|
|
Worships the porcelain goddess
(11-30-2007,
06:30 PM)
|
#2101
Originally Posted by Peru:
Right, so you go on, do your own thing and keep on truckin' because you love it. But you come to an understanding that just because you have the freedom to say it, doesn't mean people will hire you or care for how you say it. Anyways, straying off topic. |
|
BenjaminBirdie's Thomas Jefferson
(11-30-2007,
06:31 PM)
|
#2102
Originally Posted by Richardfun:
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:31 PM)
|
#2103
Originally Posted by taconinja:
Eidos didn't. Gamespot and CNET did. Eidos pushing an advertising client to fire a reviewer is a pretty big accusation, and nobody has any proof of that yet. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:33 PM)
|
#2104
Originally Posted by Talka:
In time good chap, in time. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:35 PM)
|
#2105
This thread is fucking long.
All I want to say is 1) I consider video game art, at least some of them are, so fuck you Rogert Ebert. 2) I hold video game journalism as high a standard as other fine art/music/movie reviews. It's one thing a car magazine or a camera magazine run 10 page ad and then give the car/camera of the year to said advertiser, its entirely different thing a video game magazine suck dick of the major game publisher. And if you think video game mag are just product reviews, fuck you. 3) Maybe in another country, but I hold higher standard for the United States. I immigrated from another country when I was in high school. The States is now my country and I will do what I can (ban/unsubscribe/etc) to discourage said sleazy behavior. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:36 PM)
|
#2106
Originally Posted by jacobs34:
Or maybe some genius at Eidos realized it doesn't make any sense to advertise shitty games on a website that reviews games. Especially since, as K&L showed them, bad games get bad scores which means bad coverage at these sites. So somebody put 1 and 1 together realized that the advertising money should be put elsewhere. Who knows? The only people who we know to have done something objectionable so far is Gamespot and CNET. They have a responsibility to their readers and subscribers. Eidos doesn't have a responsibility to throw money at Gamespot. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:36 PM)
|
#2107
Originally Posted by i_am_not_jon_ames:
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:37 PM)
|
#2108
Originally Posted by tino:
Good man. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:38 PM)
|
#2109
Originally Posted by PepsimanVsJoe:
I mean, I don't read Gamespot do I dunno how it has been running since he took over. But isn't it possible that he has been less-than-fantastic at his job? |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:38 PM)
|
#2110
Originally Posted by Talka:
If that is to be held true, then we should expect official statements from them very soon. If no party is willing to comment, then that makes them all equally liable. |
|
This sh!t needs to stop?
(11-30-2007,
06:40 PM)
|
#2111
Originally Posted by DenogginizerOS:
he most likely will start his own site or join another down the road. Just not now. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:42 PM)
|
#2112
Originally Posted by CrushDance:
Yeah, it's all tied with severance pay and being a long-time employee. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:42 PM)
|
#2113
Originally Posted by MiamiWesker:
Agreed, was probably about a point too high. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:43 PM)
|
#2114
Originally Posted by X26:
Unfortunately, in the United States they do not enjoy the kind of employee protection laws that we have over here in the UK. So I seriously doubt he has any legal recourse, they can probably fire him for any reason they like without giving any notice whatsoever. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:44 PM)
|
#2115
What so insidious about all this is how far does it go? I know I used C*ET when researching my HDTV purchases. And I've referred lots of people to the site as well. So are all those TV reviews I read bought and paid for?
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:47 PM)
|
#2116
Originally Posted by DenogginizerOS:
I agree that it seems very strange for Eidos to make a move like this, because people running that company can't be complete morons, even though they release crappy games. That is why I am not unequivocally saying they are evil incarnate together with CNet, and Jeff is a poor martyr, deserving our unmitigated compassion and concern. I am just saying, that where there is smoke, there is usually fire. And yeah, perhaps we won't get the whole story ever, no matter how long we wait, but if you have alot of coincidences joined together, the statistical likelihood of them all being mere coincidences becomes smaller and smaller. |
|
Douchebag. Yes, me.
(11-30-2007,
06:47 PM)
|
#2117
Originally Posted by squicken:
It does raise the question, doesn't it? |
|
Banned
(11-30-2007,
06:48 PM)
|
#2118
so **** and ***** is banned now?
