Support NeoGAF

[hclflow]

I'm curious: Do any of you think it's ethically acceptable to use bullshots to hype up the next big game?

If so, how does intentionally deceiving potential customers about the graphics an end product fundamentally differ in nature from intentionally deceiving potential buyers into thinking a game got a top-notch score when it really didn't?

If not, I sure hope you aren't complaining exclusively about Eidos' marketing tactics.

 

[LordAndrew]

Just to make things clear, we contacted Eidos about the stars above the GameSpy quote and they have been removed.

Which is pretty much an admission that they shouldn't have done it in the first place, isn't it?

 

[Dyno]

Just to make things clear, we contacted Eidos about the stars above the GameSpy quote and they have been removed.

Oh it's clear, but in no way does it exonerate them.

These scam artists don't even have the integrity to stand by their marketting decisions. It's like they put up a blatent lie knowing full well their deception has a time limit on it, but even getting the false message out for a limited duration is worth it.

They think that little of their customers.

 

[Gerald]

Which is pretty much an admission that they shouldn't have done it in the first place, isn't it?

Marketing teams don't have any obligation to present their product in a fair and impartial way. It sucks, but that's our job, not theirs. Sure, we'd rather that the preview coverage quote not have been used in the first place, but opinions aside, it's full compliance with our request, which is all that we can ask of Eidos.

 

[nightowl]

I'm curious: Do any of you think it's ethically acceptable to use bullshots to hype up the next big game?

If so, how does intentionally deceiving potential customers about the graphics an end product fundamentally differ in nature from intentionally deceiving potential buyers into thinking a game got a top-notch score when it really didn't?

If not, I sure hope you aren't complaining about Eidos' marketing tactics.

Are you suggesting that a gussied up screenshot (I assume a bullshot is more than just a screenshot from a super rig?) is the equivilant to attributing a false score to a preview quote?

Personally I think they are both unethical, albeit different levels of unethical behavior. In one case you are deceiving the public about your product. In another you're deceiving them about someone elses product (in this case GameSpy and Game Informer's game reviews) *and* your product.

Perhaps I'm wrong but you've been a stand up journalistic integrity guy in previous posts right? Are you supportive of these marketing choices that Eidos has made? I guess I was suprised to see you weigh in with another shot at the reaction and not the issue?

 

[Dyno]

I'm curious: Do any of you think it's ethically acceptable to use bullshots to hype up the next big game?

A bullshot is more like spin; the product is there, just gussied up some. Turning a decent screen into a beautiful screen isn't entirely above board, it shouldn't happen, but this is a whole other order of magnitude.

If so, how does intentionally deceiving potential customers about the graphics an end product fundamentally differ in nature from intentionally deceiving potential buyers into thinking a game got a top-notch score when it really didn't?

I think it's different. With one you are showing off your product in the best possible light. In the other you are not only are you bold face lying on your end, but you are muzzling the truth and causing people to lose their livelihood.

If not, I sure hope you aren't complaining about Eidos' marketing tactics.

What's to gain by not complaining? How is the industry served by just rolling over?

 

[nightowl]

Marketing teams don't have any obligation to present their product in a fair and impartial way. It sucks, but that's our job, not theirs. Sure, we'd rather that the preview coverage quote not have been used in the first place, but opinions aside, it's full compliance with our request, which is all that we can ask of Eidos.

Since you are in a position to say specifically, isn't attributing your company's reputation as reviewers of product in a way that was obviously false something that goes beyond just doing their job? I'm of course not talking about the quote (why does everyone excusing their behavior just focus on the quote?), its attributing those 5 stars with the quote that is the issue in my opinion.

You obviously agreed on some level or otherwise why bother requesting they remove it. I'm not saying you should have sued them, we have too much of that in our society anyway, but I guess to me it seems bigger than a "oh those crazy marketers, what can we do" type of stance. What they did was deliberate, it was unethical, and at a minimum I think they should have to post a retraction/apology publically admitting to their (and i'll use the following word in the most pro-eidos way possible) "mistake."

 

[Dirtbag]

Eidos PR group should be let go.

