Openness is great, but there’s no financial reason to make specialized hardware to operate an open platform.
Historically, consoles have been sold near cost, and profits have been made on game sales after the fact. If you can just buy your games from Steam on console, the price of the console will go up. At some point, it no longer makes sense to buy the specialized hardware.
But we’ll get to see how that goes! It’s looking more and more like the next Xbox is going to run Windows.
We’re already seeing some of that with things like the ROG Ally. There are also specialized emulator platforms that can play cartridges from multiple consoles.
Seems like that is Microsoft’S new strategy, pivot to PC where their storefront is just one of several options for buying games. Their super premium console they are teasing is probably just a Windows computer. Unclear what will happen with older Xbox purchases/if back compatibility will continue to be a concern. Might end up being the sacrificial lamb to our open future.
I’m really hoping all my existing purchases can be played via PC one day. If “everything” is indeed becoming an xbox, then I’m hoping this becomes a reality. I’m disappointed they’re moving away from their traditional consoles, though. It feels like the end of something special.
why would I want to go through the first Halo campaign yet again when I know I’m eventually going to get to the level with the flood where EVERY ROOM looks exactly the same and I’m just going to turn it off.
I know what’s going to happen, I know what’s ahead of me, I know I don’t want to do that again.
Now if they redid ODST or Reach? sure I’d be all for that. I enjoy those Halo games. but for gods sake I don’t want to play Halo 1 ever again.
Back in like 2012, a gaming journalist would write an honest review of a game they tried or they would give an update on the industry or they would share interesting tips and info about certain games and franchises. The sites would be clean, maybe a couple of ads here and there, but the overall atmosphere is driven by genuine passion.
Today, you don’t get any of that. Instead you get an advertisement masquerading as an article. The reviews aren’t authentic, the updates are basically a part of marketing campaigns, and the info they give is there to push readers to buy something. The sites are all completely cluttered with ads, a lot of the articles are just AI slop, and the industry is driven by greed. Why would anybody go there anymore? Might as well just go see a youtube review or get the game and try it out yourself.
Do you feel that way about the site reporting the linked article?
Yes, although I am not the first dood, but posting as someone who did read the linked article it is a barely veiled attempt to support the “writer’s” media and looks more like a lazy filler article to meet a quota. I use quotes around writer as the article in question is 2/3s quotes more in the style of an interview with “Veteran games journalist Alex Donaldson” and a few comments from “Press Engine co-founder Gareth Williams” (nothing wrong with that per say). The other 1/3 is “data supplied to VGC by Press Engine…” (again nothing wrong with this on its own). The issue is when we take the article in its whole this seems more like someone talked to a colleague or two then put a header on it using in house data from a “… popular PR tool used by developers and publishers to distribute codes and press releases to a global database of journalists and content creators.” and adding a few other comments from the very founder of the program used in house to round it out making a very thin and kinda lazy article. This reminds me very much of the stuff written I saw many many years ago when I worked at a newspaper watching that media circle the drain.
Also on the point of:
The sites are all completely cluttered with ads, a lot of the articles are just AI slop, and the industry is driven by greed.
This is not AI slop but good old fashioned 4:30 on a Friday human slop covered in ads, for example I got 2 pop ups with ad block reading it. This is what it looks like without ad blocker:
But then again, you get what you pay for and I guess the irony here is that the article (that could be used as a captain obvious joke) pointing out the collapse of games media is in itself an example of a degrading quality of writing leading to the demise of said media. The real joke is that the article does not even touch on the degrading quality of the writing and experience (other then a “…lack of diversification in content…”) but instead putting the blame on every thing else (thanks google, AI, COVID and advertising spending I guess?).
I have old some old magazines that are at least readable with ads that don’t move. This is not a radical take, just like all corporate media the quality has declined in general (not suggesting that there was a lack of bad journalism in the past). Also, they may not have hard quotas there but the writers are paid to make articles and content to fill the site (it is like how best buy did not do commission vs future shop but where both the same company and fired those that did not make sales regardless).
As for how to improve this particular article, I would say a good start is to pick a format, is it a op ed or an interview? Or is it a report on events? I would go the op ed direction myself and rely less on the quotes from other journalists and data from the weird internal marketing source. I would have likely incouraged having a message and then sprinkled in actual employment numbers from major publications throughout the article and not done what this one did that was “this program sends out less free codes” as a data point. The data used is too weak for anything other then an opinion piece but the article is too light on the writer’s input to be one.
