• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Eurogamer: Firewatch review-bombed following PewDiePie racism incident

Armaros

Member
But it reinforces it. And I think it's ok to criticize them for that.

Reinforces what?

The idea that the Game's industry has forgotten that lets plays operate on the grace of game developers and publishers letting them do so? And they all had crazy leniency because there wasn't much harm compared to benefits for everyone?
 
What did Campo Santo do? I'm not familiar with YouTube strikes and take-downs.

Abused YouTube's copyright enforcement system to remove a Firewatch video by PewDiePie because PewDiePie said the N word while streaming PUBG.

Worth noting that they originally gave out a blanket license for people to do LP videos of their game and probably enjoyed a lot of exposure from PDP's video. Now that the game has been out for ages and nobody would probably ever watch that video again, they decide to take it down.
 

Armaros

Member
Abused YouTube's copyright enforcement system to remove a Firewatch video by PewDiePie because PewDiePie said the N word while streaming PUBG.

Worth noting that they originally gave out a blanket license for people to do LP videos of their game and probably enjoyed a lot of exposure from PDP's video. Now that the game has been out for ages and nobody would probably ever watch that video again, they decide to take it down.

So now you are moving all these various goalposts to try to say that Campos should use DMCA to control their IP.

Which none of your excuses matter.

blanket license doesn't override copyright first off, especially with no concrete contract between PDP and Campos, second, how long the video is out has ZERO bearing on copyright protection. Copyright allows the holder to be as specific or as wide ranging with their strikes as they wish as long as they dont violate things like fair use or override existing contracts.
 
lol "both sides". The company doesn't want to be associated with a racist piece of fucking garbage. So wrong. The gaming community really is trash tbh.
 
What a bunch of pieces of shit. I guess there is a positive since those reviews get saved under their usernames so I know which racist asshole not to play with.
 
One does so because of stupid pathetic bullshit, while the other did it to stop the proliferation of stupid pathetic racist bullshit.

Don't equivocate. These two actions are not the same thing. Context is important. And it's not like Firewatch is the first person to ever enforce DMCA whenever they like.

Pretty much. As far as DMCA takedowns go, this is the one where one can go, "I can actually understand why they went down this avenue."

Developers wouldn't have to resort to this if only corporations like Youtube/Google stepped in to see how PDP has been conducting himself on their platform. However, the only color they can tolerate is "green".

Abused YouTube's copyright enforcement system to remove a Firewatch video by PewDiePie because PewDiePie said the N word while streaming PUBG.

Worth noting that they originally gave out a blanket license for people to do LP videos of their game and probably enjoyed a lot of exposure from PDP's video. Now that the game has been out for ages and nobody would probably ever watch that video again, they decide to take it down.

Sounds like you just listened to Ethan of H3H3 Productions' trash argument and settled with that.
 
I think what's annoying is how games journalism has been reacting to this DMCA move by Campo Santo. Giant Bomb and other platforms have complained about what message this sends or what precedent it sets. This isn't DMCA abuse, it's the owner of the copyrighted material choosing to assert their ownership over their content. I realize this could be bad for games journalism or YouTubers if widely adopted, but that's not DMCA abuse.

Here's an analogy for you. Let's say some YouTuber wants to provide his own play-by-play commentary or analysis of Monday Night Football every week. Is he allowed to do that? Hell no, and I don't think anyone would argue that the NFL doesn't have the right to stop that from happening. So why do we not want to afford video game creators the same right?

Currently, video game content owners find a benefit with allowing streamers and YouTubers to use their content. It's free advertising, it makes sense for them. But it's okay for Campo Santo to say, "We don't like PewDiePie's statements, and we don't want to be associated with him in any way, so we are ending his ability to use our content."

That's not DMCA abuse.
Do you not have any imagination/foresight at all? It isn't hard to comprehend. This sends a precedent that can clearly be abused in the future by devs with impunity. It doesn't need be a case like this one for the other devs to abuse the situation. Your analogy is nonsensical since they already state on their website that they do want youtubers to talk about their game.

I don't understand how people can't understand why this would be an issue in the future. I saw the video PDP did. Send a message to him, and he no longer makes videos about your game voluntarily. But they insisted on DMCA.
 
