As a lawyer I can tell you my take on it. Copyright laws are extremely outdated, they were all made to protect authors, book writers and haven't really evolved since. There has been such huge changes in technology that the laws need to be completely scraped and reformed. So why has there been no changes? Because the laws right now benefit corporations and powerful people, so there is no political pressure to do it, quite the opposite actually. Also people in politics are very old that still don't understand things like "let's plays", or how different games are to movies or books. They use these archaic laws to twist the original meaning, they were supposed to stop people taking credit or passing off other people's books and music as their own. You know those chinese knock-off like SQNY and ZBOX controllers? Yeah, that kind of thing. Now, has it ever been illegal to read a book you own to someone else? Watch a movie with someone else? Sell the book when you're done with it? Loan it someone else and even make some money out of it (*cough* librarys *cough*) So why would let's plays be illegal? Hell, even if let's players were not being paid, what gives microsoft the right to block copyrighted content after embargo are done? I'll tell you what, licenses... Corporations want you to believe you own a license, not a product, which is why they often try to block re-sale and judges smack them on the snout because it's not a license! All of it wouldn't be a problem if we had copyright reforms... Just look at how stupid it is to force let's players to mute external music in the game. Do you really think people are so desperate to listen to your music, which btw is 90% of the times free to listen to on youtube by your own channels, that they would resort to watching a game, complete with SFX and Ambient Sounds with the music on it? You sold your rights to the game dev, the music should be included, but because of these old laws it can be argued against it.
Minato Togami Oh hahaha!! Omg, I haven't noticed that! I played phoenix wright when I finished high-school years ago and was a bit obsessed with it. I must have put it as a profile pic years ago. wow... Can you believe it's been over a decade?
Minato Togami *HOLD IT!* I bought the Ace Attorney Trilogy this week, and I have been playing it as a madman since then. This is such a weird coincidence...
CaitSeith What's even more of a weird coincidence is this guy who played Ace Attorney years ago and ended up being a lawyer. o_o It's like playing Street Fighter as a kid and you ended up being a Martial artist, funny right? XD
For every person that doesn't buy a game because of "Let's Plays", there are a dozen people that do buy the game. Whether they're legal or not is irrelevant. They help the software/hardware manufacturers. It's no-lose.
Some people only watch the first couple episodes of interesting titles to see if they're worth playing and get the game if it's good. That's one reason the views go down each episode for the first few.
At worst, Let's Plays or game commentary take away the surprise. At best, they are powerful free advertising for the publisher. Yeah, I know they can also get flagged by Content ID for Music (I have several matches, all from my gameplay videos), one was unfounded, from Universal, I muted the section that was likely the culprit.
Whether or not let's plays "help" is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you think you can do something because its only good, what matters is if you have the "right" to do so.
Daniel W The views have to go down for each of the first few episodes. It's like let's play law. Also, not everybody is interested in every game they play. You're lucky if you get 25% of your subs to view any of your videos, especially with AAA titles.
SUP3RM3TROID The fact that it helps can sway the person with the rights to give the let's player the right to use it as well. It doesn't work in all cases but it obviously helps because let's players tend to get on board with devs often. The Creatures did a whole elaborately set up stream with Overkill, the devs of Payday.
ssbj144 SOME DLC and day 1 DLC is a good thing (alot is a naked money grab but not all) and before you site just one thing as your credo proof on this go watch the episode on this topic from Extra Creditz. A show made and produced by game programmers who work inside the technical side of the industry, there are actually times when Day1 shit is legitimately a good thing.
KiwiPowerNZ I'd still consider it money grabbing whether you give them your money or not much in the same way fishing is still fishing regardless of whether or not you caught something, but I do 100% agree that not buying is always an option, haven't touched an EA game since the early 2000's for that any many other reasons.
I make videos that are text book examples of fair use, yet Nintendo still tries to claim them, and if I were to refute their claims I'd automatically get a strike against my account. I've gotten millions of views advertising Nintendo games AT NO COST TO THEM, and this is how they repay me. I think the bigger problem is that these game companies are allowed to go around flagging whatever videos they feel like without any repercussion for their actions.
Yeah, I saw Shovel Knight on eShop (I have neglected to make a Steam, but I hope to soon :D) and I didn't even give it a chance. Seeing it in your video and seeing the game play makes me want to buy it. It looks like it could be an enjoyable experience.
From my RUclips Footage alone, many people wanted the game. Just saying the demand was so much I have to put underlying titles on things. Also the developer of Shovel Knight said that anyone is free to use anything in game.
Activision wasn't just taking down the glitches, THEY TOOK DOWN ALL OF MY LET'S PLAYS! Each time they claimed audio visual content when I was just playing the damn game!
MastaGambit oh but it does, that's the center of the entire conflict lmao. Just think of it like this: you made a game, it's a hit, everyone's buying it, then a bunch of videos of your game surface, all of which are monetized, so all these people(or the one individual whichever way it goes) are making money from the product you created. The question then is, how do you deal with it? Do you just say oh well and let the people continue making money from your product, or do you intervene and either start getting a share of the profits or stop it completely? This is how their thinking about the situation and why this conflict exists, some companies are willing to let people do this(while earning money for themselves) and get more exposure, other companies are all about their money and want profit from their product wherever it exists.
Another issue is abandonware, which the law apparently doesn't recognize yet, where you have old games made by companies who have been defunct for a long time, they're not making any more money, their copyrights are expired, and they don't legally belong to anyone anymore. The question is, do they fall into the public domain or not?
I would think if nobody picks up the IP, yes, I'd think they'd be public domain. Sometimes, companies will also release their source codes, like with Wolfenstein and Doom in 1995 and 97 respectively. Then again, most abandonware is mainly relegated to old games. I'm not sure if companies are focused on anything pre-PlayStation unless there's copyrighted songs. I've wanted to do the original Metal Gear Solid on PlayStation, but now, I wonder if I could wind up getting in trouble from Konami. I'm not in it to monetize, though.
***** I doubt it, if you're not monetizing it. The only problem is RUclips's copyright bots. You'll have to talk with Konami if they're ok with it but RUclips still flags it.
Aging copyright laws still upheld today? Keep the fuck up with technology. Don't hold progress back by enforcing 100 year old laws meant for completely different types of products, just for your own profits' sake. No, downloading music "illegally" isn't actually "illegal". It's just a file, a string of bits, you *cannot* prohibit the act of copying it. Hell, even a few decades back when you could record tapes (i.e. phisical products), it still wasn't illegal. Making money off someone's work, that's illegal. Getting a copied file from someone else isn't. Want to still make money distributing music? Instead of complaining about "pirates" using today's technology the way it was meant, figure out something new, innovate. Nobody owes you money just because you can't keep up with the times.
And don't give me the "artists can't live otherwise" argument. Artists already live off live performances and other products/services that can't simply be copy-pasted on a computer. I know of no artists complaining about how "unfair" the internet is to them. If anything, it gives fresh artists a much better chance. No, the only one complaining here is the rich bastards who distribute said songs and who just want to make the kind of money they used to make before the internet, doing the same thing. They should care about changing trends if they want to keep financially afloat, but no, it's easier to do what you're used to and ride that "legal" bandwagon.
zolikoff plenty of music and games are given away for free, some are not, if you download one that is not without paying for it and crack it you are stealing. Games (and much of the other products you are talking about) costs MILLIONS of dollars to produce, so just because the guy who made it lives comfortably means you should be allowed to download it for free? That is the arguement of a petulant child. There is only 1 legitimate reason to download a game or music product illegally, and that is if it is impossible to get where you live any other way (not siting legal precadence just an opinion) If you live in some jungle suburb of fucking cambodia and want to play a game and thats your only option most developers would be marginally ok with that. If you live in a developed nation and do it on the other hand then you are a thief or you have an entitlement issue since the person making it might make more money than you, get off your high horse and grow some ethics son. know what I would do if someone took one of my blueprinted (and copywrited) blade or engine component designs, or patented gunsmithing techniques and downloaded it off the pirate bay and I found out about it? I would sue the shit out of them because i put months (and sometimes years) of work into producing that. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK would give someone a right to that work without paying me, the person who created it, for the right to use that print?! on the other hand if someone reviewed my design or made commentary on it that is perfectly fucking legal under copyright (and patent) law. every product has this, does russia sue nutnfancy for reviewing a soviet weapon, does winchester sue him because he gave a bad review to the winchester 300, does wizards of the coast sue people for explaining some mechanics of their table top games and reviewing them? NO because thats fair use, as long as you purchased or were given the product you are reviewing, otherwise your reviewing something you stole.
A let's play is just "free advertising" for a company. Just think about this now, how many times have you bought a game by watching a playthrough of it on RUclips?. For me I have bought most of my recent games by watching playthroughs first. You can think of this effectively from a business perspective as a "free sale". (None of their paid advertising made me go buy the game)
Pewdiepie isn't a let's player, he either plays a game for 10 minutes, or quits his game a few parts in, he's an Ali-A he does what he wants for money, but is not a let's player. People like Chuggaaconroy is a let's player.
So he's not a let's player because he doesn't finish his games? Or he actually edits his videos to be shorter? A let's player (whether you like Pewdiepie or not.) is anyone playing a game and providing commentary as they are playing the game and it's all done by improv. Not scripting and not pre-recorded. The difference between Pewdiepie and Chuggaaconroy is that Chugga finishes his games and uploads his playthrough in its entirety and Pewdiepie usually quits the LP and plays a different game. But either way, they both still playing the game while providing commentary through improv.
***** Pewdie is a game showcase guy, he shows new releases or games that are popular, but is anything but an Lper. And... Abc Abc? Pewdiepie is becoming really stupid now, he was good starting out, I was a huge fan, but now he isn't good anymore, all of videos are boring, he either only makes sex jokes or yells. It's not funny anymore.
ImpossaGamers It's not that the games he plays were popular, but it's games no one has EVER heard of until PewDiePie played it. Take Flappy Bird, no one has even heard about it until PewDie made an LP of it.