There is also a big “citation needed” part that should have set off a editor.
“If amateur, part-time, or freelance writers are included, the number of departures from the games media swells to more than 4,000 people since October 2023.”
“If” indeed! They went from 25% down and then if you include free lancers swelling to more then 4,000 people. That’s just sloppy writing. At least give initial numbers and keep the format consistant.
Also, they may not have hard quotas there but the writers are paid to make articles and content to fill the site (it is like how best buy did not do commission vs future shop but where both the same company and fired those that did not make sales regardless).
The incentives are very different when the writers own the company and are largely paid by monthly subscribers.
There is also a big “citation needed” part that should have set off a editor.
How would you have cited “declining quality of writing” as an inciting factor? How would you measure it? And why did it just become a problem in the past few years rather than any of the problems that are listed in the article?
How would you have cited “declining quality of writing” as an inciting factor? How would you measure it? And why did it just become a problem in the past few years rather than any of the problems that are listed in the article?
The part I am talking about is below the the part you are quoting. It was a critique on the part that goes:
“According to Press Engine’s database of ‘tier 1’ publications that cover games (which is defined as major websites, both specialist and mainstream, with seven-figure-plus audiences), the global pool of game journalists has declined by 25% in just two years. The vast majority of these departures were from specialist games websites like IGN, Polygon, or Gamepot.
If amateur, part-time, or freelance writers are included, the number of departures from the games media swells to more than 4,000 people since October 2023.”
I am not sure if you are just a touch upset that everyone does not agree that your writer owned slop factory is of high standards or if you just missed the part where I was trying to point out the weak writing as asked. But if I was to “cite” the declining quality of writing, I could do so by referencing old popular articles compared to current ones, I could show screen shots of the ever mounting assault of ads, or I could do what I am doing here and just assume that my audience is not wilfully ignorant of the current state of the format.
You can not out of one side of your mouth state the industry of writing is dying then say out of the other that the writing has not suffered.
I know you were talking about another part of the article, but you had a similarly uncited reason for the shrinking games media work force. I don’t care if you don’t like VGC, but I really don’t see a time when the writing was better, and I wanted to see what you were expecting.
I am not writing for a publication but sure I guess you expect the same level of journalism as VGC so lets cover it a bit.
Lets use their own words About how they 5 years ago where getting 7 million views a month. That great, and the article although a fluff piece about themselves is not nearly as bad as the one linked before. But hey that could just be different writers after all, but nope both done by the editor in chief Andy Robinson. And don’t get me wrong VGC is one of the better ones, but at 7 million views a month they are not competing with video from places like twitch and you tube. In fact the written coverage on games has become a walled garden of insiders writing tone deaf articles and reviews in general.
Take the reviews for example, VGC’s coverage on Borderlands 4 Does not even address the games broken state but gives it 4/5 stars vs VGC’s coverage 6 years ago on Anthem Where they lambaste the game for it’s faults. Hell we can take this further and look at coverage on the same thing under different media in current times, the VGCs review of Borderlands 4 has no view counter on it but also has no comments, where as a smaller creator on youtube using clickbait has over 6000 comments and more views then they have subscribers (425,000).
I am sorry you don’t see the degradation of written games media, and I understand it was never top shelf stuff, but it is not a controversial take that needs extraordinary evidence. People are clearly not happy with the quality and content (hence the constant downsizing due to dropping revenues) leading places to sell out more to cover the bills thereby leading to a death spiral. Just look at coverage of some of the worst most broken releases to get why audiences are turning away:
Take the reviews for example, VGC’s coverage on Borderlands 4 Does not even address the games broken state but gives it 4/5 stars
That’s because it’s not broken; it performs poorly relative to its visuals. It’s an excellent game.
You’ve done little to convince me that “mistrust” of games media is any more than people getting upset that reviewers have different opinions than they do. I can tell you right now, for instance, that Jordan Middler loves Pokemon, so it’s no surprise to me when VGC gives good reviews to Pokemon games. I’ve got a friend who really gelled with Suicide Squad as well, so I know it’s possible for people to really enjoy that game. In this very thread, you can see people who are convinced that reviewers are paid off or playing difficult games on extra easy modes, neither of which are true, because they just can’t reconcile that anyone could possibly enjoy a game that they didn’t enjoy or weren’t interested in.
