Latest developments in "Gerstmann-gate"
by Kyle Orland 
{ Dec 1st 2007 at 9:00AM }
More tidbits surrounding Jeff Gerstmann's controversial firing from Gamespot, from around the web and our own reporting:- Gerstmann has confirmed to Joystiq that there are "legal reasons" why he can't comment on the controversy, in addition to questions of "respect for the product team still on board at GameSpot, who are some of the most amazing people I've ever met." He added that he is not under any sort of non-compete agreement regarding future work in the industry.
- Eidos issues a 'no comment' to 1UP: "Eidos is not able to comment on another company's policies and procedures." Valleywag says Eidos "insiders" are "freaking out" over being blamed for something they say they had nothing to do with. Still no response from Eidos to our requests for comment.
- Former Gamespot editor-in-chief Greg Kasavin, on his GameSpot blog: "As the longest-tenured GameSpot editor, Jeff Gerstmann deserved a respectful send-off."
- Current Gamespot editor-in-chief Alex Navarro compares the whole situation to hitting the disaster button in SimCity.
- Former Gamespot staffer Bob Colayco and Adam Buchen clarify that just because Gerstmann was fired doesn't mean Gamespot staffers routinely get paid off for good reviews. Buchen also cancels his Gamespot account and urges others to do the same.
- An anonymous Valleywag commenter going by the handle "gamespot" and claiming to be a company insider: "There has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process." More: "Also, despite the fact that this occured [sic] two weeks ago, there was no way they were going to fire him then; the last big games didn't come out until just before Thanksgiving, and there was no doubt that management knew that the rest of the reviewers would refuse to write any reviews after his termination, which is indeed what is happening. [emphasis added]"
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Jeff @ Dec 1st 2007 9:09AM
"He added that he is not under any sort of non-compete agreement regarding future work in the industry."
I expect to hear it when Jeff gets the type of job he deserves-- and not just because he has a badass name.
"Valleywag says Eidos "insiders" are "freaking out" over being blamed for something they say they had nothing to do with"
You know, Eidos may have had nothing to do with it-- it may have all originated within Cnet/Gamespot wanting to show advertisers that if they bought the advertising space they'd get a good review-- not necessarily Eidos forcing it.
Jonah Falcon @ Dec 1st 2007 9:24AM
Um... what, exactly, does Gerstmann "deserve"? YOU DON'T KNOW WHY HE WAS FIRED.
All you have is rumor and hearsay.
Sam406 @ Dec 1st 2007 11:15AM
I have to say Jonah, your comment was REALLY unnesesary.
It may be just a rumor, but connect the dots, man!
If a company is not envolved in something, they just say "no" but if they are involved, they say "no comment"
eldee @ Dec 1st 2007 11:37AM
9/11 was an inside job!!!!
until there is proof, this is all just a rumor. you guys are getting way too worked up over something that is between this guy and his former employer.
Tom @ Dec 1st 2007 2:58PM
Eidos is just a casualty, innocent or not. Frankly it doesnt matter. They need to take a huge hit on this as it will demonstrate to other publishers the huge risks of advertising with GameSpot. This is the most effective tool possible to hurting the financial bottom line of CNet. It only take 3-4 big advertisers to pull out in order for the site to literally have to shut down. Combine that with the massive pullback of Total Access Subscribers (I guarantee you 15-20% have cancelled so far) and Gamespot is in for some gigantic financial troubles because of management's idiocy.
FindTruth @ Dec 3rd 2007 10:49AM
I suggest you read a dev / press response to the situation :
http://www.crushedbefore.com
Brandon @ Dec 1st 2007 9:13AM
If you feel strongly about this situation and have a GameFly account, consider writing them voicing your displeasure and suggesting that they end their advertising/business relationship with Gamespot.
Cancelling subscriptions is great, but as this entire fiasco has proven, advertising dollars is all that CNet Management cares about. This is how you can make your voice heard the best.
