-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Why are full video playthroughs of games with no commentary not considered piracy?
- Thread starter Executive Taxi
- Start date
Because you can separate the audio file and distribute that as is if you really wanted to. You can't stream the actual gameplay without including the various things developed by the game developers including but not limited to graphics, music, level designs, etc which are generally copyrighted. I mean I guess you could make a list of player inputs and distribute that but... Nobody does that.
I imagine the analogy to movies would be commentary tracks, you can upload those as a video file to be played alongside the movie and there is nothing anyone can do about it, but if you upload the video file of your audio and the actual film the last jedi at the same time, just with you speaking over it, Disney will be on your ass like that.
Oh its tolerated and if a pub or developer doesn't care, i agree, why not do it.
It's still a copyright issue though and if a dev or pub chose to make an issue out of it, they wouldn't have a problem doing it as we've seen many times before.
Ohhhh imagine watching such a thing.... I would rather spend $50 on the movie.
Because a video of a game is like a written plot synopsis of a movie. It isn't the full experience.
If someone uploads the script of a movie to pastebin, is it piracy if I read it? Insane proposition right? Because what is a movie without the moving bits and the audio. Same goes for games. What is a game without interaction. Even "walking sims" are less engaging when you are not the one walking.
I actually support these videos because you get an unadulterated preserved look at them without some Youtuber screaming all the time ("""""adding value by transforming it""""""). Game companies do not care about preservation so its up to emulation and documentation communities of these games to built a library. So in 50 years, when there is barely a reasonable way of playing Yakuza 6, I can still see and hear what the game was about, even though I'll never get to play it myself.
Even the most linear of games have choices for the player. Just moving the camera and focusing on things that YOU find important is an engaging aspect of games.
I actually support these videos because you get an unadulterated preserved look at them without some Youtuber screaming all the time ("""""adding value by transforming it""""""). Game companies do not care about preservation so its up to emulation and documentation communities of these games to built a library. So in 50 years, when there is barely a reasonable way of playing Yakuza 6, I can still see and hear what the game was about, even though I'll never get to play it myself.
Even the most linear of games have choices for the player. Just moving the camera and focusing on things that YOU find important is an engaging aspect of games.
Not when heavy story games are broadcasted and people watch just to say "they know about the game". That they didn't want to pay for it or the console. Sounds like piracy.
Also people here have bragged they do this, come into the games OT and post as if they have played it. Though most will not admit it because they know they will get backlash.
Unfortunate side of broadcast function.
I said fully experienced. From your description it does not sound like it would be fully experienced by just watching then so what's the harm in streaming it.
Ah yes. I like when i go to the movies, and random people talk over the movie as we're watching. Really adds to the value of the experience.
The "transforming the content" argument is so BS in my mind. That should only apply when the content you are "transforming" isn't paid. But in this case, you are transforming paid content into unpaid content by adding your annoying voice to it? Yeah, that seems like copyright infringement to me.
Anyway, my point is it's infringement either way. Piracy is a different beast altogether. Infringement has the uploaded being at fault, and with piracy the end user is.
Anyway, my point is it's infringement either way. Piracy is a different beast altogether. Infringement has the uploaded being at fault, and with piracy the end user is.
It really depends on the game. A video of a story driven game with cutscenes I would consider infringement whereas a play through of tetris I wouldnt. Adding commentary could be considered transformative which then allows for fair use. Simply playing the game isn't transformative because how else are you supposed to experience the content of the game without playing it.
Why would anyone do that?? That's so weird.
And why would they get a backlash?? Seems like you would get burned more from admitting that you haven't played a game than claiming that you've played it just like everyone else. Unless you go there just to say it's the worst game ever of course, but that's messed up.
At the end of the day, it's blatantly not piracy. Not even close and I'm sure its the wrong term to use when discussing this topic anyway.
Isn't them playing the game "adding their own content"?
One is the interactivity. Outside of Telltale games, most games have, like, variance and strategy to their gameplay. You aren't watching a movie, you're watching a specific performance of a gameplay system. The person you're watching might handle equipment differently, or they may take out enemies in a different order, they might take damage accidentally in a place where not everybody does, etc.
Two, even with commentary, the viewership drops off pretty hard after, say, the first episode. Let's take for example Game Grumps playing through The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. They've been posting one episode of that daily (give or take).
Episode 1 received over one million views. By Episode 5, that number dropped to 500k. The latest episodes are barely passing 150k. So already, we're talking one fifth of their audience even watched that first video, and 44 episodes in, they've lost roughly 90% of their viewership. The number of people who watch an entire game all the way to completion is a lot lower than you think.
And those numbers are even worse when you subtract commentary from that equation.
I have my own Youtube channel, about to pass a very modest 19k subscribers, and a few years ago I put up a five-hour video of the Xbox 360 SSX game (it was an impromptu stream and I didn't intend on doing the whole game in a single sitting, but that's how it worked out). I can tell you definitively by looking at my Youtube analytics for that video that most people who find it usually stick around for the first 10 minutes and then click around to later parts of the video before bailing out entirely.
