Gamezone
Gold Member
The playtrough that was made before the game was released, yes.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AngryJoe receives a Nintendo copyright claim. Hope they enjoyed the ad revenue; Done
- Thread starter Khalifa Jayy
- Start date
The playtrough that was made before the game was released, yes.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
More like Shady Joe.
ForsakenLotus
Member
To address those that make the argument that the big LPers like Pewds and Angry Joe don't really cover Nintendo, so subsequently they don't appeal to Nintendo's target audience and thus Nintendo isn't losing out much, I think that actually sums up one of Nintendo's biggest problems: how insular they are. Nintendo makes consoles and games specifically targeted towards their existing fans. They market primarily towards their existing fans.
I mean, for a company to have a home console market continue to shrink every generation, barring the Wii fad, and still be this myopic is very telling. I would think Nintebdo would be excited for big YouTubers, who are the primary taste makers/trend setters today, to be excited to cover their games. The Wii U has a very noxious reputation outside of its ardent fanbase, so it's unlikely YouTubers are going to make a big Nintendo release sell significantly more, or to turn around the Wii U's sales; but it would help sales, and it would help repair and rebuild Nintedo's reputation with gamers who aren't familiar or who aren't normally interested in Nintendo products.
Yes Angry Joe is mostly upset with the money he's not getting. Yes it's possible, maybe even likely he knew his MP10 video would be claimed and anticipated making a rant for views. Yes he didn't previously cover Nintendo. These things don't make Nintendo's policy and their enforcement of it right just because of the motivations of Angry Joe.
Common sense is a valuable commodity that even highly intelligent people sometimes lack.
I mean, for a company to have a home console market continue to shrink every generation, barring the Wii fad, and still be this myopic is very telling. I would think Nintebdo would be excited for big YouTubers, who are the primary taste makers/trend setters today, to be excited to cover their games. The Wii U has a very noxious reputation outside of its ardent fanbase, so it's unlikely YouTubers are going to make a big Nintendo release sell significantly more, or to turn around the Wii U's sales; but it would help sales, and it would help repair and rebuild Nintedo's reputation with gamers who aren't familiar or who aren't normally interested in Nintendo products.
Yes Angry Joe is mostly upset with the money he's not getting. Yes it's possible, maybe even likely he knew his MP10 video would be claimed and anticipated making a rant for views. Yes he didn't previously cover Nintendo. These things don't make Nintendo's policy and their enforcement of it right just because of the motivations of Angry Joe.
Common sense is a valuable commodity that even highly intelligent people sometimes lack.
I'm sure thats the case too he knew what he was doing
Early Twitch plays is different though because thats understandable to have say an "embargo". Just like retail stores cant sell before release day, Twitch and Sony have a thing were they dont want people playing before release. (This depends thought cuz I remember GTA5 being streamed like the weekend before release and it wasnt shut down)
I guess the good thing is Sony wont send these "copyright claims" and just remove videos so it wont hurt your account. Youtube has a 3 strike policy right were if you get like 3, they ban your account?
Lastly I have seen plenty of Sony games being played from beginning to end cut into 4-5 videos and always see those up. Wonder how they chose who and what content gets removed. Im not sure Sony has done something similar to these "star" YT streamers.
No. Taking down vids/streams just because they break street dates isn't sensible. Its just trying to silence information on a title. Same level as stupid as pushing review embargoes to the very day of release and taking down any video posted with regards to the game's content to silence possible dissent. ContentIDing random Let's Plays doesn't silence said Let's Play.
Uh, please re-read. I said that, ironically, Nintendo does not stop early (as in before release) streams/vids. That is to say that, where Sony is backwards with its policies there, Nintendo isn't. No company is immune from stupidity.
The point was that not everyone takes down streetbroken games, GTA isn't Sony its Take-Two/Rockstar.
Nintendo didn't take down anyone's video here, you seem to have misunderstood something. No one's account is in danger.
You can also see whole gameplay videos of Nintendo's games. The question is, are they monetized? We have no way of knowing from an external look.
