Support NeoGAF

[KonradLaw]

Movie critics don't include the whole contents of the movie with their free criticism, nor does PublishersWeekly. Farming tools makers make their money selling tools, not produce, and the existence of produce can under no circumstance undermine the need for anyone to buy a farming tool, which is such an obvious and pointless statement it makes me weirded out that I have to say it.

This thread is a goldmine of awful analogies.

They use the materials from original source. Movie reviews often have fragments and pictures, book reviews have excerpts and cover images. Those analogies were ridiculous, but I fully admited it in the same post. They're just to make a point, which was a question where should the line be, because we need that line otherwise those ridiculous examples will be true.

A full recording of a game without any comment does seem to be overboard. But where do we put the line between that and using any material? I feel like if somebody is doing the video about a game and showing just portion of it with commentary, then that shouldn't entitle the creator of that game to a cut. Long form letsplays are different though. It feels like if it's truly transformative production then it shouldn't be required to give the creator a cut, while for straight recording of the whole game with barely any commentary should be acompanied by a cut. But how would be decide? We would need some human input in those cases, as the distinctions seem like they might get too blurry for algoritm to decide.

 

[mclem]

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

The broadcast rights for a film cost rather more than a single copy of a film does. Is that the solution, introduce broadcast rights for games?

 

[Auto-Reply]

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.

I'd like to think this the case as well. Not only are publisher paying big youtubers to play their games, smaller developers often send pre-alpha versions to them so they can have their own little marketing to spread the word about their games withouth having to rely on big publishers.

 

[hobblygobbly]

Jim Sterling just wrote a piece about this.

http://www.thejimquisition.com/2016/03/that-dragon-lets-plays/

 

[PtM]

Jim Sterling just wrote a piece about this.

http://www.thejimquisition.com/2016/03/that-dragon-lets-plays/

I laughed at the title.
I'm going to hell.

Good read, do recommend.

 

[SkeptiMism]

I don't know whether or not a Let's Player should give money to the developer, but I do think it'd be fair at least. The game is an essential part of your product. I'd like to see some prominent youtubers trying this out. As someone said, the argument "it's not a one way street but the developer benefits from the marketing" isn't really that good, because that's the same thing that could be said to any artist (and unfortunately, it is a thing that happens): "Oh hey, would you create a logo for my site for free, I won't pay you because you'll get your work out there and can put it in your resume".

At the very least it should be required that you give proper credit to the developer and links to official information on the game.

In this particular case I'm inclined to believe the game wouldn't have sold as much without any Let's Play videos, but I am speaking generally 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.

You know what? It would be nice if everyone was able to speak up about their personal hurtful experiences in the best way they personally can, whether it's just literally speaking to public audiences, writing a book about it, making a game or movie out of it or anything else.

Unfortunately however, doing games or books or movies of such things isn't free. It's not cheap either. It can actually be very costly. If nobody should ask any money for telling their story, then there would've been a whole lot less stories told in this world. And actually, on some level every single story ever told has something to do with personal experiences of their creators, because it's not possible to do work of art without putting a part of yourself in it.

It's a good thing people are able to tell their stories in their own ways and yes, *gasp*, even financially benefit from it (potentially).

 

[killu4what]

While we're having this discussion, let's have a chat about US fair use...

Thank you. I agree with what you are saying.

 

[Kezen]

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

This is absolutely true.
I can't feel bad for devs being "hurt" by LPers.

Their problem to figure out. As a consumer I have everything to gain from having more information about a product.

 

[MasterMongoose]

I can easily see a future where releasing a game, it will be assumed you can't LP it (for all new titles) and the "communal games" will allow LP'ers to do their thing separately- either in game or with blessing from the outside in some standardized way.

For your average AAA (SP) game, there is no reason it should be viewable in its entirety for free to the profit of solely non-developers. Why would something like Uncharted be allowed to do that if it shares so much time, effort, budget, and directing style as movies?

This is coming from someone who likes LPs. Maybe all games become "communal" after 1-2 years or something.

