This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Fired for Negative Video Game Review

edited November 2007 in Video Games
If you haven't noticed already, there's a big hub-bub going around. Here's the ongoing coverage. And here's the Penny Arcade coverage.image

Here's what I've got to say about this. First of all, 6/10 is not bad. 6/10 is the same score as 3/5. That's above average. The thing that gets me is that people consider 6/10 to be bad. If I were the editor in chief of GameSpot, I would have fired this guy also, but not because he pissed off the sponsor. I'd have fired him because he basically trashes this game and then gives a 6/10. If you read the text of his review, or watch the video, it sounds a lot more like a 2/10 the way he describes it. Grow a nut, and give the game the score it deserves.

Another thing I don't get is how companies are still thinking that people make game purchasing decisions based on reviews. If Halo 3 had gotten a score of 0 in every video game magazine, you think it would have sold any less? If Smash Bros. gets low scores everywhere, you think it will sell any less? If Pony Friends gets perfect scores on every site, you think it will sell any more? Gamers already know what games they are going to get, and review scores hardly influence them. People who aren't gamers make purchasing decisions based on the video game box on the shelf in the store.

Lastly, more than anything I think this demonstrates how out of touch the video game media is. Don't they notice guys like Penny Arcade, Angry Video Game Nerd, and Zero Punctuation taking all the attention? Having truly honest, ballsy, entertaining, clever, witty, and intelligent games journalism is the way to get people to like you. Firing people for doing so is not the way to go.
«1

Comments

  • The key is independent video game journalism. You can't read a review of a product from an advertiser and expect an honest review.
  • The key is independent video game journalism. You can't read a review of a product from an advertiser and expect an honest review.
    GameSpot is independent. They are owned by CNET, which is neither a developer nor a publisher of video games. They just have major game publishers buying ads on their site. Game Informer, on the other hand, is not independent. It is owned by GameStop, the retail store. Game Informer only exists for the profit of Gamestop. Do not confuse GameSpot, the website, with GameStop, the store. It is an easy mistake to make.
  • GameSpot is independent. They are owned by CNET, which is neither a developer nor a publisher of video games. They just have major game publishers buying ads on their site. Game Informer, on the other hand, is not independent. It is owned by GameStop, the retail store. Game Informer only exists for the profit of Gamestop. Do not confuse GameSpot, the website, with GameStop, the store. It is an easy mistake to make.
    Thus they are beholden to their advertisers. This is why consumer Reports is seen as being trustworthy, they accept no advertising dollars and pay for their review products out of their own pocket.

    I get free games for review (board and video) and I give them as honest of a review as possible. A free $30 game is not enough to buy a positive review from me if the game sucks. Spending 10K+ in advertising dollars every month on my site or magazine WILL influence my opinion.
  • This is still just a rumor...
  • Spending 10K+ in advertising dollars every month on my site or magazine WILL influence my opinion.
    You're weak. Even if someone gave me a million dollars and a video game to review, I would at least make it very clear in my review that those people gave me a million dollars. I would also probably still review the game honestly.

    There is no contractual or legal agreement between Gamespot and the sponsor that they will get a high review score. If there is, then I see lawsuits in the future. If the sponsor agrees to buy ads, they agree to buy ads and must pay. If you review them honestly, and they want to stop advertising, that's tough shit.

    It works for Penny Arcade. They refuse to advertise any game they have not played and liked. Even when they trash games, those companies keep coming back to buy more ads when their next game comes out. Gamestop, and apparently you also, are just push-overs.
  • This is still just a rumor...
    True, but if you look at the facts that we do know, it's hard to imagine any situation where the negative review wasn't at least a sort of last straw, straw that broke the camel's back, or magic straw that gets you fired for pissing off the sponsor.
  • I want to hope that's not the case, but it's not like I have inside contacts in the gaming industry to know either way. What I DO know is that Joystiq has been accused in the past of jumping the gun on stories that turn out to not be true. But then, the story was posted by Kotaku first, so who knows. I feel like this is something better relegated to "wait and see".
  • edited November 2007
    I want to hope that's not the case, but it's not like I have inside contacts in the gaming industry to know either way. What I DO know is that Joystiq has been accused in the past of jumping the gun on stories that turn out to not be true. But then, the story was posted by Kotaku first, so who knows. I feel like this is something better relegated to "wait and see".
    Yeah, there is waiting and seeing going on. However, I have been slightly swayed by Rock, Paper, Shotgun. Also, after watching the review video, I would believe if they said this guy was fired because he sucks at reviewing.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited November 2007
    It works for Penny Arcade. They refuse to advertise any game they have not played and liked. Even when they trash games, those companies keep coming back to buy more ads when their next game comes out. Gamestop, and apparently you also, are just push-overs.
    It's not about being a pushover it's about how much of the revenue is targeted to one source. Aside from video game companies who else advertises in these video game magazines and websites?

