Video Gamers Podcast - Game Court - Should DLC Win Game of the Year?! – Gaming Podcast

Episode Date: June 5, 2025

Gaming hosts Josh and John step into the courtroom for our first ever Game Court showdown! This week’s hot debate: Should major DLCs like Shadow of the Erdtree or high-profile remakes like Final Fantasy VII Rebirth qualify for Video Game of the Year? Josh says yes—John says absolutely not—and Ryan’s the gaming judge, jury, and executioner. All the video game news you need, each and every week from the Video Gamers Podcast. Thanks to our MYTHIC Supporters: Redletter, Disratory, Ol’ Jake, Gaius, and Phelps Connect with the show: Support us on Patreon: patreon.com/videogamerspod Join our Gaming Community: https://discord.gg/Dsx2rgEEbz Follow us on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/videogamerspod/  Follow us on X: https://twitter.com/VideoGamersPod  Subscribe to us on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VideoGamersPod?sub_confirmation=1   Visit us on the web: https://videogamerspod.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You hear that? Ugh, paid. And... done. That's the sound of bills being paid on time. But with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card, paying your bills could sound like this. Yes! Earn rewards for paying your bill in full and on time each month.

Rise to rewards with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card. Terms and conditions apply. Hello fellow gamers and welcome to the Video Gamers Podcast. DLCs, expansions, and remasters can be some of the best examples of continuing an epic story or improving on the original gameplay elements. Who doesn't want more greatness? Sometimes they can be poorly made money grabs trying to capitalize on a popular game, but a lingering question remains that divides the gaming community.

Should a DLC, an expansion, or a remaster qualify for a Game of the Year nomination? Well today, we're going to court to argue over just that, but first some introductions are in order. I am your host Josh, and joining me, the Honorable Judge, a man of intense intellect, stunning physicality, and a razor sharp wit. He's here to preside over these proceedings. It's the esteemed, the honorable, the handsome, the funny, Judge Ryan! Thank you.

Thank you. Judge Ryan is here. Both of you did not stand when I entered, so to the pit with you! Oh, dang it. This is, this ain't gonna go good, John. If you're just listening, by the way, I am in a judged outfit and I have a gavel. You should absolutely be checking out the video for this episode because it is worthwhile, let me tell you.

And joining us, my arch nemesis of debates, the diabolical man who sides against me, the one who stands up for the wrong side, the guy who wants to keep fun games out of the running for game of the year, it's John! Your honor, let the record show that my counterpart opposing counsel here, despite all of this hyperbole and high praise for you Clearly isn't taking this seriously. He's wearing a t-shirt to court today, sir Only one of us took the time to maybe you know take this a little serious, so I want that taken into consideration Courts objection your honor I

Oh look at the record show, courts. Objection your honor. I'll allow it. I can't see the quality of shirt that this man is wearing. It's only a camera from the head up. Oh. This is an Indochino shirt, sir. Oh, okay. Well, your honor, I am not a rich man.

Uh. This, and it's hot. Listen, I got a lot of cases today, gentlemen. Because it's Arizona in the summer. Is that a long sleeve shirt, John? John cuz if so you are really leaning into this But it is but I'm more of a I'm more of a sleeves-up lawyer. Okay Okay, I was like man you really I don't rock I'm in the free

Ryan is dying right now I'm pretty sure Ryan is dying right now. He's like, oh man, he was like, okay guys, I'm in for this bit, but I think he might be having regrets. Amazon saves the day again. Oh buddy. All right, well listen everybody, man, we have an awesome show. Well, this is something that we've been talking about

for a while. This kind of came on the tails of our debate you know, debate that John and I have had in the past. And it's just fun, man. And part of the reason behind this is, listen, gamers, we all have opinions on things. Right. And one of the things that we have always said on this show is it is OK

to have an opinion about something. And we absolutely need to stop as gamers about insulting people and and like Getting upset because somebody's opinion may differ from what we think so rule Alright, so listen if your opinion is different than mine, then you are a dumb doodoo head Okay, and you know nothing about gaming at that point Let the record show that my opposing counsel just called all of our audience doodoo heads No, no objection. That's only if they disagree with me that my opposing council just called all of our audience doo-doo heads?

