To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not really expecting a warm reception to this blog. In fact I expect a lot of people to take offense with my opinions this time. They're not popular and they're not common. But I feel it's something that ought to be said. Nintendo's new stance on YouTube Let's Play revenue is the right one in my opinion. Initially, Nintendo opted to eradicate revenue people earned from videos altogether, which seemed harsh to me but nothing they were not legally allowed to do. Nintendo's stance on this has changed and they are now setting up a program with YouTube that splits the revenue between Nintendo, YouTube and the user (for example a Let's Player). This, to me, is the best way it should be done and I honestly hope more publishers follow suit.
There are three Let's Play "channels" that I actively follow: Achievement Hunter, James Rolfe with Mike Matei and Game Grumps. That's pretty much it. Are those the only popular sources for Let's Plays out there? Absolutely not. Users like PewDiePie and Chuggaconroy are undeniably popular with what they do and how well their fans believe they do it. I have no ill will toward anyone who is able to make money doing Let's Plays.
There are plenty of debates to be had about how much content actually belongs to the creator of a Let's Play. In my view, a Let's Player owns only the original material in the content: whatever graphics they may use during the video (such as Egoraptor's animations for Game Grumps) and of course the voice work they do. Beyond that the focus of the video is on the video game itself which is absolutely not their content. Yes, they are playing it and yes, they are turning it into their own production, but at the end of the day it's no different than Mystery Science Theater 3000 or Rifftrax (the latter of which could not even be sold in video form), particularly when the Let's Player opts to LP the entire game.
Why am I taking this stance? Well while I appreciate the Let's Players I follow, these content creators are more so selling their personalities than the games they are playing. I personally am far more interested in playing games than watching other people play them. There are exceptions, such as games like Sonic '06 which was LPed by both Game Grumps and James and Mike. But the thing is even if these particular sources were forced to share their LP revenue they would be fine as Let's Plays are not their primary source of income.
It's not as easy for other Let's Players who have actually made Let's Playing their full time job and with those people I sympathize as well. But unfortunately I just do not think it's fair to make your entire life's work based around making money with someone else's content and not giving any of the cut to the creator of the game, also known as: the primary reason that Let's Play even exists.
There are plenty of instances where Let's Playing have generated increased popularity for some games, such as Slender and A Hat in Time Alpha. Both of these games were fairly underground and have since gained wide acclaim because of people uploading video recordings of their playthrough of the game. So it should never be said that I do not see an upside to Let's Playing.
But if people are really so upset about the makers of the video games taking a cut, doesn't that speak more volumes about the Let's Players than anything else? If Let's Players and their fans are that concerned about the money, then it clearly shows that these are bigger fans of the Let's Plays and not of the games themselves. I disagree with that perspective, I believe more strongly in what rightfully belongs to the video game publishers. They deserve a cut of a recording of their games if it is making money.
I also question just how much effort it takes to create Let's Plays as well. If we consider the video game footage and the recorded audio of the Let's Players voice alone, the necessary effort it would take to create the most basic interpretation of a Let's Play can be achieved with minimal editing in Windows Movie Maker. Of course because of more advanced tools, Let's Players tend to have professional graphics and title cards to make the experience feel more unique. But keep in mind, people were recording and uploading gameplay videos long before the Let's Play scene became so popular. The joke video "Mario Frustration" has amassed almost 30 million views on YouTube and was uploaded about seven years ago. As far as I know, the maker of that video was never a YouTube partner and was not making money off of that video.
By now I'm sure you have noticed that I have not mentioned Nintendo very much. The truth is Nintendo is the first publisher to take this approach on YouTube revenue and it caused a lot of controversy, generating arguably MORE anger from Let's Play fans than when they initially took away all revenue. I think this is the best way for everyone at the end of the day and I am speaking in general terms because I believe that other publishers should do exactly the same thing. If Let's Players want to make money off of this content, that's perfectly fine, but a cut of it should belong to the publishers/developers in my honest opinion.
Just to conclude, again I have no ill will toward the Let's Players out there, but ultimately I want to side with the publishers and what they are entitled to. I don't think Let's Players should be cut off since they are indeed making these videos and adding something to the video game scene. But at the same time, I also feel that a part of the money being made off of those Let's Plays belongs to the video games that are being played in those videos. While there are indeed some negative effects for the Let's Players, that's just how the copyright laws work: that content belongs to the people who made them and if someone else is making money using that content then a part of that cut belongs to the content creator. That is just my view.
Anyway, soap box hat off and discussion hat on: What are your thoughts on this issue?
Square Enix will announce a new title in the Life is Strange series on January 20 at 10:00 a.m. PT / 1:0 p.m. ET, the company teased.
Where Winds Meet on PS5 is a wuxia MMO with strong action combat, open-ended exploration, and plenty to do if you like setting your own pace.
Travis Bruno of Capsule Computers writes:
"It is hard to believe that there would be a time that not only would the Western releases of The Legend of Heroes franchise manage to catch up to the Japanese releases of this incredibly lengthy franchise, but that the game’s that helped kick it off would be getting remade at the very same time. A few months ago we reviewed the fresh remake of Nihon Falcom’s Trails in the Sky 1st Chapter and now here we are, visiting the most recent release in a story featuring characters and plot elements spanning all the way from that very first game twenty-two years ago. It’s not often that a video game sequel requires full knowledge of its predecessors, and in many ways The Legend of Heroes tried to do that with Daybreak, but now that everything has gathered together in The Legend of Heroes: Trails Beyond the Horizon, players best be ready for the most character packed, lore heavy, game of the franchise since Reverie."