 

[kirblar]

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

From the comments on Sterling's article-

For what it's worth, I was intending to buy Until Dawn when it came out, but I was busy at the time, so didn't pick it up at launch. One of my favourite LP'ers played through the game, i watched it and enjoyed it, but I don't want to play the game for myself now that I know what happens. So I think that there is a very strong case that LP's are bad for these sort of games.

A game like Until Dawn will get hurt like them- and it's definitely a game game, not a cheap-o way to tell a story without having to pay for actors. (probably most comparable to a modern day "Choose your own Adventure" book.) If narrative is core to the experience, putting up a whole LP is akin to uploading a DVD onto youtube.

 

[Woo-Fu]

I don't think LPs are the problem, I think the game type/audience is the problem. It has a very niche audience, one evidently satisfied with watching someone else play to one possible ending instead of playing to one themselves.

If watching somebody play it makes your audience not want to play then your game is far too linear, and is telling a story that is perhaps more suited for a different form of media.

I wasn't interested in Until Dawn after watching somebody play through it, not because "I knew the ending" but because I saw how little gameplay there was. That game in particular has quite a few variables governing various aspects of "the End" but it has almost none of what I consider gameplay so I wasn't interest in playing it after watching some of it.

 

[Hektor]

LP's exist since years and are an accepted part of the market by now. As a gamedev it is your job to analyze the market and make a product suitable for it, it's not the markets responsibility to change in order to make your game successful. That is not how business works.

And for all we know, those don't even have to be the reason as to why this game flopped. Sometimes there is just no interest in a particular game. Maybe it's not very good, or maybe it just released at the wrong time, beeing overshadowed by bigger releases.

I mean, there are a lot of similar games that are still successful despite LP's, so those alone surely can not be the reason.

It's sad if the game ends up beeing a waste of money and time for the devs, but ultimately, shit happens. Even in a word without LP's, piracy and "shitstorms" good games will sometimes flop. Sad, but inevitable.

From the comments on Sterling's article-

A game like Until Dawn will get hurt like them- and it's definitely a game game, not a cheap-o way to tell a story without having to pay for actors. (probably most comparable to a modern day "Choose your own Adventure" book.) If narrative is core to the experience, putting up a whole LP is akin to uploading a DVD onto youtube.

You have no prove that Until Dawn did got "hurt", just because one guy on the internet decided to not buy this game anymore. There may be two other people that only bought the game because they found it through a LP for all we know.

 

[Yukinari]

I feel like if people on youtube who were serious LP'ers like back in the day still followed the basic guidelines for doing an LP there would be less anger from devs and in fact more quality videos.

Dont LP a game until its been out for 3 months used to be a rule. This is more of a personal request but i would also prefer less Pewdiepies and more Chuggaaconroys. But that will never happen unfortunately.

 

[Illucio]

Look at Fnaf. Sales soared after LPers played the game.

Cost and availability play huge factors as well. If 500,000 people can download a game on their phone for $2. Or have 500,000 people feel off about a $20 indie game they saw a let's player play that requires a decent computer to run, putting people off by the price thinking they will just wait until the game is on sale and then forget about it once it's on sale.

It's how you use its new found exposure and market and sell your product in that scenerio.

Contact the LPer. Ask them to send a link to your website or better yet give them a 20% discount code for the game to share with their viewers. Utilize with your new exposure for Petes sake.

If a LP video has more views then game sales ask them why their video is so popular but not the game? Are people unhappy with the price? Did it not look like a fun game for someone to play? Or is the story more interesting and the gameplay is putting people off?

I see Developers side of things, I don't like LPs whatsoever, but my god I was a developer I would utilize this anyway I could.

 

[potatohead]

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?

If you count all the gameplay videos of any popular game on YouTube the total would amount to well more than the total gameplay time or creative content in those games, many times over.

It's a question of why people who do not produce the content can make all the profit off of someone else's work, by publicly distributing content produced solely off those works.

