Jimquisition: The Rise of YouTube Fodder

[Erttheking]

I'm a little puzzled as to Jim's criticism towards the use of jump scares in some of these cheaply made horror games. Wasn't the older episode "Scare Tactics" basically him defending the jump scare as a valid way to build tension?

Maybe he's changed his mind between that episode and this one, but I just wanted to bring it up since I've always thought Jim loved jump scares.

I think he does love jump scares. GOOD jump scares. They're not all cut from the same cloth. I haven't played Amnesia the Dark Descent, but I did read that the jump scares in that game work because they happened often enough that you were constantly expecting them, but infrequent enough so that you had long periods of time where you were alone expecting monsters to jump out at you only for another agonizing five minutes of silence to go by. There's a difference between a horrible slimy monster jumping out at you at just the right time and a man in a bad halloween mask jumping out at you every two seconds.

He didn't hate these jump scares because they're jump scares. He hates them because they're jump scares that aren't scary.

 

[Alterego-X]

They take up server space. They take up bandwidth.

Valve can offer the sales they do because of two factors: volume and minimized expenses.

If a crap game is taking up space on a hard drive and people are browsing the store page (or, heaven forbid, actually buying and downloading the game), then they are cutting into Valve's costs.

If they are actually buying games, a cut of that goes to Valve (that's valve's main revenue in the first place). ú

If they are not, then no bandwith is being used, and the hard drive storage for one copy of the game (or even several terabytes of games) is negligable compared to the costs and profits that we are talking about here.

This is like saying that the Escapist forums should delete the least useful comments to save up their server space where they were stored. Technically true, but a thousand times less significant than other effects of a censorship policy that this would imply.

 

[Hairless Mammoth]

I didn't even know this was a thing. I had to watch the video again just to let it sink in. I thought crap or dull games tried to stay on the down low to avoid word of mouth getting around and (rightfully) ruining its sales. I guess this just goes to show the either there are plenty of LPers/reviewers buying those games and/or their viewers buying them out of morbid curiosity for the videos remain up with no copyright strikes from butt hurt hack developers who couldn't swindle as many people as they would have liked. Like BigTuk said, I guess it does pad out the companies' and individuals' resumes, though. Not knowing the reviews of every game they made, would you buy the hit new game from the dev with 3 games on Steam(or your service of choice) or the equally appealing game from the guys who made 20 games?

 

[Something Amyss]

Then don't browse games on Steam.

I love how the solution is to spend less time looking at games. More or less the antithesis of a storefront's existence.

Walking into a bookstore and trying to find good books solely by their cover, is also a pain in the ass.

I fail to see how walking into a store and looking at a finite supply of mostly current titles is in any way comparable to looking online through an uncurated supply of titles which may or may not work, which mostly can't be "flipped through," and which don't go away.

That's why people don't do it, and why some books become hits while others don't, instead of all of them pulling equally distributed among poor uninformed buyers.

Popularity of a title has nothing to do with being an informed buyer.

 

[Something Amyss]

My easy solution is to not watch Youtube "celebrities."

Most are insufferable enough as it is.

Also why are you derisive of the Putt Putt games? Putt Putt is amazing.

I especially wish the people who complained about Pewdiepie would just stop. About the only time I hear about a lot of these things is when people complain about them. I don't know, has anyone here ever actually heard someone say something positive about PDP? Maybe it's just me.

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Right, but why I cover them *confidently* is because of what I said. Like I said.

Because all they do is take up space? Because informing the consumer is not the job of the reviewer, right?

Okay, you're deliberately fucking misinterpreting me aren't you?

I cover this shit because it's my job.

I cover this shit WITH CONFIDENCE because I know it doesn't give them more sales.

Okay?

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

I'm a little puzzled as to Jim's criticism towards the use of jump scares in some of these cheaply made horror games. Wasn't the older episode "Scare Tactics" basically him defending the jump scare as a valid way to build tension?

Maybe he's changed his mind between that episode and this one, but I just wanted to bring it up since I've always thought Jim loved jump scares.

I love them done RIGHT, not when they're lazy paint-by-numbers YouTube fodder crap.

 

[Abnaxis]

If they are actually buying games, a cut of that goes to Valve (that's valve's main revenue in the first place).

If sales < overhead, then profits < 0.

If they are not, then no bandwith is being used, and the hard drive storage for one copy of the game (or even several terabytes of games) is negligable compared to the costs and profits that we are talking about here.

Storefront hosting requires bandwidth. Forums require bandwidth. Angry e-mails to Valve support requires bandwidth. Sure, hard drive space it negligible. But the associated services for that nugget of worthless data are not free.

The quantities you are talking about are fairly negligible, compared with the returns for selling a game. The video (which is what will take up the most bandwidth on a store page) is on the order of 5 Megs (conservatively), compared with 2-3 gigabytes for you average Slender Clone. So every actual purchase (which I assume has the cost covered in the price structure) will equate to 500 views in bandwidth, if those 500 people watch all the video. Not terrible.

Emails are tiny, unless the angry customers are adding attachments. Also, how many people actually return a product? How many emails does Steam even pay attention to if you haven't bought the product already?

All of these things can be built into the price, and the costs themselves really aren't that onerous. There's a reason you can buy a game for $5 on Steam--the bandwidth really isn't that expensive.

 

[Abnaxis]

Then don't browse games on Steam.

I love how the solution is to spend less time looking at games. More or less the antithesis of a storefront's existence.

Walking into a bookstore and trying to find good books solely by their cover, is also a pain in the ass.

I fail to see how walking into a store and looking at a finite supply of mostly current titles is in any way comparable to looking online through an uncurated supply of titles which may or may not work, which mostly can't be "flipped through," and which don't go away.

