Support NeoGAF

[Eolz]

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.

If it's a party with thousands of people, no you can't do that without giving the music publishers or some special companies some financial compensation to do this no.

If you followed this analogy, Nintendo/youtube could perfectly let the videos free of any taxes until a specific viewer count (which would then be the exact same thing for Angry Joe).

 

[Drackhorn]

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.

It is weird from Nintendo indeed. It seems they can't get find themselves in the current gaming age.

 

[BatDan]

People, let's not forget that FANS donated him money to buy the Wii U so he could play/review the games on it.
And instead of giving the fans what they want, he's being pissy that he can't make more money.

Yes, Nintendo's policy is backwards as hell. But Joe should just take the hit, and give the fans what they want. The fans are your lifeblood, they keep you going. Without them, you don't get to have a job playing games online.

 

[Guri]

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.

True, but the costs involved are: equipment, servers and the work itself. The last one is variable and the first one is fixed, but the second is monthly is extremely expensive.

 

[silvermember]

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.

Angry Joe and it seems like you, is acting like a spoil brat who thinks he is special and the rules do not apply to him. He made the video knowing full well the rules Nintendo had and just like every spoiled brat, he is having a temper tantrum.

This wasn't a random attack he broke a rule we all knew and he should pay for it. This isn't a morality issue and this certainly will not impact Nintendo because Angry Joe hardly ever covered wii u stuff.

You remind me of one of those people who defend celebrities for idiotic behavior just because you like them.

 

[key]

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.

Exactly. Comparing this guy's YouTube channel to IGN makes very little sense.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Yeah jealousy only exists in America.

I'd like to think other countries aren't against someone earning a decent living. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[pelican]

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.

Well said.

And because he didn't play by Nintendo's partner program policies his fingers were wrapped.

Instead of using his business brain, moving on and agreeing to Nintendo's guidelines he acts like a child who didn't get his own way by throwing a tantrum.

 

[liquidtmd]

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

Nintendo may well have done indepth assessments of who they wish to promote their goods and services and deemed these to meet criteria Joe does not.

This thread is crazy in some of its rationale

 

[TheSlySoul]

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

Third Party: "Everyone is switching to discs, you should use CD's for the N64."
Nintendo: "No."
*That is how Sony won the console generation*

 

[ShinMaruku]

When you look at Nintendo's warchest, protecting their IPs is the only thing they need to do. They have IPs that can be spun out in many different ways. They are in a position where it's no downside to them.

They make sublime games, people who buy games are hyper consumers. They lose NOTHING. You can see wii u is a flop, but if they are making money now, and have an overall line of successes you really can't call them ailing.

Hell Sony who has some debt is still buying off companies and making moves. Too much people are making too much of the wii u's lack of success.

 

[MrBadger]

But he plays games for a living, edits them, writes scripts, etc etc. Why waste dozens if not hundreds of hours doing that when he could be doing it and making money? Is it a bit selfish? Sure. But it's not bratty.

I will say, though, that the policies were really obvious and he should have known better. That doesn't make Nintendo's active policy not shit, though.

I thought it came off as bratty because he knows full well that Nintendo have their own program, and they do have these policies, but he chose to upload this video anyway instead of playing by their rules and the result was predictable. He goes off on this big tangent that because he bought the game and the console, that gives him the right to make a profit from it on his own terms. What he made wasn't a high effort review, it was a casual play session. Nintendo didn't even take it down or give him a copyright strike.

Ultimately, I think Nintendo wouldn't be losing out on anything significant if they just let Youtube gamers monetise their own videos but I can't really sympathise with Joe here.

 

[ClosingADoor]

True, but the costs involved are: equipment, servers and the work itself. The last one is variable and the first one is fixed, but the second is monthly is extremely expensive.

Servers are not that expensive. From my experience, they come last in terms of costs when running websites and such.

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.

You can't just air that music, play it in stores or use on a music festival. There are different rules based on different uses for media.

 

[Timeaisis]

Jesus Christ some of these entitled responses. Holy shit, guys.

 

[Hoo-doo]

But he's not completely uncompensated. Where is that even coming from? They take a cut, right?

According to what i've gathered in this thread, he basically has to choose between:

A) - jump through ridiculous hoops and still pay 30-40% of his revenue to Nintendo
B) - don't go through the Nintendo-partner channels and earn 0% from his Nintendo videos
C) - ditch Nintendo like most of the big Youtube gaming channels

I don't see it as a difficult choice, to be honest.
Nintendo isn't the big dick at the table anymore, and Joe doesn't need them in any way to earn his paycheck.
It's 2015, Nintendo should fully embrace people spreading the positive word around on gaming channels everywhere, not crack down and try to make them jump through hoops and sip on their channel's advertisement dollars.

Yes it's their IP and all, but in the end they'll just decide to stop showing your games like Joe here. Well, good job.

