As someone who works fulltime on multiple gaming websites, it really hurts when so many people use adblocks. Its true that it is the choice of the visitor, but websites offer free content, every day. The least you could do is at least put your adblock off. We try to not use intrusive ads, just ads on the places you expect them without them downgrading the experience of visiting our websites.
It is true: If everyone would use adblockers, a LOT of website would no longer exist. Even NeoGAF. I'm not trying to make a moral issue out of it, I'm just saying that behind every website, there are people trying to make a living out of it. If they can't do that, they can't keep the website online, simple as that.
My suggestion: it is ok to have an adblocker, but please make an exception for the websites you visit often (like, daily). You make use of the service they provide a lot, and it is very little efford for you to give something back.
That's my two cents.
Edit: and yes, it is also partly our responsibility to find new ways to make some money. So there's that as well. But still, it can't hurt to support the websites you like. We have a video journal with game news every friday, and every now and then we place an item at the end where we kindly ask our viewers to turn of their ad blocker on our website, we even explain how to only turn of the adblocker for our website. We don't make demands, but we ask kindly.
Yeah, that's whay I'm saying, if a website has very irritating ads, its on them. Thankfully, more and more websites (and advertisers) are realising that.
And thanks to Adblock we have the possibility to block them thus sending a clear message : intrusive ads => get blocked. Without this threat I think internet would be worse than it is
No, you are saying that you don't like ads and at no point did you agree to watch them in exchange for content.
I see a lot of people justifying adblock with security concerns and certain ads going over the top. I'll explain the "scumbag" stance.
I hate ads.
I pay for the internet and there is no additional fee to use these sites. How content creators choose to monetize their work is their own business. If they choose to monetize it in a way that tries to make me look at ads, that is their choice but I have no obligation to look at them. I have no obligation to not go to the site if I'm blocking ads. If you want me to feel responsibility for you getting paid for your work, ask me for money. Don't try and force me to look at bullshit that I don't care about because I won't do it.
(A caveat: if you can force me to under threat of a ban, like here, then I will)
And i certainly won't do it out of any sense of obligation or respect for games journalism of all things.
It's evolution. Consumers have evolved to a place where you cannot force them to look at things they don't want to. It's time for content creators to evolve and monetize their work in less offensive ways. And I have no doubt they will. There will be casualties, but don't expect me to feel sorry for them.
Now, am I a piece of shit who expects everything for free? Absolutely not. I pay subscriptions for my music. I buy albums if they are good enough. I pay subscriptions for TV and movies. I buy those if they are good enough. I buy books and would pay a subscription for those too. If all of these things, which are all more worthwhile to society as a whole than videogame journalism can ever hope to be, can survive without trying to force me to watch additional advertising, then there is no excuse for everyone else. I pay a subscription to access the internet with no agreement to look at anything I don't choose to. I pay extra to view certain things on the internet if they are good enough.
The problem with games journalism is that Just because games journalism right now is expensive to produce doesn't mean it is more valuable than YouTube. The truth is, most of it can be replaced by any asshole with a camera and an opinion. Anyone can gush about upcoming games, regurgitate marketing materials, and claim things are sexist. Your greatest value is to videogame publishers because you hype up their new releases. If money is a problem, just ask EA to buy you out. I won't trust your articles any less and you can stop bitching about people not looking at the ads on your site.
It's pretty funny pachter is that oblivious that he thinks they will 'beat' addblock, clearly he has no idea of what some of the hacker type whizzkids can do, its the same for cracking games security companies are always one step behind.
I know the ones you mean. Some of IGNs are super annoying, I've seen ones that almost open an entire bespoke web page over the top of the one I'm meant to be reading, then they hide the close button.
I've only come across those on a couple of sites I visit. Ad banners don't bother me though
29. Let's not conflate pop-ups with legitimate ways to deliver ads. Don't visit the site that gives popups. Video ads on Twitch, for example pay for that hugely expensive site. Banners won't cut it. I see that as reasonable. Broadcaster income from ad delivery reflects just how many people use AdBlock on Twitch - even considering mobile use, the vast majority block ads. So, what is the solution?
