Support NeoGAF

[nephilimdj]

Passively rejecting an offer isn't generally considered an attack.

You think the 10,000s who read that blog will see his statement as passive? its bad PR

heck just check lets plays for nintendos less popular games like wonderful 101
12 videos above 100k
3 videos above 200k
top is 260k

Surely know what pewdiepie could do to wonderful 101 over night in sales? doesn't matter now, nintendo scared him and others away

 

[Neo Dark]

YouTube videos and movies are the same thing? One has been available for a long long time and the other, has a different place culturally and is viewed by many many more people. Also, I never said that stuff. It's why we have JUDGES so that we can judge on different circumstances because one law does not apply to every single case perfectly. If Nintendo went to court they might win, but that would be because the judge wouldn't have a good picture of what is going on and what games are like.

If you only think of movies on a videotape or disk vs their digital counterparts then sure you can argue that. But right now there's digital movies you can purchase and those movies and YouTube videos are all protected by DMCA which is what determines what is legal and what isn't. It doesn't matter how many people view it or how it is culturally. If they has the same legal definition in the courts then that is what the JUDGES will go by. And what do you mean you didn't say that stuff? What did this mean then?

A YouTube video is not the same as a movie. Legally it might be, but it actually isn't.

Also, Nintendo might win in the courts because judges wouldn't know what is going on and what games are like? Seriously? Do you not even see you are setting your own definitions for things? You're saying Nintendo would win not because legally they own copyrighted material used in that video but because the judges have no idea what they're doing and Nintendo won by a fluke. Only if a judge deems Nintendo is wrong is the law correctly interpreted.

Anyways, as another poster said, I think I'm done replying to this because clearly you are just rewriting the law to your own personal beliefs and so there's no point in continuing to argue this. It'll just derail the thread more than it already has.

 

[Vena]

So not only have you shown that you only have assumptions to back up that 'MCNs are working with Nintendo because Nintendo oriented channels still exist', but now you're simply accusing people who are talking about it that 'They just want hits'?

I think you are confusing two different people, talking from different vantages with different end-opinions, and trying to use them as if they both said the same thing to invalidate both arguments.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

The game's visuals and sound are apart of let's plays, but they aren't the main focus. The main focus is the personality or gameplay of the persona playing.


1. You can't show a movie because you can get everything out of a movie by watching/listening. Games are about having control, you can't get everything out of most games by just watching.

2. The amount of work you think went into it is irrelevant.

This doesn't mean anything. It doesn't matter. As I said in a previous example, Queen and David Bowie got writing credit on Ice Ice Baby and the money that comes with it, because Vanilla Ice sampled their bass line. Not even close to the whole song. They took one instrument and used it without permission. It doesn't matter if it's the main focus. You're not allowed to use any of it without getting permission first.

As another example, I signed up to be an extra in The Dark Knight Rises. One of the rules for when I went to go to filming was that I couldn't wear anything with a visible logo on it. Because they're not allowed to put random logos in their movie without the company's permission. What was on my hat or shirt was never going to be the focus of the scene instead of Bane blowing up a football field, but I wasn't allowed to wear it anyway.

 

[PotionBleue]

If it wasn't a big deal, TB/PDD wouldn't be talking about this since they're both probably covered by some of the more powerful MCNs. Especially PDD.

And TB/PDD are talking about it because they want to make it a big deal and hopefully get more exposure. The American media does similar shit all the time. Controversy generates hits.

Is “PDD” supposed to abbreviate PewDiePie or is it another YouTuber? Why aren't you writing PDP?

 

[one_kill]

Yes, Nintendo Utilizes it. As many have mentioned, Sony and MS don't. Digital Devolver took some shots saying 'Go ahead and record our games, we don't want any revenue.'

That's the issue, isn't it? Nintendo is the one well, causing all this ruckus. And yeah, I'm sure TB and PDD just wanna make a big deal and get attention, because it's not like TB has talked about issues like this before, and it's not like PDD just put up a blog instead of a video. Totally just want attention.

