This came up several times during the E3 talks. Apparently video game companies are paying more attention to so called "YouTube Influencers" to market their games. The implication is that these people are more easily swayed, manipulated, bought, etc. in comparison to people in traditional games media. The difference is said to come from journalistic backgrounds. People who built up their own audience on youtube don't usually have that background.
So what's the deal? Do people in traditional video games media look down on these people? Do you? They surely don't run in the circles that everyone else does so there is little chance for them to meet up with video game people and become part of the crew.
Personally i wouldn't trust a youtube review or anything but to me they are usually fans tailor made for marketing a companies game. Not using them would just be stupid. If i want some first look game play or tips and tricks i look to youtube these days.
Probably, and no. There are plenty of legitimate "YouTube Influencers" that take their position very seriously and shouldn't be dismissed so easily. Northernlion is one of those individuals that enforces disclosure, and on top of all that, approaches his "let's play" and "journalistic" stances with humor and composure. Totalbiscuit is another individual that comes to mind that does the same. I'd trust him a lot more than I would the majority of "journalists" simply because of his values and stances on a lot of today's "hot button issues."
Always saddens me when people mistrust a large breadth of people simply based on a select few that may not be transparent enough. Mostly because, as a person that once thought that way, I have found a lot more (personally) informative approaches to gaming as a whole than I would in a typical gaming site.
I don't look down on you tubers. Aside from some exceptions, however, I do look down on traditional video games media. Traditional games media is a social clique that largely falls in line with one another. Like any other occupation with such a limited number of people, to go against the grain would be asking to be ostracized. On the other hand, You Tubers are literally anyone who wants talk about video games, and you will never find the diversity of thought You Tube offers represented in the games media.
Also, no matter how positive you tube coverage can be, it's not at all difficult to tell a brand deal when you're watching one. Sponsorship disclosures required by companies are better than ever, and anything that sounds too good to be true is just another video away from being proven false.
In general? No, I don't really trust nor care to hear from people posting their stuff on Youtube or Twitch or whatever. I know that's what the kids are into these days but if I were given a choice between some guy on Youtube and some guy on a website like Giantbomb or Gamespot or, hell, even IGN, I'd be more likely to trust the latter. That's probably because I'm a little too old-fashioned for my own good and also maybe because I'm too lazy to go searching out Youtube guys worth paying attention to.
Totalbiscuit is pretty solid proof that Youtube guys can be pretty interesting people worth paying attention to. While I hardly agree with everything he has to say, most of the things he does say come across as well-reasoned and thought-out and he maintains a caliber of quality that very few of his contemporaries seem to.
Thing is ... I don't really go to any website or to youtube to get opinions of others about games. I'm on the older side here (I would think ... 38) and I know what kinds of games I like or not. So the only thing I need is gameplay footage to decide if I like a specific game. Thats why I was drawn to Giant Bomb, in fact, the first ever video I saw here was the Dragon Age QL because it was around a hour of footage that I wanted to see. Youtube is the same, some people show me the games I want to see and are maybe entertaining. Thats what I want out of this.
I think it's more to do with marketing terms like "generation remix."
Although talking to a 18 year old boy, he was all "I gotta get more views, I gotta add pranking, I have to have animated sequences, I need to do challenges." I can somewhat relate if I was his age and the youtube generation influenced me also.
If someone calls themselves a "Youtube Influencer", yes I would look down and throw my drink at them.
Though, really, if we're just talking about "Youtubers" and a lot of games media, the difference is becoming less and less. I mean, Giant Bomb is a mostly video-centric site, and Patrick is a big Youtuber even if he makes basically no money from it. Video is big! And Youtube is just its own particular format for that.
As far as ethical practices and manipulation, though, it's not too much different from the smaller game websites back in the day, just on a bigger scale. As Jeff has talked about a lot, there was heavy pressure on bigger outlets, and that would naturally pressure smaller game sites, too. And just by their very nature, they were less accountable. Big Youtubers, on the other hand, have gotten increasing scrutiny, even from fellow Youtubers(like Jim Sterling), and it's still an aspect of that business that is being worked out.
