Phil Fish believes game-streamers owe revenue to the developer.

[Atmos Duality]

Excuse me but your logic has a huge flaw to it. You don't need LP to decide. You need to see, for example, 15-30 minutes of representative video at the most! You know, that thing that Total Biscuit does.

In a perfect world, that would be true and I would have nothing more to say.
Of course, in a perfect world, Phil Fish would possess a the character of a well reasoned adult and not some insolent man-child who throws tantrums.

Some of us aren't satisfied with critical review because of collusion of opinion, and that problem has NEVER been more evident in the market's history than today. I want to trust folks like TotalBiscuit (and for most games, I do trust TB's method specifically).

But many review sites that offer representative footage will employ selective editing so you only see the parts of the game they've been paid to review (I've seen this a LOT on the biggest professional sites, and even some small time youtubers).

And beyond that, an LP can easily drive up demand of a game through exposure anyway. Some folks don't watch entire LPs specifically so they can experience the game themselves because it looks like something that's more fun to play than to watch.

Being able to choose and trust is something I value dearly, especially in an industry that seems hellbent on stripping the few consumers rights and protections I had to begin with and loading the deck so everything they produce looks better than it is.

If the market would stop trying to act more and more like con-men, I'd be questioning monetized LPs myself.
But until that day comes, I am unmoved by the spiteful whining of folks like Mr. Fish.

Do you need retelling of a movie scene by scene before you decide will you see it? I sure as hell don't. Forget all other points I made...

I'll forget this one as well because you're falling back on that broken "Video game = movie" argument.
Sorry, but the two mediums are not comparable. If we're jumping mediums for the sake of comparison, might as well argue that someone will get the same exact experience from watching The Godfather as they would reading the original novel.

The difference between the type of audience involvement in a video game and a movie isn't something minor that you can gloss out of convenience, because audience (player) involvement is the FUNDAMENTAL IDENTITY OF THE ENTIRE VIDEO GAME MEDIUM.

For most games, the public performance will differ.
I've already covered the unfortunate caveats (games whose challenge comes entirely from puzzles), but to pitch all of that away just so some butthurt developers can wield totalitarian control over their products is not a reasonable trade to me.

In an economic sense, if LPs go, I don't see how producers will be motivated to do better.
In practice, removing transparency encourages exploitation and I'm frankly sick of that as it is.

 

[carnex]

-SNIP-

Yes, they can drive sales up, just like they can drive sales down. And that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with quality of game. It can have to do with presenter or type of game for example. Read my comment on second page for example of those.

Also, reviewers can be good and can be bad. That's why you have a TON of them in all three forms (written, spoken, video). The bid that you need to see full game before you make up your own mind doesn't make sense. Not to mention it can easily, not only damage, but totally break the experience of playing said games.

A for whining Mr. Phill, all I can say is that if he is characterized as that as a person who actually worked his butt off, i can't even find a term for tubers that do essentially little to no work (I don't consider their playing games as work, they are not reviewers therefor they have full free choice to play just what they enjoy) and then complain about creators complaining about them piggybacking on their work.

-SNIP-

You really shouldn't forget about it since I have made a fair comparison. In both cases we get flawed experience and the size of a flaw depend on genre/type of movie/game. I certainly would watch martial arts or action spectacle movie after you retell it to me scene by scene but certainly would not watch spy thriller of high drama after i knew all the twists.

And as I said earlier, whoever finds fair solution to this problem is greater man than I am. I simply can not tell people that worked hard, often against their own health and other forms of betterment to shut up when someone uses their product, with little alteration, to earn their living. Character of said people has nothing to do with idea that this kind of behavior is right or wrong.

As for TB's opinion, I would like to see how he would react to someone downloading his videos, striping the video, re-cutting the audio, pasting their own video underneath his words and posting it on their own channel. Hey, it's a transformative work, maybe even more so than you playing a corridor shooter or a puzzle game.

Anyway, my solution would be this. IF you don't earn money of video, it's a free world. If you do up to 10% of simple gameplay length is OK (not necessarily continuous footage,maybe greater pecentage), for more than that, contact the bloody publisher/developer for permission and ask for it. We all have our digital signatures or we can get it cheaply to sign online documents. And work it out with them.

But that actually leaves slew of gray areas so it's not really the best even in my eyes.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

I also think that if you do a full LP and get money of it, it's not unreasonable to owe money for it
Edit: It starts to get annoying that anytime a company asks to look at something from their side they are immediately booed and hated for daring to want income with stupid justifications of "the industry gets too much money".

Interesting view point, would you also then say that the person doing the youtube lets play should get a percentage of the profits from the game sales? They are after all providing free advertisement and promotion of the game in the public consciousness. Something that cost's the industry millions each year.

Except as I said, and also said in the Jimquisition, LP's do not give any reason to buy the game, rather the opposite, if you know what happens you are less inclined to actually buy the game, I watched Outlast and Dead Space lP's and I don't want to buy them because I already know the plot, even if the seem good.

Also, making an LP, even a fancy one doesn't cost anything except time, maybe you need to buy a few programs and you usually have fun making it.

Well that's one opinion on it sure but I'm the opposite. I've watched LP's before and then went out and bought the game I was watching the LP of more than a few times before. For example, Supream Commander, Crysis 2 & 3, Fallout 3 and Dishonored just to name a few.

For some people having the plot spoiled isn't such a big deal. I play games because I enjoy both a good story and a good challenge. Just because I know what's going to happen in the plot doesn't mean I enjoy the game any less.

I'd argue that at worst then LP's don't do anything to affect the sales of a game and at best they may influence a person who's on the fence about a game to give it a shot.

To address the point about LP's not costing anything then unless the person doing the LP is pirating the game then they must have spent money to buy it so that's money going to the game studio. And I think to make a quality LP then that's another couple of hundred on things like software and a good microphone. So there is definitely a little bit of an investment involved.

What the industry should do however is get some proper empirical data about exactly how LP's effect sales of games if at all otherwise it's all just conjecture and opinions with no evidence to back it up.