IGN And Gamespy to Merge?!?!

Abe Sargent · 12-10-2003, 03:52 PM

What will this mean for the gaming industry as we know it?

-Anxiety

cthomer5000 · 12-10-2003, 03:55 PM

someone posted this a while ago (NOISE, I believe).

It means the price of Kool-Aid will go down.

TLK · 12-10-2003, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cthomer5000
someone posted this a while ago (NOISE, I believe).

Here we go.....

and here.....

and even more here....

wbonnell · 12-10-2003, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by TheLionKing
Here we go.....

and here.....

and even more here....

Hey, I was first!!

SackAttack · 12-10-2003, 07:38 PM

The industry, collectively, yawns.

This is mostly self-masturbation on the part of IGN and GameSpy - I imagine it's largely a posture thing with advertisers. "Hey, look, 22 million unique monthly visitors. Our rates are going up, now."

Yeah, it also strengthens certain weaknesses on both ends, but let's be honest - anybody who was going to GameSpy for, say, RPG stuff in the first place probably already found their way to the RPG Vault at IGN. I don't know that this makes a huge difference for them.

dawgfan · 12-10-2003, 07:42 PM

Games company marketing people everywhere are rejoicing - that's one less group of reviewers and advertising managers they'll have to bribe to get good reviews...

SackAttack · 12-10-2003, 09:01 PM

Nah, not really. The review crews will still remain independent, I gather, and GSI will remain in Irvine while IGN is closer to the Bay. so from that standpoint, the move does nnothing for game developers.

If this were a content merger instead of a network merger...you might have been closer to the truth.

dawgfan · 12-11-2003, 01:50 AM

So they still have to bribe the reviewers, but the advertising will likely be combined I take it? There's 2 parts to getting good reviews - bribing the reviewers and buying up advertising space.

You may think I'm kidding or exagerrating, but there's a lot of truth there...

SackAttack · 12-11-2003, 02:35 AM

Bribing the reviewers doesn't happen, although the reviewers do often bring their own set of biases to the table. But that's a whole 'nother story.

As far as advertising goes...yeah. The merger is, I gather, largely aimed at wringing better ad rates out of the advertisers, since they deliver a much larger combined audience than either site did separately. Sort of a 'pay us this rate, or neither site will accept your ads' sort of thing.

And, since some of the larger competition (Daily Radar, I'm looking at you) is persona non grata these days, it's a threat that might actually carry some weight. Really, who else is left who a) enjoys a large audience, and b) carries any kind of credibility in the industry? For the larger sites, it's IGN, GameSpot, and GameSpy, at least as far as the English-speaking sites goes.

It's a loud message to send.

kingnebwsu · 12-11-2003, 03:22 AM

To me, it's a combination of IGN (who seems to overrate a lot of games) and Gamespy (who, at times, doesn't seem to know anything about games). Really doesn't bug me too much, I trust gamespot's opinions over the other two any day of the week.

dawgfan · 12-11-2003, 11:52 AM

I'm in the video games business. I talk with the project managers and marketing people that go on the road to meet with reviewers. Bribing happens.

It can take many forms, and may not be as direct as paying the reviewer cash. But it happens.

I should also say that I know there are reviewers out there that have enough integrity that such tactics have little to no effect, and I'm sorry for tarring them with my statements.

SackAttack · 12-11-2003, 02:35 PM

There are corrupt people no matter what industry you look at.

But I still stand by my statement: bribery doesn't happen. Or, at least, the intended outcome doesn't happen.

There are times when the game company will fly various reviewers to one destination or another for 'sneak peeks' at upcoming games. I believe the term for this is a 'junket,' if i'm not mistaken. Those are fairly common, from what I understand. I've been on one (as an employe of GameSpy, at the time), but there's no overt, or really even subtle, strongarming going on there. For one thing, the game is generally still in alpha or beta at that point to begin with, and for another, it's pretty typical in the industry to give the game company the benefit of the doubt on an unfinished product. You can mention the flaws, the areas of concern, but it's generally considered poor form to rip something for being trash before you see the final product (even if you can see where it's headed).

So...yeah. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a member of a game PR firm came out and said "Yeah, our actions are calculated to try and extract the highest possible score from the writers," but *most* game journalists, even if they partake of these trips, are going to be able to keep themselves above the fray. Especially those with a serious stake in the matter, such as GameSpot, GameSpy, and IGN, since they're basically the faces of Internet game journalism. What do they have to gain? They don't need the PR that comes along with having a review or preview quoted on the packaging materials, because their audiences are huge to begin with.

