Someone may have already said this, but I can't be bothered reading through all the pages. After thinking some more about this, I retract my earlier statement where I said I wish he would do this, but on his own terms.
I'm a bit disappointed that he's turning all this stuff down. I feel like he's being a bit stubborn now without realising the potential he can bring to the influencers programme.
Clearly he has a valued opinion by the community, and now also by EA, as he has been approached twice to do something and has been receiving reviewer copies of games. If his opinion wasn't valued by the company, then I don't think they would have approached him. He's even stated how he would like to see the game moving forward, yet he has turned down the opportunity to provide this input directly to EA.
He has clearly stated he doesn't want to be bought off or have his unfiltered opinions stymied through the influencer's programme, but surely he would know EA's intentions if he signed up and started participating, and if he didn't like the programme he could just terminate his contract. What does he have to lose if he did this? He doesn't have any bridges to burn with EA...
Is it the whole contract thing? I really don't know? I feel like he's playing hard to get and it's not working in anyone's favour at the moment.
Fair reply.
It is a shame that he turned it down for some oppertunities that he missed but he made his choice and he probably gave it some thought anyway.
Yes, he has most likely given it a lot of thought. The more I think about it the more I feel as though it's such a wasted opportunity.
I guess that it is something you would need to think about a few times over but as I said, the choice was his and not one anyone else should make for him.
Someone may have already said this, but I can't be bothered reading through all the pages. After thinking some more about this, I retract my earlier statement where I said I wish he would do this, but on his own terms.
I'm a bit disappointed that he's turning all this stuff down. I feel like he's being a bit stubborn now without realising the potential he can bring to the influencers programme.
Clearly he has a valued opinion by the community, and now also by EA, as he has been approached twice to do something and has been receiving reviewer copies of games. If his opinion wasn't valued by the company, then I don't think they would have approached him. He's even stated how he would like to see the game moving forward, yet he has turned down the opportunity to provide this input directly to EA.
He has clearly stated he doesn't want to be bought off or have his unfiltered opinions stymied through the influencer's programme, but surely he would know EA's intentions if he signed up and started participating, and if he didn't like the programme he could just terminate his contract. What does he have to lose if he did this? He doesn't have any bridges to burn with EA...
Is it the whole contract thing? I really don't know? I feel like he's playing hard to get and it's not working in anyone's favour at the moment.
He's not playing hard to get, he just recognizes the absurdity of it all.
I'm yet to see where he could come to the conclusion that it's absurd if he hasn't participated in it yet.
It's a contract, they have constraints, it's very obvious. Idk if you watch gamers play this game on YT but I have and I've stopped watching a lot of the 'popular' ones because I could just tell that something wasn't right with their opinions and overall "bubbliness" about the game even though they clearly were disappointed with some of its major shortcomings. That's why I only watch Simmers who aren't so 'mainstream.'
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
You're not the Only one who said it so no need to quote you only.
Someone may have already said this, but I can't be bothered reading through all the pages. After thinking some more about this, I retract my earlier statement where I said I wish he would do this, but on his own terms.
I'm a bit disappointed that he's turning all this stuff down. I feel like he's being a bit stubborn now without realising the potential he can bring to the influencers programme.
Clearly he has a valued opinion by the community, and now also by EA, as he has been approached twice to do something and has been receiving reviewer copies of games. If his opinion wasn't valued by the company, then I don't think they would have approached him. He's even stated how he would like to see the game moving forward, yet he has turned down the opportunity to provide this input directly to EA.
He has clearly stated he doesn't want to be bought off or have his unfiltered opinions stymied through the influencer's programme, but surely he would know EA's intentions if he signed up and started participating, and if he didn't like the programme he could just terminate his contract. What does he have to lose if he did this? He doesn't have any bridges to burn with EA...
Is it the whole contract thing? I really don't know? I feel like he's playing hard to get and it's not working in anyone's favour at the moment.
He's not playing hard to get, he just recognizes the absurdity of it all.
I'm yet to see where he could come to the conclusion that it's absurd if he hasn't participated in it yet.
It's a contract, they have constraints, it's very obvious. Idk if you watch gamers play this game on YT but I have and I've stopped watching a lot of the 'popular' ones because I could just tell that something wasn't right with their opinions and overall "bubbliness" about the game even though they clearly were disappointed with some of its major shortcomings. That's why I only watch Simmers who aren't so 'mainstream.'
I don't believe the constraints would be in regards to what kind of opinions they can share. If that was the case, then LGR, who most likely read the contract, would have stated. I believe he hasn't said anything like this. I think the restraints are more to do with future content they are asked to be involved with, which for obvious reasons, must be tied to a NDA.
I agree there is a lot of "bubbliness". I suspect this is because a YouTuber's channel and ties to EA press releases and events are their bread and butter, not because of a new contract. Then again, like @Rflong7 said, there are people who genuinely like the game and will happily state so. I have my reservations about TS4, but I enjoy playing it. Anyway, the topic as to whether a YouTuber genuinely likes the game or not is ambiguous as it is so it's not really a point you can address without making assumptions.
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
There's no doubt in my mind that some people are afraid to say too much negative stuff in their reviews so they don't lose whatever "in" they may have or whatever "in" they may think they can get, even. But that's on them. Based on comments from a few people here on the forums that have been to these events and signed NDA's before, I'd be surprised if Maxis makes them sign a contract to only say good things about their product, which is what a lot of people seem to conclude.
