all CNET sites I think who gave the order to fire gerstmann apparentlyK7 Avenger said:I'm a noob here pretty much, why is Gamespot a banned site to link to? I know Destructoid is another one.
all CNET sites I think who gave the order to fire gerstmann apparentlyK7 Avenger said:I'm a noob here pretty much, why is Gamespot a banned site to link to? I know Destructoid is another one.
minus_273 said:yup its called at will employment. you can leave or be asked to leave at any time.
K7 Avenger said:I'm a noob here pretty much, why is Gamespot a banned site to link to? I know Destructoid is another one.
chespace said:This whole incident has damaged our industry and put everybody's integrity into question... and that's a real bummer.
nightowl said:This is probably ignorant of me but...
Richardfun said:I'm from the Netherlands and to me, that sounds f**king ridiculous.
cilonen said:Noob as in the last five seconds? The thread you're currently posting in, and the one right next to it in the sticky section is the very genesis of what you're asking!
Or is this some clever recursive posting trick, or a rift in the gaf-time continuum...
*cue twilight zone music*
This whole incident has damaged our industry and put everybody's integrity into question... and that's a real bummer.
Petrae said:QFT.
There's no way that any reviewer at any high-profile site can prove his or her integrity now. How do you prove that you weren't coerced into inflating scores or changing a few words? You can't. As news of this incident spreads like wildfire, the reputations of reviewers everywhere goes up in smoke along with it.
It's been a good run, but sites like GS, IGN, 1up, and others have suddenly lost a ton of credibility.
FartOfWar said:8-10 scale, bitches. Enthusiasts ask for it more than the publishers.
Those are warnings put in for legal purposes, consumer protection is a completely different thing.Cyan said:Are you kidding? Why do you think everything in the US has so many warning labels? Where do you think those stupid start-up "Press A" screens on Nintendo games came from?
K7 Avenger said:I've been here for a few months but not really. I post heavily at systemwars.com, used to post at ************* a whole lot and sometimes at Penny Arcade forums.
I lurk here more, hi though
Cyan said:Are you kidding? Why do you think everything in the US has so many warning labels? Where do you think those stupid start-up "Press A" screens on Nintendo games came from?
nightowl said:This is probably ignorant of me but...
Oh ok, yeah I can see why that one single aspect of your policies means that the US has very little consumer protection. Thanks for clearing that up.Danj said:No, I was referring to the fact that you don't have a legal right to minimum 1 year warranty on new purchases in the US, whereas we here in the UK do.
Amazing timing TekunoRobby, CNet just released a statement according to the stick that is joyful.TekunoRobby said:I think 3 hours is enough time to warrant a response from either Eidos or CNET if any of this were erroneous.
Richardfun said:I'm from the Netherlands and to me, that sounds f**king ridiculous.
nightowl said:Amazing timing TekunoRobby, CNet just released a statement according to the stick that is joyful.
echoshifting said:That seems like a good interpretation to me. Well done.
The only thing I might add to it, that I'm sure has been tossed around in this gigantic thread I'm never going to read all of if I want to get anything done this weekend, is speculation that Cnet perceived our crowd would rejoice at this news. I think it would be fairly easy to foster a belief that gamers, in general, dislike Jeff Gerstmann and have been eager for some time to see him canned, especially if such a belief fell in line with one's own views about Gerstmann.
I think that's the first I've heard about changing the wording of the review. More at the link (background info on Gerstmann and a mention of Tracy's departure).GamesIndustry.biz has learned that GameSpot's US reviews editor has left CNET Networks following an incident involving the site's recent **** & ***** review.
A source close to the editorial team has revealed that the row focused on the tone of the content of the original review, which was apparently subsequently altered.
The game scored 6 out of 10, and although it's unclear how the text of the review may have changed from its original format, it's not thought that the score was altered.
GameSpot reviews are regularly submitted to the wider editorial team for quality and accuracy reasons, and small changes can be made at this point before the article is published.
Rumours elsewhere cited possible reasons for the editorial changes as being the result of pressure from the **** & ***** publisher Eidos, which had marketed the game on the site.
The source revealed that members of the editorial team were extremely disappointed by the incident.
http://www.HAPPYstiq.com/2007/11/30/gamespot-issues-short-comment-on-gerstmann-firing/ALeperMessiah said:care to post? The happy stick is blocked at work.
edit: happy stick!? Oh well I'm going with it.
