim: ...No.
Dh: Ok, so now you don't know her?
Jim: I know *of* her. I know the name.
Dh: You've posted on her posts. So you know her.
Jim: ...I've... who... you're gonna have to remind me.
Dh: Courtney Stanton. You know, the same last name that YOU have.
Jim: ...yeah
Dh: You're, you're not related though?
Jim: ...No.
Dh: Ok but you do KNOW her?
Jim: Hang on. I'm gonna have to, uh [pause as he Googles her] I mean yeah.
I've seen the name. I'm not that familiar with her work. I may have reacted to
something she's written in the past, but... don't really know her.
Dh: Alright. We'll let it go.
Jim: Are you trying to imply we're related?
Dh: It, it would be very interesting if you guys were related, but we'll just let
itJim: But we're not. Actually, Stanton's a pretty common name in Britain.
Dh: In Britain?
Jim: It's - yeah.
Dh: Y-w-I don't have- I don't like to say something that I don'tJim: It's on drainage covers actually, Stanton isDH: I don't like to say something that I don't have factual proof of what I'm
saying before I say it, so I - since I can't verify anything else, we can move on
from there.

Jim: ...Right. That didn't quite go the way you were hoping for it to go, did it?
DH: Well, y'know, I don't want to say something I don't have proof of. You do
that frequently.
Jim: Well, I mean... you tried.
Dh: At least I asked. You don't ask before you spout your nonsense. You don't
care if it's trueJim: What am I supposed to ask about The Slaughtering Grounds? What could
I ask you about The Slaughtering Grounds that would make me enjoy it?
DH: You could offer - email me a, a message and say "hey, you should do this
and this and this". I actually thought about emailing you a key for Medieval
Mercs before I released it so that you could give some... whatever your
insights are and you should make the game better. But honestly, it'sJim: I find that interesting from someone who was just trying to intimate a
conflict of interest. Do you not feel that would be a conflict of interest, if I
suddenly started working, um, some sort of QA on you before I actually
covered the games?
Dh: It's - say again, I guess I'm not following what you're saying.
Jim: Right, I'm saying that someone who just tried to, uh, intimate some sort
of unfair collusion between me and this Courtney Stanton person, do you not
feel it would be a similar conflict of interest if I was privately contacting you
with advice. Basically what they call consultancy, uh, without sort of - and
then going on to review the product, or criticise the product or do whatever
coverage I deem fit for the product.
Dh: Well, you asked for a key for Forsaken Uprising.
Jim: ...No I never.
Dh: Oh, yeah, you did.
Jim: No, I never.
Dh: Uh, we have your email. M-that wasn't you that got a key for it?
Jim: ...No.
Dh: Ok then I guess we - as usual, people ask for free keys - somebody's
impersonating you then.
Jim: It happens a lot. Again, I would - again as someone who's asking me to
verify everything before they say things, you seem to be hurling a lot of

accusations first and then getting shut down. So I'm probablyDH: Actually, at least we're having a one on one conversation where you can
verify that what I said wasn't true. Whereas you just post stuff, and it doesn't
matter if it's true or not, and I have no say. So at least we're back and forth
and you can verify thatJim: What actual lies do you think I'm saying about you?
Dh: What lies? I just told you a list of lies. Let's start with the forumsJim: Not really. You're mentioning differences of opinion.
Dh: Nononono. You said that I banned people from the Slaughtering Grounds
contest.
Jim: That's been reported from people.
Dh: I was - yeah, it's been reported, did you follow up? Nope!
Jim: I checked out the posts. I've seen a lot of people, who've said fairly
innocuous shit - I've seen people who've sent you actual detailed criticism of
your games, and you've responded to them with youtube videos and thrown
them into some little mini forum, like subforum. I've seen people giving you
rather detailed advice on how to behave, how to conduct yourself if you want
to have any - any shred of positive PR, and you've shut them down.
Dh: You can go look at my - go look at the Deadly Profits forums right now. Go
look at it, go look through. You will see posts, there's like 23 posts in the bug
report section, and you will see that I address each one of those issues.
Jim: I bel- I believe you, that when it comes to basic bug reporting you have...
you know, you're responding to them. I'm not saying I've seen you never
respond positively to criticism, but I have also DH: The people who get banned, are the people who've come across like you
do. At least have a little respect, but when you come across as an asshole... iif you had approached The Slaughtering Grounds as "Hey, you know this is
The Slaughtering Grounds, dadadadadada, it's got tons of bugs and stuff you
know, try it out and if you don't like it, post and we'll start asking if they're
gonna fix this stuff". You don't approach it from, you just automatically attack.
You label it as "absolute shit". Right? That's what you do. How can you expect
a positive response from a negative attack? Why should I owe you the
courtesy - why do I owe YOU the courtesy of a positive response, when you
attack me and talk shit. How is that fair?
Jim: No, you owe *yourself* to maybe let it go.

