Careercow Jim Sterling (James Stanton/Sexton) & in memoriam TotalBiscuit (John Bain) - One Gaming Lolcow Thread

BHWuser

kiwifarms.net
Ya know, Im trying to figure out. Whos the bigger dudnerfuck, Jimbo or the idiot whos says with a straight face "Streamers should pay game companies to be allowed to stream, because they are stealing shit", fuck thats the shit that got that Stadia fucker roasted hard.
Except this also fucking ignores that most developers and publishers actually do give expressed licenses to streamers, which in turn allows them to stream the game legally. Now this can always retroactively be revoked, but it absolutely is currently given.
 

Jones McCann

All in all, it was all just bricks in the wall
kiwifarms.net
Ya know, Im trying to figure out. Whos the bigger dudnerfuck, Jimbo or the idiot whos says with a straight face "Streamers should pay game companies to be allowed to stream, because they are stealing shit", fuck thats the shit that got that Stadia fucker roasted hard.
"the idiot" is absolutely correct though, games companies allow them to stream the games, streaming isn't transformative and therefore isn't covered under fair use.
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Apteryx Owenii

BHWuser

kiwifarms.net
"the idiot" is absolutely correct though, games companies allow them to stream the games, streaming isn't transformative and therefore isn't covered under fair use.
He may be right, but the collective outrage and solidarity if games companies tried to revoke the expressed licenses en masse and basically put an end to streaming, would probably result in more profit losses than anything just letting streaming continue would do.

With that said, though. Some of the DMCA stuff seems really stupid. In game sirens sounding too close to beginning of a song. All while I've seen channels legitmately streaming just 48 hours of slasher films this past weekend on Twitch. And have been streaming TV shows and movies for MONTHS now, untouched.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: BrunoMattei

Jones McCann

All in all, it was all just bricks in the wall
kiwifarms.net
He may be right, but the collective outrage and solidarity if games companies tried to revoke the expressed licenses en masse and basically put an end to streaming, would probably result in more profit losses than anything just letting streaming continue would do.
You really think the average video gamer can go even one day without buying the latest AAA garbage :optimistic: . The same story, every time.
boycott_mw2.png
 

ScatmansWorld

kiwifarms.net
Video on Alex Hutchinson's comments on video game streaming.

Instead of talking about the video itself, I'm going to discuss this one point Jim keeps insistently bringing up in his videos, that being the "current year argument" and how he hates his audience calling him out on it.


Jim, I don't know if you read your own thread but I can tell you exactly why people hate the "current year argument" and no, it's not because it's "political", but it sure is used by a lot of politicians.

All in all, the "current year argument" is a logical fallacy. It's the statement that "The status quo has changed, therefore, the new status quo is what is correct." , and it's a completely empty statement at that. If you really want to convince people that a certain way of doing things or thinking about things is correct, you need to use actual logical reasoning. Otherwise, simply stating "We should/shouldn't do X because it's [insert year here]." is redundant at best.
 

AsbestosFlaygon

COCK
kiwifarms.net
Except this also fucking ignores that most developers and publishers actually do give expressed licenses to streamers, which in turn allows them to stream the game legally. Now this can always retroactively be revoked, but it absolutely is currently given.
This reminds me of Atlus, they only allow playthroughs of Persona 5 only up to a certain point in the story as they didn't want it spoiled. Sure most places are fine with streaming, but you can find examples of restrictive licenses or even indies that flat out don't want their game streamed if you look hard enough.
 

The tired cat

Fluffy angel of death
kiwifarms.net
This reminds me of Atlus, they only allow playthroughs of Persona 5 only up to a certain point in the story as they didn't want it spoiled. Sure most places are fine with streaming, but you can find examples of restrictive licenses or even indies that flat out don't want their game streamed if you look hard enough.
I always found it funny with Atlus and their whole "Oh, you can stream P5 up to a certain point", like...assholes do you know how many pricks are probably already spoiling your game on Twitter, Tumblr, or Facebook? Yet your asses are hung up on twitch?
 

BHWuser

kiwifarms.net
This reminds me of Atlus, they only allow playthroughs of Persona 5 only up to a certain point in the story as they didn't want it spoiled. Sure most places are fine with streaming, but you can find examples of restrictive licenses or even indies that flat out don't want their game streamed if you look hard enough.
I always believe if the journey is ruined by a spoiler, then you didn't create a very good journey. Because a journey should always be worth it. Sure, there are exceptions like puzzle games or Undertale, but we're talking about rare exceptions here. Otherwise you're just showing lack of confidence in your product as a whole.
You really think the average video gamer can go even one day without buying the latest AAA garbage :optimistic: . The same story, every time.
View attachment 1700244
That has been a problem, but I think it'll be a combination of cumulative drop off due to lower rates of exposure and people who will stand by their convictions. What you're talking about is an issue, but what were they boycotting over? I think that plays a large role in it too.
Video on Alex Hutchinson's comments on video game streaming.

