# Do you agree with Nintendo's Creators Program?



## WiiCube_2013 (Feb 5, 2015)

​There's been a lot of criticism towards Nintendo's Creators Program but honestly it is their content and they own it so there's nothing wrong demanding to get a cut on those who use their products for their videos.​​After all, we as customers own a license to play video games rather than actually owning them so that's something that no one can change or deny (it says on the T&Cs).​​Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft/Sega/etc made the game and you're playing it so if anyone's entitled to be paid for it are the owners of it but luckily they're allowing you to get paid for it and perhaps even make a living off of it, so they're actually being quite reasonable.​​Link to the Nintendo's Creators Program: https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/guide/​​Here's a video if you'd rather just watch it:​​​
​I entirely agree with Inside Gaming & PewDiePie, too.​


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 5, 2015)

I support the program 100% BUT I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT!
Why you may ask? Like it or not Nintendo has 100% right to police their videos on YT.
It's just what other companies in music and video do. Either way I do think its OK that they do it although I'm not fond of it either


----------



## chavosaur (Feb 5, 2015)

To me, I just don't get the sense in it. 

You have a company that makes billions of dollars annually, versus a couple of sweaty grown men making a tiny bit of money off of uploading some videos for people's entertainment. 

I get they have a right to their content, but what the hell is the point really? Its free advertisement for their game, and other companies have never had a problem with their games being played in video, and having people make money off of it.


----------



## FireGrey (Feb 5, 2015)

Well the way i see it, is that it doesn't effect the videos that I watch (which are shit anyway).
What those videos that i'm not watching are doing now though, is they are making nintendo money, which means they have more money.
More money means they can spend more on stuff like R&D.
Overall this is a pretty good thing, fuck the lets players.


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 5, 2015)

chavosaur said:


> To me, I just don't get the sense in it.
> 
> You have a company that makes billions of dollars annually, versus a couple of sweaty grown men making a tiny bit of money off of uploading some videos for people's entertainment.
> 
> I get they have a right to their content, but what the hell is the point really? Its free advertisement for their game, and other companies have never had a problem with their games being played in video, and having people make money off of it.


I think what there issue is that since someone gets money by using some of thier then they should be entitled to some of said money.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Feb 5, 2015)

No....no and...uhm No.

While I've never done a Nintnedo Lets Play (a few DS reviews a couple years back) this is only going to screw the little ones

most youtubers that are famous which have VERY HIGH watch audience (over a million or more) don't need Nintendo to maintain their channel. They just won't cover their games and tell them to eat shit


----------



## Black-Ice (Feb 5, 2015)

chavosaur said:


> To me, I just don't get the sense in it.
> 
> You have a company that makes billions of dollars annually, versus a couple of sweaty grown men making a tiny bit of money off of uploading some videos for people's entertainment.
> 
> I get they have a right to their content, but what the hell is the point really? Its free advertisement for their game, and other companies have never had a problem with their games being played in video, and having people make money off of it.


 
Things are getting tough so they're looking to get money from anywhere possible


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Feb 5, 2015)

On one hand I agree, on the other I don't.

First I don't think all these guys who make a living off LPs and stuff are going to be bursting in tears because they're not getting money. Yeah, there's struggling LPers, but the ones who do REALLY well (like PewDiePie) are filthy rich. His net worth is in the millions at the moment and literally all he needs is a decent computer, a mic, and some capture and editing equipment. It's not like he has a huge production value on his videos either but he's making tons of money for something that isn't really work.

It's like if I took Lord of the Rings, edited together some of the scenes, and put it Youtube, should I get paid for it? I mean I edited it but the whole work of the film was done by someone else. I'm just kinda riding their coattails at this point.

On the other hand, I think it's just poor business. I'm not going to watch someone play Super Mario Galaxy and find no need to play it myself. Games are interactive, you want to interact with them. It's free advertising and trying to take a cut out of it is discouraging this. I mean I've seen some indie devs give a demo of their game to a LPer for some free press. Like I loathe Game Grumps but Shovel Knight was given to them for free press. How many people own now Amnesia: The Dark Descent because of all the LP videos on Youtube?

Plus the companies already make profit from the games, especially Nintendo when it comes to some stupidly high-selling franchises (like most Mario games). They don't exactly need the extra revenue.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Feb 5, 2015)

Black-Ice said:


> Things are getting tough so they're looking to get money from anywhere possible



the Wii U has failed more than the GameCube and has sold 50% less than what the kiddie purple console did. 


desperate times call for dick moves.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 5, 2015)

Absolutely not. It punishes people for making Nintendo-based content, plain and simple. Either you get warns even if you're complying with fair use or you lose a significant chunk of your ad revenue and have to tailor your content around Nintendo.

The end result is that practically no one is going to feature Nintendo products. We're not just talking about Let's Plays here (even though that's still generally protected). The Co-Optional Podcast got one of their 2 hour long videos taken down because they played the trailer for one of the new Pokemon games in the background as they discussed how much they were playing it. Angry Joe has recently received DMCA takedowns and warnings for his reviews. Now both of them have moved away from Nintendo for fear of jeopardizing their livelihoods. Whatever you think about their content (I'm not a fan of Angry Joe and I don't sit through every one of the podcasts or anything like that), these programs and others reach an audience of millions, and Nintendo is actively denying themselves free promotion.

I could at least get it if other companies had similar programs, but as far as I can tell, not one other big publisher has anything like what Nintendo is trying to pull. They just don't seem to understand or trust the internet, and it's hurting them, especially as Youtubers and other "e-celebs" amass more and more pull and traditional gaming publications wither out.

Nintendo, not liking the game everyone is playing, wants to take the ball and go home, but it doesn't seem to realize that there's still hundreds of other balls lying around and everyone's going to keep playing with or without them.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Feb 5, 2015)

and i'm sure that only specific videos that praise Nintendo products will be accepted.

and it's only specific games....any game not in that list will be treated as if no program exists.

Imagine if Minecraft or league of lulz pulled this shit. its popularity wouldn't be a a TENTH of what it is today


----------



## Hells Malice (Feb 5, 2015)

Nintendo is just hurting itself and proving once again just how out of touch it is with todays society.
Honestly i'm starting to imagine a boardroom of a couple dozen 80-90 year old men waving their canes around talking about the kids and their internets. They don't have a fucking clue what they're doing anymore.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Feb 5, 2015)

Hells Malice said:


> Nintendo is just hurting itself and proving once again just how out of touch it is with todays society.
> Honestly i'm starting to imagine a boardroom of a couple dozen 80-90 year old men waving their canes around talking about the kids and their internets. They don't have a fucking clue what they're doing anymore.


 

I heard online that they have an ancient board of mainly old people and the others don't get to decide. So the stereotypical Asian chairman on the other side of the table waiting to be impressed isn't too far off.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Feb 5, 2015)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> and i'm sure that only specific videos that praise Nintendo products will be accepted.
> 
> and it's only specific games....any game not in that list will be treated as if no program exists.
> 
> Imagine if Minecraft or league of lulz pulled this shit. its popularity wouldn't be a a TENTH of what it is today


Nintendo's been around for 125 years and they're literally swimming in money so they don't have to worry about it really, and besides, Minecraft didn't have the popularity as Nintendo has had for many years.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Feb 5, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Nintendo's been around for 125 years and they're literally swimming in money so they don't have to worry about it really, and besides, Minecraft didn't have the popularity as Nintendo has had for many years.
> 
> *snip*


 

Nintendo also had a draconian hold on 3rd party developers in the 80's for many many years, stating that if a developer made a game for the NES they were banned from making it for any other console for 3-5 years. It's why Atari's 7800 and TurboGraphix failed. Developers were not allowed to go with the little guys if they wanted to work with the big N. Not in a timely fashion anyway







Hells Malice said:


> Honestly i'm starting to imagine a boardroom of a couple dozen 80-90 year old men waving their canes around talking about the kids and their internets. They don't have a fucking clue what they're doing anymore.



Like this?? I'm sure this is how Nintendo's Boardroom decisions are made xD





But sir! the Internet! it's a new way of advertising for free!


----------



## Nightwish (Feb 5, 2015)

It's bullshit, and it's only making people have less exposure to Nintendo games.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (Feb 5, 2015)

stanleyopar2000 said:


> Nintendo also had a draconian hold on 3rd party developers in the 80's stating that if a developer made a game for the NES they were banned from making it for any other console for 3-5 years. It's why Atari's 7800 and TurboGraphix failed. Developers were not allowed to go with the little guys if they wanted to work with the big N. Not in a timely fashion anyway
> 
> I'm sure this is what Nintendo's boardroom looks like XD


 
Well, Atari fucked itself with those awful console revisions and the PC Engine? Not many owned it because it cost $400 and the Nintendo consoles were cheaper so obviously the customers went for the more affordable price.

So yeah anyway, a boardroom with Nintendo members discussing a game about mechs? Oh, I'm totally in for that! Guess it's why Project Guard and Project Giant Robot are a thing. I've been wanting a proper mech game for years and haven't had it so perhaps Project Guard/Robot will be it for me.

Bandai Namco's also going to release a Godzilla game for PS3/PS4 and thankfully it's Godzilla 100% unlike that boredom movie from 2014.


----------



## stanleyopar2000 (Feb 5, 2015)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> Well, Atari fucked itself with those awful console revisions and the PC Engine? Not many owned it because it cost $400 and the Nintendo consoles were cheaper so obviously the customers went for the more affordable price.
> 
> So yeah anyway, a boardroom with Nintendo members discussing a game about mechs? Oh, I'm totally in for that! Guess it's why Project Guard and Project Giant Robot are a thing. I've been wanting a proper mech game for years and haven't had it so perhaps Project Guard/Robot will be it for me.
> 
> Bandai Namco's also going to release a Godzilla game for PS3/PS4 and thankfully it's Godzilla 100% unlike that boredom movie from 2014.


 

ignore the robots xD i'm stating the fact that the others have little to no input and are just there to fill the seats agree with the only one in charge who is the only one who has any say

and I agree....the other's were more expensive especially dat CD Addon xD


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 5, 2015)

It is an awful lot more lenient than the law typically defaults to so there is that, though I do note they made no effort to mention the notions of reviews/criticism, satire and the like (though given the legendary grey market advice).

On the other hand I can not see this as anything other than cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I now have to wonder if this is more grasping at straws than just not understanding the times.


----------



## shinkodachi (Feb 5, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> I think what there issue is that since someone gets money by using some of thier then they should be entitled to some of said money.


 
This is an interesting discussion because you mentioned music videos in your previous post and I agree 100% that artists/labels should control such content. However, a music video is just that: a music video. In the case of a Let's Play video there's copyrighted material from Nintendo, the gameplay footage, but also the interaction from the player often accompanied with commentary, which is original content. Nintendo certainly can't control *how* someone plays their games, but they can control if that gameplay is shown, which is discriminating towards players who upload their videos online. In addition, if there's commentary, that's original content that the player can copyright if necessary, which Nintendo can't control.

It's really not a clear cut issue, but I understand the views from either sides of the pond. I just think Nintendo is hurting themselves more than they are helping with the draconian actions they're taking.


----------



## Tiffani (Feb 7, 2015)

I don't think they should do it, as I find these videos irrelevant to the bottom line of these game companies, but I really wish people would stop with the "free advertising" stuff. The number of people who decide to buy a game because they saw a Let's Play about it is infinitesimally small. I'm not saying it doesn't happen of course, but it's a very small number. 
When people watch these Youtube videos they're mostly watching for the personalities. And that's exactly why I don't watch them because there's apparently a Youtube rule that says you have to act like an annoying spazzy douche in your videos. My tastes aside, though, the subject of the video is irrelevant as you're there to watch how the personality reacts to the game. It's like MST3000, it doesn't matter what crappy movie they're watching, you're there to see them tear it down.
I strongly disagree with any game company taking this stance, though, because there's no negatives. There's only positives. The positives are very small, but they're positives nonetheless. The biggest positive is that you avoid negative PR. This won't affect Nintendo in any noticeable way, no one is going to boycott Nintendo because of this program, just as no one would rush out and buy Nintendo products just because they're featured in a LP. It's a waste of time and energy for Nintendo to do this.


----------



## Vipera (Feb 7, 2015)

As someone who has no respect for the lazy asses who play games as "a job" and copy everything from the ones who came there first and discovered a goldmine, Nintendo can do whatever they want.

Their games were supposed to be played, not as a tool to make money. They never intended the users to make money off their products so easily. There is nothing creative about playing a game and going "HURR THE SKY TEMPLE LOOKS LIKE A VAJAJA LOL".

The uproar of these "hard workers" demonstrate how they don't give a fuck about the games they are playing and shows how they are doing this just for the money, even if they keep repeating "it's a passion". Well then, why would you mind if a percentage goes to the developers you are ripping off?

Disgusting.


----------



## shinkodachi (Feb 7, 2015)

Vipera said:


> Disgusting.


You could say that about many things, but the fact is that not all Let's Play producers make such content. If all you've ever seen is PewDiePie, I understand how you feel about that. But the fact that someone big like PewDiePie, whether you like him or not, is stepping up to say what he thinks, helps other Let's Play producers get the message out there.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 7, 2015)

The thing that troubles me is that if I read that correct, ALL the revenue goes to nintendo (well...except the part that youtube itself holds back), and they decide to share it with the maker of the video. That sets the incentive to restrict what is said in that video if the maker actually wants to get payed for actually making the video (what was that in the video about only having to say nice things?).

I'm all in favor of nintendo (or anyone who actually MADE a game, movie or whatever is the actual subject of the video) getting a percentage of any revenue that comes of it...but in return, they really should give those guys/girls all the freedom to say what they want without it possibly resulting in receiving less add money.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Feb 7, 2015)

Nintendo still has kinks to iron out regarding the program, but I think the LPers are going way overboard with this.

Whether you hate this person or not, he makes some valid points regarding these LPers.


----------



## shinkodachi (Feb 7, 2015)

DiscostewSM said:


> Nintendo still has kinks to iron out regarding the program, but *I think the LPers are going way overboard with this*.
> 
> Whether you hate this person or not, he makes some valid points regarding these LPers.


You know, I've watched that video and he says in the video that most people who complain about Nintendo's program aren't even making videos. Are you sure your comment reflects only Let's Play producers and not such people?


----------



## TecXero (Feb 7, 2015)

All it means is Nintendo punishes youtubers for advertising their products for free, so there will be plenty of youtubers that avoid them all together. I have to wonder if Nintendo simply misunderstands Youtube and its users. Even EA and Ubisoft aren't pulling this crap.


----------



## shinkodachi (Feb 7, 2015)

TecXero said:


> All it means is Nintendo punishes youtubers for advertising their products for free, so there will be plenty of youtubers that avoid them all together. *I have to wonder if Nintendo simply misunderstands Youtube and its users*. Even EA and Ubisoft aren't pulling this crap.


You know, this situation is in a way a flashback to when Nintendo banned Smash Bros. Melee from being played in tournaments. The backlash was huge and now they have taken steps to be nicer about it (going as far as sponsoring Apex 2015). But it begs the question if there was no backlash, just where would we be with Nintendo's draconian thinking? It's free advertising first and foremost, but more importantly Let's Play videos and reviews and videos about Nintendo games in general potentially bring Nintendo more sales.

