Support NeoGAF

[jim2point0]

So because someone takes it upon themselves to edit a video, they automatically deserve compensation? Ok.

Entitlement.

You make youtube videos. You play ads. You get money from ads. That's not entitlement. That's how youtube works.

If all you're doing is editing a video and not bringing anything interesting to the table, nobody will watch you. The people actually getting ad money worth a spit are people that put in time to entertain folks with teh videos in some way or another. I don't watch many LPs but I do know that there are more popular ones for a reason. If someone is just playing a game and editing it, I don't think they'll get many views \ much money.

If you're bringing in enough viewers to your channel to actually get a paycheck, that's actually pretty hard to do. I know that if I started a Lets Play channel, I'd likely make about $4 a year. And those people have fans, and fans of those channels might buy games based on what they see. Seriously. I don't see how the gaming industry would benefit in any way from removing these types of videos from the internet (which will happen if people can't earn anything from it - they'll simply do something else).

 

[LiK]

You make youtube videos. You play ads. You get money from ads. That's not entitlement. That's how youtube works.

If all you're doing is editing a video and not bringing anything interesting to the table, nobody will watch you. The people actually getting ad money worth a spit are people that put in time to entertain folks with teh videos in some way or another. I don't watch many LPs but I do know that there are more popular ones for a reason. If someone is just playing a game and editing it, I don't think they'll get many views much money.

If you're bringing in enough viewers to your channel to actually get a paycheck, that's actually pretty hard to do. I know that if I started a Lets Play channel, I'd likely make about $4 a year. And those people have fans, and fans of those channels might buy games based on what they see. Seriously. I don't see how the gaming industry would benefit in any way from removing these types of videos from the internet (which will happen if people can't earn anything from it - they'll simply do something else).

Exactly.

 

[EleventhDoctor]

You make youtube videos. You play ads. You get money from ads. That's not entitlement. That's how youtube works.

If all you're doing is editing a video and not bringing anything interesting to the table, nobody will watch you. The people actually getting ad money worth a spit are people that put in time to entertain folks with teh videos in some way or another. I don't watch many LPs but I do know that there are more popular ones for a reason. If someone is just playing a game and editing it, I don't think they'll get many views \ much money.

If you're bringing in enough viewers to your channel to actually get a paycheck, that's actually pretty hard to do. I know that if I started a Lets Play channel, I'd likely make about $4 a year. And those people have fans, and fans of those channels might buy games based on what they see. Seriously. I don't see how the gaming industry would benefit in any way from removing these types of videos from the internet (which will happen if people can't earn anything from it - they'll simply do something else).

Would they get the views and the money if the Youtube video didn't contain the IP video content from nintendo? If it was just audio? Surely you know the answer to this.

 

[EleventhDoctor]

ok, I didn't really want to jump back into this... but...

umm... public display/broadcast of Nintendo's IP... IF there is any revenue to be generated.. Nintendo is ABSOLUTELY entitled to a portion of that. It is THEIR DAMN IP. This is as cut and dried as the entire concept of intellectual property rights going back 100+ years.

I think the only contentious part here is that there are only two options in revenue split. 100% to the user or 100% to the IP holder.

but yeah... if the user is seeing ad revenue from his stream, nintendo (or whoever actually matches content) is absolutely entitled to a portion of that revenue. Doesn't matter if it's an LP or if it's a montage to a particular music track.

Of course the thing not being talked about here... is that the LPer's are within full right to approach Nintendo about a license to do LPs and get the ad revenue.. yet none of the people supporting the LPers getting full ad revenue in here talk about that. It seems those people think it's totally fine for someone to use someone else's intellectual property, profit from it, and not have to give any sort of compensation back to the IP holder except for "free advertising"... lol... The IP holder should feel privileged and honored that the user is even USING their material!!!

sigh

I think it's time for you and I to unsubscribe from this thread because it's like trying to bring rational thought into an insane asylum.

