# Phil Fish working on a new game



## EZ-Megaman (Jun 15, 2014)

Despite Phil Fish announcing that he was going to quit designing games almost a year ago and cancelling Fez, it was recently recently announced that he was going to join Polytron again and work on another game.

It seems the new game is called called Panoramical, which you can find a brief teaser video of here.


  Source


----------



## gamefan5 (Jun 15, 2014)

Why am I not even surprised


----------



## link6155 (Jun 15, 2014)

Are you sure? Look at the date:


----------



## natkoden (Jun 15, 2014)

Is not FEZ 2, actually, it has nothing to do with FEZ.

And the game's primarily made by two other guys other than Phil Fish.


----------



## Celice (Jun 15, 2014)

How sensational


----------



## EZ-Megaman (Jun 15, 2014)

link6155 said:


> Are you sure? Look at the date:



See reason for edit. I saw my error a few second after posting and reported so a mod could amend the title.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 15, 2014)

Oh boy, I can't wait to see how he self destructs and tantrums this time.

In the meantime, enjoy the Phil Fish Official Theme Song.


----------



## frogboy (Jun 15, 2014)

OH BOY OH YEAH IT'S HAPPENING!!!

Oh wait, I hate Phil Fish's guts.


----------



## Ryufushichou (Jun 19, 2014)

frogboy said:


> OH BOY OH YEAH IT'S HAPPENING!!!
> 
> Oh wait, I hate Phil Fish's guts.



You should watch this:


It might not change your opinion, but it is still a decent point.

Personally i don't care if Phil came back or not, i still think he is kind of an asshole, especially with what happened this morning, but polytron working more as an indie partner is something i welcome.


----------



## Dork (Jun 19, 2014)

Who cares about this pretentious manchild?


----------



## XDel (Jun 19, 2014)

I wish Phil the best of luck. Hopefully his future ventures will bring him more peace. It's supposed to be for the love of it after all...


----------



## Gahars (Jun 19, 2014)

Ryufushichou said:


> You should watch this:


 
So either Phil Fish paid money to have this made, or someone spent time on this entirely of their own volition.

Either way, that's pretty sad.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Jun 19, 2014)

Dark S. said:


> Who cares about this pretentious manchild?


exactly who cares abut this twat and any shit overrated games he makes.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Jun 19, 2014)

The only reason why people still remember him is because his name's got "Fish" in it and it's just sorta catchy. Otherwise, he's an ass.


----------



## AshuraZro (Jun 19, 2014)

Well it has been awhile since I've logged in but hey, let's make a post!

So... how about a mention for the ACTUAL DEVELOPERS working on this game in this article. This isn't even a new game announcement.  It has been at various events. For years.

The game's developers, Fernando Ramallo and David Kanaga, have partnered with Finji and Polytron for publisher-like assistance in various areas.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 19, 2014)

Ryufushichou said:


> You should watch this:
> 
> It might not change your opinion, but it is still a decent point.
> 
> Personally i don't care if Phil came back or not, i still think he is kind of an asshole, especially with what happened this morning, but polytron working more as an indie partner is something i welcome.


I'm not sure if I agree with the premise of this video - essentially the idea that's being conveyed is that we should close an eye on Phil Fish being a hot-head and at times an asshole because a) he's always been hot-headed and an asshole and b) because people are mad at the concept of a circle-jerking _"indie"_ developer, or rather, a pretentious _"auteur"_, not at Phil Fish the individual. Well, I've got news for everybody - neither of those factors makes Phil Fish any less of a circle-jerking _"indie"_ hot-headed asshole _person_.

As a developer who puts out a product on the market, you become married to it and have to get used to the fact that your _"audience"_ comprises of both people who admire you as an individual and those who hate your guts. Conversations between a developer and his/her audience are not at all like conversations between two boys on a school yard, Phil Fish the developer and Phil Fish the person are two different personas, if he's unable to be professional via official channels, perhaps he should not participate in them.

