Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

What kind of idiot watches a video review without actually paying attention to the video?

Delta Magnus wrote:What kind of idiot watches a video review without actually paying attention to the video?

You know there are people who watch the video casually rather than with a fine tooth comb or under a microscope? Anything from a dog barking to sipping your favorite drink can cause you to miss the split second that the breakage happened. Your eyes might have drifted, but you are still listening to his words. A verbal acknowledgement by Peaugh would have made anyone who missed it hit rewind and say "what's he talking about?"

It's pretty obvious when it breaks. You'd have to have not been looking at the video at all to miss it. And if you're watching a review to decide whether or not to buy something then yes, I would pay full and proper attention to the video lest I miss an important detail (like something breaking). Honestly I'm not overly put off Cubrar by the axe breaking- tiny pieces like that are bound to be fragile unless they're made of metal, regardless of how good your QC is, and he isn't the "main attraction" of the figure anyway. I do think Peaugh should have called a bit more attention to it but I don't think it's exactly a capital offence- we know it's fragile now, he has had the good grace to address the issue (even if it was after the fact) and he made no effort to edit it out. Was it handled as well as it could have been? No. But at the end of the day, we know now that the axes are fragile, and Peaugh isn't trying to decieve anyone over it- there's no harm done.

Robogeek1973 wrote:Yeah, Huff's QC issues are horrible.

I have to say, mine impresses me quite a bit. I coated the paint apps in nail polish clear coat before I even transformed him to make sure there were no problems and it worked fine. (It's still holding, though I will admit that it thinned the paint a bit in spots.)

I've had no problems with bad plastic or things breaking or balance issues.

My only crits are:

-the vehicle mode grill isn't sitting exactly flush
-his rear window panel keeps falling out when I swivel it around, so I have to pinch the sides of the cab to get it to stay on until I get the roof locked in place
-his leg flaps do tend to pop open on their own

Aside from that, I think he's a really nice figure and I don't regret the purchase. I bought it from our sponsor, VNC Toys and even with the holidays, they shipped it the same day I ordered and I had it in TWO, when the postal service said FOUR. How's that for service?!

I've seen most of the video reviewers give him at least a passing grade, it's usually the keyboard warriors that have the negative reviews. That tells you something and it's probably that the reviewers are in some form of collusion with the manufacturers, but even at that, I really don't care. I'm only there to see if the transformation is any good and what the figure scales at. The transformation is a BIG deal to me.

I don't mind One-Steps because they're dirt cheap, but when you're talking about figures such as Huff and other 3rd Party figures, I have to know if the transformation is worth my time and money. Sigma-L, for instance, not exactly one of my favorite figures in the FP line. He's worth buying, but perhaps on sale.

I wanted to point out this video review on Impossible Toys Alicon from Bobby Skullface. While I don’t agree with his negativity on the figure, this is the type of negative comments I would like to hear from sponsored reviewers. He flat out says the figure sucks among other not so nice things. I am aware that this review isn’t sponsored as he admits buying the figure. But this is what I mean by “keeping it real”. Why cant the sponsored reviewers be more like Bobby Skullface ? Maybe that’s why he wears a mask. Im sure he wouldn’t be very popular at conventions with the retailers and groupies.

Rated X wrote:I wanted to point out this video review on Impossible Toys Alicon from Bobby Skullface. While I don’t agree with his negativity on the figure, this is the type of negative comments I would like to hear from sponsored reviewers. He flat out says the figure sucks among other not so nice things. I am aware that this review isn’t sponsored as he admits buying the figure. But this is what I mean by “keeping it real”. Why cant the sponsored reviewers be more like Bobby Skullface ? Maybe that’s why he wears a mask. Im sure he wouldn’t be very popular at conventions with the retailers and groupies.

