None of them are journalists, really. Pundits at best.
But yeah, imagine your argument being "But G-Phoria exists". Can't wait till GB is pulling a Kinda Funny and have hosts doing press conferences for game companies.
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
edited November 2022
Since their parent company resells games and they’re posting links to buy things through said company and they don’t consider themselves journalists but rather pitch people, will there any pressure to talk new games up and potentially encourage people to use those links?
What I saw of the Entropy Centre quicklook was mostly Jess and Jan complaining about how it cribs too much from Portal, which if they're supposed to be shilling for stuff, is a real bad way of going about it.
Undead Scottsman on
+1
Options
MichaelLCIn what furnace was thy brain?ChicagoRegistered Userregular
Are they owned by some shady Steam key reseller now?
Jeff wasn't fired because they advertise games, he was fired because there wasn't any firewall insulating his review from that.
Everything they are putting out for free *has* to be for the sake of selling advertisements. As long as their takes aren't slanted by links (not even full ads!) I don't see the issue.
Its hard to see how it even becomes a problem here, Fanatical has keys for virtually any game, they will pick up more sales from the well-reviewed ones. They aren't biased towards particular publishers giving them a fat check so a particular game has to hit well.
It's definitely something to keep an eye on, but it's not the end of the world.
Jeff did a large part of his career while at Gamespot while they were hocking videogames at the same time, and that only went south when he got new managers who panicked when the publisher complained instead of ignoring them like they were supposed to.
Again, Entropy Centre is one of the videos that advertises a code sale and Jess spends the video talking about how she ultimately doesn't like the game, even though those kinds of games are usually up her alley. (I don't think it's that bad, personally, but 'pinions)
The other thing is like, a lot of listeners aren't okay with ads for boner pills! We just accept it because we know podcasts gotta turn a buck, but it's not like we love that shit either.
+2
Options
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
I don’t think anyone is looking to giant bomb for integrity in games criticism anymore, so yeah it doesn’t really matter. If they can monetize enough of what they do to stay afloat, good for them.
can you feel the struggle within?
0
Options
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
The other thing is like, a lot of listeners aren't okay with ads for boner pills! We just accept it because we know podcasts gotta turn a buck, but it's not like we love that shit either.
It’s pretty great that the voices I want to listen to can turn to Patreon and twitch to make a living and I can compensate them directly and not have to deal with (as many) ads. It’s certainly not a perfect business model—Jeff talking about getting sick recently and how that affected his ability to provide for his family is a really good example of this. As a consumer, though, I’m happy to hand money as directly as possible to those whose content I enjoy.
I dunno, Giant Bomb has always been on the journalism side of the fence compared to like, influencers / streamers who get paid to advertise games. Them advertising games does kind of step over that boundary. But who knows, maybe Giant Bomb as a journalistic site is dead and it's just a streamer collective now or something, idk.
I don’t think anyone is looking to giant bomb for integrity in games criticism anymore, so yeah it doesn’t really matter. If they can monetize enough of what they do to stay afloat, good for them.
I mean, I was
+9
Options
HardtargetThere Are Four LightsVancouverRegistered Userregular
I don’t think anyone is looking to giant bomb for integrity in games criticism anymore, so yeah it doesn’t really matter. If they can monetize enough of what they do to stay afloat, good for them.
I don’t think anyone is looking to giant bomb for integrity in games criticism anymore, so yeah it doesn’t really matter. If they can monetize enough of what they do to stay afloat, good for them.
Eh? Like, it hasn't really been a games journalism sight in like a decade now, but you could genuinely trust them to give their honest opinions on games. I've yet to see any reason to think that's changed as of yet, code offerings or no.
+4
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
I don’t think anyone is looking to giant bomb for integrity in games criticism anymore, so yeah it doesn’t really matter. If they can monetize enough of what they do to stay afloat, good for them.
I think it's pretty reasonable to mourn a site you once loved for being pretty objectively unique in a sea of otherwise shilly/shitty take-machines becoming exactly what they were created not to be.
0
Options
SixCaches Tweets in the mainframe cyberhexRegistered Userregular
Agreed, I do mourn it. The site I really enjoyed doesn’t exist anymore, which is a shame.
If anything, Jeff was thinking of leaving years ago, mostly due to what we understand in hindsight as corporate meddling, lack of resources/respect, and an overall disagreement with what the owners wanted the site to be/do and what he wanted to be/do.
So really, corporate demanding some ad based corporate synergy like this is a long time coming.
Holy shit, watching the Extra Life Mario Party 2 stream and turn 23 was something (they did a turn check and Dan was also off on his guess by only one). On Dan's turn he steals a star from Jess and then proceeds to land on a hidden block space containing another star.
Meanwhile everyone else has 17 coins or less and the turn ends with Dan having four stars and everyone else having just one. Mario Party!
