What if this was a massive PR stunt created by the publishers, team up to pay youtube to temporarily add this policy, and then side with the LPers when it happens, since youtube as for all purposes a monopoly they wouldn't be affected all that much, and the publishers get some good PR
[QUOTE=viperfan7;43157046]What if this was a massive PR stunt created by the publishers, team up to pay youtube to temporarily add this policy, and then side with the LPers when it happens, since youtube as for all purposes a monopoly they wouldn't be affected all that much, and the publishers get some good PR[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that sounds like a solid plan with no possible holes involving as little people as possible to keep it all under the rug for as long as they need it to be until they spring their great turnaround. Totally feasible.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dSWAPFO.png[/IMG]
Or maybe it's time to get a real job
I don't think that it's a smart thing for youtube to do but on the other hand it's in their rights to do so and I don't like how suddently people think they're the devil, people got so accustomed to it being allowed that they believe it's in their rights to do so
I'm talking about monetizing a video, not just uploading footage. You'd be making money from someone else's efford and whether or not it's free advertising it's up to the developers to decide whether or not to allow it, which they are capable of doing, so, where is the problem?
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;43157171][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dSWAPFO.png[/IMG]
Or maybe it's time to get a real job
I don't think that it's a smart thing for youtube to do but on the other hand it's in their rights to do so and I don't like how suddently people think they're the devil, people got so accustomed to it being allowed that they believe it's in their rights to do so
I'm talking about monetizing a video, not just uploading footage. You'd be making money from someone else's efford and whether or not it's free advertising it's up to the developers to decide whether or not to allow it, which they are capable of doing, so, where is the problem?[/QUOTE]
The problem is that many of these companies whose work has been published and monetized, have stated that they're fine with it. It [i]is[/i] up to the companies, and many of the companies have okayed it.
Why is this site allowed to post articles on FP? If they aren't doing nothing but linking to their own site they're sourcing other articles for a far less comprehensive and more poorly written article. The [url=http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/12/11/youtube-blocks-game-videos-industry-offers-help/]RPS article[/url] they source at the end there explains things significantly better and includes some fairly important information they just leave out here.
[QUOTE=Alice3173;43157286]Why is this site allowed to post articles on FP? If they aren't doing nothing but linking to their own site they're sourcing other articles for a far less comprehensive and more poorly written article. The [url=http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/12/11/youtube-blocks-game-videos-industry-offers-help/]RPS article[/url] they source at the end there explains things significantly better and includes some fairly important information they just leave out here.[/QUOTE]
They're not posting on fp though, fp is reading the data from an rss feed them and posts it here.
[QUOTE=Lijitsu;43157217]The problem is that many of these companies whose work has been published and monetized, have stated that they're fine with it. It [i]is[/i] up to the companies, and many of the companies have okayed it.[/QUOTE]
A problem with a proper solution is not a problem
The article writers actually do have accounts here. Either way though Garry should remove the bot because the site is terrible in its practices. I don't see why he ever made it. Nearly every time I see an article posted from this site there's another article on the same thing from RPS or elsewhere (often enough sourced from that site nonetheless, like this one) which includes more information and links to relevant related things rather than other places on the same site.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;43157171][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dSWAPFO.png[/IMG]
Or maybe it's time to get a real job
I don't think that it's a smart thing for youtube to do but on the other hand it's in their rights to do so and I don't like how suddently people think they're the devil, people got so accustomed to it being allowed that they believe it's in their rights to do so
I'm talking about monetizing a video, not just uploading footage. You'd be making money from someone else's efford and whether or not it's free advertising it's up to the developers to decide whether or not to allow it, which they are capable of doing, so, where is the problem?[/QUOTE]
Actors should just get a real job.
These videos fall under fair use. People do not watch them for the games, they watch them for the personalities playing them. Nobody wants to watch 20 minutes of a shitty game for the sake of a boring host. These content creators put a [i]lot[/i] of effort into media in order to make quality content of sufficient quantity to make a living out of it.
