I caught this article at
http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2768421,00.html?chkpt=zdnn_tp_

Quote :

"Either way, the introduction of charges may fundamentally alter the course of the medium. This evolution could create a new kind of digital divide linked to one's ability to pay for information and services, giving rise to virtually gated and balkanized communities throughout cyberspace."

"People have gotten used to free information. Schools, low-income people, job hunters--information will be dried up for them," said Jim Carrier, director of Tolerance.org, a Web site run by the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala. "That's not to say the marketplace wouldn't work, but clearly the promise of the Internet is the democracy of ideas. That becomes less than ideal when some of your best information must require a credit card."

That was interesting. Thanks for the link. This caught my eye:

"Also this month, LookSmart will begin selling prominent placements on its Internet search directory, following a controversial path charted by Goto.com."

Now that just sucks. I don't want a search engine to give me results based on who paid to be listed.

I think rather than a "digital divide" we'll see a digital collapse. I don't think that the subscription method is going to work for the vast majority of sites out there. It's not like we have to have most of these websites. They're nice, but we got along without them before. I can't think of any site that I have to have access to.

I know this in not really your area of interest Mark but I believe the CombatSim.Com website is still alive after switching to subscriber only services. At the very least their bandwidth costs will be reduced due to a smaller paying client base.

But in the weeks after the change the SimHQ.Com site had an influx of over 3,000 ex-CombatSim.Com users including myself. An interesting example indeed.

Will the Internet eventually be inhabited by corporate-only websites and paid websites ? And what happens if free webhosting services like Yahoo GeoCities start charging for everything ?

There will still be an Internet and a Web but it will consist of selected information that these companies "choose" to display.

I know at least one or more other search engines have had pay-for-placement schemes, but I can't remember for sure which ones (I do remember it was one of the biggies).

All the big ones want like a hundred bucks to expedite your url submission and to get favorable search placement. If you don't pay they'll still add you, it just takes 6 months or more.

"I know this in not really your area of interest Mark but I believe the CombatSim.Com website is still alive after switching to subscriber only services. At the very least their bandwidth costs will be reduced due to a smaller paying client base."

I'd love to know how many subscribers they have. Any idea?

BTW, Rich Laporte mentioned today on Gone Gold that he's interested in selling the site, after which he'd continue to run it. He's spooked that IGN will fold and he'll be on left with a fat monthly bandwidth expense and no advertising revenue. It's nuts. If your site gets popular it drives you out of business due to the bandwidth costs.

Yep I saw this today as well. I think Rich faces some tough decisions. I do not think his advertiser fully subsidises the cost of the website. His website is extremely popular but Rich does not have a bottomless pit of money to throw at it.

As for CombatSim.Com early figures were something like 200-400 subscribers within the first couple of weeks of switching but this is wildly out of date. CombatSim offers many types of subscription rates - even month to month as opposed to yearly.

I do know the forums - which is/was CombatSims main attraction - died overnight when they switched to subscriber only. One subscriber mentioned recently that the forums were still pretty much dead.

One point I have noticed with CombatSim is that they have increased their use of graphic images on their front page - this may be a good sign. Graphics do use bandwidth and therefore cost dollars.

I'm just glad that the fundamental way the Google search engine works makes it really hard for them to shoehorn in a "buy placement" mechanism. Well, hmm... actually maybe not. As long as they remain pure, the other search engines can all go to hell for all I care. Google rules, and it's all I use.

Scott! Where you been, man?

The internet market might just balance itself out. Consider: Lots of websites fold, leaving a tenth of the websites getting all the traffic. Then they can remain free, because with traffic like that they can charge ad rates that make them profitable (or at least marginal). Then a few people realize how easy it is to start a website and "cash in" again, and the dot-com thing builds up again, but not as bad this time. Then there's a much smaller crash, back to profitable, and so it see-saws, the pendulum swinging less each time, until it finds equilibrium. But how many times, and how long will it take? Hmm...

Or until the web evolves into something where it's so costly and/or technically difficult to participate that any college kid with a fat dorm connection can't start his own website.

"Then they can remain free, because with traffic like that they can charge ad rates that make them profitable (or at least marginal)."

The current ad rates don't sustain a site. I think in most cases the ad rates aren't enough to cover bandwidth costs. The more traffic you get, the more ads you have to sell as well. That's not always easy.

