I didn't know one is entitled to have access...If there are gaming companies who refuse to give us any access we will write stories about that.
I didn't know one is entitled to have access...If there are gaming companies who refuse to give us any access we will write stories about that.
I didn't know one is entitled to have access...
I think its in my profile, but its Endless Backlog.
But you're asking people for money without a roadmap. You have some responsibility to the donors to at least try to plan so the site doesn't die within 6 months.
If this thing fails it won't be for a lack of trying. I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers because I don't. But I do think there's a good idea in here and I do believe it can work. If you think it can to and you want to give a few bucks - awesome. If you don't - cool. There will be far more people on this planet that won't donate than do. See... I know some math.
On the other hand, backers see what they are getting. Knowing that Pete knows other people running successful websites and doesn't aim high at the beginning, I see a non-zero chance for him to figure out an implementation of his ideas over the course of the next year. Giving him this opportunity is all I want, and if it doesn't work out after the first year, well, there is a vast number of much less interesting things to waste $5, $25 or $100 on, depending on how much money you can/do spend monthly for non-essential things.
I have a roadmap for the first year. It's gotten easier as people have come forward to help with things for free. I'm not going to make the goal. I always knew that. What I need to know is what amount of money I have and calibrate from there. It's hard to create a business plan when so many things are in flux. I'm trying to be honest about that but it feels like people just want me to blow smoke up their asses.
As for the site staff. I still need to go through all of the applications and pick who is qualified and who isn't but there are atleast 15 people who have asked to write for the site. I have several people helping me with site design. One, you guys know, he goes by Mik on this forum - check out his work in the mock up videogame covers - the man is fucking brilliant with design. As a i mentioned earlier I have two different sociologists that want to contribute from time to time because I think the fact that games being "addictive" being thought of as a good thing is worrying. Or that most mobile games are basically slot machines. Several gaffers want to help. Vince McMahon (formerly sunflower) completely sold me with a PM where he said he had no interest in snark and wanted to do something earnest. I have a professor of english who does not want to be named that will help edit (and we all know I need that). I have a few other 'grammar nerds' that have offered to do the same. This will be a much larger operation than I planned. And every one of these people are doing this for free because they believe in the idea and they are also looking for someone to give them their break. I'm happy to a part of both of those things.
I would love to have an advertising department that has zero contact with me or anyone in creative. As of yet I don't have that person. So google ad-sense it is, for now.
As for resources. Jason, here, is someone I chat with a lot. Owen Good and I are friendly. Pastapadre, who has basically already created this website, but for sports games, is a friend. The co-host of my podcast, Rich Grisham, has been doing freelance work in the industry for a decade. The entire playerone podcast crew, which all worked at various publications, are very good friends. Boogie and I have become fast friends. I also have my industry contacts that beyond giving me "insider info" are good just to bounce ideas off of. I'm surrounded by people much, much, smarter than me.
I also plan on launching the private forum ($15 tier and higher) very soon and will be using all of those people as a sounding board for ideas.
If this thing fails it won't be for a lack of trying. I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers because I don't. But I do think there's a good idea in here and I do believe it can work. If you think it can to and you want to give a few bucks - awesome. If you don't - cool. There will be far more people on this planet that won't donate than do. See... I know some math.
don't read the youtube comments you could have found a cure to cancer and some mouthbreathing 12 year old would still tell you to kill yourself in the commentsOh god, I just read the youtube comments.
the point is that they're not the same old 'reviews , news and editorials'This is a cool idea, but I'm kinda disconcerted by the lack of business plan - just how do they plan to grow and monetize, other than the unfeasible Google Ads? - and disappointed that a site billing itself as "independent journalism" just plans to do the same old "reviews, news, editorials" that every gaming site on the planet is doing. Best of luck to Pete, though.
I have a roadmap for the first year. It's gotten easier as people have come forward to help with things for free. I'm not going to make the goal. I always knew that. What I need to know is what amount of money I have and calibrate from there. It's hard to create a business plan when so many things are in flux. I'm trying to be honest about that but it feels like people just want me to blow smoke up their asses.
