The end of Videogames on Youtube is upon us (2014)

Except 60% of youtubes top channels are fucking game related

Never going to happen.

This seems like it would be a policy in keeping with traditional publishing rights. In terms of fair use, you are generally afforded the option to use small portions and pieces as required to show something. But 15-30 hours of straight playthrough of a single player game probably does not quality.

Kind of a crummy outcome, but the major companies do seem happy to permit live-streaming. I'm not sure there is enough data to definitively answer whether permitting long form archiving of Let's Play type videos causes damage or helps long term sales. For a decent number of games, where story can be the main draw for all or part of the audience, it is pretty close to identical to allowing a full movie to be up-loaded to youtube with commentary.

Because one is sustainable and one isn't? Sounds more like YouTubers should actually turn their "fame" into a real business and host their own site. Make up for the money they will soon be missing and use YouTube to attract traffic to the spot that will actually make them money. If they really can make that much money from YouTube, they can make even more doing it themselves.

For some reason, I am getting the notion that I am supposed to feel bad for these people. This has to be an age thing because I honestly do not understand the big fuss from so many people unless they too are trying to strike it rich in what sounds like a saturated medium.

What in the fuck is with the hate in here? People managed to make a living off of youtube, how is that a bad thing? It's creative if anything. And yes, it's not sustainable or safe, but that is one of the risks you take with a job like that and it's their decision, that doesn't affect any of you now, does it?. And as for getting a "real" job, it's not like the job market is in DIRE need of more people, II'd even go as far as to say it needs less people to make room for us poor students struggling to get a foot in.... If anything more avenues to make a living, temporary or not, is a good thing.

If he's half-smart (which I'm inclined to assume that he is given how he gamed Youtube's metrics to his advantage), he hasn't burned through that cash like an ex-NFL player in a strip club and has been making his money through investments.

And I don't think anyone feels sorry for these Let's Players. What people are getting fussy about is that game publishers are clearly trying to control how their game is perceived by locking down any video of their games. The possibility that someone can upload a video of their product and criticize it is a potential PR nightmare, so they want to shut down as much as they can.

Why is this any different than someone using a licensed music track in a video without permission? Or even a clip from a TV show?

It's not. Who other than music labels thinks taking down user-created videos simply because a licensed song is used in the background is a good idea?

I'm honestly just sensing a lot of jealousy from people in here over these guys that are making legit "quit your day job money" by simply uploading YouTube videos. Hell man, if I thought I could do this I would be on it in a heartbeat. And as irritating as guys like Pewdiepie are some of the more famous ones like Pewdie have been using their pseudo celebrity to actually help promote charities and such. I don't see how that is bad.

Probably anyone who makes content that would like to be paid for their work if it gets used in something that someone else is making money off of. Sound familiar? If they don't give permission saying it's OK, then the decision should be respected.

People value unanimous agreement with their tastes above all else.

Then we're back to the argument of whether someone sitting down and playing the game is considered the publisher's content. Music artists only have control over their songs in their exact creation. Remix the song and they have no ground to claim copyright action.

Some Youtuber playing a game is not the same as the game itself. It's not the same as doing commentary on a TV show/movie. The latter is another creator's work in its entire, original form with additional content thrown on top of it. The former is an individual experience that the player is having with the game. The way I play a game is different from how PewDiePie plays because I don't act like an idiot.

And c'mon, let's be real. Rarely is it the developer's decision to block youtubers from playing their games. It's the publishers who seek to make money off of other people's work.

That's complete bullshit. Just look at all of the lawsuits over the years because part of one song was used in another by a different artist. I'd like to continue this conversation, but I have work in the morning.

How ironic, considering that the LP'ers are making money off of others' work. Video games can exist on their own without Let's Plays. Could the YouTubers exist without video games that companies spent millions of dollars to produce? Of course not.

Regardless of any other argument, these people are using a product that they don't have any rights to in order to make money for themselves. Of course it was only a matter of time before the owners of the material stepped in and put a stop to it. Cases like Giant Bomb are completely different - permission is received from developers or publishers in order to do things like Quick Looks or Endurance Runs, and sometimes restrictions are tacked on to that permission in the form of restricting levels or limiting the QL's to a certain length.

Again you look at this and see only what the most narrow minded of company lawyers would see "THESE PEOPLE ARE MAKING MONEY OFF OUR GAME!"

These youtube personalities are exactly that, a personality with a cult around it and that's why people watch them, not the games. If it were truly about just watching a specific game then noone would have a problem with pewdipie when he's playing a game they adore, it's his whole shtick that people want to see. Fans find a personality they enjoy and then they watch them whatever they should chose to play.