 

[Dyno]

Marketing teams don't have any obligation to present their product in a fair and impartial way. It sucks, but that's our job, not theirs. Sure, we'd rather that the preview coverage quote not have been used in the first place, but opinions aside, it's full compliance with our request, which is all that we can ask of Eidos.

As a business-to-business interaction the diplomatic route is of course the way to go. Your company is there to do business again in the future, and not to judge them. The upside to GS reaction is that things probably remained cordial, the downside is that shit like this will most likely happen again.

Being a customer however, one has a whole other set of priorities. Marketing teams DO have an obligation because they reflect on the company and product itself. If in-house Eidos should fire someone over this. If they outsource then this should be the last job they do for them, otherwise they condone this course of action.

 

[hclflow]

Are you suggesting that a gussied up screenshot (I assume a bullshot is more than just a screenshot from a super rig?) is the equivilant to attributing a false score to a preview quote?

Personally I think they are both unethical, albeit different levels of unethical behavior. In one case you are deceiving the public about your product. In another you're deceiving them about someone elses product (in this case GameSpy and Game Informer's game reviews) *and* your product.

Perhaps I'm wrong but you've been a stand up journalistic integrity guy in previous posts right? Are you supportive of these marketing choices that Eidos has made? I guess I was suprised to see you weigh in with another shot at the reaction and not the issue?

Oh, of course it's not black and white, but deception is deception. I just found it humorous that some are in an uproar over Eidos' unethical marketing practices when pretty much every major publisher in the industry participates in unethical behavior in some capacity. I do agree that what amounts to falsifying review scores is a step up in unethical behavior, but really, that's not at the heart of the issue.

All major publishers put out deceptive marketing in one way or another, and you don't see witch hunts left and right about some of the tactics employed and how we should boycott Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, et al. No, the issue here to me IS the reaction. Why excuse some unethical marketing practices but not all of them? I feel this amounts to little more than another reason to damn Eidos to hell and back.

I'm weighing in on the reaction again because I find it misguided. It's not a new issue at all. I'm not saying it shouldn't be talked about, but it's as if those complaining have never seen an intentionally deceptive ad before. This is advertising, folks. Corporations will say and do whatever it takes to get you to buy their products. Some are just more shameless in their tactics. I don't agree with any of it, but that's reality.

Pretty much every major player in the industry is guilty of this practice in one way or another, so I guess I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

 

[nightowl]

Oh, of course it's not black and white, but deception is deception. I just found it humorous that some are in an uproar over Eidos' unethical marketing practices when pretty much every major publisher in the industry participates in unethical behavior in some capacity. I do agree that what amounts to falsifying review scores is a step up in unethical behavior, but really, that's not at the heart of the issue.

All major publishers do this type of deceptive marketing in one way or another, and you don't see witch hunts left and right about some of the tactics employed and how we should boycott Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft, et al. No, the issue here to me IS the reaction. Why excuse some unethical marketing practices but not all of them? I feel this amounts to little more than another reason to damn Eidos to hell and back.

I'm weighing in on the reaction again because I find it misguided. It's not a new issue at all. I'm not saying it shouldn't be talked about, but it's as if those complaining have never seen an intentionally deceptive ad before. This is advertising, folks. Corporations will say and do whatever it takes to get you to buy their products. Some are just more shameless in their tactics. I don't agree with any of it, but that's reality.

Pretty much every major player in the industry is guilty of this practice in one way or another, so I guess I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

Personally if it is wrong, its wrong. Eidos and the advertising crap is just coming in a string of bad timing of bad events that seem to be (mostly loosely in the Gerstmann situation) tied to them.

Are they getting more attention over the dust up? Yes.

Are there other "bad people" in this world? Yes.

Does that mean that since they got caught stealing the cookie jar (as opposed to just reaching in for a bite) they should be let off the hook because normally we might not be looking? Hell no.

You seem to say that it is wrong, but then want to deflect to all of the other stuff.

Some people like to swim against the stream because they distrust streams in general. I get it. I say call it like you see it, whether it is up stream or down.

