Options

Penny Arcade - Comic - Our Time Of Need

DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
edited October 2020 in The Penny Arcade Hub
imagePenny Arcade - Comic - Our Time Of Need

Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary.

Read the full story here

Unknown User on
«1

Posts

  • Options
    V1mV1m Registered User regular
    edited October 2020
    It's interesting to reflect that the Twitter Shitter wrote this orison

    283628430_FxJSk-L-2.jpg

    V1m on
  • Options
    LucascraftLucascraft Registered User regular
    Was there an inciting incident for the creation of this comic?

  • Options
    Golden YakGolden Yak Burnished Bovine The sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered User regular
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Was there an inciting incident for the creation of this comic?

    The full story goes into it. It usually does. But apparently there was a major social media storm in reaction to this:
    https://9to5google.com/2020/10/22/gamers-condemn-stadia-creative-director-streamers-should-pay-publishers/

    H9f4bVe.png
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Was there an inciting incident for the creation of this comic?

    The full story goes into it. It usually does. But apparently there was a major social media storm in reaction to this:
    https://9to5google.com/2020/10/22/gamers-condemn-stadia-creative-director-streamers-should-pay-publishers/

    I mean the stadia guy already pushing a product gamers are leery of, basically admitted why gamers are leery of it, that without game ownership, people will be charged extra based on use.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    MarcinMNMarcinMN Registered User regular
    Grant us the serenity to resist arguing on Twitter,
    The courage to trust the world will survive even if we don't argue on Twitter,
    And the wisdom to take the whole damn site down and burn it. :p

    "It's just as I've always said. We are being digested by an amoral universe."

    -Tycho Brahe
  • Options
    RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Was there an inciting incident for the creation of this comic?

    The full story goes into it. It usually does. But apparently there was a major social media storm in reaction to this:
    https://9to5google.com/2020/10/22/gamers-condemn-stadia-creative-director-streamers-should-pay-publishers/

    I mean the stadia guy already pushing a product gamers are leery of, basically admitted why gamers are leery of it, that without game ownership, people will be charged extra based on use.

    Best part is that "Creative Director - Google Stadia" was a complete misrepresentation of his actual job (works for a company bought by Stadia), and nobody would've cared if he hadn't put that title on his Twitter account

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • Options
    MichaelLCMichaelLC In what furnace was thy brain? ChicagoRegistered User regular
    edited October 2020
    Didn't help he tried to crap all over Giant Bomb and other fan favorites.

    If he wanted to argue some (wrong) business model, go for it. But when your start pissing on Alex, you've lost whatever your point was.

    MichaelLC on
  • Options
    H3KnucklesH3Knuckles But we decide which is right and which is an illusion.Registered User regular
    I like this bit from Jason Schrier (game journalist for Bloomberg). Goes to show why Ubisoft and Bethesda were scared of their employees talking to him.


    & these further replies (don't recognize the user names) were also good.

    If you're curious about my icon; it's an update of the early Lego Castle theme's "Black Falcons" faction.
    camo_sig2-400.png
  • Options
    Golden YakGolden Yak Burnished Bovine The sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Golden Yak wrote: »
    Lucascraft wrote: »
    Was there an inciting incident for the creation of this comic?

    The full story goes into it. It usually does. But apparently there was a major social media storm in reaction to this:
    https://9to5google.com/2020/10/22/gamers-condemn-stadia-creative-director-streamers-should-pay-publishers/

    I mean the stadia guy already pushing a product gamers are leery of, basically admitted why gamers are leery of it, that without game ownership, people will be charged extra based on use.

    Sure, though the comic is more a commentary on social media missteps in general rather than this particular incident. He should have deleted, not tweeted.

    H9f4bVe.png
  • Options
    cB557cB557 voOOP Registered User regular
  • Options
    RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    Life seems to be easier for those of who just don't use twitter

    I feel kind of privileged that it is not something I have to engage with in any capacity

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • Options
    ZomroZomro Registered User regular
    I'm sure someone has done the math on it, but I'm pretty sure the value of earned media that online content generates is higher than charging content creators to make videos / stream, especially considering that they'd have to invest more money into unearned media to compensate.

    I know corporations tend to value short term gain over long term growth, but the idea of charging content creators to play their games would be disastrous in even the short term.

  • Options
    dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    MichaelLC wrote: »
    Didn't help he tried to crap all over Giant Bomb and other fan favorites.

