Jim Sterling / James "Stephanie" Sterling / James Stanton/Sexton & in memoriam TotalBiscuit (John Bain) - One Gaming Lolcow Thread

[TowinKarz]

Its not just that TB was more popular, he was more popular in the WRONG way.

 

[neger psykolog]

This article is fucking disgusting on every level and should have never gotten past editorial. That is if the joke of the online Forbes even had an editor. All this ever came down to was words. They were just fucking words on a screen.

Forbes.com/sites is Forbes blog/user contribution site. You can't just sign up and become a writer but you can pitch to become one.

 

[proteus4994]

I see this distinguishing between Forbes business and Forbes contributors every time they post something terrible (which is like monthly), but at some point, if Forbes is publishing them, then Forbes has to eat shit when they publish a shit article by some hack, "contributor" or not.

Edit: Gawker broke some pretty decent stories, but they mostly just pumped out garbage. They didn't get a pass, neither should Forbes.

 

[neger psykolog]

I see this distinguishing between Forbes business and Forbes contributors every time they post something terrible (which is like monthly), but at some point, if Forbes is publishing them, then Forbes has to eat shit when they publish a shit article by some hack, "contributor" or not.

They really don't make it easy to distinguish between them and the "contributor area" has no front page. When you search for forbes contributor you just get people who sound like they're riding the gravy train and telling you how great it is for money (PS: buy my book)

 

[AnOminous]

I see this distinguishing between Forbes business and Forbes contributors every time they post something terrible (which is like monthly), but at some point, if Forbes is publishing them, then Forbes has to eat shit when they publish a shit article by some hack, "contributor" or not.

Edit: Gawker broke some pretty decent stories, but they mostly just pumped out garbage. They didn't get a pass, neither should Forbes.

They used to be unpaid. Pretty much every loser in the world showed up. Earlier this year, they realized this was a giant open sewer and promised to get rid of the worst, shittiest bloggers and pay the rest. This means they have no excuse at this point. They are wiping shit all over any reputation they had left, as they are actually paying for this ghoulish grave dancing.

They were already smearing shit all over their reputation just by having a section this repulsive with no clear distinction between it and their actual content. People see shit, they see Forbes, they assume Forbes is yet another shitty fake news outlet.

 

[YW 525]

This was discussed at length in the Total Biscuit thread. But it still amazes me how much of a disconnect there is between the gaming industry and its customers.

I've seen this said elsewhere so I am simply repeating what I thought was a good point:

The games industry is one of the luckiest fucking industries on the planet. They are freely allowed to prey on children and by extension their parents' wallets. And by the time those children realize they're being fucked by a cynical, formulaic cash grab, there is a whole new generation of wide-eyed children chomping at the bit to finally get to play the "grown up" games.

It's fucking sick. Maybe the industry was just as bad in the past, but I'd take the 80s and 90s of video games over this era any. day. of. the. week.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Jezz and people think we're mean spirited.

 

[Otis Boi]

they assume Forbes is yet another shitty fake news outlet.

I mean if they are willing to post any fucking thing on there website it not like it wrong to assume that. Contributers are a cop-out with getting to post overly openated articles because you can cut them loose with no backlash if you push an agenda to hard.

 

[TowinKarz]

They were already smearing shit all over their reputation just by having a section this repulsive with no clear distinction between it and their actual content. People see shit, they see Forbes, they assume Forbes is yet another shitty fake news outlet.

Seriously, who green-lit this shite-tier idea? If you wanted an open forum, you should at least have started a totally independent publishing arm for it, and not put your own friggin NAME on the ramblings of frustrated basement-dwelling wannabe revolutionaries who think the internet is, in fact, serious business.

Maybe the industry was just as bad in the past, but I'd take the 80s and 90s of video games over this era any. day. of. the. week.

It's nothing new, Atari didn't make more copies of Pac-Man than there were Atari 2600 consoles in circulation at the time out of generosity towards the plastic industry, they avariciously thought people would buy a system just to play that one game...... Gamergate's biggest lies are predicated on this notion that at one time, gaming was NOT a cutthroat for-profit industry with no moral rot.

"Murder Simulators" Anyone? Have we all forgotten jack Thompson so easily?

 

[Secret Asshole]

View attachment 494230

View attachment 494231

View attachment 494232

Forbes.com/sites is Forbes blog/user contribution site. You can't just sign up and become a writer but you can pitch to become one.

I understand that. But there comes a time when brand identity is important. There is no distinct difference between 'Forbes Contributor' and 'Forbes' itself. This should have never have gotten published. I imagine they don't pay any editors on the 'Forbes Contributors', but that's a huge fuck-up. If you aren't going to police your contributors for poorly written, disgraceful pieces, I don't see any reason why I should treat you any better.

If Forbes wants to deep-throat SJW cock, start an entire other site, name it something else, with a different layout and aaaaaaaalllllllllllllllll the way at the bottom have in the tiniest font 'Copyright Forbes 2018'. Their reputation is honestly going to shit. And if the contributors page has an editor, fucking lol. He fucked up, since this piece should never have been published.

 

[neger psykolog]

I understand that. But there comes a time when brand identity is important. There is no distinct difference between 'Forbes Contributor' and 'Forbes' itself. This should have never have gotten published. I imagine they don't pay any editors on the 'Forbes Contributors', but that's a huge fuck-up. If you aren't going to police your contributors for poorly written, disgraceful pieces, I don't see any reason why I should treat you any better.

If Forbes wants to deep-throat SJW cock, start an entire other site, name it something else, with a different layout and aaaaaaaalllllllllllllllll the way at the bottom have in the tiniest font 'Copyright Forbes 2018'. Their reputation is honestly going to shit. And if the contributors page has an editor, fucking lol. He fucked up, since this piece should never have been published.