    Penny Arcade can survive with or without the video game industry. Industry magazines are dependant on the industry they cover. We see the same thing with politics, piss off a candidate and you lose access. Piss off a video game company and you also lose access.

    Penny Arcade is also in the same position a site such as TechCrunch is in. They are seen as gate keepers, even a bad review gets your name in front of millions of people. Any press is good press!

    It is also a question of who needs who more. As a one man operation I need those advertising dollars more than than the video game company needs my review. If that $10K a month was 1% or less of my monthly revenue than it would not be enough to buy my opinion. I'm just being honest here.

    Also, by "buying" my opinion I do not mean that I would give a glowing review it just means that I would gloss over failings and focus on the good parts of the game. Or I simply would not run the review at all if the game was utter crap.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • Also, after watching the review video, I would believe if they said this guy was fired because he sucks at reviewing.
    Gamespot review videos are almost all terrible. At least the ones I've watched have been. If that's the case, then they'd have to fire pretty much their entire staff.
  • I think this is huge because the CNET network is so large. Can you trust an product review on any of the CNET network offerings? I'd like to see Gamerankings and some of the other meta score sites drop all their Gamespot reviews, and list them as a non-trusted site.

    I've used Gamespot for years, it's a good way to keep an eye on stuff that is coming up. They are generally not as annoying as 1up or IGN. I don't buy games based on reviews but I will often read them. I've read many of Jeff's reviews and of anyone on that site I would say I respect his opinion the most. I also listen to the "Hotspot" podcast. Jeff is funny, writes well, and knows video games. It was a stupid move to fire him and sets a bad precedent.

    I read the review, it is pretty rough on the game. The game isn't actually broken technically, it's just not very fun. That's they way I took it anyway. It's playable and if it's what you are looking for you may be interested just make sure before you buy it. On another podcast I listen to, a host went to a media weekend and played the game. His views were it's wasn't that great. They asked the developers about no co-op multiplayer, and the developer responded with "we basically screwed ourselves on that one, we couldn't do it with the engine we built for the single player mode." That's seems telling to me. Even the developer knew there where problems with the game. The other podcaster ended with it's ok, worth a rental, they have a neat idea with the multi-player but you have to play with friends or it will be just annoying.

    All I have to say is good luck to Jeff, he seems like a decent guy, and now we know he took is job seriously.
  • My newspaper will voluntarily lose advertising money to report the truth. I ran a story a little while ago that cost us about $2,000 a month. Two bars yanked their advertising because we did a piece about how they were under so much pressure for selling to minors. We would never hold a news story to save an advertiser, even if it meant losing Walmart or Macy's.

    The problem with video game publications is that they don't have a differentiated market. They lose EA, where are they going to turn to make up that revenue? Niche markets are always more beholden to their sponsors.
  • What Jason said. He just said it better than me.

  • The problem with video game publications is that they don't have a differentiated market. They lose EA, where are they going to turn to make up that revenue? Niche markets are always more beholden to their sponsors.
    Maybe if they sold some ads on the cheap to indy developers or publishers, they could help them get big enough to put some hurt on EA. They need some stick to go with that carrot.

  • The problem with video game publications is that they don't have a differentiated market. They lose EA, where are they going to turn to make up that revenue? Niche markets are always more beholden to their sponsors.
    Maybe if they sold some ads on the cheap to indy developers or publishers, they could help them get big enough to put some hurt on EA. They need some stick to go with that carrot.
    They are still stuck getting ALL their revenue from one niche market.
  • Niche markets are always more beholden to their sponsors.
    Why? I think their advertising sales group just isn't creative. I go to gamespot and I buy more food than video games. I buy soda, I buy razors, and ton of other goods. Advertising is the last thing that would influence a game purchase, but if I saw an ad for Arby's I might think "hey, Arby's sounds good". They are being short sighted in who they sell advertising to. I know Rym and Scott rip on Nascar, but there is a niche with no limit of advertising funds, and not just car companies and auto parts stores either.
  • They are still stuck getting ALL their revenue from one niche market.
    The Escapist doesn't seem to have trouble getting ads from people other than video game companies. They've got an Amazon ad on there right now. Back in the day I remember it had soft and hard drink ads all over it. Not to say they don't have any game ads, but there are other people who want to advertise to the demographic that will pay you.
  • edited November 2007
    Amazon ads are CPA (cost per action) also known as affiliate sales. They only make money if you click the link and buy something from Amazon. Amazon does not come to your site and say, "here take some money and run our ad." What they do say is, "join our program, put our ads on your site and if someone buys something we will give you 2% of the sale."

