Did They Do This Before?

Some of you are probably aware of my feelings on the new PSP GO. And if you aren't, suffice it to say, that I'm a little conflicted. It sounded like a good CONCEPT, and I was excited to hear about an update to the PSP lineage, however, I think it looks ugly as sin. That's not really the point of this blog, I guess.

"Unboxings" are a type of video that became popular on the internet for obsessive nerds all over the world. I myself got a huge chunk of my youtube-viewership through the unboxing of at least 2 PSP's. Like most good things on the net, the concept was (and partially is) a COMPLETELY foreign concept to the average Layman-America. I remember trying to explain it to the skater kid that would hang outside the grocery store I worked at. He acted like it was the most odd behavior he'd ever heard of.

Nevertheless, I have never known an unboxing to go beyond the realm of the hobbyist, but recently with the announcement and release of both the coming PSP GO and the PS3 Slim, I've seen "official" unboxings done by people at gaming media companies, who have been given the hardware ahead of time. Right now I have a youtube video pulled up that's of an unboxing done by the fellows at IGN.

It all feels pretty wrong to me. It doesn't feel like I'm really watching a legitimate unboxing video, in the same way that a wedding wouldn't really feel like a proper union of two people if FOX NEWS was reporting on it, or if someone was getting paid to do it. My first objection is that this feels, to me, like another attempt to shift the balance of power from average citizens to corporate entities with corporate mindsets. It's not enough to control the mainstream media, but it would appear that the domination of underground culture is on the agenda as well. In fact, just the other day, I was reading a an article concerning 4chan and the fact that companies feel that new media is less accessible to advertisement agencies. I would wager that they were expressing the notion that they would like that to change.

The other objection I have with this is the potential for corruption. How long ago was it that a video game journalist was fired for giving SOME VIDEOGAME a bad a review? It was either on Gamespot or IGN, I don't really recall, but either way, the game in question had been produced by the same company that was advertising on the site, and it was a big media story (among the inter-webs that is) that the reviewer was fired for giving it a negative score. My point here is that if the first unboxings (which tend to be like "reviews" in nature) are handled by corporations and not the consumers what is to ensure that they won't lie through their teeth to protect the maker of the product. They might, for instance, pick up the new PSP Go and say,

"Oh, it's bloody comfortable to hold." And then, with that advice in mind, you go out to purchase one, only to find out that it feels like a brick in your hand. Granted, this could just be avoided by waiting for joe-shcmoe to do a review of it on youtube, and it's probably not likely that such a huge flaw would be glossed over by IGN, but still, I would rather entrust my views to a video that was "home grown."


------------------------------------------------

In response to the previous post about "official unboxings and reviews" username: CarnageDissilusion left this comment:

"I believe unboxings and reviews are about opinions rather than stone facts. I would rather John Smith told me the PSPgo was uncomfortable rather than Sony telling me it's comfortable as hell.

I based my purchase of a PSP3000 on TKE's review and some other users..."

This brings an interesting point to mind, concerning the trustworthiness of non-consumer product reviews. I recall that around the same time that I released my review of the PSP 3000, so did a far more prolific website known as CNET. While I attempted to illustrate the now INFAMOUS scan-lines that PLAGUE the 3000 model, CNET didn't seem to think it was something that should be mentioned.

There were over 30 pages of complaints on the official Sony Forums, and even so, Sony sent us all e-mails saying that it wasn't even a problem. Personally, I try to ignore the scan-lines, however, if I had known that it was like this BEFORE I had purchased it, I most likely wouldn't have.

Oh, RIGHT, Because it's a FEATURED VIDEO!

Moments ago, I was tooling around on youtube re-watching some of the older episodes of a really talented internet show by Anthony and Ashley Birch. Some of you may be familiar with the series "Hey Ashley Watcha Playin'?" Anyway, I had just finished one episode, when I wanted to move on to another, so I moved my cursor over to the side bar, where Youtube had placed all of the "related videos," 19 out of 20 of which were OTHER EPISODES CREATED BY ASHLEY AND ANTHONY BIRCH!




What was the 20th video that WASN"T made by those two? A COMPLETELY UNRELATED VLOG by some partner channel, of course.




In response to the mere PRESENCE of this video near the greatness of an episode of HAWP, I left this comment, which I'm sure will be thumbed down to death by her little army of fanboys (can't say I don't employ my own):

"How does THIS count as a related video to an episode of "Hey Ashley Watcha Playin'?" It has NOTHING at all to do with the content of the previous video I was watching, which had ONLY OTHER EPISODES OF THAT SHOW AS RELATED, and neither video contains a congruent TAG so WHY was this video linked to the last? Oh that's right, it's a "featured video" thereby meaning that youtube pushes it regardless of how relevant or talented it is, so that they can build mega-channels that get more ad-revenue."

