Major Changes In Youtube Involving Let's Players

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

1: What do you think of this sudden change happening next year?

2: Are you worried about your favorite Let's Player's future?

3: Do You Think This should have happened a long time ago, and are proud of Youtube's Decision?

4: Anyone think that Video Game Crash is going to happen due to this being one of the factors?

5: Which Let's Players do you think would be fine with this outcome? Which ones do you think would not be?

6: Freestlye Final Thoughts - Your take on this with a good conclusion?

1: I think youtube is attempting to avoid litigation hassles, while it sucks its understandable from a business point of view.

2: Not applicable, because I don't watch them. Note I'm not saying anything against them either.

3: I don't know, holding out for as long as they could might be a sign of best intentions, but realy I don't have any knowledge to comment on that accurately.

4: No, and I really wish people would get over this idea that a crash is imminent or necessary. Its not the same situation as the early 80's crash, and video games are too popular to crash as a market. More likely some companies will fail but others will rise to take their place. Short of the entire world market going to hell, I don't think we're going to see a failure of the industry any time soon.

5: Again not applicable, see Answer #2.

6: Well I feel that Rockstar's Policy is the best out of them because it encourages fan made videos as long as they're not straight cutscene rips. Activision might be the biggest jackass of the year award winner, and might get a LOT of backlash especially from WoW folks. A LOT. Expect lots of screaming to follow on other game companies cracking down on this... But really I can't say I blame youtube much because litigation is expensive, time consuming and can ultimately lead to major profit slashing...

 

[Signa]

All I'm hearing from theses new rules is that Youtube doesn't want to be king of internet videos anymore. There are other places that a person can go to get what they need.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Hhm... If a person purchases a violin and goes on to become a successful musician that gets paid for playing music, should the manufacturer of the violin get a cut of what he makes?

You are incorrectly assessing the situation as are a lot of people here.

The question should be:

A person purchases a violin and starts playing it in front of a restaurant's business. Their playing attracts customers and boosts the restaurant's business so the restaurant give the musician perks like free food and a chair in exchange for playing in front of the restaurant. The violin manufacturer complains to the restaurant owner that the musician is getting rich off the violin they made and/or misrepresenting the quality of the instrument. The restaurant tells the musician that they will no longer provide the perks anymore.

A lot of people are calling this a copyright issue and copyright may indeed be a driving factor but it is really more of a marketing issue. The LPers can still post their video but they won't be able to make any money off them. This may force many to go back to hosting their own videos (perhaps using Youtube to advertise their own sites) or to seek other video hosting sites if they want to make money off their videos. However, that isn't an infringement on their fair use anymore than if Youtube refused to run ads on anti-gay marriage videos.

Youtube is under no obligation to provide anyone with advertising revenue so I have difficulty seeing this as a net neutrality issue. While it may be a poor business decision on the part of Youtube, this isn't on the same level as takedowns.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Well that certainly does suck, but what else can be expected? The wild west days of the Internet are coming to an end.

 

[fix-the-spade]

And now, my opinion: This is straight-up bull pocky. Why would Youtube and the major companies just do this NOW of all times?!

Simple, other people have established that a market exists, now they intend to exploit it by removing competition, I expect official 'let's plays' to start appearing in the new year.

Also, people like Angry Joe say things publishers don't like, they're on a mission to find ways to shut him up (and TotalBiscuit etc) and any otheroutlet that can't be made to tow the corporate line. They can't do it directly because that would make a PR shitstorm, but they can lean on Google to make life difficult for them, they put a shitload of money into getting those search rankings after all.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

This:


Replace "car" with "let's plays"

Fuck, I can't imagine how problematic this can be for Game Grumps.

I don't want them to go D:

EDIT: This isn't even funny, they literally killed like 80% of the gaming sub-genre of YouTube with this.

Google, WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK?

Have they all taken some new narcotic that causes them to do this sort of shit?

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm glad Capcom's OK with LPs. There's a bunch of Resident Evil LPs I reall really like and keep going back to.

