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
Liberty
View playlists
CloseA whole movie is a lot different because it's not an interactive material. A game, by definition, allows for you to change it in some way, shape or form by your choices. The combination of talking over the top of it and making your own choices makes it transformative.
That said, legally, you are allowed to talk over the top of movies for review purposes, but due to how big and bad Hollywood is, it's impossible to argue such a thing because they have more than enough money to tie up a court and bury anyone who tries to fight such a thing, unfortunately.
It's the actual talking over the top of something that makes it transformative because your voice is your property. I'm not talking about speaking until the end or showing clips then talking afterwards (though you are allowed to do that if you only show very, very short clips - I think it's 20 seconds or so?) but actually voicing over the clips themselves.
(also, don't forget that different countries have different laws about copyright, Hex)
Toaster, they shared the money when they bought the thing. Dunno about you, but paying $60 for a game is more than enough in my books for me to LP the shit out of for the whole 10c (if that) I make from it. People seriously underestimate how much youtube makes you. It's donations, merchandise and the like that actually fund most channels - only when they reach over a certain threshold of numbers can they actually make any livable kind of money from the videos themselves. And even then the bulk of money made still comes from donations and merch sales.
For those who don't know:
- You cannot touch any money that you make until you have at least 1000 subscribers.
- Even if you make that amount, youtube does 'trims' of dead channels every now and then meaning a large loss of numbers every now and then (the bigger your channel, the bigger your loss). From my own experience I had 320 subs. Then a trim happened and I was down to 280. This happened about two-three months ago and I've only just gotten up to 350.
- You only get a small amount of money. Like, piss-poor amounts. This is based on ads that are seen by your viewers so if anyone has adblock or the like, that's revenue gone.
Four months of livestreams 3 days a week, plus whatever other videos I put out, I've made a grand total of $1.08
That is the whole amount of money I have made for the last year of being certified for monetisation. Granted, there's some videos I can't (and won't) monetise, but if I had to share that small amount with every game I've LP'd I'd probably be getting about 2c.
It's a ridiculous suggestion, bud.
That said, legally, you are allowed to talk over the top of movies for review purposes, but due to how big and bad Hollywood is, it's impossible to argue such a thing because they have more than enough money to tie up a court and bury anyone who tries to fight such a thing, unfortunately.
It's the actual talking over the top of something that makes it transformative because your voice is your property. I'm not talking about speaking until the end or showing clips then talking afterwards (though you are allowed to do that if you only show very, very short clips - I think it's 20 seconds or so?) but actually voicing over the clips themselves.
(also, don't forget that different countries have different laws about copyright, Hex)
Toaster, they shared the money when they bought the thing. Dunno about you, but paying $60 for a game is more than enough in my books for me to LP the shit out of for the whole 10c (if that) I make from it. People seriously underestimate how much youtube makes you. It's donations, merchandise and the like that actually fund most channels - only when they reach over a certain threshold of numbers can they actually make any livable kind of money from the videos themselves. And even then the bulk of money made still comes from donations and merch sales.
For those who don't know:
- You cannot touch any money that you make until you have at least 1000 subscribers.
- Even if you make that amount, youtube does 'trims' of dead channels every now and then meaning a large loss of numbers every now and then (the bigger your channel, the bigger your loss). From my own experience I had 320 subs. Then a trim happened and I was down to 280. This happened about two-three months ago and I've only just gotten up to 350.
- You only get a small amount of money. Like, piss-poor amounts. This is based on ads that are seen by your viewers so if anyone has adblock or the like, that's revenue gone.
Four months of livestreams 3 days a week, plus whatever other videos I put out, I've made a grand total of $1.08
That is the whole amount of money I have made for the last year of being certified for monetisation. Granted, there's some videos I can't (and won't) monetise, but if I had to share that small amount with every game I've LP'd I'd probably be getting about 2c.
It's a ridiculous suggestion, bud.
Toaster_Team
966
Liberty, I suggest reading the dev of That Dragon Cancer position on this. It shows you the other side of the medal and I'll do my best to quote them in my reply.
