Nintendo decides it owns YouTube's Let's Play scene

Aegeri

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

You said "The instant you decide to watch a complete LP of a linear game (and follow through with it), you decide against buying it. Sale lost".

Did you not write that? So again, when was I ever going to buy Sonic 06? Or is this point flat out wrong as my reply indicates it is?

1. You didn't show me the point where I said "before this condition is met, you were of the opposite opinion."

In short you cannot tell me that I was ever going to buy Sonic 06, because it was dreadful. But I have watched two entirely hilarious LPs of it!

Your argument requires knowledge in advance of why someone is watching the LP. If it was for a game that the person never intended to buy in the first place, your argument automatically fails. In fact it then turns into the absolute opposite: The only thing to gain is a sale, which completely demolishes any argument you have.

And ultimately leaves us at the point that LPs can function entirely like reviews, letting people decide to continue watching it or if it's worth while buying the game. As for ignoring the rest, it's irrelevant because this is the core point right here that you've highlighted. If you're a publisher, you probably want to believe your statement is always true, but in the real world it's probably not at all true for the majority of cases.

Again, there are people who watch LPs of games they have played, or are playing (for advice/hints/solutions), there are people who do indeed never intend to buy the game but may watch it (comedy, eg sonic), there are people who will buy it because they like the LP when they wouldn't have and yes, there are people who will change their mind deciding the game will suck.

Your very base and over simplistic argument of "watches LP = lost sale" is thus not relevant enough to how these things actually work.

Unless again, you want to tell me where I and the thousands IRRC of people who have watched Pikapuffs LP of Sonic 06. Hell the latest Game Grumps Sonic 06 episode has 109,930 views. Would you, in the context of your argument, please advise me on how many of these people ever intended to buy Sonic 06 before watching the LP? Or can you see the greater point at work now?

I'm tired of arguing with you. I have proven you wrong, you argue points I do not make.

You have not proven anything at all, like how your argument I have quoted relates at all to what actually happens.

Again, 109,930 people have viewed the latest game grumps episode of Sonic 06. How many of them are lost sales? Or are you completely conceding your argument?

I think you misquoted. I never argued that.

Um. Actually you did. This is your post on the previous page.

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Metro 2033 is even a really good personal example for me. Reviewers were all "Game is kind of janky with broken stealth mechanics, but terrific atmosphere" so I was like, "meh". So I watched an LP and saw for myself these elements weren't actually anywhere near that bad in practice and the atmosphere was just fantastic. So I bought the game when I was completely content to skip it after watching about 45 minutes or so.

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.

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.

I went back and watched the whole LP too, effectively getting even more enjoyment out of it. Especially when he met the librarians.

You know what point you are deliberately missing or avoiding? Explain to me how not having LPs increases sales and you don't get "Space magic" as an answer. I think it's pretty fair to say they can swing people either way, much like a review except a bigger and more continuous chunk. I also think its reasonable to say people who watch a whole games LP either played it before, it's replayable or they never intended to buy it in the first place.

Also if I watch a whole LP of a non-multiplayer single player game, I did indeed not buy it.

But here is the point: I was never going to buy it. Want an example, Sonic 06. Now be honest, would you buy that game?

Again: I'd be happy to drop this point of discussion, at least partially.

However: The instant you decide to watch a complete LP of a linear game (and follow through with it), you decide against buying it. Sale lost.

Does that mean LPs generally decrease sale numbers? Probably not, because they are also free advertisement.

You're trying to argue that it's impossible for an LP to stop even a single person from buying a game.

Which is already not true. There've been cases where I wanted a game, however didn't buy it because I still had other games to play. I decided to take a peek at a LP, got hooked, didn't even think about it, watched the whole thing and was then not interested into buying the game anymore.

So yes. You actually did argue that.

So you concede that argument was entirely wrong, or will you make some argument as to how many of the 100,000ish people watching that Game Grumps LP of Sonic 06 decided not to buy the game? Bear in mind my disagreement is specifically with the bolded portion, because you inherently assume someone wanted to buy the game before they watched the LP. If that assumption is wrong, the entire premise of that argument collapses. Do you agree or disagree? Because if you see the error, then indeed, you don't need to tell me why myself (and many others) probably never were going to buy Sonic 06 in the first place.

On the other hand, I would like to know your logic for why these people wanted to buy the game before they watched the LP. That's my problem with your argument as it only works if someone intended to buy the game, watched the LP and then didn't buy it. You miss the equally likely chance (sometimes more likely) that someone has utterly no interest in buying the game in the first place before watching the LP.

That line doesn't mean what you think it does. It's neither relating to you, nor stating that any person that met this condition was before of the opinion that they should buy this game.

That's incorrect. If you read what you wrote, you clearly state that watching an LP means they decide not to buy the game and so it's a lost sale. You are indeed, stating it absolutely. If you wanted to be clear you should have instead wrote:

However: For someone who wanted to buy the game originally, the instant they decide to watch a complete LP of a linear game (and follow through with it), they may decide against buying it. So a Sale lost.

