Warner Bros. Settles FTC Charge For Not Disclosing Payments To YouTubers For Positive Reviews (theverge.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Verge: The Federal Trade Commission has reached a settlement with Warner Bros. over claims that the publisher failed to disclose that it had paid prominent YouTubers for positive coverage of one of its video games. The FTC charge stated that Warner Bros. deceived customers by paying thousands of dollars to social media "influencers," including YouTube megastar PewDiePie, to cover Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor without announcing that money had changed hands. Under the terms of the agreement, Warner Bros. is banned from failing to disclose similar deals in the future, and cannot pretend that sponsored videos and articles are actually the work of independent producers. Warner Bros.' deal with the influencers involved stated that they had to make at least one tweet or Facebook post about the game, as well as produce videos with a string of caveats to avoid showing it in a negative light. Those videos could not express negative opinions about the game or Warner Bros. itself, could not show any glitches or bugs, and must include "a strong verbal call-to-action to click the link in the description box for the viewer to go to the [game's] website to learn more about the [game], to learn how they can register, and to learn how to play the game," according to Ars Technica. Influencers were advised to disclose the video's sponsored status under YouTube's "Show More" section, but some did not, and the FTC says this would not have been enough to skirt the rules anyway, as the disclaimer would not have been visible on videos watched through Twitter, Facebook, or other social media sources.

Comments

Why?

[wardrich86]

Why is the onus on WB for not disclosing it? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the person reviewing the game?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because WB would gladly see thousands in jail so long as they managed to plug some WB products before going down. Put the onus on them and it changes the entire situation from their perspective.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because they penned the deals for these shill reviews. It's called being responsible for your actions.

Re:Why?

[jellomizer]

Because Great Money = Great Power
Great Power = Great Responsibility

In short WB with giving a lot of money to the YouTuber with the intention to keep it quiet. Means if the YouTuber who broke that contract can suffer heavier legal action against HP then what HP will need to suffer. When both sides are in the wrong, the one with the most money is more to blame.

Re:Why?

[Kierthos]

Actually, if you look at various court cases involving the rich and powerful, usually "Great Money" means Zero Responsibility. Clearly, it's not always the case, but it's amazing (sarcasm intended) how often the rich get a slap on the wrist.

Re:Why?

[ShaunC]

It appears that it should be the responsibility of both parties (emphasis mine),

The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service. [...] The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.

Maybe it comes down to how they define "bloggers" and "celebrities," or the FTC just decided to exercise its case-by-case discretion and go after the party that seems to be the instigator in this situtation.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is the onus on WB for not disclosing it? Shouldn't that be the responsibility of the person reviewing the game?

Ignoring the specific law (which says they are, and explains the technical requirements), think of it logically this way. The company is getting endorsements, and is clearly benefiting from it. Customers deserve to know that endorsements are paid for (e.g. I'm sure you would complain if you found out that the only reason the New York Times recommended a restaurant is that they got a $100,000 payment to do so).

Now if the company did not have the responsibility to enforce the disclosure, it would be extremely easy for them to game the system and plead ignorance if the endorser did not disclose the relationship. Moreover it is not an unreasonable burden for the company. They are already paying the endorser... they just tell them at the time to disclose the relationship somehow. If they did a reasonable effort to do so and the endorser somehow failed to disclose, the company wouldn't be liable anyway.

Long story short, the company knowingly and intentionally is getting the benefit for the endorsement, so they need to ensure that the public knows about it and isn't being effectively defrauded.

Re:Why?

[PatientZero]

Am I missing something here?

Under the terms of the agreement, Warner Bros. is banned from failing to disclose similar deals in the future, and cannot pretend that sponsored videos and articles are actually the work of independent producers.

It seems the punishment for breaking the law is that WB must now . . . obey the law?

so....gamergate was right

[ganjadude]

there does seem to be some lack of ethics in gaming these days

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

As well as Lack of Ethics - EVERYWHERE.

With little to no consequences for their actions, it is open season now for doing whatever they want.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but no one should be surprised. There is a serious lack of journalistic ethics in every field, but people always seem to be amazed when bludgeoned with the severity of it in a field they are mildly proficient in. The worse part is that you (I'm using the "global you", meaning bloody well near everyone on this wet rock) turn right back to those unethical journalists 25 seconds later when they start talking about a different subject and you believe them wholeheartedly.