I often base my purchase decisions on what someone says about a game in a video, especially if I've subscribed to that person's videos before and trust their opinion. Now if there are less videos around, that means Nintendo is potentially losing sales. I know lots of others like to watch gameplay footage first before buying a game especially if there's no demo available as is the case for most Nintendo games currently.


----------



## TecXero (Feb 7, 2015)

shinkodachi said:


> You know, this situation is in a way a flashback to when Nintendo banned Smash Bros. Melee from being played in tournaments. The backlash was huge and now they have taken steps to be nicer about it (going as far as sponsoring Apex 2015). But it begs the question if there was no backlash, just where would we be with Nintendo's draconian thinking? It's free advertising first and foremost, but more importantly Let's Play videos and reviews and videos about Nintendo games in general potentially bring Nintendo more sales.
> 
> I often base my purchase decisions on what someone says about a game in a video, especially if I've subscribed to that person's videos before and trust their opinion. Now if there are less videos around, that means Nintendo is potentially losing sales. I know lots of others like to watch gameplay footage first before buying a game especially if there's no demo available as is the case for most Nintendo games currently.


 

Exactly. I've also noticed a lot of Nintendo's smaller eShop exclusive games don't do as well, as people just don't know about them. Normally, even smaller games have a decent presence on some channels, but with the stuff Nintendo has been pulling, they seem to avoid checking out those games all together.

Nintendo seems to have an odd idea of how their products are supposed to be experienced. They seem to have a very specific vision on how it's supposed to be experienced and anything deviating from that is wrong. We've seen it a lot in how they treat their games with options for users and especially the modding community. It seems that it's carrying over to youtube. That's not the way they want it done, so they were taking down videos. It's only after so much backlash that they tried to come up with this middle ground. Even then, it's crap middle ground and they're likely still hurting themselves to some degree.


----------



## XDel (Feb 7, 2015)

Videos are not tangible product. They are like air, they can be removed. If anything it is free promotion for Nintendo, and if anything allowing companies to say what can and can not be uploaded on the internet is a form of censorship. What if a leaked news report got out that showed that our president was a pedofile or something? Well that would be controversial, but if it were true, the public would need to know, but with Net 2 and the like, companies have the right and power to pull what ever info they want. That is not good.


----------



## shinkodachi (Feb 7, 2015)

TecXero, you're right about Nintendo hurting themselves more than they are helping. I understand and respect their views, though it seems they're in dire need of new staff to be in charge of PR. At this point in time I just don't think Nintendo has a good public image, going from lackluster Wii U news/reviews to draconian banning of their games in tournaments to screwing over YouTube content makers. Maybe what Dan Adelman said about Nintendo is true after all and we're only getting a small glimpse of the whole truth (emphasis added by me):


> In many interviews, you’ve spoken publicly about how difficult it was to pass policies and get things done at Nintendo. For example, in your Kotaku interview you said, “I absolutely did try to fight internally to change whatever I could.” In your IndieGamerchick interview, you said, “Unfortunately, it was hard to get the changes I needed because no one could hear me over the ringing of all the cash registers.”
> 
> But why was it so difficult to get things done at Nintendo?
> Is there a lot of bureaucracy, additional layers of management, and red tape?
> ...


(From the Dromble interview here: http://www.dromble.com/2015/01/21/f...os-culture-third-party-support-and-much-more/)

I believe the crappy middle ground YouTube content makers find themselves in right now is just because of how Nintendo works as a company. That is to say, nobody probably thought about this situation through to the end and it was just a result of a meeting where everyone just agreed to every proposal and someone just threw out an idea for the current program from where it snowballed and they called it a day. A typical corporation making decisions. Ugh.


----------



## TecXero (Feb 7, 2015)

[user]shinkodachi[/user] That would explain a lot. I grew up on Zelda and Metroid, so I tend to like Nintendo. Though, I think they should have a seperate PR department to handle things like Youtube. Their games, even with limited options, I tend to enjoy anyway (as long as they're not killing off my preferred franchises). I'll take limited options over games balanced around microtransaction or take DLC too far any day. It's mostly PR and their understanding of personality driven media that needs some work.

Then I can just go back to hoping for a good Metroid game or hoping they'll bring back Wario Land and F-Zero.


----------



## shinkodachi (Feb 7, 2015)

TecXero said:


> Then I can just go back to hoping for a good Metroid game or hoping they'll bring back Wario Land and F-Zero.


It's going to be cold in heaven, you might want to stack up on jackets and blankets while you wait for that to happen.  (Or ice packs, ... )

On a more serious note Nintendo's actions have made me become much more critical of them than I've ever been before. I also grew up with Nintendo games and have fond memories of the NES and so forth, but that time was then and now is now. E.g. I'm glad they announced Wii U Pro Controller support for Xenoblade X because otherwise I would've skipped that game and it's just impossible to know what's coming next with Nintendo.


----------



## TecXero (Feb 7, 2015)

shinkodachi said:


> It's going to be cold in heaven, you might want to stack up on jackets and blankets while you wait for that to happen.  (Or ice packs, ... )
> 
> On a more serious note Nintendo's actions have made me become much more critical of them than I've ever been before. I also grew up with Nintendo games and have fond memories of the NES and so forth, but that time was then and now is now. E.g. I'm glad they announced Wii U Pro Controller support for Xenoblade X because otherwise I would've skipped that game and it's just impossible to know what's coming next with Nintendo.


 
I've avoided Nintendo games before due to unintuitive and sloppy (for basic movement and actions) touch/motion controls before. I didn't even beat the DS Zelda games until an amazing modder released control mods for them. Not that there's anything wrong with liking the original controls, I just didn't like them, and it doesn't hurt to have options.

Either way, we'll see how Nintendo reacts to the backlash of their Creators Program. In the end, if it does stay, it will probably just hurt their smaller games. I doubt many youtubers will actually be hurt by it, most of them just won't do Nintendo content.


----------



## shinkodachi (Feb 7, 2015)

TecXero said:


> I've avoided Nintendo games before due to unintuitive and sloppy (for basic movement and actions) touch/motion controls before. I didn't even beat the DS Zelda games until an amazing modder released control mods for them. Not that there's anything wrong with liking the original controls, I just didn't like them, *and it doesn't hurt to have options*.


This. Why even make a separate, may I add beautiful, controller that ends up used in only some games? I don't know what others do with their Wii U GamePads, but I play games on mine and it's already starting to wear. As of yet Nintendo doesn't sell Wii U GamePads separately and if they ever will, they'll probably cost as much as a replacement does now, which is about a third of the of the cost of the Wii U itself.  That's why I try to avoid Wii U GamePad exclusive games because when that controller is done and worn, it causes you more pain in the butt.


TecXero said:


> Either way, we'll see how Nintendo reacts to the backlash of their Creators Program. In the end, if it does stay, it will probably just hurt their smaller games. I doubt many youtubers will actually be hurt by it, most of them just won't do Nintendo content.


Nintendo's loss, really. They keep shooting themselves in the foot when it comes to stuff like this.


----------



## Joe88 (Feb 7, 2015)

This will just backfire against them as usual with most of their recent decisions


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 7, 2015)

Tiffani said:


> but I really wish people would stop with the "free advertising" stuff. The number of people who decide to buy a game because they saw a Let's Play about it is infinitesimally small. I'm not saying it doesn't happen of course, but it's a very small number.



Personally I would argue it varies with game type, though that cuts the other way and there are probably those that do not care to buy/finish a game/buy the DLC if they saw it otherwise. Whether that is worth the kind of reactions we see from various companies is perhaps a different debate.
However if we are wanting to do the "? came first" thing then there are loads of mid range games that got decidedly more popular after various let's play types, popular and otherwise, decided to give them a spin where there were similarly polished examples of such gameplay styles in years prior.

From there we could probably debate whether the let's play caused a review avalanche that ultimately caused various things to end up popular. Equally just watching a few random spots of gameplay has helped me pick games before, let's plays can be a good source of it.

No doubt it is an ill considered "defence" of the practice but I am not sure it is one I can dismiss that easily.



Vipera said:


> As someone who has no respect for the lazy asses who play games as "a job" and copy everything from the ones who came there first and discovered a goldmine, Nintendo can do whatever they want.
> 
> Their games were supposed to be played, not as a tool to make money. They never intended the users to make money off their products so easily. There is nothing creative about playing a game and going "HURR THE SKY TEMPLE LOOKS LIKE A VAJAJA LOL".
> 
> ...



Wow, I really do not care for most let's play types I have seen, the concept as a whole (largely unscripted and unrefined footage of gameplay without much in the way of salient commentary if most things I have seen are anything to go by), would agree that legally they have basically no leg to stand on and would not especially care if it all went away tomorrow but that still sounds incredibly harsh.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 8, 2015)

There's something I don't get...youtube originally started as a means to upload and share video's. Later, as the site became more popular than some television stations, adds ensured that the ones who were most popular got a bit of money from it. And even lots of money if you were popular. The problem with it that was originally small, though, also got bigger: that the used content to a large degree isn't of the creator of the video. It's not that hard to just upload a part or even a complete movie, serie or music track to youtube and watch the money roll in. Except that doesn't happen, as the owners rightfully wave copyright claims at me.

Why would video games be different? Let's plays are fundamentally different than reviews, critiques or other kinds of youtube-vids where only fractions of the game are shown, but get somehow thrown on the same pile in this discussion. And I really don't agree to that.

-the "free advertisement" shit is doubtful at best. Reviews and critiques may help a good game sell better, but let's plays? I've seen let's plays consisting of multiple hours (seen as in 'seen the description'. Not watched them entirely). Are we really to believe that people watching all that, see all the spoilers and gameplay, are going to go out and buy that game afterwards? I don't think so. It's the same case as with movies: show too much of it and people won't buy it anymore.
-this is a relatively new phenomenon. I kind of wonder how cocksure everyone is in their conviction that this is a failed marketing move by nintendo. I'm open to suggestions as to why, but thus far, nobody seems to be able to tell why that would be (in fact, nobody even seem to mention that at least they're not hindering anyone from uploading video's anymore).
-I don't watch let's plays, but it wasn't hard to see that most of them revolve around AAA-titles. In other words: the games that would've sold good anyway. Even more: due to the lack of decent third party titles, pretty much all that's left to do let's plays on are about titles of already very known and established franchises. And it's not like the sales of those titles will go up if there are many let's plays floating around.
-finally: do people follow let's players or rather the actual game being let's played? I would think the latter. So let's say there are 10 let's players in total. 9 of them are disgusted by ninty's policy and do stuff on other franchises. The tenth does a let's play and gets half the money. But because not that many people make these let's plays, he'll end up with more hits (and thus more money). So in the end, it scares away those who only do let's plays for money. And it may be black-and-white'ish, but...how exactly is that a bad move?


----------



## Smuff (Feb 8, 2015)

They need to protect the status quo where 1% of the world's population owns more than the other 99% put together.
It's called capitalism, and it sucks.
Even ardent supporters of it must wonder how this can be considered "fair" in any way.


----------



## TecXero (Feb 8, 2015)

[user]Taleweaver[/user] I don't watch Let's Plays either, but I don't see them as harmful. If a person gets all that he wants from a game through a Let's Play, I doubt he wanted to play it bad enough to buy it in the first place. Story heavy classic JRPGs I can see being a problem, since they are just all story. Other than that, though, I'd argue that games are transformative, they differs depending on the player. It can be interesting to see how a favorite personality plays differently and makes different choices than you. They also tend to be more personality driven. People are rarely there for the game, but for the person playing them.

I have noticed smaller games blowing up, seemingly due to Let's Players checking them out. I've also seen some of Nintendo's smaller games fall quickly into obscurity, seemingly due to lack of coverage from youtubers. That's mostly speculation, I have nothing to back that up and I'm not exactly a person that pays attention to what's popular. AAA games will sell, anyway, so I doubt they are hurting if they actually do manage to lose some sells due to Let's Plays.

Unfortunately, youtube Reviewers tend to get lumped in with Let's Players in Nintendo's eyes. That's a concern as it could be abused to censor criticism. In the end, Nintendo content probably won't be as profitable for youtubers as other content, be it reviewers/critics or Let's Players, so they just won't be covered as much. The only ones that will really hurt from it are youtubers that exclusively do Nintendo content and maybe Nintendo themselves. It just seems silly to me that it's Nintendo doing this, not EA or Ubisoft.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 8, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> There's something I don't get...youtube originally started as a means to upload and share video's. Later, as the site became more popular than some television stations, adds ensured that the ones who were most popular got a bit of money from it. And even lots of money if you were popular. The problem with it that was originally small, though, also got bigger: that the used content to a large degree isn't of the creator of the video. It's not that hard to just upload a part or even a complete movie, serie or music track to youtube and watch the money roll in. Except that doesn't happen, as the owners rightfully wave copyright claims at me.
> 
> Why would video games be different? Let's plays are fundamentally different than reviews, critiques or other kinds of youtube-vids where only fractions of the game are shown, but get somehow thrown on the same pile in this discussion. And I really don't agree to that.
> 
> ...



Reviews and critiques (and satire/parody*1 and eduction) would be exemptions from copyright though so that does change things a bit. From what I have seen most people seem to be using some kind of nebulous "but they have to do work on top of it" kind of argument, one that has precisely zero basis in most IP law. Copyright would seem to be the main thing companies are using, though some have dabbled with some trademark stuff for some aspects of it (I reckon Microsoft's recent policy on the matter has a lot of trademark stuff underpinning parts of it -- http://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules if you had not seen it). Let's plays would not seem to be part of that, at least not by default. "fractional amount" means surprisingly little in IP law, though I would agree that if you potentially have to justify each use then it would be easier to justify if you did not have the lot there -- there is nothing to say a critique has to be shorter than the work in question or can not cover the entire work, the key word for most of that side of law would be transformative, something I agree most let's plays are not.
In the original Nintendo vs let's play threads I made comments to the effect of "end of the gravy train" or "the wild west has been tamed" and I stand by them here. That said I would have been content to have it remain as something of a legal grey area.

*1 was not in some (many?) EU states until later last year, had been in the US for a while.

Let's plays as advertisement is probably a whole discussion unto itself. Alas the only real marketing/sales data I have seen shared for games was the demos make sales go down idea ( http://www.pcgamesn.com/jesse-schell-releasing-demo-harms-your-game-sales ). However similar things are studied in films, TV and books, possibly with some analysis for piracy ( https://torrentfreak.com/director-won’t-think-less-of-you-for-downloading-on-bittorrent-080116/ is an example and torrentfreak has endless examples of similar things from various directors/producers/people responsible for such works).
The main thing seems to be it very much varies with your projected audience and the relative budget/reach of your work. Various high end things being troubled and a lot of low-mid range stuff often being boosted. Now I am hesitant to link things too heavily if games are supposedly still going to be getting the vast majority of their profits within the first few weeks of release (even if I hold that to be an accounting scheme a la Hollywood accounting most of the time, especially in this time when everything is available as a downloadable game rather than just a select few staying on shelves, or returning to shelves as a greatest hits).
With games you say about spoilers and that does seem to change the attitude devs take on a per game basis -- seeing someone play minecraft for four hours is probably not going to spoil it for me, seeing someone play through some story based game without choices may do this, or at least sate me until I see it in a bargain bin three years from then/it has a nice GOTY edition the next year.
To this end AAA, even more than my usual issues with the term, may not be that useful a description here, not to mention I am not sure how many of them revolve around this categorisation.
There have been various games that rose to prominence after let's plays were done, because a handful of the people doing them were popular*, whether that is because of that, because they formed part of a grass roots effort or utterly in spite of that remains to be debated.
On the flip side I have seen let's players where the players were exhibiting what I can only describe as infomertial levels of stupidity (on top of being painfully unfunny) and trademark law does include such lines as "general public likely to be confused". If certain types are likely to see your work cast in a negative light then it might be worth sacrificing this for the greater good.