Which I would find very hard to disagree with, because it's true. If the person at the start has no intention of buying the game, then the LP can only be potentially positive in convincing them to do so. Otherwise it's no net negative effect anyway, the sale was never theirs in the first place.

Either you're comprehending it wrong, or you're deliberately maing false claims.

Alternatively: You have communicated your point extremely poorly.

Henroid

Bethryn wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

You're suggesting Lets Players are making hundreds of thousands of dollars? Edit - Through the ad program?

I think PewDiePie and some others actually do, but in this case, I was rather referring to the fact that you can get more than the cost of a game out of ad revenue if you're getting good unique hits (i.e. in the thousands every set).

edit: I'm talking from the perspective of the LPer, not the game creator; the bolded statement I was referring to is a little ambiguous, as "setting up" for LPing takes the $24 for a FRAPS license, but the games themselves will cost $50+ a pop if you're doing recent games. I recognise it could also have been referring to the cost of creating the games.

... But you were responding to Aegeri saying that the cost of recording Lets Plays is a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the game getting made in the first place.

Albino Bunny

It doesn't make it not a job though.

Stability doesn't effect whether something is a job, getting paid does.

Aegeri

Yeah my argument was clearly the few hundred thousand to million dollars that game budgets have these days, particularly thinking of the Battlefields, Medal of Honors, CoDs, Bioshocks and other triple AAA shooters. I wasn't talking about the price of the actual game in stores, but how much it took to pay people to make them and put them there. My argument that the publisher should get something from an LP was due to that incredibly high investment to make the game in the first place.

I fully believe they deserve a portion of that.

Blackbird SR-71C

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

You said "The instant you decide to watch a complete LP of a linear game (and follow through with it), you decide against buying it. Sale lost".

Did you not write that? So again, when was I ever going to buy Sonic 06? Or is this point flat out wrong as my reply indicates it is?

1. You didn't show me the point where I said "before this condition is met, you were of the opposite opinion."

In short you cannot tell me that I was ever going to buy Sonic 06, because it was dreadful. But I have watched two entirely hilarious LPs of it!

Your argument requires knowledge in advance of why someone is watching the LP. If it was for a game that the person never intended to buy in the first place, your argument automatically fails. In fact it then turns into the absolute opposite: The only thing to gain is a sale, which completely demolishes any argument you have.

And ultimately leaves us at the point that LPs can function entirely like reviews, letting people decide to continue watching it or if it's worth while buying the game. As for ignoring the rest, it's irrelevant because this is the core point right here that you've highlighted. If you're a publisher, you probably want to believe your statement is always true, but in the real world it's probably not at all true for the majority of cases.

Again, there are people who watch LPs of games they have played, or are playing (for advice/hints/solutions), there are people who do indeed never intend to buy the game but may watch it (comedy, eg sonic), there are people who will buy it because they like the LP when they wouldn't have and yes, there are people who will change their mind deciding the game will suck.

Your very base and over simplistic argument of "watches LP = lost sale" is thus not relevant enough to how these things actually work.

Unless again, you want to tell me where I and the thousands IRRC of people who have watched Pikapuffs LP of Sonic 06. Hell the latest Game Grumps Sonic 06 episode has 109,930 views. Would you, in the context of your argument, please advise me on how many of these people ever intended to buy Sonic 06 before watching the LP? Or can you see the greater point at work now?

I'm tired of arguing with you. I have proven you wrong, you argue points I do not make.

You have not proven anything at all, like how your argument I have quoted relates at all to what actually happens.

Again, 109,930 people have viewed the latest game grumps episode of Sonic 06. How many of them are lost sales? Or are you completely conceding your argument?

I think you misquoted. I never argued that.

Um. Actually you did. This is your post on the previous page.

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Metro 2033 is even a really good personal example for me. Reviewers were all "Game is kind of janky with broken stealth mechanics, but terrific atmosphere" so I was like, "meh". So I watched an LP and saw for myself these elements weren't actually anywhere near that bad in practice and the atmosphere was just fantastic. So I bought the game when I was completely content to skip it after watching about 45 minutes or so.

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.

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.

I went back and watched the whole LP too, effectively getting even more enjoyment out of it. Especially when he met the librarians.

You know what point you are deliberately missing or avoiding? Explain to me how not having LPs increases sales and you don't get "Space magic" as an answer. I think it's pretty fair to say they can swing people either way, much like a review except a bigger and more continuous chunk. I also think its reasonable to say people who watch a whole games LP either played it before, it's replayable or they never intended to buy it in the first place.

Also if I watch a whole LP of a non-multiplayer single player game, I did indeed not buy it.

But here is the point: I was never going to buy it. Want an example, Sonic 06. Now be honest, would you buy that game?