I understand you could feel that way. I'd rather if we speak about this as a general phenomenon as opposed to you personally though. This isn't really about your own LP but rather about the phenomenon in general. Approaching an issue with a single anecdotal argument doesn't reveals a whole lot about the situation globally.
People in the comments of their blog have a similar reasoning:
TDC:
And that's the problem for some game dev here. If a LP provides the full content of the game, some people won't be buying the game. This is turn means less sales for the game. They continue:
TDC:
To wrap it up, I agree with the following comment:
As for the idea being ridiculous, forward it to Nintendo, I read it on their website:
https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/guide/
Toaster, they shared the money when they bought the thing. Dunno about you, but paying $60 for a game is more than enough in my books for me to LP the shit out of for the whole 10c (if that) I make from it.
I understand you could feel that way. I'd rather if we speak about this as a general phenomenon as opposed to you personally though. This isn't really about your own LP but rather about the phenomenon in general. Approaching an issue with a single anecdotal argument doesn't reveals a whole lot about the situation globally.
People in the comments of their blog have a similar reasoning:
Victor
If I buy the game, everyone involved in making it already got paid.
If I decide to do a Let's Play and I make money because people like my content, that doesn't mean you get more money.
I already payed you for the game; now that you figured out that people are seeing what they get before they buy it, you are calling foul?
GameStop doesn't have to give money to developers for selling games second hand, and you shouldn't get more money from someone because people on youtube like watching people play your game.
You already got paid.
Fuck you.
TDC:
However, for a short, relatively linear experience like ours, for millions of viewers, Let’s Play recordings of our content satisfy their interest and they never go on to interact with the game in the personal way that we intended for it to be experienced. If you compare the millions of views of the entirety of our game on YouTube to our sales as estimated on SteamSpy, you can hopefully see the disparity.
And that's the problem for some game dev here. If a LP provides the full content of the game, some people won't be buying the game. This is turn means less sales for the game. They continue:
TDC:
All we are asking in return is that you honor our work, the work you build your livelihood on top of, and acknowledge that when you do it, there is a real cost to developers. For us, it costs us the ability to continue to share this game through translation into other languages and bringing it to new platforms, along with starting new projects.
To wrap it up, I agree with the following comment:
Maybe there should be a leash on streamers and lp's limiting the amount of content they're allowed to show off.
The gaming industry is VERY generous in that regard compared to lets say the movie industry.
I'm actually surprised they´ve let it go as far as letting people make money off of their products by showing entire games from start to finish without any restrictions at all.
Where do you draw the line between free publicity and piracy.
As for the idea being ridiculous, forward it to Nintendo, I read it on their website:
https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/guide/
Yeah, I've already read the post. You didn't read my previous ones, though, from the sounds of it. I addressed that game in particular and ones like it and why it's not an issue.
And it is a ridiculous idea. The playing of a game is why games exist. Watching a game does not equal the full experience of a game - no way near it. Citing it as the same thing and thus piracy is beyond stupid. But hey, if someone doesn't want me to LP their game because they're not making money off it, I'm fine with saying "no free publicity for you". There's literally thousands of games out there that are unknown and deserve pointing out to the public.
I mean, look at games like Gone Home which were nothing before the LPs rolled in. And it became Game of the Year. It didn't happen because it sat on a shelf waiting for players or because people only watched LPs of it (it's linear as fuck but I watched an LP first (because I like the person who LP'd it) and then went and bought it to play - and a hell of a LOT of people did that). Do you think Stardew Valley became as big as it did because if word of mouth alone? No. LPs exposed it to a larger audience. I mean, sure, there's bound to be some people out there who don't play the game after watching an LP of it, but there's a much bigger amount of people who do the right thing and want to play a game themselves.
You gotta ask yourself, just how much money has TD,C made over bitching about this? I bet his sales jumped up quite a bit after this non-issue became some kind of 'controversy'. Frankly, it is ridiculous and beyond stupid that someone could scream foul over free press, especially when his game was a non-entity before someone LP'd it. Half the people who have played his game only learned about it through two ways - exposure via LPs and this ridiculous mess. Otherwise it would have been just another 'under the rug' unknown name with not even half the cash made than it has.
