Support NeoGAF

[Aaron D.]

Just to go off on a tangent, what should PC gamers do to voice their displeasure of a game?

I honestly don't know.

I'm not searching for solutions, I'm only looking at the results.

As it stands Review Bombing is being abused over trivial matters, making them an unreliable voice of reason.

Put it in the "This is why we can't have nice things." category or whatever. But the simple fact is that Review Bombing is a sea of noise where legitimate concerns go to die.

To be fair, I can think of a couple positive results. Rockstar walking back mod disruption in GTA V and Paradox lowering their price-hikes in certain territories.

The rest has been noise, noise, noise.

 

[KingdomHeartsFan]

Absolutely disgusting, it's amazing that people would still be this loyal to the scumbag.

 

[Booker.DeWitt]

There a few threads here and a I think Ars and/or Kotaku have weighed in on the matter, but in short, it is highly unlikely that a court would find that lets play videos or game play though streaming to fall under the fair use exceptions to copyright law. Therefore filing a DMCA claim to stop a streamer or remove a video is a valid use of that legal tool.

Now, whether or not a decision to take that action is a good business decision or not, is an entirely different matter.

thanks.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[semiconscious]

what a way to waste one's youth. miserable...

 

[Armaros]

I don't think anybody is saying "hey we should worry about this and nothing else."

Somebody saying "well, this is slippery slope to things we may find unsavory, even if it isn't in this scenario" is not saying it's illegal. People seem to be taking issue with what it could lead to. To be fair, it could have went that route anyways, I just think that having a fairly high-profile issues gives a spotlight to DMCA takedowns and is really shining light on the potential uses of DMCA that we may not agree with in the future.

I don't see many people arguing about the legality, I see most people saying that it could lead to DMCA being used inappropriately, even if it is still legal.

Almost all examples used of the slippery slope have been using Reviews and Criticism of games as the 'next target' of the boogeyman DMCA.

Which is a completely different thing then what is happening with Campos and PDP but they all want to conflate it.

Lets Plays are not in the same standing as Reviews or Criticism. Flat out.

 

[Catvoca]

lol "both sides". The company doesn't want to be associated with a racist piece of fucking garbage. So wrong. The gaming community really is trash tbh.

"What about the DMCA ?" is like the new "what about the emails?".

 

[Weltall Zero]

Are you guys being dense on purpose? This clearly is an issue in case a company uses a takedown on a bad online review, or someone slandering their game on youtube because it offers negative press. Do you need the definition of a slippery slope spelled out for you?

You... realize slipper slope is literally a fallacious argument, right?

 

[Durante]

"What about the DMCA ?" is like the new "what about the emails?".

No.
The DMCA is a horrible law, has been since its inception, and it being used in a positive way once does absolutely nothing to change its nature.

I think it's really bad that people are now championing the DMCA. I guess that's just another reason for me to hate Youtubers

 

[Harlequin]

I don't support review bombing but it is kind of ironic that they're now the victim of people abusing a system to communicate their frustrations about Campo Santo's actions after Campo Santo abused another system to communicate their frustrations with PewDiePie. As far as I'm concerned, they're both in the wrong. And so is PewDiePie, obviously.

 

[Weltall Zero]

I don't agree at all.

The power dynamic between publishers and gamers is very lopsided, and review bombing (when used for legitimate purposes) helps rectify that to at least some extent. It's invaluable.

And I say this as someone who, to at least a small extent, is on the "publisher/developer" side in this dynamic, and not just the gamer side.

I would say that when used for "legitimate purposes", it stops being "review bombing" and becomes plain old "reviewing".

 

[Coxy100]

Absolutely disgusting, it's amazing that people would still be this loyal to the scumbag.

Yes - strange mentality. I also don't get why some kids would rather watch games than actually play them and experience for themselves. Gaming has changed so much recently sadly.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

Why do they need to fight racism your lukewarm way as opposed to making a clear stand? Is your slippery slope bullshit more important than making a clear stand?

And lol. Reviews are considered fair use and if you don't break copyright they cant bomb your review to begin with. Even so you aren't going to see reviews disappear just because one dev doesn't want a racist making money on them.

How do people make these crazy ass jumps. If it aint happen before why does this suddenly make it more likely. What is the link between callin someone a fucking nigger and giving a bad review? Can you explain to me?

Fair use if you don't show the game. You get put down if you do. Ask Angry Joe why he doesn't bother with Nintendo reviews anymore. The fear is companies abusing the takedowns when they don't like what they hear. Obviously in this case, it was a very shitty racist comment, next time it could be some dude shitting on the game and getting brought down.

and they can fight racism in any manner that they choose to do. They chose it in a big manner and are getting a bunch of adults acting like children review bombing their game because of it. My point is doing the lukewarm manner is a good way to get video taken down and not potentially set a precedent for videos later on.

