←back to thread

214 points minimaxir | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
kevingadd ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
nottorp ◴[] 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 #
jasonlotito ◴[] 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 #
nottorp ◴[] No.43953774{3}[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 #
1. jasonlotito ◴[] No.43964845{4}[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.