Support NeoGAF

[Liamario]

Games with very littllittle actual gameplay are obviously going to suffer. It's like watching a movie for people. There's little incentive to play a linear experience like that after watching it.

 

[Weltall Zero]

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.

Shouldn't you be the one to have saved us all the time by not posting a shitty example you yourself know it's shitty? Playing the "it was actually ironic" card doesn't make your original post any less fallacious.

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.

Did you come to that realization by yourself? We know it's not the same. There are many degrees of "it's not the same", yet in most cases we still consider them to be a form of content theft.

For example, some people sneak videocameras to theater plays even when they are not allowed. Watching the video of a play is obviously not the same as watching it live, yet I don't think a lot of people would use that argument to counter the theater company when they ask for the video to be taken down.

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).

Using that argument you could upload any movie to Youtube as long as you don't monetize it. Which, evidently, isn't the case.

Seriously, I shouldn't be able to poke gargantuan holes into your arguments by doing straight comparisons with any other media. Why don't you do these comparisons yourself before posting them?

 

[Vinland]

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.

Except you seem to have such a bias you didn't seem to grasp the idea that quote gave leeway to non transformative LPs to actually having shackles.

So in fact transformative production according to the law as it is written is actually what YOU are debating AGAINST.

Are you blind? Law has a functioning term called precedent. And it also has a functioning term called slippery slope. So if you want to talk in legal terms to protect creative's you need to deal with the jargon.

Tldr: deal with it.

 

[A Link to the Past]

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.

It's certainly ironic that such a hated channel has a much more positive approach to LPs than most.

 

[DragonGirl]

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.

I didn't find any of your points compelling. Hyperbole is often a type of slippery slope: "If we allow this then ZOMG police state!"

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.

Not what I am discussing. If you spend your time and money creating a thing you want to sell, only for someone to copy that thing and give it away en mass for free, you the creator can be hurt by this action. Monitization would just be a layer of exploitation on top.

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.

For many people, watching is enough. The impetus to put in the money and effort to play can be diminished. Working in retail, I've seen it when trying to interest children in a game. "I already watched that on Youtube"

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.

Games don't sell for lots of reasons. It really would be delusional to think an easy to have free offering might not impact a person's profits.

What I have been saying is this doesn't need to be an all or nothing problem. LPs don't need to be banned but that they could be doing harm in some instances should be acknowledged. That solutions can lie in the middle. Hypothetical: If a new law were made tomorrow banning LPers (speed runners are not included in this sample) from showing entire games, only allowing say, 50%. Why would you hate that? What would be your argument against it?

 

[spineduke]

If you're arguing that they should apply copyright the way they do for film, I already gave up on you. Copyright reform is badly needed and is the main cause for stifling innovation in today's world.

I'd love for someone to attempt to show how streaming has hurt the gaming industry as a whole.

 

[DragonGirl]

Except you seem to have such a bias you didn't seem to grasp the idea that quote gave leeway to non transformative LPs to actually having shackles.

So in fact transformative production according to the law as it is written is actually what YOU are debating AGAINST.

Are you blind? Law has a functioning term called precedent. And it also has a functioning term called slippery slope. So if you want to talk in legal terms to protect creative's you need to deal with the jargon.

Tldr: deal with it.

What are you seriously even talking about in relation to my suggestions? I'm starting to think some are fixating on my speed runner comment which is not anywhere near the core of what I'm talking about. I'll retract that statement with a shrug. I'm talking about the million and one every day LPers who play games and talk while recording it. Not every comment is a transformative experience.

 

[Suzushiiro]

Games with very littllittle actual gameplay are obviously going to suffer. It's like watching a movie for people. There's little incentive to play a linear experience like that after watching it.

If that's true, why have games with very little actual gameplay become significantly more popular/common/successful in the post-LP era? Before 2009 or so walking simulators didn't exist and the majority of visual novels available to westerners were fan translations and official localizations of cheap shitty porn games.

 

[beril]

Hypothetical: If a new law were made tomorrow banning LPers (speed runners are not included in this sample) from showing entire games, only allowing say, 50%. Why would you hate that? What would be your argument against it?

There is a law against LPs. The only question is if developers should enforce it.

 

[Jumplion]

Jim Sterling just wrote a piece about this.

