There is just so many wrong, from free advertisement(anything above the viewer count of 1.25M($3750 given out)), ripping off the consumer, and preventing freedom of speech.

Quality sells itself.

I could argue otherwise, but really just refer to Betamax! :P

Also most likely goodnight, but really am interested in FTC power online. 

That part Im 50/50 on.  Not whether I  have any issue with it, but how would that change the fallout?  

Would people be more upset that a company is doing this if they know upfront, or if they find out later?  I wonder if they were banking on people finding out "After" the holiday buying frenzy.  

And I was speaking in general terms about the illegal part.  Love the Avatar Btw.  Wonderful  Anime. 

I've been looking at some of their past cases and I haven't seen a situation comparable to this one. I did see some examples on their website though which could apply to this case.

Example 7: A college student who has earned a reputation as a video game expert maintains a personal weblog or “blog” where he posts entries about his gaming experiences. Readers of his blog frequently seek his opinions about video game hardware and software. As it has done in the past, the manufacturer of a newly released video game system sends the student a free copy of the system and asks him to write about it on his blog. He tests the new gaming system and writes a favorable review. Because his review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement. Accordingly, the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge. The manufacturer should advise him at the time it provides the gaming system that this connection should be Disclosed, and it should have procedures in place to try to monitor his postings for compliance.

Example 8: An online message board designated for discussions of new music download technology is frequented by MP3 player enthusiasts. They exchange information about new products, utilities, and the functionality of numerous playback devices. Unbeknownst to the message board community, an employee of a leading playback device manufacturer has been posting messages on the discussion board promoting the manufacturer’s product. Knowledge of this poster’s employment likely would affect the weight or credibility of her endorsement. Therefore, the poster should clearly and conspicuously disclose her relationship to the manufacturer to members and readers of the message board.

Why is this a bad thing? MS is paying for advertising, no big deal.

If Youtubers are misleading people for money though, that isn't MS's problem.

Well when google did the promotion for the google phone back whenever, every youtube pretty much disclosed they recieved it from google, and after that discussed it. Typically review sites and other places say "they recieved a review copy". I just think that is the problem most non-biased people have with it, not the fact that marketing dollars are being used, is how they are being used. 

I wish more people were this open minded about CoD sales.

Some people are mindless sheeps and MS might be using Youtubers to help sway some opinions. I think that's perfectly fine as long as YouTubers aren't misleading people.

We already had a thread posted about this.
Anyways, its a very smart move and very cheap advertising for MS.

Can't MS do it themselves?

Besides, it's Illegal.