Fez Creator: YouTubers Are "Stealing" Content From Game Developers
- Thread starter Steven Bogos
- Start date
Nintendo is all over the place regarding their policies on YouTube. My understanding is that certain new games get more picked by Nintendo, I don't know if all of the Mario Kart 8 vids revenues are going directly to Nintendo, or they changed their policies on a by case basis.MinionJoe said:
EDIT: Yup. [http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2014/06/nintendo_revenue_claims_on_mario_kart_8_youtube_footage_reportedly_underway] Ninty is still claiming revenues with Mario Kart 8 vids. They're still being dicks.
Likewise, LP's on Mario Kart 8 has sold me on the game and I'm dying to buy a WiiU and play it myself, Ninty are still hellbent on putting the kibosh on YouTubers, despite them being pretty much free advertising. I honestly haven't seen a single official MK8 advertisement ('been months since the last time I watched TV) and an LP sold me on it. So yeah.
Aww .... isn't that cute, the egotistical prick of a has been still thinks he has any credibility left, not that he had any to begin with far as I'm concerned.
Can we just ignore every thing the ignorant, self important, fuckwad says from now on? He's not a dev anymore, he's not in the games industry, nor was he in it long enough to make any kind of truly informed comments about it.
Can we just ignore every thing the ignorant, self important, fuckwad says from now on? He's not a dev anymore, he's not in the games industry, nor was he in it long enough to make any kind of truly informed comments about it.
Surprising how accurately we're portrayed by the people we hate. One word against our ideals and boom, you're an "egotistical prick". I agree with Phil Fish. If you're making money off his content, you owe him a cut. If you're not making money off the videos, you don't owe him anything. Why is that a problem for all of you? Do you all really think that PewDiePie would be famous or earning anything above minimum wage if he wasn't showcasing other people's content? The guy's a twat. Come on.
And the "free advertising" thing is absolute bollocks. Like, three plates heaped with steaming bollocks, stacked atop trays laden with even more steaming fucking bollocks. Do you know how much it would cost a developer to sit down and make an LP of his own game? Fuckin nothin. And he'd have the rights to do so. If you're making a career off somebody else's property, you're a thief and you owe something back. The game would sell without the LPer. The LPer would not sell without the game.
The bottom line is this - if you're making money on somebody else's content, you're obligated to share it. If you're not making money, they have no right to stop you.
And the "free advertising" thing is absolute bollocks. Like, three plates heaped with steaming bollocks, stacked atop trays laden with even more steaming fucking bollocks. Do you know how much it would cost a developer to sit down and make an LP of his own game? Fuckin nothin. And he'd have the rights to do so. If you're making a career off somebody else's property, you're a thief and you owe something back. The game would sell without the LPer. The LPer would not sell without the game.
The bottom line is this - if you're making money on somebody else's content, you're obligated to share it. If you're not making money, they have no right to stop you.
Youtube let's plays are basically free advertising for games. People watch let's plays and then buy the games themselves if they see themselves enjoying it. Phil Fish is a moron who happened to make a good game. I'm disappointed that people still think his comments carry any weight.
While the argument could be made for certain games like Professor Layton, (Which would honestly make for a very boring LP anyway.) this is pretty much how I feel about this. Granted, there will always be that odd one or two people that is this way for good games too, but predominatelyDalisclock said:
not.
Besides which, the only people earning any decent revenue from these videos are people that know what they are doing. They have good commentary, good information, something that makes them worth watching over the slew of bare bones silent "walkthrough" videos. In other words, the people who put actual effort into their videos. And I have no problem with that.
Within a certain archaic logic, what he is saying makes sense. However, it's so far removed from reality and also so in-character for his self-loving persona that I just cannot agree with the man.
What he demands is essentially the same thing as if developers and publishers started to charge magazines for reviewing their game. There is a very good reason that is not the case, and that reason is called PR, exposure, publicity, advertising. A review or preview of a game in a printed or online magazine as well as Youtube videos have a profound effect on these things. If you take away ad revenue from these content creators, you will lose all that immediately.