I agreed with Rich for most of the video, until he got to the point about Story Driven let's plays. There are several reasons I think Story Driven play should be allowed with the same legality as any other Let's Play; 1. It would set a VERY slippery precedent. If the precedent is set that "Story driven games are a lawsuit/DMCA free for all", then you would see a 'strangely' growing number of games calling themselves "story driven". If a developer knows that they can use that as a loop hole to squeeze more money and burn their customers, they will take it. Once the precedent is set, it will take a lot to undo the damage. 2. The act of playing the game is still the main concept behind a game. Like Rich said, stories, graphics, etc, may all be amazing, but the point of a game is to play it. If the game mechanics are so shitty, that it actually turns people away from it, but they've already invested in the series with previous titles, money and time, then it almost seems like you're rewarding the developer for getting lazy. Why should they invest time and energy into making the game fun or enjoyable, when they know the gamers will be legally required to pay them money if they want to find out how the story they've invested in, ends. A further argument for that could be made that the person who suffered through the horrible game play to make the Let's Play has EARNED any money received. And finally, 3. If the only argument that can be made for Story Driven games, versus non-story driven, is that by "revealing the ending you are eliminating the need for the consumer to buy the game", then bloggers, Wiki's and anyone who talks about/reveals the story, should also be sued for the same reason. They too revealed the ending, and therefore eliminated the need for the consumer to waste money on a poorly made game. Like I said in reason one; Once you open a Pandora's Box, it's hard to force the lid closed again. Once you set the precedent that "if this action, in any method, is performed, then this penalty (in any quantity) can be levied", then it's hard to set the boundaries. What is "safe"? Where are the lines drawn? If you leave it up to the developers and corporate America, there won't be any lines, at least none that protect the average citizen.
*LET'S LEAVE COURTS OUT OF OUR BUSINESS !!!* Everyone by now should realize that courts bring more problems than solutions. STOP RUNNING TO COURT FOR EVERY LITTLE THING.
I've bought a few games because of Let's Plays. The only games that I have seen Let's Plays of and not bought are games I never would have bought any way. For instance, I watched the Metal Gear Rising LP by Two Best Friends Play, and it influenced my purchasing of the game. However, I also watched their Silent Hill Downpour and Silent Hill Homecoming LP's. I did not buy either of those games, however, because I never wanted to get them in the first place, and the LP's actually reinforced my position. LP's like an old pistol: it can either be very powerful, or it can blow up in your face. Good games that get LP's help spread the word of the title. Bad games that get LP's, however, are going to be exposed and people will actally avoid them. Those are just my thoughts.
What's hilarious about Let's Plays is they provide ridiculous amounts of advertising even to CRAP GAMES. Take Flappy Bird for example; if famous RUclipsrs hadn't done reviews/let's plays on it, it would literally have been ignored and lost in the sea of other subpar mobile games. Just goes to show how strong a single youtube video can really be for gaming as a whole.
Nathaniel Prince Coulter unless they are releasing half finished bug riddled crap shovelware (see what I did there, also shovel knight is farking awesome your right) and there have been more than a few "indie developers" and AAA studios alike who DMCA videos who show their product in a bad light, even if that bad light is deserved, its a business practice at that point to fleece as many people as they can before something becomes widely known as shit. I've been unfortunate enough to have purchased more than one piece of shovelware crap over the years because I read what I realized later was a "review" paid for by a publisher, let's plays and first impression videos have saved me more than once from buying absolute trash and more a few times convinced me to pick up a game I otherwise wouldn't have given the time of day such as Kerbal Space Program, Running With Rifles, Starbound, State of Decay (be honest if all you saw were screenshots in a review article you probably would have thought that game to be absolute shit) And even mount and blade warband. It was video Let's Plays and First impressions and reviews from smaller channels that convinced me to buy ALL of those games I listed, and many more besides.
If LP's were illegal, where would the line be drawn? What would happen to the legality of walkthrough's, videos showing easter eggs, and platform comparisons?
My main reason why lets play should be LEGAL: Because it for people to see if the game is worth the money or not. If I wanted to buy COD ghosts without looking up game play, I would want my money back because its shit. We would just want real footage from players just to see if I should get it or not.
+Lars Heijman And see, that is the beauty of it all! You could watch the game play and determine you loved it and wanted to try it, while he could watch the game play and realize it wasn't for him. One way or the other, it helped make your sale for the game developer, meanwhile they can't claim that it indirectly hurt them by deterring his sale since even if he did buy it and regret his, his follow up actions wouldn't benefit the company either. (Follow up actions being posting negative reviews, returning the game, selling the game thus still negating a sale for the developer, etc)
If anything should be banned its out of touch old farts having anything to do with making laws. And if someone is watching a lets play to know the stroy on a game where the story is the main selling point, they weren't going to buy it anyway.
Also the fact if they did get rid of let's plays that isn't going to stop people. I mean if you're going to try to safe guard your game against spoilers with a law then they are overlooking one major problem. Hey darkblood626, did you know the ending of Alien Isolation is.... Not like spoilers are bound to video. Long before lets plays you had text based walk throughs and can find pages explaining the plot in case you didn't understand it. All those sites are still around, heck, I use them occasionally when I want to know about a game and I am already at the store. Can read faster than watch. Spoilers: www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#newwindow=1&q=alien+isolation+ending
Rich, I nobody's going to say "well, I saw the cut-scenes, no point in the other 75% of a story based game's real purpose as a game". Story in a game does not just equate cut-scenes, but the developments themselves, regardless of interactivity. Games have always been like toy-lines. Games are like toys in that they will have backstories for the purpose of playing with them, from crafting a world to play in or interact with (including interesting characters), to extending slightly or help creating activities, goals and objectives themselves. Clue or D&D or other pen and paper games for example. There should be no difference. What about dialog sequences? Will people have to skip any dialog from an old overhead RPG game that adds anything to the storyline?
I dont do lets plays anymore...1 reason is well...everybody in there mother does them them now. Me not doing a lets play on a big game isnt making anybody miss anything. 2nd. and this is the main reason. I did use Commentary in all of my Let's plays, I even talked over the cut scenes. But *it was the music in the cutscene that i got Copyright notices for* and *its pathetic how I can even go to other RUclipsrs and they ask me how it is I got copyright at *Insert cutscene here* when they didnt* So im done with Lets plays because all RUclips does is throw copyrights at me. so now any Lets plays I do will be on Twitch under the same user name as my RUclips if anybody is interested...*Fuck you RUclips.* Im the one that puts my Hard work into editing these videos sometimes up to few hrs at a time. and you you got in issue with 30 seconds of the 3 hrs of hard work i put into making a decent video for people to watch
Which would be funny in the case of the one for my companies main game. Though it started as a public wiki (and still is), it's been long accepted by game staff as the official wiki and recently the admins and mods of it have been made company staff (if they weren't already game and/or forum staff which many were, though personally I refuse to work with a couple of them and have actively been making sure they've been kept away from my section of the company because they're useless sacks of shit).
A few thoughts : A) For larger Let's Players we get sent hundreds of games a year from developers asking us to showcase their game for the exposure. I've had developers send me thank you letters after showing their game because their sales jumped so substantially. This happens far more frequently than you would think, and suggests that a definite symbiotic relationship is developing between creators (Indie and AAA)and youtubers when it comes to marketing a game. Even larger, grumpier companies like Nintendo are starting to break down and allow monetization of their content, because it's hard to deny the benefits. They can pay huge amounts for a banner ad that everyone will ignore at the top of Gamestop.com / wherever OR they can have their game shown in a personalized sense to an audience of 15-20 thousand eyes which are expressly interested in that product simply due to the branding of the channel. (I.e. my fans like survival games. If your survival game shows up on my channel, you're getting almost perfect marketing for your game. It gets shown to people that are 100% interested in the product already and thus more likely to purchase it.) Why gamble money on a ridiculous internet ad, when you have a free option like that? The amazing thing is that there's a channel with 100,000 subs for every niche and genre too...from anime / jrpg games to flight simulations, so no matter what you can get your game to the people that want to see it by flicking out a quick email including a free key. B) A court case has never erupted because content creators and game creators are locked in a staring contest about the production of gameplay commentary videos. (I started typing this while listening because I knew it would get long winded, but you touched on it at the end. Well done.)Both sides are so afraid of losing that they'd rather just not risk it by setting a precedent. Thus, the whole thing just kinda stays in limbo without any real legal position. Powerful people with a lot of money are on both sides of the aisle thus there's really no way to guarantee your side will win if it goes to court. Activision / Microsoft etc. vs. Google and a plethora of enormous entertainment production companies / moguls who won't go down quietly. It'd be locked in litigation forever. Fair use is sketchy enough in a legal sense where neither side will risk pulling the trigger. I disagree with the video, and think that there WONT be a precedent set for a long, long time. It would pit too many huge companies with vested interest against eachother. Essentially it would be a digital corporate world war in the court system and nobody wants that. A precedent might be set, however, on accident through a distantly related case though. An interesting thing to ponder. Even if bigger companies set the precedent, it won't matter for indie channels like mine / Northernlion / Mathas etc. because we operate with the express consent of developers and often at the behest of developers. With a permission slip you can essentially do whatever you want with the in-game footage. Obviously if developers have caveats like "Don't show x scene before the release date x" we strive to adhere to those boundaries in the interest of trust / good faith but most of the time they're A-Ok with whatever, they just want people to be aware of their game. C) I agree with the section on copyright strikes being issued for negative reviews. This is a huge problem right now. I've had devs flat out cut off our working relationship over negative coverage on my channel but ultimately Que sera. I'm not going to lie to people about a bad game so they can sell copies. Devs shouldn't be allowed to wield the copyright club over negative press and don't when it comes to big guys like IGN. It's just the little guys they like to puff their chests out for because they know IGN would hit back and bury their studio. Just some thoughts. Obviously if I post a video and a developer is like "pull this or I'm going to sue you" I probably should because there's the thought they might take a shot at me legally. Still, my relationship with 99% of developers has been ridiculously smooth to the point of them essentially treating me like a member of the press. (A right which my schooling does not afford me but I appreciate nonetheless... I'm a geologist by trade, after all.) To answer your original question as to whether LP's should be illegal : I don't know. It's definitely a grey area but I don't think they're going anywhere. Even if we didn't make a living we'd still make them, at least I know I would. Entertaining and making people laugh and share a game has become an inexorable part of my life. While I'm thankful I can make a living doing it, I did it for free for a long time and would do it again as a hobby if necessary. So long as the content isn't monetized, they can't really make you take it down.