 

[CrimsonCrescendo]

You make youtube videos. You play ads. You get money from ads. That's not entitlement. That's how youtube works.

If all you're doing is editing a video and not bringing anything interesting to the table, nobody will watch you. The people actually getting ad money worth a spit are people that put in time to entertain folks with teh videos in some way or another. I don't watch many LPs but I do know that there are more popular ones for a reason. If someone is just playing a game and editing it, I don't think they'll get many views \ much money.

If you're bringing in enough viewers to your channel to actually get a paycheck, that's actually pretty hard to do. I know that if I started a Lets Play channel, I'd likely make about $4 a year. And those people have fans, and fans of those channels might buy games based on what they see. Seriously. I don't see how the gaming industry would benefit in any way from removing these types of videos from the internet (which will happen if people can't earn anything from it - they'll simply do something else).

Exactly how well do you think the LPrs would do without the content they are using without permission from Nintendo? Would hundreds of thousands of people tune in each video to hear someone talk about a game they can't see, moments they have no context for, etc?

It's a symbiotic relationship.

 

[strangedopamine]

ok, I didn't really want to jump back into this... but...

umm... public display/broadcast of Nintendo's IP... IF there is any revenue to be generated.. Nintendo is ABSOLUTELY entitled to a portion of that. It is THEIR DAMN IP. This is as cut and dried as the entire concept of intellectual property rights going back 100+ years.

I think the only contentious part here is that there are only two options in revenue split. 100% to the user or 100% to the IP holder.

but yeah... if the user is seeing ad revenue from his stream, nintendo (or whoever actually matches content) is absolutely entitled to a portion of that revenue. Doesn't matter if it's an LP or if it's a montage to a particular music track.

Of course the thing not being talked about here... is that the LPer's are within full right to approach Nintendo about a license to do LPs and get the ad revenue.. yet none of the people supporting the LPers getting full ad revenue in here talk about that. It seems those people think it's totally fine for someone to use someone else's intellectual property, profit from it, and not have to give any sort of compensation back to the IP holder except for "free advertising"... lol... The IP holder should feel privileged and honored that the user is even USING their material!!!

sigh

Agreed fully. This is well within Nintendo's right to do this, it's their property and people are using it without their permission and making money off of it.

Again, I recommend people listen this episode of Retsutalk on the matter. The discussion starts roughly 13:00 in.

 

[mantidor]

So we are at 16 pages now and people still thinking Nintendo is putting videos down? They are just putting ads into it, is how Youtube works, if anything aren't they basically forced to do this in order to keep the trademark? If an IP owner let the IP unattended someone might claim it, isn't that how it works?

 

[Freshmaker]

So we are at 16 pages now and people still thinking Nintendo is putting videos down? They are just putting ads into it, is how Youtube works, if anything aren't they basically forced to do this in order to keep the trademark? If an IP owner let the IP unattended someone might claim it, isn't that how it works?

No.

 

[Effect]

ok, I didn't really want to jump back into this... but...

umm... public display/broadcast of Nintendo's IP... IF there is any revenue to be generated.. Nintendo is ABSOLUTELY entitled to a portion of that. It is THEIR DAMN IP. This is as cut and dried as the entire concept of intellectual property rights going back 100+ years.

I think the only contentious part here is that there are only two options in revenue split. 100% to the user or 100% to the IP holder.

but yeah... if the user is seeing ad revenue from his stream, nintendo (or whoever actually matches content) is absolutely entitled to a portion of that revenue. Doesn't matter if it's an LP or if it's a montage to a particular music track.

Of course the thing not being talked about here... is that the LPer's are within full right to approach Nintendo about a license to do LPs and get the ad revenue.. yet none of the people supporting the LPers getting full ad revenue in here talk about that. It seems those people think it's totally fine for someone to use someone else's intellectual property, profit from it, and not have to give any sort of compensation back to the IP holder except for "free advertising"... lol... The IP holder should feel privileged and honored that the user is even USING their material!!!

sigh

This is why in the end uploaders aren't going to win this fight. Ultimately they are using IPs and footage owned by another company to make money off of. You can't do that in any other industry. Try pulling that crap with a car company or an electronics company. YouTube has been clear on this in the past. They say don't do it. Yet people do it anyway knowing the system is faulty and they can bypass it while trying to hide behind "fair use".

