Let’s Play (LP) – a growing term and a growing marketplace. For those of you not aware of what they are, here is a brief explanation.
An LP is a playthrough of a game, where the players provide their own commentary and reactions on top of the gameplay. It is not a walkthrough or a speedrun; these players may not be skilled at the games they’re playing. It is more akin to a video review: the players shows through example and speech what they do and do not like about the game. It provides unbiased information (compared to a trailer) about how the game actually plays and can be entertaining (the most successful certainly are). Some of the most successful LPers have made it their job; they have built a following large enough that they can earn enough through ad revenue to make a living.
Many game companies allow monetization of LP’s. Some, however, do not. Since it can vary between companies and even between games of the same company, you should do research before making an LP. The big debate is: does adding commentary over the gameplay footage make it fair use? Should these people be making money off of game reviews?
Reasons For
- You can argue a transformative use of the material. These players are reviewing the game and providing their individual experiences.
- Publicity. Simply put, many people watch LPs. A famous LPer playing your game will present your game to a large population, often creating sales.
- LPs take a lot of work. To be good at it, that is. You have to build a following. You have to be entertaining. They should be quality videos released on a mostly regular basis to keep viewers. With so much work, it is akin to a job, and LPers should be able to make it their job.
Reasons Against
- It’s not their material. The game companies make the games, so they should be the ones profiting.
- Does it replace playing? If the LP is comprehensive enough or the game linear enough, people may not buy the game; they’ve already “played” it.
- Flooding the market. These videos are often many parts. A search of a game title may return LPs well above official trailers or official gameplay footage.
What do you think on the debate? Are these LPers infringing on copyright (where not given permission)? Who should be making money from these videos?
audiocopyright 
I’m a little confused. For your reasons against, you listed, “The gamers make the games, so they should be the ones profiting.” Did you mean to say the game companies?
First, does IGN and sites like it make money off of their video reviews? (Honest question, I don’t know). If so, I don’t see why these videos should be treated any differently.
In regards to the question raised in the post, the “lets play” authors should be the ones making money. Aside from protection against copying and redistribution, game copyright should be pretty lenient. Video games are different from movies. They are meant to be played, and each gamer will have a different experience. A video game’s content is protected under copyright, but the way it’s enjoyed by one YouTube uploader is not.
LikeLike
Good catch; I did mean game companies, not gamers. I will fix that above.
I will preface this answer by saying that I am not a video game reviewer, and they are not wholly public on where they make their money. From what I can gather, they make money primarily from ad revenue on their sites (and, through it, their reviews) as well as through referrals to Amazon and the like (if someone buys through the IGN site, IGN gets a portion from the sale). To answer your question, yes, they make money off their reviews. However, it’s not so simple as likening reviews to Let’s Plays.
A review is a type of journalism and, as such, is protected from copyright through fair use, with certain limitations. A Let’s Play, while it does give a sense of the game and can be likened to a review, often shows a game in its entirety. This presents a problem for some games: by showing solutions to puzzles and entire storylines and plot twists, does this stop potential buyers from buying the game?
A Let’s Player’s experience is their own, but how much of a game should they be allowed to show? All? Some? None? Does it differ from game genre to game genre?
LikeLike
Wow, you ask some tough questions. There seems to be a large legal grey-area on the topic.
In response to your first question, I don’t think LPs stop potential buyers from playing the game. Looking at a couple samples on YouTube, I see two types of viewers. There is the viewer who watches the videos to get a more in-depth look at the game to see whether or not they would like to buy it. Without them, it seems they would definitely not purchase the game, LPs seem to push some people over the fence. Then there is the viewer who watches every episode. I’d argue these types of viewers wouldn’t purchase the game regardless, they just seem to be looking for some form of entertainment. So, I don’t think LPs are taking money from game sales.
Your second question is much more difficult. I think it should differ genre to genre, but that’s a level of legal specificity that would invite a lawsuit. I’d be interested to see both sides of the argument, because I’m fairly uninformed on the topic and don’t want to make any ignorant claims. However, it seems the only two possibilities would be all or none. “Some” would need some very specific clarification. Would it be a certain number of levels? How would it be kept fair for longer games, so that an equal percentage of the game could be showed? That seems to invite a difficult argument.
LikeLike
Yes, this is indeed a tough question, which is why there hasn’t been a definitive answer to it. Most of the time, it’s pushed under the rug by game companies either giving permission or not, so exclusion is the easy fix. However, mass permission to use copyrighted material is what caused a big problem of false flags. It’s difficult to categorize videos, so each one which contains the copyrighted material must be examined to determine whether it is used correctly.
As for how much should be shown… For something like audio or text, “none” is difficult: is a single note or a single word enough? Instead, “some” is chosen as the answer, hence the fair use clause, which in and of itself is unclear how much is allowed, whether it be in percentage, word count, or any other measure. With images and video, copying is more evident, so the general answer is “none.” Obtaining permission from the copyright holder always allows use of material as they permit. Again, it’s left up to the game creators to decide what can and cannot be shown, generally on an “all or nothing” basis. If someone wants to grant partial permission (e.g. Anything after Level 1 cannot be shown online, to avoid spoilers to potential players), they could explicitly declare it.
The video game community is generally lax on copyright infringement, as most of the time videos of the game serve only to promote the game. Most copyright cases are on clones of games, but the copyrightable parts of games are small, and what makes a game a clone versus an extremely similar game of the same genre is difficult to distinguish. Copyright always introduces difficult questions, and that’s why I’m researching it: an automated software to detect infringement needs to be as exact as possible, and the current system appears to need improvement.
LikeLike
I didn’t know any of that, thanks for the info!
LikeLike
Let me start by saying, great blog. I really love the topic that you’ve chosen to discuss, and more importantly how this issue effects so many different forms of media (from movies to music to video games and more). I’d have to agree with John’s assessment regarding LP audiences, in that I think that LPs don’t stop potential buyers from playing the game, and may actually encourage more people to purchase the game. Personally I happen to be a fan of Achievement Hunter, a YouTube channel under the umbrella of RoosterTeeth Productions, who are pretty well known for their various LPs in a wide variety of games. While I generally watch their LPs for the entertainment of their commentary, on more than one occasion I have been swayed to purchase a game they were playing simply because they made the game seem so enjoyable. I agree that there is a grey area in regards to who should be making the profit, the LPers or the game companies themselves. My response would be that the game company is making money from the people who do the LPs (they have to buy the game in order to review/play through it), and then through viewers they may increase sales of the game as well (more profit for the game company). I also think there is not an issue with LPers making money from posting their videos on YouTube/Twitch because they are providing their own unique content, and have paid to “use” the product in any way they see fit by purchasing the game.
LikeLike