#501 Posted by Gaff (1812 posts) -

@zgoon: @jackhole: Someone should link him to this thread.

And sounds like GB should invade their live streams.

Online
#502 Edited by James_Hayward (415 posts) -

@gaff said:

@zgoon: @jackhole: Someone should link him to this thread.

And sounds like GB should invade their live streams.

I've watched a whole lot more of Gamespot's live streams since Danny started to appear on GB stuff. The Lobby is great.

I'd really like to see Danny bring people like Mary, Kevin, Peter, and Chris onto UPF sometimes... perhaps even have them as bombcast guests?

#503 Posted by TyCobb (1972 posts) -
@zgoon said:

For those of you who say that you haven't really been on GS in while, I'd recommend heading over there every once in a while. They have some genuinely funny and great video stuff and some good articles and reviews.

I do once in awhile, but then I just end up back on here because I clicked the quick look video on their main page.

#504 Posted by Gaff (1812 posts) -

@james_hayward: I would also suggest Multiple Players, Random Encounter, The Point and Megabit. And of course I wouldn't be European if I didn't suggest Skyrim Mods of the Week and Reality Check.

I think Peter and Chris have been on UPF before? Would be great if Kevin showed up, Mary not so much. Her squeals on Multiple Players are so loud! (jk)

Online
#505 Posted by OneLoneClone (92 posts) -

@scrappypixels: Yeah, I worked with Ryan Mac, Greg Kasavin, Ron Dulin, and Jeff back in the 90's when GameSpot was still on Clement St in the 90's. Got my start in web/UX design there, designed the GS logo and other early GameSpot features and game guides and stuff. Good times!

I love the Bombcast cause it reminds me of random conversations at GameSpot 'back in the day'.

#506 Posted by HatKing (6023 posts) -

@humanity said:

@hatking said:

@conmulligan said:

@excast said:

@hatking said:

I just checked out the thread on GameSpot, and it's really depressing that the people here (with a few shitty exceptions) have been way kinder and thoughtful about this than the community on the site they fucking worked for.

Yeah, if anyone ever wants to pretend this community is toxic I would like to direct them to that thread where numerous posters are apparently expressing outright glee at the site they visit being totally gutted. It's obscene.

I just glanced over there and some of the stuff being posted is disgraceful. I can't imagine how shitty that must make the staff feel, as if being let go isn't hurtful enough.

I've talked to Carolyn a few times back when I was doing some games writing, and I thought about pointing her in the direction of this thread because most (most) of the comments here are really sweet and thoughtful. But a few select posts in here are kind of making me not want to do that.

Whatever you might want to say about Giant Bomb, at it's worst it is still way better than most message boards at their best. I was continuously bewildered by how awful ALL the comments are on each and every piece of GameSpot content. The few times I sat in the chat for The Lobby it was actually fairly civil - then again I usually ran into people from GB like @hassun or @dannyhibiki so that helped. That whole time period where Rorie went into overdrive policing the heck out of comments was in my opinion a bit unnecessary. Things may get a bit unruly at times, but it hardly ever goes above "unruly" and the few disrespectful individuals are few and far in between - considering how many people post, it's a grand achievement that we get "bad" messages in the dozens instead of the hundreds.

I absolutely agree, that's why this is the only only community that I'm an active member of. This place feels really, really inclusive and friendly compared to any other website I've tried to participate in. I mostly just don't want to remind somebody they just lost their job.

#507 Posted by wittgkatzi (5 posts) -

Patrick recently linked to an article on Forbes' current setup, where only a few editors essentially act as moderators for freelance authors who are being incentivized via ad revenue shares. (= basically paid for the traffic their articles generate)

Given the size of the remaining editorial staff left at Gamespot, might we see something similar over there? I'll be curious to see how much freelance work starts popping up on their homepage.

(The sad thing is that this would actually decrease editorial standards in this industry even further, while simultaneously appealing to a large portion of gamers who'd rather trust a random freelance blogger's unverified guest article than an authoritative editorial source.)

Regarding the people laid off, I am genuinely sorry. Given their networks and their long experience, I am however somewhat optimistic that they'll find new positions quickly, even though they might not be in games journalism.

This entire thing feels like either a desperate decision or a short-sighted one, but it clearly doesn't bode well for Gamespots future - after all, how are they supposed to grow now, with their potential output so drastically diminished?

Focusing on video is a double-edged sword, as the video advertising marketplace is very much in flux right now, and price levels could crash rather dramatically in the not-so-distant future. So you really can't bet the farm on that sweet video ad money alone.

#508 Posted by GaspoweR (3167 posts) -

@flstyle said:

@theveej said:

It did blew me away when Danny mentioned in a Alt + F1 podcast that GB premium streams/videos does way bigger numbers than any of GS's video/livestream, That is CRAAAAZY.

