Support NeoGAF

[bobawesome]

Nice avatar, fanboy. Gosh, I couldn't imagine you would be supporting Nintendo.

This is GameFAQs-tier shitposting. Step it up, Senpai.

 

[astrogamer]

Nintendo gets paid when the hundreds or thousands of people who watch Joes video go out and buy the game because they saw it on his video. In a perfect world for the current system to be a fair, Nintendo would take what they take now from the videos, and then Joe should receive a commission on the copies his video sales. But of course that doesn't happen..

You do realize the attach rate from a big Youtuber's video is nowhere near hundreds of thousands of viewers to go buy the game especially if you exclude people who were pretty much going to buy it anything and just needed confirmation it wasn't shit. Maybe a hundred thousand people do it they see an Angry Joe review and probably a huge chunk wasn't solely interested from a single video. There are games that benefit from youtube strongly but they aren't typically very designed

 

[Marcel]

They do though.

It just isn't at maximum potential because of bad business decisions.

But hey, Amiibo is apparently doing amazing and their smartphone games are going to be eaten up by young kids on their smartphones.

Kids are buying Amiibo? Kids will buy a Nintendo game on their phone?

You're going to need some receipts for those claims. In my very limited experience with Amiibo on GAF it's just college and middle-aged guys refreshing Toys R' Us and Gamestop sites and whining while they do so.

 

[neogaffer1]

So angry Joe essentially got a notice saying he wasn't allowed to upload nintendo videos and then spun it to try and act like he's voluntarily not uploading them?

He got a copyright notice for uploading footage of a game that isn't on the Nintendo whitelist, so he decided that he won't do Nintendo games anymore.

 

[Trogdor1123]

According to Youtube and Nintendo the performance is about 40% owned by the game maker. And that's not the law either.

Thats interesting to note.

One other question, if Nintendo does ID something do that get all of the revenue or just a certain amount?

 

[SmokedMeat]

It's especially not a good thing for all of Angry Joe's fans who donated money for him to make Wii U videos, only for him to take them down out of spite because he wasn't getting paid enough

Truly greed is bad for all.

All of his fans? What makes you think it wasn't one guy?

Sucks for whomever donated a system, as free coverage and publicity was on the itinerary, but unlike other publishers Nintendo wants more.

 

[bitesnintendog]

Something that needs to be made clear is that Joe could get paid by doing these videos by registering for Nintendo's Creators Program, but he refuses to do so because they take 40% of the profits.

In other words, he wouldn't earn as much money doing Nintendo videos as everything else. And at the end of the day, since this is his "job," it's all about the money.

Mario Party 10 and a number of other games are not on the whitelist so the partner program isn't even an option if he wanted to provide coverage.

 

[Trogdor1123]

You do realize the attach rate from a big Youtuber's video is nowhere near hundreds of thousands of viewers to go buy the game especially if you exclude people who were pretty much going to buy it anything and just needed confirmation it wasn't shit. Maybe a hundred thousand people do it they see an Angry Joe review and probably a huge chunk wasn't solely interested from a single video. There are games that benefit from youtube strongly but they aren't typically very designed

To be clear, he said hundreds or thousands, not hundreds of thousands. Very very different.

 

[-Mutsukki-]

40%,jeeeeeezus that's a load of bullshit. All the free exposure means dick to Nintendo, huh.

are you serious...? I can't really tell...

 

[Swass]

Wait, so you are saying Nintendo owes AJ money now? I just want to be clear here.

I said in a perfect world.. if his videos are driving sales and Nintendo is taking money from the videos he makes, then he should be entitled to a commission on those sales.

You do realize the attach rate from a big Youtuber's video is nowhere near hundreds of thousands of viewers to go buy the game especially if you exclude people who were pretty much going to buy it anything and just needed confirmation it wasn't shit. Maybe a hundred thousand people do it they see an Angry Joe review and probably a huge chunk wasn't solely interested from a single video. There are games that benefit from youtube strongly but they aren't typically very designed

You misread my post., I said hundred "or" thousand.

 

[Chubzdoomer]

Mario Party 10 and a number of other games are not on the whitelist so the partner program isn't even an option if he wanted to provide coverage.

Wow... now that I did not know. They still have plenty of work to do, that's for sure.

 

[munchie64]

Seeing Youtube channels much smaller than Joe's have monetization taken away from playing Nintendo games is pretty disheartening to me honestly.

 

[Marcel]

All of his fans? What makes you think it wasn't one guy?

