GRcade

plasticcoated » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:10 pm wrote: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 rather enjoy watching gameplay videos. I absolutely have bought many games as a result of having enjoyed watching some playthroughs (most recently Spintires, played by the ridiculous UnitLost boys). Usually the first thing I'll do with any new release that piques my interest is to go to YT and search out a good HD playthrough video to take a gander and get a good idea of whether or not I think it's worth a punt. These videos do serve a purpose - even the publishers admit that, which is presumably why so many of them are prepared to encourage the practice.

This isn't an easy issue to legislate on, either way.

The only thing I really do take exception to is when the likes of TotalBiscuit or Boogie 2988 get all self-righteous and indignant that anyone should dare to criticise them, or accuse them of not really having a real job. You'll hear some legendary bullsh*t from such YTubers, claiming 'their content' requires an immense effort and endless professionalism. I don't consider what they upload to be 'their content' - they are simply videos of someone playing someone else's content (the developers, in this case). But in many ways, this issue - gameplay videos - merely serves to shine a light on the bottom-feeding games media in general. I'd love to work at Giant Bomb, but I don't really consider what they do as anything too taxing or even professional, although they are always at great pains to explain to us all just how hard they work. Which makes Patrick Klepek even more of an annoying tosser than he already is.

Dual » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:11 pm wrote: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”

Cal » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:38 pm wrote:The only thing I really do take exception to is when the likes of TotalBiscuit or Boogie 2988 get all self-righteous and indignant that anyone should dare to criticise them, or accuse them of not really having a real job. You'll hear some legendary bullsh*t from such YTubers, claiming 'their content' requires an immense effort and endless professionalism. I don't consider what they upload to be 'their content' - they are simply videos of someone playing someone else's content (the developers, in this case).

Well, I imagine if you were to ask, say, Andrew Mills, he would tell you that what he does, does require immense effort and professionalism.

Though of course, capturing video-footage of "other people's content" is only part of his job.

jiggles » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:59 pm wrote:His point is that people are monetising footage of his game without giving him a cut, not that people just post let's play videos. Which, from one perspective, is reasonable enough. You wouldn't expect someone to release a cover version of a song without the original writer getting their dues. But at the same time, you wouldn't expect Lego to get a cut of any tutorial videos posted by someone on YouTube.

He doesn't deserve anything. Playing a game is in no way analogous to a cover of a song.

The equivalent would be me filming myself driving a Ferrari and giving them a cut or charging to watch a gaming tournament and giving the devs a cut.



And the "get a real job" shtick is from people annoyed that they can't sit on their backside and get paid to make a living by playing games and giving their banal opinions on them.

While some people do enjoy watching other people play games, for the most part people want to play games not watch them. With the stories in most games, why would you want to watch it rather than a movie?

Phil Fish is an idiot, the only way you are going to lose out from people watching your game on Youtube is if it is a shitty looking game that puts people off. Otherwise, it is free (to you) advertising.

OR if you produce a "game" where the only redeeming element is the story. In which case, you probably shouldn't be making a game in the first place.

Those of you saying that videos on Youtube don't negatively effect sales of a game (and might even help those sales) are completely missing the point. That isn't the point, its got absolutely nothing to do with the point.

If you are making money out of something that belongs to someone else then they deserve a cut. In fact the owner of that content should be able to decide what you can and can't do with it.

It's that simple.

TheTurnipKing » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:33 pm wrote:

Cal » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:38 pm wrote:The only thing I really do take exception to is when the likes of TotalBiscuit or Boogie 2988 get all self-righteous and indignant that anyone should dare to criticise them, or accuse them of not really having a real job. You'll hear some legendary bullsh*t from such YTubers, claiming 'their content' requires an immense effort and endless professionalism. I don't consider what they upload to be 'their content' - they are simply videos of someone playing someone else's content (the developers, in this case).

Well, I imagine if you were to ask, say, Andrew Mills, he would tell you that what he does, does require immense effort and professionalism.

Though of course, capturing video-footage of "other people's content" is only part of his job.

I think Phil should be careful of what he wishes for tbh. I've worked with devs to secure licenses for their games (for guides) and if all of a sudden they needed people to approach them to negotiate deals directly (as some have suggested) then they'd either:

1). Spend an unholy amount of time wading through 'content approval' requests (sucking up precious development time).
2). Have a lot less coverage of their games to a digital generation that want to view these videos (whether they like it or not).

With regards to the amount of effort used, some people put in very little and some others, myself included, spend a scary amount of time on improving the final production. For example, the Bioshock 2 collectables video I'm currently working on consists of recording and organising 128 individual video clips, an intro, title, lower thirds, separately licensed audio, accompanying text and of course the actual editing for the final video itself in Premier Pro and After Effects.

I could have just recorded a '100%' playthrough and called it a day; but I've got more professional integrity than that.

I'd have zero qualms with games companies taking a - fair - cut for allowing us to use their work in return for zero comebacks or restrictions, but until Nintendo sort their gooseberry fool out with this idea, then I'll simply cut out their audio, add in my own and monitise the video to help those who need it whilst attempting to make a fair return on the time I've invested. Or is that also perceived as unfair?

HSH28 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:03 pm wrote:Those of you saying that videos on Youtube don't negatively effect sales of a game (and might even help those sales) are completely missing the point. That isn't the point, its got absolutely nothing to do with the point.

