PlanetCrap 6.0!
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
T O P I C
Gaming News Websites Soon to Be Extinct?
June 17th 2002, 20:08 CEST by Brigandier

It really is interesting how all of these websites have gone down the toilet bowl in a relatively short time. In fact I really can't think of anyone left who has free accessible content except for GameSpy, but I never really went there for a good review.

I wonder if GameSpot or IGN will fold, seeing as there's a real reluctance to pay money for content. I know some people who subscribed to GameSpot since NextGen Magazine went belly up. But I think this kind of behavior isn't mainstream.

Anyway, just curious what the future holds for gaming news websites, and if people think they are an integral part of building hype - the lifeblood of a title's sales numbers.
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Gaming News Websites Soon to Be Extinct?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
#1 by Morn
2002-06-17 20:09:05
morn@planetcrap.com http://hmans.net
I thought it would fit. :)

Hendrik "Morn" Mans • morn@planetcrap.com • admin/coder/lover/kraut
#2 by jjz
2002-06-17 20:10:56
I like free stuff.
#3 by m0nty
2002-06-17 20:13:19
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
Gaming news websites are an integral part of allowing otherwise talentless hacks to feel slightly important and relevant to modern society, whilst slowly draining their bank balance and adding to their gluteal circumference.
#4 by Bailey
2002-06-17 20:19:18
Isn't Gamespot just going to be charging for access to their archives? Hasn't IGN been doing the insider gig for over a year? These and other questions remain to be answered, dear reader.

Dear Raven: I have some questions about your code - suggestions really, in the form of direct orders.
#5 by Fugazi(werking)
2002-06-17 20:21:37
Daily Radar was complete shit.
IGN sucks publisher cock.
Gamespot is boring.


I don't think we're missing much.

"Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
#6 by Duality
2002-06-17 20:29:45
Dualipuff@yahoo.com http://stratoscape.ath.cx/
People who use GameSpot's premium services have told me like what they get for the amount of money they pay.

So its not so much the gaming news website soon to be extinct ... but the free, heavily visited gaming news websites soon to be extinct.

I have a hard time finding a downside to the days of having each site do news about a specific pocket of games.

-Jon
#7 by Matt Davis
2002-06-17 21:03:17
http://looroll.com
Good for them, if they all go subs, I'll choose one or two, but as long as I can read the occaisional interview, see a preview of a game that interests me and download a demo I'll not be getting myself a credit card so I can actually pay for this content.

Too many fanboi sites to start worrying about the Axis of Visa/Mastercard just yet.
#8 by Creole Ned
2002-06-17 21:22:22
If we couldn't read about Apache's latest shenanigans in Dark Age of Camelot or delight in the latest misadventures of Blue's "wonder dog" Hudson, I don't know what we would do. Really.

I dunno. It's probably just a coincidence, but I'm actually starting to read mags again -- except for PC Gamer, which seems to have slipped into Daily Rader: The Print Edition.

I found a new friend underneath my pillow.
#9 by Caryn
2002-06-17 21:28:33
carynlaw@pacbell.net http://www.hellchick.net
I think the Brigandier used gaming news web sites to mean gaming editorial web sites, and the two are generally different animals. Gaming news = list of links that lead to editorial and coverage of games, press releases, etc., and gaming editorial is the articles that the news sites link to.

"Arrogance and stupidity in a single package, how efficient of you!"
#10 by jjohnsen
2002-06-17 21:29:17
http://www.johnsenclan.com
I started subscribing to Gamespot about a month ago.  I enjoy it because I usually like their reviews, and their high speed downloads are pretty high speed.  They have downloadable windows media / quicktime reviews that are pretty cool because they show in-game scenes while they talk about the features.  Their writers don't seem as fanboi-ish as the ign people or other websites.  That being said, I subcribe to four PC magazines and I like all of them better than any gamesites I read.
#11 by Mister Nutty
2002-06-17 21:29:35
Actually Daily Radar (and Next Gen paper magazine) were both great in their prime.  Considering how sucky each had become near their respective deaths, it wasn't too sad to seem the go, the grief had already had time to sink in.

