This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by Mdk5631 (65 posts) -

and now they own Giantbomb.

so Giantbomb (owned by CBS) is listed an review site (owned by CBS)

shouldn't that mean that Metacrtic will stop listing Giantbomb scores (Gamespot too for that matter) because of a conflict of interest?

I am curious what people think about this apparent conflict of interest...

#2 Edited by BestUsernameEver (4825 posts) -

EVERYONE RUN TO THE HIGHEST MOUNTAIN, APOCALYPSE BE NIGH.

Also, I see literally no conflict of interest, why would metacritic be uneasy about displaying a score from a site that has no interaction with them? I see more conflict of interest in Gametrailers rating Rock band games (Both 'were at the time' owned by MTV and Viacom).

#3 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

I don't see how this is a conflict of interest, the scores will still mean the same thing no matter who owns Metacritic.

#4 Edited by Godlyawesomeguy (6388 posts) -

OH MY GAWD NO FUCKING WAY

Sorry, just my knee jerk reaction to thread titles in all caps. So......what's going to be the end of the credibility for Giant Bomb this time? Oh, nothing? Okay. Keep freaking out about it.

#5 Posted by believer258 (11682 posts) -

You've been making tons of threads condemning Giant Bomb's decision, haven't you?

Asshat.

Online
#6 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

YO MOTHER

#7 Edited by MariachiMacabre (7056 posts) -

Metacritic doesn't make any goddamn games so I'm not sure how this could lead to a conflict of interest. By the way, it's Metacritic. Not Metacrtic. Stop spelling it like that, stupid.

#8 Posted by caska (113 posts) -

I think people should really understand the fact that bias is inherent in everything and that that's not a bad thing if you take the time to understand it accordingly...

#9 Posted by Wunder_ (1168 posts) -

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!

#10 Posted by S0ndor (2715 posts) -

Go high enough up the family tree and you'll see that everything is related to everything. There's no conflict of interest here because:

  • Giantbomb and Gamespot have literally almost nothing to do with Metacritic.
  • Metacritic is not affected by GB or GS giving something a higher or lower score, there's no profit to be had for anybody.
#11 Posted by EuanDewar (4789 posts) -
#12 Posted by Claude (16254 posts) -
#13 Posted by SuperSambo (2854 posts) -

Why would metacritic care what score is given to a game?

They dont gain anything if a game is given 100 or 0.

I cannot fathom the thought process behind your post...

#14 Posted by krazy_kyle (716 posts) -

Stop making these damn threads, you damn kids!

#15 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6388 posts) -

@Claude: Claude, there is no reason for me to have laughed so hard at that but I totally did. Well done.

#16 Posted by Azteck (7449 posts) -
@Claude: I do love it when you post in these forums. <3
#17 Posted by Claude (16254 posts) -
@Godlyawesomeguy: @Azteck
 
  
#18 Posted by GunslingerPanda (4646 posts) -

@Mdk5631: Your and idiot.

#19 Posted by SlightConfuse (3963 posts) -

giantbomb appeared on metacritic before, it just an aggregate nothing more, sounds like you are just desperate to find a flaw in the cbs deal.

stop being so burthurt

#20 Posted by Gizmo (5389 posts) -

THEY OWN METACRITIC

and now they own Giantbomb.

OH MY GOOOOODD!!!

/troll2

#21 Posted by AjayRaz (12418 posts) -

@Claude: CLAUDE FOR PRESIDENT 2012

#22 Edited by Zacagawea (1585 posts) -

omg

i knw right

they cant be trused with anything nomore

fuck u cbsi and metacrtic, u ruined gb because u own them and bunch of other sttuff and thwy were like so indie before you bought them and totes chanhged thier vibe around gosh

dat shit aint even cash money broskadiver

lol gb ganna get mad bank tho fur seriousness

edit: zwkv

Edit2; MAN I SO PISSED OFFF

part 3 i dont even know what imd oing

yo man wtf up with dis shelby bonner guy

5 i heard je's kids were anerexoic

edit 6/ or somethin like that idk lol

shit man my toe hurts hi whats up

maybe that means im anerowcix too

HAHAHAHAG no jk i aint gay i dont even like girls

no but anyway bro i totes agrue with you, conflact of pininterets

this place is aljty like gamebomzb.rufu or whatever lol der revuews are better den this ones t2 they got the excluzicesz

yall heard kid rocks new album i heard it was dope o rauthentic or sumthing form a friend, looks tight

RapeLay

#23 Posted by august (3827 posts) -

@Zacagawea said:

omg

i knw right

they cant be trused with anything nomore

fuck u cbsi and metacrtic, u ruined gb because u own them and bunch of other sttuff and thwy were like so indie before you bought them and totes chanhged thier vibe around gosh

dat shit aint even cash money broskadiver

lol gb ganna get mad bank tho fur seriousness

edit: zwkv

Edit2; MAN I SO PISSED OFFF

BIAS

#24 Posted by Mdk5631 (65 posts) -

For all you unable to understand I will give you a simple real world example.

I work in finance.

Mcgraw Hill (the book people) own Standard and Poor (The metacrtic of the stock market)

as a result S&P is barred from rating Mcgraw Hill and any of its subsidiaries because of the possible conflict of interest.

No such standards are in place in the entertainment industry. (granted video games are less important than stocks)

#25 Posted by JasonR86 (9611 posts) -

Ahhhhhhh!!!!!!!

#26 Posted by ZackHoagie (23 posts) -

Metacritic is a shitty standard to judge a games quality anyway so who gives a shit?

#27 Posted by Claude (16254 posts) -
@Mdk5631: Dude, CBSi owns Metacritic along with Gamespot, Gamefaqs, Gamerankings and now Giant Bomb.
#28 Posted by august (3827 posts) -

@Mdk5631 said:

For all you unable to understand I will give you a simple real world example.

I work in finance.

Mcgraw Hill (the book people) own Standard and Poor (The metacrtic of the stock market)

as a result S&P is barred from rating Mcgraw Hill and any of its subsidiaries because of the possible conflict of interest.

No such standards are in place in the entertainment industry. (granted video games are less important than stocks)

what is this

I don't even

Giant Bomb doesn't make games. Metacritic doesn't rate review sites.

#29 Posted by Draxyle (1797 posts) -

Metacritic is dumb and only harmless when even dumber studios use it to validate success or not. I agree that it's terrible, but it's not inherently evil by any means.

#30 Edited by Trace (3550 posts) -

Given that CNET (and obviously now CBSi) has owned Metacritic since 2005, and given that there haven't been any major controversies of bias for GameSpot in those seven years (Between Metacritic and GameSpot, that is), I think we'll be fine.

No need to dig up conspiracy theories for the sake of trolling.

Moderator