Phil Fish believes game-streamers owe revenue to the developer.
- Thread starter NewClassic_v1legacy
- Start date
This is a subject with no correct answer. Simply put if publisher/developer wants to demand money when you use parts of their work (parts since they actually play the game) in significant enough amount to spoil the experience for many it's their right to do so. And for same games that makes a lot of sense. Story driven games, adventures, logic games etc have most of the experience riding on the fact that player encounters things for the first time.
On the other hand they are a for of what used to be walkthrough for that exact types of games (a walkthrough that leaves you with no reason to actually play the game whatsoever but walkthrough never the less). It also brings attention to the product.
So there really isn't some magical right answer and all I can say is "it depends" and "on a lot of factors". If you really want to be honest stick to games that are different every time you play them or multiplayer competitive games. Or you can stream for example an half an hout to a whole hour of a game and leave the rest for players.
There is a sound base for what Phill said soooo... i don't know
On the other hand they are a for of what used to be walkthrough for that exact types of games (a walkthrough that leaves you with no reason to actually play the game whatsoever but walkthrough never the less). It also brings attention to the product.
So there really isn't some magical right answer and all I can say is "it depends" and "on a lot of factors". If you really want to be honest stick to games that are different every time you play them or multiplayer competitive games. Or you can stream for example an half an hout to a whole hour of a game and leave the rest for players.
There is a sound base for what Phill said soooo... i don't know
Watching an LP and playing a game are fundamentally different experiences, and in the same way one might include footage from a movie in a criticism video without being the same experience as a movie, one can LP without it being the same experience as a game. I think they shouldn't have to pay anything, but I'm also happy to let companies decide. Try that Nintendo shit again and see what happens to the coverage your games get. It's mostly indie games that benefit, and mostly, indie game developers enjoy it.
I can definately see his point. I mean, how many times have their been a game you were on the fense about and decided to watch a let's play instead? Or just. Watch a video for the story, or just to see the ending? There are " cutscene only videos" and things like that. There definately some merit to his opinion. Not all games are soley about the gameplay, story matters somewhat too to some people. Hell i personally watched Ground zeroes because i didn't want to pay for a glorified demo, while not piracy, it's borderline.
Do i necessarily agree? No . Artists don't owe pencil makers any money for what they draw with a pencil. However i see why some would agree with his stance.
Do i necessarily agree? No . Artists don't owe pencil makers any money for what they draw with a pencil. However i see why some would agree with his stance.
You buy a game. You don't buy the rights to broadcast the game. Fair use allows reviewers and others the ability to broadcast portions of a game they need to do their jobs, it doesn't let anyone broadcast the entirety of a game.
If your game is at least half decent, Lets Plays give you free advertisement. It's actually the cheapest form of advertising for the devs. So what if the LPers make (a little) money of it.
Lets Play is also not piracy because LPers add (and modify) the media content. They provide commentary and add their own play style to the game.
Lets Play is also not piracy because LPers add (and modify) the media content. They provide commentary and add their own play style to the game.
Ruined, yes. Not had. Often you know a game with an element of story or discovery to them when you see them, and if you're prepared to spoil the opportunity to discover and experience, I'm guessing you aren't interested enough in the game to play it. In the same way as someone telling you who dies in a TV show you're watching ruins the experience without equating to having watched the TV show.carnex said:
I've mostly found Let's Plays a nice supplement to reviews in helping me decide if I wish to buy a game, or (for two games so far) a way to see a fun story for a game I know that I will never play.
Come to think of it seeing someone play a game has more or less replaced playing the demo (as those are quite rare nowadays). It's less time consuming for me, and costs less than making a free demo available for the developer. And, provided the game looks worth a buy, it's almost free marketing.
Which many developers and publishers have come to realize, as some will now partner up with YouTube personalities - by giving them a free collector's or press/review edition - just to get the game marketed to potentially millions of customers (for what is basically the price of a copy of the game). They'll then play it and many watching it will end up buying the game for themselves, given that a person they like spends hours talking about how much they're enjoying it (or getting scared half to death, depending on the game).
But if your game looks boring and unappealing, then YouTube/Streaming will hurt your sales. But so do reviews, and you don't call them thieves now do you? You even give them the game for free with the explicit purpose of them making add money of it, while still getting less marketing than an exited player on YouTube or that's streaming your game will provide.
