# Nintendo To Begin YouTube Affiliate Program



## KingVamp (May 27, 2014)

​


> *Update: *Nintendo has provided Game Informer with a statement confirming its intention to create an affiliate program.
> 
> "Nintendo has been permitting the use of Nintendo copyrighted material in videos on YouTube under appropriate circumstances," a representative told us via email. "Advertisements may accompany those videos, and in keeping with previous policy that revenue is shared between YouTube and Nintendo.  In addition, for those who wish to use the material more proactively, we are preparing an affiliate program in which a portion of the advertising profit is given to the creator. Details about this affiliate program will be announced in the future."
> ​


​The size of the profit isn't known, but does this seem like a fair compromise so far?​​ Source​


----------



## Foxi4 (May 27, 2014)

In other words they're saying _"you dedicate your time and effort to film and edit the videos and we'll take the money for your work, that's totally fair"_. Thanks, but no thanks - there are Youtube alternatives out there. A lot of LP'ers are already moving to Blip.tv, Polaris etc. - some are even opening their own websites. Hell, NormalBoots.com is back and that alone can give an LP fix. Here's a thought, Nintendo - Let's Plays are _free advertising_ for you, appreciate them instead of trying to cash in on them because believe it or not, they're already beneficial to you.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 27, 2014)

I...guess that's better than flagging videos? I think?


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 27, 2014)

It's not like the LP users can even compete against PewUghDieUFucker anyway.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 27, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> It's not like the LP users can even compete against PewUghDieUFucker anyway.


Rooster Teeth has been around longer than anyone in this _"business"_ and they're doing perfectly fine. They're actually so big that at this point they have license agreements with Microsoft so that they can sell their Machinimas on DVD's and use official designs as far as Halo is concerned.


----------



## pokefloote (May 27, 2014)

Sometimes I watch an LP of a game because I play things more for story than grinding through, so it gives me entertainment for the price of free by watching it on Youtube. Of course I'm only one person and it doesn't change anything but meh. Not defending Nintendo in the slightest, it is indeed good advertisement to a wide audience and can get more people to want to play a game rather than just reading the back of a box and risking $40-60 for something they aren't sure of.


----------



## migles (May 27, 2014)

so, we advertsement for free for nintendo, and they want us to pay for it?

i thought usually advertisement costs money... so nintendo wants to get money from advertsement to his own products? come on...


----------



## Dork (May 27, 2014)

Good, Let's Players should stop profiting off of others material.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 27, 2014)

Dark S. said:


> Good, Let's Players should stop profiting off of others material.


When somebody drinks Pepsi in a movie it's considered advertising and the movie company gets paid for including the product, when somebody makes a show full of entertaining gags around a video game Nintendo is the first to cry bloody murder. Stop being a caveman and get real.


----------



## BrightNeko (May 27, 2014)

I think we've actually seen the start of this, or the early buddings of it. What with people like the competition/projared/PBG getting a link between worlds early, various groups making animal crossing videos before release, and third example I haven't seen here. Yeah they could have just been flat out paid but it was nintendo reaching out to youtubers in some aspect, which was probably them getting a feel for it.


----------



## Dork (May 27, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> When somebody drinks Pepsi in a movie it's considered advertising and the movie company gets paid for including the product, when somebody makes a show full of entertaining gags around a video game, Nintendo is the first to cry bloody murder. Stop being a caveman and get real.


A full Let's Play is not "show full of entertainment gags around a video game", it might as well be the video game.

These huge Let's Players on YouTube do full-scale video playthroughs on any video game. It's not just simple clip review with a couple gags, they display the entirety of the game; all of its content being shown from point A to point B. Non-profit Let's Plays are one thing, but people with a YouTube partnership recording an entire walkthrough of a video game with minimal video editing (putting overlays and putting fancy text over a video with the majority of it being recorded material is not hard work, I can say this out of my own experience) without permission from the owner of the intellectual property and then profiting off of it is fucking ludicrous. It might as well be akin to uploading an entire movie on YouTube and calling it advertising, because unlike a game trailer you've just experienced the entire game.

You can not tell me that seeing someone drink a Pepsi on a commercial is akin to watching a Let's Play because they are nothing alike. You do not experience what it is like to drink a Pepsi when you see someone else drink one, however with Let's Plays you just got the full experience of what game you just watched and there really is no need to go buy it yourself now. With this though, you can argue that you aren't experiencing a game by just watching it, you have to play for yourself. In some cases this is correct, however the Let's Play games of choice are always story-centered, linear progression type games that for the most part can be experienced just by watching it.

Let's Playing isn't advertising, it might as well be compared to fucking _*video game piracy*_. Why not? I'm not seeing any difference between the two other than that someone else is playing for you. You can make any snarky joke you want but that comparison holds pretty well because all of the games content is right there without any pay-wall for your end. Hell, it can be argued that it is even worse than piracy because the ones providing the videos are making a fucking profit.

As far as free advertising is concerned, Nintendo's YouTube advertising is pretty solid as you got a multitude of game trailers and Directs are always streamed and uploaded there. Nintendo's weakness when it comes to advertising is anything outside of the internet. I'm sure Nintendo doesn't need to rely on people uploading the entirety of a game as advertising.

Let's Plays outside of their entertainment value they might bring to some people is just a joke. These uploaders have no legal grounds to stand on in regards to this medium and if publishers want them down they have every right to take them down. Don't get me wrong I'm not just defending Nintendo because I'm some nintendog I'm arguing this because making primary income off of something that isn't yours is completely dumb. If this were EA or Activision making this kind of a move I'd probably be defending them on this too.

It's just morally wrong, and if you don't care about whatever morality is associated with it then fine. Won't stop the publisher from taking you down.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 27, 2014)

Yeah, no. You can't "play" a video, the selling point of games is their interactivity. You could write an essay about how let's plays could be compared to piracy and you would still be wrong in my eyes because an LP does not contain the core element of a video game - gameplay. It's just footage that very well may get you interested in buying the full product. Mind you, I watch LP's for the banter, the game is irrelevant to me.


----------



## Dork (May 27, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Mind you, I watch LP's for the banter, the game is irrelevant to me.


 
Don't get me wrong I'm not criticizing anyone who finds LP entertaining, because I'll be honest I found some to be enjoyable. However if someone is profiting off of it and the publisher wants it down they have every right to. They shouldn't be demonized for making that move when there was nothing inherently wrong with. In this case with Nintendo it seems there was a compromise so they're not going anywhere.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 27, 2014)

They should absolutely be demonized for profiting from someone's effort that went into editing video and making an interesting show out of mere gameplay footage. It's fair use and only a fraction of the total product, it's made by passionate gamers who go out of their way to advertise products they enjoy. Splitting profits from monetizing video is a step forwards but Nintendo still has a lot to learn from companies like Microsoft in this regard. The Halo phenomenon wouldn't be nearly as big as it is if not for shows like Red vs. Blue - Microsoft acknowledged and cherished that as an intrinsic part of the fanbase, Nintendo just wants additional income.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 27, 2014)

I suppose it is good to see Nintendo not shooting themselves in the foot as much as they were. Though I would likely never see it I would be curious to see the partnership agreement.



Foxi4 said:


> Yeah, no. You can't "play" a video, the selling point of games is their interactivity. You could write an essay about how let's plays could be compared to piracy and you would still be wrong in my eyes because an LP does not contain the core element of a video game - gameplay. It's just footage that very well may get you interested in buying the full product. Mind you, I watch LP's for the banter, the game is irrelevant to me.



Though there are plenty of games (most multiplayer, a lot of sandbox, most puzzle games designed for repeated play*, simulator games and that is just a start) for which a mere video of gameplay would be anything but representative I would argue there are plenty of others which can effectively be "pirated" by having a video. A lot of adventure games, horror games and quite a few single player with a story focus** can definitely have an element of "I got mine" from a video.

