Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
November 1, 2014
arrowPress Releases
November 1, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


Are developers actually paying for YouTuber and press coverage? Exclusive
Are developers actually paying for YouTuber and press coverage?
July 28, 2014 | By Mike Rose




When it comes to the ethics of paying a YouTube personality to play your game for promotional purposes, we've seen that the ethical lines are blurred.

But there's an important question to ask when examining the practice of pay for play: To what extent are game developers actually paying for YouTuber coverage?

Earlier this week I surveyed 325 video game developers to find out whether they have paid for coverage from either the traditional press or YouTubers, and asked whether they would ever consider doing so in the future.

Have you paid a YouTuber?

Let's talk YouTubers first. There are currently two main methods for developers to pay YouTubers for coverage -- paying a one-off flat-fee, or paying a revenue share, based on how many sales the YouTuber coverage brings.

Of all the developers I surveyed, only 1.5 percent said they have paid a YouTuber a flat-fee for coverage -- that's just five developers out of 325.

As for paying revenue share, the figure was roughly the same. 2.1 percent of respondents said they have paid a YouTuber revenue share.

So obviously not many developers are actually paying for YouTuber coverage, but that doesn't give the full picture, as many more developers said that they may pay for coverage in the future.

In fact, 19.1 percent said they have considered paying a YouTuber a flat-fee, while 11.6 percent said they are considering paying revenue share to a YouTuber in return for coverage.

In other words, while not many developers have actually paid for YouTuber coverage yet, a portion are definitely thinking about it in the near future. Given that the YouTuber movement is really starting to hit its stride now, it makes sense that more developers are starting to take note for future endeavors.

Has a YouTuber asked you for payment?

Another angle: How many YouTubers are contacting developers and asking for payment? 14.7 percent of the developers surveyed told me that they had been asked for a flat-fee by a YouTuber, while 13.6 percent have been asked for a revenue share.

Thus, of the developers surveyed, more of them are considering paying for YouTuber coverage, than have received a request from a YouTuber. So it's not just YouTubers who are interested in pay for play -- game developers who are looking to stand out in a crowded game market are weighing the paid YouTuber option.

I asked developers to provide their further opinions of YouTubers asking for payment to promote games -- and as it turns out, while around 85 percent of those surveyed wouldn't pay, a good portion don't really have a problem with it.

"I have nothing against an entertaining infomercial, it's just a different kind of trailer," says one dev. "I'd never have any interest in participating, but I suppose I'm alright with others doing it as long it is presented as advertising in an clear and honest way," explains another.

"When your game is lost in the noise and your company is failing, all promotional options are on the table," muses one developer -- a popular response, and one shared by the Fortress Craft dev: "Why languish in obscurity when you can pay for fame?"

But lots of developers aren't happy about it either. "It's questionable at best," one dev wrote. "I fear that for some it will turn into 'pay us and we'll promote your game' to 'pay us or we'll not promote your game,' while not looking to or being able to provide the level of attention and promotion that one would expect an advertiser to provide."

"It's a slippery slope," says another. "Viewers will rightly start questioning whether a YouTubers opinion is the truth or they're hyping the game to earn themselves more revenue."

What about the developers who have already paid for coverage from a YouTuber before? One such developer explained, "I looked at it as a crucial promotional opportunity to get my game in front of players I may not have reached otherwise."

"Since the streamers and Let's Players have the power to make or break a game, it's become a valid place to spend your advertising revenue," said another. And one dev who has paid for YouTuber coverage said simply, "They are a cancer. A necessary cancer."

What is your opinion of YouTubers asking for payment (rev share, flat-fee or otherwise) to promote games? by Michael Rose



Have you paid press for coverage?

The next question: Is payment for traditional press coverage any different? I asked developers whether they have paid for written press coverage, and 4.7 percent told me that they have indeed paid for coverage.

This is slightly higher than the number who have paid for YouTuber coverage, but barely. How many are planning to pay for coverage from the written press? 13.9 percent said they are considering it for the future -- again, roughly the same as those considering paying for YouTuber coverage.

But here's where the obvious difference occurs -- 29.0 percent of respondents said that they have been asked for payment from a traditional written press website for coverage of their game.

That's nearly a third of all those who responded, and eclipses the number of developers who have been asked for payment by YouTubers.

Of course, we're all well aware that this happens, and there's a handy list of some of the websites that ask for cash for payment over on AppyNation. However it's perhaps surprising just how many developers have been asked for payment for review from sites like these.

