Update 2:
More here, thanks to Hobbes in this post of the thread.
——
Update: Situation is still muddy but seems to be:
- -
The video has now been reuploaded (below). The only thing that's changed is the removal of the EA watermark so it seems something within it conflicted with the Gamechangers program.
Edit for clarity:
For some reason have seen a number derails defending EA as not being one of the worst companies in existence, which no one here has really made any real point of saying.
To add some context this is the only video of this content creator I've seen and certainly hold no affection for them. Nor is this a "defend him" thread. I made a point at the start of referencing how this is all apt in the face of a recent figure telling people they should trust influencers and the like over reviewers. People that are typically paid by a company to check out their game, over people working independently within industry establishments and the like (Kotaku, Gameinformer etc).
Yet we have one such person who is part of the EA Gamechangers program, posting a negative review of the game and it having been removed. I think that serves as a solid point for discussion. I also want to know whether this was supposed to be your standard promo-video that the content-creator then framed as a review, or whether EA are moving to actually paying people to assign good reviews and scores to shit/bad games.
If it's the latter then I have an issue with both sides of the camp, as muddying the waters with reviews that are paid to be posiitve is a blight on the industry regardless of whether the tactic employed elsewhere. I don't think because a bad practice is common, that it should be afforded complacency - as some have suggested in this thread.
Either way, this is a small crack in the veneer of 'EA Gamechangers' that gives us a peek into the underbelly. I think that's quite interesting as it's something we don't get too often, and don't have tabs on every deal EA has with different creators, but when they appear it's rarely in a favourable light.
More here, thanks to Hobbes in this post of the thread.
——
Update: Situation is still muddy but seems to be:
- Guy is an 'EA GameChanger' and received the game as part of this.
- Guy puts up negative Anthem review - according to users here this has the usual disclosure he's done in other videos
- EA demands he takes down the video, he complies.
- Guy claims he's blacklisted and video was taken down for being negative
- Guy reuploads the video without the EA watermarks and disclosure
- EA reaches out and says he isn't blacklisted and the issue wasn't with the content, instead with the disclosure
- Guy disputes this as disclosure was the same as prior videos that were more positive, and still up.
- End result so far is a review by a paid influencer with no disclosure.
- -
The video has now been reuploaded (below). The only thing that's changed is the removal of the EA watermark so it seems something within it conflicted with the Gamechangers program.
Edit for clarity:
For some reason have seen a number derails defending EA as not being one of the worst companies in existence, which no one here has really made any real point of saying.
To add some context this is the only video of this content creator I've seen and certainly hold no affection for them. Nor is this a "defend him" thread. I made a point at the start of referencing how this is all apt in the face of a recent figure telling people they should trust influencers and the like over reviewers. People that are typically paid by a company to check out their game, over people working independently within industry establishments and the like (Kotaku, Gameinformer etc).
Yet we have one such person who is part of the EA Gamechangers program, posting a negative review of the game and it having been removed. I think that serves as a solid point for discussion. I also want to know whether this was supposed to be your standard promo-video that the content-creator then framed as a review, or whether EA are moving to actually paying people to assign good reviews and scores to shit/bad games.
If it's the latter then I have an issue with both sides of the camp, as muddying the waters with reviews that are paid to be posiitve is a blight on the industry regardless of whether the tactic employed elsewhere. I don't think because a bad practice is common, that it should be afforded complacency - as some have suggested in this thread.
Either way, this is a small crack in the veneer of 'EA Gamechangers' that gives us a peek into the underbelly. I think that's quite interesting as it's something we don't get too often, and don't have tabs on every deal EA has with different creators, but when they appear it's rarely in a favourable light.
Last edited:
