Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 55 of 55

Jeff Gerstmann 100% confirms his review is the reason why he was fired.

This is a discussion on Jeff Gerstmann 100% confirms his review is the reason why he was fired. within the General PS3 Discussion forum, part of the Everything PlayStation; Originally Posted by Gauss And this is where I start saying please get yourself informed... Yes, there is a shit ...

  1. #41
    Legend...Nuff Said
    Lasombra's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Korea
    Posts
    1,535
    Reputation
    185

    Quote Originally Posted by Gauss View Post
    And this is where I start saying please get yourself informed...

    Yes, there is a shit ton of ad revenue flowing in and around these sites, but (again) no one pub/dev/etc advertises on all the sites and no one pub/dev/etc has the pull to influence these things.

    What you are saying (in essence) is that Coors Light can influence the Super Bowl. That is so short-sighted.
    The problem with this logic is coming from two angles...
    I have to say that analogy doesn't make any sense at all. Coors has nothing to do with football. If the Dallas Cowboys were in the super bowl, and then there was a giant ad from the Dallas Cowboys, that there would be a conflict of interest. Having a giant Coors sign or commercial has no conflict of interest.
    Now, back to the original problem, having an add for Mass Effect 3 (just an example game) and plastering it all over a gaming sight that the game will be reviewed on, is a conflict of interest.

    L
    asombra Files Interviews and Top Trophy Tournament Commentary from Skip and Max linked in the banner.
    Checkout the Facebook page or follow me on Twitter @LasombraFiles
    My novels can be found here: The Lasombra Files: Choice and Consequence and
    Til Death Do Us Part
    Big thanks to the site for giving me my start as a writer!

  2. #42
    Lvl 8 - Gold
    Oxymoron28's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    822
    Reputation
    26

    Quote Originally Posted by Coug View Post
    Reviews are just opinions by people who get paid to tell others what they think. It's like paid endorsements; you should take them with grain of salt.
    Yeah, the current trend is rather worrying. It seems people can't think for themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Minarum View Post
    yes, but tell that to the people that live by it. Can't tell you the amount of times we hear that someone won't play a game because it got bad reviews.
    I wouldn't really care about those people, it's them who are missing out not you!

  3. #43
    Lvl 8 - Gold
    Oxymoron28's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    822
    Reputation
    26

    Quote Originally Posted by Coug View Post
    What you are saying (in essence) is that Coors Light can influence the Super Bowl. That is so short-sighted.
    The problem with this logic is coming from two angles...
    Well, it would be a bit fucking suspicious if Coors Light won the Super Bowl...

  4. #44
    Lvl 4 - Silver
    Deem's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kerkrade, NL.
    Posts
    247
    Reputation
    4

    Well, see. You can take this two ways. One: you can yap on about how this proves what you knew all along. Or two: you can be glad that there are still people who stand up to this, even if it costs them their job. I'm with the second. And the ratings did come through, so how "corrupt" can you actually call Gamespot? If they were really in it for the money, they would've altered the low scores and never published them.

  5. #45
    Buy my book, Alteration
    Digitalman123's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    In a very very... maaaaad wooorld
    Posts
    2,735
    Reputation
    80

    That's blasphemay! Absurdity at its peak!

    By the way, what was the game reviewed?


    Sig by DaRe
    Click the sig and be whisked away to my checklist (now with updates!)! Or click here to visit my YouTube channel!
    Author of Alteration, now available!

  6. #46
    Kiwi Defender
    Nagflar's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vice City
    Posts
    6,570
    Reputation
    386

    Quote Originally Posted by Digitalman123 View Post
    That's blasphemay! Absurdity at its peak!

    By the way, what was the game reviewed?
    Kane & Lynch: Dead Men.

    Toggle Spoiler



    Social Group of the Year (2011, 2012): Platboy Online.
    Sig by Ramon, so praise the crap out of him.
    My posts can be humorous or serious, but it's up to you to decide which posts are which.