Dh: W-nononononono. I don't have to let SHIT go. I'm not Electronic Arts,
alright. This isn't going to affect a million dollar bottom line. I can tell you my
opinion, and I don't blow smoke up anybody's ass about everything.
Jim: Right. That's fine. You've got a right to do that, I've got a right to say your
game's absolute shit, you've got a right to call me a moron and say "Jim
Fucking Sterling, Son", and I've got a right to respond to that, I mean, I don't
see what your problem is
Dh: But the problem is that you say that you do criticism, that you are trying
to help the community by getting these bad games out of the system and
stop them from coming through Greenlight. If you wantedJim: I don't actually say that, all I do is shine a light on the shit that I find.
DH: You shine a light on the shit that you find?
Jim: Oh yes.
Dh: So... I can't really argue that Greenlight's got some pretty amazing stuff
on it. But the games that make it through Greenlight, there's some that are
low-end games, but there's more content and more content being developed
and it's like... if no new youtubers are allowed to make any more content,
how can any more great youtubers come to exist? Eventually, you're gonna
be sixty years old and nobody's gonna wanna watch your videos about a sixty
year old guy doing videos.
Jim: [unintelligible retort]
Dh: So there has to be some room for new people trying to do something
different. A lot of the people who come on the forums to spout their crap, it's
not that they hate what we're doing, it's that they don't have the balls to go
do it themselves. They - all of the tools are available for you to do it. Go do it!
Do it better than what I'm doing, I'm not trying to stifle anybody from doing
something new. If they want to send me an email, I'll give them suggestions
on things that *I've* learned as I've gone through stuff. ...You don't want to
offer any kind of help to anybody like that?
Jim: ...Well, actually, I've been fairly helpful to any upcoming youtubers who
want advice.
Dh: Oh, youtubers?
Jim: Well... yeah, cos you keep likening what you do to what I do, so I'm
talking about what I do. If you - you keep shining this, like turning this around
into what I do for a living. So I'm letting you know what I do for a living.
Dh: Yeah. Yeah. What you do for a living's great.

Jim: It's pretty good.