And there you go , he outright says "not worth the money" I don't think I have ever heard a sponsored reviewer say that, perhaps they are not allowed to for contractual reasons, but as we have seen there are sponsored reviewers that do highlight the deficits in figures therefore giving the viewers an informed decision.

leakin' lubricant wrote:

Rated X wrote:I wanted to point out this video review on Impossible Toys Alicon from Bobby Skullface. While I don’t agree with his negativity on the figure, this is the type of negative comments I would like to hear from sponsored reviewers. He flat out says the figure sucks among other not so nice things. I am aware that this review isn’t sponsored as he admits buying the figure. But this is what I mean by “keeping it real”. Why cant the sponsored reviewers be more like Bobby Skullface ? Maybe that’s why he wears a mask. Im sure he wouldn’t be very popular at conventions with the retailers and groupies.

And there you go , he outright says "not worth the money" I don't think I have ever heard a sponsored reviewer say that, perhaps they are not allowed to for contractual reasons, but as we have seen there are sponsored reviewers that do highlight the deficits in figures therefore giving the viewers an informed decision.

Honesty........integrity? All hard to find these days. In the end we all have to depend on our common sense.

fenrir72 wrote:

leakin' lubricant wrote:

Rated X wrote:I wanted to point out this video review on Impossible Toys Alicon from Bobby Skullface. While I don’t agree with his negativity on the figure, this is the type of negative comments I would like to hear from sponsored reviewers. He flat out says the figure sucks among other not so nice things. I am aware that this review isn’t sponsored as he admits buying the figure. But this is what I mean by “keeping it real”. Why cant the sponsored reviewers be more like Bobby Skullface ? Maybe that’s why he wears a mask. Im sure he wouldn’t be very popular at conventions with the retailers and groupies.

And there you go , he outright says "not worth the money" I don't think I have ever heard a sponsored reviewer say that, perhaps they are not allowed to for contractual reasons, but as we have seen there are sponsored reviewers that do highlight the deficits in figures therefore giving the viewers an informed decision.

Honesty........integrity? All hard to find these days. In the end we all have to depend on our common sense.

Very true, although in my experience these days common sense isn't all that common.

leakin' lubricant wrote:

fenrir72 wrote:

leakin' lubricant wrote:

Rated X wrote:I wanted to point out this video review on Impossible Toys Alicon from Bobby Skullface. While I don’t agree with his negativity on the figure, this is the type of negative comments I would like to hear from sponsored reviewers. He flat out says the figure sucks among other not so nice things. I am aware that this review isn’t sponsored as he admits buying the figure. But this is what I mean by “keeping it real”. Why cant the sponsored reviewers be more like Bobby Skullface ? Maybe that’s why he wears a mask. Im sure he wouldn’t be very popular at conventions with the retailers and groupies.

And there you go , he outright says "not worth the money" I don't think I have ever heard a sponsored reviewer say that, perhaps they are not allowed to for contractual reasons, but as we have seen there are sponsored reviewers that do highlight the deficits in figures therefore giving the viewers an informed decision.

Honesty........integrity? All hard to find these days. In the end we all have to depend on our common sense.

Very true, although in my experience these days common since isn't all that common.

Touche!

Got my Cubrar in hand today. I went right for the little guy immediately to see if the axe handles were as delicate as they appear on Peaugh's video. One hand fits a little tighter than the other but they wiggle out easily. Also, since the fist holes only go half way through the fist, it's common sense that you DONT need to force them in all the way to the bottom of the hole. But apparently, common sense is not too common. Granted, I could see the axe handle snapping easily if the little guy were to take a dive from a high shelf. Keep that in mind. But I had no issues inserting or removing the handles from the fists. So it's official now, Peaugh is a certified buffoon. But what does he care ? He got Cubrar for free. Let someone who actually paid for it tell you that you should be fine as long as you are careful as you should be with any $100 figure.

You know it's funny that you accuse him of being a shill when that sounded far more like a shilling "There's no problems with it guise!!!!" endorsement than anything Peaugh has ever put out.

