are they?
I prayed last night to our Lord & Savior, Totalbiscuit, and in a time personal crisis and great world need, he came to me in my slumber and spoke to me in the deepest of dreams. His great and wise word shall ring forever throughout my soul, to the very core of my being, and shall haunt me every waking hour of my existence, from this moment until my departure from this world.
He sayeth unto me: "No."
Comment has been collapsed.
Watching an entire game on you tube? Even 15 minutes?
That person is either crazy or has absolutely nothing else to do with his/her life.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the publisher was that worried then they should have taken steps to have it removed/blocked.
Now with that being said i am not saying if it is right or wrong there is to much grey area for me to give a yes or no.Each publisher has the right to have any video removed that shows any content from there game.The only reason most of these streams go on is because publishers usually do not care as it usually leads to more sales.Though some have used the DMCA to remove videos of games from youtube,like for negative reviews or what not.
Anyhow all i am trying to say is the publisher can not have it both ways it can not make a big fuss about youtube videos of there game when they do nothing to have them removed when they have all the power to have them removed.That is called having your cake and to eat iT.
Also why do people make a big fuss about this stuff,but then some of the same people are doing things like posting meme of others people photos without there permission.Do people actual realize that is also a volitation of DMCA.Of course that only applies if the files is hosted in the U.S. Though that does not matter if you live on Mars or in the .U.S. if it is on youtube and you do not have permission to upload the video then they can use DMCA to have it removed/blocked
My point is why is it so terrible to make a video of this game but a OK to share peoples meme photos without there permission?I think if we are going to talk about the right or wrong of sharing content that may harm the creator it should apply to all instances of it now just cherry pick which ones is okay and which ones is not.
Here is a meme for you ...to prove i am edgy by posting a meme of a photo i have no permission to do so..
Comment has been collapsed.
I prefer the term free rider. It feels more accurate.
Is Let's Play really that bad? Why haven't Video Game Publisher / Youtube / Twitch banned this activity?
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree. Especially when games are very short (less than a few hours). A perfect example would be Firewatch. I looked up a non commentary version and saved myself paying for a game I'd only play through once.
I find it quite similar to movies being streamed.
Now this doesn't fit for all games, but any one that is basically just story driven you can experience nearly the same as you playing it yourself without someone talking over the playthrough.
Comment has been collapsed.
If your "game" is so lacking in content that a Let's Play defeats any incentive to play it, that says a lot about the quality of the product.
Comment has been collapsed.
i agree, once i watch a lets play to the end, i feel as if i played the game already so i have zero desire to buy and play it
Comment has been collapsed.
Watching a LP of a Telltale game is extremely similar to playing a Telltale game, which can't be said for 99% of games IMO.
.
if there's a game that I'm not very interested in playing, mechanically, but has a grabbing narrative, I'll watch an LP of it. TellTale games fit this perfectly, and I probably wouldn't be buying them anyways.
Comment has been collapsed.
I know that I will only care to watch a let's play for the person playing and not the game itself. I think the only time I've ever cared about the game is if I wanted to see how others were experiencing a game I've played.
I do agree that this sort of becomes a problem with games that are story driven. Then again, I have no interest in playing games like these (Telltale games). When it comes to a more classical point and click, I feel like I simply would avoid watching it as I would like to go through the story and figure out the puzzles.
Comment has been collapsed.
ofc theres a difference between "lets plays" and f.ex like totalbiscuit does it, reviews.
imho complete lets plays... not my thing..
on the other hand dear op - please tell me whats your opinion on steams very own version of watching someone playing a game?
i do it alot with friends, but in this case.. so when devs dont allow the content to be presented on youtube.. maybe they just switch to steam-streams ;)
so what do you think?
oh and btw.. i think 'piracy' a) is overused and b) VERY wrong term in the first place. c) especially for this case wrong..
Comment has been collapsed.
The main thing with Steam streams (so fucking difficult to say, man) is that, as far as I know, you are not gaining money from them.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest, I completely get where you're coming from and you make good points. Games like 'That Dragon Cancer' or 'Dear Esther' or 'Dinner Date' are essentially walking simulators with no real game mechanics that provide variations on a story. But here's the thing, I don't watch Let's Plays for the game, I watch it for the commentary.
95% of the Let's Plays I watch, I've already played the game or I at least own it but have had it so long that it's in a state of limbo of where I'm probably not going to play it at this rate. And I always tend to skip over games that I really /do/ want to play because I'll probably get around to it someday (more like never but what can you do). I'm watching the Let's Play for the person, their experiences and their reactions. The game is only secondary and their /reaction/ to the game is what I'm truly there for. Even if they weren't showing the game and kept all the audio, I'm pretty sure I'd still listen, though it wouldn't be as great.
