Fez Creator: YouTubers Are "Stealing" Content From Game Developers

[Steven Bogos]

Fez Creator: YouTubers Are "Stealing" Content From Game Developers

Fez creator Phil Fish says that YouTubers who don't share ad revenue with game developers are "basically pirates."

Oh look, Fez creator Phil Fish opened his mouth to say something controversial again [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126385-Update-Fez-Dev-Tells-Media-Member-To-Kill-Himself]. This time, he has equated anyone who uses video game content on YouTube to pirates, saying that a significant portion of all ad revenues from these videos should go directly to the game developers.

"YouTubers should have to pay out a huge portion of their revenue to the developers from which they steal all their content," Fish said in the first of a series of tweets. "[Ad] revenue should be shared with developers," he continued. "This should be built into YouTube. Anything else is basically piracy."

He went on to state that "If you generate money from putting my content on your channel, you owe me money. Simple as that," lamenting the fact that someone could "buy Fez, put ALL of it on YouTube, turn on ads, make money from it and that's TOTALLY FINE." He complained that there were systems in place to prevent people doing this with movies, but not with video games.

Fish has since subsequently made his account private, and then deleted it all together, no doubt due to the torrent of people spamming his Twitter with disagreements. Fortunately, GameSpot [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fez-creator-phil-fish-youtubers-should-pay-game-devs-huge-portion-of-revenue/1100-6420573/] managed to save the quotes before the account went down.

It's not a great way for someone who is already somewhat disliked by the gaming community to present himself, as an earlier attempt by Nintendo to stop YouTube videos of its games [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124066-Nintendo-Suddenly-Claims-Ownership-Of-Many-YouTube-Videos] was met with very harsh criticism.

Last we heard from Fish, he had cancelled the development of Fez II [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/126385-Update-Fez-Dev-Tells-Media-Member-To-Kill-Himself] and quit the games development industry (though an April Fools Day announcement claimed he had returned to game development).

Source: GameSpot [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fez-creator-phil-fish-youtubers-should-pay-game-devs-huge-portion-of-revenue/1100-6420573/]

Permalink

 

[RedBackDragon]

*sigs then looks around for his popcorn* i am gona get so fat from eating popcorn watching all the drama thats been going on lately

so much for being "done" in anycase

 

[dumbseizure]

Oh......Phil Fish is actually still alive?

I haven't heard anything from him in a while, and now this happens.

Oh Phil, crazy crazy Phil.....

 

[Rad Party God]

I'll just quote myself from a previous thread about this exact same topic, my stance remains unchanged:

Oh Phil... I was starting to like you just a little bit after watching Indie Game: The Movie, but damn if it isn't extremely easy to dislike you.

Spoiler: Okay. Do game streamers/YouTubers owe money to the devs of these games?.

To me, a live stream or an LP isn't completely about the game itself, sometimes I watch these to make a better and more informed decision about buying or playing this game or not, but sometimes I watch these for the other half that counts, the YouTuber/Live Streamer.

To me, these guys are entertainers, I could watch two LP's of the same game with two entirely different people and get mostly different reactions or commentaries.

Though I guess that playing Fez is boring as fuck, that's an exception I'd make to simply watch the damned thing instead of playing it.

 

[Revolutionary]

Even when "retired" Phil can't help but open his mouth and say something profoundly stupid. Nothing ever changes.

 

[Braedan]

People go on and on and on about how games are different than EVERYTHING else because of the interaction, yet as soon as you take the interaction out,and show people they treat it like you are robbing the developers of the money that comes from said interaction. Games industry bullshit at its finest.

Fish ain't the first and won't be the last.

 

[Dalisclock]

I find it amusing that instead of seeing it as "Free Advertising" he sees it as "WAHHHHHHHHH! Someone is watching my game! They might decide to buy it in future but I'm not getting money now! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!"

Dude, if your game is so boring that someone watching your game can get the same experience as if they were playing it(and thus doesn't need to bother playing it), you've got bigger problems then people using pieces of your game to make a video.
Last I checked, you don't own Square-Enix *rimshot*.

I probably should be relieved he's not making any more games. I already own fez and won't have to worry about buying anything else from him.

 

[Kameburger]

Phil Fish will leave the industry, but his opinions never will. The sad irony is it was his opinions that were never welcome in the first place, not the man.

 

[Tireseas_v1legacy]

I think the bigger problem was that this was on Twitter, which means the argument isn't exactly going to be detailed and nuanced.

I do understand where he is coming from though, having exploited it myself, and there are certain kinds of videos that feel like they're exploiting the format. To do this, though, we need to differentiate what kinds of videos are out there. I have made three broad categories to best describe them:

1) Short clips. These are the most common and most viewed, as they contain short bursts of the gameplay, usually no more than a few minutes, either to demonstrate something (how to do x), review a game or just to show something brief and entertaining.

2) First impressions/vertical slices. These are videos containing long (20 min+), uncut segments of gameplay, usually right in the beginning or in the middle of the game, where the purpose is to essentially show what the game looks like when it is being played (totalbuscuit, for example). While substantial amounts of the game are revealed, the purpose is to demonstrate the various elements of the game and not to show a complete playthrough.

