|
|
Post by ShayMay on May 17, 2013 16:03:33 GMT
Continued from the Sonic: Lost World thread.Would there be no more STCO if Nintendo buy Sonic? Which they haven't.... as far as I can tell... Well, potentially, but I think we'd come under a fanwork. So long as we made no money off of it I think we'd be okay. Nintendo recently started taking the ad revenue off of Let's Players who play their games, which I disagree with. It's free advertising for them, and while the ad revenue would be negligible for such a large company, it's not for a single individual. If they did turn their eye on STC-O, I hope they'd just ask us to put up ads for them, which I think we'd be happy to do. Just changing the title so folks don't get confused which one to talk Sonic in! - Mambo |
|
|
|
Post by Badly-Drawn Manchild on May 17, 2013 16:05:55 GMT
It's free advertising for them, Uh, it still is, because they're not actually taking the videos down (unlike Sega, who were notorious for it at one point). Where people come to this conclusion is utterly beyond me. |
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on May 17, 2013 16:09:41 GMT
Uh, it still is, because they're not actually taking the videos down (unlike Sega, who were notorious for it at one point). Where people come to this conclusion is utterly beyond me. Well... yeah, I never said it ceased being free advertising for them. But now they're putting their own adverts before the free advertising anyway and screwing the people who are doing the free advertising out of any sort of compensation. I can see where that would come from, really, as it's easy to think that watching someone else play a game would satisfy. But it's the opposite for me, usually: when I get into a Let's Play I generally end up wanting to play the game myself. I bought F-Zero GX, Wario Land 3, and countless others through Let's Plays. |
|
|
|
Post by Badly-Drawn Manchild on May 17, 2013 16:17:32 GMT
But now they're putting their own adverts before the free advertising anyway and screwing the people who are doing the free advertising out of any sort of compensation. This is something I've gone into at length elsewhere and have no intention of doing in this particular topic, but how are the makers of Let's Plays entitled to the revenue if they didn't seek out the permission of the copyright holders to put the entirety of a game's content online and make a profit off it (key phrase being "making a profit" here; Nintendo aren't targetting people who make Let's Plays and don't get paid for it)? They don't fit the criteria that ensures they would be protected by Fair Use. |
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on May 17, 2013 16:25:36 GMT
Shall we start a new one? I think we shall. Boop.
I see what you mean, and they're well within their rights to do so, but I think it's a poor show of faith. Watching someone play a game and have fun with it only makes people want to play the game themselves, in my experience. There was a synergy there: Nintendo made the product, got free advertising from Let's Players who were passionate about said product, and the Let's Player got some dosh from YouTube's adverts. It's win-win all around.
Boiling it down, Nintendo are now making a product and then forcing people to pay them to advertise said product, and I think that's backwards. Furthermore, the amount they will gain will be absolutely negligible to a huge company, but could be crucial to a single individual.