The question of "why do they need a game?" is stupid, no offense but that's just mind bogglingly dumb... Would you ask a political satirist why he needs politics to comment upon? They aren't just magically entertaining sitting in a dark room looking at a camera, they are playing a game and it's their experience playing the game that people are there to see (not simply the game but this person who they enjoy's experience of it).

Tell you what, you certainly don't seem to understand this whole thing so I'll make you a bet. You upload a video of 10 minute stints of you playing a game in complete silence. Someone else will upload videos playing the same game but will talk whilst playing, telling people what they think about the game and what's happening and filling slow spots in the gameplay with amusing stories that play to their audiences tastes. Then see which ones garner more attention. I guarantee the video with a personality over it will be far and away the better recieved. I'd hazard a guess that there's noone doing a good job of monetizing a video of just games with no personality over it.

These people have created a brand in their personality and have some have done so well with it that they're close to household names now. If you ever were in a position where you had cultivated a loyal fanbase of thousand to millions through the power of personality whilst playing a videogame then didn't find a way to make money from it then you'd be the most short sighted and stupid of individuals. They aren't stealing money from the developers, it's money that was never going to frigging go to the developers in the first place! If they weren't doing something right to bring in these audiences then how the hell would they be making all this ad money in the first place? and if it is just the game they're playing then why the hell isn't the developer just putting bare gameplay videos up and making all the ad money!?

All i need is Giantbomb Quick Looks.

What?? Have you seen the near-infinite amount of remixes posted on Youtube? Hell, I know that both Matt Zo and Avicii (DJs/producers) had their exact instrumentals taken by Will.I.Am and Leona Lewis. In both instances did they have no legal recourse to stop them.

The claim that LP'ers are making money off of their own products is used so publishers can construct the larger argument that they have the right to take down those videos (hence my earlier comment on what the actual intentions are). They're latching on to legal precedence set with music and film to gain the same rights.

Also, I wasn't aware that GB had to check with publishers in order to show off games. I assumed that they had to do that for unreleased games (given how they are always under NDA), but once a game is out anything is allowed to be shown. Any "permission" at that point is purely to be in good standing with publishers.

True, but also these people are also exposing these companies products to thousands of people for free. And this exposure costs them absolutely nothing. I know for a fact that some of the final pushes I needed to buy a game was seeing a quick look of it. I'm sure guys like Pewdiepie are selling copies of games to people.

That's just insultingly reductive, they're making money from people buying into their cult of personality. They happen to be playing videogames and their fanbase request games they enjoy / hate because they'd like to see their favourite youtuber's experience compared to their own.

It was only a matter of time because the companies lawyers don't see how many copies of Amnesia were bought by pewdipie fans (I know of people who bought it and haven't played it just because they like his videos), how many copies of games the two best friend's played were sold through the exposure that they gave (I bought 6 seperate games after their videos). Yes they did nothing to create the game but there's no real easy option for a starting youtuber to approach a company and tell them that they'd be interested in playing their game on their channel because the companies won't pay attention to this grass roots approach to displaying their game until the person asking is of pewdipie like stature. If the companies just realise there was a way they could cultivate this phenomenon and get the exposure they're already recieving AND get a cut of the money that I'm sure they say is deserved then everyone would be happy.

I did nothing in the production of the canvas, the paints or the scene I'm rendering. If someone enjoys what I do to bring those together in a final piece does that make the final piece any less my own?

This "rumor" seem pretty probable to me. There's nothing extraordinary in the text at all. The fact that most game companies allow video footage but no monetization, unless you're affiliated to an organizition, must've been true for years. It sounds like a pretty standard copyright stance.

So now, when Let's Plays are more popular than ever, they demand better enforcement from Youtube. No surprise there.

The thing is, I don't think it will change things that much. The more popular Youtubers will get enough permissions to continue as usual. A lot of the lesser known Youtubers will probably go away. Which sucks for them of course, but, maybe less Let's Plays is a good thing.

You're arguments aren't helping you. LP's and similar content are covered under Derivative work laws - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_work

In copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major, copyright-protected elements of an original, previously created first work (the underlying work). The derivative work become a second, separate work independent in form from the first. The transformation, modification or adaption of the work must be substantial and bear its author's personality to be original and thus protected by copyright.

EDIT: My point here is that you will not win hearts and minds approaching this discussion as you have ;)

@freshbandito: Comparing paint and canvas to a finished product like a video game is not an effective analogy...in any way, really. A better analogy would be taking a copy of an artist's painting and then getting paid to talk about it as it hangs in your own gallery, with none of those proceeds going back to the artist. Does that sound reasonable to you?

