Xbox One and Machinima: Be nice or neutral, and don't tell anyone we're paying you

  TLDR

I think I found what you've been looking for

Wait... the Xbox One is still around?   

^^^^^^^FANBOY^^^^^^^^^

MoneyMan300 wrote:

Microsoft is definitely paying Machinima for their services...that is not disputed.  Machinima came out with an update accepting responsibility for the language in their terms and conditions and sent out an update to the youtubers explaining that they must disclose they are being paid for their promotion of the the product.  I still don't see where MS is being unethical here...they are paying Machinima for a promotion.   Now Machinima on the other hand??

The unethical part of the last part of the promotion as required by MSFT: to not talk about it (i.e. disclosure) and not say anything negative about MSFT, Machinima, or XB1.

If you've never worked at a magazine or newspaper before (as I have) this may not seem like a big deal, but the same principles apply.  The whole point of print/broadcast/online media is to drive eyeballs to the paid advertisements.  So those in the media (Machinima included) have to talk with fine line between appearing to be independent objective 3rd parties and biting the hands that feed them.  Imagine if Time Magazine or Newsweek wasn't allowed to say anything negative about their biggest advertisers.  Who would buy their magazines if everyone knew that they were just the paid mouthpieces of Big Oil, Tobacco, or Auto?

And really, if they just said we'll give you $3 extra per CPM and make your normal disclosures and say whatever you want, this wouldn't be an issue.  As normal, it's the cover-up that has everyone all worked up, not the actual sin.

I'd imagine this happens more often, this one just got out in the open.

I would normally stay out of these types of discussion, because I just don't care.  But here is a segment of an analysis pulled from the comment section of a Rev3Games You-tube Livestream from last night that sums up my opinion on what is happening here.  He says it much better than I can:

Daniel Carrapa:

...This debate is being inflated by some websites, and it is becoming a way to put independent youtubers in a negative light, as non-credible sources of information, because all these "shady practices" that are apparently going on.
So you get this manipulative dichotomy: the untrustworthy, unchecked youtubers, versus the sacrosanct game journalists, checked by ethically driven editorial guidelines.
And this, sorry to say, is BS, and we all know it. These pressures exist in all media, and have existed for a long time. So, game journalists aren't directly paid from corporate PR, but those friendships exist and will give journalists an edge. We are not virgins here. Get friendly with the right people and you'll have privileged access to exclusive content, get invites for important venues, doors open for interviews. Is it illegal? No. Is it ethical? Depends. Is it going on in official gaming news websites, or in all other forms of press, yes.
So, what's new here? Nothing. Yes, these pressures, that exist in journalism as well, also exist in independent media sources like YouTube. And it's up to the viewer to judge and choose who it is they find more believable and ethical and serious. It's like that in journalism. It's like that on youtube.
This controversy is a smoke screen. There's nothing to see here.

Soulmiser wrote:

I'd imagine this happens more often, this one just got out in the open.

Yes it does but when they catch them they should pay the price same as sony has same as lg has and many more ! It is agianst the law in many country's not just in the us!!

bluehound000 wrote:

I would normally stay out of these types of discussion, because I just don't care.  But here is a segment of an analysis pulled from the comment section of a Rev3Games You-tube Livestream from last night that sums up my opinion on what is happening here.  He says it much better than I can:

Daniel Carrapa:

...This debate is being inflated by some websites, and it is becoming a way to put independent youtubers in a negative light, as non-credible sources of information, because all these "shady practices" that are apparently going on.
So you get this manipulative dichotomy: the untrustworthy, unchecked youtubers, versus the sacrosanct game journalists, checked by ethically driven editorial guidelines.
And this, sorry to say, is BS, and we all know it. These pressures exist in all media, and have existed for a long time. So, game journalists aren't directly paid from corporate PR, but those friendships exist and will give journalists an edge. We are not virgins here. Get friendly with the right people and you'll have privileged access to exclusive content, get invites for important venues, doors open for interviews. Is it illegal? No. Is it ethical? Depends. Is it going on in official gaming news websites, or in all other forms of press, yes.
So, what's new here? Nothing. Yes, these pressures, that exist in journalism as well, also exist in independent media sources like YouTube. And it's up to the viewer to judge and choose who it is they find more believable and ethical and serious. It's like that in journalism. It's like that on youtube.
This controversy is a smoke screen. There's nothing to see here.