  7. #47
    Lvl 9 - Gold
    Minarum's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Your mom's bed, aka Houston, TX
    Posts
    1,102
    Reputation
    27

    Quote Originally Posted by Oxymoron28 View Post
    I wouldn't really care about those people, it's them who are missing out not you!
    I agree, but if a great game flies under the radar because of bad reviews, there's a chance we won't see sequels or anything else to come out from that developer. So I slightly care.
    August 2011 Trophy Competition Winner

  8. #48
    Kiwi Defender
    Nagflar's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vice City
    Posts
    6,570
    Reputation
    386

    Quote Originally Posted by Minarum View Post
    I agree, but if a great game flies under the radar because of bad reviews, there's a chance we won't see sequels or anything else to come out from that developer. So I slightly care.
    Nah, chances of that kind of thing happening are slim as hell. WKC was trashed by reviewers and lo and behold, there's a sequel.

    Toggle Spoiler



    Social Group of the Year (2011, 2012): Platboy Online.
    Sig by Ramon, so praise the crap out of him.
    My posts can be humorous or serious, but it's up to you to decide which posts are which.

  9. #49
    Legend...Nuff Said
    Lasombra's Avatar


    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Korea
    Posts
    1,535
    Reputation
    185

    Quote Originally Posted by Nagflar View Post
    Nah, chances of that kind of thing happening are slim as hell. WKC was trashed by reviewers and lo and behold, there's a sequel.
    Probably because the Japanese fans loved it. Do you know how well it was reviewed in Japan?

    L
    asombra Files Interviews and Top Trophy Tournament Commentary from Skip and Max linked in the banner.
    Checkout the Facebook page or follow me on Twitter @LasombraFiles
    My novels can be found here: The Lasombra Files: Choice and Consequence and
    Til Death Do Us Part
    Big thanks to the site for giving me my start as a writer!

  10. #50
    Kiwi Defender
    Nagflar's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Vice City
    Posts
    6,570
    Reputation
    386

    Quote Originally Posted by Lasombra View Post
    Probably because the Japanese fans loved it. Do you know how well it was reviewed in Japan?
    No, I lack any general knowledge regarding how well it sold or how many good reviews it had in Wapan.

    Toggle Spoiler



    Social Group of the Year (2011, 2012): Platboy Online.
    Sig by Ramon, so praise the crap out of him.
    My posts can be humorous or serious, but it's up to you to decide which posts are which.

  11. #51
    That Southern B****
    Coug's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    504
    Reputation
    41

    Quote Originally Posted by Minarum View Post
    yes, but tell that to the people that live by it. Can't tell you the amount of times we hear that someone won't play a game because it got bad reviews.
    I've known a few myself. The same people have complained about a game that got great reviews too. "But it got such great reviews!" *rolls eyes*

    If I listened to someone else then half the games I play would never be played.
    Hitmon133: "Today's passage is taken from the Book of Coug. Chapter 56, Verse 46. >.>"

    Epic Banner by Fawst <3

    Toggle Spoiler



  12. #52
    Lvl 9 - Gold
    Minarum's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Your mom's bed, aka Houston, TX
    Posts
    1,102
    Reputation
    27

    Quote Originally Posted by Nagflar View Post
    Nah, chances of that kind of thing happening are slim as hell. WKC was trashed by reviewers and lo and behold, there's a sequel.
    Lasombra already answered it. Even though sales were small all around Level 5 still made money and still brought the game out. But slim as hell? Why do we not have WKC: Origins? Between piracy and low sales for PSP, of course they didn't bring it to the US. But take Ps360's love for Earthbound, the sequels that never made it here. Same with a lot of other games. It's not slim, just depends how many people are open minded and support the game, and the developers decision to risk making a sequel or not...