Well my shock was over your assertion that adblockers started this problem and when the net was new adblockers didn't exist until pop up within pop ups were a thing.
As for solutions one was already suggested by others to just use subscriptions but there are too many reasons why that won't work.
A second solution specifically for vods is to embed ads into the vod itself. A problem was brought up with having outdated ads in the vod but with the ease in which videos can be editted by pros I think it will be feasible to create a vid tool where you can update videos with inserted ads and without needing to reupload the entire video to the host.
The only other problem that would be difficult is having multiple ads rotate in and out within a short time frame.
Here is another possible solution.
Maybe adblockers should be integrated into the advertising system proactively. Instead of having a whitelist every site by default can display ads but if you come across an ad that is obnoxious you can choose to disable the specific ad (or in many cases ads) you are seeing currently on the screen.
This mechanism would obviously report back analytics on the type of people who block specific ads.
This way companies can get direct feedback on whether or not their marketing budget is being spent wisely on how advertisers reach out to potential customers for them.
In the case of multiple ads being actively blocked at once advertisers will have to analyze these ads across multiple sites to isolate which ones are possibly the most offensive ones.
No, you are saying that you don't like ads and at no point did you agree to watch them in exchange for content.
I see a lot of people justifying adblock with security concerns and certain ads going over the top. I'll explain the "scumbag" stance.
I hate ads.
I pay for the internet and there is no additional fee to use these sites. How content creators choose to monetize their work is their own business. If they choose to monetize it in a way that tries to make me look at ads, that is their choice but I have no obligation to look at them. I have no obligation to not go to the site if I'm blocking ads. If you want me to feel responsibility for you getting paid for your work, ask me for money. Don't try and force me to look at bullshit that I don't care about because I won't do it.
(A caveat: if you can force me to under threat of a ban, like here, then I will)
And i certainly won't do it out of any sense of obligation or respect for games journalism of all things.
It's evolution. Consumers have evolved to a place where you cannot force them to look at things they don't want to. It's time for content creators to evolve and monetize their work in less offensive ways. And I have no doubt they will. There will be casualties, but don't expect me to feel sorry for them.
Now, am I a piece of shit who expects everything for free? Absolutely not. I pay subscriptions for my music. I buy albums if they are good enough. I pay subscriptions for TV and movies. I buy those if they are good enough. I buy books and would pay a subscription for those too. If all of these things, which are all more worthwhile to society as a whole than videogame journalism can ever hope to be, can survive without trying to force me to watch additional advertising, then there is no excuse for everyone else. I pay a subscription to access the internet with no agreement to look at anything I don't choose to. I pay extra to view certain things on the internet if they are good enough.
The problem with games journalism is that Just because games journalism right now is expensive to produce doesn't mean it is more valuable than YouTube. The truth is, most of it can be replaced by any asshole with a camera and an opinion. Anyone can gush about upcoming games, regurgitate marketing materials, and claim things are sexist. Your greatest value is to videogame publishers because you hype up their new releases. If money is a problem, just ask EA to buy you out. I won't trust your articles any less and you can stop bitching about people not looking at the ads on your site.
No mostly you make a deal that gets the website a fixed amount of money, because of the number of visitors / people who see the ads. Of course, if less people see the ads (because of declining visitor number or indeed adblocker), the fixed price a website gets for placing the ad gets smaller, or even lose the deal completely.
I don't use adblocker, I don't care. If ads are to annoying I quit the site.
But saying that without ad revenue nothing creative would be created is just stupid.
And in the end we do pay for it. The costs for the ads is calculated in the commodities we buy.
But that is how it works today. And I agree with Pacter that I rather have professionally created content opposed to just youtube and stuff directly from the publisher which is nothing more than publicity anyway.
One more little note, since I started reading neogaf (yhea I know there are ads) I finds news sites for games less interesting. The 'content' on this forum is not created by professionals but usually more accurate, and mistakes are easily spotted and corrected by the community.
I am still yet to read a pro-ads stance that addresses computer security and privacy issues.
People don't use Adblock, Ghostery, Noscript etc to screw over content providers. Ad providers have long since lost the moral argument when ad servers started using trackers that can only be described as spyware and rogue ad banners even from reputable sites started embedding or advertising malware. The onus is on the ad networks to get their act together, not on users to delete browser addons that they have installed to protect themselves. That to me is a much bigger issue than the "swat the fly" banners from back in the day.
