TheSlySoul
Member
While you right, it is a big deal.
Nintendo coverage will be limited to their YouTube channel, GameXplain, and Bit Block.
No chance to expand.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
AngryJoe receives a Nintendo copyright claim. Hope they enjoyed the ad revenue; Done
- Thread starter Khalifa Jayy
- Start date
Nintendo coverage will be limited to their YouTube channel, GameXplain, and Bit Block.
No chance to expand.
Pewdiepie did what? 2 Nintendo games total beforehand. And Totalbiscuit is a PC centered channel. Similarly, this is like Angry Joe's second or maybe third Nintendo video. The argument that they 'abandoned Nintendo' is bogus
Okay. But you're making it seem like it's a death knell for Nintendo if some prominent YouTube'ers don't use their products or games in their video because they can't monetize it on ad revenue. Again, I'll state that subscribers doesn't translate to exclusive subscribers only. Most are subscribed to dozens or hundreds of people. So they are still going to end up with Nintendo news somehow, especially if they follow the industry.
This won't stop the millions of non-prominent YouTube'ers coming out with Nintendo vids at all. Ask yourself, can Nintendo stand to lose Angry Joe, or can Angry Joe stand to lose Nintendo? He's pissed because he can't make ad revenue anymore. Sure he's got a lot of subscriber reach, but the effects are overblown for anything besides indies. So yeah, it's great when these guys shed light on some goat simulator or five nights at freddys, but Zelda, Grand Theft Auto, Pokemon are going to sell regardless of whether angry Joe can make a let's play on it.
A big part of the conversation (and the reaction of AngryJoe) is whether it's wise or even in Nintendo's own interest. The legal question matters, but the policy question has more bearing here, if anything.
Diprosalic
Banned
regardless of your opinions on the policy, why even make a video? you know they don't want you to do it, it's not like this is some sort of surprise. you can just remind everyone so often that you disagree with the policy and don't cover the games, move on.
Sorry, but that's definitely not the same thing. A Let's Play or a YouTube Review of a game gives exposure to it. That means the developer/publisher can profit from a new consumer that got interested after watching the video. What you said... well, there's no benefit whatsoever. A lot of developers allow YouTubers to do their videos and don't ask for part (or 100%) of the profits because it's basically free marketing, considering it's a positive video, which I'm sure the Mario Party 10 was. It's free exposure, with potentially a lot of new customers.
Haunted
Member
If someone is applauding Nintendo for this, he is either someone who really doesn't like Nintendo and wants them to fail, or someone who really likes Nintendo, but doesn't completely understand the situation and why this is a bad decision, especially if you're considering the general goodwill and mindshare of the company among the younger generation.
AngryJoe can lose Nintendo, they are only a small part of what he does.
"Can Nintendo lose all people like AngryJoe" should be your follow up question and I think the answer would be "No, not for long".
Leafhopper
Banned
Yeah I don't get that either. The big people that people keep mentioning barely or never covered Nintendo games in the first place.
tattooed_dwarf
Member
So you say if one adds own commentary, it's ok?
blankempathy
Member
Exactly. Why now all of a sudden is Joe throwing a fit? He knowingly broke Nintendo's rules so why he is mad? If you're mad about the rule in general then ok but to make a video and then call foul after being busted is stupid.
As with the other rant videos he's done similar to this, it's to recover the ad revenue he wanted to make on the other video.
blame space
Banned
why do people watch other people play video games on YouTube?
Ban Puncher
Member
I am going to upload entire movies to YouTube with a tiny camera window of myself in the top right corner and scream "ASS!" and "STOP RAPING ME!" at random intervals.
I'll be a gorillionaire by next Thursday.
I'll be a gorillionaire by next Thursday.
I mean he may have just assumed people would be more reasonable (relative to his point of view, naturally). Even ignoring that, it could be seen as the media equivalent to civil disobedience.
I'd expect the same standards for Fair Use that I'd expect any video would. Just to be clear, this is completely apart from the original point being raised, which was a "carbon" copy upload of the exact, unchanged videos.
I literally did not know who Angry Joe was before reading this thread. I've seen his name mentioned here from time to time, like a bunch of other bloggers and YouTube'ers. I have heard of Nintendo for almost the past three decades. Tell me who will still be relevant 5 years from now. Angry Joe or Nintendo.
Fading into irrelevance by having the #1 selling game worldwide with their Majoras Mask remaster and bundle, along with being #1 in software and hardware for February NPD with over 395k 3DS sales, 550k majoras mask etc.
I don't even like Nintendo much anymore, but thinking Nintendo will be irrelevant before Angry Joe is utterly laughable. Who knows where the industry will be. They had wild success with the Wii, faltered with the Wii U. Whatever NX is, or what's next could put them back up again.
TheDarkKnight774
Member
Because they find the personalities entertaining.
Exploratory
Banned
My response:
This is childish and petty dude.
Starchasing
Member
If there is demand for this type of videos with Nintendo content, someone will make them and split the revenue with Nintendo. You are talking as if the current youtubers are the only in existence.