FTC guidelines are pretty clear about how to handle commercial endorsements. If EA were setting up contracts with reviewers to only give good reviews of their products, those reviews would be considered commercial advertising and have to be labelled clearly that this is the case:
If an endorser is acting on behalf of an advertiser, what she or he is saying is usually going to be commercial speech – and commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it’s deceptive. The FTC conducts investigations and brings cases involving endorsements under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which generally prohibits deceptive advertising.
Note that commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it's deceptive--taking money, expenses for a trip, free products, etc. in exchange for only giving good reviews about a product but never stating that you're being paid to advertise would be deceptive. For those who are interested, you can find more details here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
I only watch LGR, I did watch part of a build once, so I decided to go and see what's out there. I watched xUrbinSimsx The Sims 4 City Living trailer reaction. She basically went through the trailer pointing out the new stuff or what she thought was new and what she was excited about. It was alright but not something I would make a habit of doing. I can go through the trailer on my own I certainly don't need my hand held to do that.
In regards to LGR I went to his last video Two Years of Meh and I was going to ask him to tell more about his decision but someone else already had. Basically what he says is that he already makes suggestions with no strings attached, it doesn't make a difference, it's up to them if they want to listen. They wanted him to sign contractual NDA's that would be a conflict of interest because he makes his living on reviewing these exact things. So I don't think he sees it as a missed opportunity for him, I think he sees it as a missed opportunity for The Sims and The Sims fans. I believe he really cares about the game.
They want him to sign a nondisclosure agreement. Business way of controlling what people say to others about their product.
Uh... no. It's just that he can't speak about the pack itself until a certain date. Sort of a standard business practice for any early access event. -_-
he said no for a reason; and what is different ?
He would still be commenting on their products.
He obviously thought something made a difference
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
There's no doubt in my mind that some people are afraid to say too much negative stuff in their reviews so they don't lose whatever "in" they may have or whatever "in" they may think they can get, even. But that's on them. Based on comments from a few people here on the forums that have been to these events and signed NDA's before, I'd be surprised if Maxis makes them sign a contract to only say good things about their product, which is what a lot of people seem to conclude.
FTC guidelines are pretty clear about how to handle commercial endorsements. If EA were setting up contracts with reviewers to only give good reviews of their products, those reviews would be considered commercial advertising and have to be labelled clearly that this is the case:
If an endorser is acting on behalf of an advertiser, what she or he is saying is usually going to be commercial speech – and commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it’s deceptive. The FTC conducts investigations and brings cases involving endorsements under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which generally prohibits deceptive advertising.
Note that commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it's deceptive--taking money, expenses for a trip, free products, etc. in exchange for only giving good reviews about a product but never stating that you're being paid to advertise would be deceptive. For those who are interested, you can find more details here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
Also deceptive would be on Friday you said the game was meh but on following Monday after you signed a commercial speech contract with EA you said the game was glowing.
And we can go back about a year and see where you said the game was meh, but now we are hearing you describe it in glowing terms.
Not to put LGR down in anyway but that would be an example of deceptive commercial speech as well.
I only watch LGR, I did watch part of a build once, so I decided to go and see what's out there. I watched xUrbinSimsx The Sims 4 City Living trailer reaction. She basically went through the trailer pointing out the new stuff or what she thought was new and what she was excited about. It was alright but not something I would make a habit of doing. I can go through the trailer on my own I certainly don't need my hand held to do that.
In regards to LGR I went to his last video Two Years of Meh and I was going to ask him to tell more about his decision but someone else already had. Basically what he says is that he already makes suggestions with no strings attached, it doesn't make a difference, it's up to them if they want to listen. They wanted him to sign contractual NDA's that would be a conflict of interest because he makes his living on reviewing these exact things. So I don't think he sees it as a missed opportunity for him, I think he sees it as a missed opportunity for The Sims and The Sims fans. I believe he really cares about the game.
think so too. I could hear it in his voice on one video and I'm pretty sure it was a video where he told how long he had been playing the games, and how much he cares, because he said everyone was saying he was hateful or something. He explained no, he doesn't do it because he hates the game, he does it because he loves it.
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
There's no doubt in my mind that some people are afraid to say too much negative stuff in their reviews so they don't lose whatever "in" they may have or whatever "in" they may think they can get, even. But that's on them. Based on comments from a few people here on the forums that have been to these events and signed NDA's before, I'd be surprised if Maxis makes them sign a contract to only say good things about their product, which is what a lot of people seem to conclude.
FTC guidelines are pretty clear about how to handle commercial endorsements. If EA were setting up contracts with reviewers to only give good reviews of their products, those reviews would be considered commercial advertising and have to be labelled clearly that this is the case:
If an endorser is acting on behalf of an advertiser, what she or he is saying is usually going to be commercial speech – and commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it’s deceptive. The FTC conducts investigations and brings cases involving endorsements under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which generally prohibits deceptive advertising.
Note that commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it's deceptive--taking money, expenses for a trip, free products, etc. in exchange for only giving good reviews about a product but never stating that you're being paid to advertise would be deceptive. For those who are interested, you can find more details here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
Also deceptive would be on Friday you said the game was meh but on following Monday after you signed a commercial speech contract with EA you said the game was glowing.
