Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
"ON LET'S PLAYS" - DEV EXPRESSES PLIGHT OVER HOW LP'S HAVE IMPACTED HIS GAME'S SALES
Posts
bahlete442456234996
View playlists
Close
Crystalgate
694
In order to know what effect an LP has on a game, you have to know both how many people who decide not to get the game because they partially experienced it via a Let's Play and how many extra customers you got thanks to the added exposure. How do you figure out any of those numbers?
What LP's definitely do however is to remove control from the developer. For example, a common tactic I use is to hit an LP, pick a video in the middle of the playlist and then watch a few minutes of combat. This gives me a far more accurate picture of what I can expect than a trailer does. Obviously, there is no reason to sympathize with developers in this particular question.
What LP's definitely do however is to remove control from the developer. For example, a common tactic I use is to hit an LP, pick a video in the middle of the playlist and then watch a few minutes of combat. This gives me a far more accurate picture of what I can expect than a trailer does. Obviously, there is no reason to sympathize with developers in this particular question.
The argument I always see is that "Let's Plays are nothing but good for developers" but like, what if the developers don't agree with that..? It doesn't really feel right to say "This is good for you, I know best" and be done with it.
Anyway, even the writer of that article said his biggest problem was that LPers would simply play his game with several links to their own channels, but without any links to the game, anything about the developers, etc., no encouragement to support the original creator, etc. which is kind of a real shame. It kind of blows my mind that any LP would do that for a relatively small indie game.
Let's Plays - like people who make unlicensed Undertale merch - are somewhere in the gray area between "original creative work" and "profiting off someone else's creative work". And you could probably argue the ethics of this all day - personally, I feel a lot less bad when the creator has already seen their due (people LPing Minecraft, Mario, etc.) but someone who's sold 14,000 copies of a game isn't really in that place yet.
EDIT: The argument that linear games, story-based games, non-mechanical games, etc. are the ones that probably suffer most from being LPed makes sense a lot of sense. It seems like kind of a bummer - I can see people trying to survive off of indie dev avoiding creating anything "too linear", especially since a lot of players already undervalue the cost of games.
Anyway, even the writer of that article said his biggest problem was that LPers would simply play his game with several links to their own channels, but without any links to the game, anything about the developers, etc., no encouragement to support the original creator, etc. which is kind of a real shame. It kind of blows my mind that any LP would do that for a relatively small indie game.
Let's Plays - like people who make unlicensed Undertale merch - are somewhere in the gray area between "original creative work" and "profiting off someone else's creative work". And you could probably argue the ethics of this all day - personally, I feel a lot less bad when the creator has already seen their due (people LPing Minecraft, Mario, etc.) but someone who's sold 14,000 copies of a game isn't really in that place yet.
EDIT: The argument that linear games, story-based games, non-mechanical games, etc. are the ones that probably suffer most from being LPed makes sense a lot of sense. It seems like kind of a bummer - I can see people trying to survive off of indie dev avoiding creating anything "too linear", especially since a lot of players already undervalue the cost of games.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
What a messy situation, and one that doesn't seem to have a right solution. Only less wrong ones.
On one hand, I can totally empathize with Ryan here. It sounds like he's trying to fight against the video game equivalent of those awful Youtube "Reaction" channels where people just upload other people's videos in their entirety while passing off their constant, occasionally snickering face in the corner or a solid white border with some text on it as, "transformative." In the strictest sense of the word, yeah, they're in the right. That sure doesn't mean you're doing the original creators any favors, since now there's no reason to get the game at all.
On the other hand, welcome to the internet, Ryan. If you make a game and put it on the internet, people are going to check it out, comment on it, and maybe even record and post a playthough of it. Those actions give your game more exposure, which in turn means more potential buyers. Plus, people who are on the fence about the game and concerned about dropping cash on a product when they aren't certain of it's quality is a pretty rational mentality to have, and a LP of a game is a great way for people to get a real feel for the quality of the final product (since you can't really trust trailers or even demos anymore these days).
The only way to truly test Ryan's claim that LPs are hurting game sales is to travel to an alternate universe where LPs don't exist and compare the sales numbers. Seeing as that's quite impossible, I think the only kinds of vids he has any right to take down are the silent LPs that don't add any commentary or anything. That's especially true considering how linear That Dragon: Cancer is.
