“For quality games media, I continue to believe that the best form of stability is dedicated reader bases to remove reliance on funds, and a hybrid of direct reader funding and advertisements. If people want to keep reading quality content from full time professionals, they need to support it or lose it. That’s never been more critical than now.”
The games media outlets that have survived, except for Gamespot and IGN, have just about all switched to this model. It seems to be the only way it survives.
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:
Redfall getting a 4/5
Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League getting a 4/5
Redfall getting a 90
Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines 2 getting a 8/10
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.
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).
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 quality of a game, and the evaluation of it in a review, is entirely subjective.
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.
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.