>Until recently, players could upload any video on YouTube related to That Dragon, Cancer and make money off it. Not too long ago, Let's Players received a Content ID claim over music in the game.
>A Content ID claim means you’re (likely) giving up the rights to make money on the video.
>Describing the reception to his game as “incredible,” Ryan Green couldn’t be happier about how people have responded to his family’s tragic story. But it comes with a serious caveat: they haven’t made any money on the game.
>“Our studio has not yet seen a single dollar from sales,” he said. (Steam Spy shows ~15,000 copies sold)
>The developers “underestimated how many people would be satisfied with only watching the game,” and became frustrated by the millions of people watching the game on YouTube translating into zero revenue for their years of work.
>So when Green saw tweets asking about deprived revenue, it struck a nerve. “And so yes, Let’s Play person, I agree with you,” he said, “it does suck to have someone else making revenue off your work.”
>That Dragon, Cancer’s score was composed by Jon Hillman, and Green decided he had the right to make money off videos using his music “without permission.”
>“If there is revenue being drawn from that use, we believe he should be compensated,” said Green.
>Afterwards, fans of some popular Let's Players began harrassing Green and his studio via social media which caused him to reverse the Content ID flags.
>Despite the reversal, Green is adamant there’s still a problem:
>“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,” said Green. “We’ve seen people decompile our game and post our soundtrack on YouTube. We’ve also seen many, many Let’s Players post entire playthroughs of our game, posting links to all of their own social channels and all of their own merchandising and leaving out a link to our site.”
So, who was in the right here?
The developer.
The devs.
Full-time Lets Players exist because companies graciously permit them to monetize their work, and if they should choose not to then they are both legally and morally allowed to do so.
>>332279591
Make a game next time.
If people were making video games instead of glorified flash animations that wouldn't be an issue.
>>332279591
If you want to make a movie then make a movie and show it in a cinema or a film festival.
If you want to create a game then create a game.
>>332279761
>>332279735
Yall realize by claiming their game is essentially a movie you're supporting their right to do this, aye?
>>332279591
People simply uploading gameplay without adding anything of value should not earn money on that, it should go to the developer as it is not transformative.
>make a game that isn't worth playing
>people don't play it
>WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED
>>332279591
Eh, I don't mind narrative "games" like this but when you can watch the whole thing on YouTube for free and there's little gameplay you're missing out of, then lots of people will just watch it instead of buying it.
Sadly, this is just going to get devs to focus on Twitch bait multiplayer derivatives. So if you make a game like this you should probably be a youtube nazi and flag all non-commentary let's plays. Because fuck someone who just uploads the whole thing and makes money off it without adding any creative aspects of their own.
>>Afterwards, fans of some popular Let's Players began harrassing Green and his studio via social media which caused him to reverse the Content ID flags.
How much of an edge lord do you have to be to rail against parents making something for their dead child?
Let's Plays have been known to boost sales. The truth is this guy made
1. a game with a very niche target audience
2. a game that can be just watched with no incentive to go and play it
and is now balming let's players
>being a "deep, artsy indie videogame developer"
>ever expecting money
Unless it's a ground-breaking, somehow addictive game, expect no money.
>>332279591
Nobody was right. You make a game that's worth playing and people will still buy it (not a walking sim or a visual novel. A game with actual gameplay). If you make a crumby game where all you do is wander around and listen to voice over then people are just going to watch your little movie game instead of dropping the money to play it.
If you're a youtuber and you're not making your own content in the sense that it's original. You can get fucked as well. At least do something with the game, bookend it with original content, or give enough commentary that it can barely be considered the game anymore.
>>332279960
>Let's Plays have been known to boost sales.
This is only true in a tiny minority of cases.
>>332279931
>How much of an edge lord do you have to be to rail against parents making something for their dead child?
The cunts in charge of this "game" aren't making it for their child, they're using their child's death to boost sales for their shitty "game".
>>332279731
muh fair use
>>332279591
>people don't want to play the game
>they don't buy it
Whoa.
>>332279885
This guy gets it.
They're not angry about people making money out of their work, they're angry because people don't buy their shitty game.
Many developers should do this, but the mayority gets good sales so they don't care as much.
First they charge money for an "experience" they wanted to share with the world after tragically losing their son, now this? Christ the son probably never existed in the first place.
>>332279960
>Let's Plays have been known to boost sales. The truth is this guy made
I think that's highly variable though. I know some games that people like Pewdiepie played that got loads of sales after his videos came out. But then there were other games that had millions of views and only a few hundred or a few thousand in sales.
>>332279591
Reasoning might be wrong but LPers are not a good thing regardless.
>>332279591
Nightmare fuel baby faces were a mistake.
I think LPs should definitely be allowed to exist, with no restrictions.
However, any revenue from the monetized videos will be shared generously with the holder of the original IP, since it's a showcase of the content they've produced.
Yea sure, some people like to watch LPs and then buy the game, and that's fine. What isn't fine is some fucking parasite making money off of that fact.
Reviews with at most 1 hour of continuous footage (not limit on the total amount of time, just no more than 1 hour without changing to a different part of the game) should be allowed but let's plays are cancer.
