After reading the news item on Ziff Davis, I got to thinking about the state of all the major PC gaming magazines' parents. A quick search found the theglobe.com (Computer Games Magazine) at $0.18 per share, Future Networks (PC Gamer) at $0.56 per share and Ziff Davis (CGW) being privately held but obviously shopping some titles.

Is it just bad luck that these mags are in the hands of such feeble parents? I enjoy reading all of them and have a concern that the current breadth of gaming opinions that I enjoy now is about to be taken away due to bankruptcy or mismanagement. This isn't a knock on the editors/writers since they don't handle the business side of things, but what have the "suits" done to put the mags at such risk?


I am not very familiar with the magazine industry, but the gaming mags seem to have enough of a subscriber and advertiser base to support themselves. I suspect it may be the rash of new websites and publications that couldn't get off the ground and generate any profits that is sinking everyone.

Best of luck to those of you who are suffering (or will suffer) the consequences.

The entire magazine industry is having a rough time right now due to the decline in advertising spending. All the mags are hurting to some extent.

As to the parent companies, my guess is that Ziff is the healthiest right now, mainly because they didn't have a lot of money invested in Internet properties. They spun of ZDNet back when Internet properties were still hot.

Future was obviously hurt by their investment in websites (Daily Radar, Maximum PC, etc.). Theglobe.com's fortunes have declined as the Internet economy has collapsed. CGM's probably their only success story.

I suspect it's because gaming mags came into the business from the tech and product end, not the publishing end. That is, they're specific, focused, niche products run by geeks for geeks :-). Unlike, say, Time or Newsweek, which grew out of news publishing empires, or McCalls, Redbook, The New Yorker, etc., which grew out of general-purpose (more or less) publishing backgrounds, game mags started as hobbyist publications. The publishing companies, if you can call them that, that run these mags are companies that in general are focused on high-tech, or otherwise niche oriented publications it seems. None of them, not ZD or Future or whomever, is really a mainstream publishing outfit I'd suggest.

Speaking of gaming mags ...

God forgive me, but ... PC Gamer is just awful. I went through the September issue in 4 minutes in the bathroom. I don't mean to be cruel, but it's basically a screenshot catalog. Everything from the Dune review to the embarrassing "I miss my dead dad" column in the back just makes me want to cry for these people. Again, I don't mean to be cruel.

Please. By all means, be cruel. Sometimes tough love is the only answer. I have a hard time with most of the mags these days. I guess I just don't get the "we're-oh-so-clever" writing style.

"God forgive me, but ... PC Gamer is just awful. I went through the September issue in 4 minutes in the bathroom. I don't mean to be cruel, but it's basically a screenshot catalog. Everything from the Dune review to the embarrassing "I miss my dead dad" column in the back just makes me want to cry for these people. Again, I don't mean to be cruel."

You guys certainly picked the right forum to be heard. In my opinion the magazines have been getting better lately because they seem targeted towards an older audience (older than 18 that is), and the articles in the magazines seem less about previews of games that barely exist, and more about the games on the verge of release, or already out (without being dumb walkthroughs). I've mentioned my opinion on this before in this forum.

I'm sorry to hear that the September PC Gamer is disappointing. I prefer written content over the screenshots any day.

"Please. By all means, be cruel. Sometimes tough love is the only answer. I have a hard time with most of the mags these days. I guess I just don't get the "we're-oh-so-clever" writing style."

I'm not saying this because half the writers of these magazines frequent this board, but I think the writing is just as good as most niche mags. And if you consider how juvenile the computer game mags once were, then the fact that there is any "writing style" at all is a small blessing. I sure don't feel like anyone is dropping 25 cent words, or using literary criticism theory in their reviews. Sorry if you were being funny, and I just didn't get it. Otherwise, finish up high school and then the writing might not seem so "clever".

"And if you consider how juvenile the computer game mags once were, then the fact that there is any "writing style" at all is a small blessing. I sure don't feel like anyone is dropping 25 cent words, or using literary criticism theory in their reviews. Sorry if you were being funny, and I just didn't get it. Otherwise, finish up high school and then the writing might not seem so "clever". "

Geeze, wake up on the wrong side of the bed or something? Did the high school crack make you feel any better about yourself? Allow me to clarify what I mean by "oh-so-clever." One of the mags (I can't remember which) likes to give examples of what their ratings mean. In doing this, they compare games to things like boy bands or 70's sitcoms. These little sidebars seem like such a waste of time and effort. It reminded me of PC Accelerator. Thank god that one's dead.

