Support NeoGAF

[TheSpoiler]

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 prove it's in the wrong party, you'd first have to prove that the consumers are the wrong party in the majority of these situations rather than the minority.

Basically, if only a handful of games, i.e. narrative focused titles that don't have a reason to return to the title (or titles more visual based) are much less than everything else (like fighters, action games, sports games, the millions of simulation titles, RPGs, etc), then what party is the in the wrong if the majority are benefiting from it?

Not saying it's completely right, and I see your point in the side of the narrative, but I do believe it's not so cut and dry for developers right now since this stuff is in its infancy.

 

[Fat4all]

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.

Part of this debate really has to do with Youtube sorting out it's false claim problems (as I stated earlier). In an environment where false claims can be weeded out and real claims can be evaluated for proper 'fair use', we'll see a much more curtailed LP community. In some cases we've seen it in extremes, like when Capcom shut down dozens of Asura's Wrath LP's, but there's a chance it might work better. It's hard to say at this point.

 

[bakedpony]

Personally, I think full LP playthroughs should only be allowed for games that are already out for X number of months. If a game is a fresh release, then only quick looks should be done.

 

[TyrantII]

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.

I do agree with this.

If you're making money off of streaming, there should be both a system to direct people to the store the game is on, and also a method to pay royalties. No one has a right to use someone else's creative work to profit soley for themselves, and "free advertising" isn't even close to a valid excusse. The only time fair use would apply anyways is in reviews / previews.

That said, if you're not using revenue generating services I'd hope things stay open. Unless the prior is done, I feel the later will very soon be cut off, if not from sites themselves, than through the courts.

Back to developers and sales, they need to know their audience. If a small developer is creating a swan song of their own inspiration, they better hope to hell they have their fingers on the pulse of exactly what market wants.

If your making something for yourself creatively, you might find you're the only one interested in it. As much as UBI and Activision get shit on, they know their customers and they deliver more or less what they expect.

Gaming as a bussiness and industry is about finding that balance between consumer expectations and demands, and making art. If you just want to make expressive art games, be prepared for them not always connecting.

 

[Kamina777]

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.

Right now the creepypasta culture is feeling the shock due to writers calling strikes on people who never took the time to ask them if they can read their work, the community and its fans are pretty much 100% on the youtubers side regardless of the fact the strike was legitimate to the point of saying fuck copyright laws..really?
Clips are fine even movies have their clips shown all the time on tv, its the whole game laid out bare that bothers me..

When a game is coming out, 2 days before release, I can find about 20 half complete lets plays of said game..thats before I myself can even buy it, someone in this thread mentioned embargos on lets plays..sounds strict, but that may actually be a good idea.

 

[Fat4all]

Maybe we can treat Let's Play's like Hatsune Miku.

Licensing agreements. Each party agrees to a software license, and whatever content a channel produces based off that software, the creator gets a small percentage of it's revenue.

 

[Candescence]

At the end of the day, isn't the real villain in all this the uncaring iron grip of capitalism?

Think about it.

I know this might actually be a joke, but this is partly actually why I'm an advocate of universal basic income, it keeps people afloat, especially those who take professions that don't provide an immediate income, and gets around problems such as job losses from increasing automation. Sure, it doesn't "solve" the problems of piracy and possible lost revenue from LPs, but it does keep creators afloat despite them. UBI basically fixes one of capitalism's biggest flaws.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Maybe we can treat Let's Play's like Hatsune Miku.

Licensing agreements. Each party agrees to a software license, and whatever content a channel produces based off that software, the creator gets a small percentage of it's revenue.

I really wouldn't mind this. Youtube and Twitch should be providing this without cutting into too much of any side. It would seriously help development and the only hindrance I could see is a focus on tailoring games to be more memetic for views, but some already do that shit anyway.

 

[Haly]

Yeah, it sucks.

Even though gaming is rapidly expanding and redefining itself year over year, the bulk of gamers are stuck somewhere in the 00s in terms of mindset. "Puzzle games are not worth $40", "storytelling games are not worth $15". Value of a game is still unreasonably focused on raw playtime (regardless of quality of that play time) and conservativel notions of "gameplay". For certain types of games, a Let's Play is basically redistribution of other people's product. That people think games are this one, immutable, concrete thing with only one standard for valuation doesn't change reality.

