Dev pulls bad critique from youtube. Too far?

Retr0gamer

Sometimes these things happen not because of the developers but because of a publishers legal department having a brain fart of idiocy so might not be quite right pointing the finger at the developers.

johnny_ultimate

This situation does seem like an abuse of the system: if you request a review, be ready for a negative one, point blank.

But (there's always a but) I do not agree youtube video makers and lets players should have completely unrestricted ability to upload videos of games. *unpopular opinion incoming* Sure, some leeway is good, and in fairness Total Biscuit - as much as I hate the guy's style of 'critiquing' - keeps things compatibly short and focused - well, as far as rambling youtube reviews go. But I know if I was an indie developer and the entirety of my game was uploaded to youtube within days or hours of release I'd be pissed. Others might be happy with the publicity, it's all dependent on the individual in question. It's easy to say the same rules don't apply to games as is the case with films or TV because games are interactive and are not a passive medium. But there are as many crazy gamers out there who will watch a Let's Play in its entirety and skip the game, compared to those who might have a glimpse at one and opt to buy the game for themselves. This particularly affects games focused on narrative, or that try something quirky or new.

I'm all for criticism and freedom of speech, but that doesn't give any excuse for large scale copyright infringement. Creators need to retain some control over their creations, and the youtube users of the world do not have the right to abuse the generous leeway they're typically given. When a takedown notice is issued for an hour long video featuring a huge chunk of content creators would rather people discover on their own, then I don't think a takedown notice is completely unjustified. Illustrative clips, short videos etc? All good. But not everything.

jaykhunter

I definitely see where you're coming from. Like if you watch a complete let's play of the Walking Dead Game there's little incentive to re-hear the same dialogue. The Dev's argument, whilst not applicable to this case, has general merit. It does seem odd how users can monetise videos with large amounts of gameplay footage, instead of the developers receiving at least a slice, if not the whole thing. I'd wager most viewers keep watching for so long is due to the video footage, as opposed to if it were in still photo/podcast form on YouTube.

Anyway, in this case the Dev has no good ground to stand on, having given TotalBiscuit a steam key for the purposes of a YouTube videogame review, and publicly allowing others to do so. Whoever made the decision to try and censor a popular videogame reviewer did not think that decision through, and the company might fold over it.

nesf

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But there are as many crazy gamers out there who will watch a Let's Play in its entirety and skip the game, compared to those who might have a glimpse at one and opt to buy the game for themselves.

Eh? I know no one like that and I know rather an assorted bunch of gamers. My kid watches some Let's Plays and guess which games he bugs me to get him next? Let's Play is possibly the best advertising many game genres (narrative dependent excluded) out there right now.

I mean, just look at the effort that competitive game developers are making to make their games easier to record (automatic replay saving) or stream (Twitch integration into the game itself).

Overheal

SmurfX wrote: »

I find it difficult to share his moral high ground or believe his ambitions for enlightening gamers on software quality when he monetises his videos and describes his practise as a "business" when he operates on a service without hosting costs. At the end of the day if he was paying those hosting costs that the other businesses he likens himself to are, he'd have the grounds to defend his own legal right to content and not leave it to a 3rd party.

Even Thomas Paine had to eat. Not that TB is a revolutionary or anything.

Remember you're posting that comment on a website that monetizes this discussion.

Fact is his rights are no less valid because of the lack of hosting costs; he does have production costs to factor in. Add to that he is effectively his own lawyer which would normally cost the average person money.

At the end of the day Game Publicity is a free benefit to both the developer and the producers of that content. Youtube wins on the traffic too. Everybody is a winner. I feel like the money argument is a red herring in the matter.

ScumLord

SmurfX wrote: »

I find it difficult to share his moral high ground or believe his ambitions for enlightening gamers on software quality when he monetises his videos and describes his practise as a "business" when he operates on a service without hosting costs.

Many people make money off the youtube advertising agreement. The users provide content for youtube and youtube share the spoils with people you generate a lot of views. We don't complain that youtube make money off content they don't produce.

Many people make a living creating content for youtube, it's how the system works.


As long as the content is in review form then everyone should have the right to give their opinion publicly.

degrassinoel

I cant stand TB, but those dev's were completely in the wrong, really bad form. If it had of been a good review/critique they'd have left it alone.

Vicxas

I watched the review, and all the points he made were completely valid, backed up by the video too.

Devs took it too far by asking for it to be removed, and its not like the devs have had amazing games in the past. Ive read past reviews and they were awful too.

