next »

[Schoq]

That's why it's so easy to get stuff taken off YouTube (well, that and YouTube are scared that their service might be threatened by exactly this sort of thing, so it's guilty until proven innocent for content creators).

You're saying it yourself but I'll say it too for emphasis: Youtube policy is actually much more restrictive about content use than it would have to be (provided that the holder requests removal). They're just playing things extremely safe to avoid lawsuits. It doesn't say much at all about the legality.

[wolawolawoohey]

Let's not be silly. Developers don't use an LP's commentary in their game, but LP's use the game in their LP.

The point was that people are arguing that if you make money off other people's work, than you owe that person money.

You cannot argue that Developers don't make money from LP'ers. Therefore you cannot argue that Developers don't owe money to LP'ers.

In other words, you don't get to only have one side of this coin. If one deserves money, than so does the other.

Edit: I latched on to your first statement before reading the rest of your post so I feel a bit foolish. But I'd totally agree that there are actually two debates going on, one legal and one moral.

[Christian Knudsen]

Yeah, legally you can't compare Let's Players making money by doing Public Performances of games (which is in direct violation of Copyright Law) with developers indirectly making money by awareness being generated about their product.

But on the other hand, you've got the devs behind Kerbal Space Program planning to provide affiliate links to Let's Players so that they'll be getting a percentage of game sales generated through their links. They feel that it's morally fair for Let's Player to get a part of the devs' revenue instead of the devs getting part of the Let's Players' revenue. Which is a clever move. If Let's Players can get a percentage of sales through affiliate links, they're more likely to promote purchase of said games.

[wolawolawoohey]

That is actually very cool, provides a way to actually track revenue directly influenced by the LP'er.

The thing is if one developer decides to charge LP'ers for making videos of their games, the LP'ers will probably just switch to something else, and the developer makes even less money than before.

If everyone decides to charge LP'ers at once, that would suck in the short term, but you could probably expect a growing community of LP'ers playing games that are more obscure and less restrictive, which in turn would increase exposure for those games instead. So in the end it's those who support less restriction that win because its mutually beneficial for all parties.

So yeah, I'm all for developers charging LP'ers, because that's the one that would get rid of those types of developers in the long run.

All just fancy speculation of course.

[Christian Knudsen]

I came to the same conclusion in the other thread: developers should ask for revenue share as that will just make it easier for those of us that don't!

[wolawolawoohey]

One example of developers charging an LP'er not making sense is the case of Flappy Bird and PewDiePie. Flappy Bird started raking in cash after his video showcased it where it otherwise would have gone mostly unnoticed. Should PewDiePie really have to pay the developer for the privilege of using footage of the game? If anything this is another case where the developer should theoretically be sharing that revenue with the LP'er.

All this moral ambiguity is why we are better off without written policy on the matter, else we are going to end up with rules that need a whole lot of exceptions, potentially leading to weird loopholes and... its just not worth it.

[Sik]

Relevant: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/220285/When_should_you_pay_YouTubers_to_play_your_game_and_when_should_they_pay_you.php

I know that we're discussing about whether LP'ers should be playing developers, but I'm more worried about the opposite trend, developers being the ones that pay. If that becomes common then expect many indies being completely locked out as LP'ers expect being paid for every game they play (and indies not being able to afford the expense, especially if many channels have to be covered).

[wolawolawoohey]

I'd agree that established developers paying LP'ers where indies can't compete is a concern, but I don't think its too big a threat. In that scenario, the LP'ers are potentially only choosing to play games after the developers have payed them to do so. The reason I don't see this as a threat is... they were probably going to play those games anyway, if they were popular that is, and we can assume they are in fact popular, because the studio behind it is able to afford to pay the LP'er.

If anything, this might actually benefit indies who've achieved moderate success with their game and are able to afford at least a couple LP'ers to assist in propelling that success a little further.

I'm making this up as I go though, what do you guys think?

[Sik]

Well, the problem is that you'd actually want the LP the most when you don't have any success at all yet... if you do then you probably don't need it by that point (at least badly).

[Dragonmaw]

All I think is that devs should be able to determine it, with tools provided for it all.

Want to just let them do it, no revenue share? Cool.

Want to take a small portion of the revenue? Cool.

Want to provide a referral link to give them a portion of sales revenue? Cool.

Just let the devs determine. If they want to allow people to use their game to LP, or request a small portion of monetization, or give them kickback from added sales, then it should be up to them.

Also "LPs give additional sales!" fuck off. That's dumb meritocratic garbage. This is a discussion about a developer's content being used in a media piece, not "well, it's free advertising so they shouldn't get any access to monetization!" That's diversionism, and it's pretty fucking stupid.

[Christian Knudsen]

Also "LPs give additional sales!" fuck off. That's dumb meritocratic garbage. This is a discussion about a developer's content being used in a media piece, not "well, it's free advertising so they shouldn't get any access to monetization!" That's diversionism, and it's pretty fucking stupid.

No it isn't. It's a pragmatic approach of considering whether you're harmed by the content use or actually gain from it. What's dumb is the dogmatic approach of all unauthorized content use being wrong and therefor equally harmful.

[starsrift]

Relevant: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/220285/When_should_you_pay_YouTubers_to_play_your_game_and_when_should_they_pay_you.php

I know that we're discussing about whether LP'ers should be playing developers, but I'm more worried about the opposite trend, developers being the ones that pay. If that becomes common then expect many indies being completely locked out as LP'ers expect being paid for every game they play (and indies not being able to afford the expense, especially if many channels have to be covered).

