• 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.

Rumor: Youtube Getting tough on video game monetization in 2014

Filler Bunny

Neo Member
I have a lot of YouTube videos. From let's plays to "funny montages".

Some of them were even semi popular, with my most popular earning just shy of 50k views.

from all the hundreds of videos I've made and the multiple hundreds of hours I've spent crafting them, I haven't made a single cent.

I do it because I enjoy it. Its a fun hobby, but at the same time, I feel no actual obligation to make them (I've turned down 4 seperate offers for partnership simply because nobody gets to tell me when and what to make).

I steal other peoples music and use footage from games I didn't make. I recut them into videos for fun, in the hopes that some people get a bit of a laugh out of them.

This does not deserve recompense.

As for the more popular youtubers, I don't think they deserve unquestioned rights to get free money for other peoples stuff. They should work out compensation on a developer by developer basis IMHO.
 

mrdark

Banned
I have a lot of YouTube videos. From let's plays to "funny montages".

Some of them were even semi popular, with my most popular earning just shy of 50k views.

from all the hundreds of videos I've made and the multiple hundreds of hours I've spent crafting them, I haven't made a single cent.

I do it because I enjoy it. Its a fun hobby, but at the same time, I feel no actual obligation to make them (I've turned down 4 seperate offers for partnership simply because nobody gets to tell me when and what to make).

I steal other peoples music and use footage from games I didn't make. I recut them into videos for fun, in the hopes that some people get a bit of a laugh out of them.

This does not deserve recompense.

As for the more popular youtubers, I don't think they deserve unquestioned rights to get free money for other peoples stuff. They should work out compensation on a developer by developer basis IMHO.

This is because you think like a sane person. This monetizing of others work was a bubble waiting to be popped. You're daft if you think it was going to be around forever. At some point a large group of people felt like they deserved to be paid a living wage and beyond to extend the privilege of playing a developers game for them. Oh no, you're not going to play games anymore after this? In that case well-bye.gif.
 
This is because you think like a sane person. This monetizing of others work was a bubble waiting to be popped. You're daft if you think it was going to be around forever. At some point a large group of people felt like they deserved to be paid a living wage and beyond to extend the privilege of playing a developers game for them. Oh no, you're not going to play games anymore after this? In that case well-bye.gif.

It's not only Let's Plays being affected by this. So no, it's not simply a matter of "playing a developers game for them"
 

mrdark

Banned
It's not only Let's Plays being affected by this. So no, it's not simply a matter of "playing a developers game for them"

You don't need/aren't entitled to a gameplay trailer/video to talk about games. You should have the opportunity to license them if you're monetizing, though.
 

Orayn

Member
Hm, it seems my knowledge of the legal proceedings involving youtube was not up-to-date. There's nothing in the DMCA (or any other law) that requires them to take this step, but last year an appellate judge opened the door to the possibility that service providers may be judged on how proactive their takedown efforts are. The more safeguards like this they have, the better they will look to a jury. Having none would be very bad.

Sorry for the late reply, but yeah, it was something akin to this. Not an explicit requirement, but an implication of the DMCA that YouTube needed to comply with if they wanted to stay in IP owners' good graces.

I think Stump originally explained it in the thread about Persona videos getting taken down.
 
Someone has to fight the copyright claims against Let's Plays in an actual court so there is a legal precedent. Until that happens, all LP'ers will be at the mercy of YouTube's copyright strike system.
In the mean time YouTubers should stick to LPing indie titles, which aren't likely to take this kind of action against them.
It wouldn't be such a bad thing to see all the big companies' games go away on YouTube and let indie games get all the free advertising.
 

Dusk Golem

A 21st Century Rockefeller
As a heads-up, someone who works at Fullscreen mentioned that they have started integrating the new system today, but won't be done until late January at the earliest.

Basically, they'll keep on putting more stuff into the system from more companies and more 'reactions' to matched data, essentially working on a huge library of matched content to either take claim of (matched third party content) or strike against.

So what has been experienced today is literally the tip of the iceberg.
 

Orayn

Member
What game-related content can actually get you a strike these days? I don't hear about that happening very often.
 

