Spartan 117:
Can you use USB drives and alternate hard drives as memory units? The Xbox ones are pricey... ...
OXM SAYS:
An Xbox 360 won't recognize a USB flash drive or another external hard drive as a memory unit, so you can't save...MORE
Posted on: Jun 06, 2008
The Ghost of Print Media
WORDS BY: Dan Amrich
This week our new issue hit newsstands, with a four-page feature on Ghostbusters: The Video Game. I have noted in the past what I big fan I am and I was utterly thrilled to get the very first hands-on experience with the game -- OXM was the first mag actually allowed to touch the controller, play a level, and bust a ghost. It was hard to stay detched and analytical because inside my head there was this fanboy voice going OMGIAMAGHOSTBUSTER! over and over. So I was really looking forward to this issue hitting the public.
That's what made it so difficult to go around to Ghostbusters fan sites like GBFans.com, Ghostbusters.net, and Ghostbusters HQ and ask them to remove scans of the article from their forums. These are my people. And now I am The Man.
"Look out -- it's the Stay-Puft Copyright Man!"
It got me thinking about that online attitude toward print, though. I see it a lot: "I don't know why print magazines still exist. They're beaten to the punch by online every time. I've read all this stuff online already; it doesn't tell me anything new. Does anybody still buy these things? These guys are doomed, why are they still in business?" You know, stuff that really makes you feel like you can't wait to get to work every day and make the best darned magazine you can make. Good morning: You're obsolete.
Now, in a gaming culture dominated by online communication, that view of print is actually understandable -- but I also see a flaw. I've seen so many people say "print is dead; does anyone have scans?" Those people clearly want what print has to offer; they just don't want to pay for it. It's not that the articles or even the medium itself is worthless at all. Content is still king -- and if the content exists in a print medium, there's an inherent hypocrisy by saying "I want this but I don't want to pay to get it." That hypocrisy, when put into action, is called theft. Substitute magazine for movie or album or book or apple or automobile or movie-accurate proton pack. You want one? Buy it or build it. But "steal it" probably isn't first on your list of actions for most tangible objects.
Of course, it is physically possible to beat the system. Yes, you can torrent a movie, and you can sneak into the theater, and all that. But that entirely misses the point. Here's a better question: Why didn't Sierra give the first hands-on of this game to an online site? Maybe they wanted the deluxe presentation that print can offer -- lush layouts, a casual reading experience, big splashy images with themed design to match. Maybe it's the exposure we can offer in supermarkets and newsstands and on public transportation that digital media can't offer. Maybe we just asked real pretty. Whatever it is, it all points to one thing: even though online outlets exist, print mags still have value. At least this one does.
Here's another question: What kind of idiot steals things that are worthless? I would argue that the article is of inherent value or people would not be trying to pass it around. If it was truly nothing new, full of "things we already know," why would it be posted at all? Because...you want to know. If you're a rabid fan, you want that other perspective, you want to mine every mention for new facts so you can be totally up-to-date. Hell, I see a lot of online news outlets and blogs that actually report on print magazine releases as news -- "The new issue of OXM is reporting..." Even new media still see old media as a valid source.
Now, I've heard the argument that print mags are only hurting themselves when they remove scans, because they're alienating customers. Well...if you're not buying the magazine, you're not a customer. C'mon, that's just basic logic. And what's more, we do post content from the print mag here on oxmonline.com. We're not ignorant of digital media; we're using both print and online outlets. We get it.
But we also get a lot of letters from people who say they simply enjoy the experience of a magazine in a way that online does not yet deliver (read: toilet!). They get info from both print and online. I believe that's most people, actually -- the quality of the content dictates everything. Would you go to a website that had bad info just because it was free? Nope. And at the same time, you'd buy a magazine if it had good info that you wanted. You might not admit it in a web discussion forum, but I suspect it's true.
It doesn't matter how big a fan you are of any given game -- we're also going to protect what we have to offer on that game, and hopefully, that makes sense. If it doesn't, okay -- you can disbelieve in print magazines, but it doesn't actually invalidate them or make them go away. And it sure doesn't give the disbelievers the right to steal our stuff.
Sat, 10/17/2009 - 19:54
Posted by wickland
Ghostbusters was an awesome game I thought.
Thu, 06/12/2008 - 04:15
Posted by cairoIV
i think the ghostbusters game will be good i have red reviews and seen clips of the game it looks like a good graphics game and will be totally cool but my fave game is either tes4 oblivion or team fortess 2 for 360 of course
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 19:47
Posted by laughingman
Although I understand a magazine's motivation for wanting more people to buy it, I think that they fundamentally misunderstand what it means to create content in a digital age.
Before you read anything further, understand that I am not an academic or a researcher in this field. I have no money one way or the other when it comes to copyright law. I don't even know the law very well, at least not the chapter and verse that they cite in the courts.