Though, there's always "Day One - Garry's Incident", if one would like to enjoy a spectacle of failed internet censorship and copyright claims.
If all the game has going for it is the story though, then I can see why you'd be hesitant to Let's Plays and streaming. Given that, once you've seen the full story, there's really no reason to buy it - other than to support the developer. But in those cases you've also pretty much made a movie with viewer input, or "interactive story", and not really a traditional game. Because even story focused games can still have branching narrative and compelling gameplay that makes you want to play it, rather than just watch it.
Come to think of it seeing someone play a game has more or less replaced playing the demo (as those are quite rare nowadays). It's less time consuming for me, and costs less than making a free demo available for the developer. And, provided the game looks worth a buy, it's almost free marketing.
Which many developers and publishers have come to realize, as some will now partner up with YouTube personalities - by giving them a free collector's or press/review edition - just to get the game marketed to potentially millions of customers (for what is basically the price of a copy of the game). They'll then play it and many watching it will end up buying the game for themselves, given that a person they like spends hours talking about how much they're enjoying it (or getting scared half to death, depending on the game).
But if your game looks boring and unappealing, then YouTube/Streaming will hurt your sales. But so do reviews, and you don't call them thieves now do you? You even give them the game for free with the explicit purpose of them making add money of it, while still getting less marketing than an exited player on YouTube or that's streaming your game will provide.
Though, there's always "Day One - Garry's Incident", if one would like to enjoy a spectacle of failed internet censorship and copyright claims.
If all the game has going for it is the story though, then I can see why you'd be hesitant to Let's Plays and streaming. Given that, once you've seen the full story, there's really no reason to buy it - other than to support the developer. But in those cases you've also pretty much made a movie with viewer input, or "interactive story", and not really a traditional game. Because even story focused games can still have branching narrative and compelling gameplay that makes you want to play it, rather than just watch it.
But my point is that playing a game and streaming it for, lets say and hour, or two-three hours if it's open world game/rpg that takes time to get going than you get more than enough info to base your decision on it.
On the other hand if the game is procedurally generated or competitive multiplayer than every encounter is fundamentally different than you can go to the town with it. You can really hurt small developers by ruining their games for potential audience. If you live from game creators (people who actually do much more work on their part of show than let's player does) be mindful of their needs too. For me that's basic mannerism.
On the other hand if the game is procedurally generated or competitive multiplayer than every encounter is fundamentally different than you can go to the town with it. You can really hurt small developers by ruining their games for potential audience. If you live from game creators (people who actually do much more work on their part of show than let's player does) be mindful of their needs too. For me that's basic mannerism.
What if I am interested in the LPer's adventures instead of the game? In an RPG, my adventures will have very little relation to the LPer's adventures. No, I do not watch ANY non-open world RPG LP, unless it is MST style ie. retsu, match cast.carnex said:
I think the word you are looking for in this context is "patent". You made that stuff, you charge everyone that uses that stuff for other stuff.
Phil Fish is a self-righteous, hissy fit-throwing, attention-mongering child. Every time someone puts a camera or a microphone on him, he whines about how the entire world is against him. I wish the industry would collectively put him in a baby basket and leave him on a door step somewhere.
He retired from game development but he still wants the money. Greedy fuck is what he is.
People watch gameplay videos on YouTube for several reasons. And none of those reasons is because they'd rather watch the game than buy it themselves. They watch because:
1. They're fans of the person making the videos
2. They own the game but want to see someone else play it
3. They want to see if it looks fun enough to buy
It is mostly down to these three reasons. So fuck Phil Fish.
People watch gameplay videos on YouTube for several reasons. And none of those reasons is because they'd rather watch the game than buy it themselves. They watch because:
1. They're fans of the person making the videos
2. They own the game but want to see someone else play it
3. They want to see if it looks fun enough to buy
It is mostly down to these three reasons. So fuck Phil Fish.
Depends on the game.
That point and click adventure you just streamed/youtubed from beginning to end?
The liklihood of anyone buying it after watching a full playthrough is somewhat lessened.