 

[Something Amyss]

I will just say that this is natural behaviour of companies trying to protect their IP.

No, it's natural behaviour for companies trying to monopolise media.

I am surprised this didn't happen sooner. Both the EULA and copyright laws are pretty clear on the fact that using an entire, or parts of a, computer game to make money is considered a copyright infringement unless you have some kind of consent from the holder of the copyright.

Except for things like commentary, criticism, satire, educational purposes, and so on.

There's a host of exceptions and a couple of fit LP videos. YouTube really isn't updating to comply with the law, sorry.

For as many people calling the companies greedy, aren't the LPers just as greedy?

Howso?

 

[Something Amyss]

Also, people like Angry Joe say things publishers don't like, they're on a mission to find ways to shut him up (and TotalBiscuit etc) and any otheroutlet that can't be made to tow the corporate line. They can't do it directly because that would make a PR shitstorm, but they can lean on Google to make life difficult for them, they put a shitload of money into getting those search rankings after all.

hmmmm...Shutting down Angry Joe and Total Biscuit. I knew there had to be an upside.

But seriously, A good chunk of Joe's shows can be done without violating these terms, so I doubt he's a major target. It probably would impact TB, though, since he has multiple LP series.

It's not going to kill criticism, though.

 

[SecondPrize]

Yep, you still don't get to make money off of the work of others. I hope there enough LPers of the type that don't fucking read every bit of text aloud that keep going at it for fun, but I can't say I'm surprised by this at all.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I've known that this was coming for years...
Hell, give it a few more years, and these same entities will start forbidding LPs of any sort.

Why? Because big media would love more control over the exposure their products receive.
Eliminate non-affiliates and what does that leave? Just the cronies.

Spin it any way you like, or try to justify it with whatever interpretation of IP law you can muster.
In practice, the only way Lets Plays (paid or unpaid) could harm profit margins is if the game in question was bad.
Either bad as an experience, or bad as a game. (If a game can be experienced in full through someone else, it's a bad game.)

Oh, and feel free to scream "slippery slope" at me all you like. I give no fucks.
I heard it years back when I made my previous prediction about youtube, and how about that, I've been proven absolutely right today.

People will simply migrate away from YouTube. YouTube is already a giant corporate mouthpiece, they have killed what made people go there in the first place; democratization of content. Now it's like any other content provider; protecting the ingrained interests of a few giant IP holders ans swatting down the little guys.

Many have already started to move to Blip or other such services. They have lower visibility but higher revenues and much less interference.

Until the Powers That Be decide to threaten those other networks the same way they did to Youtube, anyway.

Also, you bring up an interesting dichotomy: it's rather telling how the only firms who legitimately have problems with advertised Lets Players are the biggest; the ones with by far, the most money already. While it's the little guys who lean more on Lets Plays to generate buzz without issue.

It seems so backwards, but it makes sense if the big firms are doing this in an attempt to deflect attention from their increasingly stagnant (and expensive) productions. What's the point of spending millions on having marketing spin, lie and upsell their product when an LP can expose the truth to undo all of it in moments?

 

[Rancid0ffspring]

Ok, so here's an alternative view on the situation. Musicians. They get lots of people saying "hey, can I sample your work for free? It'll get you exposure". I have several friends in the music industry that get this a lot. It doesn't help them and they would potentially lose out by someone using their work for their own benefit and profit.

This will probably see some back lash or not be a popular opinion... But why should LP's make money off a game they didn't help create? What have the LP's done that gives them the right to make money off someone else's hard work?

 

[Brian Tams]

Shame. I can't see someone like RadBrad continuing to make videos after the new changes come down.

I guess its time for him to use that degree he's been joking about not using.

Also, fuck you, youtube. You continue to get worse by the day. I can't wait for the bubble you live in to burst.

 

[Something Amyss]

Oh, and feel free to scream "slippery slope" at me all you like. I give no fucks.

