Support NeoGAF

[SerTapTap]

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

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

This is a great way to allow only positive let's plays. Just pull the license if you don't like the coverage. People already do this with youtube copyright claims, you'd just make it a lot easier and a lot harder to counter-act while benefiting no one but the dev, unreasonably.

Honestly the pro-corporate bullshit posts in this thread are terrifying. License the bastards, ban them, regulate them. Is people talking about and showing video games really so offensive to you that you wish to regulate it out of existence to allow devs total control over how their games are shown in video form?

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.

A big problem with this argument (which I cover in the article I posted above) is that LEt's Plays include original commentary, often a lot, that distracts from the pure content. A Longplay (no commentary, full game) better fits this sort of use yet I never see people talking about them in this context because let's plays are so much more popular.

Longplays are even worse because people actually DO watch longplays because of the game not the Let's Player, where generally LPs are the opposite.

 

[Glendemonium]

I think if your game stands any chance of being bought, it has to have some form of notoriety/controversy involved. It's not enough if it's a "good" game, it has to be in the era of buzzworthy since we're knee deep into the social media age. Get a prominent Youtube celeb to play the game and his fans will follow suit.

Look at Flappy Bird. A hastily made smartphone game that really didn't see any form of success until PewDiePie played it, then everyone and their mom went out and bought it supposedly creating spikes in sales for the developer that he went into a meltdown yanking the game off the store.

Five Nights at Freddys too didn't hit their stride until Markiplier gave it a whirl and it suddenly became a cult fave for months on end, and the creator was able to crank out the games so fast he'd release them far ahead of schedule every time.

Minecraft just has HUGE replayability, and it came out around the time social gaming was in its infancy and it was a hit with children. A perfect storm, if you will. We all know how well that did for Notch.

I think the same could be said about Super Meat Boy, the word got out that it was next to impossible to beat and it dared gamers the world over to go "oh yeah?" I'm out of the loop on how Undertale got so popular, but I'd imagine the creator made some pretty decent profit when you consider how bad Steam games get pirated.

Also, for devs big and small, the majority of gamers are cheapskates. Not in a bad way, but we all love to save money. Sometimes we take it too far and want everything free and feel entitled to it. A 30.00 value game for 5.99 is too expensive for many so they'd rather wait for a bundle and pay pennies on the dollar.

Smartphone games? The rule of cool is "free or GTFO" so you're left with the only choice of putting ads or go freemium. I don't know one person who ever paid for an app, but have no problem plugging $20 into Candy Crush... the new kids are growing up with the smartphone/steam gaming and it's unanimous that a free game will see much more attraction than it being a dollar. And they'll want to see it played by someone else before considering it.

Thing with games that are more like interactive movies, they lack replay value. It's usually a one trick pony with not much else. If you want people to come back, give them a reason too. Challenge them, it's fine if you want to tell a story but if that is all you offer with pretty graphics perhaps you should try your luck with independent film instead of videogames?

 

[Messofanego]

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.

That's not a problem of the game, and just your ignorance for the content of That Dragon Cancer. It can't be compared to reading some story online about cancer because it takes full advantage of being a videogame. The game has much more interactivity than other walking sims that have been commercially successful.

 

[DragonGirl]

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:

Honestly, monetization is pretty irrelevant. Damage is the same to the developer and there are still benefits to the LPer.

As for speed runs. Fine, put a filter on the video. Don't show the whole thing. Cut the sound. Have it display in a tiny screen. I'm sure there are lots of things that could be done as a compromise to showing off your speed run skills without giving away the full game experience, so to speak.

 

[Moral Panic]

Honestly the pro-corporate bullshit posts in this thread are terrifying. License the bastards, ban them, regulate them. Is people talking about and showing video games really so offensive to you that you wish to regulate it out of existence to allow devs total control over how their games are shown in video form?

It's a question of rights. We as a society have decided that a creator has certain rights. This includes rights to control public performance, reproduction, distribution and the creation of derivative works. I see no reason why LP's are suddenly immune to the same rules and regulations which have allowed and developed the creation of intellectual property. If the CREATOR doesn't want people streaming the game, then that is their right. If you want to do a review, then do a review. Playing a game and speaking over it isn't a review.

 

[PtM]

Look at Fnaf.