 

[Durante]

I would say that when used for "legitimate purposes", it stops being "review bombing" and becomes plain old "reviewing".

Not always -- you can give negative reviews to games of a publisher due to their actions which do not directly affect the gameplay in those games. I think most would classify this as "review bombing", and I also believe that it has legitimate applications and success stories.

 

[Interface23]

Are you guys being dense on purpose? This clearly is an issue in case a company uses a takedown on a bad online review, or someone slandering their game on youtube because it offers negative press. Do you need the definition of a slippery slope spelled out for you

EXCEPT reviews fall under fair use because it is a criticism of a product so a takedown would be illegal like in the case of The Jimquisition.

A Let's Play is not fair use and exists because developers and publishers let them be it because higher sales/ good press whathave you.

Firewatch devs are well within their rights to nuke a LP of their game if they so desire, but never nuke a review.


About your Nintendo review comments and Joe, Nintendo is in the wrong and if someone pushed it they'd be found to be wrong.

 

[Shifty1897]

ah the impotent rage of conservative young white men

always hilarious

Easy tiger. Stereotyping is unhelpful no matter who it's directed at.

 

[J-Skee]

I've always been on the fence when it came to buying Firewatch. Today, I'll buy Firewatch.

 

[RootCause]

Easily the worst community. Pathetic.

 

[Roni]

Leaving bad reviews for a game you didn't spend money on by getting a refund is likely never good

Really? So I should've kept my bad copy of Arkham Knight in order to warn other people? It's not an easily fixable problem because that's a feature of the system.

Leaving reviews for broken games and getting your money back is required for this to work. If people need to choose between getting their money back and warning other people, they'll get their money back and leave the fellow gamer out to dry.

Not everyone browses a discussion board, you know? In fact, most don't.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

EXCEPT reviews fall under fair use because it is a criticism of a product so a takedown would be illegal like in the case of The Jimquisition.

A Let's Play is not fair use and exists because developers and publishers let them be it because higher sales/ good press whathave you.

Firewatch devs are well within their rights to nuke a LP of their game if they so desire, but never nuke a review.

Is it illegal if they include the video of said product? Almost every reviewer I watch shows parts of the videos in one manner or another? If they STILL can't take it down, then my point is wrong and carry on. Last I checked when you show video of the game, you get no money off it if the dev chooses to do so. :\

 

[Mithos]

lol "both sides". The company doesn't want to be associated with a racist piece of fucking garbage. So wrong. The gaming community really is trash tbh.

I guess their action backfired then...

Because I in no way shape or form associated Firewatch with PDP and/or racist pieces of garbage.

NOW I DO.

 

[Armaros]

I guess their action backfired then...

Because I in no way shape or form associated Firewatch with PDP and/or racist pieces of garbage.

NOW I DO.

Then, you are ignorant and blind.

 

[hawk2025]

I guess their action backfired then...

Because I in no way shape or form associated Firewatch with PDP and/or racist pieces of garbage.

NOW I DO.

How does that make ANY sense whatsoever?

 

[Majmun]

This pewdiepie era of gaming is a disgrace. His followers are the worst.

 

[Catvoca]

No, the DMCA is a horrible law, has been since its inception, and it being used in a positive way once does absolutely nothing to change its nature.

I don't disagree but I think assholes are disrupting a conversation about a guy being a horrible racist by making it about copyright law, in the same way that they always find some shred of "truth" to distract from their awfulness.

 

[Zach]

I liked Firewatch. It's a worthwhile game, in my opinion. I recommend giving it a purchase if you haven't already.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Oh no, reviewbombing a game that came out in what, 2015?

Grow up.

 

[Interface23]

Is it illegal if they include the video of said product? Almost every reviewer I watch shows parts of the videos in one manner or another? If they STILL can't take it down, then my point is wrong and carry on. Last I checked when you show video of the game, you get no money off it if the dev chooses to do so. :

I'd assume it's fair use even so as long as it's not showing full levels and such, the reason that EZA and other reviewers don't get in trouble is because they have lawyers and stuff.

Nintendo is the only company that goes after reviewers really and that's because Nintendo thinks they are unstoppable

 

[rudger]

So many posts in this thread make me sad. Why do we as a community let these actions define us? Why is the response so often, "the gaming community is so gross" or something similar? There are literally millions of people playing games, yet the actions of a few are what we consider the community at large? So many are so fucking self loathing that we just let this shit define us and accept it as a truth and it's sad.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Fair use if you don't show the game. You get put down if you do. Ask Angry Joe why he doesn't bother with Nintendo reviews anymore.

The issue with Nintendo was that they weren't going to let you monetize the footage. And frankly though I don't think Angry Joe finds it worth it if he is only showing clips, if he took it to court he'd win. I would love someone to take Nintendo to court on this just cause I personally think they are being mad shitty. But anyway.

