Mutsukki...we've covered that already to. Getting paid by reviewing something by showing a few clips here and there to get a point across is an entirely different beast altogether compared to running through the entire game for all to see and making money off of that instead. One involves just giving a general over view of the game while giving critique, while the other shows the entire contents of the game.

Wait, how is that a different beast? Won't a review tell the story, critique it, show bits of the game and music here and there? It may even give crucial plot points for the sake of the analysis. I don't think there's any set rules about the amount of information the reviewers can disclose (I may be wrong though), so The problem is the full showcase of it? t

Do you know in what video games are different than any other medium? It doesn't matter how much one plays it, the result will always be different. The LPers run of SMB 1-1 will be pretty much different from mine and so on. That's what I've been saying, just because a person played through it, that doesn't invalidate the product or even the experience given by it in one bit.

Why are we discussing this again? Do you all still defend that Nintendo is eligible for 100% of the monetization? Frankly, having a sponsorship from them would be the best, but do you know how much that would limit people and their creativity? People wanting to be paid for their hard work, when the option is given, are no devil like you all make to seem. They could be making it for free, like people always did. But why is making a job out of it so horrible? Must I bring up that TV show again?

This may be a stretch, but the only difference between sports commentators and LPers is the sponsorship, nothing else. But it would be ridiculous for Nintendo to sponsor every single LPer out there. So they shouldn't make money and only the select ones should? I don't see why when they're pretty much giving off a better word of mouth for the games, rather than harming them and the makers, like you're all defending (which honestly makes 0 sense) and are not taking money off Nintendo either. Their approach on this subject is really bad. Honestly, I'm a big Nintendo fan, but this is a dickish move, as much right as they have.

Ah, the "every LP is different" argument shows itself again~

Here's the deal. Each run may be done uniquely, but the game itself isn't dynamic. It will always be "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" or whatever else. No matter how you run through it, everything is already coded and set in place, so therefore if you've seen the game once, you've seen it a million times. Sure, a person might glitch their way through while someone else hacks their way through, but in the end, they're going through the same hardcoded world. Watching a game isn't the same experience as playing it for yourself, I agree, however, that doesn't change the fact that you're still showing pretty much all of the content of a product people would otherwise have to PAY FOR themselves to see. Doing it for free is one thing, but trying to make money off of that is where things really get in hot water, hence problems like this. This is why you need to get a license and/or contract agreement with whatever company before trying to make money off of them in any way, whether via ads or whatever else, otherwise you put yourself in plenty of legal risk, as shown on Youtube's monetization agreement page, which I quoted previously.

(05-27-2013, 09:25 PM)Koh Wrote: Ah, the "every LP is different" argument shows itself again~

Here's the deal. Each run may be done uniquely, but the game itself isn't dynamic. It will always be "The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past" or whatever else. No matter how you run through it, everything is already coded and set in place, so therefore if you've seen the game once, you've seen it a million times. Sure, a person might glitch their way through while someone else hacks their way through, but in the end, they're going through the same hardcoded world. Watching a game isn't the same experience as playing it for yourself, I agree, however, that doesn't change the fact that you're still showing pretty much all of the content of a product people would otherwise have to PAY FOR themselves to see. Doing it for free is one thing, but trying to make money off of that is where things really get in hot water, hence problems like this. This is why you need to get a license and/or contract agreement with whatever company before trying to make money off of them in any way, whether via ads or whatever else, otherwise you put yourself in plenty of legal risk, as shown on Youtube's monetization agreement page, which I quoted previously.

When talking about legal terms, I'm not discussing if Nintendo is in their right or not. Sega was also in their right to take Shining Force videos down.

Can they do it? Yes, it's their right. Does that make it less of a dick move? Absolutely not.

My point about every run being different, is about how an LP isn't a mere showcase of a game, because games by themselves can't be properly showcased like music, movies, comics or something like that. The interactivity factor is a big differential. I'll make my argument simple of why LPers are not wrong for wanting to make money:

Commentary = Entertainment

Entertainment = Work

Work = Right For Money

They're providing things that Nintendo probably wouldn't ever provide. Nintendo might be in their right as the trademark holder (I'm still no so sure though), but they're ultimately shooting their own foot by doing this. It's a simple step of: Users provide free word of mouth - > more games sell EVEN if it shows the entire game. Unless the game is shitty, then, well...that's their fault. When you see a game, even if it's a full playthrough, chances are you won't feel like you've beaten the game yourself. Truly, it might expose a lot the game's content and that might be bad, but I'm sure if the person is interested, they'll stop watching the LP, buy the game and then resume watching it later.

Another point, as much as I hate PewDiePie, how much of Amnesia's popularity do you think came from him? I pretty sure it's a lot. There's no bad scenario for this. It's the same as the fight against piracy, where developers are sure they're losing money by each copy pirated, when in reality, that might just not be the real picture. And because of that, we get DMR and shit, which is in their right, since they're the trademark holder and the content creator, but that doesn't mean it's rightful and less of a dickish move.

But that ends up going back to the extreme examples again. Just because you did work, and work is something that's usually paid, that doesn't make the work any more justified or ethical if it wasn't in the first place.

No offense intended with this, but it's the same sort of setup: The Black Market does a LOT of work in getting products illegally to sell, and therefore should be paid for their work. Does that REALLY make any sense?

It's good that you acknowledge this as an extreme example and that as such should really not be taken into consideration, because they're not doing anything "illegal" in such a manner that will destroy Nintendo's hard work.

And you kinda ignored the rest of my post either. It seems like we're going in circles in this.

This whole thread is a giant circle...