But it reinforces it. And I think it's ok to criticize them for that.

It doesn't change a thing. The right to DMCA takedown exists whether Campo Santo exercises it or not.

It honestly feels like some in the industry, like Giant Bomb, want to pretend that the DMCA doesn't exist, but Campo Santo exercising their right reminds them that they are merely permitted to do what they want with video game content 99% of the time.

Do you not have any imagination/foresight at all? It isn't hard to comprehend. This sends a precedent that can clearly be abused in the future by devs with impunity. It doesn't need be a case like this one for the other devs to abuse the situation.

I don't understand how people can't understand why this would be an issue in the future. I saw the video PDP did. Send a message to him, and he no longer makes videos about your game voluntarily. But they insisted on DMCA.

No, this is not a precedent. That's not how the law works. This is merely an example of a developer exercising its right. It honestly changes absolutely nothing about the law in any way at all.
 
If GiantBomb is playing that slippery slope bullshit then GiantBomb suck. This ism't slippery slope by any definition. They are literally just doing "yeah combatting racism is fine as long as it doesn't draw attention to us". Yeah fuck off.

Do you not have any imagination/foresight at all? It isn't hard to comprehend. This sends a precedent that can clearly be abused in the future by devs with impunity. It doesn't need be a case like this one for the other devs to abuse the situation. Your analogy is nonsensical since they already state on their website that they do want youtubers to talk about their game.

I don't understand how people can't understand why this would be an issue in the future. I saw the video PDP did. Send a message to him, and he no longer makes videos about your game voluntarily. But they insisted on DMCA.

The only precedent that has been sent is that if you say fucking nigger on your video some dev may decide to take your video down.

Other than that they can do this shit already. They choose not to because it benefits them. You may see them do it more but it aint gon be for any benign reasons.
 

Armaros

Member
Do you not have any imagination/foresight at all? It isn't hard to comprehend. This sends a precedent that can clearly be abused in the future by devs with impunity. It doesn't need be a case like this one for the other devs to abuse the situation. Your analogy is nonsensical since they already state on their website that they do want youtubers to talk about their game.

I don't understand how people can't understand why this would be an issue in the future. I saw the video PDP did. Send a message to him, and he no longer makes videos about your game voluntarily. But they insisted on DMCA.

Abuse what?

What power that copyright holders HAVE ALWAYS HAD?

How does Campos fight against outright racism and bigotry mean that other companies will abuse this to take down other types of content? PDP still had those videos of firewatch up, and if he wouldn't take them down himself, then DMCA is literally their only avenue to control their copyright.
 
Even more astoundingly awful than posting negative reviews to discredit an author's work to avenge the author's actions elsewhere is downvoting other people's positive reviews. It's equivalent to berating and shaming someone for being happy.

For example, a review posted on Steam today (not by me) contained the following paragraphs:
In May 2015 I lost my aunt, who I was very close with. She died after a long battle with dementia and mistreatment in a nursing home we would not have placed her in if given the choice. I was there by her bedside when she died, around a week before my birthday and moving into my first apartment/starting my first job. I had very little time to grieve for her, and after helping my grandma and family watch over her and help her, issues facing people with and families effected by alzheimer's and dementia has become a very important thing for me. Because of the fast pace at which my life was changing, I bottled up my grief and went on with my life.
My boyfriend introduced me to Firewatch later that year, telling me that it was coming out in the upcoming year and he knew it would be something I'd love. I watched the website and news regarding the game like a hawk, eager to see more about it. When it went up for preorder, I immediately bought it on steam. Once I realized that my dying laptop would struggle to even boot it up, I preordered it on my PS4. It may have been silly, but I believed in this game.
The day it came out I was incredibly excited. And then, almost immediately after starting the game, I had to stop. I was unaware that the protagonist had a history with dealing with a similar issue, watching helplessly as a loved one succumbs to dementia. I broke down on the spot, every bit of grief that had been kept inside came swelling up all at once. I pressed on, and found that the game was not only therapuetic, but everything I had wanted it to be and more. It has become one of my all time favorite games, and I'll still play it every so often just so I can wander the forests and mountain paths. It's very soothing if you've had a stressful day.
Currently, the header states "7 of 22 people (32%) found this review helpful". That means that 15 people have thus far decided it's OK to take a big dump on the reviewer's deeply personal connection to the game. Or, equally likely, they didn't even read it before downvoting - which is almost just as depressing.

