Jump to content
JonCole

"Ethics and Journalistic Integrity"

Recommended Posts

It seems that for the last couple of pages we've mostly went back and forth about which comparison to older media is the most suitable for this scenario, but I don't think any of them are analagous to this premise.

 

The thing is, for me, that making a game fundamentally requires you to hand over some amount of creative and authorial control to your players, so it seems a little disingenuous to characterize their use of this freedom as abusive. The hypothetical of "what if you talked over other forms of media" has been brought up both here and elsewhere in relation to this, but it doesn't really work for me since these other media aren't specifically built with blanks that need filling in.

 

I don't think this invalidates developers' claims that these are still mostly their creations, but given the state of this conversation (and I don't mean here, I mean everywhere), defending IPs and copyright doesn't seem half as pressing to me as reasserting the value of players' contributions in this system. Because pretty much everytime the subject comes up, people mock streamers for being unqualified for their non-jobs, judge them for their easy living and imply that they are thieves, frauds or parasites. The prevalent attitude is that everything that happens in, near and around a game belongs to the developer and people should think themselves lucky they get to use these games at all.

 

Which is a particularly galling attitude when it's voiced by developers themselves, because it kind of implies they think their perfect creation is corrupted by the presence of players and they'd sooner preserve the idealized version they've built up in their head. Like an architect who's upset that their building is actually in use rather than existing as this pure work of art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that for the last couple of pages we've mostly went back and forth about which comparison to older media is the most suitable for this scenario, but I don't think any of them are analagous to this premise.

 

The thing is, for me, that making a game fundamentally requires you to hand over some amount of creative and authorial control to your players, so it seems a little disingenuous to characterize their use of this freedom as abusive. The hypothetical of "what if you talked over other forms of media" has been brought up both here and elsewhere in relation to this, but it doesn't really work for me since these other media aren't specifically built with blanks that need filling in.

 

I don't think this invalidates developers' claims that these are still mostly their creations, but given the state of this conversation (and I don't mean here, I mean everywhere), defending IPs and copyright doesn't seem half as pressing to me as reasserting the value of players' contributions in this system. Because pretty much everytime the subject comes up, people mock streamers for being unqualified for their non-jobs, judge them for their easy living and imply that they are thieves, frauds or parasites. The prevalent attitude is that everything that happens in, near and around a game belongs to the developer and people should think themselves lucky they get to use these games at all.

 

Which is a particularly galling attitude when it's voiced by developers themselves, because it kind of implies they think their perfect creation is corrupted by the presence of players and they'd sooner preserve the idealized version they've built up in their head. Like an architect who's upset that their building is actually in use rather than existing as this pure work of art.

 

I think the music analogy stands pretty well because we weren't talking about music license you buy to listen to, we were talking about music license you can buy to remix/alter for your own creative output with commercial value.  Of course it could be argued that music thing is still inadequate comparison because with music, you start with a music as the medium and end with music as the medium so you are in a way, competing with the original so compensation seems more necessary.  While with games and LP/Streaming, you start with game as a medium and end with a video (or in case of streaming, some sort of social event), two disparate medium.

 

And the latter is interesting because that's opposite of my perception of the prevalent attitude.  I mean I do see LPers and streamers get lot of hate, but rarely do I see that hate linked to "devs deserve more", rather, I just see the hate train begin and end at hating the LPers and streamers mostly out of jealousy.

 

So I'm bit lost when you say we need to re-assure players of their contribution... because I'm just having a hard time seeing how exactly that was ever threatened outside of few edge cases where rabid fandom attacks anyone who doesn't appreciate their favorite games.

 

Part of this is that, as I mentioned before, available evidence seems to suggest that these videos being out there increase sales, and thus there is already a profit motive for developers, so asking for a cut on top of that is double-dipping. Part of what complicates the issue is that the awareness boosting effect of these videos is likely diminished for something like Nintendo properties, where awareness is already high, but Nintendo also doesn't need the money from youtube views.

 

Depends a lot on the Youtuber I imagine. Northernlion has explicitly said before that he'd be fine with it, though I doubt I'd be able to find the video since I think it was in one of like a million Isaac videos. Others seem to be ludicrously protective, like the dipshits who came after Errant Signal for using a bit of gameplay footage to illustrate a point.

