It figures. Right after I post a drunken rant about the tragic loss of strategy guides in magazines, I find two at once.
The first is from the December 2009 issue of GamePro. This is one or two issues before the infinitely better redesign, so it's still basically the ultra cool GamePro of olden days. It inexplicably includes four random pages out of BradyGames' Uncharted 2 strategy guide. They're not interesting pages either, just a few spreadsheets detailing what you can buy in the store. Bizarre.
However! The fact that the reprint pages are produced by BradyGames leads me to believe that one route for getting strategy content back into magazines is to outsource it to strategy specialists, by which I mean publishers of strategy guides. Take that four-page Donkey Kong Country Returns guide I talked about earlier and am now starting to realize I desperately want. Let Prima repurpose information and screens from the strategy guide they already have and produce it for you. They get some kinda stipend and free advertising. They can also sell the "miniguide" at their own site; pay a dollar, print it out, fold it up and keep it in the game's case. Ta-da!
The other guide comes in the form of a Rift launch guide from the April 2011 issue of PC Gamer magazine. It's 5 pages, and this time it's produced in-house by the magazine's staff. It actually reads a little like an early review or preview describing the experience, but the point is it gives you a lot of tips on character selection, dungeons, and what to expect initially. Because apparently MMORPGs are hard to just jump into?
This brings to mind another way that magazines can best serve their customers with strategy. Consider magazines exclusive to specific consoles or formats, such as Official Xbox Magazine. They can rest assured that when it comes to the big exclusives, like Halo or God of War, a much larger percentage of their readership is going to be playing them as compared to the readership of a multiplatform magazine. Thus, when it comes to those exclusives, they're going to be best positioned to deliver magazine strategy. This also might be one of the few cases where online multiplayer strategy is justified; if readership continues to play, you can "update" them every month.
Yup. I wish I knew the business better so I could say if all of these ideas are half-assed and unfeasible. Well, at least unfeasible.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Put Guides Back in the Back!
Recently I was reminded about Square's mishap with their Final Fantasy IX strategy guide. In short, they didn't include all the information about the game in the guide, instead prompting players to use a password to access further (essential) information at Square's PlayOnline website. Now, assuming that you had internet access in 2000 (which was far from certain), you had to endure the frustration of having to pause your game, put down your guide, go to your computer, look up your information, walk back, and repeat. People who buy guides, outside of collectors, do so to have the information on hand as they play.
Which makes it odd, to me, that magazines, which used to be bimonthly 250-page strategy for everything monsters, neglect to include guides in their pages. The stated reason? People give them away for free on the internet. Ah...
Okay, okay, there are some not insignificant differences between the world of today and Square's FFIX fiasco. For one thing, everybody has internet access. For another, a lot of people have internet access through devices that they can set down in their lap when they unpause the game. Furthermore, game magazines have it a lot rougher than they did in the glorious mid-90s, forcing them to cut down on pages, rely more on freelance contributors, and really dig for stories that can't be found anywhere else, and strategy guides can be found a LOT of places else.
Still though, I think there's a place for them, if three conditions are met:
First of all, you'd only want to do guides for games that are guaranteed to be popular; Call of Duty yes, Saw II: The Game, no. You will not have a lot of space for strategy pages, so to best serve the largest segment of your readership, you need to provide coverage on the games they're most likely to play. It can't be like Nintendo Power in the 90s, unfortunately.
Second, you're probably going to want to stick with games that encourage the second playthrough and the score attack. You don't have enough space to cover basic information. The guide is there to help your players get the most enjoyment out of the game, and the 4-page strategy section is best positioned to highlight the stuff that might go over your head the first run through. For example, you're not going to want to waste pages talking about rolling, hovering, and the importance of keeping Diddy alive in a short Donkey Kong Country Returns guide; you're going to want to explain speedrunning tactics, the requirements to open bonus levels, and where to find the hidden stuff (or even cut that to the trickier to find hidden stuff) in each level, using little more than a small print paragraph and a screenshot or two. In a short Mortal Kombat guide, you're going to want to list the secret fatalities per character and provide a one page spreadsheet of all the unlockables in The Krypt. And so forth.
There's another benefit to focusing on "new game plus" guides: the magazine might not be on the stands by the time a player begins a new game, but it more likely will be by the time that he or she begins replaying it. There's a built-in lead time to second playthroughs that magazines can take advantage of. An expert guide can also encourage a player to pick a game back up, even if it arrives late (hell, if I had that DKC:R strategy guide I just made up I might think about going back and getting all those damned KONG letters).
