I see nothing wrong with Mahjong getting a cut of the ad revenue.
People calling them "greedy" are just silly. It's not like they would just pocket the money. A good majority of it would go into the company, making their games better. And what's wrong with a 5-10% cut? That would mean a ton of money for the company, and not too much off each consumer. These videos get a TON of views. This could potentially employ a person at their studio.
This might be a good PR move, but skimming a little off the top for a game they created is hardly a slimy move, especially when Youtube themselves offered it to them. Also, they don't need PR. Mahjong/Notch is almost universally loved.
Youtube is now showing itself as a more visible player in these events. It used to just be all about Nintendo and Let's Players before.
He is not a greedy @sshole and instead a practical man. Why importunate the community for some pennies, when they are promoting your game for free?Does "It was tempting" mean he didn't do it? Why?
Who watches lets plays for the game and not the personalities playing them? They don't have any extra effort to make the actual video content, just whats in it. Should clothing companies get an extra cut when someone wears their shirt in a youtube video?
Minecraft has sold millions and is very popular. Accepting the deal - from a business point of view - would have earned him a lot of money with minimal drawbacks in terms of image and no drawbacks at all in terms of actual sales.He is not a greedy @sshole and instead a practical man. Why importunate the community for some pennies, when they are promoting your game for free?
It's a mixture of both. I watch Dunkey Youtube videos when he does League of Legends videos. I don't watch him when he plays other games.
Same with Pyrion Flax and DotA2. I don't watch him play FTL or anything else.
As much as it would annoy the fans I would've personally done it as a businessman. The fans would get over losing a cut of their profits if it meant more money towards making Minecraft an even better game.
Minecraft has sold millions and is very popular. Accepting the deal - from a business point of view - would have earned him a lot of money with minimal drawbacks in terms of image and no drawbacks at all in terms of actual sales.
The point is they're not losing anything by these videos being up. No one isn't not buying a game because they can watch some other jackass be loud and annoying and fail over them playing it. People like Achievement Hunter make a full-time job out of it, and they'd lose tons of money that is generated solely through their hard work.
Wasn't the deal about Mojang taking a share of the money (not all of it) though?I bought 4 copies of minecraft because of the Achievement hunter lets plays. It costs Mojang nothing in advertising dollars, and they sold 4 full priced copies of the game because of it. I definitely would not have bought that if I knew they had to pay out to Mojang or if they didn't make the videos at all because it was making someone else money.
They're already net positive with these videos, anything else is just being greedy or in the case of Nintendo, desperate.
They're losing potential profit
Wasn't the deal about Mojang taking a share of the money (not all of it) though?
Potential income stream. Don't be difficult.How
what
how is that a thing
its not profit if its potential. You don't say you lost money because people didn't buy your thing.
Youtube gets 95% of the ad revenue, partner gets 5%. What part do you think is going to be split to go to the IP owner?
I don't know.How
what
how is that a thing
its not profit if its potential. You don't say you lost money because people didn't buy your thing.
Youtube gets 95% of the ad revenue, partner gets 5%. What part do you think is going to be split to go to the IP owner?
There would be consequences if losing the money that went to Mojang meant it was no longer worth it to do full-time Minecraft videos. I can't say whether that is the case, but what do you think is a bigger threat to Mojang? Passing up a pile of cash or messing with the people who sustain their community? The safe bet is sticking with what is making them money right now, if you're a risk-taker you would have taken the Youtube money
Potential income stream. Don't be difficult.
From what? People don't buy the game because they can watch the yogscast instead? And I'm being difficult?
Again, how come Youtube hasn't approached American Eagle to give them ad revenue from videos where Adam Sessler is wearing their shirt with the logo clearly visible? I wonder if PSY has to lose out on thousands for wearing his 60 dollar sunglasses.
It's fucking crazy.
I never said that, although I'm sure that goes through some heads. You can't compare someone wearing a shirt in a video to someone talking about a game and making massive profits off your game. Am I saying that they DESERVE the money? No. All I'm saying is that I can see why a company would want a cut when someone is using their product (and pretty much their product alone) to make money, and that a small cut could actually be pretty beneficial to a company as small/moderately sized as Mahjong. Maybe it's because they're still somewhat indie (although one could argue that, too). If it was Sony or Bungie wanting a cut I don't know if I'd be as sympathetic towards them making money off user's uploads.
All I'm saying is I don't see it as slimy, wrong, or unethical. At least in this case. And that's my opinion.
You're not saying anything. You're saying they lost potential money because someone made a funny video featuring their video game. You're not saying how they miss out on money? It wouldn't exist without them talking about it. I mean jesus, even small scale indie devs should thank their lucky goddamn stars if AH decides to play their game. They'll get 1 million views and it wont cost them a cent.
Mojang didn't take the offer, Nintendo did. Presumably a whole lot of other people were approached, in a somewhat inane move by Youtube to alienate their content creators even further. They really like trying to fix things that aren't broken over there.
The core concept of this idea is so crazy I cant help but laugh. Having to pay someone to advertise their game and drive interest in it. Insane.
If youtube doesn't touch the money that goes to the uploaders, then thats different. If they're willing to miss out on some of that money they should just give it to the uploaders anyway.
Look, as much as you're ranting, you must see that this was the completely right away to approach the deal. Even Notch admits as much in this tweet.
Some will want the free advertisement, some won't.
If they want to go the copyright infringement route, I say let them and see what happens. If uploading gameplay without permission becomes against the law, negative game reviews will cease to exist and lets plays will become audio only. A company would be stupid to do anything but encourage it. Games that have built in broadcasting will flourish, and backwards ass companies will wither and die as they try to grasp at money they don't deserve.
Look, as much as you're ranting, you must see that this was the completely right away to approach the deal. Even Notch admits as much in this tweet.
Some will want the free advertisement, some won't.
I think Minecraft is big enough to where that wouldn't be too big of a consequence and even then this would only stop/limit the people who make money off of their Minecraft vids.
Heres why.I don't understand why Youtube is actively going to them.
It's like getting paid for someone else to do work advertising your game for you.
Rooster Teeth would be fucked, and I know I buy like 1 in 3 games they play because I saw them play it.
This is 100% retarded. Didn't Nintendo agree to this?
Oh wait, good thing Nintendo doesn't have any fuckin games to advertise. Not going to be missing out on all the Let's Plays people wouldnt be doing anyway.
Notched asked them not to swear due to young children, they did anyway, notch was upset, yogcast said minecon was crap and complained notch didn't pay for the whole group to fly to the event (only 3 of the 6 or something like that).
No, I was assuming it would be the video creator that gets his/her share of the profit split.They definitely should get all the (non-youtube) revenue, that's beside the point.
Youtube gets the lions share of the profits from ads as it is, you think theyd cut out their chunk to give to the IP owner?
As far as I know (could be wrong), YouTube takes a 45% cut right off the top from all ads on its site. Then if you're partnered with one of the big networks (necessary for a lot of gaming channels that want to monetize) that company typically takes ~25% of your earnings. And if Notch were to take a 25-30% cut or whatever there's just not much earnings potential for the uploader.
Rooster Teeth have a deal with Microsoft for years now.
It is also fun and fosters commmunity spirit... but the only reson businessmen care is because it is "free advetising."
This world sometimes man...
Whats unique about Nintendos shareholders compared to shareholders of every other AAA developers/platform holder?
Why isnt EVERY publicly traded developer doing it?