Homebrew authors vs Walkthroughs

[highrise]

Hi guys

Some of you may have seen a rather heated discussion that took place on the forum here about how I had asked for a two week embargo on Youtube videos of my latest release. Thankfully this was all resolved amicably, but I did a bit of research and got talking to a number of other homebrew authors to see what they thought. It turns out that whilst anyone is free to play our games privately in the comfort of their homes in any way they wish, Youtube is considered a public broadcast, and that allows us to have some say on what is or isn't appropriate. So we came up with this basic rule of thumb:

Reviews (even bad ones) are of course fine, freedom of the press, expression of opinion and so on. Partial playthroughs and live 'let's plays' also fine. We love getting feedback and are really flattered that people enjoy the games.

Walkthroughs that show the game in its entirety however, particularly those done using rollback, should not be published within the first two weeks of release without the express permission of the author in question.. We are not against walkthroughs, we just don't believe they are necessary in the first fortnight as we feel they spoil our little moment in the sun after months of coding in dark bedrooms.

The following authors, responsible for a lot of modern releases, have given their blessing to this. We're not trying to P?s? on anyone's fire, just strike a balance so I hope you can all see where we are coming from.

Myself (obviously)
Paul Jenkinson
Rusty Pixels (Michael Flash Ware / Jim Bagley)
Sebastien Braunert
Gabriele Amore
David Saphier
Andy Johns
John Davies
Mat Recardo
Andy McDermott

and I'm pretty sure I can add Alessandro Grusso to the list as well, though I didn't speak to him directly.

Thanks again, and of course feel free to share your thoughts.

[R-Tape]

Thankfully this was all resolved amicably, but

[highrise]

oh come now, I'm being perfectly civil and I brought my crew to back me up

[Rorthron]

Personally, I could scarcely disagree with this approach more.

As far as I am concerned, if people think any of the games I have been involved with are worth spending their time on, they are free to enjoy the games however they like. If they want to record walktroughs, use rollbacks or whatever, they should do so. I'm just grateful that people are interested in them, and have no interest in dictating how they should be enjoyed

[highrise]

This is how the last misunderstanding came about. It's absolutely not about dictating how the games are enjoyed. They can be enjoyed in any way people wish to or not. They can use rollbacks, pokes, whatever, in their own time and in their own private space.

It's about how they are broadcast. This is a different thing entirely. It's about people using recording / snapshot software to reveal your three months of work to everyone within 24 hours of release. It's about this happening with every single game with no insight or feedback. It's about asking people hold back and not do that for a couple of measly weeks. And as you can see, many well respected authors totally get that.

That said, your disagreement is more than welcome. I fully respect your opinion about your own work, and you can happily grant permission for people to broadcast your games as you wish.

[Rorthron]

It's absolutely not about dictating how the games are enjoyed.

Actually it is. For example, I enjoy watching walkthroughs and usually like to skim through one before deciding whether to play a game. You are seeking to prevent me doing that.

And as you can see, many well respected authors totally get that.

And many do not.

[Morkin]

Gotta admit I agree with Rorth (Midnight posseeee in da house..!).

I don't think putting a walkthrough on YouTube adversely affects anyone else who's going to play your game. And they (the players) are the important people, otherwise you wouldn't be releasing it.

[highrise]

Actually it is. For example, I enjoy watching walkthroughs and usually like to skim through one before deciding whether to play a game. You are seeking to prevent me doing that.

I'm clearly not seeking that, because as I said, there is no problem with in depth reviews where people play some of the game and give you a good idea of what it's like by actually talking about it. Or are you suggesting that you need to see the entire game played through from start to finish with no actual opinions expressed in order to decide if you want to play it? And if so, do you need that in the first two weeks of the release? if that's true, then I apologise for asking for this for my own games (not anyone else's).

And many do not.

And those that do not, are perfectly at liberty to give their permission for walkthroughs to go ahead. This is the whole point - it's their choice.

