I guess the argument comes in the guise of transforming the work and with that said, couldn't you realistically argue that the mere act of playing a game transforms it, because it can't function without that human interaction?The Great Fungus said:
Major Changes In Youtube Involving Let's Players
- Thread starter Emaruse
- Start date
I'd like to address this first if I may. If you read the part you quoted from me carefully, you'll notice that I said:shrekfan246 said:
"Why should anyone make money from PLAYING games"
I have absolutely no problem with reviewers or critics.
I would say that is debatable.shrekfan246 said:
Because it's the only thing we have that we can go by. The ones I've read say that you're not allowed to "commercially exploit the software". Spore could only be installed five times iirc. EA used online passes so that you couldn't use a portion of your game if you didn't have a valid one. They have the right do deny you access to your game. What does that tell you about ownership? Microsoft's plan to restrict used games wasn't overthrown because of legal issues but to avoid a PR disaster.the hidden eagle said:I feel flattered that you made a account just to reply to my postsThe Great Fungus said:.EULAs are meaningless bits of script that are never held up in court so I don't know why people always bring them up when discussing the details of ownnership regarding games.
Haha of course they do, that wasn't my point xDthe hidden eagle said:
My point is LPer's are merely playing the game and sometimes shouting in suprise.
Reviewers play the game and then you know, think about the game they have just played, talk about it's qualities, how it affects the industry, that kind of thing. Reviewers don't simply play. LPers do.
Rellik San said:
I wouldn't say so because you can only act within the confines of the programming. That's why cheating's regarded as breaking the EULA.
Couldn't LPs be regarded as theft of intellectual property?the hidden eagle said:
This is the thing I'm a bit concerned with. The OP seems to imply to me that any youtube video using captured gameplay (LPs, Reviews etc.) will be unable to be monetized. Sure I like LPers and all, but it's the implication that reviewers will not be able to make money off this that has me worried.miketehmage said:
But playing a piece of music or showing a copyrighted picture on TV without permission can already get you in trouble. I've never heard of someone being sued for doing so on YouTube, they just get their accounts blocked. Doing the same for games doesn't seem far-fetched to me.the hidden eagle said:
That's why they make it clear that you're only buying a license. The disc is yours. Nobody can take it away from you. But what's on it, the bits and bytes, belong to the publisher. And they make the rules.the hidden eagle said:
The thing about the whole "product or license" debate is that it's not clear even on a political level (the true rulemakers, so to speak). Not only do individual people have different yet equally strong stances on this, but so do governments. As an example, the U.S. judicial systems tend to side with the idea that all software is a service and the customer must abide by the terms of the license, whereas the EU tends to view software that's sold for infinite use at a flat one-time fee as a product and must strictly adhere to consumer rights laws.The Great Fungus said:
In other words, this is not a debate that can be won from either side on internet forums, but instead must be decided on a political level. Until then, it's highly unlikely that this age-old debate will ever go anywhere but in circles.
I just think it's crazy when anyone wants to defend major corporations for any reason. Really says something about our culture when you've got people saying "Think of the outrageously rich!"
It's pretty shit. There were scares about this way back in the FGC regarding tournament viewership. Personally, I don't see why anyone would give a fuck about what LPers do. The text ones tend to be really entertaining and often can make something much more interesting out of otherwise mediocre games (Front Mission 3, Avalon Code). The video ones I generally like less unless there's some nostalgia for a game I haven't beaten down inside and out like Tactics Ogre: Person of Lordly Caliber. But ultimately, the point of a game is to be played, so trying to put down Let's Players for showing people themselves playing the game is idiotic. I'm not actually playing the game, and in certain cases (speed runs and other challenge runs, tournament play), I'm watching to see a level of expertise that I haven't gotten to.
It's like a brick maker being mad that someone is using that brick to prop up an uneven table because the usage was unintended. Which is exactly what corporations don't like unless it's unexpected windfalls or something. I say let them make the LPs, let them monetize, fuck it. It costs them no money (or at least the amount of sales a good LPer can get a game probably outweigh the losses by people who go "Oh, I guess I wouldn't like this,"), allowing it garners good will which means more positive attention and future likely sales...Seems better all around to me, although I'm not any kind of businessman. I know for damn sure there are fighting games I've bought because I was excited by the high level play tournie players showed me. Don't see why it wouldn't be the same way with good LPers.
It's pretty shit. There were scares about this way back in the FGC regarding tournament viewership. Personally, I don't see why anyone would give a fuck about what LPers do. The text ones tend to be really entertaining and often can make something much more interesting out of otherwise mediocre games (Front Mission 3, Avalon Code). The video ones I generally like less unless there's some nostalgia for a game I haven't beaten down inside and out like Tactics Ogre: Person of Lordly Caliber. But ultimately, the point of a game is to be played, so trying to put down Let's Players for showing people themselves playing the game is idiotic. I'm not actually playing the game, and in certain cases (speed runs and other challenge runs, tournament play), I'm watching to see a level of expertise that I haven't gotten to.