Sucks for whomever donated a system, as free coverage and publicity was on the itinerary, but unlike other publishers Nintendo wants more.

Nintendo wanting more would make sense if they weren't sitting firmly at the bottom of the totem pole for home consoles.

 

[Pennywise83]

How many are original IPs though? Did those IPs sale? The only Nintendo games to get into top 10 year end sales was Smash Brothers and Pokémon, both which was mostly 3DS games.
The Last of Us managed top 10 during 2013 I think.

Tomodachi Life is a new IP and was one of the best selling SKUs last year in Europe.

 

[evilromero]

Are Joe's rant videos monetized?

If he wasn't monetizing from the video then there would be no issue from Nintendo. You have to opt-in to monetize.

 

[geordiemp]

No intelligent person thinks that AngryJoe does this for the good of the people. It's about the money, obviously.

As with all you tubers that do it full time, and game web sites.

Don't see how that makes Joe stand out from Giant Bomb, Jim sterling or anybody else.

He would of been wiser to have just quietly taken the videos down and not done anymore Nintendo coverage, as his outpouring just brings out the Nintendo fan defense...

 

[Beelzebufo]

All of his fans? What makes you think it wasn't one guy?

Sucks for whomever donated a system, as free coverage and publicity was on the itinerary, but unlike other publishers Nintendo wants more.

Because people gave lots of donations that he used to buy a console, they didn't just buy him the console

And I agree that it sucks for him. It especially sucks for them because Joe is withholding the videos they supported him for out of spite.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I said in a perfect world.. if his videos are driving sales and Nintendo is taking money from the videos he makes, then he should be entitled to a commission on those sales.

I just don't see how, he is entitled to the ad revenue from his own video. Certainly nothing more. Nintendo hasn't agreed to anything with him and shouldn't be held to any kind of compensation as a result. I certainly don't get, nor deserve, a cut from getting a friend to buy a game. This is no different.

 

[daxgame]

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

/thread

 

[Xplatformer]

Sad that this isn't the first time, Joe does this every couple of months. Dunno if it gets him extra hits/likes/follows or whatever but he keeps drudging up the Nintendo YouTube policies and acting shocked when it happens when he clearly knows about them. Kinda pathetic really.

More like "smart" marketing on Joe's part. I get what he's doing.

Hell...I logged in to watch him on Thursday and I spent 15 minutes watching him and Other Joe put together a chair, and then proceeded to watch them race their two chairs.

It made me reflect on just how good a marketer Joe is.

I'm starting to lose interest though now that I've found Rollplay. More viewers and I feel less stupid watching.

 

[Karanlos]

Has it been confirmed that is was a human who did this?

So can I upload a video of me playing a Strato guitar copyrighted by Fender? Can I upload a video of a kid playing blocks copyrighted by LEGO?

Comparing instruments which main purpose is for you to generate music and possible sell is not the same as this....

Copyright law grants them exclusive rights to distribution of their games. Angry Joe is not distributing Nintendo games.

Games ship with music and videos that is licensed for personal consumption which does not include youtube uploading.

 

[213372bu]

Kids are buying Amiibo? Kids will buy a Nintendo game on their phone?

You're going to need some receipts for those claims.

I mean, I'm not an official bigwig or anything, but it's all just personal observations.

Moms are constantly asking about Amiibos everytime I go to gamestop.

In my large family reunions, there are tons of little kids playing imaginary fights, and what used to be Skylanders, are now Amiibos.

I mean it wouldn't be a big stretch to connect Amiibo success with that of the kids who were into Skylanders.

But of course, this doesn't mean anything official, just Tales From My Ass.

Also, I just threw the smartphone thing in there because everywhere I go I see kids who are being absorbed by games or videos on a smartphone.

--

I mean, I just know Nintendo could be performing a lot better on the market if they made the right choices.

 

[JesseEwiak]

The difference between IGN/Giantbomb/etc. and Angry Joe and other Youtubers is pretty obvious. The former acted like professional people who had jobs and made a deal with Nintendo. Angry Joe and others whine when they don't get everything the way they want it.

 

[SmokedMeat]

That "little guy" has two million subscribers and makes a huge profit off that "simple video of a bunch of gamers having fun playing Mario Party 10". This is not some kid posting videos on YouTube for fun, this is a guy running a very popular business.

And compared to Nintendo, yes, he's the little guy.

 

[Marcel]

As with all you tubers that do it full time, and game web sites.

