lately it seems there is a larger and larger amount of game reviewers on YT who state in their titles.. " The Best new (such and such genre) Game" , "My New Favorite Game ", "You Have to Try This" ...etcc, etcc, For every title that comes out.. Then they play the game once or twice and move on, I get it, a lot of new games releasing all the time and only so many hours in a day to cover them all, But the "Click Bait" style titling (I know clickbait is the wrong term, but its what came to mind) is getting a little out of hand. And there are definitely Reviewers who adjust or, lets say.. sway their opinion if the game was given to them or in order to not alienate other potential game developers who may send them keys, and thats not including the "Partner Programs" being given out, to be included in those puts plenty of pressure on a Reviewer to positively review a game. But its like anything, there are honest reviewers and there are ..less then honest ones, I for one do not rely on any one or even two reviewers when I am considering a new game, I will either skip any reviews and buy it right away, or will watch a few reviewers play it and then judge the gameplay solely as if were playing how do I like the mechanics, the lore, the genre, etcc
This is why I have changed my game reviews - I don’t want people hanging on my word whether they buy a game or not. I just list my pros and cons of each game and let them make their own decisions. I have a video coming out later on that I’m nervous about though because there were NO pros and it’s obvious I did not like the game. It’s a publisher I’ve worked with before- but I also don’t want to recommend a game that’s this bad.
It's a fun issue to have, isn't it. If you have an established track record with the publisher than it should hopefully be fine, but yeah, I don't envy you.
I feel like in that case, it would be best to list what the game is based on, and seeing if they feature things that people would maybe enjoy. It's best to be straight honest while also laying down the facts.
I mentioned about watching a streamer on RU-vid that covered a game that the creator for was in the chat, it was the gambling heavy Cornocopia or however it's spelled.. I will say I understood where the streamer comes from, I think they were pressured to not say anything bad about the game due to the creator being there, but the creator not giving an answer to play the game without the gambling aspect gave me all the info I needed for that game, which was a huge no for me. I don't trust people like that, and I'm certainly not going to support their games. The streamer I still watch, they're not a bad guy, they are just trying to survive. But I get the idea that not all the audience is intuitive enough to know the difference to think for themselves and not listen to just a reveiwer because they trust the reviewer. It shouldn't be about trusting the streamers covering these games, it should be more about trusting your own views of what you see with the game that's being reviewed. If you don't like something the reviewer does like, that doesn't mean the reviewer is a bad person, it just means you have different tastes. I think that reveiwers shouldn't be pressured to .... leave out cons, or dislikes of a review because of the free key market, I agree there, I also agree, that devs of these games should grow a thicker skin when getting their games reviewed. You can't please everyone, and certainly not at 100% of the time. that's literally impossible. But if you make a game, that you know there's a market for, let it speak for itself instead of hovering in channels that you gave free keys to and pressure people to like your game... (to me, in this instance of the corny-gambling game, felt like a drug dealer supplying an addictive substance and peer pressuring others to get hooked.... it just gross me tf out... I really wish there was a way to properly report that game on steam, because I don't think it belongs on there, there is ToS against gambling on steam, and even though it's not real money, this should techinically fall under that because it promotes the behavior and addictiveness of it, I'm just saying, that game should not exist the way it does).
My goodness you paint the picture of a gun pointed at the back of your head from the red curtains real good! I will say ads are waaay better on youtube then on twitch because ads just break in the middle of convos and game play! Ads on your non-live stream videos wouldn't be game breaking but I'm not speaking for others on that.
I am nothing if not dramatic, I think it helps paint a fun picture. Also, I find that playing up the problems is usually better than downplaying them, because at least then you can have real conversations with people. Also, ads are sort of a hot button issue everywhere, but I prefer them over asking people for money, so there's that.
I think I disagree with your founding premise. You are not being given any keys to give a good review. You are being given the keys to raise awareness of the game, that is, to advertise its existence. The only way you can do this is if you have enough of an audience that you get the word out. If you give fake review to make devs happy, you will lose most of your audience. No one wants that. The devs are taking a known gamble in handing out keys. Creators are under no obligation to give good review in return for free key. If they expect you to lie, then they are crooks and that should be me made known. You don't have to compromise anything here. Take a deep breath, it's going to be fine.
Sadly I can say that most publishers do in fact keep a blacklist of critics and reviewers that they won't send copies to, and its been a thing for at least 20 years in the industry. Some do it for negative reviews, some for going against company values, and most recently Nintendo blacklisted kotaku, but that was because they were sharing emulation guides with their reviews, which was also very weird. It's not very commonly talked about, but it does happen. My problem isn't necessarily that I'm too afraid of being on a blacklist, but instead that their very existence is basically a warning against going against them. Or an incentive to lie.
Replying to give more info. ACG has been blacklisted from a publisher because they made a tweet about the game. TLOU2 famously blacklisted a ton of people. Square Enix has in some cases allegedly blocked entire site staffs for negative reviews, while nintendo instead won't give review copies without some guarantee of decent scores in reviews. BadFly literally sent review codes to reviewers with the threat of blacklisting anyone who gave low review scores in the past. Sadly the practice is not just real, it's fairly common throughout the industry. It's just usually more of a veiled threat rather than an overt statement.
@@DoitiEtokNews Jim Stephonie Sterling has been black listed ...it's very much a real thing. Asmondgold has talked about this and why video game journalism has turned into shit because of the threat of getting black balled by the game industry.
@@DoitiEtokNews Well, you're going to have to decide exactly what sort of channel you want, I suppose. I know that I won't tune in to watch many positive ads disguised reviews, and maybe others feel the same. I would just hope that you are giving honest reviews not fueled by fears of not getting keys early.
Not sure why you are so against viewers giving you money (memberships etc). It's their money and they choose to spend it on you. Maybe you have some inside knowledge about some of them but generally people don't just give out their money willy nilly. I wouldn't even think of it as something like "oh I NEED to give him money cause otherwise he'll end up on the streets" or something like that (extreme case but just to illustrate 😄). I come from twitch where its normal creators live on the income from subscribers, maybe it's different on youtube but why would you say no to extra money when people are willing to give?
I also come from twitch, and even have a few channels I’ve subbed to since they became available. I don’t exactly know how to explain my problems with relying on it for myself. It just feels like your monitoring the wrong people, and yea, while it may be a necessary evil at points, it always seems like a bit of an issue. I’ve also seen many twitch streamers who lamented that they couldn’t set monthly gift sub caps per user and things like that, so i know im not alone in my thoughts. Idk, just feels like the wrong way for me to do things.
@@DoitiEtokNews I get not wanting to be reliant on it. You want to become self sufficient so your income is not dependant on just viewers that can cancel their subs at any moment. But in the video you say you want to completely shut it off as soon as you can. Why not let those that wanna give, give you a little extra?
@@The_MarTyNi Ah, I'm just not a fan of youtube memberships when I am operating what amounts to 4 channels. I don't feel like they have the same inherent value as twitch subs, I mean they don't even get rid of ads. Also, memberships aren't really the same as they are on twitch. That's because Super Chats and Super Thanks exist for one off donations, and were youtube's original support method. Honestly though, the wider youtube community just doesn't have direct donations through youtube as part of its culture, most creators have stuff like patreon or ko-fi instead, and those often seem better. Basically, memberships are the bits of youtube, some people use it but its not really the main thing they use if they do, at least from what I've seen.
