When You Spend $10,000,000 On Pigs - Farming Simulator 19
Credibility score: 54/100 — Mixed Credibility. Several questionable claims detected. Watch with healthy skepticism.
BSmeter analyzed "When You Spend $10,000,000 On Pigs - Farming Simulator 19" and rated it 54/100 for credibility (a BS score of 46/100 — mixed credibility), on 2026-09-20. Its weakest claim — "Framing the challenge as 'intestinal fortitude' rather than profitability." — scored 20/100 and was flagged as false dilemma. 32 claims were checked against the video transcript. Scores are produced by BSmeter's AI analysis of the transcript, not independent human verification.
Of 32 claims analyzed: 1 scored under 40, 23 between 40 and 69, and 8 at 70 or above.
Claims analyzed
Opening with a wild story about conveyor belts launching into space — pure entertainment. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:00
He's setting the stage with a ridiculous anecdote about game physics — a classic opener for this kind of content. 😈
Why this score: This isn't a factual claim; it's a humorous recounting of an in-game glitch. It's meant to be entertaining and establish the tone for the video, not to be fact-checked. It's just the chaotic energy of a game gone wrong.
Original quote: “all right so welcome back to the only game where you can break time in space by putting conveyer belts together it's farming simulator 19 in the last episode we had made conveyor belts across the entire map over a kilometer worth of conveyor belts and off-camera I decided to try and attach them all…”
Testing if pigs are 'worth it' by spending a ton of money inefficiently — that's not a test, that's a tantrum with a thesis. 😈 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:36
He's 'testing' if pigs are worth it by intentionally wasting money. That's not an experiment, it's just chaos. 💀
Why this score: The speaker frames this as a 'test' to see if pigs are profitable, but immediately states the methodology is to spend money 'in a very inefficient way.' This isn't a valid test of profitability; it's a setup for an absurd scenario for entertainment. It's a comedic bit, not a serious claim about game mechanics.
Original quote: “I decided we would attempt to harvest pigs yes I said harvest bacon for everyone someone had said that pigs just aren't worth it and in order to test whether or not this is true I decided that the only way to do an appropriate level of testing would be to spend a ton of money in a very inefficient…”
Declares $1,000,000 'not going to cut it' — a casual flex for a video game. 😈 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 0:54
A million dollars is 'not going to cut it' in a farming simulator. The casual dismissal of that sum is pure, unadulterated flex. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker makes a statement about a large sum of money being insufficient within the context of a video game. This is clearly for comedic effect and to set up the premise of spending an absurd amount. It's not a factual claim about real-world economics or even a serious claim about game strategy, but rather a performative statement for entertainment.
Original quote: “now as we all know here $1,000,000 is not going to cut it Oh”
Claims money was 'legitimately gained in a totally legitimate fashion' — the over-emphasis screams the opposite. 💀 — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 1:11
When you have to say 'legitimately' twice and add 'totally legitimate fashion,' it usually means you cheated your ass off. I've seen this trick since before your grandfather tried it. 😈
Why this score: The speaker uses redundant and emphatic language ('legitimately gained in a totally legitimate fashion') to describe how they acquired their in-game money. This excessive reassurance often signals the opposite is true, especially in a gaming context where 'cheating' or using exploits for money is common and often part of the fun. It's a wink to the audience that the money was likely acquired through less-than-conventional means.
Original quote: “ton of money that we legitimately gained in a totally legitimate fashion it's”
States '10 and almost four' pig pens for $3.5 million — that math doesn't quite add up. 🚩 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 1:33
He says '10 and almost four' pig pens for $3.5 million. Ten plus almost four is not a clear number, and it's a lot of money for 'almost four' pens. 💀
Why this score: The speaker states they bought '10 and almost four' pig pens for 'three and a half million dollars.' The phrasing '10 and almost four' is imprecise and confusing, making it difficult to verify the cost per pen or the total number. This lack of clarity, combined with the casual delivery, suggests a lack of precise data or a deliberate vagueness for comedic effect rather than a clear factual statement about the game's mechanics.