[Rorthron]

I'm clearly not seeking that, because as I said, there is no problem with in depth reviews where people play some of the game and give you a good idea of what it's like by actually talking about it.

I am afraid you are seeking that. I generally do not like to watch or listen to reviews. I prefer to see the gameplay and make my own judgements, rather than listen to others' opinions. And I like to be able to flit around and choose which bits of the game I want to look at, for which a walkthrough is perfect.

And those that do not, are perfectly at liberty to give their permission for walkthroughs to go ahead. This is the whole point - it's their choice.

I was actually objecting to your fallacious attempt to bolster your argument with numbers, but you seem to have missed the point.

In any case, the point you are making is not about authors allowing players to make walkthroughs, for which we really don't need your permission. Your point is the opposite: stopping users making walkthroughs.

[R-Tape]

Or are you suggesting that you need to see the entire game played through from start to finish with no actual opinions expressed in order to decide if you want to play it? And if so, do you need that in the first two weeks of the release?

If the answer to both of the above is yes, then is it allowed, or not?

[ZxSpence]

Pretty sure the whys and wherefores were covered on the other thread. Whether it offends your sensibilities or tweaks your temperament about the why, it's not hard to wait two weeks to have your needs met as well as the author's.

Mountain, meet molehill.

[highrise]

Whether it is allowed is entirely at the discretion of the author in question, and whether they give their permission. You just have to ask, that's all. Some authors will agree, some won't.

I'm not trying to stop anyone enjoying anything, what I'm saying here is that many authors I know are frustrated by these 'instant walkthrough' videos, and it detracts from the satisfaction they get from making games for people. A huge amount of time goes into making these games, many of which are gifts to the community, so I think a little give and take is not too much to ask, if that is what the author wishes.

[Morkin]

I get the impression that there's an aspect to the 'author's wishes' view that likens the game to an artwork, that they've painstakingly created, hung in a gallery and watched a tourist rush through the gallery taking pictures of all the artworks on their phone.

I think games are a lot different though, once released it's all about the players. While I can see that some authors might be unhappy about an immediate walkthrough release, I'd encourage them to think of their creation in a different way, a YouTube video being free promotion of your game from the (pretty niche) Speccy homebrew fanbase that will enhance, rather than reduce, interest in your creation.

[highrise]

I was actually objecting to your fallacious attempt to bolster your argument with numbers, but you seem to have missed the point.

I spent some time getting feedback from a number of homebrew authors who were given the draught of my post before I made it. I'm unsure how this is fallacious, so perhaps I have missed your point indeed. If the majority had said I was off my rocker, I would have just accepted it. They didn't - almost all the authors I spoke to felt the same.

In any case, the point you are making is not about authors allowing players to make walkthroughs, for which we really don't need your permission. Your point is the opposite: stopping users making walkthroughs.

Thank you for explaining to me what my motivations are. Again, there is nothing whatsoever in here saying that people cannot make walkthroughs. They are simply asked not to broadcast them in the first two weeks of release. It does not stop them being made, and, ultimately, it does not even stop them being broadcast.

It's important to understand the difference between what you can do with a piece of art in the comfort of your own home, and what you broadcast to the entire world.

Ultimately however, what it really comes down to is that there are clearly authors who are not comfortable with people publishing walkthroughs within hours of a game being released. This is a fact.So it's a question of whether you feel your opinion is more important than theirs. Should we force authors to agree to this in order to satisfy your need to decide about a game? In my view, since they create the work, they should have at least something of a say, and that is why a short grace period is a good way to strike a balance. And to be clear, I am not suggesting that people do or do not publish walkthroughs. I am suggesting that if they want to publish one in the first couple of weeks, they should at least ask.

[highrise]

I think games are a lot different though, once released it's all about the players. While I can see that some authors might be unhappy about an immediate walkthrough release, I'd encourage them to think of their creation in a different way, a YouTube video being free promotion of your game from the (pretty niche) Speccy homebrew fanbase that will enhance, rather than reduce, interest in your creation.

