Support NeoGAF

[benny_a]

Twitter is the source, read top to bottom.

Giant Bomb confirms that they weren't allowed to post their usual Quick Look style videos pre-release.

It will be interesting to see how transparent these upcoming videos will handle this campaign.

Please note that I would like thread to be about transparency about this campaign from the participants and not about the game's quality.

I feel the topic of transparency will only become more important going forward. Mixing paid-for videos without disclaimers with for example Giant Bomb's independent critique will only serve to confuse.

Update #1
What are brand deals?

For those unfamiliar, "Brand Deals" are usually offers from the marketing arm of publishers intended to encourage positive coverage of a product through payment or non-monetary reward. Note that while I say Youtuber here, these deals are often also offered to prominent Twitch streamers.

Youtubers may receive any of the following: early access to the game, permission to create content for a game prior to other outlets, free copies of the game to give away, advertising from the publisher, or direct payment.

In turn, Youtubers provide coverage of the game, often with pre-established conditions about: the tone of the content (often no negativity allowed), what content can be shown, whether critical claims can be made at all, how long the content can be, language constraints (no curse words, or no mentions of competitor's games).

Other Youtuber conditions can include: broadcasting messages via their social media channels often with specific keywords/hashtags (very common), links/annotations/indirect referrals to sales sites or official websites, product placement in-video, required name dropping, other forms of advertising.

It's also important to not that, at least to the best of my knowledge, it's illegal for a Youtuber to accept a "Brand Deal" where they accept compensation and don't make clear the arrangement to their audience. They have to tell you they've made these deals. Of course, if they're only being provided a game early in trade for some social media advertising, that's a grey area. No grey area if there's cash involved, though.

Update #2
Total Biscuit twitlonger

Reading a few forums (yeah I know my mistake) about this whole Shadow of Mordor brand deal thing boggles my mind. There are literally people saying "I don't know what he's complaining about, if he wants it early he has to give something in return". Ermm, the problem is that you can't review, first impressions, critique or whatever this game on PC prior to launch or even on launch (unless you weaseled your way in as we did) if you don't take a deal that specifically says "you can't say bad things". You don't see a problem with that? It is the worst case scenario in which a company withholds review copies to maximise potential exposure while keeping critique at bay, it's about as anti-consumer as it gets. I guess some people are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. Of course I can buy it and cover it on release, by which point a bunch of people have already purchased it. Not only do we lose relevance the longer we have to wait but more importantly, consumers end up with less information. We live in a world where some consumers actually want less information it seems and are entirely ok with the first pieces of information to come out being bought and paid for. Heh, I sometimes think the biggest enemy in the battle to protect consumers, are consumers.

 

[H1PSTER]

It's becoming common practice within the gaming industry and it sickens me.

The reviews were great, generating tons of hype but now it basically comes across as if it was all apart of this deal.

Which sucks majorly.

 

[Qassim]

The influence review copies over have this industry is infuriating. Large publishers can manipulate the message far too easily because they hold what is a pretty inexpensive item over publications.

 

[njean777]

It's becoming common practice within the gaming industry and it sickens me.

The reviews were great, generating tons of hype but now it basically comes across as if it was all apart of this deal.

Which sucks majorly.

Which is why I think things like Twitch and video content is great, it lets you see the game being played without being edited or reviewed.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

Giant Bomb warned that this was coming since years before. Dunno why TB is surprised...

 

[Lunar15]

Banner/Pre-Roll ad performance is way down and traffic to "traditional" gaming sites is really low, so digital agencies are pushing to gain more "Native Advertising", wherein they give copies to "influencers", or do other promotions. Is all of it bad? Not necessarily, in my opinion. I think they key is to designate when something is sponsored. Also, keeping other people from doing preview coverage is shitty as well. I think most of us are fine with promotions that are transparent and give something of value to the fans.

In general, please assume that if some random youtube celebrity got their hands on something first, it's a brand deal, even if it doesn't say it's sponsored by the developer.

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

It's becoming common practice within the gaming industry and it sickens me.

The reviews were great, generating tons of hype but now it basically comes across as if it was all apart of this deal.

Which sucks majorly.

After those Battlefield 3 Machinima shenanigans last year, I automatically put any game that seems to be embroiled in this kind of shit on the backburner till any backlash hits and I can find real takes on the matter. That murkiness on the matter is what's truly wrong here.

 

[benny_a]

Which is why I think things like Twitch and video content is great, it lets you see the game being played without being edited or reviewed.

