are they?
Copyright infringement isn't at all piracy, they are two extremely different laws. So quite simply, topic is dumb.
If let's playing is wrong or not is something you could debate though. Most companies have come to realize that they make money from let's plays, so many companies are actually fine with it, especially indi developers, who likely would never get any ads out there without let's plays.
Comment has been collapsed.
So quite simply, topic is dumb.
No it isn't. Just because someone doesn't phrase things in the exact way that you think they should doesn't make the topic dumb. Just rephrase the topic in your mind to how you think it should have been phrased and discuss it like that.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not a matter of opinion, the topic is needlessly insulting, and quite simply, entirely incorrect. The topic could easily be, "Are let's plays wrong/moral/right/appropriate" comparing them to a completely unrelated crime is unnecessary. Why compare a minor civil infraction to an actual crime that can get you jail time?
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Piracy and copyright infringement are pretty much synonymous. Is that what you refer to as an actual crime or as a minor civil infraction?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, they are not synonyms at all. Piracy, can also be copyright infringement, but copyright infringement by no means constitute piracy, and let's plays are literally, not piracy.
Comment has been collapsed.
We're talking about piracy that's copyright infringement. MrCastiglia was likening let's plays to that kind of copyright infringement. They may not be literally piracy, but they have similarities. Instead of discussing these similarities and differences you're arguing semantics. I understand that this may be important to you, but the problem still lies with you. Most people understood pretty well what MrCastiglia meant and where the similarities are. I'm sure you did, too, but you got hung on the semantics.
Comment has been collapsed.
They are nothing alike, one is stealing a product, one is infringing on intellectual property. It is not semantics, it is and extremely different thing.
You might wanna look through the comments again sit, there's alot of people who called the topic all kinda synonyms for stupid.
Directly below my original post:
Remis
That's the most ridiculous thing i've read recently. No it's not piracy. But i'm a person who tolerates piracy and i don't care.
Comment has been collapsed.
Piracy isn't stealing. Making a copy of a product doesn't equate to stealing it. It is, very strictly speaking, infringing on intellectual property, nothing else. That's what copyright protects, the only one who can give the right to perform or copy is the owner of the copyright. A let's play is another way of performing or copying the product. It's not an exact copy, but it is close enough that it would be judged by the same rule.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm sorry, but your vast misunderstanding of the subject matter seriously makes it pointless to discuss this matter with you. Piracy is considered stealing under US law, there's really nothing else to discuss.
Comment has been collapsed.
Fine, piracy is stealing. Now, define piracy.
Is going to a movie with a video camera and recording it considered piracy?
Is capturing the playing of a game with software considered piracy?
If one is and one isn't, discuss why.
Comment has been collapsed.
No, under the present writing of the law, what is created when you play a game is a unique experience created by the player, not the developer, the music is theirs, the cinematics are theirs, but the gameplay itself is being actively created by the player as they play it.
Comment has been collapsed.
I stated I am not a lawyer, I have literally no experience with legal language, but I think that the mensage I tried to convey is clear enough.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your topic is dumb, because it is written as an absolute, and is purely insulting, and inaccurate. Phrasing is extremely important, you've called people who are inherently not criminals, criminals. Copyright infringement is just a civil matter, piracy is a real crime that can get you put in jail. They are not "basically the same" not even slightly.
Comment has been collapsed.
I clearly stated its my opinion, and I'm pretty sure I can call whoever I want whatever I want. Hope someone sues me for slander.
If my topic is insulting, so were your replies, so come on and dismount that high horse of yours. Needs feeding.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Let's Play are basically piracy."
That sentence is clearly an absolute, I stand by my original statement.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's the most ridiculous thing i've read recently. No it's not piracy. But i'm a person who tolerates piracy and i don't care.
Comment has been collapsed.
HOW ABOUT FUCKING PUBLISHERS PROVIDE DEMOS LIKE THE YESTER YEARS?!
I rely on Let's Plays to determine if the game is worth my money. If Let's Plays become nonexistent, then I will have no shame using piracy. There is no reliable outlet that is consistently accessible that is not a Let's Play video, a demo(if any), or a pirated copy. Should I believe what the publishers and developers put out such as screen shots and perhaps a short gameplay video? No! The publishers and developers make screen shots and gameplay videos to impress and sell, not review. A development team criticizing its own work is blasphemy and criticizing is even more blasphemous for publishers who want revenue.
Comment has been collapsed.
