As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
We're funding a new Acquisitions Incorporated series on Kickstarter right now! Check it out at https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pennyarcade/acquisitions-incorporated-the-series-2
Publishers finally cracking down on monetizing YouTube LPs
Aegeri
Tiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered User regular
Tiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered User regular
From the Industry thread someone posted a link to a potential change in monetization of YouTube videos by publishers when LPers use content from their games:
In effect this means youtubers will either have a delay on getting income for their videos or they will have to be a part of a larger group to do so (such as Polaris or simialr). Publishers for a long time have expressed problems with monetization of youtube content of their games, such as Nintendo placing ads on games with Mario and taking ad revenue earlier in the year. I think this has been a long time in coming and there has always been an intense debate about fair use of games for LP purposes. The main purpose of this kind of screening or system is the ability for publishers (content rights holders) to deny monetization to videos of their content - but this could make for some interesting battles: For example the likes of Totalbiscuit who certainly doesn't hold back on criticism of games he dislikes could have monetization on negative videos yanked (as one example of how extreme this could go).
Either way none of this comes into force until the beginning of next year (IIRC) and where we will see what publishers do/don't decide to support LPs. After all some LPs undoubtably helped their creators immensely, particularly in highly replayable genres like Rogue Likes or open sandbox games. Examples including Spelunky, The Binding of Isaac, Rogue Legacy, Terraria and of course Minecraft all gained an immensely following/popularity from being streamed regularly by LPers on youtube. In fact for me the first time I heard about all of those games was on LPers youtube accounts or streams. On the other hand, LPs have been cited as highly detrimental to linear story driven games that have a set narrative and a lot of cutscenes like the Metal Gear Solid Games (which is basically where the debate in the Industry thread was starting to head).
In my opinion, I think it's time that people on YouTube or streaming other peoples games realized that it was probably overdue for publishers to step in to either claim some piece of the pie of people using their content to earn money or outright stop it. It's always been an immensely fuzzy area, albeit not so much in one offs or review type situations like Totalbiscuits general thing but definitely in the arena of playing games entirely through from beginning to end (EG LPs). I personally would be sad about the loss of full LPs if that happens, but I think I could live with that but I do hope this isn't the first step in attempting to prevent people like TB or AngryJoe from criticising games on YouTube.
Whilst this news might not affect a vast number of people, for some it’s further proof that the powers that be are not happy with the growing number of people who are earning money using their products. Namely gamers uploading gameplay footage either raw or with voice over and then earning money from advertising revenue on Youtube. For most people who are not partnered with a network such as Machinima, uploading gameplay videos often requires a random check which asks the uploader to provide proof of permission to monetize the video or proof of ownership of the content outright. This often leads to a period where the video does not run any adverts until approved. If suitable proof isn’t provided then no adverts are run alongside the video and the uploader doesn’t get paid. The process is shrouded in such a grey area, considering the nature of some videos which put more effort in than simply uploading a trailer or gameplay clip. Users can claim fair usage rights, which ultimately doesn’t always work and so leaves some uploaders earning nothing for their efforts, no matter how great or small that is. It can be debated whether it’s right or wrong for people to earn money using other peoples derivative works in context of making something unique from it, however, it seems the industry is adopting an overall tougher stance on this.
Most savvy gamers will have joined one of the major networks who take a cut from earnings but bypass the random checks which has meant no delays in earning potential as soon as a video is posted. However, that’s all about to change, as from early next year Youtube will be random checking videos regardless of whether the uploader channel is partnered with a network or not. The random check will take between 2 and 48 hours, but it’s not clear how long the process takes if suitable permissions are provided. Networks will be able to categorize channels into groups with either a Managed, or Affiliate status, with the latter most likely being more common. Affiliates will have random videos checked as per the new rules whereas those channels who are Managed might be able to avoid it.
This news will come as quite a blow to many let’s players, vloggers and channels posting official trailers and won’t necessarily stop them, but will impact their earning potential. For some, the motive of getting paid for doing something they enjoy is a great benefit, and obviously video game footage is popular with viewers, remove the financial benefit, and it’s likely some will stop producing videos.