I agree that ad revenue sharing should be considered as the primary method, and I think the majority of ad revenue should go back to the publisher/developer of the game.

These videos don't even exist without said games.

For some games e.g. like Minecraft or others there is a vicious cycle in which the YT gameplay and people actually playing the game feeds into one another.

However that cannot be guaranteed for other games and therefore policy cannot be based on what happens to the most popular which generally happens to be the very few. Not every game catches the viral train, it's simply not possible. The people who make the actual content deserve to be compensated for works entirely based on their works.

 

[nib95]

Seems part and parcel of it. The idea that such a platform would always merit only positive results is misplaced. Depending on the type of game in question, whilst Let's Plays in most instances will result in more sales or act as indirect advertising, of course in certain specific situations it might be the opposite, where gamers instead feel they've seen enough just by watching. I think it's more likely to be an issue that rears itself based on a games specific design and genre.

 

[Messofanego]

Hehe remember when LPers wanted to be paid by devs for playing their game, or get a cut of their sales revenue? That was rich.

Anyway, more people should play That Dragon Cancer.

 

[Dusk Golem]

I agree with Jim Sterling's point. I think there's way too many factors at play here.

I posted this comment on the Jim Sterling article, will also post it here:

I agree with everything you said. I think this overall is a complex issue with multiple layers, but Let's Plays as a whole has good and bad to it for game marketing, and does have a place, but doesn't mean it will equate to sales or good press or whatever.

On TellTale, I have an odd story to share on that one. I think TellTale is actually a-okay with people doing Let's Plays of their games. I have a small YouTube channel I've been doing for a few years, but apparently one of TellTale's community managers has been watching me for years and is a big fan of how I do things, so despite not really being that big, he just emailed me out of the blue a couple months ago, gave me a Steam key for their entire library and contact information and told me to contact him to get early access to any TellTale games I was interested in, and gave me explicit permission to record games before they come out and the like. It was a surreal position for me, but I think also does demonstrate I think they think that Let's Plays are good for their games, and seem to enjoy watching people Let's Play their games. He later even popped up in a stream I did for Tales of Borderlands out of the blue and gave away a lot of keys for the game to people watching.

Narrative only games seem like they might suffer from sales, but then Firewatch recently I think benefited from it a lot, and I actually think the episodic games like TellTale and Life is Strange benefited a lot from Let's Plays. This is not to say it's strictly a good thing, but a stray observation, and a small personal story to sort of mention it seems TellTale themselves are a-okay with the Let's Play thing, and even encourage it in some cases. I think attitudes on Let's Plays will stay controversial for the time being, but be interesting to see how they develop. Some developers seem to be all for it, while others seem entirely against it (and many more somewhere in the middle). There's no doubting that Let's Plays have formed a whole new thing previously not conceivable in the fact that anyone can upload their playthrough/commentary over a game someone else made, upload it, and even profit from it, but some people may naturally view them as parasites, others as entertainers, an advertising word of mouth method, and yet others as just an enthusiastic gamer or part of their audience. I think all viewpoints are legitimate, and that's part of the reason why the issue is complex and very much in the gray zone until eventually something is decided on it one way or the other.

 

[Messofanego]

Look at Fnaf. Sales soared after LPers played the game.

Cost and availability play huge factors as well. If 500,000 people can download a game on their phone for $2. Or have 500,000 people feel off about a $20 indie game they saw a let's player play that requires a decent computer to run, putting people off by the price thinking they will just wait until the game is on sale and then forget about it once it's on sale.

It's how you use its new found exposure and market and sell your product in that scenerio.

Contact the LPer. Ask them to send a link to your website or better yet give them a 20% discount code for the game to share with their viewers. Utilize with your new exposure for Petes sake.

If a LP video has more views then game sales ask them why their video is so popular but not the game? Are people unhappy with the price? Did it not look like a fun game for someone to play? Or is the story more interesting and the gameplay is putting people off?

I see Developers side of things, I don't like LPs whatsoever, but my god I was a developer I would utilize this anyway I could.

