Does PC gamer hold an unfair advantage?

[AIM]

I just got my PC gamer magazine today and what do I see? A review for WarCraft 3!!! Is this a little odd? The games about a week or two from release and they were able to give a review of the game allready?

It seems to me that Computer Gaming World and Computer Games reviews of today's games lag behind about a month when compared to PC gamer?

Does imagine hold more weight in the PG gaming world then the other two publications? I'm just curious as to why they seem to get reviews out much quicker then their competition :?:

:D

[Murph]

PCGamer, I believe, is more willing to review non-gold copies. CGM and CGW never review anything that isn't 100% what's going to be in the hands of the consumer. I don't think that PCGamer has the same strategy, given the fact that they couldn't possibly have a review of Warcraft III based on the gold copy, because they game hadn't gone gold when this month's issue had to go to print.

[wumpus]

Maybe they had a warez copy.

I just started the Dark Elf campaign. This is one LONG singleplayer game.

I am generally impressed with WC3, and I can recommend it to fans of the genre. It's certainly a far better game than Battle Realms was. While WC3 isn't exactly innovative, they took all the concepts that mattered from (you'll recognize many features cribbed from recent RTS games), and gave it the traditional Blizzard polish.

[GMicek]

PCGamer, I believe, is more willing to review non-gold copies. CGM and CGW never review anything that isn't 100% what's going to be in the hands of the consumer. I don't think that PCGamer has the same strategy, given the fact that they couldn't possibly have a review of Warcraft III based on the gold copy, because they game hadn't gone gold when this month's issue had to go to print.

Yeah, that's always strange to see. Next Generation did that a few times. I'd read the review and yet the game was still making headlines for being delayed. Or they would cite problems with the game that were not actually there in the release version. The real problem I have with publications doing that is that they never seem to address it at a later date. Sure, the argument could be made that they review what the publisher gives them, but they're supposed to be reviewing it for the benefit of the consumer, not the publisher. So that means the reviews should be based off of software the game buying public will actually be getting. Ahh well. I've pretty much stopped reading reviews anyway. Every time I'd find a writer that I think I agreed with they would write a few reviews that would make me question their sanity, heh.

[Mark Asher]

PC Gamer probably went down to Blizzard's offices and played through the game in a couple of days. What does the article say?

[Murph]

But were they playing the gold version? It's been gold less than a month...I have a real hard time believing that they could have pulled that off. I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but that's kinda tough.

Just the same, I suppose reviewing a non-gold copy isn't the worst thing in the world. I knew from the beta that I'd love Neverwinter Nights, and was already recommending it to everyone, so maybe it's not so different...Except for the fact that I'm not the #1 Selling Computer Game Magazine in the Industry.

[Mark Asher]

"Just the same, I suppose reviewing a non-gold copy isn't the worst thing in the world. I knew from the beta that I'd love Neverwinter Nights, and was already recommending it to everyone, so maybe it's not so different...Except for the fact that I'm not the #1 Selling Computer Game Magazine in the Industry."

I'm cool with that, but if they did review something that wasn't final, they should make that clear.

I suspect most magazine readers would be happy with a review based on a late beta if it meant that they'd get a more timely review.

[Murph]

I'm cool with that, but if they did review something that wasn't final, they should make that clear.

Yeah, I think that's the real kicker. I haven't read the review yet, but if it's out this soon, I just can't comprehend how it could be the final version, and i the review doesn't make that disclaimer, I'll be disappointed.

But it doesn't seem like games, at the core, change enough from late beta to final build to completely invalidate a review based on the late beta. Generally.

Just the same, there's a lot to be said for the "We only review games based on the final build" ideology, as well.

[Lunch of Kong]

You do a disservice to your readers by reviewing final candidate builds: You can't evaluate how buggy the final game will be.

[Mark Asher]

You do a disservice to your readers by reviewing final candidate builds: You can't evaluate how buggy the final game will be.

But the flipside is that you may also be doing a disservice to your readers if you don't give them a timely review.

My only stipulation is that the status of the version be fully disclosed. If it's a copy of the gold master, let me know. If it's a release candidate that hasn't been officially approved yet, let me know. If it's a late beta that the game company considers to be close but not quite there yet, let me know.