Look, there's a awful trend going on in the media where almost all content has to have some post modern, self-referential riff. I point to MTV and the love affair with "reality TV" as the main instigators of this and the rest of freaking world is following suit. Everyone is spending so much time being clever, sarcastic, and edgy, they forget to add meaningful content to the mix. Frankly this has been bugging me more and more since I saw Moulin Rouge.

"there's a awful trend going on in the media where almost all content has to have some post modern, self-referential riff"

I think this may have been going on for the last 30 years, not just the last 3. I don't think society is any more annoying than it was in the 70's when Real People, That's Incredible, and Burt Reynolds were all the rage. But I do think that the computer game magazine writing is a hell of a lot better.


"I point to MTV and the love affair with "reality TV" as the main instigators of this and the rest of freaking world is following suit."

Call me Monster, but I was really rooting for Richard over Kelly, although I was cool with Colby losing. I think I've fallen in love with the Mormon girl from New Orleans. My favorite Fear Factor moment: eating the worms. I didn't think the girl was the Mole at all.

"Everyone is spending so much time being clever, sarcastic, and edgy, they forget to add meaningful content to the mix."

Are you talking about some of the authors on this board? I know I've seen clever and sarcastic, but the only edgy piece was the overweight girl someone posted to the board. I have however seen plenty of meaningful content.


Personally, I don't have a problem with people being clever, sarcastic, or edgy. As a matter of fact I think some of the greatest things/people ever have been clever, sarcastic and edgy. For example:

Animal House
Monty Python
WH Auden
Balzac
Catullus
Socrates


But for all of that, I don't think the silly sidebar that PC Gamer, or CGW, or CG Mag, or whichever one of them does that silly four star rating, is either clever, sarcastic, or edgy.

"But for all of that, I don't think the silly sidebar that PC Gamer, or CGW, or CG Mag, or whichever one of them does that silly four star rating, is either clever, sarcastic, or edgy."

That's my point. It's a weak editorial choice on the mags part. It's easy, cheap filler designed to give them "personality." It's cool for the sake of trying to be cool, which we all know isn't cool.

I think "The Real World" sums it up best. After the first couple of seasons, everyone who has appeared on the program knows what MTV expects of them. They know the roles they are supposed to play and spend the next 6 months acting out the drama. It's painful.

---

Quote:

I think I've fallen in love with the Mormon girl from New Orleans. My favorite Fear Factor moment: eating the worms. I didn't think the girl was the Mole at all.

---

"And anyone that can read Tom's Three Finger Salute column and then turn around and criticize the writing in gaming mags -- well, that's just not right. "

Well, in my original message I criticized PC Gamer, not CGM. It's also the magazine that called Max Payne "fiendishly well-written" and said that "everything is destructible."

Both comically wrong.

It's not an isolated case. The problem I have reading PC Gamer is that I DID graduate high school and that sort of gee-whiz crap isn't cutting it anymore. Our time is worth more.

I wasn't specifically referring to you alone...But, point noted.

I was referring more to people, in general, who were criticizing all the mags.

I think every magazine is going to hire / employ a few writers who rise to the top. Yes, there is some good writing out there and I would never presume to say that all mags suck all the time. However, there is an editorial tone that seems to slip in that for whatever reason, really gets on my nerves. Se my previous post for further explaination.

I read that preview of Max Payne in PC Gamer. They fell just short of calling it "game of the year." The writer went on and on about how gritty, dramatic, and mature it was. The game's a big revenge fantasy. Nothing more. Now, in an action game with good gameplay you don't really need anything more, but for crying out loud let's recognize the game for what it is. Heck, I got more drama and character development out of Anachronox(surprisingly good game).

Actually this brings up an interesting point. Outside of a well crafted cutscene, how can games create dramatic tension?

"Outside of a well crafted cutscene, how can games create dramatic tension?"