*thinking something like 11th hour/7th guest (puzzles not necessarily unique in the same way that sudoku is unique) I have to wonder if I could pause the video at the start of a puzzle, run it on paper and unpause to watch a solution/skip to the next story/puzzle (or go choose your own adventure style if I am really getting into it),... actually that would make a great thought exercise of sorts, doubly so if you mixed it with youtube's pause, skip and section functionality.

**with the rise of easy mode and self playing games this may take on a new aspect as well.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 27, 2014)

You're talking about video walkthroughs with no planning or voiceovers involved, I'm talking about Let's Plays and proper ones focus on recording the fun of interacting with the game, not sharing the game's full story (if there is one to begin with).


----------



## CathyRina (May 27, 2014)

Dark S. said:


> *snip*


 
What you said is technically right. However practically it look a lot different.
You see, even if a Let's Play uncovers the whole shape and form of a game, watching somebody having fun with a video game makes you want experiencing a similar experience.
Look at flappy bird, that thing became popular on the same day pewdiepie made a video about it. Coincidence? I. Think. Not. 
Not to mention you won't get the same experience out of a Lets Play that you would get out of playing the game by yourself and it's the unique experience that makes games great in the first place.
Not every player experiences the game in the same way and what's interesting in watching let's plays is to see what experiences other players had during their playthough. Which is great because having a conversation about different experiences is fun.
You can take two independent let's players and compare their playthroughs. While the one plays lets say dead space 2 in a run&gun fashion constantly laughing and making funny jokes the other one plays it very carefully and is easily scared making it fun to see him shit himself.
And some People are actually putting very much effort into their Let's plays. Besides cutting all the footage into a video, which is with no doubt the easiest part of a lets play, some tend to include self drawn end credits and thumbnails. Some even use audacity to change their voice during some parts of the let's play to support the narrative. Their Videos really have quality and they put a lot time into them. Saying that they wont get paid for a free advertisement is like showing the middle finger to the hand that is feeding you. To see it from an other perspective I gonna sell you a self made game for 50$. If you wanna make a youtube video talking about how great that game is I gonna charge you extra. Does it seem fair to you? I did not made the video, it was you and no matter how low the effort was it is still your video that I would get money from. It's plain money grabbing and Nintendo is the least company that really needs it.


----------



## osirisjem (May 27, 2014)

By the YouTube affiliate program gets up and running ... Nintendo won't have to worry about "YouTube LP pirates" because no one will care about Nintendo.
So few games to review ...  who will care ? 

Nintendo is an embarrassing company.
They can't make any reasonable decisions.
Instead of admitting they shouldn't have fussed about YouTube Videos ... they make a partial backtrack to save face ?
Losers.
Gutless losers.

Nintendo should beg people to review their videos at this stage.

Nintendo:  Penny Wise, Pound foolish (TM)


----------



## Taleweaver (May 27, 2014)

So...a portion is given to the creator. For nintendo, it's progress, but meanwhile the rest of the world is scratching their head why they want to hinder free publicity in the first place.


----------



## Walker D (May 27, 2014)

Well  ..doesn't seems like that bad of a approach for a big player like Nintendo ...is this that bad?  ...never saw others like Sony and Microsoft pavement their way so others could use their contents like this (don't know if others care, or just remove content that they don't like without asking questions..)


----------



## KingVamp (May 28, 2014)

osirisjem said:


> By the YouTube affiliate program gets up and running ... Nintendo won't have to worry about "YouTube LP pirates" because no one will care about Nintendo.
> .....etc





Spoiler











Congrats. You won the biggest hyperbole of the year award.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (May 28, 2014)

Walker D said:


> Well ..doesn't seems like that bad of a approach for a big player like Nintendo ...is this that bad? ...never saw others like Sony and Microsoft pavement their way so others could use their contents like this (don't know if others care, or just remove content that they don't like without asking questions..)


 
It's because they don't care, they love free advertising, whereas Nin10doh thinks the internet is a terrible place that ruins all of the things. I guess they assume that by setting up an affiliate program they'll be able to control their content on Youtube rather than have everyone "ruin our games "


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> You're talking about video walkthroughs with no planning or voiceovers involved, I'm talking about Let's Plays and proper ones focus on recording the fun of interacting with the game, not sharing the game's full story (if there is one to begin with).



If you are going to define them like that then sure, looking around it probably started out like that (the longer form stuff being a "longplay") but the area does seem to now encompass everything.


----------



## drakorex (May 28, 2014)

Dark S. said:


> Let's Playing isn't advertising, it might as well be compared to fucking _*video game piracy*_.


 
One time I watched my friend play Metroid Prime all the way through.
Quick! What's Nintendo's address so I can give them my money?


----------



## osirisjem (May 28, 2014)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> whereas Nin10doh thinks the internet is a terrible place that ruins all of the things.


Maybe Nintendo *CAN* stop the Internets.


----------



## Dork (May 28, 2014)

drakorex said:


> One time I watched my friend play Metroid Prime all the way through.
> Quick! What's Nintendo's address so I can give them my money?


Redmond, Washington

There offices close in less than an hour so you better get there fast.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2014)

drakorex said:


> One time I watched my friend play Metroid Prime all the way through.
> Quick! What's Nintendo's address so I can give them my money?



Depending upon where you are in the world and when you did it you may have committed the greater crime of lending or borrowing a game.


----------



## Gahars (May 28, 2014)

On the one hand, at least they won't be taking down hour long podcasts for using clips from their trailers.

On the other hand, this is still stupid. A lot of the let's play community is cancerous, don't get me wrong, but at the same time, it's the sort of tumor you'd do more harm in trying to remove. Let's Plays can be a huge boon to a game, promoting titles to an audience that might not have cared otherwise. PewDiePie is... well, he's a lot of things, but I guarantee you games like Amnesia would not have sold as well as they did without his videos and other videos like them.

Wrong or right, as a company, you're much better off working with the Let's Players than trying to cut them out. There's plenty of games to choose from nowadays, and if you're not going to play ball, it's easy for them to take their "business" elsewhere.


----------



## FireGrey (May 28, 2014)

I don't know why foxi4 is raging, they've already been putting ads on YouTubers videos for months now, the fact that they are starting a program to give some ad revenue to youtubers is positive news, we don't even know how much they are giving them, it could even be more than before Nintendo did content ID claims


----------



## Hells Malice (May 28, 2014)

I used to hate LPs, till I found some people I actually enjoyed watching/listening to.
I've bought a LOT of games because i'll watch an LP of it and then think "God I REALLY want to play this game."

Nintendo is just doing what Nintendo does best, not understanding todays people. They're fucking themselves out of a tremendous amount of free advertising, and simultaneously making themselves look incredibly stupid. Nintendo has not aged well as a company at all.


----------



## Gahars (May 28, 2014)

FireGrey said:


> I don't know why foxi4 is raging, they've already been putting ads on YouTubers videos for months now, the fact that they are starting a program to give some ad revenue to youtubers is positive news


 
Not really considering almost every other company lets these videos be as is. This is a baby step forward when they're a mile behind.



FireGrey said:


> we don't even know how much they are giving them, it could even be more than before Nintendo did content ID claims


 

This is going to be on top of the cut Youtube already takes, so no, it won't be. For all intents and purposes, think of it as a Nintendo tax.

This would be all fine and dandy if Nintendo existed in a vacuum, but it doesn't. There's plenty of other developers out there that won't cut into Let's Players' revenue, so why would they bother with Nintendo?


----------



## Daku93 (May 28, 2014)

That reminds me of this: "The new Smash Bros. won't have a story mode because the cutscenes of the last one ended up being uploaded to youtube."


