Support NeoGAF

[Auto-Reply]

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.

That's how I see it too. There is probably a small overlap of people that purchased the game because of a LP and people that decided to not buy it because the LP was enough for them. But that is probably insignificant regarding the entire picture.

 

[The Technomancer]

Should movie studios get 50% of revenue from movie critics too? Or book publishers takint 50% of money from PublishersWeekly magazine? Heck, should farming tools manufacturers get percent from produce sales?
On one hand it feels wrong that somebody is making money using your content without giving you a dime, but it';s just difficult to specify a concrete line where from sensible it becomes ridiculous like my examples.

None of those are comparable in the slightest. A Lets Play is not a video review. And RiffTrax doesn't provide the actual films themselves because just recording yourself talking over an entire movie doesn't actually count as significant work for the purposes of saying "I changed it, so now I don't owe you anything"

 

[SoundPulse]

For what it's worth, Let's Plays/Gameplay Videos replace something that would otherwise have been lost for some genres. When you played games in the arcades, a big part of the experience was watching other people playing while waiting for your turn. You could watch someone play a STG and see what areas of the screen are safe during different parts of the stage and even entire strategies you might not have thought of otherwise. Online video replaces this, to a large degree.

Games in which the narrative make up the large part of the appeal are certainly affected more than games that focus on gameplay. There really is no perfect answer for those developers; it's a shitty situation all around. One is, of course, to not make games that rely so heavily on narrative, but those deserve to exist too. Taking ad revenue away from video makers for these games will simply mean that they avoid making videos about them, costing the game a significant amount of word of mouth.

One does have to wonder how many viewers were never in the market to begin with in this case. Plenty of people will watch whatever content their favorite channels put up.

 

[The Technomancer]

That's how I see it too. There is probably a small overlap of people that purchased the game because of a LP and people that decided to not buy it because the LP was enough for them. But that is probably insignificant regarding the entire picture.

We really don't have enough information to say just how "insignificant" it is though. If even 2% of those 2 million viewers might have otherwise bought the game that would have been a significant financial boon. If even 0.2% had, it would still mean significant revenue

 

[Mivey]

None of those are comparable in the slightest. A Lets Play is not a video review. And hey you know what? RiffTrax doesn't provide the actual films themselves because just recording yourself talking over an entire movie doesn't actually count as significant work for the purposes of saying "I changed it, so now I don't owe you anything"

Movies are just visuals and audio, a game is an interactive program, and a recording of a play session does not constitute a valid substitute of the original content, whereas a movie recording is a substitute (although probably in lower quality to save bandwidth) of the original movie.
I guess this really depends on how a legal system defines something like "Fair Use", if it recognizes it at all. I will admit that it is not a trivial and obvious thing, but generally prefer systems that are more open and allow creatives to express themselves in any way they want. Art is always derivative, we should accept that.

 

[The Technomancer]

Movies are just visuals and audio, a game is an interactive program, and a recording of a play session does not constitute a valid substitute of the original content, whereas a movie recording is a substitute (although probably in lower quality to save bandwidth) of the original movie.
I guess this really depends on how a legal system defines something like "Fair Use", if it recognizes it at all. I will admit that it is not a trivial and obvious thing, but generally prefer systems that are more open and allow creatives to express themselves in any way they want. Art is always derivative, we should accept that.

Yes, but neither is it the case that Lets Plays are "completely transformative" or anything. Someone was arguing on the last page that Lets Players are the complete content creators, which is ridiculous. Without games to play they have nothing, no foundation for any of their work or income. The idea that Lets Play revenue is partially owed to the developer just as it is owed to the player seems almost like common sense to me. A Lets Play is more than just the commentary over it, its also the game being played

 

[UrbanRats]

As someone who has mildly enjoyed watching a full playthrough of Gone Home (KayPlay's) without ever buying or playing the game, i can tell you for a fact that under no circumstance i've gotten even close to buying the game, neither before, nor after having watched the play through.

I understand the frustration, and there's an argument to be made, especially if the entire thing is posted without commentary (i still think it's fair game, but i'm not 100% on it) however, comparing views and sale is not how it should work.
Just because i watch someone play, it doesn't mean i have any interest in playing the game myself.

Also, what kind of game can be enjoyed the same while watching it, instead of playing it? It's a bit like saying reading the script of a movie is the same as watching said movie.

