-
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.
Kotaku: Not Every Developer Is Convinced LP's Are A Good Thing (+ personal mulling)
- Thread starter Jumplion
- Start date
RayearthRob
Member
Yeah, but it doesn't change the fact that you can share the ad revenue (and even that made people angry).
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
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 for 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.
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 for 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.
Honestly, I don't think there's any solid proof for both games doing poorly and games doing well because of LP's. the only evidence might be correlation to major LP'ers playing their game.
To The Moon saw a jump in sales not long after Cry and PewDiePies LP's. Maybe when Jackseptiwhatever played That Dragon the creator only saw a small bump in sales. We only really have the word of the creators in both cases, so it's hard to say if it's true or not 100%
I think they were angry because Nintendo was the first major publisher to do it, and while their percentages aren't exactly unfair, they are a large cut to be taken out of LP'ers revenue.
Harsh and some games suffer for it but overall I agree here.
TheFinalCut
Member
I'm not sure how the economics would be determined but I absolutely believe that every Let's Play or Long Play that is monetized should give a percentage to the developer of the game.
Although there's a strong argument to be made that there are transformative aspects of Let's Plays, they are still riding off the games being featured. If that weren't the case people would be able to just upload camera and microphone feeds of just themselves with no gameplay and it would be equally as successful (RiffTrax). Programs like Mystery Science Threatre 3000 are great examples of works that are transformative but still require the original creators to be compensated for their work because it is being heavily featured.
I have a lot of strong feelings about the debate around LPs and their value vs. damage to a game's revenue. It can basically boil down to, games that are almost entirely focused on mechanics and variety of player choice should still pay to developers but at a lower rate while narrative focused experiences and games should receive a much larger cut as the essence of what a player can expect to experience is being distributed almost* in its entirety.
*I believe experiencing narrative first hand in an interactive manner enhances the weight and importance but the content is consistent whether it is watched or played
Although there's a strong argument to be made that there are transformative aspects of Let's Plays, they are still riding off the games being featured. If that weren't the case people would be able to just upload camera and microphone feeds of just themselves with no gameplay and it would be equally as successful (RiffTrax). Programs like Mystery Science Threatre 3000 are great examples of works that are transformative but still require the original creators to be compensated for their work because it is being heavily featured.
I have a lot of strong feelings about the debate around LPs and their value vs. damage to a game's revenue. It can basically boil down to, games that are almost entirely focused on mechanics and variety of player choice should still pay to developers but at a lower rate while narrative focused experiences and games should receive a much larger cut as the essence of what a player can expect to experience is being distributed almost* in its entirety.
*I believe experiencing narrative first hand in an interactive manner enhances the weight and importance but the content is consistent whether it is watched or played
ShinMaruku
Member
'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.
Sword Of Doom
Member
If a game doesn't catch on and become a hit, then I doubt the LP had anything to do with it.
One solution could be to pay royalties if you are using someone's game or IP to make money. Can either be the streamer if they're big enough to be making money or the streaming service like twitch or 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.
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.
Dio Brando
Banned
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.
Cave Johnson
Member
This is my original thought as well but on the flip side, it hampers the medium from being "free", whether it is interactive heavy as a Platinum* title or a narrative one such as my favorites like The Stanley Parable or Gone Home since most of the concepts can be perceived passively.
Nowadays, the medium is so broad that and yet we cannot still ascertain how LP's penalizes or reward games shows how primitive we are in the framework of this industry.
But such is the nature of art in and of itself, and thus, be perceived differently by independent points of view. As much as it is a shame that That Dragon, cancer isn't getting the returns for their investment. It is also just as valid to say that these "viewers" have no intention buying the game in the first place.
The only way I see it, is the mainstream problem. There's too much focus on the same audience that games like these eventually are going to be judged and consumed by the same people likewise. We have not truly diversified ourselves in this medium to the point we have to "kickstart" projects just to bring back certain gameplay themes to the audience which has been abondoned.
I've always considered LP revenue a privilege not a right. Especially when it's just a no commentary, here's the cutscenes or soundtrack rips. I feel devs/pubs should have the right to takedown or monetise at their own discretion, but people go ballistic if that happens so it's not really an option, even sharing the revenue gets people angry as we've found out. I've had people steal my work and it's infuriating, and I've also posted footage from games that's made me money, but I wouldn't be angry if I lost the latter and I was able to takedown the former.
Send me that review code, I'll let's play anything you make out of sheer curiosity.
Send me that review code, I'll let's play anything you make out of sheer curiosity.
What are you, a Rogue Gamer?
The sky above the port was the colour of a browser opened to a dead YouTube channel.
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.
oh shit, wouldn't have ever known that until you pointed it out. >_>
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.
It's pretty damn murky for nearly all of Youtube right now.
