23 replies to this topic

[Beefster]

Your first section just depends on the people really.  You may be more lax about the whole situation, but some other people would feel cheated, especially if they aren't given a cut.  "They use MY characters/music/setting/etc. and make a bunch of money?  And they didn't even pay me royalties!?"  You have to understand both sides....  I personally wouldn't mind derivative works that are free, but if they're going to be sold, I want a cut for them using my ideas.

Understandable.

But even if the games were sold, it wouldn't take away from your sales unless it was a clone or a mod with extra features. The thing about creative works is that it isn't like toilet paper; you can't compare two creative works like you would two brands of toilet paper, and as such, two creative works aren't really competing with each other.

 
And then what about parodies? Those are completely covered under fair use and can even be sold even though, in a certain sense, they are derivative works.

Yes, inaction is just as much of an exercise of rights as taking action.  However, it also hurts the companies chances of winning lawsuits for more escalated, but similar cases of copyright law violations. ...  Being picky and choosy with violations of the law doesn't look good in the courts eyes.  It's like that saying "If you let one person do it, you have to let everyone do it."

 Not really.

 

I'm thoroughly convinced that in most cases, piracy and derivative works cost more to fight than they do to let happen. Every now and again, it is advantageous to crack down, but most of the time, you're better off just letting things slide.

Well, given the nature of AdSense, the amount of royalties would directly tie to the amount of revenue. Everyone earns a slightly different Revenue Per Thousand. I earn $0.50 per thousand views. Last I checked, Markiplier earns something like $9 or $10 per thousand views. So the royalties would probably have to be not just linearly scaled, but graduated similar to the US tax system (10% is a lot more detrimental of a cut when you're earning $200 a year from youtube than when you're earning $200 a day, and Nintendo stands to gain nothing by micromanaging percents of minuscule profits).

Here's an alternate proposition, though - what if we spread a trend for Let's Players to treat the games less as a backdrop and more as a product placement? If there were a tendency to recommend purchasing the games when they're deserving of the recommendation? Even if this doesn't catch on, I'm going to start doing this. If nothing else, it will make me feel better about my Let's Plays.

Honestly, that's exactly how I see Let's Plays in the first place. They also act as video walkthroughs.

 

Let's Plays are transformative works, much along the lines of tutorial videos for... well anything. The creator owns the rights to the original software, but does not own the rights to each byte of data that is allocated to the program. They do not own the usage situation- and that includes gameplay experiences.

EDIT: Remember that guy who did the tutorial videos for old people who can't use computers. If I recall, he sold his videos.

 

What about Machinima? I see nothing wrong with it. Red vs Blue became a marketing tool for Bungie.

 

People make money at MLG tournaments. That's okay by me.

 

At any rate, I see absolutely nothing wrong with posting gameplay videos and making money off them. I get where the gray area comes in, but really it's no different from having a clubhouse where people pay to watch you play video games.

Edited by Beefster, 05 February 2015 - 05:54 PM.

[Koh]

Koh, on the subject of Nintendo's new program, it should be mentioned that it affects anyone who uses video of Nintendo games - not just Let's Players. The larger channels that are affiliated with a Youtube network probably won't be hit too hard by it, if at all, but those who are working alone most likely will.

 

This is not to prove anything, I just wanted to point it out because so far the conversation has really used Let's Plays as a jumping off point. I'm not sure if ProJared is affiliated with a netwrok (though I would imagine he is), but this is an issue for him because he, as a critic, should not be affiliated with Nintendo in any way, that would create a scenario where he's basically 'in bed' with Nintendo, and as a critic that obviously isn't something that makes it easy for your viewers to trust you. In other words, this deal is a no go for people like ProJared, TotalBiscuit and so on, yet Nintendo's consequences will most likely affect people like them.

I'm not sure why most people assume this is a bad thing though.  I'm referring to being affiliated with a company.  If the contract or whatever says they aren't allowed to say anything negative about the game, I doubt they'dve agreed to it (unless they're desperate for money).  Why can't they have an affiliation with Nintendo, but still sharply criticize their games?