It's an awful situation, websites deserve to get paid but their revenue sources, the ad networks, have long since chipped away the good will of many.
Another way for websites to make money if they don't get enough from ads, is advertorial content. Articles and videos that look like articles and videos, made by editors, but are actually just advertisements. Even though something like this should only be placed with the monniker 'advertorial' above it (although I doubt all websites make it this clear to their readers), it's not the way to go, because editors will then be spending time writing and making this paid content, instead of making real articles that benefit the visitors.
There ARE websites that thrive on this system. And some visitors wouldn't even notice. A sad state indeed. But one that seems like the solution for many people that have a family and morgage to support. What do you know, people behind websites are people too!
I don't mind ads for the most part but when they become intrusive (large overlays, autoplay videos, hiding the close button) I block them. Sites I visit on the regular get a free pass.
Another way for websites to make money if they don't get enough from ads, is advertorial content. Articles and videos that look like articles and videos, made by editors, but are actually just advertisements. Even though something like this should only be placed with the monniker 'advertorial' above it (although I doubt all websites make it this clear to their readers), it's not the way to go, because editors will then be spending time writing and making this paid content, instead of making real articles that benefit the visitors.
There ARE websites that thrive on this system. And some visitors wouldn't even notice. A sad state indeed. But one that seems like the solution for many people that have a family and morgage to support. What do you know, people behind websites are people too!
No, you are saying that you don't like ads and at no point did you agree to watch them in exchange for content.
I see a lot of people justifying adblock with security concerns and certain ads going over the top. I'll explain the "scumbag" stance.
I hate ads.
I pay for the internet and there is no additional fee to use these sites. How content creators choose to monetize their work is their own business. If they choose to monetize it in a way that tries to make me look at ads, that is their choice but I have no obligation to look at them. I have no obligation to not go to the site if I'm blocking ads. If you want me to feel responsibility for you getting paid for your work, ask me for money. Don't try and force me to look at bullshit that I don't care about because I won't do it.
(A caveat: if you can force me to under threat of a ban, like here, then I will)
And i certainly won't do it out of any sense of obligation or respect for games journalism of all things.
It's evolution. Consumers have evolved to a place where you cannot force them to look at things they don't want to. It's time for content creators to evolve and monetize their work in less offensive ways. And I have no doubt they will. There will be casualties, but don't expect me to feel sorry for them.
Now, am I a piece of shit who expects everything for free? Absolutely not. I pay subscriptions for my music. I buy albums if they are good enough. I pay subscriptions for TV and movies. I buy those if they are good enough. I buy books and would pay a subscription for those too. If all of these things, which are all more worthwhile to society as a whole than videogame journalism can ever hope to be, can survive without trying to force me to watch additional advertising, then there is no excuse for everyone else. I pay a subscription to access the internet with no agreement to look at anything I don't choose to. I pay extra to view certain things on the internet if they are good enough.
The problem with games journalism is that Just because games journalism right now is expensive to produce doesn't mean it is more valuable than YouTube. The truth is, most of it can be replaced by any asshole with a camera and an opinion. Anyone can gush about upcoming games, regurgitate marketing materials, and claim things are sexist. Your greatest value is to videogame publishers because you hype up their new releases. If money is a problem, just ask EA to buy you out. I won't trust your articles any less and you can stop bitching about people not looking at the ads on your site.
Not familiar with the law as i focus on editorial content and not advertisment, but Of corse I agree with the rule. But i'd bet a fair amount of money it isnt that clear cut on some websites and magazines. I have no proof though so i wont make a big thing out of it. The thing is: when is something an advertorial and when is it editorial content? Publications can play with this thin line.
Not to mention there are various other ways to help advertisers out without placing an advertisement. This is al product of not enough advertisment views thanks to stuff like adblocker.
After watching this rant, I have decided to change one setting in Adblock Plus: allow non-intrusive ads. Let us see how it goes. I am also trying to allow ads on NeoGAF.