Rated X wrote:Peaugh is a certified buffoon.

Delta Magnus wrote:You know it's funny that you accuse him of being a shill when that sounded far more like a shilling "There's no problems with it guise!!!!" endorsement than anything Peaugh has ever put out.

Well in this particular case, I have the figure in hand and I paid for it out of my own wallet. So I can confirm that it wasn't a case of the figure being poor quality, just the reviewer being careless. My confirmation neither hurts or helps Peaugh's image. He is trying to sell you Cubrar. I'm just telling you I didn't have the issues the so called "professional" had.

Because there's no such thing as differing figure quality between individual specimens... Seriously, what is it with this compulsive habit you have of complaining about Peaugh?

You take literally every opportunity to voice your distaste for Peaugh and it's...I was going to say it's getting boring, but we've already passed that point. It's bordering on downright infuriating and a smidgin hilarious (in that "Anita Sarkeesian's Master Degree" kind of hilarious, IE cringe-inducingly stupid). "PEAUGH'S FIGURE BROKE BUT HE DIDN'T CALL IT A PIECE OF CRAP HE'S A SHILL!" "Oh, wait, I have the figure and it's not crap... HE MUST BE A "TOTAL BUFFOON" AND THERE'S NO WAY IT COULD BE A ONE-OFF QC MISTAKE!". Seriously, you have an obsession with finding excuses to badmouth him that borders on insanity. Did he get the last Motormaster in the shop when you were a kid or something? Either that or you're some kind of tinfoil hat conspiracist convinced that Peaugh is part of a government conspiracy to sell people the wrong toys. Coming soon: The Peaugh Ultimatum!

Yeah, nothing's really being proved at this point.

Delta Magnus wrote:Because there's no such thing as differing figure quality between individual specimens... Seriously, what is it with this compulsive habit you have of complaining about Peaugh?

You take literally every opportunity to voice your distaste for Peaugh and it's...I was going to say it's getting boring, but we've already passed that point. It's bordering on downright infuriating and a smidgin hilarious (in that "Anita Sarkeesian's Master Degree" kind of hilarious, IE cringe-inducingly stupid). "PEAUGH'S FIGURE BROKE BUT HE DIDN'T CALL IT A PIECE OF CRAP HE'S A SHILL!" "Oh, wait, I have the figure and it's not crap... HE MUST BE A "TOTAL BUFFOON" AND THERE'S NO WAY IT COULD BE A ONE-OFF QC MISTAKE!". Seriously, you have an obsession with finding excuses to badmouth him that borders on insanity. Did he get the last Motormaster in the shop when you were a kid or something? Either that or you're some kind of tinfoil hat conspiracist convinced that Peaugh is part of a government conspiracy to sell people the wrong toys. Coming soon: The Peaugh Ultimatum!

I'm not even the guy who caught the Peaugh breakage. Every dog has his day. This week was all Peaugh. Next week it could be another reviewer.

I get it. You like these guys. You like what they do. You think they are providing a service to the fandom. I don't. If TF Source and BBTS dropped these guys tomorrow we would still be in good hands with unsponsored reviewers who make videos for the passion of the hobby, not free toys.

It's not uncommon for people in denial to play the "conspiracy theory" argument. There's no conspiracy in this, it's just the buddy system at it's finest. Didn't you ever learn not to bite the hand that feeds you ? These sponsored reviewers eat real well from the retailers plates.

Yeah, I still don't know what you're saying.

we would still be in good hands with unsponsored reviewers

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

Seriously. I don't fancy nothing but potato-quality video and depressingly fudged reviews (complete with barely-audible voices and atrociously overinflated runtimes mostly bloated by them fudging about with their dollar store camcorder). One of the reasons people like the sponsored guys (aside from the regular update rates) is that the production quality (which is important because if someone's doing a review with a 240P camera phone then I'm not getting a proper impression of the figure) is actually acceptable. Pretty much the only decent unsponsored reviewers are Thew (as he doesn't take it at all seriously and is hilarious to watch) and Baltmatrix (and even then only because he does some figures others don't do and doesn't have a totally dreadful camera- the amount of times I've heard him complaining about a slightly loose balljoint and just wanted to shout through the screen "JUST PUT SOME VARNISH/SUPERGLUE ON THE JOINT YOU IMBECILE" is beyond counting).

