That's the creators program. Nintendo was filling claims on people who weren't in the program and taking 100% of the revenue.
So are we supposed to take it at face value this game suffered primarily due to LP's? Come on.
Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that you can share the ad revenue (and even that made people angry).
I hate to say it, but maybe you're not in the right industry if your game can be enjoyed without actually playing it.
That's the thing though, what about the games that aren't Too the Moon, That Dragon, or Gone Home? It's usually a memerific joke game or a game that was decently looked forward to. What about the dozens of other games that LPers have played that didn't catch the viral strain? We need to look outside survivorship bias and look at the system overall.
I would argue that at least in nintendo's case, most of their games are not experience or plot based. They're gameplay focused, so i never really understood, and still cannot understand their pursuit with LP's. I mean, if someone just watched Pokken or Super Mario 3D World, those people would've never really bought it, i think.Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that you can share the ad revenue (and even that made people angry).
I hate to say it, but maybe you're not in the right industry if your game can be enjoyed without actually playing it.
IN A WORLD where LPers are looked upon as pirates, stealing potential sales from developers who deserved to get paid for their hard work, only those who are officially sanctioned by publishers will be able to have commentary over games.
Except for illegal Rogue Gamers Pat2000 and WoolieBoot, who hack the FaceNet to broadcast their pirate signal.
Coming soon, a new novel from William Gibson.
Every case/game is different. That being said, I am working on the middle of my first game, and I would feel honored if someone did an LP.
I'd buy it.
I'd watch it on youtube
IN A WORLD where LPers are looked upon as pirates, stealing potential sales from developers who deserved to get paid for their hard work, only those who are officially sanctioned by publishers will be able to have commentary over games.
Except for illegal Rogue Gamers Pat2000 and WoolieBoot, who hack the FaceNet to broadcast their pirate signal.
Coming soon, a new novel from William Gibson.
'Lost sales' is really murky subject. It's very hard to prove that many of them are lost sales. It can just be as easily you'd never get money out of those people.
Wait till I tell you people have been selling stories for literally hundreds to thousands of years, and entire industries and mediums have existed for that purpose.
The copyright owner could be in the wrong. Look at what happened with Until Dawn, That's leaving money on the table in some situations and isn't always an easy call.
The copyright owner could be in the wrong. Look at what happened with Until Dawn, That's leaving money on the table in some situations and isn't always an easy call.
I was going to post something along these lines. It is shitty that people are putting up whole playthroughs of short experiences though. It would be nice of LPers to show some restraint but I don't expect them to.
Send me that review code, I'll let's play anything you make out of sheer curiosity.
The sooner developers realise that just because you have made a good game doesnt mean its going to be a success.
Van Gogh died penniless and his work has been enjoyed by millions.
I would like every dev who makes a great game to be rewarded for it, but sometimes it just not the way it goes. The market isnt some fair entity that rewards the best and punishes the worst.
People are not rational or logicial in their purchases and while it may cut you that a kim K game can make millions a day but this months indie masterpiece wont make enough to cover 6 months rent, thats the way things go.
Complaining about the people who are actively showing the world your game, regardless of whether they make money doing it, is like being mad at the estate agent who displays houses that dont sell.
But what can I say. This industry has successfully convinced consumers to argue against their own self interest time and time again.
Just like demos, anyone who is arguing against lets plays of games is arguing for reducing consumer choice.
When we finally arrive at our Online-only, no modifications, no montized lets plays/walkthroughs, no demos, late review, no piracy future, Developers and publishers will still try to make every excuse in the world why their game wasnt as successful as they want except the simple one.
Maybe the people I made this game just dont want it.
Until we start having a few devs accepting this as a possibilty, blame will be thrown everywhere but at the mirror.
'Lost sales' is really murky subject. It's very hard to prove that many of them are lost sales. It can just be as easily you'd never get money out of those people.
Yeah, totally depends on the game.
No way to police it, nor should they but I imagine games like that Dragon Cancer, the beginner's guide, and others suffer from LPs.
Looking at Untill Dawn, it was a cinematic game but the gameplay, design choices, and replayabilty were huge benefits and I think lent to people watching seeing the value in purchasing to give it a go themselves.
I don't know much about this game, but maybe there's not much there to draw in people.
