Jim Sterling flipping' kills it on this weeks Jimquistion.

So Jim Sterling never one to be shy about his opinions of things took to his video series for escapist today to give a right pummeling to the slimy disgusting panels that went on at GDC. If you follow the GB crew on twitter you may have seen Patrick and a few others tweet about some of these panels. Basically, there were a TON of panels that focused strictly on gross ways on how to monetize players instead of you know...having talks on how to make better games.

The one that absolutely kills me which Jim gets to in the latter half of the video is there was apparently a panel on "How to reduce backlash" That is about as disgusting as it gets. If you knowingly do something that you know is going to piss off a ton of people how about you don't fuckin' do it? Anyways, Id like to hear what everyone thinks about this. Also since I'm talking about Jim I'm going to quickly plug his podcast as well "The Dismal Jesters" below. Its good stuff if you like Jim and his brand of humor.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8942-Monetizing-Whales-For-The-Retention-Of-Virality

I actually agree with much of what he said in that video, the problem is I just can't stand his personality.

I've really grown to like Jim over the past few months, really hope he makes another appearance on bombin' soon.

Yeah, I really like Jim now. I used to not like him at all but I think ever since he left Destructioid he has been way more at home on Escapist.

I gotta admit he has some problems in general.... I did laugh when he said "**** you from the bottom of my soul" though. Also his end of video GDC panel on how to reduce backlash probably was a more effective technique than what the real panel advised.

If anything the kind of shit that was highlighted in Jim's video is why we should have a hard and fast line between "gamer games" and "house moms who are bored at home" games. The less we have of those caustic, shitty people invading our precious hobby the better off we'll be in the long term.

That's how I always feel about him. Dude is spot on almost all the time, but even then, fuck that guy

Jim Sterling is great as long as he is not actively reviewing games.

Same here. It pains me to occasionally agree with him because I find his "persona" to be so off-putting. However, the same applies to just about anyone that unnecessarily adopts an "online persona" - Angry Joe, Francis, etc.

Great episode. Jim might not always say it exactly how it is but he certainly says it how it feels from a consumers point of view. I've really taken to his videos because of it.

He and Jeff are the only ones that I can count on to really cut the bullshit and say it like it is. There are others that do a good job of it too but Jeff Gerstmann and Jim Sterling do it best.

And that counts for me as well. He does it for attention and he trolls people, and that's fine. But I'm looking for an interesting and well-thought out opinions that's presented to me as if I'm a person who seeks out interesting and well-thought out opinions and not a person seeking to get angry and type terrible messages on the internet.

I'm fine with the people...it's the games they're buying that are the problem.

Thank God for Jim.

Yeah, I actually like him better when he is just shooting the shit like he does in Dismal Jesters. Jimquisition is a bit too "sensational" for me, that's why I prefer Danny's style in The Point where he comes off as just being "himself". I also like to listen him talk...while lying down in bed...doing something...

Like watching videos on the phone before going to sleep.

@spraynardtatum said:

I agree. I was referring to the "developers" if that wasn't clear.

Thanks for posting, like others, I'm not a fan, I was actually happy when they split up the escapist youtube channels so I wouldn't see his stuff anymore, but that was a good video.

Pretty on the spot video, I like him. I feel like I am missing out on the joke with his video personality tho? Is it like a movie reference or something?

What makes you think Jim is using a fake persona? Angry Joe's reviews are stupidly long but that is because he goes into lots of detail. Just because he has Angry in is name that isn't how he really acts in his videos. But if a game is shit it will get blasted like it should. AVGN is much more of a persona. Francis is fake but you should check out that guys videos where he is normal.

Love Jim. Favorite game journo personality. His Jimquisition is an exaggerated version of himself cast a propaganda minister. It's funny, biting and fearless. Doesn't surprise me in the least to find that members of the GB forums don't care for him.

