osed125 said:
Oh no! It's like they are trying to make people to buy their games. Marketing I believe is what's called, but I'm not sure.
I just find it funny how people are taking this out of proportion. Why you think companies pay celebrities to talk about their products? the answer is obvious and the same applies here, the only difference is that is way cheaper to pay a youtuber than to pay a celebrity.
Doesn't seem like any of the youtubers I watch is there, and even if they were, I would keep watching them because they are funny. And what they say won't me make buy a MS console ever.
|
Why do people keep saying this is the same as a celebrity endorsement? When I see LeBron in a Nike commercial, I know Nike paid him (because it's a Nike commercial) to say good things and there's a Nike logo at the end of the commercial, letting consumers know that this is advertising for a Nike product.
But when I see a typical game reviewer on YouTube, I'm expecting an unbiased opinion on a game. Not a review that can only say positive things and no negative things. I'm not expecting a "Microsoft commercial", if you will. If MS wants to pay people to be positive, fine. But there should be an MS tag at the end of the reviews, so we know that MS paid for it. Then it'll be the same as "companies paying celebrities to talk about their products".
What you guys aren't factoring in is that when celebrities talk about a product, we know that the company paid them. If the news of the MS/Machinima plan hadn't been let out, we wouldn't know that MS was paying YouTubers. Is the difference really that hard to comprehend?
