Like i said.
He probably broke the contract, there's no way EA would silent one reviewer when there are hundread of them criticizing the game right now.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Gggmanlives (sponsored influencer) has negative Anthem Review taken down (now edited + reuploaded). Original did not have correct watermark.
- Thread starter Kyuuji
- Start date
Like i said.
He probably broke the contract, there's no way EA would silent one reviewer when there are hundread of them criticizing the game right now.
This didn't result in a firing + the creation of the greatest scientific gaming site known to mankind though
But he is a reviewer, whether EA considers him such or not. His primary content has always been reviews with a couple of other videos (including previews) thrown in there. His job is literally being a reviewer.
By the way the video is back up -
He also covers the blacklist briefly at the start, worth a watch. He is saying that it was because it was too critical.
We're unable to properly give thoughts on this when we do not know the whole situation. There is an equal chance that GGGMan (who I watch frequently) broke a part of the contract that wasn't about reviewing the game badly, as I'm sure other 'influencers' did not come into this problem.
Hopefully we can find more out.
Hopefully we can find more out.
Very different if it was a sponsored video, though. Paying somebody to make a video then being pissed off that video is negative is very different to buying ads via an advertising department then being taken by surprise when the editorial from a separate department is negative (which is what went on with Gamespot - the ads people then complained, leading to Gerstmann's dismissal). Both are bad, but they're very different things.
It's an assumption to assume that he was dumped cus he was negative and not for something else. I've seen Gamechangers across different games give really negative reviews and not get booted out of the program.
If there was a contract mandating that he had to be positive then that's the problem that should be focused on. A massive game publisher writing and enforcing a rule like that is significantly worse than some random YouTuber signing a contract with that rule in it. Commercials disguised as reviews are very dangerous to the industry.
OP
OP
This is the crux of it. Paying people to care at all about your game and check it out is as fine as summer wine. Paying to assign bad games positive reviews and scores is shit and should be rejected as a practice.
Just because a bad business practice is common doesn't mean people shouldn't criticise it for being bad though. Furthermore acting like it isn't harming the industry is bizarre, especially when you frame it as some juvenile retort.
Both EA and influencers/gamechangers/whatever you want to call them should be held accountable for unethical practices. Some of the bigger names involved can make lots of money through their sponsored videos and have a big reach. It needs to be called out on both sides.
The authorities should crack down on this practice. It's basically company sponsored false advertising. I'm not sure how it's even legal.
Any speculation on what part of the contract he broke that magically no one else has?
I feel like EA are turning what isn't a Fallout 76 level disappointment into a Fallout 76 level outrage.
There is just enough of an out for EA. What is considered constructive?
Yeah for sure. But recalls that situation as an attempt to quash criticism. I'm curious what exactly makes this review stick out among the others.
OP
OP
Who exactly are you and others responding to while derailing the thread?
I don't think any/many people have actually come out foaming at the mouth at EA here, or sincerely pushed them being the worst company ever narrative.
We should be focused more on the company behind the program than the individuals in it.
Not necessarily. His videos clearly said at the time that it was a paid promotion from what people are saying. So long as disclosure is there, it's not that big of a deal as far as capitalism problems go.
And issues of undisclosed paid promotions are kinda an entirely different beast from what we are talking here.
OP
OP
Has to be something in the video that conflicts with the Gamechangers program if the watermark was the issue - wonder what it is?apparently the video is unchanged, only watermarks were removed
Call it marketing if you'd like, but the whole system is rotten and looks to trade cash for "forcing" people into what to say.
I know it's an industry-wide problem, and much can be said about those that take cash simply to speak cultivated PR, but it's all still incredibly scummy given many viewers will simply think their favourite YTer is doing an honest review. Which is why companies like EA look to exploit YTers.
Can't pay off the journalists so the industry seeks to go after "independent influencers".
Worst the industry could do to journalists is muzzle them into day 1 reviews. Or take them to "review camps" with flights, free food and whatever else. The latter is kind of dead now when instead all you have to do is pay off people behind webcams with "contracts" about what they're "allowed" to say critically about your game.
A paid promotion shouldn't be able to be a review in the first place.
The whole "influencer" thing is so insidious. A lot of them don't do reviews, in the traditional sense, but they're still paid to make games look good and gloss over problems. Even when they're not directly paid, they sure do get a lot of "care packages" from games companies. Custom controllers, custom consoles, lavish special editions of games. Flown out and wined and dined to special events, treated like VIP's. This isn't done for no reason, these companies aren't generous, they know that this shit subtly creates that positive impression in the recipient's head...no matter how many times they say to themselves "I can't be bought".
