Gerstmanngate: Out With The Bold – In With The Nude
by Chad Lakkis on December 7, 2007 at 12:57 am
Welcome to the first ever live debate, held between our Associate Editor, Wade Larson, and myself. We believe the advantage to this over a verbal debate, is that each thought can be fleshed out to the fullest, taking the time needed to make sure each response is exactly what the writer intends it to be—as opposed to the instantaneous nature of podcasting.
Chad: Ok, we are going to discuss the firing of Gerstmann from GameSpot….go ahead young Padawan and explain your theory
Wade: The problem I see with “Gerstmanngate” is that there is a lot of speculation but little in the way of hard facts. Gerstmann was of course fired shortly after his negative review of Kane and Lynch, and everyone is suddenly assuming that the review cost him his job. We will likely never know what went on behind the scenes at GameSpot leading up to Gerstmann’s firing. GameSpot’s statement that the firing was a result of internal review is just as likely as the idea that he was fired for his review. Everyone loves a scandal and no one likes “the man,” so it’s only natural that so many people would jump to conclusions, but the bottom line is we just don’t know the facts.
Chad: I wonder if Gerstmann plastered himself with GameSpot advertising before he had his internal review? I am poking fun at this because you are right, there will be no hard facts. But the bottom line is companies like IGN and GameSpot – companies in general – are not in the business of losing money and hiring people who blatantly rip into the games created by the companies whose advertising dollars fund their site is not something they will take lightly. This is why I firmly believe that his review, and furthermore his attitude towards the “corporate beast,” had everything to do with his firing. They are one in the same.
Wade: That may be, but any sort of journalism-based company is not in the business of losing credibility as well. Any news source lives and dies by its credibility as much as its advertising dollars. And, to say that one negative review cost the man his job seems a bit odd, considering GameSpot has given negative reviews to games before. And, they have also used “skins” to advertise games for as long as I can remember.
Chad: If they had it to do over they would have handled it differently, no one is arguing that. Name another firing that generated this much attention? You can’t, because the industry is a fairly new one. And, he is a long time veteran of the site. I am not saying it is simply one negative review; it is the review that broke the camels back. So, yes. That one review in a way got him fired, if you want to be technical about it.
Wade: But how many other slights toward the company came before this review? Perhaps Gerstmann wasn’t getting along with management. It doesn’t matter how long he’s been around, his general attitude towards his superiors could have made this a long time coming. Perhaps his dismissal had nothing to do with the Kane and Lynch review except bad timing.
Chad: This is an example of out with the old, in with the nude. What do I mean by that? Out with an individual who was a long time employee, obviously comfortable, obviously disgruntled and obviously writing reviews that the corporate heads were not happy with. And in with the nude? In with Mr. Maxim.
Wade: Ha, I like that. In with the nude.
Chad: Big controversy, followed by a new hire that says, “Everyone look here!” and in my opinion it worked.
Wade: So you’re suggesting this could simply have been one big publicity stunt? The old saying, “there’s no such thing as bad publicity?”
Chad: I am not suggesting it; I am flat out stating it. In fact, how about this for a headline: Out with the BOLD, in with the NUDE. It is clear his style was no longer welcome.
Wade: What I’m saying is there is no way we can be sure that he was fired because of his negative review. It could have been any number of factors, including long standing internal issues. And since it’s illegal for them to actually say why they fired him, we will never know. GameSpot may be getting slammed for something it didn’t do – and that’s just irresponsible.
Chad: And I am saying that based on the review, the rumors, the reaction of GameSpot regarding the ads afterwards – and my over 10 years experience working in corporate environments – that yes, I believe he was fired over his review: his reviews, his mindset and like I said, he didn’t fit with the nude…err new culture
Wade: LOL
Chad: I mean, he can write, but do we really want to see him in a speedo next to some hot model? Answer: No.
Wade: Perhaps, but companies have been doing “house cleaning” like that for years. It seems to me a much larger issue that a negative review and advertiser pressure.
