Slashdot Mirror
Kohnke v. Perpetual Suit Unveils 'Pay For Good Reviews' Angle
The recent debate brought about by Jeff Gerstmann's dismissal from Gamespot has focused a lot of attention on the role of advertiser manipulation of reviews. Now a lawsuit brought by PR firm Kohnke Communications against what remains of Perpetual Entertainment has unveiled an interesting element of their business relationship. From the language of the agreement: "Kohnke's public relations campaign was successful in creating pre-release 'buzz' around Gods & Heroes, and in convincing reviewers to write positive reviews about the game. In addition, on information and belief, Perpetual had signed up more than 100,000 beta testers for Gods & Heroes, a large number for an unreleased MMO." For another viewpoint on the Gerstmann issue, Dean Takahashi just recently interviewed the former reviewer.
I just read the linked Gerstmann interview and was disappointed that it didn't add more clarity to the story. Of course, as has been repeatedly mentioned, Gerstmann is not allowed to comment on why he was fired. Given that GameSpot has very clearly denied firing him for hurting their bottom line, that doesn't seem quite fair. Why is GameSpot allowed to defend itself (by denying they inappropriately fired Gerstmann), but Gerstmann is not allowed to defend himeself (by perhaps insisting that GameSpot *did* fire him inappropriately)?
:)
On the other hand, this may be a bit of a boon for Gerstmann, especially if he was fired for simply doing a bad job. After all, right now he looks like a victim -- without this controversy, he might just look incompetent. Maybe Gerstmann has good reason to keep quiet.
I have some questions regarding all these controversy.
Gamespot hasn't mention why they have actually fired Gerstmann. The last I heard, they are bound by law not to disclose why they terminated their employee.
Gerstmann has not stated in any way, why he was fired. However, I think he is also bound by law from confirming that he was fired.
Unless I am missing out on something, most of us here on the internet do not actually know what really happened. However, we assume that Gerstmann was fired by gamespot after persuasion from Eidos when gerstmann gave a bad review to Kane & Lynch.
My question is, what if the firing was *really* unrelated to the review? Think about it, he *could* have been fired due to other some other unrelated reason and the timing of the review and his firing is just a really bad coincidence. He may also not be denying the rumours that he was fired because of the bad review because he wants to spite the company.
I have no proof of the above nor do I really know what happen, but the thing is, aren't we supposed to live in a 'innocent until proven guilty' system? Aren't we supposed to assume gamespot's innocence until we have hard-evidence they are guilty? No, the timing of the bad review, the advertisement on the front page of gamespot and his firing does not really constitute as proof as they can just be some giant coincidence.
But does it even matter now? I mean, if gamespot truly did not fire gerstmann because of the review, it still wouldn't matter because it doesn't seem like they can appease the general gaming crowd anymore. Seems like the PR damage is done and a lot of people have made up their mind what the truth really is.
I am not trying to troll or invite flame. I was angry at gamespot at the start too but I was thinking, maybe all these could be overblown.
I've been in the games industry for a while now and can tell you any one familiar with the inner workings of Game PR and Marketing would not be surprised by this, or the allegations being made. Many things happen between game media and game developers / publishers that result in a less than objective review. I won't spill all the beans, but for example: You know those top ten lists? You can pay to have your game show up on most of those. Companies I've worked at have bartered exclusive first looks at new titles for higher review scores on shipping titles. Our PR guys even wrote up material for reviewers to use in their reviews that highlight features we wanted to the public to get excited about. Those reviews are a lot less about journalism and are really an extension of Studio/Publisher PR and Marketing machines. Don't buy what any of the big sites say, just download the demo and make your own call.
Maybe it's just me, but when I read the subject, my first thought was "Perpetual Suit? What an odd name."
I don't know... maybe it could work for a marketing exec. turned supervillain.
When someone says, "Any fool can see