#NewGamesJournalism: Lauren Wainwright sacked.

[bear]

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?

[Dig Dug]

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.

[Jay Adama]

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'.

[Qikz]

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

before anyone has a go at me, I'm joking. Don't forget one of the people I'd consider my best friend is trying damn hard to get into the industry and I know he's an awesome writer.

[Skarjo]

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.

[TheTurnipKing]

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)

[TheTurnipKing]

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.

[Venom]

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.

[7256930752]

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.

How does the site verify themselves as credible? Do they have to ensure they give different scores to other websites or at least mark down popular mainstream games to prove independence from the big publishers?

[TheTurnipKing]

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.

How does the site verify themselves as credible? Do they have to ensure they give different scores to other websites or at least mark down popular mainstream games to prove independence from the big publishers?

Making sure that average games get an average score, instead of the industry standard of 73% (or even higher, these days) being "average".

73% is industry shorthand for "meh, but someone'll like it, and if I go any lower we'll lose advertising money".

[Dblock]

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'.

I will not read that.

[Dblock]

You claimed I knew strawberry float all about journalism so I proved you wrong, that's what happened. I'm not an insider or any of that bollocks, I just know more about how it works than the majority in here who fall on the consumer side.

Anyway, as I said on the other page, this isn't a "debate" worth contributing too any more. So I'm not going to.

In before someone says I'm bailing out of this thread because I'm "losing" or some twaddle

Edit: Staydead, he was saying that I was the one thinking people were plebs.

You got a degree then got a job at Yahoo. So that makes you a journalist? It sounds like you know how it works but have no idea why it's wrong. If you want to get really nippy about this then we can but don't start posting laughter as a response and get a chip on your shoulder when you're called out for posting condescending nonsense. This is massively important but your attitude is baffling for someone that makes his bread in the industry.

Seriously, if this isn't worth contributing to or learning from then what is?

Ginga for a MOD!

[7256930752]

What I mean is if the independent site thinks a mainstream game is good, will they have to mark it down for fear of allegations of a paid review?

Basically you have the potential for the same problem, just from the opposite point of view.

[Drunken_Master]

When I grow up, I want to be a games 'journalist'. Freebies, being jetted off to some far flung part of the world to 'review' the latest and greatest game, and all the pop and snacks you can eat. From the outside looking in, it looks like a gravy train and I want to be onboard. I also have no morals.

[Harry Bizzle]

The NeoGaf thread has sadly devolved into reasonable discussion, and for someone who just wants to watch it all burn, it's pretty snooze-inducing.


Does anyone on here follow Atheistum? What's she been getting up to on twitter?

[TheTurnipKing]

What I mean is if the independent site thinks a mainstream game is good, will they have to mark it down for fear of allegations of a paid review?

Basically you have the potential for the same problem, just from the opposite point of view.

I don't believe that your audience complains about that, as long as they're not being sold a lemon.

The thing is, reviews are barely useful at all these days. Who was it that released a "review" which they capped with "try the demo"?

[Octoroc]

Does anyone on here follow Atheistum? What's she been getting up to on twitter?

Hopefully she is now censoring herself and not the press. Shameful behaviour. She should be a pariah, but none of the other gaming journalists seem to give a gooseberry fool. Funny that.

[Harry Bizzle]

Where's D-pad dave or whoever the hell works with her when you need him?

[rudderless]

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.

Fair enough. I'm not trying to be defensive - certainly not in this thread - so much as pointing out a few misconceptions or making a few observations from the other side, as the argument's been pretty one-sided. Not without good reason, of course.

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.

Agree, and I've happily pointed that out elsewhere.

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.

Again, I agree. Writers need to collectively work harder to improve things.

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'.

Good for you, man. People like you make me want to be a better writer.

[TheTurnipKing]

Where's D-pad dave or whoever the hell works with her when you need him?

Staying well the hell out of it, if he's got any sense.