Oh my face.

 

[spineduke]

Honestly, monetization is pretty irrelevant. Damage is the same to the developer and there are still benefits to the LPer.

As for speed runs. Fine, put a filter on the video. Don't show the whole thing. Cut the sound. Have it display in a tiny screen. I'm sure there are lots of things that could be done as a compromise to showing off your speed run skills without giving away the full game experience, so to speak.

Those are some awful ideas, sorry. Way to trample on the consumer.

 

[balohna]

It seems odd to me that a personal game like this is being used to launch a studio. I know you can't just quit your job to make a game and not want money from it... But maybe this game wasn't that "quit your day job" game.

 

[superNESjoe]

You're talking about something entirely different.

I'm aware I'm talking about a different type of game entirely, but still, he made a blanket statement, and I'll quote it again.

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

There are lots of games that can be enjoyed without being the one playing them. That idea is why LP and Twitch streaming is so popular. The games that people watch also include these "walking simulators", many of which have gone on to find major success despite these passive viewing platforms existing.

So no, I'm not talking about something entirely different. Sanctuary said you're not in the right industry if your game can be enjoyed without actually playing it, I'm saying that's wrong.

I'm going to quote another post of mine.

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.

This has less to do with making a game that can be enjoyed without playing (although with "walking simulators" it's legitimately a concern), and far more to do with not properly budgeting and planning for your audience.

 

[tearsintherain]

It seems odd to me that a personal game like this is being used to launch a studio. I know you can't just quit your job to make a game and not want money from it... But maybe this game wasn't that "quit your day job" game.

Yeah, this game is imo a terrible example of the problem. Yes, there is definitely an issue with how much revenue LPs and twitch streams are helping or hurting actual end user game sales.

But when I first heard of this game, my immediate reaction was NOPE. No way in hell am I ever going to play a game dealing with cancer and kids, I won't even watch a LP of it - way too much emotions for me to ever handle. I can't imagine I am alone in this feeling, so while I applaud the dev for tackling off the beaten path subjects, it really shouldn't come as a suprise that its not selling well.

Also interestingly I just did a quick perusal of a few torrent sites and all of them are under 100 downloads for this game. Not sure really what that says but definitely not losing revenue from pirates...

 

[Kinyou]

Uploading games like Walking Dead etc. start to finish will never sit quite right with me. It's really getting close to uploading a TV show.

 

[woen]

Well whining against piracy is dead so you need to find a new bullshit reason why you're game don't sale enough.

In this case they need to ask questions if the people who watched parts or a full playthrough through YouTube would have played the game, either for free or with a fee. And how many people would not have bought the game without gameplay available on YouTube ? And how many actually watched a FULL playthrough ? And if this is just a weak game that people don't want to play because they don't a reason why it isn't just an animated movie ?

 

[mullet2000]

'Lost sales' is really murky subject. It's very hard to prove that many of them are lost sales. It can just be as easily you'd never get money out of those people.

Yeah, it's a tough one. You can't just compare sales numbers to number of views.

Maybe the majority of people that viewed the LPs didn't like what they saw and this didn't buy it. That's what happened to me in this game's case, honestly.

Or maybe a large number of those people would never have bought this game to begin with, and only watched the LP for the creator's personality. I've certainly watched tons of Giantbomb Quick Looks and Videos of games I have no interest in just because I like Giantbomb.

It's too bad these guys aren't making money but, to be blunt, I'm not surprised by the sales that they have and it seems in line with what I would have expected it to sell.

Also, venturing into spoiler territory:

Spoiler

The game has very heavy Christian themes and a lot of people may have decided "I don't think I'll be able to connect with this game" upon learning about that.

 

[UrbanRats]

Honestly, monetization is pretty irrelevant. Damage is the same to the developer and there are still benefits to the LPer.

As for speed runs. Fine, put a filter on the video. Don't show the whole thing. Cut the sound. Have it display in a tiny screen. I'm sure there are lots of things that could be done as a compromise to showing off your speed run skills without giving away the full game experience, so to speak.

This is absurd.
I can understand the argument of developers expecting a (little) cut off of eventual monetization of certain, particularly non-transformative let's plays, but beyond that, it's fair game if i want to show the whole game to someone.
Again, people watching a let's play can't actually play the game, it's not the same thing.

