Giant Bomb Bomb-All

I listen to bomb off and on. Honestly, I wouldn't pay for their site. I think the GWJ podcast is better. Oddly enough, I could totally see myself hanging out and having fun with the GWJ staff, not so much with the Bombcast guys. Can't really pinpoint why I feel that way.

Also, as a gamer with a job and kids I've been absolutely floored by how readily I was accepted into this community. My steams friends list is a happening place now. For the first time since I was in college I'm buying games just because of my GWJer contacts are playing them.

I agree that $45 is a a lot for what WM has to offer. If GWJ was in the same position though I'd probably pony up the cash. My gut tells me that $20 would probably be a much better price point for most people though. Looking back at others who said $20-$25, I think it's because this is what we expect to pay for a year of a video game mag subscription or an indie game. $45+ puts you in "AA" title range which carries an expectation I don't think a podcast can achieve.

TheCounselor wrote:

That said, I'm still a bit unsettled that so many people are positively unwilling to pay for content that they freely admit they enjoy.

I don't know why you'd be unsettled. I enjoy their product, but not enough to pay a subscription fee. I'll sit through an ad, or two. I'll visit their site and occasionally click an ad if it appeals to me, but the idea that a consumer needs to pay out of pocket directly for every bit of media they consume isn't something I'm ready to concede. Media isn't entirely micro-transaction market yet; I hope it never becomes one.

I'm not saying that I would never be willing to pay, but their product would need to transform into something a little more concise and value rich. Their podcasts, though fun and of higher quality than most, are often rambling affairs -- as are many of their videos. Their site is brimming with content, but without the kind of editorial direction I would want in order to become a paying customer (as opposed to an advertising demographic number like I am now.)

Hollowheel wrote:

Their podcasts, though fun and of higher quality than most, are often rambling affairs -- as are many of their videos. Their site is brimming with content, but without the kind of editorial direction I would want in order to become a paying customer (as opposed to an advertising demographic number like I am now.)

I think that the rambling nature for me is what gives the bombcast it's charm and fun for me personally. Similar to how Idle Thumbs best moments came from insanely rambling conversational riffs.

*shrug*

My only real complaint with the Bombcast is that those dudes are some serious shooter-ass shooter fans. I honestly couldn't care less what the latest happenings are in the Modern Warface or Halo franchises, much less the lesser lights of that particular subgenre like non-MW CoD, Medal of Honor, Band of Brotherhood, Nazi Killer #493, or any other FPS of the quasi-realistic military "X of Y" mold. When they get down into the nitty-gritty of that stuff, I reach for the fast-forward button.

That sort of thing's bound to happen to some extent in just about any podcast, though. I mean, I likes me some PC strategy okay, but not NEARLY as much as most of the GWJ crew does. I'll probably get around to Starcraft 2 sooner or later and Civ5 makes me seriously want a new PC, but beyond those big-name highlights of the genre, I really can't muster up much interest. But you got to talk about what you love and play to your base, so I really can't complain too hard.

At least as much as the Bombcast, I signed up for a membership to support the Quick Looks. Streaming video bandwidth doesn't come cheap, and those things give me a much better idea of what the actual day-to-day experience of playing a game is going to be like than a standard video review ever could. Things that reviews tend to gloss over like interface, level design, loading times, ease of learning the controls, etc. are thrown into sharp relief when nobody's editing out the boring parts or using only the clips that include lines that can be taken out of context to sound snarky. Nobody else is really doing anything like it and I consider it a valuable service, so I feel like I have to support it.

hbi2k wrote:

My only real complaint with the Bombcast is that those dudes are some serious shooter-ass shooter fans. I honestly couldn't care less what the latest happenings are in the Modern Warface or Halo franchises, much less the lesser lights of that particular subgenre like non-MW CoD, Medal of Honor, Band of Brotherhood, Nazi Killer #493, or any other FPS of the quasi-realistic military "X of Y" mold. When they get down into the nitty-gritty of that stuff, I reach for the fast-forward button.

I don't really see it. Jeff is the shooter guy, as well as fighting. Ryan's tastes are all across the board, though he's primarily a single-player driven guy. Vinny plays every open world game to death, whether he likes them or not (he'll also poopsock RPGs, Dragon Age and Fallout 3 come to mind). Brad is a huge Starcraft fan, diamond-tier or whatever (I hates me some RTS).