Original quote: “I'm curious how many you're legitimately allowed to have like I assume it's not an infinite amount I'm not gonna lie it's actually a lot more than I thought it would have all right so the number is 10 and almost four three and a half million dollars worth of pig pens very good”
Claims 'more of the same type' of animal makes them breed quicker — a game mechanic observation. 😈 — No Frame (75/100)
At 1:57
He's making an observation about a game mechanic. It's a common strategy in these types of games. No trick here. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker is describing an observed game mechanic in Farming Simulator 19, stating that having more animals of the same type appears to increase their breeding speed. This is a common design element in simulation games to encourage specialization and scaling. It's presented as a personal observation rather than a definitive, fact-checked claim, and within the context of a game, such observations are often valid based on player experience.
Original quote: “animals and it seemed like the more of the same type you had the quicker they bred so we'll just pick a color and go with it I'm gonna go with the classic pink”
Half a million dollars in pigs — just getting started, apparently. — No Frame (75/100)
At 2:43
He's just stating the current in-game cost. No trickery here, just a lot of virtual swine. 🐷
Why this score: The speaker is simply stating the amount of money he's spent on pigs in the game at this point. It's a straightforward observation of his in-game progress, not a claim that requires external verification or uses manipulative framing.
Original quote: “oh thank you Jesus okay so about half a million dollars in pigs great”
Claiming no one buys 3,000 pigs in a game — a bold assumption, mortal. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 3:25
He's declaring 'no one ever does this' with zero proof. I've seen mortals do far dumber things for far less. 😈
Why this score: The speaker makes a definitive statement about how other players interact with the game ('no one ever buys 3,000 pigs') without any evidence or basis for that claim. It's an assumption presented as a universal truth, showing a mismatch between his confidence and the actual knowledge he possesses about the player base.
Original quote: “there's got to be like a buy all button in this game right is there not there's no one ever do this no one ever buys 3,000 pigs okay”
1500 pig purchases for a palm cramp — a very specific, unverifiable metric. — Personal Story (60/100)
At 3:44
He's turning his personal discomfort into a universal 'fact.' One man's cramp is another's warm-up. 💀
Why this score: This is a personal anecdote about his physical experience while playing the game. While it's presented as a general observation ('if anyone was ever wondering'), it's based solely on his individual sensation and cannot be objectively verified or disproven. It's a subjective experience, not a factual claim about game mechanics or human physiology.
Original quote: “so if anyone was ever wondering it takes right about 1500 pig purchases to develop a cramp in your palm okay”
Calling 8 million dollars 'down the drain' — dramatic language for a game. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 3:52
He's using 'down the drain' for virtual money in a game. That's not a drain, mortal, it's a digital investment. 🔥
Why this score: The phrase 'down the drain' carries a strong negative connotation, implying waste or loss. While he's spent a large sum of in-game currency, framing it this way is an emotional exaggeration for a game where the 'money' isn't real and the 'loss' is part of the gameplay. It's designed to evoke a feeling of significant expenditure rather than just stating the amount.
Original quote: “God it's only like eight million dollars down the drain so far”
Going for 'max pig power' by buying the biggest water transport — pure over-the-top spending. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 4:36
He's just leaning into the absurdity of the game, buying the biggest thing for 'max pig power.' It's a bit, not a claim. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is clearly playing for entertainment, making an intentionally extravagant purchase in a simulation game. There's no factual claim being made, just a comedic choice to spend excessively for 'max pig power' in the game's context. It's the whole point of the video.
Original quote: “we're gonna need something completely ridiculous to use to water them honestly we're gonna spend the money okay we're going for max pig power here you can change the color there you go pig pink I love it 7300 liter water transport 32,000 liter water transport that's what I'm talking about”
Calling buying a huge water truck 'comfortable masculinity' — a silly, exaggerated take. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 4:56
Connecting a virtual truck to 'masculinity' is just a joke, not a serious statement. He's having fun. 💀
Why this score: This is a comedic observation, not a claim about gender or psychology. The speaker is making a lighthearted, exaggerated comment about the in-game purchase, playing into a common trope for humor. It's part of the entertainment value of the video.