The myth of ethical journalism was enacted during a period when non-local news was all handled by three networks who all used one common source. Whatever two of the three agreed on was accepted as truth, and none wanted to be remembered as the fake news, so the third would agree even in those few conditions they wanted to tell a different tale.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure. None of that justifies harrassing women on Twitter, sending them death threats or attempting to SWAT them.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[bobbied]

Well there is big money involved, so what did you expect?

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Desler]

People knew that long before gamergate ever existed. Games journalism has always been corrupted by money and publisher influence. Here's such an article from 2003. Gamergate didn't actually expose some hidden truth that no one knew about.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Desler]

You act like this is a new business tactic. Are you really that naive?

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you mean the women who were harassing themselves to get attention and to besmirch the reputation of their ideological enemies. Funny how even a discussion on ethics in journalism can be undermined by such poor ethics.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you say, red pill.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, there is a difference between "journalist" and "random youtuber/blogger", which is what we're talking about here. Accredited journalists do, in the main, take journalistic ethics with at least some degree of seriousness. Random "social media influencers", not so much.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[RivenAleem]

There does seem to be some lack of ethics in *Advertising as usual*

I never buy games based on reviews. I buy them because Gaben tells me to.

Seriously though. Never pre-order a game. Never buy it on day 1. Always wait for review embargoes to drop, get player feedback, wait for a Steam Free Weekend. There's no need EVER to rely on any bit of information about any product that it told to you prior to its public release. Advertisers can NEVER be trusted, no matter what market they are operating in.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[mvdwege]

No. Because GamerGhazi is built on a tissue of lies. And worse, they paid virtually no attention to this particular scandal, adding even more proof that it was mostly about the gaters' misogyny.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Kierthos]

Gamergate pretending to be about ethics in gaming journalism to begin with was a laugh considering some of the things that apparently slipped by them before they began manufacturing their own outrage.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever you say, purple pill with green stripes.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Mashiki]

Gamergate didn't actually expose some hidden truth that no one knew about.

Actually it did. See the gamejournopros leak . People thought there was a list, they believed there was collusion going on just like the game mags from the 90's, but had no proof. But the truth came out, and it was the same jackass who created Journolist doing the same thing to the games industry. Then people found out about the number of authors engaging in shady shit by shilling for their friends games, and other authors not disclosing that they were involved in a personal relationship with PR people see PCGamer and the author(Tyler Wilde) who had all of his stories removed about Ubisoft. And the attempted blacklisting/ostracizing of authors/publications who refused to engage in groupthink, and the massive amount of groupthink going on in said organizational group.

They were also the group that got the disclosure rules changed for native advertising/affiliate links/etc. Meaning that shitty, shady and clickbait sites had to be open, clear, with disclosure and no more obfuscated stuff. In the end it shone light on the rest of the garbage in the industry, and did a very good job at costing shitty companies money for being very shitty companies. And continues to do so while pushing back against people who instead of making their own games/characters/stories and let them sink or swim on merit like the rest of the industry. Ensuring that established characters/games/stories aren't rewritten to fit some special snowflakes head cannon. And bringing to light assholes like polygon/kotaku/RPS/etc who are now in the Jack Thompson camp screaming about how we should really censor games because it might hurt someones feelings, and how xyz thing is sexist/racist/homophobic/etc.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 on not pre-ordering.
These days there is absolutely 0 advantage for you, the customer.
The price is inevitably the same as when you buy it day 1, and you don't get the benefit of seeing any reviews or reading other peoples experiences with the game.
The only time you should consider pre-ordering is if it's some kind of thing where you pay some indie company to make a game that doesn't exist, and then you should really just consider the money donated.
Usually they will at least give you access to some alpha build of the game.
Long story short, unless you get 50% off, don't pre-order.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Mashiki]

Despite the belief that gamergate has a time machine, that's sadly not true. Keep in mind it's not even 2 years old yet, but I've seen authors on the usual gaming sites saying that it started in 2002, 2008, 2010 and 2011 too. So if you're one of those people who reads those shitty sites, no wonder you might think that.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Kierthos]

Actually, no, I don't believe Gamergate has a time machine.