Didn't surprise me one bit, I'm always curious about stream numbers when I'm watching a stream and GS numbers never make it into the thousands unless they're streaming E3 conferences. Most of the time they're lucky to get 500 viewers.

I think it has A LOT to do with Gamespot doing a poor job in showing that there is a Live Broadcast going on in their front page. I'd only know about it via Twitch most of the time.

#509 Edited by madman356647 (324 posts) -
#510 Posted by PopeAnonymous (45 posts) -

I thought they were both really poor reviewers, to be honest. It's been frustrating that a few vocal blockheads, especially the transphobic nimrods, have made it to where anyone who criticizes them in any way is just lumped altogether into a group of "bigoted fanboys mad that their hyped game didn't get the score they wanted". My problem wasn't the scores, it was the content of the actual reviews.

Then you had Tom's editorials… ugh. (and that absolutely god awful interview with one of the people behind that last Medal of Honor game) Those two people are the reason I stopped reading reviews on that site. Caro, at least, is a good person despite being a bad reviewer. I hope she can find some work that suits her interests better than game journalism did.

#511 Posted by RiotControl (47 posts) -

I thought they were both really poor reviewers, to be honest. It's been frustrating that a few vocal blockheads, especially the transphobic nimrods, have made it to where anyone who criticizes them in any way is just lumped altogether into a group of "bigoted fanboys mad that their hyped game didn't get the score they wanted". My problem wasn't the scores, it was the content of the actual reviews.

Then you had Tom's editorials… ugh. (and that absolutely god awful interview with one of the people behind that last Medal of Honor game) Those two people are the reason I stopped reading reviews on that site. Caro, at least, is a good person despite being a bad reviewer. I hope she can find some work that suits her interests better than game journalism did.

I don't like McShea's reviews much either. They tend to aggravate me because of what he seemingly writes as elements of the game being objectively good or bad. (Naturally, it's the bad I notice) There's never any mention of him just not particularly being fond of something or not understanding it. It's just bad, period.

#512 Posted by csl316 (8954 posts) -

@gaff said:

@zgoon: @jackhole: Someone should link him to this thread.

And sounds like GB should invade their live streams.

I've watched a whole lot more of Gamespot's live streams since Danny started to appear on GB stuff. The Lobby is great.

I'd really like to see Danny bring people like Mary, Kevin, Peter, and Chris onto UPF sometimes... perhaps even have them as bombcast guests?

Agreed, having them come by will get more and more GB members to stop by there. Danny got me to watch The Lobby, which introduced me to more of the crew. Now I visit that site daily.

Peter Brown's guest spot on UPF got me to check out his work. If Mary came on to explain hit box differences between Genesis Disney games, I'm sure even more people would stop by there.

Brand synergy, man!

You wouldn't believe how many Game Informer fans started coming by here after Dan arrived. I checked out Greg Miller's show because Jeff was on it. I found Giant Bomb because Jeff was on Bonus Round. Guesting at places helps both parties.

#513 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

@csl316 said:

@james_hayward said:

@gaff said:

@zgoon: @jackhole: Someone should link him to this thread.

And sounds like GB should invade their live streams.

I've watched a whole lot more of Gamespot's live streams since Danny started to appear on GB stuff. The Lobby is great.

I'd really like to see Danny bring people like Mary, Kevin, Peter, and Chris onto UPF sometimes... perhaps even have them as bombcast guests?

Agreed, having them come by will get more and more GB members to stop by there. Danny got me to watch The Lobby, which introduced me to more of the crew. Now I visit that site daily.

Peter Brown's guest spot on UPF got me to check out his work. If Mary came on to explain hit box differences between Genesis Disney games, I'm sure even more people would stop by there.

Brand synergy, man!

You wouldn't believe how many Game Informer fans started coming by here after Dan arrived. I checked out Greg Miller's show because Jeff was on it. I found Giant Bomb because Jeff was on Bonus Round. Guesting at places helps both parties.

I think that getting the GameSpot staff to mingle more with the Giant Bomb staff would help. Unfortunately, their Professional Wednesday crossover segments were short-lived because they were really unpopular among users at the time. I wonder if enough time has passed to make a second go of something along those lines worth it.

#514 Posted by Nictel (2429 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@csl316 said:

@james_hayward said:

@gaff said:

@zgoon: @jackhole: Someone should link him to this thread.

And sounds like GB should invade their live streams.

I've watched a whole lot more of Gamespot's live streams since Danny started to appear on GB stuff. The Lobby is great.

I'd really like to see Danny bring people like Mary, Kevin, Peter, and Chris onto UPF sometimes... perhaps even have them as bombcast guests?

Agreed, having them come by will get more and more GB members to stop by there. Danny got me to watch The Lobby, which introduced me to more of the crew. Now I visit that site daily.

