Angry Joe gets featured on Gamespot...

Not only is he in trouble if he is monetizing that video, if he pulls out the "fair use" card in court while using material owned by AJ, the judge will laugh in his face.... or be pissed that his time is being wasted on ruling out dumb shit that should be common sense.

O my goodness bro, how is that slander?

If you go make a video that states Pepsi puts dead rats in their product as a secret ingredient watch how fast your sued. You cant slander companies.

Avoiding the subject matter doesn't do you any good either.

Why is it the biggest names in gaming won't even do this scumbag shit Nintendo is up to?

Nintendo, Marvel, DC, Disney, Sega? All the companies with the biggest IPs are protecting their image like crazy.

who cares about this guy

Finally a real answer from you. When it comes to Let's Plays the way they can promote a game is extremely limited. Most often then not it's all pretty straight forward. I can't think think of a situation where a Let's Play could result in "brand damaging", because all Let's Players really do is just play games, along with throwing some personality in to the mix. In fact this case is far more likely with reviewers if anything.

So the risk of increase on Let's play videos, i would argue that this is a good thing. How can it not when these videos would be exposed to millions of people, as me and numerous other people have already expressed. Now your argument is loss of marketing control, which, to be honest, you're making it sound much worse then it actually would be. Fact is there has never been a worst care scenario involving loss of marketing control involving Let's Plays. The only case where this would be true is if said game would receive an immense amount of negative publicity, but this would be due to it already being a bad game. Bad games = Bad publicity. Games like War Z or Ride to Hell: Retribution.

And the bolded part, I call BS and it's complete paranoia on behalf of the publisher if they act according to this.

@iandizion713: And what about EA, Ubisoft, Sony, Microsoft, Activision or Rockstar? All of which have games that sell as much if not more than Nintendos products, and certainly more than the companies you listed.

Oh the angry joseph show will be showing all footage of the angry joe show including his original work. Its free advertising right?

@bunchanumbers: If he posted a link to his channel in the description, yes.

A: It is free advertising for his Channel

B: I have added something that is new to the content by adding a perspective

C: Angry is not copyrighted and my name could be joesph

D: Angry Joe has said he fine with remixes of his content as long as they offer something new

E: There are fair use laws

F: If I was a clone I would have to work on my Nintendo fanboy mentality

G: gg

H: There are people that do that for some of his videos (like this nintendo situation)

I: There is a difference between showing a movie and a game (The stream does not replace the game)

Its not that Nintendo doesnt like Lets Plays, its true they dont care for them much. They would rather you expereince it. Which is true, you can watch something and say, hmm, dont think i would like that at all. But i bet if you tried it yourself you would have a different reaction.

Now on the other reason they dont really agree with Lets Plays is spoilers. But now Youtubers have gotten better at following the rules and not spoiling things, like skipping over sences etc, its still hard to regulate though.

Another is content behavior. If little kids are watching Nintendo games and dude is cursing up a storm or saying nasty stuff like like my balls etc, this looks bad on Nintendo. Also other things can be done, racist stuff could be said, its endless what can go wrong. Its not fair to expose young people to adult content. It reflects badly on Nintendos image.

Lastly, money, Nintendo wants paid for the content you are using. Royalties.

They just dont really care or are too scared to care. Same reason they dont promote health features on their products like Nintendo does. They be different.

You cant see how Lets Plays can potentially damage the value of products like (for example) The Order, Walking Dead, or other audiovisual/story focused games? You dont realize that there is now a subgroup of people that buy some games, but are happily content on watching Lets Plays of others (regardless of genre), therefore benefitting the monetized channel owner for playing it, but not the developer for making, paying for and licensing the product being played?

And the marketing loss part; I actually work in marketing. Not being in control of how your brand is handled and appropriated can be a fucking disaster that only gets worse the bigger you are. I already explained some reasons why, I dont really want to repeat myself.

Maybe not as restrictive and as undercooked as Nintendos partership thingy, but I fully expect others to follow suit with simillar programs. There is simply NO reason not to ask "career Youtube gamers" for something in return for making a living broadcasting their products in a free, massively popular website like YT. It is absolutely fair to have all parties involved DIRECTLY rewarded in some way other than one of them hoping the exposure sells them more copies.

Angry Joe is crying that Nintendo is cashing in on his talent... Yet he is doing the EXACT SAME fucking thing and expecting a differeny outcome.

This is business, not charity.

@Thunderdrone: well said.

I find it funny they dont complain about paying Youtube if they use Youtube to make money. I upload to Youtube for free, but if i ever hit that monetize button, boom, got to pay 50%.

@iandizion713: Because they're using youtube as their platform, much like how ebay takes a cut from all sold products.

@SexyJazzCat: And using full original content from Nintendo as their source.

Youtube is the area you are renting to build your store (or game channel).