ScumLord

It's like nobody explained how the internet works. Try to keep something quiet, everybody hears about it. Want everybody to hear something, nobody listens.

All this company has done is create a ****storm around their terrible game. Any fool could have told them that would happen.

COYVB

Grumpypants wrote: »

He came across really bad in the whole thing

I disagree. There's only one party that came across bad here

COYVB

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Sometimes these things happen not because of the developers but because of a publishers legal department having a brain fart of idiocy so might not be quite right pointing the finger at the developers.

Definitely the devs in this case, but you're right, it's usually the publishers

cherryghost

Devs have issued an apology and the video is back online.

ShadowHearth

cherryghost wrote: »

Devs have issued an apology and the video is back online.

I dont think TB should even put it back up anymore. Even bad press is too good for developer. Some sucker will try buying the game just of curiosity.

Grumpypants

ScumLord wrote: »

As long as the content is in review form then everyone should have the right to give their opinion publicly.

He does have that right, but he has no right so to speak of to publish on Youtube. As a mod on Boards i am sure at some stage you had to protect its interests and remove a post or two.

Youtube set a rule and when you sign up you agree to abide by that rule (TB didn't). They are bound by copyright laws and look to protect protect themselves.

If he remade the video without content that anyone else owns then i'm 100% behind his right to voice his opinion, if he pays his own way to create a platform to voice that opinion I again will support that, and anyones right to criticize his opinion. Just like I support the Devs right to protect their IP (even if it is a silly move).

He set out to hurt that game and its ability to make money, so to get upset that they are hurting his ability to make money is quite strange.

He is mounting a campaign with little risk to himself. He is free to host that video on his own site or on the escapist site if he wants and suffer the consequences himself.

There is a much more interesting debate to be had on the greater implications of copyright from in-game videos. I just don't think this case is a very good one to spark that debate.

With all the next gen consoles having "share" options and many players having capture cards will Devs be out there filing copyright claims on anything that shows the game in a bad light? Or is this all part of the bigger picture and good for exposure for the game?

What about live streaming, if you have worked for four years on a game that is heavily story driven like the Last of US do you want someone to live stream that a ruin the story?

Or what about the time a very big publisher of a very popular online game saw this as "lost revenue" and tried to "tax" the streamers. The streamers just moved to a new game and the publisher soon realized that they lost a ton of free advertising.

This is all new, no one has really thought it through and people will make mistakes. The thing is to try to find a balance that works for everyone and not get hung up on this ugly witch hunting that is all too common online these days.

ShadowHearth

Grumpypants wrote: »

He does have that right, but he has no right so to speak of to publish on Youtube. As a mod on Boards i am sure at some stage you had to protect its interests and remove a post or two.

Youtube set a rule and when you sign up you agree to abide by that rule (TB didn't). They are bound by copyright laws and look to protect protect themselves.

If he remade the video without content that anyone else owns then i'm 100% behind his right to voice his opinion, if he pays his own way to create a platform to voice that opinion I again will support that, and anyones right to criticize his opinion. Just like I support the Devs right to protect their IP (even if it is a silly move).

He set out to hurt that game and its ability to make money, so to get upset that they are hurting his ability to make money is quite strange.

He is mounting a campaign with little risk to himself. He is free to host that video on his own site or on the escapist site if he wants and suffer the consequences himself.

There is a much more interesting debate to be had on the greater implications of copyright from in-game videos. I just don't think this case is a very good one to spark that debate.

With all the next gen consoles having "share" options and many players having capture cards will Devs be out there filing copyright claims on anything that shows the game in a bad light? Or is this all part of the bigger picture and good for exposure for the game?

What about live streaming, if you have worked for four years on a game that is heavily story driven like the Last of US do you want someone to live stream that a ruin the story?

Or what about the time a very big publisher of a very popular online game saw this as "lost revenue" and tried to "tax" the streamers. The streamers just moved to a new game and the publisher soon realized that they lost a ton of free advertising.

This is all new, no one has really thought it through and people will make mistakes. The thing is to try to find a balance that works for everyone and not get hung up on this ugly witch hunting that is all too common online these days.

Emmmm.... WTF?

He gets a review copy and he gives his opinion about it. It is a mini review. They did not liked Review so they pulled it. Developer is clearly taking a piss. I dont understand how can anyone even find a way to see some sense or defend developer.

There are reviews for everything in this world. The hotel I work in had one bad review on that massive hotel review website. So what? Hotel should have a right to put it down, because it makes negative image?