 

[AstroLad]

Did anyone listen to this week's TWiT? Found it interesting that they weren't going to discuss this because they were "waiting for more information." Which is funny because half the show is often discussion of completely unsubstantiated rumors. I'm guessing it was a bit of a favor to Molly Wood, but tbh I hope that next show when they're supposed to discuss it they don't have her on, as she'll just spout the PR lines again.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Did anyone listen to this week's TWiT? Found it interesting that they weren't going to discuss this because they were "waiting for more information." Which is funny because half the show is often discussion of completely unsubstantiated rumors. I'm guessing it was a bit of a favor to Molly Wood, but tbh I hope that next show when they're supposed to discuss it they don't have her on, as she'll just spout the PR lines again.

Yeah I posted this a few pages back, as you said I think they will bring Molly on to explain the story (and thus we will learn of nothing).

 

[hclflow]

I think it's different. With one you are showing off your product in the best possible light. In the other you are not only are you bold face lying on your end, but you are muzzling the truth and causing people to lose their livelihood.

No, no. With bullshots you are lying about what your end product will look like. You can argue that it's to make it look its best, but you'd be wrong. The game would look as good as it could -- its best -- if you just took a screenshot and released said shot raw to the press. When you do post-processing on said shot, you are in effect making the game look better than it possibly can, thus lying to your potential customers.

You may consider the magnitude of employing this tactic a white lie in comparison to twisting review scores, but a lie is a lie. And I really don't understand the logic behind excusing some liars and not others.

What's to gain by not complaining? How is the industry served by just rolling over?

Sorry, I edited my original post for clarity. The industry most certainly is not served by rolling over. I am all for raising standards across the board, as should be quite evident. I simply tripped over my own words a bit.

 

[AstroLad]

Yeah I posted this a few pages back, as you said I think they will bring Molly on to explain the story (and thus we will learn of nothing).

Ah, okay. Yeah, it's too bad but I'm sure Laporte will just defer to Wood. To be fair, as much as I enjoy TWiT most of the time, their gaming discussion is usually pretty bad. If Laporte is the most knowledgeable games guy on there (which he usually is), you know you're in trouble, so I'll take a wild guess that we'll get a sweet two minutes of plausible deniability and PR talking points and move on to another half hour on the Kindle.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Ah, okay. Yeah, it's too bad but I'm sure Laporte will just defer to Wood. To be fair, as much as I enjoy TWiT most of the time, their gaming discussion is usually pretty bad. If Laporte is the most knowledgeable games guy on there (which he usually is), you know you're in trouble, so I'll take a wild guess that we'll get a sweet two minutes of plausible deniability and move on to another half hour on the Kindle.

Yeah I love the podcast, but generally they rarely tackle any stories unless they are concerning the large companies (Apple, Microsoft).

 

[hclflow]

You seem to say that it is wrong, but then want to deflect to all of the other stuff.

How exactly am I deflecting? I said I don't agree with any deceptive marketing practices. I'm simply adding some perspective to the situation by submitting that all major publishers are dishonest with gamers at some point or another, so why heap on Eidos specifically for it?

 

[AstroLad]

How exactly am I deflecting? I said I don't agree with any deceptive marketing practices. I'm simply adding some perspective to the situation by submitting that all major publishers are dishonest with gamers at some point or another, so why heap on Eidos specifically for it?

Perfect storm, maybe?

This is the case with most of these controversies. If it wasn't widespread at all, there would be much less of a controversy, and the Eidos situation provides a relevant and timely fact pattern so that's what people are discussing.

I don't think anyone would argue against people bringing other egregious specific examples into the discussion, but I mostly just say people saying "this happens all the time" and speaking in generalities. I think it's fair to say that most people are discussing about practices now through the lense of this fiasco, so if there are other specific relevant examples let's have at it. imo though something as broad as bullshots should probably have its own topic (and I'm sure there have been topics).

 

[nightowl]

How exactly am I deflecting? I said I don't agree with any deceptive marketing practices. I'm simply adding some perspective to the situation by submitting that all major publishers are dishonest with gamers at some point or another, so why heap on Eidos specifically for it?