*I do not know how much you know of slightly older UK radio but there was a DJ called John Peel, being played on his show meant a lot more than most other things you could do. There are similar examples of such people in all sorts of other areas, even today with culture/entertainment being as unfocused/diverse as it is compared to previous decades. The term behind it being "tastemakers", however I am not sure it is the most fitting here.

"do people follow let's players or rather the actual game being let's played?"
I covered part of that in the previous paragraphs but I think this might be an example of the internet loving its "fairness", all while completely misunderstanding the concept.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 8, 2015)

Smuff said:


> They need to protect the status quo where 1% of the world's population owns more than the other 99% put together.
> It's called capitalism, and it sucks.
> Even ardent supporters of it must wonder how this can be considered "fair" in any way.


 
What the hell are you on? You're so caught up in slogan-speak that you even forget to mention which side you're defending: the "noble gaming industry vs the egoistic let's play-ers who mooch off of the work of the thousands of game developers"...or rather the "small enterprising youtube-community who attempts to make a living doing something they love but get thwarted by an evil corporation who claims control of their revenue in order to spice up the bonus of their CEO" ? 



TecXero said:


> If a person gets all that he wants from a game through a Let's Play, I doubt he wanted to play it bad enough to buy it in the first place.


That's the same argument as pirates bring up: "I only care for the game if it's free; otherwise I would've pirated bought something else". The thing is that if let's plays are brought up as reasons for publicity, it's important to understand that they suck all the interesting parts of discovery/narrative out of it.
Also...it's pretty hard to have a completely unique kind of gameplay, so I wouldn't dismiss it as easily. If you know that the gameplay is akin to a game you already know and like, why would you buy another game with those elements if the main differenting factor (the story) is already revealed?



TecXero said:


> Story heavy classic JRPGs I can see being a problem, since they are just all story. Other than that, though, I'd argue that games are transformative, they differs depending on the player. It can be interesting to see how a favorite personality plays differently and makes different choices than you. They also tend to be more personality driven. People are rarely there for the game, but for the person playing them.


It's well more than JRPG's. Most games have some sort of narrative to it, not to mention choices and branches in a different direction. I admit that on let's plays, things may unfold very different than when you're the one playing, but I'm not sure if they're mainly watched for the person playing rather than the game.
(it would seem logic to me that those interested in let's plays go around and subscribe to a whole bunch of them, and when a game comes out they like, go check whom has a let's play on it).



TecXero said:


> I have noticed smaller games blowing up, seemingly due to Let's Players checking them out. I've also seen some of Nintendo's smaller games fall quickly into obscurity, seemingly due to lack of coverage from youtubers. That's mostly speculation, I have nothing to back that up and I'm not exactly a person that pays attention to what's popular. AAA games will sell, anyway, so I doubt they are hurting if they actually do manage to lose some sells due to Let's Plays.


Just out of curiosity: which ones would that be? No matter what title I come up with, "let's play <insert wiiu game>" easily provides me with hours of content. Most likely not by the more famous youtubers, but it both supports your case (games get picked up by mention of famous persons) as undermines it (the coverage IS there).



TecXero said:


> Unfortunately, youtube Reviewers tend to get lumped in with Let's Players in Nintendo's eyes. That's a concern as it could be abused to censor criticism. In the end, Nintendo content probably won't be as profitable for youtubers as other content, be it reviewers/critics or Let's Players, so they just won't be covered as much. The only ones that will really hurt from it are youtubers that exclusively do Nintendo content and maybe Nintendo themselves. It just seems silly to me that it's Nintendo doing this, not EA or Ubisoft.


 
As I've told earlier, the ones sticking by nintendo aren't exclusively worse off. Those who watch let's plays by famous youtubers aren't going to watch a second one, so it could be an opportunity for those guys to become more popular.

I'll admit I'm also surprised that nintendo is the first in doing this. Perhaps sony and (especially) MS are too afraid of the backlash it could cause, but EA is the kind of company that does everything for money despite what their customers want. Strange...


----------



## Smuff (Feb 8, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> What the hell are you on? You're so caught up in slogan-speak that you even forget to mention which side you're defending: the "noble gaming industry vs the egoistic let's play-ers who mooch off of the work of the thousands of game developers"...or rather the "small enterprising youtube-community who attempts to make a living doing something they love but get thwarted by an evil corporation who claims control of their revenue in order to spice up the bonus of their CEO" ?




I'm sorry....... You ask me what *I'm* on and then proceed to write that drivel ?  

What the fuck is "slogan-speak" ? What "slogans" did I "speak" ?

My point is an indisputable fact, widely reported by the worlds press recently.

It also fits with the "greedy corporation ripping off the little guy" point in your reply.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 8, 2015)

Smuff said:


> My point is an indisputable fact, widely reported by the worlds press recently.


 
Which is exactly my problem: you blindly parrot headlines of the press says without even noticing nobody of said press talks about nintendo getting a share of the content their employees deliver.


As to which slogans:

"They need to protect the status quo"

Do you even know what "status quo" means in this situation?

1% of the world's population owns more than the other 99% put together

Those numbers are about people, not companies. But even then: nintendo isn't in that top tier segment to begin with.

It's called capitalism, and it sucks.

Get to know the difference between "capitalism" and "free market". And while you're at it, think as to how this hollow statement has anything to do with this situation.

Even ardent supporters of it must wonder how this can be considered "fair" in any way.

The very fact that I can spin this statement into two opposite directions show how meaningless it is.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 8, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> -the "free advertisement" shit is doubtful at best. Reviews and critiques may help a good game sell better, but let's plays? I've seen let's plays consisting of multiple hours (seen as in 'seen the description'. Not watched them entirely). Are we really to believe that people watching all that, see all the spoilers and gameplay, are going to go out and buy that game afterwards? I don't think so. It's the same case as with movies: show too much of it and people won't buy it anymore.


 
Various games have gotten boosts from Let's Plays. This is most obvious with horror games; Amnesia, Slender, etc. exploded thanks to exposure from PewDiePie, Markiplier's playthrough of the original Five Nights at Freddy's gave that game a huge boost, etc. Though not exactly a Let's Player, developers have come out and thanked TotalBiscuit for sales jumps after coverage in his WTF Is... series. PewDiePie alone has a subscriber base of 34 million loyal viewers, and an average video of his may get 3-4 million views in a day. Publishers are even putting quotes from him on the box art of games (Dying Light, for example). We may hate PewDiePie's content just the same, but you can't tell me that you don't see the huge marketing potential right there. 

Watching someone play a game and actually playing it for yourself are two very different things. The advantage of a Let's Play is that it lets people see how a game works before they plunge down the money themselves. Extremely plot-focused games/QTE-fests might benefit the least, it's hard to say, but it's not like Nintendo makes that to begin with. 



Taleweaver said:


> -this is a relatively new phenomenon. I kind of wonder how cocksure everyone is in their conviction that this is a failed marketing move by nintendo. I'm open to suggestions as to why, but thus far, nobody seems to be able to tell why that would be (in fact, nobody even seem to mention that at least they're not hindering anyone from uploading video's anymore).


 
Then you haven't read the thread, because reasons have already been given. To sum up the biggest concern, Nintendo's system is by far the most restrictive; no other publisher has anything remotely similar to this. This (plus the stupidly high cut from ad revenue, the lengthy approval process, etc.) are going to encourage content-makers to avoid Nintendo products and cover other games instead. This is not in Nintendo's best interest.

Another concern is that this will also impact reviews. It seems that reviews of Nintendo games, with footage of the games, will still be subject to this approval process. Not only is this kind of shady (Is Nintendo going to approve negative reviews? Will there be pressure on reviewers to soften their criticism for approval?), the wait time is going to hurt, too. Reviews thrive on timeliness; people want to know as soon as a game is out if it's good or not. If you have to wait to be approved, customers are losing out on valuable information. Again, this will encourage reviewers to focus on other titles where they can put out content as soon as they can produce it. 



Taleweaver said:


> -I don't watch let's plays, but it wasn't hard to see that most of them revolve around AAA-titles. In other words: the games that would've sold good anyway. Even more: due to the lack of decent third party titles, pretty much all that's left to do let's plays on are about titles of already very known and established franchises. And it's not like the sales of those titles will go up if there are many let's plays floating around.


 
You clearly didn't look hard enough. Let's Plays of AAA-titles certainly can help those titles, and the AAA's recognize this (publishers will send AAA titles to Let's Players, like TwoBestFriendsPlay or PewDiePie, sometimes well before release). It might not make-or-break a title, but good word of mouth is nothing to scoff at. Personally, I find it helpful to see how an upcoming title plays before plopping down $60 on what may be an overstuffed turd. I wouldn't have bought Wolfenstein: The New Order otherwise, for example.

The other big thing, though, is that Let's Plays of independent titles is huge, and the impact there is significantly more pronounced. Again, look at Amnesia, Slender, Five Nights at Freddy's, etc. Exposure from a major channel can be the difference between success or failure for these titles.

Mario might not need a Markiplier playthrough to be a hit (though, again, extra exposure to the 34 million kids that watch PewDiePie certainly wouldn't hurt), but as others have mentioned, it might do wonders for smaller e-shop titles that would otherwise languish in obscurity.



Taleweaver said:


> -finally: do people follow let's players or rather the actual game being let's played? I would think the latter.


 
Actually, for a lot of people, it's the former. PewDiePie's got 34 million subscribers and almost 8 billion views, Markiplier's got almost 6 million subscribers and 1.6 billion views, etc. If it was solely on a game-by-game basis, these channels wouldn't maintain their consistent popularity. You and I might go about it differently, but there's tons of viewers that will watch and want to buy whatever their favorite Youtuber is playing.



Taleweaver said:


> So let's say there are 10 let's players in total. 9 of them are disgusted by ninty's policy and do stuff on other franchises. The tenth does a let's play and gets half the money. But because not that many people make these let's plays, he'll end up with more hits (and thus more money). So in the end, it scares away those who only do let's plays for money. And it may be black-and-white'ish, but...how exactly is that a bad move?


 
The problem is that Nintendo's cut is so extreme (especially considering it's already on top of the cut already taken by Youtube and the networks channels are connected to), unless the viewcount is astronomically high, it'd still be in a Youtuber's best interest to cover other content. With the market as saturated as it is right now, there's no shortage of other games for people to cover; in the end, this just hurts Nintendo more than anything else.

Also... I've seen a lot of disdain for "people in it for the money," but... what's the problem there? These people depend on the revenue of their videos so they can focus entirely on producing more content. If people are interested enough and watch a channel enough to keep its creator afloat, that benefits everyone. Can't we be okay with, or at least, apathetic to, others' successes? Of all the flavors in the world, why would you choose salty?


----------



## Smuff (Feb 8, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> Which is exactly my problem: you blindly parrot headlines of the press says without even noticing nobody of said press talks about nintendo getting a share of the content their employees deliver.
> 
> 
> As to which slogans:
> ...


 
1.I have an A-Level in Latin - I think I know what "status quo" means - in any situation 

I was going to answer all your questions individually but then realised what a waste of my time that would be so I decided to answer them all rolled into one.

You, sir, are a prize prick 

You are clearly correct in everything you say.

I am clearly in error here and cannot apologise enough.

Now kindly fuck off and stop bothering me


----------



## Nightwish (Feb 8, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> That's the same argument as pirates bring up: "I only care for the game if it's free; otherwise I would've pirated bought something else".


 
And you've failed to point out how either of them is false in your little false equivalence there.



> why would you buy another game with those elements if the main differenting factor (the story) is already revealed? (...)
> It's well more than JRPG's. Most games have some sort of narrative to it, not to mention choices and branches in a different direction.


If anyone is playing (most) games for their story, they're have no clue what a good story is.



> (it would seem logic to me that those interested in let's plays go around and subscribe to a whole bunch of them, and when a game comes out they like, go check whom has a let's play on it).


And you'd be wrong, again.



> Just out of curiosity: which ones would that be?


Compared to Let's Plays of EU4, CK2, Binding of Isaac, CIV4 & 5, Banished, ..., they have very little.


----------



## TecXero (Feb 8, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> That's the same argument as pirates bring up: "I only care for the game if it's free; otherwise I would've pirated bought something else". The thing is that if let's plays are brought up as reasons for publicity, it's important to understand that they suck all the interesting parts of discovery/narrative out of it.
> Also...it's pretty hard to have a completely unique kind of gameplay, so I wouldn't dismiss it as easily. If you know that the gameplay is akin to a game you already know and like, why would you buy another game with those elements if the main differenting factor (the story) is already revealed?
> 
> It's well more than JRPG's. Most games have some sort of narrative to it, not to mention choices and branches in a different direction. I admit that on let's plays, things may unfold very different than when you're the one playing, but I'm not sure if they're mainly watched for the person playing rather than the game.
> (it would seem logic to me that those interested in let's plays go around and subscribe to a whole bunch of them, and when a game comes out they like, go check whom has a let's play on it).


I wouldn't compare it to piracy, as with piracy you're directly experiencing the game. Even with all the homebrewing I do, I'm against piracy. With a Let's Play, you can't guarantee that the player will explore all the dialogue options or the entire world. You also can't guarantee he/she won't. Maybe he/she will take a different branching path than you. This is the big gray area. Big AAA games, I'm not too concerned about, it's generally smaller games when it comes to Let's Plays. FTL: Faster Than Light is a great example of this. People watch Let's Plays of it, not necessarily for the game, but to see their favorite personality go up against randomly generated content and see how he/she reacts. I've also noticed some people use Let's Plays for Walkthroughs when they get stuck.



Taleweaver said:


> Just out of curiosity: which ones would that be? No matter what title I come up with, "let's play <insert wiiu game>" easily provides me with hours of content. Most likely not by the more famous youtubers, but it both supports your case (games get picked up by mention of famous persons) as undermines it (the coverage IS there).


Dillon's Rolling Western and Crashmo, for example. I'm not saying they did poorly or that they don't have their fans, just that they seemed to quickly fall into obscurity and there generally aren't quality Let's Plays for them. Even the reviews for those are sparse.



Taleweaver said:


> As I've told earlier, the ones sticking by nintendo aren't exclusively worse off. Those who watch let's plays by famous youtubers aren't going to watch a second one, so it could be an opportunity for those guys to become more popular.