Moon_frogger
Member
completely untrue. I know 60 year olds and 6 year olds that love nintendo. Yes, they appeal to their existing demographic, but that happens to be everybody. The fact that they are losing a petty amount of exposure from some youtuber that rarely plays their games is not a `problem`for nintendo. It`s a problem for the youtuber who is pissy about part or all of their revenue.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Is Nintendo doing a single solitary thing to capture gamers over 12 that don't already like Nintendo?
Shmuely Bully
Member
He doesn't need Nintendo and frankly given limited time he'd be foolish to do anything about them if they're just going to seize all the ad revenue anyway.
If Nintendo wants people covering their stuff then they can stop it with this idiocy. I could even see the point with some story-driven games for instance (although I still think it should just be taken down in that scenario), but this is Mario Party we're talking about.
Kids increasingly prefer Minecraft to Mario and nothing about the way Nintendo has operated over the last half decade gives me any reason to believe this will change. Pissing off people providing exposure for their games to millions sure isn't going to help any.
I've gotten a couple videos approved pretty quickly. Turnaround time nowadays is 2-3 days.
call_kotaku
Member
NDAs exist for very good reasons even if they can be abused for very bad ones. They prevent the sort of mad races to be the first person to post content or to get a review out which generally lowers the quality of coverage a game is prone to receive. Not enforcing them only punishes outlets for following them, and I honestly think Nintendo doesn't do it because they probably don't even know about it because it's probably a more productive route for them to pursue.
The practices of companies like EA that promote their games on youtube by making youtubers sign NDAs that disallow them from showing bugs or criticizing the game is far more dangerous. It's basically trying to do the same thing Nintendo wants to do with their partners program but from the other direction.
ForsakenLotus
Member
That's a really disingenuous way to look at it. Sony games often have a strong focus on narrative. Having streams of games hurts a game of theirs infinitely more than somebody streaming a match of Smash Bros. or Mario Kart. But, even if that's not entirely true from a perception and sales standpoint, it's also Sony attempting to limit people having story elements spoiled for them. How is that worse than what Nintendo does?
And review embargos, as frustrating as they can be (and occasionally harmful), they exist for a specific reason and are a necessity. Note, shipping a game late and having a review embargo day and date of a game release is awful. But shipping a game a couple weeks before a game is released but having a review embargo be close to launch is perfectly reasonable. I'd prefer a few days of leeway, but I understand the process.
I know why NDAs exist, but I'm talking about vids that go up before streetdates but after reviews have gone up. There is no longer a "mad rush" to do anything, and all that it does is silence possible dissent and allows exactly this thing that you're talking about here to occur.
Some companies will, yes, push the NDA on reviews all the way to launch which is worse than anything discussed in here but no one on YouTube gives a shit because it doesn't affect their bottomline.
But I thought all exposure was good? /s
Sony is obviously working to protect their content, specifically around the time where the majority of sales come in: launch. Nintendo is more interested in controlling their IP. Different strokes but all for the purpose of self-interest.
What YouTubers don't seem to realize is that it's far more likely other publishers will start doing things like Nintendo does rather than Nintendo ever change. As it stands, TONS of channels are doing things just like Nintendo wants them to do. So channels that are abandoning Nintendo aren't effecting Nintendo at all because other channels are playing along. At some point Nintendo will announce what kind of success they've had and all it takes is one other big publisher to give the whole idea a try for it to just become a landslide.
Uh, that's not a stupid policy at all though compared to what Nintendo is doing?
The biggest channels on YouTube don't play along with Nintendo and other publishers will never follow suit because they actually like selling games to people.
Why? If reviews are already up but the game hasn't released yet, why can't people with early copies post videos? I thought all exposure was good and that companies should be happy to get it?
Or does it only matter when someone's making money off of it?
We're starting to reach double standards of "my favorite company does no wrong" here.
I'm normally not this direct, but...
You sound like you have a deep admiration for the company that is clouding your perception of reality. Like, big time.
ForsakenLotus
Member
I'm not invested enough in the Nintendo ecosystem to know if they are doing anything to appeal to that audience; but it is clear to see who they are appealing to. They are primarily making the same games they have made for 20 years - they have reinvented those franchises, but Nintendo still focuses on Mario games, Donkey Kong, Zelda, etc. If you look at the Nintendo Direct, as fun as it can be, those are made to appeal to people who follow Nintendo news and are already invested.