DH: Yeah, I know, you've even commented about, uh, your videos, somebody
CV'd it and,"haha too late, I already spent the money on sweets". Yeah, that's
*really* classy. They, they took that video, and your response was "haha I
already spent the money". That is... corporate style mentality of "haha, you're
not gonna get a cent, even though it's OWED to you". NICE.
Jim: Well, actually when it comes to the music industry's flagrant overuse of
the automated youtube system, I absolutely have no sympathy for them at
all. But I've talked about this in multiple Dh: Why is it your right to use somebody else's song? In your stuff? Why do I
have to pay for a licence but you don't?
Jim: You'll have to ask Capcom and even Electronic Arts who have actually
reversed a lot of those music based content ID claims. They seem to think it's
fine. It's Devolver Digital who seem to think DH: It's more bad publicity for them than it's worth monetarily. That is why
they do that stuff.
Jim: So you're saying that it's actually worth more monetarily to you to take
videos down
DH: What videos have we taken down? The only video that we've DMCA'd, we
let it go and put it back up. Is that not right? We haven't taken anything else
down.
Jim: Right, but what I'm saying is why take it down if it's not - you seem to say
that for EA, it's financially in their best interest to, like, reverse content ID Dh: Why would EA want to start a war?
Jim: Again, you're firing out these logic bombs and I'm just trying to, to
understand, it's like a, it's like an explosion of arguments and the shrapnel's
going everwhere. I'm just trying to piece everything together DH: You're trying to make it seem like my argument isn't logical, we can go rewind back and ask me what you don't think is logical. Feel free!
Jim: Pretty much all of it. I mean, the correlation between, um, youtube and
game development - I don't understand what you're doing there. I don't
understand how you seem to think that no one has a right to fair use of
assets, and yet when companies like Devolver Digital DH: Fair use of assets? You're the one who said I shouldn't be using other
people's assets.

Jim: I never said you shouldn't be using them.

Dh: You've labelled it as asset flip, that's a thing that's going around, that's
plaguing all the forums, that it's a "filthy and horrible thing to do".
Jim: Right, because when you *just* do what is basically LittleBigPlanet DH: That is your opinion, and it is an uneducated opinion. You are saying that
my game is just completely assets made by somebody else, which is
completely fictitious. My game would not even *function* without my code.
Not even work. It would be like pressing play on your video, and only your
picture being there. That is what it would be like. Is there something wrong
with THAT logic?
Jim: Right, but - as I've explained before though DH: Is there something wrong with that logic?
Jim: As I've explained DH: Answer my question!
Jim: Yes, there's something wrong with that logic!
DH: Ok, point out why there's something wrong with it
Jim: The difference between what you do and what another game that uses
assets does, is that there's nothing else THERE. Yes, there's code there, but
nothing else there for the end user [loudly talking over each other - unintelligible]
DH: so what you just said is that games are complete art and there is no code
available Jim: -new gameplay elements, new weaponry, it builds upon a foundation of
the assets.
Dh: So, your videos, with tons of pictures and all that stuff, that - that would
be plenty, you don't have to put your words or anything with it? That is what
you're saying. You're saying that a game is complete art. There is no - nothing
else involved in it, and that is why what you say is ignorant.
Jim: No, I'm saying that the art has to work together with all of the other
elements which is what asset flip games don't do.
Dh: I - but - nonono. You've said that I don't put anything into it. I put
*nothing* in there, all I -

Jim: Earlier in this conversation, I admitted that you do the programming

needed to make all the parts move. You do do that, I'm not saying you don't.
DH: Thank you, so you haven't made that clear in the past. Cos all of your
followers think that alls I do is do what PostalZ does, which is buy a
completed game off of Unity and then post it. That is what you make people
believe, and that is a lie. I do NOT do that.
Jim: In Jimquisitions discussing this I've discussed the difference between
UnitZ asset flipping and the kind of asset flipping that leads to - again, this is
what I've said before, the lack of artistic cohesion.
DH: Maybe we should go listen to that Jimquisition because I'm in that
Jimquisition, and you label what I do as "wrong". Just like what they do.
Jim: It's wrong, and it's similar, but it's different.
DH: Why is it wrong?
Jim: ...Yes.
DH: Why is it wrong?
Jim: Why is it wrong? For the reasons I've just given you over the past hour.
Dh: Give me the reason it's wrong, in one sentence, right here.
Jim: Taking disparate Unity assets, that have no relation to each other, and
mashing them together in a game, is an audiovisual mess.
Dh: Ok - that's a - your opinion, right - do you not do the same thing with your
videos? Do you take assets, put them together, and then put your video up.
Your contribution to that, because you say that you are a derivitive work, your
contribution *is* your critique. *Is* what you're saying in your Jimquisition,
right? My contribution to my work, *is* my coding. What we do, is very almost exactly the same. I use assets Jim: It's not at all the same.
Dh: [spluttering] Why is it not? Do you use assets for your stuff?
Jim: Well, for a start, there is actual artistic, audiovisual consistency in what I
do, it's all tied together, it makes sense, for a start.
DH: Nonono, you're arguing an opinion part of it. I'm arguing fact part. I am
not saying what I do is great. I'm not saying what I do is amazing, I'm not
saying what you do is bad Jim: You focus on these basic little factoids to try and say these two things are

