- Joined
- Aug 24, 2014
- Messages
- 4,839
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 27
- Location
- Fort Gay, West Virginia
- XP
- 2,300
- Country
Do you agree with Nintendo's Creators Program?
- Thread starter WiiCube_2013
- Start date
- Views 8,466
- Replies 95
Ah, yes, a stirring rebuke. You really proved your point here.
Ah, yes, because the average Let's Player is a modern day Jay Gatsby with enough spare cash to tackle an international corporation while munching on caviar?
In reality, the DMCA system makes it really difficult for channels to fight back against unfair takedowns, and that goes for even the largest ones out there. While someone could hypothetically take this to court, it's not going to be worthwhile for a video that'll make, at most, a couple hundred dollars before Google and the network take their cut. Even in the most egregious and obviously wrongheaded cases, a protracted legal battle would be wildly impractical.
(Also, do note that what Nintendo's doing isn't illegal, and I never said that it was. Nintendo is within its rights to try and pull this... and, in return, we're free to lambast them for it. Nintendo can go ahead on its own but, in the end, it's a poor decision and one that hurts them more than anyone else; it's kind of like playing Bop-Em Socker with your testicles.)
...Except that reviews are also subject to the new policies and have to be submitted to Nintendo for approval. Nintendo would also then receive a cut of the review's ad revenue.
You don't have to like something to recognize its popularity and brand exposure. PewDiePie's channel has 34.5 million subscribers, many of whom (as you seem to be aware) are very impressionable, very easily persuaded children. Can you not see how that's a huge marketing opportunity? If 5% of PewDiePie's viewers decided to purchase a game he features, that's still almost 1.75 million sales, along with the new word-of-mouth buzz that'd bring.
You and I might watch Let's Plays for different reasons, but you and I aren't the main Let's Play audience. Don't project so much.
Stay salty, bud.
I won't repeat what i said, since i don't need to lose more time over this, when others have already said it better.
Nintendo doesn't need this kind of exposure. It has not helped them in the slightest, and the most irrefutable proof is that since the let's play begun being a (big) thing, Nintendo sales have been falling steadily. That's your proof right there.
Actually, having access to viewing all that a game has on offer lowers the incentive to buy it. Kids and young people are impatient, curious people. This industry relies heavily on this for sales. Let's play destroys this.
Not that i defend this kind of thing. I am just stating the facts.
And having a huge source of income based on your ip, going on a let's player's pocket instead of your devs, is wrong. Both legally AND morally. Those let's players need to face reality and accept the offer Nintendo makes to them. It is quite generous. I never see them complaining because Youtube takes a cut from prodiving the infrastructure to them, so i don't see why they have a problem for devs to take a cut by providing them their source material...
You need to take your head out of the sand on this one and stop defending a practice that hurts those that we need the most , game developers.
Correlation = irrefutable proof? All those scientists lied to me.
Except that gameplay over demos has been seen to improve sales http://www.computerandvideogames.com/416824/game-demos-halve-sales-new-data-suggests/
Now this is not directly applicable (trailers and let's plays are different and the latter may well provide a similar level of satiation as demos for certain types of games, many of said certain type even being what Nintendo tends to do) but I am not sure you can draw that conclusion as easily as you have.
Equally if the current industry has to rely on trickery for sales then they can happily die and something new can rise up.
"And having a huge source of income based on your ip, going on a let's player's pocket instead of your devs, is wrong. Both legally AND morally."
Do go on. I have previously argued that they are legally allowed to do something, however they are not obliged to do anything and the police system is not obliged to do anything other than enforce court orders. Now "morally" is a whole other field and I am going to need some further elaboration there.
...As Nintendo has judiciously shut down and DMCA'd almost any LP's of their newest games, along with taking down reviews, podcasts, etc. that used footage in an unambiguously fair way.
I don't think that helps your argument much.
And yet countless games have become overnight sensations thanks to exposure from Let's Plays and other Youtube features (your Amnesias, Slenders, Five Nights at Freddy's, shit, this was practically Goat Simulator's entire marketing gimmick).
If exposure to Let's Plays wasn't beneficial in terms of promotion and instead harmed sales... then why has almost every other major publisher embraced Let's Players? LP channels often get games well in advance of the release date, sometimes ahead of reviewers, because they see the value that LP's may hold for even the largest of AAA releases. You're telling me that the army of marketing analysts and pencil pushers spread between Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft, etc. have all been duped by gamers with webcams and headphones? Seems shaky. You also seem to forget that, a) kids are generally seen as impressionable and easily swayed, and b) if the kid is that impatient, doesn't that make it all the more likely they'll do whatever they can to get the game themselves and try it out?
