Support NeoGAF

[ClosingADoor]

Nintendo was fully compensated for their work they put in when the game was bought for however much they offered it.

Depends on how you view it. Now people can go online and watch full games being played. Do the makers deserve compensation for that, since it is their content being watched or not? For movies, tv, music, we know where the line is. You can't put a full movie online. For games, that line is not clear and needs to be set in the next few years. Nintendo has their stance, other companies have theirs.

Yeah, I figure if the WiiU was donated to him, I figure atleast SOME users would like to see him cover Wii-U games. He tried to cover MP10, and well the rest is history.

He is not being prevented from covering the game. He just can't make money of it. The video could still be watched as far as I know.

 

[HariKari]

Nintendo gains nothing by enforcing this. No one that's progressive and understands the positive impact of free coverage like his is enforcing this. Quite a few have said youtubers are free to use it all and monetize it.

As it stands, people are way too quick to defend bad policy because they don't like the YT personality in question or still don't like that people are making money off of what they perceive to be as very little effort.

 

[Jedi2016]

Their policy is complete bullshit, IMO, and I think Joe's in the right here. Don't give Nintendo the satisfaction. The more people acquiesce to this, the more they'll think it's the right thing to do. And yes, I think the whole "backwards" argument is right on the money... the people making these decisions quite simply have no idea how the gaming video community works.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Because they can. There are probably others but they are not as big as nintendo. I am sure Sega are also assholes in this thing as well. You try to monitize Sega content. Them and Nintendo are avid fans of practicing realism.

Except they aren't, Nintendo are literally standing out in the cold on their own on this one, being dicks because they can.

 

[dakun]

Alright, so can I buy a copy of an book, make my own version where I copy the whole thing word for word but replace the main character's name with something else, then try to sell my "new original work" and expect the original book's publisher and author to be cool with it? I did already pay for the book.

Not saying that's what's happening with Let's Plays, but the "He already paid for it!" argument is not very good.

ok so then why make the argument for it? you know it's not what Let's Players do.. then just compare it to something that actually fits this case instead of making made up scenarios

 

[Eolz]

I think some of the video commentators have an inflated sense of importance. Yes some games get great exposure but that's more to indies and cheaper games. I have seen none push more expensive products because their influence is less obvious than it seems. It's a complex thing. Also Nintendo has been making games for 30+ years the only company with near their experience is Sony and their legacies are really the leading edge of their exposure.

Basically. And even then, I doubt B-tier games would really get more sales as well.
It's a bit like the import argument. Even by going out of your way to buy some specific games (due to forum reviews, let's play, etc), this won't change their sales dramatically.
Games selling 100k (or even 50k) more thanks to some unusual exposure are all really cheap.

I'd wager nintendo aren't relevant to today's/tomorrow's generation of gamer.

Sure, we can bet on that. Would take a long time to see though.
It'd be nice to hear of you (and me) again when we see the results of Nintendo's first mobile games.

Because it's anti-consumer and bad press? Almost no other company does it, so why should Nintendo?

Because they can, and because they have no reason to let people make free money on their back without any possibility to earn a part?

can't wait for his 2015 goty top 10 & for people on here to rage at him for not including any Nintendo games.

People care & rage about AJ's goty's top 10s?

 

[liquidtmd]

Care to explain why Nintendo are the only people to have this stance?

I have no horse in this race but what is your point? There isn't one. If Nintendo want to have this stance, that's no-ones business other than Nintendo's. Anyone elses reply of 'LOL it's their loss' is equally fucking stupid.

It. Is. Their. Call.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Yeah, God forbid that he has to work for his paycheck instead of playing games and ranting about them.

You must live in the US with that mentality, where people hate seeing others do well. Everyone should be scraping by working a shitty retail job for $9 an hour.

 

[Palculator]

Nintendo was fully compensated for their work they put in when the game was bought for however much they offered it.

Very misguided thing to say. Just because I buy a game doesn't give me the license to, for instance, rip out its audio and sell them on iTunes. That's not how compensation works.

 

[beril]

It is polarizing.
I agree they should get a portion. However, that portion being a 2 digit % is bull.
If they want to use Content ID, have it automatically take a 5% instead of 100%. Then if you want all of it, type out details on why.

getting 60% or 70% percent is honestly really generous for any licensing deal.
That's in line with what you get when selling a game on steam/eshop/appstore or similar, where all you're using is the store front.

 

[key]

A). You'd be surprised how much work goes into recording, editing, releasing and making money off a video.