As the majority of this mob likely consists of teenagers, 38-year-old me can't help but be concerned for the future of humanity. I know there are far more distressing things in the world than review bombing, but on the other hand it's just one more example of the herd mentality so prevalent in the world.

I am trying to raise my children to think independently, but on some days that task seems more futile than others. :)
 
Sounds like you just listened to Ethan of H3H3 Productions' trash argument and settled with that.

I don't even know who that is.

That's quite the assumption there...

Maybe it is. With the number of videos he puts out, I don't see his really old backlog of lets plays getting many views. I could be wrong.

So now you are moving all these various goalposts to try to say that Campos should use DMCA to control their IP.

Which none of your excuses matter.

All I'm saying is that they gave PDP permission to make the video to begin with. Taking it down now for a completely unrelated reason only sets (in my opinion) a dangerous precedent. We've already had devs\publishers trying to take down videos from people they don't like in the past, and it's never been good because in general we like the people who make these videos. But because PDP is an asshole, this time it's ok. I just don't agree with that. Though that's my opinion.

I don't care for PDP one fucking iota, but I also don't want to see these types of takedowns become a normal thing.
 

Durante

Member
It doesn't change a thing. The right to DMCA takedown exists whether Campo Santo exercises it or not.

It honestly feels like some in the industry, like Giant Bomb, want to pretend that the DMCA doesn't exist, but Campo Santo exercising their right reminds them that they are merely permitted to do what they want with video game content 99% of the time.
To be fair, I'd like to pretend the DMCA doesn't exist as well. It's a horrible law.
 
I think what's annoying is how games journalism has been reacting to this DMCA move by Campo Santo. Giant Bomb and other platforms have complained about what message this sends or what precedent it sets. This isn't DMCA abuse, it's the owner of the copyrighted material choosing to assert their ownership over their content. I realize this could be bad for games journalism or YouTubers if widely adopted, but that's not DMCA abuse.

Here's an analogy for you. Let's say some YouTuber wants to provide his own play-by-play commentary or analysis of Monday Night Football every week. Is he allowed to do that? Hell no, and I don't think anyone would argue that the NFL doesn't have the right to stop that from happening. So why do we not want to afford video game creators the same right?

Currently, video game content owners find a benefit with allowing streamers and YouTubers to use their content. It's free advertising, it makes sense for them. But it's okay for Campo Santo to say, "We don't like PewDiePie's statements, and we don't want to be associated with him in any way, so we are ending his ability to use our content."

That's not DMCA abuse.

When has the videogame industry not abused to extremes everything it can?

YouTubers and viewers absolutely should be worried about this.
 

Aaron D.

Member
Much like The Boy Who Cried Wolf, abuse of the Steam User Review system only serves to further diminish any real voice it could potentially serve.

Review Bombing is 9 times out of 10 misguided and childish. It reveals large swaths of the Gaming Community as being narcissistic man-children who's petty demands have no reasonable cause to be listened or catered to.

It only further dilutes the pool with a toxicity that drowns out legitimate gamer concern and push-back.

Review Bombing has made Steam User Review messaging completely meaningless.
 
When has the videogame industry not abused to extremes everything it can?

YouTubers and viewers absolutely should be worried about this.

Maybe YouTubers should worry more about racists like PewDiePie who are singlehandedly threatening their livelihood than an indie game developer trying to make a stand well within their legal right because a massive corporation like YouTube refuses to do so.
 
When has the videogame industry not abused to extremes everything it can?

YouTubers and viewers absolutely should be worried about this.

Why? Everything was literally fine until the biggest youtuber on earth got on mic and called someone a fuckng nigger then defended it.

This is the straw that had to happen to make someone exercise a copyright in gaming. This worries you?

This hobby. I swear...
 
Whenever i go to buy a game, and there's loads of negative but its all with some unrelated topic to do with the dev or something i just facepalm.