So not only have you shown that you only have assumptions to back up that 'MCNs are working with Nintendo because Nintendo oriented channels still exist', but now you're simply accusing people who are talking about it that 'They just want hits'?

....Yeah no I'll take TBs and PDDs word that this is a bad thing.

When did I say this?

And I don't care if other companies don't want revenue from LPers. What they do with their IP is their right, just as Nintendo is in their right to have this program.

Is “PDD” supposed to abbreviate PewDiePie or is it another YouTuber? Why aren't you writing PDP?

Just typo, it's PDP
I just associate the abbreviation PDP to the company more than the LPer

 

[Seventy70]

Alright, you're just ignoring my question to ask another so I'm done.

An unboxing video does not (usually) cover the aspects of a game (sound & graphics) that is copyrighted.

EDIT: Where did you get product design from? Why are you just pulling this out of thin air?

I wasn't talking specifically about unboxing a game. If I unboxed a product that is purely physical like an action figure is the design of that not copyrighted? Could I just go and make copies of that and sell it?

I.....I don't even know where you're trying to come from man

I put it in simple terms. You said that if something copyrighted is a major part of a video, you owe the company money. Did you not?

As I said before, read up on fair use and copyright law.

Unboxing videos can be regarded as educational. The amount of copyrighted content showed isn't going to be substantial either. No one is going to sue you for uploading an unboxing video.

Again, do your research first.

Isn't substantial? So if a game is short I can do a let's play? "No one is going to sue you for uploading an unboxing video" is not a good argument. Why aren't they going to sue? Because it would be stupid to.

 

[jeffers]

If I commented on the material and build quality by showing it on camera, do I owe the company money?

edit: slow ass reply.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Why would they have to sign up to a volitional program to deal with something that they don't have to deal with? This is completely illogical.

Because Nintendo is saying 'Hey if you're gonna show any Nintendo footage, you HAVE to sign up for this.'? It doesn't seem like those phantom MCNs are exempt from this.

Their concern has nothing to do with Nintendo, their concern is if other publishers start doing this because that would affect their bottom line (any one would be concerned if their free ride started getting encroached on from others). Neither of them cover Nintendo content, and, if the statement is true that their MCNs do not have deals with Nintendo, then they were getting absolutely nothing before now...

So I ask what... "doesn't mind losing that bit of revenue to Nintendo"... doesn't he mind losing? The thing he didn't have? Illogical.

I'm sure their MCNs cover more than just TB/PDD, and that there would be some users that do have Nintendo content. I'd still like to see some links of MCNs that DO work with Nintendo, though.

 

[one_kill]

Because Nintendo is saying 'Hey if you're gonna show any Nintendo footage, you HAVE to sign up for this.'? It doesn't seem like those phantom MCNs are exempt from this.

Nintendo is not saying this

 

[Corronchilejano]

Passively rejecting an offer isn't generally considered an attack.

The post has changed a bit since it was posted. It had a few incendiary jokes in there, so those unfamiliar with... uuuh... [whatever Pewdiepies' last name is] could've taken it as an attack. That's why he probably edited it too.

 

[Seventy70]

I think this guy has broken. Lets just move on.

How about you add something to the discussion rather than making an insult?

 

[Syriel]

The product design and graphics are copyrighted are they not? And by making an unboxing video, you need to pay the company because you used their copyrighted work to make money. How is this different to what you are saying? If you blacked out the whole box in an unboxing video, would people watch? Are they going to download an audio only of a unboxing video to listen to? Going by your definition then, the company deserves money.

It has already been explained (many times) why something of that nature would pass the fair use test and would not be infringement.

Using an example like this doesn't illustrate anything more than a fundamental understanding of copyright and media law. There are plenty of resources (classes, self-study, etc.) that cover all of this in great depth.

 

[BreezyLimbo]

Nintendo is not saying this

Well, if they want revenue they need to sign up with the program.