I'm sure there are other advertisers that should be contacted as well, GameFly was just one that first came to mind and that I thought most might have a larger voice (subscribers) than others.
Good luck to those that care still working at Gamespot. Your management has done you an incredible disservice.
MasterInsan0 @ Dec 1st 2007 4:18PM
Why would any advertiser remove their ads from Gamespot now? They just proved that they'll fire their own employees for them. If anything, I'd think GameFly would be thrilled, because now they can force Gamespot into a G4-like situation, where every review has to push their product in some way. Here's what you're gonna start seeing on Gamespot:
"This game is definitely not worth buying. That said, it might be worth a GameFly rental."
or
"While the gameplay isn't as fun as it aspires to be, the game is still worth going down to your local Blockbuster and trying out for a few days."
cakeorrdeath @ Dec 1st 2007 9:15AM
Adam Bunchen originally had a blog post asking all those who were cancelling their accounts to post within. He then made a running total of how much Gamespot were losing over the whole affair.
That however was subsequently removed, it had reach over $4,000 at last count. That was very early in, God knows what it would be by now!
pwnetheus @ Dec 1st 2007 9:13AM
This just gets more and more interesting...
Brandon @ Dec 1st 2007 9:15AM
Clarification: I meant cancelling Gamespot subscriptions is great. GameFly cancellations are not necessarily great, hopefully voicing our displeasure will be enough to make them reconsider their association with Gamespot.
Jonah Falcon @ Dec 1st 2007 9:22AM
Do you do everything someone tells you without knowing exactly what is going on?
Ryan Smith @ Dec 1st 2007 12:51PM
Why no matter what happens there is always an idiot that will have to argue to matter. I could walk up and shoot someone in front of a crowd of people, and someone on a message board will say that the person deserved it or some crap like that.
FrankTheCrank @ Dec 1st 2007 9:14AM
Future reviewers, talk to the ad sales department before you lambaste a game, it could cost you your job.
Corporate America:1 Journalist:0
Sad but true.
Jonah Falcon @ Dec 1st 2007 9:23AM
Yeah, Gerstmann is really suffering (rolling eyes).
The1 @ Dec 1st 2007 9:20AM
Wow, I guess no one is supposed to criticizes trash. Nevertheless, this is the same way the Bush Admin bullied PBS.
Jonah Falcon @ Dec 1st 2007 9:21AM
Who's the one being bullied, though? Seems to me Gerstmann is the one bullying GameSpot, and Eidos developers are getting raped.
Jonah Falcon @ Dec 1st 2007 9:20AM
"An anonymous Valleywag commenter going by the handle "gamespot" and claiming to be a company insider:"
A single word: bullshit. Please, will someone actually use journalistic procedure and do something I'd like to call "background checking"? Meet the source, not listen to anonymous posting.
Nick @ Dec 1st 2007 9:34AM
Based on all of your comments in this article alone, I'm guessing you work in the Gamespot advertising department. Boy do you have egg on your face.
Brandon @ Dec 1st 2007 9:45AM
Healthy skepticism is just that, healthy.
However with all of the various information available on this issue, including the blogs of the actual editors still working at Gamepot, there is more than enough information here to show that there is fire behind the smoke.
I appreciate your desire for crystal clear proof and in a perfect world, there would be full transparency. Of course that isn't the world that the rest of us live in, so please don't be exactly what you seem to want to rail against, and assume everything is "BULLSHIT" either. Trying to make this into "Gerstmann bullying Gamespot" is hilarious, but if you're serious, its actually very sad.
voodoomage @ Dec 1st 2007 9:52AM
J.F. you sound like you are one of "them". We are an angry internet mob. We don't need no stinking facts. I better watch, if this comes off as sarcastic, I could end up sounding like one of "them" too. I will always be on of "us" and never one of "them"... so get you pitchforks and torches my fellow "us", we will take "them" down....heh
meinside99 @ Dec 1st 2007 9:42AM
This is not just Gamespot but a problem all over America. Employers only want Robots among their ranks. I was fired from Target from a manangement position for, "challenging the status quo" and that I was a "threat" to the "fast, fun and friendly Target motto." The funny part was that about 5 subordinates quit after the day I left in protest. In today's corporate America if you treat your subordinates like humans insteas of "human resources" or think for yourself then you are not going to last too long. WE WILL NEVER FORGET YOU, JEFF!