 

Well Koh, I think you're still missing the argument I'm making. When a game publisher sells a video game, they're not selling the experience of watching the game, they're selling the experience of playing it. This is especially true in the case of Nintendo's game design. You're not buying the game to see everything that happens start to finish. Wikipedia can tell you that. You're buying the game because it's fun to play. Fun is Nintendo's primary product (setting them apart from a large cut of the triple-A market), and you can't export even a fraction of that fun through a mere video. A person who was likely to buy the game before watching a Let's Play of it, is equally likely to buy it afterwards, unless of course the game has certain fatal flaws, in which case, it's not that the Let's Play is being used as an alternative to buying the game, but rather, a warning against buying it by promoting informed consumerism.

So as long as a Let's Player points out every so often when they're enjoying a game that no seriously you should go buy this, it's awesome, or just any sort of call to action to show support for the developers, I think it would be enough. Because if the LPer is enjoying the game, it's not "selling out" for them to say so every so often, and if they're not enjoying the game, they don't have to give their recommendation.

Oh I don't disagree that games are meant to be played, lol.  I was talking about the point in the videos at which the LPers would give their recommendations or warnings.  In reviews, using ProJared as my example again, it happens in the beginning and the end, with each criticism in detail in the middle.  How would this format work within Let's Plays, where they are cruising through the whole game, instead of just showing clips to make a point?  Unless they just like, point out criticisms as they go, and then bundle them up at the end?

 

 

Understandable.

But even if the games were sold, it wouldn't take away from your sales unless it was a clone or a mod with extra features. The thing about creative works is that it isn't like toilet paper; you can't compare two creative works like you would two brands of toilet paper, and as such, two creative works aren't really competing with each other.

 
And then what about parodies? Those are completely covered under fair use and can even be sold even though, in a certain sense, they are derivative works.

 Not really.

 

I'm thoroughly convinced that in most cases, piracy and derivative works cost more to fight than they do to let happen. Every now and again, it is advantageous to crack down, but most of the time, you're better off just letting things slide.

Honestly, that's exactly how I see Let's Plays in the first place. They also act as video walkthroughs.

 

Let's Plays are transformative works, much along the lines of tutorial videos for... well anything. The creator owns the rights to the original software, but does not own the rights to each byte of data that is allocated to the program. They do not own the usage situation- and that includes gameplay experiences.

EDIT: Remember that guy who did the tutorial videos for old people who can't use computers. If I recall, he sold his videos.

 

What about Machinima? I see nothing wrong with it. Red vs Blue became a marketing tool for Bungie.

 

People make money at MLG tournaments. That's okay by me.

 

At any rate, I see absolutely nothing wrong with posting gameplay videos and making money off them. I get where the gray area comes in, but really it's no different from having a clubhouse where people pay to watch you play video games.

 

As we established in the other thread, no data shows they take away from sales, but actually help sales.  I'm not trying to say they hurt sales in any way.  I just strongly believe that if you use a lot of someone else's material you use in your work you plan to sell, you should give them a cut.  Even if that material is only there as a backdrop to your voice, it's still the eyecandy and usually the subject of what you're talking about (there are some videos, like that Jim Sterling one, where it's just a mishmash of random gameplay footage while they talk about whatever else).  This doesn't apply to tools, because they are a means to an end.  So you wouldn't need to send royalties to the company that made the camera you used or the wrenches you used, because they're DESIGNED for you to create things and be productive.  

 

Oh and that last portion is actually what a friend and I talked about before.  If you bought a game, and let 10 other friends play it at your house and such, but charged them to do it.  I could see the merit in this argument, but the difference is, especially big big name people, you would never, ever, get 1 million + people in your house at once, paid or unpaid.  It's simply not possible, lol.

Edited by Koh, 05 February 2015 - 06:28 PM.

[Binx]

This is an interesting discussion, I wonder how it would affect something like a Zelda Classic quest, if said quest used only original tiles and no references to Zelda. Not that -I- would (since I don't own ZC, lol), but if someone from Armageddon Games were to try to monetize a quest - assuming everything about it, from tiles to music, to SFX- is being done by hand, (and the only copyrighted works being used are works they own the copyright to), but ZC as a program is still arguably a derivative work, because the core program has Zelda references all over the place, and the default tileset is taken directly from an actual Zelda game. Seems like it would be a pretty grey area, legally.

