Gamespot rumored to have fired Jeff Gerstmann over a review?

I am just curious, is it just as bad in other entertainment industries like reviews for music or movies?

I mean, for some reason I see a lot of these shady businesses being done in the game industry for some reason...

lethial wrote:

I am just curious, is it just as bad in other entertainment industries like reviews for music or movies?

I mean, for some reason I see a lot of these shady businesses being done in the game industry for some reason...

I'd guess no, but that's based off of my knowledge of newspaper movie reviewers. Some of them are known for being crotchety, but somehow they manage to stay around for decades. I'm guessing a large part of it is that movie advertisements are just one source of income for newspapers and entertainment magazines.

Meanwhile, someone who claims to be on the inside claims that Jeff had been "skating on thin ice for 'unprofessional reviews and review practices'" and that this whole mess is really a product of bad timing. Honestly, I could buy either story and we will probably never know for sure.

Yeah they don't fire people. They just demote them or transfer them to their Siberian branch office.

Miraba wrote:
lethial wrote:

I am just curious, is it just as bad in other entertainment industries like reviews for music or movies?

I mean, for some reason I see a lot of these shady businesses being done in the game industry for some reason...

I'd guess no, but that's based off of my knowledge of newspaper movie reviewers. Some of them are known for being crotchety, but somehow they manage to stay around for decades. I'm guessing a large part of it is that movie advertisements are just one source of income for newspapers and entertainment magazines.

Additionally, I don't think movie reviews carry the same weight as game reviews. One product is an eight dollar, three hour commitment that, at the very least, will run flawlessly on the movie screen. The other costs $60, sucks up a big chunk of time and may not even be technically competent.

Besides, I think everyone knows someone who avoids critically acclaimed movies.

And *this* is why I fear scores on reviews here.

Imagine the uncomfortable podcast following Rabbit mentioning he bought a game from somewhere other than Liongames.com. Certis is fuming and just getting ready to push the button to eject him.

Miraba wrote:

I'm guessing a large part of it is that movie advertisements are just one source of income for newspapers and entertainment magazines.

I think you're probably dead on there. Game sites rely on game advertising for nearly 100% of their revenue. I don't know how long gamespot could subsist on Mountain Dew and Tag bodyspray ads.

Good points guys. I guess it is tougher then I thought to be a game reviewer

Al wrote:

Meanwhile, someone who claims to be on the inside claims that Jeff had been "skating on thin ice for 'unprofessional reviews and review practices'" and that this whole mess is really a product of bad timing. Honestly, I could buy either story and we will probably never know for sure.

Mind you, someone who works for Eidos, not CNET. And of course, when you're skating on thin ice, you don't tend to get promoted to Managing Editor.

peterb wrote:
nsmike wrote:

3. At least one of his co-workers, as noted above, is leaving. Which means that he probably knows the reason Gerstmann was fired. Which means he probably thinks it's an unlikely or unjust reason as well.

That's a pretty long chain of reasoning. I can think of a bunch of simpler explanations that obey Occam's razor, such as "CNET is cutting costs."

I don't think it's a particularly long chain of reasoning. The dude wrote a blog post on Gamespot about his apparently voluntary departure. Generally, when you're being terminated, your access to any company machine is cut off immediately to prevent you from seeking revenge. The timing of his departure would be a pretty huge coincidence too, if it had nothing to do with Gerstmann. And I don't see CNet cutting costs anywhere else. Game reviewers are not that expensive, either. No offense, guys.

peterb wrote:
nsmike wrote:

4. At-Will employment doesn't mean your employer can just say, "Uh, you're fired, and we're not telling you why." They can lay you off for no apparent reason, but if they don't tell you why you're being terminated, helloooo lawsuit.

In fact, "we can fire you and not tell you why" is precisely what "at-will" means. At-will employment means that the employer can terminate your employment for good reason, for bad reason, or for no reason at all. The employer is under no obligation to tell you anything other than "goodbye." There are specific policy exemptions carved out for things such as various federal anti-discrimination statutes, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the relationship, and it surely doesn't place any burden on the employer to give you a list of grievances leading to your firing.

