Slashdot Mirror
News Corp buys IGN for $650M
Falconrath writes "News Corp has just aquired the gaming network IGN for $650 million Thursday. News Corp leader Rupert Murdoch said that this aquisition was one of many in order to become a "leading and profitable Internet presence." " Also here is a games section story from this morning.
Volunteers across the IGN network rejoice as a few fat cats profit from their generosity.
No it just means more games like Call of Duty and less like Final Fantasy.
First MySpace and now IGN.. They're really wanting to get that Pro-Bush message out to all them young people!
"hey, could you pass me a paper towel? er.. I mean... DEPLOY ABSORBTION PANEL!"
The question everyone is probably asking themselves right now - Is this a good or bad thing for IGN in terms of obtrusive advertisements and media content restrictions? Anyone care to provide an insight?
I find myself nowadays not visiting IGN half as much as I used to back when the guys were covering the Japanese N64 release, and all video content was free of charge or nagging flash ads. I know the internet as a whole was very different back then, but still just remembering those innocent times makes me all wet inside. Is it really financially impossible to run a site that way anymore without losing money?
"That means that, on average, each of those 70 million look at more than 170 pages per month?!"
Not surprising, considering the typical game review on their sites looks like:
[AD|AD|AD|AD]
[company] has released a very cool new game called [title]. [token screenshot of box cover]
[AD|AD|AD|AD]
[NEXT] Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11
Click Next and be directed to an interstitial ad, then click through 12 more pages just to find out whether the game is actually worth playing or not. I've long since given up on IGN for having much actual content on their pages.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
I know defending a dupe is not popular, but not all of us have the time or the inclination to spend our day surfing every single one of Slashdot's 13 or so different sections. This is especially true because many companies block access to the "games" section.
Will Slashdot keep posting stories from Gamespy, now that Gamespy is owned by Fox?
Man is a slave because freedom is difficult, whereas slavery is easy.
News Corp is more than just Fox News Channel and the NY Post, people. They bought out 20th Century Fox (the film studio) in 1984 and started the Fox TV network the next year. FNC wasn't started for another 11 years. As for actual "news" holdings, most of that is in Australia.
I realize that finding ways to channel the spirit of Michael Moore onto Slashdot is an easy shot at karma, but really, by buying IGN, News Corp is just making a move toward a greater presence in Internet entertainment. There's not some vast right-wing conspiracy behind it.
The prices paid for Myspace and IGN are, to put it mildly, insane. Batshit crazy.
When business people run off and do something this retarded, it is usually with an ulterior motive. My guess is that someone is trying to reignite the insane speculation on the Internet that caused so many regular people to lose tons of cash in the stock market in the dot com implosion.
Myspace and IGN are so easily replaceable, and hold so little in the way of solid equity, that if I was the SEC I would be looking long and hard at this.
"Hey it's Bush on the line. He needs things to be like 1997. Pay too much for a bunch of Internet companies. We'll get the word just before the bottom falls out!"
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
Strange, I didn't know all the conservative folks at Fox News liked Hillary Clinton. Oh, you didn't know that she was the loudest opponent of Rockstar and was the one on the news denouncing the mod and pulling out the "think of the children" card on a game already marked 17+?
Oh, its easier to just paint all bad and evil things on GWB and the Republicans? By bad. Why not just make it easy and make all Republicans walk around with a big R on their chest? I mean, if we just "got rid" of all the Republican America would be a perfect utopia with clean air and riches for everyone. And even the trains will run on time.
Brianif we just "got rid" of all the Republican (sic)
the Neoconservative and religious factions are already doing a great job of that
No, it's that they specifically manipulate news to press ahead the _far_ right wing agenda. They spin and blatently lie. We shouldn't be covering anyone's ass for Katrina, let alone blindly defending the president, saying that the people are better off being "evacuees," we are doing too much for them, or using it to press issues like allowing the christian church back into schools. And this is just the latest major issue.
Not that I don't mind crazy people who think God talks to them (i.e. Pat Robertson) being treated as respected commentators, I do, "[Homosexuals] want to come into churches and disrupt church services and throw blood all around and try to give people AIDS and spit in the face of ministers."- Pat Robertson. I don't mind the extreme right having their views represented, but only the far right and having total crazies like Pat without any other representation from the middle ground people like me or the left is not okay for a news station.
BTW, did you watch the show? I understand the term "liberal media" but please understand that it is liberal subconsiously. They try and have both sides equally represent themselves. Whereas fox stuffs only with republicans vs conservative or weak democrats. Nor do most other networks violate many of the other values of good journalism.
Try geting your news source from several fronts, right and left and some middle. I think the Christian Science Monitor is probably the last best well balenced international news paper.
Is there anything better than clicking through Microsoft ads on Slashdot?