My statement is that Gamergate is not about ethics in gaming journalism. If it was, they would have been much more vocal about it for years prior to the incident(s) that instigated it.

There may have been complaints (anywhere from minor to major) about a particular gaming site, or magazine, or whatever, but Gamergate as an organization (as loosely organized as it is), did not exist prior to approximately August 2014.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Kierthos]

And hell, even before this... I sure don't recall a lot of outrage over Jeff Gerstmann being fired from GameSpot for giving Kane and Lynch: Dead Men a bad review. (As in, the review was that the game was bad, not that it was a substandard review.)

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Kierthos]

I should say, I feel I'm not making my statement clear.

No, I do not expect Gamergate to retroactively be upset about something. But it is rather telling that of all the things that could have set off this "it's about ethics in gaming journalism", it was a relatively small event that did so. Could it have just been the final straw? Sure. It's possible. It's just not very likely.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[_xeno_]

Really? Were you just ignoring it then?

It was even covered on Slashdot at the time.

There was plenty of outrage at the time.

Even in 2007 you can see plenty of people with the opinion that the game journalism industry is simply corrupt to the core and aren't surprised at all to see a journalist fired for giving an advertiser a bad review.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Wind your neck in, fool. It is illegal - end of. Laws have been passed all over the world to stop this kind of bullshit. That's the only thing you should be thinking about. Not the fucking fact mega-corps and media, including gaming sites in particular, are still at it. Pukipie is a nobody in the grand scheme, so think on the hundreds of millions publishers give to IGN, Gamespot, and other site to hype hype hype and hype $LATEST_GAME via buying advert slots.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

purple pill with green stripes.

Thanks, Doc.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Kierthos]

Yes, and my point still stands.

There were plenty of people upset about it, but it wasn't the event that caused Gamergate (or anything like it) to form. People got upset, and then they moved on.

Now maybe that was because social media was still taking off them (at least compared to now). Twitter had been around for about a year at that point, Facebook had been allowing anyone to create an account for about a year as well.

But of all the things to cause Gamergate to coalesce, it was really a relatively minor thing, blown way out of proportion, with a fair amount of misdirection and outright lying.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Mashiki]

So you say you "feel" it isn't about ethics in journalism. That's nice, of course actions to the contrary speak otherwise. Keep in mind that if you're not an actual hardcore gamer you wouldn't know that this had been brewing for years, and people had been making noise over it since around 2005, earlier on usenet when magazines were still the thing. Keep in mind that your average gamer is exceptionally laid back like most people with their hobbies, until people start attacking it. You can also find the start of this when people started digging up the connection between Digra and Critical distance among other organizations all writing papers with confirmation conclusions. Digra's are some of the best where they've written the conclusion first, even when the evidence is contrary to the actual conclusion.

But in the end you're right, it was a small event that started it. You know what set it off? When gaming sites decided to ban all speech of it. When the gaming subreddits(except PCMasterrace) blocked all discussion on it, when they banned people from those subreddits for talking about it. And what was the last straw? When over a dozen publications published nearly the same article all saying that "gamers are over, gamers are dead" all on the same day(though there were a few latecomers to the party). That's what caused the huge surge of people. Fun thing about that though, nearly all those people who wrote those article are no longer in the industry. Some of those sites drove their audience away and collapsed. And I haven't even started on the source for all of those articles.

Or the people who were engaged in unethical behavior like leigh alexander, who wrote about games, ran her own consultation company, shilled the stuff she was promoting, and gave no disclosure. And apparently was one of the big behind the scenes people pushing the "gamers are sexist-misogynists" bullshit. You know, much like how it was pushed with the "if you don't like the new ghostbusters you're a "sexist-racist-misogynist" bit. Oh and she was one of the big "gamers are dead" but you could figure it out right off the bat that she wasn't an actual gamer. For her trouble she was quickly out at gamasutra, went off to another site which collapsed not even 6mo down the road, and then instead of learning not to attack the audience doubled down.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Mashiki]

But of all the things to cause Gamergate to coalesce, it was really a relatively minor thing, blown way out of proportion, with a fair amount of misdirection and outright lying.