I really wish people couldn't have posted full Last of Us gameplays because that game is like a beautiful interactive film, but like so many films, once you've watched it (all the cutscenes), you don't want to do it again... :( I never bought that game because of that and I feel like I've missed out big time by ruining it for myself Certain games should have "no cutscenes allowed" labels on the box to make the companies rules clear
Making LP's illegal for story-based games is an interesting point, but how exactly does one define a "story-based" game? A game where the story is the central focus? How do you define a game where the story is the central focus? A game like Heavy Rain would probably qualify given that it's mostly story and not a whole lot of actual gameplay. What about a game like Metal Gear Solid 4? Lots of cutscenes, but can it be argued that the story is the central focus? Like you mentioned, though, a court case would probably be required to figure out something like this.
ReviewTech, I could watch your videos all day, because I don't have to see the gameplay. I listen to you while doing the Dishes, and while walking to school. Keep it up man!
"I was going to buy [insert game name], but I found a Let's Play about it, and I've already experienced the game, so there's no need to actually play it!" SAID NO ONE EVER
Let's play videos without commentary should definitely be copyright claimed and the uploader does not deserve that money. As for story driven games, I believe the developer should somehow give a warning if they don't want the cut scenes posted in Let's plays. It seems pretty fair...
The ones without commentary would only be bad if it was heavily story driven and/or Linear, because someone would be able to watch it on youtube as a free substitute for playing the game. Someone wouldn't be able to watch Titanfall or Minecraft or something that is mostly gameplay and get the same experience.
Rich, your comment regarding story-driven games, has given me the perfect opening for expressing something that I've felt is true for quite a while now; Game developers have started to put gameplay second-fiddle to marketing, visuals, and story, and I feel that this is a MISTAKE that will have far-reaching consequences, both reputation and profit-wise, for many a game creator, in the very near future, if it's not already happening right under our noses as I speak. [which I believe it is, considering the games that have failed to live up to their own hype recently] When a game's story or visuals is its biggest merit, so much so that the gameplay can easily be overlooked, that's when you'll get cases of people saying "Oh, I'll just watch it on RUclips".[or even on Shareplay/Twitch] This is especially true when a game turns out to not live up to its own over-hyped advertisements. And that's a negative for potential sales no matter how successful the games turn out in the end, because you can ALWAYS be more successful with the right battle plan.
A court case wouldn't solve anything because depending on the judge the decision could be different for the same situation. It happens all the time and that is why the judicial system is so screwed up. The only thing a court case would do is cause even more questions then answers to what is acceptable use.
The difference between the two types of games you mentioned (shovel knight vs. let's say Phoenix Wright) Shovel Knight: Watching your footage, I would've found 2+ more secrets and went back for the money. Phoenix Wright: Welp, I watched the entire game. Now I don't have to buy it. Even with something like Shovel Knight, and most platformers really, you don't always need to talk. People will do "Perfect runs" of a level with no commentary. The experience is actually beating the game yourself and improving your skills with it until you've mastered it or gotten bored. A good platformer will make you want to do that (I mean there are still Mario bros. Speedrunners for gods sake) Phoenix Wright is much easier to "Complete", because the experience is the story. You take on the character of Phoenix Wright and do a linear investigation and complete the story. The entire challenge of the game is derived from you getting the correct answer and advancing a plot by doing so. Once you get the answer, you've got the story and the experience.
As I myself have received a few copyright claims purely for in-game music, I feel that if an artist decided to work with a game developper, he should not use his already existing music as OST for that game (I will just leave the name Frank klepacki here. Westwood any one?) When an artist allows his music, be it pre-existing or new, as OST for any game, I feel that music should be under Fair Use, since any one who owns the game will have access to that music and if a person wants to make video footage of said game, he shouldn't fear the copyright system
If "story driven" let's plays are illegal, everything is illegal because of how wishy washy it is. I'd rather have no wiggle room and make everything officially legal. Besides, that whole "lost sales" thing has been a fallacy when it comes to piracy and it is one this time.
How can you seperate "story-driven" games with "non story-driven" games? There's no way to tell objectively if a game is "story-driven" or not. And the government doesn't give one shit about gaming, which I understand. They have better things to do. And could you see the government taking action when RUclips would still let bad reviews of games get taken down?
The point about the people only wanting the story and not caring about the gameplay is something that I honestly think shouldn't be used as an argument because it makes companies have to make a game with interesting gameplay along with their story.
My concern with going against glitchers is the fact that it isn't necessarily wrong if you use them. In a single player experience, what difference does it make? It's not like you affect other people's gaming experience, so as long as the game isn't completely riddled with them, what harm does it do? Hell, glitches can almost be good at times, and sometimes developers even leave them in for the sake of discovery. Just look at the speedrunning community, which would be next to gone without glitches, or just various people showcasing weird stuff they found while playing the game. Glitches can be bad, sure, but they can also be interesting and funny to watch, and I think that removing them entirely would be a bad thing. However, when it comes to multiplayer, I can see that as being a reason to hide the problems. I guess you can have groups of people who just come together and screw around, but I feel that killing that isn't too big of a cost for protecting the experience of everyone else. Then of course there is the case of glitches that are possible in both multiplayer and single player, so should those be banned as well? I guess that in the end we will just have to wait and see what happens, but it would be a real shame to see them gone entirely. I would much rather have the users in multiplayer be banned than glitches as a whole banned. Not to mention, highlighting glitches in a game is good for reviewing purposes, and corporations should not be allowed to shield their games from bad press. Consumers should be allowed to now exactly what they are getting, and the developers should tailor their games to the consumers wants, not their own.
Making Let's plays illegal won't increase sales, it'll lower them. If someone's not gonna buy a game they aren't gonna buy it. I can honestly say though Let's Plays have sold a lot of games to me. Hell watching the completionist's video on hyrule warriors had me buy an entire console. If Nintendo wasn't so crazy about their copyrights on youtube I probably would've had a Wii U years ago.
Doesn't matter if a game is story driven or not. If they is no commentary whatsoever in a walkthrough or let's play there shouldn't be a way to make money off such videos. Illegal? No, but to make money off a non commentary let's play should be.
Hate to say it but as of right now, technically RUclipsrs who play an entire game from start to finish are violating the doctrine of Fair Use. Legally Fair Use is defined as the "(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder." So unless its just snippets of gameplay like what was shown with Shovel Knight, steaming an entire piece of copyrighted material is illegal. Fair Use is only valid when they are brief excerpts only.
My opinion lets plays without ANY mic audio or music should be (if monetized) split 75% to the game publisher and 25% to the maker of it. Cut scenes cannot be changed in any way and like Rock star is doing it should be illegal to post or include unless it is very short and abruptly interfere with the video. Lets plays with mic audio or music should be 100% the makers profit if monetized.
I feel like I'm one of the only people who feels that full playthroughs and let's plays don't really count as transformative works and aren't covered by fair use. I love let's plays, but, I mean, you're playing the entire game. There's no way that's totally okay. If copyright law gets updated, well then that's a different story.
I have to say you're full of crap with that whole siding with devs for story driven games. If someone is only interested in the game for the story then chances are they're not gonna by the game in the first place. That or buy it used, either way, the devs get no money.
That doesn't make any sense, if the story is what makes the game then spoiling that story(watching it as a movie basically) spoils the game. I'm living proof of that, i watched a playthrough of The Last of US, DLC and everything. Now there's no need for me to buy the game because i already experienced the whole point of the game. Due to current technology you can now go on youtube and watch a letsplay of a story driven game. If it weren't for that, buying the game is the only way you would be able to experience it.
You're a moron if you waste 40 50 dollars on a game you don't care too much about. Who buys game's just for the story any way? Though I can see the point with VNs though.
***** Then the world is full of morons i guess. People buy new things to try them out all the time. Do you really need to ask who buys games for the story? Have you ever heard of an RPG?
***** well, yeah that's just common sense for games in general really... The point is the story is the selling point of the game, and if you can simply watch a playthrough of the game almost as if it were a movie or tv show then there's no point at all in buying the game for yourself whether you are/were interested or not. if Kingdom Hearts 3 came out today, we would start seeing episodic videos of a playthrough within hours. I like the KH series so i'm going to buy it for myself, but i could just as easily decide to save my money and watch someone else play it.
We refuse to go back into another shovelware age, where we don't even know what we're about to play before we play it and end up with some shitty Superman 64 type shit. Great point Ninja Gaiden guy.
You cover a lot of great points Rich. Even Nintendo had filed copyright claims but seem to have relaxed a bit on lets plays as they realize its practically free advertising. Hell Capcom GAVE Angry Joe a Street Fighter V trailer and logo and when Angry Joe talked about and even discussed the trailer / logo...they filed a copyright claim against him.
The problem with your idea of a court case to clarify the legality is that it would only be for the country that the case is in, they would then have to define it in other regions too and I suspect alot of EU and Australia would side with the lets players while the US would side with the publishers, if that were to happen it could get confusing real fast as publishers would only be able to issue takedowns on servers in the US but other regions they'd be told to get lost. I would prefer that the lawmakers themselves aproach this and define it after a proper investigation and get the US/EU/Aus/NZ etc all to follow similar if not the same guidelines to keep it easy for everyone (publisher and consumer alike).
So if you need a controller and keyboard to experience it, why would movies be illegal to have on youtube, because you are not expierenceing sitting in a theater or watching it on big screen, rather then crappy pixelated tiny youtube clips
3 things about the last point you made involving heavily story driven games. 1) You cannot prove that people that only wanted to know the story of the game were ever going to be a lost sale. If all they cared about was the story, there is an equal case that can be made that they never would have bought it in the first place. 2) There are other outlets to get a story from the game aside from let's play content that is perfectly legal (wikipedia has plots for almost every game and they can be quite in-depth; and gamefaq has thousands of spoiler guides). 3) Even story driven games like Telltale games require some form of input in the form of choices, otherwise they would not be games at all, and are therefore transformative since the game would not progress without input of those choices. If you want clear legal definitions like you say Rich, this is something you will also need to be aware of and fight for, as much as you might be grey about it.
If you make Illegal the Let's Plays then make movie vlogs Illegal as well all kinds of spoilers. Reading/Talking about a movie is not like watching the movie. And watching a game is not like playing the game. This goes back to the whole argument "are games art?" Well, is Mona Lisa art? Yes. Is drawing on Mona Lisa art? No. And no one should ever buy a game just for the story. Is like buying a movie only to listen to it.
To be fair ReviewTechUSA, you can "find out" a game's story anywhere, including Wikipedia. Now watching it in full HD IS different, but I'm still not totally convinced. It is a good idea (and I do this on my own channel) to avoid cutscenes. In addition to keeping the Devs happy(er), it makes it much more difficult to take down your video in the first place.