"Slippery slope" is only a fallacy if you cannot provide a reasonable demonstration for why it might happen. We have a pretty solid chain of events established to demonstrate why there might be an element of slippery slope going on here.

 

[JasonKaotic]

I dunno. The website you linked doesn't have a WOT rating, so it might not be trustworthy.
Have any other sites said anything about this?

 

[Atmos Duality]

"Slippery slope" is only a fallacy if you cannot provide a reasonable demonstration for why it might happen. We have a pretty solid chain of events established to demonstrate why there might be an element of slippery slope going on here.

It's still largely conjecture on my part, since I'm not these companies and don't represent their motives.
But fair enough.

EDIT: Because I missed this...

I do worry that this will affect people who make review-type content e.g. TotalBiscuit, AngryJoe, Northernlion. Reviews are protected by Fair Use, and for good reason: they help inform customers. If a reviewer is unable to get his video out when the embargo lifts because Youtube says "Halt! I'm gonna have to go over this with my copyright detector for the next 2 days. Please bear with me.", it's going to seriously affect their income.

"Fair Use" is a minor inconvenience for these entities and has been FREQUENTLY ignored by Youtube before, even where it fully applies.

The short of it is this: Unless you're a major media company that has pull with Google, or you have a damn good lawyer, you have no real rights.

 

[Ishal]

I've been seeing people migrating more to Twitch as well, especially since the PS4 and Xbox One support Twitch. Well PS4 currently allows it from the console, while support for the Xbox One is gonna support it later.
I'm hoping that if enough people migrate Google will end up changing some things, since the only listen to them losing money. But sadly YouTube is so big and popular that some people still won't leave.

It's unfortunate that's the case. Most of my entertainment comes from Twitch and Youtube now anyway, and it really makes ZERO sense for them to target letsplayers. The most successful youtuber is a letsplayer.

Problem is that youtube is just so big, so much of my content is on there and not from just gamers. People will stay because it's convenient that all the content has grouped around there. Otherwise I'd leave if my favorite content creators decided to leave as well. They've proven time and time again they don't care about the little guy, so you just better pray that your content contains material form a publisher or dev that doesn't care. Otherwise you get companies like Nintendo flagging videos and all kinds of other things. It's a shame. I don't know why people continue to do it when to an outsider like me, it seems like such a risky business to make money from. Granted, I don't know all the details.

Also, kinda revolting to see the support this sketchy behavior is getting just because it affects someone like Pewdiepie. He might not be touched by this, but all the other little people will, and that's a crime. People are so needlessly petty it's disgusting.

 

[Something Amyss]

Ok, so here's an alternative view on the situation. Musicians. They get lots of people saying "hey, can I sample your work for free? It'll get you exposure". I have several friends in the music industry that get this a lot. It doesn't help them and they would potentially lose out by someone using their work for their own benefit and profit.

I know several musicians who are of the opposite philosophy. What you're arguing isn't "it hurts them" as much as "they think it hurts them." And while they're right to feel that way, you have to go further to demonstrate that it actually does.

 

[Racecarlock]

Why does it seem like so many publishers want free money and advertising without ever having to give any money to other people?

And why the fuck does the legal system allow this? Seriously, these publishers would hire bank robbers if they thought it would give them easy money.

But no. This is not unicorn land. This is not care bear country. You don't get money without allowing some people to criticize you. Do you really think everyone in this age is cut out to work at fucking walmart? And hell, even if they did, they would still have to go on government assistance because walmart's pay sucks. Most corporations with 9 to 5 jobs don't pay enough for living wages.

So you just want free advertising without paying anybody for it? Hell, you're not even paying them. Youtube's advertising service is. So, what, you want all of that money too? You want to be paid to advertise while the people doing it still have to have a "normal" job and then still want them to do this for free? Are you high?

And you wonder why so many people don't like you, companies. This shit is exactly why.

 

[Something Amyss]

The same could be said for any store that sells music,furniture,cars,instruments,and whatever else other people make.

You're talking about retailers. When you sell to a retailer, it's specifically for them to sell stuff.