F*ck Gamespot.com
Dave Faris
It was bad enough when they started charging for downloads. Is anyone enough
of a sucker to pay for what amounts to advertising for games? Probably.
Game Player No. 1088
screenshots are more of an advertisement than anything else, and the
developers/publishers should be footing the bill to that, not me.....
Screenshots help people to buy the game, they shouldnt have to pay for it
too.....
"Dave Faris" <dfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GKgJ8.28904$wj7.9...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Istvan
great site, super fast page loads, super fast downloads,
I'll tell, you when I first finally saw a professinal looking page with
no ads, man it felt so good.
20 bucks a year? If you libe in the US that's nothing.
Istvan.
Steven Green
I could care less about screen shots ... odds on you can find them elsewhere
anyway.
Why bother?
"Istvan" <ial...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CF5A4C0...@attbi.com...
NightSky 421
Having to pay to download demos and to see screenshots is just plain crazy
and stupid. The day such a practice becomes commonplace is the day when
game sales will take a big hit since screenshots and demos are often what
sells a game. I guess I won't be visiting Gamespot much anymore.
Magnulus
They use up some bandwith, and the developers/publishers are probably not
paying for it. The free lunch for the internet is over. Ad banners
obviously aren't bringing in the revenue.
So if you don't like it, don't pay. I for one don't like Gamespots
content (particularly reviews, they are sometimes far too kind to big budget
titles, other times too hard on low-budget ones) as much as Gamespy, but to
their credit, they do have many other games that alot of sites don't always
review. 20 bucks a year is also not too much to ask for if you really want
that stuff.
"Dave Faris" <dfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GKgJ8.28904$wj7.9...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Eep²
Mario Pacheco
$20 is NOTHING. You save trees (waste from a published magazine
magazine), get information more readily than a traditonal magazine.
You don't appreciate how much effort goes into putting out quality
content (which gamespot.com is filled with). Again, $20 is nothing.
-M
freshie
composed a work, of the following which is an excerpt:
>What is this bullshit? Now you need to pay to look at fuckin screen shots?
>It was bad enough when they started charging for downloads. Is anyone enough
>of a sucker to pay for what amounts to advertising for games? Probably.
Yes... People will pay that much yearly for monthly downloads of game
previews and reviews that arrive in a mailbox. This is updated daily,
and is much more timely than anything you get in print.
The issue here is that it was previously free, and now people are
bitter about having to pay for content. *shrug*. Don't pay then.
HockeyTownUSA
and downloads which are advertising tools. If anything, those should be
free, and pay for the actual content that Gamespot OWNS (like reviews,
articles, etc). So essentially they are offering their content for free, but
charging for what is owned by the game companies. Hmmm, a freeware demo that
someone is charging for.... doesn't that break the Licensing Agreement? As
far as I see it what they are doing is illegal. I know they can easily skirt
around that by saying you're paying for "bandwidth". It's just an easy out
for them. If they had any clout, they would charge for their content
(reviews, articles, etc) but they must not have much confidence in their
empty, basic content that they would get as many subscribers.
"freshie" <fre...@fastdial.NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:lcjbfugkcr62ne6qk...@4ax.com...
Steve Woodward
most web pages are loss leaders for anyone that runs them. I've paid for the
"Game Spot Complete" and I have to tell you, it's well worth it. I mean, we
are talking about $19.95 a year. I find it humorous that the same crowd that
will spend upwards of $290 on a *joystick* will complain about $19.95 with
righteous indignation. The basic site is still free. However, if you want
the bandwidth sucking things (like 83 meg streaming videos, 200 meg demo's,
etc) ; then you're going to have to pay for it. I suppose you feel you have
the right to walk into a grocery store and demand as many paper or plastic
bags as you might want, without actually buying any groceries...right? It's
"free" after all!
Tell ya what; why don't you offer your own "free" web page and advertise it
here. I promise to check it out. Make sure you offer "free" streaming video,
"free" (huge) game demo downloads, pay to advertise it, pay a staff to
maintain it and create professional "free" content and give whatever web
surfers like you want, for "free". Wait a month. When you get back your
bandwidth bill, let us know how much all those "free" services cost you.
Freeloader.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
"Dave Faris" <dfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GKgJ8.28904$wj7.9...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Steve Woodward
pay. You sure are worked up over someone who (sarcasm on) clearly wasn't
using the service. If your that worked up; it's obviously worth something to
you. Your just too dam cheap to pay for what you want.
"BUT MOMMY I WANT IT NOW!"
-people don't get that worked up over something they don't care about.
>>>>>>>
"Eep˛" <eepN...@tnlc.com> wrote in message
news:3CF5C960...@tnlc.com...
Pumbaa
"Mario Pacheco" <betelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CF5CA32...@yahoo.com...
> So if you can find them somewhere else why are you complaining?
>
> $20 is NOTHING. You save trees (waste from a published magazine
> magazine), get information more readily than a traditonal magazine.
>
> You don't appreciate how much effort goes into putting out quality
> content (which gamespot.com is filled with). Again, $20 is nothing.
>
> -M
>
and multiply that number by $20 (or more).
Magazines and newspapers will thrive if web subsrciptions become
commonplace. Trees beware.
girlgeek
"Mario Pacheco" <betelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CF5CA32...@yahoo.com...
Paul Poroshin
I just use GameSpy (and GameSpyDaily). Very cool, and better-looking than
GameSpot.
Doug Schiller
midstream.
They said they would open up Complete for everyone the first month to test
it.
The truth - First month free, but you need to give them your credit card
information. (Thanks but no thanks)
They said the content we were used to would be open for the first seven
days.
Truth - All of a sudden, their video reviews are locked out no matter when.
If they actually reinstate good game guides (another promise), which I view
as actual value added content, I may look into it, but now they have turned
me off. I used to visit 3 or 4 times a day, now it is more like 3 or 4
times a week (and only because of games I'm interested in have been released
recently).
I agree with those that claim the advertising portion (screenshots/demos)
should be open to all and subsidized by the gaming companies. But if you
can sell dirt to suckers, you sell it.
It is amazing how no one is mentioning IGN who basically claims, the less
people that comes to their site, the more money they make, so stay away.
IGN is the closest to getting my money (I own all consoles and a couple of
hi-end PCs) but they need to make major changes (constant updates, remove
all ads for pay customers, no taking off 4 weeks for a postal holiday)
Doug
"Dave Faris" <dfa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:GKgJ8.28904$wj7.9...@twister.socal.rr.com...
Markos Giannopoulos
> Hmmm, a freeware demo that
> someone is charging for.... doesn't that break the Licensing Agreement? As
> far as I see it what they are doing is illegal.
When you get a mag you're supposed to pay for the... mag but you're
also paying for the cd with the freeware demos...
ShapeShifter
news:k6oJ8.43801$2m.13...@typhoon1.se.ipsvc.net...
> The days of "free" content are eventually going to go away. The fact is,
> most web pages are loss leaders for anyone that runs them. I've paid for
the
> "Game Spot Complete" and I have to tell you, it's well worth it. I mean,
we
> are talking about $19.95 a year. I find it humorous that the same crowd
that
> will spend upwards of $290 on a *joystick* will complain about $19.95 with
> righteous indignation. The basic site is still free. However, if you want
> the bandwidth sucking things (like 83 meg streaming videos, 200 meg
demo's,
> etc) ; then you're going to have to pay for it. I suppose you feel you
have
> the right to walk into a grocery store and demand as many paper or plastic
> bags as you might want, without actually buying any groceries...right?
It's
> "free" after all!
Actually, plastic\paper bags should be free, as long as the shop's logo is
on it. Here in Norway it's common to charge a very small amount of money for
the bag, which sucks ass, 'cause when you walk out the door, you serve as a
human advertisement. They actually CHARGE us to advertise them. I'm glad you
brought that one up, 'cause it's a good example on how people are fooled
into paying for advertisement.
Sagebrush
>
> $20 is NOTHING. You save trees (waste from a published magazine
> magazine), get information more readily than a traditonal magazine.
>
> You don't appreciate how much effort goes into putting out quality
> content (which gamespot.com is filled with). Again, $20 is nothing.
>
> -M
A $20 subscription for a website that offers very little original content
(reviews of questionable value) is something. The issue is the
proliferation of pay websites on the Internet. Do you want to pay $20 per
year for a dozen website? When does $20 become something? On principal,
everyone who uses the Internet should be resisting paying for access to
individual content providers.
Sagebrush
Cassandra
stores over here (Tesco, Asda (Wal-Mart), Sainsbury's and Safeway's) all
offer strong bags, about 100 times more durable than the free ones. They
usually cost about 10p (about 15c), and are replaced free of charge. Tesco
and Sainsbury's also offer special bags for wine, frozen goods, and boxes
that fit in the trolley (though they make excellent storage boxes for
computer stuff!)
--
Cassandra
Divide by Cucumber Error. Please re-install Universe and reboot - Hex -
Hogfather - Terry Pratchett
Reply address is fake. Please address personal mail to black dot aliss at
virgin.net
Please post all replies to the newsgroup so that all may benefit.
"ShapeShifter" <mag...@akersmic.no> wrote in message
news:ad58tc$5ut$1...@troll.powertech.no...
Gerry Quinn
>Here in the UK we pay for carrier bags in supermarkets. too. The 4 big
>stores over here (Tesco, Asda (Wal-Mart), Sainsbury's and Safeway's) all
>offer strong bags, about 100 times more durable than the free ones. They
>usually cost about 10p (about 15c), and are replaced free of charge. Tesco
>and Sainsbury's also offer special bags for wine, frozen goods, and boxes
>that fit in the trolley (though they make excellent storage boxes for
>computer stuff!)
They made free plastic carrier bags illegal in Ireland lately, i.e.
there is a EU0.15 levy on every carrier bag, and the shop is not allowed
absorb it. It's an anti-littering measure.
People bring their own bags (usually strong ones with store ads like you
describe). Fumbling with bags at the checkout takes longer.
Ironically, free carrier bags were one of the few things people mostly
recycled (as dustbin liners).
- Gerry Quinn
Jeff Vitous
news:BImJ8.76742$Oa1.6...@bin8.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> and downloads which are advertising tools. If anything, those should be
> free, and pay for the actual content that Gamespot OWNS (like reviews,
> articles, etc). So essentially they are offering their content for free,
but
> charging for what is owned by the game companies. Hmmm, a freeware demo
that
> someone is charging for.... doesn't that break the Licensing Agreement? As
> far as I see it what they are doing is illegal. I know they can easily
skirt
> around that by saying you're paying for "bandwidth". It's just an easy out
> for them. If they had any clout, they would charge for their content
> (reviews, articles, etc) but they must not have much confidence in their
> empty, basic content that they would get as many subscribers.