Dusk Golem

A 21st Century Rockefeller
What game-related content can actually a strike these days? I don't hear about that happening very often.

My main concern would be companies doing stupid things like the recent SEGA on Shining Force deal, or the previous Rockstar or Konami giving strikes out of videos of their stuff, or false charges, like the recent Russian Actress deal with Persona videos.
 

VE3TRO

Formerly Gizmowned
What game-related content can actually a strike these days? I don't hear about that happening very often.

Strikes are less now due to the introduction of content ID matches. But they can still happen depending on the company or content.

Most times it would be leaked content for example alpha footage of a game not intended for public display or for people who release walkthroughs of a game days/weeks prior to release.

Usually the people who release walkthroughs early have illegaly downloaded the game so they deserve it.
 
What game-related content can actually a strike these days? I don't hear about that happening very often.

Most companies are not doing outright copyright strikes on videos (three strikes closes a YouTube account). They are using an automated system to flag videos for "content ID matches" - which basically claims ownership of some part of a video's content (audio or visual). Basically this will allow companies to divert the ad revenue from flagged videos to their own account.

You can dispute these claims if you want, but if you lose the appeal it will generate a copyright strike against your account. If you don't want to risk losing your channel, you can just acknowledge the content ID owner's claim and your videos will stay up with no strike against you. However, the company that owns the content retains the right and the ability to enforce its copyright in the future, so it may make more sense to delete any videos to prevent a potential strike.

Strikes are less now due to the introduction of content ID matches. But they can still happen depending on the company or content.
Gizmowned correct me if I'm wrong but does your channel not have full video walkthroughs of new releases without any commentary? You are not even adding anything remotely original to your videos, you are just playing through the entire game and posting it to YT.
 

Dead Man

Member
Most companies are not doing outright copyright strikes on videos (three strikes closes a YouTube account). They are using an automated system to flag videos for "content ID matches" - which basically claims ownership of some part of a video's content (audio or visual). Basically this will allow companies to divert the ad revenue from flagged videos to their own account.

You can dispute these claims if you want, but if you lose the appeal it will generate a copyright strike against your account. If you don't want to risk losing your channel, you can just acknowledge the content ID owner's claim and your videos will stay up with no strike against you. However, the company that owns the content retains the right and the ability to enforce its copyright in the future, so it may make more sense to delete any videos to prevent a potential strike.

Jesus, what a fucked up system, lose appeal and you get a strike? Blackmail works :/
 
Jesus, what a fucked up system, lose appeal and you get a strike? Blackmail works :/

You think that's bad? When SEGA went berserk about Shining Force videos, they were copyright flagging videos that had the words "Shining Force" in the title regardless of whether or not the video contained any footage or music from the games! There were people who made videos just talking about it to their webcam that got flagged.
 
It's worth noting that it's not just end users that have issues with the strike / Content ID system. There's been times when we've had sufficient headaches caused by other people issuing strikes against our own content, ranging from small one man jobs (you'd presume the let's play guy in a bedroom) to massive media websites.

When someone like that can take one of your videos down in the blink of an eye it most certainly causes massive issues, and this is with Content ID in place as well.

When there's a risk of you loosing videos, gaining strikes against your brands account it will notably cause concern amongst the developer community and I imagine there's a lot of self protection going on at the moment.

One of the big issues is the relative ease of people claiming copyright on content that is blatantly not theirs, as a result you could end up in a situation where that announcement trailer of your latest game has ads plastered all over it (which nobody wants), and the worst part is, the revenue all goes to someone else.

The whole system needs a shakeup in my opinion, from front to back. There needs to be things in place that not only protect the IP holders but also allow for people to create content in a free and open manner. What's the point of YouTube if you can't create content?
 

VE3TRO

Formerly Gizmowned
Gizmowned correct me if I'm wrong but does your channel not have full video walkthroughs of new releases without any commentary? You are not even adding anything remotely original to your videos, you are just playing through the entire game and posting it to YT.

Yes that is correct only due to doing this way back in 2007 when this wasn't an issue and there wasn't many channels doing it. I started doing commentary this year but subscribers moaned and were leaving for other channels. I wasnt getting much views so I couldn't be fucked waiting time and money when I have more important things going on.