Original quote: “that's a man who's comfortable with this masculinity right there like it's no big deal”
Blaming an NPC for a collision he clearly caused — classic gamer logic. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 5:13
He just drove into a car and immediately blamed the NPC. That's not a claim, that's just how gamers operate. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker is reacting in real-time to an in-game event, humorously deflecting blame for a collision he initiated. This is a common, relatable moment in gaming and is intended for comedic effect, not as a factual assertion about fault.
Original quote: “yeah don't honk at me you freaking did this”
Acknowledging a more efficient in-game strategy but deliberately ignoring it for the sake of the video's premise. — No Frame (75/100)
At 5:52
He's upfront about ignoring the 'right' way to play for the sake of the content. No trick here, just a choice. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is being transparent about his gameplay choices. He explicitly states that there's a more logical or efficient way to play the game (growing food) but that he's intentionally choosing a different, more extravagant path for the entertainment value of the video. This is a straightforward statement of intent, not a manipulative frame.
Original quote: “I'd like to mention that you could grow your own food for the pigs but that's not how we're doing this”
Admitting he didn't research pig feed consumption before buying a 'crap ton' — a moment of self-deprecating humor. — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 6:23
He just bought a mountain of feed without checking the actual need. That's not a claim, that's just pure chaos. 🔥
Why this score: This is a moment of self-aware humor where the speaker acknowledges his own lack of planning within the game. It's a comedic beat, highlighting the absurdity of his 'spend all the money' approach, rather than a factual claim or a manipulative statement. It adds to the entertainment value of the video.
Original quote: “in retrospect before I started this endeavor I kind of wish I would have read up on how much pig feed pigs eat per day because this is uh this is kind”
Complaining about pig feed — a classic mortal struggle. 😈 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 6:30
He's just griping about the game's mechanics — relatable, I suppose. 🙄
Why this score: The speaker is expressing frustration with the in-game task of feeding pigs, which is a common player experience in simulation games. It's not a factual claim, just a moment of shared exasperation.
Original quote: “per day because this is uh this is kind”
Threatening to flip his desk over a game — the drama is palpable. 🎭 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 7:25
The sheer, unadulterated rage over a virtual truck. Mortals and their temper tantrums. 😂
Why this score: This is an exaggerated, humorous reaction to a hypothetical in-game failure. It's not meant to be taken literally as a factual claim, but rather as a comedic expression of frustration, common in gaming content.
Original quote: “I'm not gonna live this truck flipped over and all of the pig feed went flying out I would probably flip my computer desk you freaking ha how much how much”
Claiming 90% productivity from water, then quietly adding a caveat. 🤫 — Volume Game (45/100)
At 8:14
He says '90% productivity' like it's a done deal, then whispers about it dropping. Classic bait and switch. 🚩
Why this score: The speaker initially presents a high productivity number (90%) as a direct result of adding water, but then immediately qualifies it by stating that 'as the cleanliness goes down this will drop a little bit.' This is a volume game: a bold claim followed by a quiet, mitigating detail that undermines the initial assertion, making the positive outcome seem more certain than it is.
Original quote: “almost a full tanker of water so it gets us around 89 well 90% productivity as the cleanliness goes down this will drop a little bit all right”
Declaring the pigs' 24-hour life expectancy in-game. — No Frame (75/100)
At 8:47
He's just stating the brutal in-game reality for these digital swine. No trickery here, just virtual slaughter. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is clearly talking about the game's mechanics and his strategy for the virtual pigs. It's a straightforward statement within the context of the game's rules, not a real-world claim or a manipulative frame.