Too bad, I loved That Dragon despite its many flaws.

 

[Fat4all]

I really wouldn't mind this. Youtube and Twitch should be providing this without cutting into too much of any side. It would seriously help development and the only hindrance I could see is a focus on tailoring games to be more memetic for views, but some already do that shit anyway.

I think something similar to a license might be a good way to change the situation without having to change LP culture as it currently is, perhaps. LP'ers being worried about having to change how they LP and developers working with them seem to be the biggest hurdle.

 

[foxuzamaki]

Well ofcourse, you can take alot from LPs, for instance, altho some people who revisited the games, especially the first would say they dont hold up aswell the general consensus is that the sonic adventure games are good, however when the game grumps played SA1, they would make you think it was as bad as sonic 06

 

[ElFly]

Yeah, it sucks.

Even though gaming is rapidly expanding and redefining itself year over year, the bulk of gamers are stuck somewhere in the 00s in terms of mindset. "Puzzle games are not worth $40", "storytelling games are not worth $15". Value of a game is still unreasonably focused on raw playtime (regardless of quality of that play time) and conservativel notions of "gameplay". For certain types of games, a Let's Play is basically redistribution of other people's product. That people think games are this one, immutable, concrete thing with only one standard for valuation doesn't change reality.

Too bad, I loved That Dragon despite its many flaws.

Other games have sold decently despite being of limited interactivity/gameplay/replayability/etc tho, even with LPs spoiling them.

 

[Kamina777]

I do agree with this.

If you're making money off of streaming, there should be both a system to direct people to the store the game is on, and also a method to pay royalties. No one has a right to use someone else's creative work to profit soley for themselves, and "free advertising" isn't even close to a valid excusse. The only time fair use would apply anyways is in reviews / previews.

That said, if you're not using revenue generating services I'd hope things stay open. Unless the prior is done, I feel the later will very soon be cut off, if not from sites themselves, than through the courts.

Back to developers and sales, they need to know their audience. If a small developer is creating a swan song of their own inspiration, they better hope to hell they have their fingers on the pulse of exactly what market wants.

If your making something for yourself creatively, you might find you're the only one interested in it. As much as UBI and Activision get shit on, they know their customers and they deliver more or less what they expect.

Gaming as a bussiness and industry is about finding that balance between consumer expectations and demands, and making art. If you just want to make expressive art games, be prepared for them not always connecting.

Well put, a game doesn't deserve to succeed just because someone made it, it has to connect, if the rules were a little fairer to creators, even if it was only popular with lets players and their audience, that's still a connection, and would at least make sure creators got paid for their work being enjoyed in some way.

 

[Metroidvania]

I know that even with the hype, seeing Dave Lang play Until Dawn on the Giant Bomb stream was enough for me.

It is a potential lost source of revenue for devs, for sure. Not sure how to clamp down on it without seeming like the giant 'bad guy', tho.

 

[ZangBa]

For me personally, I can't say there is any game that I watched a LP of that I would have bought before watching, whereas the opposite is true. I watched a playthrough of Persona 4, so now I'm going to buy Persona 5, I wouldn't have even considered playing that "anime trash" otherwise. Something like Everybody's Gone to the Rapture I would have never bought, and I'm sure as shit glad I didn't after watching a playthrough.

 

[Dangansona]

For me personally, I can't say there is any game that I watched a LP of that I would have bought before watching, whereas the opposite is true. I watched a playthrough of Persona 4, so now I'm going to buy Persona 5, I wouldn't have even considered playing that 'anime trash' otherwise. Something like Everybody's Gone to the Rapture I would have never bought, and I'm sure as shit glad I didn't after watching a playthrough.

Anime trash? >_>

 

[thefro]

without these LP's it wouldn't even have sold 14.000 copys.

the game is incredibly niche.

It was featured in Wired magazine at least twice and has gotten a lot of other media.

Still nothing I want to play since it's depressing even if it may be a piece of art.