Will we get around to admonishing people for showing a game to their friends, next? Because some developer will feel that that is a lost sale?

Seriously, i'm sorry for how things turned out for this game, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to stream a game they bought, however they like, especially if no monetization is involved.
If you feel you lost a sale for that, that's on you, really.

 

[DragonGirl]

Those are some awful ideas, sorry. Way to trample on the consumer.

I'm going to simply assume this is sarcasm.

 

[blakep267]

I agree with him in the sense that it's one thing if you have a game that doesn't sell well, but it's another of a random person is making money off your game and it's not selling well. I own DVDs of movies. Doesn't mean I can pay them on YouTube and talk over them or even not talk at all while they play and call it content. Basically I don't think streamers etc should be getting revenue from playing other people's games. You can do it because you enjoy it or you wanna make a lore video or something. But just playing a game isn't work for me.

 

[Mattenth]

Uploading games like Walking Dead etc. start to finish will never sit quite right with me. It's really getting close to uploading a TV show.

I think almost everyone can agree that straight video uploads of interactive story games (aka "walking simulators") isn't a good thing for the industry.

But the challenge is in actually regulating it... What legislation do you pass? How is it enforced? What are the consequences? etc.

No one cares if I upload Let's Plays of CS:GO, Overwatch, Smash Bros, League of Legends, etc. In fact, many of these companies actively encourage it.

 

[Haly]

Honestly the pro-corporate bullshit posts in this thread are terrifying. License the bastards, ban them, regulate them. Is people talking about and showing video games really so offensive to you that you wish to regulate it out of existence to allow devs total control over how their games are shown in video form?

Total? No. Partial? Yes. At least more than they have now. Talking about and showing off video games is fine. Effectively streaming them is not, especially at a profit. It doesn't really matter what you think the "real draw" of the LP is. Other people's content is being profited off of with little reasonable recourse for them. If one made a CYOA using YouTube's embedded links functions that perfectly mimicked a game, using that game's content, does this not seem wrong? It's sufficiently transformative, certainly more transformative than a lot of Let's Plays, and yet in that case I think it's obvious that duplication and distribution of a game isn't the right thing to do.

The fact that of the matter is that the boundaries between games is not clear cut and there's a vast, vast range of games today, but the existing regulation is narrow, hamfisted, blunt, or otherwise ill-equipped to handle the nuance of the medium.

I mean this is isn't even a consumer vs producer thing. The Let's Players are also producers, not consumers. This is a conflict between producers over intellectual property rights and fair use. Asserting that the Let's Players should receive blanket protection or arguing YouTube has no obligation to modify their business practice is just as pro-corporate.

 

[DragonGirl]

This is absurd.
I can understand the argument of developers expecting a (little) cut off of eventual monetization of certain, particularly non-transformative let's plays, but beyond that, it's fair game if i want to show the whole game to someone.
Again, people watching a let's play can't actually play the game, it's not the same thing.

Will we get around to admonishing people for showing a game to their friends, next? Because some developer will feel that that is a lost sale?

Seriously, i'm sorry for how things turned out for this game, but that doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to stream a game they bought, however they like, especially if no monetization is involved.
If you feel you lost a sale for that, that's on you, really.

The only thing that's absurd is the hostility towards the idea of compromise. All rights to the player, none to the creator. All or nothing attitudes. Not to mention the slippery slope nonsense.

 

[Mediking]

Huge thanks to various LPers on Youtube that I buy games that I think are interesting.

Joneawesome pretty much me into Persona thanks to his Persona 3 FES playthrough on YouTube.

I pretty much buy anything Persona related now.

 

[blakep267]

I think almost everyone can agree that straight video uploads of interactive story games (aka "walking simulators") isn't a good thing for the industry.

But the challenge is in actually regulating it... What legislation do you pass? How is it enforced? What are the consequences? etc.

No one cares if I upload Let's Plays of CS:GO, Overwatch, Smash Bros, League of Legends, etc. In fact, many of these companies actively encourage it.