>>332279591
On this particular case, I don't think either the developer or the YouTubers should be given revenue for the youtube vids
>son has cancer
people give them money
>son dies
ouya gives them money to make a game
kickstarter gives them more money
>they make a shitty artsy thing
people don't give them money anymore
>Ryan felt that they would satisfied if these viewers had left small tips on Numinous Games' website in lieu of purchasing the game, so that Numinous could continue to develop more titles.
>>332279885
>>332279735
>>332279761
These.
I know /v/ views LPs are cancerous, but I've come to appreciate them more recently when things like this happen and I see a single video or a few for a over-hyped indie game that is barely a few hours long in total.
I can watch the LP play the 'game' while I sit back and actually play a real game.
>>332280047
>making a highly niche "game" over several years is a cash grab
I know this place is full of socially inept people, but I didn't know it was this bad. People grieve in different ways and the loss of young child is extremely traumatizing and ends up breaking up a majority of marriages.
>>332280102
>Let's Plays have been known to boost sales.
I hate seeing this argument.
How, when and where people choose to advertise their products is their own business. It's not for consumers to decide to use copyrighted material, and argue it away by saying that they're actually doing the creators a favour by giving it publicity.
>>332279591
how about "developers" start making video games and not interactive stories?
>>332280045
>>332280102
True that. So we know sometimes let's players cause sales boosts and sometimes they don't. But do they ever cause a decrement in sales? (apart from negative reviews + opinions of course)
>>332279960
Only multiplayer or coop games really experience any kind of boost.
Anything single player doesn't really get anything out of lets plays. Indie games get even less because they basically make 5 minutes of game and 2 hours of reading and call it a day.
>>332279885
pretty much
>>332280102
Games like Goat simulator are really easy to market as "fun". This isn't. It's not hilarious, it's not fun, it's not even a game, it's a glorified VN. I wouldn't be surprised if half of the viewers didn't close the tab after two minutes of "gameplay"
>>332279834
they should of called it "Interactive story" in the first place, tehre is no reason to call it a game.
This way no let's player would play it and no gamer would buy it.
>>332279591
I had never heard of this game, so I checked the steam page.
TEN FUCKING POUNDS for a 2 Hour Game!!
are you shitting me, you even advertised that it's 2 hours long.
(and that's 2 hours in devolpers playthough) so real rushing gamer is probs at best 1 hour and half.
>>332279591
just make a short film you faggots, not a fake 'game', where interaction is at the very most, pushing a context sensitive button during a cutscene. If you wanted to try to rake in money from your dead baby go cry to hollowood where everyone is as soulless and pathetic as you.
>>332280325
Being interactive makes it a game
>>332280045
I can think of a lot of examples.
>>332280245
Then companies, developers, etc. need to step in and do what Nintendo did, but then /v/ bitched about that too.
>>332280341
Most LPs of it barely hit 2 hours.
Why do these devs think people are watching the letsplays to see their game?
People watch them to see pewdiepie or whoever. They dont care what they are playing. They probably prefer seeing them play games they know they will NEVER EVER BUY.
>>332280059
If you read up on the actual law then LPs are at best in a gray-area in regards to that, in America anyway.
If you want to tell a fucking sob stroy just write a book.
>open a McDonald's
>have to pay royalties to them
>play a movie at your theater
>have to give a big chunk of ticket sales to the studio
>sell cars at your dealership
>have to pay fees to the manufacturer
>literally upload a full single player game to youtube with no commentary
>cry when the dev wants a cut
Does the entitlement of youtubers know no bounds?
Watching gameplay videos on youtube is now piracy.
>>332280368
The fuck it does.
Your file browser is interactive. Go play that.
>>332280368
no, having rules that "interactee" needs to follow or else there will be a failure state, make it a game.
You don't call choose your adventure books games but hide and seek is a game, puzzle game are games even tho there is no real failure state but yet you can have a failure state.
>>332280434
Now try making an argument without making comparisons to things that aren't video games.
>>332279591
Make a game people want to play, not a fucking pseudo intellectual piece of crap,
then you cry when people don't buy it
>>332280201
But that would only encourage advertised content (that already happens) instead of honest views on said games.
How about make a proper movie instead so your claim that Youtube uploads are piracy hold some weight.
>>332280396
Yes, but can you prove its anything more than a tiny minority?
>>332279591
>>The developers “underestimated how many people would be satisfied with only watching the game,
Lol, make a proper fucking game then
>>332280232
Then make the game to deal with your loss and share it for free, but making a revenue of it is a disgusting way of monetizing your child's death. Or at least direct the revenue to charity or something.
>>332280434
>Buy chess board
>play infront of a camera
>Have to pay royaltees to board manufacturer
>knowingly make a game with almost zero gameplay
>"WHY ARE PEOPLE WATCHING VIDEOS OF IT AND NOT BUYING IT?!?!?!"
>>332279591
The consumers.
If I wanted a game why would I pay for a movie?