Previews could just as easily be considered advertising as well, but they
aren't. No game company pays websites to host screen shots. Websites host
screen shots because they are something readers want to see. In an article
containing 2 pages of text and 6 screen shots, roughly 99% of the total
article size (and therefore cost of delivery) is used up by the screen
shots. Costs can be cut dramatically without them, and since people really
do want to see them, they are simply one more incentive to subscribe.
--
Jeff Vitous
Director, Special Project Development
The Wargamer
www.wargamer.com
Eep²
Samsung
this
Way back when in the infant days of the internet, alot of the content
providers were kids or students who were out to make a quick buck. They saw
an way to make some 'easy' money and basically gave away the cow instead of
selling the advertisers the milk themselves. HOW ???
If you run a magazine or newspaper, the amount you charge for ads is
directly porportional to your readership. Unfortunately these kids did not
understand this concept, so they agreed to the 'click' banner ads where they
only got paid when someone clicked on the ad. If you bring this concept over
to the 'real' world, what it equates to is this "A company runs an ad in a
local newspaper, he does not pay the newspaper any money but includes a
1-800 number where the customer must call to get info, when the customer
calls, the company pays the newspaper , lets say 3 cents.". What do you
honestly think would happen if you were a company and you went to a
newspaper with that kind of payment scheme. They would laugh you out the
door.
Consider for a second one of the most expensive advertisement schemes going.
THE SUPER BOWL. You pay approx $1 million dollars for a 30 sec commercial ,
that is seen ONCE per year (assuming you pay every year). This does not
include the cost of making the ad of course. Now you are paying that high a
price , WHY ??, because millions of people are seeing the ad (in theory).
Consider some of the biggest web pages going. They have pages views which
exceed the SUPER BOWL in a year, they sure don't get a $1 million dollars
per year to run ads , which can be viewed year round. WHY ???, we are now
back to the 13 year old kids theory. The advertisers have been able to get
away with this since day one and now it is normal.
SO< how do we change, Personally I don't think we can. If you have a
suggestion I would love to hear it.
Thanks
Falkentyne
enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:
For once, I agree here.
When do we sit back and say "enough is enough'?
Once so many sites are charging, suddenly your bills begin to almost
triple?
What happens to all the poorer people (not all of us are sitting in
money..... some of us have to pay bills or lose our homes), when you
start having to pay $20 x 10 to get anything half decent off the net?
I've registered serveral programs I've used frequently, but it makes
me poorer each time. I don't have unlimited funds. If I have to
register too many things, boom.....suddenly I'm out of money for food,
so what has to go? Food, or registrations? But this is a one time
thing. This isn't so bad if there is a just a one time registration
fee, but subscriptions can get out of hand quickly.
Maybe some people here werent around in the old days, but back then,
going "online" was something only for the rich... huge hourly phone +
membership charges for services like drango, TEN, or whatever they
had, just to deathmatch...(pre-Kali / Gamespy days) people running up
hundreds of dollars in bills every month...how long will it be before
this happens again?
With the per month charges for MMORPG's, combined with more and more
subscription based services (ASE is now subscription based too, even
though those who registered previously are always registered, and perm
registration costs $30) start appearing, it won't be long before the
net becomes a haven for the more well-to-do.
What will you do if that shiny new copy of quake 4 is unplayable
because you can't access the in game browser to find servers, without
paying $10/month to activate gamespy, on top of the $50 the game will
cost? MMORPG's are bad enough, but I forsee something like this
happening :(
The best post I saw was criticizing having to pay for screen shots.
That is so true..screen shots are *advertisements* for the companies
to sell their products to you. Why should we have to PAY for ads?
Can you imagine someone coming to your door, and saying "Hi, I am a
represenative from the L.A. Times. Give me $5 dollars and I'll tell
you what the Times has to offer ".
It's ironic that there was a time,not too long ago, when we got paid
for viewing ads (alladvantage, utopiad), but now we have to PAY for
seeing ads. Of course, there are plenty of sites with the screenshots
also, but for how long?
"I have a bad feeling about this drop...."
-Falkentyne Dragon
Murray Peterson
news:T_rJ8.19364$Z6.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca:
> Why are we paying for this concept, let me give you my perspective on
> all this
What do you mean by this?
> Way back when in the infant days of the internet, alot of the content
> providers were kids or students who were out to make a quick buck.
> They saw an way to make some 'easy' money and basically gave away the
> cow instead of selling the advertisers the milk themselves. HOW ???
> [snip]
Your history seems a bit too revisionist. The "click through" payment idea
was added by the advertisers themselves, in order to only pay for "real"
viewings of the ads, not inflated numbers invented by the web site owners.
> SO< how do we change, Personally I don't think we can. If you have a
> suggestion I would love to hear it.
What is supposed to change? I am not really clear on where you see a
problem -- do you want advertisers to spend millions on each ad? What
problem do you think this would solve?
--
Murray Peterson
Email: murray_...@shaw.ca (remove underscore)
URL: http://members.shaw.ca/murraypeterson/
Jeeters
> A $20 subscription for a website that offers very little original content
> (reviews of questionable value) is something. The issue is the
> proliferation of pay websites on the Internet. Do you want to pay $20 per
> year for a dozen website? When does $20 become something? On principal,
> everyone who uses the Internet should be resisting paying for access to
> individual content providers.
There are lots of people that enjoy reading out there that easily pay $20 or
so for each of several magazine subscriptions (not gaming mags, *any* mags).
The close to a dozen that I subscribe to come to mind. Not much different,
imho.
Samsung
"Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns921E6DC2...@24.71.223.159...
> > providers were kids or students who were out to make a quick buck.
> > They saw an way to make some 'easy' money and basically gave away the
> > cow instead of selling the advertisers the milk themselves. HOW ???
> > [snip]
>
> Your history seems a bit too revisionist. The "click through" payment
idea
> was added by the advertisers themselves, in order to only pay for "real"
> viewings of the ads, not inflated numbers invented by the web site owners.
>
I know it was created by the advertisers, that is exactly my point, the
little kids who ran these web page did not have to agree to this. Take my
example of the newspaper, do you think for a second an newspaper would allow
themselves to only be paid for those that actually take definable action on
the ad
> > SO< how do we change, Personally I don't think we can. If you have a
> > suggestion I would love to hear it.
>
> What is supposed to change? I am not really clear on where you see a
> problem -- do you want advertisers to spend millions on each ad? What
> problem do you think this would solve?
>
Advertisers IMHO, are not currently paying the true value of the ad which
they are buying. They are paying only for actioned advertisement, not the
fact that thousands of people see these ads every day, same as the ads in
newspapers or on TV
Ralph Snart
>It's not content they're paying for!!! They are paying for the screenshots
>and downloads which are advertising tools. If anything, those should be
>free, and pay for the actual content that Gamespot OWNS (like reviews,
>articles, etc).
have you actually looked at the service to see what your $ buys you?
there are always some free screenshots for games. you only have to pay
if you want to see ALL of them.
demos are usually available around the web. you can search and find them
(and maybe wait in line for a "free" site to send it to you) or you can
pay for the convenience of getting them all in one place on a fast
connection.
also, one thing nobody has mentioned is that most of the subscription
content is available for free anyway, for a few days. check the site daily
and you won't have to pay.
the big win in my book is the video stuff, i really dig the video reviews.
screenshots and text only go so far. actually seeing the game in motion
to illustrate a specific point is very cool.
>So essentially they are offering their content for free, but
>charging for what is owned by the game companies. Hmmm, a freeware demo that
>someone is charging for.... doesn't that break the Licensing Agreement? As
>far as I see it what they are doing is illegal. I know they can easily skirt
>around that by saying you're paying for "bandwidth". It's just an easy out
>for them. If they had any clout, they would charge for their content
>(reviews, articles, etc) but they must not have much confidence in their
>empty, basic content that they would get as many subscribers.
the cost of providing a text review is infinitesimal compared to the cost
of providing a download. and anyway, the reviews ARE free for a time,
as i mentioned earlier.
-rs-
Ralph Snart
>If you run a magazine or newspaper, the amount you charge for ads is
>directly porportional to your readership. Unfortunately these kids did not
>understand this concept, so they agreed to the 'click' banner ads where they
>only got paid when someone clicked on the ad.
have you ever actually WORKED for an internet company? what you just said
is completely false.
i have worked for plenty of bigtime websites and the advertisers pay per
view, not click!
-rs-
Sindrel
I love how the car dealerships (and I know this is going WAY off topic here)
like to put their stickers and license plate covers and such onto the cars,
but when I bought my new car (few years ago) I told them that if they put so
much as a paper floormat with their dealership info on it, they would send
me a check for $150.00 a week for advertising.
when I picked up my car, it had ZERO dealership markings/stickers etc on it.
S. Tanry
Yes, and since Nike and Reebok show their logo on their shoes, the shoes
should be free, because we're advertising for them. Good grief. That's
the nature of business, you buy a product, and the manufacturer wants
everyone around you to know what product you're using. So you argue, we
should only have to pay for things that don't advertise by their mere
-existence-.
--
-S. Tanry
S. Tanry
Yes, great logic. People will be frightened away at the 20 dollars
Gamespot subscription, run to their nearest store and get a $20 Nintendo
Power subscription. God forbid the internet charge for the same fucking
thing! I need something I can hold!
These arguments are getting absurd.
--
-S. Tanry
Andrew Plotkin
> "Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns921E6DC2...@24.71.223.159...
>> What is supposed to change? I am not really clear on where you see a
>> problem -- do you want advertisers to spend millions on each ad? What
>> problem do you think this would solve?
> Advertisers IMHO, are not currently paying the true value of the ad which
> they are buying. They are paying only for actioned advertisement, not the
> fact that thousands of people see these ads every day, same as the ads in
> newspapers or on TV
Well, they may not be paying the true value in your humble opinion,
but they're paying the true value in *their* humble opinions. If you
ask for more money, they'll say "no".
People have been getting better and better at ignoring advertisements
since the first ad appeared on a web page. People have gotten *really
good* at ignoring them. Even people who don't use ad-killing software
just blank the ads out of their brains. I do. Don't you?
Why do you think graphical advertisements rapidly went over to
animations, and then to pop-up windows, pop-unders, delayed pop-ups,
and all the rest of the crap? Because viewers got too good at ignoring
them.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Nan Wang
> For once, I agree here.
> When do we sit back and say "enough is enough'?
> Once so many sites are charging, suddenly your bills begin to almost
> triple?
> What happens to all the poorer people (not all of us are sitting in
> money..... some of us have to pay bills or lose our homes), when you
> start having to pay $20 x 10 to get anything half decent off the net?
If you are that poor to begin with, computer gaming should not be your first
priority. Maybe you should use the time you play games to get a part time
job instead.
