Microsoft Prohibits Gamers From Cashing in on YouTube

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

Those things at the end of your legs are not enemies MS, why do you shoot them so?

Tiger Sora:

But. But, this doesn't affect me, nor 99.9% of anyone else. So a few dozen youtubers have lost their revenue streams. Now they have to get real jobs like regular people. That sucks cause I know what it's like to have a super easy job, but, real life sucks.

Considering what many of the professional gaming youtubers do and what their partnerships are like, what you said is like saying that actors and other entertainers don't have real jobs. What, so you have to hate what you do in order for it to be a real job. Entertaining is a job, it is giving something that people want, entertainment.

Also considering that some of those gaming youtubers report gaming news and events just like the good people at the Escapist do, what you are saying is basically the people that work for the Escapist don't have real jobs.

Get some perspective.

--------------------------------

Microsoft shows it doesn't understand what free advertising is. If it wasn't for gaming youtubers and the Escapist, I wouldn't have heard about or bought half the games I've got in the past three years.

It is just like the stupidity that The Game Station on youtube can't show big name game trailers anymore on their podcasts because they get red flags and letters from the companies to stop. Sometimes I wonder if certain game companies even know what gets them sales. Considering the TGS podcast, when a company doesn't allow their trailer to be played during it, that means they lost out on tens of thousands of people finding out about their game. Oh, but I guess that is a rain drop in the bucket and it isn't worth it.

AC10:
Another reason EULAs shouldn't be enforceable.
Those pesky fair use laws getting in the way of your megacorp? Just have all users sign a contract under duress that is legally enforceable and demands them to sign away such rights.

Its quite funny how many times the EULAs have been thrown out of court or completely ignored by courts... in fact we have laws that superceed the EULAs - they are essentially legally worthless now due to precedents set in courts around the world.

DugMachine:

You'd be hard pressed to find someone making money to live on by doing gameplay montages. LPers with huge fan bases are the ones making the money not Ultra leet headshots 2012 (feat. Skrillex Bangarang).

I'm sure they have 'real jobs' just like 'regular people'. Whatever that means.

Actually, from what I have heard from some of the big name gaming youtubers, even mid-level names, it takes some time, but most within about 2 to 5 years start bringing in enough money each year with their videos that they've quit their day jobs.

I know of at least a couple people from The Game Station on youtube that within the past six months or so quit their day jobs because they were making enough from their youtube channels.

They aren't actually changing anything...
From the mouth of Frank O'Connor:
"These guidelines have been out there for months. How many of you are posting from jail? We'll get some clarifying messaging out there, but the legalese won't change, because it's legalese. We'll craft a path through the semantic minefield, however.

As I mentioned in the Halo community thread, these rules actually haven't really changed, and even the updated and clarified text has been up there for months. I assume somebody just noticed this and posted this morning because it sort of blew up. This has always been the Legal status for the IP (and MOST IPs in fact), and as you also already know, nobody is being sued, or in jail, etc etc etc

The language isn't designed to stop kids streaming their games, or covering their costs, it's designed to stop big companies from using somebody else's IP to run a business.We'll put together some language that will help community people navigate this easily, and give people workarounds."

What the fuck? Why are they ok with Youtube making money from it, but not the actual content producer? It's not like Microsoft is losing out on anything here.

Tiger Sora:
But. But, this doesn't affect me, nor 99.9% of anyone else. So a few dozen youtubers have lost their revenue streams. Now they have to get real jobs like regular people. That sucks cause I know what it's like to have a super easy job, but, real life sucks.

Seriously, dude? Content creation is hard. And stressful. Just go watch any of TB's Mailboxes on the subject (I'm pretty sure he mentioned it on his AMA as well).

vxicepickxv:

lacktheknack:
Why?

There's nothing else to ask. Why?

What does Microsoft get from this arrangement?

They don't actually get anything out of it, unless they're planning on attempting to compete with Google.

But - but this rule gives MORE money to Google, since there isn't any going to the users!

To quote the Pink Floyd song - Have a cigar.

"It's a helluva start, it could be made into a monster
if we all pull together as a team."

Seems what I said has turned into a monster.
People changing the intent of my words and such. Some panic to.

Altorin:

This is basically step 1 in ruining the internet.