[Desslock]

>But the flipside is that you may also be doing a disservice to your readers if you don't give them a timely review

The problem is the trend is to review early (or quickly) only games that are really anticipated, and the games always get really high review scores. Those reviews don't really evaluate games (because they're not based upon the retail release and because the reviewers don't have an adequate amount of time with them) -- they don't evaluate the experience players will have with the game. Instead, they essentially just confirm that the already high expectations for the game aren't completely out of whack.

That has value, and I can understand why publications do it (PC Gamer has obviously reviewed a lot of games early recently) -- people want reviews early to help them make purchasing decisions when the game's just been released. Those sorts of reviews are probably much more desired by potential purchasers than a review that comes out two months after the product's hit retail shelves, even if the later reviews are more "accurate", like the reviews of Black and White that came out after the game had been out for a few months.

Still, I can't help thinking that the same goal could be accomplished by running significant "first impressions" pieces, followed by actual reviews of the retail releases after playing them a ton. But I guess that approach would be problematic as well, since if the review contradicted the impressions piece, or was significantly more negative (which I think would often be the case -- or at least more frequently than the opposite), readers would raise allegations of the publications being on the take, etc.

[JeffL]

That's what has me leary of "early" reviews: when's the last time you saw one that gave the game a low rating?

[Samuel Bass]

Well, it often seems like the majority of high-profile, highly anticipated games receive overly inflated scores, gold version or not.

Besides, sometimes a pre-gold beta is all you're going to get...I reviewed a bunch of Squaresoft games for Daily Radar that were rife with spelling errors. I didn't mention that in the review (I assumed, correctly, that they would be fixed), nor did I mention that the game was a pre-gold version, simply because they were usually ports of previously released Japanese versions and therefore feature complete and 98% bug free.

Still, with that said, I think language ports are a special case - if I got a pre-gold version of an as yet unreleased game, I'd certainly mention that in the review.

[Kross]

PC Gamer probably went down to Blizzard's offices and played through the game in a couple of days. What does the article say?

The reviewer said he "blaz[ed] through all of the game's 34 perfectly designed missions in just two daylong sittings (on Normal difficulty)." I quess this is one way to disclose that you've only played the game for two days in a huge hurry. It's a four page review but has only two paragraphs for multi-player, which he obviously couldn't have done much of if the game hasn't been released yet. I'm perplexed how you can give a 94% rating to a game when you've only played half of it (i.e., the single player part).

This isn't a criticism of the reviewer, who I believe posts on these boards sometimes and who was just doing what he could with the time he was given by Blizzard and PCGamer. The review was otherwise well-written. I also don't suppose that, if PCGamer wanted to blazon the "Exclusive Review" and a picture of a human barbarian on its cover as a way to sell copies of the magazine and make money, it also would put on the cover in equally bold print: "But We Only Reviewed Half of It!" (I got the human cover; apparently I can spend more money and buy three more copies with other covers representing the undead, orcs, and night elfs; "Collect all 4 Covers!") I'm sorry though that the economics of the business apparently require these kinds of reviews.

[Jason Cross]

My personal opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer, is that working all the tricks to get the world-exclusive first review of a game in a print magazine is akin to the "First Post!" thing on the message boards. It's like, "great, you're first. But do you really contribute? Is it something I want to read?"

I'll use CGW quickly as an example, because Jeff Green is a manly stud and can take it. :wink: They obviously didn't put enough time into Black & White to give it an accurate review. So it got a special treatment, its own spread outside the main review section, and a five-star rating. Then come awards time, it's nowhere to be found. Then in the letters a reader wrote in and said "what's the deal?" and they said "well as we played it more, we realized it's not that great." All I'm saying is, maybe that's the amount of playing that needs to happen BEFORE it gets a five-star special review super spread custom treatment thing.

And the only reason I pick on CGW's B&W review is because they've basically admitted to dropping the ball on that one themselves. I don't want you guys thinking I'm talking smack. :D

[Anonymous]

Then come awards time, it's nowhere to be found.