    Quote Originally Posted by Coug View Post
    I've known a few myself. The same people have complained about a game that got great reviews too. "But it got such great reviews!" *rolls eyes*

    If I listened to someone else then half the games I play would never be played.
    Same.
    August 2011 Trophy Competition Winner

  13. #53
    PRO Member
    Gauss's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,243
    Reputation
    98

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalick View Post
    [...]
    1) I think you stopped reading because you know my analogy is sound. You've changed your tune, but in what I quoted you were implying a single advertising stream can influence something which is the result of multiple advertising streams.

    2) And actually alot of people say reviews (without qualification) are paid for, and yes I did link wikipedia for one reason. People make these claims and spread this ignorance without considering thinking about it.

    I linked what I did because the presumption shouldn't be that reviews are paid for or influenced by advertising. I've explained why this isn't a logical default because of the various (simple) problems that must be overcome (and the obvious fact that a review is paid for is a claim "wilder" than a review is not paid for).

    Nobody has explained these away with any veracity, so I can't just take "well, business is dirty" as an adequate explanation. Nor does it make sense that these things can be kept internal.

    If you believe that, I'd say who are you working with? You want to tell me in this day and age of social media and information availability that something on that mass a scale (remember, you're talking about dozens of people needing to be involved per review per site) keeping on the down-low?

    3) I think traffic would take a bigger hit with the realization of impropriety in reviews on a site than you think, that type of news would be huge... And historical data agrees with this considering the dip in traffic Gamespot saw in the months after the K&L fiasco (yeah, controversy sparked an initial spike, but then for a few months they saw a steady decline... Imagine if that happened repeatedly for multiple reviews?).

    None of this addresses the core things I said either...

    - How do you account for the fact that not every site gets the same perks/advertising/whatever?
    - How do you account for the fact that there is a variance in reviews, and that this variance doesn't seem to correlate with advertising money?
    - How do you account for the variance of the variance in a library?

    If there is some back-door business going on, I'm telling you right now it seems to make no statistical difference. This would indicate that all this stuff isn't actually making an impact on the outcome of reviews.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lasombra View Post
    I have to say that analogy doesn't make any sense at all. Coors has nothing to do with football. If the Dallas Cowboys were in the super bowl, and then there was a giant ad from the Dallas Cowboys, that there would be a conflict of interest. Having a giant Coors sign or commercial has no conflict of interest.
    Now, back to the original problem, having an add for Mass Effect 3 (just an example game) and plastering it all over a gaming sight that the game will be reviewed on, is a conflict of interest.
    Well... Yeah Coors has alot to do with Football. I'm not sure if it got renewed (it was up for grabs this season or this next season), but Coors has been the official beer of the NFL. Coors spends alot of money on the NFL contract and their sales trends have shown this advertising has paid off.

    The Super Bowl is the NFL's biggest event (I don't have an analogy for reviews, but many of these sites focus on their review library and see alot of traffic thanks to sites like Metacritic)... Hence the connection.

    Again, the analogy is coming from one company's advertising stream affecting something which is receiving multiple advertising streams. Its supposed to sound ridiculous because the premise that any single company can come in and threaten IGN is equally ridiculous.

    If my site is getting advertising dollars from dozens of different companies, and my advertising budgets are fixed based on traffic, how is one of those going to exert enough pressure on me to change how I want to handle my business? Why on earth would I do something which would put my customer off to satisfy that client?

    I can't escape this reality that I think people have these relationships backwards, there are dozens of publishers and dozens of gaming sites, but if you boil things down to their logical core... A single publisher needs a single gaming site more than a single gaming site needs a single publisher.

    On average atleast, I'm sure if we are talking about Bobsgamingblog.com and Activision, different story. If we are talking the Metacritic-ones though... Ubisoft needs IGN more than IGN needs Ubisoft.
    Gauss's Piracy Uncertainty Principle: When you pirate a game, that act inherently changes the results of what is to come after your pirating. You can't make any statement with any certainty regarding what would have happened had you not pirated the game.