No, no, objection. That's only if they disagree with me. Objection, sir. All right, so listen, but this is the fun of this, right? Is because this is to showcase that, you know, there are different opinions on things out there and that's okay. And so what we're gonna do is we're gonna have fun

with these opinions and we are going to argue over some of these things that divide gamers, you know? And so this is going to be a lot of fun. I am going to argue the case that I think that DLCs and remasters should qualify for Game of the Year. Now John is going to argue that he thinks that they should not qualify for Game of the Year. Well, there's no argument here they don't they should. Well yeah there is an argument

because they do. Yeah okay. Now I will say this is that when we decided to do this we really couldn't figure out whose side who wanted to pick which side on this but again we can argue anything so you know social media when you see a 60 second clip of this episode don't rip us apart. This is all for fun, man But also let the games. Oh, I'm sure they'll pay attention to that Josh All right, and so just to lay the groundwork here I am gonna argue my case John is gonna argue his case Ryan the honorable esteemed judge Ryan will be the one to decide who argued their case the best. No bias involved. Surely Ryan doesn't have any thoughts on this

debate whatsoever. Completely neutral, I promise. And we have some plans for future episodes on this for potentially the losers of who loses the debate. I'll just tease that a little bit right now. So all right, so let's do this. I mean, let me just set the stage a little bit. This comes from some recent like Resident Evil four, the remaster for Resident Evil four was up for a nomination for game of the year.

Okay and a whole bunch of gamers went dude as fantastic as the Resident Evil 4 remake was. That game already existed it shouldn't qualify. Last year we had shadow of the earth tree that was nominated fantastic DLC. Elden ring I mean mean, Shadow of the Urn Tree was phenomenal, but there were a lot of people that said, hey, listen, we've got a lot of good games in 2024. Shadow of the Urn Tree should not be in the game of the year category. It is simply an expansion slash DLC. This should not qualify. And so this is kind of where this debate stems from. And I'm sure that everybody listening right now has a thought on this.

So John, do you want to start us off? Would you like me to go first? Typically, the plaintiff party goes first. Am I the plaintiff? Well I would say that I may be the defendant, but I'm happy to go first. No, Your Honor, Your Honor, may I approach the bench? You may, counsel. Whoa, whoa, whoa. No, your honor your honor may I approach the bench you may Your honor my counterpart is clearly not prepared for this argument I vote that this goes to mistrial and that the court finds in favor immediately that DLC and remasters should not be

qualified for major game awards, especially game of the year Request denied sit sit down, Gansel. Yeah! Don't make a mockery of my court again. Also, I hope you break your ankle on the way back to your seat. So. All right, so let me just start off here by kind of,

you know, I guess I want to like give an opening statement as to why I think that, you know, DLCs and expansions and remasters should qualify for game of the year. I think I kind of need to set the stage for people on this and the honorable judge Ryan in this case. Okay. So, you know, as gamers, what do we want? We want fun, entertaining games to play, man. You know, how do we want them? We want them cheap. We want them worth the money

that we're going to spend. This is hard earned money that we spend. And we have all been victims to games that were poorly developed, not ready for release, you know, or otherwise just steaming piles of garbage. And then we go, man, I spent good money on this and now I'm upset. So when we, as gamers are given a game that blows us away, it should not matter that it is tied to an IP that already exists. If you give me content that is 20 hours worth of banger content,

I don't care what game it might be tied to at that point. If it stands out amongst all the other games that year, then it should qualify for game of the year. I have a bunch of examples, well, three really off the top of my head that I can give to kind of defend this stance. But I think those stand on their own to show why sometimes this content, these DLCs and expansions should absolutely qualify for game of the year if they are better than everything else that might be qualified

as well. Well, let's let's hold our let's hold our horses here for a second. I want to go on the record by saying that I am not at all opposed to the concept of remasters remakes heavy DLC. I love that we you know, we review a medium that can be constantly upgraded and revised and improved. And there's several media examples that I could point to. All Quiet on the Rest Western Front had a remake a few years ago. It's a remake of an older movie. It is amazing. It is absolutely amazing. But ultimately, it is not original content. Leftovers do not qualify for Michelin

stars. And that's what we're talking about here, guys. We are talking about games that have already been released, that have already had the chance to be reviewed and, uh, and qualify for awards. And I do not think that it is fair for them to muddy the landscape here. Absolutely. So let me ask you a question, John. If a game is great, if it stands out amongst all the other games for the year, shouldn't it be in the running for a game of the year nomination? There are already awards for these categories like best ongoing game. That is where those belong. Yeah, I get that there's categories for just about everything, but we're talking specifically whether it qualifies

for a game of the year nomination. We can't, you know, at that point, we're just throwing out this whole case because it's like, well, we'll just invent a category. Yes, there's a category that exists for best DLC or, you know, or best additional content or something like that. Just like there's a category for best streamer of the year. But we don't care about those. What we care about is game of the year.

