brb going to "invest" in BF4 and make some killer knife throw shit or whatever is the CoD equivalent to go viral.
#scabtime
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
EA Too!: Be extra nice and EA will pay you (participants may not disclose details)
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
brb going to "invest" in BF4 and make some killer knife throw shit or whatever is the CoD equivalent to go viral.
#scabtime
So it is the same then?
Fuck I'm confused. I'll leave it to the people better at this than me :/
spookyfish
Member
Not surprising, since the draconian DRM practices Microsoft was pushing was thought to be at "some publishers" requests.
Hip Hop
Member
This has been going on for a while.
The first time I've noticed it was back when Most Wanted released.
All of sudden, people that only stick to one game on their channels (particularly Call of Duty) got Need for Speed for free and where talking about how nice of a game it was. First and last Need for Speed gameplay they posted. I'm sure it was done with Battlefield 4 as well.
Don't know if they disclosed details though.
The first time I've noticed it was back when Most Wanted released.
All of sudden, people that only stick to one game on their channels (particularly Call of Duty) got Need for Speed for free and where talking about how nice of a game it was. First and last Need for Speed gameplay they posted. I'm sure it was done with Battlefield 4 as well.
Don't know if they disclosed details though.
maabus1999
Member
I hope everyone realizes that this goes on with almost all media companies these days. I know people cite FTC "guidelines" but there are so many loopholes and issues within those guidelines that are not shown in context to one section folks keep pasting that this will not go away without Congressional action.
And even then with the precedent Citizens United set basically saying "Corporations have Free Speech rights" means that this in a broadsense is legal according to the Supreme Court. Corporations can pay people to say whatever and it is hard to stop (you really have to find a campaign of misinformation, libel/slander, or market affecting informatoin to have a case with FTC or SEC).
And even then with the precedent Citizens United set basically saying "Corporations have Free Speech rights" means that this in a broadsense is legal according to the Supreme Court. Corporations can pay people to say whatever and it is hard to stop (you really have to find a campaign of misinformation, libel/slander, or market affecting informatoin to have a case with FTC or SEC).
Felix Lighter
Member
If this somehow isn't considered illegal, then the FTC rule is meaningless. The purpose of that rule is meant to specifically eliminate these exact situations.
HueyFreeman
Banned
Fuck. This.
You are right, it does happen a lot. But it doesn't mean we shouldn't be outraged (not that you were suggesting that). But I've seen quite a few post saying that, well other major companies like Sony are probably doing this too. They probably are. But we are talking about something we DO know about. And it's super shady and unethical. I don't think we should stop being outraged, just because it's been happening for a while, or because other companies are probably doing it too.
That said, I think your point is that, people should be educated on it, and understand the full extent of how this goes on. And I totally agree with that. I think this is becoming a bigger deal, because the gaming community has relied on internet personas. They've become a useful tool, when many have felt the major publications are too close to the industry. And to see these major game companies go directly after these people, and do so in such a slimy way. Yeah, it's a wake up call for some. I guess the question then is, what do we do about it? Is it enough to just be outraged? I kind of think it is. Only to the extent that, these major companies don't like it when they get negative press. We saw MS pull back the DRM policies pretty quick, after the outrage after E3. These are companies that don't like their shady tactics being aired out int he public. So when you have people angry, and talking about it (and not letting it go away), then I do think they are likely to pull back.
Although I doubt they would do it forever, and I'm sure they would just go back to doing other things that people don't know about (advertising online is extremely huge, and they use a ton of subliminal techniques to embed themselves in our routines). But I guess the obvious action is, vote with your wallet. Sadly, the mainstream consumer probably won't hear about this. And thus, the majority of people WILL just continue to buy their products.
I think there's a difference between talking about the agreement and talking about the sponsorship.
It's "EA agreed to give me this amount of money if I talked about this." versus "EA sponsored this video."
It's up to the YouTube user to disclose that EA sponsored the video--that's it. They are only prohibited from saying anything at all about the money they receive or that they received a document that said they can't do this or that.
It's "EA agreed to give me this amount of money if I talked about this." versus "EA sponsored this video."
