Printable View
The preorder system exists in part so that people commit to purchasing mediocre games early based on preview hype and go through with it because of a $5 commitment they probably think they would lose and an unwillingness to admit they were wrong. Why bother to clean a product up in post-production when all the sheep are already buying it anyway?
This isn't a surprise. I had a story badmouthing my old employer and that story was killed as soon as my city editor got ahold of it. As a reporter your allegience is with the company first, then the public.
Exactly right. GameStop preorders are like hardware protection plans. Dumbass consumers buy them without realizing that the retailer wouldn't offer them if they didn't always come out ahead in the long-run.Quote:
Originally Posted by burgundy
I don't have a problem with preorder, although I agree it is pointless and only beneficial to GS. The worst thing about GS is that they refuse to sell newly released games unless you have preordered, even after they fill their preorder queues. That's just retarded. I couldn't buy Rock Band in 3 different GS because of this BS (and I would have bought it at Walmart if I didn't have $200 GC there).Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
It's not that hard to find stuff the day it comes out. 3 months later, yeah, it's online or else, but on release day it's not usually so bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by g0zen
Since my friend owns a video game store now, that's where I go for all my gaming needs. Well, I would if I weren't too poor to buy games.
Your friend's store in NJ?
Yep, in Jersey City.
Wired magazines take on the issue.
http://blog.wired.com/games/2007/11/...ot-inside.html
Quote:
One of the team members who worked on the Kane & Lynch ads for GameSpot says that the timing of editor Jeff Gerstmann's departure is a case of coincidence, not cause and effect.
The Internet was rife with rumors yesterday that Gerstmann had been let go after giving Kane & Lynch a low review score, which angered GameSpot advertiser Eidos.
According to this post, supposedly written by one of the ad team, Eidos was indeed ticked off, but decided against pulling the spots, opting instead to have the ads retooled to point readers to the game's official site instead of its review page:
The ads went up and the Eidos brouhaha was settled over two weeks ago. Jeff got fired yesterday. Furthermore, I'd heard a few people tell that he'd already been skating on thin ice for "unprofessional reviews and review practices." I don't know much about that, though, so I can't say one way or the other. My gut tells me that he got canned for larger reasons. Maybe the Eidos debacle was part of it -- I don't know. But I sincerely doubt that Eidos made Gamespot fire him. CNET doesn't kowtow to its advertisers, and I've more than once seen the higher-ups turn away big advertising dollars for the sake of the company's integrity.I think the whole thing is likely a combination of factors, the biggest being poor timing.
<3 Wired, though I don't think they have a moral high ground when it comes to journalism themselves.