For every channel I know is doing the whole "original content/fair use" mix right, I just know there are like 10+ other channels doing it wrong.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
I too have morbid curiosity about a Huelen-made game.
This is both sad and 100% true. Every single word of it. Well stated.
LPs are a great way for people to experience games who don't want to pay for them. Often times they're teenagers or younger - you don't see many working adults watching LPs often. Things to do, have to prioritize time, etc.
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.
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.
Clockwork5
Member
There are multiple ways to police it and it should be strictly enforced.
Sword Of Doom
Member
That's the thing, if a game flops, that doesn't mean it was because of LP's. If a game catches on and people talk about it, the game will begin selling. So you could make the argument that the LP's might have taken away some sales, but they were also a vehicle for getting the word out there about a game that would otherwise not have a significant marketing budget, which would help the game sell
coughlanio
Member
I asked a friend of mine whether he was going to play Until Dawn or not, and he just replied "I already watched a LP of the whole thing".
It's hard to police too, as some games only become successful because of LP's.
It's hard to police too, as some games only become successful because of LP's.
Aaronrules380
Member
If something is getting millions of views on youtube, but really shitty sales, and the views are coming from videos that don't make the game look like shit, I think you can start arguing lost sales did occur. You can't quantify it, and you might never get money out of it, but at the same time, why do these people deserve to experience a huge portion of the game without paying? Beyond anything else, by saying it's ok to get something as long as you wouldn't pay money for it in the first place, aren't you creating a system that will continually devalue content?
TheSpoiler
Member
Exactly. I think a lot of this stems from what the people see as value. Until Dawn survived because of its elements. To The Moon was super sad, right? Maybe that emotional response led people to experience it themselves. It's difficult to place, because games with even less gameplay than UD can get boosts, or fail.
You could say that, but the studio of Driveclub's just went under. And Until Dawn, while not having the most heavy advertising, still had a lot of focus and exposure from Sony. Even had that live action trailer thingy too!
I think there are a lot of factors at play here, and sadly until people can pinpoint that magic middle area, I think LP showing some restraint and asking their viewers to buy the game would really, really help at the very least.
Can you name some that would benefit the consumer and the developers in all situations? The issue is that it's not applicable to every developer or fair to the consumer.
I love lps, but I hate watching lps of story heavy games. not because I don't like story heavy games but because they don't tell an interesting story in that format. I find that the best lp games are games that are heavy on mechanics with deep gameplay and elements of strategy that facilitates creativity and self expression. basically games that allow the lp:er to tell their own story. With these kinds of games watching lps only really increase the probability of me picking up the game because they are designed around creating, not consuming content.
and well, story heavy games often lack these ingredients so they just become a bore to watch. The exception would be if the lp:er is very entertaining, but even then I only use for for background noise.
and well, story heavy games often lack these ingredients so they just become a bore to watch. The exception would be if the lp:er is very entertaining, but even then I only use for for background noise.
That Dragon is what I like to call a 'feel bad'.
Not that it's a bad thing, I love a good 'feel bad'.
I don't watch them, but I like to skim a few minutes of them to get a sense for a game.
Because let's be honest. Some of the marketing for games isn't very honest. And reviews don't do a great job either.
Sometimes I just want to see a random snippet of what natural gameplay is like.
Because let's be honest. Some of the marketing for games isn't very honest. And reviews don't do a great job either.
Sometimes I just want to see a random snippet of what natural gameplay is like.
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.
We're all just slaves to the dollar, man.
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.
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.
TheSpoiler
Member
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.
TheSpoiler
Member
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.
I like how people can post videos of them self playing games on Youtube, and as you pointed out there are people that post their videos to help a community, be it to show off content or provide tips for new and old players. I just don't like the concept of people making money off strictly playing someone else's work and showing that process. I just don't think any amount of original commentary provided by the person warrants monetary compensation when that video, and commentary, wouldn't exist if that person could not make money off of it., I would rather see people make their own video reviews of a game with their own clips of them playing it interspersed with their voice and at least competent editing technique and make money that way.
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.
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.
To the Moon is more uplifting, bittersweet.
Maybe that's the difference. I also hear That Dragon, Cancer has some religious tones that may not be a good fit for everyone.
While I think you're a bit further down the end, I get your sentiment. I never quite bought the argument of gameplay footage being being inherently transformative, especially considering a good portion of games are essentially part movies with their cutscenes and narrative, linear games. But, then again, I think you're missing out on the issues of fair use with films and the issues they're having with legitimate uses of film clips.
It's a legal gray area that is going to have to be addressed at some point, one that I guarantee that YouTube and the community surrounding it will howl against like the dickens.
ChaoticBlue
Member
easy solution: lets play embargo.
No lets play of a newly released game for 3 months for example. let people buy the game within the 3 months.
No lets play of a newly released game for 3 months for example. let people buy the game within the 3 months.
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.