Rumorang: Gerstmann-gate edition

by Kyle Orland { Dec 1st 2007 at 10:30AM }

We're sure you'll agree our reporting on the continuing controversy surrounding Gamespot's firing of Jeff Gerstmann has been quite extensive. Still, there are a few angles that have come up that we still feel a little questionable reporting on as fact, or even credible rumor. Still, they are getting play elsewhere around the web, so we'll let you have a little peek behind the curtain and in to the sausage-making world of the news process. Here's what we know and why we're a bit skeptical:

Some sites are reporting that Gamespot staffer Tim Tracy has also been fired and/or left the company, possibly for reasons related to Gerstmann's dismissal. The sole source for this rumor seems to be a cryptic post on Tracy's Gamespot blog where he appears behind a stack of shoeboxes with the footer, "It's been real." This could mean that he's no longer with the company ... but it could also means he just has a shoe fetish. We're working to get an official comment on the situation from Tracy or Gamespot and will let you know what we hear, but for the time being we don't want to speculate on what, if anything, this could mean.
Some commenters around the web are suggesting that the firing was due to the influence of some recent hires at CNET, specifically Executive Vice President Stephen Colvin and Director of Games & Entertainment Josh Larson. These commenters will point to Colvin's previous involvement with bastions of journalistic integrity like Maxim, Blender, and Stuff magazine (read: sarcasm!) and Larson's heavy career focus on marketing to gamers. This circumstantial evidence doesn't do much for us, and while we've heard some rumblings of their involvement from somewhat credible sources, nothing has been better than second hand information. We'll keep digging, but right now it's too early to implicate anyone specific (or in general, for that matter).
Finally, some commenters are claiming that Gerstmann wasn't fired because his Kane & Lynch review was negative in tone, but because he did not actually play the game sufficiently before reviewing it. The supposed evidence, as often happens with such allegations, is Jeff's Xbox Live Gamercard, which only has six achievements and 90 Gamerscore points for the game (some overstate this claim to say he only got one achievement. Fact check your rumors, people!) Reviewers often start reviews playing early code that might not have achievements unlocked. Gerstmann could have been playing on Microsoft's private PartnerNet system when reviewing the game, or simply been on a separate system/Gamertag when doing some of the playing. Furthermore, the content of both the text and video reviews seems to clearly indicate deep involvement with the game. We're waiting to hear back from Gerstmann on this issue directly, but until we do, it'll take more than a Gamercard to convince us Jeff was anything less than a professional in this matter.

Tags: controversy, eidos, firing, gamespot, gerstmann, jeff-gerstmann, journalism, kane-and-lynch, rumorang

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

ShortFuse @ Dec 1st 2007 10:39AM

I was the one who stated that the gamerpoints weren't enough, but as the "kind", albeit direct, friends at Joystiq taught me, that's not the case. Some reviewers don't review with their gamerpoints. Also, my full-proof conclusion was that the review was Nov 14th and the achievements were...achieved...almost two weeks later. It's obvious he didn't use his gamertag to review. You can put those little strikeout font thingie you guys do. :)

ShortFuse @ Dec 1st 2007 10:48AM

I'm sorry, I realized you linked to Wired for the gamerpoint comment. In all fairness, I was wrong first. :) http://www.joystiq.com/2007/11/30/rumor-gamespots-editorial-director-fired-over-kane-and-lynch-rev/2#c9056347
You guys read wired's comments more than your own site's. =P

Obie @ Dec 1st 2007 11:09AM

Gerstmann is becoming a martyr, should be very interesting to see what this leads to.
I am anxious to hear directly from him.

BananaBoat @ Dec 1st 2007 10:43AM

Gertmann-gate indeed. Gamespot has lost any credibility that it had left, and I'm not sure what could fix the situation at this point. What I'd like to know is why Gerstmann himself hasn't made a statement, but then again, since the man probably has bills to pay, I wouldn't fault him for being too busy finding a new job to put the final nail in gamespot's credibility coffin.

Clack @ Dec 1st 2007 6:27PM

Not just GameSpot, but any CNET-related site.

Jonah Falcon @ Dec 1st 2007 11:02AM

Rather than making yet another post, I wrote an article:

http://www.gamestooge.com/2007/12/01/editorial-rip-journalistic-integrity

Better to be longwinded than shortwinded.

Obie @ Dec 1st 2007 11:11AM

Did not read..lol.

