MCV’s ‘GONE’ Cover Causes Uproar

GONE, says the cover of this week’s MCV, clearly designed to look like the GAME logo. After weeks of speculation and coverage, it seemed like the logical conclusion – after all, if you believe everything you read the company was doomed, or almost certainly in serious trouble.

They still are, of course – despite offers on the table from OpCapita and looming rumours regarding Wal-Mart, the reality is that GAME are still struggling to get stock from a number of publishers and rent payments are due very soon.

But hate mail? That’s what Michael French is claiming he’s received this morning, as the magazine dropped through the letterboxes of – well, pretty much everyone in the industry, including most GAME branches. “I’ve had hate mail from some of GAME’s 6,000 employees this morning,” said the editor in a blog post this evening. “I am not a popular person at the retailer’s 600 shops.”

[drop2]”GAME’s communications boss called me earlier, I am not a popular person at the retailer’s Basingstoke HQ right now.”

The situation, though, is evident. MCV don’t want to see GAME dead, their reporting over the weeks has – from my point of view – been mostly fair and, as some have commented recently, actually somewhat biased in the sense that everything has been at the very least rather positive. Although, yes, Ben Parfitt’s continuous postings have picked up every minutiae.

“As I have explained,” continued French, “whatever happens in next week or so, GAME as we knew it has gone. Until now we had hoped it might remain intact.”

“It wasn’t intended as an obituary, we aren’t rubbing our hands hoping for GAME’s demise. If anything, events since that cover went to press have rammed home how change is ahead. The line-up of acquisition suspects now includes OpCapital, Wal-Mart and GameStop. None of them are going to buy GAME and not make some changes.”

There might have been gloating from the industry and press recently, but none of that has come from MCV. I’m not defending them of course, they’re quite capable of doing that themselves.

But was it in poor taste?

As I’ve said on occasion, people’s jobs are on the line here, but Tweets from other retailers have – in my opinion – stuck the knife in far more than this particular cover. And the article itself, beyond the bright pink visage and replica logo, paints a picture more optimistic than anything.

The comments on both the original post and Michael’s follow up suggest a readership less than impressed, though. “It’s in appalling taste for those affected,” said one of the cover.

“Is this as close as we can expect to get to an apology?” said another. “You used a completely and utterly misleading image (therefore exploiting the misery and anxiety of thousands) for the purpose of getting as many page views as possible. This is why people are angry, not because they think you hate GAME as a company.”

I can see their point. The article inside is fair and balanced, but the cover might not have been seen the same way, and the finality of the text would hardly make for great reading for anyone still manning the tills on the high street.

Your comments, as ever, are welcome.

36 Comments

  1. Looks like a hypothesis that comes across as a conclusion……. bit dodgy to be fair…

  2. I think that it’s quite poor as despite the actual tone or content of the article the cover its seen by many more people and at face value.
    It may well be an inevitable conclusion but this negative perspective may well even hamper ongoing negotiations on a small psychological level.
    If they really wanted to, they could have put a much more respectful spin on it simply by adding a ? mark.
    I’ve a feeling though that they just want to be able to say they called it first (publicly).

    • It’s true, a question mark would change the entire tone of the cover.

      As it stands, i think it’s a bit of a low blow & done purely to grab attention. Bit silly considering the article itself is non-biased, as some people just wont read it on principle now.

  3. I just noticed the last words, Super-specialist?

    Even specialist is a stretch for GAME but they were never super!

    • You’re writing in the past tense, as though GAME has already gone…

      • Incorrect, I used the past tense to comment on their quality being well below super. That is based on times I have been in a store or on their website. I am not in one now nor do I know the future so I, of course, used the past tense for that.

  4. Hmmm, I’m wondering whether I should go and spend my GAME cards before they’re void.

    • I would suggest yes. Better safe than sorry.

      I even used up my game card points to the last penny!

    • I did last weekend – bought 3x £35 PSN cards!

    • even if game do pull through it’s still a good idea to spend them now since everything’s well below rrp.

  5. All PR is good PR someone once told me (I also work in marketing and PR, so can kinda see why they did this.) The amount of coverage and profile that MCV has gained by taking this bold step will far out way and negative comments or complaints they get, in a couple of weeks people will still be reading the magazine and the site. It might be attention grabbing and sensationalist but we are surrounded by that everyday in the mainstream press and it doesn’t stop, despite an inquiry.

    I suspect their visitors figures are through the roof and that will boost ad revenues and general awareness of MCV which i am sure is the ultimate point of doing what they have, I mean most people wont have heard of them until this cover and story broke

    If we are all honest we are all ‘cashing in’ on the demise of Game and we shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that more people could be joining the back of an already long dole que, and to be finding out via the press rather then from the management is shocking and disgusting. Game have handled this awfully and that shouldn’t be forgotten when in the months to come they change into whatever form they will take for the future.

    • I’m sure that, on average, that is true however the effect it had on me was this:
      Didn’t read MCV
      Saw this and looking into it a little.
      Got the impression MCV is sensationalist and goes for ‘cheap’ hits.
      I hate that so will not start reading.

      My option went from neutral to negative.

  6. *opinion

  7. I only read TSA, Joystiq and Play magazine while very occasionally delving into Edge and Games TM. Personally don’t think I am at a loss when reports like that are of distaste.

  8. That is in poor taste imo. They make it seem like Game’s demise is inevitable when in fact, they have a chance to get saved by another company. They could have put Game over for Game? or Has Game ran out of time? as it is better then making out that they are truely fecked.

    Plus, did they really feel that photoshopping the logo into Gone was really neccessary? It’s a middle finger to everyone at Game. I would have put a traditional 8 bit Game Over screen with a question mark.

  9. it’d be a shame if game go while a bunch of halfwits like scee stay in business.

    • To be fair, i would rather both stay in business!

      • Well SCEE actually publish games, so if I had to pick one of the two to stay I’d definitely choose them.

Comments are now closed for this post.