Let's just say that I wish that style of argument was more useful in my life when I got caught doing the things that I knew were wrong. "Everyone else is doing it" has *never* been an effective response in my experience. Granted, personal responsbility is different than corporate responsibility, but a lie is a lie and ethics are ethics. The quotes/stars were intentionally misrepresented. Unless that is suddenly excuseable behavior, responding with "other publishers do unethical things, why heap on them for it" seems shallow to me. That you would seem to find merit in it perplexes me, but maybe I'm just easily perpelxed.

Regardless, I do believe we're all entitled to our opinions and yours isn't necessarily less credible than mine. Just very different apparently. I <3 the internets.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I'm curious: Do any of you think it's ethically acceptable to use bullshots to hype up the next big game?

If so, how does intentionally deceiving potential customers about the graphics an end product fundamentally differ in nature from intentionally deceiving potential buyers into thinking a game got a top-notch score when it really didn't?

If not, I sure hope you aren't complaining exclusively about Eidos' marketing tactics.

This is ALOT of anger about imagined hypocritical statements from no one in particular out of this thread who might not even exist. What does this have to do with Gerstmanngate again? Please keep this focused, as new real info on this is breaking hourly at times.

The whole business with bullshots suck but isn't what's being discussed here.

 

[Dirtbag]

No, no. With bullshots you are lying about what your end product will look like. You can argue that it's to make it look its best, but you'd be wrong. The game would look as good as it could -- its best -- if you just took a screenshot and released said shot raw to the press. When you do post-processing on said shot, you are in effect making the game look better than it possibly can, thus lying to your potential customers.

I'm sorry, but they are not just as bad as each other.
You can ruin your own credibility all you want with a bullshot, but in the end it only reflects on yourself/company.

Its far worse to fake a review, that calls into question someone else's credibility, and dually ruining your own.

They are not equal.
They are both wrong.

 

[Dyno]

Oh, of course it's not black and white, but deception is deception.

We disagree on this point. I consider bullshots to be an embellishment. I consider calling a 6/10 rated game a five star game to be a lie. I also consider a truthful person getting shitcanned over this to be completely unfair.

Pretty much every major player in the industry is guilty of this practice in one way or another, so I guess I don't see what all the hubbub is about.

I think Eidos upped the ante on this one, they upped the ante and they got caught, so here we are. I think it's important for the customer base to make an example of them so that other companies get the message. This goes the same for CNET.

I think that NeoGAF and more particularly their wallets can have an effect on this.

 

[mosaic]

IGN's Hilary Goldstein weighed in with his take:

http://blogs.ign.com/Hil-IGN/2007/11/30/73059/

I have no beef with his even-handed assessment of things. Anyone that's hardcore skeptical is going to take the "it's all rumors" side as opposed to the "the sky is falling" side. I get that.

But, "The rumors on the 'net come from a "anonymous source" who has been called a contractor."

I have to guess he's talking about me, since GameSpot has a whopping grand total of four regular freelancers. Actually, it might be three.

In any case, I just want to point out two things again, for the record.

1) I didn't even post publically until both Penny Arcade and Kotaku had the comic and initial story up. I've not once been in contact with anyone from either site, so I sure as heck wasn't their source.

2) Aside from the posts I've made here and to my Live Journal (which say the same thing), and a couple IM conversations that have simply been comfirming what is already known, I have not once "leaked" information to a press rep or been interviewed by the press towards a story.

Basically, I just feel the need to point out that "the rumors on the 'net" actually come from a BUNCH of anonymous sources.

I'd e-mail the guy to correct him, but I don't know his direct address and I'm not sure the IGN web form actually goes to anyone. Anyway, Hilary, if you're reading this, I hope you realize now I'm not some gamer geek version of Deep Throat.

 

[hclflow]

I'm being asked to provide specific examples that big publishers employ deceptive marketing tactics in a thread born of anonymous conjecture? Particularly in this day of viral marketers (read: professional bullshit artists) and shameless corporations that peddle CG trailers as real gameplay (Jack Tretton interview on G4TV, E3 2006)? You really need to be that spoon-fed?

