Support NeoGAF

[tearsintherain]

Nintendo being an idiotic company is not news, just another case of them being so far up their ass its just "shrug, its Nintendo what do you expect" at this point.

It is quite sad however how many GAFers will defend them no matter how dumb their policies are.

"Its just $10 to buy your own AC adapter, its no big deal!"
"The DLC content amiibos unlock are just costumes!"
"Its no big deal their online account system doesn't work, you just have to call in and wait 3-10 days to transfer your NNID thats at least a solution!"

Sometimes I wonder if Nintendo is deliberately trying to weed down their fans until only 1 remains, like some sort of Last Starfighter scenario.
"Congratulations Maria, you have collected all 847 Amiibo's, own every single LE of our 3DS and Wii. You now get to fight Bowser in real life to defend the galaxy. Here's a motion+ controller, good luck."

 

[scoobidoo112]

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.

You mean a channel like this? Yeah Joe surely filed copyright claims on those three year old videos!

 

[Gestault]

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

Anyone creating work that falls under Fair Use isn't obligated in the first place.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

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.

Why would it be wrong to re-upload AJ videos and add commentary on them, and monetize it? It would be free publicity for AJ.

And for the record, I'm all for tubers making money on gaming videos, no problems, it's great, free and usually PR free marketing for said game.

 

[FairXchange]

I actually don't mind that Nintendo places restrictions on people basically documenting every moment of their games and publishing to the Internet. Nintendo has always put the experience of their games first, and having them available to watch on the Internet is possibly counter intuitive to the goal of selling a Nintendo game.

 

[Naminator]

LMAO every single Angry Joe thread of GAF is exactly the same.

 

[redhood56]

This is really frustrating. They really want people to sign up for their totally unfair service that would really hurt any channel that does it. Actually did any of the big Nintendo focused channels do it?

 

[firelogic]

You guys sticking up for Nintendo are hilarious. Of course Nintendo is legally in the right to do take-down notices but the point is, they shouldn't be. And yes it IS free advertising. People watch and subscribe to AngryJoe and other channels because they like the streamer and trust their judgment. If they see them playing a game and they like it, the viewer has a big chance of being influenced into buying the game themselves.

Legally Nintendo hasn't done anything wrong but in today's day and age, to arcahically stick to the word of the law is ridiculous. The gaming landscape has changed since the NES days. You don't see Sony and Microsoft issuing take-down notices left, right, and center, because they see the value in it. Hell, they've built-in features into their consoles to make game streaming even easier.

 

[Nozem]

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.

Here is a talk about it from GDC:
Slides only: http://gdcvault.com/play/1022064/How-YouTubers-and-Twitch-Streamers
Video: http://gdcvault.com/play/1022063/How-YouTubers-and-Twitch-Streamers

Not exactly a big scale study, but still. Since companies are willing to pay YouTubers to play their games, it's safe to assume the effect on sales is positive.

 

[Haunted]

I wonder if those trying to argue that Nintendo doesn't even need the exposure oor goodwill of Youtube influencers and their millions of fans have looked at any recent WiiU sales reports. :lol

I think Nintendo needs the mindshare a lot more than they need the 30% or whatever they're trying to skim off the content creators.

So, he is no Angry Video Game Nerd.

Surprisingly enough, the Angry Joe channel is bigger than Cinemassacre (which, among others, hosts the AVGN).

I knew he was popular, but that surprised me.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

All this should make people worry about games like Splatoon. That's the type of game that could benefit greatly from internet exposure over Youtube and Twitch but if Nintendo still wants to be a generation behind in dealing with this then that game is gonna suffer.

 

[TheSlySoul]

It is quite sad however how many GAFers will defend them no matter how dumb their policies are.

"Its just $10 to buy your own AC adapter, its no big deal!"
"The DLC content amiibos unlock are just costumes!"
"Its no big deal their online account system doesn't work, you just have to call in and wait 3-10 days to transfer your NNID thats at least a solution!"

Add "Pay money to transfer your VC games to Wii U"
Hope once PS4 gets PS Classics it will be a free download.
My PSP games were free to play on Vita, so most likely.

 

[Madness]

He has 2 million subscribers.

Nintendo and their products just stopped potentially reaching 2 million people.

Think about it.

Yeah, I'm sure those 2 million subscribers would never hear of Nintendo ever again because he isn't making videos. It's not like they're one of the most identifiable brands in gaming etc. You guys are acting like he has 2 million subscribers who only subscirbe to him. Most people are probably subscribed to dozens or hundreds more. So if Angry Joe won't highlight Nintendo products, I'm pretty sure those 2 million will still hear or see from someone else.