Actually, it was to be found at awards time--in the award we gave ourselves for blowing that review. So yeah, we came clean. Oddly enuf, that really was *not* a case of us trying to say "we're first!!"--we were just trying to be relatively timely on such a major release. And in so doing, we trusted the opinion of an alway-reliable freelancer who made the cardinal sin of not finishing, and then we compounded the sin by not playing it enough ourselves.
So, yeah, your main point stands for sure (and being a manly stud I can take it) --we didn't spend enough time with it.

And congrats to Quarter to Three here for breaking this world-exclusive first-look confession from me. 5 stars!

[Troy S Goodfellow]

Well, the thing with Black and White wasn't just CGW. PC Gamer gave it a score in the mid-90s, Gamespot a 9.3, Gamespy a 91. If this is a case of general enthusiasm for an eagerly awaited title outweighing common sense, it certainly has little to do with the desire to be first. Almost everyone loved this game the moment it came out.

Computer Games gave B&W 3/5 stars, btw. Leave it to Steve Baumann to see the man behind the curtain.

As a thirty year old gamer on a budget, I marvel at people who need to have a game immediately on release - the only market for an early review is this group. I make a rule to wait until the dust settles before making any game purchase, and most people I know do the same thing.

So, to quote Seinfeld, "Who are these people?" who buy a game the first week of release?

Of course it is in the company's interest to generate quick buzz for a new title. Of course a magazine has to stay "current" but I would like to see one of the magazines write a "Second Thoughts" column. One of the best things about Gamesdomain a few years ago was their "Second Opinions". The debate over Imperialism, for example, was really helpful in my decision on whether or not to pick up this title. Since the experience of loving a game in the first rush of newness is universal, I would think this would be a natural audience pleaser.

[Supertanker]

So, to quote Seinfeld, "Who are these people?" who buy a game the first week of release?

I always wonder that, too, since I've been burned even after waiting a bit. So many games don't meet the hype it seems like you would toss out a lot of turds to find the gems. The only games I can recall buying immediately after release are Baldur's Gate ('cause I'm a D&D geek), MoH:AA (though the demos & gameplay movies had been out already), and NWN (after playing at a friend's house).

[Desslock]

>Computer Games gave B&W 3/5 stars, btw. Leave it to Steve Baumann to see the man behind the curtain. As a thirty year old gamer on a budget, I marvel at people who need to have a game immediately on release - the only market for an early review is this group. I make a rule to wait until the dust settles before making any game purchase, and most people I know do the same thing

The vast majority of the average game's sales occur within the first several weeks after release -- so most people had made their decision to buy Black and White in the two months prior to Bauman's review being available. I still side with deferring reviews until you can spend an appropriate amount of time to get them "right", but I can understand why folks might want them earlier, even if there's an increased chance that they'll be inaccurate (or at least not reflect opinions of the game after more consideration).

Stefan

[Anonymous]

Bauman's was the only major review to nail it. The fact that it appeared "later" pales in comparison to that. What we remember now is that he's the one guy who didn't fall for it.

Yes, timeliness is obviously a big factor, but more and more I am of the opinion that this "exclusive review" stuff is more trouble than it's worth, for not much payoff. That aint to diss Gamer--we've done it too and I think we even have another one coming up. (Ugh.)

But I tell you, I think I'm just about done with them. Who really gives a shit? Especially if people start questioning the validity/credibility of that review or the publication in general? I'd rather be a little late and let the Web sites fight it out to be "first".

Jeff

[Tom Chick]

I'd just like to make it clear that I'm the one who broke the story about Black & White being mediocre.
Check this (http://www.quartertothree.com/early/black&white/b&w_early.shtml) out. It was posted within a few weeks of the game's release.

Okay, pony up with the accolades. I expect calls from highers up as well as consideration for a Pulizter.

-Tom

[Jason Cross]

Actually, it was to be found at awards time--in the award we gave ourselves for blowing that review. So yeah, we came clean. Oddly enuf, that really was *not* a case of us trying to say "we're first!"

Yeah, that's exactly why I brought it up. You guys had already admitted the faux pas.

I know it wasn't a case of "first post!" there. But the point was that the early review very often presents the same case as happened with B&W: the review is based off playing MOST of the game, or running through it really quick, or whatever. It's just typically a case of writing a review without playing the game enough first.

