About a month ago the pcxl web site came back online. PCXL was my favorite game magazine of the past 5 years. I got the feeling that the magazine was written by people who truely enjoy games. Out side of the humor (which I enjoyed so sue me) the actual spirit was more in line with CGW in the late 80s. I hoped its really maked a come back.
Well, the page is up. I think the web site isn't going to make it. I quote:
"Here's a short list of facts about the new PCXL you'll want to know:
We publish a fresh crop of stories every week. (or is that, “fresh crap stories every week?”)
This time, you will have to pay for it (you ungrateful fucks)
We will proudly show tits and ass (not ours, thankfully).
Using powerful explosives, we will blow the fuck out of something in every issue (not us, hopefully).
We will post gratuitous shots of our hot Lifestyle Editor, Sophie, and other women we find attractive, just because (… Gia was too expensive).
We will continue to offend just about everyone (ourselves included).
We will bitch incessantly until someone sends us free beer.
We will celebrate the almighty Frag and deflate those silly RPGs.
If a self-proclaimed "cool" guys falls down, we'll be there to geekily point and laugh.
If we fall down, we'll pretend it never happened. "
The stories for this moth include talking about a a coma boy, Hasbro remaking Quake 3, A flying love doll, and Keanu Reeves being interview by a guy in a Wookie costmue. And for this you get to pay $4.95 a month. *sigh* guess I expect to much...
By Ben Sones (Felderin) on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 11:34 pm:
"You didn't want to buy our magazine--now you can pay for our web site!"
Or whatever. I like humor. Jeff Green's column in CGW--that's funny. PCXL is more like a UPN sitcom: it tries really hard, and it shows.
By Geo on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 03:01 am:
*sues Rob Merritt* :) All I can say about PCXL is, if I wanted to time warp back to being in puberty and wallowing in dirty jokes and skin mags, I'd re-enroll in freakin' junior high school. :)
By Mark Asher on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 09:01 am:
Well, they probably need to be really different to make it as a pay per view site. No one's going to pay to read reviews and previews, so you'd better have something else up your sleeve. Naked women are a proven seller.
Thing is, $5 per month will buy you subscriptions to all three of the magazines, I think.
They also need to make the first issue free. Who's going to subscribe to something sight unseen?
By Rob_Merritt on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 01:13 pm:
"PCXL isn't giving any sample articles away for free. Thanks Rob! "
Look, it isn't MY fault they aren't giving anything away! ;)
Seriously though, the sample article titled "flying f*ck doll" is all I need to see to know I don't want what they are selling.
By Michael Murphy (Murph) on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 01:33 pm:
It seems so weird to me that "gaming" websites are resorting to porn for cash. I guess I can see the inspiration -- if you need money over the internet, porn is a sure-fire way to get it. Or is it? I can't imagine people going to a gaming website and thinking, "Hey, while I'm here, I should give them money for porn." I just don't see the two mixing. People that will pay for porn will get porn elsewhere, I'd think. (I don't really know -- I'd never pay for porn! J) It just doesn't seem like a successful business model.
I don't know how it will go over with contributors, either. I know that I wouldn't want a website that runs porn attaching MY name to porn. I certainly wouldn't want a porn link on any page with my articles on it, if I were a contributor.
But, that's just me.
By Tom Ohle on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 02:10 pm:
Not only are they back, but they're back with bad spelling (see "Vengance" near the top of the page) and horribly pixelated graphics. I'd like to hope that this is a joke... but oh well.
By Ben Sones (Felderin) on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 02:36 pm:
"I can't imagine people going to a gaming website and thinking, "Hey, while I'm here, I should give them money for porn.""
I dunno... that doesn't seem so far-fetched to me... ;)
If they had more porn and less Beavis and Butthead-style game commentary... nah, I won't go there.
By Mark Asher on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 02:54 pm:
The problem is that pay-to-view sites can't do that combination of advertising and circulation revenue that magazines get. I know that net advertising's hurting anyway, but when you go to a fee-based system you're guaranteeing that your traffic's going to be low. Even if you wanted to run banner ads, you wouldn't get anything for them.
It is surprising what a little sex mixed in with more traditional content can do. The Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is always a blockbuster. It's like legitimate porn or something, a magazine you can have on the coffee table or pass around at work. PCXL might get some people who would shy away from subscribing to a porn site to sign up for a gaming site.
By Michael Murphy (Murph) on Thursday, April 26, 2001 - 02:54 pm:
Maybe it's not as big a stretch. I dunno. I certainly wouldn't do it. In fact, I'd be more likely to give my money to a site that doesn't support porn in any way, but that's just me.
Now, Shoot Club...I'd pay for that.
Not a lot, but I'd pay. I'd probably pay five bucks a month for it, if it was done weekly. Or twenty bucks for six months, otherwise.