Chad: You have no proof that he was fired for “other reasons.” Sure the company has come out saying that, but if you believe that; I have a bridge I can sell you.
Wade: And you have no proof that he was fired specifically for his review. My grandfather is fond of saying, “The best kind of argument is the one in which no one has the facts.” And this seems to be one of those situations.
Chad: I have years of experience working for companies large and small that have relied on advertiser support and my experience, paired with what I have read and seen, says he was fired for his approach to reviews, especially negative ones. He was probably told, “Your style doesn’t fit with our new culture,” “You don’t fit in the big picture,” “The company is moving in a new direction…” You get the picture.
Wade: I see what you’re saying.
Chad: Good, now I have to go read some Maxim, if you don’t mind. I love that magazine.
Wade: It is a fine magazine, I won’t argue that. But in my limited experience as a journalist, I’ve learned that it doesn’t do any good to assume anything.
Chad: No it does not. But tell me this: outside of the opinions, both supporting and denying, what do you have to bring to the table that offsets my experience?
Wade: My opinion, and my instinct, tells me there is much more going on than we will ever know. I’m suggesting that perhaps people have judged the situation too hastily. Your experience certainly brings some insight into what “might” have happened, but without firsthand experience, it is still an assumption.
Chad: An assumption that my experience and my opinion tell me was based on his review. Again, I am not saying he made them happy for 10 years and then BAM, he writes one review they disagree with, and he gets the pink slip. I am saying he most likely rubbed the wrong people the wrong way and his last review, which upset a major advertiser and possibly his reaction to the company addressing the matter with him, was the reason he was fired. That and he wouldn’t look good in a speedo.
Wade: So we can agree that this was probably the summation of some larger, longstanding issues. Where we disagree is how much the actual review was part of that. And you may be right. It is certainly possible, I won’t deny that. I’m just hesitant to pin it on that without more evidence.
Chad: Well are you saying it had nothing to do with his review?
Wade: As someone famous once said, “Well Dude, we just don’t know.”
Chad: Answer. Your opinion. Do you believe the review had nothing to do with it?
Wade: I have misgivings about it. It certainly stinks of corporate meddling in editorial affairs, but I still feel that without more evidence we cannot conclude, beyond a shadow of a doubt, either way. And that is my problem. People have made up their minds and I don’t feel the burden of proof has been met.
Chad: Ok, I am not asking you for proof. I am asking your opinion. Do you, Wade Larson, believe it had nothing to do with his review? Do you believe in your heart of hearts that Eidos pulled their K&L advertising because the sales were through the roof and they simply did not want to break anymore gaming records? I mean, what comes after triple platinum anyway? Sheesh …greed?
Wade: I am, at this point, with the evidence I have seen, not willing to commit 100% that the review was the cause of it. I am willing to give GameSpot the benefit of a doubt until I see the smoking gun, if you will.
Chad: So not 100%, but there is a percentage – a part of you that thinks maybe it had to do with the review in some shape or form.
Wade: It is possible. I will admit that. And there is some strong circumstantial evidence in that direction, but at this point it is still circumstantial to me.
Chad: Sure. And had I not spent ten years in a similar environment I would not be leaning as heavily as I am towards the other side. But, if this was tug-o-war, the little knot in the rope is on my side.
Wade: Well, the rope may be shorter on my side, but I’m still not in the mud, so to speak.
Chad: True, but at this point my heels are in the sand, and I am leaning back with all my weight — your toes are dragging — and it’s just a matter of time.
Wade: Well, let’s take it like a boxing match with no K.O., and leave it up to judges’ decision.
