Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Nintendo decides it owns YouTube's Let's Play scene
Posts
Ok, so what about parts of the game that are not meant to be played, the parts that just play out in front of you with no interaction? The parts that are essentially a movie. Is that ok to claim copyright on because that part of the experience is non-interactive and will be the same for everyone?
Your argument: "games are meant to be played, so showing a video is different and totally fine because it doesn't allow the watcher to play the game."
You are saying that literally everything short of actively giving someone the game to play is free reign. A game is like a set of ingredients we can do anything we want with. Extract the music and share it, because you bought the license for that, and it's not the same as playing the game. Take the textures and the models. The voice actors' audio? You own it. Make a new game out of all of it, it's yours to play with, as long as you don't let somebody else play it, because the act of playing is the only thing you could possibly infringe upon.
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
Seems to me like folks are just looking for reasons to get pissy at Nintendo because they're the industry's whipping boy.
-Taking a look at how a game is, plays and looks before deciding to buy it. In which case LPs work as free advertising and there is nothing wrong with the person who dedicated some time and effort in order to give me valuable information to get something out of it.
-I like the comments from the guy and I find him entertaining/informative. In which case the LPer is adding value to a simple broadcast of the product and there is no reason why he should not get some of that value back, since he has dedicated time and effort.
Not once in my life have I seen a Let's play as a substitute of playing the real game, and I'm baffled that people thinks this way.
@UncleSporky I'm not saying that at all, but you stay punching strawmen over there, I don't mind.
Alright, let's go over this then, huh? Teach me.
What about parts of games that are not played, but watched? Is it alright to upload all cutscenes from a game?
What about music in a game? Is it alright to upload that?
I mean let's say I make another video about something else, and set it to that game music, and upload that. Is this ok?
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
Yeah, go use that tone on someone who wants to bear with you.
Did you perhaps sleep through the last 20 years and not notice how nearly all video games have become exponentially more cinematic in nature? Your point would be absolutely correct if we were still playing shit like Pac-Man or Donkey Kong, where the sole point was a high score and nothing else.
Now though? Bioshock Infinite. Metal Gear Solid. Assassin's Creed. Games where the story is a massive part of the experience. And if you don't much give a shit for the actual gameplay bits, can most of the time be safely sliced away or pushed off to the side, and the game suffers little, if at all.
Pokemon Black code - 3009 7390 5907 Send PM if you add me
That is exactly what I said in my first post. I actually think if LPers are going to get as revenue for games they play, a portion of that should be going to the publisher/creator of the game. I feel they could have a much more constructive and paranoia free relationship. Especially as a lot of the freaking out is about copyright violation claims this opens the door to, which seems to be prompting the mass "Fuck Nintendo" sentiment amongst some of the prominent LPers (many of whom already also boycott SEGA on principle).
I don't think it's right to profit off doing an LP by playing a game and giving none of that profit to the people who actually made it. I see a ton of room for a very beneficial and constructive relationship between publishers/LPers, that also feels fair.
Walking in and just usurping the advertising revenue after the work has been done feels entirely sleazy and underhanded to me. It could - wait, has - created an antagonistic and defensive reaction against Nintendo that amounts to "Screw you guys, we just won't bother with your games" and ultimately the only loser in this will be Nintendo. These guys can play a ton of other things and as I mentioned earlier, the best LP link bait by far is stuff like minecraft, terraria, various Call of Duty kill cams etc.
This doesn't mean I disagree with the principle that people who made the games should maybe benefit from ad revenue from things like let's plays or whatever: but doing it this way is just a really stupid move.
I'm not using any sort of tone. I would honestly like you to explain to me what is and isn't alright.
This isn't me throwing my hands in the air and getting sarcastic, I am earnestly asking these questions. I have some expectation in mind as to how you would answer them, but I am willing to be wrong.
Keeping this in mind, and it's just fine if you want to amend it:
Given that I have paid the copyright holders at the appropriate link in the chain, what can I do with that afterward? You have compared it to ingredients used in cooking.
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
You're not exactly coming across as someone who wants to bear with him yourself, with comments like that. They're legitimate questions and worth discussing.
Personally, content is content, regardless of means of consumption.
Currently playing: DI:Riptide, Eador:MotBW, FE:A, MH3U
Generalisations. Always the problem.
Some games don't offer much choice. CoD? I can guarantee you, that after having seen the campaign, most people wouldn't want to play through it themselves anymore, or buy the game solely for that purpose.