And it is a ridiculous idea. The playing of a game is why games exist. Watching a game does not equal the full experience of a game - no way near it. Citing it as the same thing and thus piracy is beyond stupid. But hey, if someone doesn't want me to LP their game because they're not making money off it, I'm fine with saying "no free publicity for you". There's literally thousands of games out there that are unknown and deserve pointing out to the public.
I mean, look at games like Gone Home which were nothing before the LPs rolled in. And it became Game of the Year. It didn't happen because it sat on a shelf waiting for players or because people only watched LPs of it (it's linear as fuck but I watched an LP first (because I like the person who LP'd it) and then went and bought it to play - and a hell of a LOT of people did that). Do you think Stardew Valley became as big as it did because if word of mouth alone? No. LPs exposed it to a larger audience. I mean, sure, there's bound to be some people out there who don't play the game after watching an LP of it, but there's a much bigger amount of people who do the right thing and want to play a game themselves.
You gotta ask yourself, just how much money has TD,C made over bitching about this? I bet his sales jumped up quite a bit after this non-issue became some kind of 'controversy'. Frankly, it is ridiculous and beyond stupid that someone could scream foul over free press, especially when his game was a non-entity before someone LP'd it. Half the people who have played his game only learned about it through two ways - exposure via LPs and this ridiculous mess. Otherwise it would have been just another 'under the rug' unknown name with not even half the cash made than it has.
author=Sated
"LPs are fine because indie developers can't afford lawyers and proper advertising." - Libby 2016.
A reminder that big developers can and have shut down LPs before. There isn't a "fair use" leg to stand on so don't act like there is.
That is not what I said at all, but sure, act like it is.
Toaster_Team
966
I only read the more recent messages, yes.
Wouldn't you say it depends on the game? Compare, say, Binding of Isaac (which I would find "LP Friendly") and TDC? I wouldn't buy an adventure game if only to end up doing *exactly* the same thing I've just watched on youtube. I mean, this goes beyond advertising and free publicity. I don't want to say "Surely you can see the difference" but that'd be putting words in your mouth. I personally think some games will benefit from LPs (Binding of Isaac) while others will be affected adversely by it (TDC).
And it is a ridiculous idea. The playing of a game is why games exist. Watching a game does not equal the full experience of a game - no way near it.
Wouldn't you say it depends on the game? Compare, say, Binding of Isaac (which I would find "LP Friendly") and TDC? I wouldn't buy an adventure game if only to end up doing *exactly* the same thing I've just watched on youtube. I mean, this goes beyond advertising and free publicity. I don't want to say "Surely you can see the difference" but that'd be putting words in your mouth. I personally think some games will benefit from LPs (Binding of Isaac) while others will be affected adversely by it (TDC).
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
I'ma repeat what I'm p. sure I said here before it died for a while: If your game's experience can be reasonably copied by not playing it but watching someone else, then it is in the wrong medium and should probably be a movie instead.
The important aspect of a game is its gameplay.
Shit, even then, LPs probably help more than they hurt; I seriously doubt all those linear haunted house jumpscare games would be making any semblance of bank without screaming LPers.
I really, really think TDC guy has severely overestimated the amount of viewers who would otherwise play the game, versus viewers who want to watch their favorite talking heads react to things. Also that he's severely overestimated what people are willing to pay for a short, linear, personal experience.
Dude overshot and is blaming the air over the target.
The important aspect of a game is its gameplay.
Shit, even then, LPs probably help more than they hurt; I seriously doubt all those linear haunted house jumpscare games would be making any semblance of bank without screaming LPers.
I really, really think TDC guy has severely overestimated the amount of viewers who would otherwise play the game, versus viewers who want to watch their favorite talking heads react to things. Also that he's severely overestimated what people are willing to pay for a short, linear, personal experience.
Dude overshot and is blaming the air over the target.
author=Sooz
I'ma repeat what I'm p. sure I said here before it died for a while: If your game's experience can be reasonably copied by not playing it but watching someone else, then it is in the wrong medium and should probably be a movie instead.
The important aspect of a game is its gameplay.
Shit, even then, LPs probably help more than they hurt; I seriously doubt all those linear haunted house jumpscare games would be making any semblance of bank without screaming LPers.
