SCHUEY F1 said:This just in..
Mmm. Eidos is going to get most of the flak for this though, as evidenced by their forums.mosaic said:The guy that posted to forumopolis basically confirms how dire this whole thing is. Read what he's saying. Jeff wasn't specifically let go because he gave **** & ***** a negative review and the advertiser complained. He was let go because Eidos was the latest in a line of advertisers that complained to CNet marketing, and CNet felt he wasn't running things right because advertisers were unhappy.
It doesn't matter whether it was one review or ten. The implication is as clear as glass: Don't be too negative in reviewing games published by our advertisers.
How can an editorial staff work under THAT pressure?!
I'm a Nintendo fan as well, and I think TP deserved 9+ score. YET I think that this firing a guy for giving a "low" score for a game that apparently at least partly deserves it, is fucking disaster for the whole review business. And I don't really give a shit if that guy gave TP too low score IMO, it's still a disaster that a guy can't have a personal opinion...SantaC said:and anyone who complains at TP's 8.8 review should think again. That game deserved lower, Jeff was atleast almost money on it...(and i am a nin fan)
Penny Arcade said:It's been a couple weeks discussing reviews and reviewers around here, but somewhere along the way I neglected to mention that their job is essentially impossible. The 7-9 scale they toil under is largely the result of an uneasy peace between the business and editorial wings of the venue. No matter what score they give it, high or low, they're reviled equally by the online chorus. Apparently, even when they do it right they're doing it wrong.
Jeff Gerstmann is no stranger to controversy. In general terms, Gamespot can be relied upon to give high-profile games scores which are slightly lower than their counterparts elsewhere. It's almost as though there is an algorithm in place there to correct the heady rush associated with cracking open an anticipated new title. Gerstmann's 8.8 review of Twilight Princess cemented his reputation as a criminal renegade with no law but his own, even though he gave the game an 8.9 - a nine, essentially - out of ten.
I will tell you the Gerstmann Story as we heard it. Management claimed to have spoken to Jeff about his "tone" before, and no doubt it was this tone that created tensions between their editorial content, the direction of the site, and the carefully crafted relationships that allowed Gamespot to act as an engine of revenue creation. After Gerstmann's savage flogging of **** & *****, a game whose marketing investment on Gamespot alone reached into the hundreds of thousands, Eidos (we are told) pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from the site.
Management has another story, of course: management always has another story. But it's the firm belief internally that Jeff was sacrificed. And it had to be Jeff, at least, we believe, precisely because of his stature and longevity. It made for a dramatic public execution that left the editorial staff in disarray. Would that it were only about the 6.0 - at least then you'd know how to score something if you wanted to keep your Goddamned job. No, this was worse: the more nebulous "tone" would be the guide. I assume it was designed to terrify them.
For Gabriel, this tale proves out his darkest suspicions. People believe things like this anyway, but they don't know it, and the shift from intuitive to objective knowledge is startling. I think it rarely gets to this point. The apparatus is very tight: there are layers of editorial control that can massage the score, even when the text tells a different tale. A more junior reviewer might have seen their **** & ***** review streamlined by this process, divested of its worrisome angles and overall troubling shape. It was Jeff Gerstmann's role high in the site's infrastructure that allowed his raw editorial content to pierce the core of the business.
mosaic said:The guy that posted to forumopolis basically confirms how dire this whole thing is. Read what he's saying. Jeff wasn't specifically let go because he gave **** & ***** a negative review and the advertiser complained. He was let go because Eidos was the latest in a line of advertisers that complained to CNet marketing, and CNet felt he wasn't running things right because advertisers were unhappy.
It doesn't matter whether it was one review or ten. The implication is as clear as glass: Don't be too negative in reviewing games published by our advertisers.
How can an editorial staff work under THAT pressure?!
In the comment you highlighted, I see nothing more than the confirmation of the folly of the practice and Eidos' realization of that. I don't see that it extends into a confirmation of Eidos continuing to try to force payment for points.The Sphinx said:What do you think about the portion I highlighted? Because in my opinion there is no way of interpreting that as anything other than pay-for-points.
mosaic said:The guy that posted to forumopolis basically confirms how dire this whole thing is. Read what he's saying. Jeff wasn't specifically let go because he gave **** & ***** a negative review and the advertiser complained. He was let go because Eidos was the latest in a line of advertisers that complained to CNet marketing, and CNet felt he wasn't running things right because advertisers were unhappy.