I don't think that's a viable long-term strategy. People have a natural aversion for corporate shilling, and while it may work a couple of times, the 'Tuber will be quickly recognized as just that shill, and abandoned by his or her audience.

[wolawolawoohey]

Just let the devs determine..

There is no reason developers should have all the power. If you wan't to have ultimate power over your content then don't release it into the world and then get upset when people don't behave in a way that suits your personal beliefs.

[Christian Knudsen]

I agree with Dragonmaw on that point. It should be up to the devs to decide. But it already is. Their creations are protected under Copyright Law, just like if you make a movie, write a book or play, or create a podcast. Unless you release it into the Public Domain or under a very lax Creative Commons license, people can't just do with it what they want. That's basic Copyright Law. But this discussion isn't about what rights the devs should or shouldn't have (and I'm confused why it always comes back to this?), it's about how devs govern the rights they already have. Do they get content taken down for copyright infringement? Do they ask for a share of ad revenue? Do they not do anything? Turning it into a discussion about Copyright Law in general is just going to derail the discussion completely.

[Trash_Empire]

When I see youtube videos about a certain game, a lot of the time it makes me want the game. I think the youtube scene is very beneficial to game developers. The more people playing on youtube, the more people buying the game. That does not mean that developers should pay youtube stars or vice versa, it is just a good system. However, some developers do not like having there game showcased on youtube. They want people to experience the game first hand. I believe that there is nothing wrong with either side, it is the developers choice. Youtube people should definitely get consent about using there game for monetization.

[Dragonmaw]

Just let the devs determine..

There is no reason developers should have all the power. If you wan't to have ultimate power over your content then don't release it into the world and then get upset when people don't behave in a way that suits your personal beliefs.

Yeah, how dare I think that creative people should have some modicum of say in how their work is commercialized.

Also "LPs give additional sales!" fuck off. That's dumb meritocratic garbage. This is a discussion about a developer's content being used in a media piece, not "well, it's free advertising so they shouldn't get any access to monetization!" That's diversionism, and it's pretty fucking stupid.

No it isn't. It's a pragmatic approach of considering whether you're harmed by the content use or actually gain from it. What's dumb is the dogmatic approach of all unauthorized content use being wrong and therefor equally harmful.

Believe it or not, I agree re: unauthorized use. I actually really like the "above X income, give percentage to dev" proposal. I doesn't hurt small LPers/non-profits, and kicks back to the devs when the LP reaches a certain level of viability.

I don't think non-monetized LPs should be touched whatsoever. But when you introduce money, you muddy the situation.

[Elzy]

I can see the point about seeing what the game is like before playing it...

BUT Games are not movies. Watching it doesn't ruin the experience in most cases because playing and watching are two WAY differnt things.

[AlexRamallo]

The way I see it, people uploading gameplay videos is not detrimental to the value of the game because, as Elzy pointed out, games are not movies.

Revenue share is definitely out of the question in my eyes, but restricting certain rights isn't, especially before release.

I made a game a long time ago that was reviewed in a podcast. It wasn't a commercial game and really was more of a practice project. Amyways, the dudes in the podcast didn't even read the instructions of the game and then complained that it was impossible to beat (which is only true if you didn't read the instructions!).

Those types of uninformed and/or ignorant reviewers can have a huge negative impact on the success of a game. Having at least a minimal contract in place with certain guidelines for the "loudest" YouTube channels prerelease can reduce the damage done by the smaller ones.

[eeedni]

I think it should be up to the developer to state the terms of use of their content.  Because it's your IP and thus under automatic copyright in many jurisdictions, you get to say what is fair use and what isn't.  Look at software licenses and Creative Commons as some examples.

That is the problem I have with this debate each time it happens, and again here most of the discussion revolves around Copyright Law. Conflating what the law says with what is ethically correct is inane.

Video creators are under no ethical obligation to provide any portion revenue they generate to the creator of a work they showcase in, say, a Let's Play, as the Let's Play is a new work in a different medium.

Attempting to claim royalties from creators is money grubbing, ethically unsound, and short sighted, regardless of what the law says. 

On a personal note, please, go Let's Play or whatever the fuck out of anything I make.

[Irock]

I think it should be up to the developer to state the terms of use of their content.  Because it's your IP and thus under automatic copyright in many jurisdictions, you get to say what is fair use and what isn't.  Look at software licenses and Creative Commons as some examples.

That is the problem I have with this debate each time it happens, and again here most of the discussion revolves around Copyright Law. Conflating what the law says with what is ethically correct is inane.

Video creators are under no ethical obligation to provide any portion revenue they generate to the creator of a work they showcase in, say, a Let's Play, as the Let's Play is a new work in a different medium.

Attempting to claim royalties from creators is money grubbing, ethically unsound, and short sighted, regardless of what the law says.  

If your personal morals lead you to be against it, fine, but to say that it's ETHICALLY INCORRECT is absolutely stupid. On what level is it ethically incorrect? If you asked a random group of people whether or not a video game developer should have the right to get a cut of a let's player's revenue generated in a series of videos of the let's player playing and talking over the developer's game from start to finish, I'm going to guess the majority would say "yes".