A really great question.

If a game can make you care about the characters in the game, make you feel as if you have come to know the characters, have watched them evolve, grow, have interacted with the characters, you can create tremendous drama in a game. Let's take as unlikely a genre as flight sims. If the squadron mates that you fly with are nameless drones, who cares if they get blown away - they just get replaced with other nameless drones. Heck, let THEM be assigned to clear the way of SAMs. But if you have squadron mates with names (even better if you can rename them, since then you can really personalize them in your mind,) that you train with, then go to war with, with whom you survive hairy battles, that appear out of nowhere to save your sorry ass when you find yourself in a hopeless situation, then you have some potential for drama: you've completed your mission, you're low on fuel, your buddy has been hit and is smoking but still flying, and you see inbound bogies - do you leave him behind or do you risk your own hide to stay with him and help him home?

"One of the mags (I can't
remember which) likes to give examples of what their ratings mean. In doing this, they compare games to
things like boy bands or 70's sitcoms. These little sidebars seem like such a waste of time and effort."

That would be us (Computer Gaming World). Man, nail us to the cross for having a little fun. You know, there's nothing wrong with occasional fluff as long as it's built upon a foundation of solid analysis and incisive writing. Two things that we here at CGW consistently strive to do. I'm not saying we pull it off with every word we write, but we stay diligent and try to keep some perspective. That's why we entrust our pages to freelancers like Jeff Lackey, Mark Asher, Gordon Berg, Bruce Geryk and others (too many to mention, but I think I've brown-nosed enough).

I sincerely apologize if anyone has ever been entertained while reading our magazine.

"That's why we entrust our pages to freelancers like Jeff Lackey, Mark Asher, Gordon Berg, Bruce Geryk and others (too many to mention, but I think I've brown-nosed enough). "

Brown-nose somemore. It will get you everywhere in this digital age. CGW does support a great cast of quality freelancers. It's one of the main reasons why I prefer reading CGW over the other mags, like PC Gamer (cough). The top notch writing makes it worthwhile. As for the fluff, it's fun stuff. Time to spread the wealth a little. Perhaps a few of us freelancers would be allowed to come up with more ratings in order to spice up the choices. Just a thought...

Raphael

I like a certain amount of "fluff" in a magazine because I like to be entertained by magazines, much more so than by websites, where I tend to be more information-driven.

Of course it's a chicken and the egg thing too, as most websites aren't good at fluffy entertainment.

The best thing the mags could do is get fatter. I love those 350 page Xmas issues, even if half the pages are ads. They're just a lot of fun to sit down with.

---

Quote:

The best thing the mags could do is get fatter. I love those 350 page Xmas issues, even if half the pages are ads. They're just a lot of fun to sit down with.

---

Yes. We will.
Remember, mags are usually thinnest right about now. They're just thinner because of the economy and ad crunch (I've never seen Newsweek this thin, for example). Once thing rebound fat page counts (and more ads, catalog specials, etc.,) will return.

-Andrew

"Do you think that we will ever see the return of those size mags again?"

It's hard to say. Some are saying the heyday of gaming mag advertising sales are over, others believe we're simply in a lull. Our holiday issues - while still the thickest of the year - are nowhere near what they were in '97 -'98. But when you're at rock bottom, there's no where to go but up. I do believe things will improve in a year or two. I hope we just don't see too many more closures of media outlets (in print and on the web) in the meantime.

Oh, and I meant to mention my old pal Raphael in that other post about our indispensible freelancers. Please don't cut off access to the humidor, buddy! And if you guys have suggestions for the ratings system, by all means forward them to me.

I personally wouldn't love to see those huge issues return. There's a point of diminishing returns on gaming editorial. Filling up 150 pages of good edit isn't that easy. I'd rather have 70 great pages over 100+ with 10 page tips guides or previews of marginal games, which is ultimately what you end up with.

>The best thing the mags could do is get fatter. I love those 350 page Xmas issues, even if half the pages are ads. They're just a lot of fun to sit down with.

Wanna buy 20 pages of ads, Mark? =)

I agree with Steve that there's a point at which it's just too much and the quality of the whole suffers. But these summer issues are all a little thin for my tastes, across the board. A 200-page magazine with about 80-85 pages of edit seems about right to me, as a consumer.

