Sony's Not Ready For User-Made Videos

[ShinAquarius]

Demos sell copies too, but there is plenty of data to show they actually end up costing more sales in the end.

And this is the point you fail to understand.

If actual gameplay makes someone not buy it, it's because the game is bad. This is why trailers are better than a demo - Because a trailer can showcase the awesome stuff, while forgetting to mention all the shitty mechanics their game have.

If you give a man a demo, and he then doesn't buy the actual game, do you think it's because he already played it? No. It's because he now knows how fucking horrible the game is. A trailer that conveniently forgets to show gameplay footage is more likely to get sales, because people doesn't actually know what they are getting into.

By your logic, a simple review is equally bad. Because a review tells people why they should/shouldn't buy the game, and is likely to cost sales if the game is bad. I bet that if you could find statistics for this kind of thing, a game that had less sales "because of a demo", was trashed by reviewers as well.

 

[ShinAquarius]

Demos sell copies too, but there is plenty of data to show they actually end up costing more sales in the end.

And this is the point you fail to understand.

If actual gameplay makes someone not buy it, it's because the game is bad. This is why trailers are better than a demo - Because a trailer can showcase the awesome stuff, while forgetting to mention all the shitty mechanics their game have.

If you give a man a demo, and he then doesn't buy the actual game, do you think it's because he already played it? No. It's because he now knows how fucking horrible the game is. A trailer that conveniently forgets to show gameplay footage is more likely to get sales, because people doesn't actually know what they are getting into.

By your logic, a simple review is equally bad. Because a review tells people why they should/shouldn't buy the game, and is likely to cost sales if the game is bad. I bet that if you could find statistics for this kind of thing, a game that had less sales "because of a demo", was trashed by reviewers as well.

 

[medv4380]

By your logic, a simple review is equally bad. Because a review tells people why they should/shouldn't buy the game, and is likely to cost sales if the game is bad. I bet that if you could find statistics for this kind of thing, a game that had less sales "because of a demo", was trashed by reviewers as well.

A review is explicitly covered under fair use, and has legal limits set by legal precedent.

(A) reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy ...

Lets players are clearly falling into the category of creating a work not to criticize, but to supersede.
If you wish to make profit off of someones work you must get permission.

Your argument is little more than a straw-man used to justify something that is clearly wrong. The argument about "it does no harm" is why I brought up the fact that it can do harm.

The Truth is that a Lets Play video isn't harmless. The Truth is that a Lets Play video is making profit off of someones work without permission.

If others in other media fields can recognize that it's not legal for them to profit off of other peoples work why can't you?

 

[ShinAquarius]

By your logic, a simple review is equally bad. Because a review tells people why they should/shouldn't buy the game, and is likely to cost sales if the game is bad. I bet that if you could find statistics for this kind of thing, a game that had less sales "because of a demo", was trashed by reviewers as well.

A review is explicitly covered under fair use, and has legal limits set by legal precedent.

(A) reviewer may fairly cite largely from the original work, if his design be really and truly to use the passages for the purposes of fair and reasonable criticism. On the other hand, it is as clear, that if he thus cites the most important parts of the work, with a view, not to criticize, but to supersede the use of the original work, and substitute the review for it, such a use will be deemed in law a piracy ...

Lets players are clearly falling into the category of creating a work not to criticize, but to supersede.
If you wish to make profit off of someones work you must get permission.

Your argument is little more than a straw-man used to justify something that is clearly wrong. The argument about "it does no harm" is why I brought up the fact that it can do harm.

The Truth is that a Lets Play video isn't harmless. The Truth is that a Lets Play video is making profit off of someones work without permission.

If others in other media fields can recognize that it's not legal for them to profit off of other peoples work why can't you?

You forgot a bunch of my points. No good comeback on those?

You keep dwelling in "making profits". How much do you think a Let's Player EARNS from making them? For most of them, that's nothing. This is all the YouTubers that just throw up some videos, because why not. Because this, I agree on - If you are making a let's play to earn money, you might as well take a movie, and invite the entire street over, taking an entrance fee for every viewer.

And I'm not talking about the law. Since you are so fond of talking about it, you must also know that, in a whole lot of cases, a law, or precedence, as is also often used, are sometimes outdated and nonsensical.

Most of the Let's play I've watched have either been of games I've already played through, or games I considered. Now, demo's are something that is increasingly difficult to find, because as you said, "they reduce sales". Why? As I said, because a demo would showcase why the game in question is HORRIBLE, and not worth buying. So instead of finding their own, PR-approved gameplay trailers, I find someone who makes legit plays of the game, and showcases what works, and what doesn't. How Do you perceive this as unfair? Is it unfair that I'm allowed to know what I'm buying? This is like selling you a computer you do not know the specifications on, because telling you that could reduce the sales. In fact, I'd say I'm IMPRESSED that the video game industry is allowed to hide their product as much as they do. Computers are getting increasingly stricter requirements on how they have to market them, food needs an expansive ingredient list that includes anything inside it, but a video game can legally be sold without the consumer having ANY idea what he/she is buying.

tl;dr: The law needs to be revised.

