next »

[Irock]

I haven't thought about what such a system would look like or considered the practicality of it, nor have I really advocated anything. Right now it's just a theoretical standpoint based on morals. It's not really a big concern of mine.

[Artoodiitoo]

Yeah it's a totally great idea to do like Nintendo and try to censor your own advertising...

[team_q]

...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.

Not really, as it's happening now.

[eyeliner]

Put a disclaimer on the game telling if you allow streaming of it or not. Kinda like the piracy spot before a DVD movie and like PSX had. Just, as a dev, decide  before releasing the game. Seems easy enough.

[Zaphos]

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.

I think to the extent that Nintendo pulled back, it was because of the PR backlash and because they didn't have a revenue share program yet (they just claimed 100% of the revenue).  They're still planning on launching their revenue share program soon afaik.

We're not talking about enforcing over all web video, just on YouTube, right?  All Nintendo had to do (according to them) was become a 'youtube partner' and register their content with youtube.  YouTube handles the enforcement issues.

[HDSanctum]

With so many supporting royalty-free Let's Plays, video game content is cheapened. It is standard everywhere to be payed for your professional work, so why is it so ridiculous for a developer to ask for a royalty ? Should devs pay royalties on their tools, or images, videos, textures, models, music or sound used in their video games ? It seems devs have to eat royalties and licenses for breakfast, lunch and dinner while streamers think they get to do what ever they want with little risk and high reward.

Being able to monetize Let's Play from the dev side would allow devs to provide better support and content for Let's Players, and potentially raise the bar for that type of content. There can be fair licenses, like what UE4 offers to devs.

[eyeliner]

If you cater to let's players, won't you neglect players? I find it funny the rise in popularity of these "Let's Play". I don't want to see some random dude playing a game I'm interested in. Doesn't it detract from the game itself if I intend on playing it?

[gimymblert]

Btw the best way to combat copyright is by making copyleft

[CoNamePending]

  *sighs*

[Kodakami]

If you cater to let's players, won't you neglect players? I find it funny the rise in popularity of these "Let's Play". I don't want to see some random dude playing a game I'm interested in. Doesn't it detract from the game itself if I intend on playing it?

The argument is that people are there for the person and the personality more than the game. That being said many (plot based) games get Let's Play and if story is the reason why you would play that game I don't understand the point of making a video of 30 minutes of game spoilers feat. YouTube ads.

[s0]

The argument is that people are there for the person and the personality more than the game.

yes but don't games still get a boost in sales after getting picked up by ppl like pewdiepie? i mean iirc let's plays are the whole reason why the amnesia/slenderman genre of horror games  blew up.

[Kodakami]

yes but don't games still get a boost in sales after getting picked up by ppl like pewdiepie?

I would argue that people like pewdiepie are more the exception, than the norm. He is the #1 most subscribed channel on YouTube and usually, at least when he is playing indie titles he takes care to include purchase links and developer info in all of his lets plays.

That being said I can't help but wonder when said lets players are playing AAA titles, titles that already have sizable marketing budgets, just how much of a marginal impact a Lets Play might have, especially on single player games defined by their setpieces, drama, or story.

IE, would you feel the need to buy "Heavy Rain" if you already saw the game to its entirety as a lets play? Did this lets play have a net positive or negative impact on the game? Finally, is it right for someone to be able to profit over what is essentially 'derivative' content?

Granted some "Lets Plays" are more derivative than others. I am not sure what kind of useful/funny commentary someone could add to an RPG maker game with its entirely scripted nature, turn based combat, and story driven focus. On the other hand I have seen Total Biscuit and Jessie play Terraria and due to the sandbox nature of the game, their personalities truly shine and Terraria is simply a context rather than a driving factor.

 As a person who creates his own original content there is nothing I dislike more than lazy derivative content. IE when someone rips off my music to make a 'lyric video' and then doesn't properly credit me in the description. Likewise I have also made my own derivative content, remixes of other musicians works, usage of samples in some of my more hip-hop inspired tracks.

I can see the arguments on both sides of this argument. I don't think its as black and white as some people suggest.

[gimymblert]

Skyrim with Jessie was awesome for all the emergent situation the game toss at anyone, dat wolf shoot! But more importantly the quality of the player is not important, what's important is that they create "events" because of their personalities, even people like DSP have their place because they fit a niche, and it's super informative as a designer to actually see bad player reasoning about a game!

