From what I hear, all this nonsense about getting canned for a low review seems legit. I didn't believe it when I heard it. If it's not true I would suggest GameSpot, or CNET speaking up, b/c a lot of people are disappointed and angry right now.
Even though a lot of folks I really enjoyed reading/watching had left GameSpot prior to Jeff's getting fired, I still came to the site a lot. I have a lot of respect for several of staff here. It's been my primary game news site for many many years now. And despite the occasional rumor you hear about there being pressure on reviewers to inflate scores, I never believed it.
Jeff's Kane and Lynch review was scathing. But I walked away from reading/watching it with an understanding of what the reviewer viewed as the negative and positive of the game. It informed me about his opinions of a product, all while entertaining me. If I saw Jeff reviewed a game I generally watched or read it, even if I wasn't interested in the game. But you know what, in doing that I also watched the advertisement that came with it...or so the ads smeared all across the site.
Is it that Gamespot can't secure advertising sales as a result of negative reviews? Here's a theory I have: "If a game sucks, words going to get out anyway." If a reviewer inflates ratings what's going to happen? They lose credibility, that's what. Then they lose hits, then they won't sell any ad space b/c people don't give a @#$% about their site or it's reviewers. That's the message CNET is giving now.
It is absolutely about money (and it should be). If you're credible you'll get a fan base. If you get a fan base you will sell ads. If a publisher complains the response of the parent company should be: "You're selling exposure of your product to a market that might be interested in it. That market is there for you b/c of the types of our writers." Done.
Log in to comment