In my personal experience, "You're fired, and we're not telling you why" is exactly the correct way to let an employee go. It's phrased a little more politely than that, of course, but generally speaking the less information you give the terminated employee, the better.

I'm guessing you've never fired anyone or been fired.

I think the removing of the video review in particular stinks of pressure from Eidos. I don't suppose they "forced" CNet to fire Gerstmann, but angering such a big publisher might have been what made the execs finally lose their patience with him. He can be quite hard in his reviews, and as someone pointed out he's not very "sexy", so yeah, probably not Mr. Popularity around there.
The fact that the review is two weeks old... maybe they thought it was old enough that nobody would make the connection?

One thing I don't understand is why the K&L ads would need to be removed from the site. Is it because Eidos, in angrer, severed the relationship with CNet?

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

One thing I don't understand is why the K&L ads would need to be removed from the site. Is it because Eidos, in angrer, severed the relationship with CNet?

Which would be a reason for execs to want to fire him...

ranalin wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

One thing I don't understand is why the K&L ads would need to be removed from the site. Is it because Eidos, in angrer, severed the relationship with CNet?

Which would be a reason for execs to want to fire him...

If Eidos isn't paying for front-page ad space, Gamespot certainly isn't going to continue to give it to them just because they like the game.

il dottore wrote:

I think the removing of the video review in particular stinks of pressure from Eidos. I don't suppose they "forced" CNet to fire Gerstmann, but angering such a big publisher might have been what made the execs finally lose their patience with him. He can be quite hard in his reviews, and as someone pointed out he's not very "sexy", so yeah, probably not Mr. Popularity around there.
The fact that the review is two weeks old... maybe they thought it was old enough that nobody would make the connection?

I can imagine the scenario of just some clueless CNET exec firing him over pressure from Eidos PR because that's what he thought needed to be done, and Eidos is just as shocked as anyone that the threat involving removal of the ads was taken seriously.

I don't think I'm a true believer yet, especially because all the "every journalist is paid off" people are probably having a field day, but the more info that filters out just looks more and more suspicious to me.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

One thing I don't understand is why the K&L ads would need to be removed from the site. Is it because Eidos, in angrer, severed the relationship with CNet?

I think because of all this hubbub, and because a hundred posts were writing the story while mentioning the fact that Gamespot looked like it was run over by a hundred K&L billboards, it makes sense to quietly remove it.

Man I just watched the video review on YouTube!
Harsh! He really does seem pissed, as if he knew what was coming (as kuddles said), or maybe because they made pressure on him to give a score higher than he wanted?

I skimmed this really quick because I am at a customer`s house but I just wanted to chime in on this. I`ve never been a big fan of Gerstmann`s style but until this is officially confirmed (meaning from a site with actual journalism skills and not Kotaku), I would take this with a dump truck sized grain of salt. A few things to keep in mind here when considering this:

1. GameSpot is owned by CNet which as I understand it, does not have a reputation for firing veteran writers for giving negative reviews to advertisers.
2. GameSpot has lambasted a number of other games in the past, some of which I do believe advertised with them and I`ve never heard of this happening before.
3. This is a game put out by Eidos, a lightweight C-grade publisher that has failed once already and it on the fast track to do so again. This isn`t EA or Microsoft and I can`t believe they have this kind of influence.
4. Gerstmann has been in the online games writing field almost since there was one. This isn`t some obscure freelancer, it`s a true industry veteran. That GameSpot would can him over a bad review of a game like this would blow my mind. Eidos can`t be spending that much on advertising.

I`m not saying that he hasn`t lost his job and one can`t deny that the review being gone from their site is strange. But when you look at the situation and knowing how monumentally stupid it would be to their traffic for GameSpot to do something like this, I`m just saying wait for either them or Gerstmann to say something.