I think if they seem shooter-centric it's just because that's what comes out most often nowadays and their mission is primarily to cover what is most relevant.

I have to say, despite having zero interest in SC2 myself, I can appreciate that Brad has been talking about it every week since the end of July. Most game reviewers don't play games at all like I do, for months at a time, and it's nice to see one of the with a long-term passion for something.

Blind_Evil wrote:

I think if they seem shooter-centric it's just because that's what comes out most often nowadays and their mission is primarily to cover what is most relevant.

I agree. They're console-centric for the most part and that leads to more 1st and 3rd person shooters than on the pc. I mean, how much have they been pimping Dance Central?

In other news, I just went to watch a video on GB and the options now are Low, High and HD. Since I haven't ponied up any money yet based on cash flow, I'm a little uhappy to see that Medium is gone, since that's what my laptop was able to handle. My desktop can swallow HD whole, but I watch a lot of their videos on my laptop while kicking back and relaxing. Ugh, I don't want to watch this on Low. [/whine]

kaptainbarbosa wrote:

Well, this was just posted on their twitter feed. Considering they are already at 4.4k within 24 hours of implementing the subscription, I think it's a done deal that they are going to scrap their podcast splitting plans. Actually, I suspect they would have done it anyways, even if they didn't meet that goal, due to the backlash they recieved.

@whiskeymedia has extended the 5k deadline to the 15th, citing technical problems, lack of paypal, and Wednesday paydays as compelling reasons.

Thank god. Now I can try to actually give them money they deserve and save the podcast for others. Ya, I said it.

I really don’t want to sound like a douche. I say this because I’m pretty sure I’m going to, and for that I’m sorry.

I can’t judge others—we all have complicated and different lives. Also, although I don’t have a lot of scratch I acknowledge I have more than others. And, as a final condition, maybe I simply enjoy Giant Bombcast more that other people do. If this last part is true, it’s odd that I hear it cited so much as being awesome—but who knows.

I’ll start where I think I’m the least douchey. I agree that firewalling their content is likely a horrible idea. It’s a way for them to fall from relevancy, which is a damned shame. It’s also a shame that if they didn’t do this—if they simply asked people to donate money so that they could continue, that people wouldn’t do it. As it they are making the decision to charge for additional access to content and the vast majority of people in this thread so far are certainly stating they will not pay.

Despite the fact that the Bombcast provides far more hours of entertainment than most games, a surprising number of people consider it to be far less valuable than the cost of a new release. I think that people don’t value podcasts because they feel entitled to the content for free.

I think about GFW and how I wish there had been a way to save it. And, while it’s no GFW, I’ve wondered before if there was a way to support GB. It’s a product I actually value and would like to help keep going. Some of this may be that I like GB more than others. Some of it may be that I’m willing to spend $45 for a year of entertainment. I won’t be using any/many of the other features, but I’ll gladly contribute to help something I value to exist.

While I understand a lot of people who have stated they aren’t going to buy it may have financial difficulties, may not care for GB as much as I do, and/or may simply think the cost is greater that it should be—but a lot of this has the feel of internet entitlement to me. It’s so damned good that people want it, just they don’t think they should have to pay for it in order to actually help it exist. Even if a forum based on a podcast, I get the feeling a lot of people simply feel that it should be given to them, and that the value of this free product is pretty close to zero.

demonbox I think you're only a little bit off the mark here. Plenty of people here have said they want to support the site(s) but it's a pricing issue. Most people on GWJ have talked about GB specifically and they seem to be reluctant to spend $50 for that content. A lot of people have said that they basically listen to the Bombcast and rarely visit the site. It's clear to me that a podcast can survive with fairly minimal support ... GWJ being one of my examples. While GWJ has a podcast and forums, they're also not paying the salaries of individuals, which the Whiskey Media sites are ... including health care, vacation et al.

Whiskey Media also produces a lot of video content and that stuff is really expensive. I say that after watching the 1up Show crumble and die. Luckily they found a new home, but that network faces the same sort of issues that Whiskey Media faces. In large part, they need to be funded by the community.