Honestly, Stardew Valley, Minecraft, Dreaming Mary, and other games like these are pretty poor examples to use. The first two are open ended enough that I can buy the games myself and have quite a different experience from what I saw in the LP. The last two are completely free, so the livelihood of the creators isn't affected at all by the download count. Neither of which is the case with That Dragon: Cancer, so it's comparing apples and oranges.
In the end, it feels like a case of the game being incompatible with the state of the world it was created in. Yeah, Ryan's game is very linear because it has a powerful story to tell. But with a game with such little variety in it's very nature, he just can't expect people to not play the game and talk about it, and some people might just decide that kind of game isn't for them, and not buy it.
Is that even possible? What would satisfy Ryan is that LPs of That Dragon: Cancer would not exist. I can't imagine that's a solution LPers would be thrilled about.
On one hand, I can totally empathize with Ryan here. It sounds like he's trying to fight against the video game equivalent of those awful Youtube "Reaction" channels where people just upload other people's videos in their entirety while passing off their constant, occasionally snickering face in the corner or a solid white border with some text on it as, "transformative." In the strictest sense of the word, yeah, they're in the right. That sure doesn't mean you're doing the original creators any favors, since now there's no reason to get the game at all.
On the other hand, welcome to the internet, Ryan. If you make a game and put it on the internet, people are going to check it out, comment on it, and maybe even record and post a playthough of it. Those actions give your game more exposure, which in turn means more potential buyers. Plus, people who are on the fence about the game and concerned about dropping cash on a product when they aren't certain of it's quality is a pretty rational mentality to have, and a LP of a game is a great way for people to get a real feel for the quality of the final product (since you can't really trust trailers or even demos anymore these days).
The only way to truly test Ryan's claim that LPs are hurting game sales is to travel to an alternate universe where LPs don't exist and compare the sales numbers. Seeing as that's quite impossible, I think the only kinds of vids he has any right to take down are the silent LPs that don't add any commentary or anything. That's especially true considering how linear That Dragon: Cancer is.
Honestly, Stardew Valley, Minecraft, Dreaming Mary, and other games like these are pretty poor examples to use. The first two are open ended enough that I can buy the games myself and have quite a different experience from what I saw in the LP. The last two are completely free, so the livelihood of the creators isn't affected at all by the download count. Neither of which is the case with That Dragon: Cancer, so it's comparing apples and oranges.
In the end, it feels like a case of the game being incompatible with the state of the world it was created in. Yeah, Ryan's game is very linear because it has a powerful story to tell. But with a game with such little variety in it's very nature, he just can't expect people to not play the game and talk about it, and some people might just decide that kind of game isn't for them, and not buy it.
author=Ratty524
So... What can we do to make both parties satisfied?
Is that even possible? What would satisfy Ryan is that LPs of That Dragon: Cancer would not exist. I can't imagine that's a solution LPers would be thrilled about.
Ratty524
It's completely bullshit.
It... Really isn't. I'd advise you take a step back for a moment, here, because you seem to be taking this a bit too personally?
Anyway, as an LPer, you need to bare in mind that the content you are displaying, fundamentally, is not yours. Because of that, companies can do whatever they want with their content. This is why just about any entitlement shouldn't really exist with LP'ers, because they are essentially making unsolicited streams of someone else's content.
I disagree. Yes, the game isn't yours, obviously, but that doesn't mean the world isn't allowed to see it. Entertainment, as art, is meant to be criticized and shared and interpreted, which is what LPs are to games. The key component of the game -- actually making your own choices -- is not left in the hands of the person who is watching the LP.
Also it is theirs, until shitty companies do it up like Nintendo, putting money-or-moratorium deals down that ruin the Internet even further. =)
I think that saying "you shouldn't be able to stream games" is like saying "we know we made something that isn't an engaging interactive experience." You can stream a physically linear game like Firewatch and still have people want to buy it and play it, because your personal choices directly influence the game. With That Dragon, Cancer? It's just kind of a shit product with some artistic merit as an evocative piece, but not as like... a game. If you're selling it as a game and are unimpressed with how it's selling and that people would rather just watch it, maybe you didn't do a good job. Movies are protected for a reason. Games aren't.
