So Long Gamer YouTubers

ManchildKart said:
If people with low views are using your stuff, they haven't spread the advertising enough. They have, however, bought the game. So how is it a loss? No matter how many views a video gets, a percentage of those viewers will buy the game covered. More people than would have bought it if there was no coverage.

Yeah, it concerns me. So I've done my research, shocking isn't it?
The question is, why do you seem to feel threatened by gaming videos to the degree that you want to disparage them?
Click to expand...
lol ok dont make me laugh, so can i come to your house and watch tv with you? its not hurting you and im helping keep you company, i mean you dont know me and it would probably be awkward because i tend to only be in my boxers but its mutually beneficial right? XD, and you said you have done your "research", so far only i have posted legal documents..strange.
 
Finally the news is on IGN so it's really Fullscreen lawsuit which started all this :banghead: I was right it's not publisher doing this 'cause the gameplay videos are already content id *cutscenes* it just Youtube do the content id scan again..

 
wajinshu said:
Finally the news is on IGN so it's really Fullscreen lawsuit which started all this :banghead: I was right it's not publisher doing this 'cause the gameplay videos are already content id *cutscenes* it just Youtube do the content id scan again..

Click to expand...
lol fullscreen, did you even need to say?
 
Sinc said:
eh, not really, fair use doesnt hold up in court when it comes to games as far as i know, never seen it happen.

You know whats the best part of the fair use doctrine?

its saying in pretty simple terms, if you dont own it, just dont use it if you cant legally back it up.
Click to expand...

Well what about the companies who do make it clear that it's ok to post and monetize gameplays with their software? Even those are getting monetization denials now. And don't get me started on YouTube's appeal system, which just automatically turns off monetization if you tell them you have written permission (instead of asking to be shown said permission).
 
I don't think gaming is over on youtube, it can't be. That would just be a stupid move by both Youtube and publishers/developers. Like many people have said before, Youtube reviews, funny shorts, guides, gameplay, and LP/Walkthroughs are all beneficial to the developers. Its free promotion, constructive criticism (at least most of the time) and usually getting people interested in the game. I actually got my friend to buy Dark Souls because of my LP of it. Even more so, the companies don't even have to pay for the youtubers to do this, it's free.

Like someone said earlier, the smartes move IMO would be to just have devs/publishers take a cut from Youtuber content, it's fair. I mean we were making money on their videos, and they weren't getting anything directly. I can understand that much, but just blatantly making it difficult to post some AAA titles or have LP's of them? Idk, just seems like corporate ignorance. Sure they stop gamers from making money off of them w/o compensation but they also lose that free promotion and potential customers. Like Wenry said, if it escalates to an extreme level, Twitch.tv here I come, I don't stream too much but I may have to later.

So far this hasn't affected me, some of my Dragon's Dogma LP music was Content ID'ed but its nothing serious...yet.

I'm curious on Namco-Bandai's approach to this. Most of my videos are Fighting Game based videos, meaning either games from Namco (Tekken, Soul Calibur) or Capcom (Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3). I haven't got any Content ID claims or copyright strikes but I am partnered with a network so that might have been a factor in preventing an copyright crap. Now Tekken and Soul Calibur are not indie games per se, but they've fallen out of mainstream popularity and I wouldn't consider them AAA titles. Esp. since SCV came out what 2 years ago, and TTT2 last september? The audience for these games are there but relatively small compared to something like Asssassin's Creed or so. So I should be fine, consideirng since Namco-Bandai recently released two games PURPOSELY to increase popularity (Tekken Revolution and Soul Calibur II HD/the Single player soul calibur game). I also know Namco-Bandai respects YT'ers the FGC (Fighting Game Community), Harada (Tekken's producer) is a friend of the Tekken community and I would hope not they wage war on Tekken videos. Afterall these videos help the already small community and is free promotion.

Capcom is more diverse but they do have their FGs as priority so I don't think they'll touch FG related videos since its 99% gameplay.....but- other Capcom games (Resident Evil, Dogma, DMC, Dead Rising) may get harder treatment.


If anything these changes, the way I see it
-Make covering AAA games harder
-Force youtubers to ask for permission more frequently
-Muting music/cutting cutscenes
-Putting commentary on almost all gaming videos.
-Slowing the monetization process (well we know this already)[DOUBLEPOST=1386703316,1386702793][/DOUBLEPOST]Also:


what does this mean for older games?

will Nintendo send a SWAT team to my house if I upload a Let's Play of Ocarina of Time (just an example, IK its overdone)
 
I have an opinion, but it’s fairly strong and I ultimately disagree with quite a few people in this thread. With that said, I shall proceed at once.


Fair use exists for a reason. The point and purpose is to allow for those who put considerable effort into a derivative or transformative work to be rewarded for their efforts regardless of permission from the originator. This is how we get innovation in art. There is absolutely no excuse for the concept of awarding the entire monetization of a video to the creator of a single part of content via automated means, period. Game companies do not deserve all of the revenue in nearly any case and IMO aren’t entitled to even part of the revenue in a substantial number of cases.


My logic is as follows. YouTube operates off of personality. Channels that do well are subscribed to because people like the personality behind the channel, not because of the game in question. As result, the primary factor of value in the video in question is exclusively that of the creator. Now there are certainly exceptions such as gameplay videos with no editing or commentary of any kind, though there is yet debate on that topic as it depends on the type of game, like for example competitive games where it is the players skill which determines the value of the production.


Even the idea of partial payment in many cases is reprehensible. Reviews for example operate entirely on the basis of consumer protection, so under this system we have those reviewers being required not only to purchase the product but continually pay the company who created it for the privilege of expressing a media opinion. You upload a 3 hour video that contains a single 15-30 seconds worth of footage and all of a sudden the game creator gets to take all of the revenue, when frankly they’re not even entitled to a portion of it.


YouTube views for video game content are split approximately 50/50 for advertisement/marketing on one half and community created content on the other half (These stats came from YouTube itself in a recent article, unfortunately I can’t find a link to it). There is not a single company out there that can buy that amount of marketing for zero cost, and then to have the audacity to try to not only keep that advertising for free, but make money off of it is a level of arrogance seldom seen. In fact, the company couldn’t generate anywhere close to the same marketing reach even if they reinvested all of the money they steal from content creators. This is theft. They are not entitled to it. And that doesn’t even touch on the amount of bad PR that this is generating.


The system is broken and needs to be fixed. And the game publishers need to stop acting like asshats looking the gift horse in the mouth. You have a rapid captive audience of people who want to talk about your game and make content to advertise your game for free, and you want to punish them for it? Are you f*****g stupid?


A great start to fixing the automated system would be to introduce an algorithm which measures the percentage of content within an individual video that is infringing rather than just stamp the entire video as belonging to some company who happened to be the first to upload something into ContentID. 20 minute video, bunch of gameplay and a 20 second snippet of a song, maybe that video doesn’t need to belong to Universal, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top