Your original content (you talking, your character skits, etc) is the product you can sell for nothing but profit.

The branded stuff that complements your original content (game footage/assets/music/etc) is stuff you need to buy/pay a fee in order to repackage and sell as part of your own offerings.

How is this shit so hard to understand? The immaterial nature of Youtube doesnt somehow render video and sound assets worthless. You want licensed content, pay for it!

Its up for the owner of those licenses to decide if they should just hand you over shit for free, not you. You certainly have absolutely NO grounds to bitch and moan if they happen to attach a price tag to their stuff should you choose to repackage it as part of your own price-tagged product.

Joe made it pretty clear about the mindset of these nintendo fans in that video. He called their arguements, and here they are repeating it without shame.

Looooooool, holy shit haha. I just decided to finally watch the video, couldn't make it past 3 and half minutes. Nintendos policies are outdated and jank, sure, but this dude is an obnoxious, self entitled little twat.

I can't argue for either side on this really. In one corner we have Nintendo, the archaic dumb ass. In the other we have Joe, the sniveling little bitch.

Hilarious.

@Thunderdrone: You cant see how Lets Plays can potentially damage the value of products like (for example) The Order, Walking Dead, or other audiovisual/story focused games? You dont realize that there is now a subgroup of people that buy some games, but are happily content on watching Lets Plays of others (regardless of genre), therefore benefitting the monetized channel owner for playing it, but not the developer for making, paying for and licensing the product being played?

But in the end they don't. They sell just fine. In fact games like Walking Dead that were VERY popular amongst Let's players sold extremely well. These people that are happily content with watching videos were never going to buy the game anyway. Even with these people watching the videos and not buying the games, the company still benefits from the people that DO buy the game, as opposed to never uploading said video and never exposing these games to potential buyers.

"And the marketing loss part; I actually work in marketing. Not being in control of how your brand is handled and appropriated can be a fucking disaster that only gets worse the bigger you are. I already explained some reasons why, I dont really want to repeat myself."

Well marketing involving Let's Plays is a whole different ball game. There's little room for negative impact.

Maybe not as restrictive and as undercooked as Nintendos partership thingy, but I fully expect others to follow suit with simillar programs. There is simply NO reason not to ask "career Youtube gamers" for something in return for making a living broadcasting their products in a free, massively popular website like YT. It is absolutely fair to have all parties involved DIRECTLY rewarded in some way other than one of them hoping the exposure sells them more copies.

Youtube isn't free, they get a cut of the ad revenue. And it's far too much to ask considering the company is about 3 zeroes above their pay grade. The free publicity involving the million person viewership, all of which are the demographic they're aiming towards, which otherwise they would have no access to, is a perfectly fine trade off. Every other publisher seems to think so. So no, I don't expect publishers to join suit with nintendo. The difference between Nintendo and every other publisher is that they aren't as out of touch as Nintendo is with just about everything.

"Angry Joe is crying that Nintendo is cashing in on his talent... Yet he is doing the EXACT SAME fucking thing and expecting a differeny outcome.

This is business, not charity."

You're right, it isn't a charity. Let's Players aren't going to waste their time with nintendo games if their company don't see the value in their million person viewership. They fully expect to be compensated for exposing their game to millions of people. They aren't going to split their revenue on top of youtubes cut to do their job.

@Thunderdrone: I understand it fully. It's just that Nintendo is the only fuckwit who ignores the benefits.

@SexyJazzCat: I meant Youtube was free for its viewers. Oh you also think Youtube asks to much for hosting? lol Well then, either the real world must terrify or you think youtube game celebs are so amazing they should be granted priviledges the rest of the world is not worthy of benefiting from. No wonder people donate them shit. Christ...

As for everything else, we are going around in circles. There is not much else to say that hasnt been said in at least three different ways by now.

@Thunderdrone:

Let me refrase that for you.

Youtube isn't free, they get a cut of the ad revenue. And publishers taking a cut is still far too much to ask for considering they are about 3 zeroes above the Let's Players pay grade.

Honestly, here are the facts. 1. What Nintendo is doing is very Legal. 2. What Let's Players do is free publicity, and pretty much 99% of publishers are on board. The problem here is Nintendo is missing something that 99% of publishers understand.

@SexyJazzCat: I know Youtube maintenance costs. I know its not a "free" platform. What I meant was that Youtube CONSUMERS dont have to pay to have access to it, therefore bringing in a much, MUCH larger number of viewers that companies need to take into consideration when considering letting others bank on their properties for free.

@Thunderdrone: I would hope that they would absolutely enjoy getting their games exposed to millions and millions of people.

@-God-: Why you still so vague God, your just like all the other haters, running away from the arguments.

@SexyJazzCat: Nothing is ever free. Their is always a cost, you just continue to ignore it.

@iandizion713: ...what are you talking about...

