I kind of get what he's saying, and in part, I agree with it. Yes, the youtuber personality and the work they put into their video should count for something, but the argument that because a game is interactive and a video isn't and therefore shouldn't count.. that really depends on the game, I think.
Does a game that's heavily scripted and reliant on cutscenes really differ that much from a video? You could play Bioshock Infinite using different vigors and weapons, sure.. but the story is still the same in every playthrough, and becomes less interesting the second time around. If you watched a playthrough just to get the story without buying the game, isn't that basically theft? And should the person making the playthrough owe the developer money? In that case, I see his point.
And yes, bad games can get bad reviews, but reviews can be subjective and biased, and a game people enjoy can get a bad review if the reviewer just disliked it for some reason. Think of some of Jim Sterling's scathing reviews of games lauded by most reviewers for example, his opinions can end up costing them sales.
And yes, a good review by a popular reviewer/critic/first impressionist can result in a lot of positive and free advertising. So an argument can be made that the developers owe youtubers for their success too.
I guess my opinion is, some youtubers who are just trying to lazily cash in should have to pay devs, but those that end up being a benefit shouldn't, because they pay them back with free advertising. But try getting that sort of logic to work in reality where most people are greedy jerks..
Does a game that's heavily scripted and reliant on cutscenes really differ that much from a video? You could play Bioshock Infinite using different vigors and weapons, sure.. but the story is still the same in every playthrough, and becomes less interesting the second time around. If you watched a playthrough just to get the story without buying the game, isn't that basically theft? And should the person making the playthrough owe the developer money? In that case, I see his point.
And yes, bad games can get bad reviews, but reviews can be subjective and biased, and a game people enjoy can get a bad review if the reviewer just disliked it for some reason. Think of some of Jim Sterling's scathing reviews of games lauded by most reviewers for example, his opinions can end up costing them sales.
And yes, a good review by a popular reviewer/critic/first impressionist can result in a lot of positive and free advertising. So an argument can be made that the developers owe youtubers for their success too.
I guess my opinion is, some youtubers who are just trying to lazily cash in should have to pay devs, but those that end up being a benefit shouldn't, because they pay them back with free advertising. But try getting that sort of logic to work in reality where most people are greedy jerks..