Major Changes In Youtube Involving Let's Players

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Why not make two videos?

One with the gameplay that is not advertised.

And one with the commentary but no gameplay.

Put a link to each other in the video description and let both videos run alongside each other. BAM you have your advertised LP without earning any money with copyrighted material.. only your own material.

Companies arent the only ones who can use loopholes.
 

version4point7

New member
Oct 26, 2013
15
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
TehCookie said:
the hidden eagle said:
TehCookie said:
For as many people calling the companies greedy, aren't the LPers just as greedy?

I never watched any channels or follow anyone, and most of the ones I do watch are by people who only did a game or one series. I really don't see this affecting anyone who does it to show off a game they love.
Except the LPers often put in a ton of work making videos and they usually don't make much money to offset the costs.That's why most have other jobs to help them make money.
Do you need someone to pay you to do hobbies?
No,but making LP vids is hard work with little to no payoff.That's why I think anyone who tries to use copy claims to muscle in on Let's Players aren't going to get much money in the end.

Work and making YouTube videos of any sort are two different thinks no matter the time put into them because when it comes to let's plays it's still playing a game, not working. Get a real job and then go back to making the videos and see which is work. I spent hours making videos for fun and no money and lived it and my only regret is deleting my channel. Not once was it work no matter what I did.

I personally enjoy the fact people make money off of others watching them play video games while others been working 80 hour weeks and getting one quarter of what the top Lets plays get if even that. It's truly the biggest joke in today's media age in my opinion. For every one or two good videos, there is 100 miles of crap, and it ruined what was once and enjoyable leisure time activity to me.
 

TomWiley

New member
Jul 20, 2012
352
0
0
Funny you should mentioned AngryJoe and PP, as those two together with TotalBiscuit are some YouTube personalities that I certainly could do without.

However, this is an issue. It really comes down to what kind of content being created in my opinion. If it's just a pure playthrough with no commentary, clipping, editing or effort on the uploader part, then this person should not get a cent. He'll get subscribers, comments, likes and attention that can help popularity of other content on his channel, but he shouldn't receive money for simply uploading a video series of him playing a game. In this situation, I fully support the company's right to complete monetization.

But well edited videos produced with effort that actually adds something to the content that might even help to advertise the game shouldn't be touched. These people deserve the income they get from their work.
 

Baldr

The Noble
Jan 6, 2010
1,739
0
0
I'm going to break this down as easy for people to understand as possible because this is a complex issue.

Copyright infringement for video game "Let's Players" is basically upload video game footage without permission from the publisher/developers. The good news is a lot of publisher/developers do give permission. It BEST INTEREST of the Let's Players to find out which publisher/developers give permissions. There are ton of websites devoted to this information.

There are exceptions! You may have see the words "Fair Use". Well when it comes to these video there are two particular ways that Fair Use works. First is review/critique which allows people to use gameplay footage without permission. Commentary alone with the game may not be enough to fall under this exception. There is a blurry line that goes between commentary with a game and commentary for review/critique and if that line is crossed, it is no longer protected under the exception.

The second exception is parody. IT MUST be a parody of the video game or part of the video game. A let's player can not use the video game footage to make a parody of something else. Parody is the only form of satire that is protected under this exception.

There are other exceptions under Fair Use, but these two are the only ones that would mainly pertain to Let's Plays.

Remember, just because someone is not making money off a Let's Play does not mean it is protected by Fair Use.


Now back to Youtube's problems. They get close to a hundred and twenty hours footage uploads every minute of every day. There is no way to easily protect everyone's interest. I don't believe Google's system is not the best. There are basically two different types of videos. Normal videos and monetized videos. Mose game publisher/developers do not care about Let's plays on normal videos(But SOME do check those lists). It is the monetized video where there are ads being shown and the people making money off their created videos. In order to facilitate this better Google has split the jobs of policing the the videos to either themselves or a separate company. So your either a Google partner or a network partner. Google partners have the least amount of protection. Network partners are part of a company that protects them and are suppose to find copyright infringements themselves.

Well there were a lot of complaints about infringements in larger networks. So in order for Google to protected itself, it had the large networks split into two types of groups, managed partners and affiliated partners. Pretty much the affiliated partners now have about the same protection as a Google partner, which is why we are seeing an rise in copyright infringement notices. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to go into further detail on why this impacts Let's Players. I'll try to get around to it tomorrow when I have some more free time.
 

Cobalt180

New member
Jun 15, 2010
54
0
0
I think an interesting question to ask at this point would be whether or not it's really meant to protect copyright, or if there is some ulterior motive for this sudden turnabout. For instance, if these Let's Plays are of actual in-game material, in essence, it's allowing a customer to 'window shop' in a way by seeing how the game plays.

The point that I'm trying to make there is that more and more triple-A games have been failing recently (according to publishers in determining production costs over sales revenue), with COD:Ghosts, Assassin's Creed IV, and others just not making up for their incredible production costs. I have to pose the question whether or not the fact that players can see into these games to make their initial buying decision, and seeing a game they like or dislike, will make decisions based not on marketing or official media, but on independent media such as Let's Plays. One must wonder if they (the publishers and developers) are worried that a look into their product beforehand may sway enough people to not buy their game, which would lose them money. However, it should be noted that by attacking Let's Plays, they either must have data, or only assumption, that the amount of revenue lost by unofficial media is equal or greater to that of the gape between their successful game and a financial failure.