Again: I'd be happy to drop this point of discussion, at least partially.

However: The instant you decide to watch a complete LP of a linear game (and follow through with it), you decide against buying it. Sale lost.

Does that mean LPs generally decrease sale numbers? Probably not, because they are also free advertisement.

You're trying to argue that it's impossible for an LP to stop even a single person from buying a game.

Which is already not true. There've been cases where I wanted a game, however didn't buy it because I still had other games to play. I decided to take a peek at a LP, got hooked, didn't even think about it, watched the whole thing and was then not interested into buying the game anymore.

So yes. You actually did argue that.

So you concede that argument was entirely wrong, or will you make some argument as to how many of the 100,000ish people watching that Game Grumps LP of Sonic 06 decided not to buy the game? Bear in mind my disagreement is specifically with the bolded portion, because you inherently assume someone wanted to buy the game before they watched the LP. If that assumption is wrong, the entire premise of that argument collapses. Do you agree or disagree? Because if you see the error, then indeed, you don't need to tell me why myself (and many others) probably never were going to buy Sonic 06 in the first place.

On the other hand, I would like to know your logic for why these people wanted to buy the game before they watched the LP. That's my problem with your argument as it only works if someone intended to buy the game, watched the LP and then didn't buy it. You miss the equally likely chance (sometimes more likely) that someone has utterly no interest in buying the game in the first place before watching the LP.

That line doesn't mean what you think it does. It's neither relating to you, nor stating that any person that met this condition was before of the opinion that they should buy this game.

That's incorrect. If you read what you wrote, you clearly state that watching an LP means they decide not to buy the game and so it's a lost sale. You are indeed, stating it absolutely. If you wanted to be clear you should have instead wrote:

However: For someone who wanted to buy the game originally, the instant they decide to watch a complete LP of a linear game (and follow through with it), they may decide against buying it. So a Sale lost.

Which I would find very hard to disagree with, because it's true. If the person at the start has no intention of buying the game, then the LP can only be potentially positive in convincing them to do so. Otherwise it's no net negative effect anyway, the sale was never theirs in the first place.

Either you're comprehending it wrong, or you're deliberately maing false claims.

Alternatively: You have communicated your point extremely poorly.

After 2 pages, you still don't get the line right, or why you're still wrong.

Here's a hint: There's a reason I wrote what I wrote instead of what you wrote in bold letters.

Jutranjo

Henroid wrote: »

Albino Bunny wrote: »

The thread remained snark free for like, 5 pages. I was almost impressed.

Also it's kinda pointless arguing with Henroid when his opinion on the job which pays a few people is that it's not a job.

Like at that point you just can't make words, it just doesn't work.

It shouldn't be a job because of how easily it could be taken away. Way too risky a thing to hedge your bets on.

So anything that doesn't guarantee a stable income isn't a job? Wow, no wonder there's so few of them around these days.

Henroid

Albino Bunny wrote: »

It doesn't make it not a job though.

Stability doesn't effect whether something is a job, getting paid does.

It's a gamble. We're not talking about a factory being shut down because Mitt Romney bought it and fired everyone. We're talking about the recording of software owned and distributed by companies and trying to make money from the ad revenue those videos generate. It was a gray area at best, no guarantee that it was your money to be had. The other shoe dropped and we've discovered it's not the LPers' money to be had.

TheSonicRetard

Jutranjo wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Albino Bunny wrote: »

The thread remained snark free for like, 5 pages. I was almost impressed.

Also it's kinda pointless arguing with Henroid when his opinion on the job which pays a few people is that it's not a job.

Like at that point you just can't make words, it just doesn't work.

It shouldn't be a job because of how easily it could be taken away. Way too risky a thing to hedge your bets on.

So anything that doesn't guarantee a stable income isn't a job? Wow, no wonder there's so few of them around these days.

To be fair, I dunno if he meant it shouldn't be considered a job, or if he meant it shouldn't be a job that people hold (for their sake). his wording makes it ambiguous. Considering Henroid's past, I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

EDIT: ^^ Ah, sort of both interpretations, joined at the hip, it seems?

Henroid

Jutranjo wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Albino Bunny wrote: »

The thread remained snark free for like, 5 pages. I was almost impressed.

Also it's kinda pointless arguing with Henroid when his opinion on the job which pays a few people is that it's not a job.

Like at that point you just can't make words, it just doesn't work.

It shouldn't be a job because of how easily it could be taken away. Way too risky a thing to hedge your bets on.

So anything that doesn't guarantee a stable income isn't a job? Wow, no wonder there's so few of them around these days.

I just elaborated on this, it's the post right under yours that I'm quoting.

Bethryn

Aegeri wrote: »

Yeah my argument was clearly the few hundred thousand to million dollars that game budgets have these days, particularly thinking of the Battlefields, Medal of Honors, CoDs, Bioshocks and other triple AAA shooters. I wasn't talking about the price of the actual game in stores, but how much it took to pay people to make them and put them there.