Yeah, but what better place to testbed these things than with a game you're actually confident in that it will be good.

You can already see the response to a game that didn't turn out good that does these kind of things while having more restrictive embargo rules: "Why did you never complain about this before? Why now?"

 

[Nicktock]

The reviews were great, generating tons of hype but now it basically comes across as if it was all apart of this deal.

Which sucks majorly.

That is a huge logical leap there that doesn't make sense. There would be a branding deal evident in reviews, if that were the case. Besides Brad Shoemaker and Jeff both seem very reasonably excited about the game. I doubt reviews were given the same branding deal seeing as how video content isn't out yet with those reviews.

 

[Rich!]

This is why your only news source should be independent sources like Neogaf and not the PR Journalism Media

And no, I dont watch youtube gaming channels.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

So in his ENTIRE YT career he's NEVER accepted a SINGLE marketing deal?

I don't understand the weird "OMG the CONTROVERSY!!" thing that gaming has going on atm. No other industry has this issue; nobody questions early film reviews coming out or accuses movie journalists of being paid off because they got the tickets free.

 

[Moofers]

How about we all just understand that if we plan on buying on Day One, there is a level of uncertainty that we have to accept in regards to the game's quality. Otherwise, we can just be okay with not getting every single game on the exact minute that it comes out and waiting to see what the general consensus is once the outlets you care about have had time to play it or you've had time to rent it, or somebody you know has it, etc.

 

[Dio Brando]

as a journalism student who wants to get into the gaming industry, this disgusts me so much. Both from the journalists who accept this kind of thing, and PR part of the publishers, who probably have journalists working too, that force this. It's ridiculous, and taints the developer, who probably doesn't want this.

EDIT: yes, i know this is about youtubers, but i'm talking about it in a more general sense. In the case of youtubers, i think transparency is really important. Problem is when you dont know if he's saying what he actually thinks about the game or just "reading from a script".

 

[Lunar15]

This is why your only news source should be independent sources like Neogaf and not the PR Journalism Media

And no, I dont watch youtube gaming channels.

The problem here is actually that Digital Agencies are bypassing traditional "PR Journalism Media" and going straight for the "independent" influencers on youtube, twitter, etc. I put "independent" in quotes because some of these youtube gaming channels are actually repped by a sales firm.

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

First of all, what is a "paid brand deal?" Serious question.

 

[Grimsen]

as a journalism student who wants to get into the gaming industry, this disgusts me so much. Both from the journalists who accept this kind of thing, and PR part of the publishers, who probably have journalists working too, that force this. It's ridiculous, and taints the developer, who probably doesn't want this.

This was offered to youtubers, though.

 

[bigbaldwolf86]

Boogie2988 said on a video today that he managed to do a deal so he could put videos of this up. I guess this us the deal he was on about.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

It's becoming common practice within the gaming industry and it sickens me.

The reviews were great, generating tons of hype but now it basically comes across as if it was all apart of this deal.

Which sucks majorly.

The PR is targeting video content, mostly.

 

[Sephzilla]

How about we all just understand that if we plan on buying on Day One, there is a level of uncertainty that we have to accept in regards to the game's quality. Otherwise, we can just be okay with not getting every single game on the exact minute that it comes out and waiting to see what the general consensus is once the outlets you care about have had time to play it or you've had time to rent it, or somebody you know has it, etc.

tldr = buyer beware?

 

[Cosmo Clock 21]

independent sources like Neogaf

yeah about that...

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

So in his ENTIRE YT career he's NEVER accepted a SINGLE marketing deal?

I don't understand the weird "OMG the CONTROVERSY!!" thing that gaming has going on atm. No other industry has this issue; nobody questions early film reviews coming out or accuses movie journalists of being paid off because they got the tickets free.

You know, he can both speak out about this practice while also having participated in it before. Doesn't make him any less right about this practice being wrong.

 

[benny_a]

So in his ENTIRE YT career he's NEVER accepted a SINGLE marketing deal?

I don't understand the weird "OMG the CONTROVERSY!!" thing that gaming has going on atm. No other industry has this issue; nobody questions early film reviews coming out or accuses movie journalists of being paid off because they got the tickets free.

I believe you've missed the point of the thread.

The topic is not about reviewers getting advance copies without paying for them. It's about transparency when you're part of a deal where the creators of the product you're covering are partnering with you to cover the product, and if you do not partner you will not be able to have prepared content up at launch.

