Overpriced, underpowered HW
Overpriced games
Recycled ideas
Greedy fuckers
Living in the past
Milking their sheep with nostalgia
Yup, sounds like Shittendo.
Nintendo in hot water with content creators
This topic is locked from further discussion.
@SexyJazzCat said: Bullshit. Their product is being exposed to their intended demographic as opposed to any other form of advertising that would otherwise be seen by people who couldn't care less about video games. Not having control is completely irrelevant if it garners positive results regardless.
The ****...Not having control over how your property is commercialized by other businesses is irrelevant? Are you high?
And btw, nintendo isnt saying that you cant make videos with their stuff. They are just saying that they will now give you a percentage of the revenue that you would otherwise have no right to be earning in the first place. Soooo, "positive results" are still a go.... unless Lets Play Youtube 'celebs' decide to take the ball home because they dont want to share the money they make off of shit others created ;)
Those poor, lazy and greedy souls. They will be in my prayers tonight...
Here's a thought. If these creators have a big enough ego to feel outraged by such a request, maybe they could put their talent where their mouths are and make content that doesnt rely on padding videos with gameplay footage. Like Zero Punctuation.
@Gue1 said:
The problem is that pewdiepie said: "**** You Nintendo."
Of course he did. His million dollar career wouldnt have existed if normal copyright laws on Youtube also applied to games and prevented him from basically filming himself playing shit while shrieking, doing funny voices and belching out memes every 3 seconds.
I'd be saying "**** you" too, to whoever threatened to take away that sweet exploit that made me set for life with next to no fucking effort.
@Thunderdrone: Yes it's completely irrelevant if it's a FREE ALTERNATIVE and produces POSITIVE RESULTS.
Yes, you're still allowed to make videos with their games, but it's pointless and a waste of resources if they get miniscule ad revenue, so in return they will not bother to create content with nintendo games. This is a loss for the viewers, content creators and for Nintendo themselves, and that's what makes them fucking idiots.
Why is this one in particular a big deal? I mean... It's not exactly rare to see "This content has been removed due to a copyright claim from x". What's important is that reviews aren't being censored; they're still covered under fair use.
Once you start monetising your content, you're subject to the same regulations as the other big boys. Don't like copyright laws and grey area contracts? Don't monetise those videos containing copyrighted content. Hell, you can still rake it in from endorsements and backhanders. More importantly, your viewers can see that you're about more than just the money.
@jimmyjammer69 said:
Why is this one in particular a big deal? I mean... It's not exactly rare to see "This content has been removed due to a copyright claim from x". What's important is that reviews aren't being censored; they're still covered under fair use.
Once you start monetising your content, you're subject to the same regulations as the other big boys. Don't like copyright laws and grey area contracts? Don't monetise those videos containing copyrighted content. Hell, you can still rake it in from endorsements and backhanders. More importantly, your viewers can see that you're about more than just the money.
not Nintendo's. And most if not every youtuber before putting up videos they ask the publisher first but Nintendo and their obsession for control makes this very difficult for everyone. That's why they lost all the 3rd party support once publishers saw that Sony's Playstation was a viable platform. Even Xbox could have a piece of the cake while Nintendo stood alone in the dark.
And there's a clause in there that says Nintendo can use the videos that people make in anyway they want without owing the original video creator anything...That's some BS.
@Gue1 said:
@jimmyjammer69 said:
Why is this one in particular a big deal? I mean... It's not exactly rare to see "This content has been removed due to a copyright claim from x". What's important is that reviews aren't being censored; they're still covered under fair use.
Once you start monetising your content, you're subject to the same regulations as the other big boys. Don't like copyright laws and grey area contracts? Don't monetise those videos containing copyrighted content. Hell, you can still rake it in from endorsements and backhanders. More importantly, your viewers can see that you're about more than just the money.
not Nintendo's. And most if not every youtuber before putting up videos they ask the publisher first but Nintendo and their obsession for control makes this very difficult for everyone. That's why they lost all the 3rd party support once publishers saw that Sony's Playstation was a viable platform. Even Xbox could have a piece of the cake while Nintendo stood alone in the dark.
OK, so Nintentdo's finally innovating in one field. Can't fault them for that.
