Avatar image for rongalaxy
#1 Edited by RonGalaxy (4737 posts) -

So, IGN looks a little bit different today...

No Caption Provided

An update to their homebar brought to you by Xbox One? What does that even mean??? Did microsoft pay for the beta? Sorry if I'm reaching too far into the barrel, it just seems super off to me, and kind of gross. Not sure how anyone could take them seriously if they are getting funding from a company they are heavily covering. Good thing I don't seriously use IGN (I go to it a few times a week to see how awful it is)

Avatar image for hayt
#2 Posted by Hayt (1318 posts) -

How exciting. A new look for a website no one should visit

Online
Avatar image for vuud
#3 Posted by Vuud (2052 posts) -

One glance at IGN's forums told me that it's the worst place on the internet.

Avatar image for firepaw
#4 Posted by Firepaw (3060 posts) -

I know you don't get ads on Giant Bomb - but there have been PS4 and Xbox One ads here for months.

So I guess you shouldn't take anything our guys says seriously either :)

Avatar image for rongalaxy
#5 Edited by RonGalaxy (4737 posts) -

I know you don't get ads on Giant Bomb - but there have been PS4 and Xbox One ads here for months.

So I guess you shouldn't take anything our guys says seriously either :)

thats different, its not like a part of the site was (possibly) directly funded by MS. Anyone is allowed to buy ad space on the site. Hell, I could go buy some if I wanted to. An example I could thing of is if the top bar of this site was directly funded by MS and it proudly stated so. Different things mang

Avatar image for firepaw
#6 Posted by Firepaw (3060 posts) -

@village_guy said:

I know you don't get ads on Giant Bomb - but there have been PS4 and Xbox One ads here for months.

So I guess you shouldn't take anything our guys says seriously either :)

thats different, its not like a part of the site was (possibly) directly funded by MS. Anyone is allowed to buy ad space on the site. Hell, I could go buy some if I wanted to. An example I could thing of is if the top bar of this site was directly funded by MS and it proudly stated so. Different things mang

Okay you're right it is a bit different - but my guess on the IGN thing is still that Microsoft didn't sponsor/fund anything and that it is just a different looking ad in reality.

Or maybe you're right and I'm not reading enough into it... who knows really.

Avatar image for danteveli
#7 Edited by Danteveli (1420 posts) -

They paid so that their consoles are before Sony and Nintendo on the bar or something like that.

Avatar image for ttocs
#8 Edited by ttocs (867 posts) -

Just because a company buys ad space on a website doesn't mean that they are paying for reviews (at least, not anymore post Gamestop/Gerstman-gate debacle). Microsoft want to get their brand across any way they can and the marketing division over at Microsoft probably pitched the idea to fund a redesign on the IGN site on their dollar if they plaster their name across the site as the benefactors. It's a good will campaign for IGN fans.

Avatar image for andrewb
#9 Edited by AndrewB (7815 posts) -

I actually noticed this earlier on a rare excursion to the site out of desperation for a constant supply of news about the console launches. One thing you notice is that, of course, Xbox One comes pre-pinned.

Not really sure how to feel. On the one hand, I've seen Ryse ads all over Giant Bomb - Ryse is a Microsoft console exclusive... it might not be quite the same as being sponsored by the actual console itself, but there's something to it. Or actually, there isn't because it's pretty clear no one on staff thinks Ryse is going to be worthy of your time as of this moment. I suppose then it becomes a matter of how much you trust the editorial staff of an outlet to not let advertising skew recommendations. No idea if I can say that about the current IGN staff because I really don't know a lot of them. But really... we all know Mitch Dyer is an Xbot.

Man, I shouldn't even joke....

Oh and remember that a different branch of Microsoft helped fund Polygon.

Avatar image for nictel
#10 Edited by Nictel (2696 posts) -

It wasn't paid for by Microsoft I think, at least my company did a similar deal once with Mastercard "Brought to you by Mastercard" but we didn't receive a dime from them. What it meant was that we could use their email database and that we got a page in their ICS magazine.

My first reaction would be "ad" and not "Microsoft is paying IGN directly".

Avatar image for darji
#11 Posted by Darji (5412 posts) -

@nictel said:

It wasn't paid for by Microsoft, at least my company did a similar deal once with Mastercard "Brought to you by Mastercard" but we didn't receive a dime from them. What it meant was that we could use their email database and that we got a page in their ICS magazine.

My first reaction would be "ad" and not "Microsoft is paying IGN directly".

but doesn't Ad mean sponsoring or paying?

Avatar image for mike
#12 Posted by Mike (17341 posts) -

Xbox One...then Xbox 360...then PS4? Oh geez.

