Earlier this week, this site published a review of current business practices for gaming outlets and sketched a solution for future endeavors. The piece was received positively overall, although many expressed doubts about how the proposal would work in practice. The devil, as they say, is in the details.
Below, we discuss features pertinent for subscriber-based gaming journalism. We begin with a review of features we think are essential for such an outlet to function. Then we discuss several scenarios under which such a model could potentially function, and discuss their relative advantages and disadvantages.
Of course, this discussion is largely speculative. In the absence of gaming outlets who have adopted these practices, any discussion of the practical consequences of this change in business model is necessarily hypothetical. The following is a way to motivate an ongoing discussion rather than a definitive judgment on what would be the “best” variation of a subscriber-based business model.
Transparency and Community
Many comments in reaction to the initial piece were related to problems which could arise with the community. They argued that gamers may be unwilling to contribute financially, may be a difficult clientele to satisfy or could threaten to leave, thus limiting the newspaper’s ability to discuss sensitive topics. We discuss each of these possible challenges in this section.
First, we reiterate what was already discussed in the last piece: gamers have disposable income, and there is observable evidence that they are willing to spend it. As such, we are not too fearful of the possibility that they would be unwilling to fund a project like this. We add, however, that transparency would be a powerful motivator to contribute. Reddit constitutes an excellent example of this. While Reddit is free, it features a premium service called Reddit Gold. The front page of Reddit displays quite proudly the daily Reddit gold goal, which indicates how many people buying Reddit Gold are necessary for Reddit to remain within budget. For those who may not know this, the bar was created following a thread which indicated that Reddit was in the red. The bar was added to the site after this conversation, and since then Reddit witnessed more people buying gold, whether for themselves or others. What follows from this is that if you are open with your customers, they may be willing to pay for the service you provide.
Others have mentioned that gamers can sometimes be a challenging clientele to work with. For instance, a commenter wrote “A subscription model puts you at the mercy of the whims of your subscribers. The problem is that those whims are not necessarily fair or even based on a reasoned analysis.” The same commenter worries that journalists would spend most of their time running damage control, and that subscribers’ bias would force the journalists to moderate criticisms of certain actors within the industry. (Valve is provided as a hypothetical example).
This potential problem can be mitigated in at least two different ways. The first consists of offering a platform on the website for subscribers to make their views heard, like forums. They would not necessarily be managed by the journalists themselves, but rather by a Community Manager/Moderator. This would ensure that journalists’ main occupation is to research and write stories, rather than manage social media.
Forums would also have the added benefit of allowing contrasting viewpoints on a single topic. If a subscriber is displeased by the coverage of a particular event, this can certainly be expressed on a forum, but other users may jump in and express contrasting views. This would have several benefits. First, it shows to the original poster that the point made by the journalist is not the result of foul play or extreme bias but rather an opinion that is at least supported by others. In other words, it moves the perception of the disagreement from one of illegitimate bias to one of reasonable disagreement. Second, it encourages exchange among the subscribers, making the articles a spark to encourage discussion and coming together as gaming enthusiasts rather than articles being considered the final word on a given topic. I think such a change in mentality would be healthy and would encourage participation among subscribers. And third, an ongoing dialogue between users would mean that it would not be the unique responsibility of journalists, community managers and moderators to engage in discussion, a task that would likely be overwhelming.
We present the Escapist as evidence that the above would probably work. The Escapist provides an interesting example of a gaming publication which relies on a forum. While the publication has been criticized as part of Gamergate, it was not met with the degree of vitriol that Polygon and Kotaku received. Unlike these publications, The Escapist is not blacklisted by Gamergate. This difference in treatment can be attributed to the fact that the Escapist did allow conversations of controversial topics on their forum. It seems, then, that gamers do allow for reasonable disagreement, as long as they get a chance to respond and participate in an ongoing discussion.
We are not very concerned with the potential threat of subscribers leaving en masse following a particular article. The main reason for this is that gamers are heterogeneous. They have many different interests. Some like shooters, others fighters, others RPGs, etc. Some play on Xbox, while others play on PS4 and yet others on PC. For this reason, it is unlikely that a single article about Valve, to keep using this hypothetical scenario, would create a strong pressure on a gaming news outlet. Sure, some fans of Valve may be temporarily unhappy with it. However, it is unclear whether they would be motivated enough to leave at once. On the other side of the spectrum, Origin and GOG users may agree with criticisms of Valve, and most console gamers would probably not feel strongly one way or another. The very diversity of gamers, genres and platforms ensures that no single article should lead to a massive exodus of subscribers.
A related concern would be that even some subscribers leaving would leave the publication in a difficult financial situation. This would be especially true if the overall numbers of subscribers is low, thus making the departure of even a small group potentially problematic. While this is a real concern, it is a concern that is contingent on the particular features of the business model adopted by a given publication. We now turn our attention to these features.
