GameSpot's Gerstmann Fired Due to Negative Review

[Dhruin]

Permanently decided as in "we'll never have ads ever"? No. Decided that for the intermediate future we won't have ads? Pretty much.

Even if we did, however, would a single banner that went part way to covering hosting costs really make us a commercial site?

We will never, ever have full site skins (or interstitials or a bunch of other undesirable stuff) and never have any intention of making a "profit". Maybe the day will come when we will seek to moderate the costs with a simple banner...or maybe not.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I am pretty shocked that there are actually people here defending Idos and Gamespot on this (squeek!) and holding this G-Man fellow responsible. So you think he should have praised the game and misinformed the public contrary to his professional conviction? Because thats his job? I doubt his contract said anything about that. Eidos payed for the ads, not the review. At least I hope that GS had that much integrity left, or they simply can't call themselves an independent gaming site any longer. If publishers think they can do better without journalism on a minimal standard of integrity, they should launch their own game praising sites. But who would visit?

Gamers visit gaming sites because they want to be informed about games by people who know about games
Game producers pay for ads on gaming sites because gamers go there

I don't see game producers paying for review scores, or gaining a right to good review scores anywhere in this equation. Get a bad review to offset your million dollar ad campaign? Tough, maybe invest some of those millions in the actual game next time. Will they try to pressure? They may try. Will that lead to generally more favourable reviews for big budget games? Thats the impression we all have. Can a site like Gamespot afford to publicly cave in to such pressure? Sure as hell no. It shoots their reputation, their # of users drops, their ad revenue drops.

 

[Squeek]

I am pretty shocked that there are actually people here defending Idos and Gamespot on this (squeek!) and holding this G-Man fellow responsible.

I can't imagine anyone who's read this thread summing up it up that way. I think you must have skimmed it, GhanBuriGhan.

So you think he should have praised the game and misinformed the public contrary to his professional conviction?

No. Read the thread. It's clear. Nobody wants that.

At least I hope that GS had that much integrity left, or they simply can't call themselves an independent gaming site any longer.

This is where we disagree. You have a higher opinion of GameSpot than I do. I suppose I could balk at your positive characterization and claim you're the one defending them.

Can a site like Gamespot afford to publicly cave in to such pressure? Sure as hell no. It shoots their reputation, their # of users drops, their ad revenue drops.

Exactly. GameSpot works hard to avoid tipping its hand and indicating its clear conflict of interest. That's the reason why this was such a big deal to GameSpot and why Gerstmann got fired.

GameSpot's business isn't what it seems, and that's not by accident. They're not the pure journalists they claim to be, and their writers don't always have the luxury of honesty. Gerstmann's firing proved that.

GameSpot's business is to lure in game buyers to its site, track their attendance and then turn around and tempt game makers with those numbers, charging them a bundle to advertise with them. Ironically, GameSpot then also turns around and charges game buyers for premium access, assuring them that its game-buying customers are its top priority.

If Gerstmann didn't like GameSpot's ethics, why did he go to work for them? Why didn't he quit? Why did he stab his employer in the back by putting them in the very position they work hard to avoid? Is it unethical to ask those questions?

Here's who I blame: I blame GameSpot for misrepresenting itself in order to make money. I blame Gerstmann for misunderstanding his job and his company. I don't blame the advertisers at all (I can respect Gerstmann for wanting to be honest about Kane & Lynch. But it was GameSpot who fired him for it).

 

[Prime Junta]

@Squeek, do you believe that all publications that accept advertising are beholden to their advertisers and therefore inevitably compromise journalistic integrity?

Cuz I don't. In fact, (and I have seen some of it from the inside), I believe the contrary is true. Most publications, on-line and off, maintain a pretty tall and thick firewall between their advertising and their editorial departments. It is in fact one of the foundation stones of journalistic ethics.

Gamespot's problem is that it has behaved in a way that strongly suggests that it does not conform to this standard. I for one am not OK with it: if this is in fact the case, they deserve to be clobbered, hard. This is qualitatively different, and worse, than the little "misrepresentation" you're citing.

 

[Squeek]

Somehow, my post got duplicated when I edited it. See below.

 

[Squeek]

@Squeek, do you believe that all publications that accept advertising are beholden to their advertisers and therefore inevitably compromise journalistic integrity?

I think they all need to be mindful of that obvious potential for conflict of interest, and journalists understand that best of all. Conflict of interest is one of the first considerations of journalistic ethics and standards. It's a constant effort but not a constant problem.

It's a bigger problem for GameSpot, due to the nature of its business. I remember when the Web was new, and it quickly became clear that the Interet would become commercialized. The first idea everyone imagined was how GameSpot is doing it: Attract a lot of people to a site and then charge to advertise at that site. To this day that's still the definitive Web-based business.

That's not journalism. GameSpot added journalism to that. Advertising is the whole point, and that's what's out of whack, that and the fact that its advertisers (game makers) are set in opposition with its other group of customers (game buyers).