I know I can't see the point in playing something just to click all the same things I watched someone else click.
Anything where story, puzzles and discovery is the primary aspect of the game is going to suffer due to full playthroughs of games being readily available to watch.
Likewise, horror jumpscare games. Very common on youtube, and a lot of people are going to avoid buying the game because they know what happens and what to expect, so what's the point.
Unfortunately its hard from a legal standpoint to separate one game from another based on whether its primary feature is gameplay or story.
That point and click adventure you just streamed/youtubed from beginning to end?
The liklihood of anyone buying it after watching a full playthrough is somewhat lessened.
I know I can't see the point in playing something just to click all the same things I watched someone else click.
Anything where story, puzzles and discovery is the primary aspect of the game is going to suffer due to full playthroughs of games being readily available to watch.
Likewise, horror jumpscare games. Very common on youtube, and a lot of people are going to avoid buying the game because they know what happens and what to expect, so what's the point.
Unfortunately its hard from a legal standpoint to separate one game from another based on whether its primary feature is gameplay or story.
He isn't doing anything that's not within his rights to in that regard, though. You can't just rebroadcast a movie or show either, let alone make money off doing so. To give another example: there's a reason MST3000 only used public domain movies or got permission to use them.Adam Jensen said:
Look, if the developers of Slender or Goat Simulator or whatever are fine with waiving their rights, that's on them. It doesn't make Fish a bad person for pressing his.
You know what? I'm going to say it: this Let's Play thing isn't as black and white as you want to believe. While I'm not entirely on Phil Fish's side, the very idea that Let's Plays should count as "free advertisement" and with some people saying that the developers SHOULD be paying Let's Players reeks of con artistry. You sound less like a passionate person and more like the guy who washes (badly) car windows during a traffic jam and then demand payment because you did a "service." In fact, giving the gaming's entitled attitude about the entire damn thing (though, to be fair, Phil Fish's attitude didn't help much), perhaps we should finally bring this issue to the courts to see whether your meager excuses hold up to the actual law.
That being said, I'm not against Let's Plays themselves nor am I saying that they shouldn't be paid. I will say however that it should depend on the developer to decide whether or not they will allow it. The main reason is because, unlike a review, critique, or even a short preview, a Let's Play usually entails playing a game from start to finish with little to no editing. And yes, before you even ask, as someone who has done Let's Plays, I am fully aware of the time it takes to make one. But unless you are making Let's Plays in the style of ProtonJon's Superman 64, you're not doing that much work editing.
Now, before I tackle the reasons people are going to counter my argument with, let me say that I am only talking about Let's Plays. Reviews, Critiques, and previews could fall under Fair Use given the past with books, movies, and other media forms. Now, the definition of Let's Plays is a bit loose but for the purposes of what I'm explaining here, I will try to give a more concrete definition. A Let's Play consists of a few things:
* A video game is played over a video or group of videos from the beginning of the game to the end.
* The video game is being commented on by a person or a group of people
* There is little to no editing involved to show as much gameplay as possible.
Now, given this definition, some Let's Plays (like Minecraft and the before mention Superman 64 Let's Play by ProtonJon) don't fall into this definition, which is why I say that this thing is a grey area. But for the purposes of this discussion, let's concentrate on the ones that follow this definition (which is the most common type of Let's Play anyways).
The first counterargument I see here is that Let's Plays are a transformative work, as such they fall under fair use. Because no people can play it the same way, watching someone play a Let's Play would be inherently different than playing the game itself. Now, there are a few games (Minecraft, Terarria, and Starbound to name a few) in which this argument has merit. However, I would argue that not all games (and indeed, the majority of them) can make good use of this excuse. Games like Visual Novels (Ace Attorney, Professor Layton), many JRPGs (Project X Zone, Final Fantasy XIII), and story driven games (Wolf Among Us, Walking Dead) involve very little gameplay and focus more on the story to convey its worth. If I can watch these on Youtube, it can be argued that these could substitute actually playing the game. As for games between sandbox and visual novels, there exists are large grey area. Arguments for both sides can be made which is why I said that it should be up to the developer to decide what he wants.