FWIW, PC Gamer gave B&W a whopping 95%, which is amazingly high on their scale, and come award time it only won a technical award for "Best AI."


Bauman's was the only major review to nail it. The fact that it appeared "later" pales in comparison to that.

True, but it wasn't "later." It was the same month as CGW's.

[Tom Chick]

Who's the freelancer who wrote CGW's B&W review? Maybe that person *actually* liked the game that much? If so, why would CGW recant? A review is one person's opinion.

For instance, I hated Deus Ex, but I'm pretty sure most everyone at Games Domain, where the review was finally published, really liked it. They shouldn't recant my review any more than CGW should recant that poor freelancer's review!

-Tom

[Mark Asher]

The review scores at CGW are decided by a panel of editors who meet in the secret cabal room, conveniently located next to the snack machines, once a month to see which game companies have purchased the most ads and sent out the best freebies. Or at least that's what some guy on Usenet told me.

The game reviewer only suggests a review score.

The game reviewer in question was, I believe, Charles Ardai, one of their oldest, most trusted reviewers. Et tu, Brutus?

Again, it was the secret cabal of CGW editors who determined the final score.

[Tom Chick]

Ah, yes, I remember how the CGW scores work now. Luckily, I think they only assign me stuff none of them want to play. Army Men RTS and Star Trek Armada II. Stuff like that. They have to take my word for it that they're two-star games. :)

But score schmore. Who cares about scores? Did Ardai decide he didn't like the game as much as he wrote he did?

-Tom

[Mark Asher]

I don't know about Ardai. CGW didn't change the review score, but just said that after reflection, they were wrong and the game sucked.

There's a subtle difference there, and I'm not sure what it means, but it's subtle!

[Anonymous]

The reviewer was Charles Ardai, and in fact he did end up liking it less--because he encountered a game-stopping bug AFTER the point at which he'd played up to when he wrote the review. Thus, the lesson learned, once again: ALWAYS FINISH THE GAME. The "recant" was done by the editors, but I don't think Charles particularly objected....

jeff

[Anonymous]

>The vast majority of the average game's sales occur within the first several weeks after release

This is actually quite untrue. We've done a ton of research on both PC and console games, and it turns out that PC games on average sell the same number of units in their first six months and second six months of release. That is, they do high numbers the first several weeks, but over time it all averages out and you get a pretty stable sales model over a full year.

Console games, however, sell 90% of their lifetime units in their first six months of release, on average.

PS - didn't log in, oops

[DennyA]

Adam,

I'd be surprised, though, if that's the case with "blockbuster" games that get this special treatment. If you have access to the Blizzard division's sales figures, look back at Diablo II. What percentage of that game's sales were from the first shipment? (I don't expect you to quote the figure... But I'd bet it's significant.)

The thing about these "exclusive reviews" is that the type of gamer who reads CGW/CGM/PCG is also very likely to buy a "blockbuster" game the week it comes out. So the review isn't there to help make a purchasing decision, it's there to validate a purchase already made. (And I've seen reader surveys that back this up.) So if the review falls back an issue, it's not really going to matter. Exclusive reviews aren't for the benefit of the reader, they exist purely to try to increase newsstand sales.

As for PCG, knowing how Blizzard works, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt. My assumption is that they did play a code-complete version of the single player game. Blizzard's a bit like Microsoft in that their games get finished long before they ship. They tend to get held up for localization and multiplayer balancing.

(Not to let PCG off the hook... The very first issue of the magazine I ever saw had a review of 1942: Pacific Air War -- and I got the magazine the same week Microprose sent me a new beta of the game. And there's the infamous review of Renegade 2, which was cancelled before it was finsihed. PCG said they thought it was a gold. Funny, that, since I had that build too and it didn't even have sound support. :twisted: )

[Desslock]

> and it turns out that PC games on average sell the same number of units in their first six months and second six months of release

I'm really surprised to hear that's your experience -- does it only apply to top tier titles? Many games are even hard to find on shelves after 6 months. I'd also be interesting in hearing if the trend holds when you look at the cash received from those sales -- even if unit sales show similar volume, it's rare for anything other than top sellers to retain their initial sticker price beyond a few months.

