Powerline
ALF
I'm a pale imitator of a boy in the sky, with a cap on his head and a knot in his tie
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by Powerline on Jul 13, 2016 10:35:32 GMT -5
Stuns me we don't hear about this more often. There's already a large handful that DO disclose it proper (some put a blurb in the description or at the start of the video, while others will outright say in the video it's a paid segment), and some that will adjust their review system for it (one reviewer I watch refuses to score any games he's paid to review and simply talks about them). How easy would it be to just tuck away somewhere that you were paid (embed the video on your site and only say on your site you were paid)? Or just not say it? I mean, if someone like Pewdiepie can go two years without anyone figuring it out, there's gotta be other examples. On top of that, two years is an eternity when it comes to monetized videos on YouTube. Everyone that got paid for it and had the video monetized has received 99.9% of the money they'd ever get off those videos. How the f*** does Pewdiepie have 46 million subs??? Doesn't he literally just play a game on a live stream? How the f*** is he convincing people to watch that??? His commentary and sense of humor, pretty much. That's pretty much the only way to draw people into watching a stream of you playing, that or if you're doing interesting things to the games (Vinesauce's "corruptions", NewLegacyInc's use of in-game creation tools, speedrunners/glitchers, and so on).
|
|
|
Post by Heeltown, USA on Jul 13, 2016 10:51:53 GMT -5
God how I abhor PewDiePie Same. I'm a CartmanBrah guy
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 13, 2016 10:52:23 GMT -5
Stuns me we don't hear about this more often. There's already a large handful that DO disclose it proper (some put a blurb in the description or at the start of the video, while others will outright say in the video it's a paid segment), and some that will adjust their review system for it (one reviewer I watch refuses to score any games he's paid to review and simply talks about them). How easy would it be to just tuck away somewhere that you were paid (embed the video on your site and only say on your site you were paid)? Or just not say it? again that is part of the complaint. If they are paid they have to put it in the video proper, not disclosing it is an obvious problem but putting it in the description is stated as not being good enough.
|
|
Powerline
ALF
I'm a pale imitator of a boy in the sky, with a cap on his head and a knot in his tie
Posts: 1,047
|
Post by Powerline on Jul 13, 2016 11:02:38 GMT -5
Stuns me we don't hear about this more often. There's already a large handful that DO disclose it proper (some put a blurb in the description or at the start of the video, while others will outright say in the video it's a paid segment), and some that will adjust their review system for it (one reviewer I watch refuses to score any games he's paid to review and simply talks about them). How easy would it be to just tuck away somewhere that you were paid (embed the video on your site and only say on your site you were paid)? Or just not say it? again that is part of the complaint. If they are paid they have to put it in the video proper, not disclosing it is an obvious problem but putting it in the description is stated as not being good enough. Yeah, but (and this is my understanding of it, I'm no lawyer or scholared expert on the subject) that meets the terms of it. Nobody can say they didn't disclose it if it's just a blurb in the description. I just wonder how little someone has to do to meet the criteria of "disclosing" it. I'd agree that it'd be much better if they were held to needing a text blurb on-screen for a certain amount of time or if they had to verbally state it in the video at the start (and not just at the end when the impression of the video has already been made AND when a good chunk would've already moved on to another video). Needing to hold content creators to a blatant, out-front disclosure would fix a lot of this kind of stuff. Even just holding them to the same standards as television stations and "time-buys" would be a huge step.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 13, 2016 11:04:39 GMT -5
again that is part of the complaint. If they are paid they have to put it in the video proper, not disclosing it is an obvious problem but putting it in the description is stated as not being good enough. Yeah, but (and this is my understanding of it, I'm no lawyer or scholared expert on the subject) that meets the terms of it. Nobody can say they didn't disclose it if it's just a blurb in the description. I just wonder how little someone has to do to meet the criteria of "disclosing" it. It's not, ok the FTC is literally dishing the fine because of the description thing if the original story is to be believed.
