Results 1 to 19 of 19

  1. Post

    Posts in this thread appear as comments on the following Gameplanet article:

    Read article...

  2. Post
    #2
    seems stupid, if users want to avoid spoilers then they should stay away from videos and streams, the developer should not be blocking content from those who do want to see spoilers

  3. Post
    #3
    I feel like developers have every right to do this. There are thousands of streamers currently out there making money off of their IP; they are living a charmed life. The rug could be pulled out from under them at any point.

    Multiplayer games are different; but trying to protect solely single player experiences makes some sense.

  4. Post
    #4
    Valeo wrote:
    I feel like developers have every right to do this. There are thousands of streamers currently out there making money off of their IP; they are living a charmed life. The rug could be pulled out from under them at any point.

    Multiplayer games are different; but trying to protect solely single player experiences makes some sense.
    So, your argument is that Streamers don't add enough for the stream to be considered different from the game itself and is thus illegal?

    That's what I'm getting when you talk about rugs been pulled and what-not.

    Yet... if it was illegal, Twitch would be sued to bankruptcy. Clearly that doesn't happen. Twitch is a legal and valid business.

    Most streamers also don't lose followers when they change games. Implying that more than 50% of the reason those people follow is the streamers themselves. If more than 50% of the stream's entertainment value is because of the streamer then they are making money of their own IP, and using other IP as supplements.

    At this point I'm not sure which leg you're standing on. Care to clarify?

    As for Single Player games... Snape kills Dumbledore. Spoilers happen. It is asinine to try and stop spoilers that people are actively looking for, particularly through legal threats. Rowling couldn't have done it with all of Harry Potter's magic, and these guys are trying to do it with a spoiler seeking audience at a time when global communication is faster than it was when Snape saved Melfoy from becoming a murderer?

    Useless attempt is useless.

  5. Post
    #5
    Nerin wrote:
    Yet... if it was illegal, Twitch would be sued to bankruptcy. Clearly that doesn't happen. Twitch is a legal and valid business.
    Its a grey area that no one really wants to touch in case they disturb the status quo too greatly. The game devs/publishers own the rights to all game assets, and therefore they are free to prevent people from displaying and selling those assets without a licensing agreement. Streamers might be able to employ a fair use argument, but its sketchy and very open to interpretation.

    Most game devs/publishers know that streamers generate hype for their games and ultimately are useful marketing tools. But that doesn't mean they couldn't shut them down if they wished - they can and evidently do. And not only on copyright grounds. It might ostensibly be a copyright violation that is used, but it would be easy for a developer to shut down a stream of their game for any reason.

    So Twitch exists in the vague middle ground. It bans users for unsavoury content and will shut down a stream if a developer wishes it. In exchange, publishers acquiesce in allowing Twitch to stream content knowing that its mostly a net-benefit to them.

    Most streamers also don't lose followers when they change games. Implying that more than 50% of the reason those people follow is the streamers themselves. If more than 50% of the stream's entertainment value is because of the streamer then they are making money of their own IP, and using other IP as supplements.
    I think this is extremely questionable. Some streamers may not lose viewers if they change games, but I think its far from a universal rule, and highly contingent on the game. If a small streamer changes from one relatively niche title to another, they probably wouldn't lose viewers. If they change from a huge game, like LoL, to a smaller game, they most certainly would suffer. Perhaps not instantly, but definitely longer-term.

    As for Single Player games... Snape kills Dumbledore. Spoilers happen. It is asinine to try and stop spoilers that people are actively looking for, particularly through legal threats. Rowling couldn't have done it with all of Harry Potter's magic, and these guys are trying to do it with a spoiler seeking audience at a time when global communication is faster than it was when Snape saved Melfoy from becoming a murderer?

