Microsoft Prohibits Gamers From Cashing in on YouTube

Kargathia

New member
Jul 16, 2009
1,657
0
0
Tiger Sora said:
But. But, this doesn't affect me, nor 99.9% of anyone else. So a few dozen youtubers have lost their revenue streams. Now they have to get real jobs like regular people. That sucks cause I know what it's like to have a super easy job, but, real life sucks.
The curious part is not what it does, but what it does not: entail any advantage whatsoever to Microsoft.

Video content providers are in no way competing with any Microsoft venture, and while on first look it might be intended to troll Google, it would be a laughably ineffective way of doing so. Google doesn't suddenly stop getting ad revenue when it doesn't pay the uploader.

Until somebody provides a sensible explanation as to why they would even deem it worth the time writing the EULA, I'll assume it to be lawyer shenannigans. Maybe they were bored.
RvLeshrac said:
gigastar said:
RvLeshrac said:
Hazy992 said:
RvLeshrac said:
On YouTube, the monetization agreement EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS enabling monetization of game videos.
Well if that's the case how are channels like Yogscast and TotalBiscuit allowed then? TotalBiscuit has almost a million subscribers and Yogscast even more.
Uploading a video to YouTube != enabling monetization for that video.
TB does get monetisation for his videos, in fact in a recent video he explicitly stated that his only source of regular income is the money coming in from his videos. And according to him its enough that he doesnt need to find a regular job.
And I'm sure he monetizes the videos without first obtaining the rights necessary to do so from the developers.

Or, you know, the opposite of that.
TB would fall under fair use, as he is using the material for review purposes. Which doesn't mean Microsoft might not ready the lawsuit cannons anyway.

This EULA is aimed at the vast swathes of content that have no satirical or review purpose whatsoever, and merely seek to entertain.
 

MorganL4

Person
May 1, 2008
1,364
0
0
I think it is all a ploy to stop Jim Sterling from being able to do an episode on the game. They know that the game will not be at the same quality level as the Bungie products, and they don't want a Halo 4 Jimquisition Episode.

My question is: What about video reviews of the game? Does this mean The Escapist can't do one?
 

brunothepig

New member
May 18, 2009
2,163
0
0
I... Don't understand this. I mean, apart from the motivation, which as far as I can tell is MS being petty and deciding they want to be the only ones making money off their games, it seems like they're only shooting themselves in the foot. If you look at the full usage rules it gets worse.

First, they're talking about all games owned by Microsoft. Here's a list, from them. May not be all of them, they did say "including".
Halo (all versions)
Forza Motorsport (all versions)*
Fable (all versions)
Kinectimals
Kinect Adventures
Kinect Joy Ride
Age of Empires (all versions)
Flight Simulator (all versions)*
Kameo
Perfect Dark Zero
Project Gotham Racing (all versions)*
Shadowrun
Viva Pinata
Is this retroactive? Because if so they'll already be pissing off a lot of people, by forcing them to pull down old videos.

Second, ad revenue isn't the only revenue that isn't allowed. The full point was "Except as described here, you can't sell or otherwise earn any compensation from your Item, including through advertisements in the Item. This means you can't charge money in exchange for your Item, post it on a site that requires subscription or other fees to view the Item, or post it on a page you use to sell other items or services(even if they have nothing to do with Game Content or Microsoft). You also can't use Game Content in an app that you sell in an app store."
So now if one has a website where they like to post lets plays, or amusing videos, or multiplayer guides, or whatever, plus it sells some merchandise of yours, will Microsoft get angry if they post videos of their games? That's probably going to get in the way for some people, and again there's no good reason.

Third is the one people are focusing on.
"You may post your Item to a page or website that has advertising, but only if you do not earn any money from that advertising. For example, if you post your video on Youtube or Vimeo and there happens to be an advertisement next to it, then as long as you don't get paid for that advertisement, the fact that there is an advertisement on the page doesn't break these Rules. But enrolling in the Youtube partner program (or other similar programs), where you are entering into an agreement to get paid, is not allowed. On a similar note, if you create and distribute a free app, then you can't earn any money from advertising in that app."
Yeah, this sucks.

As some are pointing out, none of this stops anyone making videos with Halo content. But it does make it less attractive. I'm not clear on how Youtube Partners works, but I can't imagine there's something like a checkbox when you upload a video "I don't want ad revenue from this video". Because why would there be. So how do people who already have a Partners account (like, probably all the popular content contributors) get around this. Do they have to contact Youtube about their unlisted video and say they don't want revenue from it before they make it public. That sounds like a pain. If you have a website that you like to upload all your videos to, and you also sell merch (much like LRR's website, for example), what do you do then?

