Looks like GameSpot is going the way of IGN (1 Viewer)

[ChrisV]

GameSpot Complete ?
Durp

 

[Romier S]

You beat me to it Chris. I was just about to post.

Not suprising to see and as I stated a while ago when the discussion concerning IGN came up. Allot of the bigger sites are going to moving to this. The cost of running these sites (Bandwidth alone) is to much. As of right now I pay for IGN's service and I might consider Gamespot since both are my favorite spots for gaming news.

 

[Masood Ali]

At least Gamespot gives you access to all their new content for 7 days, which means if you visit the site regularly, you won't miss out. IGN is the opposite, keeping the content from you for a week or more.

The "one movie" limit is easily defeated by deleting your Gamespot cookie.

Pop-up killer keeps all the annoying ads away.

So basically, you're paying $20 a year for access to OLD stuff. I'll pass.

 

[Romier S]

So basically, you're paying $20 a year for access to OLD stuff. I'll pass.

Its honestly no different than paying 20 dollars a year for a videogame magazine IMO. I dont subscribe to EGM or Gamepro. By the time you get their latest issue 95% of the content has already been available online. (Unless you enjoy their reviews and buy the mags for that. I can understand that)

I personally enjoy IGN and Gamespots content (old and new) and I dont have an issue paying for it. My opinion of course.

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I subscribe to mags (mainly EGM) because I like the columns, stories, and the other things in their mags. Granted, some info is old, but having a opy to hold in your hands of a picture or storyline or large preview section of a game is different than looking at it on a monitor.

I like the overall mag and think I get my money's worth. If I were to pay for IGN and GameSpot, I think I would feel the same way about those (even though you might be able to find the same info somewhere else).

 

[Romier S]

Granted, some info is old, but having a opy to hold in your hands of a picture or storyline or large preview section of a game is different than looking at it on a monitor

That is your preference. Mine simply differs. This is coming from someone who sits in front of a computer almost 12 hours a day (I work for an ISP). Work can get real boring without reading material

 

[Masood Ali]

Its honestly no different than paying 20 dollars a year for a videogame magazine IMO.

Gamepro and EGM give away subs all the time. I haven't paid for either magazine in over a year. But I'm sure if I found $20 lying on the road, a sub to Gamespot or IGN would be somewhere on that list of stuff to get.

 

[Romier S]

Gamepro and EGM give away subs all the time.

Exactly Masood. Gamespot has been giving away their content for years. They finally decided to add a pay-to-view structure. Financial reality had to set in eventually.

 

[todd stone]

The future of the internet. $$$$$$

 

[Justin1]

I truly admire the way that GameSpot is initiating their "pay-per-view" type of service.

First of all its structured. You know what will be free and what won't be, all up front. Simple, if you enjoy downloading the movies and gaining access to all possible content, pay the rather low fee and enjoy. If not, get access to all the core information for free. On the other hand, IGN is inconsistent with its service. Occaisonally a review is insider only, sometimes a download, and every few news items are unable to be seen. By paying for the service, I have no idea, day-in, day-out, of what exactly I am getting for my money.

Second, most core news items are free to the non-member. This makes perfect sense. Members should pay for what they use: Bandwidth. Why charge someone for a simple news release that most game companies release in a nice, printable format to all interested press. The gaming sites make their mark by acquiring good interviews, assembling streaming video, and reporting reviews.

While it truly blows that Gamespot is changing to a pay site, at least they are doing it the right way. IGN had, and still doesn't, no idea of what they were doing when they started to charge.

 

[Travis Olson]

I will never pay for any on-line content, period. The reason being is that on-line content is not a material item, like a magazine, so it's like paying to breath. The only internet related service I will ever pay a monthly fee for is internet service from an ISP. I do understand why these sites have to start charging fees, it's basic economics. However, it's not like IGN and Gamespot are the only places to find the info I'm looking for, although they are two of the best. There are literally thousands of places to find info as well as game trailers, demos, patches etc. Usually, all you have to do is go to the official site of the game in question.
I don't think this will really effect anyway, I rarely download any files from them, I just like thier reviews, Gamespot that is. A site I use quite often is Mega Games, although I suppose it will only be a matter of time before they start charging.

 

[James_G]

The reason being is that on-line content is not a material item, like a magazine, so it's like paying to breath.

When you pay $5.99 for a magazine do you think that there is actually six bucks worth of paper there? More like a few cents. What you're paying for are the reviews, previews, columns, etc...i.e., intellectual property.

I guess if all you want are press releases and screenshots you can get the info from anywhere, no problem. Keep in mind, though; if you're reading original content (reviews, previews, editorials, etc.) on some fringe message board you're essentially stealing. These people (GS & IGN) are depending on the sales of premium subscriptions to pay their salary. If everyone on the net passes their property around for free they’ll go out of business.