B). Regardless of how much "work" Nintendo put into their game, LP's and videos of the same nature of transformative works that should be judged on their own and not into relation to Nintendo. Joe as a commentator is the main draw here, not the Nintendo footage.

C). Even if it wasn't "fair", "fairness" is a completely irrelevant concept in a capitalist system. It makes the most business sense for Nintendo to allow these sorts of videos because the advertising and PR benefits far out way the minuscule revenue they get from the tiny subset of content creators who adhere to their stupid draconian rule set.

A) Fine, but I'm still willing to bet that it's far less work than what is required to actually make the game.

B) If Joe's commentary is the main draw, he shouldn't need Nintendo's IP to help him get views. So he shouldn't be complaining, right?

C) Is there data to suggest that it's in Nintendo's best interest to let Joe feature their videos? Do we have anything other than anecdotal evidence linking Joe's videos to sales of Nintendo products?

 

[silvermember]

Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you should do it. What horrible logic.

Don't make this a morality issue, this is purely a business transaction. Angry joe is just mad the outcome did not suit him.

 

[Daffy Duck]

Depends on how you view it. Now people can go online and watch full games being played. Do the makers deserve compensation for that, since it is their content being watched or not? For movies, tv, music, we know where the line is. You can't put a full movie online. For games, that line is not clear and needs to be set in the next few years. Nintendo has their stance, other companies have theirs.


He is not being prevented from covering the game. He just can't make money of it. The video could still be watched as far as I know.

It is clear though, 99.9% of other companies no this exposure is good, Nintendo don't, and think it's bad and wrong. They are idiots.

 

[Cbajd5]

This is just sad. Sad especially for the fans who supported aj in buying a wiiU hoping for nintendo content that they won't get because of nintendo itself.

No, he's the only one stopping the content from being created. If he absolutely needs it on Youtube aand have it monetized he can join the content creator program like every small Youtuber who really wants to make the content or negotiate directly with Nintendo like big Youtubers can apparently do. Or avoid it altogether and post them on a non-Youtube video service, where he'll be free from Youtube's cut as well.

It just seems like he really hates his fans...

 

[dh4niel]

Nintendo are so behind the times when it comes to anything online. It's almost laughable.

 

[TheSlySoul]

Nintendo gains nothing by enforcing this. No one that's progressive and understands the positive impact of free coverage like his is enforcing this. Quite a few have said youtubers are free to use it all and monetize it.

Well they gain maybe $1,000 in order to block potential sales of $5,000.
Not lots of hindsight compared to WB or EA.

 

[Darryl M R]

Very misguided thing to say. Just because I buy a game doesn't give me the license to, for instance, rip out its audio and sell them on iTunes. That's not how compensation works.

But it gives you the right to throw a party and play the music you bought, and charge people to come to your party.

Just trying to find a fair comparison, if this is off base let me know. I don't feel strongly about it that much and I'm more looking for a discussion.

 

[Guri]

it's understandable to want to be "compensated" for all this, but again, if you enjoy doing it, you may not feel you need to earn $$$ to justify it. I think this is how people feel with a "career" rather than a "job". One usually enjoys their career, and the money is a necessary evil to survive.

Hmm... not gonna lie, this sounds foreign to me. That said, if he has to maintain online servers, and the Nintendo fiasco is cutting into compensation for doing so, I can understand his anger just a little bit more.

With the online server thing factored in, and assuming he mostly or only plays Nintendo games through those servers, this does make his situation just that much more understandable. Still...

To be clear, he doesn't play Nintendo games through them, but he needs to maintain his servers and work on his other game videos and Twitch streams, because that's what his subscribers and members of the community expect him to do. He is paid for that too. I don't know how important is YouTube money for these other activities, but I imagine he needs it to help maintain servers, so I think that it's all about the time and effort vs. how much he gets in return. Google, network and Nintendo gets their cut, so maybe it's just not worth it.

 

[HariKari]

Don't make this a morality issue, this is purely a business transaction. Angry joe is just mad the outcome did not suit him.

The outcome doesn't benefit anyone.

 

[casiopao]

I'd wager nintendo aren't relevant to today's/tomorrow's generation of gamer.

The fact that 3DS sells quite a lot still shows that they are still relevant in today's industry for sure. Even some of their titles had sells more copies than on DS here.

 

[Orayn]

ok so then why make the argument for it? you know it's not what Let's Players do.. then just compare it to something that actually fits this case instead of making made up scenarios

Because I was illustrating a flaw in the argument that paying for a copy of the original work entitles you to make money off of it however you want.