 

[AzureTranquility95]

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

Now, I feel I must inform you that it isn't just Nintendo trying to claim (c) on their stuff, they're just the worst and most prominent.

I have gotten (c) notices for Ape Escape 1

Spoiler

and Ape Escape 3

videos because the composer, Soichi Terada, apparently filed (c) stuff for some of the songs he composed. Which again, I don't mind as I really love the guy's work.

Classic Mega Man games (Not so much the X series though for some reason) has also gotten (c) notices on my channel, which isn't so bad except for the fact it bans the videos in Germany, so my german fans (If I have any) are left in the dust. I take more issue with THAT than losing out on a pittance in ad revenue.

Other series that seem to have (c) notices (Mainly due to the music, mind) include Disgaea, Jet Set Radio, Kingdom Hearts (Mainly anything with Utada Hikaru), Spyro The Dragon, Katamari, RareWare, Grand Theft Auto, Sonic The Hedgehog(Seems to be mainly for modern ones as opposed to the older ones, though), Crash Bandicoot 2: N-Tranced (Yes this one specific game in the series), and Ace Attorney, based on videos claimed on my channel at least. I'm sure others can chime in. I heard Microsoft had some wierd policy about Xbox games?

 

[Nokterian]

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.

Keep wearing those rose tinted glasses they suit you nicely.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Angry Joe and it seems like you, is acting like a spoil brat who thinks he is special and the rules do not apply to him. He made the video knowing full well the rules Nintendo had and just like every spoiled brat, he is having a temper tantrum.

This wasn't a random attack he broke a rule we all knew and he should pay for it. This isn't a morality issue and this certainly will not impact Nintendo because Angry Joe hardly ever covered wii u stuff.

You remind me of one of those people who defend celebrities for idiotic behavior just because you like them.

I know, I'm a spoiled brat for not being a corporate apologist like yourself. Keep bending over.

 

[Bots are better than you]

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.

Way to go, only quoting the part of my post that carters you. How about you read the block where I praised people who are making good videos and live by it?

And no, I live in Germany, but the more you know, even here we have to work for our money.

And playing games while talking shit is not work, it's a hobby. And he cries that he has to give about 30% from the revenue of what, 3 videos so far to the legal owner of the core of those videos?
Talking about a greedy brat. I think the 30% he has to give up are more than covered by the recent cry and rang video.

...Some people here, wow...

 

[Eolz]

Third Party: "Everyone is switching to discs, you should use CD's for the N64."
Nintendo: "No."
*That is how Sony won the console generation*

Third Party: "Everyone is switching to HD/good graphics/online, you should focus on that for the Wii/3DS/DS"
Nintendo: "No."
*That is how Nintendo won the console generation*

Spoiler

If only that was this simple

 

[Chindogg]

Let's Plays are not that much different than sampling in music, only the source songs are properly compensated when they're sampled.

Why is it such a problem that Nintendo wants a small cut of the revenue off their work? And don't give me this "free advertising" BS. Actively swearing up a storm and bitching about aspects of a game while playing it is not free advertising.

 

[Fitts]

It's Nintendo's content and they're free to control it however they'd like -- regardless of what every other publisher is doing. If their youtube partnership program is as well documented as a few posts I've seen imply, then I don't know how someone as prolific as Joe can be caught off guard by something like this.

Still, I'm of the opinion that Nintendo is doing themselves more harm than good with stuff like this. Youtube personalities do hold more influence than they should (whether it be the loud/wacky stuff that skews young like Joe and pewdiepie or holier-than-thou pretentiousness like Matthewmatosis) and they would be wise to make a more concerted push into advertising via this outlet. Without the internet's collective hocking, games with limited surface-level appeal like Splatoon are being sent out to die at retail and the Wii U (along with Nintendo's next home console) will continue to be perceived as complimentary to a Playstation/Xbox instead of a purchase worth making on its own merits.

 

[Seventy70]

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.

What? I don't think anyone is saying they don't have the right legally. It's just a stupid decision in general. Imagine a company that made board games suing someone for playing their game on YouTube. That's all Mario Party is. It's a virtual board game. If it was something story driven, I could kind of understand, but in this case, I absolutely cannot see it.

 

[Denton]

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.

Who are you to say how much money they should be getting?
And if you see their profits and want some, why not start doing this too?
You only see the profits but somehow not the work involved. Joe also started from nothing, with no views, working at Dell, he built his audience with his show over the 7 years and he fully deserves every single cent he makes.
If you want to get in on it, start creating yourself.

 

[NervousXtian]

These threads always boil down usually to 2 stances:

Crowd A: It's fair use, the game companies should back off.

Crowd B: Youtubers are lazy, should get a real job, and stop complaining.


I'm crowd A.

