Support NeoGAF

[StreetsAhead]

Nintendo may be starting to realize the importance of "viral" marketing and enabling their users to do that for them.

They did speak about the importance of social media like Twitter in spreading word about Animal Crossing: New Life in Japan and how it brought in users in demographics (female 18-22, iirc) who had moved on from dedicated handhelds according to common wisdom.

 

[TimmiT]

YouTube videos of games are not free advertising. That argument is inherently flawed and displays a lack of knowledge about what advertising actually is.

A revenue split like this is as good as you're going to get from the big publishers. You're just going to have to suck it up on this one if you think it's bullshit, because it's only going to get worse.

Also: blame YouTube. Don't blame Nintendo et al for using common sense when it comes to brand management: blame YouTube for allowing them free reign.

The video creators get money for their commentary/input, the games and it's developer/publisher get extra attention and extra sales from the videos. I think that it's already a fair situation that doesn't need to be changed. All this does is give extra to the developers/publishers.

 

[ec0ec0]

Something something bucket of shit

I apologize if i said something inappropiate. I thought that i didnt, thats why i posted that comment. So, sorry??

I just didnt like how things worked before: people on youtube making money (all the money) out of nintendos work.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

If I were Nintendo, I'd be perfectly fine with anybody making their own game, putting "Let's Play" on Youtube, and making as much money as possible through that. Oh wait, they rely on Nintendo's games to get hits because Nintendo's games are popular? So the reason they're getting hits isn't because they're playing a random game, but because they're playing Nintendo's game?

 

[Harlock]

I wonder if the Twitch plays Pokemon has some behind scenes deal with Nintendo.

 

[JoeM86]

You don't know what fair use or copy right means.

I most certainly do, to both of them, from past legal experience. Please do not presume to estimate my knowledge about subjects.

I don't know if I was a youtuber I would just stop doing Nintendo content.



Correct me If I'm wrong but Sony and MS or any 3rd party doesn't do this.

You are wrong. Countless others do, including Capcom.

 

[AntiFacebook]

Because if they don't, Nintendo will just take all of it or take down the videos. Nintendo went on a crack down a few months ago, taking down as many videos that contained Nintendo/Mario stuff as they could content ID match... As their "compromise" shortly after, they allowed the videos up if they could monetize the video (whether the original author monetized the videos themselves or not) and not share anything.

Oh, I see.
It's just that the OP didn't say anything about the videos containing Nintendo copyrighted material.

 

[KojiKnight]

I don't know if I was a youtuber I would just stop doing Nintendo content.



Correct me If I'm wrong but Sony and MS or any 3rd party doesn't do this.

This is my current strategy. We don't do Nintendo games. A split, however, would allow us to at least do an occasional one (depending on how big the split is).

And yes, quite a few third parties do this... Capcom is a big one (they even flagged the Mega Man x Street Fighter fan game!)

If that is the percentage that Nintendo goes with, then those creators just won't be making games for Nintendo properties. I doubt Nintendo will be interested in negotiating once they've set what they feel is fair.

Again, as one of those "content creators", I would take a 40% split over nothing... It just means I'd do a Nintendo property on occasion instead of often (higher split) or not at all (current 'split').

 

[Jintor]

The video creators get money for their commentary/input, the games and it's developer/publisher get extra attention and extra sales from the videos. I think that it's already a fair situation that doesn't need to be changed. All this does is give extra to the developers/publishers.

Guessing the Big N isn't happy with some nebulous 'we get mindshare!?!?!?!?' argument and wants cash in hand instead.

 

[Riki]

I wonder if the Twitch plays Pokemon has some behind scenes deal with Nintendo.

They don't run ads, right?
So they would only get money through Subs, which is through Twitch and not the video.

 

[Protagonist Jake]

Not good enough. There needs to be enough financial motivation to create that content. 40% won't simply cut it.

Doesnt that depend entirely on how successful the content creator becomes?

I mean, 90% of 10 bucks a month is still awful. 40% of 5000 a month is still 2000 a month.

Whether its "good enough" depends on the success, the problem is whether its FAIR, which I think 60/40 is pretty perfect.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Very good news!

 

[Orniletter]

I apologize if i said something inappropiate. I thought that i didnt, thats why i posted that comment. So, sorry??

