315
316

ETHICS[Ethics] [X-post /r/technology] PewDiePie and other YouTubers took money from Warner Bros. for positive game reviews. (archive.is)

NocturnalQuill が 投稿

全 102 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]VerGreeneyes 29ポイント30ポイント  (12子コメント)

FWIW, PewDiePie's video on the game (why is it called "Part 1" when he never did any other parts?) does have "This video was sponsored by Warner Brother" in the description, so he was one of the "influencers" who did take Warner Bros' advice. Of course, you can't see it unless you click "Show More", and there's no indication in the video that the content was sponsored (unless you count him saying "I got the opportunity to check out the GamesCom demo of this game"), much less any mention of the stipulations for the deal.

[–]oboewan42 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

"Comments are disabled for this video."

All I need to know.

[–]JanMichaelVincent16 15ポイント16ポイント  (4子コメント)

Doesn't Pewdiepie disable comments on all of his videos?

[–]SandpaperAsLube 15ポイント16ポイント  (1子コメント)

He does. Something about millions of kids commenting would be a horrible mess.

[–]AL2009man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Remember that he temporary disabled the comments during that time when his comments is full of shit things that [PewDiePie] dislikes the most. (Mostly spams)

[–]PrEPnewb 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yes, as does Totalbiscuit.

[–]FickleMerryBin [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Meanwhile, this is in the description...

"Please: Respect each other in the comments. Spam might resolve in ban. "

[–]platinumchalice 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

Felix disables comments because his fans are like nuclear waste. I shit you not, that is his stated reason.

[–]santaclaws01 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

A lot of people disable comments on all videos because of how youtubes comments work.

[–]AL2009man [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Here's the archived link in case you believed that he edited after news broke out.

[–]VerGreeneyes [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I actually did check that, but yeah, probably a good thing to confirm for everyone :)

[–]NocturnalQuill[S] 50ポイント51ポイント  (0子コメント)

The Verge is garbage, but they link to an official FTC posting that verifies their story: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/07/warner-bros-settles-ftc-charges-it-failed-adequately-disclose-it

[–]is_computer_on_fire 14ポイント15ポイント  (35子コメント)

Does PewDiePie review games? I thought he only does Let's Plays. Don't watch his channel though, tried a few videos, wasn't for me.

[–]NocturnalQuill[S] 14ポイント15ポイント  (32子コメント)

The article doesn't specify and I'm not horribly familiar with his channel, but he could easily give a game positive attention in a Let's Play. I do wish the FTC post specified. Regardless, being paid to make positive remarks about a game is unacceptable regardless of the medium. There's a reason why TB discloses any sort of sponsorship on gameplay videos.

[–]is_computer_on_fire 11ポイント12ポイント  (10子コメント)

The article specifically says (even in the headline) PewDiePie did a positive review for cash.

Both are immoral and against regulations, yes, but a paid review is much worse, isn't it? I believe the distinction is very important here and if The Verge got this wrong, they fucked up big time (not that that would be surprising).

[–]zombifiednation 13ポイント14ポイント  (7子コメント)

Pretty sure he does sponsored stuff, and says so when he does it. Hes not hiding the fact at all actually so I see no issue.

[–]Tormunch_Giantlabe 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

He only put a disclosure below the "show more" in the description, meaning it wasn't visible when viewed from another site like Facebook. And that's not enough, as not everyone clicks on that part of the page. Disclosure should be obvious and hard to miss.

[–]Ireyon12 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

meaning it wasn't visible when viewed from another site like Facebook

I think he should've said this in the video, but blaming him for facebooks embedding practices is a bit much.

[–]Flaflufli 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

The FTC is very clear about this though. I don't know where Felix lives now so he might not be subject to FTC regulation directly. He still has to abide by the YouTube ToS which I've heard now refers its partners to abide by FTC regulation.

So the FTC might not be able to punish Felix but YouTube can.

[–]ARealLibertarian 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

The FTC is very clear about this though.