Richardfun said:I'm from the Netherlands and to me, that sounds f**king ridiculous.
ALeperMessiah said:care to post? The happy stick is blocked at work.
edit: happy stick!? Oh well I'm going with it.
Richardfun said:I'm from the Netherlands and to me, that sounds f**king ridiculous.
They just did, check the posts above. My previous post has the url too if you need it.PepsimanVsJoe said:Gamespat is saying absolutely nothing. I can't say I'm surprised.
cilonen said:I didn't mean to come off as an ass there, so sorry if I did!
It just struck me as funny that you were asking why G*spot was now banned, in the thread discussing the incident which lead to their banning.
TekunoRobby said:They just did, check the posts above. My previous post has the url too if you need it.
CNET said:current of former
PepsimanVsJoe said:Gamespat is saying absolutely nothing. I can't say I'm surprised.
We have acknowledgment from them about the issue and that's worth more than saying "absolutely nothing." Baby steps.PepsimanVsJoe said:I know.
Although that's probably reading into it too far I can see how you can reach that viewpoint.Opus Angelorum said:So the vague statement from CNet suggests they are not going to assume responsibility.
Oh shit its all coming together.nightowl said:This was posted on 1up forums by Sam Kennedy. I thought this was very informative on the situation:
nightowl said:I've not seen that suggested, but it is an interesting point. I'd think it would be short sighted though personally. Most people I've read at least respected Gerstmann's reviews even if they didn't agree with them. I'm in that camp at least but it has seemed to be the majority.
I wonder how badly the powers that be at CNet wished they had promoted him out of the position (the classy way that bigger business often resolves its problem employees) instead now.
Yes Yes Yes that's something I've been trying to say. I'm honestly aghast that online sites would sell major ad-space that is specifically intended to click-through to a review that hasn't been written yet.Gary Whitta said:One of the (alleged) points that disturbed me about this is that the original Eidos plan for the Gamestop K&L ad-skinning was that the clickthrough was supposed to lead to the Gamestop review page. After the review came out, Eidos changed the link to the official K&L web page.
Think about that - doesn't that suggest an assumption on Eidos's part that the review would have been favorable? Where might they have got that idea from?
Gary Whitta said:Think about that - doesn't that suggest an assumption on Eidos's part that the review would have been favorable? Where might they have got that idea from?
G*spot said:For over ten years we've been providing unbiased reviews from editors we stand by.
Then, yesterday, we stopped. HAHAHA
While it's nice to see CNET taking the accusations seriously, the statement doesn't confirm or deny the facts behind the controversy, or add any significant information to the story. With the rumor still generating significant discussion throughout the online gaming community, such a short, pat statement seems unlikely to stop the gathering storm of attention.
minus_273 said:well everyone signs a contract like that when they start. Thats how companies here can stay competetive. Ive seen what happens in europe (France last year) when they tried to introduce similar laws. I've heard that in france as long as you do the bare minimum you cant be legally fired.
stuff like this would never even fly in corporate america:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3935669.stm
Oops, I keep doing that.mosaic said:Gary -- be careful not to mix up GameSpot with GameStop. Two very different companies. Well, they USED TO BE! *grin*
TekunoRobby said:We have acknowledgment on the issue from them and that's worth more than saying "absolutely nothing." Baby steps.
If you'd like to read into it you can construe that viewpoint.
SpotAnime said:They can't comment on performance issues with former employees, they can only verify dates of employment and titles. Otherwise they could be held liable for preventing future employment of said employee.
This is as much of an official statement as anyone will see on this. Eidos won't issue any official statement because they could be found at fault for wrongful termination in a court of law.
If there was nothing that needed to be addressed why would they issue a public statement? They're acknowledging an issue regardless if they think it has merit or not. By their simple "no comment" message they've clearly established that they're aware of the public murmurings and deemed it necessary for a response. If it were a flat out lie don't you think they'd at least shed some light on that in order to quell negative public image? I think we're getting hung up on the semantics of whether or not acknowledging the issue means openly debating it or simply coming forward with a response to the accusations. My own commentary of acknowledgment is referring to the latter.Petrae said:I don't know if I buy your assertion that they're acknowledging the issue. They don't even confirm Gerstmann's departure.
It reads to me like, "Our reviews aren't biased. Trust us."
That's only part of the issue here. It's a token few words just to appease the gathering angry mob and nothing more.