#NewGamesJournalism: Lauren Wainwright sacked.

Mafro wrote:Ginga

QFT.

Hime wrote:How can games journalism move on from here then? If we don't trust sites and magazines that are sponsored by the very product they are supposed to critique but the current situation seems them utterly reliant on this Income, how does games journalism move forward?

Of course some people will happily pay for content but I'd argue it will be a minority of gamers that would make it very difficult for people to make a living at it.

They could find other sources of advertising, but they wouldn't be anywhere near as effective and therefore wouldn't pay anywhere near as much.

Why isn't Skarj a writer? There's no-one on this forum whose prose is more pleasant to read.

Shadow wrote:Why isn't Skarj a writer? There's no-one on this forum whose prose is more pleasant to read.

I'll have to take your word on that. I just see a block of text and a neon sign which says "DULL" goes off inside my head and I keep scrolling.

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Hime wrote:How can games journalism move on from here then? If we don't trust sites and magazines that are sponsored by the very product they are supposed to critique but the current situation seems them utterly reliant on this Income, how does games journalism move forward?

Of course some people will happily pay for content but I'd argue it will be a minority of gamers that would make it very difficult for people to make a living at it.

They could find other sources of advertising, but they wouldn't be anywhere near as effective and therefore wouldn't pay anywhere near as much.

So it would be unsustainable?

Harry Bizzle wrote:

Shadow wrote:Why isn't Skarj a writer? There's no-one on this forum whose prose is more pleasant to read.

I'll have to take your word on that. I just see a block of text and a neon sign which says "DULL" goes off inside my head and I keep scrolling.

I suggest you don't read the book I'm writing then.

*Smug*

Alright, Eighthours?

Mafro wrote:Alright, Eighthours?

He's my proofreader.

Which means we can no longer be friends because it would be a conflict of interest and render the whole thing a circle-jerk of protectionist back-slapping.

Obvs.

Skippy wrote:There is so much for journos to learn from this whole mess. About where line lies when working with PRs and about how to conduct themselves.

It is worth discussion, just not here. At this point it's a discussion for people who can actually do something about it, otherwise nothing is achieved.

I feel like I've missed something here, but isn't this the perfect thread to discuss this in?

Banjo wrote:

Skippy wrote:There is so much for journos to learn from this whole mess. About where line lies when working with PRs and about how to conduct themselves.

It is worth discussion, just not here. At this point it's a discussion for people who can actually do something about it, otherwise nothing is achieved.

I feel like I've missed something here, but isn't this the perfect thread to discuss this in?

We're not allowed to because we're not journalists.

Hime wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Hime wrote:How can games journalism move on from here then? If we don't trust sites and magazines that are sponsored by the very product they are supposed to critique but the current situation seems them utterly reliant on this Income, how does games journalism move forward?

Of course some people will happily pay for content but I'd argue it will be a minority of gamers that would make it very difficult for people to make a living at it.

They could find other sources of advertising, but they wouldn't be anywhere near as effective and therefore wouldn't pay anywhere near as much.

So it would be unsustainable?

Maybe not unsustainable, but certainly very difficult. Sites may have to cut down on staffing levels, for example. Of course, being completely independent from PR means obtaining review copies becomes very difficult, too.

In an ideal world IGN would be sponsored by Andrex and Sheilas Wheels.

Skarjo wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Ginga wrote:They charge a subscription or they don't bother?

Ain't nobody going to pay for that. Not when we have forums where the news would be posted within minutes. Well done, you've destroyed games journalism.

Not true, I'd pay for good quality journalism; I do everytime I buy a newspaper or a magazine.

The main problem is that online journalism is engaged in a race to the bottom; prioritising speed, exclusive and volume over any actual quality.

I've seen the "I'd pay for quality journalism" argument on a few forums discussing this issue but is there any real evidence out there that people are actually willing to pay more for quality content without ads? NGamer was well regarded as far as videogame magazines went but it got cancelled because nowhere near enough people were buying it.
Edge may not be everyones cup of tea but it is still widely accepted as one of the best game magazines out there and it has never managed to go far beyond the 30,000 a month mark and is currently at around 24,000 per month. How many more copies than that would they need to sell to be able to afford to go ad free and also employ a full time independent staff?

Subscription based video game news site? It could work it just depends on how it is done. Look at Wrestling Observer (I know it isn't games related but shut up), that's like $10 a month and loads of people pay for it.

I've been hopping backwards and forwards through the pages here trying to get a rough idea of what's all happening. It's all very... tedious. In a kind of interesting way.

I think people are being too quick to attack as well as too quick to defend. Rudderless appears to be getting a pounding as GRs resident journal which seems a little unfair but then equally I kind of feel like he's defending journalism a little too much too.

When someone points out a problem with the industry you're in then it's easy to become defensive as it will seem like an attack. The John Walker blog post makes a really good point in that the majority reaction shouldn't be to just defend the industry but to question how and why it has the reputation it does and how to try and solve that issue.

Easier said than done of course.

Frankly, it's been months since I've read anything about games on any kind of games site. If I want information about something games related ill go to Wikipedia because usually it's somerthing completely boring like a release date that I'm after. I'm at the point where there are so many different opinions out there that I just can't be bothered any more. I'll just buy what I think I'll like with no need for anyone to have endorsed it and any game news I read will be largely dry and dull, but factual.