I'm not even going to bother. It's just too funny. Henceforth, this incident shall be known as Ironygate!

 

[AstroLad]

I'm being asked to provide specific examples that big publishers employ deceptive marketing tactics in a thread born of anonymous conjecture? In this day of viral marketers (read: professional bullshit artists) and shameless corporations that peddle CG trailers as real gameplay (Jack Tretton interview on G4TV, E3 2006)? You really need to be that spoon-fed?

I'm not even going to bother. It's just too funny. Henceforth, this incident shall be known as Ironygate!

Nobody's disputing that it's commonplace. Rather, it's prevalence is further proof that these kinds of practices and situations like this merit discussion, at least among consumer enthusiasts. Everyone wins.

 

[Dirtbag]

I'm being asked to provide specific examples that big publishers employ deceptive marketing tactics in a thread born of anonymous conjecture? Particularly in this day of viral marketers (read: professional bullshit artists) and shameless corporations that peddle CG trailers as real gameplay (Jack Tretton interview on G4TV, E3 2006)? You really need to be that spoon-fed?

I'm not even going to bother. It's just too funny. Henceforth, this incident shall be known as Ironygate!

No you weren't.
Quit derailing.

 

[nightowl]

Nobody's disputing that it's commonplace. Rather, it's prevalence is further proof that these kinds of practices and situations like this merit discussion, at least among consumer enthusiasts. Everyone wins.

I liked "You win." better, it seemed to provide a break that indicated the rest of us would move on and allow him to bemoan poor Eidos and GameSpot's fate alone.

Of course I'm wondering if he is Jonah Falcon (http://www.gamestooge.com/2007/12/01/editorial-rip-journalistic-integrity).Probably not but I'm bored.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

they are implying that the game got 5 stars from the sites. That is pretty wrong and it DOES hurt the credibility of the site.


Some casual will play the game and say " wtf is this garbage i am never trusting gamespy again"

Eidos can get sued for this there must be a law.

 

[AstroLad]

I liked "You win." better, it seemed to provide a break that indicated the rest of us would move on and allow him to bemoan poor Eidos and GameSpot's fate alone.

I know, but sadly I'm a follower of the Michael Scott "win-win-win" philosophy of mediation.

 

[Zenith]

Marketing teams don't have any obligation to present their product in a fair and impartial way. It sucks, but that's our job, not theirs. Sure, we'd rather that the preview coverage quote not have been used in the first place, but opinions aside, it's full compliance with our request, which is all that we can ask of Eidos.

You are part of the problem. No wonder the gaming press have no credibility. You just let marketing walk all over you.

 

[Zzoram]

In Gaming Steve's podcast (finally, he's been releasing like 2 a year), he says that he thinks this is true from all his sources. He also said he asked his wife (who's a big wig in the print magazine advertising business, I forget the names of the companies though) and she says that this kind of thing happens. Also, when Steve sold his company a while back, the new guys said they wanted to fire 10% of the staff for no reason other than to let them know who was in charge. Considering that the new management probably wasn't getting much respect (and for good reason, he came from Maxim/Stuff), this could definitely have been a message.

 

[hclflow]

You are part of the problem. No wonder the gaming press have no credibility. You just let marketing walk all over you.

Hey, we're not here to discuss the possibility that this problem amounts to nothing more than a mere drop in the bucket in the overall picture. We don't want perspective.

Stay focused! :lol

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Hey, we're not here to discuss the possibility that this problem amounts to nothing more than a mere drop in the bucket in the overall picture. We don't want perspective.

Stay focused! :lol

well everything has to start somewhere unless you are being sarcastic you are the reason why game "journalism" will not move forward.

do you pick cotton with rest of the slaves too?

 

[hclflow]

well everything has to start somewhere unless you are being sarcastic you are the reason why game "journalism" will not move forward.

do you pick cotton with rest of the slaves too?

It appears your sarcasm detector is in fact dead. Would you like some fresh batteries?