Can you imagine the fallout if Let's Plays became illegal? RUclips, Twitch, and other website traffic would decrease a hugely significant amount. People would be out of jobs as many gamer's make money off of ad revenue, and the financial situation we are in right now makes jobs hard to find. Not to mention what would happen outside of websites where Let's Plays are popular, like RUclips and Twitch. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, would be pissed. People would express disdain for days on end, signing petitions, ranting, and protesting. It also helps the software and hardware industry, as well as the gaming community as it lets people know how the game is before buying it without having the game ruined for them, as well as providing free advertising to the developers of said game and/or hardware. Also, many games like Five Nights at Freddy's, Slenderman, Goat Simulator, and Minecraft got popular through Let's Plays. It also helps ISPs as many people flock to see Let's Plays, generating traffic and consuming bandwidth. Let's Plays have become a major part of not only the RUclips, Twitch, etc. community and gaming community, but the internet and economy itself.
I have to disagree with you on one point there Rich. I show story driven games as much as anything else on my channel and I don't do commentary at all, it's still a transfomative work though since the gameplay although subtle will be different for me than anyone else. Also If someone doesn't want to play the game themselves that's on the developers head for making a game that isn't fun to play. My videos should always remain protected under fair use commentary or not, regardless of how heavy the story might be.
No just no stop this could snow ball so badly how much aor is in your head? It starts with lets play then walkthroughs, easter egg hunters, glitch finders, achievement/trophie hunters, and eventually itll come down people that display anything video game related this steps on so many toes if you want this then i am willing to bet a huge majority of your videos will taken down due to this "copyrights" claim
I am a Halo RUclipsr and there is no Microsoft Partnership program for halo. All you have to do is put a disclaimer on your video, its not a partnership program.
Let's plays are promoting the game. The same way trailers promote movies. Companies have made MORE money because of let's plays when the game is good. The only one's bitching about let's plays are the companies who want to scam people by releasing broken games like AC Unity or Day One Gary's Incident because the more people know about how shit their game is the less people will buy it. Even then, it's still Promoting the game even though it's bad promotion. There are people who will still go out & buy the bad game just because their favorite commenter is playing it & they want to have the same experience he/she is having.
You bring up the big story driven games, but what about games where your choices form the experience? People who watch my Mass Effect playthrough says that they're there to watch my Shepards story unfold and to see my reactions to certain events. Is that transformative work or do you still feel that, that is just presenting the already existing footage with little to no input?
I must say, I think this is easily one of the most comprehensive videos I've seen you do in a very long time, and it's also one of those rare instances where I agree with what you say on every point - yes, cheating glitches and no-commentary story-driven game footage do have full legitimate reasons to want to take down footage, while everyone else, including those that make a game "look bad" should be free to upload; heck, if they find bugs in Call of Duty, I know the makers of Call of Duty are hard working enough to simply FIX those problems for later.
im fed up with these big cheese comments. he paid the $200 and big cheese accepted apology. now please can we go back to the old comments where we talk about the subject. geez
If you are not going to buy the game because you saw the end of the story in a game. Then you most likely were never going to buy that game in the 1st place. I think a lot of gamers use the "ohh I saw the ending so I do not need to buy that game now" as an excuse. Companies need to look at people who complain that they saw the ending and are not going to buy that game now. As people who were never going to buy the game in the 1st place. I personally have friends that have used that excuse with me and I know they were never going to buy that game. They just say that because its an easier thing to say then to have to tell people why they don't like that game or why they were not going to buy it.
I don't think let's play should be illegal because first of all It's free advertising for the game developer like you said rich. Saving them millions of dollars And second in my opinion It helps the person watching the video decide if they want to go out and buy the game themselves
If people only care about the story and don't care about the *game* play in your video *game* then that sucks for you, you have to make a more compelling gameplay experience.
No disrespect to you Rich, but showing gameplay footage IS the backbone of what has made you popular. I'm sure you know this as you went back to it after just showing you talking for a while. People like just hearing talk about gaming while either doing other stuff or just watching footage. For the sake of this business you've started for yourself hope it doesn't have to change any time soon.
My response, Lets Plays are NOT illegal. Evidence 1: Fair Use. Evidence 2: RUclips is for everyone to share videos. Evidence 3: Even if it is owned by a company, the Lets Play video is fan made, made by fans and made for fans.
Is copyright law morally justifiable at all? It's really just a protected monopoly for those who can't complete on a fair market. The funny thing is, copyright law is closer to theft than any of its violations ever could be.
MarioFanaticXV That's an interesting way of looking at. I could understand shortening the lifespan of copyrights. Lets say two years? This is specifically to protect the new product from piracy and then would allow it to go free into the world as long as the original source was credited? Just an idea.
Garrett Moore I disagree with copyright law almost entirely, but if it was reduced to two years, I'd be at a point of "who cares, it's not important enough to worry about". I'd probably not even complain much about five years, or maybe even a decade (I'd probably still complain a bit from time to time, but wouldn't consider it worth the time to really explain my views or why I'm against it). I will, however, say that I would ardently defend it if it was reduced to simply an attribution law (as in you can copy and even resell all you want, but you can't claim to be the original creator and must cite the original creator as such). This part I'll admit that I see as a necessary law that does have an important place in society.
We have to look at the obvious danger of copyrights going away and day 1 everything just being free. If someone worked hard on something they should have the right to charge for it and copyrights allow people to do that. But i understand what youre saying
Garrett Moore Before I go further, I would like to thank you. Most people I argue with on the internet are very condescending, and the fact that you have been civil despite your disagreements is much appreciated. I doubt either of us will truly change the other's mind, but the fact you have treated me this way tells me that you are more open minded than most people on either side of the issue (or any issue, really). That being said, I do still disagree with you; art existed long before copyright did, and while there would certainly be adjustments required to make such a system work, but I do still believe it could. People would continue to support artists they enjoy. Forgive me for second guessing, but I imagine to that you'd respond something along the lines of "People aren't that generous.", to which I'd have to say, you're right. However, if people enjoy something, they generally want more of it. They will support artists they enjoy- mostly out of selfish reasons- but still supporting them nonetheless. I'll admit that I'm theorizing here, but I believe this would lead to higher quality but lesser known works receiving more cash flow than they do currently, and would have the opposite effect on more well known but lower quality works. Now I realize quality is very subjective, but how many times do you hear of a hated movie or game that still manages to rake in a huge profit? By going to a patronage-based system, this problem would likely be removed.
Well I just try to be civil to others as I would like to be treated. I appreciate you're sentiments though and I am glad you share a similar view. My biggest point of reasoning would be the explosion of the internet. Up until the 90's piracy was less of an issue because it would take a physical copy of whatever it is. Now with online downloads movies, music, and games are all put in a position where I could pick anyone of the three and acquire essentially whatever I want. While I don't believe this is a problem for anything not in circulation the biggest threat is still with current products. If I can download the newest avengers movie a week after release then why bother purchasing it at all? There will always be those who are charitable or feel morally obligated to purchase the final product but those numbers could be in an even worse position if there was little to no legal consequence for just downloading it. Again, I do believe that everything that isn't current doesn't need the protection simply do to the lack of demand and potential value the owner has in the product. But if... Lady GaGa for example, puts out a new album, she should at least be able to sleep at night knowing that her work is under legal protection while it has some sort of value in the market, after that, its fair game. Its all about security for whoever produces the work
As a lawyer I can tell you my take on it. Copyright laws are extremely outdated, they were all made to protect authors, book writers and haven't really evolved since. There has been such huge changes in technology that the laws need to be completely scraped and reformed. So why has there been no changes? Because the laws right now benefit corporations and powerful people, so there is no political pressure to do it, quite the opposite actually. Also people in politics are very old that still don't understand things like "let's plays", or how different games are to movies or books.
They use these archaic laws to twist the original meaning, they were supposed to stop people taking credit or passing off other people's books and music as their own. You know those chinese knock-off like SQNY and ZBOX controllers? Yeah, that kind of thing. Now, has it ever been illegal to read a book you own to someone else? Watch a movie with someone else? Sell the book when you're done with it? Loan it someone else and even make some money out of it (*cough* librarys *cough*) So why would let's plays be illegal? Hell, even if let's players were not being paid, what gives microsoft the right to block copyrighted content after embargo are done? I'll tell you what, licenses... Corporations want you to believe you own a license, not a product, which is why they often try to block re-sale and judges smack them on the snout because it's not a license! All of it wouldn't be a problem if we had copyright reforms...
Just look at how stupid it is to force let's players to mute external music in the game. Do you really think people are so desperate to listen to your music, which btw is 90% of the times free to listen to on youtube by your own channels, that they would resort to watching a game, complete with SFX and Ambient Sounds with the music on it? You sold your rights to the game dev, the music should be included, but because of these old laws it can be argued against it.
As a lawyer......
........Phoenix Wright?
Minato Togami
Oh hahaha!! Omg, I haven't noticed that! I played phoenix wright when I finished high-school years ago and was a bit obsessed with it. I must have put it as a profile pic years ago. wow... Can you believe it's been over a decade?
Minato Togami
DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN
Minato Togami
*HOLD IT!* I bought the Ace Attorney Trilogy this week, and I have been playing it as a madman since then. This is such a weird coincidence...
CaitSeith What's even more of a weird coincidence is this guy who played Ace Attorney years ago and ended up being a lawyer. o_o
It's like playing Street Fighter as a kid and you ended up being a Martial artist, funny right? XD
Damn it... now I want to buy Shovel Knight....
Danse Desemona worth every penny.
ReviewTechUSA hmm 3ds version or wii-u version?
***** Atari Lynx version
***** well i have to get my lynx fixed now
Danse Desemona It's on Steam too
What about big cheeses money?Should that be illegal?
sooo much buthurt xD
You forgot to say "unsubbed"
Damn right! This bitch owes big cheese $200!
Shanio unsubbed
Yeah if he has any money you should be jailed. :)
For every person that doesn't buy a game because of "Let's Plays", there are a dozen people that do buy the game. Whether they're legal or not is irrelevant. They help the software/hardware manufacturers. It's no-lose.
Some people only watch the first couple episodes of interesting titles to see if they're worth playing and get the game if it's good. That's one reason the views go down each episode for the first few.
At worst, Let's Plays or game commentary take away the surprise. At best, they are powerful free advertising for the publisher. Yeah, I know they can also get flagged by Content ID for Music (I have several matches, all from my gameplay videos), one was unfounded, from Universal, I muted the section that was likely the culprit.