The problem with going down this road is that it leads to the similar quagmire found with second hand games sales; once the consumer has paid the creator for the game, why should they not be free to do with it, and profit from it, as they like?

Albino Bunny

It's only not LPer's money to be had right now for Nintendo focused stuff. Plus you're still in a situation where larger networks on you-tube likely have a deal to prevent it being trouble. I just hope most other companies remain in the view of treating LPer's and you-tube producers as assets or mostly harmless.

Aegeri

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

You said "The instant you decide to watch a complete LP of a linear game (and follow through with it), you decide against buying it. Sale lost".

Did you not write that? So again, when was I ever going to buy Sonic 06? Or is this point flat out wrong as my reply indicates it is?

1. You didn't show me the point where I said "before this condition is met, you were of the opposite opinion."

In short you cannot tell me that I was ever going to buy Sonic 06, because it was dreadful. But I have watched two entirely hilarious LPs of it!

Your argument requires knowledge in advance of why someone is watching the LP. If it was for a game that the person never intended to buy in the first place, your argument automatically fails. In fact it then turns into the absolute opposite: The only thing to gain is a sale, which completely demolishes any argument you have.

And ultimately leaves us at the point that LPs can function entirely like reviews, letting people decide to continue watching it or if it's worth while buying the game. As for ignoring the rest, it's irrelevant because this is the core point right here that you've highlighted. If you're a publisher, you probably want to believe your statement is always true, but in the real world it's probably not at all true for the majority of cases.

Again, there are people who watch LPs of games they have played, or are playing (for advice/hints/solutions), there are people who do indeed never intend to buy the game but may watch it (comedy, eg sonic), there are people who will buy it because they like the LP when they wouldn't have and yes, there are people who will change their mind deciding the game will suck.

Your very base and over simplistic argument of "watches LP = lost sale" is thus not relevant enough to how these things actually work.

Unless again, you want to tell me where I and the thousands IRRC of people who have watched Pikapuffs LP of Sonic 06. Hell the latest Game Grumps Sonic 06 episode has 109,930 views. Would you, in the context of your argument, please advise me on how many of these people ever intended to buy Sonic 06 before watching the LP? Or can you see the greater point at work now?

I'm tired of arguing with you. I have proven you wrong, you argue points I do not make.

You have not proven anything at all, like how your argument I have quoted relates at all to what actually happens.

Again, 109,930 people have viewed the latest game grumps episode of Sonic 06. How many of them are lost sales? Or are you completely conceding your argument?

I think you misquoted. I never argued that.

Um. Actually you did. This is your post on the previous page.

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Blackbird SR-71C wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Metro 2033 is even a really good personal example for me. Reviewers were all "Game is kind of janky with broken stealth mechanics, but terrific atmosphere" so I was like, "meh". So I watched an LP and saw for myself these elements weren't actually anywhere near that bad in practice and the atmosphere was just fantastic. So I bought the game when I was completely content to skip it after watching about 45 minutes or so.

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.

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.

I went back and watched the whole LP too, effectively getting even more enjoyment out of it. Especially when he met the librarians.

You know what point you are deliberately missing or avoiding? Explain to me how not having LPs increases sales and you don't get "Space magic" as an answer. I think it's pretty fair to say they can swing people either way, much like a review except a bigger and more continuous chunk. I also think its reasonable to say people who watch a whole games LP either played it before, it's replayable or they never intended to buy it in the first place.

Also if I watch a whole LP of a non-multiplayer single player game, I did indeed not buy it.

But here is the point: I was never going to buy it. Want an example, Sonic 06. Now be honest, would you buy that game?

Again: I'd be happy to drop this point of discussion, at least partially.

However: The instant you decide to watch a complete LP of a linear game (and follow through with it), you decide against buying it. Sale lost.

Does that mean LPs generally decrease sale numbers? Probably not, because they are also free advertisement.

You're trying to argue that it's impossible for an LP to stop even a single person from buying a game.

Which is already not true. There've been cases where I wanted a game, however didn't buy it because I still had other games to play. I decided to take a peek at a LP, got hooked, didn't even think about it, watched the whole thing and was then not interested into buying the game anymore.

So yes. You actually did argue that.

So you concede that argument was entirely wrong, or will you make some argument as to how many of the 100,000ish people watching that Game Grumps LP of Sonic 06 decided not to buy the game? Bear in mind my disagreement is specifically with the bolded portion, because you inherently assume someone wanted to buy the game before they watched the LP. If that assumption is wrong, the entire premise of that argument collapses. Do you agree or disagree? Because if you see the error, then indeed, you don't need to tell me why myself (and many others) probably never were going to buy Sonic 06 in the first place.