And by doing this Nintendo has shown that they don't care for such type of exposure, or that they don't need it.
And the legal matter is quite clear, would AngryJoe let other people monetize his content the same way he does with Nintendo content?
TheSlySoul
Member
To gauge if you like to buy a game or not?
Reviews are really hard to interpret sometimes.
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
He knowingly broke the law that supports Nintendo's ability to protect their IPs the way they do, because he thinks he is above it all? After it bites him in the ass, why does he act surprised? Immature. At least that is my impression of his response.
People say he didnt give them coverage and he was the one making money from the video.
First, he bought a copy of the game so he already gave them some money, and he did give them coverage. Alot of people go to youtube to decide if they should buy the game or not, and seeing their favorite youtube personality like the game makes a lot of difference.
Ex: PewDiePie made a skate 2 video sometime after launch when the game as out of production. The video was popular enough to make tens of thousands of people in the UK try to buy the game. EA had to produce brand ne copies of the out of production game because of the demand.
Youtubers have a lot of influence in todays world, and that is why they're constantly offered free games, merch and stuff in exchange for coverage
Cmon, literally hundred of thousands of people make videos featuring Nintendos IP. Nintendo's policy is badly implemented and at the moment stupid.
First, he bought a copy of the game so he already gave them some money, and he did give them coverage. Alot of people go to youtube to decide if they should buy the game or not, and seeing their favorite youtube personality like the game makes a lot of difference.
Ex: PewDiePie made a skate 2 video sometime after launch when the game as out of production. The video was popular enough to make tens of thousands of people in the UK try to buy the game. EA had to produce brand ne copies of the out of production game because of the demand.
Youtubers have a lot of influence in todays world, and that is why they're constantly offered free games, merch and stuff in exchange for coverage
Cmon, literally hundred of thousands of people make videos featuring Nintendos IP. Nintendo's policy is badly implemented and at the moment stupid.
Daffy Duck
Member
#ForThePersonalities.
Well golly, you sure got me there. I guess Milli Vanilli were actually super talented. I mean, they sold some records, right?
Lol, your logic is fucking hilarious.
Starchasing
Member
Why is it childishh, he is just using AngryJoe position on Nintendo content to use ANgreJoe content and monetize it.
call_kotaku
Member
No, it won't hurt Nintendo too badly on its own, just like none of the mistakes Nintendo has made were ever too damaging individually. You can just add "refused free advertising on one of the biggest outlets for videogame coverage" to their deck of weird decisions over the last decade. I can understand if fans didn't want Nintendo's marketing budget to pay for the coverage, but the company purposely making it more difficult to cover their games as opposed to games from other companies isn't helping them at all.
Whatever your stance is on copyright law or the validity of youtubers, it's a stupid business decision by Nintendo.
You just completely ignored what I wrote. It's not about him, it's about all the people like him.
And yes, youtubers are watched by kids, not by people like you. They are the gaming magazines of today if you like it or not.
Why do people discuss people watching other people play videgames on Youtube?. My guess is that both groups find these activities entertaining or engaging in some way.
You're delusional if you think these huge fucking youtube channels don't help exposure for certain games.
The millions of subscribers watch the videos because it's AngryJoe, not because it's Mario Party or a Nintendo game. He can literally cover any other game and receive the same amount of views.
These channels are run on personality first and foremost. People couldn't give two shits what the Super Best Friends are playing, they want to hear them comment and abuse eachother verbally. That's the draw, be it a 14 year old PS2 title or fucking Mario Kart.
Nintendo's loss, I guess.
The millions of subscribers watch the videos because it's AngryJoe, not because it's Mario Party or a Nintendo game. He can literally cover any other game and receive the same amount of views.
These channels are run on personality first and foremost. People couldn't give two shits what the Super Best Friends are playing, they want to hear them comment and abuse eachother verbally. That's the draw, be it a 14 year old PS2 title or fucking Mario Kart.
Nintendo's loss, I guess.
Beelzebufo
Banned
Unlike Joe, Nintendo supported Milli Vanilli too by putting them in the Mario cartoon!
Kids nowadays are too lazy to get off their asses and play their own games. Bah, in my day...
Jacksinthe
Banned
I apologize but I don't understand the question.
"Share my experience by asking about it"
So you are asking others about your own experience? I don't follow. What does that mean?
And how is that game commentary if you are watching a video and not actually playing a game? Or are you just looking to talk about commentaries you watch, which would probably drive more views to the original video?
I don't understand how a commentary on a commentary would make revenue but you are free to try
blankempathy
Member
Agreed. Even if Nintendo stopped making consoles they're still a company full of talented developers. Theres a reason why directs draw in massive media attention and discussion and amiibos are selling out in minutes. However in 10 years is it more believable that a company with a strong brand like nintendo will fade into obscurity or that a youtube personality will?
Extremely archaic. Indies do know what they are doing with YouTubers and a lot of the profits they get comes from customers who bought after watching videos of the games. This is a really important new exposure method that sadly Nintendo has no idea how to use.