The laws isn't not completely clear but I think it's clear enough that one should know they are walking a very fine line and would be on borrowed time. The laws that are clear benefit the IP holder. Anyone that then decided to put all of their eggs in that basket in the light of that has no sympathy from me.

The fact that Nintendo isn't pulling down videos or putting strikes against channels leaves an opening for people. Use the Nintendo videos to get more attention so you can benefit off of original content you create yourself. That is your compensation. Channel exposure. You don't have a right to make money off of the game content though.

 

[Wiktor]

ok, I didn't really want to jump back into this... but...

umm... public display/broadcast of Nintendo's IP... IF there is any revenue to be generated.. Nintendo is ABSOLUTELY entitled to a portion of that. It is THEIR DAMN IP. This is as cut and dried as the entire concept of intellectual property rights going back 100+ years.

Nope. First of all, they are even putting the adds on movies that didn't have them. They're taking stuff somebody made for free and trying to squeeze money out of it.

Second, they're not takingh portion of money, they're taking all of it. If they would set up some kind of profits sharing scheme it would be different thing, but what they're doing now it just exploiting other people's work. They have full legal rights to do so, but this doesn't change that it's immortal thing to do.

Also...just because it's your IP doesn't mean you are entitled to profits from everything derivative from it. Otherwise you could sue critics for writting about your products.

 

[Wiktor]

The fact that Nintendo isn't pulling down videos or putting strikes against channels leaves an opening for people. Use the Nintendo videos to get more attention so you can benefit off of original content you create yourself. That is your compensation. Channel exposure. You don't have a right to make money off of the game content though.

Few people care about Nintendo (or most of other publishers) games on YT. That's not the draw of those channels. People who are playing and commenting them are. So if you're expecting people to continue to make Nintendo LPs like they did before just to get "channel exposure" you're going to be very dissapointed. Most will simply stop making those movies and instead switch to games from companies who tolerate this kind of behaviour. Which is propably for the best, as those smaller companies are much more in need of this kind of exposure than Ninty's titles are.

 

[Proven]

Can someone tell me what kind of deal Machinima makes with publishers/developers? I heard that they actually give a cut of their ad revenue to them.

 

[Effect]

Few people care about Nintendo (or most of other publishers) games on YT. That's not the draw of those channels. People who are playing and commenting them are. So if you're expecting people to continue to make Nintendo LPs like they did before just to get "channel exposure" you're going to be very dissapointed. Most will simply stop making those movies and instead switch to games from companies who tolerate this kind of behaviour. Which is propably for the best, as those smaller companies are much more in need of this kind of exposure than Ninty's titles are.

Then I'm not seeing what the problem here is. If people are watching the videos for the person and not the content then just use some different content or they can make up their own. This shouldn't be a problem and the complaints should stop. If they don't then it's about the content and the money that can be made off it, which they don't have a right to because they don't own the IP or are paying to use it. If one is doing it just for the love of the game then the uploader should continue on as they always have.

 

[Neo Child]

Few people care about Nintendo (or most of other publishers) games on YT. That's not the draw of those channels. People who are playing and commenting them are. So if you're expecting people to continue to make Nintendo LPs like they did before just to get "channel exposure" you're going to be very dissapointed. Most will simply stop making those movies and instead switch to games from companies who tolerate this kind of behaviour. Which is propably for the best, as those smaller companies are much more in need of this kind of exposure than Ninty's titles are.

I almost solely watch nintendo lp's on youtube.

Love 4 player ones like runaway guys, aswell as purplerodri, sullypwns, munching orange etc... there are lots of channels dedicated solely to nintendo lp's that are very popular but yeah, its because of the great commentary i watch them instead of plain direct sound video.