The industry has seen a shift in the last year towards this action, what with Nintendo taking over advertising revenue from videos featuring their content. Microsoft also posted revised terms and conditions for its content earlier this year. With the advent of the PS4 and Xbox One allowing gamers to upload videos, stream gameplay via Twitch etc. It’s clear publishers are keen on gamers posting videos, but only under their own controlled environments where financial gain for the uploader isn’t a factor. To round things off, Sony is not allowing direct video capture from the newly released PS4 until it rolls out an update…whenever that is. Times are changing for Youtubers, and perhaps channels will need to adapt when it comes to video production and produce more unique content that reaches beyond simple gameplay videos and trailers.
In effect this means youtubers will either have a delay on getting income for their videos or they will have to be a part of a larger group to do so (such as Polaris or simialr). Publishers for a long time have expressed problems with monetization of youtube content of their games, such as Nintendo placing ads on games with Mario and taking ad revenue earlier in the year. I think this has been a long time in coming and there has always been an intense debate about fair use of games for LP purposes. The main purpose of this kind of screening or system is the ability for publishers (content rights holders) to deny monetization to videos of their content - but this could make for some interesting battles: For example the likes of Totalbiscuit who certainly doesn't hold back on criticism of games he dislikes could have monetization on negative videos yanked (as one example of how extreme this could go).
Either way none of this comes into force until the beginning of next year (IIRC) and where we will see what publishers do/don't decide to support LPs. After all some LPs undoubtably helped their creators immensely, particularly in highly replayable genres like Rogue Likes or open sandbox games. Examples including Spelunky, The Binding of Isaac, Rogue Legacy, Terraria and of course Minecraft all gained an immensely following/popularity from being streamed regularly by LPers on youtube. In fact for me the first time I heard about all of those games was on LPers youtube accounts or streams. On the other hand, LPs have been cited as highly detrimental to linear story driven games that have a set narrative and a lot of cutscenes like the Metal Gear Solid Games (which is basically where the debate in the Industry thread was starting to head).
In my opinion, I think it's time that people on YouTube or streaming other peoples games realized that it was probably overdue for publishers to step in to either claim some piece of the pie of people using their content to earn money or outright stop it. It's always been an immensely fuzzy area, albeit not so much in one offs or review type situations like Totalbiscuits general thing but definitely in the arena of playing games entirely through from beginning to end (EG LPs). I personally would be sad about the loss of full LPs if that happens, but I think I could live with that but I do hope this isn't the first step in attempting to prevent people like TB or AngryJoe from criticising games on YouTube.
The Roleplayer's Guild: My blog for roleplaying games, advice and adventuring.
Aegeri on
0
Posts
All it will take is one company benefit from loosening their restrictions and the whole idea will collapse. I'd say Nintendo would benefit the most from making a big show of it since the narrative of their imminent doom seems the most prevalent right now. Imagine if Game Grumps, Continue, and all the others started really favoring WiiU and classic Nintendo games because they can actually monetize them. Suddenly Nintendo's all over Youtube for basically free.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
The other thing this is going to stop is people just putting up all cutscenes or the entire soundtrack or a bunch of other shit that has no creative value at all.
This is what sucks about doing a derivative work though; you're at the mercy of the original content creator when it comes to making a cent off of it. For a non videogame example the creators of DBZ the abridged series just released a year in review video that explained that they can't make a dime off of their parody recaps of the Dragon Ball Z series (though actually they do have a much stronger fair use argument then most LPs with parody being an established fair use) but want people to support them through other non ad based means through their 100% created on their own works (some of which hilariously enough include LPs...so they might want to rework that!)
I'd not deny that I am pretty radical in my pro-consumer stances insofar as they relate to copyright, patent and trademark law, but I can see literally no reason that EVERYONE shouldn't tell the publishers to go fuck themselves regardless of what the law says. What is the logic beyond what is effectively "Because the law says they can" for granting publishers the right to either monetise for themselves or prevent the monetisation of LPs? What is lost by not granting those powers OR on the other hand, what is gained by allowing it?
Why can't they just do that?
Can LPers record video/audio straight from the game source and put that on youtube as non-monetized video, and also record themselves talking over it and upload that audio to youtube with a static background and monetized, and tell everyone to use Youtube Doubler?