 

[Kabuki Waq]

It appears your sarcasm detector is in fact dead. Would you like some fresh batteries?

i had a feeling but could not be sure.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Also, Gerstmann-gate discussed on this week's Game Theory:

You thought we were going to skip one of the biggest talking points of the year? Not a chance pal. Gaz and Colin get stuck into the GameSpot Controversy with extreme gusto. We also talk about the Activision Blizzard deal and what that means for the game industry as a whole. Also, Jack Tretton on PlayStation 3's woes, 2007's wobbly status as so-called 'best year ever' and the ignorance of parents. Our guest for the first ten minutes of the show is a retailer, Roger Lloyd, CEO of Play'n'Trade who tells us about life behind the sales till and why used games are keeping the business alive...

www.gametheoryshow.com

 

[mosaic]

Did anyone notice the GameSpot news story was re-posted around midnight, effectively wiping all the negative comments (from mods only, since it didn't look like non-mods could post)?

I'd assume nefarious reasons, but since anyone can now comment on the story, I'm guessing they re-posted so as to allow the entire userbase to weigh in.

Of course, that begs the question: Is their database so outdated that they can't just change a checkbox to adjust who can comment to news posts?

 

[Kintaro]

No, actually...he *is* right. It's basically standard practice and has been for years in other entertainment fields.

Don't remember the TV spots for films that critics blasted yet the spot would proudly quote one or three words from a review which, when taken out of context, doesn't sound like it's part of a complaint?

Thank you. I go to work for a bit and people go nuts on something that's pretty common sense.

If anything, I'd argue that its alleged prevalance further supports the notion that it should be discussed. There have been a lot of fun strands of argument throughout the thread (and trust me, I've been keeping mental notes on the A+ funnest) but "this is commonplace, therefore no discussion of it is warranted" has to be among the most specious so far.

You can talk about it until you're blue in the face. However, their job is to make their product look good, so they pick the quotes that work and run with it. This situation, obviously, is a cluster-fuck. However, outside of this, no one gives a shit or says a shit because it's commonplace and these people are just doing the job they are paid to do.

In this case, they didn't do a very good job. :lol

If you didn't care about this practice BEFORE, you can't act like you care about it now because of this situation because you probably truly don't and you're just feeding the thread.

 

[nightowl]

Also, Gerstmann-gate discussed on this week's Game Theory:
www.gametheoryshow.com

Sounds like it will be very interesting.

Did by chance the side issue of Eidos intentionally misrepresenting GameSpy and Game Informer quotes along with "5-stars" happen to get into the discussion?

http://kotaku.com/gaming/****-&-*****/****--*****-site-fibbing-about-reviews-scores-329529.php(link works as is)

If not, are there any examples from your history as an EIC at PC Gamer that you can recall where something like that was done (again with the "5 stars" score aspect, not just pulling random sound bite quotes)?

Thanks!

 

[mosaic]

Kotaku's latest is an eye-opener, talking about potential mass resignations:

http://tinyurl.com/2wddpx

(Tiny URL is great when a link is full of asterisks, woot!)

Note: I was not their source! I'm not an employee! And I would never use Office Space and Aliens in the same paragraph to make an analogy.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Did anyone notice the GameSpot news story was re-posted around midnight, effectively wiping all the negative comments (from mods only, since it didn't look like non-mods could post)?

It was originally only set so that moderators could comment, but because they themselves were so negative it was pulled.

They then brought it back up, allowing anyone to comment.

And I would never use Office Space and Aliens in the same paragraph to make an analogy.

You would on NeoGaf!

:lol

 

[nightowl]

If you didn't care about this practice BEFORE, you can't act like you care about it now because of this situation because you probably truly don't and you're just feeding the thread.

I'll say, the defenders of that which is Eidos are adamant. Are you big **** Ex fans and you are concerned about the ramifications all of this will have on **** Ex 3? Is that it? There has to be something logical behind this passionate defense of obvious unethical behavior other than "people do it all the time" or "people have done it before and I dont' remember you complaining". Right??? C'mon, admit it....

Maybe I'm just too old to realize that ethics aren't important anymore if they aren't perceived to be shared by the majority, that it isn't a problem if everyone is doing it. And too young to realize that debating in a public forum is futile.