If they can make a living out people enjoying their virtual presence, that's their business. You're just jealous.
[QUOTE=Bletotum;43157327]You're just jealous.[/QUOTE]
No, I just have a different opinion
I'm sorry you're not mature enough to accept that without insulting me
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;43157370]No, I just have a different opinion
I'm sorry you're not mature enough to accept that without insulting me[/QUOTE]
"I'm not wrong, it's just my opinion"
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;43157370]No, I just have a different opinion
I'm sorry you're not mature enough to accept that without insulting me[/QUOTE]
Well all you have to remember is that he has no retirement plan, no career plan, no benefits and it seems that Youtube is giving less money. Frankly, I wouldn't trade my job for making video game videos.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;43157370]No, I just have a different opinion
I'm sorry you're not mature enough to accept that without insulting me[/QUOTE]
Please, what defines it as "not a real job". I generally define a job as something you do that earns you money.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;43157323]A problem with a proper solution is not a problem[/QUOTE]
I don't even know what this means. Because there is no 'solution' here, except for YouTube/Google to take down their auto-detect script and fine tune the fuck out of it.
[QUOTE=Reds;43158306]Please, what defines it as "not a real job". I generally define a job as something you do that earns you money.[/QUOTE]
So, stealing is a job?
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;43158786]So, stealing is a job?[/QUOTE]
If you consider taking money as earning it.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;43158906]If you consider taking money as earning it.[/QUOTE]
Well, thiefs do put effort in stealing.
Fucking spineless jelly, I honestly don't understand how any of you can defend them.
[QUOTE=Ryo Ohki;43157171][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/dSWAPFO.png[/IMG]
Or maybe it's time to get a real job
I don't think that it's a smart thing for youtube to do but on the other hand it's in their rights to do so and I don't like how suddently people think they're the devil, people got so accustomed to it being allowed that they believe it's in their rights to do so
I'm talking about monetizing a video, not just uploading footage. You'd be making money from someone else's efford and whether or not it's free advertising it's up to the developers to decide whether or not to allow it, which they are capable of doing, so, where is the problem?[/QUOTE]
"a real job".
How about you get back down the coal mine before someone calls your occupation as internet naysayer into question.
[quote]I honestly don't understand how any of you can defend them./[/quote]
Throwing my hat into the ring, I don't understand why people are attacking them.
Next I'll see people haranguing Team Four Star because they [i]also[/i] use Fair Use properly.
They produce (sometimes) professional content, adhere to the law, provide (for you) free marketing to an interested audience, and best of all you don't even have to sanction them. Then the [i]only[/i] potential downside I see is people not buying your game because they saw someone play through the whole thing -- but if they don't then the LPer couldn't sell it or your product didn't sell itself.
At the end of the day, they're increasing the awareness of your product -- that is an invaluable service in and of itself to those companies which do not have millions upon millions to spend to do TV ads, etc. -- and even for those that do, LPs can find audiences you can't easily reach through traditional adverts.
You might lose a few sales here and there but if you're going to go grey over [i]LPers giving you free advertisement[/i] then I worry over what you'd think of [i]piracy[/i]. For me, as I see it, piracy and people sharing information/media about your game is just part of doing business. People want to share (and they [i]will[/i] share) -- we don't even let people [i]share games[/i] anymore but that also converted to sales in the past; and that's far more 'dangerous' than a LP.
I just don't see the reason to attack it. At best you're stating "But the conversion rate isn't 100%!" -- but no marketing materials are and the argument of 'But they didn't ask permission' is self-defeating. Your issue then might be that they didn't ask but I'd imagine it's actually that they're allowed to do so when you think they shouldn't be; whether they should or shouldn't: [i]they're making us money[/i]. So why should [i]we developers care[/i]?
In fact: Why [i]shouldn't[/i] we defend them?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.