Remember the even more generous shareware ..... Doom shareware version was alot of levels .. 9 or 10 levels. People thought by this point they had completed the whole game :)
Comment has been collapsed.
Some of the most recent demos, have had many of the same problems reviews have, carefully using misleading sections of the game (fucking The Evil Within) to hide the games true failings, or even the actual type of game it is. There are plenty of demos out there still though.
Comment has been collapsed.
I really want to disagree with you, but I'm tempted to get my wife to watch a lets play of the walking dead - she loves the show and would never play a game. So there's that. But if I wouldn't make her watch, she'd never play anyway
(Note that I bought and played it, so we did actually pay just as much as if she were to play the game)
Comment has been collapsed.
Lets try to look from another perspective. Should be everything ownable? Do you like to be owned ? [not going further into detail yet]
Comment has been collapsed.
How could it be piracy? BTW YouTube and indie developers really depend on let's players, because whatever LP-ers do, it's basically free ad for them, and YouTube's main income comes from gaming videos. Please don't try to be like Nintendo, who'd censor all Let's Plays. The thing, which happened with That Dragon Cancer is really unfortunate, but they can only blame themselves. If a game is more like a movie, where you can do nothing, but walk along a linear path from A to B, then it shouldn't be called a game.
I rarely watch let's plays, because I rather play my games, than watch someone play them, but if you are concerned by the fact that these let's plays spoiler the story of story-driven games, then there shouldn't be walkthroughs and written guides either. I say that it's the whole gaming industry's fault, when a game is more entertaining to watch, than play, and seeing how most of the new games have performance problems, bugs and short game time, it's understandable, that most of the people would wait for Let's plays and reviews.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why are you dismissing it as a non-game? are visual movies not games? is The Stanley Parable not a game? I don't know, critizising how the developer choose to create their experience is not my thing.
Comment has been collapsed.
At least The Stanley Parable has multiple paths to take, multiple endings to experience, while there are a lot of walking simulators, which do nothing, but let you press the directional buttons and go from A to B. Look at The Order 1886, do you consider something a game, which's 90% consists of cutscenes, and QTE-s, while 10% has some actual gameplay? In my dictionary, games are software, which are interactive, leaving you the controls within certain boundaries. I want the game to have some challenge in it. In an FPS, I want to experience the events firsthand, not watch them in a cutscene video, in which my character can do things, which he can't do under my control.
Visual novels however a whole different topic. They are considered "the games" in Japan, along with western games' japanese remakes, but are they really games? They rather remind me of Fighting Fantasy books, which I loved as a child. These books had their paragraphs numbered instead of their pages. As you were reading the story, you could do certain actions (i.e.: Go north, attack or flee from an enemy, etc.), but to do them you had to read that paragraph and that paragraph only. There were numerous paragraphs, which was ended with a "Game Over", but there were multiple ways to complete the book and the adventure. Can't you find these things in a visual novel? BTW it looks like some of the Fighting Fantasy genre books are slowly making their way to Steam, you can find them under the Choose Your Own Adventure tag. Oh, and you can find these things on YouTube too. Look at this Dying Light Test your survival skills video. It's the same, isn't it? Is it more like a game or a video/movie to you?
And finally there is Telltale and all of their episodic adventures from The Walking Dead Season 1 and "games" like that (Life is Strange, King's Quest) . Can't say that I don't like them, because I do. They can masterfully keep up the illusion that you can alter the story. While you can alter some part of it, I'm still waiting for a game, in which you can achieve different endings based on your actions throughout the whole game. And I'd rather consider Telltale's newer games as interactive movies, because of the amount of cutscenes and QTE-s they have. I'm not saying that this is a bad thing, because it isn't, but I can't really consider them games in its original term.
Back to That Dragon Cancer and the problem of Let's Plays: How does the developer know, that the Let's Plays "scared" people away from buying their game? I saw some trailers, but I feel like that game is not my cup of tea. The fact that a Let's Play have so many views on it doesn't neccessarily mean, that people would rather watch as someone play the game, than play it themselves. There are a lot of people, who watch a Let's Play because of the player, who's playing it. They don't care about the game at all, but they like the guy or girl, who is recording the playthrough. And still, LP-s are basically free advertisements. If someone is really interested in a game, they won't want to spoil the story.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sigh .... that again .
Now with all seriousness .
You could consider , a Lets play of a completely story driven linear game , to be a piracy of it ... i see the argument here.
That doesnt make it Valid in any case tho , unless the devs of the game Specifically said that they do not want to have their game Streamed / Uploaded on youtube ... it is Not a piracy in any way .