As far as the keys for games thing is concerned I wouldn't necessarily equate it to the Kane and Lynch situation with the bombardments of advertising GameSpot had up contrasting with Mr Gerstmann's "fuck you K&L!" review and the obvious kerfuffel surrounding that.
A link is so much more subtle and if they do it for all games (and not just some) and keep their opinions uninfluenced (which is not an issue now and I doubt will become one) then all I can muster up is a shrug. For me GB content has been great lately and I'm glad they have kept their identity (the spirit of GB anyway, the feel of the site is bound to change as the revolving in and out door of personalities keeps spinning) and are banging out excellent new features and QuickLooks and the like. Some of the content gets kind of specific but I really enjoyed the Albummer Monthtallica thing that just ended with that crew. Arcade Pit keeps being great but the one thing there is I wish each episode would have at least one person actually from Giant Bomb. Ideally two, if schedules permit.
NNID: Rehab0
0
Options
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
the K&L thing was specifically that he gave it a bad review and an editor was like "what if you gave it a... less bad review" and he said no. He wasn't fired for objecting to the entire concept of a videogame website having ads for videogame
the K&L thing was specifically that he gave it a bad review and an editor was like "what if you gave it a... less bad review" and he said no. He wasn't fired for objecting to the entire concept of a videogame website having ads for videogame
Wasn't HE the editor? There was no editor above him. The people above him was the executives/bosses in suits/money people, who didn't care about the wall between sales and editorial.
Ultimately this Fanatical thing could be meaningless, it's just technically what this was supposed to prevent.
Taking ads from game companies when you're supposed to be covering games with no money changing hands. Not that it's what they're doing, but it LOOKS like that's what they're doing, hence the problems.
Enthusiast Press =/= Journalists; Vinny has even spoken to this years ago.
You should know by now if you trust the GB folks to be objective when talking about games.
This is a nothingburger and everyone waving their fists around are being weird.
If their segments start becoming #ad or #sponsored, you should raise an eyebrow. Or go the Gizmodo route and do "best of" type reviews just so they can make a link tree to Amazon referral storefronts.
Nah. Even if you do want to rest on the slim distinction between enthusiast press/influencer/journalist as it relates to entertainment coverage, it's still problematic to introduce sponsorship dollars into the equation because you don't know whether they're enjoying things/not enjoying things because they're being paid/not being paid.
Enthusiast Press =/= Journalists; Vinny has even spoken to this years ago.
You should know by now if you trust the GB folks to be objective when talking about games.
This is a nothingburger and everyone waving their fists around are being weird.
If their segments start becoming #ad or #sponsored, you should raise an eyebrow. Or go the Gizmodo route and do "best of" type reviews just so they can make a link tree to Amazon referral storefronts.
Yes. Because humans aren't mercurial beings that are easily corrupted by influences such as money.
Even if I did agree with your original point, I'm not sure if you're up to date but GB is currently about 10% of the staff I would've trusted in the past and, on top of that, is under completely new ownership. That company being the one selling the game keys on their videos.
It's not a matter of someone being Objective or Not Objectve, people will be subconsciously influenced by stuff, especially if it affects their living wage. I remember Jeff talking about how bad the "fly the press in to play a game for a day" events were in the past, because they would wine and dine you and you ended up projecting how much fun you had (and how special it made you feel) on your review.
It's not a matter of someone being Objective or Not Objectve, people will be subconsciously influenced by stuff, especially if it affects their living wage. I remember Jeff talking about how bad the "fly the press in to play a game for a day" events were in the past, because they would wine and dine you and you ended up projecting how much fun you had (and how special it made you feel) on your review.
yeah this
human brain is very dumb, nothing we can do about that except avoid the things which are known to cause subconscious bias
I remember Jeff talking about how bad the "fly the press in to play a game for a day" events were in the past, because they would wine and dine you and you ended up projecting how much fun you had (and how special it made you feel) on your review.
They are disclosing that if they talk about it and you can take that into account the level you think it effected their coverage.
GB has known people from virtually all of the big companies, including fucking Phil Spencer. Were you upset they'd have him on for the e3 stuff? Did it effect how they covered Microsoft stuff?
They haven't liked certain people or companies in the past. Are you upset they didn't disclose "enemy of the site"? It certainly could affect their coverage there.
Having Phil Spencer sit down for an interview once a year for 15 minutes is a very different thing than selling reseller CD keys (a shit practice in and of itself that is rife with corruption historically) on your QL/reviews.
If you can't see the potential conflict there I'm not sure what to tell you. It doesn't mean that it's absolute and ubiquitous - but it's definitely risky and more than a bit sketchy.
Having Phil Spencer sit down for an interview once a year for 15 minutes is a very different thing than selling reseller CD keys (a shit practice in and of itself that is rife with corruption historically) on your QL/reviews.