Kotaku editorial for example is separated from Kotaku business. That is not the case with individual YouTubers.

 

[Dio Brando]

This was offered to youtubers, though.

oh, i know. just talking about these practices in general. will edit the post.

 

[TetraxShards]

So in his ENTIRE YT career he's NEVER accepted a SINGLE marketing deal?

He makes it abundantly clear when this is the case, and the videos are not part of the WTF Is series. He recently did a promotional piece for Strife which has a warning at the start and in the description.

 

[Mrbob]

This sounds specific to the PC version. Ties in with the rock paper shotgun article which discussed not getting access to a PC review copy. Guess they didn't do a brand deal.

 

[Veitsev]

So in his ENTIRE YT career he's NEVER accepted a SINGLE marketing deal?

I don't understand the weird "OMG the CONTROVERSY!!" thing that gaming has going on atm. No other industry has this issue; nobody questions early film reviews coming out or accuses movie journalists of being paid off because they got the tickets free.

Its not a marketing deal its "agree to our brand deal or you can't get early code to review this early". The usual marketing deal I have seen from TB is him agreeing to play in or host a tournament with other YT gaming personalities for a specific title. He makes it clear when anything is being sponsored. Agreeing to give a game a spotlight on your channel is different than a publisher holding back early release code if you don't sign a deal with them.

 

[Seronei]

So in his ENTIRE YT career he's NEVER accepted a SINGLE marketing deal?

I don't understand the weird "OMG the CONTROVERSY!!" thing that gaming has going on atm. No other industry has this issue; nobody questions early film reviews coming out or accuses movie journalists of being paid off because they got the tickets free.

He has accepted marketing deals, the issue here is that he can't accept marketing deals and make review content without the possible implication of a bought review.

 

[TheBaronOfNA]

If you are interested about this issue and you are subscribed in Giant Bomb, watch Jeff jar time videos as he warned us that this was going to happen.

 

[CambriaRising]

We've had a really hard time getting a copy of this game for pre-release. Now we've gotten a "checks in the mail" treatment so I guess it isn't being reviewed by us.

 

[Rich!]

yeah about that...

Eh, I have people on here I know arent paid shills. I hope, anyway.

 

[LurkerPrime]

I wonder if this is why Rock, Paper, Shotgun never got a PC review code? Larger outlets definitely got the PC version before release, with PC Gamer going so far as to make a video about it featuring their silly custom-made computer.

Something fishy is going on here.

So in his ENTIRE YT career he's NEVER accepted a SINGLE marketing deal?

I don't understand the weird "OMG the CONTROVERSY!!" thing that gaming has going on atm. No other industry has this issue; nobody questions early film reviews coming out or accuses movie journalists of being paid off because they got the tickets free.

TotalBiscuit, from what I've seen of him, prides himself on being transparent about marketing deals. He wants to be an honest and trustworthy source for information, which he can't do if he's making backroom deals.

 

[Patroclos]

The issue with transparency in regard to this release should be the specs people are getting on different platforms. There is an awful, disingenuous trend to cover up FPS and resolution differences becoming apparent now. This is the big talking point about SoM, not some you tube adverts from streamers (don't see anything wrong there, they are not telling them the review must be positive, just show the branding).

Covering up FPS/Resolution is akin to car manufacturers not giving gas milage info or horsepower. Ridiculous. Kojima did it right, other companies should be required to provide this info BEFORE launch. It only makes them look like sleazy, shady hucksters if they don't. I honestly feel as though this also hurts XB1 more than helps too because then the tin foil hat people think MS is somehow "behind" it.

 

[Garrett Hawke]

You know, he can both speak out about this practice while also having participated in it before. Doesn't make him any less right about this practice being wrong.

Not really. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

He makes it abundantly clear when this is the case, and the videos are not part of the WTF Is series. He recently did a promotional piece for Strife which has a warning at the start and in the description.

Well that's good.

I believe you've missed the point of the thread.

The topic is not about reviewers getting advance copies without paying for them. It's about transparency when you're part of a deal where the creators of the product you're covering is paying you to cover the product.

Kotaku editorial for example is separated from Kotaku business. That is not the case with individual YouTubers.

But this still isn't an issue in any other industry. Nobody yells at Empire for having X-Men on their cover without disclosing that Fox paid them.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

He makes it abundantly clear when this is the case, and the videos are not part of the WTF Is series. He recently did a promotional piece for Strife which has a warning at the start and in the description.