>>332280434
>you have to pay a baseball bat manufacturer to distribute videos of you playing baseball
>make a game trying to cash in on your sons cancer related death
>it isn't successful
>cry like a bitch
>>332280264
Completely not true. There's many video games that require player input to make story unique, aka the actual video games and not interactive stories. If I want to "play" such interactive story "game" I can just watch walkthrough on youtube without losing anything, since I don't care about gameplay as there's little to none of it.
>>332279885
I hate LPers and the audience they cater to. I also hate devs who think they can sell a curated excuse of a game and not be ripped off when people can get an equal amount of enjoyment from it by watching someone else.
Burn em all.
Steam should implement an extra "tax" on game prices that would benefit the developers of games nobody wants to buy. Games would cost 25% more
>>332279591
Neither party is right.
Let's players add commentary and quirks to the gameplay which does not justify sharing the revenue.
Neither party should get revenue from a video of it.
>>332280434
>Open a place called "Dumb Starbucks"
>Don't have to pay license fees or royalties because of legal loophole.
>>332280516
if anything its' the minority of games that don't get sales boost from youtubers shilling their games with lets plays.
hell, lots of developers give youtubers free copies of their games for this.
>>332280262
I think they only hurt sales if:
1. The game is buggy and doesn't work
2. The game is story based with little to no gameplay like this title. Although stuff like LiS and Telltale titles have enough variety and choices (or at least the illusion of them) that people would still prefer to play it themselves.
3. The game is short as shit.
They are both wrong,
T
he Dev made a crappy story experience game and is blaming let's plays like people used to blame piracy, for why no one is buying it.
Let's players on the other hand are honestly cancerous leaches who do truly earn money by leaching off of the work of others. Though they probably don't have much to do with people not buying the game.
Case closed.
>>332280601
I'm surprised they don't do that in yurop.
>>332280434
>upload a video of you eating a pizza
>you have to give a 30% cut to Domino's
>>332279591
If his game was worth playing then watching it shouldn't give you the full experience. Make a better game.
If you use someone elses intellectual property to make money, you should at the least be expected to give them some of that money. It's not like you are buying the rights to their characters and so on when you buy a game, but you're still making use of them.
>>332280405
The witcher 3 is currently 35 quid and too 100% it takes 160 hours on howlongtobeat.com
so that's a value of around 20p an hour.
and this is currently at 5 pounds an hour.
I have no idea where, I'm going with this but the dev thinks he should price it higher than the witcher 3. what an asshat
>haven't made a dollar
>sold 15000 copies
whats the problem again? if you've sold 15000 copies and made 0$ you might want to check your bank mate.
and on topic devs (and companies, looking at you nintendo) who are against lets plays can fuck off.
>>332279838
>without adding anything of value
What judges value? If a consumer thinks someone talking over the game is something they want it has value. If they don't like playing games so have teh experience of someone playing it for them then that adds value
>>332280608
>Let's players add commentary and quirks to the gameplay which does not justify sharing the revenue.
I didn't know you were the high court to make such bold claims.
>>332279591
>Nobody wanted my shitty videogame, it might be because Youtubers are evil
>>332279591
If let's plays die, this neo-gamer culture will die too, that guy is completely right and let's plays and long plays should be banned unless it's a really old game.
Reviews shouldn't be banned though
>>332280525
Why would you have to share it for free? I dont quite get whats so horrid about making a commercial work inspired by traumatizing events in your life. Why wouls you have to abandon the right to get paid?
Game seems like shit by the way
>>332280446
This.
>>332280448
I'm playing it right now. You're the NPC.
>>332280719
neo-gamer is phone game culture, it will be alive and kicking.
>>332280565
>Baseballs and the rules to the game are still covered by intellectual property rights in 2016
>>332280719
Spotted the Polygon employee.
I don't know about you, but when I'm bored, I fire up a "game" about a kid having cancer to have an enjoyable 2 hours.
Hoping they make a stillbirth simulator or kid funeral sim next, keep that cheery theme going
>>332279885
Yeah, but people watch it and some other people make more money than the dev off it
Think about that for a minute
>>332280045
You are wrong but for a different point. It boosts the sales of a lot of games, but many when they have extended exposure realise a game isn't worth getting which means they wouldn't be happy with there purchase anyway and with more ways to refund than ever would have done so
>>332280682
>Value of a game = how many hours it lasts
You could not be more wrong.
>>332280687
You do understand that making games costs money right?
>>332280687
he clearly means, he has yet to make a profitable dollar.
I'd imagine there's an argument that let's plays help the sales of most longer games. People see others enjoying a game, and instead of waiting a month to see the end, they impulse buy it. But with a game that's less than 2 hours, there's absolutely zero reason to buy it yourself. Also, being less than 2 hours means people that do buy it can just refund it.
>>332280719
>Reviews shouldn't be banned though
Nah, they should be also due to influx of biased opinions.
Take Gone Home for example. If reviewers were all people had to go on, then that 'game' was a masterpiece that should be apart of everyone's video game library.
>>332280625
>if anything its' the minority of games that don't get sales boost from youtubers shilling their games with lets plays.