Rich should seriously consider going to a cheap subscription plan. Keep the front page free and just charge $1 per month for the rest. Not only would he make some money, he'd lower his bandwidth costs as well.

And yeah, Google rules. It's by far the best engine out there in my experience.

---

Quote:

The current ad rates don't sustain a site. I think in most cases the ad rates aren't enough to cover bandwidth costs. The more traffic you get, the more ads you have to sell as well. That's not always easy.

---

>It isn't just a guy with some text anymore. Either he accepts that and embraces it to grow or I think he should just fold it and figure it was a good run.

I don't understand your reasoning. Why does he have any responsibility to do anything other than what he wants?

Bit of a personal question since I'm still stinging from the hostility of the messages I received when I decided to reduce my commitment to running my own site. Why should he "just fold it" if it's something he enjoys doing, even if he can't maintain it in its current form (because of rising costs or other reasons)

Stefan

"Less sites getting more eyeballs means the ad rates for those sites can go up because there isn't anywhere left to advertise and the advertising reaches many more eyeballs."

Maybe, but if advertisers wanted to advertise on the web right now at dirt cheap prices, they have that opportunity and they're passing. Why would they wait for the ad rates to go up and then advertise?

Even if a lot of sites close, there will still probably be a glut of available pages to advertise on.

As to Rich folding the site, I can't imagine him doing that unless he starts to lose serious money on it. I'm not sure how he could "grow" the site and make it profitable, either. That's the problem everyone's struggling with, converting traffic into money.

"As to Rich folding the site, I can't imagine him doing that unless he starts to lose serious money on it. I'm not sure how he could "grow" the site and make it profitable, either. That's the problem everyone's struggling with, converting traffic into money."

I don't understand the appeal of Gone Gold. I almost never go there. I find ebworld a better indicator of commercial release dates, and the GG site format and design is rather stultifying.

As for bandwidth, there are a couple easy solutions to this problem--

1) Use .gif/.jpg images sparingly, and when you do, keep them small. Stick to text whenever possible.
2) enable HTTP/1.1 compression for a 6:1 reduction in outgoing HTML page bandwidth. Apache and IIS support this transparently by flipping a switch.

Between those two items, I think you'd have a *very* difficult time using more than 50gb/month-- that equates to about 3 full CD's worth of data transferred every single day. And 50gb/month costs about $300 for a colocated server, much less for a shared virtual server.

I remember getting into this with the combatsim guy. He was aghast that I quoted such low bandwidth rates (based on my research at the time) and maintained that he couldn't get those rates in Canada. Of course he had other costs to bear, such as staff and so forth.. but bandwidth? I don't think it's a major issue except for the top 1% of websites.

wumpus

"That's the problem everyone's struggling with, converting traffic into money."

I think one of the interesting things in the article is the "bait and switch" conspiracy theory. At first I just thought, "eh, whatever" and then I started to really think about how much I rely on the sites I'm already hooked on. How much would I pay to keep them?

I can imagine paying a small monthly amount for a bundled group of sites, say a cable television type of scheme. I could see my paying a few bucks a month to have continued access to sites like Q23 or The Digital Bits. These sites are daily stops for me, and are things I miss when I'm travelling and do not have access to a computer for a few days.

The problem for me is the thing I like best about sites like this is the discourse with other people. Would enough of those other people be willing to do the same? Also, unlike cable, I'd want to choose my own bundle of sites. Would such a scheme even be possible? I mean, I'm sure it would be technically doable, but would the "megacorporations" allow me to have my own choices?

As I type this that is what I realize really bothers me, that someone else will now get to decide what information I can have access to on the Internet.

Amanpour

"I don't understand the appeal of Gone Gold. I almost never go there."

Why doesn't this surprise me?

Anyone else not find the appeal in Rich's website? I'm hooked on it and visit daily.

---

Quote:

I don't understand the appeal of Gone Gold. I almost never go there. I find ebworld a better indicator of commercial release dates, and the GG site format and design is rather stultifying.

---

I'm not sure I'd categorize websites moving to a pay platform as bait and switch. In most of these cases I'm pretty sure there never was a plan to lure people in with freebies and then blindside them with fees. Even if there was, though, did anyone really, truly believe that we could go on forever getting gigabytes of free stuff on the web?