Peter Brown's guest spot on UPF got me to check out his work. If Mary came on to explain hit box differences between Genesis Disney games, I'm sure even more people would stop by there.

Brand synergy, man!

You wouldn't believe how many Game Informer fans started coming by here after Dan arrived. I checked out Greg Miller's show because Jeff was on it. I found Giant Bomb because Jeff was on Bonus Round. Guesting at places helps both parties.

I think that getting the GameSpot staff to mingle more with the Giant Bomb staff would help. Unfortunately, their Professional Wednesday crossover segments were short-lived because they were really unpopular among users at the time. I wonder if enough time has passed to make a second go of something along those lines worth it.

Really? Why degrade the quality of Giant Bomb? There is a reason that show got canned, there is a reason people are now getting fired. Yes it is hard for them personally but if the GameSpot staff and their shows were good they wouldn't be in the mess they are now.

#515 Posted by NoelVeiga (1102 posts) -

Man, some big names in that list. That sucks.

Best of luck to all.

#516 Edited by Mcfart (1658 posts) -
@madman356647 said:

@mcfart: Giantspot.ru

Sounds more like a cancerious tumor then a videogame website.

Also, they tried mingleing the GS staff and GB staff on a couple of live shows. Didn't work. Most of the laid off GS staff are just not fit to be on camera.

#517 Edited by MB (12715 posts) -

@mcfart said:
@madman356647 said:

@mcfart: Giantspot.ru

Sounds more like a cancerious tumor then a videogame website.

Also, they tried mingleing the GS staff and GB staff on a couple of live shows. Didn't work. Most of the laid off GS staff are just not fit to be on camera.

Take it easy dude - these are people who are now without a job, and from GB's sister site no less. Try to show a little respect or just don't comment at all if you're going to be rude.

There is a virtually unmoderated topic full of bashing and hate going on over on the GS forums. If anyone would like to participate in such a thing it shouldn't be too difficult to find it, but we aren't going to have that sort of behavior start here.

Thanks

Moderator
#518 Edited by Mcfart (1658 posts) -

@mb said:

@mcfart said:
@madman356647 said:

@mcfart: Giantspot.ru

Sounds more like a cancerious tumor then a videogame website.

Also, they tried mingleing the GS staff and GB staff on a couple of live shows. Didn't work. Most of the laid off GS staff are just not fit to be on camera.

Take it easy dude - these are people who are now without a job, and from GB's sister site no less. Try to show a little respect or just don't comment at all if you're going to be rude.

There is a virtually unmoderated topic full of bashing and hate going on over on the GS forums. If anyone would like to participate in such a thing it shouldn't be too difficult to find it, but we aren't going to have that sort of behavior start here.

Thanks

What? Jumping the gun a bit, aren't you? I didn't insult them. How's "not fit to be on camera" an insult? Some had controversial opinions. Some weren't very charismatic.

edit: also they were hired as writers, not video performers. They were great writers too.

#519 Posted by SharkEthic (1055 posts) -

Isn't it kinda weird that GameSpot hasn't released any official statements on this? Or have I just missed it (I've admittedly only checked the website)?

#520 Posted by Nictel (2429 posts) -

Isn't it kinda weird that GameSpot hasn't released any official statements on this? Or have I just missed it (I've admittedly only checked the website)?

They fired everyone who could write official statements, true story.

#521 Posted by TheLegendOfMart (254 posts) -

Isn't it kinda weird that GameSpot hasn't released any official statements on this? Or have I just missed it (I've admittedly only checked the website)?

What do you want them to do, put a front page article about how they fired a bunch of people?

People get hired and fired every day without it being officially recognised.

Online
#522 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1817 posts) -

I thought they were both really poor reviewers, to be honest. It's been frustrating that a few vocal blockheads, especially the transphobic nimrods, have made it to where anyone who criticizes them in any way is just lumped altogether into a group of "bigoted fanboys mad that their hyped game didn't get the score they wanted". My problem wasn't the scores, it was the content of the actual reviews.

Then you had Tom's editorials… ugh. (and that absolutely god awful interview with one of the people behind that last Medal of Honor game) Those two people are the reason I stopped reading reviews on that site. Caro, at least, is a good person despite being a bad reviewer. I hope she can find some work that suits her interests better than game journalism did.

Agreed on all points.

I feel bad for all the people being let off. It's never easy when your livelihood is on the line. I'm fairly sure these people will land on their feet, though. Especially Carolyn. I may not have liked her reviews, but like you said, she does seem like a good person.

#523 Edited by SharkEthic (1055 posts) -
@thelegendofmart said:
@sharkethic said:

Isn't it kinda weird that GameSpot hasn't released any official statements on this? Or have I just missed it (I've admittedly only checked the website)?