If authors wanted walkthroughs banned completely, you might be right. But a delay of two weeks does not detract interest. In fact, it most likely maintains it.

And you know what, when you spend months and months working on a game, fixing bugs, tweaking it and so on, why shouldn't you be a little protective of it in its first couple of weeks toddling out into the world. I just can't imagine anyone really feeling that they desperately need a full walkthough of a game within the first few days of a release.

[Rorthron]

I'm unsure how this is fallacious, so perhaps I have missed your point indeed. If the majority had said I was off my rocker, I would have just accepted it. They didn't - almost all the authors I spoke to felt the same.

Your comment restates the fallacy. The validity of your argument is not altered by whether you can find people who agree with you.

Thank you for explaining to me what my motivations are.

I did not make any comment about your motivations. My statement related to your public expressions of your point of view, and was an accurate summary of them. Or are you now denying that you wish to prevent walkthroughs being published in certain circumstances?

Also, your sarcasm is unnecessary and inappropriate. It would be better to keep this factual.

[highrise]

Your comment restates the fallacy. The validity of your argument is not altered by whether you can find people who agree with you.

Yes, but I'm not trying to create a rule that everyone has to follow in terms of stopping walkthroughs. It's not really a question of validity of argument, it's more a question of ethics. Is it really the case that your need to see a game laid bare using hacks on the day it is released is more important than the fact that many authors find this practice disheartening and in some cases even discouraging? Is a little patience and a little discretion too much to ask? is it unreasonable, in the first two weeks of release, to ask the author's permission before publishing such a walkthrough? Apparently you feel so, as is your right. Nevertheless I believe that it would be better for the community if such wishes were respected.

I concede that my sarcasm is inappropriate and contributes nothing to the debate, and I apologise for it. My aim here is to address an issue that a number of authors care a lot about in a way that does not inhibit anyone's enjoyment.

[highrise]

May I also say that this is an enjoyable debate and I fully respect every opinion that is expressed. I hope that discussing something that matters very little in the grand scheme of things in an inappropriately robust manner provides a little mental stimulation during these difficult times Stay safe everyone and best wishes.

[PaulJ]

I am one of the authors who agrees with this proposal.
To address a point made earlier though, If I want to see if I would like a game, a walkthrough without review or comment is useless to me. I want to know the story, the control options, how the game 'feels', what things could be improved, which screens are easy, which are hard, what to avoid, what things mean - is it collectable or deadly, what can it be used for etc, all gained through other people's opinions and reviews. A flat walkthrough provides no feedback what so ever, good or bad.

Several of my games have been tweaked as a result of good (or poor) reviews, to improve things like jump length, navigation, collection of objects etc.

I enjoy people thinking about my games as a challenge, how they can approach a certain screen or task, and maybe even discussing it on forums. This promotes the game better than a walkthrough in my opinion. It highlights the effort that went into it, the authors way of thinking, the devious challenges he created during long planning and coding sessions.

I also accept the opinions of other authors who don't mind their games being shown in full, with no feedback, opinions, comments, sometimes within 8 hours of release, that is their choice. And that is the word - choice. People should be allowed to make a choice to allow full walkthroughs of their work hours after release or request it be held back.

Not sure why there is a 'heated' debate going on. It's a choice, just like tea or coffee, tomato sauce or brown sauce.. two week embargo or not. All I ask is that whatever the choice is, it is respected.

[Ersh]

I don't see the problem, why would a walkthrough being released keep people from playing the game? Holding off a walkthrough isn't going to gain anyone more players. The people that choose to watch the video instead of playing themselves most likely aren't going to bother playing either way.

That said, if someone explicitly asks not to publish a walkthrough within a certain time, I'd respect that, no matter the reason. Community spirit and all that.

