|
judge reinhold posted:And I agree making money on video games feels like it'll inevitably stop/change drastically as companies realize there's additional revenue to be had there. But I dont think it justifies the prevalent hardline attitude this subforum had towards monetization for years because hey why not make $13, everyone here probably uses ad blocker anyway. I think most of those people left SA and now make money on Twitch.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
Mega64 posted:I think most of those people left SA and now make money on Twitch. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
here's the thing. i don't care how much production budget you put into your art, the paint companies put more of their time & energy into it or else you wouldn't make it the centerpiece of your painting. if you're good enough to be doing your own thing you don't need to be relying on someone else's art supplies for material and then you can make your own money fair and square. Lazy, exploitative artists not making their own paints from milk and flowers don't deserve recognition for their work. And while we're at it, if you're an "author" and you don't make your own pens out of feathers and squid in then your books should be burned. Edit: Andy Warhol is a thief and a literal child-eating monster. Jamesman fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:22
|
|
|
i mean real artists do save up for expensive quality paint to make the centerpiece of their painting because crayola washables don't tend to get the job done??? also it's a physical product so the sales model is very different.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:27
|
|
|
That's even worse! REAL artists should explain a picture from their imagination at $5 a pop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Are you actually conducting tests based on currently existing research using tools that've already been invented? You goddamn millennials can't create a single thing of value on your own! Get a real job like hiding in your room and espousing the dangers of soy and how it's reducing testosterone levels in men across the continent!
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
I can't really hold much of a grudge against professional let's players if people actually pay money for it in a world where you can legally obtain almost anything professionally made in the last twenty years pretty affordably. Billion dollar focus tested movies and TV shows aren't enough and people actually want to watch someone play a video game instead enough to pay for it - a lot of the time without the player actually having any admirable game skills or insight, just randomly bullshitting and yelling and getting interrupted by loud donation announcements. That says something. Not sure what.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:41
|
|
|
Hemingway To Go! posted:I can't really hold much of a grudge against professional let's players if people actually pay money for it in a world where you can legally obtain almost anything professionally made in the last twenty years pretty affordably. It's either a display of great skill at something and a chance at seeing a big achievement in competition (for esports and speedrunning) or a videogame-themed improv set with public interaction. For as weird as the concept of "watching videogames for fun" is, what it actually is isn't that outlandish. Plus it's not like quality ever dictated what we watch above all else, most people just gravitate towards easy stuff most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Hemingway To Go! posted:I can't really hold much of a grudge against professional let's players if people actually pay money for it in a world where you can legally obtain almost anything professionally made in the last twenty years pretty affordably. This is essentially the gist of it all, and more or less what I believe Suspicious meant. If people can make money off of this, then great. Then again, if people can find a dirt clod on the side of the road, and make money off of it because somebody else wants to buy it, then good for them too. Do I think it's pretty ignorant? Yes, sure. On both sides. But such is my opinion, and why I won't buy a dirt clod, or actively pay to watch somebody play a video game, certainly not Joe Blow recording out of his soundproofed bedroom spouting whatever bs he/she is. Some people DO want to pay for that, and more power to'em. The kicker of this whole thing, are people complaining about companies like Nintendo, or Google coming in and putting restrictions/wanting a cut, that they are LEGALLY ENTITLED to. It's not "fellating the billion dollar corporations", to say that John Doe LPer is kidding himself thinking he's legally entitled to keep Nintendo from chewing into "his profits". Because the way the laws are now, Nintendo IS able to do that. If people don't realize that by actually studying up on the laws regarding what they choose to make their "full time profession", and then act so surprised and offended when it happens, then they're just kidding themselves. It was bound to happen, and it won't stop here. Anywhere there is a chunk of money to be made, a Company would be foolish not to try and capitalize on it, and they are legally able to, considering it's profit being made with their material as a basis. If people want that to change, then they'll need to change the law, and good luck with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