I personally often watch some Let's Plays for a few episodes, and if I think that I would enjoy that Game, I buy it for myself and stop watching the Let's Play until I've made more progress in the game than the person let's playing it, to not spoil myself.


----------



## chavosaur (May 28, 2014)

Dark S. said:


> snip


I don't even know what to reply to this argument other then what the dillydamn fuck. 
First of all, not every lets play is based on just a playthrough of the game to show you how to beat said game. There is a difference between a WALKTHROUGH and a LETSPLAY. A lets play exists for the sole purpose of providing the user entertainment through banter and in game antics. If you've ever watched a RoosterTeeth let's play or Gamegrumps, this would be painfully obvious. 

Second, You're argument about the soda is fucking stupid. You argue that seeing a person drinking a Pepsi isn't terrible advertising compared to a full LETSPLAY that shows the entire game. Guess what. You watched a person drink the Pepsi. Did you taste it? Did you get the EXPERIENCE of Pepsi from watching someone drink it? Absolutely not. Do you get the experience of a game just by watching someone play it? Hell no. Just because I watch someone playthrough Resident evil 4 doesn't make me not want to play it OR experience it for myself. It affirms my want of the game. 


If you're so pissed off about let's plays ruining game experience, why aren't you shitting on Game Guides? I've been able to buy Physical Game Guides since the 80's, I don't see you shitting your pants over those either. Those "ruin the experience" and "make money off the content of the game don't they?" 

And lastly the argument of "they shouldn't make money off this it's wrong." Is so goddamn stupid. They already bought the game so the game makers made money off said game. If anything, people watching them PLAY said game will convince them to want to BUY the game, resulting in MORE sales of the game. 

I've never heard of someone not buying a game because "well I can just watch someone else play it." I guess back in the 80's when you sat next to your buddy on the couch and watched him play Mario, you just said "well I already watched him play it I guess I don't have to buy it now." Fuck that. You would run home to mom and say you wanted to get it too so you could both play it and experience it in your own way. 

I've never heard someone so pissed off about let's plays before, it's the most asinine and bizzare thing I have EVER heard.


----------



## Qtis (May 28, 2014)

Dark S. said:


> Don't get me wrong I'm not criticizing anyone who finds LP entertaining, because I'll be honest I found some to be enjoyable. However if someone is profiting off of it and the publisher wants it down they have every right to. They shouldn't be demonized for making that move when there was nothing inherently wrong with. In this case with Nintendo it seems there was a compromise so they're not going anywhere.


Remixing material is legal and should not be copyrightable or monetized by a third party. Let's plays can be equated to mix tapes from a few decades ago.


----------



## MarioFanatic64 (May 28, 2014)

Yeah, some people have managed to make enough money from YouTube to get by. Good for them. But if you really expect to make a living from making videos of yourself playing video games then you need to face reality. YouTube ad revenue should at most be a little extra cash in the wallet.


----------



## Monty Kensicle (May 28, 2014)

mariofanatic64 said:


> Yeah, some people have managed to make enough money from YouTube to get by. Good for them. But if you really expect to make a living from making videos of yourself playing video games then you need to face reality. YouTube ad revenue should at most be a little extra cash in the wallet.


 
I'm sorry but recording yourself doing something and producing anything of quality takes a lot of money for microphones, cameras, capture cards, editing software and computer to edit on not to mention the games and consoles themselves.

If you plan on putting all that time and money in you'd be stupid not to try and make a living from it.


----------



## Gahars (May 28, 2014)

mariofanatic64 said:


> Yeah, some people have managed to make enough money from YouTube to get by. Good for them. But if you really expect to make a living from making videos of yourself playing video games then *you need to face reality*. YouTube ad revenue should at most be a little extra cash in the wallet.


 

...Except the reality is that Let's Players can earn millions a year from their videos, on top of things like sponsorships and promotions. These things make people more than a living.

It might seem bonkers that Youtube Ad revenue can earn people so much, but it serves the purpose of attracting talent and effort. Without it, a lot of content producers couldn't afford to make their videos.


----------



## kuwanger (May 28, 2014)

The thing, it's not that Nintendo thinks "the internet is a terrible place that ruins all of the things".  It's that they've got too many producers who are stuck in the past when FMV was really important.



> "Unfortunately, the movie scenes we worked hard to create were uploaded onto the internet." Sakurai lamented. "You can only truly wow a player the first time he sees [a cutscene]. I felt if players saw the cutscenes outside of the game, they would no longer serve as rewards for playing the game, so I've decided against having them."


 
This same mindset is precisely the reason why Metroid: Other M turned out to be such a mess*--with literally an hour of unskippable cutscenes the first play through.  And here's yet another example where they're so gun-ho about video and how it somehow replaces game play.  Yet I don't play SSBB for the cutscenes, no matter how much of a "reward" they are--and here's a tip, the "wow" factor is basically lost on most people regardless if they go out of their way to try to find out information about something without first experiencing it.  The internet may make it easier to choose to ruin the experience and "spoil" it, but it's nothing unique to video or audio.  I text description in a review of the cutscenes in SSBB would be just as damaging to the "wow" factor, and game reviews have been around long before the internet.

Overall, game play is king.  Nintendo says it all the time, but their producers clearly don't think it.  They think FMV is king--which makes sense if you've got such a comparatively horrible system CPU/GPU wise and want to fake high quality, "wow" graphics.  Good thing the Gameboy, Wii, DS, etc were were it's at with graphics or their competitors would have mopped the floor with them.  Oh, right, yea...

*Okay, one could argue a lot of other things as well like the characterizations of Samus being entirely pathetic...but if you could skip the cutscenes, you'd never really have to think about it in much the same way you really just don't care the reason why Mario is doing what he's doing or Sonic is or whoever and you're generally able to ignore instead of being forced to watch because the producer "worked hard to create" them which means the gamer MUST watch them.  Sure, at some level, a "die hard" fan (and I'd say I'm one of Metroid) would care, but then you can just enjoy the game and try not to think too much about how yet another producer wants to spin the story in some fashion that so goes against your preconceptions.  Hence, I still like Metroid: Other M because it's a good game gameplay wise (and I guess I'm enough of a masochist who can stomach bad movies).


----------



## chavosaur (May 28, 2014)

If you think people can't make extraordinary ammounts of money off stupid game videos, take a look at Roosterteeth. 
Red Vs Blue was successful enough to create a fucking COMPANY, that can throw its own cons (RTX), create successful content and benefit from it. Seriously.


----------



## grossaffe (May 28, 2014)

The way I see it, Let's Plays are the equivalent of Mystery Science Theater 3000.  They played a movie and talked over it with their witty banter.  They had to either acquire the license for the films or had to use movies that had lapsed copyrights.  Nowadays you have the spiritual successor, RiffTrax, which instead of licensing movies, just makes an audio track that will sync up with the movie.  The movie creators still get their cut, though, from the viewer needing to purchase the moving to play alongside the RiffTrax.

The difference with Let's Plays is that they don't bother with the whole licensing thing.  They just go out there and make money using somebody else's product without  permission.  Nintendo is protecting their intellectual property and have created a method to essentially mass-license through Youtube.  Otherwise, the proper course of action for Let's Players, which apparently has been ignored to this point, is to individually come to terms with Nintendo or whatever company to license their product to make money off of.


----------



## Steena (May 28, 2014)

In before the profit rates are something crazy like 90-10 for nintendo.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2014)

This really is the first time I am hearing the distinction between longplay/walkthrough and let's play, apparently even some people popular in such circles do not seem to observe much of a distinction ( has some million views and does not seem to have been a one off viral, is called a let's play by the maker and is a complete playthrough give or take the occasional cut that ultimately does not miss out any gameplay, though it also includes various deaths, though having watched the thing I am still of the "and people go nuts for things like that*" persuasion).