"Filling up 150 pages of good edit isn't that easy. "

Steve, surely as an EIC though that's the problem you'd rather have, isn't it? What do we do with all of this editorial space, as opposed to what good articles do we cut? CGM has presented some really nice longer than average articles lately - I assume you've received positive feedback on those.

I agree that filling up more pages each month would present some problems, but I'd still love it as a reader. I don't read every article in any magazine, so the more articles you fit in, the more likely it is I'll find some I want to read.

If nothing else, tips articles, second reviews of some high profile games six months later, more reviews, etc., would be interesting.

Fatter issues are good in theory, and hell, I love to get more editorial just like everyone else. But let's remember that if you double the page and word count, you're halving the amount of time editors have to look it over. The amount of time in a month doesn't go up, and the amount of editors available doesn't go up--only the amount of work they have to do to make sure it's all "right" goes up.

What strikes me as kind of funny is Steve says, "Hey, I don't care how many pages there are as long as they're all good," while Asher's saying "Woo I love gettin a mass of pages for my spending dollar!"

Kind of similar to the game-length thing, eh wot? :)

"Man, nail us to the cross for having a little fun. You know, there's nothing wrong with occasional fluff as long as it's built upon a foundation of solid analysis and incisive writing."

"I sincerely apologize if anyone has ever been entertained while reading our magazine."

Apology accepted. Seriously, I don't want to come off as the guy with no sense of humor, but there's something to be said for keeping a consistent editorial tone.

Those ratings analogies are something I'd expect to see in the now defunct PC Accelerator. I always hated that mag, but at least I knew to expect that kind of content as they did very little that could be considered insightful. If CGW, on the other hand, strives to deliver solid analysis, the "fun" that occasionally slips through kind of cheapens the impact of the good stuff IMHO.

And things like the infamous "Vampire" cover don't do much to clarify CGWs position as a source for intelligent commentary. "...Nice big breasts, nice bite marks. Let's run it as a cover. Anyone who hates it is clearly up-tight and doesn't understand our fun-loving spirit."

I'm actually curious about where some of these editorial choices come from, as I've read some great things in a recent CGW (I believe). One article was about violence in games, and another was about the music composer who did Total Annihilation. This was great stuff that rounded out some nice reviews and previews. I guess I'd like to see more of this and less about why Velma is two stars and Scrappy Doo is one.

Whatever. I'm sure I'm completely wrong about this. Flame away.

---

Quote:

I sincerely apologize if anyone has ever been entertained while reading our magazine.

---

Oh good, the Anonymouse again rears his cowardly head.

If you are having so much fun and unashamed of that fact, why are you too shy to put your name to a post?

**Don't mind me, I'm just in search of unimpeacheable credibility**

"**Don't mind me, I'm just in search of unimpeacheable credibility**"

That dead horse you're beating just fell over.

Hell, it fell over long ago. I just don't have another to move to just yet.

"God forbid anyone should ever have any fun. Especially about such a serious, no-nonsense, world-shaking topic like COMPUTER GAMES."

Look, many of those of us who spend money on magazines and games tend to take our finances a little seriously. The heaviest consumers of games also probably know a little about the subject as well. If I want a laugh, I'll let you know. Find a few guys like scharmers or Tom Chick and I'll send extra bucks for the priviledge because, well, they're both hilarious and well versed in gaming lore. Otherwise, IMHO, there are more important things a gaming mag can do than dippy slapstick.

Right now there are more than a few hardcore gamers getting disgruntled by the seeming lack of real breakthrough innovation in (working) games. Could it be they've been so innoculated to hype and power coverage of big dollar product that they don't believe anything they read anymore? Or is it that there is really less creativity in game design? Is something else entirely going on?

Where are articles on ideas that might be peripheral now to games but that might influence where they're going? I'd pay big for a Wired or George of gaming that would discuss issues of theory, philosophy, culture, media, technology (in a broad sense), and the personalities shaping computer and console games written by those that have shaped gaming in the past or at least understand it. What we have instead is the occasional retrospective or insightful editorial. What we tend to lack is context and broad perspective that will help gamers refine and understand their hobby as well as help developers and publishers cater to a more evolved and intelligent market.

