Support NeoGAF

[Jumplion]

Lock if not convinced this is good

A short article on some fiddledy-piddledy with That Dragon, Cancer and Let's Play videos that I found interesting and also reminded me of some thoughts I've had over the whole Let's Play shenanigans going on;

Describing the reception to his game as “incredible,” Green couldn’t be happier about how people have responded to his family’s tragic story. But it comes with a serious caveat: they haven’t made any money on the game.

“Our studio has not yet seen a single dollar from sales,” he said.

The developers “underestimated how many people would be satisfied with only watching the game,” and became frustrated by the millions of people watching the game on YouTube translating into zero revenue for their years of work.

So when Green saw tweets asking about deprived revenue, it struck a nerve.

“And so yes, Let’s Play person, I agree with you,” he said, “it does suck to have someone else making revenue off your work.”

“If you compare the millions of views of the entirety of our game on YouTube to our sales as estimated on SteamSpy, you can hopefully see the disparity,” said Green. “We have seen many people post our entire game on YouTube with little to no commentary. We’ve seen people decompile our game and post our soundtrack on YouTube. We’ve also seen many, many Let’s Players post entire playthroughs of our game, posting links to all of their own social channels and all of their own merchandising and leaving out a link to our site.”

SteamSpy shows the game has sold roughly 14,000 copies.

Green made an appeal for people to use That Dragon, Cancer videos as a chance to share their personal stories. But more to the point, he hopes they’ll encourage their viewers to support the developers, so that they can make more games.

------------------------

To put some of my own perspective on this, Let's Plays (LPs now 'cause I'm lazy) have bugged me for a while. To be clear, I don't have any problem with them as content, if you make that style of vide more power to you. Heck, I even tried my hand at it once or twice, it ain't as easy as it looks.

Now, I want to separate LPs into two discrete categories: Communal and Content-based.

• Communal is meant for the community; these are your Minecraft LP, your Binding of Issac and Mario Maker series LP. These types of LPs I think are fine as they are meant to sustain the community around the game.
• Content-based LPs are usually the one-off videos to show a quick play session, or a "preview" of the game, or an entire playthrough series of a game that isn't necessarily being made for a community (I don't think there's much community in whatever flash game PewDiePie digs up and plays for 3 episodes).

I think Content-based LPs are the real can of worms that people need to take a look at. What I wonder, however, is are Let's Plays really as effective as people think they are? As far as I know we don't have much data on how much throughput there is between getting a Let's Play from a prominent LPer, or getting many LPs, or whatever variables, and actually getting

We tend to see the big successes and sudden viral games as evidence that LPs work, but isn't that survivorship bias? Because let's be honest here, how many people actually remember even 10% of what PewDiePie or Jim Sterling or [insert prefered LPer/content creator if any] played, or thought to themselves "that looks cool, I'll pick it up when it's on sale"?

Extra Credits did a video a while ago on demos and listed out the main reasons/theories why we don't have them anymore in that there are very few situations where a demo will actually be beneficial to the product. I think the same can be said about certain Let's Plays. People only tend to remember games that are really/extremely bad, really good, or something they were already looking forward to. And even then, as pointed out in the original article, when you can essentially experience a (generally linear) game from start to finish, why bother with the original product?

Exposure is all well and good for indies, but in the end exposure doesn't pay the bills.

I dunno, I guess I just think it's a bit more of a gray area than people seem to realize. It's something that I think, at the very least, should be looked at to get more hard data on how LPs actually help (or hinder in the case of trainwrecks like Digital Homicide) developers (if there's already some data, feel free to link it). At the very least, I'm sympathetic to Green and others who are a bit more skeptical of LPs.

(and good lord, none of this is covering the legal gray area that LPs exist within in the first place. And let's be real here, it is a legal problem that is going to have to be addressed at some point)

 

[James Scott]

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.

 

[Rembrandt]

I made this argument in that one thread about reaction videos and people acted like there was no way it was an actual problem. I've watched videos of games and been perfectly satisfied with it, even enjoying aspects of the game that I've seen but then won't buy.

It's a problem and it'll be dumb to ban it.