Just because you use a different Assault Rifle, or kill enemies by shooting them in the chest instead of the head, doesn't provide a largely different experience.
And there's a lot of games this goes for. Just as there is a lot of games this doesn't go for. Mass Effect, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Alpha Protocol all provide a lot of choices that effect the game heavily.
You can't just make a statement on all games.
Applied to your last statement "Watching a movie and watching a movie are similar experiences." Yes, and seeing a game being played and playing a game, performing actions that lead to very similar results are similar experiences.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
Let me know when you get bored scrolling through the incredibly long list.
Edit: And let me know where your video is of throwing a tomahawk halfway across a map blind and killing a guy with a perfect headshot. Because that's what a lot of that stuff is, some guys ridiculous bullshit he got on camera one day and uploaded to obnoxious skrillex. I mean it's not what I like, but it seems to be popular enough there are two fucking million of them.
And CoD sells what, 15 million per year or whatever? Yeah.
You're right, but so what? I wasn't talking about the people buying it for multiplayer.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
You realize, that this is arguably the vast majority of people playing CoD right and that people who buy it for the single player, are probably buying it for that and not watching it on YouTube. You don't have a strong or coherent argument here.
I'm perfectly fine admitting that it was a bad example.
But I'm still not talking about those people.
If you desperetaly feel the need for a different example: Metro 2033. Or, more recent, Metro the last Light.
It doesn't even matter how good or bad my example is, or if I bring one example or enough to drown the thread, as long as my statement remains correct.
I'm sorry, but you seem to be arguing with a strawman here...
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
The real problem is that this is a step away from saying "people who play CoD for the single player are wrong". Which itself is a step away from saying "How you play this video game is wrong".
This is a road that should not be taken down. How a person plays and enjoys video games is entirely up to them, whether he wants to explore every single nook and cranny, or turn on an invincibility cheat and plow through the game. Nobody has any right to say which is more "right" than the other.
Pokemon Black code - 3009 7390 5907 Send PM if you add me
If you upload a video of snippets of movies with the Guile theme, you are not leeching revenue from the movies or from the makers of Street Fighter, you are just creating a stupid video from parts of other things. You are creating some value, and the original products don't suffer in any way.
Commented let's plays, WTFs, reviews etc use snippets and parts of the game, they acknowledge the authorship of the works and create something of their own and I have 0 problem with them getting some money, which is normally very little (and when it's a lot, it has nothing to do with the game itself).
A totally silent let's play? Well, I find it boring, but as long as it doesn't claim authorship of the game is certainly not hurting, it's not preventing anyone from buying the game, if anything it's useful for people to check how the game is like before buying, and I'm not sure the money the uploader is going to get will cover the costs of actually making the video.
In all three cases there is a fundamental difference to just showing a movie, since for me the value of a game is playing it, not watching it, and if the copyright holders don't like it then they are free to block it, but in my personal opinion, getting the revenue from these videos is a case of the copyrights holders leeching off the uploaders' work. They should either block it or reach an agreement with them, but I think this is a dick move and I don't think LP's are leeching vermins that had it coming.
It actually entirely does, because the vast majority of CoD movies are not single player LPs, they are entirely multiplayer frag or kill videos.
Also as anyone who reads threads about LPers like the Game Grumps thread, there is nothing more frustrating to people than watching an LPer "doing it wrong" on any number of nebulous criteria. Like a good example, I watched Northernlion play XCOM. Does that mean I didn't buy the new XCOM? Oh wait, I actually did buy it but I like watching how other people succeed/fail (moments of genuine anguish like when his favorite soldier had his face melted for example make these kind of LPs great).
I really don't agree that people just routinely watch LPs and don't buy games, unless they weren't interested in buying many games in the first place. I suspect your average person who watches an LP and wouldn't buy that game, probably never would have bought that game in the first place if the LP didn't exist. Not to mention how many people say "I watched X LP and bought the game it looked that fun".
Minding that last part is primarily because with my increasing lack of respect for "game journalists" I find more honest, play through commentary (think Giant Bombs Quick looks or Total Biscuits "Wtf is..") much more informative for buying a game now.
I was going to make a similar argument using Bioshock Infinite as an example. The underlying gameplay is essentially the same as previous Bioshock games with slight variations, notably Elizabeth's environmental interactions. However, there are very few choices presented in the game, and as far as I can tell having only played through it once (so correct me if I'm wrong), those choice would have little impact on the actual story presented. So what are you left with, after watching a Let's Play of it and seeing everything the game's story has to offer? I know it's completely subjective but I doubt the gameplay itself is compelling enough reason, for most, to go out and spend retail price on it.