Really, all the other "ohh god this is the end of the ('free') internet"crap thats gone on the last few years. And this is step one. Go put your tinfoil hat away.

crazyrabbits:
Snippy

And so what if it's trivializing it. This isn't a big issue. MS is in the right to set the rules with their games and if x person profiting off it is something that errs them...

Now I totally agree it sucks and MS is being a big evil corporation again. But thats their nature. Evil is gona evil.

DugMachine:

You'd be hard pressed to find someone making money to live on by doing gameplay montages. LPers with huge fan bases are the ones making the money not Ultra leet headshots 2012 (feat. Skrillex Bangarang).

I'm sure they have 'real jobs' just like 'regular people'. Whatever that means.

And the Ultra leet guy loses the small revenue stream and so his budged is a few bucks smaller.
And I'm quite sure many of them do have a job. What I meant by my words was that you play video games and commentary, post it on youtube, and rake some cash in. Thus it's not hard, theres no grind day in day out. And for them it's just this fun thing on the side they do for profit.
The big guys who make off like bandits on this are the ones who are going to need to join the workforce, is what I meant.

1337mokro:

Tiger Sora:
So a few dozen youtubers have lost their revenue streams. Now they have to get real jobs like regular people.

So because your jealous it's not a real job.

What making videos to view for peoples entertainment is Not a job? Isn't that what basically all visual media is? Making something to be viewed for enjoyment?

Guess actors, Tv-producers, videogame developers, etc. should also get Real Jobs. After all entertainment (in the broadest sense of the word) apparently isn't a real job when you put an advertisement in front of it.

Your saying I'm jealous sir, did I no, no I didn't.So one, don't put labels on me.

As for it being a "not real job". As I said to the last guy. You play video game, add commentary on it or insert lines. Post, get advertisement money.
Not much past that in most cases.
And, they're not making the videos per say, merely editing the game footage / recording. Than putting audio to it. They didn't make the footage. So how can you compare it to people who do, like the ones that made the game in the first place.

If it was all original content I'd say yes, since it isn't no.
I know you can continue to degfent it six ways to Sunday. But you're just erecting a wall of bs to defend it.

Now I'd like to add in...

To paraphrase someone else:

Youtube has never allowed gaming footage to be monetized, it's against the ToS. Networks have permission and license to do so

So you're making a big deal out of nothing, really. Every content producer worth their salt is a part of a larger network.

so the first thing I did was search up all games published by Microsoft Studios haha...note to self which ones are hit by this new ruling

Fair enough. You can freely make videos of their intellectual property as long as you don't profit from it.

snagli:

Maybe partially, but it seems it only affects YouTube. Since Roosterteeth has its own site with non-YouTube videos, so they're probably in the clear. Now, if this change affects ALL of the content, not just on YouTube... hoo boy.

It affects more than Youtube. Youtube's partnership thing is specifically mentioned, but that doesn't mean it applies to just them.

AC10:
Another reason EULAs shouldn't be enforceable.
Those pesky fair use laws getting in the way of your megacorp? Just have all users sign a contract under duress that is legally enforceable and demands them to sign away such rights.

You'd be hard pressed to argue fair use applies here. Especially since you can still do this sort of thing, just not for money.

People treat fair use as a free ride, though it isn't considered to be such and was never intended to be such. If you would like to go to the mat with Microsoft, feel free, but unless your clips have satirical or review purposes, you'd have trouble arguing relevant fair use.

Additionally, there have been many rulings that allow fair use, but still require a group to pay money to the content holders if they use the content themselves. This is different from, say, a webcomic where you draw Master Chief yourself, put him in a Chef hat and call him Master Chef.

Fair Use is a wonderful thing. It's very likely, however, you're using it wrong.

Really? After such a concrete example as the RvB series showing how unbelievably good this can be your gonna strangle any new ones in their crib? Shame shame shame.

This sounds like something that would get thrown out in trial. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure Microsoft will make deals with any companies (i.e. MLG) that could conceivably take them to court.

gigastar:

RvLeshrac:

gigastar:

TB does get monetisation for his videos, in fact in a recent video he explicitly stated that his only source of regular income is the money coming in from his videos. And according to him its enough that he doesnt need to find a regular job.

And I'm sure he monetizes the videos without first obtaining the rights necessary to do so from the developers.

Or, you know, the opposite of that.

Wrong again, most of the games he features are sent to him in advance by developers and publishers for review.