And yeah, I'm confusing both of you guys. I'M JUST GONNA, UH, EXIT BECAUSE I'VE CONFUSED MY OWN POSTS AND QUOTED STUFF INCORRECTLY.

Edit-Edit-Doing google searches and stuff, quoting and having multiple pages open, kinda made me take a step back and be like 'Who the hell am I arguing against and what am I saying'. I still disagree with this program.

 

[Vena]

Because Nintendo is saying 'Hey if you're gonna show any Nintendo footage, you HAVE to sign up for this.'? It doesn't seem like those phantom MCNs are exempt from this.

Oh? It says that? Where?

Seeing as how I've been reading over their disclosed documentation, I don't see that said anywhere at all. Please point out to me where: https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/guide/ you are forced into this program. Because this is quite literally what everyone is reading. You are not forced, this is a general service for people who want to monetize videos that, before, could not be monetized. How/why would it apply to people who were already monetizing and having no issues?

I'd still like to see some links of MCNs that DO work with Nintendo, though.

I cannot give you links to things that are confidential. You are free to assume that they do not exist if you so choose.

 

[Seventy70]

It has already been explained (many times) why something of that nature would pass the fair use test and would not be infringement.

Using an example like this doesn't illustrate anything more than a fundamental understanding of copyright and media law. There are plenty of resources (classes, self-study, etc.) that cover all of this in great depth.

Why would something like that pass fair use and not a let's play? I don't get it. What's the difference? You can only get the full experience of having an action figure by physically having it just like you can only get the full experience of a game by being in control. Isn't a let's play figuratively a person playing with an action figure on camera while commenting?

 

[jeffers]

How about you add something to the discussion rather than making an insult?

I'm trying to steer this away from your random what Ifs jumping between media with reckless abandon and towards some useful discussion. but not massively politely - but youll note that message got you a few people snapping.

to others:
I would also like to see what relationships MCNs currently have with nintendo, I assume some must have based on the statements here that some seem to cope fine. I also assume MCNs arent exactly going to detail the lists of their private agreements unless you sign up >.>

 

[Sandfox]

You think the 10,000s who read that blog will see his statement as passive? its bad PR

heck just check lets plays for nintendos less popular games like wonderful 101
12 videos above 100k
3 videos above 200k
top is 260k

Surely know what pewdiepie could do to wonderful 101 over night in sales? doesn't matter now, nintendo scared him and others away

Nothing.

 

[xaszatm]

How about you add something to the discussion rather than making an insult?

There's a phrase about stones and glass houses I could say here...

You have spent the last two pages trying hard to prove that Let's Players had more rights than the actual content creators. Since you have been proven over and over and over and over again that your reasoning is flawed, you have resorted to becoming extremely obtuse and general while accusing others of being obtuse and general in an effort to make your position to look better. It's not. Either come back after reading up on copyright law with a solid point or think before typing something up.

 

[Seventy70]

There's a phrase about stones and glass houses I could say here...

You have spent the last two pages trying hard to prove that Let's Players had more rights than the actual content creators. Since you have been proven over and over and over and over again that your reasoning is flawed, you have resorted to becoming extremely obtuse and general while accusing others of being obtuse and general in an effort to make your position to look better. It's not. Either come back after reading up on copyright law with a solid point or think before typing something up.

I never got a proper reply other than "It's just the way it is."

 

[xaszatm]

You think the 10,000s who read that blog will see his statement as passive? its bad PR

heck just check lets plays for nintendos less popular games like wonderful 101
12 videos above 100k
3 videos above 200k
top is 260k

Surely know what pewdiepie could do to wonderful 101 over night in sales? doesn't matter now, nintendo scared him and others away

That assumes that PewDiePie would play the game in the first place. You should probably stop doing that.

 

[xaszatm]

I never got a proper reply other than "It's just the way it is."