    Also, those other ads may not be direct ad sales. They may be using a third party service that sends ads to them (Frederated Media, Google, etc...). Those ad networks work by allowing an advertiser to buy a bunch of impressions and tell the network what sort of sites they want them to appear on.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • This is retarded. He's a critic, and he was fired for criticizing.
  • You get the most honesty from people who don't get paid at all. But unfortunately, quality varies greatly among those folks. CNet should be ashamed.
  • I'd have fired him because he basically trashes this game and then gives a 6/10. If you read the text of his review, or watch the video, it sounds a lot more like a 2/10 the way he describes it.
    I don't think this criticism is warranted. While he does spend the majority of the article picking at the flaws of the game, I believe the score makes sense given his conclusion.
    Kane & Lynch: Dead Men is a premise with promise, and if you've been waiting patiently for a game to really dive into the whole "crew-based heist tale" concept, you might be able to look past some of the story flaws. But when you consider the nearly ridiculous number of extremely high-quality shooters available recently, there's not much room for something like Kane & Lynch, even taking into account the somewhat unique nature of its story. That said, the multiplayer is a smart idea that's worth seeing, even if playing it makes you wish that it was used in another, better game.
    I can see the point that the article might be overtly negative in tone, but that's really a matter between him and his editor (ideally before its published) and certainly not something to be fired for.

    On the whole, it looks like Cnet were caught with their pants down. They clearly weren't prepared to handle something like this. It isn't shocking that people are distrustful of corporations, especially the media. If there was nothing seeding going on then clearly stating that they stand behind the review and it wasn't the reason for his firing would probably have quashed the rumours before they got off the ground.

    It's just my speculation, but I'd going to have to echo the thought that even if it wasn't the reason he was fired, it mightve been a significant consideration. The events thus far definitely breed suspicion.
  • edited November 2007
    Well, considering the fact that Kane and Lynch was heavily HEAVILY advertised and promoted on GameSpot and the other CNET websites...Jeff's review was probably considered a "backstab" of some sort.
    Post edited by VentureJ on
  • Check out these graphs. If reviewers were reviewing properly, the center of that bell curve would be on the 5, not on the 7.
  • Apparently, Eidos pulled hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of future advertising from GameSpot due to the review. That was probably why Jeff was fired.
  • Check out these graphs. If reviewers were reviewing properly, the center of that bell curve would be on the 5, not on the 7.
    That's not true. You're assuming that the median and mean are identical.
  • Check out these graphs. If reviewers were reviewing properly, the center of that bell curve would be on the 5, not on the 7.
    That's not true. You're assuming that the median and mean are identical.
    It might also be that if a game is real bad they simply do not post a review.
  • edited November 2007
    If I were the editor in chief of GameSpot, I would have fired this guy also, but not because he pissed off the sponsor. I'd have fired him because he basically trashes this game and then gives a 6/10. If you read the text of his review, or watch the video, it sounds a lot more like a 2/10 the way he describes it. Grow a nut, and give the game the score it deserves.
    It's downright STUPID to fire someone over a single review unless it was completely half-assed and poorly written.

    2/10 games are games that are absolutely unplayable. 6/10 games are games that have some good qualities, but don't deserve a purchase. The single player is badly written and is nothing special, but the multiplayer has a lot of potential that ends up being somewhat repetitive. It's playable and CAN be fun, but there are already a lot of better shooters in the market already. Based on Gerstmann's video review, the game definitely deserved the score that it got. A score of 2/10 should really only go to games that are UNPLAYABLE, like Super Rub-A-Dub and Championship Sprint.

    Either way, he has already proven his testicular fortitude by turning away from a major sponsorship and revealing the mediocrity of a game that was providing a large sum of money to the company he works for.
    Post edited by VentureJ on
  • Maybe doing away with the whole numbers thing would work better. As even if a game gets a 10.1 thats only an indicator of the likelihood that someone might like it. If people go through the trouble of the whole article they may be able to work out if they like it personally.
    With this problem now brought to a head in this issue I hope someone starts a review site that isn't afraid to really explain who would like each game without an overall score for the masses or at least a scale that goes from 1 to 10 (or 5) using the whole range and none of this decimal place crap.
  • In fact, I've listened to a few of IGN/GameSpot's podcasts and they all agree on one thing: the numerical review system is absolutely stupid. They actually believe that people should base their opinions on the actual ARTICLE instead of the review score. They even acknowledge that the article is always going to be an opinion and just that. Unfortunately, a large portion of the gaming populace are lazy; it's so easy to compare two games based on its score instead of the actual content.

    These issues were actually addressed in the Editors' commentaries. It's actually somewhat surprising how "in tune" the editors are to their readers, but you can clearly tell how much they are controlled by their "higher-ups".
  • Awesome idea for rebellion: Instead of rating a game they just roll a D10 and use that instead, regardless of the article.
Sign In or Register to comment.