If I tweeted at any randomly picked famous person, say, Johnny Depp and told him that _"The Lone Ranger and Transcendence are sh*t movies and he sucks donkey balls as an actor because he's a one-trick pony and is permanently married to the Jack Sparrow role"_, chances are that I would be _ignored_ or the reply would either be neutral or an attempt at making the conversation a big joke because replying aggressively would simply give bad rep to Johnny Depp the actor - Johnny Depp the individual's feelings are a completely different matter. Unless Johnny Depp would specifically want to cause some buzz around himself, I would not hear anything along the lines of _"No, you suck"_ as a reply because that's unprofessional.

To reiterate, if Fish can't handle the heat, he shouldn't expose himself to it. Defending rude responses with the _"well, they were rude first!"_ is silly in a professional setting - in his position, he has to be better than his peers and that's that. I won't dwelve into his other flaws, but I will say that he has to learn when's the time to bite himself in the tongue and just let it go or at least steer the conversation to a different subject before he makes another blunder. Blunders are not charming, they're annoying. They're giving him press, but it's bad press.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Jun 19, 2014)

Great.
Now give me Fez 2


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 20, 2014)

So this happened: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/fe...me-devs-huge-portion-of-revenue/1100-6420573/

Here's some snippets:


			
				Phil Fish said:
			
		

> _"YouTubers should have to pay out a huge portion of their revenue to the developers from which they steal all their content," Fish said in the first of a series of tweets. "[Ad] revenue should be shared with developers (...) If you generate money from putting my content on your channel, you owe me money. Simple as that. (...) If you buy a movie, are you then allowed to stream the entirety of it publicly for people to watch for free? No, because that's illegal. (...) Systems are in place to prevent that. But buy Fez, put ALL of it on YouTube, turn on ads, make money from it and that's TOTALLY FINE. (...) And the developer should in NO WAY be compensated for their work being freely distributed to the world. Right. Makes sense."_


Upon imparting his wisdom upon us, mere mortals, Phil has promptly deleted his Twitter account, likely in a fit of his usual rage.

Here's an appropriate gif featuring salty tears:






_"You filthy YouTube pirates, how dare you capture footage of yourself having fun! I demand that you hand over all your YouTube millions to me, the poor developer! Thieves, the lot of you! You and your free advertisement be damned, it's not like thousands of people buy games because they liked the gameplay footage they saw online! That's it, I'm leaving (again)! MOOOOM! WHERE ARE MY CHEESY-PUFFS AND MOUNTAIN DEW?!?"_


----------



## natkoden (Jun 20, 2014)

I support him.

How can a guy like PewdiePie earn 4 million dollars a year?

We're crazy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 20, 2014)

natkoden said:


> I support him.
> 
> How can a guy like PewdiePie earn 4 million dollars a year?
> 
> We're crazy.


It's called transformative work and it's Fair Use, people don't watch PewDiePie's videos for the games, they watch them for PewDiePie, his reactions and his commentaries _(getting that through to someone's head might be difficult, I know)_. The games merely receive free advertisement in the process and unless we're talking about 100% linear story-based single player games shared in their entirety, broadcasting captured footage does not take away anything from the actual product - you can't _"play"_ a YouTube video like you'd play a video game. Essentially this is the argument along the lines of _"I should pay $2 for every photo of bread I see online because that's totally like eating the whole loaf"_ - it's not, it's just a photo of the actual product, a fraction of the whole. There's a good reason why a lot of video game companies work directly with YouTubers - it's just a cheap and extremely effective way to market their products.