Moderator
Avatar image for rongalaxy
#13 Edited by RonGalaxy (4737 posts) -

@ttocs said:

Just because a company buys ad space on a website doesn't mean that they are paying for reviews (at least, not anymore post Gamestop/Gerstman-gate debacle). Microsoft want to get their brand across any way they can and the marketing division over at Microsoft probably pitched the idea to fund a redesign on the IGN site on their dollar if they plaster their name across the site as the benefactors. It's a good will campaign for IGN fans.

Im not insinuating that they are doing this for reviews or anything. Still, the fact that it basically says 'this part of the site brought to you by a huge corporation this site covers frequently' is off putting.

Avatar image for somejerk
#14 Posted by SomeJerk (4077 posts) -

If they give Polygon-like ratings in the Xbone reviews that'll explain it. Not like it's news to us about IGN, or what their Xbox department is like in their podcasts - goddamn delusional, that is.

Avatar image for project343
#15 Posted by project343 (2895 posts) -

@vuud said:

One glance at IGN's forums told me that it's the worst place on the internet.

Have you ever scrolled down to a comment section on an article? The worst. It rivals Youtube.

Avatar image for andrewb
#16 Posted by AndrewB (7815 posts) -

@mb: X comes before P comes before W. Wait...

Avatar image for darji
#17 Posted by Darji (5412 posts) -
Avatar image for rongalaxy
#18 Posted by RonGalaxy (4737 posts) -

@darji said:

@project343: I thought the worst was gamespot.....

naw, gametrailers (though I do like their video reviews). Everything about that site is corporate. Thanks Viacom!

Avatar image for squidc00kie
#19 Edited by squiDc00kiE (465 posts) -

The marketing and editorial departments hardly ever speak. In fact at IGN I believe they're on different floors even. Yeah it does seem gross at first glance but then again what would they pay ign for? Every review to be a 9.8 instead of a 9.5?

Yep. I know. Very controversial huh?

Avatar image for rongalaxy
#20 Posted by RonGalaxy (4737 posts) -

The marketing and editorial departments hardly ever speak. In fact at IGN I believe they're on different floors even. Yeah it does seem gross at first glance but then again what would they pay ign for? Every review to be a 9.8 instead of a 9.5?

Yep. I know. Very controversial huh?

Not insinuating anything like that. I know it is, most likely, innocent in nature. It's still off putting to me

Avatar image for ostratego
#21 Edited by Ostratego (62 posts) -

Microsoft is advertizing to websites where the audience knows better.

My prerogative to you, the viewers, is to take not only IGN, but also the Giant Bomb Crew, with a grain of salt. Most of you have been doing that already.

And to those who do, good job.

Avatar image for rongalaxy
#22 Posted by RonGalaxy (4737 posts) -

Microsoft is advertizing to websites where the audience knows better.

My prerogative to you, the viewers, is to take not only IGN, but also the Giant Bomb Crew, with a grain of salt. Most of you have been doing that already.

And to those who do, good job.

why the giant bomb crew? Jeff would be out in a fucking second if anything like that happened to GB. He is the guy who got fired from GS for giving a game a 6

Avatar image for chaser324
#23 Edited by Chaser324 (8128 posts) -

I think you're trying to read too much into this. I know people love to think everything is a conspiracy and that every editorial department is for sale to the highest bidder, but this is just a marketing department doing what they do.

IGN can and will sell advertising and cram it in everywhere they can. This is just another case of that.

Moderator
Avatar image for darji
#24 Posted by Darji (5412 posts) -

@chaser324: But shouldn't marketing know better about positive and negative effects? For example by the time IGN reviewed MAss Effect 2 the site was full of ME2 adds and obviously the score was a 9.5 or 10. Of course people accuse a site like that of being paid. I do not think it is very smart to do stuff like that to keep a positive image which also effects the adds value over a long time.

Avatar image for chaser324
#25 Edited by Chaser324 (8128 posts) -

@darji: No, I really don't think marketing departments should account for that. Denying ad space entirely to the companies that value it the most is just a horrible way to do business.

I know GameSpot had that incident in the past, but the exodus of editors following that should have made it perfectly clear that the vast majority of people in video games media value their integrity. If people aren't willing to accept that and can't separate the two things, so be it. Websites still need to make money, and until the old school advertising model completely stops being profitable, it's not going to change.

Making money doesn't preclude honest editorial content.

Moderator
Avatar image for rongalaxy
#26 Edited by RonGalaxy (4737 posts) -

@darji: No, I really don't think marketing departments should account for that. Denying ad space entirely to the companies that value it the most is just a horrible way to do business.

I know GameSpot had that incident in the past, but the exodus of editors following that should have made it perfectly clear that the vast majority of people in video games media value their integrity over making money. If people aren't willing to accept that, so be it. Websites still need to make money, and until the old school advertising model completely stops being profitable, it's not going to change.