Copyright laws are a huge mess in general, and this kind of activity is nothing new. I guess it's the hypocrisy of where the loudest complaints are coming from that pisses me off. Something tells me that if the next big Youtube sensation made his fortune off Let's Watch: Pewdiepie videos, we wouldn't be hearing the same celebrities chiming in on this.
Pretty stupid terms of service on their part. Seems pretty restrictions, and doesn't seem to allow alot of content creators to be very...creative.
kind of silly that a company like Nintendo, who seem to try and be pretty ambitious when it comes to experimenting with new hardware or gameplay mechanics. Are so afraid of something like the internet.
It's fine that you value your creations so highly Nintendo. But you can't really slow down the internet. All their doing at this point in alienating people. And giving their games less exposure.
if people honestly feel they got all they could out of your game by watching cut scenes or watching playthroughs. Then they probably weren't going to buy your game in the first place.
@Pedro said:
"Content Creators", they are using content that is not theirs and benefiting financially from it. You can't be using other people's property for monetary gains and expect the owners of that property to just be OK with that.
Yes you can, and it is COMPLETELY LEGAL. It is called Fair Use, look it up sometime.
It's just a case of the law being behind the technology. The music Industry is facing a really similar issue. But now we're streaming video game footage instead of music.
Let's Play does not fall under fair use. It doesnt fall under anything. Hole in the law. Nintendo is making a hamfisted effort to stop the problem. Video games are an interactive media, you need to play it to get the experience, unlike music listening. If anything, youtube video game playthroughs are increasing sales.
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Pedro said:
"Content Creators", they are using content that is not theirs and benefiting financially from it. You can't be using other people's property for monetary gains and expect the owners of that property to just be OK with that.
This. I don't get why people think they can just make money off other peoples products. This is why kanye west has to pay to sample someone elses song or why you have to pay to even use someones face in a movie. If someone made money reading pages of my novel on youtube I'd be pissed.
But video games are interactive media, it's not the same like movies or songs.
When I see people's let's play, it makes me want to buy and feel the game first hand.
At least that's the argument of some famous YouTubers.
@freedomfreak said:
I can still watch GB's coverage of Nintendo on their website, so no biggie.
Your missing the point. Nintendo is stuck in the past and instead of encouraging free marketing for their goods they restrict, just like they have been doing for so long. It's policies similar to this that drove 3rd parties away from nintendo and to the others who have opposite philosophies.
@bunchanumbers said:
I have no problem with this. Nintendo went through all the trouble of making the game. I would not want someone to steal my stuff and put it up on youtube and make money on it. Nintendo doing a sharing program is a concession to these thieves who can't create their own stuff. They ought to be thanking Nintendo.
Oh my god... you sheep are the reason nintendo lost 3rd parties... how about stop defending stupid practices that have no room in the 21st centrury. These "theives" as you call them, show off their products to millions of people. It's free marketing to the main demographic that plays games. How is that stealing. So what if they profit. Nintendo would have to pay advertisers, and this is the same damn thing. How do you think Sony was able to come back from the ps3 gen so easily? They had the power of social media, positive vibes from youtubers and the web in general. This will only hurt your precious nintendo who "need to be compensated by the peasant thieving youtubers..." lol...
Blindly defending nintendo on an archaic policy that will hurt nintendo is...well, I guess that's why you guys are called sheep.
@Midnightshade29 said:
Your missing the point. Nintendo is stuck in the past and instead of encouraging free marketing for their goods they restrict, just like they have been doing for so long. It's policies similar to this that drove 3rd parties away from nintendo and to the others who have opposite philosophies.
Oh, I see the point. I just don't care for it when I can still get my Nintendo content on Giantbomb.
@madsnakehhh said:
So...? they are mad because they can no longer make money by playing video games?
First world problems yay.
wow so many missing the point entirely... the sheep are the problem... they like nintendo are stuck in 1992.
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@JangoWuzHere said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@JangoWuzHere said:
@bunchanumbers said:
I have no problem with this. Nintendo went through all the trouble of making the game. I would not want someone to steal my stuff and put it up on youtube and make money on it. Nintendo doing a sharing program is a concession to these thieves who can't create their own stuff. They ought to be thanking Nintendo.
