• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Giant Bomb Thread 2: A thread on a popular internet message board

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Dutch Slayer said:
MnXGT.gif


WOW indeed that is not good :( I love tested but I think the "new" website did not help.
Click to expand...

Here is Giant Bomb for comparisons sake.

XbtZO.png
 
Tested really need to add categories to their video sections.

I'm not terribly interested in stuff they don't produce, but it's quite hard to tell from thumbnails.

Like their visit to the nuclear reactor was a great 30min thing.

I recall Will mentioning stuff getting back 'to normal' somewhat when they get an office.

And why are you kids lying to yourselves? The only reason you visited Tested was because of Chloe!
 
The Dutch Slayer said:
Also keep in mind next week is E3 Judges week so Jeff will not be on the bombcast.
Or any other video related thing next week.
Click to expand...

He did indicate in that Jar Time that he was basically putting that out because he was about to know way too much to be in any content until E3 rolls around.

I do wonder how much he tells the other guys about what he sees/hears about so as to not pollute them either. I know they need to know about some stuff, since they each undoubtedly have appointments to see currently unannounced games, but I'm curious if he just fills them in on everything?
 
Patryn said:
I do wonder how much he tells the other guys about what he sees/hears about so as to not pollute them either. I know they need to know about some stuff, since they each undoubtedly have appointments to see currently unannounced games, but I'm curious if he just fills them in on everything?
Click to expand...
Yes and yes, because he knows they won't tell anyone and they need to know for bookings and other planning related things.
 
Oh yeah it's a high number, I just thought GB would pull more than that. I have no idea what sort of numbers rival sites would be getting it, so I'm highly uneducated here.
 
Foliorum Viridum said:
Oh yeah it's a high number, I just thought GB would pull more than that. I have no idea what sort of numbers rival sites would be getting it, so I'm highly uneducated here.
Click to expand...
I think Gamespot pulls eight million?

Giantbomb probably has hit the glass ceiling on their niche. To get higher numbers you need to pull "mother-buying-game-for-timmy" or "googlin' this game" traffic.
 
Foliorum Viridum said:
Oh yeah it's a high number, I just thought GB would pull more than that. I have no idea what sort of numbers rival sites would be getting it, so I'm highly uneducated here.
Click to expand...
For the Nich that they are, they are extremely good!! :O
I can only name like 5 other websites that have that kind of traffic for a 7 people editorial staff.

IGN has like 35 editors on the gaming site alone. (ok also far more traffic but still)
IGN cost 90$ MILLION A YEAR to keep the lights on! :O
That is no joke, that was from the 2011 report.

Odrion said:
Giantbomb probably has hit the glass ceiling on their niche. To get higher numbers you need to pull mother-buying-game-for-timmy or google traffic.
Click to expand...
I think not, with a better redesign upcoming and more money than ever I think they can grow at least 2 mil more before that ceiling, after that yes its going all out mainstream with they don't need/want because gamespot already covers that.
 
And even then "google" or "mom" hits won't matter since they don't seem to get any ad revenue. Their profit demographic is mostly adults that like both videogames and the staff in general.

Small demographic considering!

They probably make less money than we think! But it's still amazing that the demographic is big enough to keep them running for four years so far, how long was it until similar sites (old 1up) were shut down?
 
Odrion said:
And even then "google" or "mom" hits won't matter since they don't seem to get any ad revenue. Their profit demographic is mostly adults that like both videogames and the staff in general.

Small demographic considering!

They probably make less money than we think! But it's still amazing that the demographic is big enough to keep them running for four years so far, how long was it until similar sites (old 1up) were shut down?
Click to expand...
The very high advantage that GB has that also sites like twit.tv have, is that they audiance (not all I know but most of them) are very very savvy, very loyal and spend money on stuff.
Also something that GB going for it that advertisers love (something that facebook also has a HUGE advance on) is time spend per session per person is VERY high because of the long video forms, and time people spend on the editor or the forums.

The longer a session from a user is per time that he/she visits a website the more value an ad has.
 
Gav47 said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oJZaNmE4J78

ib0OwqDUaSRpzx.jpg
Click to expand...

STILL KIND OF A NERD MAN
HOES ON MY DICK CAUSE IM LOOKING LIKE A KROGAN
LOOKING LIKE A YOUNG WORF - LOOKING LIKE STARFLEET
HOES ON MY DICK CAUSE THEY KNOW THE KID IS GNARLY
GNARLY, GNARLY
HOES ON MY DICK CAUSE I'M SMARMY
HOES ON MY DICK CAUSE MY NAME IS REALLY FOREIGN
HOES ON MY DICK CAUSE THE BAY IS WHERE MY ORIGINS
HOES ON MY DICK IM AN ORANGE, ORANGE

That shit go hella hoard bruh.
 
Watching the latest Jar episode, and I'm curious where Jeff (and others in the gaming media) get their opinions on the viewpoints of the average gamer. On-disc DLC, day one DLC--actually, any DLC is a bad choice for the consumer, and it confuses me why Jeff doesn't seem to care about its prevalence. Digital games are terrible for gamers, because it takes away the right of resale from the buyer, and it puts all our dependence on the game publishers and the console manufacturers to keep their license servers running so that we can continue playing our games. Sure, the games are fun, and we've been given access to innovative, inexpensive games, but just because they exist as digital downloads doesn't mean digital downloads are the only way they can be delivered.