Does it stand out as the best of the best that came out in that year? Let me let me just give you an example of one so that we can set the stage here, guys. Most recently, I mentioned it in the intro, Shadow of the Erd Tree, Eldering, one of the most beloved, incredible games that gaming has ever seen. Whether it's your style of game or not is not relevant. If it is a fantastic game, it is a game of all time. And I think most people can accept that. Shadow of the Erd Tree.

They came out, they said, hey, we're making an expansion for this game. It is going to provide dozens of hours of new content. It is going to give you, you know, all sorts of new experiences, new boss fights, new weapons. It was 20 hours long. It was absolutely incredible. It improved on the formula in many, many ways. Shadow of the Earth Tree was better as an individual entity than most of the games that came out in 2024.

It absolutely stood out on its own merit, not tied to Elden Ring. If you called it, Hey guys, this is XYZ game. It was still one of the best games of the year. Why does it have to suffer because it has Elden Ring in its name? Well, let me ask you two qualifying questions here. Can you play Elden Ring, Shadow of the Ertree without the base game? You cannot, and that is the definition of a DLC.

Ah, okay. So here's one of the main reasons why I think DLC should not qualify, is that when you allow these things, ultimately what you're recognizing when you're recognizing Game of the Years is you're recognizing the team that put it together. Like the game doesn't exist without the team that put it together. And when you have DLC that is built on top of the framework of a original game, it muddies the

waters as far as who you are actually recognizing for that award. Is it the original creators, the remake team, both, neither? You're muddying the waters there, and it is not an original self-contained representation of the game. It is additional content. It is bonus content. It shouldn't suffer because of that. Yeah, I mean, it is awesome, but here's the thing. Would you rather have a game like Shadow of the Urchery, I'm gonna name another one, Phantom Liberty, quite possibly one of the best DLCs

that has ever existed in our lifetime. Phantom Liberty, the first expansion slash DLC for Cyberpunk was absolutely phenomenal. Okay. In your scenario, you want to take a game that sucks. Okay. A game that just is garbage. Let's we'll say for spoken.

Okay. I'm just trying to think of a game that I hate recently. It'll be dangerous for instance. Okay. Again, games will not be mentioned in my court. Okay, I'm sorry, your honor. I apologize for bringing up terrible memories. But you want to say that this absolutely phenomenal game does not qualify simply based on the fact that it's tied to another game? In which case you are then opening the door for absolute trash games

to be nominated at that point, shouldn't it stand on the merit of its own game? Like if it's the best of the best, then that's what qualifies. I am not at all saying that developers should not improve their games post-release. I think that anything you can do to save a turd from being a turd, you should do.

And I'm using the word turd in the legal sense here but here is here's objection your honor I would like a definition of legal turd here's here's my best and most relevant counter example to that okay so return of the king lord of the rings return of the the Rings, Return of the King, won many, many awards the year that it was eligible for the Academy Award. And it did in fact win Best Picture that year. When it was released to home video, it was released with additional content, like an additional hour, the extended version, which is superior in every way.

It is fantastic. The extended trilogy in which is superior in every way. It is fantastic. The extended trilogy in general is fantastic. Cinematically, it is the best thing that's ever been put to Celluloid. But does the fact that they added an hour of content now make that movie eligible again for Game of the Year or Movie of the Year again? No, it had its opportunity.

I think when you open the doors for game developers to make their game basically evergreen eligible for game of the year, just by, you know, increasing whatever DLC or upgrade they provide to the game, it de-incentivizes innovation, it de-incentivizes quality at release. And I think that those are important things that the game industry needs to focus on. If your game sucks at launch, don't launch it. Keep the game up. I can't disagree with you there. Listen, this is not a debate on whether remasters

are good for the gaming industry. And we, honestly, we have our stance that we have seen, unfortunately, we have seen a lot of very low effort remasters come about in the gaming industry and we call them for what they are. They are money grabs. Warcraft 3 Reforged is one of the most egregious examples of lazy remastering for a money grab that we have seen

quite possibly ever, you know, and shame on Blizzard for doing that. And unfortunately, they are preying on the fact that gamers have nostalgia for some of these games and they're willing to pay up for the chance that that game was improved in some way. So whether we agree with remasters being relevant in the gaming industry is a moot point. What we're talking about is standing on the merits of the game itself. And in an example like Shadow of the Urn Tree, in an example like Phantom Liberty,

