Is today supposed to be the blackout day? Hah. I've been posting on Gamefaqs all day.

This will have exactly the same effect as "Don't Buy Gas On This Day" Day. Organizing gamers is like herding cats; just ask the ECA.

I, for one, will not be visiting GameSpot, CNET, or GameFAQs until they apologize or issue reasonable justification for their actions.

Gamers will never have the respect that we deserve until we are willing to make a stand for ourselves. I am disappointed (though not surprised) that so many of the commenters here demonstrate so little self-control.

I usally just rent games or d/l a demo(If my PC can run it) or listen to what other gamers have to say and then decide if I really want to buy said game.

@Arlen

Just to used to that in the corp world myself. Every time someone leaves, that is all we hear. They left. No reason given. When asked you get told they are no longer with us and that nothing else can be said. "This person no longer works here." It is the norm in the corp world it seems. Usually legal reasons are cited for not saying why if it involves the person's behavior. Possibly worried about blackballing them and being brought to court? Who knows.

They gave the unspecified "Other reasons led to his dismissal" reason and were called liars on it. People won't accept anything short of a well documented account of why he was fired. Even then the people may not accept it and still call them liars. CNet can't win on this one so they have no choice but to ride it out.

Sadly, this won't really impact CNET's business unless the protesters engage in illegal activities, such as defacement.

The majority of people who use CNET's services either:
1. Don't know.
2. Don't care.

About this issue. That the industry pays for good reviews is nothing new. I can't recall what movies it was for, but didn't Sony create a reviewer that spoke in glowing terms about Sony films?

"Blackout Monday" links to GameSpot. Sweet sweet irony.

email Drew_watson99@hotmail.com to learn more about fan protest.

This won't really effect me as I haven't been to Gamespot in months. I got tired of the random ads popping up instead of the page I clicked to.

@EZK
I'm tired of those pop-ups too. I want the page I clicked on, not an advert.

"Please do not go on GameSpot, GameFAQs ..."

Stopped reading there. How can they expect me to give up my beloved GameFAQs for a whole day? Besides, I don't give squat about reviews, they're always biased and crappy anyway (see also: recent PA comics). I just play the stupid demos and form my own hasty opinion.

this isnt even about the review anymore, its ethics. even if the reviews are bad anyway, you dont fuck someone over like that just because some half-assed corporation that has total disregard to the consumer wants to manipulate the system instead of playing fair.

Wouldn't it be better to suck as much bandwidth from CNet as you can without clicking on any ads?

i doubt this will work, like i say gamers are increadably fickle. You just have to look at the xbox 360 to see that, great console but really bad hardware that shouldnt be tolerated yet is lapped up (and yes i have one too, im not seperating myself from the fickle masses)

...Does it matter if the sites don 't get that many hits on a Monday? I'm pretty sure the site stats are generated on weekly/monthly basis....

chuma Says: « They HAVE been deleting negative consumer posts. The Eidos forums have been completely censored and any threads relating to this matter were locked and purged. »

Don't forget that tons of users have been banned on the GameSpot forums for posting the direct link to the Video Review after GameSpot desperately tried to remove every link to the Video Review from the Kane & Lynch section of the Website.

for reviews, i trust my friends, and people's opinions, not company opinions. i liked gamespot, i guess i wont be back. Wikipedia is a surprisingly good source of info though.

Woot! I got trolled by Pandralisk! However, I didn't get accused of being Christian (which is good because I am not, but I will have to work on that).

If you have read my past comments in other threads you would have noticed I said that K&L should be the one generating a media sensation instead of Manhunt. In the very first level I think you kill in the neighborhood of 50-60 police officers (doing nothing more than their job, trying to keep convicted criminals from escaping, i.e. being good cops). This is not a "wholesome" game as your fail sarcasm put it.

However, if you would consider the legal limits when someone is let go from a company, you would know that nothing can be said outside of "This person doesn't work here anymore." and not much else. So all this (un)righteous gamer outrage will not change anything and just makes us look petty and stupid. Remember when he gave Zelda:TP an 8.8 and people were threatening this very same person (with death threats no less). Now it is like he is a god that can do no wrong (Not a judo-christian god mind you, just a god). Did I ever say smile? Nope, did I ever say to be happy about it? Not that I see... Did I say get on with your lives because being a pissed off little troll will get you nowhere? Yes. So shut up, get back to work (unless your job is really to troll GP, then please go take a break from work).

Too bad my home page is GameFAQs >_> But I've been boycotting GameSpot for a long time now, so it shouldn't be a problem.

OMG... Pandralisk doesn't evar buy anything! It is not a consumer!

clicking ads isn't the only way bandwidth is generated. There is also something known as CPM advertising which is done based on impressions. The more times the ad is shown, the more money is paid out. You don't need to click the ads for them to get money.