I've stopped the channel since October but I'm waiting to see what happens in 2014 before making my final decision to close it. I may move to Twitch in the future if things are different on there.

It wasn't even the intention to earn money just a video source for my website. It was YouTube who said to me I could earn money.

I was 18-19 just left my job because I was paid shit and abused to do everything with no help. When YouTube said I could earn money I jumped at the chance. In the beginning it was like £20-50 a month. It was only over time it grew in views and money. I honestly had no intention to start earning a living from it like some channels have.

See I was a partner back when only a few hundred channels or so had it in 2007. There was no problems then with people abusing the system. No networks either. It was good times not like the shit we have now.

People had to have good content and an audience to even have the possibility of earning money but now anyone can do it.

YouTube went trigger happy with the partner system since all they wanted was more revenue in their pocket. People will say no but I mean come on since YouTube was taken over by Google the whole site is just a money earner for them. They have ads everywhere now and special sponsorships/promotions with large companies. Look at the shit they've changed over the years which viewers have hated - Redesigns every 6 months / Removal of great features / Google+ integration and more.
 

thetrin

Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Screw free advertising, we'll just blow another 100 million on marketing instead, and then complain when the game loses money.

This is pretty much what I don't understand. I have no problem with people monetizing videos of our games. Their vested interest results in them fighting for higher viewership, which results in more exposure for us. I'd rather not blow money on a marketing campaign in favor of LPs and forums.
 
I don't know how I feel about this quite yet. I totally understand the legality of it, but I feel the best solution is for EVERYONE going forward is for a partnership company allowing even the smaller guys into their "club".

That being said, I need to go check my video manager. I bet I am flagged somewhere or something.
 

Victrix

*beard*
This is a really sticky area all around though, the line between 'original content' and outright copyright infringement here is extremely blurry, because there are many youtube/twitch streams that I watch solely because of the content the user provides, not because of the game footage itself - remove the user and you remove my interest in the footage.

'Partner' companies like Machinima are basically content vampires - Publishers like them because they act as a single corporate entity they can interact with, rather than thousands of individual users, and Machinima of course, is perfectly happy to make bucks on the backs of others content creation

But on the other hand, I totally get that companies aren't happy or comfortable with people making ad revenue off their work either.

I'm not sure what the best answer is. I think something broader like an automatic revenue sharing between the copyright holder and the user creating video content around it might be best.

These blanket copyright claims and efforts to centralize user video creation behind corporate entities aren't the right way to handle it, that's for sure.
 
This is a really sticky area all around though, the line between 'original content' and outright copyright infringement here is extremely blurry, because there are many youtube/twitch streams that I watch solely because of the content the user provides, not because of the game footage itself - remove the user and you remove my interest in the footage.

'Partner' companies like Machinima are basically content vampires - Publishers like them because they act as a single corporate entity they can interact with, rather than thousands of individual users, and Machinima of course, is perfectly happy to make bucks on the backs of others content creation

But on the other hand, I totally get that companies aren't happy or comfortable with people making ad revenue off their work either.

I'm not sure what the best answer is. I think something broader like an automatic revenue sharing between the copyright holder and the user creating video content around it might be best.

These blanket copyright claims and efforts to centralize user video creation behind corporate entities aren't the right way to handle it, that's for sure.

Actually, the lines between original content and copyright infringement isn't blurry at all. Its actually very clear.

You ever wondered why the movie "The Wizard" hardly showed you any gameplay? You ever wondered why arcades in 80s and 90s movies had nothing identifiable on film?

I have actually sat down at a seminar with lawyers and other media industry pros to discuss this issue at a college campus. We looked at student films & creative works and answered questions with free legal advice.

We watched a short web series video where there is intention to make money via ad revenue, and we simply spotted a toy story poster on a wall of a bedroom and we told him "Well, unless this thing remains widely unpopular you're going to have to find a way to remove that poster or reshoot that scene because Walt Disney will be up your ass when its brought to their lawyers attention"

I completely agree with your last 2 paragraphs though. However, it sounds like you are suggesting that Youtube (Google) be the single corporate entity that publishers interact with and I cam tell you confidently that Google wants none of it.
 