Youtube is essentially free advertising for video games.
Don't be crazy
Myth. No one going to youtube is going to buy the game they already went there to watch someone else play.
http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/how-pewdiepie-fired-skate-3-back-into-the-charts/0137447
How OLD is that game? No one cares.
Nintendo allows reviews of their games and THAT is what generates people to go buy it. They don't need a LETS PLAY to get that point across. A let's play is point black, putting an entire product out there for free.
Sony and Microsoft (to a lesser extent) , based a lot of this entire gen on this principle of letting people stream and share their gameplays online. Hell Sony was the first with built in twitch streaming and a app on the PS4, at launch, just for that. It generates millions of views. If you have a ps4 check live on playstation out. Same principle with youtube.
I have bought tons of games, that I wouldn't of until i seen a lets play, same with my kids. They ask me to buy all these indie games like five nights at freddys and stuff I would of never knew existed without youtube...yet you guys say it does nothing..but steal from nintendo.
Guess what games my kids don't ask me about.... anything nintendo.. From what I have seen from them and their friends, not one is into nintendo at all. It's like after wii, no one cared but the hardcore nostalgia loving nintendo fans...hence wii-u's horrible last place sales.
Bottom line youtube (and twictch) with let's plays drive business. I am proof of it, both my kids and myself have bought games after seeing them on youtube / live on playstation... and will do so again. It's especially great for indie devs that have little to no exposure otherwise.
@Midnightshade29: Yep, things like Intelectual Property, Brands and Copyrights are so last century...oh wait, they are not.
Even if is free advertise it doesnt take away the fact that they are using Nintendo's prodcuts to make profit and they have all the rigths to shut down anything that features their games...all those youtubers werent hired to play the game. I dont like it either, since enjoy streams, Day9 Daily is currently my favorite show, but as much as i dont like what Nintendo is doing, they are not doing anything wrong.
Smash Lampjaw.
@nini200 said:
@freedomfreak said:
Smash Lampjaw.
Big McHugeLarge
Trunk SlamChest.
inb4 angry joe has a stroke.
@nini200 said:
Fart Von BiggenSmall
Freedom FreakFast
@RossRichard said:
@Pedro said:
"Content Creators", they are using content that is not theirs and benefiting financially from it. You can't be using other people's property for monetary gains and expect the owners of that property to just be OK with that.
Yes you can, and it is COMPLETELY LEGAL. It is called Fair Use, look it up sometime.
To be fair, you can't publish entire documents and claim Fair Use. In this case, Youtuber's often play through an entire game (or a large part of it), which would breach Fair Use. I haven't checked the details of Nintendo's policy, but perhaps they have a "length of time" imposed, which would make it completely legal.
@speak_low said:
@Heirren said:
@speak_low said:
Those who say Nintendo is smart on this one: then where the hell were they (like what the hell were they doing) when Youtube and Lets Play videos have been around for years? What was sharp-eyed and "attentive" Nintendo doing during the Wii popularity in 2009 with the colossal mountain of YT videos of Nintendo titles with gamers having fun with Wii Sports, Wii Fit and Mario Party? Thousands and thousands of hours of footage, and not a peep from Nintendo. For a company that some feel is the perfect representative of business integrity, savviness and eternal wisdom, they look more like laggards or people who can't make up their minds.
I'm not taking sides.
Youtube as a game arena is bigger now than ever.
People monetize videos.
Anytime original content is mixed with the IPs of others, it seems to enter a grey area. There is no standard set in place.
Using popular IPs is likely to gain more views.
...What I partially see here is Nintendo taking control of their properties, with the potential of things getting out of hand. They are worried about their characters--some of the most popular in the world--being diminished by ways of user created content, thus the evaluation period. Now is everyone going to maybe make videos that nintendo may deem unsuitable for their brand image? Of course not, but because there is no standard set it means any TOS there may be would be even amongst all users. It isn't just nintendo at play here as there are also ads before videos. These ads become associated with the content.
For example, lets say that a Coca Cola ad was placed before a video which--with current youtube setup--Nintendo found untastefully intertwined with its own IPs. Coca Cola is paying out for the content and sponsoring such content. There would then be talks between coca cola and nintendo on the situation.