In fact , those lets plays Arguably bring more sales then they lose to the game .
Lets say 10k ppl watch a lets play of a small indie story driven game , and then 500 of them decide to go on steam ( other platforms are indeed available ) and buy the game ...
Now ppl there can be the argument that thats 9500 lost sales ... ? I guess ... you can say that . But in the same time you can say that this LP / Stream brought 500 extra sales for the game .
Now , im not saying your point of view is wrong ... but in the current meta ( cant come up with better word ) Lets plays of games are a common thing , and there are loads and loads of ppl who prefer to watch a personality they like , play a game they are interested in .... instead of playing it themselves .
You cant really say that this is causing any loss of sales , cause you cant be sure that Any of those ppl would've bough the game to begin with .
So if there is no intention of buying / playing the game ... you cant really say that the Streaming / LPs of games ... are piracy :)
There is A LOT that can be said on the matter , and imo both sides are correct as long as they admit that the others have a valid point 2 .
So saying that Only one or the other is right ... is kinda wrong >.>
Not much sense has been made , therefore i go to bed cus i havent slept in like 36h :c
May come up with better tough process after i wake up xD
Comment has been collapsed.
You are still enjoying content you haven't paid for (or noone else has done in your behalf) I'm sure that's at least somewhat wrong.
I never argued that every person that watched it through youtube was going to buy it and then it didn't, because I would never claim either that every single person that downloads a game from the BucaneerGulf was going to buy it on the first place.
It's true that it's a difficult topic and maybe I'm not the best person to discuss it, but I wanted to hear your opinions.
Comment has been collapsed.
Honestly tho , thats for the devs to decide ... rather is it right or wrong .
We got Devs like SEGA and Nintendo ... that take down any lets play w/o any warning or explanation ... and ppl almost tend to just avoid games by them at this point .
Then you got Companies like Tiny build or CD Project Red ... who not only dont mid you streaming their games , they actively support you :)
I got a pretty Middle of the road pc , and quite small budget for games .
So i cant really Afford nor run Dark souls 3 for example .
Thats why i just go and watch a lets play of it on youtube .
It gives me the enjoyment of the game + the joy of watching a personality i follow suffer trough it :)
Am i a Pirate cause of that ? Duno ... Am i causing any monetary harm to the devs tho ? Not really .
was i going to play the game otherwise ? Mostlikely not :)
There are loads of ppl in similar or completely different situations ... but i still think lets plays make no harm to the gaming industry whatsoever ...
And even if they did , the benefit that comes from them is much bigger then the potentional harm ... :)
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't watch or even like Let's Plays but this is my opinion:
Let's Plays are basically free advertising for games though. I mean how many games were only successful because of youtubers? Things like 5 Nights at Freddie's, Amnesia: the Dark Descent, and tons of other horror games only gained so much popularity from popular youtubers like PewDiePie playing them. I disapprove when companies (like Nintendo recently I think) try to impose limits on Let's Plays of their games, because LPs help create a good community around a game and are free advertising.
I can sort of understand it with story-driven games, but I think the main point of most games is the "gameplay". For instance, you can listen to an entire soundtrack of a movie on youtube or soundcloud or something, but the main point of the movie isn't the music, it's the visuals, and really the entire package. So video games, where the main experience is usually actually playing the game, I don't think it's wrong for fans to make videos of their games, since the main experience of the game isn't included. Also a lot of story-driven games now are based on choice, like in Telltale's games, so players will want to play it to make their own choices.
For games that are just story with very little gameplay or player choice... Well, maybe they should be short films or something. I don't know about the situation with That Dragon Cancer so I don't have an opinion about that particular situation, but if LPs really did cause it to be less successful, maybe the devs should've realized beforehand and added in more "gameplay" to provide incentive to actually play the game. Either way, there are a lot of things games can do to differentiate themselves as more than a purely visual experience like fun gameplay, player choices, randomly occurring events, online functionality, multiplayer, and collectibles and achievements. If developers choose to not properly use those tools to create a full experience, then the fault lies with them.
TLDR: LPs are basically free advertising, they help promote a good community for a game, and most games now have many experiences to offer outside of "watching a story".
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I agree that the story might not be the main point as the soundtrack isn't the main point of a movie either. But that doesn't mean you can upload the full soundtrack to youtube, and the most important part earn money from it
Comment has been collapsed.