Can game companies do anything about that?
My sentiment from the Nintendo incident this past May echos here - If people want to monetize their videos that utilize content that makes their videos fall into a legal gray area, they should protect themselves and secure that income by contacting the original content developers and striking some sort of deal. You'd have to deal with exclusivity crap and non-compete clauses and all sorts of shit, but hey, welcome to business. There's plenty of organizations like Machinima (or however it's spelled) that handle things in that fashion anyway. Enterprise! Start your own company!
Capitalism has a lot of shit wrong with it, but this is not one of those instances. The "I bought the game I can do what I want with it" thing doesn't make any fucking sense; people buy films on DVD, but that doesn't mean you can upload it however you damn well please (with or without commentary slapped on top, etc).
You can't walk around picking fruit from other peoples' farms and then stand at an intersection corner selling it for yourself.
These analogies are bad and you should feel bad.
It's like how the beastie boys don't allow any use of their songs for commercial anything. Written in their wills to persist after death even.
It's like tacit permission. If I use a popular game theme song not under public domain it can be assumed the company supports what I'm doing, even if it's objectionable for some reason.
I think LPs should be able to fall under fair use, as long as its not just a stream of the raw game. Strategies, video game personalities, something with some artistic above and beyond may be able to be allowed. It's pretty grey though.
Do we allow amateur audiobooks on youtube? What would make my dramatic reading of a protected published work different from an LP. I don't know the benefits to allowing them or not.
We're talking about using other peoples' work and effort, which is meant to be sold by them, as your own and making money from it.
They work. I don't care if you disagree but try to use some examples or arguments of your own rather than "this is bad."
That's what I'm saying. The MTST3K guys got around this problem by releasing their commentary as audio you sync up with the movie, so LPers just have to release the video of them playing and the commentary in two separate videos that users sync up themselves.
Except you can totally resell video games for yourself. That's where used games come from.
This is like purchasing fruit from someone else's farms, eating it on camera, and then showing people the footage of your eating for money while talking about the fruit and telling them where they could purchase that fruit for themselves.
Except it's not like that because that's an awful analogy.
Games are not like fruit, music, movies or other media. As such they analogies do not serve to inform the issue - they are disanalogies.
QED.
When you resell the game you no longer have access to it. People uploading video game footage does not make them lose access to their game.
Nor does it give others access to the game.
We're not talking about access to the game, we're talking about who can monetize what products in what fashion. (edit so shame on me for bringing it up last post but still, see below)
I go back to my stated sentiment - if you want to make money from LPs, set it up officially with the developer / publisher rather than assume you have some magical right to do so.
The idea that YouTube has a "community" is freaky anyway.
But yeah. Viewing content for free that takes insane bandwidth needs to be provided for in some way. So it's advertising partners on priority.
The only issue with this is that they can't legally release the game video without permission.
They COULD get away with it (though this is entirely absurd) with a device that recorded controller input necessary to achieve their results on screen.
You realize this is how it already works right?
If you want to monetize a video, Youtube does a check that makes it required to demonstrate that you have proof of the ability to monetize. Otherwise ads don't run. It's already up to Youtube to decide whether your proof is sufficient.
The exception is large groups such as Machinima or Polaris, because part of the deal is that Machinima or Polaris will acquire the rights to monetize so that the user uploading the video doesn't have to. The idea is that they are working on getting that proof while you post, allowing users to submit content and start receiving money immediately. This is what enables large Youtube brands like the Yogscast or TotalBiscuit to exist, because otherwise they would lose out on the revenue from the first initial upload when most of the views occur.
Removing the ability for larger groups to do that makes it less financially viable to produce that content. The level of quality that some Youtubers put into their videos, as well as their prolificness, is only possible because of its financial viability. Take that away, and quality suffers.
That's what they call it anyway. I also agree with your point. However, when this issue rears its ugly head, content creators seem to forget that it takes two to dance. Maybe they just don't want to bite the hand that feeds them.
Well now that's another subject entirely, and probably outside the scope of this thread...
