 Removed a toot on the whole "youtubers being paid" thing that a publisher started recently. I was simply coming at it from a stance of: people doing dedicated work should be paid. But my own way of explaining gave the wrong idea. I don't ever think it's right for a "review" of any kind to be paid (and I've never and will never do so). The problem really is that YouTube revenue sucks quite often, especially for lesser-known titles. 5 comments
@gamingonlinux maybe combine those in one video? So people get it recommended because AAA game X and then also at least see what you have to tell about Indie game Y? (Maybe multiple then, idk) @gamingonlinux I donโt see an issue with doing it as long as it is clearly stated and displayed. Also they should not take on ones they arenโt willing to endorse without the payment. Digital Foundry had one on Immortals of Aveum looking at the Unreal5 technology being used last week. I thought it was well done. @gamingonlinux I don't necessarily disagree with the idea people should be paid. I think there's definitely a job market for reviewers. I also think they should be paid, but not by the company making the product. Regulating this type of thing is important. |
Gregory's Server
Like, I've done a video on a random AAA game I didn't care much about to show it off for a few minutes: massive clicks and hits.
Indie game I'm overly passionate about: YouTube hasn't seen much of it, so it buries it and people click even less.