 

[Gestault]

Why would it be wrong to re-upload AJ videos and add commentary on them, and monetize it? It would be free publicity for AJ.

And for the record, I'm all for tubers making money on gaming videos, no problems, it's great, free and usually PR free marketing for said game.

For one, it's not what they described (re: added commentary). Two, if the outlook is that it's perfectly fine, then there's no point to be made in the first place.

 

[call_kotaku]

Yeah, I'm sure those 2 million subscribers would never hear of Nintendo ever again because he isn't making videos. It's not like they're one of the most identifiable brands in gaming etc. You guys are acting like he has 2 million subscribers who only subscirbe to him. Most people are probably subscribed to dozens or hundreds more. So if Angry Joe won't highlight Nintendo products, I'm pretty sure those 2 million will still hear or see from someone else.

All the big youtubers already abandoned Nintendo coverage because of the policy, AngryJoe was just stupid for still trying to make videos about their games.

A lot of people get their games coverage exclusively from youtube outlets, and the combined subscriber base for all the big names (pewdiepie, totalbiscuit, etc), accounting for overlap, is way way way more than 2 million. It's a stupid policy for Nintendo's business, regardless of what you think about AngryJoe or youtubers in particular.

 

[Demon Lizardman]

Another thing he said on Twitter

Meanwhile you laugh while we step over each other to buy your stupid fucking plastic toys like they are Ultra-beeniebabies.

 

[Jpop]

Anyone creating work that falls under Fair Use isn't obligated in the first place.

Reviews sure. Let's Plays are another story though, and they definitely don't fall under fair use.

This is really frustrating. They really want people to sign up for their totally unfair service that would really hurt any channel that does it. Actually did any of the big Nintendo focused channels do it?

Why is it unfair?

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.

Sure he could. Which he did, but the onus falls on him and his issues with sharing profit not on Nintendo.

 

[SykoTech]

...I honestly didn't know he did any Nintendo videos. He used to not even do PlayStation videos until this gen. Guess the Nintendo thing is new too.

Anyways, crappy policies on Nintendo's part. But that can be said for most of their policies so...shocker. Joe really should have seen this coming.

 

[Adam Prime]

This is such a bizarre controversy.

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

It's for younger generation who can't afford the games. I have a 15 year old niece, she loves LetsPlays. So many do kids her age.

It's ironic all the kids watching Lets Plays are the ones who don't actually buy any games.

I'm 30 years old, if this kind of thing existed when I was a kid, I would've eaten it up. I loved watching my friends play games I didn't own at their house. Ive never watched a LetsPlay in my life. Because I'm an adult now and can afford to be a participant in the hobby.

 

[Artorias]

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

This.

When you're an annoying talentless tryhard with a tired gimmick, you should take what you can get.

 

[burritosenior]

"Why isn't this company letting me make easy money using their properties??" I really don't get how Nintendo is supposed to be the wrong one here.

If I own a construction company and use an Estwing brand hammer, should I pay them each time I hit a nail using their hammer? I mean, I bought the tool already and now I'm using the tool to make something new- my own creation.

 

[PreFire]

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.

the creators of the game got their cut when we bought the game.

I really don't see the difference between a streamer doing lets plays and a DJ who plays music. It's a product you bought and are literally just pressing play, adding commentary and mixing it to your style. Do music artists barge into the fucking club and demand a cut of the DJ's pay when he plays their music? Music and games are forms of entertainment, created by people and sold to customers.

Peoples stance on youtubers doing lets plays and making money off of it is irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you think it's stupid. The entire point is the dick move by Nintendo in this case. not joe knowing this would happen. Not what you think about Joe.

None of that. The shit we should be talking about is Nintendo wanting full ad revenue from a video someone else created and so happens to contain their content.

there are a shit load of great examples and analogies all being shot down by people without a valid argument for either misplaced loyalty to a company or just pure hate toward the whole YouTube streaming lets play scene. I'm done with this thread.

 

[Kodaman]

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)

Strike me more people don't see this. He knows his "fanbase" (sigh) and knew that this would generate a lot of noise.

 

[Shining Sunshine]

So if every company gives him a copyright claim, does he stop making videos?

 

[Leafhopper]

For the record not everyone is defending Nintendo, hell a good chunk of people say that the policy is dumb. Me included but they have the right to. I think Joe's whining is bad as he was aware of the policies and even made a video about it. He can just not play Nintendo games, hell him bitching about it is just giving the game more exposure.