I assume it would be regulated like anything else that gets pulled from YouTube due to licensing agreements. I can't upload the Warriors vs spurs game that I taped from my TV because it'll get pulled. Why can't it be for the same as games

 

[Trogdor1123]

Feel bad for them. I have never understood LPs myself. I only see them as another way to get a vertical slice and to decide on a purchase. I'd be bored as hell watching a full game that way. Might as well watch a movie

 

[zackmorris]

Of course not. Without even reading their input, games like gone home never seemed like a game that would benefit from a lets play. Also dev's of bad games probably hate them to.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I've never really liked the idea of just straight LPs being uploaded to YouTube without anything to make them stand out like commentary or such.

 

[zackmorris]

Feel bad for them. I have never understood LPs myself. I only see them as another way to get a vertical slice and to decide on a purchase. I'd be bored as hell watching a full game that way. Might as well watch a movie

Depends. Good lets plays are as much about the people playing the game as it is the game itself. Like I love Giant Bombs quick looks, because I like most of the personalities that do them.

 

[Zekes!]

One thing I don't like is that I see more and more streamers who straight from the get go are in it as a "full time career" before they have any kind of real solid subscriber base where that's actually feasible. There's a weird expectation or sense of entitlement about making money that rubs me the wrong way.

I've also wondered about the long term viability of streaming as a job and what those people would do if eventually they have to find other work? Surely there are skills that could transfer over to other jobs but I still wonder what kind of resume that would look like.

 

[littlebigman]

This is perhaps the biggest issue with story games. You can watch the whole thing on Youtube and get basically the same experience as you would by playing it, without paying a cent for it. Most games, even a full LP will only show you a narrow chunk of the game, and it will likely push you towards buying it so you can experience it for yourself (I, for one, bought DaS2 after watching Yahtzee and Gabe's Drown Out series on it). A game like TDC is almost entirely visual, so a competent LP will show you everything there is to see of it. It's a problem inherent to the genre and it's why I have trouble accepting it the way it currently is.

 

[Mattenth]

I assume it would be regulated like anything else that gets pulled from YouTube due to licensing agreements. I can't upload the Warriors vs spurs game that I taped from my TV because it'll get pulled. Why can't it be for the same as games

Would it EVER be acceptable to upload me playing a game?

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

One thing I don't like is that I see more and more streamers who straight from the get go are in it as a "full time career" before they have any kind of real solid subscriber base where that's actually feasible.

I'm not sure I see the problem. If they don't go all-in, they're probably not going to make it.

That, by itself, doesn't show a sense of entitlement--at least not any more than anyone else attempting to start some kind of business.

 

[UrbanRats]

The only thing that's absurd is the hostility towards the idea of compromise. All rights to the player, none to the creator. All or nothing attitudes. Not to mention the slippery slope nonsense.

I didn't use "slippery slope nonsense" (also, slippery slope isn't always nonsense), i used an hyperbole to make a point.
But i explained why i think your example is absurd.

If there is monetization, i can understand having some percentage off of that, that's the compromise.

As a creator you're not entitled to people's money, and if people don't want to buy your game, they are not forced to.
Since watching a game is not at all like playing it, you're not entitled to a sale, just because they have seen someone else play it.
This is just being delusional, and not able to accept that maybe people just aren't interested in what you're selling like you think they should, or that maybe you weren't capable of explaining it well enough to convince them to buy it.

 

[Weltall Zero]

I didn't use "slippery slope nonsense" (also, slippery slope isn't always nonsense)

You compared a Let's Play with showing the game to a friend, which is the same as comparing putting a movie on Youtube to watching that movie with a friend. Absurd comparison and entirely slippery slope.

Those are some awful ideas, sorry. Way to trample on the consumer.

Consumer of what? People watching Let's Play aren't paying for anything, they're by definition not consumers; that's the point of this thread. If you mean Let's Player themselves, they're less of a consumer and more of an intermediary, as they expect to make money of the game they bought. If you're feeling less generous, they're even comparable with bootleggers, as they don't have the tacit approval of the original creators and they resale a cheaper product derived from the original that directly competes with it and hurts its sales.

I'm all for pro-consumerism, but sometimes you have to concede the point to the content makers when they have it.

Would it EVER be acceptable to upload me playing a game?

Sure, when the game's creator doesn't mind. And I actually agree that for some genres (gameplay-based games mostly, i.e. the majority of games) these will see a huge advantage in allowing Let's Play / streaming. Just let companies figure out and decide that for themselves.

