Support NeoGAF

[Onemic]

Of course people are still visiting the site. They are visiting the site to complain on their boards, to read what the remaining editors might say in their blogs, and to see the BS CNET is trying to do to damage control this situation. I never expected them to lose traffic.

However maybe they should do a graph about how many subscriptions were canceled or how many game publishers pulled advertising because of this situation. I suspect those results would be a little different.

I seriously hope you're right. Because from the things I've seen on the GS forums as of late, the discussions on Jeff, CNET, and Eidos are really beginning to slow down.

And yeah I know the amount of TA subscriptions have gone down substantially since the situation started.

 

[Ryun1]

In the light of N-Gai's piece, I think it is interesting to see the gaming blogs take the lead in the actual journalism on the Gerstmann subject--their advertising seems far less dependent on the teat of gaming publishers than the big gaming media conpanies' advertising is. Good for them! Etc.!

 

[mambadragon]

You know what's probably scariest about this is that it's Eidos. Imagine if EA, Activision, or the first parties tried this how fast the CNETs of the world would cave.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

That's just brilliant. Who is this editor btw?

From listening to the podcast it sound like Alex Navaro edited it.

 

[Eggo]

Gamespot comments on Gerstmanngate

Q: Was Jeff fired?

A: Jeff was terminated on November 28, 2007, following an internal review process by the managerial team to which he reported.

Q: Why was Jeff fired?

A: Legally, the exact reasons behind his dismissal cannot be revealed. However, they stemmed from issues unrelated to any publisher or advertiser; it was due purely for internal reasons.

Q: Why was the **** & ***** review text altered?

A: Jeff's supervisors and select members of the edit team felt the review's negativity did not match its "fair" 6.0 rating. The copy was adjusted several days after its publication so that it better meshed with its score, which remained unchanged. The achievements and demerits it received were also left unaltered. Additionally, clarifications were made concerning the game's multiplayer mode and to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game.


**** & ***** The original, unaltered video review.
Watch | Download
Q: Why was the **** & ***** video review taken down?

A: Both the text and video reviews of **** & ***** went up on Tuesday, November 13. The morning of Wednesday, November 14, the video was taken down due to concerns of quality. Specifically, its audio was deemed inferior due to a faulty microphone. There were also concerns about the limited amount of footage that was unrepresentative of the game in the review.

Q: Why wasn't the video immediately reposted?

A: Due to the crush of high-profile games being released the following week, there were insufficient resources to reshoot and re-edit the video review.

Q: Why hasn't the video review been reposted since the "Gerstmanngate" controversy broke?

A: A determination was made by GameSpot Live, GameSpot's multimedia division, that reposting it would seem reactive and might exacerbate an inflamed situation. However, in the spirit of full disclosure, it has since been reposted, and is viewable on the site in its original form (See below). For those who want to be sure that it has not been altered after the fact, the video review is also available on YouTube for comparison purposes.

Q: Was Eidos Interactive upset by the game's review?

A: It has been confirmed that Eidos representatives expressed their displeasure to their appropriate contacts at GameSpot, but not to editorial directly. It was not the first time a publisher has voiced disappointment with a game review, and it won't be the last. However, it is strict GameSpot policy never to let any such feelings result in a review score to be altered or a video review to be pulled.

Q: Did Eidos' disappointment cause Jeff to be terminated?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Did Eidos' disappointment cause the alteration of the review text?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Did Eidos' disappointment lead to the video review being pulled down?

A: Absolutely not.

Q: Why was GameSpot "skinned" with **** & ***** ads when Jeff was terminated?

A: Due to design and development considerations, media buys on GameSpot are made weeks in advance. The timing of said ads was extremely unfortunate but was purely coincidental by virtue that it was determined by the game's release date of November 13, 2007.

Q: Why did the **** & ***** ads disappear from GameSpot right as the "Gerstmanngate" controversy began to heat up?

A: Advertising sales on GameSpot are sold by the day. The end of the game **** & ***** "skin" promotion had been predetermined long beforehand. Internal documentation filed before the review appeared shows that the site skin was scheduled to run from November 17 to 29, 2007. Site-wide ad campaigns automatically change at midnight, hence the "skin" being removed after hours.

