Nintendo Suddenly Claims Ownership Of Many YouTube Videos

[Apollo45]

It's also worth noting that for every person who says "I bought ___ because of an LP I watched" there's another person who admits "I ended up not buying ____ because I watched an LP instead." On the Reddit thread on the topic, there are people who admit not buying The Walking Dead, 2012's GOTY just to remind you, because they watched an LP online instead, and didn't feel the need to then buy it having seen the story play out.

There are very real issues regarding copyright when it comes to LPs and how they affect sales, and I can't blame Nintendo for this when all they're doing is stopping profiting from their games, not stopping people posting videos altogether. If someone is dependent on LPs for their livelihood, I'd ask why they're not making original game video content as well?

That said, story-based games like that are different than many of the games that LPers typically play. Minecraft is probably the strongest example of this, although for me it's gone as far as games like the new Sim City, which I have been fighting myself not to buy, contrary to my conviction to never purchase before, because one of my favorite LPers is doing a video series of the game. The same could be said for any number of other games; the LPers provide a unique experience directly relating to them playing the game. Without them there would be no video to watch in the first place. I could maybe kindof understand if companies were taking a small cut of the profits, but taking everything when they did literally zero additional work for the video is ridiculous.

It's not a perfect analogy by any means, but what publishers are doing could be related to Gibson wanting a cut of every piece of music ever played on one of their guitars. Again, as I said, most certainly not a perfect analogy, but the majority of the reason people watch LPers is because of the people, not the game, just like people listen to music because of the band, not the guitar. The game acts as a way for the LPers to do what they do, similar to a guitar acts as a way for musicians to do what they do. Games are admittedly more unique than a guitar, so there's some difference there, but the core concept is similar. Musicians pay for their guitars and that's what the guitar company gets. LPers pay for their games and that's what the gaming company gets. It's never been more than that and there really isn't any reason it should be except for corporate greed.

Edit: On that note, however, what happens when Nintendo starts getting paid when the videos use another person's content? Say one of the LPers creates a unique musical intro for the series? They're making money off of another person's intellectual property as well, which is clearly a huge problem.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

*snip*

I agree with this. People can still make Let's Plays, they just can't make money off of them, and I don't see what's wrong with that.

This false sense of entitlement to making money off of other peoples intellectual property is quite sickening to be honest. If Nintendo had said that they couldn't do them at all, that'd be another matter entirely.

I would agree with this sentiment if a Let's play offered nothing but a video of someone playing the game. While they vary enormously in quality, plenty of LPers actually put a fair amount of effort into the work. To assume that the traffic is generated solely because of the base IP is rather silly I think.

Of course, it is simply easier to do precisely what Nintendo did since trying to judge if each LP actually represents a substantial creative effort on the part of the LPer would be a Sisyphean task. So, while I generally agree Nintendo has a perfectly reasonable basis for their action, I don't think it entirely unreasonable that an LPer's personal effort may be worthy of compensation.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

What a way to kill free advertising there Nintendo.

Taking a cut would have been a better idea.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Does this extend to streams as well? Id hate to see rob lose his nuzlocke on saturdays.

 

[theultimateend]

Except that its their game. Why shouldn't they profit from it? What is it that LPers add which is so original it turns the video from Nintendo's content into their own? I don't count stream-of-consciousness rambling, as that hardly counts as something you 'compose'.

Sounds a bit nihilistic.

What purpose do you have even discussing this. Am I to believe you didn't just write all that in one go?

To assume that the traffic is generated solely because of the base IP is rather silly I think.

I think by "Rather silly" you mean "wrong".

All this means is that a lot of really well done video series involving games are going to cease because they cost actual money to put on. Nintendo is going to lose coverage and lose free quality marketing.

This does little but net them short term money for long term losses. I've purchased plenty of games because I was watching a let's play (for the commentary, not the game itself) and noticed the game they were playing looked pretty fun.

Now I suspect I'll get far less of that outside of PC.

edit: I fully agree with your post otherwise.

 

[Revolutionary]

Well, I didn't expect this from Nintendo. I would have thought it'd be EA for sure. Oh well, it's a good thing I don't even own a Nintendo console so this won't affect me.

