Biggest SCAM In Board Gaming RIGHT NOW
Transcript
Hey Chris, it's me, Donna. How are you? Today, let's pull back the curtain on your favorite deceptive tactic you use very often to profit from your audience. Before I talk to everyone else watching this, I need to talk to you first. Viewers, I promise I am going to get to the point. I just have to set the context or this whole video is going to sound like it came out of nowhere. Chris, you made a video about me. You talked about this channel. You called this channel automated AI slop. Contrary to you, I do not attack other creators on this channel. Creating drama for views is not my thing. I would rather talk about games than talk about people.
I especially do not go after people who just started out. And that is kind of where I am right now. I posted a video about a week ago after the breakup. I said, "This channel is about me now. Me, my taste, my voice." That was the reset. So, you came in right as I was starting over and just decided to attack me to get some views out of it. So, I think it is fair that I also talk about you and about this little scam you run on Tuesdays. But first, this is not going to become a channel about other people. I still want this to be about games and about me. This one is about Chris because he made it about me. If you like this kind of video, not creator drama in general, but videos about Chris, there is another little thing I can reveal about him soon. Only if this video does well, because that tells me you actually want that. And I am not going to turn this channel into a pileon for no reason.
So, if you want that, watch this one all the way through. Like it, comment, share it, watch it twice if you have to. That is how I know. Chris, I already know you know what Scam Tuesday is. I am pretty sure you are going to have to make a video explaining it. I would have preferred you did that before I said it out loud to everyone. But nobody is perfect. You called this channel Automated AI Slop. You said it's an automated AI bot that writes the scripts. Must be a pretty good one then because it found your little Tuesday scam just fine. Do me a favor. After you've watched, just leave a comment and tell me if you still believe an AI automated bot generated this video.
Okay, let's go straight at the problem. I am calling it scam Tuesday. First, the definition. A scam is a dishonest, deceptive trick or scheme designed to cheat people out of their money, their personal information, or their trust. Hold that in your head because by the end of this, I think your pockets are part of this, and your trust is definitely part of this. Other creators do versions of this. I am not pretending Chris invented this little scam, but I do think he is one of the worst at hiding how the machine actually works. He has a day for it. At the time I am recording this, he did it two Tuesdays in a row, August 18th, August 25th, and then an older one on July 21st, which is the one that bothered me the most. And yes, I can already see it. Once he watches this, the calendar might magically change.
Fine, then it will just be scam whenever. The day is not the scam. The day is the tell. Why Tuesdays? If you look around online, Tuesday keeps showing up as a strong day to publish if you want a video to get seen. Not a law, not a YouTube commandment, just a pattern. a lot of creators chase when they want the views. So, why would Chris need those particular videos to get the most eyes? You are going to see why. Let's walk through it slowly. Chris does a little thing on Tuesdays. Not every Tuesday. Tuesdays where a publisher has given him a little gift. Let's focus on three videos here.
August 18th, the review of Defenders of Hogwarts. August 25th, Nudo Shepudin. July 21st, Rosalie. I checked the descriptions on all three. No disclaimer. Not one line that says this is a free review copy. Not in the title, not under the video, nowhere. Watch those three backtoback if you want. I am not going to recap every minute. On two of them near the end, the last few seconds, he finally says the most important sentence in the whole video. They sent it to me to talk about it.
What he means here is that the publisher of the board game sent him a copy for free so that he reviews it. That is not a cute little footnote. That is the sentence that should have started the video. It looks innocent if you are not paying attention. I think it is one of the worst habits in board gaming right now and I think it needs to stop. I do not think we should keep supporting it like it is normal. If you watch Chris a lot, you already know he can be very loud about paid reviews. He talks about money changing hands. He talks about influence. He will go after that all day. I am not guessing his opinion. He said it on his own channel. In this video titled, "What does bias look like?" He asked how critical you really are after you get a review copy. He included himself in that. He said, "A free box is implicit bias."
harder to see than cash, harder to measure. In another video titled Hidden Impact of Paid Board Game Reviews, he said, "Unpaid coverage looks more credible." Same words on the page. Different trust the second people hear you got paid. He knows the incentive is the problem. That is why he treats review copies as the lesser sin. Not clean, just not as loud as a paycheck. And that is why he takes them. He knows they are bad. He just decided they are not as bad as paid copies. So the box still shows up.
Everyone is biased. I am biased. He is biased. He already said he is biased. So, why is that sentence missing from the free copy reviews? Every single one. Not the last few seconds of two Tuesdays, not Silence on Rosalie. It should clearly be mentioned at the start of the video. They sent me this for free. I am biased because of that. Go watch somebody who actually bought the game. That is the line he already believes. He just will not put it where it would cost him views and free stuff. And that is why Tuesday matters. Not because Tuesday is magic, because he keeps parking these videos on the day that gets seen so that the publisher and the board game get more exposure and more sales.