I'm not arguing the analogy for the sake of where money should be going, I'm trying to get across how these people use many elements, one of them being a game that they had no hand in making, to create their own content.

Also in your analogy my piece would probably be bought at a one time price (like the £40 of a game) then the owner would have the right to display it at his whim and do what he wants, I don't have the benefit of a cadre of lawyers ready to swoop down and demand royalties because someone found another way to make money with it. So that analogy is also full of holes if either of us try to use it in regards to where the money should go.

And still noone here gives a good reason as to why developers shouldn't be embracing this huge free market of an audience and finding a way to still get theirs instead of trying to stamp it out with a jackbooted heel.

I would argue that the analogy to LPers would be inaccurate as in no point during a LP video do I either in the possession of the game nor am I playing the game.

The idea of uninhibited usage and access is perplexing. Acquiring permission and paying for it is not a new concept, just look at books/ebooks, academic journals and such. It just seems video games are the next industry. Why not get information, reviews, videos and such from legitimate sites, e.g. GiantBomb, instead of Youtube? I don't think it's wrong for a company to want to prevent the usage of their material when someone has the potential to make a profit off of it. Yes, it will make things inconvenient for people but does that make it wrong?

My guess is that @tycobb's argument would be that simply playing/talking over a game is not substantial enough to be considered the second author's work. Although people who view these LP views clearly have preferences for who is playing and thus there is enough modification to bear the second author's personality.

Although at that point I'm just putting words into @tycobb's mouth and thus continuing the conversation on my own.

@freshbandito: It's not "many" elements though - is it? The primary element of their business is a product that someone else created, that is the crux of this whole argument. If these guys weren't playing popular games, their viewership would be next to nothing.

I think you would have a reeeaaaal hard time convincing a court most LP's were sufficiently transformative to be consindered a derivative work. MST3K and Rifftrax and things of similar format were not transformative enough to be considered a derivative work, and thereby only the most extreme cases of lets plays would have a shot. Also, your a little off about "exact creation" for music, as well. You have to significantly alter the song to have a remix protected. Finally, forget transformative. Given that most LP's are simply commentary you may even h ave a hard time convincing a judge they hit the "creative" requirement as well, as I don't think most straight commentary would qualify.

Other guy was more right.

@mb: No, I'd argue fervently that the primary element is the person and never the game in the case of the youtubers who are pulling in the numbers, whilst reading this thread and deciding to see what Pewdipie does (good god is he not aiming at people like me for his audience) I found videos of him playing some of the most obscure games and plenty of footage of him playing free browser games that have hundreds of thousands of views.

Again it's the personality that people are there to see, they're there to see their favourite personality playing games and if there was an easy recourse for these personalities to get premission then I'm sure most would to legitimize the fact that they've made themselves into a money maker through people liking their shenanigans. I sure as hell would prefer hearing about a game through one of these unique personalities (much like jeff, vinny, brad etc.) than through some dry husk of a media representative employed by the publisher/developer so again I ask; Why are the companies not approaching this social phenomenon with a savvy mind and using it to their advantage?

I won't say they have a legal right to do what they do (the law is very much on the side of the original creators and should be) I'm asking (repeatedly now) for an answer as to why people are trying to stamp it out using draconian proceedings instead of turning it into something advantageous to everyone involved and then why some people here are so supportive of this huge modern gaming culture touchstone being torn down just because "fuck pewdipie! he does not appeal to me so it should all be written off to spite this man I don't personally know!"

I don't know how it is for other people and I respect their opinions and everything, but to me personally, gaming journalism and websites, including giant bomb, as well as youtube commentators and personalities, are all unnecessary.

The only thing I need to see in order to decide whether a game's gameplay will entertain and engage me, is some gameplay videos. A part of the millions of players around the world have the spare time and drive to record some gameplay and post it online for free, as a hobby or a leisure time activity, not a job. All I need to do is watch it, and I'll get a pretty good idea of whether I will enjoy that interactive experience or not.

I do not see the need for monetization. TotalBiscuit can get a real job like you and me, and upload some gameplay videos in his spare time. It should be a hobby (recording some game footage) based on a hobby (video games). It doesn't need to be a job.

If anything, the excessive coverage of video games and the following "discussions" and podcasts only made gaming gross to me. People talking about "mature" games, focusing too much on story and forgetting the interactive aspect, etc. Trying to pretend this is Hollywood and shit.

To me, a world where people find real jobs and do some hobby-esque game coverage and walkthrough videos, is the best world for video games. All the other jazz is not needed and has not benefited us in any way.

