This is really par for the course with anything involving games media. The studios who can afford work their butts off to control the narrative, and reviewers who go against the grain quickly lose preview access.
The bribes aren't cash. They'll fly you to a hotel to play, carter the whole weekend, give speeches about the game. And send you home with a lot of swag. Also these function as industry events since so many reviewers are there. You also sign an NDA about the event because it would be trouble some if the public got word how this systems works.
I guess we should be shocked it was a raw cash deal, but that's just the next logical step. Generally you can't assume a game review is fair unless it was produced post release.
The problem is integrity. None of these reviewers have it. In the past journalists either would not have accepted that kind of treatment from the companies they were reviewing or they would not let it sway their opinion. Unfortunately if these one man YouTube reviewers did give an honest review the company wouldn't work with them again and some other YouTube star enjoying their 15 mins of fame would do it instead.
So many wanna be reviewers will happily sell out for 15minutes of fame. Changing/discarding people is commonly done by the audience AND reviewers at a whim.
Furthermore game sales are done as impulse buys on the strength of a franchise, or studio. Look at the market for pre-orders. People don't purchase escapism rationally, as escapism isn't a rational experience.
Demanding integrity out of this system is the battle cry of naive. Studio's don't allow, profit motive doesn't push for it, and those demanding it are a minority. The only choice is to stop buying games by large publishers period. If you don't have the integrity to do this, you aren't in a position to demand it from others.
> In the past journalists either would not have accepted that kind of treatment from the companies they were reviewing or they would not let it sway their opinion
I don't know if this is now or has ever been the case.
> In the past journalists either would not have accepted that kind of treatment from the companies they were reviewing or they would not let it sway their opinion.
Certainly, in the past, doing this for reviewers of other commercial products (as well as outright tying of ad purchases to favorable reviews) has been distressingly common; the general corruption of the entire system of commercially-published reviews of commercially-significant products is the reason things like Consumer Reports exist as an alternative to traditional commercially-published reviews.
But how many of these people really pass as journalists? I don't see people like PewDiePie as a journalist anymore than I see Quill18 as a journalist. I just want their LPs and enjoy their silly antics. I don't buy the game based on their opinions but more on my opinion of how much fun it seems from my POV. If there's no fun IMO I just skip the game or only get it while it's on sale on Steam. Hell, I'll go as far as to say these sorts of "reviewers" saved me more money than the old fashioned magazine/TV show reviewers have on games. So I don't even bother with traditional reviews as is since LPs tell me more about a game than a review ever could. It's why I stopped going to Polygon for reviews because honestly reviews just don't cover enough to give me an idea what the game is about or how it plays. When I watch say Quill18 play HoI4 or Civ5 I get more information on the game than he can ever give me if he was tasked with writing a review of the game post-LP.
Edit [Major addition, lol]:
Also where the heck do you folks get the idea that PewDiePie is a 'reviewer' from? I'm like sorta floored by this still. And after watching a video response by him it seems he's in the legal right here. Before the FTC even had regulations for this, he was disclosing in the description of the video but it wasn't at the top of the description. Now he does both the description disclosure AND a mention of sponsorship BEFORE the LP. And it's not uncommon for the same thing to happen in the Paradox LP community (Arumba has mentioned at least one time in an LP that he was flown out and/or sponsored for the LP of a Paradox game which I think was HoI4). So, I'm not really keen to bite this click bait crap. Frankly, I think the Verge should edit this article with a major correction at the top of the article stating the promotional videos were done prior to FTC and YT/Google regulations existed on the matter.
>Also where the heck do you folks get the idea that PewDiePie is a 'reviewer' from? I'm like sorta floored by this still.
"You folks" are the millions of teenagers who don't know any better. The people who expect youtubers to be corporate shills aren't normally the people who actually watch them.
You clearly don't know PewDiePie's audience otherwise you wouldn't talk that way. Can you show me what actual harm is done by a sponsored LP does to kids who wind up being out of a few bucks from renting it at Redbox for their PS4/XB1? I'm all ears.
The article you linked doesn't give any substance to the claim of actual harm when taking into account the facts of the case before the FTC as is. All you're doing is proving that there's no harm done as is thus my position remains correct. So again, I'll ask you one more time: is there actual proof of actual harm (property or life loss) from sponsored content in Let's Plays? If not, then will you admit your thesis is a false comparison and needs to be focusing on the matter of uniform disclosure (note that PewDiePie does this in the videos now and it's on the top of every video description he posts on YouTube)?