I really, really think TDC guy has severely overestimated the amount of viewers who would otherwise play the game, versus viewers who want to watch their favorite talking heads react to things. Also that he's severely overestimated what people are willing to pay for a short, linear, personal experience.
Dude overshot and is blaming the air over the target.
This is a totally narrow viewpoint to take. Games are defined by their interactivity, and That Dragon, Cancer plays it straight up by putting you in the interactive scenario of being the father of an infant with cancer. The developer didn't choose the "wrong medium" to portray this.
Toaster_Team
966
I'm going to have to side with Ratty524 on this one.
Also, at the end of the day, unless we can prove without a doubt that LP = more sales, I think it should be up to the dev to decide his or her own position regarding their own respective games. Heck, even if LP did provide more sales, it should be a decision which is left to the dev anyway as opposed to the communist approach of "We know what's best for your game and we'll decide whether or not we want to broadcast LPs of it".
As a side note, as anyone ever thought that using certain elements in game would make you less likely to get criticism? For example, I can see how critics would be less likely to pan a game about cancer because the theme *is* cancer. I feel like it's sort of a way to get immediate sympathy from potential customers. Of course, it wasn't the intention of TDC but I do think it plays in the reception the game would have.
Also, at the end of the day, unless we can prove without a doubt that LP = more sales, I think it should be up to the dev to decide his or her own position regarding their own respective games. Heck, even if LP did provide more sales, it should be a decision which is left to the dev anyway as opposed to the communist approach of "We know what's best for your game and we'll decide whether or not we want to broadcast LPs of it".
As a side note, as anyone ever thought that using certain elements in game would make you less likely to get criticism? For example, I can see how critics would be less likely to pan a game about cancer because the theme *is* cancer. I feel like it's sort of a way to get immediate sympathy from potential customers. Of course, it wasn't the intention of TDC but I do think it plays in the reception the game would have.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Ratty524
This is a totally narrow viewpoint to take. Games are defined by their interactivity, and That Dragon, Cancer plays it straight up by putting you in the interactive scenario of being the father of an infant with cancer. The developer didn't choose the "wrong medium" to portray this.
It's about as interactive as a dark ride, dude.
ETA:
author=Toaster_Team
Also, at the end of the day, unless we can prove without a doubt that LP = more sales, I think it should be up to the dev to decide his or her own position regarding their own respective games.
Why shouldn't it be that we have to prove that LP = fewer sales?
Also, how would you propose proving either of those things?
Heck, even if LP did provide more sales, it should be a decision which is left to the dev anyway as opposed to the communist approach of "We know what's best for your game and we'll decide whether or not we want to broadcast LPs of it".
ahahahaha what?! Dude do you even know what communism means?
It's not about whether a thing is good for the game. The overall community is not there to make gammakers happy. The community is there to look at and respond to games. If you put a game in public- ESPECIALLY for sale- you have lost control over how it is treated, beyond a narrow legal/ToS sense.
I'd say the fact that the big publishers who COULD pursue legal action haven't done so is a big hint that, at least in the larger markets, this is considered business as usual and not actively harmful.
As a side note, as anyone ever thought that using certain elements in game would make you less likely to get criticism? For example, I can see how critics would be less likely to pan a game about cancer because the theme *is* cancer. I feel like it's sort of a way to get immediate sympathy from potential customers. Of course, it wasn't the intention of TDC but I do think it plays in the reception the game would have.
I really doubt most reputable critics would be softer on a shitty game because of its source material. Critics as a breed tend to be fairly ruthless and focus on quality of execution.
Toaster_Team
966
Why shouldn't it be that we have to prove that LP = fewer sales?
I don't know.
Also, how would you propose proving either of those things?
I would imagine that's something that could probably be researched by investigating empirical data.
ahahahaha what?! Dude do you even know what communism means?
It's not about whether a thing is good for the game. The overall community is not there to make gammakers happy. The community is there to look at and respond to games. If you put a game in public- ESPECIALLY for sale- you have lost control over how it is treated, beyond a narrow legal/ToS sense.