[highrise]

Having slept on this and thought about what people have said, it does reflect a wider issue, and I think it would be useful to look at three basic rights which sometimes oppose one another.

1) When a person buys (or downloads for free) a copy of a game, it becomes their property and they have they have a clear right to play it any way they wish, in the privacy of their own home. They can use pokes, rollbacks, whatever - but they still have to do so within the law. For example, if you buy a book from a shop, you can read it, or you can wipe your backside on it if you wish, but you can't use it to smash your neighbours window, or photocopy it and sell / give that copy to someone else (unless it is in the public domain).

This is because...

2) The law protects an author's right to control how their work is distributed and broadcast, either commercially or non-commercially. They are of course, free to sell that right to a publisher or broadcaster, or indeed give that right up and state that it is free to broadcast and distribute. However, this is not the same as it being free to download for personal use. For example, many authors produce work that is freely downloadable, but still require that it be distributed from their own site. The main reason for this is so they can monitor the response and build relationships with the people who play the games. It's also important to understand that whilst a Youtube video of a game is not considered distribution, it is considered to be broadcasting, and as such the author does have a say over this.

However...

3) Everyone is free to express their opinion about a piece of work, and review / preview it, because this is in the public interest and is often referred to as 'fair use'. In most cases, authors understand and embrace the right for people to do this. It's also considered transformative, because the review itself becomes a new piece of work, and thus the author of that work has the right to broadcast it. However, even in these cases, the author of the original work still maintains the right to any footage used, and their permission to broadcast that footage is often still required. Some of you may recall an example of this recently where Top Hat Gaming man used footage from VillordSutch's channel without his permission.

What I hope is clear from this is that a full walkthrough video on Youtube is essentially a form of public broadcast, and as such should not be done without express permission from the author of the original work. None of the authors I spoke to wish to stop these videos being made. They understand that time and effort goes into them and they provide a valuable service to the community. At the same time, the authors listed at the start of this post are all against the idea of walkthrough videos that are made using rollback and broadcast within days of release. They felt that this devalued their efforts, and whilst they do not wish to ban these videos, they agreed that permission should be sought before such videos are published so early in a game's life cycle.

As I said from the outset, the proposal of a two week embargo on publishing videos without permission of the author is what I hope is a way to strike a balance that encourages a healthy community in which both authors and players feel their rights are respected.

[Rorthron]

Your comment restates the fallacy. The validity of your argument is not altered by whether you can find people who agree with you.

Yes, but I'm not trying to create a rule that everyone has to follow in terms of stopping walkthroughs. It's not really a question of validity of argument, it's more a question of ethics.

This would have been a better response had you stopped at "Yes". You advanced the argument that because some other people agree with you, your point of view must be reasonable. I pointed out that your argument is a logical fallacy, which you have now accepted. That really should end the matter.

It is not reasonable to assert that "it's not really a question of validity of argument". If you advance an argument, its validity really is a relevant question.

Moreover your justification for your argument apparently not needing to be valid is a non sequitur. Discussion of ethics does not entail the acceptance of invalid arguments.

As for your statement that you are not trying to create a rule that others have to follow, I am well aware of that, and have never stated otherwise. You have no authority to create such a rule, and I have already made it clear I have no intention of following you in this regard.

Is it really the case that your need to see a game laid bare using hacks on the day it is released is more important than the fact that many authors find this practice disheartening and in some cases even discouraging? Is a little patience and a little discretion too much to ask? is it unreasonable, in the first two weeks of release, to ask the author's permission before publishing such a walkthrough? Apparently you feel so, as is your right.

Ironically, here you really are telling me what my motivations are, and doing so incorrectly. I have never expressed any of those views. I have already given a clear explanation of why I like to see walkthroughs of new game, without relying on any of these justifications. You are presenting straw-man arguments.

Nevertheless I believe that it would be better for the community if such wishes were respected.

(Emphasis added.)