I just didnt like how things worked before: people on youtube making money (all the money) out of nintendos work.

It was a play on

"This bucket of shit is better than this bucket that's a mix of vomit and blood."

;-)

I agree with you 100% !

 

[abstract alien]

I love how Nintendo is always either extremely progressive or flat out stuck.

 

[Sendou]

Doesnt that depend entirely on how successful the content creator becomes?

I mean, 90% of 10 bucks a month is still awful. 40% of 5000 a month is still 2000 a month.

Whether its "good enough" depends on the success, the problem is whether its FAIR, which I think 60/40 is pretty perfect.

Nah it is just not good enough. For most people it won't create a financial motivator to create that content. Obviously the super popular creators could make do even with 1% but that's not the point here.

 

[Asd202]

You are wrong. Countless others do, including Capcom.

Any no Japanese ones?

 

[Hot Coldman]

The video creators get money for their commentary/input, the games and it's developer/publisher get extra attention and extra sales from the videos. I think that it's already a fair situation that doesn't need to be changed. All this does is give extra to the developers/publishers.

Extra sales are not guaranteed here. The only thing that's guaranteed here is money for the video creator. And for games as publicised (generally) as Nintendo's, any extra sales YouTube videos generate is likely very slim.

Hell, I'd argue it's more likely this is a way of giving anything at ALL to the developers/publishers. (Not that they need it, but shit, it IS their game.)

 

[Protagonist Jake]

Nah it is just not good enough. For most people it won't create a financial motivator to create that content. Obviously the super popular creators could make do even with 1% but that's not the point here.

Sorry but just saying "Not its not enough though" isnt really convincing me to think differently.

 

[JoeM86]

Any no Japanese ones?

If I'm not mistake, Microsoft did this with Halo videos.

 

[Sendou]

Sorry but saying "Not its not enough though" isnt really convincing me to think differently.

You are free to think what you want but you just didn't have any point at all in that post.

 

[Protagonist Jake]

You are free to think what you want but you just didn't have any point at all in that post.

Likewise m8

Your whole point that a percent isnt enough to motivate when you dont even know what the percent will always be of, or how much it takes to motivate everyone ever.

 

[Aostia]

The video creators get money for their commentary/input, the games and it's developer/publisher get extra attention and extra sales from the videos. I think that it's already a fair situation that doesn't need to be changed. All this does is give extra to the developers/publishers.

the video creators get money not because of the commentary. but because of the commentary put on Nintendo (in this case) games.
Try to comment something else way less popular (I'm not even trying to say try to comment your own cretions...) and we'll see...
You know: TV commentators get paid to comment football matches on tv. but the TV paid to get the license/rights to air that content.

 

[geordiemp]

This is my current strategy. We don't do Nintendo games. A split, however, would allow us to at least do an occasional one (depending on how big the split is).

And yes, quite a few third parties do this... Capcom is a big one (they even flagged the Mega Man x Street Fighter fan game!)



Again, as one of those "content creators", I would take a 40% split over nothing... It just means I'd do a Nintendo property on occasion instead of often (higher split) or not at all (current 'split').

So,correct me if I am wrong, but if you make a youtube video on Minecraft or COD you get all the money, but make one on Nintendo you have to split it ?

Call me crazy but my son gets interested in some games by watching his favourite youtubers play them.

He asked me for walking dead after seeing pewdepie or whatever he is called playing it - I bought it and he played all episodes. This happens quite allot with kids and goes some way to Minecraft popularity. He asked me if he can get dayz on Ps4 LOL...

Nintendo seem so out of touch...actually I think there are 'greedy', their consoles are always nice price / under powered, their games retain high prices and they want a cut on everything.

They deserve to be where they are.

 

[wildfire]

So did I understand this correctly:

Before 100% of the advertising proceeds went to the video creator. After that Nintendo stepped in and took those 100%. Now they are moving to a system where they split the proceedings.

Exactly. Which makes Nintendo very cool.

Regardless they and everyone else shouldn't have the power to make content ID claims on these videos in the first place.

The only videos that I think are justified are let's plays that reveal storylines.

An edge case can be made for original music made by the game company should allow them to have partial shares of revenue.