Any comparison that can be made will be attempted to be dismantled by someone on the internet. That's because there's no standard for validity. Despite that, most comparisons have a grain of truth that the party arguing against it just doesn't want to acknowledge, and it's so easy to simply say "that's completely different." Of course it is! Can you provide any possible analogy where this couldn't be argued?
What are games like? And if they're not like anything, are you seriously trying to say that analogies are not allowed?
Youtube LPs existed before monetization was even a thing though and they'll manage just fine without them. People will still do it because they really enjoy showing off the games.
Can you plainly state who is what in this bolded section? I've seen people call YouTube channel operators the "content creators" but throw that title away when referring to video game developers and it drives me nuts.
But that's what's being said on this issue, that almost all game companies don't care about the release of game footage as long as it's not monetized. In this case it wouldn't be...the player's audio would be, though.
Your second point is indeed absurd, but it's funny, because that is exactly what speed runners of old games used to do. To watch them do their speed run, you'd load up the "movie file" of button presses. Of course easy video upload to Youtube changed all that.
Same. This is like saying that fanfic authors and blatant music remixers/resamplers deserve the right to resell "their original work" without even bothering to ask the ones who made it possible in the first place for your work to exist.
YouTube isn't the be-all end-all of decision making on content ownership and they tend to fuck up on that a lot. Videos featuring clips that fall into fair-use laws (say, political punditry for example) get targeted wrongly by copyright protection claims.
YouTube doesn't actually MAKE the decisions anyway; their system is setup for copyright holders to sift through content and make those decisions. YouTube then enacts heavy-handed means of dealing with the issue (shutting videos down or even accounts) while the uploader fights an uphill battle to prove their case. YouTube is also awful at verifying someone claiming to be a copyright holder.
As for the second bolded bit, bullshit, lots of people put effort into their LPs and aren't asking for money. It's not about financial viability, it's about whether or not someone feels like it. If money is people's only motivation, they've gotten into making LPs for a strange reason.
It's their own fault that they are threatened by this. They were riding the gravy train while it was a legal gray area, and now something is being done about it to not be in their favor.
I don't deny it sucks, but nobody should've thought it would last forever.
None of those people rode the gravy train in a legal gray area. They got permission from creators to monetize their content and the content was monetized. That is the complete opposite of a legal gray area.
So then how are they threatened if they will continue to get permission?
I don't really blame these companies for putting a lockdown on it, it really feels no different then just uploading your copy of Man of Steel and going "Hey everyone look at me watching this movie that just came out!". To be fair I don't really feel the same way about e-sports type streams or captures, as those are more of a competitive event that you watch to see players compete in. This "streaming a single player game from beginning to end" business though is something I don't find fault in putting an end to.
I meant Youtube users as content creators. The dancing couple is Youtube and companies. Sorry for being vague.
Random checks is a loss of ad revenue. A loss of ad revenue is a loss of profit. A loss of profit is a threat to your livelihood and ability to continue with your present occupation.
The occupation of sitting at home playing video games.
AHA! And here we have the crux of many of the arguments, is that people don't care about them because they don't respect their jobs. "Oh," they say, "They're just sitting at home, playing video games."
There are a million fucking channels that are just people playing video games and talking over them. More than you could ever see in your lifetime. They're not popular. They're not popular because the people who are popular are not just playing video games. They are busy being entertainers, writing jokes, practicing improv. They are busy writing emails, communicating with peers and developers, working to expand their brand. They are editing video, balancing audio levels. They are researching the content that is popular, making executive decisions about where to focus.
I mean, the Yogscast is a brand. They have an office building, employees. They're in the middle of a huge month-long charity event that they organized that will involve them streaming and providing entertainment for consumers. They cut deals with publishers to produce content for video games and promote the charity.
But no, yeah. They just sit around playing Minecraft and talking in a silly British voice, right? Because that's all you see, and that's all you care about.
And I mean that comedian, he's just up there telling JOKES. He doesn't have a hard job. I could tell JOKES. Who cares about him?
I mean since it's so easy to sit at home and play video game and make money, you could do it, right?
Sega and Square Enix take down videos without question, but they've actually done this for years now.
You want to make money the same way? Go work for them.