Last seconds disclosure. Clean description. next publisher watching. That is a system. A system for getting the next free board game. And that is not the only prize. He also gets to talk about new games before anyone else can buy them. Unreleased board games. First look energy that gets views. Views turn into YouTube ad money. Views turn into exposure. So, Scam Tuesday is not only a free game on the table. It is a free game plus the algorithm payday plus the next publisher watching. He gets paid twice. Once in product, once in the Tuesday upload.
I am putting myself with the normal people on this. I refuse to do paid content on this channel. I refuse free review copies on this channel. I buy my own games. That is not me trying to sound holy. That is me admitting I do not trust my own brain once somebody hands me a box for free. We are unbiased here because I will not put myself in the position. The core problem is not Tuesday. The core problem is review copies. I think they are the quiet poison in this hobby. And I want to talk about it from three sides. the creator, the publisher, and you creator first. Say whatever you want out loud.
If a company gives you a game for free, you are biased. You can be a good person and still be biased. You can even believe you are being honest and still be biased. That is how brains work. You got something of value. Sometimes you got it before the rest of us can even buy it. Your mouth can say I will be fair. Your head already knows who fed you. So why didn't Chris tear into Defenders of Hogwarts? I have not played it. I am not sitting here pretending I have a 10play sample. I am looking at the coverage and I am looking at what the rest of the hobby is saying. That game is sitting at about a 4.9 out of 10 on Board GameGeeek. Yes, ratings get shoved around. Positive piles, negative piles, the usual mess.
But 4.9 is horrible. And people in the forums are not acting like this is a secret masterpiece. It is a licensed Harry Potter game, lightweight, and plays at 3 hours. Long play time for how light it is. That is a lot of table time for something a lot of people already think is thin. And Chris titled his video that he was wrong about it. So, you criticized the game a few weeks ago, then suddenly realize that you were wrong once you get a free review copy. Then there is Rosalie. That July 21st video is the one that sat in my stomach. Again, I have not played it. I am not doing a fake full review I do not own. I am talking about the timing and I am talking about what he did not say. This game is not even out. Regular people cannot buy it. So, how does Chris have it on his table?
Sit with that for a second. He does not even mention that the publisher gave it to him. Not at the start, not at the end. Nothing. That is worse than the last few seconds trick. At least the last few seconds still say the sentence on Rosalie. He just skips it. That is the part that feels designed. He gets the game before anyone else can spend money on it. He tells people it could be one of the best of the year. He never says who put it in his hands. If I am a publisher watching that, I am not hearing a review. I am hearing a billboard that turns into more sales. I thought about taking this deal. Of course, I did. Who would not want free games? Who would not want the new thing before it hits the stores? I am not doing it. I do not think I could control the bias. I do not think most people can. I would rather look cheap and independent than look generous and captured.
Now, the publisher side. When Chris reviews your board games, I do not think the only audience is you. I think other publishers are watching. Not just the publisher of that one game, the next publisher, the one sitting there thinking, "He got a free copy. He did not go for the throat. Maybe we should send him ours, too. That is a system. Chris built a pipeline where games arrive, Tuesday videos go up, the disclosure hides at the end, and the next box is more likely to show up. Meanwhile, the rest of us spend our actual money, the money we earned, the money we have to think about before we click buy. I am in that group on purpose.
How does a creator usually handle paid content if they are even slightly honest? They put it in the description. Sometimes they put it in the title. YouTube even has a check box when you upload that slaps a paid promotion label on the video. On these three videos, Chris does none of that. The description does not say review copy. It does not say the publisher sent it. It just looks like a normal video. Then they say it at the start. This was sent to me. I will try to be honest. I might fail. Why do people do all of that? Because it protects the viewer. And in a lot of places, it is not just manners. There are rules about this.
If you got a free product and you are telling people it is good, that is a material connection. That is the boring adult phrase for you got paid in product. Cash is not the only currency. A free game is still a gift with a price tag on it. So, how does Chris handle review copies? He throws the customer protection out the window. He says they sent it to him to talk about it in the last few seconds or not at all. After you already heard the praise. after you already decided whether you trust him, after some of you already added it to a cart. So, a free review copy is not an incentive.
What is the difference between that and getting paid? Here is what is wrong with review copies in plain language. Start with the ones that are not disclosed. When you hide the gift, you are not just being polite. You are letting people think they are watching a customer. Somebody who spent their own money, took the same risk you take and then told you the truth. That is not what they watched. They watched someone who already got paid in product. And they did not get to know that until it was too late to matter. Timing is the whole trick. If you tell me at the start, I can put a little filter on everything you say. I can think, okay, this person likes the game, but they also did not buy it. If you tell me at the end, I already built the opinion. I already trusted the tone.
