• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Rumor: Youtube Getting tough on video game monetization in 2014

AngryPyros

Member
May 2, 2007
95
0
0
Do I read the OP correctly in that Nintendo is actually one of the few where they might let you monetize, where everone else says "no money ever"? Because given all the crap thrown their direction earlier this year, that amuses me.

Not really. Nintendo's policy is as follows:

"As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property."

They don't block you from using their videos/images. But if you try to monetize it, they work with YouTube so that they get the ad money. And if they want, they can have YouTube add an ad to your Nintendo game footage and they get the money from it.
 
Dec 1, 2004
26,791
1
0
South Carolina
www.neogaf.com
I think that'll depend on the publisher, Sega for example has a stated "no upload" policy there and we saw how they'd chase after Youtube videos of decade and a half old games just for cheap marketing purposes (they have a newer Shining game! DON'T LET PEOPLE FIND THE OLDER ONES WHEN THEY SEARCH FOR IT) so they really may crack down there, and Rockstar sounds like they may have a thin skin for cutscenes though I wager for the most part those aren't the most exciting movies to dig up on Youtube of their games anyway.

What I'm mostly worried about is publishers using this as a way to whitewash presentation of their game, so either negative videos get taken down, or even ones depicting funny-but-mostly-harmless glitches that they decide demonstrate their game in a bad light and get pulled. I kind of expect there'll be other venues and all, but this can potentially be very disappointing, yet not truly unexpected.

Yup, control the message.
 
Aug 2, 2007
15,211
0
0
I have no problem with quality streamers/LPER's who are good at games. But folks like PewdiePie shouldnt make a dime for making rape jokes and playing games.

Skill/quality have fuck all to do with mainstream popularity as with any other medium. However if your dislike of people like PewdiePie is more important than the livelihoods of guys like Sp00ky who depends on funds so he can stream fighting game tournaments weekly in NY and across the US then I don't know what to say. For every highly popular moron like Pewdie I'm sure there's hundreds if not thousands of Youtubers that need the income that's provided by their audience for the time it spends to produce and edit their content. If people willingly accept this and then it travels to services like Twitch then fuck them, they're petty people.
 

Mandoric

Banned
Jan 6, 2005
7,529
0
0
This is dumb, and barring things like cutscene compilations pubs should have no more right to shut down LPs than Spaulding has to shut down footage of you shooting hoop because they made the ball. If you say that there's no significant creative component to the player's action, and that someone who's watched a playthrough of your title is going to be less likely to buy, that's a straight-up admission that you've shipped software that's neither a game nor a toy--and while there are a few really talented VN developers who use nonlinear presentation and the illusion of choice to enhance their works, 90% of these titles and 99.9% of the complaints are going to be tepid, wait for your squad to open the door, press A to watch a scripted explosion spectacle shootmans or the like.

on the bright side, it will hasten the death of AAA as it shuts down free advertising while alienating its own consumers, all while primarily (at least on the visible top end) impacting THIS GAME MAKES ME MAD GRAR morons while bypassing the dedicated and awesome tournament guys who pump their coverage of games from friendlier publishers over Twitch.
 

ShinMaruku

Member
Jun 22, 2013
14,736
0
505
I have no problem with quality streamers/LPER's who are good at games. But folks like PewdiePie shouldnt make a dime for making rape jokes and playing games.

It's not skill that drives numbers it's personality. Now yes he does come off to be a twat but enough people think he provides some kind of service.
 

Eusis

Member
Apr 15, 2011
36,667
1
705
On a related note, it'd be really nice if more games let you rewatch whatever cutscenes you saw. I've gone to rewatch scenes from a game because I'd have no way short of keeping a save at the right time and clearing a boss fight (though sometimes I'm just too lazy to dig out a disc.)
 

NeoGash

Member
Sep 30, 2013
1,202
0
0
Australia
Rockstar seem pretty cool, but this whole situation is so ridiculous. Publishers and developers are just pissed off they didn't think off this first the twats. At the end of the day it just negatively affects gamers. If they aren't willing to let people play their games and post the videos online perhaps each of them should employ someone on their team to do the let's plays. Reminds me of Blizzard chucking a tantrum over the Valve/DotA thing because they were mad that they didn't think of it first.

I can't count how many games I have bought from watching youtube videos. Fuck this industry anyway, they make enough money the scumbags. I can understand games like TWD or Heavy Rain or cut scenes, but general gameplay? Fuck 'em, stop advertising their shit then. Ungrateful c**ts.
 

kazebyaka

Banned
Jan 4, 2009
3,466
0
0
I highly dislike let's plays because they are glorified like a replacement to actually playing a game. Disgusting thing. However, if there's a good narration going on and some entertainment value present, then upload must be able to earn some money from it. Plus it's a cheap pr for publishers.
 