Granted, and has already been said by myself and others, not every game is going to benefit equally. Something like Telltale's output, which emphasizes the narrative above all else, will probably not enjoy the same boost as more gameplay-centric titles. Good thing Nintendo's output is practically all about the gameplay anyway, though.
And really, I don't have to explain that watching a game and actually playing it for yourself are two entirely different experiences on here of all places, right? Come on, guys, it's 2015.
Pennies on the dollar for a company worth billions is hardly a huge source of income, especially considering the benefits (that free publicity razzmatazz). I mean, you can say it's "morally wrong" all you want but you've done a very poor job of explaining exactly why it's so reprehensible. Nobody's taking money out of Nintendo's pocket, nobody's mugging Reggie, this practice shouldn't even hurt their feelings. Chillax.
Also, if you're going to defend the program, then you should probably be at least familiar with it and its criticisms. It's lambasted because it's on top of the already substantial cuts from Youtube and affiliate networks, which are accepted because they are applied (roughly) broadly and uniformly. With Google, well, it's their service, and with the networks, you're protected if you use content from any developer (except Nintendo, of course). The other alternative is to stick solely with Nintendo products (and only the games they say you can play), which is ridiculously restrictive, especially for anyone hoping to grow their channel at all.
Too bad every other developer and publisher disagrees. Acting as if this is some righteous cause for the benefit of developers is like trying to break a warden out of his own jail.
Lets not forget that ISIS is also becoming more prominent, proving that Nintendo sales are directly tied to ISIS activity.
Seriously you're a retard. Nintendo sales are dropping because they're completely out of touch with todays society. They just keep pumping out the same old shit even though the fanbase they're catering to grew up years ago, and many moved on.
But hey, you're just another uninformed bumpkin and unfortunately you'll probably stay that way for the rest of your sad life. It's hard not to feel a strong amount of pity for your kind
Name a few?
I'm of the complete opposite idea. Without limits, you get stuff getting famous because of the shittiest stuff, and you also get the shittiest kind of people. Reddit has a 4Chan-like policy, the admins rarely intervene on normal issues, but it's clear to see how everyday there's some idiot buying upvotes for visibility on the front page. Some corporate do that too, but it's mostly users try to BS all the way through, just for "lulz". Countless people fake cancer, fake claims, and such. You HAVE to give people limits, or they will take advantage of the worst stuff as much as they can. You won't get banned by saying "I have cancer, please donate", even if it's not true. Which sucks, I had to unsubscribe from the most famous subs who didn't follow a strict guideline.
Well, it's your point of view, as it was mine.
That "joke" button on Steam reviews is a joke. Idiots will still go "LEL YES THIS WAS HELPFUL CUZ FUNNY XDXD" and ignore the "joke" review altogether. If anything, legit reviews will get flagged as "jokes", even if they are serious, just because people are assholes.
And no, Amazon doesn't sell everything at the best price. I read a book from Amazon which I got from the official website for free, but I still reviewed it.
You must have played the game in all its integrity in order to make not only a good, but also fair review. Maybe a depth review isn't necessary, but it's surely help with the BS detection.
Memes are something universal. They are the stupid stuff your friend says to you while doing something, they aren't supposed to be commercialized in any way. That's like trying to copyright the name "Candy", but I know no one has been so worthless to have tried that... right?
They exist already, but there's a difference between creative, random games and random games with the same sick pattern of "build a house. Oh, it takes 15 minutes and you do nothing else...but if you pay us you can skip the time!".
Your point is...? All I did was answering a question, don't act like it came out of nowhere. You should find a healtier hobby, like botanic.
How do you play a game in all it's integrity (sic) if it's a game like EU4, CIV, Besiege or even FIFA? Or an MMO, which is not only long, but constantly updated?
Yes, a full review should be played as much as possible, but there's a place for shorter impressions that show you how the game plays, at least now there are no real demos. And it's a lot easier to find time to watch a 30 min video of a critic who played longer than that then to play the game. Because, let's be real, most people don't finish most games, not by a long shot.
You answered with your point of view on why people watch let's plays, I told you that it isn't true, at least not for a large amount of people. You should accept that.
In the end, it's as much your loss as Nintendo's.
Paid GBA homebrew
Meteo video decoder
There was a very nice bookreader
Several hombrew libraries for audio and video decoding went under dual licenses (paid commercial).
I would also say that the GBA and DS represented some of the best offerings for handheld devices at the time, much like consoles used to represent the best option to have some computing device under your TV. Now phones and anything that has a HDMI out have risen up. I would also hold the quality of code, or at least the volume of quality code has risen dramatically with the rise of things like android and ios.
Indeed it was my opinion, however dismissing something as basically harmless as watching computer games be played does not seem cool.