Edited by Lineas, 05 February 2015 - 06:40 PM.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

It's a matter of ethics, Koh. If you're a critic, you shouldn't be affiliated with the people who make the stuff you're reviewing. And even though you might not see it that way (I don't know why you'd think that is okay though), think about this. Nintendo says in their contract that they can arbitrarily change it. It might not say 'you can't say anything bad about our games if you take this deal' now, but how do you know they won't just end up changing it at a later point? I mean, there's nothing stopping them from doing that. And even if they don't, what if they see some guy ranting about how stupid the Wii 3 or whatever is, and they decide to take his deal away because hey, why not they can do that too. Now his entire channel that he signed a contract with Nintendo for so that he can only do Nintendo content, is left without the possibility of doing Nintendo content, meaning his entire viewership might leave because he suddenly plays Minecraft or whatever. This is a hypothetical situation, it's probably not that simple, but stuff like this could end up happening to people who take this deal. They leave everything in Nintendo's hands, not just a profit of the ad revenue.

 

What Nintendo should have done if they really felt like they were owed money (and like we've gone through in other posts, Nintendo can't actually prove that they are owed any money, because so far all the numbers are saying that if anything, they owe Youtubers some good will for giving them free advertisement), is that they should have a way for people to 'buy' the rights to using certain gameplay footage. That's a 'if anything' kind of thing though, I obviously don't think they should try to take a single cent from the Youtubers, because they're not losing any money off of them, but they are getting positive returns, directly translatable to sold copies of their games. A lot of game developers owe their entire existence to people like Pewdiepie. Nintendo doesn't realize this yet, but they will. Let's just hope they do that before they take this any further, because that can only hurt them in the long run.

[Binx]

 If you're a critic, you shouldn't be affiliated with the people who make the stuff you're reviewing. 

I wouldn't really say that's a fair assessment. Afterall, gaming magazines the world over are funded, at least in part, by various gaming companies,and while there ARE seedy reviewers out there who give good reviews to bad games because they want to suck up to the developer, I tend to find that most reviews I see are pretty well done, and not heavily biased.

[Koh]

This is an interesting discussion, I wonder how it would affect something like a Zelda Classic quest, if said quest used only original tiles and no references to Zelda. Not that -I- would (since I don't own ZC, lol), but if someone from Armageddon Games were to try to monetize a quest - assuming everything about it, from tiles to music, to SFX- is being done by hand, (and the only copyrighted works being used are works they own the copyright to), but ZC as a program is still arguably a derivative work, because the core program has Zelda references all over the place, and the default tileset is taken directly from an actual Zelda game. Seems like it would be a pretty grey area, legally.

Well, at that point, I think they'd really only have to contend with the ZC developers.  Since they aren't using any of Nintendo's assets, there's no copyright issues with them, but with ZC, I think there was a rule somewhere that you can only make freeware, since the program itself is freeware and the devs aren't making any money, not even off donations I think.

 

It's a matter of ethics, Koh. If you're a critic, you shouldn't be affiliated with the people who make the stuff you're reviewing. And even though you might not see it that way (I don't know why you'd think that is okay though), think about this. 

Yeah, I do think this particular contract is worded in a way that sounds shady.  I was speaking in general though.  Like maybe they have a partnership with Sony, but still put out reviews like "1/5 don't buy this Sony game."  I don't see why you can't have both and still be a credible, unbiased reviewer.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

I wouldn't really say that's a fair assessment. Afterall, gaming magazines the world over are funded, at least in part, by various gaming companies,and while there ARE seedy reviewers out there who give good reviews to bad games because they want to suck up to the developer, I tend to find that most reviews I see are pretty well done, and not heavily biased.

This is true, but most Youtubers don't have a company behind them, they're just a person with a voice. Anyone taking this deal will be directly affiliated with Nintendo. I as a writer for Gamereactor is not in any way affiliated with any company that makes or sells video games, and the same goes for every other critic in the industry who isn't a sellout. I don't get paid by these companies, anything I get comes from Gamereactor, but it's a set salary, I don't get paid anything different from writing a review about CoD for example, just because Activision happens to have paid for ad space at the site that month. That would jeopardize my position as a trustworthy critic.
 
The same goes for anyone who does this on Youtube. If they're affiliated with a network like say Machinima, and Machinima then goes on to make their own deal with Nintendo, then that's their business, and not that of the Youtuber. It's important to have these 'walls' between the ones writing the review and the ones making the product, or else there's nothing they can really do to prove that they're not just getting paid to sell the games.
 

Edit:

Yeah, I do think this particular contract is worded in a way that sounds shady.  I was speaking in general though.  Like maybe they have a partnership with Sony, but still put out reviews like "1/5 don't buy this Sony game."  I don't see why you can't have both and still be a credible, unbiased reviewer.