So, I'd say it's less that anyone is looking down on them as it is concern over how that style of coverage is still in a transition period. Publishers know this and try to take advantage. Overcoming and stabilizing that pressure is part of the long term challenge of gaming coverage on Youtube.
Heck, even Pewdiepie has been talking more and more about concerns over Youtubers' relationship with the games industry; so, it's not just a "traditional video games media" thing, it's an internal and relatively widespread concern over how that style of coverage and entertainment is being used.
While I wouldn't say I don't trust any youtubers or streamers, it's incredibly uncommon for any of the more popular ones to not have a background of shitty practices (or still having shitty practices). It sorta comes with the trade. Since it's a popularity contest you sorta have to "cheat" to get to the top, while more established media outlet will hire based on merits, serving as a "credibility filter". That's not to say there aren't established sites that hire based on popularity, so in the end it comes down to finding the right ones for you either way.
Personally I'd generally pick the person that has been vetted by people I already trust over the person that managed to get 20k random people on the internet to pay attention to them.
I really strongly dislike the way Youtubers are all basically into native advertising now. Before I thought they were annoying screaming into their mics but there's a place for that. Pretending to just be some guy and being on the pay is disgusting.
I also don't know how common it is but look at the Battlefield website (eg 1 2 3 ) for the new game and it's all Q&As/videos by YouTubers. As if they get to pick the questions they ask and aren't just being used as friendly skin for EA corporate to wear.
Often enough with good reason too. For every honest, hard working person trying to break through, there are at least 100 hacks just looking to make that money no matter what, following the same script as everyone else.
I noticed that Ubisoft has been sponsoring videos by the few YouTube content creators that I follow somewhat recently, so I can see the possibility of YouTubers as a whole being bought and that Ubisoft, EA, Activision and so on are essentially using them purely for marketing. But the people I follow seem to be more transparent and actually enjoy the games they're advertising, and their content on the sponsored videos is of the same caliber of their non sponsored videos. So it really depends on the creator's presentation skills and integrity more then whether they're background is in journalism, testing, designing, et cetera, or they're just people like me who just enjoy playing games and just so happen to make a living out of doing it. If anything, if I'm curious or unsure about a game that I'd want to buy, I'm going to go to my favorite YouTube channels and watch a video or two of them playing the game and get an opinion from that because they're playing the games that I like and in turn have a similar taste in games as I do, rather than take the words of a seasoned journalist's review as gospel because I don't look at games with the much higher level of scrutiny as a journalist does and I in turn can't relate to it and I'm turned off by it more often than not. And to be honest about Giant Bomb, if I didn't like Jeff as a person during the GameSpot days or if I couldn't get a sense of personality from this site when I made my account in 2010, I wouldn't keep coming back here since exclusively talking about games is pretty boring, especially without a sense of humor to it.
Yes they do and I don't. For me both are on the same level and my trust level to the stuff they post is exactly the same. The influencers content is personality drives so it is just like Giant Bomb the video stuff on game Infromer, IGN or GameSpot.
But that's because tend to avoid looking down on anyone. Doesn't mean I don't think they're open to criticism. As countless before me have stated, their integrity and standards are arguably lower across the board (compared to std. journalism), and there are of course exceptions.
I think the predictable argument of "But they're not actually journalists, etc. so it's ok for them to not be as rigorous/objective/informed" is one I do not agree with. As soon as you open your mouth you have an obligation to be informed. Perhaps it's a very tiny obligation, but it grows with the size of your audience. The more people you're likely to spread your opinion to, the more obligation that carries.
Yes and yes. Especially the cults of personality surrounding the big names like Totalbiscuit and JonTron, who would do well to shut up rather than run their mouths on everything that comes across their twitter feed.
That being said, Matt Lees is creating a delightful, positive corner of the internet with Cool Ghosts.
If by ‘Influencers’ you mean screaming man child then yes I cannot stand them. But I do watch youtube gameplay of games but they tend to be low sub guys who just talk shit while they play games.
This includes the Gamespot guys, sorry I can't stand them (apart from Danny).
Yes, a lot of the "traditional" gaming journalists" (I still feel icky calling a lot of the gaming press journalists) are looking down at youtubers but they should not. For every screeching kid there are also people with an actual brain. There's a lot of very good gaming content on YT that doesn't just revolve around let's playing a game. There are review channels, gaming history channels, and the community at large is starting to realize the influence it has and some of the big names have been for a while talking about the power the platform has and how to make sure it is not being abused.
