No.31889
>>31888I mean why should some YouTuber care about this game? You can't force people to review your game.
No.31891
>>31889>You can't force people to review your game.but they do constantly (with money)
No.31892
just when i think the internet cant get more corporate shit like this happens
No.31893
>>31888sad that the legacy of gg is almost entirely right wing grift now, but in many ways this was inevitable. Everything resolves back to profit and money and unless you're some kind of miracle genius you're not gonna be able to compete with the people doing this or who have some kind of institutional in. the fact that so many people from gamergate thought that the market would save them and became ancaps/liberterians is one of the greatest ironies of the whole thing.
No.31894
>>31891Well I mean. I don't personally watch YouTube game reviews so I can't say how trustworthy they are but paying someone doesn't necessarily guarantee a good review, just that they will cover your game.
It's just simple business, doing game review videos isn't a public service, and covering some noname game isn't probably going to lead to an incredibly popular video, so yeah people ask to get paid.
No.31895
Kinda seems like an outrage campaign.
>refers to people sharing gameplay footage as "coverage">uses the word influencer in the year 2016+7>>31893People found it scummy pretty much unanimously before and after GG with pretty much no change in response to it's introduction. I think this is just twitter being a hive of hustle culture.
No.31896
>>31895>>uses the word influencer in the year 2016+7like "content creator" is any better tbh
No.31898
>>31888People were more upset at them dismissing the coverage they did get and instead being pissed that the big Content Creators™ wouldn't advertise their game for free when asked to play it.
No.31899
>>31893Gamergate was always some right winger bullshit. It was obvious the game journos were doing some kind of kickback scheme way before that.
No.31900
>>31899Yeah, video game reviews have always been considered a joke by anyone who isn't a "normie", especially the major outlets, but now that reviewing has been "democratized" and anyone can do it everyone pretty much accepts that bribing "content creators" is totally okay now.
No.31901
>>31898is it? im checking the replies right now and at least the first pages is just people throwing their arms up in the air that muh e-celebs deserve money
No.31902
>>31888Yeah those comments are crazy, how indignant they are he said it's "icky." I wonder how many of them are wannabe streamers. If these streamers always disclose when they are doing paid promotions that'd be one thing but I'm sure many don't.
No.31903
>>31901It's what I saw when the tweet showed up on my feed yesterday. Though I wouldn't be surprised if a contingent of eceleb dickriders caught wind of it.
No.31907
>>31903Comments are full of people who get paid by AAA publishers now, lol.
No.31908
Well yeah they're basically admitting that the "reviews" are essentially paid ads.
No.31909
>>31907lots of wotc streamers too who less than a year ago were whining about being called shills for being paid by hasbro
No.31911
>>31906Isn't that shark girl a content creator too?
No.31912
>>31911I just jerk off to the designs.
No.31914
>they got shat on by everyone in the replies, oh how the times change
they got shat on by mongoloids who pay $8 for a twitter checkmark, big surprise. don't be fooled by the fake algorithm pushing all those dogshit replies to the top
No.31916
>>31894>paying someone doesn't necessarily guarantee a good review, just that they will cover your game.And if they don't cover it well, or at least if it doesn't translate in enough sales to justify the payment, other devs probably gonna be less inclined to pay him again for coverage. That's market for ya.
No.31917
>>31899I found /leftypol/ because of gamergate, so I don't think it was all bad.
No.31919
>>31896Yeah I'm surprised people are still hopping from one obfuscative term to another after all these years. I try to say videographer when I remember to.
No.31924
90% of the negative replies are from youtubers themselves. This is not infact normalised among other people.
No.31939
>>31888Your perception is skewed by the fact that all the top replies are algorithmically boosted blue checkmarks.
You're looking at the opinions of people who pay for twitter.
No.31985
>>31917I feel gamergate could have been good, but as usual reactionaries ruin everything. Any good idea at the core can and very well may be corrupted and fucked up by reactionaries..
Unique IPs: 13