[Slader16]

I say no, it's free advertising for developers. 

[s0]

in the end the reality of the situation is this: the vast majority of developers/publishers don't even try to shut down let's plays or even videos of unedited and uncommented gameplay footage. even tho they easily could considering how quickly youtube reacts to copyright complaints.

[jamesprimate]

going back a bit, does the argument "watching a Let's Play makes you less likely to buy" hold any water with you guys?

it doesnt make much sense to me, but then again i dont watch them so who knows. would you say the same thing about reading a walk-through? (spoils the plot! its my IP!) does Phil want a cut of that sweet sweet gamefaqs ad revenue?

[Dragonmaw]

in the end, you're sort drifting off the point of "should game designers be paid for the work they did that happens to be in an LP."

yes, they are. a lot of work went into the programming, design, and art creation of a game, and it's not exactly the worst thing in the world to say: hey, it might be nice to give them a small cut of ad revenue - maybe not from the pocket of the LPer, preferably it would be from the pocket of youtube - for all their hard work. especially because somebody playing the entirety of their game - which may or may not completely ruin it, depending on the game - does not guarantee sales, and saying "well if it was good it would sell" is not only patently false, it also implies a sense of meritocratic capitalism that just flat out doesn't exist in actuality.

allow developers to make the choice, individually, on whether or not they want to sub-monetize LPs. i think it's fully within their right, ethically and legally, to say they want a cut of the action. i also think it should be wrong, ethically and legally, for them to take a significant chunk; 10-20% should be fine, imo.

side note: the play analogy works against this, because in many plays the sets are either designed and built by the performers or specifically rented (if generic) or crafted (if unique) by outside help. to make that into game terms, you would either need to make the game yourself, pay to make the game, or "rent" the game (which you could see sub-monetization as; you are "renting" the game as a set for your little one-man play of inane videogame banter)

this whole argument is fucking stupid, and it depresses me seeing people get pissed off at developers because maybe they want a slight cut of the ad revenue when it's primarily being made on the backs of their work.

[jamesprimate]

so fair use just suddenly isnt a cool thing because it may somehow be construed as harmful to *our bottom line* now? the legality is something for the courts to decide i guess, but i really just dont get the perspective. i mean, i do have a pirate bay logo avatar, so perhaps my bias is evident.

anyway, the argument probably gets even more tricky now that youtube appears to be moving toward a donation / tipping model. with ad revenue you could (maybe) make the claim that the money coming in was directly related to the games being played, but if its money donated specifically to the personality or channel, i think it would be an even more difficult position to take.

[MorleyDev]

I wouldn't make let's plays of games that the developers didn't give explicit permission for, but to me that's a respect thing not a legal thing. Reviews and "Let's take a look at" style videos, different story, I'd totally do those if I had the time and patience.

Playing a game is arguably a transformative act, as playing a game and watching a game are not the same thing (whilst a movie or TV show is preserved fully and unchanged). And a let's play can't be easily argued to have a net negative impact on sales since there is a lot of evidence to demonstrate the opposite, unless of course a game is bad in which case it deserves the net impact on sales (so in that sense it does not differ from a review).

Plus, pragmatically, it'd just be impossible to enforce. Is a "let's try" playthrough of the first 30 minutes a let's play? Or is it a review? What would TotalBiscuit's "WTF is...?" be counted as, legally? It's more review than let's play by far, but how would a system tell the difference?

[s0]

going back a bit, does the argument "watching a Let's Play makes you less likely to buy" hold any water with you guys?

it doesnt make much sense to me, but then again i dont watch them so who knows. would you say the same thing about reading a walk-through? (spoils the plot! its my IP!) does Phil want a cut of that sweet sweet gamefaqs ad revenue?

gamefaqs analogy isn't great because most walkthroughs i've seen on gamefaqs try to avoid spoilers as much as possible, both out of respect to players who are bothered by spoilers and because no one really wants to type out a game's story in addition to writing a novella sized guide on how to beat it.

i could see let's plays being a problem for linear narrative based games with minimal gameplay. but has any developer of those kinds of games complained about let's plays yet? also those aren't the most popular games among let's players anyway afaik.