 

[akidnamededdy]

I don't have a dog in this fight but I think it's a little funny how many of you think it's so terrible that Nintendo wants to get their cut of the money made off of their work.

They won't be the only ones to take this stance, either. Just wait and see.

 

[vg260]

I hate this logic. It's like saying the camera manufacturers and microphone manufacturers should make money for any video make with their tools.

Nintendo are downright backwards with these stuff. It's free advertising and outreach for their game.

An end product such as a game is way different than a tool expressly designed for capturing content. It's a bit of a stretch even for an analogy. The issue is games are a unique medium without a direct comparison, so it's still being figured out how IP protection can be reasonably applied.

Maybe it is free advertising, but if they don't want it, that's their call.

 

[TheSlySoul]

Jesus Christ some of these entitled responses. Holy shit, guys.

There we go, the Mass Effect 3 defense!

Nintendo Defence Force is active and on duty in this thread.

They need to go to the Amiibo thread. They should go on about how "we are entitled to be able to pre-order without jumping hoops."

 

[staticneuron]

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.

This kinda and...

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.

This.



Yes it is Nintendo's call. But at the same token it is a silly policy. If people want to not play by nintendo rules it diminishes exposure and hurts them by taking away from people who might have potentially have been swayed to purchase a particular title or their console for that one title. It is thier choice and they just need to live with it but if anyone thinks this hurts youtube streamers more than nintendo's are not seeing the big picture.

 

[RocketRacoon]

Nintendo Defence Force is active and on duty in this thread.

 

[Jpop]

I know, I'm a spoiled brat for not being a corporate apologist like yourself. Keep bending over.

It's not about being a corporation its about being a creator and having control over your property. It wouldn't make a difference if this was an individual making the claim the stance woukd be the same.

Nintendo Defence Force is active and on duty in this thread.

Okay. Nice argument.

 

[Mihael Mello Keehl]

People, let's not forget that FANS donated him money to buy the Wii U so he could play/review the games on it.
And instead of giving the fans what they want, he's being pissy that he can't make more money.

Yes, Nintendo's policy is backwards as hell. But Joe should just take the hit, and give the fans what they want. The fans are your lifeblood, they keep you going. Without them, you don't get to have a job playing games online.

Ok yeah he should chill, youtube people buying him wii u... smh

 

[Phrozenflame500]

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?

A). If we're going to compare arbitrary definitions of work I'd argue that one person running a youtube channel might be more work then thousands of people working on a game. But business-wise the amount of "work" put in is irrelevant.

B). He doesn't. He worked completely fine without them and will continue to work completely fine without them. The frustration is that there's an arbitrary wall put in place in front of certain content that's both anti-consumer and anti-business.

Compare it to dismissing the original XB1 design under "just buy a different console". Sure it works and it's what everyone did, but it hurts everyone, sets a bad precedent and could be fixed by even the slightest amount of common sense.

C). It's generally anecdotal, but the fact of the matter easily all the big time YouTuber's can easily push sales of small indie games to AAA-levels of popularity (Five Nights at Freddies, anybody?) If you think that these YouTuber's would cover Nintendo videos with such an absurd content creator system when they could just make another video you're fooling yourself. And if you think Nintendo's not hurting right now because of poor advertising among the casual market, you're also fooling yourself.

 

[casinoman921]

Nintendo's Youtube stance has been pretty clear for a while now. You'd think big Youtubers would have figured that out by now.

 

[Cbajd5]

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

Yup, doing the bare minimum and then blaming everyone else for why they don't get everything they get when they put in more effort elsewhere.

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

That's probably not how it works. Nintendo probably acknowledges their contributions to the promotion of their products, so they don't take revenue and provide them with free products to review/cover. This is possible because there's a small amount of these companies and they typically approach Nintendo to get such benefits.

EDIT:

There we go, the Mass Effect 3 defense!

damn it i thought the first part of this post was the mass effect 3 defense

 

[4Tran]

Let's Plays are not that much different than sampling in music, only the source songs are properly compensated when they're sampled.

Why is it such a problem that Nintendo wants a small cut of the revenue off their work? And don't give me this "free advertising" BS. Actively swearing up a storm and bitching about aspects of a game while playing it is not free advertising.

Because it's easier to make videos on someone else's games. Most video creators aren't dependent on Nintendo, so they lose basically nothing by doing so.

 

[Chindogg]

These threads always boil down usually to 2 stances:

Crowd A: It's fair use, the game companies should back off.

Crowd B: Youtubers are lazy, should get a real job, and stop complaining.


I'm crowd A.

Clearly you were in crowd A when you generalized the concerns of using someone else's work for free as some kind of "envy."

BTW it's not fair use. Reviews are fair use, recording a full game session is not.

Because it's easier to make videos on someone else's games. Most video creators aren't dependent on Nintendo, so they lose basically nothing by doing so.

