Phil Fish compares Youtubers to pirates

Is it bad that I sort of agree with him?

PES Fan » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:59 pm wrote:

DaveDS » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:38 pm wrote:

PES Fan » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:24 pm wrote:Don't understand the criticism.

When developers see some talentless person like pewdiepie earn £4m a year then they obviously going to want a cut.

It's most likely taking it to the extreme comparing it to piracy. But I do think developers should get a certain cut from youtubers especially for lets plays.

The problem is there is absolutely no evidence that these youtube let's plays affect sales in a negative way whatsoever. His point of view, which is certainly not unique, might seem like it makes sense on the surface, but when you break it down and actually think about it, these video's are simply raising awareness for their games, it's free advertising. Instead of paying websites, TV companies etc tons of money to advertise their games, these people are doing it for free for them.

Just think of it this way, are indie games more or less popular now then before these let's plays were around? Nintendo are also perhaps the most outspoken company trying to stop these youtube videos, and have now finally decided they will come up with some scheme where they can share profits with video creators. They've been doing great recently haven't they? I wonder what boost the Wii U would have if more people got to see some of the games being played. Who knows.

While someone earning $4m a year on youtube is ridiculous, that's the world we live in, if anyone feels what he has done is so easy, then the good news is anyone and everyone is free to try and replicate it.

I know quite a few people who watched a lets play of a game like Last of us and didn't buy it. Because they watched all of it on youtube. It works both ways.

Nintendos short comings have nothing to do with YouTube. Also Microsoft don't allow monetisation from their first party games.

There'll always be individual cases, but I'd hazard a guess these kind of people never intended to buy the game in the first place if simply watching someone playing it was going to be enough for them. And if they ever intended to play it, would probably pick it up second hand somewhere, which some publishers would think is even more evil.

I'm gonna pirate Fez three times so he loses £20 for this

But where does it end though?

It's the same way as putting a whole movie online only for someone to commentate over the top. Sure, you're not getting the same experience as watching a movie but you can skip the best parts without passing over any money.

I agree it's a lot of work these videos and yes they can be great publicity but also in the same note it's a version of piracy where the creator gets none of the profits. It's a very fine line, there needs to be a better monetizing process for the creator of the work as well as supporting the creator of the videos.

Floex » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:06 pm wrote:But where does it end though?

It's the same way as putting a whole movie online only for someone to commentate over the top. Sure, you're not getting the same experience as watching a movie but you can skip the best parts without passing over any money.

I agree it's a lot of work these videos and yes they can be great publicity but also in the same note it's a version of piracy where the creator gets none of the profits. It's a very fine line, there needs to be a better monetizing process for the creator of the work as well as supporting the creator of the videos.

The whole point of a movie is to watch it, the point of a game is to play it. They are not the same. If you could hook up your controller to youtube and actually play these games OnLive style, then yeah it would be the same thing.

Phil Fish is right for saying that developers deserve a cut of the money that people like PewDiePie are making from his game or another developers game. It's a form of piracy, no doubt about it but in the same respect, it create publicity that could lead to more sales...

Swings and Roundabouts...

I can see why he is upset because he is autistic as strawberry float but did he never used to go round to his mates house to watch him play Sonic? It’s just the next logical step of that.

“Hey Ive got a cool new game watch me play it”

If we are talking video vs playing experience, there is no 90 minute Resident Evil 4 speedrun I can watch that will give me as much enjoyment as playing the full thing in a 10 hour playthrough.

1>3>4>2 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:13 pm wrote:Also Pewdiepie is making money from his personality (lol or lack thereof) what he plays means nothing. His persona and how he plays it is the seller here.

I seriously doubt he'd even have a channel if he wasn't allowed to upload footage of the games he was playing as part of his video. There's a definite argument that those monetising these videos wouldn't be able to do so without the content that was originally created by others, and as a result, it's not a stretch to argue that games makers might be entitled to a cut of that money.

Can't believe that Pewdiepie guy makes $4m a year off that garbage, though. I hate youtube and the people who seem to be able to make a living off it.

1>3>4>2 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:11 pm wrote:

Floex » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:06 pm wrote:
It's the same way as putting a whole movie online only for someone to commentate over the top. Sure, you're not getting the same experience as watching a movie but you can skip the best parts without passing over any money.

You don't have direct control over a movie.

Not sure I see the relevance, you're taking someone else's work and making money from it, end of. I'm not talking 5/10 minute videos or clips as they can become great virals and marketing tools, I'm talking about entire walkthroughs. Even then money should be split perhaps 70/30 between maker and game developer (70 being for the video creator).

There's been discoveries recently on Spiders that catch and eat fish. Put them in his house.

Rog » Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:55 pm wrote:

Jay Adama » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:47 pm wrote:It's like how Braveheart is great but you feel weird watching it now because Mel Gibson is a racist lunatic.

Or how Braveheart is great but it feels weird watching now you know William Wallace was a paedophile.

If I couldn't enjoy entertainment that had some kind of association with peadophilia then I'd be hard pressed to find anything to watch these days.

JimKT » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:00 pm wrote:Is it bad that I sort of agree with him?