Q: Was Jeff's termination somehow tied to the departure of former GameSpot Live managing producer Tim Tracy?

A: No. Tim and Jeff are childhood friends and had been colleagues until Tim transferred over to other CNET Networks Entertainment properties. His exit was completely unrelated.

Q: Why didn't GameSpot write about Jeff's departure sooner?

A: Due to HR procedures and legal considerations, unauthorized CNET Networks and GameSpot employees are forbidden from commenting on the employment status of current and former employees. This practice has been in effect for years, and the CNET public-relations department stuck to that in the days following Jeff's termination. However, the company is now making an exception due to the widespread misinformation that has spread since Jeff's departure.

Q: When will the PC version of **** & ***** be reviewed?

A: We haven't decided when that will happen.

Q: GameSpot's credibility has been called into question as a result of this incident. What is being done to repair and rebuild it?

A: This article is one of the first steps toward restoring users' faith in GameSpot, and an internal review of the incident and controversy is under way. However, at no point in its history has GameSpot ever deviated from its review guidelines, which are publicly listed on the site. Great pains are taken to keep sales and editorial separated to prevent any impression of impropriety.

Faulty microphone sounds like a bunch of BS.

 

[nightowl]

However, in the spirit of full disclosure, it has since been reposted, and is viewable on the site in its original form (See below). For those who want to be sure that it has not been altered after the fact, the video review is also available on YouTube for comparison purposes.

I'm not sure I get this. The tone of the written review didn't match the score, so they edited that to make sure its tone was more in line with a 6. Yet they make a big point about how they have now re-posted the video and that it hasn't been altered in any way?

If the video being unaltered is important for credibility purposes, why isn't the text review being unaltered as important? What's even more ironic is that I believe a lot of the comments that were edited in the text review ("ugly ugly game") are used in the video review, so....weird.

 

[ferricide]

the funny thing is that is EXACTLY what my impression of K&L has been all along and what i wanted to hear from a review (from the perspective of confirming my suspicions) -- the characters are totally unlikable. i found the whole premise for the game distasteful and given my apathy towards the genre didn't even pay much attention to it.

i do find it interesting that this isn't germane, supposedly, to a discussion of the game. wonder why.

n'gai's piece discusses something i'd been aware of for awhile now and found really insidious, so i'm glad to see something of an expose on it. back at gamespy, when we merged with IGN, the new management told us, basically, to stop writing features because features could not be tied to a SKU and any content that can't be tied to a SKU is useless for GamerMetrics. that was so disappointing to me, because at the time (as some of you might remember) gamespy was rocking the features really hard.

 

[AstroLad]

Q: Why was the **** & ***** review text altered?

A: Jeff's supervisors and select members of the edit team felt the review's negativity did not match its "fair" 6.0 rating. The copy was adjusted several days after its publication so that it better meshed with its score, which remained unchanged. The achievements and demerits it received were also left unaltered. Additionally, clarifications were made concerning the game's multiplayer mode and to include differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game.


Money quote right there.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the audio whatsoever, that is an amazing excuse.

 

[SickBoy]

I'll say this about the K&L review. The first paragraph is better in the original text, but I still think it's poorly written as a whole. I'm not a regular or frequent reader of Gamespot, but I hope some people's defense of Gerstmann as a reviewe has more to do with his willingness to offer a bold opinion (8.8, 6.8 or whatever), than his actual writing.

So, while there's definitely pressure from advertising, it's out internal advertising people and not external advertisers. I've also never seen any instance of an advertiser attempting to influence editorial content. That's really quite disgusting.

I did a quick Google search just to find some examples. This is actually a book review ... from 1994... but the first page does talk about a variety of examples of ads being axed. (second page is pointless)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_n3_v26/ai_14882988

Advertisers will try to find influence wherever they can, and yes, it sucks, but I don't think it's particularly unusual... this is where I take issue with the "tone" of N'Gai's article (I'm calling Newsweek to pull my ad!).

If you skip down to the conclusion, his point is that it's much easier for publishers to strongarm members of the enthusiast press because they're dependent on said publishers for ad revenue, exclusives and the like. The enthusiast press has no leverage when something like this happens, whereas pure journalists who work for mainstream publications certainly do.