If I have any interest in playing a story driven game, I am not going to ruin it by watching a let's play. If I don't have any interest in playing the game, then I will not be buying it and therefore not be giving the developer any money anyway. If I like a game a lot, I will sometimes watch a let's play of someone else playing it after I have already completed the game, which means I already payed the developer. I don't think let's plays are really taking much money away from developers.
Edit: Also, this doesn't have to do with let's plays, but what about libraries? They rent books and dvd's out for free. They only pay the purchase price for each copy they buy and then they can rent each copy out for free to hundreds or thousands of people without paying any additional money to the publishers (at least in the USA, not sure about other countries).
I also recently mention this in another thread here: http://www.steamgifts.com/go/comment/DGu3P6V
Comment has been collapsed.
The question is: is there anyway to avoid streamers?
Comment has been collapsed.
I see it as equivalent to someone streaming the live reading of a book. Doing it yourself provides a better experience, but experiencing it vicariously through another member of the audience does not constitute theft of intellectual property.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think that's a problem with those sorts of games, and not Let's Plays inherently. Video games are, traditionally, an interactive medium. That is to say, a significant amount of the enjoyment comes from interacting with the game, not merely watching it. If you claim that a game can be experienced in its entirety merely by watching a video of it; then I can only conclude that the game must be so bland and boring that no one would actually wants to play the game anyway, and the creator would have been better off making a movie to tell the story instead.
Sorry if that's a bit harsh.
I do also think it's true that a streamer can add content. I might have already played the game myself; but I'm watching because I want to see their reaction to how the narrative unfolds. But fundamentally watching a Let's Play should make you say "Man, that looks fun, I can't wait to get the game myself." and not "Man, that looks boring. I'm glad I got to pirate the experience so that I don't actually have to force myself to play the game just to find out what happens."
Comment has been collapsed.
The story can be spoilt / uncovered, but the experience and personal tone is lacking - if the game has the ways to connect better with the player either through controls, storytelling or some other aspect for example Brothers is beautiful, the controls are pretty simple [4 direction + action], the gameplay is not exactly groundbreaking, yet playing and watching means two really different experiences. While a visual novel (the kind of without branching) basically gives the same feeling whether played or not.
I'm not saying that some game genres are better than others - it always comes down to personal taste and the actual game itself, but I can name very , very few games that has basically the same content each and every time, regardless of the player.
Comment has been collapsed.
not really too sure I agree on lets play being piracy or even close to piracy, it's just someone playing the game, so you are watching someone play it, rather than playing it yourself..
Comment has been collapsed.
"Linear" is not a bad thing by any sense of the word. Some of the best games ever made are linear. In fact, in my personal favorite game of all time, Final Fantasy 6, the first 2/3 of the game is extremely linear. In fact, I hear a lot of people complaining that the last third, the non-linear part, feels weak in comparison. How could that be, if "linear" is a bad thing?
When you're trying to tell a story, there are a lot of good reasons to tell it in linear order. And last I heard, trying to tell a story in your game was a good thing. So please, stop using "linear" as a complaint.
Comment has been collapsed.
Super Meat Boy is as linear as Spate and you have over a hundred hours in it. Portal 1 and 2 are linear walks through hallways and rooms in a forced predetermined order that shut all the doors behind you to make sure you don't wander.
Linearity is never a problem. Bad gameplay, poor writing, bland design, those are legitimate problems. But just being linear is totally fine, so long as the game has something entertaining to offer.
Comment has been collapsed.
That depends on your definition of "strictly linear", so I'm going to go completely literal with a visual novel that has zero choices, 100% story. Planetarian: The Reverie of a Little Planet. Overwhelmingly Positive on Steam with almost 800 reviews, does not contain a single choice. Zero interaction beyond advancing the dialogue, plays out 100% the same no matter who plays it.
You can claim that visual novels aren't games, and that's fine, but if that's the case, please also clarify what you mean by "strictly linear" by naming an example of a "strictly linear story-based game" that actually counts as a game.
Comment has been collapsed.
There is 0 difference between someone posting a let's play of a story based game which is basically just watched/read on Youtube, and someone posting an entire film, perhaps with some commentary a la MST3K style, on the site.
Only one of those gets removed by Youtube...
Comment has been collapsed.
The difference is that film producers don't permit their content to be distributed in that manner. Many game creators do. It is entirely up to the company or person who has the copyright. Youtube doesn't remove videos arbitrarily, they remove videos only if a content provider has made a copyright claim, or instructed YouTube to proactively not allow their content to be distributed on the site via content matching algorithms
Comment has been collapsed.
not piracy at all, for me, its just another form of merchandising
Comment has been collapsed.