I don't have problems with a company protecting their property. I'm sympathetic to their difficulties regarding copyright infringement and brand protection. But I do have problems with Nintendo looking awfully strange by waiting so long, first demanding all of the money from LP gamers, then striking a deal with this new Nintendo Content Creator program. A few actions here make here them look more like desperate opportunists (and giving popular LP personalities a harder time) and less like charitable vigilantes purging the landscape clean of "criminal activity."
If Nintendo were truly legal bloodhounds, they would've sniffed this out in 2008 when the Lets Play videos were already forming, and lunged and stamped it out from the start. And the Youtube TOS was/is in plain sight for all to see. But Nintendo didn't do anything at all back then. Instead, they just contentedly sat there, enjoying the worldwide popularity of the Wii and countless Youtube videos spreading the good word about their company and products.
If you are saying that Nintendo waited until LP videos were booming today so that they would have more "evidence" to mount a case, the so-called damage of this illegality was occurring well before 2014. So this supposedly cautious Nintendo didn't even watch for the approaching troubling hump, but waited until we long passed it before taking action. Maybe Nintendo is play-acting, dramatically putting hand to forehead like they are fainting from these so-called abusive damages to their pocket and brand name (and Lady justice!), when they were in fact enjoying the free publicity of these Nintendo LP videos for over a generation.
I can only conclude with these possible theories:
- Nintendo's powers of detection are trash. They were unconscious all of these years to this criminality.
- Or Nintendo was well aware of it, but decided to engage in legal action on the very tail end of it all, for their own secret reasons. That makes them untruthful concealers. They owe LP gamers compensation for the publicity and unspecified amount of sales they collected all these years. Fair Use covers the creative rights of personalities too, which is largely why LP is so immensely popular and what these videos really center upon. (And personality is something Nintendo could use more of judging from their stiff-city announcement videos).
- Nintendo deplores this criminality and reckless digital thievery, but now wants 30% of this dirty liquor money (after demanding 100% last year), but the 30% can be "arbitrarily changed." They could set the legal stage by uniformly stamping out this crime on all streaming video sites, but lots of Youtube money is involved now, and Nintendo wants some. They didn't act when it was small, but when it was flowing.
- So that makes Nintendo a baby, because a big monetary pacifier is all that's needed for Nintendo to look the other way and continue partnering with this wretched activity.
I'm so disgusted with all of this Let's Play business. Throw every LP gamer into the Bowser Castle slammer. Thank you Nintendo, you last wholesome reformer you.
Lets get this out of the way: why should Lets Players not have to pay a dime to the creative holder?
@Aljosa23 said:
@princeofshapeir said:
@Aljosa23 said:
@darkspineslayer said:
@Pedro said:
"Content Creators", they are using content that is not theirs and benefiting financially from it. You can't be using other people's property for monetary gains and expect the owners of that property to just be OK with that.
Three things:
A very strong case can be made for fair use on these types of videos.
Secondly, with very few exceptions, these personalities make next to nothing. Nintendo scamming them out of those few cents a view can make a huge difference in them not bothering. Why not use their time making videos where they get their full livelihood?
thirdly, many, many success stories with smaller titles can be drawn right to being featured by LP'ers. They have proven to drive sales more than they reduce them.
I don't think Let's Plays fall under the Fair Use doctrine since they are neither educational nor any kind of criticism or parody. It's literally the entire game with some commentary overlaid. It would be considered piracy if someone did that for a film and put it up on YouTube.
As for your second point, Nintendo are a company. Why should they care how someone on YouTube makes money? Answer: they shouldn't.
Clearly they thought it affected their sales, which is fine, it's their copyright property.
Fair Use under U.S. Law:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C.§ 106 and 17 U.S.C.§ 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
Watching a copyrighted movie on YouTube is not covered under fair use, even if it's being commented on, because of the third factor: amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work. An upload of a movie accounts FOR EVERY CONCEIVABLE PORTION of the movie: there is no difference in terms of content between watching a movie you paid for and watching a movie on YouTube. But a Let's Play is covered specifically under the third portion because watching someone else play a video game is not the same thing as playing the game yourself. Video games are inherently subjective experiences that rely on player input, and so even watching a Let's Play of the most linear game possible cannot replace actually playing that game. This is why piracy of video games are NOT covered under fair use: because the entirety of that work can be reproduced and distributed to anyone to extract the same experience as purchasing the copyrighted work themselves. But a Let's Play doesn't offer the exact same experience as purchasing the game yourself and playing it, so it is covered under fair use.
