Sony's Not Ready For User-Made Videos

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Yahtzee Croshaw:

snip...

... it's at best pointless and at worst dangerous when abused. Like a wolf disguised as a sheep in the flock of a very lonely, sexually frustrated shepherd.

Simile of the Week.

I had, myself, been wondering about the potential legal ramifications (a la Nintendo) that will result from use of this Share facility...

I can see what you're saying here, but I just don't see why I would get worked up in any way about having the option to do something available. I'm not interested in the functionality so I guess I just don't really care one way or another that it's there... now if on the other hand the button ends up being in an annoying place and I accidentally hit it all the time, then I'd feel differently, otherwise I don't really see how having an optional functionality like this is a downside to the consumer. Of course, I may have just misunderstood what you were trying to get across.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
So I just want to briefly state: you don't have to get anything, guys. Part of the reason next-gen consoles are such a fucking mess is because of this ingrained attitude that we have to pick a side. That's why they think they can get away with reducing functionality and DRM hoop-jumping: because we have convinced ourselves that we don't have a choice except to go with the least bad one. Well. You do have a choice. You can choose not to play, because it's the only way to win. Do you think, if console gaming was invented today, it would start out as completely bloody illogical as it has become? It's the sad nature of man that we tolerate bullshit as long as it's bullshit that has been going on forever. But at some point, if things are ever going to evolve, we have to make a break. We have to snap off that arm that's pinned by the boulder before the boulder starts charging us to install pre-owned limbs.

Anyway, that's not what I wanted to talk about.

What a shame. This was my favorite part of the article. Why NOT choose strawberry when someone asks you to choose between vanilla and chocolate?

For the people who need to have a new console and will pick one simply because it is the least worst:

Go buy that one old school console you always wanted to have. You'll love it more then you'll love the next gen console you would have bought.

Yahtzee Croshaw:
...and the scheme backfired into their breakfast cereal like a flatulent horse.

Maybe it's just because it's past 2AM when I'm writing this right now, but for some reason I find this analogy outright hilarious.

"You don't have to get anything, guys."
I know I don't. That's why I'm probably be skipping this console generation. Well that and I can't afford any of them anyway. But yeah I've never understood why people have felt that they had to pick sides in this so-called "console war." No you don't. You can enjoy more than one console, the other one isn't going to nail you to a cross and light you on fire. Or as it stands now, you don't have to pick any of them. If they're all horrid just to varying degrees, which seems to be the case, then you don't have to pick any of them. It's truly a sad state of affairs we're in when we don't get to choose which one is best, but can only choose whichever one is the least horrible.

My main issue with this is that this renders the HD PVRs completely useless since the HDMI port on the PS4 and Xbox One are HDCP encrypted. I saw Microsoft's editor and I was not impressed. What I need is a way to get the videos from my console and onto my computer so I could put it through a real editor like Sony Vegas. I have to do a lot of editing in sound and with watermarks for the site I'm with. So if I can retrieve the videos from my hard drive then great.

For the record I don't monetize videos and I'm not getting into a debate about it because I've seen many anti-LPer comments on this site...>.>

Of course they HAVE to buy it, you charismatic stallion! These are GAMERS we're talking about. Saying "no" is as alien to us as drinking Windex.

Fappy:
There are some games that have had this functionality on consoles for years (Halo's the best example I can think of). I have never heard of them running into any big issues in regards to game play footage and the like. In all honesty, most people are just going to use it for multiplayer replays anyway, so I doubt the average gamer is going to pay it much attention. It's cool for those who want to use it, but so far it's not looking like they'll be shoving it down our throats or anything.

It's never been hyped as a central feature before, so there may be a different response here. There are issues in opening this to a wider audience, though they may never become serious ones.

I'm sorry but I had to stop after that second paragraph. This is just more elitist PC gamer propaganda. You're right Yahtzee, I DO have a choice. And it's my choice to keep supporting Nintendo and Sony because they're actually bothering to make games that intrigue me. I can think of only 4 games on PC right now that make me care. That's not enough compared to what those two are giving me.

I'm done w/ Zero Punctuation and Yahtzee for a while at least. The man clearly does care to be pleased by anyone outside the PC spectrum and has become so incredibly jaded times ten that it's not even entertaining any more. He doesn't need a web show on TheEscapist, he needs to quit ZP and work on his novelist career instead.

You can all blindly follow a bitter, hateful person and a smear on the industry if you want. It's clear that this guy isn't going to keep his views on anything console related to himself anymore.