On the other hand, I would like to know your logic for why these people wanted to buy the game before they watched the LP. That's my problem with your argument as it only works if someone intended to buy the game, watched the LP and then didn't buy it. You miss the equally likely chance (sometimes more likely) that someone has utterly no interest in buying the game in the first place before watching the LP.

That line doesn't mean what you think it does. It's neither relating to you, nor stating that any person that met this condition was before of the opinion that they should buy this game.

That's incorrect. If you read what you wrote, you clearly state that watching an LP means they decide not to buy the game and so it's a lost sale. You are indeed, stating it absolutely. If you wanted to be clear you should have instead wrote:

However: For someone who wanted to buy the game originally, the instant they decide to watch a complete LP of a linear game (and follow through with it), they may decide against buying it. So a Sale lost.

Which I would find very hard to disagree with, because it's true. If the person at the start has no intention of buying the game, then the LP can only be potentially positive in convincing them to do so. Otherwise it's no net negative effect anyway, the sale was never theirs in the first place.

Either you're comprehending it wrong, or you're deliberately maing false claims.

Alternatively: You have communicated your point extremely poorly.

After 2 pages, you still don't get the line right, or why you're still wrong.

Here's a hint: There's a reason I wrote what I wrote instead of what you wrote in bold letters.

Because you like being inaccurate? I mean, I quoted exactly what you wrote and you're still trying to claim you didn't say what you actually clearly wrote. That argument implicitly requires that people want to buy the game originally for it to be a lost sale. If they don't, it's not a lost sale. That simple.

Henroid

Bethryn wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Yeah my argument was clearly the few hundred thousand to million dollars that game budgets have these days, particularly thinking of the Battlefields, Medal of Honors, CoDs, Bioshocks and other triple AAA shooters. I wasn't talking about the price of the actual game in stores, but how much it took to pay people to make them and put them there.

The problem with going down this road is that it leads to the similar quagmire found with second hand games sales; once the consumer has paid the publisher for the game, why should they not be free to do with it, and profit from it, as they like?

Would you buy a DVD and then have people pay to be able to see it?

Lindsey Lohan

If you're depending on income from these as your primary source of income, you probably should be reaching out to Nintendo directly to see if you can setup a separate arrangement for the use of their content. Someone large enough to make a full out living on these should be managing it like a business anyways and should be looking into their legal options and contacting Nintendo themselves. LPers publicly pissing and moaning and boycotting tells me that they aren't professional and don't understand how the business world works. They could have easily found themselves removing videos entirely.

If you are making that much money then you should be able to leverage that celebrity to branch out into something other than Let's Plays as well, but if you are truly the size of a business, handle yourself that way.

Allforce

It's been mentioned here and other sites that its 1-3 bucks per 1000 views, depending on the deal. So if you're pulling in 1 million hits a month you're making 1-3k. Per video.

That's a job.

Death of Rats

Henroid wrote: »

Bethryn wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Yeah my argument was clearly the few hundred thousand to million dollars that game budgets have these days, particularly thinking of the Battlefields, Medal of Honors, CoDs, Bioshocks and other triple AAA shooters. I wasn't talking about the price of the actual game in stores, but how much it took to pay people to make them and put them there.

The problem with going down this road is that it leads to the similar quagmire found with second hand games sales; once the consumer has paid the publisher for the game, why should they not be free to do with it, and profit from it, as they like?

Would you buy a DVD and then have people pay to be able to see it?

Ah, so you're against used game sales now?

Gamestop should be shut down for making a profit off of other's work?

LockedOnTarget

Watching a LP isn't immediately a lost sale and LPs are not immediately positive advertising.

Some people on both sides need to understand this. LPs are not something you can make a blanket statement about either way. Thy are not always free advertising. Quite frankly a lot of them are some guy who thinks he's funny shitting all over the game. Some people out there might end up not buying a game because they can just watch it. Some people out there might buy a game because they watched it and it looked cool.

Bethryn

Henroid wrote: »

Would you buy a DVD and then have people pay to be able to see it?

Yes, and thus we have the cinema.

The difference here is that the cinema is a pre-existing construct, with rules that were built up around it as it developed as a business.

No one is bothering to build up the rules surrounding LPing at the moment (not least because nobody's quite sure whose ball park it should fall into to regulate).

Aegeri

Allforce wrote: »

It's been mentioned here and other sites that its 1-3 bucks per 1000 views, depending on the deal. So if you're pulling in 1 million hits a month you're making 1-3k. Per video.

That's a job.

The problem is getting there first and risking losing your channel is a very real prospect.

TheSonicRetard

Henroid wrote: »

Bethryn wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Yeah my argument was clearly the few hundred thousand to million dollars that game budgets have these days, particularly thinking of the Battlefields, Medal of Honors, CoDs, Bioshocks and other triple AAA shooters. I wasn't talking about the price of the actual game in stores, but how much it took to pay people to make them and put them there.