When you step away from reviews however, the only developer known to complain to content creators about free advertisement is Rockstar. By watching his mailbox series (which features recorded gameplay footage in the background) ive picked up on all i need to see to decide that Torchlight 2 and FTL: Faster Than Light was worth my money.

"He clearly is getting permission." "No you idiot they send him game so he obviously has their permission."
I sense a disconnect here.

OT: This effects me in absolutely no way as I never intended to make money off this, know nobody who does and those who might will still do it to get atention to their channels.
image

Tiger Sora:

But. But, this doesn't affect me, nor 99.9% of anyone else. So a few dozen youtubers have lost their revenue streams. Now they have to get real jobs like regular people. That sucks cause I know what it's like to have a super easy job, but, real life sucks.

The curious part is not what it does, but what it does not: entail any advantage whatsoever to Microsoft.

Video content providers are in no way competing with any Microsoft venture, and while on first look it might be intended to troll Google, it would be a laughably ineffective way of doing so. Google doesn't suddenly stop getting ad revenue when it doesn't pay the uploader.

Until somebody provides a sensible explanation as to why they would even deem it worth the time writing the EULA, I'll assume it to be lawyer shenannigans. Maybe they were bored.

RvLeshrac:

gigastar:

RvLeshrac:

Uploading a video to YouTube != enabling monetization for that video.

TB does get monetisation for his videos, in fact in a recent video he explicitly stated that his only source of regular income is the money coming in from his videos. And according to him its enough that he doesnt need to find a regular job.

And I'm sure he monetizes the videos without first obtaining the rights necessary to do so from the developers.

Or, you know, the opposite of that.

TB would fall under fair use, as he is using the material for review purposes. Which doesn't mean Microsoft might not ready the lawsuit cannons anyway.

This EULA is aimed at the vast swathes of content that have no satirical or review purpose whatsoever, and merely seek to entertain.

I think it is all a ploy to stop Jim Sterling from being able to do an episode on the game. They know that the game will not be at the same quality level as the Bungie products, and they don't want a Halo 4 Jimquisition Episode.

My question is: What about video reviews of the game? Does this mean The Escapist can't do one?

further evidence that MS are slowing losing the plot.

I... Don't understand this. I mean, apart from the motivation, which as far as I can tell is MS being petty and deciding they want to be the only ones making money off their games, it seems like they're only shooting themselves in the foot. If you look at the full usage rules it gets worse.

First, they're talking about all games owned by Microsoft. Here's a list, from them. May not be all of them, they did say "including".


Is this retroactive? Because if so they'll already be pissing off a lot of people, by forcing them to pull down old videos.

Second, ad revenue isn't the only revenue that isn't allowed. The full point was "Except as described here, you can't sell or otherwise earn any compensation from your Item, including through advertisements in the Item. This means you can't charge money in exchange for your Item, post it on a site that requires subscription or other fees to view the Item, or post it on a page you use to sell other items or services(even if they have nothing to do with Game Content or Microsoft). You also can't use Game Content in an app that you sell in an app store."
So now if one has a website where they like to post lets plays, or amusing videos, or multiplayer guides, or whatever, plus it sells some merchandise of yours, will Microsoft get angry if they post videos of their games? That's probably going to get in the way for some people, and again there's no good reason.

Third is the one people are focusing on.
"You may post your Item to a page or website that has advertising, but only if you do not earn any money from that advertising. For example, if you post your video on Youtube or Vimeo and there happens to be an advertisement next to it, then as long as you don't get paid for that advertisement, the fact that there is an advertisement on the page doesn't break these Rules. But enrolling in the Youtube partner program (or other similar programs), where you are entering into an agreement to get paid, is not allowed. On a similar note, if you create and distribute a free app, then you can't earn any money from advertising in that app."
Yeah, this sucks.

As some are pointing out, none of this stops anyone making videos with Halo content. But it does make it less attractive. I'm not clear on how Youtube Partners works, but I can't imagine there's something like a checkbox when you upload a video "I don't want ad revenue from this video". Because why would there be. So how do people who already have a Partners account (like, probably all the popular content contributors) get around this. Do they have to contact Youtube about their unlisted video and say they don't want revenue from it before they make it public. That sounds like a pain. If you have a website that you like to upload all your videos to, and you also sell merch (much like LRR's website, for example), what do you do then?

