"Game dev attempts to claim revenue from the Youtubers"
polycounter lvl 14
Greetings;
Allow me to share this old news for good discussion I came across.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fez-creator-phil-fish-youtubers-should-pay-game-devs-huge-portion-of-revenue/1100-6420573/
Allow me to share this old news for good discussion I came across.
http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fez-creator-phil-fish-youtubers-should-pay-game-devs-huge-portion-of-revenue/1100-6420573/
Replies
:poly108:
It's not like other people are siding with him on it or anything.
Don't try deciphering it, it's too avant-garde for you, kinda like Phil Fish!
*ba dum tish*
His points are valid.... and no one is telling why he is wrong....
If someone create contents out of someone else content?
Beats paying thousands of dollars to an ad agency if you ask me.
I shudder whenever I think how much money is spent on advertising games like Call of Duty or Rockstar's insane marketing (even though it's pretty damn badass)
Something tells me giant billboard illustrations covering new york city ain't cheap!
[EDIT] I'd say it would be a wrong path to go down since it increases the chances of making basically everything "illegal," or maybe better stated: where would the line be drawn? Might as well pay money to the government every time you take a photograph of a sidewalk and use that as a texture base in your game. (Then again, maybe that's what taxes are for
It would seriously hamper on reviews and press coverage for video games, and the line could be drawn further down the line blocking off things like game streams and the like.
If you don't want your game to be shown to the public or people to be inspired to create something of their own from it, then why the hell would someone want to even make a game in the first place. (other than paying the bills, which if that's all someone cared for then I'd say there's far more lucrative and easier career tracks available)
It's even more confusing to me because I thought Phil Fish was supposed to be some kind of indie game developer, and from what I read in that article his views seem pretty counter-culture to that scene. (I'm pretty sure the Kerbal Space Program developers love people like Scott Manley for example, hell it's those kinds of videos that convinced me to buy the game!)
All of that said, I can understand some of the reasons why a game developer would not want their game to be used in this manner. Especially games like Dear Esther, where there really is little interaction in the game itself other than moving forward, and is closer to the medium of poetry or film than something like minecraft.
they want google to pay them for generating traffic to their news sites
So in applying this to the article, a game which has a heavy amount of interactivity in its gameplay like Battlefield 4 might be "better" to have in a "let's play" that charges for money, than Dear Esther.
But I'm not a lawyer, and as we know everyone has their own opinions on how boundaries should be defined.
Copyright lawyers must love this:
[ame="
That said, I disagree that he is entitled automatically to their ad revenue profits. If I lean a copy of a book to a friend and they buy me a coffee in exchange, do I owe the author of the book 10% of my coffee now?
Considering that very few youtubers actually make any substantial money off of their shows, the cost of going after each and every person who showed his game would not really be profitable in the end. Not to mention incredibly time consuming.
And then there is the marketing. It could be considered "free" marketing. It is exposure to your title, at no cost to the creator or publisher. That's a pretty darn good way to get your game noticed.
Games on the other hand are meant to be experienced by the player, and each player's experience is generally unique. So watching someone play a game is not anything like playing a game yourself, unless its a heavily story-driven game comprised mostly of cut-scenes (MGS LOL).
The question comes down to sort of, where is the value in the content, does it come from the developers of the game, or from the person playing the game? This is a difficult question to answer, but its probably both.
Anyway, I'll recap my comments. To me, he's suggesting the game is why the youtuber is making money. I disagree, otherwise EVERYONE could make money, just by posting the game. The entertainment factor, of the video's host/commentator, is what brings people to the channel, and earns revenue.
I see people argue, that his artwork is there, and that's why he should get a cut. My rebuttal was, buildings are often the backdrops for movies. Sometimes, very important backdrops. Do the architects get money from those movies? A city might, but that's usually to cover the costs of public services.
There seems to be confusion, on that site, with how much pewdiepie makes, from playing the games. The thing is, people are trying to compare the millions he's made, to whatever Phil has made. That's not a fair comparison, because pewdiepie didn't make that money from JUST playing Fez. I'm not a subscriber to pewdiepie, so I can't saw how much he's actually played Fez (if ever), but I suspect it wasn't more than a few videos. From what I've noticed, he jumps between games a LOT. But I do feel that he is the source of Phil's jealousy. Phil is his own worst enemy, and HE's the reason that he hasn't been more successful.
Phil Fish is in a position to say such a thing, since he's one of the larger heads of a studio, I'm pretty sure you average Dev won't see a penny if they are under a publisher of any kind (unless you think spreading around 0.3 cents per artists per 10,00 is fair).
Those that aren't under publisher, need the advertisement, just look how well it turned out for DawnGate when a large publisher themselves didn't advertise their own game (not even their own platform), imagine that for a smaller studio now, it's brutal.