The fear is companies abusing the takedowns when they don't like what they hear. Obviously in this case, it was a very shitty racist comment, next time it could be some dude shitting on the game and getting brought down.

Again, the jump from saying someone is a fucking nigger to shitting on a game is a huge chasm. It isn't a reasonable conclusion. It's ridiculous.

and they can fight racism in any manner that they choose to do. They chose it in a big manner and are getting a bunch of adults acting like children review bombing their game because of it. My point is doing the lukewarm manner is a good way to get video taken down and not potentially set a precedent for videos later on.

They don't need to care about what other content creaters due with their IPs. Why do you want to harp on that like it actually matters?

 

[Roni]

So many posts in this thread make me sad. Why do we as a community let these actions define us? Why is the response so often, "the gaming community is so gross" or something similar? There are literally millions of people playing games, yet the actions of a few are what we consider the community at large? So many are so fucking self loathing that we just let this shit define us and accept it as a truth and it's sad.

Easier to shame than to fight. But you have the right idea: shame won't work on everyone.

 

[Slayven]

Abused YouTube's copyright enforcement system to remove a Firewatch video by PewDiePie because PewDiePie said the N word while streaming PUBG.

Worth noting that they originally gave out a blanket license for people to do LP videos of their game and probably enjoyed a lot of exposure from PDP's video. Now that the game has been out for ages and nobody would probably ever watch that video again, they decide to take it down.

Why gloss over pdp' s role? His racism forced their hand. The blame should be on him, not camp santo

 

[Mung]

Once again the gaming community proves that it's trash.

One of the worst conceivable communities for sure.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Gaming nostalgia for me involves stomping on turtles and reading Nintendo power. These guys will get to feel nostalgic over caping for a racist.

 

[LAA]

Almost all examples used of the slippery slope have been using Reviews and Criticism of games as the 'next target' of the boogeyman DMCA.

Which is a completely different thing then what is happening with Campos and PDP but they all want to conflate it.

Lets Plays are not in the same standing as Reviews or Criticism. Flat out.

Good point. My first thought reading it was whether it was due to pewdiepie supporters or because it could set a precedence that companies can start using DMCAs to just take down videos they don't like or the people making them, but yeah let's plays are in a different league compared to review videos, which are fair use, compared to lets plays which are more of a grey area.

Question after that though is should they only target people they don't seem to like or DMCA against all let's play videos using their stuff? Not sure how I feel about selectively using their rights when it suits them, take down let's plays that are negative, keep the positive ones up. I will say in pewdiepies case though I don't really have any sympathy towards him and it's more what this could be a precedent of.

Find it sad too review bombing seems to be how to get companies to listen/change too, like with GTA PC with modding, shame that it's like that, but it evidently can work, usually to our benefit, but problem will be when it isnt.

 

[Kebiinu]

Easy tiger. Stereotyping is unhelpful no matter who it's directed at.

Where there's smoke, there's a fire in this case. Lol. Almost 100% sure that most of these bullshit reviews are coming from pansy white men and children. That is his fanbase, afterall. Wish Pewdiepie was never a thing.

The quicker we admit that the gaming community is a toxic wasteland, the quicker we can move from, "Stop putting politics in my games." to "Yo. That was deadass wrong. Let's no longer support."

 

[jrcbandit]

I doubt Steam will implement it, but easiest solution is to make it required to play the game at least an hour before reviewing it. I doubt most trolls will want to spend an hour with the game just to review bomb it. Is the current requirement you just have to have loaded up the game once?

 

[Breqesk]

If GiantBomb is playing that slippery slope bullshit then GiantBomb suck. This ism't slippery slope by any definition. They are literally just doing "yeah combatting racism is fine as long as it doesn't draw attention to us". Yeah fuck off.



The only precedent that has been sent is that if you say fucking nigger on your video some dev may decide to take your video down.

Other than that they can do this shit already. They choose not to because it benefits them. You may see them do it more but it aint gon be for any benign reasons.

Sorry to jump in here, but I just want to point out that Giant Bomb's position on all this has been somewhat misrepresented in this thread so far--they're not pushing the 'slippery slope' angle, and they certainly don't disagree that Campo had a right to do what they did. They're actually entirely in agreement that, currently, fair use as it applies to gaming videos is an incredibly nebulous and ill-defined thing, that's never been seriously tested because publishers, for the most part at least, see the work done by streamers, YouTubers and so on as a net benefit to their business. Their point was simply that racist, irresponsible man-child fuckwits like PewDiePie are pushing us closer and closer to having that fight - over what can and can't be done with video games in an internet video context - finally take place.