I feel like most of the popular lpers are neither good at improv or gaming but I'm not super familiar with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 18:59
|
|
|
Hemingway To Go! posted:I feel like most of the popular lpers are neither good at improv or gaming but I'm not super familiar with them. I mean, being good at it doesn't matter, plenty of very popular comedians are what I'd call bad at comedy. They're still pretty much just doing off-the-cuff jokes based on the videogame and people watch because they think they're funny or interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:04
|
|
|
BMS posted:The kicker of this whole thing, are people complaining about companies like Nintendo, or Google coming in and putting restrictions/wanting a cut, that they are LEGALLY ENTITLED to. Nintendo wanting a cut of revenue from their games being LP'd is fine. The amount Nintendo wants is not as fine but whatever. Nintendo preventing you from streaming their games when you are part of their partner program is kinda weird and stupid. Nintendo claiming copyright on any instance of something resembling their games in any video, even ones that are textbook examples of Fair Use, is loving garbage and they can get hosed for their overreach. Google's "restrictions" are just laziness. People aren't losing revenue because actual people have determined that YouTube shall not be used to make money. The algorithms and overreactions to bad content have had significant impacts that are literally not supposed to be happening. All the automation is filled with countless examples of "This is not what should be happening" and it is also loving garbage and they can get hosed for their bad business.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:07
|
|
|
If you think the discussion is about thinking videogame companies shouldn't have any say on their content being LPed, I guess I wish I was back in 2014 too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
Jamesman posted:Nintendo wanting a cut of revenue from their games being LP'd is fine. The amount Nintendo wants is not as fine but whatever. Nintendo preventing you from streaming their games when you are part of their partner program is kinda weird and stupid. Nintendo claiming copyright on any instance of something resembling their games in any video, even ones that are textbook examples of Fair Use, is loving garbage and they can get hosed for their overreach. Weird and stupid, and them wanting whatever amount being not fine, but still also their prerogative. As for anything they are doing that is illegal, then one class action lawsuit later and....... oh wait, that hasn't happened with success.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
BMS posted:Weird and stupid, and them wanting whatever amount being not fine, but still also their prerogative. So what point are you trying to make here? That streaming is not A Real Job so when the system screws you over for no reason other than it being a mess you go get A Real Job like...I'unno, considering most of SA, playing with computers? Because most of the complaints aren't about not understanding basic copyright laws, they haven't been that for eons now. Streamers just kinda bowed their heads when Atlus restricted P5 footage because they know it's their prerrogative. On the other hand, a lot of their ad revenue issues have to do with a deeply flawed system that should be criticized because GOOGLE is making mad money off of it while a lot of content creators are stuck trying to understand arbitrary algorithm changes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
BMS posted:Weird and stupid, and them wanting whatever amount being not fine, but still also their prerogative. Yes. quote:As for anything they are doing that is illegal, then one class action lawsuit later and....... It's not because Nintendo is in the right. It's because people do not have the resources to beat a company like Nintendo in court, and it's less of an assache to let them gently caress you over than it is to fight them. Keep in mind we're not talking about Let's Plays in these instances. We're talking about people doing parody or criticisms/reviews that fall under Fair Use. Jim Sterling's Jimquisition videos are supposed to be ad-free, but if he so much as puts a second of Mario in them, Nintendo will flag it for copyright and run ads on the video. That is absolutely not right, but because of Google's dumb bullshit and because of the aforementioned assache, the best response for most people is to just let it happen (or in Jim's case, put as much poo poo in a video that will get flagged so none of them can get any money).