Prove it
>>332280491
>>332280536
>>332280565
>>332280624
>>332280674
>play football match and want to show it on TV
>you have to pay your nations fooball union or fifa
>>332280469
I'd say this title isn't a game as there is a single predetermined outcome, no failure states, and no real choices.
I still consider things like FMV's from the 80's and 90's to be games as they have multiple endings and many failure points along the way although gameplay is less pronounced.
>>332280262
After Pewdiepie played Bear Simulator and shit on it it literally stopped selling and the dev said apparently a lot of people got refunds following it.
And no the game wasn't great, but before Pewdiepie the reviews were middle grounded and it was gaining popularity, but now pretty much any chance of the game going anywhere, or having it financially support future projects is gone now.
Riot also lost money after Dunkey put out a scathing video about how they banned him and didn't give two shits, causing many of his followers to quit and boycott, according to the YouTube comments it also prompted a lot of charge backs of people trying to get their money back from the game
>>332280368
Fucking DVD title screen confirmed for GOTYAY
Games can be lost.
>>332280059
Fair use covers the purposes of parody, criticism, and review. The closest thing to a let's play (literally just some schmuck talking over it) is MST3K or rifftrax, which... aren't covered by fair use. They're either licensed or separate from the movie.
>>332280789
>"Press X to Mourn Child"
>>332279960
> and is now balming let's players
mmm, relaxing.
>>332280245
>How, when and where people choose to advertise their products is their own business
Wrong, under this logic you couldn't make a video which shows a game is broken
>>332279591
Not a single one of the people watching these LPs would have bought the game in the first place.
Without the LPs he wouldn't have even reached 5K sales. They've boosted his shitty videogames sales by much more than he believes.
Tl;dr he has a God complex and thinks that people would actually willingly buy his game.
>>332280567
But it is successfull, the game was kickstarted and supported by money that wasn't theirs, and only in steam it sold 15k x 10 pounds, rest the cut of steam and that it's still a lot of free money.
>>332280806
That just shows that the devs had made a bad product, but the LPer has made it into entertainment.
Man, making a the gaming equivalent of oscar bait out of their dead kid is one thing, but crying they're not making enough money from it is another. Are they donating the profits or what?
>>332280682
>I have no idea where, I'm going with this
Me neither, but like >>332280837 said, a game that is very long doesn't mean it was a good value, there needs to be balance.
Despite that, $10-$20 for a walking simulator/dialog forced story, is too much and not a value, or a game at all.
>>332280883
FIFA is paid by the cable channels though so they can record it and show it to you.
Any reason for this "game" to be a game and not a movie?
Herein lies the problem, people are using this medium because it's easier or cheaper and they expect to reach the same audience as someone who watches movies
it's retarded
>>332280624
Starbucks is a registered trademark, you cannot use it in a name, furthermore by representing your brand as Starbucks is not going to sue you for trademark dilution and a million other things.
You should have gone to law school instead of being a smartass and thinking you could get away with this kind of shit.
>>332279591
Maybe you should make a game that's worth playing rather than a barely-interactive glorified film. I watched a Let's Play of Undertale. Best $10 I never spent.
>>332280978
>Any reason for this "game" to be a game and not a movie?
it's interactive
>>332280856
>clearly means yet to make a profitable dollar
money is money. saying you've made nothing when you mean something else is basically lying.
I can already see this is trying to the pity card to sell the game so...don't care basically.
>>332280883
Youtube isn't television.
>>332280789
Artgames can be enjoyable, but fuck paying for them.
When this originally came out I played it once and considered it enjoyable. I wouldn't drop a dime on it though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73l1VfzeRYY
Fuck that guy.
It's just the free market at work
>son is dying from cancer
>instead of spending every waking moment with him, mom and dad make a video about his death
>fund a kickstarter and even put that shit on ouya
>son dies while mom and dad are too busy making a walking simulator
>take out anger and grief on Let's Players and people who had no interest in a game where you slowly watch a 4 year old die
>game (movie?) isn't even about enjoying kid's life, it's about mom and dad being sad
It's an interesting debate, but these "parents" are assholes and didn't even wait until their son was dead to try and monetize his death
>>332281009
>the graveyard
>>332279591
Make something FUN to play, not something FUN to WATCH, and you wont have this problem.
>>332280446
>Watching gameplay videos on youtube is now piracy.
You guys probably won't believe me, but I work atDenuvoand our next big project isprotecting clients' intellectual property rights on YouTube, Twitch, and other sites
>>332280992
Does it gain anything by being interactive
it could have been something like
>playing as a dragonhunter kid, who is slowly loses his human form and uses his horrible disease to make him the ultimate warrior until the end.
>instead we got this
>>332280883
>>332280964
Not a eurocuck. Don't care about feet ball and I don't pay for television.
>>332281009
what did you like about it
>>332280979
You should actually read up about dumb starbucks instead of playing internet lawyer
>>332280837
Price doesn't equal value.
Value is EXACTLY that.
>>332281040
A truly free market would allow slavery, blood sports, snuff films, CP and every other form of depravity known to man.
Do you really honestly believe in that sort of thing?
that ought to teach them to make games with actual gameplay so that people will want to PLAY them instead of just watching them like a movie.
