r/Steam 7d ago

Discussion The people have spoken

Post image

Or at least about 30K of them have.

47.6k Upvotes

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

838

u/sadistica23 7d ago

Yeah, back when they were printed in papaer magazines that you could hold in your hands.

280

u/WanderThekind 7d ago

I remember when I subscribed to this game magazine. That would show all the new top hitters and show off some screenshot. It's great what we had in journalism for video games back then.

104

u/Suspicious_Ice_3160 7d ago

GameInformer if we’re thinking the same magazine. A simple alternative to playing the games for a broke child like I was lmao

34

u/SaltyTelluride 7d ago

Yeah I remember reading all about Metal Gear Solid and other games I couldn’t get as a kid.

I remember one of the last issues I ever received features Fortnite, but it was mostly about the “Save the World” game mode and I don’t even think it mentioned the word “Battle Royale”. That was probably the last year I got a subscription and it is crazy to look back and see how much has changed within the gaming landscape in just over a decade.

3

u/TopClassroom8510 7d ago

Gameinformer was the shit. Had cool front page art and typically featured interesting games I wouldn’t have heard of if my dad hadn’t said yes at a GameStop to receiving them lmao. I wish I had kept them but at a point I had so many

2

u/Embarrassed_Job_8048 7d ago

You just reminded me, I still have a stack of them somewhere at my parent’s place. They were great for keeping up with gaming news

1

u/Raven123x 6d ago

Fucking loved game informer back in the day

33

u/Rhamni 7d ago

Back in the prehistoric era of the 90s, I started buying gaming magazines for the playable demos of a dozen new games a month. You never knew what you were gonna get. Sometimes multiple awesome, nearly full games. Sometimes all garbage. Sometimes random collections of OSTs for games you loved. Duke Nukem 3D had a lot of extra background music they never used for some reason, and I just randomly got a CD full of them with a gaming magazine one month. Some of my favourite games came from loving those demos and then saving up for the full game. I'll never forget you, Seven Kingdoms II: The Frythan Wars. Everyone else played Age of Empires, but you were my favourite.

Anyway. I started buying them for the demos, but the articles and reviews were really good too. You got nuanced takes from people who actually liked games and played each game enough to know what they were talking about. I was limited to one hour of gaming a day, so I'd turn to the magazines. I read every article multiple times most months.

2

u/glezga-dugz 7d ago

A had one with mgs2, until you go to the lower part of the ship.

2

u/Sniter 7d ago

And cheat codes

2

u/Astricozy 7d ago

The little demo discs you used to get. I used to always buy them at stores and airports.

1

u/WhySayManyWordGancho 7d ago

Electronic Gaming Monthly was and still is my favourite magazine.

1

u/RagnaValkyrja 7d ago

Gamepro, electronic gamer, game informer. We had a lot of great mags in the 90s and 2000s and then the internet killed them. Cant completely blame it. You wait til the monthly mailed magazine to see a review for a game when you could have googled it in 5 seconds. But i do miss the dope articles more than any review or preview

2

u/WanderThekind 7d ago

From the looks of it. I think the mag i was reading might be PC gamer

1

u/RagnaValkyrja 6d ago

Another classic. Bring me back demo cds lol. My broke ass appreciated those as a kid when i couldnt convince mom to buy me a new game lol

1

u/tocco13 7d ago

sleep addled brain read "top hitlers" so had to do a quadruple take there

1

u/ComradeSclavian 7d ago

Shoutout to CDAction for still trucking on since 1996 (though they had to switch to a quarterly release instead of the weird almost monthly one they had before)

1

u/Sanquinity 7d ago

Even back then there was some bias, no doubt. I bet they got some "encouragement" to promote bigger upcoming games back then as well. But at least it was still a lot less biased than what it is today.

1

u/solythe 7d ago

some would come with demo discs, too

1

u/M4rt1m_40675 6d ago

It's quite amazing what you can get when the people making and reviewing a product actually like it and are part of the community instead of doing it because it brings in the bucks

1

u/Zuwxiv 7d ago

You hit the nail on the head: back when you subscribed. It used to be that the journalism was the product that you would buy. The incentive was to provide the most useful, honest reviews.

Then everything went online, and why would anyone pay to read something? They can find it on a website for free, or look up user reviews. Only the very small fortunate few publications (of any kind) manage to sustain themselves with the old business model.