 

[Haly]

Other games have sold decently despite being of limited interactivity/gameplay/replayability/etc tho, even with LPs spoiling them.

So? Should every cinematic game now adhere to some sort of rubric in order for people feel it's "worth their money"? A choices, B branching paths, C endings, X polygon count, Y lines of text, Z framerate?

And I say this as someone whose GOTY last year was Life is Strange.

Forcing developers to tick checkboxes just to get sales to cover their own work is the peak of rote commodification. I'm not saying every game deserves to be a blockbuster, but if people are consuming the bulk of the game, the developers is morally entitled to some proportional amount of recompense, which in this specific case seems to be not happening. Indie films don't lose IP protection just because they're niche. Amateur illustrators don't deserve to have their work copied and resold just because they're too small to muster any kind of legal recourse.

So much for "games are art, seriously!". Apparently unlicensed art redistribution is a-ok.

(Just redistribution wouldn't be as bad because at least everyone who works in gaming understands its an unavoidable consequence, but for Let's Plays, people who are not the devs are actually profiting.)

 

[ZangBa]

Anime trash? >_>

It's the first impression those games gave me. My perception changed after watching it for a bit.

 

[Jumplion]

Right now the creepypasta culture is feeling the shock due to writers calling strikes on people who never took the time to ask them if they can read their work, the community and its fans are pretty much 100% on the youtubers side regardless of the fact the strike was legitimate to the point of saying fuck copyright laws..really?
Clips are fine even movies have their clips shown all the time on tv, its the whole game laid out bare that bothers me..

When a game is coming out, 2 days before release, I can find about 20 half complete lets plays of said game..thats before I myself can even buy it, someone in this thread mentioned embargos on lets plays..sounds strict, but that may actually be a good idea.

At that point it becomes "how much of a film/gameplay/clip/whatever is too much?", though I'm probably splitting hairs when the courts tend to be more case-by-case on these things.

 

[King Tubby]

For a lot of shorter, linear, or story driven games, a full Let's Play can be considered tantamount to basically uploading an entire movie onto Youtube. I feel like at the very least the developers should get a portion of all the revenue that comes from those kinds of videos that aren't meaningfully transformative.

 

[Rei no Otaku]

Maybe people just don't want to play a game about childhood cancer. I know as a father of two that's not something I want to play. I even mentioned the game to a childless friend of mine and he wanted nothing to do with it. I just don't see it as a game a lot of people would want to engage with.

 

[Neiteio]

Maybe people just don't want to play a game about childhood cancer. I know as a father of two that's not something I want to play. I even mentioned the game to a childless friend of mine and he wanted nothing to do with it. I just don't see it as a game a lot of people would want to engage with.

That's an interesting point. Skimming a video to get the gist of it is probably a lot more approachable for the average person than directly engaging with such uncomfortable subject matter. Might partially explain what they're seeing in their case.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

To The Moon is a smaller indie game and LP's of it gave it a large boost in sales, and that game is just as narrative heavy/gameplay lax

...if you say so, I guess?

I mean, I'm not familiar with how To The Moon became popular (I played it several years late), but I honestly find it hard to believe that someone would want to play To The Moon after they've already watched how the entire story plays out. That isn't to say that the game isn't a better experience when played than watched—simply that it's not a very good experience if you already know the story.

 

[King Tubby]

Maybe people just don't want to play a game about childhood cancer. I know as a father of two that's not something I want to play. I even mentioned the game to a childless friend of mine and he wanted nothing to do with it. I just don't see it as a game a lot of people would want to engage with.

That wouldn't explain being able to type "That Dragon Cancer" into youtube and see videos with hundreds of thousands to millions of views. That much attention should translate into a lot more sales than the developers are reporting.

 

[Griss]

Maybe people just don't want to play a game about childhood cancer. I know as a father of two that's not something I want to play. I even mentioned the game to a childless friend of mine and he wanted nothing to do with it. I just don't see it as a game a lot of people would want to engage with.

But millions of people were interested enough to watch playthroughs online. Plenty of people engaged with it. That's the point. But those people got everything they needed to get from the LP and therefore didn't buy the game, thereby reducing the liklihood we get interesting interactive experiences in that vein again.

