Dan "Shoe" Hsu Leaves 1UP

Here's my 'Tyson Rios' conspiracy ;)

EGM has been under fire from advertisers/publishers for some time, while Hsu has been advancing 'journalistic integrity'; He stood my MacDonald through the whole Too Human-preview incident, for one example.

After the MLB 08: The Show Review, Sony got pissed and pulled some of their ads and access. In the magazine biz, access is nearly everything.

I'm thinking a higher-up spoke with Hsu, who stood his ground and quit. He'll be picked up soon. Giant Bomb sounds about right.
 
[quote name='yukine']One thing is clear, there's very little future in video game journalism.[/QUOTE]

Some might say there's not much journalism in the present...
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']He'd already left EGM a couple months back, is/was the top dog for the 1up gaming sites currently.[/QUOTE]

No. He was no longer EIC but was still with EGM in the latest issue.
 
[quote name='Matt Young']No. He was no longer EIC but was still with EGM in the latest issue.[/QUOTE]

Various 1up staffers contribute to EGM. Doesn't mean they are technically on the EGM staff. The site and magazine are affiliated, but they do have separate staffs.
 
[quote name='rocksolidaudio']i will never understand why people think of the Ubisoft editorial as a bad thing. and i'm not sure what you mean about the SS:BB covers...are you implying they affected the review?[/QUOTE]

I don't understand this, either -- there were multiple SSBM covers, so there must have been Nintendo payola? Huh?

I also don't understand the "Gerstmann as Last Bastion of Game Journalism Integrity," but whatever. I guess it goes to show that writing previews of video-games is "journalism" about as much as what Jenna Jameson does is "acting."
 
Yeah, multiple covers has nothing to do with any payola schemes. It's just a way for magazines to rake in dollars from collectors and fanboys who will want every cover.
 
Nintendo wouldn't of even needed to pay. Who wouldn't want tons of exclusive advertising for one of the most anticipated games of the year?
 
[quote name='Koggit']BS

I think it's clear he left by choice.

$20 says Dan writes for Jeff on GiantBomb.com this summer. Mark my words.[/quote]

I sure hope not.
 
[quote name='DesertEagleXIX']Some might say there's not much journalism in the present...[/quote]

I blame the Internet - and that damned Perez Hilton.

But yes, when I first heard about Shoe leaving, I got sad. Really sad. Now I'm just a angry at the Ziff-Davis/EGM/1Up collective. Way to get rid of your best person. Fantastic work at pissing off people.
 
The supposedly 'obvious' scenario of "Shoe" going to Giant Bomb is the flipside of the same situation where the freshly-fired Gerstmann was a 'no-brainer' for 1up.com, which means it won't happen, either.

Let's face it: the console makers and prominent publishers are going to strangle the integrity out of each and every major gaming site out there, if they haven't already. It's the new paradigm, sadly. Those who want honest appraisals will just dig deeper, hit whatever blogs are 'cool' at that point in time, and/or cut through the PR bullshit, and the insufferable GameFAQs types and thirtysomethings that don't have time to do anything but skim Gamespot once a week (right after hitting ESPN.com and the Drudge Report) will continue to just be spoon-fed whatever the companies want them to hear.

Don't think it works like this? See: Assassin's Creed and subsequent fulfillment by masses of self-designated 'AAA' franchise. No, the guy watching SportsCenter has no idea who Jade Raymond is ("That a porn star??"), but he sure as hell saw the endless ads and inferred that "Hell, this must be a great game!" They're working it on both ends.
 
Why would the head of 1up.com leave so he can write in a blog that has yet to establish itself in the gaming community? That makes no sense.

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and take his word that he really needs a break. I do believe he probably got a job that's probably more hand-on with games like quite a few other games journalists.
 
[quote name='richbastard']Stupid xbox fanboy, i always hated that guy, i dont wish him nothing but the worst. no offence anti-Sony force.[/quote]

Wow.
 
[quote name='richbastard']Stupid xbox fanboy, i always hated that guy, i dont wish him nothing but the worst. no offence anti-Sony force.[/QUOTE]

Still alive, are we?
 
[quote name='DQT']Why would the head of 1up.com leave so he can write in a blog that has yet to establish itself in the gaming community? That makes no sense.

I'm going to give him the benefit of the doubt and take his word that he really needs a break. I do believe he probably got a job that's probably more hand-on with games like quite a few other games journalists.[/QUOTE]

It's either that, or those saying that the higher ups wanted the reviews to stop being so harsh to quit pissing off advertisers (see the Assassin's Creed review, Ubisoft pulling ads and advance copies, and Shoe's editorial in response) led him to resign.