Do you trust random people on the internet with no training, no experience and no governing body?
This misunderstanding of what YouTubers are is what makes traditional games media look down on them. They are not reviewing games, they are not necessarily there to be critical of games. They are there to play the games they love and/or are obsessed by.
When I take the games I love Giant Bomb is actually quite laughable in their coverage of said game. I get very deep into games that I truly love and play them over and over and over again. At that point Giant Bomb coverage is superficial at best. Misinformation also becomes more and more apparent the more I'm into a game in such coverage. YouTubers are far more satisfying to watch as they are roughly on the same level as me in terms of dedication, knowledge and sheer love of the game.
Traditional media outlets wrongfully conclude that they are easy to mislead or influence. The simple truth is that YouTubers aren't there to be critical, they are mostly there to praise the thing you already know you love. Of course it is more desirable for a publisher to put Mirror's Edge Catalyst in the hands of a guy who is good at playing it, loves it to death and shows that to everyone else, than having some guy who doesn't understand it go: 'I don't know, first person platforming seems weird, 3 stars'.
I really strongly dislike the way Youtubers are all basically into native advertising now. Before I thought they were annoying screaming into their mics but there's a place for that. Pretending to just be some guy and being on the pay is disgusting.
I also don't know how common it is but look at the Battlefield website (eg 1 2 3 ) for the new game and it's all Q&As/videos by YouTubers. As if they get to pick the questions they ask and aren't just being used as friendly skin for EA corporate to wear.
Your only ever going to get PR fluff on the Battlefield website, its no different than an IGN First Look or a preview in Game Informer its PR all the same always has been. At least with YouTubers their often talking nuances within the game which you don't get with traditional press because their knowledge is only ever skin deep. LevelCap and JackFrags both big Battlefield personalities have been critical with their owns videos over the past few weeks. It would be nice if the press could be critical beyond its BF4 in a new skin but they don't play games like normal people its the strength of YouTube there going to be someone out there that plays the thing you like alot.
I really strongly dislike the way Youtubers are all basically into native advertising now. Before I thought they were annoying screaming into their mics but there's a place for that. Pretending to just be some guy and being on the pay is disgusting.
I also don't know how common it is but look at the Battlefield website (eg 1 2 3 ) for the new game and it's all Q&As/videos by YouTubers. As if they get to pick the questions they ask and aren't just being used as friendly skin for EA corporate to wear.
At least with YouTubers their often talking nuances within the game which you don't get with traditional press because their knowledge is only ever skin deep. LevelCap and JackFrags both big Battlefield personalities have been critical with their owns videos over the past few weeks.
But look at the actual questions they're asking in the Q&A. They aren't the hard questions the press wouldn't ask. They are all softballs clear as day. You can see their leash from a mile away. LevelCap and Jackfrags both posted speculation videos in the weeks leading up to the Battlefield 1 reveal despite both being EA Game Changers and therefore knowing ahead of time what the game was. I don't expect them to break NDA but I would expect them to not pretend to have no idea to milk in views. By the way good luck finding anywhere on their actual pages that they have a direct business arrangement with EA.
@zevvion: It's only a misunderstanding if people actually use influencers in the way you describe. Whether their intent is to critique or review is irrelevant when people take to their opinions and their energy just as if they had. Youtube personalities enthusiastically playing games they love is as strong if not even stronger than good reviews at spreading good word of mouth and INFLUENCING people. You are just looking at it from your own point of view, not everyone has the same knowledge or experience to build a solid perspective like that. A lot of people simply consume content and read it at face value, wherever it happens to come from or why. That's why credibility is important, and that is why it's hard to take youtubers seriously when they start out with none. Only people that consistently prove themselves to be credible over the course of thousands of videos are taken seriously, and even then it can be broken over one misstep. Journalists with an educated background and editors/governing bodies have more credibility from the get go.