Sated
This is how you sound to me: "If I buy a Taylor Swift album, I BOUGHT the experience of that music and being able to listen to the goddamn thing. I BOUGHT it so why should my sharing of it be limited and monetised by the owner in any way."
The fact that the music your talking about happens to be part of a game doesn't make a blind bit of difference. The same logic that applies to record labels monetising their content also applies here.
All you get with a TSwift album is the ability to play a music track. Putting it on YouTube is the full experience, minus the convenience of not having to stream it. Games have a lot more to them and so a video is not the full experience (and if it is, maybe your game is bad).
Also, I don't agree on the basis that many, many albums are now available for streaming! They're put up by the labels/bands! And yet people like me still buy the music so that I can listen to it while walking or on my lunch break without having to use up my data streaming. With music, you're paying for convenience, not the ability to listen to te track.
author=Craze
Also, I don't agree on the basis that many, many albums are now available for streaming! They're put up by the labels/bands! And yet people like me still buy the music so that I can listen to it while walking or on my lunch break without having to use up my data streaming. With music, you're paying for convenience, not the ability to listen to te track.
Yea, but the labels & bands make the money off those videos. Same with Pandora stations, etc. The developer doesn't directly see a dime for a Let's Play - only unmeasurable increased sales. The Let's Player is the one getting paid.
And again, the original article by the dev was a request to help them with ongoing support for the game by encouraging people to support the devs by linking to them and asking for donations. It wasn't a vicious attack on Let's Players, it was a plea.
author=Craze
I think that saying "you shouldn't be able to stream games" is like saying "we know we made something that isn't an engaging interactive experience." You can stream a physically linear game like Firewatch and still have people want to buy it and play it, because your personal choices directly influence the game. With That Dragon, Cancer? It's just kind of a shit product with some artistic merit as an evocative piece, but not as like... a game. If you're selling it as a game and are unimpressed with how it's selling and that people would rather just watch it, maybe you didn't do a good job. Movies are protected for a reason. Games aren't.
I disagree with this. While I personally agree that the most interesting part of the game medium is the interactivity, it can still be used to make controller-less experiences, or even games with minor but relevant interactivity. You could argue that these are bad games, but them being bad doesn't mean you're suddenly in the clear to do what you like with them. It strikes me as bad faith to simply say "if your game is more fun to watch than stream, then it's your fault you're not making any money off it" while Let's Players walk away with more profit than the dev.
It's fun enough to make somebody money! Just not you.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
When this was the anti-file-sharing argument of the RIAA, the best argument I saw was that people who are pirating music are usually not people who would otherwise be buying music, and I think that applies very much to Let's Play videos.
I know I personally have stopped watching and bought (or wishlisted) several games because I could tell from the LP that I wanted to play the game myself. If I continue watching a LP, it's usually because I'm curious about the game but don't want to play it, or I just don't care and am watching for the player, not the games. In neither case would I have bothered obtaining the game at all.
As to copyright arguments, I don't know if it's been pursued in court yet, but the discussion I've seen surrounding the terms of Fair Use as applied to LPs tends to side with the LPer, as the fact that they are in control of how the game is experienced (they're the ones pressing buttons) and that they are adding their own commentary both slot it into the transformative "comment on and/or criticize" factors of FU. (There may also be room to claim parody in some of the comedic LPs.)
(In the case of things like Long Plays, where there is no commentary, the position is a lot less stable, I assume, but I am no lawyer.)
In the end, I don't think there's really any good evidence that LPs are depriving creators of sales they wouldn't be getting. It's very easy to look at the numbers and think, "Gosh, that's so many people! Think of how much money that would've been!" but it's fallacious: there's no way to actually determine what number (if any!) of the viewers would have bothered to get the game.
I'm personally all for LPs as an advertisement; I don't think it lines up as easily with the "for exposure!" scams done to visual artists, since the media involved are inherently different in how they're experienced.
As to the OP's "What can we do?" question... I don't think there's much we need to do. We can buy games we want to play. We can spread word of mouth on games we think are cool. As someone with a commercial game (and hopes for another one eventually), I feel like the setup we have is pretty decent, as long as LPers are giving credit and linking to where one can buy stuff.