 
Back when I had roommates, they had a couple of games they absolutely loved. They would watch Let's Plays of the same game from different youtubers. Now, that isn't exactly that relevant as it was just two people, they already loved and owned the games in the first place (so that wouldn't have hurt Nintendo in any way), and if there was only one decent Let's Play of the game on the entire youtube site, it still would have benefited that one youtuber. The only people that would have been hurt in that situation, to a minor degree, would have been my roommates.

In the end, I doubt it will really hurt that many youtubers. The program itself probably won't hurt Nintendo that much either, probably just their small games. If it does hurt Nintendo, it will be because of the bad PR this is generating. The only youtuber I know of that does a lot of Nintendo Let's Plays is Chuggaaconroy. Even then, I do believe he's been transitioning away from Nintendo content.


----------



## BenRK (Feb 10, 2015)

I think everyone is in the wrong here.

On one hand, Nintendo has every right to do this, but on the other, they're not explaining it well.

On one hand, letsplayers have been doing this for years, but on the other hand, Pewdiepie really is just a whiny idiot and I never understood why people think watching others scream all the time is funny.

I think something people forget is that a lot of the popular people on YouTube actually make their money through networks. These networks work out deals with publishers, and it's why people like the Game Grumps can have most of their videos be Nintendo ones and still make money.

I think that this is more to cut out the middle man then anything. I can't say I'm an expert, but if I had to guess, I would imagine going through a network gives you a smaller cut then going directly through Nintendo. Only time will tell, but I have a feeling this new program will allow more people to at least make some spending money.

However, Nintendo REALLY needs to expand on the list from "Here's a select few titles and none of the popular ones," to "EVERYTHING EVERYTHING!" I want to say that the list is that small only because they're still working out the kinks of the system. I want to say that, but I can't be sure.


----------



## shinkodachi (Feb 10, 2015)

BenRK said:


> On one hand, Nintendo has every right to do this, but on the other, they're not explaining it well.


Everyone has rights. Exercising a right every chance you can is not necessarily the best way to go about things.


----------



## BenRK (Feb 11, 2015)

shinkodachi said:


> Everyone has rights. Exercising a right every chance you can is not necessarily the best way to go about things.


 

You would be foolish to think that Nintendo is the ONLY one doing this. ALL major publishers are doing this in one form or another, Nintendo is just one of if not the first to do it publicly. And since when has exercising ones right a bad thing? Only when it inconveniencesyou?


----------



## Gahars (Feb 11, 2015)

BenRK said:


> You would be foolish to think that Nintendo is the ONLY one doing this. ALL major publishers are doing this in one form or another, Nintendo is just one of if not the first to do it publicly.


 
Except that's literally false. The closest thing you have are networks (like Polaris, for example), which cover numerous Youtubers under their umbrella. From what I understand, they promote these channels and provide them general legal protection. They do take a cut of ad revenue, as does Youtube, but the problem here is that a) what Nintendo's asking for is quite large, percentage wise, b) it seems to be on top of the already present cuts, which is even worse, and c) its limitations and stipulations are pretty damn restrictive.

There's no conspiracy to bully Nintendo here, and deliberately misunderstanding this situation to support some sort of persecution complex is a waste of energy. If you like Nintendo, then you should be especially critical of their missteps so that they improve. Blind acceptance of any poor decision is going to hurt them in the long run.


----------



## BenRK (Feb 11, 2015)

Right, because me trying to play devils advocate is me being an uber fanboy. I was simply trying to show another side of the coin instead of being "LETS HATE NINTENDO CAUSE ITS POPULAR TO DO SO!"

I fricken mentioned networks, and I don't think either of us have any real first hand knowledge to say how much of a cut they take, but from my understanding, 70/30 is better then what networks provide.

I REALLY want to hear someones opinion who deal with networks all the time rather then people repeating popular opinion.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 11, 2015)

BenRK said:


> Right, because me trying to play devils advocate is me being an uber fanboy. I was simply trying to show another side of the coin instead of being "LETS HATE NINTENDO CAUSE ITS POPULAR TO DO SO!"





BenRK said:


> *You would be foolish to think that Nintendo is the ONLY one doing this. ALL major publishers are doing this in one form or another, Nintendo is just one of if not the first to do it publicly.*


 
That's not playing devil's advocate, that's blatantly misrepresenting the current environment with the networks. The networks support a wide umbrella, from AAA titles to the tiny indies, not just one or a handful of companies.



BenRK said:


> I fricken mentioned networks, and I don't think either of us have any real first hand knowledge to say how much of a cut they take, but from my understanding, 70/30 is better then what networks provide.
> 
> I REALLY want to hear someones opinion who deal with networks all the time rather then people repeating popular opinion.


 
Well, sure, we can look to someone who does.



Even in the most favorable light (and remembering the 50% split taken by Google), this is still a worse deal because it constrains the restricts the channels to certain Nintendo content and/or considerably longer "approval" times, whereas competing channels can cover a wider range of games without having to sit on a waiting list.


----------



## BenRK (Feb 11, 2015)

Gahars said:


> Even in the most favorable light (and remembering the 50% split taken by Google), this is still a worse deal because it constrains the restricts the channels to certain Nintendo content and/or considerably longer "approval" times, whereas competing channels can cover a wider range of games without having to sit on a waiting list.


 

First off, I also have little respect for Totalbiscut, and I don't get why he would be complaining as I don't recall him ever covering Nintendo stuff.

In any case, I NEVER said it was perfect, and I seem to recall that what they're doing now is them trying to refine it, figure out what works and what doesn't. An alpha or beta test or whatever you want to call it. I agree, them approving videos smells fishy at best. I don't know how they would be able to manually do it and it opens up issues such as approving only videos that portray the games in a completely positive light. I get that and certainly hope it is something that is ironed out.

At the end of the day though, this isn't something that will effect 99% of us personally beyond OH NO people will stop screaming at Nintendo games, now how will I fill my laugh at screaming idiot quota!? (No, I don't have a high opinion of lets plays)


----------



## TecXero (Feb 11, 2015)

BenRK said:


> First off, I also have little respect for Totalbiscut, and I don't get why he would be complaining as I don't recall him ever covering Nintendo stuff.


 
The point of Content Patch is gaming news and his opinion on it. TotalBiscuit is nowhere close to being perfect, he admits that himself. What he does do is be honest and willing to share his point of view as someone that relies on Youtube. Yeah, he doesn't do Nintendo content, for the most part, but he does explain why it's not exactly desirable for any Youtuber. You may not like TotalBiscuit, which is entirely up to you, but if you want the perspective of a Youtuber on this program, I'd recommend giving it a listen.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 11, 2015)

BenRK said:


> First off, I also have little respect for Totalbiscut, and I don't get why he would be complaining as I don't recall him ever covering Nintendo stuff.


 
...Because he's a) covering this as part of his news program, b) familiar with the network system and able to convey criticisms from that perspective, and c) because he has friends/colleagues/peers who will be affected by this new policies.



BenRK said:


> In any case, I NEVER said it was perfect, and I seem to recall that what they're doing now is them trying to refine it, figure out what works and what doesn't. An alpha or beta test or whatever you want to call it. I agree, them approving videos smells fishy at best. I don't know how they would be able to manually do it and it opens up issues such as approving only videos that portray the games in a completely positive light. I get that and certainly hope it is something that is ironed out.


 
Considering the details of the program, I'd say "refinement" is too nice a word. Demanding huge cuts from fans and constraining their fans to certain content at a time when no other companies have anything remotely comparable and the general trend is loosening restrictions (Microsoft revising their policy, publishers giving Let's Players early access to new titles, etc.) is pretty regressive. It's either blatant money-grubbing or proof that Nintendo is that out of touch with the current online environment.



BenRK said:


> At the end of the day though, this isn't something that will effect 99% of us personally beyond OH NO people will stop screaming at Nintendo games, now how will I fill my laugh at screaming idiot quota!? (No, I don't have a high opinion of lets plays)


 

You don't have to be impacted by something to be critical of it. I don't make Let's Plays and I don't really watch them unless I'm just looking to see how a game plays before I make a purchase. I don't even like wide swaths of Let's Players but that doesn't meant they shouldn't be able to keep making their content or should be subjected to unfair terms.

Besides, whether or not we like them, Let's Players have an undeniable presence right now; PewDiePie, of all things, is one of (if not the) most viewed channels in Youtube. In terms of marketing and promotion, they can be huge (and in the case of smaller titles, they can be everything). In the end, Nintendo is only hurting itself; while there's plenty of other titles in the market for Let's Players to choose from, Nintendo is chasing away a free source of promotion. Mario might not need the extra push, though it certainly wouldn't hurt, but there's plenty of smaller e-shop titles on the Wii U languishing in obscurity, and every little bit could help.


----------



## Vipera (Feb 12, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Wow, I really do not care for most let's play types I have seen, the concept as a whole (largely unscripted and unrefined footage of gameplay without much in the way of salient commentary if most things I have seen are anything to go by), would agree that legally they have basically no leg to stand on and would not especially care if it all went away tomorrow but that still sounds incredibly harsh.


I just find very irritating how these people act like they are entitled to money for riding a fad and get pissed when the original creators demand a part of their unfair earnings. It's toxic how someone who makes a fool of himself on camera/a hot chick playing games can learn much more than the developers who made that game. It's a big "fuck you" to the market, and unless it's regulated, or unless people learn to fucking PLAY a game instead of watching it, we will soon have less people who get interested into a developer career because hey, why would I want to study to make my 3D model when some teenager can make 10x more money just by mocking it?

The internet is filled with people trying to make money easily out of nothing. Before YouTube partnership and Android, people used to do stuff because they ENJOYED it. How many homebrews do we have for the 3DS and how many we used to have on the DS? But now people demand to be paid, even for half-assed crap on Android that's filled with ads. When I had an Android phone, I wanted to download a shitty Tic-Tac-Toe game. You know what I found? SHAREWARE TIC-TAC-TOE GAMES LOL! And one guy who offered it for free. So I downloaded it and... ads on the homescreen. Nice, fucking nice. People got greedy.

So yes, pardon my harshness, but I feel incredibly angry by this situation. My gaming and porno tastes are the same: homemade is better. But how would you feel if homemade stuff nowadays is full of fakers who do it just for the money? I can't even find good hackroms anymore because you can't really make money out of it.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 12, 2015)

Vipera said:


> I just find very irritating how these people act like they are entitled to money for riding a fad and get pissed when the original creators demand a part of their unfair earnings. It's toxic how someone who makes a fool of himself on camera/a hot chick playing games can learn much more than the developers who made that game. It's a big "fuck you" to the market, and unless it's regulated, or unless people learn to fucking PLAY a game instead of watching it, we will soon have less people who get interested into a developer career because hey, why would I want to study to make my 3D model when some teenager can make 10x more money just by mocking it?
> 
> The internet is filled with people trying to make money easily out of nothing. Before YouTube partnership and Android, people used to do stuff because they ENJOYED it. How many homebrews do we have for the 3DS and how many we used to have on the DS? But now people demand to be paid, even for half-assed crap on Android that's filled with ads. When I had an Android phone, I wanted to download a shitty Tic-Tac-Toe game. You know what I found? SHAREWARE TIC-TAC-TOE GAMES LOL! And one guy who offered it for free. So I downloaded it and... ads on the homescreen. Nice, fucking nice. People got greedy.
> 
> So yes, pardon my harshness, but I feel incredibly angry by this situation. My gaming and porno tastes are the same: homemade is better. But how would you feel if homemade stuff nowadays is full of fakers who do it just for the money? I can't even find good hackroms anymore because you can't really make money out of it.



"I just find very irritating how these people act like they are entitled to money for riding a fad and get pissed when the original creators demand a part of their unfair earnings"
I have always operated under the idea that nobody owes you a living and would agree in principle there. Equally many of those whining seem to have no clue how this stuff works in the real world but I can not get anywhere near finding it intolerable to earn from it. Later you say about regulation and that is very much not the key to solving whatever problems that are faced here, or at least not additional regulation over what already exists.

"It's toxic how someone who makes a fool of himself on camera/a hot chick playing games can learn [sic?] much more than the developers who made that game"

I think that is very much the exception rather than the rule. Equally I do not want to go too far down this path but I am sure there are some reviewers, satirists and the like doing far better than some of the people that made the works they are looking at. Now review/criticism and satire are two big exceptions to copyright's protections and I have previously argued a simple let's play is not likely to fall under that but it is not worlds apart.

"The internet is filled with people trying to make money easily out of nothing"

There have always been vanity presses, there have always been kit magazines, there have always been rebundlers, there have always been those willing to lean on an import hookup or some capital to buy in bulk, the whole android as whatever thing to me is just the return of bedroom coders -- the C64, amstrad, amiga... era had no end of bedroom/garage based companies, when that went away there was the whole premium rate phone number shareware thing (and you better believe there was endless amounts of tat that was attempting to be sold, screensavers were always popular for some reason) and now we are back somewhere between the two. Most of those are considered legitimate businesses/enterprise.

"we will soon have less people who get interested into a developer career because hey, why would I want to study to make my 3D model when some teenager can make 10x more money just by mocking it"

I could go back to the exception thing but that might be more of a symptom of other issues -- as every kid that wanted to make games would jump at the chance to do it the equivalent salaries in the games industry, though I do not have the greatest respect for most modern game coder types, is far lower than the equivalents elsewhere, to say nothing of the lack of career progression options.

"I can't even find good hackroms anymore"
I would then say you are not looking hard enough. It has been a while since we have seen the likes of Dragoon X Omega II but there are still those doing very good work. Likewise I do not see an especially big distinction between hackers and many mod makers for PC games.

"or unless people learn to fucking PLAY a game instead of watching it"
Watching gameplay is not what floats my boat* but neither is listening to opera and plenty of people seem to enjoy that. To that end I do not have a problem with it.

*I have tried to find it a few times and have thus far failed but there was a Simpsons episode once where Bart went round their god squad neighbours and hogged their games machine, he said they could watch as they were "playing as a team", at which point the other kids said "yay". That sums up the whole let's play thing to me.

Edit Found it.



 
http://download.lardlad.com/sounds/season11/maude14.mp3
Rod & todd- Can we play now?
Bart- you are playing, we're a team!
*they look at each other*
Rod & Todd- YAY!


----------



## TemplarGR (Feb 12, 2015)

The truth is, Nintendo is right on this issue. Which is astonishing, since they are usually wrong in everything lately.

Gameplay footage is still copyrighted material. Nintendo owns it, whether you like it or not. You never purchase the game itself, you are purchasing a *licence* to play it. In *private*. When you share the game in public, and you gain money from it, you are breaching the EULA. And the law...

It is not legal for Pewdiepie and company to make millions of ad revenue simply by playing a game other sweated to create. Sorry. It is not *right* either. It is not moral.

You may argue as much as you want that viewers like the people and not the games, but try to remove gameplay footage and see how many views they will have left...

All this revenue they make, should go to the devs of said games, in order for them to make better games in the future. Not some moron with plenty of free time and a camera.