Also on the flip side, LPs have sold me on games I normally wouldn't be interested in. Now it's also really possible that an extended gameplay video by personalities I enjoy could have done the same.

 

[BBboy20]

What is considered value is changing.

 

[Neiteio]

Not sure what could be done. Maybe reclassify certain games as "cinematic experiences" and subject them to restrictions similar to posting an entire movie on YouTube?

 

[onken]

Not sure what could be done. Maybe reclassify certain games as "cinematic experiences" and subject them to restrictions similar to posting an entire movie on YouTube?

And who would make that call? Sounds like an awful idea.

 

[TheSpoiler]

What is considered value is changing.

I think people are just getting broader in their expectations of games, which is by no means bad. It's to have more options as a consumer, and while that sucks for a small portion of games that personally rely on the experience being visual or taken in from an un-interactive standpoint, the majority largely benefits from it.

For example, a funny playthrough from a Youtuber has lead me to buy a few games for a laugh. Sony even stated that a game like Until Dawn got popular BECAUSE people were streaming and youtubing it, despite the nature of the game. And god knows streams have led me to buy a game over just seeing it in a review or a website.

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.

And let's not have the content creation talk again.

And who would make that call? Sounds like an awful idea.

Oh that would be awful. Imagine developers leaving sales on the table because they wrongly classified their game, or a panel of people ruining the potential sales of a game because they believed it to be too cinematic.

 

[Fat4all]

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 as something like That Dragon or say Gone Home.

Seems like something that depends on the game.

 

[7DollarHagane]

If you don't provide enough interactive content or interesting enough game play to make people want to play your game i don't really feel bad for you.

Either make a movie or make a game. Don't make a movie and call it a game and be surprised when people just want to watch it. This goes for big or small games. I watched most of call of duty ghosts in a let's play because the game play wasn't interesting. Same with heavy rain.

 

[Neiteio]

And who would make that call? Sounds like an awful idea.

Well, there's where a healthy debate would be needed, as with any form of regulation.

Perhaps a game-maker could apply for that classification. Some might wish to have it since they think LPs would cost them sales. Others might prefer to have their games streamed in part or in full because they believe it would be free advertising that brings in sales. I know I and many others have gone on to buy games because of an LP, so I'm sure devs realize they can sometimes be great marketing tools, too.

No easy answers. Just spitballin' here.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

It depends on the game. Any game where it's about an experience and seems like something you'd play through maybe once, I can absolutely see someone just watching a playthrough on youtube or one of their preferred streamers/personalities play it and that's that.

Which kinda sucks, because it only discourages people making games like those at some point.

 

[Dio Brando]

it depends on the game and on who is doing the LP. Channels that basically feature little to no talk, and full playthroughs are bad, IMO. "Good" lets plays should be more about the personality of the Lets player than the game itself.

 

[odhiex]

I like a short play session, like the Giantbomb's quick looks, to see whether the game is for me.

Full let's play playthrough? I rarely find it useful at all.

 

[GrantDaNasty]

it depends on the game and on who is doing the LP. Channels that basically feature little to no talk, and full playthroughs are bad, IMO. "Good" lets plays should be more about the personality of the Lets player than the game itself.

Well, I dunno. For archival purposes, and just for availability, I like what longplays.org does. Though I believe they usually have playthroughs of older games mainly (I could be wrong though).

 

[Jumplion]

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 as something like That Dragon or say Gone Home.

Seems like something that depends on the game.

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.

 

[Steroyd]

I read about this, this is the 2 hour "experience" sounds like pretty much uploading a whole movie on youtube, deffinately an unfortunate set of circumstances for the dev, especially if it's been praised, there also an emphasis on value of the game versus length these days as well so it's hard to say how many of those views would have even read about it or made aware if their favourite youtube personality didn't play it or give impressions on their channel.

 

[trebbble]

I remember back in the day on SA when they got started with Let's Plays there, a moratorium was placed on any narrative heavy game under six months old. I always thought that struck a good balance for narrative based games, while still allowing for community fun.

 

[Fishlake]

LPs will eventually be in court, I expect. I also imagine the ruling will be along the line if it has replay-ability or not.