Basically, shy of an outright cash payment (which everybody likes to joke about, but which hardly ever happens), therebasically is nothing to gain by allowing oneself to be suborned that way, and quite a bit to lose.

12-10-2003, 07:38 PM	#5
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	The industry, collectively, yawns. This is mostly self-masturbation on the part of IGN and GameSpy - I imagine it's largely a posture thing with advertisers. "Hey, look, 22 million unique monthly visitors. Our rates are going up, now." Yeah, it also strengthens certain weaknesses on both ends, but let's be honest - anybody who was going to GameSpy for, say, RPG stuff in the first place probably already found their way to the RPG Vault at IGN. I don't know that this makes a huge difference for them.

12-10-2003, 07:42 PM	#6
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	Games company marketing people everywhere are rejoicing - that's one less group of reviewers and advertising managers they'll have to bribe to get good reviews...

12-10-2003, 09:01 PM	#7
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	Nah, not really. The review crews will still remain independent, I gather, and GSI will remain in Irvine while IGN is closer to the Bay. so from that standpoint, the move does nnothing for game developers. If this were a content merger instead of a network merger...you might have been closer to the truth.

12-11-2003, 01:50 AM	#8
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	So they still have to bribe the reviewers, but the advertising will likely be combined I take it? There's 2 parts to getting good reviews - bribing the reviewers and buying up advertising space. You may think I'm kidding or exagerrating, but there's a lot of truth there...

12-11-2003, 02:35 AM	#9
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	Bribing the reviewers doesn't happen, although the reviewers do often bring their own set of biases to the table. But that's a whole 'nother story. As far as advertising goes...yeah. The merger is, I gather, largely aimed at wringing better ad rates out of the advertisers, since they deliver a much larger combined audience than either site did separately. Sort of a 'pay us this rate, or neither site will accept your ads' sort of thing. And, since some of the larger competition (Daily Radar, I'm looking at you) is persona non grata these days, it's a threat that might actually carry some weight. Really, who else is left who a) enjoys a large audience, and b) carries any kind of credibility in the industry? For the larger sites, it's IGN, GameSpot, and GameSpy, at least as far as the English-speaking sites goes. It's a loud message to send.

12-11-2003, 03:22 AM	#10
kingnebwsu College Benchwarmer Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Ohio	To me, it's a combination of IGN (who seems to overrate a lot of games) and Gamespy (who, at times, doesn't seem to know anything about games). Really doesn't bug me too much, I trust gamespot's opinions over the other two any day of the week.

12-11-2003, 11:52 AM	#11
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	I'm in the video games business. I talk with the project managers and marketing people that go on the road to meet with reviewers. Bribing happens. It can take many forms, and may not be as direct as paying the reviewer cash. But it happens. I should also say that I know there are reviewers out there that have enough integrity that such tactics have little to no effect, and I'm sorry for tarring them with my statements.

12-11-2003, 02:35 PM	#12
SackAttack Head Coach Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Green Bay, WI	There are corrupt people no matter what industry you look at. But I still stand by my statement: bribery doesn't happen. Or, at least, the intended outcome doesn't happen. There are times when the game company will fly various reviewers to one destination or another for 'sneak peeks' at upcoming games. I believe the term for this is a 'junket,' if i'm not mistaken. Those are fairly common, from what I understand. I've been on one (as an employe of GameSpy, at the time), but there's no overt, or really even subtle, strongarming going on there. For one thing, the game is generally still in alpha or beta at that point to begin with, and for another, it's pretty typical in the industry to give the game company the benefit of the doubt on an unfinished product. You can mention the flaws, the areas of concern, but it's generally considered poor form to rip something for being trash before you see the final product (even if you can see where it's headed). So...yeah. I wouldn't be at all surprised if a member of a game PR firm came out and said "Yeah, our actions are calculated to try and extract the highest possible score from the writers," but most game journalists, even if they partake of these trips, are going to be able to keep themselves above the fray. Especially those with a serious stake in the matter, such as GameSpot, GameSpy, and IGN, since they're basically the faces of Internet game journalism. What do they have to gain? They don't need the PR that comes along with having a review or preview quoted on the packaging materials, because their audiences are huge to begin with. Basically, shy of an outright cash payment (which everybody likes to joke about, but which hardly ever happens), therebasically is nothing to gain by allowing oneself to be suborned that way, and quite a bit to lose.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)