Topic: Gamespot Editor fired for 'unfavorable' review?

[Djunknown]

CNET decides to do some snooping.

Gamespot  employee sheds some light.

EDIT: Added 2nd link.
 

[Nephilim]

Quote
Originally posted by: UncleBob
But Edios should be taken to task because they've been *caught*.  I can look at five gang members and I can "know" they've all broken laws, but I can't do crap about it until I catch them.

If Edios is allowed to fly buy the gaming community with this, who knows what publishers will try next.

maybe they will use stars to call us homosexual? oh wait

[Enner]

ooo, is that a bit of Godwin there?

Anyway, another article on Gerstmann fire control on GameSpot if anyone is interested. It doesn't make things significantly better. Apparently, the review was withdrawn and reedited after publication because they thought it was too negative given the "Fair" score. The video was alledgedly pulled due to quality issues with the audio. I think such things should've been caught earlier and before publication though it is the 4th Quarter rush.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: Enner
ooo, is that a bit of Godwin there?

Anyway, another article on Gerstmann fire control on GameSpot if anyone is interested. It doesn't make things significantly better. Apparently, the review was withdrawn and reedited after publication because they thought it was too negative given the "Fair" score. The video was alledgedly pulled due to quality issues with the audio. I think such things should've been caught earlier and before publication though it is the 4th Quarter rush.

Either way, if that's true then it would have been internal reasons for Gerstmann's firing, and it would clear Eidos from involvement.

For example, take a look at Kotaku talking to an unnamed Gamespot employee in DJUnknown's second link:

Quote
The source also indicated that Larson's paraphrased assertion that "AAA titles deserve more attention" was not necessarily a hint that Gamespot's reviewers be more lenient to those titles. Instead, in light of some rather controversial review scores—for example, the 7.5 for Insomniac Games' Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction—the editorial team needed to be more conscious of accuracy and impact of its scores.

As for the now-pulled video of review, it appears the reasons for it's removal are less nefarious than assumed. "Jeff showed up late. It was thrown together quickly, the sound sucked, there was only footage from the first level of the game—it was a mess," our source said. We were told that the redacting of the clip was based on a producer's decision and not a demand from upper

Also, the unnamed employee went on to confirm valleywag's previous anonymous "Gamestop" poster:

Quote
What was accurate, according to the Gamespot staffer, was the account of user "gamespot" at sister site Valleywag. The anonymous blow-by-blow "could have been written by a stenographer", indicating that it perfectly captured the sequence of events and emotional landscape at the company—one of confusion, fear and anger.

It may be that this was an internal management conflict over Gerstmann's performance, and that a convergence of factors may have made it seem more nefarious than it really was. Gerstman himself proffers that no editorial at Gamespot has been tainted in the ways we speculate in a talk with MTV's Stephen Totilo:

Quote
I don’t think there are any reviews you need to look at. Given all the rumors that have been flying around, I understand why people would wonder. But that edit team is an honest one and I’m 100 percent proud to be able to say I worked with that group.

 

[that Baby guy]

To me, it's pretty clear on what happened:

GameSpot whores itself out on a semi-daily basis to any publisher out there with enough cash.  This, we've always known, and most big video game sites/magazines are pretty similar.

There are games out there that have a much higher production value and advertising budget.

GameSpot wants to cash in on this by attracting more casual readers by covering the games people have advertised some on TV and things like that.  Makes sense, right?  It's like a magazine giving cover time to a game that's advertised well.  The people who have seen the advertisement are more likely to pick up the magazine than those who have.  It's just good business sense.

So, GS presses their editors to cover these games to a larger extent than no name games, perhaps like Phoenix Wright, Katamari Damacy, any Atlus game out there, etc. because coverage of the larger games brings more readers to the site than coverage of games like Phoenix Wright, at least, initially.

GS editors, in this particular case, Gerstmann has been getting fed up with what's gone on, and became tired of covering mostly bad games with high advertisement budgets.  His quality and zest for work declines, and he begins submitting things late, poorly written, poorly represented, and just overall, his production decreases.  We can proof at least some of this:  Gerstmann's video review of Kane and Lynch.  Gerstmann showed up late, recorded with a messed up microphone, and never did anything to fix it.  The video contained basic, level-one-type footage of the game, and the review was a verbalization of his written review.  That sounds pretty shoddy to me.  Also, his written review was altered to "Better fit the score."  The score wasn't changed, but the written part was.  While I have not read the review, neither before or after the changes, personally, I conclude that there were likely some poorly written parts, or the score would have changed.