 

[nightowl]

Kotaku's latest is an eye-opener, talking about potential mass resignations:

http://tinyurl.com/2wddpx

(Tiny URL is great when a link is full of asterisks, woot!)

Note: I was not their source! I'm not an employee! And I would never use Office Space and Aliens in the same paragraph to make an analogy.

Godspeed John Glen(s).

 

[Kintaro]

I'll say, the defenders of that which is Eidos are adamant. Are you big **** Ex fans and you are concerned about the ramifications all of this will have on **** Ex 3? Is that it? There has to be something logical behind this passionate defense of obvious unethical behavior other than "people do it all the time" or "people have done it before and I dont' remember you complaining". Right??? C'mon, admit it....

Maybe I'm just too old to realize that ethics aren't important anymore if they aren't perceived to be shared by the majority, that it isn't a problem if everyone is doing it. And too young to realize that debating in a public forum is futile.

Give me a fucking break. What Eidos did was WRONG in this situation. There's no debating that.

However, people getting up in arms about picking out good quotes for ads, sites, whatever is stupid. What the fuck should a company do? Not try to sell their product even though their product sucks? Yeah, right.

I look forward to your online petition to stop this practice through all forms of consumer goods though. I'll sign it for ya?

 

[fistwell_old]

Honestly, never liked the guy. Most of his video reviews (that i've seen), he seems to go out of his way to find things not to like about games, then heavily emphasizes said flaws (complete with facial expressions showing just how disgusted he is by the prospect of having to talk about the game), and grudginly acknowledges some of the positives. Never felt like an even handed account, even for games that were getting nice, cushy scores.

Maybe the suits actually did not like his work either?

 

[jacobs34]

Kotaku's latest is an eye-opener, talking about potential mass resignations:

http://tinyurl.com/2wddpx

(Tiny URL is great when a link is full of asterisks, woot!)

Note: I was not their source! I'm not an employee! And I would never use Office Space and Aliens in the same paragraph to make an analogy.

I really hope we get some more "real" information sometime this week. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mass exodus from gamespot.

 

[nightowl]

However, people getting up in arms about picking out good quotes for ads, sites, whatever is stupid.

Most people here have been dinging them for putting those quotes next to 5 stars, intentionally communicating something that was not true; that the those quotes were associated with 5 star reviews.

The quotes themselves are not the issue. For some reason everyone defending Eidos appears to be stuck on the quotes part of it and either ignoring or glossing over the stars part of it. Or suggesting that we should have known better or used more "common sense".

Ug.

 

[nightowl]

Honestly, never liked the guy. Most of his video reviews (that i've seen), he seems to go out of his way to find things not to like about games, then heavily emphasizes said flaws (complete with facial expressions showing just how disgusted he is by the prospect of having to talk about the game), and grudginly acknowledges some of the positives. Never felt like an even handed account, even for games that were getting nice, cushy scores.

Maybe the suits actually did not like his work either?

I think thats the best question in this. How does a company's management team properly fire an EIC (or in this case an ED) when the general tone or work quality is not what they want?

I think there is a legitimate question to be raised about when is it appropriate course correction and when is it something more nefarious.

In CNet's case here, it appears that even if it is the former, handling it poorly can turn it into the latter in perception, if not reality. Firing him abrubtly, (locked office and all) along with reportedly not communicating well with the remaining editorial team has created what appears to be a bad situation there regardless of the initial reasonings.

If those that work for GameSpot who have spoken up (Hi Mosaic!) and those that are in-house that are considering leaving over this are any indication, the perception in-house may not be much better than what we've seen on the outside. Have you read the GameSpot editor's blogs? They are pretty bleak. http://www.virtualfools.com/games/jeff-gerstmann

 

[Teasel]

and for god sake don't google the subject of the second comic

 

[mcgarrett]

Kotaku's latest is an eye-opener, talking about potential mass resignations:

http://tinyurl.com/2wddpx

I would take that with a massive grain of salt. Whenever a coworker is wronged, it's natural for his or her colleagues to think along those lines -- but they rarely follow through with it. When it comes right down to it, people have bills to pay.