And we can go back about a year and see where you said the game was meh, but now we are hearing you describe it in glowing terms.
Not to put LGR down in anyway but that would be an example of deceptive commercial speech as well.
Well, I would find that deceptive on the part of the reviewer if they totally changed their stance on the game itself after accepting a position as influencer or receiving some kind of compensation for doing the review but, again, I would assume it was the influencer taking that on themselves rather than EA telling them what to say.
However, if LGR, for instance, got accepted as an influencer or accepted the trip to this upcoming event and then turned around and made a video about how much he enjoyed CL after it came out, I would assume he's being honest. Unless every review he did after that was overly "glowing" about the packs and he started saying the game was fixed and perfect now, I'd still assume that he was being honest. But I mentioned before, I have a tendency to assume people are being honest until they prove otherwise.
Origin ID: ebuchala I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
There's no doubt in my mind that some people are afraid to say too much negative stuff in their reviews so they don't lose whatever "in" they may have or whatever "in" they may think they can get, even. But that's on them. Based on comments from a few people here on the forums that have been to these events and signed NDA's before, I'd be surprised if Maxis makes them sign a contract to only say good things about their product, which is what a lot of people seem to conclude.
FTC guidelines are pretty clear about how to handle commercial endorsements. If EA were setting up contracts with reviewers to only give good reviews of their products, those reviews would be considered commercial advertising and have to be labelled clearly that this is the case:
If an endorser is acting on behalf of an advertiser, what she or he is saying is usually going to be commercial speech – and commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it’s deceptive. The FTC conducts investigations and brings cases involving endorsements under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which generally prohibits deceptive advertising.
Note that commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it's deceptive--taking money, expenses for a trip, free products, etc. in exchange for only giving good reviews about a product but never stating that you're being paid to advertise would be deceptive. For those who are interested, you can find more details here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
Also deceptive would be on Friday you said the game was meh but on following Monday after you signed a commercial speech contract with EA you said the game was glowing.
And we can go back about a year and see where you said the game was meh, but now we are hearing you describe it in glowing terms.
Not to put LGR down in anyway but that would be an example of deceptive commercial speech as well.
Well, I would find that deceptive on the part of the reviewer if they totally changed their stance on the game itself after accepting a position as influencer or receiving some kind of compensation for doing the review but, again, I would assume it was the influencer taking that on themselves rather than EA telling them what to say.
However, if LGR, for instance, got accepted as an influencer or accepted the trip to this upcoming event and then turned around and made a video about how much he enjoyed CL after it came out, I would assume he's being honest. Unless every review he did after that was overly "glowing" about the packs and he started saying the game was fixed and perfect now, I'd still assume that he was being honest. But I mentioned before, I have a tendency to assume people are being honest until they prove otherwise.
right right, and how would FTC view it if they reviewed past vids which were saying meh then he gets contract & everything is glowing
thereafter ? I know I'd be wondering.
edited: you have a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt & that's good
FTC would not investigate that far back unless they have "cause" or a reason to
But the thing is LGR would have to live with himself and his conscience. I think he really loves the game;
and maybe even knows a little of what an "influencer" is; after all the definition in built right into the name.
Its not rocket science. And maybe he feels he just can't in good conscience do it.
As I said before he said no for a reason. On the surface nothing would have changed because he'd still be giving reviews for EA products, but he evidently knows something we don't that caused him to make that choice.
I wish him all the best of luck & hope he can hold out & be strong against the pressure they will be sure to try to
exert if that is his hearts desire.
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
There's no doubt in my mind that some people are afraid to say too much negative stuff in their reviews so they don't lose whatever "in" they may have or whatever "in" they may think they can get, even. But that's on them. Based on comments from a few people here on the forums that have been to these events and signed NDA's before, I'd be surprised if Maxis makes them sign a contract to only say good things about their product, which is what a lot of people seem to conclude.
FTC guidelines are pretty clear about how to handle commercial endorsements. If EA were setting up contracts with reviewers to only give good reviews of their products, those reviews would be considered commercial advertising and have to be labelled clearly that this is the case:
If an endorser is acting on behalf of an advertiser, what she or he is saying is usually going to be commercial speech – and commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it’s deceptive. The FTC conducts investigations and brings cases involving endorsements under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which generally prohibits deceptive advertising.
Note that commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it's deceptive--taking money, expenses for a trip, free products, etc. in exchange for only giving good reviews about a product but never stating that you're being paid to advertise would be deceptive. For those who are interested, you can find more details here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
Also deceptive would be on Friday you said the game was meh but on following Monday after you signed a commercial speech contract with EA you said the game was glowing.
And we can go back about a year and see where you said the game was meh, but now we are hearing you describe it in glowing terms.
Not to put LGR down in anyway but that would be an example of deceptive commercial speech as well.
Well, I would find that deceptive on the part of the reviewer if they totally changed their stance on the game itself after accepting a position as influencer or receiving some kind of compensation for doing the review but, again, I would assume it was the influencer taking that on themselves rather than EA telling them what to say.