Most games journalists did exactly what YouTube/Twitch "influencers" do now before making it at big websites. The only difference is now these sites are so ubiquitous, games developers and publishers are noticing. I simply don't believe people who say that those in the games press prior wouldn't have taken advantage of this new media were it available 15 years ago.
YouTube "Influencers" can be good if they are doing something unique and offering some good insights. However, it seems that pretty much every YouTube influencer or Twitch influencer is trying to follow the PewDiPie model of screaming in to headphones and laughing and making funny voices and not really doing anything of value (basically they are doing what he does, but a worse knock-off version of it).
The Sea of Thieves Xbox demo epitomised so much of what I hate about Influencers. The game looked cool, but everything about influencers are cringe worthy.
I freely admit to having watched a select few YouTube channels, but fairly infrequently. Mainly strategy game ones that I really don't delve as deeply in to the games as they do.
@tobbrobb: You're accusing me of something you're doing yourself: looking at it from your own point of view. You think people take them seriously as reviewers or at influencing someone who doesn't like a certain game to begin with. Do you have any proof that this is how the majority of people consume YouTube game content? I'm going to assume that you do not, which means we're both just guessing at this.
When I watch someone play, say, Hearthstone, people in the chat seem extremely aware of what is happening and what plays can be made. I think it's safe to say that based on that, the people in chat are experienced at the game which means they already long made up their mind if they like it or not.
Seems to me that it's pretty clear that YouTubers are mostly being followed and watched by people are way into a game. At the very least, you have no idea if most people actually care how impartial they are. When I watch someone play XCOM 2, you can take my word for it that he can 100% bought by Firiaxis and it wouldn't matter at all. I'll either notice he is slinging bull or recognize he's right, whether bought out or no. You can't hide quality from your core playerbase simply because they know the game through and through.
While we both have no proof, I think it's a bit silly to assume the same people keep watching video's on a singular game for months/years on end and they somehow are still being influenced or persuaded to like it. I come to Giant Bomb for Quick Looks of games I do not know or games I'm mildly interested in. That's what game critics are for and GB is best at. But if we're talking XCOM 2, Mirror's Edge 2 etc., I usually don't get more than 10 min into the video before I want to shut it off and look at someone else who can actually play the game on the same level as I do. Mind is already made up before watching. If anything, game critics are less credible when it comes to playing games on a deep level, as they almost never do that and don't reflect how one would play such a game on that level.
Do you trust random people on the internet with no training, no experience and no governing body?
When I take the games I love Giant Bomb is actually quite laughable in their coverage of said game. I get very deep into games that I truly love and play them over and over and over again. At that point Giant Bomb coverage is superficial at best. Misinformation also becomes more and more apparent the more I'm into a game in such coverage. YouTubers are far more satisfying to watch as they are roughly on the same level as me in terms of dedication, knowledge and sheer love of the game.
Traditional media outlets wrongfully conclude that they are easy to mislead or influence. The simple truth is that YouTubers aren't there to be critical, they are mostly there to praise the thing you already know you love. Of course it is more desirable for a publisher to put Mirror's Edge Catalyst in the hands of a guy who is good at playing it, loves it to death and shows that to everyone else, than having some guy who doesn't understand it go: 'I don't know, first person platforming seems weird, 3 stars'.
Isn't that the truth.
Although I disagree with the idea that You Tube isn't there to be critical. There's plenty of criticism on You Tube, in addition to anything else you'd want from games coverage.
Also, I find the idea that you tubers have more or less experience or a governing body than traditional game journalists to be pretty laughable. You're FAR more likely find you tubers criticizing each other than you are game journalists. That's actually true to a fault, and is a problem that You Tube recently changed their policies to deal with. Meanwhile, game journalists never criticize their own, at least not in any meaningful fashion that offers a different perspective than the accepted norm.
@zevvion: I haven't said most at any point. I simply said a lot. With the huge audience we are talking about there's millions of different perspectives and levels of investment, expecting any one of them to be a majority is naive at best. We aren't only talking about 10 000 invested people watching Seagull play Overwatch, we are also talking about millions of people watching Pewdiepie play a myriad of games, and everything in between those two. They are all thrown under the same bus as far as this goes.
