Eurogamer starts subscription, asks community for financial support - not going too great

[Uncle Nasty]

4 minutes ago, ZOK said:

An interesting concept, but then you have to wonder why Edge subscribers get a copy of the mag with adverts in too.

 

Because the additional pagination/layout requirements and subsequent printing costs for two editions would be too high and time consuming, presumably.

 

And print ads aren't anywhere near as annoying as online ads.

[ZOK]

1 minute ago, Uncle Nasty said:

 

Because the additional pagination/layout requirements and subsequent printing costs for two editions would be too high and time consuming, presumably.

No (and this should really be obvious), it’s because subs alone won’t pay for the mag, however you tried to commercialise it.

[K]

The difference is presumably that non-subscribers still have to pay for Edge, while non-subscribers of Eurogamer don’t. Edge isn’t available for free in the same way that Eurogamer is. 

[ZOK]

But an irrelevant difference, in this case.

The point is (and perhaps I should have simply posted this first in block capitals to reduce the need to parse the complex analogy), Eurogamer could not afford to remove ads from the subscriber site as they need those people to attract advertisers, in the same way Edge could never commercialise a mag without adverts to its subscribers.

[alex3d]

1 hour ago, Uncle Nasty said:

 

It's not the money. It's that people don't think their time is worth spending on Eurogamer.

 

 

Yes, I think so too. I basically went from going to EG every day to maybe once or twice a week. The whole site somehow lost most of its appeal to me.

 

edit: just read through some of the comments to this EG update and people mention lacklustre editorial quality quite a lot.

[Flub]

I follow most websites via RSS (Inoreader currently) so I do read articles on Eurogamer. Adblocked to the hilt though.

[Qazimod]

Even if you remove all of the adverts, a games journalism website would still have them on every page - they'd just be called reviews, previews, and news articles. I'm not saying that websites just shill for corps, but there are still conscious decisions about what to cover and what to ignore based on resources (staff, time, expenses). But would the content on its own be enough to attract people who want their products and services covered on the site?

[Uncle Mike]

51 minutes ago, ZOK said:

But an irrelevant difference, in this case.

The point is (and perhaps I should have simply posted this first in block capitals to reduce the need to parse the complex analogy), Eurogamer could not afford to remove ads from the subscriber site as they need those people to attract advertisers, in the same way Edge could never commercialise a mag without adverts to its subscribers.

 

I'm slightly confused by this point, because on of the selling points of the subscription service is exactly that they are removing ads. I don't sub, so can't speak to whether that's all ads, or just reduced, but it's explicitly part of the offer.

[ZOK]

2 minutes ago, Uncle Mike said:

 

I'm slightly confused by this point, because on of the selling points of the subscription service is exactly that they are removing ads. I don't sub, so can't speak to whether that's all ads, or just reduced, but it's explicitly part of the offer.

If that’s the case they can commercialise it, and I’m completely wrong.

[Uncle Nasty]

However this goes for Eurogamer I do wonder how long this style of subscription model will be relevant and sustainable for the wider internet.

 

It feels like something mostly old people (like us) would sign up for. The kind of people who used to buy magazines and records and still use internet forums.

 

I've wondered for a while if a system like PRS for music could be workable for internet content like journalism and video creators. A system where royalties are being collected and distributed fairly to the people doing the creating and publishing.

 

It doesn't seem fair that ISPs are getting their monthly subscription fees without giving anything back to the people who are populating the internet with content.

 

I'd be looking at a percentage of your monthly ISP sub being collected by an organisation like the PRS and then given to sites like Eurogamer etc.

 

This system works for the people I know in the music industry that write for TV and Film. All of their income is derived this way.

 

Just wondering out loud if this could ever be a way that the internet could work. The current model looks like begging for scraps, with the obvious side effect that good journalists are unlikely to get involved with games journalism and sites like Eurogamer eventually go down the plughole.

 

 

 

 

[JPickford]

It's very hard to charge for something that was once free.

 

 

[Harsin]

I’ll try and soldier on without access to quality premium subscriber only content like this:

 

Five of The Best: Water

Five of the Best: Moustaches

Five of the Best: Kisses

[MagicalDrop]

1 hour ago, K said:

The difference is presumably that non-subscribers still have to pay for Edge, while non-subscribers of Eurogamer don’t. Edge isn’t available for free in the same way that Eurogamer is. 

