Oh, and for the record -- personally I've never been planning to buy a game, then watched a Let's Play video and decided not to buy the game. I have however, either not even known about a game or had no plans to purchase it, then watched a Let's Play video and said to myself, "This game is nothing like I thought" or "Wow, this game looks awesome, I can't believe I haven't heard about it" -- and preceded to buy the game. That's happened at least half a dozen times.

Yes, I realize this is anecdotal, just relaying my experience.

For every negative Youtube review of any game there seem to be 10 times the number of let's play videos that show the game in a positive light.

Free advertising, and in some cases, profitable, as Youtube has algorithms that ID biggie content (from companies like Nintendo) within lets plays and compensates them.

Taking action in this situation would have the result of few if any positive depictions of the game online, but all the negative reviews would still be there as criticism is mostly legal.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 21:54:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:26:
But does anyone charge their spouse to watch? Many of these streamers make lots and lots of money.

Some, of these streamers make lots of money -- most make less than minimum wage based on the hours expended to play, edit, and manage their online presence.

Initially, I thought I might have missed the train on this. Shortly after the first ones showed up, I considered starting up a Minecraft Let's Play but never did. Some of those guys make good money now, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't keep it up the way they have.

That's true, but I don't know why people keep bringing it up. For most things that are grey area, no one cares until someone starts making a ton of money from it. The people that scooted by without anyone caring end up caught in the crossfire, but they're not the impetus for any change themselves.

Fair use absolutely encompases transformative work. A review, a parody, basic reporting, and even general (valid) criticism are all covered. Basically if you just say "I'm Billy Youtube and this is the MOBA KotH game RandyRandosFighting - The Lootboxening" and then show you playing, then perhaps not. However if you are providing your own content (informing, reviewing, or just covering) something then I cannot see how a Let's Play would not be covered.

IANAL and all, but I don't know any of the uses I mentioned would be "essentially admitting to infringement". They are the exact things fair use exemptions are for.

Personally I still prefer a proper review though.

Simon Says wrote on Jan 30, 2018, 02:37:

Lorcin wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 18:56:
Should be illegal and I can make quite a compelling argument.

A couple of months back my son had a friend over who tried Cuphead for the first time. Not only did he know the names of the bosses he then proceeds to start beating them, one-shotting at least one.

"Oh do you have this?" says I
"Nah, seen it on youtube" he replies

After playing for a while I ask him if he likes it, which he does.

"Are you going to pick up a copy?" says I
"Nah, I was going to but I watched it all on youtube" he replies.

What the actual. Aside from the fact I simply can't get my head around watching somebody else play a game, the streamers, in this case, have DEFINITELY cost a sale.

It's not just my son and his mates - there are legions of teenagers out there who consider themselves gamers but actually spend more time watching people play games instead of playing them themselves. It's certainly having an impact on the industry which leads to fewer profits, which leads to less development money, which leads to fewer or lower quality games.

That "compelling argument" is what is commonly called an "Anecdotal Logical Fallacy".

Furthermore, a sample of 1 has no credibility at all. As for the rest that you claimed are everywhere, this doesn't take into account the amount of people that buy the game because of streamers.

A sample below 500-1000 is considered not credible in science ( and marketing/business too ), and for good reasons, because of the huge margin of error, and don't only cherry pick the ones who won't buy because of it. It must be random.

Oh I'm sorry did I not provide enough evidence to satisfy you? I could provide plenty more instances of similar occurrences as can many people here. But tbh I don't really care about making any more of a point than that - I wrote that at midnight, drove my wife to work at 5:30 and now at 8am am leaving for work myself.

Remember where you are - it's a discussion thread on a little-known gaming news site. Hardly going to change the world.

Lorcin wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 18:56:
Should be illegal and I can make quite a compelling argument.

A couple of months back my son had a friend over who tried Cuphead for the first time. Not only did he know the names of the bosses he then proceeds to start beating them, one-shotting at least one.

"Oh do you have this?" says I
"Nah, seen it on youtube" he replies

After playing for a while I ask him if he likes it, which he does.

"Are you going to pick up a copy?" says I
"Nah, I was going to but I watched it all on youtube" he replies.

What the actual. Aside from the fact I simply can't get my head around watching somebody else play a game, the streamers, in this case, have DEFINITELY cost a sale.

It's not just my son and his mates - there are legions of teenagers out there who consider themselves gamers but actually spend more time watching people play games instead of playing them themselves. It's certainly having an impact on the industry which leads to fewer profits, which leads to less development money, which leads to fewer or lower quality games.

That "compelling argument" is what is commonly called an "Anecdotal Logical Fallacy".

