@Xeiphyer: Sorry, but I was under the impression that you were trying so passionately to protect these guys and their credibility. I was just trying to remind you the basic things. Must've been a wrong impression, so excuse me.
Again, I was just saying my opinion on the incident, and,frankly, I don't give a shit. I remember reading about this issue somewhere and made some logical connections, therefore I didn't spend time searching for dirt like you did, gathering information, because I didn't give a rat's ass about it. This incident just proves that there is bullshit even here, in an industry that some folks think it addresses the kids.
But I don't know why you seem so confident that things went this way. Why? Because some guys on the internet said so and he confirmed? Is that a strong argument to you? And what are those "clearly documented" arguments that you talk about? Come on, if somebody could've or, more importantly, wanted to prove something, this thing would have been finished long time ago. All you got is suppositions,opinions and half truths. But again, it really doesn't matter anymore.
And don't act like you didn't understand what I was implying, ok? By having relations and strong ties in the industry can also mean they are not as impartial as some may think and this brings them certain benefits. That's why I gave that Schafer example-because that guy doesn't go to people he doesn't know, that could criticize him or make him look bad.
That's why I said everybody knows everybody and they're friends- because they work hand in hand. Because in real journalism you have people conducting campaigns, inquiries, challenging and criticizing certain policies or conducts, people with different opinions arguing. But here- everybody's backing everybody: I promote your publication , you promote my product, one hand washes the other and so on. And don't tell me you didn't knew that ...
I partially agree with the indie sites "kissing up" argument, but here the exposure matters the most. Usually, a big corporation doesn't even look, let alone need some niche , small site to give them exposure. They go to the big fish, the big mainstream outlets 'cause that's were the majority of people look for info. Why bother with some small, unknown , basement outlet?
I already said and I agree with checking out multiple opinions reviews. That's the basic thing. And also to be mindful of the tone of the review, the way it treats the product and so on. But that's a matter of taste, here, so it's highly subjective.
Again with the incident: so what the editorial staff quit? GameSpot still functioned and is still functioning as we speak, whether they lost a type of audience or gained a new one
Big deal- we've all seen major editorial staff quitting news outlets because the management refused to publish an article that criticized business associates or contributors or certain political figures. So? Nothing has changed. Also, Fox News and MSNBC are still broadcasting, right?
Did Rupert Murdoch lose anything with the phone hacking scandal? Come on..
What is credibility worth? Crap. Audience, sales, adverts..that's what matters. Credibility is something subjective.
Bottom line is that if you really cared and had the balls, you would have gone out in public, saying exactly who, how, where and when everything happened, without having to resort to a fuc*king soap opera scene remembering good ol' times at GameSpot and how cool it was prior to the incident. No, you should have ended that shit the next day. That is if you weren't afraid that some other, probably more ugly shit would come to the surface and sink other dudes and/or companies as well. Or not. Who the fuck knows?!
And, upon seeing the way it ended surprisingly hush-hush, like a fart in the storm, one can also presume a lot of other things.What if that shit became public precisely because it went wrong and because not everyone involved was properly"buttered up"? That's why I said is the norm in the business. But that's my opinion about it.
What I don't understand is why people need to take sides and act as defenders of the guy, when nothing courageous has been said or done about it. One thing is to refuse the bribe, to grab your toys and walk away in silence and a whole other thing is to bring the entire deal to the light for the public to see these practices in all their "splendor", making a big fuss about it, naming names, the exact value of the bribe, bringing witnesses and all that jazz. I, for one, would have expected to see all that if he's claiming to be a righteous, professional guy with strong principles. And no doubt he would've acted that way if the biz was indeed clean and that incident only an isolated one.That's why I stand by my assumption that the biz is corrupted.
And no, it's not a conspiracy, just an opinion. Why can't you admit corruption as something normal in this biz, when on more important, crucial aspects of our lives it has been proven time and time again that it IS the norm? Is it because they don't outright tell you how it really is? Do you need that kind of confirmation, for them to spell it out for you?
Why are you under the assumption that the videogame industry is something cleaner, with higher principles and that is way above practices of other industries? Look at pharmaceutical industry with Pfizer scandals; look at the oil business . Look and the Rupert Murdoch "News of the World" I mentioned above. Just because it's about entertainment doesn't mean it's all shinny and bright. Corruption is so widespread and so complex that is out of the ordinary for someone NOT to be corrupt. Don't you read the papers? Don't you watch the news? Don't you work and live in this society?
And I don't give a shit about your Obama and all that conspiracy theories crap you might think I promote. You assume too much..and poorly. And don't act superior avoiding the subject, ok? See, I made some wrong assumptions about what you've said and I apologize for that, but you also went really idiotic with some of your assumptions as well.
Did I ask you to tell me what happened between CBSi and GB? What, do you want me to celebrate and open a bottle of champagne? It's just business as usual. Today is CBS, tomorrow is back to flippin' burgers, recording in a basement or garage or acting PR for some studio somewhere...Who gives a fuck!? Have you seen me fearing that they might be going PG, all nice and censored? And what if they actually do that? How can I or somebody else change it? It's like I said: they need to put food on the table.
I don't care about their revenue, advertisements and their fanbase. I don't work in the games industry and I don't look forward to, but what I do know is from a buddy of mine that works. Again, dude, you're assuming that I care about all that.
All I care about is that they don't lose their humor on the Bombcast. And even if that happens, I'll go somewhere else for my humorous chatter about games and life. Big fucking deal.
That's it- I've had enough of this stupid old subject that doesn't even matter anymore.
Take care.
Log in to comment