Wait, you're in an attic? I thought you were in a subterranean crypt with walls of poorly dressed stone. Truly, there are no more illusions to shatter :(
I've bought two things from WotC since they bought TSR, the 3e PHB and the 5e PHB. I spend far more money each year on old TSR D&D and AD&D content from back in the day, than I have on anything made by WotC. If WotC's d20 game that they brand as D&D is someone's thing, great! I'm glad they enjoy it, but it doesn't remind me of D&D or AD&D.
Same, and I'm pretty damn sad about it to be honest. Ravenloft and Dark Sun are two of my favorite campaign settings across pretty much any TTRPG outside of Tolkien's Middle-earth.
Hasbrotc is dead to me, too. I'll buy clearance shit at Ollie's. Hey, if they're going to offload pallets of dungeon tiles for $3? Sure. Product was never worth the $50 they were asking for initially.
Reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote from Hitchikers guide- “Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this -- partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.” Here's the rewrite: “Many respectable D&D toubers said that they weren't going to stand for this -- partly because it was a debasement of the hobby to accept money to review the material early, but mostly because THEY didn't get invited to review the new edition.” Not saying this is you professor! I'm just sponsored by Douglas Adam's ghost and I have quote quotas. Love your content! All the best!
Well said. Disclosure is vitally important. I watch a lot of gaming youtubers, including video game reviewers, who get sponsored by companies, and they always state that clearly at the opening. Many of them, especially awesome ones like SpiffingBrit, make it into a running joke how companies keep paying them to break or tear down their products in front of an audience. Just because you take money, doesn't mean you praise the source. As long as a RUclipsr is honest and upfront when they receive payment for a video, I have no problem with it. I may disagree strongly with their take, but money by itself is not the issue. Honesty is. If someone's paying for your review, say it, and viewers can weigh their takes. Honesty builds trust. Disclosure keeps the community running :)
Not the same thing. SpiffingBrit reviews a variety of things. D&Dtubers only review D&D, their career on RUclips relies on D&D wholly because it is the ttrpg that gets clicks.
They keep it a secret because they know the community will see it as the paid advertisement it is. Dungeons of Drakenheim is already on the Hasbro owned DnD beyond.
There's all kinds of 'sponsorships'. And then there's the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" effect when youtubers start collab'ing and 'crosspolinating' their videos and game reviews... It's getting to a point where I feel no one is free to criticize someone else without being seen as an A-hole... And this is even true with the real A-holes in the scene, who do the same for their fellow A-holes. IDK, old man yells at the clouds, I guess
A really popular RUclipsr might be free to criticise a product that he or she is being paid to review, and, thereby, publicise. 99.999% of the rest will be shills, either for the cash, or because they are woke morons too.
I know I'm late to this video, but I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to make such a thoughtful and nuanced take on this conversation (and of course, for the very kind things you said about me!!) You addressed not just the question of when and whether it's appropriate to accept sponsorships, but even the question that weighs heavy on most full-time creators' minds but it relatively invisible to fans, which is the lack of stability in a job like this, and how that affects the financial choices we make. I really appreciate your voice in this conversation!
Greetings from Tokyo! Thanks for taking the time to comment. Responding to comments is the first thing I do in the morning and the first few comments were about how I suck and don't know anything about D&D, so this was a welcome surprise. I loved your recent interview with Jeremy Crawford, BTW. Keep rockin' it!
If you receive promotional materials/early access/free anything from the producers or promoters of a product you should inform your viewers so that they get the FULL story. A simple (and accurate) disclaimer at the start of the video is sufficient.
I’ve respected the RUclipsrs who come out and say: “I got this book for free, and I’m not under any contract limiting what I can say. Here’s what I think.” Then we, as consumers, can take their information and the context under which it is given and draw our own conclusions. There’s only a moral or ethical concern when people withhold the context. I just don’t see that often. You, Bob, Ginny, DnD Shorts, and many more are very transparent about these things. So I don’t understand how “scandal” got attached to this conversation. It’s just marketing. It’s no different than marketing has ever been, and it is apparent that most content creators of any influence are being sincere and responsible.
Yeah. I feel the WotC hate is getting a little bit ridiculous Yes, WotC does treat its employees no better than Amazon and value money over the customer. But what is happening here is just normal marketing. There is no evil scandal going on here like with the Pinkerton incident
@loganredding1621 I think that 'hate' - which well adjusted humans would call mere criticism - is wholly deserved and the fact they have to pay to get positive reviews speaks volumes about how shit their woke output is, and has been, for some time now. Even leaving out the woke propaganda, the recent books are poorly written by DEI hires with zero track record. Add to that their open contempt for most of the long time player base, and, for their customers generally as seen with the OGL fiasco. F*ck WotC.
@@Norvik_-ug3geNot really that big of a difference. It's not that hard to identify the reviewers who give honest review, paid or not. and no that doesnt mean they must crap on a product, most of the time they should generally like it if they enjoy the hobby. A reviewer that is always fully positive or fully negative is just fishing for dollars.
Hi, Professor! I've got to say that slowly, but surely, this channel has become my favourite in the RPG sphere. And I have no doubts that you have some responsibility in my passion for the more "old school gaming" side of things. Thanks a lot for your work! Keep it up!
Eh, that's what's intriguing about RUclips, there are slick, well lit, well edited channels with scripts, but there are also channels where is a one guy show, no editing, no script, one take kind of content too. You can watch both, you can love both, just don't confuse the two. Some folks really ARE in this just as z hobby space and it would feel like a real betrayal if they became a more "professional" RUclipsr.
I agree completely with this. Full disclosure is important. If you can get the money, take it. Let face it, these RUclipsrs have been providing them free advertising for YEARS. Getting some compensation is perfectly acceptable. Getting a free advance copy is a pretty minimal offering. Considering the hour invested in creating the channel, this small perk.
WotC were also completely ignoring the fact that during COVID, D&D 5th was one of the most supported TTRPGs with the various VTTs. You know, the ones they didn't own? But that still drove book sales for people to use with the VTTs. Again, all those ones they didn't own. But now they want to own all of the D&D VTT stuff.
It's natural for companies to want to gobble everything up, to increase their revenue at the expense of everyone else. It's also not unusual to kill (or wound) the golden goose by doing so.
@@keithkannenberg7414 Its the difference between a red market and a blue market,... The whole "Competition is good for business" is a myth/cope. In capitalism for shareholders and maintaining stability for your workers and the heads of a company, NO competition is the best competition. Because then YOU determine the market, control the market, and can essentially market things with impunity and people have no choice but to gobble it up or get left out....
The funny thing is while people still play online, most people have gone back to in person games without a VTT. Some might use the VTT on a table tv, but they don’t have to use a VTT. They could just display a map.
@@k-aw-teksleepysageuni8181 *"Its the difference between a red market and a blue market,... The whole "Competition is good for business" is a myth/cope."* Anyone who actually understands economic fundamentals knows that competition is good for the consumers, not the companies. And no one who understands those fundamentals has ever said otherwise.
Yep. And it’s standard practice in any industries to invite critics to screenings or product launches, or send them review copies/models. In fact not doing so is often seen as a sign of low confidence in a product. Critics just need to disclose they were provided with the product. its not a "paid review"
I have no love for WotC, but some people act as if WotC is some mortal enemy, or a literal devil. This is not a religion, folks. It's a business. WotC is a business entity that wants to sell us something, and we are consumers who have a choice to buy or not buy the things they're selling. That's all it is. I myself choose to buy other stuff (Free League being my current favorite) because I like other stuff more than I like WotC stuff. And I don't begrudge anybody or make enemies of anybody just because they like WotC stuff better. Hating people for such petty reason is a waste of time and energy. I have better things to do. We all do.
When a corporation which has a dominant position in the market seeks ways to destroy the business of their competition they are the enemy of the free market. A monopolistic gorgon which needs slaying and will never get my business, and has not for many years. It isn't religion, but it is about right and wrong. A competitive market is what makes markets work and gives consumers the best product at the best price. I hate all powerful corporations, who do this, on principle. Yes I was a Cubs fan (Born and Raised) when they were still owned by the Wrigleys (Pre 1981 sale to the Tribune Company, and yes I hate the Yankees).
I hate Disney with every fiber of my being and yet, my job is animation. More than 50% of my contracts throughout the years have been with them. It's either I work with them or I don't get rent money, what am I supposed to do? Die? How I compromise is simply by not supporting their plateforms and go see indie movies in theater, that's how I'm able to live with it.
I feel for you, that can't be easy having to deal with the devil so you can make the art you love. I work in the medical industry because I really like helping people in need, but I work in America and health insurance and the enormous costs put on patients are so antithetical to my beliefs
You do another job. The universe doesnt owe you to get paid for that one job. Assassins and torturers and soldiers for dictators gonna say the same. If you put your own well being over that of others its not right. I mean in your case its not the end of the world, but dont act like you dont have a choice.
About 10 years back, the computer game publisher of Rome Total War 2 had a bit of extra ad budget, and sponsored the Extra Credits to do a tie in series on the Punic Wars. That seed grew into a channel with 3.6 million subscribers and tons of great history deep dives into lesser know topics, which likely wouldn't have happened if it weren't for that first sponsorship. Good things can come from corporate sponsorships, as long as it's disclosed.
Being up front about being sponsored is the right thing -- I just wonder, how many will give a negative review if they have criticisms about it? Will they colour their opinion, even if subconsciously? If you want to be popular and remain relevant with the D&D product and player base can you act completely freely without a consequence? I don't have the answers to that but it's one of the main reasons I think PDM has the best channel out there: because I have no concerns over the integrity of the content. I may not always agree with everything you say but I know it's coming from an authentic place.
That's a great point, and that's where the few that change their review to suit the sponsor lose viewers and ad revenue, while those who take the money but still give an honest review of the product gain trust and viewers. Quite a few RUclipsrs have learned that the second approach is the better one.
Of course getting paid to review a game will undermine your credibility in the eyes of (critical thinking) viewers. Any review that is mildly to majorly positive will have to be taken with a big grain of salt at that point, because it is in the best interest of the reviewer to stay on the good side of the creator in order to keep getting such deals.
The video game industry set the precedent where sponsored reviewers and those that get early access frequently end up wanting to keep that privileged position. A corporation like WoTC (Hasbro) is certainly in the same category of corporate giant to want to get good PR and thus end up being selective after a while. Games Workshop has had scandals about that as well.
This is a good point, but it's worth keeping in mind that our major media news outlets are currently struggling with the same thing, and they have found no good answers. If billion dollar news corporations working in concert with each other cannot solve the problems of access media and audience capture then D&D RUclipsrs definitely won't.
@@Darthvegeta8000 People think this practice started with Video Games, how wrong they are, this is a practice as old as time itself. GIving free samples to drum up interest, movies have early screenings for critics with red carpet events ... This practice has been around forever.
I started kind of pushing the button on some recent videos of a RUclips channel I *really* like because I started getting a little agitated at just how *aggressively* they had started to push out content for DnD 2024. I did leave a comment kind of insinuating that it's a bit strange how quick they turned toward the new game, and how quick that happened after the OGL scandal, of which that channel was extremely critical. I do think a respectful discourse should be encouraged in the comment section of videos like that one, because if we never tell the channels we like that we dislike something, maybe they'll continue to spiral in a direction we can't follow. But I *do* agree; y'all gotta get that bread. I just want it transparent when the *marketing* for the game picks up.
I did the same thing to one of those channels that took the WotC sponsorship, the channel's response did not impress me. And since that channel makes a 3rd party product, I'm now highly suspicious of what it says about the new edition.