You know damn bloody well that isn't true. But, looking over your post history, I realize that what you are doing you have done for multiple threads. Pretend that you, somehow, know more than anyone else than keep on being obtuse like that will somehow prove your point. I wish all the best for you because it's going to blow up in your face one day.

 

[nephilimdj]

That assumes that PewDiePie would play the game in the first place. You should probably stop doing that.

Just quick look at his channel shows he covered sunset overdrive, most likely payed by MS, and did a Mario 64 rom hack in Nov
Same way Nintendo paid smosh and ijustine for Mario Kart 8

 

[Seventy70]

You know damn bloody well that isn't true. But, looking over your post history, I realize that what you are doing you have done for multiple threads. Pretend that you, somehow, know more than anyone else than keep on being obtuse like that will somehow prove your point. I wish all the best for you because it's going to blow up in your face one day.

I'm asking questions and never claimed to know more than others, despite a bunch of people here that were touting the "I know the law. I have studied blah blah blah" I openly admit that I don't know much about copyright laws. I wasn't asking my questions in a legal matter. I was asking in a moral matter. It doesn't make sense that unboxing videos are somehow fine without having to pay a company yet if it's a video game, it somehow changes to where you have to pay the company. It annoys me that people aren't questioning that and instead they are saying "It's the law"

People are drawing some kind of connection between music/movies and video games when in reality, games are more like toys in nature than any of those.

 

[Mengy]

care to explain why?

Because the precedent has been set with regard to youtube media and video games. 95% of game developers have no problem allowing youtube media creators to make video reviews or let's play's showing game content. Most of them actively encourage it. Even Microsoft has recently come out and said clearly that they have zero problem with it. The trend is set, the industry has spoken, and yet Nintendo is the lone developer who still bucks the trend. They've come a tad towards the progressive side with this program but it's still hindering free exposure (from Nintendo's POV) to their properties. And it's the little text in the agreement that is honestly hugely disturbing: pricing structure can change arbitrarily, they reserve the right to flag videos as not acceptable, three day approval period.

It's big business curtailing free speech, plain and simple. It's wrong, it's scary, and it has the potential to be hugely misused and abused "legally".


Nintendo, instead of getting with the times, AGAIN, is showcasing behavior that is both outdated and abusive. Simply because they can exert power over others and get away with it.


There's a name for people like that: bullies. And I don't like bullies.


So, I disagree with you Phanphare, and the other's supporting Nintendo here, because I want Nintendo to get with the program. I want them to succeed and not linger in the back with outdated policies and shortsighted behavior. I don't want them to continue their downward trend, losing customers and marketshare, posting losses and disappointing shareholders. I want Nintendo to thrive, I want them to be a player again, hell I want them to be #1 once more. BUT, with programs like this and behavior this hurtful, well they aren't going to change their trend anytime soon. I fear for them down the road, I think they can't see the opportunities around them and are blinded by greed, control, and a general lack of understanding of the world they exist in.

They aren't acting like a company who is in trouble, they are acting like a company who is out of touch. Again and again. And Again.

And I don't like seeing Nintendo like this. It sucks.



What I really don't understand are the people (like you Phanphare) who are all for this program. I just don't get how anyone can defend it, unless you hate freedom of speech and love corporate control over freedom of content, not to mention corporate mob tactics to take people's incomes. Or maybe you just hate youtube content creators? Is it jealousy that they make money with it?

I love the fact that youtube can be a haven for free speech, and this program threatens that. For that reason, I think it's terrible.

 

[Corronchilejano]

I love the fact that youtube can be a haven for free speech, and this program threatens that. For that reason, I think it's terrible.

Can't believe you went there.

 

[Nanashrew]

Because the precedent has been set with regard to youtube media and video games. 95% of game developers have no problem allowing youtube media creators to make video reviews or let's play's showing game content. Most of them actively encourage it. Even Microsoft has recently come out and said clearly that they have zero problem with it. The trend is set, the industry has spoken, and yet Nintendo is the lone developer who still bucks the trend. They've come a tad towards the progressive side with this program but it's still hindering free exposure (from Nintendo's POV) to their properties. And it's the little text in the agreement that is honestly hugely disturbing: pricing structure can change arbitrarily, they reserve the right to flag videos as not acceptable, three day approval period.

