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

[Bedinsis]

I wonder whether the recently released video about Phil Fish below, which I'd argue was more sympathetic to Phil Fish than antagonistic, caused mr. Fish to dare to actually start posting again:

Spoiler

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmTUW-owa2w

Edit: Nevermind, Sol_HSA already linked the same video.

 

[Tradjus]

Woah, Phil Fish said something stupid?!
I was not expecting that too ever happen again!! D:

 

[Buckshaft]

Did you not get enough the first time around, Mr Fish?

Some people never learn. Phil Fish got all the shit he did, not because he spoke his mind, but because he was an arsehole about it. Seriously, some of the twitter flamewars he was in read like the voice chat on games of Counterstrike I played when I was 14, that is to say, as bad as the kids who liked MW2.

What he gets now, he brought on himself. I've no sympathy for him anymore. Fez was good, though.

 

[Nieroshai]

And there was once a time where free advertisement, and indeed, any kind of publicity at all, was a good thing. I swear, the pretense in the industry is so thick I could cut it and serve it with tea. I have bought so many games just because youtubers showcased them, that I honestly believe developers should be giving them money.

 

[The Pink Pansy]

I find it interesting that this came out now, especially after this started making the rounds just the other day;


As someone who never got on the 'Let's hate Phil Fish' wagon, I'd suggest giving it a watch; it has some very intelligent points about how fame acts on the internet.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Fish, SHUT UP. It's not enough that you've shown to be a racist, xenophobic, unprofessional, thin-skinned, childish, arrogant, self-centered hack, you're now going into shameless attention whore levels. Seriously, considering how much he tries to keep in the spotlight he should make a show with Cliffy titled "Washed Up Hacks" where they ***** forever in a miserable dark corner of the internet. You left Fish, no one wants to hear you talk anymore. Stop loitering in the lobby harassing people.

 

[T'Generalissimo]

The comparison with piracy is actually pretty strong; it doesn't seem right that the creator of something gets no recompense for the use of their creation, but at the same time I'm not sure there's anything that developers can do to improve the situation for themselves.

 

[donphantome35]

I'm going to assume this is about revenue from the mostly unrelated ads played before the videos in question, and not the advertisement of the games being played in the videos themselves.

This would've been a major issue if the YouTubers actually charged money for viewing their LPs. But this is about ad revenue, which is usually generated by viewers voluntarily clicking on ads to support the YouTuber. There's a lot of folks out there recording themselves playing video games, and only a few (most notably, a certain Swedish gentleman) gained widespread popularity due to their genuinely entertaining commentary and accessible humor (which is subjective, of course). They get a ton of views on their videos, the viewers click on ads, the LetsPlayers get money.

Now, if a game developer like Fish decided he deserved some of that advertising money because he believed it was his product that was drawing in the viewers, he'd find himself in the middle of a ridiculous debate over how much money he's entitled to, i.e. how much of the video's "click bait potential" is attributed to the source material. Dividing the revenue for each video between the YouTuber with his reputation, appearance, humor etc. and the developer with his... well, his game, would be virtually impossible, and establishing a fixed "cut" of the money for every video would be unfair to both parties. Phil Fish wants some of that $$$ that people are earning while playing HIS game, but it's hardly his game that's making the money here.

The problem, for me, lies in the entire ad system on YouTube. I don't like advertising, I never liked it, and the bullshit YouTube's pulling is horrible. It's not even sponsoring, since the 'Tubers have no say in what ads are shown on their videos. I personally consider it a shameful way to make money, and wouldn't do it myself. If you think you should get paid for your content, fucking sell it! Ask for donations, start a Kickstarter campaign to buy some new equipment, whatever. Except if you want to sell something, it's got to be 100% yours. And these big YouTube stars are getting paid for their views, not their content.

I don't have a point to prove. Fish is a greedy, oversensitive dick, advertising sucks. I'm out.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

Guys a Jackass, half of my Library I bought is because I saw others play them Online, infact you could say the same for many reviews of games, snippets or otherwise and i'm willing to bet much is the same in regards to Fez.
Lets just hope his words end up being a Fart in the wind.

 

[superguin200]

This makes me sad more than anything else. Phil's just an opinionated guy, and whenever he posts an opinion people give him so much shit for it that I'm surprised he didn't quit the games industry much earlier. Just leave the guy alone, he at least deserves that.

 

[RJ 17]

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.

Interestingly enough, it does, Mr. Fish. The revenue that developers get out of the free advertising from YouTube Let's Players is called "game sales".

"But what if they say our game is terrible and discourage people from buying it?!"
1: There's still a number of people out there that will go out and buy it to see for themselves.
2: Stop making shitty games.

Edit: What's really funny (at least I find it funny ) about this article is that another headline on the side-bar (at the time of writing) is "Fish-Eating Spiders Are Everywhere!"

 

[RJ 17]

Instead of going "oh hes saying things again, i hate that guy".