While I agree with the bold part. I don't think this Daniel guy has a grasp on what the problem was here. (Sessler did a horrible job of keeping the topic going btw.)

The problem was disclosure or lack there of, that and it sounds like these guys who sign these contracts refuse to read the fine print.

I talked to Recon on Twitter. (he revealed the contract) It was about disclosure. This nonsense about independent youtubers (if there is such a thing) gaming journos is just blocking the real discussion.

The FTC says it isn't an issue and is not illegal.

"So (for example) if an advertiser is not following these guidelines, there is no penalty. But the FTC could send a warning letter and if the problem is not eventually resolved, the agency could opt to open an investigation. But the ultimate charge (if the FTC decides to follow through) would be a violation of the FTC Act (violation of federal advertising law) and not a violation of the Guides. (It is not technically possible to violate the Guides because unlike regulations, the Guides are not legally enforceable.)"

http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/23/5337574/the-ftc-on-paying-youtubers-to-endorse-games


Sounds like another round of much ado about nothing to this veggie.

Glad the topic found its way to this forum though.  It builds the sense of brotherhood and stuff.

look at veggie doing his interwebs research

legal or not its dirty pool - selling a car with a blown engine isn't illegal either buyer beware I suppose.

I wouldn't compare it to selling a faulty product.

They got some kind of bonus advertising with their Machinima ad buy. This isn't uncommon at all in advertising.

I used to work at a TV station and the advertisers got this and that as a bonus. Sometimes the bonus spots/mentions were part of the actual contract. Other times they were not and were just put out by mgt so that at a later sales meeting they could then tell the buyers about what we did as a "bonus."

It was small time advertising and nothing more than that.

Moving along now, nothing to see here.....

I guess I see it differently because BF4 is that car with the blown engine. If you're going to "review" that car but never disclose its greatest flaws that's kind shady don't you think?

I understand paid advertisements / endorsements but to me this situation is special because like I said the game is broken.

Well yeah but the problem wasn't that they paid a few obscure youtubers a few bucks each to post some BF4 vids.

The problem is the Eurogamer and IGN and Machinima staff themselves refused to tell the truth about BF4 prior to release in their reviews.

Youtube is more responsible for spreading the truth about BF4 than it is a reason it was able to hide its flaws in my opinion.

The professional gaming press has proven to be anything but professional and is the real problem.

I would totally agree with lack of credibility. IMO the best review you'll ever get is from someone who PAID for that product out of their own pocket.

FightingOkra75 wrote:

The FTC says it isn't an issue and is not illegal.

"So (for example) if an advertiser is not following these guidelines, there is no penalty. But the FTC could send a warning letter and if the problem is not eventually resolved, the agency could opt to open an investigation. But the ultimate charge (if the FTC decides to follow through) would be a violation of the FTC Act (violation of federal advertising law) and not a violation of the Guides. (It is not technically possible to violate the Guides because unlike regulations, the Guides are not legally enforceable.)"

http://www.polygon.com/2014/1/23/5337574/the-ftc-on-paying-youtubers-to-endorse-games


Sounds like another round of much ado about nothing to this veggie.

Glad the topic found its way to this forum though.  It builds the sense of brotherhood


and stuff.

The guidelines were put there so people don't break the law.  If you are not following the guidelines, hence you are possibly breaking the law.    

That's what they are there for. Crescente is so lost. (Polygon too)

Who wants to bet that there is a Titanfall contract floating around?



MS and EA together. 2 peas in a pod.