[QUOTE="ZIMdoom"][QUOTE="slduncanlaw"] I'm sure that the K&L review played it's part, but I believe it was more of a culmination of issues. As an attorney that has dealt with wrongful termination cases, we won't know anything possibly ever. What does seem the least likely is that GS and CNET let him go only because of an unfavorable review. I recall the pages of LAIR ads that covered their sites before and after the 4.5 review and video review.
But compare the video reviews of both games to each other. There are tonal differences that speak volumes. At the end of the day, we don't know what was going on behind the scenes. We also don't know Jeff. He could be just as much a victim as he could be an employee that was getting too big for his boots.
The editorializing in the K&L review IMO went too far. You can say what is wrong with the game without getting personal. And while editorializing in a personal review is expected, I can see Jeff's style of review not jiving with GS's obvious attempt to standardize their review system.
slduncanlaw
As an attorney, surely you should know the difference between a company not taking any action (that we know of) due to a negative review, and a company that pulls (or threatens to pull)future advertising revenue because of a review.
In short, it wasn't the review that got Jeff in trouble. It was Eidos saying they will not advertise on GS and therefore GS would lose money. As far as anyone knows, no such claim was made by the people behind Lair.
As an attorney, I'm versed on my state's law and federal law - a business decision falls outside that relm. What I do know is that GS and CNet is a viable and important source for a publishing company to advertise to a specific audience that is substantial. I don't think Eidos is in a position to not advertise on GS or Cnet.
You're being very speculative on the facts, which admittedly are thin. And as to the review, I didn't take any offense to it - I have no vested interest in it. But I can see where someone who does, would. There is a big difference in telling an audience where a 6.0 game has its flaws and telling that audience not to buy the game.
I don't buy it. This wasn't just a thought out business decision that we simply ignore the facts too.
The evidence clearly suggests that Jeff's firing was reactionary. It was an on the spot kind of thing. They didn't faze him out, and they didn't put a plan that would transition his leaving. The pulled the plug. The On the Spot show that day was cancelled. They took several days to put up an official response. Staff members have stated that they were hit by surprise.
At the very least, some executives at Cnet handled this situation horribly and needlessly put the credibility of Gamespot at stake. At the worse, CNET has been trying to cover up their willingness to allow advertisers to influence review scores. Either way, the situation is disastrous for Gamespot.
We know that the review played a key role because it was pulled right along with Jeff. We have all seen the review. It just isn't that offensive. It fits a 6.0 score. Jeff dissaproves of the game, and he simply states his reasons. These are game jornalists, they love some things and dislike others. It doesn't make sense unlees you factor in a "vested interest." But when the executives at CNET allow themselves to disaprove of a review because of a vested interest, they hand power over to the addvertisers.
The fact that they pulled the review was just foolishness on their part. They tipped their hand, when they shouldn't have. They have created this situation, and the "official GS word" doesn't help because it reeks of cooperate speak. All we get from Gamespot is a "It wasn't me." They need to do more than that if they want to gain their credibility back.
Log in to comment