That's why people don't do it, and why some books become hits while others don't, instead of all of them pulling equally distributed among poor uninformed buyers.

Popularity of a title has nothing to do with being an informed buyer.

I honestly think the picture people have of Steam isn't really what they're trying to do.

Don't think of Steam as Amazon, think of them as YouTube.

Any dipshit with a handheld video camera can put a cat video on YouTube. By the same token, respectable productions (e.g. Jim Sterling and his YouTube channel) can gather many followers. Every once in a while, you get a crazy-ass meme that takes off and make millions. Yet no matter which of these things happens, Google makes a metric ass-ton of money by taking their cut for hosting the content.

That what Steam does. They're not a store, they're a hosting service for devs to stick their stuff up on, and Steam gets a cut when it's downloaded. Crap like Air Control or PewDie Bait should be regarded with the same sort of resigned acceptance as dogs playing piano and 12-year-old let's play-ers. It doesn't stop me from watching Chris Franklin or TotalBiscuit, it just lives in a corner of the internet I never look at, on a webpage that I only spend time with when I'm referred to it by a trustworthy source (or a Google search, for tutorials on how to fix stuff).

 

[Fat Hippo]

Even Pewdiepie I've noticed is leaning away from such games. Part of it I'm sure are lucrative contracts with bigger companies giving him early access as a way for them to build hype, but he's tried to play more mainstream games that are less YouTube fodder. He still plays some of that stuff, because his audience loves to watch him scream, but I think it's unfair for Total Biscuit (who I have trouble watching because every time I load up his videos its about him defending his job or dicking around in an options screen pointing out inane details for 20 cocking minutes) to call it "Pewdiebait." He isn't baited to play anything. His audience is, and they're a big one, and they pay his bills, so... yeah.

Hah, I do love Totalbiscuit's insane love for a well-developed set of options which less than 1% of people will spend more than 30 seconds looking at and hardly anyone needs, but at least he's passionate about it. Although when I do watch his videos, I usually skip it after 2 minutes, and I doubt I'm in the minority there.

 

[Goliath100]

Right, but why I cover them *confidently* is because of what I said. Like I said.

Because all they do is take up space? Because informing the consumer is not the job of the reviewer, right?

Okay, you're deliberately fucking misinterpreting me aren't you?

I cover this shit because it's my job.

I cover this shit WITH CONFIDENCE because I know it doesn't give them more sales.

Okay?

And your job as a reviewer is to..?

And if you want the short version: What is your opinion on this:
http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/?p=644

 

[Jimothy Sterling]

Right, but why I cover them *confidently* is because of what I said. Like I said.

Because all they do is take up space? Because informing the consumer is not the job of the reviewer, right?

Okay, you're deliberately fucking misinterpreting me aren't you?

I cover this shit because it's my job.

I cover this shit WITH CONFIDENCE because I know it doesn't give them more sales.

Okay?

And your job as a reviewer is to..?

And if you want the short version: What is your opinion on this:
http://www.errantsignal.com/blog/?p=644

His blog doesn't even touch the complaints I've had over games like this. I presented those to him but am yet to hear back.

 

[DataSnake]

The quantities you are talking about are fairly negligible, compared with the returns for selling a game. A 1 minute video (which is what will take up the most bandwidth on a store page) is on the order of 5 Megs (conservatively), compared with 2-3 gigabytes for you average Slender Clone. So every actual purchase (which I assume has the cost covered in the price structure) will equate to 500 views in bandwidth, if those 500 people watch all the video. Not terrible.

Emails are tiny, unless the angry customers are adding attachments. Also, how many people actually return a product? How many emails do they even pay attention to if you haven't bought the product already?

All of these things can be built into the price, and the costs themselves really aren't that onerous. There's a reason you can buy a game for $5 on Steam--the bandwidth really isn't that expensive.

Opportunity cost. If someone offers you a choice between $100 and $1, choosing the latter has an opportunity cost of $99, even with no "real" expenses. Every spot on the front page wasted on shit nobody will buy is a slot that could be generating more money if it linked to one of the many non-terrible games in Steam's arsenal.

 

[Thanatos2k]

My easy solution is to not watch Youtube "celebrities."

Most are insufferable enough as it is.

Also why are you derisive of the Putt Putt games? Putt Putt is amazing.

I especially wish the people who complained about Pewdiepie would just stop. About the only time I hear about a lot of these things is when people complain about them. I don't know, has anyone here ever actually heard someone say something positive about PDP? Maybe it's just me.

Because there IS nothing positive to say. God only knows how people can listen to that dreck.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

Totally off topic, but did you lose weight Jim?

 

[The Great JT]

I know of only one way to stop the flow of these things: ban PewDiePie from YouTube. I know it's cruel, but if they're giving warnings to GOOD YouTubers and shutting them down, why can't PDP get banned?

 

[Abnaxis]

Opportunity cost. If someone offers you a choice between $100 and $1, choosing the latter has an opportunity cost of $99, even with no "real" expenses. Every spot on the front page wasted on shit nobody will buy is a slot that could be generating more money if it linked to one of the many non-terrible games in Steam's arsenal.

Which, again, is minimal. The only spot this game will ever take up is on the "New Releases" list. It will sit there for a 2-3 weeks, then be shoved off the list and into obscurity as newer games replace it.

2-3 weeks holding one spot in ten on the new releases, before fading into obscurity unless it's put on sale, is not a huge deal ad-space wise. We're talking what, a hundred bucks if you bought targeted Google ads to do the same thing? Valve probably loses more money when Gabe has to take a dump during business hours, than what they're losing on the ad-space that throwaway games take up.