nick @ Dec 1st 2007 9:42AM
I'm not entirely sure that Eidos does have clean hands over this matter. While I do believe they didn't specifically ask to have Jeff fired, it would seem that they did pressure Gamespot over advertising. Jeff's recent review over one of their products wasn't glowing, meanwhile they have a huge campaign going on the site, that suddenly disappears.
Also, I think waiting until after the Thankgiving holiday, when no other major game releases are planned, sorta has a ring of truth to it. That sounds like a business decision. I'm not sure they anticipated such fallout though. But to me Jeff -is- GameSpot.
I can also understand GameSpot or Jeff not wanting to say anything public over legal concerns. They're circling the wagons folks, and prepapring for a possible fight. One or the other can use words said in public in court.
I've lost all respect for GameSpot in the process. I cannot frequent a site that values advertising above journalistic freedom. And I'm sorta miffed at Eidos for putting pressure on GameSpot.
Obie @ Dec 1st 2007 9:42AM
Good, let's hope a big shake-up occurs. The industries' review systems are messed up and hopefully this will bring some transparency.
The VF @ Dec 1st 2007 9:43AM
I suggest you take the best advice I've heard so far and just cancel your Gamespot account. Hit them where it really hurts. Cancel your accounts.
That is all.
Obie @ Dec 1st 2007 9:45AM
Jonah Falcon = Eidos shill
ShortFuse @ Dec 1st 2007 9:45AM
Can somebody who has played and finished Kane & Lynch confirm or deny that he finished the whole game?
http://live.xbox.com/member/GameSpotting
I don't think 90 is enough gamerpoints for beating the whole game
cakeorrdeath @ Dec 1st 2007 9:49AM
That's his personal 360 account. It doesnt tell you anything. They use office systems to review games.
Jeff Himself, a points fanatic, has complained numerous times over the fact he had to replay games he has reviewed in order to get the points for his main account.
meinside99 @ Dec 1st 2007 9:49AM
@shortfuse
A crappy game is a crappy game!!!! The controls, gameplay, etc. are not going change as you progress through a game. It may get a little better.....yes. However, not to the point in which a sucky game (5 or 6) will turn to a great game (9 or 10).
Brandon @ Dec 1st 2007 9:50AM
I've heard that most reviewers get copies of the game that plays on their PartnerNet (the dev side of Xbox Live) accounts and so they often don't have gamerscores that reflect all of the playing of a title that they did.
I'm not saying he did or didn't finish the game, have no idea. Just suggesting that if his gamerscore doesn't reflect that he finished it, it doesn't mean he didn't, just that he didn't with the account that you are looking at.
ShortFuse @ Dec 1st 2007 9:54AM
I just find it weird that the whole review is based on the first level. He doesn't even discuss the romance subplot or the club part which Ludwig, on the podcast, said is the best part of the game.
ShortFuse @ Dec 1st 2007 10:03AM
Yeah you guys are right. review is nov 14th. these points are the 27th
quickshade @ Dec 1st 2007 12:55PM
Jeff does indeed play on partner net and with dev kits. This keeps people from stalking him cause he has new games but also allows multiplayer to work since nobody is using the real service. He does often go back and play though games again to get achievements though. I feel bad right now. If I had the money I would start my own site and hire him right on the spot. You don't need full advertising spots for every game coming out, in fact that ruins the site. Small ads make a good amount of money and you draw people in with legit reviews, not bogus.
seemoneh @ Dec 1st 2007 9:55AM
Eh...If he was fired for not completing the game before reviewing it, the easiest thing to do would be to just state that. Sounds reasonable.