I think it is clear, that youtube is doing more good then bad to Game developers. Its a GOD DAMN FREE ADVERTISING! Nothing wrong in youtubers actually getting payed for that too. They need to eat too.

If some games can be played and completed in one setting on youtube and dont give any point in actually playing it yourself, then maybe its a **** game in the first place?

ScumLord

cherryghost wrote: »

Devs have issued an apology and the video is back online.

Internet justice is done.

Grumpypants wrote: »

He does have that right, but he has no right so to speak of to publish on Youtube. As a mod on Boards i am sure at some stage you had to protect its interests and remove a post or two.

Youtube set a rule and when you sign up you agree to abide by that rule (TB didn't). They are bound by copyright laws and look to protect protect themselves.

As far as I am aware you are aloud to show clips of video when reviewing something. I don't think review shows have to pay just to give their opinion on something. If that was the case descriptive pictures couldn't be used in papers. If that is the case he broke no copyright laws.

If it's not the case then it's next to impossible to give fair impartial descriptions or reviews of anything.

CrinkElite

I watched the video on dailymation thanks to Uncle Sam ie for the link.

While I agree that the developers acted irrationally, I think TB's review is an unfair appraisal of the game.

Fair enough, overall it looks like a stinker but complaining about the game not pausing while in the inventory system??
That's a design decision that seems to work well for hits such as Minecraft and Stalker.
Whingeing about the FOV keys not being in the options screen, whingeing about being killed by one hit.

He just set out to sh1t all over the game right from the start.

If I was the Dev who'd been pouring my efforts into this game I'd be livid, It's just not even handed criticism.

All the same they shouldn't have acted the way they did but I'm sure they felt they weren't getting a fair go.
Sometimes that can make you act irrationally and without full consideration for the consequences.

nesf

Grumpypants wrote: »

As a mod on Boards i am sure at some stage you had to protect its interests and remove a post or two.

The difference is, there's no automatic process. Boards is small enough that a small number of people can review all takedown requests. Mods can act on their own discretion but generally that's restricted to very clearly defamatory material (e.g. such and such enjoys the company of children too much and similar crap).

Grumpypants

ScumLord wrote: »

Internet justice is done.

As far as I am aware you are aloud to show clips of video when reviewing something. I don't think review shows have to pay just to give their opinion on something. If that was the case descriptive pictures couldn't be used in papers. If that is the case he broke no copyright laws.

If it's not the case then it's next to impossible to give fair impartial descriptions or reviews of anything.

When you get a review code it is usually accompanied by a set of media assets that can be used. Artwork, screenshots and video clips. Others will set guidelines or requests that you don't record in a spoiler section for example.

Other devs don't mind and actively encourage you to record and show game footage. Each one is different and as a media publisher you look to protect yourself.

But at all times that is their copyrighted material. They always own that but it is very rare to hear of anyone getting in any serious trouble around copyright law in reviews.

nesf

CrinkElite wrote: »

I watched the video on dailymation thanks to Uncle Sam ie for the link.

While I agree that the developers acted irrationally, I think TB's review is an unfair appraisal of the game.

Fair enough, overall it looks like a stinker but complaining about the game not pausing while in the inventory system??
That's a design decision that seems to work well for hits such as Minecraft and Stalker.
Whingeing about the FOV keys not being in the options screen, whingeing about being killed by one hit.

He just set out to sh1t all over the game right from the start.

If I was the Dev who'd been pouring my efforts into this game I'd be livid, It's just not even handed criticism.

All the same they shouldn't have acted the way they did but I'm sure they felt they weren't getting a fair go.
Sometimes that can make you act irrationally and without full consideration for the consequences.

He has never pretended to give even handed criticism. In general his reviews have a lot of personal bias in them. In fairness though, he normally flags this, especially when it's not the general mood (e.g. disliking a previous iteration of the game that was generally popular and so on).


I think he can be an annoyingly opinionated bastard but to be fair he makes no effort to hide this or to pretend to be something else from what I've watched.

Overheal

Grumpypants wrote: »

When you get a review code it is usually accompanied by a set of media assets that can be used. Artwork, screenshots and video clips. Others will set guidelines or requests that you don't record in a spoiler section for example.

Other devs don't mind and actively encourage you to record and show game footage. Each one is different and as a media publisher you look to protect yourself.

But at all times that is their copyrighted material. They always own that but it is very rare to hear of anyone getting in any serious trouble around copyright law in reviews.