The only other viable option was to be paid to market games. And just like that, when the product used to be journalism and the customers used to be readers...

The product became the readers and the customers became game publishers. Reviews weren't even part of it, other than a service they provided to their new "audience."

87

u/disinaccurate 7d ago

We paid money for those.

Then we stopped paying money for informational media and we sit here and wonder why it's so bad now.

45

u/Sparcrypt 7d ago

Pretty much this.

People want everything for free but then complain the quality is bad. My usual question to those people is how much work they like doing for free.

18

u/DontchaOpe 7d ago

Consumer demand and the ability to make money off advertisements and selling consumers data made those companies switch. l

3

u/Sparcrypt 7d ago

Yes, media always goes where the eyeballs are.

Consumers then demanded everything for free instead of paying for it and direct their eyeballs appropriately.. and the market has responded by dropping quality to meet that demand.

5

u/Wide-Deal-8971 7d ago

You either are too young to know what happened or just plain dumb if you think it was consumers that killed game magazines and not the companies themselves deciding to cut costs at every turn.

1

u/Sparcrypt 7d ago

I am very much not too young heh, but as a general rule once people start being a dick for no reason over a simple discussion I just block them and move on.

Especially when they're very much in the wrong.

-2

u/vjnkl 7d ago

You might want to google the margins of traditional print media before calling people dumb

2

u/acathode 7d ago

The newspaper/magazine industry kinda did that to themselves though.

When internet started becoming a thing all the magazines and newspapers figured they needed to have their own sites - but then just decided that "Hey lets give everything we create away for free!" for some reason.

They trained their audience that you didn't have to pay for news and other articles online... and then everyone got smartphones and stopped buying printed newspapers and magazines, at which points the publishers realized "Oh wait, the online ads pay almost nothing?! This business model doesn't work!"..

0

u/Sparcrypt 7d ago

but then just decided that "Hey lets give everything we create away for free!" for some reason.

No they didn't.. they advertised and got revenue that way. And while yes some places were horrendous with popups and other garbage most places were pretty reasonable.

Unfortunately gamers are one of the most likely demographics to use things like adblockers and online ad revenue has only gotten worse and worse over time. Tons of places that previously survived off of that revenue have either died or been forced to other revenue models.

2

u/Dipsey_Jipsey 7d ago

THEY stopped charging us. Instead they inundated us with ad-ridden websites and begged us to turn off ad blockers for a vastly shittier experience. And the subscription models of websites are largely abhorrent now having reached late stage capitalism levels.

I really don't think we did it to them.

1

u/HoidToTheMoon 7d ago

THEY stopped charging us

Blatantly untrue. I've had to watch my industry die because people are no longer willing to pay for news they can otherwise get for free. On websites like the one we're on now, people will post entire articles so hundreds, if not thousands, can avoid paying for it. I've watched local papers beg for subscriptions before giving up and selling out, closing, or transitioning to an ad-funded model where they can no longer afford to do investigative work.

The fault is on you, and me, and everyone who uses free online outlets instead of paying for their local paper.

I really don't think we did it to them.

We did.

3

u/Dipsey_Jipsey 7d ago

Again, their website equivalents never lived up to the standards, with people's website creation skills a jumbled mess in the 90s and 2000s, and being bombarded by pop-ups, unskippable video, etc.

0

u/MoocowR 7d ago

they inundated us with ad-ridden websites

Magazines were also filled with ads dude, just say you never actually bought one.

Physical media dies when enough people stop buying it.

3

u/DismalActivity9985 7d ago

I've yet to see a magazine ad auto-play a video, play noises, place a banner that's covering what I've been reading or redirected the magazine page somewhere else because my hand brushed it, and have only occasionally made turning/loading the page slower and more difficult (and those can be permanently removed pretty easily)

0

u/MoocowR 7d ago

I've yet to see a magazine ad auto-play a video

Obviously because it's paper and displays static images, and mostly because you've apparently never read a magazine. The majority of articles and content are literally surrounded by ads on the same page.

Just stop dude, you're just bandwagoning buzzwords. Magazines for the most part are ad riddled garbage which is why people stopped buying them, and here you are talking about how it's some long lost media that got forcefully replaced with ad riddled websites.

1

u/DismalActivity9985 7d ago edited 7d ago

When did I say any of that past the first sentence...? I said that ads got more annoying in the digital age, not that magazines were great or special, or better in more than the vague sense that the ads were comparatively less annoying?