Oh it was blown out of proportion, but that was done by the games media. They could have ended it in the first week by going "yeah, you're right. There was a serious ethical breach here when he wrote about someone he had prior contact to, was banging, and had done work for in the past." Instead they decided to double down on the "you're a sexist and misogynist" for disagreeing with us, and then turning around and saying there was no ethical problems. Of course, 8mo later the sites that were directly responsible for originally setting it off...surprise...all had disclosed that there had been prior relationships. But lying? Nope. All that shit happened, and if you think that "the zoepost" wasn't real, there was the video evidence of it. If you think that 12+ publications deciding all on the same day to write "gamers are dead, gamers are over" articles didn't happen or it was just a coincidence you're just being naive. FYI: Run those articles through a plagiarism checker, and you'll find that they range from 40-70% of all the same content.

But what really started gamergate, and if you ask people who were around at that time? It was the game sites censoring any discussion of it. Reddit gaming subs banning all discussion of it. And those "gamers are dead" articles, that's what drew people to it. And that's when people had enough. What do you know, the Streisand Effect *does* work.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Mashiki]

I'm expecting to see your comment modded into oblivion. The people who are so heavily invested in social justice really don't like it when things happen that disprove their narrative. Keep in mind that these same regressives are just like Jack Thompson now, demanding that things be censored to stop them from being offended. Even one of the shittiest sites on the internet(neogaf) has long since jumped on the Jack Thompson train, and developers who used to post there no longer do, calling it the place where the cause of anti-free speech groups goes to work.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[CronoCloud]

When over a dozen publications published nearly the same article all saying that "gamers are over, gamers are dead"

If you actualy read those articles you would have known that all they basically said. "Gamers" as an exclusionary term used by 15-25 year old dudebros is (or should be) dead.

But no, a bunch of guys like you got all butthurt that you might not be the center of the electronic gaming universe anymore and decided to take out your anger on those you perceived as the "invaders". Meaning casual gamers, but especially women.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[CronoCloud]

Dude those articles weren't published on the "same day", you're exaggerating there. And those articles were in response to an uptick in asshattery from dudebro gamers towards casuals and anyone not a 15-25 year old male.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[ganjadude]

really??? so because people didnt complain but now they are its fake? that is your logic???

Re:so....gamergate was right

[ganjadude]

when a large number of people identify as X, its annoying when someone tells you X is bad.
you could compare it to BLM in a way

Re:so....gamergate was right

[ganjadude]

isnt it possible that it was just the boiling point? similar to how BLM is based on the handsup dont shoot lie, but that doesnt matter to BLM because it was only a boiling point???

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

It is illegal - end of. Laws have been passed all over the world to stop this kind of bullshit.

Wait a sec, doesn't /. cover every single thing that happens to Uber or Tesla? Is there a real or virtual financial arrangement behind this? There are tons of slashvertisements in addition to those two corps. Late-night talk shows are all about promoting movies/music/books rather than "interviewing" their guests. The Top Gear show rarely says "negative" things about the cars they review -- they're practically ads. So why the double standards against WB or pewdepie?

Re: so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Talk about a harsh penalty: the government found that WB did something illegal and in response banned them from doing that same illegal thing in the future.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, I recall any encouragement of harassment on the 8chan gamergate boards being responded to with insults, shitposting, and reports with damn near 100% reliability.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Best form of advertising is a Twitch stream IMO

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if everybody follows your advice, what then? There would never be any pre-orders, therefore nobody would be able to chime in when "embargoes drop". In your perfect world, when would one actually buy the game? You would only have the ones that were paid telling you to buy it. Overall, this may not be the worst idea. It effectively ignores the possibility of paid shills, which I assume is the goal. I'm just not clear on when you'd actually buy.

Re:so....gamergate was right

[Anonymous Coward]

Because nobody pays /. to cover something. They're be a fucking moron to pay someone to get knee-jerk reactions from neckbeards and reactionaries and basement dwellers who spend their lives patching their fragile self-esteem by hating on others.