It's big business curtailing free speech, plain and simple. It's wrong, it's scary, and it has the potential to be hugely misused and abused "legally".


Nintendo, instead of getting with the times, AGAIN, is showcasing behavior that is both outdated and abusive. Simply because they can exert power over others and get away with it.


There's a name for people like that: bullies. And I don't like bullies.


So, I disagree with you Phanphare, and the other's supporting Nintendo here, because I want Nintendo to get with the program. I want them to succeed and not linger in the back with outdated policies and shortsighted behavior. I don't want them to continue their downward trend, losing customers and marketshare, posting losses and disappointing shareholders. I want Nintendo to thrive, I want them to be a player again, hell I want them to be #1 once more. BUT, with programs like this and behavior this hurtful, well they aren't going to change their trend anytime soon. I fear for them down the road, I think they can't see the opportunities around them and are blinded by greed, control, and a general lack of understanding of the world they exist in.

They aren't acting like a company who is in trouble, they are acting like a company who is out of touch. Again and again. And Again.

And I don't like seeing Nintendo like this. It sucks.



What I really don't understand are the people (like you Phanphare) who are all for this program. I just don't get how anyone can defend it, unless you hate freedom of speech and love corporate control over freedom of content, not to mention corporate mob tactics to take people's incomes. Or maybe you just hate youtube content creators? Is it jealousy that they make money with it?

I love the fact that youtube can be a haven for free speech, and this program threatens that. For that reason, I think it's terrible.

That isn't the precedent. Not all publishers agree on let's plays, not all lawyers agree on let's plays. And where is this free speech stuff even coming from?

 

[Sandfox]

Just quick look at his channel shows he covered sunset overdrive, most likely payed by MS, and did a Mario 64 rom hack in Nov
Same way Nintendo paid smosh and ijustine for Mario Kart 8

I don't see why this would make him likely to play W101 and its not like Nintendo would pay anyone to make vids about it.

 

[Nanashrew]

Just quick look at his channel shows he covered sunset overdrive, most likely payed by MS, and did a Mario 64 rom hack in Nov
Same way Nintendo paid smosh and ijustine for Mario Kart 8

Wonderful 101 is a very, very different game that I have difficulty seeing him play it. It's is hardcore and amazing but not everyone will like it.

 

[KageMaru]

I can't believe people are defending this. What do people get by defending this? Nintendo doesn't care about us as gamers and I'd say a small time youtuber needs that money more than Nintendo.

It would never happen, but I'd love if everyone just stopped covering Nintendo on YouTube entirely. Maybe then they'd realize how much they benefit by people talking about and showing off their games. All this does is make them look bad to most people.

The exagerations come in the assumptions he makes from reading the rules. This is possible because, as has been said, the rules are not clear cut and need revisions (hence a BETA program).

You can find everything about this program here: https://r.ncp.nintendo.net

ToS and the FAQ cover everything that the talking heads are talking about.

Thank you, will read the rules when I get time this weekend. If the rules aren't clear, I can't blame him for assuming since we have no choice but to assume when things aren't clear. I'll wait until I read their rules before I determine whether his assumptions have merit or not.

well standardizing the revenue split for content like this is a big deal, in my opinion, and this seems to be the first step towards that.

That standardization does not need to happen. Nintendo already got paid for the work when the person purchased the game, they didn't record, edit, play, or network out the videos. Those videos can take a lot of work and it's shitty for some corporation to come in and take money for the creators hard work.

What's worse is if turns out to be a success, it encourages other companies to do the same. Why on earth would anyone want this?

Ummmm... like I've said plenty of times in the thread, you cannot get the main purpose of a game through a YouTube video. On the other hand, you can fully experience movies or music because all there is to those are visuals and sound. Games are about control. That is the definition of a game. You cannot control a game through a YouTube video.