All of these nuisances add up, I can see a lot of content creators just deciding to make content for some other game. Hell, Dice were recently running a competition encouraging players to record their most impressive in-game moments. They were calling it "Only in BF3" if you're curious. They'd link some videos on their Facebook page and all that. That seems like a smarter move. Because current players would share some of these impressive videos. Friends might watch them. Those same friends might decide that the game looks pretty cool, and maybe they should buy it. Or people who've stopped playing might decide to jump back in. I think this sort of thing, being able to freely create and show off content and play, is important to keeping an enthusiastic online community. I can't think of a single (good) reason why Microsoft would want to put a stop to this. It's free advertising, when popular contributors make a few videos based off your game. It's a way for the community to feel more involved. Players watch these videos, maybe see some cool gameplay tips, or some funny glitches, or whatever. That kind of interplay, to have a game be more than just playing it to some people, whether it be something that brings them amusement through compilations of vehicles bouncing into the sky, or whether it's the joy of creating content based on this game, is, I think, vital to fostering a large community.

So yeah, I kinda rambled on a little. Most of this is speculation, admittedly. I have some experience from the viewer side, I follow a few different things about BF3, but I don't know much about creating content, or Halo's community. Still, it seems simple enough to me. If Microsoft make it more annoying to create content, if they force you to tip-toe around making money, then less people will want to bother. And probably there will be some people put off by the fact that they can't make any money off this content they created, especially if they already are making money off other videos they make. I suspect the worst part for Microsoft though, will be the backlash itself from the existing community. The weirdest part is, I still can't think of a good reason for Microsoft to care at all about this.
 

knight4light

New member
Jun 24, 2011
78
0
0
What about pc games. i know xbox games are all off limits. but what if they have multiple platforms. will we now have to start specifying what version of a game we are letsplaying? granted most are pc version but there are others. example. Call of Duty: Final War (just bsing name) comes out next year on 360, ps3, pc, and wii u (cuz you know its gonna happen). 360 content is totaly off limits. is the pc, ps3, and wii u version now locked down cuz of the 360? Is any game on pc locked out cuz its played using windows.

i....i really dont see how in the hell people are going to enforce it. the only game that is xbox exclusive really is only halo. that will be the one and only easy one to point out. where as the others. they get released on 3 different things all you would have to say. "this is a playstation game version" or something like that and they cant prove its not.


Microsoft.... why are you such and idiot.

Edit: was reading the post above mine. so it only works on games they own huh. so really only exclusives. ...still sucks either way =(
 

Azo Galvat

New member
Mar 3, 2011
49
0
0
Uber Evil said:
Apparently this sort of thing has been in the EULA for a while, but they don't really enforce. This video seems to provide more context about the issue.
Quoting for truth and visibility.

If Microsoft was going to enforce that rule, which has been there for some time, they would have done so by now.
 

Saulkar

Regular Member
Legacy
Sep 18, 2020
3,142
2
13
Country
Canuckistan
Say goodbye to free advertising Microsoft ya fuckers.
 

Naeras

New member
Mar 1, 2011
989
0
0
Tiamat666 said:
Youtube is owned by Google. Microsoft doesn't like Google. Lots of Halo videos on Youtube mean lots of advertising revenue for Google. I suppose MS has a plan to shift control of video game content off Youtube and onto a more MS-friendly platform.
If that was the case, it would be a platform where nobody could make any ad revenue from it, meaning either a) something in-game or b) a platform MS launches themselves which is integrated in Windows/WBL. This is obviously not something people would use, so a lot of video creators will just abandon the game entirely.
 

SextusMaximus

Nightingale Assassin
May 20, 2009
3,508
0
0
Covarr said:
saintdane05 said:
So, will this effect Red vs. Blue? It better not...
Red vs Blue? Probably not, as there's all kinds of special arrangements in place for it. But I could see it seriously harming other Rooster Teeth ventures, such as a good chunk of what Achievement Hunter does. We probably can say goodbye to Fails of the Weak and Achievement Pig Horse, among others. And Trials Files, because MS also publishes Trials Evolution.

This is a bad and stupid move, Microsoft.

P.S. Thanks
Man, I even forgot about achievement horse. GOTTA CATCH UP ON THAT WHILE IT STILL LASTS.
 

GamingAwesome1

New member
May 22, 2009
1,794
0
0
It's not like I was really going to buy Halo 4 or watch videos about it in the first place, I was waiting for a company to try something like this, it was bound to happen and I'm just glad it was a game I don't give a flying shit about. More reason to ignore it and try to convince others not to buy it either, not that I seriously need more reason.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
One particularly interesting point of the newly-revised rules states that advertisements can appear alongside or on the same page as a gameplay clip, but the person who created, edited, and published the work may not profit from it.
Oh so the huge mega-corporations can still make huge amounts of money but the little guy can't get even a small a cut of it to spite doing all the work promoting your game.

Fu*k you Microsoft.
 