Instead of talking about the video itself, I'm going to discuss this one point Jim keeps insistently bringing up in his videos, that being the "current year argument" and how he hates his audience calling him out on it.
View attachment 1700298

Jim, I don't know if you read your own thread but I can tell you exactly why people hate the "current year argument" and no, it's not because it's "political", but it sure is used by a lot of politicians.

All in all, the "current year argument" is a logical fallacy. It's the statement that "The status quo has changed, therefore, the new status quo is what is correct." , and it's a completely empty statement at that. If you really want to convince people that a certain way of doing things or thinking about things is correct, you need to use actual logical reasoning. Otherwise, simply stating "We should/shouldn't do X because it's [insert year here]." is redundant at best.
It's basically the same as aruguing "other places do it so it must be okay". It's not sound reasoning. Other places still kill people for being gay, still have slavery, still commit actual genocide, It's a lazy argument for someone who either doesn't want to do the legwork out of pure laziness, or doesn't have an argument to begin with.
 

Trigger Me Timbers

Reformed Kekistani
kiwifarms.net
A video critique of Jim Sterling by Godwinson that I am thoroughly enjoying.
Really glad to see this.
An idea I’ve had for a while is that somebody should do a ”Soyless Jimquisition”, go back to when he was more edgier and had a more nuanced view and take on the industry. They could just dress like the original Jim and drop the occasional hot take.



Also I have just seen the Kickstarter he’s shilling for Boglins® and it’s the cringes thing I’ve ever seen and I can’t believe Jim is putting his name behind it.
I know that Jim is into Boglins® and I do actually give him credit for helping revise their popularity, this Kickstarter just comes off like a shallow corporate husk that Jim would normally reeeeee about.

did you know you can get King Dwork™, King Drool™, and King Vlobb™ and the brand new Blobkin™ Boglin®? Order now!

this is consumerism at its peak. I thought this Boglins® thing would be a grassroots effort by the creator to bring it back but reading into it it’s just another mega corporation, the licenses don’t seem to have changed hands and they’ve already made partnership and branding deals other mega corporations. They just don’t want to foot the bill on manufacturing so they got the cooooooommmmaumers to foot the bill and Jim is more than happy to get more plastic tat.

If this was a video game publisher running a kick starter for maybe some action figures or something Jim would lose his fucking mind and scream at them.
 
Last edited:

BHWuser

kiwifarms.net
Really glad to see this.
An idea I’ve had for a while is that somebody should do a ”Soyless Jimquisition”, go back to when he was more edgier and had a more nuanced view and take on the industry. They could just dress like the original Jim and drop the occasional hot take.



Also I have just seen the Kickstarter he’s shilling for Boglins® and it’s the cringes thing I’ve ever seen and I can’t believe Jim is putting his name behind it.
I know that Jim is into Boglins® and I do actually give him credit for helping revise their popularity, this Kickstarter just comes off like a shallow corporate husk that Jim would normally reeeeee about.

did you know you can get King Dwork™, King Drool™, and King Vlobb™ and the brand new Blobkin™ Boglin®? Order now!

this is consumerism at its peak. I thought this Boglins® thing would be a grassroots effort by the creator to bring it back but reading into it it’s just another mega corporation, the licenses don’t seem to have changed hands and they’ve already made partnership and branding deals other mega corporations. They just don’t want to foot the bill on manufacturing so they got the cooooooommmmaumers to foot the bill and Jim is more than happy to get more plastic tat.

If this was a video game publisher running a kick starter for maybe some action figures or something Jim would lose his fucking mind and scream at them.
No, it's okay because Kickstarter is unionized now and they only take projects that their employees deem socially acceptable.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Judge Dredd