Not really; I think Phil Fish has a fair point. I make gameplay videos for YT (occasionally). I'll never make any money from it, but for me that's not really the point. As much as I enjoy watching my regular subscribed channels (GhostRobo, Totalbiscuit, Boogie2988, Frankie, RadBrad etc) I can't help but feel these guys are just sitting on the shoulders of others, raking in the ca$h, getting a ton of freebies from game companies (Boogie, for instance, got both a free PS4 and a free XB1), going on expenses-paid trips courtesy of publishers, getting into 'industry-only' trade shows - and all because? Because they play a few games and provide some commentary of varying quality.

Boogie, RadBrad, TotalBiscuit and GhostRobo all earn enough off posting gameplay videos to YT to live off it - YTing is their full-time 'job', in other words. Now, it could reasonably be argued that if they are earning a living from posting video game footage (often entire playthroughs in series) there might just be a few copyright issues. Phil Fish's comparison to movies is a legitimate one.

Just sayin'.

PES Fan » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:59 pm wrote:I know quite a few people who watched a lets play of a game like Last of us and didn't buy it. Because they watched all of it on youtube. It works both ways.

And that is what I mean by failing as a provider of interactive content. If those people watched it, and decided not to buy it solely because they'd already seen everything the game has to offer (as opposed to watching the game and deciding that maybe it didn't look that good), and didn't want to subject themselves to the gameplay, then I think you need to look again at the gameplay and say "maybe this just isn't that fun"

Compare and contrast Resident Evil 4, Mario Kart 8, Crackdown or GTA. You could watch most of those games on Youtube, and still wind up wanting to play it

Cal » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:43 pm wrote:

JimKT » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:00 pm wrote:Is it bad that I sort of agree with him?

Not really; I think Phil Fish has a fair point. I make gameplay videos for YT (occasionally). I'll never make any money from it, but for me that's not really the point. As much as I enjoy watching my regular subscribed channels (GhostRobo, Totalbiscuit, Boogie2988, Frankie, RadBrad etc) I can't help but feel these guys are just sitting on the shoulders of others, raking in the ca$h, getting a ton of freebies from game companies (Boogie, for instance, got both a free PS4 and a free XB1), going on expenses-paid trips courtesy of publishers, getting into 'industry-only' trade shows - and all because? Because they play a few games and provide some commentary of varying quality.

Boogie, RadBrad, TotalBiscuit and GhostRobo all earn enough off posting gameplay videos to YT to live off it - YTing is their full-time 'job', in other words. Now, it could reasonably be argued that if they are earning a living from posting video game footage (often entire playthroughs in series) there might just be a few copyright issues. Phil Fish's comparison to movies is a legitimate one.

Just sayin'.

This!

So, can we assume that video games companies will begin paying Hollywood for all of their material they've shamelessly ripped off over the years, then?

1>3>4>2 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:45 pm wrote:But it wasn't the games that made him a success with everyone. It was his personality and how he plays the games that did. He could play literally anything and people would watch his videos. Not for whatever he is playing but for him. Even his videos where he just sits talking about gooseberry fool gets over 3 million views. Also these content creators often send him things to play because they recognise the power of his cult of personality. I'd say the fault lies more with game developers not making quality enough products. I mean if someone isn't even willing to pirate a game to play it they clearly aren't a lost purchase.

I don't get why people get so bumpain about people making a living off this. They clearly put a lot of work in and have to work to become a success. I think Pewdiepie is strawberry floating garbage. But then I don't watch it and fair play he is a good businessman and is getting paid.

Yeah, I don't agree that anyone anywhere is going to consider watching some let's play videos a suitable alternative to actually buying the game, that it directly leads to lost sales (unless the game is being exposed as legitimately bad, etc.) or any other parallel with direct piracy. But the games he plays and their content make up a substantial part of his videos, and he makes money off the back of that. Sure, he could play anything, but he'd still have to play something. His videos are reliant on him being able to screen somebody else's content. I'm not saying I totally support Phil Fish and think that all monetised Youtubers should be paying royalties to developers of the games they screen, as like you said, some view it as free publicity for them. The problem is that this is a situation that hasn't been addressed at all. There is no precedent and no framework for these kind of videos. No formal structure of agreement between video uploaders and developers whose games are featured. Not all developers will see having their entire game uploaded as a walkthrough video as a positive bit of marketing for them, they'll see someone else making money off of showing everyone else their game. They might slave away for years to release something that doesn't sell fantastically, and they make their base salary off it, and maybe a completion/sales bonus or whatever, meanwhile, someone like pewdiepie or some other internet celebrity, uploads footage of your game being played through, badly, and with someone guffawing like an asthmatic over the top of it, and they rake in $4m a year for doing that. It seems understandable that these developers might not be happy about where the money is flowing in that system.

Who the hell would rather watch a game being played than actually play it?

I don't own Fez and never will but that's because I'm not interested in it. Even if I were to watch an LP video of it the developer hasn't lost a sale as I wouldn't have bought it anyway.

The point is if I did want to experience it I would buy it to PLAY it not watch it for free. Games are interactive, or at least should be, not passive video entertainment.

I guess it's okay for Phil Fish to release a broken game then go tell everyone who gave him money to go strawberry float themselves when they ask him to fix it.

I thought he did fix it, but it was too expensive for him to actually release the patch over XBL?

Or was that another indie game?