>>332279591
The problem is really that some games profit from LPs and some games don't.
It really depends on the type and genre.
Everything with multiplayer generally profits, if it isnt a rigid one story path Coop thing.
Something like Isaac also worked, because every playthrough is different.
Conventional Singe Player games do not work. When you already saw the story, there is a huga chunk of motivation to play chugged away; even if the game is fun to play.
>>332280643
I agree.
>>332281108
Your Rugby for niggers is free?
>>332280979
You should google Dumb Starbucks instead of running your mouth. That way you don't look like a fool when you post.
How come people buy Binding of Isaac en masse despite its huge Let's Play scene?
>>332280525
>Ernest Hemingway shouldn't have made money on A Farewell to Arms about his experience in WW1
Fuck off, retard
Am I right in thinking that 80% of let's play watchers are NEETS and children without money.
>>332281076
It makes the player more immersed
>make a story driven game with shit graphics that has little stimulation from input and is basically a movie that forces you to work a crank to power the projector
>get mad when your shitty version of a movie that has to be spunt o be watched suddenly has someone spin it for the user so they can just watch.
Wow its almost like you should have figured out the "game" part.
>>332280849
It was fucking kickstartered, it costed literally 0 dollaridooos out of their pockets.
>>332280930
Not entirely sure I understand what you mean
If LPers want to point out a flaw in a game to deter people from buying it, then they can't play the "free advertising" card at the same time
>>332279591
Let's play is cancer but the game dev is a huge faggot
>i just want my story to be told and for people to understand what it's like to live through a child having cancer, it's about telling my storyand profiting off the cancer of my own child, where is my money!!!
>>332280893
So what you are saying is, it allows consumers to be more informed?
>>332281184
Because it's an actual game.
>>332281130
>Some reality TV show did it as a joke and never made actual money off of it
OK, what was your point?
>>332280979
Dumb Starbucks is a parody though so its under fair use
They are thinking that anyone who watches a let's play, is someone who would have bought the game otherwise, endless level of stupidity and entitlement are reached every day bye indie dev. they are litteral cancer
>>332281184
Minecraft and garry's mod have the biggest lp scene. Those poor fuckers must be in debt.
>>332280762
No it isn't just look at some lvl 70-300 steam profiles and you'll see
>>332280624
>>Don't have to pay license fees or royalties because of legal loophole.
There is no legal loophole, law makers and judges aren't morons. Starbucks could've sued the Dumb Starbucks guy if they wanted it.
I'm glad LPs are fucking artsy fartsy indie faggots
MAKE AN ACTUAL GAME YOU CUNTS
>>332280964
>want to show game on tv
>have to pay the owner of said game liecense
>>332281001
>>332281108
>show game wich you have to pay for to show to toher people
>hurr durr not utubeeeee
lets players are scum
>>332279591
I don't think people realize there is a whole community of people who don't play video games, but watch LPs. It could be kids who don't have access to a console, grown ups trying to kill a quick 10 minutes, or some disabled guy who can't hold a controller. You shouldn't just assume that if there were no LPs that people would buy your game. "That Dragon, Cancer" probably tapped into the soccer mom demographic who watch LPs like Soap Operas, but don't even know what Steam is.
>>332280736
> I dont quite get whats so horrid about making a commercial work inspired by traumatizing events
And you say we are socially inept
>>332281184
Because it's a game.
>>332281110
It came out in like 2008 so It was different. It was nice and calm
>>332281209
that's your interpretation of the situationit's mine too, he seems a bit of a dick
I don't see why this couldn't be addressed financially though. Lets players wouldn't have a job without game devs anyway. Why couldn't advertising revenue be split between the youtuber and the dev?
Or whatever.
seems mutually beneficial
>>332279591
the devs should have just made a movie, i dont see how the concept could work as a game at all, probably would have been cheaper or make a movie too
on a side note, it seems kind of low to try to cash in on a tragedy like this, then complain you're not making enough, so i find it hard to sympathize with them
>>332281108
To be able to broadcast the superbowl or any other football game, they also have to pay for it.
It's just that the endconsumer doesn't have to pay these bills because they're covered by the network and on paid tv it's covered by the consumer.
Without Let's Play videos nobody would know about their shitty game in the first place
>>332280979
Not only are you wrong, but also you are stupid. dumb Starbucks happened
>>332281184
because you can play Isaac
procedurally generated games probably benefit the most from youtube exposure because you know you'll get something different than what you watched
>>332280201
>However, any revenue from the monetized videos will be shared generously with the holder of the original IP, since it's a showcase of the content they've produced.
This is wrong
A game is a game. Not a movie. If you play a game, you hold the right to the gameplay footage the same way if you photograph a car you own that photograph even though you don't own the design, brand, or logo of the car.
Making money off of gameplay footage is cancerous, but there's nothing legally wrong with it, just like you don't owe Mercedez Benz money for selling prints of a photo you took of a vintage benzo in the countryside
And that's the way it should be. Devlopers either hold all rights to any derived footage from their games, or they don't. Do you have any idea what sort of retarded fuckery the former would lead to?