Can you honestly say committing publicity suicide for a couple of thousand bucks (if you're lucky, most people won't want to touch your game) even worth it? Again, I need to put out this number, we average about 2 games per day, about 600+ in a year, if I YT or Stream, and I owe you money in getting your game with my money, installing it, advertising it (processing, curating, normalizing and uploading the video not included) on my larger user-base, whom you didn't advertise to, then I can very easily gives the views to another company, period, no skin off my teeth, I'm not hurting myself, I can entertain my user base with me playing GMod over and over again until something new comes out.
Another Phil bias is that his game, Fez, was full of nerdy stuff, kinda like how if you view the Scope on music created by Apex Twins, you will see images in the waves, Fez had that, which fueled the hunting communities heart, that was one way he got attention. Plus the indie connections (which blew up a few months ago that judges were biased in their voting from what I gather) only served him better, I'm pretty sure Fez wasn't main stream advertised, say like Gears of War or COD, so it's a moot point to even argue on that. His spotlight came from mouth to mouth (drama included) and from Video's, he has to accept that, period. Without those, Fez would have been Psychonauts 2.0
Lastly, side comment, about people like PDP, MRP, Polaris, etc. Yeah, I'm pretty sure those guys single handedly saved several smaller studios with no budget games from going under or at least having staying power (a couple of them even disclosed this information on Reddit's Dev sub, alongside with breakdown of charts on Steam dates, etc).
Again, it's very easy to make statements like that when you're in such a position, talking is easy, it's almost as if once people are well off, they start leaking their brains out or something on Twitter.
Although, in retrospect, that quote from Fish is pretty old and should be taken with salt, but I find it funny he said that right around the time Polaris and Co. wanted to started that 'Dev and Streamer' partnership dealio that supposedly was going to fix this issue, and instead ended up with more drama, it's almost as if he did it on purpose or something...
Do I think YouTubers should be making any money off of let's play videos to begin with? Also no.
He has an interesting point but I don't think he'll get any traction for it. I think the developer/youtuber relationship is already very mutually beneficial. Youtubers get content for their channels and developers get a ton of exposure for it which in turn leads to higher sales, so much so that indies are willing to pay youtubers or give them free game codes just to play it.
Youtubers in general, make money off of Monetization, not exactly from using the actual game per say for "let play videos," and making money off of that. If that then they will definitely share the revenues with the people who have worked hard to develop the game.
This industry has been growing for sometime now, where gamers make their work station and or studio for recording their game plays for YouTube and or using OBS or any sort of broadcaster for live game plays that you see on Twitch TV.
This is just my opinion, but the way I see it, they (kind of) don't use the actual games to make money at all even if the developers are butt hurts and claiming that the gamer is using their product to make money off of YouTube.
It is also one thing to state the facts in the End User agreement if you do not wish for gamers to make the videos and monetizing it or making any sort of profit by any means necessary using your product, it is completely different and a bitch move to spawn behind the gamers and say "you make approx $4 million a year by just making let play videos, and whisper you owe me a million because you have used my game in a fraction of the actual amount of videos you made in your lets play video channel."
If developers have an issue with the Let videos, they shouldn't pass any sort of statements on their forums stating that "It is OK to make Youtube videos and we have no problem with it," when gamers and Youtubers ask them.
Now if someone edits your game into a movie and is basically earning money strictly off just editing, when the game studio did all of the story, art, animation, dialog, etc, I can see developers making a point that they deserve a cut.
However, there is a different scenario, such as the game isn't so popular and people like him make it so - which in turn generates revenue for the game itself, essentially free advertising (eg Five Nights at Freddy's).
Overall I do think that youtubers should have free reign given that the developers state so. Creates less headaches for the future. And also, who doesn't want free advertising? The more people you limit to reviewing/showing your game is only limiting your profits. You attempt to protect credibility(?) and sacrifice potential profits.
Honestly Let's play's are often what get's me to buy a game with the lack of demos and reviews just showing very fast cut gameplay.
Just my 2 cent.
taking films as a close cousin to games, companies are generally pretty keen on NOT letting key plot or endings being all over youtube at least when its a newish film right? and during their cinema release they control what is seen in terms of previews and or trailers.... so with games its obviously different BUT people are making money exposing the game to the general public and using the content to generate their own revenue. films explicitly say that you cannot use their content to broadcast to paying punters, and generally you need to buy a license to even have a small film club, even though you could use the argument that showing cult or niche films would lead to greater advertisement.
now it definitely isn't the same BUT i still feel that youtubers do use content that they dont pay for in anyway to generate their own revenue, and this use of content can harm the developers revenue, why? well i know i have personally watched lets play to see a game for proffesional reasons and for personal benefit if i wasn't totally sure about a game or if i wanted to see a game but didn't have to time to play it or didn't want to spend £$ on it.
before youtube my collections of games were larger as to see what things were like i would have to buy it, there was a mystique about new titles, as in those days i had only pored over screenshots in magazines rather than seen it play, now I've not only seen a trailer but can watch half the game if im not that bothered and spoilt half the game mechanics etc by watching it being played. it can actually be hard NOT to see parts of games that you dont want spoilt at times.