The restrictive attitude as to what a game should and shouldn't be is absurd, imo.

EDIT: Beaten.

 

[Eyemus Lutt]

Are people talking over full movies allowed on youtube because I see it as pretty much the same for story based games.

How do people feel about the videos of all cutscenes stitched together from games into a 1-3 hour video, isn't that the same as uploading a whole movie.

 

[benicillin]

The game may be selling poorly, but you really can't blame LPs. Most developers I've read seem to think they actually boost the likelihood of a game selling - something like Amnesia was basically sold on the back of YouTube coverage, it's a game that wouldn't have done nearly as well without LPs, and even story-heavy games like Firewatch and Life is Strange seem to enjoy a nice boost from LPs.

 

[Haly]

Just because SOME games sold better off of LPs, it does not follow that ALL games sell better off of LPs nor that NO games are adversely affected by LPs.

I mean it's really repugnant in this specific case because the LP'ers are actually profiting off of the memoirs of a family who lost their child to cancer, whose project was funded in part by numerous other private individuals who have had personal encounters with cancer.

These viewers should be racing to the store to buy it even if they watched the entire LP if they had any sense of moral obligation.

 

[Rei no Otaku]

That wouldn't explain being able to type "That Dragon Cancer" into youtube and see videos with hundreds of thousands to millions of views. That much attention should translate into a lot more sales than the developers are reporting.

But millions of people were interested enough to watch playthroughs online. Plenty of people engaged with it. That's the point. But those people got everything they needed to get from the LP and therefore didn't buy the game, thereby reducing the liklihood we get interesting interactive experiences in that vein again.

The restrictive attitude as to what a game should and shouldn't be is absurd, imo.

EDIT: Beaten.

Do we know how many people watched the whole video? I watched one scene on YouTube, started crying, turned it off, and never looked back. Does that count as a view? We can't assume every view is someone watching the entire game on YouTube. Honestly, there just isn't enough info.

 

[Neiteio]

But millions of people were interested enough to watch playthroughs online. Plenty of people engaged with it. That's the point. But those people got everything they needed to get from the LP and therefore didn't buy the game, thereby reducing the liklihood we get interesting interactive experiences in that vein again.

The restrictive attitude as to what a game should and shouldn't be is absurd, imo.

EDIT: Beaten.

Thing is, with a game of this subject matter, I think many of those people watching were just doing so out of curiosity, but only because it was free and there's no commitment — no money paid, nothing left in their library to remind them of it. Had there been a price involved, these people might not have been willing to pay anyways since they wouldn't know if they'd like the subject matter.

It's like if someone walks up to you on the street and shows you a weird-looking dish of food. If you're told, "It's free, try it," you might look past your misgivings about how appetizing it is, and out of curiosity you might nibble it, or eat the whole thing. But if there was a price attached, you'd say, "Well, I do wonder what it tastes like, but since it might taste awful, it's not worth spending the money."

Not justifying one view or another, mind you. Just saying what probably happened here, for better or for worse.

 

[Brinbe]

SA did LPs right. They didn't LP anything too recent for a reason. And most times, they put a lot of effort into making it a compelling and educational watch.

These lazy fucks nowadays are kinda doing these devs a disservice by throwing out game content so soon after release. It especially sucks for story/plot heavy games and I feel for this guy.

 

[Intheflorsh]

What exactly are they basing this assumption that LPs hurt their sales on? For all they know, they might have received even less sales without the exposure.

 

[Corpekata]

Millions of people watched one of the LPs, true, but actually look at the guy's channel. Pretty much all of his LPs are in the 2 million plus range (usually capping out around 3 million), from the AAA to the obscure. It's not 2.5 million potential That Dragon, Cancer customers, it's basically 2.5 million of the dude's regular audience tuning in to watch him that will watch him play anything.