And to the actual content of the video:

He's spot on - the freemium model has spready like cancer on mobile marketplaces, and is now beginning to sink deeply into major AAA development. The worst most offensive example I've experienced is NBA2k for next gen. The microtransactions are so baked in that you'd swear you didn't just pay 60 dollars for it. But they know it will sell, and they know a lot of people will buy in. So it's not going to stop or slow.

Does the video you embedded eventually come around to GDC? Or is it just "random thing about Kirbee and haircuts"?

The reason it's clear Jim is putting on a persona is because there are moments where he turns it off. To a certain degree, it probably is just a hyped up version of his normal personality. Perhaps that's why I don't care for him all that much even when he tones it down.

As for Angry Joe, maybe I just haven't seen enough of his stuff to make a fair assessment, but I definitely haven't cared for what I've seen. I guess it's just that his "angry" reviews are the ones that end up getting circulated around a bit more.

I've seen Boogie's videos where he isn't doing the Francis character, and I really like a lot of them. He's a bright guy with a lot of smart opinions which makes it all the stranger that he relies so much on his horrible angry nerd character.

Francis videos make up about 10% of his content. Those just happen to be the ones that go viral.

I think Angry Joe is pretty good when he's not angry. When a game deserves praise he actually becomes someone that I like to call Articulate Joe.

Also Jim openly says he puts on a character.

I kind of feel like he's preaching to the choir and isn't making a sound argument. I prefer to pay upfront for a game that's well-designed, but I don't really think the "casual, free to play, wait 24 hours to progress or pay" type of game is threatening the games that I like. I just don't see that happening.

If you look at the latest Quick Looks page, the games are really diverse. If you look at two recent free to play games that were covered here (Loadout and Blizzard's MOBA), they both seem to do free to play tastefully.

Furthermore, I think it's kind of unfair to criticize a presentation based off a title. Especially w/r/t "whales", Kickstarter games have been using that concept for a while now. Backers can choose to pay thousands of dollars for e.g. concept art, a 3D-printed model and a t-shirt. Why isn't this criticized or shunned? (This is a rhetorical question.)

I really don't think Jim has a good argument here, even admitting that "many" panels had nothing to do with monetization and pointing out that cynical cash-grabs are nothing new.

@chaser324: Trust me, you don't want to see any more of Angry Joe's material. Just watch 30 seconds of that video where he almost cries on camera because Keighley wouldn't give me a half hour interview.

Ironically, as established, official websites like GameSpot or GiantBomb are steering towards a casual demeanor and a certain degree of transparency, amatuer YouTubers are heavily relying on scripted shows and "personalities" to fuel their channels. Upon reaching success they are then locked into that persona for all time if they wish to continue getting their viewer numbers and that sweet Google money. Thats why he's always going to be the Angry Video Game Nerd for mass appeal videos and only do intellectual stuff on the site - and why someone like PewDiePie is forever cast as a rambling idiot because thats what teens want to watch.

The problem I guess, is that if you're Jeff Gerstmann and you're talking straight without putting on some corporate mask then that is something noteworthy, but if you're just another YouTuber giving your "honest" opinion without putting on a show, then you're just another kid in front of a webcam and who cares.

@humanity: PewDiePie is a true master of monetizing teens.

@chaser324: I don't even know when it began but at one point I simply started being angry at YouTube. Probably around the time I found out Ray William Johnson was making a ton of money.

While I can still understand that his stuff isn't for everyone, I have to say that he's really improved a lot since that dismal Keighley mishap. Except for his improv rants, he puts a lot of work and effort in his video reviews and is generally much more able to articulate his appraisal of a game--good or bad--than he was back then. For example, I think his latest review--for MGS: Ground Zeroes--is reasonable in its criticisms and goes into the right amount of detail to argue his stance.

@grantheaslip said:

I agree. I've been to GDC, and based on my experience, it just wasn't like that at all. These are developers, not suits.

I used to spend a bunch of time watching Youtubers, probably for about two years. Then one day I just got sick of most of them. Sick of their acts and personalities and sick of quiet a few of them talking so much about being a Youtuber.