And while gaming is obviously the big topic here, this phenomenon isn't specific to gaming sites.  Giving away free content such as high-res screenshots and movie captures for free sure doesn't pay what it used to, now that the market for online advertising is all but extinct.  Most every commercial (non-geocities) site that isn't a loss-leader (eg. cnn, msnbc, etc.. they can lose money on the website in hopes of its existence boosting their viewership on tv, where people do still pay for ads) is beginning to charge something for the premium stuff.  Time to get used to it.

And lastly, there's no way I'd subscribe to one of these gaming online sites for $10 or so a month because they just aren't worth it (for me).  Despite the obvious benefits of web-based publishing I find that paper mags like PC Gamer tend to actually have the good stuff BEFORE the web sites.  And since I only occasionally download demos and almost never download preview movies and such, the subscription price for these websites is quite a ripoff compared to paper mags which are a fraction of the price even if you buy them over the counter (even more so if you subscribe).

Smashing!
#12 by m0nty
2002-06-17 21:34:29
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
I would find it amusing if the Ctrl-C-Ctrl-V sites found their sources of linked content drying up one by one, until there was nothing left for them to link to without giving out usernames and passwords. Gasp! They might have to produce their own content!

On that score, I notice the Voodoo Extreme "in house" section lists only one item in the last month, that being a Morrowind review.
#13 by Bailey
2002-06-17 21:40:36
Heh. Actually m0nty, I rather look forward to that happening. It seems inevitable they'll either die or link fansites all day.

Dear Raven: I have some questions about your code - suggestions really, in the form of direct orders.
#14 by "Pie4Foo"
2002-06-17 21:42:33
pie4foo@wargamer.com http://www.pie4foo.com
I am one of the ~20k who subscribe to GameSpot.  

Here's why: it's probably the best resource for finding coverage of nearly any game released in the last five years and the downloading service which accompanies it is far better than FilePlanet (although the variety isn't as good, the files are at least easy to find).

In my mind, there are two professional-quality gaming sites still free: AVault and GameSpy.  Given AVault's stale ad rotation and GameSpy's flood of pop-ups, I can't see there being too much more time before these sites must also taking their content behind a subscription barrier.

The hype created by Internet gaming sites is important, but the successful examples are strictly limited to first-person shooters.   Gaming sites do good when they're able to quickly spread word-of-mouth to the hardcore gamers.  As an example, let's look at positive and negative word of mouth and their impact on the *online* success of games: Global Ops Beta/Demo = big GameSpy/FilePlanet release, negative word-of-mouth, floundering sales.  SOF2 Beta/Demo = big GameSpy/FilePlanet release, positive word-of-mouth, strong sales.

Now I'm not naive enough to suggest that the reason SOF2 has sold 500,000 copies in its first few weeks is due to the Internet gaming sites.  However, it is FAR too easy for gamers to be cynical about their press: the fact remains that gamers communicate by word-of-mouth to non-gamers, and these are the people who can make the difference between a SOF2 and Global Ops.
#15 by m0nty
2002-06-17 21:43:19
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
I would like to see the day when the only site they can link to is Speljetsgejarnaal, or whatever that silly site is called with the videos of the 10-year-olds speaking Flemish while looking at warez.
#16 by m0nty
2002-06-17 21:44:39
http://tinfinger.blogspot.com
There is one reason for SoF2's success, and one reason only: butter.
#17 by Caryn
2002-06-17 21:44:57
carynlaw@pacbell.net http://www.hellchick.net
The hype created by Internet gaming sites is important, but the successful examples are strictly limited to first-person shooters.


I'd disagree -- I'd say that they've been as effective, if not moreso, for MMORPGs.

