I wanted to take you seriously, but you keep doing shit like this: Fez Creator Phil Fish Says YouTub
118 replies, posted
I honestly don't think youtubers should be unconditionally entitled to make money off videos based on content somebody else created.
Make a video and critique? Sure! But you shouldn't feel entitled for money based on something somebody else made and didn't allow you to use in that manner.
And yes there's additional effort and yes it's not the entirety of the content, but that doesn't change anything.
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;45146501]Let's Plays are like skipping paying for a cinema ticket and watching it on tv. Are we going to sue tv for not making producers as much money as a cinema release?[/QUOTE]
Lets plays are like reading the playbill of the movie. Its only half the experience. What do you rather watch someone play the game, or play the game? Lets plays/walkthroughs are perfect for people stuck and not wanting to figure out some assinine puzzle that surpasses their intellectual ability, or their motive to succeed. Like who needs gratification on completing it on your own?
The fact is, fez isn't some cinematic movie that says "hey, here is a video game worth watching!"
A movie, a TV show, is something you WATCH. That is the only level of interaction you get with the entertainment. Video games requires direct interaction. Its the joy of playing the game that gets you to be apart of it. Its your interaction with the environment that is supposed to provide the entertainment.
Like I said last time Nintendo did this shit, if I post a video of myself driving a Honda I don't owe Honda anything. If I post a video of myself playing Game, I shouldn't owe GameDev anything.
They absolutely own the intellectual property but the way I interact with their product belongs to me and I should be able to do whatever I want with footage of it. What's next, corrugated cardboard companies suing people for unboxing videos? Give me a break.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;45146325]Guess the revenue he sells from a game, which is something you play not watch, is clearly not enough for him. I guess that yacht bill is coming up quick.[/QUOTE]
I seriously doubt that Phil Fish is anywhere near successful enough to afford a yacht.
I understand you weren't being serious, but being an indie dev isn't an incredibly lucrative thing, unless you're extremely lucky like notch or garry.
just to clarify I'm not defending what he's saying
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;45146478]I find it funny how Let's Players make enormous portions of money and any kind of critic against them results in a shitstorm, honestly the creator of the content they play should have rights over streamers.
Fez is a good game too despite the ridiculous backslash against it because of Phil's comments, we need more people who can talk out of their heart like him against toxities of the industry[/QUOTE]
Yes, damn those lets plays that are so bad for business.
Ignoring how many sales and how much publicity they generate.
Lets plays made me aware of Suda51, Swery65, MGS (sold me on getting a ps3 and MGS4), Chivalry, Dark Souls, Dark Souls 2.
Hell, how many sales did LPs generate for Amnesia?
[QUOTE=Richardroth;45146204]Idiot with a big mouth doesn't know when to keep it shut. More at 11.[/QUOTE]
Person shares his opinion on his own twitter feed, and occasionally tries to stop people from making it news and then people make it news and everyone hates him for it. More at never.
[editline]18th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45146679]Like I said last time Nintendo did this shit, if I post a video of myself driving a Honda I don't owe Honda anything. If I post a video of myself playing Game, I shouldn't owe GameDev anything. [/QUOTE]
I watched a Let's play of someone driving a honda, now I don't want to buy a honda.
While I'm in favour of LP's your comparison is ridiculous.
I would have bought FEZ when it was on sale but all the crap and now this he have's pulled I refused to give him my money and got my self Quake II Missions Pack's Instead.
[QUOTE=SexualShark;45146657][img]http://cdn.destructoid.com//ul/256717-Untitled-1.jpg[/img]
people took this guy seriously[/QUOTE]
That's a pretty good photo of him. What point are you trying to make?
Fucking indie asshats.
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45146424]Well anything can be considered art in any case, it just depends on how many people accept it as such.[/QUOTE]
don't even start this debate
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;45146802]Fucking indie asshats.[/QUOTE]
Buzz off.
Not every indie is an asshat.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45146679]Like I said last time Nintendo did this shit, if I post a video of myself driving a Honda I don't owe Honda anything. If I post a video of myself playing Game, I shouldn't owe GameDev anything.
They absolutely own the intellectual property but the way I interact with their product belongs to me and I should be able to do whatever I want with footage of it. What's next, corrugated cardboard companies suing people for unboxing videos? Give me a break.[/QUOTE]
Does most people buy their Hondas to use them once ever and never touch them ever again?
Is the way the Honda looks like sounds like vast majority of the output it produces or does it have other tangible functionality as well?
Is most of the production cost going into the Honda in the way it looks and sounds like or are there costs of materials as well?
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;45146746]I would have bought FEZ when it was on sale but all the crap and now this he have's pulled I refused to give him my money and got my self Quake II Missions Pack's Instead.[/QUOTE]
Don't even waste your time with Fez.
Quake 2 is still one of the greatest shooters ever.
Well, I guess he can choke on it.
[QUOTE={TFS} Rock Su;45146830]Buzz off.
Not every indie is an asshat.[/QUOTE]
Not every indie dev is, but a lot of them are arrogant assholes.
I prefer to stick to humble Japanese devs.
I'm with Fish on this. Sure, there's always some proportionality of how much work was put into each video.
But seeing "lets plays" where people just play a game they bought and put a facecam on it is sickening. The content being hosted on that channel is 99% hard work done by the developers, with a facecam setup being the only creative addition to the video.
On the other hand, speed runs involve months and/or years of practice, finding bugs and exploits in a game, and amounts of effort that are more appropriate to entitle the video creator to the full share of profits.