Whether or not let's plays "help" is completely irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you think you can do something because its only good, what matters is if you have the "right" to do so.
Daniel W The views have to go down for each of the first few episodes. It's like let's play law. Also, not everybody is interested in every game they play. You're lucky if you get 25% of your subs to view any of your videos, especially with AAA titles.
SUP3RM3TROID The fact that it helps can sway the person with the rights to give the let's player the right to use it as well. It doesn't work in all cases but it obviously helps because let's players tend to get on board with devs often. The Creatures did a whole elaborately set up stream with Overkill, the devs of Payday.
No.
Illegal should be Downloadable Content, Activision, Electronic Arts Games and day 1 patches.
Agreed with all of this.
ssbj144 SOME DLC and day 1 DLC is a good thing (alot is a naked money grab but not all) and before you site just one thing as your credo proof on this go watch the episode on this topic from Extra Creditz. A show made and produced by game programmers who work inside the technical side of the industry, there are actually times when Day1 shit is legitimately a good thing.
TheRedneckGamer1979 Shame that the legitimate day 1 DLC is a rare thing compared to the overwhelming majority of money grabbing bullshit we deal with.
ArmouredLemming It's only money grabbing if you give them your money. Not buying is always an option, even though EA thinks it's not.
KiwiPowerNZ I'd still consider it money grabbing whether you give them your money or not much in the same way fishing is still fishing regardless of whether or not you caught something, but I do 100% agree that not buying is always an option, haven't touched an EA game since the early 2000's for that any many other reasons.
I make videos that are text book examples of fair use, yet Nintendo still tries to claim them, and if I were to refute their claims I'd automatically get a strike against my account. I've gotten millions of views advertising Nintendo games AT NO COST TO THEM, and this is how they repay me.
I think the bigger problem is that these game companies are allowed to go around flagging whatever videos they feel like without any repercussion for their actions.
Never heard of Shovelknight, but it looks quite fun. Maybe I should buy it.
^This is why let's plays are good for developers.
It's worth the money, definitely buy it.
Surprised you haven't heard about it, don't you follow the Indie scene? You should, plenty of good games ;)
it's a great game its on the 3ds/Wii U eshop as well as PC
Yeah, I saw Shovel Knight on eShop (I have neglected to make a Steam, but I hope to soon :D) and I didn't even give it a chance. Seeing it in your video and seeing the game play makes me want to buy it. It looks like it could be an enjoyable experience.
This video is not a Let's Play... just gameplay over commentary
Trust me this a fantastic game and defiantly worth your time.
From my RUclips Footage alone, many people wanted the game.
Just saying the demand was so much I have to put underlying titles on things.
Also the developer of Shovel Knight said that anyone is free to use anything in game.
You are everywhere lol
"It's a lengthy video, mine's not gonna be as long..."
His video - 13: 29
Your video - 14: 31
Activision wasn't just taking down the glitches, THEY TOOK DOWN ALL OF MY LET'S PLAYS! Each time they claimed audio visual content when I was just playing the damn game!
And commentating
ScrubFX Games
were you monetizing them?
A - Kuma
There are are hundreds of channels out there that monetize let's play videos. It shouldn't matter if he was.
MastaGambit
oh but it does, that's the center of the entire conflict lmao. Just think of it like this: you made a game, it's a hit, everyone's buying it, then a bunch of videos of your game surface, all of which are monetized, so all these people(or the one individual whichever way it goes) are making money from the product you created. The question then is, how do you deal with it? Do you just say oh well and let the people continue making money from your product, or do you intervene and either start getting a share of the profits or stop it completely?
This is how their thinking about the situation and why this conflict exists, some companies are willing to let people do this(while earning money for themselves) and get more exposure, other companies are all about their money and want profit from their product wherever it exists.
Another issue is abandonware, which the law apparently doesn't recognize yet, where you have old games made by companies who have been defunct for a long time, they're not making any more money, their copyrights are expired, and they don't legally belong to anyone anymore. The question is, do they fall into the public domain or not?
I would think if nobody picks up the IP, yes, I'd think they'd be public domain. Sometimes, companies will also release their source codes, like with Wolfenstein and Doom in 1995 and 97 respectively. Then again, most abandonware is mainly relegated to old games. I'm not sure if companies are focused on anything pre-PlayStation unless there's copyrighted songs.
I've wanted to do the original Metal Gear Solid on PlayStation, but now, I wonder if I could wind up getting in trouble from Konami. I'm not in it to monetize, though.
*****
I doubt it, if you're not monetizing it. The only problem is RUclips's copyright bots. You'll have to talk with Konami if they're ok with it but RUclips still flags it.
Gaming IS a part of RUclips.if lets plays is illegal,then RUclips is screwed.
Aging copyright laws still upheld today? Keep the fuck up with technology. Don't hold progress back by enforcing 100 year old laws meant for completely different types of products, just for your own profits' sake.
No, downloading music "illegally" isn't actually "illegal". It's just a file, a string of bits, you *cannot* prohibit the act of copying it. Hell, even a few decades back when you could record tapes (i.e. phisical products), it still wasn't illegal. Making money off someone's work, that's illegal. Getting a copied file from someone else isn't.
Want to still make money distributing music? Instead of complaining about "pirates" using today's technology the way it was meant, figure out something new, innovate. Nobody owes you money just because you can't keep up with the times.
And don't give me the "artists can't live otherwise" argument. Artists already live off live performances and other products/services that can't simply be copy-pasted on a computer. I know of no artists complaining about how "unfair" the internet is to them. If anything, it gives fresh artists a much better chance. No, the only one complaining here is the rich bastards who distribute said songs and who just want to make the kind of money they used to make before the internet, doing the same thing.
They should care about changing trends if they want to keep financially afloat, but no, it's easier to do what you're used to and ride that "legal" bandwagon.
zolikoff plenty of music and games are given away for free, some are not, if you download one that is not without paying for it and crack it you are stealing. Games (and much of the other products you are talking about) costs MILLIONS of dollars to produce, so just because the guy who made it lives comfortably means you should be allowed to download it for free? That is the arguement of a petulant child. There is only 1 legitimate reason to download a game or music product illegally, and that is if it is impossible to get where you live any other way (not siting legal precadence just an opinion) If you live in some jungle suburb of fucking cambodia and want to play a game and thats your only option most developers would be marginally ok with that. If you live in a developed nation and do it on the other hand then you are a thief or you have an entitlement issue since the person making it might make more money than you, get off your high horse and grow some ethics son.
know what I would do if someone took one of my blueprinted (and copywrited) blade or engine component designs, or patented gunsmithing techniques and downloaded it off the pirate bay and I found out about it? I would sue the shit out of them because i put months (and sometimes years) of work into producing that. WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK would give someone a right to that work without paying me, the person who created it, for the right to use that print?!
on the other hand if someone reviewed my design or made commentary on it that is perfectly fucking legal under copyright (and patent) law. every product has this, does russia sue nutnfancy for reviewing a soviet weapon, does winchester sue him because he gave a bad review to the winchester 300, does wizards of the coast sue people for explaining some mechanics of their table top games and reviewing them? NO because thats fair use, as long as you purchased or were given the product you are reviewing, otherwise your reviewing something you stole.
TheRedneckGamer1979 You obviously haven't thought the issue through fully. I encourage you to watch my playlist "Copyright Debate".
We Deserve Better you obviously didn't read everything i said
TheRedneckGamer1979 Yes I did. In my opinion, some of your underlying assumptions are simply absurd.
A let's play is just "free advertising" for a company. Just think about this now, how many times have you bought a game by watching a playthrough of it on RUclips?. For me I have bought most of my recent games by watching playthroughs first. You can think of this effectively from a business perspective as a "free sale". (None of their paid advertising made me go buy the game)
Pewdiepie isn't a let's player, he either plays a game for 10 minutes, or quits his game a few parts in, he's an Ali-A he does what he wants for money, but is not a let's player. People like Chuggaaconroy is a let's player.
So he's not a let's player because he doesn't finish his games? Or he actually edits his videos to be shorter? A let's player (whether you like Pewdiepie or not.) is anyone playing a game and providing commentary as they are playing the game and it's all done by improv. Not scripting and not pre-recorded.
The difference between Pewdiepie and Chuggaaconroy is that Chugga finishes his games and uploads his playthrough in its entirety and Pewdiepie usually quits the LP and plays a different game. But either way, they both still playing the game while providing commentary through improv.
***** Pewdie is a game showcase guy, he shows new releases or games that are popular, but is anything but an Lper. And... Abc Abc? Pewdiepie is becoming really stupid now, he was good starting out, I was a huge fan, but now he isn't good anymore, all of videos are boring, he either only makes sex jokes or yells. It's not funny anymore.
***** Okay, now I know your just a child who is trying to troll, good day sir.
***** Dude... I don't think Pewdiepie is as bad as everyone says he is... but dude. No one's perfect.
ImpossaGamers It's not that the games he plays were popular, but it's games no one has EVER heard of until PewDiePie played it. Take Flappy Bird, no one has even heard about it until PewDie made an LP of it.
Need to change that apostrophe into a quotation mark, Rich :P
Bitch, you know what should be illegal?!! Stealing Big Cheese's $200!!!
unsubbed for that reason
***** Not until big cheese gets his money back!
I agreed with Rich for most of the video, until he got to the point about Story Driven let's plays. There are several reasons I think Story Driven play should be allowed with the same legality as any other Let's Play;
1. It would set a VERY slippery precedent. If the precedent is set that "Story driven games are a lawsuit/DMCA free for all", then you would see a 'strangely' growing number of games calling themselves "story driven". If a developer knows that they can use that as a loop hole to squeeze more money and burn their customers, they will take it. Once the precedent is set, it will take a lot to undo the damage.
2. The act of playing the game is still the main concept behind a game. Like Rich said, stories, graphics, etc, may all be amazing, but the point of a game is to play it. If the game mechanics are so shitty, that it actually turns people away from it, but they've already invested in the series with previous titles, money and time, then it almost seems like you're rewarding the developer for getting lazy. Why should they invest time and energy into making the game fun or enjoyable, when they know the gamers will be legally required to pay them money if they want to find out how the story they've invested in, ends. A further argument for that could be made that the person who suffered through the horrible game play to make the Let's Play has EARNED any money received.