 

[DSix]

I don't think Dragon Cancer would have even hit 15k if it wasn't featured on youtube channels, the LPs probably helped more than armed.

I'd say it simply is a very niche game, the subject matter isn't conductive to compulsive buying. Other narrative games like To the Moon and Until Down weren't hurt by LPs.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I believe publishers/developers should get at least 50% of all ad revenue for any gaming videos. Bottom line is; it isn't entirely your content. You merely playing a game and talking over it doesn't make everything yours, so why should you keep all the money?

What a stupid knee jerk comment.

If I take some paints and a canvas that someone else made and create a painting should the paint makers and the canvas makers get a cut of the sale?

Its a lot more than "merely playing a game and talking over it", you have to manage the youtube/twitch channel, there is capturing and video editing, then there is being entertaining while playing a game.

If you wanted to be clever you could turn it back around and say that LP'ers should get a cut of the sales if they are giving them free marketing. (That's not how I feel I'm just showing you how silly your statement is)

Didn't Corpse Party get a huge boost in sales around the time Pewdiepie did his full lets play of that?

Yes and his Skate 3 videos got it back into the sales charts.

As someone who has mildly enjoyed watching a full playthrough of Gone Home (KayPlay's) without ever buying or playing the game, i can tell you for a fact that under no circumstance i've gotten even close to buying the game, neither before, nor after having watched the play through.

I understand the frustration, and there's an argument to be made, especially if the entire thing is posted without commentary (i still think it's fair game, but i'm not 100% on it) however, comparing views and sale is not how it should work.
Just because i watch someone play, it doesn't mean i have any interest in playing the game myself.

Also, what kind of game can be enjoyed the same while watching it, instead of playing it? It's a bit like saying reading the script of a movie is the same as watching said movie.

Completely agree. I've been watching Lirik play Dark Souls 3 and I would watch him play every single second of it. I am interested in the fiction/bosses but the gameplay does nothing for me and I haven't and never will buy the game and if it wasn't for LP's I'd never be able to experience the content.

The same reason I don't buy certain films, I wait till I can see them free on TV.

 

[The Technomancer]

What a stupid knee jerk comment.

If I take some paints and a canvas that someone else made and create a painting should the paint makers and the canvas makers get a cut of the sale?

Its a lot more than "merely playing a game and talking over it", you have to manage the youtube/twitch channel, there is capturing and video editing, then there is being entertaining while playing a game.

All of which don't change the fact that the game is still at the core of the video. Is comparing the game in a Lets Play video to the canvas painters use a serious metaphor? Give me a fucking break

 

[Guess Who]

All of which don't change the fact that the game is still at the core of the video. Is comparing the game in a Lets Play video to the canvas painters use a serious metaphor? Give me a fucking break

This thread is a goldmine of awful analogies.

.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Is that your game wouldn't have had sales, but without a "Let's Play" not even exposure. XD

 

[Mivey]

Yes, but neither is it the case that Lets Plays are "completely transformative" or anything. Someone was arguing on the last page that Lets Players are the complete content creators, which is ridiculous. Without games to play they have nothing, no foundation for any of their work or income. The idea that Lets Play revenue is partially owed to the developer just as it is owed to the player seems almost like common sense to me. A Lets Play is more than just the commentary over it, its also the game being played

The question is where the value creation lies. The majority of LP generate no revenue whatsoever, regardless of the game in question. PewDiePie, at this point, would make the same amount playing Minecraft as he does playing some "no name" indie game. Can you really argue that that indie game dev has the same right to his revenue, hypothetically speaking, than Mojang/MS? LP as entertainment are clearly transformative, since they transform an interactive experience that is supposed to be played, into a non-interactive one, that is still, for some people, entertaining. This can be through commentary, sketches, editing, whatever. I don't see how a blanket statement, saying all monetized LPs owe money to devs, can be supported.

 

[BumblebeeCody]

Doesn't seem like there is any proof that Let's Plays are accountable for lost sales.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

All of which don't change the fact that the game is still at the core of the video. Is comparing the game in a Lets Play video to the canvas painters use a serious metaphor? Give me a fucking break

I don't watch Let's Plays. I watch Twitch streamers and any kind of judgement against LPs would also affect streamers.

I don't watch them just for the game content, I watch them for the interaction with the chat and streamer and seeing his reactions and thoughts.

