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

[Amaror]

Well it is a difficult subject.
Yeah, youtubers are earning money from the game you created. In the same way a company is earning money using the office software created by microsoft. But suggesting that these companies give microsoft part of their revenue is insane.
They allready bought the licences to buy the software.
In the same way the youtubers allready bought the game.
Besides most of the money comes from the youtuber, not the game.
You can post videos of games all you want, when the quality is shit, your not going to earn any money.
The youtuber is making money because he spents a lot of work on recording, commentary, rendering, editing and uploading.
You can try this yourself. record some video game footage and upload it. No commentary, no rendering, no editing.
See how much money you make with this method.

 

[alj]

I work in IT should i give some of my wages to NEC as they made the monitor, Lenovo for making the computer, flico for the keyboard Logitech for the mouse.? What about paying the power company some for the electricity? See how totally retarded that sounds! Well that's what you sound like fish.

Whist i agree that 90% of lets plays have terrible production values and have voice overs from childish or downright boring people that is there job, they must be doing something right as they are quite popular despite the fact that i don't like most of them. And on reviews, first impressions and so on they are a important consumer tool and if developers steal there hard earned ad revenue then they will stop making that stuff and that is bad for the consumer and ultimately bad for the developer.

And why would you not want free advertising and free exposure of your game to 100s of thousands of potential customers? Oh and if someone can get the full experience of your game from a lets play then you are doing something wrong, the story should be told through the world and the mechanics not via cut-scene and then a walk along a linear corridor.

Just another developer (sorry, ex-developer) who is totally ignorant to how the industry works, we have had all this "new thing" will kill the games industry we had it with floppy disks being copied being "the end" for games same with bad reviews and so on ALL of them have been proven to be bollocks, just shitty developers looking for an excuse as to why there shitty game did not sell.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I thought you wanted to stay away from gaming Mr Fish?

Because I sure as fuck want your ignorant opinions to stay away as well.

To be fair, he didn't come back to gaming; he just revisited his hobby of impotently whining.

 

[Tygerml]

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..

 

[BloodRed Pixel]

LP Videos are essentially very, very long reviews.

Do game devs get paid when some one reviews their game?

No, on the contrary game devs should be obligeted to pay LP Tubers and Reviewers, but that's where Ads revenue comes in, so they pay nothing and actually get FREE advertisement.

Additionally, LP Videos taking works off customer support for them, by providing effective visual walkthroughs to help on tough spots adn if it's a good LP the tuber has played the game serveral times and provides a ton of info insights hard to find.
And even the tubers who are just doing it for the money spent at least dozens of hours in making the video to ADVERTISE for the game.


LP videos helped me A LOT in making POSITIVE buying decisions.

 

[webkilla]

*Insert facepalm.jpg*

I watch things like the Yogscast, Jacksepticeye and even Markiplier - not so much for the game content, but to see and hear the channel hosts be funny and entertaining.

With the yogscast I get some delightful shop talk that is quite relaxing. With Jacksepticeye I get delishious irish hilarity, and with Markiplier I get... a lesser form of pewdiepie that I can actually stommach - which also occationally makes me laugh.

Heck, I'd probably watch most of their videos if it was just all black audio only... because I usually play stuff myself while listening to them

 

[Pedro The Hutt]

I'm glad to see that Fish his transition into PR and publishing [http://www.polygon.com/2014/6/15/5812118/polytron-partners-phil-fish-fez] (although he swears it's not publishing) is going smooth and without any issue what so ever.

 

[Jennacide]

Go back to not making Fez 2 and leave everyone on the internet alone Phil. I used to think he was just autistic, now I have the hunch he has full blown down syndrome, except that's probably an insult to those that actually have it.

How does this moron not realize youtubers are providing free marketing, and a form you can't actually pay for?

 

[Chessrook44]

"Youtubers should pay a portion of their revenue to game developers"? OK then, what about those whose revenue is zero?

I've been making LPs for about a year and a half now and have never monetized. All my videos are adless. So... technically I'm doing just that. In fact, I'm giving Spiderweb Software (Whose games I was doing) all of the Nothing I've been making. More in fact, since alternate choices would promote people to buy the game. Indirectly GIVING THEM MONEY. Sort of.

So what about that, Mister Fish? What about people not making money from this?

 

[Batou667]

What a big baby. Does he not realise that people doing Let's Plays of his game *is* free advertising?

