While I was at a party frightening everyone to the core with my Rock Band-fueled vocal rendition of “Flirting With Disaster”, apparently forces were in motion.
Item: EA is no longer the biggest dog in the playground. It looks like Activision and Vivendi-Universal Games’ management has merged, and taken Blizzard’s name, because, well, hey, wouldn’t you? No idea what impact this will have on, well, anything. Heck, EA still hasn’t fully digested Bioware/Pandemic, and now this. Some days I’m glad my soul is kept in a Korean jar safely away from all this buyout mania.
Item: Gaming journalism blows up. Apparently Jeff Gerstmann was fired for Reviewing While Honest. Call it Kanegate. Or Lynchgate. Or Kaneandlynchgate. Depending on how you remix the Gamespot website ads! What may (or may not!) be a Gamespot editor leaks all about it to Valleywag and in response, 1UP pickets Gamespot. I’m pretty sure I can’t make any of this up, which means I don’t have a future in corporate gaming reviews.
And y’all damn sure know what I mean. Whop-bop-a-loo-bop.
#1 by Staryx on December 2nd, 2007
The best part about the Activision Blizzard story is that “Blizzard Entertainment” is still just a development house, and from the sounds of the FAQ they have up on their site, will have nothing to do with the management of Activision Blizzard. Of course if Level 70 (possibly 80 by then) Elite Tauren Chieftain make a guest appearance in Guitar Hero 4, that would be pretty cool.
As for the whole Gamespot debacle, call me a cynic, but I’m surprised something like this hasn’t happened sooner. I always had a feeling publishers found ways to “buy” better reviews.
#2 by J. on December 2nd, 2007
I hope someone was taping you sing, Scott.
And yes, I’m sure once the dust settles, no one’s going to be seeing a munged-together Activision-Blizzard logo on any game boxes. Rather, they’re just going to name the corporate overhead Activision-Blizzard, and perhaps re-tool how they use the Activision logo on stuff.
I do wonder what this is going to do to the Sierra label, which has for the past year been the subject of some major refurbishment.
#3 by Anydiem on December 2nd, 2007
“Rather, they’re just going to name the corporate overhead Activision-Blizzard, and perhaps re-tool how they use the Activision logo on stuff.”
You’ve just gone and dashed my hopes for Tony Hawk’s Call of Warcraft: Downhill Boom Boom Huck Jam 2009
#4 by Sutro on December 2nd, 2007
Almost the only impact the Activision thing appears to have is that now people can buy stock in Activision/Blizzard.
…which could be quite an impact.
#5 by J. on December 2nd, 2007
Countdown to ‘Activizzard’ or ‘Blizzivision’.
#6 by Jeff Freeman on December 2nd, 2007
I didn’t even have hopes for Tony Hawk’s Call of Warcraft: Downhill Boom Boom Huck Jam 2009 until now, but damn, with a name like that – I do now!
And also my hopes are dashed.
Great.
#7 by Jeff Freeman on December 2nd, 2007
Let’s see if I can close this tag.
HTML is some kind of stupid.
#8 by Aufero on December 2nd, 2007
I have to agree to a website disclaimer before I can read anything on Activision/Blizzard’s new site?
Screw that, and them.
#9 by Mist on December 2nd, 2007
I’m calling it now. The ‘Guitar Hero Class’ will be the April Fools Day joke for Blizzard next year.
#10 by VonKaiser on December 2nd, 2007
Gotta love a website opener like that.
GUITARS AND DWARVES MOTHERFUCKERS!
#11 by VPellen on December 3rd, 2007
Activision + Blizzard?
That’s no moon.
#12 by Servantes on December 3rd, 2007
Bill Roper must be kicking his own nuts now for missing in on this and being unable to cash in. And releasing that crap called Hellgate: London.
#13 by brent on December 3rd, 2007
They can’t use Activizzard, because Nintendo’s already trademarked it as a Pokemon name.