> I've registered serveral programs I've used frequently, but it makes
> me poorer each time. I don't have unlimited funds. If I have to
> register too many things, boom.....suddenly I'm out of money for food,
> so what has to go? Food, or registrations? But this is a one time
> thing. This isn't so bad if there is a just a one time registration
> fee, but subscriptions can get out of hand quickly.
Are you joking or being serious?
[rest snipped]
Cassandra
swing-bin in the bathroom.
--
Cassandra
Divide by Cucumber Error. Please re-install Universe and reboot - Hex -
Hogfather - Terry Pratchett
Reply address is fake. Please address personal mail to black dot aliss at
virgin.net
Please post all replies to the newsgroup so that all may benefit.
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:F8qJ8.1120$b5.1...@news.indigo.ie...
Samsung
NOT every website gets paid by the view, alot of them get paid by the click.
Those are the sites I am referring, if the sites you worked for get paid by
the view then that is exactly the way it should be.
It was not completely false, or are you saying the CLICK BANNER AD sites
don't exist. Because if you are saying that ,then what you are saying is
completely false
"Ralph Snart" <sn...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:slrnafcrml...@cluttered.com...
Maddog
>
> What is this bullshit? Now you need to pay to look at fuckin screen shots?
> It was bad enough when they started charging for downloads. Is anyone enough
> of a sucker to pay for what amounts to advertising for games? Probably.
ROFLMAO!
This same discussion is about 300 messages long and started about 3
weeks ago on comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg.
Seems like gamers of all ilk think alike...
--
Maddog
======
"Lead, Follow, or get the HELL out of the WAY!"
Steve Woodward
the bags should be no charge. As many of you realize, you are already (in
the US) paying for the bags ------> it's wrapped up in the cost of the
goods. I think that's simply amazing that they are charging you for bags to
place the very goods that you are *choosing* to buy from *them*.
Stupid question: are the durable bags something like we typically get here
in the US at a retailer or grocery chain? Are the shabby bags so
pathetically made that it isn't worth it? I'm not setting you up for
anything; I had no idea this sort of thing went on.
"Cassandra" <prophete...@mountolympus.gr> wrote in message
news:HTpJ8.16944$wd3.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Steve Woodward
Awesome! That kind of stuff makes me smile. I can't stand dealership decals,
license plate holders, etc. Good for you =p
Gerry Quinn
>Ralph, I was specifically talking about the CLICK BANNER ADS.
>
>NOT every website gets paid by the view, alot of them get paid by the click.
>Those are the sites I am referring, if the sites you worked for get paid by
>the view then that is exactly the way it should be.
>
>It was not completely false, or are you saying the CLICK BANNER AD sites
>don't exist. Because if you are saying that ,then what you are saying is
>completely false
>
Pay per click is getting much more popular. It makes sense to the
advertiser (such as me). I've tried pay per impression and by and large
it's a waste of money (though there is a banner exchange system among
game sites that seems to work okay). Pay per click isn't much better,
but it's better - I can actually believe I'm getting a return.
Google have an interesting model at the moment for the ads you see at
the right hand side of a search - you can go pay per click or pay per
view, whichever you prefer.
Gerry Quinn
--
http://bindweed.com
Entertainment software for Windows
Puzzles, Strategy Games, Kaleidoscope Screensaver
Download evaluation versions free - no time limits
Steve Woodward
every day! Is the pay-per-view model the reason we get so many pop-under,
pop-over add windows?
"Ralph Snart" <sn...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:slrnafcrml...@cluttered.com...
Game Player No. 1088
"S. Tanry" <sta...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:3CF670A...@comcast.net...
Actually, you hit it on the head, people like something to hold, it must be
based in teh *real* world, not this online world where everything should be
free....... People love physical stuff they can touch, gamespot is not a
physical entity that you can touch.
Knight37
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:23:04 GMT, "Sagebrush" <Sage...@pobox.com>
> enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:
>>content (reviews of questionable value) is something. The issue is
>>the proliferation of pay websites on the Internet. Do you want to pay
>>$20 per year for a dozen website? When does $20 become something? On
>>principal, everyone who uses the Internet should be resisting paying
>>for access to individual content providers.
>>
>>Sagebrush
>>
The Good, The Bad, and Falkentyne <falke...@NOSPAMbigmailbox.net>
said:
> For once, I agree here.
> When do we sit back and say "enough is enough'?
> Once so many sites are charging, suddenly your bills begin to almost
> triple?
It won't, because I won't.
> What happens to all the poorer people (not all of us are sitting in
> money..... some of us have to pay bills or lose our homes), when you
> start having to pay $20 x 10 to get anything half decent off the net?
They won't be going to Gamespot, I'm guessing. Why should someone who HAS
$20/year to spend really give a shit whether or not poor people can't?
> I've registered serveral programs I've used frequently, but it makes
> me poorer each time. I don't have unlimited funds. If I have to
> register too many things, boom.....suddenly I'm out of money for food,
> so what has to go? Food, or registrations? But this is a one time
> thing. This isn't so bad if there is a just a one time registration
> fee, but subscriptions can get out of hand quickly.
Uh, don't use the stuff you can't afford to pay for, how about that?
> Maybe some people here werent around in the old days, but back then,
> going "online" was something only for the rich... huge hourly phone +
> membership charges for services like drango, TEN, or whatever they
> had, just to deathmatch...(pre-Kali / Gamespy days) people running up
> hundreds of dollars in bills every month...how long will it be before
> this happens again?
My guess is that a lot of the net is heading in that direction, so get used
to it. If no one pays for Gamespot, it will go out of business, so the net
result is the same thing. No more FREE Gamespot.
> With the per month charges for MMORPG's, combined with more and more
> subscription based services (ASE is now subscription based too, even
> though those who registered previously are always registered, and perm
> registration costs $30) start appearing, it won't be long before the
> net becomes a haven for the more well-to-do.
You are correct sir. Although I don't think the entire net will be this
way, I think there's going to be a ton of free sites, just not free
professional sites with paid reviewers like Gamespot has.
> What will you do if that shiny new copy of quake 4 is unplayable
> because you can't access the in game browser to find servers, without
> paying $10/month to activate gamespy, on top of the $50 the game will
> cost? MMORPG's are bad enough, but I forsee something like this
> happening :(
I woudn't be surprised if free game servers is lining up for extinction
too, but I think that's a different issue.
> The best post I saw was criticizing having to pay for screen shots.
> That is so true..screen shots are *advertisements* for the companies
> to sell their products to you. Why should we have to PAY for ads?
> Can you imagine someone coming to your door, and saying "Hi, I am a
> represenative from the L.A. Times. Give me $5 dollars and I'll tell
> you what the Times has to offer ".
Are you serious?
> It's ironic that there was a time,not too long ago, when we got paid
> for viewing ads (alladvantage, utopiad), but now we have to PAY for
> seeing ads. Of course, there are plenty of sites with the screenshots
> also, but for how long?
No you don't pay to see ads. Get Gamespot Complete. No Ads. Hell, that
right there alone is worth a measly $20/year to me.
--
Knight37
"So he says to me, 'You wanna be a baaaaad guy?' And I say yeah, baby! I
wanna be bad! I SAYS, SURF'S UP SPACE PONIES! I'M MAKING GRAVY WITHOUT THE
LUMPS! Aaaaaa-hahahahaha!"
-- The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs At Midnight, The Tick
Hank
<swoo...@NOSPAM.attbi.com> wrote:
>My God, I had no idea. Seriously. I think if you patronize the store then
>the bags should be no charge. As many of you realize, you are already (in
>the US) paying for the bags ------> it's wrapped up in the cost of the
>goods. I think that's simply amazing that they are charging you for bags to
>place the very goods that you are *choosing* to buy from *them*.
>Stupid question: are the durable bags something like we typically get here
>in the US at a retailer or grocery chain? Are the shabby bags so
>pathetically made that it isn't worth it? I'm not setting you up for
>anything; I had no idea this sort of thing went on.
You're surprised Europe has hidden costs and taxes? :-)
This is a land where they pay $6 a gallon for gas ... and they buy it
for $25/BBL just like we do ... this is why Clinton was in love with
the VAT when he was in office. A sales tax has a pretty easy
rebellion point because it's added in at the time of purchase. A VAT
is snuck into the price, so tacking on 25% is no problem ...
H
HockeyTownUSA
<CTRL-ALT-DEL>
FORMAT C:
David Adrien Tanguay
> People have been getting better and better at ignoring advertisements
> since the first ad appeared on a web page. People have gotten *really
> good* at ignoring them. Even people who don't use ad-killing software
> just blank the ads out of their brains. I do. Don't you?
That applies equally to print ads. Why do they still exist?
And on TV, thanks to the bugs that every station uses these days, fast
forwarding through ads is mechanical -- without the bug, you had to pay
some attention to the content as it zipped by.
> Why do you think graphical advertisements rapidly went over to
> animations, and then to pop-up windows, pop-unders, delayed pop-ups,
> and all the rest of the crap?
I always thought it was proof of the existence of daemons. They seem to
commonly manifest on this plane as professional web page designers.
--
David Tanguay d...@Thinkage.ca http://www.thinkage.ca/~dat/
Thinkage, Ltd. Kitchener, Ontario, Canada [43.24N 80.29W]
Falkentyne
enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action Falkentyne <falke...@nospambigmailbox.net> wrote:
>> What happens to all the poorer people (not all of us are sitting in
>> money..... some of us have to pay bills or lose our homes), when you
>> start having to pay $20 x 10 to get anything half decent off the net?
>
>If you are that poor to begin with, computer gaming should not be your first
>priority. Maybe you should use the time you play games to get a part time
>job instead.
Nice ad hominem argument. Best way to avoid an issue that I've ever
seen. You sure love turning an argument into a personal flame war,
don't you? Just because you're sitting in cash doesn't mean we all
are.
And FWIW, I can afford these things. You don't know my level of
income. In fact, you know absolutely nothing about me, so quit your
BS trolling. I just finished purchasing a $400 GF4 TI 4600 and $360
CPU upgrade. What about you?
Did you ever learn any debate skills in college?
>> I've registered serveral programs I've used frequently, but it makes
>> me poorer each time. I don't have unlimited funds. If I have to
>> register too many things, boom.....suddenly I'm out of money for food,
>> so what has to go? Food, or registrations? But this is a one time
>> thing. This isn't so bad if there is a just a one time registration
>> fee, but subscriptions can get out of hand quickly.
>
>Are you joking or being serious?
>
>[rest snipped]
Do you even have any comprehension skills? Try reading my post again
and carefully analyze it with half decent critical arguments instead
of the fallacious remarks, please. Now maybe I didn't choose the
perfect words or support, but I think my point was pretty clear.
Thank you.
Kevin D. Kissell
news:3cf69be3....@netnews.attbi.com...