Would love to do my own lp channel oneday.

 

[borghe]

Nope. First of all, they are even putting the adds on movies that didn't have them. They're taking stuff somebody made for free and trying to squeeze money out of it.

Second, they're not takingh portion of money, they're taking all of it. If they would set up some kind of profits sharing scheme it would be different thing, but what they're doing now it just exploiting other people's work. They have full legal rights to do so, but this doesn't change that it's immortal thing to do.

Nintendo isn't "doing" anything you mentioned here. It's how content matching works on youtube. I don't even think Nintendo can simply just block them from running ads. Essentially Nintendo can just leave it alone and not match content (which could be argued as not protecting their IPs), or can claim ownership of material used in the youtube clip through the match system. No one is saying YouTube's system is perfect.. it clearly has flaws.. nevertheless, you agree to the terms of that service when you upload videos. Yes, you AGREE to the company who makes the content claim on your video to get all of the ad revenue from said video. Right or wrong doesn't matter. It's the service you agree to when you upload videos.

Also...just because it's your IP doesn't mean you are entitled to profits from everything derivative from it. Otherwise you could sue critics for writting about your products.

people need to really understand intellectual property law. Reviews and excerpts used in reviews are covered under "fair use". having a 5-10 second clip of a movie in a review is fair use. Showing the entire game from start to finish is not fair use (no, even if the game is only 5-10 seconds long)

Can someone tell me what kind of deal Machinima makes with publishers/developers? I heard that they actually give a cut of their ad revenue to them.

Not sure anyone but Machinima execs are privy to that.. But it's probably some sort of revenue based agreement. It probably wouldn't be in either party's best interest to do a flat fee.

 

[Pitmonkey]

Can someone tell me what kind of deal Machinima makes with publishers/developers? I heard that they actually give a cut of their ad revenue to them.

Machinima, as far as I know, gets no revenu from actual developers that is not ad driven. Example - they tried to solicit Notch for cash claiming the success of Minecraft is due to them. He basically turned around and laughed, considering Machinima is making Money off of others people's content using his Notch's content.

http://www.examiner.com/article/min...nted-us-to-pay-them-for-views?cid=db_articles

 

[tkscz]

So what is the issue here? Nintendo isn't taking the content down, so what's the problem?

 

[Pitmonkey]

This is one of those situations were EA actually has the right idea, pay content creators join their partnership program, offer them a higher CPM when using their game through the partnership program, and profit from the millions of subscribers these content producers have in "free," or in the very least cheap, marketing.

Can it be true? Nintendo could learn from EA?

 

[borghe]

So what is the issue here? Nintendo isn't taking the content down, so what's the problem?

To summarize.. People were making money from ads run during Let's Play videos that they (the users) created. Because Nintendo now participates as a YouTube partner and has claimed ownership of their (Nintendo's) properties, videos with content matching those properties are now considered "matched" and prevent the uploaders from making money on ads.

The response from the Let's Play community (at least a portion of them) is that if they can't make money on Nintendo Let's Play videos, they simply won't make them.

That's it.

In this thread, it has exploded into a number of different points.

Does Nintendo have a right to claim ownership of the properties on YouTube? Yes.
Does Nintendo have a right to 100% of the ad revenue? Pointless question. It's the terms of YouTube's service if you use matched content.
Are Nintendo being dicks about this? Being argued.
Are Nintendo shooting themselves in the foot? Being argued.

 

[onipex]

Wouldn't the easy soultion here be for the LPers to just ask for permission to run ads on the videos? Fan sites get permission as long as they follow Nintendo's guidelines.

It would be funny if Nintendo did this because they will soon let you post videos on Miiverse and youtube from the console.

 

[sd28821]

Wouldn't the easy soultion here be for the LPers to just ask for permission to run ads on the videos? Fan sites get permission as long as they follow Nintendo's guidelines.