Mandoric

Banned
Jan 6, 2005
7,529
0
0
I highly dislike let's plays because they are glorified like a replacement to actually playing a game. Disgusting thing. However, if there's a good narration going on and some entertainment value present, then upload must be able to earn some money from it. Plus it's a cheap pr for publishers.

It's only a substitute for playing a game if the game has no appeal but content tourism. The second playing well in itself is a reward, or there's complex mechanics that could never be iterated in a set of videos, it's nothing but a valuable advertisement.

Shit, should Activision and Harmonix have been complaining about iTunes because it lets you hear a song without having to buy GH/RB and put in practice?
 

maltrain

Junior Member
Jul 1, 2012
1,948
0
0
Chile
I think is fair.

Let put it this way... what if I upload a video of a movie with my comments on it while I'm streaming? And I make money for it? How that could be reasonable?

Why, then, game developers should accept what movies studios don't?

I mean... you want to upload a trailer on your account? Good. And even want to share part of a game? Maybe good IF you're not making money for it.

If you do, then the game devs should receive part of it at least in my opinion.
 

emko

Member
Oct 27, 2013
291
0
380
This. Good friend of mine doesn't even own a PS3, but knows EVERYTHING about TLOU because he just WATCHED the whole game on Youtube.

So, I guess I can kind of understand Naughty Dog's point of view on this, because games like TLOU (or Heavy Rain for that matter) are basically animated movies with player interaction.

the thing is would he have bought it if he couldn't watch it? buy a ps3 and the game?
 

Zen

Banned
Jun 24, 2005
13,050
0
0
people earning massive amounts of money by playing games and talking over them shouldn't exist.

If anyone deserves that money its the developers who did actual WORK to make said games.

But the people who are earning the money are earning it because of the content they add by talking. See two best friends play.
 

emko

Member
Oct 27, 2013
291
0
380
so people who review games like IGN wont be able to post trailers or gameplay for their reviews with ads? i would think these videos give devs free advertising

or should IGN now charge the developer to show there review without ads?
 

Dead Man

Member
Aug 24, 2007
54,245
0
0
people earning massive amounts of money by playing games and talking over them shouldn't exist.

If anyone deserves that money its the developers who did actual WORK to make said games.

Better fire all the media reviewers. How dare they get paid to play games/watch movies/listen to music?
 

saunderez

Member
Jun 15, 2007
7,901
0
880
Whitsundays, Australia
Better fire all the media reviewers. How dare they get paid to play games/watch movies/listen to music?
Agreed. If we're going to be petty refusing income to those who are creating original content (and let's face it, unless there is a robot playing EVERY let's play is original) then might as well extend that to everyone who is promoting their product. This whole idea is about as ludicrous as Jackson claiming ownership of anything I play on my guitar just because they made the guitar.
 

andthebeatgoeson

Junior Member
Jun 7, 2004
23,035
0
0
42
So basically I'll still be able to upload my videos like I do now.This won't affect people doing it for fun right?
Not sure what the big deal is. Just kill the guys in it for the money. Those that wasn't in it for cash, can still do it. Be glad you still can. Can you upload a movie with commentary? How about an entire album? Give ur comments between songs?

Talk about entitled. No fucking industry can you provide the entertainment digitally and make money off another's copyrighted work. Name one.
 
Oct 9, 2013
722
0
305
Milan, Italy
"As long as people don't make money" is incredibly disrespectful, I'm surprised someone agrees with these shortsighted publishers. If you assume that let's players and such should not make money it means that you consider the time they took to play the game, cut a decent video and upload it on youtube, exposing themselves to the public, is not worth a penny.

The reason for this is the fact that most publishers still try to target games to the general public and not to niche audiences, cultivating the illusion of hollywood-like money, so they spend a ridiculous amount of cash in marketing and advertising, because that's the way you trick uninterested people to buy your stuff. But passionate gamers use let's plays as the first and foremost way to decide if a game is worth buying or not: those who watch supercuts of story-driven games to see the story are not going to buy the game in the first place, so no harm is done to the publishers... but those videos could convince a passionate gamer to buy a game he/she probably didn't think about.

I'm amazed how these corporate idiots are shortsighted: they live in a alternate world in which works of art and doritos are basically the same thing.
 