 

[medv4380]

You forgot a bunch of my points. No good comeback on those?

You keep dwelling in "making profits". How much do you think a Let's Player EARNS from making them? For most of them, that's nothing. This is all the YouTubers that just throw up some videos, because why not. Because this, I agree on - If you are making a let's play to earn money, you might as well take a movie, and invite the entire street over, taking an entrance fee for every viewer.

tl;dr: The law needs to be revised.

If you bother to read more than one most on an old thread you might actually learn that I address all of your nonsense back in June.

I don't expect Lets Players to earn anything off of ads, but since they complain when Nintendo took that away, but let they keep their videos up I'd have to say it's enough.

If you wish to try and make a point that the Law needs to be revised then lets hear your proposal. Or are you like those "Occupy" protesters who want "Change", but can't vocalize what the "Change" should be? Otherwise I'd just have to default to paraphrasing Churchill. It's the worst system in the world except for all the others we've tried.

 

[ShinAquarius]

You forgot a bunch of my points. No good comeback on those?

You keep dwelling in "making profits". How much do you think a Let's Player EARNS from making them? For most of them, that's nothing. This is all the YouTubers that just throw up some videos, because why not. Because this, I agree on - If you are making a let's play to earn money, you might as well take a movie, and invite the entire street over, taking an entrance fee for every viewer.

tl;dr: The law needs to be revised.

If you bother to read more than one most on an old thread you might actually learn that I address all of your nonsense back in June.

I don't expect Lets Players to earn anything off of ads, but since they complain when Nintendo took that away, but let they keep their videos up I'd have to say it's enough.

If you wish to try and make a point that the Law needs to be revised then lets hear your proposal. Or are you like those "Occupy" protesters who want "Change", but can't vocalize what the "Change" should be? Otherwise I'd just have to default to paraphrasing Churchill. It's the worst system in the world except for all the others we've tried.

Why do you keep ignoring half of my post? Is it really that difficult to reply to, that it's easier to just ignore it entirely?

The "Change", as you put it, isn't just the law itself. It's the mindset around it, and laws that support the existing ones. Make a law that allows you to make expansive videos (Not necessarily FULL playthroughs) allowed, to make sure that developers aren't just churning out shit, hoping people will buy it without knowing what it actually is. Alternatively, make free demos FORCED, and let them be a good representation of how the game is going to be. Obviously keep the "No making money off of something that doesn't belong to you".

You are making the players the bad guy here. Sure, money grubbing idiots who make money from their Let's Play deserve whatever punishment they get, but just making a let's play video isn't the same as being a greedy bastard. And ask for permission? Are you kidding me? What company would allow people to make Let's Play, if they know the game only looks good in trailers, and is actually shit when played? All Let's Play would automatically be of good games.

We live in a world where you cannot sell a food product without proving what ingredients you used, and how much, and which types, of fat it includes. Yet you can sell a video game without EVER showing anything more than a sparkly CGI trailers with no gameplay footage, or very specific gameplay footage that actually looks good.

This is one of the reasons I liked the presentation of Ryse at E3. They showed me how utterly boring their game is, so now I know not to buy it. Otherwise, I might have been fooled by pretty CGI trailers, and bought it anyway. It cannot, EVER, be considered the end users responsibility to look it up on the internet through reviews and the like, for several reasons:
1. The reviews can, and often are, skewed by retarded reviewers who are paid for their good review. Remember a certain reviewer getting fired from gamespot because he rated Kane and Lynch 2 badly? The worst game of the year by far? Exactly.
2. There are NO reviews on launch day. And if there are, I'd be VERY cautious of believing them, because of point 1.

 

[medv4380]

Why do you keep ignoring half of my post? Is it really that difficult to reply to, that it's easier to just ignore it entirely?

Sure, money grubbing idiots who make money from their Let's Play deserve whatever punishment they get, but just making a let's play video isn't the same as being a greedy bastard.

Why do you keep failing to read what was posted months ago?

The people who are after money are the only ones that are at issue, or did you even fail to read the information this thread is about? Nintendo didn't take down any Lets play videos. They only removed the revenue stream from the Lets Players.

What you're arguing for is better reviews, and I have nothing against those. There is nothing legally at issue with posting footage in a review. But don't be deluded into believing that posting your play, from beginning to end, including every cut scene, is valid as a review. Read the context of the ruling I quoted, and you might understand this.

Your issue with no launch day reviews is a red haring to this argument. Sure, the credibility of Gaming media who are clearly too inept to form, or join, a Journalist Union to get the embargo issue addressed. For movie critics it's not possible to set the embargo on, or after a movies release, and black listing critics wouldn't change that. It does mean that bad movies don't get early critic screenings, but everyone is aware that movies that don't get early reviews are cult films, or just too bad to see the light of day.