The worst I know of is Lamborghini, actually. They are very particular about who they give vehicles to test and publish reviews on. From what I understand at least a couple years back, if you reviewed a Lambo it was not by any means a stock unit, the one Lambo gives you to try out has been factory-tuned to fcuk and they specify how and where you are going to drive the unit. Which means the only honest reviews tend to come from either people who aren't publishers, people who don't own the vehicle, or people who can afford to drop a couple million and still have the pride left over from that purchase to post a negative review without being extremely protective of their investment decision.

degrassinoel

Slightly offtopic but does TB still say he's not a reviewer?

ancapailldorcha

I believe he says that he does "first impressions".

I'm agreeing with TB here. He was completely up front with the publisher about what he wanted a review code for. I don't hold it against him at all for making money from ads as it means he can produce better quality videos. I also think a lot of him for actually critically assessing news instead of just quoting it like other so-called journalists. At the end of the day companies shouldn't be able to churn out buggy tat and expect people like TB to keep quiet about it.

You have to wonder that if a big company like IGN gives them a scathing review, would the dev try and make them take it down?

Retr0gamer

Grumpypants wrote: »

But at all times that is their copyrighted material. They always own that but it is very rare to hear of anyone getting in any serious trouble around copyright law in reviews.

That's because it's totally not against the law to use copyright material in a review due to the fair use doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Courts recognize that certain kinds of market harm do not oppose fair use, such as when a parody or negative review impairs the market of the original work. Copyright considerations may not shield a work against adverse criticism.

Retr0gamer

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to wonder that if a big company like IGN gives them a scathing review, would the dev try and make them take it down?

Publishers have pulled exclusive reviews from big publishers if they aren't favourable. I know the UK Manhunt exclusive review was pulled due to the reviewer giving it something like 2/10.

jaykhunter

That "apology" was not an apology, sticking to their flimsy B.S. reasoning of monetisation, chalking it up to a miscommunication, and undoing it due to community backlash, rather than because what they did was wrong - both an abuse of YouTube's copyright system and censorship because their free publicity from it's top ranked youtube review wasn't positive. Scum. A shoddy game made by a company with even shoddier ethics. Wild Games won't ever see a cent from me.

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to wonder that if a big company like IGN gives them a scathing review, would the dev try and make them take it down?

I doubt it, I reckon they'd be more comfortable pushing a YouTube reviewer around (if they think he's not backed by a large company/can cause a stir). More likely they'd try buy a nice review. That said, I can't remember the titles but about a year ago I found it suspicious that IGN's preview videos would be quite positive, and the review itself (after launch) would be negative. Maybe there's something in that.

Grumpypants

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You have to wonder that if a big company like IGN gives them a scathing review, would the dev try and make them take it down?

Well no because IGN would put it on their own site and make it a fair and balanced review. so there would be no question of taking down a bad review, this isn't about taking down bad reviews, even though TB has done a good job of making himself the victim here.

TB has a bad track record of using things out of context and misrepresenting content. Kind of the Michael Moore of game reviews.

what you should be asking is if you made a YouTube channel called total biscuit zero punctuation game reviews, used his cartoon style and put on a British accent to start making game reviews, how long do you think it would be before he asked for it to be taken down ?

Or do you think he would support your right to free speech ?

Retr0gamer

And this weeks Strawman award goes to:

Grumpypants wrote: »

what you should be asking is if you made a YouTube channel called total biscuit zero punctuation game reviews, used his cartoon style and put on a British accent to start making game reviews, how long do you think it would be before he asked for it to be taken down ?

Or do you think he would support your right to free speech ?

There's no comparison there. And if that was the case TB would be well within his rights unlike the developers in their totally different situation. Actually why am I even arguing this?

johnny_ultimate

Retr0gamer wrote: »

That's because it's totally not against the law to use copyright material in a review due to the fair use doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Fair use is not a 'go nuts' clause, though: it's absolutely dependent on individual cases and rulings, and why debates continue to wage over what is considered 'fair'. If I released a critical audio commentary of Captain Phillips and released it on top of the full film on a YouTube video, that would of course and rightly be considered copyright infringement. The criticism attached doesn't negate that. If I released a video essay on the subject, including a few explanatory clips but mostly me talking to camera, then things are a bit more complicated, and that's where fair use could be argued and IMO justified (probably negated by the fact I had to pirate the film to get said clips, but that's an aside).

There are limits to fair use, it's not cut & dry.