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Dias posted:So what point are you trying to make here? That streaming is not A Real Job so when the system screws you over for no reason other than it being a mess you go get A Real Job like...I'unno, considering most of SA, playing with computers? Because most of the complaints aren't about not understanding basic copyright laws, they haven't been that for eons now. Streamers just kinda bowed their heads when Atlus restricted P5 footage because they know it's their prerrogative. On the other hand, a lot of their ad revenue issues have to do with a deeply flawed system that should be criticized because GOOGLE is making mad money off of it while a lot of content creators are stuck trying to understand arbitrary algorithm changes. The point and the argument is that John Doe LPer is getting mad because "X Company" decided to legally take a bite out of what they were making. Not arguing that it's legal. Arguing that the people that didn't see it coming that these companies would start attempt to collect on this and then crying wolf SHOULD'VE seen it coming. Whether it's right or wrong is another issue entirely. Jamesman posted:It's not because Nintendo is in the right. It's because people do not have the resources to beat a company like Nintendo in court, and it's less of an assache to let them gently caress you over than it is to fight them. The Google bit, is something else entirely, and the examples that you mentioned ARE an issue, that needs to be corrected, was never saying anything to the contrary. If a company oversteps their bounds, then they need to have it racked on their rear end. And Google is notorious for "Set it and forget it" blanket policies, which often falsely accuse/bring down etc. etc. somebody that actually did nothing wrong. That needs to be changed absolutely. Never said differently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:32
|
|
|
Watching people play games is fun, especially games that I'm no good at (like Dark Souls). Watching lovely twitch streams that constantly interrupt is not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
BMS posted:The point and the argument is that John Doe LPer is getting mad because "X Company" decided to legally take a bite out of what they were making. Not arguing that it's legal. Arguing that the people that didn't see it coming that these companies would start attempt to collect on this and then crying wolf SHOULD'VE seen it coming. Whether it's right or wrong is another issue entirely. But that hasn't been the discussion for ages now!!! The complaints about the adpocalyse and poo poo are all based on Google's decisions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
Fair use only matters in the court for copyright disputes. It has nothing to do with when Google shows ads and who they hand money to. Google could show a preroll ad on a video about mattresses and hand the money off to Pewds if they wanted to and the mattress company can't really sue anybody??? Yes, YouTube confuses the issues by combining ContentID and Copyright Takedowns in their system. Yes, these platforms are nice right now and give you a sliver of money since it helps them attract more people to their platform. No, these platforms aren't advocates or supporters for you and they will gently caress you over and you can't really do anything. Back before there were broadcast rights for recordings and performance rights for music compositions, a lot of people made a lot of money by doing what we do now with video games. Then the people who made the music demanded stronger protection and now we have the RIAA. The same thing will almost definitely happen with video games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
ITT I conflate legal with right, but in a really overly verbose way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:Watching people play games is fun, especially games that I'm no good at (like Dark Souls). I agree, sometimes its nice to get an experience in a game that I can't get inULTRA COMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO oh wait a minute I'd like to thank luvs2spoog42069 for giving a 100 bit cheer, he says "I'll cut your throat and rape your daughter". Well thank you luvs2spoog69420. Anyways its a good way to expULTRA COMBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO another 100 bit cheer from luvs2spoog42069, he says "its 42069 not 69420 human being". Thank you very much for your donation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 20:22
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:Fair use only matters in the court for copyright disputes. It has nothing to do with when Google shows ads and who they hand money to. Google could show a preroll ad on a video about mattresses and hand the money off to Pewds if they wanted to and the mattress company can't really sue anybody??? A) other people are talking about an "ought" and you're talking about an "is", and talking about whether something is good or bad doesn't make any sense without an "ought" since you need to compare it to something that isn't B) your original post was bad because Google's increasing anti-outside-income-source policies will hit a lot more than just LPers, including a lot of legitimate and undeniably fair use content, and including content that doesn't even involve other media, produced by creators that also use Patreon or platforms like that, so saying it's good because LPers won't be able to make money is dumb irrespective of the copyright status of LPs Idran fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Nov 28, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