It's up to the YouTube user to disclose that EA sponsored the video--that's it. They are only prohibited from saying anything at all about the money they receive or that they received a document that said they can't do this or that.
Sho_Nuff82
Member
That's one way of reading it. Another, more accurate way, would be "if you mention that we sponsored this you get nothing, good day sir."
PsychoSoldier
Banned
Can't wait for the Titanfall review thread. It's gonna be nuts.
Graphics Horse
Member
I haven't bought an EA game since Burnout Takedown.
Corronchilejano
Member
They have a legal obligation to disclose the information. EA, at the very least, should inform them of it before making any type of payment.
Quadraphonic
Member
It doesn't matter one bit if there's a distinction between "disclosing details" and "disclosing the program exists" because NEITHER EVER HAPPENED and that's EXACTLY what EA, Microsoft and Machninima wanted.
that's one hell of a head start
3rdamention
Member
Ok "Games Journalism" you have had 2 stories fall right in your lap. You didn't need to do any work, and can thank GafDetective for doing the work for you.
Now you have the opporitunity to do some real game journalism (true Gaming Journalism has been a hot topic on NeoGaf for years), and an opportunity to stand above the fold, and really dig into the details of these promotions, how far reaching they really are, and the implications they could have on gamers and the industry in the future.
This is a huge story, and many of you have a great opportunity to stand out as a true journalist, someone who digs for the details, reports the facts, and shares your perspective from inside the industry. As of now, almost all of these stories are replicas of the original Ars Technica story, following up on their leg work and the NeoGaf threads. Now I am challenging you to take this to the next level, get an interview with someone from Microsoft, pound Machinima with questions until they give you answers, or out them for not answering. I really feel this is a great opporitunity for someone, or multiple people in the industry to really make a name for themselves. Just as a few gaming journalists did during the DRM fiasco.
Now you have the opporitunity to do some real game journalism (true Gaming Journalism has been a hot topic on NeoGaf for years), and an opportunity to stand above the fold, and really dig into the details of these promotions, how far reaching they really are, and the implications they could have on gamers and the industry in the future.
This is a huge story, and many of you have a great opportunity to stand out as a true journalist, someone who digs for the details, reports the facts, and shares your perspective from inside the industry. As of now, almost all of these stories are replicas of the original Ars Technica story, following up on their leg work and the NeoGaf threads. Now I am challenging you to take this to the next level, get an interview with someone from Microsoft, pound Machinima with questions until they give you answers, or out them for not answering. I really feel this is a great opporitunity for someone, or multiple people in the industry to really make a name for themselves. Just as a few gaming journalists did during the DRM fiasco.
NoPiece
Member
It would really benefit the discussion if you could actually post the NDA (Exhibit A).
When a contract discusses the capital "A" Agreement, it just refers to the contract specifically, not the greater deal or agreement in general. All you've posted so far is that the terms of the deal aren't to be discussed, nothing that says the deal itself can't be discussed. That's pretty typical and not a big deal. If they say somewhere that they can't or shouldn't mention that the content is sponsored, then that is beyond shady, that's illegal and the FTC should bring down the hammer.
Derpcrawler
Member
But Most Wanted was actually really good, Rivals is decent as well.
NoPiece
Member
Pretty much every legal doc I've ever read starts out by defining "Agreeement" with a captial "A" as referring specifically to the contract. This is a copy and paste of one I was just reviewing:
"This E-Commerce Agreement (the Agreement) is entered by and between .."
and here is another:
"This blogger agreement (Agreement) is by and between"
I've put them all in check after this shit. After E3, the influx of viral marketers running in parallel with these companies narratives is nothing short of eye opening.
this proves and confirms my worst fears about this industry. i am literally out. i have forum posters that i trust and that is about it.
Hitokiri03
Member
Damn!
EA and Microsoft are really in sync lately.
EA and Microsoft are really in sync lately.
Hilarious. It's like two of the biggest companies known for creating genuine shit have to actually moneyhat good praise on the internet. And even in doing so, how much of the populous has still looked at them with such a negative perspective?
Money may influence the weak to bend to the givers will, but money cannot change genuine opinions. Toss as much money to people as you want, if you're a company known for shit practices, the people who genuinely care about that stuff will still crown you king of shit mountain.