Now I'm not naive enough to suggest that the reason SOF2 has sold 500,000 copies in its first few weeks is due to the Internet gaming sites.  However, it is FAR too easy for gamers to be cynical about their press: the fact remains that gamers communicate by word-of-mouth to non-gamers, and these are the people who can make the difference between a SOF2 and Global Ops.


This would be the reason I have the job I do...

"Arrogance and stupidity in a single package, how efficient of you!"
#18 by "Pie4Foo"
2002-06-17 21:49:03
pie4foo@wargamer.com http://www.pie4foo.com
I find that paper mags like PC Gamer tend to actually have the good stuff BEFORE the web sites.
That's because they do.  You can only get "good" coverage on these print mags if you give them exclusives.  Good coverage = front cover pieces, which actually reach non-hardcore gamers simply because they're displayed on stands in book stores.

In this week's sign of the Apocalpyse, I learned in a recent conversation with a rep from a major game publisher that over 85% of an upcoming marketing budget for a PC shooter would be going to print.  Yep, only 15% would end up in the laps of the online sites.  Yikes.
#19 by Fugazi(werking)
2002-06-17 21:49:16
I like those guys.

"Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
#20 by Fugazi(werking)
2002-06-17 21:50:57
#19 was in reference to #15

DAMN YOU FAST POSTERS!!

"Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
#21 by Pie4Foo
2002-06-17 22:09:15
pie4foo@wargamer.com http://www.pie4foo.com
I'd disagree -- I'd say that they've been as effective, if not moreso, for MMORPGs.


Yep, true.  I spoke too quickly.  

Ok, so I have a question for folks who say subscriptions are TEH BAD: what content, if anything, would merit a subscription?  You do realize that many of the same freelancers who write for PCG, CGW and CG (moreso the latter two) are also hired out by GameSpy and GameSpot, right?

Fanboi ad infinitum
#22 by Leslie Nassar
2002-06-17 22:11:46
http://departmentofinternets.com
There is one reason for SoF2's success, and one reason only: butter.

speaking of which, it's taking me a few days longer than anticipated to get this new Verio box up and running.  it'll be ready Real Soon Now.

i like monkeys.  are you a monkey?
#23 by Bailey
2002-06-17 22:16:45
Pie4Foo

Yep, only 15% would end up in the laps of the online sites.  Yikes.

Does this really surprise you though? The only person who makes money online these days is Pud of Fucked Company... reporting on how no one makes money online these days.

Dear Raven: I have some questions about your code - suggestions really, in the form of direct orders.
#24 by Mister Nutty
2002-06-17 22:21:09
Pie:

Well as I mentioned, I'm only really interested in a few things, and demos and movie previews arenít really on that list.  What I do like to see is good previews & reviews with some amount of industry news.  For my money, the paper mags do a much better job in each of these areas (better access to game dev companies), and in general (though I could name a dozen or more off the top of my head that buck this trend) the paper mags are better written.  If the same writers are involved in both mediums, maybe itís that they are better edited.  But in either case, I don't like to read news from someone who sounds like he's typing it up on a warezed copy of Word in his mom's basement.  I get that feeling much more often from online gaming sites than from paper mags.

I _really_ miss the prime of Next Generation (late 1995, early 96), back when it had thick covers, ~100 pages per month and extremely well written previews, reviews and stories (game industry introspectives, etc).

Ah well.

Ah well.

Smashing!
#25 by Creole Ned
2002-06-17 22:25:21
I've been playing more MoH again recently on a couple of our clan servers, now that a few user maps that don't totally suck have come out. I know the chances of MoHButter are slim to none. Any other possibilities for non-SoF2 Butter in the future? I'd like to join in, but I just don't find SoF2 interesting enough to warrant a purchase.

Subscription websites are here to stay. More will be switching over. Not all will survive, of course, but the big ones likely will. With such a vast market, there will always be enough people willing to pay to keep a few afloat. It's why there are still three major U.S. print magazines out there.