*I really do have to find it one of these days but there was a clip from the Simpsons was Bart was playing with the neighbour kids and hogging a game, upon being queried he said "we're a team" and it was accepted. Such a thing kind of summarises how I feel here.



Qtis said:


> Remixing material is legal and should not be copyrightable or monetized by a third party. Let's plays can be equated to mix tapes from a few decades ago.



That gets to be odd. The closest you have is sampling and that errs on the site of the copyright holder ( http://www.copynot.org/Pages/Music sampling.htm ).

Mix tapes as in format shifting then sure (though the UK it was technically against IP law until quite recently, even though it was actively not enforced), mix tapes as in make a greatest hits of an artist and sell that/give it away always has been against IP laws wherever you go.



Gahars said:


> On the one hand, at least they won't be taking down hour long podcasts for using clips from their trailers.
> 
> On the other hand, this is still stupid. A lot of the let's play community is cancerous, don't get me wrong, but at the same time, it's the sort of tumor you'd do more harm in trying to remove. Let's Plays can be a huge boon to a game, promoting titles to an audience that might not have cared otherwise. *PewDiePie is... well, he's a lot of things, but I guarantee you games like Amnesia would not have sold as well as they did without his videos and other videos like them.*
> 
> Wrong or right, as a company, you're much better off working with the Let's Players than trying to cut them out. There's plenty of games to choose from nowadays, and if you're not going to play ball, it's easy for them to take their "business" elsewhere.



I saw a video the other day discussing these things, he was equated to a "tastemaker" in the classic psychology/sociology/marketing sense of the term; realising such a thing was probably accurate was not a joy filled moment and probably says much about this hobby of ours.


----------



## Vipera (May 28, 2014)

Watching a Let's Play is like going to somebody's house, taking a seat, and enjoying a night seeing others playing while they comment.
Considering this scenario, I don't know which way is better: pay nothing to the creators of the game they are not playing or pay everything to the dudes who are playing the game they did not make?
To me it just feels like no one deserves the money they make for stuff like this.


----------



## Hells Malice (May 28, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> The difference with Let's Plays is that they don't bother with the whole licensing thing. They just go out there and make money using somebody else's product without permission. Nintendo is protecting their intellectual property and have created a method to essentially mass-license through Youtube. Otherwise, the proper course of action for Let's Players, which apparently has been ignored to this point, is to individually come to terms with Nintendo or whatever company to license their product to make money off of.


 
I'm curious how people can actually believe such utter bullshit and still manage to be capable of living.
These arguments scream utter ignorance, or extreme Nintendo fanboyism. The fact of LPs is that they take little to no revenue from companies, and in most cases actually increase it. It's honestly the same as saying 100% of pirated copies of games = a lost sale.

It's free advertising. It's really as simple as that. There is nothing more to it.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2014)

Hells Malice said:


> I'm curious how people can actually believe such utter bullshit and still manage to be capable of living.
> These arguments scream utter ignorance, or extreme Nintendo fanboyism. The fact of LPs is that they take little to no revenue from companies, and in most cases actually increase it. It's honestly the same as saying 100% of pirated copies of games = a lost sale.
> 
> It's free advertising. It's really as simple as that. There is nothing more to it.



I would argue it can take, or at least delay, payment in some cases for certain, quite popular, styles of gameplay, I covered that one earlier -- a game like phoenix wright tends not to change any with subsequent playthroughs and it hardly a great test of speed or skill. Equally I have seen a few let's play types that I am surprised managed to get video capture working as they seem to lack basic maths, logic and reading comprehension (whether intentionally or not does not boil down to a great difference in the end) -- perception control is all the rage in marketing.
Now how of the impact, positive or negative, does remain to be debated and I am not sure how great any of it is, barring a few exceptions. grossaffe's reading of copyright law would be accurate as well. However this is getting into territory covered by most of the previous youtube and Nintendo vs the world game footage world discussions.


----------



## lokomelo (May 28, 2014)

Hells Malice said:


> I'm curious how people can actually believe such utter bullshit and still manage to be capable of living.
> These arguments scream utter ignorance, or extreme Nintendo fanboyism. The fact of LPs is that they take little to no revenue from companies, and in most cases actually increase it. It's honestly the same as saying 100% of pirated copies of games = a lost sale.
> 
> It's free advertising. It's really as simple as that. There is nothing more to it.


Even that I agree 100% with the fact that gameplay videos help the game companies to sell more, and this should be enough "pay" for their franchises,  I'm curious about how people like you with this kind of respect to others opinion still manage to be capable of living.

Anyway, we are on a market that games are money machines, old companies still rule, and new companies copy and paste old marketing behaviors. I'm not surprised with this coming first from Nintendo. Nintendo is on its worst time of its history, and it is natural for them to try to lever its profits, and find who to blame (on the matter, they are blaming people who use their characters and do not pay for it). On my "utter ignorance" I think that Nintendo real value is their franchises, and the natural long term solution will be release games for other systems, even that they're doing other stupid attempts like this "youtube idea".


----------



## ForteGospel (May 28, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> In other words they're saying _"you dedicate your time and effort to film and edit the videos and we'll take the money for your work, that's totally fair"_. Thanks, but no thanks - there are Youtube alternatives out there. A lot of LP'ers are already moving to Blip.tv, Polaris etc. - some are even opening their own websites. Hell, NormalBoots.com is back and that alone can give an LP fix. Here's a thought, Nintendo - Let's Plays are _free advertising_ for you, appreciate them instead of trying to cash in on them because believe it or not, they're already beneficial to you.


last time i checked, if you upload a whole movie it would be get down for copyright infringement even if you record yourself joking around about it.

then what is the difference if you upload a whole videogame? oh yeah we are blaming nintendo right now thats the difference


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2014)

Thinking about it more I am actually curious to see what effect let's plays, as a whole as well as broad trends within them, have upon sales. For instance there is a considerable body of evidence that demos reduce gameplay sales ( http://www.computerandvideogames.com/416824/game-demos-halve-sales-new-data-suggests/ and http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/02/11/jesse-schell-releasing-a-game-demo-can-cut-sales-in-half ) and many people struggle to wrap their heads around that.

To go a bit further and return to the perception control thing I have to wonder how bad intros, a fairly common thing within games, would in turn make for bad videos. I am sure we have all played games with suspect tutorial missions but good gameplay once that is over (often quite literally once it is over rather than 12 hours in or something).


----------



## CathyRina (May 28, 2014)

ForteGospel said:


> last time i checked, if you upload a whole movie it would be get down for copyright infringement even if you record yourself joking around about it.
> 
> then what is the difference if you upload a whole videogame? oh yeah we are blaming nintendo right now thats the difference


 
The difference is if you watch a movie on Youtube you would get the same experience as if you would watch it by other means.
Watching a Game being played isn't the same as playing the game by yourself.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 28, 2014)

ForteGospel said:


> last time i checked, if you upload a whole movie it would be get down for copyright infringement even if you record yourself joking around about it.
> 
> then what is the difference if you upload a whole videogame? oh yeah we are blaming nintendo right now thats the difference


You missed the part where you can't play a YouTube video so you're not actually sharing the whole game. By the way, reviews and riffs of movies are entirely permitted under fair use, one falls in the review category, the other is a parody. Check out the Cinema Snob and Spoony. GG, try again next time.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2014)

Parody rights are more of a US thing (though it does exist elsewhere), they are quite notably absent from UK copyright law ( http://www.righttoparody.org.uk/why-copyright-law-needs-a-sense-of-humour ) and a fairly recent, in the timeframes IP law seems to evolve and change in anyway, introduction in other parts of the world ( http://www.artslaw.com.au/articles/...-fair-dealing-exception-for-parody-or-satire/ ).