Some people already clicked by and others stopped watching the video by then. You cannot unsell a box with a whisper in the last few seconds. No line in the description makes that worse. The video looks clean. It looks like any other review on the homepage. That is the deceptive part. You took trust first and you mentioned the gift after the trust had already done its job. And it is not only about money leaving your account. Even if you did not buy the game, you still got cheated a little. You gave this person your time and your belief that they were standing next to you. They were standing next to the publisher.
That is why I am using the word scam here and not just sloppy. Hiding the payment while people spend money or while people decide who to trust with their money is the scheme. Now the harder part. Even when it is disclosed, I still think review copies are bad. I know that sounds extreme. A lot of people in this hobby will say just put a disclaimer and we are fine. I do not think we are fine. Your brain does not become neutral because your mouth said a sentence. Somebody gave you a gift. Gifts create a pull. You want to be nice back. That is not a moral failing. That is just being a person. So you sand off the sharp edges. You mention a con, but you bury it under three pros. You call a long, thin game clever. Instead of calling it a slog, you say, "I was wrong about it."
After the box showed up for free, then there is the part nobody likes to say out loud. Publishers do not send games at random. They send them to people who have been useful. people who did not go for the throat last time. People who will put the video up on a good day to maximize the views. So, the sample is already cooked before anyone hits record. You are not seeing a normal player pick a game off a shelf. You are seeing a pre-selected voice with a pre-selected box talking before the public has even had a chance to be disappointed. Early access is its own bias. If the game is not out yet, there is no pile of angry forum posts waiting for you. There is no friend who bought it and hated it.
There is just you, the publisher, and a pretty prototype on the table. Of course, it feels special. Of course, it feels like one of the best of the year. You got to touch it first. There is also the video itself. You already filmed it. You already spent an evening on rules and lighting and talking. Are you going to look into the camera and say, "This was a waste." Most people will not. And then you want the next box. That is the quiet chain. Be decent this time. Stay on the list next time. You do not even have to be corrupt for that to work. I am not going to pretend I am the one person on earth who can take a free game and stay clean.
That is why I will not take them. Not even with a perfect disclaimer. A disclaimer tells you there is a risk. It does not remove the risk. It just makes the risk visible. If a creator is going to do it anyway, and I still would not do it myself, the only halfway decent version is to treat it exactly like a paid sponsorship. Same energy, same honesty, same inconvenience for the creator. First few seconds of the video, not the last seconds. Say it. I got this review copy for free from the publisher. I will try to be unbiased.
There is a very good chance I will fail. Go watch other people. Go read the complaints. Go look for the negative stuff on purpose because there is a high chance I am not going to sit in it here. That is not because the game has no problems. That is because my brain is going to protect the gift and even then I would still tell you to be careful. Disclosure is the minimum it is not a clean bill of health. Now you the viewer, how do you feel about this? Would it not be better to know immediately the same way you know on a paid ad that this person might be biased consciously or not? You should not have to sit through 20 minutes to find out in the last few seconds of the video that the box was free.
Let's go back to the definition. A scam is a dishonest, deceptive trick or scheme designed to cheat people out of their money, their personal information, or their trust. Do you trust Chris more now or less now? If you had watched this video before that Tuesday video, would you still have bought the game he was talking about? Be honest with yourself. That answer is the whole point. Chris is not the only one. Review copies are normal in this hobby. I do not agree with the practice. I do not think you can be cleanly unbiased once the game is free. If creators are going to keep doing it anyway, the least they can do is put a massive disclaimer at the beginning, not a mumble at the end or nothing.
I am going to say the uncomfortable part one more time. I think Chris is the biggest culprit in the group I watch. Not because he invented the gift, because the Tuesday pattern makes it look planned. Same window, same late line. They sent it to me to talk about it. Same useful silence about how the box arrived until you are already sold. A free game is payment. Saying it at the end of the video or not at all is hiding the payment. Hiding the payment while people spend money is a scam. That is the word. I am using it on purpose. If you want coverage from somebody who bought the box with her own money, you are already in the right place.
If you want the early copy and the soft landing, there are plenty of Tuesday videos for that. Just know what you are watching. Publishers watching, are you okay with this practice? Are you okay with a creator going after somebody new, a small channel, someone who literally reset their channel one week ago and starting fresh? someone who said multiple times that they are new to this hobby and will most probably have the wrong takes in the beginning. Are you okay handing a free copy to someone who spends this much time in drama and bashing other creators and then talking about your game like it is a clean review?
You are okay with that? And a side note, future publishers, I don't know who you are, but as from now, every time you send Chris a free copy of your game for a review, I will find that video. I will find the game. I will make a video reacting to his review. I will say the parts he skipped. And we all know that there will be many negative things he won't say. the stuff a buyer should have heard first.