syntheticgerbil

I guess since my wife works at a vet she has easy access to cat/dog sedatives, but can you get any by maybe asking or visiting a vet? It's very handy for when animals freak out during fourth of July or Halloween, car rides as well.

Oh geez, big Beastie Boys fan, I never knew of that incident, but it being a part of the major chance in tone and attitude moving on to Paul's Boutique makes total sense. They tend to speak of the mid 80s with a lot of regret, sexism and fights, etc.

Yeah I'm not even gonna being to agree with you on any of that, so no point if your objective here is to convince me of something else. P.S. I don't see how any of this is a derailment considering this whole Ethics in Game Journalist heavily involves certain toxic Youtube celebrities who only have a mouthpiece in the first place because of ethically questionable content creation.

Okay I'm gonna type my final thing on this issue. I've heard all of these arguments and I've thought long and hard on all of this stuff many times over the past few years and my mind is simply not going to change here. I'm going to back up and just frame it the case of me licensing royalty free music for any animation I do for commercial or whatever, for profit basically. I look up the songs on the sites where they are being sold or the creator themselves and I see what the cost is for the royalty free song (or sound effect even, some people sell foley sound effects). You pay the musician based on what the extent of the license is going for, who is going to view it, how many viewers your work is expected to have, where it'll be shown, etc. If you expand the license, it is your duty to pay more. It's all sliding scale and can result in lawsuits if not properly paid for. Plus it's just a matter of respect. Once you have purchased the music you are free to alter it and make it fit the piece with a sound editor, maybe even slowing it down or speeding it up, thus creating some derivative. Often these tracks will come in zip files with split up portions for you to easily do so. No one is necessarily coming to any commercial or promo video for the music, but it is there as part of the content. The final work lives with someone else's work and they should be paid accordingly. What amount they want to charge or whether or not they allow it for free with the caveat of a credit is up to them and is their right. If they want to charge a ton of money they are free to do so, although people might not buy the music that way. Although usually the stuff that goes for like $1000s is pretty awesome music and probably gets licensed to larger media companies quite often. To me, this is exactly how creating a Let's Play works. It's still using someone else's work and they should get paid, especially if there are certain people making a ton of cash, hence why licensing royalty free music is charged on a sliding scale. And what sucks is I'm sure musicians get fucked all the time on this stuff as well because there are a lot of people out there who don't respect the system and you can easily find sites that give you the same music for free because some asshole bought it and shared it with everyone.

I haven't heard any word on what gross stuff there is in Phantom Pain at least concerning violent storylines towards women. Is there anything else going on besides how Quiet looks? I want to think it's just doing missions with puppies.

I would think that's because Youtube is offering a platform for all these people to make money and a lot of it out there is violating copyright law, which is why they equip content ID and such so they can avoid actual lawsuits over hosting copyrighted content. Whether Youtube is correctly taking down things or not or the robots are doing a bad job doesn't really divorce the intent of the system from copyright law in the first place. Everything was so much easier in the days when people just uploaded their speed runs to archive.org for fun and not profit.

People use fair use all the time when explaining away their selling of fan art prints and ultimately they have no point to make. That's not how fair use works. Finally some comic cons are banning the selling of copyrighted characters in the artists alleys (or just bootleg shirt sellers) and Deviant Art does not allow you to sell prints of the same either. You could argue people only like those derivative works because they are coming for the artist's style but that's not supported by copyright law and in many cases it makes artists of the IPs unhappy. All of this supports a review or critical analysis (like Jim Sterling's videos) and none of it supports a long play that makes money. Digital Millenium COPYRIGHT Act. I get it, we are all steeped fan culture now, but I don't think that should be at the expense of any creator or copyright holder. The law supports that, the shared ad revenue is a concession.

It's both people's content being featured. If that were somehow not the case, then ultimately copyright law would not apply here and companies would not be able to DMCA take them down. The law already supports completely the opposite of what your saying. Are you seriously saying compared to developing a game or writing as a game journalist it is not easy? I'm just being real here. I have very little sympathy for people in this job compared to someone who does the heavy lifting literally (as maybe someone in a warehouse) and figuratively (and a content creator to provide them content to create their content). They are doing rudimentary video editing (if they edit at all) that anyone can do, a lot of people have poor sound quality and capture. It's based on some amount of charisma and also playing the newest games. Like how having an early copy of Metal Gear Solid V is gonna get you a bunch of ad revenue. Or my favorite, when Grim Fandango Remastered was released, the next day there were like 20 different complete streams of people sometimes talking (but not while cutscenes played). Good job? Except these are entertainers that base their content on someone elses content. Except small indie developers or really small creators of any sort have little recourse when it comes to things like Youtube videos or fan derivatives, because then somehow they are assholes for exercising their right as a copyright holder. So yeah, small dev trumps small Let's Player every time. But again all the money is flowing to Polaris types, so I don't know exactly who you are arguing for. Do you really think making a video of you talking over a video game should be a sustainable full time job for everyone who attempts it? That's the real tragedy of this. Unfortunately you only have ammo coming from big publishers and developers. What he's doing is under copyright law then and the DMCA strikes on him shouldn't have recourse. But I'm not arguing against those who do traditional review and critical content. That's always been protected under copyright law.

It's really obnoxious of Square to not even take that into account because they must know on some level they have a revenue stream coming from digital sales. Plus flash sales and such can help keep the game in people's minds. It seemed really unfair to Crystal Dynamics for Square to announce sales were short considering they spent years of time and effort to carefully reboot one of the biggest video game franchises of all time.