 

[MODEYV3]

I watch LP's all the time. There's been some games I didn't buy. Also games I did because of the LP. But I think there's been a couple games which I would have never bought, that have been narrative experiences and watched the LP just for the Youtubers personality. So I think it's very subjective, but I think there should be a limit of time set on these narrative based games on YouTube, purely based off the developers input.

It's perfectly acceptable to compare a narrative game like Firewatch to a film. Every single person who plays the game would have the same experience such as a movie. Therefore I think it's understandable that the developer would only want a fraction of the game as an LP. We don't complain about movies not being on YouTube. Therefore in the end I believe we wouldn't complaint about restrictions set by developers. There's tons of games out there that are just set around gameplay experiences.

 

[The Technomancer]

The question is where the value creation lies. The majority of LP generate no revenue whatsoever, regardless of the game in question. PewDiePie, at this point, would make the same amount playing Minecraft as he does playing some "no name" indie game. Can you really argue that that indie game dev has the same right to his revenue, hypothetically speaking, than Mojang/MS? LP as entertainment are clearly transformative, since they transform an interactive experience that is supposed to be played, into a non-interactive one, that is still, for some people, entertaining. This can be through commentary, sketches, editing, whatever. I don't see how a blanket statement, saying all monetized LPs owe money to devs, can be supported.

But PewDiePie almost certainly wouldn't have anywhere near the viewers or revenue if his videos were just him talking and cracking jokes into the camera. This is where the RiffTrax analogy comes back in; the fact that there is some kind of external content that is being interacted with seems pretty core to the entire appeal. A RiffTrax episode is very different from a podcast, and a Lets Play is very different from uhm...a video podcast, I guess.
Insomuch as their game was used as the foundation for a piece of entertainment and that entertainment earned money, yes, I do think the no-name indie-dev deserves money as much as Mojang. It may not be about any one individual video, but PewDiePie clearly benefits from having a diverse catalog of games to use in his work

I'm not arguing for "50%" or anything, and I think there should be an expiration date on stuff (you don't owe Sega for playing a 15 year old dreamcast game) but I could see a program for revenue sharing that I would be completely on board with

 

[Guess Who]

The question is where the value creation lies. The majority of LP generate no revenue whatsoever, regardless of the game in question. PewDiePie, at this point, would make the same amount playing Minecraft as he does playing some "no name" indie game. Can you really argue that that indie game dev has the same right to his revenue, hypothetically speaking, than Mojang/MS? LP as entertainment are clearly transformative, since they transform an interactive experience that is supposed to be played, into a non-interactive one, that is still, for some people, entertaining. This can be through commentary, sketches, editing, whatever. I don't see how a blanket statement, saying all monetized LPs owe money to devs, can be supported.

But if your argument is that PewDiePie would be popular regardless of what game he plays, then why does he need game footage at all? If what you're arguing is true, then in the event that game footage hypothetically starting requiring a license fee or royalties or what-have-you, then PewDiePie could simply drop game footage altogether and be no worse off for it. The appeal of the content is PewDiePie.

Either the game being played is valuable to PewDiePie's content - in which case it's obvious he should be paying for the rights, just as you have to license music or movie footage used in for-profit material - or, as you're arguing, it's not, in which case there's no reason PewDiePie couldn't simply be making funny YouTube content of his own without it.

 

[Helloween]

As a Let's Player who get a resonable amount of money per month from it, I honestly believe the correct way to handle this is a revenue share on the videos.

Make a video of some Indy game? No problem, Make a split down the middle with half the funds going to the dev of the game.

Could even make it an opt in if that bothered people too much.

I mean truthfully, half the footage is the game, half is me yapping over it. That seems resonabley fair. (mind you, i tend to do older horror games, so maybe im not best qualified for this)

 

[The Technomancer]

But if your argument is that PewDiePie would be popular regardless of what game he plays, then why does he need game footage at all? If what you're arguing is true, then in the event that game footage hypothetically starting requiring a license fee or royalties or what-have-you, then PewDiePie could simply drop game footage altogether and be no worse off for it. The appeal of the content is PewDiePie.

Either the game being played is valuable to PewDiePie's content - in which case it's obvious he should be paying for the rights, just as you have to license music or movie footage used in for-profit material - or, as you're arguing, it's not, in which case there's no reason PewDiePie couldn't simply be making funny YouTube content of his own without it.

