Major Changes In Youtube Involving Let's Players

[Worgen]

If this stops cunts like Pewdiepie making money from their shitty videos then I'm all for it.

Sucks for the few good ones though.

If it gets rid of the likes of Pewdiepie, then it's long overdue and I'm all for it. They provide nothing insightful, unfunny and don't deserve the often large incomes.

That said, those who do the opposite of the above will be affected too so in all honesty I find these new restrictions difficult to condone. Will be interesting to see where it leads, doesn't really affect me at all as I'd much rather play a game than watch a foul mouthed spotty teen rage their way through it.

Spoiler, this won't effect pewdiepie, I think hes like the most subscribed to person on youtube, he has enough clout to have permission to do letsplays till the earth is a lifeless rock. This is one of those things that could make him more popular since now instead of lots of random lets plays, we just have pewdie.

 

[lacktheknack]

For as many people calling the companies greedy, aren't the LPers just as greedy?

I never watched any channels or follow anyone, and most of the ones I do watch are by people who only did a game or one series. I really don't see this affecting anyone who does it to show off a game they love.

Except the LPers often put in a ton of work making videos and they usually don't make much money to offset the costs.That's why most have other jobs to help them make money.

Do you need someone to pay you to do hobbies?

When said hobby cuts deeply into my time to the point that I can't hold a full-time job at the same time? Yes.

Plus, people WERE willing to pay them. If they stop paying, then the hobbyists won't be able to afford to live without getting back into a nine-to-five, so no more LPs.

It's pretty simple. There's only 24 hours in a day.

You really think a person who did one game is making enough money to live off of? There are also people who work 9-5 and still find time to make LPs. I wouldn't say doing it for money is the same as doing it because you want to share a game.

Yeah, but people like TheRPGMinx are doing it for money, and I quite enjoy her. And she started it off as a hobby. If these terms go through, she's likely going to have to quit.

And I've attempted LP before... when you're in school, the output you had in the summer cuts to about one tenth of normal. It's really discouraging and demotivating. Yeah, some can slog through it anyways, but you're still taking a massive axe to the amount of people willing to do daily LP videos, which makes little sense as they're fantastic advertising.

 

[AuronFtw]

As a general response, I think youtube is doing this in counter to TotalBiscuit's earlier vid on the topic, where he bashes Youtube's ridiculous policy of shitting on the very users bringing them site hits. Big companies can send unwarranted and illegal takedown notices (in direct violation of the Fair Use act, and also misusing the DMCA), and youtube's first response is to take it down with no thought or investigation. People like TB and Pewdie and others who rely on this income for their livelihood can have their entire accounts deleted by a mere 3 false reports - luckily for the big names, they have networks that will fight for their videos, but for anyone smaller they're easy pickings. And now it looks like youtube is aiming their guns straight for those small guys.

Head to twitch, head to blip, get anywhere you can, but don't trust Youtube to have your back. Google is firmly in the pocket of the corporations now, and they will fuck you over in a heartbeat for a dollar.

 

[shrekfan246]

For as many people calling the companies greedy, aren't the LPers just as greedy?

Insofar as anybody doing any '9-5' job is greedy.

Many of the people who are "affiliated" with Youtube (the ones who would be affected the most by these changes) make these videos as their full-time job, not much unlike our own content creators at The Escapist. There are plenty of people who don't, for sure, but they also have much less regular uploading schedules and don't draw the same number of views in the first place. Most everyone affiliated with the Polaris network (Yogscast, TotalBiscuit, Jesse Cox, Game Grumps, AngryJoe, Pewdiepie, Markiplier, etc.) script, record, edit, and schedule these videos as their normal work because it requires that level of work and commitment to do.

So, really, it comes down to an argument of semantics and whether or not you believe people should be able to make a living off of Youtube videos, because it's not a "typical" line of work. They don't get ad revenue, they need another form of income, they don't make as many videos, content about games becomes much scarcer and more tightly controlled by the publishers, who already try to exert as tight an iron fist as they can manage over everything.

If I'm permitted to torture an analogy, imagine if a mechanic were working on a Ford car, or a technician on a Dell computer, and the company calls them up demanding that the pay meant for the mechanic or technician goes directly to the company because they were the original manufacturer.

 

[Fireaxe]

Kind of dumb really, I mean a good lets play probably sells some games people wouldn't have bought otherwise. Copyright law is a bit screwy at best.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I'm really, really trying to be objective and fair here. My instinct is to side with the LPers because they're basically me - gamers. And the way the current system is, LPs get games exposure, in some cases specifically games that are little known or indie titles, and that both strengthens the community and encourages watchers to buy it. However, the company has made a product, and while I think the user should be able to do with it what they want, it is fair enough that the user not make money off that without paying the company if that's what the company wants.