Ok, "communism" wasn't the best word but it's the best one I could find to represent what I was thinking about.
Well, the narrow legal aspect of things is sort of the source of the contention here though. I puzzled as to why the legal aspect would be considered narrow though.
I'd say the fact that the big publishers who COULD pursue legal action haven't done so is a big hint that, at least in the larger markets, this is considered business as usual and not actively harmful.
Perhaps. There's also the possibility that we're dealing with a grey area which lakes filing lawsuit difficult and where the cost/result isn't worth it for said corporate entities.
I mean how do you explain that Nintendo (a corporation) has a very strong hold on LPs of their games?
SnowOwl
5188
author=Sooz
I'ma repeat what I'm p. sure I said here before it died for a while: If your game's experience can be reasonably copied by not playing it but watching someone else, then it is in the wrong medium and should probably be a movie instead.
This is a bit of a weird statement. Wouldn't this effectively make ALOT of RPGs on this site better if they were made into movies instead?
RyaReisender
200
I definitely switched from buying games to watching LPs of games. Some games are just so that when you watched someone play them you don't feel like buying them at all anymore because their only selling point was their amazing story.
I'd be okay if part of the LP video's income would go to the developer. I wouldn't want LP videos being taken down, though.
In my case the games I ended up not buying because I watched them all the way were Life is Strange and all the TellTale games. They all did well in sales anyway.
As for indie games... I think maybe if you are an indie developer you simply shouldn't develop a game that is only interesting because of its story. If you are indie, you are free, you can invent completely new genres and make games nobody has even imagined before. Make a game that people play because playing it is so much fun. Then you won't have this problem in the first place.
I'd be okay if part of the LP video's income would go to the developer. I wouldn't want LP videos being taken down, though.
In my case the games I ended up not buying because I watched them all the way were Life is Strange and all the TellTale games. They all did well in sales anyway.
As for indie games... I think maybe if you are an indie developer you simply shouldn't develop a game that is only interesting because of its story. If you are indie, you are free, you can invent completely new genres and make games nobody has even imagined before. Make a game that people play because playing it is so much fun. Then you won't have this problem in the first place.
author=SnowOwlauthor=SoozThis is a bit of a weird statement. Wouldn't this effectively make ALOT of RPGs on this site better if they were made into movies instead?
I'ma repeat what I'm p. sure I said here before it died for a while: If your game's experience can be reasonably copied by not playing it but watching someone else, then it is in the wrong medium and should probably be a movie instead.
It's like saying all visual (or even kinetic) novels are better off as actual novels.
You can debate it, but the fact you "progress it" in bits and pieces after input affects the input and the way it's written a little bit. Also the visual style. It can just "feel" a little different.
Whether you should make games so closely to the experience though is a question for the devs still.
I believe the more coverage your game has the better it will do. Positive and negative coverage will both boost your sales. (Though a positive play through obviously does more.) Having no opinion or response to your game is the worst situation you can be stuck in, as people will just see it as average as opposed to really good or really bad.
I would never copy right strike a video of my game period.
Toaster_Team
966
Interesting comment found on steam:
Pewdiepie, the most subscribed to person on youtube, and a let's player has played I am bread on his channel.
The game itself, according to Steamcharts, has an all time peak of 419 people and 80 people in game.
At the very least 3,2 million people watched the I am Bread video, and there are a mere 1000 reviews on the website. Even if we assume a generous 10% rate of people that write reviews that would mean pewdiepies video translated to less than 0,003% sales. And one has to wonder how many of those few sales weren't just other people that planned on Let's playing the game.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
author=Toaster_TeamAlso, how would you propose proving either of those things?
I would imagine that's something that could probably be researched by investigating empirical data.
Dude, think about it: There is NO WAY to get empirical data on this, because there's no way of setting up blind testing or a control. You'd have to be able to somehow isolate groups of consumers so that one has access to LPs, one doesn't, and everything else is exactly the same. There are waaaaay too many variables involved in real life.
Well, the narrow legal aspect of things is sort of the source of the contention here though. I puzzled as to why the legal aspect would be considered narrow though.
"Narrow" in the sense of "there are a very few aspects you are allowed to control about your game's presentation." LPs existing is not one of those things.