Its a non functioning product at launch, something that should be called out in a review. It is a low quality slop review, whether or not I agree with the conclusion. You can like or dislike a game counter to a review but I expect that at the very least an attempt will be made to point out pitfalls, and that was not done. The Suicide Squad was a bad game, someone liking it does not justify a dishonest or lazy review. You can not toss out one anecdotal view while pushing your own without looking a bit silly.
In this very thread, you can see people who are convinced that reviewers are paid off or playing difficult games on extra easy modes, neither of which are true, because they just can’t reconcile that anyone could possibly enjoy a game that they didn’t enjoy or weren’t interested in.
Neither of which are true is a bold statement that needs more then a “trust me” level of response. Next your going to tell me that redfall was actually good without much issues is more likely then some one was paid to write a fluff piece (a thing that happens in all forms of journalism). You seem to be pushing the idea that its the audience is wrong and desperately assuming that people don’t like the media state due to an inability to reconcile their own preferences with the articles (wild and odd).
Its a non functioning product at launch, something that should be called out in a review.
It literally functions. I’ve played it at launch and will continue playing it. Watch Austin’s review on SkillUp, who had the benefit of releasing his review some time after launch but started during the embargo period, to see why a reviewer would not call it out.
The Suicide Squad was a bad game, someone liking it does not justify a dishonest or lazy review
The quality of a game, and the evaluation of it in a review, is entirely subjective.
Neither of which are true is a bold statement that needs more then a “trust me” level of response.
Try looking right under the comment where someone who has been a paid reviewer called it out as nonsense. Or ask literally anyone in the industry. It’s come up on podcasts like Friends Per Second and Giant Bomb over the years enough times. If this was all a big marketing stunt where reviews were bought and paid for, someone would have blown the whistle by now.
You seem to be pushing the idea that its the audience is wrong and desperately assuming that people don’t like the media state due to an inability to reconcile their own preferences with the articles (wild and odd).
And yet you’re doing it right now. I can see why you would distrust a review if you don’t understand what a review is.
I’ll say that you state that as fact, but it’s a perception that not everyone shares.
I’ve said this in my own top level comment but it’s worth reiterating here to just make the point. Nobody trusts games media anymore and they don’t trust them because they do things like the above screenshot and engage in articles for access, in real journalism stuff like that is supposed to be disclosed. However the only ones that actually ever seem to bother are YouTubers with integrity.
I think the idea that quality is degrading is not a niche opinion by any stretch of the imagination. It’s basically the majority viewpoint of gamers.
You have a much more optimistic memory of gaming review platforms than I do.
I remember getting several different magazines in the 90’s and they were always the same thing. Any “professional” journalist knows that their livelihood is based on selling games. Journalists have to strike a balance between their audience and publishers, which makes negative reviews incredibly rare.
It’s not just videogames. Music, movies, TV shows, books, comics, consumer products. Unkess you’re paying out the nose, reviews almost always have some sort of bias towards trying to sell things. I find the best opinions come from other sources: people I know personally, organic community discussions on the internet (though those are not immune to corporate influence), or when products are only mentioned in contexts where the author clearly will not benefit. For example, a journalist making a list of the top-10 games of all time putting Ocarina of Time on it is probably not incentives to do so… Unless Nintendo is trying to promote a re-release.
Yeah, review have always had a slant and people forget just how bad they where in the past. I would rather watch someone play the game and skip the reviews, however it must be said the old slanted review model has largely died off. We don’t buy magazines with advertorials anymore, and the appetite to pay for such content is at a low point by both consumers and advertisers.
There was a brief period of time on the internet between the late 2000s and early 2010s where gaming journalism was genuinely decent because it was driven by passionate people who were trying to appeal to the gaming communities they were apart of. They were there to provide the community with good info and honest opinions first, and any money made was just a bonus. At some point, these priorities flipped, and internet journalism became job and then it became an industry that’s soulless, faceless, and driven by endless greed.
That’s because a lot of the reviews weren’t been read because they weren’t trustworthy, if you reviewed a game poorly (even if it deserved the poor review) the journalist wouldn’t be invited back to review the next game that studio put out or were still the publisher could blacklist you blocking you from potentially dozens of games every year. Nintendo do this all the time.
videogameschronicle.com
Aktywne