    If he wanted to argue some (wrong) business model, go for it. But when your start pissing on Alex, you've lost whatever your point was.


    Too many Alexes.

  • Options
    V1mV1m Registered User regular
    H3Knuckles wrote: »
    I like this bit from Jason Schrier (game journalist for Bloomberg). Goes to show why Ubisoft and Bethesda were scared of their employees talking to him.


    & these further replies (don't recognize the user names) were also good.


    Stadia more like Shadia amirite?

  • Options
    cckerberoscckerberos Registered User regular
    Zomro wrote: »
    I'm sure someone has done the math on it, but I'm pretty sure the value of earned media that online content generates is higher than charging content creators to make videos / stream, especially considering that they'd have to invest more money into unearned media to compensate.

    I know corporations tend to value short term gain over long term growth, but the idea of charging content creators to play their games would be disastrous in even the short term.

    Really depends on the game. Streaming is obviously a boon to anything with a multiplayer focus, but if we're talking about narrative-focused single player games with low replayability, I can totally see streaming being damaging to their bottom line. Because there's really not much gain from playing the game yourself once you've watched it streamed.

    cckerberos.png
  • Options
    V1mV1m Registered User regular
    I think streamers bought a license to play the game when they bought the fucking game.

    The value added by them playing it isn't something that owes anything to game publishers.

  • Options
    dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    I think streamers bought a license to play the game when they bought the fucking game.

    The value added by them playing it isn't something that owes anything to game publishers.

    Next you're going to suggest that buying a ping pong table allows me to stream me playing it. Are you even hearing yourself?

  • Options
    BropocalypseBropocalypse Registered User regular
    What I get out of it is that he can't tell the difference between someone playing a video game and being in the same room as someone playing a video game. In terms of streamers, the only difference is that the "room" is an imaginary construct enabled by Twitch.

  • Options
    ZomroZomro Registered User regular
    edited October 2020
    cckerberos wrote: »
    Zomro wrote: »
    I'm sure someone has done the math on it, but I'm pretty sure the value of earned media that online content generates is higher than charging content creators to make videos / stream, especially considering that they'd have to invest more money into unearned media to compensate.

    I know corporations tend to value short term gain over long term growth, but the idea of charging content creators to play their games would be disastrous in even the short term.

    Really depends on the game. Streaming is obviously a boon to anything with a multiplayer focus, but if we're talking about narrative-focused single player games with low replayability, I can totally see streaming being damaging to their bottom line. Because there's really not much gain from playing the game yourself once you've watched it streamed.

    That may be for some. For me, though, I don't buy new games as much as I used to, since I have less disposable income living on my own as I did when I was in my early 20s living with my parents. So I need to see a game and make a judgement on it before sinking any money into it. I watched a full play through of Ghost of Tsushima recently, and even though I saw the whole story, I now know it's a game I'd like to play someday.

    Even if some people might not buy a game because they experienced it vicariously through a stream or a let's play, I'd argue the exposure the game gets is worth it for overall sales.

    Zomro on
  • Options
    LttlefootLttlefoot Registered User regular
    Narrative games maybe, but mechanic focused single player games massively benefit from being streamed. Look at how big Slay the Spire got in its first few months of early access and even today we get people saying “I’m here because of NorthenLion”

    Maybe the answer is don’t make a game thats story is its only selling point

  • Options
    RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    If you've made a game that is only fun to watch, not to play - congratulations, you made a movie

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • Options
    H3KnucklesH3Knuckles But we decide which is right and which is an illusion.Registered User regular
    Ringo wrote: »
    If you've made a game that is only fun to watch, not to play - congratulations, you made a movie

    Something, something, David Cage joke.

    If you're curious about my icon; it's an update of the early Lego Castle theme's "Black Falcons" faction.
    camo_sig2-400.png
  • Options
    LttlefootLttlefoot Registered User regular
    Have cinemas started showing twitch streams yet?

  • Options
    RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    They show Broadway performances and other live(?) events these days

    Well not these days, 2020 and all

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • Options
    V1mV1m Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    V1m wrote: »
    I think streamers bought a license to play the game when they bought the fucking game.

    The value added by them playing it isn't something that owes anything to game publishers.

    Next you're going to suggest that buying a ping pong table allows me to stream me playing it. Are you even hearing yourself?

    *slinks away in shame

  • Options
    TofystedethTofystedeth Registered User regular
    Zomro wrote: »
    cckerberos wrote: »
    Zomro wrote: »
    I'm sure someone has done the math on it, but I'm pretty sure the value of earned media that online content generates is higher than charging content creators to make videos / stream, especially considering that they'd have to invest more money into unearned media to compensate.