In a previous post, I said LPs are derivative works like fanfiction or covers of songs, and there's no single universal answer on whether or not they qualify as Fair Use. (To say nothing of the fact that Fair Use doesn't even guarantee commercial use.)

 

[dakun]

Very misguided thing to say. Just because I buy a game doesn't give me the license to, for instance, rip out its audio and sell them on iTunes. That's not how compensation works.

again, if that's what Let's players were about, you'd actually be onto something.. you guys keep comparing Let's Players to actual pirates (distributors) and it completely destroys any point you're trying to make.

 

[Leafhopper]

You must live in the US with that mentality, where people hate seeing others do well. Everyone should be scraping by working a shitty retail job for $9 an hour.

Yeah jealousy only exists in America.

Don't make this a morality issue, this is purely a business transaction. Angry joe is just mad the outcome did not suit him.

Basically.

 

[kpaadet]

Next stop Nintendo: Giantbomb, IGN and Gamespot. Stop those evil people from earning on your hard work.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

I don't know what frustrates me more, Nintendo and this policy or people that defend Nintendo about it.

 

[KorrZ]

Nintendo is such an ass backwards company, I almost feel sorry for them.

Do they not realize that these policies only hurt them in the long run? Hey guess what my 11 year old brother is playing? Minecraft. DayZ. CS:GO. You know where he picked up these games? From watching his favourite channels on Youtube. You know what he's not playing? Nintendo games. Enjoy being in dead last forever because you refuse to change with the times.

 

[pelican]

The outcome doesn't benefit anyone.

Well, it benefits Nintendo as they keep control of their IP.

Personally, I don't think there is anything wrong in expecting to pay a kick back to the IP holder.

 

[Timeaisis]

Because they are literally the only video game company in the entire planet doing it this way.

The only one.

The. Only. One.

In a billion dollar industry. When their only growing relevance is selling toys, not games, they're choosing to artificially reduce exposure to their titles by making draconian rules about videos featuring their games.

Did you know even if you jump through all their hoops to make an exclusive partnered YouTube channel, you can't show Pokemon games? Because they don't fully own that license.

This is a sad dumb approach and is only working to hurt Nintendo in their greedy money grab while they kill a goose that laid a golden egg.

So what's your argument? They shouldn't do it because everyone else isn't doing it? I'm not following. They still can, and still do, and make that pretty damn clear. And yet this guy complains because he is being selfish and assumes he has the right to monetize their content, like he does with everyone else. But he can't.

He should've known that, and should've moved on. He's outraged at something that has been policy and is completely fair.

 

[Avid Reading Horse]

I always get a kick out of seeing people defend Nintendo's ridiculous YouTube policy. If Google had any decency they'd shut that garbage down and put their lawyer army on the case when they get sued.

 

[TheSlySoul]

Next stop Nintendo: Giantbomb, IGN and Gamespot. Stop those evil people from earning on your hard work.

Jeff Gerstman's Yoshi hate must be stopped before Yoshi's Wooly World!

 

[krypt0nian]

I do hope Nintendo realizes that they have lost the core (and slowly more and more of their faithful each gen) BECAUSE they are stupid.

 

[Griss]

Correct.. A lot of people are very backwards on this and just sound so... entitled.

It's their IP. Their game. Their work, their properties. No one else is ENTITLED to use that property to monetize it for themselves. So, yes, it's abundantly fair that Nintendo can set the terms for monetizing their properties. If you don't like it, Nintendo's more than content for you to not make videos making money from their stuff.

I think it's kind of scary that there's a mindset that everyone is naturally entitled to exploit all of your hard earned work, your contnet, your intelllectual property, to make profit for themselves and if you aren't okay with it you deserve ridicule. These are scary times we live in.

You can make the argument that many game companies/indie devs benefit from youtubers doing videos. This is probably true, at least for some games. But the idea that they're not entitled to decide, for themselves, whether they want their properties monetized BY other people, is scary.

This is essentially my position. A lot of this thread reads like a parody to me.

 

[HunteronX]

Companies can pull the plug, sure. But they probably won't, and they shouldn't. I think it's in those company's best interest to leave the current system intact, rather than constructing intermediary companies that create a higher barrier of entry. I think there's a reason most companies have been tolerating Let's Plays and it's mainly because they benefit them as well. Nintendo has been on the wrong side of history in terms of online stuff a lot of the times and I don't see this as being any different.