Money may influence the weak to bend to the givers will, but money cannot change genuine opinions. Toss as much money to people as you want, if you're a company known for shit practices, the people who genuinely care about that stuff will still crown you king of shit mountain.
Sons Of Anarchy
Banned
Damn companies getting outed this has been an interesting week and it's only Tuesday.
DoubleTake
Member
Wow....extremely fitting that its the both of these companies. Like wow...I hope bombs go off and something is done about this type of bullshit. This is the kind of stuff bringing down our industry. Pathetic
ultratruman
Banned
EA and Microsoft aren't abusing the system, the system itself is rotten.
Turning this into a moral or legal affair misses the point. Google aggressively monetized YouTube, transforming it from a video sharing website into an obscure marketplace where credibility is the commodity. It's just another example of how the inherently corrosive nature between capitalism and creative public forums is ruining the internet.
Turning this into a moral or legal affair misses the point. Google aggressively monetized YouTube, transforming it from a video sharing website into an obscure marketplace where credibility is the commodity. It's just another example of how the inherently corrosive nature between capitalism and creative public forums is ruining the internet.
jchap
Member
I don't really care about this. Reviews, in my mind, have been slanted for as long as I can remember. The video game journalism industry has never been pure and innocent. I'm quite certain that the expensive lawyers at EA and MS have not overlooked the legality of such promotions and nothing will ever come of this except tiny pockets of outraged people on forums such as this.
Chezzymann
Member
IGN already reported the Machinima thing. Will they report this? If they don't EA must be pulling some strings. Where's that GIF...?
Hmm maybe. For all we know, Ubi could be doing the same thing.
What are the possible consequences for EA, MS, US-wise (if any)?
How do we know you're not being paid by EA just to say that, hmmmmmm?
Actually, Rivals actually is pretty good. And EA's not even paying me to say that. But this type of NDA-ridden endorsement scheme is just plain slimy.
NoPiece
Member
There should be an FTC investigation. People should file complaints here:
https://www.ftccomplaintassistant.gov/
enanogrande
Member
Since I've posted so much in the MS thread, I'll just go ahead and say this is just as bad and all my complaints can be found there. (Just in case in the future someone tires to say I'm biased against MS/for EA or something of the sort. I dunno, I just can't be posting on two threads about the same thing at once, my head's gonna explode xD)*
*I only read the OP.
*I only read the OP.
Pancakes R Us
Member
I'm quite shocked at the level of shock within this thread. I work in advertising (not videogames) where this kind of stuff goes on all the time (bar the dodgy looking NDA stuff...but close enough agreements anyway)...books, TV shows, films, toys etc. Yep, all the time. Please understand.
I'm no fan of EA though. Love how the requirement mentioned that users couldn't talk about any glitches. Well EA, if you hadn't made a shitty glitch-ridden game in the first place....
I'm no fan of EA though. Love how the requirement mentioned that users couldn't talk about any glitches. Well EA, if you hadn't made a shitty glitch-ridden game in the first place....
pretty done
Member
EA and MS trying to tag team the most hated company in America competition? Couldn't be any more perfect. Best of luck to these two wonderful companies.
So, to recap, content providers MS and EA (which implies others are likely to share similar practices within the industry) paid off blogers/youtube personalities to post favorable stuff regarding their products. Then, went to youtube to pull all "unauthorized content" off of youtube so that only their "influencers'" content would remain (ignores Nintendo's angle in this)?
Have I missed anything in regard to the youtube policy changes in conjunction with these new
partnerships with content promotion?
Have I missed anything in regard to the youtube policy changes in conjunction with these new
to me
styl3s
Member
Not every youtuber was/is doing this. It's like calling every single gaming journo a scumbag piece of shit who takes payoffs because a handful get caught doing it.
Not everyone is all about money money money. I do however know a few big people on YT personally who have taken some of this on game/franchises they already love so it's not a big issue. Like for instance i love TWD, if you told me i could promote something and hype something i already love and get paid for it i will absolutely do it. Pay me to hype/promote something i don't like? Go fuck yourself.
BrokenEchelon
Banned
Dear EA,
Fuck You.
Fuck You.
Similar threads
- x2