So yeah. If you want to stick with your 2003-quality reviews you do that. I'll take Peaugh and Vangelus and other people who know what they're doing.

Delta Magnus wrote:

we would still be in good hands with unsponsored reviewers

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

Seriously. I don't fancy nothing but potato-quality video and depressingly fudged reviews (complete with barely-audible voices and atrociously overinflated runtimes mostly bloated by them fudging about with their dollar store camcorder). One of the reasons people like the sponsored guys (aside from the regular update rates) is that the production quality (which is important because if someone's doing a review with a 240P camera phone then I'm not getting a proper impression of the figure) is actually acceptable. Pretty much the only decent unsponsored reviewers are Thew (as he doesn't take it at all seriously and is hilarious to watch) and Baltmatrix (and even then only because he does some figures others don't do and doesn't have a totally dreadful camera- the amount of times I've heard him complaining about a slightly loose balljoint and just wanted to shout through the screen "JUST PUT SOME VARNISH/SUPERGLUE ON THE JOINT YOU IMBECILE" is beyond counting).

So yeah. If you want to stick with your 2003-quality reviews you do that. I'll take Peaugh and Vangelus and other people who know what they're doing.

You pretty much just admitted in this comment that what you want is a video that will help you make a buy or don't buy decision. I'm inclined to believe the unsponsored reviewers have nothing to lose by being both honest and blunt. Sure you don't get all the smoke and mirrors that make the video seem so "professional". But you get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And yes Peaugh and Vangelus know exactly what they're doing. They're selling you toys. When Im buying, I don't need the opinion of a salesman. I need the opinion fellow collector who vouches for the figure by means of their own income.

Gauntlet101010 wrote:Yeah, nothing's really being proved at this point.

I didn't have to prove Peaugh was a buffoon. He did that on his own by breaking his figure.

Gauntlet101010 wrote:Yeah, nothing's really being proved at this point.

nope. didnt read my goings on with X a page or so ago? he's not here to prove anything. just preach endlessly.

shajaki wrote:

Gauntlet101010 wrote:Yeah, nothing's really being proved at this point.

nope. didnt read my goings on with X a page or so ago? he's not here to prove anything. just preach endlessly.

Speaking of things said a few pages back, I stated earlier that this is one of those things you cant really "prove" unless you can read minds. If they are being deceitful to help push products, they're lips are sealed and they're not talking. Why should they ? What's in it for them to come clean ?

My suspicions are based on CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Some fans are such wholesome, trusting individuals who are willing to give the reviewers the benefit of the doubt. I'm not. I've seen too much s**t in my lifetime to write off the deception that free perks are capable of creating.

Rated X wrote:

Delta Magnus wrote:

we would still be in good hands with unsponsored reviewers

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

Seriously. I don't fancy nothing but potato-quality video and depressingly fudged reviews (complete with barely-audible voices and atrociously overinflated runtimes mostly bloated by them fudging about with their dollar store camcorder). One of the reasons people like the sponsored guys (aside from the regular update rates) is that the production quality (which is important because if someone's doing a review with a 240P camera phone then I'm not getting a proper impression of the figure) is actually acceptable. Pretty much the only decent unsponsored reviewers are Thew (as he doesn't take it at all seriously and is hilarious to watch) and Baltmatrix (and even then only because he does some figures others don't do and doesn't have a totally dreadful camera- the amount of times I've heard him complaining about a slightly loose balljoint and just wanted to shout through the screen "JUST PUT SOME VARNISH/SUPERGLUE ON THE JOINT YOU IMBECILE" is beyond counting).