This, basically

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

But if your argument is that PewDiePie would be popular regardless of what game he plays, then why does he need game footage at all? If what you're arguing is true, then in the event that game footage hypothetically starting requiring a license fee or royalties or what-have-you, then PewDiePie could simply drop game footage altogether and be no worse off for it. The appeal of the content is PewDiePie.

Either the game being played is valuable to PewDiePie's content - in which case it's obvious he should be paying for the rights, just as you have to license music or movie footage used in for-profit material - or, as you're arguing, it's not, in which case there's no reason PewDiePie couldn't simply be making funny YouTube content of his own without it.

The problem is he doesn't play many, if any, mainstream games anymore and he still has 40odd million subscribers.

People watch because of the added value he brings to a game which is why I watch a lot of Twitch streams.

 

[spineduke]

Totally disagree - LPs have shown time and time again to build good worth of mouth, and to keep interest floating for many games. So many games currently have staying power thanks to twitch and youtube. I'd bet my account in a heartbeat if they disallowed LPs for their game, they would be doing way way worse.

 

[Pellegri Testament]

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.

To the Moon has also been in half a dozen indie bundles at this point, where as the other 2 haven't yet. It's hard to say how much LPs actually helped with that one since there's no way to track copies that weren't sold in a bundle. For all we know the game was likely doing the same as That Dragon until it started hitting bundles.

 

[Mivey]

I'm to lazy to make a quote-fest, so I will go over interesting points I have something to say about.

The RiffTrax comparison. A bit insincere , since there do exist movie reviews, like what the Nostalgia Critic is doing, that can be quite lenghty, (up to 40 minutes, at a time), that include lots of scenes of the movie, go over the entire story in a loosely abreviated way, but still covering the film from beginning to end. Of course, he also had legal troubles, but I don't think it makes sense arguing he should share revenue with huge movie studios. Mostly because that would completely kill his activities, I don't see him having huge profit margins.

The question about revenue sharing itself is problematic. The relationship is not simply one-directional. There are cases where game devs actively push for Youtube coverage, including streams and LPs. The only ones who would really profit (in the sense that it would have an impact on their bottom line) from this kind of sharing are small indie devs, but they usualy have so little exposure that it basically doesn't matter: Case in point: The LPer who made the That Dragon, Cancer video could have simply chosen something else, in fact in the current system on Youtube the dev could simply give out DMCA strikes on all LPs of his game and than compare his revenue. I would be surprised to see it rise.

A monetisation scheme would likely mostly be used by larger publishers, who really don't need the money, while at the same time being a huge burden for up and coming LPers. I know at this point this is mostly an ideological debate, but I just generally prefer open and free systems.

 

[The Technomancer]

And I generally prefer that artists receive compensation when their work is used. The value of art, be it comics, be it music, be it games, is driven into the ground in an environment where no-one likes paying for things and everyone feels free to use them in their own monetization work.

If the RiffTrax comparison doesn't work, then licensing a song for a film might be more appropriate. That's arguably even more transformative, and yet if you're a small director you still pay royalties to use music

 

[Moosichu]

And I generally prefer that artists receive compensation when their work is used. The value of art, be it comics, be it music, be it games, is driven into the ground in an environment where no-one likes paying for things and everyone feels free to use them in their own monetization work.

The issue is that all art fundamentally is some kind of derivation of other art. What about a review of a game that uses footage of it? Games are doing better than ever, there are some cases where games which would have done better in a non-let's play world, but overall I believe games have benefitted.

 

[Ucchedavāda]

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

Just look at all of those developers who are not in the right industry.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The issue is that all art fundamentally is some kind of derivation of other art. What about a review of a game that uses footage of it? Games are doing better than ever, there are some cases where games which would have done better in a non-let's play world, but overall I believe games have benefitted.

Excerpts != full game streamed with little value add. Full game streams could have a 1-2 months moratorium as that is when the bulk of sales happens. Anything more than that and it would have nasty consequences.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

And I generally prefer that artists receive compensation when their work is used. The value of art, be it comics, be it music, be it games, is driven into the ground in an environment where no-one likes paying for things and everyone feels free to use them in their own monetization work.

If the RiffTrax comparison doesn't work, then licensing a song for a film might be more appropriate. That's arguably even more transformative, and yet if you're a small director you still pay royalties to use music

The problem is a director of a movie is going to sell that movie.