    Gauss's Rating Rationale:
    0-1: A game whose very existence is abhorrent to all things creative and intelligent.
    2-4: A just plain bad game.
    5-6: A game that has alot of mistakes, but is atleast playable and has some enjoyable sections. Good for a rent.
    7: An average game, should be played at some point
    8: A good game, should buy at some point
    9: A great game, day-one purchase
    10: A game that goes above and beyond the generation, its transcendent.

  14. #54
    Lvl 7 - Gold
    Mihalick's Avatar


    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    780
    Reputation
    42

    I think you stopped reading because you know my analogy is sound. You've changed your tune, but in what I quoted you were implying a single advertising stream can influence something which is the result of multiple advertising streams.
    I stopped reading because your analogy is completely absurd. If ever there was a moment to put my head into my hands and sigh, it was the moment I read that line.

    Game Company’s sales could be influenced by a negative editorial on Review Site, an editorial that is a set piece of writing designed to influence consumers and available to anyone and everyone for no set duration. Game Company can be impacted by Review Site. Developing Company would benefit in trying to sway Review Site, whether by cutting off perks given to “the media” or with a cash bonus/payout, so that the article favors them.

    Beer Company puts up their own advertisement during a sporting event that has no set outcome, and the commercial is available only to the audience tuning in at that moment of the telecast, and receive the same results regardless the outcome of the game. Beer Company is in full control of all things relating to them. There is no outside company that has a hand in their ability to draw in new consumers, no author defaming their product, no lasting damage, etc.

    Yes, they are exactly the same (note : that was sarcasm). Well, maybe Coors will have better sales if X Team wins the Super Bowl if they have a larger fan base to buy beer for a victory party. I’m not even sure why I just went into so much detail. Go out and ask an elementary school student if a football game and a review site on the internet have the same influence on shoppers, and they’ll tell you “no”, even the kids on the short bus will get it right.

    I also didn't change my tune. I elaborated. You decided to take my sheet music and write your own little notes all over it to make the tune what you wanted to hear, like saying I was telling you advertisers influence the outcome of sporting events (something I would recognize as illogical even in a complete state of intoxicated inebriation).

    I linked what I did because the presumption shouldn't be that reviews are paid for or influenced by advertising. I've explained why this isn't a logical default because of the various (simple) problems that must be overcome (and the obvious fact that a review is paid for is a claim "wilder" than a review is not paid for).
    Sure, it shouldn’t be assumed that a review is “paid” for, but you should know that it’s possible it was influenced by outside forces like the maker of the product. I’m not saying that any gaming review was paid for or not. I’m just conveying that it is possible based on my dealing with similar sites of different products/services. We as the public do not know, nor will we ever, if any given editorial was influenced with kickbacks and bonuses (the majority of the time).

    If you believe that, I'd say who are you working with? You want to tell me in this day and age of social media and information availability that something on that mass a scale (remember, you're talking about dozens of people needing to be involved per review per site) keeping on the down-low?
    Of course I'm not just one guy working on any given site. I started out that way with a local business' website, and was able to branch out to a larger and larger scale, and now have a sizable team of people in my employ. I still make it a point to know (to some degree) what's going on with every client I have, and am present when we have conferences with them.

    It's easy to keep things like this internal. Things either aren't done in an official capacity or there's a confidentiality agreement. If you don't do it officially, you can deny, deny, deny. If there's a confidentiality agreement, most employees obey it since it's a legal binding agreement. Things like “paid reviews” aren’t illegal, so it’s easily kept in house. In my experience, there are more employees in the dark than in the know, as things like influence on an editorial are “need to know” only. It’s not floating around on a memo to the whole office.

    You speak as though information is automatically available as it happens. Social media only conveys what is originally posted, and information has to be made available to then be made available. Translated - if it's never brought out of the office, social media and other sources of information remain clueless. The internet net isn’t some magical force that records every moment of history as it happens.