It's like a brick maker being mad that someone is using that brick to prop up an uneven table because the usage was unintended. Which is exactly what corporations don't like unless it's unexpected windfalls or something. I say let them make the LPs, let them monetize, fuck it. It costs them no money (or at least the amount of sales a good LPer can get a game probably outweigh the losses by people who go "Oh, I guess I wouldn't like this,"), allowing it garners good will which means more positive attention and future likely sales...Seems better all around to me, although I'm not any kind of businessman. I know for damn sure there are fighting games I've bought because I was excited by the high level play tournie players showed me. Don't see why it wouldn't be the same way with good LPers.
I agree completely. My point was merely that games have always been sold as licenses and we've never had complete control over them. I know the EU has allowed digital copies to be resold despite what EULAS used to say. However, I'm not aware of any other rulings regarding the ownership of games.V da Mighty Taco said:
I never understood why a company would refuse to allow derivative works of their products. However, there is one reason. But I'll get to it.
You see, if one creates a Let's Play of their game, it's an act of love, they love the game so much they're willing to put in the work and create something out of it. And in return, the publisher gets a bit more free publicity. So why crack down on it?
One reason I can see: If you know you're game is so shit that the only Let's Plays will be those taking the piss. You don't want people to know how shit your game is before they buy it!
So that's just insane!
But regarding Activision, I'm pretty sure their licencing agreement is referring to derivative works of the source code, not the game play. I read the document and it doesn't seem to be about Let's Plays at all, but the engine code.
You see, if one creates a Let's Play of their game, it's an act of love, they love the game so much they're willing to put in the work and create something out of it. And in return, the publisher gets a bit more free publicity. So why crack down on it?
One reason I can see: If you know you're game is so shit that the only Let's Plays will be those taking the piss. You don't want people to know how shit your game is before they buy it!
So that's just insane!
But regarding Activision, I'm pretty sure their licencing agreement is referring to derivative works of the source code, not the game play. I read the document and it doesn't seem to be about Let's Plays at all, but the engine code.
Unfortunately, it's copyright law. It's a legally binding contract that they agree to when buying a game. I will admit it's a problem for a lot of people who make a living off of it (and I'm often amazed they make a living off of doing this), but for indie reviewers to not make money off of their reviews seems like game companies fiddling with the data. I think the contracts/laws need to be changed.
Think about it. Many game review companies (such as IGN, Kotaku, and the like) have gotten into trouble for questionable deals in exchange for being able to review a new game, and a lot of them (after that whole Gerstmann/Kane and Lynch scandal) are afraid to be brutally honest about a game, even when it deserves it.
"You don't like this game? Well guess what? We won't give you any of our games to review anymore!"
Now, these people who do reviews on YouTube are people who bought the game with their own money (usually). Their opinions are brutal, honest, and untainted by the fear of being able to keep their job. They obviously care about games as a whole and put time and effort into their videos (...usually). They don't have marketing departments and advertising deals with major companies.
Game companies see this and, of course, they don't like it. They don't have any control over these reviewers. They didn't give them a review copy of the game, they can't call their supervisor, they can't raise a fuss and get them fired, and they can't just ban them from having any more copies of the games. So they do the next best thing: they bring in the law. They make contracts so long and full of legalese, you don't know what you're agreeing to without hiring an attorney to translate.
I'm not trying to be paranoid, but I'm seeing some rather alarming trends here that I'm not too fond of.
Think about it. Many game review companies (such as IGN, Kotaku, and the like) have gotten into trouble for questionable deals in exchange for being able to review a new game, and a lot of them (after that whole Gerstmann/Kane and Lynch scandal) are afraid to be brutally honest about a game, even when it deserves it.
"You don't like this game? Well guess what? We won't give you any of our games to review anymore!"
Now, these people who do reviews on YouTube are people who bought the game with their own money (usually). Their opinions are brutal, honest, and untainted by the fear of being able to keep their job. They obviously care about games as a whole and put time and effort into their videos (...usually). They don't have marketing departments and advertising deals with major companies.
Game companies see this and, of course, they don't like it. They don't have any control over these reviewers. They didn't give them a review copy of the game, they can't call their supervisor, they can't raise a fuss and get them fired, and they can't just ban them from having any more copies of the games. So they do the next best thing: they bring in the law. They make contracts so long and full of legalese, you don't know what you're agreeing to without hiring an attorney to translate.
I'm not trying to be paranoid, but I'm seeing some rather alarming trends here that I'm not too fond of.