If you can't see the potential conflict there I'm not sure what to tell you. It doesn't mean that it's absolute and ubiquitous - but it's definitely risky and more than a bit sketchy.
Having a friendly conversation with Phil Spencer is absolutely a big get and content for the site, which is, obviously affecting their money.
Of course I can see the conflict. I just think it's a very small percentage added.
Posts
But yeah, imagine your argument being "But G-Phoria exists". Can't wait till GB is pulling a Kinda Funny and have hosts doing press conferences for game companies.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
They should do a Kane and Lynch retrospective
like what in the world. no wonder he was about to bail
Jeff left like five months ago under completely different ownership, though?
EDIT: And by left, I of course mean planned to leave and then got fired, but same point.
Everything they are putting out for free *has* to be for the sake of selling advertisements. As long as their takes aren't slanted by links (not even full ads!) I don't see the issue.
Its hard to see how it even becomes a problem here, Fanatical has keys for virtually any game, they will pick up more sales from the well-reviewed ones. They aren't biased towards particular publishers giving them a fat check so a particular game has to hit well.
Jeff did a large part of his career while at Gamespot while they were hocking videogames at the same time, and that only went south when he got new managers who panicked when the publisher complained instead of ignoring them like they were supposed to.
Again, Entropy Centre is one of the videos that advertises a code sale and Jess spends the video talking about how she ultimately doesn't like the game, even though those kinds of games are usually up her alley. (I don't think it's that bad, personally, but 'pinions)
It’s pretty great that the voices I want to listen to can turn to Patreon and twitch to make a living and I can compensate them directly and not have to deal with (as many) ads. It’s certainly not a perfect business model—Jeff talking about getting sick recently and how that affected his ability to provide for his family is a really good example of this. As a consumer, though, I’m happy to hand money as directly as possible to those whose content I enjoy.
I mean, I was
hard disagree
Eh? Like, it hasn't really been a games journalism sight in like a decade now, but you could genuinely trust them to give their honest opinions on games. I've yet to see any reason to think that's changed as of yet, code offerings or no.
This is borderline revisionism lmao
I think it's pretty reasonable to mourn a site you once loved for being pretty objectively unique in a sea of otherwise shilly/shitty take-machines becoming exactly what they were created not to be.
So really, corporate demanding some ad based corporate synergy like this is a long time coming.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
Meanwhile everyone else has 17 coins or less and the turn ends with Dan having four stars and everyone else having just one. Mario Party!
A link is so much more subtle and if they do it for all games (and not just some) and keep their opinions uninfluenced (which is not an issue now and I doubt will become one) then all I can muster up is a shrug. For me GB content has been great lately and I'm glad they have kept their identity (the spirit of GB anyway, the feel of the site is bound to change as the revolving in and out door of personalities keeps spinning) and are banging out excellent new features and QuickLooks and the like. Some of the content gets kind of specific but I really enjoyed the Albummer Monthtallica thing that just ended with that crew. Arcade Pit keeps being great but the one thing there is I wish each episode would have at least one person actually from Giant Bomb. Ideally two, if schedules permit.
Wasn't HE the editor? There was no editor above him. The people above him was the executives/bosses in suits/money people, who didn't care about the wall between sales and editorial.
Ultimately this Fanatical thing could be meaningless, it's just technically what this was supposed to prevent.
Taking ads from game companies when you're supposed to be covering games with no money changing hands. Not that it's what they're doing, but it LOOKS like that's what they're doing, hence the problems.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
6:30 for the fired talk and 10:37 for Kane and Lynch talk.
holy shit lmao
You should know by now if you trust the GB folks to be objective when talking about games.
This is a nothingburger and everyone waving their fists around are being weird.
If their segments start becoming #ad or #sponsored, you should raise an eyebrow. Or go the Gizmodo route and do "best of" type reviews just so they can make a link tree to Amazon referral storefronts.
Even if I did agree with your original point, I'm not sure if you're up to date but GB is currently about 10% of the staff I would've trusted in the past and, on top of that, is under completely new ownership. That company being the one selling the game keys on their videos.
yeah this
human brain is very dumb, nothing we can do about that except avoid the things which are known to cause subconscious bias
Again, we already have proof Jess has stated she didn't like something they offered a link for.
They are disclosing that if they talk about it and you can take that into account the level you think it effected their coverage.
GB has known people from virtually all of the big companies, including fucking Phil Spencer. Were you upset they'd have him on for the e3 stuff? Did it effect how they covered Microsoft stuff?
They haven't liked certain people or companies in the past. Are you upset they didn't disclose "enemy of the site"? It certainly could affect their coverage there.
If you can't see the potential conflict there I'm not sure what to tell you. It doesn't mean that it's absolute and ubiquitous - but it's definitely risky and more than a bit sketchy.
Of course I can see the conflict. I just think it's a very small percentage added.