microsoft and machinima

I think the most important thing is that this doesnt just apply to MS or just to a single multi-channel outfit like Machinima, they are the ones that have been caught plain and simple (purely because their stupid UK CM decided to publically tweet the offer).

How standard this is on Youtube (and other new medias) is what Im wondering as paid-for endorsements/promotions are fine if they are disclosed, but that doesnt seem to be what is happening here...

I guess its really hard to trust anyone opinion if they have something possible to gain from it - I think thats naively what we thought didnt happen on Youtube for people we just thought were the 'average joe'...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
ps3ud0 said:
I think the most important thing is that this doesnt just apply to MS or just to a single multi-channel outfit like Machinima, they are the ones that have been caught plain and simple (purely because their stupid UK CM decided to publically tweet the offer).

How standard this is on Youtube (and other new medias) is what Im wondering as paid-for endorsements/promotions are fine if they are disclosed, but that doesnt seem to be what is happening here...

I guess its really hard to trust anyone opinion if they have something possible to gain from it - I think thats naively what we thought didnt happen on Youtube for people we just thought were the 'average joe'...

ps3ud0 :cool:
Click to expand...
Indeed, a lot of people are going to think twice about listening to youtube reviewers now, we have no idea how many people are being paid off
 
XeNoN89 said:
which means there are potentially reviews on youtube that people believe to be unbiased, but in fact are biased as they are being paid to be positive
Click to expand...
I'm not a lawyer and whilst I broadly agree with you I think there is a difference between being paid "to be" positive and being paid "because it was positive". Semantics I know but if the video was positive anyway then it's not a problem, it's only a problem if someone made a review with positive comments when they in fact thought the opposite and only changed their comments because they were paid to do so.

Whilst it's tempting to leap to "Microsoft is the ebil" I'm not entirely sure (albeit given my earlier comment that I tend to feel if you have been paid to say something you should say so) it's quite so straight forward.

Question for you Xenon as you seem to have researched this more than most, is the NDA demanding silence a Microsoft one or from Machinima/a third party. I don't know but I suspect we should be clear about that before assigning phrases like "scummy behaviour" and "illegal".

In any case it doesn't reflect well on anyone although I suspect it's more common practise in advertising, social media etc than perhaps we think. Wasn't there some stuff about rigged online shopping site reviews from manufacturers and a Korean electronics outfit accused of paying people to rubbish competitors recently?
 
Last edited:
Macro said:
.

Question for you Xenon as you seem to have researched this more than most, is the NDA demanding silence a Microsoft one or from Machinima/a third party. I don't know but I suspect we should be clear about that before assigning phrases like "scummy behaviour" and "illegal".
Click to expand...
The NDA was from Machinima, however in the past, for similar advertising promotions Machinima has not included an NDA (They had similar promotions for E3 2013, Comic Con 2013 and others) They infact stated that the video should have an included message that they are getting money for the promotion (which is fine and as it should be), that's why people are assuming that Microsoft asked Machinima to include the NDA, however there isn't any solid proof of this.
 
this was section 14: You may not say anything negative or disparaging about Machinima, Xbox One or any of its Games in your Campaign Video;

taken from contract
 
XeNoN89 said:
The NDA was from Machinima, however in the past, for similar advertising promotions Machinima has not included an NDA (They had similar promotions for E3 2013, Comic Con 2013 and others) They infact stated that the video should have an included message that they are getting money for the promotion (which is fine and as it should be), that's why people are assuming that Microsoft asked Machinima to include the NDA, however there isn't any solid proof of this.
Click to expand...
Probably needs some more investigation then... Seems a strange thing to add to a campaign unless it's a general "you can't talk about commercial terms" rather than a specific you can't say you were paid to do this. I'm sure someones getting their backside kicked though :)
 
Total biscuit has a video up now on with his views on it.
It's QI as he talks about his experience on sponsorship.

IMHO, it doesn't bother me than people are getting paid not to be negitive towards the xbone; everyone has got to eat, but they SHOULD inform people that they are getting sponsored, which was a no-no in this sponsorship deal.

Now this is my non negitive review on the xb1 after taking advice from Thumpers' mother.
"......... "

Now m$, show me the money!!!
 
Do we have details of the non-disclosure Broken Hope? Thought that was still up in the air - kinda need people to stick their necks out :p

EDIT: I look forward to cu3ed reading the first line under the BF4 conditions section :p:D
EDIT2: Just seen EA's NDA details - ouch...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
So fundamentally both Next Gen consoles (XO & PS4) and PC have benefited from cash for positive video reviews. The lesson seems to be, believe nothing on YouTube (to be honest I struggle to think anyone did in the first place).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom