Well, I’d argue if there was no money to be made, then CNET wouldn’t have purchased GameFAQs. At the very least it served to bring people over to their media ecosystem, and I wanna say they did serve ads and affiliate links on the site proper (but adblocker is also old, so it’s hard to tell).
Video contributed, for sure. This is a process of many years, the whole thing was evolving at once. But the clean break idea that print guides existed and then GameFAQs came along and killed guides just doesn’t fit the timeline at all. It’s off by 5-10 years, at least. Guides weren’t residual in the 00s when GameFAQs was at its peak and being bought as a company, they were doing alright. It’d take 10 years longer for them to struggle and 15 for them to disappear. You’re two console gens off there. That’s a lot. If guide makers like Prima were pivoting to collectible high end books out of desperation you’d expect that process to have failed faster than that.
Instead they failed at the same time GameFAQs started to struggle and get superseded, so I’m more inclined to read that as them both being part of the same thing and the whole thing struggling together as we move towards video on media and digital on game publishing. That fits the timeline better, I think.
In any case, it was what it was, and it’s more enshittified now. I’ve been looking up a couple details on Blake Manor (which is good but buggy and flaky in pieces, so you may need some help even if you don’t want to spoil yourself) and all you get is Steam forums and a couple of hard to navigate pages. The print guide/GameFAQs era was harder to search but more convenient, for sure.
Well, I’d argue if there was no money to be made, then CNET wouldn’t have purchased GameFAQs.
I’ve heard lots about acquisitions of games media as they’ve nearly all gone independent lately, especially Giant Bomb, who was part of this family. CNET certainly believed it could make them money, but hardly any of this stuff made anyone any money as they changed hands multiple times. At the very least, it could benefit from economies of scale around securing ads in one deal and displaying them in multiple places, but advertisers paid out less for traditional ads on static web pages at the same time that video ad spending was increasing.
But the clean break idea that print guides existed and then GameFAQs came along and killed guides just doesn’t fit the timeline at all. It’s off by 5-10 years, at least.
Well, I’d argue if there was no money to be made, then CNET wouldn’t have purchased GameFAQs. At the very least it served to bring people over to their media ecosystem, and I wanna say they did serve ads and affiliate links on the site proper (but adblocker is also old, so it’s hard to tell).
Video contributed, for sure. This is a process of many years, the whole thing was evolving at once. But the clean break idea that print guides existed and then GameFAQs came along and killed guides just doesn’t fit the timeline at all. It’s off by 5-10 years, at least. Guides weren’t residual in the 00s when GameFAQs was at its peak and being bought as a company, they were doing alright. It’d take 10 years longer for them to struggle and 15 for them to disappear. You’re two console gens off there. That’s a lot. If guide makers like Prima were pivoting to collectible high end books out of desperation you’d expect that process to have failed faster than that.
Instead they failed at the same time GameFAQs started to struggle and get superseded, so I’m more inclined to read that as them both being part of the same thing and the whole thing struggling together as we move towards video on media and digital on game publishing. That fits the timeline better, I think.
In any case, it was what it was, and it’s more enshittified now. I’ve been looking up a couple details on Blake Manor (which is good but buggy and flaky in pieces, so you may need some help even if you don’t want to spoil yourself) and all you get is Steam forums and a couple of hard to navigate pages. The print guide/GameFAQs era was harder to search but more convenient, for sure.
I’ve heard lots about acquisitions of games media as they’ve nearly all gone independent lately, especially Giant Bomb, who was part of this family. CNET certainly believed it could make them money, but hardly any of this stuff made anyone any money as they changed hands multiple times. At the very least, it could benefit from economies of scale around securing ads in one deal and displaying them in multiple places, but advertisers paid out less for traditional ads on static web pages at the same time that video ad spending was increasing.
It didn’t happen overnight, much like GameStop.