 

[Jito]

So is the game actually any good? All this talk about LPs stealing their revenue and them having no sales, perhaps the game just isn't worth buying from what people have seen? I doubt the thought crossed the devs minds.

 

[ppor]

I'm sympathetic to the devs, but I don't see this getting any better. Kids are growing up watching Minecraft LPs and PewDiePie like it is television.

It's like when VCRs and DVRs came out, broadcasters got scared when content consumption started to become time-shifted. Game devs now have to worry about their content being medium-shifted, from interactive media -> passive video.

And history has shown that unless you get Congress or industry groups (like ESA) involved, you can't really force internet companies to "do the right thing" whatever that entails conforming to your ethical/political views. Now YouTube can decide to pursue revshare directly by brokering an agreement with publishers and LPers, but even they can't be objective because, let's face it, YouTubers...drive traffic and monetization for YouTube, providing free labor and free "ad inventory" that YT can profit from. Catering too much to publishers means disincentivising LPers from creating future content, which cuts into YouTube's own cut of revshare. I agree that internet celebrities feel too entitled, but it's because of their codependant relationship with YT and vice versa.

Now for That Dragon Cancer. Even with ad money, it won't really save their financial situation. Say a prominent LPer makes $10,000 in ads on a video, and the devs get $5,000. You split that up with a 8-man dev team, and it's still barely any money. And most other videos won't hit viewership as high. Unless they start receiving NEA grants, I'm not sure how the devs expected to break even with just game sales.

 

[UrbanRats]

You compared a Let's Play with showing the game to a friend, which is the same as comparing putting a movie on Youtube to watching that movie with a friend. Absurd comparison and entirely slippery slope.

Oh please, if you read the whole post i specifically posted "what's next?", to underline the absurdity of the example.
Are you going to fixate on an intentionally sarcastically hyperbolic example, to avoid discussing the main argument i'm making? Save me the time if so.
-
Showing a game on a Let's Play is not the same as uploading a game for others to play.
Because watching someone play a game is not the same as actually playing it.

If no monetization is involved, there is no ground for the creator to pretend that people do not show the game they legitimately bought, to whoever they want (people may be showing it to friend via Twitch, btw).

 

[SerTapTap]

So is the game actually any good? All this talk about LPs stealing their revenue and them having no sales, perhaps the game just isn't worth buying from what people have seen? I doubt the thought crossed the devs minds.

The best and worst thing I've heard said about the game is that it's a great way to be extremely depressed for two hours.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Could the correlation of someone streaming a LP video of a licensed game be drawn with someone making money off licensed movies or music that usually ends in a big, no no?

I am thinking they are pretty much the same thing at this point.

 

[Jito]

The best and worst thing I've heard said about the game is that it's a great way to be extremely depressed for two hours.

Well that's instantly flagged it as something I'd never go near!

I appreciate people approaching gaming differently and presenting new interesting gaming experiences but to me I'd rather enjoy myself and have a good time, not be depressed by a game about cancer. As a curiosity I'd see what the game actually entails but doubt I'd pay money for a game about cancer.

 

[Korgill]

Could the correlation of someone streaming a LP video of a licensed game be drawn with someone making money off licensed movies or music that usually ends in a big, no no?

I am thinking they are pretty much the same thing at this point.

Hell, MST3K is basically the video equivalent of LPs yet no one would argue they could use any copyrighted material.

 

[Zemm]

They're basically demos for games without demos and just like demos, a good one will increase sales and a average or bad one will do nothing for sales, there'll be a few outliers but that's what the general case is. Too many games sales have blown up after a letsplay by someone popular to say they're all bad for the industry.

 

[Sasie]

As someone who do watch quite a few let's play videos it's actually strange how the whole "Game movie" thing is allowed.

I watched all cutscenes from several games I had no interest in playing myself on youtube because it takes less time and the story sounded interesting enough to watch with no commentary while at the same time being almost the same thing as playing it myself, Telltale Game of Thrones would be an example because it had so little gameplay. I also watched all of Final Fantasy XIII once because I wanted to avoid the combat, all for free without buying the game.