Partly agreed but Fobes, NYT and a lot of legacy publications are starting to really feel the pinch of da internet on their business models. Those publications that do nothing to change their business model are slowly dying. Also "contributors" do actually get paid:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/randal...vesting-big-money-in-its-contributor-network/

Plenty of publications put out dumb shit all the time. Even greatly respected publications still make errors and with any "new" way of doing things someone is going to get pissed off. This is basically "the logan paul suicide forest" of written contributor articles for Forbes (although no where near as extreme).

Just because TB died and just because the author mentioned Gamergate and just because its distasteful doesn't mean it can't be a worthy article. No publication worth its while will focus solely on either side of a debate and instead have writers who can write brilliantly about either side (or better yet both, which is a rare quality).

Gamergate pieces, much like anything touching on contentious political issues are a virtual goldmine for many news sites because they generate tons of outrage and tons of shares and other dumb metrics.

There's a lot more that could be said on that topic but this thread probably isn't the best place to continue talking about it. If you don't want clickbait to succeed then don't click on it.

If you read any publications that solely focus on one side of an issue or avoid having contentious views that run contrary to your own (whether its dancing on Bin Laden or Total Biscuits grave) then I'd suggest to read more but not necessarily always find it worth the time to react.

 

[AnOminous]

Gamergate pieces, much like anything touching on contentious political issues are a virtual goldmine for many news sites because they generate tons of outrage and tons of shares and other dumb metrics.

They generate tons of people using archive.is and other services to avoid giving you any ad revenue for your shit, and those people then do the same not just to that article that pissed them off, but to every article they share from your publication in the future.

 

[neger psykolog]

They generate tons of people using archive.is and other services to avoid giving you any ad revenue for your shit, and those people then do the same not just to that article that pissed them off, but to every article they share from your publication in the future.

Possibly. A lot of internet users already use adblock anyway and a few browsers are starting to become a lot harsher with restricting advertisements.

Some different publications are using memberships and different revenue methods which mean readership outrage/boycotts are a lot less effective. Think about Netflix and its 100 million subscribers. Even if people pirate or even if Netflix producers a gamergate documentary and it gets pirated widely its not going to affect their bottom line at all.

From what I read of the Forbes system they reward writers when they build a sustained viewership that isn't focused on clickbait shit. So if the author puts out quality articles that people who use archive.is don't care about but others would still read it won't make a difference.

This is the same discussion going on in most media companies right now. There's no right or wrong answer in all of it and most of these companies are just experimenting while trying to keep advertisers happy (example: YouTube). If they generate business models based up on subscriptions rather than advertisers then the impact of people getting mad is even less.

 

[AnOminous]

If they generate business models based up on subscriptions rather than advertisers then the impact of people getting mad is even less.

You need specialized information that is either actually useful to a specific demographic, like services for professionals, or your content needs to be good enough to pay for it. I can get shitty opinions for free from anywhere. I can even post my own shitty opinions.

 

[neger psykolog]

You need specialized information that is either actually useful to a specific demographic, like services for professionals, or your content needs to be good enough to pay for it. I can get shitty opinions for free from anywhere. I can even post my own shitty opinions.

What you really need is a way for newspapers to charge customers through a shared method rather than each of them having their own credit card autism.

That's what Apple (who else) is working on:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/17/17246332/apple-news-subscription-service-rumors

If Apple's system or easy subscriptions become possible then its possible news websites like Forbes won't have to rely on advertisers while still not having an issue with people copying and pasting their entire articles.

But yeah I do agree with you and see what you're saying, because the open nature of publications is what makes them interesting. Its just very unclear which way the market and newspapers/Forbes will go even a few years from now. A lot of them are struggling hard right now.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Fucking hell that article is despicable, has anyone stepped up to defend it?

 

[whatever I feel like]

I've seen this said elsewhere so I am simply repeating what I thought was a good point:

The games industry is one of the luckiest fucking industries on the planet. They are freely allowed to prey on children and by extension their parents' wallets. And by the time those children realize they're being fucked by a cynical, formulaic cash grab, there is a whole new generation of wide-eyed children chomping at the bit to finally get to play the "grown up" games.

It's fucking sick. Maybe the industry was just as bad in the past, but I'd take the 80s and 90s of video games over this era any. day. of. the. week.

You should probably go back and actually play some of those 80s and 90s games. They might not have been asking for more cash after purchase but tons of them were sold at $60+ despite being neigh unplayable, buggy messes.

 

[Slap47]

When will people realize that they want you to "rage click"?

I see this distinguishing between Forbes business and Forbes contributors every time they post something terrible (which is like monthly), but at some point, if Forbes is publishing them, then Forbes has to eat shit when they publish a shit article by some hack, "contributor" or not.

Edit: Gawker broke some pretty decent stories, but they mostly just pumped out garbage. They didn't get a pass, neither should Forbes.

Dunno. I want publications to put foward a variety of viewpoints rather than just push a narrative.

I've posted them myself but those pictures that show publications contradicting themselves are kinda dumb if you think about it. PJW types use these all of the time but when it comes to Infowars they argue that the guests aren't representing the show and are just voicing their own opinions.

 

[whatever I feel like]

I think he's basically given up on youtube and can't figure out how it works- whether to upload lots of videos or a few with high engagement. Either way he's been saying that he's focusing more and more on his wrestling thing as an actual career move. Yes, lol.

Yeah, he talked briefly about how Youtube seems to want to kill off channels and just have a few left on today's video. Given that wrestling will not work out for him with his health issues, I can only wonder what other than Youtube he plans to do.

 

[Frosted Snowflakes]

More grave dancing on Twitter.
https://twitter.com/FruzsE/status/1016811110488592384