120
121

Sega imposes video and streaming restrictions on Puyo Puyo Tetris (translate.googleusercontent.com)

GamingSince95 が 投稿

全 80 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]popcar2 117 ポイント118 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Seriously? They put restrictions on streaming freaking Tetris?

[–]Chariotwheel [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Don't spoil me about the line block, bruv.

[–]Paydebt328 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Cause if you see the game in action you won't want to buy it.

[–]SploonTheDude [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

It's not the first time, they've had a track record worse than Nintendo.

Actually, this is a problem prevalent with most Japanese companies.

[–]Grimsley [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Not most. Just the few.

[–]SploonTheDude [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

True, but the policy is "the richer you are the stricter you are".

[–]Grimsley [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Maybe for Japan but they're not realizing that it's free Marketing, so they're actually MAKING money from these things rather than it taking away. So that doesn't make much sense.

[–]IHaveVariedInterests 55 ポイント56 ポイント  (12子コメント)

I mean I can kind of understand the Persona restrictions with it being so story driven.

But Tetris? Really?

Does PPT have story elements or anything that would have this make any sense?

[–]tobberoth 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (2子コメント)

From a spoiler perspective, it's specifically two modes which are blocked, Adventure Mode and another mode with a weird name... "Part of my data (appreciation adventure)"?

The rest of the modes seem fine to show as long as you stick to the other points.

[–]IHaveVariedInterests 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks. I was having a hard time parsing machine translated Japanese while still on my first cup of coffee.

[–]52percent_Like_it [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think what they're saying is more like 'Under the section 'My Data' you can view cutscenes from the adventure with a gallery mode.' (which is how I would translate it with a lot of guesswork). I don't think it's a separate mode. I'm using the first definition here for かんしょう so it seems to me it's more about just replaying the cutscenes from the first mode? Just my best guess though.

[–]messem10 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (3子コメント)

PPT has a story mode in it. (Known as Adventure Mode)

[–]gamelord12 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Yeah, but I imported that game, can't read Japanese, and couldn't give a fuck what those characters were saying. One of the characters is a talking fish, and I have no idea why, but that game is still good.

[–]samuel9727 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Talking fish and goat are my favourite characters.

[–]Izdoy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Doctor Dog is awesome as is Scientist Bear

[–]FlawedRed[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

PuyoPuyo is based on an old RPG series that Sega obtained the rights for, Madou Monogatari. Rather than go into too much summary, the PuyoPuyo franchise has several characters and original characters were created for the Tetris side of things. The story mode in PPT is a visual novel style series of cutscenes, interspersed with gameplay with various requirements (get a 6 chain, clear 25 lines, progressively more involved objectives, etc), which progresses a slap stick meeting of worlds story.

So the characters you can choose in game all have their own dialogue, lines, and the story mode is just there to help explain the interactions occurring in the game. It's enough that someone could write a summary of it or detract from having to play the game by putting it online, if someone were only interested in "what happens."

They created original characters, they set up scenes... it's enough for me to say, without saying whether it's right or not, that there was a justifiable amount of work put into this story mode feature, which is what is being protected here, so to speak.

You can see people actually playing/streaming competitive PPT on Twitch quite often with no problem, this is merely about the story mode.

[–]Bauermeister 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Christ, why? It's an awesome game that neeeds all the eyes it can get.

[–]ContributorX_PJ64 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Christ, why?

The company that owns Tetris are very... odd. They're calling the shots here, not SEGA.

[–]RyuMBison [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Oh. With Sega owning Atlus who just pulled the same thing for Persona 5 I assumed it was all Sega's doing. I guess they're both a little bit odd making it a perfect partnership.

[–]LainPW [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No, Atlus is owned by SEGA Sammy which owns SEGA too. The people who tell SEGA what to do tell Atlus what to do, it's not SEGA telling them what to do.

[–]SploonTheDude [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Strange, I'd think it'd be SEGA with how awful they were with their YouTube policies.

[–]OneManFreakShow 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I have the Japanese PS4 version and I can confirm that the same is true there. I personally think it's kind of hilarious that they don't want the story to leak in a Tetris game. Hopefully this doesn't have a negative impact on sales, because it really is an amazing game.

[–]FasterThanTW [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

if the story is no big deal then why would not streaming the story hurt sales? this logic can't work both ways.

[–]Grimsley [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Because reasons, damn it. Stop imposing logic on Smegma.

I officially dub Sega Smegma from here on out. Fuck em. All I wanna do is watch p5 because I don't have a ps4 nor am I getting one. I like the people I watch on Twitch and would rather chill watching them than just some random video.

Now doing this to Tetris of all games. Smh.

[–]tombuben [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It may be a decision of the Tetris company, their treatment of the IP is sadly really strange most of the time.

[–]Grimsley [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Or it could be Sega who just did the same thing with P5. Seems to be a trend with Sega. Shining Force, P5, now this. I doubt this is just some one-off.