MagmaMan

New member
Apr 2, 2012
91
0
0
saintdane05 said:
So, will this effect Red vs. Blue? It better not...
The developers are good with RvB. Why else would they get to make a short using the Halo 4 engine quite a while ago or a short with Halo: Reach long before that was released?
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Azo Galvat said:
Uber Evil said:
Apparently this sort of thing has been in the EULA for a while, but they don't really enforce. This video seems to provide more context about the issue.
Quoting for truth and visibility.

If Microsoft was going to enforce that rule, which has been there for some time, they would have done so by now.
Why would they make a rule... that they NEVER intend to enforce?!?!

Why specifically say that Google can make money on ads on a video of their content (that's a permission) but exclude the small non-business uploader to make money off that?

That's the important part, it protects the big video website's money stream (and the army of lawyers who would fight against it) but not the little guy who actually went to the effort of getting compelling gameplay footage, editing it and presenting it in a way that would be uneconomical for Microsoft to do.

Don't expect take-down notices or DMCA filing, no they will send the letter to Google saying: "Don't pay this son of a ***** a fucking penny or I'll sue your ass... keep the video up though, that benefits us"
 

FantomOmega

New member
Jun 14, 2012
192
0
0
Evil Smurf said:
So why has Microsoft turned douchey? Closing their OS and now this? Wow.

don't hurt me I have a Mac
Microsoft turned douchey? That's a new one, that's like saying the sun just suddenly start providing light each day last week!

How this will affect their rabid fanbase is anyone's guess...
 

MetallicaRulez0

New member
Aug 27, 2008
2,503
0
0
Why would they do this? Microsoft isn't going to post a bunch of montages and gameplay commentaries themselves, why should they care if someone pays their rent with gameplay footage? This just seems like an uncalled for change to me. Microsoft doesn't stand to gain anything from it, they're simply removing the chance for others to make a living off of something that is very popular at the moment.

Part of me worries this will prevent the inevitable Hutch/Seananners Halo 4 gameplay videos. What a tragedy it would be to lose those. =(
 
Apr 5, 2008
3,736
0
0
I don't see how such a thing can be enforceable. If someone owns a game, provided they aren't reselling or distributing the original work for profit, the publisher has zero say in whatever else they do with it. I guess it's not dissimilar to "fan fiction" or such like in a way.

More importantly, will RvB be affected? I don't know how much they make off ads, how much from sponsors and how much from DVD sales but it's the best web series bar none and, if anything, does more to promote Halo than anything MS or Bungie have ever done.
 

Auberon

New member
Aug 29, 2012
467
0
0
This could make sense if a) Microsoft didn't want free advertising, which is nearly always better than 60 second clips of cutscenes and b) ad revenue was worth millions (I doubt anyone really earns their living exclusively through it, given that you'll need millions of views for good profits).

Small guys stuck in crossfire between megacorps, nothing new. Will likely see again in some form.

captcha said:
get over it
Until it stops, I won't.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
poiumty said:
To paraphrase someone else:

Youtube has never allowed gaming footage to be monetized, it's against the ToS. Networks have permission and license to do so
So you're making a big deal out of nothing, really. Every content producer worth their salt is a part of a larger network.
This, but alas people are arguing to me that now that they can't (despite never in the first place) that now it's false advertisement and that u always could. :/ I really don't think people understand that big channels have deals and other channels have deals with those channels.

Since aside from YouTube Partners there is also a Machinima Partnership and so on.
 

1337mokro

New member
Dec 24, 2008
1,503
0
0
Tiger Sora said:
As for it being a "not real job". As I said to the last guy. You play video game, add commentary on it or insert lines. Post, get advertisement money.
And that is not a real job how?

You add something to a product or do something with it and get paid for it. That is pretty much the definition of a job. You can argue about it all you want but they are basically making a living of it and apparently it can be nice and profitable.

So how is that Not a job? Because they Add something on an existing work? Isn't that what reviewing is? Isn't that what journalism in general is. Adding your own description and opinion of events or a piece of media and getting paid to do so?

Wait a second.... you're saying being a Sports Commentator isn't an actual job. We have an example of someone putting audio of themselves over a match and getting paid for it outside of the internet. So is Sports Commentator not a job?

It's quite funny how you claim "original content" is what would have made it a job. Isn't the way they play the game basically creating content. A game doesn't play itself does it? At least a good game doesn't. So the way they play the game can be argued as original content.

We can get down to semantics on this one but the simple fact remains. If you make a video with commentary on it and you connect with an audience you can make money of it. Whether you consider it a job or not is kind of mute when they are getting paid for doing it.

You don't have to say out loud that you are jealous. I can read between the lines.

"How dare these people have a job that gets them attention and money and I don't! They should get real jobs flipping burgers at MacD. That's making original content out of processed meats!"

Also you misspelled Then.