What do you want them to do, put a front page article about how they fired a bunch of people?

People get hired and fired every day without it being officially recognised.

Yes, that's pretty much what I want them to do - or at least I want them to do something. Anything. This is a major change change for the site, and I most definitely thinks it warrants some sort of recognition.

Sure, Pizza Hut don't announce every time they fire a pimple-faced delivery guy, but in my experience, mass firings that impacts the company significantly is pretty much always recognized officially.

#524 Edited by Branthog (5583 posts) -

I don't know a thing about GameSpot (other than it adopted the GiantBomb look after acquisition) or the people over there, but they have always seemed like nice fellows and ladies when I've seen them on GB content or heard them on other podcasts.

My assumption would be that CBS is trying to cut redundant content. How many video game sites do they need?

Losing a job is always tough, but that's obvious.

#525 Edited by csl316 (8954 posts) -

@nictel: There's way more involved in cost-cutting than quality of your work.

#526 Posted by Excast (1026 posts) -

@sharkethic said:

Isn't it kinda weird that GameSpot hasn't released any official statements on this? Or have I just missed it (I've admittedly only checked the website)?

What do you want them to do, put a front page article about how they fired a bunch of people?

People get hired and fired every day without it being officially recognised.

It is pretty bizarre for a content creation website to basically gut much of it's workforce and not even acknowledge it happened. I imagine if someone was laid off here at Giant Bomb there would have been some kind of official mention of it happening by now. Hell, we had a big news item when Vinny moved to the East Coast or when Patrick did the same awhile back. But maybe that just goes back to the community connection here versus what appears to be a Gamespot where the name means more than the people and personalities creating content for it.

#527 Posted by Mcfart (1658 posts) -

@excast said:

@thelegendofmart said:
@sharkethic said:

Isn't it kinda weird that GameSpot hasn't released any official statements on this? Or have I just missed it (I've admittedly only checked the website)?

What do you want them to do, put a front page article about how they fired a bunch of people?

People get hired and fired every day without it being officially recognised.

It is pretty bizarre for a content creation website to basically gut much of it's workforce and not even acknowledge it happened. I imagine if someone was laid off here at Giant Bomb there would have been some kind of official mention of it happening by now. Hell, we had a big news item when Vinny moved to the East Coast or when Patrick did the same awhile back. But maybe that just goes back to the community connection here versus what appears to be a Gamespot where the name means more than the people and personalities creating content for it.

This. Gamespot is a brand that's not centered on individuals running it, unlike GB. However, I expect GS to shift that since they cut down on staff.

But really, there's no point for them to acknowdge it, since they'll get lots of comments saying "thank god xy was fired".

#528 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

@nictel said:

@hailinel said:

@csl316 said:

@james_hayward said:

@gaff said:

@zgoon: @jackhole: Someone should link him to this thread.

And sounds like GB should invade their live streams.

I've watched a whole lot more of Gamespot's live streams since Danny started to appear on GB stuff. The Lobby is great.

I'd really like to see Danny bring people like Mary, Kevin, Peter, and Chris onto UPF sometimes... perhaps even have them as bombcast guests?

Agreed, having them come by will get more and more GB members to stop by there. Danny got me to watch The Lobby, which introduced me to more of the crew. Now I visit that site daily.

Peter Brown's guest spot on UPF got me to check out his work. If Mary came on to explain hit box differences between Genesis Disney games, I'm sure even more people would stop by there.

Brand synergy, man!

You wouldn't believe how many Game Informer fans started coming by here after Dan arrived. I checked out Greg Miller's show because Jeff was on it. I found Giant Bomb because Jeff was on Bonus Round. Guesting at places helps both parties.

I think that getting the GameSpot staff to mingle more with the Giant Bomb staff would help. Unfortunately, their Professional Wednesday crossover segments were short-lived because they were really unpopular among users at the time. I wonder if enough time has passed to make a second go of something along those lines worth it.

Really? Why degrade the quality of Giant Bomb? There is a reason that show got canned, there is a reason people are now getting fired. Yes it is hard for them personally but if the GameSpot staff and their shows were good they wouldn't be in the mess they are now.

They weren't fired. They were laid off. There's a distinct difference. People that are laid off lose their jobs for reasons other than personal performance.

#529 Edited by BisonHero (6674 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@csl316 said:
@james_hayward said:
@gaff said:

@zgoon: @jackhole: Someone should link him to this thread.

And sounds like GB should invade their live streams.

I've watched a whole lot more of Gamespot's live streams since Danny started to appear on GB stuff. The Lobby is great.

I'd really like to see Danny bring people like Mary, Kevin, Peter, and Chris onto UPF sometimes... perhaps even have them as bombcast guests?

Agreed, having them come by will get more and more GB members to stop by there. Danny got me to watch The Lobby, which introduced me to more of the crew. Now I visit that site daily.