As for the site staff. I still need to go through all of the applications and pick who is qualified and who isn't but there are atleast 15 people who have asked to write for the site. I have several people helping me with site design. One, you guys know, he goes by Mik on this forum - check out his work in the mock up videogame covers - the man is fucking brilliant with design. As a i mentioned earlier I have two different sociologists that want to contribute from time to time because I think the fact that games being "addictive" being thought of as a good thing is worrying. Or that most mobile games are basically slot machines. Several gaffers want to help. Vince McMahon (formerly sunflower) completely sold me with a PM where he said he had no interest in snark and wanted to do something earnest. I have a professor of english who does not want to be named that will help edit (and we all know I need that). I have a few other 'grammar nerds' that have offered to do the same. This will be a much larger operation than I planned. And every one of these people are doing this for free because they believe in the idea and they are also looking for someone to give them their break. I'm happy to a part of both of those things.
I would love to have an advertising department that has zero contact with me or anyone in creative. As of yet I don't have that person. So google ad-sense it is, for now.
As for resources. Jason, here, is someone I chat with a lot. Owen Good and I are friendly. Pastapadre, who has basically already created this website, but for sports games, is a friend. The co-host of my podcast, Rich Grisham, has been doing freelance work in the industry for a decade. The entire playerone podcast crew, which all worked at various publications, are very good friends. Boogie and I have become fast friends. I also have my industry contacts that beyond giving me "insider info" are good just to bounce ideas off of. I'm surrounded by people much, much, smarter than me.
I also plan on launching the private forum ($15 tier and higher) very soon and will be using all of those people as a sounding board for ideas.
If this thing fails it won't be for a lack of trying. I'm not going to pretend I have all the answers because I don't. But I do think there's a good idea in here and I do believe it can work. If you think it can to and you want to give a few bucks - awesome. If you don't - cool. There will be far more people on this planet that won't donate than do. See... I know some math.
The private forum sounds like a decent idea for monetization. Otherwise, I wish you luck, sir.
I will tell you that daily news isn't a huge driver of traffic, unless you're the one who is breaking it.
I know. Like I said to Jason, if it drives one hit that's better than no hits. I'm not saying that news will be the reason that people come to the site. I'm saying it will be one of many things that could potentially drive people to the site. And from there, hopefully our slant on being consumer-oriented will keep them coming back.
I don't think for a second im going to compete with kotaku or ign or even PSNstores on news. All i was trying to say is that even if it brings in a meager amount of people, that's more than zero. Hopefully other things will bring in people also.... and, of course, hopefully once they get there hopefully they like it. That's my job - to give people a reason to come back. And I know that the answer to that isn't rewording press releases.
You are going to get people coming to your sight because of a leak. Not because of news they can find everywhere else or on gaf. It is a waste of your time and meager resources. Time you could be producing content that will actually make your site different. Then when people read the leak story, they can find your editorials/consumer rights stuff.
You are going to get people coming to your sight because of a leak. Not because of news they can find everywhere else or on gaf. It is a waste of your time and meager resources. Time you could be producing content that will actually make your site different. Then when people read the leak story, they can find your editorials/consumer rights stuff.
It isn't about competing with larger sites, it is about your site not going under.
I disagree. I think people will go to the site to see the news with his view points on it. Which happens to be another click since you have to drill past the first FACTS to the Conjecture take on it.
What view? It is news.
I disagree. I think people will go to the site to see the news with his view points on it. Which happens to be another click since you have to drill past the first FACTS to the Conjecture take on it.
Also I'm sick of this Games Journalism is broken rubbish. IGN and the others aren't liars, I know many of the writers at these websites who are UK based and they are the most knowledgable and honest people around. Their reviews are honest and so are their views, I don't always agree with them and often question them, but in no way do I think journalism is corrupt. IMO there is nothing to fix. Why would someone who gets paid a terrible wage, who works crazy hours and does this job for passion lie about reviews to appease a publisher? I'm just of the opinion that this doesn't happen, or at least I've never encountered it or anyone who I regard as dishonest. Journalism can get better sure, but IMO we are luck to be part of an industry where the people who write about the product are so passionate about it.