Speaking purely from a game company's perspective it would be smart to get on the good sie of Youtubers with a huge reach the same way the gaming press has been pampered with fancy press trips. Not advocating this is a good thing, but I suspect there will be a lot more backscratching in the future, maybe problematically so. These people don't have the veneer of being journalists though so that further complicates conflict of interest discussions.

I don't watch Angry Joe's stuff, I mostly find him grating, but I do think he has the right to complain about Nintendo here.

Yeah, you're right about the greater barrier to entry, that would be introduced. Still, though, I think that YouTubers, streamers etc. probably have enough influence to force this, at least for smaller developers/publishers, by which they could start targeting larger companies, in the future.

Nintendo is really strange at times - like when they didn't include WPA on the DS, required friend codes etc. It would definitely give them a marketing boost, to freely allow Let's Plays and trailer footage on YouTube, but they fairly, imo, want something out of it.

Unless Nintendo is forced to, they probably won't change their Content Creators' program.

Backscratching is good for business, but you end up with biased reviews from journalists, and mis-information. Plus a Doritos Pope. So, for consumers, an independent body/organisation would be better - games that are thought of as good, by the majority of people, should sell better.

To be honest, I would have agreed with Angry Joe, but he knows that Nintendo is a company trying to make profits, like any other. Instead of just getting mad, he should use his influence to try and solve the problem.

EDIT: The kind of organisation I was thinking of, is more of a partnership/brand, that any 'up and coming' YouTuber, or media streamer, can use to promote themselves (a bit like an association/alliance)

 

[David___]

Doesn't really work that way. Buy the latest album at the top of the charts, doesn't allow you to use it in a video.

One song will always end up with the same exact lyrics no matter how you obtain it. What you see watching someone play a game on YouTube is THEIR experience. This shouldn't have to be explained on a gaming forum.

 

[Beelzebufo]

Yeah jealousy only exists in America.
Basically.

Fun fact: Jealousy was actually invented during the War of 1812, when Americans were jealous that a different battle set in the same year got a much cooler Overture.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

He is not being prevented from covering the game. He just can't make money of it. The video could still be watched as far as I know.

Mhm, but like I mentioned before, unlike Gamespot or IGN, he doesn't get a regular paycheck to cover games. His paycheck depends on how many people view his content. I'm sure he'd like to cover Nintendo games, but Nintendo is making it hard for people like him.

 

[Jpop]

It is clear though, 99.9% of other companies no this exposure is good, Nintendo don't, and think it's bad and wrong. They are idiots.

Creators absolutely should exercise the right to control their IP if they wish to.

Those laws exist to protect those rights. Whether they are a big corporation or an individual.

Trying to villify them for that sets a horrible precedent.

 

[ClosingADoor]

It is clear though, 99.9% of other companies no this exposure is good, Nintendo don't, and think it's bad and wrong. They are idiots.

In your view. I can see their point.

To be clear, he doesn't play Nintendo games through them, but he needs to maintain his servers and work on his other game videos and Twitch streams, because that's what his subscribers and members of the community expect him to do. He is paid for that too. I don't know how important is YouTube money for these other activities, but I imagine he needs it to help maintain servers, so I think that it's all about the time and effort vs. how much he gets in return. Google, network and Nintendo gets their cut, so maybe it's just not worth it.

Talking about the costs is kind of useless as long as we don't know the numbers involved. But I am going to guess that with those views Joe doesn't have much trouble when it comes to money at the moment.

Mhm, but like I mentioned before, unlike Gamespot or IGN, he doesn't get a regular paycheck to cover games. His paycheck depends on how many people view his content. I'm sure he'd like to cover Nintendo games, but Nintendo is making it hard for people like him.

Every website makes income based on views in the end. Joe chooses Youtube as his outlet. He is more then welcome to set up his own website and put ads around a non-monetized video their and host it himself. But that means more costs and lose of audience. As long as he is on Youtube, he has to play by Youtubes rules and comparisons with other websites don't make a lot of sense to me.

 

[Bass260]

He knew exactly what he was doing. Now he gets 100% from his rant which will attract way more viewers anyway.

 

[Palculator]

But it gives you the right to throw a party and play the music you bought, and charge people to come to your party.

Just trying to find a fair comparison, if this is off base let me know. I don't feel strongly about it that much and I'm more looking for a discussion.

But that's because a party is private. You still wouldn't be allowed to just publicly broadcast it for profit. I'm aware public LAN parties usually don't pay the publishers of whatever games are being played, but that's because it's just as much of a gray area as Let's Plays are. If we're talking music, then you indeed have to pay the rights holder. And you'd be surprised how much it is, at least for the events I helped organize in the past.

