Browsing my modest collection of gaming mags, my favourite cover out of the bunch is for a game I don't even play. The January 2005 cover of Official Playstation Magazine is all white except for a black racing helmet and the logo for Gran Turismo 4. No gimmicky "OMG LOOK HERE" quotes, no marketing shlop, just a pristine cover with impressive visual design. 

I got a little bit more relevant pic up now that should not break like the last one.

PS- My favorite covers were the EGM FF ones with the crazy good art. Also, any with PSO still warm my heart a bit.

Hey Frank, where'd you get that OXM image from?

I used my phone to take a pic of my latest OXM and posted it on 1up. :)

[insert argument that most 'Exclusive' coverage that made gaming covers functioned as advertisement for the game]

For years, newspapers banned ads on the front page. It started to change a decade ago. Now, many newspapers run ads on the front page, and in newspaper circles, the argument about its ethics has disappeared. It comes down to this: Either you pay more for your magazine (the Edge model), or the magazine finds new ways to sell advertising without selling its content. 

Brett- Thanks for the front page treatment and the great edits!

Isaiah- That is a good argument, but I do see a big difference. When a company gives an outlet "exclusive" coverage, the exchange is access and information for coverage. In theory at least, the game publishers and developers give this access at the risk of getting some negative points brought up about their product. Now, games getting the benefit of the doubt with bugs and issues in developing titles is another issue that I could go on about, but when it works right (at least as far as I understand it) the magazine has control of the coverage, not vice versa.

When a magazine sells their cover for an advertisement it (in almost every case that I have seen) completely takes over the message and content of the front page of the magazine. The editors and writers have given up their most important quality, the words they write, for a check. They have no additional mental capital on the game being advertised which can lead to more knowledgable coverage like they get when they have an "exclusive."

Does that make sense?

Jason- The big difference with newpaper front page ads is that (at least in every case I have seen) the front page content stays intact. Sure, there might be less on the front page due to the ad space used, but the newspaper still gets the message of what their lead story is on the front page.

It is funny that the only three magazines that I can think of which still have cover choices which mean something are Edge, Games TM, and Game Informer. Now, Edge and Games TM both have the benefit of an exorbitant price tag (which I wish was cheaper so that I could afford to keep subscribing and so more people could see their amazing coverage) but Game Informer (while they have the added benefit of having a certain mega-retailer selling their magazine) has a plethora of people waiting in line to try to get their games on the cover... If you believe Andy Mac, at least.

I would be really interested to know if anyone who is invloved in the magazine business has seen an effect on the desire of game publishers to get their product on the cover.

Lastly, I think the best way to sell advertising will ALWAYS be through having a significant and growing base of readers. Magazine editors and publishers need to look at the scope of what is happening in the games industry right now and ask if they are doing the best they can to reach the whole market. It is nice to have a direction you want your magazine to take, but when every magazine is fighting for the same relatively small pool of the most hardcore gamers, it has to make it harder to stand out.

Again, I could be talking out of my ass since I am just an avid reader, and not at all an authority on how to run a magazine. :)

Love the article. EGM used to potray collector's edition covers with some artists such as Yoshitaka Amano. And who can ever forget Nintendo Power's controversial cover of Castlevaniia? --Issue 2.

 

I don't really mind, actually. Unless I see something inside the magazine indicating that the publisher obviously sold-out, I just think of it as a source of revenue. The real problem I have is when I come across an "article" inside the magazine that describes a game, only to read in small text that this is, indeed, an advertisement; sometimes it looks just like a real article!

I don't have a huge issue with the on-cover advertisement.  They are usually clearly marked and detachable.  What I hate are the multi-page game previews that you see in these mags (which typically are the front-page graphic) that wax poetically about how great the game is going to be, get quotes from the developers about how they've incorporated this feature, or tweaked the gameplay, etc. to make an awesome gaming experience --- only to have the final product suck.  The most recent case in point was the multipage article in GamePro on SW:TFU2 with Hayden Blackman.  The preview itself was detailed and made me very excited for both the story and the gameplay improvements.  What could go wrong?  Well, according to GamePro - lots.  They gave it a 2.5 out of 5.  So what the heck happened?

To me, this is the biggest failure of the gaming press/media.  There is NO accountability when it comes to what a gaming media site (or mag) reports in regards to previewing a game.  Hype it up as much as possible - why not?  Doing so only benefits the media site as well as the designer/publisher.  Things then change (well, for most sites - right, Shoe?) when it comes to reviewing the game.  Most sites strive to review games with consistency, integrity, and accountability.  Why not do so with your reviews as well?

This is what brought me to bitmob.com.  Loved Shoe's recent article about playing DNF and the feedback he gave to Gearbox.  Not what they wanted to hear - and probably too late for them to do anything about it - but it is this type of feedback that developers need in order to make better games.

I agree that cover adverts are a bit annoying (and several times over the last year I've mistaken them for the actual cover!); compared to other magazine markets, though, game mags have surprisingly fewer total advertisments. Just open up almost any mag off a super market shelf and you'll see the difference (this is especially true for women's magazines).

I agree that advertising is a necessary evil... ad dollars fuel the machine.

That said, the advertisers have to know that we gamers are some smart cookies.  We can see through any obvious "buy me" imagery, and so I respect the ad art that respects my intellect.  That includes the cover.

My fave EGM covers were always of games I had never even heard of before.  Especially if the game was so far off that it didn't even register in my pre-order mind.

Back when I worked on EGM, our sales team proposed a cover advertisement for newsstand issues that basically covered up the entire cover except for our logo. All you would see is "EGM" and this ad...none of the cover lines, none of the cover art...so you couldn't even see what the cover story is. I understand the sales people want to make money, but I had to explain how no one would buy the issue, then...cause they couldn't see the contents of that issue at all!

Dan, I've only seen these cover adverts applied to mailed subscriptions; I haven't seen any on newstands. Maybe other publishers have finally learned from your insight?

See, those mailer bags don't bother me.  For me, it's just like an added layer of giftwrap, building up anticipation for the cover and calming my I-hope-my-magazine-didn't-get-all-beat-up-in-the-mail fears.

It's those gummed on, cubic-zirconia-esque fake covers that bother me more.  They ruin the cover art through their gluey badness and just act like false prophets.  The more real-looking they are, the worse the deceit.

I actually think the bags are a better compromise than the stapeled covers, which is what I'm addressing with this article.