Thirdly, you'd probably be focusing on single-player guides, simply because multiplayer is too immediate, with strategies evolving and changing fast enough to make a short, printed guide next to useless.
And there you have it: guides that serve the reader and the format. Now... I don't know how much work goes into guides as opposed to the other content magazines create, and I don't know how it would affect profits. It may just be a simple matter of more work for the same money. But we can say one thing for sure: all of this stuff was a bunch of things that I said.
Which makes it odd, to me, that magazines, which used to be bimonthly 250-page strategy for everything monsters, neglect to include guides in their pages. The stated reason? People give them away for free on the internet. Ah...
Okay, okay, there are some not insignificant differences between the world of today and Square's FFIX fiasco. For one thing, everybody has internet access. For another, a lot of people have internet access through devices that they can set down in their lap when they unpause the game. Furthermore, game magazines have it a lot rougher than they did in the glorious mid-90s, forcing them to cut down on pages, rely more on freelance contributors, and really dig for stories that can't be found anywhere else, and strategy guides can be found a LOT of places else.
Still though, I think there's a place for them, if three conditions are met:
First of all, you'd only want to do guides for games that are guaranteed to be popular; Call of Duty yes, Saw II: The Game, no. You will not have a lot of space for strategy pages, so to best serve the largest segment of your readership, you need to provide coverage on the games they're most likely to play. It can't be like Nintendo Power in the 90s, unfortunately.
Second, you're probably going to want to stick with games that encourage the second playthrough and the score attack. You don't have enough space to cover basic information. The guide is there to help your players get the most enjoyment out of the game, and the 4-page strategy section is best positioned to highlight the stuff that might go over your head the first run through. For example, you're not going to want to waste pages talking about rolling, hovering, and the importance of keeping Diddy alive in a short Donkey Kong Country Returns guide; you're going to want to explain speedrunning tactics, the requirements to open bonus levels, and where to find the hidden stuff (or even cut that to the trickier to find hidden stuff) in each level, using little more than a small print paragraph and a screenshot or two. In a short Mortal Kombat guide, you're going to want to list the secret fatalities per character and provide a one page spreadsheet of all the unlockables in The Krypt. And so forth.
There's another benefit to focusing on "new game plus" guides: the magazine might not be on the stands by the time a player begins a new game, but it more likely will be by the time that he or she begins replaying it. There's a built-in lead time to second playthroughs that magazines can take advantage of. An expert guide can also encourage a player to pick a game back up, even if it arrives late (hell, if I had that DKC:R strategy guide I just made up I might think about going back and getting all those damned KONG letters).
Thirdly, you'd probably be focusing on single-player guides, simply because multiplayer is too immediate, with strategies evolving and changing fast enough to make a short, printed guide next to useless.
And there you have it: guides that serve the reader and the format. Now... I don't know how much work goes into guides as opposed to the other content magazines create, and I don't know how it would affect profits. It may just be a simple matter of more work for the same money. But we can say one thing for sure: all of this stuff was a bunch of things that I said.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The Kombat Keeps On Kontinuing
The new Mortal Kombat came out a few days back. Getting some good reviews. The general consensus is that it's a "return to form," although I seem to remember that being the general consensus around the release of Deadly Alliance, so I'm interested in seeing how this one's reputation holds up. I, personally, don't see the need to buy it right now, because they released a free demo that let's you play as Scorpion and Sub-Zero. Rounding up, that's the entire game.
There's something about Mortal Kombat. I don't think it gets the respect it deserves. I mean, gameplay-wise, it absolutely gets the fun-but-flawed respect it deserves, but when it comes to its historical impact and influence, it generally gets shrugged off as "popular because of the gore." Pardon my french, but that is utter bullshit. In it's 19 years of existence, Mortal Kombat has spawned 9 games, at least twice that many updates and spin-offs, a slew of comics and soundtracks, a stadium show, an animated series, a live-action series, an animated film, two theatrical films, and more covers of EGM than can be counted. Two TV series and two theatrical films people; on that basis you can make a claim that Mortal Kombat is the most successful game franchise of all time.
