Garcia
Member
Why wait for publishers to state it when we have beautiful people in this very thread already saying insane shit like that.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Rumor: Youtube Getting tough on video game monetization in 2014
- Thread starter darkpower
- Start date
Why wait for publishers to state it when we have beautiful people in this very thread already saying insane shit like that.
Mr. Luchador
Member
While I can somewhat understand why Publishers have taken this action, it suggests to me that nothing from last-gen has been learned by Publishers. Looks like we're going to have another generation of hardware tarnished by increasingly deteriorating publisher/consumer relationships.
Speedy Blue Dude
Banned
Nah man they do it for the fun! It's always been for the fun! Right WhiteBoy7thst, iJustine, PewDiePie, TotalBiscuit, Tobuscus, GameGrumps, WoodysGamertag, SeaNanners, etc.
Oh wait, they all basically sell out to companies and basically advertise for them 24/7. It was never for the fun, or at the very least it started out for the fun and and QUICKLY moved on to being for the money. These guys wouldn't do it if it wasn't for the easy money. The "We do it for the fun because we love Video Games!" line always angers me, because it's an obvious lie.
You can do something for a living and enjoy it at the same time. It's not mutually exclusive.
These guys do it for a living because they can, sure. It's not exactly something anyone can do nor does anyone but the very top dogs get rich from it.
It's the small guys that get screwed over from this. The big ones will find a way.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
Hey now. GameGrumps are always at their best when they're selling out.
Wow that's quite a list. Do you keep a record of all the people who gave in to "the man"?
Wat of course they don't sell out to companies they give the right to companies to advertise on their work. It isn't easy money - you have to be entertaining to actually make any serious money off youtube or partner programs. If they weren't entertaining nobody would view it - and thus they wouldn't be making money.
People use to make money making strategy guides forever ago using in game images and such. Whats the difference?
The Dutch Slayer
Member
That is how life should be but most people see doing a job and living a fun life a very different things that are separate things.
Because sadly most modern jobs are really a bore and underpaid are a depression for more people then these few lucky people who can have fun and make money to life on.
So true ^^ those t-shirt videos are hilarious always
King Mac of Furry Frog
Member
If anyone on youtube were to go down because of this I'd hope itd be PewDiePie.
Would they still shut you down if you could prove you were donating all your profit to charity? That'd be a pretty huge dick move.
Oh, i'm sure there are enough people who don't like their jobs.
I just don't get people being angry at people that do. Or earn money from something "fun" or "easy" like it's something morally reprehensible.
BlackBanditSho
Member
The real problem is that if this is going to set a precedent, then it should be carried all the way through. There is NO difference between YOU, the youtubber, and a media site like IGN or Gametrailers. Media sites make money with video reviews, top tens, retrospectives, and lets plays in the same way that youtubbers do. Like someone posted above, they made print walkthroughs/strategy guides and made money as well.
Basically, when companies take the stance: You cannot repurpose our game media to make money, then that can/should be applied *all* the way.
IF this happens, theoretically, we're talking about the entire industry being affected. Whether that's good or bad is an individual call.
Maidenpool?
Member
Didn't know that... Ya I hope he's ok... As for some others though - adios
The Dutch Slayer
Member
Yeah I dunno why people assume everyone making gaming videos is getting rich off it.
YouTube takes a 45% cut then depending on the network you're partnered under they typically take a 20-30% cut (and if you're partnered under a subnetwork that's even worse). Very few people can make a living off YouTube, I'd bet that 95% of the people monetizing videos don't even meet the minimum monthly payout threshold which is typically $50-$100. And those that do eventually earn a couple hundred bucks often invest it back into buying better gear (mic, capture card, camera, hard drives, etc) rather than spending it on hookers and booze.
Maidenpool?
Member
Edit - On second glance I don't think I have the policy changes correct - Disregard my previous post
I am pretty sure the larger media outlets like IGN have contracts with the rights holders. For youtube specifically aren't groups like Machinima already paying some sort of licensing which is then used as umbrella protection for their partners?
jacksepticeye
Member
Most networks are paying those fees as a blanket monetisation thing. It's hard to know how people will be affected because it seems to be an individual network basis
Ads ar how YT pays the bills. Without the ads, you eventually won't see the content.
For years people have profited off reviewing, playing, or any other content involving video games. The companies who worked on these games don't get a cut of the money, despite it being their property. Youtube used to also contain a more movie reviews (with clips) years ago, those were also copy righted and many people had their video removed.
Now, the good thing is that it seems people can still make gaming videos if they want to, but monetizing it will be the issue. It will have to become more of a hobby than viewed as a source of income. Youtube is flooded with gaming videos and people trying to become the next big thing. It will be more difficult for people going into the future, but that could potentially mean better quality videos. It will be interesting to see who chooses to upload on their official site instead of youtube due to this.
Now, the good thing is that it seems people can still make gaming videos if they want to, but monetizing it will be the issue. It will have to become more of a hobby than viewed as a source of income. Youtube is flooded with gaming videos and people trying to become the next big thing. It will be more difficult for people going into the future, but that could potentially mean better quality videos. It will be interesting to see who chooses to upload on their official site instead of youtube due to this.