@thesonofdormammu5475 Lol, I wouldn't be surprised if we were talking about the same channel! I'm hopeful they'll maybe turn some transparency on in the future. I'm not personally looking for a whole video statement or whatever, just a little "Hey, they want us to sponsor this content, so here it is! We are/aren't being paid for this, anyway!..." seems appropriate.
@@chaosheaven23 yeah, pretty sure we are talking about the same channel. Referring to the channel with "they"/etc tells me at least 1 host, and I can only think of one channel that did a sponsored video that has more than one host 🙂 Like you say, it's about transparency. And once a channel takes a sponsorship from a company, chances are they are going to be softer on that company because they probably want another sponsorship in the future and it's a bad idea to bite the hand that feeds you.
Of course, at the beginning of the WOTC attempt to take over all D&D content, the RUclipsrs were looking at losing the ability to cover the content they normally cover. Then, It was in their interest to push back, hard. It wasn’t necessarily a principled stand.
If I was a D&Dtuber I would be worried, I would certainly take the money and disclose it, but it feels like the first step of favourable coverage for access. If I say 'well this new feature is a little stinky' and hear later I'm the only one not sent to this exclusive event or have exclusive access to new content it damages the channel as people will go to other channels to get informed about hot, breaking, exclusive info.
It is really frustrating and disappointing when you feel like the only adult in the conversation - especially when many of the other voices are nominally "adults" too.
There's something about a calm, mature response to scandal that sets the right balance, and is so in contrast to most reporting on, well, anything really these days.
This has been an issue on beauty tube where some influencers did not reveal that the video of the product was sponsored. It makes people not trust that the review is authentic. I don't have an issue with sponsored videos on gaming channels as long as they are upfront about it.
Which is the issue no matter the industry: disclosure. People don't realize how many hidden ads we're getting on YT/TikTok (TT is the most egregious for this) through Influencers having labels and other things in the background or using specific tools (they don't always acknowledge the partnership; which I think is illegal?)
I believe that expecting reviews to be completely objetive, impartial and unbiased is being as delusional as it gets. This channel, i.e.: extremely professional and well done, level-headed, no paid reviews, no white knighting... When I watch your videos, I (am new here and I might be wrong but I) expect a natural bias towards things that resemble Gigax works, Chainmail, the old boxes/modules - pre DnD 3.0 even. If I hated those things altogether, I would still watch you from time to time, but your opinions about the play experience probably wouldn't be as helpful to me, or not at least not as helpful as your take on book quality, bindings, materials, the unboxing and so on, which have a more objective nature. And it gets worse - I "hate" WotC as much as the next DnD fan in line. If you ask me to review a product I don't like and I intentionally try to spite WotC; I will probably sound kinder and mellow compared to someone who hated DnD even when it was good and played GURPS all the way. Because even if I am at the opposite side corporate WotC is, I still have a bias - DnD nostalgia. People have emotions, even if they weren't "paid", the eye of the beholder matters a lot more than most people think and that is enough to make the "unbiased, impartial" review impossible. That's one of the reasons to read multiple reviews or even look for a different angle - like actually not liking DnD 5E for real, not just "not liking WotC". WotC isn't TSR. That always was "bad enough" for a lot of people - and I sorta get it. I like some "source" and monster books from 5e, but push comes to shove, if I were to runa a "WotC world" setting, I would use 2E-3E (maybe not even 3.5) lore - and it doesn't have anything to do with my views on corporate wizards, more often than not it's about what is "lacking" in 5e supplements. This isn't like 4E spellplague - "lack of content" would be better than spellplague, SCAG wins hands down that one... I doubt I will change my views on WotC, that 500k event would made me reconsider it, tho.
You realise they send advance copies to TTRPG RUclipsrs who are critical of WotC as well? The way people imply marketing in this field works just shows ignorance of the actual field. You very much send copies to people who will criticise you for little things as well. Because that way you show you were impartial and not picking those who will praise you.
@@BobHerzog1962 Some companies absolutely make advance copies or reviews contingent upon positive reviews. That you imply that no companies do that is the either disingenuous or just plain naive.
So long as it's disclosed, I don't see the issue with it. In their base form, these channels were always advertising for WotC and D&D, they just weren't being paid by WotC. Now they are. Kudos. One of my favorite RUclipsrs is Gerald Undone. At the beginning of every review video he discloses all the pertinent info about the review "this company isn't paying me, I don't get to keep this, they don't get a say in the final review" and so on. That's all I need. Just tell me what's going on. They aren't pulling the wool over my eyes if they're being honest.
Of course some youtubers are incentivized to review D&D, and of course their viewership may bias them to give it positive reviews; I don't have a problem with that. However, I don't feel good giving views to a channel that is receiving "payment" from an organization I refuse to give money to. These are our dollars at the bottom of the pyramid, this is how we protest, and it is what it is.
gonna admit; the thumbnail had me thinking I was clicking a dungeons & discourse video. Don't worry, Professor. I was going to check in on your channel anyway
I 100% agree. I think when people are hyperbolic about these types of situations it just tells me that they've never worked in media or similar creative endeavors. I code and it reminds me of gamers saying how easy it should be to fix a bug when they know nothing about the code base they're suggesting fixes for.
This RUclipsr also has another channel where they make the exact same videos about GW and warhammer 40k. I’m pretty sure they’re just using anger and rage to put out as much trash as possible for views and money
I have never quite understood why Players keep putting them through all the drama(mines) spewing out from WotC. WotC rely 100% on Player interest and Players continuing to buy all their new stuff? In my little RP Group, we kind of stuck with the core rules of a version or three back. We love the Forgotten Realms genre (thank you Ed Greenwood), and can play ad infinitum with whatever rules we want. I will Never buy into a company that starts trying to stripmine a genre. Will never support them for any reason. No-ONE is forced to update and upgrade. We all have imaginations. Thanks to all the many talented people out there inventing and creating new stuff - just cut wotc out.
This is an old debate from video game industry: how objective is a journalist or reviewer if they receive a review copy for free and if they have a symbiotic relationship with the company whose product they are reviewing (for example if a journalist, reviewer, and their company relies on press releases from a publisher, controversies generated by the publisher, etc.). I don't know if this question has any easy answers, or any answers at all. But speaking for myself only, I felt a little soured on big DungeonTubers who got a whole lot of new subscribers and traffic during the OGL outrage because they took a strong anti-WotC stance, but are very willing to now take review copies and exclusive access from WotC to get even more traffic.
You nailed it sir, Bravo! I understand the feeling that HASBRO has somehow tainted their relationship with the "Community" but at the end of the day it's a business, to believe that they go to bed at night worrying about upsetting some DM in Milwaukee is ridiculous. D&D and RPG's have been a part of my life for 45 years, nothing some corporate hack is going to do is ever going to change that. I hold your channel to be of the highest credibility when dealing with this sort of business as well as your stellar game and tabletop advice. I hope you get an air conditioner for that dungeon bud. Thanks for all you do!
Thank you for the nuanced reminder. I really appreciate your content. In line with this topic, D&D Shorts is donating all their proceeds from the videos reviewing the new Player Handbook. A rather elegant solution to the sponsored issue given WoTC.
This is perfectly normal for vendors to provide advanced copies of product to influencers so they can have timely reviews out to the public. Camera companies have been known to fly influencers to events to access the cameras in advance, record their video material so they can release it once the embargo releases. Hollywood provides full seasons or half-seasons to reviewers in advance so they can get their reviews out after episodes drop. Now if they are paying cash to the reviewer, that’s different. But giving them product to review is perfectly normal. A good influencer will clearly state that the vendor provided the product to them and have no editorial say in the review. This may be a nothing burger.
Also paid reviews are fine too as long as they are disclosed so the viewer knows it’s advertising and in that case, it should be understood it’s not a review but a promo and that’s fine too.
Thanks for another great video. I have been writing reviews of one kind or another for 30 years. Getting previews and comped copies should certainly be disclosed. But I don't know those count as payment. Sponsored videos certainly need to be declared and I think most content creators get that. How long is the shelf life of a RUclipsr is a good question. I know some of the channels I follow in minis games have been at it for about a decade. The next few years should be telling as the next D&D comes out and we see how many players WotC can keep.
I was a podcaster from 2005 to 2012, I did a segment for a larger show (That won two Ennie Awards) where I reviewed lesser-known games. I was often accused of being a nostalgia piece, but in truth I review a lot of new released. I only ever accepted two free games, I asked for neither. I knew a lot of podcasters who did try to get free products. I took an attitude that when at a con I did not try to make any appearance of being a podcaster, and while talk to makers of games, if I liked the guy I would buy it, then give them my card and asked for an Interview. At Gencon 2007, I was at the podcaster table outside the dealer's hall, and a person from a company came up to the table because he was a listener of mine. He suggested we get up an interview for the company he was working with. I did go to their booth, the same looked interesting, and that person was not there. So, I was able to get the pitch, buy the game and then asked for the interview. The good part was the person who knew me showed up just as I finished the transaction. I later reviewed the game as part of my regular segment. I never like talking free products because first I never intended trying to make a living off of podcasting, and two I feel like if you take free products, you are required to give the product a good review. Looking at The Splicers RPG. I gave it the review it deserved, calling it a three-hundred-page weapons manual for an as yet unpublished RPG. I bought it with my own money as feel perfectly OK doing that review.
Paid reviews need to be clearly stated as advertising. Advertising is fine. Unstated paid asvertising is what destroyed the tech review industry on YT.
Great stuff PDM. Fair and balanced, as always. Keep doing what you do. You are a pillar to the dungeon tuber community and to independent role-playing games.
Get ready to rrrrrrummmbleeeee! Jokes aside, good work on being on the positive side for people. You made me discover Shadow Dark, and I can't thank you enough.
Any body that is being paid should disclose it. Even if they don't think it's biasing them the audience should know that so they can factor the possible bias in to their decisions.
This video is the kind of thoughtful nuanced discourse that we could use more of in our society at large. It also reflects a understanding of the real world and aknowledgement that these are real people that need to support themselves and their families. Like it or not we all need to make money to survive, and despite what others may think, I think DND RUclipsrs are passionate people who work hard and have choosen a difficult and unstable career because they like what they do. Remember that that they are generally providing us entertainment for free. They deserve to be paid and we all know that one of the ways they do that is through sponsorships. If someone doesn't want to hear about DND 2024, by all means they can not watch those videos but trying to stop these people from making money is the kinda thing we all would criticize WOTC for. People deserve to ne paid for their work.
People think this practice started with Video Games, how wrong they are, this is a practice as old as time itself. GIving free samples to drum up interest, movies have early screenings for critics with red carpet events ... This practice has been around forever.
I think there is a distinct difference between "critique" and "sponsorship." Players are looking for unbiased critique of a new product that has grown dramatically more expensive. They value unbiased opinions. Reviewers need the product in order to perform their review; they owe it to the community to inform them where/how their review materials are sourced. This is different from pushing something you really like. I love a certain game; I'm biased. You know I'm biased. "Hey I play this; I help create this; I want you to play it too" is not the same as making a review of the highs and lows of a product. The issue are the "gushing" reviews of some of the most guilty; who until recently did not disclose their sourcing.
I’m not into WOTC or the current incarnations of D&D, nothing against it, personally, but my comfort zone is 1st edition AD&D, and some OSR. I don’t see myself playing VTT, or I say it doesn’t appeal to me as much as it might the younger generation. In the end it’s just a fun pastime, follow what you find is fun.
as long as they disclose what they received. i only think it should out right sponsored content if they receive money. i only think they need to just mention it if they were given a free copy.