[copeknight]

[quote="Desslock"]> Many games are even hard to find on shelves after 6 months.

That reminds me of one of the first times CGW looked at the European and specifically British game market in the late '80s. I believe the metaphor used was that in the U.K. games had the lifespan of butterflies.
Sounds increasingly familiar.

Of course, they also commented about the valuation of graphics over gameplay, all but nonexistant documentation, and floods of clones (of Impossible Mission). Thank God none of those things have happened here :roll:

Carl

(Also reminds me of the time when PCG reviewed one of SSI's Renegade Legion games that never actually made it to market.)

[Jason Becker]

"So the review isn't there to help make a purchasing decision, it's there to validate a purchase already made. (And I've seen reader surveys that back this up.)"


I'm surprised at that myself. Since I know the mag can't compete in the time factor compared to online I get them because I feel they are generally written better and just of a higher quality than some of the online ones I see.

I like that CGW says they only review final games, no betas, no patches(except for MM type games). Thats why I've never liked PC Gamer as much myself. The past couple of issues confirm it to me(I don't see how the review in last months issue of Morrowind wasn't based on a beta). So for me thats why CGM and CGW get my subscrptions.

Also isn't it garunteed that a early review is going to be positive? Has a mag like PC Gamer ever reviewed a non final game and ripped it? If they did then wouldn't they piss off the devs and publishers? They can't really complain since some or maybe all of problems could be fixed by the final release. Or at least that arguement could be made. So the review is garunteed to be a posotive one, and hence I can't see taking it serioulsly.

[Doug Erickson]

Man, if magazines adopted the "Early Hours" angle (tm Tom and Mark, all rights reserved, yadda yadda), I'd be sold. I'm tired of enthusiastic "validation" reviews from web sites for every marquee title, such as the mediocre Eternal Darkness, or the less-than-mediocre Dungeon Siege.

Let's face it, as Tom pointed out in that last Shoot Club, part of the "new game" experience for several of us geeks is the anticipation and the moment of purchase for these mega-hyped titles, never you mind that the game may suck. There's usually a lot of cognitive dissonance (tm Marcus Dracon, all rights reserved, yadda yadda) generated by all of the hype and anticipation, and it takes people awhile to honestly decide whether they like the game or if they've been taken for a ride.

If the print magazines are worried about their reputation as authorities, the "Early Hours" followed by a big review a month later seems like a safe model. They can put "Exclusive First Impressions of Starcraft 2!" writ large acros the front of the magazine, with a review announcement in much smaller text on the CD demo cover the following month. Getting this practice institutionalized across magazines would certainly give the writers a bit of a chance to really dig into a game. Personally speaking, when a new game comes out, I don't NEED a comprehensive review - I just need to know if it doesn't totally suck. Most "big" games are hyped for a reason, and chances are the suck factor won't really sink into my fevered little brain until several hours in, in which case I can forgive the person who recommended the game because it was just an initial set of impressions.

After validating my purchase and letting me cool to the game, a great review can really hack into the meat of the game, and discuss the reality behind the veil of hype. Maybe Geryk can be allowed to curse a bit more, too; that's always fun.

It's not a perfect system, mostly because it requires that the magazines acclimate the readers to such an approach and sell them on it. Still, it would help credibility a lot, and might actually generate some more meaningful discussions of game design, and emphasize the utility of print magazines as an intellectual as well as a consumer resource for this hobby.

[Legolas Greenleaf]

These aren't exactly new ideas, but they are well and clearly put. Is anyone from the gaming magazines reading this? If so, do you guys (editors, I mean) ever think about doing something to improve actual editorial content quality? Or do you just concentrate on how to print "EXCLUSIVE FIRST P/REVIEW!!!" in ever-bigger type on the cover?

[Alan Au]

Legolas, yes editors have bene known to frequent the boards and commiserate about p/reviews. Unfortunately, if that's what moves magazines, that's what will go to print.

There are several threads on the the old message boards where this is discussed. :(

- Alan

[Anonymous]

Yeah, this topic is as old as time itself. But always worth discussing.