Again, they're well within their rights, but I think it is a bit stingy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryan James on May 17, 2013 16:25:44 GMT
(key phrase being "making a profit" here; Nintendo aren't targetting people who make Let's Plays and don't get paid for it)?. They are, it's just that the people who don't get paid for it don't really care that Nintendo's collecting ad revenue from their videos because they're not losing money and content ID matches don't affect channel standings. |
|
|
|
Post by Badly-Drawn Manchild on May 17, 2013 16:31:46 GMT
Boiling it down, Nintendo are now making a product and then forcing people to pay them to advertise said product, and I think that's backwards. Nintendo are forcing people to pay them? Now that's simply not true (certainly not in the way you make it sound like); the only thing the LPer is losing is the advertising revenue. They don't pay Nintendo just for the privilege of posting a Let's Play online. Unless the LPer actually intends to go to the trouble of negotiating a revenue split with the copyright holders, they don't have to pay Nintendo squat. |
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on May 17, 2013 16:37:36 GMT
Well... yes, they are forcing them. Nintendo have commandeered all of their previous videos involving their games and have changed it so it makes money for them rather than the person making the video. A lot of Let's Players make their living from their advertising revenue: their living has been taken from them. Here's an article basically summing it up in more comprehensive terms.To use a good example: The Binding of Isaac would never have even begun to resemble a success were it nor for Let's Players. Nintendo, while doing something that's well within their rights, have effectively demonstrated that they don't trust their fans at all, and have taken their toys and gone home. Had Valve or Ed McMillen done what Nintendo are doing, I think they would have lost support both financially and morally. |
|
|
|
Post by Badly-Drawn Manchild on May 17, 2013 16:46:20 GMT
Well... yes, they are forcing them. Nintendo have commandeered all of their previous videos involving their games and have changed it so it makes money for them rather than the person making the video. A lot of Let's Players make their living from their advertising revenue: their living has been taken from them. It was their decision to upload the game footage. They had to have known this may happen and that they were in legal murky water. If their entire income was so dependent on them posting up huge chunks of a game's content online and making a profit of it, without contacting the copyright holders and in a manner that protected them under Fair Use - in other words an insecure job made even worse by questionable legality - then they haven't got the brains they were born with. If they want to keep making money off of LPs, they should either negotiate with the copyright holders over a revenue split (and even then Nintendo would still be claiming the lion's share), try to get involved with a company such as Machinima who already have the necessary rights, or just avoid those games altogether. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand why gamers have this sense of entitlement, thinking they can make money off of someone else's content without notifying the copyright holders. Imagine if we had "Let's Watch", where people post up whole movies, add their own commentary and stick it up to make a profit. There would be lawsuits up the arse. Yeah, in terms of PR it's probably not doing them any favours, but there are far, FAR worse examples of copyright law gone mad that people seem to have conveniently forgotten. At least Nintendo aren't getting people banned or suing them over this. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan James on May 17, 2013 16:52:47 GMT
A lot of Let's Players make their living from their advertising revenue: their living has been taken from them. Making a living from Youtube videos is an insecure job choice in general, but making a living from let's plays is an insecure job choice built on questionable legality. These people should know that their entire accounts could be terminated without a moment's notice and it's be within the rights of game companies to make it happen. If they aren't prepared for that then they really need to reconsider their career situation. |
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on May 17, 2013 17:00:22 GMT
No, I don't defend or endorse having Let's Plays as your only source of income. And like I say, Nintendo are absolutely within their rights to do this!
What I am saying is, that it is a POOR SHOW OF FAITH on Nintendo's part. That's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Badly-Drawn Manchild on May 17, 2013 17:05:44 GMT
No, I don't defend or endorse having Let's Plays as your only source of income. And like I say, Nintendo are absolutely within their rights to do this! What I am saying is, that it is a POOR SHOW OF FAITH on Nintendo's part. That's all. Even that, I think, is debatable. Take for example the band Pearl Jam; they encourage people to film their concerts, and have even been known to host fan bootlegs of those concerts online. The only thing they're not cool with is people selling those bootlegs. They've earned a lot of respect for that practice. What Nintendo is doing sounds similar to me, but why are Nintendo getting demonised for it? |