All of these nuisances add up, I can see a lot of content creators just deciding to make content for some other game. Hell, Dice were recently running a competition encouraging players to record their most impressive in-game moments. They were calling it "Only in BF3" if you're curious. They'd link some videos on their Facebook page and all that. That seems like a smarter move. Because current players would share some of these impressive videos. Friends might watch them. Those same friends might decide that the game looks pretty cool, and maybe they should buy it. Or people who've stopped playing might decide to jump back in. I think this sort of thing, being able to freely create and show off content and play, is important to keeping an enthusiastic online community. I can't think of a single (good) reason why Microsoft would want to put a stop to this. It's free advertising, when popular contributors make a few videos based off your game. It's a way for the community to feel more involved. Players watch these videos, maybe see some cool gameplay tips, or some funny glitches, or whatever. That kind of interplay, to have a game be more than just playing it to some people, whether it be something that brings them amusement through compilations of vehicles bouncing into the sky, or whether it's the joy of creating content based on this game, is, I think, vital to fostering a large community.

So yeah, I kinda rambled on a little. Most of this is speculation, admittedly. I have some experience from the viewer side, I follow a few different things about BF3, but I don't know much about creating content, or Halo's community. Still, it seems simple enough to me. If Microsoft make it more annoying to create content, if they force you to tip-toe around making money, then less people will want to bother. And probably there will be some people put off by the fact that they can't make any money off this content they created, especially if they already are making money off other videos they make. I suspect the worst part for Microsoft though, will be the backlash itself from the existing community. The weirdest part is, I still can't think of a good reason for Microsoft to care at all about this.

What about pc games. i know xbox games are all off limits. but what if they have multiple platforms. will we now have to start specifying what version of a game we are letsplaying? granted most are pc version but there are others. example. Call of Duty: Final War (just bsing name) comes out next year on 360, ps3, pc, and wii u (cuz you know its gonna happen). 360 content is totaly off limits. is the pc, ps3, and wii u version now locked down cuz of the 360? Is any game on pc locked out cuz its played using windows.

i....i really dont see how in the hell people are going to enforce it. the only game that is xbox exclusive really is only halo. that will be the one and only easy one to point out. where as the others. they get released on 3 different things all you would have to say. "this is a playstation game version" or something like that and they cant prove its not.

Microsoft.... why are you such and idiot.

Edit: was reading the post above mine. so it only works on games they own huh. so really only exclusives. ...still sucks either way =(

Uber Evil:
Apparently this sort of thing has been in the EULA for a while, but they don't really enforce. This video seems to provide more context about the issue.

Quoting for truth and visibility.

If Microsoft was going to enforce that rule, which has been there for some time, they would have done so by now.

Say goodbye to free advertising Microsoft ya fuckers.

Tiamat666:

Youtube is owned by Google. Microsoft doesn't like Google. Lots of Halo videos on Youtube mean lots of advertising revenue for Google. I suppose MS has a plan to shift control of video game content off Youtube and onto a more MS-friendly platform.

If that was the case, it would be a platform where nobody could make any ad revenue from it, meaning either a) something in-game or b) a platform MS launches themselves which is integrated in Windows/WBL. This is obviously not something people would use, so a lot of video creators will just abandon the game entirely.

Covarr:

saintdane05:
So, will this effect Red vs. Blue? It better not...

Red vs Blue? Probably not, as there's all kinds of special arrangements in place for it. But I could see it seriously harming other Rooster Teeth ventures, such as a good chunk of what Achievement Hunter does. We probably can say goodbye to Fails of the Weak and Achievement Pig Horse, among others. And Trials Files, because MS also publishes Trials Evolution.

This is a bad and stupid move, Microsoft.

P.S. Thanks

Man, I even forgot about achievement horse. GOTTA CATCH UP ON THAT WHILE IT STILL LASTS.

It's not like I was really going to buy Halo 4 or watch videos about it in the first place, I was waiting for a company to try something like this, it was bound to happen and I'm just glad it was a game I don't give a flying shit about. More reason to ignore it and try to convince others not to buy it either, not that I seriously need more reason.

One particularly interesting point of the newly-revised rules states that advertisements can appear alongside or on the same page as a gameplay clip, but the person who created, edited, and published the work may not profit from it.

Oh so the huge mega-corporations can still make huge amounts of money but the little guy can't get even a small a cut of it to spite doing all the work promoting your game.

Fu*k you Microsoft.

saintdane05:
So, will this effect Red vs. Blue? It better not...