    Useless attempt is useless.
    I think they're mostly trying to prevent people who might incidentally have the game spoiled for them in a video/stream title or through some other oblique means. Plus I don't think its coincidental that its almost exclusively Japanese devs that do this. Its pure conjecture on my part, but I would hazard to say that its probably due to the confluence of a tepid Japanese economy and an intense pressure that Japanese media and entertainment companies more broadly suffer under. There could be other cultural factors at play of which I'm not aware, particularly in relation to how Japanese companies view the rest of the world, but I think its fair to say that these companies act in such a fashion not because of a vindictive or litigious attitude, but because they perceive such outlets as part of an existential threat to their business. It could, and perhaps should, be argued that deploying such tactics is counterproductive but it would, in my eyes at least, be a mistake to simply dismiss the developer's concerns as simple greed or protectionism.

  6. Post
    #6
    I was on the fence and planning on watching the SBFP playthrough to see if its something I might enjoy. As it turns out, I will not be purchasing this game purely because Atlas are acting like complete children so good job I guess?

  7. Post
    #7
    Celticknife wrote:
    I was on the fence and planning on watching the SBFP playthrough to see if its something I might enjoy. As it turns out, I will not be purchasing this game purely because Atlas are acting like complete children so good job I guess?
    LOL If SBFP LP'd this game it would be 350 parts. My JP-fluent friend took 116 hours to beat this game.

    By the way, Atlus did the same thing with the Japanese release, Japanese streams on nicovideo were also being nuked offline, they don't want people getting spoiled. Dark Souls 3 was the same, although their handling of that was even worse than P5.

  8. Post
    #8
    this is pretty rough. It's reasonable to request that streamers refrain from posting spoilers but at the same time there's a clear divide between those who seriously treat it as a career and as a hobby, most people wouldn't be aware of Atlus' request and will do it regardless.

    either way, unfortunate to hear.

  9. Post
    #9
    If the story is a large contributor to the quality of your game then I think restricting what can be streamed is plenty fair. Good on them for allowing some of it to be streamed instead of saying no altogether.

    I don't know if Persona 5 falls under that category though.

    It should always be up to the dev if someone else can profit from their game and the decision can often be based on how much they get in return. That's kind of how the world works.
    Last edited by Viilai; 6th April 2017 at 9:05 pm.

  10. Post
    #10
    Companies have a right to protect their IPs and Let's Plays aren't really protected by US Fair Use laws because they aren't transformative works like reviews, critiques and satire. You should also factor in a lot of "gaming media influencers" just really caring their income and acting like spoilt children with an imaginary sense of entitlement. Like the whole Nintendo partners programme thing, you could just not show gameplay footage, which you don't need for a review. Keep it all speech with a stock background, make it a facecam, etc and you'll probably still get revenue off your videos. Angry Joe isn't entitled to profiting off gameplay footage/graphics/music/etc based upon Nintendo's IPs no matter how much he cries about it.

    That being said this move will only win them resentment and get them bad press. It's a losing battle to try to police this stuff as Jim Sterling pointed out in his last Jimquisition episode, game companies should just take this L and avoid the backlash. A lot of gamers are ignorant youth (i.e. "Gen Z") who hang on every word of their favourite "gaming media influencers" like mindless sheep, so they'll dogpile hate on a company just because their "Youtube idols" do due to herd mentality.

  11. Post
    #11
    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    Companies have a right to protect their IPs and Let's Plays aren't really protected by US Fair Use laws because they aren't transformative works like reviews, critiques and satire. You should also factor in a lot of "gaming media influencers" just really caring their income and acting like spoilt children with an imaginary sense of entitlement. Like the whole Nintendo partners programme thing, you could just not show gameplay footage, which you don't need for a review. Keep it all speech with a stock background, make it a facecam, etc and you'll probably still get revenue off your videos. Angry Joe isn't entitled to profiting off gameplay footage/graphics/music/etc based upon Nintendo's IPs no matter how much he cries about it.

    That being said this move will only win them resentment and get them bad press. It's a losing battle to try to police this stuff as Jim Sterling pointed out in his last Jimquisition episode, game companies should just take this L and avoid the backlash. A lot of gamers are ignorant youth (i.e. "Gen Z") who hang on every word of their favourite "gaming media influencers" like mindless sheep, so they'll dogpile hate on a company just because their "Youtube idols" do due to herd mentality.
    >favourite "gaming media influencers" like mindless sheep
    >Jim Sterling.