That's not quite why people are disagreeing with him since it is pretty easy to show how he's just talking out of his ass. Indeed, he's entitled to his opinion, but everyone else is entitled to call him out on it when that opinion seems terribly flawed...just as you'd be entitled to call someone out on the fact that they think 2+2=5.

He wants to start getting ad revenue from Let's Players. The catch is that Let's Players are, themselves, a form of free advertising for the game developers. So if we're going with the "fair's fair" route and dotting all our "i"s and crossing all our "t"s, then sure, LPers should pay some royalties to the developers...and those developers should then in turn be paying the LPers for advertising their games.

 

[RealRT]

You know what Phil? I was supportive of you and thought you were just a victim of assholes. But this? You're an asshole here. Because playing the game is not the same as watching someone else play it and if you think that watching your game is as good as playing it, your game fucking sucks.
*mic drop*

 

[Bluestorm83]

Aaaaand in one fell swoop I've gone from being sympathetic to this guy for the BS that Microsoft and the Internet at large have heaped on him to being ready at the drop of a hat to telling him to go F himself.

If I use a set of Craftsman Tools on my job, I don't have to pay Craftsman a portion of my salary; I bought the goddamn tools.

If I hire a Deli to cater my charity function, I don't have to give them a percentage of the donations; I bought their goddamn food.

If I wear Hanes Boxers while I work on someone's sink, and everyone sees them sticking out from my jeans, I don't need to give Hanes some of my fee; I bought their goddamn underwear.

And this Fish needs to know that anyone who does their JOB on Youtube using a game that they OWN doesn't owe ANYONE ANYTHING. THEY BOUGHT THAT GODDAMN GAME AND IT FUCKING BELONGS TO THEM.

*corollary for anyone who brings up that occasionally people get Review Copies for free: You don't get to give someone a gift and then hold it over them. You gave it away, for free. It's not yours anymore.

 

[Ipsen]

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

I find it interesting that this came out now, especially after this started making the rounds just the other day;


As someone who never got on the 'Let's hate Phil Fish' wagon, I'd suggest giving it a watch; it has some very intelligent points about how fame acts on the internet.

Interesting video indeed.

I don't think the ire for Phil Fish is specifically because he's famous. I found the idea presented in the video that fame was 'bestowed' by some outside force ridiculous. People, especially by way of connection by the instantaneous messaging of the internet, can become famous simply by expressing themselves. But that fame isn't very personal; you easily realize that you're not going to be able to change Nickelback even if you hate 'them'; that's the type of fame they hold, but the perception of an internet audience is that you might have a better chance of communicating and effecting said famous person(...by golly, do we LOVE to believe that...).

Phil just strikes me as stunted in social skills. It's if he's lived in a commune, never perceiving communication with a wide variety of people. So he spouts what amounts to opinions (like now), but they have no weight coming from him because his person is just so disconnected, so...missing normal parts, so inevitably unaffected if people would actually address his points, favor or rebuttal.

It's a bit sick and sad, I admit, watching such a scattered, hollow personality cavort around. At least, how I see him.

 

[FFMaster]

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.

Actually that's not how fair use works, lots of people seem to quote fair use without understanding that fair use works on a case by case basis. Making money from it, regardless of if you are selling it or not, is still counted as commercial use and there have been cases of this behavior being struck down in court I believe.

Even if not it would work against you should it go to court. Just because your not selling it, but instead selling the audience to advertisers doesn't mean that you can get away with just broadcasting it without paying the creator. I'm sure if you could then radio stations would have done this long long ago.

Money is still changing hands, it counts as commercial use because you are profiting from it.

"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?

Then some of googles cut should go to them which i would suspect is where this will end up going, if your not profiting in some way from the game devs content then they likely won't care anyway.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Oi Phil, last thing I remember is that you were no longer relevant the second you decided to cancel Fez 2 because of your little debacle on twitter with Beer.

I guess he is missing the drama and just wants to start up shit.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Free advertising and publicity must be a terrible burden. Poor guy.

 

[klaynexas3]

I feel like he might be trolling this time around. Seriously, if he's comparing watching a movie to watching a let's player, and is an indie developer on top of that, then either he wrote that drunk, high, or as an attempt to get back on the mainstream press of pissing people off. Especially since he uses his game as an example. Nothing about watching people play his game is fun. There is little interesting aspects about it to make watching it a fun experience. However, the game itself is rather fun to play, so I honestly have no reason to believe that any of this was said in a sound mind.

I mostly believe that he's trolling at this point, as a week ago or so I was watching Team Meat stream Indie Game: The Movie on Twitch doing commentary and such, and the way they talked about Fish was that he actually relishes in bad press more than people think. He seems to enjoy coaxing out the rage of the internet. Or at least that's what they were saying in between making suicide jokes.

But honestly, I can see a bit where he's coming from in that he's not a happy camper that some hacks who aren't even trying are able to make money just by playing a game, and not even playing it well. The comparison to piracy and the YouTube policy idea were probably just his way of attempting to poke the hornets nest to make sure people heard him. It looks like he did well.