Streamers and LPers don't sell their content. They just get ad revenue and/or donations from fans.

Lirik for example has 30k+ viewers per live stream and then maybe 10k watch the VoD per day which works out at approximately 1m viewers per month. Isn't that kind of exposure worth letting them play the game for nothing?

Hell even a lot of companies approach him to stream their game and even pay him to.

Excerpts != full game streamed with little value add. Full game streams could have a 1-2 months moratorium as that is when the bulk of sales happens. Anything more than that and it would have nasty consequences.

I disagree. People who want to play the game will buy it regardless, people who don't won't. Having a 2 month moratorium does nothing.

 

[SprachBrooks]

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.



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.

Why would I buy the game if I'm watching a Let's Play of it. If I'm searching for an LP it's either because I'm interested to see how it plays and know the avenues through which I can purchase it already –– or I'm not interested in buying the game at all and have chosen to watch it. The availability of LPs doesn't stop me from purchasing games; I have games that I know I'll buy and others that I would never have bought but I'm more than happy to watch a LP of it.

 

[Weltall Zero]

I've often thought about this as well, and it seems that narrative based games get the short end of the stick here. I watched 4 out of 5 episodes of The Wolf Among Us before buying it, and the experience was largely the same. Let's Play are great when you want to know more about a game's mechanics and there's no demo available or you don't want to download and play one, but in story-based games I'm sorry yo say I feel they do more harm than good.

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.

I actually think this the best idea, and don't understand the criticism except from people who are so used to Let's Play that the idea of actually buying games upsets them. It should be a choice made by the game publisher (the ones who fund the game).

As an alternative, they coud allow partial Let's Play; ex. you're allowed to stream the game up to this point in the game. That way people watching the stream have to buy the game to see it to completion, and Let's Players still get to do videos about them. A smart developer could even include an option in-game to jump straight to the embargo point, so that people buying it don't have to play the streamed part all over if they don't want.

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.

Are you seriously suggesting not leaving that choice up to the developers because they might inadvertently "leave sales on the tale because they wrongly classified their game"? How is that not the epitome of condescending?

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.

That's also a good idea.

 

[Mivey]

One should also ask in which cases can a LP replace the act of actually playing a game? Even a story heavy game such as Mass Effect still allows you to make lots of choices and play as different people ( from boring good guy to hilariously evil woman) that cannot be replicated in their entirety. A four hour thing like Firewatch seems to be the closest thing, but even that is a very atmospheric game, something you won't get to experience on browser with someone talking over everything.

There are two cases, I would think: Either the person is not really a video game player. In this case there really is not much lost. Games these days, outside of smartphone apps, are not really accessible to many people, starting right from the controls and ending at the vitriol spewing online communities.
The other case is when a game is really nothing except its linear story, without building on anything that makes it interesting as an interactive experience. And I would question the artistic worth of such endeavors anyway, at least on this medium. Non-interactive mediums are far more suited for authored experiences.

 

[Guess Who]

While we're having this discussion, let's have a chat about US fair use provisions, and also, let's distinguish between different types of Let's Play.

First off, there are whole game Let's Plays, and there are partial Let's Plays, and I think from a legal and moral perspective there are very different considerations for each. There are also hobbyist Let's Plays and for-profit Let's Plays.

Keeping that in mind, there are four main points of consideration for whether a work falls under fair use in the US:

• the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
• the nature of the copyrighted work;
• the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
• the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between "whole-game" and "partial" LPs is critical for point three, and the distinction between "hobbyist" and "for-profit" LPers is critical for point one.

I think the idea of whole-game for-profit LPs that pay nothing back to the developer is basically indefensible. You are showing off the entirety of a game from start-to-finish (which is deeply against point three) and making a profit from doing so (which is against point one), and let's be honest, it impacts point four as well. Many games, and increasingly more in an era of so-called "walking simulators" and visual novels and whatnot, become almost pointless to buy if you've seen a full playthrough (this can vary in a game-to-game basis of course, see point two... the considerations for a multiplayer or esport game are totally different, for instance). I'm not saying every viewer of a full playthrough equals a lost sale, but it's pretty difficult to argue it equals no lost sales. I've personally decided not to buy a game after seeing a whole playthrough because I realized I've seen everything I want to see, for instance, even if I really liked the game, and I don't believe for a second I'm somehow unique in that. Acting like it doesn't happen is putting your fingers in your ears and going "nah nah nah I'm not listening." There is no reason why someone making a whole-game for-profit LP couldn't either revenue share with the game's developer or pay a licensing fee.