And for press payments, it would appear that it's happening in reverse to what we see with YouTubers. Big YouTubers are asking for money while smaller ones aren't so much, while many smaller traditional press outlets are asking for cash for review, while bigger names need to be more above-board so as not to anger their communities.

Many of the comments from respondents about paid coverage from written press echo those about YouTuber coverage.

"Whilst I hate the very idea of pay-to-review, exposure and coverage is absolutely critical for app discovery," says one developer. "If you're not discovered, you're not downloaded."

But some of the developers surveyed expressed the idea that it is more of blow to the reputation of a writer than a YouTuber, as written press is built around the idea of being ethical critics.

"For me, press is journalism, and I can't pay a journalist," one dev notes. "Paid coverage can be seen from a mile away and generally makes sites look bad if it is done too much."

What's really interesting is that, when we look at the answers from people who have paid for coverage from the press, none of these people are actually happy that they did.

"Did it once, some small useless mobile site of course. Never again," says one dev. "It's horrible payola," states another. In other words, while paying for YouTuber coverage has proved useful for those devs who have done it, paying for written press has not worked out for the best.

What is your opinion of traditional press asking for payment (rev share, flat-fee or otherwise) to promote... by Michael Rose

Vlambeer, Devolver weigh in

Some devs and publishers have been particularly vocal about not paying for coverage. One such dev is Luftrausers studio Vlambeer, and Rami Ismail tells me that, "We believe our games should speak for themselves, and we fully trust that they do."

"We've been very stubborn about not paying for anything that can infer a conflict of interests during our entire existence," he adds. "If someone doesn't want to play our game on their stream or channel after hearing of it, we simply need to be making a better game."

In his mind, he'd rather spend money on making his games better than paying YouTubers -- that way, players have a better experience, and YouTubers may be more inclined to cover Vlambeer's games.

"If Nuclear Throne is not worth covering without pay, we're not using our resources properly," notes Ismail. "We have full faith in video content creators to play what they find interesting without pay, and we've never been under the impression that someone held coverage of our game at 'ransom' in exchange for money."


"If Nuclear Throne is not worth covering without pay, we're not using our resources properly."
Having said that, Ismail doesn't see paying YouTubers as that big of a deal ethically, especially when compared to the traditional press.

"I think at this point it's OK because YouTubers haven't developed a reputation of being editorial," he reasons. "They're seen as advertising. In the next few years, as YouTube grows as a review platform and as more people start to base their ($60) purchases on the opinions of the YouTubers, there will be an increasing amount of backlash to paid reviews."

"They're simply 'not there yet' - the ethics and morals of their field is being defined as we speak. It places tremendous responsibility on the creators today to evolve video coverage along the axis they see fit."

The idea of paying YouTubers for coverage is also a hot topic at indie publisher Devolver. The Devolver team is excited about how disruptive the YouTube space has been for games recently, to the point that Devolver's movie division is actually putting together a documentary on the movement as we speak.

"At Devolver we have not paid for any YouTuber or any press to cover a game," Devolver's Mike Wilson tells me. "We have been very lucky thus far in that I think those guys see Devolver and the developers we work with as indie bretheren, too. But we're quite aware of what some of them are getting paid to play big games, and the good news is even if we wanted to pay we could never afford it!"


"If a big personality is getting paid to gush about a game they don't really care about, obviously that's an ethical mess and will, in the end, cost that personality a good chunk of their audience."
For Wilson, publishers and developers who are paying for YouTuber coverage should be very careful about transparency and objectivity.

"If a big personality is getting paid to gush about a game they don't really care about, obviously that's an ethical mess and will, in the end, cost that personality a good chunk of their audience," he muses. "But if I saw one of these guys say... 'so Bethesda paid me a good chunk of money to play the new Wolfenstein and say what I think, and this is honestly what I think, the good and the bad..." I would imagine it could actually create a great deal of loyalty and trust with the audience."

Sadly, says Wilson, this clearly isn't happening, since big publishers can't deal with the idea of YouTubers spilling their truthful opinions across the internet, and contracts that forbid such opinions are clearly a common occurrence.

"The other way to look at it is this... most artists of any kind on their way up, and again on their way down, have to do work they wish they didn't have to do to support the work they want to do," says the Devolver founder.

"Aspiring filmmakers and actors make commercials or wait tables, indie game developers have day jobs, sometimes in a cubicle at big game studios that make them want to cry every day, bands play corporate gigs and covers, photographers shoot weddings, painters paint billboards.. You name it. It's just reality unless you're independently wealthy, and it allows those same artists to live and create art that they want to create."

What's next?