This generation of consoles has completely changed the way we own our games, and I'm worried about the future. Sure, right now DLC works well, but in ten years, does Jeff believe we will still be guaranteed access to these old games? Does he not see how frustrating it is to have content stored on a disc that is existing right in front of us, but then learn that we have to pay for and download additional content to play everything that's on that disc--content that might not be unlockable in the future? Does he not value his games anymore? Is it because he plays so many that he's lost focus on their long-term value?

Digital services have offered several advantages to gaming, that can't be denied; however, what value is added with DLC is diminished considerably when one considers what we've lost in this transition. Jeff suggested that DLC is the same as expansion packs of yore. I disagree: they are not the same, because expansion packs were sold on discs, and could be 1. resold, and 2. played without an always-on internet connection requirement.

It's strange to me how the gaming media has latched on and defends highly the DRM-laden DLC gaming choices, while elsewhere in other forms of entertainment--actually, even in the independent market of games--the rallying cry is exactly the opposite.

The issue isn't just that day-one DLC and on-disc DLC is a desperate attempt to keep us from legally reselling our games, it's that it cheapens the value of the game itself. DLC is a gamble, and the odds are not in the gamer's favor. Why then are Jeff and others in the press so ready to defend it?
 
MedHead said:
Watching the latest Jar episode, and I'm curious where Jeff (and others in the gaming media) get their opinions on the viewpoints of the average gamer. On-disc DLC, day one DLC--actually, any DLC is a bad choice for the consumer, and it confuses me why Jeff doesn't seem to care about its prevalence. Digital games are terrible for gamers, because it takes away the right of resale from the buyer, and it puts all our dependence on the game publishers and the console manufacturers to keep their license servers running so that we can continue playing our games. Sure, the games are fun, and we've been given access to innovative, inexpensive games, but just because they exist as digital downloads doesn't mean digital downloads are the only way they can be delivered.

This generation of consoles has completely changed the way we own our games, and I'm worried about the future. Sure, right now DLC works well, but in ten years, does Jeff believe we will still be guaranteed access to these old games? Does he not see how frustrating it is to have content stored on a disc that is existing right in front of us, but then learn that we have to pay for and download additional content to play everything that's on that disc--content that might not be unlockable in the future? Does he not value his games anymore? Is it because he plays so many that he's lost focus on their long-term value?

Digital services have offered several advantages to gaming, that can't be denied; however, what value is added with DLC is diminished considerably when one considers what we've lost in this transition. Jeff suggested that DLC is the same as expansion packs of yore. I disagree: they are not the same, because expansion packs were sold on discs, and could be 1. resold, and 2. played without an always-on internet connection requirement.

It's strange to me how the gaming media has latched on and defends highly the DRM-laden DLC gaming choices, while elsewhere in other forms of entertainment--actually, even in the independent market of games--the rallying cry is exactly the opposite.

The issue isn't just that day-one DLC and on-disc DLC is a desperate attempt to keep us from legally reselling our games, it's that it cheapens the value of the game itself. DLC is a gamble, and the odds are not in the gamer's favor. Why then are Jeff and others in the press so ready to defend it?
Click to expand...
Giantbomb usually takes the stance of "don't buy it, or shut up" whenever topics like this come up.

They just don't need to deal with a lot of this stuff because of their job. Things like Day one DLC and online passes don't really effect them that much since they are in a situation where the games are being sent to them by publishers, or they just go out and buy the thing new since it's for their job. They aren't really the type of people that can be waiting around for the price to drop. It's the same reason why they're fairly ignorant about used-games. Whenever the topic comes up, they discuss it like the only place you can get used games is at Gamestop for $5 off the new price, which is just so far off the reality.

I thought it was shocking that Jeff saw the ability to patch console games as worse than on-disc DLC. But again, I'd imagine day one patches are a bigger hassle for them, since it forces them to go through a game for a second time to check what's fixed if they played it before release.
 
Typographenia said:
Why are consumers so eager and willing to buy it is probably the better question.
Click to expand...

That's the real problem. I think that's the real reason why they never get too outraged about this stuff, because what does it really matter if they piss and moan about this stuff if people buy it anyway. That's the only way these practices will ever stop.

Every time EA implements some new bullshit, I imagine they get worried about fan reaction for about 15 seconds, then remember the screengrab from that MW2 boycott group on Steam, where almost everyone in the group was playing MW2 the day it came out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GTA VI on Switch 2 Rumor Thread
Rumor  2 3
149
1K
MrA replied
The Outer Worlds 2 - Reviews Thread
4 5 6 7 8
368
4K
adamsapple replied
Dan leaving Giant Bomb?
2
68
3K
MagnesD3 replied
  • Poll
Highguard Betting Thread
48
305
PeteBull replied
Hades 2 | Review Thread
Review  2 3 4
178
4K
HYDE replied
Top Bottom