Whole-game non-profit LPs are a bit more of a grey area. Legally I think they may be in a similar boat because of points three and four, even if they pass point one, but morally I think they're different because they're typically just people trying to show off a cool game they like with no real financial or selfish motive. There can also be educational value in certain kinds, like long-plays of old games that are impossible to find, or speedruns of games that usually skip all the cutscenes and bypass as much of the game as they can anyway.

I don't think anyone would or could argue that stuff like 30-minute partial glimpses of a game are harmful to anyone. I think for-profit LPers shouldn't be averse to a revenue share deal for such stuff, but I think that type of content

A) is educational to an audience to see what a game is like
B) can serve as promotional material for smaller games
C) is of such a short nature that it couldn't possibly replace the experience of playing the game for anyone.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

#teamtaxtheyoutubers is the camp I'm in.

 

[Phoenix Fang]

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

I have to agree with you here.

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.

Yup. When I first learn of this game, it struck a nerve and lost interest in it for that reason.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

If you have a dream as game developer and that dream doesn't involve making a game that people will be compelled to want to play for themselves then your dreams of making big money are going crash against reality. The exposure that these developers get from big internet media personalities is priceless. But it's up to them to make sure their content has some sort of hook that makes people want to dive into the game to play it their own way. The personality playing the game can't do that for them.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I think the idea of whole-game for-profit LPs that pay nothing back to the developer is basically indefensible.

They already bought the game.

You are showing off the entirety of a game from start-to-finish (which is deeply against point three) and making a profit from doing so (which is against point one), and let's be honest, it impacts point four as well.

As a consequence of the platform they stream on, they aren't charging people to be able to see their streams. Game publishers also pay to advertise on Twitch so they get money indirectly.

Many games, and increasingly more in an era of so-called "walking simulators" and visual novels and whatnot, become almost pointless to buy if you've seen a full playthrough (this can vary in a game-to-game basis of course, see point two... the considerations for a multiplayer or esport game are totally different, for instance). I'm not saying every viewer of a full playthrough equals a lost sale, but it's pretty difficult to argue it equals no lost sales. I've personally decided not to buy a game after seeing a whole playthrough because I realized I've seen everything I want to see, for instance, even if I really liked the game, and I don't believe for a second I'm somehow unique in that. Acting like it doesn't happen is putting your fingers in your ears and going "nah nah nah I'm not listening."

You can't argue that it doesn't equal sale either. Take a fraction of the viewers who will now not buy the game and you could say there would be an equal amount of people that will now buy it who were on the fence.

There is no reason why someone making a whole-game for-profit LP couldn't either revenue share with the game's developer or pay a licensing fee.

In Liriks example 1m people a month get to see parts of games or games in their entirety and they don't have to pay a penny in marketing to do so. Isn't that kind of exposure some kind of compensation in itself?

Publishers even pay streamers to play their latest game without restriction, apart from the case of Dark Souls 3 they are limited to 1/3rd of the game but only because they are playing the press copy 3 weeks before release. Hell i've even seen cases of small developers donating messages to streamers saying they will give them a free key to play their game on stream.

I have a feeling this is a case of being outraged on behalf of someone else.

 

[Panajev2001a]

The problem is a director of a movie is going to sell that movie.

Streamers and LPers don't sell their content. They just get ad revenue and/or donations from fans.

Lirik for example has 30k+ viewers per live stream and then maybe 10k watch the VoD per day which works out at approximately 1m viewers per month. Isn't that kind of exposure worth letting them play the game for nothing?

Hell even a lot of companies approach him to stream their game and even pay him to.



I disagree. People who want to play the game will buy it regardless, people who don't won't. Having a 2 month moratorium does nothing.

I think chances are that it does something. It would not dupe people who never wanted it regardless of watching it in its entirety on YouTube or not, but it can be the extra incentive needed for people to give it a try in he moment the game has he most hype. One could make the argument that if movies were free on YouTube day and date with their theatre releases, cinemas would make a lot less money for example and thus content creators too in the end, but let's not go there.

