Best Buy's @Gamer Magazine: Shameless Marketing or Legit Game Mag
By chaser324 38 Comments
WARNING: Long-Winded Gamer Rant
A few months ago when it was announced that Best Buy would be launching their very own gaming magazine, I was just as skeptical as anyone else. Would this be a legitimate venture into the realm of video game media and criticism or would it just be a shameless marketing device used to increase sales on select pieces of hardware and software? Well, a few days ago a complementary copy of the first issue of @Gamer: The Official Games Magazine of Best Buy showed up in my mailbox, and I proceeded to sit down and pick it apart piece by piece to determine its true intentions. My conclusion? People were right to be skeptical.Best Buy Branding
The first thing you'll probably make note of when looking at the cover is the appearance of Best Buy branding in several places. However, once you get into the magazine, there is some decent restraint shown. There's an ad promoting Best Buy's "Reward Zone" program and then a two page spread that contains discount coupons for about a dozen games. In addition to those two full on ads, there's a release calendar that calls out midnight releases at Best Buy for Starcraft II and Madden 11. There's also a small box next to the Mafia 2 preview that makes mention of an exclusive pre-order bonus which is surprisingly the only place where they seem to be really pushing the reader to buy a game at Best Buy. Sure, it isn't devoid of Best Buy branding, but I wouldn't really expect it to be. In general, I feel that while the connection to Best Buy is evident in the branding, it would be entirely possible to overlook it and just take in the content if you really wanted to.
The Writers and Editors
One of the first things I was curious about to find out about @Gamer was who was involved. Surprisingly, there are quite a few gaming press veterans on the staff. The magazine boasts "a staff with more than sixty years in the field of video game journalism". At the top of this list is Andy Eddy, a former editor at Video Games and Computer Entertainment, GamePro, IGN, and TeamXbox. He also famously wrote a somewhat controversial article criticizing the questionable circulation data of Game Informer. This would lead me to believe that he would be less likely to get involved with a similar situation here with Best Buy.
Preview and News Coverage
Since the advent of the internet, it has been hard for print media to really compete in terms of timely coverage on game news and reveals. @Gamer does about as well as can be expected. They hit a lot of major upcoming releases like Starcraft II and Metroid: Other M while also throwing some attention to lesser known games like DeathSpank. Having said that though, a lot of the content in the writing in these previews is pretty vapid and doesn't amount to much more than what you would get from a press release or some 90 second sizzle reel. It's nowhere near the level of insight that your average EGM or GiantBomb preview provides. That same lack of depth and relevant information also carries over into the review content, but the reviews also have some other issues that I feel warrant a closer look. There area also a few factual errors (I'm pretty sure Bungie didn't develop Naughty Bear), but some of those can be excused as things that just weren't caught before going to the printer. Overall, most of the writing sounds much more like marketing drivel than actual editorializing.Minor Grievance: The Magazine's Name
This is a pretty minor thing and just my opinion, but I'm not a huge fan of the name @Gamer. First, it isn't clear from the cover that the name of the magazine is @Gamer and not just Gamer. If it weren't for seeing it written out in the letter from the editor section, I may have never even figured it out.
In the age of the internet, e-mail, and Twitter, having an "@" in the name of your business sort of confuses things. I've already seen several people tweeting @Gamer (which appears to just be a dead account) rather then the magazine's official Twitter account which is @ATGAMER. I assume if you were reading that you would say "At At Gamer", which sounds pretty odd rolling off of the tongue. In addition, you've also got the e-mail addresses which become something like "reviews@atgamermagazine.com".
Again, it's just the name, and it's just my opinion. It's certainly not what's going to make or break the magazine.
Another Minor Grievance: A Lack of Quality Editorial Content
In the heyday of print video game and tech magazine, many years before blogs like Kotaku and Engadget were breaking stories on things before they were even officially announced, gamers and technophiles would clamor for the latest issue just for the chance to get a glimpse at what was new and hot. As a result, most of these magazines would focus primarily on previews since this is primarily what the reader wanted.From my point of view, sticking with this focus on previews is largely responsible for the decline and death of many video game magazines. They just can't be expected to compete with online sources that don't have to contend with print deadlines. Even in the occasion where a magazine could get an exclusive reveal or extended preview of a game, the details of these generally ended up on the internet within moments of the first subscriber receiving their copy of the issue.
