
On Let's Plays – That Dragon, Cancer - sp332
http://www.thatdragoncancer.com/thatdragoncancer/2016/3/24/on-lets-plays
======
Trisell
I think we are also seeing an increase in lets plays due to the aging of the
gaming population. I'm 31 grew up gaming, spending hundreds of hours each
month gaming. Now I have a job 2 kids and a life. I barely have time to watch
a movie once a week, let alone sit down and play a game that requires 20-40
hours of game play.

Yet I spend most of my work days sitting at a desk writing code with my
headphones on. It is much easier to turn on Quill 18 playing xcom, and enjoy
the game and his commentary, while working, then it is to try and fit playing
xcom into my daily life. Where I play for a week, the put the game down, and
having to start over in a month when I have time again, yet don't remember any
part of what I was doing.

Also the demographics of games are changing. When I was young, I played C&C,
games that took more thought, maybe doom. Now kids are waiting for the next
call of duty to feed their ADD. While this kind of game is a more mature game
aimed at a more mature player, who may not have the time to play it. Blaming
the lets play culture seems like an easy thing to blame, but if your targeted
demographic is an age group that has increasing less time to game, then seeing
that demographic move to a format that you can't monetize, should be a warning
to you before you attempt to target that demographic.

~~~
ZenoArrow
You've got it backwards. They're not blaming the Let's Play culture for
existing, and they can see the value these videos add to gaming culture, what
they're pointing out is the issues with revenue it currently creates. If the
monetisation issue is fixed (they suggested leaving tips) then they can
continue making storytelling games, and that appears to be in the interest of
Let's Play video creators as well.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Yeah. Half-way through reading the post I expected the authors to start
passive-aggressive legal threats, or something. Instead, they announced they
removed ContentID from the music ( :o ) and only kindly ask the video
uploaders to encourage people to tip them a dollar or two...

This reaction makes me want to buy the game _and_ tip them just because of
their approach to the issue.

EDIT: just bought. I don't have time to play it now, but I firmly believe in
supporting people doing commendable things just because they do those things.

~~~
sp332
They're asking viewers to donate, which is a little different :) It's manually
fixing the broken revenue sharing with the streamers.

------
Joof
How do you combat this? Realistically speaking.

Here's how: Ask major let's-play channels to explain how it's meant to be
experienced firsthand and they should come watch after they've played. Not for
money, but for the experience.

Toby fox did this with Undertale on game grumps and it was noted that there is
a significant lag time in number of viewers that picked up later which
indicates that people actually followed this advice. They trust the let's
players' opinion.

In reality it probably still helps sales. I routinely buy games that are high
up on twitch that I hadn't heard of before.

~~~
wmf
Don't market it as a game? AFAIK people don't post "let's watch" videos of
movies.

~~~
jerrac
I just saw a "Let's Watch Quantum Break" video while browsing YouTube. Still
game related though.

~~~
lalaithion
The Achievement Hunter guys call it "let's watch" when one of them plays the
game and the others watch them play the game, and they all comment on it.

------
turaw
If anyone read this line: "And that is this: our studio has not yet seen a
single dollar from sales." and also wondered what they're talking about, this
excerpt from the Wikipedia article on their game [1] might help:

"Razer Inc., who acquired the Ouya platform and property in 2015, stated that
all revenue from sales of That Dragon, Cancer on Ouya would be donated to the
Morgan Adams Foundation and Family House SF, two charities that had assisted
the Greens' during Joel's treatment in San Francisco."

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Dragon,_Cancer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Dragon,_Cancer)

~~~
Splines
FYI, there might be spoilers on the wikipedia page. I haven't played the game
so I don't know how much they tell you but if you're planning on playing the
game I would avoid the wikipedia page for now.

(I was expecting a "Plot" section that I could avoid reading.)

------
TillE
I think it's extremely unlikely that this has a significant impact on sales.