Bingo, this exactly. Even parts of the experience, such as the story have to be broken up into chunks with a typical let's play.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I love the fact that youtube can be a haven for free speech, and this program threatens that. For that reason, I think it's terrible.

Only if you're trying to make money off of it. You can say what ever you want as long as you're not putting a commercial before it.

 

[James Scott]

Wonderful 101 is a very, very different game that I have difficulty seeing him play it. It's is hardcore and amazing but not everyone will like it.

Yeah, and unless it's a whole video series i don't see it doing anything noticable.
And anyways, PDP hasn't covered Nintendo much/at all before. Last thing i remember was Zombi u (that clearly didn't help) and

Spoiler

what is very likely a pirated copy of

Mario 64

 

[phanphare]

Because the precedent has been set with regard to youtube media and video games. 95% of game developers have no problem allowing youtube media creators to make video reviews or let's play's showing game content. Most of them actively encourage it. Even Microsoft has recently come out and said clearly that they have zero problem with it. The trend is set, the industry has spoken, and yet Nintendo is the lone developer who still bucks the trend. They've come a tad towards the progressive side with this program but it's still hindering free exposure (from Nintendo's POV) to their properties. And it's the little text in the agreement that is honestly hugely disturbing: pricing structure can change arbitrarily, they reserve the right to flag videos as not acceptable, three day approval period.

It's big business curtailing free speech, plain and simple. It's wrong, it's scary, and it has the potential to be hugely misused and abused "legally".


Nintendo, instead of getting with the times, AGAIN, is showcasing behavior that is both outdated and abusive. Simply because they can exert power over others and get away with it.


There's a name for people like that: bullies. And I don't like bullies.


So, I disagree with you Phanphare, and the other's supporting Nintendo here, because I want Nintendo to get with the program. I want them to succeed and not linger in the back with outdated policies and shortsighted behavior. I don't want them to continue their downward trend, losing customers and marketshare, posting losses and disappointing shareholders. I want Nintendo to thrive, I want them to be a player again, hell I want them to be #1 once more. BUT, with programs like this and behavior this hurtful, well they aren't going to change their trend anytime soon. I fear for them down the road, I think they can't see the opportunities around them and are blinded by greed, control, and a general lack of understanding of the world they exist in.

They aren't acting like a company who is in trouble, they are acting like a company who is out of touch. Again and again. And Again.

And I don't like seeing Nintendo like this. It sucks.



What I really don't understand are the people (like you Phanphare) who are all for this program. I just don't get how anyone can defend it, unless you hate freedom of speech and love corporate control over freedom of content, not to mention corporate mob tactics to take people's incomes. Or maybe you just hate youtube content creators? Is it jealousy that they make money with it?

I love the fact that youtube can be a haven for free speech, and this program threatens that. For that reason, I think it's terrible.

I actually agree with everything you're saying. that's why I wish there was less bickering about the fact that Nintendo is taking some money (because they deserve it, claiming otherwise is foolish) instead of how they're taking it.

to be completely clear I'm not defending the entire program. I'm not even defending any of it really. the only thing I'm defending is a revenue split that favors the youtuber but still includes the game's creators. that's the big take away from all of this in my opinion. make no mistake, there is no precedent set yet with youtube. it's still maturing as a platform and as a revenue source and will continue to do so.

so I see Nintendo's program as a big push in the right direction for this medium and the sources of income it could potentially provide. however with their program specifically there are a lot of problematic areas that seem to be included specifically to give Nintendo the upper hand. I don't like that. being able to change the revenue split arbitrarily? that sounds like something I'd want amended before agreeing. I wish there was more discussion about those types of aspects. this program is in beta. we all need to be critical about the right things while we have the opportunity.

basically for me it's just annoying seeing the discussion hinged on whether or not Nintendo should even be taking some money in the first place. of course they should! they make the damn games! we're going to argue about stupid bullshit like whether or not someone's voice is more important than how big of a rectangle a game is shown in or whether or not you're playing a visual novel instead of a more gameplay focused genre? come on. there are more important things to worry about with this program.

