By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Pewdiepie responds to Warner Bros scandal

ArchangelMadzz on 13 July 2016

When did he become Andy Warhol?



There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

Around the Network
Danman27 on 13 July 2016
pokoko said:
Danman27 said:

Is that really a big deal? Like, every celebrity can be "bought." Youtubers do sponsorships because it generates a lot of money. It becomes unethical if he doesn't disoclose that this is a sponsorship deal, which he did. 

It's not a big deal.  Paid endosements have been with us for well over 100 years and probably longer.  Baseball players in the early 1900s were being paid to promote products.  That Youtube celebrities are somehow much more noble and trustworthy entities that should have a higher standard than everyone in every other entertainment field ever is kind of funny.

We can no longer trust Pewdiepie?  Who here trusted him to begin with?  What is there even to trust him about?  It's like watching a standup comedian and then saying, "I don't trust that guy."

This is in no way the same as someone who dissiminates news as a profession.  

I don't really understand what you're trying to say honestly. Like, I agree with you, so what are you trying to critique about what I said. I was saying nothing he did was unethical. 



pokoko on 13 July 2016
Danman27 said:
pokoko said:

It's not a big deal.  Paid endosements have been with us for well over 100 years and probably longer.  Baseball players in the early 1900s were being paid to promote products.  That Youtube celebrities are somehow much more noble and trustworthy entities that should have a higher standard than everyone in every other entertainment field ever is kind of funny.

We can no longer trust Pewdiepie?  Who here trusted him to begin with?  What is there even to trust him about?  It's like watching a standup comedian and then saying, "I don't trust that guy."

This is in no way the same as someone who dissiminates news as a profession.  

I don't really understand what you're trying to say honestly. Like, I agree with you, so what are you trying to critique about what I said. I was saying nothing he did was unethical. 

I was answering your question and, in doing so, agreeing with you.



Arlo on 13 July 2016
Barkley said:
Arlo said:
I don't care if you lie or you're honest or whatever. I just care that he took money to write a strictly positive review. It's about his own journalistic integrity, which is junk. Be upfront about it all you want, that doesn't mean you're still not a tool.

No he did not? He does not make reviews, he made a video the same as all of his other videos and the only thing he said about the game was "I had a lot of fun." Literally it.

Sorry you're right, it wasn't a review.  But he expressed an opinion that was paid for.  For all we know he had literally no fun at all.  That's what I'm saying is the problem here.  An opinion means literally nothing if it was paid for.  If I like to hear someone's opinion and look to their channel to find it, that opinion becomes worthless in this scenerio.  Abusing such a large, loyal viewerbase makes you an EXTRA huge tool.



http://www.youtube.com/ArloStuff

Metallox on 13 July 2016
Anfebious said:

They need to expose Rubius now! His opinions about Ubisoft games are awfully positive, that can't be right.

And the Germán guy does not play Nintendo games. I smell a dangerous bias there.



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

Around the Network
fatslob-:O on 13 July 2016

FWIW, anyone that has a bone to pick with PDP are mostly in the wrong ...



DivinePaladin on 14 July 2016
LurkerJ said:
DivinePaladin said:

While I agree with your other stances in this thread I have to disagree with your first bit here. The Pewdiepie Effect is a real thing that can cause a spike in game sales. He doesn't have to give a critical stance to immediately influence people to buy the game. 

His effect is undeniable. His effect is also seen with games that are NOT critically acclaimed, like Goat Simulator. He didn't make the game any better by playing it, he just gave it the exposure it needed. He can scream "this game is so bad" during the entire video and people will just go buy the game anyway. 

He was paid to play a game on camera and he did. WB wanted to advertize their game and he accepted their offer without giving a postive critique. Come on now, how is that video critical anyway? Calling it a critique is an insult to real critiques. 

critique
krɪˈtiːk/
noun
  
  1. 1.
    a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory.

I don't think you fully read my post. Reread the last sentence. I never said he WAS using any sort of critical thinking, I said that he doesn't have to be critical to have an effect. As somebody with that sort of effect on impressionable viewers, he should know better. People watch him for his gameplay and personality; it doesn't have to come with critical analysis here. If he's playing a game, like you said, people will buy it - and as somebody who was directly paid to play a game, he did need more disclosure. 