I believe majority of LPers' audience are kids, who don't have much buying power. I'm guessing they mostly watch it for the LPer personality as an ongoing series rather than connecting with the games and feeling compelled to buy them.

 

[potatohead]

In a way these videos are even easier and more accessible for consumption by the masses than simple piracy.

I'm not saying it is piracy, but it's easy to see how in certain circumstances it can lead to valuing the videos of a game at the same level or even higher than the game itself.

It's not a one-size fits all solution. But I have a feeling for those games that don't hit the viral train early it's a worse situation for them.

May be good for the few who get lucky, but not so good for the majority that don't.

 

[Delusibeta]

I think the fundamental problem here is That Dragon Cancer being grim as hell. To be blunt, I'm surprised that game has sold that much, I would have expected them to be around 5k territory.

 

[MUnited83]

Firewatch had no issues selling half a million units even with the whole game being available to be seen on youtube before release.
Same for Gone Home.
LPs have nothing to do with this game bombing.

 

[Haly]

I don't think any burden needs to be placed on the viewer, and only a minimum on the LP'ers themselves. 1% progressive tax of ad revenue for a minimum of 100,000 ad-clicks scaling linearly up to 5% for a maximum of 3 million clicks a video/series gets for at least 30 minutes of footage aggregated across all videos featuring said game, which is an optional license developers can choose to put on their games before or at time of release.

Small time LP'ers will be protected and pay nothing. Larger LP's will only notice a blip on their per-video profit. Large companies who abuse this lose out on the massive marketing potential of unrestricted LPs and suffer a relations hit. Smaller developers can feel rightly compensated if they're not totally sold on the nebulous promise of "free marketing", but it'll be a risk they take on voluntarily because virality is reduced.

Some reasonable amount of agency at the very least should be given to developers. All (no restrictions) or none (DMCA spam) is not the best we can do nor should it be.

Also the "let the market decide" stance is narrowminded. Markets don't undergo regulation and reform if no one says anything, whether from the production side or consumer side or legislative side, and just lets the beneficent invisible hand take its natural course. There can and should be dialogue and understanding from all parties.

"Make a better game" isn't a solution either. It's deceptive because "better" loosely translates to "more marketable" and shackles developers to the whims of consumers. We all know what happens when game developers start ticking checkboxes while making games. Just because there isn't an agreed upon list of "must haves" for cinematic games, doesn't mean one can't develop without checks in place.

 

[Simbabbad]

When you make a game that is actually a short film, people treat it like a short film, that is, they don't buy it. Nobody pays to watch short films.

 

[antennaehead]

I think nowadays Youtube/Twitch etc are just another way of marketing your game. Having popular streamer play your game is like having an ad on local TV - it introduces your game to a wide audience (that might have never even heard about your product otherwise), and some of these people might end up buying your game.
Split revenue is an interesting idea on paper, but it could lead to other problems. And the thing is, at this point developers are more interested in actually paying PewDiePie or others for displaying their games (or at least provide them with free copies) because that will lead to more sales.

 

[Kezen]

Totalbiscuit made a very good video about it :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXNhTpEhj6c&feature=youtu.be

 

[superNESjoe]

Firewatch had no issues selling half a million units even with the whole game being available to be seen on youtube before release.
Same for Gone Home.
LPs have nothing to do with this game bombing.

Telltale games also continue to do very well despite entire LP playthroughs and streamers showing off entire episodes.

I won't say anything to the quality of this particular game, as I haven't played it, but there are clearly more factors at play here than just LP/Twitch streams.

It could be less about them underestimating how many people would be content watching it online, and more about them overestimating how big the market was for the game to begin with. My last game only sold half of what That Dragon did in double the time, but it was still profitable because I made an accurate guess as to what my market for the game was going to be and budgeted it appropriately. As an indie, it's a shame you can sell 10 or 20,000+ units at over $10 and not see some sort of profit. That speaks volumes to the devs completely misunderstanding their market and having inflated expectations.