these games are absolute phenomenal examples of what gaming should be. We talked about The Witcher 3 recently. The Witcher 3 had two of the best expansions that have existed in gaming. Blood of Wine and Heart of Stone. Anybody that's played those understands they are equivalent to the original game. Your Honor, objection irrelevant. We are not debating whether or not there is merit in the quality

of DLC. We are debating whether or not DLC qualifies as a standalone individual game worthy of being nominated for a award that is intended to reward a new release game. The quality of a game absolutely should come into play when you are talking about game of the year It is absolutely about the quality because otherwise crappy games are not gonna get nominated the court has a question Josh yes, so do you have you mentioned time? How long a game could be for as a DLC? Do you have a threshold onto where it may be absolutely amazing, but is 10 hours or below not in that qualification?

Do you have a timeline? Your honor, I do think that time is tied to price. If you're giving me 10 hours of content for $10 at that point, and this is some of the most banger content that gamers have seen, then I think it should qualify. You know, I do think that to in all honesty, if it's if it's a DLC or an expansion, there should be a threshold to say, hey, this is this stands on its own. You know, it's tough. But then to your point, how many games are a short experience like five hours but are super memorable?

Firewatch is a good example of that. A game doesn't have to be long to be good. In fact, we have seen the opposite where games have been too long and we've been flooded with too much content at that point. Your honor, the very fact that we have to interpret this, the very fact that this is subjective makes it irrelevant to the case.

The fact that we have to now redefine how much time that DLC adds to the experience basically highlights my point, is that we are not talking about an original game here. That is open to interpretation. The thing that is not open to interpretation is, is this a new game or is this not a new game? And if the answer is no, then it should not qualify. There are categories that exist for those types of games. Game of the year is not one of them. Objection, your honor. We're not talking about other categories. We are talking about specifically game of the year. Y'all have used two of your three objections.

Oh, I didn't realize there was a limit here. I will go back to my point that a game should be based on the merits of your three objections. Oh, I didn't realize there was a limit here. I will go back to my point that a game should be based on the merits of the game itself. If I make a crappy expansion, if I make DLC that is a money grab, that is just a good example. Another example that I'll give to the court,

Tiny Tina's Wonderlands was sold as a standalone game tied to the Borderlands universe. Anybody that played it fully understood that this was just a rehash of the assets that was sold to people that love the franchise to try to make money off of them. It was lazy and it didn't qualify for Game of the Year. A game like Phantom Liberty, like Shadow of the Urchary. These games stand out amongst all other games those years because of the merit of the game itself.

If another company cannot make a game that is on par with Shadow of the Urchery, that's that company's fault. We should not reward mediocrity because people can't achieve a certain thing. In that case, I would like to remind everybody, when Baldur's Gate 3 released and took over the gaming world, how many studios came out and said, gamers, you should not expect this level of quality from a game studio. Yes, we should. We should absolutely expect that from a game studio. Your honor, is it any different now? I understand the my opposing counsel's point here,

but I want to state that he is again making my point that by incentivizing studios to just revise their existing game over and over and over again is exactly how you end up with Ubisoft, Assassin Creed. It's exactly how you end up with Tiny Tina's Wonderland is that you go, Oh wow, this is a safe product. Let's just keep adding garbage onto this garbage and people keep eating it up because Hey, the original one works. Let's add a little more to it. Why not? Let's just have, let's have Borderlands to part 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, until people get sick of it.

It kills innovation. It absolutely de-incentivizes indie studios from doing anything. And it, you know, again, just categorically, it dilutes the industry. Council, let me ask you a question. A new game is a new game, and a non-new game is a non-new game, period.

Council, let me ask you a question. Do you think sequels should qualify for game of the year? Should borderlands three qualify or let's say far cry five. Should that qualify for game of the year? Yes. So your only stipulation is that a game should not need another game to be installed in order to be played. So you don't care about

the quality of the game. Your only stipulation is that the game is able to be launched without any other criteria tied to any other game. Your honor, this is all speculative. I am not saying that I like this. What I'm saying is that the video game law exists to tell us right from wrong, black from white. And a new game is a new game, an existing game is not. Otherwise, we end up with this pool of grey and a game like Red Dead 2. It's the best game ever made by many people's account. Why doesn't that win Game of the Year every year?