I know I personally have stopped watching and bought (or wishlisted) several games because I could tell from the LP that I wanted to play the game myself. If I continue watching a LP, it's usually because I'm curious about the game but don't want to play it, or I just don't care and am watching for the player, not the games. In neither case would I have bothered obtaining the game at all.
As to copyright arguments, I don't know if it's been pursued in court yet, but the discussion I've seen surrounding the terms of Fair Use as applied to LPs tends to side with the LPer, as the fact that they are in control of how the game is experienced (they're the ones pressing buttons) and that they are adding their own commentary both slot it into the transformative "comment on and/or criticize" factors of FU. (There may also be room to claim parody in some of the comedic LPs.)
(In the case of things like Long Plays, where there is no commentary, the position is a lot less stable, I assume, but I am no lawyer.)
In the end, I don't think there's really any good evidence that LPs are depriving creators of sales they wouldn't be getting. It's very easy to look at the numbers and think, "Gosh, that's so many people! Think of how much money that would've been!" but it's fallacious: there's no way to actually determine what number (if any!) of the viewers would have bothered to get the game.
I'm personally all for LPs as an advertisement; I don't think it lines up as easily with the "for exposure!" scams done to visual artists, since the media involved are inherently different in how they're experienced.
As to the OP's "What can we do?" question... I don't think there's much we need to do. We can buy games we want to play. We can spread word of mouth on games we think are cool. As someone with a commercial game (and hopes for another one eventually), I feel like the setup we have is pretty decent, as long as LPers are giving credit and linking to where one can buy stuff.
all i have left to say ist hat yes you should link to games you lp, and also that i'm 100% sure that this is now gonna be the next "piracy is ruining the game industry" shit
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
It's been that for a while, I'm p. sure. I know Jim Sterling has had to wrangle with it from various fronts.
Yea, it's definitely something that's been a thing and will probably be a thing for a while.
We're in a rough spot when it comes to people getting paid for the things they put time and effort into, and I feel like there should be focus on an agreement and good will between the creators and the let's players, instead of a fierce paranoia.
EDIT: I think it's an assumption that Let's Plays are always good advertising for good games, the same way that it's an assumption that Let's Plays always hurt sales. I wish we had some good data on that, but I imagine that's kinda hard to track the way things are set up now.
We're in a rough spot when it comes to people getting paid for the things they put time and effort into, and I feel like there should be focus on an agreement and good will between the creators and the let's players, instead of a fierce paranoia.
EDIT: I think it's an assumption that Let's Plays are always good advertising for good games, the same way that it's an assumption that Let's Plays always hurt sales. I wish we had some good data on that, but I imagine that's kinda hard to track the way things are set up now.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=slash
EDIT: I think it's an assumption that Let's Plays are always good advertising for good games, the same way that it's an assumption that Let's Plays always hurt sales. I wish we had some good data on that, but I imagine that's kinda hard to track the way things are set up now.
I've had to spend a lot of time trying to understand advertising and marketing for my non-videogame junk, so here's how I view it:
You put out a game, few people see it. Maybe you get some sales.
Someone LPs it, people who did not see it before see it. Maybe you get some sales.
Anyone who sees it and likes it tells someone else who did not see it before about it. Maybe you get some sales.
There's no guarantee at any point in the chain that sales happen. However, each new audience member increases your chance of sales or further auience members.
Advertising can't guarantee sales, but you are guaranteed NO sales if nobody ever sees your game.
For sure! I definitely agree with that. And I honestly believe that, in the vast majority of cases (especially for more traditional games) Let's Plays increase sales of games rather than decrease sales.
But I can see the issue still. That Dragon, Cancer is a pretty widely-talked about game! But, due to its design, an LP means the vast majority of the game can be experienced (arguably in a less fulfilling way) without actually buying it. So, what do we do? Should we just accept that making games like that may never be profitable for the developer - only for the player?
I'm lucky enough that the kinds of games I make don't have this problem, but I've seen good indie VNs and strange experimental games like That Dragon, Cancer and I'd love to see more! The kind of solutions I imagine are things like... Better tools for connecting to devs, encouraging and building tipping/donations within the game community, and more collaboration between devs and LPs.