And finally, 3. If the only argument that can be made for Story Driven games, versus non-story driven, is that by "revealing the ending you are eliminating the need for the consumer to buy the game", then bloggers, Wiki's and anyone who talks about/reveals the story, should also be sued for the same reason. They too revealed the ending, and therefore eliminated the need for the consumer to waste money on a poorly made game. Like I said in reason one; Once you open a Pandora's Box, it's hard to force the lid closed again. Once you set the precedent that "if this action, in any method, is performed, then this penalty (in any quantity) can be levied", then it's hard to set the boundaries. What is "safe"? Where are the lines drawn? If you leave it up to the developers and corporate America, there won't be any lines, at least none that protect the average citizen.
L
We should copyright our memes...
*LET'S LEAVE COURTS OUT OF OUR BUSINESS !!!*
Everyone by now should realize that courts bring more problems than solutions.
STOP RUNNING TO COURT FOR EVERY LITTLE THING.
I've bought a few games because of Let's Plays. The only games that I have seen Let's Plays of and not bought are games I never would have bought any way. For instance, I watched the Metal Gear Rising LP by Two Best Friends Play, and it influenced my purchasing of the game. However, I also watched their Silent Hill Downpour and Silent Hill Homecoming LP's. I did not buy either of those games, however, because I never wanted to get them in the first place, and the LP's actually reinforced my position. LP's like an old pistol: it can either be very powerful, or it can blow up in your face. Good games that get LP's help spread the word of the title. Bad games that get LP's, however, are going to be exposed and people will actally avoid them. Those are just my thoughts.
What's hilarious about Let's Plays is they provide ridiculous amounts of advertising even to CRAP GAMES. Take Flappy Bird for example; if famous RUclipsrs hadn't done reviews/let's plays on it, it would literally have been ignored and lost in the sea of other subpar mobile games. Just goes to show how strong a single youtube video can really be for gaming as a whole.
Shovel knight, bought thanks to this video. Lets plays are GOOD for devs!!!!!!!!
Nathaniel Prince Coulter unless they are releasing half finished bug riddled crap shovelware (see what I did there, also shovel knight is farking awesome your right) and there have been more than a few "indie developers" and AAA studios alike who DMCA videos who show their product in a bad light, even if that bad light is deserved, its a business practice at that point to fleece as many people as they can before something becomes widely known as shit. I've been unfortunate enough to have purchased more than one piece of shovelware crap over the years because I read what I realized later was a "review" paid for by a publisher, let's plays and first impression videos have saved me more than once from buying absolute trash and more a few times convinced me to pick up a game I otherwise wouldn't have given the time of day such as Kerbal Space Program, Running With Rifles, Starbound, State of Decay (be honest if all you saw were screenshots in a review article you probably would have thought that game to be absolute shit) And even mount and blade warband. It was video Let's Plays and First impressions and reviews from smaller channels that convinced me to buy ALL of those games I listed, and many more besides.
Copyright laws can't keep up with technology, and history shows.
If LP's were illegal, where would the line be drawn? What would happen to the legality of walkthrough's, videos showing easter eggs, and platform comparisons?
My main reason why lets play should be LEGAL:
Because it for people to see if the game is worth the money or not. If I wanted to buy COD ghosts without looking up game play, I would want my money back because its shit. We would just want real footage from players just to see if I should get it or not.
+raptor4211 sorry but... i actually liked cod ghosts
+Lars Heijman me too!
Lars Heijman probably the multiplayer right?
And singleplayer
+Lars Heijman And see, that is the beauty of it all! You could watch the game play and determine you loved it and wanted to try it, while he could watch the game play and realize it wasn't for him. One way or the other, it helped make your sale for the game developer, meanwhile they can't claim that it indirectly hurt them by deterring his sale since even if he did buy it and regret his, his follow up actions wouldn't benefit the company either. (Follow up actions being posting negative reviews, returning the game, selling the game thus still negating a sale for the developer, etc)
If anything should be banned its out of touch old farts having anything to do with making laws. And if someone is watching a lets play to know the stroy on a game where the story is the main selling point, they weren't going to buy it anyway.
Also the fact if they did get rid of let's plays that isn't going to stop people. I mean if you're going to try to safe guard your game against spoilers with a law then they are overlooking one major problem. Hey darkblood626, did you know the ending of Alien Isolation is.... Not like spoilers are bound to video. Long before lets plays you had text based walk throughs and can find pages explaining the plot in case you didn't understand it. All those sites are still around, heck, I use them occasionally when I want to know about a game and I am already at the store. Can read faster than watch.
Spoilers:
www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#newwindow=1&q=alien+isolation+ending
If their problem is the fact that I'm WATCHING the game, then maybe the game companies should make something that I WATCH not play.
Rich, I nobody's going to say "well, I saw the cut-scenes, no point in the other 75% of a story based game's real purpose as a game". Story in a game does not just equate cut-scenes, but the developments themselves, regardless of interactivity.
Games have always been like toy-lines. Games are like toys in that they will have backstories for the purpose of playing with them, from crafting a world to play in or interact with (including interesting characters), to extending slightly or help creating activities, goals and objectives themselves. Clue or D&D or other pen and paper games for example.
There should be no difference. What about dialog sequences? Will people have to skip any dialog from an old overhead RPG game that adds anything to the storyline?
I dont do lets plays anymore...1 reason is well...everybody in there mother does them them now. Me not doing a lets play on a big game isnt making anybody miss anything. 2nd. and this is the main reason. I did use Commentary in all of my Let's plays, I even talked over the cut scenes. But *it was the music in the cutscene that i got Copyright notices for* and *its pathetic how I can even go to other RUclipsrs and they ask me how it is I got copyright at *Insert cutscene here* when they didnt* So im done with Lets plays because all RUclips does is throw copyrights at me. so now any Lets plays I do will be on Twitch under the same user name as my RUclips if anybody is interested...*Fuck you RUclips.* Im the one that puts my Hard work into editing these videos sometimes up to few hrs at a time. and you you got in issue with 30 seconds of the 3 hrs of hard work i put into making a decent video for people to watch
by your logic lets ban wikis.
Which would be funny in the case of the one for my companies main game.
Though it started as a public wiki (and still is), it's been long accepted by game staff as the official wiki and recently the admins and mods of it have been made company staff (if they weren't already game and/or forum staff which many were, though personally I refuse to work with a couple of them and have actively been making sure they've been kept away from my section of the company because they're useless sacks of shit).
A few thoughts :
A) For larger Let's Players we get sent hundreds of games a year from developers asking us to showcase their game for the exposure. I've had developers send me thank you letters after showing their game because their sales jumped so substantially. This happens far more frequently than you would think, and suggests that a definite symbiotic relationship is developing between creators (Indie and AAA)and youtubers when it comes to marketing a game. Even larger, grumpier companies like Nintendo are starting to break down and allow monetization of their content, because it's hard to deny the benefits.
They can pay huge amounts for a banner ad that everyone will ignore at the top of Gamestop.com / wherever OR they can have their game shown in a personalized sense to an audience of 15-20 thousand eyes which are expressly interested in that product simply due to the branding of the channel. (I.e. my fans like survival games. If your survival game shows up on my channel, you're getting almost perfect marketing for your game. It gets shown to people that are 100% interested in the product already and thus more likely to purchase it.) Why gamble money on a ridiculous internet ad, when you have a free option like that? The amazing thing is that there's a channel with 100,000 subs for every niche and genre too...from anime / jrpg games to flight simulations, so no matter what you can get your game to the people that want to see it by flicking out a quick email including a free key.
B) A court case has never erupted because content creators and game creators are locked in a staring contest about the production of gameplay commentary videos. (I started typing this while listening because I knew it would get long winded, but you touched on it at the end. Well done.)Both sides are so afraid of losing that they'd rather just not risk it by setting a precedent. Thus, the whole thing just kinda stays in limbo without any real legal position. Powerful people with a lot of money are on both sides of the aisle thus there's really no way to guarantee your side will win if it goes to court. Activision / Microsoft etc. vs. Google and a plethora of enormous entertainment production companies / moguls who won't go down quietly. It'd be locked in litigation forever. Fair use is sketchy enough in a legal sense where neither side will risk pulling the trigger. I disagree with the video, and think that there WONT be a precedent set for a long, long time. It would pit too many huge companies with vested interest against eachother. Essentially it would be a digital corporate world war in the court system and nobody wants that. A precedent might be set, however, on accident through a distantly related case though. An interesting thing to ponder.
Even if bigger companies set the precedent, it won't matter for indie channels like mine / Northernlion / Mathas etc. because we operate with the express consent of developers and often at the behest of developers. With a permission slip you can essentially do whatever you want with the in-game footage. Obviously if developers have caveats like "Don't show x scene before the release date x" we strive to adhere to those boundaries in the interest of trust / good faith but most of the time they're A-Ok with whatever, they just want people to be aware of their game.
C) I agree with the section on copyright strikes being issued for negative reviews. This is a huge problem right now. I've had devs flat out cut off our working relationship over negative coverage on my channel but ultimately Que sera. I'm not going to lie to people about a bad game so they can sell copies. Devs shouldn't be allowed to wield the copyright club over negative press and don't when it comes to big guys like IGN. It's just the little guys they like to puff their chests out for because they know IGN would hit back and bury their studio.
Just some thoughts. Obviously if I post a video and a developer is like "pull this or I'm going to sue you" I probably should because there's the thought they might take a shot at me legally. Still, my relationship with 99% of developers has been ridiculously smooth to the point of them essentially treating me like a member of the press. (A right which my schooling does not afford me but I appreciate nonetheless... I'm a geologist by trade, after all.)
To answer your original question as to whether LP's should be illegal : I don't know. It's definitely a grey area but I don't think they're going anywhere. Even if we didn't make a living we'd still make them, at least I know I would. Entertaining and making people laugh and share a game has become an inexorable part of my life. While I'm thankful I can make a living doing it, I did it for free for a long time and would do it again as a hobby if necessary. So long as the content isn't monetized, they can't really make you take it down.
Activision should take the glitches out, not ban the people showing them off. Its their fault for leaving them in.
Ikr. Sometimes in those cases I hear people say it's the players fault.
Lol, when he mentioned the story-driven part, I just thought about how Sakurai was sad that Subspace Emissary cutscenes were posted on RUclips
I really wish people couldn't have posted full Last of Us gameplays because that game is like a beautiful interactive film, but like so many films, once you've watched it (all the cutscenes), you don't want to do it again... :(
I never bought that game because of that and I feel like I've missed out big time by ruining it for myself
Certain games should have "no cutscenes allowed" labels on the box to make the companies rules clear
Under 301 club, let the BigCheese comments begin!