 

You can read Edge for free with a library account and the Pressreader app. 

[LaveDisco]

I think I’m gonna subscribe. For the same reason I subscribe to edge and retro gamer. For all its flaws it’s important, and it isn’t doing great. YouTubers are not the way I want to consume critical discussion of games.  I want to support it. 

[AK Bell]

Just a reminder that this place doesn't run itself. 

 

I'm happy to pay for something if I know the money is actually going to the content maker and it's their only real means of making money. I'm not so keen on funding Eurogamer, a subsidiary of Gamer Network, large enough to make money from advertising. 

[thesnwmn]

2 minutes ago, AK Bell said:

Just a reminder that this place doesn't run itself. 

 

I'm happy to pay for something if I know the money is actually going to the content maker and it's their only real means of making money. I'm not so keen on funding Eurogamer, a subsidiary of Gamer Network, large enough to make money from advertising. 

 

Assuming everyone isn't running an ad blocker.

[AK Bell]

1 minute ago, thesnwmn said:

 

Assuming everyone isn't running an ad blocker.

then why do company's still pay for advertising?

[ZOK]

I don’t run an adblocker.

 

But I don’t visit Eurogamer either, so that’s no help to them.

[thesnwmn]

Just now, AK Bell said:

then why do company's still pay for advertising?

 

Because they've got to try to make money? I'm not sure of your reasoning. I'm simply saying that not willing to pay a subscription for a company that can make money in ads means you realise that people need to view their ads for that to work.

 

We can all run an ad blocker and get the Eurogamer subscription experience (without the Top 5 Burgers in games articles) for free but that's not sustainable really is it? We are hoping that enough other people will pay for me by viewing ads on Eurogamer or that Gamer Network will keep Eurogamer open even though only their site making money is Sims News because for whatever reason those gamers don't user ad blockers much.

 

 

Of course the issue isn't really ads right? It's the intrusiveness and tracking of ads. If ads were static and designed to fit the site structure then maybe we'd tolerate them more. But instead they're a fucking travesty and make many sites almost unusable. As a result people with ad blockers turn it on and it's on everywhere. They don't (mostly) bother checking each site and so don't see ads anywhere.

 

[deerokus]

The things that all news outlets seem to struggle to afford and justify with ad revenue are long-form journalism, magazine-style features and deeper investigations.

 

It seems to me like that's the kind of thing that subscribers should get access to, not fluff that feels like a joke typed up on a lunch break.

[jonathanhoey]

1 hour ago, MagicalDrop said:

 

You can read Edge for free with a library account and the Pressreader app. 

Came here to say pretty much this, although my library uses Libby rather than Pressreader, and (probably more importantly) I don’t think that’s exactly what @K meant.

 

 

I believe the publisher does get paid every time someone borrows a digital magazine through the library apps.

[Graham S]

I'd have been prepared to pay for Eurogamer premium some years ago when it felt like a fairly essential place to go, and probably my main source of reviews alongside Edge. Loads of editorial, lots of great contributors who we'd all recognise. Times are much tougher nowadays, and a lot of names I'd look for stopped contributing to the site (although Christian Donlan is still there). The ads became more obnoxious, and they made the site almost unusable with an adblocker or if you denied tracking cookies. The front page is covered in SEO stuff. I'm afraid I never got into the video content or podcasts so I never developed a relationship with the people who make that.

 

So now it falls into an awkward middle ground. I'm happy to subscribe to things like Hit Points and The Back Page, as I feel like I have developed a parasocial relationship with the creators, and I want to hear what those people in particular have to say. Eurogamer feels too big and impersonal to have that close relationship with, but it's too small and content-free to think I'd be getting loads of value from a subscription.

 

So I'll continue to load up the site on occasion to look if there's been any big reviews recently, but it's no longer somewhere I spend a lot of time.

[SozzlyJoe]

Speaking of Eurogamer and ads, has anyone noticed this little curio:

 

 

That little box in the middle is an ad that somehow defeats my ad blocker - but weirdly you can't even click on it! It's just a picture!