Now it is, back in 2014 before we got them to change their rules? It was a lot more ambiguous.

Nonetheless Pewds needs to change that to comply with the new regulations.

[–]Flaflufli [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I wouldn't be asking for anything more than that myself either. If he was within boundaries of regulations in 2014 and isn't now then he should be allowed to update the disclosure.

I wonder though if Swedish regulation didn't already cover this in 2014. It sounds like something that would be quickly shut down in Europe.

[–]ARealLibertarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I wouldn't be asking for anything more than that myself either. If he was within boundaries of regulations in 2014 and isn't now then he should be allowed to update the disclosure.

Agreed, I have a distaste for people who rushing to condemn Pewds and claim that anyone who doesn't treat this as though it's exactly as bad as Kotaku is an hypocrite. If he refuses to update his video for the new regulations? Then go at him, otherwise that's just being the same kind of nuance-blind fanatic who will call anyone who likes Undertale a cuck.

[–]Tormunch_Giantlabe 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That's nonsense. He is well aware of how embedding works, and it is legally HIS responsibility to ensure that disclosure is obvious.

[–]NocturnalQuill[S] 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

I figured that "review" was used in a broad context here. PewDiePie doesn't really do reviews as other posters have pointed out, so they could be referring to any video in which he gave an opinion on a game.I do agree though, an outright review would be far worse. It would have helped if they had given examples of offending videos.

And of course, the Verge is garbage. The only reason I trust this article is because their source is an FTC article.

[–]kamon123 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Grom what i reax in another thread he disclosed it in his discription from what ive heard.

[–]chugga_fantrained in gorilla warfare | 61k GET Knight 2ポイント3ポイント  (18子コメント)

PewDiePie isn't an LPer, he's not a reveiwer, he's kinda like jontron on game grumps where he plays through a game and it's done for his reactions moreso than the gameplay

[–]NocturnalQuill[S] 12ポイント13ポイント  (8子コメント)

I kind of lump those into the Let's Play genre. Any sort of playthrough with commentary on top of it.

[–]FoolishGuacBowl 12ポイント13ポイント  (8子コメント)

PewDiePie isn't an LPer, he's not a reveiwer,

Let's not be pedantic, here. PewDiePie featuring a game will give it a bigger commercial boost than any traditional "review" or "let's play".

If he's getting paid to feature games, he should be disclosing this fact, regardless of what we word we decide to classify his videos as.

[–]chugga_fantrained in gorilla warfare | 61k GET Knight 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

That i will definitively admit, he has the most subs/following on youtube, if he advertises anything it's big bucks for that company

[–]Yuuichi_Trapspringer 7ポイント8ポイント  (6子コメント)

He did disclose:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140908074058/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-wdRroa4ms

Published on Sep 4, 2014

...

This video was sponsored by Warner Brother

Date of archive: 8 Sep 14

Edit: and if you can stand to watch pewdiepie, here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-wdRroa4ms he is basically just playing the game and giving the enemies funny names. with a call out to 'if you want to check out the game, the link is below' at the very end.

[–]apartypooper 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

He did disclose

A separate disclosure is not enough by FTC standards. It must be included in the beginning of the video itself and spoken aloud if the add itself is speech, afaik.

A separate element below the video that the consumer might or might not see is not enough. Most people don't read the description and even if they did, they often read it after they've already watched the video.

[–]Yuuichi_Trapspringer 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

At the time he did the video, 2014, the proper method of disclosure as stated by the FTC that I can find is:

The basics are that the disclosure has to be in words that the consumer can understand - it can't just be a URL or a link, it has to be in a place where consumers will see it. Certainly as a practical matter, the best thing would be to put it in the video itself, and for the person to say it.

Source: YouTubers in Breach of FTC if They Fail to Disclose Sponsorships http://www.reelseo.com/youtube-ftc-sponsorships/#ixzz4ECn4bGEy ©TubularInsights.com, All Rights Reserved

A more recent post on the same site has this instead:

In Video: Specifically state that “Company X gave me this product to try . . .”. Having an annotation or something in the description box is a plus, but does not fully satisfy the requirement. You should absolutely cover yourself by leading the video off with a verbal cue. Disclosures can’t be placed somewhere that could be easily missed, that is why you should always state it in your video first thing.