Dragon_Rocks

Gold Member
You didn't buy the right to earn money on broadcasting the content included.

What about competitive fighting games scene then. People make money by competing and winning at EVO and many other such tournaments right? Those are also broadcasted and all. Is that also not allowed now?
 
The adverts on Youtube bug me as they're not even target demographic. We use 'Just Dance' videos on youtube for some dance lessons in PE with Year 1s and Year 2s. However, we've sort of had to stop as the adverts Youtube uses next to Just Dance Kids videos are a little... odd.

Muscle workout videos for partnered/recommend viewing?! We're using the school network here. So, I can't imagine there's many people checking out muscle workout videos in this primary school.

And the video adverts interjected into the content too. It's like wow... you're not even trying to match adverts to content. You're just spamming this shit because you can.

Trying to do the freaking Gummybear Song and we're getting adverts for scantly clad Rhianna songs. Thanks.
 

Joni

Member
What about competitive fighting games scene then. People make money by competing and winning at EVO and many other such tournaments right? Those are also broadcasted and all. Is that also not allowed now?
Yes, technically that is not allowed. Look at Nintendo. They tried to stop EVO from showing Melee. Only public outrage stopped them.
 

RamzaIsCool

The Amiga Brotherhood
I always wonder do these lets plays hurt or benefit sales of a game. I mean the amount of views that TLoU lets plays get is nuts. If you add everything up you are looking at 20 million+. So how many of those people go and buy that game?

I guess seeing Naughty Dog on that list, they are not amused.
 
I always wonder do these lets plays hurt or benefit sales of a game. I mean the amount of views that TLoU lets plays get is nuts. If you add everything up you are looking at 20 million+. So how many of those people go and buy that game?

I guess seeing Naughty Dog on that list, they are not amused.

I saw a streamer watching videos before he bought the game and sometimes the chat was saying no the video doesn't really represent how fun the game is...it took a few to finally convince him to get the game because the video was so badly representing the game


so yeah out of those 20 million there is a huge chance that a few people dont get a game because someone opinion formulates into their cranium that its garbage

thats why i try everything for myself first
 

atomsk

Party Pooper
One of the big issues is the relative ease of people claiming copyright on content that is blatantly not theirs, as a result you could end up in a situation where that announcement trailer of your latest game has ads plastered all over it (which nobody wants), and the worst part is, the revenue all goes to someone else.

I've had this happen a few times. Some Taiwanese TV station claiming they own Dragon's Dogma, or some random dude on youtube claiming he owns the Telltale Walking Dead game... disputed them both and it worked out, but I imagine if it hadn't I wouldn't have a channel anymore.

And that whole Persona debacle, yeesh.
 

Village

Member
I'm not going to disagree with you fully, but I don't fully agree either. I can say the LPs I do don't take much effort, but I have friends who put a lot of effort into their videos. Some make animated segments in the middle about things that happen in the game. One friend keeps a custom counter and editor for things, draws tile-cards for each video and edits in time lapse and comparisons to previous games, and some play the games before-hand to prepare themselves and then replay while recording.

Again, I'm not fully disagreeing with you, but there is a definite way and I know people personally who put far more time into it than just slapping stuff together. You can do it like that, but that doesn't mean that's how everyone does it.

Also that doesn't mean you will be good at it, the quality will be good. OR you will be funny or charming to people.
 
The adverts on Youtube bug me as they're not even target demographic. We use 'Just Dance' videos on youtube for some dance lessons in PE with Year 1s and Year 2s. However, we've sort of had to stop as the adverts Youtube uses next to Just Dance Kids videos are a little... odd.

You can download YouTube videos, there are plenty of tools available, and it'd prevent you from needing an Internet connection/buffering.
 
As a heads-up, someone who works at Fullscreen mentioned that they have started integrating the new system today, but won't be done until late January at the earliest.

Basically, they'll keep on putting more stuff into the system from more companies and more 'reactions' to matched data, essentially working on a huge library of matched content to either take claim of (matched third party content) or strike against.