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

I dig the article, but I think Sterling jumps into the same trap as other people when they point to games like "Gone Home" and "Firewatch" and say "those games had LPs and did great". I'd say even pointing to the awful games and say "those games did poorly regardless" falls into the same survivorship bias that I've been parroting around. We have to look at all games, including the ones we forget about, and asses the effectiveness of LPs from there, not just the big name bombs or the hype machines.

It's a chicken and egg scenario - did those games do well because LPs promoted them enouggh to get revenue? Or were those games prominent enough to warrant LPs in the first place? Combination of both, I suppose, but that doesn't really answer how effective LPs are in terms of the game's success.

Like I mentioned in the OP, I think this falls under the similar situation that demos are under, and I'd event separate it into indie and AAA categories.

If the game's bad, then LPs are there to either warn people off the game or mock it.
If the game's okay, then people will generally get their fill watching people play it or wait for general reviews/consensus, and even then they'll probably wait for a sale and forget about the game.
If the game's great, then it might get some people buying it, but usually those games (usually AAA) are already big-names or the game was already hyped in its respective circle, so the people who were going to buy it were already going to buy it. The only time this really helps is when there was no hype around the game and it becomes viral, which isn't something you can design a game around.

It's a weird situation, one that I think points to the issue in a lot of media where something can't just be average or in the middle, satisfactory. It either has to be complete garbage so we can mock it, or it has to be above and beyond in order to garner attention which just drives the industry to make bigger and bigger ticking time bombs rather than moderate, sustainable products.

 

[Chabbles]

If you watch a full game on youtube, from my experience its because you have no means of playing said game. Playing a game>Watching a game. Every.Single.Time. I mean it a damn GAME. Who are the people watching these games from beginning to end ? do they do it from sheer boredom ? or is it the youtube personality they regularly tune into just so happens to pick a random game and gives it a whole load of attention it mightn't have gotten otherwise ?

If a person has the system and can afford the game, but decides to watch it on YT instead, they had no real intention on playing it to begin with imo.

 

[DragonGirl]

There is a law against LPs. The only question is if developers should enforce it.

Okay. And what about my compromise law? Because I'm not against the idea of LPs.

 

[CrispyBoar]

There is a law against LPs. The only question is if developers should enforce it.

And that law is kind of outdated & should be demolished.

If the publishers enforce it, the uproar about it would be the same way as with Microsoft implementing always online DRM (?) on Xbox One: Massive.

 

[A Link to the Past]

If that's true, why have games with very little actual gameplay become significantly more popular/common/successful in the post-LP era? Before 2009 or so walking simulators didn't exist and the majority of visual novels available to westerners were fan translations and official localizations of cheap shitty porn games.

Correlation, not causation. You need to show that LPs have benefited "walking simulators" and visual novels.

 

[DeepEnigma]

And that law is kind of outdated & should be demolished.

If the publishers enforce it, the uproar about it would be the same way as with Microsoft implementing always online DRM (?) on Xbox One: Massive.

There will just be 'stream sites' like they do with movies now. It will not be as big as the Xbox One DRM fiasco.

 

[Freshmaker]

Counting views on a LP as lost sales is absurd.

 

[Keby]

I feel counting views on LP's as lost sales is disingenuous. You can't look at it that way because more often than not most of those people were never interested in the first place. Especially if the views come from a big YouTube channel. Those people are there for the personality not the game. Some might become interested after watching that LP, but to pretend that all those views are lost sales is just incorrect.

 

[beril]

Okay. And what about my compromise law? Because I'm not against the idea of LPs.

The law doesn't need to change. The attitude on the internet needs to change so that a developer can say "sorry we don't allows LPs for this game" without causing a shitstorm, if they feel it will hurt sales. Or "you have to pay to use our copyrighted content" . An easy revenue sharing system on youtube would help too.

 

[Suzushiiro]

Correlation, not causation. You need to show that LPs have benefited "walking simulators" and visual novels.

No, people need to show that LPs have harmed "walking simulators" and visual novels. That was my point- that while they may or may not help much, the fact that these games have thrived, not suffered, in the post-LP world makes it hard to argue that LPs are doing significant harm to them. Correlation doesn't equal causation, but causation does generally require correlation.