The Details
While we have already cast our lot with a subscriber model, it deserves to be said that there are many possible variations along this concept. Many are listed below, along with their advantages and drawbacks. They are studied from the most inclusive (everyone has access) to the least inclusive (a subscription is needed for everything on the site). Once again, this is likely not a definitive list, and is merely a way to move the discussion forward.
The first model is the whale-based model. This is a reference to the model used by free-to-play (F2P) games. Typically, a F2P game will rely on two types of players – players who do not pay to play, and those who do. Since those who do have to support the cost of the game for all players, they end up paying much more than their fair share – hence the moniker “whales”.
The obvious advantage of this business model is that it benefits strongly to the non-whales, and gives greater access to those of us who do not have disposable income to spare. However, the model also carries strong disadvantages. If, as argued in the initial piece, gaming outlets are more responsive to the demands of their customers (defined as those who pay them), then we would essentially be creating a two-tiered system, in which the whales would have greater weight (no pun intended) than the rest of the readership. This would make the publication treat this group more carefully than other readers, and would also make it vulnerable to the departure of a few whales. A publication gains independence when there are many small contributors. If its survival depends on a small number of large contributors, then the publication’s coverage and selection of article could be strongly influenced by these few contributors.
The cosmetic model is essentially a model under which everything substantive is free, but individuals can buy cosmetic enhancements. This is a common feature of certain video games, such as MOBAs. Many Twitch streamers also use this as a way to motivate their audience to subscribe. Subscribers will often get a special icon identifying them as subscribers in Twitch Chat. This model would be ideal as it would allow a great number of people to have access to content, but it may only draw a minority of users to subscribe, thus reproducing the problems of the whale-based model.
Another option is the Preamble model. A preamble-based business model could make the beginning of all articles available, with some content behind a paywall. Imagine that everyone has access to a picture and the first few paragraphs of a given article, but then needs to pay to read the whole piece. This system would essentially be one of microtransactions.
This would probably not work. The simple inconvenience of having to pay for content on a per-article basis would probably drive customers crazy. While it may seem a reasonable trade to pay a fixed amount every month to enjoy unlimited access to a publication, having to conduct a financial transaction for every click strains the imagination.
Another possible solution is a hybrid, or freemium model. In this model, some content is accessible to all, and some content is accessible only to paying customers. This model combines several advantages. The fact that some content is free ensures frequent visits to the website by a large number of people, who then may be convinced to switch to become subscribers over time. However, the restricted content constitutes a clear incentive to acquire a subscription. I note that this is the type of model used by Spotify, and that they succeed at making 2 billion a year with it.
Content that is characteristic of gaming websites, such as reviews, should be completely free under a hybrid model. They represent the bread and butter of games journalism, and for this reason they are essential. Editorials should also be public. The goal of an editorial is to contribute to a greater reflection about gaming and the industry. To be effective at this goal, they need a wide readership. Keeping them behind a paywall would limit their effectiveness.
Then what remains? When you think about it, a lot of things. A gaming website could make all sorts of content available to its paid subscribers. Such a website could contain a walkthrough section which details on how to beat various video games. It could contain interviews with game developers and other actors in the industry. It could contain comics related to gaming (Critical Miss and Penny Arcade are good examples) or podcasts (Zero Punctuation is a relevant example here). It could contain lists of people to game with, acting as a match-maker of sort for people who would like to try multiplayer games but cannot get their real-life friends to partake for whatever reason. It could contain in-depth analyses of games (or whole franchises) which go beyond the scope of the traditional review. Finally, access to the forums could be reserved to paying subscribers or, alternatively, such subscribers could have access to a forum just for them.
I think that this model is the best of the ones discussed here. There is an incentive for free users to visit the site, and thus read the ideas on the site and consider upgrading to a paid subscription (as this is how Spotify built its clientele). It also allows enough premium content to incentivize subscriptions.
It can also be said that other features could further encourage the adoption of a subscription under this business model. For instance, the preamble to the premium content could be shown on the frontpage as a way to encourage monthly subscriptions. Another idea would be to release some premium content after a certain time has gone by, as a way to showcase its quality and encourage free users to subscribe.
The final model is the classic subscriber model, that is, a model in which everyone has to subscribe to access any content on the site. I believe this model would have many negative effects. First, it would de facto exclude those of us who have less disposable income. Second, unlike the freemium model, it would provide no reason for unsubscribed readers to visit the site. For this reason, the site would be relatively invisible to non-subscribers and have limited potential for growth. Consequently, it would probably have few subscribers, which could endanger the financial security of the gaming outlet.
For all the reasons above, the freemium (or hybrid) model has our preference.
Conclusion
We have discussed in greater details our initial proposal of developing gaming news outlets which rely on a subscription model. We have argued that no major problems should arise with the community as long as the publication is open, transparent, provides a venue for the expression of disagreement and discussion and relies on the support of a heterogeneous demographic.
We have also reviewed many possible features that a subscription-based model could have. After reflection, it appears that the freemium (or hybrid) model is preferable. This is because it carries several advantages. Its free component ensures a wide readership and an incentive to visit the site, while the restricted content provides an incentive to encourage these visitors to become subscribers.