Whiskey Media doesn't want to go the standard route of plastering ads all over the place, but after a somewhat substantial period of time they're current ad structure just hasn't worked out, ad companies, corporations, etc. just haven't bought into their advertising model. So, they've turned to the community. Whiskey Media doesn't appear to be about to collapse tomorrow, but without them trying some new ways to generate revenue it appears they don't think they can sustain their current model. Why else make such a controversial decision as to split up the Bombcast content? It's an incentive to pay, as much as I think it's a terrible idea overall.

I'm rambling a bit. My overall point is that you aren't exactly wrong demonbox, but I think you may be putting a more negative spin on the entire situation ... as it applies to the GWJ crowd. The GB et al community is a completely different beast.

Back on track a bit. You say that you wish there were ways for you to support the Bombcast and there were ... it was by being involved in GiantBomb and not having an ad blocker turned off. That's been in place from the start ... and clearly their minimal take on advertising isn't funding them with quite enough money to support the content they have. I think the Bombcast is their most popular commodity, which is why you see it being split up. They're playing the cards they have.

Anyway, your post is mostly about the consumer/user as opposed to the sites. And I think you're mostly railing against GB users. I really don't think the people here are taking issue with the fact that Whiskey Media is making these changes so much as they're implementing a pay structure that is more or less all or nothing. People seem to be upset that there aren't enough pay tiers. $50 a year makes TOTAL sense to me as I frequent more than one of their sites, but GB seems to be their most popular product and $50 for just that is probably a bit too much for many people. The prevailing naysaying comments around here seem to be "$25 I'm in, $50, well, I don't think I like it that much". It's not the idea of paying, they don't expect to get everything for free, there isn't an entitlement issue at Gmaers With Jobs, it's more about the all or nothing pay structure involved.

[/long ramble]

I don't understand how choosing not to pay for something is entitlement. They put a price out there; if I feel like the services they are offering for that price are worth it, I will pay that price. If not, I will choose to spend my money on something else. It was their decision to keep most of the stuff free and if they couldn't afford to do that, they wouldn't. If they decided to charge $50 a year to have access to their videos and podcasts, then I probably would pay it. But they aren't.

It's not that I feel entitled to receive all this content for free, it's that they are giving it to me for free, and the stuff they are charging for isn't worth $50 a year.

While I understand their reasoning, I think it's dumb that if I would rather pay $5/mo for a year instead of $45/yr, the people giving them less money than me get more perks.

While at first I was kind of down on this, reading the thread and discussing it in IRC converted me to the $5/mo camp. GB isn't on my weekly "must listen" list of podcasts right now, but it is at the top of my "if I have time" list of podcasts.

I wonder if they might have suffered less ill will if they'd decided to just delay the entire Bombcast a week for non-members instead of splitting it. Which (as they explained in the membership podcast), you can totally do; there'll be an entire RSS feed dedicated to people who just want the whole Bombcast together in one file a week later. But they seem to be communicating the idea of a split Bombcast more strongly, and that's what seems to be freaking a lot of people out. I understand that they're trying to give non-members a lot of options for getting the content however they want, but the sheer variety of ways to get the Bombcast now (all at once on Day One if you're a member, the last half of last week's + the first half of this week's, all of last week's....) seems to be confusing people and causing them to freak out a little.

I also keep seeing the word "paywall" cropping up, and that's really not what this is. All the content that used to be free is still free, paying members can just get it earlier now. I think they haven't done a very good job of being clear with that message.

My name over there is Matphes. I've been trying to kick myself over it and then realize how much time I spend listening to their content. Gotten more out of that 60 bucks for a year than most people will get out of the $60+ they spend on their cable bill every month.

Whiskey Media set up the expectation of free and un-delayed podcasts and reinforced that notion with comments that free users would lose no features when the subscription model came into being. It's understandable that people would get upset when what was free and timely last week might be delayed next week unless you're willing to become a paid user.

I think framing the argument as giving Whiskey Media money in appreciation of past entertainment is disingenuous. You may feel you're paying them back but I'm not convinced that's what the higher-ups see when they tally up those who've paid. What they offered in the past was free of charge. What they're asking us to pay for now is a specific set of features, including being able to listen to the Bombcast as we were able to before. That's what I see as at-issue here.

I don't believe that entertainment can be quantified by number of hours spent reading/playing/listening to something. I've had movies that only lasted ninety minutes that I'd gladly pay $50 for simply because of their emotional impact on me and I've had ninety hour games that I regret paying $50 for when I'm finished. To me the features being offered by Whiskey Media aren't worth $50 a year.