However, if LGR, for instance, got accepted as an influencer or accepted the trip to this upcoming event and then turned around and made a video about how much he enjoyed CL after it came out, I would assume he's being honest. Unless every review he did after that was overly "glowing" about the packs and he started saying the game was fixed and perfect now, I'd still assume that he was being honest. But I mentioned before, I have a tendency to assume people are being honest until they prove otherwise.
right right, and how would FTC view it if they reviewed past vids which were saying meh then he gets contract & everything is glowing
thereafter ? I know I'd be wondering.
I honestly don't know. I suspect they'd review the contract, though I'd be surprised if any company actually put something like that in writing. But did you read that article I posted about Warner Bros getting in trouble for exactly that? They paid tens of thousands of dollars to youtubers (including Pewdiepie, or however you spell his name) to give positive only reviews, no bugs or glitches, hidden disclosures, etc. FTC managed to scrounge up the details somewhere (maybe "talking" to the youtubers who got paid), so I imagine if it were a real issue, it would come out eventually.
Origin ID: ebuchala I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
There's no doubt in my mind that some people are afraid to say too much negative stuff in their reviews so they don't lose whatever "in" they may have or whatever "in" they may think they can get, even. But that's on them. Based on comments from a few people here on the forums that have been to these events and signed NDA's before, I'd be surprised if Maxis makes them sign a contract to only say good things about their product, which is what a lot of people seem to conclude.
FTC guidelines are pretty clear about how to handle commercial endorsements. If EA were setting up contracts with reviewers to only give good reviews of their products, those reviews would be considered commercial advertising and have to be labelled clearly that this is the case:
If an endorser is acting on behalf of an advertiser, what she or he is saying is usually going to be commercial speech – and commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it’s deceptive. The FTC conducts investigations and brings cases involving endorsements under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which generally prohibits deceptive advertising.
Note that commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it's deceptive--taking money, expenses for a trip, free products, etc. in exchange for only giving good reviews about a product but never stating that you're being paid to advertise would be deceptive. For those who are interested, you can find more details here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
Also deceptive would be on Friday you said the game was meh but on following Monday after you signed a commercial speech contract with EA you said the game was glowing.
And we can go back about a year and see where you said the game was meh, but now we are hearing you describe it in glowing terms.
Not to put LGR down in anyway but that would be an example of deceptive commercial speech as well.
Well, I would find that deceptive on the part of the reviewer if they totally changed their stance on the game itself after accepting a position as influencer or receiving some kind of compensation for doing the review but, again, I would assume it was the influencer taking that on themselves rather than EA telling them what to say.
However, if LGR, for instance, got accepted as an influencer or accepted the trip to this upcoming event and then turned around and made a video about how much he enjoyed CL after it came out, I would assume he's being honest. Unless every review he did after that was overly "glowing" about the packs and he started saying the game was fixed and perfect now, I'd still assume that he was being honest. But I mentioned before, I have a tendency to assume people are being honest until they prove otherwise.
right right, and how would FTC view it if they reviewed past vids which were saying meh then he gets contract & everything is glowing
thereafter ? I know I'd be wondering.
I honestly don't know. I suspect they'd review the contract, though I'd be surprised if any company actually put something like that in writing. But did you read that article I posted about Warner Bros getting in trouble for exactly that? They paid tens of thousands of dollars to youtubers (including Pewdiepie, or however you spell his name) to give positive only reviews, no bugs or glitches, hidden disclosures, etc. FTC managed to scrounge up the details somewhere (maybe "talking" to the youtubers who got paid), so I imagine if it were a real issue, it would come out eventually.
oh it will definitely come out, there are a lot of people mad at EA enough to talk about it but FTC will not investigate just because.
They need cause, whether or not they eventually get cause; a reason to suspect wrongdoing they won't even bother.
Plus EA is a big company, they might even lobby congress or FTC for more lenient rules.
What is so funny is this, EA constracts are pretty reasonable, last creators camp they made everyone sign a non disclosure agreement, on what was allowed when how and what time. So since the City Living is announced you can freely talk about city living and your personal opinions on the subject, but you can't discuss what hasn't been shown. I know I never been to a creators camp and would like to go, but I need a certain amount of followers to be invited to creators camp. I heard about the policy from those that went.
Sid1701d-"I love my life, live my life and live to play, laugh and have fun."
"Love will Fight, Love will Win and Love will Survive."
Do you guys know about Warner Bros and PewDiePie? Basically Warner Bros paid PewDiePie and other influencers lots of money and gave them advanced copies if Shadows of Mordor for positive reviews. This got the FTC involved. Basically, PewDiePie and all those let's players are paid advertising. And they don't follow the FTC rules because they don't have #sponsored or let viewers know they were actually watching a really long boring commercial. Warner Bros also told their influencers to only show the game in a positive light, do not disclose bugs and glitches, and preapproved the content.
Now...I'm not saying that is what is happening with EA. But this is the reality of being an influencer and what viewers...at least ones that read the news and understand business think of this way of marketing. LGR is most likely protecting himself from losing credibility.
@faytheful I'm not sure if you've ever had to sign an NDA, but I have a feeling that you might be confusing it with something else. I've signed NDA's before, and it's basically me promising that anything I encounter during my testing experience was kept to myself until the release of the product. Basically, if I intentionally blabbed in public about what I got to see; then the company could sue for me breach of contract.
Now, I have to say that I respect Clint's decision. I hope that he's able to pay for his own way there and experience the event, as I believe that EA might at least listen to what he has to say (whether they act on it is another story).