Original quote: “I got some pretty bad news for all you pigs your life expectancy is 24 hours”
Calling the pig feed 'glorious' columns of money turned into food. — Loaded Language (45/100)
At 9:27
He calls it 'glorious' while lamenting the cost. That's not glorious, mortal, that's just sunk cost with a smile. 💀
Why this score: The speaker uses 'glorious' to describe the visual representation of the massive investment in pig feed, which is clearly a sarcastic use of loaded language. He's highlighting the absurdity and scale of the expenditure, rather than genuinely praising it. It's an emotional framing to emphasize the financial commitment.
Original quote: “isn't that just glorious two gigantic columns of money that has been turned into food for pigs”
Framing the challenge as 'intestinal fortitude' rather than profitability. — False Dilemma (20/100)
At 9:49
He's setting up a false choice: either it's about profit or it's about 'fortitude.' It can be both, you idiot. 😈
Why this score: The speaker presents a false dilemma by suggesting the primary question isn't about making money but about having the 'intestinal fortitude' to manage the pigs. In a simulation game, both profitability and the effort required are intertwined and valid considerations. He's trying to shift the focus from a financial outcome to a personal challenge, implying one excludes the other.
Original quote: “I don't think that the question is can you make money with three thousand pigs I think the question is do you have the intestinal fortitude to do what it takes to keep up with them”
Calculating pig production — the math is a bit off for the timeframe. — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 11:22
Says '50 pigs in three hours' but the timer started at 12:00 and they're checking at 3:00. That's three hours, not 'in three hours' for a full cycle. ⏳
Why this score: The speaker states they created 50 pigs in three hours. However, the video shows the clock starting at 12:00 and then jumping to 3:00. This implies they're checking at the three-hour mark, not that the full production cycle for 50 pigs *completed* within three hours from zero. It's a subtle but important distinction in a game where timing is key.
Original quote: “so basically in three hours we created five times ten so 50 pigs in three hours”
Claiming $900 per pig due to no transport costs — a specific in-game mechanic. — No Frame (75/100)
At 11:33
He's explaining the in-game economics of selling pigs without transport. It's a direct mechanic. 💰
Why this score: The speaker is detailing a specific game mechanic where not transporting the pigs yourself results in a deduction from the sale price, hence the $900 per pig after a $100 deduction. This is a straightforward explanation of how the game's economy works, not a rhetorical trick.
Original quote: “we get 900 per pig because we're given a hundred of it back because we're not transport and that's bullcrap we don't have time for that”
Calculating the pig sale revenue — simple math, but based on a previous guess. — No Frame (75/100)
At 11:41
The math is simple multiplication, but it's built on the '50 pigs or something' guess. Still, the calculation itself is clean. ➕
Why this score: The calculation itself (900 x 50 = 45,000) is arithmetically correct. The only 'framing' here is that the '50 pigs' number was a casual estimate, not a confirmed count. However, the speaker isn't trying to mislead with the math, just working with their current estimate.
Original quote: “so 900 times 50 not too shabby”
Stating the slurry volume from seven pens — a direct in-game observation. — No Frame (75/100)
At 12:22
He's just reading the in-game numbers for the slurry. No trickery here. 💩
Why this score: This is a direct observation of the game's UI, showing the amount of slurry collected from the pens. There's no manipulation or rhetorical device at play; it's simply stating a fact from the game world.
Original quote: “and that's it 30,000 litres of slurry in seven pens”
Attributing human emotions to pigs for dramatic effect. 😈 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 12:37
He's laying on the guilt thick, painting a picture of pig despair for 'capitalistic ventures.' — It's a game, not a slaughterhouse, mortal. 💀
Why this score: The speaker uses highly anthropomorphic language, attributing 'tears' and a conscious decision to 'give up their lives' to virtual pigs in a farming simulator. This is a clear emotional appeal, designed to evoke a sense of guilt or dark humor, rather than a literal description of in-game mechanics. It's a dramatic flourish, not a factual claim about pig sentience.