I had hoped I made it clear in my first post that I understood that. Regardless, it may be easier to strongarm the enthusiast press, but ultimately the enthusiast press has to let it happen.

 

[nightowl]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with the audio whatsoever, that is an amazing excuse.

Well on the Hotspot podcast one of the guys (I don't recall who) fell on the sword on that one, claiming it was totally his decision and that they frequently do it (he was then corrected that it happens, but not frequently by Vinny i believe?).

So it either is BS and they(Editorial this time, not management) are jumping on that grenade together (because none of them questioned the guy saying it was him among them), or it isn't BS and they truly believed it.

 

[Marlowe]

Here's the questions we need answers to - as the holes in the recent "answers" from Gamespot are pretty glaring:

1. When did the internal review that led to Jeff's firing begin? Who was on the review team (only editorial employees)?

2. Is the management team to which Jeff reported made up solely of individuals on the editorial side of Gamepot? Are there members who manage both sales and editorial on the team?

3. How many other Gamespot reviews have had their text altered to "better" reflect their review score? Which reviews?

4. Did anyone express Eidos' "displeasure" with the **** & ***** review to the editorial side of Gamespot? Who? When? To whom? If yes, why was Eidos' displeasure shared with members of the editorial staff?

5. Why is an internal review of the "incident and controversy" necessary if Gamespot management did not act inappropriately? Is the review simply a search for the person(s) who spoke to the press about the incident?

6. Was Jeff's firing in any way prompted by a desire by management of Gamespot or any related or affiliated company to influence/soften the text or tone of reviews to improve relations with current or future advertisers?

(I've submitted these questions to Gamespot, per the request in their news story)

 

[mambadragon]

bad sound :lol :lol :lol

This reminds me of what the Bush administration feeds us, but at least they're somewhat good at it. Gamespot sounds like a group of grade schoolers trying to put together a good excuse.

 

[AstroLad]

Here's the questions we need answers to - as the holes in the recent "answers" from Gamespot are pretty glaring

That's a good list of questions Marlowe. I'm guessing they won't want to answer any that plausible deniability won't defeat. I'd also be curious as to there methodology in editing text to reflect scores, and as absurd as either choice is, why they wouldn't edit the score to reflect the text, which certainly seems to be the far more intuitive approach if you're going to do something as crazy as that in the first place.

 

[Marlowe]

That's a good list of questions Marlowe. I'm guessing they won't want to answer any that plausible deniability won't defeat.

Thanks, Astrolad -- I agree. But a couple more obfuscations from Gamespot and I'm buying whole-heartedly into believing the worst about Jeff's firing. So far, their answers are way too murky and self-serving.

 

[mosaic]

The piece by N'Gai Croal is pretty damn accurate regarding how the gaming press is run at the top levels these days... it's all metrics and averages...

I wouldn't know about the developer side, but I have been told on numerous occasions that bonuses have been doled out based on GameRankings averages... talk about creating a stressful situation for developers and press alike.

As for the newly posted piece in GameSpot News with Tor Thorsen's name attached... it basically sums up what CNet's company line has been. No surprise there. Now, I don't know Tor personally, but it seems strange to me that he'd attach his name to something like that given everything I've heard about him from members of the editorial staff. Then again, perhaps he did speak to management and perhaps he is truly satisfied with their explanation and the site's direction going forward.

*scratches head*

I hate waking up every day so angsty and confused. I can't imagine what it must be like for the people that actually go into the building and sit there for 8+ hours a day.

 

[nightowl]

Here's the questions we need answers to - as the holes in the recent "answers" from Gamespot are pretty glaring:

1. When did the internal review that led to Jeff's firing begin? Who was on the review team (only editorial employees)?

2. Is the management team to which Jeff reported made up solely of individuals on the editorial side of Gamepot? Are there members who manage both sales and editorial on the team?

3. How many other Gamespot reviews have had their text altered to "better" reflect their review score? Which reviews?

4. Did anyone express Eidos' "displeasure" with the **** & ***** review to the editorial side of Gamespot? Who? When? To whom? If yes, why was Eidos' displeasure shared with members of the editorial staff?