Sony, Microsoft, Blizzard, Capcom, Valve, and even Ubisoft (Ubisoft!) acknowledge that Let's Plays are covered under fair use. Nintendo is the only company who chooses to target YouTubers who are allegedly infringing on their copyright or stealing the market value of their work (there is zero substantial proof that Let's Plays harm the potential market for video games as a whole; if your game is shit and a Let's Play exposes that, so will a written review, and when you start blocking Let's Plays on the grounds that the criticism harms sales of your bad game you are literally censoring critique and commentary which is covered under fair use). Let's Plays on a whole actually benefit developers and publishers since it allows people a raw look at a game, which will translate to positive word of mouth and influence purchasing decisions.
TL;DR: Nintendo is yet again stuck in the past. Let's Plays are absolutely covered under fair use and completely different from uploads of full movies.
On further reading of your post and other sources I've come to the conclusion that your argument is compelling enough for me to reconsider my stance on the matter.
With that said, I'd like to see Nintendo's reasons for doing this. They must have had significant legal advice to come to this decision.
When corporations see Youtubers making millions or thousands, heck even if it was a penny, the company will want a piece.
Copyright laws without a doubt are convoluted, but what is clear is that the very existence of Youtube violates many exclusive rights and "fair use" is a shady term as no fixed definition for "fair use" exist. Bingo lawsuits. Yeah so um no it isn't covered and not everything is set in stone like how prince egregiously infers. The term "fair use" continues to evolve and court decisions vary. Obviously he left out numerous other details when describing "fair use" just to justify his flawed argument.
Every few years or so Google gets sued by xyz conglomerates and lose. It's not because Youtube is legal, they lose because the law is flawed.
Issue is that the government is too slow when dealing with the internet and the hosts normally always get off scot-free. The courts have already acknowledged that Youtube, Veoh, and many other similar websites violate copyright infringement, however law has loopholes upon loopholes upon loopholes. The current popular one is the bull shit safe harbor law which pretty much allows any average Joe to upload anything even a movie and the host can not be charged with anything. Has NOTHING to do with "fair use" repeat, precedents show us that the Judges know what xyz website doing is illegal. Why can't they go after the uploader? Obvious answer is they've been there done that and average Joe isn't a billionaire. Moreover, a simple change of operations can insulate the culprit from the law- think torrents.
As it is with torrents, its impossible to enforce the law because too many people break em and really is that simple. The safe harbor loophole basically assumes that it is up to the owner to inform Youtube, Veoh, Dailymotion, etc. about every single video that violates the law. The reason many companies turn a blind eye to Copyright laws, is because often they fail in court due to the many loopholes, like what is "transformative" or how about the clause which states that only the owner can determine what is "fair use". Not only is it costly, but risky. Look how long it took them to get Megavideo/ Piratebay (well its still up)? Heck Viacom and couple other conglomerates try to pin Google every couple years, loose millions and nothing changes. Don't get me started on anime or TV lulz take one down and 7 more websites pop up.
If youtube is so bad then why is it many publishers, devs and indies seek out popular youtubers to play their games. There have been many games that have become popular like mincraft being a shining example also a lot of indie devs rely on youtube to get their game noticed.
Nintendo once again being ass backwards, this will most likely damage their reputation and limit exposure on youtube.
Let Nintendo do what they want, and these Let's Play content creators go get a real job instead of leeching off Nintendo's work.
And marketing 101 will tell you that social media =/= sales and there is no definitive proof that a million likes on a video or on Facebook will net you a million sales.