----------



## natkoden (Jun 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> It's called transformative work and it's Fair Use, people don't watch PewDiePie's videos for the games, *they watch them for PewDiePie*, his reactions and his commentaries _(getting that through to someone's head might be difficult, I know)_. The games merely receive free advertisment in the process and unless we're talking about 100% linear story-based single player games, broadcasting captured footage does not take away anything from the actual product - you can't _"play"_ a YouTube video like you'd play a video game. Essentially this is the argument along the lines of _"I should pay $2 for every photo of bread I see online because that's totally like eating the whole loaf"_ - it's not, it's just a photo of the actual product, a fraction of the whole. There's a good reason why a lot of video game companies work directly with YouTubers - it's just a cheap and extremely effective way to market their products.


 
Exactly.

We're crazy.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jun 20, 2014)

While I enjoyed his statements about the Japanese gaming scene, he's still a whiny bitch and also an indie dev, so he's shit.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Jun 20, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> While I enjoyed his statements about the Japanese gaming scene, he's still a whiny bitch and also an indie dev, so he's shit.


That sounds interesting. Link to this anti-weaboo rant?


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jun 20, 2014)

Hyro-Sama said:


> That sounds interesting. Link to this anti-weaboo rant?


 

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2...fish-declares-modern-japanese-games-just-suck


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> It's called transformative work and it's Fair Use, people don't watch PewDiePie's videos for the games, they watch them for PewDiePie, his reactions and his commentaries _(getting that through to someone's head might be difficult, I know)_. The games merely receive free advertisement in the process and unless we're talking about 100% linear story-based single player games shared in their entirety, broadcasting captured footage does not take away anything from the actual product - you can't _"play"_ a YouTube video like you'd play a video game. Essentially this is the argument along the lines of _"I should pay $2 for every photo of bread I see online because that's totally like eating the whole loaf"_ - it's not, it's just a photo of the actual product, a fraction of the whole. There's a good reason why a lot of video game companies work directly with YouTubers - it's just a cheap and extremely effective way to market their products.


Except that there is no precedence for let's plays to be covered under fair use.


----------



## Dork (Jun 20, 2014)

Hyro-Sama said:


> That sounds interesting. Link to this anti-weaboo rant?


Damn, I can't find the video anywhere.

It wasn't even a rant, it was just him stating bluntly that japanese games suck and they need to get with the times when an independent jap dev asked him how he can improve his games. It was really dumb.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 20, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> Except that there is no precedence for let's plays to be covered under fair use.


Games are multimedia like any other, gameplay footage is video like any other. Can't fault YouTubers because the law is lagging 10-20 years behind the times, as it's often the case.


----------



## Hyro-Sama (Jun 20, 2014)

Dark S. said:


> Damn, I can't find the video anywhere.
> 
> It wasn't even a rant, it was just him stating bluntly that japanese games suck and they need to get with the times when an independent jap dev asked him how he can improve his games. It was really dumb.


How is it dumb? He was totally right.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Games are multimedia like any other, gameplay footage is video like any other. Can't fault YouTubers because the law is lagging 10-20 years behind the times, as it's often the case.


The videos are making money off of copyrighted material without permission.  If MST3K had to get licenses, I don't see why PewDiePie doesn't have to.


----------



## Dork (Jun 20, 2014)

Hyro-Sama said:


> How is it dumb? He was totally right.


 
your right how silly of me


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 20, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> The videos are making money off of copyrighted material without permission. If MST3K had to get licenses, I don't see why PewDiePie doesn't have to.


Can you explain to me why a movie review or a commentary is Fair Use, but a video game commentary or review is not? The express purpose of such work is _exactly_ the same, only the medium varies.


			
				U.S. Copyright Law said:
			
		

> _"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as *criticism*, *comment*, *news reporting*, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."_


Ergo reviews and commentaries are Fair Use, thank you. You might argue about Let's Plays with _no_ commentary whatsoever, just footage, but that's about it. Moreover, U.S. Copyright Law does not explicitly specify the percentage of work that is allowed to be shared - if an altercation with a copyright holder does occur, such matters are judged upon on an individual basis, so the _"completeness"_ argument goes right out of the window. Of course here we're pretending that the U.S. copyright law is all-encompassing and binding all of us, which it isn't. 