----------



## ForteGospel (May 28, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> You missed the part where you can't play a YouTube video so you're not actually sharing the whole game. By the way, reviews and riffs of movies are entirely permitted under fair use, one falls in the review category, the other is a parody. Check out the Cinema Snob and Spoony. GG, try again next time.


checked both, they dont upload full movies. GG try again next time 

also fast already gave an example of a series that you wont need to play after wathcing a LP: Ace Attorney.

pretty sure most of the adventure games ala monkey island are part of those games you wont need to play after watching an LP.

add to that we are talking mainly LP videos and not reviews and riffs.


----------



## Gahars (May 28, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> The way I see it, Let's Plays are the equivalent of Mystery Science Theater 3000. They played a movie and talked over it with their witty banter. They had to either acquire the license for the films or had to use movies that had lapsed copyrights. Nowadays you have the spiritual successor, RiffTrax, which instead of licensing movies, just makes an audio track that will sync up with the movie. The movie creators still get their cut, though, from the viewer needing to purchase the moving to play alongside the RiffTrax.
> 
> The difference with Let's Plays is that they don't bother with the whole licensing thing. They just go out there and make money using somebody else's product without permission. Nintendo is protecting their intellectual property and have created a method to essentially mass-license through Youtube. Otherwise, the proper course of action for Let's Players, which apparently has been ignored to this point, is to individually come to terms with Nintendo or whatever company to license their product to make money off of.


 

The movie analogy people seem to be fond of doesn't work because video games aren't movies.

Duh, I know.

Still, you can only watch a movie, whereas in games, the player's interaction is the defining, central feature. People watching a Let's Play are getting an inherently incomplete experience - basically an excerpt. Plus, Let's Plays are (arguably) transformative works - it's the commentary and commentators that define them, not necessarily the games themselves.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (May 28, 2014)

Let's Play is kinda just cancer anyway.

You sit down and play a game and record yourself doing so. It's not rocket science. Of course if you want to do it well you gotta have the right equipment for recording and the written material to keep the game interesting but it still just seems really boring. Game Grumps was funny and now it's just bland shit, PewDiePie has always been awful, GiantBomb LPs are just pretentious pieces of shit trying to make a fucking LP seem "professional" when really it's just a bunch of middle aged fatties cracking jokes while playing RPGs.

Anyway, this program is just kinda silly, Nintendo already gets free advertisement from LPs and this almost seems to discourage this. Why even bother playing Nintendo games if your video will be riddled with ads and a chunk of your money goes to them? Might as well play another game. Besides it's a Nintendo game, you know what the experience is anyway.


----------



## lokomelo (May 28, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> You missed the part where you can't play a YouTube video so you're not actually sharing the whole game. By the way, reviews and riffs of movies are entirely permitted under fair use, one falls in the review category, the other is a parody. Check out the Cinema Snob and Spoony. GG, try again next time.


the copyright law goes for music, games, movies and any copyrighted material. The goal of the product (to play, to watch, to listen, to read) do not matter, using any part of it without authorization violates the law. That's not a matter of opinion, if you use a game to make a video is the same of pirate the hole game in most countries (if not in all of them) to the eyes of the law (not for my eyes, but who cares about me )

Under the Brazilian law, witch is very similar to most European countries, if you broadcast a video game show with reviews, previews, and all that stuff on a TV channel, you have to ask authorization to do it for every game that you show. The same goes to internet shows, but the size of internet allow many shows to pass under the bureaucrats radar, but is do not mean that it is allowed.

I'm not hypocrite, I like piracy, and I like people who made internet videos about games. I just don't catch the point of people who are against piracy but support freedom to video makers. What would be it? Half-Freedom for information?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 28, 2014)

ForteGospel said:


> checked both, they dont upload full movies. GG try again next time
> 
> also fast already gave an example of a series that you wont need to play after wathcing a LP: Ace Attorney.
> 
> ...


Removing scenes in which nothing happens is the equivalent of cutting loading screens from a Let's Play, but I do see your point - some games are just not good LP material. Still, I believe that loads of people buy games they've watched online, I definitely do and I think it promotes the product very well. I suppose the truth is somewhere in the middle ground, as it's often the case.


----------



## osirisjem (May 28, 2014)

I don't see Sony or Microsoft bothering YouTubers.
Ur real smart Nintendo.

Waging war on YouTubers is just another reason why Nintendo is failing.

Instead of wasting time trying to control the Internet, Nintendo should have been making a rich online environment for their console.

Penny wise, Pound Foolish.


----------



## KingVamp (May 28, 2014)

Yeah, the first thing they should do is make you pay to play online.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 28, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> Yeah, the first thing they should do is make you pay to play online.


I'd rather pay for a good service than use a shit one for free.


----------



## Hero-Link (May 28, 2014)

Dark S. said:


> because I'm some nintendog


 

hahahah Nintendogs... priceless!

Just that small reference made my day (it has been a very slow day...)


----------



## FAST6191 (May 28, 2014)

osirisjem said:


> I don't see Sony or Microsoft bothering YouTubers.



http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ne...om-profiting-on-created-content/1100-6397939/

I could go on but I am nodding off at my desk here.

Edit. Might as well link up http://letsplaylist.wikia.com/wiki/"Let's_Play"-friendly_developers_Wiki


----------



## grossaffe (May 28, 2014)

Gahars said:


> The movie analogy people seem to be fond of doesn't work because video games aren't movies.
> 
> Duh, I know.
> 
> Still, you can only watch a movie, whereas in games, the player's interaction is the defining, central feature. People watching a Let's Play are getting an inherently incomplete experience - basically an excerpt. Plus, Let's Plays are (arguably) transformative works - it's the commentary and commentators that define them, not necessarily the games themselves.


Of course it's not a perfect 1:1 match, but the issue still stands that the contents of the video game are owned by Nintendo or whomever. Just because it is an interactive medium does not mean that anything less than selling fully interactive copies is not copyright infringement. And the transformative argument holds no more water than the same argument for MST3k. People watched it for the commentary, but the makers still had to pay licensing fees for movies that were not in the public domain.


----------



## osirisjem (May 28, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> http://www.gamespot.com/articles/ne...om-profiting-on-created-content/1100-6397939/


 
Hmm. Interesting. Didn't know that. Thanks.

According to http://www.wholetsplay.com/wiki/doku.php
M$ is a Permission to Let's play = Yes, with some conditions - reference: http://www.xbox.com/en-GB/Community/Developer/Rules

Nintendo is a Maybe.
Maybe the restriction is Let's play Youtubers cant make money ?

Anyone know if MS actually issued takedown notices like Nintendo did ?


----------



## WhiteMaze (May 28, 2014)

Congratulations! Your "Nintendo" has evolved into a "Facepalm"!

Seriously...why Nintendo? Why must you be the same spoiled brat everytime? Dear god....services like YouTube and other free streaming websites provide you *ADVERTISING*.

Yet you continue to slap your own costumers with your incomprehensible stupidity regarding YouTube. Grow the fuck up Nintendo.


----------



## ferofax (May 29, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> _"you dedicate your time and effort to film and edit the videos and we'll take the money for your work, that's totally fair"_


 
Only if you use Nintendo assets, and only if you're earning money by using them. No company or business entity that takes themselves seriously will allow anyone to make money off of their property without a cut. I thought that's a widely-accepted business principle. I mean, if I make a product, and people make videos of my product and earn money while I don't get anything -- that doesn't sound quite right, right? So we either agree to some sort of royalty, or they stop earning money off of my product. It's not greed, it's only fair. What's not fair is people earning money from my product while I don't get any. That's called charity. Or squatting. I dunno.

Ah, but then again, consumers rarely think about the other side of the fence -- too busy being a consumer.