Peter Brown's guest spot on UPF got me to check out his work. If Mary came on to explain hit box differences between Genesis Disney games, I'm sure even more people would stop by there.

Brand synergy, man!

You wouldn't believe how many Game Informer fans started coming by here after Dan arrived. I checked out Greg Miller's show because Jeff was on it. I found Giant Bomb because Jeff was on Bonus Round. Guesting at places helps both parties.

I think that getting the GameSpot staff to mingle more with the Giant Bomb staff would help. Unfortunately, their Professional Wednesday crossover segments were short-lived because they were really unpopular among users at the time. I wonder if enough time has passed to make a second go of something along those lines worth it.

While Professional Wednesdays didn't seem all that popular with the users, Jeff claimed on a Jar Time, I think, that there were other reasons they stopped it. Namely, they wanted to look at all the different games of the week, including ones that weren't quick looked, but then Jeff realized that for all the more niche games of the week that GS reviewed, they were often reviewed by freelancers not in the building, so it was just Jeff and GS people BSing over a game neither of them knew anything about. And for the more mainstream games that a Chris Waters or somebody did play, someone from GB like Jeff or Brad had also played it. So GS kinda wasn't adding a lot to the show, with the occasional exception of when I think Carolyn actually knew a lot about that Naruto game. I guess it just became apparent that the GS people actually in the CBSi building, for the most part, were playing the exact same games that Giant Bomb was, so Professional Wednesdays was kind of redundant.

Online
#530 Posted by Dan_CiTi (3374 posts) -

I thought they were both really poor reviewers, to be honest. It's been frustrating that a few vocal blockheads, especially the transphobic nimrods, have made it to where anyone who criticizes them in any way is just lumped altogether into a group of "bigoted fanboys mad that their hyped game didn't get the score they wanted". My problem wasn't the scores, it was the content of the actual reviews.

Then you had Tom's editorials… ugh. (and that absolutely god awful interview with one of the people behind that last Medal of Honor game) Those two people are the reason I stopped reading reviews on that site. Caro, at least, is a good person despite being a bad reviewer. I hope she can find some work that suits her interests better than game journalism did.

I agree for the most part. Though I just think Carolyn's writing is pretty uninspired, but not exactly shoddy. She just does not have that way with her words the strongest critics do. That being said, she's definitely a smart lady, and yeah maybe she could refocus and sharpen her skillset to a job that is a bit different.

Either way, a GameSpot without Ryan or Justin is a very different GameSpot. My best wishes to everyone in that office, seeing your work pals laid off like that is always a depressing time.

#531 Posted by conmulligan (623 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@csl316 said:
@james_hayward said:
@gaff said:

@zgoon: @jackhole: Someone should link him to this thread.

And sounds like GB should invade their live streams.

I've watched a whole lot more of Gamespot's live streams since Danny started to appear on GB stuff. The Lobby is great.

I'd really like to see Danny bring people like Mary, Kevin, Peter, and Chris onto UPF sometimes... perhaps even have them as bombcast guests?

Agreed, having them come by will get more and more GB members to stop by there. Danny got me to watch The Lobby, which introduced me to more of the crew. Now I visit that site daily.

Peter Brown's guest spot on UPF got me to check out his work. If Mary came on to explain hit box differences between Genesis Disney games, I'm sure even more people would stop by there.

Brand synergy, man!

You wouldn't believe how many Game Informer fans started coming by here after Dan arrived. I checked out Greg Miller's show because Jeff was on it. I found Giant Bomb because Jeff was on Bonus Round. Guesting at places helps both parties.

I think that getting the GameSpot staff to mingle more with the Giant Bomb staff would help. Unfortunately, their Professional Wednesday crossover segments were short-lived because they were really unpopular among users at the time. I wonder if enough time has passed to make a second go of something along those lines worth it.

While Professional Wednesdays didn't seem all that popular with the users, Jeff claimed on a Jar Time, I think, that there were other reasons they stopped it. Namely, they wanted to look at all the different games of the week, including ones that weren't quick looked, but then Jeff realized that for all the more niche games of the week that GS reviewed, they were often reviewed by freelancers not in the building, so it was just Jeff and GS people BSing over a game neither of them knew anything about. And for the more mainstream games that a Chris Waters or somebody did play, someone from GB like Jeff or Brad had also played it. So GS kinda wasn't adding a lot to the show, with the occasional exception of when I think Carolyn actually knew a lot about that Naruto game. I guess it just became apparent that the GS people actually in the CBSi building, for the most part, were playing the exact same games that Giant Bomb was, so Professional Wednesdays was kind of redundant.

I definitely think there's value in having cross-over content despite the fact that Professional Wednesdays didn't work out. I'd love an hour-long show where they could dive into a single news topic – kind of like an after-hours segment but with CBSi staff.