Furthermore, a sample of 1 has no credibility at all. As for the rest that you claimed are everywhere, this doesn't take into account the amount of people that buy the game because of streamers.

A sample below 500-1000 is considered not credible in science ( and marketing/business too ), and for good reasons, because of the huge margin of error, and don't only cherry pick the ones who won't buy because of it. It must be random.

I get the distinct impression that some of the opinions are from people that have never watched 'lets play' or livestreams. ...or more importantly watched how a game can go from being an unknown beta/ea/release to a top 10 Steam sale in a week just because the prior week it was being played by some of the top streamers. Interest does not guarantee or entitle you to a sale. Some people are going to be fine hearing about it from friends, watching a streamer, or reading about the game in the latest issue of Joystick...

Sooner or later, some clueless suit at a publisher is going to pull the sponsorship/promo funds and demand money from streamers. Social media will explode. *ALL* streamers will stop playing said publisher's titles....and within a full release cycle that publisher will reverse its stance due to the millions in free marketing that they will lose.

Mr. Tact wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 21:54:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:26:
But does anyone charge their spouse to watch? Many of these streamers make lots and lots of money.

Some, of these streamers make lots of money -- most make less than minimum wage based on the hours expended to play, edit, and manage their online presence.

Initially, I thought I might have missed the train on this. Shortly after the first ones showed up, I considered starting up a Minecraft Let's Play but never did. Some of those guys make good money now, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't keep it up the way they have.

It's a full time lifestyle at this point. If you're not breathing it, vlogging it, etc... it's tough to stay relevant.

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:26:
But does anyone charge their spouse to watch? Many of these streamers make lots and lots of money.

Some, of these streamers make lots of money -- most make less than minimum wage based on the hours expended to play, edit, and manage their online presence.

Initially, I thought I might have missed the train on this. Shortly after the first ones showed up, I considered starting up a Minecraft Let's Play but never did. Some of those guys make good money now, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't keep it up the way they have.

Lorcin wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 18:56:
Should be illegal and I can make quite a compelling argument.

A couple of months back my son had a friend over who tried Cuphead for the first time. Not only did he know the names of the bosses he then proceeds to start beating them, one-shotting at least one.

"Oh do you have this?" says I
"Nah, seen it on youtube" he replies

After playing for a while I ask him if he likes it, which he does.

"Are you going to pick up a copy?" says I
"Nah, I was going to but I watched it all on youtube" he replies.

What the actual. Aside from the fact I simply can't get my head around watching somebody else play a game, the streamers, in this case, have DEFINITELY cost a sale.

It's not just my son and his mates - there are legions of teenagers out there who consider themselves gamers but actually spend more time watching people play games instead of playing them themselves. It's certainly having an impact on the industry which leads to fewer profits, which leads to less development money, which leads to fewer or lower quality games.

Actually, the argument should be that what your son did is illegal. Your son's friend may have seen Cuphead on a "Let's Play," but that didn't stop him from wanting to play it. But he didn't have to buy the game because YOUR SON LET HIM PLAY IT! Your son cost the developers a sale!!!!

I'm kidding, but only partly. If you reduce "causation" to any tenuous extreme, you can prove anything is responsible for anything. While it is plausible that some few sales might be lost to Youtubers' streams, the question is the ration between lost sales and sales gained through promotion.

P.S., I hope your kid isn't arrested or anything for promotion of lost sales...

Blackhawk wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 12:32:

HoSpanky wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 12:01:
Single player games, especially heavily linear ones like Uncharted/Tomb Raider, would lose sales to full playthroughs.

That is not what the actual data shows. While there may be a few people who would sit through a 15-hour LP in lieu of buying, far more will realize they like the game and purchase it. Losing 100 sales and gaining 500 is a good thing, and that's what the (admittedly limited at this point, but you know the publishers have better info) data shows is happening.

I watched all the cutscenes for Injustice Gods Among Us. I thought the story was interesting, and knew I would never play the SP campaign. Then I bought the game, and play it local multi player with the kids.

I watch Let's Play vids for a couple of reasons.

First is to see what the average gameplay is like. You often don't get that from rendered or even in engine trailers.

Second is for entertainment. I don't watch often, but occasionally there are Let's Play vids that capture my interest. I watched one guy's monthly Elite Dangerous vids, which he narrated with on screen text. Each episode was him flying around doing missions and interacting with other Commanders, but it had a nice narrative flow. Another set of vids we're Arma 3 Bullshittery, a bunch of guys messing around in the game edited down to 15 m clips. Really funny.