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 21:19:42 GMT, "Steve Woodward"
> <swoo...@NOSPAM.attbi.com> wrote:
>
> >My God, I had no idea. Seriously. I think if you patronize the store then
> >the bags should be no charge. As many of you realize, you are already (in
> >the US) paying for the bags ------> it's wrapped up in the cost of the
> >goods.
So, by making people who don't bring their own bags
pay for new ones, a shop can marginally reduce its costs
and therefore its prices to those customers who think ahead, no?
> I think that's simply amazing that they are charging you for bags to
> >place the very goods that you are *choosing* to buy from *them*.
> >Stupid question: are the durable bags something like we typically get
here
> >in the US at a retailer or grocery chain? Are the shabby bags so
> >pathetically made that it isn't worth it? I'm not setting you up for
> >anything; I had no idea this sort of thing went on.
Whether plastic bags are free or paid for varies quite a bit
in Europe. The reasons seem to have less to do with trying
to squeeze money out of customers than with trying to cut
down on oil consumption and waste going into landfills.
There is both political pressure to cut back on waste,
and marketing value to be had in being ecologically minded.
The Swiss are among the toughest - in many cantons you can
only throw trash away in officially sanctioned (and taxed) trash
bags, and you can't even *buy* a plastic shopping bag.
You bring your own (like in the old days) or buy a nice, sturdy,
cloth one that will last you a lifetime. In France, most of the
chains give away lightweight plastic bags which end up
doubling as trash bags for most people, though at least
one chain only sells heavy duty ones that they ask you to bring
back the next time. Note that this isn't a peculiarly European
phenomenon - there is at least one chain in California which
will give you a discount of one or two cents if you bring your
own bag, which amounts to the same thing.
> You're surprised Europe has hidden costs and taxes? :-)
> This is a land where they pay $6 a gallon for gas ... and they buy it
> for $25/BBL just like we do ...
Actually, the US, Canada, and Saudi Arabia are just about
the only countries in the world that *don't* tax petroleum
products at that level. It's a handy source of revenue,
is good for the balance of trade, and does a remarkable
job of cutting down on pollution by providing a strong
incentive to burn less oil. Of course, some people
are completely indifferent to budget and trade deficits,
pollution, and global warming, but that's not true of
everyone, everywhere.
> this is why Clinton was in love with
> the VAT when he was in office. A sales tax has a pretty easy
> rebellion point because it's added in at the time of purchase. A VAT
> is snuck into the price, so tacking on 25% is no problem ...
I think you're pretty deluded here. Receipts in Europe,
at least those that come from cash registers, show the
itemised VAT amount, just like the sales tax in the US.
Economists and policy wonks like Clinton like VAT
because it's a tax on consumption, as opposed to
production, that is more complicated but somewhat
less regressive than a classical sales tax. And while there are
VAT levels in some countries can look pretty high if you
think of it as a sales tax (which it isn't), I'd be interested
to know what category of product in what country
you can name that gets nailed with a 25% VAT.
The main reason VAT is so high in Europe is that
essentially the whole European Union budget has
to come out of a share of VAT receipts, rather than out of
corporate or individual income taxes, which go 100% to the
constituent countries. While the overall tax burden
(VAT, income taxes, social security, etc) on the average
european working stiff is higher than for his US counterpart,
he generally pays less income tax. Indeed, in France at least,
it's only a minority of working people who have to pay
income tax at all!
Falkentyne
enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:
>The Good, The Bad, and Falkentyne <falke...@NOSPAMbigmailbox.net>
>said:
>> For once, I agree here.
>> When do we sit back and say "enough is enough'?
>> Once so many sites are charging, suddenly your bills begin to almost
>> triple?
>
>It won't, because I won't.
Hmm, a few things to mention here.
BTW, glad to see someone who actaully analyzes my argument without ad
homimem flames, like that other jerk (Nan Wang) who told me to get a
f*cking part time job (Uh, DUH, I already have a stable income, thank
you very much). Internet kids appal me... Anyway, lets get to the
point. even though I disagree with you on some things, at least you
didn't insult me and call me a jobless b*m :) Anyway.....
>> What happens to all the poorer people (not all of us are sitting in
>> money..... some of us have to pay bills or lose our homes), when you
>> start having to pay $20 x 10 to get anything half decent off the net?
>
>They won't be going to Gamespot, I'm guessing. Why should someone who HAS
>$20/year to spend really give a shit whether or not poor people can't?
Well agreed, but if all the major news sites start having
fees..well......
I find it very unlikely that people would subscribe to a bunch of pay
sites...how many people had subscriptions to multiple mags (back when
the mags were respectable?).
I think I had a sub to CGW, and had PC gamer only for the (back then)
excellent demo and patch CD's....back before the days of high speed
net access ......circa 1995?
The CD for PC gamer was worth the price of admission alone, back
before many of us even had internet access, or had some measured rate
14.4 or something....
BTW remember what happened to scorpia's site?
Although (flame suit on), comparing Gamespot to Scorpia's domain is
Apples to Bananas...
>> I've registered serveral programs I've used frequently, but it makes
>> me poorer each time. I don't have unlimited funds. If I have to
>> register too many things, boom.....suddenly I'm out of money for food,
>> so what has to go? Food, or registrations? But this is a one time
>> thing. This isn't so bad if there is a just a one time registration
>> fee, but subscriptions can get out of hand quickly.
>
>Uh, don't use the stuff you can't afford to pay for, how about that?
That isn't the point at all.
Maybe I'm making an invalid claim or spitting into the wind, but what
happens if ALL things start requiring being "paid" for to use?
Including in game server browsers? Then what do you do?
I suspect a lot more people will turn to cracks (warez), rather than
sucker up to that one....
I pay for things I think are worth paying for. Otherwise, I'll find
another way.
>> Maybe some people here werent around in the old days, but back then,
>> going "online" was something only for the rich... huge hourly phone +
>> membership charges for services like drango, TEN, or whatever they
>> had, just to deathmatch...(pre-Kali / Gamespy days) people running up
>> hundreds of dollars in bills every month...how long will it be before
>> this happens again?
>
>My guess is that a lot of the net is heading in that direction, so get used
>to it. If no one pays for Gamespot, it will go out of business, so the net
>result is the same thing. No more FREE Gamespot.
I don't even care about gamespot
And if the net goes in that direction (God forbid), I expect it to die
a brutal death in that form.
>
>> With the per month charges for MMORPG's, combined with more and more
>> subscription based services (ASE is now subscription based too, even
>> though those who registered previously are always registered, and perm
>> registration costs $30) start appearing, it won't be long before the
>> net becomes a haven for the more well-to-do.
>
>You are correct sir. Although I don't think the entire net will be this
>way, I think there's going to be a ton of free sites, just not free
>professional sites with paid reviewers like Gamespot has.
Hmm, you seemed to contradict yourself in comparison to your last
post. Maybe I'm missing something.......
First a "lot" of the net is going in that direction, then a "ton" of
free sites (like Voodooextreme, for instance).
But you consider this a *good* thing?
>
>> What will you do if that shiny new copy of quake 4 is unplayable
>> because you can't access the in game browser to find servers, without
>> paying $10/month to activate gamespy, on top of the $50 the game will
>> cost? MMORPG's are bad enough, but I forsee something like this
>> happening :(
>
>I woudn't be surprised if free game servers is lining up for extinction
>too, but I think that's a different issue.
I probably shouldn't really have mentioned that. I did register
gamespy arcade, although I only use it for MOH:AA. Same price as
registering Kali, and my $20 for Kali went a LONG long way....
Even though Kali is pretty much dead now besides chatting, there are
still some people on the servers...and the Internet game browser there
still works.
>
>> The best post I saw was criticizing having to pay for screen shots.
>> That is so true..screen shots are *advertisements* for the companies
>> to sell their products to you. Why should we have to PAY for ads?
>> Can you imagine someone coming to your door, and saying "Hi, I am a
>> represenative from the L.A. Times. Give me $5 dollars and I'll tell
>> you what the Times has to offer ".
>
>Are you serious?
Of course I'm not serious. Such a thing would never happen..and if it
did, I'd throw egg in that guy's face. :)
Merely making a comment to someone mentioning having to PAY for screen
shots.....is as rediculous as having to PAY for someone to give you an
advertisement for a newspaper.
Just IMO, though. Take it for what it's worth.
>> It's ironic that there was a time,not too long ago, when we got paid
>> for viewing ads (alladvantage, utopiad), but now we have to PAY for
>> seeing ads. Of course, there are plenty of sites with the screenshots
>> also, but for how long?
>
>No you don't pay to see ads. Get Gamespot Complete. No Ads. Hell, that
>right there alone is worth a measly $20/year to me.
My point was, why should screen shots be part of a 'pay' section of
anything? Reviews, sure....but screenshots?
Samsung
advertising in a newspaper or television (assuming you do ad that way)
In other words, paying by the view is really no different OR is it. If so ,
how is it different
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:JXwJ8.1267$b5.1...@news.indigo.ie...
Steve Woodward
> You sure love turning an argument into a personal flame war,
> don't you? Just because you're sitting in cash doesn't mean we all
> are.
Ummmm did you not just do what you accuse the other poster of doing? The
*best* "ad hominem argument is class warfare, which you do very well.
> And FWIW, I can afford these things. You don't know my level of
> income. In fact, you know absolutely nothing about me, so quit your
> BS trolling. I just finished purchasing a $400 GF4 TI 4600 and $360
> CPU upgrade. What about you?
>
So, in other words, you have enough money to blow $760 dollars on luxury
items. However, you are going broke on that $19.95 Gamespot charges for
access to it's "Complete" site? You spent the majority of your other post
crying about how you can't pay your bills because of the cost of said items.
I take it from your post that you chose not to pay your mortgage or your
kids went hungry because Daddy had to have a almost a grand worth of
computer items? Basically, your a selfish bastard who tried to play the
class warfare card, then squashed your own argument with your weak attempt
at a flailing comeback. So I ask your own question, "Did you ever learn any
debate skills in college?" Clearly you haven't. Class warfare is oldest,
lamest and most tired of argumentative techniques. Here is a quick lesson
for you: when you accuse the other side of getting personal than do the very
same thing yourself, you've already lost.
>
> >> I've registered serveral programs I've used frequently, but it makes
> >> me poorer each time. I don't have unlimited funds. If I have to
> >> register too many things, boom.....suddenly I'm out of money for food,
> >> so what has to go? Food, or registrations? But this is a one time
> >> thing. This isn't so bad if there is a just a one time registration
> >> fee, but subscriptions can get out of hand quickly.
> >
> >Are you joking or being serious?
> >
> >[rest snipped]
>
> Do you even have any comprehension skills? Try reading my post again
> and carefully analyze it with half decent critical arguments instead
> of the fallacious remarks, please. >
Again, your getting personal because your last post was written like a
retard with weak (at best), old, tired argument that even YOU destroy.
You're out of ideas, so your flaming.
