in General Discussion edited January 2014
How long do you have to wait until you do not need ot be a member to read something on there? I want to read the front-page story about all star baseball PS2 as well as the state of emergency review, and it has been up for days and I still get the page that asks me to register...


  • Reply 1 of 15
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    [quote]Originally posted by Horned_Frog:

    <strong>How long do you have to wait until you do not need ot be a member to read something on there? I want to read the front-page story about all star baseball PS2 as well as the state of emergency review, and it has been up for days and I still get the page that asks me to register... </strong><hr></blockquote>

    I want to read the same article about all star baseball

    I'm not gonna pay their dumb mebership fee just to read the one or two articles I read there yearly
  • Reply 2 of 15
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    LOL. IGN is terrible in that respect. Sometimes, they even say that the article is open and it takes you to the 'Insider page'.

    Actually, if you click on 'Previews' and then hit the review, sometimes it opens.
  • Reply 3 of 15
    IGN is the worst site on the net right now. Their media is shoddy, their speed is ok, but you have to pay through your ass for it.
  • Reply 4 of 15
    The insanity continues...

    Looking to their message boards to see if I could find some info on the above-mentioned ASB 2003, I turned to their forums. (BTW applenut...cool you are into baseball...doubly cool you got to play in Shea...lucky bastard )

    Did you know you cannot even READ, let alone post to their message boards without being a member? <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> I'd like to give the dumbass that came up with that idea kick in his member!

    Seriously, I guess I can see not posting as I used to occasionally browse that board, and 3 minutes after I posted a new topic, it would be three pages back. The # of posts over there were insane and there wasn;t even a search feature which sucks. But why not just make it read-only? Dumbasses.

    All I like are sports games anyway and I could care less about 99% of the video games out there. (except GTA3 )

    So, I am never visiting that site again. Too bad, as they generally have decent reviiews. Ah well..gamespot.com here i come...
  • Reply 5 of 15
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    <a href="http://www.acclaimsports.com/asb2003/index2.html"; target="_blank">http://www.acclaimsports.com/asb2003/index2.html</a>;

    has a lot of info, screens, and movies.

    just got ASB 2002 for Christmas. Didn't think 2003 was going to come out so soon <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 6 of 15
    That's too bad...I've al;ready played that thing to death (2002). I am really looking forward to the "manager" mode. Couple that with 20 years worth of offseason should be pretty good for a few years woth of enjoyment.
  • Reply 7 of 15
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    Actually, the Insider only message boards just started yesterday and the members who paid are FURIOUS.

    Originally, Insider was a way to support IGN for all of the great articles and work they did for the gaming community. People were basically donating money to IGN for no extra service.

    Then, IGN started locking some of the articles (but very few) and started sending a newsletter to those who had originally donated money.

    Then IGN completely changed their policy: If you wanted to be a member, you had to pay a monthly fee to read the good articles and get a little picture next to your user name, as well as be able to play an Insider only game.

    Just yesterday, IGN expected that if they made the IGN boards members only that they would get a bunch of people who were on the fence about joining the website to sign up. Instead, the backlash has been tremendous. You have most non-Insiders saying they won't go back, and most Insiders saying that they won't pay to stay an insider as many of their friends have now been kicked off of the boards.

    The worst part of this is that they decided to do this WITHOUT TELLING ANYONE.

    So IGN is now officially in the crapper and will most likely be dead within a year. A subscription based site just won't work, especially if you piss off the community behind it.
  • Reply 8 of 15
    wow...bad timing on my part! I hadn;t been there (the forums) in quite a while. That is a pretty shitty thing to do. Oh well. Like I said any message board that doesn;t even sport a search function is pretty useless to me at least.
  • Reply 9 of 15
    Yup... I have some friends who used to post alot at the IGN.com boards. Needless to say, they are very pissed off at IGN. This is a horrible move that will only contribute more to the drop in quality.

    :sigh: I long for the good old days of Dailyradar.com
  • Reply 10 of 15
    The madness countinues over at IGN. You STILL cannot read the ASB 2003 feature on the PS2 site, but you CAN read it for the Cube version (which I would imagine is the same) and that has been available for a week.