Of course in all such cases it's usually preferable to obtain the copyright holder's permission to use the content, but it's not required at all.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Can you explain to me why a movie review or a commentary is Fair Use, but a video game commentary or review is not? The express purpose of such work is _exactly_ the same, only the medium varies.
> 
> Ergo reviews and commentaries are Fair Use, thank you. You might argue about Let's Plays with _no_ commentary whatsoever, just footage, but that's about it. Moreover, U.S. Copyright Law does not explicitly specify the percentage of work that is allowed to be shared - if an altercation with a copyright holder does occur, such matters are judged upon on an individual basis, so the _"completeness"_ argument goes right out of the window. Of course here we're pretending that the U.S. copyright law is all-encompassing and binding all of us, which it isn't.
> 
> Of course in all such cases it's usually preferable to obtain the copyright holder's permission to use the content, but it's not required at all.


you conveniently left out this part:



> In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
> 1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
> 2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
> 3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
> 4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.


 
Reviews only show clips/excerpts from the work that they are reviewing; they do not show the whole movie, game, book, whatever.  Let's Plays are more akin to Mystery Science Theater 3000 in that they show the whole thing (or at least large chunks) while adding their own commentary on top of it.  MST3K had to acquire the licenses from copyrighted movies in order to do this (or as they often did, used movies that were public domain).


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 20, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> you conveniently left out this part: Reviews only show clips/excerpts from the work that they are reviewing; they do not show the whole movie, game, book, whatever. Let's Plays are more akin to Mystery Science Theater 3000 in that they show the whole thing (or at least large chunks) while adding their own commentary on top of it. MST3K had to acquire the licenses from copyrighted movies in order to do this (or as they often did, used movies that were public domain).


You're quoting the part of the section concerning factors determining whether an existing work is Fair Use by a judge _if_ an altercation occurs, and even those are vague and entirely up to the judge's subjective opinion. These are not an actual outlines of what Fair Use is, hence I left them out.

It's often hard to judge what _"chunk"_ a Let's Play covers, it depends on the genre of the game. Let's take a fighting game for instance - does the complete arcade ladder equal 100% of the game? No, of course not - in a fighting game the _"meat"_ of the package are the fighting mechanics which can't really be _"shared"_, they have to be _"played"_.

Again, you have to apply an individual per-game judgement here - a complete from cover to cover let's play of a story-oriented linear game is obviously crossing the line while a few excerpts are fine. On the other hand, 101 videos of multiplayer Call of Duty matches do not comprise a substantial portion of the whole product because there is no _"content"_ that loses its value in the process of sharing it, see point 4 - the whole _point_ of a multiplayer match is competitive fun and that remains intact, no matter how many times you share it.

The Mystery Science Theater is a very good example here since that kind of transformative work does make watching the full movie effectively pointless, which is why it dealt with Public Domain movies, so no market value of the product was lost. Such _"complete"_ let's plays or commentaries do need to be monitored, but even so, we can't forget that the act of watching a video game being played and the act of actually playing it are two completely different things and the _"loss"_ incured by publishing videos containing gameplay footage, if any, is subject to many variables.


----------



## natkoden (Jun 20, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> While I enjoyed his statements about the Japanese gaming scene, he's still a whiny bitch *and also an indie dev*, so he's shit.


 
oh, god...


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> You're quoting the part of the section concerning factors determining whether an existing work is Fair Use by a judge _if_ an altercation occurs, and even those are vague and entirely up to the judge's subjective opinion. These are not an actual outlines of what Fair Use is, hence I left them out.


It's absolutely integral to the matter at hand.  They are factors in whether or not something would be deemed fair use and they even show how your typical movie review differs from a Let's Play using those criteria.