Gamasutra's coverage of YouTuber ethics has not gone unnoticed by lots of the big names on the video platform. Earlier this month TotalBiscuit said he would make video sponsorships more explicit, while NerdCubed released a video in which he cites our article, and discusses his thoughts on the matter.

He admits that he once took money for a video three years ago -- a video of a Need for Speed game -- and it made him feel so uncomfortable that he didn't want to do it again.

"The amount of money and offers is increasing," he says. "Not too long ago I got one for $8,000 for 350,000 views on a game video. That's just one video for me, one day's work! But then would I want to be positive about it, negative... so I ignore all this stuff."



One of the big talking points has been the YogDiscovery revenue sharing platform from Yogscast -- a platform that plenty of developers told me they have been contacted about. Many devs and YouTubers have lashed out at the scheme, and generally aren't happy about it.

Yogscast NDA by Michael Rose



"A lot of criticism seems to focus on 'conflict of interest,' which is to say people are worried Yogscast will be more positive to the games they cover through YD because they get a revenue share," says YouTuber Northernlion.

He continues, "What concerns me is that if they have the choice between covering two games they enjoy equally but one is giving a revshare, who gets vids? I think maybe YogDiscovery puts pressure on indie devs to give up a rev share just to get coverage, which for a channel of Yogs' size, is enormous."

"It strips away the illusion of coverage being sort of an egalitarian 'may the best game win' sort of thing, which of course it already isn't."

Yogscast CEO Mark Turpin was unfortunately unavailable and unable to answer our questions, but said that he will respond to questions from Gamasutra about YogDiscovery soon.

It's obvious that the ethics train will continue to railroad its way through online conversations about YouTuber and press coverage for plenty of time to come, and it can only be a good thing that big names are talking about the topic so openly.

But the big takeaway is that some game developers are perfectly OK with paying for coverage, as our quick survey shows, so it's likely that we're going to start seeing more and more paid coverage of games on YouTube in the near future.


Related Jobs

Twisted Pixel Games
Twisted Pixel Games — Austin, Texas, United States
[10.31.14]

Senior Graphics and Systems Engineer
Twisted Pixel Games
Twisted Pixel Games — Austin, Texas, United States
[10.31.14]

Mid-level Tools and Systems Engineer
Giant Sparrow
Giant Sparrow — Playa Vista, California, United States
[10.31.14]

Junior 3D Artist
Giant Sparrow
Giant Sparrow — Playa Vista, California, United States
[10.31.14]

Lead Artist










Comments


Rob Wright
profile image
"29.0 percent of respondents said that they have been asked for payment from a traditional written press website for coverage of their game."

What in the seven hells is this horse%&#@!?!?!?!? The next question should, "what f---ing *journalism* sites are asking developers to engage in a "pay to play" scheme?" This is outrageous, infuriating, and incredibly depressing. It confirms the worst suspicions people have about the lack of professionalism, ethics and standards in games journalism. And before you say, "Well, it's only 29%..." -- that's 29% too much, my friends.

And to think, so many folks were concerned about the YouTubers trying to take developers for a ride....

Baptiste Villain
profile image
To be honest, I'm really surprised it's "only" 29%. I only released a pair of confidential mobile games with correct reviews but low sales, and I think I received around 10 e-mails asking for a paid review / paid feature / paid trailer.
The fun part is that if a site asks you for a paid review, it surely means that it has not enough visitors to do the reviews for free, so the paid review will surely be useless. It's just a pure logical reasonning that I hope most small devs have figured out.

Rob Wright
profile image
Ugh...I'm truly sorry to hear that. I don't know when this practice became so commonplace in games journalism, but it's incredibly sad to hear not only the statistics but real world examples of these kinds of unethical cash grabs.

And you make a great point about the kind of sites that propose paid reviews/coverage. The larger, more established sites have the traffic and audience to generate enough ad revenue where they don't have to resort to this kind of behavior (at least, I hope they do).

Eric Schwarz
profile image
This is the norm in many markets, especially mobile, social and MMO gaming. You pay for coverage and a good review. No, I don't think it's right.

Christian Nutt
profile image
Yeah, just to clarify on this one, but as best as I can tell it's the business model of a lot of smaller start-up mobile-review sites.

The traditional games press (the IGNs, GameSpots, Polygons etc.) of the world never do pay-for-play as far as I know. (There's other shady stuff going on, sometimes, but to the best of my knowledge there's nothing this crass or obvious happening.) I've written for a huge variety of enthusiast press websites, and know a ton of people in the biz, and have never heard of pay-for-play happening there at all.

mike madden
profile image
While it may be new with YouTube, its certainly not a new practice. With Print your coverage was based on the volume of ads placed. While devs are being asked, I would say ask the publishers, who for the most part cover the marketing of these products more so than the devs themselves.

