Kane & Lynch & Enough of the Bullshit

[Russ Pitts]

Kane & Lynch & Enough of the Bullshit

The burning questions are: 1) Did Gamespot's deal with Eidos include an expectation of editorial coverage, or of a certain kind of editorial coverage, and 2) Was Gerstmann fired specifically for his negative review. If the answer to either of these questions is "yes," we're all screwed. We kind of already are screwed merely because even if the deal didn't go down this way, it's so plausible that it did.

Read Full Article

 

[Saltiness]

The reason why Jeff may be also giving no comment, could simply stem from his contractual obligation. It'd be silly to not have a clause in it somewhere that simply stats "if you discuss our business matters, you'll be violating our privacy and we will sue you".

 

[dv8withn8]

Advertising dollars have always swayed review scores. While not usually in a drastic way but an advertiser brining in big money can mean the difference between an 8.2 and an 8.5 kind of thing. This is the way the world works. And it doesn't just apply to video games, it goes for movies, books, computers, whatever.

If this story just now made one aware of such things, they are horribly naive. When you visit a site that depends on ad revenue to exist this is what you should expect. I'm not saying you should expect a reviewer to get fired but you should expect padded scores and the dollar's influence.

 

[immortal88]

The problem with your argument is that you assume he was fired for giving a negative review to a sponsoring company. It's true he did this, but it isn't necessarily the reason he was fired. So then the reason he was fired could be something entirely unrelated, which brings light to why neither party has divulged any information. What if he were fired for something embarrassing like downloading porn on the company computer? He wouldn't likely be speaking up about it, and for that matter Gamespot would be doing him a favor to not divulge that information. The game may be sub-par, but don't lynch Eidos and Gamespot before you KNOW this is the reason he was fired.

 

[JamesW]

But if Gerstmann had any balls he'd be on every website and podcast he could find, telling his story, and if this industry had any self-respect, he'd be offered every job available as a result. Unfortunately for all of us, neither seems to be the case.

It's a bit harsh to come down on Gertsmann like that; for all we know, he has a contract that would result in him being sued for divulging confidential information so close to the firing, or his severance package hangs in the balance.

And yes, it would take balls to say fuck it and spread the truth* irrespective of contracts and legal issues, but it would also take absolute dunderheaded stupidity too, if it meant screwing himself (and his wife/kids, if he has any) out of rent and food for the next few months. Idealism is fine and dandy, but it doesn't fill you up.

The system is definitely corrupt and crippled, and has been for years - in the mid/late 90s, Amiga Power were refused review copies by Team 17 because they'd given them a few bad reviews, for example - and this is true not just of computer game magazines but music and film mags too, although the problems may not be as endemic there as they are in the games industry.

Nevertheless, it's not fair to single out Gertsmann for declining to comment. He is but one man and every deck is stacked against him right now.

It's depressing to see that these websites are just as in thrall to the PR agencies and software companies as many magazines, and fail to recognise that their duty is not to the advertising bods, but to the readers. But hey! What do you expect? The bigger a games site becomes, the more its expenditure increases, the more it relies on advertising money and exclusives from the PR companies, who know that they can pass on these treasures to other news sources is the site gets out of hand. Nobody is going to break the vicious circle, because too much money is at stake. And people like Gertsmann get caught in the crossfire, because no one man can change the system, especially when the system owns his livelihood.

Still, the outcry against CNET has been heartening, and I hope that this results in changes across the board - although it's probably about as likely as Hawaii enjoying a white Christmas this year. The best chance for the future is smaller, independent sites like The Escapist, and I hope that such sites continue to provide an alternative viewpoint to the PR machine - although if they become the mainstream, it's hard not to imagine them ending up in very much the same position as Gamespot...




* Assuming indeed that he was fired for the K&L review which... well, he probably was. But still.

 

[JamesW]

What if he were fired for something embarrassing like downloading porn on the company computer? He wouldn't likely be speaking up about it, and for that matter Gamespot would be doing him a favor to not divulge that information.