And it keeps going! There's the new game. And that kickass new web series. Despite gamers tending to look down their noses at it, Mortal Kombat is a huge franchise with staying power, and there is no way that it's maintained that kind of momentum based solely on the nostalgia for some badly-rendered gore from 1992. Something about its mythology, or gameplay, or characters is stuck in the collective gamer hive mind at a meaningful level, and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
Personally, I think it's due to its place in the post-Street Fighter II fighting landscape and it's memorable character design. After Street Fighter II you saw clones, clones, clones, all with the same hand-drawn animated characters and basically the same gameplay. And they (almost) all totally sucked. Then Mortal Kombat came around. It's characters and backgrounds were live action and looked completely different. It's stylings and mythology were completely different. It's command motions were completely different. It's DNA has been significantly altered from the SF2 mold.
Most importantly, it had a viscerality that Street Fighter lacked. Street Fighter was slower-paced, floaty. When you threw someone, they slowly flew two dozen feet and took damage before they hit the ground. Not so in Mortal Kombat. When you kicked a guy, he would go flying quickly across the screen with a loud crack and a spray of blood. It had a sense of weight and physics to it, the blows had a real sense of the physical. You can still see it today; uppercutting somebody in Mortal Kombat is inherently satisfying. It was designed to stimulate us at an R-brain level. In short, it was both different and great, which were the two ingredients needed to have a shot at dethroning the reigning champion.
Also, unlike the other SF2 clones on the market, the characters were well-designed and interesting. Scorpion and Sub-Zero have a legitimate claim in the pantheon of some of the best game characters ever created, and Johnny Cage, his nut punch, and the rest aren't shabby either. It's a good cast, something that's weirdly getting harder to come by in fighting games today. Look at Super Street Fighter 4. Amazingly good game, but the new characters are pretty damned mediocre in design.
Also note that there were violent games before Mortal Kombat, and there were even more violent games after, none of which had the impact MK did on the world. Face it folks; the fatalities were just icing on the cake. Mortal Kombat was, at the time, an innovative, well-designed, entertaining game. That is why it has the staying power it has, making bags and bags of money to this day.
Also, apparently, the strategy guide sucks. This guide is subject to updates. SUBJECT TO UPDATES.
There's something about Mortal Kombat. I don't think it gets the respect it deserves. I mean, gameplay-wise, it absolutely gets the fun-but-flawed respect it deserves, but when it comes to its historical impact and influence, it generally gets shrugged off as "popular because of the gore." Pardon my french, but that is utter bullshit. In it's 19 years of existence, Mortal Kombat has spawned 9 games, at least twice that many updates and spin-offs, a slew of comics and soundtracks, a stadium show, an animated series, a live-action series, an animated film, two theatrical films, and more covers of EGM than can be counted. Two TV series and two theatrical films people; on that basis you can make a claim that Mortal Kombat is the most successful game franchise of all time.
And it keeps going! There's the new game. And that kickass new web series. Despite gamers tending to look down their noses at it, Mortal Kombat is a huge franchise with staying power, and there is no way that it's maintained that kind of momentum based solely on the nostalgia for some badly-rendered gore from 1992. Something about its mythology, or gameplay, or characters is stuck in the collective gamer hive mind at a meaningful level, and to claim otherwise is ridiculous.
Personally, I think it's due to its place in the post-Street Fighter II fighting landscape and it's memorable character design. After Street Fighter II you saw clones, clones, clones, all with the same hand-drawn animated characters and basically the same gameplay. And they (almost) all totally sucked. Then Mortal Kombat came around. It's characters and backgrounds were live action and looked completely different. It's stylings and mythology were completely different. It's command motions were completely different. It's DNA has been significantly altered from the SF2 mold.
Most importantly, it had a viscerality that Street Fighter lacked. Street Fighter was slower-paced, floaty. When you threw someone, they slowly flew two dozen feet and took damage before they hit the ground. Not so in Mortal Kombat. When you kicked a guy, he would go flying quickly across the screen with a loud crack and a spray of blood. It had a sense of weight and physics to it, the blows had a real sense of the physical. You can still see it today; uppercutting somebody in Mortal Kombat is inherently satisfying. It was designed to stimulate us at an R-brain level. In short, it was both different and great, which were the two ingredients needed to have a shot at dethroning the reigning champion.