The problem with going down this road is that it leads to the similar quagmire found with second hand games sales; once the consumer has paid the publisher for the game, why should they not be free to do with it, and profit from it, as they like?

Would you buy a DVD and then have people pay to be able to see it?

The license you buy for a DVD prohibits assembly viewing, actually. Technically, you're not supposed to watch a DVD with more than a few people in the room. There was an internal document leaked from Microsoft about kinect 2.0 uses, and one of the examples they gave was that it could scan the room when watching a movie to see how many viewers were watching, and if it exceeded the license limit, the playback would shut off and ask for more money.

Suffice to say, the proposition was an extreme turn off to several. However, to answer your original question - if you were going by the word of the law, if you bought a DVD and more people saw it than the license allowed, then yes, the content provider would like more money

Henroid

Allforce wrote: »

It's been mentioned here and other sites that its 1-3 bucks per 1000 views, depending on the deal. So if you're pulling in 1 million hits a month you're making 1-3k. Per video.

That's a job.

It is if those videos are certifiably your content. The question is "Are Lets Plays the content of the uploader, or the content of the developer/publisher?"

As I said, we've discovered that it's the latter. It merely went unanswered all this time.

Henroid

Bethryn wrote: »

No one is bothering to build up the rules surrounding LPing at the moment (not least because nobody's quite sure whose ball park it should fall into to regulate).

Nintendo seems to have taken the first step.

CuvisTheConqueror

Henroid wrote: »

CuvisTheConqueror wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Slayer of Dreams wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

What's the problem?

It's also targeting reviewers and not just LPers.

What's the problem?

If you've got a domain name, generate ad revenue there.

Well, now there is a problem. Review and commentary are generally held up to be fair use; thus, the video's maker has now created a transformative work and should be entitled to his own creation, whether or not he has a domain name. Nintendo no longer has a claim here.

But now the question is, where do you draw the line between an actual review, and some guy talking while he plays the game? It gets a bit thorny at this point, and this opens up a legal and ethical minefield that, unfortunately, Nintendo can simply sidestep by virtue of having many times the resources of their targets.

This hinges on the precise terms of Nintendo stating that footage over a certain amount of time.

A time limit does not define fair use. For example, this is almost 3 minutes of Nintendo footage, and I think most people would agree it is fair use. In fact, it was part of an actual commercial program in the '90s.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph4w-ia6dxY

Bethryn

Henroid wrote: »

It is if those videos are certifiably your content. The question is "Are Lets Plays the content of the uploader, or the content of the developer/publisher?"

As I said, we've discovered that it's the latter. It merely went unanswered all this time.

No, we haven't, since none of these cases have actually gone to a court yet.

We know the same thing we've always known, which is that YouTube takes the path of least resistance when dealing with copyright claims, and that several of the major partners like Machinima and TGN are prepared to bring lawyers to defend LPers under Fair Use, which is more than many of the games companies are willing to do to prosecute.

Allforce

Aegeri wrote: »

Allforce wrote: »

It's been mentioned here and other sites that its 1-3 bucks per 1000 views, depending on the deal. So if you're pulling in 1 million hits a month you're making 1-3k. Per video.

That's a job.

The problem is getting there first and risking losing your channel is a very real prospect.

Right but all we have with today's news is that Nintendo doesn't like it. Which is their prerogative. Still plenty of opportunity for these LPers to make a living on other platforms/titles.

I mean it feels like Sony is actively embracing this culture, with the live sharing on PS4. I'll be able to watch my friend play all the way through a game right through their console

I have to think MS might be right there with them even after raising a stink last year the same way Nintendo is today and then backtracking.

Henroid

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Bethryn wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Yeah my argument was clearly the few hundred thousand to million dollars that game budgets have these days, particularly thinking of the Battlefields, Medal of Honors, CoDs, Bioshocks and other triple AAA shooters. I wasn't talking about the price of the actual game in stores, but how much it took to pay people to make them and put them there.

The problem with going down this road is that it leads to the similar quagmire found with second hand games sales; once the consumer has paid the publisher for the game, why should they not be free to do with it, and profit from it, as they like?

Would you buy a DVD and then have people pay to be able to see it?

The license you buy for a DVD prohibits assembly viewing, actually. Technically, you're not supposed to watch a DVD with more than a few people in the room. There was an internal document leaked from Microsoft about kinect 2.0 uses, and one of the examples they gave was that it could scan the room when watching a movie to see how many viewers were watching, and if it exceeded the license limit, the playback would shut off and ask for more money.

Suffice to say, the proposition was an extreme turn off to several. However, to answer your original question - if you were going by the word of the law, if you bought a DVD and more people saw it than the license allowed, then yes, the content provider would like more money

The point I was making, TSR.

Aegeri

Henroid wrote: »

Allforce wrote: »

It's been mentioned here and other sites that its 1-3 bucks per 1000 views, depending on the deal. So if you're pulling in 1 million hits a month you're making 1-3k. Per video.