I mean, come on, what's the most valuable commodity in the world? Information. How many businesses make their money essentiall on the traffic in information? Since when has information--truly valuable, useful information--been free?

Never. We've been livingin a dreamland, and now we're waking up.

There will, of course, be oodles of free stuff on the web, probably forever and ever. It's too prevalent, and too good a PR and marketing tool for many companies, for free hosting to ever go away completely. But I do think we'll see a contraction in professional, commercial-quality sites providing truly first-rate info for free.

But that's a natural evolution, not a conspiracy, IMO.

Xtien wrote:

---

Quote:

I can imagine paying a small monthly amount for a bundled group of sites, say a cable television type of scheme. I could see my paying a few bucks a month to have continued access to sites like Q23 or The Digital Bits. These sites are daily stops for me, and are things I miss when I'm travelling and do not have access to a computer for a few days.

---

"Anyone else not find the appeal in Rich's website? I'm hooked on it and visit daily."

I'll admit it Gordon, it took me a long time to get used to Rich's sorta naked, intimate, personal style. In fact, I once thought of him as "The Kathy Lee Gifford of Webmasters". Why? Cause he's always on about what Cody is up to. I never meant that is an insult though, just a tongue-in-cheek observation.

What turned the corner for me is extremely shallow... he emailed me about something I wrote. It resulted in a conversation and, ever since, I find myself reading his Roll Call daily. I don't read the other features except the odd Mathis column now and then but, I'd miss Gone Gold if it left. It's got a soap opera quality I suppose.

It's the only nice game site out there. It doesn't try to be cool. It doesn't try to be Pimpy Voodoo Extreme and it doesn't try to suck up to rockstar game designers with .plan files. LaPorte just y'know, likes games a lot.

I wish him success.

-Andrew

Gordon wrote:

---

Quote:

Anyone else not find the appeal in Rich's website? I'm hooked on it and visit daily.

---

> BTW, Jason, what's up with CG Online having only in-house ads?

I dunno, I have nothing to do with ads. Sorry.

>Maybe, but if advertisers wanted to advertise on the web right now at dirt cheap prices, they have that opportunity and they're passing. Why would they wait for the ad rates to go up and then advertise?

For the same reason they pay a lot more for one ad during a hot sitcom rather than running five ads during daytime TV. If you can group a lot of people together, you can charge more for ad space there. It's percieved as more valuable (whether it is or not).

>Since when has information--truly valuable, useful information--been free?

I dunno... I don't pay to watch the news on TV. I pay for the medium, the physical TV itself, but Dateline NBC is totally free. I just have to deal with ads.

On the other hand, one of the reasons HBO is worth paying for is because a half hour show is an actual half hour, not 22 minutes with 8 minutes of ads.

I wonder if there's a future in budling site access with internet service? As in, make everyone pay $5 a more for internet service, have an ISP track how many users go where (but not which users they are), audited of course, and divy up the funds proportionally?

You know, like how all the cellular services work. One bill, all bundled together.

Or how they build the cost for On-Star service into car leases.

"Ah, but GG isn't trying to sell you anything, and Rich fact checks. Since when has ebworld been a reliable source of release dates? That's news to me."

Since I've been preordering virtually every major game title from ebworld for the past 4 years, I can tell you first hand that they _are_ very accurate, and have been for years. They seem to have an inside line with publishers on authentic ship dates.

I'm not anti-Rich, mind you, I just don't see the massive appeal of his site that Mark et al allude to. Shrug.

Although I'm sure Tom Chick will now make his customary appearance in a puff of sulfurous smoke, and somehow manage to twist this around so that I look like a bastard who makes personal attacks on crippled NY cops.

I don't visit Gone Gold to find out what's gold-- I generally don't care. I rarely buy anything until several months after release, to take advantage of the inevitable price drops as well as patches (for PC).

I visit GG for two reasons. The first is the Gold Guide, a very, very useful page that catalogues the reviews a given game has recieved.

The second is Rich himself. I never know where he's going to take me. He's not the best writer out there, but he's the most honest I read on a daily basis. It's exactly like a favorite corner bar. . . I can get the drinks anywhere, but the bartender's a character.

