On Nintendo and YouTube

There is a lot of controversy surrounding "let's play" (LP) videos on YouTube. In a "let's play" video, someone records themselves playing a video game - sometimes edited, sometimes not. Sometimes with commentary, sometimes not. Frequently an LP video will be part of a series the usually involves that user completing an entire video game. Some game companies are completely cool with the idea of  LP videos, seeing them as free advertising. Others claim that LP videos displaying a game in its entirety violates copyright law and issues take-down notices by the thousands.

Who am I kidding. I'm talking about Nintendo. Nintendo, famous issuing a take-down notice if so much as a sneeze sounds like Mario, has created a revenue-sharing platform that will enable them to receive the advertising monies generated by a YouTube video of their game. They will potentially share some of this revenue with the YouTube uploader, but only if the video is properly licensed and registered with them. A lot of users have cried foul (like they have for years with Nintendo-based LP videos). At the moment there is no indication of any change from the game company.

LP videos are incredibly useful for people contemplating purchasing a game, or who are stuck in a game at a certain point. I don't own a Playstation, nor will I in the immediate future, so I am happy to watch The Last of Us via an LP video. But on the other hand, the core part of any video game is the experience the game provides. YouTube "let's play" videos share that experience. Is the experience copyrighted? No, it is not. Because not everyone will have the same experience, even in a linear first-person shooter. The game that generates the experience is copyrighted, but not the experience of playing it. And this is what is shared via YouTube LP videos: one version of the experience of playing a game. There is no interaction with an LP video, aside from clicking Play. Nintendo's attempt to receive money from users' recorded gaming experiences is greedy, grasping, and controlling in the extreme. 

The issue goes further. "Let's play" videos are not reviews of the game, but in Nintendo's over-reaching desire to be in control of everything that mentions their products, they frequently lump Review channels in with LP channels (and hit all of them with take-down notices). Whether you're talking about an LP from PewDiePie or a review from AngryJoe (or even, in that later's case, a preview video that he had Nintendo's permission to make!), Nintendo wants to control the dialogues on YouTube that people have about their games. 

If I see a game via an LP and like it, my first step will be to go out and see where I can purchase it for myself (because pirating is for, well, pirates). I'm not thinking I experienced a game because I watched a "let's play." I shared someone else's experience, but it was not MY experience. This is how LP videos drive sales. On the other hand, what if someone watches an LP and decides they don't want to buy the game? Shortsighted companies see this as a lost sale. Which it is, but take the thought one step further. What comes after someone is disappointed in a game? The negative review. LPs actually help filter out people who would otherwise provide negative reviews of a game, helping it keep a positive reputation. So yes, a sale is lost, but so is the bad press.

As someone who was thinking of doing a few LPs and streams (seriously, though, do Twitch and YouTube need another LPer?), this story gave me pause. I'd rather I could just share experiences of my gaming without the need for all this legal mud, but unfortunately that's not the way the world (or YouTube) works. I genuinely believe that people do "let's plays" because they love the games they play. When a company like Nintendo starts acting like an evil dictator, they spit on that love and do their best to tear it down, to cover it up. Almost like they are saying, "We don't care how you feel, so long as you don't share it with anybody."

Surely we as a society are better than that.

On Game Length

With so many outlets dissing on The Order: 1886 for its length, it seems the perfect time to discuss acceptable game length. Prominent game critics have all shared their opinions. And many of the opinions are as indefinite as any logical discussion of the issue should be. Here's why.

Everyone plays games in their own way. What is five hours for one person may be ten hours or more for another. It takes me about 12 hours to complete an Alan Wake walkthrough - another 2 hours if both additional episodes are included. Friends have completed Alan Wake in 6 hours. It took me 15 hours to complete Remember Me. Others have done it in 8. I tend to be a "slow" gamer who does not see the value of speed runs (but if speed runs stir your blood, good for you!).

And the length of a game frequently has nothing to do with the quality of the game. Remember Me stands as one of the great missed opportunities; there was so much that could have been done with the fantastic world that was created. I purchased it, linear story-line and all, for $10. It took me 15 hours to complete. I feel I got my money's worth, because I found it gripping and enjoyable. And I'll be replaying it at some point in the future. Dishonored is a short game; the main story-line can be completed in 8 hours or less (though replayability is high). I purchased the GOTY edition for around $12, and feel I got my money's worth. I purchased Just Cause 2 for $5 (with all the DLC), and currently have over 100 hours on it. Is it a better game than Dishonored or Remember Me? I think Just Cause 2 does different things than those games, and comparing it with the other two isn't a fair comparison. Play-time shouldn't even enter the conversation.

This does not to give license to game companies to rip consumers off, though. So at some point, play-time HAS to enter the discussion. That is the conundrum. Who wants to spend $20 for 2 hours of gameplay? (Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes) Who wants to spend $10 for a mobile-ported game that is the only released part of what was projected to be a 3-part series? (Deus Ex: The Fall) Even Alan Wake (which has special associations for me) isn't exactly inviting replays; and the sequel / expandalone, American Nightmare, is barely 3 hours long for $10.

The bottom line is, what do you value in video games, and how much are you prepared to pay for it?

Do your own research when purchasing any game (or anything online, for that matter). Read the reviews, enter the forums. Though even there, misinformation and spite is wide-spread. I cannot tell you how many times I have seen a game trashed in the forums because the game did not do what people thought it should, or did it in a different way (Thief 2014, anyone?). If The Order: 1886 ever comes to PC, I'll probably be picking it up - if I can get it for around $7.50 - $12. Because that is what 6-10 hours of narrative-driven gameplay is worth to me. What is it worth to you?