So what has been experienced today is literally the tip of the iceberg.
Pretty much confirms what I had already assumed. Good to know.
 
Pretty much confirms what I had already assumed. Good to know.

My girlfriend is partnered with TGN/Broadband and they told her the same thing. They started implementing Dec 3rd, should be done by mid January. So far none of her videos have been affected, but she does play with in-game music off so she can talk
 
It's not only Let's Plays being affected by this. So no, it's not simply a matter of "playing a developers game for them"

My argument is that if we're really going down this path, do it universally. Attack the mainstream sites as well. They do the same thing. IGN. GT. GB. GS. ALL of them.

Now it gets real.
 

Orayn

Member
My argument is that if we're really going down this path, do it universally. Attack the mainstream sites as well. They do the same thing. IGN. GT. GB. GS. ALL of them.

Now it gets real.

Wait, are you saying that individuals should have the same complaints about mainstream sites, or that publishers should disable monetization for everyone?

Publishers aren't going after the mainstream sites because they've already negotiated with them about what media they're allowed to show certain content with the knowledge that it'll be on the same page as advertisements. It's a problem on YouTube because it's much more difficult to work out something like that to an individual, which is why they fall back on the default policy of not allowing people to monetize their content.
 
D

Deleted member 10571

Unconfirmed Member
Wonder why there's still no opinion on this from the big channels like Pew, TB etc. Especially TB is usually one to jump head first at these things.
Maybe this doesn't affect the big shots with major partners as much as some people wishes it does.
 

Madao

Member
my most popular video just got hit with the copyright stuff.
welp. so much for making a living with something i liked doing.

i hoped these companies tried something more reasonable like a 50/50 split from the monetization money so that they would earn money from the videos too to have a happy middle ground but they probably see this in the same light as piracy.

at least i had already made back the money i spent with the recording equipment i got.

Wonder why there's still no opinion on this from the big channels like Pew, TB etc. Especially TB is usually one to jump head first at these things.
Maybe this doesn't affect the big shots with major partners as much as some people wishes it does.

if they don't get affected, this will be a very unfair situation. stomp on the little guys while the big shots get richer.
 

Doran902

Member
Wonder why there's still no opinion on this from the big channels like Pew, TB etc. Especially TB is usually one to jump head first at these things.
Maybe this doesn't affect the big shots with major partners as much as some people wishes it does.

I believe TB gets permission from dev's for all the games he shows like a professional outlet and has people working for him that help with that. They are very careful to not infringe on any copyright stuff.

He does it the way it should be done imo.
 
Emailed my partner about it and they got back to me basically saying

"We know the changes are coming, we knows as little about it as you do but if it affects your channel we will let you know"

I hate how youtube does this stuff, there's no real proper warning, patch notes, changelogs or anything like that. Most times when they change stuff you only notice when you log in, I remember a few months back they fucked up .WMV support where it went all black and pixelated during transitions and there was no definite way of knowing what they changed or why
 

Orayn

Member
Does this have an effect on streaming gaming on YouTube?

Unclear, but why would you want to stream on YouTube? Unless you've already got a large captive audience, I don't see the point. It's clunky as hell to set up and the interface sucks for viewers. Its only saving grace is the really nice quality and transcoding for viewers with slower connections.
 

HokieJoe

Member
Actually, the lines between original content and copyright infringement isn't blurry at all. Its actually very clear.

You ever wondered why the movie "The Wizard" hardly showed you any gameplay? You ever wondered why arcades in 80s and 90s movies had nothing identifiable on film?

I have actually sat down at a seminar with lawyers and other media industry pros to discuss this issue at a college campus. We looked at student films & creative works and answered questions with free legal advice.

We watched a short web series video where there is intention to make money via ad revenue, and we simply spotted a toy story poster on a wall of a bedroom and we told him "Well, unless this thing remains widely unpopular you're going to have to find a way to remove that poster or reshoot that scene because Walt Disney will be up your ass when its brought to their lawyers attention"

I completely agree with your last 2 paragraphs though. However, it sounds like you are suggesting that Youtube (Google) be the single corporate entity that publishers interact with and I cam tell you confidently that Google wants none of it.


