Major Changes In Youtube Involving Let's Players

Recommended Videos

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,416
0
0
LPs are supposed to help people with games - and appreciate them - and are otherwise basically free advertisement. I know about many of my favourite games today because I was having a sleep-deprived Sunday night, wondering around Youtube.

It's just insatiable greed with the companies. I sort of get disabling adds, afterall, if they haven't asked the company for permission to make money from their work, they can't really complain. But not making videos outright is just pure greed.
 

Doom-Slayer

Ooooh...I has custom title.
Jul 18, 2009
630
0
0
SecondPrize said:
In the case of your house, every item you used you had a right to use in that manner. In the case of a videogame, you don't have a right to post videos featuring large chunks of the game if you're not reviewing or parodying it and then monetize. You'll notice this is the case because google and the publishers are putting a stop to it.
Except thats my point, you said "Yep, you still don't get to make money off of the work of others." Making money of other people and other peoples tools is entirely legal. Breaking copyright infringement is the problem related to Lpers, not "making money off others". The reason I make a deal of it is because a ton of people criticizing Lpers or pirating etc always use that line, which is completely wrong. Breaking copyright infringement, ie a special set of laws ONLY for digital products, is the illegal and ethically wrong part, making money off other people is not.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Doom-Slayer said:
SecondPrize said:
In the case of your house, every item you used you had a right to use in that manner. In the case of a videogame, you don't have a right to post videos featuring large chunks of the game if you're not reviewing or parodying it and then monetize. You'll notice this is the case because google and the publishers are putting a stop to it.
Except thats my point, you said "Yep, you still don't get to make money off of the work of others." Making money of other people and other peoples tools is entirely legal. Breaking copyright infringement is the problem related to Lpers, not "making money off others". The reason I make a deal of it is because a ton of people criticizing Lpers or pirating etc always use that line, which is completely wrong. Breaking copyright infringement, ie a special set of laws ONLY for digital products, is the illegal and ethically wrong part, making money off other people is not.
I would have thought that it went without saying that you don't get to make money off of the work of others without having the right to. Because this is the case here. Responding and explaining how someone can make money from the work of others is completely pointless if you ignore the bit about whether they have the rights or not. So what if you can buy tools and build a house? This affects whether LPers can post videos featuring an entire game when they don't have the rights to do so and monetize how?
 

GoaThief

Reinventing the Spiel
Feb 2, 2012
1,229
0
0
Doom-Slayer said:
Breaking copyright infringement, ie a special set of laws ONLY for digital products, is the illegal and ethically wrong part, making money off other people is not.
Copyright laws extend way beyond digital media, and do exactly in fact give the holder rights to decide if people can make money off of their work or not, "gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights. It is a form of intellectual property (like the patent, the trademark, and the trade secret) applicable to any expressible form of an idea or information that is substantive and discrete.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
 

Mid Boss

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2012
274
12
23
GoaThief said:
Mid Boss said:
I.... I don't see a link to your youtube channel anywhere... Did you forget to put it up? I can't subscribe if you don't put a link up man.

I'll sweeten the deal! My blog has almost 4000 watchers on tumblr. You make your let's play channel and I'll plug you on it. Should get you a couple dozen watchers! More than most people EVER get. This is a great opportunity for you.

Come on.

It doesn't get. Any better. Than this.
Then. You. Must. Not. Have. Anything. Better. To. Do. Unlike. Me.

Seriously, your argument to anyone who dares to think of LPs as anything less than godlike is "lulz get millions of viewers just cuz I say so" - do you not see how egocentric and silly that sounds?

You've already had far more of my time than you deserve. Alas, I don't think you're going to have a reasonable discussion any time soon.
You keep saying how easy it is and how over paid they are. Back it up! What the hell are you doin here? All the time you've spent arguing here you could have cranked out a video by now. Yet, I STILL don't see any links to your channel! It's quite perplexing that someone would pass up on all that incredibly easy money. Most people jump on such an opportunity.
 