Considering it piracy is a tricky thing because it is and it isn't. Schrodingers piracy. Because while they are using a copyrighted material, they are using this copyrighted material to base their own material off, it's no longer just the original copyrighted material - it forms something new and transformative, which is why it can be considered fair use.
As for talking over movies, might I direct you to Mystery Science Theater. A show in which people actually talked over movies/provided commentary to make something new. Of course they had the funds to actually pay for the movies to talk over, but a precedence is set that talking over/making commentary about something transforms the old work into a new work.
But I'm not unsympathetic to indie developers who don't want their game streamed. Especially if the game is extremely linear in nature and is of a particular type of subject matter. But on the other hand, those developers also have to understand that not a lot of people are going to want to play a game about a child with cancer; it's not a huge market.
So really, this is a completely grey situation.
Comment has been collapsed.
Do they market it as a video game? Then they should accept the fact of the existence of let's plays. Said "video game" is actually a film disguised as a 60-dollar product? Sucks to be you, why didn't you accept that you made a movie and not a game, so your movie could fall under protection on streaming/video content sites. Simple as that. If they make linear one-track games, they accept that as a game, it can be streamed. Let's not blame the gamers because companies are too lazy to make video games, eh?
Comment has been collapsed.
Indies are more likely to be hurt by Let's Plays of narrative-driven experiences, since they don't have the Almighty Power of Hype, aka the Stick of Brainwashing, the Everyone Else Is Playing It, So Why Be Uncool? card to play.
Comment has been collapsed.
On the other hand, I don't recall many indie interactive films. The closest are VNs, but even they usually offer many routes.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's plenty of (more or less) short, narrative-driven indies, and/or walking sims (I suppose small budgets and arthouse sensibilites go hand in hand, also with that format). They're not interactive films as you mean it, but they're often the target of let's-play-and-not-buy, at least if you go by what people are claiming to be doing.
Still not piracy, but potentially lost sales, again, if you believe the claims of people who seem to make a point of being vocal and insistent about downplaying the significance and/or worth of such games.
For instance, I've never heard anyone claim they gave the Let's play treatment to the n-th installment of whatever popular shooty-shoot man-shooting franchise (if anything, they'll say they skipped it <yawn>), maybe because the story is so inane it's not even worth watching, it's just set-pieces and cut-scenes and E-to-pay-respects etc. However, even if I found one, there would be millions who bought and played and enjoyed the formulaic big budget man-shooter.
Comment has been collapsed.
I honestly doubt it's lost sales. One of the constant, never-ending woes of indies is the lack of market presence. If you don't even know that a game exists, you won't ever buy it, whereas even a let's play from start to finish can warrant sales. To the Moon is fully narrative, yet thanks to PewDiePie, millions saw it from start to finish, yet it has almost a million copies sold on Steam. And we cannot say that only because it was bundled a number of times.
Comment has been collapsed.
I doubt that too, because I think ultimately if they were forced into a pay-or-skip situation, they would pick skip instead. But looking at the LP puts them a position from which they can express a somewhat relevant commentary themselves.
PDP however, or any other overwhelming YT celebrity for that matter, is probably not the best example there for your argument because their loyal followings can and will buy games on faith alone, and just as easily, and adamantly, ignore a game, or worse. So, they do have a huge, probably disproportionate, power to sway opinions and sink your game just as well as they may turn you into the next rags to riches indie story.
Also not to downplay PDP's clout (folly), To the Moon has received basically unanimous critical praise, and came out at a stage of the indie boom when the indie market was much less crowded than it is now, also thanks to different Steam storefront policies that were in place at that time.
Don't take any of this as disagreement, though. I also am not and was never a fan of the "lost sales" piracy BS, but rather think the OP, although they made some very questionable statements, had lesser figures on their mind, more like "let's look up a Let's Play for this game" rather than "what does TB think"; though I am not a LP fan either, I have occasionally made purchasing decisions by looking at someone else playing the game, boring as I find it, just to take a look at it in moton, not even knowing who the hell the tuber was, and favoring those who kept their silence.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with DarkAlkaiser that phrasing can obscure the issue. "Piracy" implies getting a product without paying for it, and you certainly don't get the game itself by watching a video. Copyright infringement discussion here depends on the angle. A let's play certainly includes most of the content of the game, and adds little to the actual experience.