Anyways, if you want to hear them explain their position in more depth, they go into it on last week's Bombcast - jump to, like, 1hr40mins - in some detail. I'm not saying I entirely agree with everything they've said, to be clear--just that, hey, I think they've been somewhat misrepresented here, at least based on my interpretation of what was said.

Anyways, just to make my position on all this clear: fuck PewDiePie, fuck these review bombing arseholes, and good on Campo for taking a stand.

 

[AR15mex]

It just came to my mind the whole debacle about Nintendo controlling the exposure or monetizing of their games. If I remember correctly, people were going crazy about Nintendo being greedy, and they explained that they were protective of their IPs and who was exhibiting their games.

Now with Pew Die Pie debacle, I will understand if other publishers start to controlling these YouTubers about the exposure of their games.

This is something that is clearly affecting publishers and most developers.

 

[Futaleufu]

Firewatch developer enforces DMCA to stop racist from monetizing game. Rage ensues.

Nintendo enforces DMCA in every video from "non partners". They sell a lot of Switches.

 

[Bronx-Man]

Abused YouTube's copyright enforcement system to remove a Firewatch video by PewDiePie because PewDiePie said the N word while streaming PUBG.

Worth noting that they originally gave out a blanket license for people to do LP videos of their game and probably enjoyed a lot of exposure from PDP's video. Now that the game has been out for ages and nobody would probably ever watch that video again, they decide to take it down.

Camp Santo isn't abusing a damn thing. They're a company trying to sell a product, they can do whatever they want with THEIR intellectual property.

 

[13ruce]

Why does this even surprise me....

 

[jim2point0]

Why gloss over pdp' s role? His racism forced their hand. The blame should be on him, not camp santo

I see the two as unrelated, that's why. He didn't FORCE them to do anything. If that were the case, then every dev\publisher that PDP did a Let's Play for would have done the same thing.

They chose to do this, and I just don't see a lot of benefit from it. Especially since the video is so old.

For example, remember when JonTron came out as a blatant white supremacist and Playtonic removed him as a voice actor from their game? I agreed with that, since it probably had a net-positive impact for their game and sent a pretty strong message.

This move by Campo Santo might send a message as well, I just hope the message isn't that you can use DCMA takedowns to remove other types of content (such as legit game criticism) from Youtubers you don't like. Hopefully that doesn't happen.

I could just be overreacting. It's not as though I care for PDP at all. I do not. And I think that review bombing is a pretty stupid thing to do unless something recently changed in a game for the worse.

 

[paperspace]

⁣

 

[docbon]

For extra fuckery, check out the latest two H3 podcasts. Got so bad, Ethan went on a drunken rant telling people to unsubscribe and fuck off.

 

[Bronx-Man]

For extra fuckery, check out the latest two H3 podcasts. Got so bad, Ethan went on a drunken rant telling people to unsubscribe and fuck off.

Oy vey, I knew this was coming.

 

[AR15mex]

Firewatch developer enforces DMCA to stop racist from monetizing game. Rage ensues.

Nintendo enforces DMCA in every video from "non partners". They sell a lot of Switches.

Well... yes, this way they control who actually shows their games. If someone really wants to show a game they will actually have to make the cut to Nintendo.

and they will avoid YouTubers who just want to do silly things like Pew Diew Pie...

 

[JaggedSac]

When you open the window to review bombing for one reason, it's open for the other too.

Wish there was something that could be done. You need to own the game on Steam to review bomb it, right?

Myabe better filters? I don't know that anything can be done.

Review score by time might be a good idea. This would help for devs who release major patch fixes and such as well.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

The issue with Nintendo was that they weren't going to let you monetize the footage. And frankly though I don't think Angry Joe finds it worth it if he is only showing clips, if he took it to court he'd win. I would love someone to take Nintendo to court on this just cause I personally think they are being mad shitty. But anyway.

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. He's one of the biggest gaming youtubers on the planet that doesn't fight them for it, I'll go with it being more difficult than a gaffer offering their professional legal opinion on it being a surefire win. The point stands that they can do it as of right now, until youtube finds a way to sort this out. A way that you don't have to shell out over 100K to possibly win, like h3h3 for his video of that pick up artist dude.

Again, the jump from saying someone is a fucking nigger to shitting on a game is a huge chasm. It isn't a reasonable conclusion. It's ridiculous.

No it isn't. Something company doesn't like about youtuber's statement/actions or them in general = takedown. At the end, it leads to a takedown. Of course the something could be anything from some racist shit someone actually said to someone shitting on a game.

They don't need to care about what other content creaters due with their IPs. Why do you want to harp on that like it actually matters?

This is fair. I guess this is more of a fear from the gaming side than them. They shouldn't give a shit.

 

[BigEmil]

Too late to even affect them at this point isn't it this game already sold buttloads the majority of people who were interested in this game already bought it by now too