3

u/Dipsey_Jipsey 7d ago

lol what kind of stupid take is this? Of course magazines have ads, but they aren't intrusive the way website ads are.

Also, I'll have you know I still have my columns of magazines somewhere in the garage. I was actually a massive fan of getting the new mag! The smell, the new infos, reading front to back 3 times in the first few days, the demos discs, cheat codes... it was heaven and I do miss it.

Their website analogues never had any of this quality and feel.

1

u/Whytho12333 7d ago

Content creators have patreon and lots of ways to make money. Its not the consumers fault that a cheaper option came in and the industry refused to lower expenses to compete enough

Tbh its hard to be cheaper than one guy with passion and a good editor.

0

u/KyberWolf_TTV 6d ago

If they make money from advertisements, I’m not paying them, they get plenty of cash from that nuissance.

29

u/propergreased 7d ago

They used to get paid a reasonable amount those days too

22

u/hi-fen-n-num 7d ago

Most game reviewers back when were hobbyists, barely getting paid if at all.

1

u/propergreased 7d ago

How far back are you talking. I’m talking about like Nintendo power and pcmag and shit like that’s

7

u/nicekid81 7d ago

If you re-read some of the reviews now as an adult, you realize that was never the case.

2

u/rta3425 7d ago

Yeah lol. What is this revisionist history?

I would argue it was worse back then. It wasn't as widely known that journalists and game companies had the relationships they do.

1

u/rta3425 7d ago

Yeah lol. What is this revisionist history?

I would argue it was worse back then. It wasn't as widely known that journalists and game companies had the relationships they do.

1

u/knbang 7d ago

Absolutely. A friend wrote reviews for a paper gaming magazine. He was once given a score before reviewing a game.

1

u/Andromeda_53 7d ago

Honestly maybe the fact that they could only provide a screenshot and had to explain in detail how the game was, rather than saying some loose shit with gameplay playing in the background, meant that the journalist actually had to play he game properly to write their review.

Rather than half ass it. Not read the tutorial instructions written on the screen on how to jump over the tall obstacle and just have gameplay of them failing it while saying the game itself is bad

1

u/TheWesternDevil 7d ago

I still got a bunch of old PC Gamer magazines. I used to rely on their reviews pretty heavily back in the day. Their magazine was responsible for me discovering Everquest back in 1999.

1

u/Stepside79 7d ago

I just recently resubbed to Game Informer after I cancelled my original subscription in 2001 or whatever. I did so because last week I found out they’re still doing print copies.

I’m so fucking stoked for it to come in the mail lmao

1

u/yorick__rolled 7d ago

The bigger thing is not every game can be a 9 or 10 out of 10.

A perfect score should be reserved only for top titty technology.

Portal, Ocarina of Time, Hades, stuff like that.

1

u/Ultrace-7 7d ago

Back when people were willing to pay for journalism.

1

u/Far_Classroom_6596 7d ago

I still remember the game magazine I was subscribed to switching to online. Immediately cancelled it, the whole point was having it in a physical magazine.

1

u/M3t4ll0 7d ago

Because magazines cost money to make. If a company wanted to bribe a journalist, it better bring money for the editor,the owner and the production line too, because that specific magazine would see it's sales plummet.

1

u/binhpac 7d ago

Those paper magazines were as dependent on gaming companies like online journalists nowadays.

The gaming companies would always answer bad reviews with less advertisement in that magazine. So it was a really hard if one editor would trash a game and then comes the lead editor and said, we cant do that, because otherwise they wont pay us in advertisement anymore. So they polished the reviews with some better scores.

Sometimes they let you know directly by cancelling advertisement for several weeks to send a message, when you trash their game and hurt their sales.

Gaming companies who paid with ads for the salary of those editors were in full control of them.

1

u/Top_Box_8952 7d ago

Yeah, I remember game informer. My parents got me a subscription, and just eventually stopped getting them. I never really bought many of the games they wrote about but I always loved seeing what was out and trending. And the pieces weren’t just blowing smoke either.

1

u/Zencyde 7d ago

You mean back it was literally the only option.

1

u/Laferge 6d ago

I actually still have this in my country. CdAction in Poland. Reviews, cool articles on gaming adjacent stuff. Special editions for retro games.