----------



## gudenau (Feb 12, 2015)

I agree with this, I like how it is getting handled. If you do not care about the income then why bother, but if you need it then you can have it.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 12, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> The truth is, Nintendo is right on this issue. Which is astonishing, since they are usually wrong in everything lately.
> 
> Gameplay footage is still copyrighted material. Nintendo owns it, whether you like it or not. You never purchase the game itself, you are purchasing a *licence* to play it. In *private*. When you share the game in public, and you gain money from it, you are breaching the EULA. And the law...
> 
> ...


 

I can't speak for the EULA, but in the USA we have something called Fair Use. It's supposed to protect people who use copyrighted material in certain contexts, like reviews (so you can show footage from a movie you're reviewing), education (so you can share something with a class), etc. Fair Use also protects "transformative works," where you use some already extant thing and turn it into something entirely new. Let's Plays are arguably covered under this classification; since gameplay is such an integral part of a video game, footage with commentary would be transformative enough to be protected.

That's the legal argument for it, anyway. There's certainly room for disagreement, neither side has taken this to court. What's important to note is that every publisher besides Nintendo has accepted it as valid and allow for this content to be made; many publishers even outright encourage it.

You say that developers should be paid for the hard work, and I certainly agree, which is why I support Let's Plays even if I don't care for them much myself. LP's can be powerful promotional tools, especially for smaller titles, and it's something that the developers/publisher don't even have to pay for. There are a plethora of games that would have languished in obscurity if some Youtube personality hadn't exposed them to an audience of millions (look at the explosion in popularity that Amnesia enjoyed after PewDiePie and others faffed about in it). Even big games can benefit from the boost.

By demanding a cut of the relatively paltry ad revenue and turn away huge sources of publicity and exposure, it seems that Nintendo can't see the forest for the trees, which is made all the worse by the fact that (as noted before) no other company has this problem.

It's also worth pointing out that this policy doesn't just inhibit Let's Plays. Even if we agreed that Let's Plays have absolutely no standing whatsoever, review content is completely, unambiguously legitimate and that's still hurt by this policy. They're subject to all the same terms and conditions, and giving Nintendo control over what's allowed to be posted, and who's allowed to be paid... it's a conflict of interest, to say the least.

Plus, we're on a website with a pretty healthy following of pirates. Let's not go throwing stones over what's "moral" in this sort of situation.


----------



## TemplarGR (Feb 12, 2015)

Gahars said:


> I can't speak for the EULA, but in the USA we have something called Fair Use. It's supposed to protect people who use copyrighted material in certain contexts, like reviews (so you can show footage from a movie you're reviewing), education (so you can share something with a class), etc. Fair Use also protects "transformative works," where you use some already extant thing and turn it into something entirely new. Let's Plays are arguably covered under this classification; since gameplay is such an integral part of a video game, footage with commentary would be transformative enough to be protected.
> 
> That's the legal argument for it, anyway. There's certainly room for disagreement, neither side has taken this to court. What's important to note is that every publisher besides Nintendo has accepted it as valid and allow for this content to be made; many publishers even outright encourage it.
> 
> ...


 
Nope. You are wrong.

Fair use isn't about what Let's players are doing. You got it all wrong.

And certainly playing the whole game is not about fair use.

Trust me, if there was even the slightest legal window to confront Nintendo, rich Let's Players would have done that. They are rich enough to hire a good lawyer...

Let's plays are not reviews. Nintendo isn't after reviews, it is after unfair use of their ip and products.

Also, your argument about exposure is pure bullshit. Are you a 12 year old that got brainwashed by PewDiePie and gang? For what is worth, the only time i watched let's plays was when i didn't want to  pirate buy the game and waste my time on it and just wanted to see what the fuss was all about. For example, i watched a Last of Us 6 hour "movie" version instead of playing it, since all i wanted was the story. Sony didn't make money from me... I didn't even want to pirate the damn game, it was boring. I just liked the cutscenes...


----------



## Vipera (Feb 12, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> I have always operated under the idea that nobody owes you a living and would agree in principle there. Equally many of those whining seem to have no clue how this stuff works in the real world but I can not get anywhere near finding it intolerable to earn from it. Later you say about regulation and that is very much not the key to solving whatever problems that are faced here, or at least not additional regulation over what already exists.


What would a solution be for you, then? IMO we need regulations because large group of people are notorious to ruin nice things. If Kickstarter allowed more Potato Salad entries, we'd have the whole site filled with """jokes""" (there has to be another name for something dumb that's not funny).



FAST6191 said:


> I think that is very much the exception rather that the rule. Equally I do not want to go too far down this path but I am sure there are some reviewers, satirists and the like doing far better than some of the people that made the works they are looking at. Now review/criticism and satire are two big exceptions to copyright's protections and I have previously argued a simple let's play is not likely to fall under that but it is not worlds apart.


Reviewers are much different than a player. It's like comparing an essay to someone reading a book out loud. They serve the purpose of saying what they think about a game and warn others about it, without spoilers. They can act dumb as much as they like, as long as it's pertinent to the game (it's still not funny 99% of the times, but eh, it's legit).



FAST6191 said:


> There have always been vanity presses, there have always been kit magazines, there have always been rebundlers, there have always been those willing to lean on an import hookup or some capital to buy in bulk, the whole android as whatever thing to me is just the return of bedroom coders -- the C64, amstrad, amiga... era had no end of bedroom/garage based companies, when that went away there was the whole premium rate phone number shareware thing (and you better believe there was endless amounts of tat that was attempting to be sold, screensavers were always popular for some reason) and now we are back somewhere between the two. Most of those are considered legitimate businesses.


I'm taking the dude I paid not long ago to send me the full copy of Treasure Island Professional over some random idiot who spent 5 minutes on PC to make a Tic-Tac-Toe game. Programming something back then was an experience, and it's infinitely easier to do it now on Android than decades ago. I was able to make my own shitty app on Windows Phone that took me no more than 5 minutes once I got used to the commands (no, it's not available. It was a test app).
There weren't many copycats either. Yes, there were some Pac-Man clones who had the balls to be shareware, but they were isolated cases and they were nuked by the original creators, most of the times. It's not about "the game" anymore, it's "the profit", and this is what every Indie developer swore to God to have never taken part of.
Lol, I completely forgot about the trauma those stupid wallpaper/ringtone sellers were. Quite the scam, yes. But I despised them more than I despise everything else on this world and I'm glad it's a dead market now. I remember TV Ads asking something like 5€ weekly to have ONE wallpaper/Ringtone, most of the times being a famous song high-pitched enough to say "hey look it's Andy the duck who sings 10 seconds of Britney Spears!". Burn in hell and never return.
On the other hand, I still have somewhere a copy of a 2004 phone magazine that had a huge section dedicated to Palm games. Except some idiotic choices of design (a Terminator game where you had to buy ammo with real money to keep playing and some stupid 9/11 game) they were mostly good. And if they weren't good, they were at least cheap. But I clearly remember them all being creative and ad-free. Maybe some had a sponsor showing up when you opened the game, but it was a still-image. Like the developer logos when you start a game.
What do you have now? They are mostly P2W games, using the same formula over and over. There are no ideas, just money-grabbing.



FAST6191 said:


> I could go back to the exception thing but that might be more of a symptom of other issues -- as every kid that wanted to make games would jump at the chance to do the equivalent salaries in the games industry, though I do not have the greatest respect for most modern game coder types, is far lower than the equivalents elsewhere, to say nothing of the lack of career progression options.


 
Again, just look at how people take advantage of the weak part of the community, knowing they are going to spend thousands for P2W stuff. I miss good DLCs, at least they are honest-to-God ways of enlarging the game by earning something more. Better than "pay 150Eur and get a box full of red coins".



FAST6191 said:


> I would then say you are not looking hard enough. It has been a while since we have seen the likes of Dragoon X Omega II but there are still those doing very good work. Likewise I do not see an especially big distinction between hackers and many mod makers for PC games.


I'd be grateful if you could direct me to any major Rom hacking site that's still active. The ones I used to know are dead or not as much active as before. And I prefer platform hacks rather than RPGs.



FAST6191 said:


> Watching gameplay is not what floats my boat but neither is listening to opera and plenty of people seem to enjoy that. To that end I do not have a problem with it.


Listening to Opera is different than watching someone play a game. Operas aren't intended to be played by everyone, games are. If you watch a Let's Play either you don't want to bother with the ungodly amount of difficulty/dead points of the game (while still preserving the "Player effect" a Speedrun can't give) or you are a pretty lonely person who is afraid of playing something by yourself, fearing people might consider you a loser. And before somebody ask no, most of the Dark Soul Let's Plays aren't made for the former.


----------



## Hells Malice (Feb 12, 2015)

Taleweaver said:


> -the "free advertisement" shit is doubtful at best. Reviews and critiques may help a good game sell better, but let's plays? I've seen let's plays consisting of multiple hours (seen as in 'seen the description'. Not watched them entirely). Are we really to believe that people watching all that, see all the spoilers and gameplay, are going to go out and buy that game afterwards? I don't think so. It's the same case as with movies: show too much of it and people won't buy it anymore.


 
It depends entirely on the game, however things like TotalBiscuit's "WTf is..." series have gotten me to buy probably DOZENS of games I probably never would have even thought I would have.
Minecraft is a huge example as well, I guarantee a very large chunk of its popularity is attributed to the insane amount of youtube content that game sees.
If a game looks fun, people will probably buy it if they can. I've bought plenty of games I watched that looked fun.



Taleweaver said:


> -this is a relatively new phenomenon. I kind of wonder how cocksure everyone is in their conviction that this is a failed marketing move by nintendo. I'm open to suggestions as to why, but thus far, nobody seems to be able to tell why that would be (in fact, nobody even seem to mention that at least they're not hindering anyone from uploading video's anymore).


 
It's not that people haven't explained, you're just too ignorant to look past your own misguided and uninformed opinion of Let's Plays and their impact on the gaming industry. Let's Plays are very much free money, especially for a non-story driven game developer like Nintendo. Nothing Nintendo makes is ruined by watching it. Thus Nintendo is basically refusing free ad revenue, because big youtubers who make videos for a living wont touch any of their games with a 100ft stick, thus losing Nintendo free advertising for their games. A lot of big youtubers do actually stay away from story driven games BECAUSE any LP of them will be the exact same, thus potentially losing views. If a person has two people playing the same game in their sub box and it's story driven, they will likely pick their favorite to watch. Youtubers know this, and that's why they tend to avoid them.
Also i'm not sure you could call something thats been going on for quite a few years now 'relatively new'.



Taleweaver said:


> -I don't watch let's plays, but it wasn't hard to see that most of them revolve around AAA-titles. In other words: the games that would've sold good anyway. Even more: due to the lack of decent third party titles, pretty much all that's left to do let's plays on are about titles of already very known and established franchises. And it's not like the sales of those titles will go up if there are many let's plays floating around.


 
Yes it was quite apparent you don't watch LPs. I've got probably about 10 subs, and none of them really do AAA games. Totalbiscuit does WTF is, and one other guy does play one here and there but that's not typically where the money is for youtubers.
But it's not like it matters, when has free advertising ever been a bad thing? That's right: never. It's a known fact that popular games for Let's Players tend to also sell quite well during that period of popularity. Again I reference back to minecraft which probably would have died down a long time ago had it not been for Let's Players keeping the fires burning for a looong time. Multiplayer games in general are a staple for Let's Plays because they're always different. You could have 10 people in your sub box doing Garry's Mod, but you'll probably watch them all because every persons video will be different. Same for MOBAs and all that stuff, and things like Mario Kart.



Taleweaver said:


> -finally: *do people follow let's players or rather the actual game being let's played? I would think the latter.* So let's say there are 10 let's players in total. 9 of them are disgusted by ninty's policy and do stuff on other franchises. The tenth does a let's play and gets half the money. But because not that many people make these let's plays, he'll end up with more hits (and thus more money). So in the end, it scares away those who only do let's plays for money. And it may be black-and-white'ish, but...how exactly is that a bad move?


 
Your whole post screams moronic ignorance, but the first sentence there really, really shows just how little you actually know about Let's Play culture.
A majority of people watching Let's Plays are following the *person*. When I sub to someone I really don't give two shits what they're playing, i'll watch it for the personality. This is an incredibly common thing. This is why you subscribe to somebody, instead of simply watching the series you're after and then bouncing. You typically GO to a channel to watch a game, you STAY for the personality. A majority of views on bigger channels are from a loyal fanbase watching anything that person puts out. So if a youtuber gets a steady 200k views per video, it sure will fluctuate depending on the game but that 200k will always be there. So that means that's 200k views on a Nintendo game that might be from people who never would have sought out to watch that particular game, but did anyway because the youtuber they like decided to play it. Either they wont buy the game (and wouldn't have anyway) or they surprisingly love it and decide to buy it to play it themselves.

So tell me, how does that harm Nintendo? Lets Plays do not in any way harm sales to any significant degree. Mostly because the boost in sales makes up for any decrease it may see. Especially, again, for non-story driven games like *every single one* Nintendo makes.
The people who do youtube for money are the ones you WANT to play your game, because no one gives two fucks about the guy who gets 5k views. You want your game being watched by hundreds of thousands of people because chances are even if 1% of 100,000 viewers were to buy the game, that's a lot of goddamn sales. More than Nintendo would get leeching off of other peoples profits.
Especially mammoth channels like PewDiePie. I have no clue what his views are like, but I know they're guaranteed 1million + views. There's no money that can BUY that sort of advertising and yet they could be getting it for free, but instead choose to shoot themselves in the foot.
Nintendo are out of touch retards who are funnily enough, just as ignorant as you are on just how impactful Let's Plays can be for sales.

Which is exactly why Nintendo and you are fucking idiots.
The one thing you did well, was show probably how Nintendo's board room of 90 year old men thought out this move, by being completely ignorant and uninformed and making a horrible decision based on their own empty shell of an opinion on the subject.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 12, 2015)

Vipera said:


> What would a solution be for you, then? IMO we need regulations because large group of people are notorious to ruin nice things. If Kickstarter allowed more Potato Salad entries, we'd have the whole site filled with """jokes""" (there has to be another name for something dumb that's not funny).
> 
> 
> Reviewers are much different than a player. It's like comparing an essay to someone reading a book out loud. They serve the purpose of saying what they think about a game and warn others about it, without spoilers. They can act dumb as much as they like, as long as it's pertinent to the game (it's still not funny 99% of the times, but eh, it's legit).
> ...



Solution to what problem? Copyright does not need to be enforced like trademarks to remain valid. To that end play it how the devs/publishers will, I would view it more as free publicity though there certainly could be mitigating factors.

On joke entries then people have always had jokes at the expense of a system
Running for president
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...ld-trump-always-looked-like-a-publicity-stunt
Running for president

Amazon joke reviews...

Speaking of reviews no definition of review includes a lack of spoilers. Some embargoes do ask for a lack of spoilers at some level but that is a different matter. It may also come up in the discussion of the differences between reviews and critiques but that is a different matter.

Was that terminator buy more ammo thing a java/jme era phone game? If so I will have to look into it as I do not have many examples of early microtransactions.