Here's the thing, companies would be stupid to crack down on this stuff. I now own both of these games, partly because those videos were enjoyable. It's free advertising.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 18:44:
Well, you see all the flaws a game has before you buy it and spend time downloading it.... which save you from wasting time and money or you watch them for entertainment But if that isn't your thing that's fine ^^

Since I cut TV out of my life youtube and streams replaced it with relevant content I find entertaining

I'll briefly watch a let's play to see if it's something I think i'll like. Along with a video review or two.

Should be illegal and I can make quite a compelling argument.

A couple of months back my son had a friend over who tried Cuphead for the first time. Not only did he know the names of the bosses he then proceeds to start beating them, one-shotting at least one.

"Oh do you have this?" says I
"Nah, seen it on youtube" he replies

After playing for a while I ask him if he likes it, which he does.

"Are you going to pick up a copy?" says I
"Nah, I was going to but I watched it all on youtube" he replies.

What the actual. Aside from the fact I simply can't get my head around watching somebody else play a game, the streamers, in this case, have DEFINITELY cost a sale.

It's not just my son and his mates - there are legions of teenagers out there who consider themselves gamers but actually spend more time watching people play games instead of playing them themselves. It's certainly having an impact on the industry which leads to fewer profits, which leads to less development money, which leads to fewer or lower quality games.

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 16:38:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:55:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:48:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:46:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:40:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:36:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:26:

SpectralMeat wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:14:
Next up:
Gamers can get sued if spouses are watching the gameplay without having a second license for the game. Kids under the age of 5 will have to have half a license.
Dogs and cats do not require a license at this time.

But does anyone charge their spouse to watch? Many of these streamers make lots and lots of money.

Source?

Is that surprising today? PDP earns tens of millions, and started doing Let's Plays of sorts. He's the highest earner on YouTube.

Gamespot estimates all of these are making at least a million a year

Some guy named MarkPlier does Let's Plays and earns $5.5M

Pretty sure they ask before they let's play

Those guys, maybe. Others are probably earning five or six figures without doing so.

I'm not saying this one way or the other, just that it's a data point you know companies are paying attention to. If you're a dev making $90k, and you see a report that some guy is making half a million bucks playing your game online, you may be a bit peeved. But you may also think it's good in the long run.

Yeah I just don't believe that is indicative of let's players in the lower spectrum. To give you an example, with a channel producing bi-weekly videos length 10m (for 3 ad blocks) with 50-100k views you make around 443€ a month just to give an perspective. That's pretty bad considering you need to produce videos with actual content full-time for a bi-weekly or even daily schedule, and that doesn't even pay half the rent.

A single big video and many small ones (2-5k views vs one vid with 20m views) gives you ZERO payout. Yes, zero.

This is after the AD revenue changes on youtube. Without patreon and twitch (aka, stream subs etc.) many full time youtubers wouldn't even be able to exist anymore.

And well, a game without a youtube let's play is a game I am not buying.

Totally, but those are people caught in the crossfire, not the main point of contention in any of this.

I watch no let's play videos, or YouTube videos about video games, and that will never, ever change. I can't even fathom what information I'd get from them that I can't get from a solid text review, and I've yet to see a game whose basic theme and gameplay I need a video to understand.
Just my opinion and style. They're utterly pointless for me. For the limited amount of free time I have, I'd rather spend it playing something than watching someone play something.

Well, you see all the flaws a game has before you buy it and spend time downloading it.... which save you from wasting time and money or you watch them for entertainment But if that isn't your thing that's fine ^^

Since I cut TV out of my life youtube and streams replaced it with relevant content I find entertaining

Peter M. Smith wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 16:34:

Kxmode wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:00:
The Fair Use doctrine covers a broad assortment of stuff. I didn't mention parody because it's irrelevant here because most Let's Plays aren't "parody." However, since you brought up Weird Al, it is worth noting that he goes out of his way to get the creator's permission and tries to produce work with their blessing. Pretty sure most Let's Plays don't.

Regardless of the fact that Al's morals guide him to do more than what he is legally required to do, it doesn't change the fact that your initial statement is, as presented, incorrect. I could have brought up 2 Live Crew's legal issues with their Pretty Woman parody, where they were told they could not license the original, made their song anyway, were sued, went to the Supreme Court, and had the SCOTUS confirm fair use did apply to 2LC's work. But then I felt that might be a little too obscure for this group and decided to go with the more widely known example of a person making a living off of the content created by other people.

You chose Weird Al. I only used your reference to piggy-back a point that even within the realm of "parody" some kind of moral guidelines are followed when it comes to standard commerce (producing widgets). Since the legalities on "Let's Plays" remains murky most follow mob rule: "Et haec sunt quae vulgaris." (This is what is popular)

HoSpanky wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 12:01:
You paid for your tv service, so you should be able to rebroadcast those NFL games any way you see fit, yeah? Especially if you put your own commentary over the top, that makes it something wholly original, yeah? You think the NFL wouldn’t sue you into oblivion if they found you making millions of dollars off of doing that?

You never, ever owned a game. You always owned a license.

I think the entire argument leans heavily on the multiplayer/single player aspect. If a game is multiplayer, publishers only stand to gain from streamers playing their title. Single player games, especially heavily linear ones like Uncharted/Tomb Raider, would lose sales to full playthroughs. One level? Sure, that’s essentially watching someone play a demo. But if they have the entire game streamed...that’s the difference between a movie trailer and the whole goddamn movie.

Firstly, that's a deeply flawed analogy.

Second, it actually supports my argument. Buying a game is not the same thing as renting a streaming service. The broadcasters pay the NFL to stream those games and you in turn pay the cable co. who in turn pays them. Those games have already been paid for to be streamed. Same thing with video games. You've paid for said license.

Third, I, and most other people don't agree with the idea that software is simply licensed. And outside of the US most other countries agree with that assessment. It's like a car company telling you you're not allowed to loan, rent or sell you car. Yeah, imagine how that would go over if they tried to make that into law tomorrow. Either everything is sacred or nothing is.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:36:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:26:

SpectralMeat wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:14:
Next up:
Gamers can get sued if spouses are watching the gameplay without having a second license for the game. Kids under the age of 5 will have to have half a license.
Dogs and cats do not require a license at this time.

But does anyone charge their spouse to watch? Many of these streamers make lots and lots of money.

Source?

Most won't list their income publicly. But when this is their main source of income for people like Totalbiscuit, JackSepticEye, and Jim "Jimquisition" Stirling, then you know they make lots of money; enough to live on. For TB, his primary LET'S PLAYS are in the form of his "WTF" channel segments. He has stated numerous times that he reaches out to indie publishers to get review copies and their permission to show the game on his channel. So at least some do get permission.

headkase wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:10:
I would say that adding the act of playing the game is transformative. The game would just sit there doing nothing without the unique and never-same input from a player.

Further to that, there is the player themselves. People like Jim Sterling or Markiplier are amusing in and of themselves, and add a dimension that the game can't handle.

If fair use is fine for the purposes of review, fair use for let's play seems pretty straight forward (to the layperson with no stake in cutting throats to make a few extra cents).

It also opens the door to promotion fees, a particularly good entertainer will generate an enormous amount of income for a game by demonstrating play and actually having fun in it.

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:55:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:48:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:46:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:40:

eRe4s3r wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 15:36:

Beamer wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:26:

SpectralMeat wrote on Jan 29, 2018, 11:14:
Next up:
Gamers can get sued if spouses are watching the gameplay without having a second license for the game. Kids under the age of 5 will have to have half a license.
Dogs and cats do not require a license at this time.

But does anyone charge their spouse to watch? Many of these streamers make lots and lots of money.

Source?

Is that surprising today? PDP earns tens of millions, and started doing Let's Plays of sorts. He's the highest earner on YouTube.

Gamespot estimates all of these are making at least a million a year

Some guy named MarkPlier does Let's Plays and earns $5.5M

Pretty sure they ask before they let's play

Those guys, maybe. Others are probably earning five or six figures without doing so.

I'm not saying this one way or the other, just that it's a data point you know companies are paying attention to. If you're a dev making $90k, and you see a report that some guy is making half a million bucks playing your game online, you may be a bit peeved. But you may also think it's good in the long run.

Yeah I just don't believe that is indicative of let's players in the lower spectrum. To give you an example, with a channel producing bi-weekly videos length 10m (for 3 ad blocks) with 50-100k views you make around 443€ a month just to give an perspective. That's pretty bad considering you need to produce videos with actual content full-time for a bi-weekly or even daily schedule, and that doesn't even pay half the rent.

A single big video and many small ones (2-5k views vs one vid with 20m views) gives you ZERO payout. Yes, zero.

This is after the AD revenue changes on youtube. Without patreon and twitch (aka, stream subs etc.) many full time youtubers wouldn't even be able to exist anymore.

And well, a game without a youtube let's play is a game I am not buying.

Totally, but those are people caught in the crossfire, not the main point of contention in any of this.

I watch no let's play videos, or YouTube videos about video games, and that will never, ever change. I can't even fathom what information I'd get from them that I can't get from a solid text review, and I've yet to see a game whose basic theme and gameplay I need a video to understand.
Just my opinion and style. They're utterly pointless for me. For the limited amount of free time I have, I'd rather spend it playing something than watching someone play something.