|
|
|
Post by ShaolinHandLock on Jul 13, 2016 11:33:55 GMT -5
I really don't want to do this, but these types of post are exactly why I made that stupid 'I feel guilty for watching YouTube' thread... How the f*** does Pewdiepie have 46 million subs??? Doesn't he literally just play a game on a live stream? How the f*** is he convincing people to watch that??? people are stupid How can 46 million people all be stupid? It's statistically impossible and a huge generalization, not to mention an insult. All I really know about PewDiePie is his cameo on South Park and a Game Theory video explaining his popularity. But for some reason, the idea of PewDiePie having an Alan Freed like descent into the abyss is funny to me. Maybe it's because from what little exposure I have had to him, it seems like he is a very enthusiastic, lighthearted guy (or at least his public persona is). So the idea of him in some shithole bar downing straight scotch yelling "The world was my oyster, until that damn payola scandal ruined me!" makes me laugh. Felix himself is a laid back guy, but the PewDiePie character is a screeching asshole basically marketed to 8 year olds. Okay, I'm not a PewDiePie fan, but I still hate that 'adults react' video. That's not the point though...my point is that during that stupid thread about YouTubers I made, I was told that no YouTuber markets to a particular audience and that it's statistically impossible for YouTuber's with such big audiences to have fans in only one age group. So which is it? This thing is still really bothering me. And on a sidenote - Apparently PewDiePie's content hasn't been like that for a while now. Lately he's been doing some H3H3/Filthy Frank/IDubbbz inspired sketch comedy, and his let's plays are different too. At least that's what I've read from a few reddit threads talking about PewDiePie in which a bunch of people in their mid-20's were suddenly praising PewDiePie's current content and saying how they now enjoyed it where they hated it in the past. Of course, as I said earlier, I don't watch his content, so I could be wrong...but I did read people saying that. And people wondered why I made that stupid thread saying I felt guilty for watching YouTube... Yeah, but (and this is my understanding of it, I'm no lawyer or scholared expert on the subject) that meets the terms of it. Nobody can say they didn't disclose it if it's just a blurb in the description. I just wonder how little someone has to do to meet the criteria of "disclosing" it. It's not, ok the FTC is literally dishing the fine because of the description thing if the original story is to be believed. As far as I know, whenever sponsored content is involved it has to be made very clear that it's sponsored, and the majority of YouTubers I watch who have done sponsored content do make it clear. That being said, I have seen some YouTubers who only put 'sponsored' hidden in the description and don't make it clear, which I'm pretty sure they could get into trouble for.
|
|
Magnus the Magnificent
King Koopa
didn't want one.
I could write a book about what you don't know!
Posts: 12,509
|
Post by Magnus the Magnificent on Jul 13, 2016 11:48:08 GMT -5
Does that mean the PewDiePie could get into hot waters too, since it appears he too didn't make it clear that he was sponsored?
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 13, 2016 11:58:30 GMT -5
Does that mean the PewDiePie could get into hot waters too, since it appears he too didn't make it clear that he was sponsored? Probably nothing major if so. potentially fined as well... but probably not to an extent that would like bankrupt him. Though what I got from the first post is that the FTC are only going after Warner Brothers specifically. Also all this talk about Shadow of Mordor... I still wouldn't call the game "good". The Nemesis system was fantastic but outside of that the game itself was pretty mediocre. Which just makes me angry that a better game hasn't come around and used it.