>
> -Falkentyne Dragon
Jon Drukman
>Wow, I always thought it was for clicks, not views. I learn something new
>every day! Is the pay-per-view model the reason we get so many pop-under,
>pop-over add windows?
i would guess it's more because of the fact that people are totally jaded
with banner ads, and they just ignore them. you WILL see the popunder
eventually, when you close all your windows.
-jsd-
Robert Norton
news:UaoJ8.43802$2m.13...@typhoon1.se.ipsvc.net:
> who (sarcasm on) clearly wasn't
> using the service. If your that worked up; it's obviously worth
> something to you. Your just too dam cheap to pay for what you want.
> "BUT MOMMY I WANT IT NOW!"
You left the sarcasm running!
SpaceRook
Actually, all I see from pop-unders is the title of their window. I
usually right click on them in the task bar and select "Close". It
has become a habit, just like ignoring banner ads.
The only things I really notice are when the ads are interlaced with
the story. This usually happens because I think the ad is a picture
for the story (checkout Slate for examples of this). But once again,
I am becoming jaded to this technique and have been ignoring many of
these ads lately.
Nan Wang
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 19:21:34 GMT, Nan Wang <nw...@shell3.shore.net>
> enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:
>>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action Falkentyne <falke...@nospambigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>> What happens to all the poorer people (not all of us are sitting in
>>> money..... some of us have to pay bills or lose our homes), when you
>>> start having to pay $20 x 10 to get anything half decent off the net?
>>
>>If you are that poor to begin with, computer gaming should not be your first
>>priority. Maybe you should use the time you play games to get a part time
>>job instead.
> Nice ad hominem argument. Best way to avoid an issue that I've ever
> seen. You sure love turning an argument into a personal flame war,
> don't you? Just because you're sitting in cash doesn't mean we all
> are.
How did I flame you?
> And FWIW, I can afford these things. You don't know my level of
> income. In fact, you know absolutely nothing about me, so quit your
> BS trolling. I just finished purchasing a $400 GF4 TI 4600 and $360
> CPU upgrade. What about you?
So, you spend $400 on a graphics card, that most games can't even fully
utilize, yet $20/year is way too much dough. So tell me, which kid did you
have to sell to afford the GF4?
> Did you ever learn any debate skills in college?
I seemed to have learned enough for debating with you.
>>> I've registered serveral programs I've used frequently, but it makes
>>> me poorer each time. I don't have unlimited funds. If I have to
>>> register too many things, boom.....suddenly I'm out of money for food,
>>> so what has to go? Food, or registrations? But this is a one time
>>> thing. This isn't so bad if there is a just a one time registration
>>> fee, but subscriptions can get out of hand quickly.
>>
>>Are you joking or being serious?
>>
>>[rest snipped]
> Do you even have any comprehension skills? Try reading my post again
> and carefully analyze it with half decent critical arguments instead
> of the fallacious remarks, please. Now maybe I didn't choose the
> perfect words or support, but I think my point was pretty clear.
> Thank you.
You were debating whether you should keep subscribing to websites, which is
nonessencial, or buy food, which is. Did you ever do any sort of analysis
yourself? Mine revealed that you just dug a bigger hole for yourself.
girlgeek
according to the "small print."
"Falkentyne" <falke...@NOSPAMbigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:aojcfu436bsfmp3e7...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:23:04 GMT, "Sagebrush" <Sage...@pobox.com>
> enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:
>
> >
> >"Mario Pacheco" <betelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:3CF5CA32...@yahoo.com...
> >> So if you can find them somewhere else why are you complaining?
> >>
> >> $20 is NOTHING. You save trees (waste from a published magazine
> >> magazine), get information more readily than a traditonal magazine.
> >>
> >> You don't appreciate how much effort goes into putting out quality
> >> content (which gamespot.com is filled with). Again, $20 is nothing.
> >>
> >> -M
> >
> >A $20 subscription for a website that offers very little original content
> >(reviews of questionable value) is something. The issue is the
> >proliferation of pay websites on the Internet. Do you want to pay $20
per
> >year for a dozen website? When does $20 become something? On principal,
> >everyone who uses the Internet should be resisting paying for access to
> >individual content providers.
> >
> >Sagebrush
> >
>
> For once, I agree here.
> When do we sit back and say "enough is enough'?
> Once so many sites are charging, suddenly your bills begin to almost
> triple?
>
> What happens to all the poorer people (not all of us are sitting in
> money..... some of us have to pay bills or lose our homes), when you
> start having to pay $20 x 10 to get anything half decent off the net?
>
> I've registered serveral programs I've used frequently, but it makes
> me poorer each time. I don't have unlimited funds. If I have to
> register too many things, boom.....suddenly I'm out of money for food,
> so what has to go? Food, or registrations? But this is a one time
> thing. This isn't so bad if there is a just a one time registration
> fee, but subscriptions can get out of hand quickly.
>
> Maybe some people here werent around in the old days, but back then,
> going "online" was something only for the rich... huge hourly phone +
> membership charges for services like drango, TEN, or whatever they
> had, just to deathmatch...(pre-Kali / Gamespy days) people running up
> hundreds of dollars in bills every month...how long will it be before
> this happens again?
>
> With the per month charges for MMORPG's, combined with more and more
> subscription based services (ASE is now subscription based too, even
> though those who registered previously are always registered, and perm
> registration costs $30) start appearing, it won't be long before the
> net becomes a haven for the more well-to-do.
>
> What will you do if that shiny new copy of quake 4 is unplayable
> because you can't access the in game browser to find servers, without
> paying $10/month to activate gamespy, on top of the $50 the game will
> cost? MMORPG's are bad enough, but I forsee something like this
> happening :(
>
> The best post I saw was criticizing having to pay for screen shots.
> That is so true..screen shots are *advertisements* for the companies
> to sell their products to you. Why should we have to PAY for ads?
> Can you imagine someone coming to your door, and saying "Hi, I am a
> represenative from the L.A. Times. Give me $5 dollars and I'll tell
> you what the Times has to offer ".
>
> It's ironic that there was a time,not too long ago, when we got paid
> for viewing ads (alladvantage, utopiad), but now we have to PAY for
> seeing ads. Of course, there are plenty of sites with the screenshots
> also, but for how long?
>
SnaggleTooth goes Berserk
"SpaceRook" <Drumm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3cf6cf9e...@netnews.attbi.com...
Sagebrush
less. However, assuming that you do subscirbe to a dozen magazines at $20
per, that's $240 for the year. How many websites are you willing to pay $20
per year for? There are thousands of them that would certainly like you to
pay. I only pay for one and I only because it has very useful and
convenient information that helps me with my research. I don't pay for
sites like Salon.com that would like me to pay. They have a nice,
informational website but when I can get the New York Times, Washington
Post, London Times, etc. for free, I can not possibly see paying for
Salon.com. I also don't think its a good idea to encourange sites like
Salon by paying their subscription price because it will give all those free
sites the idea that they can charge for their content. I'm very very happy
to have a lot of excellent free content and I intend to boycott pay sites
simply to discourage free sites from going the pay route.
What does this have to do with Gamespot? Everything.
Sagebrush
"Jeeters" <no...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:iotJ8.78041$Gs.71...@bin5.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
>
> > A $20 subscription for a website that offers very little original
content
> > (reviews of questionable value) is something. The issue is the
> > proliferation of pay websites on the Internet. Do you want to pay $20
per
> > year for a dozen website? When does $20 become something? On
principal,
> > everyone who uses the Internet should be resisting paying for access to
> > individual content providers.
>
> There are lots of people that enjoy reading out there that easily pay $20
or
> so for each of several magazine subscriptions (not gaming mags, *any*
mags).
> The close to a dozen that I subscribe to come to mind. Not much
different,
> imho.
>
>
>
Jen
"Falkentyne" <falke...@NOSPAMbigmailbox.net> wrote in message
> On 30 May 2002 21:39:55 GMT, Knight37 <knig...@email.com>
> enlightened us by scribbling this gem of wisdom:
>
> >
> >No you don't pay to see ads. Get Gamespot Complete. No Ads. Hell, that
> >right there alone is worth a measly $20/year to me.
>
> My point was, why should screen shots be part of a 'pay' section of
> anything? Reviews, sure....but screenshots?
>
> "I have a bad feeling about this drop...."
>
> -Falkentyne Dragon
I don't agree that screenshots are 100% pure advertising. A picture's worth
a thousand words. They go a long way, in either a preview or a review, to
give a feel for what a game is like. On the other hand, I am not likely to
pay for the privilege of looking at them, either.
Jenny100
news:Xns921EC1E099A2B...@142.77.1.194...
> >
> And on TV, thanks to the bugs that every station uses these days, fast
> forwarding through ads is mechanical -- without the bug, you had to pay
> some attention to the content as it zipped by.
The "bugs?"
Murray Peterson
news:9_tJ8.19406$Z6.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca:
>
> "Murray Peterson" <m...@home.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns921E6DC2...@24.71.223.159...
>> Your history seems a bit too revisionist. The "click through"
>> payment idea
>> was added by the advertisers themselves, in order to only pay for
>> "real" viewings of the ads, not inflated numbers invented by the web
>> site owners.
>>
> I know it was created by the advertisers, that is exactly my point,
> the little kids who ran these web page did not have to agree to this.
They certainly did have to agree to it; companies are quite willing to pull
all their ads unless they get results, and the existing model wasn't
working.
> Take my example of the newspaper, do you think for a second an
> newspaper would allow themselves to only be paid for those that
> actually take definable action on the ad
Actually, I have an example of exactly that in my city. Advertising things
in this paper is absolutely free -- but you have to contact the paper in
order to get the info required to contact the seller. Guess who then owes
the paper a small "finders fee"?
> Advertisers IMHO, are not currently paying the true value of the ad
> which they are buying. They are paying only for actioned
> advertisement, not the fact that thousands of people see these ads
> every day, same as the ads in newspapers or on TV
Actually, they are paying *exactly* the correct value for the ad; that's
how a free market economy works. Feel free to try charging more for an ad
on your web page, but don't hold your breath waiting for them to line up at
your door.
--
Murray Peterson
Email: murray_...@shaw.ca (remove underscore)
URL: http://members.shaw.ca/murraypeterson/
CygnusX-1
beginning. They forgot marketing101: advertise to establish
brand identity. You can never promise that a certain number of goods
will be sold based on an ad. You can say that "X number of people
will see" the ad via hits to your site.
Cygnus
The Bringer of Balance
"Samsung" <sam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
**stuff snipped**
Alex Pavloff
solemnly uttered:
>I agree. The concept of "click throughs" were a mistake from the
>beginning. They forgot marketing101: advertise to establish
>brand identity. You can never promise that a certain number of goods
>will be sold based on an ad. You can say that "X number of people
>will see" the ad via hits to your site.
Tell this to Google, and look at their Adwords Select.