Making LP's illegal for story-based games is an interesting point, but how exactly does one define a "story-based" game? A game where the story is the central focus? How do you define a game where the story is the central focus? A game like Heavy Rain would probably qualify given that it's mostly story and not a whole lot of actual gameplay. What about a game like Metal Gear Solid 4? Lots of cutscenes, but can it be argued that the story is the central focus? Like you mentioned, though, a court case would probably be required to figure out something like this.
ReviewTech, I could watch your videos all day, because I don't have to see the gameplay. I listen to you while doing the Dishes, and while walking to school. Keep it up man!
I listen to him while playing vidja games
Nico
Yup, Black Ops Zombies
"I was going to buy [insert game name], but I found a Let's Play about it, and I've already experienced the game, so there's no need to actually play it!"
SAID NO ONE EVER
look at GTA 5, so many god mode and money glitches. But rockstar isn't making a court case or taking down peoples videos over it, they just patch it.
Let's play videos without commentary should definitely be copyright claimed and the uploader does not deserve that money. As for story driven games, I believe the developer should somehow give a warning if they don't want the cut scenes posted in Let's plays. It seems pretty fair...
Daniel W There would definitely have to be specifics regarding that.
The ones without commentary would only be bad if it was heavily story driven and/or Linear, because someone would be able to watch it on youtube as a free substitute for playing the game. Someone wouldn't be able to watch Titanfall or Minecraft or something that is mostly gameplay and get the same experience.
Believe it or not, there are famous RUclips gamers that don't speak at all and upload full games with ads on them.
If someone is being quiet for 90% of the video it's not a commentary tbh.
I find it funny how Rich said his video wouldn't be quite as long as the PBS one, and its like a minute longer.
Rich, your comment regarding story-driven games, has given me the perfect opening for expressing something that I've felt is true for quite a while now;
Game developers have started to put gameplay second-fiddle to marketing, visuals, and story, and I feel that this is a MISTAKE that will have far-reaching consequences, both reputation and profit-wise, for many a game creator, in the very near future, if it's not already happening right under our noses as I speak. [which I believe it is, considering the games that have failed to live up to their own hype recently]
When a game's story or visuals is its biggest merit, so much so that the gameplay can easily be overlooked, that's when you'll get cases of people saying "Oh, I'll just watch it on RUclips".[or even on Shareplay/Twitch]
This is especially true when a game turns out to not live up to its own over-hyped advertisements.
And that's a negative for potential sales no matter how successful the games turn out in the end, because you can ALWAYS be more successful with the right battle plan.
A court case wouldn't solve anything because depending on the judge the decision could be different for the same situation. It happens all the time and that is why the judicial system is so screwed up. The only thing a court case would do is cause even more questions then answers to what is acceptable use.
With the Activation thing, all I got from that was "We would rather no one know the game is broken until they give us 60 dollars for it.
The difference between the two types of games you mentioned (shovel knight vs. let's say Phoenix Wright)
Shovel Knight: Watching your footage, I would've found 2+ more secrets and went back for the money.
Phoenix Wright: Welp, I watched the entire game. Now I don't have to buy it.
Even with something like Shovel Knight, and most platformers really, you don't always need to talk. People will do "Perfect runs" of a level with no commentary. The experience is actually beating the game yourself and improving your skills with it until you've mastered it or gotten bored. A good platformer will make you want to do that (I mean there are still Mario bros. Speedrunners for gods sake)
Phoenix Wright is much easier to "Complete", because the experience is the story. You take on the character of Phoenix Wright and do a linear investigation and complete the story. The entire challenge of the game is derived from you getting the correct answer and advancing a plot by doing so. Once you get the answer, you've got the story and the experience.
Back in 2012 sega had put strikes on channels for lets playing mario and sonic's Olympic Games but it was fixed like two months later by Nintendo.
As I myself have received a few copyright claims purely for in-game music, I feel that if an artist decided to work with a game developper, he should not use his already existing music as OST for that game (I will just leave the name Frank klepacki here. Westwood any one?)
When an artist allows his music, be it pre-existing or new, as OST for any game, I feel that music should be under Fair Use, since any one who owns the game will have access to that music and if a person wants to make video footage of said game, he shouldn't fear the copyright system
If "story driven" let's plays are illegal, everything is illegal because of how wishy washy it is.
I'd rather have no wiggle room and make everything officially legal. Besides, that whole "lost sales" thing has been a fallacy when it comes to piracy and it is one this time.
How can you seperate "story-driven" games with "non story-driven" games? There's no way to tell objectively if a game is "story-driven" or not. And the government doesn't give one shit about gaming, which I understand. They have better things to do. And could you see the government taking action when RUclips would still let bad reviews of games get taken down?
The point about the people only wanting the story and not caring about the gameplay is something that I honestly think shouldn't be used as an argument because it makes companies have to make a game with interesting gameplay along with their story.
My concern with going against glitchers is the fact that it isn't necessarily wrong if you use them.
In a single player experience, what difference does it make? It's not like you affect other people's gaming experience, so as long as the game isn't completely riddled with them, what harm does it do? Hell, glitches can almost be good at times, and sometimes developers even leave them in for the sake of discovery. Just look at the speedrunning community, which would be next to gone without glitches, or just various people showcasing weird stuff they found while playing the game. Glitches can be bad, sure, but they can also be interesting and funny to watch, and I think that removing them entirely would be a bad thing.
However, when it comes to multiplayer, I can see that as being a reason to hide the problems. I guess you can have groups of people who just come together and screw around, but I feel that killing that isn't too big of a cost for protecting the experience of everyone else. Then of course there is the case of glitches that are possible in both multiplayer and single player, so should those be banned as well?
I guess that in the end we will just have to wait and see what happens, but it would be a real shame to see them gone entirely. I would much rather have the users in multiplayer be banned than glitches as a whole banned. Not to mention, highlighting glitches in a game is good for reviewing purposes, and corporations should not be allowed to shield their games from bad press. Consumers should be allowed to now exactly what they are getting, and the developers should tailor their games to the consumers wants, not their own.
Making Let's plays illegal won't increase sales, it'll lower them. If someone's not gonna buy a game they aren't gonna buy it. I can honestly say though Let's Plays have sold a lot of games to me. Hell watching the completionist's video on hyrule warriors had me buy an entire console. If Nintendo wasn't so crazy about their copyrights on youtube I probably would've had a Wii U years ago.
Doesn't matter if a game is story driven or not. If they is no commentary whatsoever in a walkthrough or let's play there shouldn't be a way to make money off such videos. Illegal? No, but to make money off a non commentary let's play should be.
Hate to say it but as of right now, technically RUclipsrs who play an entire game from start to finish are violating the doctrine of Fair Use. Legally Fair Use is defined as the "(in US copyright law) the doctrine that brief excerpts of copyright material may, under certain circumstances, be quoted verbatim for purposes such as criticism, news reporting, teaching, and research, without the need for permission from or payment to the copyright holder." So unless its just snippets of gameplay like what was shown with Shovel Knight, steaming an entire piece of copyrighted material is illegal. Fair Use is only valid when they are brief excerpts only.
Court case would be bad because there are a lot of ignorant people in charge.
My opinion lets plays without ANY mic audio or music should be (if monetized) split 75% to the game publisher and 25% to the maker of it. Cut scenes cannot be changed in any way and like Rock star is doing it should be illegal to post or include unless it is very short and abruptly interfere with the video. Lets plays with mic audio or music should be 100% the makers profit if monetized.
The minute you make let's plays "illegal", it'll then turn into video game walkthroughs with commentary...
A game is something that is to be played. Yes, LPs can spoil storylines, but the gameplay? That needs to be played, or else you've made a bad game.
You know what should be illegal? Mentioning big cheese in the comments.
I feel like I'm one of the only people who feels that full playthroughs and let's plays don't really count as transformative works and aren't covered by fair use. I love let's plays, but, I mean, you're playing the entire game. There's no way that's totally okay. If copyright law gets updated, well then that's a different story.
I have to say you're full of crap with that whole siding with devs for story driven games. If someone is only interested in the game for the story then chances are they're not gonna by the game in the first place. That or buy it used, either way, the devs get no money.
That doesn't make any sense, if the story is what makes the game then spoiling that story(watching it as a movie basically) spoils the game. I'm living proof of that, i watched a playthrough of The Last of US, DLC and everything. Now there's no need for me to buy the game because i already experienced the whole point of the game. Due to current technology you can now go on youtube and watch a letsplay of a story driven game. If it weren't for that, buying the game is the only way you would be able to experience it.
You're a moron if you waste 40 50 dollars on a game you don't care too much about. Who buys game's just for the story any way? Though I can see the point with VNs though.
*****
Then the world is full of morons i guess. People buy new things to try them out all the time. Do you really need to ask who buys games for the story? Have you ever heard of an RPG?
RPGs are all I play. And I already learned the hard way if you aren't enjoying the gameplay then it ain't worth it no matter how good the story is.
*****
well, yeah that's just common sense for games in general really... The point is the story is the selling point of the game, and if you can simply watch a playthrough of the game almost as if it were a movie or tv show then there's no point at all in buying the game for yourself whether you are/were interested or not. if Kingdom Hearts 3 came out today, we would start seeing episodic videos of a playthrough within hours. I like the KH series so i'm going to buy it for myself, but i could just as easily decide to save my money and watch someone else play it.
We refuse to go back into another shovelware age, where we don't even know what we're about to play before we play it and end up with some shitty Superman 64 type shit. Great point Ninja Gaiden guy.
Oh no, people recording games! Now they won't buy our mediocre product and we'll be forced to change or go bankrupt!!! So terrible!!!
dude without lets playes new games will not do well, i mean look at gta online without youtube it would be dead by now
The video game company Futurelab actually encourages people to do let's plays of their games
No. PewDiePie is *not* a let's player, he is someone who plays pretty much only horror games, once, he normally never plays them again.
Also showing glitches gives a higher chance of fixing it
You cover a lot of great points Rich. Even Nintendo had filed copyright claims but seem to have relaxed a bit on lets plays as they realize its practically free advertising.
Hell Capcom GAVE Angry Joe a Street Fighter V trailer and logo and when Angry Joe talked about and even discussed the trailer / logo...they filed a copyright claim against him.
