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

[Slycne]

What's kind of funny is YouTube has Content ID tools to automatically flag videos with his content, if he so chose to set it up with them. But instead of setting that up, he just chose to ***** over Twitter about it. I think that makes it pretty clear he's just out to show how important he believes himself to be.

Content ID isn't going to work in most circumstances for a game. It's an automatic system so it needs something to compare to in order to make a decision, you claim something uploaded to YouTube first. That's easy enough for a static trailer, song, etc. Those elements don't change and YouTube's algorithm can make a decision about yes, no or to what degree that piece of content is used in another one. But depending on the specifics of the game, Content ID wouldn't be able to reliably match anything that's suitably dynamic. One player jumps, another spin around and it's trying to match that to say a speed run of the game. It might catch certain 2D games and such - or it catches a flag from an in game cinematic, but for most things the view and action will be too different for it to match.

 

[lacktheknack]

New proposition: Money is channeled from one party to the other depending on whether the video increases or decreases sales.

Not a fan of this proposition, eh, Fish?

I've never understood why companies are so against free advertising.

 

[beastro]

Grrrrr!!! How dare developers get free advertizing!

Advertizing should pay for itself and then some!

 

[Lincoln Keane]

God I hate Phil Fish so much. I hope he says out of the industry for the rest of his life, the less I see of him the better.

 

[AmberSword]

The man has a point, though as usual he really could have worded it in a better manner.

I won't even get into how his movie anology fails due to games being an interactive medium, but game developers getting a cut of ad revenue does make sense.

Buuuuut.... Then game developers would have to pay the streamers back (especially the notable ones), for ad revenue! It's basically free advertisement for their games, and if they want a share of the ad revenue it generates for the streamers, then they damn well should pay the streamers for their advertising.

Basically what I'm saying is that Phil Fish makes sense, but the way he worded in and the catch 22 in play here ultimately makes what he says obsolete.

 

[kortin]

Phil Fish just said something that Execs at Activision, Ubisoft, and EA have been thinking for years.

I'm not going to lie and say I hope this doesn't burn him to the ground, because I hope it does. Phil just showed that he's as bad as the high level money-grubbing execs at EA, Activision, and Ubisoft. Now if only Jonathan Blow could make such a slip up...

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I thought Phill Fish quit being a game dev, lowing the average level of arsehole currently in game development.

Needless to say his return will not be met from praise from myself.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

That's rather short sighted of him considering Let's Plays often act as an unofficial, and unpaid (unpaid by the developer/publisher anyway) arm of a game's marketing. Also the fact that he's since deleted his Twatter says to me that he doesn't have the... uh... guts to stand by his statements.

 

[lunavixen]

He seems to forget that LP'ers and other youtube reviewers can actually generate sales for some games, I doubt Amnesia or Goat Simulator would have become as popular as they are without people like Raedwulf, Markiplier etc. I've bought games that I've seen played by people like them because they show average gameplay expectations alongside being entertainers.

 

[Erttheking]

Oh, so do professional football players have to give a cut of their profits to the people the bought their ball from too? Oh wait, they did. It's called "Buying the ball"

 

[Daemonate]

Terrence Gel pretty much explained the view of most content providers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=yaXSVdVqUEs#t=140
(2 mins 18 seconds if it starts at the beginning)

For me Terrance's position is persuasive. Sorry Phil.

But unlike many others apparently, I don't mind Fish making his position clear - he's entitled to his (wrongheaded) opinion. It's fine, he was never paid money by me for his opinions so I don't care if they're ill-founded.
My caring for what Fish says or does about *anything* begins and ends with:
1) Is his game any good?
2) Does his opinion physically and directly affect my enjoyment of said game? (if, say, he likes DRM and hooks it up to Uplay - not because he says he hates kittens and I can't get that out of my head when I play Fez or some other hypersensitive intolerance for other people's views.)

In either case, his WORDS mean nothing, but what *actions* those opinions translate into does matter - but *only* inasmuch as where my dollars go. If he was in a position to affect publishers and public policy makers, maybe I'd give a slight damn whether it was for the greater good or not. But still wouldn't mind if his "PR sucks". Freedom of speech means just that. Attack the opinion, not the man for having or presenting it.

 

[Xdeser2]

After all of this controversy over Fish, he just seems like one hell of an insecure person.

He cant take criticism, tells people to kill themselves because he's better than them when they do criticize him, and now "People are playing MY game. I should be getting money from this. Why are THEY getting famous off MY work?!" Someone needs constant Validation

Personally, my view is that the Publisher/Developer/Retailer already got their only deserved cut when the game was sold. thats how capitalism works, the system doesn't change for YOUR business. They're not stealing IP, They're using a product you already sold them. Dipping your fingers in for seconds is not your right.

 

[Sunrider]

Phil Fish being a fucking moron?

Must be tuesday.

 

[RedDeadFred]

I don't understand... It's basically free advertising if the streamer is enjoying the game. I bet streamers make devs a lot more money than they make them lose (unless of course the streamer is only playing the game to showcase it's awfulness -Guise of the Wolf).

It sometimes seems like this guy posts inflammatory comments just for shits and giggles.

 

[Roofstone]

Well, it depends on if they bought the game or not. If they bought the game? Nah.

If they did not, I could see maybe.. 20-30% going to the developers? Depends on the stream, the commentary is over half of the fun for me, I listen more than I watch. I can see where Phil is coming from.

 

[Ariseishirou]

You'd think a GAME DEVELOPER would under than the fundamental flaw in his game/movie comparison, namely that while watching a movie on youtube would be the same experience as watching a movie you bought, watching someone else play a game is absolutely, utterly, and completely fuck all like playing a game you bought.

If anything, they should be paying the Let's Players for the free advertisement. There's any number of games (Outlast, Saints Row 3) that I've purchased because a favourite LPer of mine has made them look like great fun.

 

[mindfaQ]

The guy should be happy to get the free advertisement. Well, once again he goes full retard, nothing new ^^.

 

[Mangod]

Also isn't this the guy who got angry at people online and quit his next game? It really sounds to me like he needs someone else to handle PR for him.

Considering this is the guy who said he'd kill himself if Fez got less than an 8 on Metacritic, I sincerely believe that his opinions can be disregarded entirely. The man has no perspective on life.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Why go ahead and punish monetization of Lets Plays. In fact, yank them from the net. Youtube should only publish content that's being used with the creator's explicit permission (reviews included, because Fair Use was apparently a joke anyway).

That way, all content can be expressed and shared fairly: solely by its creators whim.
There is no way this can fail.

Hey, maybe next week, Mr.Fish can share some more wisdom with us. Maybe he can explain how anyone will get the same exact experience watching a stream of two Evo Fighting pros go at it as they can playing the same game themselves.

 

[Gankytim]

Legally, no. All media is allowed to be recorded for the purposes of review, parody or commentary, as defined in both US and International copyright law.