--
Alex Pavloff - www.pavloff.net
brandorf
news:GOAJ8.16954$155.5...@news2.west.cox.net...
> Why don't you just use "Ad-Aware" and then you'll never see pop-ups?
>
>
Ad-aware does not work for those kind of ads, Ad-aware is for cleaning
spyware installed on your system, nothing is installed for pop-ups, except
mabe a cookie, but that is after the fact.
--
-=BK
Permission to send SPAM to this address is denied.
Take off mysocks to reply.
Nostromo
wrote:
>So if you can find them somewhere else why are you complaining?
>
>$20 is NOTHING. You save trees (waste from a published magazine
>magazine), get information more readily than a traditonal magazine.
>
>You don't appreciate how much effort goes into putting out quality
>content (which gamespot.com is filled with). Again, $20 is nothing.
If you're suggesting for one minute that Gameslut...errr...spot is *THAT*
good that I should even *consider* paying $20 for it...you're out of your
capitalistically challenged mind! I started giving up on it about a year ago
- splatter ads everywhere, clutter, clutter, clutter, badly organised
content, too many clicks to get *anywhere*, crap search engine, and a colour
scheme to make Monet blush & send any colour blind/challenged ppl running!
GamesDomain...there is not substitute. With 4 or 5 mirror sites. And it's
absolutely free.
Even AnalVault is better than paying for GlareSpot. Or even CGO for
reviews...the GameSpot site strikes me as a project handed over to a half
dozen console crazy kids who've had too much caffeine & not enough sleep to
know good forms/web design if it jump up & shoved itself up their...
--
"The measure of (mental) health is flexibility (not comparison to some 'norm'),
the freedom to learn from experience...to be influenced by reasonable arguments...
and the appeal to the emotions...and especially the freedom to cease when sated.
The essence of illness is the freezing of behavior into unalterable and insatiable
patterns." - Lawrence Kubie
Gerry Quinn
>Gerry, do you see a difference with advertising on a web site as opposed to
>advertising in a newspaper or television (assuming you do ad that way)
>
>In other words, paying by the view is really no different OR is it. If so ,
>how is it different
There is a clear difference - web ads contain a direct link to the
product that require no effort for the user to click on. With TV ads
they have to remember a name or write down a phone number etc. Web ads
are closer to newspaper ads than TV ads.
On the other hand, web ads are more easily ignored.
Web ads can be targeted at interest groups - with TV and even newspapers
this is a very limited prospect.
Web ads appear on computers - if your product is computer-related, an
obvious synergy appears.
Finally, web ads can be bought cheap in small lots. TV ads are very
expensive (certainly there is no reason why I would ever contemplate
them for my stuff).
Paying for ads is done to encourage an increase in sales - so, when I
show an ad, I want somebody who sees to come to my site, download a
trial version, and buy a license. It's not intrinsically important
whether they click on it, whether they remember the name, or whether
when they do a search for something similar their subconscious nudges
them towards one entry because they half remember my ad.
But at least I can count the clicks, and to some extent the subsequent
downloads. It gives one more confidence that sales fluctuations are in
fact ad-related. And if few people are clicking through, I think it's
safe to assume that few people are being influenced in other ways - at
least for a product that is available online.
Gerry Quinn
>I agree. The concept of "click throughs" were a mistake from the
>beginning. They forgot marketing101: advertise to establish
>brand identity. You can never promise that a certain number of goods
>will be sold based on an ad. You can say that "X number of people
>will see" the ad via hits to your site.
A mistake for whom?
Advertisers stopped buying impressions because they decided that by and
large impressions are worthless. They heard of brand identity etc. and
they decided impressions still weren't delivering.
You're saying that some higher wisdom ought to compel them to keep on
buying impressions - but it's hard not to see self-interest talking
here. Ad performance is notoriously hard to measure - that isn't a
reason for companies to keep pumping money into sites to support free
services for you.
Some of the people who want to see ad-supported sites are the same ones
who filter ads. As Groucho Marx might have said, "I wouldn't fund a
business plan that included me as a customer."
HockeyTownUSA
level. I don't mind the rectangular ad at the top of the page, or along the
side. But as soon as they start to get "in your face" like with pop-up ads,
delayed web pages, etc, that's when it gets annoying. I am more likely NOT
to click through even if a product interests me because of all the damn
annoyance. I have on frequent occassions clicked through from more subtle
ads that caught my attention. The new Yahoo ads that splash on the content
on the screen are quite annoying too, but at least entertaining.
I guess my point is that a standard advertising model, like Television,
should be established for the internet. If the TV commercials cost thousands
to millions of dollars to advertise, some of those advertising dollars
should now be offset to the internet adverstising because the internet is as
big as or bigger audience than any conglomeration of TV stations.
Keep the ads simple and non-annoying, but of course indicate what's being
sold and with some creativity. I don't mind paying for content on the
internet, but a lot of whats being charged for is questionable in my mind.
"Gerry Quinn" <ger...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:%xHJ8.1318$b5.1...@news.indigo.ie...
Lucian Wischik
>A VAT is snuck into the price, so tacking on 25% is no problem ...
I don't think it's "snuck". It means that when you see a price that's 99
pence, you can get out the 99 pence from your wallet to pay the exact
price without causing delays in the queue. But you generally see the
breakdown on your reciept.
Socialists are against VAT because everyone has to pay it, even the poor,
even on basic requirements of life, which are more or less constant until
you get very rich. By contrast, they're part exempt from income tax.
Environmentalists are pro VAT, because it's a tax on consumption.
Capitalists are pro VAT, because it's not a disincentive to working
harder.
--
Lucian Wischik, Queens' College, Cambridge CB3 9ET. www.wischik.com/lu
Christoph Nahr
wrote:
>Advertisers stopped buying impressions because they decided that by and
>large impressions are worthless. They heard of brand identity etc. and
>they decided impressions still weren't delivering.
Decided on which basis, though? After all it's true that there's no
such thing as click-through ratio for TV or magazine ads. You *only*
have the equivalent of impressions in these markets. So why do they
work? Or rather, why do advertisers *believe* that they work?
>Some of the people who want to see ad-supported sites are the same ones
>who filter ads. As Groucho Marx might have said, "I wouldn't fund a
>business plan that included me as a customer."
I agree that ad-filtering is self-defeating in the long run. But is
it widespread *right now*? Are advertisers concerned about it? If
only a minority of visitors (presumably those who wouldn't buy anyway)
are filtering ads then I don't see how it should affect advertising,
unless the advertisers have an unrealistic fear of filtering.
--
http://www.kynosarges.de
Samsung
> In article <RIyJ8.19482$Z6.2...@nnrp1.uunet.ca>, "Samsung"
<sam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Gerry, do you see a difference with advertising on a web site as opposed
to
> >advertising in a newspaper or television (assuming you do ad that way)
> >
> >In other words, paying by the view is really no different OR is it. If so
,
> >how is it different
>
> There is a clear difference - web ads contain a direct link to the
> product that require no effort for the user to click on. With TV ads
> they have to remember a name or write down a phone number etc. Web ads
> are closer to newspaper ads than TV ads.
>
> On the other hand, web ads are more easily ignored.
>
TV ads and newspaper ad are MORE easily ignored in my opinion as banner ads
are much more intrusive.
> Web ads can be targeted at interest groups - with TV and even newspapers
> this is a very limited prospect.
>
Therefore in theory, web ads should be worth more to the advertiser
> Web ads appear on computers - if your product is computer-related, an
> obvious synergy appears.
>
See comment above
> Finally, web ads can be bought cheap in small lots. TV ads are very
> expensive (certainly there is no reason why I would ever contemplate
> them for my stuff).
>
That is exactly MY POINT. Why are they more expensive, because of my
original statement, that the people who started all this (sellers) did not
realize that potential of their product and gave away the cow, instead of
selling the milk.
b
door when I saw the credit card page.
Some of what I say will have been covered by other readers and I mean no
disrespect by not quoting but I'm not following all the threads.
a)This is a games review page. No biggie in my favorites.
b)ALL this stuff is free somewhere else on the web or here on the
Usenet.
c)How many times have we seen screen shots that look sooo good that you
must figure the game is using the latest, greatest Ti5000 and in reality it
was maybe up to EGA standards?
d)The web has to learn real fast the public isn't stupid enough for all
their money grubbing plans. $20.00 won't break my bank but if Gamespot is in
the place where if they HAVE to have subscription then they have a BAD
business model and should change it or go out of business.
Bill
Hank
wrote:
Okay, 'snuck' was clearly the wrong word then ... I think that
direct sales taxes, levied at the time of purchase, will make people
balk. I know plenty of people who drove to other places (pre
web-sales ) just to pay lower taxes. On big ticket items it can be
quite substantial. I just bought a new TV, for example, and ordered
it online -- in the past it would have been worth it to look for a
place that had the lowest sales tax without too much of a drive.
I'm against the VAT and most of those regressive taxes
precisely because poor people are impacted more than rich ... and the
Democrats in America insist I am part of the 'filthy rich' ... it may
be a tax on consumption, but does it lessen it?
I've been to Holland ... I guess they drive less because they
have lots of bikes in the cities. I've been to Italy and they all
run these terrible mopeds with lawnmower engines on them and they're
worse for the environment than most cars. I remember a lot of cars
in the UK and that was during the petrol strike a few years ago ... so
my guess is it doesn't lessen consumption that much other than
lessening the obvious US phenomenon of driving huge SUVs (guilty of
that ) for no necessary reason.
But that last point about capitalists and enviros agreeing?
I have never heard a capitalist say that a VAT was a good thing ... in
America anyway. I think all taxes are disincentives to a quality
lifestyle and I imagine fellow capitalists agree.
H
H
Gerry Quinn
> d)The web has to learn real fast the public isn't stupid enough for all
>their money grubbing plans. $20.00 won't break my bank but if Gamespot is in
>the place where if they HAVE to have subscription then they have a BAD
>business model and should change it or go out of business.
Going subscription IS changing it.
- Gerry Quinn
Lucian Wischik
>But that last point about capitalists and enviros agreeing?
>I have never heard a capitalist say that a VAT was a good thing ... in
>America anyway. I think all taxes are disincentives to a quality
>lifestyle and I imagine fellow capitalists agree.
Right. But once a capitalist (maybe a european one) has accepted that
there will be at least some form of taxation, then (the argument goes) the
tax should not be upon entrepreneurship and economic success, but rather
upon something else. And income tax increases with personal economic
success, but VAT doesn't much.
PS. Hank quacking like a socialist? :)
Dave Faris
metacom
"S. Tanry" wrote:
>
> Pumbaa wrote:
> > "Mario Pacheco" <betelg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:3CF5CA32...@yahoo.com...
> >
> >>So if you can find them somewhere else why are you complaining?