 

Yeah translating awareness as compensation is tricky because LPers who can boost that factor often also had enough money to pay out... and companies that could demand the payout, like you said, often didn't need that payout.

 

I do recall specifically when someone mentioned to NL that someone has been uploading his video (no commentary, just straight up upload) and he was like "well if the dude isn't getting some crazy view count then who cares" but yes he was also kinda chill about the idea of LP of a LP although also kinda laughed about the weirdness of that whole concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, I mostly watch Giant Bomb's videos if I know I won't play the game. It definitely happens that I sate my curiosity regarding a game by watching a Giant Bomb video, from which I get entertainment, GB gets revenue and the developer gets nothing.

The financial model should be such that a game developer could make a game that works well for LPs but sells poorly, but is still successful through revenue generated by the LPs. I recognize the LP contribution, though, entertainers ought to be paid for their work.

Currently, it's not balanced. Story-based games suffer greatly from LPs while strategy games probably only profit, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, it's not balanced. Story-based games suffer greatly from LPs while strategy games probably only profit, for example.

 

I see this claim a lot, and I'm curious if anybody has ever investigated it in more detail. Assumptions about how and why people consume media frequently turn out to be off base, and I know from personal experience that sometimes I watch Let's Plays of sandbox build and craft games, supposedly the kind of stuff where watching videos whets people's appetites, go "Well, had my fill" and never look at the game again. On the other hand, I've also watched narrative-focused stuff, where people are said to consume videos in place of the actual product, and tapped out after a while to go buy the game because it got me interested and I want to experience it for myself.

 

I think the music analogy stands pretty well

 

I don't think it does, and not for the reasons that you anticipated. Having different models for this stuff makes sense in music, because in music consuming and editing the medium are two disconnected things. With games, consumption requires editing, consumption is editing. Remix culture builds on top of something, Let's Plays work within the thing itself. They are a continuation of what games are.

 

It's not gamers inflated sense of self-worth that I'm interested in, but how all of this affects Let's Plays as a medium. I get so impassioned talking about it because I've never seen that angle come up in conversations where I don't bring it up myself. One side of the discussion declares streaming trite and worthless right out the gate, and the other side never really grapples with that. People just get locked up talking about who deserves to make how much money off of this, usually by trying to establish who has it worse (and I think Problem Machine brought up a good point talking about how both fields have big players that can potentially bully the little players in the other).

 

People love talking about how well off the biggest Youtubers are, but they don't ever seem to talk about just how big Let's Play on the whole are, especially with younger generations. I don't want to sound like I'm arguing from a point of "Won't somebody think of the children?!", but I do think that whatever laws and mores we build up around this issue will affect people, and not just in what kind of videos they get to watch, but in what kind of lessons and values we communicate with the rules governing the medium itself.

 

And in that light, I do find a lot of the claims and attitudes that people voice off-handedly incredibly questionable. Like, what does the idea that everything that happens inside a game belongs to the developer communicate? That individual creativity is the property of whoever built the platform on which it took place? That anything you achieve within system belongs to whoever created the system? That even if something depends on our involvement to exist, our contribution does not deserve credit? Anyway I look at it I seems to betray messed up notions about our own role opposite the structures and systems that control our lives.

 

The stuff I'm railing against isn't new, of course, but even if the Let's Play discussion didn't create create certain attitudes, I feel like it feeds back into them. And crucially, it's about the only subject where I see other creators either push or nod along that kind of garbage over their ill-considered views of the worth of a specific medium. I just don't see how "fuck those guys, they don't add anything meaningful" could ever become such a non-controversial statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of this is that, as I mentioned before, available evidence seems to suggest that these videos being out there increase sales, and thus there is already a profit motive for developers, so asking for a cut on top of that is double-dipping. Part of what complicates the issue is that the awareness boosting effect of these videos is likely diminished for something like Nintendo properties, where awareness is already high, but Nintendo also doesn't need the money from youtube views.