If you are a Nintendo fan, now is a great time for you. The Wii U has some fantastic games. Nintendo is doing everything they can to appeal to you. Amiibos are flying off the shelves. But if you aren't a Nintendo fan, Nintendo is doing very little to bring you in.
But Splatoon does look to be a refreshing divergence from the norm.
Exposure in general is good, and there's no particular need to protect Sony's stance. However, the mentality behind putting temporary restrictions on when videos and reviews are released makes a lot more sense than Nintendo's silliness. With one approach, people all over Youtube are still creating videos and sharing their enthusiasm, and with the other, prominent Youtubers are publicly decrying Nintendo's policies. It's important to look beyond what the policies entail and examine what their actual effect is. And on that score, Nintendo is hopelessly backwards.
On that I won't disagree. Their YouTube policy is backasswards.
But I don't agree with taking down videos or streams of a product after reviews have gone out, unless its of a game that's embargoed to launch then videos need to leak to let consumers be informed, as a good policy to have.
Its simply one that less people care about or make a hissyfit about because it has no impact on their pockets. At the end of the day, that's really the crux of it. Some policies, shitty as they are, line people's pockets or don't affect them, and others do... and you know which one we'll hear about.
You are really reaching here dude. The reviews were not up since the copies of The Order:1886 leaked out much earlier than the embargo.
Isn't Mario Party one of those er, party games? What's the point of stopping people showing the video? It's not like there's any spoiler or anything like that. Nintendo really is behind the time in this kind of regard. Do they just not like the fact that the game is being associated to an "Angry Joe" so to speak? I mean, company image is a weird thing sometimes but I can see Nintendo being the kind of company that has too much sticks up its own ass to be associated with anything that is not family-friendly.
If it's just money issue, wow, that's taking greed to the new levels. I mean if your consumer already paid for the good then he/she has the right to do whatever they want with that product. That's what they pay for it.
This is one fantastic GIF although with the sad sales of Wii U (and 3DS), I wonder Nintendo can afford to do this atm.
If it's just money issue, wow, that's taking greed to the new levels. I mean if your consumer already paid for the good then he/she has the right to do whatever they want with that product. That's what they pay for it.
This is one fantastic GIF although with the sad sales of Wii U (and 3DS), I wonder Nintendo can afford to do this atm.
Khaos_Knight
Banned
Joe should have known this was going to happen after Nintendo announced the partnership program.
Nintendo has achieved a deeply devoted cult like following within its fan base.
ForsakenLotus
Member
Sony is taking down content that either has been obtained illegally (breaking streetdate) or has broken an NDA due to embargos. They do this in part to enforce embargos and discourage breaking NDA's, but also because they don't want their often story heavy games to be spoiled for gamers. Once a game is out, and embargos are lifted, Sony is pretty welcoming to most content, even Let's Plays.
Nintendo, on the other hand, is enforcing a strict policy that makes it so you can only profit from Nintendo IP's if you sign up to tier program, unless of course the content produced falls under fair use (or close enough to fight over). While the money Nintendo demands is an issue, the bigger issue is Nintendo's policy of reviewing the content before it's accepted that is even worse. But you know what? Nintendo is within their rights to do it, but almost no other big Publisher does it. Some of the biggest games in the industry like Minecraft and Call of Duty openly promote Let's Plays.
Or, we could pretend what Sony does and what Nintendo does are just as bad.
CoD is probably not what you'd want to use as a defense of your point, seeing as how Acti was taking down glitch vids trying to draw attention to issues with the game.
call_kotaku
Member
And if a publisher puts the NDA behind the actual release date then it should be a massive red flag for customers when there isn't any piece of independent media available to view when the game is available to buy. It's sleezy but it doesn't mean that NDAs as a whole aren't necessary to some extent.
Depending on whether you think Nintendo are senile suits or malevolent geniuses (with them not being able to sell any consoles but somehow making big bucks off silly toys, it's possible to argue for either) their partners program could be a less controversial way of doing the same shady shit that MS and EA were slammed for doing. By disincentivizing youtubers from covering their games unless they choose to heavily invest into their network, they're basically preventing anyone who isn't willing to play ball and sign on to ethically dubious agreements from covering their games, thereby ensuring that all the high-traffic coverage on youtube basically comes from sources that are both heavily associated with the Nintendo brand and also very receptive to manipulation.
