Phil Fish: YouTubers need to give a huge cut to devs

#101 Edited by Pffrbt (6553 posts) -

@sSubZerOo said:

Meanwhile, the youtuber is more or less advertising their game.. Many games I would have never known existed or knew it were good if I hadn't seen it on youtube.. The door goes both ways, and seeing as these developers and publishers are exploding with money.. With each project getting bigger and bigger, I would like to tell Phil to fvck off.

This. Plus the fact that watching a game is in no way the same as actually playing it, making the comparison to movies not work at all. Phil Fish is such a stupid drama queen. Man I regret buying Fez. I bought a shitty game and supported this moron.

#102 Edited by illmatic87 (15215 posts) -

Play Fez. It's great and better than alot of games made by sane people.

I love this guy. He's fucking hilarious; a tortured genius. The videogame industry needs our own Kanye West.

#103 Edited by AcidTango (569 posts) -

I hoping that he would never talk again ever since he left the industry.

#104 Posted by Sword-Demon (6970 posts) -

I can understand his feelings. If I created something and some random guy made a ton of money by showing it on youtube while I didn't see a cent of it, I'd be a little upset.

Overall, I think devs should get a small cut of those profits. Not a huge portion like Fish is suggesting, but certainly not nothing.

But comparing it to piracy and streaming movies is just stupid.

#105 Posted by Roler42 (705 posts) -

Play Fez. It's great and better than alot of games made by sane people.

I love this guy. He's fucking hilarious; a tortured genius. The videogame industry needs our own Kanye West.

With due respect but no... Less Phil Fish, more Ed McMillen, Noogy or supergiant games, we need game developers, not divas

#106 Edited by finalstar2007 (25094 posts) -

I kind of agree with him.

Developers should get some sort of a small portion of the revenue since they made the games while the YouTubers get the bigger portion ( since YouTubers actually spend a lot of time and energy creating these videos, some post an entire walkthrough of a game or an entire trophy walkthrough and those things take a lot of time! ) same thing with developers they spend a lot of time and energy making these games so maybe 10% goes to the developers? some sort of a small portion i think should indeed go for the developers.

#107 Edited by ChronosChris (240 posts) -

I'll just leave this right here. Truer words were never spoken.

#108 Edited by Bigboi500 (29639 posts) -

He must live a miserable existence always being around himself 24/7.

#109 Edited by D4RKL1NG (234 posts) -

Watching somebody play a game is not the same as playing the game yourself.

Yup. Watching p0rn is not the same as sticking it to an actual babe.

#110 Edited by ReadingRainbow4 (13842 posts) -

He's so going to kill himself.

#111 Posted by darkspineslayer (19627 posts) -

I legit feel bad that I ever bought Fez on PSN.

#112 Posted by bezza2011 (2416 posts) -

What an idiot,

end of the day YouTubers are doing them a favour by giving them free advertisement, games are nothing like films, there interactive, if you see a movie online then your done with it, but if you see a game, then sometimes that might persuade someone to buy the game fully to play it. all he bothered about it seems is money.

#113 Posted by R3FURBISHED (10503 posts) -

Probably looking for an excuse not to finish it,. As this generation is full of self entitled lazy little shits unwilling to put in graft.

Can you imagine an asshole like this working on a oil rig 12 hours a day?

And you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about, per the norm. Oil rig? What?!

The hate that was thrown at Phil Fish was disgusting and unwarranted. Death threats for delaying a game?

#114 Posted by R4gn4r0k (16460 posts) -

Ugh, sometimes I just wished that nobody gave a fuck about Fez.

Than nobody would give a fuck about this guy either, because that's all he did: he made one game.

And after that it's been nothing but crying:

"I should ask 99 dollars for Fez, and I can"

"Buying Fez on a sale is the same as stealing it"

"People don't take me seriously :'(

"Systems are in place to prevent that. But buy Fez, put ALL of it on YouTube, turn on ads, make money from it and that's TOTALLY FINE."

"Leave Britney alone :'("

#115 Edited by AdrianWerner (28021 posts) -

Bullshit. If Phil Fish wants the cut he can easily get it by claiming copyright. He's free to do so. The only reason why he doesn't is because video creators are also free to ignore games made by devs who do things like this.

#116 Posted by illmatic87 (15215 posts) -

@roler42 said:

@illmatic87 said:

Play Fez. It's great and better than alot of games made by sane people.