I found a new friend underneath my pillow.
#26 by chris
2002-06-17 22:40:20
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.cerebraldebris.com
Haven't we been declaring gaming news sites to be on the verge of extinction for like three, four years now?

Some will die, some will survive. Whichever ones find the right way to make money w/o alienating too many of their users will prosper.

-chris
#27 by Phayyde
2002-06-17 22:41:33
I agree with Caryn's distinction between News and Editorial content.

As long as there are game related link blogs like BluesNews and small msgboards with early adopters reviewing their latest game purchase, all my needs are met.  I get nothing out of hype filled mktg-speak, "screenies" or damn interviews explaining "what sets our game apart".

Game info sources ranked useful to wasteful:
Demos >  Publishers support site > fanboi msgboards > game editorial

If the game isn't released yet, I don't have time to waste on it.   Is anybody really reading all that d00m3 retrospective/preview tripe?  If you are, has it really done anything for you?  (Good looking game, sure.  But as usual, the hype is unsatisfying and is therefore a waste of time.)

If the web-folk who built jobs around the time wastage of game-hype are having to wake up to reality and do some useful paying work, then I'd say that's good for their personal growth and it's good for the world at large as well.  More production, less hype, world goes around, everybody wins.

Beat to fit, paint to match.
#28 by Caryn
2002-06-17 22:50:29
carynlaw@pacbell.net http://www.hellchick.net
If the game isn't released yet, I don't have time to waste on it.   Is anybody really reading all that d00m3 retrospective/preview tripe?  If you are, has it really done anything for you?  (Good looking game, sure.  But as usual, the hype is unsatisfying and is therefore a waste of time.)


I'm always curious about the folks that make a preview sound like it's some evil marketing tool in disguise. If I'm interested in a game -- let's say NWN, since DOOM III doesn't count for me since I'm working with it -- I'll read a preview about it because I want to learn more about it. I read a preview on GameSpy recently about Eve Online; the screenshot hooked me because it looked great, and the preview left me feeling, "yeah, this game looks like it'll be cool. I'll be following this one."

Not all previews are hype. Contrary to popular belief, people do sometimes want to know a little about a game before it's out. There's really nothing more complicated to it than that. There's certainly a saturation limit than can be reached, but for the most part, yeah, reading a preview has done something for me.

"Arrogance and stupidity in a single package, how efficient of you!"
#29 by Mister Nutty
2002-06-17 22:58:35
I'm pretty sure all previews are, in fact, technically hype.  Though some are more welcome than others.

I also read previews, but tend to stay away from them until the game is somewhat near release and I try to avoid the ones that seem to be game developer press releases with screenshots.  I fear that if I read TOO MANY previews I might turn into one of those people who have flamewars about which game is going to be better, UT2003 or Doom3 (having, of course, never played either) or (before Morrowwind was released) Morrowwind or NWN, or whatever-unreleased-game vs whatever-unreleased-game.

Smashing!
#30 by r a w p o w e r
2002-06-17 23:09:01
backonthemap@hotmail.com
..As an example, let's look at positive and negative word of mouth and their impact on the *online* success of games: Global Ops Beta/Demo = big GameSpy/FilePlanet release, negative word-of-mouth, floundering sales.  SOF2 Beta/Demo = big GameSpy/FilePlanet release, positive word-of-mouth, strong sales.


I wish the negative word-of-mouth was occuring on more places than just the forums at globalopsgame.com at this point.  Maybe it would get a bit more support....

Stillborn baby:
Your mother didn't want you but you were still born.  
  -cannibal ox
#31 by Buster Brown
2002-06-17 23:18:45
ted_kennedy@drunkenbastards.com http://www.hollandrules.com
I get all my game news from www.holyshitthatsfuckingneat.com

My Camera is packed with Gummi Bears!
#32 by Pie4Foo
2002-06-17 23:22:52
pie4foo@wargamer.com http://www.pie4foo.com
Does this really surprise you though?

