Eidos and NewsCorp slam false buyout reports
“Absolutely no truth” in spite of alleged confirmation
You may be aware that there has been escalating speculation on some news sites that Rupert Murdoch’s NewsCorp was poised to buy Eidos. The news stemmed from self-styled games industry oracle GamesIndustry.biz, which claimed that “Although the exact progress of the negotiations over Eidos' future are shrouded in secrecy, multiple UK industry sources have this morning told [us] that they believe a deal is imminent - and that Murdoch's media empire is the buyer.”
The site then went on record with a piece entitled, “Eidos insiders confirm News Corp deal is imminent.” It must be stressed that both pieces were heavily edited after going to press. The piece had insider quotes reading, "We're just really glad the News Corp thing is out in the open now. Keep an eye on it over the next week. It could happen on Thursday, it could happen on Monday - we're not sure, but there's light at the end of the tunnel now."
The site when on, “"Everyone within Eidos knows that when it gets sold, it's going to be sold as a group with a new flag on it," our source confirmed this morning. "It's not going to be broken up in the same way Criterion was."”
Amazingly, if predictably, the whole story is completely bogus. Not only that, but the author of the stories never even bothered to contact Eidos or NewsCorp. As an Eidos executive put it to SPOnG today, “We read this and were astounded. We had no contact from the journalist who wrote the story and we are still laughing about what we read.” It would seem that Eidos especially liked the section in which the site claimed, “…tell-tale signs at the firm's offices - specifically a hiring freeze across the company, and reports that development studios have been told to prepare presentations on each of their projects for the new owners.”
Speaking exclusively to SPOnG this afternoon, NewsCorp’s New York office sought to slam the false buyout rumours. “Okay, so whoever it was who ran this piece never called us to ask about it. Not once. I thought that’s what journalists are supposed to do. Isn’t it? Furthermore, he didn’t even call us after the event. To this day we have never had any contact. So to put a piece to press confirming such a deal amazed me and my colleagues. I’d be interested to know if the so called source for any such ‘news’ had been trading Eidos shares,” a dark and cynical shadow to cast across games news reporting.
“It’s total horseshit. We’ve been laughing about it internally for the past few days," our NewsCorp contact continued. "In fact, the funniest thing is, we’ve never held any kind of talks with Eidos. It’s so far off the mark as to be the kind of piece that leads us to believe that something is wrong in games reporting.”
Indeed, taking a cue from the self-agrandising domain name the site goes under, many other sites took its word as gospel and perpetuated the rumour without sparing a moment to consider the story's authenticity.
The site then went on record with a piece entitled, “Eidos insiders confirm News Corp deal is imminent.” It must be stressed that both pieces were heavily edited after going to press. The piece had insider quotes reading, "We're just really glad the News Corp thing is out in the open now. Keep an eye on it over the next week. It could happen on Thursday, it could happen on Monday - we're not sure, but there's light at the end of the tunnel now."
The site when on, “"Everyone within Eidos knows that when it gets sold, it's going to be sold as a group with a new flag on it," our source confirmed this morning. "It's not going to be broken up in the same way Criterion was."”
Amazingly, if predictably, the whole story is completely bogus. Not only that, but the author of the stories never even bothered to contact Eidos or NewsCorp. As an Eidos executive put it to SPOnG today, “We read this and were astounded. We had no contact from the journalist who wrote the story and we are still laughing about what we read.” It would seem that Eidos especially liked the section in which the site claimed, “…tell-tale signs at the firm's offices - specifically a hiring freeze across the company, and reports that development studios have been told to prepare presentations on each of their projects for the new owners.”
Speaking exclusively to SPOnG this afternoon, NewsCorp’s New York office sought to slam the false buyout rumours. “Okay, so whoever it was who ran this piece never called us to ask about it. Not once. I thought that’s what journalists are supposed to do. Isn’t it? Furthermore, he didn’t even call us after the event. To this day we have never had any contact. So to put a piece to press confirming such a deal amazed me and my colleagues. I’d be interested to know if the so called source for any such ‘news’ had been trading Eidos shares,” a dark and cynical shadow to cast across games news reporting.
“It’s total horseshit. We’ve been laughing about it internally for the past few days," our NewsCorp contact continued. "In fact, the funniest thing is, we’ve never held any kind of talks with Eidos. It’s so far off the mark as to be the kind of piece that leads us to believe that something is wrong in games reporting.”
Indeed, taking a cue from the self-agrandising domain name the site goes under, many other sites took its word as gospel and perpetuated the rumour without sparing a moment to consider the story's authenticity.