> It's often hard to judge what _"chunk"_ a Let's Play covers, it depends on the genre of the game. Let's take a fighting game for instance - does the complete arcade ladder equal 100% of the game? No, of course not - in a fighting game the _"meat"_ of the package are the fighting mechanics which can't really be _"shared"_, they have to be _"played"_.
> 
> Again, you have to apply an individual per-game judgement here - a complete from cover to cover let's play of a story-oriented linear game is obviously crossing the line while a few excerpts are fine. On the other hand, 101 videos of multiplayer Call of Duty matches do not comprise a substantial portion of the whole product because there is no _"content"_ that loses its value in the process of sharing it, see point 4 - the whole _point_ of a multiplayer match is competitive fun and that remains intact, no matter how many times you share it.


 
I don't think our disagreement is too big here.  One part of the criteria mentioned that you initially left out was "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work", so one could make the argument that non-story arena multiplayer type stuff does not diminish the value of the copyrighted work.  The problem is, though, that since there really hasn't been any precedent set for Let's Plays, we don't have enough to work with in trying to estimate what would legally be considered fair use.  How much video from a campaign could you show?  There's a lot of grey area in the present in regards to Let's Plays, although some are clearly darker than others, and until we get some legal precedence, it will be difficult to know where to draw the line.



> The Mystery Science Theatre is a very good example here since that kind of transformative work does make watching the full movie effectively pointless, which is why it dealt with Public Domain movies only, so no market value of the product was lost. Such _"complete"_ let's plays or commentaries do need to be monitored, but even so, we can't forget that the act of watching a video game being played and the act of actually playing it are two completely different things and the _"loss"_ incured by publishing videos containing gameplay footage, if any, is subject to many variables.


They didn't deal with only public domain, but when they used copyrighted material, they acquired the license allowing them to do so.
As for gameplay v. footage, that's part of what makes this such a grey area, and until a court rules on it, I can't consider most of it to be Fair Use.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 20, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> It's absolutely integral to the matter at hand. They are factors in whether or not something would be deemed fair use and they even show how your typical movie review differs from a Let's Play using those criteria.
> 
> I don't think our disagreement is too big here. One part of the criteria mentioned that you initially left out was "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work", so one could make the argument that non-story arena multiplayer type stuff does not diminish the value of the copyrighted work. The problem is, though, that since there really hasn't been any precedent set for Let's Plays, we don't have enough to work with in trying to estimate what would legally be considered fair use. How much video from a campaign could you show? There's a lot of grey area in the present in regards to Let's Plays, although some are clearly darker than others, and until we get some legal precedence, it will be difficult to know where to draw the line.
> 
> ...


In other words, we agree on the key elements of the overall debate, except I consider it Fair Use by extension while you refrain from calling it that until a legal precedence is established, which is an equally good position. Glad to see us reaching some common ground.


----------



## grossaffe (Jun 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> In other words, we agree on the key elements of the overall debate, except I consider it Fair Use by extension while you refrain from calling it that unless a legal precedence is established, which is an equally good position. Glad to see us reaching some common ground.


Sounds like a pretty good summary.  We do have the ability to agree on a thing here and there when it's not directly related to taste in video games.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 20, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> In other words, we agree on the key elements of the overall debate, except I consider it Fair Use by extension while you refrain from calling it that unless a legal precedence is established, which is an equally good position. Glad to see us reaching some common ground.


 


grossaffe said:


> Sounds like a pretty good summary. We do have the ability to agree on a thing here and there when it's not directly related to taste in video games.


 

Civil agreement? Mutual respect? Boo! Where's the mudslinging, the hurt feelings, the posterior paddling?

God damn, this thread is really going down the drain.


----------



## vayanui8 (Jun 20, 2014)

The real irony in his rant against lets plays is the fact that he actually said we could pirate Fez in one of his rages 
http://segmentnext.com/2013/04/24/angry-fez-fans-should-just-pirate-the-game-phil-fish/


----------



## cdoty (Jun 20, 2014)

Ryufushichou said:


> ...i still think he is kind of an asshole, especially with what happened this morning....


