Do you agree with Nintendo's Creators Program?

[Tiffani]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?
Is it because NOA offices are not very autonomous, and you need to always report to Japan (NCL)?

Adelman: Nintendo is not only a Japanese company, it is a Kyoto-based company. For people who aren’t familiar, Kyoto-based are to Japanese companies as Japanese companies are to US companies. They’re very traditional, and very focused on hierarchy and group decision making. Unfortunately, that creates a culture where everyone is an advisor and no one is a decision maker – but almost everyone has veto power.

(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]

[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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[FAST6191]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

[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.