But I can also recognize his reluctance to accept EA's offer to cover travel expenses. If he's getting guff about accepting free copies from EA, whether it's a limited copy or his to own forever, then imagine the guff he'd get about his eventual review after the NDA is lifted if he happened to enjoy the EP.
It's a plum if you do, plum if you don't scenario for Clint. So, he's being cautious and not accepting the invitation.
@faytheful I'm not sure if you've ever had to sign an NDA, but I have a feeling that you might be confusing it with something else. I've signed NDA's before, and it's basically me promising that anything I encounter during my testing experience was kept to myself until the release of the product. Basically, if I intentionally blabbed in public about what I got to see; then the company could sue for me breach of contract.
Now, I have to say that I respect Clint's decision. I hope that he's able to pay for his own way there and experience the event, as I believe that EA might at least listen to what he has to say (whether they act on it is another story).
But I can also recognize his reluctance to accept EA's offer to cover travel expenses. If he's getting guff about accepting free copies from EA, whether it's a limited copy or his to own forever, then imagine the guff he'd get about his eventual review after the NDA is lifted if he happened to enjoy the EP.
It's a plum if you do, plum if you don't scenario for Clint. So, he's being cautious and not accepting the invitation.
Yes. This is exactly what I'm thinking about here. I think that if his fanbase actually trusted him enough to have expenses paid by EA without having his opinion influenced, he would've taken this. After all, people have been saying why he hasn't been invited to any of these events, then when he does, they applaud him for not going!?
Just some random Simmer you probably don't even follow on the gallery! Gallery name's the same as my username! Did I just rhyme there?
@faytheful I'm not sure if you've ever had to sign an NDA, but I have a feeling that you might be confusing it with something else. I've signed NDA's before, and it's basically me promising that anything I encounter during my testing experience was kept to myself until the release of the product. Basically, if I intentionally blabbed in public about what I got to see; then the company could sue for me breach of contract.
Now, I have to say that I respect Clint's decision. I hope that he's able to pay for his own way there and experience the event, as I believe that EA might at least listen to what he has to say (whether they act on it is another story).
But I can also recognize his reluctance to accept EA's offer to cover travel expenses. If he's getting guff about accepting free copies from EA, whether it's a limited copy or his to own forever, then imagine the guff he'd get about his eventual review after the NDA is lifted if he happened to enjoy the EP.
It's a plum if you do, plum if you don't scenario for Clint. So, he's being cautious and not accepting the invitation.
And he's in good standing not to accept imo but he has to do what's right for him
but here's the deal with the contracts they may seem minor; but that could only be if they were short term
I don't know the shortest term of their contracts but most last about 12 months then are renewed.
That would be very hard on LGR if he found something that was meh and couldn't say it. I believe that'd eat him up from the
inside.
No I think he did the right thing, and he should be cautious. Remember EA likes to be in control & businesses or people who like to
be in control do not accept the word no.
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
There's no doubt in my mind that some people are afraid to say too much negative stuff in their reviews so they don't lose whatever "in" they may have or whatever "in" they may think they can get, even. But that's on them. Based on comments from a few people here on the forums that have been to these events and signed NDA's before, I'd be surprised if Maxis makes them sign a contract to only say good things about their product, which is what a lot of people seem to conclude.
FTC guidelines are pretty clear about how to handle commercial endorsements. If EA were setting up contracts with reviewers to only give good reviews of their products, those reviews would be considered commercial advertising and have to be labelled clearly that this is the case:
If an endorser is acting on behalf of an advertiser, what she or he is saying is usually going to be commercial speech – and commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it’s deceptive. The FTC conducts investigations and brings cases involving endorsements under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which generally prohibits deceptive advertising.
Note that commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it's deceptive--taking money, expenses for a trip, free products, etc. in exchange for only giving good reviews about a product but never stating that you're being paid to advertise would be deceptive. For those who are interested, you can find more details here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
Also deceptive would be on Friday you said the game was meh but on following Monday after you signed a commercial speech contract with EA you said the game was glowing.
And we can go back about a year and see where you said the game was meh, but now we are hearing you describe it in glowing terms.
Not to put LGR down in anyway but that would be an example of deceptive commercial speech as well.
Well, I would find that deceptive on the part of the reviewer if they totally changed their stance on the game itself after accepting a position as influencer or receiving some kind of compensation for doing the review but, again, I would assume it was the influencer taking that on themselves rather than EA telling them what to say.
However, if LGR, for instance, got accepted as an influencer or accepted the trip to this upcoming event and then turned around and made a video about how much he enjoyed CL after it came out, I would assume he's being honest. Unless every review he did after that was overly "glowing" about the packs and he started saying the game was fixed and perfect now, I'd still assume that he was being honest. But I mentioned before, I have a tendency to assume people are being honest until they prove otherwise.
right right, and how would FTC view it if they reviewed past vids which were saying meh then he gets contract & everything is glowing
thereafter ? I know I'd be wondering.
I honestly don't know. I suspect they'd review the contract, though I'd be surprised if any company actually put something like that in writing. But did you read that article I posted about Warner Bros getting in trouble for exactly that? They paid tens of thousands of dollars to youtubers (including Pewdiepie, or however you spell his name) to give positive only reviews, no bugs or glitches, hidden disclosures, etc. FTC managed to scrounge up the details somewhere (maybe "talking" to the youtubers who got paid), so I imagine if it were a real issue, it would come out eventually.
oh it will definitely come out, there are a lot of people mad at EA enough to talk about it but FTC will not investigate just because.