WEIGH IN: What are your thoughts on “Gerstmanngate?” We would love to hear your feedback.
 |
|
|
- 8 Year Run at GameSpot Ends: Freelancer Frank Provo Tells CNet To Shove It
- New Game Releases: 9/8-9/14
- New Game Releases: Dec. 28 – Jan. 3
- New Game Releases: 9/15-9/21
- New Game Releases: Nov. 23 – Nov. 29
- New Game Releases: Nov. 30 – Dec. 6
- New Game Releases this Week: 10/13 – 10/19
- New Game Releases: 9/22-9/28
6 Comments » |
on December 7, 2007 7:11 am
Mwah haha! That pic is hilarious.
on December 7, 2007 5:59 pm
Love the pic, but come on Chad has it right Wade. So you should fess up to the obvious truth, that unrelated “Corporations” are out to take over our gaming world (via Maxim, Cnet, and others). They are most likely buying legions of paid review sites and game Publishers to run their “PMC’s” (the first move into Kojima’s MGS4 Game Reality)!
Games are no longer mom n pop, nickle n dime operations slaving to earn a profit. There is now much more money to be made on “Big Budget Games” than financing Blockbuster Movies. That now slave to even earn a profit. The reviewers and individual developers have become the Suit’s (Patriots) “Corporate Canon Fodder”, and the “Suits” are now gaining a firm grip (like a Snake Crotch Grab) on where and how some review sites are going to be making their money from our gaming dollars.
The thing is if reviewers like Chad (now nicknamed the Snake) and Patrick (Raiden) can keep “RIPTEN” from going the way of “Gamespot”? Can the “Resistance” movement inside THIS game review site, keep a “RIPTEN-GATE” from taking place here?
I don’t know….but even with this kind of bare breasted exposure of the truth (Maxim Cover) and the Ninja-like reviews, aided by the cyborg chip embedded Patrick (Raiden), we still have a long battle ahead to watch and be wary of, for sure!!! :D
Just remember that (from within our ranks) we buy the games that ultimately pay all of your salaries. So we are the “Resistance” that will over time, take the “Patriot Suits” to their knees (and you too if we have to)!!! ;)
on December 8, 2007 12:55 am
I agree with Wade. There is no hard evidence. Wade is not full 100% and Chad may argue that the rope knot is towards him for this while. That is all true.
What is not correct here is that every1, just every1, considers Chad’s arguments as facts. Even if they know they are rumours, they are just so blinded, that they don’t even want to think of the other possibilities. It looks like the people are so immature in the gaming community that whatever every1 is doing, they will do as well… something like, thats what is cool these days in high school.
This all was a small news (less facts) mixed up with lot of spices by rival websites. Those websites would just love to see gamespot go down and I cannot believe that the major part of the community is not able 2 see it at all.
I bet if this was related to something else and not gaming industry, there would have been people on both sides almost equally. The community would be interested in rumours but very careful about their opinions.
I have some points of my own in your debate.
1. Chad agreed on this as well. Its not just Kane and Lynch review, but may b a result of a long time overheating nuclear reactor which just couldn’t take anymore and exploded. But who will explain this to the community?
2. Chad and Wade, I cannot believe people you are not discussing the credibility of the video review. It is so childish, please see it. It says, ‘its an ugly ugly game, its lazy, unlikable’ and it gets a 6.0 rating? how?
3. Also, please read the old unedited review. If I would have read the review first, I would say probably the rating is 4.0. But, its 6.0. I have never seen such negative review on gamespot with a fair rating of 6.0. Please read other reviews for games rated 5.5 or 5… even they are not that negative.
4. Point 2 and 3 can be an indication that Jeff did something impulsive from his side in some internal affairs. This can make Chads arguments strong that, yeah, the game’s review ‘alone’ fired him, but this takes the discussion to a new level. That let alone the community but are reviewers mature enuf?
5. The ads coming down might be just pure bad timing. You guys must very well know these things are perfectly planned since it deals with huge amount of money. The time the ad goes up and when it comes down is decided weeks ago. You should have discussed this in your arguments. Again, the community will never understand it.