5. Why is an internal review of the "incident and controversy" necessary if Gamespot management did not act inappropriately? Is the review simply a search for the person(s) who spoke to the press about the incident?

6. Was Jeff's firing in any way prompted by a desire by management of Gamespot or any related or affiliated company to influence/soften the text or tone of reviews to improve relations with current or future advertisers?

(I've submitted these questions to Gamespot, per the request in their news story)

Marlowe, that's a great set of questions, I hope they respond to you.

I think from what we've heard directly that none of the editorial team were aware Jeff was fired or was going to be fired though, so I think the internal review appears to be made up exclusively of non-editorial people (or at least non-GameSpot editorial, of which Jeff was the Editorial Director). That is of course assuming the claim that such a review was conducted and isn't meant to be misleading to suggest something more formal than what did happen took place.

I'd add an additional question from the valleyswag article, such as :

Is any part of the following statement true, and if so please explain:
"Over the last year there has been an increasing amount of pressure to allow the advertising teams to have more of a say in the editorial process; we've started having to give our sales team heads-ups when a game is getting a low score, for instance, so that they can let the advertisers know that before a review goes up. Other publishers have started giving us notes involving when our reviews can go up; if a game's getting a 9 or above, it can go up early; if not, it'll have to wait until after the game is on the shelves."


Still, great set of questions Marlowe, thanks for sharing.

 

[Vrolokus]

For what it's worth, here's the Q I just mailed in:

Would Gamespot and CNET pledge to move towards only allowing ads for non-videogame products on their sites, thus removing the conflict of interest in accepting money from companies whose products you are tasked with objectively evaluating?

 

[Golden Darkness]

Man, everything looks bad in any case, doesn't it?

Maybe we need to revive the idea of NeoGAFs own section for reviews.

We don't need to worry about relying on specific advertisers, so we can flip the birds towards their PR guys as much as we like.

 

[SickBoy]

Man, everything looks bad in any case, doesn't it?

Maybe we need to revive the idea of NeoGAFs own section for reviews.

We don't need to worry about relying on specific advertisers, so we can flip the birds towards their PR guys as much as we like.

I don't know if it would work, but I wouldn't mind seeing a subforum develop for reviews and game impressions (I know most people hate the idea of splitting the forums). For me these days, most stuff just tends to get lost in the noise here.

 

[Shins]

I like the idea of collecting all GAF user reviews. Perhaps even make the jump to no scores, just main positives/negatives. Things we like and dislike. Etc.

I'm still quite partial to this idea.

 

[mosaic]

As for the newly posted piece in GameSpot News with Tor Thorsen's name attached...

Sorry to quote myself, but I just hit refresh on that page and notice the by line credit has been changed from Tor Thorsen to Staff. Maybe I'm reading too much into that... but... yikes.

 

[Spire]

Sorry to quote myself, but I just hit refresh on that page and notice the by line credit has been changed from Tor Thorsen to Staff. Maybe I'm reading too much into that... but... yikes.

hooo boy. I can't even imagine the turmoil going on over there right now.

 

[MechaX]

As for the newly posted piece in GameSpot News with Tor Thorsen's name attached... it basically sums up what CNet's company line has been. No surprise there. Now, I don't know Tor personally, but it seems strange to me that he'd attach his name to something like that given everything I've heard about him from members of the editorial staff. Then again, perhaps he did speak to management and perhaps he is truly satisfied with their explanation and the site's direction going forward.

Funny you should mention that, because Thorsen removed his name from the article only a few minutes after that post (He replaced it with the expected "Staff" authorship).

Although, I am pretty confused on why so many GameSpot goers are pretty much convinced that this entire incident is a big misunderstanding only because Thorsen said that the video review was taken down due to a faulty microphone and that Gerstmanngate has nothing to do with the review.

Forget the questioning that it took them two weeks to tell people that the audio was faulty, let alone they decide to conveniently replace the audio at the time of Gerstmanngate's advent.

And also forget the strange fact that they're having a tribute to a writer that Thorsen admitted was fired.

 

[nightowl]

FYI - The Brodeo (GFW Radio Podcast) just hit Itunes.