KP

"For the same reason they pay a lot more for one ad during a hot sitcom rather than running five ads during daytime TV. If you can group a lot of people together, you can charge more for ad space there. It's percieved as more valuable (whether it is or not)."

Thing is, there are high traffic sites right now that can't sell their ad inventories at dirt cheap prices. Increasing their traffic tenfold just means they have ten times the ad inventory to sell. If they can't sell out now with high traffic, how does having even more traffic help them? The problem isn't getting traffic. Daily Radar got traffic. The problem is that no one wants to buy web advertising now, even with the prices slashed.

It's a demand problem. Increase the demand and sites can make money. Right now there's no real indication that if 90% of the sites disappeared the remaining 10% would suddenly be able to boost their ad rates and sell their ad inventories.

As for GG, its main appeal is Rich. He is a nice, open guy who doesn't try to come off as a 12 year old who just learned that people "do it."

As for the information, I have found that fan pages of individual games tend to beat Rich with GG annoucements. The forums are pretty cool to but I bet they will be the first to go bye bye when bandwidth cost start coming in.

About Gone Gold, I check it out every other day or so. I usually skim Rich's Roll Call. I like Rich, but hearing about him going out with his kid doesn't thrill me. I've done that with my own. I'm more interested in his comments about games and the gaming scene.

Like Kevin, I'm a big fan of the Gold Guide. Andy does a great job with that. It's also very amusing that Thresh and Co. had $11 mil in VC and tried to create a gaming portal centered around a database where you could type in a game name and get links to reviews, previews, the official site, etc. Andy's done that with the Gold Guide and done it better. It's like the legend of John Henry, only with a better ending.

"I visit GG for two reasons. The first is the Gold Guide, a very, very useful page that catalogues the reviews a given game has recieved."

http://www.rottentomatoes.com is an excellent example of this at work for movies. And I love it.

However, I think this same approach is virtually worthless for gaming. Why? Well, let's try an example. Pick any two random reviews from both gonegold and rottentomatoes. Now read them both and compare the quality of writing, criticism, editing.. you name it.

In fact, It's shocking how much higher the average movie review quality really is. Even the worst movie reviews put most internet "game reviews" to shame. Most of the movie reviews are written by paid reviewers working for traditional print rags who happen to have an internet presence. And boy, does it ever show.

That's why I don't really care for a comprehensive list of game reviews. I already know the 5 sites I need to visit to get the only worthwhile reviews of that game title that will *ever* be published on the internet.

"The second is Rich himself."

Character is fine, but I'm more in the Bauman camp on this one. The focus of the content shouldn't be the writer. That's the same solipsism that Voodoo Extreme is guilty of.

---

Quote:

Although I'm sure Tom Chick will now make his customary appearance in a puff of sulfurous smoke, and somehow manage to twist this around so that I look like a bastard who makes personal attacks on crippled NY cops.

---

EBworld is about as reliable as a Magic 8-Ball.

"However, I think this same approach is virtually worthless for gaming. Why? Well, let's try an example. Pick any two random reviews from both gonegold and rottentomatoes. Now read them both and compare the quality of writing, criticism, editing.. you name it."

I like it because it puts all the review scores in one place along with a pertinent paragraph plucked from the review. If I'm curious to know what kind of reaction a game is getting, the Gold Guide is a quick and easy way for me to check. I don't rely on reviews for buying decisions anyway, so that's a non-issue.

Gamerankings is also handy for this, but they don't have the paragraphs.

"EBworld is about as reliable as a Magic 8-Ball."

Check your internet news archives, and you'll see that several major news stories WRT titles being canceled.. originated from ebworld.

It's true that beyond 3 months out, NOBODY really knows when the developers will be finished with the game, so it's pretty much a crap shoot for everyone involved.

But if the title is close to being finished-- ebworld is accurate in my experience. And as I said, I've purchased every major game title in the last 4 years from them, so this is from extensive personal experience. For MANY hotly-anticipated titles I've watched the release date closely months before release, and purchased on the day of release.

If you want the game first, ebworld is by far the best, most reliable source. I even remember them unpacking the cartons containing Diablo right in the middle of the store in January 1997..

"Character is fine, but I'm more in the Bauman camp on this one. The focus of the content shouldn't be the writer."

And Steve Bauman is absolutely right.
But Gone Gold is a hobby/fansite not Computer Games Magazine. It is entirely appropriate for a amateur site to have a voice like Rich's. In fact, it's the best thing a site like that can have.