I’m not here for D&D drama, I am here for Tabletop News. To conport yourself with honor, integrity and compassion is the greatest of goals. Thank you for the wonderful video!
While i don't judge anyone for getting payed by wotc (as you said, we all need to eat) i also wont trust a word of someone's review if they are getting payed to do it lol
I think that's what most of the "outrage" is about. Sure there are always some dickhead overreacting in harmfull manner. But those concerns are still legit. It's not easy to stay independant. Some "DungeonTubers" are failing rn.
There is a saying: Morality is good for those who can afford it. The cost of living, etc. is rising. Medicines and medical equipment are also expensive. Example: I have diabetes (type 1, the autoimmune version). I have a sensor on my arm that I have to replace every 2 weeks. A sensor costs just under 66 euros. That's just over 1700 euros per year. Then there are other things like insulin pens, needles, glucose, which would cost me almost 2000 euros a year just to stay alive. If I were a D&D RUclipsr, quite honestly, I don't know if I would have turned down the WotC offer.
Yes everybody need to secure an incoming. But many young ppl get trapped into thinking that they can change their hobby into a job by recording viral advertising. it's not a secure income and it's not journalism.
If they are paid in cash or heavily compensated with gear and access, I can confidently say they need to say they are sponsored. Its fine if they are paid. But, receiving a review copy or early release to review, that is not compensation.
The fact of the matter is, no youtubers is in a position where they have to sacrifice their morals to take money from WoTC. It is extremely disappointing to see so many youtubers either pu$$y foot around the OGL situation, or "take a stand", just to bend over to WoTC the first chance they have to make money and shill.
@@THELUBINTHEMORNING Because the OGL was some of those RUclipsr only way to earn an income. I'm not saying all them simply followed the money. But many did.
Great video, and well stated. !00% agree with your take on things. I've said in my videos many times before: "Given the time it takes to read over material, write a script, produce and edit a video I'm not wasting my precious time on a product I'm not going to ultimately recommend." I have zero desire to poo on another creator's efforts. My time is better spent elevating those talented creators who are doing the work and making great content for us. I have people emailing me CONSTANTLY to do a review. MOST of them I ignore or turn down, and others, I certainly WILL allow them to send me their material. I definitely can't afford to BUY everything I'd want to review for the channel, a lot of it, I never would of even LOOKED at if it wasn't brought to my attention due to my status as a youtuber. That said, I let the creators know upfront: no review is guaranteed, no POSTIVE review is promised and If I do do the review I'll talk about it honestly warts and all. With those parameters in play, if they still want to send me their stuff.. great! Everyone benefits, especially the subscribers who find out about the best stuff being published for the OSR... and what a priveldge for me it is to be able to highlight hard working, talented creators. Game on!
I love your channel. But to be fair you are not in a position where you depend on Talanian or Taomino to send you free stuff to keep posting video and/or earn a living. You mailbox is full and you truly chose what to review. It's doesn't means access journalism isn't a serious issue.
@@Minodrec Fair critique. I am not familiar with WOTC's agreements with content creators that are compt their material. I would be interested in what the agreement is, and what the details are. Does the review HAVE to be positive, or are they free to give their thoughts honestly? As long as the reviewer is allowed that freedom, I see no issue with WOTC sending them material.
I think I saw the Ginny video and she claimed that she didn't get any money, just the preview book. IMO that shouldn't be enough of a bribe to change her review, but who knows.
I personally think it isn't just about the book. It is in a roundabout way still money: a video of a hotly anticipated book before it releases will get more views. So one can come to the conclusion that you maybe don't want to be too critical of the supplier of said book in the hopes to get more early "preview" content in the future (not for the value of those books, but for the extra revenue that the content can generate). That said - as long as it is clear that a video is sponsored/that stuff has been received for free I have no problem with it, but I can see how people can come to the idea that this might compromise later videos.
@@S0nyb1ack It's also natural to not want to be too critical outwardly about a game when it's in your best interest for the game to garner a big community that will hopefully result in you getting lots of views in the future.
@S0nyb1ack Yeah, the "access journalism" aspect is a potential problem, too. We certainly see it a lot in video games, where you don't get to review games anymore if you tell your readers/viewers that the company's last game was not amazing. Personally, I'm not interested in WotC products at all anymore almost no matter what they do. They've just done too many weird and disrespectful things to their customers (and the people who created the games and settings), and I'm just generally done with them.
I don't mind the "selling out" as long as they tell me in the video. Everything has biases and if you didn't trust them to have integrity you probably didn't like them too much in the first place. And to be honest, most of their subscribers expect them to have reviews on their books. It would be weirder if they didn't cover them in some fashion. Personally, not buying any new WotC books. Still have what I call a piracy debt that I'm slowly paying off, but I at least have the minor pleasure that I know they go out of their way to be not proud of those books.
Only youtubers call it consiracy because they misrepresent what people think and say. Most of the people dont think that RUclipsrs literally get paychecks from WotC (even though they might). And even if they do get paycheck its ok, its not selling out, its their job. The problem is when those RUclipsrs can't say anything negative about WotC creations, even about literal trash. For me it is obvious that content creators even if not getting paid will be afraid to express criticism or even negativity towards WotC descisions. Especially after OGL stuff, when they had their livelyhood threatened by WotC. I even suspect WotC did it just for that, so creators would be afraid of them, but those are all mys speculations. People are not dumb, they know when these creators lie and hide behind "oh i am just all about having fun, thats all".
Book publishers send out review copies all the time. You want your books reviewed by people that review books and they can’t review a book they don’t have. Paying people for a review is more suspect, as the implication is that you’re paying for a GOOD review. Regardless, you always take a review with a grain of salt, and you need to do the work yourself to figure out which reviewers give useful advice for your tastes.
Sacrificing morals and ethics in favor of bits of paper is disgusting, its not growing up it's giving up, huge difference. Im 48, and have never just given up in favor of money, that is the definition of a sell out, and that is a huge problem with this world. Acquiescing to the demands of the unethical business world has only taught those people in charge that we will take whatever crap they hand down to us, and over the years this information has lead to the shitty corporatist world we live in now. Don't preach.
Professor, I am very glad that in this sea of madness that RUclips is, you're the captain of the only ship afloat, the "Sanity". Your analysis is spot on and mature, not afraid of positioning yourself as someone who can understand and coexist with the romantic and practical sides of life. And yet again, as someone who worked 15 years with Investor Relations, I have to agree with another Professor, Damodaran, when he says ESG is in most part just green washing to create money for banks and "specialists" and try to create value where there is intrinsically none - once that caring for the environment is not a virtue, but a must.
We get review copies or arcs to review the books. That's ok-not money-if you want a book review send an arc out or a pdf. -you say THEY SENT ME A COPY is important.
Most game companies send out preview material to various media folks, so WotC is not doing anything different. I think it’s fine, as long as the reviewer is upfront with the situation, whether is just a preview copy or it’s paid content. As a fan of games, I like seeing the early reviews.
I will add a bit here: 2 things primarily. 1. I agree with the thrust of this but you kinda sugar coated what people are generally upset about with "unsponsored" sponsored content, or "sponsored content". While it's not always the case, from a cynical stance when someone pays you to review something, it does very much impact that review, either at the best case subtly, or very often in extreme cases where there are reviewed and approved drafts and edits. It creates a severe trust breach between the reviewer and the audience. I feel like you kinda skipped past that whole thing as an uncomfortable truth. Most sane people aren't mad they are getting paid, they are more concerned with the integrity of the review and tuber. You sorta touched on it, but in a really flyby manner and it comes off a bit as avoiding the uncomfortable part of the topic. And to be honest, people are right to be suspect of sponsored reviews, especially in the gaming space. I know you probably don't follow video games as much as some younger folks, but there's an entire fake news industry of pay to play reviews that has had an overall impact of shunting the entire industry at large into cynical kelptocracy and people don't want to see that happen to TTRPGs because they love and care about them so much. They see the warning signs on the wall from Hasbro, because they've seen it before with Otaku, Games Rader, Buzzfeed, and a million other pay to play "news" outlets which are little more than glorified advertising agencies. People are right to be cynically suspect of Hasbro/WotC/DnD and this isn't a point in their favor. We both know there's mountains of evidence they are doing shady shit not once, or twice, but constantly like pretty much every week there's a new problematic thing. People don't want their game/hobby to become a cynical kelptocracy and are speaking out against that as a whole. 2. I think it's absolutely silly to say on the net "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything" for a few reasons. First, we don't need more echo chambers which aren't healthy to begin with. Second, if nowhere else in life everyone has a voice on the internet and the right to exercise it, even if they are a dickhead. Third, this whole thing gets especially dicey when people do have a legitimate gripe (like with sponsored reviews) as it gives the appearance whether intended or not of trying to silence someone with a valid complaint. People are upset and provided they aren't being jerks about it, absolutely should be heard. Fourth: The very notion discourse and communication is central to TTRPGs as a mechanical theme. I'd say "If you can't say it without being overtly cruel/sending death threats/doxing/etc, then maybe don't say anything until you can." Dissenting voices and opinions are important, whether correct or not, because that's where learning and growth happens. Criticism to many is considered automatically hostile by many, even if done with a benevolent intent and phrasing, so it feels like the statement is "if you don't agree, shut up" which isn't what you said, but it is what a lot of people will take away from it, when what might better serve is "have your voices heard, but at least be civil about it, even if you're right to be angry".
I agree completely. Without communication there is no growth. And sometimes a complaint needs to be communicated. It's always best to do so in a respectful manner but for Professor DM to imply that any criticism shouldn't be said at all is going too far.
Advance copies are not yet in the territory of sponsored content. Otherwise the press that often gave abysmal reviews is guilty for decades when it comes to books, theatre shows, cinema, television and so forth. Claiming accepting early access in order to be able to review before the product is out is already sponsorship is just stupid ignorance of how marketing and journalism (in particular in regards to critics) works. Point in case many DnD or TTRPG tubers that were quite critical of WotC also got advanced copies. Outright getting paid is a different matter. But I'm not aware of cases where that happened undisclosed with the new phb.
Professor, you're an old-head like me. Maybe it's my senility but I don't seem to remember Siskel & Ebert getting accused of shilling because they saw a movie before release for review purposes.
Thank you for the well-considered, mature video, Professor! Glad to have an adult in the room. The other creators all disclosed the content's nature. If you are a RUclipsr, making rpg videos, why wouldn't you make videos covering upcoming new rule books for the largest ttrpg on the planet?
uhh...I have been teaching at colleges and universities since 2003. When there was more publishing companies, it was not uncommon to get free "desk copies" of textbooks from their manufacturers as they were hoping you would select their text as the mandatory textbook for the class. Nobody acted like this was scandelous. From time to time, it was not unheard of for a professor to ask for a "replacement desk copy" from the publisher in order to give it to a financially struggling student, which was about a $200 retail value. With many fewer publishers still in the market, it is not as common to be sent them unsoliceted, but all the major publishers I know will send a free one on request. Nobody gets bent about it. The people we do get bent about are the ones who create their own textbook and basically force the students to buy it. It is seen in the community as basically extortion and carries a serious social stigma. Could you imagine if RPG creators were stigmatized for encouraging their follows to buy their own personally made books or systems? The hobby would essentially collapse. I don't see anyrhing wrong with getting early access to, being paid to review, or otherwise market from WoTC or anyone else. All of the youtube content creators I watch obviously have put a lot of time, effort, personal knowledge, skill, and experience into making their videos. I don't agree with every video or point and I don't simp for creators. If they can get some money or other bonus for it, then my best wishes for them. I don't see a scandal at all, just a bunch of people left out crying "sour grapes." Incidentally, there is at least 1 youtuber who I do not watch or subscribe to, I know about, that essentially has a channel devoted to trash-talking WoTC. I think always pointing out negatives and never giving credit when and where it is due is a bit more scandelous and morally bankrupt than anyone taking money or favors for promotion. Top notch creators getting something for giving whatever they are presented with an honest review is valuble to me. I think they should get more. This so-called "Scandal" isn't worth the time talking about it.