#14 by ubvman on December 3rd, 2007
RE: Reviewing while honest
Actually, the insanity is not that an editor was let go for writing an honest review, the insanity is in the editorial and reviewing staff being unaware that their industry they work for (Interweb gaming website supported by online ads of which the majority is from gaming companies) – CANNOT SUPPORT HONEST REVIEWS.
C’mon, my educated guess is that a huge chunk of CNET gamespot’s revenue is based almost entirely on online ad sales – and not coincedentally from gaming companies. It does not have print magazines sales to fall back on and I doubt that online memberships bring in as much as the ads do (or google refs).
Print magazines can afford to dole out 2/10 reviews of games from major corps, their newstand sales and subscribers can protect them from the wrath of their advertisers. On the other hand, internet only “magazines” that rely on online ad sales can’t afford the integrity. I wonder why the people working on CNets’s editorial staff took so long to figure out that they build their legacy on sand (by the beach)…
#15 by J. on December 3rd, 2007
Print magazines can afford to dole out 2/10 reviews of games from major corps, their newstand sales and subscribers can protect them from the wrath of their advertisers.
You obviously know nothing about print, as this is patently false. The vast majority of all print media, games or otherwise, survives on advertising. The good ones last long enough to sustain strong editorial policies and not get caught up in their owners’ demands for wider profit margins, but that’s not most of them.
I like Destructoid. Savvy enough to make IGN change their Assassin’s Creed review and smart enough to realize Mass Effect does in fact have some flaws worth pointing out.
#16 by antipwn on December 3rd, 2007
What J said regarding print magazines. They make a tiny fraction of their income from subs and only stay afloat through ad revenue. This was true even before e-journalism and now the market for print is more depressed than it ever has been.
The price on a magazine is there primarily as an incentive to the retailer so he can turn some profit for selling you someone else’s ads.
#17 by loredena on December 3rd, 2007
Aufero on December 2, 2007 said:
I have to agree to a website disclaimer before I can read anything on Activision/Blizzard’s new site?
Screw that, and them.
Actually. that’s a legal disclaimer because they have to assume you are a potential investor — you were agreeing to stock-related stuff, not website stuff, and the SEC would be SO on them if they hadn’t put that there. It had legalese about forward-looking statements, safe harbor, yada yada.
#18 by blachawk on December 3rd, 2007
“Actually, the insanity is not that an editor was let go for writing an honest review, the insanity is in the editorial and reviewing staff being unaware that their industry they work for (Interweb gaming website supported by online ads of which the majority is from gaming companies) – CANNOT SUPPORT HONEST REVIEWS.”
This.
Anyone who is really experiencing any sort of outrage needs a reality check.
#19 by sanyaweathers on December 3rd, 2007
I can think of half a dozen reporters RIGHT NOW who have been sitting on juicy scandal and gossip from all over the industry… all of whom have flat said they won’t publish a bit of it or they’ll lose their access to game companies. And possibly their jobs.
Until the supply of people willing to be industry patsy pants is no longer exponentially larger than the pool of people who dream of journalistic standards, this nonsense will continue. Honestly, I’d rather keep the reporters I know, because they at least know what they’re doing is a little sad. Their replacements might well be people who see nothing wrong with the situation.
#20 by Todd Ogrin on December 3rd, 2007
Here’s my handy Honest GameSpot Rating Decoder Formula, that automatically removes advertiser snow-job ass-covering bias:
Actual Rating = (GameSpot Rating % 7) * 4
Adjust to suit your tastes.
#21 by Octopaganini on December 3rd, 2007
ActiBlizzion is clearly the most phonetically pleasing amalgam.
#22 by Axecleaver on December 3rd, 2007
Everybody knows, in the back of their minds, that there is no integrity in gaming journalism. But it’s still shocking to have it confirmed for you in such black and white terms.
The best source for honest information on games is your private guild forums or meatspace buddies. Public forums are overrun with paid shills like this: http://www.penny-arcade.com/news/show/21589
http://www.aegmarketing.com
Lacking access to your own personal circle of confidants, you’re on your own.
#23 by ubvman on December 3rd, 2007
RE: the two links above.