Companies:
Eidos
Read More Like This
Comments
Ditto 26 Feb 2005 11:42
1/7
LOL
I must admit, I read the GI report and thought "I didn't see that one coming - sounds... strange...". It didn't convince me too much, sounded like a rumour.
What's scary here is that GI appears to be taken seriously by many in both the press, public and, it sounds to an extent, some parts of the industry. Okay, you have to remember that a lot of their stuff is interesting and that SPoNG are obviously going to slam them because they're a rival, but the fact that they've propagated this as being confirmed from insiders is hardly a mark of quality.
One has to wonder if this was someone in Eidos taking Mr Fahley on a wild goose chase.
I must admit, I read the GI report and thought "I didn't see that one coming - sounds... strange...". It didn't convince me too much, sounded like a rumour.
What's scary here is that GI appears to be taken seriously by many in both the press, public and, it sounds to an extent, some parts of the industry. Okay, you have to remember that a lot of their stuff is interesting and that SPoNG are obviously going to slam them because they're a rival, but the fact that they've propagated this as being confirmed from insiders is hardly a mark of quality.
One has to wonder if this was someone in Eidos taking Mr Fahley on a wild goose chase.
Pandaman 26 Feb 2005 23:46
2/7
I think the real breaking point of these alleged negotiations is how much edios is going to let Lara Croft's breasts go for.
more comments below our sponsor's message
SPInGSPOnG 27 Feb 2005 07:44
3/7
Alan is my first name wrote:
I think the real breaking point of these alleged negotiations is how much edios is going to let Lara Croft's breasts go for.
if I had Lara Croft's Breasts in my grasp I'm sure there would not be enough money on Earth to make me let them go. Indeed, I would walk around behind her, like a fleshy shadow, providing her with the support she much needs. An infinitely adjustable, warming push up bra.
On the other hand, if I was the employer of that clueless donkey, Mr Fahey, I there would not be enough money of Earth to make me keep him in a job.
TigerUppercut 27 Feb 2005 14:06
4/7
Adam M wrote:
I must admit, I read the GI report and thought "I didn't see that one coming - sounds... strange...". It didn't convince me too much, sounded like a rumour.
The problem is that they didn't even bother to call anyone concerned.
Adam M wrote:
What's scary here is that GI appears to be taken seriously by many in both the press, public and, it sounds to an extent, some parts of the industry. Okay, you have to remember that a lot of their stuff is interesting and that SPoNG are obviously going to slam them because they're a rival, but the fact that they've propagated this as being confirmed from insiders is hardly a mark of quality.
They have an impressive sounding URL. You have to remember that so many people who work in and monitor the industry actually have no idea about, well, anything.
This piece was a disgrace. They put a piece to press that claimed to have insiders preparing for the sale. They then ran a piece confirming the news. They then heavily edited both pieces after publication.
It's the worst instance of sloppy, lazy journalism there is. We've all put pieces to press from sources that may ot may not be valid but only the worst kind of fool would actually not bother to check with either company concerned.
It's something of a joke. They've been found out, not for the first time. One just wonders how many more chances the industry will give a site that so constantly offers bogus news as fact...
Mendez 28 Feb 2005 09:06
5/7
Adam M wrote:
but the fact that they've propagated this as being confirmed from insiders is hardly a mark of quality.
By insider I take it to mean that GI got a call from the cleaner, the tea-boy or perhaps, someone much higher up the food chain, like the spotty teenager in playtest -- or maybe his brother.
One has to wonder if this was someone in Eidos taking Mr Fahley on a wild goose chase.
No. Never. I *really* can't imagine a true insider being that vindictive. Surely not.
F**king top-rank hilarity if one of the Eidos execs did yank the GI chain.
config 28 Feb 2005 12:31
6/7
Looks like it's the case, Mendez. GI debunked his own story just a few hours after we ran this one. Oddly, the GI quote from News Corp didn't include the line "whoever it was who ran this piece never called us to ask about it"
DeepFraught 28 Feb 2005 13:09
7/7
from gi.biz, "Speaking privately, sources at Rupert Murdoch's media empire have categorically denied claims from Eidos insiders that News Corp is about to buy the Lara Croft publisher."
speaking privately to you now, are they? why couldn't you just call them for a quick, private powow before running the initial story?
because you knew it was nonsense and didn't want to distract from the impact of the story (and eidos share hike)? No?
speaking privately to you now, are they? why couldn't you just call them for a quick, private powow before running the initial story?
because you knew it was nonsense and didn't want to distract from the impact of the story (and eidos share hike)? No?