←back to thread

Fandom sells gaming media brand Giant Bomb to long-term staff

(about.fandom.com)
214 points minimaxir | 10 comments | 11 May 25 00:00 UTC | HN request time: 0.801s | source | bottom
Show context
kevingadd ◴[11 May 25 01:45 UTC] No.43950569[source]▶
For those unfamiliar, Giant Bomb was one of the first video games press outlets to focus on premium video content. They offered monthly/yearly paid subscriptions for unlimited streaming/downloads: a mix of livestreams, review/criticism content, and Just Goofing Around pre-recorded content. They typically released a few hours worth of content a week at their peak, if I remember right, and the cost was something like $30-50 a year. This was before long form video was a big thing on YouTube; arguably sites like Giant Bomb were pioneers that showed a path forward (at least temporarily) for lots of creatives.

Their podcast has been running weekly for the entire time the site has operated alongside (intermittently) other podcasts, so they're approaching 890 episodes. Each episode was typically a few hours long as well.

When they were doing good they were a well-oiled content machine operating on a small budget with a small team. A lot of the stuff they put out was really special or unique in games press at the time - for example, one of their staff went to North Korea during a vacation so during one of their weekly live streams they devoted a time slot to him showing his photos and talking about his experiences there.

replies(3): >>43950747 #>>43951136 #>>43952125 #
protocolture ◴[11 May 25 07:43 UTC] No.43952125[source]▶
>For those unfamiliar, Giant Bomb was one of the first video games press outlets to focus on premium video content. They offered monthly/yearly paid subscriptions for unlimited streaming/downloads: a mix of livestreams, review/criticism content, and Just Goofing Around pre-recorded content. They typically released a few hours worth of content a week at their peak, if I remember right, and the cost was something like $30-50 a year. This was before long form video was a big thing on YouTube; arguably sites like Giant Bomb were pioneers that showed a path forward (at least temporarily) for lots of creatives.

It would never occur to me to watch someone else talk about or play a game online, let alone pay for the privilege.

It seems I am alone on that front.

replies(11): >>43952334 #>>43952358 #>>43952359 #>>43952482 #>>43952504 #>>43952556 #>>43952560 #>>43952643 #>>43953887 #>>43953979 #>>43954895 #
1. nottorp ◴[11 May 25 09:28 UTC] No.43952560[source]▶
> It seems I am alone on that front.

No :)

In a third of the time you spend watching one "content creator" "goofing around" you can go through 3-4 text reviews and figure out if the game is for you already.

replies(3): >>43952632 #>>43952664 #>>43959579 #
2. natebc ◴[11 May 25 09:49 UTC] No.43952632[source]▶
FYI Since you two don't seem to have engaged with Giant Bomb previously. This is exactly what Giant Bomb did NOT do. Most of their new games video coverage was their Quick Look series that was typically 10-20 minutes from maybe a few different points in the game.
replies(2): >>43954894 #>>43961638 #
3. jasonlotito ◴[11 May 25 09:55 UTC] No.43952664[source]▶
I don’t know why you would watch videos where people are goofing around. That seems like a you problem. Instead of picking random reviewers, stick to a few that like the games you like.

And honestly, one of the best reviewers I know does video reviews and puts the recommendation in the title. I still like to listen to the reviews because I can do it while doing other things, unlike reading.

replies(1): >>43953774 #
4. nottorp ◴[11 May 25 13:42 UTC] No.43953774[source]▶
> Instead of picking random reviewers, stick to a few

I do. In text mode.

> that like the games you like.

But this way I'll never get to play anything new to me. Best to check varied reviewers even if i don't always agree with them.

> I can do it while doing other things, unlike reading.

Reading is much faster than even listening to a talking head though.

replies(1): >>43964845 #
5. nottorp ◴[11 May 25 16:31 UTC] No.43954894[source]▶
> don't seem to have engaged

I don't engage. I read or watch. If it looks like engagement I close.

replies(1): >>43957221 #
6. natebc ◴[11 May 25 21:14 UTC] No.43957221{3}[source]▶
I apologize. It doesn't seem like you two have watched or read anything from the folks at Giant Bomb.

Have a nice day.

replies(1): >>43958114 #
7. nottorp ◴[11 May 25 23:17 UTC] No.43958114{4}[source]▶
Well I haven't. And with the deluge of "video content" these days I'm afraid I'm not tempted.
8. protocolture ◴[12 May 25 04:12 UTC] No.43959579[source]▶
Yeah my read on things is that "contentification" is just the more permissible branch of "enshittification".

If theres no article and I have to watch some clown in a video to get at the information I want I usually turn off.

9. __david__ ◴[12 May 25 10:55 UTC] No.43961638[source]▶
Yeah, Quick Look’s are what brought me to Giant Bomb initially. They aren’t reviews and they take pains to not spoil too much of the game. They give a good feel of what the actual gameplay looks like, which is almost never available from the game trailers, and which I find is hard to get a good mental picture of from written reviews (especially short ones).

Just watching their quick looks introduced me to so many different game genres that I’d never tried before. It’s a shame they stopped doing those a couple years ago.

10. jasonlotito ◴[12 May 25 16:31 UTC] No.43964845{3}[source]▶
> I do. In text mode.

So, I don't get it. You have a problem with reviewers, but you stick to a few? Seems like a self-imposed problem.

> But this way I'll never get to play anything new to me.

The reviewers review new games.

> Reading is much faster than even listening to a talking head though.

Sure, but a thumbs up or thumbs down is MUCH faster, and therefore better rather than reading someone talking about stuff.