Claiming everything else like reviews, tournament matches, tutorials as their own content is illegal. The highlight of this nonsense is when they make content ID claims when they freely give people the video content to advertise their games in the first place.

 

[Baron Aloha]

Nintendo doesn't deserve to make one cent from those videos. Its called fair use. Maybe all of the corporatists on this forum should look it up. Hardly a "good move". Another example of Nintendo being completely out of touch, IMO.

 

[ab.aeterno]

I most certainly do, to both of them, from past legal experience. Please do not presume to estimate my knowledge about subjects.

In that case, is there any legal precedence for this medium for fair use?

Because the question becomes whether the act of playing a game, particularly with commentary, is enough to declare it a transformative work. How is it different than the Daily Show using clips from TV or movies and providing commentary, beyond length? Is something showcasing a part of a game more defensible than showing it in its entirety?

The law has barely caught up with the advent of the internet, let alone things beyond.

 

[Sendou]

Likewise m8

Your whole point that a percent isnt enough to motivate when you dont even know what the percent will always be of, or how much it takes to motivate everyone ever.

Well we did have a hypothetical percentage here which was 40%. I think it's too low if we want to have a good enough financial motivator for those creators to create their content and why we wouldn't?

 

[chubigans]

So did I understand this correctly:

Before 100% of the advertising proceeds went to the video creator. After that Nintendo stepped in and took those 100%. Now they are moving to a system where they split the proceedings.

Yup. It's incredibly stupid, and I don't get why anyone would actually be excited for something like this.

Just shows how wildly out of touch they are with reality these days. What a joke.

 

[Draft]

This is Nintendo wanting a piece of the pie instead of treating yt content about their games as free advertising.

Is this better than denying content creators any kind of monetization? Yes. Is it worse than just letting them do their thing and monetise videos while advertising Nintendo games? Also yes.

I don't think this is that great.


edit: not singling out Nintendo here, you can include every other videogame company with similar plans and a strategy to deny content creators full revenue in that criticism.

I agree with you 100%. I also think this is obtuse like Microsoft's stance on day one feature parity or whatever they call it regarding digital games. Neither company is in any sort of position to be dicating onerous terms of use to their customers or developers.

 

[Entryhazard]

Nintendo doesn't deserve to make one cent from those videos. Its called fair use. Maybe all of the corporatists on this forum should look it up. Hardly a "good move". Another example of Nintendo being completely out of touch, IMO.

What? "Fair use" is when someone renounces to get any revenue by using copyrighted material, which in some ruling systems permits to not pay royalities.

When you make money by using footage from nintendo games it's not fair use by definition

 

[KojiKnight]

So,correct me if I am wrong, but if you make a youtube video on Minecraft or COD you get all the money, but make one on Nintendo you have to split it ?

To be clear, you get all of your "share". Youtube/Google of course gets their cut of ad revenue first. In my case (as with most networks) I also get my cut after my network gets THEIR cut (I get 60%, network gets 40%... but I get benefits like editing software, affiliation with certain game/music companies so I don't get content blocked, access to graphic designers if I want them, etc).

So assuming I could make $10 post google share on a video, Nintendo takes 50% to $5, and my network gets 40% of the remaining, that'd leave me $3.

Again, if Nintendo makes an affiliate program, they'll likely only deal with Networks so the network cut is going to happen regardless.

(edit) forgot to post this.

http://letsplaysanctuary.net/topic/8435668/1/

It's by no means a master list (my network provides one, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to share it, so I won't) but it gives you an idea on what companies do and don't content ID and to what extent. Western companies tend to only care about newer games if at all. Indies tend to just like the attention either way.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Nintendo doesn't deserve to make one cent from those videos. Its called fair use. Maybe all of the corporatists on this forum should look it up. Hardly a "good move". Another example of Nintendo being completely out of touch, IMO.

Wikipedia:

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
etc etc

 

[BlackJace]

Nintendo doesn't deserve to make one cent from those videos. Its called fair use. Maybe all of the corporatists on this forum should look it up. Hardly a "good move". Another example of Nintendo being completely out of touch, IMO.

A Shining Example of not being informed.

 

[Protagonist Jake]

Well we did have a hypothetical percentage here which was 40%. I think it's too low if we want to have a good enough financial motivator for those creators to create their content and why we wouldn't?