I love this guy. He's fucking hilarious; a tortured genius. The videogame industry needs our own Kanye West.

With due respect but no... Less Phil Fish, more Ed McMillen, Noogy or supergiant games, we need game developers, not divas

Phil Fish is a game developer. He made a great game called Fez.

Him being a hilarious diva that freely runs his mouth is a bonus.

#117 Posted by Gaming-Planet (14021 posts) -

He really likes to make a fool out of himself.

#118 Posted by Jeager_Titan (947 posts) -

Lol someone is salty hearing pewds earns 4 mils a year.

#119 Edited by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

Way late to this but it's a tricky topic. A movie is the exact same every time you watch it, it never changes. Same goes for music. Comparing it to a game is completely stupid, no 2 people play the same game the exct same way for the same amount of time as each other

Also if Phil doesn't like videos of his games then he's free to get them taken down. There's nothing stopping him doing that but he doesn't want to, he wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He knows youtube videos were attributed to some success of his game and increased sales. But he wanted a cut of all that ad revenue pie too.

The thing is it goes both ways then, if I do a video on your game and someone buys it because of my video then you should pay ME for advertising it like you would pay any advertiser.

#120 Posted by HalcyonScarlet (4237 posts) -

lol what a nob. A video game is about as useful as a chocolate tea pot without the controller in your hand,

#121 Posted by coasterguy65 (5929 posts) -

I though he left the industry...why won't they just leave? (the same goes for people who claim to be leaving Gamespot)

#122 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17492 posts) -

He's right. He's 100% right.

#123 Posted by Animal-Mother (26778 posts) -

@lawlessx said:

isn't this the guy that cried his way out of the gaming industry?

Yup like a big cry baby.

Looks like he forgot to call the whambulance

#124 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17492 posts) -

Way late to this but it's a tricky topic. A movie is the exact same every time you watch it, it never changes. Same goes for music. Comparing it to a game is completely stupid, no 2 people play the same game the exct same way for the same amount of time as each other

Also if Phil doesn't like videos of his games then he's free to get them taken down. There's nothing stopping him doing that but he doesn't want to, he wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He knows youtube videos were attributed to some success of his game and increased sales. But he wanted a cut of all that ad revenue pie too.

The thing is it goes both ways then, if I do a video on your game and someone buys it because of my video then you should pay ME for advertising it like you would pay any advertiser.

These sort of things work both ways, the artist gets free attention, and the critic gets attention for his review. It's a symbiotic relationship.

But he's right about people streaming entire games. I doubt that leads to sales when people can just view all the scenes they want and then don't have to purchase the game.

#125 Posted by good_sk8er7 (4321 posts) -

That dude is a proper moron.

God, I remember when he was going on about VR. "It should be like discovering new things, you know, like when you do acid.."

I will be discovering new things this weekend :D

#126 Posted by freedomfreak (40053 posts) -

I will be discovering new things this weekend :D

Just make sure there will be at least one person with you that has already done it :p

#127 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

Way late to this but it's a tricky topic. A movie is the exact same every time you watch it, it never changes. Same goes for music. Comparing it to a game is completely stupid, no 2 people play the same game the exct same way for the same amount of time as each other

Also if Phil doesn't like videos of his games then he's free to get them taken down. There's nothing stopping him doing that but he doesn't want to, he wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He knows youtube videos were attributed to some success of his game and increased sales. But he wanted a cut of all that ad revenue pie too.

The thing is it goes both ways then, if I do a video on your game and someone buys it because of my video then you should pay ME for advertising it like you would pay any advertiser.

These sort of things work both ways, the artist gets free attention, and the critic gets attention for his review. It's a symbiotic relationship.

But he's right about people streaming entire games. I doubt that leads to sales when people can just view all the scenes they want and then don't have to purchase the game.

It can have that effect but it's usually more positive than negative. I've had countless people come to me saying they bought a game (that hadn't sold properly since it released in 2007) because of videos I made. A game that wouldn't have sold many more copies recently had it not been for youtubers videos.

The problem is when publishers and devs see how much money certain youtubers make in a year (the recent PewDiePie articles) and they then want a slice of the action.