But I understand why some developers get upset about it, in the same way
Jonathan Blow was upset about piracy despite massive sales. It's a loss of
control. You made a thing and you don't want people just taking it.

Emotionally, that makes perfect sense. But empirically, these factors have
never been make-or-break for any game. Heavily pirated games are also huge
sellers. Firewatch is doing very well right now despite being a similarly
YouTube-able game.

~~~
jamie_ca
I don't disagree on the sales impact - if you're spending a sufficient portion
of your day watching videos of people playing a game, and that game isn't
streamed, you're FAR more likely to watch a different game than actually go
and buy a copy and play it.

That said, the irony is strong here when streamers are complaining about not
being able to monetize their stream of someone else's work without
restriction.

~~~
Nadya
_> That said, the irony is strong here when streamers are complaining about
not being able to monetize their stream of someone else's work without
restriction._

They are monetizing their time spent/interaction with viewers which is a very
different thing and something people _do_ monetize (see: speaker's fees,
counseling fees, adviser fees)

That's the idea behind monetizing streams/streamers accepting donations. It's
a way the viewers can support the person to stream for X hours a day and have
it be something they can routinely do because they are being paid for their
_time_. It just so happens that time is being spent playing a game that is the
result of someone else's work.

I think it is stupid to deny free publicity - but maybe there's a reason why
I'm not in marketing/advertising.

Not sure if necessary, but possible bias: I don't monetize through ads and
prefer to accept donations, but I have streamed on occasion and have received
donations for doing so.

~~~
greggman
Share the revenue? Don't know what the correct split is. As a game creator who
spends 2+ years per game on a team of 20 (so 40 man years) and then some one
spends 4 to 80 hours recording themselves playing and then editing I'd tend to
think the game creators deserve the lion's share of the revenue but maybe I
could be convinced otherwise.

Youtube already does this for music (not sure they actually _share_ revenue)
but they do at least provide a way for the music creator (or the creator's
representatives) to get revenue when someone else uses the music.

A better sharing arrangement sounds like mostly a win/win

\---

Let me add, while the Let's Player can certainly be entertaining if people are
really watching for their entertainment value then they shouldn't need the
game to get viewers. In other words, it seems arguable viewers view for the
games more than the Let's Player. If people would tune in without the games
then there's no reason for the Let's Player to have the games at all. Just be
an entertaining person like a some of the more popular youtubers.

~~~
Nadya
_> Share the revenue? Don't know what the correct split is. As a game creator
who spends 2+ years per game on a team of 20 (so 40 man years) and then some
one spends 4 to 80 hours recording themselves playing and then editing I'd
tend to think the game creators deserve the lion's share of the revenue but
maybe I could be convinced otherwise._

A game nobody has heard of and never will hear of vs any popular streamer who
has spent 3+ years streaming and has 1,000's if not 10,000's of followers.
_Some_ of those followers will buy the game. That's the dev's split.

Even a no-name streamer (like myself) who pulls in 10-20 people _tops_ during
a good hour can still manage to sell some copies of the game merely by playing
it (assuming they're enjoying it/it's a decent game worth buying). The dev
still get's their split: free advertisement.

Dev's are, of course, free to not let streamers stream their game. I think
it's stupid and wouldn't buy their game on principle: largely I assume the
worst. Is the game so bad they want people purchasing it without seeing any
gameplay? Well, I'll pass. Myself and 100,000's of others who have changed
their purchasing decisions from " _game reviews_ " to " _someone who 's gaming
taste is similar to mine enjoys it and it looks fun_".

Game development is a business. Fail to keep up with the times and find
yourself using an outdated business model and you _will_ go out of business.
It's just a matter of how long it takes. For better or worse, many people make
their game purchasing decisions based on streamers and seeing _live gameplay_
so judge if a game looks fun or not before purchasing.

I think a dev is free to not allow people to stream their game or to profit
from streaming their game. But I will point out to them that they're shooting
themselves in the foot and that I think they should reconsider.