Source: How-to Properly Disclose Paid Video Endorsements for FTC http://www.reelseo.com/how-to-disclose-paid-endorsements-ftc/#ixzz4ECnKkZut ©TubularInsights.com, All Rights Reserved

So since 2014 the rules have matured with the growing influence of social media. Which is a good thing. In 2014 Pewdiepie maybe wasn't following the American FTC's best practices, but he was disclosing, he's also European so the laws in the country he was in at the time would apply, and I don't know what those would be. Coming up with no information regarding those rules, and since Felix isn't even in the US, I have no idea what the rules he has to follow are, nor what their version of the FTC is even called, the googles do nothing.

[–]apartypooper 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

At the time he did the video [...]

Thanks for digging up the references. The words may have changed but the spirit was the same already in 2014: you must be clear to the viewer if the content is a paid promotion.

This, however, raises another issue. The product (game) is still for sale and you could argue that the add campaign (video) is still running. Shouldn't the add campaign adjust to changing rules or can it run indefinitely as is? Note that we are not talking about a regular youtube video by a hobbyist but a paid commercial by a professional video maker. If adapting is too difficult or time consuming - and the add has already done it's job - maybe it's time to take down the video?

he's also European

Like I said in the other post PewDiePie wasn't on "trial" here but Warner Brothers. If using foreigners exempted companies from responsibility, it would create a loophole to circumvent any American consumer rights and protections.

[–]AngryArmourSock Puppet Prison Guard 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm not a fan of Pewdiepie (though I understand Felix is a nice enough guy?), but I think it needs to be remembered this video was made 2 years ago. As such, how ethical the video was at release should be judged by how the FTC regulations were at the time.

If his disclosure doesn't fit current regulations, then it's an issue with not updating (and it is an issue). If his disclosure wasn't enough even for the regulations back then, then of course that needs to be pointed out.
But his original disclosure at the time of release not being enough by current regulations implemented later, isn't that a bit disingenuous?

[–]Tormunch_Giantlabe 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's becoming apparent that many KiAers will not actually hold people or sites they like accountable.

[–]MosesZD 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, I'm seeing that. PewDiePie ****ed up. He hid the sponsorship in a way that made it easy to miss. And it certainly wasn't there for the consumers to easily see as it was hidden by the fold.

So in the world of accountability, the defenders of PewDiePie are shitting on the moral high-ground GamerGate is supposed to be taking. Or, in short, IT'S OKAY WHEN WE DO IT.

Well, it's not.

[–]raze2012Noticed by senpai! 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

but he could easily give a game positive attention in a Let's Play.

If by "easily" you mean "drives more traffic to a game in an hour than 100 positive 'professional' reviews", then yes. If true, I'm not surprised in the slightest. These companies have money, and these YTber's are becoming the new traffic magnets, and they'll soon (or already are) have to face the same sinful fruits sites have known about for the past decade.

[–]ForkAndBucket 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I watched his last video of Uncharted 4, just looking around to see other people's reactions to the end of the series. During the credits, he did give it a review. I'm guessing he does this for a lot of games he makes a series of.

[–]Percival_Snugglebutt 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You could argue how much fun the LPer is having while playing is a variant of a review. After all, part of the fair play umbrella that protects LP is commentary of and on the game.

However, the FTC also wants individuals who receive free consoles to disclose that. So it may just be that the FTC iand/or the Verge s using "review" as a catch-all for any activity that could be seen as promotion that isn't billing itself as a possible advertisement.

[–]maxt0r 14ポイント15ポイント  (2子コメント)

No mention of this on /r/Games, only thread was deleted for Rule 3, Rule 4 which is retarded. Shit mods, as usual.