So what if people get famous because of no great talent? Ignore it and carry on with life, or seek something better.
I have no idea about steam reviews as I do not use the service. Where did the best price stuff come up as well? Also a simple helpful button is not a magic bullet, you need to do something more creative like score your reviewers and curate the system a bit, like google does for its searches, like most dating sites worth a damn do for matches, probably like a lot of what facebook does...
"You must have played the game in all its integrity in order to make not only a good, but also fair review. Maybe a depth review isn't necessary, but it's surely help with the BS detection."
I seems we have somewhat different opinions on what makes a review, though if you feel that way it would go so way to explaining your position with regards to people needing to play a game rather than watch it.
It seems we are also operating on different definitions of meme. It may well be an aspect of shared culture but use in commercial form has no bearing on anything really. On the copyright of candy do I assume you are referring to the trademarking of candy as in candy crush incident?
I have no idea where you are coming from in most of this. It almost feels like nostalgia for some kind of time that never existed where creative and commercial are not intertwined and everybody was excellent to one another. That never existed and if it ever does then human nature and society will have changed so radically as to be unrecognisable.
I played both Civ (IV, V) and Fifa (98 through 06, and 13). Your point is...? Also considering how short of a game FIFA is, lol. If you think that you have to play EVERY SINGLE team to win the game, you don't know what FIFA games are about. This is the kind of false information you get from lazy Let's Players.
If you can't review Civ because it lasts more than your average game then you shouldn't review it at all. It's like going to an "All you can eat" sushi restaurant but stay there just enough to try the wasabi alone, and then your impression of the whole place is shit.
And no, I have explained my point of view in detail by replying to someone who also replied with detail, and he has my respect for that. All you did was going "no you are wrong" and getting butthurt. You don't deserve any reply because there is nothing to reply about, other than the fact that is clear how you have no argument.
Are you sure about Meteo? The only site that has it offers it for free.
The easiness of coding has improved, but this is not necessarily a good thing. I have already pointed out how crappy the average app is, because it's easy and most of the times there is no other wish than getting money from ads/micro-transactions.
I am not dismissing anything. You think that way, I think this way, we have explained to ourselves and I don't think there is anything more to say. To me, contributing to this fad is harmful. To you, it's harmless. I don't have any more argument about it.
Many YouTube people admitted to have gotten inspired by the early years of the AVGN. I despise the guy, but there is no denial of his superior quality during those years. What possible inspiration can you get from PewDiePie? All he does is making a dumbass of himself and cut his videos. No inspiration is bad, and the overall quality of entertainment drops.
I don't want to be that guy of "older is better", because it's not true. But there is nothing inspirational about the richest YouTube sensations. Except the money, but that does not require creativity, just copycats. And if I copy shit it can't get better than shit.
Amazon doesn't do that, nor Steam. I review stuff on Amazon and I don't get a "dude, he knows his shit" flair near my name, despite always explaining in detail what I review. Let's say I want to write a review on the new CoD game it's coming out next week. I finally get it, I play it for the time it should take me to play it in detail, then I wrote my detailed review. But wait, no one saw my review because the hundreds of "Great game!" "I shot a muslim, 10/10" came there first. And I have to compete with them. It's unfair and makes me want to not review stuff anymore. I don't even do that on my Backloggery because what's the point? No one is going to read those.
As I wrote earlier this post, "If you can't review Civ because it lasts more than your average game then you shouldn't review it at all. It's like going to an "All you can eat" sushi restaurant but stay there just enough to try the wasabi alone, and then your impression of the whole place is shit.". Many reviewers gave Pokémon Mystery Dungeon a low score because they didn't feel like playing the whole story (which is not as huge as any other roguelike). The risk is always there.
I do. And I'm giving you another example:
A famous website about memes I'm not naming (I don't want the fuckers to get free traffic) was very popular into Reddit's default subs, and no one really knew why because Imgur was a much better hosting site and the stuff on this new site wasn't funny anyway. You know what happened? They discovered that the admin of this new website was buying upvotes and using multiple accounts to get visibility, breaking the system and letting the default subs sink with the crap they wanted to share because money. The site was banned after a while on ONE default sub, but I think it came back.
People can be such royal assholes when it comes to money-grabbing. We shouldn't support them in any way.
Again, no. I've never said these problems never existed. But they have spread like viruses to a point where it's getting very difficult to find any quality, homemade projects made out of passion.
Very sure about meteo. https://web.archive.org/web/20030803092730/http://www.inside-cap.com/bsf/meteo.htm
"The easiness of coding has improved, but this is not necessarily a good thing."
Unless this ease of use comes at the cost of people of the inclination to do so being able to write high performance code then I have to disagree. You can have all the shovelware in the world but it does not matter a bit if
If you find it hard to find good stuff then there needs to be a better marketplace, not restrictions upon it.
