Escapist Podcast: 191: An Escapist Joined the Podcast and You Won't Believe...

191: An Escapist Joined the Podcast and You Won't Believe...

This week, we had a community member join for a discussion of the future of online journalism and the critical role that indie devs play in the gaming scene.

Watch Video

Huh, no idea who that Russ feller is, but this was an interesting idea.

EDIT: This new video player does not want to buffer for me at all. Maybe it's another of Google Chrome's quirks interfering again. I can get the video to open in another tab, which is a little faster, at least.

If he's having trouble making the film why doesn't del Toro make a Lovecraft game with Kojima. He's never had any difficulty getting a game made before ;)

Barbas:

EDIT: This new video player does not want to buffer for me at all. Maybe it's another of Google Chrome's quirks interfering again. I can get the video to open in another tab, which is a little faster, at least.

I have issues in Firefox as well. Either very slow to buffer or the sound will play but the image is stuck.

There's needs to be a modified swear-jar for every time a certain someone says the phrase:

Going forward

A movie done by someone else? How about Lord of the Rings directed by someone that has actually read the fucking books?
Because, fucking Jackson sure as hell never bothered to.

Regarding article revenue discussion...

- Clicking on articles you aren't interested to support that type of article
- Turning off ad-block for sites you support
- Stepping away while ads play

These are well meaning suggestions but I don't feel they are realistic or respectful of a persons precious free time. This is a little like asking people to watch tv commercials on channels you enjoy to support them even when you aren't watching the show in question. True, you aren't asking a lot but people have more important things to do with their leisure time.

People have very limited time and only so much content they can spend time with. Jumping through the hoops to enjoy them 'legit' would mean completely abandoning other content. In turn helping out some sites at the detriment of others.

Buying premium subscriptions for dozens of websites is not a realistic financial option for many people as well. Especially if you don't feel as though the sites content is worth the asking price. Websites typically offer a TON of content but I'm sure plenty of people will only frequent a site for one or two weekly articles/shows.

Making the process of web surfing more frustrating for 'legit' traffic in order to make up for the 'shady' traffic users doesn't seem like the solution. I believe they used the figure 40% of people use ad-block. What happens in two years when that number increases to 60%? Do you force legit users to watch 3 more ads and raise subscription prices to compensate? We've already seen the frequency and intrusiveness of ads online jump considerably in the last few years and in my opinion the current methods of combating this are unsustainable. People will move to more convenient services or use workarounds to justify sticking around at all.

Have you ever clicked on a quick 10 second video just to get a 30 second ad up front?
It's no wonder people are acting against online advertising.

This issue seems somewhat related to the content ID/fair use issue in that laws/revenue are not event remotely keeping up with the age we live in.

babinro:
Regarding article revenue discussion...

- Clicking on articles you aren't interested to support that type of article
- Turning off ad-block for sites you support
- Stepping away while ads play

These are well meaning suggestions but I don't feel they are realistic or respectful of a persons precious free time. This is a little like asking people to watch tv commercials on channels you enjoy to support them even when you aren't watching the show in question. True, you aren't asking a lot but people have more important things to do with their leisure time.

People have very limited time and only so much content they can spend time with. Jumping through the hoops to enjoy them 'legit' would mean completely abandoning other content. In turn helping out some sites at the detriment of others.

Buying premium subscriptions for dozens of websites is not a realistic financial option for many people as well. Especially if you don't feel as though the sites content is worth the asking price. Websites typically offer a TON of content but I'm sure plenty of people will only frequent a site for one or two weekly articles/shows.

Making the process of web surfing more frustrating for 'legit' traffic in order to make up for the 'shady' traffic users doesn't seem like the solution. I believe they used the figure 40% of people use ad-block. What happens in two years when that number increases to 60%? Do you force legit users to watch 3 more ads and raise subscription prices to compensate? We've already seen the frequency and intrusiveness of ads online jump considerably in the last few years and in my opinion the current methods of combating this are unsustainable. People will move to more convenient services or use workarounds to justify sticking around at all.

Have you ever clicked on a quick 10 second video just to get a 30 second ad up front?
It's no wonder people are acting against online advertising.

This issue seems somewhat related to the content ID/fair use issue in that laws/revenue are not event remotely keeping up with the age we live in.

You are witnessing the intentional cable-ization of the internet. Look at how many fake scams on daytime and early television take people in, even when disclaimers say the network doesn't endorse said seller's products. All because people paid in bundles by default, and people will inevitably have to take in the dreck, to get to what they are looking for.

Just like the front page of yahoo has the eye popping clickbait all around the sides of the search bar.

Just curious,

How much of a benefit is the premium subscription, does it vastly exceed income for a year of clicks (say for an average member), does it equal it, does it come up slightly short etc?

wizzy555:
Just curious,

How much of a benefit is the premium subscription, does it vastly exceed income for a year of clicks (say for an average member), does it equal it, does it come up slightly short etc?

Generally from previous sites I've worked for (all of which start up and some beyond but not on the scale of The Escapist or IGN) ad rev comes in as pocket change. While we got well over say 500,000 site views that could sometimes translate to as little as $.04. If I remember my last quarterly meeting correctly there is a difference between quick views, and views that visit the site for an extended period. How it all translated from ads the team never went into detail. But we've had ads for Loot Crate, and even Green Man Gaming, and rev doesn't increase all that much. So you'll see sites go to things like Patreon to guarantee revenue and then be able to give the quality that is well deserved of your time. We all WANT to give you quality work but to keep it up for you to see costs money.

Basically I highly encourage you support your favorite site/content creators anyway that you can. Doesn't have to be money, but your regular support is phenomenal. Commenting, sharing, even subscribing, it all contributes! But subscriptions are the highest contributor and generally you're well compensated for your support! :D

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here