Streamer do choices, you may rather other choices, are you gonna be seeking the entire youtube to compose your desired story progression?
Although I partially agree with you, if I would watch someone play a series (not one single video), would be of a game I may be interested in but I don't think I would enjoy playing. So I would not purchase it, so there's no piracy involved. Or for example a PS game, never gonna own one, so will never purchase a game for those systems. (Letting steamer possible extra content away on my entire post points).
Comment has been collapsed.
I mean, they're not simply piracy for the vast majority of games- if your game is designed so that the playing of it offers nothing that watching it offers, congratulations, you've made a movie or a book, not a game, and if your Lets' Play is such that you only deliver the game and no commentary or entertainment on your own your Lets' Play is lacking. I could see a few games, which are mostly walking sims or story vehicles, being damaged by people watching Lets' Plays, but hopefully your game has something more to offer.
Comment has been collapsed.
None of the above. First of all it's not piracy because piracy would be if they acquired the game illegally. However most LPs would violate copyright, because almost all LPers do not add a significant enough contribution to merit "fair use" IMO. But that's only if it is not permitted by the game creators. If the game creators don't care, or even encourage people to do LPs (like Telltale Games has), then obviously there's no problem. The reason many of these game creators don't care about LPs is because it's free publicity. It's their call
Comment has been collapsed.
This is so retarded I can't even form an argument for it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, it's a very interesting question, which you might have noticed if you had bothered reading past the title before you decided that anyone who holds a different opinion from you is retarded.
Comment has been collapsed.
Read it all. It's not about disagreement, it's his logic that's so flawed from the beginning.
The polls even speak for itself.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't really see the flaw, unless you just mean the word choice confusion between "piracy" and "copyright infringement". The argument itself is solid. Streaming a movie while talking over it isn't legally considered fair use, it's copyright infringement. And when you start looking at games that are very heavy on plot and visuals with very low interactivity, it starts looking less and less like "the player provides substantial additional content that counts as fair use" and more and more like the guy talking over the movie.
If you go to the absolute extreme take a visual novel with no dialogue choices and set it to automatically advance the text, you're not even playing the game at all at that point. You're only providing commentary, which in the case of a movie, is not enough for a fair use claim. Is it enough in the case of a game? If so, why isn't it also good enough for a movie? If not, you've established that there is a line, so where exactly do you draw it?
So yeah, there's absolutely enough gray area and morality here to have a discussion. And to claim otherwise is, to borrow a phrase, "so retarded I can't even form an argument for it"
Comment has been collapsed.
You're forgetting that the majority of the viewers are watching the let's play because of the youtuber/streamer, not the game itself. Let's players can add commentary from reactions to comedy in their let's play and that is what most people watch.
Also, if your game is only focused on story, then you failed at making a game. Telltale games are not even a good example since they add QTE and have different choices for a different playthrough.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sooo, new discussion topic.
This week I'm gonna state my hatred towards Let's Plays of story driven games, walking simulators and interactive movies because consuming said content is, from my point of view, really close to piracy.
You might be wondering, MrCastiglia are you nuts? What the hell are you going about in here?
Well, it's really simple, if the narrative experiencie is pivotal to the appeal of the game, and/or in many cases the game's only selling point. What's the difference, as far as the makers are concerned, between pirating a copy of the game and watching its entirety on youtube? I'd say there's none, not to mention that to add insult to injury the streamer/youtuber/whatever is getting revenue from others persons content, so not only the general public can experience the game for free in its entirety but someone else apart from the developer is profiting from it.
Is this moral? I don't think so.
One could argue that the streamers provide content that is not there in the original game, and I say you have a point when it comes both to innovative ways of beating the game (such as speed runs/ Guitar Hero controller runs/blinfolded runs and so on) or when the game is designed in such a way that the mechanics, difficulty or player interaction (to name a few) are what make or break it. To name some examples, Dark Souls saga, Minecraft or the recent Enter the Gungeon could be freely streamed and monetized in my opinion, because the selling point of your video is not the game per se but the use and experience you provide while playing it.
But, lets all think for a moment. What happens if I watch someone play the entirety of, let's say, some Telltale games, or the title That Dragon, Cancer, is the streamer adding anything of value to the experience? I don't think so. Would you consider it not piracy if someone streamed a movie while shrieking all over it? I would.
Discuss on, fellas.
Comment has been collapsed.