That's interesting. I doubt the sources' credibility but it would be a bit of a downer if it turned out to be true. Although, that would have to imply a huge change in Youtube's infrastructure if every video had to be checked before it was uploaded, considering they do the exact opposite currently.

It's funny to see how this LP thing has blossomed into a horrible glory where people have intense opinions for or against it. It's almost like the debate over seeing a play or ballet live versus watching a recording at home.

This thread is going places!

Hey, me and a couple of guys on GAF are gonna start our own YouTube network just for poors.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=730378&page=11

I'm pretty sure in the article posted by the OP, it implies that the Bigger LPs like Two Best Friends & yogcast will stay because they are part of larger networks. It'll be the hypothetical "I played sonic 06 for 12 hours on a wet weekend with my college friends, uploaded it so now I get a few hundred subs and and some loose change out of it." Guys who will miss out mainly.

Not necessarily. In the case of a game providing original critical commentary over a exhibition of the title is extremely transformative when taking into account it's original intent (a piece of interactive entertainment). In this instance the new original derivative content is an entirely different format/medium to the first work.

@demoskinos: I agree of course, however if every major company is going to adopt a similar stance around the board, no one is going to stand out in particular. So the bad PR will be centered around the industry rather than a singular company.

NakaTeleeli, Lancun, ProtonJon and Pawnce are fantastic people who make (most of) their living off Youtube. I would 100% feel bad if they lost that money.

@korwin: Commentary is different from creative works by law. Commentary has to go through Fair Use, not derivative works. Derivative works have to be inherently creative in the artistic sense, things like LP's wouldn't be considered that legally.. Precedent in Fair Use law is pretty arrayed against Let's Plays as well because they use the whole extensive work instead of clips. Some of them that only show highlights, and whose purpose is primarily educational or critical, might be able to make it.

"Hey I'm paid!, I'm not so paid!, and we're the jobless!"

I am amazed how many people think this stuff is hard. Putting a small window you captured with a web cam overlayed onto a game capture and cutting it into 15-30 minutes chunks (which they do to increase hits not because they need to or it is easier) is stupidly simple. I could cut that video myself in less than .... 10 minutes. These "intros" some of them do? Yeah they can take a few hours... but you do it once and you never need to do it again you just drop at the front of every video. These people aren't professional comedians. You put any youtuber LP'er on a stage and have him do stand up and all he is going to get is a ton of stares from people thinking they are an idiot.

There are people out there who make money on youtube and are talented people who put in hard work. None of those people happen to be Let's Players.

Most of the bigger ones actually have these restrictions as well. For example they get permission to stream something early and give people a first look and they are taking a 30-40 cut from their income to be able to stream all these things. The bigger channels are really not that much different from Giantbomb. Of course there are also a lot of like Russian channels out there that just stream game play with no commentary or personality at all and these should be restricted by that. But a lot of people put a lot of work into their videos just like Giantbomb does.

@thatdutchguy:

I don't hope its true, but I won't be upset if it is. I enjoy LP's, they are great to fill out time when I have my 360 streaming on the youtube app. But, I don't understand a string of seemingly intelligent gamers who are arguing so hard against these changes. Respect of the industry requires acknowledging that publishers/developers do have the right to control how content they have created is taken and used for a monetary gain. If your favorite youtube LPers decide to stop posting gaming videos because it's not going to line their pockets, maybe it's time to admit that it was never really about the games to begin with.

uggh

Agreed, LPs were just the online tulips. Also, has anyone considered how devs/publishers are legally obligated to protect their copyright, lest they lose it?

You're giving me 2008 housing crisis flashbacks people.

It is happening right now with thousands and thousands of videos getting flagged. Goodbye gaming on YouTube it was a fun ride.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=732355

This is one of the highlights^^

I'm surprised Let's Plays have lasted so long, I mean often its just someone playing the entire game and showing you it's story as opposed to anyone using the content to criticize/make their own works, let's plays are mostly shitty so I don't give a shit but it'd be a real shame if it hits the independent reviewers, first impression vids and others of the like but let's plays are pretty much pointless in the cases of most modern games so I dun gives no shit.

It hits everything with gameplay footage. For example:

Here is a special Jimquisition in which he stated that even videos gets hit which uses trailer material.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/8565-Copyright-War

But he also brings up a nice point after all. Since Indy games have no problem at all with all this they will get a much bigger exposure now. And maybe in a few Years these big publishers will understand that this was free marketing for their games.

Surprised no one has mentioned (from what I've read in this thread) smaller titles from smaller publishers/developers...this is a great opportunity for them. Fuck those 'big' publishers and their shitty policies, the small games will get bigger as they will be highlighted more on youtube now.

Stop believing everything you read on NeoGAF.