As I mentioned before, I've pretty much had it with this "exclusive review" business. The CGW we just released, with Neverwinter Nights on it, is actually NOT one of these. It's really more like what Doug suggested above--an extended first impressions piece. Our actual review is not coming out until the following month, which gave Scooter (the reviewer) ample time to actually finish the game, work with the Aurora toolset, etc.

Again--I'm not saying CGW is guilt free--we're not. But this is "exclusive review in exchange for a cover" trend is one that I'm gonna get us out of ASAP. I don't like it.

Jeff

[Dave Long]

As far as I'm aware, CGM has never done the exclusive review thing. That's been limited only to CGW and PCGamer.

--Dave

[Mark Asher]

As Steve Bauman has pointed out, every review is exclusive. The only real distinction a mag can have over others with a review is to be "First!"

If many of the "First!" reviews were highly critical, they might have value. As others have pointed out, though, they tend to praise the game -- which makes sense in a way, because why would you trumpet a review on your cover if it slammed the game?

[JeffL]

Now THERE would be something interesting: a cover article with art from a highly anticipated title, with the bold headline: "Exclusive First Coverage of Black and White - and why it may be the biggest dissapointment in PC history!"

[Gordon Berg]

As Steve Bauman has pointed out, every review is exclusive. The only real distinction a mag can have over others with a review is to be "First!"

If many of the "First!" reviews were highly critical, they might have value. As others have pointed out, though, they tend to praise the game -- which makes sense in a way, because why would you trumpet a review on your cover if it slammed the game?


This is a pipe dream to be sure, but don't call it a review then. Call it an "Exclusive Hands On of the Final Game!" if it so happens that you got to play the finished product before everyone else, but didn't get to have any extensive time with the final code since it was only for a single gameplay session at a developer's/publisher's office. Then you can still keep some credibility and say "our in-depth review will appear next month, but here's what we liked, didn't like, etc." The mag still gets to dangle the coveted "cover story" carrot. This will ultimately win out as positive press most of the time because this sort of behavior is usually reserved only for The Most Anticipated Game In History Ever and will more often than not contain more positive comments than bad. This way the mag doesn't look stoopid for slapping some ridiculous score onto a product that later reveals some damning bugs/problems that will ultimately be addressed.

Sort of like what CGM used to with their first impression articles on the old site, but on a much larger scale.

[Kross]

In addition to doing a first impressions piece early and a final review later, a related suggestion is to separate the multiplayer and single player reviews of the game, at least for the most important games. I don't see how anyone can do a reasonable multiplayer review until the game has been available awhile. The discussion of NWN on this board shows that the jury is still out on NWN multiplayer and likely will remain out for some time.

[Anonymous]

If many of the "First!" reviews were highly critical, they might have value. As others have pointed out, though, they tend to praise the game -- which makes sense in a way, because why would you trumpet a review on your cover if it slammed the game?
How is a critical review more valuable than one that offers praise, particularly if the praise is actually accurate? Are people criticizing the method even when the results are actually accurate (or as accurate as a review can ever be)?

You promote the things on the cover you think will sell more issues, positive or negative. If it's "Daikatana: It sucks," wonderful. If it's "Daikata: We're its Bitch," wonderful.

"First impressions" is a great idea, but try explaining to people the concept of lead times, of why you're printing a "first impression" when the game comes out because they want the review. Now. A first impression sounds like you couldn't be bothered to do the review.

On the web they want the review the day the game ships, regardless whether you got the game that day or not. We used to be bombarded with e-mails, "Why don't you have your review up, are you afraid of telling it like it is?" when we were giving our writer a typical 2-3 week time period with the game.

Unless game companies produce golds 6-8 weeks before they hit shelves and send them to long lead press, there will never be a better way to handle game reviews than what's going on now.

Blah

[Jason Cross]

These aren't exactly new ideas, but they are well and clearly put. Is anyone from the gaming magazines reading this? If so, do you guys (editors, I mean) ever think about doing something to improve actual editorial content quality? Or do you just concentrate on how to print "EXCLUSIVE FIRST P/REVIEW!!!" in ever-bigger type on the cover?