The only games that I've ever seen hurt by free advertisement are games which
are awfully bad. Which I consider a win for the consumer, even if the dev
loses out on. Just like any other business: it doesn't matter how hard you
worked on something if the end product was bad. It's sucks for the
creator/people who spent so much time on it, but that's how business works and
I'll side with the consumers every time.

~~~
greggman
You do this work for free and you'll make it up in extra PR. Sounds like the
typical artist/designer/photographer deal.

~~~
Nadya
_> You do this work for free_

I still had to purchase the game to stream it, but your point is taken in this
regard...except it goes both ways.

As a Let's Play streamer - why the hell should I play your game if I can play
some other game that will allow me to be compensated for my time? Name me an
advertisement agency that will advertise your product _for free_. Because
that's essentially what large streamers have become.

Can always license out the rights to stream the game to _already large_
streamers rather than rolling the dice with small no-names.

~~~
greggman
You're free to play some other game and be compensated. I suspect though that
most streamers would lose their audiences very quickly if they weren't
streaming the top 30 games. People tune in for Fallout, Uncharted, Last of Us,
GTA5, Division, etc, not for Fuzzy Bear's Adventures. In other words is more
about the games, not the streamers. Again this would be easily provable.
Remove the games. If the streamers manage to keep their audiences for several
months then it was about the streamers. If not it was about the games.

In any case, I suggested some kind of split would be more equitable. IMO. They
already kind of do this for music. Why not for games but give the streamers
more than people get for music since they are adding more to it.

------
slavik81
For many games, a recording of someone playing it is so different from the
actual game itself that I strongly support giving rights to streamers.
However, their point is well-made. This game is more similar to a movie than
it is to, say, Minecraft. It's reasonable to reflect that in how recordings
are treated.

Their game is not particularly interesting to me, but it seems they made
something unique. I hope it eventually pays off for them.

------
millettjon
Radiolab did a story about this.
[http://www.radiolab.org/story/cathedral/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/cathedral/)

~~~
stephenitis
This was amazing thanks for sharing.

------
tomc1985
Hasn't anyone seen how kids obsess over Let's Play?

I've talked to several kids who almost prefer watching Lets Play over playing
any given game. That South Park episode was spot on.

Developers should be alarmed!

~~~
2bitencryption
I don't think 'kids' obsess so much over Let's Plays as they do over the
characters doing the playthrough (piewdiepie, whoever else is big, etc).

You're ten. You don't have a debit/credit card. You can't buy games on Steam.
Even if you could, your parents might not even let you play them (GTA, Fallout
4, etc).

But you have a smartphone with a 4k display, and probably access to an iPad,
and certainly a laptop at your disposal, and all you need is a browser to
access Youtube. So you watch games instead.

You don't care much about immersing yourself in the game's world, you care
about the guy screaming "oh my godddddd!! what the shiiiiiiiit!" and making
comments that ten year olds find funny.

I don't think this equates to "kids will never play games when they grow up
since they are so used to watching them instead." Eventually they grow out of
this phase and play games like mature people do.

Of course, that only covers the "Youtube Personality" clique of Let's Plays. I
myself watch narrative and immersive Let's Plays for games I certainly don't
have the time or money to play anyway (Firewatch, a bunch of indie horror
games I'm too scared to play, etc).

~~~
mattmanser
I, a 37 year old man, had heard of infamous 2nd son but don't have a
playstation.

So I googled a let's play just to check out the gameplay, intending to watch 5
minutes, and ended up watching pewdiepie play the whole game.