All of the large media outlets have contracts with publishers. That also because a large part of ad revenue comes from publishers. I would assume Machima has one, but from what i'm hearing from you tube is that not many networks have contracts with publishers. The only big possible big losers are people who do lets plays . People like TB and other more critic/news youtubers should be fine.
Fattony12000
Member
Earnings from the period spanning 9 Feb 2009 through 30 Nov 2013 = $16.56
I'm all the way sold out, already.
I'm all the way sold out, already.
Whiskeymatt
Member
IIRC, reviews and such are covered under fair use laws.
kOsmikcoffee
Member
Does this mean people like pewdiepie will lose their "jobs"? Because if so, I am so fucking down for this.
TheAbsolution
Member
Honestly, No. Pewdiepie is the number 1 most subscribed channel on Youtube at this very moment and most of his success comes from independent horror games. He's one of the reasons why there is tons of those horror games being played on Youtube right now with reaction shots. I think that if he were to be affected, he would just move to more idie games OR he has the pull to ask for a contract from the video game companies directly instead to be able to monetize. The people that this would hurt would mainly be smaller YouTubers like Angry Joe and FarFromSubtle and I hate how that has to be the case.
Can I join in on the fun?
I'm all the way sold out, already.
Someone playing the entirety of your game on Youtube is not advertising. Sorry.
It is. Minecraft wouldnt be so popular without Youtube videos. Most indie titles like Terraria and Paper Please got popularity out of Youtube Let's plays because Pewdiepie played it or whoever.
You can make an argument that seeing a game from start to finish is bad and some people wont buy the game, but I remember the story of that kid without functioning hands that said that he watch let's plays since he cant play the games. Usually if people do not buy the game, is that they cant buy the game. I prefer that they watch the game than pirating it. Only truly linear games will get spoiled that way.
Iacobellis
Junior Member
Honestly, No. Pewdiepie is the number 1 most subscribed channel on Youtube at this very moment and most of his success comes from independent horror games. He's one of the reasons why there is tons of those horror games being played on Youtube right now with reaction shots. I think that if he were to be affected, he would just move to more idie games OR he has the pull to ask for a contract from the video game companies directly instead to be able to monetize. The people that this would hurt would mainly be smaller YouTubers like Angry Joe and FarFromSubtle and I hate how that has to be the case.
Can I join in on the fun?
What about smaller commentators (such as shaun0728) that are still well known? He used to work directly for Machinima, but has since left and now does daily commentaries from the comfort of his home.
This basically.
They need to figure out a partnership program instead of outright banning it.
weevles
Member
I might be wrong on this, but I'm pretty sure you need permission from the IP holder at minimum before you can make money off using that IP for your own commercial purposes. Heck, I think you might even need to pay that IP holder to use their content for your own commercial purposes.
The economy and entertainment diversification are driving that- not YT videos.
The Real Abed
Perma-Junior
I was thinking more of episodes like the one for the Mass Effect demo or whatever it was back in the JonTron days where "birds" kept flying into the episode with information about what the full game was going to include and they kept making up names for them. Barry was on his game that day. It was amazing.So true ^^ those t-shirt videos are hilarious always
But the shirt commercials are always awesome.
Fattony12000
Member
HELL YEAH LET'S START OUR OWN YOUTUBE NETWORK! No one who earns over $10 a year is allowed in. That way we stay true to the streets.
Give me the contract to sign now!
The Dutch Slayer
Member
Ah those you mean ok sure those are great also I really hope that GG can continue in 2014 because man I'm really love these recent months of playtroughs specially the weird games.
BlackBanditSho
Member
No, they don't.
You. Are. The. Same.
I could hire a bunch of gaffers, start a 'legit' site today, hit up the same PR contacts as the major outlets, get the same dev kits, and post the same media. As long as I adhere to the embargo dates and don't post irresponsibly, then my site is alive and kicking. I'm an 'official outlet'.
That. is. ALL.
When i post vids from my preview build or even my retail review build, talk over them, get hits, monetize through my ad partners, then get paid....there is NO difference between that and Youtubbers. The only difference is that as a youtubber, i don't have to worry about Ad partners to get paid. Google handles all that. All i need concern myself with is keeping those numbers growing so I can get more money - JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER MEDIA OUTLET.
If/When this precedent is set, it potentially changes the ENTIRE industry.
you mean every singleplayer game game on the market.
Oracle Dragon
Member
I don't know if this could be good or bad. I know that, personally anyways, I buy a number of games due to Lets Plays. I bought XCom and Dead Space 3 because of LP's by Beaglerush. I bought Endless Space and Crusader Kings II because of LP's from Marbozir. I, well didn't "buy" but put money ($30+) into Planetside 2 and Hearthstone because of LP's from Total Biscuit. And that's just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a number more if I started thinking about it.
Maybe this does hurt publishers in some way I don't understand, but there also seems to be some kind of missed opportunity here to just outright kill it.
Maybe this does hurt publishers in some way I don't understand, but there also seems to be some kind of missed opportunity here to just outright kill it.
Im not so naive like you sorry. If some unauthorized guy, would start streaming and monetizing on a game i created, it would piss me off. If the publisher or developer gives you his approval, fine.