#532 Posted by Gaff (1812 posts) -

@conmulligan: Well, since their respective companies have no interest in continuing them, some sort of Bonus Round / X-Play setup, with game journalists from all over the place. Or maybe Patrick and Alex need to invite more guests for their Monday morning show :P

Online
#533 Posted by conmulligan (623 posts) -

@gaff: Either of those would be great! Giant Bomb should have more guests across the board, whether it's from GameSpot or not.

#534 Posted by dh2005 (24 posts) -

Jesus, I am way behind the curve on this. Only heard about it through listening to Scoops & The Wolf through iTunes this evening.

Love and thanks to all of those affected. I work in a rarefied sector where the threat of redundancy is almost-nil [knocks wood], but friends of mine in journalism, retail, construction, legal practise, financial services, nuclear engineering (you fuckin' name it…), have struggled like shit over the past six or seven years - most of them came through it ultimately better-off, but there was a great deal of pain along the way. And while it sucks to lose your job under almost any circumstances, it sucks all the more to lose a job that you love - which, I expect, is what all of our former-GameSpot brethren (and sistren) are going through this week.

Come back soon, everybody. We'll be here waiting for you.

DH.

#535 Posted by Beomoose (689 posts) -

Really late on this, I blame a busy week and Crusader Kings 2, but I want to say a heartfelt thanks to the now former GameSpot editors for their hard work and years of content. I hope you all find a landing spot, that's as rewarding and fulfilling as you deserve. And if you do, share so we can visit.

#536 Edited by katimanic (116 posts) -

Wow, I really liked the gamespot people who were on the cross show they had last year or whenever it was. Those people all seemed pretty sweet and I wish they would of spent more time on giantbomb.

#537 Edited by Death_Burnout (3797 posts) -

Why does this shit always happen after I reacquaint myself with something? I just watched some old Gamespot videos I have lying around with Ryan and Justin in, YESTERDAY!

I'm really, really saddened by this news. I had no idea this had been happening.

#538 Posted by Nictel (2429 posts) -

@hailinel: @csl316: People get fired over personal quality. People get laid of because the company as a whole is failing. This could be of economic reasons (people having less money to buy your product). However GameSpot is not company that sells product directly. Simply put, less people were visiting their site. So the quality of the product (the content) they were offering was not of enough quality for people to keep visiting GameSpot.

#539 Edited by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

@nictel said:

@hailinel: @csl316: People get fired over personal quality. People get laid of because the company as a whole is failing. This could be of economic reasons (people having less money to buy your product). However GameSpot is not company that sells product directly. Simply put, less people were visiting their site. So the quality of the product (the content) they were offering was not of enough quality for people to keep visiting GameSpot.

That's not how it works. A company does not need to be failing to lay people off. Layoffs can happen for literally any reason from financial failure to reorganization, restructuring, and redundant employees on the payroll. Let me repeat this:

A company does not need to be failing to lay people off.

#540 Posted by csl316 (8954 posts) -

@hailinel: Right, my company had a great turnaround year and had layoffs as it came to a close. Redundancies, increasing efficiency by combining departments, reductions due to technological changes, a modified strategic plan.

There are so many reasons this stuff can happen.

#541 Posted by Nictel (2429 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@nictel said:

@hailinel: @csl316: People get fired over personal quality. People get laid of because the company as a whole is failing. This could be of economic reasons (people having less money to buy your product). However GameSpot is not company that sells product directly. Simply put, less people were visiting their site. So the quality of the product (the content) they were offering was not of enough quality for people to keep visiting GameSpot.

That's not how it works. A company does not need to be failing to lay people off. Layoffs can happen for literally any reason from financial failure to reorganization, restructuring, and redundant employees on the payroll. Let me repeat this:

A company does not need to be failing to lay people off.

Answer the why then. Why are you (GameSpot) in financial failure? Why do you need to reorganize? Why do you need to restructure? Why do you have redundant employees? GameSpot is in trouble because of a strong decrease and lack of visitors. This not because suddenly the website got way harder to find. This is purely based on the content on said website. Nobody wakes up one morning and thinks "Oh the company is doing great! Let's lay off 75% of the content creators." Name me a single company that because it was doing so well decided to lay off a significant part of their workforce. Not ten, not five, a single one. To clarify I do not mean replace, so no examples of people being replaced by robots. I am talking about a company that out of the blue decides to lay off a significant part of their workforce. Here is an answer in the case of GameSpot. It has on the same trailers 50% of the comments versus Giant Bomb and 5% versus IGN. A website needs visitors to succeed -> visitors are attracted by unique quality content -> GameSpot lacks unique quality content -> visitors stay away.