It doesn't matter whether it was one review or ten. The implication is as clear as glass: Don't be too negative in reviewing games published by our advertisers.
How can an editorial staff work under THAT pressure?!
memorandum said:What's mindblowing to me is that had Gerstmann had been reviewing a MOVIE, his "tone" would have been whollly appropriate. Ebert has published an entire book of harsher reviews.
Kintaro said:You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.
Kintaro said:Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?
There's a giant difference there.
IF what Penny Arcade is saying is true...
1) Jeff has been warned about his "tone" (whether mocking, ranting, disrespectful, or whatever) before. Was this repeat behavior? His job isn't stand up you know.
2) This time, Eidos felt disrespected or didn't care for the "tone" and pulled FUTURE ad dollars because of it. Was this the first time this happened because of Jeff? We don't know.
3) THIS TIME CNet said fuck it. They have just lost a lot of money because of something they have talked with him about in the past, and he has turned into a liability. What you do you do with liabilities? You cut them loose.
If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.
There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.
memorandum said:What's mindblowing to me is that had Gerstmann had been reviewing a MOVIE, his "tone" would have been whollly appropriate. Ebert has published an entire book of harsher reviews.
memorandum said:Penny Arcade has their post up.
What's mindblowing to me is that had Gerstmann had been reviewing a MOVIE, his "tone" would have been whollly appropriate. Ebert has published an entire book of harsher reviews.
I have worked as a journalist. Yes, this is true. I will not mince words, nor will I tell you that your stance has a snowball's chance in Hell of being true.Kintaro said:Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?
There's a giant difference there.
IF what Penny Arcade is saying is true...
1) Jeff has been warned about his "tone" (whether mocking, ranting, disrespectful, or whatever) before. Was this repeat behavior? His job isn't stand up you know.
2) This time, Eidos felt disrespected or didn't care for the "tone" and pulled FUTURE ad dollars because of it. Was this the first time this happened because of Jeff? We don't know.
3) THIS TIME CNet said fuck it. They have just lost a lot of money because of something they have talked with him about in the past, and he has turned into a liability. What you do you do with liabilities? You cut them loose.
If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.
There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.
Kintaro said:You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.
Then you should definitely bring this up the next time that old chestnut "Games are art!" comes up.Kintaro said:You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.
Prospero said:Yeah--after reading many of the posts here, when I finally watched the video review I expected to see a madman foaming at the mouth. He pointed out what he perceived to be the game's flaws, but he didn't seem mean-spirited to me, or as if he were taking undue pleasure in handing out a low score.
Never mind movie reviews--the average negative book review is more malicious than that.
taconinja said:I have worked as a journalist. Yes, this is true. I will not mince words, nor will I tell you that your stance has a snowball's chance in Hell of being true.
Kintaro said:If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.
Here's the simple version.Kintaro said:I'm honestly not following you here.
taconinja said:Then you should definitely bring this up the next time that old chestnut "Games are art!" comes up.
OK, so when they say it was "understandable" that Eidos was upset, what exactly was understood? They clearly weren't complaining about the lay-out of the pages, the pixel-count of the ads, or the quality of the adspace artwork. They were bitching about CONTENT. Is it so obvious that advertisers have sway over content that it doesn't even need to be stated?kaching said:In the comment you highlighted, I see nothing more than the confirmation of the folly of the practice and Eidos' realization of that. I don't see that it extends into a confirmation of Eidos continuing to try to force payment for points.
Are you serious?Kintaro said:You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.
Holy shit. :lol Fighting for previews and ad dollars means that the line between journalism and commerce should be crossed with impunity?Kintaro said:What I mean is, Ebert, etc are not in the business of keeping up money by previews, interviews, etc. All they do is review the final product. They are not under the influence (ideally) of any party because they are reviewing the product when it comes out. They don't have to fight for exclusives, for ad dollars or whatever. They are not acting as the hype machines for movies as gaming sites/mags are for games.
Kintaro said:Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?
There's a giant difference there.
IF what Penny Arcade is saying is true...