You have so far advanced arguments why you feel your own needs as author should be met. It does not necessarily follow that the satisfaction of your needs is what is best for the community as a whole, and I don't think it is reasonable for you to claim that it is.

I concede that my sarcasm is inappropriate and contributes nothing to the debate, and I apologise for it.

Thank you.

My aim here is to address an issue that a number of authors care a lot about in a way that does not inhibit anyone's enjoyment.

I have already explained that it does inhibit my enjoyment.

You have also made it clear on several occasions that you think authors' needs should be respected, even if it goes against the desires of users.

It would be more honest to acknowledge that your decision might impact others' enjoyment, but that you feel your needs should be met, than to persist with the convenient fiction that your attitude has no effect.

May I also say that this is an enjoyable debate and I fully respect every opinion that is expressed.

Actually I do not find it enjoyable, and won't be continuing with it beyond this post. I never really wanted to get into a debate about your decision. I simply wanted to make clear I have a very different attitude to games where I am the author.

Unfortunately far from "fully respecting" my point of view, you insisted that it was a "misunderstanding" (it was not), and proceeded to present spurious and specious arguments as to why I should agree with you.

If you do not wish users to make certain walkthroughs of games you have written, I will respect your wishes (and have always intended to). I do not, however, accept your claims that you are doing this for the benefit of the community, that it does not impact users, etc.

[R-Tape]

I enjoy people thinking about my games as a challenge, how they can approach a certain screen or task, and maybe even discussing it on forums. This promotes the game better than a walkthrough in my opinion.

This is the bit I like most as well, seeing people talk about how they progress through a game. I think you can have both though. I can't see how these walkthroughs spoil anything, unless one assumes that every player is so malleable that they can't stop themselves watching and being brainwashed by it.

It's probably pretty clear that I'm fine with walkthroughs, but I do respect your views and like Alessandro's passionate comparison to 'junk food'. I do find it weird that people want this two week ban, but I would certainly not go against the author's wishes.

What I am struggling to understand is Allan's hardline approach to this. Much of the highriser oeuvre is derative works and some of them pure patches, released alongside a donation request. I think they're great and IMO there's is nothing whatsoever wrong with using game characters, MODs, patches, cracks etc, but if you're not going to ask the original author's opinion, then I think not being easy going about how someone makes a video of it is a bit rich. It was raised here, but I really don't think it is a separate issue—if you're going to be strict on things like this, then I think you have to be consistent.

[highrise]

Since Rorthron does not wish to continue the debate, I won't respond in full. I do however wish to respond to one section.

If you do not wish users to make certain walkthroughs of games you have written, I will respect your wishes (and have always intended to). I do not, however, accept your claims that you are doing this for the benefit of the community, that it does not impact users, etc.

I would refute that. As someone that has spent a good deal of time helping other authors to develop their games, I chose to do this because almost all the authors I spoke to or worked with said that they felt that these walkthroughs devalued their work, and found it frustrating and discouraging.
Most people would agree that these authors make a valuable contribution to the community. I believe that in doing something to address this frustration and discouragement, I am encouraging a better relationship between the authors and the players, which must surely be good for the community.

Furthermore, I understand that changing the approach to one in which permission must be given, rather than assumed may impact on some players. That is why a two week grace period was suggested. It is hoped that this will respect the right of the author whilst at the same time minimising the impact it has on players.

[highrise]

and in response to R-Tape, you are correct that the games I produce are derivative / transformative. You might even call them homage or pastiche. There aren't even very many of them, and you are correct to say that these walkthroughs have little impact on this work.

However, the vast majority of my work up until now is not in the games or patches I have released. It has been working with AGDx and enabling other authors to write original games, and producing videos to help them do this. This work probably goes under the radar for most game players, but it does mean that I am close to many of the authors in question, and understand their frustrations. In some ways I have developed a kind of pastoral role and it is for this reason I felt a certain obligation to stand up for them and the contribution they make. My proposals have never been about something that benefits me personally.