Support NeoGAF

[gafneo]

So, he is no Angry Video Game Nerd.

 

[Eyemus Lutt]

Extended "Lets Plays" which show most, if not all, of the game are a greyer area. But streaming an entire movie is just way too different to streaming a game. The mediums themselves are so different that it's hard to find an accurate comparison between them.

How is it that different streaming a lets play of a game like Telltales Walking dead and making comments and streaming the TV show Walking dead and making comments? The game is story based and very few people play it multiple times so the experience is very similar to the TV show.

 

[entremet]

Nintendo is wrong about this. They're looking like dinosaurs.

 

[Moon_frogger]

Nintendo played the game and edited the video?

Hahaha. I'm guessing at some point, Nintendo indeed played their own game. Hahahaha. Really?

 

[Pennywise83]

Incorrect use. He didn't claim that the stance of the other publishers is the correct one because most of them do it, he simply said that "there's an argument to be had" which there obviously is.

I guess that was his bottom line, though. Argumentum ad populum has been widely used in this thread.

 

[Diablohead]

Does angry joe have any agreements with nintendo for videos? if they threw a copyright at it i'm guessing none?

 

[Kriken]

I really do think Nintendo needs to drop the "shoot first ask questions later policy" on YouTube video claims. It benefits nobody and YouTube'so current policy is too black and white for it to work in a "we made the content possible, so split the revenue" type way

Although I do find Angry Joe taking down the video to be childish

 

[blankempathy]

Does angry joe have any agreements with nintendo for videos? if they threw a copyright at it i'm guessing none?

Unless there is proof seems like he went outside of their youtube content creators program and tried to keep the dough for himself.

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

That is still a valid argument. There are two options here:

1) Angry Joe makes videos about Nintendo games. Angry Joe makes money. Nintendo benefits from exposure.

2) Angry Joe doesn't make videos about Nintendo games. He still makes money covering non-Nintendo games. Nintendo doesn't benefit from exposure.

I really don't get why people think option 2 is preferable - unless you'd actually dislike Nintendo.

Exactly. The only one loosing here is Nintendo.

 

[TheSlySoul]

I really do think Nintendo needs to drop the "shoot first ask questions later policy" on YouTube video claims. It benefits nobody and YouTube'so current policy is too black and white for it to work in a "we made the content possible, so split the revenue" type way

I think this as well.
Content ID system is broke. Do not rely on it.

 

[Haunted]

This will benefit other developers and publishers that are more supportive of content creators that he will cover in the future instead, so I can't really see this as a bad thing.

Except for Nintendo, I mean.

 

[Pennywise83]

1) Why do you think other companies do not do this? Did EA do this when pewdiepie was playing Skate 3?

2) That is obviously going to put people off. The only one loosing here is Nintendo. These popular youtubers have dedicated fanbases and can play loads of different games while getting lots of views while not being affected by such claims.

1) I don't know. They don't care; they don't think this will hurt their reputation; they do think it's like free advertising. As long as a company is widely succeeding, e.g. EA, Ubisoft, why should it care? Nintendo is not in the same position, and also always tried to protect its IPs better (that's because they're more valuable in the long-term, typically). Furthermore, I'm pretty sure some companies are paying YTrs to play some video games, which is 100% advertising.

2) Maybe. If there's enough demand for Nintendo products (and there is: SSB sold 10m in a few months; Pokémon ORAS as well; MM3D was the top-selling game in February NPDs), there'll be a market claiming for videos (LP, other contents) to be made; and if those videos are going through Nintendo (which means: revenue split), than Nintendo is not losing, but just concentrating marketing materials, and making some money off it.

 

[Jpop]

It doesn't necessarily mean it's legal or fair, in fact, I even said that legally, Nintendo is absolutely 100% right to do this. But the argument to be had isn't whether they could, it's whether they should. More than that, why would anyone favour Nintendo doing this?

Nintendo does offer a way for him to monetize the video though it just requires him to split a portion of the ad-revenue.

Him having such a huge viewership would allow him to negotiate better splits as well.

Honestly I think those of you arguing that a creator shouldn't be offered a split in the revenue are ridiculous.

The reasoning that gaming is consumed in a different manner than music,movies, TVs, and books sets a horrible precedent.

 

[Koren]

Nintendo is always behind the technology times. Remember their stance on renting games?

Yes, because renting games in shops became a thing. They definitively missed the boat there! ^_^

Rental shops were renting VHS/DVD they paid a premium after negociating with the publisher, I don't see why it should have been different with games, and Nintendo has rights to decline. Even worse, Nintendo HAD a kind of rental service in Japan (with rewritable carts).