I am an avid consumer of all kinds of media, though. I'm also a historian by training which means I am used to letting others speak for themselves when I am not wise enough to give light to their words. Proper citation is the difference between respect and plagiarism.
By properly citing the ideas a historian uses to make their arguments, he or she argues that others will reach the same conclusions s/he did if only they read the relevant material. This is the substance of what historical debates are made of: arguments over what the primary source material really means. Without access to the primary sources, a historian cannot properly make an informed historical judgment.
If you have made it this far, I thank you for your patience and promise that I have only a little more to go.
Journalism is in my opinion, at its most professional level, an attempt at real-time history. Journalists' access to source material determines whether they can make informed judgments about what they are talking about.
Journalists in the internet age can in theory be defined as anyone with access to source material about particular subject and the means to spread it.
If a blog author who has presumably paid for a magazine, and hopes to add credibility to their blog by posting scans from a magazine supporting their arguments about a particular subject (e.g, the development of an upcoming game and whether it meets or exceeds the expectation of the blog readership.) As a real-time historian, what this person is essentially saying is, "read what I have read and you will reach the same conclusions I did." In plain english, they are telling people to buy the magazine and make up their minds.
This will lead to other sales of the magazine, of that there can be no doubt. Simply look at the comments already, if they are not sock puppets they prove that even consumers of specialized internet media still buy magazines.
In what way does free publicity about exclusive information, properly cited, become a threat to print magazines? Why would you take any action which would prevent the spread of this information?
Again, I am not an expert in this field, just a consumer with a lot of questions.
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 19:35
Posted by SHOCKERRA
I truly love print, and I'd love experience with the medium. Creating a print layout is satisfying, and when it all comes out in the lush layout you mentioned, it is a beautiful thing. Until that can be duplicated by a screen, you have my dollar.
Besides, I'm not a proponent of reading 5 page features on screens - hard on the eyes!
Ross (SHOCKERRA)
Wed, 06/11/2008 - 14:32
Posted by B e Z3s7
Just to mention, I agree about the mobile phone content. I was wondering why such a large portion of the mag is dedicated to content that has nothing to do with xbox360. I was under the assumption that OXM was about any and everything xbox. And as for the topic of print, keep 'em comin, As soon as I get a permenant toilet to stack them by, I will have a subscription!
Mon, 06/09/2008 - 16:48
Posted by cart00nstrip
Here's irony - the FIRST time I ever heard the phrase "Print is dead," was out of the mouth of Egon when I first saw "Ghostbusters" as a kid. Being as I am a voracious reader, I remember immediately souring on his character the second he uttered those words. Of course, I forgave him almost immediately...
00
I LOVE reading OXM! Even when I'm reading old news I read about online a few weeks ago, I'm still entertained by the writing.
00
I love the exclusives, of course, and the Mole still manages to keep ahead of the web!
00
A couple caveats - what the hell does "Cell Play" have to do with Xbox? And WTF happened to our OXM Universe? It was slow in the beginning, but at least we were DOING something! Now it's like watching snails fornicating, only less interesting. Seriously, can't we at least be able to zoom in on the "action"?
00
gt: cart00nstrip
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 18:49
Posted by CashWheel
Some people may say that online info on a game appears before print coverage. While that is true some of the time (I saw Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts coverage online before I saw print coverage), the opposite also happens, too (Street Fighter IV was first revealed in a print magazine).
Sat, 06/07/2008 - 14:05
Posted by Senor Budd
Toilet!
I keep ALL of my old ass and new mags(mostly gaming) next to my bed. The computer makes me sit at a certain spot and takes me away from my true comfort zone. Plus, I can show an article to my buds and be there to talk about the story in person. Nothing like that on the web of "witty comments only."
Fri, 06/06/2008 - 13:49
Posted by Mitch OXM
I've been obsessed with magazines for ages, and even until recently, I got all of my PlayStation news from OPM. Before they went under, the Ziff mag unveiled that Oblivion was coming to PS3 and - though it was cancelled - PSP.
Print is always the best way for me to find out about new things because you get a better write-up about it than a press-release powered blog entry on the internet.
Fri, 06/06/2008 - 11:30
Posted by Dan OXM
It's not ironic...it's embracing new media! :)
I don't want it to seem like I'm defending OXM and its content specific, so much as defending why we, as a print mag, move to remove scans. I guess I kinda rambled.
Fri, 06/06/2008 - 11:00
Posted by RaTm16
Reading an online article about how print isn't dead?....ahhh, the irony. But seriously, great points Dan. I have been reading the mag since at least the Jan '06 issue and I don't plan on stopping anytime soon. Not only is the content great, but I also enjoy the quality writing style of everyone at OXM. It's not only informative but also fun to read. One side note about the toilet reading: I think you forgot about laptops. Just don't drop the computer in the toilet!