Yeah, I never meant for people to take this as me insinuating IGN was getting paid by MS for reviews or anything. I just like my ads separated as much as possible from editorial. Seeing a literal part of the site say it was sponsored by MS is just really off putting to me.

Avatar image for tourgen
#27 Edited by tourgen (4568 posts) -

Someone had to pay the bills to keep websites online. The site probably is literally brought to you by Microsoft.

Avatar image for gonmog
#28 Posted by Gonmog (671 posts) -
Loading Video...

I'll leave this here.

Avatar image for hollitz
#29 Posted by hollitz (2179 posts) -

@hayt said:

How exciting. A new look for a website no one should visit

Exactly.

Avatar image for amyggen
#30 Posted by AMyggen (7671 posts) -

They could've worded it better, I guess. But "this is brought to you by company X" is just another way of saying "sponsored by company X". I've got no problem with guys like MS or Sony sponsering video game websites.

Avatar image for nictel
#31 Edited by Nictel (2696 posts) -

@darji said:

@nictel said:

It wasn't paid for by Microsoft, at least my company did a similar deal once with Mastercard "Brought to you by Mastercard" but we didn't receive a dime from them. What it meant was that we could use their email database and that we got a page in their ICS magazine.

My first reaction would be "ad" and not "Microsoft is paying IGN directly".

but doesn't Ad mean sponsoring or paying?

I see a difference between 'paying to get your logo on something' and 'paying so you can develop service or product X'.

Avatar image for xeiphyer
#32 Edited by Xeiphyer (5837 posts) -

I need my XBONE to get my beta key for the IGN beta!!!!!!111

Avatar image for clonedzero
#33 Edited by Clonedzero (4206 posts) -

A video game company advertising and sponsoring a video game website?! How dare they!

Avatar image for rongalaxy
#34 Posted by RonGalaxy (4737 posts) -

A video game company advertising and sponsoring a video game website?! How dare they!

someone didn't read the post!

Avatar image for egg
#35 Posted by egg (1667 posts) -

So, IGN looks a little bit different today...

No Caption Provided

An update to their homebar brought to you by Xbox One? What does that even mean??? Did microsoft pay for the beta? Sorry if I'm reaching too far into the barrel, it just seems super off to me, and kind of gross. Not sure how anyone could take them seriously if they are getting funding from a company they are heavily covering. Good thing I don't seriously use IGN (I go to it a few times a week to see how awful it is)

Look. If even up until now, people were going to IGN, then they will continue to do after this.

I think a deeper question is, perhaps, whether people even have the capacity to stop going to IGN.

Avatar image for fattony12000
#36 Edited by Fattony12000 (8299 posts) -

.

Avatar image for jinstarwing
#37 Edited by Jinstarwing (53 posts) -

IGN has been working with MS for quite some time now. The 360 constantly had IGN's content on their dash board. You really can't be mad at they for taking money as long as their reviews aren't clouded and influenced by the sponsorship. Jeff's honesty and transparency is the reason I've been with GB for so many years. Especially after they joined back with gamespot. When they did that live stream explaining what they are doing, why they are doing it, how is that going to open new doors for them and what it means to us the users of the site was the most earnest and transparent thing in the world. Jeff's sit down with gamestop was also good. At the end of they day they need money in order to run the site and bringing us the crazy content they always do. Even if that means putting ad's on the site. But they also give us an out if you purchase the membership you sponsor the site and don't see the ad's which is great as well. The community here is great because everyone is on this same page and has enormous amount of trust for the GB crew because they put all the bullshit up front. Unfortunately IGN doesn't have this privilege and trust hence every single review that is going to come out for the Xbone is going to be judged because they dont have the transparency GB does.

Avatar image for mildmolasses
#38 Posted by MildMolasses (3200 posts) -

They gotta get dat money to help run AskMen.com somehow!

Well, those Dr. Love articles don't pay for themselves.

On the topic of website redesigns, the AV Club site looks awful now

Avatar image for amyggen
#39 Posted by AMyggen (7671 posts) -

@gonmog: That's a great video. But most important: What the fuck is up with Sessler's shirt? I'm getting dizzy just looking at it!

Avatar image for clonedzero
#40 Posted by Clonedzero (4206 posts) -

@clonedzero said:

A video game company advertising and sponsoring a video game website?! How dare they!

someone didn't read the post!

Yes i did. Its just gross ads. Since when was that a new thing? The whole brought to you thing is just another type of ad from what we can all tell. (unless someone has some actual facts) Otherwise its just a dumb ad that makes IGN look bias and Microsoft look like they're buying sites out. I highly doubt thats the case but tin-foil hats are fun i guess!