Frankly, I was surprised at the ratio, yes.

What I do like to see is good previews & reviews with some amount of industry news.  For my money, the paper mags do a much better job in each of these areas (better access to game dev companies), and in general (though I could name a dozen or more off the top of my head that buck this trend) the paper mags are better written.

I'm similar to you in that sense: I want industry news, but I want it fast and furious.  Frankly, I'm not casual enough of a gamer to just find out about it CG, CGW or PCG.  I want to find out ASAP, and so the best sources are on-line.  I still see the long time to publication as a reason why gaming sites like GameSpot still possess an inherent appeal to folks like me.  

The writing style is pretty homogenous across the print-mags, but I do think they fall into a definitive quality ranking: PCG > CGW > CG.  The four significant on-line game review sites (GameSpot, GameSpy, IGN and AVault) have more heterogenous styles than the paper mags.  That's both good and bad: good because I don't get confused as to which publication I'm currently reading, but bad because some of them have styles which simply annoy me.  Personally, I'm not a big fan of IGN's writing style, although I'll acknowledge that they do what they do pretty well.  GameSpot, on the other hand, has managed to take people like Erik from OMM and turn them into legitimate gaming journalists.  However, their style is sometimes too short for my tastes and in their rush to be the first out the door, they draw some bad conclusions and fail to explain their reasoning behind the score.  I don't know what to make of GameSpy, mostly because I don't read their reviews or I've already Tom Chick's review of that game somewhere else.  I still like AVault's style (verbose and mature), but they just don't have the manpower to push through all the material that a general gaming site should.

Fanboi ad infinitum
#33 by Speed
2002-06-17 23:34:48
speed@crew.fragland.net http://www.fragland.net
To be honest, I see the future as to a very few amount of big sites (a la gamespy, gamespot) which are backed by some other source of income (print mags, software, ...) and several smaller sites that are sponsored by ISP's making the costs to run a site become very small (Fragland, Spelletjesgarnaal, ...)

I never said I was healthy
#34 by crash
2002-06-17 23:40:11
Caryn:

I'd disagree -- I'd say that they've been as effective, if not moreso, for MMORPGs.

in what way? marketing? word of mouth works more for MMOGs than any other game type, imho, because of the social nature of the game. but to get new people in? interesting... have to think about that.

Pie4Foo:

You do realize that many of the same freelancers who write for PCG, CGW and CG (moreso the latter two) are also hired out by GameSpy and GameSpot, right?

writing is only about 20% of the quality equation; the other 80% is editing. (and i say that having done both; writing to a spec is far far easier than editing to a spec.) and i'd much rather pay for a Bauman edit of, say, Tom Chick (which, in fact, i do, though indirectly) than an Apache one; nothing personal, Apache, but we're talking money. would probably pay for a Warrior edit, but not a Fargo one. wouldn't pay for any other web site editor i can think of. can think of one console editor i'm impressed with, but i don't really like consoles all that much, so wouldn't pay for it.

that's the difference. editorial quality, and the quality and expertise of the editors. not the writers. any monkey can sit down and bang out 800 words on a game they spent a couple hours with, after all.

just look around on the web. you'll see that concept in action.

Whoops, sorry, was my common sense showing again? -HoseWater
#35 by Caryn
2002-06-17 23:46:39
carynlaw@pacbell.net http://www.hellchick.net
Pie4Foo:

PCG > CGW > CG.


CG is at the top of my list in quality even if it may be behind the other two in sales. Then PCG, then CGW.

crash:

MMORPG players are social and community-oriented by nature, and it's easier to interact with a community online than it is for a print mag. Fan sites for MMORPGs sprout like dandelions on the web because of the nature of MMORPGs in that they involve lots of trading and item-gathering. Those sites are far easier to find, I think, than fan sites for FPS'. I could be wrong...this is all just speculation based on a little musing on the subject.