If that be a pewdiepie incident, a Denuvo thing, or whatever.

Let's face it you guys do similar when it comes to KONAMI. "fuck konami, wont be buying that". lol

Base the game on how good the game is. nothing else.
 
Internet trolling is the go-to tactic for right-wing rageoholics. People who speak out against racism have always faced backlash, but now it's organized and immediate with the force of a sledgehammer.

Whenever i go to buy a game, and there's loads of negative but its all with some unrelated topic to do with the dev or something i just facepalm.

If that be a pewdiepie incident, a Denuvo thing, or whatever.

Let's face it you guys do to the same when it comes to KONAMI. "fuck konami, wont be buying that"

OK whatever.

Criticizing a dev in an enthusiast forum for treating their workers like shit, vs writing a public review for a product because you support flippant use of racial slurs. Hmm.
 
It doesn't change a thing. The right to DMCA takedown exists whether Campo Santo exercises it or not.

It honestly feels like some in the industry, like Giant Bomb, want to pretend that the DMCA doesn't exist, but Campo Santo exercising their right reminds them that they are merely permitted to do what they want with video game content 99% of the time.



No, this is not a precedent. That's not how the law works. This is merely an example of a developer exercising its right. It honestly changes absolutely nothing about the law in any way at all.

Abuse what?

What power that copyright holders HAVE ALWAYS HAD?

How does Campos fight against outright racism and bigotry mean that other companies will abuse this to take down other types of content?
Are you guys being dense on purpose? This clearly is an issue in case a company uses a takedown on a bad online review, or someone slandering their game on youtube because it offers negative press. Do you need the definition of a slippery slope spelled out for you?

Campos could have fought racism and bigotry by having PDP take it down without filing a takedown. You know as I stated in the post that you quoted and purposely ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative?

When has the videogame industry not abused to extremes everything it can?

YouTubers and viewers absolutely should be worried about this.
What? Never.
 

Armaros

Member
When has the videogame industry not abused to extremes everything it can?

YouTubers and viewers absolutely should be worried about this.

Youtubers have more things to worry about then random copyright strikes.

How about people like PDP rendering making games videos on youtube almost worthless for revenue?

I guarantee you that PDP has now done more to hurt the Lets Play community with him being the catalyst to getting advertisers to jump off of youtube or force youtube to let them bypass gaming content.
 
let me ask the big question here, and I don't know the answer:

1. Is gameplay live stream illegal or not, under DMCA? I am not familiar with that law

If streaming gameplay is NOT illegal, then CAmpo Santo should not use this tool even though PDP was completely wrong by using racist slurs, in my opinion. developers might take down some reviews or live stream from youtubers that are harsh on them for example (Jim and Nintendo).
 
Here's the thing people forget when discussing this topic: copyright laws give the copyright holder full freedom to allow or disallow use of their content as they see fit, at any time.
What Campo Santo did was merely revoke PDP's right to make videos of their game. It doesn't set any precedent that hasn't already been set by, say, Nintendo being super restrictive about monetizing videos about their games. It all comes down to these copyright holders using the powers they always had, doing things they always knew they could.
Copyright laws are there to protect the intellectual property, and that includes protecting it from damaging associations. If Campo Santo doesn't want Firewatch to be associated with PDP after recent events, they have the right to retroactively revoke his right to make videos about their game.

Most of these reviews are from users who already have more than 2 hours, so again, there is no indication of abuse of the refund system.

But even if this was abusing the system your suggestion would do more harm than good. There are a lot more cases where people try a game and refund it for legitimate reasons.

I know most people refund for legitimate reasons, as is their right, but I talked about Valve not letting people review before the refund window is over, to avoid abuse of both the refund system and the review system to bomb a game because they have an agenda against it.
If most of the reviews aren't representative of an actual opinion based on the experience with the game, then the entire reviews section is moot.
 
People who think that the stuff will disappear when old people died need to pay attention to this.

The folks who do this kind of stuff are your friends, family, co-workers.
 

Armaros

Member
Are you guys being dense on purpose? This clearly is an issue in case a company uses a takedown on a bad online review, or someone slandering their game on youtube because it offers negative press. Do you need the definition of a slippery slope spelled out for you?