meinside99 @ Dec 1st 2007 10:00AM
Well, you can;t always complete a game in a day. There is now way in hell a person can finish a game in a few days like Xenosaga, etc in a few days plus play other games to review as well. Sometimes the proof is in the pudding. If a games sucks at first it will probably suck all the way through. No need to play games like that through!!!!
zeroword @ Dec 1st 2007 10:10AM
Shortfuse is another fake poster. Please ban. We already know they cant take these games home, they cant use thier personal accounts to play them either. He continues to push his agenda. Not to mention he appears after Jonah Falcon was exposed.
zeroword @ Dec 1st 2007 10:12AM
I retract my previous comment due to his latest response.
ShortFuse @ Dec 1st 2007 10:28AM
i was just stating my theory to see if it was possible that it wasn't foul play. i saw the gamerpoints to be weird. i posted my theory, it got disconfirmed.
and banning? how about you?
out of your 22 "comments" in total on joystiq.com (not including this article) 18 have been for the sweepstakes+giveaway contest. that's 81%
which leaves 4 being actual comments. should you be allowed to win any of those giveaways?
TheBriz09 @ Dec 2nd 2007 1:27AM
I'm not sure whether Eidos was involved or not - but even if they weren't, they'll still get pissed at GameSpot for the backlash that this ordeal has caused, and perhaps pull their ad dollars from the site anyway so it still hurts GameSpot in the end. Maybe it'll even inspire other publishers to do the same.
I also agree with Nick up there - the 'waiting till after Thanksgiving' thing does sound like a plausible business decision. I work closely with retail managament and we've done almost exactly the same thing - we'll retain a poor-performing employee through the busy holiday season merely because it's cheaper for us to deal with a screw-up than it is to hire and train a replacement just for the few weeks leading up to Christmas. Then, after the holidays are over, it's easier for us to get rid of them because the demand isn't there.
LD22 @ Dec 1st 2007 1:34PM
Its good to see that his peers still have his back.
Jonah Falcon @ Dec 1st 2007 11:02AM
http://www.gamestooge.com/2007/12/01/editorial-rip-journalistic-integrity
Best I can do for now.
James @ Dec 1st 2007 3:27PM
Yeah, so can you stop talking now? I'm finding it hard reading your whited out comments.
Jonah Falcon @ Dec 1st 2007 3:30PM
You know where I write: "It does not help that, judging by postings and written reactions, that most of the gamers are immature, either in age or in personality, which is, of course, emblematic of the entire industry."
I'm talking about you. Specifically.
samfish @ Dec 2nd 2007 12:00AM
The problem, Jonah, is that you're making (what feel like) reactionary assumptions against Gerstmann in this whole affair and are letting that cloud your impartiality.
In particular,
"The fallout is somewhat disturbing. Gerstmann’s friends and collegues have taken this opportunity to drive a mob-like lynching of GameSpot, convincing many gamers to cancel subscriptions to the site, claiming it is a corporate shill; this despite the fact that nothing is known about the firing save Gerstmann and CNet."
You're making the presumption here that it's ONL Gerstmann and CNet/Gamespot that know the full skinny on what's going on here. It makes me wonder if you've ever worked in a large office, though. If Gerstmanns friends and colleagues are saying something stinks here, there's no reason to discard what they say just because they weren't one of the two participants in the firing.
People network with people, even if they work at different companies. I (reasonably) know what's going on as far as inter-office politics go at other companies that I have friends at or relationships with. This is not uncommon.
"don’t profess to know anything about it, simply because I don’t take anonymous sources seriously, nor do I give weight to associates of Gerstmann, who have probably personal or professional interests in him."
This is absurd of you to say. You're blatantly disregarding sources just because they're "on his side". That's no way to conduct an investigation of anything.
Yes, verify, verify, verify, but don't disregard. Many of Gerstmann's colleagues are apparently saying that something stinky went down and the only ones who aren't saying that specifically are the PR types and such.
"I don’t find CNet’s simple “It wasn’t the review” response as informative, and Gerstmann’s silence seems to be more intent on holding GameSpot hostage rather than legality."