Yes, some games of this type (or any type rather) break through niche audiences and become super hits, but you can't develop and inflate your budget under the expectation that your game is going to be that huge, unless you have an established audience and years of releases to grow your customer base. My sympathy for the dev in this case is far more for the real life hell he had to endure with his family, and less for the financial failure the game has seen on the market. Knowing he poured his heart into it and didn't succeed sucks, but heart/passion is only half the story.

 

[MadSexual]

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

This is extremely relevant. As the medium matures, products will be available that are increasingly niche and unsuited to the mainstream. The days when games are big or bust are probably gone already, but certainly will be soon. This game has limited interactivity and is focused on a very heavy, unenjoyable subject, it's probably wrong to assert that it has the same appeal as a fun, campy game like Until Dawn.

For an analogous anecdote, take an ultra-niche genre of music like artistic extreme metal. Ihsahn is a major name in that area and gets tons of promotion, yet his last album opened with 700 sales in the first week. It wasn't a failure, just what is expected from that audience. I don't see why artistic experience games have any other reason not to perform proportionally.

 

[Sanctuary]

I don't watch LPs, unless it's a game that I've already finished myself (even then, barely ever), but it kind of makes sense that if you made more of a video than an actual game that it's not going to sell all that much in this day and age of streaming.

 

[Two Words]

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 a silly thing to say. How do you ensure that your game is enjoyable to play, but not to watch, in a way that doesn't make the game worse overall?

 

[Unknown One]

First LP's, what's next streaming?

Speaking from a consumer standpoint, video of play through are a good representative of the game for me. In this day and age there is hardly any demos. I will not blindly buy games. Video games are very expensive. In order to ensure I'll get my bang for my buck I'll be looking at any video game footage (demos, LP's,streams, etc) and check reviews.

Restriction towards LP's will just make me less likely to buy that particular game just like how I'm less likely to buy games now due to the restrictive day 1 embargo on reviews.

I believe the LP's and streamers deserve money for helping me make a valid purchase. For sure developers/publishers have trouble convincing me.

 

[superNESjoe]

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 also find this a really wrong statement, and I'm in this industry.

Some of the best games, both in quality and success, are not experiences isolated to the person playing them..

Games like Street Fighter and Smash are exhilarating spectator sports when you have a solid understanding of the rules. I play Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, and Smash, yet I watch them just as much and even watch fighters I don't play because high-level competition allows me to experience the game in both a passive way as well as seeing it at a skill level far beyond my own.

 

[Sanctuary]

I also find this a really wrong statement, and I'm in this industry.

Some of the best games, both in quality and success, are not experiences isolated to the person playing them..

Games like Street Fighter and Smash are exhilarating spectator sports when you have a solid understanding of the rules. I play Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, and Smash, yet I watch them just as much and even watch fighters I don't play because high-level competition allows me to experience the game in both a passive way as well as seeing it at a skill level far beyond my own.

You're talking about something entirely different.

 

[Weltall Zero]

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.

I was not aware I had to read every subsequent post from someone before replying to the one I disagree with. Any other suggested reading I should be aware of? Perhaps a bibliography section? If you don't want people replying to something you wrote because you have changed your mind since, there's a handy edit button you can use to change or add to your original post.

Of course, you then try to justify your original post, so one has to wonder what does it matter anyway or what is even your point. That you suggested alternatives? That's fine and so did I, but we're talking about a specific one, opting out. That these alternatives are a "better" solution than opting out? That's not for you to decide. That the impact of Let's Play on revenue is hard to calculate? That makes your theorycrafting about what's better for these companies that have entire deparments dedicated to figure out this stuff even more hilarious and condescending.

There are a lot of alternatives to the current Let's Play model (I myself suggested one, allowing partial Let's Plays), but none of them make any sense whatsoever if you don't allow companies to opt out in the first place. It's their money that's on the line and you don't get to tell them what's best for them because you fancy yourself more social media savvy than them.