-Andrew

I think the point is that Gone Gold is much too large and apparently influential given how many people listen to Rich for game buying advice (where, what and how to buy) to maintain an amateur status. It's beyond that now. He still submits the list of releases to PC Gamer and receives a link in return, does he not? That's professional level work that he undoubtedly gets paid for making him more than just "a guy with a web page".

I don't buy this argument about Gone Gold and I suspect a lot of others, who would rather not risk their reputations in questioning it, feel the same way. Once again, I bring up the planned Console Gold site with Rob Smolka of PC Gamer. This isn't just an amateur web page we're talking about here.

--Dave

"and I suspect a lot of others, who would rather not risk their reputations in questioning it, feel the same way."

I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on this statement Dave.

Agree with wumpus and Mark both, actually. The writing of the average web game review isn't so hot. But Mark is spot on with the fact that I don't use those reviews to make decisions, just as a quick guide to the general reaction out there.

While I'm no-content-adding-head-nodding here, I'll agree with Bub as well-- the focus of the content can be the writer if the content is a column, which GG is for all intents and purposes. I skim it 4 days out of five, but enjoy the fifth very much.

KP

If you missed the fiasco with Jeff Jones on USENET, it started out with a very innocent question about whether or not Rich's site was "pushing" Compuexpert. His post wasn't worded very well and it had the inflammatory header of "Has Gone Gold Become a Compuexpert Commercial?", but the point was valid. If you read the Roll Calls and kept up with the site, it really DID look like there was some sort of sales pitch going on.

I think Jeff ended up getting threatened on a lot of levels for questioning the site. There were a lot of out of line posts to Usenet, he received a lot of really nasty e-mail and basically got a huge black eye for just suggesting that something was out of whack with the amount of advertising that seemed to be coming through in daily news posts.

This was escalated when Rich used the front page of his site to publically respond to Jeff. He used his editorial voice to basically turn Jeff into the "bad guy" for many readers of his site. Anyone else that came along that had similar questions was brushed aside and there was a definite mob mentality to the whole thing. The thing wumpus says above about being called a bastard for questioning a wheelchair-bound man is wholly on the mark. This did indeed happen to Jeff Jones.

So, to make a long story a bit shorter, I think there are a lot of people that really don't want to get involved or criticize Gone Gold in any way because there's a definite stigma attached to it and a lot of industry people reading the site too.

As someone who worked alongside a different guy who still runs a website and is not at all what he appears on the surface, you'll have to forgive me for being a bit skeptical of all of these so-called "amateur" sites. I've seen first hand that there's a lot of naivete involved in how they're run, but there's also a lot of shall we say "interesting" decisions that are made to
defend and continue them.

(Here's where the cue is for all the "Rich is a nice guy" comments... :)

--Dave

Subscriptions vs. ads *again*?

I thought there was a rough consensus subscriptions don't work in the online world:

http://slate.msn.com/readme/01-05-10/readme.asp

Of course, I could be wrong. I can't find anything wrong with Mike's arguments, though, especially that little detail that "subscription fees don't cover printing costs for magazines."

The problem with online ads is shitty advertising: they're both trying to sell things like they would in print mags, and then judging the ad effectiveness by click-through rate, which they don't expect in the print world! Yeesh.

I think the current online ad situation either points to a) advertising doesn't work as classically advertised, and marketing is in denial about it or b) marketers are collectively morons, as they *still* can't do profitable advertising.

B) sounds pretty good. None of the marketing majors I met in college were leading lights, exactly.

>If you want the game first, ebworld is by far the best, most reliable source. I even remember them unpacking the cartons containing Diablo right in the middle of the store in January 1997..

Diablo came out in December, 1996, heh.

Yeah but Jeff Jones really started the war. Yes the question, which was more like a statement, was innocent and accurate. Then Rich responded. Yes Rich mentioning Jeff by name wasn't tackful but he didn't attack Jeff in a personal or in any other way. Rich answered Jeff's question and to some extent, did try to get Jeff and the public sympthetic to his situation. To which Jeff responded with "fuck you LaPorte, you whimpering baby" and a long ramble about how he wouldn't ever go back to gone gold and peppered with monking comments like, "oh poor me .. I'm in a wheelchair, but don't dare ask me about that fateful night -- sob sob". No surprise that Jeff got hate mail.