Yeah it was definitely the hilarity of the Sonic Dreams Collection that got me waiting for whatever nonsense Nick Robinson was going to say next. I already watching some other person on Youtube play it, but they played it in a more bizarre and playful way. Stuffing Sonic into the garage shelf had me laughing out loud for a bit. Ahahaha, that popped out of left field and I loved it. Unless some bullies on Twitter were actually saying that, but I still think it's funny because it's an utterly moronic insult. When Justin and Griffin played the car mechanic simulator, I was in tears.

You still have multiple options to share revenue after Google takes its cut through that program: http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/youtube-gaming-stars-blindsided-by-nintendo-s-ad-revenue-grab-1.3010550 Again it's still ultimately Nintendo's content and it's still their right as copyright holders, Youtubers are given the rights to stream games by the grace of the copyright holder sometimes with revenue sharing and sometimes without. I don't see what the issue is other than these people want more money in a market that didn't even exist before Youtube ads.

I don't hate the talk over a game format, I do often turn on Let's Play videos of a few Youtubers I like. The majority I have listened to outside of the ones I like tend to be loud or obnoxious. But I'm under no impression that these people need to be making more money than actual content creators. And you do admit it's a secondary creativity. As you said it's collaborative, so exactly how is sharing ad revenue in need of a new model? What is wrong with Nintendo or whoever else taking their cut for much more difficult development work than talking over a game? The law as it stands protects copyright holders and that is what I think is right. My only issue is it's harder for people who do creative work to go after people profiting off their stuff if they aren't armed with clout and expensive lawyers. If someone wants to do something with the copyright they hold, all these Youtubers and fans of such try to act like they are bad people/companies. Part of the issue with Gamergate is that these celebrities on Youtube are considered more "real" and more professional than actual games journalists who work within copyright law, do their due diligence, and research. They way they make money compared to a games journalist is fundamentally different. It's just not the case and I don't see a reason to continue to keep these people on a pedestal.

Do you mean the B&B Corps? I did not feel comfortable hearing about their sordid pasts and then getting L1 prompts to have a second FPV camera sometimes for the sake of looking at their butts.

What on earth is your avatar? I love it.

I have no idea if this goes here, but the videos on Polygon involving Nick Robinson and X person playing a game I think are becoming the funniest to me. That guy has a sense of timing I love. Also the Polygon video where Danielle and Griffin play Sheltered is amazing.

Metal Gear needs way less Kill la Kill.

Even back when it was just Eidos they were upset that Tomb Raider Underworld I think sold 1 million instead of 1.5 million during the initial release. Also the funny thing is I read an article a while back that it took about a year for the new Tomb Raider to eventually make a profit. That seems about right to me, though. I'll never understand the need for initial sales to be so important in the digital download age.

I don't think they have a right to complain either way. Don't see how it's a jump either since a lot of these people, especially those under the Polaris network, which is owned by Disney, are going to the bank. So they can cry me a river. A portion of their content simply just isn't their content at the end of the day. Same as fan artists who sell unnofficial prints of derivative works of copyrighted characters they don't own and T-shirt sites that get away with limited edition sales of IP they also don't own. All sites that openly sell this stuff, Teefury, Etsy, Society6, etc. have painfully obscure and slow DMCA complaint forms that make it tough for anyone who isn't Warner Bros. or Disney to police. So the Youtube revenue share to me is the obvious way to go that is fair for all (and streamlined to boot) and even then people are still making a lot of money to just live off recording them playing games. No as an artist I would never sell any derivative works I don't have the license or premission to. It's wrong and creators tend to not like it. I also don't steal shit off of Google images and use it in works because that'll also run into copyright issues. If I use music in a thing that I am doing for profit, like royalty free stuff, I pay the music creator for the license. I I respect them. Also learning art, music, writing takes way longer, more craft honing, and money for learning the digital tools and whatever else to even be equated to Youtube pundits. A proper games journalist is not equal to a Youtuber, it requires way more skill, knowledge, networking, obligation, and in some cases schooling. They make far less than the standard successful Youtuber.

Ad revenue plus the game makers taking their percentage seems like a fair enough way to pay people for their work I think as much as many Youtube fans complain. Talking over a video game you are playing simply just isn't a hard job. Egregious payments over hidden advertising is super lame.

Obviously that's not what I'm saying. If you think Pewdiepie is equal to a gaming podcast or website, you are mistaken. The popular Let's Players and Youtubers are flush with cash, everyone knows this. The ones trying to get by tend to be difficult to listen to and are probably not sustainable as an entertainment as an entertainment vehicle.

But their revenue wouldn't even exist if they didn't have someone else's creative work to talk over. I have zero sympathy.

Yeah I tried to be sort of goth for a while so it worked out. Embarassing yearbook photos exist out there. Eventually it led to me trading up those cargo pants for black/purple tint corderoy. Oh so soft. I should probably by some more honestly.

That stuff starting in Ground Zeroes plus Quiet kind of blindsided me in how egregious it was compared to the past (in my opinion, less harmful, but still obnoxious sexism) and I almost wanted to quit the series despite having invested way too much time playing every single game. I don't know I still could if it kept going like this but it's the last Metal Gear game.

$30,000 fucking dollars. And we are supposed to perpetually feel sorry for these fucking Youtubers losing their advertising cuts to big bad Nintendo because they give "free advertising." Yuck.

Weird, usually the goth/punk/nu metal kids plus the gangsta types were wearing them and you had to worry about them beating you up.