If that were the case, he would have been hung out to dry days ago. No company would suffer this kind of grief and bad publicity if it had a reasonable scapegoat to kill.

 

[Geoffrey42]

The problem with your argument is that you assume he was fired for giving a negative review to a sponsoring company.

I actually didn't interpret the article as assuming that. I read it as "Even if not true, that we can so easily jump to such a conclusion, indicates that there is something wrong with the industry." And honestly, while it's possible he was fired for misconduct, it's equally possible that he is not saying anything due to contractual obligations, or because he's currently engaged in legal proceedings with the company, and wants to keep everything amicable (thusly maximizing his settlement out of court/minimizing his damages).

One of my interests in all this coverage is the reaction of competitors (literally) down the street, jumping to Gerstmann's "aid" and decrying C|NET's actions (which are really TBD in the matter). Are they really there to support Gerstmann, or to potentially join the chorus of "At least its not like that in OUR company *winkwinknudgenudge*", or even to kick a competitor while they're down? I've seen a whole lot of outcry, and very little in the way of hard facts.

@Russ: You mentioned in the other thread that you had a Kane&Lynch review forthcoming. Does this count as such, or was this more of a tangent that was simply of a higher priority than the game review itself?

 

[Russ Pitts]

The reason why Jeff may be also giving no comment, could simply stem from his contractual obligation. It'd be silly to not have a clause in it somewhere that simply stats "if you discuss our business matters, you'll be violating our privacy and we will sue you".

I'm not sure what hold an NDA should have if one has been fired for doing one's job. Granted, it's a legal document, but at some point you have to say "fuck it" and go with your heart. If that leads to legal trouble, well, that's why I suggested it would take balls. Not everyone has them, or the will to put up a fight. More's the pity, because in a situation like this one, we could use people like that.

Now, if we're talking about a severance package or 401k hanging in the balance, then we're suggesting someone is accepting money for their silence. If that's the case, then what's the difference between that and taking money to plug a bad game? Is money really all that matters anymore? If so, then we really are sunk.

 

[Russ Pitts]

@Russ: You mentioned in the other thread that you had a Kane&Lynch review forthcoming. Does this count as such, or was this more of a tangent that was simply of a higher priority than the game review itself?

This is all the review the game will be receiving from me, and more than it deserves.

 

[krysalist]

Now, if we're talking about a severance package or 401k hanging in the balance, then we're suggesting someone is accepting money for their silence.

Peter Parker-sense sez: Bingo.

As for Kane & Lynch, "to get the full experience you need to play the multiplayer." Sitting in the steamy bowels of a friend's hygiene-unfriendly server farm screaming at your friend as if you had both been plugged into this disgusting world of no hope felt excellent for a time. However, when they asked me to go back in and do the hard difficulty, I remember the headaches of the cover system and the endless string of deaths and decided I would probably never touch it again.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Frankly no mater what they do they can no remove the fact they pad scores....

 

[Arbre]

The reason why Jeff may be also giving no comment, could simply stem from his contractual obligation. It'd be silly to not have a clause in it somewhere that simply stats "if you discuss our business matters, you'll be violating our privacy and we will sue you".

Precisely the first explanation I thought of when the "no comments" came. Like, one side does not want to comment, the other... can't.
Therefore, I don't think having balls or not is the problem.
He may have the balls, but not the money.

It would be a hell of a gamble if you brought this to the courts. But the resulting ruckuss would probably create what we call a "precedent", as far as video game journalism is concerned.
Gerstmann's life would probably be screwed quite some time, though.

The problem with your argument is that you assume he was fired for giving a negative review to a sponsoring company. It's true he did this, but it isn't necessarily the reason he was fired. So then the reason he was fired could be something entirely unrelated, which brings light to why neither party has divulged any information. What if he were fired for something embarrassing like downloading porn on the company computer? He wouldn't likely be speaking up about it, and for that matter Gamespot would be doing him a favor to not divulge that information. The game may be sub-par, but don't lynch Eidos and Gamespot before you KNOW this is the reason he was fired.