But I can see the issue still. That Dragon, Cancer is a pretty widely-talked about game! But, due to its design, an LP means the vast majority of the game can be experienced (arguably in a less fulfilling way) without actually buying it. So, what do we do? Should we just accept that making games like that may never be profitable for the developer - only for the player?
I'm lucky enough that the kinds of games I make don't have this problem, but I've seen good indie VNs and strange experimental games like That Dragon, Cancer and I'd love to see more! The kind of solutions I imagine are things like... Better tools for connecting to devs, encouraging and building tipping/donations within the game community, and more collaboration between devs and LPs.
Housekeeping
3571
I think this conversation probably works better if we replace the word "game" with "movie" here. That Dragon, Cancer seems to be about two hours long with a slight bit of interactivity. It's basically a movie, and if you look at it like that, wouldn't you find it distasteful if someone uploaded a full film on youtube with a bit of commentary on it and then profited from that?
So, I think I probably lean more towards the developer on this one, and that's a tough thing for me to say, because I think that game looks like a ham-fisted sapfest capitalizing on the death of the developer's child. I'm down with the visuals and some of the imagery, but, man, that game is in dire need of more nuanced and affective voice acting (not to mention a subtler script in general). Too, despite agreeing with the developer, I think the real issue for his lack of sales is his price point. Fifteen bucks is more than people will pay for a good movie made by actual filmmakers, let alone a movie made by a handful of amateurs.
So, I think I probably lean more towards the developer on this one, and that's a tough thing for me to say, because I think that game looks like a ham-fisted sapfest capitalizing on the death of the developer's child. I'm down with the visuals and some of the imagery, but, man, that game is in dire need of more nuanced and affective voice acting (not to mention a subtler script in general). Too, despite agreeing with the developer, I think the real issue for his lack of sales is his price point. Fifteen bucks is more than people will pay for a good movie made by actual filmmakers, let alone a movie made by a handful of amateurs.
As someone who is effectively an outsider in this argument in terms of concern, I'm baffled that people out there apparently exist that decided not to buy a game because they'd rather watch a Let's Play.
Yes, I've had games where I went 'eh, I'm not going to spend money on it, but I'll watch it', but I've never gone 'well, I was going to buy this game, but I'd rather watch it.'
Yes, I've had games where I went 'eh, I'm not going to spend money on it, but I'll watch it', but I've never gone 'well, I was going to buy this game, but I'd rather watch it.'
author=Feldschlacht IV
Yes, I've had games where I went 'eh, I'm not going to spend money on it, but I'll watch it', but I've never gone 'well, I was going to buy this game, but I'd rather watch it.'
For sure, I've done this before. A few years ago I heard about Catherine, so I was looking for a cheap used copy, but tbh I was mostly interested in the character interactions. Then I realized it would just be easier to watch an LP, so I found one that skipped the block-puzzle bits and just showed the cutscenes and bar scenes.
So like, not exactly "I was going to buy this new game but instead of spending $60 I just watched it online!" But, I was ready to spend some money for a copy and didn't bother afterwards.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Housekeeping
I think this conversation probably works better if we replace the word "game" with "movie" here. That Dragon, Cancer seems to be about two hours long with a slight bit of interactivity. It's basically a movie, and if you look at it like that, wouldn't you find it distasteful if someone uploaded a full film on youtube with a bit of commentary on it and then profited from that?
Per my point about music above, it probably doesn't make a big difference in terms of sale.
(I'd also argue that, even as a super linear narrative game, it still seems to have elements that are firmly married to the experience of being a game, so the experience can be different with different playthroughs, albeit not in a super significant way. It certainly sounds like the kind of narrative that works better experienced via active gameplay than passive watching. This is sort of nitpicky, but it bugs me slightly to see linear narrative games called movies- the two media are different!)
Also... you do realise that shows like what you're talking about predate YouTube, yes?
EDIT: Yes thank you, RMN, I DID want to show a YT video and not use a URL, thank you for automatically fucking the code up for me!
Housekeeping
3571
There's a difference between music and film, though. Music is something that elicits repeat listening, often while we work, go for a jog, drive in our cars, etc. There's still a reason to purchase it. Watching a film or playing a game requires a fairly significant time investment, so most of the time people will only experience them once (unless they form an attachment to it). I think that if someone is interested in this game and sees the $15 price tag, they'll be more motivated to just watch it on youtube.
