Topic: Phil Fish opens his mouth... Again.

Article link.
tl;dr Phil thinks that if you LP/cover someone's game on your youtube channel/whatever you should give him the money you generated. Thoughts?

"Update: After initially protecting his account so that his tweets could only be viewed by approved followers, it would now seem that Fish has deleted his Twitter account altogether."

...the guy is nuts. ...but we already knew that.

You seem a bit late to this news.

This is basically a similar situation how Nintendo is taking SOME money off of videos showcasing Nintendo's properties.

Personally, I'd say that they should take at least SOME money off a video. At least one eighth of the income. If you actually manage to read the credits in a game, it always says "(developer/publisher) is the author of this game for purpose of copyright". Also, Let's Plays aren't really "free advertising" if you're already getting paid no matter what.

I'm not really sure Lets Players deserve all the money they get. I could see the"taking money off of someone else's Ad Revenue" situation being an issue with gaming Webcomics such as Brawl in the Family, where that requires actual time and effort.

Lets Playing is just recording a game and putting commentary over it. Heck, even pornography takes more effort to make.

Who?

@CaviarMeths An egotistical idiot who thinks he's a god for developing ONE game, which is Fez.

I see.

Then the customary joke would be:
"Of course he opened his mouth again... Phil Fish has to open his mouth every time he breaths!"

http://instantrimshot.com/

Well on the basis dude has created one of the best puzzle plat forming games essentially by himself he wouldn't be an idiot. He may have a huge ego and you may not like hos opinions despite their being truth in them.

At the end of the day a lot of guys here were defending Nintendo when it came to the whole youtube controversy so it brings a lot of merit to the idea.

Well hope he doesn't think he'll get coverage if he makes a game then.

Didn't we superglue it shut yet?

And that happened from people hyping him up to much then hating on pretty much anything he does he might be a bit of a d**k but just look at how people treat him.

Thoughts about Phil as a person aside, he's being perfectly logical here. It doesn't make sense that people can make a killing off of a game playthrough without compensating the developer, whether it's an independent dev or a big brand. I doubt you could make a movie commentary then upload the entire thing and generate a profit without Hollywood bigwigs trying to take a chunk, why should it be different for a video game? I'm not saying I agree with copyright laws, but if we're going to have them we have to use them properly. Let's not forget, this is a discussion about rights as a developer, not whether or not you like Phil Fish...

He will still get a ton of coverage. You forget that moreso than other's this is an Industry where everyone sort of knows each other, and the current trend is too prop of the current indie game of the week. Just how last week everyone was high on Among the Skeep, and next week all yes are going to be on Shovel Knight, for better or worse Phil Fish has cultivated a similar persona to Johnathan Blow and his next game like the Witness will be on everyone's tweets, twitchs, and feeds.

Cant wait to see who calls him stupid here despite defending Nintendo for doing the same thing. Its funny how many people respond based on the person/company speaking and not actually what they're saying.

Regardless, he's wrong on this, and so is Nintendo. Hopefully they open their eyes with this whole YouTube thing soon, its only bringing them reduced sales/advertising and bad press.

Phil Fish annoys far far me less than Renegade Kid. (There again I am less exposed to the stuff Phil Fish says.)

They both use the same tactics though. (And make games that aren't even that good).

Are you referring to Jools Watsham? How is he considered annoying?

Why/how are they wrong? If it's wrong to compensate game developers, it should be equally as wrong to compensate movie or TV producers (which, by law, it isn't). Instead, full movies and TV shows are removed off of streaming websites, even if someone isn't making money off of the views. They straight up remove it if they're losing potential profits. Profits that currently do not, and might not ever, exist.

Games require input from the player; movies and TV don't. Its very obvious that for the most part the YouTubers who actually make money out of making Lets Plays do so because of their audience, not the game. You cant just do a Lets Play on YouTube and automatically make money unless you're already an established channel. Another big problem with it is that the YouTube video claiming system claims all videos which contain any content related to that claim. If someone is reviewing a game and puts a little bit of gameplay in the background just as a visual guide, do the developers deserve all the money for that video? If there is a 3 hour podcast that runs a 2 minute Nintendo ad to talk about it, do Nintendo deserve the revenue for that whole 3 hours (Yes this happened)? It doesn't matter what they deserve in those cases because they get it all as soon as they make the claim.

Even if the company thinks it is justified, claiming videos just means that YouTubers will play and advertise other games. YouTubers who actually get substantial numbers of views (and as such, revenue) don't make videos that will get claimed because they cant afford to. Claiming Videos simply means that in the long run people stop making good videos about your game, and the company loses advertising and sales.

tl:dr - Developers not getting a cut of YouTube video money is justified in my eyes, and even if it wasn't; claiming videos is only detrimental to the company in the long run anyway.

A lot of what I've said mirrors what's mentioned in the video @Kodeen posted, so watch that if you want a stronger argument on the matter.

But the thing is i feel like the publisher/developers should get a small cut from the revenue cause I know alot of people who didnt buy The Last Of Us cause they watch PewDiePie play through and people might not buy Xenoblades Cronicals X cause they watched a play through or something

Something stinks.... like Fish..... XD

I guess I should weigh in on this topic.

I liken the "Let's Plays & Ad Revenue" situation to craftsmen and their tools. A company (game developer) makes a presumably useful tool (video game). Craftsmen (Let's Players) buy the tool (video game) and attempt to do something with it (make a let's play). If the craftsmen (Let's Players) make a good thing (let's play) with the help of the tool (video game), that will encourage other craftsmen and maybe even ordinary folk (video game players) to buy that tool, meaning that the company (game developer) makes more money. If the craftsmen makes a good thing (let's play) in spite of the tool (video game), the mere association of the thing (let's play) with the tool (video game) may encourage craftsmen and ordinary folk (video game players) to buy the tool regardless of its quality. Unless the craftsmen actively berates the tool for no good reason, I don't see anyone losing in these scenarios.