HEY GUYS WE'RE TOTALLY NOT TRYING TO EXPLOIT THE TRAGIC DEATH OF A CHILD FOR MONEY
BTW WHERE'S MY MONEY
>>332281289
That's what Nintendo tried to do.
If it's a war between game devs and google, then google will win, every time.
>>332281195
>It was fucking kickstartered, it costed literally 0 dollaridooos out of their pockets.
if it's like all other early access/kickstarter games
they probably bought themselves a new computer to develop on, and then the desk looked old, and the chair, and then they needed a new car to take the new desk home, but then the new car needed tuning up, and a new tv and then a new apartment and then they decided to start developing.
>>332281249
>How to get lvls in steam profile
>Play game, Get achievments
>They are neo-gamers
oooh, so neo gamer is someone who enjoys games so much they are willing to waste hours of their time on them?
>>332280102
of course its variable, and that variable depends on the appeal of the game, this one just didnt have any
>>332281289
you do realize that people who make good games view lets players as free advertisement right?
>>332281341
desu thats why i cant stand anglos
>>332281289
Nintendo did that and the internet shat all over Nintendo.
Despite the fact Nintendo has done some nice things for those it's collaborated with, such as early demos/copies of games, free trips to meet developers, and even heads up about shit in advance.
>>332280020
This
>>332281201
>then they can't play the "free advertising" card at the same time
Yes you can. By definition advertising is just attracting people's attention to a product, not be positive about it. You can advertise something bad is happening
But this is getting away from my point, you can't stop people talking about your product like you claimed
>>332281350
Well then they'd pretty much deserve to be in the streets
>>332279591
>“Our studio has not yet seen a single dollar from sales,”
>Steam Spy shows ~15,000 copies sold
So this proves that steamspy talks from it ass and has no prrofs about how many copies are sold
>>332281272
>>332281209
>>332281187
Writing a book or screenplay about is totally different, that's art.
>>332281316
It happened and got closed by the department of health before Starbucks could sue.
>>332281283
It's just an old lady walking through a graveyard for like 1 minute though, it seems like a tremendous waste of time. They didn't actually ask money for it did they?
>>332279591
Pirates are the problem!
wait no
Streamers are the problem
wait no
>>332281364
Achievements have nothing to do with steam profile levels.
>LPers buy shitty games from steam for views
>other LPers will do the same for it
>decent games are shoved aside for "meme" games
LPers and incompetent devs are in the 69 position of destroying quality games
>>332281440
they probably mean they haven't made a profit
>>332279591
You're withholding information.
Someone post how long the game actually is...
>>332281440
Steamspy samples public profiles for ownership.
You could literally do the same thing yourself.
>>332281381
that's their perogative
others are free to do with their own content as they wish
>>332281440
Or they had enough dev fees that they need more then 15,000 sales to turn a profit.
>>332281440
No, that proves the cost of developing it exceeded the amount realized from 15,000 sales.
Or they're lying. Which is INFINITELY MORE LIKELY. Steam ownership predictors are inaccurate tho
>>332281108
The networks literally paid the NFL $7,000,000,000 (seven billion dollars) for the rights to broadcast the 2015 season - one fucking season.
>>332281494
the "game" is less than 2 hours long
>>332281176
>>332281316
There is not a real fucking functioning store called dumb starbucks you fucking idiots. Stop believing what you see on reality TV. All that was was a single one time stunt. A stunt that I may add nearly got the parent company doing the show in legal shit up to their necks, and they only operated it as a "parody"/performance art thing for all of a few weeks during the filming then promptly shut it down and cleared out shop.
>>332281231
Actually read up on it, starbucks did not sue so you were talking out your ass
You were completely wrong while trying to sound smart
Full article.
>>332280536
>earn money playing BattleShip on YouTube
>implying their revenue doesn't rely on the game and intellectual property of the creator of said game
>implying they could switch to shoots and ladders without a significant drop in revenue
Let's players literally rely on content created by other people to draw in viewers for them to make money. It would be like advertising a concert and having people show up and enjoy the show, but you give a speech at the end and turn around and say they came for the speech and refuse to pay the band.
Let's players shouldn't have to give studios all the money they earn, but with how much their work relies on the popularity of the content they are playing, it would be retarded to imply they shouldn't be paying royalties.
>>332279591
Well, you see. You gotta make a game that people actually want to play if you want them to buy it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with story focused games but they have to be somewhat ENGAGING to play.
If your game is all story and no gameplay of course people are going to want to watch it.
>>332281481
This keeps looping back, their 'game' was funded by kickstarter, 15k sold units would be some sort of profit.
>>332281440
Steamspy only lists how many public steam profiles have played it. Technically it also considers press copies for this, but I highly doubt that the guy wrote 15k emails with let's play keys attached.
>>332281440
>>332281518
Wasn't the game crowdfunded? What did they do? Snort cocaine on a daily basis?
>>332281459
There's a free version and a paid version. In the paid version you die
>>332279834
by siding with the developers, you realize you are enabling these kind of shit games being made?
>>332280930
That would actually be fair use, as long as you limited yourself to footage that only demonstrates your point. You know, jump through the hoops that actual reviewers have to.