i think that eventually this will need to be addressed in games eula and companies will decide pre-release whether they want people to be able to do this or not.
the other side to the argument is that it massively helps some titles, games like minecraft or gtaO benefit massively as they have quite a bit of emergent gameplay that these help to show and spread the word. Minecraft in particular wouldn't be as big without it for sure. But i dont think this applies to more linear story based games where i think it can harm sales.
then again im talking out of my arse ...so im off to do some coding it might make more sense...
instead of whining that every downstream interaction with your product doesn't swell your bank account... maybe make more games and profit off free marketing all those downstream uses are giving you. maybe try pricing models that let you make money off interactions instead of initial sales. maybe don't throw a tantrum, quit games and become a DJ.
should hardware blogs pay money to companys if they make test reviews for their product ?
should a restaurant tester pay the restaurant
the people watching lets plays, and i mean the whole game, not just some minutes, mainly do this because of the person playing it.
the people who watch say 10mins or so, do this mainly because they want to check out if they should invest their money
my take on it is this :
everything i buy online, i can send back and get back my money if the product does not satisfy me. but that does not include videogames/movies and music
if there are not lets plays or other sources of reviews, i wont buy it.
basicly its free exposure.
no one who considered buying the game will decide to not buy it because he has seen a lets play. that is, if the lets play does not show how crappy that game is.
and seriously, if you want to sell me unfinished crap through clever marketing, you´re doing this exactly once, then you are on my personal "never buy anything from xyz list" (hi @ EA)
You know it<s all a matter of perspective. For example, channels like PewDiePie are actually well made and organized so, him making a revenue with his playtrough videos doesn't bother me.
When theire is actual work and consistency in the making of a game reveiw or playthrough with nice humor and critiques behind it, I think it actually promotes the game!
However there are channels out there which a really clickbait. For example, the so called ''gamer-gril'' channels which features girls with open cleavge and big breasts. They don't even know hoew to play, there's no organization in their videos and it's just seems like virtual prostitution. In those cases, I think, they should give a bit of their revenue to the devs...
And look at the state of Nintendo. I'm sure, huge Nintendo fans will disagree with me, but Nintendo has gone from being a 'most have' system, to complete silence. I rarely hear someone suggest buying a Wii-U.
Now, I'm not suggesting that them pulling Youtube videos, is directly related to their sales, because I think the Wii-U lacks good hardware. But the point is, no one is talking about it. At least, if people were posting gameplay videos, it may get people excited for a game, that would otherwise, not be on their radar. If it weren't for the 3DS, and a huge cash reserve from the glory days, I think Nintendo would be going the way of Sega and Atari right now.
Overall, I understand Phil's point, but I disagree, and think he's very shortsighted, and greedy. No serious gamer is going to be satisfied with watching a LP video, and decide not to buy the game. Gamers want to control the game. They want to explore the game. They aren't there just to watch a story play out. Hell, I've watched a youtuber play most of Last of Us, and I still ended up buying the PS4 remaster.
I would imagine SOMEONE has done a study of how youtube videos translate to sales (and free advertising). I suspect that's why EA changed their stance on gameplay videos. If these studies exist, someone should share them with Phil.
really??
you should buy one... ;-)
used farFAR more than my ps4
also i never watch lets play for entertainment, its always to judge whether i want to buy... and i would have to say it puts me off most of the time, i might be strange though... often thought i am
Personally, I'm burned out on all the Nintendo IPs, and to me, that's basically the only thing available for the Wii-U. Sure, if I was at a friends house, and he had a WiiU, with Mario Cart 8, I may play it, and have fun, but I would go home without ever caring to buy a system for it.
That's sort of why I mentioned Nintendo fans, because those are the players who still love playing the original IPs. The gamers, looking for new titles/IPs, aren't looking for Wii-Us. And Nintendo's sales show it.
I don't want to derail this into a Nintendo discussion though
(BOI and SMB included).
Sounds an awful lot like censorship. You shouldn't be able to cherrypick who pays and who doesn't based on the content of a video.
Again, they are creating the content of the videos themselves. I watch a similar channel, Game Grumps, because I find them funny and enjoy watching them play games. Its not about circumventing buying the game; its about watching them play it and see how terrible/good they are. To me its completely different from the film example.
We have this as well now in the other end. Paying for coverage.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/219671/Pay_for_Play_The_ethics_of_paying_for_YouTuber_coverage.php
Or like, if you have had your head under a rock.. Yogscast's YogDiscovery. Where if you want your game shown on their network, they get a cut of all sales from that week.
http://yogscast.wikia.com/wiki/YogDiscovery
Also from the other end showing the results of using copyright to stop bad reviews:
[ame="
[ame="
[ame="
Shepario, this is why you should embrace that you aren't buying more games. Now you have an outlet to find out if a game is shitty or not. In short, good games will shine, bad games won't. So don't make mediocre games, its that simple.