A buddy of mine is heavy deep into the crafts and home project corner of YouTube. Introduced her to Patron and now she's getting lunch drunk in a Discord livestreaming to soccer moms who pay 10bux a month to her skateboard inspired centerpieces and dog furniture. The lessons we learn in video games can be translated to other incredibly niche content creation processes. It is all dumb and fabulous.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
KirbyKhan posted:A buddy of mine is heavy deep into the crafts and home project corner of YouTube. Introduced her to Patron and now she's getting lunch drunk in a Discord livestreaming to soccer moms who pay 10bux a month to her skateboard inspired centerpieces and dog furniture. no but she shouldn't make money because LPs aren't fair use
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
Idran posted:no but she shouldn't make money because LPs aren't fair use She should get a real job if she wants to make money
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
KirbyKhan posted:A buddy of mine is heavy deep into the crafts and home project corner of YouTube. Introduced her to Patron and now she's getting lunch drunk in a Discord livestreaming to soccer moms who pay 10bux a month to her skateboard inspired centerpieces and dog furniture. The long tail is a beautiful thing. It gave us LPs and probably a ton of weird fetish porn sites.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Leal posted:She should get a real job if she wants to make money Her real job is "married a millionair". But yeah, LP monitization is a wierd thing. In a vacuum, it is dumb that it generates revenue. When you take a look at the slime video scene, you can see parallels. Millions of views that seem unexplainable, money coming from odd disposable place, and a constant churn of content that all seems to be retreads of the previous video. Maybe making money off other people's work is the new economy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
 I hope that people doing good work will continue finding ways to make it work, but the ongoing changes don't make me hopeful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
KirbyKhan posted:Maybe making money off other people's work is the new economy. People have been making money riffing on other people's work for as long as people have been around. Short of humanity doing some hard and fast evolution/societal changes, people will continue paying money for that sort of thing, alongside paying for good new creative content. The problem is more about how to handle the internet as a still-relatively brand new medium, along with managing
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 21:58
|
|
|
Making money off an LP is perfectly legitimate if you made the game or the game is creative commons or if your use of the game is fair use. Is just playing the game enough to consider it fair use? We all know what the LP'ers think, but is it accurate? Where is the line?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
The other weird thing is how varied LPs can tackle a game. There are LPs that alter/build stories around the games being covered, LPs that are in-depth critiques on the games being covered, LPs that involve modifications to games whether by the LPers themselves or by others, and so on. How do you begin to sort through all that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Someone mentioned MST3K a bit ago, and I would point out that MST3K was made possible because they contacted the film distributors and got permission to riff the films (which they also needed to do when they started selling them on DVD, which is why I think some episodes haven't made it to DVD yet). The workaround(?) RiffTrax found was just to make audio tracks for copyrighted works (as opposed to video from the public domain), and that enabled then to make riffs for movies like X-Men or Harry Potter. Personally, I always thought the "solution" to avoid getting copyright strikes was to LP or cover older games that have been forgotten or aren't really well-known. Nintendo will hit you with a demonetization claim if you put ads on a video of Super Mario Odyssey, but I highly doubt anyone will come after you if you make a video on something like Catacomb 3D, Gobliiins, Dungeon Hack, or, I dunno, Temüjin: A Supernatural Adventure?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Gimbal lock posted:Making money off an LP is perfectly legitimate if you made the game or the game is creative commons or if your use of the game is fair use. Is just playing the game enough to consider it fair use? We all know what the LP'ers think, but is it accurate? Where is the line? There isn't a line; fair use is a defense, not a category, and there is no solid bright line test for it. Outside a very, very vague description in law, it's based entirely on court precedent. The best you can do in terms of a test is compare a situation to past precedent to see what's similar and what isn't, and overall based on that precedent, a court probably wouldn't consider an LP fair use unless there was reason to think the content creator was okay with the specific instance the trial was about, or unless it was approaching a game from a critical or analytic perspective rather than just a straight recounting. But in terms of "what is fair use"? It comes down to if you can convince a judge something is fair use based on past judgments about what is and isn't fair use, then it's fair use.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 22:43
|
|
|
Gimbal lock posted:Is just playing the game enough to consider it fair use? No.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
What if you play the game at your local county fair?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 22:50
|
|
|
At the very least, monetizing should require the LP'er to mod a character into a toilet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Gimbal lock posted:At the very least, monetizing should require the LP'er to mod a character into a toilet. By that do you mean turn them into a toilet, or put their character model physically in a toilet like the hand in Majora's Mask?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