I have no particular beef with them, but EBworld is in the business of generating hype, so I take their release dates with a grain of salt.

The internet economy was such a huge anomaly. People were so caught up in market share that they were willing to wait for the revenue models to catch up. I guess I'm missing information on why bandwidth is so damn expensive.

- Alan

To Desslock--

---

IRVINE, Calif., June 25, 1997 -- Blizzard Entertainment announced today that 13 million games of Diablo have been played over Battle.net SINCE THE GAME'S RELEASE IN JANUARY. More than 700,000 registered users have played Diablo on Battle.net, making it the largest on-line gaming service in the world.

Additionally, according to PC Data’s latest figures, Diablo remains the number-one selling game for the fourth consecutive month and is the best selling game year-to-date. Worldwide, the game has sold-through more than 750,000 copies.

"We are thrilled with Diablo’s tremendous success, and the popularity of Battle.net has surpassed all our expectations," said Allen Adham, president and founder of Blizzard Entertainment. "By creating an online community for Diablo, we have really struck a chord with gamers. Diablo fans log on to Battle.net not only to play the game, but also to meet and share gaming experiences with others players online."

Diablo transports players to a medieval village plagued with evil and darkness. As the central character in Diablo, players explore a dungeon hidden beneath a desecrated church in their village. As players encounter 16 levels filled with corridors, traps, weapons, magical items and demonic creatures, the truth about the evil force that decimated the village begins to unravel.

Diablo is available immediately in Windows 95 CD-ROM format at most computer and software retail chains nationwide for approximately $50. This game, as well as other Blizzard titles, is distributed by CUC Software. Diablo is also offered directly from Blizzard at (800) 953-SNOW.

About Blizzard Entertainment

Best known for blockbuster hits including the Warcraft ® series, Starcraft™ and Diablo™, Blizzard Entertainment® (www.blizzard.com) is a premier publisher of entertainment software renowned for creating many of the industry's most critically acclaimed games. Blizzard's track record includes three consecutive number-one selling games and multiple Game of the Year awards. The company's free Internet gaming service Battle.net reigns as the largest in the world with millions of unique users.

PC Data is the Reston, VA-based market research company that reports actual sell-through statistics for software in a wide range of categories.

---

Okay, now you have to buy me lunch somewhere, Stefan. ;)

wumpus

Yeah, Diablo was a January release. It wasn't supposed to be, it was delayed from late Dec to Jan last minute.

Don't you remember what a big deal it was when Blizzard missed Christmas that year? I mean, it didn't MATTER, sales-wise, but I recall everyone was abuzz about it.

-Andrew

I'm sure I can dig a receipt out somewhere but I'm fairly sure I got my copy of Diablo from Best Buys the week after christmas..

I remember everyone saying what a huge blunder Blizzard was making. But we all just went and spent our Christmas money on a copy of the game! God, that was a million years ago... One of these days I should finish that game. I just beat Baldur's Gate the other day and right now I'm making a valiant attempt at completing Fallout 2 (I started and stopped a couple times when I got to Modoc and couldn't stop the attack on the Slags. I think my PE was too low at 5 to figure out the Karl thing).

Anyway, the problem with advirtizing on the web is, of course, that advertisers don't think they work. It's absurd to expect a click through, but if the web site visitor doesn't click through and sign up for your unsecured credit card, well you've failed!

I kind of like the confederated sites idea. You put together a big network but instead of organizing everything around ads and impressions you sell subscriptions that'll give you a username and password that gets you at all the content. Pay each sight based on the percentage of the traffic generated. The sites can remain independately owned and hosted, this would just take some seious organizing and cross-promotion.

Brad Grenz

Diablo appeared in some stores (and in reviewers' hands) on Dec. 31st of 96, but for most of the country it shipped in January of 97.

So everyone is right.

(We put it in our 96 awards because would had the final boxed game in 1996... other publications put it in their 97 awards.)

"Diablo appeared in some stores (and in reviewers' hands) on Dec. 31st of 96, but for most of the country it shipped in January of 97."

I am not sure this is accurate.

I was following Diablo very closely (as was everyone) and I don't recall any retail chains getting the game in December. As I said, NOBODY beats EBWorld when it comes to getting game shipments first-- and they definitely didn't have it until January.