Ian Stanbridge
profile image
I think the way to solve this problem is for there to be a paid affiliate program on youtube. Imagine if steam or gog had an affiliate link system where you could buy a game that was being talked about on youtube from a link to the side of it and a percentage of that sale price then went to the owner of that video. It would be in everyones interests. Viewers wouldn't have to sit through an ad before watching a video because money would be raised from sales rather than ads.

Also with the increasing number of games being made along with the reduction in cost of digital distribution it makes very little sense that digital distribution platforms should still be taking a 30 to 40 percent cut of the price of a game. There was a time when that price made sense because there were fewer games and so there was a huge value in being on steams front page for example, in effect you were paying for advertising but now with so many games meaning each game gets so little exposure on there it no longer makes sense.

If I became aware of a new indie game that interested me as a result of someone making a video review I'd be happy knowing that some of the purchase price went to them. Also it would mean that those video makers would be incentivised to do the right thing in finding interesting games that most people had not come across. They wouldn't cover something that didn't look very good because they know nobody would buy it.

Also I'm not sure much merit should be taken from the percentage of developers who have been asked to pay for reviews. In fact I'm surprised it isn't nearer 90 % . The reason I say this is that it only takes one person to set up a site in the interests of making money and sending out automated spam emails to every known developer which isn't hard. Just because one person has done that doesn't mean the majority of sites are crooked or even the 30% that are mentioned.

Robert Green
profile image
I think an affiliate scheme still has a similar conflict of interest. Would a youtuber want to discourage viewers from buying a game if they stood to make a cut of the sale?

Ian Stanbridge
profile image
The reason I said they should make an affiliate system is that it is far better than the alternative they have now. The most worrying thing in this article by far is not that people are paying for coverage of stuff but the fact that there are explicit non disclosure agreements.

An affiliate system would by it's nature have the main benefit that it would be clear to the user what it was rather than in effect being against the law to actually inform the user about it as is the case of a non disclosure agreement.

Also it wouldn't make good business sense to cover something bad and tell people it was good. The best business sense would be to only cover stuff that you though was interesting in the first place so you didn't need to lose the trust of your viewers.

It's like the early days of game review sites. The only sites that are actually around today with large user bases and therefore make money are the ones that actually write good reviews and don't accept money for reviews but make money from advertising.

As long as there is more of an incentive to do stuff in the interests of your audience than not, then the business model isn't a problem.

They aren't perfect and a lot of them will take money for non review features but most even then they will make sure they are covering something that has a certain level of quality and people are interested in.

A disclosed affiliate system would ensure the same thing happened with youtube.

Kyle Redd
profile image
Thank you for this article.

Jennis Kartens
profile image
"Earlier this week I surveyed 325 video game developers to find out whether they have paid for coverage from either the traditional press or YouTubers, and asked whether they would ever consider doing so in the future."

Who? I don't think if you're "asking around" and getting expected answers from the usual suspects like Vlambeers Rami, that the outcome is representative. Which in the end, is a goal of a data driven article, isn't it? Everyone and their cat knows where Vlambeer and DD are standing, that ain't news or article worthy.

Interesting would be for example, how much coverage games are getting because of payments, that are actually not really "worthy" of covering. I already provided such a case in another comment regarding your YouTube agenda.

Mikail Yazbeck
profile image
Great article. Thank you for covering this highly important topic.

Robert Crouch
profile image
Paying for lets plays is a lot more honest than paying for reviews. Reviews have been paid for in various ways forever.

At least with a let's play, you're forced to be honest because of the medium. You can feign excitement, but in the end your viewers are watching you play the game. If your game sucks, the viewers will know. If the game is awesome, there's going to be streamers who are going to play your game because it benefits them.

It's when your game is middling, or if your game is unknown, when paying for play is worthwhile. And in that case, I think it's fair too. Streamers need to make a living, they have limited amount of time, and there's far more games released than anyone could possibly review. Charging for a valuable scarce resource like their time is fine.

I hate shitty paid reviews, where the reviewer totally overstates the game. With a let's play or a stream you just can't do that. You might show off the best parts, or you might overstate your enthusiasm, but in the end the viewers are watching the game get played.

Will Hendrickson
profile image
What will happen to the indies when YouTube ads cost millions? No more indies.

This is bad, bad ju-ju.


none
 
Comment: