nin wrote on Oct 22, 2013, 09:03:

ASeven wrote on Oct 22, 2013, 08:57:
And the hole gets dug a little deeper now.

http://imgur.com/a/ddd1Z

Think TB had hinted at that as well. It's like WarZ all over again. These shitty devs need to piss off.

Wow, thats pretty damning stuff. You have to wonder what their thinking right now, as its just 1 clusterfuck after another they're creating for themselves.

ASeven wrote on Oct 22, 2013, 08:57:
And the hole gets dug a little deeper now.

http://imgur.com/a/ddd1Z

Think TB had hinted at that as well. It's like WarZ all over again. These shitty devs need to piss off.

And the hole gets dug a little deeper now.

http://imgur.com/a/ddd1Z

Riker wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 22:51:

Quboid wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 19:27:
TotalBiscuit's job is his YouTube videos, I think it's fair to describe it as monetized and I don't think TB disputes that. He's giving the money from the original DOGI video and his response video to the EFF.

Sure, but that's his right. Do they think that reviewers are doing volunteer work? People can choose to review whatever they want, with or without the publisher's cooperation or blessing, and they're entitled to make money off that work without harassment or interference.

Absolutely. Describing TB's work as monetized is about the one correct thing WGS managed but this in no way justifies any of their actions, particularly as monetization is just the lie they told to attempt to justify their censorship of negative press.

Flak wrote on Oct 22, 2013, 01:50:
Instead of worrying about people who are well within their rights to discuss your publicly available works, maybe spend a little more time building a competent game. Chances are if your game doesn't suck, you'll be too busy counting the cheques to be raging over the relatively modest amount of money that people like Total Biscuit make from the monetization of niche indie game videos.

I cringe to think how long this has gone on over the years when 'professional' reviewers (gamespot, ign, etc...) were actually relevant. It's likely still going on today and might explain how average games like GTA V get 97% on metacritic (not saying it's a legitimate resource, just want to point out how hilarious it is that it has nearly a perfect score).

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v

It had absolutely nothing to do with any "monetization", that was just the weak sauce excuse being put forward for stifling speech they don't agree with. That they can't come clean even after dropping a 10 ton anvil of Streisand Effect on themselves, shows how pathetic they truly are. Too bad, you lose. You are now and forever a boycotted company.

Instead of worrying about people who are well within their rights to discuss your publicly available works, maybe spend a little more time building a competent game. Chances are if your game doesn't suck, you'll be too busy counting the cheques to be raging over the relatively modest amount of money that people like Total Biscuit make from the monetization of niche indie game videos.

I cringe to think how long this has gone on over the years when 'professional' reviewers (gamespot, ign, etc...) were actually relevant. It's likely still going on today and might explain how average games like GTA V get 97% on metacritic (not saying it's a legitimate resource, just want to point out how hilarious it is that it has nearly a perfect score).

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/grand-theft-auto-v

Riker wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 22:51:

Quboid wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 19:27:
TotalBiscuit's job is his YouTube videos, I think it's fair to describe it as monetized and I don't think TB disputes that. He's giving the money from the original DOGI video and his response video to the EFF.

Sure, but that's his right. Do they think that reviewers are doing volunteer work? People can choose to review whatever they want, with or without the publisher's cooperation or blessing, and they're entitled to make money off that work without harassment or interference.

Well, the whole monitization argument is just a lame attempt on the part of Wild Games' CEO to provide cover for his actions. There were plenty of other Youtube reviews of the game, some with over a hundred thousand views, and this was the only one that received a takedown notice.

It just sounds marginally better than "yes, we tried to abuse copyright law to silence negative press"

Quboid wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 19:27:
TotalBiscuit's job is his YouTube videos, I think it's fair to describe it as monetized and I don't think TB disputes that. He's giving the money from the original DOGI video and his response video to the EFF.

Sure, but that's his right. Do they think that reviewers are doing volunteer work? People can choose to review whatever they want, with or without the publisher's cooperation or blessing, and they're entitled to make money off that work without harassment or interference.

You must feel like such a dumbshit when you have to publicly release statements like:
"...Wild Games Studio sincerely apologizes to TotalBiscuit..."

Heh.

And do check out the "I broke Day One" video, because it's an amazing example of how shit the game is. I personally love broken games for the laugh factor, so I went to PB to grab a copy, and literally EVERYONE on there was saying "Just... don't bother."

Angry Joe is like Stephen Colbert - he lays it on so thick that 5 minute bursts can be funny but no more. I like TB, he covers games that Yahtzee doesn't and his 'WTF is' videos are more informative. He's more of a reviewer than an entertainer, I'm surprised you see TB as the character of the two.

Any recommendations for others? The subtly named Game Wank did funny reviews of Far Cry 3 and Faster Than Light, I don't know if they've done others. I'd like someone like TB but who does more mainstream games; Arma, EU4, Deus Ex. Full price PC games.

"Monetizing wasn’t mentioned in our communications and it was an error on our part to not have clarified the issue."

Still cocks even at the bitter end, what do they think a review / evaluation key is going to be used for?

What a bunch of little shits, they can't make a good and then have a cry when people don't like it.

Hump wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 20:14:
I enjoyed his community commentary on Planetside 2 but he tries a little to hard to be a character. When it comes to Anglo accented game critics, Yahtzee has that field all wrapped up.

I like him, and my taste in games is similar to his, so that when he recommends something, I tend to be more inclined to check it out.

Angry Joe is the "character" I can only stand in extremely small doses...

I enjoyed his community commentary on Planetside 2 but he tries a little to hard to be a character. When it comes to Anglo accented game critics, Yahtzee has that field all wrapped up.

m00t wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 18:35:

Rattlehead wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 18:31:
What is Garry's Incident

Garbage

and besides this fiasco should I care?

No.

Well, you should care as far as to watch the "I Broke Day One: Gary's Shitty Incident" because it's funny.

http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1316120

Kitkoan wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 20:04:

Overon wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 18:33:
filing false DMCA's is illegal.

I don't think that's possible. If I recall correctly, the DMCA was written so that it wasn't possible to be punished if you misused it. Was to allow big companies to use bots to scan and demand things removed, and if they demanded the wrong thing, oh well.

The takedown notice is made under penalty of perjury: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512

(vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

But of course you need a prosecutor to actually charge someone of perjury. I don't know if it's ever been attempted, and there might be some weasely lawery way out of it I don't know about.

Overon wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 18:33:
filing false DMCA's is illegal.

I don't think that's possible. If I recall correctly, the DMCA was written so that it wasn't possible to be punished if you misused it. Was to allow big companies to use bots to scan and demand things removed, and if they demanded the wrong thing, oh well.

Prez wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 18:32:
Hopefully TB had the infringement strike by Youtube rescinded as it clearly was unwarranted. Maybe this will help fix the broken system over there.

It won't. There are inappropriate DMCA takedowns all the time, several that are moderately high profile. I don't know that anyone has successfully pressed charges of perjury because of a false DMCA claim yet.

Youtube's ass is only covered if they respond to takedown notices:

(1) In general.— A service provider shall not be liable for monetary relief, ... if the service provider—
...
(C) upon notification of claimed infringement as described in paragraph (3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity.

Riker wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 18:50:
Monetization? Because it's posted on YouTube?

Fuck you, Wild Games Studio.

TotalBiscuit's job is his YouTube videos, I think it's fair to describe it as monetized and I don't think TB disputes that. He's giving the money from the original DOGI video and his response video to the EFF.

The really weird thing about trying to censor the review from TB is that most of the other reviews are also pretty scathing. Maybe they just thought they'd get rid of the most viewed one. That seemed to backfire nicely.

Clearly just a sad sack ill judged attempt to stifle the poor review TB was giving them. Game looks shit anyway.