Multiplayer games easily have this while story based games can sometimes be enjoyed fully just watching someone go through it. Should LPs of story based games be paying the developer?

This is one of the more interesting grey zones of video games in my mind. It does not have a simple answer.

 

[Guess Who]

If you don't provide enough interactive content or interesting enough game play to make people want to play your game i don't really feel bad for you.

Either make a movie or make a game. Don't make a movie and call it a game and be surprised when people just want to watch it. This goes for big or small games. I watched most of call of duty ghosts in a let's play because the game play wasn't interesting. Same with heavy rain.

Spoiler alert: even if you want to be a big baby about what defines a "game" and call these things "movies", you don't get to post or watch entire new release films on YouTube for free, either.

 

[Fat4all]

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.

Seems like a debate regarding Fair Use more than anything else, similar to the "reaction" debates that flared up about a month ago. When does a person sharing their playthrough of a game reach over the lines of Fair Use, where's the line between original content/commentary and game audio/story lay, etc.

I think it's arguable to say flat-out "Let's plays are causing games to lose sales" or "Let's Plays are causing games to gain sales" because we don't have enough data overall, only specific cases like That Dragon, or To The Moon, or Undertale.

 

[PensOwl]

Lets Plays should at least contain a link to an avenue to purchase the game, preferably directly the developer's website so they get 100% of the revenue. I typically watch Lets Plays to see a certain perspective on a game I've played before, and they lose a lot of their appeal without the context provided of playing the game myself. There's really no way to force people to play a game before watching a Lets Play and Lets Plays are too popular to stop at this point, so really the change in attitude has to come from Lets Players... because its not going to come from the audience

 

[TheSpoiler]

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.

As I stated above, those games are in an extreme minority. And that isn't to fault them or other games that arrive in their ilk, nor does it negate how bad it can be for games that do get hit with that stick.

But the majority is benefiting from it, sometimes almost relying upon it or surviving because of it. I really don't think there's some catch all solution to this issue, because if you start putting barriers up to halt LPs, you start potentially stopgating games that could have a huge boom of success. On the flipside, you could ruin their sales by having a bunch of spoilers floating around.

The only thing that should be done, in my mind, is to ask Youtubers to not stream their game or put up videos as a whole and hope they follow suit.

Lets Plays should at least contain a link to an avenue to purchase the game, preferably directly the developer's website so they get 100% of the revenue. I typically watch Lets Plays to see a certain perspective on a game I've played before, and they lose a lot of their appeal without the context provided of playing the game myself. There's really no way to force people to play a game before watching a Lets Play and Lets Plays are too popular to stop at this point, so really the change in attitude has to come from Lets Players... because its not going to come from the audience

I really like the option of buying it within the description. Possibly a reminder to buy the game as well during the LP would be nice as well.

 

[Manabanana]

it depends on the game and on who is doing the LP. Channels that basically feature little to no talk, and full playthroughs are bad, IMO. "Good" lets plays should be more about the personality of the Lets player than the game itself.

I really enjoy channels that stream a game without any commentary whatsoever. It's an opportunity to tune in for an honest version of how one's time would be spent in the game, but I'm not the sort of person who is content to sit through 40 hours of that and consider my time well spent.

 

[Dio Brando]

Well, I dunno. For archival purposes, and just for availability, I like what longplays.org does. Though I believe they usually have playthroughs of older games mainly (I could be wrong though).

nah, i get that, but it stills irks me, even more when there's ad revenue involved(not saying that's the case of longplays). the thing is that people do that right after a game launches. there could be a rule for it, i dunno.

I really enjoy channels that stream a game without any commentary whatsoever. It's an opportunity to tune in for an honest version of how one's time would be spent in the game, but I'm not the sort of person who is content to sit through 40 hours of that and consider my time well spent.

i probably agree with you. it's nice sometimes to see an unfiltered version of a game, instead of it being through the lenses of a reviewer(even if i write reviews too).

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

I hate to say it, but maybe you're not in the right industry if your game can be enjoyed without actually playing it.

 

[Fat4all]

I wonder, would a percentage of the ad revenue from videos be a good option for developers? Similar to how companies can get revenues on videos that is their content, but on a percentage base, say 5% or sommit? This might have the opportunity to mess with the livelihood of people who built careers off of making Youtube content, though...

