IGN just acquired a ton of their competitors

[tripredacus]

All major new sources have paid articles. It even happens in television news, especially for local TV news where segments consist of three things primarily: 1. Local stories, 2. national stories, 3. paid stories. The paid stories are done as a form of advertising, they are either acquired by the company itself (they have sales departments) or come from one of the services they subscribe to. Print media does the same thing and since online news websites are based on the workings of legacy (print and television) media, it is expected that they work the same way.

In the early internet things were different because those legacy media corporations did not have a large foothold. Sure they had their own websites but there were many other websites that sprang up where news was being delivered by non-affiliated aka regular people. This is "on the streets" reporting which is usually better in at least that it is organic. Over time those new internet alternatives disappeared, either were bought by the new guard of online media (who were able to suplant legacy media since they were not quick enough to adapt) or disappeared over time like forums. Independent media barely exists now and the on-the-streets equivalent is only found on social media sites.

There is always going to be bias. The big company's bias is driven by money and the regular person bias is their own opinions. You won't ever escape that as there are far too few people who are able to deliver information in that way. And if metrics are correct, people tend to prefer news that is biased or opinionated more than just straight information. Straight info is the domian of specialized fields (science and finance) and the average person is not interested in that type of information.

[kypherion]

Game journalism has been... not great... for a long time. There's a lot of crap out there. The best of the gaming sites IMO, GameTrailers.com, died out a long time ago.

This.



From IGN's "Gone to GameCube" article found here:https://www.ign.com/articles/2002/02/11/gone-to-gamecube.

Just straight up news with some screenshots you might not find anywhere else. No "Opinion" articles like on Kotaku. I don't know who wrote the article (IGN says "Peer/96Sturmvogel96") and to be honest I don't care. It gets the job done and that's what matters. I have information and knowledge, not some "freelance writer" profile picture sitting in my memory.

It doesn't feel like news anymore either. IMHO the overall standard of diction has decreased (I say, using an acronym). Further back it felt like an actual group peer reviewed magazines and even websites to make the diction feel like this is a statement made by an organization. Instead, nowadays an article is written by Joe Schmo with his twitter handle in his IGN profile. E.g., my "Pocket Games 7" GameCube guide (not endorsed by Nintendo) FEELS like a gaming magazine. IGN articles do not feel like gaming magazines and instead feel like a paper. I'm aware a magazine is not a website, however the writing principle is the same.

[telekill]

While I don't interact with any of the affected news outlets at all, the major takeaway is industry consolidation. In short, competition is good.

Unfortunately, both IGN and PushSquare groups are heavily left leaning, so if they post anything that has to do with politics, even moderately conservative opinions will be removed and users banned.

I would argue the worse part is that these so called journalists directly try to push their agendas, directly want to take influence on creative freedom and basically dictate what is ok and what isn't (in their mind).

Both left and right wing politics have a vocal voice within the industry. While journalism itself may be dominated by the former, there are just as many news coverage and reactionary YouTube channels for the latter, which the argument could be made are just as influential with their respective audiences. If you think one group "directly [tries] to push their agendas" and wants "to take influence on creative freedom and basically dictate what is ok," then you must acknowledge that the statement applies to individuals from both groups, and certainly not all individuals. That is all I have to say on the matter.

Please give me examples of conservative leaning gaming media. Not poking the bear. Genuinely want to know about them so I can watch their content.

[dhaabi]

Both left and right wing politics have a vocal voice within the industry. While journalism itself may be dominated by the former, there are just as many news coverage and reactionary YouTube channels for the latter, which the argument could be made are just as influential with their respective audiences.

Please give me examples of conservative leaning gaming media. Not poking the bear. Genuinely want to know about them so I can watch their content.

Search for the latest major "controversy" in gaming news. For example, you'll have luck when searching news for the upcoming game Assassin's Creed Shadows regarding its protagonist. Similar to what tripredacus explained, this is more like "on the streets" reporting since these channels are largely independent, although I'm sure a considerable amount are sponsored. Regardless, these channels certainly have dedicated audiences.