----------



## CathyRina (May 29, 2014)

ferofax said:


> Only if you use Nintendo assets, and only if you're earning money by using them. No company or business entity that takes themselves seriously will allow anyone to make money off of their property without a cut. I thought that's a widely-accepted business principle. I mean, if I make a product, and people make videos of my product and earn money while I don't get anything -- that doesn't sound quite right, right? So we either agree to some sort of royalty, or they stop earning money off of my product. It's not greed, it's only fair. What's not fair is people earning money from my product while I don't get any. That's called charity. Or squatting. I dunno.
> 
> Ah, but then again, consumers rarely think about the other side of the fence -- too busy being a consumer.


 
Ninty isn't getting nothing. They get free advertisement.
Free advertisement = more units sold = ??? = Profit


----------



## Bimmel (May 29, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> They should absolutely be demonized for profiting from someone's effort that went into editing video and making an interesting show out of mere gameplay footage. It's fair use and only a fraction of the total product, it's made by passionate gamers who go out of their way to advertise products they enjoy. Splitting profits from monetizing video is a step forwards but Nintendo still has a lot to learn from companies like Microsoft in this regard. The Halo phenomenon wouldn't be nearly as big as it is if not for shows like Red vs. Blue - Microsoft acknowledged and cherished that as an intrinsic part of the fanbase, Nintendo just wants additional income.


Hm, I think so too.

Can't understand Nintendo sometimes.. did I really say "sometimes"?


----------



## the_randomizer (May 29, 2014)

Jokes on them, my YT videos don't get enough views to generate revenue, so therefore, I doubt they will even interfere with my videos  HA!


----------



## grossaffe (May 29, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Ninty isn't getting nothing. They get free advertisement.
> Free advertisement = more units sold = ??? = Profit


That's an assumption, not a fact.  Still does not change the fact that they have not licensed the material and thus do not have a right to profit on it.  Look at Wreck It Ralph.  It had Bowser in the movie, and in order to bring him in, they had to work out a deal with Nintendo despite how small of a role he played in the movie.  With Let's Plays, they take even more intellectual property by having not just characters, but the actual game that was done by Nintendo.  No matter how you slice it, these people do not have the right to profit off of someone else's work without their permission no regardless of any supposed benefits it provides.

And it's not like Nintendo need's this kind of advertising.  People who watch Let's Plays are already pretty into video games, and those people will already know Nintendo games.  This isn't a case like Amnesia where you have an indie developer getting exposure from people who didn't know anything about them or their game.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 29, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> That's an assumption, not a fact. Still does not change the fact that they have not licensed the material and thus do not have a right to profit on it. Look at Wreck It Ralph. It had Bowser in the movie, and in order to bring him in, they had to work out a deal with Nintendo despite how small of a role he played in the movie. With Let's Plays, they take even more intellectual property by having not just characters, but the actual game that was done by Nintendo. No matter how you slice it, these people do not have the right to profit off of someone else's work without their permission no regardless of any supposed benefits it provides.
> 
> And it's not like Nintendo need's this kind of advertising. People who watch Let's Plays are already pretty into video games, and those people will already know Nintendo games. This isn't a case like Amnesia where you have an indie developer getting exposure from people who didn't know anything about them or their game.


 

So why then do other companies like Ubisoft, Sega, Sony, etc not have any beef with those who upload content? AFAIK, Sega doesn't mind people doing it at all.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 29, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Ninty isn't getting nothing. They get free advertisement.
> Free advertisement = more units sold = ??? = Profit


 
thats what they said about pirating pc games way back when too. same thing with music pirates and people playing music on parties (which is basically illegal, same as having a dvd evening with more than your closest household members).

be honest, a lets play is on a whole different level than lets say, a fan review or someone making vids like the videogame nerd. advertisement is short and doesnt require the whole game to be showcased.


irregardless of lets plays actually having any advertising value at all, it remains a fact that nintendo has every right to be against them or require monetary compensation for them. if sony or microsoft dont do that, its their loss (though I'm pretty sure they too, have some rules on lets plays)




the_randomizer said:


> So why then do other companies like Ubisoft, Sega, Sony, etc not have any beef with those who upload content? AFAIK, Sega doesn't mind people doing it at all.


 
because they believe that the gains outweight the losses here. its pretty simple, no matter how you look at it, the effects of lets plays on sales cant be measured. it can only be believed in.
it sounds like a nice little theory that more videos on youtube mean more sales of a game. but its nothing more than that, a theory with no proof and no way to prove it. and honestly, it goes along the lines of 'piracy and hacking give new life to a console'.

personally, i believe lets plays to have either no or a negative effect on sales, while reviews have either no or a positive effect (in case the game gets a good review that is). that is because the lets play offers the watcher the whole game, every storyline element, every plot twist, every battle and every boss. all it withholds is the aspect of doing it yourself. which is a noissue for most people, if you watch a whole lets play it stands to reason you either have the game already and want to know how good or bad you do compared to someone else, or want to learn a few tricks and secrets. or you dont want to buy it / cant play it due to lack of console, but want to know how it is and what happens so you can talk with others (which is what half my brothers class does. they all have an opinion on most ps4 games, while only two actually own said console).
while the review only gives people an overview, a few good and bad points and a personal opinion. pretty much what every add on tv and all other media has been for the last few decades. a tried and true formula. because if all you need to buy is an advertisment, you dont need 25 hours of gameplay footage.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 29, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> So why then do other companies like Ubisoft, Sega, Sony, etc not have any beef with those who upload content? AFAIK, Sega doesn't mind people doing it at all.



I thought Sega took out a lot of footage for various things a while back?
http://www.destructoid.com/sega-forcing-removal-of-shining-force-videos-on-youtube-239581.phtml
Granted there was http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...romises-not-to-do-it-again-with-caveats.shtml later on.

Also http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/developer/rules


> You may post your Item to a page or website that has advertising, but only if you do not earn any money from that advertising.  For example, if you post your video on Youtube or Vimeo and there happens to be an advertisement next to it, then as long as you don't get paid for that advertisement, the fact that there is an advertisement on the page doesn't break these Rules. But enrolling in the Youtube partner program (or other similar programs), where you are entering into an agreement to get paid, is not allowed. On a similar note, if you create and distribute a free app, then you can't earn any money from advertising in that app.



I already linked
http://letsplaylist.wikia.com/wiki/"Let's_Play"-friendly_developers_Wiki


----------



## the_randomizer (May 29, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> I thought Sega took out a lot of footage for various things a while back?
> http://www.destructoid.com/sega-forcing-removal-of-shining-force-videos-on-youtube-239581.phtml
> Granted there was http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...romises-not-to-do-it-again-with-caveats.shtml later on.
> 
> ...


 

Luckily, my videos don't get nearly enough views to generate profit, so for now, I don't have to be too worried, nevertheless, I'll be on my toes.


----------



## grossaffe (May 29, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> So why then do other companies like Ubisoft, Sega, Sony, etc not have any beef with those who upload content? AFAIK, Sega doesn't mind people doing it at all.


Do they not?  I dunno, I don't really follow it.  But regardless, any other company's ideas of what people can do with their IPs has no bearing on Nintendo.


----------



## the_randomizer (May 29, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> Do they not? I dunno, I don't really follow it. But regardless, any other company's ideas of what people can do with their IPs has no bearing on Nintendo.


 

I've had a troll flag my video under the name of a British magazine for a Sonic the Hedgehog 2 clip I uploaded, but other than that. Why it was under that I've no clue. My videos don't get enough views to have me worried.


----------



## grossaffe (May 29, 2014)

the_randomizer said:


> I've had a troll flag my video under the name of a British magazine for a Sonic the Hedgehog 2 clip I uploaded, but other than that. Why it was under that I've no clue. My videos don't get enough views to have me worried.