#128 Posted by good_sk8er7 (4321 posts) -

@good_sk8er7 said:

I will be discovering new things this weekend :D

Just make sure there will be at least one person with you that has already done it :p

Got it covered :)

#129 Posted by parkurtommo (26776 posts) -

This is pretty much what should be happening, but unfortunately gamers don't seem to realise that developers are actual people that deserve money for what they do. Most "Let's Play" people just sit around playing games and making commentary, AND THEY GET PAID FOR THIS. Seriously, this wasn't possible a decade ago. The only effort being made by let's players is trying to be amusing when they are speaking. Meanwhile they're showcasing content that belongs to others.

It's pretty hard to make a decision though. I personally love watching Game Grumps, but at the same time I know that using other peoples content to make your own can be very unfair unless you add a SIGNIFICANT amount of input yourself.

It's just another one of those legally grey areas, almost like piracy, It wouldn't make sense to completely enforce equality on the internet.

#130 Posted by freedomfreak (40053 posts) -

Got it covered :)

Good, good. Just chill and have a good time, and you'll be blown away by how cool it can be.

#131 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (17492 posts) -

@Bread_or_Decide said:

@seanmcloughlin said:

Way late to this but it's a tricky topic. A movie is the exact same every time you watch it, it never changes. Same goes for music. Comparing it to a game is completely stupid, no 2 people play the same game the exct same way for the same amount of time as each other

Also if Phil doesn't like videos of his games then he's free to get them taken down. There's nothing stopping him doing that but he doesn't want to, he wants his cake and wants to eat it too. He knows youtube videos were attributed to some success of his game and increased sales. But he wanted a cut of all that ad revenue pie too.

The thing is it goes both ways then, if I do a video on your game and someone buys it because of my video then you should pay ME for advertising it like you would pay any advertiser.

These sort of things work both ways, the artist gets free attention, and the critic gets attention for his review. It's a symbiotic relationship.

But he's right about people streaming entire games. I doubt that leads to sales when people can just view all the scenes they want and then don't have to purchase the game.

It can have that effect but it's usually more positive than negative. I've had countless people come to me saying they bought a game (that hadn't sold properly since it released in 2007) because of videos I made. A game that wouldn't have sold many more copies recently had it not been for youtubers videos.

The problem is when publishers and devs see how much money certain youtubers make in a year (the recent PewDiePie articles) and they then want a slice of the action.

Showcasing a game, or reviewing it is one thing. Playing every minute of the game is another. I'm against showing the ENTIRE game. That is pretty close to putting a whole movie on youtube.

#132 Edited by Bread_or_Decide (17492 posts) -

@parkurtommo said:

This is pretty much what should be happening, but unfortunately gamers don't seem to realise that developers are actual people that deserve money for what they do. Most "Let's Play" people just sit around playing games and making commentary, AND THEY GET PAID FOR THIS. Seriously, this wasn't possible a decade ago. The only effort being made by let's players is trying to be amusing when they are speaking. Meanwhile they're showcasing content that belongs to others.

It's pretty hard to make a decision though. I personally love watching Game Grumps, but at the same time I know that using other peoples content to make your own can be very unfair unless you add a SIGNIFICANT amount of input yourself.

It's just another one of those legally grey areas, almost like piracy, It wouldn't make sense to completely enforce equality on the internet.

Put up an entire Game of Thrones episode on Youtube with commentary. Watch how fast HBO takes it down. Commentary on top of copy righted content isn't enough to make it your own.

#133 Posted by parkurtommo (26776 posts) -

@Pffrbt: Lol except Fez is a good game. Don't pay attention to developer's dramas, it's their product that really matters for you as a consumer. And this guy's game is really good regardless of his shitty decisions in life.

#134 Edited by parkurtommo (26776 posts) -

@Bread_or_Decide: A show and a video game is different though. When playing a game not only is the player talking but also showing their decisions and input in the footage itself (making said footage unique). But yes this doesn't make the content their own.

#135 Edited by Bread_or_Decide (17492 posts) -

I think anyone who is an artist, musician, writer, game designer or anyone else who creates art in this age feels that somehow there is this entitlement to their art. Everything must be free. Why? Just because. Because why? Well why not? Free to play. Free to start. Free books. Free music. Art must be free they say. I wonder how all these people would survive if all the artists suddenly decided to stop creating.

I'm a writer so I take this topic to heart. If someone took my book and read it out loud for free on youtube or distributed the words for free and got paid for it I'd be miffed.

