Leafhopper
Banned
Nintendo didn't take the video down.
-
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 didn't take the video down.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
You praised one guy for the "work" he puts into his videos, while bashing AJ.
That tells me you haven't even bothered to watch any of his content, because if you had, you would know he puts a lot of work into his videos. His reviews can be up to 40 minutes long as he's very detailed, and even dresses up into costumes to reflect the theme of what he's reviewing. To blow him off as some knucklehead that "plays games while talking shit" is ignorant.
It really falls in line with some Gaffers having a blind dislike of a guy because he's successful on YouTube. Even though you have no clue about what he produces.
That's all I'm going to say on this. I'm not going to waste my time on this stupid shit when I could be playing a game right now.
Imagine trying to push a family friendly image promoting your best games. You fire up Youtube and notice the most popular personalities displaying your family friendly games are swearing up a storm and using slurs left and right.
That's what they're covering when they want to "review" videos before release.
Whatever happened, they worked out a contract with Nintendo. Angry Joe did not. Simple as that.
legacyzero
Banned
It's pretty obvious. Sure, Ninty didn't take the video down, but the principle of the tweets AND the discussion remains.
Joe must have took it down on his own. AGAIN. STILL the same principle. Nintendo has every right. Sure. BUT, it's also very foolish of them. Exposure is SUPER important for business.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
For a youtuber point of view, taking down the video or not getting any ad money is basically the same.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Like I mentioned, he probably misread AJs tweets/misinterpreted the situation, but I guess you don't care as long as you can imply that most of the thread is stupid~ How quaint of you..
Edit-I think it's getting too personal for you, Kintaro.
Bots are better than you
Banned
Is it sad, that developers try to make games, that are worthy for youtubers to play?
Makes games that are generally great and that the average gamer wants to play...
Makes games that are generally great and that the average gamer wants to play...
Cbajd5
Member
It's significantly better? The only way you're affected by Content ID matches is if you're monetizing the video or their policy is to take it down from being viewed worldwide, which is essentially a Copyright Strike.
A Copyright Strike always takes the video down completely and directly impacts your account for at least 6 months as it puts your account out of good standing which takes away your ability to use the following features:
-Uploading videos as Unlisted
-Uploading videos that are longer than 15 minutes
-Uploading videos under Creative Commons licenses
-InVideo Programming
-Custom video thumbnails
-Live events and Hangouts on Air
-Appealing rejected Content ID claim disputes
-Sharing Private videos
-YouTube Video Editor
Plus if you get more than 3 (I think) before any of the others expire your account will be closed.
I don't monetize anything and have had Content ID claims made on some of my videos and I have literally been unaffected by it. In the past I had 1 video taken down due to a Copyright Strike and I was locked out of a lot of stuff for years before Youtube's policies either changed or I finally learned how to get the strike removed. (Which is now waiting 6 months after you take the Copyright School quiz after watching the copyright school video.)
Hell, saying they take control of the video mostly wrong too, you keep control of it outside of monetizing it. That's why Youtube offers to let you fix it by letting you change/remove the video content or the audio, whichever was identified by Content ID, and then you can monetize it again as long as it isn't Content ID'd again.
If the video was taken down, he'd have a copyright strike on his channel. Plus the video could still attract the Nintendo audience to Angry Joe and earn him a few more views on the videos he does profit from. I'd say it's not entirely the same.
That makes no sense. I would think that people have the common sense to see that it's the person cursing and not the game. Most people know what YouTube is (except Nintendo). We live in 2015.
TheSlySoul
Member
Yeah, I am going back to Xenoblade 3D. I should not have to explain why I hate Nintendo as a company.
Palculator
Unconfirmed Member
This. And I would like to add that people shouldn't mistake this for Nintendo censoring material they don't agree with. You're free to do what you want with their games as long as you don't intend to profit off of them, in which case they rightfully have a say in how their material is used and portrayed.
Not talking about sites, sorry wasn't I clear. I meant servers for the games he play. Dedicated servers he rents.
If he doesn't depend on covering Nintendo titles, I guess it's his choice. The typical Nintendo gamer (kids, families) probably doesn't watch these channels, so it's not really Nintendo losing out.
Yeah, I think Metroid Other M is one of the few games nobody should play but instead only watch the cinematic mode thingy.
Yeah, I think Metroid Other M is one of the few games nobody should play but instead only watch the cinematic mode thingy.
Haunted
Member
Well, the rationale obviously being that Youtube influencers are "average gamers" - just with a capture card, camera, some knowledge about video production and a knack for entertaining others.
Leafhopper
Banned
That's stupid and I don't think it's the same.
