Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fandom Acquires GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, TV Guide and Metacritic

about.fandom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 219 posts

Re: Fandom Acquires GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, TV Guide and Metacritic

#171

Post by papermite »

snide wrote: post #21

OG founder of Giant Bomb / Comicvine / Whiskey Media here. I was also at CNET during the acquisition of Metacritic and helped build large portions of Gamespot and TV.com. I'm 10-years removed from these properties so I feel OK talking about them. The sad reality is the Internet publishing is dead and as a business that business is nearly impossible to operate if you have any moral compass. In its place we have variou…

Seems like the folks over at Dropout.tv are doing it right now. They have their own Netflix-like subscription model with their own content and no ads. They put out older videos onto free streaming platforms like YouTube to attract people to come subscribe for the things going on now. They have huge production value, tons of different content, hours long videos, etc. I have no idea what tech they use on the back end, but maybe a bunch of folks in the gaming space could bundle themselves under a brand and take that approach.

Re: Fandom Acquires GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, TV Guide and Metacritic

#172

Post by mrtranscendence »

catapart wrote: post #76
snide wrote: post #21

OG founder of Giant Bomb / Comicvine / Whiskey Media here. I was also at CNET during the acquisition of Metacritic and helped build large portions of Gamespot and TV.com. I'm 10-years removed from these properties so I feel OK talking about them. The sad reality is the Internet publishing is dead and as a business that business is nearly impossible to operate if you have any moral compass. In its place we have variou…

Personally, my "holy grail" is a website that lets AUTHORS monetize their product using the site's ad network. If I upload a video, I shouldn't HAVE to pick the ads that run as pre, mid, or post-roll, but I should be ABLE to. I should be able to make my own deals, on the platform, with advertisers participating in that network. Essentially, the site should act as a facilitator between advertisers and content creators…

> (more like 10% -20%, less like 50%-90%)

Why do you feel that the site's cut could be as low as 10%? It's very expensive to host and serve high-quality video, and you've not described anything that would lower the site's costs relative to something like YouTube (which I don't believe is stunningly profitable).

Re: Fandom Acquires GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, TV Guide and Metacritic

#173

Post by P5fRxh5kUvp2th »

astrange wrote: post #125
buscoquadnary wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game journalism has been dead for a long time. No one who is serious about games pays any attention to it, and they routinely mock everyone in games journalism, making constant comments about "journalist mode" that plays the game for you, etc, because they hold them in such low respect. Beyond that it seems like half the articles coming out in "games" journalism these days seem more interested in pushing specific pol…

> making constant comments about "journalist mode" that plays the game for you This is a bad criticism because it’s about Dean Takahashi, whose actual problem is he’s just kept around to give softball interviews to CEOs to make them feel good, but nobody actually noticed this so just remember he can’t play Cuphead.

No, this is the fallout for gamergate.

People aren't stupid, that "game journalists" were basically in bed (metaphorically speaking) with the game publishers/developers themselves was a _very_ common complaint.

When it was revealed a reviewer was _literally_ sleeping with a game developer, it boiled over. Gaming journalism could have chosen to defend themselves by creating some sort of standard. Instead, they took advantage of the internet being vitriolic to try and turn this into a debate about misogyny.

What you're seeing now is the fallout of that decision. People don't trust them. Because it turns out, attacking your audience and labeling them as sexist assholes isn't a great idea.

Re: Fandom Acquires GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, TV Guide and Metacritic

#174

Post by mrtranscendence »

zeroclip wrote: post #63
Nextgrid wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NFT is bullshit and doesn't address any of the problems that surround content creation. Creators who push NFTs do so either because they are sponsored in the background (paid a lump sum in fiat to engage with NFTs) or have direct involvement in the market and would like to benefit from the (temporary) speculation bubble. That bubble has now died and so will NFTs.

The bubble dying is the perfect opportunity to re-examine the technology and determine whether it is a suitable means of freeing artists and creators from the problematic revenue models of major tech platforms. I pointed to the artist omentejovem in another comment[1]. [1] https://foundation.app/collection/shapesncolors?sortOrder=DE...

Let's say my bread and butter is making video essays. What do NFTs bring to the table that would make it so I don't have to rely on the revenue model of a major tech platform? Somebody has to host and serve my videos, and it's probably going to be a major tech platform. I could make an NFT that points to my video once it's hosted, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's a sustainable revenue stream ... I'm still going to want Patreon, merchandize, and video sponsorships.