From the content tag: "In the wake of Gerstmanngate, GFW Radio ponders, once again, the complicated relationship between game publishers and the media, and decides, in sum, that it all smells like dooky."

 

[Salazar]

great article by N'Gai.
I really don't understand why game sites don't try and get more advertisers from markets targeting game site typical demographics.
More Movie/Dvd adds, Hardware for home entertainment ect ect.
There has to be companies out there that want to advertise to the 20 to mid 30's mostly male with disposable cash demographic.

Checking game news now - buying a microwave in a few hours. The race is on, appliance manufacturers.

 

[Dyno]

I don't know if it would work, but I wouldn't mind seeing a subforum develop for reviews and game impressions (I know most people hate the idea of splitting the forums). For me these days, most stuff just tends to get lost in the noise here.

I think a review-only sub-forum would be great! Make it clear that full reviews have to be written too; no one-liner opinions, gripes, or fanboyisms.

 

[Vrolokus]

Great, then we'll get even more virals.

And everyone who gives automatic 10s to their franchise darling and 5s to popular games because they're popular gets to be counted too.

So how would this meaningfully different from normal game discussion on the boards?

 

[Golden Darkness]

And everyone who gives automatic 10s to their franchise darling and 5s to popular games because they're popular gets to be counted too.

So how would this meaningfully different from normal game discussion on the boards?

We should give more weight to those who have been here long enough and knows not to BS anything.

IE, those who are more or less regular posters.

Problem is, publishers aren't seeing us being disgusted when they give us the middle finger with every tastless action they do.

 

[SickBoy]

Great, then we'll get even more virals.

Meh, I'd rather sort through the virals to find reviews from recognizable posters than sort through a 700-page megathread in an effort to get a sense of a game.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

I know it's easy to play the conspiracy theorist, but did anyone else think this weeks 'The Hotspot' was nothing more than a thinly veiled PR apology?

 

[twinturbo2]

Can someone update this Wikipedia page to include Gerstmanngate?

 

[nightowl]

Q: Why was the **** & ***** review text altered?

A: Jeff's supervisors and select members of the edit team felt the review's negativity did not match its "fair" 6.0 rating. The copy was adjusted several days after its publication so that it better meshed with its score, which remained unchanged.

Not sure why this didn't occur to me sooner, but how do they know that the score didn't need to be lowered to match the review, rather than the review to match the score?

Marlowe, there's another question for the list!

 

[Sloane]

Not sure why this didn't occur to me sooner, but how do they know that the score didn't need to be lowered to match the review, rather than the review to match the score?

Exactly. It would make much more sense adjusting the score, not the text.

 

[Felix Lighter]

And everyone who gives automatic 10s to their franchise darling and 5s to popular games because they're popular gets to be counted too.

So how would this meaningfully different from normal game discussion on the boards?

Yeah, relying completely on user reviews seems like an obvious solution to this particular issue but it adds different problems. Instead of the sales department influencing the reviews it will be irrational fanboyism. There's also this "10 or 1" phenomenon with user reviews; some users either give a game a 10 or they give a game a 1, nothing in between. And then there's the issue with people who get overly excited about a game, pay $60 and convince themselves it's good.

I like to play demos when available and read user impressions along with professional reviews when trying to decide on what to buy. I've been reading reviews long enough to know how to extract the information that is important to me. I'm sure all of us have our own system for deciding what to buy and at what price. I still find professional game reviews to be a useful tool, especially when I am familiar with the reviewer and how he or she scores.

 

[nightowl]

We should give more weight to those who have been here long enough and knows not to BS anything.

IE, those who are more or less regular posters.

Problem is, publishers aren't seeing us being disgusted when they give us the middle finger with every tastless action they do.

I've seen some "regular posters" supporting some pretty outlandish sh*t though (re: Eidos 5star use being "not that big a deal" or an "innocent design decision").

Best to listen to everyone and try your best to weed out the BS as you go.

TGF N'Gai and the Brodeo.

 

[ant1532]

Everyone on the Hotspot dealt with the situation fucking incredibly and gave all the answers they can and did a great job. Best podcast listen in a while.

