I don't get what all the hub-bub is about. I always thoughtGerstmann was sort of a smug tool that intentionally low-balled some of his reviews just so he could be the dissenting opinion that was somehow smarter than everyone. Everyonejust assumes that he got fired just for panning Kane and Lynch.m240guy
The "hubbub" as you call it, is not actually about Jeff getting fired. Not specifically. It is for the reasons behind the firing, and what that means to us as paying customers, and the industry as a whole insofar as the ability of Gamespot to provide what it has always stood by - honest, un-influenced reviews and recommendations.
The problem is this - if events transpired as rumors suggest, then it means that Jeff wrote an honest review of a game, and was sacked for doing so, because the game developers - who had invested a significant amount of money in advertising on the site - threatened to pull this significant advertising revenue as a result of the not-brilliant review.
It means that, for all intents and purposes, although the editorial team at Gamespot are honest and have integrity, the suits at CNet - the company that owns Gamespot - do not. It means they are prepared to put advertiser revenue before honest and reliable content. And prepared to sack those who do not tow the company line, even if they are the most respected part of the public face of Gamespot.
It brings into question the whole nature of sites that are funded by advertising the products they review.
Let me give you an imaginary example. Let's pretend the developer of Big Rigs pays a whole mess of money to advertise on Gamespot, then when their game is reviewed, the reviewer writes "this is the biggest piece of garbage ever produced, don't buy it". Then, obviously unhappy with this, the developer calls CNet and says "if you run this review, the advertising is SO pulled" - a loss of revenue for Gamespot of perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, the suits at CNet, who have no real concept of community, exert pressure on the reviewer, demand that a more favourable review be written. His choice is a) rewrite the review to say "hey, this game has a few issues, but is great and you should buy it" or "screw that, I will not lose my integrity, The game is a piece of crap and I will not recommend it" (in which case he gets fired).
Now, given this example - and assuming that you know about Big Rigs being the worst game ever made on the planet, ever - I would assume that if the reviewer had taken the path of least resistance and falsely rated the game as good, and you bought it, you would be pretty upset, right? You would rather have the honest review that saves you from wasting your hard-earned cash on rubbish. Right?
THAT'S the point. From the rumors around the web, to the comments made by the staff at Gamespot, it seems right now that this is exactly what CNet are doing. Allowing the power of the advertisers - the raw power of the dollar - to influence reviews, and therefore making the money that you ( I assume) pay to subscribe to this service, wasted. And worse, the honorable editorial team at Gamespot - who have strived to do right by us all these years - are now in a position where they are thinking "if a big-name game sucks, and I say so, will I lose my job if I do not lie?" That is not fair.
People are upset because of Jeff leaving, sure. You may not have liked him, but a LOT of people did. But most of the anger you see round here now is because f the political and moral issues this has raised. Should gaming websites accept adverts from game companies? If they do, how can you be sure they are honest and not kow-towing to those advertisers? If they are. what is the point of the review system? What are you paying your money for, a forum? Psssh.
It is the big issue that is setting the media sites afire; this sort of practise is probably widespread through the industry, but this is the first time it has been pointed out in an undeniable way. The execs at CNet have been caught with their hand in the cookie-jar, and are getting the backlash from the people who trusted them. Jeff is just the figurehead; for it took him to lose his livelihood for us to be made aware of the truth.
I hope that makes sense.
Log in to comment