Phil Fish believes game-streamers owe revenue to the developer.

[NewClassic_v1legacy]

Based on tweets he made in his now-deleted Twitter account, Phil Fish believes that gamers who use game footage in their content, and make revenue based on that practice, owe a percentage of royalties to the developers of the games in question.

According to the Gamespot article on the subject [http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fez-creator-phil-fish-youtubers-should-pay-game-devs-huge-portion-of-revenue/1100-6420573/], Fish tweeted the follow across several tweets:

YouTubers should have to pay out a huge portion of their revenue to the developers from which they steal all their content, [Ad] revenue should be shared with developers, This should be built into YouTube. Anything else is basically piracy. If you generate money from putting my content on your channel, you owe me money. Simple as that.

If you buy a movie, are you then allowed to stream the entirety of it publicly for people to watch for free? No, because that's illegal. Systems are in place to prevent that. But buy Fez, put ALL of it on YouTube, turn on ads, make money from it and that's TOTALLY FINE. And the developer should in NO WAY be compensated for their work being freely distributed to the world. Right. Makes sense.

Sadly, since then, Phil Fish has deleted his twitter account, and I can't confirm the accuracy of the statements, though he apparently later simply tweeted "Nevermind." prior to deleting his account.

While I can empathize with this position, I feel like that it's missing a somewhat fundamental understanding of what differentiates games from other, more passive mediums. Games are more about interactivity and experience than the knowledge of the goings-on or narratives. YouTube videos don't really encompass the play aspects of games, despite shining a light on events. In my experience, playing games is more about actually playing than knowing what goes on. Watching footage tends to make me want the game, not abandon them. It is different, in that way, for games than movies.

Although I suppose everyone's mileage on that may vary. Perhaps Phil Fish's did.

Do you feel that games being streamed or "sold" via advertising to YouTube personalities or gamers is cutting developers short? Would you buy a game you've watched through that someone else played through in full on YouTube?

 

[Majinash]

I could go into a long rant about how different games are from movies, and how streaming a movie isn't the same as streaming gameplay of a video game. But I'm sure someone else will cover that.

Mostly what gets me is how unprofessional those statements sound. He is more than welcome to voice his views on something, but I feel like him deleting his twitter account after posting that shows that he understands how he handled that poorly.

Also isn't this the guy who got angry at people online and quit his next game? It really sounds to me like he needs someone else to handle PR for him.

 

[Roxas1359]

I think that if the developers and the publisher want money, then go ahead and get it. Thing is though, don't go after the streamers or the Let's Players, go after damn Google or the networks that they work for. Honestly, while the article that PewDiePie makes about 4 million a year just came out, that doesn't mean everybody who earns revenue that much or near that much. Plus saying that if developers don't get a cut it's basically piracy, yeah that shows that Phil Fish doesn't know what piracy is. Google automatically gets 40% of all revenue because the videos use AdSense, and I believe Twitch uses AdSense as well if I'm not mistaken. The remaining amount is then divided between the networks such as Maker Studios, Machinima, etc. and the actual content creator. The content creator will get the least amount, unless their contract says otherwise.

I get it, game developers and publishers want this "internet monies", but thing is if you bully and antagonize the people making the content about your game, the people doing it will probably stop doing videos about your game. Especially if the cuts you want are absolutely unreasonable like I've seen some people suggest in previous threads about this topic.

 

[The Lunatic]

Well, I mean, I guess to some degree, they did make the content you are now broadcasting.

It's unreasonable to expect anything, but, I think some credit, not to say money, but, credit should be given towards the people whom make these games.

I guess for a lot of streamers or youtubers, that comes in the form of advertising, but, I don't know. It just seems a raw deal for the people making the game.

Is what it is though, honestly.

 

[Lilani]

What's kind of funny is YouTube has Content ID tools to automatically flag videos with his content, if he so chose to set it up with them. But instead of setting that up, he just chose to ***** over Twitter about it. I think that makes it pretty clear he's just out to show how important he believes himself to be.

That aside, I think what he's forgetting is YouTubers like PewDiePie have put some games on the map that might never have gotten the followings they did without him. After PewDiePie did his videos on Slender, everybody knew about it. And I'm sure some people went out and got Fez after seeing PewDiePie did a video on it. Hell I know I bought basically every Valve game on Steam because of Gmod videos.

YouTubers don't hurt game sales, if anything they give some free PR to the games. The only time it MIGHT hurt a game's sales is if the consensus of the YouTube community is that the game sucks. But even then, if it's spectacularly bad enough, people might end up buying the game anyway just for the spectacle.

 

[Rozalia1]

Tweet n Delete eh? Guys who do that always have the best content.

He is fully justified in his stance, especially if we were to talk about games such as visual novels for example. Not a pusher of such things myself as I do very much enjoy the content provided by the commentators, but its a fight that ultimately will be fought by those who care very much about the current situation.

 

[Happiness Assassin]

Phil Fish sticks his head out to say something controversial and arguably anti-consumer... I can see how this will go.

My thing about games is that you lose a crucial aspect of what makes games different when you merely watch streamed content and that is interactivity. While if the game itself isn't exactly interactive and nothing is lost just by watching it (i.e. Dear Ester) then I could agree somewhat. But you aren't going to have people get the same kind of enjoyment out of a game they are playing as they do watching a movie.

I can see both sides. Watching Dear Ester on Youtube actually kept me from buying the game, but watching streams of other games has persuaded me to purchase games instead of pass on them several times over. The most recent was Dragon's Dogma, which I thought looked badass from the gameplay I saw and I do not regret purchasing one bit.This is a very case by case thing, so I will just leave it at that.