    Actually no difference, you're just taking the other side of the argument which happens to coincide with one of these "influencers" and their views.

    People aren't going to watch someone if they're playing something that the people don't want to watch. For instance, if a popular CSGO streamer is playing Warcraft 3, he's going to get far less viewers - people want the game first, person second. Sure, you will get people that will watch someone play literally anything, but Twitch is about browsing by game, not by person.

    Nintendo have already issued a statement saying that certain games cannot be streamed on nicovideo, and then there was that whole thing of them not wanting Smash at EVO so it's not surprising. If someone wanted to stream, say, CSGO, and was unable to do so, they would just simply stream... nothing, come up empty and not stream, which hurts Twitch. I don't assume everyone will actually take this route and want their games off of Twitch entirely (Atlus have never done this for anything other than Persona, not even the mainline Shin Megami Tensei series), but some publishers and developers will.

    I'm really surprised this kind of thing hasn't happened earlier, before Twitch, with the likes of Ustream. Companies are entitled to protect their IPs and how they're distributed, people want their works to be bought rather than watched (which is what I just did with a game, in fact) because they're missing out on sales, while the likes of Twitch and Nicovideo are making a profit off of it. Essentially it's no different from streaming movies you've bought and the streaming service being paid for it, or if you're a partner, the streaming service and partly yourself.

    Persona is an easily spoiled series (harry potter is the killer-esque), so I'm actually kind of glad this is happening. I don't want to be spoiled on the game.

  12. Post
    #12
    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    Companies have a right to protect their IPs and Let's Plays aren't really protected by US Fair Use laws because they aren't transformative works like reviews, critiques and satire. You should also factor in a lot of "gaming media influencers" just really caring their income and acting like spoilt children with an imaginary sense of entitlement. Like the whole Nintendo partners programme thing, you could just not show gameplay footage, which you don't need for a review. Keep it all speech with a stock background, make it a facecam, etc and you'll probably still get revenue off your videos. Angry Joe isn't entitled to profiting off gameplay footage/graphics/music/etc based upon Nintendo's IPs no matter how much he cries about it.

    That being said this move will only win them resentment and get them bad press. It's a losing battle to try to police this stuff as Jim Sterling pointed out in his last Jimquisition episode, game companies should just take this L and avoid the backlash. A lot of gamers are ignorant youth (i.e. "Gen Z") who hang on every word of their favourite "gaming media influencers" like mindless sheep, so they'll dogpile hate on a company just because their "Youtube idols" do due to herd mentality.
    For once I can agree with you entirely. Indie devs like the dev of "That Dragon, Cancer" really lost hard here.

  13. Post
    #13
    As someone who doesn't watch much streaming at all, I don't really care what happens either way, but the arguments being made against streaming here don't make a lot of sense to me

    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    Companies have a right to protect their IPs and Let's Plays aren't really protected by US Fair Use laws because they aren't transformative works like reviews, critiques and satire.
    In your opinion. This hasn't been tested. It's very much a grey area.

    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    You should also factor in a lot of "gaming media influencers" just really caring their income and acting like spoilt children with an imaginary sense of entitlement.
    A few people here just seem mad that others can make a living streaming games

    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    Like the whole Nintendo partners programme thing, you could just not show gameplay footage, which you don't need for a review. Keep it all speech with a stock background, make it a facecam, etc
    That sounds thrilling!

    Krichul wrote:
    Sure, you will get people that will watch someone play literally anything, but Twitch is about browsing by game, not by person.
    I disagree. People follow the personalities they like. That's why some streamers have larger subscriber bases than others.

    Krichul wrote:
    they're missing out on sales,
    How do you know? For every person like you that says they watched rather than bought a game, there is another that says they bought a game after watching a stream. You might be right, but there's literally no way to know.

    Krichul wrote:
    Persona is an easily spoiled series (harry potter is the killer-esque), so I'm actually kind of glad this is happening. I don't want to be spoiled on the game.
    Why would you watch a Persona 5 stream if you don't want to see spoilers?

    Viilai wrote:
    For once I can agree with you entirely. Indie devs like the dev of "That Dragon, Cancer" really lost hard here.
    Did they?