It's because of this issue with providing timely and unique content that I was happy to see EGM shift their focus away from previews over to more editorial fare. Sure, it still has extended preview content, which I'm happy to read due to the quality of the writing and the insight into the gameplay from people who are clearly experienced gamers, but they've also thrown in far more articles which don't necessarily focus specifically on the review/preview of a single game. Instead many of these articles focus on hot button topics of discussion in gaming such as the rise in popularity of casual gaming, the psychology behind gamers' obsession with numbers, and the viability of the iPad as a gaming platform. In addition, they've also got extended interviews with important gaming figures such as David Jaffe and Warren Spector along with looks into the history of franchises such as Street Fighter. This is the sort of content that I'm going to be interested in reading and discussing no matter when it shows up in my mailbox.
That's why I'm sort of disappointed by the fact that @Gamer has decided to stick with just a bunch of previews and a handful of reviews. If that content is interesting and insightful, then it can still make for a good magazine. I would just rather see them try to branch out and try to appeal more to my intelligence rather than just my adrenal glands and my wallet.
A Big Problem: Discussions of Price and Interesting Coverage Choices
One of the things I've noticed, is that there is far more discussion of price in this magazine than in most other gaming magazines. In addition, there seem to be some articles that have been included that seem to serve no real purpose aside from getting people to purchase a specific product.First off, there's the fact that @Gamer seems to embrace the fact that the Best Buy coupons within are one of the primary selling points. It's on the cover, their website, and the letter from the editor section. They've tweeted about it and there's a full three page spread in the magazine highlighting the games that have applicable coupons included. In all honesty, these coupons in this first issue are actually pretty decent. It's $15-20 off some pretty solid games such as Halo 3: ODST, Skate 3, Bioshock 2, and Assassin's Creed 2. However, I do have some doubt about whether or not the deals will stay this good. The subscription materials only promise "at least $20 in Best Buy coupons" in each issue. That makes me think the $145 coupon bounty in the first issue won't be something seen very often. The way it's phrased means future issues may have four $5 off coupons for four less than stellar games or a $20 off coupon for gaming accessories. I'm not saying that's what is going to happen, I'm just presenting the possibility that this first issue may be luring subscribers with a promise of something too good to be true.
Case in point, there is an article on the Red vs. Blue: The Blood Gulch Chronicles DVD set in the news section. For those unfamiliar with the Red vs. Blue series, it's a machinima by Rooster Teeth Productions that takes place in the world of Halo. It's certainly relevant to the people that would be reading this magazine, but I'm a little unclear on why it would be in the news section. This box set was released over a year and half ago in January 2009. That's not exactly breaking news.
The article also specifically takes time to justify the price point:
Finally, this article strangely has no byline. This inevitably leads me to question if this was actually written by someone on the magazine staff or if it was instead written by a marketing person trying to sell some DVDs. Similarly, there's a short article which makes mention on the current "Buy Singularity, Get Prototype for free" deal (which also has no byline). I'm not saying this isn't stuff some gamers would be interested in knowing, I'm just not sure that I approve of where or how the information is being presented.While the $59.95 price tag may sound a little steep, if you're a Halo fan (or a fan of game culture) you'll find yourself laughing at lines such as, "Women are like Voltron. The more you can hook up, the better it gets."
There's also an article on EA Sports Online Pass (again, with no byline) that I have a sneaking suspicion was included solely to encourage people to buy new copies of EA Sports games rather than used copies from GameStop. The Online Pass is also specifically mentioned in both the Madden 11 preview and the Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11. In the Tiger Woods 11 review, it's actually listed as one of the cons of the game. While EA Sports Online Pass is definitely something worth discussing that could potentially impact a large number of gamers, I think it's mostly the way it's presented that I don't like.
For what it's worth, there are times when the magazine discourages purchasing something because of the price being too high. In Andy Eddy's review of Green Day: Rock Band, he states that:
There's also a review of an Nvidia video card where there is mention of it being a bit "pricey". So, this would appear to be evidence that it can go either way, but I don't think discouraging people from buying a $500 video card really excuses presenting articles that seem to just be advertisements masquerading as a news story, preview, or review. No matter how you spin it, that just isn't honest.Full retail price seems steep for what you're getting.