3) The Full Game. These are your "let's play" video series,' often spanning several hours and videos. They contain essentially from beginning to end of the entire game, often with commentary. But here's where I get really concerned.

With the first two, the creativity of the video makers is on display, with the selections very carefully chosen to convey certain specific elements. With the last one, it varies heavily by video. Some videos have barely any addition other than simply viewing the game as played by the video maker, often with sparse comments just to make the series legal, particularly in linear story games (survival horror is what I tend to view). And this is where I think videos cross the line. The video is not being watched, in that case, to determine whether to buy the product or for the commentary, but rather clearly to have watch the game being played as is, no different than watching a friend play in your living room. And this understandably will frustrate a developer who feels like the video maker is getting paid for what is overwhelmingly his own content.

 

[Redryhno]

What's this? Phil Fish being a loud-mouthed twit that shuts everything down and goes off to Hermitsville the moment a vast majority of people disagree with him? Cool, I died in Dark Souls a few times today.

Not that I can't see where he's coming from with his comments, but for someone that claims to be retired and want nothing to do with the industry after his last internet explosion, he sure seems to have alot of opinions about everyone connected to the industry that provide free advertising combined with a player's review of the game half the time.

 

[el derpenburgo]

I don't think he has a problem with gameplay videos, rather the people who make gameplay videos as their primary source of income. He spent a shitload of time to make Fez, got a sizeable windfall from its success, but now he sees a bunch of people just playing video games and earning roughly as much as he did. Also, many of these video folk produce work of let's say "debatable" quality.

I'm not saying I agree with his sweeping youtube economic reform, but I do see where he's coming from.

 

[FalloutJack]

I'm going to use the ugly word.

"Entitlement"

The funny thing about that word is that it's become a slang term for a sarcastic opposite of its meaning. Slang is weird that way. Still, regardless of its actual use, Fishy has issues with it, big time. Youtubers AND Youtube itself has enough problems without some mouthy twit pulling on the money tag again.

 

[putowtin]

"Hey look it's me, why arn't you crying out for me to come back any more? Don't you love me?"

go away Phil, there maybe a point burried in their, but your whining and moaning is detracting from it!

 

[Duskflamer]

I don't think he has a problem with gameplay videos, rather the people who make gameplay videos as their primary source of income. He spent a shitload of time to make Fez, got a sizeable windfall from its success, but now he sees a bunch of people just playing video games and earning roughly as much as he did. Also, many of these video folk produce work of let's say "debatable" quality.

I'm not saying I agree with his sweeping youtube economic reform, but I do see where he's coming from.

The ones with debatable quality aren't earning as much money as Fish got from making Fez.

 

[Brad Shepard]

Might want to add to article that right after a few people told him he was full of shit he deleted his twitter again, dont know if he started it again but last i checked its was gone

https://twitter.com/PHIL_FISH

Just in case it changes again after i post this.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

Well we all can't have hits mister Fish, so go suck an egg or something. By my understanding, nobody besides PewDeePie or the other big Youtubers makes serious amounts of bank off their videos. Generally any video that people put up is free advertising, people see the game and get commentary on whether it's worth buying or not. Demanding royalties is just a great disincentive to stop people from talking about or bringing attention to it.

On one hand people should harass people for having an idea, but all the while, it's a better idea to step back and think about what your saying. Say shit and you get hit.

Man, maybe I should make stupid comments then everybody will get to see my game(s)... Hitler was Right! *Swimming in the money and appraisal.

 

[Kuredan]

I'll start off by saying I'm not fan of Fish. He's abrasive in how he deals with conflict and brings out the worst in himself and other people when he opens his mouth. I generally let people's work speak for them, but when they insist on being louder, I change my point of view. Fez is great: he is not.

That said, I think a lot of people are more hung up on how he transmitted his message rather than the message itself. How can you justify monetizing someone else's work? If it's not a parody or doesn't fall under fair use, if it's not attributed and the artist is not remunerated with a percentage of the revenue you make (ya know the kind often found in contracts), how is that anything but theft? Yes you may have put work into your product, but your source material is not your own. It's just like plagiarizing an term paper, only yo're getting paid for it.

It's hard to show how bad this practice is because there isn't a good tangible analogue in the world to relate to, with the possible exception of music or theatre. Artists have "sampled" others' work and added it to their own, but have run into problems when they did get permission (see Vanilla Ice vs. Queen/ David Bowie). Another example is the un-authorized reproduction of play scripts/ production of unlicensed plays. I worked at my university's theatre department and it was a real chore to have to explain to an amateur or student group why it was illegal to a. photocopy a play script (some scripts can be, some can't: it depends on the licencing) b. perform a play without the permission of the rights holders and c. to charge money for the play's performance while committing a. and b. (that's suuuper illegal). Yes it is your own production, but your production of someone else's work.

Bottom line, Fish is a jerk but he's not entirely wrong in saying that plagiarism + money= theft.