Just restating that.

Another thing he said on Twitter

Sounds like Joe.

So if every company gives him a copyright claim, does he stop making videos?

Theoretically, yes.

 

[mnz]

Yeah, I'm sure those 2 million subscribers would never hear of Nintendo ever again because he isn't making videos. It's not like they're one of the most identifiable brands in gaming etc. You guys are acting like he has 2 million subscribers who only subscirbe to him. Most people are probably subscribed to dozens or hundreds more. So if Angry Joe won't highlight Nintendo products, I'm pretty sure those 2 million will still hear or see from someone else.

- he's just one of many youtubers Nintendo is losing
- especially young people get their video game info from youtube
- nobody else is doing it

 

[TheSlySoul]

Another thing he said on Twitter

He is not exactly wrong about that.
Nintendo has done crap to ensure people that more Amiibo will be allocated to retail. Instead tweet about Shulk Amiibo.

 

[Haunted]

All the big youtubers already abandoned Nintendo coverage because of the policy, AngryJoe was just stupid for still trying to make videos about their games.

A lot of people get their games coverage exclusively from youtube outlets, and the combined subscriber base for all the big names (pewdiepie, totalbiscuit, etc), accounting for overlap, is way way way more than 2 million. It's a stupid policy for Nintendo's business, regardless of what you think about AngryJoe or youtubers in particular.

Is that actually true?

I've heard of Pewdiepie stopping but I haven't actually checked to see who followed through as well.

 

[Seraphis Cain]

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.

So what you're saying is you've never heard of Retsuprae, then.

 

[Gestault]

Reviews sure. Let's Plays are another story though, and they definitely don't fall under fair use.

I'm not familiar with any precedent cases that make that true, and the range of production styles and situations for Let's Plays makes it too broad a claim to make otherwise.

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

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.

so all your opinions are shaped by the law? That's...convenient. Laws change. Some Laws are behind the times (i.e. See gay marriage). Using "its the law" is a poor poor argument for what is right, and in doing so you didn't answer why you think its ok to rent games. Something that Nintendo goes along with now but would love to kill.

And of course the renting game lawsuit is relevant to this discussion. It showed how Nintendo was behind the times then when the video game rental chains were booming, and shows it now with the streaming/youtube explosion. They think control, and maximizing dollars in the near-term and don't think long term. They only reason I think the laws haven't amended yet in this instance is Companies like Nintendo are going after the Angry Joes of the world and not the Blockbusters (at the time). Its a lot easier to get what you want in that instance, as Google/Youtube just steps back and doesn't want to get involved.

 

[BGBW]

Another thing he said on Twitter

If he thinks they are stupid why is he buying them? Also he should learn to calm down before he spouts stuff like that. If he doesn't have proof that they are laughing at the shortages he is technically committing libel. While I doubt Nintendo cares in this case, one day he may find himself on the wrong side of the law simply because he started getting way to lax with the made up stories and someone did decide to take action because of it.

 

[Mass_Pincup]

This.

When you're an annoying talentless tryhard with a tired gimmick, you should take what you can get.

Saw talentless he has close to 2 million subscribers. No need to be delusional.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

It's for younger generation who can't afford the games. I have a 15 year old niece, she loves LetsPlays. So many do kids her age.

It's ironic all the kids watching Lets Plays are the ones who don't actually buy any games.

I'm 30 years old, if this kind of thing existed when I was a kid, I would've eaten it up. I loved watching my friends play games I didn't own at their house. Ive never watched a LetsPlay in my life. Because I'm an adult now and can afford to be a participant in the hobby.

When I was a kid and arcades were still a thing I loved to watch other people play and see how far they'd get. Nowadays though, I'm following there is one channel I watch very regularly, but mostly because I enjoy the banter. For a lot of games I'm just listening to the audio and doing something else in another browser tab.

 

[Windforce]

It's simple, no?

Ignore Nintendo and do PC, IOS, Android, Xbox and PlayStation videos. Nintendo is niche anyway.

It's not a big deal.

 

[call_kotaku]

Why is it unfair?

Last I heard the policy was to get individual videos directly approved by Nintendo, which was slow and cumbersome, or you can get your whole channel partnered with them, in which case all your content (even non-Nintendo ones) have revenue share with them. Neither route is something that's practical for any of the people on youtube making a living off of it.