So yeah. If you want to stick with your 2003-quality reviews you do that. I'll take Peaugh and Vangelus and other people who know what they're doing.

You pretty much just admitted in this comment that what you want is a video that will help you make a buy or don't buy decision. I'm inclined to believe the unsponsored reviewers have nothing to lose by being both honest and blunt. Sure you don't get all the smoke and mirrors that make the video seem so "professional". But you get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And yes Peaugh and Vangelus know exactly what they're doing. They're selling you toys. When Im buying, I don't need the opinion of a salesman. I need the opinion fellow collector who vouches for the figure by means of their own income.

To be fair, I think X's view . . . -this- time . . . has a level of merit and I say this loosely. Each individual reviewer is not going to be the same. In fact, only those who want to produce high quality reviews will invest in decent equipment to do so. With that being said, I believe you're more likely to get an "honest" review out of someone who isn't being sponsored. They're offering a personal opinion strictly due to wanting to give a personal opinion. They actually bought the figure so they have nothing to lose or gain other than followers to their youtube channel which is likely only to increase/decrease due to video quality and performance.

Keep in mind . . . I'm not saying that's the rule, it's just more likely you'll get an honest opinion from someone who isn't being sponsored. Not 100% as anyone can be biased. The quality of a video does nothing to prove the honesty of ones motives. However, once you see that "sponsored by insert name here" tag you would be wise to believe that the person reviewing isn't being sponsored for their opinion, but rather to do a job to increase the sponsors sales. It's just business.

NOS wrote:

Rated X wrote:

Delta Magnus wrote:

we would still be in good hands with unsponsored reviewers

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

Seriously. I don't fancy nothing but potato-quality video and depressingly fudged reviews (complete with barely-audible voices and atrociously overinflated runtimes mostly bloated by them fudging about with their dollar store camcorder). One of the reasons people like the sponsored guys (aside from the regular update rates) is that the production quality (which is important because if someone's doing a review with a 240P camera phone then I'm not getting a proper impression of the figure) is actually acceptable. Pretty much the only decent unsponsored reviewers are Thew (as he doesn't take it at all seriously and is hilarious to watch) and Baltmatrix (and even then only because he does some figures others don't do and doesn't have a totally dreadful camera- the amount of times I've heard him complaining about a slightly loose balljoint and just wanted to shout through the screen "JUST PUT SOME VARNISH/SUPERGLUE ON THE JOINT YOU IMBECILE" is beyond counting).

So yeah. If you want to stick with your 2003-quality reviews you do that. I'll take Peaugh and Vangelus and other people who know what they're doing.

You pretty much just admitted in this comment that what you want is a video that will help you make a buy or don't buy decision. I'm inclined to believe the unsponsored reviewers have nothing to lose by being both honest and blunt. Sure you don't get all the smoke and mirrors that make the video seem so "professional". But you get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And yes Peaugh and Vangelus know exactly what they're doing. They're selling you toys. When Im buying, I don't need the opinion of a salesman. I need the opinion fellow collector who vouches for the figure by means of their own income.

To be fair, I think X's view . . . -this- time . . . has a level of merit and I say this loosely. Each individual reviewer is not going to be the same. In fact, only those who want to produce high quality reviews will invest in decent equipment to do so. With that being said, I believe you're more likely to get an "honest" review out of someone who isn't being sponsored. They're offering a personal opinion strictly due to wanting to give a personal opinion. They actually bought the figure so they have nothing to lose or gain other than followers to their youtube channel which is likely only to increase/decrease due to video quality and performance.

Keep in mind . . . I'm not saying that's the rule, it's just more likely you'll get an honest opinion from someone who isn't being sponsored. Not 100% as anyone can be biased. The quality of a video does nothing to prove the honesty of ones motives. However, once you see that "sponsored by insert name here" tag you would be wise to believe that the person reviewing isn't being sponsored for their opinion, but rather to do a job to increase the sponsors sales. It's just business.