[BinaryMessiah]

Game journalism has been... not great... for a long time. There's a lot of crap out there. The best of the gaming sites IMO, GameTrailers.com, died out a long time ago. Unfortunately, both IGN and PushSquare groups are heavily left leaning, so if they post anything that has to do with politics, even moderately conservative opinions will be removed and users banned. I know this as I have been temp banned from both sites at some point for expressing a non-hostile conservative opinion.

Where am I going with this, you may be asking... If IGN has bought out their competitors, then there is no great loss. It's simply the consolidation of the same opinion under one banner and this will have zero impact on the readers and those that interact on their sites. That is... until with everything in the gaming industry at the moment... they start to downsize.

It has nothing to do with being "left leaning". To be honest, most of the top comments on all IGN posts are heavily right leaning. Usually some pretty sick stuff at that. Politics have nothing to do with this consolidation. It's about finances. We're headed towards another 80's game crash. Everything is about profit and pleasing share holders now. Gaming isn't about the art of it anymore. AAA games will implode, and all that will be left are the indie titles that have held the gaming industry up for the last decade. Small gaming sites can no longer thrive like they used to.

You missed what I was trying to convey. These sites all have the same ideals, the same mindset. They're essentially all the same. Now that it's all under one banner... there's been no loss.

I didn't miss your point. Your point is purely political, and there isn't any sort of agenda. The loss is huge. This isn't good for the gaming industry. Every site being under one banner means less trust, more shady back room deals, and a lot of people aren't going to trust any reviews on these sites anymore. IGN already has a bad enough reputation and this is going to seem like the Amazon or Starbucks of the gaming journalism industry. Buying up everybody, monopolizing, and killing trust. But sure, it's all about "leftist" ideas. Whatever that means.

Fair enough. You didn't miss my point. You saw it and ignored it entirely.

If you still have trust in the reviews these sites have then I don't know what to tell you. They haven't been trustworthy... any of them... in at least a decade.

I didn't ignore it. I clearly addressed it. Your point was that sites being left leaning and political makes them untrustworthy. That was your point, and I addressed it as such. I also never once said I trusted anything.

I will agree with you that you can't trust most sites anymore, and gaming reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt from  journalists. I usually go towards user reviews these days, and even then you have to be cautious with review bombing, which can be misleading, or an entire game getting negative reviews over a single issue.

[telekill]

I didn't ignore it. I clearly addressed it. Your point was that sites being left leaning and political makes them untrustworthy. That was your point, and I addressed it as such.

First off, that was not my point. My point was that a leftist controlled site eating up other leftist controlled sites won't have an impact on the readers. Regardless, they'll still have the same opinion pushed at them.

Second, I'm glad you don't trust reviews on any of these sites. Kudos.

Search for the latest major "controversy" in gaming news. For example, you'll have luck when searching news for the upcoming game Assassin's Creed Shadows regarding its protagonist. Similar to what tripredacus explained, this is more like "on the streets" reporting since these channels are largely independent, although I'm sure a considerable amount are sponsored. Regardless, these channels certainly have dedicated audiences.

I appreciate you confirming that there is no conservative gaming outlet capable of silencing opinions they don't like.

[dhaabi]

Search for the latest major "controversy" in gaming news. For example, you'll have luck when searching news for the upcoming game Assassin's Creed Shadows regarding its protagonist. Similar to what tripredacus explained, this is more like "on the streets" reporting since these channels are largely independent, although I'm sure a considerable amount are sponsored. Regardless, these channels certainly have dedicated audiences.

I appreciate you confirming that there is no conservative gaming outlet capable of silencing opinions they don't like.

To clarify, I never claimed such outlets were successful by whatever metric you want to gauge that condition. They have their dedicated audiences, as I previously mentioned, but they're unpopular with the general public for a reason. Simply put, it is because their views do not align with the views of most who engage with them.

Again, this goes back to what tripredacus mentioned in that "[t]he big company's bias is driven by money and the regular person bias is their own opinions." So, you won't see a company like IGN publish those kinds of opinion pieces because there isn't any money to be earned expressing those beliefs as it's a minority opinion. By assuming a like-minded position with their audience, these larger companies can continue to grow and maintain readership since, again, they're popular opinions. With that understanding, none of these conservative outlets would be able to "silence" the opinions (whatever that means) of those opposite to them.

