From reviews on Fiverr to a paid influencer stream that got a little too honest: Why Aerosoft’s marketing strategy is under fire right now!

A central allegation revolves around the handling of reviews. According to a whistleblower on whom the video is based, positive ratings for certain titles are said to have been arranged through external platforms such as Fiverr. In addition, there is the allegation that positive reviews were initiated internally or even written by employees themselves. Put simply: the impression arises as if you were already writing five stars on the menu before taking the first bite in a restaurant.

A second serious point concerns the collaboration with development studios and the strategy behind it. Based on the statements of a developer, the video shows that studios were allegedly advised in a direction that was not sufficiently aligned with the wishes of the community. Many view it as particularly critical that features were prioritized which players had apparently not even asked for, while obvious and expected content was initially left behind. Figuratively speaking: while the community asked for a steering wheel, the cup holder was polished first. In this context, the video also addresses that an affected developer allegedly came under severe financial pressure, had to lay off employees, and ultimately went into insolvency.

A third major point of criticism is the marketing. Here, the video works through several allegations and issues very clearly. At the center is the question of whether external marketing and collaborations were sufficiently controlled. In this context, the project surrounding the so-called “SIMU working student” is mentioned particularly often. According to the points raised in the video, the cooperation with an external agency or an external channel raises questions about control, coordination, and internal communication. The allegation here is precisely that published statements and content were not sufficiently reviewed or supervised.

In addition, the video cites The Bus pre-release console video by Kaktusfeige as an example. To this day, it can be discussed why a version was publicly shown that technically had not yet reached its final state and therefore left many players with a negative first impression. These two examples now stand symbolically for the criticism of the communication and marketing strategy. Or, put differently: the first impression was already out there before the product was even fully polished at the door, leaving behind many disappointed players.

Another allegation that the video clearly highlights concerns the fundamental perception of the publisher’s role. Many players do not see the publisher Aerosoft merely as a pure distribution partner, but directly associate it with product quality, communication, and responsibility toward the community. From this, the current discussion arises as to whether a publisher can withdraw into the role of a mediator when problems occur, or whether there is a much stronger shared responsibility here.

Anyone who wants to form a comprehensive picture for themselves should also watch the video by EinfachMory and evaluate the points of criticism developed there in the overall context.

Aerosoft: Ein Whistleblower packt aus

00:00 Intro04:24 Das Interview mit Michal22:10 Rezensionen gekauft? Ein ehem. Mitarbeiter berichtet29:22 Marketing - Was zum Geier geht da ab?!40:55 Das Aero...

www.youtube.com

Before we go into the discussion, one point is particularly important to us: please remain factual, fair, and constructive in the comments. This is not about publicly pillorying individual people or rushing to judge anyone. The focus should be on the allegations, structures, and decisions addressed—not on personal blaming. Criticism is important, but it should always be conducted respectfully and on an objective level.

How do you see the allegations raised in the video regarding reviews, marketing, and collaboration with development studios? Do you perceive it the same way? In your view, does a publisher bear direct co-responsibility for issues surrounding quality, communication, and public presentation, or does the main responsibility lie more with the development teams? What do you think about the allegations regarding the handling of reviews? How important is transparency to you as a community in this context?