 

[Pennywise83]

Nintendo being an idiotic company is not news, just another case of them being so far up their ass its just "shrug, its Nintendo what do you expect" at this point.

It is quite sad however how many GAFers will defend them no matter how dumb their policies are.

"Its just $10 to buy your own AC adapter, its no big deal!"
"The DLC content amiibos unlock are just costumes!"
"Its no big deal their online account system doesn't work, you just have to call in and wait 3-10 days to transfer your NNID thats at least a solution!"

Sometimes I wonder if Nintendo is deliberately trying to weed down their fans until only 1 remains, like some sort of Last Starfighter scenario.
"Congratulations Maria, you have collected all 847 Amiibo's, own every single LE of our 3DS and Wii. You now get to fight Bowser in real life to defend the galaxy. Here's a motion+ controller, good luck."

I think this post is disingenuous since it seems that Nintendo fans are some alien species when, in fact, every fan might be like that. Every company is doing some things wrong, but luckily they also give reason to make up for them. Nintendo is outdated for many things, but on the other hand generally treat well customers and put out high-quality effort.

 

[Haunted]

If he thinks they are stupid why is he buying them? Also he should learn to calm down before he spouts stuff like that. If he doesn't have proof that they are laughing at the shortages he is technically committing libel. While I doubt Nintendo cares in this case, one day he may find himself on the wrong side of the law simply because he started getting way to lax with the made up stories and someone did decide to take action because of it.

what am i reading

 

[Bots are better than you]

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.



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.



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

No, I didn't. It is as I said, I *play* games. I don't watch other people playing, never did. I didn't even hit the darned Share-Button on my Dualshock4 a single time in nearly 2 years. My spare time I use for my hobbies is so little that I don't want to waste it with watching some douche doing something I can do myself.

And a fad, yes I call this let's play stuff a fad, is not going to help Nintendo. They have essential problems with their console, not with the games or the marketing for those. And AngryJoe and his idiot rants are not going to help now or in the future.

@Daffy Duck:
If you enjoy that, fine for you. I just don't give a darned crap about other people playing games just for the sake of playing. I get the reasons behind review-videos or stuff like that Treehouse stuff from last E3, those games are not available at that moment, but this?

 

[Mass Effect]

Yeah, I'm sure those 2 million subscribers would never hear of Nintendo ever again because he isn't making videos. It's not like they're one of the most identifiable brands in gaming etc. You guys are acting like he has 2 million subscribers who only subscirbe to him. Most people are probably subscribed to dozens or hundreds more. So if Angry Joe won't highlight Nintendo products, I'm pretty sure those 2 million will still hear or see from someone else.

You're missing the point. He is only one of many. The more people that drop Nintendo, the less coverage they have.

One of these entities is slowly fading into irrelevance, and it isn't AngryJoe. This is only hurting Nintendo.

 

[Deleted member 13876]

what am i reading

A transcript of a Phoenix Wright Let's Play, I think.

 

[mgs2master2]

My response:

lol

 

[Nirolak]

Given EA and Warner Bros (not just the games division, but the gigantic multimedia company) pay to get YouTube coverage, and their current success, I can't help but feel pissing these people off is not in Nintendo's favor, especially given their company is way less successful.

 

[Jpop]

If I own a construction company and use an Estwing brand hammer, should I pay them each time I hit a nail using their hammer? I mean, I bought the tool already and now I'm using the tool to make something new- my own creation.

This is such a ridiculous comparison. Nintendo as a creator has every right to exert control over their IP. The same goes for any creator; musicians, writers, painters ect.

There is a reason why creators have more weight in negotiations such as this.

Do you believe that song clips in movies, or TV shows shouldn't create revenue for the creators? Do you think people playing cover songs shouldn't create revenue for the creators?

Given EA and Warner Bros (not just the games division, but the gigantic multimedia company) pay to get YouTube coverage, and their current success, I can't help but feel pissing these people off is not in Nintendo's favor, especially given their company is way less successful.

I can see how you see that, but it sets a bad precedent as a creator to give more control to the negotiating party.

 

[Pennywise83]

It's simple, no?

Ignore Nintendo and do PC, IOS, Android, Xbox and PlayStation videos. Nintendo is niche anyway.

It's not a big deal.

To be fair, Nintendo is not niche at all. The latest SSB entry sold close to 10m in a few months, which are basically Destiny numbers (if not more). Also, Pokémon is selling more than 10m as the last remake showed.

 

[cheezcake]

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.