It's exactly, I believe, the kind of parallel Sporky was trying to make between games being consumed merely through watching them being played and a movie.
Let's go for another example.
You record a movie using a 360 degree camera, and release two versions of it. Let's say it's a horse cart ride through the streets of London.
In one, you show specific "head movements," panning around a normal human perspective, showing different parts of it as if you were really there looking around. It's basically a normal video file.
In the other, you make this video interactive - the viewer can control what they're seeing at any time, look left, look right.
I cannot release video of the first because it is non-interactive, and I would be reproducing something meant only for watching. However, using Australopitenico's logic, I can release video of the second, because it's techically meant to be interacted with, and the experience won't be the same for everyone.
Do you see how this doesn't make any sense?
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
Big publishers, and their general attitude towards the used game market, disagree with you. If given their way, they would love nothing more than to force you to pay 60 bucks to experience their game, and tell you to piss off otherwise.
Your comment earlier. Publishers would love that. In fact, I'm trying to find the quote now and am failing, but I'm positive I remember CliffyB saying something along the lines long ago about, if he had his way, he would lock the ending to Gears of War behind a $10 pay wall.
Pokemon Black code - 3009 7390 5907 Send PM if you add me
I THINK the point is that you can watch someone play a game, decide you like what you see, then buy the game and create your own experience by all kinds of means of interactivity.
Versus not being able to alter the movie experience: You can't alter the camera, you can't move, you can't interact with the characters etc. etc.
And what I'm arguing here is that games with little variation or choice are in fact similar to movies, and that uploading a complete LP of one is comparable to uploading a whole movie.
Compare someone watching the whole movie or watching the whole LP: Either they decide that they've seen all there is and won't buy it, or that it's good enough to support the makers. Or good enough that they wanna see it in full HD, whatever. But I'm arguing that the latter group is in the vast minority.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
I think you are interpreting that I say that Nintendo has no legal right to do this. I am not discussing that. Of course if the author is not OK with you putting Let's Plays up and wants to block it is in his legal right to do it.
My argument is not that you should be allowed to do it and that Nintendo only allowed to shut up. My argument is that what these people do is either harmless or beneficial, and that there is no reason for Nintendo to be dicks about it.
Yes @The Wolfman, I'm not doubting that. Wouldn't you consider locking the ending of Gears of War 3 behind a paywall a dick move? I would.
You totally should have read the entire thread first before picking that specific example in a debate with me
Oops.
But you are entirely and deliberately ignoring the fact many people do in fact buy games due to LPs as well. Like, in my case, Metro 2033 which I was not terribly interested in until I saw a good solid contiguous 45 minute chunk of.
Again, I prefer LPs and contiguous gameplay like GBs quick looks to traditional reviews any day.
Not to beat a dead horse, but a Let's Play uploader profiting from a video of something they had no hand in other than having recorded themselves interacting with it and making comments over it, is something that doesn't sit right with me and smacks of a bit of a double standard if it's not ok for someone to do the same with a movie.
Edit: Or am I misinterpreting what's going on? It is my understanding that if a YouTube poster has enough views they take a chunk of ad revenue? I'm ok with being wrong on this if this is the case.
Recording equipment, bandwith, elecricity. Costs a lot of money, not to mention time. All spent for free advertisement. You get almost nothing from the ads, which means that LPers don't even get compensated unless they ask for donation. But appearantly Nintendo is so greedy, they even want that small ammount of money.
This is what it comes across as: Being really, really greedy. And dumb, by discouraging free advertisement of your own product.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
If the case was only applying content-sensitive advertising, I wouldn't see an issue. Redirecting advertising revenue away from the content creator(the LPer) seems unjust. If you strip the commentary from an LP, I doubt the LP would have anywhere close to the amount of success it has with the commentary. This is just a case of a producer muscling in down the value generation line in order to deprive others from the profits of their work. While the law is on their side, it is no less a douche move. Many LPers do what they do because they like doing it, and aren't planning on getting rich with it anything like that, but it can be a very time- and money-consuming line of work. Removing what little compensation they might get for their work can at worst discourage further content generation depending on the financial situation of the LPer in question, as many have to balance the amount of time and effort they can afford to spend with LPs and a job to stay in the black. Making certain LPs return less compensation can result in reduced time spent on them, or redirection of efforts on other games/publishers due to IRL pressures.