 

[CardinalPiggles]

I hate it when people generalise YouTube gameplay videos this way. Yes there are shitty Let's Plays of story driven games whereby people are making money just by being able to record and upload themselves playing the game and saying some generic shit on top.

Then there are YouTubers that put effort into it, that's all I'm saying.

 

[K12]

News just in... Phil Fish is still a dickhead

 

[shirkbot]

If you remix a song or make a parody of it , the original song creator is due a cut of the money made from it, because you still used part of there work. It should be no different here REGARDLESS of how its being used. Doesn't matter if its for a review, a lets play or a speedrun, you are still using their game.

Actually, all of those things have an enormous impact on what the creator of the original content is owed, and in the case of the bolded it can (and usually does) mean they are owed nothing. Parody and review are explicitly covered under "Fair Use" in US law, meaning as long as credit is assigned and they're not selling the video itself (they're selling the audience to advertisers, not the content itself) they don't have to pay anyone. In fact last time I brushed up on the subject a 10% variation is all that is required to qualify for fair use. US copyright may be ridiculous, but that means the exceptions are equally so.

OT: I'd be alright with the dev getting a very small percentage of the money, but not more than 5%. I'm watching the video because I like the personality, commentary and want to see what the game is like. Since I like platformers and sandboxes, watching will never be sufficient for me if it looks good.

Though I do want to point out to Mr. Fish that Nintendo already did this, and all it did was make virtually everyone stop playing their games on Youtube, so rather than Nintendo getting a slice of the pie, nobody got any money.

 

[Daverson]

Ironically enough, I only bought Fez because I saw VGA playing it, and thought it looked pretty neat.

 

[Ipsen]

So, Phil Fish is asking for ad revenue on top of having his games on market, basically. Who does he think he's fooling? If that was your marketing, you should have said so from the start.

I also don't see the point in going after YouTube producers, when they're the ones targeted for the product they produced. Call out ad agencies for shady or ignorant business practice(really, this doesn't seem to happen enough).

Of course, this lands LP'ers square in the 'grey' area, but I'm not stricken that it's such a tough dilemma. The purpose and intent of video games are to be played, to be interacted with. The 'video' concept is closely related, but that in itself doesn't define or express the medium properly. Assets are used, but only by the person who purchased (hopefully) the game; unless YouTube starts letting viewers play games with the content producer through its service, no viewer (who may or may not have purchase the game, yet generate revenue by proxy) is making use of those assets that would require the payment that developers would ask for.

Basically, if I see a movie, I should pay the movie house. If I play a game, I should pay the developer. Are you going to charge me for seeing games now? Intent of the product and the viewer need to be in line for proper IP defense. All I tend to see out of squabbles like this is developers or publishers divorcing the visual aspect of their games from the interactive element.

 

[shirkbot]

I like fish, i like that he gets people talking. Maybe it would go down better if he got someone else to voice his concerns o for him because no one seems to like him just for having an option. Is this not something worth checking out? if he feels something is wrong can we not check the facts first then point it out to him if hes talking out of his arse? Instead of going "oh hes saying things again, i hate that guy". If its legit, that devs arent getting a cut from people making money off a game that is his own surely hes allowed to ask "whats the deal here?"

To be fair the the internet collective, we hate him less because he has opinions, and more because he can't seem to express them in any way that doesn't involve being a [CENSORED]. If we could filter his opinions through somebody that could actually use the English language with some nuance then it would likely be fine.

 

[Sol_HSA]

Very much related - "this is Phil Fish" video from a couple days ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w

 

[SecondPrize]

You don't get to just broadcast the entirety of a work and profit from it without permission. Fair Use can be used by reviewers and the like in court but Fish is right here.

 

[JoshuaMadoc]

I never got much sympathy from him in Indie Game: The Movie, and now he's just asking me to put him, Ubisoft Montreal, and every other French-Canadian that screams at non-FCs for not speaking Quebecois into the "Hey, Quebec, you want to know why I absolutely despise you?" spotlight.

I would absolutely love to meet Phil Fish just so I can punch him in the face. All of you here trying to stop me with "that's only going to make things worse for you" speeches, yeah, don't care about that. I will care about the police detaining me for trying to silence a walking punchline, but I've had enough boyscout speeches to last me a lifetime. Save all of that for him, please.