|
|
|
Post by Mambo's Here! Look Busy! on May 17, 2013 17:06:14 GMT
Sometimes I wonder what people like Game Grumps, the Great Clement or SomecallmeJohnny must actually do!  I mean, I think most of them are around my age or older, so they must have like, jobs or something... Anyways I get that it's using game footage so it's someone else's content, but surely the original stuff these people do with the videos is enough content to grant them Fair Use? I'm not sure where I stand on them making money, seeing as YouTube has it's roots in people just uploading videos of themselves doing stuff... and that these big companies are getting interest from people who might have seen the odd Let's Play. (Heck I could partially blame Clement's LPs for my own return to playing Sonic games... that and Sega marketing the hell out of nostalgia, of course!) |
|
|
|
Post by Badly-Drawn Manchild on May 17, 2013 17:10:50 GMT
Anyways I get that it's using game footage so it's someone else's content, but surely the original stuff these people do with the videos is enough content to grant them Fair Use? Fair Use only counts if the amount of copyrighted material used falls within a certain limit, and is juxtaposed with entirely original content, usually for the sake of parody or review, thus creating something that's pretty much its own entity. With the way Let's Plays are structured - the entire game is uploaded online, with the story, art, sound, etc. posted verbatim - they're not protected. People may come for the commentary, but that doesn't change the fact that the vast, VAST majority of the overall content doesn't belong to the LPer. |
|
|
|
Post by ShayMay on May 17, 2013 17:41:07 GMT
Even that, I think, is debatable. Take for example the band Pearl Jam; they encourage people to film their concerts, and have even been known to host fan bootlegs of those concerts online. The only thing they're not cool with is people selling those bootlegs. They've earned a lot of respect for that practice. What Nintendo is doing sounds similar to me, but why are Nintendo getting demonised for it? If Pearl Jam release a 'Live' DVD, their sales could conceivably be hurt by a bootleg, as people will buy the cheaper/free version. If Nintendo release a game and people see other people playing it, those people will probably be more incentivised to pick it up! You don't get a kick out of watching games, but playing them! You can't apply the same rules that movies have to an interactive medium! I think that's the heart of the matter. Gaming needs to be judged on a whole new set of standards to films or music. It's like mods: a thriving modding community, encouraged by the developers, can breathe new life into a game, as well as boost sales. Even if the developers have done most of the work, success of these mods is both embraced and encouraged (look at Team Fortress 2, Counter-Strike, etc.) Similarly, a successful LPers' word can boost the sales of a game on the spot, and if Nintendo basically say "you're paying us to endorse our product", the LPer is going to stop endorsing them. Yes, it's well within Nintendo's rights to do this. But it would also have been really awesome of them to NOT do this, a real testament to their faith in their fans. I don't intend to demonise them, as I can see why, from a marketing perspective, this would be flimsy. I certainly don't think the LPers ought to feel entitled to this. But I think that Nintendo would benefit from co-existing with these people the way it was. They're not biting the hand that feeds, but they're giving it a bit of a nip. |
|
|
|
Post by Badly-Drawn Manchild on May 17, 2013 18:20:24 GMT
If Nintendo release a game and people see other people playing it, those people will probably be more incentivised to pick it up! You don't get a kick out of watching games, but playing them! Oftentimes though the exact opposite turns out to be the case. For instance, many, MANY people have openly admitted to not buying Telltale's Walking Dead games because they opted to watch a Let's Play instead. If you're just gonna watch the whole game be played online then what's the point of buying it? All the content's been laid out for you. Clearly Nintendo are looking at this from a "glass is half-empty" perspective; they may be concerned that Let's Plays are driving people away from their games, as what would be the point of buying even a good game to play it if you can just watch it online? Let's Plays can be just as responsible for loss of sales as they can be for gaining sales (but surely that's what reviews are for anyway?). Surely if that's the case they're entitled to some form of compensation? This isn't a perfect world we live in (if it was then there would be some kind of revenue split between developers and LPers), and clearly Nintendo have shown that they don't have much faith in the idea of people still buying their games to experience it for themselves after watching a Let's Play. It sucks, sure, but what they chose to do about it could have been a hell of a lot worse. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex on May 18, 2013 10:50:22 GMT