I was a few years old when Apollo 11 landed and I was a space nerd till my early twenties when I got busy and drifted away. When SpaceX started to try and land boosters, I rediscovered my love for space, and haven't been able to stop watching launches since.
Other than the obvious, the big problem with major RUclipsrs taking money from large corporations like Hasbro is that it creates an in-group and “the fringes” In other words, all of the big RUclipsrs will start covering dungeons and dragons positively, and all the critics will be on the fringes. Hasbro and its allies can then point to its critics and say they're on the fringes. This is been true in politics and commerce alike for a long time. At the end of the day, it’s buying and selling control of the discussion.
I pride myself on knowing spellings of obscure words, or sometimes even words I never heard, but that one I have gone 30 years thinking it was "renumeration." Lol 😅
Yeah, after 40+ years playing and running D&D, I won't be buying anything more unless/until a new, less reprehensible owner takes it over. Too many other great games to play. I have no problem with anyone who does still play, and I have no problem with D&D personalities getting paid by WotC/Hasbro. Congrats to them for getting their bag. Their channels may be less appealing to me now, but that's not because I have some moral objection. I just don't need coverage of a game I won't be playing.
Its just, people realizing a company that makes stuff they like is bad. Which is kind of naive. Pretty much any company you give your money to, you can follow the production chain and somewhere you'll find some nasty stuff. Moral criterias don't apply to corporations because corporations aren't people, they're institutions that seek to maximize profit, and all the BS that comes with that can be applied to any and all corporations. There aren't "nice" ones and "bad" ones, its just a matter of scale and opportunity to do bad things. Many small companies you might like are susceptible to become "bad" if they do well enough, and become a victim of their own success. Just look at the origins of TSR and the DnD creators, and what wizards has become. You can apply this pattern to a lot of corporation that have become giants, and this can potentially happen to any company that is successful enough. In the end we're all shills selling out to companies because we need money. A lot of people work for companies that engage in toxic business practices, and they know it, and they probably don't like it when their employers do bad things, especially if those bad things target their workers. But we need money. Progress can only come from political will and serious activism, it will not come from hypocritical moral righteousness. We're all in this sinking boat together. Peace.
It's strange. So like, *MOST* content creators for DnD on the site that're getting these books early are more than happy to say "Wizards sent me the book early" but they *arent* willing to say that the content is sponsored. Likely, because Wizards might not be *paying* them explicitly to cover the material. This is a similar situation as it is in the sphere of video game reviews. Many publications will receive early copies of video games for the purpose of reviews. This has escalated greatly, to where many publications and content creators can be expected to be flown out to the offices of the developers, put up in a hotel at cost to the company, wine and dined for a two-three day period, then allowed to play the game. They'll be sent limited edition collectors material for the game, sometimes, that material would be *EXCLUSIVELY* made *FOR* influencers and other journalists that is not available to the public, or if it is, is available at such a steep price that it is effectively unattainable, or unreasonable to attain. But. Of course. The company didn't *pay* them for their review. They weren't officially sponsored, and, surely, the developers *ONLY* want the honest opinion of these reviewers. Of course, if the reviewers opinion is *negative* then, perhaps next time, the reviewer won't receive a copy in advance. They certainly won't be able to flown out to a 4 star hotel, or receive special promotional acrutemon from the developers, such as was the case with Fallout 76, and Cyberpunk 2077 -- which had the influencers who'd been entreated to this experience giving glowing reviews of their time, how much fun they had with the game and how hopeful they were for the full release... Now, those games were unplayable in the state they launched in, 76 literally criminally so, but the point remains that the definition of "sponsorship" needs to change. Quid Pro Quo is a taint on any industry, but especially in demographics where honest coverage is going to impact their wallets -- Wizards is not making these books *cheaper* certainly, so, when a person who *WANTS* to play DnD with friends a person who *HAS* the book and covers the content *IN* the book is how they're able to make an informed decision on if they want to spend the 40+ USD on the book. And I'd certainly like it be *EXPLICT* that the materials provided did not cost the reviewer a single cent. That Wizards in their "generosity" have provided the materials free of charge -- this should be considered sponsored content. Because when WotC is looking at publish, what was it? 3 new books for the next update to DnD 5e? If they maintain their 30-40 USD price tag, that's approaching *100* dollars worth of content that people are just getting for free. that they now get to profit from on their channel (and of course, that they dont NEED to give to WotC). If a content creator was given material, explicitly by the company or an agent of the company, then it ought to constitute a sponsorship. Put simply, that's money a content creator *DOESNT* have to spend, which amounts to money in their pocket already, since the implication remains; if I want to continue getting free things from the company, I should not do things that jeopardize my relationship with the company -- such as being very critical of a book that OTHER people will have to pay a LOT of money for. I remember back in the days of 4e their were little supplemental books for races in the game, Tieflings and Dragonborn, and they were like, 30 USD for what amounted to 20-30 pages of lore and a couple of character options. If I were told by a reviewer "oh these are totally great books that help really give you more information and character choices and i think it's really worth your time if youre playing one of these races" then I might have been inclined to purchase them despite the fact they were, in my opinion having bought them, a waste of money. I don't think it's enough to just say "oh haha wizards sent me the book early haha isnt that fun? Isnt that wacky? haha lets review it haha my opinion is gonna be totally honest tho, really guys, all they did was give me a 40$ product for free that i now get to monetize the content of which on my channel for effectively no cost haha :)" you should be ticking that box for sponsored content.
This is how ALL reviews work. It’s not unethical or ‘sponsored’. Book reviewers are sent an advance copy by the publisher; that reviewer reviews it and is paid for their work. Film reviews are given (yes, free) preview screenings, then they get paid for writing or videoing a review. Tech reviewers are sent sample hardware. None of this is new or different to any other review that has happened before in any other media for a hundred years. If they aren’t being paid by the company to review the product; they aren’t sponsored. They are independent and allowed to speak their mind.
@@AWAL602No. A critics have to buy the product the same way a regular consumer do. Anything else is marketing. Access journalism is a serious issue. And corpo never play fair. We even saw issue with tuned cars sent for particle emission review. Serious tech reviewer have to buy phone and even disclose where and when the phone was bought. So everyone can track and check. You have to review a proper sample. Or else there is no method and no valid way to know where your conclusion truly comes from. How to independant journalism works isnt new. Educates yourself. Don't conflate social media and journalism.
If they don’t say they’re sponsored, they’re more than likely not being sponsored. It’s not just a good idea, as suggested in this video, it is an actual legal requirement to state in clear terms whether you were compensated for that advertisement.
Everyone always says “they can’t be honest if they’re receiving material early” but also never point out specific examples of their not being honest. Nerd Immersion received the PHB early but talks in nearly every video about how bad the ranger is. Is he not being honest? Treantmonk’s Temple put out a video today of spells he thinks should’ve been adjusted but weren’t and spells he thinks were adjusted in odd ways. Is he not being honest? It’s one thing to complain about dishonest reviews and sponsored content, but maybe people should wait until reviews are actually dishonest and/or sponsored. A reviewer isn’t bought off just because they like something the viewer doesn’t.
I swear that yours is the only channel where I keep clicking to listen to news that I positively just do not care about 😂
Same hahaha
Yeah me too. I guess I do listen to Discourse sometimes too and I've not bought Games Workshop since 1987 😂
Hah! Spot on. I don't even know these 'scandals' exist until I see the latest PDM video.
Same really, other channels are talking about it but I skipped those vids and clicked this one lol.
Hey, me too, lol!
Wait, you're in an attic? I thought you were in a subterranean crypt with walls of poorly dressed stone. Truly, there are no more illusions to shatter :(
If he borrowed a portable hole, it could be both :)
he didnt say where the attic is...
Gotta change his name now 😂
Wait till you find out he doesn't have a +2 vest of protection 😂
You mean the basement?
I refuse to buy anything by WOTC these days.
I've bought two things from WotC since they bought TSR, the 3e PHB and the 5e PHB. I spend far more money each year on old TSR D&D and AD&D content from back in the day, than I have on anything made by WotC.
If WotC's d20 game that they brand as D&D is someone's thing, great! I'm glad they enjoy it, but it doesn't remind me of D&D or AD&D.
Same, and I'm pretty damn sad about it to be honest. Ravenloft and Dark Sun are two of my favorite campaign settings across pretty much any TTRPG outside of Tolkien's Middle-earth.
I get that
Hasbrotc is dead to me, too. I'll buy clearance shit at Ollie's. Hey, if they're going to offload pallets of dungeon tiles for $3? Sure. Product was never worth the $50 they were asking for initially.
Cool story, bro.
Reminds me of a Douglas Adams quote from Hitchikers guide- “Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this -- partly because it was a debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.”
Here's the rewrite: “Many respectable D&D toubers said that they weren't going to stand for this -- partly because it was a debasement of the hobby to accept money to review the material early, but mostly because THEY didn't get invited to review the new edition.”
Not saying this is you professor! I'm just sponsored by Douglas Adam's ghost and I have quote quotas. Love your content! All the best!
Well said.
Disclosure is vitally important.
I watch a lot of gaming youtubers, including video game reviewers, who get sponsored by companies, and they always state that clearly at the opening. Many of them, especially awesome ones like SpiffingBrit, make it into a running joke how companies keep paying them to break or tear down their products in front of an audience.
Just because you take money, doesn't mean you praise the source.
As long as a RUclipsr is honest and upfront when they receive payment for a video, I have no problem with it. I may disagree strongly with their take, but money by itself is not the issue.
Honesty is.
If someone's paying for your review, say it, and viewers can weigh their takes. Honesty builds trust. Disclosure keeps the community running :)
the issue was never being upfront about it being sponsored.
it's the sponsor.
Not the same thing. SpiffingBrit reviews a variety of things. D&Dtubers only review D&D, their career on RUclips relies on D&D wholly because it is the ttrpg that gets clicks.
They keep it a secret because they know the community will see it as the paid advertisement it is. Dungeons of Drakenheim is already on the Hasbro owned DnD beyond.
There's all kinds of 'sponsorships'. And then there's the "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" effect when youtubers start collab'ing and 'crosspolinating' their videos and game reviews... It's getting to a point where I feel no one is free to criticize someone else without being seen as an A-hole... And this is even true with the real A-holes in the scene, who do the same for their fellow A-holes. IDK, old man yells at the clouds, I guess
A really popular RUclipsr might be free to criticise a product that he or she is being paid to review, and, thereby, publicise. 99.999% of the rest will be shills, either for the cash, or because they are woke morons too.
So... anyone else wanna try and raise the $500,000 for the spaghetti-wrestling thing? 😂
I got 5 on it!
yeah, but what is gonna be the shape of the pool ?
@@flammebeauregard8358 The D&D ampersand (&) 😃
I'm betting on SCOTT BROWN MUTHAFUCKERS!
My money is on Seth!
I know I'm late to this video, but I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to make such a thoughtful and nuanced take on this conversation (and of course, for the very kind things you said about me!!) You addressed not just the question of when and whether it's appropriate to accept sponsorships, but even the question that weighs heavy on most full-time creators' minds but it relatively invisible to fans, which is the lack of stability in a job like this, and how that affects the financial choices we make. I really appreciate your voice in this conversation!
