YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

[NoShoes]

YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

Due to their content-sharing policies, YouTuber Angry Joe is done with Nintendo.

With nearly 2 million subscribers on YouTube, Joe "Angry Joe" Vargas certainly has some weight to throw around. He's also apparently fed up with Nintendo's rigid policies on the sharing of their content online, specifically where it involves YouTubers, so much so that he's vowed to stop reviewing Nintendo titles for good.

[tweet t=https://twitter.com/AngryJoeShow/status/584272715952992257]

After posting a Let's Play video of Mario Party 10, Angry Joe received a copyright infringement notice. Unlike other copyright infringement claims, Vargas states that "what's interesting here is that it's not matching on a particular song, it's just the whole...thing. Because there are Nintendo characters in it, the whole...thing is claimed." According to Angry Joe, he's spent over $900 on Nintendo-related products in order to produce his Let's Plays and video reviews, but "that's not enough for Nintendo. What's enough for Nintendo is also monetizing anytime you share your content with anybody else."

Nintendo recently launched a beta version of their Nintendo Creators Program (with a full launch in May of this year), and with it some strict guidelines on how Let's Play videos of Nintendo content could be shared. According to Polygon, the Nintendo Creators Program allows "YouTubers [to] still realize ad revenue under the program, [but] Nintendo takes a 40 percent cut of it." Another restriction? YouTubers in the Creators Program can only use approved games from this whitelist [https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/whitelist/], and Mario Party 10 is absent from said list.

You can watch Angry Joe's full video on his stance below.

How do you feel about Nintendo/Vargas situation?

Source: Angry Joe's Twitter [http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/4/8344341/angry-joe-nintendo-takedown-mario-party]


Permalink

 

[mad825]

This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

His reaction makes his channel seem like Whining Joe.

 

[Zipzip the Penguin]

It's not just Joe either. If Nintendo keeps this shit up, they'll be missing their entire lower body from shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Jacked Assassin]

Spoiler: Jim Sterling Already talked about this.

Even if Nintendo is in the wrong I still don't like Angry Joe.

 

[Lightspeaker]

This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

His reaction makes his channel seem like Whining Joe.

If you actually watch the video he points out at 9:50 that he was effectively testing the waters with Let's Play videos rather than spending thirty to sixty hours actually producing a proper review as he does for other games because he thought this might happen. The video linked in the OP is basically "yup, so you went and actually went through on those threats. Well, screw you, Nintendo".

He's not really surprised, he just thinks its bloody stupid. Much like Jim Sterling said in the video linked by RatGouf, although to my knowledge Jim never actually decided to try testing himself against their policies.

 

[webkilla]

This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

His reaction makes his channel seem like Whining Joe.

If you actually watch the video he points out at 9:50 that he was effectively testing the waters with Let's Play videos rather than spending thirty to sixty hours actually producing a proper review as he does for other games because he thought this might happen. The video linked in the OP is basically "yup, so you went and actually went through on those threats. Well, screw you, Nintendo".

He's not really surprised, he just thinks its bloody stupid. Much like Jim Sterling said in the video linked by RatGouf, although to my knowledge Jim never actually decided to try testing himself against their policies.

This

Nintendo is really screwing themselves over by doing this.

 

[laggyteabag]

Uploading the video on YouTube was very silly of Joe. Just because he has 2 million subscribers doesn't suddenly make him an exception. That doesn't mean I am defending Nintendo, their YouTube policy is just stupid, and there is nothing positive about it, but I don't really know what Joe was expecting.

That being said though, I completely understand why Joe doesn't want to make a Nintendo YouTube video again.

Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?

 

[Bob_McMillan]

What's funny is that Smosh Games just put out an Honest Trailer for Mario Party 10, and I sincerely doubt they are part of Nintendo's program. The videos is still up, I guess Nintendo doesn't have the balls to go up against people like Smosh Inc,

 

[Doom972]

This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

His reaction makes his channel seem like Whining Joe.

When they last took down a video of his, it was an unedited private gameplay video of several hours. Nintendo claimed that it was because of the soundtrack.

This video, which was public, edited, and had no soundtrack in it to avoid repeating the same situation got taken down and this time no reason was given.

Nintendo can make up whatever ridiculous rules they want, and Joe can just ignore them and play games from companies who don't treat YouTubers like crap.

 

[major_chaos]

Nintendo frequently seems like a company run by old men, behind the times and convinced this whole "inter-nets" thing is a passing fad that needs to be stomped out, not invested in. See also: one of their big names be so shocked and wounded over people uploading the cutscenes from brawl that he swore the next game wouldn't have them, their continued refusal to institute a unified functional online identity like the competition has had for two generations, friend codes, ect. Good on Joe for boycotting this bullshit.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Joe thinking way too highly of himself. Furthermore, he never reviewed any Nintendo games. Period. He just put up lazy LP's. That is it. And let's not get into the fact that his fans donated money to him so he could buy a damn Wii U in the first place. Criminy, there is nothing more pathetic than watching a grown man throw a hissy fit.