totally identical. Real life doesn't work that way, you can't just strip away
context DH: Bullshit, your stuff uses assets. You use other people's work to make your
products. I use other people's art to make my product. I contribute to my
product, you contribute to your product. You're saying what I do is wrong,
making you a hypocrite.
Jim: Not at all, for the reasons I've already given.
Dh: There is nothing - I cannot, the - how can argue that Jim: I can argue that cos A: The games just aren't enjoyable to play, because
it's full of errors and bullshit that doesn't get Dh: You're trying to make this an opinion piece.
Jim: B, and I'm gonna keep saying it, I know you think I sounds like a stuck
record but you're just not letting the argument sink in: there is no god damn
audiovisual unity to the things you do. It's just shit thrown together. That's
what it looks like to the end user.
DH: Ok, perfect, you are - for your sake, lets say just for hypotheticals sake.
Let's say what you just said is absolutely true. Let's just say, hypothetically,
what you said is completely accurate. Now, back to the fact of it: do I use
assets?
Jim: Yes.
DH: Do you use assets?
Jim: Yes!
DH: Ok, do you make something with somebody elses stuff and add your
portion of contribution to that piece of art?
Jim: I mean I'll go with you on this, sure, yeah.
Dh: Ok. And what I do, I use somebody elses art, and I add my code to it, and
I make a product. You may not like my product! That is totally fine. But, you
are saying the ways in which I do it is not ok, when in fact it is the *exact*
same way that you do something.
Jim: My problem is the results of what you do.
DH: Nonono, but in the past you have said that is NOT what your problem is.
In the past Jim: You can read it again, you can listen to the video. When I talk the

method, what I'm - when I talk about purely the method, UnitZ is the one I
focus on the most. That's the most audacious abuse of asset flips.
DH: UnitZ is the one that you focused on the most?
Jim: I talk about DH: I'm pretty sure I have the most coverage.
Jim: I talk about the lack of artistic cohesion.
DH: I definitely have the most coverage out of anybody else that you do
videos on. Maybe there's a Triple A studio that you've done more videos on?
Probably.
Jim: There's been a couple, yes. You don't get anywhere near as many
mentions as Ubisoft or Konami.
DH: But as far as an indie developer? I'm the butt of your jokes all the time.
Jim: Well, you...
DH: And you're entitled to your opinion. What you're not entitled to do, is lie.
Saying that what we're doing by flipping assets, is a lie. That is a lie. You are
doing the exact same thing. You take a product, somebody else's stuff, you
put it in your video, and then you put it up there so it'll make you money. I
use somebody else's art, I put my code into it, I develop a game whether you
think it's good or not, cos I think a lot of your videos are shit. But it's still a
video. It's still a video. And I'm not saying you're not good at what you do.
I've actually told people the other. I think it is *amazing*, the influence that
you have on people. You have a pretty profound effect on a very closeminded amount of, uh - people who are looking to attack games find you their
go-to man for where they can focus their attention on.
Jim: Mmm.
Dh: But, you can't argue with... you can. You will. But you won't have any
valid logical points Jim: You're getting very circular with this, like you just keep coming back to,
uh, things that I've refuted already.
DH: You say that you've refuted. I-I, it boggles my mind that there's nothing
similar about your video's construction and the games that I construct.
There's no correlation there at all, is what you're saying.
Jim: Not when we look at the actual mediums themselves, no. Again, I will go
with you as far as, when you explain it in the absolutely minimalist remedial