It would be funny if Nintendo did this because they will soon let you post videos on Miiverse and youtube from the console.

most seem to not care that much and would rather bitch and whine about Nintendo as it gets them more hits

 

[KKRT00]

@KojiKnight
So more single examples from Japanese companies.

And yes, its a matter of life and death for people who are doing that for a living. As i said, its not about Nintendo, its starting with Nintendo and will move further.

=====================

The fact that Nintendo isn't pulling down videos or putting strikes against channels leaves an opening for people. Use the Nintendo videos to get more attention so you can benefit off of original content you create yourself. That is your compensation. Channel exposure. You don't have a right to make money off of the game content though.

You must be joking, right? Having ability to record Your playthrough is enough compensation, is this real life?

As i said before. You dont like ads in Lets Play/videos? Dont watch those with ads, but if You like what some people do, You can support them by watching stupid ads.

===

Then I'm not seeing what the problem here is. If people are watching the videos for the person and not the content then just use some different content or they can make up their own. This shouldn't be a problem and the complaints should stop. If they don't then it's about the content and the money that can be made off it, which they don't have a right to because they don't own the IP or are paying to use it. If one is doing it just for the love of the game then the uploader should continue on as they always have.

So are You saying that You would be ok if every developer and publisher force this policy? Are You really fine with whole ads revenue going to devs and publishers and nothing to creators of videos? Do You think thats fair?
Are You also fine with content matching that enforce ads even on channels that dont have currently ads? Because thats what happening.

Answer those questions, they are simple.

 

[borghe]

Are You really fine with whole ads revenue going to devs and publishers and nothing to creators of videos? Do You think thats fair?
Are You also fine with content matching that enforce ads even on channels that dont have currently ads? Because thats what happening.

Answer those questions, they are simple.

None of this has a single thing to do with Nintendo. Yet everyone is bitching about Nintendo "doing this" vs. Google's overly simplistic policies regarding content matching.

 

[sd28821]

None of this has a single thing to do with Nintendo. Yet everyone is bitching about Nintendo "doing this" vs. Google's overly simplistic policies regarding content matching.

its obvious by now the people saying this don't care about the facts and only care that there Favorite lets play isn't getting money which they believe they are entitled to.

 

[KKRT00]

None of this has a single thing to do with Nintendo. Yet everyone is bitching about Nintendo "doing this" vs. Google's overly simplistic policies regarding content matching.

So Nintendo isnt doing content matching on videos and they dont take over ads revenue currently?
Because they do. They also forcing ads on videos that havent had ads previously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jThBrxN88eI - like here

 

[Effect]

@KojiKnight
So more single examples from Japanese companies.

And yes, its a matter of life and death for people who are doing that for a living. As i said, its not about Nintendo, its starting with Nintendo and will move further.

=====================


You must be joking, right? Having ability to record Your playthrough is enough compensation, is this real life?

As i said before. You dont like ads in Lets Play/videos? Dont watch those with ads, but if You like what some people do, You can support them by watching stupid ads.

===


So are You saying that You would be ok if every developer and publisher force this policy? Are You really fine with whole ads revenue going to devs and publishers and nothing to creators of videos? Do You think thats fair?
Are You also fine with content matching that enforce ads even on channels that dont have currently ads? Because thats what happening.

Answer those questions, they are simple.

It's not a point of me being okay with it or not. Nintendo and the other developers and publishers own those IPs. What's being done is past the point of what is reasonably expected when one purchases a copy of the game. It's their content being used outside of it's intended and expected purpose without permission or payment so someone else can profit. You can not do that regardless of how much effort is put into a let's play.

That money does not belong to you because of the core of what you are producing does not belong to you. You did not create it. The audio from the uploader is optional to the video. You can mute it and all you see if the game footage. It's not used sparingly either to prove a point or to explain something and the bulk of the video is you the uploader. It's not the same as someone painting a picture of a character and possibly selling to a private person (That's okay I believe by law but not if you decide to mass produce them and sell them to stores. It's a private vs public situation I think and YouTube is clearly very public. Sorry that was a little off topic.) If it was then it would really be "fair use" and this current situation wouldn't exist. The uploaders have been in the wrong for a long time. They've just gotten away with it.