Nah, the real problem is that games are kids, silly rabbit! At some point, you get to an age where games are no longer satisfying, not because of themselves inherantly, but because your just too old to enjoy them. Go look at what you used to play on the old Nintendo or Sega Master System; do you really want to play them now? Creating a more intelligent market is making games that are not games, but something 'else', something mature and thoughtful and respectable. Of course, seeing all the ancedotal evidence of lost jobs and spouses by 'adults in age' obsessing over shallow time wasting games like Everquest, and you have to wonder whether the 'adult' gamer is rather more myth than anything.

What kind of games would be mature games? Is golf mature? Tennis? Pictionary? Trivial Pursuit? I don't see adult leisure time activities as being any more mature than playing a lot of computer games.

...except for all the T&A filled, guns and babes mentality that many developers seem to believe that gamers want sex and diversion. Examples: Giants, (naked blue babes isn't art), all of GOD games (whom really disgrase the whole industry), most FPS games released; many RTS games (Red Alert 2 i.e., broads in leather), Everquest (wood elves), im sure there are far far more, and ill look them up if forced too :) Of course! I forget it since care nothing for the series, but Tomb Raider, the "watch the ass" computer game. Wasn't the CEO or some other big exec of EIDOS arrested for soliciting child porn? Makes you wonder...Oh, on that thread, the whole DoA console games, ect... i mean, panties and all are there for your viewing pleasure; really disparaging to games and gamers in general of course, not pc. games.

The inherant difference is twofold - one, that there is a widespread belief that games do not require skill; which undoubtedly tennis, golf and most sports do. They have little intellectually redeeming qualities, or are perceieved as such (at least you learn odd facts in Trivial Persuit, and even thats a 'family game' oftentimes); how often can you 'frag'? And second is that theyre inherantly anti-social, which is the total opposite what defines a game in every other context, excepting golf, and even then, its usually a social event.

Most adults don't spend hours a day on jigsaw puzzles or popsicle houses, but in many ways, games, with their predictable linearity, are just visceral "whittling sticks" (an image off of a CGO column i believe); and while this appeals to the hardcore gamer, whom often as "much time and little to do", most adults want something more appealing. i apologize for the gross generalization of course.

Er, im rambling now...and i have to go, so i cant revise, but are there any 'indie', mature games? Thought provoking interactive experiences? Maybe Omicron or the Longest Journey, and hardcore gamers use those games' cds to scrape spackle, in a manner of speaking. Usually 'indie' games are some wierd Japanese anime interactive porn.

I am 35 yo. I have no real interest in games like Everquest. I prefer deep single play games like Flashpoint, any hard core military simulators.

I think games like Everquest are popular because they act as a social substitute. There are a lot of anti-social people out there and Everquest is one way that allows these people to relate to other people. Of course not everyone fits this category as there are many well adjusted people out there who play online games - except cheaters ! :)

What is worrying is when a person becomes addicted to Everquest (and the like) at the expense of the real world. If someone is spending more than 40 hours a week submerged in these online worlds then you have to ask has this person got a problem ?

Then again in todays modern society where neighbours create their own little fortresses I guess playing online games is the only chance these people have to mix it with other people.

(Sorry about the rambling)

Now that's quality disdain Stereolabrat! We need more of it! Most games are immature and sucky! :)

Let's do something about it. That's my point. Sure, there are as many ways to define hardcore gaming as there are self-described hardcore gamers. Bad word choice on my part.

However, you must like some games or you probably wouldn't be here. What's good? How does this game compare to other games that are good? What qualities do you ascribe to this game? Do all 'good' games have to have all these qualities? Some? Can two great games share no qualities at all? What is a game? What were the computer games before there were computers? How did this affect the development of genre and type? What old styles were overlooked? What new styles and developments are there in tabletop game design? Are there any concepts exclusive to computers that cannot exist in other forms? Visa versa? What is immersion? Is it different than gameplay? What's the difference between realism and realistic consistency? Why are there categories of gaming and what reviewer glossary words are so often bandied they are no longer questioned?