 

[DragonGirl]

The law doesn't need to change. The attitude on the internet needs to change so that a developer can say "sorry we don't allows LPs for this game" if they feel it will hurt sales, or "you have to pay to use or copyrighted content" without causing a shitstorm. And easy revenue sharing system on youtube would help too.

Again, I'm not talking about existing laws. Just my hypothetical one as a compromise offering to the people here who have a rather extreme bias in favor of LPs and think current law is awful. I think LPs can be beneficial. I just don't think there's any reason to show the entire game.

 

[tmarg]

Short form video content like quick looks or Totalbiscuit's videos are critical content, and there is nothing you can do to stop it whether or not you think it's good for your game.

Long form videos where someone plays through an entire game are already technically a violation of copyright, and you could stop it (see Nintendo's partner program, or how publishers have taken over the esports scene) but watching games has become an important way in which gamers interact with the medium, and refusing to engage with your audience that way will ultimately hurt you.

Obviously some games will benefit from that, and some will be hurt, but it's the reality of the market.

 

[Northeastmonk]

I don't watch let's play. It's like many years ago I didn't look at an Abercrombie & Fitch ad and wonder "how do I obtain that same lifestyle". The Dawson's Creek of gaming if you ask me.

You watch people you've never met play games like it's their job and it doesn't make you want to buy the game unless of course you really want it.

I see YouTube videos of people I'd never talk to in real life, play games in a way that almost embarrasses me. I don't want to buy the same game and yell at the screen or do anything they're doing.

If it's a game I want, I'll play it, but I'm not asking to see to see other people. I know enough about video games to know my own style and watching people play it outside of a conference doesn't make me want to give anyone money, especially if you spoil it.

I think they want every kid/teen/adult to look at these videos and then open up their wallets. It feels strange at times and I know what I'm playing.

I don't want to join someone else's crusade of "playing a video game". Video Games are an independent hobby of mine.

I played a video game and fell in love with them with Mario Bros on NES over at a kid's house. I didn't want to watch the kid all the time or see what he was playing unless it involves my own feelings. All these LP are about are the person streaming and it totally sucks when you go back in time and try and redo such things.

I don't want to make someone else the popular gamer when I want to play myself and I especially don't want to spend money on video games when I've seen everything there is. I want to enjoy it myself.

You can say, "oh Northeastmonk it isn't about you" all day long, but that other way of thinking can royally suck.

 

[ViridianHues]

While it is harsh, I'm in the camp that says if you can satisfyingly experience your game just by watching it, then perhaps you should explore other mediums to share the experience.

This isn't trying to insult anyone. Every medium has their strengths and weaknesses. Books, movies, theater, games, etc, are just ways to share experiences. To pretend the weaknesses/strengths of games as a medium don't exist or to ignore them is harmful imo.

 

[TeddyShardik]

LPs don't factor in for me personally. I only ever watch LPs of games I have played and usually own to see how the people I like to watch experience them.
Watching LPs of games I didn't play would bore me, I've tried.

 

[UserDoesNotExist]

1) Not only was the premise of That Dragon, Cancer a little ghoulish to begin with, but now I'm expected to be sympathizing with a developer that was not able to turn a profit off his child's battle with cancer? Is this what my generation has come to? What next, selling streams for pulling the plug on your father on Pay-Per-View? [God, I sound like my mother right now, but she's right here.]

2) Try talking to someone in the justice system about the "it's the law!" argument. There are a number of laws on the books that are no longer enforced, and not just of the "horses can't wear pants" varieties either, and people in the justice system have significant leeway to decide based on community standards. And right now, based on the front page of YouTube alone, LPs are well within community standards.

3) I know this makes me a racist 12-year-old CoD-playing ADHD loser, but I have this nagging feeling that if you've made a "game" that can be fully enjoyed simply by watching, you've actually failed as an artist in using the wrong medium to make your movie. Similar to how if you make a "movie" that can be adequately experienced by turning off the video and listening to the sound, you've really pissed away time in constructing superfluous details in your radio play.

 

[UrbanRats]

Did you come to that realization by yourself? We know it's not the same. There are many degrees of "it's not the same", yet in most cases we still consider them to be a form of content theft.

For example, some people sneak videocameras to theater plays even when they are not allowed. Watching the video of a play is obviously not the same as watching it live, yet I don't think a lot of people would use that argument to counter the theater company when they ask for the video to be taken down.