[telekill]

none of these conservative outlets would be able to "silence" the opinions (whatever that means) of those opposite to them.[/font]

I appreciate the clarification. By "silence", I mean deleting postings and banning users who express an "unpopular" opinion... even in a respectful way. If others aren't able to even read opposing viewpoints, which is the goal of any totalitarian system... then it would most certainly appear as though an opposing viewpoint is in the minority.

[dhaabi]

I appreciate you confirming that there is no conservative gaming outlet capable of silencing opinions they don't like.

none of these conservative outlets would be able to "silence" the opinions (whatever that means) of those opposite to them.

I appreciate the clarification. By "silence", I mean deleting postings and banning users who express an "unpopular" opinion... even in a respectful way. If others aren't able to even read opposing viewpoints, which is the goal of any totalitarian system... then it would most certainly appear as though an opposing viewpoint is in the minority.

I first understood the expression on a more global scale, so this changes my outlook. Any outlet, regardless of its bias, is capable (which is the term you originally used) of silencing any opposing viewpoint, should they choose to do so. This is especially true in modern times with digital news, comments, and users accounts, as you've pointed out.

[tripredacus]

So, you won't see a company like IGN publish those kinds of opinion pieces because there isn't any money to be earned expressing those beliefs as it's a minority opinion.

This is actually incorrect. Corporations do this all of the time, but not for the reasons you think they do. They do it as a CYA because many companies have learned from the MeToo/cancel movements of years ago. Fortunately, many companies are realising that they have been catering to a vocal minority and this has been effecting their bottomline. So they will either change or go under.

I don't understand the need to trust what a website says. They just provide information.

Game reviews became worthless as soon as streaming became available. I stopped reading them not because of what the authors wrote about, but that it wasn't helpful to me to decide if I wanted to play something or not. If I am interested in something and there is no demo available, I will watch someone streaming it. Then I can decide for myself whether I like it. Since games are not all about graphics or story or whatever else is typical to be graded in a game review.

[BinaryMessiah]

Based on this entire thread, it really shows just how much politics plays a major role in gaming journalism. Any social issue will trigger either side and get them to engage in the comments. Engagement is key these days for anyone to get paid on any platform. Simple views aren't enough, like they were 20 years ago. The latest "issue" with Assassin's Creed: Shadows goes to show this. Both sides are flooding social media, either defending it or trying to tear it apart. This is what these outlets thrive on.

Has anyone noticed the lack of indie reviews over the last several years? Unless the game has gone viral on streaming or social platforms, no one will cover it.

[dhaabi]

Game reviews became worthless as soon as streaming became available. I stopped reading them not because of what the authors wrote about, but that it wasn't helpful to me to decide if I wanted to play something or not. If I am interested in something and there is no demo available, I will watch someone streaming it. Then I can decide for myself whether I like it. Since games are not all about graphics or story or whatever else is typical to be graded in a game review.

For the average person, I'd imagine the amount of time they're willing to invest in vetting a game as something they'd want to play or not is low. If that's so, then watching someone stream a game instead of interacting with a review (written or visual) is only worthwhile for certain types of games with straightforward gameplay, like sports and rhythm. Any genre which has complex systems or a variety of gameplay mechanics will likely not all be shown in a few minutes of uninterrupted gameplay, so streaming seems limited.

Personally, I generally will watch video reviews. I feel that most reviewers across all things are simply bad at reviewing (mostly in regards to highly subjective point systems), so at least a variety of footage is offered with video reviews for me to decide if a game seems interesting enough.

Has anyone noticed the lack of indie reviews over the last several years? Unless the game has gone viral on streaming or social platforms, no one will cover it.

Some of that reason can probably be explained by the presence of content algorithms and the possibility of greater exposure when covering a hot topic. That said, there are still plenty of reviews for indie games, but maybe not as many for any one game in particular. People have access to hundreds if not thousands of newly-published games on any given day, so the pool is large.