"Arrogance and stupidity in a single package, how efficient of you!"
#36 by Phayyde
2002-06-17 23:59:20
Caryn, come on now.  All the pertinent pre-release info you need about NWN would fit in 3 or 4 sentences.  All the pre-release coverage is just different rehashes of the initial 20 seconds of real info.  Have you ever noticed this in your experience?

Of course ppl _want_ more info.  But for a pre-release title, that information just is not shared.

Beat to fit, paint to match.
#37 by Caryn
2002-06-18 00:09:57
carynlaw@pacbell.net http://www.hellchick.net
Phayyde:

Maybe NWN was a bad example. How about my example of Eve Online? It was a three-page preview with lots of information on how the game would work -- what kind of classes there might be, what the storyline was, what it would do that other MMORPGs didn't do. I found it all very interesting, it made me aware that the game existed and made me interested in finding out when it was going to come out, and it was in a preview.

I'm not saying that 20 previews of the same game that all say the same thing is good. I'm saying that previews in general aren't inherently bad, and that there are people who do like to read them and find them informative.

"Arrogance and stupidity in a single package, how efficient of you!"
#38 by Phayyde
2002-06-18 00:18:46
Yeah that's right.  My POV is rather narrow.  My point is that it's past time the gaming editorial sites start charging for access.

Beat to fit, paint to match.
#39 by crash
2002-06-18 00:18:51
Caryn:

MMORPG players are social and community-oriented by nature, and it's easier to interact with a community online than it is for a print mag. Fan sites for MMORPGs sprout like dandelions on the web because of the nature of MMORPGs in that they involve lots of trading and item-gathering. Those sites are far easier to find, I think, than fan sites for FPS'.

okay, so you're talking perpetuation of the product as well as, uh, entrenchment, maybe? solidification. yeah, you're spot-on in regards to the ease of finding and using MMOG sites, over those of FPS. because, of course, MMOGs are more chat-oriented and slower-paced than FPSs, and the speed of reply and ease of use makes websites a natural complement to MMOGs.

what will be interesting to see is how that particular phenomenon continues to work should a company embed a persistent global messaging system inside the game. because as you've pointed out, that's the only real function of most MMOG messageboards outside the game--trading, setting up meeting times, and whatever. if players could get that functionality in the game, MMOG sites would largely dry up, i do believe. it's the old "filling a need" category.

Whoops, sorry, was my common sense showing again? -HoseWater
#40 by chris
2002-06-18 00:24:19
cwb@shaithis.com http://www.cerebraldebris.com
The doom3 coverage we did for E3 did huge traffic. HUGE. People obviously want it.

I like good previews. I don't like recycled press releases.

David S. Hodgson recently did a Resident Evil Zero preview for us that I thought was quite good.

-chris
#41 by deadlock
2002-06-18 00:28:55
http://www.deadlocked.org/
The fact that GameSpot have gone subscription shouldn't be that much of a problem, because GameSpot UK haven't. I don't know how much content they share with the .com site though.

I'll save Gestalt the trouble by pointing out that http://www.eurogamer.net/]EuroGamer is still free. And still don't seem to be getting any review copies :P

Jafd! Warren! Stop bickering or I'll be forced to change your opinions manually!
#42 by Dev
2002-06-18 00:32:38
admin@techillimit.net
How nice it is.. to see planetcrap back in action.

Howdy pie, long time no see..

"If it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic." -- Lewis Carroll
#43 by Count DuCu
2002-06-18 01:11:51
DuCu@ez2www.com
The Nutty One,
(eg. cnn, msnbc, etc.. they can lose money on the website in hopes of its existence boosting their viewership on tv, where people do still pay for ads)


That makes absolutely no sense. They have adverts urging their viewers to view their web-sites... They even complain that they, the tv-stations, don't get enough advert rates for tv-adverts. But then they mostly broadcast their own adverts, that urge us to visit their websites or stay on and view their
channel or those on the same network... I have to admit even I have no idea how these guys make money, and since they say it's not adverts, and they are showing no adverts... what could it be?