This is one of those things where by the letter of the law it's probably illegal (after all, game discs still say "unauthorized performance or broadcast is in violation of applicable laws"), but the amount of effort to put a stop to it greatly outweighs whatever minor benefits they get from what is essentially free advertising.
Two, even with commentary, the viewership drops off pretty hard after, say, the first episode. Let's take for example Game Grumps playing through The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. They've been posting one episode of that daily (give or take).
Episode 1 received over one million views. By Episode 5, that number dropped to 500k. The latest episodes are barely passing 150k. So already, we're talking one fifth of their audience even watched that first video, and 44 episodes in, they've lost roughly 90% of their viewership. The number of people who watch an entire game all the way to completion is a lot lower than you think.
And those numbers are even worse when you subtract commentary from that equation.
I have my own Youtube channel, about to pass a very modest 19k subscribers, and a few years ago I put up a five-hour video of the Xbox 360 SSX game (it was an impromptu stream and I didn't intend on doing the whole game in a single sitting, but that's how it worked out). I can tell you definitively by looking at my Youtube analytics for that video that most people who find it usually stick around for the first 10 minutes and then click around to later parts of the video before bailing out entirely.
This is one of those things where by the letter of the law it's probably illegal (after all, game discs still say "unauthorized performance or broadcast is in violation of applicable laws"), but the amount of effort to put a stop to it greatly outweighs whatever minor benefits they get from what is essentially free advertising.
Just because a person watches a youtube play through of a game doesnt mean they were gonna buy it before. Ive watched a handful of telltale games on youtube. Not once was I interested in buying the game before watching. If anything, watching tales of borderlands is what made me want to buy it.
Same here. If I'm interested in seeing parts of a game being played I seek out no commentary play throughs. It's 90% screaming/exaggerated reactions and 10% talking for the sake of talking.
Because you cant play the game.
OP probably talking about the short walking simulator kind of games that are linear like Fiewatch, but the Firewatch devs was ok with ppl streaming the game. It works as advertizement more than anything else. Even linear games offer interactions that u dont experience as being only the expectator.
OP probably talking about the short walking simulator kind of games that are linear like Fiewatch, but the Firewatch devs was ok with ppl streaming the game. It works as advertizement more than anything else. Even linear games offer interactions that u dont experience as being only the expectator.
Are PSN/XBL/Switch promoting piracy when you can post straight video of the game you were playing to Twitter/Facebook/Youtube from your console? How can they be so hypocritical to be anti-piracy but pro-user content?
At the same time, to be entirely fair, there are a number of games I was gonna buy then watched an LP and felt like I got all I wanted out of it(the story).
-Telltale games in general
-Last of Us(it's a good game I got it for free when I bought a ps4 years later, but the gameplay isn't really my thing so it's a 'play it for the story' thing for me)
And a lot of others. I've definitely gone from "Oh yeah I want that game" to "Ehhh I already saw an LP" before.
I don't think LPs/video walkthroughs are piracy, by the way, but I do genuinely think that some people lose their interest in a game because of LPs. This is probably balanced out by even more people getting an interest because of LPs but I don't think it's unreasonable to assume some people don't want to buy them anymore because of it.
The difference is you have to have permission by the copyright holder to stream a performance of it, and that stream is almost never free for anyone to see. In operas after copyright, for example, you wouldn't be allowed to put a personal phone recording of that performance on the internet for all to see, even though you bought the music and bought the permission to perform it in that space. Putting a recording out there would require an additional contract, meaning more money to the copyright holder.
I dont think its piracy persay but it is/should be by law a copyright infringement as it counts as public performance and transmission.
Look at the print on game disks.
Read the fine print on the disk.
This basically makes it the same things, and a lot of people does that, even outside emulators, that's how replay sharing works in a lot of games.
The point of interest in a commentated video is the commentary while in an uncommentated one it's the gameplay. Of course developers can try to claim copy rights on both, but there really is no difference between commentated gameplay videos and gameplay only videos unless it's a cutscene.
Probably the same reason basketball manufacturers don't get bent out of shape at people watching other people play basketball.
If it was illegal, it would be pretty stupid to include functionality in the consoles that let you record and stream gameplay.
The only value I get out of playthrough videos is the gameplay. I usually mute them.
Its really up to the publisher to decide if this type of content violates their rights, but I think many see it as free marketing rather than a stolen opportunity. Games are made up be played, and games want to play them. For most people, watching a game be played isn't going to be a substitute for experiencing for oneself.
My issue is more with the people that get games before the actual release date and stream it, opening up spoilers for everyone to spread before the game is even out. Those people should be banned from streaming.
I have to imagine publisher analysis has concluded that the benefit of it as marketing outweighs the potential cost of lost sales. People who see it and think 'that looks like fun' and buy it > People who would buy it if they couldn't watch it.
It isn't like a movie where you can get the whole of the experience watching it.
It isn't like a movie where you can get the whole of the experience watching it.
In a forum full of absurdly reductionist takes, I nominate yours, good sir, as the worst of them all. This is by far the laziest and most intellectually bankrupt thread i've come across in many a days.
OP
OP