Greetings from Tokyo! Thanks for taking the time to comment. Responding to comments is the first thing I do in the morning and the first few comments were about how I suck and don't know anything about D&D, so this was a welcome surprise. I loved your recent interview with Jeremy Crawford, BTW. Keep rockin' it!
If you receive promotional materials/early access/free anything from the producers or promoters of a product you should inform your viewers so that they get the FULL story. A simple (and accurate) disclaimer at the start of the video is sufficient.
I’ve respected the RUclipsrs who come out and say: “I got this book for free, and I’m not under any contract limiting what I can say. Here’s what I think.” Then we, as consumers, can take their information and the context under which it is given and draw our own conclusions.
There’s only a moral or ethical concern when people withhold the context. I just don’t see that often. You, Bob, Ginny, DnD Shorts, and many more are very transparent about these things.
So I don’t understand how “scandal” got attached to this conversation. It’s just marketing. It’s no different than marketing has ever been, and it is apparent that most content creators of any influence are being sincere and responsible.
scandal
/skăn′dl/
noun
A publicized incident that brings about disgrace or offends the moral sensibilities of society.
Yeah. I feel the WotC hate is getting a little bit ridiculous
Yes, WotC does treat its employees no better than Amazon and value money over the customer. But what is happening here is just normal marketing. There is no evil scandal going on here like with the Pinkerton incident
Big difference between getting a free copy to review, and being paid to review a product in cash.
@loganredding1621 I think that 'hate' - which well adjusted humans would call mere criticism - is wholly deserved and the fact they have to pay to get positive reviews speaks volumes about how shit their woke output is, and has been, for some time now. Even leaving out the woke propaganda, the recent books are poorly written by DEI hires with zero track record. Add to that their open contempt for most of the long time player base, and, for their customers generally as seen with the OGL fiasco. F*ck WotC.
@@Norvik_-ug3geNot really that big of a difference. It's not that hard to identify the reviewers who give honest review, paid or not. and no that doesnt mean they must crap on a product, most of the time they should generally like it if they enjoy the hobby. A reviewer that is always fully positive or fully negative is just fishing for dollars.
Hi, Professor! I've got to say that slowly, but surely, this channel has become my favourite in the RPG sphere. And I have no doubts that you have some responsibility in my passion for the more "old school gaming" side of things.
Thanks a lot for your work! Keep it up!
I think a lot of people who watch hobby video channels do not think of it as an enterprise. They think it's just an expression of the hobby.
True
Producing quality hobby YT videos costs money. Dungeontubers need to get paid, or else these YTers will not provide consistent, quality content.
@@n.kirkevans6256skill issue. Lots of content creators in other fields figured this stuff out long ago.
@@n.kirkevans6256 a lot of hobbies cost money, people still do it
Eh, that's what's intriguing about RUclips, there are slick, well lit, well edited channels with scripts, but there are also channels where is a one guy show, no editing, no script, one take kind of content too. You can watch both, you can love both, just don't confuse the two. Some folks really ARE in this just as z hobby space and it would feel like a real betrayal if they became a more "professional" RUclipsr.
I agree completely with this. Full disclosure is important. If you can get the money, take it. Let face it, these RUclipsrs have been providing them free advertising for YEARS. Getting some compensation is perfectly acceptable. Getting a free advance copy is a pretty minimal offering. Considering the hour invested in creating the channel, this small perk.
WotC were also completely ignoring the fact that during COVID, D&D 5th was one of the most supported TTRPGs with the various VTTs. You know, the ones they didn't own? But that still drove book sales for people to use with the VTTs. Again, all those ones they didn't own.
But now they want to own all of the D&D VTT stuff.
It's natural for companies to want to gobble everything up, to increase their revenue at the expense of everyone else. It's also not unusual to kill (or wound) the golden goose by doing so.
@@keithkannenberg7414 Its the difference between a red market and a blue market,... The whole "Competition is good for business" is a myth/cope. In capitalism for shareholders and maintaining stability for your workers and the heads of a company, NO competition is the best competition. Because then YOU determine the market, control the market, and can essentially market things with impunity and people have no choice but to gobble it up or get left out....
The funny thing is while people still play online, most people have gone back to in person games without a VTT. Some might use the VTT on a table tv, but they don’t have to use a VTT. They could just display a map.
@@k-aw-teksleepysageuni8181It is illegal so doing so gives the government leverage.
@@k-aw-teksleepysageuni8181
*"Its the difference between a red market and a blue market,... The whole "Competition is good for business" is a myth/cope."*
Anyone who actually understands economic fundamentals knows that competition is good for the consumers, not the companies. And no one who understands those fundamentals has ever said otherwise.
sponsored content vs a critic is something completely different.
Good point ☝️
@@THELUBINTHEMORNING The point to make on this issue.
Yep. And it’s standard practice in any industries to invite critics to screenings or product launches, or send them review copies/models. In fact not doing so is often seen as a sign of low confidence in a product. Critics just need to disclose they were provided with the product. its not a "paid review"
I have no love for WotC, but some people act as if WotC is some mortal enemy, or a literal devil. This is not a religion, folks. It's a business. WotC is a business entity that wants to sell us something, and we are consumers who have a choice to buy or not buy the things they're selling. That's all it is.
I myself choose to buy other stuff (Free League being my current favorite) because I like other stuff more than I like WotC stuff. And I don't begrudge anybody or make enemies of anybody just because they like WotC stuff better. Hating people for such petty reason is a waste of time and energy. I have better things to do. We all do.
Yet you are right here with the rest of us. Nothing wrong with talking about what you care about.
Not sure how that's supposed to be a putdown to what I wrote, but okay.
@@TonyCrenshawsLatte It wasn't a put down...
When a corporation which has a dominant position in the market seeks ways to destroy the business of their competition they are the enemy of the free market. A monopolistic gorgon which needs slaying and will never get my business, and has not for many years. It isn't religion, but it is about right and wrong. A competitive market is what makes markets work and gives consumers the best product at the best price. I hate all powerful corporations, who do this, on principle. Yes I was a Cubs fan (Born and Raised) when they were still owned by the Wrigleys (Pre 1981 sale to the Tribune Company, and yes I hate the Yankees).
I hate Disney with every fiber of my being and yet, my job is animation. More than 50% of my contracts throughout the years have been with them. It's either I work with them or I don't get rent money, what am I supposed to do? Die?
How I compromise is simply by not supporting their plateforms and go see indie movies in theater, that's how I'm able to live with it.
Someone needs to make competition for Disney and refuse to be bought out.
I feel for you, that can't be easy having to deal with the devil so you can make the art you love. I work in the medical industry because I really like helping people in need, but I work in America and health insurance and the enormous costs put on patients are so antithetical to my beliefs
Weak and pathetic.
@@THELUBINTHEMORNING Yes... but consumers need to buy it. See how he goes to the indie movies? I know I don't.
You do another job. The universe doesnt owe you to get paid for that one job.
Assassins and torturers and soldiers for dictators gonna say the same. If you put your own well being over that of others its not right.
I mean in your case its not the end of the world, but dont act like you dont have a choice.
About 10 years back, the computer game publisher of Rome Total War 2 had a bit of extra ad budget, and sponsored the Extra Credits to do a tie in series on the Punic Wars. That seed grew into a channel with 3.6 million subscribers and tons of great history deep dives into lesser know topics, which likely wouldn't have happened if it weren't for that first sponsorship.
Good things can come from corporate sponsorships, as long as it's disclosed.
Businesses exist for a reason. It's a well oiled and effective machinery when it isn't bogged down by corruption.
I asked Seth and he said "Not sauce, full on spaghetti" lol
so how much for the sauce? 600K?
For $750k can it be both??
@@sonicexpert986 you boyz are so twisted. Let's keep it clean and make it bechamel sauce, agreed ? 😂
It doesnt matter what wotc does, they cant have my money anymore
OK?
Good! :)
As a recovering MtG addict, same
Never
Again
I did not need to know that. But thank you for the input
Being up front about being sponsored is the right thing -- I just wonder, how many will give a negative review if they have criticisms about it? Will they colour their opinion, even if subconsciously? If you want to be popular and remain relevant with the D&D product and player base can you act completely freely without a consequence? I don't have the answers to that but it's one of the main reasons I think PDM has the best channel out there: because I have no concerns over the integrity of the content. I may not always agree with everything you say but I know it's coming from an authentic place.
That's a great point, and that's where the few that change their review to suit the sponsor lose viewers and ad revenue, while those who take the money but still give an honest review of the product gain trust and viewers. Quite a few RUclipsrs have learned that the second approach is the better one.
Of course getting paid to review a game will undermine your credibility in the eyes of (critical thinking) viewers. Any review that is mildly to majorly positive will have to be taken with a big grain of salt at that point, because it is in the best interest of the reviewer to stay on the good side of the creator in order to keep getting such deals.
The video game industry set the precedent where sponsored reviewers and those that get early access frequently end up wanting to keep that privileged position. A corporation like WoTC (Hasbro) is certainly in the same category of corporate giant to want to get good PR and thus end up being selective after a while.
Games Workshop has had scandals about that as well.
This is a good point, but it's worth keeping in mind that our major media news outlets are currently struggling with the same thing, and they have found no good answers. If billion dollar news corporations working in concert with each other cannot solve the problems of access media and audience capture then D&D RUclipsrs definitely won't.
@@Darthvegeta8000 People think this practice started with Video Games, how wrong they are, this is a practice as old as time itself.
GIving free samples to drum up interest, movies have early screenings for critics with red carpet events ... This practice has been around forever.
I started kind of pushing the button on some recent videos of a RUclips channel I *really* like because I started getting a little agitated at just how *aggressively* they had started to push out content for DnD 2024. I did leave a comment kind of insinuating that it's a bit strange how quick they turned toward the new game, and how quick that happened after the OGL scandal, of which that channel was extremely critical.
I do think a respectful discourse should be encouraged in the comment section of videos like that one, because if we never tell the channels we like that we dislike something, maybe they'll continue to spiral in a direction we can't follow.
But I *do* agree; y'all gotta get that bread. I just want it transparent when the *marketing* for the game picks up.
or it's a good game. hmmmm
I did the same thing to one of those channels that took the WotC sponsorship, the channel's response did not impress me. And since that channel makes a 3rd party product, I'm now highly suspicious of what it says about the new edition.
@thesonofdormammu5475 Lol, I wouldn't be surprised if we were talking about the same channel!
I'm hopeful they'll maybe turn some transparency on in the future. I'm not personally looking for a whole video statement or whatever, just a little "Hey, they want us to sponsor this content, so here it is! We are/aren't being paid for this, anyway!..." seems appropriate.
@@chaosheaven23 yeah, pretty sure we are talking about the same channel. Referring to the channel with "they"/etc tells me at least 1 host, and I can only think of one channel that did a sponsored video that has more than one host 🙂
Like you say, it's about transparency. And once a channel takes a sponsorship from a company, chances are they are going to be softer on that company because they probably want another sponsorship in the future and it's a bad idea to bite the hand that feeds you.
Of course, at the beginning of the WOTC attempt to take over all D&D content, the RUclipsrs were looking at losing the ability to cover the content they normally cover. Then, It was in their interest to push back, hard. It wasn’t necessarily a principled stand.
If I was a D&Dtuber I would be worried, I would certainly take the money and disclose it, but it feels like the first step of favourable coverage for access. If I say 'well this new feature is a little stinky' and hear later I'm the only one not sent to this exclusive event or have exclusive access to new content it damages the channel as people will go to other channels to get informed about hot, breaking, exclusive info.