As far as the timing goes, Gerstmann was fired because the Kane and Lynch review exemplifies the problems with his work.  It's been in the decline.  They needed him through the busy part of the release season, they didn't have enough staff, but once they made it through that congested patch, he was out of there.  You can't just demote someone who's a face, though.  People would wonder what happened.  Now, by firing him, they are, by law, not allowed to talk about things.  For all the public is supposed to know, he could have been taking bribes, stealing, or worse.  However, because of the Kane and Lynch review and skins, the public construed their own ideas.  The result?  Gerstmann and Gamespot have to keep quiet on the reason and can't quell the rumors well.  GameSpot can't do anything to prove why he was fired, and Gerstmann, bittered for being wrongfully fired w/o notice, seemingly out of nowhere, won't do anything to help GameSpot out of their predicament.

The employees don't know why he was fired, they aren't allowed to, so as far as they know, it was for no reason at all, so they're pissed off, clearly, so they won't really help out, because they want answers too.

Thus, we have the mess we're in now.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
To me, it's pretty clear on what happened:

GameSpot whores itself out on a semi-daily basis to any publisher out there with enough cash.  This, we've always known, and most big video game sites/magazines are pretty similar.

There are games out there that have a much higher production value and advertising budget.

GameSpot wants to cash in on this by attracting more casual readers by covering the games people have advertised some on TV and things like that.  Makes sense, right?  It's like a magazine giving cover time to a game that's advertised well.  The people who have seen the advertisement are more likely to pick up the magazine than those who have.  It's just good business sense.

So, GS presses their editors to cover these games to a larger extent than no name games, perhaps like Phoenix Wright, Katamari Damacy, any Atlus game out there, etc. because coverage of the larger games brings more readers to the site than coverage of games like Phoenix Wright, at least, initially.

GS editors, in this particular case, Gerstmann has been getting fed up with what's gone on, and became tired of covering mostly bad games with high advertisement budgets.  His quality and zest for work declines, and he begins submitting things late, poorly written, poorly represented, and just overall, his production decreases.  We can proof at least some of this:  Gerstmann's video review of Kane and Lynch.  Gerstmann showed up late, recorded with a messed up microphone, and never did anything to fix it.  The video contained basic, level-one-type footage of the game, and the review was a verbalization of his written review.  That sounds pretty shoddy to me.  Also, his written review was altered to "Better fit the score."  The score wasn't changed, but the written part was.  While I have not read the review, neither before or after the changes, personally, I conclude that there were likely some poorly written parts, or the score would have changed.

As far as the timing goes, Gerstmann was fired because the Kane and Lynch review exemplifies the problems with his work.  It's been in the decline.  They needed him through the busy part of the release season, they didn't have enough staff, but once they made it through that congested patch, he was out of there.  You can't just demote someone who's a face, though.  People would wonder what happened.  Now, by firing him, they are, by law, not allowed to talk about things.  For all the public is supposed to know, he could have been taking bribes, stealing, or worse.  However, because of the Kane and Lynch review and skins, the public construed their own ideas.  The result?  Gerstmann and Gamespot have to keep quiet on the reason and can't quell the rumors well.  GameSpot can't do anything to prove why he was fired, and Gerstmann, bittered for being wrongfully fired w/o notice, seemingly out of nowhere, won't do anything to help GameSpot out of their predicament.

The employees don't know why he was fired, they aren't allowed to, so as far as they know, it was for no reason at all, so they're pissed off, clearly, so they won't really help out, because they want answers too.

Thus, we have the mess we're in now.

I have trouble letting off Gerstmann off the hook if he was lazy. This crap about blaming Gamespot first is stupid, Gerstmann had a job there is no excuse to be slacking off like he did, I could care less about his justifications. If I didn't do my job, regardless of my reasons, I'd deserve to be fired as well and I'd have no one to blame but myself.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

Gerstmann should've been fired for the way he Wii Bowled SITTING IN A COUCH during a gameplay video.

[ShyGuy]

I remember when they were doing a live video preview of Twilight Princess, the Gamespot crew was all "hur hur the signs aren't in English, cause the Wii isn't Hi-Def"

[Kairon]

Yeah, I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for Gamespot's editorial review team after they did the things you mention Pro and Shyguy. Maybe I'm holding a grudge, but I never had much sympathy to begin with...

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Yeah, I have a hard time feeling sympathetic for Gamespot's editorial review team after they did the things you mention Pro and Shyguy. Maybe I'm holding a grudge, but I never had much sympathy to begin with...

True, so true. I think it would be hilarious though if it does turn out he was being lazy and not doing his job instead of some grandiose conspiracy by Edios and Cnet to get him fired for a review. A lot of people will have mud in their face if that is what happens, especially those boycotting (Gonintendo comes to mind) over rumors.  