My problems are solely to be a part of such a community. In this particular affair, the major chunk is probably on the right side (I am also with the major chunk). But what about the future? What guarantees that they will not get driven to the wrong side if they keep jumping to conclusions influenced just by rumours?
on December 8, 2007 6:06 am
Re:ORB
Not to completely disagree, but rumor and innuendo are a part of both sides of “Gerstmann-gate”!
The truth does lay somewhere in between. But this really is a call to arms for us to support honest review sites and their reviewers against corporate no names in Publisher suits/execs. Who haven’t a clue as to how good or bad their games are. They’re simply using strong arm “Payola”, and pressure to push the suits in these review sites to “White Wash” poor quality games.
To deny underhanded boiler room deals aren’t moving in through the back door of the game industry is idiocy and ignorant! Where there’s this much money to be made criminals (or at least their ways) are bound to creep into it. To deny that some of these larger sites aren’t the first ones, where these Suits/execs are pressuring or forcing their reviewers to put up favorable reviews (whether the games are any good or not), is indeed very plausible, if not inevitable!
That’s what the Chad’s of this world are thriving to make us aware of. Keep it up front, play some humor into it, thrive to get all the facts, not accepting every word at face value. Eventually this brings out the truth.
Every once in awhile we need a “Gerstmann-gate” to keep this Game Business honest and prevent wholesale sellouts of our own Gaming Dollars (u know, us immature, boob-eyed, young, dumb gamers)! ;)
Too immature and ignorant? That’s what good editorials and reporting do. They keep everyone on their toes. So the potential “Gerstmann-gates” don’t get simply swept under the rug. They serve to balance this business instead of allowing it to just become another overly commercialized stench filled “Miss America Beauty Pageant”. Where the “Winners” are pre-picked for us all!
on December 8, 2007 9:47 am
Re: Monarky
As said that I am with the major chunk this time so I also agree with you for the most of it. The credibility of game reviews is severely important since those are the only motivations for me to get a game. :)
However, we are boycotting a website for a cause which may be incorrect. if there is a possibility that Gerstmann firing had nothing to do with Kane and Lynch reviews, then all we are doing is thrashing a poor website and some innocent game developers ruining their careers.
Can you imagine how stupid we will look if the case actually may be: Gerstmann vented his personal issues with Eidos in a game review. How credible would that review be? Gerstmann must be laughing at millions of us if this is the case.
Using a Gerstmanngate as an excuse to remind the corporates to indulge less in the review process may be effective but according to me its a improper way. I don’t know a solution and may be for now, this solution is good, but I cannot see other communities just making fun of us since all of us, just all of us gamers, got on the side where rumours directed us. :(
on December 8, 2007 5:35 pm
Re:ORB
True! …You’re right (to a point)! …even so it is a dog eat dog world out there. For the most part the really good Devs (themselves) just move to another company. But we lose some of the smaller and sometimes better Game Developer companies. This doesn’t pertain to an Eidios sized company or a Gamespot sized Review site, it just knocks them down a notch. Helps keep them in check!
If that review site or developer truly had real scruples, it’s pretty simple to respond in an open unmasked fashion. If they did wrong, admit it, change it, not just retreat behind a wall of silence and let lies (if they are), rumors, and inuendo play themselves out as they are doing. Then all we have left is business as usual without the change at the top to prevent future “Gertsmanngates”!
For “Gertsmann”, he has the right and obligation at this point, to sue Gamespot (actually Cnet) for “Wrongful Firing”. If he doesn’t then we pretty much know that they had good cause to fire him and we can put this whole “Gertsmanngate” in the can. But one thing comes to mind to put a wrench in that!
Does “Gertsmann have the balls to open up a whole “David and Goliath” story and put his career on the line? ….or will he just sink into Oblivion? Where is he? Why don’t we hear any outcry of unfair treatment from him? I’m beginning to suspect that we’ll either hear something about him being hired by a Game Trailers or other site or we will hear about a lawsuit! He can’t simply disappear, cuz that looks bad for all parties involved!!!