Exactly WotC get's to chose who gets those views hence the money. It doesn't have to come form WotC pocket.
It is really frustrating and disappointing when you feel like the only adult in the conversation - especially when many of the other voices are nominally "adults" too.
What I hated about working fast food
I'm roughly in your age bracket and MAN did I love this video. Especially the last sixty seconds or so. Well done sir
Lol at the clickbait collage.
It worked, I'm here
I hope you release a video on “The First 10 Minutes”, I would watch that.
Absolutely!
Professor Dungeon Master is my source of choice for all news relating to worsening scandals.
There's something about a calm, mature response to scandal that sets the right balance, and is so in contrast to most reporting on, well, anything really these days.
The platform formerly known as Twitter is NOT allowed to claim “Xer.” No. That belongs to my generation.
Isn't your generation the only one that still uses Twitter?
@@clanpsi I dunno. I left ages ago.
It was a pleasure meeting you at GenCon.
it was a pleasure meeting you!
This has been an issue on beauty tube where some influencers did not reveal that the video of the product was sponsored.
It makes people not trust that the review is authentic.
I don't have an issue with sponsored videos on gaming channels as long as they are upfront about it.
Which is the issue no matter the industry: disclosure.
People don't realize how many hidden ads we're getting on YT/TikTok (TT is the most egregious for this) through Influencers having labels and other things in the background or using specific tools (they don't always acknowledge the partnership; which I think is illegal?)
I believe that expecting reviews to be completely objetive, impartial and unbiased is being as delusional as it gets.
This channel, i.e.: extremely professional and well done, level-headed, no paid reviews, no white knighting... When I watch your videos, I (am new here and I might be wrong but I) expect a natural bias towards things that resemble Gigax works, Chainmail, the old boxes/modules - pre DnD 3.0 even. If I hated those things altogether, I would still watch you from time to time, but your opinions about the play experience probably wouldn't be as helpful to me, or not at least not as helpful as your take on book quality, bindings, materials, the unboxing and so on, which have a more objective nature.
And it gets worse - I "hate" WotC as much as the next DnD fan in line. If you ask me to review a product I don't like and I intentionally try to spite WotC; I will probably sound kinder and mellow compared to someone who hated DnD even when it was good and played GURPS all the way. Because even if I am at the opposite side corporate WotC is, I still have a bias - DnD nostalgia.
People have emotions, even if they weren't "paid", the eye of the beholder matters a lot more than most people think and that is enough to make the "unbiased, impartial" review impossible. That's one of the reasons to read multiple reviews or even look for a different angle - like actually not liking DnD 5E for real, not just "not liking WotC".
WotC isn't TSR. That always was "bad enough" for a lot of people - and I sorta get it. I like some "source" and monster books from 5e, but push comes to shove, if I were to runa a "WotC world" setting, I would use 2E-3E (maybe not even 3.5) lore - and it doesn't have anything to do with my views on corporate wizards, more often than not it's about what is "lacking" in 5e supplements. This isn't like 4E spellplague - "lack of content" would be better than spellplague, SCAG wins hands down that one...
I doubt I will change my views on WotC, that 500k event would made me reconsider it, tho.
I don't have a problem with RUclipsrs getting paid to do a review, but I'm not sure I believe Hasbro/WOTC would allow the review to be negative
This is what everyone is thinking.
If they did their chances of getting picked to be paid to review again? Zero. #Shills #Whores
You realise they send advance copies to TTRPG RUclipsrs who are critical of WotC as well?
The way people imply marketing in this field works just shows ignorance of the actual field. You very much send copies to people who will criticise you for little things as well. Because that way you show you were impartial and not picking those who will praise you.
@@BobHerzog1962 Some companies absolutely make advance copies or reviews contingent upon positive reviews. That you imply that no companies do that is the either disingenuous or just plain naive.
So long as it's disclosed, I don't see the issue with it. In their base form, these channels were always advertising for WotC and D&D, they just weren't being paid by WotC. Now they are. Kudos.
One of my favorite RUclipsrs is Gerald Undone. At the beginning of every review video he discloses all the pertinent info about the review "this company isn't paying me, I don't get to keep this, they don't get a say in the final review" and so on. That's all I need. Just tell me what's going on. They aren't pulling the wool over my eyes if they're being honest.
Of course some youtubers are incentivized to review D&D, and of course their viewership may bias them to give it positive reviews; I don't have a problem with that.
However, I don't feel good giving views to a channel that is receiving "payment" from an organization I refuse to give money to. These are our dollars at the bottom of the pyramid, this is how we protest, and it is what it is.
gonna admit; the thumbnail had me thinking I was clicking a dungeons & discourse video.
Don't worry, Professor. I was going to check in on your channel anyway
I 100% agree. I think when people are hyperbolic about these types of situations it just tells me that they've never worked in media or similar creative endeavors.
I code and it reminds me of gamers saying how easy it should be to fix a bug when they know nothing about the code base they're suggesting fixes for.
People need to make a living, but is transparency too much to ask for?
As if they had to earn money from their Hobby.
“The RUclipsr WOTC scandal-scandal…just got worse. Is it over?”
This RUclipsr also has another channel where they make the exact same videos about GW and warhammer 40k. I’m pretty sure they’re just using anger and rage to put out as much trash as possible for views and money
Correct @@mrdrprofsteve4455
@@mrdrprofsteve4455pretty much this, she never posts anything positive because it wont get as many clicks, she pretty much Said so in one of her vids
Thanks for the videos Professor DM. Always informative and entertaining.
This. This is probably my favorite video that you have made. It was delightful to bump into you accidentally at GC! Three times.
Great to meet you again and again!
I have never quite understood why Players keep putting them through all the drama(mines) spewing out from WotC.
WotC rely 100% on Player interest and Players continuing to buy all their new stuff?
In my little RP Group, we kind of stuck with the core rules of a version or three back. We love the Forgotten Realms genre (thank you Ed Greenwood), and can play ad infinitum with whatever rules we want.
I will Never buy into a company that starts trying to stripmine a genre. Will never support them for any reason.
No-ONE is forced to update and upgrade. We all have imaginations.
Thanks to all the many talented people out there inventing and creating new stuff - just cut wotc out.
This is an old debate from video game industry: how objective is a journalist or reviewer if they receive a review copy for free and if they have a symbiotic relationship with the company whose product they are reviewing (for example if a journalist, reviewer, and their company relies on press releases from a publisher, controversies generated by the publisher, etc.). I don't know if this question has any easy answers, or any answers at all. But speaking for myself only, I felt a little soured on big DungeonTubers who got a whole lot of new subscribers and traffic during the OGL outrage because they took a strong anti-WotC stance, but are very willing to now take review copies and exclusive access from WotC to get even more traffic.
Ooooh, all these are responses to Discourse's post? OK. Manufactured outrage. Got it. I appreciate the transparency from you and Bob tho'!
Dungeon Craft is the best tabletop roleplaying game RUclips channel. End of quote. Repeat the line. I try to never miss a single content drop.
In the UK there are laws about this, you really need to say if you're posting sponsored content
You nailed it sir, Bravo! I understand the feeling that HASBRO has somehow tainted their relationship with the "Community" but at the end of the day it's a business, to believe that they go to bed at night worrying about upsetting some DM in Milwaukee is ridiculous. D&D and RPG's have been a part of my life for 45 years, nothing some corporate hack is going to do is ever going to change that. I hold your channel to be of the highest credibility when dealing with this sort of business as well as your stellar game and tabletop advice. I hope you get an air conditioner for that dungeon bud. Thanks for all you do!
Honestly let them get paid. I think most people have already made up their minds. They are buying or not. I'm not, but I'm going to watch the reviews.
They should get paid. If they loose their following they should have something to show for it.
When they get paid that's not a review. It's an add.
Thank you for the nuanced reminder. I really appreciate your content. In line with this topic, D&D Shorts is donating all their proceeds from the videos reviewing the new Player Handbook. A rather elegant solution to the sponsored issue given WoTC.
This is perfectly normal for vendors to provide advanced copies of product to influencers so they can have timely reviews out to the public. Camera companies have been known to fly influencers to events to access the cameras in advance, record their video material so they can release it once the embargo releases. Hollywood provides full seasons or half-seasons to reviewers in advance so they can get their reviews out after episodes drop.
Now if they are paying cash to the reviewer, that’s different. But giving them product to review is perfectly normal. A good influencer will clearly state that the vendor provided the product to them and have no editorial say in the review. This may be a nothing burger.
Also paid reviews are fine too as long as they are disclosed so the viewer knows it’s advertising and in that case, it should be understood it’s not a review but a promo and that’s fine too.
@@yophotodude7693 There is no "no paid review". It's calledl an add.
@@Minodrec that’s exactly what I said.
Yes we agree. @@yophotodude7693
Thanks for another great video. I have been writing reviews of one kind or another for 30 years. Getting previews and comped copies should certainly be disclosed. But I don't know those count as payment. Sponsored videos certainly need to be declared and I think most content creators get that. How long is the shelf life of a RUclipsr is a good question. I know some of the channels I follow in minis games have been at it for about a decade. The next few years should be telling as the next D&D comes out and we see how many players WotC can keep.
I was a podcaster from 2005 to 2012, I did a segment for a larger show (That won two Ennie Awards) where I reviewed lesser-known games. I was often accused of being a nostalgia piece, but in truth I review a lot of new released. I only ever accepted two free games, I asked for neither. I knew a lot of podcasters who did try to get free products. I took an attitude that when at a con I did not try to make any appearance of being a podcaster, and while talk to makers of games, if I liked the guy I would buy it, then give them my card and asked for an Interview.
At Gencon 2007, I was at the podcaster table outside the dealer's hall, and a person from a company came up to the table because he was a listener of mine. He suggested we get up an interview for the company he was working with. I did go to their booth, the same looked interesting, and that person was not there. So, I was able to get the pitch, buy the game and then asked for the interview. The good part was the person who knew me showed up just as I finished the transaction. I later reviewed the game as part of my regular segment.
I never like talking free products because first I never intended trying to make a living off of podcasting, and two I feel like if you take free products, you are required to give the product a good review. Looking at The Splicers RPG. I gave it the review it deserved, calling it a three-hundred-page weapons manual for an as yet unpublished RPG. I bought it with my own money as feel perfectly OK doing that review.
Thank you for doing it the right way.
Paid reviews need to be clearly stated as advertising. Advertising is fine. Unstated paid asvertising is what destroyed the tech review industry on YT.
Great stuff PDM. Fair and balanced, as always. Keep doing what you do. You are a pillar to the dungeon tuber community and to independent role-playing games.
Saw you at the Gooey Dungeon event. Very fun.
Thanks for coming. It was fun being onstage!
Get ready to rrrrrrummmbleeeee! Jokes aside, good work on being on the positive side for people. You made me discover Shadow Dark, and I can't thank you enough.
Any body that is being paid should disclose it. Even if they don't think it's biasing them the audience should know that so they can factor the possible bias in to their decisions.
I've noticed those that do Kickstarters channels take a nose dive soon afterward. To boot KS games have little follow up if any.
So true
This video is the kind of thoughtful nuanced discourse that we could use more of in our society at large. It also reflects a understanding of the real world and aknowledgement that these are real people that need to support themselves and their families.