Guarding that 1st month sales period has proven to be a very important milestone for the industry, see SecuROM DRM spreaiohappily on PC although not being perfect, it does its job to protect that initial window.

Still, there is only one way to know for sure and it is to collect data / trying it.

 

[UrbanRats]

If the RiffTrax comparison doesn't work, then licensing a song for a film might be more appropriate. That's arguably even more transformative, and yet if you're a small director you still pay royalties to use music

The degree of separation from not playing a game, is greater than whatever a director can do with music, in my opinion.
Interaction is the main function of a game.

As long as we're talking about people experiencing a product vicariously, rather than the sheer right of someone to use my stuff in their project (i wouldn't want my music to be used in a Ku Klux Klan promo, as a random example, and not because people get to listen to it "for free").

The "royalty" in any case is paid when the streamer actually buys the game, that's your fee.

 

[TheSpoiler]

Why would I buy the game if I'm watching a Let's Play of it. If I'm searching for an LP it's either because I'm interested to see how it plays and know the avenues through which I can purchase it already –– or I'm not interested in buying the game at all and have chosen to watch it. The availability of LPs doesn't stop me from purchasing games; I have games that I know I'll buy and others that I would never have bought but I'm more than happy to watch a LP of it.

I don't think it'll stop people from buying games every single time, but some people have said they were going to buy a game until they just watched the whole thing on Youtube. The issue is that there are too many X factors to consider, which is why just giving them a slice of the profits from channels and videos that lift everything fully is a nice option. Hell, you don't even have to tax the Youtubers themselves. Just make Youtube and Twitch payout.

But that's a very difficult thing to do.

Are you seriously suggesting not leaving that choice up to the developers because they might inadvertently "leave sales on the tale because they wrongly classified their game"? How is that not the epitome of condescending?

Call it what you like, but this shit is still in its infancy, and companies still don't understand how to handle it. Maybe that'd be coddling the developers by taking it out of their hands completely (which I'm not asking for, as noted in my other posts, unless I wasn't clear enough - developers could still say no to this stuff but I'm against any sort of furthered system than the one in place now), but the alternative is having a developer say no and then potentially lose a ridiculous amount of sales because their game carried elements that allow people to watch it AND want to play it ala Until Dawn. Sony had no idea LPs and streams were going to help a game sent to die, even with the basis of the game containing choice.

If you had bothered to read my other posts instead of just quoting the one you felt was wrong, I came to the conclusion that they would all just get a revenue share, which would potentially be far better for everyone.

The amount of x factors and issues that come into play for a game's sales and profit is hard to calculate. Giving them a straight form of possible revenue would be far more beneficial instead of having a checklist to go over. And they can still choose to take their shit down if they so please if they feel like the revenue won't make up for the lost sales.

 

[TheLegendOfMart]

I think chances are that it does something. It would not dupe people who never wanted it regardless of watching it in its entirety on YouTube or not, but it can be the extra incentive needed for people to give it a try in he moment the game has he most hype. One could make the argument that if movies were free on YouTube day and date with their theatre releases, cinemas would make a lot less money for example and thus content creators too in the end, but let's not go there.

Guarding that 1st month sales period has proven to be a very important milestone for the industry, see SecuROM DRM spreaiohappily on PC although not being perfect, it does its job to protect that initial window.

Still, there is only one way to know for sure and it is to collect data / trying it.

I agree there are exceptions in every situation. Restricting people from being able to see the content won't make them go out and spend money to get it however.

In my case I love the fiction of Dark Souls but I don't like the gameplay, blocking me from watching a LP/Streamer playing it for 1-2 months wouldn't make me go out and buy it.

It's not really fair to compare piracy to people consuming non-interactive video game content. I wouldn't watch someone play Dark Souls 3 without having twitch chat or a voice over/face cam, it's the whole experience that brings people to the content not just the game itself. I'm not saying that its not one of the contributing factors, the only way I found certain streamers is BECAUSE they were streaming a game I was interested in but it's not as cut and dry as people are making it out to be.

 

[Guess Who]

They already bought the game.

When you pay for a movie, you don't get the rights to stream it to a thousand or hundred thousand or a million people in its entirety, even if you talk over it.

As a consequence of the platform they stream on, they aren't charging people to be able to see their streams. Game publishers also pay to advertise on Twitch so they get money indirectly.