It's a reason for them to do this, but "old Japanese men don't know what the Internet is" might be more plausible.
pants
Member
He likely misspoke, Angry Joe isn't exactly a wordsmith
Maximus.
Member
Yes because watching people play is what sells games...Times have changed, but I don't know if there is solid evidence saying that these Youtubers are contributing to huge sales. I would imagine AAA games do not need this sort of marketing to have successful sales, though I can see how it would benefit titles that are not already a franchise, indie, or niche.
Seeing that Joe knew about the content program, yet still went ahead without signing up, to only make a video complaining about it later is shady as hell. No better than the companies he is bitching about.
Yes, any second now Nintendo will become the inspiration for the video games industry thanks to their current massive success.
...
Is it still April 1?
I don't think you comparison here works. The issue with what EA/Warner (the Shadows incident)/MS did was that they paid for a silent "positive campaign" before/near release, and in the case of MS they weren't even being silent about it and videos noted being paid for ads, effectively. The Creator's Program, for all its issues, is not hidden and its made explicit that the content was checked.
Nintendo, further, does not put this program over reviewers and reviews which are under Fair Use, so there's no real attempt to silence anything and (as said before) they don't care about Twitch streaming or broken streetdates (a lot of Smash hype was coming from early copies and Twitch, for instances). Fact of it, actually, is that Nintendo seems to have most of its coverage on Twitch nowadays as they have deals with Twitch over it.
Obviously, it would be easier on everyone if Nintendo wasn't trying to exert control over their IP in a way that makes people jump through hopes or takes out revenue but that's their decision... and that's really where the bulk of the controversy really comes from: people lose money. We've seen, well enough already, that Let's Players/personalities are not above taking money for coverage and not speaking up about it... but they get incredibly loud when the opposite happens.
Going to go out on a limb and say majority of Nintendo games aren't the sorts that benefit from LP's really. I'd further extend this limb and go on to say they don't fit the niche of what makes a good youtube/twitch game (I think you can boil most of them down to approximately three or four types).
PandaAttack
Banned
He plays Nintendo games? I thought he only played on xbox and PC.
Youtube exposure is considered extremely important to even the biggest games like Hearthstone and League of Legends. Established AAA franchises can and do cultivate their video creators by holding special preview events and the like for them.
I'd argue this kind of thing isn't capturing any gamers under 12 for nintendo either.
Absolutely. I've been saying this for a while, that 30/40% isn't a significant source of revenue, this is all about control over the media people produce. They can restrict any content that they deem appropriate.
Somebody earlier in the thread had the gall to call out the major press websites for being panderers, yet tried to argue this action by nintendo would fix that.
No kidding.
Publishers following Nintendo? The exact opposite has been happening for YEARS lol.
the exposure argument is valid for smaller niche and indy games, but to claim that Nintendo needs help from people like "AngryJoe" to sell their games is delusional
*need* is overstating it, but it certainly would help them more. Also given that their marketing seems to be failing them, they ought to look at what others are doing.
Arrogant Bastard
Banned
Nintendo needs all the help they can get, but the broader point is what does it hurt. Why are they so aggressive with someone doing a lets play...
Honestly though, this really shouldn't be labeled a 'Nintendo' issue, it should really be a discussion over the larger issue. Wish it would just go to court already and be decided.
call_kotaku
Member
Yeah, I'm arguing that if the Nintendo program is actually meant to directly shape the tone of coverage they get on youtube, it would be a far more subtle way of going about it than what EA and MS did, and while a lot of people might find the EA/MS agreements ethically unfeasible they probably wouldn't think the same of the Nintendo program, even though they occupy the same ethical gray area. Putting up that barrier and basically selecting only the sort of people willing to volunteer for it lets them be selective about their content without actually sending out incriminating directives (like an email that would cause a massive wave of bad PR if one of your partners ever copy/pastes it onto reddit), essentially making people perform self-censorship. Small content creators without any background in journalism or any familiarity with ethical guidelines are extremely prone to indirect manipulation, like being very reticent about being critical of things they were sponsored to produce content for (why instead of press being flown out to retreats it's youtubers now). It's highly unlikely someone partnered in the Nintendo program would be generally critical of Nintendo games, or would want to even send in critical videos for review by the network, and that basically achieves the same thing as EA telling youtubers not to say anything negative except Nintendo never has to explicitly state it.