Re: Fandom Acquires GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, TV Guide and Metacritic

#175

Post by AndrewUnmuted »

registeredcorn wrote: post #87
AndrewUnmuted wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's a never-ending stream of passionate people happy to produce said content altruistically out there This is the concept that is most frequently left out of otherwise thoughtful analyses on the topic at hand. Although I would not label the motivation as purely altruistic, what many people fail to realize is that people who create art of any kind, and have honest motivations for doing so, are going to be doing…

I'm interested to know, if it isn't too personal, what kind of work do you do to bring in income? There's a few passions that I have/have had, but I've found it hard to devote the time to any of them because I tend to feel very drained after doing work on things that I don't particularly care about.

I do media engineering related stuff, things related to media codecs, DSP, and p2p networking. The work I do during my day job is often somehow relevant to my music work.

For example, I used to work in VR, which enabled me to begin exploring ambisonics in my music.

Re: Fandom Acquires GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, TV Guide and Metacritic

#177

Post by mynameisvlad »

PaulHoule wrote: post #66
mynameisvlad wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

#5 is entirely dependent on the wiki itself, which is community-driven. Fandom only provides the infrastructure and platform, which support the feature.

But the platform affects the contributors. The dark patterns must drive many people away completely. You have to fight them every step of the way if you use the site. Who wants to see their creative work featured on such a site for sore eyes? If it paid some people might overcome all that but to do it for free?

This is a stretch at best.

I get it, Fandom sucks. The rest of the points are completely accurate. But the amount of interlinking isn't their fault.

Re: Fandom Acquires GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, TV Guide and Metacritic

#178

Post by Macha »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #177
PaulHoule wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the platform affects the contributors. The dark patterns must drive many people away completely. You have to fight them every step of the way if you use the site. Who wants to see their creative work featured on such a site for sore eyes? If it paid some people might overcome all that but to do it for free?

This is a stretch at best. I get it, Fandom sucks. The rest of the points are completely accurate. But the amount of interlinking isn't their fault.

I mean, if they push their GUI editor and their GUI editor makes it hard to interlink, arguably that does make them part of the problem.

Re: Fandom Acquires GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, TV Guide and Metacritic

#179

Post by cercatrova »

mrtranscendence wrote: post #170
diob wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see too much wrong with Patreon. I support a variety of things I enjoy using it, and the folks who I support get to do what they love while giving me content I love. Maybe we need some Patreon competition? I don't know honestly.

Patreon's fine and lots of people make a living with it, but it can be a tough sell. The rewards rarely make it worth it (sorry, I get no use out of the Drawfee discord), so you have to be willing to part with $5-10 a month for something you'd otherwise be getting free. That's an unjustifiable expense for anyone who doesn't have money to spare.

Depends on your definition of free. Most of the Patreons I support have a minimum threshold to get their stuff. For example I support someone which makes software available only through Patreon. It is not available for free outside of that. So it's basically like I'm paying for software but through Patreon as their vendor instead of Stripe or PayPal.

Re: Fandom Acquires GameSpot, Giant Bomb, GameFAQs, TV Guide and Metacritic

#180

Post by zeroclip »

mrtranscendence wrote: post #174
zeroclip wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bubble dying is the perfect opportunity to re-examine the technology and determine whether it is a suitable means of freeing artists and creators from the problematic revenue models of major tech platforms. I pointed to the artist omentejovem in another comment[1]. [1] https://foundation.app/collection/shapesncolors?sortOrder=DE...

Let's say my bread and butter is making video essays. What do NFTs bring to the table that would make it so I don't have to rely on the revenue model of a major tech platform? Somebody has to host and serve my videos, and it's probably going to be a major tech platform. I could make an NFT that points to my video once it's hosted, I suppose, but I'm not sure that's a sustainable revenue stream ... I'm still going to…

Hypothetically: if an audience is paying for your digital content or paying to support you on Patreon, they could instead pay for your content through crypto - if they are so willing and have it at their disposal. Aside from the lower fees you’d also be your own payment processor - more resistant to censorship, less platform lock-in, ability to self-host your content.

Same applies to selling digital assets on Bandcamp or running a Kickstarter campaign.

If your audience is unwilling to pay for your content or support you financially, and unwilling to pay a platform fee like with Netflix, then you might be stuck with monetizing through ads.

Post reply on HN