Niccelson

New member
Oct 29, 2013
1
0
0
Firstly, can I just point out something I haven't seen anybody mention? Look at the OT. Look at the list of companies that are willing to completely lock down anyone who makes money from a derivative of their product. I ask you, where is Namco Bandai? Where is Konami? Where is Ubisoft? Where is EA? There are some big names missing from that list and maybe I'm biased, but historically some of the above seem way more like the type to have this attitude to IP than someone like Rockstar or Naughty Dog.

Secondly, if this actually becomes a significant force, (hopefully it doesn't) then all of the companies listed will simply lose out on all of the publicity a well-done LP can give them. So a well-respected, highly subscribed creator on YouTube can't actually make money from a certain company's game. Big deal. Let's Players that are serious will just find another game they like which isn't married to a company that likes to dick people over. You know who really LOVES LPers? Indie developers. The direct competition to AAA publishers. I look forward to the day when these people actually rise further as a result of corporate idiocy.

Thirdly, I'm just going to say this straight. If somebody can experience all your game has to offer by watching a full LP and they don't feel like buying your game afterwards, you have FAILED to make an engaging game. (Personal counterexamples to this are when I bought The Witcher 2 and Deus Ex: Human Revolution after watching Jesse Cox beat both games fully.) People that have just finished watching that LP shouldn't be thinking "Well, I know how it ends and what all the Easter Eggs are, there's a game I don't need to play for myself." They should be thinking "That thing looks unbelievably AWESOME! How good would it feel to go through that experience again but to actually BE IN CONTROL of what happens?! WHY is Steam taking so long to load?!" And if you want to be pedantic about it then every game has this aspect in a way: watching someone play at 30 FPS on YouTube with some delay between what they do and what they say, then playing that same game yourself at 60 FPS where you experience the action firsthand is a night-and-day difference.

Finally, I just want to say that Devolver Digital is awesome. If you don't know what I mean, this is the link they posted on Twitter yesterday: http://canipostandmonetizevideosofdevolvergames.com/
 

Headsprouter

Monster Befriender
Legacy
Nov 19, 2010
8,662
3
43
2xDouble said:
Headsprouter said:
Answer me this, why do the LP's have the right to make money of someone else's work?
Why do news casters have the right to make money telling other people's stories?
Why do art galleries have the right to make money displaying other people's paintings and sculptures?
Why do museums have the right to make money displaying other people's discoveries?
Why do libraries have the right to make money renting out other people's books?
Why do television networks have the right to make money showing other people's acting and editing work?
Why do retail stores have the right to make money selling other people's products?
Why do theater houses have the right to make money showing other people's plays or movies?
Why do chefs have the right to make money cooking other people's produce?
Why do restaurants and wait staff have the right to make money serving other people's cooking?
Why do crafters have the right to make money using other people's yarn/stickers/cloth/knives/etc.?
Why do musicians have the right to make money using other people's instruments?
Why do radio stations have the right to make money playing other people's songs?
etc., etc...

...because they're each selling their own quality work, not someone else's. That's what "derivative work" means; they aren't selling the same product. Sadly, some corporations lump "derivative work" together with "plagiarism" and "cheap knock-offs", which is an understandable concern, but hardly applicable.


Captcha: "Worth Overdoing." How appropriate.
I'm sorry, sir/madam, you just barged the wrong person. Make sure you're quoting the right person next time.
 

Emaruse

New member
Aug 9, 2010
91
0
0
@SimpleBluff: I actually found a few videos saying this WILL Affect AngryJoe, and I do believe there's a video around the first page that said that AngryJoe discussed this with ReviewTechUSA, but right now, this is just speculation, so I honestly can't say for certain on that subject all together, so you might be right on that. However, Angry Joe DOES use Game Footage in his reviews, so I am somewhat certain this does have some hold on that decision.