In fairness, questioning the honesty of someone's motives just because they've been successful is pretty disingenuous. I get casting a critical eye on what you hear, but if someone's successful it seems to be that they're honestly invested in what they're doing and the quality of what they do.

For all the hubbub in their thread about not being able to trust sponsored reviews because of any number of reasons, the only one that seems to be picked on is Peaugh. Proof's in the pudding. Even if there's a logical argument to be had against sponsored reviews if only one is being a problem (and that's very debatable, really) then we seem to be well served.

Gauntlet101010 wrote:

NOS wrote:

Rated X wrote:

Delta Magnus wrote:

we would still be in good hands with unsponsored reviewers

AH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

Seriously. I don't fancy nothing but potato-quality video and depressingly fudged reviews (complete with barely-audible voices and atrociously overinflated runtimes mostly bloated by them fudging about with their dollar store camcorder). One of the reasons people like the sponsored guys (aside from the regular update rates) is that the production quality (which is important because if someone's doing a review with a 240P camera phone then I'm not getting a proper impression of the figure) is actually acceptable. Pretty much the only decent unsponsored reviewers are Thew (as he doesn't take it at all seriously and is hilarious to watch) and Baltmatrix (and even then only because he does some figures others don't do and doesn't have a totally dreadful camera- the amount of times I've heard him complaining about a slightly loose balljoint and just wanted to shout through the screen "JUST PUT SOME VARNISH/SUPERGLUE ON THE JOINT YOU IMBECILE" is beyond counting).

So yeah. If you want to stick with your 2003-quality reviews you do that. I'll take Peaugh and Vangelus and other people who know what they're doing.

You pretty much just admitted in this comment that what you want is a video that will help you make a buy or don't buy decision. I'm inclined to believe the unsponsored reviewers have nothing to lose by being both honest and blunt. Sure you don't get all the smoke and mirrors that make the video seem so "professional". But you get the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

And yes Peaugh and Vangelus know exactly what they're doing. They're selling you toys. When Im buying, I don't need the opinion of a salesman. I need the opinion fellow collector who vouches for the figure by means of their own income.

To be fair, I think X's view . . . -this- time . . . has a level of merit and I say this loosely. Each individual reviewer is not going to be the same. In fact, only those who want to produce high quality reviews will invest in decent equipment to do so. With that being said, I believe you're more likely to get an "honest" review out of someone who isn't being sponsored. They're offering a personal opinion strictly due to wanting to give a personal opinion. They actually bought the figure so they have nothing to lose or gain other than followers to their youtube channel which is likely only to increase/decrease due to video quality and performance.

Keep in mind . . . I'm not saying that's the rule, it's just more likely you'll get an honest opinion from someone who isn't being sponsored. Not 100% as anyone can be biased. The quality of a video does nothing to prove the honesty of ones motives. However, once you see that "sponsored by insert name here" tag you would be wise to believe that the person reviewing isn't being sponsored for their opinion, but rather to do a job to increase the sponsors sales. It's just business.

In fairness, questioning the honesty of someone's motives just because they've been successful is pretty disingenuous. I get casting a critical eye on what you hear, but if someone's successful it seems to be that they're honestly invested in what they're doing and the quality of what they do.

For all the hubbub in their thread about not being able to trust sponsored reviews because of any number of reasons, the only one that seems to be picked on is Peaugh. Proof's in the pudding. Even if there's a logical argument to be had against sponsored reviews if only one is being a problem (and that's very debatable, really) then we seem to be well served.

I wouldnt go a far as calling a company sponsorship as being "successful". He is getting free toys to make videos, in other words dickering. When he starts his own online store and sponsors his own reviewer, than maybe you can call him successful. Right now he is just lucky.