The developers are good with RvB. Why else would they get to make a short using the Halo 4 engine quite a while ago or a short with Halo: Reach long before that was released?

Azo Galvat:

Uber Evil:
Apparently this sort of thing has been in the EULA for a while, but they don't really enforce. This video seems to provide more context about the issue.

Quoting for truth and visibility.

If Microsoft was going to enforce that rule, which has been there for some time, they would have done so by now.

Why would they make a rule... that they NEVER intend to enforce?!?!

Why specifically say that Google can make money on ads on a video of their content (that's a permission) but exclude the small non-business uploader to make money off that?

That's the important part, it protects the big video website's money stream (and the army of lawyers who would fight against it) but not the little guy who actually went to the effort of getting compelling gameplay footage, editing it and presenting it in a way that would be uneconomical for Microsoft to do.

Don't expect take-down notices or DMCA filing, no they will send the letter to Google saying: "Don't pay this son of a bitch a fucking penny or I'll sue your ass... keep the video up though, that benefits us"

Evil Smurf:
So why has Microsoft turned douchey? Closing their OS and now this? Wow.

don't hurt me I have a Mac

Microsoft turned douchey? That's a new one, that's like saying the sun just suddenly start providing light each day last week!

How this will affect their rabid fanbase is anyone's guess...

Why would they do this? Microsoft isn't going to post a bunch of montages and gameplay commentaries themselves, why should they care if someone pays their rent with gameplay footage? This just seems like an uncalled for change to me. Microsoft doesn't stand to gain anything from it, they're simply removing the chance for others to make a living off of something that is very popular at the moment.

Part of me worries this will prevent the inevitable Hutch/Seananners Halo 4 gameplay videos. What a tragedy it would be to lose those. =(

I don't see how such a thing can be enforceable. If someone owns a game, provided they aren't reselling or distributing the original work for profit, the publisher has zero say in whatever else they do with it. I guess it's not dissimilar to "fan fiction" or such like in a way.

More importantly, will RvB be affected? I don't know how much they make off ads, how much from sponsors and how much from DVD sales but it's the best web series bar none and, if anything, does more to promote Halo than anything MS or Bungie have ever done.

This could make sense if a) Microsoft didn't want free advertising, which is nearly always better than 60 second clips of cutscenes and b) ad revenue was worth millions (I doubt anyone really earns their living exclusively through it, given that you'll need millions of views for good profits).

Small guys stuck in crossfire between megacorps, nothing new. Will likely see again in some form.

captcha:
get over it

Until it stops, I won't.

Congratulations Microsoft. You've just killed Halo 4 before it got off the ground.

image

poiumty:
To paraphrase someone else:

Youtube has never allowed gaming footage to be monetized, it's against the ToS. Networks have permission and license to do so

So you're making a big deal out of nothing, really. Every content producer worth their salt is a part of a larger network.

This, but alas people are arguing to me that now that they can't (despite never in the first place) that now it's false advertisement and that u always could. :/ I really don't think people understand that big channels have deals and other channels have deals with those channels.

Since aside from YouTube Partners there is also a Machinima Partnership and so on.

Tiger Sora:
As for it being a "not real job". As I said to the last guy. You play video game, add commentary on it or insert lines. Post, get advertisement money.

And that is not a real job how?

You add something to a product or do something with it and get paid for it. That is pretty much the definition of a job. You can argue about it all you want but they are basically making a living of it and apparently it can be nice and profitable.

So how is that Not a job? Because they Add something on an existing work? Isn't that what reviewing is? Isn't that what journalism in general is. Adding your own description and opinion of events or a piece of media and getting paid to do so?

Wait a second.... you're saying being a Sports Commentator isn't an actual job. We have an example of someone putting audio of themselves over a match and getting paid for it outside of the internet. So is Sports Commentator not a job?

It's quite funny how you claim "original content" is what would have made it a job. Isn't the way they play the game basically creating content. A game doesn't play itself does it? At least a good game doesn't. So the way they play the game can be argued as original content.

We can get down to semantics on this one but the simple fact remains. If you make a video with commentary on it and you connect with an audience you can make money of it. Whether you consider it a job or not is kind of mute when they are getting paid for doing it.

You don't have to say out loud that you are jealous. I can read between the lines.

"How dare these people have a job that gets them attention and money and I don't! They should get real jobs flipping burgers at MacD. That's making original content out of processed meats!"

Also you misspelled Then.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

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