General Crespin wrote:

While I understand their reasoning, I think it's dumb that if I would rather pay $5/mo for a year instead of $45/yr, the people giving them less money than me get more perks.

That part makes perfect sense to me, it's like the $200 lifetime subscriptions to Cryptic games; you might be paying less money than someone else who's month-to-month but they're getting your money right now and are able to use it immediately. Plus you're locked in for a prolonged period whereas monthly users could presumably quit at any time over the slightest infraction and give them less money overall.

It's like if you win the lotto it's better to go with cash value rather than getting it doled out over twenty years. Sure you're getting half the money, but you're able to do things with it that will more than double its value over the course of twenty years.

Just to remind everyone, they were reportedly at 4.4k subscribers as of 10am pacific this morning. They also extended the deadline to next Thursday in order to make sure those clamoring for Paypal charges can get signed up. I think they'll get the remaining 600 or so by the end of the weekend at the latest and all this moaning about the Bombcast being split up will be completely moot.

As long as they keep their word, that is. I don't doubt them in the least, but hey.

They've mentioned a couple times that they are in the process of developing new features that will exclusive to subscribers, I'm anxious to hear some of that. Also looking forward to Tuesday's 'cast much more than usual to hear their response to the community response to the whole situation.

demonbox wrote:

It’s so damned good that people want it, just they don’t think they should have to pay for it in order to actually help it exist. Even if a forum based on a podcast, I get the feeling a lot of people simply feel that it should be given to them, and that the value of this free product is pretty close to zero.

Well from my standpoint:

1. It isn't "so damn good". It is much better than the typical drivel gaming podcast, gaming blog for sure. But, I think the site is bloated and undisciplined. Too many people doing too many things too quickly. It's good enough that I think it is much better than say the ATB podcast (and dozens of other mid-tier gaming podcast, blogs), but not enough for me to spend money on it. If suddenly I couldn't get it free, I wouldn't feel too terrible excising it from my weekly routine. True, it's a staple of my podcast/website viewing, but only because the competition is slim. I put up with hour long anecdotes about buying 80s arcade cabinets because its free. If I were paying, I'd be irritated.

2. Entitlement? That's just silly. People like me who don't want to pay aren't saying that it's unfair and that we deserve the content for free. We're just saying it isn't worth the money. $5 can buy you more quality entertainment than I think you realize.

Hollowheel wrote:

1. It isn't "so damn good". It is much better than the typical drivel gaming podcast, gaming blog for sure. But, I think the site is bloated and undisciplined.

Just sayin' ;)

CastMedium.com wrote:

Best Podcast 2009:

This is the best of the best. The podcast that makes us refresh our browsers and iTunes for hours on end, just in case it might have come out early.

Winner – Giant Bombcast

Runner-up -

No runner-up here. This pick was so fervently unanimous that it felt right to have the Bombcast stand alone. The thing that sealed its top spot was that everyone agreed that this really is the only podcast that we will consistently listen to single episodes more than once. Funny, informative, off-topic and just a blast– it’s your weekly Bombcast. Cheers to Ryan, Jeff, Vinny and Brad.

The experts have spoken! I think Mr. Downin has a little cred to spare around here, too.

I know the hivemind around here tabs Idle Thumbs as the best podcast around, but I can't get into it. It is just as rambling and unorganized, but those dudes make games, and get a little deeper into design than I really care to hear about. The Bombcast guys have been playing games fervently forever and approach it with the same attitude (I'm passionate about games but I don't take it too seriously, why would I? Look how silly it all is). That makes their views way more easy to relate to my own experiences.

Different strokes and all.

garion333 wrote:

demonbox I think you're only a little bit off the mark here. Plenty of people here have said they want to support the site(s) but it's a pricing issue. Most people on GWJ have talked about GB specifically and they seem to be reluctant to spend $50 for that content. A lot of people have said that they basically listen to the Bombcast and rarely visit the site.

It’s certainly unreasonable for me to comment on the perceived value of a product for other people, though that’s really what I’m doing. I actually don’t like the model GB is going with and initially didn’t know if I would commit to purchasing a membership based on the fact that I do not go to their website very often. But for me Podcasts do have a value, and I am willing to help content providers if the content is valid enough for me. For me it crosses that threshold. I feel like there are a lot of people who, despite the value of the product, are very put off by the idea of ever actually contributing to content providers. It’s short-sighted and indicative of a lot of problems with internet culture.