I dunno the answer for something like this. Might need to be a case by case basis.

 

[Massive Duck. C.M.]

I generally don't watch playthroughs for stuff I haven't played and/or am thinking about buying, only for stuff I've played and want to watch for nostalgia/entertainment.

I think if someone is monetizing them the VERY least they can do is link the dev/game site.

 

[RayearthRob]

I wonder, would a percentage of the ad revenue from videos be a good option for developers? Similar to how companies can get revenues on videos that is their content, but on a percentage base, say 5% or sommit? This might have the opportunity to mess with the livelihood of people who built careers off of making Youtube content, though...

I dunno the answer for something like this. Might need to be a case by case basis.

Nintendo did this... And it didn't end well.

 

[valeo]

I hate to say it, but maybe you're not in the right industry if your game can be enjoyed without actually playing it.

Kinda true, if not a little harsh.

 

[Fat4all]

Nintendo did this... And it didn't end well.

Nintendo took 100% of the ad revenue.

 

[Dr. Black Jack]

I hate to say it, but maybe you're not in the right industry if your game can be enjoyed without actually playing it.

"Fuck you people with personal story about cancer told through the medium of their choice! BOOOOOOOOO"

 

[diamount]

And who would make that call? Sounds like an awful idea.

The copyright owner?

 

[TheSpoiler]

The copyright owner?

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.

 

[MogCakes]

Many people do not enjoy playing videogames, but want to experience their stories and settings. LPs provide that strange halfway point opportunity for them to experience the game with as little investment as possible. It will continue to be a problem.

 

[Neiteio]

"Fuck you people with personal story about cancer told through the medium of their choice! BOOOOOOOOO"

He's just pointing out people usually buy games to play them

 

[Fat4all]

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 think before anything major can happen, the copyright problems on YouTube need to be addressed. Filling false claims, the revenue problems, etc. That seems like the first step that needs to be done.

 

[Jenenser]

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

the game is incredibly niche.

"Fuck you people with personal story about cancer told through the medium of their choice! BOOOOOOOOO"

how about telling me a personel story about cancer without trying to get my money? shit, i can tell you a personal story about cancer and i wouldn't want a penny for it because it is straight up insulting to both partys.

 

[Dangansona]

Absolutely agree OP, and the dismissive comments about they aren't enough games bugs me. For one, it doesn't matter how much gameplay is involved. Tons of people will still watch it on YouTube and feel satisfied with not purchasing the game.

Second, I'm of the opinion that any kind of interaction can make a story a more personal experience. I like visual novels, but should it be cool for those to exist on YouTube but not audiobooks? Or cinematic games are fine but not movies? I really don't get the distinction.

I'm not a huge fan of the majority of gaming content on YouTube, but I prefer the Giant Bomb model vastly to dumping an entire game on there. I think something needs to be done.

"Fuck you people with personal story about cancer told through the medium of their choice! BOOOOOOOOO"

 

[RayearthRob]

Nintendo took 100% of the ad revenue.

"YouTubers can apply to the Nintendo Creators Program and if an approved channel's video contains footage from a list of approved games, the revenue is split between the two parties – 40 per cent for Nintendo and 60 per cent for the creator"

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technol...sided-by-nintendo-s-ad-revenue-grab-1.3010550

 

[Beatofficer]

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 not right because any game can be enjoyed without the viewer ever playing it. I've seen people enjoy watching people play the Souls games but don't enjoy playing it themselves.

 

[Bigmac1910]

Not sure what could be done. Maybe reclassify certain games as "cinematic experiences" and subject them to restrictions similar to posting an entire movie on YouTube?

I don't understand why there has to be a rule about that, it should be up to the developer/publisher to be able to make that judgement call. No need to enforce a subjective unnecessary rule.

I also think it totally depends on the game. A pure narrative driven game, would probably benefit from limited game play time, lets say the first hour or so (dependent on game length), while an fps with multiplayer will probably benefits from LPs all the time. I know I've bought several games because of LPs, simply because the marketing they had couldn't convince me. To add to that, I've also skipped games because of LPs, but those were more of a 50/50 shot of me buying. So 99% of the time I would not have bought them anyway.