Even if your videos did have enough views, the point of this thread is that Nintendo is creating an affiliate program that splits the money between Nintendo, Youtube, and the video maker, not taking down the videos.


----------



## TyBlood13 (May 29, 2014)

Wait people actually click on those shitty ads? O.o

I fail to see how anybody actually makes money off YouTube


----------



## grossaffe (May 29, 2014)

TyBlood13 said:


> Wait people actually click on those shitty ads? O.o
> 
> I fail to see how anybody actually makes money off YouTube


Ads don't need to be clicked on to be successful.  A lot of it is just brand awareness and getting into people's minds.  I mean, Television and Print had ads long before you could click on an advertisement.


----------



## CathyRina (May 30, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> That's an assumption, not a fact. Still does not change the fact that they have not licensed the material and thus do not have a right to profit on it. Look at Wreck It Ralph. It had Bowser in the movie, and in order to bring him in, they had to work out a deal with Nintendo despite how small of a role he played in the movie. With Let's Plays, they take even more intellectual property by having not just characters, but the actual game that was done by Nintendo. No matter how you slice it, these people do not have the right to profit off of someone else's work without their permission no regardless of any supposed benefits it provides.


 

Comparing Let's plays with cinema movies is kinda dumb tbh. and even if you are not claiming to have created the game shown in a Let's Play, the characters of a game don't have a cameo in your videos, your videos are about them. Also keep in mind that you are earning money from the Ad service that YouTube presents not from selling your Let's Play's. That's a huge difference that people tend to forget.
Wreck it Ralph is a product that you bought. Earning money through a product that uses copyrighted assets or characters is illegal unless both companies are okay with it (in other words the creators of the movie have to pay).
Let's Plays is a hobby that you don't buy to watch. Lets Players earn money because they activated ads provided by YouTube not because they sell videos that use copyrighted assets or characters.
If ninty should leech from somebodies money then it's the amount of money that YouTube earns, not the creator of the video.



Clydefrosch said:


> thats what they said about pirating pc games way back when too. same thing with music pirates and people playing music on parties (which is basically illegal, same as having a dvd evening with more than your closest household members).
> 
> be honest, a lets play is on a whole different level than lets say, a fan review or someone making vids like the videogame nerd. advertisement is short and doesnt require the whole game to be showcased.
> 
> ...


 
You can be how the industry wants you to be, a moronic customer who gets hyped about something from a trailer showing only the cool stuff. You can also be a smart guy saying that you want to see some actual uncut gameplay footage before buying a game. I make my decisions from the second option. And companies like Capcom even do Livestreams on games like Monster hunter 3U or lately even the Gameboy Megaman games that recently came out on the E-Shop.
I personally never liked pirating video games since I only did it because I was poor. But I can confirm that even if I haven't owned the game I was recommending it to other people which is free advertisement. If you get people talk about your game you are more likely selling more copies. Now that I grew up and got a job I am slowly buying every game that I ever pirated (steam does most of the job actually). I made a list if you are curious.

Anyway... Am I the only one who is suspecting YT doing stuff like that because of the YouTube upload feature in MK8?
In theory this could be a gold mine for them.


----------



## WiiCube_2013 (May 30, 2014)

osirisjem said:


> By the YouTube affiliate program gets up and running ... Nintendo won't have to worry about "YouTube LP pirates" because no one will care about Nintendo.
> So few games to review ... who will care ?
> 
> Nintendo is an embarrassing company.
> ...


 
You clearly hate Nintendo so guess it's time to change that Mario avatar.

I don't like their actions here and there, but the games they release tend to be pretty addictive for hours and hours.

By the way, if people didn't care about Nintendo products the price of rare or out of print Nintendo games would drop considerably.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> *Comparing Let's plays with cinema movies is kinda dumb tbh*. and even if you are not claiming to have created the game shown in a Let's Play, the characters of a game don't have a cameo in your videos, your videos are about them. _Also keep in mind that you are earning money from the Ad service that YouTube presents not from selling your Let's Play's. That's a huge difference that people tend to forget._
> Wreck it Ralph is a product that you bought. Earning money through a product that uses copyrighted assets or characters is illegal unless both companies are okay with it (in other words the creators of the movie have to pay).
> Let's Plays is a hobby that you don't buy to watch. Lets Players earn money because they activated ads provided by YouTube not because they sell videos that use copyrighted assets or characters.
> If ninty should leech from somebodies money then it's the amount of money that YouTube earns, not the creator of the video.



*Though various IP law systems could use a tweak the fact remains it is much the same logic as far as the law is concerned.*

_What? That does not change a single thing and is functionally identical._ I do not pay to watch TV either (well TV license aside) and you can bet TV show makers, that also do not sell their TV show to me, at least until the DVD comes out, are troubled by this.
In fact have a video detailing exactly that (skip to around 2:30).


The Youtube vs Viacom stuff more or less did this, indeed it may well have been what let to this sort of thing we see today.

Nothing you said makes any sense in any reading of any functioning intellectual property system I have ever read up on (and they are all pretty similar in the broad strokes).


----------



## Foxi4 (May 30, 2014)

People are mixing up terms. There's a huge difference between character cameos in _"Wreck it Ralph"_ which is an original movie in and out of itself and transformative work which is taking a pre-existing product and adding your own creative input into it, be it in the form of a review, a riff, a parody or any other such modification/transformation. If I take the Mona Lisa, give it a mustache and a beard and put a fedora on her head to make a statement about neckbeards, that's transformative work. I just used 100% of someone's painting but I changed the message entirely, making it a whole new piece. Now, for example if I take New Super Mario Bros. and make a _"machinima"_ using the in-game engine, I took the original work and transformed it by adding new expression and meaning _(video game changed into a "movie" with its own plot giving it a new meaning)_. That's fair use right there.


----------



## grossaffe (May 30, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> Comparing Let's plays with cinema movies is kinda dumb tbh. and even if you are not claiming to have created the game shown in a Let's Play, the characters of a game don't have a cameo in your videos, your videos are about them. Also keep in mind that you are earning money from the Ad service that YouTube presents not from selling your Let's Play's. That's a huge difference that people tend to forget.
> Wreck it Ralph is a product that you bought. Earning money through a product that uses copyrighted assets or characters is illegal unless both companies are okay with it (in other words the creators of the movie have to pay).
> Let's Plays is a hobby that you don't buy to watch. Lets Players earn money because they activated ads provided by YouTube not because they sell videos that use copyrighted assets or characters.
> If ninty should leech from somebodies money then it's the amount of money that YouTube earns, not the creator of the video.


So your argument is that the difference is because money is made through advertising?  That certainly doesn't make a difference, otherwise network TV stations which play over the air would not have to pay to air movies because people don't pay to get, say, NBC.  NBC makes its money from advertising, so why can't they air Wreck-it Ralph and just happen to get money because people pay them to put in advertisements at certain intervals?  The bottom line is that their Intellectual Property is being monetized by other people.  Just because it's not directly sold does not make it legal.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> People are mixing up terms. There's a huge difference between character cameos in _"Wreck it Ralph"_ which is an original movie in and out of itself and transformative work which is taking a pre-existing product and adding your own creative input into it, be it in the form of a review, a riff, a parody or any other such modification/transformation. If I take the Mona Lisa, give it a mustache and a beard and put a fedora on her head to make a statement about neckbeards, that's transformative work. I just used 100% of someone's painting but I changed the message entirely, making it a whole new piece. Now, for example if I take New Super Mario Bros. and make a _"machinima"_ using the in-game engine, I took the original work and transformed it by adding new expression and meaning _(video game changed into a "movie" with its own plot giving it a new meaning)_. That's fair use right there.