In such cases, both parties, if they kind of agree on some version, at least try to save the face a little and say that, in that case, the firing had nothing to do with the bad review, and it's only the fruit of bad timing.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/9.51757.356068

Above all, you don't refrain yourself from any comment, in such troubled moments, when the reasons behind the firing have nothing to do with the review. No comment only pours more fuel on the fire.

In the end, it would be absolutely stupid from CNET to fire a guy at such a moment, when you also remove his reviews from public, about a game that's heavily advertised on your website.
That would give the marketing and human ressource department at CNET the combined brain power of one shrimp - and that's insulting to the shrimp.

It's depressing to see that these websites are just as in thrall to the PR agencies and software companies as many magazines, and fail to recognise that their duty is not to the advertising bods, but to the readers.

That's why such a negative review, against such an amount of money, could only be tolerated in a membership section of the site, where readers pay.

Which is where the video got placed, anyway, if I get the things right.

One of my interests in all this coverage is the reaction of competitors (literally) down the street, jumping to Gerstmann's "aid" and decrying C|NET's actions (which are really TBD in the matter). Are they really there to support Gerstmann, or to potentially join the chorus of "At least its not like that in OUR company *winkwinknudgenudge*", or even to kick a competitor while they're down? I've seen a whole lot of outcry, and very little in the way of hard facts.

@Russ: You mentioned in the other thread that you had a Kane&Lynch review forthcoming. Does this count as such, or was this more of a tangent that was simply of a higher priority than the game review itself?

It's a business of sharks at all levels. So it ends being powers using genuine public outroar to their own ends.
Maybe one can read "at 1up, wedon't do that" as "come read us instead".
Thing is, the staff at 1up is probably held by the balls just as much as those at Gamespot. Just keep an eye on the next massive ad flood and check related reviews.

Many reviewers getting in the wagon, giving their own tough cookie review, will be doing nothing more than looking like they're mimicing Gerstmann to look like heroes or martyrs, even if the goal is to hurt Eidos as a revenge, or simply to give Kane & Lynch the review it deserves.

I wonder if the best thing a reviewer could do, at the moment, is refrain from giving the game a review at all.

 

[Junaid Alam]

This article was spot on.

Frankly Gerstmann has no excuse not to state the facts. By giving a run-down of what happened, he would instantly catapult himself to the status of hero-martyr.

As for finances, I would bet money that some top publications in the industry would love to have him on board. It would be a slap in the face to a competitor whose image is already tarnished and it would place the company that hired him in a very flattering light.

As someone who's written game reviews and commentaries, and is also a "real journalist" at a newspaper 50-60 hours any given week and has worked at both dailies and weeklies, I find derision directed at gaming journalists per se to be utterly baseless.

Obviously, you're not Halberstam covering Vietnam when you're sitting on the couch making mental notes reviewing Call of Duty 4. But once you put extreme, red-herring examples aside, what separates a gaming journalist from a print journalist at a typical newspaper?

A gaming journalist relies heavily on his sources, meaning the game developers and publishers. This just in: crime reporters rely heavily on the DA's office and police. Political reporters rely heavily on politicos and councilmen and board of selectmen. Feature journalists rely exclusively on the good will -and self-interest - of the people being featured for whatever product, business, or plight is involved.

Take even the most serious national issue. When is the last time you saw Noam Chomsky or a similar figure being interviewed about war strategy anywhere in the media, sitting next to the assembly line of retired generals the networks crank out any time a crisis is supposedly on hand? The networks rely exclusively on the generals, who may differ in shades and tactics but agree on the general principle that the war should continue, or be waged, and so on.

How is this any different from interviewing the publishers and developers of the game you are reviewing or previewing?

