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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Jim Sterling just wrote a piece about this.
http://www.thejimquisition.com/2016/03/that-dragon-lets-plays/
There is a law against LPs. The only question is if developers should enforce it.
There is a law against LPs. The only question is if developers should enforce 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.
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.
Okay. And what about my compromise law? Because I'm not against the idea of LPs.
Correlation, not causation. You need to show that LPs have benefited "walking simulators" and visual novels.
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.
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.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?
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.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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cares if you have failed as an artist? Doesn't give other people the right to make money off your work.
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.
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.
True, that's the hard part. Can't really think of a system that would make both parties happyI 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.
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.
Using that argument you could upload any movie to Youtube as long as you don't monetize it. Which, evidently, isn't the case.
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.
Because they stand more on interaction?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.
No trick, i started with sarcasm, and got sarcasm in return, that's fair....Nice trick.
I was answering a post that did.There is a very specific reason I did not say theft and did say parasitism.
Compensation is, in this case, a manifestation of those ethics, though.Compensation is not what I'm discussion. I'm talking ethics.
I agree.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 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).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.
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.How is limiting the percentage shown more severe in my hypothetical?
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.
Would it EVER be acceptable to upload me playing a game?
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.
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).
Yeah, i was referring to this part:
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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
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
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