 

[jacksepticeye]

I don't think blanket statements work in this scenario, there have been many games that gained success specifically just from LPs, others have had a moderate boost in sales and some have had no increase whatsoever. It's a very "per game" basis and lumping everything into piles doesn't really get to the root of the issue.

That Dragon, Cancer is a VERY hard sell regardless of any sort of LPs or streams of the game. A lot of people are intimidated by it or don't want to play it because they will have a very strong emotional reaction to it and some just can't handle that. As others pointed out, similar games did way better because of LPs despite being very narrative driven too. I don't think you can put the blame solely on LPs for it not selling well as we may never know what the overall consumer base is REALLY thinking about a product. 1 view on Youtube does not exactly equate to a lost sale.

However! That being said there is a serious issue on youtube with people just blankly uploading the game start to finish with no added commentary or editing at all. I don't even think that falls under fair use at that point (that whole system on youtube is a grey area already). There are people out there who see a particular game do well on youtube and just upload it all in its entirety to try ride the view/money train which gives the rest of LPers a bad name.

It is a shame though that the game isn't doing well, it's a very powerful experience that I think any person can relate to in some way. It deals with a lot of topics that we've all gone through at least once in our lives, especially the death and loss of a loved one. Ryan Green is also a very nice man and deserves success.

 

[tr00per]

I wonder what some of you think about the ps4 and xbox one dedicated streaming apps. Particularly those streamers that don't provide commentary.

 

[SerTapTap]

This is a hard target to hit full force because I genuinely don't dislike TDC and I'm troubled by it not doing well, but the original statement is more BS than not. I wrote a post about it myself.

"Didn't make any money" is misleading BS (he's comparing his lack of profits to Let's Players earning revenue), and the success of Gone Home, Fire Watch and more proves that Let's Players haven't singlehandedly killed this genre (that emerged entirely AFTER Let's Play culture). I make a few more points in the blog post. There's a lot going against this game and none of it is let's plays.

 

[DragonGirl]

I've watched let's plays and react videos and for all that I've enjoyed (some) of them I'm fully on board with the idea of regulating them. Maybe it isn't theft but it sure enough is parasitism. Perhaps ban the practice of showing more than a certain time amount or percentage of the video/game, maybe no end game allowable. 'Tuber gets their video, game gets free promo benefits but the audience can't just suck down the whole experience on YouTube.

 

[Jumplion]

For clarification on my part, I never argued on LPs being "lost sales", I was challenging the idea that LPs instantly mean more sales or good exposure. It's the argument of Dragon, Cancer getting more sales from getting exposure via LPs that I'm doubtful of as it's usually an unspoken rule among devs and the community that getting your game featured by PewDiePie or any other famous LPer will mean bank for your game when it's shown to not necessarily be the case. You only have to look at the dozen other games they play inbetween the big hits to see how effective LPs can really be in generating "exposure", and like I said before, exposure doesn't pay the bills.

 

[SerTapTap]

For clarification on my part, I never argued on LPs being "lost sales", I was challenging the idea that LPs instantly mean more sales or good exposure. It's the argument of Dragon, Cancer getting more sales from getting exposure via LPs that I'm doubtful of as it's usually an unspoken rule among devs and the community that getting your game featured by PewDiePie or any other famous LPer will mean bank for your game when it's shown to not necessarily be the case. You only have to look at the dozen other games they play inbetween the big hits to see how effective LPs can really be in generating "exposure", and like I said before, exposure doesn't pay the bills.

That's not really a black mark against LPs either though. Let's Plays are closer to reviews than advertisement, and a review of a bad game, while definitely exposure, doesn't (and shouldn't) mean more sales.

Let's players aren't beholden to make people's games sell better either. Watchers aren't obligated to buy games they earnestly do not wish to purchase.

You can't just say Let's Plays are a negative thing because people don't want to buy a game any more than you can say reviews are bad because a game with tons of 3/10 reviews sold badly. I think the original author is thinking his product is a lot more attractive than it really is to a broad audience.

 

[Pellegri Testament]

You're talking about something entirely different.