[Djunknown]

But Eidos too have been acting suspiciously. From locking threads in their own forums, to 'embellishing' their reviews, it just reeks of bad timing at the very least. Kotaku didn't take it nicely when Eido's German arm put their E3 coverage as a review snippet, and took action. While having an Eidos rep demanding Gerstmann's head seems a bit farfetched, threatening to pull future advertising if this happens again sounds a bit more plausible.

Quote
If you’re covering a game that you have a vested interest in, that should be disclosed.

In Gamespot's review system, they always have a tilt, which measures their preference of the title, as part of their criteria. So if their tilt is a 2, you know they weren't really looking foward to this game. They also assigned someone who is familiar with genre. Alex Navarro for example, is the token wrestling fan (And has a record of being stuck with reviewing very bad games) and he get the wrestling games.

Quote
Even if you have nothing to do with those products (and I’d guess that you don’t), it doesn’t take much for your audience to speculate that your takes on those fine products might be tainted. If you start there and work outwards, suddenly people realize that your take on the “Guitar Hero” series, which is in fairly direct competition with MTV’s “Rock Band,” may also be risky. At some point, someone remembers that MTV is part of Viacom and starts thinking about Viacom properties that have become games.

The question here is: Did the editor pressure the reviewer to take such a stance?

N'Gai Croal puts his analysis here

Some clips:

Quote
And we must stipulate that there is still much that has yet to be revealed, and it's rare that a single incident results in the firing of a beloved employee. So if and when all shoes drop, we're fairly certain that all sides will be sporting a certain amount of mud.

Again with the mud...

Quote
The reality is this: publishers generally hold the enthusiast press in utter contempt, and they have for a long time. This disdain began as scorn for the enthusiast media's roots in videogame fandom, rather than traditional journalism from "respectable" publications, but it has since metastasized into a veiled but nonetheless seething anger over the advent of the Internet and with it the rise of fan sites, forums and blogs over which publishers can exert little pressure, let alone control.

Ars Technica ladies and gentlemen...

Quote
"Do not patronize me by telling me the reader is the customer—your real customer is the one that pays you your revenue," 3DO president Trip Hawkins said in an e-mail to GamePro after one of his games was panned. "And it is game industry advertisers."

A very old quote for sure, but it rings so relevantly now. Back then we wouldn't have noticed, and a good chunk of the audience was to young to care. The internet is here, we're older and more tech savvy, and some do care.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Yeah Edios is sure acting suspicious, because NO COMPANY embellishes their reviews or locks threads in their forums that may be controversial. Give me a break, this is bordering on silly.

[Djunknown]

Gamespot gives an official  line. Very quick and to the point.

[that Baby guy]

Eidos is trying to market Kane and Lynch like studios market a movie.  The non-existent star ratings from random people, the out-of-context quotes, and other aspects are a major part of most movie advertisements.  It comes with the territory.  What Eidos is doing is wrong, but there's precedent for it.  Odds are that this is unrelated to the issue of Gerstmann's "end of tenure."

It has been shown that Gerstmann's reviews of Kane and Lynch were shoddy work, has it not?  It's been hinted at that "tone" had something to do with his tenure's end, right?  Tone that is observable in several of his video reviews, correct?  I believe Kairon pointed out a Zelda review earlier where his tone was certainly unprofessional, do you agree?

Gerstmann was doing a bad job.  We've got evidence that shows this, don't we?  You quote Trip Hawkins--"...your real customer is the one that pays your revenue..."  Well, he was mistaken.  In this case, the true customer is the one that let's you earn revenue.  Without circulation, advertisements in a magazine mean nothing.  Without page hits, a website's ads are worth pennies or less.  Gerstmann was doing a bad job, and he was driving away page hits with his work.  I stopped reading GS reviews a long time ago because of the shoddy, biased, and yes "toned" work.  Couldn't this be the problem GS had with him?  Every time I don't visit GameSpot that I might have three or four years ago is really lost money for them.  That's because I am the customer.  Every issue of Game Informer I don't buy or look at is lost money for GameStop (who has partnership or owns that magazine), because I don't view the adds.  The bottom line is that you and I are the customers of these magazines and that you and I are the customers of these games.  In order to look at the former, we have to have trust in them.  In order to buy the latter we need a trustworthy source to learn about the games.