Youre basically saying that any number is too low of a motivation if its 40% of another. Which isnt bloody true because thats depending on the person entirely, not a definite fact.
If youre saying thats too low for YOU no matter what, well... good for you then I guess, but for me, if I was getting 40% of 5 million a year for example, Id be pretty motivated.

 

[Regiruler]

Well we did have a hypothetical percentage here which was 40%. I think it's too low if we want to have a good enough financial motivator for those creators to create their content and why we wouldn't?

Why does it need to solely be financial motivation? There should be some non-financial interest in doing them anyway.

 

[Riki]

A Shining Example of not being informed.

The thread.

 

[wildfire]

I most certainly do, to both of them, from past legal experience. Please do not presume to estimate my knowledge about subjects.

Do you realize that Google is making money off of this? Most likely no one is getting 100% of their revenue.

If that last part happens to be true then various people are just trying to manipulate poor interpretations of DCMA to squeeze other people with weaker lawyer powers.

If they tried taking Google's money directly they would lose more than they would gain.

 

[DXB-KNIGHT]

Wow that's fair, Nintendo gets money for people using their games as material and video uploaders gets money from putting these shows.

 

[Baron Aloha]

Excuse me, I just woke up so I probably should have worded that better. But I was under the impression that the majority of the videos taken down don't even generate any revenue to begin with for the creator. Or is that not the case?

 

[Riki]

Excuse me, I just woke up so I probably should have worded that better. But I was under the impression that the majority of the videos taken down don't even generate any revenue to begin with for the creator. Or is that not the case?

Videos aren't being taken down anymore.
That was a mistake in a mass sweep that Google was doing with video game videos as a whole.

 

[Sendou]

Youre basically saying that any number is too low of a motivation if its 40% of another. Which isnt bloody true because thats depending on the person entirely, not a definite fact.
If youre saying thats too low for YOU no matter what, well... good for you then I guess, but for me, if I was getting 40% of 5 million a year for example, Id be pretty motivated.

I'm saying it's too low all things considered. You're making it sound like they should tailor it for the permille of permille that actually make big money off of those videos.

Why does it need to solely be financial motivation? There should be some non-financial interest in doing them anyway.

Sure. I mean some people make music or write books for fun. Some people even make video games for a hobby. Why do you think we still protect those so that people can get money off their creation if they so wish?

 

[KojiKnight]

Excuse me, I just woke up so I probably should have worded that better. But I was under the impression that the majority of the videos taken down don't even generate any revenue to begin with for the creator. Or is that not the case?

Owners of the original content have their choice of taking down a video, or allowing others to continue to share the content but with advertisements on it for them.

(edit) To give examples, Nintendo initially closed down videos it content matched. Then they allowed videos to come back up if they took all of the profits. Currently, I have several capcom "tagged" videos that Capcom has put ads on (haven't played a Capcom game since on my channel). They could just as easily have default it to remove them or disable audio or just about anything else.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Excuse me, I just woke up so I probably should have worded that better. But I was under the impression that the majority of the videos taken down don't even generate any revenue to begin with for the creator. Or is that not the case?

The original owners of the videos were complaining because they couldn't make money off of the videos (i.e. put ads on them).

 

[wildfire]

What? "Fair use" is when someone renounces to get any revenue by using copyrighted material, which in some ruling systems permits to not pay royalities.

No you are mistaken. Fair Use is biased towards non-profits but it does also take into consideration commercial ventures but is much stricter about it.

 

[TimmiT]

Extra sales are not guaranteed here. The only thing that's guaranteed here is money for the video creator. And for games as publicised (generally) as Nintendo's, any extra sales YouTube videos generate is likely very slim.

Hell, I'd argue it's more likely this is a way of giving anything at ALL to the developers/publishers. (Not that they need it, but shit, it IS their game.)

True, but then wouldn't it be that the people who would buy the game already bought it anyway? Then what would Nintendo lose from someone using gameplay from a game like Smash Bros or Mario Kart 8 in a Youtube video? I doubt that someone wouldn't want to play either of those games just because they can watch someone play it instead.