What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The stupid consumers that fall for these scams are to blame. They deserve to be parted with their monies.

Re:What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

> They deserve to be parted with their monies.

Most definitely. But those monies shouldn't go to WB in the first place. What about some charity? Oxfam, for example? Amnesty International? Doctors Without Borders? Or EFF?

I mean someone really doing something about the sorry state of our world?

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that, without some limitations, you have no trust in any product or system. It's nice to live in a place where you can at least trust someone will get fined or go to jail if they do something to fuck me over.

If you disagree, that's cool, but don't drag me into the China-like hell with you.

Re: What's the problem?

[Anonymous Coward]

if you had a brain you would wait for real customer reviews a few weeks after the game came out. yet idiots like you want to be spoon fed previews and watch pre-release people playing the game and you want reviews the second the game comes out. some idiots buy digital versions from around the world because they can't wait to play the game the second it comes out you got exactly what you asked for

Like handing out speeding tickets...

[bazmail]

... at the Indy 500 (Captain Benjamin L. Willard - Apocalypse Now)

So how much is the fine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems WB's only punishment for breaking the law in this case is to pinky swear that in future they won't break the law again?

I know a lot of companies these days figure in penalties as a cost of doing business, and make a judgement that violating the law and coming to a settlement is worth it for the business advantage accrued, but in this case there haven't even been any penalties applied.

Re:So how much is the fine?

[bobbied]

Oh but next time the SEC will throw the book at them.... Which book is the question... My guess is the "pass book" or maybe the offensive play book for the local High School Junior Varsity football team.

Actually, consider this a warning ticket for speeding. Next time we will write you up the broken taillight. Drive safe WB..

21st century version of payola?

[Whatsmynickname]

Isn't this another form of payola? Isn't the principal the same, where a company influences people promoting a product with money? I don't see the difference between a 1950's DJ pushing a song after getting paid by the record company while the listener doesn't know it's being promoted and a 2016 overenthusiastic Internet reviewer getting paid by the company making the product while the reader doesn't know it's being promoted. Same marketing mechanism, same ethical problem, same net result.

Of course, you know paying online reviewers will never be made illegal because politicians are now doing this in droves!

Must be nice being a big corporation.

[nedlohs]

Break the law, the punishment is to promise you won't do it again.

Re:Must be nice being a big corporation.

[bobbied]

This happens all the time.. It's called "Probation" and it usually involves a suspension of the punishment for a crime committed with the stipulation that the punishment is reinstated if you commit another crime within the probation period.

Where I live, 90 day probation is usually offered for most traffic tickets (assuming it's not a DUI or something serious like doing 90 in a school zone). The terms of probation require you to plead guilty, pay the fine, attend a defensive driving course and keep your nose clean for 90 days and the ticket gets struck from your record. It's a racket, to be sure, but it is routinely used.

Re:Must be nice being a big corporation.

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't intend to break the law, everyone knows that is now the gold standard.

Re:Must be nice being a big corporation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the same thing, corporations dont go to jail. They can only be fined money, thats it. IF they mess up, they just pay more money, thats it. I dont consider that an on-par punishment.

Re:Must be nice being a big corporation.

[nedlohs]

You can't see the difference between "plead guilty, pay the fine, attend a defensive driving course and keep your nose clean for 90 days" and "not admit any wrongdoing and do exactly what you should have been doing in the first place"?

Re:Must be nice being a big corporation.

[bobbied]

Hey, I've heard of lots of companies getting warned by the SEC for seemingly big violations of the rules. Happens all the time actually.

I'm not sure what exactly the SEC did here, or how serious they thought the violation was, but apparently the company and the SEC discussed it and came to a mutual agreement about this. It may be the actual fines are minimal for this violation or that the SEC felt it wasn't worth going to a long expensive trial in an effort to hold the company responsible. So they struck the plea deal and ended up with probation. You can bet the SEC has put the company on notice that further violations will not be tolerated and that if they do it again, action will be taken on BOTH violations.

Let's see if probation works before we pass judgment on this company's ethics.