"Programming something back then was an experience, and it's infinitely easier to do it now on Android than decades ago."
Basic, the language of choice during the Vic 20, C64, Amstrad, Atari... stuff from earlier kind of lives up to its name. Equally publishing is far easier now than it was 200 years ago, hell even 20 years ago and nobody should really be complaining about that. Indeed I am shocked that coding is not taught in schools the same way as native language, maths and science. Likewise vanity publishers have long existed and there are all sorts of things

ROM hacking wise I tend to only go between romhacking.net and here, platform games tend to suffer from lots of "my first go with a level editor" and it makes wading through that more than I care to do on a regular basis. Have a look for the tools and any forums attached to them or wikis with hacking info as they tend to have sites/forums attached to them (or active forums in turn link to them and will come up in search results).

"If you watch a Let's Play either you don't want to bother with the ungodly amount of difficulty/dead points of the game (while still preserving the "Player effect" a Speedrun can't give) or you are a pretty lonely person who is afraid of playing something by yourself, fearing people might consider you a loser. "

That seems like a very binary pigeon holing and so very easily dismissed, unless you want the difficulty thing to skew so far as "needing absolutely no input on my part".

Listening to opera may be different to watching gameplay, however both could still be entertainment for someone that is not me which is where that was heading. On "intended to be played" that is never something I feel the need to respect (probably a good position to be in if you are going in for the ROM hacking bit) -- nothing wrong with watching a film for its action scenes, listening to the instrumentals of a song, ignoring the race in a game and doing jumps/skids instead. Functionally I see very little difference.

Generally I have no problem with money grabbing, have never really believed anybody does anything "for the art" (it need not be money but purely for the art tends to see a reflexive derisive snort). Possible exception for when people do things for their fellow artists (few things are ever so well made as something designed to impress someone else with a similar skillset). In short go free market, you are far from perfect but I have not got anything better right now.


----------



## TecXero (Feb 12, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> Nope. You are wrong.
> 
> Fair use isn't about what Let's players are doing. You got it all wrong.
> 
> ...


 
Some Youtubers may have more Youtube money than God, but I doubt many of them are rich enough to tackle Nintendo. Even if they were, why would they bother? A lot of people that watch LPs watch them for the Youtuber him/herself. LPs tend to be personality driven content. Nintendo content will require a cut of their profits, so they'll just avoid Nintendo content and do other games. There's plenty of games out there, so they aren't hurting for them. Even LPers that exclusively did Nintendo content have transitioned away from that well enough. So in the end, it would just be a waste of time and money for LPers with very little gain.

As for the legality, that's the legal gray area right now. Until it is settled in court or the laws are updated, it will continue to be a gray area.

There have been plenty of games that have blown up from exposure. Not everyone may collectively watch LPs, but word-of-mouth becomes rather powerful after 500K+ people see it. As for myself, I've found TotalBiscuit's "WTF is..." series great for finding Indie games I wouldn't have known about otherwise. It's not exactly LPs, but it is an example of Youtube exposure.


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 12, 2015)

I think another thing to add is the difference between is Nintendo doing what it can do vs what it should do.

Nintendo has full rights to do whatever they want with their materials, including the right to take whatever % of revenue from creators. In that case I again 100% support Nintendo's program because legally they have the right to do whatever they want with the IPs they own and have the right to regulate them.

Now I understand why some people are upset and likewise they have the right to be but it doesn't change the fact that Nintendo has the rights to their products. On the subject I find the whole "well it is free advertising" idea is bs. If that was the case companies wouldn't go after non licensed merchandize or what not. I see it as Nintendo views they have a right to x amount of dollars from money being brought in from partial use of its content, which is something I believe the have every right to do.

Ultimately I don't necessarily agree with all aspects of the program but I do believe they have every right to do it. But that's just my 2 cents


----------



## TecXero (Feb 12, 2015)

RevPokemon said:


> On the subject I find the whole "well it is free advertising" idea is bs. If that was the case companies wouldn't go after non licensed merchandize or what not.


 
That's a bit different, as that's directly competing with their merchandise. The person that buys the non-licensed merchandise might not buy the licensed merchandise now, and (depending on if they use a fake name on it) might not even be aware of what it's based on. That would be more like if someone took the game, changed around some assets a bit, slapped a new name on there, and sold it as their own product. That said, I'm sure there's some people that felt they didn't need to buy a game because they got all they wanted to get out of it through a LP. I'm not saying LPs don't do harm, just that I think they do more good than bad.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 12, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> Nope. You are wrong.
> 
> Fair use isn't about what Let's players are doing. You got it all wrong.
> 
> And certainly playing the whole game is not about fair use.


 
Ah, yes, a stirring rebuke. You really proved your point here.



TemplarGR said:


> Trust me, if there was even the slightest legal window to confront Nintendo, rich Let's Players would have done that. They are rich enough to hire a good lawyer...


 
Ah, yes, because the average Let's Player is a modern day Jay Gatsby with enough spare cash to tackle an international corporation while munching on caviar?

In reality, the DMCA system makes it really difficult for channels to fight back against unfair takedowns, and that goes for even the largest ones out there. While someone could hypothetically take this to court, it's not going to be worthwhile for a video that'll make, at most, a couple hundred dollars before Google and the network take their cut. Even in the most egregious and obviously wrongheaded cases, a protracted legal battle would be wildly impractical.

(Also, do note that what Nintendo's doing isn't illegal, and I never said that it was. Nintendo is within its rights to try and pull this... and, in return, we're free to lambast them for it. Nintendo can go ahead on its own but, in the end, it's a poor decision and one that hurts them more than anyone else; it's kind of like playing Bop-Em Socker with your testicles.)



TemplarGR said:


> Let's plays are not reviews. Nintendo isn't after reviews, it is after unfair use of their ip and products.


 
...Except that reviews are also subject to the new policies and have to be submitted to Nintendo for approval. Nintendo would also then receive a cut of the review's ad revenue.



TemplarGR said:


> Also, your argument about exposure is pure bullshit. Are you a 12 year old that got brainwashed by PewDiePie and gang? For what is worth, the only time i watched let's plays was when i didn't want to  pirate buy the game and waste my time on it and just wanted to see what the fuss was all about. For example, i watched a Last of Us 6 hour "movie" version instead of playing it, since all i wanted was the story. Sony didn't make money from me... I didn't even want to pirate the damn game, it was boring. I just liked the cutscenes...


 
You don't have to like something to recognize its popularity and brand exposure. PewDiePie's channel has 34.5 million subscribers, many of whom (as you seem to be aware) are very impressionable, very easily persuaded children. Can you not see how that's a huge marketing opportunity? If 5% of PewDiePie's viewers decided to purchase a game he features, that's still almost 1.75 million sales, along with the new word-of-mouth buzz that'd bring.

You and I might watch Let's Plays for different reasons, but you and I aren't the main Let's Play audience. Don't project so much.

Stay salty, bud.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 12, 2015)

TecXero said:


> As for the legality, that's the legal gray area right now. Until it is settled in court or the laws are updated, it will continue to be a gray area.



I am pretty sure the legal issues are clear cut -- the let's play concept does not inherently make it a review, a criticism, a piece of satire or otherwise something would count as fair use ( http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ ). To that end it is a pretty clear cut case of copyright worrying, maybe with a side order of trademark law (Microsoft and using game names in various content being a likely example there). They do not have to do anything about it though and that is where this discussion seems to appear.

What I might be interested to see is this going the same route as the film equivalents (mystery science theater people releasing dubs of their commentary for people to play over the top). Tool assisted speedruns have already got the tech in place to dodge the need to play games, even for those games with random elements if you are really good.




RevPokemon said:


> On the subject I find the whole "well it is free advertising" idea is bs. If that was the case companies wouldn't go after non licensed merchandize or what not.



Not all companies stop all things, though there are some interesting cases ( http://io9.com/fox-bans-the-sale-of-unlicensed-jayne-hats-from-firefly-471820413 ), but when they do after unlicensed merch it is likely more trademark law they are concerned with. You have to defend trademarks lest they become genericized and not enforceable
http://consumerist.com/2014/07/19/15-product-trademarks-that-have-become-victims-of-genericization/
The red cross and Doom if you want a more games related example.


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 12, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> I am pretty sure the legal issues are clear cut -- the let's play concept does not inherently make it a review, a criticism, a piece of satire or otherwise something would count as fair use ( http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/four-factors/ ). To that end it is a pretty clear cut case of copyright worrying, maybe with a side order of trademark law (Microsoft and using game names in various content being a likely example there). They do not have to do anything about it though and that is where this discussion seems to appear.
> 
> What I might be interested to see is this going the same route as the film equivalents (mystery science theater people releasing dubs of their commentary for people to play over the top). Tool assisted speedruns have already got the tech in place to dodge the need to play games, even for those games with random elements if you are really good.
> 
> ...


I hear what you say I guess my issue with most of the complaints with the creator program is simply the fact people are acting like Nintendo has no right to do this even though the do legally speaking (although it may not be write)


----------



## Vipera (Feb 12, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> Solution to what problem? Copyright does not need to be enforced like trademarks to remain valid. To that end play it how the devs/publishers will, I would view it more as free publicity though there certainly could be mitigating factors.
> 
> On joke entries then people have always had jokes at the expense of a system
> Running for president
> ...



That's satire, not jokes to get visibility. Unlike Amazon "joke" reviews, which got tiring after one week. They aren't funny, they are useless. Diamond HTML cables are useless? Then write a one-star review explaining why my cheap plated-gold cable is the same. You don't need to go all snob trying to be funny, because you aren't. Same for Steam reviews, they made the Steam voting system worthless.



FAST6191 said:


> Speaking of reviews no definition of review includes a lack of spoilers. Some embargoes do ask for a lack of spoilers at some level but that is a different matter. It may also come up in the discussion of the differences between reviews and critiques but that is a different matter.


I guess you could use spoilers, but they are still nowhere as bad as Let's Players, they are just bad reviewers (if not used properly).



FAST6191 said:


> Was that terminator buy more ammo thing a java/jme era phone game? If so I will have to look into it as I do not have many examples of early microtransactions.


It was either Terminator or Terminator Revenge. Can't find anything online, but the game is still up. I guess you could try it, since it's free (until you need grenades anyway). This Pay2Play was so dumb it never sold and no one remembers it.



FAST6191 said:


> Basic, the language of choice during the Vic 20, C64, Amstrad, Atari... stuff from earlier kind of lives up to its name. Equally publishing is far easier now than it was 200 years ago, hell even 20 years ago and nobody should really be complaining about that. Indeed I am shocked that coding is not taught in schools the same way as native language, maths and science. Likewise vanity publishers have long existed and there are all sorts of things


Publishing a book nowadays is much harder than you might think, compared to 20 years ago. Sure, you get to publish your book by yourself at no cost, but so is everyone else. You need gimmicks or a fuckton of advertising from someone to rise from the million of books available in the eBook market. Not only that, you must also compete with bots who make books by automatic Wikipedia searches (I'm serious. Look it up, as I don't want to give the one I found any visibility).
Writing was not difficult, but you had to have passion. There is no such thing as writing JUST for money. And those who are, well, are delusional people who will never get money. The only way they could do that is by, once again, riding memes.



FAST6191 said:


> ROM hacking wise I tend to only go between romhacking.net and here, platform games tend to suffer from lots of "my first go with a level editor" and it makes wading through that more than I care to do on a regular basis. Have a look for the tools and any forums attached to them or wikis with hacking info as they tend to have sites/forums attached to them (or active forums in turn link to them and will come up in search results).


I am going to check that one out. Thanks!



FAST6191 said:


> That seems like a very binary pigeon holing and so very easily dismissed, unless you want the difficulty thing to skew so far as "needing absolutely no input on my part".


 
I watched a Let's Play of Cat Mario in 200something because I hate trial & error games and admittedly I couldn't finish it. Then I watched speedruns of IWBTG to see what the fuss was all about, after playing the first levels for a good hour. There is nothing fun or "hardcore" in those kind of games.
If your focus is on the game, then it's fine. If you need to feel someone by looking at someone else being an idiot on camera and focusing the attention on him then sorry, but people like this are losers. They need a friend to play with or they will think it's gay to play by yourself.



FAST6191 said:


> Listening to opera may be different to watching gameplay, however both could still be entertainment for someone that is not me which is where that was heading. On "intended to be played" that is never something I feel the need to respect (probably a good position to be in if you are going in for the ROM hacking bit) -- nothing wrong with watching a film for its action scenes, listening to the instrumentals of a song, ignoring the race in a game and doing jumps/skids instead. Functionally I see very little difference.


You are still listing stuff that was intented to be listened/watched to something that was supposed to be played instead.
How about this: I'm part of a band and we work really hard to make our album. And when it finally comes out...people go hear untalented people who sing very badly over our songs and call them "covers", and because they are more famous than us, they get a fuckton more popularity than us. Yes, an album is a lot much shorter and less focus-requiring than an average-focus game, but you get the idea. And by the way, "official" cover bands still pay royalties, as it should be.



FAST6191 said:


> Generally I have no problem with money grabbing, have never really believed anybody does anything "for the art" (it need not be money but purely for the art tends to see a reflexive derisive snort). Possible exception for when people do things for their fellow artists (few things are ever so well made as something designed to impress someone else with a similar skillset). In short go free market, you are far from perfect but I have not got anything better right now.


GBA/NDS homebrew (with the exception of DSpec) were all made for fun. If people were as greedy as they are today, we wouldn't have gotten amazing stuff like Moonshell 2 and various freeware games. Someone even made a port of Another World on the freaking GBA, which was an amazing thing to do. We wouldn't have people who ported Doom on calculators, or showoffs who made C64/Spectrum demos, or anything like that. Without these people, sites like Kongregate would be just another shithole of easy P2W games, like phones' gaming section turned out to be.
You could say that's a good thing, because it means that more people have access to a revenue and therefore improving the quality of their games. After all, games like Aspirine on the Wii were fun but still very basic. However, the mass isn't directing the attention to creativity, rather to le funny memes, allowing games like Surgeon Simulator to sell as much as a real game while very few people know about Symphony. That, and the fact that now the market has been filled with money-grabbers who filled places like Kickstarter and Steam Greenlight to promote their money-grabbing tactics. What do we get in return? 1 out of 4 Kickstarter entries are about Bicycle decks, something you can easily do without funding thanks to a website specialized into the making, and Greenlight has so many unfinished games it's not even funny to talk about. But this is way Off-Topic.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 12, 2015)

There was paid GBA homebrew, a few different pieces even.
I have also seen the race to the bottom and flooded market nature of things, I would still rather that than some kind of limited/sanctioned option though.

"You are still listing stuff that was intented to be listened/watched to something that was supposed to be played instead."
I see no functional difference. Sure the law would go into commercial reuse of a work and we were having that discussion elsewhere in this thread and related ones, however I can not see it as some kind of lesser or invalid form of entertainment.

If joke reviews trouble a rating system then the rating system was not up to par in the first place, and in the case of Valve I hear they/Counterstrike are using some kind of chess style rating system ( http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=312582297 ) so it is not outside their capabilities to do something fun. Even Amazon seem to have adopted some kind of verified purchase system (to say nothing of the ? people found this useful type systems).