Computer games can be deep, rich, experiences and the whole field is still in the crib. Daggerfall. Falcon 4.0. Europa Universalis. King of Dragon Pass. Tropico. Soul Calibur. The roleplaying MUSH. Majestic. They are still games.

The problem isn't that games aren't creatively designed it's that creative gamers aren't the majority of the existing market. Those folks are yet to be converted because they think of computer games in exactly the same way you do.

Based on the coverage and context we see in the mainstream media you're both right. And with the exception of one or two magazines in the gaming community there's little available to suggest otherwise from ourselves.

(I ramble too.)

By the way, reading a book could be considered anti-social too and I've been discouraged, in the past, from talking in theaters.

Actually (and this is speaking from experience) the big magazines at the end of the year weren't put together in one month--we had a general idea of how large those issues were going to be and planned accordingly, often months in advance.

"Where are articles on ideas that might be peripheral now to games but that might influence where they're going? I'd pay big for a Wired or George of gaming that would discuss issues of theory, philosophy..."

You and maybe three other people. You cite George as an example and yet that magazine is a perfect illustration of my point. It had a high-profile founder, tons of media coverage, celebrities on the covers, and it bombed. After the first year it consistently lost money. A mass market magazine (especially a gaming mag) that discusses those topics as its primary editorial focus will not survive. And besides, there's already Game Developer magazine.

--Billy

In keeping with my original comment on this thread, theglobe.com has gone too far this time. I received the most recent edition of Computer Games Magazine this week and apparently, theglobe is saving money by omitting punctuation marks now. I don't know how much money is being saved by omitting all apostrophes in the text, but, as a reader, I would gladly pay an extra 10 cents an issue to receive all punctuation marks in my gaming mag. I hope this is not a trend where next month the mag is missing apostrophes AND commas.

*All of the above was in jest. Apparently the quality control guy at whatever printer CGM uses was clicking away at that 5 star Diablo 2: LOD expansion rather than eyeballing the first few pages to come off the press.

-DavidCPA

It saved us a fortune in ink.

Next month: no adverbs.

=)

Okay, now, seriously, since somebody else brought it up: I assume that that was done for the sake of Tom's column, right? Did he contact you guys individually, or just one mass e-mail to the editors, or...how did that work? Simply curious

Or, am I wrong altogether? Was there another reason for it?

And, hey, while we're talking about the magazine...On the cover, there's the "Have fun storming the castle -- with Stronghold" line. Was that intentionally taken from the Princess Bride, because I heard Billy Crystal saying that when I read it...Was it coincidence?

Tom's column has deliberately omitted words and stuff, and it makes sense in the context of his topic. It's kind of a joke.

The handful of other pages that have no apostrophes or quotes is simply a postscripting printing error. It was a goof-up that happened somewhere between the proofing and the final output.

Rest assured, we'll have them next issue, and we'll find something else important to omit. =)

> Was that intentionally taken from the Princess Bride, because I heard Billy Crystal saying that when I read it...Was it coincidence?

We figured we'd try to squeeze two overused movie lines ("Get Medieval" as popularized by Pulp Fiction) in as little space as possible. =)

Hmm...I guess I gave you guys too much credit. I assumed that it was intentional. ;-)

You should never have confessed that, Jason!

I thought perhaps Tom's influence was creeping into other people's articles!

The best letter we got about that was just an email filled with apostrophes:

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Gotta admit, that's pretty damn funny. We're still two short, though.

One note about the Ziff-Davis story on the front page today. It's not entirely accurate to call that a "profit."

>Earnings before interest expense, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") were $3.5 million for the quarter,

Note the "EBITDA" part. My own personal earnings before expense, taxes, depreciation, and amortization are far more impressive than my actual cash on hand. :-) EBITDA's an accounting thing... Unless ZD is somehow not paying taxes, interest, etc., the actual picture is probably not one of profit, or they'd not have used EBITDA in their report.

Thanks Phil. I'm not well versed in these kinds of things. So Ziff may be losing money at this point, you think?

I think the mags and websites are in for a really tough time. I just read an estimate that the high tech market won't rebound until 2003 now. If that holds true, advertising will probably be down all of next year too.

