Probably not even the top 100,000 lol. EA is a bad company in my personal opinion (along with ActiBlizz) that despite contributing a lot of positive to the industry has also (again IMHO) irreparably harmed it over the past 5 to 10 years. But this is all within the context of that it's frickin' video games we're talking about, it's a luxury leisure product. This is not Nestle or United Fruit we're talking about here. It's not even in the same universe let alone ballpark.
-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Gggmanlives (sponsored influencer) has negative Anthem Review taken down (now edited + reuploaded). Original did not have correct watermark.
- Thread starter Kyuuji
- Start date
Well it makes sense that you won't be compensated if you say negative things. Since shilling has been properly and legally formalized now, you gotta play ball. I'm sorry I'm not cool with this stuff, this is just dodgy as hell.
I doubt EA paid him to review their game... They probably paid him to make a video that promotes their game, and then he turned it into a critical review. I don't think he is a victim here - he literally took money to promote a game and then did the opposite of that. Yes, paying influencers is shady, but that's how they make a living - taking money to convince their followers to buy shit.
EA aiming for that worst company in america title for a 3rd time
from my understanding he was paid to shill, but he didn't , instead he roasted the fuck outta their product
can't blame EA lmao
from my understanding he was paid to shill, but he didn't , instead he roasted the fuck outta their product
can't blame EA lmao
OP
OP
This is definitely the preferable outcome to EA paying people to create positive reviews.
Goes from: this video may give us even more bad press
to: this will blow up in our faces and get more attention than the video would have alone.
How can there be that many minds in one place and such a lack of common sense? One word EA: optics.
to: this will blow up in our faces and get more attention than the video would have alone.
How can there be that many minds in one place and such a lack of common sense? One word EA: optics.
I reckon the negative press the game got probably drove guys like these to join the formal critics, in fear of alienating themselves from their audience (Main income) if they were ever called out on obviously paid for opinions.
Come on, don't tell me he didn't know exactly what he signed up for, all this influencer stuff is very dishonest.
I was so naive before learning about this concept. So many Youtubers suddenly made sense, why they were so relentlessly upbeat and positive lol...
Buy your own copy of a game, say whatever you want and tell the publisher to go suck a fuck if they don't like it.
Then return the game for a full refund.
Then return the game for a full refund.
Might as well blacklist IGN who had similar negative thoughts while promoting this game, they are just using their power to bully a small channel.
If Im understanding correctly, I think EA is not to be blamed for this case. This guy gets paid to shill, yet he decided to do the opposite. An outright breach in contract really. EA is probably being a bit lenient if anything for not pursuing damages of some sort.
Don't know if an EA employee telling people to be nice to EA in a thread about EA trying to silence people should be taken as positively as it seems to be
"Good Guy EA" back at it again but surely we'll go back to (sponsored?) cheerleading when they make vague promises about cross-play or some other shit.
People outright rationalizing and normalizing paid reviews which are not only unethical but borderline illegal.
I guess that in a world where "paid reviews" are a thing we can't act surprised anymore when there's a huge dissonance between the reception to the most recent Rockstar titles and their metacritic.
People outright rationalizing and normalizing paid reviews which are not only unethical but borderline illegal.
I guess that in a world where "paid reviews" are a thing we can't act surprised anymore when there's a huge dissonance between the reception to the most recent Rockstar titles and their metacritic.
Probably, yes.
The main difference is it won't have been James Duggan (IGN's reviewer) who received payment and he won't have been made to agree to anything before reviewing the game. IGN has a marketing department that sorts all that stuff out. Same as most big sites.
For all you saying "he was paid to shill"
Hmm, don't know much about Australian law, but:
https://legalvision.com.au/can-i-pay-someone-to-review-a-product/
Hmm, don't know much about Australian law, but:
https://legalvision.com.au/can-i-pay-someone-to-review-a-product/
This isn't really comparable though. EA Game Changers are people EA literally pays to say good things about their games. He wasn't blacklisted because he bought Anthem, didn't like it, and posted a negative review. He was blacklisted for not doing what he was paid to do.
It was so freaking obvious this time around with the videos of people who'd been getting flown out to Anthem promotional events and literally had to slap a giant "sponsored by game changers" disclaimer at the start of their video before showing off footage of new stuff like giving their "opinion" on the game.
Ok and EA didn't blacklist IGN for a 6.5.
This reviewer clearly broke a contract or something else, i highly doubt EA will randomly blacklist one reviewer out of hundereads without a reason.
The only other Gamechangers I know from the top of my head are Jackfrags and Arekkz.
Seems like the guy wanted to have his cake and eat it too.
Can't say I feel bad for him, especially now this little controversy will no doubt get him more views/subs/donations, but yeah I wouldn't wanna do business with him again either if I was EA.
Do a sponsored vid then do a MY HONEST THOUGHTS vid. Can't do them together.
Can't say I feel bad for him, especially now this little controversy will no doubt get him more views/subs/donations, but yeah I wouldn't wanna do business with him again either if I was EA.