Using that argument you could upload any movie to Youtube as long as you don't monetize it. Which, evidently, isn't the case.

Seriously, I shouldn't be able to poke gargantuan holes into your arguments by doing straight comparisons with any other media. Why don't you do these comparisons yourself before posting them?

Hey, let's agree to both tone down the hostility and sarcasm, for the sake of the conversation, it's just getting in the way, anyhow.
--
Depending how you stretch that logic, anything can be content theft, even footage for a review.
Of course, even when you factor in Fair Use (which varies from country to country) it's a matter of opinion when that use becomes unfair (or, content theft).
I don't claim to be absolutely right on this, i know it's a matter of opinion how much is too much, but that's exactly what we are discussing here, that level of degree; that acceptability standard.

And i can't agree with your example, exactly because a movie doesn't contain gameplay, the degree of separation between a Youtube copy and, say, a bluray copy is minimal, compared to the degree of watching someone play a game, and interacting with it myself.
The example i gave earlier, was reading the full script of a movie, and actually watching the movie.
In which case i'd be perfectly fine with people reading the full script of a movie without paying for the ticket, necessarily.
Because i don't see that as having consumed the full product.

You can certainly argue it to be still some form of content theft, but is it worth limiting or punishing? That's the question.

The only difference i'd make is with soundtracks, just because a specific business is made out of selling them separately, but even then, it's not a cut and dry issue, because people feel free to watch artwork of games and films online, when art books are on sale.

People use artwork for avatars on forums, without ever asking for permission, even when you'd have to pay the artist to use said artworks.

It's a field with a lot of gray area, and my personal opinion is that non-monetized playthrough with commentary of games, do not constitute enough of a case for there to be compensation to the original creator of the game.

Not what I am discussing. If you spend your time and money creating a thing you want to sell, only for someone to copy that thing and give it away en mass for free, you the creator can be hurt by this action. Monitization would just be a layer of exploitation on top.

For many people, watching is enough. The impetus to put in the money and effort to play can be diminished. Working in retail, I've seen it when trying to interest children in a game. "I already watched that on Youtube"

Games don't sell for lots of reasons. It really would be delusional to think an easy to have free offering might not impact a person's profits.

What I have been saying is this doesn't need to be an all or nothing problem. LPs don't need to be banned but that they could be doing harm in some instances should be acknowledged. That solutions can lie in the middle. Hypothetical: If a new law were made tomorrow banning LPers (speed runners are not included in this sample) from showing entire games, only allowing say, 50%. Why would you hate that? What would be your argument against it?

To your first point, they're not copying the thing, they're not selling a bootleg version of the game like it happens on Apple store, or even pirating it and giving it away.
There being no gameplay, means it's not a copy of it, but a partial representation of one of its elements.

For many people watching is enough, and that's just a tough reality a creator has to deal with.
Certainly it comes down to personal ethics, if you want to reward someone or not, depending on how much you enjoyed the thing you partly consumed (key word PARTIALLY, as i don't consider it stealing in the same way pirating is).
I don't know if there's people who never feel the need to play a game, but it's clear as a creator, you can't consider those people lost customers, if they never had any intention of playing your videogame.
Just like you can't consider a lost customer someone who's happy to read the results of a soccer game on the paper, rather than paying cable to watch the actual game.

As i explained above, i don't think this is a cut and dry issue, this is most definitely a gray area, and that's why we're actually discussing it, really.
What i found absurd in your previous post, btw, were the example on how to limit speedruns, not the reasoning itself, but i still maintain that, as i said, non-monetized playthrough with commentary, have enough of a degree of separation from the actual thing, to not deserve any particular limiting process (the limiting already being: The non monetization and the presence of a commentary).

I offered a level of compromise, you offered a more severe one, then someone else may come along and propose something even more severe, as i said i don't think it's a cut and dry issue at all.

As a side note, i really don't follow LPs usually, aside from Kay Plays and Jeff Green (both of which played games i own, mostly) and the only personal case i'd apply to this, is watching Kay play Gone Home, a game i wouldn't have bought in any case, neither before nor after having seen the Let's Play, and in which case the main draw of the video was hearing Kay's commentary, more than the game itself.
This is just to point out that i don't have any particular, personal interest in Lets Plays i just disagree on principle.

 

[RecRoulette]

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.