Allow me to be the first to disagree with you.
For starters, people aren't addressing, or are forgetting, about a crucial factor. Most, if not all, Let's Players are actually part of a network. This means that their profits are already split 3 ways between themselves, their network, and Google. Adding Nintendo in means a 4 way split and that's ridiculous.
Second, Nintendo is effectively taxing people for the ability to play a game they already paid for and showing others. The more popular LP'ers are going to be hit hard by this and so will likely simply boycott playing Nintendo games, but for smaller LP'ers Nintendo will be taking cents away, not dollars. It won't ever add up to much for Nintendo being a multi-billion dollar company, but it DOES add up for the smaller users.
Third, being for this is the same as being for Nintendo being able to tax you when someone at your house is watching you play the game. They are technically the same, the only difference is that on Youtube, people aren't at your house.
Fourth, copyright laws are outdated and vague. Nintendo doesn't lose money from LPs nor do they lose the right to make money off of their IP so there is no reason for them to do this other than pure greed. Greed that outmatches EA, Activision, Capcom, and Microsoft combined.
And finally, Nintendo is choosing to isolate themselves with this. The rest of the industry, yes almost ALL of the rest of the industry, is for Let's Plays. They aren't taxing it, they aren't trying to stop it, many have actively promoted that Let's Plays are good for the industry. Hell, Sony and Microsoft even designed their consoles to include a form of Let's Play as a feature, which goes to show you that they both understand the potential behind Let's Plays.
Let's Plays are free advertising and have helped games like Minecraft all the way up to Demon's Souls do far better than anyone expected they would. Let's Plays are also highly beneficial to consumers as they are kind of like reviews done in real time, with no corporate baggage attached to the review, making for a more trustworthy review.
And I would argue that the focus is NOT on the game in an LP. I would argue that the LP'er is what's most important because if people just wanted to see gameplay then an LP isn't necessary. People watch LPs because they are entertaining. For example, I watch DashieXP's Let's Plays and he's frickin' hilarious. If I were to take Dashie out of the video entirely and just see the gameplay, I wouldn't care and probably wouldn't watch it.
The money made from LPs is due to the talent behind them. The product is just a formality. Once an LP'er gains a fanbase, that fanbase continues to come and see them regardless of the game they are playing. Only unsubbed users come because they are drawn by the game, but they don't stay because games are being played.
So I have to disagree with you and Nintendo on this. The Nintendo Tax is completely wrong, completely in bad taste, and just continues to show how much of a dinosaur Nintendo really is and that they don't want to change at all.
People watch VG videos for help with playing the game, seeing the game in action to make a decision on buying, or for the personalities behind the video. Either way, the publisher does not deserve profit from it.
You may as well suggest that reviewers, parodies, and critics give studios a cut of their ad revenue.
I understand your point. Creators make a game and they should get a cut from anyone using the game to make money, but I would still disagree to an extent. A counter argument would be that channels like Game Grumps(I watch that shit like its a tv show) aren't about the games. Its about the personality. It doesn't matter what game the channel plays, you just want to see some funny videos that include games. So using an example like Game Grumps, I would say that the channel has great personalities on it, and the games are secondary to them.
Although there is the other side of the spectrum. Where some LPs don't even talk and they just record games like Heavy Rain or The Walking Dead. I would understand if those guys had to give a cut, because the game in the video is the main event.
I wouldn't be surprised if Youtube allows the publishers of a game to get a percentage. I say got for it. IMO I feel that the free market will just decide which games get talked about and which games don't. If Activision decides to demand a cut of the profits, that would mean people would not bother making videos about it, and probably make videos of the next best thing (In this case it would be Battlefield).
Clearly you have no understanding of what Nintendo actually owns, when it comes to their games. They only own the code of the game itself, which is why they say that a buyer of their game should not attempt to alter it in any way. The same goes for any game publisher, they only own the code that makes up the game. I see people like you all the time, who try to take the publisher's side. The majority of you say the same thing, the publisher owns the visuals, everything the game displays.
When all that means is they own the code, that makes those visuals, and everything the game displays. It's just a bunch of code, what they claim they own in visuals, and everything the game displays, is just a twisted byproduct of the actual truth. As long as the user doesn't tamper with the code, he or she is ok to do whatever they want with their game. We go out and buy these publisher's games, and they say we don't own the games. So you're ok with spending $60.00 for something you don't own?, more if it's a collectors edition.
Smh, the honest truth is no, Nintendo should not get a dime. In most cases people who watch let's plays or walkthroughs end up going to buy the game they look at, in the case they don't already have it. So Nintendo or whatever publisher, actually benefits from let's plays, and walkthroughs of their games by gamers. Besides that, it's not Nintendos game anymore, it's a copy of a game someone bought with their money, that they now own.
Seriously, these publishers act as if these let's players, and walkthroughs are broadcasting the actual code of the game itself. Which if this were the case, then yes, the let's player would clearly be in the wrong. This is not the case though, these let's players aren't selling the game. They are playing their copy of a game, and giving their insight on it, if they're doing commentary.
The publishers don't own these things in the latter. If publishers came out tomorrow, as a group, and said 'gamers if you buy a copy of our game, you don't own it'. The game industry would plummet into the abyss, never to return. No one would buy something they would not own after purchasing?
Honestly don't know how I feel about this but let's look at this way. You go to a supply store and purchase wood, the store profits off of you for buying the wood which they made, as in they acquired and refined it, then you take the wood make a fabulous birdhouse, splat some paint on it and sell it for a premium, does the supply store deserve a cut in the money made off the Birdhouse? This may be going a little far but you get what I mean, counter argument/point please.