Do a sponsored vid then do a MY HONEST THOUGHTS vid. Can't do them together.
Was it sponsored or paid promotion? If so, source please.
People not understanding how influencers and sponsored content work + "BiG BaD Ea KilLiNg gAimIng"
OP
OP
Oh, bore off with this nonsense.
Paying people to assign positive reviews and scores to bad games is absolutely bad for the industry.
If you want to produce independent subjective criticism, don't accept payment from publishers to produce uncritical promotion for their games.
Sponsored streamers are an arm of publisher marketing. Of course EA would cut him off if he was not just regurgitating their marketing bulletpoints.
Sponsored streamers are an arm of publisher marketing. Of course EA would cut him off if he was not just regurgitating their marketing bulletpoints.
Influencers are not trustworthy sources. They are outsourced PR channels that feign authentic coverage.
At least pre release.
At least pre release.
But this is not a reviewer, this is a person who was paid to PROMOTE the game, not review it.
Who gives a shit if the guy agreed to give a positive review. We should be focusing on how grossly unethical it is that EA has a program where they enforce review scores in the first place.
We know very little actual info about this so we can only speculate but I don't think there was any money involved in the review. I think the reason he mentioned it in the review was for disclosure reasons and I can't remember 100% as it's been half a day but I'm pretty sure there was also a disclaimer in the description saying that he was a part of the Gamechangers program.
I'm thinking the review was taken down not because it was critical but because of the way he discussed the Tokyo preview event he went to.
This is all speculation of course but it's what makes the most sense to me at the moment with the minuscule amount of info we have and having watched Gggman for several years.
I'm thinking the review was taken down not because it was critical but because of the way he discussed the Tokyo preview event he went to.
This is all speculation of course but it's what makes the most sense to me at the moment with the minuscule amount of info we have and having watched Gggman for several years.
OP
OP
Do you think this is only applied to the video game industry? This happens everywhere.
I actually don't Sorry :'(
OP
OP
Yes, and it's a blight on those other industries. What's your point?
Right now, it sound so like a reviewer noticed something and many are copying him. How does this guy know that there are problems deeply woven into the game that cannot be patched out, can someone elaborate on that? Can this reviewer elaborate on that?
It was either IGN's review or Gamespots that said the exact same thing.
Also, a critique of 'going somewhere to kill enemies, only to do it again over and over' is a pretty horrible critique. Most of the games I love can be simplified into that.
Yakuza, God of War, Mario 64, Megaman Legends, Resident Evil.
What about that makes it particularly bad that he can explain, other than brain dead AI. Does the AI in any of the above games change based on difficulty?
I have no interest in playing Anthem. But he just sounds like a parot reviewer without any substances.
It was either IGN's review or Gamespots that said the exact same thing.
Also, a critique of 'going somewhere to kill enemies, only to do it again over and over' is a pretty horrible critique. Most of the games I love can be simplified into that.
Yakuza, God of War, Mario 64, Megaman Legends, Resident Evil.
What about that makes it particularly bad that he can explain, other than brain dead AI. Does the AI in any of the above games change based on difficulty?
I have no interest in playing Anthem. But he just sounds like a parot reviewer without any substances.
The whole culture of influencers, in- and outside video games, is sick. I can't find media much more repelling than knowing someone is a paid shill for a company, which is often quite transparent. Following such people is... something I look down on from my high horse of enlightened media consumption.
I know it's easy to automatically blame him, but we don't know what their contracts were. There are absolutely instances were people are paid to create videos or content for something without explicit guidelines on video being positive. Some of those are honest with that, others then reject the video after the fact if it's too negative, because they just assume that "you gotta be positive" was implicit, when it isn't necessarily.
And this is imporant and these PR people making these contracts need to understand this: If you want specific coverage provide guidelines. If you didn't and then you backpedal you are the bad guy to me. I don't care what you thought was "implied". This is a contract, nothing is implied, everything has to be explicitly stated.
So, it depends on if his contract was explicit about him having to be positive. If it was, his fault. If not, EAs fault for not providing correct guidelines.
And this is imporant and these PR people making these contracts need to understand this: If you want specific coverage provide guidelines. If you didn't and then you backpedal you are the bad guy to me. I don't care what you thought was "implied". This is a contract, nothing is implied, everything has to be explicitly stated.
So, it depends on if his contract was explicit about him having to be positive. If it was, his fault. If not, EAs fault for not providing correct guidelines.
I agree 100%. But I don't think influencers who are required by law to put a "paid by sponsor" logo at the front of their videos are legitimately reviewing anything. They are advertising a product. If the influencer frames it as a review, then that is on them.
I really bet it's something he showed or talked about in the review that he was legally in his contract forbidden from showing/talking about.
It just being "game bad" doesn't really make a lot of sense, especially looking at the Gamechanger FAQ that was posted above as well.
It just being "game bad" doesn't really make a lot of sense, especially looking at the Gamechanger FAQ that was posted above as well.