I repeat, I think LPing is an unquestionably good thing for a game, and I think revenue being generated from ads, not the selling of the game content itself, is neither here nor there. But if a company is stupid enough to decline that free publicity and advertising then maybe they should be allowed to. I can't see indie developers having such qualms.

 

[TehCookie]

-snip-

To me it more comes down to stop trying to hypocrisy of calling companies greedy for taking their money. Aren't LPers against this fueled by greed to? Though if you're not greedy then you should be living like a nun.

However I see it less of an argument of whether or not people can live off youtube videos but a bigger issue of how much do we own/how much freedom do we have with the games we buy? With this current scenario if LPs are against the EULA will gamers take action to get back their rights, or just ask for LPs to be okay?

 

[GoaThief]

If this stops cunts like Pewdiepie making money from their shitty videos then I'm all for it.

Sucks for the few good ones though.

If it gets rid of the likes of Pewdiepie, then it's long overdue and I'm all for it. They provide nothing insightful, unfunny and don't deserve the often large incomes.

That said, those who do the opposite of the above will be affected too so in all honesty I find these new restrictions difficult to condone. Will be interesting to see where it leads, doesn't really affect me at all as I'd much rather play a game than watch a foul mouthed spotty teen rage their way through it.

Spoiler, this won't effect pewdiepie, I think hes like the most subscribed to person on youtube, he has enough clout to have permission to do letsplays till the earth is a lifeless rock. This is one of those things that could make him more popular since now instead of lots of random lets plays, we just have pewdie.

Spoiler, I think you may have taken that first paragraph a bit too seriously. There was even an "if" thrown in there too. ;-)

Be interesting to see how all this turns out, regardless.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Hhm... If a person purchases a violin and goes on to become a successful musician that gets paid for playing music, should the manufacturer of the violin get a cut of what he makes?

 

[Andrew_C]

This is insanely stupid and will badly affect most of lesser known LPers as well as some of the better known ones.

I watch 3 LPers quite often, One of them mainly does KSP and sci-fi games , the other mainly does Minecraft and similar games, the 3rd does Arma, Day Z and those wierd niche European simulator games. None of them are part of a channel or affiliated. This will affect all of them badly and probably cause them to stop LPing. The one who does Arma & co was already talking about moving over to Twitch TV.

I also watch Spoiler Warning, which is Shamus Young of Twenty Sided along with Campster of Errant Signal and a few others LPing while critically analysing the games. It's much more interesting than it sounds, if you like Tasteful Understated Nerd Rage you'll like this (It's well worth watching them tearing Mass Effect 3 to shreds). While they don't monetise their videos, this will probably affect them as well. They already had to move from Vimeo because LP's weren't artistic enough

 

[shrekfan246]

-snip-

To me it more comes down to stop trying to hypocrisy of calling companies greedy for taking their money. Aren't LPers against this fueled by greed to? Though if you're not greedy then you should be living like a nun.

Again, insofar as anyone who works at a job is "greedy".

Ad revenue doesn't make a ton of cash. It's respectable, sure, and if their view numbers are high enough then it tends to be enough to pay any additional crew you have and keep yourself in modest livings, but LPers who monetize their videos aren't rolling around in cash, laughing to and from the bank as they toss $100 around the streets. Much like the publishers trying to siphon the ad revenue, by and large these people are technically running their own businesses.

However I see it less of an argument of whether or not people can live off youtube videos but a bigger issue of how much do we own/how much freedom do we have with the games we buy? With this current scenario if LPs are against the EULA will gamers take action to get back their rights, or just ask for LPs to be okay?

Ideally, once a product is on the market, the manufacturer shouldn't have any hold over it outside of official stores that they personally distribute to.

Should a publisher be allowed to close down a local "Mom & Pop" games store because they're profiting off of used games that you can't find anywhere else anymore? In practice, that's little different than LPers monetizing Youtube videos, but for the rather large footnote of consumers not needing to spend any of their own money to watch videos on Youtube.

Publishers shouldn't be allowed to dictate or control the content that is uploaded to the internet. They shouldn't be allowed to shut down entire channels because they didn't like something that person said or put up. Allowing the publishers that freedom only hurts us, the average consumers, because it means that we only ever see or hear what they want us to see and hear. So while I can't speak for everyone else, and honestly doubt anybody in the gaming community would be able to unify on a topic long enough to oppose this, I know that personally I will always vocally argue against allowing publishers to do anything to people who make money off of video-game-related content.