Specifically, for what you address here—for those who want to contribute but don’t think it’s worth $45—I understand completely, and am almost there myself. For others tho, and there were many, who simply have no intent to ever contribute to a content creator—I find myself annoyed by the limitations of such a perspective.

garion333 wrote:

People seem to be upset that there aren't enough pay tiers. $50 a year makes TOTAL sense to me as I frequent more than one of their sites, but GB seems to be their most popular product and $50 for just that is probably a bit too much for many people. The prevailing naysaying comments around here seem to be "$25 I'm in, $50, well, I don't think I like it that much". It's not the idea of paying, they don't expect to get everything for free, there isn't an entitlement issue at Gmaers With Jobs, it's more about the all or nothing pay structure involved.

It’s highly possible that the majority of posts are people willing to pay some money ($25 as an example)—that was not my read from going through this thread, but I freely admit it could be that I’m just focusing more on those posts who seem to be more about entitlement.

Sinkwater wrote:

I don't understand how choosing not to pay for something is entitlement. They put a price out there; if I feel like the services they are offering for that price are worth it, I will pay that price. If not, I will choose to spend my money on something else. It was their decision to keep most of the stuff free and if they couldn't afford to do that, they wouldn't. If they decided to charge $50 a year to have access to their videos and podcasts, then I probably would pay it. But they aren't.

It's not that I feel entitled to receive all this content for free, it's that they are giving it to me for free, and the stuff they are charging for isn't worth $50 a year.

If they had turned all access to all of their content off, it’d piss people off because they got used to it. Though it is only if they fully cut you off that you’d be willing to support them? I should say that I agree that the $45 is high and that they aren’t giving a lot of perks. But I would freely pay $25 for a shirt—which means I’m paying $20 to help their site continue to operate, since I highly value the product they produce. I can’t tell you what you should pay, if you should pay, or if you have a sense of entitlement personally. But I can say that there are a lot of people on the internet who simply aren’t willing to pay for what they value, as they feel it should all be available for free.

Hollowheel wrote:

2. Entitlement? That's just silly. People like me who don't want to pay aren't saying that it's unfair and that we deserve the content for free. We're just saying it isn't worth the money. $5 can buy you more quality entertainment than I think you realize.

Then you would fall into what I tried to make clear-- a set who doesn't feel it is worth the value. It was never my intention to suggest that if you didn’t agree to pay that you must feel entitled, and I attempted to make that clear.

I don't go to Giantbomb or listen to the Bombcast. The site is too full of rich media that is inaccessible to me on my internet connection and I only listen to the GWJ CC.

But I just lost one of my favourite news spoof websites because the guys maintaining it couldn't afford to carry on and they couldn't raise advertising, they even produced merchandise to try bank roll the site. And I'm gutted, I wish they had thought of a subscription model or something to help keep the lights on.

$50 a year is a big chunk, but surely if one appreciates the content the equivalent to one year of Live Gold isn't too much to spare?

Hollowheel wrote:
TheCounselor wrote:

That said, I'm still a bit unsettled that so many people are positively unwilling to pay for content that they freely admit they enjoy.

I don't know why you'd be unsettled. I enjoy their product, but not enough to pay a subscription fee. I'll sit through an ad, or two. I'll visit their site and occasionally click an ad if it appeals to me, but the idea that a consumer needs to pay out of pocket directly for every bit of media they consume isn't something I'm ready to concede. Media isn't entirely micro-transaction market yet; I hope it never becomes one.

The problem is that advertisers aren't going to pay for media, because advertising is becoming increasingly irrelevant. I admit that I go out of my way to avoid commercials on TV whenever I can. I'll read a book during commercials, or go get a drink. I never listen to the radio in the car anymore. I ignore internet advertising like it isn't even there.

However, I also realize that something has to give. If I'm not looking at the advertising and/or buying their products, then I can't expect them to fund the content that I enjoy. Thus, I have to pay for that content, or it will cease to exist. Other content may take its place, driven by volunteer sites like GWJ, but it's not the same. Professional journalists still have a place for me, and I realize that I'm going to have to pay for content that has traditionally been free because the advertisers aren't going to.