It seems Google only opens themselves up to a competitor that will set up an agreement that is amenable to the involved parties. The result being that Youtube loses ad revenue and mindshare.
 

Orayn

Member
It seems Google only opens themselves up to a competitor that will set up an agreement that is amenable to the involved parties. The result being that Youtube loses ad revenue and mindshare.

If publishers are playing hardball with partner networks on the biggest, most popular video sharing site out there, why would they suddenly cut a better deal with an unknown competitor?
 

HokieJoe

Member
If publishers are playing hardball with partner networks on the biggest, most popular video sharing site out there, why would they suddenly cut a better deal with an unknown competitor?


Money. I contend that publishers won't see a dime of increased revenue from playing hardball over this. In fact, I'd bet they loose revenue because of decreased exposure for their games. If however, they come to an agreement that drives page views/ad revenue/added game exposure and they get a royalty cut, then that's good for all.
 
Wait, are you saying that individuals should have the same complaints about mainstream sites, or that publishers should disable monetization for everyone?

Publishers aren't going after the mainstream sites because they've already negotiated with them about what media they're allowed to show certain content with the knowledge that it'll be on the same page as advertisements. It's a problem on YouTube because it's much more difficult to work out something like that to an individual, which is why they fall back on the default policy of not allowing people to monetize their content.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. When press outlets get pre-release stuff, sure. However, what about Retrospectives? Top Tens? Special features on old games? Gameplay recuts?

I'm saying that *all* of this is a house of cards, and perhaps it's about time that it all crumbles anyway.

I've worked in the gaming "press" for years, had my own site at the beginning of the game journalism thing, and even worked during the days of the magazine. I'm a freelancer, and have my gripes with this industry anyway, so not a single _ _ _ _ is given because I've got no bones in this game. The ride is over.

Here's the reality, folks.

There's very little difference, ultimately, between the youtubber and the gaming press. Frankly, the gaming sites have been SCARED SHITLESS off what's been happening these past few years because it invalidates them. Why go to a 'pro' when you can see the footage and get perspective from the fans themselves on youtube?
I've argued for years for press outlets that I've worked with to include more fan integration (well before the youtube thing), but all the press has continued to do is create an elitist chasm between themselves and their base.

The press is afforded the luxury of early access and special content because they're a glorified PR extension. They're controllable. Release of information is trickled out. They're part of the marketing cycle. Everyone on GAF knows this. The PRESS knows this. Legitimacy is like knighthood. It's granted, not earned.

This bullshit relationship wasn't always this way. Here's the narrative:

When the audience was smaller and there was a whole lot less money going around, reviews in magazines, and special content, actually mattered. Getting the word out about more obscure games was difficult. Access to information was pretty much limited to magazines, a chosen few outlets, and word of mouth.

Video changed everything.

Sites like GT started off, as many of you know, by simply re-uploading HD versions of press-provided trailers and stamping it with a GT watermark. They also recut game play footage to library music.

...just like youtubbers.

GT started creating retrospectives and featured content from retail games in their library or personal collections which was, essentially, researched video with voice over, either using game music or library music.


...just like youtubbers.

The industry began to move away from written content as demand for video features prevailed. Again, this wasn't a big deal yet because only a few people had access to the equipment necessary to create this type of content. This was controllable.

What put sites like GT ahead of the pack was it's now, newly acquired by Viacom, access to pro equipment allowing them to make 'pro' features at press events, E3, etc. Eventually, other sites caught up with either the workflow or the technical barrier to entry, but, again, the club only had a few controllable people in it.

Glorious outliers interested in making real content (god bless 1up.com) were left behind. They didn't have the traffic of the mainstream sites, and frankly (imo) weren't making the shill content. They died.

The exclusive club was pretty secure until Youtube came around. Now, suddenly, ANYBODY could make pretty damn high-quality video content THAT DOES NOT HAVE TO GO UNDER the watchful eye of the publishers and PR folk.