> >>
> >>$20 is NOTHING. You save trees (waste from a published magazine
> >>magazine), get information more readily than a traditonal magazine.
> >>
> >>You don't appreciate how much effort goes into putting out quality
> >>content (which gamespot.com is filled with). Again, $20 is nothing.
> >>
> >>-M
> >>
> >
> > So gamespot is the only site that you visit? Count all your bookmarked items
> > and multiply that number by $20 (or more).
> >
> > Magazines and newspapers will thrive if web subsrciptions become
> > commonplace. Trees beware.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, great logic. People will be frightened away at the 20 dollars
> Gamespot subscription, run to their nearest store and get a $20 Nintendo
> Power subscription. God forbid the internet charge for the same fucking
> thing! I need something I can hold!
>
> These arguments are getting absurd.
I don't think it's absurd at all. Personally, I would definately be
more likely to pay for a good gaming magazine subscription than access
to a website. If most game sites require a subscription, I would think
it would certainly make the magazine option more popular.
Daniel L. Bateman
> My God, I had no idea. Seriously. I think if you patronize the store then
> the bags should be no charge. As many of you realize, you are already (in
> the US) paying for the bags ------> it's wrapped up in the cost of the
> goods.
I remember in a small grocery store in Zermatt, Switzerland, the
shopping carts were locked together, and you had to insert a coin or
two to unlock the cart and use it. I thought that was pretty strange.
And you had to pay for the bags too.
-Dan
Murray Peterson
news:615535ef.02053...@posting.google.com:
> I remember in a small grocery store in Zermatt, Switzerland, the
> shopping carts were locked together, and you had to insert a coin or
> two to unlock the cart and use it. I thought that was pretty strange.
That's the norm where I live -- almost all grocery stores in shopping
centers use this. The idea is to induce the patrons to return the cart
back to a "parking" spot, instead of hiring people to run around all day
collecting the carts.
> And you had to pay for the bags too.
That's also standard here, especially in the discount stores.
Mary
> cont...@hotmail.com (Daniel L. Bateman) wrote in
> news:615535ef.02053...@posting.google.com:
>
> > I remember in a small grocery store in Zermatt, Switzerland, the
> > shopping carts were locked together, and you had to insert a coin or
> > two to unlock the cart and use it. I thought that was pretty strange.
>
> That's the norm where I live -- almost all grocery stores in shopping
> centers use this. The idea is to induce the patrons to return the cart
> back to a "parking" spot, instead of hiring people to run around all day
> collecting the carts.
>
> > And you had to pay for the bags too.
>
> That's also standard here, especially in the discount stores.
Plastic bags is a little off topic in a game group, but I'll add my two
cents. In Toronto, Canada where I live, its much the same as above. You have
to pay a quarter to use grocery carts at big grocery supermarkets, but not
at all supermarkets. In cases where they are locked, you get your quarter
back when you take the cart back. In many grocery stores, you have to pay
for plastic bags, but in many of them you don't. Depends on the store.
Supposedly the stores where you pay for grocery bags have better prices,
and because you have to pay for the bags, its supposed to help the store
keep down their prices. A lot of the time, people bring their own bags or
cartons. It doesn't always work that way though. You have to read the weekly
ads or flyers.
P.S. one pet peeve of mine is people who seem to manage to take those carts
home despite all the warnings outside the store, not to do othis, and they
leave them in their apartment building parking lot or anyplace they can
find. Eventually, the store picks them up. I've heard that these carts are
expensive for stores to replace.
Mary
Knight37
said:
> BTW, glad to see someone who actaully analyzes my argument without ad
> homimem flames, like that other jerk (Nan Wang) who told me to get a
> f*cking part time job (Uh, DUH, I already have a stable income, thank
> you very much). Internet kids appal me... Anyway, lets get to the
> point. even though I disagree with you on some things, at least you
> didn't insult me and call me a jobless b*m :) Anyway.....
I try not to post ad hominem remarks, it only weakens the argument... but
I'm not perfect, sometimes it's hard not to respond in kind. ;)
>>> What happens to all the poorer people (not all of us are sitting in
>>> money..... some of us have to pay bills or lose our homes), when you
>>> start having to pay $20 x 10 to get anything half decent off the
>>> net?
>>
>>They won't be going to Gamespot, I'm guessing. Why should someone who
>>HAS $20/year to spend really give a shit whether or not poor people
>>can't?
>
> Well agreed, but if all the major news sites start having
> fees..well......
Sure. IF. But, how many people are going to pay $20/year for MORE than one
gaming site? I know that since I'm a Gamespot member, I'm not going to be
signing up for IGN's Insider. I like Gamespot's service better. I don't
actually have a lot of other interests besides gaming that I'd be
interested in signing up for, so for me, $20 a year is pretty much the most
I'm spending on web sites. If someone else came out with a better site than
Gamespot at the same price (or hell, even a bit higher), I'd probably sign
up for that and then cancel the gamespot sub. It's like swapping gaming
mags, I have had subs to most of them but generally not more than a couple
at a time.
> I find it very unlikely that people would subscribe to a bunch of pay
> sites...how many people had subscriptions to multiple mags (back when
> the mags were respectable?).
I agree completely, I find it very unlikely, and that's why I find it very
unlikely that most of the internet will "go subscription."
> BTW remember what happened to scorpia's site?
Yes, I also remember that it looked like amateur time. I would never have
paid $20 a year for that, I'm not sure how much she tried charging.
> Although (flame suit on), comparing Gamespot to Scorpia's domain is
> Apples to Bananas...
Right.
>>Uh, don't use the stuff you can't afford to pay for, how about that?
>
> That isn't the point at all.
> Maybe I'm making an invalid claim or spitting into the wind, but what
> happens if ALL things start requiring being "paid" for to use?
> Including in game server browsers? Then what do you do?
I'd quit gaming. :)
I don't see that happening, but IF it did, then yes, I would probably not
be able to afford it, or at the least, I'd have to play a much smaller
selection of games.
> I suspect a lot more people will turn to cracks (warez), rather than
> sucker up to that one....
I could see that happening. The software companies aren't COMPLETE morons,
though, they aren't going to try doing anything to piss off their PAYING
fans and make piracy even more prevalent. We hope. Myself, I'd just pay for
the stuff that was worth it and skip the rest.
> I pay for things I think are worth paying for. Otherwise, I'll find
> another way.
Hmm... I'll leave that one alone.
>>> Maybe some people here werent around in the old days, but back then,
>>> going "online" was something only for the rich... huge hourly phone
>>> + membership charges for services like drango, TEN, or whatever they
>>> had, just to deathmatch...(pre-Kali / Gamespy days) people running
>>> up hundreds of dollars in bills every month...how long will it be
>>> before this happens again?
>>
>>My guess is that a lot of the net is heading in that direction, so get
>>used to it. If no one pays for Gamespot, it will go out of business,
>>so the net result is the same thing. No more FREE Gamespot.
>
> I don't even care about gamespot
> And if the net goes in that direction (God forbid), I expect it to die
> a brutal death in that form.
Well I don't think you have too much to worry, really.
>>> With the per month charges for MMORPG's, combined with more and more
>>> subscription based services (ASE is now subscription based too, even
>>> though those who registered previously are always registered, and
>>> perm registration costs $30) start appearing, it won't be long
>>> before the net becomes a haven for the more well-to-do.
>>
>>You are correct sir. Although I don't think the entire net will be
>>this way, I think there's going to be a ton of free sites, just not
>>free professional sites with paid reviewers like Gamespot has.
>
> Hmm, you seemed to contradict yourself in comparison to your last
> post. Maybe I'm missing something.......
> First a "lot" of the net is going in that direction, then a "ton" of
> free sites (like Voodooextreme, for instance).
> But you consider this a *good* thing?
I think a lot of the more professional sites are going to go subscription
in a last ditch effort to save their sites. Some of those will fail, and go
away completely. Some will just become less popular somehow (maybe not
intentionally) and their costs will go down enough that they can stay in
business as a free site. Others will never attempt to be professional in
the first place, being more of a "hobby" site. A few of those will actually
be good. :)
Basically I don't see a meltdown of the internet happening, but I do see
the really successful, highest quality sites in their class going to a
subscription base. In the end, these sites will be few in number, but will
have a massive number of readers who pay. Then there will be a lot of other
sites that will stay around that "get by" but are not a high enough qaulity
to be able to draw enough paying users to "go pro." These sites won't offer
everything that the pay sites do, though.
>>I woudn't be surprised if free game servers is lining up for
>>extinction too, but I think that's a different issue.
>
> I probably shouldn't really have mentioned that. I did register
> gamespy arcade, although I only use it for MOH:AA. Same price as
> registering Kali, and my $20 for Kali went a LONG long way....
> Even though Kali is pretty much dead now besides chatting, there are
> still some people on the servers...and the Internet game browser there
> still works.
I used to subscribe to TEN way back. Only for Dark Sun Online. ;)
> Merely making a comment to someone mentioning having to PAY for screen
> shots.....is as rediculous as having to PAY for someone to give you an
> advertisement for a newspaper.
> My point was, why should screen shots be part of a 'pay' section of
> anything? Reviews, sure....but screenshots?
Hmm... you're not paying for the screenshot, you're paying for the bandwith
to deliver the screen shot to you. Is that better? ;)
--
Knight37
"We've taken care of everything
The words you hear the songs you sing
The pictures that give pleasure to your eyes
It's one for all and all for one
We work together common sons
Never need to wonder how or why" -- Rush "2112"
Mike Garry
news:3CF5C960...@tnlc.com...
> Yes, and isn't that just it? Who REALLY wants all this "stuff" anyway? I
sure don't...and I suspect most people don't. Games are a HOBBY for most
people. Only die-hard gamers (and even less so willing to spend money to
find out about upcoming games) are going to be stupid enough to PAY for
screenshots and demos. No thanks; it's time all that wasted publisher money
be put to good use and THEY provide their own damn screenshots and demos!
Yeah, that would make sense, let the publishers pay for *all* the
screenshots, demos, reviews etc. And as soon as a site/magazine slags a game
off, they receive no more from the publishers. Imagine, every review would
be like reading an EA/infograms/Eidos/etc press release.
Ahh the future would be so good, wouldn't it?
If you dont like it, dont pay. But dont expect websites to act like proper
magazines and be free forever more. Because I dont think Edge et al. are
free.........
---
Mike Garry
Pumbaa
"Daniel L. Bateman" <cont...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:615535ef.02053...@posting.google.com...
If they could only make The Matterhorn a pay-per-view proposition.
Switzerland put my excursion way over budget.
