After the repeated missteps of the mainstream game press, their insufferable identity politics and ethical lapses, many gamers saw YouTube as the shining beacon of consumer advice. These independent entrepreneurs seemed beholden to their fans and actually made more money when they gave them what they wanted. They are competent gamers, as evidenced by the fact that we actually see them play games. And they don’t frequently insult their audience. The difference between the top YouTubers and Twitch streamers and the liberal art dropout hacks at Polygon and Kotaku are striking.
But with the latest revelations that the FTC charged Warner Bros for failing to adequately disclose it paid YouTubers to post positive gameplay videos, it is hard to look at YouTube as the panacea to gaming’s consumer advice problem anymore.
Warner Bros payed YouTubers, the most influential being PewDiePie, thousands of dollars to play Shadow of Mordor. Some of the YouTubers did not disclose that the video was sponsored content. Those who did disclose (including PewDiePie) had the sponsored label — but it could only be seen after pressing the “Show More” button, so it could be assumed that many viewers were unaware of the fact.
As part of the contract these “influencers” were told to have “a strong verbal call-to-action to click the link in the description box for the viewer to go to the game’s website to learn more about the game… promote positive sentiment about the game… not show bugs or glitches that may exist… [and] not communicate negative sentiment about WBIE, its affiliates or the game.”
According to the FTC, consumers were misled into believing they were seeing unbiased gameplay reactions as opposed to shameless shilling.
This scandal follows on the heels of another controversy where two guys who owned a YouTube channel featured videos of them winning on a CS:GO gambling site, which they did not disclose they owned.
These ordeals bring to light the inherent problem of trusting individuals for consumer advice, especially those who rely on revenue sources as fickle as YouTube ad revenue and Patreon accounts. A YouTuber’s ethical code is a good as his/her word.
The FTC’s ruling is a good step, but the only ones with the collective will to keep these YouTubers in line long term are the viewers themselves — though they have few tools beyond an unclick of the subscriber button.
If journalists and YouTubers both fail to provide adequate consumer advice, we may just have to go back to the dark old days: Asking that one rich friend how the game is before shelling out 60 bucks on another dud.