Tank -- "The reason I say “admits/denies” is because they haven’t done either, and that’s my issue with the whole thing. They’re turtling. All of their press releases regarding this debacle have been vague at best. The least they could do is say “No, we did not fire Jeff Gerstmann over his poor review of Kane & Lynch”…but they’re not even doing that, which to me reeks of guilt."

The problem there is twofold.

1) If they come out and say, "Yeah, we fired him because of his review of Kane & Lynch," the frenzy will be even worse. At that point you KNOW Gamespot sold out a reviewer for 30 pieces of silver (they'd have admitted it). The internet would re-explode over this.

2) If they come out and say, "No, of course we didn't fire him over this review," then everyone will accuse them of being liars, child molesters and Pope abusers. The internet would re-explode over this.

This is a no-win situation for C-Net, and they deserve every bit of it.

Mauler

Good question. I gave up on 1UP because their reivewers seem full of themselves. If they truly cared, why not offer to employ one of the long-timers, who obviously has a following...

Society as a whole is more important than one reviewer. That's my outlook.

So how the hell do I apply it here?

Hmmm....
Well, see if I resubscribe then.

Yes, I was a paid subscriber to GameSpot.

And I was satisfied with what I was getting for the price.

But if they are going to start screwing with the consumers themselves... How did it go?

"Homey don't play dat!"

And watch me blast them in my Facebook Group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" when I get home tonight.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

[...] The revolution as begun… sort of. GameSpot user ‘Subrosian’ declares “Black Monday” to boycott all CNET sites on a “Manic Monday.” Come on, bro, I just recovered from “Black Friday” and “Cyber Monday.” I can’t wait to get over “Hump Wednesday” so I can chill over “TGI Friday’s.” [...]

I don't see why I should not visit GameFAQs, a site I've no beef with and the website is only guilty by association with CNET in this controversy. I've never like the idea of guilty by association, which the mainstream media practices religiously(especially against gamers). I did go to it at 1:00 AM and at 8:25AM before I knew of the blackout; however I'll not go there for the rest of the day. Despite the bitter taste it leaves in my mouth for doing this to an innocent party, but I know full and well that the only way CNET will get the message is through a lost of revenue from their sites.

They have actually denied, but they need a credible denial. For instance, one accompanied by an explanation of what their policies are to prevent conflict of interest. 1UP has been on about conflicts of interest for years, so their reaction doesn't surprise me here.

CNET/GameSpot cannot issue an explicit statement on the matter, but even so some of their actions seem excessive to me. Posting a link to Gerstmann's video review on YouTube is a bannable offense on the GameSpot forums. That's just counterproductive, in my mind. All it does is bring more attention to the issue. If they really had nothing to hide, they would just let the discussion carry on in the forums. A lot of people looking at the video review have reacted by saying, "Well...actually he does seem rather unprofessional." Where's the harm in letting people have a look so they can talk about it?

There are plenty of people who have serious doubts about this rumor, and letting them talk freely can only be good for CNET. But instead of doing that, they've clamped down on the topic altogether. Even if there's nothing unethical about Gerstmann's firing, CNET deserves to have its reputation trashed by being too heavy handed in their response.

I just won't be going there period. Gamespot holds no appeal for me anymore. Bookmarks deleted.

Download.com, on the other hand, is too goddamn useful. I'll limit my interaction, though, and won't be going there for at least a month in protest.

@jds, more of a reply to Serrenity, but your reply was what caused this thought.

I would miss a GP if I didn't come here every day. One of the more intelligent forums I visit. It has drama (JT suing people), comedy (JT in general), satire (people replying to JT)... it has everything. It is Shakespearian, classic, perfect. It is like baseball and apple pie.

Mort, you are still assuming this is all some conspiracy theory and all it has to do with is corporate policy. An arrogant whiff of associated divestment from the topic is what makes people not take you seriously to begin with.

You act as if this sort of thing happens all the time, and are so detatched from it that it doesn't even effect you. You're wrong, however. What happened here was a travesty, which in fact effects everybody.

After all, how are we to know now whether someone is telling the truth or really LYING when it comes to consumer products?
http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3164656

And as Valleyweg has already confirmed, this goes far beyond corporate control of gaming media. It extends to other entertainment products as well, and makes the likes of Consumer Reports look like the panacea of customer service.

These companies are mainly out to rip people off, is the point the community is getting at. They should be trashed and thrashed along with their credibility, not defended by simple ingrates like you- otherwise, I wouldn't be surprised if people start buying off product reviews like apple cider!

Wouldn't that be something, if tomorrow the next consumer review for "T-Mobile phones" was entirely BOUGHT and PAID for by T-Mobile?

What if they automatically bypassed all our fair trade laws, and all of a sudden began selling THOUSANDS of low-cost phones for less than $49.99 a month to unsuspecting consumers who otherwise would have bought the superior Alltel or Nextel?

What if amazingly, those phones had completely unfounded bugs in them all over every orifice, which made them not even respond or continue to work after 30 days?