I recently subbed here and it's fast becoming my favourite site because the guys do two things here. They talk about video games and they all seem to be totally real guys and not just a persona.

I'll be crushed the day I find out that Vinny is actually just putting on an act and in reality he's just some horrible person from Florida.

While I think Jim can be a bit too over the top at times, I find myself mostly agreeing with him. Especially on the F2P stuff.

When he stated he wasn't even at GDC and all of his knowledge about it is through tweets, I've started to doubt his credibility a little bit. I'm not saying he's wrong, but at least be at the event if you really want to criticize it.

I find that he routinely nails it in these videos. More than anyone else writing/producing content about games, Jim feels the most like a consumer advocate.

Dear God I hate the text editor on Giant Bomb so much. I had written a well fleshed out, articulate response - then I wanted to add a reply to another person and it deleted everything. So in short: he may be awesome now (Angry Joe) but much like people that agree with Jim's message but can't stand his persona, I simply can't stand Angry Joe. The same Superman t-shirt, the Angry Joe Army, the dumb YouTube hooks, I can't look past that. That's just me though - cause I can watch Sterling just fine and even appreciate the shitty production values to a lesser degree.

@jesus_phish Same exact thing happened to me. At one point I entered that YouTube bubble where I watched a ton of YouTubbers for gaming - Call of Duty guys and even some comedy skit people. Then in what seemed like an instant that bubble popped and I was so completely sick of all of it. To this day I really can't stand the way YouTube has become a breeding ground for personalities and teens chasing that Google dollar, trying to become the next Pewdiepie or whatever.

I really like Jim (his youtube channel is pretty great cause he just plays the most terrible games without his "persona") which is funny cause normally I can't stand "personas". AVGN was funny at the time but nowadays I just can't stand "angry guys who scream a lot cause videogames". I know AJ isn't always like that but it's enough to keep me from watching any of his videos. Also the "I'm dressing up and doing a funny video" is just so terrible every time. No idea if he still does that though.

I hate his voice. I feel like he's ruining England for the English. I love haircuts though. Love that pre cut hair wash.

That's fair; I can understand that.

What Jim has to say is often better than how he says it. I think he intentionally makes what he does abrasive because he is essentially suffering from low self esteem.

He works very 'grotesquely blue' despite the fact that what he was to say is very well conceived. The old Podtoid podcast he used to do was 75% ass-sex and 25% very insightful analysis, he would have been punching far above the weigh of Conrad and Jonathan on that show if it was the other way around. Jim would literally write a fantastic review, do a amazing Jimquisition, previewed two games, do an amazing poem with Yahtzee, but then spend an the entire 90 minutes of the Podtoid podcast talking about ass-sex. He OBVIOUSLY had something to say or expand upon, but he refused to spend any more than a minute on gaming. He never want to put himself out there except in his safe zone.

I just stopped listening to The Dismal Jesters after tow episodes because it was just a waste of his ability. Its a sad sack show for three people with low self esteem issues. Hey, it his choice, but he could be a huge influence on the industry if he just adjusted his dial slightly to be less gross as a way of hiding. That the thing if he was just being gross because he liked it that would be fine, but he is hiding behind it because he used it like a shield, "if you don't like me it because I'm too 'out there' for you." He is afraid of being taken seriously because that would imply he wants to be taken seriously or aspires to be taken seriously.

I watch Jimquisition because it is the only positive reinforcement I can give him.

On the backlash thing, I develop software for a living, but ours is for industrial/commercial setting. We make changes based on what we are told to change/fix for various reasons, even if we are against them. We are also the ones that end up having to answer questions and verbal abuse for said changes. Yeah, we get to voice are opinions on some dumb things, but at the end of the day I have to develop or change a feature that some guy somewhere will want to murder me for it.