As for gaming news sites, they don't need banner ads revenue, because their whole pages are a big banners for the gaming industry. Those who lick backsides and incestuously recive money for flicking on positive lighting will survive. The "spoilt children" who dare freelance and tramp their feet when whatever game hasn't reached a certain quality, are likely to disapear.
#44 by jjohnsen
2002-06-18 01:12:53
http://www.johnsenclan.com
Pie4Foo:


PCG > CGW > CG.


I read PCG, but of the three it seems to have the previews that say "This will the the BEST EVAR GAME, when it has been completed in 18 months" more than anyone else.



I don't like that.
#45 by Matt Perkins
2002-06-18 01:14:52
wizardque@yahoo.com http://whatwouldmattdo.com/
jjohnsen

PCG is HYPE!  They don't know anything else.  They are hype, some more hype and little hype after that.  I quit reading their mag because of that.  The only quality mag on the market right now is CG.  It's almost always above average quality and content.  They don't hype...

I did not change my name...morn did.
#46 by Warren Marshall
2002-06-18 01:20:22
http://www.wantonhubris.com/
Ned
If we couldn't read about Apache's latest shenanigans in Dark Age of Camelot or delight in the latest misadventures of Blue's "wonder dog" Hudson, I don't know what we would do. Really.

Just goes to demonstrate the diversity of people and how you really can't please everyone.  People complain that Blue is too dry and sterile ... but here you are complaining about him relating funny stories about his dog, trying to personalize the site somewhat.

*shrug*

"It's pretty common for pussies, dumbasses, and their families to blame their problems on vague influences like the media and society. The truth is, fuck you."
#47 by jjohnsen
2002-06-18 01:25:19
http://www.johnsenclan.com
Blue is the only cut-n-paste site I read.  All his links are straightforward with very little commentary.  Then he reserves the small space at the bottom for his dog and memepool type links.  It's exactly what I want.  I come here to PC for commentary.
#48 by Scrozzy
2002-06-18 01:31:27
VE is more like a weblog with sporadic one-liners. It's a site that's in some sort of limbo and doesn't have a real identity. On one hand they're trying to give quick and up-to-date news (which Blue's does better), and on the other hand, they're trying to inject personality into their site. The problem is, Apache and co. are completely devoid of any themselves, thus we end up hearing what they had in their sandwhich for lunch.
#49 by Darkseid-D
2002-06-18 03:06:15
rogerboal@hotmail.com
/me wont be buying SOF2

mainly because Im trying to save to emigrate....


and NeverWinterNights went gold


guess where my funds are going?



and crash, my booking for your module is confirmed, right?

(no pressure or anything mate..... *evil cackle*)

Ds

Never argue with an idiot, theyll drag you down onto their level, then beat you with experience.
#50 by crash
2002-06-18 03:35:36
no pressure at all. still playing gta3. nwn ain't in the cards for at least six months. get comfy while you wait.

Whoops, sorry, was my common sense showing again? -HoseWater
C O M M E N T S
Home » Topic: Gaming News Websites Soon to Be Extinct?

|«« - Previous Page - Next Page - »»|
P O S T   A   C O M M E N T

You need to be logged in to post a comment here. If you don't have an account yet, you can create one here. Registration is free.
C R A P T A G S
Simple formatting: [b]bold[/b], [i]italic[/i], [u]underline[/u]
Web Links: [url=www.mans.de]Cool Site[/url], [url]www.mans.de[/url]
Email Links: [email=some@email.com]Email me[/email], [email]some@email.com[/email]
Simple formatting: Quoted text: [quote]Yadda yadda[/quote]
Front Page (ATOM) • Submission Bin (1) • ArchivesUsersLoginCreate Account
You are currently not logged in.
There are currently 0 people browsing this site. [Details]