A Bigger Problem: Lack of Objective Criticism
The biggest problem I see facing this magazine is a lack of objective criticism. Most of the reviews tend to boil down to just a list of features in the game. The sort of thing you might see in a press release. I would be OK with that sort of thing in a preview (however, even there it might be nice to inject a little opinion on the promise of the game), a review should largely be reserved for a critique of the good and bad aspects of a game.The reviews certainly aren't devoid of criticism, but it just tends to feel like an after thought. Like the focus of the review is to just tell you what's in the game and not what's good or bad. Some reviews are certainly better than others, but even in some of the good ones such as Mitch Dyer's review of Alpha Protocol, it often seems like the writers are afraid to say anything too negative about a game. A lot of the language used tends to be very forgiving, often saying that some feature of the game compensates for a deficiency elsewhere. A lot of times, the real criticism seems to be relegated to the short pros and cons above the game scores. However, sometimes the pros and cons section can be saddled by things in the cons section that aren't really cons. The LEGO Harry Potter review for instance lists "Having to wait for the next installment" as one of the cons.
Additionally, the scores seem to also be a bit generous. Nothing reviewed in the entire magazine received below a 3/5, but maybe it's just a case of everything in this issue being at least decent. I'm not saying the scoring is broken, but it's something that people may want to keep an eye on in future issues.
The Biggest Problem: The Crackdown 2 "Review"
By far my biggest point of contention with the inaugural issue of @Gamer is the Crackdown 2 "Review" (note the use of quotation marks). This is almost certainly the worst so-called review I've ever read. The article is written by Andy Eddy (specifically it says "Words: Andy Eddy" which seems like an odd way to phrase it), someone that has been in video game media for long enough that he should be more than capable of writing a competent review. That's part of what makes it so odd just how puzzlingly terrible this article is.
What's good about the game and what's bad? How are the graphics? What about the sound and music? Are the controls fun or frustrating? How's the mission structure? Is the competitive multiplayer any good? How's the co-op with the increased player count? These and basically every other question you could possibly have about the quality of Crackdown 2 are not answered in this review. You're pretty much just expected to take Andy's word for it that this game is "another winner" and will "be a big killer of personal productivity and spare time during the summer".
I've read through the "review" in its entirety several times, each time hoping that maybe I'll uncover some morsel that will help validate it as a review, but each time I've come up empty handed. The review consumes four full pages, but the word count is surprisingly low. Worst of all, the words that are there don't reveal any real insight into the quality of the game. There are two sizable paragraphs where Ruffian Games director Billy Thomson discusses things the dev team wanted to put in the game but had to leave out. Interesting but I'm not sure if it's suitable content for a review. Then there's a pull quote from editor-in-chief Wil O'Neal that reads:
Keep in mind that this is in fact labeled a review and not a preview. Yet, here we have a worthless pull quote where Wil thinks aloud about whether or not the co-op will be good in Crackdown 2. This is a review! You should be answering this question, not just stating the question.One thing I'm curious about is how Crackdown 2 handles co-op...Crackdown 2 reportedly has more and better defined collaboration between the partners, which I would think increases co-op mode's entertainment value.
Then we come to the pros, cons, and the score. The pros are both actually pretty reasonable. One pretty much says if you enjoyed the first game that you'll enjoy the sequel and the other says that player progression is a "satisfying thrill". Those sound pretty good and likely pretty accurate. The cons however might as well also be labeled as pros since they don't actually say anything negative about the game. The first con listed basically says that you'll be disappointed that "the game will end". The other con says,
Is Andy trying to upsell me on a Halo: Reach pre-order in the Crackdown 2 review? That's pretty much what it sounds like, and again, this is supposed to be part of "what's not so great" about Crackdown 2. Below the pros and cons there are three little phrases listed that seem to be intended to sum up the game:In September, Halo: Reach will come out, which is great on its own, but not for those who want to keep playing Crackdown 2.
I'm not joking. The review actually says that right next to the score, a 4.5/5. A score that honestly I don't think this review justifies in the least. There isn't a single bad thing said about the game, so how do they justify not giving it a five. However, there also isn't really much discussion about what's good in the game either. There's not really any good reason given for why this game isn't a 4 or a 3.5 or anything other than the score that they gave it. The "review" just has a lot of glowingly positive phrasing to make the game sound like it could be fun so I guess they think most people will just accept the high score. Maybe some people will, but I'm not one of those people.
- Leaping Party
- Orb-tacular
- BOOOOOOM!
This really doesn't feel at all like a review. It feels much more like a preview, with some portions feeling like they were ripped straight out of a Microsoft press release. It's bad enough that I have to wonder if Andy even played through a full version of Crackdown 2 prior to writing this. I'm even tempted to question if Mr. Eddy even wrote this at all. It could just as easily have been someone in the Microsoft or Best Buy marketing departments.