Also, unlike the other SF2 clones on the market, the characters were well-designed and interesting. Scorpion and Sub-Zero have a legitimate claim in the pantheon of some of the best game characters ever created, and Johnny Cage, his nut punch, and the rest aren't shabby either. It's a good cast, something that's weirdly getting harder to come by in fighting games today. Look at Super Street Fighter 4. Amazingly good game, but the new characters are pretty damned mediocre in design.
Also note that there were violent games before Mortal Kombat, and there were even more violent games after, none of which had the impact MK did on the world. Face it folks; the fatalities were just icing on the cake. Mortal Kombat was, at the time, an innovative, well-designed, entertaining game. That is why it has the staying power it has, making bags and bags of money to this day.
Also, apparently, the strategy guide sucks. This guide is subject to updates. SUBJECT TO UPDATES.
GameFan's Beautiful DK Desk
The recently relaunched GameFan magazine got its website up a few days ago. What I want to point you to is the header to their review of Donkey Kong Country Returns, and more specifically their Donkey Kong timeline. This looks to be the only instance of them posting pages directly out of the magazine onto their site as opposed to just the text, and good god. I'm thinking of tracking down the back issue just for a nice full-sized spread to hold in my very own hands, and if the art design of every review looked this good I would subscribe in no time.
Because this is terrific. This is layout that goes beyond presentation to become an individual work of art, not just information on the DKC series but a wonderful supplement worth owning irrespective of the game itself. It's saying something in its own right about the series, a commentary about its nostalgia and scope and the enthusiasm of its fans. It just oozes passion. It's mostly official Nintendo art and pictures of its consoles, boxes, carts, and so on, but... the way the artist used them to say what he or she wanted to say instead of what Nintendo intended those assets to say... "This is what DKC is, this is the series, to me," he or she says. This is absolutely as it should be. I've seen pretty layouts before, but layouts that themselves say something... nothing that's struck me like this has.
Heh, okay, not to get too deeply into it. But stuff like this makes me want to read print over iPad magazines just so I can get big, beautiful, 2-page spreads. Also, I want a poster version. Chop chop.
EDIT: Okay, I went out and bought the issue. Have only read the DK review so far; it's 8 pages, not counting the 2 page DK timeline at the end, so smothered in screenshots and concept art and little doodles and stickers that there's only about a paragraph of text per page. From flipping through, it looks like GameFan's strategy for dealing with the hard times print magazines find themselves in is to give you humongous, glossy pages and just go nuts all over them. I'm down. Oddly, for seven bucks you get about as many pages as GamePro with much better paper quality and a much bigger landscape. It makes me think that GamePro's cheaping out on us over here.
Because this is terrific. This is layout that goes beyond presentation to become an individual work of art, not just information on the DKC series but a wonderful supplement worth owning irrespective of the game itself. It's saying something in its own right about the series, a commentary about its nostalgia and scope and the enthusiasm of its fans. It just oozes passion. It's mostly official Nintendo art and pictures of its consoles, boxes, carts, and so on, but... the way the artist used them to say what he or she wanted to say instead of what Nintendo intended those assets to say... "This is what DKC is, this is the series, to me," he or she says. This is absolutely as it should be. I've seen pretty layouts before, but layouts that themselves say something... nothing that's struck me like this has.
Heh, okay, not to get too deeply into it. But stuff like this makes me want to read print over iPad magazines just so I can get big, beautiful, 2-page spreads. Also, I want a poster version. Chop chop.
EDIT: Okay, I went out and bought the issue. Have only read the DK review so far; it's 8 pages, not counting the 2 page DK timeline at the end, so smothered in screenshots and concept art and little doodles and stickers that there's only about a paragraph of text per page. From flipping through, it looks like GameFan's strategy for dealing with the hard times print magazines find themselves in is to give you humongous, glossy pages and just go nuts all over them. I'm down. Oddly, for seven bucks you get about as many pages as GamePro with much better paper quality and a much bigger landscape. It makes me think that GamePro's cheaping out on us over here.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Variety!
Just saw a commercial advertising the only cereal with three kinds of raisins.
To this I say: there are different kinds of raisins?
To this I say: there are different kinds of raisins?
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Fire Man Translation Project
Hey all. Can I kick you over to the Fire Man translation project? It's a fan manga starring Fire Man, the boss from the original Mega Man. It's odd, but this, along with the honest-to-god arcade cabinet version of Mega Man: The Power Battles, was my first introduction to the series. Thought it was cool as hell as a kid. Don't know what made me think about it today, but I decided to dig it up. Hope you like it.