Let's Plays also tend to have a good sway, with such prominent Let's Plays as PewDiePie, there are a lot of people who may have no intention of buying the game, yet still can experience the story and game play via Let's Plays. In this light, there is a point where some significant money is lost for publishers. When an individual may not have the proper console to play a specific game, a Let's Play video may instead allow someone to not buy the game, yet experience the story and mechanics, thereby allowing someone to enjoy the game without cost. The difference between Let's Plays and simply sharing a game is that a Let's Play will reach sometimes reach millions of people, while as an individual you'd be hard pressed to match that audience. In that respect, game makers/producers certainly have some real concern over the revenue that may be lost by Let's Play videos, yet I get the sense that most large Let's Play producers by now have some affiliation with a publisher or producer, and those that don't will end up having those videos removed, which, at least from my limited perspective, may negatively impact their immediate images, as well as only exacerbate the issues they're trying to circumvent.

With many gamers making buying decisions off of Let's Play videos, it could be added that the current expense of games is what drives the decision to not be as hasty as can be when buying a game. With games running up to if not more than $60 per game, the cost of the hobby/lifestyle is increasing as economic tensions show no sign of easing on those that have the means to make enough money to partake in the hobby, while those who are younger may be solely dependent on their guardian or parent for game-purchasing. In that sense, Let's Play's are vital for them to make purchases of games they find funny, entertaining, or compelling, and, with the move by publishers to remove Let's Plays and remove videos that do not directly benefit them, they may ultimately lose the younger audience for their games, some of whom my not be inclined to patronize those game designers future works after their favorite Let's Play-ers are effectively chained or destroyed.

It can be speculated that these efforts are likely happening now at the new current console generation because there is increased precedent for such struggles. With the arrival of more powerful (and arguably that's the extent of the difference) machines, and something so resounding and definitive as "new console generation", publishers may be attempting to get this business out of the way before the consoles move into major production, as an attempt like this during mid-generation would be far more devastating to them then were they to enact these rather draconian restrictions at the start of a new current-gen-era.

Ultimately, with the revenue lost due to lack of independent exposure, as well as goodwill being lost, and games continuing to fail to meet unrealistic sales marks, it would appear that this practice will only end up being a bad decision for game companies, and by shooting themselves in the feet like this to spite the ground they walk on will only make their already strained business practices more pronounced. While I have have hope that this decision will be swiftly reversed, I must also admit a semi-sadistic hope that these game companies will see their games continue to fail harsher and harsher as more and more Let's Plays are removed under the guise of copyright infringement.
 

SoulSalmon

New member
Sep 27, 2010
454
0
0
version4point7 said:
Work and making YouTube videos of any sort are two different thinks no matter the time put into them because when it comes to let's plays it's still playing a game, not working. Get a real job and then go back to making the videos and see which is work. I spent hours making videos for fun and no money and lived it and my only regret is deleting my channel. Not once was it work no matter what I did.
You're totally right, people who enjoy their jobs simply don't count.
And it's not just full-time LPers either, there's musicians, indie game developers, actors, writers (particularly ones that "work" for websites so they get to stay at home) and all kinds of other people who don't have actual jobs.

I mean, these people should get a real job and then go back to making games/music/films/articles and see which is work. I spent hours making short songs for fun and no money and loved it.

Just in case it doesn't translate well over the internet, that was sarcasm and I disagree with his point, just because doing something as a hobby is enjoyable doesn't mean it can't be used to make a living from if you put in the extra work.
 

Arkhangelsk

New member
Mar 1, 2009
7,703
0
0
version4point7 said:
the hidden eagle said:
TehCookie said:
the hidden eagle said:
TehCookie said:
For as many people calling the companies greedy, aren't the LPers just as greedy?

I never watched any channels or follow anyone, and most of the ones I do watch are by people who only did a game or one series. I really don't see this affecting anyone who does it to show off a game they love.
Except the LPers often put in a ton of work making videos and they usually don't make much money to offset the costs.That's why most have other jobs to help them make money.
Do you need someone to pay you to do hobbies?
No,but making LP vids is hard work with little to no payoff.That's why I think anyone who tries to use copy claims to muscle in on Let's Players aren't going to get much money in the end.

Work and making YouTube videos of any sort are two different thinks no matter the time put into them because when it comes to let's plays it's still playing a game, not working. Get a real job and then go back to making the videos and see which is work. I spent hours making videos for fun and no money and lived it and my only regret is deleting my channel. Not once was it work no matter what I did.

I personally enjoy the fact people make money off of others watching them play video games while others been working 80 hour weeks and getting one quarter of what the top Lets plays get if even that. It's truly the biggest joke in today's media age in my opinion. For every one or two good videos, there is 100 miles of crap, and it ruined what was once and enjoyable leisure time activity to me.
You do realize that they don't just play the games and then smack it onto Youtube? Most of the hours of LP's aren't playing, it's video editing, at least for those not uploading complete sessions up directly. But looking away from that, a job is not defined by how fun or hard it is. A job is defined by providing a product or service that returns a profit for you. If you can do that with something, then it's a job. And ad revenue is a huge way of doing so.

Yes, it's maybe unfair in a economic hierarchy way that some slave away at their jobs and get paid next to nothing, while other's just ride the waves and get paid millions. But that is capitalism for you. And I'm sorry to say it, but life is unfair. It's sad that the equation of labor isn't dependent on how hard the work is. But don't come here and say that you would say no to an easy and rewarding job that would make you economically safe for years to come.

Also, if any of the big LP's got "proper" jobs, they wouldn't be able to put out the content. Either the quantity or the quality would suffer, because they wouldn't be able to put in the hours for it to be top notch every upload day.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
If your making a review, fine thats great. But should you get paid for just recording yourself playing a game? What if i made a video of myself watching a movie...would that be ok? Should i be paid just because i read a book over youtube? So yeah, i dont care about lets play videos.

But the whole youtube issue now isnt to do with publishers, its youtube that has banned everything and its up to the specific companies to decide whether to allow certain youtubers to allow to use their stuff.