From other streamers I've talked to and articles I've read you pretty much need to commit a lot of time if you want to make money out of it. You have to be constantly putting out content to stay afloat.

 

[Pepboy]

1) Not only was the premise of That Dragon, Cancer a little ghoulish to begin with, but now I'm expected to be sympathizing with a developer that was not able to turn a profit off his child's battle with cancer? Is this what my generation has come to? What next, selling streams for pulling the plug on your father on Pay-Per-View? [God, I sound like my mother right now, but she's right here.]

2) Try talking to someone in the justice system about the "it's the law!" argument. There are a number of laws on the books that are no longer enforced, and not just of the "horses can't wear pants" varieties either, and people in the justice system have significant leeway to decide based on community standards. And right now, based on the front page of YouTube alone, LPs are well within community standards.

3) I know this makes me a racist 12-year-old CoD-playing ADHD loser, but I have this nagging feeling that if you've made a "game" that can be fully enjoyed simply by watching, you've actually failed as an artist in using the wrong medium to make your movie. Similar to how if you make a "movie" that can be adequately experienced by turning off the video and listening to the sound, you've really pissed away time in constructing superfluous details in your radio play.

1. Yeah I agree. It's strange when they say they haven't seen a dollar of it... so that means the publisher is getting it and already paid you? Also so strange to be upset that millions of people are experiencing the story. I thought that was the main reason they were making this game.

In addition, not every youtube view would be a sale. I think a very small fraction would be. People don't go out in droves to buy sad things, generally.

3. Apparently there is a movie coming out soon based on the game. Perhaps the game helped make it happen? But perhaps some of the LP views will convert to moviegoers.

 

[Moral Panic]

3) I know this makes me a racist 12-year-old CoD-playing ADHD loser, but I have this nagging feeling that if you've made a "game" that can be fully enjoyed simply by watching, you've actually failed as an artist in using the wrong medium to make your movie. Similar to how if you make a "movie" that can be adequately experienced by turning off the video and listening to the sound, you've really pissed away time in constructing superfluous details in your radio play.

Who cares if you have failed as an artist? Doesn't give other people the right to make money off your work.

 

[Huge Succeeded]

3) I know this makes me a racist 12-year-old CoD-playing ADHD loser, but I have this nagging feeling that if you've made a "game" that can be fully enjoyed simply by watching, you've actually failed as an artist in using the wrong medium to make your movie. Similar to how if you make a "movie" that can be adequately experienced by turning off the video and listening to the sound, you've really pissed away time in constructing superfluous details in your radio play.

complete nonsense

 

[gai_shain]

Who cares if you have failed as an artist? Doesn't give other people the right to make money off your work.

Thats just too broad of a statement and I hope this isnt your stance in general but only for this specific example.

 

[Northeastmonk]

Who cares if you have failed as an artist? Doesn't give other people the right to make money off your work.

It's like the 12 year old who lives in some Surburan area and has a YouTube account. He's popular enough for free games, a little bit of cash flow, and a group of followers.

All the developers sees is money. If you're older and you're surrounded by video games then you don't care at all. The 12 year old's gaming habits don't influence yours at all. This goes for every 16-24 year old on YouTube playing a video game. Their choices or their content isn't beneficial to you at all. You also don't receive anything for what they do. It's simply something to ignore and move on with your life.

I honestly hate seeing the industry or whatever pay their way. I sit here with my own knowledge and I buy games for what their worth. The day and age we live in, is one where people get paid to do things we did years ago at a cost.

All the developer cares about is getting paid. They won't see money when all they do is cater to people because people are smarter than they appear to be and not all kids can buy a new game every month.
So of course they lose money.

 

[tmarg]

Also so strange to be upset that millions of people are experiencing the story. I thought that was the main reason they were making this game.

That's some serious bullshit. Turns out developers need money to do things like pay rent and buy food, and being game developers they have to get that money from their games.

Just like you expect to be paid for doing your job.

 

[Weltall Zero]

And i can't agree with your example, exactly because a movie doesn't contain gameplay, the degree of separation between a Youtube copy and, say, a bluray copy is minimal, compared to the degree of watching someone play a game, and interacting with it myself.

My example was about plays, theatre plays, with actors, on a stage. It's "not the same" at all as watching a video of it, yet it's still illegal to record it.

