I'm surprised they just haven't gone the oldschool way.   Doing advertising like it USED to be done on TV.  Simply have it mentioned in the video at various points by the people doing the video.  Have shows sponsored by products.

This is happening increasingly often on Youtube already

No what you have been doing is denying reality and arguing he hasn't been receiving any kind of compensation what so ever. Financial or otherwise. If he is simply doing it it for fame he is still making money. Fame = increased reputation = increased business = monetary gain. I've already proved he's received games what you refuse to accept is the fact that he's received those games as a part of his contract with GT. You have absolutely no proof that doesn't have a contract with GT that stipulates as such. There is plenty of proof that he does in the fact because in the US no successful business is done without a contract and no company would have someone represent their brand and name without a contract. Even if his contract doesn't give him a monetary salary they still pay him by giving him an audience, a platform for his opinions, and a show to host that increases his fame. I'm not moving the goal post you simply struggle with the definition of compensation and refuse to accept reality.  

I completely agree with Pachter, he just didn't have to call that guy a scumbag.Calm down, it was probably a troll question anyway.

I would just go elsewhere then. It's pathetic when a site has to use in your face ads instead of reasonably placed adverts. Then the ads that get me above all else are the ads with SOUND when you're trying to browse a website in a quiet environment. It's a desperate attempt at advertising that interfers with my ability to browse said website. On top of that stopping adblock is like stopping cheating in games. I have certain websites where I disable adblock since they're respectful with ad placement and earned my trust that I won't hear some high pitched air for brains shout  "TEN EASY STEPS ON HOW TO LOSE WEIGHT"

he's got a point.

Of course he hates adblock, it means he gets a little less money, but he's overreacting.

I have a new found respect for Mr. Pachter... Though he'll say something soon enough that'll make me dislike him again.

Not going to read all the comments because I'm already seeing people disagreeing with Pachter. I think some of you guys don't get it. The point is that ad revenue is actually really important for all those free-to-use sites. While you watching an ad you don't want to watch may not really do anything directly, the people who create those ads pay the hosts to have them there based off of certain criteria. You're assuring your leecher status when you use ad-block on sites and those who say you didn't agree to look at ads, your right to use the website is based on the revenue those ads bring in.

Pachter may have been too aggressive and may have missed a few things, but generally Pachter is right and if you actually disagree with him you are part of the problem.

A scumbag and idiot is insulting. A bastard is low down.