Eyemus Lutt
Member
Your number 2 point is flawed though because Nintendo is removing any video whether it's positive or negative if it's being monetized. They haven't yet put a copyright claim on a video bashing one of their games if its not being monetized. They have a problem with people making money of their IP's art, music and story and not what they have to say about it.
TheSlySoul
Member
The guys actually could sing though.
Lip syncing was the record company's decision. They thought that their own singing voices would not sell.
At least use Britney Spears as an example...
Pennywise83
Banned
True, YTers have a lot of influence. It's still to be seen, though, how much impact they have on development of AA o AAA software. That is, PDP made Skate 3 popular again, but will it be worthwile for EA to fund a Skate 4 and base a marketing campaing on YTers?
That's not true at all.
A YTer can totally cover Nintendo games by being a partner, and deciding for a revenue share. To be fair, if a few YTer will do that, it means that views will be more concentrated, which also imply more money to be made rather than having less views spread across more channels.
Oh man this post made me laugh so much. This is how I view this whole situation as well. Maybe I'm just jealous because they have money and I don't, but how or why they think they deserve money for shouting over a video game I have no idea.
Is it? He's just saying he'll do what Joe does.
I'm gonna upload all of the youtubers videos and scream angrily over them. They do it to games, so why can't I do it to their videos?
Mass_Pincup
Banned
No it's not, do you think anyone an get those kind of numbers? He is entertaining enough that thousands of people from all around the world wants to watch him, that's his talent.
I like the speedruns with all the crazy glitches and shit.
7DollarHagane
Banned
Maybe they think they are cool people and watch them just to watch them?
Not all youtube videos are lets play or pewdiepie copies either.
Here's some of the videos in my subscription list i am looking forward to watching this weekend.
Battle of the Ports - comparing ports of old arcade games across consoles and old european PCs. Interesting how some of these mid 90s games got ported to C64 and Spectrum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWTEz2j0i8c
Last Gamer- This guy made a ton of money on the stock market and now he's building a huge arcade room and has one of the largest videogame collections in the world. He does good videos showing arcade restorations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reeETG9ntlI
Russian Badger- I just think he's funny but i understand if you think he's annoying. and i like battlefield.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7SJWGcZf5Y
Maximillian Dood: Makes a lot of good fighting game content. i like his enthusiasm and this series about all the MK games has been a good watch lately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lPoqr34IUI
The WarOwl- Good counterstrike content and strategy talk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j1PskI5urA
Nintendo offers a partner program, sure.. but last I heard, if you want the highest split, they want revenue from every monetized video uploaded to your channel. Is this still not the case? Wasn't this why the most prominent channels dropped them?
If so, is it okay for Nintendo to (gasp!) make revenue from work they have no claim to? Such as when Joe would review a Sony or Microsoft product?
If so, is it okay for Nintendo to (gasp!) make revenue from work they have no claim to? Such as when Joe would review a Sony or Microsoft product?
Starchasing
Member
I meant talking about it. And i would just start watching AngreJoe videos in any order I please, in some order that would make it funny perhaps, or comparing what he said about before release and after release.
I don't understand how a commentary on a commentary would make revenue but you are free to try
According to Neogaf logic, i would make revenue because people watch youtubers because of their personality. So if I'm cool and funny, it doesn't matter if I'm commenting a movie, a game or a video commenting a game.
J
Jpop
Unconfirmed Member
If I make a short movie and include portions of a song in it, and try to make profit off the movie I would have to pay the original creators. It doesn't matter if I bought the song prior.
YouTubers having influence does not give them the right to gain more influence over an IP. It sets a horrible precedent as a creator that I am not comfortable with.
There is a reason these laws exist, and people arguing that it should be ignores because of how much influence YouTubers have is ridiculous to me.
Nintendo offers a way for the YouTubers to monetize their videos the same way that a way that creators of TV or Movies, that contain clips of non-original music, can.
Auto-Reply
Member
I bet it's because it's boring and they are forced by an unknown power to do it/s
Mobius and pet octopus
Member
So if everyone starts stealing that makes it okay? I don't get your point. Regardless of how good the policy is at doing their job, that has no impact on the ethics involved or his response to being appropriately dealt with.
When you knowingly do something you shouldn't be doing, you no longer have the right to bitch when you get caught and slapped on the wrist.
Exploratory
Banned
First of all the analogy is completely warped and isn't remotely similar. Second its childish because there's a much more mature way to respond to his tweet. But I don't expect this person to respond in mature rational way because they ran to NeoGAF to post about how they totally told Joe off.
Pennywise83
Banned
That's not true... At all.
Just by browsing his channel, there's a wide range in the numbers of views across his videos. Destiny review ammassed 4m+ views, while Alien Isolation less than 2m (only an example).
Yep. Dude enjoys making money off of other people's games.
It's funny that these YouTube "reviewers" think that they're entitled to make money off the games they show as if they're doing "free" advertising, yet the proper reviewing community of most mainstream websites have a clear line between the ad revenue staff and he reviewing staff. And yet those same people get lambasted over "ethics" concerns.
If you want to be an advertisement and make money from advertising, be an advertiser, don't try to be a "reviewer" or "hard hitting interviewer".