They seek them out because it is free advertisement and whats wrong with 1 more sale every 10k+ views? Regardless, its poor advertisement at best since it rarely if ever attracts the target market aka gamers who will open their wallets. Youtube videos only tackle the general population hence why 1 million views =/= 1 million sales. Just look at Bayonetta 2 game videos and now look at the abysmal sales. Companies still do it because the pros outweigh the cons. Some companies are friendly, but not every game company is as big as SONY, MS, or Blizzard. Apparently Nintendo don't like it and we can safely assume many struggling Japanese game companies don't like it either. Actually, none of them like it and just deal with it. Every major game company has a set of rules that that all videos must abide by or the video gets flagged. The terms don't stop at "fair use" as stated earlier. Each company has a different definition of "fair use" which would uphold in court:
- Microsoft
- Sony
- Ubisoft
- Nintendo already know by now
Should be expected too since in the console world, Nintendo's content probably gets pirated the most. I mean Dolphin anyone?
seeing how Nintendo was claiming 100% of the ad revenue on Nintendo game vids before, I would think this would be somewhat welcome
@Pedro said:
"Content Creators", they are using content that is not theirs and benefiting financially from it. You can't be using other people's property for monetary gains and expect the owners of that property to just be OK with that.
In most jobs you're using other people's content and benefiting financially from it. I for example use couple different accounting software and Microsoft Office in my job.
@GunSmith1_basic said:
seeing how Nintendo was claiming 100% of the ad revenue on Nintendo game vids before, I would think this would be somewhat welcome
That's what the hypocritical idiot, DSP claimed too, but look at his stance on this.
@Icarian said:
@Pedro said:
"Content Creators", they are using content that is not theirs and benefiting financially from it. You can't be using other people's property for monetary gains and expect the owners of that property to just be OK with that.
In most jobs you're using other people's content and benefiting financially from it. I for example use couple different accounting software and Microsoft Office in my job.
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between using accounting and Office software for work than there is a FULL Let's Play.
@nintendoboy16 said:
@Icarian said:
@Pedro said:
"Content Creators", they are using content that is not theirs and benefiting financially from it. You can't be using other people's property for monetary gains and expect the owners of that property to just be OK with that.
In most jobs you're using other people's content and benefiting financially from it. I for example use couple different accounting software and Microsoft Office in my job.
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between using accounting and Office software for work than there is a FULL Let's Play.
Maybe so, but original argument was that using other people's content for financial benefits was wrong. I also have to add, that Gamespot, Giant Bomb, Gametrailers, IGN and all the other gaming sites benefit financially from games, but nobody cares. But suddenly when bunch of youtubers do the same thing, it's bad. That Gertsmann tweet is really important: They're free to put Nintendo videos on their own site, but not on Youtube. Why isn't Nintendo going after Giant Bomb too?
@Icarian said:
@nintendoboy16 said:
@Icarian said:
@Pedro said:
"Content Creators", they are using content that is not theirs and benefiting financially from it. You can't be using other people's property for monetary gains and expect the owners of that property to just be OK with that.
In most jobs you're using other people's content and benefiting financially from it. I for example use couple different accounting software and Microsoft Office in my job.
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between using accounting and Office software for work than there is a FULL Let's Play.
Maybe so, but original argument was that using other people's content for financial benefits was wrong. I also have to add, that Gamespot, Giant Bomb, Gametrailers, IGN and all the other gaming sites benefit financially from games, but nobody cares. But suddenly when bunch of youtubers do the same thing, it's bad. That Gertsmann tweet is really important: They're free to put Nintendo videos on their own site, but not on Youtube. Why isn't Nintendo going after Giant Bomb too?
Maybe because Giant Bomb, Gamespot, and IGN are gaming journalist sites, where the average YouTubers ususally aren't? Even Angry Joe has admitted he's not a journalist.
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Pedro said:
"Content Creators", they are using content that is not theirs and benefiting financially from it. You can't be using other people's property for monetary gains and expect the owners of that property to just be OK with that.
This. I don't get why people think they can just make money off other peoples products. This is why kanye west has to pay to sample someone elses song or why you have to pay to even use someones face in a movie. If someone made money reading pages of my novel on youtube I'd be pissed.
Yeah but, the thing is... It's free advertisement.
There is no reason to censor the display of your product to millions of people. Let's players directly increase the sales of the games they play (assuming they are a popular channel). Making money off of someone's product is irrelevant as long as both parties have something to gain.