You know how many games I bought from watching let's plays?
A Lot.
The problem with your idea of a court case to clarify the legality is that it would only be for the country that the case is in, they would then have to define it in other regions too and I suspect alot of EU and Australia would side with the lets players while the US would side with the publishers, if that were to happen it could get confusing real fast as publishers would only be able to issue takedowns on servers in the US but other regions they'd be told to get lost.
I would prefer that the lawmakers themselves aproach this and define it after a proper investigation and get the US/EU/Aus/NZ etc all to follow similar if not the same guidelines to keep it easy for everyone (publisher and consumer alike).
$15 for this 8-bit style game? Dude, really?
The thing is, you will know if a video will spoil the ending and it's totally up to you if you want to play it or not
Put up or shut up Rich. Sue EA, Activision or whoever if you ever get a copyright strike.
So if you need a controller and keyboard to experience it, why would movies be illegal to have on youtube, because you are not expierenceing sitting in a theater or watching it on big screen, rather then crappy pixelated tiny youtube clips
Maybe's my inner man-child, but I find the "Big Cheeze" comments highly entertaining.
3 things about the last point you made involving heavily story driven games. 1) You cannot prove that people that only wanted to know the story of the game were ever going to be a lost sale. If all they cared about was the story, there is an equal case that can be made that they never would have bought it in the first place. 2) There are other outlets to get a story from the game aside from let's play content that is perfectly legal (wikipedia has plots for almost every game and they can be quite in-depth; and gamefaq has thousands of spoiler guides). 3) Even story driven games like Telltale games require some form of input in the form of choices, otherwise they would not be games at all, and are therefore transformative since the game would not progress without input of those choices. If you want clear legal definitions like you say Rich, this is something you will also need to be aware of and fight for, as much as you might be grey about it.
If you make Illegal the Let's Plays then make movie vlogs Illegal as well all kinds of spoilers.
Reading/Talking about a movie is not like watching the movie. And watching a game is not like playing the game.
This goes back to the whole argument "are games art?" Well, is Mona Lisa art? Yes. Is drawing on Mona Lisa art? No.
And no one should ever buy a game just for the story. Is like buying a movie only to listen to it.
By the 4 minute mark, i had stopped listining and was watching shovel knight
To be fair ReviewTechUSA, you can "find out" a game's story anywhere, including Wikipedia. Now watching it in full HD IS different, but I'm still not totally convinced. It is a good idea (and I do this on my own channel) to avoid cutscenes. In addition to keeping the Devs happy(er), it makes it much more difficult to take down your video in the first place.
Can you imagine the fallout if Let's Plays became illegal? RUclips, Twitch, and other website traffic would decrease a hugely significant amount. People would be out of jobs as many gamer's make money off of ad revenue, and the financial situation we are in right now makes jobs hard to find. Not to mention what would happen outside of websites where Let's Plays are popular, like RUclips and Twitch. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, would be pissed. People would express disdain for days on end, signing petitions, ranting, and protesting. It also helps the software and hardware industry, as well as the gaming community as it lets people know how the game is before buying it without having the game ruined for them, as well as providing free advertising to the developers of said game and/or hardware. Also, many games like Five Nights at Freddy's, Slenderman, Goat Simulator, and Minecraft got popular through Let's Plays. It also helps ISPs as many people flock to see Let's Plays, generating traffic and consuming bandwidth. Let's Plays have become a major part of not only the RUclips, Twitch, etc. community and gaming community, but the internet and economy itself.
I have to disagree with you on one point there Rich. I show story driven games as much as anything else on my channel and I don't do commentary at all, it's still a transfomative work though since the gameplay although subtle will be different for me than anyone else.
Also If someone doesn't want to play the game themselves that's on the developers head for making a game that isn't fun to play. My videos should always remain protected under fair use commentary or not, regardless of how heavy the story might be.
No just no stop this could snow ball so badly how much aor is in your head? It starts with lets play then walkthroughs, easter egg hunters, glitch finders, achievement/trophie hunters, and eventually itll come down people that display anything video game related this steps on so many toes if you want this then i am willing to bet a huge majority of your videos will taken down due to this "copyrights" claim
Copyright takes the fun out of everything.
I am a Halo RUclipsr and there is no Microsoft Partnership program for halo. All you have to do is put a disclaimer on your video, its not a partnership program.
Let's plays are promoting the game. The same way trailers promote movies. Companies have made MORE money because of let's plays when the game is good.
The only one's bitching about let's plays are the companies who want to scam people by releasing broken games like AC Unity or Day One Gary's Incident because the more people know about how shit their game is the less people will buy it.
Even then, it's still Promoting the game even though it's bad promotion. There are people who will still go out & buy the bad game just because their favorite commenter is playing it & they want to have the same experience he/she is having.
Lets play should be illegal? What in the living hell is this? What a generation we are living in.
You bring up the big story driven games, but what about games where your choices form the experience? People who watch my Mass Effect playthrough says that they're there to watch my Shepards story unfold and to see my reactions to certain events. Is that transformative work or do you still feel that, that is just presenting the already existing footage with little to no input?
I must say, I think this is easily one of the most comprehensive videos I've seen you do in a very long time, and it's also one of those rare instances where I agree with what you say on every point - yes, cheating glitches and no-commentary story-driven game footage do have full legitimate reasons to want to take down footage, while everyone else, including those that make a game "look bad" should be free to upload; heck, if they find bugs in Call of Duty, I know the makers of Call of Duty are hard working enough to simply FIX those problems for later.
im fed up with these big cheese comments. he paid the $200 and big cheese accepted apology. now please can we go back to the old comments where we talk about the subject. geez
If you are not going to buy the game because you saw the end of the story in a game. Then you most likely were never going to buy that game in the 1st place. I think a lot of gamers use the "ohh I saw the ending so I do not need to buy that game now" as an excuse. Companies need to look at people who complain that they saw the ending and are not going to buy that game now. As people who were never going to buy the game in the 1st place. I personally have friends that have used that excuse with me and I know they were never going to buy that game. They just say that because its an easier thing to say then to have to tell people why they don't like that game or why they were not going to buy it.
what Activision making bad games?
it's like Activision is the LJN of the 20th century
I don't think let's play should be illegal because first of all It's free advertising for the game developer like you said rich. Saving them millions of dollars And second in my opinion It helps the person watching the video decide if they want to go out and buy the game themselves
gosh dangit, youtube should be a free expression of stuff, not controlled by jerkish corporations
If people only care about the story and don't care about the *game* play in your video *game* then that sucks for you, you have to make a more compelling gameplay experience.
No disrespect to you Rich, but showing gameplay footage IS the backbone of what has made you popular. I'm sure you know this as you went back to it after just showing you talking for a while. People like just hearing talk about gaming while either doing other stuff or just watching footage. For the sake of this business you've started for yourself hope it doesn't have to change any time soon.
This is why copyright is a flawed bull shit system. **grabs riot shield**
I have to disagree with you on this Rich.
My response, Lets Plays are NOT illegal.
Evidence 1: Fair Use.
Evidence 2: RUclips is for everyone to share videos.
Evidence 3: Even if it is owned by a company, the Lets Play video is fan made, made by fans and made for fans.
8:57 but that makes things like Wikipedia and TvTropes illegal but they spoil the fuck out of things, story-based or not.
Is copyright law morally justifiable at all? It's really just a protected monopoly for those who can't complete on a fair market. The funny thing is, copyright law is closer to theft than any of its violations ever could be.
MarioFanaticXV That's an interesting way of looking at. I could understand shortening the lifespan of copyrights. Lets say two years? This is specifically to protect the new product from piracy and then would allow it to go free into the world as long as the original source was credited?
Just an idea.
Garrett Moore
I disagree with copyright law almost entirely, but if it was reduced to two years, I'd be at a point of "who cares, it's not important enough to worry about". I'd probably not even complain much about five years, or maybe even a decade (I'd probably still complain a bit from time to time, but wouldn't consider it worth the time to really explain my views or why I'm against it).
I will, however, say that I would ardently defend it if it was reduced to simply an attribution law (as in you can copy and even resell all you want, but you can't claim to be the original creator and must cite the original creator as such). This part I'll admit that I see as a necessary law that does have an important place in society.
We have to look at the obvious danger of copyrights going away and day 1 everything just being free. If someone worked hard on something they should have the right to charge for it and copyrights allow people to do that.
But i understand what youre saying
Garrett Moore
Before I go further, I would like to thank you. Most people I argue with on the internet are very condescending, and the fact that you have been civil despite your disagreements is much appreciated. I doubt either of us will truly change the other's mind, but the fact you have treated me this way tells me that you are more open minded than most people on either side of the issue (or any issue, really).
That being said, I do still disagree with you; art existed long before copyright did, and while there would certainly be adjustments required to make such a system work, but I do still believe it could. People would continue to support artists they enjoy. Forgive me for second guessing, but I imagine to that you'd respond something along the lines of "People aren't that generous.", to which I'd have to say, you're right. However, if people enjoy something, they generally want more of it. They will support artists they enjoy- mostly out of selfish reasons- but still supporting them nonetheless.
I'll admit that I'm theorizing here, but I believe this would lead to higher quality but lesser known works receiving more cash flow than they do currently, and would have the opposite effect on more well known but lower quality works. Now I realize quality is very subjective, but how many times do you hear of a hated movie or game that still manages to rake in a huge profit? By going to a patronage-based system, this problem would likely be removed.
Well I just try to be civil to others as I would like to be treated.
I appreciate you're sentiments though and I am glad you share a similar view.
My biggest point of reasoning would be the explosion of the internet.
Up until the 90's piracy was less of an issue because it would take a physical copy of whatever it is.
Now with online downloads movies, music, and games are all put in a position where I could pick anyone of the three and acquire essentially whatever I want.
While I don't believe this is a problem for anything not in circulation the biggest threat is still with current products.
If I can download the newest avengers movie a week after release then why bother purchasing it at all?
There will always be those who are charitable or feel morally obligated to purchase the final product but those numbers could be in an even worse position if there was little to no legal consequence for just downloading it.
Again, I do believe that everything that isn't current doesn't need the protection simply do to the lack of demand and potential value the owner has in the product.
But if... Lady GaGa for example, puts out a new album, she should at least be able to sleep at night knowing that her work is under legal protection while it has some sort of value in the market, after that, its fair game.
Its all about security for whoever produces the work