Don't see how that makes Joe stand out from Giant Bomb, Jim sterling or anybody else.

He would of been wiser to have just quietly taken the videos down and not done anymore Nintendo coverage, as his outpouring just brings out the Nintendo fan defense...

Drawing out the frothing Nintendo fanboys only makes him look better by comparison.

 

[WonkyPanda]

You're a lawyer aren't you? Its nice to see people familiar with stuff like this commenting.

So how does a claim to something like this work in other arenas? Clearly AJ has contributed some work to the video and should be compensated for it. I think everyone can agree to that, but Nintendo is for sure vital to that process for sure and as a result is the root cause of the video. Is it always an all or nothing approach or would it usually have some sort of break down?

I should state the caveat that I've merely dabbled with trademarks. It's a very complex field of law (although, patents is where the money is).

But, just to paint you a picture: if you wanted to do a 'let's play' for, I don't know, an X-Men game, simply getting permission from the developer/publisher is not even enough if they themselves were merely licensing the characters/marks of that universe.

What people keep bringing up in here is fair use which, in easy layman terms, is an exception to a holders exclusive right. The two BIGGEST problems with that argument is 1) monetization and 2) (the biggest one) the amount of the original work being used.

All-in-all, it's not an easily digestible matter and it's not a simple to explain.

 

[213372bu]

I just don't see how, he is entitled to the ad revenue from his own video. Certainly nothing more. Nintendo hasn't agreed to anything with him and shouldn't be held to any kind of compensation as a result. I certainly don't get, nor deserve, a cut from getting a friend to buy a game. This is no different.

So then what's the issue?

Why isn't he allowed to make videos where he maximizes his profits?

Why is it that Joe has to make Nintendo videos?

 

[NoFaceNico]

This is GameFAQs-tier shitposting. Step it up, Senpai.

You're right. I was wrong. I will send a PM apology to that user.

It was really a continuation of joke I had made a few minutes earlier. No one had a problem with that one, it was even quoted. I see that this one is a problem because it singled out someone in particular.

[Earlier post]

This is hilarious! Skim over the last few pages and just look at the avatars, I guarantee you can predict which side of the fence those users will be on.

[read in Jeff Foxworthy's voice]

"If your avatar is now an Amiibo that you drove 200 miles to go buy... you might be a Nintendo fanboy"

...

My apologies, I'm sending a PM to that user, but I stick to my other points.

 

[tuxfool]

Kids are buying Amiibo? Kids will buy a Nintendo game on their phone?

You're going to need some receipts for those claims. In my very limited experience with Amiibo on GAF it's just college and middle-aged guys refreshing Toys R' Us and Gamestop sites and whining while they do so.

Yeah. Do kids preorder all the amiibo? That seems to be the only way to get your hands on them.

 

[Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku!]

Is Joe really giving Nintendo free advertising if he can say whatever he wants? It's' certainly not advantageous to Nintendo if he has the influence he claims he does and he gives a Nintendo game a negative review. Based on what I know about him, he doesn't hesitate to bash games.

 

[Mithos]

Pretty sure he said something similar about Capcom an SFV.

I'll take your word for it (don't follow the SF scene). It sounds like he's going to run out of games to cover if he goes "I'm done" if he gets slapped with a Content ID match, which he does from time to time. Will look in on his youtube channel during 2015 to see if any Capcom games show up or not, and/or other companies that slap him with a Content ID match.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I should state the caveat that I've merely dabbled with trademarks. It's a very complex field of law (although, patents is where the money is).

But, just to paint you a picture: if you wanted to do a 'let's play' for, I don't know, an X-Men game, simply getting permission from the developer/publisher is not even enough if they themselves were merely licensing the characters/marks of that universe.

What people keep bringing up in here is fair use which, in easy layman terms, is an exception to a holders exclusive right. The two BIGGEST problems with that argument is 1) monetization and 2) (the biggest one) the amount of the original work being used.

All-in-all, it's not an easily digestible matter and it's not a simple to explain.

Well thanks for posting either way, its appreciated.

So then what's the issue?

Why isn't he allowed to make videos where he maximizes his profits?

Why is it that Joe has to make Nintendo videos?

I don't know what you asking at all. He's allowed to post videos for sure and they don't have to be Nintendo videos. I never said anything of the sort. I will double check my posts to see if I had a typo that changed my meaning.