It just seems that Nintendo in this case gets relatively minuscule amounts of money, while significantly impacting the compensation of certain LPers, and potentially discouraging further LPs and damaging PR. The extent is unknown at the time, but it's likely to be fairly minor. It still doesn't seem like a sound business/PR decision, as the gains are rather minimal, and probably not worth the backlash(which may or may not happen, and the extent of which isn't known at the moment).
It really comes across as them trying to appear benevolent by allowing LPs to continue and reaping any advertising benefits from them, while also wanting the revenue generated by other people's work. It does make them look rather greedy in a way that probably doesn't benefit them terribly much. They're completely in the right legally, it just isn't a very cool thing to do. People are completely in the right to label this a douche move, because that's what it is, regardless of its legality.
Well, I'm not really concerned with whether it's legal or not, but it was confusing when your argument began with a good example based on licensing.
I'm more concerned with your argument's internal consistency as it applies to both games and movies. Why can't a movie be considered ingredients to be transformed as well?
Since a slight movie remix would still be watched and is quite similar to just sharing the movie, what if we change the format? I'll take a series of HD stills from a movie and sell a book containing them. Do you think the company should not go after me for this? The movie is meant to be watched, not viewed in stills, after all. I paid them once for the Blu-Ray, they got my money, and I'm transforming their product into something else.
You may not think this matters, but I think it is pretty relevant to the thread - that is, if we consider profiting from another's work in one respect to not be ethically acceptable, then how can we consider this other profit to be acceptable?
It's incredibly messy anyway because you get into using the actors' likenesses without their consent and whatnot.
Nintendo Network ID: unclesporky
The fact is that without an LP I would never have bought the game. That is certainly not true of everyone, I know there are people who probably watched an LP but never bought it, but the argument that if we removed LPs it would increase or magically produce more sales is farcical to me. They simply would spend their time watching cats on YouTube, not buying your game.
And LPs aren't going away. I like how everyone here assumes they are. "If I hadn't watched that Metro2033 LP I wouldn't have bought it!" but that LP would have and will still exist.
On the other hand, this way Nintendo is claiming the profits from something they had zero hand in producing: The commentary of the LPer. The LPer already paid for the game in question, and Nintendo has received their profits. They are then claiming the profits from derivative works(the LP), in which they had no input and to which they expended zero effort. Their efforts in producing the game in question have already been compensated for by the purchase of the game used for the LP, and the LP commentary is produced by the LPer using the game as the inspiration/platform on which to construct it. The game in question is interchangeable with other games, movies, books, whatever, and the commentary is the product being consumed by Youtube watchers.
Nintendo is hardly being benevolent by allowing the content to remain, if they are claiming all the revenue generated by it, while having put no effort into generating the content(the LP commentary and playing). Nintendo is "allowing" the LPer to use their time and money to generate free advertising, from which the ad revenues will as well go to Nintendo. An argument can only be made if the presented graphics and sounds are considered to be all of the product, which is patently not the case. Current law allows for Nintendo to make the claim of ownership for the LP through their ownership of the assets used to produce the LP, at least to the extent of receiving the revenues generated by the LP. It's doubtful that the LP would generate those revenues if stripped of its commentary and various things done by the player for the purposes of creating the LP. In that case it would be simply a gameplay demo with no extra content, and those are a different product altogether.
Also, a movie-related example: Red Letter Media and their Star Wars reviews use a shitload of content from the movies, yet the review itself is the product. Should all revenues generated by the review in question be given to Disney, because the "uploader profiting from a video of something they had no hand in other than having recorded themselves interacting with it and making comments over it"?
I'm arguing about watching whole LPs, not just parts of them. That's the thing: If you watch even as much as 1 hour or a game that's 20 hours or more, you've got lots of things still to see. But once you've seen them and - broken record mode ON - there's not terribly much variation, would you still buy it?
What plays into this are rising video game prices and oversaturation of the market as well.
Steam ID: 76561198021298113
Origin ID: SR71C_Blackbird
The problem is that you're misunderstanding the actual news. The actual news is that videos containing Nintendo content are going to be identified and the ad revenue for those videos will go to Nintendo instead of the video's creator.
EDIT: The problem is also that I didn't notice this thread was already up to 5 pages. Sorry if this has already been covered to death. I need caffeine.
I hit quote before you said that at the end of your post. But my point still stands because it's not just you saying it.