Original quote: “yeah see how damp the ground is it is damp with the sensation of the tears of the pigs who we have cause to give up their lives for the benefit of our own capitalistic ventures”
Exaggerating pig density and behavior for comedic effect. 😈 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 12:49
Imagining 300 pigs stacked like dominoes. — That's not a farm, that's a Jenga tower waiting to fall. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker is clearly engaging in hyperbole for comedic effect, describing an absurd scenario of pigs 'stacked on top of one another like dominoes.' This isn't a factual claim about real-world pig farming or even the game's physics, but a humorous exaggeration to comment on the visual representation in the game. It's a bit, not a claim.
Original quote: “I feel like if we actually had 300 pigs in here they would be oh that one just climbed right under my feet they would be crawling around on top of each other like stacked on top of one another like dominoes so quiet so peaceful”
Projecting existential dread onto virtual pigs. 😈 — Emotional Button (45/100)
At 13:04
Suggesting the pigs have 'given up their will to live' because they know their fate. — They're pixels, not philosophers, you drama queen. 💀
Why this score: The speaker continues to anthropomorphize the virtual pigs, attributing complex human emotions like 'giving up their will to live' and an awareness of their 'outcome.' This is a humorous, dark take on the game's mechanics, using emotional language to create a comedic scenario rather than making a literal claim about the game's AI or real animal behavior. It's a joke, but it leans on emotional manipulation for the punchline.
Original quote: “is that pig dead are they sleeping or they finally give up it's totally possible that the pigs have given up their will to live considering they know what the outcome of their stay here is”
Imposing human work ethic onto a virtual pig. 😈 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 13:13
He's giving a pep talk to a digital pig about its 'jobs.' — The only job here is to entertain, and he's doing it. 🔥
Why this score: The speaker is playfully interacting with the game, treating a virtual pig as if it has agency and responsibilities ('two jobs to eat pig food and drink water'). This is a comedic bit, not a factual claim or a manipulative framing. It's pure entertainment, leaning into the absurdity of the game's simulation.
Original quote: “come on I know you've still got it in you you got two jobs to eat pig food and drink water and the pig food ain't cheap so get up and keep doing it”
Questioning the game's animation logic for pigs. 😈 — No Frame (75/100)
At 13:35
He's just wondering if the game's pigs have a sleep cycle. — A genuine question about game mechanics. Shocking. 😈
Why this score: The speaker is asking a direct question about the game's programming and animation behavior regarding the pigs. This is a straightforward observation and inquiry about how the game simulates animal behavior, without any apparent rhetorical trickery or emotional manipulation. It's a simple, honest question.
Original quote: “as time goes on do they all eventually go to sleep like do all the pigs eventually just pass out”
Threatening a virtual pig with sale for not performing for YouTube. 😈 — Just Vibes (50/100)
At 13:54
He's trying to coerce a virtual pig into falling over 'for YouTube.' — The lengths mortals go for content. Pathetic, but effective. 💀
Why this score: This is a clear comedic interaction with the game. The speaker is playfully threatening a virtual pig with 'sale' if it doesn't perform a specific action ('fall over') for the audience. It's a humorous, self-aware moment about content creation and the absurdity of interacting with game AI, not a serious claim or a manipulative tactic.
Original quote: “I've chosen the most powerful Pig this is legitimately the only Pig that's still standing right now you're really gonna do this to me fall over do it for YouTube I'm gonna sell you alright never mind”
Answering his own question with 'probably' and 'I think' — pure speculation. 💀 — Confidence Mismatch (45/100)
At 14:50
He asks if it's worth it, then answers with 'probably' and 'I think'. That's not an answer, that's a shrug with words. 😈
Why this score: The speaker immediately follows his own question with highly speculative language ('probably', 'I think'). This indicates a lack of concrete data or analysis to back up the assertion that it was 'worth it', yet he presents it as a likely outcome. It's confidence without evidence.
Original quote: “getting max pigs probably I think you”
See the full analysis with timestamps →