Number one: Payola is deceptive to the audience. If you are advertising you should disclose it, prominently and UNAVOIDABLY. Otherwise you are lying in saying "hey I like this thing and you should like it too!" rather than "hey I was paid to tell you I like this thing and you should like it too!" If there's no material harm to sponsored content as you claim, then there should be no reason not to disclose this prominently.
Number two: Payola is harmful to the economy in that it has a "rich get richer" effect -- those who can afford Payola can buy lots of advertising, without indicating that they are doing so, giving themselves an unfair advantage.
Also, disclosing at the top of a video description is not enough as those descriptions do not get carried forward when the video is shared on other media outlets (Facebook, twitter, etc). I'm not sure when the FTC made the rule official, and so he might get a pass based on timing, but the current standard is that a disclosure must be UNAVOIDABLE. IE, a best practice is to put the disclosure IN THE VIDEO TITLE and IN THE VIDEO ITSELF.
"Number one: Payola is deceptive to the audience..."
I don't see this being a problem even then because there's no actual harm. The audience is there to see an LPer do an LP sponsored or not. The content of the LP is still entertaining. What WB's agency did was give them explicit instructions to hide disclosures and avoid negative comments. The reason why PewDiePie and other LPers involved aren't being fined regardless of whether they've conformed to these requests or not (in the case of PewDiePie he actually put the disclosure in the description so legally he's off the hook regardless of how you or I feel) is due to the fact the regulation came out AFTER the fact.
"Number two: Payola is harmful to the economy in that it has a "rich get richer" effect..."
Unless there's a communist revolution in the near future I'm not seeing this as criminal as it's not criminal in and of itself. So don't try this angle unless you can show me a law that says rich people can't get richer categorically. I'm not interested in moral assessments in a legal situation I just want the legal facts not one's moral sentiments.
"Also, disclosing at the top of a video description is not enough as those descriptions do not get carried forward when the video is shared on other media outlets (Facebook, twitter, etc)."
Then I think the new regulation needs to be expanded to enforce content non-modification on presentation via third parties (DMCA could work here I think as the justification).
"I'm not sure when the FTC made the rule official, and so he might get a pass based on timing..."
The FTC as not fine PewDiePie and in their press release they've made no further mention of it him other than an example of some of the LPers that were working with the agency hired by WB. And since the regulation came AFTER the game and LPs were done they're not going to be fined, ever. So just deal with the fact his annoying self is going to be gracing YT for the foreseeable future (even I cringe at that thought, eew). But the fact you all are overblowing the actual legal impact of this case demonstrates a critical break from the reality of it and dishonesty on part of sites like the Verge (at least Variety reported that PewDiePie clarified the situation rather than tried to ignore it like the Verge has done so far). So, now I refuse to go to the Verge's site until they add to the beginning of the article that PewDiePie and other LPers are not in violation of the regulations as is. Until then I'm going to call out the writer and the Verge as dishonest. If they want to win me back start by reporting the facts and not supposition.
This article (probably intentionally) left out some detail from the official FTC source [1] stating:
Instead, according to the complaint, Warner Bros. instructed influencers to place the disclosures in the description box appearing below the video. Because Warner Bros. also required other information to be placed in that box, the vast majority of sponsorship disclosures appeared “below the fold,” visible only if consumers clicked on the “Show More” button in the description box. In addition, when influencers posted YouTube videos on Facebook or Twitter, the posting did not include the “Show More” button, making it even less likely that consumers would see the sponsorship disclosures.
Looks like the YouTubers followed the contract that was vetted by Warner Brother Lawyers and other Warner Agents. Sadly the YouTuber should have placed the information first but I see them more as a victims. They should have seen the need to help their viewers and their channel more by fully disclosing in the video and with graphics.
"Sadly the YouTuber should have placed the information first but I see them more as a victims."
Please. Youtubers have only to put "sponsored stream" in the title to remove all doubt and be honest about it. It is a common practice, and many fans are not bothered when it happens, or think less of the youtuber since it is understood their need to monetize.
If they purposely accepted a contract that told them to hide the fact that they were being sponsored, they are as reprehensible as WB.
They were the ones who chose to tank their own credibility by taking money to produce paid promo videos that looked like ordinary non-promotional content. They're not the victims here; the viewers they deceived for profit are.
Well I actually watched a PewDiePie video of it. He just played the game which he would have probably done anyways. There wasn't even a review just fun game, which it was to the vast majority of people.
This headline is misleading. It suggests that this is news. It isn't - PewDiePie disclosed that he was paid to promote WB's game and did so from the start when he made the videos. The FTC investigation was over whether the existing disclosure was enough, and it was determined it wasn't.