They need cause, whether or not they eventually get cause; a reason to suspect wrongdoing they won't even bother.
Plus EA is a big company, they might even lobby congress or FTC for more lenient rules.
I don't really believe EA is doing something like Warner Brothers did, though. But I do understand if LGR is trying to separate himself from even the hint of something like that.
ETA: Also, Warner Bros is huge with a slew of lawyers on their payroll which is why they managed to get away with a slap on the wrist.
Origin ID: ebuchala I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
@faytheful I'm not sure if you've ever had to sign an NDA, but I have a feeling that you might be confusing it with something else. I've signed NDA's before, and it's basically me promising that anything I encounter during my testing experience was kept to myself until the release of the product. Basically, if I intentionally blabbed in public about what I got to see; then the company could sue for me breach of contract.
Now, I have to say that I respect Clint's decision. I hope that he's able to pay for his own way there and experience the event, as I believe that EA might at least listen to what he has to say (whether they act on it is another story).
But I can also recognize his reluctance to accept EA's offer to cover travel expenses. If he's getting guff about accepting free copies from EA, whether it's a limited copy or his to own forever, then imagine the guff he'd get about his eventual review after the NDA is lifted if he happened to enjoy the EP.
It's a plum if you do, plum if you don't scenario for Clint. So, he's being cautious and not accepting the invitation.
Yes. This is exactly what I'm thinking about here. I think that if his fanbase actually trusted him enough to have expenses paid by EA without having his opinion influenced, he would've taken this. After all, people have been saying why he hasn't been invited to any of these events, then when he does, they applaud him for not going!?
he might not have though. But who knows what financial situation anyone is in. If he accepts it I won't be angry with him, but
then again I'm not a fan per se either. I've watched I think about 4 of his vids max. I just admire his propensity for being forthright.
If EA knows he has a huge fan base they will keep up the pressure. Will he eventually accept ? Who knows, but he has to make
whatever choice he feels is right for himself.
Will he be able to maintain his forthrightness if he accepts EA's offer ? Who knows. Only he knows that.
But not everyone is for sale. Look at the modder Twallan. I have much respect for him and his craft, his mods are outstanding.
He fixed a lot of the errors in coding with core mods to the game.
They offered him a position he said no.
:sigh: There are people who LOVE this game and dismissing their happy game play disrespects both views. If one can be dismissed out of hand because they're always happy (which could be their honest view) and it doesn't match your view of not being great, saying someone who does... it's just so double standard.
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
There's no doubt in my mind that some people are afraid to say too much negative stuff in their reviews so they don't lose whatever "in" they may have or whatever "in" they may think they can get, even. But that's on them. Based on comments from a few people here on the forums that have been to these events and signed NDA's before, I'd be surprised if Maxis makes them sign a contract to only say good things about their product, which is what a lot of people seem to conclude.
FTC guidelines are pretty clear about how to handle commercial endorsements. If EA were setting up contracts with reviewers to only give good reviews of their products, those reviews would be considered commercial advertising and have to be labelled clearly that this is the case:
If an endorser is acting on behalf of an advertiser, what she or he is saying is usually going to be commercial speech – and commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it’s deceptive. The FTC conducts investigations and brings cases involving endorsements under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which generally prohibits deceptive advertising.
Note that commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it's deceptive--taking money, expenses for a trip, free products, etc. in exchange for only giving good reviews about a product but never stating that you're being paid to advertise would be deceptive. For those who are interested, you can find more details here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
Also deceptive would be on Friday you said the game was meh but on following Monday after you signed a commercial speech contract with EA you said the game was glowing.
And we can go back about a year and see where you said the game was meh, but now we are hearing you describe it in glowing terms.
Not to put LGR down in anyway but that would be an example of deceptive commercial speech as well.
Well, I would find that deceptive on the part of the reviewer if they totally changed their stance on the game itself after accepting a position as influencer or receiving some kind of compensation for doing the review but, again, I would assume it was the influencer taking that on themselves rather than EA telling them what to say.
However, if LGR, for instance, got accepted as an influencer or accepted the trip to this upcoming event and then turned around and made a video about how much he enjoyed CL after it came out, I would assume he's being honest. Unless every review he did after that was overly "glowing" about the packs and he started saying the game was fixed and perfect now, I'd still assume that he was being honest. But I mentioned before, I have a tendency to assume people are being honest until they prove otherwise.
right right, and how would FTC view it if they reviewed past vids which were saying meh then he gets contract & everything is glowing
thereafter ? I know I'd be wondering.
I honestly don't know. I suspect they'd review the contract, though I'd be surprised if any company actually put something like that in writing. But did you read that article I posted about Warner Bros getting in trouble for exactly that? They paid tens of thousands of dollars to youtubers (including Pewdiepie, or however you spell his name) to give positive only reviews, no bugs or glitches, hidden disclosures, etc. FTC managed to scrounge up the details somewhere (maybe "talking" to the youtubers who got paid), so I imagine if it were a real issue, it would come out eventually.
oh it will definitely come out, there are a lot of people mad at EA enough to talk about it but FTC will not investigate just because.
