New Youtube policy forces A LOT of game play related videos to go away

Nody

Basically YT pulls anything that's more then 10s long of game play or part of the official trailer, anything boss or clip related automatically AND to spice it up forces 100% pre review by YT of all video content.

This means no Let's play series, this means no trailers can be shown, no in game photo of playing the games etc. But instead of me talking about I'll drop a few of the people I follow to explain this in detail and the impact it will have.

Myrddin

Nody wrote: »

Basically YT pulls anything that's more then 10s long of game play or part of the official trailer, anything boss or clip related automatically

As I understand it, the content isn't pulled, it's that it gets 'claimed' & can't be monetized...or maybe I have it wrong?

ShadowHearth

Well their own fault. I bet there are other sites who will gladly take all that yummy cash elsewhere.
Video game content was one of the strongest YouTube parts.

Nody

Myrddin wrote: »

As I understand it, the content isn't pulled, it's that it gets 'claimed' & can't be monetized...or maybe I have it wrong?

Copyright infriction is what will cause them to not be monetized which will most likely lead to being pulled completly (it's simply done in two steps by YT rather then asking the publisher to do it in one).

Manach

My understanding of copyright is there is an exception for fair use, which is what showing the clips are. Besides which, these are a form of publiclity for the game owners so it would be hopefully counter-inituative to pull them.

ktulu123

I see most of Force's content ID Claims are from Blizzard games. Thankfully they have been all over twitter telling guys to dispute the claims so they can solve it. As he said the most hit with this will be the "Let's Play" guys. Which is a shame, I've never been into it myself but its a huge part of gaming content on YouTube. Thankfully pretty much all of my videos are grand

Nody

Manach wrote: »

My understanding of copyright is there is an exception for fair use, which is what showing the clips are. Besides which, these are a form of publiclity for the game owners so it would be hopefully counter-inituative to pull them.

Force touched on this; 5 to 10s appears to be the limit applied by YT for showing direct content (i.e. trailer, game play etc.).

Doctor DooM

Just to point out there is multiple issues going on at the same time here.

1) Content ID sweep preventing people from monetising their videos.

2) Future copyright checks preventing videos from going up or delaying them.

It puts youtube content providers in a difficult position.

It's come to light that companies that do not WANT this to happen are getting claims too (Capcom, in my case).

GarIT

Forced Google+ membership, now this, I can see a lot of gamers using other sites soon.

SmurfX

The steady corporate creep of policies was always inevitable when google took over and it seems to have escalated fairly consistently through the years.

I personally think the monetisation of that sort of content is wrong and it would only benefit the quality of gaming channels if it was restricted to those with a genuine passion in the field rather than those who see it as a business opportunity. There's an awful lot of sob stories these days from youtube "personalities" afraid of losing their livelihood which is irritating considering youtube in its prime was filled with people purely delighted to have any sort of audience they could contribute to.

If it escalates beyond that to the point where Lets plays or gameplay footage are routinely pulled when not monetised then its a regrettable decision for games companies to go down that route. It would be on a company by company basis though and you'd imagine there'd be a good deal of backlash towards those that are doing it.

SmurfX

Manach wrote: »

My understanding of copyright is there is an exception for fair use, which is what showing the clips are. Besides which, these are a form of publiclity for the game owners so it would be hopefully counter-inituative to pull them.

Depends really, for something like Beyond, Heavy Rain, Stanley Parable or telltale games it could be seen as replacement for the gaming experience since so much of the value in those games comes from watching the plot.

Dravokivich

SmurfX wrote: »

Depends really, for something like Beyond, Heavy Rain, Stanley Parable or telltale games it could be seen as replacement for the gaming experience since so much of the value in those games comes from watching the plot.

Thatd be a valid point when its the case, but not for pulling them all outright. Should they challenge websites that provide walkthoughs as well? Becuase ive refered to youtube a few times before, when the games I was playing werent really clear on what I was meant to do.