Staats wrote:

Additionally, I don't think movie reviews carry the same weight as game reviews. One product is an eight dollar, three hour commitment that, at the very least, will run flawlessly on the movie screen. The other costs $60, sucks up a big chunk of time and may not even be technically competent.

There is also an order of magnitude more movie critics. It takes a lot of bad reviews to make a dent in a would-be blockbuster's ticket sales. (Now, previews are something else...)

Parallax Abstraction wrote:

3. This is a game put out by Eidos, a lightweight C-grade publisher that has failed once already and it on the fast track to do so again. This isn`t EA or Microsoft and I can`t believe they have this kind of influence.

I think a larger enitity than eidos, the above mentioned EA and Microsoft, would just laugh off any bad review. They have the marketing department and the cash to make a nice protective buffer in that respect. Edios, as you mentioned is that hungry, scared dog -- it knows its times up if it doesn't eat, and it will F***in' kill you for that tiny hamburger patty.

That said, waiting for more information is the shrewd choice.

Really, should we be surprised that any of this happened?

peterb wrote:
Aaron D. wrote:

Sometimes it would sting when he would take a jab at one of my anticipated releases, but on the other hand, when I game I was looking forward to got high praise from him it really meant something to me. Hell, I'd respect a solid 8 - 8.5 from Gerstmann WAY more than many 9+ scores from various IGN/1up/GameSpy reviewers.

I just don't get it. Why would it sting when someone doesn't like the same things you like?

I don't see people making angry forum posts about, say, the Top Gear guys when they don't like a car. Why is it only game review consumers who expect lock-step adulation or calumny?

-peter

For me, game reviews serve more as a barometer for future purchases. Renting or GameFly'ing titles has never really worked for me so I tend to lean pretty heavily on professional reviews and gamer impressions when considering titles that I may be on the fence about.

There's a certain breed of game that I would likely buy regardless, based on developer rep., franchise pedigree, etc. For example, titles like Oblivion, Mass Effect and such are no-brainer purchases for me.

However, there are many games that land on my radar but for one reason or another are "unproven". Dropping $60+ dollars on such titles without considering the title's reception with the press and gamers seems foolhardy to my budget so in gathering info on new releases, I try look to sources I trust. Gerstmann just happened to one of them. As I said earlier, he's one of the few professional game reviewers who seems unafraid to judge titles on a game to game basis and not on franchise history, giving select titles a free ride because they have a beloved fanbase or pedigree. I also feel that this critical nature transcended the, "Let's lowball a popular title/franchise to garner website hits." mentality.

nsmike wrote:

I'm guessing you've never fired anyone or been fired.

You are guessing wrong. Well, half-wrong. Go show your HR director or an employment law attorney my post and then ask her which half he or she thinks it is.

-peter

I will say this. The review wasn't particularly well written. I'd have edited it heavily before putting it _here_, so I can buy the idea that management felt like he was phoning it in. I'm not saying he's a bad writer, but the irony of his complaining about sloppy writing in the video review is palpable.

Go show your HR director or an employment law attorney my post and then ask her which half he or she thinks it is.

Oh, I definitely got the "I've fired someone before" vibe from your post, but so have I. I've also sat in on a number of firings, and talked with plenty of HR professionals about how to handle problem employees. I'm saying that the hard line is not the most common tack.

The Penny Arcade Post is up -- they paint Jeff as a sacrafical lame, used to get the other reviewers in line, and allow CNet to better control the tone of reviewing at gamespot. A more finically amiable tone.

It would make a lot of sense to me that he was fired for larger reasons and it was just bad timing. The only thing that gives me pause is that the other editors are (supposedly) telling sites that they believe that the review was the issue - and the fact that Eidos actually did pull advertising dollars over it.

I just feel that we dont know the whole story and we really don't have a right to it anyways. Either leak could be biased based on perspective, interpretation, emotions or other personal motivations. For legal, contractual and privacy reasons, I doubt the internet will ever know the whole story, though there will probably be specific perspectives or portions of it that come out.