 

[blankempathy]

I don't know what frustrates me more, Nintendo and this policy or people that defend Nintendo about it.

Why does it always have to be black and white? People are merely defending Nintendo's right to enforce their rules. Theres a big difference between defending their right and saying its an amazing policy.

 

[Jobbs]

Their policy is complete bullshit, IMO, and I think Joe's in the right here. Don't give Nintendo the satisfaction. The more people acquiesce to this, the more they'll think it's the right thing to do. And yes, I think the whole "backwards" argument is right on the money... the people making these decisions quite simply have no idea how the gaming video community works.

It's not bullshit. If you are going to create something -- a property -- and it's YOURS -- why is it just assumed that you should allow anyone to exhibit all of your content for free and then make ad revenue off of it?

I think Nintendo's partner program sounds fair, Nintendo deserves to ask for a cut of the profit if you're going to show their game for ad revenue. If you don't think it's then worth your time, then don't make Nintendo videos. Nintendo is likely not as out of touch on this as some of you think. I'm sure they know all the metrics. They're probably thinking bigger picture and about the longer term game. They jealously protect their IPs, and that's their right.

It's not for anyone else to decide whether it's a good idea or not for Nintendo to disallow people to monetize their IP for themselves. This is so silly.

 

[Cbajd5]

Next stop Nintendo: Giantbomb, IGN and Gamespot. Stop those evil people from earning on your hard work.

I don';t get why people keep making this flawed comparison. They work with Nintendo, which is obvious through all the pre-release games and systems they get. AngryJoe didn't, so he's at the whims of Youtube's Content ID system.

 

[Mariolee]

Next stop Nintendo: Giantbomb, IGN and Gamespot. Stop those evil people from earning on your hard work.

Except I'm positive they've worked out a professional contract with Nintendo that helps them split the revenue evenly. If they haven't been, then we would've been seeing Nintendo putting down copyright claims ages ago. Angry Joe is just being ridiculous.

 

[Jpop]

He knew exactly what he was doing. Now he gets 100% from his rant which will attract way more viewers anyway.

I'm pretty sure we have a winner.

 

[MegaMelon]

I dunno how to feel on this. Whilst Nintendo is the only one to do this sort of thing, it's not like they take majority of the money made. You still get 60-70% before youtubes cut I presume, and considering you're making money off of someone elses content no matter how you spin it, it's hard to sympathize with AJ. He also already knew about Nintendos policy yet he uploaded the video anyways knowing it would get ID matched, then removed it and uploaded another video ranting about that which he is also profiting off of. The way I see it, both AJ and Ninendo are businesses.

Ninty chooses to deviate from the norm with regards to content on youtube and regardless of whether it's right/wrong or if it works or not or if it's pro or anti-consumer it's their decision and they have the full right to do as they see fit. AJ knew all of this, so it's not like it was a nasty surprise. And in all honesty, I doubt he's gonna miss out on anything considering any money he would've lost form the original video probably got made up for in his new rant.

 

[PMS341]

You must live in the US with that mentality, where people hate seeing others do well. Everyone should be scraping by working a shitty retail job for $9 an hour.

As someone who unfortunately does exactly that (actually less, with three college degrees), streamers still make way too much money regardless. Its not a matter of someone doing well or not; if we could all live doing what we love for a living, it'd be wonderful. However, I would definitely say the revenue is disproportionate from the effort.

 

[Seventy70]

How stupid of Nintendo. Especially with a game like Mario Party, it's not like he is spoiling some kind of story. Imagine a board game maker suing someone for playing their game on YouTube.

I can't even start with Nintendo and the people defending this.

 

[Leafhopper]

Fun fact: Jealousy was actually invented during the War of 1812, when Americans were jealous that a different battle set in the same year got a much cooler Overture.

Lol.

 

[Mindlog]

No, he's the only one stopping the content from being created. If he absolutely needs it on Youtube aand have it monetized he can join the content creator program like every small Youtuber who really wants to make the content or negotiate directly with Nintendo like big Youtubers can apparently do. Or avoid it altogether and post them on a non-Youtube video service, where he'll be free from Youtube's cut as well.

It just seems like he really hates his fans...

The parallels to this situation and Nintendo's history with third party publishers run deep.

Except I'm positive they've worked out a professional contract with Nintendo that helps them split the revenue evenly. If they haven't been, then we would've been seeing Nintendo putting down copyright claims ages ago. Angry Joe is just being ridiculous.

You really Believe™ outlets should pay Nintendo to cover Nintendo games?