[–]kathartik 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

it's almost like they're trying to avoid people figuring out that gamergate was about this shit all along... almost ;)

[–]Deefry [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

There are people on Twitter saying, with a straight face, "Why isn't GG mad about this???"

To a resounding chorus of, "We were, two fucking years ago!"

[–]MrEmeralddragon 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

Is there a full list anywhere? WHo else took the bribe?

[–]Yuuichi_Trapspringer 2ポイント3ポイント  (5子コメント)

Companies often at the very least give free keys in the hope of coverage on youtube channels, and very often will pay a youtuber to play the game if it is high profile enough. I saw another post about this issue and someone did check with the wayback machine to when the video was posted on PewDiePie's channel and it does state that it was a sponsored video in the description.

Getting sponsored to do something is not unusual on youtube if you are popular at all, I mean look at almost all the csgo players ho gamble at various sites, if they don't outright own the company, they are getting paid to play. Warowl said in a video about the gambling scandal that he often gets offers for him to gamble on various sites with the compensation being up to $10,000 in skins/cash. I gotta say, I respect him for refusing to take the sponsorships, but if I were in a similar situation, 10k would go a long way towards computer/channel/house upgrades.

[–]MosesZD 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

The disclosure was hidden below the fold. At a minimum it should have been above the fold. It really should have been in the video since shared videos often do not contain the information above or below the fold when shared.

Stop making excuses. He did his best to minimize the pay-for-play. It's not okay.

[–]MrEmeralddragon 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

video was posted on PewDiePie's channel and it does state that it was a sponsored video in the description

Well thats fine then. Disclosure makes it fine by me. Im more concerned with any that did it and didnt disclose it.

[–]ARealLibertarian 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Disclosure makes it fine by me.

It was only visible by clicking the "show more" button, not in the review itself or the first thing in the description.

Now that's currently against the rules but at the time it wasn't specifically spelled out like that, still a violation of the spirit of the law, but the letter of the law wasn't changed until months later after we lobbied the FTC for changes.

TL;DR: Not that big an issue and anyone wanting to declare Jihad on PewDiePie needs stop being a fanatic, but Pewds needs to go back & make those disclosures more prominent to comply with the new stricter regulations.

[–]MrEmeralddragon [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It was only visible by clicking the "show more" button, not in the review itself or the first thing in the description.

Ah now that isnt cool. ALWAYS have to be front anc center. No matter what.

[–]ARealLibertarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

ALWAYS have to be front anc center. No matter what.

Not at the time the video was made, the FTC only changed that afterwards.

[–]MulligantawnySoup65k brexit GET 8ポイント9ポイント  (3子コメント)

I don't know why people put so much faith in YouTubers as some independent last bastion of ethics. They're as compromised as both old and new media. The lack of any kind of legal regulation means they're arguably worse, as they're all in the pockets of corporations.

Apart from a very small number of YTers like AVGN, I trust most less than I would Kotaku. Most LPers and reviewers are nothing more than freelance astroturfers - shills who thrive on free keys and invites from corporations. Their income rests on views, and their views rest on access to products, and their access to products rests on positive coverage.

Fuck YouTubers and Streamers. The CS:GO scandal is just the tip of the iceberg as far as I'm concerned. If I never have to listen to one of those grinning, fake-idiotic sociopaths with their sub-breakfast DJ patter again ("Hey guys!!! Welcome back to XYZ!!!") I'll die happy.

I'm genuinely mystified why people like this kind of content. Watching an obvious shill behaving like an infantile retard while playing a videogame badly doesn't turn me on in the slightest, but some people can't seem to get enough of it.

[–]ARealLibertarian [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They're as compromised as both old and new media.

The big advantage is that there's a very low bar to entry, it's perfectly possible to just pick up a headset & some video editing software & have a million subscribers in a year.

Not very likely, but the fact it can happen means there is a build-in safeguard that internet sites & magazines never had.