Mondy

Banned
Jul 31, 2013
3,145
0
0
Youtube (Google) are really dumb if they do this. Gaming youtubers move on to other video websites, take their subscribers and ad revenue with them and Google doesn't get shit.
 

Orayn

Member
Jul 4, 2010
34,289
4
920
Minnesota
Youtube (Google) are really dumb if they do this. Gaming youtubers move on to other video websites, take their subscribers and ad revenue with them and Google doesn't get shit.

Not really, since YouTube pretty much has a monopoly. There aren't (m)any other sites for gaming content that are even remotely comparable in terms of reach or features.

so people who review games like IGN wont be able to post trailers or gameplay for their reviews with ads? i would think these videos give devs free advertising

or should IGN now charge the developer to show there review without ads?

Every big review site has negotiated with publishers to use certain content. This is about YouTube enforcing existing publisher rules more strictly.
 

Haunted

Member
Nov 16, 2006
78,223
18
965
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Fucking Google, man.

so people who review games like IGN wont be able to post trailers or gameplay for their reviews with ads? i would think these videos give devs free advertising

or should IGN now charge the developer to show there review without ads?
Big sites like IGN or Gamespot are probably the least affected because they're big enough to have done negotations with the major publishers (and if worst comes to worst, they have their own videoplayer solutions outside of Youtube to fall back on).
 

Ohmwrecker

Neo Member
May 10, 2011
16
0
0
US
You guys may have seen my video on this a few days back, which really brought the issue to light not long after Maker / Polaris sent out an email confirming the changes. Some things obviously -

1. This isn't a rumor. The thread title should be updated, as the affiliate option for MCNs is happening, and some of the biggest are dropping the hammer on their existing partners hard.

2. This is most likely going to bring about some big shifts in the Youtube community.

3. Existing partners deserve more from the MCNs not willing to give out managed status to anyone with a current contract.

There's a lot of spin going on surrounding who gets managed status, and who doesn't. The reality is the MCNs are given the choice to take on additional responsibility for copyright strikes by making their channels managed (which was the relationship prior to this change), or washing their hands of that responsibility by switching some / all of their channels to affiliates. The biggest problem here is that you've got tens of thousands of channels today partnered with the biggest MCNs, and none have been given the option to opt-out of the change because of the bullshit spin by the networks (i.e. nothing is changing, you'll still get all these great benefits!)

I've spent many hours now working behind the scenes with the network I'm affiliated with - Marker, parent of Polaris, and RPM. I've also spent time talking with other networks, partners at other channels, and even game developers / publishers that have insight into all of this. At the end of the day the risk that these MCNs now have to take on is scaling financial penalties for copyright strikes, which as far as I'm aware only apply if a copyright strike sticks. Ultimately though punishing the channels with existing contracts is not the answer, nor is expecting those channels to just roll with these changes when they're still expected to share 30-40% or worse at the biggest networks (Polaris, Machinima, RPM). It's scummy as hell, and bad business all around.

At this point it is my goal to help forge some sort of agreement where Maker, along with other networks, will extend an exit offer to all channels affected. This is because regardless of how many times they tell me that nothing is changing, things are really changing, and it's a modification of the relationship. The choice to not make all existing channels managed only shows that these companies have absolutely no faith in their partnered channels, even those that have never subjected their network to a single copyright strike. For example, I have had my channel since 2006, and I have no history of a copyright strike on my account, nor have I subjected Polaris to a strike since I signed a contract with them in August of last year. Despite that, I am in the affiliate pool, along with so many others.

With things playing out as we've been told they will I predict that we will see a very serious impact on networks like Maker, Machinima, and Fullscreen, with lots of bleed all around, and restructuring / layoffs as these MCNs try to weather the storm as partner generated revenue ratchets down. I know of many channels now that are considering seeking out new homes, some at relatively well known alternative networks like Curse (who are offering managed status much more loosely), others at relatively new startup MCNs like Foxital, and of course some talking about just outright forming a new MCN with other established game related Youtubers. Smaller networks and partnerships look to be the future.

It's really a shitty situation overall, and I'm sure none of the networks are happy about it, but at the end of the day the flak networks like Maker/Polaris/RPM and Fullscreen are taking right now is entirely the fault of the network execs due to their unwillingness to extend managed status and/or an exit option to their existing contract holders. This is all about MCN policy at this point, Youtube only told them that it's up to them to choose how to designate these new channels with the new terms tied to copyright strikes.