 

[UltraPic]

I don't know... People are claiming that Nintendo should have offered the LP's a cut of their profits rather than take the whole lot from ads... Well, why not make it so Nintendo gets 100% of the cash AS A DEFAULT, and allow the LP's to offer a contract like what is done for any major reviewer e.g. Machinima (or w/e)if they really want some cash from the ads? But then again I'm a ***** for compromise deals even when one side is just pulling off a dick move, so I don't know.

May be that's where this is going since it seems more logical than just being a "dick" to lp'ers, although i expect they will send out games and hardware instead of money.

 

[Notsomuch]

Except that its their game. Why shouldn't they profit from it? What is it that LPers add which is so original it turns the video from Nintendo's content into their own? I don't count stream-of-consciousness rambling, as that hardly counts as something you 'compose'.

Why do people feel they should be paid for playing someone else's game in the first place? Game reviewers at least put the time into writing and filming reviews, which count as original composed content. Why should filming my average co-op session on a game with some friends all of a sudden entitle me to make money from a game? All I've done is hit 'Record' on an otherwise normal session of gaming. Since when does that entitle me to money?

Your argument doesn't make any sense. Obviously, if they are making add revenue, 'stream-of-consciousness rambling' has real monetary value. If you and nintendo really think it's the footage that is making the add revenue money then why doesn't nintendo simply post unabridged footage of all their games on a separate channel? The channels subscribers wouldn't suddenly switch over, they would stay with the commentator. The point here is, no matter what you think of commentators or let's players, people are still going to watch other content on a persons channel if Nintendo wont budge and this is only going to hurt nintendo in the long run when their content isn't featured. A video from a popular youtuber is free advertisement and recent viral successes like slender have shown that the machine works. Things backwards as it is, Nintendo should be paying to have their adds run in on high-traffic channels. Doing this is like Doritos pulling out of the superbowl because they don't make a dollar every time video footage shows Greg Jennings chomping down on a chip.

 

[Terramax]

You make some good points. Although with your last point I guess one of the big things to ask people is why is the backlash happening now as well, instead of back when other companies started doing this. Other people have pointed out that Microsoft took this same move back in October, yet the internet backlash was a fart in the wind compared to what is happening when Nintendo does it. I didn't see people on Twitter talking about how bad this move was, or the arguments that are taking place across the internet like they are now. There was an article about it here on the Escapist, but it didn't attract nearly as much attention as this did. Like you said it doesn't fit in with the image of Nintendo, yet the keyboard warriors coming out in droves were hard to find when other companies did this. If we argue against DRM from everyone, why are we only arguing against Nintendo for this policy? In comparison, the Microsoft thread barely hit 7 pages within 9 days, while there are two threads for this that are almost at the 7 page mark in less than 24 hours. Hell, I've been in arguments across the web now with people who are boycotting Nintendo and only going Microsoft because of this move, a move just dripping with irony. I guess that begs the question of how many people are angry at anyone who does this and how many are angry only at Nintendo doing this?

I suspect this is because you'd be hard pressed to find a die-hard Microsoft fan out there. At least, not anywhere near the bizarrely nut-job Nintendo fans that roam the internet.

You see people buying Nintendo merchandise up the arse. Wearing T-shirts. Obsession over pokemon to the point they remember all the damn names of the animals. You mentioned the word 'Nintendo', and you immediately get the images of various characters, and nostalgic moments in you mind (well, not me personally, as I was always a Sega fanboy growing up, but you know what I mean).

I don't think many people feel that way when it comes to Microsoft. I think it's all to do with emotional. I can't see many gamers out there crying if Microsoft were to disappear tomorrow. But if Nintendo up and left us, it wouldn't surprise me if some fans were to commit seppuku.

Nintendo said they only signed up for the Youtube Partners service in February, while to compare other publishers have already been using the service for years...Nintendo just had the bad luck to sign up later than everyone else, and gaming media picked the story up and rna with it.

Exactly! Why now have they only just signed up? I can't see it being something as trivial as 'Nintendo were late to the party' somehow.