With the Internet and twitter, anyone can become a games journalist. Rather than this making their opinion be counted amongst those that matter, for me it just devalues everyone's opinion to the level of me, my friends, the guy at the bus stop, anyone basically who has ever had an opinion about a game.

And it does seem like a giant circle jerk when you're looking at it from the outside, it doesn't matter whether it's true, it matters that that is what the perception is and that won't go away unless everyone makes an effort to portray themselves better.

Of course this is all just my opinion. I wish I enjoyed reading video game journalism becaus I love games, I love em hard. Every job I've had in the past 10+ years has been games related which is basically my whole adult life and there was a time I would have loved to be a games journalist.

Now I just want to sit and enjoy them without having to 'be part of it'.

A world without games journalism where gamers make their own mind up on what they should buy.

bear wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Ginga wrote:They charge a subscription or they don't bother?

Ain't nobody going to pay for that. Not when we have forums where the news would be posted within minutes. Well done, you've destroyed games journalism.

Not true, I'd pay for good quality journalism; I do everytime I buy a newspaper or a magazine.

The main problem is that online journalism is engaged in a race to the bottom; prioritising speed, exclusive and volume over any actual quality.

I've seen the "I'd pay for quality journalism" argument on a few forums discussing this issue but is there any real evidence out there that people are actually willing to pay more for quality content without ads? NGamer was well regarded as far as videogame magazines went but it got cancelled because nowhere near enough people were buying it.
Edge may not be everyones cup of tea but it is still widely accepted as one of the best game magazines out there and it has never managed to go far beyond the 30,000 a month mark and is currently at around 24,000 per month. How many more copies than that would they need to sell to be able to afford to go ad free and also employ a full time independent staff?

Indeed, and any business model that is totally ad-free is probably not feasible. I also completely accept that a good working relationship with PR reps is important with regards to obtaining review copies and so forth. However, there is a difference between a healthy relationship with PR and advertising being such an important revenue stream that it affects the journalist's ability and freedom to be objective. Once we get into that kind of territory, then we're strictly into conflict-of-interest zones which kills the reputation of the journalists and therefore their usefulness to PRs.

Skarjo wrote:

bear wrote:

Skarjo wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Ginga wrote:They charge a subscription or they don't bother?

Ain't nobody going to pay for that. Not when we have forums where the news would be posted within minutes. Well done, you've destroyed games journalism.

Not true, I'd pay for good quality journalism; I do everytime I buy a newspaper or a magazine.

The main problem is that online journalism is engaged in a race to the bottom; prioritising speed, exclusive and volume over any actual quality.

I've seen the "I'd pay for quality journalism" argument on a few forums discussing this issue but is there any real evidence out there that people are actually willing to pay more for quality content without ads? NGamer was well regarded as far as videogame magazines went but it got cancelled because nowhere near enough people were buying it.
Edge may not be everyones cup of tea but it is still widely accepted as one of the best game magazines out there and it has never managed to go far beyond the 30,000 a month mark and is currently at around 24,000 per month. How many more copies than that would they need to sell to be able to afford to go ad free and also employ a full time independent staff?

Indeed, and any business model that is totally ad-free is probably not feasible. I also completely accept that a good working relationship with PR reps is important with regards to obtaining review copies and so forth. However, there is a difference between a healthy relationship with PR and advertising being such an important revenue stream that it affects the journalist's ability and freedom to be objective. Once we get into that kind of territory, then we're strictly into conflict-of-interest zones which kills the reputation of the journalists and therefore their usefulness to PRs.

Which is currently where we are, and why the focus of Rab's article has been deflected entirely onto Lauren, forcing her to carry the can for the combined sins of an entire industry... where the industry is willing to acknowledge an issue at all (cough cough Kotaku)

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Hime wrote:

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:

Hime wrote:How can games journalism move on from here then? If we don't trust sites and magazines that are sponsored by the very product they are supposed to critique but the current situation seems them utterly reliant on this Income, how does games journalism move forward?

Of course some people will happily pay for content but I'd argue it will be a minority of gamers that would make it very difficult for people to make a living at it.

They could find other sources of advertising, but they wouldn't be anywhere near as effective and therefore wouldn't pay anywhere near as much.

So it would be unsustainable?

Maybe not unsustainable, but certainly very difficult. Sites may have to cut down on staffing levels, for example. Of course, being completely independent from PR means obtaining review copies becomes very difficult, too.

Any credible review source should have no trouble obtaining review copies, otherwise the lack of a review becomes very suspicious in and of itself.

It is, of course, a chicken and egg scenario though.

bear wrote: How many more copies than that would they need to sell to be able to afford to go ad free and also employ a full time independent staff?

I understand the belief that ad-free magazine & websites are the panacea that will solve everything - but I don't see that as a realistic possibility. A professional mag or website without ads is not sustainable. ITV needs advertising to generate revenue to pay its professional staff and make TV programmes - the only reason that the BBC is able to function without ads is because there is a law that says everyone must pay a license fee.

A games website with a subscription fee would likely fail to get enough subscribers when there is so much equivalent content for free. Therefore an ad-free website can only be run by unpaid enthusiasts, some who would be grateful for 'swag.'

There is nothing wrong with a magazine or website that accepts advertising from the products it reviews, so many media industries do this and remain objective. What is important is that the media outlet has a clear defined and public code of ethics and (with the larger websites) the advertising is handled by a completely separate team from the editorial team where individuals are accountable for their actions.