Campos could have fought racism and bigotry by having PDP take it down without filing a takedown. You know as I stated in the post that you quoted and purposely ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative?


What? Never.

What? Lets Plays, which under ANY interpertations of fair use, fails to meet the mark.

are the same as reviews or criticism of a game? which are protected under fair use?

In what universe are they considered the same and how is this a slippery slope for that. Also pretending as if companies haven't already tried to use DMCA against reviews and it backfiring already. And this is the one thing that will start it.

Shady companies NEVER thought to DMCA reviews until Campos decided to DMCA PDP, who only does let's plays, this is the start. *rolls eyes*
 

David___

Banned
let me ask the big question here, and I don't know the answer:

1. Is gameplay live stream illegal or not, under DMCA? I am not familiar with that law

If streaming gameplay is NOT illegal, then CAmpo Santo should not use this tool even though PDP was completely wrong by using racist slurs, in my opinion. developers might take down some reviews or live stream from youtubers that are harsh on them for example (Jim and Nintendo).

1) Streaming/lps/making money off of them are in a grey area and will continue to be so until someone takes it to court.

2) Actual reviews/critiques would fall under fair use afaik
 

FLAguy954

Junior Member
Much like The Boy Who Cried Wolf, abuse of the Steam User Review system only serves to further diminish any real voice it could potentially serve.

Review Bombing is 9 times out of 10 misguided and childish. It reveals large swaths of the Gaming Community as being narcissistic man-children who's petty demands have no reasonable cause to be listened or catered to.

It only further dilutes the pool with a toxicity that drowns out legitimate gamer concern and push-back.

Review Bombing has made Steam User Review messaging completely meaningless.

Just to go off on a tangent, what should PC gamers do to voice their displeasure of a game?

Not buy the game, post their displeasure on NeoGAF/Reddit/etc, make a petition to incite change?

For the most part, Steam reviews have given power back to those who purchase games to have their voices heard. As Durante said earlier:

I don't agree at all.

The power dynamic between publishers and gamers is very lopsided, and review bombing (when used for legitimate purposes) helps rectify that to at least some extent. It's invaluable.

We would have never have gotten Bethesda to get their shit together on paid mods or to have WB deliver us a working version of Arkham Knight if we just sat on our fucking hands and did nothing.
 
Are you guys being dense on purpose? This clearly is an issue in case a company uses a takedown on a bad online review, or someone slandering their game on youtube because it offers negative press. Do you need the definition of a slippery slope spelled out for you?

Campos could have fought racism and bigotry by having PDP take it down without filing a takedown. You know as I stated in the post that you quoted and purposely ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative?

Why do they need to fight racism your lukewarm way as opposed to making a clear stand? Is your slippery slope bullshit more important than making a clear stand?

And lol. Reviews are considered fair use and if you don't break copyright they cant bomb your review to begin with. Even so you aren't going to see reviews disappear just because one dev doesn't want a racist making money on them.

How do people make these crazy ass jumps. If it aint happen before why does this suddenly make it more likely. What is the link between callin someone a fucking nigger and giving a bad review? Can you explain to me?
 
let me ask the big question here, and I don't know the answer:

1. Is gameplay live stream illegal or not, under DMCA? I am not familiar with that law

If streaming gameplay is NOT illegal, then CAmpo Santo should not use this tool even though PDP was completely wrong by using racist slurs, in my opinion. developers might take down some reviews or live stream from youtubers that are harsh on them for example (Jim and Nintendo).

Someone correct me if i'm wrong, but it's currently a legal gray area because it hasn't been brought to court so no precedent is set. The current landscape is that it's a ceasefire where, because everyone benefits, no one makes waves and devs benefit from exposure, streamers/youtubers benefit from having content to make money from. In some cases developers/publishers (like Atlus with Persona 5) are clear that they don't want the game to be streamed after a certain point.
 
I guarantee you that PDP has now done more to hurt the Lets Play community with him being the catalyst to getting advertisers to jump off of youtube or force youtube to let them bypass gaming content.

This I agree with.