One thing I think we always need to keep in mind in this conversation iss that there's a difference between legal rights and bad business. Even if a youtuber's content and endorsement I'd a net positive on sales, it doesn't change the legality of the use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I think the music analogy stands pretty well

 

I don't think it does, and not for the reasons that you anticipated. Having different models for this stuff makes sense in music, because in music consuming and editing the medium are two disconnected things. With games, consumption requires editing, consumption is editing. Remix culture builds on top of something, Let's Plays work within the thing itself. They are a continuation of what games are.

 

I think the MST3K example validates the music comparison. MST3K undeniably added something meaningful, but they still had to license the movies they talked over. If they had wanted to do some kind of MST3K for music, they would have had to license the music despite producing video content about it. 

 

 

And in that light, I do find a lot of the claims and attitudes that people voice off-handedly incredibly questionable. Like, what does the idea that everything that happens inside a game belongs to the developer communicate? That individual creativity is the property of whoever built the platform on which it took place? That anything you achieve within system belongs to whoever created the system? That even if something depends on our involvement to exist, our contribution does not deserve credit?

 

Saying that the developers aren't entitled to a cut of the ad revenue is saying that even though something depends on their creation to exist, their contribution deserves no credit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that the developers aren't entitled to a cut of the ad revenue is saying that even though something depends on their creation to exist, their contribution deserves no credit.

 

Well then it's a good thing that I'm not saying that (and I don't know how often I need to include that disclaimer).

 

I never said that I'm categorically against developers getting a cut. I'm simply not interested in having a conversation about how much of a Let's Play is developer content and how much of it is streamer content. But I am interested in not having a conversation where people honestly contend that it's 100% developer content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I think we always need to keep in mind in this conversation iss that there's a difference between legal rights and bad business.

I don't think anyone's really arguing legality here, except perhaps in an idealistic sense (what the law should be rather than what it is).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From my experience Youtubers are seen more as marketing tools than anything else, so I don't know that the revenue angle will be relevant for anyone except large companies or those who tightly control their properties. Personally I don't think devs should get a cut of the streamer's revenue anymore than Universal Studios should get a piece of Jimmy Fallon's ad revenue. To go back to the talk show host comparison again, both serve a similar purpose in being given access to the material for free in exchange for coverage. Perhaps if the streamer in question is selling the video there might be a reason for some kind of licensing fee there, but otherwise I don't think YouTube personalities are analogous to licensees so much as they are cheap and effective marketing.

I've often heard the claim that youtubers cause more copies of the game to be sold, but I'm curious if anyone has any hard data on that, specifically if you can tie say TotalBiscuit to an increase in sales vs other marketing stuff.

Edit: I may have some data on this point to share in a few days, more on that later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So when Until Dawn has like 40 uploaded streams of a full playthrough out within the week, it's nothing but free advertising?

 

Even then, even if you want to ignore that they are biting someone's content, as a copyright holder you control who you have advertise your game if you want to try that marketing angle route. Whether or not you have data that it can increase sales is irrelevant because it's your right to not have your copyrighted material advertised in that manner for better or worse.

 

And the fact that everyone has a different take on how transformative a Youtube Let's Player or whatever is shows how flimsy any of this is and more than ever the protections and calls need to stay in the hands of the developers. I don't think it's that complicated, it's pretty much akin to Rifftrax, even though I didn't through out that idea because games are not equal to movies is always the argument, but I'd say it's pretty adept. Sure you can build your minecraft area and talk over it, but most of the stuff I see out there isn't much more than running commentary. It's just not that revolutionary to somehow make all these sanctions for this people. John Bain has enough cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm sure it depends on the game to some degree, but yeah I bet many of those streamers were solicited by the developers or given free codes.  If until dawn were a movie I'd see a problem there, but since it's a game I just don't buy the argument that this hurts your sales.  There are hordes of playthroughs for other financially successful adventure games, I just don't see this argument as anything other than a convenient excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because so many linear games are out there that get full streams and besides revenue sharing, I doubt each person is being paid, especially since a lot of these people might have like 300 views. Often games have elements of a movie. Youtubers use elements of someone else's copyrighted work. Why do we need to make special sanctions for this section of such an entitled industry when every other creative industry has this figured out? Seems to me to just be something to chalk up to more gamer outrage which I've had enough of.