Maybe I should have said printing/typesetting instead of publishing (though I would still hold it is considerably easier), such a thing would probably have lined up better with coding. Indeed the distinction between learning tex and knocking something more than functional together with libreoffice or something would be fairly good.

"I guess you could use spoilers, but they are still nowhere as bad as Let's Players, they are just bad reviewers (if not used properly)."
On the spoilers part I could not disagree more with that. Not every review warrants a scene by scene dissection but those that do often form some of the more enjoyable entertainment out there for me. Wander around somewhere like http://blip.tv/ and reviews of that nature are their main stock and trade.

"There is no such thing as writing JUST for money. And those who are, well, are delusional people who will never get money. The only way they could do that is by, once again, riding memes."
On the memes thing... and? Memes are no worse than tropes, which in and of themselves are not bad.

I would argue creativity is not some magical activity, if not only because of things like http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/Emily-howell.htm
If a robot can do it then I figure most humans can learn the patterns required (we even have models like hero's journey and tension curves). I am not sure how close we are to storybot 3000 but randomly generated games do well it is probably halfway possible today.

I think I will have to end with a song


----------



## Nightwish (Feb 13, 2015)

Vipera said:


> I just find very irritating how these people act like they are entitled to money for riding a fad and get pissed when the original creators demand a part of their unfair earnings.


 
And I find it irritating that Imaginary Property owners (NOT creators) think they're the owners of culture.



> The truth is, Nintendo is right on this issue. Which is astonishing, since they are usually wrong in everything lately.
> 
> Gameplay footage is still copyrighted material. Nintendo owns it, whether you like it or not. You never purchase the game itself, you are purchasing a *licence* to play it. In *private*. When you share the game in public, and you gain money from it, you are breaching the EULA. And the law...


EULA's are downright evil and void in many jurisdictions. I certainly pay them no mind, and if the company claims otherwise I have no issue ignoring the their claims.
And even where Nintendo has the the right to fully control derivatives (which is a fairly recent concept) does not in anyway make it right just because they and their buddies could afford to buy a few laws.

What we can all agree on is that PewPew is terrible, but there's a huge amount of good youtubers out there. Go watch Quill18 or Arumba play Paradox games, or Northerlion, or Wil Wheaton with boardgames.

Fuck, if people who watch people play games are losers, how the hell is Game Center CX so popular? Are we all losers?


----------



## Vipera (Feb 13, 2015)

I'm too tired to reply to everything tonight. I will just reply to this





Nightwish said:


> Fuck, if people who watch people play games are losers, how the hell is Game Center CX so popular? Are we all losers?


Bush was popular, Facebook is popular, Anaconda was a popular song, memes are popular, potato salad was popular... I'd say yes, yes you are. And no, I'm not going to watch anybody play games I can play by myself. I'm not that insecure of a person to need someone to tell me what's funny and what isn't while gaming.


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 13, 2015)

Vipera said:


> I'm too tired to reply to everything tonight. I will just reply to this
> Bush was popular, Facebook is popular, Anaconda was a popular song, memes are popular, potato salad was popular... I'd say yes, yes you are. And no, I'm not going to watch anybody play games I can play by myself. I'm not that insecure of a person to need someone to tell me what's funny and what isn't while gaming.


I agree just because it is popular doesn't mean that it is well received by everyone (all those things you mention are popular yet have many critics). That is certainly true in gaming.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Feb 13, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> I think I will have to end with a song




I am so upset that you posted this video I want to scream. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Worry,_Be_Happy


Anyways, on topic, Nintendo's policy, like everything else they've done recently, is buttfuck retarded. As mentioned multiple times in this thread, practically every single developer and publisher does the complete opposite of what Nintendo does and encourages gamers to put their shit on Youtube. Like, Let's Players will literally get games days in advance from devs and publishers just so they can get a couple (read: millions) of people interested in their games. I mean, if Nintendo doesn't want free advertisements what the fuck ever.


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 13, 2015)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> I am so upset that you posted this video I want to scream.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_Worry,_Be_Happy
> 
> ...


Welp, I think it is safe to say Nintendo has had god awful PR since the Wii (confusing names, closing club n, lack of wiiu advertising). Its sad because they keep making great games yet the PR is screwing them.


----------



## Nightwish (Feb 13, 2015)

Vipera said:


> I'd say yes, yes you are. And no, I'm not going to watch anybody play games I can play by myself. I'm not that insecure of a person to need someone to tell me what's funny and what isn't while gaming.


Oh my god, some guy on the internet called me a loser! I'm going to cut myself now!!!!111

That is so not the point of let's plays (the ones I care about, anyway) it's like you're not even trying.


----------



## RevPokemon (Feb 13, 2015)

Another thing I thought about is how many Let's Plays are there compared to reviews/countdowns?


----------



## TemplarGR (Feb 13, 2015)

Gahars said:


> Ah, yes, a stirring rebuke. You really proved your point here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I won't repeat what i said, since i don't need to lose more time over this, when others have already said it better.

Nintendo doesn't need this kind of exposure. It has not helped them in the slightest, and the most irrefutable proof is that since the let's play begun being a (big) thing, Nintendo sales have been falling steadily. That's your proof right there.

Actually, having access to viewing all that a game has on offer lowers the incentive to buy it. Kids and young people are impatient, curious people. This industry relies heavily on this for sales. Let's play destroys this.

Not that i defend this kind of thing. I am just stating the facts.

And having a huge source of income based on your ip, going on a let's player's pocket instead of your devs, is wrong. Both legally AND morally. Those let's players need to face reality and accept the offer Nintendo makes to them. It is quite generous. I never see them complaining because Youtube takes a cut from prodiving the infrastructure to them, so i don't see why they have a problem for devs to take a cut by providing them their source material...

You need to take your head out of the sand on this one and stop defending a practice that hurts those that we need the most ,  game developers.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 13, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> I won't repeat what i said, since i don't need to lose more time over this, when others have already said it better.
> 
> Nintendo doesn't need this kind of exposure. It has not helped them in the slightest, and the most irrefutable proof is that since the let's play begun being a (big) thing, Nintendo sales have been falling steadily. That's your proof right there.
> 
> ...




Correlation = irrefutable proof? All those scientists lied to me.

Except that gameplay over demos has been seen to improve sales http://www.computerandvideogames.com/416824/game-demos-halve-sales-new-data-suggests/
Now this is not directly applicable (trailers and let's plays are different and the latter may well provide a similar level of satiation as demos for certain types of games, many of said certain type even being what Nintendo tends to do) but I am not sure you can draw that conclusion as easily as you have.

Equally if the current industry has to rely on trickery for sales then they can happily die and something new can rise up.

"And having a huge source of income based on your ip, going on a let's player's pocket instead of your devs, is wrong. Both legally AND morally."
Do go on. I have previously argued that they are legally allowed to do something, however they are not obliged to do anything and the police system is not obliged to do anything other than enforce court orders. Now "morally" is a whole other field and I am going to need some further elaboration there.


----------



## Gahars (Feb 13, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> Nintendo doesn't need this kind of exposure. It has not helped them in the slightest, *and the most irrefutable proof is that since the let's play begun being a (big) thing, Nintendo sales have been falling steadily.* That's your proof right there.


 
...As Nintendo has judiciously shut down and DMCA'd almost any LP's of their newest games, along with taking down reviews, podcasts, etc. that used footage in an unambiguously fair way.

I don't think that helps your argument much.



TemplarGR said:


> Actually, having access to viewing all that a game has on offer lowers the incentive to buy it. Kids and young people are impatient, curious people. This industry relies heavily on this for sales. Let's play destroys this.
> 
> Not that i defend this kind of thing. I am just stating the facts.


 
And yet countless games have become overnight sensations thanks to exposure from Let's Plays and other Youtube features (your Amnesias, Slenders, Five Nights at Freddy's, shit, this was practically Goat Simulator's entire marketing gimmick).

If exposure to Let's Plays wasn't beneficial in terms of promotion and instead harmed sales... then why has almost every other major publisher embraced Let's Players? LP channels often get games well in advance of the release date, sometimes ahead of reviewers, because they see the value that LP's may hold for even the largest of AAA releases. You're telling me that the army of marketing analysts and pencil pushers spread between Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft, etc. have all been duped by gamers with webcams and headphones? Seems shaky. You also seem to forget that, a) kids are generally seen as impressionable and easily swayed, and b) if the kid is that impatient, doesn't that make it all the more likely they'll do whatever they can to get the game themselves and try it out?

Granted, and has already been said by myself and others, not every game is going to benefit equally. Something like Telltale's output, which emphasizes the narrative above all else, will probably not enjoy the same boost as more gameplay-centric titles. Good thing Nintendo's output is practically all about the gameplay anyway, though.

And really, I don't have to explain that watching a game and actually playing it for yourself are two entirely different experiences on here of all places, right? Come on, guys, it's 2015.



TemplarGR said:


> And having a huge source of income based on your ip, going on a let's player's pocket instead of your devs, is wrong. Both legally AND morally. Those let's players need to face reality and accept the offer Nintendo makes to them. It is quite generous. I never see them complaining because Youtube takes a cut from prodiving the infrastructure to them, so i don't see why they have a problem for devs to take a cut by providing them their source material...


 
Pennies on the dollar for a company worth billions is hardly a huge source of income, especially considering the benefits (that free publicity razzmatazz). I mean, you can say it's "morally wrong" all you want but you've done a very poor job of explaining exactly why it's so reprehensible. Nobody's taking money out of Nintendo's pocket, nobody's mugging Reggie, this practice shouldn't even hurt their feelings. Chillax.

Also, if you're going to defend the program, then you should probably be at least familiar with it and its criticisms. It's lambasted because it's on top of the already substantial cuts from Youtube and affiliate networks, which are accepted because they are applied (roughly) broadly and uniformly. With Google, well, it's their service, and with the networks, you're protected if you use content from any developer (except Nintendo, of course). The other alternative is to stick solely with Nintendo products (and only the games they say you can play), which is ridiculously restrictive, especially for anyone hoping to grow their channel at all.



TemplarGR said:


> You need to take your head out of the sand on this one and stop defending a practice that hurts those that we need the most , game developers.


 

Too bad every other developer and publisher disagrees. Acting as if this is some righteous cause for the benefit of developers is like trying to break a warden out of his own jail.


----------



## Hells Malice (Feb 13, 2015)

TemplarGR said:


> I won't repeat what i said, since i don't need to lose more time over this, when others have already said it better.
> 
> Nintendo doesn't need this kind of exposure. It has not helped them in the slightest, and the most irrefutable proof is that since the let's play begun being a (big) thing, Nintendo sales have been falling steadily. That's your proof right there.


 
Lets not forget that ISIS is also becoming more prominent, proving that Nintendo sales are directly tied to ISIS activity.

Seriously you're a retard. Nintendo sales are dropping because they're completely out of touch with todays society. They just keep pumping out the same old shit even though the fanbase they're catering to grew up years ago, and many moved on.
But hey, you're just another uninformed bumpkin and unfortunately you'll probably stay that way for the rest of your sad life. It's hard not to feel a strong amount of pity for your kind


----------



## Vipera (Feb 13, 2015)

FAST6191 said:


> There was paid GBA homebrew, a few different pieces even.
> I have also seen the race to the bottom and flooded market nature of things, I would still rather that than some kind of limited/sanctioned option though.


Name a few?
I'm of the complete opposite idea. Without limits, you get stuff getting famous because of the shittiest stuff, and you also get the shittiest kind of people. Reddit has a 4Chan-like policy, the admins rarely intervene on normal issues, but it's clear to see how everyday there's some idiot buying upvotes for visibility on the front page. Some corporate do that too, but it's mostly users try to BS all the way through, just for "lulz". Countless people fake cancer, fake claims, and such. You HAVE to give people limits, or they will take advantage of the worst stuff as much as they can. You won't get banned by saying "I have cancer, please donate", even if it's not true. Which sucks, I had to unsubscribe from the most famous subs who didn't follow a strict guideline.



FAST6191 said:


> I see no functional difference. Sure the law would go into commercial reuse of a work and we were having that discussion elsewhere in this thread and related ones, however I can not see it as some kind of lesser or invalid form of entertainment.


Well, it's your point of view, as it was mine.


FAST6191 said:


> If joke reviews trouble a rating system then the rating system was not up to par in the first place, and in the case of Valve I hear they/Counterstrike are using some kind of chess style rating system ( http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=312582297 ) so it is not outside their capabilities to do something fun. Even Amazon seem to have adopted some kind of verified purchase system (to say nothing of the ? people found this useful type systems).


That "joke" button on Steam reviews is a joke. Idiots will still go "LEL YES THIS WAS HELPFUL CUZ FUNNY XDXD" and ignore the "joke" review altogether. If anything, legit reviews will get flagged as "jokes", even if they are serious, just because people are assholes.
And no, Amazon doesn't sell everything at the best price. I read a book from Amazon which I got from the official website for free, but I still reviewed it.


FAST6191 said:


> On the spoilers part I could not disagree more with that. Not every review warrants a scene by scene dissection but those that do often form some of the more enjoyable entertainment out there for me. Wander around somewhere like http://blip.tv/ and reviews of that nature are their main stock and trade.


You must have played the game in all its integrity in order to make not only a good, but also fair review. Maybe a depth review isn't necessary, but it's surely help with the BS detection.



FAST6191 said:


> On the memes thing... and? Memes are no worse than tropes, which in and of themselves are not bad.


Memes are something universal. They are the stupid stuff your friend says to you while doing something, they aren't supposed to be commercialized in any way. That's like trying to copyright the name "Candy", but I know no one has been so worthless to have tried that... _right_?


FAST6191 said:


> I would argue creativity is not some magical activity, if not only because of things like http://artsites.ucsc.edu/faculty/cope/Emily-howell.htm
> If a robot can do it then I figure most humans can learn the patterns required (we even have models like hero's journey and tension curves). I am not sure how close we are to storybot 3000 but randomly generated games do well it is probably halfway possible today.


They exist already, but there's a difference between creative, random games and random games with the same sick pattern of "build a house. Oh, it takes 15 minutes and you do nothing else...but if you pay us you can skip the time!".


Nightwish said:


> Oh my god, some guy on the internet called me a loser! I'm going to cut myself now!!!!111
> 
> That is so not the point of let's plays (the ones I care about, anyway) it's like you're not even trying.


Your point is...? All I did was answering a question, don't act like it came out of nowhere. You should find a healtier hobby, like botanic.


----------



## Nightwish (Feb 13, 2015)

Vipera said:


> You must have played the game in all its integrity in order to make not only a good, but also fair review. Maybe a depth review isn't necessary, but it's surely help with the BS detection.


How do you play a game in all it's integrity (sic) if it's a game like EU4, CIV, Besiege or even FIFA? Or an MMO, which is not only long, but constantly updated?
Yes, a full review should be played as much as possible, but there's a place for shorter impressions that show you how the game plays, at least now there are no real demos. And it's a lot easier to find time to watch a 30 min video of a critic who played longer than that then to play the game. Because, let's be real, most people don't finish most games, not by a long shot.


Vipera said:


> Your point is...? All I did was answering a question, don't act like it came out of nowhere. You should find a healtier hobby, like botanic.