We are the customers, and don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

[AzureNightmare]

The issue at hand is NOT Gerstmann's firing, the dumbass deserved what he got. What is the issue here is the lack of trust this has generated for print and online videogame media. If CNET cannot come forward and make a definitive statement either way that automatically means theyre guilty, whether they are or not. Not many of you really understand why the press is freaking out about this incident, so I will tell you why. What CNET did, whether its a bad coincidence or not, has seriously wounded the credibility of all gaming press and we, the press, demand they come clean on the issue and stop being secretive about it so we can go about rebuilding the trust that you, the online gaming community and readership, once had in us. Without a definitive statement from CNET directly addressing this scandal, the best we can do is damage control, which will have no longterm effects.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Yeah and what if it is against the policy of CNET to give the reason? Have you guys thought of that? That maybe it is against their code of conduct to actually give out a reason, so their hands are tied in that regard. They've already flat out said NO to the Edios pressure being the cause of the firing. That appears to be coming clean to me, especially if it is against their policy to give specific reasons as to what the firing was for. No one has proof, they have jack, and they making a big storm over it based on some rumors and so called anomynous sources. If it is indeed against CNET's policy to give a reason for firing, wouldn't they then be being unethical to provide it, especially if they are innocent?

Gamespot said what it was NOT for, which is what these rumors are centered around, what more do you expect? If they are innocent they will be guilty if they go against company policy to please, a bunch of bloggers and whiners. I'm sorry but that is what I think I hate accusing others of lacking credibility based on rumors. In fact if this is indeed CNET's policy, then I think the ethical thing is to stick by it regardless of the pressure or consequences. Remember, who stirred this pot in the first place? It wasn't CNET, it was the so called gaming press that did that, taking extremes like censoring Gamespot links or promoting bans, along with fueling the rabid sheep called gamers. They created their own hell hole based on rumors and running full speed with it, now they need to get themselves out of it. I have ZERO sympathy for the gaming press, they created their own monster, now they have to put it down. The ones that move on and continue to serve the community will survive, the poor me, boo hoo, gaming press will not. Sorry, guys but you dug your own grave, now you need to lay in it.

Let me put it this way, the gaming press better dang well hope this turns out to be a big company cover up, because if it is the opposite, they deserve to be punished in credibility for trying to ruin the credibility of another organization without facts. That's life, if you are going to accuse someone of something, you better hope it is true because you deserve what comes back at you if it isn't. It would be nice too if these people would stop blaming others and actually admit that maybe they share responsibility instead of pointing fingers. But as I've discovered, it is much easier to blame someone else to get it off your shoulders.  

[Spak-Spang]

Actually, GoldenPhoenix has a good point.  When people are looking for references and prior job experience, you past boss LEGALLY can not say why you were fired.  It has been deemed slander, because it could prevent you from getting a job.  All they can say is whether you were a "good employee" and whether they would hire you back.

There may be legal issues preventing them from making a press statement outlining the reasons he was fired.  Or, more likely, because of the potential difficulty with legal issues, they just make it a public policy NOT to give reasons for firing.  

The problem I believe is the lack of professionalism from the other Game Spot journalists and possibly Gerstmann himself.  This was a private issue with the company of CNET and specifically the Game Spot division.  He it was handled internally without reviews blabbing to the public about how it was unfair and they didn't have any clue why Gerstmann was fired and what kind of threat could mean...then perhaps everything could have calmed down.  The firing was a shock, and the management should of had a meeting and internally help stop the fire, before it occured, but it failed to do that unfortunately.  That single failure, and unity of the Game Spot writing staff is what has been fueling and creating a bigger issue than this firing should be.

Nobody except for the management directly involved with the firing decision will know absolutely the reason why Gerstmann was fired.  Could it have been a firing from pressure from publishers possibly...but I don't it would be from a single source.  Perhaps, he was getting flak from several of his reviews from several publishers.  Perhaps he was getting complaints from several readers as well, and perhaps his management actually looked at several of his reviews and disagreed with the tone and how he went about reviewing the games.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Spak-Spang
Actually, GoldenPhoenix has a good point.  When people are looking for references and prior job experience, you past boss LEGALLY can not say why you were fired.  It has been deemed slander, because it could prevent you from getting a job.  All they can say is whether you were a "good employee" and whether they would hire you back.

There may be legal issues preventing them from making a press statement outlining the reasons he was fired.  Or, more likely, because of the potential difficulty with legal issues, they just make it a public policy NOT to give reasons for firing.  

The problem I believe is the lack of professionalism from the other Game Spot journalists and possibly Gerstmann himself.  This was a private issue with the company of CNET and specifically the Game Spot division.  He it was handled internally without reviews blabbing to the public about how it was unfair and they didn't have any clue why Gerstmann was fired and what kind of threat could mean...then perhaps everything could have calmed down.  The firing was a shock, and the management should of had a meeting and internally help stop the fire, before it occured, but it failed to do that unfortunately.  That single failure, and unity of the Game Spot writing staff is what has been fueling and creating a bigger issue than this firing should be.