 

[Swass]

I just don't see how, he is entitled to the ad revenue from his own video. Certainly nothing more. Nintendo hasn't agreed to anything with him and shouldn't be held to any kind of compensation as a result. I certainly don't get, nor deserve, a cut from getting a friend to buy a game. This is no different.

He didn't make an agreement with Nintendo either but they get to take half of his revenue. In business if someone or something is selling your product you are usually paying for it whether it is an ad or a salesperson. Nintendo should be grateful for youtubers basically doing this at no cost to them.

 

[Marcel]

Yeah. Do kids preorder all the amiibo? That seems to be the only way to get your hands on them.

You could always be that person who lines up in front of Toys R' Us before it opens. I have the ability to feel shame so I probably couldn't handle the intricacies of the Amiibo game.

 

[TSM]

I can't believe all the people in this thread that believe a company should be able to control their brand image by only green lighting content they feel promotes their brand in a manner they find acceptable. If it was a company that wasn't considered to be as beloved as Nintendo this behavior would be considered despicable. EA for instance. Scientology would be the poster child for this taken to an extreme.

As for this case with Joe, the system is broken right now. Regardless if Nintendo should get paid or not, what should happen when there is a claim against a video is that it should get pulled down until the 2 parties reach an agreement. Right now youtube and the company making the claim completely disregard the rights of the person that created the video and take money that should rightfully belong to the creator. Joe might not be entitled to 100% of the money, but he's definitely entitled to more then 0%. Leaving it up means that Nintendo profits off Joe's reputation, original content and large audience while Joe sees nothing.

 

[key]

Kids are buying Amiibo? Kids will buy a Nintendo game on their phone?

You're going to need some receipts for those claims. In my very limited experience with Amiibo on GAF it's just college and middle-aged guys refreshing Toys R' Us and Gamestop sites and whining while they do so.

Doesn't this kind of invalidate your argument?

 

[The Boat]

I can't believe all the people in this thread that believe a company should be able to control their brand image by only green lighting content they feel promotes their brand in a manner they find acceptable. If it was a company that wasn't considered to be as beloved as Nintendo this behavior would be considered despicable. EA for instance. Scientology would be the poster child for this taken to an extreme.

I didn't read every post, but I don't see anyone, or at least any noticeable number of people saying that.

 

[213372bu]

Well thanks for posting either way, its appreciated.



I don't know what you asking at all. He's allowed to post videos for sure and they don't have to be Nintendo videos. I never said anything of the sort. I will double check my posts to see if I had a typo that changed my meaning.

It was just in general to people, not your specific post.

I was just making the point that sure, he is allowed to post videos.

So why is it that him not wanting to post a Nintendo video because he won't be making the same amount of money a bad thing?

 

[TSM]

I didn't read every post, but I don't see anyone, or at least any noticeable number of people saying that.

There have been any number of posts that feel Nintendo should be able to pull down videos that feature foul language for instance since they don't wish to be associated with it.

The only developer that lets people review games weeks ahead of release? No, not really. They just don't want people swearing over their family products. That was their initial concern with the Smash at Evo thing iirc.

 

[eyeball_kid]

I don't think is about ad revenue or IP copyrights. I think Nintendo sees the trend of people watching Lets Plays instead of actually purchasing and playing the game. Nintendo wants people to purchase the game, because the more they're invested in the console, the more likely they are to buy other Nintendo games. I don't know if there have been any studies correlating online Lets Plays and decline of game sales, but it has to have an impact, and I suppose Nintendo's sales are flagging enough that any potential lost sales are a worry for them.

Legally, I don't think Nintendo really has a claim here, but it's Google's service and they make the rules.

 

[Merc_]

Kids are buying Amiibo? Kids will buy a Nintendo game on their phone?

You're going to need some receipts for those claims. In my very limited experience with Amiibo on GAF it's just college and middle-aged guys refreshing Toys R' Us and Gamestop sites and whining while they do so.

You should read the Amiibo threads sometime. There have been a number of posts in them talking about families buying them. A few posters also buy them for their kids and so on. I've people talking about this on other internet sites too. It's not official of course, I don't think real numbers have ever been posted.

I don't think their phone games are out yet.

 

[Marcel]

Doesn't this kind of invalidate your argument?

If you have the receipts that prove that kids are buying Amiibos, feel free to show it. Tales from My Ass doesn't qualify.

The burden of proof doesn't lie with me.