I agree with your statement, I definitely don't believe publishers hand out money to review sites just so they can get better review scores. What does happen are review events such as the last SimCity game where press gets to play the game at a fixed pr location and then they end up playing the game without all the connection problems everyone suffered from at launch. Stuff like that does happen and it's one of the main reasons games like that still tend to score good/ok despite launch problems for everyone else. Not because EA paid them off.
Most of the time, if people complain about a certain Polygon or IGN review and say these sites are corrupt... they really aren't. It's not like IGN as an entity wrote that particular review. It's like people saying GAF is a hivemind. It really is the opinion of a single reviewer. Unless you really believe everyone writing for IGN is corrupt and gets paid for writing good reviews for big games etc.
Have I taken a jab at IGN reviews before? Certainly, but not because they're corrupt. Just because I really didn't agree with their opinion.
Simcity didn't have server issues until 1000s of people tried to log on. I don't believe there was a pr event for reviews like EA's other games.
I agree with your statement, I definitely don't believe publishers hand out money to review sites just so they can get better review scores. What does happen are review events such as the last SimCity game where press gets to play the game at a fixed pr location and then they end up playing the game without all the connection problems everyone suffered from at launch. Stuff like that does happen and it's one of the main reasons games like that still tend to score good/ok despite launch problems for everyone else. Not because EA paid them off.
Most of the time, if people complain about a certain Polygon or IGN review and say these sites are corrupt... they really aren't. It's not like IGN as an entity wrote that particular review. It's like people saying GAF is a hivemind. It really is the opinion of a writer. Unless you really believe everyone writing for IGN is corrupt and gets paid for writing good reviews for big games etc.
Have I taken a jab at IGN reviews before? Certainly, but not because they're corrupt. Just because I really didn't agree with their opinion.
I don't think the problem with 'games journalism' is a problem with the journalists. I think it's how the publishers have rigged the game.
Having started more than a few websites, one of which I ran for 7 years, I can tell you for sure that it's not easy, we hardly slept for that whole time. We got somewhere eventually by putting the commitment in, but all I'll say is that you'll need a lot of time on your hands and don't expect to make much money at all, if ever.
Do you have any professional journalists who are willing to write for your site? I.e people with experience of writing and editing?
I kind of like the idea of speaking out, I'm good at that myself, but I don't expect you'll make many in roads with pr as a non established site whose mission goal is to call them out if they blacklist you. A pr's job is to promote their company in the best light, so if you call them out if they happen to disagree with you, why would others take the risk of adding you to their press list?
Being a member of the press is give and take. These companies are trusting you with sensitive information/embargoes etc, they all respect we have a job to do, but at the same time we must respect their wishes should there be agreements in place.
Also I'm sick of this Games Journalism is broken rubbish. IGN and the others aren't liars, I know many of the writers at these websites who are UK based and they are the most knowledgable and honest people around. Their reviews are honest and so are their views, I don't always agree with them and often question them, but in no way do I think journalism is corrupt. IMO there is nothing to fix. Why would someone who gets paid a terrible wage, who works crazy hours and does this job for passion lie about reviews to appease a publisher? I'm just of the opinion that this doesn't happen, or at least I've never encountered it or anyone who I regard as dishonest. Journalism can get better sure, but IMO we are lucky to be part of an industry where the people who write about the product are so passionate about it.
Sorry if I've gone off couse.
I'm not a money man. I don't care about money. I don't base decisions on money. I understand that this doesn't inspire confidence in a lot of people. I also understand that there are others that see that and go "right fucking on, man."
I believe in capitalism. I believe if you work hard and create a good product that things will work out. Is this blind faith? Yes. I have been very transparent about that.
If you want a website run by a business man that has a path to profitability in 6 months that's not this site. If we become profitable it will despite us, not because of us. I'm not a business man, I'm an ideas man.