I don't even care for lets plays. But legit criticism is also a thing that's often targeted with copyright strikes.

Maybe it's a stretch to think that this incident sets a precedent for DCMA takedowns... but I certainly don't think it helps.
 

foltzie1

Member
let me ask the big question here, and I don't know the answer:

1. Is gameplay live stream illegal or not, under DMCA? I am not familiar with that law

If streaming gameplay is NOT illegal, then CAmpo Santo should not use this tool even though PDP was completely wrong by using racist slurs, in my opinion. developers might take down some reviews or live stream from youtubers that are harsh on them for example (Jim and Nintendo).

There a few threads here and a I think Ars and/or Kotaku have weighed in on the matter, but in short, it is highly unlikely that a court would find that lets play videos or game play though streaming to fall under the fair use exceptions to copyright law. Therefore filing a DMCA claim to stop a streamer or remove a video is a valid use of that legal tool.

Now, whether or not a decision to take that action is a good business decision or not, is an entirely different matter.
 

PMS341

Member
If the "slippery slope" involves companies being able to stop pieces of shit from making money off of their artwork, especially when said pieces of shit feel infallible and inflated due to reinforcement from the ignorant fanbase, then let's keep slipping.

Corporations are not your friends. YouTube and Google are not your friends. PewDiePie is not your friend. Any action the devs take to prevent their work from being associated with him is only a positive thing.
 
Even though they are being bombed, I have to assume this also exposes their game to a lot of new audiences who may both be interested in the game, and buy it out of retaliation.

While review bombing is something Steam needs to safeguard against, I have to assume most curious consumers are going to read the reviews, see the sudden change, and realize that the 1/10s are just childish nonsense to look past.
 

ghibli99

Member
Still don't know why sites like Steam don't have review scores split by critic and user. I put so little stock into Steam reviews these days, but that's just me. Lots of people still rely on them, no matter how off from everywhere else they are.
 

David___

Banned
Youtubers have more things to worry about then random copyright strikes.

How about people like PDP rendering making games videos on youtube almost worthless for revenue?

I guarantee you that PDP has now done more to hurt the Lets Play community with him being the catalyst to getting advertisers to jump off of youtube or force youtube to let them bypass gaming content.

And its still amazing that people would stand up for him and make his words theirs by not denouncing and condemning him.
 
Both sides went too far, the "false" DMCA claims and hate reviews over non-game related stuff shouldn't take place. Forcing only one side to "surrender" would be unfair imo.

They are not "false" DMCA claims, they're perfectly valid. Devs allow youtubers to publish Let's Play's as a courtesy and because it's beneficious to them in the long run, and they're entirely within their rights to revoke that right for whatever reason they want.

It's not unlike if you lent out a game to a person, then found out he's a scumbag and asked for your game back. You're simply removing a courtesy you're extending them, nothing more. You don't even need to state a reason for "I want my game back".

Of course, you can make the argument that Let's Play's are fair use and devs aren't extending any courtesy, but then you're pretty much arguing that no DMCA takedowns, ever, are legitimate.
 
Youtubers have more things to worry about then random copyright strikes.

I don't think anybody is saying "hey we should worry about this and nothing else."

Somebody saying "well, this is slippery slope to things we may find unsavory, even if it isn't in this scenario" is not saying it's illegal. People seem to be taking issue with what it could lead to. To be fair, it could have went that route anyways, I just think that having a fairly high-profile issues gives a spotlight to DMCA takedowns and is really shining light on the potential uses of DMCA that we may not agree with in the future.

I don't see many people arguing about the legality, I see most people saying that it could lead to DMCA being used inappropriately, even if it is still legal.
 

Jotaka

Member
Just bought it :)
4x13ZTq.png
 
Even though they are being bombed, I have to assume this also exposes their game to a lot of new audiences who may both be interested in the game, and buy it out of retaliation.

While review bombing is something Steam needs to safeguard against, I have to assume most curious consumers are going to read the reviews, see the sudden change, and realize that the 1/10s are just childish nonsense to look past.

I agree with this; it's also more probably beneficial because they're pretty far past the initial sales peak. It may, however, negatively affect new games they release, if those are review bombed day 1.
 
Top Bottom