Err, well I expect this feature to be cut in short order. For those that don't remember "Playstation Home" was originally conceived, and promoted as, being pretty much an entirely free version of "Second Life" that would be attached to all of your PS-3 systems. It was going to allow people to create their own content, as well as record
and stream videos. Immediately Sony started backpedaling on this when it started to think about it, going from freedom to "well, it will be like Second Life without all the naked people in the sky" which is almost a direct quote. Then it went from that to the removal of all user generated content since Sony could not only not police it, but also realized that it would be better for them to make all the money from microtransactions by selling avatar customization, furniture, and other assorted things. Video recording and streaming followed shortly there after, along with other features like being able to attach yourself as a rider to someone else's game, or say play a PS-3 game with the display miniaturized to fit on a TV screen in your "Home" Apartment so other people as Avatars could watch... and yeah well, the bottom line is that even if some of this happened later (and I'm not sure if it did) it all seemed to get axed before release so I went from being fairly excited to never even loading up the "Home" Feature.

The point here being that Sony has a history of promising people all kinds of neat features and freedom, but then not delivering on it, and cutting it away one piece at a time. Whether it's intentional... generating a lot of hype for things they never plan to deliver and hoping the audience more or less stays intact if they remove the features and promises slowly enough, or genuine and simply falls apart as corporate paranoia sets in, I do not know. Analyzing what can and will be done with a feature like this is pointless because it smacks of exactly the kind of thing Sony promises and then never delivers on in the long run.

As far as the whole set if "Let's Play" controversies go, well all I can say is that I tend to lump the entire thing into the category of general gaming industry douchebaggery at this point. Microsoft is already being careful to avoid claiming they are selling anything, as opposed to "licensing" in their ads and promotions, so there is no expectation of control or ownership, and the entire industry seems to be adopting similar attitudes and personas. At the end of the day they are out to attack anything that anyone does with their properties that they do not directly control, using any justification they can to pretty much turn gaming into an intellectual police state. To be honest I suspect it's going to snowball, if they win on the whole "Let's Play" issue, and let's be honest... they will, because guys making video playthroughs of games for fun generally don't have the resources to fight corporate lawyers, I expect the precedents from those victories to be creatively interpreted and used as a springboard to attack reviewers and critics who reveal or show anything about a game without their permission when it casts them in a negative light. After all if it's established someone doing a LP is violating the laws by showing the whole game without permission, it's only a small step to turn that into parts of the game legally... and that means any mention of the plot, characters, etc... or use of it's graphics or music without permission, even those from trailers, could potentially be a violation. Once the precedent gets established all it takes is a dedicated legal team to keep rolling it along to more ridiculous extremes.

Yahtzee:

I won't if they keep trying to get me to watch their spoiler-tastic gameplay videos

That wouldn't happen to be a cut at Shamus Young and his LP series, The Spoiler Warning Show, would it?

Well the problem Yahtzee is I'm sure Sony doesn't care. These console companies aren't trying to add these features for the convenience of the consumer but to take control of their media habits by becoming their media provider. Forget that third party unreliable renegade media outlet, our video center is the "One True Voice" of the PS4 generation (some restrictions may apply, ignore the man behind the curtain).

Its just a part of their continuing quest for market domination to become the One Company to rule them all, One Company to sign them, One Company to own them all, and in legalities bind them.

The thing about LPs is that games are largely the experience of the player. That's why I think LPs are justified in their existence and do not ruin the game for potential players. Because you're not getting anywhere near the full experience. But I have no studies and no data, so shall we move on before someone requires I provide numbers as to the percentage of people who are just as happy watching an LP as playing the game, percentage of potential buyers who feel an LP eliminated their need to buy a game, and buyers generated from LPs vs buyers lost by LPs, all of which are ridiculously hard to measure.

But as for the actual feature, I doubt they'll just provide a nice file onto the PS4 that you can take elsewhere and edit, but I don't know, do I? I have no fucking idea. So can we please evaluate at the proper time. Although...I don't think Sony has included this feature as much for the utility of the player as for advertising to other players. Like how Facebook games get players to request things from their friends who don't play.

Where are these "official" LPs Yahtzee speaks of? Someone got a link?

P.S. Thanks

P.P.S. Sweet, "P.S. Thanks" actually made sense in context for a change.

I think Yahtzee is missing the point of the "share" button.

I doubt it's intended to act in any way like a "Let's Play" with video editing and all that fancy jazz. It would be very odd to put something that robust and involved on the controller itself, not to mention the logistical and technical nightmare of getting it work with multiple games, licensing some sort of video editing software, creating a platform to display and moderate all those different videos, e.t.c. Sony may wind up doing something like that later, but it sure as fuck won't be free and the introduction to it will be a lot more involved than just "hey, send clips to your friends." I could see that sort of thing being introduced as a later app on the PS4 store though. Hey, if people are using capture cards to record stuff anyway, why wouldn't Sony want to get a small bite of that market on the low end.