That standardization does not need to happen. Nintendo already got paid for the work when the person purchased the game, they didn't record, edit, play, or network out the videos. Those videos can take a lot of work and it's shitty for some corporation to come in and take money for the creators hard work.

What's worse is if turns out to be a success, it encourages other companies to do the same. Why on earth would anyone want this?

you think Nintendo is taking money for a youtuber's hard work? no. Nintendo is taking money for their own hard work that is then being used in conjunction with other elements to make more money. both parties deserve some of the money being made for the work that they both did to help make that money. it's pretty simple, really.

 

[Seventy70]

basically for me it's just annoying seeing the discussion hinged on whether or not Nintendo should even be taking some money in the first place. of course they should! they make the damn games! we're going to argue about stupid bullshit like whether or not someone's voice is more important than how big of a rectangle a game is shown in or whether or not you're playing a visual novel instead of a more gameplay focused genre? come on. there are more important things to worry about with this program.

Games are pretty much toys aren't they? Why don't you see toy companies asking for cuts from videos where their product is unboxed, shown or played with? Do they deserve a cut?

 

[KageMaru]

I actually agree with everything you're saying. that's why I wish there was less bickering about the fact that Nintendo is taking some money (because they deserve it, claiming otherwise is foolish) instead of how they're taking it.

to be completely clear I'm not defending the entire program. I'm not even defending any of it really. the only thing I'm defending is a revenue split that favors the youtuber but still includes the game's creators. that's the big take away from all of this in my opinion. make no mistake, there is no precedent set yet with youtube. it's still maturing as a platform and as a revenue source and will continue to do so.

so I see Nintendo's program as a big push in the right direction for this medium and the sources of income it could potentially provide. however with their program specifically there are a lot of problematic areas that seem to be included specifically to give Nintendo the upper hand. I don't like that. being able to change the revenue split arbitrarily? that sounds like something I'd want amended before agreeing. I wish there was more discussion about those types of aspects. this program is in beta. we all need to be critical about the right things while we have the opportunity.

basically for me it's just annoying seeing the discussion hinged on whether or not Nintendo should even be taking some money in the first place. of course they should! they make the damn games! we're going to argue about stupid bullshit like whether or not someone's voice is more important than how big of a rectangle a game is shown in or whether or not you're playing a visual novel instead of a more gameplay focused genre? come on. there are more important things to worry about with this program.

So you're ok with a struggling youtuber to struggle more because Nintendo wants money for free exposure? As it's been said by people in this industry, everyone loses out on this for little gain.

 

[doraemoe]

Why a simple problem could discuss this long? I purchased a book doesn't means I can adopt it to a movie and sell it to other people. Purchased a game dose not give you the right to adopt it and make money based on it.

 

[PotionBleue]

That standardization does not need to happen. Nintendo already got paid for the work when the person purchased the game, they didn't record, edit, play, or network out the videos. Those videos can take a lot of work and it's shitty for some corporation to come in and take money for the creators hard work.

I don't get it. You're implying that playing a video is hard work?

 

[Berg]

The fact that you can make money off fucking YouTube videos is what blows my mind!!

 

[KageMaru]

I don't get it. You're implying that playing a video is hard work?

No, not at all. I guess you could say that depending on the game, it could be a drag. No matter what though, it's still part of the process these people are dedicating their time to. If I were planning to start a YouTube channel dedicated to game videos, let's play, and reviews, I wouldn't consider Nintendo games with these rules.

The fact that you can make money off fucking YouTube videos is what blows my mind!!

Believe or not, some of these videos do take work, effort, and time.

 

[Seventy70]

I don't get it. You're implying that playing a video is hard work?

Doesn't matter if it's hard work. It's valued by people and that's all that matters.