Then there's the question if LPs are really causing lost sales, or if the game would have bombed anyways and LPs are providing a convenient scape goat. Just making a game doesn't guarantee you success, even if it's well received critically.
Cinematic games tend to be flops unless they have have a tone of replayabilty built in or bring something incredible to the medium. IMO they're very hard to get right, especially "gameplay".
'Lost sales' is really murky subject. It's very hard to prove that many of them are lost sales. It can just be as easily you'd never get money out of those people.
Looking at Untill Dawn, it was a cinematic game but the gameplay, design choices, and replayabilty were huge benefits and I think lent to people watching seeing the value in purchasing to give it a go themselves.
I don't know much about this game, but maybe there's not much there to draw in people.
Then there's the question if LPs are really causing lost sales, or if the game would have bombed anyways and LPs are providing a convenient scape goat. Just making a game doesn't guarantee you success, even if it's well received critically.
Cinematic games tend to be flops unless they have have a tone of replayabilty built in or bring something incredible to the medium. IMO they're very hard to get right, especially "gameplay".
Yeah, not really a valid example that. One Supermassive Games is owned by Sony, and the game really wasn't being pushed in a major way so it's likely the studios future was not in any danger if it flopped. But if you're a small studio of say a dozen people, a game flopping could mean bankruptcy. A better example would be Firewatch, a game where you can mainly experience it via let's plays. But it was still a success for them, making their money back within the 1st day of sales.
But, again the opposite could be said where you're lucky to get any sales if there is a lot of youtube coverage if you have no marketing budget to speak of.
There are multiple ways to police it and it should be strictly enforced.
To the Moon was a lot more whimsical and weird even with a p sad subject matter. It is also helped by the 16bit RPG aesthetic.
That Dragon, Cancer sounds just super depressing all around.
The timeframes don't help either, To the Moon was from when LPs were booming, now they are more established as a industry. That probably didn't help.
The copyright owner could be in the wrong. Look at what happened with Until Dawn, That's leaving money on the table in some situations and isn't always an easy call.
At the end of the day, isn't the real villain in all this the uncaring iron grip of capitalism?
Think about it.
What do you mean? Until Dawn was sent out to die and it was only due to big Let's Players and word of mouth that the game made *decent* money.
At the end of the day, isn't the real villain in all this the uncaring iron grip of capitalism?
Think about it.
Let that cooyright owner make that call.That is exactly what I'm talking about. A copyright owner could be leaving money on the table by saying "no, don't stream/LP my game". Imagine if that would have happened for UD. Probably not so pretty.
Let that cooyright owner make that call.
Let that cooyright owner make that call.
All types of business have that risk and reward, in some form or another, giving that power to the wrong party because it works in the creators favor "sometimes" is silly.The issue is, and I've already brought this up, that the copyright owner could be potentially wrong in doing that call and lose money. Had Sony said "no", UD would not have sold well at all. Even by their own admission, they had no idea it'd blow up due to LPs. That lack of knowledge or insight can tank a game.
As new as all of this is, it's very difficult to move companies towards even doing the research.
That Dragon is what I like to call a 'feel bad'.
Not that it's a bad thing, I love a good 'feel bad'.
The people showing the game and getting paid for doing so without owing a cent to the people whose blood sweat and tears went into the game is everything thats wrong with youtube when it comes to gaming.
You shouldn't be able to post a lets play without the permission of the creator especially a monetized one, but someone shit the bed in the good sense department and decided copyright laws where youtube is concerned allows screaming like a hooligan over gameplay footage as transforming the experience and free from claims.. taking the power of the creator to advertise and profit off theie own work out of their hands.
Most everyone at this point is so biased and selfish about this topic, what with their favorite youtubers and random situations where its been more of a help than a hindrance, no one wants to agree that okaying lets plays to the degree that we have means a creators creation isn't truly theirs.
Thats what I mean, fair use is stretched to the point of being vague, I'm not saying ban lps from youtube, I just feel, like reading creepy stories by someone else, permission must be sought before their work can be shown, let the content creator make the call on whether they think that youtubers audience and pull will help them. Its the wild west when it comes to gaming.Technically, that wouldn't stop people from uploading under the argument of fair use.
Also technically, developers can already do this by filling copyright claims against let's play videos, but it doesn't seem like many developers think it's worth doing.