Be as disdainful and insulting all you want, but I found him funny, charming
and thoroughly enjoyable, it let me watch the story like a film, but with a
touch of the camaraderie of playing a game with friends like I used to when I
was younger.

~~~
vacri
It's worth noting that the Let's Play folks actually add something to the
experience. I'm not much of a watcher, but I started watching vegeta311 play
Dark Souls on youtube, and before I knew it, 6 hours had passed. I was amazed
at the guy's seemingly-casual skill - I'd sunk many hours into Dark Souls, but
it was the skill I was watching for, not the game.

------
jamstruth
Definitely think there should be some way of sharing the revenue with devs,
especially indie devs.

Take "Life Is Strange" for instance. I watched a Let's Play on it and it
killed any interest I had in actually playing the game. It was a story based
game without much in terms of gameplay and I realised after I'd finished
watching someone play episode 1 that the story was all that would keep me
interested and I'd already seen that. Narrative games don't translate well
into Let's Plays format of helping game sales.

------
GhotiFish
On the one hand: I do believe that if a game is basically a movie (a cinematic
game), then a let's play of it can kill interest in playing (basically just
seeing) it.

On the other, I have this feeling that let's plays are starting to assert
themselves as a strong market force. I've already seen games specifically made
to target let's players as a way to reach their fans. Let's plays may just
simply be a new reality of the market.

Even if you assume policy ends up entirely in favor of cinematic games,
without the ability to take advantage of the "let's play pulpit" then
cinematic games are going to find themselves very disadvantaged.

I think we're starting to see the effects of this, games that try to sell
themselves on their narrative, which simply end up taking the player through a
series of corridors and cutscenes, are losing. Games that sell themselves on
their gameplay and build narratives around the player are winning.

Not very nice to That Dragon, Cancer. I know. Sorry guys!

~~~
izacus
>I think we're starting to see the effects of this, games that try to sell
themselves on their narrative, which simply end up taking the player through a
series of corridors and cutscenes, are losing. Games that sell themselves on
their gameplay and build narratives around the player are winning.

And that's exactly the problem - it creates a monoculture of genres even
though those "losing" genres are still popular enough to be at least watched.

~~~
GhotiFish
I disagree, I think this space you called a monoculture is incredibly diverse,
and will continue to be incredibly diverse. Cinematic games are relatively
recent territory, not established aspects of the gaming market. If the only
limiting factor for games is that they'd have to look entertaining to people
after someone has seen them play it, then I think you could look forward to
some extreme diversity.

------
roosterjm2k2
Everyone, including the author, is missing the point of lets plays...

They aren't monetizing the game... the game is largely secondary... i find
myself (and others i've asked today about this) tend to follow youtubers or
streamers, not games. Its the personalities that earn the revenue, the game is
just a talking piece...

~~~
Rudism
He did specifically call out Let's Plays that just run through the game with
little to no commentary. Though I suspect those might have less views than
ones from the more popular streamers.

------
59nadir
I find it interesting that everyone's default mode is somehow that a
developer/studio should be able to dictate what people show from their game
and whether or not they can make money from it. Even though I find the idea of
making money off of Let's Plays a bit silly as well, I honestly think it
should be none of your business as a developer.

This is all part of a bigger picture where I think the consumer of media needs
to have more rights, not less. People already mostly don't own what they buy,
can't do what they want with it, etc., and further limiting that is doing no
one any favors, except the people in the business that don't even play games
themselves.

~~~
sp332
If the developer can't keep people from sharing the content, they're going to
have to recover their costs from the relatively few people who actually buy
the game, which means stratospheric prices. The only people who would by are
the streamers who can commercialize their copy of the game, and rich people
who just want to play. The rest of us would be stuck.

------
vacri
Well, when you make a product that's more like a movie than a game (two-hour
linear story where you experience everything by watching a video), then the
public will treat it more like a movie than a game. It's even priced like a
movie - $15 for 2 hours of content. The problem isn't the Let's Play world,
the problem is that the product is an edge case. The article sort of skims
right by this issue while recognising it: _And for games with more expansive
or replayable gameplay, it can directly benefit developers._ There's your
problem right there - you 'made a movie, not a game', and released it through
gaming channels.

Another point is that there are literally tens of thousands of games out
there, and people use Let's Play not just for entertainment, but to see if a
game is any good before purchasing. Essentially they use it for demo-ing the
product, and if your game and your 'demo' are essentially the same thing, then
that's a bad business decision, regardless of how much soul you poured into
the product. Harsh, but if you're complaining from a business point of view,
then you have to deal with harsh realities.

For my own experience, I saw it crop up, and thought "Why would I want to
spend $15 for a short game about cancer?". I was curious about it, but not so
curious as to drop $15... or even search out a Let's Play myself. I imagine
most of the Let's Play audience were similar - suggesting that $1/viewer is
somewhat realistic recovery for lost sales... that's nonsense, in my opinion.

Finally, a bonus problem: When your game is two hours long and you distribute
through Steam, which has a no-questions-asked refund policy for 2 hours or
less of gameplay, then a lot of those casual viewers you're after will just
take that money back.