An author needs to license the content of a book to allow that book to be made into an audiobook or play or movie, etc., and I'd say that's the main issue at the bottom of this discussion. A let's play is a different performance of the same content, and therefore should be subject to control by the creators, and it makes sense that the game creators get a part of the earnings.
Comment has been collapsed.
I hate watching Let's Play's anyway because of the narration. I find them super obnoxious. But yeah, I can see how it's sort of piracy. It's like uploading a movie online. But it is what it is, and to be honest I don't care much either way. That might sound selfish, I don't know, but it's just not something that seems like all that pressing an issue to me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Game Let's Play (game-play usually from start with commentary)
Game Longplay (whole play-through usually without commentary)
Game "Movies" (cut together - no commentary)
Game Play-through (cut together - w. or w.o. commentary)
Now lets remove that GAME component and enjoy
that fancy commentary/silence with paint skillz added upon.
I can see the difference between a competitive game-match, reviews and similar ones that are focused on gameplay or some aspect,
without giving away "everything" - but those that are, are straight forward leeches enriching themselves on intellectual property of others.
Anyway, good luck regulating that area and drawing a line. As apparently you need the audience of those
professional "video-game streamers" to make your game popular lol (which might be the case on inide games, no one knows).
There is a "fair use" policy on most media and i'm certain playing the whole game for an audience with or without commentary
is not within those boundaries. As watching those is becoming more popular that area is sure to be undergoing changes ...
On top of that, i'd daresay its even worse than piracy in some cases where you reach a audience
of a hundred-thousand or way more, diminishing the reason for those people to buy it in the first place.
Comment has been collapsed.
I still think that all of these claims about LP-ing being piracy is nothing but bollocks
but yeah, we are running into the issue of defining what was already said many times: whether or not someone wont buy a game because they already saw playthroughs of it over the internet or in opposite situation: when after watching gameplay footage they rush and buy the game.
to make something clear: I can completely understand why some devs may be unhappy with this, no doubt. However we shouldnt fall into the other side of the horse so to say and basically making surreal claims about how the apocalypse is coming and the industry is falling apart because of it like they tried and failed miserably claiming this about music tapes, video casettes recording, etc, etc. With each new piece of technology came a new boogeyman.
Basically it all comes down to this: "Is our game selling bad? lets put the blame on pirates/aliens/whatever "
Sorry for the offtopic but I hope this analogy makes it easier to see what Im trying to say.
I somehow got a cake badge next to my nickname, happy cake day to myself I guess XD
Comment has been collapsed.
Well... There is many games what I was waiting very-very much, but when I buy it - I have alot and alot of dissapointment.
And there is also many games which I even not hear they exist, but then I watch gameplay - I think "wait! this is huge must buy!", and I buy it and enjoy! :D
I think developers must made Demo's for their games. But not like movies, then in teaser you will see all good moments in film and other pieces are like water.
Good games have Demo's, because developers confidently, many bad games - doesn't, because they know it sucks.)
Sometimes games have medium or low reviews, but I really like them! As they say - game not for everybody or for amateurs.
See, you need atleast to watch gamepley to decide - you like it or not.)
P.s. Sorry for my english.)
Comment has been collapsed.
It's a tiring discussion. Basically the same as the regular incorrect copyright claims granted or refused by Youtube etc.
In general my opnion on the subject is way to complicated to write it all down, especially now and here :).
What I did want to mention though is the fact that I download a movie, watch it and if I like it I buy the DVD or BD.
Same with music, I listen, I like I buy and or visit concerts etc as with games.
I have bought games I have seen entire playthroughs for (mostly because I was curious about stoy and or enjoy the maker of the video or streamers commentary) even entire storydriven games I saw streamed on Twitch. Also the other way around, I have bought and played a game and watch others play the same game to see how they did after that.
Reality is and has been for years that people make letsplay videos and stream games and that there is demand for that.
If you as a gamedeveloper decide to make a game that loses it's appeal for many when this happens you should consider adding content or building the game so you are not that dependent on people not having experienced it already before buying or make it that good that you sell enough anyway.
For example, I am willing to bet most people into a game like Nekopara have seen parts or even the full game before buying and playing it themselves and yet the game sells like crazy?
Apart from all that, That Dragon, Cancer was as far as I recall primarily made to raise awareness, give people insight into the lives of parties involved and as a personal memorial and was heavily funded by third parties and a crowdfund. Personally I feel it's a bit much to complain after the fact that you are not making millions from it and then blaming a phenomenon that existed before and they could have anticipated. A phenomenon I might add that helped them achieve all the original goals.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think your analogy with the football worked very well, but I do get what you're saying.