That's a job.

It is if those videos are certifiably your content. The question is "Are Lets Plays the content of the uploader, or the content of the developer/publisher?"

As I said, we've discovered that it's the latter. It merely went unanswered all this time.

And going back to the first page of the thread, Nintendo have also discovered that many don't regard their time and effort for their channels to be worth giving Nintendo free advertising anymore. So have decided to just entirely stop doing LPs and similar of Nintendo products.

This is an all around loss and it isn't one that should happen IMO.

Bethryn

Henroid wrote: »

The point I was making, TSR.

Bear in mind that EULAs aren't even legally binding in half the countries the games are sold in.

Henroid

Aegeri wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Allforce wrote: »

It's been mentioned here and other sites that its 1-3 bucks per 1000 views, depending on the deal. So if you're pulling in 1 million hits a month you're making 1-3k. Per video.

That's a job.

It is if those videos are certifiably your content. The question is "Are Lets Plays the content of the uploader, or the content of the developer/publisher?"

As I said, we've discovered that it's the latter. It merely went unanswered all this time.

And going back to the first page of the thread, Nintendo have also discovered that many don't regard their time and effort for their channels to be worth giving Nintendo free advertising anymore. So have decided to just entirely stop doing LPs and similar of Nintendo products.

This is an all around loss and it isn't one that should happen IMO.

Yeah I don't disagree with the "Let's Plays are free advertising" thing. I have called into question how much impact they have on sales though.

Henroid

Bethryn wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

It is if those videos are certifiably your content. The question is "Are Lets Plays the content of the uploader, or the content of the developer/publisher?"

As I said, we've discovered that it's the latter. It merely went unanswered all this time.

No, we haven't, since none of these cases have actually gone to a court yet.

We know the same thing we've always known, which is that YouTube takes the path of least resistance when dealing with copyright claims, and that several of the major partners like Machinima and TGN are prepared to bring lawyers to defend LPers under Fair Use, which is more than many of the games companies are willing to do to prosecute.

Okay, we'll find out when any litigation wraps up then. But I'm viewing how things stand at the moment and all I can do is shrug rather than feel outrage or sorrow for people's lost ad revenue.

Edit - And to be clear I'm not happy about it either. I'm just not surprised.

pslong9

Bethryn wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Would you buy a DVD and then have people pay to be able to see it?

Yes, and thus we have the cinema.

The difference here is that the cinema is a pre-existing construct, with rules that were built up around it as it developed as a business.

No one is bothering to build up the rules surrounding LPing at the moment (not least because nobody's quite sure whose ball park it should fall into to regulate).

Yeah, this strikes me as being a big part of the issue. It's theoretically possible to make a career in a cover band, but there is a very straightforward process to getting mechanical licenses from the Harry Fox Agency to make sure that the original creators get paid for their work. No such process exists for video games as of yet, and I don't see that happening any time soon unless the ESA steps in. As far as I can tell, making money off of LPs is a fairly recent concept, so this is uncharted territory and Nintendo is taking an overreaching first step. I don't like Nintendo's stance of taking all the ad revenue, but a split in the revenue certainly seems justified to me.

TheSonicRetard

Henroid wrote: »

TheSonicRetard wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Bethryn wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Yeah my argument was clearly the few hundred thousand to million dollars that game budgets have these days, particularly thinking of the Battlefields, Medal of Honors, CoDs, Bioshocks and other triple AAA shooters. I wasn't talking about the price of the actual game in stores, but how much it took to pay people to make them and put them there.

The problem with going down this road is that it leads to the similar quagmire found with second hand games sales; once the consumer has paid the publisher for the game, why should they not be free to do with it, and profit from it, as they like?

Would you buy a DVD and then have people pay to be able to see it?

The license you buy for a DVD prohibits assembly viewing, actually. Technically, you're not supposed to watch a DVD with more than a few people in the room. There was an internal document leaked from Microsoft about kinect 2.0 uses, and one of the examples they gave was that it could scan the room when watching a movie to see how many viewers were watching, and if it exceeded the license limit, the playback would shut off and ask for more money.

Suffice to say, the proposition was an extreme turn off to several. However, to answer your original question - if you were going by the word of the law, if you bought a DVD and more people saw it than the license allowed, then yes, the content provider would like more money

The point I was making, TSR.

Ah, well the unfortunate answer is that it looks like we're marching towards a future where the situation you describe could, potentially, become reality.

The Wolfman

Were people doing these LP's for the fun of doing an LP, or were they doing it solely for the $$$, under the thinly veiled guise of "we're giving them free advertising! *wink wink*?

Because it sounds like it was the latter group who have decided to pack up and go home. In which case... don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Albino Bunny

I don't really get the out-rage. I probably would if I watched more nintendo LP's or made my own.

I'm just kinda miffed in a 'really now' kinda way.