While you may want the old model to work, millions of others have spoken, and the fact is that advertising on the internet is unlikely to ever become a profitable venture for media companies. Google can make it work because their visitors are looking for specific things, and millions of them go there with the intent to spend money. When I go to Giant Bomb, or any of the other media sites I frequent, I'm going to browse for interesting content, and more often than not I'm not looking to buy something. Different strokes, I guess, but I hope that this works, so that I can still consume the content that I value.

demonbox wrote:

Specifically, for what you address here—for those who want to contribute but don’t think it’s worth $45—I understand completely, and am almost there myself. For others tho, and there were many, who simply have no intent to ever contribute to a content creator—I find myself annoyed by the limitations of such a perspective.

Agreed. To be more specific, there are a lot of people on the Giant Bomb forums (who clearly spend a lot of time there due to their ranking) who are steadfastly against this model. At the same time, they admit to using adblockers for all the sites they use, and they whine about how most other gaming sites seem to cater more to PR and marketing people than to their audience. For them not to see the disconnect in them refusing to pay even $5 kind of points out the issues with a world that grew up with bittorrent and the dot-com boom. I think Ryan Davis made it clear on that podcast where he said he would rather be in business with his viewers than with his advertisers.

For the record, I also understand how some people aren't interested because of the price. I wouldn't be surprised if they try different tiers of service if the subscription thing ends up being a viable option. But for me, it's primarily the only mainstream video game related site I go to - and constantly. The Quick Looks alone have both entertained me and provided me with more purchasing decision knowledge than any preview or trailer in years, so I love the idea of getting them in HD and streaming it to my television. And as I said, I've also started getting into the content at Screened and Tested. So personally, I was expecting to pay twice the cost.

TheCounselor wrote:

While you may want the old model to work, millions of others have spoken, and the fact is that advertising on the internet is unlikely to ever become a profitable venture for media companies. Google can make it work because their visitors are looking for specific things, and millions of them go there with the intent to spend money. When I go to Giant Bomb, or any of the other media sites I frequent, I'm going to browse for interesting content, and more often than not I'm not looking to buy something. Different strokes, I guess, but I hope that this works, so that I can still consume the content that I value.

Actually, I think internet advertising in general is increasing at the fastest pace as it has a higher targetability than print, TV, or radio.

The problem here is that WM specifically has stated that they do not want to rely primarily on advertisements, due to editorial purity (and understandably with the history over there).

I think the paid subscription tiered website is not going to be that successful for most content types. I donate to a fitness site I really like, but that's more a donation for me in my mind than it is an exchange of money for services. As said above, I could see myself paying $25 a year or so for some minor perks I don't care about very much, but not $50.

If the magic 5000 people sign up at $50, that's $250,000 - tshirt costs. That's probably not that much in the scheme of things for the staff and tech needs they have over there. Assuming subscribers continue to increase, it's still going to need supplemental funding somehow.

I've love for these guys to succeed somehow, I just think this isn't the way to do it.

TheCounselor wrote:
bnpederson wrote:
TheCounselor wrote:

[...] I'm still a bit unsettled that so many people are positively unwilling to pay for content that they freely admit they enjoy.

I'd like to point out that there's a difference between being not wanting to pay for their content and not wanting to pay the price they're asking for their content.

True, but there are several people in this thread and elsewhere that have said they won't pay anything, while also saying how much they value that content. That's not aimed at the guys who said they'd pay $20 a year, but not $50. That's a pure value judgment on what the content is worth to you.

Of course, pay your own price models don't work, either.

I think that part of the issue is a product's price changes my perception of its quality. It's very easy for me to call a 5 dollar DLC game 'great;' much harder for a 60 dollar disc game to get that rating. If GiantBomb has an off week (and they do) now, I just shrug and move on. If I've paid 50 dollars a year and they have an off week, my response is more negative.

MannishBoy wrote:
TheCounselor wrote:

While you may want the old model to work, millions of others have spoken, and the fact is that advertising on the internet is unlikely to ever become a profitable venture for media companies. Google can make it work because their visitors are looking for specific things, and millions of them go there with the intent to spend money. When I go to Giant Bomb, or any of the other media sites I frequent, I'm going to browse for interesting content, and more often than not I'm not looking to buy something. Different strokes, I guess, but I hope that this works, so that I can still consume the content that I value.