Nobody except for the management directly involved with the firing decision will know absolutely the reason why Gerstmann was fired.  Could it have been a firing from pressure from publishers possibly...but I don't it would be from a single source.  Perhaps, he was getting flak from several of his reviews from several publishers.  Perhaps he was getting complaints from several readers as well, and perhaps his management actually looked at several of his reviews and disagreed with the tone and how he went about reviewing the games.

That is one thing I do agree with, they should have handled it better with the staff.

[Kairon]

So... is it time to blame Penny - Arcade?

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
So... is it time to blame Penny - Arcade?

I would rather blame YOU.

[Enner]

LOL. Damn management. They need to be better on the ball. :p

Personally, I'm a kind of guy that trys to put the adage of "innocent until proven guilty" in to work in all walks of my life. Looking out for blood (which is what I see a full disclosure from CNet would be) just seems a bit too blood thirsty.

Gamespot has said and what they officially can. It's up to the us whether to trust them or not. Seeing as how I do not have evidence to suggest for or against their statements, I'd think I'd rather trust then think of them as liars. A cautious trust, if I might add.

[Kairon]

Maybe I should start visiting Gamespot? If Gerstmann was fired for quality reasons, maybe I'd see this supposed increase in quality from now on?

[Crimm]

Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
The employees don't know why he was fired, they aren't allowed to, so as far as they know, it was for no reason at all, so they're pissed off, clearly, so they won't really help out, because they want answers too.

I was with you to here.  Anyone who works in an office knows that this isn't how it goes down.  If someone is fired eventually everyone working there knows why.

[Djunknown]

Q]In this case, the true customer is the one that let's you earn revenue. Without circulation, advertisements in a magazine mean nothing.

I'm sure that not all circulations get their bulk of revenue from subscription. In some cases, that just covers the cost of printing and distributing your magazine. Advertising is what gives the payouts. Otherwise, why run ads in the first place? I'll look into it some more with some concrete examples. and get back to you...

Quote
Every time I don't visit GameSpot that I might have three or four years ago is really lost money for them.

But if 4-5 users took your place and visited GS as frequently as your did, it becomes moot. A better example would be if Kairon took my place in visiting GS 5 days a week from the hours of 9-10 PM, then my 'embargo' would be as moot. So why 'embargo' in the first place if it doesn't make a definitive impact? Out of principle and so I can rest easy at night...

I saw the gamespot tribute via Kotaku. Ryan Mcdonald  at the begginning is clearly choked up, you'd think someone died. Alex Navarro is holding back some tears. Having watched these people in previous videos, they're bad actors. In other words, that was from the heart. The staff is begging and pleading with the people at large, that at least the staff didn't want him gone.

Nice retrospective. If nothing else, Gerstmann can do some Nerdcore...

To me there's too many coincidences(Tim Tracy coincidently leaves GS soon after), too many cases of bad timing, delayed damage control, to just take it at all at face value. Had GS had their way, Gerstmann would have been 'let go' with barely a whisper. Their delayed damaged control is a clear sign they didn't expect such a backlash.

They will always have that shroud over them until both sides come clean. I won't hold my breath, since this isn't the first time we the public haven't gotten the whole story (or never will...)

[that Baby guy]

My approach is that if a magazine barely is circulated, the adds lose value, and eventually become nearly worthless, so long as circulation remains diminished.  To that affect, because we, consumers, control circulation, we control ad revenue as well, at least, in the long run.  So no, the revenue isn't from subscription or sales directly, but the add money is directly proportional to circulation.  In this sense, if the consumer becomes dissatisfied with the magazine, advertisements, and all within, and refuse to buy said magazine as a whole, they are in control over the value of adds and over control of revenue.

As for your second statement, if someone stops visiting GS daily, it's still lost opportunity, which, in an ad-related business, is a loss of money that could have been.  While my embargo makes no significant impact, if I embargo, my roommate embargoes, my friends embargo, and my internet friends embargo, that's an insignificant impact x about 20.  Now, imagine if all of their people embargo.  It increases exponentially, doesn't it?  While this is my ideal thought, obviously, it isn't happening, but it seems more and more, more people are saying that they don't visit GS because they're not a decent service.  And as stated before, each piece of opportunity is lost, plain and simple, when this happens.
Not only that, but that opportunity can shift elsewhere, and that elsewhere can sometimes become bigger than the original place, and leech away the new 4-5 pieces of opportunity from the old place that originally took my place.