They need cause, whether or not they eventually get cause; a reason to suspect wrongdoing they won't even bother.
Plus EA is a big company, they might even lobby congress or FTC for more lenient rules.
I don't really believe EA is doing something like Warner Brothers did, though. But I do understand if LGR is trying to separate himself from even the hint of something like that.
ETA: Also, Warner Bros is huge with a slew of lawyers on their payroll which is why they managed to get away with a slap on the wrist.
Who knows what's going on @ EA ? Just learned all the execs get paid in excess of 1M annually.
Kind of made me refocus on the topic of toddlers... but with LGR I think maybe he's trying to remain true to himself & his opinions of
what he feels is a "meh" game as he says. Meaning its neither hot nor cold. And he will have to make the choice that is right for himself
and his family if he has one. A choice that would allow him to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday.
Wouldn't be so much of a hard choice if they gave him another game to review. This one is so controversial. And maybe he should
opt in for that....but at the end of the day, its his choice.
Comments
I guess that it is something you would need to think about a few times over but as I said, the choice was his and not one anyone else should make for him.
It's a contract, they have constraints, it's very obvious. Idk if you watch gamers play this game on YT but I have and I've stopped watching a lot of the 'popular' ones because I could just tell that something wasn't right with their opinions and overall "bubbliness" about the game even though they clearly were disappointed with some of its major shortcomings. That's why I only watch Simmers who aren't so 'mainstream.'
If they love the game and are happy, they should be able to give a review that is all bubbly and rainbows. If they're not happy and they don't like it, they give their view....
So... smh around here.
Feel free to quote me. That's not what I'm saying, at all. I'm saying that I genuinely feel that some of these "influencers" / Youtubers or whatever that heck they are... Are being told to project a certain view. Maybe I'm wrong but... I have my right to be skeptical.
Every video is like "Oh yeah guys this pack is lacking but omg the slip n' slide is so cool..." or "This is great, you can go buy this pack for $xx.xx at .... " Etc.... That's sketchy to me.
You're not the Only one who said it so no need to quote you only.
I don't believe the constraints would be in regards to what kind of opinions they can share. If that was the case, then LGR, who most likely read the contract, would have stated. I believe he hasn't said anything like this. I think the restraints are more to do with future content they are asked to be involved with, which for obvious reasons, must be tied to a NDA.
I agree there is a lot of "bubbliness". I suspect this is because a YouTuber's channel and ties to EA press releases and events are their bread and butter, not because of a new contract. Then again, like @Rflong7 said, there are people who genuinely like the game and will happily state so. I have my reservations about TS4, but I enjoy playing it. Anyway, the topic as to whether a YouTuber genuinely likes the game or not is ambiguous as it is so it's not really a point you can address without making assumptions.
edit: Yay, my 1000th post. Congratulations to me
The Sims has always been an important part of my life, and may it continue to be so! Long live Sims!
[Due to some kind of glitch, I am unable to insert photos into my signature for some reason.]
I said it before and I'll say it again. I think LGR meant what he said when he said he was done.
There's no doubt in my mind that some people are afraid to say too much negative stuff in their reviews so they don't lose whatever "in" they may have or whatever "in" they may think they can get, even. But that's on them. Based on comments from a few people here on the forums that have been to these events and signed NDA's before, I'd be surprised if Maxis makes them sign a contract to only say good things about their product, which is what a lot of people seem to conclude.
FTC guidelines are pretty clear about how to handle commercial endorsements. If EA were setting up contracts with reviewers to only give good reviews of their products, those reviews would be considered commercial advertising and have to be labelled clearly that this is the case:
If an endorser is acting on behalf of an advertiser, what she or he is saying is usually going to be commercial speech – and commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it’s deceptive. The FTC conducts investigations and brings cases involving endorsements under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which generally prohibits deceptive advertising.
Note that commercial speech violates the FTC Act if it's deceptive--taking money, expenses for a trip, free products, etc. in exchange for only giving good reviews about a product but never stating that you're being paid to advertise would be deceptive. For those who are interested, you can find more details here: https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business-center/guidance/ftcs-endorsement-guides-what-people-are-asking
And here's what NOT to do: https://www.searchenginejournal.com/influencer-marketing-disclosure/168190/
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
In regards to LGR I went to his last video Two Years of Meh and I was going to ask him to tell more about his decision but someone else already had. Basically what he says is that he already makes suggestions with no strings attached, it doesn't make a difference, it's up to them if they want to listen. They wanted him to sign contractual NDA's that would be a conflict of interest because he makes his living on reviewing these exact things. So I don't think he sees it as a missed opportunity for him, I think he sees it as a missed opportunity for The Sims and The Sims fans. I believe he really cares about the game.
he said no for a reason; and what is different ?
He would still be commenting on their products.
He obviously thought something made a difference
Also deceptive would be on Friday you said the game was meh but on following Monday after you signed a commercial speech contract with EA you said the game was glowing.
And we can go back about a year and see where you said the game was meh, but now we are hearing you describe it in glowing terms.
Not to put LGR down in anyway but that would be an example of deceptive commercial speech as well.
think so too. I could hear it in his voice on one video and I'm pretty sure it was a video where he told how long he had been playing the games, and how much he cares, because he said everyone was saying he was hateful or something. He explained no, he doesn't do it because he hates the game, he does it because he loves it.