 

The fact that I have read so many articles on this very topic where there are comments of people admitting they didn't buy a game because of a Let's Play is evidence enough, doesn't matter how many or how little. You'll definitely see this happening with a game series where earlier ones are released and people just want to catch up. See Metal Gear Solid V and the amount of people out there skipping Peacewalker and watching a playthrough.

 

And again it's not even an excuse, copyright law supports getting the streams removed, so it is a right. Whether or not it hurts finances is still irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mean to suggest that this is an excuse for wanting the revenue, but an excuse for why the game might not have done well.  Look if the developers want the streams removed or to get a cut of the revenue then fine, I just don't think it's worth the effort.  Again, many of the claims I hear around youtube and the like are just anecdotes--I have yet to see any hard evidence on this.  For every story I hear about a person not buying a game because of a Let's Play I hear another story of a person who bought a game because of a Let's Play.  

 

Also, for the law literate among us, I'm pretty interested in the infringement described in this article.  Particularly the sentence

 

"For example, there have been music cases holding that copying  a single guitar riff or some opening notes can potentially constitute copyright infringement even though they were a tiny percentage of the overall work.  What mattered is that they were distinctive enough."

 

What would this example translate to in the gaming world?  Perhaps a story twist?  Playing through a scripted event? I'm interested if there are any particular examples where the copyright was obviously infringed upon in your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When it comes to piracy, people sometimes contend that it doesn't so much constitute lost sales as it does extensive demo time for people who would have never bought the game in the first place. So when this argument can be made at all opposite getting the actual thing, how is it not universally accepted opposite such an obvious downgrade as watching streams of something?

 

The other thing about this, and why I personally don't think getting to claim ad revenue is a good idea, is that the whole Youtube and streaming landscape is so disjointed that any attempt to fix things and introduce order is going to mess stuff up real bad.

 

Like, the only pies really worth cutting a slice out of belong to the biggest of the bunch, but I don't see how devs are entitled to a part of their success when we've already established that people don't come to them for the specific games so much as the personality. They play the same stuff as the largely unknown streamers after all.

 

And below that level things very quickly expand laterally to the point where automated systems and general rules are the only possible way to enforce anything, and those are going to cut right through all meaningful differences in how and why the material is used. The only realistic way to prevent abuse on that vast scale is the block all game recordings except for officially sanctioned stuff produced by the big name folk. That's sure as hell not the media landscape I want to live in.

 

doesn't matter how many or how little

 

Except it totally does! Because "this is wrong, period" isn't really a reasonable stance to take on these complex issues, and a pragmatic option such as "does this do more damage than the proposed solution?" requires more support than moral indignation. I mean, you cite the number of Until Dawn streams as if to indicate that this is a huge problem, but in the very next breath you admit that barely anyone has watched most of these. I would almost say that any stream high-profile enough to get angry about inevitably ends up being beneficial, and any stream too low-profile to help developers is also too irrelevant to hurt them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power should lie in the hands of the copyright holder and they can determine whether they want to persue any kind of takedown, it's their right if they don't like someone watching a full stream of their story game even if it's just one person. Don't see how that is a problem.

 

Just because some Until Dawn streams have a few hunded views doesn't discount that there are also the ones with 100,000+ views.

 

I think what is happening here is everyone wants to say copyright law is fundamentally broken but doesn't exactly know how to express why. If the idea is it's fundamentally broken from the ground up, it's not even worth an argument anyway unless you guys somehow have some new proposal of a new world order of copyright entitlement (or lack thereof), but we are talking about the reality right now. But yeah if I support copyright law as it is, it's fundamentally broken just because we all say, so therefore everything I say is nonsense? Buh?

 

I have issues with current copyright law but none of them are relevant to this Youtube argument. I prefer to have creators stay protected and of course big business is always going to be able to do legal wrangling easier just like anything else in life, that's beyond copyright law. I'm in no way going to defend the rights of this current fan culture climate we live in where everyone is trying to mooch when there are people out there big and small trying to create a living off their own IP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except the power won't actually be with the copyright holders, it will be with the robots that they rely on to enforce whatever decision they make and which are going to remove Let's Plays by renowned critics alongside video talks that include game footage, regular old "Hey guys! Its xX_Radgamerdude_Xx..." stuff and full, commentary-free playthroughs. And if they want to do this stuff manually, they are either going to have to let a hell of a lot slip through, or base their calls on inadequate sightings (and still let a hell of a lot slip through).