Proper miffed.

#136 Posted by drinkerofjuice (3183 posts) -

I'd take this subject a bit more seriously if it wasn't Phil Fish bringing it up. Seriously, fuck that guy.

#137 Edited by ActicEdge (24464 posts) -
@cainetao11 said:

@ActicEdge said:

Just because you watch a let's play, doesn't mean someone was gonna buy your game. That's a HUGE leap in logic. Also, the commentary makes the Let's Play, no one watches those with shitty uninteresting people narrating.

But would they watch a black screen with Just the narration of someone playing?

No but then, I wouldn't even bother with the game in question in the first place/ When I go to youtube, the intention is almost 100% to watch an actual video. Unless it's music there is literally no one that hops on youtube to not get an audio "wisual" experience so the whole point you're making is irrelevant. The amount of editing, retakes, cut, time investment and equipment necessary to create successful "Lets Play" video is significant. If the argument is that someone owns the original IP that is fine but I don't think that supersedes the fact that the draw to the video is largely the internet personality playing through the game in a way that viewers enjoy.

The argument to me has nothing to do with who own the IP. If I buy a baseball bat and make a really sick youtube video and get 100 million views with it, the creator of the bat doesn't get money just because I monetized their product. The bat wasn't the main reason the money was made, "everything else was". In the era of youtube where there is 1000s of ways to consume gameplay for 1000s of games,I find it hard to believe people think the draw of a Let's Play isn't the personality..

#138 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

Showcasing a game, or reviewing it is one thing. Playing every minute of the game is another. I'm against showing the ENTIRE game. That is pretty close to putting a whole movie on youtube.

Certain games I'd agree. Like a puzzle game, once you see how it's done then playing it yourself isn't much different

Something like Dark Souls however is completely different every single time you play

#139 Edited by ActicEdge (24464 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@Bread_or_Decide said:

Showcasing a game, or reviewing it is one thing. Playing every minute of the game is another. I'm against showing the ENTIRE game. That is pretty close to putting a whole movie on youtube.

Certain games I'd agree. Like a puzzle game, once you see how it's done then playing it yourself isn't much different

Something like Dark Souls however is completely different every single time you play

Does it matter though? The viewer can decide if he or she wants to see the solution to the puzzle. This whole argument hedges on the fact that people watch the video in the first place. If I as a user want to "watch" a 40 hour game being played with commentary that speaks to the demand for video game content with an interesting mix of commentary and gameplay. The whole draw to a movie is watching it. If you can watch it on youtube without paying money that;s entirely different to a game. A game hedges on playing it. If the gamer doesn't play it they aren't getting the full experience that was envisioned. It doesn't really matter whether the game s story driven or not. Playing it is the entire point.If the viewer had no intention to ever "play" the game in the first place, no money is ever going to be lost.

On top of this, the delivery system is entirely different. I can watch a movie on youtube and get the full extent of the movie. I can watch a let's play on youtube and not even own the system necessary to play it.

#140 Posted by KittenNose (473 posts) -

I think anyone who is an artist, musician, writer, game designer or anyone else who creates art in this age feels that somehow there is this entitlement to their art. Everything must be free. Why? Just because. Because why? Well why not? Free to play. Free to start. Free books. Free music. Art must be free they say. I wonder how all these people would survive if all the artists suddenly decided to stop creating.

I'm a writer so I take this topic to heart. If someone took my book and read it out loud for free on youtube or distributed the words for free and got paid for it I'd be miffed.

Proper miffed.

The question isn't if everyone is entitled to your art. If you want to sit in your basement, make all the art in the world, and share it with no one then you are entitled to do so. If however you throw it out into the world and expect everyone entertained by it to throw money your way, you are going to be disappointed.

That said, you are not talking about art. Art isn't ruined because everyone in the world got to experience it without buying a ticket. The term for labors that fall apart under such conditions is investment.

#141 Posted by blue_hazy_basic (27552 posts) -

I'd take this subject a bit more seriously if it wasn't Phil Fish bringing it up. Seriously, fuck that guy.

Came hear to say almost exactly this. Well put sir.

I'm a huge proponent of indie games but Phil Fish is smega.

#142 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@drinkerofjuice said:

I'd take this subject a bit more seriously if it wasn't Phil Fish bringing it up. Seriously, fuck that guy.

Came hear to say almost exactly this. Well put sir.