fundamental way you've deliberately designed your argument, then yes

there's a similarity between Dh: You're saying Jim: What I say is that when there's an actual context involved, which to me,
maybe it's just me as critic speaking versus you as a programmer DH: Exactly, because again you're putting an opinion, like what you were
saying, criticism is an opinion. You're taking factual portion, and mixing it with
opinion. I just - I don't want to talk about opinion. You have your videos to talk
about opinion. What I want to talk about, is facts. That's it! I don't want to
hear your opinion.
Jim: Then you'll probably want to speak to a scientist or something if you just
want to talk about facts. Talking to a critic is probably not the best, especially
when you're talking about media Dh: Hold on, I'm watching mad scientist. [plays some of video from earlier]
[chuckles]
Jim: That was a funny bit. I'm glad you like it.
DH: It's entertaining. You've got some entertaining stuff, I'm not saying you
don't.
Jim: Thank you.
DH: You do. But what you do when you attack people - there's so many
targets Jim: Again, you started with the attacking other people.
DH: You do. There's so many - like the ShutterStock thing. You should blow up
on this ShutterStock thing, they are making millions of dollars by selling
copyrighted material. You should go ask them if they know what's going on. It
seems weird, cos they have four thousand plus, uh, images submitted by a
guy. Why don't you investigate things that really need to be investigated? Do
people really need your video saying "Hey, this game's a piece of shit"? Do
they really *need* that video? No, they *want* to see it, but you've used
other people's stuff, including mine, and made money off of it. I've used other
people's stuff, and made money off it. But at least I paid them to use it. You
haven't paid anything. You've bought your microphone, as you said earlier.
Jim: And I've also paid for all the original artwork that goes into the show. All
of the stuff that's actual Jimquisition branded stuff DH: Oh that. The image on the front?

Jim: Backing music, the artwork. I'm working with artists right now on a whole
range of things.
DH: I'm not really that familiar with the song, is that an original song?
Jim: Oh, you're talking about the theme song?
DH: Yeah.
Jim: That's actually, that was an agreement between me and a band called
Drill Queen. And very much like you not wanting to talk about steam sales I'm
not going to go too much into that.
DH: It's a good song.
Jim: The backing music that is used, which is called Jim's Dick 2, the backing
music is - that was composed for me by Danny Baranowsky, that was a
professional contribution, it's uh - again, a business arrangement between us
two, I have staff that I pay.
DH: You don't have any other songs on any of your videos?
Jim: Outside of those two?
DH: Yeah.
Jim: No.
DH: There's no Jim: The early ones did, and then I stopped that - again, for the same reason
as you gave earlier Dh: Oh, so you were - when you were new you accidentally did that, but now
that you know better, you don't do that anymore. That sounds really familiar.
Jim: ...Right. So I'm - I'm really appreciative of this whole "We're Not So
Different, You And I" thing that you're doing, it's actually one of my favourite
TV Tropes pages. But again, there's a big difference between you actively
selling a product on steam, where people expect a certain level of quality,
and me doing amateur videos DH: They're expecting a certain level of quality? Have I misled them in some
way? Have I posted on there - anything in my description. There's a video
showing gameplay, there's links to other videos showing gameplay, there's
screenshots, there's a description of the game... is any of my descriptions
false? Do I say Jim: I'm not saying they're misleading -