[–]domeforaklondikebar [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Maybe they're gonna use it for the Tetris films and don't want it spoiled too much. /s.

[–]THECapedCaper [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Why even have a story in a game like this? It's Tetris, it's Puyo Puyo. End of story. People don't get these games for character development or heroic tales, they play because these are really good puzzle games. Keep characters if you must, but don't spend resources on something that's not going to be cared about by the vast majority of players.

[–]doctordiablo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The demo for Puyo Puyo Tetris is extremely generous, it allows you to play standard Tetris and Puyo in both singleplayer and local multiplayer. The story mode is one of the main incentives to pay for the full game (the other big thing being online multiplayer).

[–]FlawedRed[🍰] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's funny you ask that. When Panel de Pon was released in Japan, there was an interview where the developers were asked the same thing, and they said something to the effect of:

"There are so many puzzle games out right now, we needed something to set our game apart from all the others."

There may be a core to why people play puzzle games, but I think many narrowly sighted enthusiasts assume that that's all anyone would want to give a shit about playing a video game. So imagine what happens when everyone is putting out puzzle games and they assume you already care? You get the same situation the developers of Panel de Pon were put into.

[–]GamingSince95[S] 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Original Source without Translation: http://puyo.sega.jp/puyopuyotetris/agreement/

[–]ContributorX_PJ64 [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Of course people will blame SEGA for this and not The Tetris Company, who have previously done this sort of thing before.

[–]TSPhoenix [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Do we have proof of anything though.

I know The Tetris Company is insane, but it isn't like SEGA hasn't done this before and it's not like Persona 5, a product of a SEGA subsidiary didn't just do this with again what I assume is no evidence whether that directive came from Atlus JP or SEGA of Japan.

[–]LunarGolbez [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

When has SEGA restricted streams before?

[–]TSPhoenix [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

About four years back they went on a rampage issuing takedowns to people who had uploaded videos of the Shining Force games.

Sega of America apologised and said it wouldn't continue, but it was still pretty iffy.

[–]HereForGames [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Aren't peoples channels still hit with flags or outright taken down as a result of that crap?

[–]LunarGolbez [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Ah I see. Thanks for the info.

[–]rindindin 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (25子コメント)

Is this the beginning of developers/publishers seeing why they shouldn't get a slice in the pie for people making money off of their products?

[–]TheRawrWata [スコア非表示]  (13子コメント)

So far, it only really seems to be Japanese developers/publishers.

It's pretty strange how they seem to have such a problem with streaming games.

[–]Snatch1414 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

I only know this because I was reading research papers about copyright and YouTube: To make a long story short, in Japan if you own a copyright you have an even greater lockdown on the content than a copyright holder in the US. I can only guess that's at least part of the reason.

[–]supadude5000 [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

My armchair analysis leads me to infer that the close proximity and antagonistic relationship with China has a pretty big effect on Japan clamping down on IP violations. Hell, the entire South China Sea is rife with knock offs, so I would understand Japan having a pretty hard stance on it. Then again, the doujin scene is apparently huge? I don't know.

We would probably have an even harder stance on it if we were surrounded on all sides by countries just siphoning and profiting off our creative works.

That said, I'm really talking out of my ass here and have no idea if that's the case, lmao.

[–]shoryusatsu999 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

A lot of doujin games have original characters and settings. For the ones that don't... Some of them are free, and the IP developers of those generally only care if they're making a profit off of their work. Others are made with the express permission of the IP developer. And still others just aren't popular enough to warrant a response.

[–]Snatch1414 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Thanks, no that's a lot of info I wasn't aware of. Sounds like things are just different over there and that influences their policies across the internet.

[–]TemptCiderFan [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

It's pretty strange how they seem to have such a problem with streaming games.

People are literally making money off their copyrights, some (like PewDiePie in his prime) to tune of hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars per year. You don't see why someone would have an issue with that?

[–]Carda39 [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

There's the concept of a "transformative work" that you're overlooking. By your logic, Weird Al shouldn't have made any money on his song parodies, either.

[–]RookLive [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

He probably pays a royalty to the original composers, which I imagine streamers don't?

[–]supadude5000 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

He doesn't, but he has always made sure to ask permission first out of respect. This led to the controversy between him and Coolio over "Amish Paradise" since Weird Al thought Coolio gave him the go ahead, but Coolio claimed he never did. Weird Al didn't get sued or anything, but he felt bad about it.

[–]Carda39 [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Parody is covered under fair use, no royalties required. He does get permission, even though it's not required. Same goes for remixes.

Also, streamers typically buy the games they stream, so the publisher does in fact get paid by the streamer.

[–]FasterThanTW [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Parody is covered under fair use, no royalties required. He does get permission, even though it's not required. Same goes for remixes. Also, streamers typically buy the games they stream, so the publisher does in fact get paid by the streamer.