 

[omega 616]

Oh, dis gon b gud!

I was starting to wonder, what will make youtube stop being relevant to me. YouTube won't die, it has pranks, fails, cats, babies, make up etc but I rarely vist them sections, it's all about the games.

Indie focused channels will be okay but I suspect small to mid sized channels are fucked. Up and coming will be culled and have to move to the replacement.

Wonder how this ties in with ps4 live streaming and sharing? I wonder if this has been the result of pressure from publishers

 

[Kinitawowi]

When said hobby cuts deeply into my time to the point that I can't hold a full-time job at the same time? Yes.

Wait, what!?

Does the word "priorities" mean anything to you? My full time job cuts massively into my hobby time. What do I do? I suck it up, make what time I can for my hobbies, and pay my rent from the money I earn from actual work. If your hobby means that you can't keep a job, you need to rethink a few things.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

1: What do you think of this sudden change happening next year?

2: Are you worried about your favorite Let's Player's future?

3: Do You Think This should have happened a long time ago, and are proud of Youtube's Decision?

4: Anyone think that Video Game Crash is going to happen due to this being one of the factors?

5: Which Let's Players do you think would be fine with this outcome? Which ones do you think would not be?

6: Freestlye Final Thoughts - Your take on this with a good conclusion?

1: I think youtube is attempting to avoid litigation hassles, while it sucks its understandable from a business point of view.

2: Not applicable, because I don't watch them. Note I'm not saying anything against them either.

3: I don't know, holding out for as long as they could might be a sign of best intentions, but realy I don't have any knowledge to comment on that accurately.

4: No, and I really wish people would get over this idea that a crash is imminent or necessary. Its not the same situation as the early 80's crash, and video games are too popular to crash as a market. More likely some companies will fail but others will rise to take their place. Short of the entire world market going to hell, I don't think we're going to see a failure of the industry any time soon.

5: Again not applicable, see Answer #2.

6: Well I feel that Rockstar's Policy is the best out of them because it encourages fan made videos as long as they're not straight cutscene rips. Activision might be the biggest jackass of the year award winner, and might get a LOT of backlash especially from WoW folks. A LOT. Expect lots of screaming to follow on other game companies cracking down on this... But really I can't say I blame youtube much because litigation is expensive, time consuming and can ultimately lead to major profit slashing...

 

[Signa]

All I'm hearing from theses new rules is that Youtube doesn't want to be king of internet videos anymore. There are other places that a person can go to get what they need.

 

[thepyrethatburns]

Hhm... If a person purchases a violin and goes on to become a successful musician that gets paid for playing music, should the manufacturer of the violin get a cut of what he makes?

You are incorrectly assessing the situation as are a lot of people here.

The question should be:

A person purchases a violin and starts playing it in front of a restaurant's business. Their playing attracts customers and boosts the restaurant's business so the restaurant give the musician perks like free food and a chair in exchange for playing in front of the restaurant. The violin manufacturer complains to the restaurant owner that the musician is getting rich off the violin they made and/or misrepresenting the quality of the instrument. The restaurant tells the musician that they will no longer provide the perks anymore.

A lot of people are calling this a copyright issue and copyright may indeed be a driving factor but it is really more of a marketing issue. The LPers can still post their video but they won't be able to make any money off them. This may force many to go back to hosting their own videos (perhaps using Youtube to advertise their own sites) or to seek other video hosting sites if they want to make money off their videos. However, that isn't an infringement on their fair use anymore than if Youtube refused to run ads on anti-gay marriage videos.

Youtube is under no obligation to provide anyone with advertising revenue so I have difficulty seeing this as a net neutrality issue. While it may be a poor business decision on the part of Youtube, this isn't on the same level as takedowns.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Well that certainly does suck, but what else can be expected? The wild west days of the Internet are coming to an end.

 

[fix-the-spade]

And now, my opinion: This is straight-up bull pocky. Why would Youtube and the major companies just do this NOW of all times?!

Simple, other people have established that a market exists, now they intend to exploit it by removing competition, I expect official 'let's plays' to start appearing in the new year.

Also, people like Angry Joe say things publishers don't like, they're on a mission to find ways to shut him up (and TotalBiscuit etc) and any otheroutlet that can't be made to tow the corporate line. They can't do it directly because that would make a PR shitstorm, but they can lean on Google to make life difficult for them, they put a shitload of money into getting those search rankings after all.