I'm far more unhappy with Sony saying I can't resale a game I bought* than with Nintendo saying that retailers can't buy a game a rent it as many times they want to customers...


* out of principle, mostly, because I've yet to resale a game, but also a bit because when the game isn't available anymore, second-hand can be the only solution to play it.

 

[Sheroking]

but thats only because they lost their lawsuit. So you think its ok for people to profit from a copy of their game through renting it? How come?

First of all, I turn 27 in May and this lawsuit literally happened before I was born. To even suggest there's any relevance to modern day Nintendo is pretty damned ridiculous.

To answer the question, though, specifically because the courts didn't find copyright infringement in renting games. The law in this matter is pretty clearly in Nintendo's corner.

That said, I hope the US one day overhaul's it's copyright system.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Oh boy. Hook, line and sinker. Do you know what fair use entails? Certainly not monetizing from a protected creative work on a service like YouTube, which itself generates revenue from content being uploaded. That completely operates outside the scope of fair use. Case closed.

If Joe opted to NOT monetize then there's no issue.

Everything in this post is wrong.

You are 100% entitled to make money from using others work under fair use, and if Joe opted to not monetize Nintendo would have still done the exact same thing.

 

[geordiemp]

Think its a good thing that Nintendo does this.

We don't want Teenagers knowing about Nintendo games, best just keep it to the existing nintendo console owners who view directs....

The popular games on you tube that sell a lot such as COD, LOL, Destiny, FIFA....cant go upsetting the status quo.

Activision and EA are happy.

Spoiler

sarcasm

 

[Easy_D]

He did. Reason why I think he just did this to complain (rally his troops maybe? I don't know.). He could have said awhile back when they announced this "I won't be doing Nintendo games." and left it at that.



Yes. It's his job so if he isn't making money off it, it's not worth it. If it's his main source of income, I can see why he would not want to do it.

It's the complaining about it is what I don't get and why I don't feel sorry for him.

Still. The Nintendo video could stay, he wouldn't earn any money from it, but he'd get more views and possibly more views on his more lucrative videos.

 

[Gestault]

My response:

If this is a legal question, you're missing the point entirely (and would be violating two parties' copyrights if we're following the reasoning that he's infringing in the first place).

If this is a pragmatic question (the question of should Nintendo react like this), you're still missing the point.

 

[CaptainTiptop]

Hahaha. I'm guessing at some point, Nintendo indeed played their own game. Hahahaha. Really?

Learn how to read.

 

[PanicFreak]

What ad revenue? He was the one making money from their work.

Have you ever heard of the fair use doctrine?

 

[cheezcake]

How is it that different streaming a lets play of a game like Telltales Walking dead and making comments and streaming the TV show Walking dead and making comments? The game is story based and very few people play it multiple times so the experience is very similar to the TV show.

It's not! It's weird because games are so unique in their diversity, from stuff like DOTA to the Walking Dead the range of experiences is huge. Which makes dealing with all games the same way rather awkward. In the end, regardless of the legal aspect, I'm still yet to hear a compelling argument as to why this is even a good thing for Nintendo.

People keep saying that they're a big company and they don't need the exposure, bullshit. Getting free exposure to an audience of two million GAMERS is invaluable to any dev/publisher.

 

[CarlieCaplin]

I just woke up so let me see if i get this straight.
Joes mad because he apparently tried to monetize his video on MP10 while not going through Nintendo's youtube creators program?

Even though this whole program was forefront on gaming media a few months ago?

Even though hes already had issues in the past when he uploaded another Nintendo video that I can't recall exactly what it was currently?

Is that basically the jist of it?

IIRC the video prior to the Nintendo program was about Mario Kart 8

 

[Daffy Duck]

I'm far more unhappy with Sony saying I can't resale a game I bought*


* out of principle, mostly, because I've yet to resale a game, but also a bit because when the game isn't available anymore, second-hand can be the only solution to play it.

Wait, sorry to go OT, but what is this?

Everything in this post is wrong.

You are 100% entitled to make money from using others work under fair use, and if Joe opted to not monetize Nintendo would have still done the exact same thing.

I don't think Nintendo would have done anything if he didn't monetise the video.

 

[Zabby]

My response:

Great hyperbole, perfectly sums up the argument, even if some don't see it.
Read a lot of interesting arguments, this is a tough one to crack.

 

[7DollarHagane]

Unless there is proof seems like he went outside of their youtube content creators program and tried to keep the dough for himself.

Yup. Didn't play by the rules. Surprised that things didn't go his way.

Odd reaction, that. You can't run a business and just try to ignore rules set up by people who have power to affect your business.