I doubt it. LP revenues wouldn't even add up to what one decent selling game would make for Nintendo. This is about copyright management, nothing more. We've seen other studios like Microsoft do exactly the same thing (and they're not hurting for cash atm), and we've seen other studios like Sega go even further in demanding videos be taken down.

While Nintendo aren't hurting for cash right now, they do have investors to please, whom want to see Nintendo exercising every possible means to keep profits on the rise. I think that would be reason enough for Nintendo to at least consider this an option.

However, you could be quite right that this is not the main reason. However, I still feel there is a different motif here, than why companies like Sega and Microsoft have flexed their fingers in the past.

That could go right round the other way: trying to directly profit from a game you had nothing to do with is hardly the most noble career choice either.

Yes, that is quite true.

Question is though, is it really worth pissing off your fanbase, for something that won't get you any financial profit? If there's no benefit for Nintendo here, why run the risk of upsetting your fans just to reiterate that these videogames belong to you. Is it not obvious enough already?

DRM is a completely different issue, even though it ties into copyright. The LP issue is about people directly making money from Nintendo's games, and not paying license fees or giving up ad revenue. In that sense, it's much more comparable to something like gold farming in WoW. DRM affects a user's basic right to own their games. LPs don't affect your ability to own or play a game at all.

Indeed. But that isn't my point. My point is, just because other companies are participating in an act that upsets customers, doesn't mean everyone has to follow suit.

More people here are quite simply more offended because they expected Nintendo to be above disgraceful behaviour seen in companies such as EA and Activision. They have more respect for Nintendo than other companies. I'm not saying this copywrite issue is as terrible as the DRM issue, but it's a concern considering Nintendo sell the image that they have the highest level of respect for their loyal customers (and, my God, are they loyal!).

 

[deadish]

Legally they might be in the right, but PR wise it's a horrible decision.

I'm getting the impression that the old geezers running the place are totally out of touch with the rest of the world.

 

[Strazdas]

Let's plays are under a fair use. and while you cant monetize lets plays, you cant take them down either.
Also, nintendo has been doing this kind of stuff for ages and people still love them. One coudl argue that they did more dick moves than EA, yet one is hated and other loved. people are weird.

 

[V8 Ninja]

snip

TB don't do "Let's Play"s, he does first impressions. What he said was that he played games because he knew part of his followers buy certain games he didn't personally liked (like platformers and puzzle games) and he felt he needed to do WTF on those to inform his subscribers on the quality of the game exactly because some of his subscribers love those types of game.

So, bravo, you took what he said and totally misunderstood everything. Hard to beat. *slow clap*

snip

TB doesn't do let's plays though. He constantly talks about why he doesn't do LPs and criticizes the people who want him to do LPs whenever they ask him to do one. He says doesn't do LPs because they're a cheap low effort way to make money. The only thing resembling an LP on his channel is the terraria series which he admitted was an awful moneygrab and stopped. So, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding how you pulled that out of what he said. Sure, he's a bit transparent about how he runs his business, but I wouldn't call it "playing certain games because he, "had to,""

Yes, TotalBiscuit does "Impressions" of games instead of LPs, but in the end there's very little difference between what he's doing and what Let's Players are doing; playing a game with little to no editing involved and simply talking over their play sessions. The only difference I can think of is that TotalBiscuit's impressions last a half-hour while most Let's Players's endeavors can last for several hours. TotalBiscuit's impressions can't even fit into the "Criticism" category, as more often than not he starts playing a game that he's had very little knowledge of or experience with beforehand.

On the subject of business and "Informing His Subscribers"; I am fine with business. However, as far as I am aware, TotalBiscuit is the boss/in charge of whatever company or website he works for. If he doesn't want to cover a game, he has the full right to reject looking over it and even mentioning it. The fact that he says that he "Had To" look at certain games is a complete lie. Thus I can only conclude that he's looking at those certain games because he wants views and thus more ad revenue. He certainly doesn't seem like the person who would collapse to peer-pressure. Also, TotalBiscuit's subscribers would be absolutely pleased with him continuing to do what he has been/wants to do; that is why they subscribed to him in the first place.