@nintendoboy16 said:
@Icarian said:
@nintendoboy16 said:
@Icarian said:
@Pedro said:
"Content Creators", they are using content that is not theirs and benefiting financially from it. You can't be using other people's property for monetary gains and expect the owners of that property to just be OK with that.
In most jobs you're using other people's content and benefiting financially from it. I for example use couple different accounting software and Microsoft Office in my job.
I'm pretty sure there's a difference between using accounting and Office software for work than there is a FULL Let's Play.
Maybe so, but original argument was that using other people's content for financial benefits was wrong. I also have to add, that Gamespot, Giant Bomb, Gametrailers, IGN and all the other gaming sites benefit financially from games, but nobody cares. But suddenly when bunch of youtubers do the same thing, it's bad. That Gertsmann tweet is really important: They're free to put Nintendo videos on their own site, but not on Youtube. Why isn't Nintendo going after Giant Bomb too?
Maybe because Giant Bomb, Gamespot, and IGN are gaming journalist sites, where the average YouTubers ususally aren't? Even Angry Joe has admitted he's not a journalist.
No. It's because for some reason Nintendo is afraid or hates Youtube. Giant Bomb can't upload their Nintendo videos on Youtube, but can upload them on their own site. And this is probably true to all other sites as well. That only shows how Nintendo is freaking clueless.
I really don't get how Nintendo or other game devs not seeing how quick looks are helpful.
I personally bought loads of games due to watching GB quick looks / totalbiscuit wtf & other youtubers let's play videos.
They're not in anyway cannibalizing sales. In fact, more often than not those quick look / let's play videos got me interested in specific mechanic in a game that lead me to buy it despite its low metacritic score.
Nintendo have been really getting under my skin for the past few years. Hope they get out of the gaming industry, and their franchises end up on steam sales after getting sold to 3rd party.
@Mystery_Writer said:
I really don't get how Nintendo or other game devs not seeing how quick looks are helpful.
I personally bought loads of games due to watching GB quick looks / totalbiscuit wtf & other youtubers let's play videos.
They're not in anyway cannibalizing sales. In fact, more often than not those quick look / let's play videos got me interested in specific mechanic in a game that lead me to buy it despite its low metacritic score.
Nintendo been really getting under my skin for the past few years. Hope they gets out of the gaming industry, and their franchises end up on steam sales after getting sold to 3rd party.
Selling their IP's to other publishers WIDELY unrelated to them. Yeah, that doesn't spell disaster at all.
@princeofshapeir said:
Watching a copyrighted movie on YouTube is not covered under fair use, even if it's being commented on, because of the third factor: amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work. An upload of a movie accounts FOR EVERY CONCEIVABLE PORTION of the movie: there is no difference in terms of content between watching a movie you paid for and watching a movie on YouTube. But a Let's Play is covered specifically under the third portion because watching someone else play a video game is not the same thing as playing the game yourself. Video games are inherently subjective experiences that rely on player input, and so even watching a Let's Play of the most linear game possible cannot replace actually playing that game. This is why piracy of video games are NOT covered under fair use: because the entirety of that work can be reproduced and distributed to anyone to extract the same experience as purchasing the copyrighted work themselves. But a Let's Play doesn't offer the exact same experience as purchasing the game yourself and playing it, so it is covered under fair use.
Actually, that's a really good point. Games are somewhere in the middle between video productions and toys, and while re-uploading substantial chunks of someone else's video content to Youtube for financial gain is going to infringe on someone's copyright, I'm pretty sure playing with an action figure or a board game on Youtube shouldn't.
It still feels a bit iffy to me that some people are making money off playthroughs of very linear games - especially when I know from experience that watching LP videos can put me off buying a product. There are definitely occasions where I feel like I've already experienced a lot of what a game has to offer - the dialogue, the cutscenes - all those elements you'd think of as basically traditional video content, after watching a Let's Play. That's why I think it makes sense to judge copyright claims on each particular case.
Still, that's not very instructive or helpful for most of us. Fair Use is a pretty obscure concept in the UK, but I hope that's something that's going to change. A common sense interpretation of what's really "fair" might be a much better guideline than whatever the check-box licence agreements bundled with software purports to bind us to.
@speak_low said:
@Heirren said:
Lets get this out of the way: why should Lets Players not have to pay a dime to the creative holder?