Like it or not we all need to make money to survive, and despite what others may think, I think DND RUclipsrs are passionate people who work hard and have choosen a difficult and unstable career because they like what they do. Remember that that they are generally providing us entertainment for free. They deserve to be paid and we all know that one of the ways they do that is through sponsorships. If someone doesn't want to hear about DND 2024, by all means they can not watch those videos but trying to stop these people from making money is the kinda thing we all would criticize WOTC for. People deserve to ne paid for their work.
Giving critics and media personalities review copies for anything is standard practice.
People think this practice started with Video Games, how wrong they are, this is a practice as old as time itself.
GIving free samples to drum up interest, movies have early screenings for critics with red carpet events ... This practice has been around forever.
@@O-D-X Yeah. It's call advertising.
Can we keep calling it that way ?
I'm looking for reviews and want to limit time spent watching adds.
I think there is a distinct difference between "critique" and "sponsorship."
Players are looking for unbiased critique of a new product that has grown dramatically more expensive. They value unbiased opinions.
Reviewers need the product in order to perform their review; they owe it to the community to inform them where/how their review materials are sourced.
This is different from pushing something you really like. I love a certain game; I'm biased. You know I'm biased. "Hey I play this; I help create this; I want you to play it too" is not the same as making a review of the highs and lows of a product.
The issue are the "gushing" reviews of some of the most guilty; who until recently did not disclose their sourcing.
I’m not into WOTC or the current incarnations of D&D, nothing against it, personally, but my comfort zone is 1st edition AD&D, and some OSR.
I don’t see myself playing VTT, or I say it doesn’t appeal to me as much as it might the younger generation.
In the end it’s just a fun pastime, follow what you find is fun.
I love how we have the freedom to choose from so many different options, including old school.
I don't buy WotC RPG products. WotC, Paizo & Frog God have been aware of "Dungeon Tubers" since '10 .
as long as they disclose what they received. i only think it should out right sponsored content if they receive money. i only think they need to just mention it if they were given a free copy.
Fair enough.
I’m not here for D&D drama, I am here for Tabletop News.
To conport yourself with honor, integrity and compassion is the greatest of goals.
Thank you for the wonderful video!
Thank YOU.
While i don't judge anyone for getting payed by wotc (as you said, we all need to eat) i also wont trust a word of someone's review if they are getting payed to do it lol
I think that's what most of the "outrage" is about.
Sure there are always some dickhead overreacting in harmfull manner. But those concerns are still legit.
It's not easy to stay independant. Some "DungeonTubers" are failing rn.
Offer money and giving a free copy is different. Free stuff for review is NOT sponsored content
There is a saying: Morality is good for those who can afford it. The cost of living, etc. is rising. Medicines and medical equipment are also expensive. Example: I have diabetes (type 1, the autoimmune version). I have a sensor on my arm that I have to replace every 2 weeks. A sensor costs just under 66 euros. That's just over 1700 euros per year. Then there are other things like insulin pens, needles, glucose, which would cost me almost 2000 euros a year just to stay alive. If I were a D&D RUclipsr, quite honestly, I don't know if I would have turned down the WotC offer.
Yes everybody need to secure an incoming.
But many young ppl get trapped into thinking that they can change their hobby into a job by recording viral advertising. it's not a secure income and it's not journalism.
The over 1,000 laid off employees might want a say in this comment.
If they are paid in cash or heavily compensated with gear and access, I can confidently say they need to say they are sponsored.
Its fine if they are paid.
But, receiving a review copy or early release to review, that is not compensation.
The fact of the matter is, no youtubers is in a position where they have to sacrifice their morals to take money from WoTC.
It is extremely disappointing to see so many youtubers either pu$$y foot around the OGL situation, or "take a stand", just to bend over to WoTC the first chance they have to make money and shill.
Agreed. RUclipsrs freaked out over the OGL and are now jumping on bandwagon so that they don't have to get 9 to 5s.
@@THELUBINTHEMORNING Because the OGL was some of those RUclipsr only way to earn an income. I'm not saying all them simply followed the money. But many did.
Great video, and well stated. !00% agree with your take on things. I've said in my videos many times before: "Given the time it takes to read over material, write a script, produce and edit a video I'm not wasting my precious time on a product I'm not going to ultimately recommend." I have zero desire to poo on another creator's efforts. My time is better spent elevating those talented creators who are doing the work and making great content for us.
I have people emailing me CONSTANTLY to do a review. MOST of them I ignore or turn down, and others, I certainly WILL allow them to send me their material. I definitely can't afford to BUY everything I'd want to review for the channel, a lot of it, I never would of even LOOKED at if it wasn't brought to my attention due to my status as a youtuber.
That said, I let the creators know upfront: no review is guaranteed, no POSTIVE review is promised and If I do do the review I'll talk about it honestly warts and all. With those parameters in play, if they still want to send me their stuff.. great! Everyone benefits, especially the subscribers who find out about the best stuff being published for the OSR... and what a priveldge for me it is to be able to highlight hard working, talented creators.
Game on!
I love your channel. But to be fair you are not in a position where you depend on Talanian or Taomino to send you free stuff to keep posting video and/or earn a living. You mailbox is full and you truly chose what to review.
It's doesn't means access journalism isn't a serious issue.
@@Minodrec Fair critique. I am not familiar with WOTC's agreements with content creators that are compt their material. I would be interested in what the agreement is, and what the details are. Does the review HAVE to be positive, or are they free to give their thoughts honestly? As long as the reviewer is allowed that freedom, I see no issue with WOTC sending them material.
I think I saw the Ginny video and she claimed that she didn't get any money, just the preview book. IMO that shouldn't be enough of a bribe to change her review, but who knows.
She also said she was tough on that guy she interviewed after the whole debacle earlier this year when she clearly was just doing a PR piece for wotc.
I personally think it isn't just about the book. It is in a roundabout way still money: a video of a hotly anticipated book before it releases will get more views. So one can come to the conclusion that you maybe don't want to be too critical of the supplier of said book in the hopes to get more early "preview" content in the future (not for the value of those books, but for the extra revenue that the content can generate).
That said - as long as it is clear that a video is sponsored/that stuff has been received for free I have no problem with it, but I can see how people can come to the idea that this might compromise later videos.
@@S0nyb1ack It's also natural to not want to be too critical outwardly about a game when it's in your best interest for the game to garner a big community that will hopefully result in you getting lots of views in the future.
It absolutely is, if she reviews negatively they can take away her early access from future content of her.
@S0nyb1ack Yeah, the "access journalism" aspect is a potential problem, too. We certainly see it a lot in video games, where you don't get to review games anymore if you tell your readers/viewers that the company's last game was not amazing.
Personally, I'm not interested in WotC products at all anymore almost no matter what they do. They've just done too many weird and disrespectful things to their customers (and the people who created the games and settings), and I'm just generally done with them.
I don't mind the "selling out" as long as they tell me in the video. Everything has biases and if you didn't trust them to have integrity you probably didn't like them too much in the first place. And to be honest, most of their subscribers expect them to have reviews on their books. It would be weirder if they didn't cover them in some fashion. Personally, not buying any new WotC books. Still have what I call a piracy debt that I'm slowly paying off, but I at least have the minor pleasure that I know they go out of their way to be not proud of those books.
Only youtubers call it consiracy because they misrepresent what people think and say. Most of the people dont think that RUclipsrs literally get paychecks from WotC (even though they might). And even if they do get paycheck its ok, its not selling out, its their job. The problem is when those RUclipsrs can't say anything negative about WotC creations, even about literal trash. For me it is obvious that content creators even if not getting paid will be afraid to express criticism or even negativity towards WotC descisions. Especially after OGL stuff, when they had their livelyhood threatened by WotC. I even suspect WotC did it just for that, so creators would be afraid of them, but those are all mys speculations. People are not dumb, they know when these creators lie and hide behind "oh i am just all about having fun, thats all".
Book publishers send out review copies all the time. You want your books reviewed by people that review books and they can’t review a book they don’t have. Paying people for a review is more suspect, as the implication is that you’re paying for a GOOD review. Regardless, you always take a review with a grain of salt, and you need to do the work yourself to figure out which reviewers give useful advice for your tastes.
Sacrificing morals and ethics in favor of bits of paper is disgusting, its not growing up it's giving up, huge difference. Im 48, and have never just given up in favor of money, that is the definition of a sell out, and that is a huge problem with this world. Acquiescing to the demands of the unethical business world has only taught those people in charge that we will take whatever crap they hand down to us, and over the years this information has lead to the shitty corporatist world we live in now. Don't preach.
Professor, I am very glad that in this sea of madness that RUclips is, you're the captain of the only ship afloat, the "Sanity".
Your analysis is spot on and mature, not afraid of positioning yourself as someone who can understand and coexist with the romantic and practical sides of life.
And yet again, as someone who worked 15 years with Investor Relations, I have to agree with another Professor, Damodaran, when he says ESG is in most part just green washing to create money for banks and "specialists" and try to create value where there is intrinsically none - once that caring for the environment is not a virtue, but a must.
We get review copies or arcs to review the books. That's ok-not money-if you want a book review send an arc out or a pdf. -you say THEY SENT ME A COPY is important.
Most game companies send out preview material to various media folks, so WotC is not doing anything different. I think it’s fine, as long as the reviewer is upfront with the situation, whether is just a preview copy or it’s paid content. As a fan of games, I like seeing the early reviews.
I will add a bit here: 2 things primarily.
1. I agree with the thrust of this but you kinda sugar coated what people are generally upset about with "unsponsored" sponsored content, or "sponsored content". While it's not always the case, from a cynical stance when someone pays you to review something, it does very much impact that review, either at the best case subtly, or very often in extreme cases where there are reviewed and approved drafts and edits. It creates a severe trust breach between the reviewer and the audience. I feel like you kinda skipped past that whole thing as an uncomfortable truth. Most sane people aren't mad they are getting paid, they are more concerned with the integrity of the review and tuber. You sorta touched on it, but in a really flyby manner and it comes off a bit as avoiding the uncomfortable part of the topic. And to be honest, people are right to be suspect of sponsored reviews, especially in the gaming space.
I know you probably don't follow video games as much as some younger folks, but there's an entire fake news industry of pay to play reviews that has had an overall impact of shunting the entire industry at large into cynical kelptocracy and people don't want to see that happen to TTRPGs because they love and care about them so much. They see the warning signs on the wall from Hasbro, because they've seen it before with Otaku, Games Rader, Buzzfeed, and a million other pay to play "news" outlets which are little more than glorified advertising agencies. People are right to be cynically suspect of Hasbro/WotC/DnD and this isn't a point in their favor. We both know there's mountains of evidence they are doing shady shit not once, or twice, but constantly like pretty much every week there's a new problematic thing. People don't want their game/hobby to become a cynical kelptocracy and are speaking out against that as a whole.
2. I think it's absolutely silly to say on the net "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything" for a few reasons. First, we don't need more echo chambers which aren't healthy to begin with. Second, if nowhere else in life everyone has a voice on the internet and the right to exercise it, even if they are a dickhead. Third, this whole thing gets especially dicey when people do have a legitimate gripe (like with sponsored reviews) as it gives the appearance whether intended or not of trying to silence someone with a valid complaint. People are upset and provided they aren't being jerks about it, absolutely should be heard. Fourth: The very notion discourse and communication is central to TTRPGs as a mechanical theme. I'd say "If you can't say it without being overtly cruel/sending death threats/doxing/etc, then maybe don't say anything until you can." Dissenting voices and opinions are important, whether correct or not, because that's where learning and growth happens. Criticism to many is considered automatically hostile by many, even if done with a benevolent intent and phrasing, so it feels like the statement is "if you don't agree, shut up" which isn't what you said, but it is what a lot of people will take away from it, when what might better serve is "have your voices heard, but at least be civil about it, even if you're right to be angry".