|
|
|
Post by Alice Syndrome on Jul 13, 2016 12:22:30 GMT -5
I really don't want to do this, but these types of post are exactly why I made that stupid 'I feel guilty for watching YouTube' thread... How can 46 million people all be stupid? It's statistically impossible and a huge generalization, not to mention an insult. Felix himself is a laid back guy, but the PewDiePie character is a screeching asshole basically marketed to 8 year olds. Okay, I'm not a PewDiePie fan, but I still hate that 'adults react' video. That's not the point though...my point is that during that stupid thread about YouTubers I made, I was told that no YouTuber markets to a particular audience and that it's statistically impossible for YouTuber's with such big audiences to have fans in only one age group. So which is it? This thing is still really bothering me. And on a sidenote - Apparently PewDiePie's content hasn't been like that for a while now. Lately he's been doing some H3H3/Filthy Frank/IDubbbz inspired sketch comedy, and his let's plays are different too. At least that's what I've read from a few reddit threads talking about PewDiePie in which a bunch of people in their mid-20's were suddenly praising PewDiePie's current content and saying how they now enjoyed it where they hated it in the past. Of course, as I said earlier, I don't watch his content, so I could be wrong...but I did read people saying that. And people wondered why I made that stupid thread saying I felt guilty for watching YouTube... It's not, ok the FTC is literally dishing the fine because of the description thing if the original story is to be believed. As far as I know, whenever sponsored content is involved it has to be made very clear that it's sponsored, and the majority of YouTubers I watch who have done sponsored content do make it clear. That being said, I have seen some YouTubers who only put 'sponsored' hidden in the description and don't make it clear, which I'm pretty sure they could get into trouble for. Pewdie, afaik because I don't actually watch his videos, has apparently cut down on the rape jokes and immature humor more recently
|
|
|
Post by häšhtå.gdālėÿ on Jul 13, 2016 12:38:04 GMT -5
|
|
The Ichi
Patti Mayonnaise
AGGRESSIVE Executive Janitor of the Third Floor Manager's Bathroom
Posts: 37,320
|
Post by The Ichi on Jul 13, 2016 12:43:56 GMT -5
That was a pretty good heel promo.
|
|
|
Post by ShaolinHandLock on Jul 13, 2016 12:52:13 GMT -5
I really don't want to do this, but these types of post are exactly why I made that stupid 'I feel guilty for watching YouTube' thread... How can 46 million people all be stupid? It's statistically impossible and a huge generalization, not to mention an insult. Okay, I'm not a PewDiePie fan, but I still hate that 'adults react' video. That's not the point though...my point is that during that stupid thread about YouTubers I made, I was told that no YouTuber markets to a particular audience and that it's statistically impossible for YouTuber's with such big audiences to have fans in only one age group. So which is it? This thing is still really bothering me. And on a sidenote - Apparently PewDiePie's content hasn't been like that for a while now. Lately he's been doing some H3H3/Filthy Frank/IDubbbz inspired sketch comedy, and his let's plays are different too. At least that's what I've read from a few reddit threads talking about PewDiePie in which a bunch of people in their mid-20's were suddenly praising PewDiePie's current content and saying how they now enjoyed it where they hated it in the past. Of course, as I said earlier, I don't watch his content, so I could be wrong...but I did read people saying that. And people wondered why I made that stupid thread saying I felt guilty for watching YouTube... As far as I know, whenever sponsored content is involved it has to be made very clear that it's sponsored, and the majority of YouTubers I watch who have done sponsored content do make it clear. That being said, I have seen some YouTubers who only put 'sponsored' hidden in the description and don't make it clear, which I'm pretty sure they could get into trouble for. Pewdie, afaik because I don't actually watch his videos, has apparently cut down on the rape jokes and immature humor more recently As far as I know he stopped doing rape jokes years ago. And what is and isn't considered 'immature' humour is subjective. Anyway, I don't want to turn this into a big thing or derail the thread from it's actual topic, so I'll leave it there.