Bottom line, this isn't video game criticism or editorializing! This is straight-up marketing. I've been reading video game magazines for a very long time, and I've never seen such glaringly obvious bias and marketing make its way into a review. I personally feel insulted that Andy Eddy and the people at @Gamer think so little of gamers and consumers in general that they assume we're dumb enough to fall for such a clear marketing ploy. Reading this review basically feels like Andy Eddy slapping me in the face and telling me to buy Crackdown 2.
Telling me to buy a game doesn't constitute a review. You need to tell me why I should want to buy a game and leave the decision up to me.
@Gamer: Because We Think You're Too Stupid to Catch onto Our Bullshit.
I feel like @Gamer is just extremely condescending to gamers and anyone in general that might be in the market for video game paraphernalia. They seem to be under the impression that throwing around a lot of big flashy images and hyperbole is enough to sell whatever they want. Well, here's a newsflash Best Buy, gamers aren't all the low IQ neanderthals that you seem to think they are. Many of them are quite capable of rational thought and they don't take kindly to attempts to manipulate them.
Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, and looking back at how much I just wrote, it's pretty evident that I'm overreacting. I just can't help but feel like @Gamer magazine is a personal affront against me, gamers, and video game media and criticism. I'm willing to sit back and watch it develop for a while, but at the moment I'm filled with the overwhelming hope that the magazine is a miserable failure.
Epilogue: My Twitter Discussions
After my initial look into @Gamer, I took my issues to the same place everyone goes to shoot their mouth off with opinions, Twitter. What follows is a recounting of my tweets and the reactions from some of the people involved with the magazine in question. I'll attempt to keep this updated if I receive any more responses.For reference:
@chasepettit - That's me.
@ATGAMER - The official Twitter account for @Gamer magazine.
@Vidgames - Andy Eddy, executive editor for @Gamer.
@MitchyD - Mitch Dyer, freelance writer working for @Gamer.
@woneal - Wil O'Neal, editor-in-chief for @Gamer.
@YouTim - Timothy Young, marketing manager of video games for Best Buy.
My initial tweets:
BestBuy's Gamer mag is pretty bad. I'm pretty sure the guy that wrote this Crackdown 2 review in here hasn't actually played the game.
@Gamer's response:@ ATGAMER You accidentally took a press release for Crackdown 2 and put it in the Review section. Did this Andy guy even play the full game?
My response:@ chasepettit What about the Crackdown 2 review do you disagree with?
@ ATGAMER I don't see any qualitative analysis or criticism. It's basically a feature list. Why did it get a 4.5 rather than a 4 or a 5?
@ ATGAMER It feels like it was written by a marketing person trying to sell copies rather than a game critic evaluating the product.
My tweet to Andy Eddy, executive editor and writer of the Crackdown 2 review:
Response:@ Vidgames Did you play Crackdown 2 before writing this review in @ ATGAMER. It reads a lot more like a press release or a preview
My response:@ chasepettit Yes, I played it first. What made it like a "press release or a preview" to you?
@ Vidgames You list a lot of features and say that it's fun, but you don't really address WHY any single aspect of the game is "fun".
@ Vidgames None of the content on the last page even felt like it had any place in a review. Also, http://bit.ly/9rYhu2
My tweet to Timothy Young, Best Buy marketing manager for video games:
His response and an associated tweet:@ YouTim Do you consider AtGamer a legit gaming mag like EGM or is it purely the marketing tool used to generate sales it appears to be?
@ chasepettit legit based on the editors having free reign to write what they want..give it a couple issues before you jump to conclusion
My response:Best Buy’s new game magazine “@ GAMER” is it journalism or a monthly ad for a subscription. http://amplify.com/u/7feh
Response:@ YouTim There are glimmers of hope in there, but it's hard for me to not jump to conclusions based on that Crackdown 2 "review".
Me:@ chasepettit ok so the crackdown 2 review could have had more meat..what about the other ones?
Him:@ YouTim @ Vidgames @ woneal I thought you might be interested in this gamer's take on @ ATGAMER: http://bit.ly/9rYhu2
@ chasepettit @ Vidgames @ woneal @ ATGAMER thanks for the real time feedback, don't give up just yet
@ chasepettit thanks, and I would request that if you want, submit a review and maybe we will publish. We want our readers involved
Misc tweets from random people about @Gamer:
SignedInPodcast
I know @ ATGamer is just getting started, but at least 3 of the games featured "cons" that were the game ending or competition. Objectivity?
SignedInPodcast
For the life of me I can't make sense of this @ ATGamer "review" of Crackdown 2. It details no gameplay and only talks about features.
Spiderduff
@ ATGAMER Just got the first issue. Not bad. If you provide discounts like this in every magazine then count me in!