And on the topic of LP's, There's a few things I want to say: 1. If someone buys a game, it's their property. If someone uses a straight rip from a game, that's copyright. If someone does commentary and criticism while streaming a playthrough of a game, that's being a Let's Player/Reviewer. However, like many have said before, it's not easy doing a LP Channel, because of all the factors people have said, but however, in order to stay successful, very few people here have said one factor that makes the difference between a good Let's Player and a bad one, as well as how much work one puts into those projects: Quality Control. Anyone with a decent amount of money can begin a LP (Well, not anymore, but you get the idea) but Quality Control will depend on how much you can do. If you do solid Quality Control where everything is entertaining, informative, and with good material and resources at a regular basis, you get more viewers, but that requires constant work (For some who were against this idea, why don't you show us YOUR Youtube Area and see if you have Quality Control down Perfectly. If you don't, you need to bow out on this one), and if you don't, it really shows what's your best and worst works.

2. Yes, I do agree that Let's Players should be paid for their work, which is what Youtube did, and considering they're giving the game companies free advertisement, it's a double-edged sword. Because if it's a good game, people will buy it, and yes, watching a game does make some might not want to buy it, but some people want to try games for themselves after watching, that much is true, considering I bought Metal Gear Rising just because of Two Best Friends Play. However, some people are saying they are stealing from game companies. That is both true and false. It's true because they are streaming their games on the internet for all to see with their own commentary and criticism, and they are getting paid for it, but that is because it is a "derivative work" based on the developer/publisher's game, which puts it on the middle ground. However, that is false because although they are getting paid from Youtube, it's not as much as you would like to think, since people think Ad Revenue must be thousands and thousands of dollars, I can honestly say, it's not. It's at best WAY less than minimum wage for those with only 1k-10k Subscribers, closer to minimum wage with those 10k-100k, and at minimum wage and higher for those at 100k+ (And I know I may be incorrect, but that's my perspective) and at the end of the day, even the best LP's don't make even close to as much money as the Development Studios or the Publishers of Those Games. And even then, they technically aren't losing money, in fact, they're gaining more notoriety, good or bad, and that, as a result, can make both parties even more money, or make the developers/publishers lose money if the game is just outright terrible. It's an honest 50/50 there, especially if it's a bad game (But bad games don't deserve to make money in my opinion, even IF good people made it, it would just perpetuate the cycle of even more bad games. For example: Quantic Dream, enough said.)

3. In the end, this will lead to either three outcomes: A- The Let's Players of Youtube will migrate to another area and perform their works there, hoping to impress the game companies and hopefully find some footing to do their jobs on a more professional level/ B- The major game companies will begin hiring their own Let's Players to comment and criticize their games, only the players will do it on their terms and their demands, meaning a more dishonest and possibly shameful playthrough instead of a more honest and bold one, hell, they may even make game reviewing magazines do the dirty deed for them since they know how to hype up games/ C- In time, and after a lengthy debate on all matters involving copyright laws and such, we will know a true sense of peace where let's players can continue their work, and certain companies will feel the right hand of the law for their fowl play.

Eitherway, those are my thoughts on those matters.
 

Artaneius

New member
Dec 9, 2013
255
0
0
Then whats the point in putting all the work into the editing process if you don't get anything for it? Those graphics, special effects, audio recording, and other bits and pieces that pop on the video take work and time to do. If you don't get anything out of it might as well as just record the video and put it up without anything else. Just be a plain boring walkthrough video.
 

Eve Charm

New member
Aug 10, 2011
760
0
0
1: What do you think of this sudden change happening next year?

If it's Only effecting the ability for people to make money off of someone's else content, Fine. If it means people having the choose Gameplay or not gameplay in content that isn't just a lets play, sucks but fine if they still want to make their money off it.

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

Not really, Youtube isn't the only thing, Twitch and other sites are still out their, There is always subscribing and donating if your worried about someone not being able to "play video games for a living" At the end of the day this will mostly mean less triple A games and more indie games getting shown off since they'd see it as free advertising. Give the advertising to the people that need it.

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

This probably should have happened a long time ago. It will let people both big and small protect their works and have a say in " oh you can or can't run ads on my work."

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

Not a chance, The video game crash isn't going to happen because anyone "Can't make money off of Call of duty gameplay or last of us or other triple A" the odd thing is, This could be something that saves video game crashes from happening, at least not the big publishers. Big publishers can advertise their own games, since LPers wouldn't be able to make money off of them, they'll LP smaller less known games from companies that don't care, making those games more popular and hopefully sell more.