Making profit from ads on the video is, both legally and morally speaking, the same as charging directly. They are profiting from their video game footage. Without the footage there are no ads. Acting like it's not is either being willfully obtuse or just ridiculous.

You can't argue that it doesn't equal sale either.

I can argue - and have, repeatedly, in this thread - that it's just as likely to produce a sale as a thirty minute or hour long partial video, and also more likely than either to detract from sales.

In Liriks example 1m people a month get to see parts of games or games in their entirety and they don't have to pay a penny to do so. Isn't that kind of exposure some kind of compensation in itself?

In the same way that not paying your artists because "you're getting your art out to the world!" is compensation, sure, which is to say, no - at least in the situation of full playthroughs.

Big publishers even pay streamers to play their latest game without restriction, apart from the case of Dark Souls 3 they are limited to 1/3rd of the game but only because they are playing the press copy.

The publisher paying for it is a completely different scenario - that's basically a paid advertisement, and the content creator or their publisher gets to dictate the terms (your Dark Souls 3 situation is not unique by any stretch, embargos on showing late-game stuff are the norm, not the exception). There's a business agreement in place, the dev or publisher believes it is a worthwhile investment with particular partners, and they have a legal say in the matter, which is not the case with Big Name YouTuber who decides he wants to make money talking over Some Game.

 

[Harmen]

I think a good rule would be to only allow monetization of basic lp's a few months (three?) after release. And that a dev can decide for themselves to apply for that rule or not (with a clear notice to yt'ers up front). And maybe allow the dev to receive a part of the monetization in case a yt'er wants to do it at launch anyways.

I think yt'ers should be allowed to do their thing, as many people enjoy it. And being a good lp'er is most certainly a talent. But I do think we should protect developers like this, as it is most certainly unfair they get no money while many people consume their product in a way.

 

[Domstercool]

I think there is more to this than just LPs, but that is coming from my own personal view on the game. It has quite low sales, but other heavy story games, such as Firewatch, are seemingly doing well, even with LPs and such.

For me, its the content. Right now, I am totally not in the mood to hear about that awful thing known as cancer, I want to escape from the realms of cancer and not know about it and the pain it causes, the foreseeable death that can come from it. It's not a happy topic, and with many people dying from it this year, meaning it's in the spotlight of the news, I think I've had enough hearing about it for the time being, I don't want to get depressed from it. I just want to play games for fun right now, and maybe later on, when I'm in the right mood, then I'll play it.

That's just my own view, I'm not sure how others feel.

 

[PtM]

What is considered value is changing.

What is considered entitlement is changing.

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

Oh why hello thar!

 

[mclem]

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 wonder where cutscenes fall on the line? At that point that is a movie, for all intents and purposes (And FMV cutscenes, of course, go one step further than "for all intents and purposes"

Quantum Break strikes me as an interesting datapoint - could they (hypothetically) argue that the significant movie portions make it enough of a movie to allow it to be classified as a movie for streaming purposes?

What about Dragon's Lair, or any other laserdisc game consisting of short branching videos?

But then it gets further. What about something like Photopia, a text game without much player influence - it's pretty linear. You could probably fully enjoy Photopia from reading a transcript of the game - so at that point, should it be regarded in the same context as a book? Can Twine games argue similar copyright terms to a CYOA book?

I've said before, and I'll say it again: Digital rights need a vast overhaul in a way that more reflects their use and restrictions in the modern world.

 

[nbnt]

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

I enjoyed watching over 2 hours of Dark Souls III being played by Giantbomb, I guess From should call it quits.

 

[MUnited83]

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?

For those "lost sales" to ocurr, you'd need for the average viewer to a) know of the existence of the game and b) be interested on it.


I'm going to go ahead and say that, no, the game wouldn't have sold more without LPs. In fact, it would have sold less.

 

[dock]

Every developer should get a slice of the profit made from their game with a Lets Play.
It sickens me that LP fans think developers are greedy to want this.

 

[beril]

Let that cooyright owner make that call.

The problem right now is that Let's Players and the internet in general has become too entitled from having free range for too long and a developer can't really forbid LPs without causing a giant shitstorm. Ideally a developer should just be able to say "we don't think LPs is a good fit for our game, here's our youtube policy. Please respect that or get a copyright strike", but I don't think many smaller developers would dare to do that even if they're 100% certain that LPs will only harm their sales.