 

[blankempathy]

That is still a valid argument. There are two options here:

1) Angry Joe makes videos about Nintendo games. Angry Joe makes money. Nintendo benefits from exposure.

2) Angry Joe doesn't make videos about Nintendo games. He still makes money covering non-Nintendo games. Nintendo doesn't benefit from exposure.

I really don't get why people think option 2 is preferable - unless you'd actually dislike Nintendo.

And thats perfectly fine but it seems like Nintendo set some rules and he broke them and now hes mad. Whether the rules are stupid or not is up for debate and shouldn't be the focus of discussion because at the end of the day Nintendo is the one hurting/benefiting from their own rules. However if he tried to make money on a Nintendo video fully knowing about the program and tried to still get away with monetizing his video without splitting profits through their creators program then hes in the wrong. Nintendo's stance on youtube isn't exactly a big secret to seasoned youtubers like himself. Either don't make Nintendo videos or don't try to make money off them while those rules are in place and then bitch about it afterwards. Its like knowing fire burns you and then placing your hand in it anyways and being mad that you got burnt. Either way hes in the wrong if thats the case here and lashing out on twitter makes him look even more juvenile.

 

[Sheroking]

Think its a good thing that Nintendo does this.

We don't want Teenagers knowing about Nintendo games, best just keep it to the existing nintendo console owners who view directs....

The popular games on you tube that sell a lot such as COD, LOL, Destiny, FIFA....cant go upsetting the status quo.

Activision and EA are happy.

Spoiler

sarcasm

Interesting that you mentioned Destiny.

Isn't Bungie the company that blanket disallows any monetization of their content on YouTube as part of their games terms of service? Or am I wrong?

 

[Bots are better than you]

Yeah, don't get the (mostly fake) rage here. I wonder how the posts were if it was Sony or MS. But we all love a good beatdown of Nintendo, right?

Nintendo wants a share of the video revenue, using their games. I don't care if a person talks while playing, or who is playing at all. 95% of the video content is the game, which belongs to the developer. So I think it's fair at all, if they want a piece of the cake.
If they only would offer a program, that allows both, Nintendo and the uploader to get some money, that would solve this legal greyzone.

But wait, there is! It's the same program the good old AngryJoe was trashing to no end. He refused to cooperate, he got the copyright-hammer and now he is crying on Twitter.

I think not streaming games like Xenoblade X or Zelda might hurt him more than Nintendo, they do know hire to advertise their big games. But there will be enough streamers willing to show those games.

Call me old ... But I don't understand the fascination in watching others playing games ... I rather play them on my own.

 

[bitesnintendog]

People keep mentioning the creator program but the list of games you can play has not been updated since launch. He couldn't even split the money with Nintendo if he wanted to.

 

[AstroNut325]

I'm not aware of any other Dev or publisher that does this. I'll be siding with AJ on this.

 

[Ban Puncher]

 

[blankempathy]

IIRC the video prior to the Nintendo program was about Mario Kart 8

Right and I remember he made a video complaining about it afterwards. Then the whole youtube content creators program became a thing and now hes mad even though he knows the deal already. I just don't get where his anger stems from. Why does he deserve a pass? Sure Nintendo's stance may be stupid but the reality is that currently those rules exist.

 

[chubigans]

I have to fault Angry Joe here; we all knew how incredibly stupid Nintendo is being with their video partner program a while ago, so what did he expect?

That said, Let's Plays are the future and any company not backing Youtubers at this point are being complete idiots.

 

[Eyemus Lutt]

It's not! It's weird because games are so unique in their diversity, from stuff like DOTA to the Walking Dead the range of experiences is huge. Which makes dealing with all games the same way rather awkward. In the end, regardless of the legal aspect, I'm still yet to hear a compelling argument as to why this is even a good thing for Nintendo.

People keep saying that they're a big company and they don't need the exposure, bullshit. Getting free exposure to an audience of two million GAMERS is invaluable to any dev/publisher.

They don't need exposure, they have a marketing budget which is something small indie devs don't have and are forced to rely on giving youtubers codes to their games so they might get some publicity.

You still also haven't said how Telltales game Walking dead is so different than watching an episode of the show. You can get 99% of the experience if you watch that game being played or playing it yourself.

 

[DoktorEvil]

Yup. Didn't play by the rules. Surprised that things didn't go his way.

Odd reaction, that. You can't run a business and just try to ignore rules set up by people who have power to affect your business.

Previous videos he's made on his page dispute this.

He knew all about the Nintendo Content Creators Program, so much so that he made a rant video complaining about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koX-Ny6zHdM

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

This is such a bizarre controversy.