Mr. Fish, if you don't understand how marketing works, please don't embarrass yourself any further.
What he demands is essentially the same thing as if developers and publishers started to charge magazines for reviewing their game. There is a very good reason that is not the case, and that reason is called PR, exposure, publicity, advertising. A review or preview of a game in a printed or online magazine as well as Youtube videos have a profound effect on these things. If you take away ad revenue from these content creators, you will lose all that immediately.
Mr. Fish, if you don't understand how marketing works, please don't embarrass yourself any further.
Well let's look at it this way.
If the youtuber gets two hundred thousand views, that's two hundred potential customers they've just reached without the developer having to pay a penny. Plus, as someone has already pointed out, that level of popularity probably means that the youtuber is producing quality content that will represent your game well.
And if the youtuber gets fifty views, it won't matter either way, will it? If the video's crap, if it's good, if it represents the game well or not, if it "spoils" the game or not... it doesn't matter if nobody sees it.
Yeah... I don't get Mr Fish's argument here. As much as it occasionally seems to try not to be, videogaming is still considered an "interactive" medium in most quarters. You can't get that interactivity from a video. That's why most of the games I've bought have been after I've seen videos of them being paid, and hardly any have been because of advertising (and the latter - "The Ship", "Bioshock Infinite", etc - I've mostly regretted purchasing.) Youtube personalities provide free advertising to indie game studios who often don't have the necessary funds to get anywhere near that kind of visibility otherwise. Why punish them for it?
If the youtuber gets two hundred thousand views, that's two hundred potential customers they've just reached without the developer having to pay a penny. Plus, as someone has already pointed out, that level of popularity probably means that the youtuber is producing quality content that will represent your game well.
And if the youtuber gets fifty views, it won't matter either way, will it? If the video's crap, if it's good, if it represents the game well or not, if it "spoils" the game or not... it doesn't matter if nobody sees it.
Yeah... I don't get Mr Fish's argument here. As much as it occasionally seems to try not to be, videogaming is still considered an "interactive" medium in most quarters. You can't get that interactivity from a video. That's why most of the games I've bought have been after I've seen videos of them being paid, and hardly any have been because of advertising (and the latter - "The Ship", "Bioshock Infinite", etc - I've mostly regretted purchasing.) Youtube personalities provide free advertising to indie game studios who often don't have the necessary funds to get anywhere near that kind of visibility otherwise. Why punish them for it?
Just because money is changing hands does not automatically preclude fair use, hence the specific notation of critique and parody. There is a massive difference between a copyright violation through profiting from copies of a work and profiting from a critique, parody or even a Let's Play. As long as the piece in question can be seen as sufficiently transformative, and/or insufficiently damaging to the copyright holder's ability to make money, then it counts, and that's why Let's Plays are controversial in this regard.Milky1985 said:
Personal Opinion Tangent: I personally think LPs qualify as transformative because, while they can't exist without the game, they do change the nature and focus of the experience. They're kind of like video game RiffTrax, but with the obvious difference that every "movie" has infinite "cuts" upon which to riff.
Phill, Phill never changes, also I think he forgets how much positive advertisement games get from youtube
I can understand where Fish is coming from, but I just don't agree with his sentiment. A LP or Live Stream channel can regularly play a game created by a certain developer. More often than not, the people tuning into these channels to watch these videos are tuning to watch or listen to the people playing the game.
It can be argued that the content of the video is made possible due to the use of the video game, sure. Once commentators are added to the equation however, I think that the whole of the video becomes a different beast entirely, becoming a new type of entertainment, and not just a playthrough of a game.
Then of course, there's always the argument that people playing and commenting on a game actually brings interest to the game, bringing along with it an increase in sales.
It's a shame, cuz I like Phil Fish as a game developer, but I tend to not agree with his opinions.