Flipside @ Dec 1st 2007 11:25AM

It actually raises some valid points :)

I'm with the rest of you on this, if it turns out to be true, I'm utterly disgusted, but we aren't just talking about one mans job here, if true it could cost far far more than a single job in the long run, I take that kind of thing seriously, 'someone claiming to be' or 'an anonymous insider' simply don't hold enough water.

If what this 'Gamespot' character said is fact then it will become apparent over the coming weeks whether this is all true or not, but I'm not throwing Eidos or Gamespot to the wolves until I'm quite certain it's the right thing to do.

Payspot @ Dec 1st 2007 11:08AM

For the last part regarding the amount of playing time he has had with the game, how about this, maybe he was playing the PS3 version more? I mean he was reviewing both versions of the game, maybe he was playing one version more.

cakeorrdeath @ Dec 1st 2007 11:09AM

Check out the Advertise on GameSpot link on the bottom of the gamespot website

Straight from the learn more about gamespot section

"Benefits

* Attracts and retains one of the Web's largest concentrations of the coveted 13- to 34-year-old male demographic.
* Reaches an engaged, influential, and loyal audience of diverse gamers who spend more time with us than with our competitors.
* Creates innovative, relevant marketing programs integrated with highly sought-after content.

Audience Profile3

* Male: 97%
* Average age: 24 years
* Ages 18-34 years: 66%; Ages 18-49: 76%
* Social gamers (play for fun): 55%; Conquerors (play to win): 42%
* Come to GameSpot first for information: 88%
* Enjoy telling others about products/brands: 88%

Contact your CNET Networks sales representative today."

I wonder how much of that will still ring true after this is all over and done with. I cannot believe that some angry advertisers could ever cost gamespot more revenue than this giant PR disaster is going to.

MaxMillions @ Dec 1st 2007 11:14AM

I agree with you completely I myself fit those groups of people who go to Gamespot regularly (until now of course) This is probably going to be the biggest mistake any Gaming Website could ever do and their superiors (CNET) After giving Kayne and Lynch a 1 for the user review, and canceling my subscription, I've made an oath never to go back to Gamespot again.

cakeorrdeath @ Dec 1st 2007 11:17AM

Well I'm a moderator for the forums there, suffice to say we are not happy either. I am still waiting for the bigger picture to unfold before I take any drastic actions.

Sam406 @ Dec 1st 2007 11:20AM

"I cannot believe that some angry advertisers could ever cost gamespot more revenue than this giant PR disaster is going to."

That's what you get when you run a company, but have no vision.

gonk @ Dec 1st 2007 12:15PM

lol "conquerers"

and btw I haven't gone to gamespot's site in like 5 years (until yesterday)

gs sucks

32_Footsteps @ Dec 1st 2007 11:27AM

Gameola, the video gaming version of Payola, has been appearing for the last 15-20 years. While incidents like this cause a flare-up in discussion of the activity, video gamers have been pointing this out for ages, and insiders have been suggesting that this has been taking place for a long time.

That said, I just have two questions for people in regards to this:

One, why are people reacting like this is something new, when the problem has been addressed many times for years?

What do we have to do to finally provide the smoking gun in this case? The accusations are an echo chamber... as they always have been. When will we finally get the proof we need to take down this practice?

Noshino @ Dec 1st 2007 11:47AM

"One, why are people reacting like this is something new, when the problem has been addressed many times for years?"

This was the last drop, this time it has been big, and well founded, we have more proof than mere "anonymous" insider.

"What do we have to do to finally provide the smoking gun in this case? The accusations are an echo chamber... as they always have been. When will we finally get the proof we need to take down this practice?"

We have the proof now, that is why this time around it IS big, hell, most if not all of the gaming sites are reporting on this case...

gonk @ Dec 1st 2007 12:18PM

i know it's been going on a while, and we do keep having these incidents (i recall a story about a year ago about an australian publisher giving hookers to the game reviewers)

that's why I go by word of mouth these days, it's much less biased (if you ignore the rabid fanboys)

cxm @ Dec 1st 2007 12:49PM

@Noshino: But, you're "proof" is still nothing more than rumor, circumstantial evidence, and the words of anonymous "insiders". In other words, it's the same thing as before.

Mr Khan @ Dec 1st 2007 3:51PM

Yeah, legally and officially, nobody knows why he was fired, it's just that there actually aren't that many idiots out there who can't do some basic reading between the lines

LaughingTarget @ Dec 1st 2007 5:19PM

Reading between the lines isn't enough. Circumstancial evidence never makes a very big splash in cases like these. It took major evidence for the music industry to finally be impacted by the Payola scandal even though it was going on for years prior with plenty of circumstancial hearsay. Even the people at large won't be moved much without hard facts that can't be spun or brushed aside as rumor.