-- for example --

http://www.ogr.com/news/news1296.html

News for December 27, 1996

It's finally true. Blizzard has released Diablo to manufacturing. They estimate the game will start hitting shelves as of January 6, but we will guess it will get there even earlier. As soon as Diablo starts appearing in stores, you can bet we'll be the first to let you know. -PB [1858]

--

http://www.ogr.com/news/news0197.html

News for January 2, 1997

First on OGR: You heard it here first, Diablo has begun appearing in a few stores around the country. Call ahead though, it isn't everywhere yet, and probably won't reach a wide distribution until Saturday or perhaps even Monday. We've got our copy over here at OGR, and frankly, it's hard to do anything except play the game. -PB [1650]

--

Reviewers might have gotten it a bit earlier, but that's not the release date. And it is very unlikely they would get CDs pressed by and in stores by December 30, 1996 if they RTM on December 27, 1996 (which is, coincidentally, my birthday). That is definitely not the way I remember it. It was a January retail release.

Reviewers might have gotten it a bit earlier, but that's not the release date.

You guys are arguing over a big pile of nothing. What difference does it make when it hit retail? Dec 31 or Jan 2, who cares?

I am vastly superior for not arguing about this and I laugh at you. Ha ha ha! :)

Yeah, I think wumpus is right here. I remember wanting it for Christmas but having to wait until the first week of January to get it. I couldn't even play it the few days I had off over the holidays.

Blizzard even says released in January 1997...
Blizzard Company Profile

BTW, nice FAQ Stefan...
Desslock's Diablo FAQ

--Dave

Whats the big deal if Gone Gold is or isn't advertising for Compuexpert...in fact I'm glad they did becuase I've pretty much bought all my games since January from Compuexpert (they have much better offers now). Hell, IGN basically is EBworld. So I dont see whats the big deal if they thought Gone Gold was advertising sales (good ones as well) for Compuexpert...hey the guy has to make a friggin living! BIG FUCKING DEAL.

And Jeff Jones comments, "oh poor me .. I'm in a wheelchair, but don't dare ask me about that fateful night -- sob sob" thats pretty fucking spineless.

BTW, I was one of the few who got Diablo in 1996! Lucky me! It reminds me of the Balders Gate release...

etc

Speaking of OGR, are any of there old reviews still available online? Don't ask me why but I like to reread reviews of some of my favorite games from time to time, and OGR's review of Total Annihilation was on of my favorites. I wish that site was still around, they had a fun, almost innocent, quality in their editorial voice.

>Reviewers might have gotten it a bit earlier, but that's not the release date

This is a pretty silly thing to argue about, and I'll still buy wumpus lunch, but I picked it up at retail during the week between X-mas and New Years.

Aside from having purchased it myself then, it's something I recall clearly because it was a big issue that year when determining whether or not it would be eligible in the 1996 Awards for game of the year. It was available at retail after X-mas in 96, so both CGW and GameSpot (and apparently CGM too, by Steve's comments) included it in the 96 Awards.

>BTW, nice FAQ Stefan...
Heh, thanks. That seems like forever ago (and that was an even older version).

Stefan

What does wumpus do for a living that allows him so much time to dig up game news archives and press releases and obscure links to years-old conversations for the sake of winning an irrelevant argument over release dates? Good God man!

To quote William Shatner on Saturday Night Live (talking to a Star Trek convention): "Get a life, for God's sake!"

---

Quote:

Whats the big deal if Gone Gold is or isn't advertising for Compuexpert...in fact I'm glad they did becuase I've pretty much bought all my games since January from Compuexpert (they have much better offers now). Hell, IGN basically is EBworld. So I dont see whats the big deal if they thought Gone Gold was advertising sales (good ones as well) for Compuexpert...hey the guy has to make a friggin living! BIG FUCKING DEAL.

---

"What does wumpus do for a living that allows him so much time to dig up game news archives and press releases and obscure links to years-old conversations for the sake of winning an irrelevant argument over release dates? Good God man!"

To get a free lunch from Desslock of course! Good god man! Besides, I used to visit CGO daily in the time frame mentioned. I'm entitled.

Anyway, I think it's clear that Diablo really did ship in January, especially if Blizzard's own PR documents read this way.

