IGN Entertainment, one of the most popular game review and info sites out there on the Internet was sold to Ziff Davis' parent company J2Global who confirmed that it had acquired IGN from News Corp.
(Culture, IGN)
"News Corp. had purchased IGN at $650 million in 2005 but had reportedly put IGN up for auction to the bidders at a price of only $100 million for the past six months."
That is one huge loss! A loss of $550 and you still want to get rid of something, it sort of tells you a whole story.
I understand that the parent company must be going through tough financial times but again, that is one big loss to bear! It makes you wonder how much money was IGN bleeding.
@zeeshan They could have easily recouped their investment over the last 7 years. They may be selling cheap in order to get a little liquid cash. I would seriously doubt that 100m is a "loss". Buying companies isn't quite the same as day trading.
@inveni0 If they recouped their investment IGN would have been worth around what was originally paid for. It's looking now like New Corp, in their infinite wisdom, drastically over valued IGN. It's clear that they don't provide the revenue stream they either once did or once could have done.
@RememberThe357 It very well could be worth $500,000,000. But that doesn't mean the market is set to sell something at what it's worth. Take the housing market as an analogy. There is a subdivision down the street from mine where lots should run about $25,000 each. That's for an acre in a suburb with a subdivision-dwellers-only swimming pool, playground, etc. At $25,000, it's a good buy. Especially if you like nice quiet neighborhoods and such. But the land was lost to the bank. Now, the bank just needs to unload the land and get some cash. So the lots are being sold at $11,000. CRAZY CHEAP. Are they worth more? Yes. But the bank needs the cash, and the market isn't supporting lots at $25k right now. In fact, the bank hasn't sold a single one of those awesome lots for the entire year we've been here. Even at $11,000.
That's how selling things works. Supply and demand. If there's no demand, then it's hard to sell.
Really ? with what 1up have become or what they did with Filefront? i'm doubting it , and with a cherry of stealth user tracking and infos sales on top .
Out of the 16 trillion mcbillion things that News Corp. owns, the one and only thing you connect it to is FOX? Really? Please, enlighten me as to how much FOX has influenced IGN.
Oh, right... none. So, good job, you brought FOX up for no reason whatsofriggingever. *rolls eyes* It's not like I even like FOX, I'm just tired of hearing about it CONSTANTLY when it has no real bearing at all on most of the discussions that bring it up.
If anything, I'd rather people ask and answer the question of who the hell Ziff Davis is (the only thing I know from them is PC Magazine and formerly PC Gaming World) or the question of who the hell J2 Global is (they have nothing notable except maybe Ziff Davis, apparently). And why was IGN making so little money to the point where News Corp. was willing to sell it for a 550 million buck loss? From what I could tell, IGN is bigger now than it was then, so what happened? And why are you happier that it went to pretty much the same company that made G4 blow so much?
There's so many questions to ask here, yet no one is asking them. Instead, I see people talking about FOX and, of course, Rupert Murdoch. Completely and utterly pointless. Really.
You must work for News Corp. That's the only explanation there could possibly be, unless you have tight binding underwear, for your unnecessary raging post. Your life has not been made better by your rage, my life has not been rendered worse, therefore I see no point in the emotion you put into that post.
hmmm... Ziff Davis's parent company. The same company that once had ZDTV which later became TechTV which later merged with G4 to become G4TechTV which later killed off all the good shows (like icons and arena) to become G4 which now has crap reruns of cops and other filler.
Naomi Kyle is only two of those though....Just skinny and white. Not really all that attractive or having big knockers lol. I guess you could be referring to someone else though!
I dont care much for review scores actually , it doesnt factor in my purchases .
I mean corrupt with actual stuff such as their dubious PEs 2008 ps3 review . A game they were an actual sponsor off , offline and online and in game.
They gave it a 9.2 when half the hdtvs couldnt even run the game in hd due to bugs . With sd mode lagging considerably and being gamebreaking (again ps3 version) .
It had also a wid variety of game grashing bugs , corrupted saves and plenty issues that visible on even floor shows (so it wasnt some magical build ign got that worked) .
They copypasted the 360 review an kept shut . Then wwhen people actually complained they sneakily replaced the review with a more appropriate score .
Also there is such a thing as writing a review , instead of going on a rant about what you hate about dynasty warriors and not even talking about the game in more than a short sentence . The game is indeed awful (Dw Gundam 2 or 3) , but could be helpful to know why
Or maybe stuff like IGN's review of PixelJunk SideScroller
"The review is here, but it's had some cosmetic surgery following a callout by Q-Games president Dylan Cuthbert, which insisted that the reviewer "rushed through the game on casual". Reviewer Daemon Hatfield initially denied the accusation and insisted he beat the game on Normal difficulty, but Cuthbert countered that if he had done so, the "last epic stage" would have been unlocked, which contradicted Hatfield's review comments. The review then had a portion reviewed, presumably as a sort of damage control."
Or stuff Ign failing to notice GT5 had a level tiered damage system , since they didnt bother with the game more than a few levels and hours ?
I dont usually even believe they are paid or corrupt . But their errors and innacurate factoics and intel about games in previews and reviews are quite common and embarassing .