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

From the way it looks like anyone with a big network.

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

I hope this standard gets held to everyone at least. The whole idea of LPers was anyone could be a Lper. The idea of not being able to do it without being in a big corporate network or having free reign to do whatever the hell you want is crummy.
 

DataSnake

New member
Aug 5, 2009
467
0
0
Missing from the OP is Deep Silver, whose policy, as outlined by their head of PR, is as follows:
Just read an article that outlined several publishers and their stance on YouTube/monetization. Stunned that so many don't allow it.

— Aubrey Norris (@Chupacaubrey) December 8, 2013 [https://twitter.com/Chupacaubrey/statuses/409705841445441537]
Oh well- the more other devs and pubs make the dumbass decision to prohibit monetization and use of footage, the better for me. Just...smh.

— Aubrey Norris (@Chupacaubrey) December 8, 2013 [https://twitter.com/Chupacaubrey/statuses/409706287862001664]
 

TheGrueHunter

New member
Jan 14, 2013
20
0
0
Genocidicles said:
If this stops cunts like Pewdiepie making money from their shitty videos then I'm all for it.

Sucks for the few good ones though.
GoaThief said:
If it gets rid of the likes of Pewdiepie, then it's long overdue and I'm all for it. They provide nothing insightful, unfunny and don't deserve the often large incomes.
Sseth said:
Good. PewDiePie is a talentless shmuck who really needs to stop making money for being a waste of organic matter and screaming at the video screen. The fact that he's getting shafted makes me so happy. I really hope he quits making videos.
I'm honestly astounded that people have this kind of viewpoint. You want to screw over hundreds, if not thousands just to get at one person you don't like? Should we forbid anyone from making any music ever just because we hate Beiber? You've got a fly buzzing around your house and you're going after it with a sledgehammer.

klaynexas3 said:
Genocidicles said:
If this stops cunts like Pewdiepie making money from their shitty videos then I'm all for it.

Sucks for the few good ones though.
I think we should stop music from being a job entirely, so that bastard Justin Beiber stops getting paid.
God damn it, you already beat me to the punch.
 

GoaThief

Reinventing the Spiel
Feb 2, 2012
1,229
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
Video games are a product not a license.
As usual, you're totally off base and wrong. Video games are a product as such but you do not own the game, you pay for the right to use the product for your own personal use.

I can play my games without the permission of the publisher or developer
No you cannot play without permission, that is exactly what you are paying for. You do not own the game. The game belongs to the people/entity who produced it. There are restrictions on it's use, much like how you cannot purchase a blu-ray and then use it for public airings, especially charging other people for it.
or sell them for a profit.
This is a grey area, but what you are doing is selling the license to use the product on.
Personally I hate copy right laws because they are so easily abused.
I've heard similar arguments from pirates. You can hate them all you want but they're important, protect lots of people and are here to stay. Just because you're of a belief that you can just choose to own something and can do whatever the hell you like with it, doesn't make it so and could well constitute a crime.
TheGrueHunter said:
I'm honestly astounded that people have this kind of viewpoint. You want to screw over hundreds, if not thousands just to get at one person you don't like?
Uh, no. I think you're taking all that a bit too literally. Read the whole thread.
 

Eve Charm

New member
Aug 10, 2011
760
0
0
the hidden eagle said:
Except that does'nt apply to physical games because you can do anything you want with them except make copies.If video games were a license then a developer/publisher could for example prevent someone from selling the game by rendering the disc unusable.Therefore physical games are a product while digital games are in a grey area.

EDIT:Also would like to add that the publisher/developer can't stop people from doing whatever they want with their games which makes them a product.A license is completely different story since the buyer is completely at the developer/publisher's whim.
Actually currently gen and last gen companies CAN stop you from playing a game you physically own. They could remotely brick your entire system if they wanted to. The ps3 not being able to run Linux anymore is a perfect example of how much you do not own your physical product and if you want to continue using it they can take things away from you. Welcome to the new age of consumers not owning anything.

adding in

the hidden eagle said:
Can the developer prevent me from playing a game?No.

Can they prevent me from breaking a game?No.