Doctor DooM

SmurfX wrote: »

If it escalates beyond that to the point where Lets plays or gameplay footage are routinely pulled when not monetised then its a regrettable decision for games companies to go down that route. It would be on a company by company basis though and you'd imagine there'd be a good deal of backlash towards those that are doing it.

I'm a youtuber, and have seen statements from 2 gaming companies they want nothing to do with this as the people effected effectively give them free advertising.

I know for a fact that youtube have been claiming aggressively for at least one of these companies against their wishes.

landsleaving

This was, surely, inevitable. Fair use (or fair dealing as we say here) was never intended to include things like let's plays or people using huge amounts of game content to make money for themselves.

I've been wondering for a while if there'd be some action taken. If a game company decided to take action against youtube for allowing money to be made from their content, it could be big issue for them, and a hugely expensive one.

I'd guess some game company complained a lot, and forced youtube's hand.

Nody

landsleaving wrote: »

This was, surely, inevitable. Fair use (or fair dealing as we say here) was never intended to include things like let's plays or people using huge amounts of game content to make money for themselves.

But the flip side of that is I'll never buy a game with out seeing actual game play and often I'll add games to my buy list because of said Let's play videos because it looks fun (and not some scripted set of pictures, latest example being XCom being Christmas buy rather then 2014/5 4.99 EUR GOTY edition for example because of Force's Lets Play series in it).

landsleaving

Nody wrote: »

But the flip side of that is I'll never buy a game with out seeing actual game play and often I'll add games to my buy list because of said Let's play videos because it looks fun (and not some scripted set of pictures, latest example being XCom being Christmas buy rather then 2014 for example because of Force's Lets Play series in it).

Oh I totally agree, it's in the game companies interest to have the let's plays up, but it's technically against the law - even if it's in everyone's interest to ignore that law! That's why I'd guess some company made a big legal threat behind closed doors. Some eejit somewhere saying things like 'control the message' and 'brand coherence' and 'push the envelope' or whatever it is corporate people say when they want to do something stupid.

Doctor DooM

landsleaving wrote: »

This was, surely, inevitable. Fair use (or fair dealing as we say here) was never intended to include things like let's plays or people using huge amounts of game content to make money for themselves.

I've been wondering for a while if there'd be some action taken. If a game company decided to take action against youtube for allowing money to be made from their content, it could be big issue for them, and a hugely expensive one.

I'd guess some game company complained a lot, and forced youtube's hand.

It doesn't matter if a company complained, Google were protected by the DMCA. Unless someone files a DMCA and they failed to take the video down, they were protected.

SmurfX

Doctor DooM wrote: »

I'm a youtuber, and have seen statements from 2 gaming companies they want nothing to do with this as the people effected effectively give them free advertising.

I know for a fact that youtube have been claiming aggressively for at least one of these companies against their wishes.

Why would it be of any interest to youtube to pull content that the rights holder doesn't want pulled?

Doctor DooM

SmurfX wrote: »

Why would it be of any interest to youtube to pull content that the rights holder doesn't want pulled?

The question we are all asking.

The only answer I can think of: If you wanted youtube to be a marketing platform where the only thing that could be said about a product is approved by its owner and positive, this would be a good step.

mikom

Advertisers, advertisers, advertisers, money, money, money, shareholders, shareholders, shareholders.

Google would want to watch themselves.
People are getting antsy and will move on.

ShadowHearth

Big publishers dont see youtube as free advertisement platform they see it as " Hey! That person is making money out of our content!".

Sorry, but I have no problem with Youtubers making money of their youtube channels. They put time and effort in to it and for a lot of them it is a hard Job. If someone thinks that a lot of proper youtubers just play games and get **** loads of money just for that should get back to reality.

So what I see happen from now on:

1. There will be only publisher approved Videos on youtube. So it means "only good or nothing" content.

2. A huge shift of gaming content from youtube to a different platform.
3. A new player like youtube to raise, but only gaming focused. I have a feeling that twitch will have a sub webiste or a new part of twitch which will be gaming youtube. They already got name out and it is only a matter of time.
4. There is a HUGE GOLD MINE out there now, which google/youtube decided to throw away. It will be picked up fast.