Again, this is preposterous and shows a bias on your part.
Gerstmann is holding them hostage? By not talking about his very public firing in less than 48 hours after it happened? Again, have you EVER worked for a large, public company?
This isn't the first time a famous person has been fired. They *NEVER* talk about their firings publicly. It JUST doesn't happen except on the rarest of occasions. There is WAY to much possibility to open yourself up to a lawsuit.
Similarly, Gerstmann's silence COULD be due to his planning a lawsuit against Gamespot/Cnet.
"Additionally, if his silence is legally enforced, then it must be something more serious than a reaction to a review, especially since it wasn’t the first time a writer on GameSpot wrote a negative review about a game that was advertised on the site – and a 6.0 review isn’t a 2.0 review."
Again, NOW who is jumping to conclusions? There are any number of reasons his silence is supposedly being legally enforced.
I work in the publishing industry. I literally see this crap happen 3 or 4 times a week...making deals with advertisers, writing full featured articles JUST so someone will advertise with a certain publication. I've personally been the scapegoat when an advertiser is pissed, too. "Oh, it was an issue in graphics" when that's just bullshit.
No one except Gerstmann and the CNet head honchos know for certain what happened because, presumably, they were the only guys in the room at the time. But that hardly means other staffers and colleagues don't know what happened, either. And we the public will likely never know the full story either because I guarantee you that Gerstmann is never going to spill the beans and I doubt I have to explain why Gamespot won't, either.
But just because you don't have 100% of the story is no reason to write this off as nothing. If we get to the point where we appear to have 80-90% of the story, that should be more than enough to draw conclusions based on what happened.
The only thing we're really waiting on at this point is for an anonymous Gamespot employee to give an interview to a more high profile blog or something.
Otis Whitaker @ Dec 1st 2007 11:08AM
I hope to god Jeff was fired for being a terribly biased ass, and not for being a less than perfect tool.
tonydcanbe @ Dec 1st 2007 11:16AM
Let Cnet know how you feel: 415-344-2000
They aren't taking calls now, but you can leave a message :)
Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Dec 1st 2007 11:40AM
Well here's a different scenario.
Perhaps Eidos doesn't have anything to do with this at all(I admit I may have jumped the gun a bit) and that this was all a gamespot/cnet decision because they feared that Jeff's review might bring some sort of backlash from Eidos and possible other buyers.
Mecharine @ Dec 1st 2007 12:58PM
This is the downfall of gaming journalism. I remember a post about how Aussie reviewers were given paid vacations and free hookers for their reviews. Complete and utter disappointment. I dont by Eidos games, nor will I ever. And CNET can kiss my ass.
Brian @ Dec 1st 2007 2:07PM
Whether or not CNet had legit reasons for firing Gerstmann (I don't believe they did) is almost beside the point now. No matter what, it's quite clear that the firing itself was completely botched. Anyone with any amount of media savvy would realize that you can't simply axe someone who has any amount of celebrity status the way Gerstmann did. Did they think there'd be no reaction? That the readers wouldn't notice when Gerstmann was mysteriously absent?
Usually, this sort of firing would involve lots of planning: it would be well known in advance, Jeff would have weeks in which to say his good-byes, and it would be publicly stated that Jeff was "moving on to pursue other opportunities. Everyone saves face and there's no terrible aftermath.
The fact that the executives responsible didn't do this and couldn't predict the resulting chaos of their action proves how completely out of touch and incompetent they are. That they showed no respect to Gerstmann means they have no respect for their readers.
In my book, the only way for CNet to recover, is to have some very public firings of the executives responsible for this fiasco.
jc @ Dec 1st 2007 3:08PM
Extremely well said. The GameSpot management team are the ones who need to be worried about their livelihood. Jeff will do just fine, but after the management team gets fired publically from such high profile positions, its not going to be easy to find similar jobs.
But it needs to happen ASAP or GameSpot will go down in flames (or is it already too late?)