If you are making money out of something that belongs to someone else then they deserve a cut. In fact the owner of that content should be able to decide what you can and can't do with it.

It's that simple.

So if I make money from a computer, Apple should get a cut? If I am a taxi driver then Ford should get a cut? If I run a magazine with Photoshopped photos then Adobe should get a cut?

HSH28 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:03 pm wrote:Those of you saying that videos on Youtube don't negatively effect sales of a game (and might even help those sales) are completely missing the point. That isn't the point, its got absolutely nothing to do with the point.

If you are making money out of something that belongs to someone else then they deserve a cut. In fact the owner of that content should be able to decide what you can and can't do with it.

It's that simple.

If it belongs to them, what the strawberry float are we giving them money for?

Oh, that's right. A licence to USE their software. And what is this, if not using it?

If it's piracy why are so many game devs big and small clamouring to give LPers their game to play?

Quite a few companies seem to see it as a legitimate advertising method, it costs them next to nothing (maybe a free copy of a game or even taking them to an event to see the game). There must be a genuine benefit that these devs / publishers see.

Xeno » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:19 pm wrote:If it's piracy why are so many game devs big and small clamouring to give LPers their game to play?

Quite a few companies seem to see it as a legitimate advertising method, it costs them next to nothing (maybe a free copy of a game or even taking them to an event to see the game). There must be a genuine benefit that these devs / publishers see.

Sony actually built the feature into their controller. That says it all really. There'll always be backwards people/companies, but most seem to understand the value of free advertising. Then there will always be greedy people, who know full well they are benefiting from you, but don't like the fact you are making profit from it, despite it being a benefit to them, therefore they want you to pay them for promoting their game. I guess we'll see how that works out for them in the long term, particularly as media moves more and more to the internet and TV becomes less relevant.

Lucien » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:29 pm wrote:I agree that nobody deserves money for playing a game on youtube. Angry Joe type reviews are fine, but not these longplay videos everyone and their mother does.

They only get money if people watch them. If you don't like them, don't watch them.

TheTurnipKing » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:15 pm wrote:If it belongs to them, what the strawberry float are we giving them money for?

Oh, that's right. A licence to USE their software. And what is this, if not using it?

You have the right to use it under certain conditions, like with a film you don't have the right to screen it in public if you buy the Blu-Ray even though you 'bought' the film.

And before you trot out the line that games are made to be played and therefore different, I'll say it again, that isn't the point.

Moggy » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:14 pm wrote:So if I make money from a computer, Apple should get a cut? If I am a taxi driver then Ford should get a cut? If I run a magazine with Photoshopped photos then Adobe should get a cut?

When you buy those things you are either outright buying them for use or in the case of photoshop you are licensed to use it in certain ways which include producing content that you can get paid for.

When you buy a game you are buying a license to play that game, not to make money from it. That right unless explicitly given to you remains with the owner of the content you have licensed.

I really liked Fez, up until the point my save messed up.

This guy doesn't half come off with some shite though. He loves the attention.

I personally have enjoyed watching people on Twitch speedrun Mario 64, Sunshine and Ocarina of Time. Still can't believe I watched someone play PoT for over 4 hours while they got the WR for 100%.

Don't think I've watched any other playthroughs.

HSH28 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:38 pm wrote:

Moggy » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:14 pm wrote:So if I make money from a computer, Apple should get a cut? If I am a taxi driver then Ford should get a cut? If I run a magazine with Photoshopped photos then Adobe should get a cut?

When you buy those things you are either outright buying them for use or in the case of photoshop you are licensed to use it in certain ways which include producing content that you can get paid for.

When you buy a game you are buying a license to play that game, not to make money from it. That right unless explicitly given to you remains with the owner of the content you have licensed.

But they're playing it. And they're making money by doing it.

This, to me, looks like it falls into a very firmly undefined "grey area".

It's like someone setting up a business on your front lawn that sells pictures of your house. Even if they put a lot of work into their business, (which is rare for LPers) it is still only possible due to your property. So I understand why some developers feel entitled to a cut.

They are stupid to voice their opinion on the matter though. Youtubers usually increase sales if the game is good (more so for indies), and saying that you hate youtubers will only result in bad PR.

He's right. Anyone playing a board game on youtube should also have to pay royalties to the company that made it.

Also anyone posting pictures of a museum or attraction on the internet should have to pay royalties to the creator.

Shut up Phil Fish you stupid banana split.

1cmanny1 » Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:25 pm wrote:It's like someone setting up a business on your front lawn that sells pictures of your house. Even if they put a lot of work into their business, (which is rare for LPers) it is still only possible due to your property. So I understand why some developers feel entitled to a cut.

They are stupid to voice their opinion on the matter though. Youtubers usually increase sales if the game is good (more so for indies), and saying that you hate youtubers will only result in bad PR.

But there are plenty of places that sell photos of faomous places/buildings with no compensation to the creator(s)

Good (Proper good, as few as there are) let's players are as good as good sport's commentators.
And as Total Biscuit has said many times. People don't watch a let's players videos for the game footage, they watch them for the let's player. If it were just footage of the game with no commentary people would no WAY watch those videos. At least not to such an extent.