  14. Post
    #14
    Matt M wrote:
    Did they?
    I remember hearing about That Dragon, Cancer in that due to people streaming / YT'ing playthroughs they lost a lot of potential sales, and the fact that the users didn't put links in their vids (a long time ago now, trying to remember). I'm not sure if your comment is a genuine question or slightly leading.. I'm wondering if since the attention at the time that the game would have had a lot more attention and sales from the exposure.

    Puyo Puyo Tetris has been in the news for something similar to P5: http://www.polygon.com/2017/4/6/1520...uidelines-sega

  15. Post
    #15
    "We don't want the game to be spoiled"
    People won't watch a LP if they don't want to be spoiled!!!!

  16. Post
    #16
    Crow#Zero wrote:
    Puyo Puyo Tetris has been in the news for something similar to P5: http://www.polygon.com/2017/4/6/1520...uidelines-sega
    Yeah - both games are published by Sega. Seems that the restrictions on PPT have been lifted though:

    “We highly encourage our American and European fans to stream Puyo Puyo Tetris when it comes out (there are no PS4 share button restrictions),” a representative told Polygon.

  17. Post
    #17
    Matt M wrote:
    As someone who doesn't watch much streaming at all, I don't really care what happens either way, but the arguments being made against streaming here don't make a lot of sense to me

    In your opinion. This hasn't been tested. It's very much a grey area.

    A few people here just seem mad that others can make a living streaming games

    I disagree. People follow the personalities they like. That's why some streamers have larger subscriber bases than others.

    How do you know? For every person like you that says they watched rather than bought a game, there is another that says they bought a game after watching a stream. You might be right, but there's literally no way to know.

    Why would you watch a Persona 5 stream if you don't want to see spoilers?
    Excellent post Matt, I'm (metaphorically) pulling my hair out at the number of people online acting like this is a totally clear cut legal business strategy based on untested Fair Use laws in the US and EULA/ToS agreements which actually have been tested and proven to be worth nothing in many jurisdictions.

    As I mentioned before, I am absolutely one of those people who will watch a streamer/LPer I enjoy playing a game before buying it, due to a long history of games which ended up being all-time favourites of mine being panned by critical reviewers.

    If I can't get a good feel for what the game is actually like, I won't buy it. If people don't want to be spoiled by a LPer or streamer, they won't watch that LPer or streamer play said game.

    I wasn't going to purchase Nier: Automata, watching a stream actually convinced me to buy it and now it's one of my favourite games of this generation for one example.

  18. Post
    #18
    EvaUnit02 wrote:
    Companies have a right to protect their IPs and Let's Plays aren't really protected by US Fair Use laws because they aren't transformative works like reviews, critiques and satire. You should also factor in a lot of "gaming media influencers" just really caring their income and acting like spoilt children with an imaginary sense of entitlement. Like the whole Nintendo partners programme thing, you could just not show gameplay footage, which you don't need for a review. Keep it all speech with a stock background, make it a facecam, etc and you'll probably still get revenue off your videos. Angry Joe isn't entitled to profiting off gameplay footage/graphics/music/etc based upon Nintendo's IPs no matter how much he cries about it.

    That being said this move will only win them resentment and get them bad press. It's a losing battle to try to police this stuff as Jim Sterling pointed out in his last Jimquisition episode, game companies should just take this L and avoid the backlash. A lot of gamers are ignorant youth (i.e. "Gen Z") who hang on every word of their favourite "gaming media influencers" like mindless sheep, so they'll dogpile hate on a company just because their "Youtube idols" do due to herd mentality.
    what he said

  19. Post
    #19
    Matt M wrote:
    A few people here just seem mad that others can make a living streaming games
    lol by the looks of it it seems streamers are the ones that are mad
    jealousy, really? that's the conclusion you come to?

    Matt M wrote:
    How do you know? For every person like you that says they watched rather than bought a game, there is another that says they bought a game after watching a stream. You might be right, but there's literally no way to know.
    this is basically what's said every time piracy is advocated for
    Last edited by Groowee; 7th April 2017 at 4:09 pm.