    I know corporations tend to value short term gain over long term growth, but the idea of charging content creators to play their games would be disastrous in even the short term.

    Really depends on the game. Streaming is obviously a boon to anything with a multiplayer focus, but if we're talking about narrative-focused single player games with low replayability, I can totally see streaming being damaging to their bottom line. Because there's really not much gain from playing the game yourself once you've watched it streamed.

    That may be for some. For me, though, I don't buy new games as much as I used to, since I have less disposable income living on my own as I did when I was in my early 20s living with my parents. So I need to see a game and make a judgement on it before sinking any money into it. I watched a full play through of Ghost of Tsushima recently, and even though I saw the whole story, I now know it's a game I'd like to play someday.

    Even if some people might not buy a game because they experienced it vicariously through a stream or a let's play, I'd argue the exposure the game gets is worth it for overall sales.

    Similarly there's games I'll never buy, because we live in a time where there's a glut of good games child me could never have dreamed of, butt I've watched streams of them. They didn't get anything from me, but they weren't going to anyway.

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    Zomro wrote: »
    cckerberos wrote: »
    Zomro wrote: »
    I'm sure someone has done the math on it, but I'm pretty sure the value of earned media that online content generates is higher than charging content creators to make videos / stream, especially considering that they'd have to invest more money into unearned media to compensate.

    I know corporations tend to value short term gain over long term growth, but the idea of charging content creators to play their games would be disastrous in even the short term.

    Really depends on the game. Streaming is obviously a boon to anything with a multiplayer focus, but if we're talking about narrative-focused single player games with low replayability, I can totally see streaming being damaging to their bottom line. Because there's really not much gain from playing the game yourself once you've watched it streamed.

    That may be for some. For me, though, I don't buy new games as much as I used to, since I have less disposable income living on my own as I did when I was in my early 20s living with my parents. So I need to see a game and make a judgement on it before sinking any money into it. I watched a full play through of Ghost of Tsushima recently, and even though I saw the whole story, I now know it's a game I'd like to play someday.

    Even if some people might not buy a game because they experienced it vicariously through a stream or a let's play, I'd argue the exposure the game gets is worth it for overall sales.

    Similarly there's games I'll never buy, because we live in a time where there's a glut of good games child me could never have dreamed of, butt I've watched streams of them. They didn't get anything from me, but they weren't going to anyway.

    I've watched streams for games I own but just haven't gotten around to playing.

    It's almost like watching someone play a game and playing a game are two different kinds of activity!

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    cckerberos wrote: »
    Zomro wrote: »
    I'm sure someone has done the math on it, but I'm pretty sure the value of earned media that online content generates is higher than charging content creators to make videos / stream, especially considering that they'd have to invest more money into unearned media to compensate.

    I know corporations tend to value short term gain over long term growth, but the idea of charging content creators to play their games would be disastrous in even the short term.

    Really depends on the game. Streaming is obviously a boon to anything with a multiplayer focus, but if we're talking about narrative-focused single player games with low replayability, I can totally see streaming being damaging to their bottom line. Because there's really not much gain from playing the game yourself once you've watched it streamed.

    Counterpoint: Subnautica is in exactly that second catagory and the devs pretty much credit streamers for saving their game IIRC

  • Options
    cB557cB557 voOOP Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    cckerberos wrote: »
    Zomro wrote: »
    I'm sure someone has done the math on it, but I'm pretty sure the value of earned media that online content generates is higher than charging content creators to make videos / stream, especially considering that they'd have to invest more money into unearned media to compensate.

    I know corporations tend to value short term gain over long term growth, but the idea of charging content creators to play their games would be disastrous in even the short term.

    Really depends on the game. Streaming is obviously a boon to anything with a multiplayer focus, but if we're talking about narrative-focused single player games with low replayability, I can totally see streaming being damaging to their bottom line. Because there's really not much gain from playing the game yourself once you've watched it streamed.

    Counterpoint: Subnautica is in exactly that second catagory and the devs pretty much credit streamers for saving their game IIRC
    Isn't Subnautica pretty gameplay focused? Like it's not multiplayer, but it's like a singleplayer survival sandbox thing where a lot of the appeal is in creating your base, finding materials, and adapting to the situations it throws at you.
    V1m wrote: »
    I think streamers bought a license to play the game when they bought the fucking game.