I mean it's nice that these videos exist but I'm pretty sure I would at least have brought a few of the games that interested me enough to watch but not play if they were not available for free on youtube within a few weeks of release. Maybe more companies should follow Nintendo's example in this?

 

[orthodoxy1095]

They're basically demos for games without demos and just like demos, a good one will increase sales and a average or bad one will do nothing for sales, there'll be a few outliers but that's what the general case is. Too many games sales have blown up after a letsplay by someone popular to say they're all bad for the industry.

This feels like a really poor comparison since a demo was nearly always a bite-sized piece of a game. With LPs, you can consume a huge chunk, if not the entire experience of a game.

 

[Zekes!]

I'm not sure I see the problem. If they don't go all-in, they're probably not going to make it.

That, by itself, doesn't show a sense of entitlement--at least not any more than anyone else attempting to start some kind of business.

That's a fair point. Saying there's a sense of entitlement is probably too harsh, but I was thinking about one particular video I saw from a streamer with a subscriber base of sub 10k who's videos average about 2k views asking for more donations and Patreon support because they make no money and do it as a full time job. My reaction to that was that they should maybe have a part-time job to make some kind of income while they grow their streaming career.

Then again, I remember one streamer talking about if they don't put out videos on a consistent basis then their viewership declines, so I can definitely understand the pressure.

 

[A Link to the Past]

And so is LPing a game to praise it.

Praise sure is a weird form of criticism :v

That said, yeah, if you did an LP in order to show off the qualities of a game, it'd be different than just playing through a game for the first time. Also, Jim Sterling rarely if ever plays an entire game, his stuff is only ever really long enough to give a taste.

 

[Suzushiiro]

I think the idea that Let's Plays are damaging to the sales of games because people will just watch them instead of buying the game and playing it themselves is kind of fucking ridiculous, especially when you consider that the sorts of gameplay-light games that would logically be hit the hardest by them, while still very much a niche thing, have become significantly more popular/successful since Let's Plays became a thing, not less. Japanese visual novels that were usually lucky to get decent fan translations are now getting official releases in the west- one of them made over a million dollars on Kickstarter just last year. The entire walking simulator genre was born in the post-Let's Play era, and plenty of them have sold very well.

Let's be real here: TDC didn't sell well because it's a depressing game in a niche genre. Not everyone wants to play a game about how horrible it is to see someone you care about die of cancer. I highly doubt the existence of videos of people playing through the whole thing made a big difference there.

In the end, this is just Indie Game Developer Mad Their Game Bombed And Wants To Blame Something Other Than Themselves article #732. Yeah, it sucks that this guy made a game that was pretty good at what it was trying to do and didn't get much in the way of money for it, but realistically changing anything about the various boogeymen that developers of niche/indie games like to blame for poor sales (refunds, Youtube/streamers, etc.) will help the revenue of shitty games made by huge publishers like EA and WB way more than the revenue of good but short/niche indie games.

 

[Weltall Zero]

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.

That's fascinating, one would think that if any game loses more sales than they earn through Let's Plays, it would be theirs. They have more than anyone else at stake so I would assume they have very good reasons to think it's the opposite. I'd really love to hear what they think of the whole controversy.

Another thing I was thinking is that Let's Plays are probably much better for devs than Longplays (walkthroughs without commentary). It feels to me the kind of audience that prefers watching a Let's Play to a Longplay would also prefer it to playing the games themselves, and woudn't buy the games at all even if no video walkthrough was available.

 

[A Link to the Past]

I think the idea that Let's Plays are damaging to the sales of games because people will just watch them instead of buying the game and playing it themselves is kind of fucking ridiculous, especially when you consider that the sorts of gameplay-light games that would logically be hit the hardest by them, while still very much a niche thing, have become significantly more popular/successful since Let's Plays became a thing, not less. Japanese visual novels that were usually lucky to get decent fan translations are now getting official releases in the west- one of them made over a million dollars on Kickstarter just last year. The entire walking simulator genre was born in the post-Let's Play era, and plenty of them have sold very well.

Let's be real here: TDC didn't sell well because it's a depressing game in a niche genre. Not everyone wants to play a game about how horrible it is to see someone you care about die of cancer. I highly doubt the existence of videos of people playing through the whole thing made a big difference there.