Can they prevent me from lending it to people?No.

Can they prevent me from selling it?No.
1. By updating the game or sending a deactivation code to your console, Yes they can.

2. They can't but they can ban your account depending what you mean on breaking. I guess they can still technically ban your account to if you break your disc in half.

3. and 4. Yes, one time activation codes or online passes will stop you from doing either or at least the person you lent it to or sold it to wouldn't be able to do anything with it.
 

McFazzer

New member
Apr 22, 2012
96
0
0
How would this actually affect guys like TotalBiscuit and Angry Joe? Sure they have SOME LP stuff, but isn't the meat of their channels reviews? Or since the reviews have gameplay footage will they be disallowed? I thought copyright law allowed parts of a product to be used when it's a part of a critique or review?
 

StriderShinryu

New member
Dec 8, 2009
4,987
0
0
This is total garbage. Thankfully, the channels I follow in a dedicated manner are more indie oriented so hopefully they won't be too hard hit by the changes. Definitely not happy about things though.
 

Jenvas1306

New member
May 1, 2012
445
0
0
I never liked lets players like the famous pewdiepie (what a whimp...) but someone how watching someone play a game in a stupid way without actually informing about the games qualities or lack thereof got so popular. well there is something wrong with internet people no doubt but I found this video to explain the thing (or problem) with lets players very well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMqhEMhVV8
 

Specter Von Baren

Annoying Green Gadfly
Legacy
Aug 25, 2013
5,637
2,862
118
I don't know, send help!
Country
USA
Gender
Cuttlefish
The Plunk said:
the hidden eagle said:
The Plunk said:
the hidden eagle said:
The Plunk said:
the hidden eagle said:
Video games are a product not a license.I can play my games without the permission of the publisher or developer or sell them for a profit.Personally I hate copy right laws because they are so easily abused.
Wishful thinking does not make something fact. Yes, it's shitty, but it's still true. Video games are a licence, not a product. For example: Just because you bought a game, doesn't mean you have a right to re-use the code to make a new game, same concept as using the footage of a game to make a let's play.
No they're not a license.Video games or atleast the physical ones are printed on disc and afterwards the developer/publisher has no control over it.Digital games however are a different case since the developer/publisher can exert more control over them.
Again, you are wrong. You do not own the rights to the contents of a disc, you own a licence to use them in a certain way.

Think about my example again. A video game disc contains code. If you copy that code to use in your own game, you are committing a crime. The same holds true for the video and audio contents of a disc.
Except that does'nt apply to physical games because you can do anything you want with them except make copies.If video games were a license then a developer/publisher could for example prevent someone from selling the game by rendering the disc unusable.Therefore physical games are a product while digital games are in a grey area.

EDIT:Also would like to add that the publisher/developer can't stop people from doing whatever they want with their games which makes them a product.A license is completely different story since the buyer is completely at the developer/publisher's whim.
Ok then dude, it's clear that me and GoaThief can't make you see sense. I recommend that you attempt to create a commercial application using code that you ripped from a disc and see how long it goes before you find yourself with a hefty fine :^)
No I'm pretty sure you're wrong and that you do own your game and it is not a license. Or did you completely ignore one of the big gripes people had with the X-bone?
 

Racecarlock

New member
Jul 10, 2010
2,497
0
0
All of this just proves that trickle down economics is complete bullshit, because when people are actually making money off of the products of a larger company, they want to shut it down.

And frankly, I don't give a shit what is legal. It's still a huge dick move and any publisher that deserves fans would not pull this shit. I mean, driving is a license too, but that doesn't mean you have to pay ford every time you drive to work.
 

Rellik San

New member
Feb 3, 2011
609
0
0
Put simply a video game without player input is a menu screen... without the player input the video game can not function (save for Quantic Dream games, cheap shot, I know I know). As a result the simple act of playing a video game makes it a transformative work as people have differing play styles and as a result create different experiences.

So like Photoshop drawing videos, model kit lets builds and other such things, without the input from the human the work is inert, they are inherently transformative media by the very virtue of interacting with them. However, apparently music, film and video games are immune to this, why is beyond me.