I should say that while I'm morally for the devs, I think I'm legally with the let's players, but I think it's in poor taste to do a full let's play of the game. If it's really about exposure, a review or partial playthrough is fine, but otherwise we're in a situation where let's players might collectively make more money than the game itself, which seems immoral to me.
And, yes, there are interactive elements, but they're stripped back enough that watching the game doesn't seem to hurt the experience much. I don't mean to say that it's not a video game--it definitely is, and I think that any amount of interactivity impacting the events on the screen warrants the definition of "video game." I meant that in terms of the let's play debate, it's fair to compare it to a film because of how stripped back those gameplay elements are. I didn't watch that full video, but the interactive elements from the game that I've seen so far are: clicking on cards so that you can read them, clicking on a pond in order to lay bread crumbs so that a duck approaches you, and clicking on a See n' Say to hear voice clips. Was there something important that I missed, or is that clicking really central to the experience?
I'm aware of Mystery Science Theater 3000--they also use movies that have entered the public domain or stuff they can get licensing for, so that's kind of a false equivalency. Also there are robots, so step up your game, let's players.
I should say that while I'm morally for the devs, I think I'm legally with the let's players, but I think it's in poor taste to do a full let's play of the game. If it's really about exposure, a review or partial playthrough is fine, but otherwise we're in a situation where let's players might collectively make more money than the game itself, which seems immoral to me.
And, yes, there are interactive elements, but they're stripped back enough that watching the game doesn't seem to hurt the experience much. I don't mean to say that it's not a video game--it definitely is, and I think that any amount of interactivity impacting the events on the screen warrants the definition of "video game." I meant that in terms of the let's play debate, it's fair to compare it to a film because of how stripped back those gameplay elements are. I didn't watch that full video, but the interactive elements from the game that I've seen so far are: clicking on cards so that you can read them, clicking on a pond in order to lay bread crumbs so that a duck approaches you, and clicking on a See n' Say to hear voice clips. Was there something important that I missed, or is that clicking really central to the experience?
I'm aware of Mystery Science Theater 3000--they also use movies that have entered the public domain or stuff they can get licensing for, so that's kind of a false equivalency. Also there are robots, so step up your game, let's players.
Jeroen_Sol
Nothing reveals Humanity so well as the games it plays. A game of betrayal, where the most suspicious person is brutally murdered? How savage.
3885
I think all of this wouldn't be a problem if in the case of games made by indie developers, Let's Players simply ask the developer for permission to make an LP of their game. I think 9 times out of 10, the developer will gladly let the LPer LP their games. In most cases, it's free advertising after all.
It doesn't matter how interactive the game is or isn't, and all this case exhaustion is not necessary, and detracts from heart of the issue. It's a simple case of common decency. If possible, you ask someone before using their work for something you intend to make money from. In the case of AAA games I can see why people would not bother with that, but in the case of Indie games, just ask explicit permission. If someone lets you LP their game, go right ahead. If they don't want you to, don't. It's not rocket science.
It doesn't matter how interactive the game is or isn't, and all this case exhaustion is not necessary, and detracts from heart of the issue. It's a simple case of common decency. If possible, you ask someone before using their work for something you intend to make money from. In the case of AAA games I can see why people would not bother with that, but in the case of Indie games, just ask explicit permission. If someone lets you LP their game, go right ahead. If they don't want you to, don't. It's not rocket science.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Housekeeping
There's a difference between music and film, though. Music is something that elicits repeat listening, often while we work, go for a jog, drive in our cars, etc. There's still a reason to purchase it. Watching a film or playing a game requires a fairly significant time investment, so most of the time people will only experience them once (unless they form an attachment to it).
This has not been my impression with either medium, TBH. Otherwise, DVD releases would not exist.
I don't exactly disagree that asking permission to LP a game is polite, but it feels really hinky to me to expect it. Possibly because I have seen how badly many devs want to keep an iron grip on everything and banish any possible criticism. (Plus the fact that LP culture seems to value someone being the first with a big new thing, so anyone asking permission is already being kneecapped by having to wait.)
At any rate, the LP genie is out of the bottle, and I still firmly believe that even a full playthrough will lead to a bigger paying audience than lack thereof, so the whole argument feels a bit pointless to me.