As for ads on channels that didn't have them. So what? This

 

[fmpanda]

So Nintendo isnt doing content matching on videos and they dont take over ads revenue currently?
Because they do. They also forcing ads on videos that havent had ads previously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jThBrxN88eI - like here

And that is completely within their rights to do so, as it is their assets.

I'm not sure why folks are surprised Nintendo is doing this to begin with, they have always been about control. They may not go after the folks who do custom rom builds of Super Mario World, but they will shut down any folks who try to make $$ off of their product, even if it's Let's Play folks. It stucks, but it's within their right to do so. If anything since Nintendo is pretty much cutting off that end of the revenue stream for LPers, they should at least use their Nintendo material to point towards videos that haven't been matched yet, if the LPer is interesting enough, the You Tube viewer will check out their other material.

That being said, I don't see this continuing much longer as a "Wild West" format, especially as Sony and MS are looking into featuring Video Sharing as part of the PS4/Durango experience, which can be monetized and controlled entirely by them.

 

[KKRT00]

@Effect
I hope You will be happy living in such a bright future, Youtube will be so awesome and full of quality content thanks to guys like You.

---

If anything since Nintendo is pretty much cutting off that end of the revenue stream for LPers, they should at least use their Nintendo material to point towards videos that haven't been matched yet, if the LPer is interesting enough, the You Tube viewer will check out their other material.

But thats the problem. All videos are matched: LPs with ads, LPs without ads, short videos, montages etc. You've even quoted example.

 

[fmpanda]

But thats the problem. All videos are matched: LPs with ads, LPs without ads, short videos, montages etc. You've even quoted example.

Whelp, them's the breaks then. As I said before, look for Sony/MS/Many Publishers to do the same thing shortly. If I were a lot of these groups I would probably band up like Machinima and form a proper corporation that might be able to negotiate with gaming companies on revenue.

 

[Refreshment.01]

Nintendo are being cunts. No other thing to say, really. Its a dick move and shows how out of touch with reality Nintendo is.

It seems like it, but to be fair is not Nintendo the only one. Very greedy sh!t happening and i find it amazing how people side with the companies here, to the point of mocking the lp'ers.

 

[Mr. Enigma]

There would be a shitstorm of epic proportions if Nintendo went after Siglemic's Super Mario 64 videos. I wonder if they would have the balls to do that.

 

[fmpanda]

There would be a shitstorm of epic proportions if Nintendo went after Siglemic's Super Mario 64 videos. I wonder if they would have the balls to do that.

They don't have to now that they've agreed to use Content Match with You Tube. His stuff is now probably auto-tagged thanks to Google.

 

[Jim E. Rossler]

I guess all the people doing tv reviews need to start paying Sony and Panasonic money for using their products in the reviews to generate profit?

 

[Proven]

None of this has a single thing to do with Nintendo. Yet everyone is bitching about Nintendo "doing this" vs. Google's overly simplistic policies regarding content matching.

Okay, because it seemed to me that the easiest way to solve the issue is to do what Machinima does and have some of the ad revenue money go to the video creators, and some of the money going to the video game developer/publisher. And that would require enough outcry for Youtube to do something about their content ID matching service.

 

[daninthemix]

It's their content...

That's at the very core of the debate - is it just their content? If not, should just they receive ad revenue?

Come on people, keep up.

 

[SmokedMeat]

While it's completely Nintendo's right to do what they're doing, it's still a dick move.

You've got fans out there so devoted to your product that they're taking a lot of their personal time to create these videos showcasing your product, and in turn earning you more sales. So take away the ad money they get for all of their hard work in building a fanbase of subscribers?
It's a dick move, and I shudder to think of what Youtube would look like if every multimillion dollar corporation decided to stick it to the consumers talking up their product? Personally I'd like to see all of these LP guys stop making videos of Nintendo content period. I'm sick of consumers getting kicked around.