[–]darkpowrjd 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Don't be too fooled here. The Verge probably put Pewds there (which, as other comments said, was pretty fucking misleading) to make the illusion that these were well known YouTubers were in on the nepotism here. They don't list anyone else (though they do mention GamerGate as something other than a "hate campaign", which is a step in the right direction....baby steps, people! Baby steps). For all we know, it could be a bunch of YouTubers with 100 or so subs. None of the names that, if mentioned in a situation like this, would make a huge impact one way or another.

And we heard about this story before, did we? Shadow of Mordor! Wasn't that something that was talked about when the game first came out? That one has been going on for a pretty long time now. That might put context into it.

[–]AL2009man [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Because putting PewDiePie on the title and add misinformation always makes more clicks and $$$$

[–]jet_lagg 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Doesn't PewDiePie have an income in the million range based on youtube ads alone? Why the hell would he sell himself out like that?

[–]platinumchalice 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

He very probably didn't.

This was most likely just a normal sponsorship from him, since he's not exactly known for being shady. I mean, you can say he got paid for positive coverage, but it seems more to me like he got paid to advertise, which he disclosed.

[–]ah_hell [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

More money.

[–]Jack-Browser 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'll have to search for it but I'm pretty sure we know this since last year. TB even made a soundcloud about it.

And then Jim Sterling made a video and SocJus claimed he "broke" the story.

[–]RenThraysk 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

Was a related but different issue.

The contract people had to sign and agree to, to get a review copy of the game was particularly egregious. Basically said don't show any bugs or bad things about the game.

That got pretty much sorted as soon as the details were made public.

[–]Jack-Browser 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ah, thank you for clearing that up!

[–]angelothewizard 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

To be fair, there's very few bugs or bad things to show. I think my only gripe is the enemy chatter gets really fucking old after a while, and some of the forced stealth missions are infuriatingly difficult, but that's it.

[–]RenThraysk 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Think it's more the principle of the thing. Placing limits on what a critic can say on the more technical aspects of the game is not good. Though I think most agree with not wanting story spoilers revealed.

[–]Teyar 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Strange. It was a 9/10 game anyways why would they feel the need to do that?

[–]tkul 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Worst part about this whole thing is that the game is legitimately good. They could have just shotgunned out review copies and let the reviews come and be perfectly fine.

[–]angelothewizard 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And they knew it was good, they were showing off demos all over the place and the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Why Warner Bros did this i dunno.

[–]asianwaste 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

PewDie Pie does not review games. He just plays and acts like a 10 year old.

He also disclosed on the post.

[–]darkshade2095 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Should have been marked [History] as it is no news to KIA

It's only [News] because FTC and WB had a spat.

[–]mnemosyne-0002 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Archives for links in comments:

I am Mnemosyne 2.0, I am definitely not a fucking toaster./r/botsrights Contribute Website

[–]HeartofAce 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

One thing nobody mentioned here was that he lives outside the jurisdiction of the FTC...sure it may not be best practice and unethical, but at least be clear on the facts.

[–]apartypooper 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It doesn't matter where PewDiePie lives. He's not the accused but Warner Brothers. The advertisement was targeted at and seen by US citizens which makes it an FTC issue.

You can compare this to a regular add campaign. The publisher (WB) contracts an add company (PDP) to manufacture and publish a video advertising their product (Shadow of Mordor). Normally there are steps to ensure the client gets what they're paying for before the add is published - quality, accuracy, legality etc - but I guess they skipped these steps (especially difficult with live streams). This, however, doesn't excuse them from their responsibility.

Nobody knows what kind of agreement WB and PDD have between them. If WB legal team was consulted and they were up to their job, there should be clauses that mandate what kind of content the live video advertisement must (for example the disclosure) and must not (profanities, nudity etc) contain, and perhaps even sanctions if these are not met. But I doubt we'll ever find out since WB most definitely wants to bury the issue quickly and not fuel the fire any more.

[–]bloodweed 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

PewDiePie is rich. Why does he even bother accepting bribes?

[–]CrashedonMars 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

pewdipie only really has to mention a game to send it into the strat..