It's pretty clear that the share button supposed to be more like a "print screen" button for the PS4. A quick and short way to capture a clip of action to send to people on your friend's list.

I just want to reiterate that one sure doesn't HAVE to get any of the new consoles. Hell, if one really, REALLY wants a new machine but doesn't want all the bullcrappery that the new machines come with, get a PC... or MAC even! I hear they are starting to get somewhat decent support lately.

Fappy:
There are some games that have had this functionality on consoles for years.

All PC games have had this functionality for years. If it's not built into the game itself, you can simply use an external program like Fraps.

Silentpony:
I think the premise that if you want to WIN you have to stop gaming is incredibly depressing.

Correction - the premise is that if you want to win you have to stop console gaming. I'm not saying this because I'm a card-carrying member of the elitist PC gaming master race, but because the entire problem stems from the simple fact that there is no longer any such thing as console gaming in the first place. Consoles are no longer games consoles, they're just PCs with a different name. Watch TV and films, browse the internet, talk to your friends, record and post videos, and so on. That's a PC. This is the entire problem with consoles now - no-one is trying to simply make the best gaming system they can, they're just trying to make the best disguise they can for a PC in the hope that no-one will notice that's all they're selling.

I just hope that all these "social gaming" aspects will be optional. Maybe I'll warm up to the idea eventually, but right now I don't feel like my "sharing" my gaming experiences with anyone, at least not the way Sony has in mind. That being said, the PS4 still looks quite promising.

I didn't realize that this was a topic that warranted much attention. That it's allowed at all is a step forwards. Ready or not. People who waste their time with cock avatars and biased names aren't exactly going to gain any kind of traction with viewers except to laugh at them.

So I don't think it's any more of a threat to them than Youtube already posts. Anyone who is savy enough to use the ps3 to upload videos had better understand the intricacies of clicking on youtube play icons.

Kahani:

Fappy:
There are some games that have had this functionality on consoles for years.

All PC games have had this functionality for years. If it's not built into the game itself, you can simply use an external program like Fraps.

Silentpony:
I think the premise that if you want to WIN you have to stop gaming is incredibly depressing.

Correction - the premise is that if you want to win you have to stop console gaming. I'm not saying this because I'm a card-carrying member of the elitist PC gaming master race, but because the entire problem stems from the simple fact that there is no longer any such thing as console gaming in the first place. Consoles are no longer games consoles, they're just PCs with a different name. Watch TV and films, browse the internet, talk to your friends, record and post videos, and so on. That's a PC. This is the entire problem with consoles now - no-one is trying to simply make the best gaming system they can, they're just trying to make the best disguise they can for a PC in the hope that no-one will notice that's all they're selling.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I have a 360 and a damn good gaming laptop, and I can't tell the difference. The 360 IS a computer, yes, but that also means my laptop is now a gaming console. Is it fair to say PC gaming is the wave of the future when the same damn games come out for it? I don't think so. Last time I checked all the big AAA games came out for PC and they're as bad with a mouse/keyboard as they are with a controller. What really is the difference between COD for the PC and COD for the 360? I honestly can't tell.
The problem isn't the medium by which we play games. Same thing applies to movies. The Room doesn't magically get better because you watch it on your laptop rather than a TV. The problem is that current gen games and game companies are horrible. Maybe there are a few indie games, but again, 90% of them are utter crap and gamers convince themselves they're good because...well...its less depressing to say at least PCs have decent games. And I don't think they do. For every crappy indie 360 game there are a dozen crappy FTL-like games on Steam.
The console is not the problem. The games are.

MooShoo:
"you don't have to get anything, guys."

Indeed. I have a PS2 and X360 and I am pretty sure I am just going to skip this generation of consoles and turn my focus on PC for a while.

Yes. I have decided this as well.. are standards are getting to low. I could not find one good thing about PS4 or Wii U.. it just seems like people expect to "might as well get something".
Eventhough the vast majority of us already have a Wii/PS3 or Xbox360.. with a sizable portion using a cheap PC.

I think this is a clear case of Blueray syndrome. We don't need a newer version of the console because we're already happy with the current ones, and the new ones aren't offering anything good. I think I'll focus more on my PC for now and play the titles I missed out on Xbox 360 (you won't be able to play those titles on Xbone anyways).

