@dryker: The problem with this hypothetical situation is that i can trust Jeff , Brad , Vinny et al. based on their past. But if there's significant money to be made from referring people to GTA 6 and Witcher 4, stakeholders outside their team are not just going to ignore the money that is left on the table by GB being brutally honest about these games and thereby turning people off if these games dissapoint. Especially when GB has already made the controversial step to use the system. Crossing that line is harder than crossing the line from 'we use the system' to 'we use the system in a way that is greatly beneficial for us'.
Upper management might start to wonder why GB is not getting a good amount of referral kickback on these megablockbuster games for an audience of their size. It might start innocent with a ' hey.. why don't you have 4 video's up for these huge games at launch?' Then it becomes 'Just let the footage do the work, don't go out of your way to mention what you don't like about how the game looks & performs. Everyone has different standards for bugs & graphical quality and they'll get to see from the video if it's manageable for them'. It doesn't have to turn to lies. An omission of a problem a quicklooker has with a game doesn't have to mean that those problems don't exist. They might just not be there for the quick looker. Just how Brad loves things about Red Dead that makes Jeff not even want to play it any further.
You might think that the crew would never buckle to this pressure, but when you really need new broadcast equipment or a new studio and upper management keeps pushing you to hit certain targets to be able to do your job competently you have to pick your battles. After all, viewers keep wondering why they have to put up with 1080P video's when all the competitors are broadcasting 4k live to our VR headsets. Just politely hold back a bit and let the positive person do the bulk of the talking and you might be able to give your viewerbase an improved GB experience in the future. Your producer might get the gear that he requires to feel satisfied about the job. Let's do 4 GTA6 videos on launchday and we'll see if that indie quicklook fits in somewhere else later. All we want is the best experience for our viewers. And not having to constantly fight for every little thing with CBS because they know we are intentionally not hitting the numbers we could get. And avoiding being cut off from CBS while we have these families to support.
With all the Red Dead Redemption 2 content on launchday, there's precedent for having a lot of content up around those bigger games, so it wouldn't be super obvious that this time there's an extra monetary reason behind the abundance of GTA6 content. Suddenly the crew is untrustworthy to the audience. Are they putting up 4 GTA6 videos for the amount of referrals such a huge game can generate for them or because they're all stoked for it? Was that a sigh when he died? Why didn't he say why he sighed? No one else heard it? Will we still get a The Eternal Castle 2 quicklook now that they spent 6 hours on GTA 6 videos or is that not the kind of game they want to cover? Maybe they never heard of it? Or is it not profitable enough? How would it be if these games were released before they started to accept referrals? Have their game tastes changed? Well i guess Jeff liked bloodborne instead of the dark souls games. And Alex started to like strategy games at some point. Maybe it's real? Maybe it's that system they're part of that makes them want to cover these games more extensively?
Dystopia: it's 10 years later and GB consists of John, Debrah, Karl & Susie. We don't know them from before this referral system was introduced. We have no insight in their ethics. We buy the big games because they like the big games. We don't buy The Eternal Castle 3. The Eternal Castle 3 doesn't exist because hardly any streamer / outlet is going to waste it's time on a game that might get 0,5% of it's viewerbase to buy it when they can get 33% of the viewers to buy GTA6 instead. And besides, they clearly love these bigger games more. After all, they keep making content based around those games. Right? It's just way more fun to play these popular games with your friends! They are popular for a reason!
TLDR: It leads to a situation where it's impossible to ignore the fact that they're receiving more money if they base their content around the more popular games (or games with a higher referral %). Right now we can look back at their ethical behavior in the past and make an educated guess that they are in fact able to be honest to us due to the current subscription system. Once the waters are muddied by directly extracting revenue from the games they cover, the trust we used to have lacks a solid foundation. We don't get to act like the subscriber money is good enough, otherwise they would have stayed clear from this new referral system to preserve the trust they've built. The question whether they get to spend their time in the way that they want is also in question by this system. The lack of outlets that don't tie their revenue to the games they cover, might also hurt smaller games due to a lack of exposure.
Bonus Thought Experience:
Would you trust GB's word on Fallout 99 when they're all wearing a metaphorical pipboy on their arms?
Bonus Bonus Thought Experience:
If an audience can't tell the difference between an honest and dishonest take, that's on them.
If the total Nier Automata coverage consisted out of 1 GB quicklook with the complaints that it's graphically not impressive, has too many obtuse systems, feels bad to play, doesn't respect time, has a very limited color palette, is a bad PC port, requires multiple retreads through the same content to piece the whole story together and is the sequel to a game they couldn't care less about, would you be able to figure out that they were being dishonest ?
I would think that's a fairly typical GB response to JRPG's and not register it as them being dishonest. We only know that it would have been dishonest, because we have this current reality where we can say with 99% certainty that GB's success is not related to Nier's success whatsoever and that therefore the praise it received came from a genuine place. When GB has a vested financial interest in a game doing well, we know with 99% certainty that there are all kinds of internal and/or external forces at play that might lead to dishonest coverage. Why not avoid all these complications and just enjoy that GB is seen as an outlet with integrity. An outlet that people want to support on a monthly / yearly basis based on this reputation. Why make a dent in that reputation when it's the nr 1 reason they are so successful right now? If they were really hurting for the extra money, it would be less damaging to GB's reputation to just stop offering 35$ sale prices for yearly subs.
Log in to comment