[–]Twilightdusk 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Headline is old news, but there was finally a settlement with the FTC over the campaign.

[–]MosesZD 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not surprised. This is as old as dirt. Back in the 1980s, in film class, we were taught about how studios used to corrupt movie review critics, even going so far as to write reviews. And, of course, we have had corruption problems in the gaming industry for over a decade now.

[–]ArchHermit 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

The headline is wrong, it wasn't about reviews. The issue with the dodgy Youtube promotion for Shadow of Mordor was the one that TotalBiscuit blew the whistle on at the time.

[–]5m188y 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

One reason that I watch youtubers like Robbaz.

Not only does he post better content but on the rare occasion that he is sponsored, he directly says it in the video.

[–]skadav 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

PleaseDiePie

[–]MYmaracas 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Shadows of Mordor got a 5/5 from Brad Shoemaker of Giantbomb. It also got GOTY in a year where at least 4 other contenders were better canidates. Could just be lazy cunts as always

[–]Goasupreme 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Goddamn WB screwed up with this, the game is legitimately good and didn't need fake positive review

[–]Romney2008Has the biggest Milo hate-boner [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Of course corporations are going to take advantage of the murky legal waters of sponsored content and the new and sudden popularity of you tubers. I'm glad the FTC is finally getting their hands around this in a substantial way.

I hate "sponsored content." I'm fine with ads and I know you tubers need to make money (though patreon is cleaner if it works for them) but sponsored content always struck me as hanging out with a friend and then them trying to sell you insurance. It just feels gross, like you're going to cultivate a relationship with an audience and then abuse that hard earned trust by selling them things.

[–]IshayuG [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

This is an old case. It was pretty widely known what Warner Bros. had done because several YouTubers went out of their way to call them out on it.

But good on the FTC to follow the case to its close... 3 years later...

[–]Yuuichi_Trapspringer 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Here is a 2014 article from around the time that this happened with a lot of the details about the deal, this one was apparently shadier than most of the similar sponsored content that happens on youtube:

http://archive.is/INMPO

of note:

Maximise awareness for the game during the ‘week of vengeance’

*Persuade viewers to purchase game

*Not show bugs or glitches that may exist

Discuss the story

Include discussion of the Nemesis system – “this really should take up the bulk of the focus, such as how different the orcs are, how vivid their personalises are” etc.

The starred ones to me have the most ethical problems, wanting the videos to come out during a certain timeframe to maximize impact is understandable, and wanting them to feature the 'revolutionary' nemesis system in the videos was one of the big selling points. a bit more about the contract can be seen https://archive.is/pXEvH (which is linked in the above archive as well, but put it here so it's not missed.

[–]platinumchalice 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

>*Persuade viewers to purchase game

I just want to point out that this is how advertising works, so it can't really be an ethical breach on its own.

[–]oboewan42 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

PDP is also sponsored by G2A so fuck him.

[–]Chazdoit 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

As of now?

[–]thedamnedbroSo metal he shits nails 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

I just checked, he's still in business with G2A.

[–]Chazdoit 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

That's just bad, according to TB they've been throwing tons of money to everyone, sounds very Mafia for me.

[–]thedamnedbroSo metal he shits nails [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah they got exposed multiple times for the shady shit they do.

[–]SJWvanquisher -4ポイント-3ポイント  (3子コメント)

So when does the organized campaign of harassment, death threats, and doxxing begin?

[–]Elick320 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

What?

[–]SJWvanquisher -4ポイント-3ポイント  (1子コメント)

When game journalists, critics, and developers were caught in similar - albeit much less severe - instances of conflict of interest they faced an organized campaign of online harassment, death threats, and doxxing. Will these YouTubers face the same thing?

[–]Elick320 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh, your a troll account, that explains it.

[–]XDforlife -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

everything even sort of big that you read/watch, whether it's any news channel/site, posts on reddit or youtube videos or tweets has been put there or kept there because of advertising $ and/or a political agenda.

as for big game companies, how can they be bothered with ethics when they don't even release finished games?