Be aware, that site's going to open some pop-up windows. Take precautions.
Be aware, that site's going to open some pop-up windows. Take precautions.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
The Lurking Squid That Is Facebook Gaming
Facebook is introducing a new global currency for their various games, and is forcing the developer of every Facebook title to include support for it by July 1 (link here).
Facebook gaming is weird. It's business structure is weird, it's developer/publisher relationship is weird, and just the idea of playing games specifically in Facebook is weird. I've seen all of this celebrating about Facebook bringing more people into gaming, but, I don't know... is it just me, or does it seem kinda... perverted and diluted? The point of the game isn't so much a quality experience as it is a method to addict and extract money. Not to say that games of the past weren't addictive and developed to make money, but it seemed more like making a quality experience first and then selling it, as opposed to it being a marketing/psychologist terror project from whiteboard to bank vault? Ech, I dunno... I'd do more investigating into the subject, but I'm a little scared to stare too far into that abyss. I don't have enough free time as is.
I'm old.
Anyhow, I guess what struck me about this particular story was Facebook's ability to dictate changes to every game they offer at once. That's something most platform owners can't do, either they're a console manufacturer and the games are out in their millions of physical, unchangable discs, or they're a website that has thousands of submissions from indie developers who have enough trouble finishing a game without starving to death as is. Facebook's ability to vend a handpicked number of games over which they have complete control over all aspects is something other platform owners must be envious of. I'd like to see what kind of contracts Facebook game developers sign, but I'm sure there's enough competition there that it's basically "we own every atom of the entirety of your game's being forever and to eternity."
For more, why not read this article about ways developers try to keep you playing long past the point you're having any fun?
Facebook gaming is weird. It's business structure is weird, it's developer/publisher relationship is weird, and just the idea of playing games specifically in Facebook is weird. I've seen all of this celebrating about Facebook bringing more people into gaming, but, I don't know... is it just me, or does it seem kinda... perverted and diluted? The point of the game isn't so much a quality experience as it is a method to addict and extract money. Not to say that games of the past weren't addictive and developed to make money, but it seemed more like making a quality experience first and then selling it, as opposed to it being a marketing/psychologist terror project from whiteboard to bank vault? Ech, I dunno... I'd do more investigating into the subject, but I'm a little scared to stare too far into that abyss. I don't have enough free time as is.
I'm old.
Anyhow, I guess what struck me about this particular story was Facebook's ability to dictate changes to every game they offer at once. That's something most platform owners can't do, either they're a console manufacturer and the games are out in their millions of physical, unchangable discs, or they're a website that has thousands of submissions from indie developers who have enough trouble finishing a game without starving to death as is. Facebook's ability to vend a handpicked number of games over which they have complete control over all aspects is something other platform owners must be envious of. I'd like to see what kind of contracts Facebook game developers sign, but I'm sure there's enough competition there that it's basically "we own every atom of the entirety of your game's being forever and to eternity."
For more, why not read this article about ways developers try to keep you playing long past the point you're having any fun?
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Ugh
I only had an hour and a half of free time today and I wasted it watching Scream 3. At least they didn't call it Scr3am. But y'know, the marketers back then, they were just dopes in suits, not all savvy like today.
Much more substantial content coming soon.
Much more substantial content coming soon.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Sounds Like Goooooood Watchin'
Hey, if you've got some time to spare, can I kick you over to Extra Credits? I'm not usually a "video guy" when it comes to the internet (if that makes sense), but this is some good, eloquent stuff.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
GameStop Is Going To Make A Tablet
Well... the title pretty much says it all. In a recent interview with Gamasutra, company president Tony Bartell said that GameStop is planning to either license or build a gaming-centric tablet. Furthermore, a pilot program in five stores is letting people trade in their tablets, which leads me to assume that the store plans to start selling used tablets as they do with any other game hardware (though how that works out with the various internet data plans you have to buy with the tablets I do not know). Combined with Sony's "PlayStation Phone," handheld gaming is starting to get simultaneously interesting and boring.