I will say that it's great to see support from so many channels in all of this, it's clear who out there really cares about the little guy. I don't want to start tossing names out there, but we've had some very vocal supporters both big and small, and even some of those that aren't at liberty to talk have shown support in other ways, such as sharing my video with their own communities via retweets and/or likes .
 

IdreamofHIME

Member
Sep 14, 2010
21,435
4
540
Like I said in the other thread, I can see why these would piss publishers off.
Something like Classic game room serves up a nice slice of what the game is like with critical commentary, while let's play/long plays are just just an abuse of copyright. A dozen hours of watching someone play through and spoil every little detail of a game a publisher wants to sell.
Surprised it took so long to crack down on it.
 

Martian

Member
Sep 15, 2011
2,388
20
705
I dont understand why publishers dont want people to make let's plays. They allow reviews with footage right?

I have never watched a youtube clip of a game (reviews aside) that made me less interested in a game.

Its not like people switch out playing games for watching lets plays
 

CodiesLoore

Member
Aug 3, 2012
256
0
0
Warwickshire
Codemasters here...

Just a heads up that what is outlined in the original article is wrong. Our YouTube setup (for want of a better word) is something I've worked on quite a bit so should be in the position to shed some light. Obviously things can change but currently, and as it stands:

  • We have no problem with users creating content using our games.
  • We also have no problem with users monetising their original content, even if it does use our games.
I don't think I've ever blocked a monetisation claim so not quite sure where the original claim has come from.
 

SneakyStephan

Banned
Jan 23, 2011
18,401
0
0
Publishers are insane...

too worried about some tiny opportunity cost of those few tens of thousands of thousands of dollars some randoms make off these videos to stop and think of the millions of people who watch those channels and all the free advertising/exposure this is for their stupid games

They'd rather piss away another 50 million on advertising themselves just so they have full control of the message...

Demos are considered bad for business now (DICE conference), word of mouth is bad now (embargoes), free exposure is bad now (this topic)
How backwards and lost can these companies get.

edit: and of course some consumer guilt motivated subset of gaf is defending this again, you are insane too.
 

Dead Man

Member
Aug 24, 2007
54,245
0
0
So we are going to ban people filming backyard baseball and monetising it, right? After all, the makers of the bats and balls deserve a payment if someone else is making monkey with something they created, right? Shit, better tell Red Letter Media they are out of luck too. Car manufacturers better get paid if someone is driving their cars and uploads a video as well.

Gah, it's such a stupid concept. Games (video or otherwise) are not movies. Just because you made something, doesn't entitle you to a cut of all money ever made with that afterwards.

Agreed. If we're going to be petty refusing income to those who are creating original content (and let's face it, unless there is a robot playing EVERY let's play is original) then might as well extend that to everyone who is promoting their product. This whole idea is about as ludicrous as Jackson claiming ownership of anything I play on my guitar just because they made the guitar.

Yup.
 

Feorax

Member
Jul 16, 2009
9,472
0
0
Liverpool, UK
Ugh, fuck publishers, fuck youtube, fuck this industry.

Petty, petty bastards who in the end are just cutting off their nose to spite their face.

Pathetic.
 

LeMaximilian

Alligator F*ck House
Feb 24, 2009
3,606
0
0
Santa Monica
Codemasters here...

Just a heads up that what is outlined in the original article is wrong. Our YouTube setup (for want of a better word) is something I've worked on quite a bit so should be in the position to shed some light. Obviously things can change but currently, and as it stands:

  • We have no problem with users creating content using our games.
  • We also have no problem with users monetising their original content, even if it does use our games.
I don't think I've ever blocked a monetisation claim so not quite sure where the original claim has come from.

It's good to understand the stance of actual publishers/devs on stuff like this.

If it wasn't for YouTube, Minecraft would have never of taken off.
 

Zemm

Member
Oct 11, 2012
6,855
1
0
Good to see some big guys being reasonable (valve, blizzard, mojan, riot, codemasters, ubisoft), the rest should be fucking ashamed. This is only going to hurt them long term.
 

Auto-Reply

Member
Sep 1, 2013
7,234
0
0
I might be interested in watching a game being played that i have no intention on buying. Some games are too old and you don't even can buy the hardware anymore they are running on in some cases. I don't want to spend my time going through a game sometimes, i'd rather fast forward and skip parts i don't like. It's curiosity.

If i can't find those games on youtube anymore, all it does is make me lose complete intererst in them and i forget that they existed.

It's moronic to think that this affects sales in any way.
 

Lynd7

Member
Dec 8, 2012
2,564
12
515
Australia
Using small amounts of footage is reasonable, someone made the point about streaming commentary on movies whilst playing the film. That is not allowed, this is similar.