    Then, after HAVING the game for several days now, I was interested in reading their review, and like a fool I read the first part of the review, click on "next page" and find out you have to be a member to finish it! My gosh! Now we get PARTIAL reviews? This is nuts! Give me some kind of notice that part of it is locked so I do not waste several minutes reading an incomplete review!

    Oh well.

    BTW, does anyone know a feedback e-mail address for Acclaim Sports? I would like to give several suggestions for the next version of All Star Baseball.

    Anyone else have this game and if so, what do you think?

    [ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: Horned_Frog ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 15
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    better question... what do YOU think? Is it worth me buying it considering I have 2002. Main draw is the franchise mode which I miss dearly in 2002
  • Reply 12 of 15
    Well...it is tough. I am an old pro at 2002 and while the basic style of hitting remains the same (same cursor and everything) it seems like I am having a much harder time hitting. What I am doing is pitching with "all star" mode and then when I come up tp bad switching over to "veteran" mode. I am playiing with my team, the Pirates, which may have something to do with the lack of hitting. Still after about a dozen games averages seen to be pretty normal, the only abnormality being Abrahan Nunez who has like 4 triples (which are MUCH easier to come by in this game; I think I had 4 triple TOTAL in about 500+ games in 2002. yes I am a baseball junkie. I eat, drink, and sleep baseball )

    Anyway, there ARE some annoyances. Believe it or not, I complied a list of some of the things I would like to see changed for next seaosn and my reasons why. Instead of paraphrasing, I will just cut-and-paste it here (I put an *asterics next to the ones I really want to see changes the most):


    Sortable statistics. I would like to go to ?league pitching? and ?league hitting

    ? and sort by statistic, so that it would be easier to see what team is leading the league in whichever category.

    *Get rid of bug where players ?crouch? after an error for 2-3 seconds instead of immediately chasing after the ball. I was VERY disapointed that this was not fixed from the 2002 version.

    *Let me be able to see the franchise value of other teams.

    *Let me be able to see the years left and points paid to each player from other teams in order to make smarter trade decisions.

    If possible, let me have a complete minor league roster, at least a FULL AAA roster instead of just the 40 man.

    Let me sign players directly into the ?minors? instead of having to shuffle players around to get a free agent into the farm team.

    *Let me make trades of uneven number of players! so I can trade a superstar from a rebuilding team to a contender in exchange for several prospects.

    *Let ME draft the minor leaguers I want--don?t just ?give? me some.

    Let me trade minor-leaguers for minor leaguers. As it stands, I cannot even see the farm system players from other teams, let alone try and trade for one.

    Also, if your franchise does well, it?s value should go up and you should have more money to spend on players.

    More in-depth analysis of minor leaguers and drafted players. Are they lefty or righty, where did they go to school, what were their numbers in school, etc? Also what would be cool would be, say, the ?Acclaim Sports magazine prospect handbook? that lists the pros and cons of each player, a grade for each, and, say, a ?mock? draft where they predict the order of the draft based on what each team needs, but when the real draft comes, make sure the CPU does not follow this guide to a ?T?! Let there be some surprises (but again, let ME draft who I want).

    This is one think I would LOVE to see. Instead of giving a minor leaguer a major league grade, give him a ?prosepct? grade. For example, Nick Johnson of the Yankees is rated as a ?B-? Major leaguer. Why not also rank him as say an ?A? prospect and then see him develop from there? for example again, if Johnson was an ?A? prospect and you promoted him to the majors, then give him the ?B-? grade. If you left him in the minors longer to develop, maybe his Major league rating would be higher, or if you ?rushed? a player to the major leaguer level, his major league grade would be lower.

    Let me trade players in the offseason! I should not have to wait until free agents are signed and the next seaosn has started to make a trade! This way If I had a player I wanted to sign but could not afford, I could make a tade to have enough money to sign him.


    Well as you can see that is quite a list considering I have only played like 15 games. I really like it, and I think it is definitly worth the upgrade, especially if somehow you could get like $30 for the old one. Does EB still have the trade in 2 used and get a new game free deal going? Maybe if you have another game you don't want you could do that.

    The updated rosters are what makes the game great. Like 1/5 (or so it seems) of the players are on the wrong team in 2002 by now, and there are new players in this one like Bud Smith, Ichiro, Shinjo, Craig Wilson of my Buccos, etc.