Re:Must be nice being a big corporation.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't we give judges the power to tell a company "You are to close your doors and not conduct any business or administration for one month"? Employees still get paid and are immune to discipline or dismissal during this time.

If my ISP gets fined, I shrug and go back to browsing the internet. If my ISP's dodgy practices resulted in them getting shut down regularly, I would be moving over to one with a far cleaner criminal record. Something along these lines would make a far deeper dent in their wallets as customers would leave in droves, and other companies could say "Comcast customers; come over to us for a $20 discount" to really push the issue. Hell, go whole hog and consider getting suspension a breach of consumer agreements. Suspended for a day? First day you're back in action the phones are ringing off the hook with people who want to terminate the contract.

baning useing copyrights / dmca to remove bad revi

[Joe_Dragon]

beaning using copyrights / dmca to remove bad reviews as well?

What a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole premise of Youtube was that "you" (meaning everybody) could make their voice and opinion heard. Indeed such freedom was one of the great promises of the internet itself. What a giant disappointing idea that turned out to be. Google itself acts like some omnipresent puppeteer governing content. Little channels get bullied by the big channels. Half of what's published on Youtube is deceitful in some way or other from fake pranks to fake reviews to fake people. Sure there are good channels here and there. But what's clear is that popular demand wants shitty information shoveled into them so long as it's delivered by good-looking vapid people with glossy production.

Re:What a failure

[Anonymous Coward]

Google itself acts like some omnipresent puppeteer governing content.

They fucking have to, it's their servers. Youtube is a privately owned company, not some town plaza. Freedom of speech doesn't apply here, champ.

Re:baning useing copyrights / dmca to remove bad r

[Anonymous Coward]

In English, please.

And the irony is...

[RogueyWon]

The funny thing here is that paying for this pre-release coverage was probably unnecessary for this game anyway. Shadow of Mordor was a pretty decent game, which received good reviews across a wide range of outlets and good feedback from players. It wasn't a ground-breaking game, or even a stunning example of its genre. But it was well put-together, competently executed and made good use of its licence. It basically took the open-world elements from the Ubisoft/Far Cry template, mixed them with the combat from the Batman: Arkham games and added a new twist with the Nemesis system (which imbued procedurally generated enemies with a degree of character and allowed for some neat emergent storytelling).

Moreover, it released at a time when the games line-up for the PS4 and XB1 was, around a year after their launch, still very disappointing. Aside from a handful of launch-exclusives, their lineups were mostly composed of games initially developed for the PS3/360 and hastily ported across to the new hardware, or outright messy failures like Watch_Dogs. Compared to these, Shadow of Mordor was a very attractive proposition.

I suspect WB resorted to "dirty tricks" because their cack-handed pre-release marketing of the game had managed to create unnecessarily bad publicity for it. A pre-launch trailer which implied an outright rip-off of Assassin's Creed (which actually misrepresents Shadow of Mordor quite considerably) and a failure to communicate what the Nemesis system was particularly well had given rise to low expectations.

But those don't have to be fatal for a game. The new Doom launched against a backdrop of rock-bottom expectations, following a troubled development and a poorly received multiplayer public beta. However, when the game hit shelves, it quickly won both critical and public praise for its singleplayer campaign and has been a sales success. Other games have also overcome low expectations to become commercial and critical successes; South Park: The Stick of Truth was another fairly recent example. The gaming scene is relatively forgiving in this sense; week 1 sales are only a small part of the picture and a good game will usually get the sales it deserves over time.

So chances are that WB here have managed to take a self-inflicted wound for marketing dirty tricks over a game which would have done just fine without them.

Re:And the irony is...

[XxtraLarGe]

Moreover, it released at a time when the games line-up for the PS4 and XB1 was, around a year after their launch, still very disappointing. Aside from a handful of launch-exclusives, their lineups were mostly composed of games initially developed for the PS3/360 and hastily ported across to the new hardware, or outright messy failures like Watch_Dogs. Compared to these, Shadow of Mordor was a very attractive proposition.

I played both games on my PS3. I liked Watch_Dogs, despite the lame revenge plot. It would have been nice if it had given you the ability to make some moral choices--for instance there was a "home invasion" quest where you discover a man lying unconscious/dead. It would have been nice if you could have called 9-1-1 or let his son who left a message know about it. Or if you could have taken credit for breaking up the human trafficking ring & serial killer.