It's a sequel though! It's a sequel, it shouldn't count! It was tied to a different game! best game ever made by many people's account. Why doesn't that win game of the year every year? It's a sequel. It shouldn't count. It is tied to a different game. It is a sequel with its own story that was built with its own dev team and it should be celebrated as such. If people want to add onto that game, awesome. I'm not saying that shouldn't happen. If we want to extend people's experience on the original game, it should absolutely happen. It's a free market game company should be able to do whatever we want, but it's not a new game by the court as a question again. What is the current law on the books regarding this? Well, the current lie is to be eligible for a game of the year award. Shadow of the earth tree should have been Elden Ring 2. Well, it was the law on the books is that it does qualify

because your honor, Shadow of the Erd Tree was nominated for a Game of the Year for 2014. I object as was Final Fantasy Seven Rebirth, which is a remake of an original game. So we have two examples that prove that this was already allowed in the gaming industry. And I would like to go back to the point that my opposing counsel made with Red Dead Redemption. A sequel, by your own logic then, a sequel should be disqualified from nomination for Game of the Year because it is already tied to an existing IP, it had the same characters in it,

it took place in the same world, all it did was have new story and told a story from a different viewpoint. Guess what Phantom Liberty does for Cyberpunk 2077? It tells a different viewpoint. It has different characters, it takes place in the same world, but it's a new story with new characters, new gameplay, in all rights. It's equal to Red Dead Redemption 2, with the one caveat that you cannot launch Phantom Liberty if you do not have Cyberpunk 2077 installed. Your honor, I object. The council is- Damage it to my case, your honor.

The council is leading the jury here. He again is making my point. The fact that you have to have the original game in order to play this supporting content, which is great. I'm not debating that it's great content. I love that they're extending people's experiences, but it is not an independent experience. Once the credits role and you are aware of whoever was on this development team, story building team, the infrastructure that went into the game, that seals that project

for me. You can add onto it. You can absolutely add onto it, but it is no longer an independent project. Red Dead 1 and Red Dead 2 were two different dev teams, at least in part, and were acknowledged as such in the credits and should be acknowledged as individual entries for categories like Game of the year. I disagree and I think it is a failure of this court, your honor. I think it is a failure of this court that Final Fantasy, my beloved Final Fantasy 7 rebirth was nominated.

I think it is a failure of this course, court that Elden Ring Shadow of the Earth Tree was nominated. Those are failures of this court, failure of the law, and I intend to stop it. I like fun as a gamer. I like quality games. I want to support games that are made with love and work and provide dozens of hours of supreme content. This has nothing to do with the development teams. I love leftover pizza. That doesn't qualify. Don't interrupt again of hours of supreme content. This has nothing to do with the development teams. This is everything.

I love leftover pizza. That doesn't qualify it. Don't interrupt again or you'll be held in contempt of court, sir. Oh yes, yeah, eat it, John. You're left over pizza. And you burned up all your objections. Yeah.

I would like to posit that we make closing statements so that we can allow the judge to make his ruling. Let's wrap this up and then we can do recess. Yeah, because the judge is starting to get really sweaty as well. Okay. Bayliff, please turn there. Yeah, I'm going to go back.

The hair's a good look for you, Ryan. I'm going to go back to the one point that I would like to remind all gamers about. Okay, for those that side with John on this, you know, we want good quality games. The fact that the only caveat that people take issue with is that you have to have a game installed in order to launch another game is the hang up with these people. Okay. If Red Dead Redemption 2, one of the greatest games to ever grace gaming predicated that you had Red Dead installed and that's it. That's the only thing we would have been denied. The greatness of Red Dead 2 because they needed to tie it to Red Dead 1 to launch

it. That is not a disqualifier for a game being phenomenal. It is not a disqualifier for a game being great and should be recognized as being great, which is what the purpose of game of the year is. It is to highlight the very best of the best games that release in a given year. If Shadow of the Urchery or Phantom Liberty is one of the best gaming experiences to come out that year, it should absolutely be rewarded for what it is, it should be acknowledged for what it is, and it should qualify. If it can stand on its own merits against every other game that released that year and