We've been down that road. I know you see no downside on letting people bank on licensed stuff and by now I hope you at least understood the points I was making, even if for whatever reason you disagree.

Lets not bore ourselves by going in circles again.

@SexyJazzCat: We have spent hours and hours explaining to you the cost of "free advertizing" yet you continue to ignore it. You have no care for Nintendo or its rights as a creator, you think people have the right to act entitled to others full content and use it for profit without paying royalties.

@Thunderdrone: I understand the points you try to make. But there are factors that just convinces me otherwise. Like how Nintendo is alone on this stance. What I don't understand is how you completely disregard the value of a Let's players audience when it's quite clearly the cream of the crop.

@iandizion713: You've done no such thing. All you've said is companies are too scared, which is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard.

@SexyJazzCat: Sorry mate, i cant help you no more. Im done debating. News just broke that Youtube is about to offer an Ad free subscription. Time to debate elsewhere. Enjoy.

@iandizion713: I'd hardly call what you were doing debating. More like just typing out words.

He doesint make himself look any better when the system the fans got for him he wont cover now cause of this. It would be nice of him to still do nintendo vids just non profit ya know for the fans. Hell if he wants to still make money he can do vlogs for the games on the system since it wont be showing any gameplay footage.

He can also monetize Nintendo reviews as it falls under fair use. But lets be honest, he is clearly far more interested in stirring up drama and throwing out sympathy bait by pretending to "stick it to the man"

He expected nintendo to take down his video in order to rant. They took his money instead. He got pissed so then HE took it down himself so they wouldnt "profit from his talent.", while quickly uploading the planned rant video while the iron was hot, with monetization turned on off course ;) ;) ;)

Fucking hilarious

Protective of their family image?

Right. Bayonetta dressed up like a Princess Peach hooker looks like proper family friendly maintenance if I've ever seen it.

But you're right, we can't have a few kids spouting off racial epithets here and there, we must forgo entire online standard features for years, in doing so depriving the fun to everyone else who would act like adults otherwise and would make their online game much more convenient and enjoyable to play......to protect their image, which they seem to be doing an upstanding job by choosing to release such games as Bayonetta 2 on their system.

Sorry man, I don't mean to come off as overly harsh or mocking to you or anything, it's just people aren't dumb, and they don't require to be patronized by big daddy Nintendo in everything they experience every minute they enter Nintendo's ecosystem by throwing their lawyers everywhere. People are very capable of making the distinction between a 12 year old acting 12 years old as being reflective of that individual's character/age and not associating it to the property of which they're partaking. Except perhaps when you see a g-string going up Bayonetta's ass crack a foot away from a Mario star, sanctioned by Nintendo themselves.

@iandizion713: I am asking you to provide example to support your point. I already know.

How do you think word of mouth spread for Skylines?

I was in the Neogaf thread for weeks before that game hit, when the developers had given notable YTbers early copies for LPs. I cannot even begin to tell you how many people I saw building up until the game's release saying how after they watched LPs that it had convinced them to purchase the game, many of which admitted they held no prior interest (or even knowledge) of it beforehand.

There's no argument that LPs help sell games, the only debate to be had is to what extent. And 500k for a game in a few days, from a relatively unknown developer, that I personally didn't see one single ad on TV for nor didn't have any reviews until the day of release? You think that anticipation built in a day after people simply read reviews? No, that reception was the direct product of weeks and weeks of tension and excitement that built from LPs expressing enthusiasm. You are 100% deluding yourself if you don't believe that the various LPs that built up anticipation exploded into incredible sales when the game hit. It wasn't just reviews, people were convinced long before they even came out that it was a purchase.

@MirkoS77: people aren't dumb but angry parents who don't realize there are parental locks they can use sure are. When it shows up in the news that a kid was receiving porn on animal crossing nintendo gets the full brunt of it

(That actually happened btw)

Da ****? Is 11 pages really needed for this? Nintendo's youtube policies are dumb as hell, and they need to modernize. Something that has been needed for a very long time now.

On the topic of YouTube; it can be a 'real job'. I see bunch of smartasses in here that obviously do not know how video production, or the Youtube monetization process works.

Nintendo youtube policies are just a plain bad idea. They can do what they want with their IP, sure but those policies are causing them more harm than good. All this bad press just to "protect their IP". If Nintendo want to keep ruining their brand even further then ok, what can we do?

About Joe, I enjoyed some of his videos but man he should have seen this coming... or maybe he did. Hmm.

Also, people hating on youtubers are just mad because they are less successul and earn less so let them hate. lol It's not that easy.

not needed at all but sheep are gonna sheep.

He did see this coming since it happened before. Yet he did it again so he can just complain again and get some more views.

lol heh...... he needed to find material to be angry about. :P

@finalfantasy94: Honestly im glad he did it. Keeps the controversy alive.

The best part Joe called it. They're behaving par for the course.