Dang! You know what? That kinda explains how there were so many Verant Ass Kissers (VAKs) back in the old days of the EQ whineplay forums…
It also kinda explains why there are still so many SOE ass kissers defending the evil empire.
#24 by Ophelea on December 3rd, 2007
Regarding the Penny Arcade link, they don’t just go in and post positively about their clients’ products, they also go in and slam the competition. Because they are “trusted” members and do so professionally – ok, maybe not professionally but not as a total moron – people trust their opinion.
Viral PR at work.
#25 by Bonedead on December 4th, 2007
The only reviews/ratings for games I support comes from PKer.org, even though we’re all fags.
#26 by Spatch on December 4th, 2007
I’d always kind of hoped the Verant Ass Kissers were doing so publically in the hopes that they’d land a GM or Guide position. To think that they may have actually been shills purposefully put in place to bolster “public” sentiment for the company is a bit troublesome but on the other hand a bit hilarious, because they were always so bad at it (the folks who, during Brad McQuaid’s tenure, told the haters that The Vision(TM) was good and holy and it was all about a giant world anyway so take your Freeport – Qeynos corpse run and take it like a man, dammit … and then, once McQuaid was gone and Luclin introduced, kept raving about how awesome it was an how great Planes of Knowledge helped decrease travel time sooooo much, boy those corpse runs don’t suck anymore and aren’t we relieved!)
Regarding online “magazines” and reviews, anybody who doesn’t think these presences are revenue-driven is hopelessly optimistic and brother, I believe you. But I’ve written freelance for several websites on several products. On one site there was an open policy mandating that 3/4 of the reviews be 3 out of 5 stars or higher, and positively described as such. Any reviews less than 3 stars only had a 25% chance of being published and, of course, freelancers only got paid when they got published, and even then getting the beer money out of the business was like pulling teeth with beer money paychecks underneath.
“We’re in the business to sell this stuff,” the editor told me. “We can’t afford to continually slag the stuff we have a big ‘BUY NOW!’ button next to on the review.”
“Yeah, but our readers will happier knowing which stuff to avoid and which stuff to continually buy,” I said naively and altruistically.
“Stock is stock,” the editor retorted. “We push what we got.” I collected my beer money pay and found other things to write for. It wasn’t a matter of standing for Honest Review Principles, I just had more fun writing the snarky reviews and if I wasn’t gonna be allowed to do that, I’d find another outlet for ad hoc sarcasm and silly references.
#27 by Ardanna on December 4th, 2007
Yeah… I find the minute by minute (or hour by hour or whatever) report on joystiq’s website a little overly dramatic. That seems like an effort better reserved for something a little more serious and than this.
I agree with (someone who posted above me) who said
“the insanity is in the editorial and reviewing staff being unaware that their industry they work for (Interweb gaming website supported by online ads of which the majority is from gaming companies) – CANNOT SUPPORT HONEST REVIEWS.”
Yeah… imagine listening to Ebert & Roper’s review on “Knocked Up” sponsored by… the guys who made “Knocked Up”! When the report it’s witty and well thought out – a raucous riot or whatever other buzz words are used no one is going to take them seriously.
Course… if they did say something untoward and then mysteriously were “replaced” it would make their replacements seem even more dubious.
It’s no different in gaming except that, oh yeah, much of the gaming population buys it.
So being that reviews are inherently no trustworthy… do what I do. Download the game first, try it out. If you like it buy, if not delete it. I’m sure I’m not the only one who’s sick of buying shitty games you can’t return (unlike any other piece of crap product where you can hold the manufacturers accountable on some level).
#28 by J. on December 4th, 2007
Actually, Ebert & Roeper has been a production of Buena Vista Television, an arm of Disney, for most of its life. I don’t think they’ve ever been accused of giving Disney/Touchstone/Hollywood Pictures/Miramax/whatever properties a break, though. Both Ebert and Roeper (and Gene Siskel, God rest him) are/were newspaper employees whose salaries were paid largely through advertising.
Most news/information agencies know how to balance this.
#29 by wowpanda on December 4th, 2007
I wonder if they will put more pretty graphics in WOW now. Oh maybe the bg will be more like a FPS game?