Gee, I can just smell the class-action suits piling up all over the place!

And a red-consumer boycott revolution!!!! Until all their products are buried alltogether, and certain corporations are dissolved.

That's definitely NOT how I imagined some kind of example being set for the future, but that seems to be directly what you are implying?

You are implying that it is perfectly "OKAY" to lie about consumer products, that people should be able to buy off their own way into the market all the time.

Boy that's going to be interesting, if the likes of Nokia can all of a sudden pay off a editor to give a scathing review of none other than "AT&T" - their direct competition. Just so that they can save some more dollars for the market, and effectively slice away the competition.

Oh and then let the unsuspecting masses, who did not realize this was a fraudulent and peppered review -- skip AT&T for now on and go with Nokia!

But, but.....Nothing. It is exactly the same here, only its the games & entertainment industry which multiple sources have caught doing the same thing. And they can't get away with it unless they want to lose "THEIR" support!

Hence the reason, why as in every situation the boycott works and does the job to stifle away these corporation's money until they give up. They can not do whatever they please, or else we'll punish them. That's the way it has always gone, and they can get a far worse bruising by saying otherwise.

And once again, GameSpot and the like needed to be taught a direct and lasting lesson....which leaves a "scar" on their corporate exterior. Its policy, and when GameSpot violated their own written policies they deserved everything they got- or will get, and they already know it.

How many protesters is that? 20? Maybe 25, some of them out of view?

@solarisdeschain

The difference is your every day life is not affected by boycotting CNET, while gas is for most.

@ Dan
Same is useuall true of Gamespot posters, at least from what I've seen in my lurking between the two sites. Both sides beleive the others are moronic, really it varies more by the particular board. The more regular posters there are the more things thend to get nasty.

As for the boycott, I don't know how much good it will do. I mean how much revenue will be lost from a single day? In my own opinion a better idea would simply be to do a general boycott of Eidos and Cnet i.e. nobody visits either site until one or the other says something. Never going to happen sure but there are more possibilities with a general boycott.

@Shrike:

The abysmal A Knight's Tale and several others. Can't forget that 9/10 Lair review by Play either.

@jdmdsp911:

What I didn't like about it was his overuse of the word "ugly". It's not like it has a dearth of synonyms he could use in its place. Other than that? Nothing

Dennis, it looks like Gamespot has returned the volley:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6183603.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestne...

The above SHOULD bring you to a news item giving some degree of an official response.

Dave, that's hardly a return volley. Basically, they fired him, but they will essentially throw him a retirement party he can't attend because he's locked out of the building. Still no assurances on how we are to know he wasn't fired over advertiser pressure.

Assuming that he was fired for a legit reason (I'm guessing it's more of a rationalizable reason), then whoever did this should still be fired for incompetence or at least banned from further meddling with the internal operations of GameSpot. The reaction to unexpectedly firing a senior editor who was one of the original employees of the site and is now one of your most visible employees is fairly predictable.

Assume for a moment that he was fired for a bad quality review rather than a bad review. What would it look like? They would pull the review, edit it when possible, and fire the employee.

http://kotaku.com/gaming/gamespot-on-the-spot/gamespot-may-see-mass-resi...

I find this account far more realistic of how I know corporations to act.

Joystiq posted the different versions of the reviews.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/12/05/comparison-shows-significant-edits-to-...

I disagree with the term significant but they did do some that changed the tone of the review. In some cases that made it a better negative review. It is certainly not the whitewash that was claimed or feared. It removed words like "lazy" and "lame" and put it into far more professional wording. I think the new editing makes the review better and even more negative on the game while being fair to the few parts that do work.

When games cost $60 dollars a pop, nobody has time for sugar coated "word-play". Words like, "lame" and "suck", send a very clear message.

1.) Eidos, make a good game, get a good review. (there's a novel idea)
2.) Make games $10 - 15 dollars, then you can make/sale all the crappy games you want.
3.) Don't cry like a bunch of little girls, when some one says something mean.

(It's just 1 review of 1 game. Eidos is suppose to be a game company right? I mean, you do make games, right? So, stop whining, go back to the drawing board -- and don't let this situation happen again. Duh.)

The message words like that send is that the reviewer lacks the professionalism to put it in words that not only express the same concept but also tell you why. Calling something "lame" tells you absolutely nothing outside the fact that the reviewer didn't like it. It doesn't say anything about why and that is the most important part of the job of the reviewer. It's not enough to tell you something is bad. When a game costs 60 bucks the reviewer should also be telling you why it is lame.

Replacing "letdown" with "disappointment, especially when you consider how well this same sort of stuff worked in the developer's previous squad-based game, Freedom Fighters." tells you exactly the same thing plus why it. When games costs 60 bucks, as you have said, you need more information and not less. A one word review might work for a cheap game in a passing review. It doesn't fly for a professional review.