You can find discussion everywhere about the merits of iPhone gaming vs. dedicated handheld gaming, mostly boiling down to convenience and affordability vs. higher quality. I think gaming-specific multimedia devices could really be a tipping point - a few buttons and joysticks could make all the difference between buying a 3DS or finally jumping on the smartphone bandwagon. Perhaps that's why you see the oddly pricey for Nintendo $250 3DS and the surely even more expensive next generation PSP; they HAVE to provide a super high-quality device with features that won't be found on smartphones, because unless their software really impresses then it just isn't worth it over a few apps. Business history teaches us that staying in the middle pleases nobody.
So, looks like this handheld generation we're going to be seeing smartphone/tablet gaming with more dedicated devices on one end, and super cool dedicated portables on the other. What I want to know is, after this generation, will gaming devices that aren't phones exist anymore? Will the 3DS be the last handheld from Nintendo you won't be able to call somebody from? Will we just have various kinds of phones? From a simple personal perspective... I hope not. I like consoles. I like their stories and the game libraries that give them flavor. Phones and other electronics, no matter how sexy, have never engaged me like a specific platform created to host a variety of unique content.
Of course, it's incredibly likely the phone/tablet eclipsing of traditional handhelds won't happen, or will happen in a way completely different from predictions. Predictions in the game industry, as with anywhere else, are worthless. Remember the "multimedia revolution" that was going to finally make games into high-quality "interactive movie" experiences? Or how the PlayStation 2 was going to become the hub of your entire entertainment system? Yeah, let's just see what happens.
You can find discussion everywhere about the merits of iPhone gaming vs. dedicated handheld gaming, mostly boiling down to convenience and affordability vs. higher quality. I think gaming-specific multimedia devices could really be a tipping point - a few buttons and joysticks could make all the difference between buying a 3DS or finally jumping on the smartphone bandwagon. Perhaps that's why you see the oddly pricey for Nintendo $250 3DS and the surely even more expensive next generation PSP; they HAVE to provide a super high-quality device with features that won't be found on smartphones, because unless their software really impresses then it just isn't worth it over a few apps. Business history teaches us that staying in the middle pleases nobody.
So, looks like this handheld generation we're going to be seeing smartphone/tablet gaming with more dedicated devices on one end, and super cool dedicated portables on the other. What I want to know is, after this generation, will gaming devices that aren't phones exist anymore? Will the 3DS be the last handheld from Nintendo you won't be able to call somebody from? Will we just have various kinds of phones? From a simple personal perspective... I hope not. I like consoles. I like their stories and the game libraries that give them flavor. Phones and other electronics, no matter how sexy, have never engaged me like a specific platform created to host a variety of unique content.
Of course, it's incredibly likely the phone/tablet eclipsing of traditional handhelds won't happen, or will happen in a way completely different from predictions. Predictions in the game industry, as with anywhere else, are worthless. Remember the "multimedia revolution" that was going to finally make games into high-quality "interactive movie" experiences? Or how the PlayStation 2 was going to become the hub of your entire entertainment system? Yeah, let's just see what happens.
Monday, April 11, 2011
IT BEGINS
The first game magazine distributed solely through iPad is out. Opportunities for innovation in that area are decreasing faster than I would have liked (the ideal speed being "no movement whatsoever until I get off my ass and do it one day maybe").
It looks pretty damn nice, utilizing some of the things I've pondered about in the past (infinite pages, embedded videos) and some new features I wouldn't have considered (flipping the iPad to landscape to get to image galleries). The layout and design look pleasant and professional, and from the video it appears to be a fairly substantial issue's worth of coverage.
Also, a buck an issue. Yowza. If "Atomix" can make a profit on this, then I expect digital game mags (and mags of all type, honestly) to start blowing up huge. HUGE. Any major gaming site can jump on this, and perhaps independent publications as well. I am VERY interested to see how this develops. If nothing else, it means a lot more potential employment opportunities for me...
It looks pretty damn nice, utilizing some of the things I've pondered about in the past (infinite pages, embedded videos) and some new features I wouldn't have considered (flipping the iPad to landscape to get to image galleries). The layout and design look pleasant and professional, and from the video it appears to be a fairly substantial issue's worth of coverage.
Also, a buck an issue. Yowza. If "Atomix" can make a profit on this, then I expect digital game mags (and mags of all type, honestly) to start blowing up huge. HUGE. Any major gaming site can jump on this, and perhaps independent publications as well. I am VERY interested to see how this develops. If nothing else, it means a lot more potential employment opportunities for me...
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Welp, That Sucked
"War of the Supermen" is worse than "XXX: State of the Union." It's like a fart in the face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)