Let me preface this with the fact I subscribe to some channels on YouTube where people make a living out of Let's Plays and covering gameplay. I enjoy the content and I have purchased numerous games I saw debuted on them (Rogue Legacy, Guns of Icarus, They Bleed Pixels, Binding of Isaac and Awesomenauts)
First, I think that those of us deep enough in the internet overestimate the effect these videos have on the AAA industry. While they are instrumental and a valuable addition to the indies and kickstarters companies like Square Enix, Electronic Arts and Nintendo don't really see a cumulative benefit. I'm happy to see evidence that there is a substatial effect on sales but I don't think Skyrim saw a leap in sales with _Sips started playing it.
Secondly, from what I have seen (And I primarily watch Yogscast channels) the most successful and popualr videos are for sandbox, indie, competative or roguelikes. Minecraft and the hundreds of ModsG guns of Icarus, Dota 2, LoL. The recording and sharing of these games does little to detract from the marketability of the game. Watching people play these games, which are almost exclusively about the game play, engenders a yearning to participate and play as well.
AAA titles from Square Enix have a significant story element that plays a major part in the franchises marketability. Being able to stream story quests and full game play throughs takes away from much of the suspense and pacing that makes the game enjoyable for a large part of the audience which is engaged by narrative. While they may, through their videos, attract new players they may also 'scratch the itch' just enough for others to watch and have enough of a hit. There is no imperical evidence to suggest that allowing their content to go out free is beneficial so the cautious route makes sense.
Another note is copyright laws in the digital public sphere are not sophisticated enough to allow a company to protect itself in a robust manner. At what point is the line drawn between fair use and something that is mutually beneficial? What if someone uses character models and meshes etc to create an internet series that is not set in Eorzea? Is that fair to the artists who created it? It's less likely to benefit the game in anyway then Let's Plays so should it be out of the question?
Those questions aren't easy so it's safer to just set the rule 'No Monetization' until the fair use clauses can be better implemented to deal with the new way publics share media with each other.
This is a huge slap in the face to a lot of people who have invested themselves in this game over the past 3/4/5 months only to be told that they cannot continue covering the game if they wish to continue attempting to earn a living.
My last point is why is it the responsability of Square Enix to provide third parites with content so they can make a living? No third party is responsability for my ability to earn a living.
I respect it takes dedication and skill to create professional video content for a living, however like any small business owner your living is your responsability. It's one of the perks of the job. Plasticity and adaptability is the main skill these people need to remain viable and just because they monetised in such a way until now doesn't mean it will remian that way forever. Nintendo and Square Enix making these choices is a warning on how things might go in the future. So time to get those creative juices flowing and figuring out some scenario plans for the next 12 months to five years.
•"It does not just kill "shitty LPs", it kills professional video critique"
There are still benefits for professionals to create videos on triple A games as it can still create greater traffic to their channel and lead to more revenue based on views on monetized videos so both parites can actually argue the other benefits freely from the others content.
Maybe they need to invest more time in self marketing to the companies instead of hust the audience. These big companies have insanely detail style guidelines for how they represent IPs that are decades old. Older then many of these YouTube celebrites so it should be a surprise when they want to protect the professional portrayal of IPs that are worth millions.
Let me make this clear, what follows is an honest question as I don't know the answer. Have these people attempted to make professional contact with these companies in order to obtain permission and style guidelines to use the material to monetise it? Have they provided evidence to the rate at which listeners are informed by their services? Is the next step for the professional content creaters to work on the back end of their business now they have an audience? They seem to have this relationship with smaller devs (Yogscast seems to get some good access to various games by industry contacts) but do they need to start looking at ways to meet with larger ones as they grow?
Bear in mind what gamers are asking for here, the rights to remix and reuse primarily someone elses content, would be immediately condemnd in other media formats. You can't even use a 30 second sample of commercial music as podcast intro/outro music. You can;t stich together tv shows with commentry and monetize it either.
What gamers are currently asking for is an exception to the rule.
if you want to ask for that then your rhetoric should be more impressive then "You can't do this because it's how we make a living"
It needs to be "If you don't let me do this then you'll lose up to 100,000 players as typically 10% of my viewers will try games I play" Or 'I have 4 million subscribers, the value of that in traditional advertising is $x but I provide that in exchange for the right to monetize'
I respect the right for them to fight for their living but I worry that they aren't making the right arguements (And most reddit comments on the topic are ill thought out 'This is BS I'm not playing the game anymore' or 'They can't do this, we won't allow it').
Good luck on getting exposure though.
Originally Posted by AamesxDavid
Reply With Quote