Actually, I think internet advertising in general is increasing at the fastest pace as it has a higher targetability than print, TV, or radio.

This.

Internet advertising is still a very viable method of making money off of the internet. You can't approach it like you would print advertising, because that model doesn't relate, but it does work. The subscription model for media failed on the internet the first go around, and we are experiencing a new wave of it. I don't think it's a bad idea at all. I have subscriptions to a fair number of sites. Giant Bomb (with their massive game data base thingy) has the makings of a reasonable service-- just not for me, not yet. If they could wrestle their game data library into something I could more easily navigate or comprehend; then we might be cooking with gas.

[quote=Blind_Evil]

Hollowheel wrote:

1. It isn't "so damn good". It is much better than the typical drivel gaming podcast, gaming blog for sure. But, I think the site is bloated and undisciplined.

Just sayin' ;)

CastMedium.com wrote:

Best Podcast 2009:

Winner – Giant Bombcast

The experts have spoken! I think Mr. Downin has a little cred to spare around here, too.

Different strokes and all.

I don't think my taste matches the folks at CastMedium. In a recent podcast on GWJ (at least I think it was GWJ--everything's a blur), a guest from CM gave suggestions for some good podcasts. I followed up on his suggestions and they didn't match the sort of conversation I'm interested in.

I think (no, I know) I'm picky.

From the Whiskey Media twitter (they hit 5k 6 minutes ago):

The Bombcast is officially free for everyone... Forever. Thanks everyone! A replacement for subscribers (something new!) coming next week.

Great news!

I'm glad everyone gets the Bombcast now. Forever. It was the only thing that made me feel off about the Whiskey Media Membership thing and now that point is null and void. I will enjoy the t-shirt I get, the HD video, and whatever this mystery incentive is that they give the subscribers (not to mention the mobile site which is a life saver at work where the regular sites are blocked).

Hopefully everyone is happy now.

I'm still a bit concerned.

$350k/yr (and that's assuming that everyone right now stays for the year) is not a heck of a lot of money. Factoring in bandwidth, facilities, and, the biggest cost of them all, labor (salaries and benefits), I still can't seem them running anything but a large deficit in the future. Maybe this just lowers the burn rate?

I am curious as to the logic behind setting up the film and tech sites, although I do enjoy them. Those spaces are incredibly populated as it is, especially tech with sites like Engadget, Gizmodo, gdgt, etc, and it's going to be hard to really get a large mindshare like GB has done. I'm not as familiar with the media space, but I don't think they are as close as GB to popularity, since they just started and haven't had the chance to gain the mindshare that is required to go "Hey, we need some money from you guys now." Both of those sites cost a lot of money, and I just can't see them breaking even anytime soon.

You can argue that they can gain more money by more memberships, but they basically had to beg/cajole/use the trump card to get to only 5,000. Are they going to see an exponential jump anytime soon? Doubtful... these membership drives are usually where you see spikes.

As to the "people want stuff for free", that's a consequence of their being just so much stuff on the Internet. People talk a bunch about quality, but they vote with their wallets. They'd rather eat mediocrity for free than an expensive filet mignon. Hence I have no idea how to make money on the Internet that does not involve being a part of a larger conglomerate (Cnet is owned by CBS, IGN by Fox, UGO by Hearst I think...)

Iridium884 wrote:

I'm still a bit concerned.I am curious as to the logic behind setting up the film and tech sites, although I do enjoy them. Those spaces are incredibly populated as it is, especially tech with sites like Engadget, Gizmodo, gdgt, etc, and it's going to be hard to really get a large mindshare like GB has done. I'm not as familiar with the media space, but I don't think they are as close as GB to popularity, since they just started and haven't had the chance to gain the mindshare that is required to go "Hey, we need some money from you guys now." Both of those sites cost a lot of money, and I just can't see them breaking even anytime soon.

To be fair, the video game space was super crowded as well when Giantbomb came on the scene. Although the advantages of true independence (ie: Being answerable only to your readers) are probably much more pronounced in the video game space, perhaps film and comics are similar in certain ways.

EDIT: Another thing is that Whiskey Media employs this team of engineers developing all these interesting backend features; branching out into multiple different frontends that can reuse the same technology might make some financial sense.