In the end, this is just Indie Game Developer Mad Their Game Bombed And Wants To Blame Something Other Than Themselves article #732. Yeah, it sucks that this guy made a game that was pretty good at what it was trying to do and didn't get much in the way of money for it, but realistically changing anything about the various boogeymen that developers of niche/indie games like to blame for poor sales (refunds, Youtube/streamers, etc.) will help the revenue of shitty games made by huge publishers like EA and WB way more than the revenue of good but short/niche indie games.

TDC garners tons of views though, so why would its depressing nature be the issue?

 

[SerTapTap]

One thing I don't like is that I see more and more streamers who straight from the get go are in it as a "full time career" before they have any kind of real solid subscriber base where that's actually feasible. There's a weird expectation or sense of entitlement about making money that rubs me the wrong way.

I've also wondered about the long term viability of streaming as a job and what those people would do if eventually they have to find other work? Surely there are skills that could transfer over to other jobs but I still wonder what kind of resume that would look like.

Is this all that different from going straight in on a "full time career" making games with extremely questionable commercial viability? TDC was insanely risk itself. "Entitlement" is a silly thing to worry about anyway, if they make money they're fine, if they don't they don't. They're not scamming anyone, people will just not watch/subscribe/whatever if they're not entertaining enough.

And "entertainer" is a pretty viable job. Streamers are entertainers. Lots of production skills, voice acting potential etc. as well. There's a lot more work you put in than "playing video games" that a lot of people seem to forget.

Well that's instantly flagged it as something I'd never go near!

I appreciate people approaching gaming differently and presenting new interesting gaming experiences but to me I'd rather enjoy myself and have a good time, not be depressed by a game about cancer. As a curiosity I'd see what the game actually entails but doubt I'd pay money for a game about cancer.

Yeah, that's the thing. I want people to buy games like this, I want varied games, but I can totally respect not spending $15 and 2 hours of your time to go into something and come out feeling worse. And I think that's how a lot of people will view this experience. And I'm not sure they're wrong. Heck, even Dangan Ronpa, which I think is a truly fantastic game, if you don't want to see cool people horribly murdered for no good reason...maybe stay away. That's fine.

It's not a problem inherent to story games exactly either. I don't play multiplayer-only versus-only games because of a different emotion I don't want to feel--frustration. But the joy of multiplayer competition is clearly enough to overcome that aversion for many. But it's a balance that has to be set (some games are clearly more frustrating than others.) From a lot of reactions I think it's very clear people don't think they'll get enough enjoyment to validate the sadness felt from this game.

Hell, MST3K is basically the video equivalent of LPs yet no one would argue they could use any copyrighted material.

The problem with the MST3K comparison is that games STILL aren't movies, no matter how linear, so you can't provide only the commentary track and have it sync up to the game like you can with movies. They're similar in concept but you can't make them identical in execution.

 

[A Link to the Past]

MST3K, IIRC, does only public domain movies or movies where permission is granted.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Hell, MST3K is basically the video equivalent of LPs yet no one would argue they could use any copyrighted material.

I am confused with the last sentence, you mean argue for or against?

Also...

Don't copyright laws expire on music and film after 40-60(?) years or something (do not remember exact length from music theory), don't things become 'free ring' for use/sample... Hence why a lot of modern pop artists just rip almost word for word, and chord progression, etc., from old songs in the 50's and 60's and get away with it. Sadly, young generations think it is 'new and original' more often than not.

Hence why MST3K uses all old films, pre-copyright(?). Then again, we also do not know their logistics over the average anyone can stream on YouTube.

Try streaming The Force Awakens when it comes out on your average YouTube channel, and see what happens. So cannot the same comparison be made with licensed games?

MST3K, IIRC, does only public domain movies or movies where permission is granted.

Thought so.

 

[jett]

The widely hated REACT channel did I think a "good version for everyone" let's play of The Last Of Us. They released it in 15-20 minute segments each week or every two weeks, I don't remember exactly. That's much more fair to developers than posting the whole thing in one gulp.

But anyway, I'm not surprised that some developers don't like this practice. I'd wager most of them don't, but don't want to incur the wrath of the crazies by speaking up against it. I wouldn't appreciate somebody not only monetizing my creation, but stealing revenue from under me to boot.