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 thoughReminds me of Gamespot's Kane and Lynch debacle from years back.
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.But this is not a reviewer, this is a person who was paid to PROMOTE the game, not review it.
Reminds me of Gamespot's Kane and Lynch debacle from years back.
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.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 that was "implied". This contract, nothing is implied, everything has to be explicitly stated.
So, it depend 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.
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.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 that was "implied". This contract, nothing is implied, everything has to be explicitly stated.
So, it depend 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.
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.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.
But vidyagames are serious buzness!!!!!!EA is not even in the top 1000 worst companies in human history. They make videogames.
It's admirable that he's willing to be critical of the game despite being paid to promote it but this is why sponsored content is terrible and I can't feel too sorry for him if that's the business he's in. You can't review games and take money from the publisher, it's just wrong.
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.
so you are telling me
that companies can now blacklist someone because he made a negative video?
ughhh fucking hell....
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.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.
Who exactly are you and others responding to while derailing the thread?
We should be focused more on the company behind the program than the individuals in it.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.
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.
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
Before you raise your torches and pitchforks, this stuff doesn't just happen out of the blue. There have been people removed from the Gamechangers program before on other games and it has actually never been due to criticism, but some breach of contract.
I do not know the case here nor I would dare to speculate, but please just be respectful to all parties involved without having to make threats and what not on social media.
A paid promotion shouldn't be able to be a review in the first place.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.
review campsCall 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.
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.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.
Might be worth adding the re-uploaded video to the original post.Has to be something in the video that conflicts with the Gamechangers program if the watermark was the issue - wonder what it is?
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.
I just watched the review, he doesn't talk about any event he went to.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.
Good shout - will do and add context around the removal for what we know too.Might be worth adding the re-uploaded video to the original post.
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.We should be focused more on the company behind the program than the individuals in it.
He apparently did in the original video? Another poster in this thread mentioned it as well.I just watched the review, he doesn't talk about any event he went to.
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.
And according to Epic as well. The seem to rely completely on (paid) influencers for discovery on Epic's game store.
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?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.
Nope, review camps are a literal thing and that is what they're literally called.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?
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.I see no issue with this. I assume he was a paid advertiser, and he did not provide the wanted content.
Like I make a product, and hire a PR person, but that PR person just shit's on my product. What do I do? Fire the fucking PR person.
If he was paid to provide a positive review, and he did not according to contract it's his fault.
Does he? God damn it, I can't find someone not shitty on YouTube.Fuck EA and fuck companies trying to suppress criticism, but doesn't Gggmanlives whine about the mean ol' SJWs in several of his videos?
https://www.ea.com/game-changers/faq#q4WHAT IF I POST NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ON THE GAME, OR EA?
If a Game Changer posts a negative review or content about the company or one of our games that is honest and constructive – they will have our thanks and full support. We demand that our Game Changers act with honesty with us, with our dev teams, and with the community. Sometimes this can make things uncomfortable! EA is committed to being player first and earning the trust of our community. We make mistakes and get things wrong all the time. For our teams to improve and get better, we need our Game Changers to keep it real.
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.Nope, review camps are a literal thing and that is what they're literally called.