 

[Oxirane]

That's at the very core of the debate - is it just their content? If not, should just they receive ad revenue?

Come on people, keep up.

Someone should do a test to determine which party's content the viewer is after, then a revenue split can be determined.

Use 2 separate videos:
1- Showing a video of the players hands and controller with the audio commentary.
2- Showing the audio and video coming out of the console.

Survey the results for the 2 videos.

 

[DragonSworne]

Shouldn't fair use for a video game be different from fair use for a movie?

Considering video games offer multiple different play-throughs totally up to 100s hours for even the most simple game and a movie is the same 90-120 minute film no matter how many times it's played, limiting the fair use of a video game to be the same length as the fair use of a movie seems ridiculous.

 

[Hero of Legend]

I love Chugga and NintendoCapriSun as much as the next person, but I don't believe in making money off another's property without permission.

I mean, YT has rules against that, they have a "Fair Use" argument, and I don't know the full details about it.

But in my opinion, LPs should be just for fun, NEVER for a paycheck, I mean what the hell? Get a real job! This is silly, I've always wanted to do LPs, I find myself to be very humorous and can give people another option for viewing LPs just for fun, and never thought for a second that I could make a penny of them, and I don't know if I'd want to, because I'm well aware that if anyone should make money of a Nintendo LP that I would make, it'd be Nintendo, it wouldn't feel right.

MY idea is for LPers like Chugga and NCS, put a donate button on your channel, fans can give you money if they feel the need as a way of saying "thank you for making great LPs", or, just go to Nintendo and talk about agreeing on a compromise.

 

[Effect]

Shouldn't fair use for a video game be different from fair use for a movie?

Considering video games offer multiple different play-throughs totally up to 100s hours for even the most simple game and a movie is the same 90-120 minute film no matter how many times it's played, limiting the fair use of a video game to be the same length as the fair use of a movie seems ridiculous.

This is where I think people are reaching and not really thinking this argument through all the day. There are only so many ways to play a single player game. You can only finish an area or level one way. Maybe two if there is another exit or dialogue option. A person jumping over something compare to another hitting it instead doesn't offer a significantly different viewing experience. They will still be going down the same path. Hitting the same cut scenes. Encountering the same enemies that can only be killed one way. Etc.

Now online multiplayer I think is a different story. The events in a match of Call of Duty for example can be very random from one match to the next. The same thing with Starcraft and even playing Minecraft do to the very nature of the game. An argument can be attempted on that front (pointless in the end though since you are still making money off of some else's work) but not when it comes to Let's Plays. On the whole video games are not like that but instead very linear. You going from point A to point B with an option or two to give the illusion of choice. It doesn't even matter if you do mission green or mission red first. There is still going to be one way to win in the end. Many are simply interactive movies and more and more games are becoming like that. Take shooters for example the image of game design that gets put up. Comparing the corridor nature of shooters now vs how varied a level was back in the 90s. The argument that games are different then movies doesn't hold up I think especially since more and more games are becoming movie-like in their presentation.

 

[crimsonheadGCN]

By the way, Youtube released an official statement about this. I made a new thread about it:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=58429973#post58429973

 

[Cincaid]

Seems the debate has sprung up again amongst let's players (tweet by Jim Sterling, picture by ProJared):

Apologies for bumping the thread, but Junior here.

 

[NinjamicWZ]

Yeah, I just saw that on twitter too. They've got their Nintendo Partner thing going now and if Mario Maker's not whitelisted, that's how they'll want you to do it. Plus, I could be completely wrong, but those look like matches on tons of Mario games that aren't Mario Maker. It's very likely music and assets will be identified as any 2D Mario game, but I dunno. They could also be ramping up content ID to control what Mario games are currently visible in search, too, in order to make sure Mario Maker can't be confused with other Mario games, but I can't tell if those matches Pro Jared posted are recent or just an old reminder.

Youtubers will know more than we do, so ?