HomerSimpson

I AM SO SMRT!
kiwifarms.net
Ya know, Im trying to figure out. Whos the bigger dudnerfuck, Jimbo or the idiot whos says with a straight face "Streamers should pay game companies to be allowed to stream, because they are stealing shit", fuck thats the shit that got that Stadia fucker roasted hard.
The retard that said streamers should pay the companies is definitely the bigger dudnerfuck. Then again, stadia is the "pay us to play your games", so of course the retard would say that.
Except this also fucking ignores that most developers and publishers actually do give expressed licenses to streamers, which in turn allows them to stream the game legally. Now this can always retroactively be revoked, but it absolutely is currently given.
"the idiot" is absolutely correct though, games companies allow them to stream the games, streaming isn't transformative and therefore isn't covered under fair use.
I will just reply to both at once. The simple act of playing a videogame on twitch/youtube is transformative. You aren't selling the game, but your way of playing it. Even without commentary, it is still transformed by your input. Include commentary and it is further protected. It doesn't matter if they suddenly said "you can't show our gameplay without our permission" because they don't have that right. Think of TLOU2 footage being leaked on the farms. Even just by being on the farms is enough for it to be fair use, add in the criticism and it is just another layer of fair use. And the art made, is transformative. It met all the requirements of fair use. They can file fraudulant DMCA, but they would lose in the long run.
 

Jones McCann

All in all, it was all just bricks in the wall
kiwifarms.net
I will just reply to both at once. The simple act of playing a videogame on twitch/youtube is transformative. You aren't selling the game, but your way of playing it. Even without commentary, it is still transformed by your input. Include commentary and it is further protected. It doesn't matter if they suddenly said "you can't show our gameplay without our permission" because they don't have that right. Think of TLOU2 footage being leaked on the farms. Even just by being on the farms is enough for it to be fair use, add in the criticism and it is just another layer of fair use. And the art made, is transformative. It met all the requirements of fair use. They can file fraudulant DMCA, but they would lose in the long run.
Unfortunately, the only way to get a definitive answer on whether a particular use is a fair use is to have it resolved in federal court. Judges use four factors to resolve fair use disputes, as discussed in detail below. It’s important to understand that these factors are only guidelines that courts are free to adapt to particular situations on a case‑by‑case basis. In other words, a judge has a great deal of freedom when making a fair use determination, so the outcome in any given case can be hard to predict.

The four factors judges consider are:

  • the purpose and character of your use
  • the nature of the copyrighted work
  • the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
  • the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Playing a video game doesn't make something transformative, I would argue that's the purpose of a video game in the first place so how would it transform the work. Transformative would be giving a criticism of the movie/game/tv show and showing some clips. "the amount and substantiality of the portion taken" would be the most obvious one, people play video games in full and "the effect of the use upon the potential market" is obvious when it comes to movies and games because seeing a movie/game in full would obviously effect whether people buy the game or movie. The only reason it's allowed by publishers is because the gameplay is the draw for games 99% of the time, not the narrative. Do you honestly believe people wouldn't watch movies in full on twitch if they were allowed to under fair use, those faggots would be all over that.
 

BHWuser

kiwifarms.net
The retard that said streamers should pay the companies is definitely the bigger dudnerfuck. Then again, stadia is the "pay us to play your games", so of course the retard would say that.


I will just reply to both at once. The simple act of playing a videogame on twitch/youtube is transformative. You aren't selling the game, but your way of playing it. Even without commentary, it is still transformed by your input. Include commentary and it is further protected. It doesn't matter if they suddenly said "you can't show our gameplay without our permission" because they don't have that right. Think of TLOU2 footage being leaked on the farms. Even just by being on the farms is enough for it to be fair use, add in the criticism and it is just another layer of fair use. And the art made, is transformative. It met all the requirements of fair use. They can file fraudulant DMCA, but they would lose in the long run.
I'm not going to say I don't believe it shouldn't be fair use, or anything like that. However, you clearly don't know fair use. Not in its entirety. Instead of writing a long rambling that may not get the point across very well, here is a link that explains it better.

The Four Factors of Fair Use
 

HomerSimpson

I AM SO SMRT!
kiwifarms.net
Playing a video game doesn't make something transformative, I would argue that's the purpose of a video game in the first place so how would it transform the work. Transformative would be giving a criticism of the movie/game/tv show and showing some clips. "the amount and substantiality of the portion taken" would be the most obvious one, people play video games in full and "the effect of the use upon the potential market" is obvious when it comes to movies and games because seeing a movie/game in full would obviously effect whether people buy the game or movie. The only reason it's allowed by publishers is because the gameplay is the draw for games 99% of the time, not the narrative. Do you honestly believe people wouldn't watch movies in full on twitch if they were allowed to under fair use, those faggots would be all over that.
Difference is movies are a passive thing you enjoy. Games, for the majority of the time, are an active medium. A game on it's own can't do anything. You need human input, and each human input is different inherently. We are going from active to passive with playthroughs. Even how the story is told can be changed depending on the game. Are you a stealthy character, or a violent one. With a movie, there is no difference between the 2.
I'm not going to say I don't believe it shouldn't be fair use, or anything like that. However, you clearly don't know fair use. Not in its entirety. Instead of writing a long rambling that may not get the point across very well, here is a link that explains it better.