 

[Sheiter]

Seeing 2 million views on a youtube video for someone playing That Dragon, Cancer doesn't mean 2 million people watched that video to see that game. The uploader, Jacksepticeye, has over 9 million subscribers and most of his videos seem to hit aeound 2 million views on average given enough time. People are watching that video because of who made it, not to avoid buying the game by seeing someone play it for free. I'm not saying that lets plays necer lead to lost sales but if you're someone who watches lets plays because of the game involved and not the youtuber who played the game, you're in the minority.

Edit: Hah, beated by Corpekata on the same point.

 

[Jumplion]

Are people talking over full movies allowed on youtube because I see it as pretty much the same for story based games.

How do people feel about the videos of all cutscenes stitched together from games into a 1-3 hour video, isn't that the same as uploading a whole movie.

Kind of depends, but I think in general you can't just play a movie and talk over it without being substantially transformative in some way. I know for sure you can't play a movie or video and pause it whenever you talk, same goes with just putting the movie or trailer or whatever in the corner and having you just react. The recent talk on React channels over the past month has put them under fire for that.

Millions of people watched one of the LPs, true, but actually look at the guy's channel. Pretty much all of his LPs are in the 2 million plus range (usually capping out around 3 million), from the AAA to the obscure. It's not 2.5 million potential That Dragon, Cancer customers, it's basically 2.5 million of the dude's regular audience tuning in to watch him that will watch him play anything.

That's a really good point. Lots of people assume that getting noticed by a PewDiePie or Markiplier will instantly make the game notable or a success, but a vast majority of their audience might not even be the target audience in the first place.

But then again, that's just general target demographic marketing, isn't it? Certain games would fit better with the Pie and others with Sterling and others with just regular media like IGN. Just, again, have to consider the survivor bias.

 

[collige]

In order for the argument that LPs harm devs financially to make sense, you have to not only assume that some of the people watching these videos would've paid for the game, but also that these people outnumber the people who learned about the game from the LP and then went on to buy it. Not only that, you also have to assume that every single of these "lost customers" already knew about the game before deciding to effectively "pirate" it.

This is really just a weaker version of the piracy argument except that when you compare torrenters to customers you at least have the baseline knowledge that these people had the means, time, and inclination to play the full game. Let's Plays tell you nothing.

 

[Terrell]

So yeah, policing that shit is a bad look and I hope larger youtube people can show some common sense on what to stream so we don't have to reach a vetting process.

... do we exist on the same internet?

 

[Haly]

Setting aside the "do LP's adversely affect the games they display" point for a second, just the existence of LPs themselves occupy a very grey territory, legally and morally, when it comes to certain games that are nearly movies. I don't believe LP's should have blanket protection for all kinds of games, nor do I think it's even remotely defensible that Jackysceptic gets 2 million ad hits (or however many that weren't blocked) for playing That Dragon, Cancer and the developers get practically zero. The disparity is simply not justified by what Jackysceptic brings to the table. At the risk of being hyperbolic, even if all 14,000 of those sales were due to Jacksceptic, the situation is still not vindicated.

When real life celebrity actors lend their name brand to a project, their mere presence fuels a massive chain of production that supports the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. These Let's Plays? The player, and YouTube, and some of the ad sponsors, is where most of that attention and money is being funneled.

As an aside, I already detest celebrity worship in American culture, but YouTube celebrities are a particularly distasteful form of it.

 

[Purple Cheeto]

Didn't that PT demo thingy only get hyped because of Let's plays and streams?

 

[A-V-B]

Didn't that PT demo thingy only get hyped because of Let's plays and streams?

Partially. Streaming hype made it relevant for the stage before it was beaten and its true label revealed, but that didn't last long. People beat PT way sooner than Kojima anticipated. After that, its main hype seriously was that Kojima, Del Toro, and Reedus were working together, and that the project was Silent Hill.

I hadn't even HEARD about PT before it was beaten. Then it was beaten, the word was out, and I was instantly drawn in to see what the new Silent Hill would look like.

And then streaming kept it fun after that, at least for me. I had a blast for about a month, watching every stream of the game I could get my hands on.

 

[mitchlol]

Make your game exciting enough that people want to PLAY the game, rather than just watch it. I'm not content to watch someone play street fighter or Dota I also want to play it. I personally don't like these games that skirt the line between game/movie/experience. If you make that type of content expect a large number of people just want to watch it... Do we suddenly shut down websites that give a synopsis of tv shows and movies because people can garner the plot points without buying/watching them?