I can understand that they could lose sales from people who buy games for the story rather than the gameplay. So in the case where the game has a heavy story focus, I think the affiliate program would be fair. But seeing how most Nintendo games are more about gameplay than story, I'm not sure if their intention would be to use it for videos about games like that.

 

[Baron Aloha]

Owners of the original content have their choice of taking down a video, or allowing others to continue to share the content but with advertisements on it for them.

(edit) To give examples, Nintendo initially closed down videos it content matched. Then they allowed videos to come back up if they took all of the profits. Currently, I have several capcom "tagged" videos that Capcom has put ads on (haven't played a Capcom game since on my channel). They could just as easily have default it to remove them or disable audio or just about anything else.

OK. I completely missed out on the "allowing them to come back" part. I just remember them wiping everyone out because they weren't getting a cut and some folks being like "a cut of what?".

 

[Haunted]

I don't know if I was a youtuber I would just stop doing Nintendo content.

Well, that's certainly what happened to some degree.

Here's a fairly solid and comprehensive article back from when this whole Content ID mess started.

Pertinent soundbites by popular YTers:

For those companies that have a problem, we will see video makers move away from them. It makes sense for publishers to be YouTube-friendly because this is where the eyeballs are. If they want people looking at their product without them having to spend money on advertising then YouTube is the best place to do that.

It will certainly do some damage in the short term. Once YouTube clears up the mountain of crap that they have made for themselves we might see some changes. A lot of these channels survive on the basis of the personalities of the presenters and not on the games they are playing. They will show games from people who do want their games shown. I can imagine a shift towards indie games and so those guys are probably rubbing their hands with glee right now because these channels are no longer covering the big dudes.

In the future I will be more likely to cover games that have an express monetization approval. A lot of content creators are saying the same.

We [YouTubers] don't want to risk spending hours making a video that might end up making money for someone else. We move pretty quickly, which is why those companies that have a more open policy have been very aggressive about contacting content creators and offering to help out.

Correct me If I'm wrong but Sony and MS or any 3rd party doesn't do this.

That's not quite correct, Microsoft has a problem with monetisation (particularly Bungie and Halo stuff), similar to Nintendo. Capcom, Rockstar, S-E, Sega, SNK all don't want monetisation and participated in that Content ID sweep.

Sony's fine with it, as are Codemasters, Blizzard, Valve, Riot, EA (though they've tried to exert some control over their YT coverage, not via Content ID but by contracting popular YTers with specific instructions - shady stuff) and most indie companies. Those are just off the top of my head, I don't know if there's a proper list floating around somewhere.


I think particularly Blizzard has gotten a ton of positive word of mouth by being so open about people streaming and making videos of Hearthstone.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

.... Now remove region lock and we can all be friends again.

and make it so purchases are tied to an account, and make an eshop website, and make gba VC on the 3ds , and ....

Anyway, its a good start i guess

 

[Hot Coldman]

True, but then wouldn't it be that the people who would buy the game already bought it anyway? Then what would Nintendo lose from someone using gameplay from a game like Smash Bros or Mario Kart 8 in a Youtube video? I doubt that someone wouldn't want to play either of those games just because they can watch someone play it instead.

I can understand that they could lose sales from people who buy games for the story rather than the gameplay. So in the case where the game has a heavy story focus, I think the affiliate program would be fair. But seeing how most Nintendo games are more about gameplay than story, I'm not sure if their intention would be to use it for videos about games like that.

Generally speaking, I agree that's it's wildly unnecessary to assert control over games like Nintendo likes to make. I think it's daft. Like you say, no-one's going to substitute buying, say, A Link Between Worlds just because they can "watch" it on YouTube.

Here's the reality though: this shit is happening. I figure the discussion needs to happen from a place of what the current trends are and what is the best way to act in light of that. I figure you get that as well, but it's worth mentioning, because I know that it's easy to wax lyrical about how noodly Nintendo's policies regarding the community can be. So in that context, the one where Nintendo isn't going to suddenly just leave YouTubers to it, the affiliate program seems pretty strong in terms of a nice compromise between content creators and Nintendo.

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

and make it so purchases are tied to an account, and make an eshop website, and make gba VC on the 3ds , and ....

Anyway, its a good start i guess

They already are since the unification of 3DS and Wii U accounts.