    The value added by them playing it isn't something that owes anything to game publishers.
    Buying a DVD doesn't give you the right to play the movie in a public venue. The same thing applies to games. Whether the commentary and the viewers not actually playing the game, just watching it, is sufficiently transformative to constitute fair use is kinda up in the air.
    Lttlefoot wrote: »
    Maybe the answer is don’t make a game thats story is its only selling point
    Nah, there's plenty of great games that also wouldn't really have much left to experience after watching a let's play of it. Most adventure games, for example, lose very little from watching a let's play of them.

  • Options
    Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    Subnautica has a story and an endgame, it's not like, say, Minecraft.

  • Options
    dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    cB557 wrote: »
    Buying a DVD doesn't give you the right to play the movie in a public venue. The same thing applies to games.

    A DVD doesn't have an interactive part as the core feature of it. It's a passive, receptive art form. Games are not.

    You wouldn't say that buying a guitar doesn't give you the right to play it in front of an audience.

    Of course, if you try to analyze IP law based purely on logic, you're going to wind up arguing a lot of silly stuff. In the end, IP law is based on the desired of people with a lot of money. You only have to look at something like Happy Birthday for an example of that horseshit.

  • Options
    MagicalGoatsMagicalGoats Registered User regular
    There's a reason Rifftrax is a separate audio track, and that movie rights renegotiations caused several episodes of MST3K to be unavailable for a while. We can argue whether or not it should be this way, but unless I'm horribly mistaken (always a possibility) that ship has already sailed regarding broadcast of a product.

    There is no aspect, no facet, no moment of life, that cannot be improved with pizza.
  • Options
    cB557cB557 voOOP Registered User regular
    dennis wrote: »
    cB557 wrote: »
    Buying a DVD doesn't give you the right to play the movie in a public venue. The same thing applies to games.

    A DVD doesn't have an interactive part as the core feature of it. It's a passive, receptive art form. Games are not.

    You wouldn't say that buying a guitar doesn't give you the right to play it in front of an audience.
    The interactivity is a part of games, but it's not the whole thing. The writing and art are also major parts of a game, and they can be experienced through a let's play. You don't have to be delivering every part of a work for it to be copyright infringement. Like, if you tried to make Power Rangers without getting the rights for the sentai footage, you'd get sued.

  • Options
    dennisdennis aka bingley Registered User regular
    I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as people who have much more legal training than us are on both sides of the fence here. And there has been no definitive ruling one way or the other.

    I almost wish it was made illegal without permission. Then all the idiot game makers who wouldn't give permission basically lose all their free advertising, and their games can languish in oblivion while streamers increase the non-idiot game makers sales.

  • Options
    V1mV1m Registered User regular
    edited October 2020
    cB557 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    cckerberos wrote: »
    Zomro wrote: »
    I'm sure someone has done the math on it, but I'm pretty sure the value of earned media that online content generates is higher than charging content creators to make videos / stream, especially considering that they'd have to invest more money into unearned media to compensate.

    I know corporations tend to value short term gain over long term growth, but the idea of charging content creators to play their games would be disastrous in even the short term.

    Really depends on the game. Streaming is obviously a boon to anything with a multiplayer focus, but if we're talking about narrative-focused single player games with low replayability, I can totally see streaming being damaging to their bottom line. Because there's really not much gain from playing the game yourself once you've watched it streamed.

    Counterpoint: Subnautica is in exactly that second catagory and the devs pretty much credit streamers for saving their game IIRC
    Isn't Subnautica pretty gameplay focused? Like it's not multiplayer, but it's like a singleplayer survival sandbox thing where a lot of the appeal is in creating your base, finding materials, and adapting to the situations it throws at you.
    V1m wrote: »
    I think streamers bought a license to play the game when they bought the fucking game.

    The value added by them playing it isn't something that owes anything to game publishers.
    Buying a DVD doesn't give you the right to play the movie in a public venue. The same thing applies to games. Whether the commentary and the viewers not actually playing the game, just watching it, is sufficiently transformative to constitute fair use is kinda up in the air.
    Lttlefoot wrote: »
    Maybe the answer is don’t make a game thats story is its only selling point
    Nah, there's plenty of great games that also wouldn't really have much left to experience after watching a let's play of it. Most adventure games, for example, lose very little from watching a let's play of them.

    Does buying a frisbee give you a license to play with it in a public venue?

    How about some dice?

    How about a checkers set?