 

[sugaki]

For what it's worth, here's the Q I just mailed in:

Would Gamespot and CNET pledge to move towards only allowing ads for non-videogame products on their sites, thus removing the conflict of interest in accepting money from companies whose products you are tasked with objectively evaluating?

That idea has 0% chance of success. It's not as though pubs reject advertising dollars from consumer companies. Heck they'd love it Montain Dew were to come up with an RFP worth hundreds of thousands. Not to mention, that means millions in loses from revenue from game companies.

 

[Shalashaska]

I know it's easy to play the conspiracy theorist, but did anyone else think this weeks 'The Hotspot' was nothing more than a thinly veiled PR apology?

I don't think so, at least not from the guys that are normally on the show. I listen every week and they seemed to be truthful.

 

[Dirtbag]

I don't think so, at least not from the guys that are normally on the show. I listen every week and they seemed to be truthful.

Yeah, I agree.
And its not like they said anything one way or the other. They basically came out an said they didnt know everything, were unsure of what happened, and couldnt say anything if they did.

 

[GilloD]

Having played the game, I can't help but feel like Jeff didn't even play it. The video review was sparse, unprofessional and repetitive, even in it's short run time. K&L is not, I don't think, a 6.0 game. It's certainly not a bright spot in a season of heavy contenders, but it's got some really great moments. I just never felt like he made a case. Frankly, if the guy was on the fence already, I would've fired him for this, too. Lazy,lazy work.

 

[Marlowe]

Having played the game, I can't help but feel like Jeff didn't even play it. The video review was sparse, unprofessional and repetitive, even in it's short run time. K&L is not, I don't think, a 6.0 game. It's certainly not a bright spot in a season of heavy contenders, but it's got some really great moments. I just never felt like he made a case. Frankly, if the guy was on the fence already, I would've fired him for this, too. Lazy,lazy work.

To each his own, GilloD -- but having played the game myself, I fear that you were licking the back of your avatar when playing it.

 

[GilloD]

To each his own, GilloD -- but having played the game myself, I fear that you were licking the back of your avatar when playing it.

I wish

The game is over way too soon, it's far too loosely knit and it's characters are- as Jeff points out- incredibly unlikable. That said, the gameplay was better than Mass Effect, at least, and there were some genuinely great, amazing action moments. On a real world scale of 1-10, the game is a 6. In the inflated world of game scores, it's a solid 8 on what's there, a 7.5 just because there's not enough of it and certainly not enough "surrounding" it to make it a must play.

 

[castle007]

for gaffers who regulary visit gamespot, have you noticed any decrease in activity in their forums and do you know anyone that has stopped posting there??

 

[Gazunta]

Do you mean by this that the focus of game reviewing and journalism should move to mainstream outlets, like Newsweek? Until now, mainstream coverage of gaming has been pretty shallow (with a few exceptions), but could this change so that the most respected reviews appear in the mainstream press/sites, as is the case in the movie industry?

Not necessarily (though I'm all for more coverage in mainstream media - my first year or so of being a game reviewer was spent doing just that) - what I mean is that game publications (online and print) should move away from taking advertising money (and associated freebies) from the companies they are supposedly looking at objectively. At the very least, full disclosure practices should be implemented.

There's plenty of advertising solutions out there. A million websites and magazines find advertisers and press support without having to broker deals with game publishers.

 

[Speevy]

The one great thing about this controversy is that it has nothing to do with brand loyalty.

 

[Roc Gaude]

for gaffers who regulary visit gamespot, have you noticed any decrease in activity in their forums and do you know anyone that has stopped posting there??

I don't think so. Check it out:

 

[LizardKing]

well yeah, but i'd like to see the numbers in a month. i've been to gamespot more times in the last week than i have been in the last year. but once this is no longer news i see it dropping off.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

I don't think so. Check it out:

Holy crap @ the spread and the additional people logging on to THAT site, ostensiably to find out about the controversity.

 

[Gary Whitta]

Q: Why was the **** & ***** review text altered?

A: Jeff's supervisors and select members of the edit team felt the review's negativity did not match its "fair" 6.0 rating.

What interests me about this is that these "supervisors" decided the way to correct the discrepancy would be to make numerous changes to the text of the review to better match the score, rather than simply bringing down the score to better match the review.