Certainly seemed like in the last EGM some reviews got scores higher than their text of complaints seemed to warrant. i.e. Okami with all the bitching about the controls (even listed in the "the bad" section) Or Frontlines saying the single player is too short and the online "a glitchy mess" yest still getting two B- scores (the C+ is ok).
 
Sad to see Dan leave 1UP, he was a pretty cool dude. Not to mention that prank he pull with Bungie on that big dude was seriously funny.:)
 
[quote name='jollydwarf']Let's face it: the console makers and prominent publishers are going to strangle the integrity out of each and every major gaming site out there, if they haven't already. It's the new paradigm, sadly. Those who want honest appraisals will just dig deeper, hit whatever blogs are 'cool' at that point in time, and/or cut through the PR bullshit, and the insufferable GameFAQs types and thirtysomethings that don't have time to do anything but skim Gamespot once a week (right after hitting ESPN.com and the Drudge Report) will continue to just be spoon-fed whatever the companies want them to hear.

Don't think it works like this? See: Assassin's Creed and subsequent fulfillment by masses of self-designated 'AAA' franchise. No, the guy watching SportsCenter has no idea who Jade Raymond is ("That a porn star??"), but he sure as hell saw the endless ads and inferred that "Hell, this must be a great game!" They're working it on both ends.[/QUOTE]

I think you're giving gaming outlets too much of a free pass. They want to hang on to their integrity? No problem -- they should cut loose the things that publishers can hold over their heads: previews and ad space. Look, we all know previews are bullshit (or at least we should ) -- they're nothing more than PR pieces, since the writer is typically loathe to bad-mouth a work in progress, leaving nothing more than positive platitudes that feed the hype around games that people are literally predisposed to like. If gaming outlets didn't need to be first with coverage, even at the expense of having to kiss ass to obtain it before their competitors, there would literally be nothing to indebt them to publishers. And ads? Easy. Just don't sell them to the companies you cover. Court "lifestyle" ads instead -- they'd all be Axe body spray and Mountain Dew, but that's better than letting EA control your editorial content. Oh, it would work -- it's basically a union for gaming outlets. But they have to care about the end product enough to do things the hard way.
 
While those are good ideas on the surface, I don't think either would work.

Lack of previews, for one, would hurt as people expect them. EGM has had hardly any for a while and people are always bitching about it. People know they aren't reviews and aren't meant to be statements on quality. People just like to know what's coming out and previews are the mechanism for that.

As for the ads, I don't think they could get enough revenue for having only non-gaming ads. People pay to advertise to their target market. They can get some stuff like bodyspray, mountain dew etc. that at least is aimed at males in the gaming age group, but I doubt they could get enough of those lifestyle type non-gaming ads to keep their ad revenues the same or better.
 
Rather than joining up with Gerstmann at Giant Bomb, what are the odds he lands at What They Play with other former 1-Upper John Davison?
 
You guys are really missing the business side of this:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6bISm6.ln5E&refer=home

Ziff Davis filed for bankruptcy last month.

Dan, being the editor and chief (and a highly unusual opposition to the pressures of the industry to provide positive reviews in exchange for advertising dollars) at the largest printed source of gaming industry material, was in a position to guide consumers to purchase or not purchase product. EGM is owned by Ziff Davis megacorp. Well, by providing honest authorship in reviewing.. that meant reviewing final versions of games.. thus, fewer reviews than the competitors.

So what do you do when you are a bankrupt media publisher with advertisers holding wads of cash and asking for positive product promotion in a media with a high number of readers? Well.. sell out of course.

Game reviews can make or break a game's mainstream sales. Numerous developers have admitted that in interviews. So now.. they'll pretty much turn into a Gamepro 2.0.. who knows, maybe they'll even get a new editor in chief that believes that calling himself a Major and assuming the appearance of a Battletoad will give his journalism credibility.

On a side note.. I find it very interesting that Games for Windows was shut down. Goes to show how quickly PC gaming is losing the faith of retailers, advertisers, and general reduction in market. Hardware manufacturers and developers have priced their consumers out of the hobby and become that niche... people have woken up to the cost of participation vs. that in console gaming.

This is purely theoretical.. but what if Maxim expanded their video game coverage to a few pages, and Hsu was put in charge of it? A more mainstream magazine that has a large subscription base.. it would probably be a decent bump in pay too.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']While those are good ideas on the surface, I don't think either would work.