    I think traffic would take a bigger hit with the realization of impropriety in reviews on a site than you think, that type of news would be huge... And historical data agrees with this considering the dip in traffic Gamespot saw in the months after the K&L fiasco (yeah, controversy sparked an initial spike, but then for a few months they saw a steady decline... Imagine if that happened repeatedly for multiple reviews?).
    You said traffic dipped. I'll take you at your word, as I never bothered to research that. However, it recovered over time, right? If a developer/publisher is angered and decides to pull the kickbacks you've been receiving from them, it's more damaging to your business. Sometimes the "paid review" might not just mean that Publisher A gives your company a check. They can put a little pressure on by denying you access to information, screen shots/video, and sample products.

    Who cares if the traffic is flowing if there's no material to publish, especially if there are three other guys out there beating me to the punch? If you had to wait until release day from Gamespot to read about the new X Game, or you could go to IGN two weeks before and read about it, where are you going to go? I'm going to guess people will go to IGN, causing a much bigger hit to traffic than they received from people upset over the paid review scandal.

    How do you account for the fact that not every site gets the same perks/advertising/whatever?
    Do you think every grocery store has the same deal with Tyson for chicken distribution? Or that NyQuil has the same contract with Drew Brees as they do with Jason Witten for an endorsement? As somebody said above, some reviews can basically just be paid endorsements.

    How do you account for the fact that there is a variance in reviews, and that this variance doesn't seem to correlate with advertising money?
    I can't account for it. Nobody can, because we don't know what's going on behind the scnees to even have a basis to make a determination. "Paid" doesn't always mean money from advertisements, either, so the advertising could be a moot point. Hell, in the case that got us off on this tangent, there could have been an agreement in place between Gamespot and a party involved with Kane & Lynch to keep the article pro-K&L or just basic informative with no slant. We don't know anything.

    How do you account for the variance of the variance in a library?
    I don’t understand what you mean.

    If there is some back-door business going on, I'm telling you right now it seems to make no statistical difference. This would indicate that all this stuff isn't actually making an impact on the outcome of reviews.
    You can tell me that, but it has no merit. None of us can say that it does or doesn’t make a difference, because we don’t even know which cases were influenced (if any) to make statistics. It's all speculation. Same goes for me; I can't say that there is is a difference with these cases. It would also be speculation.

    Anything I conveyed as fact pertaining to "paid" reviews, behind the scenes, the outcome of, etc. is based on my work experience with similar businesses, and is just meant to show that it's possible, not that it is the same with the gaming sites.

    MY PLATINUM CARD ONLY ANIMATES IF YOU'RE USING FIREFOX, AS IT'S AN ANIMATED PNG FILE


  15. #55
    PRO Member
    Gauss's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,243
    Reputation
    98

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalick View Post
    You decided to take my sheet music and write your own little notes all over it to make the tune what you wanted to hear, like saying I was telling you advertisers influence the outcome of sporting events (something I would recognize as illogical even in a complete state of intoxicated inebriation).
    I see, so you are doing the same here... I didn't say influence the outcome, I said influence as in change things about how its done, handled, and operated in regards to the public.

    2nd time I'm going to explain the analogy: In your original statement you are implying that a single advertising stream can influence a site whose advertising streams come from multiple sources beyond the implicit things they may be purchasing. I'm throwing out how that influence shows up (Paid reviews or changing the commercial schedule... Same shit to me).

    If you can't understand the analogy, thats not my problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalick View Post
    Sure, it shouldn’t be assumed that a review is “paid” for, but you should know that it’s possible it was influenced by outside forces like the maker of the product. I’m not saying that any gaming review was paid for or not. I’m just conveying that it is possible based on my dealing with similar sites of different products/services. We as the public do not know, nor will we ever, if any given editorial was influenced with kickbacks and bonuses (the majority of the time).
    Well the context of most of the conversations in this thread has been paid reviews, I can concede its possible, but I'd counter with that influence being minimized if not eliminated due to the inclusion of things like Metacritic...