As for the relationship between advertising and content, only an naif would believe there is a great wall separating the two completely at even the most venerated print or non-video game publications. It's certainly not a problem exclusive to video hardware and software at all. Watch the Studs Terkel documentary on the subject to get a sense of that one.

 

[fuzzyprint]

Granted, it's a legal document, but at some point you have to say "fuck it" and go with your heart. If that leads to legal trouble, well, that's why I suggested it would take balls. Not everyone has them, or the will to put up a fight. More's the pity, because in a situation like this one, we could use people like that.

Now, if we're talking about a severance package or 401k hanging in the balance, then we're suggesting someone is accepting money for their silence. If that's the case, then what's the difference between that and taking money to plug a bad game? Is money really all that matters anymore? If so, then we really are sunk.

It's easy to say things like this when you're outside looking in. I have friends and former co-workers who have been fired unjustly or sexually harassed in the workplace... then silenced because the future of their home, food and families depended on that serverance or retirement package.

Just as much as it takes balls to speak about what happened to you, it also takes balls to keep what is important to you safe.

Heroism is a great idea, but we cannot assume that we know that everything is going to be alright in the end... because in this unfair world it often cannot be.

 

[rawlight]

I agree with everyone else. He's not talking to either avoid getting sued or for money. We will only hear the truth when the companies involved spill the beans, which might be a while. This is bad news for Gamespot and CNET though. I think Russ hit it dead on. This merely serves to confirm what we all cynically believe deep down anyway, that the whole game review process is corrupt and shambolic. Ad content already vastly outnumbers the actual "journalism" on Gamespot, if they took out the reviews entirely would you even notice the change?

 

[LyonLee]

If he did sign an NDA when he was hired, he probably signed an additional one when he was fired. He was also probably given a very decent severance package that he wouldn't be entitled to if he talked. Seriously, editorial director, add to that the scandal, he was probably offered 6 months to a year of what he was currently being paid; not chicken feed.

 

[SatansBestBuddy]

So, I went to GameTrailers, booted up a review, and what did I see?

An ad by AT&T wireless.

After an upset like this, I suddenly have a little more trust for the sites that get their advertising dollars from companies that have little to nothing to do with games.

But then I remember the banner ad for Draglade by Atlus they have on their home page, and I wonder if that game getting a good score means it's actually good, or it's just keeping the staff fed.

 

[Saltiness]

Frankly Gerstmann has no excuse not to state the facts. By giving a run-down of what happened, he would instantly catapult himself to the status of hero-martyr.

As for finances, I would bet money that some top publications in the industry would love to have him on board. It would be a slap in the face to a competitor whose image is already tarnished and it would place the company that hired him in a very flattering light.

I disagree.

Martyrdom is called so for a reason. It generally ends badly for the martyr. Now it's all nice and good for people to become martyr's for the right reasons. Video game journo's? Hah, not one of them. Video games in themselves aren't worth it, as anything with a political or what-have-you message tends to be more of a circle jerk then an actual game. At the end of the day, they're just entertainment and an art form (although the latter can be debatable on a subject per subject basis...)

Nor would him going to another company make him some kind of awesome hero of the moment, nor the company that picked him up. I'd go as far to supposition that Eidos would be putting the pressure on other major labels if they considered picking him up also, if at the very least sending them a message of "don't let him near our stuff, etc".

"Hi there, I'd like to apply for a position at your fine game review publication"
"No worries, wait, did you jeopardise a large advertising deal between Gamespot and Eidos?"
"sure, I stick to my guns and said a bad product was bad!"
"Don't call us, we'll call you"

Why on earth would you hire into your businss someone with an rumour that because of their non-conformity to company policy put a large sum of the company's profit in danger?

Regardless, his contractual NDA wouldn't be something uncommon (I have one, and all I do is drive a forklift). Even if it is for the money, and as "noble" as it is to fight the man, that doesn't feed you, put kids through school or pay a mortgage.

 

[stevesan]

the perfect solution to this.... YAHTZEE MUST REVIEW KANE & LYNCH!!!