    How about a board game?

    Where is this line being drawn where as soon as as someone sees me doing /x/ then someone else is entitled to charge me money for letting them?

    V1m on
  • Options
    RatherDashing89RatherDashing89 Registered User regular
    Much like other areas where people discuss mythical "lost sales", I think there's a big difference between "watched a stream and didn't buy game" and "watched a stream instead of buying game". I could definitely see a game being ruined for playing by watching a stream: but you'd only choose to watch it if you had no intention of playing. The only instance I could see someone deciding not to buy a game because it is available to watch is if the game is truly not interactive (or if the interactive nature of it is meaningless). And, well, that just gives developers more incentive to make an actual game. The best walking simulators typically do involve experience in some way. Even The Beginners Guide, which was literally a walking simulator, probably did not lose many sales to YouTube. Anyone who was willing to spoil the game by watching a video probably had no intention to buy it anyway.

  • Options
    cB557cB557 voOOP Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    cB557 wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    cckerberos wrote: »
    Zomro wrote: »
    I'm sure someone has done the math on it, but I'm pretty sure the value of earned media that online content generates is higher than charging content creators to make videos / stream, especially considering that they'd have to invest more money into unearned media to compensate.

    I know corporations tend to value short term gain over long term growth, but the idea of charging content creators to play their games would be disastrous in even the short term.

    Really depends on the game. Streaming is obviously a boon to anything with a multiplayer focus, but if we're talking about narrative-focused single player games with low replayability, I can totally see streaming being damaging to their bottom line. Because there's really not much gain from playing the game yourself once you've watched it streamed.

    Counterpoint: Subnautica is in exactly that second catagory and the devs pretty much credit streamers for saving their game IIRC
    Isn't Subnautica pretty gameplay focused? Like it's not multiplayer, but it's like a singleplayer survival sandbox thing where a lot of the appeal is in creating your base, finding materials, and adapting to the situations it throws at you.
    V1m wrote: »
    I think streamers bought a license to play the game when they bought the fucking game.

    The value added by them playing it isn't something that owes anything to game publishers.
    Buying a DVD doesn't give you the right to play the movie in a public venue. The same thing applies to games. Whether the commentary and the viewers not actually playing the game, just watching it, is sufficiently transformative to constitute fair use is kinda up in the air.
    Lttlefoot wrote: »
    Maybe the answer is don’t make a game thats story is its only selling point
    Nah, there's plenty of great games that also wouldn't really have much left to experience after watching a let's play of it. Most adventure games, for example, lose very little from watching a let's play of them.

    Does buying a frisbee give you a license to play with it in a public venue?

    How about some dice?

    How about a checkers set?

    How about a board game?

    Where is this line being drawn where as soon as as someone sees me doing /x/ then someone else is entitled to charge me money for letting them?
    When it's a work of art, generally.

  • Options
    V1mV1m Registered User regular
    So if I buy a fancy chess-set with handmade pieces, I should pay the maker a royalty when I go play a game in the park with it?

  • Options
    RingoRingo He/Him a distinct lack of substanceRegistered User regular
    Is there a decent line to draw between what is and isn't piracy? Your work of art can lose sales due to reviews and spoilers, buf it's not me stealing the art, and I think streaming does indeed fall under 'not piracy'

    Sterica wrote: »
    I know my last visit to my grandpa on his deathbed was to find out how the whole Nazi werewolf thing turned out.
    Edcrab's Exigency RPG
  • Options
    cB557cB557 voOOP Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    So if I buy a fancy chess-set with handmade pieces, I should pay the maker a royalty when I go play a game in the park with it?
    No for a lot of reasons. The main reason, I think, is that this sort of "what is and isn't fair use" area of IP law is mostly for works that are relatively easy to make a bunch of copies of. Books, movies, games, photos, stuff that's ultimately just information so you could relatively easily make a thousand copies of it and sell them and not show the creator a cent if that wasn't illegal. A physical chess set is a lot harder to copy so it doesn't require as strict protections.
    Alongside that, just playing a game in public doesn't make for a public performance, like how you wouldn't automatically be charged for royalties just because you listened to music on your phone without using headphones. For another, a fancy chess set usually isn't art? Like, anything can be art, yeah, but not everything is art, and a fancy chess set is probably being sold not as art, but as a toy or something.
    Though now we're getting into like, what are the actual specific of IP law, and I'm pretty sure neither of us are layers and we're both just guessing at this point.

Sign In or Register to comment.