I'm not saying that Youtubbers are evangelists or fighting the good fight. I'm saying that youtube was the first time that THE PEOPLE get the chance to speak, in their own voices. This is something different. At first, it was kind of cute. Games get exposure. Free press. It's looking like a win-win...

But then these AAA games start costing a lot of money to make and employees are worked like slaves at these developers. Studios are sinking faster than you can keep up with them. Jobs are lost. Big wins are BIG, financially, and big losses end careers.

And PewDiePie makes HOW much money yapping over MY blood sweat and tears while I'm dealing with this divorce for working too damn much on this IP?

Screw. That.

The reason that I'm trying to point out to people that the ban hammer needs to be universal is because what the youtubbers are doing is really the same as what the media outlets have always done - except the youtubbers aren't shilling. More, they've found an audience and they're making money from ad revenue.

JUST LIKE THE PRO SITES USING THE SAME MEDIA.

If you have an issue with the fact that people can make money from the media and assets of a developer, okay. I'll go there with you as long as your indictment and discipline is universal.

I don't know where people get this idea that there are secret contracts that allow the media outlets to use their assets. Again, other than embargoes on pre-release media, we're just like you. We get our retail copies or have them sent to us, we choose what we want to capture, we make content, we throw that stuff up in hopes that it gets a lot of hits. When stuff gets a lot of hits, we can appeal to advertisers to jump on our site. In an ideal world, those advertisers have NOTHING to do with the gaming industry.

Depending on what is successful, we make more of it. Rinse. Repeat.

Sometimes, companies get funny when you use their licensed music in your gameplay. Most of the time it's cool.

That, folks, is the end of our special relationship. As long as you don't throw developers and publishers under the bus with irresponsible content, everybody loves everybody. You're not a journalist site. You're another freaking PR tentpole.

So yeah, when I say that this whole Youtube thing will have wider repercussions, I mean that this whole party probably SHOULD end and start over again.

Like the Joker, I just want to see the world burn.
 

Victrix

*beard*
That's probably one of the biggest reasons that more companies have not cracked down on it

It is, in essence, free advertising, and not just free advertising, but the best kind - positive word of mouth (usually!)

Plus policing it would be a royal pain, at least until youtube puts in sweet tech to let them issue blanket shut down claims...

It's good that this is coming front and center though, it does need to be resolved publicly one way or another. I don't know that it will end well for either the producers or the consumers of video content though, corporate interests don't align with end users most of the time.

edit: ^^^^ Streaming and videos of games have invalidated the majority of gaming press for years now. It's just taken forever for publishers to notice. The new world of instant media means opinions are now globally, instantly available on any game you'd care to see, as well as raw footage and gameplay to make informed decisions. This is plainly superior to the old days, and it exposed a lot of hilarious truths about the gaming enthusiast press and the industry in general.

This is another step on the road to a new sort of equilibrium. Megasites need to produce quality content or they'll be destroyed by teenage fans in their homes or dorm rooms. Publishers and devs have to come to grips with the fact that they can't fully control the message anymore without truly draconian policies that can alienate their fanbase. The canny ones have already embraced it and use the youtube stars as their new unpaid PR mouthpieces. A little bit of bribery goes a long way with a fan who thinks getting a free game is the coolest thing in the world, and predisposes them to be positive (which is... not at all different from a lot of the old and current gaming press, haw)
 

GloveSlap

Member
Wonder why there's still no opinion on this from the big channels like Pew, TB etc. Especially TB is usually one to jump head first at these things.
Maybe this doesn't affect the big shots with major partners as much as some people wishes it does.

I think the popular people will be fine. They have the clout and money to get permission and licensing deals.
 

Orayn

Member
I think the popular people will be fine. They have the clout and money to get permission and licensing deals.

Not even that, the biggest of the big will just get moved over to "managed" status by their partner networks and carry on as if nothing happened.
 
Not even that, the biggest of the big will just get moved over to "managed" status by their partner networks and carry on as if nothing happened.

According to AngryJoe, that will be a super small minority--he mentioned even he won't be included and he's quite big
 
youtube is losing money, all these publishers making claims are losing face..who gains the most out of this? there's some shady shit going on.
 
Top Bottom