Honestly, the discussion shouldn't be how to reduce backlash, it should be why are people inconsiderate a-holes. I don't like reading emails about how adding three new fields to particular form made the software unusable to that one person and how I'm the sole reason for loosing my company thousands of dollars. I for damn sure wouldn't want to see that on my twitter feed. Yet devs for big game companies are subject to this all the time.

There are proper channels to complain about software and there are polite and nice ways to do it. Devs and project directors are people too and people have feelings.

There should be panels about monetization, so that companies who fuck it up, like that Phantasy Star port, can learn from ones that manage to monetize in relatively unobtrusive ways, like DOTA. There is knowledge to be shared here, and let's be honest, we know better than to think these games / additional content should actually be free.

This is arguably the most important thing going on in games right now and saying that developers shouldn't be talking about it at a Game Developers Conferenceis basically taking a hear-no-evil see-no-evil approach to the issue.

@veektarius: But that's not what those GDC panels were about. They were about how to exploit consumers. Patrick attended at least one such panel in person and shared his disgust with it, as well.

While not every monetization panel was necessarily like that, even one was too many.

I've been watching Jimquisition foe some time now, and while I find his thoughts on the industry to be spot on, his presentation is hit or miss (mostly miss). This latest episode was great though.

As far as these panels go, I believe that we should have them, just not in this manner. The question of monetisation is a huge one in the games industry and it should be discussed. On the other hand this Reducing backlash thing is just appalling and Jim is 100% right about that one.

Why did you include a video where he talks about getting a hair cut? Did I have to listen to that for two minutes thinking it was a video about the issue at hand?

@hailinel: Patrick expresses disgust with a lot of things I think aren't a big deal. He felt like trading freed slaves for upgrades was exploitative, also. I didn't attend these panels, but a sense of moral outrage over basic capitalism is really misplaced.

The panels were about how to make more money. Companies make money by selling things to customers, plain and simple. When a panel is called "High Value Monetizers – Debunking Assumptions Using Personality Psychology" we may think that this about performing Jedi mindtricks on helpless consumers, but in fact it's just about figuring out what people want so those things can be sold - the fact that Patrick or Jim Sterling or the President of the United States thinks that people shouldn't want these things really doesn't matter.

Ok, but how about targeting people who lack the experience to avoid being exploited: there's another panel called Monetizing Teens in a Safe and Legal Manner. Wow, that sounds dirty, right? Oh hey wait, the description of the panel is actually "This session will discuss how to maintain parental control over teen spending in the digital era, while also safeguarding their identity. By facilitating a parentally approved transaction, this can protect game developers against chargebacks and friendly fraud." Shameful, really.

The title of "Monetizing Teens...." sounds bad on paper. The content of it seems much more valid. Most people probably didn't get that far and just kneejerked.

The problem with GDC is that it is a public event. There should be a conference only for professionals, closed to the public and press, where these discussions can be had. Because, frankly, thinks like 'Monetizing Teens...' is a worthwhile discussion. It's gross to consumers because it feels advantageous and manipulative. But teens are a huge market especially for video games. So, a business needs to know how to make money off of them. Otherwise they won't stay in business long.

I've heard the GB guys complain about messages from businesses being neutered and metered. A lot of PR people get a bad reputation among journalists and enthusiasts. But we all don't like it when these talks allow for a non-neutered, non-PR'd message either.

I have to disagree. Sure, the youth market is extremely important but they shouldn't be talking about markets like they're meat. Period. In public or in private. I see the excuse that 'businesses are all about making money' all the time and, while true, it's not the be all end all argument. Money isn't everything even for a business. It feels advantageous and manipulative to consumers because it is advantageous and manipulative to consumers. Why should it be okay just because it's profitable? It's not right for consumers to be treated like cattle in public or in secret.

Maybe it's all semantics but to me there's an enormous difference in learning how to sell to a demographic and learning how to make money off of them. I think it's very telling that, no matter how sugar coated these subjects are by PR reps or how blunt and non-neutered they are in panels like this, the public is reacting unfavorably.