People vote with their dollars. Every time we try to do the Good Thing and do a really thoughtful, well-researched, and interesting article about a game, or the game industry, or whatever, it doesn't seem to work. I mean, we get some really positive feedback, and that's great, but it doesn't generate sales.

Put another way: if gamers want "better" content in their gaming magazines instead of just big letters saying "first ever exclusive hands-on screenshots with 200 fluffy words on a game not coming out for three more years!", you're going to have to tell us so by buying the magazines that do it right and no longer buying the magazines that don't.

That sure as hell isn't happening. The magazine that this thread is titled for has a leadership position that it does not use to improve the depth of computer game coverage.

[Stroker Ace]

Put another way: if gamers want "better" content in their gaming magazines instead of just big letters saying "first ever exclusive hands-on screenshots with 200 fluffy words on a game not coming out for three more years!", you're going to have to tell us so by buying the magazines that do it right and no longer buying the magazines that don't.

sounds great, point me to 'em!

[Anonymous]

[Put another way: if gamers want "better" content in their gaming magazines instead of just big letters saying "first ever exclusive hands-on screenshots with 200 fluffy words on a game not coming out for three more years!", you're going to have to tell us so by buying the magazines that do it right and no longer buying the magazines that don't.

That sure as hell isn't happening.

Because your newsstand audience is primarily teenagers.

[Gordon Berg]

That sure as hell isn't happening. The magazine that this thread is titled for has a leadership position that it does not use to improve the depth of computer game coverage.

Because your newsstand audience is primarily teenagers.


Right, which only proves the readership are fucking idiots, if you'll pardon my elvish. Wasting our time.

[Jason Becker]

"People vote with their dollars. Every time we try to do the Good Thing and do a really thoughtful, well-researched, and interesting article about a game, or the game industry, or whatever, it doesn't seem to work. I mean, we get some really positive feedback, and that's great, but it doesn't generate sales."

Which sucks IMO. I have enjoyed the last few months of CGM which have done articles like the one on newbie online players, or game AI, or when you actually DIDN'T put a game on the cover but did one on game mods and how it works.

It does get boring to see the same news/previews(with the usual one big one), reviews, and some tips done over and over with nothing else to spice the reading up. I like well done previews and reviews in the mags but enjoy the diffrent content too. Guess I'm one of the minorities on this one though.

[Murph]

I'd but a dozen subscriptions to any magazine or game site that would run Shoot Club as a regular column.

[Mark Asher]

It does get boring to see the same news/previews(with the usual one big one), reviews, and some tips done over and over with nothing else to spice the reading up. I like well done previews and reviews in the mags but enjoy the diffrent content too. Guess I'm one of the minorities on this one though.

You nailed it. We're the minority.

[Anonymous]

Because your newsstand audience is primarily teenagers.
Hi Chet.

Adults concede everything to the buying power of teenagers due to their own apathy. Instead of voting with their wallets, they complain about how everything is going to hell.

Adults bitch about sorry movies but don't go to "serious" movies, while kids go to ever Fast and the Furious style movie made. Adults buy less music so there's more Britney, blah blah blah.

And for the record, the average age of newsstand buyers of our magazine is something like 25, with our overall average reader age about 30.

[Anonymous]

Put another way: if gamers want "better" content in their gaming magazines instead of just big letters saying "first ever exclusive hands-on screenshots with 200 fluffy words on a game not coming out for three more years!", you're going to have to tell us so by buying the magazines that do it right and no longer buying the magazines that don't.

That sure as hell isn't happening. The magazine that this thread is titled for has a leadership position that it does not use to improve the depth of computer game coverage>>>>>

I'm curious, since I buy all three mags regularly. Does it really hurt your "favorite mag" to ALSO buy the others :?:

[Kross]

Put another way: if gamers want "better" content in their gaming magazines instead of just big letters saying "first ever exclusive hands-on screenshots with 200 fluffy words on a game not coming out for three more years!", you're going to have to tell us so by buying the magazines that do it right and no longer buying the magazines that don't.

The PCG issue that is the subject of this thread is a celebration of the mag's one hundredth issue. I've been a subscriber for more than half of those issues, but, due to numerous frustrations with PCG, I've let the subscription lapse, and the hundredth issue was my last one.