If anything, paid reviewers are problematic in and of themselves. People who read their reviews are interested in the product, thus advertising and, by extension, their salaries, will be paid by the vary products they review. The only real benefit is to try and find those whose livelihoods aren't tied to being reviewers. I.E., don't trust professional reviewers, there is a greater degree of trust if no money or other benefits change hands between the product's producer and the reviewer, directly (universally accepted as bad) or indirectly (the primary source of income for product review organizations).

oldschoolgamer @ Dec 1st 2007 11:33AM

Whatys really curious about this is how ign is not commenting on this story at all. A report came out in the early part of the summer that since game advertising had increased on both ign and gamespot their game review scores had increased proprtionally. Hinting that ign was also being paid for favorable reviews for certain games. And I'm sure you guys have seen the big Kane and Lynch ads that ign was running on their main home page. So maybe ign is afraid of saying something to avoid the same reaction from eidos that happened with gamespot.

LaughingTarget @ Dec 1st 2007 5:22PM

That could easily be spun as IGN "adjusting the review band". Accepting the 6-10 range as a standard review score only made this all possible. Don't trust anyone that says 6 is bad instead of pretty good, just above average, but nothing special.

Hart704 @ Dec 1st 2007 11:36AM

I've read many times that the GameSpot editors wish that they had the points acquired from reviewing a game on their own XBL account. So that rumor is just totally false.

nick @ Dec 1st 2007 11:39AM

There's a potentially bigger issue here outside of what happened to Gerstmann. Do sites or publications that rely on advertising revenue, alter their content to appease advertisers?

What about companies that sponser reviewers, bloggers or journalists to attend events? Which by the way--YES, does happen! Do they expect a positive review or story in return?

Where is the line drawn?

NeuroMan42 @ Dec 1st 2007 10:01PM

Do sites or publications that rely on advertising revenue, alter their content to appease advertisers?

Is this news?!? This has been going on in ALL forms of media for YEARS. Now all of a sudden it is SHOCKING that this has happened to people... LOL.

Savok @ Dec 1st 2007 12:05PM

While it may sound counter-intuitive for me to say this, seeing as I want a job in the industry at some point, I hope this brings down the whole god damn system.

Game reviewing as it stands is hideously broken, assigning numbers to what's mostly an opinion is just so ridiculous only a born marketing executive could have thought of it. You can tell this by the fact there is rarely "enjoyment" along with graphics, sound, gameplay, so on. Enjoyment is not important to the man in the ugly suit.

Megaman Legends is probably the best example from my own experience. Here's a game that doesn't deserve anything above a 7 under normal circumstances. Throw in an "enjoyment" rating though and it shoots up to 10 as it's simply a joy to play (for me anyway) with the bizarre story and terrible voice acting.

No more numbers, just tear that shit down. In it's place, a Penny Arcade style review "system" that basically involves rambling about the game using large words and alien metaphors....

Ok maybe not Penny Arcade exactly, but the general idea of words rather then numbers. Subtracting a point because you think the minigames are awful is something another person may be easily able to overlook for instance, but because of the numbers, you'll probably never know that. We need information about a game so we can say "yes, that's something I want to play" or "no, that's not my thing".

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Dec 1st 2007 12:09PM

I agree. There is no need for numbers or a letter grade in a review. All a review is an opinion, and I think most people here could tell if a reviewer liked something or not without the usage of letter or number grades.

YoRone22 @ Dec 1st 2007 12:07PM

The correct term is not sneaker fetish. It's he is a Sneaker Fiend or Sneaker Freak. He's a Hypebeast.

snoopy @ Dec 1st 2007 12:17PM

I find this video of Tim Tracy interesting. Its an old video but interesting.
http://www.gamespot.com/users/TimT/video_player?id=IXMylmSt5bkOvDfe

copa @ Dec 1st 2007 1:16PM

Also on Tim Tracy:

One of the insiders who has been leaking reliable information to the message boards said that it would be really 'cool' if Tracy had resigned over the Gerstmann business, but that's just not how it went down.

He said that Tracy was fired on Wednesday for completely unrelated reasons. As noted previously, Gamespot apparently waited until after the Thanksgiving rush of games to handle all of their firings.

WldCard @ Dec 1st 2007 12:39PM

Okay, I'll chime in with my two cents worth on the matter.