 

I do like EG a lot. I feel like I should pay, dunno though. I don't actually read that much of it, really. And it's like JPickford says, so hard to bring yourself to pay for something that was once free (and for that matter still is free!)

[Uncle Nasty]

1 hour ago, LaveDisco said:

I think I’m gonna subscribe. For the same reason I subscribe to edge and retro gamer. For all its flaws it’s important, and it isn’t doing great. YouTubers are not the way I want to consume critical discussion of games.  I want to support it. 

 

You should donate or support here before throwing money at Eurogamer. The critical discussion of games is a lot higher quality here.

[Uncle Nasty]

4 minutes ago, SozzlyJoe said:

Speaking of Eurogamer and ads, has anyone noticed this little curio:

 

 

That little box in the middle is an ad that somehow defeats my ad blocker - but weirdly you can't even click on it! It's just a picture!

 

I do like EG a lot. I feel like I should pay, dunno though. I don't actually read that much of it, really. And it's like JPickford says, so hard to bring yourself to pay for something that was once free (and for that matter still is free!)

 

What adblocker are you using? Firefox and ublock origin blocks everything for me.

[AK Bell]

44 minutes ago, thesnwmn said:

 

Because they've got to try to make money? I'm not sure of your reasoning. I'm simply saying that not willing to pay a subscription for a company that can make money in ads means you realise that people need to view their ads for that to work.

 

We can all run an ad blocker and get the Eurogamer subscription experience (without the Top 5 Burgers in games articles) for free but that's not sustainable really is it? We are hoping that enough other people will pay for me by viewing ads on Eurogamer or that Gamer Network will keep Eurogamer open even though only their site making money is Sims News because for whatever reason those gamers don't user ad blockers much.

 

 

Of course the issue isn't really ads right? It's the intrusiveness and tracking of ads. If ads were static and designed to fit the site structure then maybe we'd tolerate them more. But instead they're a fucking travesty and make many sites almost unusable. As a result people with ad blockers turn it on and it's on everywhere. They don't (mostly) bother checking each site and so don't see ads anywhere.

 

 

My reasoning is that despite some people using ad blockers, advertisers still think it's wise to advertise on these sites because enough people won't be using the ad blocker. So these sites must still be making some decent money from it or why bother?

 

My issue isn't so much the adverts or even the tracking. But yes, a major issue is how intrusive it can be. And it's more intrusive because of how shit they are, often slowing and fucking the website up, because it's using some "clever" service that isn't really on the website and it has to cope with whatever pops in there. 

 

It feels like they should approach it more like print media where they sell pages to publishers. Keep it simple. Just stick an image advertising the thing onto the webpage directly like an other image. Surely that would confuse most ad blockers and it would make the website better?

 

 

EDIT: I should add I don't use an adblocker. If it's full of crappy adverts making the experience worse, I simply don't use it any more. If it's fine, then they deserve the money they got for the adverts I ignored with my eyes and brain instead. 

[SozzlyJoe]

1 minute ago, Uncle Nasty said:

 

What adblocker are you using? Firefox and ublock origin blocks everything for me.

 

Yeah, same combo for me. Maybe I need to update something. That's literally the only ad that gets through!

[thesnwmn]

3 minutes ago, AK Bell said:

My reasoning is that despite some people using ad blockers, advertisers still think it's wise to advertise on these sites because enough people won't be using the ad blocker. So these sites must still be making some decent money from it or why bother?

 

This made me wonder. A quick Google suggests maybe 10-15% of adverts are blocked or users are blocking adverts (depending on how they measure). I don't actually know if blocked ads register as impressions and cost the advertiser anything. I suspect it depends on the serving technology and the type of ad blocker. Assuming the advertiser does pay for these unseen ads then I expect the reality is it just results in them paying slightly less per ad. The result being that sites need to serve more pages to get the same amount of money. Which maybe drives the SEO desperation.

 

Agree completely though. I'm not trying to say anyone should be paying for what is mostly press release regurgitation and crappy lists.

[deerokus]

Ads are now a lot better at getting through adblockers I notice.

[Flub]

51 minutes ago, deerokus said:

Ads are now a lot better at getting through adblockers I notice.

 

Not something I've noticed at all.