Lack of previews, for one, would hurt as people expect them. EGM has had hardly any for a while and people are always bitching about it. People know they aren't reviews and aren't meant to be statements on quality. People just like to know what's coming out and previews are the mechanism for that.

As for the ads, I don't think they could get enough revenue for having only non-gaming ads. People pay to advertise to their target market. They can get some stuff like bodyspray, mountain dew etc. that at least is aimed at males in the gaming age group, but I doubt they could get enough of those lifestyle type non-gaming ads to keep their ad revenues the same or better.[/QUOTE]

Both good points, but to add some final comments:

1) Oh yeah. People love previews. I actually deleted a whole paragraph from what I wrote about how the fans are ultimately responsible for the situation, because they just love to be told that some game is gonna be awesome. But after that, I'd disagree: sure, people know they're not reviews, but when they hear nothing but glowing praise, they frequently assume that's the whole story. That, my friend, is how hype begins, and that's a) not helpful to the industry, because it leads to the rush to cover games early, which leads to the power being placed firmly in the hands of the publishers, and b) not good for fans, because one-sided previews -- and there are no other kind -- are largely what convince people they need these games in the first place.

2) Actually not true about the ads. Some smaller print outlets would have trouble in the way you describe, but not buying ads from the very people you cover is common practice among places where "journalistic integrity" is valued. It's exactly this situation that defines "conflict of interest." And if we're going to keep calling game reviewers "journalists," isn't it time we held them to journalistic standards?
 
[quote name='trq']Both good points, but to add some final comments:

1) Oh yeah. People love previews. I actually deleted a whole paragraph from what I wrote about how the fans are ultimately responsible for the situation, because they just love to be told that some game is gonna be awesome. But after that, I'd disagree: sure, people know they're not reviews, but when they hear nothing but glowing praise, they frequently assume that's the whole story. That, my friend, is how hype begins, and that's a) not helpful to the industry, because it leads to the rush to cover games early, which leads to the power being placed firmly in the hands of the publishers, and b) not good for fans, because one-sided previews -- and there are no other kind -- are largely what convince people they need these games in the first place.

2) Actually not true about the ads. Some smaller print outlets would have trouble in the way you describe, but not buying ads from the very people you cover is common practice among places where "journalistic integrity" is valued. It's exactly this situation that defines "conflict of interest." And if we're going to keep calling game reviewers "journalists," isn't it time we held them to journalistic standards?[/QUOTE]

On previews, the key is for them to just provide screen shots and a description of the game--what genre it is, the setting/story and things of that nature and not to hype it up, make any quality judgements etc.

The problem is most previews go beyond that and turn into fluff pieces.

As for ads, we'll just have to agree to disagree. There are only so many non-gaming products out there willing to pay the same as a gaming company to get there ads in a magazine read only by gamers.

While it would be good for integrity, it's just not very feasible for specialized magazines. It's easier for magazines with a more general user base, tougher for one skewed to younger males--and to be sterotypical younger male geeks.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']It's either that, or those saying that the higher ups wanted the reviews to stop being so harsh to quit pissing off advertisers (see the Assassin's Creed review, Ubisoft pulling ads and advance copies, and Shoe's editorial in response) led him to resign.
[/quote]

What would shoe resigning do for the higher ups? Ubisoft still won't send them send them review copies, and the guy who reviewed Assassin's Creed still works there.

I really think everyone is trying to turn this into another Gerstmann scandal when there isn't one. I do agree that they probably have to deal with tons of PR bullshit, and that would be good incentive to want to quit.

Edit: About the ads, I think they could do nongaming ads and still make money. Comic books have no problem receiving ad revenue from tv shows, movies, snacks and other items their target demographic buy. Gaming magazines, which is a more mainstream topic should be able to do as well if not better.
 
[quote name='DQT']What would shoe resigning do for the higher ups? Ubisoft still won't send them send them review copies, and the guy who reviewed Assassin's Creed still works there.
[/QUOTE]

Maybe they wanted Shoe to not stand up to publishers so much. Maybe not so much wanting him to soften reviews, but maybe to at least not speak out so much in his editorials.

He wasn't willing so he resigned.

Who knows, that's just one possibility and there may be nothing to it like you note.

Whatever the case game sites and magazines are getting to be even more of a joke than the used to be...and they've always been a joke since they're largely filled with gamers trying to write rather than writers who happen to like games.

I quit reading any gaming sites a couple years ago, EGM was the only mag I still got and that was just shiiter reading the past few years anyway. I'm pretty much to the point of just buying the big AAA games in genres I like and keeping up with them on these forums these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top