Chris Knowles
stuff comes in nowadays. With the advent of "tamper-proof" packaging
and aggresive marketing, we are seeing a huge increase in the amount
of materials just to contain most of our groceries. For instance, I
love treacle tarts from Co-op. Six tarts, each in its own foil base
thingie. All six contained in an outer plastic container, two layers
of three seperated by a further plastic container. Whole thing wrapped
in a plastic wrapper affair. Around the plastic wrapper a paper sleeve
explaining how good Co-op tarts are, ingredients, how to moan if the
tarts ain't no good etc. And the government is worried about the
carrier bag!
ChrisK
On Thu, 30 May 2002 13:52:53 GMT, ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
wrote:
>In article <HTpJ8.16944$wd3.2...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "Cassandra" <prophete...@mountolympus.gr> wrote:
>>Here in the UK we pay for carrier bags in supermarkets. too. The 4 big
>>stores over here (Tesco, Asda (Wal-Mart), Sainsbury's and Safeway's) all
>>offer strong bags, about 100 times more durable than the free ones. They
>>usually cost about 10p (about 15c), and are replaced free of charge. Tesco
>>and Sainsbury's also offer special bags for wine, frozen goods, and boxes
>>that fit in the trolley (though they make excellent storage boxes for
>>computer stuff!)
>
>They made free plastic carrier bags illegal in Ireland lately, i.e.
>there is a EU0.15 levy on every carrier bag, and the shop is not allowed
>absorb it. It's an anti-littering measure.
>
>People bring their own bags (usually strong ones with store ads like you
>describe). Fumbling with bags at the checkout takes longer.
>
>Ironically, free carrier bags were one of the few things people mostly
>recycled (as dustbin liners).
>
>- Gerry Quinn
Eep²
Anyway, if I want screenshots, demos, and the publisher/developer spiel, I'll go to the publisher/developer websites. If I want reviews, I'll go to review websites or, more likely, newsgroups and/or web boards. There's no reason these game "magazine" websites need to charge for screenshots, demos, previews, AND reviews. Previews and reviews should be sufficient for these sites to offer--and, of course, should be free. Publishers/developers will then pay them to provide links to their sites to get the screenshots/demos.
Robert Norton
news:slrnafdh4...@cluttered.com:
> i would guess it's more because of the fact that people are totally
> jaded with banner ads, and they just ignore them. you WILL see the
> popunder eventually, when you close all your windows.
Get Opera, you can disable popups altogether, no add-on needed.
<www.opera.com>
Hank
wrote:
>Hank <hank...@NOSPAMgeocities.com> wrote:
A capitalist, to be sure, and that means not having punitive taxes on
the poor, so they can have more capital to invest in business and
commerce rather than bloated government taxes which give you $.50 for
every dollar you put in.
I'm just not one of those Rush Limbaugh types who insist every bit of
good fortune is the result of their smug superiority ... good luck and
hard work makes things happen and some on the right insist they had no
luck. Letting poor people keep more of their money reduces the need
for governments to tell them how much they need the government.
I'm also a capitalist who has solar panels on my house ... but only to
heat the pool. I'm not a complete enviro crazy any more than I'm a
complete socialist. :-)
H
Jan-Albert "Anvil" van Ree
"Daniel L. Bateman" <cont...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:615535ef.02053...@posting.google.com...
Both are normal here in Holland as well. The rent-a-cart thing was to make
sure carts don't get lost (they're expensive!) Some people were using them
for other purposes... (at campus we used these to take out the trash, as
"trucks" when moving, just tie a few behind your car, works fine if you stay
below 20 mph and only on-campus :) and a lot more... cart races weren't
unusual either!)
--
Jan-Albert "Anvil" van Ree | http://artsen.vanree.net
VanReeDotNet IT Solutions | http://www.vanree.net
Chris Proctor
news:_nWJ8.1624652$Lj7.54702272@Flipper:
Some Australian supermarkets require you to stick a dollar in to use a
cart, but you get the dollar back when you return the cart.
Seems like a good idea to me . . .
Chris
Jester
> more likely to pay for a good gaming magazine subscription than access
> to a website. If most game sites require a subscription, I would think
> it would certainly make the magazine option more popular.
Is there any particular reason for this? Personally, I would rather have
the subscription to the game site, if it was a good one. With a gaming
site, you usually seem to get more reviews, more screenshots, movies,
and some have game demos. I suppose with a magazine you can have movies
and demos if they include a CD, but usually that means not having as
large a selection.
- Daniel
--
I love deadlines. I like the whooshing
sound they make as they fly by.
-- Douglas Adams
Diana
"Mary" <nos...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:KbQJ8.2073$H67....@tor-nn1.netcom.ca...
*snip*
> P.S. one pet peeve of mine is people who seem to manage to take those
carts
> home despite all the warnings outside the store, not to do othis, and they
> leave them in their apartment building parking lot or anyplace they can
> find. Eventually, the store picks them up. I've heard that these carts are
> expensive for stores to replace.
Hell yes. The supermarket I work at - the trolleys there are around $200 a
pop.
Diana
Bent C Dalager
Daniel L. Bateman <cont...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I remember in a small grocery store in Zermatt, Switzerland, the
>shopping carts were locked together, and you had to insert a coin or
>two to unlock the cart and use it. I thought that was pretty strange.
That appears to be quite normal in the larger shopping malls in
Norway. The money is returned to you when you lock the cart into place
again. It serves the dual purpose of reducing number of disappearances
since there is money to be had from bringing in stray carts and
reattaching them and customers don't leave the carts standing around
all over the mall since that'd cost them their deposit.
> And you had to pay for the bags too.
This is common in all the Norwegian stores that focus on low
prices. There is reason to believe it is the result of a sound
cost/benefit analysis. If nothing else, it saves _me_ from having to
subsidize all the people that don't bring their own bags.
Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - b...@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs
Gerry Quinn
>Wha?
They were free. Going subscription is a change.
- Gerry Quinn
JingleBells
"Istvan" <ial...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CF5A4C0...@attbi.com...
> Dave Faris wrote:
> > What is this bullshit? Now you need to pay to look at fuckin screen
shots?
> > It was bad enough when they started charging for downloads. Is anyone
enough
> > of a sucker to pay for what amounts to advertising for games? Probably.
>
> great site, super fast page loads, super fast downloads,
>
> I'll tell, you when I first finally saw a professinal looking page with
> no ads, man it felt so good.
>
> 20 bucks a year? If you libe in the US that's nothing.
>
> Istvan.
>
Jeff Vitous
> In article <c7d6db20.02053...@posting.google.com>,
_cygnu...@excite.com (CygnusX-1) wrote:
> >I agree. The concept of "click throughs" were a mistake from the
> >beginning. They forgot marketing101: advertise to establish
> >brand identity. You can never promise that a certain number of goods
> >will be sold based on an ad. You can say that "X number of people
> >will see" the ad via hits to your site.
>
> A mistake for whom?
>
> Advertisers stopped buying impressions because they decided that by and
> large impressions are worthless. They heard of brand identity etc. and
> they decided impressions still weren't delivering.
>
> buying impressions - but it's hard not to see self-interest talking
> here. Ad performance is notoriously hard to measure - that isn't a
> reason for companies to keep pumping money into sites to support free
> services for you.
>
> Some of the people who want to see ad-supported sites are the same ones
> who filter ads. As Groucho Marx might have said, "I wouldn't fund a
> business plan that included me as a customer."
No, actually they believed they now had metrics that could be measured on a
direct basis. This metric is flawed, however. As it has been pointed out
by many others, no other form of advertising is expected to generate
immediate sales from the ad itself. Indeed, we recently polled our readers,
and they indicated that they do get product awareness from an ad, but rarely
do they click through or buy immediately. Perhaps they will seek more
information, or buy it from a store.
--
Jeff Vitous
Director, Special Project Development
The Wargamer
www.wargamer.com
Mike Garry
> Edge? Never heard of it.
>
> Anyway, if I want screenshots, demos, and the publisher/developer spiel,
I'll go to the publisher/developer websites. If I want reviews, I'll go to
review websites or, more likely, newsgroups and/or web boards. There's no
reason these game "magazine" websites need to charge for screenshots, demos,
previews, AND reviews. Previews and reviews should be sufficient for these
sites to offer--and, of course, should be free. Publishers/developers will
then pay them to provide links to their sites to get the screenshots/demos.
>
> Mike Garry wrote:
>
So again, the problem remains. These websites have to make money to survive,
and if they receive their money from publishers, then how can they be
expected to write fair and balanced reviews?
Your problem is you want everything for free. Tough, life does not work like
that. Now stop being so naive.....
---
Mike Garry
metacom
Jester wrote:
>
> > I don't think it's absurd at all. Personally, I would definately be
> > more likely to pay for a good gaming magazine subscription than access
> > to a website. If most game sites require a subscription, I would think
> > it would certainly make the magazine option more popular.
>
> Is there any particular reason for this? Personally, I would rather have
> the subscription to the game site, if it was a good one. With a gaming
> site, you usually seem to get more reviews, more screenshots, movies,
> and some have game demos. I suppose with a magazine you can have movies
> and demos if they include a CD, but usually that means not having as
> large a selection.
>
A good reason for people on dialup to not subscribe to gamespot
complete - much of the content that cost gamespot so much bandwidth is
size prohibitive to those on dialup.Movies and to some extent, demo's
are almost useless to people who are on dialup unless they want to spend
8 hours or more apiece downloading them.
Also as someone already said - when you buy a magazine you have
something in your hand that you keep. You get something physical for
your $$$. You might also get a cd rom which gets rid of the need to
download demos for hours at a time.
A psychological reason for being more willing to get a mag subscription
rather than pay for web access - magazine subscriptions have never been
free but gamespot was until a short time ago. Whether it is true or not,
I think many people would feel less ripped off subscribing to a magazine
rather than subscribing to a web site, even though the website may have
more info on it than any magazine would.
Jonathan Diehl
"Pumbaa" <tmink2s...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RCoJ8.5017$4i.8...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> So gamespot is the only site that you visit? Count all your bookmarked
items
> and multiply that number by $20 (or more).
>
> Magazines and newspapers will thrive if web subsrciptions become
> commonplace. Trees beware.
>
I totally agree. Hell, I'll stop surfing the internet and go back to being
a couch potato if we have to start paying for webpage content. Total BS.
Sure, popups and banners don't work as well as they used to in the golden
age of the internet (those popup killers are a must have), but there must be
some other way to generate revenue for websites.
Mary
news:oA1K8.5508$7N.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
My daughter works part time at a grocery supermarket and I always laugh at
her. In her store they don't charge for plastic bags, but the bags are very
flimsy and by the time you walk from the store to the parking lot to your
car, often the bag has a tear in it, so people often ask for double bags,
and my daughter gets a bit annoyed and thinks that one bag should do. So I
tell my daughter "the bags are too thin and skimpy - no wonder people ask
for another bag - hehe). I like to tease her about the bags. I think at her
store you have to buy the bags now, and they are a bit stronger, but not
much. I usually take my own stronger plastic bags that I re-use (if I
remember).
Mary