I think every internet reaction to the events at this point is unfortunately premature and on weak footing. Sometimes the simplest headlines ring of truth, but life usually isnt that simple.

Yellow5 wrote:
Miraba wrote:

I'm guessing a large part of it is that movie advertisements are just one source of income for newspapers and entertainment magazines.

I think you're probably dead on there. Game sites rely on game advertising for nearly 100% of their revenue. I don't know how long gamespot could subsist on Mountain Dew and Tag bodyspray ads.

Tag and Mountain Dew. Somehow that became a step down from Doritos and Mountain Dew.

Also, if this is just a case of poor timing, it makes a really strong case for poor judgement on Gamespot's part as well. If they didn't realize a veteran writer (I didn't know him, however) would have plenty of friends in the industry and other media who would protect him then they are just paying double the fine for "bad timing". As someone pointed out above, smooth it out and wait until late January to conclude things. Right now everyone is in a frenzy and this story is getting a lot of circulation and eyeballs.

Maybe they thought that this story would just slip under the radar because it's such a busy (shopping/media) season? Seems like an odd gamble to take.

Fishing for theories about the timing of the firing. Maybe they fired him now because the AAA titles for 2007 are officially out? No big name/money titles are on the radar for several months, at least in my book. Of course, if someone is "Skating on thin ice" why would you continue to employ him through the biggest reviewing season in years, in terms of advertising dollars? Don't tell me Gamespot couldn't see the dozen or so massive titles this quarter that have to be reviewed carefully. If you are going to fire a troublesome employee wouldn't you do it before the time of the year when he can do the most damage to your company and reputation?

The timing on this stinks, and I trust Gabe & Tycho to verify their story before going public. I have NEVER read a "Rumor" from PA and found out later that it was untrue. Please feel free to post info to the contrary if you have it.

Edit: And why fire him on a Thursday? Isn't the usual practice to fire on mondays?

Cramps wrote:

The Penny Arcade Post is up -- they paint Jeff as a sacrafical lame, used to get the other reviewers in line, and allow CNet to better control the tone of reviewing at gamespot. A more finically amiable tone.

The thing is that so far, no one but them is making this claim and as yet, no official evidence has been presented to back that up. They may be right and the PA guys don't have a tendency to stir sh*t up for the sake of it but just saying, something official will come to light after all the hooplah.

peterb wrote:
nsmike wrote:

3. At least one of his co-workers, as noted above, is leaving. Which means that he probably knows the reason Gerstmann was fired. Which means he probably thinks it's an unlikely or unjust reason as well.

That's a pretty long chain of reasoning. I can think of a bunch of simpler explanations that obey Occam's razor, such as "CNET is cutting costs."

4. At-Will employment doesn't mean your employer can just say, "Uh, you're fired, and we're not telling you why." They can lay you off for no apparent reason, but if they don't tell you why you're being terminated, helloooo lawsuit.

In fact, "we can fire you and not tell you why" is precisely what "at-will" means. At-will employment means that the employer can terminate your employment for good reason, for bad reason, or for no reason at all. The employer is under no obligation to tell you anything other than "goodbye." There are specific policy exemptions carved out for things such as various federal anti-discrimination statutes, but that doesn't change the fundamental nature of the relationship, and it surely doesn't place any burden on the employer to give you a list of grievances leading to your firing.

In my personal experience, "You're fired, and we're not telling you why" is exactly the correct way to let an employee go. It's phrased a little more politely than that, of course, but generally speaking the less information you give the terminated employee, the better.

Nobody has a "blank check" to fire someone for any reason. It's like a lawyer once told me, you can't give away your constitutional rights even if you wanted to. I'm not saying what CNET's reason's were, but even at-will has to follow some rules. Yes, if they are smart they will just say pack up your crap, time to go and be done with it. If they aren't, they'll give a stupid reason and leave Jeff a legal opening to either challenge to firing or sue and say his civil rights were violated.