DH: -Do I say that there's a hundred levels, or something, and then there's
only twenty?
Jim: I'm just saying, you're probably better served - and again, I'm not going
to argue your rights, you've got every right to do it on steam. I'm just saying
you're probably better served putting it somewhere like Newgrounds first,
until you've kind of got your chops together.
DH: ...Well, everybody's entitled to their opinion.
Jim: Absolutely. And I'm glad that you've given me yours.
DH: O-opinion though. Don't present what you have as fact... when it's in fact
not factual. Like, "you're banning a bunch of people from your contest". D'you
- that's not true at all. That's not what happened. But, you said that it was
fact, and other people believed that what you said was fact.
Jim: Look, people have reported that to me, I checked it out.
DH: Why didn't you send me an email and ask me?
Jim: Because at the time, you DH: Because you don't care about the truth. You don't care.
Jim: You guys had no social media presence that I could see.
DH: Our support email. It's right on every single game that we have. You have
every means to contact me.
Jim: Well, again, I did not see that support email. The first time we ever made
contact was when you hit me with the Review The Reviewer video.
DH: You Jim: Which again, if we're talking "you should have reached out first", I mean,
maybe you could have reached out to me before making several accusations
in that video.
DH: I totally agree with you. As I - like I said in the Slaughtering Grounds
thing, that maybe - my video at the time was a bit of an overreaction.
Although, not undeserved. You attacked, I attacked how you - I attacked you
back. But, I took mine off, whereas you have continually posted over and over
and over and over, because it's beneficial to you. Right?
Jim: I've posted it over and over and over again because it makes a damn fine
point.
DH: ...Is there a punchline?

Jim: No.
DH: A damn fine point about what?
Jim: A damn fine point about everything I've said about steam's quality
control. As well as, you know, how not to do PR for a game, how to preserve
one's reputation, how to not handle criticism.
DH: But I've already shown you, it's not - it's not that we can't *handle*
criticism, it's the lack of respect when the criticism is offered. Alls you have to
do is, say "Hey man, this crap - you broke this, this is messed up, this doesn't
work, hey are you guys gonna fix it?" You don't say that, you automatically
label it "a pile of shit" without allowing anybody any chance to fix it.
Jim: Yeah, cos I'm not your QA tester.
DH: You're not my QA tester?
Jim: No, I'm not.
DH: So you just feed off of that type of thing. That's just what you make a
living off of.
Jim: Oh, we're back to this.
DH: ...Sorry I'm looking at it, this video image of you looking creepy with a
needle.
Jim: I love that bit. I'll have to redo that bit.
DH: You got anything else? I think this has been great.
Jim: I had a good laugh.
DH: I know - you always think it's funny because it has no - even this video,
even though i've logically pointed out all types of crap, this'll still only benefit
you. You'll get tons of views out of it, and that's why these court cases aren't
happening either. And that's why Electronic Arts and them don't Jim: Why aren't the court cases happening?
DH: Why w- I said not happening.
Jim: Yeah, why aren't they happening, sorry i gotDH: Because, it just benefits you guys.
Jim: So that's why you're not doing the court cases, it benefits me. Not
because you don't have the time for it or because you don't have the money

for it. Sorry, this is just the third reason you've given.
DH: The - yeah, ok. Whatever it is you're trying Jim: Whatever reason you want to give me at the time, let me know, because
it's hard to follow the storyline.
DH: Ok, there's three different reasons.
Jim: Three different reasons. Ok.
DH: What is it you think you're making some fantastic point about?
Jim: Why not make it a quadrology?
Dh: Ok - elaborate
Jim: I, I'm - I was - I don't know how I can elaborate from a simple question.
Uh, I was just trying to find out what reason the lawsuit didn't happen.
Because you gave one reason, then another, now this new one. And then I
said "do you want to make it a quadrology", like the Alien Resurrection of it all
Dh: I said lawsuitS, right, and we can run it back, I'm pretty sure I said
lawsuitS. And I'm not meaning just me individually, lawsuits in general. You
can twist my words around but we have it recorded so we can go back. I said
lawsuitS. Meaning, there's other people, also, this is their reason for probably
not doing it. I'm serious, there's a bunch of reason why you're getting away
with what you're getting away with. The big companies, it's not worth their
time, because it'll hurt them more by making it a stink when you're - don't
have enough viewers to affect them. Whereas a little company, these games
that only have 10 or 15 reviews, when you do a bad review and spew your
crap about them, your followers then go and buy the game specifically to
leave a bad review. You cause bad conversions. Do you know what a bad
conversion is?
Jim: Enlighten - enlighten me.
Dh: Ok. So a bad conversion is, somebody - attention is given to a game, to
an audience that normally wouldn't even like that game. But, since you gave
it coverage, they go and buy it. They don't like that type of game, they're
already negatively disposed to leave a bad review on that game. I would
rather none of your viewers bought my game. Is that - seriously, don't - put it
on your stuff that Digital Homicide Jim: I can promise you, I can urge my audience to not buy your game.
Dh: Absolutely, I do not want your audience. Don't buy my game, don't come