Silentpony:

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I have a 360 and a damn good gaming laptop, and I can't tell the difference. The 360 IS a computer, yes, but that also means my laptop is now a gaming console. Is it fair to say PC gaming is the wave of the future when the same damn games come out for it? I don't think so. Last time I checked all the big AAA games came out for PC and they're as bad with a mouse/keyboard as they are with a controller. What really is the difference between COD for the PC and COD for the 360? I honestly can't tell.
The problem isn't the medium by which we play games. Same thing applies to movies. The Room doesn't magically get better because you watch it on your laptop rather than a TV. The problem is that current gen games and game companies are horrible. Maybe there are a few indie games, but again, 90% of them are utter crap and gamers convince themselves they're good because...well...its less depressing to say at least PCs have decent games. And I don't think they do. For every crappy indie 360 game there are a dozen crappy FTL-like games on Steam.
The console is not the problem. The games are.

Yes... high quality indie titles, mods and certain above average triple A titles
(all 3 are hard to find).
I would say the problem lies with publishers not wanting to take risks, and the funny thing is, the amount of money they put into advertising, vastly improving graphical hardware, hiring hollywood actors to do voice over and designing new engines, IS RISKY.. because it's all very expensive. They "hope" to make that money back by appealing to a larger audience, and that just doesn't happen often enough.
Hence Square Enix head, quitting, sad and desperate for a job.

The industry has to change in order for it to survive.

But then again, I find it hard to find TV shows, books or movies I find interesting. Trying to find anything good is always a chore, but it's a chore I'm happy to do because I always have something to fallback on (Zomboid, True Blood, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead and Anne Rice novels).
It's not as difficult on the PC to find something I like, but things good be better..

I bet the shareable movies will be limited in length, maybe 2 minutes. Will require you to have their subscription. And of course, accept a phone book's length Terms of Service agreement.

I'm considering buying Sony's and/or Nintendo's latest consoles not because I want them but for the tactical purpose of making sure that Microsoft don't make as much money.

medv4380:
Clearly the LP is free advertising for Nintendo, or anyone, is false. If it were advertising it would spur on sales. Do you see Nintendo getting a big sales boost from LP? There is a good argument to be made that the LP that shows you the entire game puts a negative effect on game sales since you no longer have incentive to get the game.

Nintendo is at least taking the less evil route. You get to use their game footage however you please, but you can't make money off of it. It'll decrease the pirates that show you the entire game as a "movie", and people who have something neat to show everyone can get to show everyone.

As for Sony's option to let people record games I'm concerned for other reasons. Recording take a lot of processing power from the card. It's a feature that will work in the short term, but if games start using all the power of the processor then attempting to record a game will turn it into rubbish quickly.

I have to call bullshit on this as well.

I am currently saving up money to get myself a Vita and Persona 4 Golden. Why this system and the game? I cannot tell you how many times I've watched a YouTube uploader by the name of omegaevolution and his Persona 4 Golden vids.

Ho. Ly. Shit.

I've done all I can to stem my Persona 4 fix by getting Persona 4 Arena for the PS3 and by finding english dubs of Persona 4 The Animation online before actually accruing the money needed to obtain this.

Hell, if anything, the videos not only sold the game, but it sold the damn system along WITH it.

However, while it is true that videos CAN show games in a negative light, if done properly, the video can help sell games that, otherwise, wouldn't have gotten much attention.

CrazyCapnMorgan:
However, while it is true that videos CAN show games in a negative light, if done properly, the video can help sell games that, otherwise, wouldn't have gotten much attention.

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

It also doesn't matter. Profiting off of someone else's work and not playing them for it is theft. You use someones music in a commercial product you have to pay them. You use someone else's art you have to pay them. Games are no different, and theft is theft.

How hard it is to actually ask permission? You want to profit off of it you better ask permission.

The issue is who has the right to make profit off of the product, and that's the creator of the product. A good parallel to this is Dragon Ball Z and Hellsing Abridged. Team Four Star does a good job coming up with Fan derivative art. However, they don't make any profit off of it. They have a nice disclaimer on the front giving credit where credit is due. Heck I saw one of their team in person a few weeks ago and he thought it would be fun to pull up the Ghost Nappa Song for everyone and did a search for it to flip out that someone has re-posted it with commercials. Team Four Start knows that profiting off of their own work is illegal. How is it that LPers are too dense to understand that.

medv4380:

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:

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:
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.

Folsom v. Marsh:
(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?

medv4380:

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.

Folsom v. Marsh:
(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.

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.

medv4380:

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.

ShinAquarius:

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.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here