If there are any business folks who share my world view that want to help.... come on board.
Simcity didn't have server issues until 1000s of people tried to log on. I don't believe there was a pr event for reviews like EA's other games.
I know. Like I said to Jason, if it drives one hit that's better than no hits.
The publishers hold the cards though and in a sense control these other sites through their ads. The only fix to avoid corruption conspiracies would be for the bigger sites to advertise movies or music instead and avoid gaming ads completely.
Reviews generate the most traffic and have the most effect on sales. If a site reviews a game super poorly they will jeopardize said relation with the company producing the game. Which will effect the overall health of their website in the long-term. Both the journalist and the company have a financial stake tied to the review. This leads to titles like Sim City or Battlefield 4 which both made people question whether EA even employed people for QA because these games clearly didn't go through it... yet they both initially launched to stellar reviews which surly drove sales. Long behold anyone who paid the most they could for the game (new launch week) we're given the middle finger of both games being broken in several different areas.
None of this is new. What it is however is buried under mountains of IGN/GameSpot/Mainstream fixation because that makes for more drama. How many people bitching about unfair journalism read Gamasutra? Or why not try Quarter to Three's reviews? Take a squiz at Errant Signal for an interesting perspective on particular games. Need reviews from parents, with the perspective of family suitability? FamilyGamerTV content is always honest, humble, and grounded, like a bunch of people with families talking about games both for the parents and the kinds and anywhere in between.
I agree review events are a terrible idea, although, again, you can hardly blame the publisher as it wants to present its game in the best light. I've always tried to avoid these events if I can and it's probably why a lot of the review scores for Titanfall were held back (like you say, you can hardly judge a game properly in a false environment such as that). But these are the cards sites are dealt, if the ign's of this world don't publish the reviews, somewhere else will and at the end of the day they are all businesses which need the hits to exist. IGN are one of the biggest sites for a reason, if they delayed reviews every time because it was an event, they wouldn't be the biggest anymore.
I don't think the problem with 'games journalism' is a problem with the journalists. I think it's how the publishers have rigged the game.
I disagree with this statement. I owned a website and our review scores appeared on Metacritic. We reviewed practically all new releases, often not in a good light and not once did the publisher ever tell us that they were unhappy with our review. In fact often we'd be contacted by the publisher for further reasons why we disliked the game so that they could feed it back to the developer.
Pete, before I go on I want to say I appreciate what you're trying to do. It seems like you have a clear head and great intentions. I like a lot of your vision for the site. However, I do want to challenge one major notion of your project and get your response to it. Take a look:
Polygon's 5/10 review of Castlevania: LoS2 (Konami)
IGN's 2.5/10 review of Fast & Furious Showdown (Activision)
GameSpot's 5/10 review of Yoshi's New Island (Nintendo)
Joystiq's 2/5 review of NBA Live 14 (EA)
Game Informer's 1/10 review of Fighter Within (Ubisoft)
One of your sticking points is that the games press is "playing ball" with publishers and is "afraid of pissing them off". If that's true, what do you say to negative reviews like these of games from some of the industry's biggest publishers? You are obviously very knowledgeable about this industry and know many people in it, so I'd love to hear your insight.
Again, please don't take this as a criticism. I hope your funding and site are successful. I'm just really curious about your response. Oh, and if you need any experienced writers, I'd be happy to contribute.