It can be argued that the content of the video is made possible due to the use of the video game, sure. Once commentators are added to the equation however, I think that the whole of the video becomes a different beast entirely, becoming a new type of entertainment, and not just a playthrough of a game.
Then of course, there's always the argument that people playing and commenting on a game actually brings interest to the game, bringing along with it an increase in sales.
It's a shame, cuz I like Phil Fish as a game developer, but I tend to not agree with his opinions.
Well, let's think about this for a moment, Fish. Are you saying that ANY content that is not made by you is "copyrighted," and thus the profits must be given to the original content owners?
OK, so...
First off, I'm sorry, all amateur streamers ever that aren't licensed by the actual game publishers, but technically YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL!
Second off, I'm pretty sure that most online reviewers either:
1) Buy the copy of the game.
2) Are given the copy of the game, you know... review copies. TB has gotten numerous free review codes for Steam games as per his business model.
Buuuut now they have to pay extra dividends to the publisher because they're using their content through gameplay footage and whatnot.
Third off, I'm sorry, all online reviewers, comedic or serious ever, but now you can no longer show any content EVER from the content you are reviewing, because "technically" you are using their content and you would have to pay them for the privilege of using your content.
So that means no trailer footage.
So that means no gameplay footage.
So that means no movie footage.
So that means no quotes from the source material.
Because otherwise you are using their material and thus now you must pay them.
Also, I am no longer allowed to quote anything from anything ever in any content I make, because the quotes didn't come from me, but rather from the source material, and thus I am no longer allowed to use the quotes from that content... because that would be depriving them of the privilege of seeing that quote in your original content.
WAIT A SECOND. Isn't the Energy Sword in Halo derived from the Lightsaber in Star Wars? TRULY BUNGIE AND MICROSOFT MUST PAY MONEY TO LUCASARTS FOR DARING TO USE THEIR CONTENT IN HALO.
... Yes, this is a slippery slope argument, but the point still stands. Just because they're using your content doesn't mean that they're plagiarizing it. This might surprise you, but people aren't watching them play Fez because they want to see Fez.
OK, so...
First off, I'm sorry, all amateur streamers ever that aren't licensed by the actual game publishers, but technically YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL!
Second off, I'm pretty sure that most online reviewers either:
1) Buy the copy of the game.
2) Are given the copy of the game, you know... review copies. TB has gotten numerous free review codes for Steam games as per his business model.
Buuuut now they have to pay extra dividends to the publisher because they're using their content through gameplay footage and whatnot.
Third off, I'm sorry, all online reviewers, comedic or serious ever, but now you can no longer show any content EVER from the content you are reviewing, because "technically" you are using their content and you would have to pay them for the privilege of using your content.
So that means no trailer footage.
So that means no gameplay footage.
So that means no movie footage.
So that means no quotes from the source material.
Because otherwise you are using their material and thus now you must pay them.
Also, I am no longer allowed to quote anything from anything ever in any content I make, because the quotes didn't come from me, but rather from the source material, and thus I am no longer allowed to use the quotes from that content... because that would be depriving them of the privilege of seeing that quote in your original content.
WAIT A SECOND. Isn't the Energy Sword in Halo derived from the Lightsaber in Star Wars? TRULY BUNGIE AND MICROSOFT MUST PAY MONEY TO LUCASARTS FOR DARING TO USE THEIR CONTENT IN HALO.
... Yes, this is a slippery slope argument, but the point still stands. Just because they're using your content doesn't mean that they're plagiarizing it. This might surprise you, but people aren't watching them play Fez because they want to see Fez.
the diva dev is at it again
even if you dont agree with lets players calling them "basically pirates" is simply insane, not to mention, many lets players increase the sales of games thanks to the extra exposition
even if you dont agree with lets players calling them "basically pirates" is simply insane, not to mention, many lets players increase the sales of games thanks to the extra exposition
Let's plays aren't necessarily about the game being played, I'd say 80% of the time it's about the personality of the person playing it. It's different with movies, no one is commentating as they watch with you.