It's a grey area like you said, but a person posting the following on a message board will elicit very different reactions:
- Posting a torrent link to a pirated version of COW:AW
- Posting an MP3 rip from the newest Katy Perry album (or whatever is popular) that hasn't been released
- Posting a link to a streaming site that has "cam footage" of American Sniper or Interstellar
- Posting a Youtube link to a Let's Play video (or multiple videos) of someone playing COW:AW
Immediately you can tell there will be stark difference in responses between the first three links and the last one. Why is that?
Watching someone playing the game with commentary seems to be a different type of experience. It's obviously illegal if the product being shared is identical or too close a substitute to the original copy. It's no argument that further propagation of this material poses an immediate threat to sales and the careers of the artists/creators.
I don't entirely disagree if a game company wants to step forth and ask for a portion of ad revenue for LP videos, but the reason this whole topic is hotly debated now is because it could be argued (and this may bother some) that they aren't even entitled to any of it. It sounds wrong to suggest the creators get nothing, but they aren't actually "getting nothing." They got paid (when the LPer bought the game). The game is not being shared for free. I would ask: are you playing COW:AW when you watch a Lets Play walkthrough? Can you call it your personal GOTY if you enjoyed the LP experience? Can Gamespot, Eurogamer and Polygon start reviewing games by not playing them, but only watching LP videos and calling that a review?
I can sense the snickering at those suggestions, which means there is a notable difference between the playing and the watching of games that's worth examining. The two planes of experience aren't exactly the same after all. For example - I really want to play Bloodborne, FFXV and Uncharted 4, but I'm not going to ruin it by watching a LP series first, and neither would I be satisfied if that LP experience was my sole contact with those upcoming games. I need to play them. I want to engage my full senses, my sense of adventure and curiosity, reflexes - involve as many faculties as I can for that maximum experience.
On the other hand, people who watch Lets Play videos are doing it for the casual entertainment (the laughs, screams, jokes, etc). That sacred, monolithic word: INTERACTIVITY - that core part of gaming - now drops way down and becomes far more passive, and you are not guiding the character or making your own choices, but watching someone else do it their way, injecting their thoughts. You've chosen to watch this entertainer for their spontaneity and different viewpoints, and those ad revenue partnerships that PewdiePie and the others earn (love em or hate em) were made for their abilities to bring in entertainment value in droves. In other words, their personalities here really overrides whatever games they are playing. You can change the game they are playing, or even completely ignore the games of entire publishers, and the popular LPer would still be there, still being popular. Did PewdiePie and others skyrocket to Youtube stardom because of Nintendo games? (well, technically, in some cases it was a certain game that helped them). I'm just saying, it can be argued from another legal perspective that PewdiePie's own commentary is a package all its own (a synthesis of PewdiePie crazy brain, the frenzied variety games he is playing, the comments section from the millions of followers and supporters) and that is what ad partners are interested in. The relationship here is between the LP gamer and the ad revenue partners. There's no penny in it for Nintendo, or Sony, MS, Ubisoft, EA, Activision, etc.
Like I said, it's a grey area and I'm not completely against companies wanting a piece of the pie if they really want to push it that far. But I'm seeing some here calling LP gamers thieves, and then congratulating Nintendo for their actions, when Nintendo did absolutely nothing for a long time (watching $18 million becoming $20 million isn't an accomplishment), did nothing to caution others about this practice early on (knowing the trends of growth, they should've acted earlier, no?), and only decided to step in when they felt "exploited." I think their self-preservationist instincts kicked in strong when they were taking sales beatings elsewhere. They suddenly became very fascinated with Youtube when the sun was already going down and the party was packing up to leave. Are they interested in the protection of ethical values and saving everyone out there in that wide horizon, or are they just looking to piggyback on the success of certain LPers to bring in some additional moolah for struggling Nintendo?
The outcome of what youtubers bring is not relevant. This is Nintendos duty. Their copyrights and trademarks must be protected. If they aren't, Nintendo runs the risk of losing trademarks. It is why you have seen Nintendo vocal about simple things like the sound of a coin in Mario. This is why I don't believe it is about chump change from youtube videos. The worth of these trademarks is priceless to the company.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment