Jeff Gerstmann’s dismissal was all over the internet last week. A very unfortunate incident but it brings to light an issue that needs to be discussed, one consumers need to be aware of. There are definite conflict of interests with online entities.

The GFW Radio Podcast had a very frank discussion (MP3) about the conflicts of interest that happen in the gaming community. So did The HotSpot (MP3). Don’t get a warm and fuzzy feeling though. As much as I like these guys they know:

1) The people want to hear this.
2) Because they already know it.
3) And it will blow over in time.

It’s a tough situation if you think about it. Game developers and publishers are in business to make money. To have an authoritative site that focuses on gaming content cooperation from the gaming companies is mandatory. Are the gaming companies going to help a site spread negative press about their games? And pay them to do it by purchasing advertising?

I trust that these guys want to do a good job. I don’t trust cNet at all because their actions speaks louder than any words they can say. This conflict was bound to come out sooner or later and they have placed themselves deeper in this situation – they created this situation.

Yeah I said it.

Back in the day cNet had a crappy gaming site which couldn’t compete with GameSpot. They ended up purchasing zNet and they absorbed GameSpot. They also own MetaCritics and GameRankings. Let’s not forget GameFaq’s and Sports Gamer. And 1UP. Let’s not forget their print magazines. To be fair I won’t leave out the other biggie IGN owning IGN, GameSpy, the Planet sites, TeamXbox, GameStats, GamerMetrics, 3DGamers, etc. but IGN isn’t the one facing this scandal (but they are guilty of the same thing). And I doubt I listed all the gaming holdings for either company.

See, these companies know that people pay attention to the score over the words in a review, which is why they dominate in the game rankings area. If you read the GameSpot and IGN review for Kayne and Lynch, for example, you would notice the words point to a below average game but their scores are above average. That doesn’t make sense does it? To make things worse, on MetaCritics this is on the review page for the game under What The Critics Said:

All critic scores are converted to a 100-point scale. If a critic does not indicate a score, we assign a score based on the general impression given by the text of the review.

So much for a neutral stance. Here’s a clue, do that on your own reviews. Wait, they can’t, because the game developers are not only providing them the content they are also providing the revenue. Think about it, to do a review the gaming site could definitely wait until the game came out and purchase it. The previews? The betas? The interviews? They need the help of the gaming company and the gaming company wants that positive press out there. There aren’t enough games coming out to rely solely on reviews – the interim content for all of those web sites and magazines depend on cooperation from the gaming companies.

It is not smart to base a company’s content (ie: survival) on the people cutting the checks. If you think gaming companies are going to roll over and play nice when essentially they are in complete control I have a bridge I can sell you.

As well constructed as the plot is, one would assume the game would play smoothly. Unfortunately, it does not. Instead, it plays like a game that lacks focus and needs a few more months of polish. But then, most of the gameplay feels like it was pulled directly out of a game from the last generation, so perhaps more time wouldn’t have done any good.

Does that sound like a 7 to you? The reviewer can state they were honest with their review – that’s their out, honesty in their words. Obviously, IGN opted not to bite the hand that feeds them.

Unfortunately, things aren’t always the way they seem. One has to open their eyes and see people, companies, and situations as they really are.