On the other hand, Shadow of Mordor was a fun game, but nearly unplayable on on the PS3. You'd perform some action then suddenly get a loading screen that took a couple of minutes, followed by a 3 second in-game animation, followed by another 2 minute load screen that returned you to the action. I gave up after about 10 hours of play. I will probably purchase both again if I get a PS4, because my understanding is that the PS4 version of both are significantly better in all regards.

Colour me suprised.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, "famous" Youtube reviewers get paid for making(or faking) good reviews.
I'm about as suprised by this as I was this morning to see the sky was blue.

Revolt was a Proportional Response

[Kunedog]

And hell, even before this... I sure don't recall a lot of outrage over Jeff Gerstmann being fired from GameSpot for giving Kane and Lynch: Dead Men a bad review. (As in, the review was that the game was bad, not that it was a substandard review.)

OK, try this. Go discuss review embargos and payola and other AAA corruption on a bunch of game news websites' forums or article comments and see how many censor the discussion, much less ban your account.

Now go back to the same sites and try to discuss Nathan Grayson or Patricia Hernandez and see how much censorship and ban hammerage and pure venom you encounter, by contrast.

Also notice that Gerstmann's Kane&Lynch firing was somehow not subject to a week-long, industry-wide news blackout in hopes it would go away. And that the people reporting on it weren't called harassers or mysogynists or terrorists in an attempt to intimidate them and distract from the criticism.

It is the behavior of the press that is the difference. The long-running popularity of Gamergate is the response to the gaming press's long-running cover up of journalistic corruption and smear campaign against gamers. "It's about misogyny and harassment!" is the real tired cliche.

One fine point to remember is that gamers weren't truly angry and forming a widespread movement immediately after the initial journalistic corruption was exposed. There was still some good faith that the news sites involved had the shred of integrity needed to take responsibility and clean up their own houses.

Gamergate only exploded after the cover-up, week-long universal blackout, and finally the launch of the (still ongoing) smear campaign on August 28, 2014 (a.k.a. "Gamers Are Dead" day). None of that appalling gaming press behavior has happened with other corruption stories, so there's nothing for Gamergate to do about them. They have a chance at getting proper coverage anyway.

In the unlikely event that almost every gaming site censors discussion of (for example) AAA review embargos, enacts a news media blackout (a bit late for that), and then begins slandering anyone who even mentions the embargos as misogynists, harassers, and terrorists, then (and only then) maybe another Gamergate-type customer revolt will be needed.

Sorry, That Narrative Has Crumbled

[Kunedog]

No. Because GamerGhazi is built on a tissue of lies. And worse, they paid virtually no attention to this particular scandal, adding even more proof that it was mostly about the gaters' misogyny.

Look at you, still clinging desperately to the "mysogyny and harrassment" narrative and trying to ignore what GG accomplished.

Gamergate campaigned to inform the FTC of this kind of unethical behavior, and the FTC got involved as far back as December 2014 in direct response to Gamergate pressure, and Gawker was forced update their disclosure policy (and tons of articles that were then clearly in violation). And the FTC also updated their disclosure guidelines several times, including last summer (guess who was running an ethics campaign asking for exactly that?):
http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/comments/38gocf/ethics_major_ftc_update_the_ftc_has_updated_their/

The section of the FTC's website that deals with disclosures was updated late last month:

https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advic...

Some of this new guidance directly reflects the language and particulars of the concerns GamerGate asked the FTC to address.

"Is "affiliate link" by itself an adequate disclosure? What about a "buy now" button?"

Consumers might not understand that "affiliate link" means that the person placing the link is getting paid for purchases through the link. Similarly, a "buy now" button would not be adequate

Does this guidance about affiliate links apply to links in my product reviews on someone else’s website, to my user comments, and to my tweets?

Yes, the same guidance applies anytime you endorse a product and get paid through affiliate links.