1) Jeff has been warned about his "tone" (whether mocking, ranting, disrespectful, or whatever) before. Was this repeat behavior? His job isn't stand up you know.
2) This time, Eidos felt disrespected or didn't care for the "tone" and pulled FUTURE ad dollars because of it. Was this the first time this happened because of Jeff? We don't know.
3) THIS TIME CNet said fuck it. They have just lost a lot of money because of something they have talked with him about in the past, and he has turned into a liability. What you do you do with liabilities? You cut them loose.
If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.
There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.
When were you were a journalist?bishoptl said:Ridiculous. And that's coming from someone who has sat on both sides of the fence.
VinZuku said:I'm sorry, I don't mean to use you as an example but I always find "corporate speak" funny. Do you watch Jerry Maguire and root for Bob Sugar?
Kintaro said:If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.
There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.
memorandum said:Ebert has published an entire book of harsher reviews.
bishoptl said:Holy shit. :lol Fighting for previews and ad dollars means that the line between journalism and commerce should be crossed with impunity?
I can't tell if you're kidding, but it's funny either way.TekunoRobby said:When were you were a journalist?
I wrote for Jim on Gaming-Age.com for years. Got a whole thread dedicated to the most inane hate mail over reviews over in the forum archive.TekunoRobby said:When were you were a journalist?
Bullshit it is. It's the exact same thing. The "tone" is whatever tools a reviewer finds necessary to communicate his/her opinion on a game. The "tone" is the reviewers subjective qualities and a big part of the difference between quality or poor writing - not that quality or ones personal views on the journalist at hand matters at all. No matter what CNET objected to it is the same degree of wrong. The wall between ownership/sponsorship and the journalism has been torn down and made worthless. The credibility of the entire company is gone.Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?
There's a giant difference there.
You cannot compare what Ebert and others do to what gaming sites do.
Kintaro said:Is it that clear? Is it "don't be too negative" or "don't be too disrespectful"?
There's a giant difference there.
IF what Penny Arcade is saying is true...
1) Jeff has been warned about his "tone" (whether mocking, ranting, disrespectful, or whatever) before. Was this repeat behavior? His job isn't stand up you know.
2) This time, Eidos felt disrespected or didn't care for the "tone" and pulled FUTURE ad dollars because of it. Was this the first time this happened because of Jeff? We don't know.
3) THIS TIME CNet said fuck it. They have just lost a lot of money because of something they have talked with him about in the past, and he has turned into a liability. What you do you do with liabilities? You cut them loose.
If this is the way it went down, I honestly can't blame CNet for it. If he was costing them money, not because of his scores, but because he slighted publishers or disrespected the product, then you let him go. It's business.
There's still more to this. We honestly don't know how much trouble Jeff has gotten into his in time at Gamespot. Obviously, after 11 years there, everything fell into place.
How so?Link said:I can't tell if you're kidding, but it's funny either way.
Ahhh, that's cool. Thanks for the reply. It seems a lot of people get their start in the industry writing for Gaming Age.bishoptl said:I wrote for Jim on Gaming-Age.com for years. Got a whole thread dedicated to the most inane hate mail over reviews over in the forum archive.
Dartastic said:Are you nuts? Game reviewers should get paid to offer truthful, uninfluenced and unbiased reviews of a product. If he was costing them money because he didn't like a game, Gamespot/CNet should have stood behind him because he was doing his JOB.
Kintaro said:Here's PA's take:
It's clear the side he takes (anti-management), but if this was how it went down, it's pretty much like I thought. And to tell the truth, I don't have much of a problem with it. There's still more I need to hear though to firmly make up my mind.
mosaic said:The guy that posted to forumopolis basically confirms how dire this whole thing is. Read what he's saying. Jeff wasn't specifically let go because he gave **** & ***** a negative review and the advertiser complained. He was let go because Eidos was the latest in a line of advertisers that complained to CNet marketing, and CNet felt he wasn't running things right because advertisers were unhappy.
It doesn't matter whether it was one review or ten. The implication is as clear as glass: Don't be too negative in reviewing games published by our advertisers.
How can an editorial staff work under THAT pressure?!
Okay. This is the long version.Kintaro said:I'm honestly not following you here.
Kintaro said:Come on. Business sucks shit, but that's the way shit happens. Are you incapable of seeing what could have happened from all sides?