 

[senordesol]

Uploading the video on YouTube was very silly of Joe. Just because he has 2 million subscribers doesn't suddenly make him an exception. That doesn't mean I am defending Nintendo, their YouTube policy is just stupid, and there is nothing positive about it, but I don't really know what Joe was expecting.

That being said though, I completely understand why Joe doesn't want to make a YouTube video again.

Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?

Joe acknowledged in the video that it's Nintendo's right to do this. I think he's frustrated that, as a content creator; Nintendo is limiting his ability to create (and monetize) content for stupid reasons.

In truth, however, I don't think he made this video on his own behalf but as a tacit encouragement for other creators to shun Nintendo coverage because (A.) they're being dicks for no reason and (B.) the last thing we want is for other companies to start doing this too.

40% of revenue is an insane chunk to excise from Youtubers (particularly when the results of their coverage should mean more money for Nintendo anyway). If tubers only get to keep 60% of what they earn across all content (and that's BEFORE taxes), the games industry could conceivably strangle the independent commentator industry in its crib. I don't think any of us want that.

 

[Chaos James]

While I don't agree with Nintendo's business decisions concerning Youtube, and feel it would serve them better to let content creators make videos freely, I'm aware that they have a program in place to facilitate those who DO wish to make content. I'm quite sure that Angry Joe knows this as well, and uploaded the video anyways. To have it taken down was expected.

All his video rant has done is make me lose some of the respect I had for Joe, and I feel less inclined to watch his videos now. As far as I know, he wasn't doing Nintendo reviews before, and I won't miss them now either.

I *am* surprised that this is making news anywhere though. I don't remember his previous rants being published about like this, but perhaps I just missed those ones.

 

[Story]

Spoiler: Jim Sterling Already talked about this.

Even if Nintendo is in the wrong I still don't like Angry Joe.

Yeah, I actually like Jim's stance on this, at least more than others.

I do sincerely think Nintendo is in the right for some of this as an unpopular opinion that might be.

Though I do wonder how certain channels like GameXplain and JWittz handles things like this.

 

[Mortuorum]

Joe acknowledged in the video that it's Nintendo's right to do this. I think he's frustrated that, as a content creator; Nintendo is limiting his ability to create (and monetize) content for stupid reasons.

[...]

40% of revenue is an insane chunk to excise from Youtubers (particularly when the results of their coverage should mean more money for Nintendo anyway). If tubers only get to keep 60% of what they earn across all content (and that's BEFORE taxes), the games industry could conceivably strangle the independent commentator industry in its crib. I don't think any of us want that.

Actually, I don't think Nintendo has a right to monetize content like Angry Joe's. Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use. One of these days, someone with deep pockets will take on both Nintendo and YouTube on this issue and score a big win.

 

[Trishbot]

I don't think Nintendo understands how the internet works... or what Youtube is... or why Youtubers are the best advertising venue they could possibly get these days.

 

[RealRT]

Nintendo being stupid and forgetting it's not 1987? What else is new?

 

[MatParker116]

Uploading the video on YouTube was very silly of Joe. Just because he has 2 million subscribers doesn't suddenly make him an exception. That doesn't mean I am defending Nintendo, their YouTube policy is just stupid, and there is nothing positive about it, but I don't really know what Joe was expecting.

That being said though, I completely understand why Joe doesn't want to make a YouTube video again.

Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?

Joe acknowledged in the video that it's Nintendo's right to do this. I think he's frustrated that, as a content creator; Nintendo is limiting his ability to create (and monetize) content for stupid reasons.

In truth, however, I don't think he made this video on his own behalf but as a tacit encouragement for other creators to shun Nintendo coverage because (A.) they're being dicks for no reason and (B.) the last thing we want is for other companies to start doing this too.

40% of revenue is an insane chunk to excise from Youtubers (particularly when the results of their coverage should mean more money for Nintendo anyway). If tubers only get to keep 60% of what they earn across all content (and that's BEFORE taxes), the games industry could conceivably strangle the independent commentator industry in its crib. I don't think any of us want that.

To put it another way youtubers are giving publishers millions of dollars of free advertising. A national network commercial in the US would cost Nintendo around $350,000 allowing LP's could save them money.

 

[Eri]

I don't think Nintendo understands how the internet works... or what Youtube is... or why Youtubers are the best advertising venue they could possibly get these days.

They don't. I'm sure their boardroom is filled with men 60+ who still think this is 1990.