![]() |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:48 PM)
|
#2119
A good read from former Gamespot employee Rich Gallop (on his gamespot blog) on the situation:
http://www.bannedsiteyoucanguess.com/users/Richie-G/ Jeff Gamespot indeed. |
|
------ ------
(11-30-2007,
06:49 PM)
|
#2120
Originally Posted by squicken:
And honestly I bet the answer is "yes" a lot more than we think. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:50 PM)
|
#2121
Originally Posted by No6:
Yup, and it makes my brain cry. Editor crushes Eidos game in video review, kowtow to Eidos, fire said editor, get killed by your audience. Accept an "Axe Body Spray" or WWE PPV skin for your home page, make the same amount of money, don't fire anyone, still get killed by fanboys for McGriddling. I'd always take the second choice, and I don't see why CNet didn't and most other sites don't follow suit. |
|
(11-30-2007,
06:50 PM)
|
#2122
Oh and if this was just a matter of incompetence the timing doesn't really make any sense. Low review of a heavily advertised game + video review pulled + advertising pulled from site + reviewer/EIC getting fired = ????
Granted there are no facts to back this up in either direction but the timing is ill at best. People have every right to be suspicious given this current situation.
Originally Posted by Kbsmoker:
Completely forgot that one. My mistake. Last edited by PepsimanVsJoe : 11-30-2007 at 06:56 PM. |
|
aka Kbsmoker
(11-30-2007,
06:54 PM)
|
#2123
Originally Posted by PepsimanVsJoe:
fixed |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:56 PM)
|
#2124
This was posted on 1up forums by Sam Kennedy. I thought this was very informative on the situation:
Quote:
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:56 PM)
|
#2125
1up Sam Kennedy:
http://boards.1up.com/zd/board/messa...sage.id=488045 Jeff's been overseeing GameSpot's reviews for over a decade, and publisher complaints (of which there have been many -- I would know, I worked there years ago) never affected policy. October 27th, the guy who launched such fine publications as Stuff and Maxim takes over GameSpot. You figure it out. EDIT: Beaten. |
|
Banned
(11-30-2007,
06:57 PM)
|
#2126
Facts are irrelevant. If Cnet and Eidos would like to sell their product, it is their responsibility to make sure the consumer trusts them. As a consumer, I should not have to deal with the element of doubt. It doesn't matter what the truth is. You live and die by perception.
|
|
(11-30-2007,
06:58 PM)
|
#2127
Whether or not Eidos asked for him to be fired, it was still 100% C*NTS decision. I could ask for any random media editor to be fired tomorrow on the threat of withdrawing my readership, but it wouldn't mean I was to blame if they actually went ahead and did it.
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:59 PM)
|
#2128
If there is a non-disclosure agreement, it binds both parties. For those expecting an official statement from Gamespot it would break the NDA and Gerstmann could freely tell his side without repercussions. Of course for Eidos, speaking would be PR suicide since no one is likely to believe them anyways.
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
06:59 PM)
|
#2129
Quote:
This link doesn't work. Would you be willing to summarize what Gallop said in his blog? EDIT: I'm such an idiot. Just read the URL! ![]() |
|
(11-30-2007,
07:00 PM)
|
#2130
Originally Posted by taconinja:
At this rate it looks like we'll never know. Though is it possible for a third-party to blow the whistle?(provided they have sufficient facts to back this up) |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:01 PM)
|
#2131
Originally Posted by Whoompthereitis:
Of course the site doesn't work... it says "banned site you can guess" in the address. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:01 PM)
|
#2132
Originally Posted by Whoompthereitis:
I'm honestly not sure I'd do it justice, plus he has some pics as well. http://www.gamespotX.com/users/Richie-G/ and remove the X Hope that helps. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:02 PM)
|
#2133
Originally Posted by Whoompthereitis:
Replace "bannedsiteyoucanguess" with the obvious answer to fix the link. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:02 PM)
|
#2134
Originally Posted by Whoompthereitis:
Jeff GameSpot Once upon a time, I heard Jeff Gerstmann introduce himself as "Jeff GameSpot." A simple slip of the tongue that occurred off-camera, yet will forever be preserved in my mind as a symbol of the man's love and dedication to this web site, his co-workers, and the trusting audience we shared. We will probably never learn all of the facts that led to the "why" of his departure, but the timing of the "how" is egregious enough to warrant such an amazing uproar. Right after the big review push is over, just before the warm and fuzzy holiday break, and with no chance for a friendly send-off episode or two. It all feels mean, and sad. Part of me wishes I was still there, but I'm positive there are plenty of my friends saying the things I would like to be saying in those inevitable managerial explanation sessions. Jeff will be fine, yet I sympathize greatly with those left with the difficult choice of "kicking" (following one's moral compass out the door) or "sticking" (paying that San Francisco rent in a tough economy). That said, I can speak from personal experience that there is no better time for a gaming fan to be unemployed, and if anybody wants to join me for some therapeutic Call of Duty, I'll see you online. -Rich |
|
Console Market Analyst
(11-30-2007,
07:02 PM)
|
#2135
Originally Posted by Whoompthereitis:
Originally Posted by Rich:
Here. |
|
Junior Tag of Excellence
(11-30-2007,
07:03 PM)
|
#2136
I hope other unnamed media outlets have progressed far enough in their talks with Jeff.