Well, I would find that deceptive on the part of the reviewer if they totally changed their stance on the game itself after accepting a position as influencer or receiving some kind of compensation for doing the review but, again, I would assume it was the influencer taking that on themselves rather than EA telling them what to say.
However, if LGR, for instance, got accepted as an influencer or accepted the trip to this upcoming event and then turned around and made a video about how much he enjoyed CL after it came out, I would assume he's being honest. Unless every review he did after that was overly "glowing" about the packs and he started saying the game was fixed and perfect now, I'd still assume that he was being honest. But I mentioned before, I have a tendency to assume people are being honest until they prove otherwise.
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
right right, and how would FTC view it if they reviewed past vids which were saying meh then he gets contract & everything is glowing
thereafter ? I know I'd be wondering.
edited: you have a tendency to give the benefit of the doubt & that's good
FTC would not investigate that far back unless they have "cause" or a reason to
But the thing is LGR would have to live with himself and his conscience. I think he really loves the game;
and maybe even knows a little of what an "influencer" is; after all the definition in built right into the name.
Its not rocket science. And maybe he feels he just can't in good conscience do it.
As I said before he said no for a reason. On the surface nothing would have changed because he'd still be giving reviews for EA products, but he evidently knows something we don't that caused him to make that choice.
I wish him all the best of luck & hope he can hold out & be strong against the pressure they will be sure to try to
exert if that is his hearts desire.
I honestly don't know. I suspect they'd review the contract, though I'd be surprised if any company actually put something like that in writing. But did you read that article I posted about Warner Bros getting in trouble for exactly that? They paid tens of thousands of dollars to youtubers (including Pewdiepie, or however you spell his name) to give positive only reviews, no bugs or glitches, hidden disclosures, etc. FTC managed to scrounge up the details somewhere (maybe "talking" to the youtubers who got paid), so I imagine if it were a real issue, it would come out eventually.
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
oh it will definitely come out, there are a lot of people mad at EA enough to talk about it but FTC will not investigate just because.
They need cause, whether or not they eventually get cause; a reason to suspect wrongdoing they won't even bother.
Plus EA is a big company, they might even lobby congress or FTC for more lenient rules.
"Love will Fight, Love will Win and Love will Survive."
Now...I'm not saying that is what is happening with EA. But this is the reality of being an influencer and what viewers...at least ones that read the news and understand business think of this way of marketing. LGR is most likely protecting himself from losing credibility.
Now, I have to say that I respect Clint's decision. I hope that he's able to pay for his own way there and experience the event, as I believe that EA might at least listen to what he has to say (whether they act on it is another story).
But I can also recognize his reluctance to accept EA's offer to cover travel expenses. If he's getting guff about accepting free copies from EA, whether it's a limited copy or his to own forever, then imagine the guff he'd get about his eventual review after the NDA is lifted if he happened to enjoy the EP.
It's a plum if you do, plum if you don't scenario for Clint. So, he's being cautious and not accepting the invitation.
Yes. This is exactly what I'm thinking about here. I think that if his fanbase actually trusted him enough to have expenses paid by EA without having his opinion influenced, he would've taken this. After all, people have been saying why he hasn't been invited to any of these events, then when he does, they applaud him for not going!?
And he's in good standing not to accept imo but he has to do what's right for him
but here's the deal with the contracts they may seem minor; but that could only be if they were short term
I don't know the shortest term of their contracts but most last about 12 months then are renewed.
That would be very hard on LGR if he found something that was meh and couldn't say it. I believe that'd eat him up from the
inside.
No I think he did the right thing, and he should be cautious. Remember EA likes to be in control & businesses or people who like to
be in control do not accept the word no.
I don't really believe EA is doing something like Warner Brothers did, though. But I do understand if LGR is trying to separate himself from even the hint of something like that.
ETA: Also, Warner Bros is huge with a slew of lawyers on their payroll which is why they managed to get away with a slap on the wrist.
I'm not a psychopath. I'm a high-functioning psychopath. Reaper
he might not have though. But who knows what financial situation anyone is in. If he accepts it I won't be angry with him, but
then again I'm not a fan per se either. I've watched I think about 4 of his vids max. I just admire his propensity for being forthright.
If EA knows he has a huge fan base they will keep up the pressure. Will he eventually accept ? Who knows, but he has to make
whatever choice he feels is right for himself.
Will he be able to maintain his forthrightness if he accepts EA's offer ? Who knows. Only he knows that.
But not everyone is for sale. Look at the modder Twallan. I have much respect for him and his craft, his mods are outstanding.
He fixed a lot of the errors in coding with core mods to the game.
They offered him a position he said no.
Who knows what's going on @ EA ? Just learned all the execs get paid in excess of 1M annually.
Kind of made me refocus on the topic of toddlers... but with LGR I think maybe he's trying to remain true to himself & his opinions of
what he feels is a "meh" game as he says. Meaning its neither hot nor cold. And he will have to make the choice that is right for himself
and his family if he has one. A choice that would allow him to be able to look at himself in the mirror everyday.
Wouldn't be so much of a hard choice if they gave him another game to review. This one is so controversial. And maybe he should
opt in for that....but at the end of the day, its his choice.