 
He returns to form without missing a beat.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 20, 2014)

cdoty said:


> He returns to form without missing a beat.


I totally didn't notice that Ryufushichou already linked to an article about this, my bad! Still as funny as ever though!


----------



## calmwaters (Jun 20, 2014)

Well we're all excited about the game, but that message is getting lost amidst the mudslinging, backstabbing users who don't like Phil Fish and are vocal about it. And about copyrights: if you didn't write that English paper all by yourself, then you've got to give credit to the thing that helped you. Whether or not the original owners decide to be dicks is their business; at least you did the right thing.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 20, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> Well we're all excited about the game, but that message is getting lost amidst *the mudslinging, backstabbing users* who don't like Phil Fish and are vocal about it.


 
"Forgive them, Father, they know not how totally amazing I am."

Riiiight. I think the last thing we need to be doing is feeding his martyr complex.


----------



## Flame (Jun 20, 2014)

this guys sums up Phil Fish nicely...

but im dived on phil fish... its like the guy got "internet gaming" famous and cant handle it.


----------



## Gahars (Jun 20, 2014)

Flame said:


> *snip*
> 
> this guys sums up Phil Fish nicely...


 
By being worse than him in every single way?

Give Phil some credit here, at least he has talent to waste.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Jun 20, 2014)

Watching Indie Game: The Movie has made me hate almost every single indie dev. The movie tried to portray indie devs as people with a passion, trying to make it in a competitive market, but instead they all come off as pompous assholes who think they're the bee's knees, the "future" of game development as they fight the tyranny of big companies. They're elitists in every sense of the word.

Remember when indie games were like Cave Story? Well made, lengthy, with an interesting art style and memorable soundtrack, and most of all, given away for free? I don't even know if many people know the guy's name, he just goes by "Pixel". Now you have people making 5 minute games like Gone Home, proclaiming it's the most radical step in gaming, and charging a $20 price tag.

People like to shit on the big companies for their "abuse of consumers" but indie devs are even worse, especially with Kickstarter and Early Access.


----------



## BORTZ (Jun 20, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> People like to shit on the big companies for their "abuse of consumers" but indie devs are even worse, especially with Kickstarter and Early Access.


 
No way man, people pay for games on kickstarter, meaning they want the game real bad, and it takes years to develop a good indie title. $20 for a digital copy and a 3 inch sticker it totally justified. /sarcasm

Can I like the indie market but hate the devs? Also, whats your opinion on a larger company, namely Ubisoft making "indie"ish titles? Namely, Ubiart making Child of Light? Is the $15 or $20 pricetag justifiable then or not?


----------



## TyBlood13 (Jun 20, 2014)

Fez was a decent game but nothing to write home about. Fish needs to get over himself.


----------



## Foxi4 (Jun 20, 2014)

calmwaters said:


> Well we're all excited about the game, but that message is getting lost amidst the mudslinging, backstabbing users who don't like Phil Fish and are vocal about it. And about copyrights: if you didn't write that English paper all by yourself, then you've got to give credit to the thing that helped you. Whether or not the original owners decide to be dicks is their business; at least you did the right thing.


I don't remember paying Arthur Conan Doyle's family a dime and I'm writing a Sherlock Holmes-oriented degree paper - most of those stories are Public Domain, but not all of them. I can use them freely in my paper though because they're used for educational purposes, and as such, they're covered by the Fair Use principle. The same applies to online reviews or commentaries, but again, this is a very broad area that you could meander in for days without reaching a definite conclusion as to what is and isn't Fair Use in terms of video game footage.


Flame said:


> _*Snip!*_


Can't wait for that modship to arrive to my door so that I can purge the forum of this Sin.


----------



## CompassNorth (Jun 20, 2014)

Love Phil Fish, and I love FEZ can't wait for this game.


----------