    However, like I said, my BIGGEST gripe is not being able to see how many years and points (they use points instead of money) a player on another team has left. That makes it frustrating to trade players. Like if I want to get rid of a guy like Kevin young, I want to rade for a younger, cheaper player, but you cannot see how many years a guy is signed to and how many "points" he will earn over that time unless you go back to the main menu, and start a new franchise with the team the player you are interested is on, and see that way. Then you have to re-load your season and see if the team will accept your deal. Maybe I will take an hour or two and make not of all the players' contract status or something.

    Some of the deals I have made:

    Derek Bell for Jack Cust

    Kevin Young for Richard Hidalgo (don;t know why the commputer made that deal)

    Also, teams you are not invoilved with will make trades on their own. Houston got Jose Vidro for Billy Wagner, though I have NO IDEA why they did that with Biggio and Lugo, and Florida traded Matt Clement for Tino martinez, which really didn't make sense to me, either. Still, it is fun.

    Another plus is that there are injuries. I have already had Sean Lowe pull a ribcage, Warren Morris break a finger, and and Jack Wilson was day-to-day with something.

    Larry Walker, as usual, is out 2-3 months, which probably facilitade them taking Derek Bell for Cust.

    Well, sorry for the rambling, I just love to talk baseball

    Lemme knwo what you think, applenut.
  • Reply 13 of 15
    Oh, one more thing. About the franchise mode. I think they would be better off limiting it to like 10 yeas instead of 20.. I mean, who can play 20 years at 162 games? Like I said I played 2002 to death and completed 1 season with Pittsburgh, got halfway through another one until my memory card messed up, and was halfway through another season with Arizona when I got 2003, not to mention numerous games with friends ro random games with teams I had never used, and some games with teams I drafted.

    If they did limit it, maybe that would free up some space to implement some of the changes I listed above. Franchise is GREAT, but the reality of it is it ain't football where you have at most about 20 games in a season which can be polished off in 3-4 weeks as opposed to 162 game schedule. It took me from the day 2002 came out to the day 2003 came out to go through what would probably be the equivalent of 2 1/2 seasons, so I could even see them limiting it to 5 or so without any big loss...

    [ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: Horned_Frog ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 15
    [quote]Originally posted by RyanTheGreat:

    <strong>Yup... I have some friends who used to post alot at the IGN.com boards. Needless to say, they are very pissed off at IGN. This is a horrible move that will only contribute more to the drop in quality.

    :sigh: I long for the good old days of Dailyradar.com</strong><hr></blockquote>

    Seems they were neglegent on all this...

    BUT. Face it people the Internet aint all free anymore. Expect subscriptions for content everywhere. If you don't like that then don't pay. Then there won't be anywhere to go to find news, reviews and information such as this online if we don't. You'll have to buy a magazine instead (or read it in Borders with a cup of coffee...kinda the same thing here...?).

    The Wall Street Journal and New York Times knew that from the beginning they put up a web site with membership rates for specific content and people hated them for it at first...but they both now have a high online subscriber market. Everyone's learning from them now that they all have to pay the bills.

    IGN.COM was shoddy though in their methods I'll admit.
  • Reply 15 of 15
    fran441fran441 Posts: 3,715member
    [quote]Face it people the Internet aint all free anymore. Expect subscriptions for content everywhere. If you don't like that then don't pay. Then there won't be anywhere to go to find news, reviews and information such as this online if we don't.<hr></blockquote>

    I personally find that the internet isn't free NOW. I have to pay for access every month, right? It's like cable TV. I pay for cable, but I don't have to watch the ads. If I want, there are a few premium channels out there, but not everything can be a premium channel. It really should be the same way on the internet. I should be able to go online without having to have a $5 a month subscription to an online community just because it's a popular site.

    I understand that online ad revenues are awful right now, but forcing someone to pay for web content is wrong. Originally, IGN took donations, which is the right way to go about things. But forcing people to pay for content is wrong. It should just be available, especially when it's because your readers are what make your website good, not vice-versa.

    The problem is that most websites now are 'independent', much like channels on television that aren't associated with a network.

    The networks are what make advertisement revenue on television work. The internet needs to have a similar model- get popular sites that actually need the money to survive to be part of these networks that will actually get the ad revenue they need to survive.
Sign In or Register to comment.