Jutranjo

Henroid wrote: »

Bethryn wrote: »

No one is bothering to build up the rules surrounding LPing at the moment (not least because nobody's quite sure whose ball park it should fall into to regulate).

Nintendo seems to have taken the first step.

And the response is mixed.

Blizzard, Valve and Riot Games had already taken steps before this. They allow streaming, uploading to YT, you can run ads and get money from this.

Look at Valve adding user created hats and cosmetic models to DOTA2 and TF2. People are adding stuff to the games and they're getting something for it. Used to be these would just be local mods or skins like in Quake.

All 3 of them have advertising for player streams and tournaments directly in the client itself.

Nintendo isn't the the first company to write something on this blank legal slate.

LockedOnTarget

I disagree with the statement that they are free advertising.

Sometimes they are. Sometimes they're not.

It depends on both the style of the person LP'ing it and the wants and needs of the viewer. If the person making the video just shits all over it, that's not exactly advertisement. If a person is watching it because they feel it is an acceptable replacement to playing it themselves(and plenty of these people exist), that's not exactly advertisement. The fact that sometimes some people might buy a game because of a LP does not make them completely and uniformly free advertisement.

Henroid

pslong9 wrote: »

Bethryn wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Would you buy a DVD and then have people pay to be able to see it?

Yes, and thus we have the cinema.

The difference here is that the cinema is a pre-existing construct, with rules that were built up around it as it developed as a business.

No one is bothering to build up the rules surrounding LPing at the moment (not least because nobody's quite sure whose ball park it should fall into to regulate).

Yeah, this strikes me as being a big part of the issue. It's theoretically possible to make a career in a cover band, but there is a very straightforward process to getting mechanical licenses from the Harry Fox Agency to make sure that the original creators get paid for their work. No such process exists for video games as of yet, and I don't see that happening any time soon unless the ESA steps in. As far as I can tell, making money off of LPs is a fairly recent concept, so this is uncharted territory and Nintendo is taking an overreaching first step. I don't like Nintendo's stance of taking all the ad revenue, but a split in the revenue certainly seems justified to me.

This is my favorite post in this thread so far. I described it as a "free ride," which was very aggressive, but I should say I'm shocked that people considered this kind of income a sure thing. I always knew the shit would hit the fan and it's starting to happen.

Aegeri

Henroid wrote: »

Aegeri wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Allforce wrote: »

It's been mentioned here and other sites that its 1-3 bucks per 1000 views, depending on the deal. So if you're pulling in 1 million hits a month you're making 1-3k. Per video.

That's a job.

It is if those videos are certifiably your content. The question is "Are Lets Plays the content of the uploader, or the content of the developer/publisher?"

As I said, we've discovered that it's the latter. It merely went unanswered all this time.

And going back to the first page of the thread, Nintendo have also discovered that many don't regard their time and effort for their channels to be worth giving Nintendo free advertising anymore. So have decided to just entirely stop doing LPs and similar of Nintendo products.

This is an all around loss and it isn't one that should happen IMO.

Yeah I don't disagree with the "Let's Plays are free advertising" thing. I have called into question how much impact they have on sales though.

Personally? I think very little in terms of sales is probably effected. I don't agree they cost publishers any significant amount of sales from people watching them instead of playing a game. I also don't think they give you that many sales either. Like I did mention I bought both Metro 2033 and Limbo due to LPs, but I can't say that of the billion games the Game Grumps have fumbled through I have decided "I really need to get this game!" even once. I am tending to use LPs as reviews more and more, but the people doing those kind of things are tending to make special review episodes anyway (Northernlion and TotalBiscuit).

For me the issue is not about if LPs cost or support sales (net neutral at best, as we have already seen from anecdote wars), but if it is right for them to profit of an IP they didn't make while giving nothing to the original creator.

CuvisTheConqueror

Jutranjo wrote: »

Henroid wrote: »

Bethryn wrote: »

No one is bothering to build up the rules surrounding LPing at the moment (not least because nobody's quite sure whose ball park it should fall into to regulate).

Nintendo seems to have taken the first step.

And the response is mixed.

Blizzard, Valve and Riot Games had already taken steps before this. They allow streaming, uploading to YT, you can run ads and get money from this.

Look at Valve adding user created hats and cosmetic models to DOTA2 and TF2. People are adding stuff to the games and they're getting something for it. Used to be these would just be local mods or skins like in Quake.

All 3 of them have advertising for player streams and tournaments directly in the client itself.

Nintendo isn't the the first company to write something on this blank legal slate.

In a way they are, since they're the first company to not either remain silent or explicitly endorse the practice. They've created a conflict here, and if the conflict progresses into the legal system, then I suppose we'll all find out exactly what the game publisher's rights are and what the streamer's or Let's Player's are.

curly haired boy

and in conclusion, copyright law is all sorts of outdated and has a hard time adjusting to the norms of a networked and connected populace.