"I am not dismissing anything. You think that way, I think this way, we have explained to ourselves and I don't think there is anything more to say. To me, contributing to this fad is harmful. To you, it's harmless. I don't have any more argument about it."
Making a claim that is a harmful is the kind of thing that needs to be qualified though.
Who cares if someone does or does not inspired or ideas from the most popular person out there?
On reviews that would seem to be a problem with the user interface rather than the underlying problem. Also selecting reviews by those that use proper grammar and avoid certain word choices is fairly well documented among those that use reviews to their fullest.
On money grabbing, there will always be people looking to game the system. It is an endless war on all fronts, the best you can do is try not to support the destructive ones.
"The easiness of coding has improved, but this is not necessarily a good thing."
Unless this ease of use comes at the cost of people of the inclination to do so being able to write high performance code then I have to disagree. You can have all the shovelware in the world but it does not matter a bit if
If you find it hard to find good stuff then there needs to be a better marketplace, not restrictions upon it.
"I am not dismissing anything. You think that way, I think this way, we have explained to ourselves and I don't think there is anything more to say. To me, contributing to this fad is harmful. To you, it's harmless. I don't have any more argument about it."
Making a claim that is a harmful is the kind of thing that needs to be qualified though.
Who cares if someone does or does not inspired or ideas from the most popular person out there?
On reviews that would seem to be a problem with the user interface rather than the underlying problem. Also selecting reviews by those that use proper grammar and avoid certain word choices is fairly well documented among those that use reviews to their fullest.
On money grabbing, there will always be people looking to game the system. It is an endless war on all fronts, the best you can do is try not to support the destructive ones.
Something no one has brought up yet is how the success of Nintendo's arguably subpar program will affect the current LP field. From the numbers being given, they're getting applications faster than they can process them. This is worrying to me because a) How will other publishers and such react to their success and b) Will we see more programs like this and a general attitude shifts towards transitive creations. Not to mention the previous criticisms levied at how they might handle approval. If a LPer can't get their payoff for their video within a realistic frame of time, they might lose out on some much needed income.
I hope their success won't prove to other companies that they were approaching the LP scene in the wrong direction.
I hope their success won't prove to other companies that they were approaching the LP scene in the wrong direction.
Clearly no one plays FIFA's career mode and notice's it's issues, right? Or measuring the balance of it takes no time at all, right?
So explain all the professionals who sang high praises of mediocre games like TW:Rome II or CIV:BE, unlike Let's Players who let you see how crappy they were. And that's ignoring how different CIV 5 is on normal and on deity, which no one wins with few tens of hours of play.
No, you create windmills and attack them, completely missing the point. You're the kind of person who has a view of the world about a lot of things you know nothing about and can't accept that anyone with actual experience tell you your perspective is flawed.
Why would I be butthurt? My favourite (by far) Let's Plays aren't going anywhere and are supported by the publishers. It's annoying that I might not find a caster that I like and is skillful at Nintendo games, but there's always piracy and AR codes so that I can still appreciate games that aren't for me.
It's been mentioned that a lot of bigger LPers that did Nintendo content have moved away from doing Nintendo content. The more personality driven ones will move away from Nintendo content, since it won't be as profitable and their viewers are there for him/her.
That said, if other publishers start following suit, then that will probably cause a lot of bad PR and controversy, at lot more than Nintendo doing this. Nintendo was already causing a lot of problems for content creators on Youtube, not just LPers, so they were already moving away from Nintendo content. If a big Publisher, that a lot of people make content from their games, starts doing this, it will blow up.
The thing is, Nintendo's program has blown up despite the criticisms. I already know that Nintendo content has dwindled in recent memory, if not outright disappearing from most channels. But I'm more concerned with similar programs coming out with a less LP centric attitude than previous. If Nintendo can get away with it, why not other companies? We're not so far out of the woods that it couldn't happen suddenly, even gradually. Companies are no strangers to poor business decisions that resulted in bad PR, and given reputations like EA, we might just see them testing the waters.
Like we say, they're not wrong to do this. We disagree with it, but they're fully within their power to do so. LPers might even just switch over a purely indie scene. I don't even want to go there with my speculation.
I meant blown up as in the bad PR and controversy. It's blown up a bit with Nintendo, but it's not blown up that much, really. If a big publisher follows suit, we'll see how that turns out. I think if Nintendo pulled this a couple of years ago, other publishers would have been on board, but by now I think a lot of publishers are on board with LPs. Others are probably watching Nintendo's feedback to test the waters, and might do it themselves if they think they can handle the backlash.
Similar threads
-
- Portal
