Shadow of Mordor Keeps its Eye on the Prize by Paying for Positive YouTube Videos

What do you expect from a gaming review? Honesty? Objective opinion? Transparency? Something else? Whatever it is, I don’t think that list will likely include the writers lying about the game they’re reviewing, ultimately telling you that you should purchase it even if they don’t truly feel that way.

If you’re someone who frequents YouTube channels and thinks that these independents are any less susceptible to the drama that has affected larger game review sites with the whole #Gamergate fiasco, then I have some unfortunate news for you: Some of these journalists were paid off to give Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor a positive review.

At the time of posting, several YouTubers have stepped forward to confirm they were under a paid contract to review the game and give it a positive review. The details of the contract were sussed out by Jim Sterling, where he was able to confirm that YouTubers had to agree to these conditions: “maximize awareness of the Shadows of Mordor video game during the ‘Week of Vengeance’”, “Persuade users to purchase the game” and provide social media links with  “a strong verbal call to action,” and have a “clickable link in the description box for the viewer to go to the game’s website to learn more about the game.”

Reviewers were told not to include any reference to the Lord of the Rings or Hobbit books/films; this is probably due to a copyright issue more than anything else. The absurdity of the demands do not end there: “Videos will promote positive sentiment about the game” and videos “must not show bugs or glitches which may exist.”, “Videos must discuss the nemesis system.  This really should take up the bulk of the focus, such as how different the orcs are, how vivid their personalities and dialog are”. The most heinous of all the demands was, “The company has final approval on the YouTube video”.

While most of the terms are an acceptable cost of doing business, especially if I’m getting paid, what I won’t do is “Persuade users to purchase the game” – especially if I don’t believe the game is worth a purchase. I also do not agree with how I should focus my attention on a review or how I can’t point out any problems. This would be enough for me to say no to such a contract, but the one that takes the cake is the “The company has final approval on the YouTube video” one. I would never let my work be filtered by a company which I’m writing a review for. This is censorship of the highest order.

There are sites and journalists who are okay with this sort of censorship and the reason I am not falls under the importance of journalistic objectivity and trust. If you’re being paid to give a game a positive review, is that score based on the game or the financial gain? A popular YouTuber said that he would have not made the video if he didn’t find it fun and would have backed out of the contract even if it cost him money; my concern with that is, how do I know the review was completely honest if he got paid and couldn’t say or do certain things?

Look, I’m not perfect and I know there are plenty of grey areas in the industry, but this one crosses a line and is not one that I would ever cross for any reason. I’ve built, and am continuing to build, my reputation on trust – not on what I think I can get away with.