Ok. Let's get a few things straight here. Firstly, why are people going on about this like Nintendo's twisted Youtube's arm and laid down the law? Youtube offers a total of two options for content owners to handle copyright infringements: DMCA takedowns or this, blocking the uploader from making money off the infringing videos (and in turn return the profits to the owners of said content, should any arise). The second option is what has kept music videos on Youtube for a long while now, and is, all around, a very sensible compromise that acknowledges that such content being shared is an inevitable process of today's media, while preventing anyone from making money off the content owner's trademarks - which is something that they cannot allow if they're demonstrably aware of it, as it's enough for a court to rule that they no longer have control of said trademarks. In America, there exists a Fair Use policy, which essentially allows fan works to exist - but let's not jade ourselves that all 'fan works' are created equally. For most of the time, there's a significant creative process to go through that creates something new with the trademark in question. For the majority of Let's Play videos, that 'significant process' is just recording themselves playing a videogame and prattling over it. In 99% of cases, the videos are not even edited, they're simply one long video detailing the entire game from start to finish (and this is the important bit) - save for breaking it up into further monetised videos, of course. This ad function will only apply to videos of a certain length (I've seen indications that it only applies to videos above 10 minutes long) and only applies to unedited videos depicting longform gameplay. The reason for that last point is crushingly simple. It's in Youtube's terms and conditions: support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=138161The LP videos are infringing on Nintendo's copyright, in the exact same way as simply uploading a music video or tv show episode is, and break Youtube's own guidelines for monetisation. At the end of the day, they're simply not entitled to profit from those videos, and so, now they shall not. They can still make the videos, hell Nintendo wants them to make more videos - which is the opposite of what most other companies are doing to protect their trademarks from LPs, as they've gone down the simple DMCA route. AND, if you want to continue doing videos about Nintendo games AND make money on it, YOU CAN. You just have to follow the rules and the letter of the law. See the Two Best Friends Play videos on Machinima for example. They're heavily edited, under the 10 minute mark and feature a lot of new creative work gone into them. As for the rebuttals that LPs are free advertising; that Nintendo should be glad someone's doing it for them, those are all just anecdotal. There's absolutely no proof that these videos lead directly to people buying the games, just as there's no proof in a similar anecdotal statement that there are an equal amount of people out there that don't buy the game because they watched it all on Youtube. It's a non-point that plays little in the consideration of Nintendo or Youtube to go down this route. Especially since Nintendo are still very happy for said videos to be made and to exist. In no way is the statement "Because of my video, you got X amount of new sales, thus I'm entitled to Y amount of money for uploading it" valid - or even possible. All that is happening here is that people that were making money from talking over someone else's content for extended periods of time no longer can in this specific instance. There's no bad guy here, there's no "lack of good faith" (as I said, Nintendo has little choice but to protect its trademarks or they could be ruled against should a relevant case come to court), there are only people seeking an easy profit and that door being shut to them. And, finally, if you build a career out of just talking over video games and uploading them to Youtube, I think you need to reassess your life, my friend. At the end of the day, there is nothing that entitles them to money for those videos, and a tonne of plain evidence to show why they're actively not. They should be happy their "creative endeavours" are preserved to begin with and that they can continue to make them - but the fact is, all they're kicking off about is the money, so it's pretty clear where they stand to begin with. |
|
|
|
Post by Xavious on Jun 2, 2013 9:18:49 GMT
Alex sums this topic up so well that it hurts. I sometimes wish you could like posts on here.
The moment Nintendo stops non-profit creative freedom then my stance instantly changes. As it stands Let's Playing has been turned from the fun hobby it once was into a cheap money-making venture because of ad revenue and gamers have become, I hate to use this word, entitled because in the past companies didn't notice or care, but now that their IP's are being used to make other people money they've begun to notice and do care. Let's Playing was always a murky and uncertain area and people have become complacent and made their fans accept their complacency as fact.
(Can posts/topics be linked off-site to non-members? I'd like to potentially redirect people to Alex's post when this topic comes up).
|
|
|
|
Post by Mambo's Here! Look Busy! on Jun 2, 2013 16:36:18 GMT
Arcade Zone should be one of the forums that Guests can view.
|
|
Would there be no more STCO if Nintendo buy Sonic? Which they haven't.... as far as I can tell...
I mean, I think most of them are around my age or older, so they must have like, jobs or something... 
