Protests, Boycotts in Wake of GameSpot's Gerstmann Firing

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.