What surprises me more is how blatant it was. These rules were around for at least a few years before the initial charge in 2014, and it's not like WB had a fresh marketing team. They didn't give products, licenses, free showings of films, or anything of the sort (which I believe under the rules is still wrong). They actually gave cash. They should've known this would have been wrong.
Which begs the question: how much was the fine? If it was trivial, that would explain why WB did it; the marketing benefit would've more-than-offset the costs, fines included.
I think the problem is that when you're dealing with numbers like these the fines are always less than the gain from disobeying the regulations in questions.
Reminds me of the rumor (debunked by Snopes) that Coke willingly lies about its calorie count and simply opts to repeatedly pay the fine than correct their label:
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/1calorie.asp
It's still surprising, because you can buy positive coverage without breaking the letter of the law. You simply don't explicitly say that good coverage = more money, but make sure everyone knows that's how it works.
For example, you take out a monthly deal for some standard normal advertising, and if their coverage is negative you stop renewing it.
Or you call a press conference at an exotic location and provide free flights and accommodation for select journalists. Who happen to have given you consistently positive coverage in the past.
That's why we need fines that are based upon a percentage of revenue or profit within, say, the past year. A fine of, eg, 15% yearly revenue over FY2015 would make any company sit up and pay attention.
IANAL but that sounds an awfully lot like Apple can break the same regulation CompuTechSoft, LLC can break and Apple gets nailed with a 9+ figure fine just because they have a lot of revenue. I can't see that holding up in court.
I don't think it made it into the non-gaming press last time, which it seems to have done now. Even getting the gaming press to cover it was an uphill struggle for TB if I remember correctly.
1. YouTube streamers are getting paid to play games on stream by content creators / publishers. That's great, and much more interesting than an ad (it's nearly impossible to the product to actually be terrible and have this make it look good). The company, the streamer, and the consumer all win to a certain degree here.
2. A company was punished for breaking the law and lying. Great!
The only thing missing, for me, is a disclosure from the streamer that they are being paid to play a particular game. Just be honest, it'll make for a more compelling review.
Last year, when this problem started to get attention from the FTC and other regulators, TotalBiscuit posted a detailed explanation of proper disclosure.
It really is that simple in most cases; just be very clear that you were paid (a free copy of the game counts), and let the viewer decide what they want to watch. I suspect their view-counts will stay about the same if the streamer is careful to put the same effort into paid videos as they do for their normal content. People watch the better streamers to see the character the streamer is creating and/or the show they produce. A good entertainer should be able to work with - or around, if necessary - paid demonstrations.
Jim Sterling, TB, etc. covered this in much more detail months ago. I'd reccomend watching their videos to find out how it worked, why it was legal, and why it was absolutely dispicable anyways.
You should be more bothered because it is something you consider to be a very good game. A publisher of a franchise you like has knowingly participated in anti-consumer practices, and for relatively little gain. It should reflect on them and their opinion of you as their customer.
It does make me wonder how many people in the early 20th century were pretty comfortable with Standard Oil's business practices because they also created kerosene that didn't blow up in your face and kill your loved ones.
I published this article a couple of hours ago, but after looking add PewDiePie's reply[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JqJDRkKlt8], I feel that it was unfair to copy-paste verges headline and link to it, because it's inaccurate.
I wish I could change the title, but sadly, it's to late.
The question "Was GamerGate driven by misogyny?" can now be answered. How many people raise the issue of ethics, regarding this situation, will clarify how many people really did care about ethics when Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu, and Anita Sarkeesian were under attack.
It already has been - GamerGate were the ones who originally broke this story almost two years ago. (More specifically, TotalBiscuit broke it and was officially a GG supporter, and most of the initial coverage came from GG circles. The mainstream gaming press only noticed a week or two later.) Though I think a lot of the interest was in an aspect that isn't mentioned here: Warner Bros also refused to give review codes to YouTubers outside of the paid promotional scheme, so essentially all of the initial YouTube coverage was by people with paid contracts that forbade them from saying or showing anything negative.
Bringing those particular people into a discussion -- especially with a tone of "see? see? I was right! X is God/X is the devil!" that almost dares people to take issue with it -- leads to nothing but endless, unproductive fights between entrenched political positions.
The bribes aren't cash. They'll fly you to a hotel to play, carter the whole weekend, give speeches about the game. And send you home with a lot of swag. Also these function as industry events since so many reviewers are there. You also sign an NDA about the event because it would be trouble some if the public got word how this systems works.
I guess we should be shocked it was a raw cash deal, but that's just the next logical step. Generally you can't assume a game review is fair unless it was produced post release.