When it should be allowed to win on those merits I rest my case your honor Very well said your honor. I would like to thank the jury and your prestigious self for their time I would even like to thank my counter counsel here for his Will say diluted opinion even like to thank my counter counsel here for his, um, we'll say, uh, deluded opinion. Uh, I would like to first acknowledge what he said as far as Red Dead 2 being reliant on Red Dead 1. If that were the case, we wouldn't have been denied the greatness of Red Dead 2. We would have still been able to experience the greatness of Red Dead 2, we would have still been able to experience the greatness of Red Dead 2. But I am saying categorically, if it relied on the infrastructure of part one, it would

not qualify as an independent gaming experience, nor you release DLC, remaster, etc. It becomes unclear whether the award is honoring the original creators or the remake team or both. That I think is a clear dividing line of whether or not something should be eligible, not to mention the fact that the DLCs are often aren't full experiences on their own if they need the original game to work. They reuse existing mechanics, assets, stories. They typically skip stages of pre-production that are essential for calling something a standalone experience. And I guess most importantly, just from a human standpoint as a gamer, is that this practice, if you're acknowledging it as a game of the year, as a standalone experience,

de-incentivizes innovation in gaming. You end up squashing potential front runners, potential game changers like Expedition 33, Little Nightmares, The Alters, wonderful indie experiences that must be innovative to compete with the much larger organizations out there. And despite the categorical arguments that I've made here, your honor, being that it needs to be a standalone experience, I would ask that the audience, the jury, and our peers consider the human element here that we should be celebrating innovation.

Game of the year categorically celebrates that honor and I rest my case. Excuse me there, Councilman. Watch out for that microphone, your honor. It almost got you. It gets in the way a little bit there. Now, I must say, you both have made very compelling arguments today and I also appreciate you coming out here to argue your side. Well, passionately also sometimes quite stupidly but I got the gist of what you both have said. My ruling, well I'm a passionate man I also am a fair man and I will rule with no bias and no prior decisions made. Based on this case, if DLCs should be in the Game of the Year nominations, I, Judge Ryan Crouch, rule in favor of... no no no no no! John, you are the winner winner ding ding ding chicken dinner! DING DING DING CHICKEN DINNER! WHAT?! LET'S GO! WHAT?! USA! USA! USA!

MISTRIAL! MISTRIAL! You made some good statements within your argument, but I will say, I hope for dear life that you please seek some help. You do not know what a game is. You do not know what a private entity is. You do not know- THIS IS NOT AN IMPARTIAL RULING! private entities you do not know partial ruling even John agreed with me I could see it in his face when he was arguing he was like dang it that's the best point I've ever heard it's a really good point if a game can't be played without prior stuff it is not a DLC does not consider itself its own entity therefore I rule in favor of John Josh I wish you all the best and

may God have mercy on your soul. I, I, I cannot stand, I thought this was going to be impartial. Ryan had his mind made up before we even started this. No, my mind was made up, but I held no bias. Yeah, right. You just threw it out there you're like a game should qualify. You already knew what you thought on this. Can we hold this man in contempt of court here? I hold you in contempt of court! I hold myself in contempt of court! Why should you be any different? I can't believe this! I was right, I made such good arguments, you know what the people

will decide. I was going back and forth you good art. You know what the people didn't make good arguments people will decide I was going back and forth you guys were swaying back and forth But I don't believe but the people speaking of the people we the people we want to know what you think about this our DLCs Should they be eligible for game of the year? There will be a pooling has been there will be a polling in Spotify We would love to hear what you guys think. Come and let us know. All right. Well, you know what? This episode's over. I may not be the judge, but I'm the host and I can end the show anytime I want. And that time is now. Also, thank you everybody for hanging

out with us. We hope you enjoyed this episode. It was a lot of fun. We love arguing. Let us know what you think and I guess we're gonna Do this again with maybe a new judge or something somebody that's not so biased and made his mind up before the episode even started Man, I thought for sure I was winning this man. It was back if it was close Yeah, I'm gonna be looking into this. I want to see your bank statements, Ryan. All right, everybody. If you want to look at the front here is my cash app on the front of the... All right, guys, we hope you enjoyed this episode. Thank you so much. Listen, it is a good reminder. It's okay to have an opinion on something. It is okay for people

to have different opinions. It is not a slight against you as a person. It is good. We can actually learn things from this. I got to give John credit. He made some really good points. I am adamant that I think that it should qualify because again, the points I made are honestly what I think in this case. But you know, just hearing John's side of things, it makes sense and it helps me realize why some people don't like this, you know,

a corrupt judge aside. This is why we love talking about these things. So thank you for joining us. why some people don't like this, you know? A corrupt judge aside, this is why we love talking about these things. So thank you for joining us. I will be filing a complaint with whoever you complain about judges to. Until next time, everybody, happy gaming. Peace out.

Representatives of the jury, toodle-oo.