Was Jeff Gerstmann fired because Kane & Lynch sucks?
Rumors and questions have been raised over the recent firing of Gamespot game reviewer Jeff Gerstmann. Website Primotech, citing unnamed sources, is suggesting that Mr. Gerstmann was fired recently for giving Kane & Lynch 6 out of 10.
Eidos owns the Kane & Lynch property, and a great deal of Eidos advertising for the game can found on Gamespot, adding fuel to these speculations that Mr. Gerstmann's unflattering review of the game made some people unhappy, and that he was canned because of it.
Penny Arcade's comedic take on things can be found here.
Jeff Gerstmann is a very experienced game reviewer, and has been an editor for Gamespot for more than 10 years. But was he fired because of this review? Their are only rumors at this point. But another insider has recently talked in confidence with Primotech, saying that there may be other reasons involved for his termination.
Mr. Gerstmann was supposed to represent Gamespot at the Spike TV video game awards next week, so it is uncertain what will happen there.
Expect further rumors, counter-rumors, conspiracy theories, and anonymous insider-information to surface in relation to this story.
Update: At the very end of Jeff Gerstmann's Gamespot video review of Kane & Lynch, Mr. Gerstmann says the following: "...the multiplayer is probably worth-seeing -- so if you do have the oppourtinity to see it -- without paying full price -- take a look at it." This odd statement can seen as Mr. Gerstmann implying that the pirating of Kane & Lynch is not a bad idea, but buying the game is. Conversely, he could have meant that this game makes a good rental. The comment is ambiguous.
That important last sentence of the video review was brought to my attention by a Youtube comment. The commenter's name was rainerk2. Here is a link to the video.
Update 2: Gamespot made an official comment on the subject. Unfortunately the comment did not shed any light on the matter, as they say they say "it is CNET Networks' policy not to comment on the status of its employees, current of former" (probably out of fear of lawsuits.)
Update 3: Joystiq recently talked to a spokesperson for CNET (which owns Gamespot.) In a weird coincidence, her name is Sarah Cain. While she did not offer much more light on the subject, she did tell Joystiq that CNET does "not terminate employees based on external pressure from advertisers." When questioned on why Gerstmann's video review of Kane & Lynch was pulled off of Gamespot, Sarah Cain said that the review had to be updated to include information about the differences between the Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of the game, and a clarification about the game's multiplayer mode.
The last site with integrity.
I hope Jeff finds a job at IGN. He speaks the truth and he's a great reporter. We need more like him.
Personally I suspect that that comment had a lot to do with his firing, and that Gamespot was not in the wrong in doing so.
While bias in reviews of games (and hardware ) is a serious issue, I'd personally guess that one comment had more to do with the firing then his 6 out of 10 score.
That's just my opinion of course. If anymore facts pop up I'll update the story.
He meant a good rental, not a DL. That's reading into things a little much.
Advertisements and payoffs screw up reviews anyway, it'd suck to work for a place if you couldn't write what you really feel.
Not paying full price always means a rental.
It's good to have passion in a review, it shows you really care, like Jeff does.
The lack of voice from Gamespot on this matter should be more than enough evidence that they're trying to cover their asses and assets at the moment.
Any non-guilty party would jump to the press right away to clarify things. Gamespot is a scam and always will be.
Reader reviews(20 ratings 2 reader reviews)
6.0
press average(out of 3 press ratings)
6.7
IGN's rating(this is the websites rating)
7.0
As you can see the ratings from IGN and the ratings that Jeff gave arn't that far off, and on IGN a 7.0 is considered DECENT. So whats the only diffenence between the 2 websites? 1 avratized the game more than the other one so if the website that had all the ads gives the game a bad rating they'll lose the money and that company will never put ads there AGAIN.
This is all Gamespot's doing do to money pressures.
The way that Consumers Union (the producers of Consumers Report) magazine operates, for example, is by the money made of the subscriptions and by buying a typical unit of whatever it is directly off the shelf of some random retailer. This way, they insure that they do not get a "prettied up" version of the unit. Also, they make sure that the companies cannot put inappropriate pressure on them to give the reviews that are desired.
Because of this, I never trust reviews from outfits such as CNet/Gamespot. I look for someone who is independent or do my own evaluations based on what is available from my suppliers.
Specifically they said that Game Informer gave them five stars, when in fact, they only gave the game a 7 out of 10.
http://www.gamebump.com/go/official_kane_and_lynch_website_lies_about_its_scores