 

[curiously undead]

its only fiting that this is friday (freaky) because i find myself in aggreeance with Squeek and in strong disagreeance with Prime Junta.

gamespot is no different than any other entertainment media source. its not a scientific journal or a non-profit gaming site. it makes money off of the perpetuation of it promoting high-selling games not good quality games that raise the bar. its no different than many magazines or most 'news' programs. people read watch because they know its there. weather and traffic are the only thing most actually give a shit about and the rest could be pulled out of a hat. local news is often a poor source to find out about actual events going on in the community. much like a sitcom, which usually makes less sense than science fiction, its the depdency on the faux-friends that act more consistent, than often our own friends. but the news programs or game sites don't urge activism or demand for better but perpetuate the status quo. sure they don't have to be directly linked to a specific product though payola occurs even if uncommon.

by gamespot running lots of adverts which they may or may not review well it doesn't change the 'type' of games they advertise which must fit the expetations of: smooth polish, shiny graphics, and not be a turnoff to teenagers.
and to me those are all on the bottom of my priority list and ususally flags against buying or even peeking interest in a game.

and i understand the need many journalists have to retain a firewall, often they are not under the pressure or under the same mindset as those making the decisions and besides gaming (or any other entertainment media) is not (or at least shouldn't be) taken as seriously as journalism that effects peoples lives.

 

[Corwin]

From a slightly different, yet somewhat similar perspective, I watched the latest episode of Boston Legal yesterday (my favourite TV show ) and Shirley had to defend a radio shock jock who got fired for making a political comment (as he was supposed to ), which upset the advertisers, etc. The station boss admitted they were in the business of making money, rather than providing political commentary and I saw lots of parallels with this case.

 

[Lucky Day]

..I believe the contrary is true. Most publications, on-line and off, maintain a pretty tall and thick firewall between their advertising and their editorial departments. It is in fact one of the foundation stones of journalistic ethics.

I can't agree or disagree with you either way as we can not get definitive proof on the matter. I would say there is always an underlying belief in the industry that you don't bite the hand that feeds you. I sold Epson inkjet printers for 3 years and there was only time that they never came back to the store: the month that all the magazines ran their comparisons of inkjet printers. We couldn't talk them out of it the first few times until we realized what was going and waited the month out by cashing in on these simple and easy sales. Those same magazines had large full page ads by them. Consider the hype around W95. And the most famous, and worst example was the Philip-Morris scandle that forced CBS to pull the 60 Minutes report on them.

---

since no comments on the joystiq review let me post what they found

An archived version of the review found in a Google cache of an EBGames page shows that, while the review's overall determination remained the same, significant changes were made to its tone and focus. Nowhere is this more apparent than the very first paragraph, which was changed whole cloth to remove references calling the game "ugly" and the artificial intelligence "clunky." While the new introduction still says the game "squanders much of its potential and just doesn't come together as well as it probably should have," the new version is unquestionably less harsh than the original.

Some edits to the text seem shoehorned in to point out potential positives for the game. Consider a post-edit addition that specifically notes the game "does a good job of moving the action around, and you'll see a variety of different environments ..." and another that suggests, "if you've been waiting patiently for a game to really dive into the whole 'crew-based heist tale' concept, you might be able to look past some of the story flaws."

Then again, there are other additions that specifically point out negatives, such as one that says the multiplayer mode "doesn't translate into a great or long-lasting experience," and another that calls the disappointing multiplayer a "bummer." But there are further edits that circumstantially seem designed specifically to placate Eidos, such as one clause that points out "how well this same sort of stuff worked in the developer's previous squad-based game, Freedom Fighters," and another that asks readers to consider "the somewhat unique nature of its story."

 

[Prime Junta]

I think they all need to be mindful of that obvious potential for conflict of interest, and journalists understand that best of all. Conflict of interest is one of the first considerations of journalistic ethics and standards. It's a constant effort but not a constant problem.

Right, so we're in agreement here.

It's a bigger problem for GameSpot, due to the nature of its business. I remember when the Web was new, and it quickly became clear that the Interet would become commercialized. The first idea everyone imagined was how GameSpot is doing it: Attract a lot of people to a site and then charge to advertise at that site. To this day that's still the definitive Web-based business.

Which, incidentally, is exactly the same business model as traditional print media. Your subscription barely covers printing and distribution, if that. Your function as a reader is to provide a pair of eyeballs for the advertisers.

Thing is, this business model is not incompatible with good journalistic ethics. The theory is that good and ethical newsmaking attracts readers, and if there are readers, the advertisers will show up. It works, most of the time, and if the firewall between advertising and editorial is breached, the publication suffers, most of the time.

That's not journalism. GameSpot added journalism to that. Advertising is the whole point, and that's what's out of whack, that and the fact that its advertisers (game makers) are set in opposition with its other group of customers (game buyers).