I'm a huge proponent of indie games but Phil Fish is smega.

Phil Fish has said some really dumb things for sure but after watching this video I'm not sure if a lot of it is truly as justified as it is.After watching it I was like "why DO I hate him?"

#143 Posted by darkspineslayer (19627 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin: Dude. 500K. That's nuts. I can't imagine that many people thinking i'm worth their time enough to be in their sub box.

#144 Edited by cainetao11 (17352 posts) -

@ActicEdge said:
@cainetao11 said:

@ActicEdge said:

Just because you watch a let's play, doesn't mean someone was gonna buy your game. That's a HUGE leap in logic. Also, the commentary makes the Let's Play, no one watches those with shitty uninteresting people narrating.

But would they watch a black screen with Just the narration of someone playing?

No but then, I wouldn't even bother with the game in question in the first place/ When I go to youtube, the intention is almost 100% to watch an actual video. Unless it's music there is literally no one that hops on youtube to not get an audio "wisual" experience so the whole point you're making is irrelevant. The amount of editing, retakes, cut, time investment and equipment necessary to create successful "Lets Play" video is significant. If the argument is that someone owns the original IP that is fine but I don't think that supersedes the fact that the draw to the video is largely the internet personality playing through the game in a way that viewers enjoy.

The argument to me has nothing to do with who own the IP. If I buy a baseball bat and make a really sick youtube video and get 100 million views with it, the creator of the bat doesn't get money just because I monetized their product. The bat wasn't the main reason the money was made, "everything else was". In the era of youtube where there is 1000s of ways to consume gameplay for 1000s of games,I find it hard to believe people think the draw of a Let's Play isn't the personality..

I wasn't trying to make a point. I was just having a laugh. Lighten up Francis.

But comparing baseball bat, which hasn't changed with video games, a product that tries to ensure they are different from the other is fail. I bet there are people that do in fact watch just to see the game. God knows the people aren't that entertaining

#145 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin: Dude. 500K. That's nuts. I can't imagine that many people thinking i'm worth their time enough to be in their sub box.

haha yeah it's pretty damn crazy. Only thing is people get FAR more demanding and backseat game constantly

#146 Edited by darkspineslayer (19627 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@darkspineslayer said:

@seanmcloughlin: Dude. 500K. That's nuts. I can't imagine that many people thinking i'm worth their time enough to be in their sub box.

haha yeah it's pretty damn crazy. Only thing is people get FAR more demanding and backseat game constantly

Any big plans for that million mark? gonna do that draw my life? Maybe a channel shoutout of your own?

#147 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38216 posts) -

@seanmcloughlin said:

@darkspineslayer said:

@seanmcloughlin: Dude. 500K. That's nuts. I can't imagine that many people thinking i'm worth their time enough to be in their sub box.

haha yeah it's pretty damn crazy. Only thing is people get FAR more demanding and backseat game constantly

Any big plans for that million mark? gonna do that draw my life? Maybe a channel shoutout of your own?

I was thinking of a DML. People keep asking for it and I've got plenty of time to prepare now lol

#148 Posted by cainetao11 (17352 posts) -

Play Fez. It's great and better than alot of games made by sane people.

I love this guy. He's fucking hilarious; a tortured genius. The videogame industry needs our own Kanye West.

LOL great analogy but I cant call West genius.

#149 Edited by Terrencec06 (3511 posts) -

@amazonangry said:

I agree with him.

I can agree with him too but I can also say that developers wouldn't even get the money if other gamers didn't watch these channels online and end up buying the games themselves.

I wouldn't have been interested in the Batman games until I watched a few parts of a walkthrough and liked what I saw and ended up buying the game myself hence giving the developer money.

agreed

#150 Posted by ActicEdge (24464 posts) -

I wasn't trying to make a point. I was just having a laugh. Lighten up Francis.

But comparing baseball bat, which hasn't changed with video games, a product that tries to ensure they are different from the other is fail. I bet there are people that do in fact watch just to see the game. God knows the people aren't that entertaining

Sometimes I feel like people think I'm more serious than I am :P

I'm just enjoying the discussion. The baseball bat was just an off the top example, I know it's flawed for a bunch of reasons. I don't watch Let's Plays because I don't really care for the commentary but I don't think PewPieDie rakes 4 million in revenue just because of the games he plays. It's 100% the commentary.