 

You're not addressing my point. Or half of the points that have been made over the last three pages, for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://fortune.com/2015/09/04/ea-peter-moore-on-women-in-gaming/

 

You can look at the last twelve months with everything that has gone on with Gamergate, that it’s made us all pay attention to this issue. When we talk about what I call D&I, Diversity & Inclusion, at EA, it’s never far from our minds when we make hiring decisions.

 

“We all need to step back sometimes and think about the environments we create for our people, the opportunities we create for people internally, and equally importantly how you bring new blood into the company,” Moore says. “It can’t all be white males. As a result, I think that hiring managers at EA over the last couple of years have had a sharper focus on diversity. I know that my teams around the world have. If there’s been any benefit to Gamergate, whatever Gamergate is, I think it just makes us think twice at times.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not addressing my point. Or half of the points that have been made over the last three pages, for that matter.

How much time do you want me to spend on all of this? There's like 7 people at a time who think what I'm saying is absolute BS. I can't fix Google's algorithms and they are constantly working on this stuff anyway as they are most assuredly aware of all of this stuff anyway, since the whole reason this little economy even exists is because of Google.

 

I support revenue sharing and a refined content ID system, it's already working wellenough from my point of view (people who upload copyrighted songs and albums from musicians get to keep their upload but all ad revenue goes to the band), which means effective but not without error. In no way will I ever support altering copyright law or making sanctions for dudes to just talk for hours over a video game, ad revenue sharing is sanction enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is happening here is everyone wants to say copyright law is fundamentally broken but doesn't exactly know how to express why.

 

I didn't figure I really needed to, as the general critiques of it have been pretty common over the last few years:

 

1.  Copyright lasts too long

2.  A handful of companies have entirely too much say in determining changes to copyright, while the general populace has none

3.  There are no punishments in place for company's who attempt to misuse copyright, take down critical (but legal) work, etc. 

4.  This is the consequence of 1+2: The idea that copyright is intended to furnish a decades or centuries long revenue stream for corporations flies in the face of the original goals of copyright, which were to balance the needs of society (access to information, evolution of ideas) with a content creator having limited control over their property.  The balance has been thrown out the window.

 

In the short term (anything up to 10-20 years), I really don't give that much of a shit what company's or creators do with their copyright.  That's why I've generally stayed out of this discussion, what interests me are the evolution of copyright and the long term effects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those some of the same issues I have copyright more or less, so I'm in complete agreement, but I don't think that means as it stands it's fundamentally broken as steps could be taken to prohibit IP from being traded forever with megacorporations, or just basically how it was before Disney got involved. It doesn't really pertain to the Youtubers since most copyrighted games not that old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much time do you want me to spend on all of this?

 

I'm not saying you need to step up your argument game, I'm just a little confused that you continually insist on your vision of how things should work, when (even beyond what philosophical disagreements I might have with your stance) your proposals are just not realistically feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no proposal, I want things to work they way they do now in regards to Youtube. I think Google is doing a good job even if some stuff falls through the cracks. This started because I was making a condescending remark in reference to Youtube dudes taking big cash for Xbone promotion all while the common complaint is that sharing their ad revenue is unfair. Or, I think they are being greedy for a relatively easy job.

 

Also I think some sort of slant is being taken that I'm somehow pro big business in all of this and nothing could be further from the truth. All of the big time Let's Players that make all the money (and complain the loudest!) are owned by Maker (which is owned by Disney) that connects them with production values and crews no other person starting on Youtube should have. Disney has enough money, it owns almost the whole world in terms of media, game developers and game publishers in general do not even reach size of the behemoth Disney tendrils by far.

 

If there's any problem with this idea that recording yourself playing video games should be a sustainable full time job, it's that big companies like Disney have already cornered and taken control of this market and have pushed the little guys out, not ad revenue sharing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×