"I'm not saying I agree with Jeff's personal attacks."

Just want to make this clear-- that was ANOTHER Jeff, not me.

wumpus

---

Quote:

Just want to make this clear-- that was ANOTHER Jeff, not me.

---

wumpus is like that little dirty kid with no friends we all knew "when we were kids" ... he'd follow you around, allow you to bitch slap him regularly (as Tom does), keeps talking, happily oblivious to the universal opinion of everyone around him that he's a dirty little kid with no friends. I think if Tom Chick went to his house, told him he had no credibility, that his mother was ugly, his wife hairy, and his kids slow, he'd quote it all and then write, "Actually, Tom, Car Wars was published on a Friday, not a Thursday."

Yeah well, that's just, you know, like, your opinion, man.

wumpus

p.s. a little re-post action, just for you, Anonymous:

http://12.1.228.185/images/life_in_hell.gif

Please don't co-opt Life In Hell as your own -- I beg you. It's not yours to take.

Oh Anonymous, now you've really hurt my feelings.

Do you have anything more worthwhile to do than make personal attacks on me? Clearly you don't. Like the life in hell strip said, go look in the mirror-- you might just see a dirty little kid with no friends staring back at you.

wumpus

Well, right now I'm waiting to go to lunch so doing this is as good as anything else I guess. I wasn't really making persona attacks so much as begging you to slightly alter your behavior.

However, this will be my last post of the day. I promise to come back tomorrow and read all 87 of your posts on my lunch hour.

I only have one question (and yes I am beating a dead horse) -

Is this the same Anonymous who has unimpeachable credibility? If so, I'd like to know because that lends more weight to his argument.

LOL!

Actually, Anonymous has a point. I need to get a job.

Also: I am gay.

Man, I really need to get my multiple personalities under control.

That Anonymous is a class act.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

Wumpus,

Does your wife know? That your gay I mean?

If not, someone should let her know.

Yes, I am 13. Yes I know it should really read,
"That you're gay I mean."

I don't have time to sleep with my wife -- I spend every waking hour playing games.

wumpus http://www.gamebasement.com

No, you spend every waking hour posting here.

Okay, enough with the fake Wumpii at 9:02 am and 2:11 pm.

To Mr. Anonymous, I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish, but making anonymous ad hominem attacks and/or impersonating me is not the way to do it. If you have some kind of beef with me, e-mail me directly and we'll have a nice dialog.

Or, you can continue making an ass out of yourself. It is amusing. If your goal was to entertain me, you've succeeded at that, at least. But then again I am easily entertained.

[email protected]

wumpus:

I think you are taking this too seriously. Fake wumpus messages are funny.

wumpus

Now I have a real account.

Hah! Eat that fake wumpii! Eat it, I say!!!1!

Wow. I'm not sure what I have just witnessed...

Heh, I do know this, though: That's funny stuff. I have to agree with Fake Wumpus -- those ARE funny!

Foiled again! Curses!

(But ... it IS a victory of sorts ... since now your messages are from this "Jeff Atwood" fellow, and not the wumpus we all know and replicate.)

new improved wumpus

Oh, dear. This scares me a little...

Ah, well. At least he's more original than simply posting as "Anonymous" -- although we all know that Anonymous has far more credibility than Wumpus! ;-)

Oh, dear. This scares me a little...

Ah, well. At least he's more original than simply posting as "Anonymous" -- although we all know that Anonymous has far more credibility than Wumpus! ;-)

Sorry about that, fellas...Didn't mean to post it twice...

Okay. Not that it was ever in question, but now this thread is officially weird.

It's _still_ cooler than the "X-wing vs. Y-wing" thread, though.

I'm baaaaaaaaaaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack.

Oh, good. There was a shortage of guys around here going by "Anonymous." They'd resorted to stealing our identities.

How do we know Anonymous is the real fake wumpus? For all I know, wumpus could be posting as wumpus and I'd never notice. Er, nevermind.

- Alan

Actually, I'm not sure this is the real Anonymous. I think it's Wumpus posting as Anonymous, to gain credibility.

Ok, all this hax0ring forced me to delete all those messages. Why use a scalpel when you have nuclear bomb ready, I always say. I would have tried to save them if they were anything other than head-scratching about the HTML. Sorry.