to my forum, I will live without you guys. It will be ok for me. As a matter of
fact, it will be even better. Please, have your audience stay away from my
games.
Jim: I will - I will BEG them not to buy your games.
DH: Beg them not to stop by the forums. Ok. Please don't buy the games, but
if they buy the game they can always refund it. There's not really any excuse
now. Your whole - "I'm here for quality control" is really out the window with
the refund system. Because now anybody can buy the game and if they don't
like it they can just refund it. They don't really need you anymore. But Jim: I'm not too worried.
DH: Oh, I'm sure you're not, you make ten thousand dollars a month on your
pat-reone site Jim: Pay-treon.
DH: Whatever. You nitpick but you have no good points. Are we done?
Jim: Um... unless there's anything else you'd like to say, I mean, I'll tell you
this. I'll ask you, and this is, I guarantee you, in absolutely, what's the word,
good faith: what is it you'd like me to do with regards to coverage of games?
DH: What would I like. I already told you, like multiple times and you - it's
very simple. Be respectful. It's - if you don't - if you come across as an
asshole... you guys are spoilt. You guys are used to coming across as assholes
to Triple A companies, and they have the whole corporate thing where they'll
blow smoke up your ass and be like "oh, we'll get right on top of that" even
though they have no intention of ever fixing Jim: That's actually not true. I don't know if you've ever heard about the
dealings I've had with various Triple A companies, that have gone similar
ways to my dealings with you. So, that's not true, you can't pretend that I get
off scott-free by talking about Triple A companies.
DH: Ok. Whatever. Anyways, I forget what I was talking about cos you
interrupted me. Do we got anything else? Oh, you wanted to know what I
wanted you to - just be respectful. If you have criticism, totally cool. Let me if there's a bunch of broke stuff in my game, shoot - have anybody you want
send me an email and I'll fix those problems. If there's something else that's
wrong, if I can get to it I'll let you guys know. I'm not going to say it's going to
be fixed if it's not going to be fixed, but at least you'll have some idea and
we'll have collaboration rather then you just attacking and not really having
any purpose.

Jim: Ok. I've made it quite clear in the past that I don't agree with
collaborating with developers that I'm actively criticising and actively
covering at the time, just because that's a conflict of interest. What I can tell
you is that despite whatever you may think of me, however malicious you
may feel I am, I am longing and looking forward to the day when I can play a
Digital Homicide game and say "You know what, this is pretty damn good".
DH: Well, our games are getting better, so...
Jim: Well I hope to see that day. Cos I tell you this, if I genuinely - if I play one
of your games and I genuinely think it's good, I will let people know. I've
extended that to several developers in the past, Gearbox Software being one
of them, I've had very bitter engagements with them over the years over
various games of theirs. But when a good game of theirs comes along, I will
treat it with the respect it's due.
DH: Y'know, it's - that'd be great. Like I said earlier, I already admitted on the
Slaughtering Grounds post that my initial video was an overreaction, which is
why I took it down. You've carried this thing on, on and on and on. And I
accept your apology, and I apologise for that video. I didn't mean to make it a
personal attack. I was trying to attack your work like you attacked my work
and maybe I failed at doing that. So I apologise.
Jim: That's fair enough.
DH: Alright. So now that we have an apology from each of us, we've each
spoken our piece, I think that's a good end.
Jim: Ok. Well, I look forward to your next game.
DH: Alright. Look forward to your next video on somebody else's game.
Jim: Sure thing.
DH: Alright. [long pause] [to friend] How did I do?