 

[Kinyou]

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.

True, that's the hard part. Can't really think of a system that would make both parties happy

 

[UrbanRats]

My example was about plays, theatre plays, with actors, on a stage. It's "not the same" at all as watching a video of it, yet it's still illegal to record it.

Yeah, i was referring to this part:

Using that argument you could upload any movie to Youtube as long as you don't monetize it. Which, evidently, isn't the case.

As for plays (or even concerts), since i specified that full playthrough uploads should include commentary, i think a full play uploaded with commentary on it (start to finish, not a couple of words here and there) would already be somewhat less controversial.
But i still think that gameplay is a more significant diversion from the real thing, than being or not at the play/concert live.

 

[DragonGirl]

To your first point, they're not copying the thing, they're not selling a bootleg version of the game like it happens on Apple store, or even pirating it and giving it away.
There being no gameplay, means it's not a copy of it, but a partial representation of one of its elements.

For many people watching is enough, and that's just a tough reality a creator has to deal with.
Certainly it comes down to personal ethics, if you want to reward someone or not, depending on how much you enjoyed the thing you partly consumed (key word PARTIALLY, as i don't consider it stealing in the same way pirating is).
I don't know if there's people who never feel the need to play a game, but it's clear as a creator, you can't consider those people lost customers, if they never had any intention of playing your videogame.
Just like you can't consider a lost customer someone who's happy to read the results of a soccer game on the paper, rather than paying cable to watch the actual game.

Creators obviously have concerns and I'm not simply going to dismiss them. There is no data one way or the other so any hard line stance is going to be arbitrary.

As I explained above, I don't think this is a cut and dry issue, this is most definitely a gray area, and that's why we're actually discussing it, really.
What i found absurd in your previous post, btw, were the example on how to limit speedruns, not the reasoning itself, but i still maintain that, as i said, non-monetized playthrough with commentary, have enough of a degree of separation from the actual thing, to not deserve any particular limiting process (the limiting already being: The non monetization and the presence of a commentary).

On the issue of monetization, I simply disagree that it is a factor in what point I'm specifically arguing. That point being the existence of entire games recorded and shown for free to the viewer. On speed running, I already retracted those suggestions because I saw that getting fixated on and it's not the focus of my argument.

I offered a level of compromise, you offered a more severe one, then someone else may come along and propose something even more severe, as i said i don't think it's a cut and dry issue at all.

How is limiting the percentage shown more severe in my hypothetical?

 

[Simbabbad]

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.

Because they stand more on interaction?

 

[UrbanRats]

...Nice trick.

No trick, i started with sarcasm, and got sarcasm in return, that's fair.
However as i was typing the reply, i figured there's no point in keeping it up, i'm not trying to blame Welltall Zero or you for it, i'm just saying that we have everything to gain from going back to a more relaxed and civil discussion; i'm aware i started with the sarcasm, if that's what you mean.
I apologize for that.

There is a very specific reason I did not say theft and did say parasitism.

I was answering a post that did.

Compensation is not what I'm discussion. I'm talking ethics.

Compensation is, in this case, a manifestation of those ethics, though.

Creators obviously have concerns and I'm not simply going to dismiss them. There is no data one way or the other so any hard line stance is going to be arbitrary.

I agree.
I'm also not dismissing them, that's why i'm interested in the discussion, i could've gone to another thread, if i didn't care.
Believe it or not, i am looking for convincing arguments in either direction, and i am thinking about every point being made by either "side".
It's why i'm here.
It's an interesting subject i'm conflicted about, and i'm eviscerating it this way.

On the issue of monetization, I simply disagree that it is a factor in what point I'm specifically arguing. That point being the existence of entire games recorded and shown for free to the viewer. On speed running, I already retracted those suggestions because I saw that getting fixated on and it's not the focus of my argument.

I think monetization is crucial, because it's a telltale element, if we're arguing parasitic behavior (though it may be a dramatic word for the case).
There's a difference, in my opinion, between making a business out of playing games, and doing it for fun as a hobby.
The final damage may be similar, but intent is crucial, if we're arguing ethics.

And even on a more pragmatic level, monetization means a systematic use of content, which in turn means (generally) the amount of impact on the industry is much greater.
Basically, if you're doing it as a past time, you're going through a couple of games here and there.
If it's your livelyhood, you're going to have to go through several games a month to make it worth your while, having a larger impact on creators.