That YouTube copyright video also says you can't perform your own cover of a song technically.
 

Daffy Duck

Member
Jun 19, 2013
11,515
1,555
890
UK
Aside from let's plays, how would CoD/BF commentaries suffer in this?

Also what about guides like drift0rs in depths to weapons?

Would he have to just have graphs instead of background gameplay?
 

SolidSnakex

Member
Jun 7, 2004
85,523
4
0
Youtube (Google) are really dumb if they do this. Gaming youtubers move on to other video websites, take their subscribers and ad revenue with them and Google doesn't get shit.

The crackdown isn't going to be limited to Youtube. If certain publishers don't want you turning a profit by posting playthroughs then it isn't going to matter where you go. They're going to stop it and streaming or video services are going to follow along with their rules.
 

Moral Panic

Member
Jul 3, 2012
4,426
0
0
Agreed. If we're going to be petty refusing income to those who are creating original content (and let's face it, unless there is a robot playing EVERY let's play is original) then might as well extend that to everyone who is promoting their product. This whole idea is about as ludicrous as Jackson claiming ownership of anything I play on my guitar just because they made the guitar.

No it isn't. Learn about copyright law before you make such ridiculous pronouncements. Let's plays are a derivative work, playing on your guitar is not creating a derivative work. Its actually quite clear cut.
 

Dead Man

Member
Aug 24, 2007
54,245
0
0
No it isn't. Learn about copyright law before you make such ridiculous pronouncements. Let's plays are a derivative work, playing on your guitar is not creating a derivative work. Its actually quite clear cut.

Maybe you should learn about the difference between legally correct and ethically and logically correct.
 

Garcia

Member
Oct 5, 2006
7,332
0
1,185
Mexico City
Codemasters here...

Just a heads up that what is outlined in the original article is wrong. Our YouTube setup (for want of a better word) is something I've worked on quite a bit so should be in the position to shed some light. Obviously things can change but currently, and as it stands:

  • We have no problem with users creating content using our games.
  • We also have no problem with users monetising their original content, even if it does use our games.
I don't think I've ever blocked a monetisation claim so not quite sure where the original claim has come from.

You guys are awesome and we need more people like you in the industry.
 
Oct 11, 2009
14,406
0
0
The Netherlands
You guys may have seen my video on this a few days back, which really brought the issue to light not long after Maker / Polaris sent out an email confirming the changes. Some things obviously -
And the rest of this FANTASTIC post
WOW best post since the hole EA we want to be best company is the USA thing.

Really interesting read and very insightful together with the video you make a good case why this is fucked up for future YT gaming community.

Also just with piracy you will NEVER be able to proof that people who watch a playtrough of a SP game on youtube would ever buy the game anyway or because they watched it are now NOT going to buy your game because of it.

You just have to trust that its a "free" PR for your game and that good YTers help sell you game more then if they were not there to begin with.
 

Silphonica

Banned
Feb 22, 2011
4,549
0
630
but they are making money off other people's commercial products, and they can't expect that to be an iffy area.

This is an iffy area but people making money from it aren't reselling it as their own product and to be honest cutting people off from this will damage the gaming community more than anything and in the end developers will lose out just as much.
 

trixx

Member
Jul 27, 2012
8,484
1
0
Hmm man that sucks.

The people uploading should definitely get some of the revenue. There should be some kind of commission for the uploaders. Can't say that i wholly agree with current approach but give them a cut of the cheese, This is for a company like Nintendo.

For the companies that don't want monetization of let's plays at all i don't know why there couldn't be some sort of split as well. It's free advertising anyways.
 

zainetor

Banned
Dec 26, 2012
2,007
0
0
This is an iffy area but people making money from it aren't reselling it as their own product and to be honest cutting people off from this will damage the gaming community more than anything and in the end developers will lose out just as much.
They dont own the game, they own the license to play that copy of the game. You cant do whstever the fuck you want, just because you bought it, doesnt work that way.
 

Silphonica

Banned
Feb 22, 2011
4,549
0
630
They dont own the game, they own the license to play that copy of the game. You cant do whstever the fuck you want, just because you bought it, doesnt work that way.

That's not entirely true.

In fact it is not illegal to make commentaries of copyrighted stuff, they grey area is monetisation. However making money through fair use, isn't uncommon, in fact there are many other industries out there that have built businesses around fair use.

The problem here is developers, pushing against it. I'd rather this whole scenario went to court rather than everyone bending over to developers and publishers.