EA & Microsoft Paying For YouTube Videos

Now first of all I'm putting the thread here as it's not just about games.

In the last couple of days information has leaked that Microsoft, and EA are paying
YouTube video makers to cover their products.

Now I'm not shocked at all about this but it does violate the sites terms of use.

"EA Paying for YouTube Love"

Link-http://www.bluesnews.com/s/148402/ea…r-youtube-love

"Stealth marketing: Microsoft paying YouTubers for Xbox One mentions"

Link- http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/0…-one-mentions/

So what do you guys think?

I don't watch videoreviews ever and trust only written reviews here, on Gamebanshee and sites that definetly weren't payed to pump up the score on something.

When it comes to EA, I'm far shocked as it's really nothing new. Let's bring up again 100+% on DA2 from review sites, and -37564875683% from players' entries on metacritic.

Also not really shocked with M$ paying for Xbox mentions, it can boost sells if it's a good product that needs a reminder on the audience. But let's be real. No matter how many times it's mentioned here and there, it won't sell as much as they wish. Why? PS4 did a better job.

I guess EA is still 'In the Game'!!

Just sounds like updated product placement to me!

What to think?

That "streamers" making 50,000 to 100,000 views in a day with one video cant be bypassed.

Nothing new. As I watched a number of "streamers" to understand what is going on in the front of video gaming, many alluded to receiving money deal from developpers for quotations etc.

Of course, integrity did not allow most of them to accept as they are dedicated to the service of their viewer base.

Better they get paid rather than video games been adapted to their demand.

Violating the terms of use is surprising. Popular channels receive money, material from suppliers etc It is been a long time it is the case so what?

I would prefer a fair shake when giving the games a rating, not just because you got paid to do it.

Still, nothing saying they couldn't give an unfavorable review (hello naive side talking).

Originally Posted by Magix1reaper
I would prefer a fair shake when giving the games a rating, not just because you got paid to do it.

Still, nothing saying they couldn't give an unfavorable review (hello naive side talking).

I think one of the articles I read about MS buying reviews said that the "reviewer" has to agree to not disparage the xbox in any way, or say anything negative about it.

In other words, they are blatantly buying fraudulent reviews.

If they pay them, then aren't the videos in a sense advertisements? And by law advertisements have to be truthful, otherwise they are illegal, and can be prosecuted?

Originally Posted by Thrasher
If they pay them, then aren't the videos in a sense advertisements? And by law advertisements have to be truthful, otherwise they are illegal, and can be prosecuted?

Nope, very important technicality in there. Ads don't have to be truthful at all, they just cannot lie. As you know, those aren't the same thing.

Really? Not being truthful is different from lying?

Hardly a surprise

The second article reads mentioning, not reviewing.
But getting an opinion on things as they are is for sure boring.
Better to fancy over, fantasy is superior to reality.
Everything is subjective.

we have asked them to add disclaimers to the videos that were part of this program indicating they were part of paid advertising.”

Well good thing that they are at least backtracking on this. Considering that not disclosing what videos were paid ads was against FTC's guidelines.

Here is a video that explains more on this.

On TV, "product placement" (as we call it here) is forbidden.
Yet still some companies manage to sneak through it …

Not really following the whole thing but isn't this similar to publisher buying ads in magazine so that the magazine review or cover their products?

Originally Posted by Thrasher
Really? Not being truthful is different from lying?

Well you don't have to give the negative truths, just the positive ones.

truth in advertising is not a problem if its the individual/s opinion. this has always been the case.

truth in advertising has only been a problem when snake oil ads used to claim cures for cancer and the government had to form agencies to regulate candies made out of wax and laced with opium by requiring products to have their ingredients listed in order. today strict drug laws regulating this are bypassed by being called supplements. I get a few of these advertisments in my spam folder.

Anyways, wasn't there a big scandal in the past for pay to blog? I remember C Everett Coop getting in trouble at Web MD for giving advice for products and it was discovered he was being paid for them.