How is limiting the percentage shown more severe in my hypothetical?

Because the value of many let's plays is to see and hear someone's reaction (usually an entertaining person) to a game being played.
If i watched 3 hours of X LPyer play Silent Hill 2, it'd be terrible if they had to stop before the story was over.
In my experience it's not unlike having a friend watch your favorite movie, you want to see their reaction all the way through, especially as in a story driven game, the best moment usually comes at the end.

That said, more or less severe is beyond the point i was making.
As what i'm saying is that various degrees of restriction are going to be arbitrary (something we seem to agree on, at least).

 

[slightconfuse]

1 view on YouTube does not mean a lost sale.

 

[Disgraced]

I watch LPs fairly often and I've bought quite a lot of games because of it—good and bad ones even. Very recently I bought Alien: Isolation after watching slowbeef's stream and Watch Dogs because of Chip & Ironicus' full LP.

---

I don't know. I wish more LPers and streamers had integrity, or otherwise gave a shit about what they put out. So many have audiences that will watch them play anything and say anything. In a way there's nothing wrong with that. But other times there probably is.

There's so many LPs. So many streams right this second. So many archives. It reaches so fucking far. How do you reel in a situation that spans so far and wide without screwing over half or more of every side in the process?

I don't know how anyone is really fathoming this problem. In fact, I don't think anyone actually does. It's bullshit. But hey, I admire you all for trying. This issue is an ultra-nerdy, twisted, isolated version of all the questions there are with art, and the whole world, really. In that way it's fascinating, yet so frustrating.

 

[prag16]

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

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

I'm sorry, but this is a steaming load of bull. Tweak it oh ever so slightly, and it could be used as a defense for pirates.

I wouldn't have a problem with restricting Let's Plays somehow (but as others have said, it'd be really tough to police). Something definitely does seem wrong about being able to watch an entire game on youtube (especially for narrative heavy games without deep gameplay mechanics).

I'm not saying it should be completely stopped, and let's plays definitely do sell some people on some games. But on the other hand as I said, the whole thing from start to finish is extreme. I have to mostly side with the devs in this article.

 

[Haroon]

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

No! Your YouTube account will be banned, and you will serve fifteen years in jail.

 

[DragonGirl]

You must be sitting on this page. I got confused with who you were quoting and thought you were solely addressing me. My mistake became apparent when I posted, so I immediately edited. Not fast enough, apparently.

I think monetization is crucial, because it's a telltale element, if we're arguing parasitic behavior (though it may be a dramatic word for the case).
There's a difference, in my opinion, between making a business out of playing games, and doing it for fun as a hobby.
The final damage may be similar, but intent is crucial, if we're arguing ethics.

And even on a more pragmatic level, monetization means a systematic use of content, which in turn means (generally) the amount of impact on the industry is much greater.
Basically, if you're doing it as a past time, you're going through a couple of games here and there.
If it's your livelyhood, you're going to have to go through several games a month to make it worth your while, having a larger impact on creators.

And my stance is the way content can be made available outside of a developer's control/desire is an issue in and of itself. I'm not excluding the problem of monotization in regards to the big picture. I'm just focusing in on my specific point for purpose of this discussion.

Because the value of many let's plays is to see and hear someone's reaction (usually an entertaining person) to a game being played.
If i watched 3 hours of X LPyer play Silent Hill 2, it'd be terrible if they had to stop before the story was over.
In my experience it's not unlike having a friend watch your favorite movie, you want to see their reaction all the way through, especially as in a story driven game, the best moment usually comes at the end.

Sure, so make use of some editing and show the highlights. The hypothetical 50% doesn't have to be contiguous. It would make for a stronger video anyway. I'm still not convinced about showing endings but my position isn't entrenched.

In an aside, I watch let's plays. Specifically, I watch blind runs of people playing games i already played specifically to see their reactions to things I enjoyed. I see no reason that can't be preserved while also not giving the whole thing away.

That said, more or less severe is beyond the point i was making.
As what i'm saying is that various degrees of restriction are going to be arbitrary (something we seem to agree on, at least).