Dont like the law? Dont buy games anymore and stop supporting this system.
Iacobellis
Junior Member
This could pretty much put Sessler's career into jeopardy, right?
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
Watching a game playthrough, even if the game is "linear", is simply not the same as actually playing it unless we're talking about the VN/ADV genre.
I remember the Giantbomb endurance run of Persona 4 was what convinced a lot of people to buy that game.
I can understand not liking the idea of people making money form videos of your games, but I think its very important to asses whether making a huge stink about it is very worth it in the long run. This would no doubt reduce enthusiasm in big LPers playing your game and reaching potential audiences.
I remember the Giantbomb endurance run of Persona 4 was what convinced a lot of people to buy that game.
I can understand not liking the idea of people making money form videos of your games, but I think its very important to asses whether making a huge stink about it is very worth it in the long run. This would no doubt reduce enthusiasm in big LPers playing your game and reaching potential audiences.
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
That's not an excuse to pay people.
Again, not an excuse to give them money. Maybe they put that much effort when they realized they could make money? It's not a justification.
And from what I'm gathering, you won't miss out on much with the new restrictions. Still get to upload vids just won't make money, which seems minimal. What's the problem, then? If people are uploading content that is not legally their's, no matter how much energy into it, they can't make a profit. That's like me saying we should be okay with me uploading the White Album to youtube, making profit from it, if I remix it all. The legal way to go about it is getting licensing first, then making the effort and paying a substantial portion to the guys who own the publishing rights.
I would say this is not an indication of Publishers failing to learn their lessons. $100 mil games, yearly updates, AAA model or bust are what was wrong with last gen. This was a small reprieve where the pubs did not enforce their rights for a few years. And some youtubers considering that justification.
That's so broad that it ignores the small impact on videos and it ignores the idea that this only affects payment. Bored people that want to upload are still able. It would be a dick move if they banned all content. Or am I missing something. I kind of feel like they could be worse.
Reviewers make money out of the game/movies/music/books. They couldnt make money without your product. The problem is that it's not a law. For example, there is book clubs out there on the internet that talk in lenght about the book and tell you the beginning, the intrigue and the ending. Same about movies or even music.
Everybody monetize on other people stuff. It's legal, since it's art, that we critique and rate it and discuss it. Art is public stuff. The discussion is about let's plays. Who is pretty much like playing the whole movie and discussing about it while playing it entirely. And you cant do that with a movie. Fair use do not allow you to take a full video and simply talk over it to make it legal. But fair use allow you to take bits and chunck of it.
Total Biscuit format is legal under fair use, even if he play 1 hour chunk of the game sometime. Because it's critique.
GrizzleBoy
Banned
As much as I hate all this bullcrap, I kind of have to agree with this part of it.
I didn't want to play Darksiders 2 without seeing all of Darksiders 1, so I watched a whole load of Darksiders 1 lets plays to catch up to the story, then bought Darksiders 2.
Those walkthroughs basically gave me the story and cinematic side of the game for free. If they weren't there and I wanted to get a proper in depth vision of the story, its characters and what not, I'd have to have actually bought Darksiders 1.
Same with the assassins creed games.
I actually really liked Assassins Creed 1, but never got around to buying 2. When I was ready, brotherhood was coming out.....then the next....and the next....
Instead of buying and playing, what did I do? I watched lets plays and walkthroughs and basically received all of the story writing, cinematic and general media work put into the game for free.
Again, I'm absolutely not for messing with peoples lives and ruining their incomes (or just generally censoring the shit out of everything), but I definitely do see where they are coming from in certain ways.
You may not like the censoring, but do I have the right to access their works for free and do other individuals have the right to show them in ways which actually stops people like me actually buying the games by creating a "watching your friend play the game" situation? I think that part of it does have a lot to talk about.
LOL. Missing the point.
But...reviews are a part of that "fair use" deal that everyone keeps citing. Someone should be allowed to tell you if something is good or not without anyone breathing down your neck saying that they will pull the plug if you don't give them a good review.
And you're missing that it's hitting EVERYONE, big and small, by a variety of criteria. Don't think for one second that they won't try to set an example.
They probably won't because, as I said before, I suspect there is the ulterior motive of trying to censor negative press about the games they make (you don't think EA was at all happy from the bad press TB gave to Simcity, do you?), and they want to do it another way since the whole "fair use" thing is getting in their way. Take away the money to get higher quality videos out, they don't have the resources to do that, thereby they don't have the capacity to keep making high quality vids, or they chicken out of showing footage or talking about said game at all, and in turn, negative press goes away. It might stop a smaller guy from getting big on the back of discovering a huge bug in a game or a design flaw that would hurt someone's bottom line if it were to be found out (because the publisher was being lazy). And you don't think they like DRM to be viewed as a BAD thing, do you?
Again, it is fact that these publishers have already used the copyright takedown thing to censor negative press, so I don't doubt for a second that they are trying to do things THIS way in case the takedown thing doesn't work. Like I said, they are just trying to cut off the limbs and letting the beast just bleed out instead of cutting off the head and killing it outright!