For starters, I've been working in the gaming filed for some time now as a journalist. Yes, I'm actually using the term "journalist" as that's my occupation. I cover the video game industry, comic industry, movies, TV, etc. While I write reviews on a regular basis, I also write news stories regularly and worked as the News Editor for Game Almighty for a while, and will continue my role as a News Editor elsewhere after the first of the year.

As to the pressure publishers put on reviewers, I can personally attest to the fact that it happens. I once reviewed a sports franchise title for three years straight, and the third year, I trashed the game. Why? Because it wasn’t any good, in my opinion. The publisher raised a bit of a stink over it, bitching about the fact that the score was much lower than it had been the year before. I was asked if I wanted to change my review, and I wouldn’t do it. I stand firmly by the belief that a review, for good or ill, is one person's informed opinion, and I stand by everything I write. Although I wasn’t happy about it, a medium was reached where instead of me compromising my integrity based on advertiser pressure, the game was reassigned to another writer, who did end up getting a little more out of the title that I did.

Now, as to the belief that Gamerscores have anything at all to do with how long a reviewer plays a game, that's a load of crap too. Just last week, I wrote up the review for College Hoops 2K8 for TeamXbox, and yet the game is nowhere in my Gamertag. Did I blindly write the review? Or did I let myself get spoon fed something and just tack my name on it? Nope ... no grand conspiracy here. The simple answer is, I played it at a friend's house ... someone who was a big NCAA fan. As for my Gamertag? I don't exactly carry a 360 memory card with my profile on it everywhere I go. In fact, I'm a part of a regular weekly game night with friends, and in the rush to head out the door, I've left my memory card in MY 360 better than a quarter of the time. Pisses me off when I miss those achievements too. My point is ... it happens. And yes, I play pre-release/final code on my debug for some games too, and no, those don't show on the Gamertag either.

Moving on to things like press junkets, trips, and other "swag" people send along for games. As far as trips and junkets are concerned, I've been on more than my share of them, and while companies OBVIOUSLY want positive coverage, they know that won't necessarily happen. More often than not, these are ways to show off upcoming products, let the media get up close and personal with it, and try to build up interest prior to a game's release. Also, sometimes, the companies can take the NEGATIVE feedback they get from a game and use it to try an improve on its weaknesses. In fact, there are consultants who get paid to do just that, to write up mock reviews of games based on earlier builds so that the developers can better understand a game's weaknesses and try to polish them up.

Now, as far as other "swag" goes? Same thing applies ... the companies probably want some positive feedback, but c'mon ... do any of you seriously think a t-shirt or a refrigerator magnet is going to somehow make a reviewer think a POS game is suddenly gold? Now, is it possible there are other potential "buyoffs" in the field? Maybe so ... but what's important is that the JOURNALIST (there's that term again), have more integrity than to let any sort of outside pressure (be it positive like a "payoff" or negative like a "threat") tarnish his or her reputation.

I've personally worked for years to establish my reputation in the media. I've butted heads with people more than once for many reasons. First and foremost, I'm a guy who stands by his word. I won't let anyone take that from me, or tarnish my integrity. And I know I'm not the only one in the industry that feels this way.

And finally, keep in mind that there's plenty to this story that no one knows about, except for the parties directly involved. In fact, we may never really get the whole story. As such, it's a little premature to be calling for the heads of the folks at Eidos, CNET, or Gerstmann. Because right now, all that's being done is fanning the flames of the rumor bonfire, and scorching the likes of the rest of the media as well.

Okay, I'm stepping off of my soapbox now.

cxm @ Dec 1st 2007 12:57PM

"And finally, keep in mind that there's plenty to this story that no one knows about, except for the parties directly involved. In fact, we may never really get the whole story. As such, it's a little premature to be calling for the heads of the folks at Eidos, CNET, or Gerstmann. Because right now, all that's being done is fanning the flames of the rumor bonfire, and scorching the likes of the rest of the media as well."
Hear, hear. Everyone's making snap judgments about what actually happened and making assumptions based on rumor and circumstantial evidence, that people aren't looking at the fact that they don't really know what actually happened. Even so, they're ready to hang anyone and everyone they THINK is responsible. Mob mentality at its worst. In the meantime, journalists and game developers are taking heat that they don't rightly deserve.

copa @ Dec 1st 2007 2:04PM

"Do any of you seriously think a t-shirt or a refrigerator magnet is going to somehow make a reviewer think a POS game is suddenly gold?"