To be fair the mona lisa is probably (photographs of paintings and the like get very odd and as you probably do not have an older than copyright length digital image..... it is the same with public domain books and typesetting and sometimes fonts) whatever the local equivalent of public domain is at this point, also without any trademark issues.

I am not sure machinima falls under traditional fair use either, not to mention the earlier examples of review and, at least in some countries, parody are enshrined aspects of fair use. Even in straight up animation suites the licensing can get quite tricky, a more clear cut example probably coming in video codecs (internal use vs sale vs whatever).


----------



## grossaffe (May 30, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> To be fair the mona lisa is probably (photographs of paintings and the like get very odd and as you probably do not have an older than copyright length digital image..... it is the same with public domain books and typesetting and sometimes fonts) whatever the local equivalent of public domain is at this point, also without any trademark issues.
> 
> I am not sure machinima falls under traditional fair use either, not to mention the earlier examples of review and, at least in some countries, parody are enshrined aspects of fair use. Even in straight up animation suites the licensing can get quite tricky, a more clear cut example probably coming in video codecs (internal use vs sale vs whatever).


Yeah, Machinima is a grey area at best.


----------



## The Catboy (May 30, 2014)

I feel like this video towards the end really covers the problems with Nintendo and their stance on Youtube. Even if they are doing this, it's not going to help them because it's still going to push people away from making videos for their products. Compared to Sony, that allows you to stream your games for free, straight from the system.
Nintendo is killing their own products with how much they seem to hate the internet. I know they make Nintendo Directs, but those really only draw in the same people over and over again, which isn't going to help them.
Nintendo promised the Wii U would go all out and they've barely allowed it to move.


----------



## KingVamp (May 30, 2014)

I wonder what Foxi4 think about this.


----------



## Gahars (May 30, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> I wonder what Foxi4 think about this.


 

The video or the youtuber?

Foxi4 may be a resilient man, but I don't know how anyone can stomach more than 30 seconds of this guy's output.


----------



## Clydefrosch (May 30, 2014)

the weird thing is, people still think its the 1970's when word of mouth was actually a thing, because people didnt have the internet and whole free websites in the business of reviewing games.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (May 30, 2014)

Nintendo Begins it's own undoing. Farewell old friend, you're really screwing yourself.


----------



## CathyRina (May 30, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> So your argument is that the difference is because money is made through advertising? That certainly doesn't make a difference, otherwise network TV stations which play over the air would not have to pay to air movies because people don't pay to get, say, NBC. NBC makes its money from advertising, so why can't they air Wreck-it Ralph and just happen to get money because people pay them to put in advertisements at certain intervals? The bottom line is that their Intellectual Property is being monetized by other people. Just because it's not directly sold does not make it legal.


 
There is really one rule if you are doing RPG maker games and want to sell it.
All assets need to be yours, if not you can't sell them. However you can add adfly do your download link if you can't sell it because you have lets say bowser in it.
It's the same issue just in a simpler form.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2014)

Damn it KingVamp. I had forgotten that guy existed.



XrosBlader821 said:


> There is really one rule if you are doing RPG maker games and want to sell it.
> All assets need to be yours, if not you can't sell them. However you can add adfly do your download link if you can't sell it because you have lets say bowser in it.
> It's the same issue just in a simpler form.



You can, it is much the same as you can probably find someone to buy a copy of your bowser laden game. It could still see you pinged either way.


----------



## KingVamp (May 30, 2014)

For the record, I'm on the fence about all this.



Gahars said:


> The video or the youtuber?
> 
> Foxi4 may be a resilient man, but I don't know how anyone can stomach more than 30 seconds of this guy's output.


So,  it's the guy himself, not his actual opinions that bothers him?





FAST6191 said:


> Damn it KingVamp. I had forgotten that guy existed.


lol


----------



## osirisjem (May 30, 2014)

WiiCube_2013 said:


> You clearly hate Nintendo so guess it's time to change that Mario avatar.


I exclusively own Nintendo consoles.
I'll admit it's tiring to see Nintendo make mistake after mistake.
It's hard to understand a company that would release a console like the Wii U and think it was going to do well.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> [aosin]So,  it's the guy himself, not his actual opinions that bothers him?



His content, his ideas on things/logic regarding issues, his delivery.... other than him seemingly having a tripod and a knowledge of what a cut is his stuff is basically everything I, and seemingly many others, hate about the youtube set. That he also looks somewhat like me is just salt in the wound.

I think it was Guild that used the term basement dwelling shitnerd, rarely do I encounter terms so apt.


----------



## grossaffe (May 30, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> There is really one rule if you are doing RPG maker games and want to sell it.
> All assets need to be yours, if not you can't sell them. However you can add adfly do your download link if you can't sell it because you have lets say bowser in it.
> It's the same issue just in a simpler form.


And so that differs from my example of free over-the-air broadcast supported by ads?


----------



## CathyRina (May 30, 2014)

grossaffe said:


> And so that differs from my example of free over-the-air broadcast supported by ads?


 
The point was the last part. "Just because it's not directly sold does not make it legal."
RPG maker games using copyrighted assests that are indirectly sold by using ads instead of charging money are legal.
It's the same thing with YouTube. The only difference is that YT became so mainstream that companies wanted them to change their content rules for stuff like movies, TV series and Music. In the process creating a confusion in which we are now about game footage. Watching a full gameplay of a game doesn't hurt the sales at all. Sales for games like RE6 or COD are stable even though the majority of YouTubers could say that they don't like these games for whatever reason. Many companies see this but Nintendon't. Instead of making their own channels watch worthy they just wanna grab other people's money.


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> The point was the last part. "Just because it's not directly sold does not make it legal."
> RPG maker games using copyrighted assests that are indirectly sold by using ads instead of charging money are legal.



In what universe?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 30, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> I wonder what Foxi4 think about this.


If I had any more power than I do now, anyone posting AlphaOmegaSh*t would get +25% Warn for the first offense and +75% on the second. This entails a permanent IP ban. It's a good thing that I don't, but I'm still contemplating removing the video from your post. 

_;O;_


KingVamp said:


> So, it's the guy himself, not his actual opinions that bothers him?


I never got far enough into any of his videos to learn more about his opinions, his demeanor was always enough for me to close the tab within 15 seconds tops.


----------



## CathyRina (May 30, 2014)

FAST6191 said:


> In what universe?


 
This Universe by reading the EULA which nobody does.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 30, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> This Universe by reading the EULA which nobody does.


You mean RPG Game Maker's assets which they have full control over so they can allow you to sell products using them if they so please.


----------



## grossaffe (May 30, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> This Universe by reading the EULA which nobody does.


 
Are you now saying that RPG Maker has an End User License Agreement that says you can get money from advertisements but not directly selling and then using that specific EULA to apply to all other forms of distributing someone else's intellectual properties?


----------



## FAST6191 (May 30, 2014)

XrosBlader821 said:


> This Universe by reading the EULA which nobody does.



Now I would not expect many of the GBAtemp denizens to appreciate the difference between design rights and registered designs but so you have demonstrated repeated failings to understand key concepts, though this is also not unheard of around here,... it may be better if you stopped speaking on intellectual property matters. If nothing else it is more likely trademark law you will be running foul of in your hypotheticals.


----------



## CathyRina (May 30, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> You mean RPG Game Maker's assets which they have full control over so they can allow you to sell products using them if they so please.


No, actually not. 



FAST6191 said:


> Now I would not expect many of the GBAtemp denizens to appreciate the difference between design rights and registered designs but so you have demonstrated repeated failings to understand key concepts, though this is also not unheard of around here,... it may be better if you stopped speaking on intellectual property matters. If nothing else it is more likely trademark law you will be running foul of in your hypotheticals.


 
Ok.


----------