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:03 PM)
|
#2137
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:04 PM)
|
#2138
Originally Posted by Danj:
You can't fire someone here in the US without reason. If job performance is the issue, an employer must build a case to terminate an employee. If indeed Jeff was let go because of this, CNET had to been able to prove declining performance and an inability to demonstrate improved performance (usually handled by forcing an employee to achieve certain milestones or metrics during a probationary period as defined by management). Basically, he had to have a history, however recent, of problems with management for them to have fired him. Probably those previous discussions regarding his "tone" built a case over time his reviews did not meet the editorial standards of the organization. The **** & ***** review was probably the last bit management needed to fire him without fear of legal repercussions. And the reason you haven't heard his story is probably due to some severance agreement he received, which means CNET's case against him wasn't 100% bulletproof. People question the time between the **** & ***** review was posted and his firing, but it takes time to build and prove a case for termination, and negotiations for a severance (read: settlement to protect CNET from future legal action against them). |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:05 PM)
|
#2139
Originally Posted by SpotAnime:
If you live in an at-will to work state, like California, you sure as hell can. They can fire you for any reason, and you can leave for any reason. Last edited by StopMakingSense : 11-30-2007 at 07:08 PM. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:06 PM)
|
#2140
Originally Posted by Graphics Horse:
I can't add anything that hasn;t already been said, but I did want to say that that's the best and most appropriate bastardisation of that site/media conglomerate's name I've seen so far! If i ever need to refer to C*NT I'll be using it. The C*NTS. |
|
This sh!t needs to stop?
(11-30-2007,
07:08 PM)
|
#2141
Quote:
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:09 PM)
|
#2142
Originally Posted by CrushDance:
Its a good thing marketing management keeps their designers so well informed about things that aren't any of their business. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:11 PM)
|
#2143
Originally Posted by StopMakingSense:
When senior managers get canned where I work, the bosses always make sure the guys writing the copy ads know first, and if at all possible, ahead of time. ![]() |
|
(11-30-2007,
07:12 PM)
|
#2144
Originally Posted by StopMakingSense:
Yeah that definitely doesn't look right. I'd like to hear more about these "unprofessional reviews and review practices" though. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:13 PM)
|
#2145
Originally Posted by cilonen:
![]() |
|
------ ------
(11-30-2007,
07:15 PM)
|
#2146
Originally Posted by StopMakingSense:
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:16 PM)
|
#2147
Originally Posted by Talka:
|
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:17 PM)
|
#2148
Originally Posted by Justin Bailey:
I'm referring to the 'I worked on the ads' guy. |
|
Member
(11-30-2007,
07:17 PM)
|
#2149
Originally Posted by StopMakingSense:
But CA also recognizes Public Policy, Implied-Contract and Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing exceptions, so it's even more difficult to fire without reason in the state of California. In the state I work, we don't recognize these exceptions and it's still a bitch to get someone fired. |
|
This is what Objectivism
does to people (11-30-2007,
07:17 PM)
|
#2150
Originally Posted by Danj:
yup its called at will employment. you can leave or be asked to leave at any time. |