"Well I can't make money off of this video I edited and worked on for hours. Might as well just scrap it and not let anyone see it, even if my fans might enjoy it."
Eolz
Member
they're playing the long game, in my opinion. youtube will continue to grow and they are planting the seeds for a standardized revenue split between the original content creator and the youtuber. youtubers have essentially been operating in the wild west for a while now and that platform has gotten big enough to warrant some kind of standardization in the way that revenue is shared. some of the weird shit in Nintendo's program specifically I can just chalk up to growing pains and Nintendo being Nintendo. once other companies start realizing where everything is headed I'm sure a fairer standard will be put in place that will be mutually beneficial to everyone involved.
Fortunately it's Nintendo's ability to decide what to do with their IP or who can profit from it.
You all assume they'd benefit from youtube personality playing their games. Where are the metrics on this? Beyond that, they probably don't want to be grouped in with everything else -- their gameplay in youtube videos while a picture in picture is yelling and reacting. They like being separate. I think this is about Nintendo's view of themselves, but, again, who really cares? It's their stuff, it's beyond fair and reasonable that they ask for a cut of the profit if you're going to exhibit their stuff for profit. In some multiverses it would seem pretty cool of them to offer a program to allow you to get some of the profit for exhibiting their content.
Phrozenflame500
Member
B) If it was "based on the law" then everyone would be required to do it. The law (atleast in the wishy-washy way copyright law works now) allows them to implement such a policy. Them actually going through with it and doing it in the way they did is the arbitrary part.
C) Apparently the majority of titles are "much different" then a Nintendo title, considering that Nintendo has by far the most regressive stance on this by far. Companies make stupid decisions all the time, and Nintendo has made tons of poor decisions in the past little while that they are only now recovering from. Essentially what you're saying is that the majority of the American and Japanese game developers are wrong, and that Nintendo is right.
James Scott
Banned
Taking down a video isn't the same as wanting to share revenue.
Wanting to share revenue isn't the same as a company not wanting their game to be shared/shown
-Mutsukki-
Member
Ah, I see. Still, it seems like way too much trouble and bad PR to go through with this. I don't think these decisions come from Kyoto, so I really wonder why they take such a stance.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
I guess, but wasting time and money on something it's not gonna earn him direct money, is a waste of time for a youtuber, considering that the same thing of other game/company does earn him money.
If we agree that a youtuber wants to earn a living from the content he creates, not getting money of a single video is like having no video at all.
I guess fans will respect the fact that Nintendo policies goes against his work and ideals and will understand it.
blankempathy
Member
Well hes giving free press for Nintendo and he clearly doesn't want that.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
Yarp, that's right. I remember AJ paid for a dedicated Battlefield 4 server for his fans to use. Despite this, he still called out how shitty the launch online was for the PC version.
ClosingADoor
Member
Ah, I see. But surely that can't add up to more then a few hundred a month.
But that's up to Joe. Nintendo does not have an obligation to bend their rules for him so he can cover his costs.
Nintendo is a very controlling company when it comes to their IPs. They want to know how it is being presented and what is being done with it. Like someone said earlier: imagine having a game targeted at kids and being marketed as kid friendly. Now this kid or parents go on Youtube and click a Let's Play of someone swearing every other sentence with that game running. They don't want to be linked to that kind of content.
Next to that, they own the IP and don't want other people making money of it. They have that right, despite the objections being raised in this topic and by people on Youtube.
It could endanger their IP in several ways, depending on the content of the videos. If a letsplay shows a game from beginning to end, there might be viewers who opt not to buy the game because they've already experienced it. In this scenario, the person who posted the video is profiting off of Nintendo's IP, and Nintendo is losing a potential sale.
Or maybe the person who makes the video is presenting Nintendo's IP in a negative light. Again, the maker of the video is profiting, and Nintendo's brand is damaged.
I don't watch Angry Joe videos, so I'm not sure what he does. But it is possible that a YouTube video could endanger one of Nintendo's IPs.
A lot of this thread is silly. In both ways.
Personal? You have someone bringing up the recent Indiana Law which helps promote active discrimination for fucks sake. lol
This is just fascinating from a business point of view. You have one company who has made it pointedly clear how they want to deal with this sort of content. They have a program set up with 60/70% cuts of revenue. You have one guy who KNOWS of this program yet went outside of it and is angry that Nintendo, who was clear on what they would do, did what they did. He then takes down the video (robbing people of viewing it AND negating the work he did to make it...when he could use it to build his business) and makes a rant video which he can make money from (and I don't believe this is the first time he has done this).
You have big vs. small, good vs. bad and all sorts of this in this thread.
I think its fucking fascinating.