I find it interesting that he's even reacting this way. From what I gather:
1) He didn't pay for the Wii U + other things, his fans did
2) His fans wouldn't mind him covering Nintendo stuff
3) He was aware prior to all of this of Nintendos policies and what would happen and the likelihood of it happening if he put out a Nintendo video.
Put simply, what this shows is that
1) He did it because he's either stupid and forgot all of that, or thought he could get away with it as some sort of special exception
2) This isn't about Nintendos policies, it's about him not being able to make money the same way Nintendo wants to make their money, he is no different than them.
He comes off as entitled and shallow simply because it shows he is doing it for the money and would stop immediately because of that despite fans having wanted it even as far as someone/or some few donating it to him.
For him to call it quits is an injustice to the fans and more specially those who helped him get the Wii U. He isn't doing favors for anybody, he games and makes a living of it.
Unfortunately he can't separate those two, i'm sure he may enjoy it here and there, but something so simple can make him not do something anymore...and I suppose I can respect his choice. Make no mistake, as far as i'm concerned, Nintendo is backwards and does live in their own bubble....but they will always be more entitled to their stuff than he and other reviewers/LPers/etc will be.
Businesses won't let the baby have their bottle if it doesn't make sense to them. For Nintendo, the pressure may be warranted, but we gotta let Nintendo do what they want, catch up/don't catch up. It's their call, they decide their fate at the end of the day.
This on top of the Mario 64 HD really gives Nintendo a bad image. It's a bit of a biased and unfair fight to be honest.
1) He didn't pay for the Wii U + other things, his fans did
2) His fans wouldn't mind him covering Nintendo stuff
3) He was aware prior to all of this of Nintendos policies and what would happen and the likelihood of it happening if he put out a Nintendo video.
Put simply, what this shows is that
1) He did it because he's either stupid and forgot all of that, or thought he could get away with it as some sort of special exception
2) This isn't about Nintendos policies, it's about him not being able to make money the same way Nintendo wants to make their money, he is no different than them.
He comes off as entitled and shallow simply because it shows he is doing it for the money and would stop immediately because of that despite fans having wanted it even as far as someone/or some few donating it to him.
For him to call it quits is an injustice to the fans and more specially those who helped him get the Wii U. He isn't doing favors for anybody, he games and makes a living of it.
Unfortunately he can't separate those two, i'm sure he may enjoy it here and there, but something so simple can make him not do something anymore...and I suppose I can respect his choice. Make no mistake, as far as i'm concerned, Nintendo is backwards and does live in their own bubble....but they will always be more entitled to their stuff than he and other reviewers/LPers/etc will be.
Businesses won't let the baby have their bottle if it doesn't make sense to them. For Nintendo, the pressure may be warranted, but we gotta let Nintendo do what they want, catch up/don't catch up. It's their call, they decide their fate at the end of the day.
This on top of the Mario 64 HD really gives Nintendo a bad image. It's a bit of a biased and unfair fight to be honest.
Dunno why, but my need for correcting people makes me keep going back to this thread.
1. His fans "payed" for his Wii U in the way your boss "pays" for your new car.
2. He said he was going to eventually have to upload another Nintendo video after the first one was taken down, and that if it didn't get Content ID'd that he would not make anymore videos.
He is trying to make a statement about the backwards policy, so saying this is a conspiracy is acting like he was scheming Nintendo.
Also :
Content IDs can make your account not in good standing, meaning you can get some of your features for being "in good standing" revoked.
Tom Nook Sawyer
Member
How do you manage to fit such a broad brush in your pocket?
AcademicSaucer
Member
Nintendo should really add the guy to their "youtube whitelist", so he just shuts up . I mean, Nintendo´s policies are bad, but He already knew that, it doesnt make sense for him to try to monetize a Nintendo video again.
Rats Off To Ya
Banned
Nintendo is becoming less and less relevant to exactly the same audience that watches all this gaming content on YouTube: the same demographic that has been their bread and butter since their inception. If any big publisher needs exposure from people like Joe, it's Nintendo.