But don't defend GameSpot against me, I couldn't care less what happens to it. Defend it against the people in basically the same thread on GameSpot (That is, might I add, viewed 4,5 times less) where people are celebrating the lay offs. Oh wait..

#542 Edited by Amafi (871 posts) -

Terrible news, I hope everyone involved lands on their feet and get to continue doing what they love to do for money.

Online
#543 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

@nictel said:

@hailinel said:

@nictel said:

@hailinel: @csl316: People get fired over personal quality. People get laid of because the company as a whole is failing. This could be of economic reasons (people having less money to buy your product). However GameSpot is not company that sells product directly. Simply put, less people were visiting their site. So the quality of the product (the content) they were offering was not of enough quality for people to keep visiting GameSpot.

That's not how it works. A company does not need to be failing to lay people off. Layoffs can happen for literally any reason from financial failure to reorganization, restructuring, and redundant employees on the payroll. Let me repeat this:

A company does not need to be failing to lay people off.

Answer the why then. Why are you (GameSpot) in financial failure? Why do you need to reorganize? Why do you need to restructure? Why do you have redundant employees? GameSpot is in trouble because of a strong decrease and lack of visitors. This not because suddenly the website got way harder to find. This is purely based on the content on said website.

No, that is based entirely on your opinion that is in turn entirely lacking in factual information. You don't know why the layoffs occurred, I don't know why they occurred, no one outside of CBSi and the people let go know why they occurred. Instituting your own whys in place of the unknown is disingenuous to both those that were laid off and GameSpot/CBSi.

As I said before, there are a lot of reasons layoffs can happen, but layoffs are not based on personal performance. Laying someone off is not analogous to firing someone. If someone is poor at their job, they're fired. You keep wanting to tie personal performance to these layoffs, but without any proof that such occurred, you only sound like you have a personal axe to grind.

#544 Edited by conmulligan (623 posts) -
@nictel said:

GameSpot is in trouble because of a strong decrease and lack of visitors. This not because suddenly the website got way harder to find. This is purely based on the content on said website.

This is patently false. Even if you believe that there's been a dramatic reduction in the quality of GameSpot's coverage, it's completely illogical to solely attribute any drop-off in visitors (and in turn, this week's layoffs) to it given the rise of Twitch streaming, YouTube personalities, new sites like Giant Bomb and Polygon and the collapse of traditional revenue models like display advertising.

#547 Posted by Hailinel (25179 posts) -

@nictel said:

@hailinel said:

@nictel said:

@hailinel said:

@nictel said:

@hailinel: @csl316: People get fired over personal quality. People get laid of because the company as a whole is failing. This could be of economic reasons (people having less money to buy your product). However GameSpot is not company that sells product directly. Simply put, less people were visiting their site. So the quality of the product (the content) they were offering was not of enough quality for people to keep visiting GameSpot.

That's not how it works. A company does not need to be failing to lay people off. Layoffs can happen for literally any reason from financial failure to reorganization, restructuring, and redundant employees on the payroll. Let me repeat this:

A company does not need to be failing to lay people off.

Answer the why then. Why are you (GameSpot) in financial failure? Why do you need to reorganize? Why do you need to restructure? Why do you have redundant employees? GameSpot is in trouble because of a strong decrease and lack of visitors. This not because suddenly the website got way harder to find. This is purely based on the content on said website.

No, that is based entirely on your opinion that is in turn entirely lacking in factual information. You don't know why the layoffs occurred, I don't know why they occurred, no one outside of CBSi and the people let go know why they occurred. Instituting your own whys in place of the unknown is disingenuous to both those that were laid off and GameSpot/CBSi.

As I said before, there are a lot of reasons layoffs can happen, but layoffs are not based on personal performance. Laying someone off is not analogous to firing someone. If someone is poor at their job, they're fired. You keep wanting to tie personal performance to these layoffs, but without any proof that such occurred, you only sound like you have a personal axe to grind.

I do not have the memo here on my desk, no. I can however analyze and theorize. Compare this situation with similar situations in the past (e.g. 1UP). If you have some personal bond with these people then I am sorry, it must be hard for your friends to find a new job. Hopefully you can help them.

But can you come of your white knight horse? I don't even know these peoples names let alone have some personal grudge against them. I am looking at the company as a whole, maybe they layed off the wrong people. I don't know. The company as a whole is not performing as it should. Which in case of a website is directly linked with the content.

I'm not being a "white knight" (which is a ridiculous term in itself). I'm arguing that you are naive and are basing your assumptions entirely on presumptions and inaccuracies. You don't seem to even know or care what the difference between being laid off or fired is, nor do you seem to care. A layoff can be as simple as "We need to cut a portion of the staff, we're paying these people some of the highest salaries, so we'll let them go." Or, "We need to restructure our business for the way modern game journalism is going and our staff is too large to allow for that. We need to reduce the headcount in order to proceed." It's not, "These seven people are shit at their jobs." Again, there is nothing inherently performance-based in being laid off.

