Gamejolt Partners discussion

Cpaz

Member
NOTE: I don't know if this is the right place for this topic, if you are an admin/mod please either move it for me, or say it needs to be moved. I can then try and contact someone.

For those unaware, Gamejolt announced recently that they would launch a "Partners" program. While I haven't used it personally, nor do I plan on using it (as I don't have a need at the moment). I would like to know who would use this, and if so why?

For me, personally, I don't see too much issue with this idea. Have a bank of content for youtubers, and give developer of the game promotion. This could make marketing for developers much easier.

But...


There is one big point that has me concerned:

"Shared revenue"

This is where I think Gamejolt doesn't understand the already existing dynamic between indie devs and content creators.
To directly quote from the page:
"Developers in the program will show appreciation for your hard work by sharing 10% of revenue with you on sales resulting from your videos/streams!"
...
"As a partner, you will be able to generate a referral link for any paid game in the partner program. Simply use that link in your video description, or while streaming. Any purchase resulting from that link gives you 10% of the sale."
So, here's the thing. Gamejolt is basically saying that (presumably, they haven't provided details) if someone visited the store page from the video/stream's given referral link, they will take some of the funds from that purchase away from the developer/gamejolt (if gamejolt does take a cut, which I will assume they do). This is not the greatest for both ends.

First, it sounds abusable. If someone decides to make the purchase from a later date but still watched the video, does the content creator get a cut still? They wouldn't be using the referral link, so i'd think not. Unless they went out of their way to find that referral link again, which is still inconvenient.
Second, why does the content creator get a cut to begin with? I understand that content creation like youtube is difficult. But not only does this take away from the developer funds, it also add inherit and blatant bias towards the content creator. It gives them a reason to say it's good regardless of their opinion. For youtube especially, this is not good. At all. It also misrepresents the product to the consumer.

So. Yeah. I believe the "shared revenue" needs to either be reworked, or removed entirely. Then it just becomes a much more convenient form of press releases through gamejolt, which would be cool!
However with the issues I've listed above, i'm hesitant to support this sort of practice.

That isn't to say that the consumer wouldn't be aware of this whole thing, however, as stated here:
"Gamers will be presented with a message prior to their purchase letting them know the game is part of the Game Jolt Partner Program. They will be aware that a portion of the revenue will go to you as a partner, as well as the developer."
So. Ok. Fair enough. But I still think there could be a risk of manipulation on the consumer's part. Seeing that (hypothetically speaking here) their favorite youtuber could ask them to buy a given game through that referral link in the video, rather than a genuine recommendation. This doesn't create helpful comments towards the game either. At least, not from youtubers, given the inherent bias.

With all that said. Please, if you have differing thoughts, or have thoughts to add, don't hesitate to state them.
Thanks for reading this novel of a post!
 

chance

predictably random
Forum Staff
Moderator
The partners programs seems reasonable to me. It's no different than other forms of referral / rewards that are common in retail marketing. Lots of game developer already make informal referral deals with specific partners on their own. Not sure I understand your concern here.

Game creators aren't forced into this. They must "opt in" in order for someone to get a cut of their profit through a referral. If game authors want to keep things are they are (where only GameJolt takes a cut) they can. But if they want to experiment with referrals to see if that reaches a wider audience, they can try that. And game authors can do that on a game-by-game basis.

Either way, it's totally up to the game author. GameJolt is just giving them additional marketing pathways.

ADDED: I read your post again, and I understand your concern about possible abuse. The most obvious risk would be biased reviews in order to generate sales, from which the reviewer would make a profit. And that could certainly happen.

I think that's why GameJolt is restricting partnerships to reviewers who already have very large audiences. These reviewers (probably) won't be tempted to risk losing followers by posting dishonest reviews. But we'll see.
 
Last edited:
J

Jaqueta

Guest
As long as there's a flaw in a system, people will abuse it. And currently, this doesn't give any advantage to the consumer.
In fact, it can bring disadvantages, since content creators can use the "Watch_Dogs1 Effect" on the videos, and make games looks better than it actually is.
 

Llama_Code

Member
If it's a YouTube person with a large following and can generate you some sales 10% is honestly not that bad, you can pay more for less exposure with less results, in fact that's why I don't sell game directly because the advertising can be expensive with little result, but if you don't advertise then nobody knows about you. That's just a built in cost of direct business.

I would think if a YouTuber is pushing sales through improper means, that will catch up eventually, yes there are always bad eggs that will do the wrong thing.

I was just reading an article yesterday on out the Oz effect, where millions of people will follow the advice of a TV doctor just because he said it was true, and he did a show slamming all Olive Oil except what comes from California because they paid him causing others to lose sales and are now suing him. So anybody can manipulate their audience and not a lot can be done about that, but at the end of the day I guess you got a sale and they got 10%.

This can happen regardless, I remember a scandal about Microsoft paying off YouTubers to push Xbox as well. So anybody with a product to push and a little money can fine illegitimate ways of pushing it.
 

chance

predictably random
Forum Staff
Moderator
I would think if a YouTuber is pushing sales through improper means, that will catch up eventually, yes there are always bad eggs that will do the wrong thing.
True. Like you and Jaqueta said, there will always be people who abuse a system. Advertising has always posed risks for consumers -- mostly from authors themselves. Game Trailers are designed to look as good as possible. Often better than the game itself, like the "Watch Dogs effect" that Jaqueta mentioned. And before the days of internet sales, games had "box art" that was often misleading with graphics far better than the game. So consumers should always be wary of reviews and advertising in general.

I expect most decent YouTube reviewers will disclose that they get a cut from referral links. And even if they don't disclose that, the GameJolt system notifies consumers who follow those links that the reviewer will get a sales cut. So that provides at least some level of safeguard.

It's a mixed bag. There's potential for wider distribution for game authors who opt in. And there's also potential that some reviewers will write biased reviews. If that happens on a massive scale, viewership will suffer and other ad revenue will dry up. So market forces have a way of punishing bad behavior.

EDIT: fix spelling of @Jaqueta 's name. Sorry.
 
Last edited:

Yal

šŸ§ *penguin noises*
GMC Elder
I've unsubscribed to several big Youtubers not because they coaxed me into buying bad games, but because it felt they were plugging games they didn't really enjoy... so I can attest that customers won't get too fooled by dishonest marketing, at least assuming I'm indicative.
 
Top