 

[Taylortron5000]

So I've read through the first two pages, and the last one here, and as someone who puts out youtube vids in the hopes of making cash one day (one about MTG and another a pseudo Let's Play / Podcast dealy), there's just one thing that I'm not understanding.

When you opt in on Monetizing a vid, it adds an ad to your vid, and based on the number of views you get money, correct? Nintendo is going to be putting their ads on video's (Let's Play's, reviews, previews, etc that feature Nintendo content which is set to Monetizing or not. If the person in question doing the LP is getting money based on ad views when they choose to monetize, how is Nintendo putting Nintendo specific ad's change anything besides the type of commercial you get to see before a video?

Or really what I'm asking, how does this change... anything? What part of Nintendo's statement says that Let's Player's aren't making money off the content they're putting out there? Did I just not read this properly?

 

[EstrogenicMuscle]

Nintendo is making a huge mistake. I love Nintendo games, but there's no way I can defend this.

And considering how the Wii U seems to be doing, this is the last time they can afford a PR move of this variety.

I can see at least maybe some kind of shared advertisement revenue where they work with the content creators in sort of a mutual back scratching deal. But completely ripping it out from under the feet of their biggest fans, this is going to cause serious turmoil. Nintendo doesn't want turmoil right now, the Wii U is selling about as badly as the Gamecube.

The 3DS is what is keeping them relevant right now. But this isn't a time to be reckless. To be fair, SEGA did worse, they simply took down ALL Shining Force videos. That being said, this is still bad. Just because it could be worse, doesn't mean this is good.

A good middle road choice would be to at least share revenue.

Except that its their game. Why shouldn't they profit from it? What is it that LPers add which is so original it turns the video from Nintendo's content into their own? I don't count stream-of-consciousness rambling, as that hardly counts as something you 'compose'.

So I guess people who post footage of them playing chess shouldn't be able to make money off of that?

I mean after all, it isn't as if most chess players invented chess.

 

[Shia-Neko-Chan]

I am speechless at the insanity of how Nintendo could possibly think this is a good idea whatsoever.

I didn't like Nintendo in the first place, but they've somehow found a way to make me disappointed in them.

 

[Caiphus]

As disappointing as this is, hopefully karma will sort it out a little bit. If LPers want to make money, they'll just switch to playing games where they can make money. You know? And then Nintendo games get less publicity, and as the logic goes, fewer sales.

And it's not as though the Wii U is flying high on consumer praise at the moment. They could use some extra publicity showing off the capabilities of the new console and its new games.

So yeah, it's nasty and it's stupid too. I'd imagine it will hurt Nintendo a little bit.

Nintendo are already making money off their games. They don't need to make money off other people playing their games and publicising them.

 

[Edl01]

They must have heard EA were getting rid of Online passes and immediatly went "this is our opportunity guys!!!"
You know kind of like how Activision started getting slightly better and then EA took over as the big villain everyone hated.

 

[Cobalt180]

With Nintendo doing this, I have to wonder if they're causing only more problems for themselves trying to fix a minor issue. For so many years Nintendo has released and re-released the same IP's over and over and over again as their main line. Some using the now-nearly-ancient lives system to represent a return to the roots of their games, I have to question whether this is a symptom of their pockets tightening.

I'm reminded of the N64 (I would say Gamecube but I never owned one myself) is that before the Xbox and the Playstation, it had all kinds of games, three of which best mention the range of games they were willing to have were: Super Mario 64, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater, and Star Wars Episode 1 Podracing. I've owned and played all of these games on that one console, and now, Nintendo seems to have a new, cleaner, more plastic aspect, releasing games that one could argue are more a threat to the casual gaming market than to the Xbox and PlayStation.

With Nintendo grabbing for ad revenue from reviews of their products, I feel that looking at game reviews of their product is good, but trying to steal the money from ad revenue will only hurt them. A smart thing to do would be to watch the reviews and make games with those reviews in mind. I'm sure that a few well-recieved games will net them more money than ad revenue on videos that people can intentionally skip over if they think it will give a company they don't like more money.