I've been through a layoff before, and it sucks. Absolutely, it sucks because you show up to work and then suddenly you don't have a job, it's not your fault, and there's nothing you can do about it. There's really nothing you can blame. When you're fired, at the very least you know you lost your job because you weren't good at it, or you otherwise did something that resulted in you being fired. Whatever the reason, it was ultimately your fault. In being laid off, you don't even have that.

#548 Edited by ikabubu (213 posts) -

WOW, really?

Justin Calvert and Ryan McDonald? They've been there forever, and they were part of a GS Golden Age when the bombsquad still worked there. Ryan's been there since practically Gamespot's founding, along with Jeff. Those were the days... and I'm getting old.

But I guess seniority doesn't guarantee anything.

#549 Posted by Nictel (2429 posts) -

@hailinel said:

@nictel said:

@hailinel said:

@nictel said:

@hailinel said:

@nictel said:

@hailinel: @csl316: People get fired over personal quality. People get laid of because the company as a whole is failing. This could be of economic reasons (people having less money to buy your product). However GameSpot is not company that sells product directly. Simply put, less people were visiting their site. So the quality of the product (the content) they were offering was not of enough quality for people to keep visiting GameSpot.

That's not how it works. A company does not need to be failing to lay people off. Layoffs can happen for literally any reason from financial failure to reorganization, restructuring, and redundant employees on the payroll. Let me repeat this:

A company does not need to be failing to lay people off.

Answer the why then. Why are you (GameSpot) in financial failure? Why do you need to reorganize? Why do you need to restructure? Why do you have redundant employees? GameSpot is in trouble because of a strong decrease and lack of visitors. This not because suddenly the website got way harder to find. This is purely based on the content on said website.

No, that is based entirely on your opinion that is in turn entirely lacking in factual information. You don't know why the layoffs occurred, I don't know why they occurred, no one outside of CBSi and the people let go know why they occurred. Instituting your own whys in place of the unknown is disingenuous to both those that were laid off and GameSpot/CBSi.

As I said before, there are a lot of reasons layoffs can happen, but layoffs are not based on personal performance. Laying someone off is not analogous to firing someone. If someone is poor at their job, they're fired. You keep wanting to tie personal performance to these layoffs, but without any proof that such occurred, you only sound like you have a personal axe to grind.

I do not have the memo here on my desk, no. I can however analyze and theorize. Compare this situation with similar situations in the past (e.g. 1UP). If you have some personal bond with these people then I am sorry, it must be hard for your friends to find a new job. Hopefully you can help them.

But can you come of your white knight horse? I don't even know these peoples names let alone have some personal grudge against them. I am looking at the company as a whole, maybe they layed off the wrong people. I don't know. The company as a whole is not performing as it should. Which in case of a website is directly linked with the content.

I'm not being a "white knight" (which is a ridiculous term in itself). I'm arguing that you are naive and are basing your assumptions entirely on presumptions and inaccuracies. You don't seem to even know or care what the difference between being laid off or fired is, nor do you seem to care. A layoff can be as simple as "We need to cut a portion of the staff, we're paying these people some of the highest salaries, so we'll let them go." Or, "We need to restructure our business for the way modern game journalism is going and our staff is too large to allow for that. We need to reduce the headcount in order to proceed." It's not, "These seven people are shit at their jobs." Again, there is nothing inherently performance-based in being laid off.

I've been through a layoff before, and it sucks. Absolutely, it sucks because you show up to work and then suddenly you don't have a job, it's not your fault, and there's nothing you can do about it. There's really nothing you can blame. When you're fired, at the very least you know you lost your job because you weren't good at it, or you otherwise did something that resulted in you being fired. Whatever the reason, it was ultimately your fault. In being laid off, you don't even have that.

I am very aware of the difference between the terms and I now understand you have some personal experience being layed off.

#550 Posted by Slag (4615 posts) -

@nictel:

If you look at who was laid off, it was none of their video personalities (O'Dwyer, Kish, Tay, McDonell, Waters, Zorine Te etc still there). It was their most senior and probably expensive senior staff (Calvert, MacDonald)and essentially almost all their writers (Haywald, Petit, McShea, McGee, etc) except Van Ord and McGinnis.

That fits with industry wide trends for ad based enthusiast sites in every niche. Video is where the ad money is these days. Gamespot's Alexa and compete numbers look very good and steady to me, but industry wide banner ads just don't pay like they used to. Same work/traffic=less money.

The available evidence is much more strongly supportive of a restructuring to chase ad $$ than anything performance based by the affected individuals.

There's a lot we will never know about this, but I think the safest assumption is it is just a restructuring and these folks just happened to have skillsets that management decided they no longer needed.