 

I still don't think we should string the guy up and call the mob - he did disclose, just not in the ideal way - but to insinuate that he needs to be critical in order for this practice to be a problem is a bit much. 



You should check out my YouTube channel, The Golden Bolt!  I review all types of video games, both classic and modern, and I also give short flyover reviews of the free games each month on PlayStation Plus to tell you if they're worth downloading.  After all, the games may be free, but your time is valuable!

smroadkill15 on 14 July 2016
LurkerJ said:
Just watched his response, he kicked ass.

He is obviously not happy with the slandering and very disappointed with how unprofessional some big news outlets can be just for the sake of generating clicks.

I also loved the "can we hate him now?" bit, because it hits right at home. It's so obvious that many of you never liked the guy for no particular reason, and for once, you thought you had a legitimate reason to justify your inexcusable hate, but let me tell you, it only makes you seem silly, and probably jealous.


This is the video he was paid to make: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUBdzQF0waU , and nothing is special about it, it's just like every other PewDiePie video. You can't even say he gave a Warner Bros' game special treatment.

Instead of attacking the guy, boycott the corrupt journalists who are misleading people, blatantly lying and harming the reputation of a harmless person.

I agree completely. PewDiePie was literally used as a name drop to get the clicks. Clearly without much research of their own, people jumped on the hate bandwagon. Even N4G admitted to how unprofessional the journalism was in this situation after they posted the original article on their website.

http://n4g.com/user/blogpost/christopher/538503

Even now, after it's been all cleared up, we still have those who try to make PewDiePie seem like the bad guy. I'm not saying you have to like the dude, but going around and still hating on him is simply wrong, and it shows your clear bais against him. 



Mr Puggsly on 14 July 2016
Arlo said:
Barkley said:

No he did not? He does not make reviews, he made a video the same as all of his other videos and the only thing he said about the game was "I had a lot of fun." Literally it.

Sorry you're right, it wasn't a review.  But he expressed an opinion that was paid for.  For all we know he had literally no fun at all.  That's what I'm saying is the problem here.  An opinion means literally nothing if it was paid for.  If I like to hear someone's opinion and look to their channel to find it, that opinion becomes worthless in this scenerio.  Abusing such a large, loyal viewerbase makes you an EXTRA huge tool.

I think the real problem is people are lumping him with actual gaming journalist. He's just a dude making fun videos for what I assume is primarily children. DO NOT goto Pewdiepie for a hard hitting criticism.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

LurkerJ on 14 July 2016
DivinePaladin said:
LurkerJ said:

His effect is undeniable. His effect is also seen with games that are NOT critically acclaimed, like Goat Simulator. He didn't make the game any better by playing it, he just gave it the exposure it needed. He can scream "this game is so bad" during the entire video and people will just go buy the game anyway. 

He was paid to play a game on camera and he did. WB wanted to advertize their game and he accepted their offer without giving a postive critique. Come on now, how is that video critical anyway? Calling it a critique is an insult to real critiques. 

critique
krɪˈtiːk/
noun
  
  1. 1.
    a detailed analysis and assessment of something, especially a literary, philosophical, or political theory.

I don't think you fully read my post. Reread the last sentence. I never said he WAS using any sort of critical thinking, I said that he doesn't have to be critical to have an effect. As somebody with that sort of effect on impressionable viewers, he should know better. People watch him for his gameplay and personality; it doesn't have to come with critical analysis here. If he's playing a game, like you said, people will buy it - and as somebody who was directly paid to play a game, he did need more disclosure. 

 

I still don't think we should string the guy up and call the mob - he did disclose, just not in the ideal way - but to insinuate that he needs to be critical in order for this practice to be a problem is a bit much. 

Most of my reply wasn't aimed at you. A lot of people here are giving PDP a hard time because people "Trust" him with to deliver honest "critiques", and now that trust is gone. Wat. That's not an angle you can tackle the issue from. 

Your angle, however, is valid. I don't agree with it, but it's valid. Why don't I agree? Because he disclosed, I would've read it if I watched the video, and if he didn't, no guidelines would've been broken either way. Not to mention, In later videos, he did those type of diclosures better and in a more obvious way, he followed the newly released guidelines period. Shouldn't we give him props for that?