POOL IS CLOSED posted:These changes are also hurting more than just videogame nerds, so saying anyone negatively affecting is just lazy/a thief/stupid/mysterious vice x is shallowly-conceived response. yes, it is a suspicious dish post somewhat less flippantly, people are talking past each other a bit because suspicious dish is isolating one small part of this entire situation, generalizing it, and it loses its merit when taken out of the specific small part that it might have some traction on. let's play channels are not just playing video games for the internet for its own sake - these channels build communities. people, for whatever reason, decide they like the let's player, personally, and want to listen to him or her, personally. each of these communities is different. the community i've built around my channel so far is NOT the community that niggurath has built up with his, and neither of our communities are the same as the one POOL IS CLOSED has gathered through her own. there's sometimes overlap (discord is plenty to prove that there's some between my own and Jade Star's, for example), but they're not the same. if you look at a playlist on youtube as a single unit that people look at and it pays the content creator money, then yes, all of the murky legal issues regarding whose work is what done where and with what intensity come up. but that's NOT THE CASE. the reason big dogs make money isn't because they produce measurable units of culture and people consume said units of culture. they make money because they have built a community. how much of the money comes from monetizing the VIDEO versus monetizing the COMMUNITY? there's no simple answer. the $5/mo to support your favorite channels thing is an attempt to make that answer simpler (but not, in fact, plainly simple). so is patreon versus ads. there is definitely some level of monetizing the game itself since new releases get more hits etc - but someone's own ability to gather a community can't be disregarded. "social media manager" is an entire professional title whose ENTIRE JOB it is to gather, organize, and articulate a community. monetizing a long play is a pretty cut and dried point in suspicious dish's favor. but beyond that there is a lot of weird interactions going on and taking a hard-line stance on it is almost certainly an indication that the speaker has no idea what's going on. and to be clear: i'm not saying something one way or the other on the matter. i'm well aware of the fact that i am too dumb to render a reasonable view on the subject. what makes a lot more sense from the content creator's perspective is being honest about monetizing your established community and brand versus whatever specific content is being spat up. ads do not fit well in youtube's entire setup anyway since they are not structured. prerolls show up randomly and there's no telling if you're going to see them before clicking on something, so they feel like an interruption, and they show up unpredictably during a video where they can overwrite essential context or content. the nature of advertising is that it works fine, but only when it is done in a context that the viewer/listener/etc considers fair and predictable. facebook ads work. google text ads work. tv ads work(ed). youtube ads are in constant flux precisely because in their current form, they don't work. you needn't know a ton about the situation to figure out, however, that if something revenue-generating isn't working, they will continue to mess with it until it DOES work. until then, nothing is reliable there. anyway that's basically a lot of  to wind up to say that this is effectively a really hot and complicated argument that requires a lot of insight to be able to form a reasonably complete interpretation, and the fluid nature of the situation means that it's not worth attempting to interpret it. the screaming will go on, i'm sure (in this very topic, even, as many people ignore me entirely) but on the off chance someone is trying to find the happy medium here: please understand that there is none in its current state. this is a very complex issue that is constantly evolving, and what is reasonable or unreasonable will be affected by a ton of variables you cannot see or are not meant to see.unless you have a direct monetary interest in making sure this entire situation works, the only winning move is not to play. or in this case, post.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2017 23:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 20:16 |
|
|
i'd argue that the community aspect is less important than you make it out to be. if, for instance, you were kicked off of youtube, a small fraction of your viewers will follow. most will move onto someone else who's basically similar. we saw that happen with more prominent youtubers basically kicked off the platform and not many people followed them to blip.tv or gamertube or wherever people migrate to these days. maybe 5% will and those are the people that join the discord and 1% of those buy the t-shirt but your audience will still be smaller. people getting paid by a big company most notable for sucking the lifeforce and revenue out of journalism shouldn't expect the free ride to last forever. google can and will strongarm you. basically what i'm trying to say is ░░░░░███████ ]▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ Bob is building an army. ▂▄▅█████████▅▄▃▂ \☻ This tank & Bob are against Google+ Il███████████████████]... ▌\︻╦╤─ Copy and Paste this all over ◥⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙▲⊙◤.... / \ YouTube if you are with us
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2017 00:09
|
|