  1. Let's Plays are not parodies.

  2. Buying a piece of media does not generally grant you a distribution license. (go buy a movie from Walmart and then upload it to youtube and see what happens)

[–]RookLive [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Doesn't seem to be correct.

http://www.bkrlegal.com/blog/2014/11/does-weird-al-pay-out-royalties-for-his-songs.shtml

According to the Broadcast Music Inc., which is a company that handles the distribution of royalties to artists, parody songs such as Yankovic's are subject to the rules that govern royalty payments. This means that Yankovic, like any other artist in the industry, would need to sign a carefully drafted contract that would not only allow him to receive royalties if his version of a song is used but also the original artist who lent their creativity to make Yankovic's version possible.

More detail here:

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=iplj

tl:dr

Weird Als songs aren't covered under fair use.

Even if they were parodies, you still have to pay the mechanical performance license.

[–]meowskywalker [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But Weird Al, as you noted, makes parodies. That is a transformative work. If I made a career out of playing Pharrell songs and talking over them without paying Pharrell, he would be within his rights to shut me down. Let's Plays are basically that. MST3K had to license the movies they played, and they're almost as "transformative" as a Let's Play.

I don't think Let's Plays are going away. But I think they're going to be a lot less common. I don't think it's going to be long until you have to get permission from the publisher before you stream. And some publishers will be cool with it, because they recognize the benefit of the free advertising the streamers are providing. But some publishers, or some specific games from publishers, are probably going to be blacked out and not allowed to be used by streamers, at least for some set amount of time.

[–]strifecross 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (5子コメント)

That started with Phil Fish back in the day.

[–]codeswinwars [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Even that was hardly the beginning of it. Nintendo started claiming the revenue on videos of their games back in 2013 and variations of the debate go back earlier. I imagine if you really researched it, the debate is probably about as old as Let's Plays are.

[–]meowskywalker [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

The Nintendo thing came off as much more "We want to control the content associate with our characters" more than "folks are getting rich off our shit!" The rules they made people follow seemed like the bigger win for them than the half a youtube ad worth of money they make on each video.

[–]TSPhoenix [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The fact they are taking the money and don't just have a "stream what you like just follow our guidelines" policy is pretty indicative it is about the money.

[–]strifecross [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, you're probably right. Will look into it when I get home.

[–]LeerooooyGaaaankins [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Phil "Japanese games suck" "Choke on it" Fish

[–]SageWaterDragon [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

Once publishers realized that "influencers" would gladly do PR for them if they got a free copy of the game they lost all incentive to play nice with copyright violation. I think we're seeing the beginning of the end of the traditional Let's Play.

[–]rindindin [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Wasn't there some new rule/law that Youtubers have to disclose if the game they're playing was sponsored/given? Not sure if other streaming/video services has to follow the same disclosure rule but video of gameplay/walkthrough has always been a sort of "free" PR. It's just, why wouldn't they also want a slice given how well Twitch/Youtube is doing with its video game contents?

[–]GunzGoPew [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Not even a new law, not disclosing an advertisement is an FTC violation.

[–]FasterThanTW [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

sure, but just being given a game to cover is not an advertisement. it becomes an advertisement when the company is supplying the messaging for the product.

youtube may go a step further and require creators to disclose whether the item was provided to them at all , not sure.

[–]ponderousPrimape [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I hope this sort of stuff does incentivize Youtube and Twitch to set up some kind of royalty share. Streaming is entertainment first, and ad sales second. The ad part works well for certain games, but many others don't see nearly the same type of boost.

[–]HnNaldoR 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So maybe it was not Atlus. It was just Sega.

The Japan masters were just the Sega executives sitting there and stopping people from streaming while kicking sonic's corpse.

[–]meowskywalker [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well, this was fun while it lasted. Dear streamers: please do not contest this in court. I don't feel good about your chances, and I'm concerned it will lead to a world where you'll have to start asking permission beforehand, rather than forgiveness after.

[–]Sven2774 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You know, it occurred to me the other day with all the Persona news that Sega is really weird when it comes to their IP. They are a-ok with fangames and are even letting fans develop a new official sonic game.

Yet it seems like they do not like youtube let's plays or twitch streaming of their games.

Bizarre.

[–]jcdenton2k [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

LMAO SEGA JP. Nobody gives a shit about Puyo Puyo Tetris.

I'll gladly play my (not-Tetris) open-source clone on my mobile phone instead. :P

Thank you FreeDroid (aka F-Droid) app store ;)

[–]xxTheGoDxx [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Damn, I was totally watch Tetris this evening and cheap out on buying the game and a Switch by doing so.

[–]Nickoten [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

For what it's worth, you can still stream the game. You just can't stream it for profit.

Also, this isn't just a "Tetris" game. This is also a Puyo Puyo game, and that's a series that has often had a pretty involved story element. In this case, that story element involves a Story mode with a lot of cutscenes and voiced dialogue, as u/FlawedRed also pointed out.

[–]Mrgudsogud -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Isn't this game, like, five years old? I mean, I understand the desire to not spoil the epic tale of forbidden love that awaits inside, but it's ancient by internet standards.

[–]timpkmn89 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And these rules have been around for like five years