~~~
adnzzzzZ
Not sure why you're getting downvoted when this is exactly right. If you don't
want this problem then don't make something with low amount of content that
people can be done with in just a few hours.

~~~
sp332
Sometimes it's not about how long a movie or game is. It can still be really
powerful to experience it even if it's short. Anyways $15 seems like a
reasonably small amount for a game that took years to develop.

~~~
vacri
> _Anyways $15 seems like a reasonably small amount for a game that took years
> to develop._

My point was that it was more like a movie, not that the game was ridiculously
expensive. But, if you want to go that way, then yes, you need to look at the
competition. In the games world, $15 is a price-point where people expect more
than a couple of hours of gametime. 'Interactive movies'/'Kinetic novels' are
rarely hugely successful, and almost never go above $10-15. Over in the movie
world, $15 gets you a movie that cost hundreds of millions of dollars and took
hundreds of people years to create.

If you're talking about what something is worth from a _business_ angle, then
you can't ignore the playing field and what the product is up against - just
saying that it took a long time to make isn't enough.

------
striking
Chances are that the people who are just watching the LP version of your game
won't buy it.

Sorry, but it's true.

~~~
sp332
But it could, at least in theory, expose the game to a few more people who
will buy it. Whether that's a net gain depends on a lot of factors, but in
this case, it seems clear they're losing sales.

~~~
striking
It looks to me that they made a huge investment into a game that wouldn't
necessarily pay them back.

Profits on games aren't always that great, especially for indie titles.

It's not that they're losing sales, it's that they don't have many sales. And
you need to pay 8 people somehow.

~~~
sp332
It is a little disconcerting that a game with such wide and generally positive
coverage would not be able to make any money.

~~~
striking
It wasn't published by a massive publisher. It didn't get "hype". And it had a
massive production budget.

Realize that most game programmers at AAA studios are far underpaid and
overworked.

------
HemanHeartYou
ah, game makers and musicians mad because they realized they went into the
wrong industry when they could have just made potential thousands by playing
video games and stuttering poor commentary over top of it

how long before they target female twitch streamers?

------
imron
Aw man, my son loves pancakes too.

Now I want to both buy this game and not buy this game... :'(

------
verroq
>have an unprofitable business model

>become unprofitable

>beg for donations

If their game is a "relative linear experience" then why would anyone "go on
to interact with the game in the personal way that we intended for it to be
experienced".

~~~
ball_of_lint
You are assuming let's plays.

On the flip side, consider if they aggressively challenged every let's play
made of their game. Then their game is again profitable. They are showing
courtesy and and doing people a favor by allowing let's plays to exist, but
are now kindly asking for a favor back.

~~~
Akkuma
Interest doesn't equate to profit if they have no other avenue to experience
the "game". There are so many ways to entertain oneself that people could
simply move onto something else readily available without paying for That
Dragon, Cancer.

------
timwaagh
they should just file the DMCA take down requests. instead they say 'we're too
nice for that' and complain in a blog post... meh.

------
pmiller2
I think this pretty much says it all:

> a short, relatively linear experience like ours

If you want to make money, don't do that.

~~~
AimHere
Why not? It worked for the Gone Home and Firewatch people.