 

[Vena]

I can't believe all the people in this thread that believe a company should be able to control their brand image by only green lighting content they feel promotes their brand in a manner they find acceptable. If it was a company that wasn't considered to be as beloved as Nintendo this behavior would be considered despicable. EA for instance. Scientology would be the poster child for this taken to an extreme.

I'd be curious for you to dredge up where any one is saying such a thing at all.

If you have the receipts that prove that kids are buying Amiibos, feel free to show it. Tales from My Ass doesn't qualify.

Kids in general do not buy anything. Their middle-aged parents or grandparents do.

 

[Palculator]

It is a point and it's comical that you guys get so riled up by someone who puts some humor into his arguments. Clearly, my point is that the root of this Nintendo vs. Let's Players problem is that one of the greediest, money hungry companies out there is choosing to find any way it can to make money off of its fans.

Is there even any argument against that besides crying "how dare you criticize Nintendo! Bananable!"? Does anyone have any proof that Nintendo isn't doing this because of the simple fact that money is involved and Nintendo wants it? If a company like Valve (or any other relevant company) wanted to pull the same trick, they have the resources to do it. But even though they are legally entitled to do the same, they choose not to.

I like video games where Mario hits a box and coins fall out, I just don't want to be that box. Face it- Nintendo is not the happy, fun-loving, cutesy-utsy company you knew as a kid. They've grown up and they will take every dime they can

Spoiler

and are legally entitled to take

from you.

Hell, I'm lucky Gene Simmons didn't ask me for a check just for using his name to illustrate my point!

It would be better if there was some humor in your arguments. You just called people fanboys, disregarded them for having Nintendo themed avatars and mentioned the entirely irrelevant and weird view that the Wii U was somehow an "asshole tax."

And you're so incapable of perspective that you think the only way someone could disagree is if they had some irrational love for Nintendo. It's very easy to see that for people like Angry Joe using Nintendo material is also a business decision because they live off people watching their videos. He wants to maximize his profit as well, that's why he refuses to share 30% of it with the authors of material he uses. He's not doing it because he's a fan, he had to be donated a Wii U and took the video down when the opportunity to monetize it 100% was no longer available. By no means are people like AJ "the biggest fans" Nintendo is "shitting on."

Both Nintendo and AJ contributed to the final video so it's entirely justified that both should receive compensation. There's no fanboyism in that line of thought: Making a living partially off of other peoples work with them receiving none of the share is wrong regardless of which party is being exploited. If any other publisher did this I'd justify it the same way as I am doing right now.

If you want to read a more detailed an balanced write-up check out this one.

 

[The Boat]

There have been any number of posts that feel Nintendo should be able to pull down videos that feature foul language for instance since they don't wish to be associated with it.

I must have missed those posts. The majority of people here who "agree" with Nintendo just think that they have the right to get a share of the revenue.

 

[TheDarkTriforce]

There are dozens of other channels doing Mario Party 10 videos. Some of these channels have more subscribers than AngryJoe. Hell, some channels even received advance copies from Nintendo so they can do videos before the release date.

I'm sure Nintendo is fine without AngryJoe.

This! If Nintendo don't want that he makes videos with copyrighted video games than Angry Joe has to deal with it, end of thread!

 

[TSM]

I must have missed those posts. The majority of people here who "agree" with Nintendo just think that they have the right to get a share of the revenue.

Sorry, should have dug up at least one before posting that:

The only developer that lets people review games weeks ahead of release? No, not really. They just don't want people swearing over their family products. That was their initial concern with the Smash at Evo thing iirc.

There's other ones, but I was at work and would have to dig through the thread.

 

[Freshmaker]

It's especially not a good thing for all of Angry Joe's fans who donated money for him to make Wii U videos, only for him to take them down out of spite because he wasn't getting paid enough

Truly greed is bad for all.

Enough and not at all are different things.

 

[Beelzebufo]

This! If Nintendo don't want that he makes videos with copyrighted video games than Angry Joe has to deal with it, end of thread!

Well they're fine with him making the videos. Just not with him keeping all of the profit from it for himself.

And by him I mean "anyone" since its automated.

Enough and not at all are different things.

He probably should have tried cooperating with Nintendo to make that a reality since his last rant video about literally this exact same thing then.

 

[key]

If you have the receipts that prove that kids are buying Amiibos, feel free to show it. Tales from My Ass doesn't qualify.

The burden of proof doesn't lie with me.

"Your first mistake was implying kids still care about Nintendo."

I'll be waiting on those "receipts" to validate your comments.