>>332279591
>>The developers “underestimated how many people would be satisfied with only watching the game,” and became frustrated by the millions of people watching the game on YouTube translating into zero revenue for their years of work.
On the one hand I feel sorry that somebody is being cheated out of money, but on the other I feel privileged that LPers saved me $15.
God bless No Commentary videos.
>>332280201
I like this and this is why I like Namco Music Center. All the revenue goes directly to Bamco and I get to listen to all my favorite songs whenever I'm feeling nostalgic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_T6Bf9RriI
>>332281557
>kotaku and its hacks will be out of jobs soon
>>332281240
That Indie, Cancer
>>332281590
>In the paid version you die
Anon I could do that myself for free.
>>332281258
>Starbucks could've sued
They could have tried to but had a weak case and never pursued it. When a huge company with board rooms full of lawyers decides to back off it means they are worried about it
>>332281175
>>332281306
Don't pay for tv. You're a fool if you do.
>>332281440
a lot of developers have said that steamspy is generally pretty good at giving total estimated sales.
like >>332281518 says, 15,000 sales isn't enough to make money but if the game is £11 and they've sold 15000, that means the 165000 theyve made is less than the game cost.
how did this cost that much when vanillaware can make dragon's crown for 1000000$ and that's by far their most costly game to make?
>>332281476
You are not wrong, could of sworn you had to get achievments.
>>332281543
>Did not sue
Yeah, they chose not to sue. They were completely within their legal right to do so. And they likely would have if it had been anything more than a single location for a Television shoot that was closed down immediately after.
>You are wrong
No I wasn't you fucking cunt nugget.
>>332281557
they should make another son to monetize on
>>332281590
>In the paid version you die
But Eutanasia is illegal here
>>332280837
I measure a games value by hours it takes for me to completely do everything, and what % of that time I actually had fun doing it.
>>332281624
>it's really hard to pack up and open a new website
:/
>>332281529
>>332281518
>>332281440
They had private investors which means the investors get first dibs on the money until all debt is cleared.
>>332281536
then the youtubers are in right. Fuck those assholes, the game already sold 15,000 despite being fucking nothing.
>>332281557
>Sucks having someone else making revenue off my videos
But it's absolutely fine if you're making revenue off someone else's "game", yeah? Fucking hypocrites.
Both parties are cancer.
>>332281618
So that's why that channel isn't killed from infractions
>>332279591
Can we take a non dick headed objective look at the value of this game.
OBJECTIVELY
Graphics: are subpar to the standard of 3d games even if the artstyle is supposed to look inferior.
Sound: has a score that occupies most of not all of the game, although recorded voice is pretty low quality even bordering on 20 dollar Walmart webcam audio quality
Gameplay: no actual choice, small subchoices like if you want to open an envelope giving the game no true reason other than to experience the narrative
Story: it has a story to be enjoyed/hated
The fact that this game is a game is insulting, it bathe story is not enhanced by the "gameplay provided" and actually hurts the game by making it more of a movie than even most walking sims.
The worst part is when you take all of this into consideration alongside the fact that deadbeat dad with a dying child with cancer spent countless hours in his office coding a game instead of spending his few precious moments with his child.
There's a audio cue where the baby is like, struggling to breathe and its heartbreaking, and it slams into you that mom was probably doing most of the work while dad was coding his new "indie masterpiece" and here he is crying that he hasn't made a substantial RoI on the death of his son, it's fucking sickening.
>>332281561
>game
>someone intellectual property
well you sure as hell don't fucking understand copyright laws.
>>332281518
Wasn't the game crowdfunded?
>>332281604
Who was cheated out of money, besides anyone dumb enough to pay money for this "game"?
>>332281224
>PDP watchers
>more informed
Nah, I think in that case it was just mentally immature viewers doing and thinking whatever the celebrity they worshiped told them to do and think.
You have a point with the second example, although the fact that those viewers don't know that bans without refunds in any F2P game is always a risk, shows how uninformed they initially are.
>>332281573
they raised 100,000 on kickstarter
and apparently they have a team of 8
do the math on that, thats nowhere near a profit
>>332281624
So all of Gawker is going to be out on the street soon, whoring no doubt. Which writer across all sites there would you pay $20 for some head from?
HULKAMANIA RUNS WILD BRROTHER!
>>332281671
steam takes 30% cut
>could've made an indie arthouse movie nobody would've given a shit about
>instead made an indie video game nobody really gives a shit about either
>blame LPers rather than the content
Trying to monetize your kid dying of cancer is sort of sleazy and strikes me as probably a fake-ass story they made to garner sympathy purchases desu sempai. I have very, very little faith in the honesty or integrity of indie devs at this point thanks to Kickstarter/Patreon fags, entitled iOS shovelware devs and SJW youtube scum. It's an entire industry that's been built up of being a con artist piece of shit.
>>332281557
>sucks having someone monetize my game
>totally cool that I'm trying to monetize off my son's painful death
Maybe he should have prayed more
>>332281675
I have over 1400 achievements on steam and I'm only level 11. I have friends that never finish most of their games but are level 3468 because they buy a gorillian games and trading cards and emote and hats and dildos and used condoms, etc.