 

[Haly]

Do we suddenly shut down websites that give a synopsis of tv shows and movies because people can garner the plot points without buying/watching them?

Regulation agencies and orgnanizations shut down websites that show entire movies, TV series without a proper license, yes.

Apparently you disagree? Were you not aware of this?

Or do you feel having a little picture of yourself in the corner of the screen talking to no one in particular is sufficiently transformative enough to be a whole new work. Hey there's money to be made here. How about a "Let's Watch Batman vs Superman"?

I'm sure there wouldn't be any issue with that whatsoever.

 

[Glitchesarecool]

Maybe we can treat Let's Play's like Hatsune Miku.

Licensing agreements. Each party agrees to a software license, and whatever content a channel produces based off that software, the creator gets a small percentage of it's revenue.

That would assume that channels are getting paid enough to make said agreements, which for the smaller groups or specialized groups, that isn't the case.

LPs can make a game. I didn't know about the Nelos kickstarter until the Super Best Friends ran a video of the preview build. That channel got me into buying character action games and introduced me to things I'd never heard about before.

I have a feeling these devs put a little too much heart and soul into the game. Suggesting that LPs are causing bad sales when maybe the topic or style of game isn't something appealing to a consumer. I know I really don't want to touch that game.

 

[King Tubby]

In order for the argument that LPs harm devs financially to make sense, you have to not only assume that some of the people watching these videos would've paid for the game, but also that these people outnumber the people who learned about the game from the LP and then went on to buy it. Not only that, you also have to assume that every single of these "lost customers" already knew about the game before deciding to effectively "pirate" it.

Let's just step away from the argument over whether LPs hurt or harm devs. I feel like at the very least devs should be able to see some revenue over someone LPing their game.

 

[Haly]

If YouTube cares about this, they should set up a licensing agreement with the release of new games. The developers should be allowed to choose from a range of licenses from unrestricted (what's happening now), to a portion of the ad revenue, or some kind of scaling payment where they get more from channels with massive amounts of subscribers and less from smaller channels.

In this way, LP's will partially be a marketing consideration the developers will have some influence over, and the LPers themselves can be selective about which games they want to show off depending on the costs of license which YouTube holds. There's an equilibrium there that would make all parties happy (legal stability for LPers and YouTube, monetary compensation for developers, no burden or obligation from viewers).

The immediate problem of this approach that I see are videos that showcase multiple games. Perhaps a "X minutes of game footage subjects your video to the game's licensing fees" clause.

(it's not going to happen but whatever, it's interesting to think about.)

 

[Intheflorsh]

Let's just step away from the argument over whether LPs hurt or harm devs. I feel like at the very least devs should be able to see some revenue over someone LPing their game.

Then they should warn LPers before time they expect revenue because that is not the standard practice.

 

[Guess Who]

LPs can make a game. I didn't know about the Nelos kickstarter until the Super Best Friends ran a video of the preview build. That channel got me into buying character action games and introduced me to things I'd never heard about before.

See, though, this is a bit different - the video you watched, I presume, wasn't a full front-to-back playthrough of the game. Tons of LPs are. There's a difference between showing off a bit of the game with commentary for analysis or demonstration, and showing off nearly everything a game has to offer, especially games that are primarily narrative-centric.

 

[Glitchesarecool]

See, though, this is a bit different - the video you watched, I presume, wasn't a full front-to-back playthrough of the game. Tons of LPs are. There's a difference between showing off a bit of the game with commentary for analysis or demonstration, and showing off nearly everything a game has to offer, especially games that are primarily narrative-centric.

That particular one, no. But I watched their Metal Gear Rising playthrough and most of their Bloodborne playthroughs before buying those games, for example.

I don't have a lot of disposable income, and LPs help me decide if a game is going to be in my budget or not.

 

[The Technomancer]

Arguments about "quantifying lost sales" and "games vs intereactive experiences aside" I think the idea of revenue sharing has merit and needs more discussion.