They are lucky they were simply sold and not shut down completely. Years ago IGN was a decent place for gaming news, but now they are just paid advertising posing as game reviews. I have not used their site in ages, so no big loss in my book.
Well IGN I'm leaving you for GameSpot. No don't cry IGN. It is not me, it is defiantly you. When you are no longer giving out 9's to every piece of shit game maker that pays you I may return.
That whole Vita vs. Kindle Fire HD thing they have had on their site now for a while is completely shameless. I for a long while have disliked IGN for many reasons but really a Kindle Fire HD?
That broke the camels back for me. As if they weren't paid to write that crap, do they have to make it so blatantly obvious.
30°
20°
20°
30°
Ad 
20°
I agree. You used to be better :-P
That is one huge loss! A loss of $550 and you still want to get rid of something, it sort of tells you a whole story.
I understand that the parent company must be going through tough financial times but again, that is one big loss to bear! It makes you wonder how much money was IGN bleeding.
Bah! They more than doubled it up over the years with the bribes they take for their reviews.
They could have easily recouped their investment over the last 7 years. They may be selling cheap in order to get a little liquid cash. I would seriously doubt that 100m is a "loss". Buying companies isn't quite the same as day trading.
If they recouped their investment IGN would have been worth around what was originally paid for. It's looking now like New Corp, in their infinite wisdom, drastically over valued IGN. It's clear that they don't provide the revenue stream they either once did or once could have done.
Too bad but I hope it's a healthy transition.
It very well could be worth $500,000,000. But that doesn't mean the market is set to sell something at what it's worth. Take the housing market as an analogy. There is a subdivision down the street from mine where lots should run about $25,000 each. That's for an acre in a suburb with a subdivision-dwellers-only swimming pool, playground, etc. At $25,000, it's a good buy. Especially if you like nice quiet neighborhoods and such. But the land was lost to the bank. Now, the bank just needs to unload the land and get some cash. So the lots are being sold at $11,000. CRAZY CHEAP. Are they worth more? Yes. But the bank needs the cash, and the market isn't supporting lots at $25k right now. In fact, the bank hasn't sold a single one of those awesome lots for the entire year we've been here. Even at $11,000.
That's how selling things works. Supply and demand. If there's no demand, then it's hard to sell.
"IGN Entertainment was sold to Ziff Davis’ parent company J2Global."
*sigh* journalism. Times must be hard to take a 500 million loss though.
Oh, right... none. So, good job, you brought FOX up for no reason whatsofriggingever. *rolls eyes* It's not like I even like FOX, I'm just tired of hearing about it CONSTANTLY when it has no real bearing at all on most of the discussions that bring it up.
If anything, I'd rather people ask and answer the question of who the hell Ziff Davis is (the only thing I know from them is PC Magazine and formerly PC Gaming World) or the question of who the hell J2 Global is (they have nothing notable except maybe Ziff Davis, apparently). And why was IGN making so little money to the point where News Corp. was willing to sell it for a 550 million buck loss? From what I could tell, IGN is bigger now than it was then, so what happened? And why are you happier that it went to pretty much the same company that made G4 blow so much?
There's so many questions to ask here, yet no one is asking them. Instead, I see people talking about FOX and, of course, Rupert Murdoch. Completely and utterly pointless. Really.
Good day.
BEYOND!
Ziff Davis's parent company. The same company that once had ZDTV which later became TechTV which later merged with G4 to become G4TechTV which later killed off all the good shows (like icons and arena) to become G4 which now has crap reruns of cops and other filler.
I dont know quite how I feel at the moment.
And 'inaccurate'? So, if their opinion is not as same as yours. Does that mean you have to hate them?
I mean corrupt with actual stuff such as their dubious PEs 2008 ps3 review . A game they were an actual sponsor off , offline and online and in game.
They gave it a 9.2 when half the hdtvs couldnt even run the game in hd due to bugs . With sd mode lagging considerably and being gamebreaking (again ps3 version) .
It had also a wid variety of game grashing bugs , corrupted saves and plenty issues that visible on even floor shows (so it wasnt some magical build ign got that worked) .
They copypasted the 360 review an kept shut . Then wwhen people actually complained they sneakily replaced the review with a more appropriate score .
Also there is such a thing as writing a review , instead of going on a rant about what you hate about dynasty warriors and not even talking about the game in more than a short sentence . The game is indeed awful (Dw Gundam 2 or 3) , but could be helpful to know why
Or maybe stuff like IGN's review of PixelJunk SideScroller
"The review is here, but it's had some cosmetic surgery following a callout by Q-Games president Dylan Cuthbert, which insisted that the reviewer "rushed through the game on casual". Reviewer Daemon Hatfield initially denied the accusation and insisted he beat the game on Normal difficulty, but Cuthbert countered that if he had done so, the "last epic stage" would have been unlocked, which contradicted Hatfield's review comments. The review then had a portion reviewed, presumably as a sort of damage control."
Or stuff Ign failing to notice GT5 had a level tiered damage system , since they didnt bother with the game more than a few levels and hours ?
Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony directs.
Sure, those sites have a lot more spunk, but goddamn: the typos.
That broke the camels back for me. As if they weren't paid to write that crap, do they have to make it so blatantly obvious.