On the other hand, thankfully our company realises that if you get caught by visitors by playing this dangerous game, your reputation is screwed forever. There's no going back. So i cant speak for other publications but I'm thankful we don't do this kind of stuff. Not on my watch anyway.
But i do realise we constantly have to look at how to get income. You have to survive.
The problem is when ads just completely ruin the experience of a website. On GAF i don't really care as the ads don't bother me. I don't really go to many websites but twitch is an example. I turned off adblock because i want to support the players i like. Problem is ads just ruin the experience. Every time i open a stream even if it's just to quickly check whats happening i get an ad. If the stream freezes and i have to restart i get an ad. If i change resolution i get an ad. Sometimes you just get lots of ads in a row and it kills the experience.
Simple fact is if consumers have an incredibly simple way of improving their end user experience they're going to do it whether it hurts the content maker or not. It's a big part of why piracy is so rampant. Sure people like to get things for free but so often piracy, or adblock in this case, improves the end result for the consumer and it makes things cheaper.
Adblock probably wouldn't even be a thing if ads weren't so fucking annoying and intrusive.
The problem is when ads just completely ruin the experience of a website. On GAF i don't really care as the ads don't bother me. I don't really go to many websites but twitch is an example. I turned off adblock because i want to support the players i like. Problem is ads just ruin the experience. Every time i open a stream even if it's just to quickly check whats happening i get an ad. If the stream freezes and i have to restart i get an ad. If i change resolution i get an ad. Sometimes you just get lots of ads in a row and it kills the experience.
Simple fact is if consumers have an incredibly simple way of improving their end user experience they're going to do it whether it hurts the content maker or not. It's a big part of why piracy is so rampant. Sure people like to get things for free but so often piracy, or adblock in this case, improves the end result for the consumer and it makes things cheaper.
Adblock probably wouldn't even be a thing if ads weren't so fucking annoying and intrusive.
Hard to apply to the net as the sites do belong to that person/company, but I do disagree
with having an obligation to view ads just because I am using the site, and it's their chosen
method of monetisation. Sorry pach
It's pretty funny pachter is that oblivious that he thinks they will 'beat' addblock, clearly he has no idea of what some of the hacker type whizzkids can do, its the same for cracking games security companies are always one step behind.
It's not difficult, video makers just need to incorporate ads into their video instead of letting ads run automatically before each video. It's not hard.
Its hilarious to watch people proudly say they use adblock and then try to sneak in a shameful "bu but I dont do it on Neogaf" as if you do that out of the good of your heart.
Lets face it. They guys who use adblock dont give two fucks about the revenue other websites have to make to stay up and running. And if it wasnt a bannable offense they wouldnt give two fucks about the revenue Neogaf makes. So why pretend? Just drop the whole charade.
Its like going on Rockstar forums to say "Hey I pirate the hell out of EA games but those guys are evil. I swear I dont do it with your games". Sure buddy. Ok.
Its hilarious to watch people proudly say they use adblock and then try to sneak in a shameful "bu but I dont do it on Neogaf" as if you do that out of the good of your heart.
Lets face it. They guys who use adblock dont give two fucks about the revenue other websites have to make to stay up and running. And if it wasnt a bannable offense they wouldnt give two fucks about the revenue Neogaf makes. So why pretend? Just drop the whole charade.
Its like going on Rockstar forums to say "Hey I pirate the hell out of EA games but those guys are evil. I swear I dont do it with your games". Sure buddy. Ok.
That's some seriously skewed point of view. Surfing the internet without adblock these days is just pure madness with all the shitty pop-ups and things that make noise or cover up content. And the pirating analogy doesn't work either.
It's more like it's raining piss outside and you use an umbrella, and you leave that umbrella at the door when you come to NeoGAF because you like to go there and you know their roof isn't leaking. When you leave GAF, or any other white-listed site, you open the umbrella again.
It's not difficult, video makers just need to incorporate ads into their video instead of letting ads run automatically before each video. It's not hard.
Its hilarious to watch people proudly say they use adblock and then try to sneak in a shameful "bu but I dont do it on Neogaf" as if you do that out of the good of your heart.