Doctor DooM

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Big publishers dont see youtube as free advertisement platform they see it as " Hey! That person is making money out of our content!".

Sorry, but I have no problem with Youtubers making money of their youtube channels. They put time and effort in to it and for a lot of them it is a hard Job. If someone thinks that a lot of proper youtubers just play games and get **** loads of money just for that should get back to reality.

So what I see happen from now on:

1. There will be only publisher approved Videos on youtube. So it means "only good or nothing" content.

2. A huge shift of gaming content from youtube to a different platform.
3. A new player like youtube to raise, but only gaming focused. I have a feeling that twitch will have a sub webiste or a new part of twitch which will be gaming youtube. They already got name out and it is only a matter of time.
4. There is a HUGE GOLD MINE out there now, which google/youtube decided to throw away. It will be picked up fast.

I would very much agree that there's probably hushed meetings going on right now in Twitch's head office.

I do feel I should stress that while this might be the vision of youtube, and that's still conjecture, a lot of publishers disagree with it.

Duggy747

Twitch can scoop this up if they do it right.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Duggy747 wrote: »

Twitch can scoop this up if they do it right.

not if they dont sort out their
(1) awful lag in eu
(2) awful awful awful vod system

Nody

Duggy747 wrote: »

Twitch can scoop this up if they do it right.

Personally I'm thinking the likes of Netflix; adding unique content and a insanly fast back end network with an already big paying subscription base (free to watch in normal resolution, pay $4.99 for 1080p and access to their fast network or similar deal).

ShadowHearth

Nody wrote: »

Personally I'm thinking the likes of Netflix; adding unique content and a insanly fast back end network with an already big paying subscription base (free to watch in normal resolution, pay $4.99 for 1080p and access to their fast network or similar deal).

Actually, if netflix would pick this up I would be happy as ****.

Burgo

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

not if they don't sort out their
(1) awful lag in eu

I found the "twitch.tv europe lag fix" has made it a lot better.

ShadowHearth

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSBfAUXvjDU

ShadowHearth

ShadowHearth wrote: »

Actually, if netflix would pick this up I would be happy as ****.

The last thing I would want is to see Netflix full of Just Play videos. It's bad enough atm having to wade through all the crap Discovery Channel documentaries but it would be ten times worse if it was full of crap, cheap looking home made videos.

I can understand the reasoning behind this move and tbh it's been a long time coming. A lot of people seem unable to understand why a developer or publishers would be for it as they believe that a Just Play video is free advertising. Can you imagine how developers must feel after spending years on a project to go onto YouTube and find that someone has uploaded their entire game online reveling all the twists and surprises. I'll often check out gameplay videos for something I'm curious about but can't get a demo of but I'd never watch more than a few minutes and if there was any major spoiler in the footage I'd be quite annoyed.

ShadowHearth

Deleted User wrote: »

The last thing I would want is to see Netflix full of Just Play videos. It's bad enough atm having to wade through all the crap Discovery Channel documentaries but it would be ten times worse if it was full of crap, cheap looking home made videos.

I can understand the reasoning behind this move and tbh it's been a long time coming. A lot of people seem unable to understand why a developer or publishers would be for it as they believe that a Just Play video is free advertising. Can you imagine how developers must feel after spending years on a project to go onto YouTube and find that someone has uploaded their entire game online reveling all the twists and surprises. I'll often check out gameplay videos for something I'm curious about but can't get a demo of but I'd never watch more than a few minutes and if there was any major spoiler in the footage I'd be quite annoyed.

well it is already separated as Netflix and "for kids"? so all they need to do add one more separate category - "Gaming". Sorted.

ShadowHearth

ShadowHearth wrote: »

well it is already separated as Netflix and "for kids"? so all they need to do add one more separate category - "Gaming". Sorted.

It would never happen given the various rights issues involved. And there's not really much of a separation between Netflix and the Kids version. The only difference is that on the kids menu you don't get PG13 upwards films but on the normal Netflix you still have loads of kids shows and films there.