The thing is, these companies don't just allow you to do that. I've been there myself, being told that my review has to reflect better on the game because I got to go on a trip to see their game and they paid for the hotel. That's a thing that happens, and trust me, they pressure you on it. It's not just like 'oh hey we'll have a partnership and you'll just be yourself and be honest and say whatever you want about our games'. That's not a deal that exists.

These companies will use any chance they get to influence what you say about their games. They've been doing it for years, and their tactics have changed. I've heard some pretty crazy stories about people being offered everything from gifts to prostitutes (seriously) in exchange positive reviews. This happens. There's no reason for a critic to be affiliated with a company that makes the product they're reviewing. There's no potential benefits from it, and all you'll get is readers complaining about it, losing trust in you and eventually moving on to other sites/channels. It doesn't matter if you're not always giving out high ratings, that's not going to make anyone trust you when they know you've got a contract with Sony.

 

Then there's the actual ethics surrounding games journalism. Some countries actually have laws that prevent this from being an issue, though I'm not sure about how the US stands on it. Seriously though Koh, what you're suggesting is outlandish, it shouldn't ever happen. It's not okay, it doesn't matter that some might not be biased towards a company, that partnership doesn't need to exist for their review to happen. This goes for anything, not just video games.

 

Edit 2: Just for fun, here's one of the contracts sent out to Youtubers in a deal surrounding Shadow of Mordor. I don't like linking to Kotaku, but this article does go a little in-depth about this specific case if you want to read up about it. http://kotaku.com/th...game-1644092214

 

Here's the quote though, I've highlighted some of the more interesting elements in bold:

"Videos will promote positive sentiment about the game. Videos must not show bugs or glitches that may exist."

"Maximize awareness for the Shadow of Mordor video game during the 'Week of Vengeance' through gameplay content, key brand messaging, and information and talent usage on Twitch channels. Persuade viewers to purchase game, catch the attention of casual and core gamers who already know and love Middle-earth."

 

"Requirements involve one livestream, one YouTube video, and one Facebook post/tweet in support of the videos. Videos will have a strong verbal call to action, a clickable link in the description box for the viewer to go to the game's website to learn more about the game [and] to learn how to register and play the game. Twitch stream videos will have five calls to action. Videos will be of sufficient length to feature gameplay and build excitement." (Calls to action meaning 'go buy the game suckers'. *Robin's Note)

 

"Videos must include discussion of the Nemesis System. This really should take up the bulk of the focus, such as how different the orcs are, how vivid their personality and dialogue are, gathering intel and domination abilities, exploiting their strengths and weaknesses. Videos must include discussion of the action and combat that takes place within the game, such as brutal finishers, execution moves, and wraith powers. The company has final approval on the YouTube video… at least 48 hours before any video goes live."

Notice how they literally turn the Youtubers, many of whom are actually critics, into glorified advertisers? Like, they literally tell them what kind of language they have to use within the video, along with giving them sales tactics they can use to get their viewers to buy the game. That is insane. This is so freaking dirty. Anyways, I think this nicely illustrates hos fucked up this industry can be, and don't believe for a second that Nintendo is any better. Luckily, like we've discussed earlier, most game developers and publishers see the benefits of these video content creators, and allow them to do their thing. It's a profitable 'investment' that really doesn't take any work on the part of the publisher - all they have to do is to sit back and not do what Nintendo is doing.

Edited by Robin, 05 February 2015 - 07:20 PM.

[Chris Miller]

Yeah, I do think this particular contract is worded in a way that sounds shady.  I was speaking in general though.  Like maybe they have a partnership with Sony, but still put out reviews like "1/5 don't buy this Sony game."  I don't see why you can't have both and still be a credible, unbiased reviewer.

 

You can't have it that way.  If you sign any sort of contract with the big boys, you're going to be reviewing how they tell you to.  Otherwise, you get it right up the butt.  This is what Nintendo is trying to do to bolster their public image.  Ultimately it's going to backfire on them.

Edited by Chris Miller, 05 February 2015 - 08:13 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

Nintendo is pretty damn powerful. Most triple-A publishers are. You don't want to put your speech at their mercy, because you can't trust them to respect it when you speak the truth. Shareholders don't give half a runny shit about ethics if it turns a better profit margin.

Edited by Fabbrizio, 05 February 2015 - 08:28 PM.