So it's ok because its easy? That's a pretty terrible reasoning.

 

[key]

These threads always boil down usually to 2 stances:

Crowd A: It's fair use, the game companies should back off.

Crowd B: Youtubers are lazy, should get a real job, and stop complaining.


I'm crowd A.

Or crowd C, which believes that a company is legally entitled to prevent others from profiting off of its IP.

 

[James Scott]

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.

Games are made up of visuals and audio. Music is the easiest thing to content ID tag, just because it's game music doesn't make it not relevant.

 

[JimmyRustler]

Anti consumer for not wanting someone to not make money off your shit? Alright.

I doubt that he's making that much money for Nintendo not to want reach 2 million of his subscribers. Say only 1.000 of the viewers buy the Nintendo game after watching his review, it's worth it.

I do think that Nintendo still doesn't understand the market. Took them a long ass time to even consider going mobile with their games and now this. For a company making so much content for kids they sure don't understand what kids are doing these days.

 

[Jobbs]

Keep wearing those rose tinted glasses they suit you nicely.

What does this even mean? If IP holders weren't entitled to protect their IPs it'd be more than a little damaging to civilization as we know it.

If I release my own game -- The Last of Us: The Ellie Chronicles -- And it's an awesome game in its own right -- on Steam for $5, and Sony filed a complaint and got the game taken down, they wouldn't have to explain whether or not they benefit from the positive exposure to the IP, or whether or not it's anti-consumer to take this great game out of the hands of users. It's their IP, and they're protecting it. It's the long game, and ultimately in some ways the economy rests atop this principle.

 

[dark10x]

I'm curious to understand what Nintendo gains from this. Of course it's within their rights but I'm really uncertain why they feel this is necessary. The tiniest amount of ill will created by this type of thing seems to be at odds with their need to expand their audience. People using their properties in this way doesn't seem especially damaging. The whole thing is a bit odd.

What would they be protecting their IP from, is what I'm wondering. This isn't piracy or anything even close to it.

 

[pelican]

These threads always boil down usually to 2 stances:

Crowd A: It's fair use, the game companies should back off.

Crowd B: Youtubers are lazy, should get a real job, and stop complaining.


I'm crowd A.

I dunno mate, I tend to think of You Tubers and Twitch streamers as being the modern age version of buskers on a street.

If that is their choice of living, then fair play to them. I just don't think it offers a solid long term career path.

 

[Exile20]

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

The 3ds is doing well. They just came off of the Wii train, analyst believe mobile games from Nintendo is going to be huge financially and just look at the amiibo situation.

Your post is really laughable.

 

[casiopao]

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

I actually agree a lot with this one here lol.

 

[kpaadet]

Nintendo may well have done indepth assessments of who they wish to promote their goods and services and deemed these to meet criteria Joe does not.

This thread is crazy in some of its rationale

Yes that would definitely make their decision much more sympathetic....

 

[EhoaVash]

Hmm I looking at this Joe guys archives ..don't think he ever even covered nintendo games/ has interest in them. Hell in order to have him play nintendi games, fans had to donate him a Wii u.

But yeah if you're a big YouTube partner like partnered with machinma you could get away with it. It really comes down on those using googles's ad sense program.

 

[Eolz]

These threads always boil down usually to 2 stances:

Crowd A: It's fair use, the game companies should back off.

Crowd B: Youtubers are lazy, should get a real job, and stop complaining.


I'm crowd A.

Or crowd C, which believes that a company is legally entitled to prevent others from profiting off of its IP.

I'm in crowd C above

 

[4Tran]

I'm curious to understand what Nintendo gains from this. Of course it's within their rights but I'm really uncertain why they feel this is necessary. The tiniest amount of ill will created by this type of thing seems to be at odds with their need to expand their audience. People using their properties in this way doesn't seem especially damaging. The whole thing is a bit odd.

Nintendo gains very little; which is why it's such bad policy. These decisions are made in Kyoto, and they don't really get the internet.

 

[ForsakenLotus]

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.

Okay, here is a parallel: In Indiana, legislation passed that allowed religious beliefs to dictate whether a business can choose to serve, or not serve somebody based on those beliefs. Of course not long after a pizza place said they wouldn't serve homosexuals. Now, while the law wasn't intended to be used in quite that way, it is legal; but that doesn't make it right. People heard about it and became appropriately outraged and the pizza place is closed down indefinitely.

Point is, it's not that Nintendo doesn't have the right to make these claims, it's that it's idiotic and backwards thinking of them to do it. And while not every person in here who states Nintendo has the right to do this is silently agreeing with the policy and it's enforcement, I can't help but get the feeling that a lot of posters saying that do agree with the policy and the enforcement. I just don't see how people think this is the right thing to do - yet there are people who can't understand my point of view.