The revised webpage contains a great deal more language that needs to be analyzed but these two examples in particular reflect specific complaints GamerGate had about how Gawker Media handle their affiliate link disclosures. I know of no other group of people who were vocally complaining about this specific practice to the FTC. In addition, the FTC emails from my previous posts confirm that, yes, the FTC tailored part of their new guidance because of frequent complaints sent by GamerGate.

If you read further, there is specific language about requiring Let's-Players to disclose as well. And then there are the many, many sites that have updated their ethics policies. It's shameful that you will lie about an entire group of people because you and the press want to pretend that GG isn't the driving force behind all this ethics reform.

P.S. /r/GamerGhazi is an anti-Gamergate cesspool, so of course it is based on lies. But you already knew that.

P.P.S. Yes, Gamergate paid plenty of attention to this scandal. You did know that it was leaked by TotalBiscuit (during a time period when anti-GG was relentlessly shitting on him), right?

You are all TUBERS.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tubers grow in the ground. Grow in the ground, YOU TUBERS!

Just like Amazon reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Use to casually blog and "review" games on a little hole in the wall as a hobby until one day the guys running the site said the publisher Paradox would like to toss me a free copy of a game if I'd give it a "legit" review. Well when I went to task on the title and was as honest as possible (because that's what I thought they liked about my writing) lets just say they didn't offer up anymore freebies nor was I asked to review anything again.

Amazon merchants can be just as scummy bribing their reviewers with free goodies.

Ghostbusters 2016 review payments?

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube personality, AVGN, said he was not even going to see the 2016 Ghostbusters movie, because he does not think it will be a good movie. AVGN has been a fan of the franchise for decades. Movie studios tend to have trouble making a good reboot. The 2016 Ghostbusters movie has been getting somewhat good reviews. Payments? PC reviewers? Is it actually a good movie? Won't know until the embargo ends.

Ethics in youtube journalism

[CronoCloud]

Hey gamergaters, those youtubers you love so much aren't paragons of virtue and transparency. Hell they're less ethical than formally trained journalists. You're better off reading the magazines than following some hyperactive Eurotrash guy for supposed reviews. Even Yahtzee of ZeroPunctuation isn't actually a good reviewer. "Fuck shit cock wanker bollocks yet another penis joke from a misanthrope, ramblings about those crappy UK Dizzy games, glastonbury branston pickle" may be funny, but it doesn't make a good review.

And now every Dudebro out there wants to be the next TotalJerkass, PeePeeDie or ImrichenoughtobuyaYacht-see.

Well Bollocks on that you wankers.... I hate everything except crappy UK platformers written for crappy hardware without good sound chips or proper disk drives. Now let me promote a crappy physics game starring a kielbasa written by some 19 year old aspie in Warsaw who thinks he's the next Notch, when he's really the next John Romero.

Re:Ethics in youtube journalism

[UnknownSoldier]

> Even Yahtzee of ZeroPunctuation isn't actually a good reviewer.

Disagree. Ben's Minecraft review years ago was pure gold -- as in entertaining. At least it was more honest then a lot of other (game) reviewers.

SAME JEWS DIFFERENT SIDEBURNS

[Anonymous Coward]

side. burns.

Did anyone catch the real horror?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone catch this gut-wrenching horror in the article?

paying thousands of dollars to social media "influencers," including YouTube megastar PewDiePie, to cover Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor

PewDiePie can influence someone?

Who are these retarded, weak, pathetic beings that listen to that retarded, weak, pathetic being?

Shills abound

[Captain Scurvy]

People had been pointing out for years that this kind of shilling was likely going on, but it was always considered "tinfoil" until proof started coming out. It was the same way with Snowden's disclosures. Now, I'm more inclined to believe the following: Whatever devious, twisted, subversive shilling scheme you can think of... someone else is probably already doing it.

Somehow Hillary's fault

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure this is somehow Hillary's fault for Benghazi and her e-mails. Also the Jew banking conspiracy.

Re:baning useing copyrights / dmca to remove bad r

[pr0fessor]

What's that you knew they where paid good reviews because all the other reviews especially the bad ones are taken down by dmca notices?

So let me get this strait, the settlement was

[PJ6]

"don't do it again"?

Under the terms of the agreement, Warner Bros. is banned from failing to disclose similar deals in the future