All in all, I personally would just not watch LPs and buy the game instead. It would be more fun than seeing others play. Not to say I don't like the """"humor"""" in those LPs, except Game Center CX (which is coincidentally a sponsored and legal show with tons of official content)

Just finishing this; getting money for LPs, no matter where they come from (from ads, or people actually paying to watch them) is something I do not agree in the least. Doing LPs without any revenue is right. Or else I could play the game, suggest people to play it and charge money/expect money to fall from the sky for spreading the word of mouth (which interestingly doesn't happen).

It's like copying a book by hand, using a different colored pencil per word, while adding humorous footers/headers. You worked your butt off to reweite it this way, but you still can't charge for it/receibe ad money for it because the book is still the same. You didn't write it. You probably could show others for fun though.

Also to be honest, people should be paying me instead of the LPers

come on I'm a lot funnier



my mom says i'm funny

(05-27-2013, 11:06 PM)Mutsukki Wrote: It's good that you acknowledge this as an extreme example and that as such should really not be taken into consideration, because they're not doing anything "illegal" in such a manner that will destroy Nintendo's hard work.

And you kinda ignored the rest of my post either. It seems like we're going in circles in this.

No I didn't ignore it, it goes hand in hand with what I'm saying. While the act of doing LPs isn't illegal, making money off of someone else's Intellectual Property/Copyrighted Material IS Illegal, hence why I compared it to the extreme example of the Black Market. It's a very passive way of making money off of the IPs (ads), but it STILL is making money off of them.

If you're so concerned, you could easily take this matter to court. Every LPer who's dissatisfied with this can easily do so. But the legal fees will more than likely outweigh whatever the ads are worth. In addition, they'd probably get the monetization of, or even higher, LPs outlawed altogether, which would definitely make it easier on Youtube's end...

(05-28-2013, 07:06 AM)Gorsalami Wrote: Also to be honest, people should be paying me instead of the LPers

come on I'm a lot funnier



my mom says i'm funny

I'd pay for you. I can only pay in hypothetical euros though, 'cause I'm broke. (Even paying hypothetically is stretching my budget a bit)

thank you, it's the thought that counts






too bad I can't say this to the bills

(05-28-2013, 07:06 AM)Gorsalami Wrote: Just finishing this; getting money for LPs, no matter where they come from (from ads, or people actually paying to watch them) is something I do not agree in the least. Doing LPs without any revenue is right. Or else I could play the game, suggest people to play it and charge money/expect money to fall from the sky for spreading the word of mouth (which interestingly doesn't happen).

How is this even comparable to what LPs are. LPs aren't mere suggestion of games. The whole problem with your arguments is how you always oversimplify what is an actually hard task. Example:

Writing a book is just writing a bunch of words that come to your head.

Doesn't sound very diffcult, does it?

Quote:It's like copying a book by hand, using a different colored pencil per word, while adding humorous footers/headers. You worked your butt off to reweite it this way, but you still can't charge for it/receibe ad money for it because the book is still the same. You didn't write it. You probably could show others for fun though.

I was trying to find a solid example, but this description does seem like something that was done already, you know...

While not a book, isn't that a bit like what the "Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead" play is to "Hamlet" in a sense? While it's more like a spin-off or whatever, it's basically two characters from the play making commentary about the play itself.

and spin-off is not a problem if it's a parody, also Shakespeare's works are public domain.

Quote:Writing a book is just writing a bunch of words that come to your head.

it is. or how do you expect me to write a book

also me saying things in a simplified way doesn't mean i'm saying 'lol making this shit is easy as fuck i bet i could make this with closed eyes im so great i could marry myself', but rather just pointing out what it... actually is; i'm not talking about the creative process behind it (because it's quite obvious it's a fucking hard task by itself)

but as i said many times before (even here), LPs are hard to do, but they are playing a game, suggesting, and """""funny jokes""""". Games are not public domain, they are protected by copyright laws, there is a very obvious instance of game reproduction (by reproduction I mean showing its visual contents/music/programming, not copying the entire game) and I don't think it's fair for the LPs to earn money with them.

[/endopinion]

*eats doritos*

Like I said, I get where you're coming from and I would agree if past cases weren't just the exact opposite of the developers actually profiting from the showcase of their games. It's because you're approaching the issue as "they're making a profit off a bunch of assets they never even contributed to", which is understandable, but not really right. I get that the main issue is the -profit- part of it and really, if it was any other occasion I may have just agreed with your point, it does seem dumb when oversimplifying it. However, I still like to point one single point: They're not charging anyone anything.

Sure, they're charging the user's time by making them view ads, but they're not effectively taking any money off their public, money that can be very well spent on the Nintendo product they're talking about right there. They're not forwarding ANY spending money to them, just rather using the Youtube ad revenue system which allows them to make a profit, make a living off their hard work (which I would think everyone would agree that it's very good). Nintendo IS in their right to do this, but so are the LPers of just not making any Nintendo-based video anymore, and just giving off free publicity to other companies which are okay with this practice. The main point of NOT supporting Nintendo in this action is so that other companies don't follow this anti-consumer example (and so that they may open their eyes to what they're doing). LPs DID start off as done for fun and with no money involved, and it would pretty much stay that way if Youtube didn't have their ad revenue system. Veteran LPers did find it bad that people were profiting over their videos, but as time went on, as nobody's effectively losing money and it does add a bit of income to their lives, they followed the trend. Like I've been saying, I think it's pefrectly fair if they got SOME of the money for their commentary which people enjoy. LPs have a long story by now, it's kinda late for Nintendo to want to change the rules of a game that's been already set. If Ad Revenue for them is invalidated, then, well, there'll be a huge decline of these types of video on the internet, being closed off to a niche group (like it was before) and potentially making people less aware of games they could know about. It's not like LPers have to work for free, they'll just stop producing, and basically everyone will lose in this process.

I'm sorry I had to