>>332281743
You'll understand when you become employed.
>>332281671
>how did this cost that much when vanillaware can make dragon's crown for 1000000$ and that's by far their most costly game to make?
because they're incompetent hipsters who don't know how to make games?
>>332281701
Oh yeah sure, that's the downside. SOMEONE will hire some of these people because they drive clicks. But they'll be spread out and cancerous instead of extra concentrated cancer.
>>332281651
Nah, more likely they didn't want the bad PR. I mean can you imagine how bad their image would be smeared as "the big bad franchise going after the little guy who just wanted to do art!".
>>332281348
Except Nintendo made it stack so heavily in their favour that no one would want to do it. Yet this would still give them the ability to saying "well we tried to offer the olive branch of peace, only for the YouTubers to say no, they want all of the money. It's not our fault they didn't want to work out a deal". It's bullshit.
Frankly, I don't care about youtube let's players as they are shitters without exception (there's one guy I watch who makes videos of him playing games, but he isn't a "let's player" of any sort) so if a deal between companies and youtubers is struck or not, it makes no difference to me. But when a company tries to stamp out the consumer is any way, I can't give a shit if they get any backlash, even if it is from the 'bad guys'.
In this case, it's no one's fault except the developer's that the "game" was actually a walking simulator with no real gameplay element attached to it, so there's no reason for anyone to actually buy the game, just watch it for free on youtube with some annoying commentary over it. And, to be fair, if his game was so good people would want to buy it anyway or would go out of their way to buy it even if it was up on youtube. See Ace Attorney, one of the very few franchises Capcom still makes new games for.
>>332281752
So they squandered their money, overpaid people to develop a 'game', and it turned out so shit that a youtuber/streamer can play the game in a single sitting, under 2 hours, is somehow said youtuber/streamers fault?
>>332281752
how many years did they put into the project?
even with shit wages they'd burn through 100k with 8 people pretty fast
If people aren't buying your game it's not because LPs are stealing the sales. It's because your game fucking sucks.
My personal experience is that let's plays don't really fuck up sales. I don't know anyone that actually plays video games that watches them, they have rather opened up video games for a crowd that doesn't enjoy the challenge. People watch that shit for the personalities or the background noise. If your game gets a lot of views on any let's players channel and people don't buy it, it's because it's not really a game in the first place and people are satisfied with what they have seen. This weeds out shitty choose your own adventure style games and I'm fine with it.
>>332281191
I don't want to be immersed in shit, if making it interactive magically achieves that.
>>332281736
>A game
>Not someone's intellectual property
How?
>>332281701
Good luck doing that with your bosses 100M in debt.
I doubt any other company will hire them right away.
>>332281756
>Which writer
>knowing the names of any of these people
>>332281697
>measure a games value by hours it takes for me to completely do everything,
Do you have autism by any chance?
>>332281590
I'm just going by what makes sense to me. If they're complaining about profits maybe they didn't sell enough units to turn a profit. Or he's just a shit bag and is trying to milk his kids death for some extra cash.
>>332281748
We think they are idiots but they are allowed to base what they buy off whatever criteria they want. If that criteria is is some wanker finds it fun then that is their prerogative, cause chances are they enjoy the same stuff
>shows how uninformed they initially are.
Which is why it needs to be out there
has telltale games every commented on lets players?
>>332281857
well, how can you copyright a game?
you know all the SF knock offs on SNES and shit? They were all legally sold by companies with nintendo seal of approval.
You can copyright art in games but not game itself.
It's not that the people who watch LPs are satisfied with only watching the game, and don't buy the game because of that. They never even had the intent to buy the game in the first place. LP crowd doesn't really buy games.
>>332281069
Seems like a great plan.
I'm sure games that won't have any YouTube videos of them will sell better than the ones where you can just go online and watch the gameplay.
>tfw shit companies burning themselves to ground
>>332281840
going from 100% revenue to anything else would always be looked at as a bad deal
they just can't imagine getting NOTHING for their """work""" after living like kings for so long
>>332281726
Fighting game companies are really chill about their community doing things. The only reason GGPO is dead is because some 4gag autist decided to constantly DDOS so everyone migrated to fightcade.
>>332281451
These teachers are reading my book to a group of kids!!!! Where's my money!!! YOU ARE STEALING MY PROPERTY!!!!! WHERE ARE MY DEAD KID BUCKS!!!
>>332281636
INDIES BTFO
>>332281878
Come on, buddy. Let's not pretend like /v/ doesn't follow these people to be angry at them. Klepek couldn't play Dark Souls on stream because he kept getting griefed by people here. There were threads about it, charting whenever he was streaming it.
>>332281843
i would blame the developers for making something that nobody wants to buy
>>332281918
Except those companies gave them the money and the license to create their games
>>332281713
on top of the $100,000 from kickstarter? I'm just curious how much money went in to this game.
>>332281880
I don't buy games that will take me forever to finish, I mean games like dark souls or gta where I can get almost everything just playing normally.
>make a shitty game that no one wants to pay for
>get mad that you aren't profiting off your son's death