For what it's worth, the vast majority of football shown on tv in the UK is on the subscription channels BT Sport and Sky Sports. You do have to pay to receive these channels and they're the only way to watch Premier League games live. If you're watching them without paying then you actually are pirating.
Personally I pirate Premier League games by watching internet streams. I have BT Sports but not Sky Sports and between them they don't show all the games anyway. There's a law in place in this country that no game can be on tv at 3pm on a Saturday which is the traditional start time here. The law is an attempt to protect smaller teams, with the fear being that if a big game was on tv then people might not go along to watch their local small team play. It results in a bit of a strange situation where all the Premier League games are being shown on tv stations around the world but not in the country where they are being played. The only way to watch these 3pm Saturday games is to either attend the game or watch a Stream of a foreign channel online. This Saturday, my favourite team, Manchester United , are playing Aston Villa at 3pm on Saturday - I'm pirating that.
England international matches are often on ITV, a free to air channel, and while I wouldn't say you're pirating if you don't watch the advertisements that are shown on there, they are how the collective audience is paying. The tv station bids for the rights, they sell advertising, you watch the ads, companies who buy the airtime to show the ads get publicity.
We then get the FA Cup matches on BBC which is a national public broadcaster kind of thing. It's the law that you have to pay for a tv licence if you own a television and the money raised pays for the BBC. Faliure to pay for your licence can result in a fine, and I think if you do it long enough a short prison sentence although I'm not actually sure on the prison part.
Whether it be through paying to subscribe to BT Sports or Sky Sports, paying your tv licence, or watching ads I'd say you're paying in some way, shape or form. In turn, all the tv stations paid the Premier League, FIFA or UEFA vast sums of money for the rights to show these games on their channels whereas let's play youtubers and streamers do not pay the game publishers in a similar manner.
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe I'm just nitpicking, I don't know :p I suppose I just see quite a few differences between football and let's players. It's interesting to explore these similarities and differences though, and how it all works.
Quite a lot of youtubers can or do get free copies of games, I'm reasonably sure of that. I've seen youtube vids with a few hundred views where the channel owner has stated they were using a review copy to play the game. Mind you, I think there's a strong correlation between the size of a channel and the commercial appeal of the game that channel is offered. Seems like most of the small channels that do get free stuff get free indie games only, whereas you do likely need to be of a certain size to get a free copy of AAA games (and they also get the indies too).
You could say that even if the if let's player did buy their own copy then it's somewhat different as the tv companies pay way more than the fans in the stadium or the people at home. The let's player would just be paying the same as anyone else who bought the game. I don't know if any significance or how much should be put on that. If we're going down that line then maybe we could liken let's players to bars or pubs who show the pay tv games - and those bars and pubs usually have to pay for a commercial subscription to the channels which costs more than a household subscription does. The equivalent there might be youtubers paying more than anyone else for their copy of a game because they're getting revenue off it just like a bar is getting revenue of showing a game.
Don't even know where I'm going with this now, just typing out whatever pops into my head on the topic - this is not very coherent, sorry about that.
Another big difference I didn't mention yet and it's in favour of the youtuber is the potential revenue that the let's play brings in for the publisher/dev when people watch it then buy the game. I think in that way it might be like a less popular sport who would be happy to let their sport be shown for nothing on television in the hope that it increases participation numbers and interest. I used to be involved in a minor sport at one time where the team and association were always pushing for publicity and exposure. We didn't get anywhere near television but occasionally got some local press. If people on youtube could have made videos of us and they were guaranteed hundreds of thousands or even millions of hits that would've been great. Going back to how Pay TV and bars who show football work, the revenue that the youtubers might bring in for the publishers could be seen as how the lets' player pays more for their copy of a game than a regular buyer does.
Comment has been collapsed.
I dont watch letsplays anyway... i found them REALLY boring, i watch reviews tho and thats how i know if i will like a game
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't think they're piracy at all, but I feel that they're a huge disservice to the games themselves, especially those people who watch them as a substitute for playing the game. To me, the interactive part of a game (narrative-driven or otherwise) is the interactivity. To me, watching a letsplay is like watching a movie on mute or on fast forward- an incomplete experience that isn't representative of the work.
So my argument seems to be the exact opposite of yours :D. Lets plays ruin games not because they're almost the same as playing the game, but because they're the exact opposite- an incomplete experience.
...I don't like letsplays, and have never gotten into that culture (don't think I've even ever seen a totalbiscuit/pewdiepie video) :D.
Comment has been collapsed.
lets plays may help to sell a good game, becasuse its free commercial for the game and the developer too
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.