Seeing Xbox execs trashing reviewers and telling people to trust the type of influencers that their company is directly paying in this way...how is this not more of an issue? Reviewers make mistakes or get shit wrong...they're people. Using that as an excuse to push the people who's wheels you've greased is skeezy as fuck. Where's GamerGate now, how are they not tearing that MS exec apart for that statement? How are they not all over this? I mean, we all know why, it was a bullshit excuse to attack women from the very start, but they screamed about ethics for so long in the aftermath that it's funny to see them so silent now that there's an actual, complex ethics issue.
Seeing Xbox execs trashing reviewers and telling people to trust the type of influencers that their company is directly paying in this way...how is this not more of an issue? Reviewers make mistakes or get shit wrong...they're people. Using that as an excuse to push the people who's wheels you've greased is skeezy as fuck. Where's GamerGate now, how are they not tearing that MS exec apart for that statement? How are they not all over this? I mean, we all know why, it was a bullshit excuse to attack women from the very start, but they screamed about ethics for so long in the aftermath that it's funny to see them so silent now that there's an actual, complex ethics issue.
I'd say it shouldn't be counted in review aggregates, but reviews in the first place isn't some hyper well defined thing, protected by some legal guidelines. There are jokes reviews, complete non review troll videos, yada yada. I don't think it's that big of a deal, so long as disclosure is obvious.
And none of this is to shut down a general discussion about paid influencers in general and their effect on our culture, consumer perception and control over narrative it gives corporations. It's just I think particular aspect of it is a bit too minor to single out.
A video paid for by the publisher of a game shouldn't be able to be called a review. And any time there's a joke review, it's very obviously a joke.
Might be worth adding the re-uploaded video to the original post.
I think this happens more often than people think, but rather than formal blacklisting, sometimes if you deliver a negative review you just find a publisher suspiciously ignores you, fails to send you their next game ahead of release, etc etc. Then eventually it blows over and shit goes back to normal. I've encountered it personally a lot, and from a wide range of publishers. Sometimes publishers/PRs/marketing people just start guessing about what publications/regions/people the game will do well with, then selectively deliver code. That is, after all, part of their job - to do anything they can to try to create the best public perception. And part of the job of media and critics is to work around that shit and inform the public.
It gets nasty when you get to stuff like formal bannings and stuff like that though. I feel like you're more likely to see that with influencers who post sponsored posts, too, cos you're gonna end up more annoyed if you pay someone four (or if you're massive, even five) figures and then it works against you, and sometimes even contracts for the deals stipulate against this sort of thing.
RE what makes this review stand out, it's hard to say, but it is worth noting the guy is an Aussie; so this could be EA Australia kicking off while the other regions are taking it on the chin. Again, that sort of mismatch is common.
Last edited:
But do they really still happen? The MGS4 one was an absolute joke.
Chasing after the YouTube/Twitch influencers seem to be the way the industry is largely going now. Heck, Dark Souls 3 was given to "prominent" Twitch streamers early as a means to bypass traditional reviewers.
Now we've even got EA and Ubisoft "early access" as another way to try and bypass day 1 reviews and get the hype/shilling selling pre-orders.
I just watched the review, he doesn't talk about any event he went to.
OP
OP
Good shout - will do and add context around the removal for what we know too.
That's fair but I also don't think we have to look at the situation and pick just one piece of the equation to blame for it. It's almost a given that big companies are going to adopt shady practices if they think they can get away with it, the individuals are the ones that could hold them to account but they are complicit. I just find the whole concept of "influencer" culture to be utterly distasteful.
He apparently did in the original video? Another poster in this thread mentioned it as well.
Fuck EA and fuck companies trying to suppress criticism, but doesn't Gggmanlives whine about the mean ol' SJWs in several of his videos?
I do want to state that we know pretty much fuck all about this situation. All we know is that he was a Gamechanger and now he's not for the stated reason that it was "too critical". We have no idea or evidence that any money was involved in the review. There's a very likely chance EA didn't even know he was making the review and he added in the disclosure because despite the video not being a part of the Gamechanger program the person creating it is.
Most influencers (ie people who stream or do youtube videos) aren't paid influencers, lol. Just search negative Anthem videos in YT, you will find a fuckton.
I'm weirded out by your words of choice, "muzzling" reviewers and putting them in "review camps". Did you just use concentration camps as an analogy or did I read too much into your post?
Nope, review camps are a literal thing and that is what they're literally called.
I'm sure he was hired to provide an honest review, they just thought every sponsored content maker would be positive and blacklist the ones who don't.
Does he? God damn it, I can't find someone not shitty on YouTube.
Information about influencers being on companies payrolls should be public domain and any video should have a standardized disclosure that says something like "this is paid content and doesn't have any critical value or reflects the quality of the product in any way".
I just tried googling review camps and didn't find anything about them, I recall the MGS4 thing where they invited reviewers to a launch party iirc? But I can't find anything about them being called review camps.