I agree completely. Without communication there is no growth. And sometimes a complaint needs to be communicated. It's always best to do so in a respectful manner but for Professor DM to imply that any criticism shouldn't be said at all is going too far.
Thanks for explaing this better than I can.
You are not a jerk and I share you concern.
Dude, your awesome. Your channel has always kept it real with the audience, looking forward too seeing you at GenCon!
Hope you've a great time at GenCon!
Advance copies are not yet in the territory of sponsored content. Otherwise the press that often gave abysmal reviews is guilty for decades when it comes to books, theatre shows, cinema, television and so forth.
Claiming accepting early access in order to be able to review before the product is out is already sponsorship is just stupid ignorance of how marketing and journalism (in particular in regards to critics) works.
Point in case many DnD or TTRPG tubers that were quite critical of WotC also got advanced copies.
Outright getting paid is a different matter. But I'm not aware of cases where that happened undisclosed with the new phb.
Good point.
Professor, you're an old-head like me.
Maybe it's my senility but I don't seem to remember Siskel & Ebert getting accused of shilling because they saw a movie before release for review purposes.
That's because they were critical.
Thank you for the well-considered, mature video, Professor! Glad to have an adult in the room. The other creators all disclosed the content's nature. If you are a RUclipsr, making rpg videos, why wouldn't you make videos covering upcoming new rule books for the largest ttrpg on the planet?
uhh...I have been teaching at colleges and universities since 2003. When there was more publishing companies, it was not uncommon to get free "desk copies" of textbooks from their manufacturers as they were hoping you would select their text as the mandatory textbook for the class. Nobody acted like this was scandelous. From time to time, it was not unheard of for a professor to ask for a "replacement desk copy" from the publisher in order to give it to a financially struggling student, which was about a $200 retail value.
With many fewer publishers still in the market, it is not as common to be sent them unsoliceted, but all the major publishers I know will send a free one on request. Nobody gets bent about it.
The people we do get bent about are the ones who create their own textbook and basically force the students to buy it. It is seen in the community as basically extortion and carries a serious social stigma.
Could you imagine if RPG creators were stigmatized for encouraging their follows to buy their own personally made books or systems? The hobby would essentially collapse.
I don't see anyrhing wrong with getting early access to, being paid to review, or otherwise market from WoTC or anyone else. All of the youtube content creators I watch obviously have put a lot of time, effort, personal knowledge, skill, and experience into making their videos. I don't agree with every video or point and I don't simp for creators.
If they can get some money or other bonus for it, then my best wishes for them. I don't see a scandal at all, just a bunch of people left out crying "sour grapes."
Incidentally, there is at least 1 youtuber who I do not watch or subscribe to, I know about, that essentially has a channel devoted to trash-talking WoTC. I think always pointing out negatives and never giving credit when and where it is due is a bit more scandelous and morally bankrupt than anyone taking money or favors for promotion.
Top notch creators getting something for giving whatever they are presented with an honest review is valuble to me. I think they should get more.
This so-called "Scandal" isn't worth the time talking about it.
Well explained. 👏
Found the wotc shill
Collages?
@@xczechr sorry, I was distracted.
@@leonelegender WoTC must of lost my address to send the cheques to, they are probably with the ones from the vaccine manufacturers...
I was a few years old when Apollo 11 landed and I was a space nerd till my early twenties when I got busy and drifted away. When SpaceX started to try and land boosters, I rediscovered my love for space, and haven't been able to stop watching launches since.
Other than the obvious, the big problem with major RUclipsrs taking money from large corporations like Hasbro is that it creates an in-group and “the fringes” In other words, all of the big RUclipsrs will start covering dungeons and dragons positively, and all the critics will be on the fringes. Hasbro and its allies can then point to its critics and say they're on the fringes. This is been true in politics and commerce alike for a long time. At the end of the day, it’s buying and selling control of the discussion.
Thanks for the clear-headed and logical response, Professor! Great video!
Surely these largest corporations don’t pay influencers to shill for them in the modern social media dynamic…..
This comment is sarcastic gold! LOVE IT!
Just like the video game market
There are those that are white/blacklisted
It’s either praise and privileges, or shun and disavow
I've only one thing to say to all of this and it's: Rabble! Rabble! Rabble!
I LOVE ALL Dungeon Craft videos! And no one pays me to say that.
Remuneration. Sorry, fellow writing teacher here. Gotta always triple check spelling before posting!
I pride myself on knowing spellings of obscure words, or sometimes even words I never heard, but that one I have gone 30 years thinking it was "renumeration." Lol 😅
I love the scandal collage and the poke at Discourse in the title.
We're mad when they lay people off, and when they pay people?
Get that bag $$$ no shade
The people they laid off made real content, they are moving towards digital fluff.
@THELUBINTHEMORNING to be clear they can be critical and still take $$ from the company (as long as they aren't signing a restrictive contract)
Yeah, after 40+ years playing and running D&D, I won't be buying anything more unless/until a new, less reprehensible owner takes it over. Too many other great games to play. I have no problem with anyone who does still play, and I have no problem with D&D personalities getting paid by WotC/Hasbro. Congrats to them for getting their bag. Their channels may be less appealing to me now, but that's not because I have some moral objection. I just don't need coverage of a game I won't be playing.
Access media is why we have 13% audience score 99% critic score for movies. It’s a corrupting influence that drives down quality.
Exactly. Thank you.
It's not a smear campaign against some RUclipsr. It is an issue of keeping some reviewers independant from WotC.
Its just, people realizing a company that makes stuff they like is bad. Which is kind of naive. Pretty much any company you give your money to, you can follow the production chain and somewhere you'll find some nasty stuff.
Moral criterias don't apply to corporations because corporations aren't people, they're institutions that seek to maximize profit, and all the BS that comes with that can be applied to any and all corporations. There aren't "nice" ones and "bad" ones, its just a matter of scale and opportunity to do bad things. Many small companies you might like are susceptible to become "bad" if they do well enough, and become a victim of their own success. Just look at the origins of TSR and the DnD creators, and what wizards has become. You can apply this pattern to a lot of corporation that have become giants, and this can potentially happen to any company that is successful enough.
In the end we're all shills selling out to companies because we need money. A lot of people work for companies that engage in toxic business practices, and they know it, and they probably don't like it when their employers do bad things, especially if those bad things target their workers. But we need money. Progress can only come from political will and serious activism, it will not come from hypocritical moral righteousness. We're all in this sinking boat together. Peace.
It's strange. So like, *MOST* content creators for DnD on the site that're getting these books early are more than happy to say "Wizards sent me the book early" but they *arent* willing to say that the content is sponsored. Likely, because Wizards might not be *paying* them explicitly to cover the material.
This is a similar situation as it is in the sphere of video game reviews. Many publications will receive early copies of video games for the purpose of reviews. This has escalated greatly, to where many publications and content creators can be expected to be flown out to the offices of the developers, put up in a hotel at cost to the company, wine and dined for a two-three day period, then allowed to play the game. They'll be sent limited edition collectors material for the game, sometimes, that material would be *EXCLUSIVELY* made *FOR* influencers and other journalists that is not available to the public, or if it is, is available at such a steep price that it is effectively unattainable, or unreasonable to attain.
But. Of course. The company didn't *pay* them for their review. They weren't officially sponsored, and, surely, the developers *ONLY* want the honest opinion of these reviewers. Of course, if the reviewers opinion is *negative* then, perhaps next time, the reviewer won't receive a copy in advance. They certainly won't be able to flown out to a 4 star hotel, or receive special promotional acrutemon from the developers, such as was the case with Fallout 76, and Cyberpunk 2077 -- which had the influencers who'd been entreated to this experience giving glowing reviews of their time, how much fun they had with the game and how hopeful they were for the full release...
Now, those games were unplayable in the state they launched in, 76 literally criminally so, but the point remains that the definition of "sponsorship" needs to change. Quid Pro Quo is a taint on any industry, but especially in demographics where honest coverage is going to impact their wallets -- Wizards is not making these books *cheaper* certainly, so, when a person who *WANTS* to play DnD with friends a person who *HAS* the book and covers the content *IN* the book is how they're able to make an informed decision on if they want to spend the 40+ USD on the book.
And I'd certainly like it be *EXPLICT* that the materials provided did not cost the reviewer a single cent. That Wizards in their "generosity" have provided the materials free of charge -- this should be considered sponsored content. Because when WotC is looking at publish, what was it? 3 new books for the next update to DnD 5e? If they maintain their 30-40 USD price tag, that's approaching *100* dollars worth of content that people are just getting for free. that they now get to profit from on their channel (and of course, that they dont NEED to give to WotC).
If a content creator was given material, explicitly by the company or an agent of the company, then it ought to constitute a sponsorship. Put simply, that's money a content creator *DOESNT* have to spend, which amounts to money in their pocket already, since the implication remains; if I want to continue getting free things from the company, I should not do things that jeopardize my relationship with the company -- such as being very critical of a book that OTHER people will have to pay a LOT of money for. I remember back in the days of 4e their were little supplemental books for races in the game, Tieflings and Dragonborn, and they were like, 30 USD for what amounted to 20-30 pages of lore and a couple of character options. If I were told by a reviewer "oh these are totally great books that help really give you more information and character choices and i think it's really worth your time if youre playing one of these races" then I might have been inclined to purchase them despite the fact they were, in my opinion having bought them, a waste of money.
I don't think it's enough to just say "oh haha wizards sent me the book early haha isnt that fun? Isnt that wacky? haha lets review it haha my opinion is gonna be totally honest tho, really guys, all they did was give me a 40$ product for free that i now get to monetize the content of which on my channel for effectively no cost haha :)" you should be ticking that box for sponsored content.
Thanks for explaining this. It needs to be explained to everyone to naive to understand what's going on.
This is how ALL reviews work. It’s not unethical or ‘sponsored’. Book reviewers are sent an advance copy by the publisher; that reviewer reviews it and is paid for their work. Film reviews are given (yes, free) preview screenings, then they get paid for writing or videoing a review. Tech reviewers are sent sample hardware. None of this is new or different to any other review that has happened before in any other media for a hundred years. If they aren’t being paid by the company to review the product; they aren’t sponsored. They are independent and allowed to speak their mind.
@@AWAL602No. A critics have to buy the product the same way a regular consumer do.
Anything else is marketing.
Access journalism is a serious issue. And corpo never play fair. We even saw issue with tuned cars sent for particle emission review.
Serious tech reviewer have to buy phone and even disclose where and when the phone was bought. So everyone can track and check.
You have to review a proper sample. Or else there is no method and no valid way to know where your conclusion truly comes from.
How to independant journalism works isnt new. Educates yourself. Don't conflate social media and journalism.
If they don’t say they’re sponsored, they’re more than likely not being sponsored. It’s not just a good idea, as suggested in this video, it is an actual legal requirement to state in clear terms whether you were compensated for that advertisement.
Everyone always says “they can’t be honest if they’re receiving material early” but also never point out specific examples of their not being honest. Nerd Immersion received the PHB early but talks in nearly every video about how bad the ranger is. Is he not being honest? Treantmonk’s Temple put out a video today of spells he thinks should’ve been adjusted but weren’t and spells he thinks were adjusted in odd ways. Is he not being honest?
It’s one thing to complain about dishonest reviews and sponsored content, but maybe people should wait until reviews are actually dishonest and/or sponsored. A reviewer isn’t bought off just because they like something the viewer doesn’t.
Some of this is just going to whiff the people who need to hear it most
Yeah. But my fans will know how I stand. Peace and love.