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.
(Page 1) Reader Comments
Reply
You guys read wired's comments more than your own site's. =P
I am anxious to hear directly from him.
Reply
http://www.gamestooge.com/2007/12/01/editorial-rip-journalistic-integrity
Better to be longwinded than shortwinded.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
That's what you get when you run a company, but have no vision.
and btw I haven't gone to gamespot's site in like 5 years (until yesterday)
gs sucks
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?
Reply
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...
that's why I go by word of mouth these days, it's much less biased (if you ignore the rabid fanboys)
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).
Reply
Reply
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?
Reply
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".
Reply
Reply
http://www.gamespot.com/users/TimT/video_player?id=IXMylmSt5bkOvDfe
Reply
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.
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.
Reply
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.
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.
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.
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.
Reply
good ol' Jeff
Reply
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?
Reply
Reply
why don't you just put up number from 1-10 instead
Reply
http://www.petitiononline.com/removegs/petition.html
We need to send them a message, I got that in my box today!!!!
Its time to flood the editors of CNET aka metacritic, we don't tolerate this!! !
Reply
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.
Reply
Hey-oh!
Reply