Since you're using an extreme example, I'll go to the other extreme. Greg Kasavin mentioned in his blog that Microsoft was giving out HDTV's to game reviewers.

Do I think that for some game reviewers, this might be a big deal? Yes. Do I think that some game reviewers might temper or cancel a negative review of a game if they think it might hurt their chances to get cool trips or prizes in the future? Yes.

dan stabbingworth @ Dec 1st 2007 2:19PM

I could see giving an HDTV as more of a benefit to MS in that the reviewer would then be viewing the full potential of the game's graphics. I understand you were making a general point, but in this case, I could see it being less bribery and more providing the proper equipment.

WldCard @ Dec 1st 2007 2:34PM

"Do I think that for some game reviewers, this might be a big deal? Yes. Do I think that some game reviewers might temper or cancel a negative review of a game if they think it might hurt their chances to get cool trips or prizes in the future? Yes."

If a reviewer has to actually even think about this, then he's lacking the integrity I talked about. Would YOU "temper" yourself because you might lose out on something later? Would YOU risk your reputation, your word, and your credibility? Don't automatically assume that we would either.

That's the thing I think frustrates me more than anything else. Too many people tend to think that people in this field are a bunch of hacks, but there are a lot of us that take the job seriously. Credibility is something you can't get back easily. If you lose it, it's gone.

Do some places and people cave to the whims of the advertising dollar? Of course. It happens in ANY field. But to judge the industry (and those in it) based on rare and occasional occurrences just flies in the face of everything people work for in this this field.

LaughingTarget @ Dec 1st 2007 5:33PM

I'm a professional auditor and I would like to see the journalist community enact rules similar to the ones we hold. The rules are:

No cash may be exchanged, no matter how token it may be.

Nothing of value may be accepted under any circumstances.

Only token trinkets with zero resale value can be accepted, but with a production cost of no more than $50 worth in a year and no more than $20 in any single instance from a particular company (subsidiaries are counted as part of the company, so $20 from BioWare counts toward the $50 limit with EA). I can accept a t-shirt with the company logo but cannot accept a limited edition figuring costing as much that could be sold on eBay.

Acceptance of food beyond a cup of coffee or water is not permitted, not even a donut.

Avoid all instances where it could be assumed a favorable outcome could be influenced by the company whose product is being reviewed. This includes refusing to review products from companies your spouse, family or friends work for and not engaging in social activities that have people of influence from the company you are or could be reviewing products for.

Ultimately, the main rule to follow is independence in fact and appearance. If what you are doing can be assumed by a reasonable person to be violating your independence, even if it really isn't, don't do it. I live by these rules and, I have to say, it is incredibly easy ... assuming you're not greedy.

A great way for groups like GameSpot and 1UP is to completley remove the actual editorial staff from the chain of command and place them under direct control of the board of directors, preferrably one that does not have any financial reliance on the company such as stock ownership or salary (boards of directors for public companies are required to have them), like internal auditing staff is in the corporate world. This means the marketing division and even the CEO has absolutely no say in what goes on in that arm of the company and cannot be fired because they don't like it when they voice an honest opinion.

mohamed al-eisa @ Dec 1st 2007 1:24PM

where is jack tomson when you need him.

DVersion @ Dec 1st 2007 1:49PM

I do have to point out that on Jeff's Myspace page he states "I've suddenly found myself with a lot more free time"

good ol' Jeff

F-Forward @ Dec 1st 2007 3:33PM

What I find strange is that if Gerstmann didn't get fired over the review, why doesn't the involved palrties just state so? It must be easy for Gamespot/c-net and Edios to just release a short statement just saying "Gerstmann didn't get fired over the review" if it was like that?
I guess everyone understand that they can't give out the exact reasons, but that doesn't mean that they, or ever Gersmann himself can't do a denying statement. Right?

mafafu @ Dec 1st 2007 4:41PM

I agree. The fact that Gertsmann is claiming he can't talk is a little fishy. Either he got a golden parachute, and doesn't want to risk it, or he was fired for fault. If he was fired for Eidos, he would be screaming from the rooftops.

mafafu @ Dec 1st 2007 4:17PM

He didn't play it on any other gamertags. If he hated the game so much, why would he play even more of it on his gamertag? The only part I can see him remotely playing was the multiplayer, the part of the game he didn't take a dump on. But all of the achievements were single player ones. It's one thing to not like a game, quite another to rip it to shreds and tell people not to buy it, when you didn't even finish it. The one thing you are paid to do.