    Again, variance of scores and the variance of this variance across a library need to be accounted here.

    The fact that a gaming developer advertises on a gaming website doesn't imply impropriety... Which is the context we are talking about with paid reviews.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalick View Post
    It's easy to keep things like this internal.
    This is where you and I disagree... Particularly as reviewers and editors get laid off (how can you influence the outcome of a review if you don't tell the reviewer?) and you involve so many people.

    Yeah, I've been involved with businesses that have those types of confidentiality agreements. Doesn't help. Rumors and information still spread like wildfire in every company I've been in... You really telling me a juicy story like this is going to be kept secret from the public? I'd believe it if we are talking about specific incidents or more controlled aspects of information (i.e. classified information), as leaks in those arenas are more difficult. Problem is the scale on both time and people involved you are talking about is too big for me to take a confidentiality agreement seriously. IF its put within the context of things being dishonest.

    Honest business practices are different, but thats because they aren't interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalick View Post
    You said traffic dipped. I'll take you at your word, as I never bothered to research that. However, it recovered over time, right?
    Kinda, Gamespot has been on a variable decline for several years now. They've had periods of highs and lows, but the general trend has been downhill.

    The information published is typically constant too, there aren't alot of those "2 week" scenarios that I've been able to find. Of course when it comes to real news neither of those sites keeps up with blogs.

    I'm referring to reviews though, paid reviews = drop in credibility.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalick View Post
    Do you think every grocery store has the same deal with Tyson for chicken distribution? Or that NyQuil has the same contract with Drew Brees as they do with Jason Witten for an endorsement? As somebody said above, some reviews can basically just be paid endorsements.
    Which would stand to reason that if we assume reviews are paid endorsements that each site has different things to gain, and hence different scores, but scores that should match up in some meaningful way with this influence. That trend doesn't exist in any context I've been able to find, those gains don't seem to match up with the sites who get the most money we can track (advertising, traffic, site-worth, etc, etc)...

    Which is why I am saying the statement they are paid endorsements doesn't seem to correlate well to the review scores they receive.

    Why do I care if money is exchanging hands by execs if I am still getting a legitimate critical analysis by the reviewers and editors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mihalick View Post
    I don’t understand what you mean.
    The fact that not all scores have the same spreads across any reasonable subset. You could cherry pick a set of games that do, but the set would seem uncorrelated and that's forgiving the fact its a logical fallacy.

    What I am saying is that when you look at the statistical spread of information for a given game and compare it to another game, there is a deviation between the two that has a pretty "random" spread itself.

    My point is statistically the argument that review scores are influenced by any types of advertising or perks makes no sense given the data.

    If you are saying all you can do is speculate, I am saying fine... Speculate away. I actually don't care about the relationship of review sites to gaming companies. I don't care that there is advertising money and perks being exchanged. Thats business. I am sure it is possible that there are some shady things going on like how IGN launches its new review format with Mass Effect 3... For all I know BioWare paid to have that happen. I don't care though.

    I am saying that there is no evidence that this is having any type of wide-spread influence on review scores.
    Gauss's Piracy Uncertainty Principle: When you pirate a game, that act inherently changes the results of what is to come after your pirating. You can't make any statement with any certainty regarding what would have happened had you not pirated the game.


    Gauss's Rating Rationale:
    0-1: A game whose very existence is abhorrent to all things creative and intelligent.
    2-4: A just plain bad game.
    5-6: A game that has alot of mistakes, but is atleast playable and has some enjoyable sections. Good for a rent.
    7: An average game, should be played at some point
    8: A good game, should buy at some point
    9: A great game, day-one purchase
    10: A game that goes above and beyond the generation, its transcendent.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:17 PM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10
Copyright © 2018 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO