Phil Fish: YouTubers need to give a huge cut to devs

The guy made one semi successful game, is he even relevant to the gaming industry anymore?

Too much logic for the fish man. Sau potty mouth names and run. The monster.

Yep, that's basically what nintendo are after doing. So many youtubers I know had plans to play Super Smash Bros and Mario Kart on their channels and after Nintendo announced their "Tax" on content creators they've all turned away from doing Ninty content now.

Sure some people will see the opportunity to fill that gap but it's not worth it in many people's eyes

Maybe that's somewhat of a good thing, considering some LP'ers (chuggaconroy, NintendoCapriSun) actually mean it when they say they don't do it for the money, unlike "he who must not be named" (partly because I talked about him so many damn times).

Lord knows how reviewers like Cinemassacre, Wii Viewer, and Classic Game Room are going to be affected though

Think he has a point. It's a bit of a gray area. It all depends on how much value the youtuber adds. If you make a straight up playthrough I think it's fair that the developer gets a cut. The vast majority of the value from a video like that comes from the game itself, which was created by the developer. I also think people do watch walkthrougs instead of buying games. I've watched a couple of DLC walkthroughs for example.

On the other side of the spectrum would be something like a skilled player making a Street Fighter video with detailed commentary. In this case the youtuber has added a ton of unique value and I think it's fair he gets it all. "Quoting" games (showing short segments), like for example Gamespot does for a review is obviously fine as well.

What's fair is ofc not necessarily the same as what's smart for the developers. The marketing value of walkthroughs may outweigh other concerns.

I agree with TB and to be frank we already live in the world in which content creators do not have much of a say in how they do things if they want to

-use very big budgets: What games get the $300 million+ budgets? The most generic games that are made to appeal to the widest of audiences.

-be very successful: What games are hugely successful? Either games with a $300 million+ budget, or indie games that became popular through crowdfunding/greenlight or word of mouth/youtube.

So we already live in a world in which it is very tough (impossible) for a normal game designer to expect to be able to tightly control what the end user does with their game AND make it their own vision of a game, AND still be successful.

And that is fine. The people love it. Content creators who want to make something unique can do so. Content creators who are in it for the money can make money. Everybody gets served. The sort of 'ideal' world in which a content creator can be wildly creative and have only people say positive things about it because they want the self glorification and get rich fast, is very much removed from the 'ideal' world of the customer. In my book customers are infinitely more important people than creators simply because there are a couple billion more of them and customers pay actual money, which is always a 100% valid good, whereas the value of a game can be debated and easily skewed by the creators.

TB is a rather smart man.

As far as I'm concerned, LPs are the modern game demos, considering how (many) content creators prefer us to make uninformed purchases these days.

Also, It's very hard to sympathise with Fish, given his history and exchanges with both peers, fans and consumersm

No it's not good, it sets a bad precedent and limits the exposure of Nintendo games on the site as a whole at a time when they need it most.Sure it's great for those guys who don't do it for money, and some will capitalise on this to rise in popularity, but many people on the site do it as their job, imagine doing a job where a new 50% tax rate was introduced on top of your existing one.

It's not even just Let's Play content but people who review the games and give news about them also, if you show a fraction of a Nintendo game in your video or even use the audio you will suffer. It also begins monopolising Nintendo's content under their umbrella and removes a lot of the freedom people once had with it

My guess is they're trying to implement it now before super smash bros comes out because they know how big that game will be for collab videos and tournaments etc. and they want to capitalise on it. Business wise it makes sense but it's still shit

People watch Lets plays not because of the game but because of the person playing the game. If they were just recording the game and adding no commentary over it then he might have a point, but channels that do that don't make any money.

How much exposure would it limit exactly? YouTube isn't exactly the end all of advertisement, even in this day-in-age. Sure, there are SOME people who bought games based on YT videos, but how much compared to marketing seen on TV, every other site on the web (that aren't adblocked), and ads seen on the streets or magazines?

I realize that YT'ers that play games on that site use that for a job and while it does suck for at least the good channels that rely on it (it would surely suck for the likes of ProJared, kWing, etc), at the very least, we won't have to see the bad channels (like... you know who) mess with them anymore. Hence why I said "SOMEWHAT".

Add to that, we still don't know the full details on how their affiliates program would work. Crap, we don't even know how much Nintendo even wants out of this.

You need to get about a trillion hits on your YouTube video to make five bucks lol. And this guy is actually concerned about this?