Off-topic but is that worth watching (it's 46 mins)? assuming you watched it. I'm kind of interested in Strife

 

[inky]

Which is why I think things like Twitch and video content is great, it lets you see the game being played without being edited or reviewed.

That might be so, but even then you have to be careful who you are watching. Most of the top and especially the promoted streamers are the kind to have these kinds of deals up anyway, and there is an interest in not showing the game in a bad light.

I agree that looking at the game being played is the best method to assess if it is worth your time. I personally haven't needed reviews in years. I mostly read some out of curiosity or to laugh at them (like the terribly hyperbolic Halo 4 IGN review).

 

[robovanburen]

First of all, what is a "paid brand deal?" Serious question.

I was also wondering this.

 

[Arcteryx]

This is pretty much the main reason why I don't day1 games anymore(unless I know for a fucking fact the game is quality).

There's simply too much bullshit in this industry now.

 

[Paracelsus]

 

[Dee Dee]

One of the youtubers I follow regularly started explicitly naming the paid videos "Jesse sells out" after he got major backlash for shittily promoting a shitty movie.
I think that was the right step, but at the same time I was kinda surprised to see how many of his videos are "Jesse sells out" videos after all. I guess I just never thought about it much. I appreciate that he started being more transparent about it, but to be honest, I tend to skip these videos, which I might not have done had he hidden the sponsorship.
Youtubers have to eat too. :/ Kinda shitty situation.

But to be fair, it is not that hard to tell people that actually review stuff from the ones that play games for an audience. The difference is pretty obvious in things like this.

 

[ryseing]

This sounds specific to the PC version. Ties in with the rock paper shotgun article which discussed not getting access to a PC review copy. Guess they didn't do a brand deal.

Yup. Seems like this didn't apply to console (i.e. PS4) versions of the game.

 

[Slixshot]

First of all, what is a "paid brand deal?" Serious question.

Seriously. As a dude who went to business school for four years, I have never heard of that term*.

*he's probably paraphrasing

 

[bluexy]

I think it's important to distinguish that it's Youtubers being offered brand deals and not critics writing reviews.

It's also significant to note that this is not a new thing.

 

[NateDrake]

We've had a really hard time getting a copy of this game for pre-release. Now we've gotten a "checks in the mail" treatment so I guess it isn't being reviewed by us.

I received a physical copy today for PS4 for review.

Also, what is the "deal" actually? Is it marketing the brand of the game by having ads of the game play on the YT video in question or something greater?

 

[Freedom = $1.05]

Not really. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

are there any other logical fallacies you're into?

 

[SerTapTap]

Gross stuff. I'm fine with embargos but positive reviews get early access and shit is crazy immoral

 

[Turin Turambar]

It will be interesting to see how transparent these upcoming videos will handle this campaign.

Please note that I would like thread to be about transparency about this campaign from the participants and whether or not you think the game is good.
.

Well, it should be easy to notice. Do the page have a giant ass banner of the game? yes/no.

 

[Veitsev]

Not really. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.

Well that's good.

But this still isn't an issue in any other industry. Nobody yells at Empire for having X-Men on their cover without disclosing that Fox paid them.

There is a difference between paid marketing and holding back access to a piece of media (for the purpose of a review) if you don't accept a paid deal. You seriously don't think movie critics would have a problem if film studios started requiring brand deals to see their movies early?

 

[Ooccoo]

Joystiq gave the game a perfect 100. But from the various videos you can already see the overworld is bland and the gameplay repetitive like a Dynasty Warriors game. I think Middle-Earths looks fun, but perfect? That review seems weird. It looks like a 80-85 % game, Nemesis system won't save it from feeling repetitive. Honestly the levels so far look very generic and empty, maybe that'll change once I do try it this week.

 

[jpax]

Interesting to hear. Was not aware of this. Nonetheless good to know there are at least a few critics who care more for their audience than just clicks.
I watched the game in some streams and cannot figure out why they would do something like that. It looked good and promising so this practice seems kinda stupid and makes me a bit more nervous than I was before...

 

[Moofers]

tldr = buyer beware?

No, I'm saying who gives a shit? Lets all just stop worrying so much about reviews and instead we can watch streams or *gasp* try the games for ourselves and form our own opinions.

And as for the YT crowd, let em make deals if they want. Who cares? You'll never keep them all 100% squeaky clean so why try? Just accept that everything they do "early" is subject to deals like this where certain rules and restrictions are set in place by the publisher. That's just how it goes.