You answered with your point of view on why people watch let's plays, I told you that it isn't true, at least not for a large amount of people. You should accept that.

In the end, it's as much your loss as Nintendo's.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 13, 2015)

Vipera said:


> Name a few?
> I'm of the complete opposite idea. Without limits, you get stuff getting famous because of the shittiest stuff, and you also get the shittiest kind of people. Reddit has a 4Chan-like policy, the admins rarely intervene on normal issues, but it's clear to see how everyday there's some idiot buying upvotes for visibility on the front page. Some corporate do that too, but it's mostly users try to BS all the way through, just for "lulz". Countless people fake cancer, fake claims, and such. You HAVE to give people limits, or they will take advantage of the worst stuff as much as they can. You won't get banned by saying "I have cancer, please donate", even if it's not true. Which sucks, I had to unsubscribe from the most famous subs who didn't follow a strict guideline.
> 
> 
> ...



Paid GBA homebrew
Meteo video decoder
There was a very nice bookreader
Several hombrew libraries for audio and video decoding went under dual licenses (paid commercial).

I would also say that the GBA and DS represented some of the best offerings for handheld devices at the time, much like consoles used to represent the best option to have some computing device under your TV. Now phones and anything that has a HDMI out have risen up. I would also hold the quality of code, or at least the volume of quality code has risen dramatically with the rise of things like android and ios.

Indeed it was my opinion, however dismissing something as basically harmless as watching computer games be played does not seem cool.

So what if people get famous because of no great talent? Ignore it and carry on with life, or seek something better.

I have no idea about steam reviews as I do not use the service. Where did the best price stuff come up as well? Also a simple helpful button is not a magic bullet, you need to do something more creative like score your reviewers and curate the system a bit, like google does for its searches, like most dating sites worth a damn do for matches, probably like a lot of what facebook does...

"You must have played the game in all its integrity in order to make not only a good, but also fair review. Maybe a depth review isn't necessary, but it's surely help with the BS detection."
I seems we have somewhat different opinions on what makes a review, though if you feel that way it would go so way to explaining your position with regards to people needing to play a game rather than watch it.

It seems we are also operating on different definitions of meme. It may well be an aspect of shared culture but use in commercial form has no bearing on anything really. On the copyright of candy do I assume you are referring to the trademarking of candy as in candy crush incident?

I have no idea where you are coming from in most of this. It almost feels like nostalgia for some kind of time that never existed where creative and commercial are not intertwined and everybody was excellent to one another. That never existed and if it ever does then human nature and society will have changed so radically as to be unrecognisable.


----------



## Vipera (Feb 13, 2015)

Nightwish said:


> How do you play a game in all it's integrity (sic) if it's a game like EU4, CIV, Besiege or even FIFA? Or an MMO, which is not only long, but constantly updated?
> Yes, a full review should be played as much as possible, but there's a place for shorter impressions that show you how the game plays, at least now there are no real demos. And it's a lot easier to find time to watch a 30 min video of a critic who played longer than that then to play the game. Because, let's be real, most people don't finish most games, not by a long shot.
> 
> You answered with your point of view on why people watch let's plays, I told you that it isn't true, at least not for a large amount of people. You should accept that.
> ...


I played both Civ (IV, V) and Fifa (98 through 06, and 13). Your point is...? Also considering how short of a game FIFA is, lol. If you think that you have to play EVERY SINGLE team to win the game, you don't know what FIFA games are about. This is the kind of false information you get from lazy Let's Players.
If you can't review Civ because it lasts more than your average game then you shouldn't review it at all. It's like going to an "All you can eat" sushi restaurant but stay there just enough to try the wasabi alone, and then your impression of the whole place is shit.

And no, I have explained my point of view in detail by replying to someone who also replied with detail, and he has my respect for that. All you did was going "no you are wrong" and getting butthurt. You don't deserve any reply because there is nothing to reply about, other than the fact that is clear how you have no argument.




FAST6191 said:


> Paid GBA homebrew
> Meteo video decoder
> There was a very nice bookreader
> Several hombrew libraries for audio and video decoding went under dual licenses (paid commercial).


Are you sure about Meteo? The only site that has it offers it for free.


FAST6191 said:


> I would also say that the GBA and DS represented some of the best offerings for handheld devices at the time, much like consoles used to represent the best option to have some computing device under your TV. Now phones and anything that has a HDMI out have risen up. I would also hold the quality of code, or at least the volume of quality code has risen dramatically with the rise of things like android and ios.


The easiness of coding has improved, but this is not necessarily a good thing. I have already pointed out how crappy the average app is, because it's easy and most of the times there is no other wish than getting money from ads/micro-transactions.


FAST6191 said:


> Indeed it was my opinion, however dismissing something as basically harmless as watching computer games be played does not seem cool.


I am not dismissing anything. You think that way, I think this way, we have explained to ourselves and I don't think there is anything more to say. To me, contributing to this fad is harmful. To you, it's harmless. I don't have any more argument about it.


FAST6191 said:


> So what if people get famous because of no great talent? Ignore it and carry on with life, or seek something better.


Many YouTube people admitted to have gotten inspired by the early years of the AVGN. I despise the guy, but there is no denial of his superior quality during those years. What possible inspiration can you get from PewDiePie? All he does is making a dumbass of himself and cut his videos. No inspiration is bad, and the overall quality of entertainment drops.
I don't want to be that guy of "older is better", because it's not true. But there is nothing inspirational about the richest YouTube sensations. Except the money, but that does not require creativity, just copycats. And if I copy shit it can't get better than shit.


FAST6191 said:


> I have no idea about steam reviews as I do not use the service. Where did the best price stuff come up as well? Also a simple helpful button is not a magic bullet, you need to do something more creative like score your reviewers and curate the system a bit, like google does for its searches, like most dating sites worth a damn do for matches, probably like a lot of what facebook does...


Amazon doesn't do that, nor Steam. I review stuff on Amazon and I don't get a "dude, he knows his shit" flair near my name, despite always explaining in detail what I review. Let's say I want to write a review on the new CoD game it's coming out next week. I finally get it, I play it for the time it should take me to play it in detail, then I wrote my detailed review. But wait, no one saw my review because the hundreds of "Great game!" "I shot a muslim, 10/10" came there first. And I have to compete with them. It's unfair and makes me want to not review stuff anymore. I don't even do that on my Backloggery because what's the point? No one is going to read those.



FAST6191 said:


> I seems we have somewhat different opinions on what makes a review, though if you feel that way it would go so way to explaining your position with regards to people needing to play a game rather than watch it.


As I wrote earlier this post, "If you can't review Civ because it lasts more than your average game then you shouldn't review it at all. It's like going to an "All you can eat" sushi restaurant but stay there just enough to try the wasabi alone, and then your impression of the whole place is shit.". Many reviewers gave Pokémon Mystery Dungeon a low score because they didn't feel like playing the whole story (which is not as huge as any other roguelike). The risk is always there.


FAST6191 said:


> It seems we are also operating on different definitions of meme. It may well be an aspect of shared culture but use in commercial form has no bearing on anything really. On the copyright of candy do I assume you are referring to the trademarking of candy as in candy crush incident?


I do. And I'm giving you another example:
A famous website about memes I'm not naming (I don't want the fuckers to get free traffic) was very popular into Reddit's default subs, and no one really knew why because Imgur was a much better hosting site and the stuff on this new site wasn't funny anyway. You know what happened? They discovered that the admin of this new website was buying upvotes and using multiple accounts to get visibility, breaking the system and letting the default subs sink with the crap they wanted to share because money. The site was banned after a while on ONE default sub, but I think it came back.
People can be such royal assholes when it comes to money-grabbing. We shouldn't support them in any way.


FAST6191 said:


> I have no idea where you are coming from in most of this. It almost feels like nostalgia for some kind of time that never existed where creative and commercial are not intertwined and everybody was excellent to one another. That never existed and if it ever does then human nature and society will have changed so radically as to be unrecognisable.


Again, no. I've never said these problems never existed. But they have spread like viruses to a point where it's getting very difficult to find any quality, homemade projects made out of passion.


----------



## FAST6191 (Feb 13, 2015)

Very sure about meteo. https://web.archive.org/web/20030803092730/http://www.inside-cap.com/bsf/meteo.htm

"The easiness of coding has improved, but this is not necessarily a good thing."
Unless this ease of use comes at the cost of people of the inclination to do so being able to write high performance code then I have to disagree. You can have all the shovelware in the world but it does not matter a bit if 
If you find it hard to find good stuff then there needs to be a better marketplace, not restrictions upon it.

"I am not dismissing anything. You think that way, I think this way, we have explained to ourselves and I don't think there is anything more to say. To me, contributing to this fad is harmful. To you, it's harmless. I don't have any more argument about it."
Making a claim that is a harmful is the kind of thing that needs to be qualified though.

Who cares if someone does or does not inspired or ideas from the most popular person out there?

On reviews that would seem to be a problem with the user interface rather than the underlying problem. Also selecting reviews by those that use proper grammar and avoid certain word choices is fairly well documented among those that use reviews to their fullest.

On money grabbing, there will always be people looking to game the system. It is an endless war on all fronts, the best you can do is try not to support the destructive ones.


----------



## Sterling (Feb 13, 2015)

Something no one has brought up yet is how the success of Nintendo's arguably subpar program will affect the current LP field. From the numbers being given, they're getting applications faster than they can process them. This is worrying to me because a) How will other publishers and such react to their success and b) Will we see more programs like this and a general attitude shifts towards transitive creations. Not to mention the previous criticisms levied at how they might handle approval. If a LPer can't get their payoff for their video within a realistic frame of time, they might lose out on some much needed income.

I hope their success won't prove to other companies that they were approaching the LP scene in the wrong direction.


----------



## Nightwish (Feb 13, 2015)

Vipera said:


> I played both Civ (IV, V) and Fifa (98 through 06, and 13). Your point is...? Also considering how short of a game FIFA is, lol. If you think that you have to play EVERY SINGLE team to win the game, you don't know what FIFA games are about. This is the kind of false information you get from lazy Let's Players.


 
Clearly no one plays FIFA's career mode and notice's it's issues, right? Or measuring the balance of it takes no time at all, right?


Vipera said:


> If you can't review Civ because it lasts more than your average game then you shouldn't review it at all. It's like going to an "All you can eat" sushi restaurant but stay there just enough to try the wasabi alone, and then your impression of the whole place is shit.


 
So explain all the professionals who sang high praises of mediocre games like TW:Rome II or CIV:BE, unlike Let's Players who let you see how crappy they were. And that's ignoring how different CIV 5 is on normal and on deity, which no one wins with few tens of hours of play.


Vipera said:


> And no, I have explained my point of view in detail by replying to someone who also replied with detail, and he has my respect for that. All you did was going "no you are wrong" and getting butthurt. You don't deserve any reply because there is nothing to reply about, other than the fact that is clear how you have no argument.


 
No, you create windmills and attack them, completely missing the point. You're the kind of person who has a view of the world about a lot of things you know nothing about and can't accept that anyone with actual experience tell you your perspective is flawed.

Why would I be butthurt? My favourite (by far) Let's Plays aren't going anywhere and are supported by the publishers. It's annoying that I might not find a caster that I like and is skillful at Nintendo games, but there's always piracy and AR codes so that I can still appreciate games that aren't for me.


----------



## TecXero (Feb 13, 2015)

Sterling said:


> Something no one has brought up yet is how the success of Nintendo's arguably subpar program will affect the current LP field. From the numbers being given, they're getting applications faster than they can process them. This is worrying to me because a) How will other publishers and such react to their success and b) Will we see more programs like this and a general attitude shifts towards transitive creations. Not to mention the previous criticisms levied at how they might handle approval. If a LPer can't get their payoff for their video within a realistic frame of time, they might lose out on some much needed income.
> 
> I hope their success won't prove to other companies that they were approaching the LP scene in the wrong direction.


 
It's been mentioned that a lot of bigger LPers that did Nintendo content have moved away from doing Nintendo content. The more personality driven ones will move away from Nintendo content, since it won't be as profitable and their viewers are there for him/her.

That said, if other publishers start following suit, then that will probably cause a lot of bad PR and controversy, at lot more than Nintendo doing this. Nintendo was already causing a lot of problems for content creators on Youtube, not just LPers, so they were already moving away from Nintendo content. If a big Publisher, that a lot of people make content from their games, starts doing this, it will blow up.


----------



## Sterling (Feb 13, 2015)

TecXero said:


> It's been mentioned that a lot of bigger LPers that did Nintendo content have moved away from doing Nintendo content. The more personality driven ones will move away from Nintendo content, since it won't be as profitable and their viewers are there for him/her.
> 
> That said, if other publishers start following suit, then that will probably cause a lot of bad PR and controversy, at lot more than Nintendo doing this. Nintendo was already causing a lot of problems for content creators on Youtube, not just LPers, so they were already moving away from Nintendo content. If a big Publisher, that a lot of people make content from their games, starts doing this, it will blow up.


 


The thing is, Nintendo's program has blown up despite the criticisms. I already know that Nintendo content has dwindled in recent memory, if not outright disappearing from most channels. But I'm more concerned with similar programs coming out with a less LP centric attitude than previous. If Nintendo can get away with it, why not other companies? We're not so far out of the woods that it couldn't happen suddenly, even gradually. Companies are no strangers to poor business decisions that resulted in bad PR, and given reputations like EA, we might just see them testing the waters.

Like we say, they're not wrong to do this. We disagree with it, but they're fully within their power to do so. LPers might even just switch over a purely indie scene. I don't even want to go there with my speculation.


----------



## TecXero (Feb 13, 2015)

Sterling said:


> The thing is, Nintendo's program has blown up despite the criticisms. I already know that Nintendo content has dwindled in recent memory, if not outright disappearing from most channels. But I'm more concerned with similar programs coming out with a less LP centric attitude than previous. If Nintendo can get away with it, why not other companies? We're not so far out of the woods that it couldn't happen suddenly, even gradually. Companies are no strangers to poor business decisions that resulted in bad PR, and given reputations like EA, we might just see them testing the waters.
> 
> Like we say, they're not wrong to do this. We disagree with it, but they're fully within their power to do so. LPers might even just switch over a purely indie scene. I don't even want to go there with my speculation.


 
I meant blown up as in the bad PR and controversy. It's blown up a bit with Nintendo, but it's not blown up that much, really. If a big publisher follows suit, we'll see how that turns out. I think if Nintendo pulled this a couple of years ago, other publishers would have been on board, but by now I think a lot of publishers are on board with LPs. Others are probably watching Nintendo's feedback to test the waters, and might do it themselves if they think they can handle the backlash.


----------



## Sterling (Feb 13, 2015)

TecXero said:


> I meant blown up as in the bad PR and controversy. It's blown up a bit with Nintendo, but it's not blown up that much, really. If a big publisher follows suit, we'll see how that turns out. I think if Nintendo pulled this a couple of years ago, other publishers would have been on board, but by now I think a lot of publishers are on board with LPs. Others are probably watching Nintendo's feedback to test the waters, and might do it themselves if they think they can handle the backlash.


 
Exactly my concerns. We're not so far from what happened a couple years ago to where we can't see publisher centric MCMs.


----------