Now, I'm certain that with a pretty face and a "charming" little accent a girl like this could get attention on the internet almost anywhere. So all I ask is WHY does Youtube need to be BOOSTING her views by placing her in a "related videos" section that she CLEARLY doesn't belong in? This is what username THEREALWEEKLY news was saying in his video entitled "HULU-TUBE" that it would SEEM that Youtube was using certain methods to give some users an advantage over the competition, thereby allowing less "radical users" to gain more views and generate more profit from Youtube from advertisements. Have a look at this link, won't you? AND IN THE NAME OF GOD PAY ATTENTION AT THE 2 MINUTE MARK!

Davidsfarm explains that Youtube is going broke...

Now, I have no reason to believe that Davidsfarm or the newspaper he is quoting is lying to me, and the situation he describes sounds absolutely plausible. Now, were you paying attention to what he said between 2:00 and 2:20? Davidsfarm explained that the newspaper article describes that advertisers don't like to be associated with MANY of the more popular videos on Youtube because they weren't made in Hollywood and lack a professional touch. Were I granted permission to read into this, I would also speculate that the reason Youtube recently promised to DEMOTE video views for "innapropriate content" was because many videos that were popular probably had controversial or counter-cultural material in them, which is something that advertisers wouldn't want to be associated with either (even though we like it.)

To remedy their situation, I propose that Youtube has and will continue to manipulate the views on the videos that they consider to be more neutral and "Californicated" (like Fred) in order to ensure that the new "most popular" videos which will be granted advertisements, won't offend Youtube's source of profit, the advertisers, who have, in essence, already called us all "niggers," by suggesting that what WE find enjoyable (and have produced ourselves) is not WORTHY of pushing their products, unlike the nice, rich white people on television shows like "THE OC" and "CSI."

A lot of people who read opinions like this are tempted to object, saying that Youtube and the advertisers who support them should be allowed to run their business in whichever way they choose. *COUGH* *COUGH* republicans *COUGH* And while, to some degree, I concour, but that's like saying,

"McDonald's doesn't want to place nutritional facts right up there on the WALL because it would make people think twice about eating there, if they could see how much fat and calories is in a single order of anything."

I understand that. I also understand that McDonald's uses inferior food products to create cheaper meals for the consumers, which are more profitable than healthier, quality alternatives. THAT"S WHY I DON"T EAT AT MC"DONALD"S!!!

Considering that I have seen MANY instances of very suspicious activity by the administration on Youtube, all of which only reinforces the idea that Youtube and it's advertisers would rather TELL US WHAT WE WANT WATCH rather than letting us decide, I am only encouraged NOT to want to use Youtube in the first place.

so far I've witnessed and hear reports of:

- Youtube removing videos of Hezbollah firing rockets into Israeli housing

- Youtube REMOVING MULTIPLE USER ACCOUNTS FOR UPLOADING ANTI-SCIENTOLOGIST VIDEOS!!!

- Youtube removing a video review of the game "GTA: Chinatown Wars" for featuring "copyrighted video clips contianing samples of gameplay." That is actually INCREDIBLY unconstitutional, considering that product review is the BIGGEST and most heavily sited example of fair use out there. Funny, the game publishers didn't attack G4 or Gametrailers or Gamespot for using video clips to conduct review of their product, I wonder why SamueltehG33k's video needed to be removed?

- Youtube removing overall views from Davidsfarm's page

- Youtube removing the video ratings from some of the menus so as to avoid blantant corporate come-on videos from being "1-starred-to-death."

- Youtube removing MILLIONS of views from username Butchykid624's account

- Removing videos for inappropriate content that never actually existed

- Youtube attempting to force all of it's users to adopt the beta channel layout, which reportedly, is created so that old videos that generate views more slowly and gradually (like mine or any other cult channel videos) will be phased out a lot quicker. I don't have a link to the video where I originally heard this, but I don't need one. To find out for yourself, just go onto a youtube channel that has that layout and use it to watch a video. Even when you click on that particular video and bring it up onto the page's video player, it does NOT count as a view, thereby ROBBING views from users like Virgin1d4 (my favorite youtuber) who's videos I watch over again. When I watch them on his channel now, he doesn't get any of those views. Hmm, too bad he's autistic (I was told) and likes to talk about video games in a funny accent. I'm sure if he was "normal" and liked to talk about getting boozed and taking hawt girls to the prom Youtube would fucking love him!

Benny's Barking (Youtube Outtake)

Time for a surprise! While I was trying to shoot the last video I uploaded to youtube my dog Benny was barking and although it's not too audible in the video, I could hear it clearly and it was throwing me off and derailing my train of thought. So I excused myself thinking I would return later and finish the video, all in one take, however I soon discovered that the dog was barking at my family who had come home with groceries and they would probably want my help. If you can't understand what I'm saying to discourage Benny from barking, I was hollering the phrases:

"Benny, I'll kills ya!"

"Come here, Benny, Come right here."

and

"Come here Pisuzu," which is a reference to Benny and demon possession, the name Pisuzu being the devil that possessed Regan in the movie "The Exorcist." At least I THINK that's how you spell it.