Do you believe that the seller/buyer relationship is always necessarily adversarial? 'Cuz I don't believe that either.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I can't imagine anyone who's read this thread summing up it up that way. I think you must have skimmed it, GhanBuriGhan.

No. Read the thread. It's clear. Nobody wants that.

This is where we disagree. You have a higher opinion of GameSpot than I do. I suppose I could balk at your positive characterization and claim you're the one defending them.

Exactly. GameSpot works hard to avoid tipping its hand and indicating its clear conflict of interest. That's the reason why this was such a big deal to GameSpot and why Gerstmann got fired.

GameSpot's business isn't what it seems, and that's not by accident. They're not the pure journalists they claim to be, and their writers don't always have the luxury of honesty. Gerstmann's firing proved that.

GameSpot's business is to lure in game buyers to its site, track their attendance and then turn around and tempt game makers with those numbers, charging them a bundle to advertise with them. Ironically, GameSpot then also turns around and charges game buyers for premium access, assuring them that its game-buying customers are its top priority.

If Gerstmann didn't like GameSpot's ethics, why did he go to work for them? Why didn't he quit? Why did he stab his employer in the back by putting them in the very position they work hard to avoid? Is it unethical to ask those questions?

Here's who I blame: I blame GameSpot for misrepresenting itself in order to make money. I blame Gerstmann for misunderstanding his job and his company. I don't blame the advertisers at all (I can respect Gerstmann for wanting to be honest about Kane & Lynch. But it was GameSpot who fired him for it).

True I only skimmed it, I was at work, mea culpa. I responded mostly to your original comment here:

Jeff Gerstmann surely understood the position GameSpot was in after courting and accepting Eidos advertising dollars. To then turn around and trash the game... I don't blame Eidos for flexing their muscles. Advertisers pay GameSpot's bills, and they know it.

It never should have worked out the way it did, but it was up to GameSpot -- not Eidos -- to avoid that situation. Gerstmann blew it. He's going to have some explaining to do for a while, every time he interviews for a new job.

Which I just have to disagree with. I DO blame Eidos, I think as long as Gamespot is a review site, and not a mere "publishers information channel" it has the right to "turn around and trash a game" if it does so for a good reason (which apparently there is). And so it was NOT up to Gerstenmann or Gamespot to "avert the situation", but merely for Eidos to shupt up and hope that their ad dollars would do their work even for a crap game. So, in my view Gerstenmann simply did the right thing, and Gamespot should have stood up and defended him, not fired him.

Thats really all I wanted to say, sorry if I didn't see any finer points in the later argument. I don't have any illusions about gamespot, but that doesn't mean one should accept that and qualify their behavior as normal, and consider people who work there and trying to conform to minimal journalistic standards as idiots who should have known better. There is really no balance here that Gamespot can strive for. If they can't call a crap game crap, then they can't be a review site, and can't go on pretending to be one.

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

The German magazine " c't " has an article in it.

They say a few interesting things that widen the perspective a bit:

- "Industry watcher" Kevin Gifford is said to believe in a restructuring of CNet (owners of Gamespot, apparently), into which critical editors don't quite fit into.

- Stephen Colin as vice-president is said to have been working at the "Dennis Publishing" , which was rather makind "lifestyle magazines" like "Maxim".

- "Financial analysts" even deduce their prognoses after "Metacritic", a website that "bundles game critics" and belongs to CNet, too.
As examples fopr that, Bioshock & Spiderman 3 are given, which resulted in a going-up and a falling-down of the respctive games according o the values of "Metacritic".

- Both Take2 and Activision are paying bonusses (is this the right plural form ?), if games get a score of more than 85 points in the "Metacritic" scale which goes up to 100.

- The article says that "as the Wall Street Journal reports, even Hollywood-Studios like Warner are grading (in German language there is the word "staffeln") their license-costs according to the gradings of the critics. The magazine calls the boss of Metacritic, Mac Doyle, a "King-maker in a 7,4 Billions business" (the German-language article speaks of "7,4 Milliarden", which are translated a bit differently into English language).

The last sentence of this acricle speaks for itself: "The case Gerstmann on the other side lets the power of the critics appear as a pure illusion."

 

[Squeek]

There is really no balance here that Gamespot can strive for. If they can't call a crap game crap, then they can't be a review site, and can't go on pretending to be one.

That's well said, and I agree.

EDIT: I decided in hindsight that I've said enough in this post, so I edited out the rest of my response.

 

[Gorath]

The German magazine " c't " has an article in it.

Interesting. Which issue, which page?

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Well, the new one, it came out this monday.

 

[Dez]

A funny thing is that building reputation is a long and difficult process while it can be lost in the blink of an eye.

 

[Corwin]

Shakespeare said it best when he called it 'the bubble reputation'!!

 

[Alrik Fassbauer]

A funny thing is that building reputation is a long and difficult process while it can be lost in the blink of an eye.

Not only reputation.

EVERYTHING.

Sand castles are the prime example, imho.