Blackage
Member
Why would anyone want to bend over backwards for Nintendo to take 60% of profits when they can upload anything else and get 100%. Thay's the point. Youtubers doesn't need Nintendo, they can upload a million other things for revenue and 100% of the profit. They'd probably like to upload Nintendo things, but it's the principle of the thing, why reward or work with 1 stubborn company for a terrible policy.
TheSlySoul
Member
Or Milton-Bradley if you record yourself playing Monoploy?
It is pretty much the same thing, right?
It vividly displays how well-versed Nintendo is at this new-fangled 'internet' thing. As in, they are fucking dinosaurs.
Obviously Nintendo has every right to do what they want with their legal property.
But they're the ones with a console deep in last place and a handheld that is reaching nowhere near the heights of its predecessor.
They're the ones in the minority here and the 99% of other developers/publishers who allow this don't seem to be ailing from the free publicity.
Hell, Nintendo probably has more to gain than any other company imo. I've heard more about Mario Party lately than I have in years because of places like Giant Bomb showing themselves playing it in multiplayer. There's nothing to spoil with the multiplayer games Nintendo releases. The videos just show how much fun those games are and really do a good job of selling them.
But they're the ones with a console deep in last place and a handheld that is reaching nowhere near the heights of its predecessor.
They're the ones in the minority here and the 99% of other developers/publishers who allow this don't seem to be ailing from the free publicity.
Hell, Nintendo probably has more to gain than any other company imo. I've heard more about Mario Party lately than I have in years because of places like Giant Bomb showing themselves playing it in multiplayer. There's nothing to spoil with the multiplayer games Nintendo releases. The videos just show how much fun those games are and really do a good job of selling them.
casinoman921
Member
Nintendo has plenty of exposure on Youtube already, so losing Angry Joe isn't going to make a difference. The Wii U's not selling because it's underpowered and overpriced, not because of their Youtube policies lol.
Please show me where CAH has the ability of being played in its entirety on video so the viewer wouldn't have to play the game itself to get all the content available?
Also show me where the music and video are in CAH please.
I'll wait.
Bots are better than you
Banned
I don't care if he is successful our not, I don't care how long his videos are, I don't watch them. Or anyone else's videos.
I'm annoyed that he rants about stuff that is bitter reality in every media-centered market, and that some people defend this, attacking others for criticizing this stance.
And if you need to take things on a personal level, then it maybe is better to do something else.
Yes, in this case, it is.
This is Mario Party.......it's a virtual board game. There is no story.
nobodyshero
Banned
I don't necessarily think it isn't a job, but I do think going full time, putting all your eggs in the YouTube basket is a super risky proposition, and it does kind of make me unsympathetic when a change comes that puts a wrench in your plans. You see shit like this Nintendo thing literally all the time, and it's been happening since the inception of youtube. Right when YouTube was getting massive, and front page space was going to corporate content instead of the vloggers who were there from the beginning, these same complaints have always existed.
If you're going to be on YT for money as your job, then you better be damn ready to be SUUUUUPER flexible with your content and revenue structure. The whole YouTube industry is still in relative infancy and everyone, from content creators to the big guys, is still figuring out the best balance of making money and protecting their content. So when I see a youtuber post one of these rant videos about how the big companies are out to get them I just think "this is the party you signed up for, dude". There's no YouTube code of conduct, and the rules and practises are ALWAYS changing.
I personally completely understand why companies are at least cagey with people making money off their content, especially when licensing fees aren't part of the equation.
It's not worth the possible legal disputes Nintendo could get into in the future by letting anyone make a profit off their intellectual property and content they made without a specific contract with Nintendo. Legal disputes that could obviously potentially lose them a lot of money.
That should have been obvious when their solution to a game-breaking glitch in Metroid Other M was to ask people to mail them their save files. This was in 2010. They've progressed a little sense that hilarity, but not much.
the 60/40 and 70/30 splits favor the youtuber actually so in your scenario Nintendo would only be taking 40%
not to comment on anything you said just making sure you have your facts straight
Beelzebufo
Banned
We should probably also start a decision about Let's Players taking donations towards showing certain kinds of games, refusing to make more of those because they'd only be allowed to make only 70% as much, and then actually taking down already made videos out of spite.
BreezyLimbo
Banned
The way you're talking here, is as if you're from the outside viewing in, when in fact you're quite entwined into the conversation in defense of that big vs. small. Yeah, it seems personal. You're in defense of Nintendo who...quite likely many agree is archaic in their rules and policies. You have game devs who disagree with their stand on how they handle things, and not only that but when you have multiple companies who embrace the YT community, and Nintendo is one of the few outliers, yeah they deserve to be called out.
Still waiting where CAH has music and video.