It's still a bullshit line of thinking either way. Games with little to no gameplay can still be enjoyed, it's just you have to temper your expectations as to what kind of audience you'll get in the end (something that was not done with TDC). Most visual novels sell a laughable amount compared to just about everything else and usually have next to no gameplay, yet they're still enjoyable to enough of a niche to not be considered failures.

The problem here is the content of the game and the fact that you can find millions of stories detailing those same struggles with cancer online, for free. People don't see a game or video detailing those things, worth more than articles they can find and read for free.

 

[NervousXtian]

LP's of narrative based games are really no different than posting up a Let's WATCH THIS MOVIE and posting the movie on Youtube.

I'm cool with small snippets, but people posting whole playthrough's is bush league.

 

[Lights and Waves]

Undertale got it good from a lot of Let's Players - for instance, Game Grumps discouraged people from watching the video before playing it. More Let's Players need to encourage people to play the game before watching their videos, but I imagine they don't like to do that because it doesn't benefit them.



For 1., what about modern games you want to reminisce? For instance, watching people experience the puzzles and twists of Portal 2.

Well Portal 2 came out 5 years ago so I think it's in the clear in terms of sales. If they didn't meet their mark then, I doubt an LP now will hurt them.

 

[BetaM]

I've watched let's plays and react videos and for all that I've enjoyed (some) of them I'm fully on board with the idea of regulating them. Maybe it isn't theft but it sure enough is parasitism. Perhaps ban the practice of showing more than a certain time amount or percentage of the video/game, maybe no end game allowable. 'Tuber gets their video, game gets free promo benefits but the audience can't just suck down the whole experience on YouTube.

The problem with regulating full game videos in any way is that it also blocks some arguably legitimate uses, like speedruns or challenge runs.

YouTube is actually already against this kind of practice:

Videos simply showing a user playing a video game or the use of software for extended periods of time may not be accepted for monetization.

 

[dragonflys545]

Firewatch had no issues selling half a million units even with the whole game being available to be seen on youtube before release.
Same for Gone Home.
LPs have nothing to do with this game bombing.

I actually wanted to buy Firewatch after first seeing it in the press conference. But after watching someone play the whole game on twitch I didn't care anymore lol.

 

[specdot]

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.

Giant Bomb's Endurance Run of Persona 4 sold me on the game. I started playing it and caught up with them as it was going on. lol.

 

[Fusilli Craig]

This is the world we live in now? A world where LP's refers to streamers instead of musical albums? Jesus.

The comment on requiring broadcast rights is an interesting one and if handled properly may not be an all too terrible way of handling the issue.

That said, there is a disparity between people who watch your game and people who would've ever been inclined to buy your game that devs aren't acknowledging.

 

[Glass Shark]

I like videos that give a good slice of a game's content, like Giant Bomb's Quick Looks or Polygon's Overview videos. I almost never watch full LPs of a game. The biggest exception I can think of recently is Firewatch. I started playing the game and just couldn't get into it, so I just watched someone else play it. I'm not sure how the developers of the game would feel about that. On one hand, I didn't play the game the way it was intended. On the other hand, if a full LP of Firewatch hadn't existed, I likely would have put the game down and never experienced it in any way. At least this way I got to see how the story played out.

 

[Messofanego]

When you make a game that is actually a short film, people treat it like a short film, that is, they don't buy it. Nobody pays to watch short films.

Uh, that doesn't explain short narrative games selling well. Stanley Parable sold a million copies, The Beginner's Guide sold nearly 150K copies, Her Story sold 168K copies, Thirty Flights Of Loving sold nearly 100K copies, and their lengths are 2 hours or less.

 

[jabberwocker]

Any other way than saying some of the money should go to the game make is flat out stealing content. All the let's play members that do not support that some revenue should go to the developer is all in self interest. At the very least you could compare the Let's play host paying a licencing fee just as game companies pay for using engines. This is no different. The fact that it gone this far already is ridiculous because it is under the support of Google's umbrella which also makes them money.