The second counterargument I see is the "free advertisement" excuse. Which, I'm sorry, is not an excuse at all. It really is like me saying that because I told everyone in my town to buy a Wii U, Nintendo should pay me money helping them sell. After all, I'm freely advertising the game. Furthermore, if you really wanted to argue that you were doing a free advertisement of the game, could I then counter that if you did not do a good job Let's Playing or even used the Let's Play to criticize the game, I could demand reparations for doing a bad job advertising my game? Could I hold you accountable for failing to advertise my game properly? Do you see how big a slippery slope this excuse is? There are other reasons why Let's Players should get paid that can be debated so can we just stop picking the one that can be broken into a million pieces within the first two minutes of a court of law?
That being said, I'm not against Let's Plays themselves nor am I saying that they shouldn't be paid. I will say however that it should depend on the developer to decide whether or not they will allow it. The main reason is because, unlike a review, critique, or even a short preview, a Let's Play usually entails playing a game from start to finish with little to no editing. And yes, before you even ask, as someone who has done Let's Plays, I am fully aware of the time it takes to make one. But unless you are making Let's Plays in the style of ProtonJon's Superman 64, you're not doing that much work editing.
Now, before I tackle the reasons people are going to counter my argument with, let me say that I am only talking about Let's Plays. Reviews, Critiques, and previews could fall under Fair Use given the past with books, movies, and other media forms. Now, the definition of Let's Plays is a bit loose but for the purposes of what I'm explaining here, I will try to give a more concrete definition. A Let's Play consists of a few things:
* A video game is played over a video or group of videos from the beginning of the game to the end.
* The video game is being commented on by a person or a group of people
* There is little to no editing involved to show as much gameplay as possible.
Now, given this definition, some Let's Plays (like Minecraft and the before mention Superman 64 Let's Play by ProtonJon) don't fall into this definition, which is why I say that this thing is a grey area. But for the purposes of this discussion, let's concentrate on the ones that follow this definition (which is the most common type of Let's Play anyways).
The first counterargument I see here is that Let's Plays are a transformative work, as such they fall under fair use. Because no people can play it the same way, watching someone play a Let's Play would be inherently different than playing the game itself. Now, there are a few games (Minecraft, Terarria, and Starbound to name a few) in which this argument has merit. However, I would argue that not all games (and indeed, the majority of them) can make good use of this excuse. Games like Visual Novels (Ace Attorney, Professor Layton), many JRPGs (Project X Zone, Final Fantasy XIII), and story driven games (Wolf Among Us, Walking Dead) involve very little gameplay and focus more on the story to convey its worth. If I can watch these on Youtube, it can be argued that these could substitute actually playing the game. As for games between sandbox and visual novels, there exists are large grey area. Arguments for both sides can be made which is why I said that it should be up to the developer to decide what he wants.
The second counterargument I see is the "free advertisement" excuse. Which, I'm sorry, is not an excuse at all. It really is like me saying that because I told everyone in my town to buy a Wii U, Nintendo should pay me money helping them sell. After all, I'm freely advertising the game. Furthermore, if you really wanted to argue that you were doing a free advertisement of the game, could I then counter that if you did not do a good job Let's Playing or even used the Let's Play to criticize the game, I could demand reparations for doing a bad job advertising my game? Could I hold you accountable for failing to advertise my game properly? Do you see how big a slippery slope this excuse is? There are other reasons why Let's Players should get paid that can be debated so can we just stop picking the one that can be broken into a million pieces within the first two minutes of a court of law?
Phil Fish, isn't this the guy who threw a hissy fit picked up his ball and buggered off home (refused to work / release Fez 2) some time way back when.
Gotta say if this guy thinks he should be paid for people streaming or posting videos of them PLAYING a video game that he created then it's probably a good thing he gave up developing video games, he clearly has failed to understand exactly what it is people are paying for when they buy a game, last time I checked it wasn't to watch it it was to PLAY it. I am no game developer but I would have thought someone who claims to be one would at least understand that.
Gotta say if this guy thinks he should be paid for people streaming or posting videos of them PLAYING a video game that he created then it's probably a good thing he gave up developing video games, he clearly has failed to understand exactly what it is people are paying for when they buy a game, last time I checked it wasn't to watch it it was to PLAY it. I am no game developer but I would have thought someone who claims to be one would at least understand that.