Good call Phil. EBITDA = earnings measurement for companies with little to no earnings.

I believe this measurement is better used by companies that are in the process of making large capital investments before those investments generate cash flow (telco/cable companies). A magazine publisher using it to show positive earnings is not a good sign.

-DavidCPA

Well, a lot of companies show their EBITDA, as this is a good measure of how well the income producing engine of the company is working. Two companies may have the same EBITDA, but have very different earnings once those other factors come into play, due to how the two companies are handling the financing. For example, one company may be borrowing money at a relatively high rate, taking write-offs, etc. while the other may be cash rich.

EBITDA is a very good number to know, as it tells you, exclusively of how good the finance arm of the company is, how good the cash earning part of the company is doing. Obviously you have to combine it with the rest of the story to understand the financial health of the company. But it is a particularly good number for people who are looking at buying the assets of the company. ;)

---

Quote:

But it is a particularly good number for people who are looking at buying the assets of the company. ;)

---

Yes! The accountant faction is growing at Qt3, soon we will rule the whole place! Some day the entire news page will be filled with graphs and spreadsheets! HAHAHAHAHAHA!

I remember Ziff-Davis was quoting EBITDA numbers back when I worked for them years ago, when they were still owned by Softbank. (I still get a kick out of Son-san, the guy who started Softbank, talking about his 300-year plan for the company... Hell, I have trouble coming up with an editorial calendar a year ahead sometimes.)

Anyway, EBITDA's always been something ZD quoted, at least for the past five years or so. Phil has a good point, though -- if you were really racking in positive income, you wouldn't use EBITDA figures. But this isn't a sign that something's up.

Either way, the EBITDAs quoted show a 90% decline or something like that. It's a tough time for all publishers, especially ones oriented in the high tech stuff.

"Either way, the EBITDAs quoted show a 90% decline or something like that. It's a tough time for all publishers, especially ones oriented in the high tech stuff."

Egad. When your EBITs are dropping, it's a sign that your fundamental cash engines are coughing. Not good. -sigh-

Well, it was a 90% decline in what I'd call profit, though as David pointed out, it's not really profit. The revenue decline wasn't that drastic, though it was drastic enough.

"Total revenue for the quarter was $78.9 million, compared to $125.6 million in the comparable prior year."

What is that? A 45% drop or so? That's pretty serious. Cutting page counts only saves so much money. There are a lot of fixed costs they still have to meet.

I think someone needs to be banned. Just a thought.

I noticed that CGW stopped putting "The #1 Gaming Magazine" on their cover. Is this a bow to PC Gamer?

Well, the "#1 Gaming Magazine" thing referred to CGW's grand old man status, not its sales. :-)

CGW and PC Gamer would ping-pong as to who was in the number one spot... An audit would come out showing CGW as #1, so PC Gamer would spend big bucks on a marketing push and regain the title. Reverse and repeat.

However, for much of the last year, the highest circulation PC gaming mag was NEITHER -- it was Computer Games Magazine! When I left CGM last summer, we knew we'd have the highest sales on our next circulation audit. (Not taking credit there -- it was Alan, our circulation whiz, who pulled that off.) And I know for much of the past year CGM remained in the #1 spot, although I haven't looked at game mag circ audits for the past couple of quarters.

Of course, with TheGlobe slimming down, Imagine laying off people here and there, and the Ziff EBITDAs quoted above, I'd guess none of the Big Three will be doing any big circulation pushes. So it'll be interesting to see who gets the "#1" spot for the fourth quarter of this year.

Oh, Denny. You know those numbers weren't real. =)

-Vederman

Here we go again. New guys show up and rehash the whole circ numbers debate. :)

Search back a couple months on this board for the Desslock/Bauman wars.

Haha... Sweet. I'll do that.

-Vede

I missed Bauman wars? Bauman wars are FUN! Cool, now I have something to do on my lunch hour tomorrow...

The numbers are definitely real. But of course they're influenced at least as much by how much money is spent pulling in subs as on the actual quality of the magazine. I'm just saying it's going to be interesting to see where things fall out the fourth quarter of this year, as I don't think any of the game mags are spending big promotional bucks due to the market. So the numbers should be more "real" than they've ever been.