91 replies to this topic

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

 

I think people are totally sidestepping the fact that this really only affects those who are trying to make money by just playing through a Nintendo game.  If you aren't even monetizing your videos, and are just doing it for fun, which is what this whole shebang started as before monetization was invented, you'd be fine.  All Nintendo is saying is "If you're going to make money off of showing our product, the least you can do is give us a cut."  Big or small, at least they're working to have both, instead of just prohibiting them completely from being monetized.

 

People are calling Nintendo money-grubbing...but the opposers are the ones who are moneygrubbing, for wanting to keep all the money to theirself, even though their content in the video is well over 60% not theirs.

 

How can you say that when A) making videos about games are quickly becoming a serious profession, a job that can actually sustain you, and B) it is a fact that videos can drive sales, and we don't have any reason to think that they could do the opposite. It should also be made clear that this will affect more than just let's players, so it's kind of pointless to keep using that as the basis for your entire argument. On top of that I find it questionable to say that over 60% of the content within a video belongs to Nintendo - that depends entirely on the video, you can't just throw out numbers like that from nowhere. What if you're a guy doing reviews, and you're using footage behind your commentary on the game? Who's to say that some Let's Players don't do a whole lot more with their video than the game itself alone could do?

 

On top of all this, there is the fact that other publishers seems to be completely fine with stuff like this. What gives Nintendo the idea that they're so special, that they deserve more than everybody else? The thing isn't that they deserve that money, it's that they're too traditional, they're refusing to see that things are evolving. Nintendo can use Youtube as a tool to help their brands reach an even wider audience, but right now they're doing everything they possibly can to prevent content creators from wanting to get involved with them. Like TB put it, anyone who values their own work and time should stay far away from Nintendo's deal, and if they don't Nintendo could pull the plug on their job whenever the heck they want.

[Koh]

Nintendo could pull the plug on their job whenever the heck they want.

But they can still do it now too, just like any other company.  I'm sure everyone remembers the Sega video take downs of Shining Force.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

But they can still do it now too, just like any other company.  I'm sure everyone remembers the Sega video take downs of Shining Force.

So? Anyone can do it now, but most companies realize that doing so could only hurt them, at least if they go by the numbers we currently have, which again, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, clearly shows that content creators on Youtube can drive sales.

 

I don't understand why you think that the fact that they are able to do something horrible now, makes them being able to do something even worse later any better...

[Haylee]

This "free advertising" argument doesn't work for big time companies anyway.

Except it does, Microsoft and Sony are completely cool with Let's Plays.

[Koh]

I don't see how you guys aren't getting the point here.  Let's use the movie example but more detailed.

 

Let's say I want to upload a video.  The video is the entirety of the Troll 2 movie.  So, rather than going out to buy it yourself and see just how bad it's good it is, instead you can watch it on my Youtube channel.  The only catch is, I'll be talking over most of it and making corny jokes for the entire hour or so.  I want to make money off of doing that too, even though all I'm doing is just talking and making bad jokes over the movie, while the entire thing plays.

 

Do you not see the problem here?  It applies to games too.  Games have an interaction layer, but the content is fixed.  The exceptions would be things like Minecraft or Terraria, where there's no story, and the GAME is the experience, and one that changes every time you start a new world.   But for story-driven games like Kingdom Hearts, Pheonix Wright Ace Attorney and the like, the story is a big chunk of the game, and everything is fixed.  Without the story, what reason do you have to go get the game other than just the want to experience the gameplay, if it's even still there at all?

 

We may not be able to prove it hurts sales, but the above example does and continues to happen.  So instead of just ignoring that, they've decided to do something about it, while still allowing the LPers to keep their LPs of the entire game, and get a cut of the profits, rather than outright laying down the banhammer and preventing monetized videos altogether.

Edited by Koh, 01 February 2015 - 09:11 PM.

[Haylee]

Let's say I want to upload a video.  The video is the entirety of the Troll 2 movie. 

That's pirating, of course you'd get a 100% deserved copyright strike.