 

[Guess Who]

For those who talk about the promotional aspect of Let's Play: yes, absolutely, that's a great thing LPs do, but don't you think just 30 minutes to an hour of footage would be enough to sell someone on 99% of games and that a full playthrough is unnecessary for promotion?

 

[Fat4all]

"YouTubers can apply to the Nintendo Creators Program and if an approved channel's video contains footage from a list of approved games, the revenue is split between the two parties – 40 per cent for Nintendo and 60 per cent for the creator"

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/technol...sided-by-nintendo-s-ad-revenue-grab-1.3010550

That's the creators program. Nintendo was filling claims on people who weren't in the program and taking 100% of the revenue.

 

[Dangansona]

For those who talk about the promotional aspect of Let's Play: yes, absolutely, that's a great thing LPs do, but don't you think just 30 minutes to an hour of footage would be enough to sell someone on 99% of games and that a full playthrough is unnecessary for promotion?

Exactly. Like I said, Quick Looks from Giant Bomb are perfect for this.

 

[Alcotholic]

I only really enjoy LPs of extremely obtuse or generally terribly developed games. Otherwise, I may watch snippets of games I'm interested in getting to see if want to buy it or speed runs.

 

[NeonBlack]

I can't count all the games I've bought because of Let's Plays or games I didn't know existed beforehand. Its been seen as free advertisement to me.

For those who talk about the promotional aspect of Let's Play: yes, absolutely, that's a great thing LPs do, but don't you think just 30 minutes to an hour of footage would be enough to sell someone on 99% of games and that a full playthrough is unnecessary for promotion?

I hate horror games and have no incentive to buy them because I know I won't play them. Thanks to lets plays I'm able to watch them and still feel like I should puchase them (Until Dawn) or have a complete idea of what will happen before I play(Outlast).

 

[DidntKnowJack]

So are we supposed to take it at face value this game suffered primarily due to LP's? Come on.

 

[TheSpoiler]

For those who talk about the promotional aspect of Let's Play: yes, absolutely, that's a great thing LPs do, but don't you think just 30 minutes to an hour of footage would be enough to sell someone on 99% of games and that a full playthrough is unnecessary for promotion?

Maybe? Maybe not. It purely depends on the game. Some games have a slow start. I watched a youtube video of one of the last stages of Sengoku Basara 4 and it hyped me more than if I had watched one of the first. Not that the first are bad (and changes depends on the character), but man the huge festival got me going.

Similarly, Dragon Quest Builders starts of very slow until you get the hammer, then the whole game opens up. I would not have bought that if I had just watched the first hour.

Edit: And how does one select what part to show in the first place? If someone puts up an hour, what counts as the most interest? What about spoilers? Putting up the whole thing usually allows people to pick and choose where they wanna watch. It's a little unfair to ask people to stick to a certain part, even more so when people are trying to judge the quality of the game. Until Dawn might have survived due to the replayablity, so people may have watched a playthrough and said "I wouldn't do that" and bought the game.

 

[Guess Who]

how about telling me a personel story about cancer without trying to get my money? shit, i can tell you a personal story about cancer and i wouldn't want a penny for it because it is straight up insulting to both partys.

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.

Maybe? Maybe not. It purely depends on the game. Some games have a slow start. I watched a youtube video of one of the last stages of Sengoku Basara 4 and it hyped me more than if I had watched one of the first. Not that the first are bad (and changes depends on the character), but man the huge festival got me going.

Similarly, Dragon Quest Builders starts of very slow until you get the hammer, then the whole game opens up. I would not have bought that if I had just watched the first hour.

I never said it had to be the first 30 minutes to an hour. Giant Bomb Quick Looks often have the presenter jump to a part they think is cool, not just start from the beginning, for instance.

 

[Dio Brando]

I hate to say it, but maybe you're not in the right industry if your game can be enjoyed without actually playing it.

can agree with that. Giant Bomb Quick Looks and Totalbiscuit WTF is... seem to prove that it can work. Though i dont think this should exclude Personality based LP's.