The Four Factors of Fair Use
That link you provided helps prove my point further though. First point, has it added new meaning or character? Yes. Everyone plays differently. Every playthrough of a game is different. The more choice/freedom that exists the more it changes. Also, you're changing a videogame into a video. If it isn't fair use, every review that even uses examples in the review could be seen as infringing. Whether written or video. Nature of it, we're not just selling the game, just our experience with it. I think that's the best way to word it. The impact on the market is the best part. There are many times I would have never heard of, or bought a game, if it weren't for stumbling on random gameplay videos. For many games it is like that. It's free advertising that can earn extra money. Like Deadly Premonition. No one probably would've played the game if it weren't for lets plays like the two best friends. Gave Swery enough capital to make a second in the series.
 

BHWuser

kiwifarms.net
Difference is movies are a passive thing you enjoy. Games, for the majority of the time, are an active medium. A game on it's own can't do anything. You need human input, and each human input is different inherently. We are going from active to passive with playthroughs. Even how the story is told can be changed depending on the game. Are you a stealthy character, or a violent one. With a movie, there is no difference between the 2.

That link you provided helps prove my point further though. First point, has it added new meaning or character? Yes. Everyone plays differently. Every playthrough of a game is different. The more choice/freedom that exists the more it changes. Also, you're changing a videogame into a video. If it isn't fair use, every review that even uses examples in the review could be seen as infringing. Whether written or video. Nature of it, we're not just selling the game, just our experience with it. I think that's the best way to word it. The impact on the market is the best part. There are many times I would have never heard of, or bought a game, if it weren't for stumbling on random gameplay videos. For many games it is like that. It's free advertising that can earn extra money. Like Deadly Premonition. No one probably would've played the game if it weren't for lets plays like the two best friends. Gave Swery enough capital to make a second in the series.
It's just easiest to say you're oversimplifying the terminology and specifics and that's the only way that what you're claiming works. On a legal level, your argument would never hold water.
 

AsbestosFlaygon

COCK
kiwifarms.net
Difference is movies are a passive thing you enjoy. Games, for the majority of the time, are an active medium. A game on it's own can't do anything. You need human input, and each human input is different inherently. We are going from active to passive with playthroughs. Even how the story is told can be changed depending on the game. Are you a stealthy character, or a violent one. With a movie, there is no difference between the 2.
But most games tend to be at least somewhat linear so most people will end up going through a very similar or even the same events. If that's fair use than reading a choose your own adventure book would also count as fair use. For something like Minecraft I could see it being open ended enough to claim playing it as fair use, although you could still say that there's music and visuals you're pirating. However for something like a Mario title or Heavy Rain they're way more debatable as they're considerably more linear and generally multiple playthroughs of both are likely gonna end up hitting similar beats.
The impact on the market is the best part. There are many times I would have never heard of, or bought a game, if it weren't for stumbling on random gameplay videos. For many games it is like that. It's free advertising that can earn extra money. Like Deadly Premonition. No one probably would've played the game if it weren't for lets plays like the two best friends. Gave Swery enough capital to make a second in the series.
This argument could apply just as much towards pirating a movie, music, or book, there's plenty of people that would argue that they bought something because they pirated it initially, that doesn't make pirating them fair use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: millais

HomerSimpson

I AM SO SMRT!
kiwifarms.net
But most games tend to be at least somewhat linear so most people will end up going through a very similar or even the same events. If that's fair use than reading a choose your own adventure book would also count as fair use. For something like Minecraft I could see it being open ended enough to claim playing it as fair use, although you could still say that there's music and visuals you're pirating. However for something like a Mario title or Heavy Rain they're way more debatable as they're considerably more linear and generally multiple playthroughs of both are likely gonna end up hitting similar beats.

This argument could apply just as much towards pirating a movie, music, or book, there's plenty of people that would argue that they bought something because they pirated it initially, that doesn't make pirating them fair use.
Again, the difference between the active vs passive aspect. A movie is the product itself, a video of the game, isn't the game. That said, there have been studies that show a mild amount of piracy does actually help increase sales.
It's just easiest to say you're oversimplifying the terminology and specifics and that's the only way that what you're claiming works. On a legal level, your argument would never hold water.
Only one way to find out. Talk to a lawyer about it.
 

Similar threads

H
Cuck, Edgelord, Wikisperg
Replies
249
Views
77K
Gearbox's magical fuck-up of a CEO, lost a USB drive full of porn.
Replies
680
Views
180K
Failing Content Creator, Big Smoke Lookalike, Jarbo Black, "HIT THAT DAMN BUTTON"
Replies
1K
Views
171K