Well, yes. But arbitrariness is inescapable here. The line in the sand would only be settled by negotiation, not scientific study.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Yeah, i was referring to this part:

That was in response to your comment that "if there's no monetization, there's no crime", not in regards to "it's not the same experience". It's very annoying to have you mix and match my replies with the wrong discussions, and at worst it seems like you're doing it on purpose because you have no legitimate way to counter that it is, indeed, a crime regardless of monetization.

As for plays (or even concerts), since i specified that full playthrough uploads should include commentary, i think a full play uploaded with commentary on it (start to finish, not a couple of words here and there) would already be somewhat less controversial.
But i still think that gameplay is a more significant diversion from the real thing, than being or not at the play/concert live.

I vehemently think the opposite, especially with games like Life is Strange or Telltale games that are already cinematic, linear experiences that play on a screen. To say this is more different to the real thing that watching a recording is to watching the play, is mindboggling to me, and at this point I can't help thinking you won't ever concede the validity of any example at all, no matter how relevant, so it seems pointless to waste any more time on this discussion.

 

[UrbanRats]

Sure, so make use of some editing and show the highlights. The hypothetical 50% doesn't have to be contiguous. It would make for a stronger video anyway. I'm still not convinced about showing endings but my position isn't entrenched.

In an aside, I watch let's plays. Specifically, I watch blind runs of people playing games i already played specifically to see their reactions to things I enjoyed. I see no reason that can't be preserved while also not giving the whole thing away.

The problem i have with that is that, one, at least on the hobbyist/past time level, not everyone is able or willing to use an editing software, which takes some learning curve and time to use.
For someone who may want to stream a couple of hours every night after work, that is an unreasonable request.

Secondly, it's really not the same thing to experience the whole thing as it grows organically, instead of having some highlights that, usually, are funny only in the context of the whole thing (Jeff Green's playthorugh of Dark Souls is a good example of this).

Lastly, people who are hell bent on never or rarely buying a game and watch LPers instead, i doubt will go out and buy a game because they're missing down beat moments in the middle of said highlights.


If we were talking just about professional streamers, maybe, just because at least thay'd be fine with point one; but then we'd be talking monetization again, in which case i'm sure developers would rather see that percentage off of revenue, than this.

I vehemently think the opposite, especially with games like Life is Strange or Telltale games that are already cinematic, linear experiences that play on a screen. To say this is more different to the real thing that watching a recording is to watching the play, is mindboggling to me, and at this point I can't help thinking you won't ever concede the validity of any example at all, no matter how relevant, so it seems pointless to waste any more time on this discussion.

I could say the same thing, since i don't see how watching a live play and actually having interaction and agency in the story, are really all that comparable, but then that's why we're having the discussion.
Perhaps some subset of games where you can't explore or really influence the story in any way, like some visual novel where the only interaction is literally clicking through dialog boxes to the next story beat, but that's such a small section of games, that is hardly ground to enforce the same logic on the whole market.

I take issue with the assumption that i'm unwilling to concede, because i said it's a gray area multiple times, which means i'm not sure where the line should be drawn, i'm just not convinced by your argument, it doesn't mean i'm crystallized in my opinion.
Anyhow, if you don't want to carry on, that's really none of my business.

 

[ISOM]

And that law is kind of outdated & should be demolished.

If the publishers enforce it, the uproar about it would be the same way as with Microsoft implementing always online DRM (?) on Xbox One: Massive.

Yeah but there was a result of the Microsoft outrage in that people bought less Xbox Ones. Are people going to buy less games because LPers don't play it on their channel? I doubt it.

 

[freenudemacusers]

This has been an interesting read. A lot die hard gamers here seem very opposed* to the creators of content maintaining control of the distribution or revenue of their product.

*with horrible analogies

 

[spineduke]

This has been an interesting read. A lot die hard gamers here seem very opposed* to the creators of content maintaining control of the distribution or revenue of their product.

*with horrible analogies

and a lot with people with short sighted IP protectionist attitudes. Another 80 years for copyright? Yes please! Arguing on the basis of existing copyright laws is just another fallacy where people shouldn't be accepting the status quo. It can easily be argued that such LPs are transformative works and a separate thing from the games themselves.

 

[Freshmaker]

This has been an interesting read. A lot die hard gamers here seem very opposed* to the creators of content maintaining control of the distribution or revenue of their product.

*with horrible analogies

They want a piece of other people's content. Their content is the game.