 

[TheIceQueen]

The difference between watching a streamed movie and a streamed game is the interactivity of the game. If you've watched the movie, there's nothing else you can really do because that's all that movies are designed to be consumed for. Watching games is a different thing, though. When you watch a game, you're disconnected from what's going on. This disconnection will differ wildly for many people, but it'll still be there because games aren't meant to be consumed like movies. You can't watch a game and then claim that you played it and the few games that get even close to that are the more artsy-fartsy kinda-movie games that are designed to be consumed more like movies than games. Because that's what games are about: gameplay.

When it comes to games, watching other people play it helps me inform my consumer opinion. I've never felt satisfied just watching someone else play the game. If it's a good game, I want to be the one playing it, but first I need to know if your game is worth it.

Sorry, Phil Fish, but you already couldn't stand the heat in the kitchen and got out. Please just stay out if all you're going to do is whine more.

 

[Andy Shandy]

Then maybe YouTubers should get a substantial amount of the revenue when they essentially "sell" a copy of your game to a viewer, Phil?

Two way street this whole YouTube coverage thing.

I actually have some sympathy for Phil with the what happened previously, but I highly disagree with a lot of what he's said here.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I think that if the developers and the publisher want money, then go ahead and get it. Thing is though, don't go after the streamers or the Let's Players, go after damn Google or the networks that they work for. Honestly, while the article that PewDiePie makes about 4 million a year just came out, that doesn't mean everybody who earns revenue that much or near that much. Plus saying that if developers don't get a cut it's basically piracy, yeah that shows that Phil Fish doesn't know what piracy is. Google automatically gets 40% of all revenue because the videos use AdSense, and I believe Twitch uses AdSense as well if I'm not mistaken. The remaining amount is then divided between the networks such as Maker Studios, Machinima, etc. and the actual content creator. The content creator will get the least amount, unless their contract says otherwise.

I get it, game developers and publishers want this "internet monies", but thing is if you bully and antagonize the people making the content about your game, the people doing it will probably stop doing videos about your game. Especially if the cuts you want are absolutely unreasonable like I've seen some people suggest in previous threads about this topic.

The worst thing about this is they refuse to provide that content themselves. These people want Let's players and the like to stop doing it or worse give them money for it? PROVIDE A BETTER SERVICE!!! If these developers and publishers that are whining about this go and try to shut these youtubers down instead of competing with them they're shooting themselves in the foot. If these developers and publisher would do what the youtubers and pirates do better and more professionally than anyone else, then they would be the ones getting the money instead

A better, cheaper, and more convenient service is always going to be used by consumers over the more expensive, worse, and hassle filled one, whether it's legal or not. If these people really want to actually do something about this providing a better service is the only thing that's going to make a real difference.

 

[zen5887]

I feel like, in some cases at least, streamers and lets players help the developer. I'm almost positive Goat Simulator wouldn't be nearly as popular without PewDiePie endorsing it. Maybe I'm overestimating the popularity and influence of Let's Plays, but I've personally gone out and bought games like Factorio, Democracy 3 and Prison Architect after watching Lets Plays.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

I kind of agree. It is, after all, the developer's work, and if you're going to do a whole playthrough of it in terms of a Let's Play video, then you probably should pay a tiny bit of a royalty. Nothing more than maybe five percent though, not to the extent that he was clearly stating.

And if you're just reviewing a game, or talking about a small section of it, then I don't think you have to pay anything.

 

[Ten Foot Bunny]

Once again, Fish the Loquacious uses the most inflammatory language possible to present his point, then throws a tantrum when people retort in kind.

...pay out a huge portion of their revenue ... they steal all their content ... basically piracy ... you owe me money. Simple as that.

No, he doesn't sound like a fucking prick or anything.

Without the LPers, the content from which he's demanding his windfall wouldn't exist in the first place! Or does he think that consumers pay so much to watch videos on YouTube that it's diminishing the buying power they might otherwise leverage to buy his game? Or does he think that nobody should benefit from their creations (derivative or otherwise) unless their name is Phil Fish?

Congratulations, Phil, you're the Lars Ulrich of the video game world. You'd rather have nothing if you can't have it all, and you'd rather destroy innovation that helps the little guys if it's not showering you in money that you wouldn't otherwise have. Now go stew in your self-imposed irrelevancy.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

All I see is someone staring at a revenue source they never even considered and getting mad that they aren't profiting from it.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

is so damn easy to hate this guy

 

[Racecarlock]

So to sum it up, "Give me money, you entitled pricks!".

Yeah, that's not hypocritical or anything.

I think there needs to be more talk in this industry about developer entitlement.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Unless the game in question is ridiculously bland and linear, then streaming or LPing it is not much the same as showing a movie. With most games, no two experiences will ever be exactly the same, and so watching an LP or stream is not at all equivalent to playing the game yourself.

I'd go so far as to say that many game videos are a form of advertising, drawing interest towards the game. I know I've bought several games I wouldn't have touched if I hadn't seen Let's Plays of them.

Now tell me, Mr. Fish, do you try to charge advertisers for the privilege of advertising your product?

 

[Frission]

Didn't he quit making videogames?

 

[Rad Party God]

Oh Phil... I was starting to like you just a little bit after watching Indie Game: The Movie, but damn if it isn't extremely easy to dislike you.

Spoiler: Okay. Do game streamers/YouTubers owe money to the devs of these games?.

To me, a live stream or an LP isn't completely about the game itself, sometimes I watch these to make a better and more informed decision about buying or playing this game or not, but sometimes I watch these for the other half that counts, the YouTuber/Live Streamer.

To me, these guys are entertainers, I could watch two LP's of the same game with two entirely different people and get mostly different reactions or commentaries.

Though I guess that playing Fez is boring as fuck, that's an exception I'd make to simply watch the damned thing instead of playing it.