 

This doesn't apply to games, because whenever somebody plays a game, they're going to get a different experience from others. Take Super Smash Bros. U for example, two players would have a match between Palutena and Dark Pit or something. Meanwhile, a group of 4 friends having a match between Link, Mario, Kirby, and Pikachu. It's a completely different experience for everyone who plays a game. This makes your entire point silly.

Edited by Nexas, 01 February 2015 - 09:13 PM.

[Koh]

Read the rest of my post.

[Haylee]

Okay, I did, now what? Even when people play Phoenix Wright, there's going to be a different experience for each player.

 

EDIT: In the Ace Attorney games, you're given various dialogue options, and players are allowed to choose them. I looked at a walkthrough for Ace Attorney's first case only. Know what that did? Got me into the series, and I'm still a fan of it today.

 

I'm probably not gonna respond anymore, since this thread is starting to get silly, and off topic.

Edited by Nexas, 01 February 2015 - 09:31 PM.

[Plutia]

What happens if a game has branching storylines, and the LPer or whatever doesn't take all the possible routes?

Edited by Nekoishi, 01 February 2015 - 09:15 PM.

[Koh]

Then the person will have to buy the game to see it for theirself, if someone else hasn't posted it already.  

 

The EXPERIENCE is different every time, but the STORY and CONTENT are constant.  You've seen the content once, you've seen it a million times.  The way you slash at that one boss might differ from the next player, but the boss is always the same boss, and the result is always the same.  All you have left after you strip a story-driven game of its story is the gameplay.  Will it be enough to get people to buy on that alone?  Depends on the person.  I guarantee you there is quite a large number of people who did nothing more than see the cutscenes of the game, and called it a day.

[Fabbrizio]

I posted my two cents earlier, but I dug in my pocket and discovered I had one more cent left over:

If your game is more fun to watch someone else play than it is to play for oneself, you have failed as a game developer and should probably venture into a different industry.

[Koh]

You can't put that giant umbrella over the entire thing like that.  Maybe some people don't like puzzle games, but enjoy seeing someone else more skilled at them play.  Perhaps they're just an avid subscriber and watch anything so-and-so plays, but doesn't have the console the game is on.  Maybe they're some redditor who stumbled across the video.  Maybe all they were interested in was the story, and didn't want to buy a console for just one game.  Whatever the case, you can't appeal to everyone with one game, and trying to do so usually leads to a mediocre game, because it's trying to please everyone, and ends up pleasing no one.

Edited by Koh, 01 February 2015 - 09:34 PM.

[Mani Kanina]

I don't see how you guys aren't getting the point here.  Let's use the movie example but more detailed.

 

Let's say I want to upload a video.  The video is the entirety of the Troll 2 movie.  So, rather than going out to buy it yourself and see just how bad it's good it is, instead you can watch it on my Youtube channel.  The only catch is, I'll be talking over most of it and making corny jokes for the entire hour or so.  I want to make money off of doing that too, even though all I'm doing is just talking and making bad jokes over the movie, while the entire thing plays.

 

Do you not see the problem here?  It applies to games too.  Games have an interaction layer, but the content is fixed.  The exceptions would be things like Minecraft or Terraria, where there's no story, and the GAME is the experience, and one that changes every time you start a new world.   But for story-driven games like Kingdom Hearts, Pheonix Wright Ace Attorney and the like, the story is a big chunk of the game, and everything is fixed.  Without the story, what reason do you have to go get the game other than just the want to experience the gameplay, if it's even still there at all?

 

We may not be able to prove it hurts sales, but the above example does and continues to happen.  So instead of just ignoring that, they've decided to do something about it, while still allowing the LPers to keep their LPs of the entire game, and get a cut of the profits, rather than outright laying down the banhammer and preventing monetized videos altogether.

Or let's not? Movies are not an interactive medium, your comparison is entirely disingenuous as it takes away what makes games games: player interaction.

Why do people watch Pewdipie, for example? Because any one specific game he plays? Certainly not! They watch him because of what he brings and does, it just happens that many games are part of this.

Next, I'd like to stress that people play games for VERY different reasons, you saying a game is not worth playing if you know the story is pretty dense, even if that holds true for you, there are plenty of people out there who it does not hold true for. There is always some level of interactivity in a game, otherwise I'd stress that it's not a game. Which means that people who play them will always add something through their actions alone. And it's then expanded on with commentary and otherwise.