Pete, before I go on I want to say I appreciate what you're trying to do. It seems like you have a clear head and great intentions. I like a lot of your vision for the site. However, I do want to challenge one major notion of your project and get your response to it. Take a look:
Polygon's 5/10 review of Castlevania: LoS2 (Konami)
IGN's 2.5/10 review of Fast & Furious Showdown (Activision)
GameSpot's 5/10 review of Yoshi's New Island (Nintendo)
Joystiq's 2/5 review of NBA Live 14 (EA)
Game Informer's 1/10 review of Fighter Within (Ubisoft)
Pete, before I go on I want to say I appreciate what you're trying to do. It seems like you have a clear head and great intentions. I like a lot of your vision for the site. However, I do want to challenge one major notion of your project and get your response to it. Take a look:
Polygon's 5/10 review of Castlevania: LoS2 (Konami)
IGN's 2.5/10 review of Fast & Furious Showdown (Activision)
GameSpot's 5/10 review of Yoshi's New Island (Nintendo)
Joystiq's 2/5 review of NBA Live 14 (EA)
Game Informer's 1/10 review of Fighter Within (Ubisoft)
One of your sticking points is that the games press is "playing ball" with publishers and is "afraid of pissing them off". If that's true, what do you say to negative reviews like these of games from some of the industry's biggest publishers? You are obviously very knowledgeable about this industry and know many people in it, so I'd love to hear your insight.
Again, please don't take this as a criticism. I hope your funding and site are successful. I'm just really curious about your response. Oh, and if you need any experienced writers, I'd be happy to contribute.
Pete, before I go on I want to say I appreciate what you're trying to do. It seems like you have a clear head and great intentions. I like a lot of your vision for the site. However, I do want to challenge one major notion of your project and get your response to it. Take a look:
Polygon's 5/10 review of Castlevania: LoS2 (Konami)
IGN's 2.5/10 review of Fast & Furious Showdown (Activision)
GameSpot's 5/10 review of Yoshi's New Island (Nintendo)
Joystiq's 2/5 review of NBA Live 14 (EA)
Game Informer's 1/10 review of Fighter Within (Ubisoft)
One of your sticking points is that the games press is "playing ball" with publishers and is "afraid of pissing them off". If that's true, what do you say to negative reviews like these of games from some of the industry's biggest publishers? You are obviously very knowledgeable about this industry and know many people in it, so I'd love to hear your insight.
Again, please don't take this as a criticism. I hope your funding and site are successful. I'm just really curious about your response. Oh, and if you need any experienced writers, I'd be happy to contribute.
There were pr events or issues? I'm not going to watch that past the 1 minute mark.
I disagree with this statement. I owned a website and our review scores appeared on Metacritic. We reviewed practically all new releases, often not in a good light and not once did the publisher ever tell us that they were unhappy with our review. In fact often we'd be contacted by the publisher for further reasons why we disliked the game so that they could feed it back to the developer.
I dont think review scores are the entirety of "playing ball." Especially singular ones. Some games suck and everyone pans them. Other times a big site pans a game that others don't. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. But if a big site legitimately didn't like every ubisoft game for a year would ubisoft continue to send them games? That's one of the questions i would like to get to the bottom of.
And if i'm ubisoft, do I send them games? I certainly understand the argument for not doing it, from a financial standpoint. But I don't care about Ubisoft's financials, I care about transparency to the customer.
I dont think review scores are the entirety of "playing ball." Especially singular ones. Some games suck and everyone pans them. Other times a big site pans a game that others don't. I'm not saying that doesn't happen. But if a big site legitimately didn't like every ubisoft game for a year would ubisoft continue to send them games? That's one of the questions i would like to get to the bottom of.
And if i'm ubisoft, do I send them games? I certainly understand the argument for not doing it, from a financial standpoint. But I don't care about Ubisoft's financials, I care about transparency to the customer.
They don't have to try to blackball said site, but they can simply choose not to consider them for previews/interviews etc... which is perfectly reasonable to not give all sites such as that would simply take too much effort/resources than most game houses have, but given said fact (unless I'm completely wrong here) if you have a limited about of outlets you have time to use to promote your material, why wouldn't you go with one that will promote it in a much more positive light than a competitor?
They don't have to try to blackball said site, but they can simply choose not to consider them for previews/interviews etc... which is perfectly reasonable to not give all sites such as that would simply take too much effort/resources than most game houses have, but given said fact (unless I'm completely wrong here) if you have a limited about of outlets you have time to use to promote your material, why wouldn't you go with one that will promote it in a much more positive light than a competitor?