News from the lovely world of the Games Industry.

[crazy canuck]

It's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.

[garbon]

It's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.

It is okay to let things go.

[crazy canuck]

Fair

[Jacob]

It's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.

I'm not reasoning, I'm stating an aesthetic preference.

There's a certain volume of advertising in games beyond which I will find it off-putting ("terrible" is the word I used).

Thinking of EA's soccer game I'll easily accept ads that add to verisimilitude and doesn't interfere with gameplay (ads on jerseys, sideboards et.al.). I'm more skeptical of advertising that feels real, but interferes with the flow of gameplay (e.g. half-time product ads feel realistic, but the players probably want to manage their team in various ways so they can still be annoying); but if handled well it could be okay. And I can imagine implementations that are just awful.

How will turn out? Time will tell, but I can't say I'm supremely confident that EA will handle it in a way that I appreciate.

I understand why a corporation like EA finds the idea of selling advertising attractive. The potential upside is pretty big, the risks are relatively small. As a consumer of video games (though not EA Sports titles, so that example is academic) I'm skeptical, and worry that this is a step towards enshittifying a medium I enjoy.

[crazy canuck]

It's ok, I don't understand your reasoning either and I am not sure how I can make myself more clear.

I'm not reasoning, I'm stating an aesthetic preference.

There's a certain volume of advertising in games beyond which I will find it off-putting ("terrible" is the word I used).

Thinking of EA's soccer game I'll easily accept ads that add to verisimilitude and doesn't interfere with gameplay (ads on jerseys, sideboards et.al.). I'm more skeptical of advertising that feels real, but interferes with the flow of gameplay (e.g. half-time product ads feel realistic, but the players probably want to manage their team in various ways so they can still be annoying); but if handled well it could be okay. And I can imagine implementations that are just awful.

How will turn out? Time will tell, but I can't say I'm supremely confident that EA will handle it in a way that I appreciate.

I understand why a corporation like EA finds the idea of selling advertising attractive. The potential upside is pretty big, the risks are relatively small. As a consumer of video games (though not EA Sports titles, so that example is academic) I'm skeptical, and worry that this is a step towards enshittifying a medium I enjoy.

I am not sure why but you continue to miss the point of my first post. I don't quibble with your personal preference.  You made a comparison to sporting events which was not accurate.  Advertising is all over sporting events, from the branding on players and equipment be, to the branding that pops up in the commentary.  It is so prevalent we don't even notice it anymore.  We are a long way from the days when Nike had to pay a fine to the NBA when Jordan wore their red shoes.

[Syt]

IGN has bought Gamer Network, which includes Eurogamer, RockPaperShotgun, Gamesindustry.biz, (parts of?) Digital Foundry, etc.

Alice Bell, Editor of RPS was led go (IGN let go a bunch of people across sites, but mostly it seems folks working from outside the UK).

Some RPS writers have posted what seems random posts in protest with (ex-staffer, now freelancer) Brendan Caldwell posting:

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/the-best-alices-in-pc-games, a farewell article that celebrates Alices in games, but pointedly not mentioning Alice Bell.

Other posts are:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/why-do-game-custscenes-always-fade-to-white-a-sincere-plea-on-behalf-of-the-mole-people
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/screw-it-im-building-a-house-of-graphics-cards
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/you-can-get-my-old-battered-gamer-chair-for-oh-i-dunno-50-quid-1

At any rate, RPS has been up and down for me. 10, 15 years ago they were really good with most original founders around and interesting feature articles, interviews and investigative stuff. Obviously, the most (in)famous of the site probably remains John Walkers, erm, "combative" interview with Peter Molineux. I recall reading that at work when it went online and reading through it the way someone watches a slow motion mass car crash: https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/peter-molyneux-interview-godus-reputation-kickstarter

With many of the writers that pulled me in leaving, some new names came on and left and came on and left, and at times the content was not "for me" anymore. I liked Adam Smith who covered RPGs and strategy games (before leaving to become lead writer on BG3); his de facto successor was Nate Crowley (before leaving to write WH40K books). Strategy is not much covered these days - I like Sin Vega's articles which often cover weird indie strategy-adjacent niche titles that often catch my interest on Steam but that I'm too coward to pull the trigger on.

Recently, Nic Reuben and Ed Thorn have been decent on the site, but some of the "punk" charm of earlier days is missing. Recently Alice O left after 10+ years, and their Editor in Chief, Katherine Castle, also left. Maybe partially because the network was up for sale for a while now and they saw the writing on the wall?

While not as good as "in the good old days," RPS still has some interesting takes and stories. I hope someone will step into their shoes.

There's https://aftermath.site/, formed by former Kotaku writers mostly, most prominently Nathan Grayson who left the WaPo for this. Regardless of some ethics concerns about his 10 years ago (notably not disclosing close association to developers whose games he positively showcased on sites he was working for - Kotaku, RPS,  ...), he always seemed a bit of a hack. He's surely a "woke warrior", and I don't have an issue with that per se, but he used to be so deep into that persona (even before woke was a term widely used) that he seemed more parody than real deal to me.

Beyond that ... no idea? John Walker has his issues (see Molyneux interview), but I like checking his website where he reviews indie titles every week or so: https://buried-treasure.org/

I check https://tallyhocorner.com/ occasionally, Tim Stone's exile after leaving RPS. But its content is mostly his weekly quizzes, some news roundups and community games now. A google search also reveals https://strategyandwargaming.com/category/news/

But I actually read PC Gamer now a lot more than RPS. Their articles are usually fine, their reviews I might not always agree with, but they seem much less prone to score bloat (a 75% score is still pretty good for them), and they usually have competent writers for various genres. But of course it also has plenty of articles (lists, best ofs, guides ... ) geared for SEO, because that's the internet we have these days, I guess.

[Tamas]

RPS (well, its writers) just seems to have become so self-important, these protest-articles seem to underline that.

[Syt]

I think they're a lot less activist than they were 5-8 years ago.