Literally the first two words I said in my reply were "It's Not". I said games are too varied in experience to all treat the same, you have to treat it on a case by case basis. I would defend Telltale removing long Lets Plays of their game on youtube, but a 30 minute commentated video of Mario Party isn't a full Lets Play of the Walking Dead and shouldn't be treated as such. And yes Nintendo have a marketing budget, Angry Joe's videos have no effect on this marketing budget. There's not many scenarios to consider, we have:

1. Angry Joe likes the game. A positive message of the game gets spread to almost 2 million people, Nintendo pays no money for this to happen. Joe gets paid. Win-Win.

2. Angry Joe doesn't like the game. A negative message of the game is spread. Nintendo obviously doesn't like this.

Obviously Nintendo doesn't enforce copyright claims on videos because they're afraid of scenario 1, they're afraid of scenario 2. In essence if the game is bad people should be allowed to critique it. Trying to control third party impressions of the game by threatening those parties with removal of a revenue stream is just obviously anti-consumer. Though I guess there is the possibility that Nintendo is just so damn out of touch that they don't understand the benefits of scenario 1. But anyway, there's also scenario 3 which you brought up.

3. People watch the video of the game and while they like the content they are simply content watching the video and are discouraged from buying the game.

I think it's really obvious that this doesn't apply in this case.

 

[angrygnat]

It's Nintendos property. If they don't want him using it then that is that. Joe makes his living off of doing reviews and rants. If someone was using his work, without permission, and making money off of it, he wouldn't be happy about it. Nintendo has always watched their IPs like hawks. Not sure why anyone would be surprised.

 

[Jacksinthe]

I still don't understand large companies. You cannot replicate the act of playing a game by watching it. Even if the entire game is QTE. I see nothing wrong with folks streaming or making videos of my game so they can share their experiences, thoughts and playthroughs. The content they create is based on the backdrop of my game. They give their thoughts, concerns and accolades in those videos and that content is theirs, my game is merely the plate that is served upon.

They aren't pirating your game and giving it out. They aren't hosting ISOs. They aren't taking sales away. They are playing a game and talking over it, often saying things they feel you will be amused by, offering tricks and other unique perspectives.

This whole thing where pubs and devs try to put down content creators is getting out of hand. If someone wants to make a few bucks by throwing language into a mic using some wild persona and talk and play my game, let them. Nobody watching is watching the gameplay so they don't have to buy my game - they are watching someone act out a part, throw jokes or give in-depth tips and guides.

 

[ElBoxyBrown]

Another thing he said on Twitter

That reply:

.@AngryJoeShow @NintendoAmerica Hey it sucks you got a "strike" on your video but don't you dare shit on #Amiibo ni**a I will cut you.

 

[Starchasing]

so all your opinions are shaped by the law? That's...convenient. Laws change. Some Laws are behind the times (i.e. See gay marriage). Using "its the law" is a poor poor argument for what is right, and in doing so you didn't answer why you think its ok to rent games. Something that Nintendo goes along with now but would love to kill.

And of course the renting game lawsuit is relevant to this discussion. It showed how Nintendo was behind the times then when the video game rental chains were booming, and shows it now with the streaming/youtube explosion. They think control, and maximizing dollars in the near-term and don't think long term. They only reason I think the laws haven't amended yet in this instance is Companies like Nintendo are going after the Angry Joes of the world and not the Blockbusters (at the time). Its a lot easier to get what you want in that instance, as Google/Youtube just steps back and doesn't want to get involved.

So it would be ok if i record myself looking through AngryJoe videos in the order I please , make some comments and upload them to my own channel?

I still don't understand large companies. You cannot replicate the act of playing a game by watching it. Even if the entire game is QTE. I see nothing wrong with folks streaming or making videos of my game so they can share their experiences, thoughts and playthroughs. The content they create is based on the backdrop of my game. They give their thoughts, concerns and accolades in those videos and that content is theirs, my game is merely the plate that is served upon.

They aren't pirating your game and giving it out. They aren't hosting ISOs. They aren't taking sales away. They are playing a game and talking over it, often saying things they feel you will be amused by, offering tricks and other unique perspectives.

This whole thing where pubs and devs try to put down content creators is getting out of hand. If someone wants to make a few bucks by throwing language into a mic using some wild persona and talk and play my game, let them. Nobody watching is watching the gameplay so they don't have to buy my game - they are watching someone act out a part, throw jokes or give in-depth tips and guides.

So i could just watch the video you mentioned , share my experience by asking about it and monetize it?