>> |
No. 183775
>>183771 I'm aware that such people exist, but far more people are likely to want to go and buy a game after seeing an LP of it than completely skip over it (unless the game is shit, which other things like reviews and word-of-mouth exist to let them know such information). A huge number of my own video game purchases within the past few years were very heavily influenced by watching LPs and thinking "oh wow, I'd like to experience that for myself!" Because unlike movies, video games aren't a passive entertainment experience. Some people might care only about the story, but those people are not the majority. Even if there's legitimate complaint about LPers essentially providing a "free ride" through a given video game, the potential lost revenue caused by people who only want the story is going to be considerably outweighed by the favorable publicity that LPs provide. Even if there's grounds for legal complaint, the companies who would put raise a fuss about it are only shooting themselves in the foot.
LPers aren't my biggest concern though, which is why I largely ignored them in favor of pointing out that reviews, which typically feature only a fraction of a game's full footage, and generally avoid any major plot related spoilers, are being targeted just as heavily as LPs. Unlike the LPs, which are a grey area, reviews utilizing gameplay footage to illustrate their points are completely within the realm of fair use and journalism. To try and exert copyright claims on them is going dangerously out of line.
Again, this isn't just about people making jokes while playing games, this touches on matters with bigger consequences. This kind of carpet bomb approach is ludicrous, self-destructive to YouTube (and the companies it's bowing down to), and potentially dangerous.
|