next »

[Zaphos]

EVEN if the game was free, forcing people to pay you creates a chilling effect that hurts indies and professionals.

fwiw that 'chilling effect' already happened, and mostly just encouraged people to check with the developers first / with a giant list of known policies here: http://www.wholetsplay.com/wiki/doku.php

Under the various laws currently in place, however, no.

Again, youtube policy does say it's up to the developers.

[BlackLodgeGames]

I'm going to try and hook up YouTubers with free review copies of my game, and explicitly give them permission to capture audio and video of game play.  They are essentially doing free advertising for my game, so I'm completely embracing it.  The more coverage of my indie game, the more people who may eventually buy it.  That's just how I look at it personally.  To each their own.

[Kodakami]

It would depend on how transformative the YouTuber's content is. Generally though the unspoken agreements between YT content creators and game developers suits both parties well.

For the most part most YTers are pretty good about crediting content and linking apporpriately but there are some, not naming any names, that produce lower quality content than others but I don't think its something worth enforcing against a poor minority. Its just not worth the backlash.

[CoNamePending]

Personally I believe that there is enough evidence to support that Youtubers have a positive boost in sales. For example, if one were to look up the steam sales charts one might see that the sales were significantly higher after a major youtuber like Totalbiscuit or Pewdiepie plays their game.

Of course, I understand that if said youtuber does not like the game then it could be negative, but usually the youtubers (at least the credible ones) will give a reason why they did not like the title.

[Schoq]

you shouldn't have to pay someone money to distribute a bad review (or other work containing an incidental negative verdict!) of something, even though it will result in "costing" that person sales

[vethan]

Royalties are ridiculous anyway. I've been working with a song-writer for my game and so had to read about how royalties work and it's just plain stupid.  The money they're making isn't really from the game, it all the work they've put in on top of it to make the video! Plus, why on earth should devs make youtubers pay us to advertise for us? 

[team_q]

Again, as per fair use, Criticism should be exempt. If you aren't a critic, then you are making a show, if you are making money, people whose content you use are legally entitled to part of that money. If you are cool with people using your creative work to make themselves money, that's great, but the POINT is it should be your choice, as the creator.

[Dragonmaw]

I think it should be up to the developer.

[gimymblert]

There would be no discussion with big money and big audience wasn't involve, suddenly we feel like "humming music" (let's play) should be paid too, game content is suddenly expend beyond its boundaries, let's monetize the 'popular' culture. It's the bourgeois ideal of being predicator of good taste, good values and good economics against the ignorant and plebes who are in need to be control and directed to the light, the only right and the good.

[Superb Joe]

virtua cop 2 was really good

[Schoq]

If you aren't a critic, then you are making a show, if you are making money, people whose content you use are legally entitled to part of that money

No they're not. Stop making shit up

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i think it should, legally, be up to the developer, but i think that practically, if any developer complains about this and demands money from let's players they are shooting themselves in the foot, because the money let's players make is miniscule compared to the money you gain from them bringing attention to your game

[team_q]

No they're not. Stop making shit up

Sorry if copy right law upsets you, but using someone else content is a violation of their copy-right, this is how it's always been. Getting upset about it doesn't change that. Again, it's up to the content creator how their work is used, this is the way it is, you can argue fair use, but it's a hard fight if you are making money and using other people's content to generate your own, and it's not critical, or sufficiently different.

[pottering]

I would be okay with a model kinda like Unity or Unreal, free until the "youtuber" is earning a certain amount of big bucks (mostly honor-based?).

So kids who are starting have the freedom to do how they please, but the guys who are millionaires pay something back.

[jamesprimate]

rich indies now trying to become the gatekeepers as soon as money is involved, and using semantics to justify it. feels pretty gross if you ask me. "lets all join up with the RIAA now that we (potentially, maybe) have something to lose. and those dang torrents too! id have a condo in acapulco if its wasnt for them." SMH

[Irock]

rich indies now trying to become the gatekeepers as soon as money is involved, and using semantics to justify it. feels pretty gross if you ask me. "lets all join up with the RIAA now that we (potentially, maybe) have something to lose. and those dang torrents too! id have a condo in acapulco if its wasnt for them." SMH

That sounds really vague and scary (good job), but it's really more like individual developers deciding the terms for using their own work for profit. It's not a big deal.

[TautNerve]

I think totalbiscuit raises some pretty solid points in this video

[jamesprimate]

rich indies now trying to become the gatekeepers as soon as money is involved, and using semantics to justify it. feels pretty gross if you ask me. "lets all join up with the RIAA now that we (potentially, maybe) have something to lose. and those dang torrents too! id have a condo in acapulco if its wasnt for them." SMH

That sounds really vague and scary (good job), but it's really more like individual developers deciding the terms for using their own work for profit. It's not a big deal.

and from a practical standpoint, how would that be in any way enforceable? how would those revenues even be collected and distributed? the way youtube does that now with music and media is via the RIAA and the MPAA, which are huge trade bureaucracies explicitly devoted to procuring royalties for their catalog. and the only reason that happened was RIAA and MPAA lawyers repeatedly suing youtube for absurd sums.

if we want to talk about some sort of idealized voluntary system or Creative Commons-esque code of conduct thats one thing, but the mechanics of IP enforcement is pretty serious blunt instrument stuff.

[Irock]

rich indies now trying to become the gatekeepers as soon as money is involved, and using semantics to justify it. feels pretty gross if you ask me. "lets all join up with the RIAA now that we (potentially, maybe) have something to lose. and those dang torrents too! id have a condo in acapulco if its wasnt for them." SMH

That sounds really vague and scary (good job), but it's really more like individual developers deciding the terms for using their own work for profit. It's not a big deal.

and from a practical standpoint, how would that be in any way enforceable? how would those revenues even be collected and distributed? the way youtube does that now with music and media is via the RIAA and the MPAA, which are huge trade bureaucracies explicitly devoted to procuring royalties for their catalog. and the only reason that happened was RIAA and MPAA lawyers repeatedly suing youtube for absurd sums.

if we want to talk about some sort of idealized voluntary system or Creative Commons-esque code of conduct thats one thing, but the mechanics of IP enforcement is pretty serious blunt instrument stuff.

[jamesprimate]

...yes, and that was established as a result of protracted legal cases (via the DMCA, etc.), at the behest of the World Intellectual Property Organization.

I dont really get your point. are you suggesting that people police their own claims to IP violation by spamming DMCAs at "offending LetsPlayers"? At this point there is no legal groundwork for it, so I don't see that happening. Even nintendo couldn't make that stick.

listen, all im trying to say is that i think people are seriously underestimating what enforcement or royalty collection for this sort of thing would actually take.