Lets face it. They guys who use adblock dont give two fucks about the revenue other websites have to make to stay up and running. And if it wasnt a bannable offense they wouldnt give two fucks about the revenue Neogaf makes. So why pretend? Just drop the whole charade.
Its like going on Rockstar forums to say "Hey I pirate the hell out of EA games but those guys are evil. I swear I dont do it with your games". Sure buddy. Ok.
Hard to apply to the net as the sites do belong to that person/company, but I do disagree
with having an obligation to view ads just because I am using the site, and it's their chosen
method of monetisation. Sorry pach
"They have re-arranged the world to put themselves in front of you." Damn, that's pretty good.
Also, don't forget Pachter's position. To keep in with the Banksy analogy: he is one of those people that run the tall buildings advertisers leer from. Of course he's on their side, not ours.
if you use it on sites you like, you are basically saying you expect them to provide you with content for free. if you use it on sites you 'dislike' (IGN, gametrailers etc), then why are you going to that site in the first place? if you have such a problem with it don't go there.
When did websites become a pay as you use service by default? I don't agree that websites requiring contributions masquerading as free websites is an acceptable business practice. All of these websites have it entirely within their power to paywall their content if they choose or even restrict access to anyone with ad blocker enabled, but of course they know payment transparency like that would be bad for business.
At the end of the day all I want is information relayed from publishers (which is in their marketing interest to reach me) and opinions on that content from gamers like myself (true hobbyists don't require payment). It's absolutely no skin off my nose if the journalist/analysis "industry" collapses as a result, many of the outlets like Kotaku and Polygon are having an outright negative impact on the gaming industry anyway. It may even be a preferential outcome. There's an awful lot of entitlement within that sphere from parties who believe their non-essential service is somehow essential.
Hard to apply to the net as the sites do belong to that person/company, but I do disagree
with having an obligation to view ads just because I am using the site, and it's their chosen
method of monetisation. Sorry pach
What I can't stand though are pre-rolls for 30s clips. I am NOT watching a 30s ad to watch a 30s cliip, sorry. I'll just leave. Pre-rolls are horrible in general because sometimes I don't know if it's the content I want to see but have to sit through ad to find out. I don't mind watching ad breaks during content I want to see. Another problem is content continuing during the ad (like Twitch streams). I don't want to feel like I'm missing something because of the ad. They need to fix this stuff.
You don't need professional reviews, nobody does. The Kane & Lynch saga along with the unanimous agreement of GTA IV being one of the greatest games ever made should have made that quite clear. They're a sometimes useful and sometimes financially motivated influence which is helpful pre-release.
I respect the hell out of Gerstmann but that man has garbage taste in games. If the impressions on gaf fall under Pachter's vision of "unprofessional reviews" then by god I will take those unprofessional reviews and form an opinion about the game based on those.
And if there weren't ads then there wouldn't be music or quality video content? Sorry, what? People make music for fun. People will buy $2000 instruments and cameras to fuel their hobby. And right now I'm having a lot more fun listening to artists who give away their music for free.
The principal means of funding the BBC is through the television licence, costing £145.50 per year per household since April 2010. Such a licence is required to receive broadcast television across Britain, however no licence is required to own a television used for other means, or for sound only radio sets (though a separate licence for these was also required for non-TV households until 1971). The cost of a television licence is set by the government and enforced by the criminal law.
What bothers me about ads is that a lot of times on places like IGN or YouTube you are trying to watch a trailer for the latest video game or movie. Those are essentially ads in and of themselves. So, if I am forced to watch an ad for feminine hygiene products before I watch the latest Watch Dogs trailer, then that is really wrong. That leads me to something else. A lot of ads claim to be geared towards your interests through things like cookies on various websites that you go to. I wish they were a bit smarter than that, though. I know most wont agree with me, but I wish advertisers actually had more information about me. Take GAF for example. A week ago I bought an iPhone case from Lifeproof. Every single time I go to GAF now I get a Lifeproof ad at the top of the page. Who are they advertising to? I already bought the product! I don't need it anymore. Amazon.com used to do this all the time as well. They used to send out emails geared towards your past purchases, but they'd do it for everything from the last book you bought to camera, GPS devices, and TVs. I already bought a TV from you. What makes you think I want another so soon?!?!