 

[phanphare]

So you're ok with a struggling youtuber to struggle more because Nintendo wants money for free exposure? As it's been said by people in this industry, everyone loses out on this for little gain.

yes absolutely. always unfortunate to see people struggle (even hypothetical people ) but if that particular business model isn't solid why would that be Nintendo's fault?

and can we please stop with the whole free exposure thing? it's a silly argument. that's not the intent of the youtubers and Nintendo never asked for it. no favors are being done.

 

[ElFly]

There is no way Nintendo would lose this on a court. Everyone who is saying "but the focus of a game is the control" is kidding themselves that this allows them to use Mario images and Nintendo music in their videos without giving a perfect excuse to Nintendo to sue.

That doesn't touch on whether this is right or wrong, a good or a bad move. The point is, anyone thinking the youtubers have some legal advantage here are kidding themselves.

 

[Seventy70]

There is no way Nintendo would lose this on a court. Everyone who is saying "but the focus of a game is the control" is kidding themselves that this allows them to use Mario images and Nintendo music in their videos without giving a perfect excuse to Nintendo to sue.

That doesn't touch on whether this is right or wrong, a good or a bad move. The point is, anyone thinking the youtubers have some legal advantage here are kidding themselves.

I agree and it shouldn't be that way. Which is why this a stupid decision.

 

[KageMaru]

yes absolutely. always unfortunate to see people struggle (even hypothetical people ) but if that particular business model isn't solid why would that be Nintendo's fault?

and can we please stop with the whole free exposure thing? it's a silly argument. that's not the intent of the youtubers and Nintendo never asked for it. no favors are being done.

It would be Nintendo's fault for making it worse, which is exactly what they are doing.

Also regardless of intent or what wasn't asked, it's still a byproduct of these videos that benefits these companies. It's silly to ignore it when people have other options. Again everyone loses for little gain.

Edit:

Just to be clear, I understand that Nintendo has every legal right to do this with their IPs, but that doesn't mean I think they should.

 

[Froli]

TB gives an example how much money is cut from a video. And it's fucking ridiculous
Nintendo's affiliate program

A small video that earned 100 dollars is cut down to fucking 20 dollars.

 

[ofx360]

It's big business curtailing free speech, plain and simple. It's wrong, it's scary, and it has the potential to be hugely misused and abused "legally".

Oh stop. Please.

If you want to talk about a game, go right ahead. Hell, if you want to use a Nintendo game as you jumping off point, you're free to - you just can't expect to make money from it on youtube if you're just talking while playing a game.

Exercise your free speech all day, no one stopping you.

Stop being dramatic.

 

[xaszatm]

Oh stop. Please.

If you want to talk about a game, go right ahead. Hell, if you want to use a Nintendo game as you jumping off point, you're free to - you just can't expect to make money from it on youtube if you're just talking while playing a game.

Exercise your free speech all day, no one stopping you.

Stop being dramatic.

It's almost as if people on this topic don't understand laws or economics yet still think their opinions are somehow more validated. It's ridiculous.

 

[James Scott]

TB gives an example how much money is cut from a video. And it's fucking ridiculous
Nintendo's affiliate program

A small video that earned 100 dollars is cut down to fucking 20 dollars.

How? Unless 100 was the amount earned before YouTube's cut , it still wouldn't make much sense

 

[Vena]

How? Unless 100 was the amount earned before YouTube's cut , it still wouldn't make much sense

His reasoning is that you must be in an MCN and also under Nintendo's affiliate program.

So:

100$ start.
50% loss to YouTube = 50$
30% to MCN = 35$
30% to Nintendo = 24.5$
some small tax to PayPal/Conversions = 20$
----
Remainder = 20$

 

[Orayn]

It's almost as if people on this topic don't understand laws or economics yet still think their opinions are somehow more validated. It's ridiculous.

We've still got people who think Fair Use automatically gives you unlimited rights to monetize something, or that it's assumed because the use "seems fair."