This hundredth issue, which supposedly is a "Collector's Edition," was again less than impressive, although the retrospective piece by Trotter was good (and I don't even play wargames). Of the current constantly changing bunch of reviewers, I only like Trotter and Mahood (and I don't play sims either). Certainly, one of the big problems with PCG is the absurdly huge turnover in staff. The value of a review consists in large part of the trust that the reader has in the reviewer. Developing trust is impossible when the roster of reviewers is constantly changing, usually without a word of leavetaking. The mag also contained a truly embarrassing column about the writer's successes with Mexican girls during his summers in Mexico as a high schooler and how he "learn[ed] the sweet language of love" there, even though he had not "scored . . . many points with the honeys back home." This apparently was meant to be funny, but I found it laughable for entirely different reasons.

I subscribed to CGM a few days ago through CGOnline. CGM is not commonly found on the newsstands here in the Tampa area, although it is available if you know where to look. I probably would not have subscribed to CGM, but for the positive word of mouth that CGM is a better mag. So, your plea that gamers buy "the magazines that do it right" is not going entirely unheard. I don't doubt though that, at the newstand at least, more people will pick up a magazine because it brags on its cover about its exclusive review of the lastest game, than because they have heard from friends that it has a more thoughtful overall approach to the gaming industry.

[Jason Becker]

"one of the big problems with PCG is the absurdly huge turnover in staff. The value of a review consists in large part of the trust that the reader has in the reviewer."


Good point.

[Jason McCullough]

Let's face it: good game writing is a niche market. However, would an online-only, serious game mag be able to sell enough subscriptions to stay afloat?

[Legolas Greenleaf]

And for the record, the average age of newsstand buyers of our magazine is something like 25, with our overall average reader age about 30.

Steve, I'm just curious about how you know this. Is it due to reader feedback cards, or something else like those supermarket discount cards that track everything you buy? Because if you're saying that the average age of your newsstand readers is 25 and the overall average age is 30 based on reponse cards, all you can really know is the average age of people who send in response cards.

[Alternate#789]

But score schmore. Who cares about scores? Did Ardai decide he didn't like the game as much as he wrote he did?

Scores are easily the worst thing about most game reviews. I think that games are too complex in that they must be reviewed from a technical standpoint of production values, general game mechanics, and reviewer's tilt being the most important reason.

A score 'out of 5 stars' is too small to be really useful and many times are just helping ads. 3 stars could be due to any of the above reasons, but on the ad it's still 3/5, black and white.

A score out of 100% seems ridiculous. How can a reviewer decide that a game is an 83% instead of 80%? Hell, my teachers in school couldn't even do that unless it's based on a rubrick, in which case the reviewers and teachers gain credibility. If this is the case, I have still seen precious few games get a result around 50%, or (gasp) less. Again, it just seems like ad fodder.

[Jason Cross]

I subscribed to CGM a few days ago through CGOnline. CGM is not commonly found on the newsstands here in the Tampa area, although it is available if you know where to look. I probably would not have subscribed to CGM, but for the positive word of mouth that CGM is a better mag. So, your plea that gamers buy "the magazines that do it right" is not going entirely unheard.

Hey cool, thanks! Do you have tens of thousands of friends who will do the same? :wink:

[wumpus]

Maybe Bob Mayer will subscribe, now that he's been tossed out on his ass! Ka-ching!

[Bub, Andrew]

I'm sure he'll just read his wife's copy.

[Anonymous]

Steve, I'm just curious about how you know this. Is it due to reader feedback cards, or something else like those supermarket discount cards that track everything you buy? Because if you're saying that the average age of your newsstand readers is 25 and the overall average age is 30 based on reponse cards, all you can really know is the average age of people who send in response cards.
Surveys. It's true of any survey that it's only a measure of those that bothered to fill it out, but we got a couple of thousand responses to our last one, so chances are it's as accurate a representation of our readership as is possible, unless we call everyone up individually.

People wonder why game magazines are schizophrenic? Newsstand buyers are younger, subscribers older. Newsstand wants a CD, subscribers don't. You see more newsstand teenagers, and more 40 year old subscribers... try making a magazine to satisfy those two audiences, yeesh.