Your argumentation also assumes that people watch let's plays to avoid playing the games in the first place, or does so to sidestep and avoid buying them, yet I see nothing that base this argumentation on. Which is something I feel you need to do considering all studies on the subject suggests the contrary that such content help drive sales. People watch let's play to get the experience of the let's play, not the experience of playing the game. And I should stress, those are two very, VERY different experiences. For example, watching a longplay on youtube (no commentary, etc, just a playthrough.) Is not the same sort of experience as playing the game. It does frankly not matter if the mechanics and details of the game are the same when you play it yourself, it's still an entirely different experience compared to watching a playthrough.


Furthermore, I'd like to make a counter claim. What makes game creators entitled to profit revenues of other peoples content? If we look at this like any other profession, which we should, since it's getting at that level where people have contracts, etc, then it would seem somewhat absurd.


I'd also like to stress that a lot of these shenanigans only exist because youtube enables it. (Since they don't want to deal with anything.) Quite much of this content would also fall under fair use, which they would not be entitled any form of compensation in the first place. I'm well aware that fair use can only be proven in court, but with youtubes system, fair use is completely out of the picture, furthermore, they take steps further than what the law requires in regards to DMCA.

 

You can't put that giant umbrella over the entire thing like that.  Maybe some people don't like puzzle games, but enjoy seeing someone else more skilled at them play.  Perhaps they're just an avid subscriber and watch anything so-and-so plays, but doesn't have the console the game is on.  Maybe they're some redditor who stumbled across the video.  Whatever the case, you can't appeal to everyone with one game, and trying to do so usually leads to a mediocre game.

^ You also answer one of your own argumentations here. If a person does not enjoy X genre to play, saying that companies loses money by them watching videos of those games is simply not true, since they'd never buy them in the first place.

[Fabbrizio]

You can't put that giant umbrella over the entire thing like that.  Maybe some people don't like puzzle games, but enjoy seeing someone else more skilled at them play.  Perhaps they're just an avid subscriber and watch anything so-and-so plays, but doesn't have the console the game is on.  Maybe they're some redditor who stumbled across the video.  Maybe all they were interested in was the story, and didn't want to buy a console for just one game.  Whatever the case, you can't appeal to everyone with one game, and trying to do so usually leads to a mediocre game, because it's trying to please everyone, and ends up pleasing no one.

On the contrary, it would be a fallacy for you to isolate it to specific scenarios like that. "Some people not liking puzzle games" is very different than "the majority of the potential market not liking puzzle games". My statement comes into play when the vast majority of the potential market would rather watch than play, because when a game is well-designed, the primary motivation for engagement is the experience of playing it. If you just want to watch puzzles being solved, we have game shows and detective whodunits. The game itself is obsolete if people would rather watch than play.

^ You also answer one of your own argumentations here. If a person does not enjoy X genre to play, saying that companies loses money by them watching videos of those games is simply not true, since they'd never buy them in the first place.

Nailed it.

Edited by Fabbrizio, 01 February 2015 - 09:40 PM.

[Koh]

I'd also like to stress that a lot of these shenanigans only exist because youtube enables it. (Since they don't want to deal with anything.) Quite much of this content would also fall under fair use, which they would not be entitled any form of compensation in the first place. I'm well aware that fair use can only be proven in court, but with youtubes system, fair use is completely out of the picture, furthermore, they take steps further than what the law requires in regards to DMCA.

 

Fair Use can't just be dropped as a sole defense though.  Fair Use takes into account "how much is too much," which can only be done on a case by case basis.  If you go to the case and only have Fair Use as your defense, your chances of coming out victorious are painfully slim.

 

 

^ You also answer one of your own argumentations here. If a person does not enjoy X genre to play, saying that companies loses money by them watching videos of those games is simply not true, since they'd never buy them in the first place.

True, but they'd also never see the content that wasn't in a trailer either.  Get where I'm going?

Edited by Koh, 01 February 2015 - 09:40 PM.