Videos where small pieces of footage are used to provide examples of a subject, or comedic relief are completely fine, too. Just because there's game in there, doesn't mean it should be taken down.
But when someone uploads 20 unedited videos, 15 minutes long each, of the game just being played, and their reaction to it, that's the developers' hard work being used for free, without permission.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;45146837]Does most people buy their Hondas to use them once ever and never touch them ever again?
Is the way the Honda looks like sounds like vast majority of the output it produces or does it have other tangible functionality as well?
Is most of the production cost going into the Honda in the way it looks and sounds like or are there costs of materials as well?[/QUOTE]
The design of a car, and even in some cases the sound of a car, are trademarks. Companies pour millions of dollars into research and development for every aspect of their vehicles.
Video games have other functionality, just like cars. While their visuals and audio are a big part of the experience, the gameplay is the main focus and everyone will play it a little bit different. The way someone plays a game is absolutely their original creation, and I don't think you'll disagree with me that their commentary is as well.
I'm allowed to post usage/commentary/review videos for basically anything I want, and nobody will sue me. I can show the brand name and logos on the product, show and talk about their trademarked designs, even make a video of myself using the product incorrectly or in a way that casts it in a negative light and it all falls under fair use. Why should video games be any different?
[QUOTE=Brt5470;45146714]
I watched a Let's play of someone driving a honda, now I don't want to buy a honda.
While I'm in favour of LP's your comparison is ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Let's Play videos should not be allowed because they might convince someone not to buy the game? What? Reviews should be the [i]most[/i] protected use of copyright. As long as I'm not slandering anyone I should be able to say how terrible something is and provide examples without fear of being sued.
[QUOTE=LTJGPliskin;45146894]Not every indie dev is, but a lot of them are arrogant assholes.
I prefer to stick to humble Japanese devs.[/QUOTE]
there's a rare handful of western indie devs that don't have their heads firmly wedged between their buttcheeks.
Let's Plays aren't protected under fair use, Reviews, News, Rants and other forms of journalism are protected under fair ue
[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45146066]What is Fair Use and why is it still relevant?[/QUOTE]
It's not really fair use if you're making tons of money off of other people's work.
[QUOTE=ProffesorAssHat;45146463]The original 2004 PC version of Cave Story looks better than this.[/QUOTE]
Back in 2004 when pixel art was much less advanced!
[QUOTE=Swiket;45146456]But was it Phil Fish the asshole or Phil Fish the concept?[/QUOTE]
The statement in itself isn't newsworthy and just serves to confirm the public view of the latter, so yeah.
[editline]18th June 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;45147062]Let's Plays aren't protected under fair use, Reviews, News, Rants and other forms of journalism are protected under fair ue[/QUOTE]
Those lines are blurry, that's why people are still arguing.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;45147172]The statement in itself isn't newsworthy and just serves to confirm the public view of the latter, so yeah.
[editline]18th June 2014[/editline]
Those lines are blurry, that's why people are still arguing.[/QUOTE]
Let's Plays don't fall under any of those categories though, there should be a blurred line between them
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;45147062]Let's Plays aren't protected under fair use, Reviews, News, Rants and other forms of journalism are protected under fair ue[/QUOTE]
Commentary is protected under fair use.
just to throw some thoughts out there, let's play stuff could be considered a tier of reporting, though fair use often has (very much needed) clauses about how much of the content you can use before it's not fair anymore. Like, you can use up to 12 seconds of a song without having to pay licencing fees for it or something, but the artist may ask you to cease using it altogether.
[QUOTE=dai;45147393]just to throw some thoughts out there, let's play stuff could be considered a tier of reporting, though fair use often has (very much needed) clauses about how much of the content you can use before it's not fair anymore. Like, you can use up to 12 seconds of a song without having to pay licencing fees for it or something, but the artist may ask you to cease using it altogether.[/QUOTE]
I think the issue is whether or not gameplay should be copyrightable. I'd understand not allowing people to use your cutscenes in their video but I don't believe that a video of someone playing the interactive parts of your game should remain your property.
[QUOTE=Sir Whoopsalot;45146338]Losing [I]some[/I] revenue to the developer is something you can at least make an argument for. I mean, you [I]are[/I] making money off their characters but even still, it's kind of a hot debate.
Comparing stuff like Let's Plays to piracy though? I would say he's lost his mind but he beat me to that punchline about a year ago.[/QUOTE]
Well, there's something entirely anecdotal I want to throw out. I'm not a fan of fighting games but I'm a fan of DC comics, so when Injustice: Gods Among Us came out I was considering getting it for the story mode. Then I saw that people had all of the cutscenes on YouTube, which strung together made a feature-length film. I'm wondering if instances like this where there are commentary-less "long plays" or "cinematic plays" where only the major story elements are shown could count as a lost sale because people who would buy the game for the narrative can just get that part for free on YouTube.
Normally I'm inclined to disagree with Phil Fish, if you upload Doom gameplay it's not the same as working through the levels yourself and overcoming the challenges yourself and modding it yourself in the same way that watching competitive DOTA 2 or TF2 isn't the same as actually competing on those levels or watching a master chef work is the same as actually being a master chef, but for highly story-driven linear games I'm wondering if different rules should apply.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;45147371]Commentary is protected under fair use.[/QUOTE]
That's like saying you're allowed to upload a full movie to Youtube but only if you have your commentary over it.
I don't understand why people care about what he says. Do people think he has a huger power over the industry or what?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