All of the people complaining about the subscription-based systems can look towards Daily Radar and The Gaming Intelligence Agency for an alternative.

Paper, ink…hard drives, electricity…these things are just the medium through which the information is transmitted.

 

[Peter D]

I think one of the reasons that folks are hesitant to pay for gaming web content is the perception that they are paying *already* for Internet access, a computer, an extra phone line, etc. plus money on the games themselves. When you take into account that initial investment vs $25 a year for a magazine with a cdrom and free sites to supplement it, it doesn't seem much worth it.

 

[Steve Y]

I have to echo Justin's comments above - I prefer Gamespot's up-front approach to their pay-for-content service. But I respect the review content I get on free forums and various small sites... thus my feelings of respect/sympathy for Gamespot alone are not enough to get my credit card out... yet. If the web's free gaming content runs completely dry (looks like it's heading in that direction, eh?), I wouldn't mind paying if they continue. Anyhow, I wish them success.
Let's keep our fingers crossed they don't go the way of Daily Radar/IGN and start "Gamespot Wrestling" or flashy bi-monthly "top ten videogame babes" and "the best babe booths at E3"-style articles. :rolleyes
This is economic reality, and to some people it's worth the investment. Fair enough.
There is something to be said about the "psychological" effect of printed magazines/pictures versus web content/jpegs. They may both serve the same exact function but I think many people view the former as permanent and the latter as temporary vapor, and thus not "worth" as much. I know it may not add up when you think about it, but that's often the perception, for better or worse.
~Steve

 

[Travis Olson]

When you pay $5.99 for a magazine do you think that there is actually six bucks worth of paper there? More like a few cents.

Well, yes. If EGM where to have their magazine on-line for you to print out in the quality that the magazine is printed in, it would cost you a fortune.

I guess I like to able to take those reviews, screenshots, etc. with me instead of having to sit at a computer and read it. For instance, lets say I'm in car riding somewhere and I want to read something, I can't take my computer with and log onto IGN so I can read the latest review (I don't own a laptop by the way). So a magazine is much better for me. How about if IGN and Gamespot each created a monthly magazine and included it with the fee? If they did that I would consider subscribing.

 

[Jeffrey_Jones]

I will never pay for any on-line content, period.

It is just my opinion, but I believe you will be in for quite a shock in the coming years. People only expect web content for free because they have been conditioned to it. The idea of distributing content for free while pulling in the profits from advertising is proving impossible to sustain for most businesses. More and more companies are charging for their content (as I believe they should) and this behavior will only increase.

You will be forced to start paying for online content, or you will be left behind in the dying world of print media. This may take a while, but it will happen.

- Jeff

 

[Masood Ali]

Jeffrey, if it does happen, it will take a very long while indeed. That's because there will always be some site willing to absorb defected readership and grow as a result.

It's a vicious cycle, but the internet is big enough to sustain it for the near future.

 

[Joe michaels]

AHAHAHA I told you all SO!

 

[Andre F]

Well it looks like I will be paying for at least one service. Either IGN or Gamespot. So my question is what is better? I'm leaning toward Gamespot but I don't know.

-Andre F

 

[Jason Handy]

Well, yes. If EGM where to have their magazine on-line for you to print out in the quality that the magazine is printed in, it would cost you a fortune.

Have you ever heard the concept of "mass production"? Just because it would cost me $10 to print it out at Kinkos on that glossy paper doesn't say anything about what it costs the magazine company. Just like it would cost me $150 to make a pair or Nikes, but it only costs the mass producers a few dollars.

I agree that free online content will go the way of the dodo. While I think that there will always be free content out there, have you seen some of the fan "review sites" out there? I am not talking about people like Romier who are making a very intelligent and well-conceived effort towards a professional site, I think he is an exception. Basically it comes down to the fact that if you want to spend hours and hours scouring the net for free reviews on all the games you are interested in, then by all means go for it. If you want to spend hours and hours navigating through a game's homepage to get the badly needed patch, you have every right.

Gamespot is marketing the convenience of having a great resource for all your gaming needs right at your fingertips. Go to Gamespot once a day and you will see that a new patch has been released for one of your games. You are paying them to do the legwork and make your surfing experience more enjoyable.

And, I am on the same boat as Justin when I express my admiration for being completely up-front about describing what you get for your money. Furthermore, giving the free one month subscription in May will allow people to monitor their regular viewing and decide if they should pay for the premium content. Some people don't care about the streaming movies, while others like to see the games in action. Some people go to gamespot overy day and won't need to see a review after the first 7 days. But it is about more than that; it is about supporting something you would like to see thrive.

Jason