|
|
|
Post by Clover Star on Jul 13, 2016 13:17:22 GMT -5
again that is part of the complaint. If they are paid they have to put it in the video proper, not disclosing it is an obvious problem but putting it in the description is stated as not being good enough. Yeah, but (and this is my understanding of it, I'm no lawyer or scholared expert on the subject) that meets the terms of it. Nobody can say they didn't disclose it if it's just a blurb in the description. I just wonder how little someone has to do to meet the criteria of "disclosing" it. I'd agree that it'd be much better if they were held to needing a text blurb on-screen for a certain amount of time or if they had to verbally state it in the video at the start (and not just at the end when the impression of the video has already been made AND when a good chunk would've already moved on to another video). Needing to hold content creators to a blatant, out-front disclosure would fix a lot of this kind of stuff. Even just holding them to the same standards as television stations and "time-buys" would be a huge step. Most people I watch who do sponsored stuff just put it in the description. None of them have ever gotten in trouble with the FTC. It is technically *still* a violation but it's seemingly good enough in most cases to get by. The FTC only really takes issue if it's a massive operation. That's what I know from my perspective.
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Jul 13, 2016 13:22:14 GMT -5
That's terrible what people will do for a dollar.
As an aside, I would like to say that Aliens: Colonial Marines was unfairly criticized and is one of the best games of all time!
|
|
|
Post by ltcproductions on Jul 13, 2016 19:40:11 GMT -5
I can safely say I have never watched a Pewdiepie video ever, and have no major desire. Not trying to be the "Hey look how cool Iam for not watching what is popular" Just simply stating Anyway it's interesting this gets brought up, I was watching a vid on YouTube about how Atari at the time bribed PS2 and X Box Magazines a good rating to Driv3r which was a good 3-4 years delayed and ended up being a buggy mess. And threatened to sue anyone who dared to give it a bad rating. Breaking news, if your product gets a bad rating, it's probably because it sucks. Suck it up and improve your product than the ratings may improve. Fighting your critics won't. You mean Guru Larry's Fact Hunt on Driv3rgate? I love that video.
|
|
|
Post by sternrogers01 on Jul 14, 2016 1:52:32 GMT -5
PewdiePie responds
|
|
|
Post by SsnakeBite, the No1 Frenchman on Jul 14, 2016 14:38:31 GMT -5
Sadly, reviewers being paid off for positive reviews isn't a new thing. All the way back when magazines were the main source of information for video games, reviewers were given money or other perks for positive reviews. Hell, paying them might actually be a (very very very very small) step up from simply threatening to remove advertising. As other people mentioned, Guru Larry just did an excellent video about one of the most insane examples of this kind of shady dealings, which occured back when Driv3r was released.
Hey GamerGate, wanna fight THAT lack of ethics in gaming journalism? No? Okay then.
|
|
wisdomwizard
King Koopa
Too Salty
Watching you.
Posts: 11,087
|
Post by wisdomwizard on Jul 14, 2016 15:22:12 GMT -5
Sadly, reviewers being paid off for positive reviews isn't a new thing. All the way back when magazines were the main source of information for video games, reviewers were given money or other perks for positive reviews. Hell, paying them might actually be a (very very very very small) step up from simply threatening to remove advertising. As other people mentioned, Guru Larry just did an excellent video about one of the most insane examples of this kind of shady dealings, which occured back when Driv3r was released. Hey GamerGate, wanna fight THAT lack of ethics in gaming journalism? No? Okay then.They did.
|
|
pegasuswarrior
El Dandy
Three Time FAN Idol Champion
@PulpPictionary
Posts: 8,748
|
Post by pegasuswarrior on Jul 14, 2016 15:22:36 GMT -5
Has been happening for decades, just not direct payoffs. And not just Warner Bros, of course.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 14, 2016 16:21:19 GMT -5
Sadly, reviewers being paid off for positive reviews isn't a new thing. All the way back when magazines were the main source of information for video games, reviewers were given money or other perks for positive reviews. Hell, paying them might actually be a (very very very very small) step up from simply threatening to remove advertising. As other people mentioned, Guru Larry just did an excellent video about one of the most insane examples of this kind of shady dealings, which occured back when Driv3r was released. Hey GamerGate, wanna fight THAT lack of ethics in gaming journalism? No? Okay then.They did. Yeah, we aren't going there. Gamergate talk on both sides stop now.
|
|