I don't think that traditional video games media look down on Youtubers, nor do I. That said, I don't think that we necessarily understand them fully. I mean, I watch certain Youtube personalities, like Yahtzee and the Kinda Funny guys, but that's mostly because they are closer to my age and consume games in a similar pattern as I do. They jump from game to game, don't pay much attention to mobile and tablet, and view games through the context of their extensive experience. On the other hand, the younger generation of Youtubers, the Pewdiepie's and the like, I just don't get. They tend to focus on different things, like competitive e-sports and Minecraft, and their in-your-face style is grating to my old man ears. Basically what I'm saying is the young-uns are doing something different that I don't fully grasp, and that probably means that they're doing something right.
@hayt: LevelCap had one trailer analysis video prior to revel event, his next video two days later disclosed he played the game but couldn't talk about it.
"Everything that I say in my Battlefield videos is genuine; no opinions are bought, and thus I didn't feel the need to disclose that I was getting paid by EA to say what I want. That being said, my knowledge of the law and FTC guidelines is not extensive. People are upset that YouTubers involved in Ronku programs did not disclose this information, and so retroactively and from this point forward any video that I am getting paid to make will contain that information in the video description."
I don't look down on (most) Youtubers. I do dislike most of them, though.
But I do look down on the whole concept of "influencers", the whole idea of having them separate of the rest because they're "influencers" and inviting them to play games before releasing and doing sponsored videos promoting a game. Even the name itself, "influencers", makes me cringe.
I try not to look down on people for having dissimilar interests to mine. Can be hard sometimes but with a perspective check I usually realize how it doesn't matter so why get worked up about it.
Yes, they often do. And there is some truth to it... They are freelancers, they have no regular monthly pay and, as such, they are a lot easier to sway with stuff like free merchandising, invitations to fancy demo locations and free games. They are attention seekers, that live or die by the amount of attention they can get, so most of them are just chasing the last hot thing. They are also a lot more careful about not being blacklisted than professionals are, because they don't have the safety net of working for someone that pays you regularly.
I don't look down on them, but I tend to take their opinions with a mountain of salt. In my opinion, their opinion is not worth much more than some of my friends opinion, and I don't think highly of some of my friends opinion on games...
Oh I'm sure game journalists do, I mean this is their competition who is younger, cheaper, faster, more nimble,gets increasingly preferential access from pubs, gets the same respect from much of the same audience without having to jump through the same hoops etc who is destroying their profession. Maybe resent might be a better way to phrase it then look down upon.
Do I look down upon them? Not really but I don't respect most either. There are very few of them I trust for honest opinions because most seemingly lack the knowledge or understanding about Conflicts of Interest. Which is somewhat understandable since most are just average joes. I don't often care for his opinions on things, but Totalbiscuit is one whose integrity I respect when it comes to product reviews. Angry Joe and former game journo Jim Sterling seem on the up&up as well. But those guys are also trying to be.
Most youtubers don't want to be professional reviewers and admittedly don't try.
So you see plenty of seemingly very nice ppl complain that disclosing advertising/sponsorship reduces their views. Well no shit, the FTC enforces that for a reason.
Salient opinions on ethical game reivews from the same Pip Boy wearing crew that produced a series of videos about Fallout 4 that were brought to you by Fallout 4 At least they were upfront about it.
So I don't trust most to give the straight dope, but I do think there is a lot of entertaining youtubers and a lot of deeply knowledgeable passionate super fans. So it's a different kind of resource.
And frankly the quality of work in GB's output (of the onscreen talent not the video )has gone down in recent years, which imo is a big big mistake as the gap between professional and non-professional blurs more all the time. They are eroding the biggest competitive advantage they have.
It's not a good look when the amateurs often seem far more prepared to talk extensively on a game than the professionals who go into a game cold and look up really basic information like price and platform and franchise history on wikipedia on air. If at least one of them could just spend 20-30 minutes prepping for each QL instead of winging it like they sometimes do, I think it would help tremendously. Even if that meant shorter QLs
When it comes down to it good work is good work. I'm old enough to know when I'm watching an infomercial, or not.
I worry more about kids getting tricked by dirty practices which happen more often on youtube, but like with anything else there's good Youtubers and bad Youtubers. If you use common sense, and don't buy into everything you hear you'll be fine.
Log in to comment