1.Its strange to me that so many people like watching other people play video games.

2.Nintendo is making the wrong call here, their arrogance and pride is once again putting them in a bad position.

3.The entitlement of youtubers is hilarious. They want the views that video games bring to their channel, but then they dont think that the creators of those games deserve even a cut of the revenue generated.

4.Joe knew about Nintendo's policies months ago and created the video anyways, and pretended to be shocked that it was taken down. (Probably for publicity)

5.Joe also lied this morning about buying his Wii U, it was donated to him by his fans.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Call me old ... But I don't understand the fascination in watching others playing games ... I rather play them on my own.

I watch people play games, not for the games themselves but the personality playing the game, that's what I enjoy in these videos.

 

[BGBW]

This would have been more of a sticking point if it was a more obscure title, like say the recent Box Boy, that would benefit from exposure outside of the informed Nintendo crowd. But as it is, Mario Party is a series that has clearly done well enough without Joe's exposure considering we're on the 10th iteration minus the handheld spinoffs.

Also I find it weird to limit ones enjoyment of a hobby based on advertising revenue. Talk about limiting your choices.

 

[alterno69]

What would people like Joe do if a youtube channel dedicated to review other youtube channels like his existed, showing clips taken from those channels and commentating on them and the creators? Like a channel dedicated to reviewing other channels and their videos.

 

[Stallion Dan]

I don't think Nintendo would have done anything if he didn't monetise the video.

Nah they do, if a video is not being monetized and is flagged for content, it'll just turn it on for the perceived copyright owner.

I've uploaded a few small gameplay clips using the PS4 share, no monetisation yet some got flagged and it turned on.

 

[Bgamer90]

Yeah, don't get the (mostly fake) rage here. I wonder how the posts were if it was Sony or MS.

It wouldn't be them considering how much they have embraced video streaming and uploading. They have (you know) put features for the purpose of doing what Angry Joe does into their consoles.

But we all love a good beatdown of Nintendo, right?

Yeah that's it! It can't be because people are simply amazed at how Nintendo is continuing to stay behind the times and are refusing help that they so desperately need considering the sales of the Wii U.

Call me old ... But I don't understand the fascination in watching others playing games ... I rather play them on my own.

Did you watch G4 during the 2000s or shows like Nick Arcade/Video Power during the 90s?

 

[AnnSwag]

what ad revenue?
I hope he enjoyed the free ad revenue.

How exactly this free for Angry Joe?

 

[Flame Lord]

I always found it weird how Nintendo treats the people who do coverage of their games. I could understand if it was Sony. They still wouldn't be in the right, but I could understand where they get their arrogance from, but Nintendo? They could use all the help the can get.

 

[Archie]

Meanwhile, modern companies like Paradox are using Youtubers for cheap and widespread publicity.

Cities Skylines would not have been the success it was if they hadn't gave early access copies to people like Qull18.

 

[Bergerac]

The only way in which Nintendo would ever lose sales from LP coverage is because the LP coverage highlighted quality concerns to a consumer - and we have a right to know before we buy.

Stop siding with companies over consumers, people. Jesus fucking Christ.

 

[Kriken]

I think this as well.
Content ID system is broke. Do not rely on it.

Someone else mentioned MK8, while I do agree that Nintendo is entitled to revenue from MKTV seeing as they provided the means to upload for those w/o capture cards, the system doesn't see MKTV as any different from a Let's Player uploading footage that they edited and will flag both and I disagree with that.

 

[call_kotaku]

They don't need exposure, they have a marketing budget which is something small indie devs don't have and are forced to rely on giving youtubers codes to their games so they might get some publicity.

You still also haven't said how Telltales game Walking dead is so different than watching an episode of the show. You can get 99% of the experience if you watch that game being played or playing it yourself.

But large companies like EA, Microsoft, and Ubisoft all actively try to get youtubers to promote their games, and their marketing budgets are probably substantially larger than Nintendo's.

It's very effective advertising for very little cost, and as much as gamergaters complain about the traditional gaming press, youtubers are much more willing to overlook possible ethical issues.

 

[Zabby]

What ad revenue? He was the one making money from their work.

I'm wondering what a big scale study on the effects of youtube videos on gamers would look like.
Is it ads or just an excuse not to buy the game? Nobody knows the answer until somebody figures out a way to test it.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Nintendo does offer a way for him to monetize the video though it just requires him to split a portion of the ad-revenue.

Him having such a huge viewership would allow him to negotiate better splits as well.

Or he can just drop Nintendo altogether and not have to split ad-revenue with anyone. There's more than enough games out there to cover, and it's not like Nintendo fans are flocking to his site for Wii U coverage.