Perhaps. There's also the possibility that we're dealing with a grey area which lakes filing lawsuit difficult and where the cost/result isn't worth it for said corporate entities.
Corps file frivolous lawsuits ALL THE TIME, because they know that the cost to them is negligible, whereas the cost to individuals is prohibitive. Do you really think that they'd avoid filing suit if they thought that LPs were hurting their sales?
I mean how do you explain that Nintendo (a corporation) has a very strong hold on LPs of their games?
The fact that YouTube has the laziest, most abusable system ever, and basically lets the corps do whatever they want because money? Seriously, Nintendo has such a hold that they trample over fair use and monetise things that contain material Nintendo itself released for press to advertise their games.
author=SnowOwlauthor=SoozThis is a bit of a weird statement. Wouldn't this effectively make ALOT of RPGs on this site better if they were made into movies instead?
I'ma repeat what I'm p. sure I said here before it died for a while: If your game's experience can be reasonably copied by not playing it but watching someone else, then it is in the wrong medium and should probably be a movie instead.
Does a movie contain strategy gameplay?
My argument is that TDC is PRIMARILY about the narrative, to the point that the gameplay doesn't need to be there. Unless there are a lot of RPGs on the site that have no battles/other gameplay at all and the player's main involvement is pressing a button to advance the text, they are not what I am talking about.
author=Kylaila
It's like saying all visual (or even kinetic) novels are better off as actual novels.
You can debate it, but the fact you "progress it" in bits and pieces after input affects the input and the way it's written a little bit. Also the visual style. It can just "feel" a little different.
Whether you should make games so closely to the experience though is a question for the devs still.
Probably not actual novels, but yeah, I do feel that most VNs (unless there's a serious attempt at interaction, a la CYOA) would work a lot better in a non-interactive medium. It's p. clear many of them really want to be anime but the creators don't have the ability to animate.
ETA:
author=Toaster_Team
Interesting comment found on steam:Pewdiepie, the most subscribed to person on youtube, and a let's player has played I am bread on his channel.
The game itself, according to Steamcharts, has an all time peak of 419 people and 80 people in game.
At the very least 3,2 million people watched the I am Bread video, and there are a mere 1000 reviews on the website. Even if we assume a generous 10% rate of people that write reviews that would mean pewdiepies video translated to less than 0,003% sales. And one has to wonder how many of those few sales weren't just other people that planned on Let's playing the game.
Probably because I am Bread is a shitty, shitty game.
Also people watch PEWDIEPIE playing I am bread. That doesn't translate to wanting to play it.
Heck, of all kinds of games physic non-plot based like those are the ones that have LESS to fear, so moot point.
Heck, of all kinds of games physic non-plot based like those are the ones that have LESS to fear, so moot point.
Sooz
They told me I was mad when I said I was going to create a spidertable. Who’s laughing now!!!
5354
Yeah the appeal of the ragegame stuff is in watching OTHER people play it. Especially with I am Bread, which doesn't even have the inherent amusement factor of your Surgeon Simulators- it's just QWOP with more annoyances.
This is the issue: there's no way to really determine LP impact, because, outside of polling EVERY SINGLE WATCHER* there is no way to tell who would have bought a thing, versus who doesn't care about the game and wants to watch the funny talking head in the inset window scream at games.
Remember how digital piracy was going to kill the music industry?
Remember how VHS was going to kill the movies?
Remember how translating the Bible was going to kill Christianity?
*Also, is the cited count the individual watchers, or the views? Because I know I am not the only person who watches certain videos over and over. Like there are a few I have probably contributed triple digit views on.
This is the issue: there's no way to really determine LP impact, because, outside of polling EVERY SINGLE WATCHER* there is no way to tell who would have bought a thing, versus who doesn't care about the game and wants to watch the funny talking head in the inset window scream at games.
Remember how digital piracy was going to kill the music industry?
Remember how VHS was going to kill the movies?
Remember how translating the Bible was going to kill Christianity?
*Also, is the cited count the individual watchers, or the views? Because I know I am not the only person who watches certain videos over and over. Like there are a few I have probably contributed triple digit views on.
