YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
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

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
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

New member
Feb 14, 2013
61
0
0
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

Nothing On TV
Jun 4, 2010
732
0
0

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

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
mad825 said:
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

New member
Feb 2, 2011
594
0
0
Lightspeaker said:
mad825 said:
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.
 

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
Well... sucks for Nintendo.
This is a bad thing they are setting themselves up for in the long run.

They dont need Joe... but constant exposure, POSSITIVE exposure is what helps in the long run.
If you dont want it ... well your choice.

*now if they also could make hardware worth a damn*
 

laggyteabag

Scrolling through forums, instead of playing games
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
2,695
285
88
UK
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

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,324
264
88
Country
Philippines
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

New member
Dec 25, 2008
2,312
0
0
mad825 said:
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

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
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

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
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

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
Laggyteabag said:
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

Bastion of Debauchery
May 27, 2011
183
0
0
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

Note to self: Prooof reed posts
Sep 4, 2013
905
0
0
RatGouf said:

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

New member
Oct 20, 2010
381
0
0
senordesol said:
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

New member
May 10, 2011
1,318
0
0
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

New member
Feb 28, 2014
1,058
0
0
Nintendo being stupid and forgetting it's not 1987? What else is new?
 

MatParker116

New member
Feb 4, 2009
2,430
0
0
senordesol said:
Laggyteabag said:
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

The Light of Dawn
Feb 21, 2009
3,626
0
0
Trishbot said:
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.
 

geldonyetich

New member
Aug 2, 2006
3,715
0
0
Personally, I blame Google's policies and perhaps Internet law in general for this. Takedowns are serious business for YouTube indie content producers, they can get the door shut in their face just because somebody did that to them.

Sometimes it happens just because they are trying to censor conflicting opinions, other times it happens because it's just some 14-year-old asshole who wants to be noticed trolling them.

That's more than not right. It's straight-up, no-brainer wrong.

There needs to be some clearly defined fair use laws that Google is beholden to that allows legitimate content producers like Angry Joe to know where it's safe to tread.
 

rcs619

New member
Mar 26, 2011
627
0
0
Polaris just needs to make this a standard rule for all of their contributors. You get TB, Angry Joe, Pewdiepie, Markiplier, Game Grumps and all the rest to just stop uploading Nintendo content, maybe some sort of message will be sent. Because, let's be real, that is who this system is for. Nintendo is banking on the assumption that the really big youtube names make enough money to where they can just take a hit on Nintendo content and move on. They don't give a shit about nickel and diming Mom and Pop youtuber with their fifty subscribers. They want a cut of the big time.

It's just crazy though. You buy their product, you by all of the accessories, and short of pirating their product, a huge, multinational corporation should have *zero* right to come into your home, or your work, and tell you how you get to use the thing you bought. Buying a game isn't some lingering contract where you only get to enjoy it in ways *they* approve of. As long as nothing illegal is being done (and there is a strong legal argument for Let's Plays being protected under Fair Use), what Nintendo thinks of it should mean shit-all.

I wonder how long it'll take before they try and take down the GamesDoneQuick youtube channel. Let them deal with the media fallout of trying to shutdown a group that's raised millions for charity and is almost universally popular.
 

Luthor55555

New member
Feb 16, 2015
15
0
0
what I didn't know was about the white list of games that they allow you to cover even after the 40% cut they take. There are some really conspicuous titles left out of the list, like every smash bros game and the pokemon games. Almost no 64 games are on the list either.

And do they allow for speed runs? They could get some srsly bad press if they started blocking videos for things like awesome games done quick which always has a huge number of nintendo games in their line up.

But hey, at least they have Link's Crossbow Adventure...
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
mad825 said:
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.
Wasnt a copyright strike, its content ID. One is progress to getting your channel deleted, the other is a 3rd party claiming ad revenue off that video.

The only reason hes making a big deal out of this is to raise awareness of Nintendos flagrant disregard for fair use, and how YT's content ID system can essentially destroy someone who makes a living from YT ad revenue.
 

Ishigami

New member
Sep 1, 2011
830
0
0
Aiddon said:
Joe thinking way too highly of himself.


Aiddon said:
Furthermore, he never reviewed any Nintendo games. Period.
Because he was well aware of the situation and tested out the waters with low effort content.
Would you like to go work for a 40 to 60 hour week only that by the end some random dude walks up to you and say: "Nice man and now I take 40% of what you earned, bye."
No you fucking wouldn't.

Aiddon said:
He just put up lazy LP's. That is it.
Fair enough to test how it goes.

Aiddon said:
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.
And what is wrong with that?
People apparently wanted him to make Nintendo content and he never denied havening received donations. And he bought that Nintendo gear that people donated for (and more by his own money) and tried to produce content so no fraud involved at all.
It still turns out that he can?t make Nintendo content either under the Nintendo system as it is not profitable nor independent as videos still get claimed.
Why make a video that only earns you 60% of what a video for a product of different company would have made?
Yes there are Youtubers out there that can shit all over that system like Pewdiepie who if he loses some money on a video couldn?t care much but Joe isn?t among them.
He can live of Youtube, great. But he isn?t fucking rich.

Aiddon said:
Criminy, there is nothing more pathetic than watching a grown man throw a hissy fit.
Ah right complaining about being treated unfairly and informing your community that producing any content under given circumstances is uneconomically and therefore not happening is unmanly? this is not only some random hobby dude that is his damn fucking job!
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
Mortuorum said:
Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.
No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical. James Rolfe for instance reviews games and sets them up as comedy sketches. Both educational AND satirical. Joe's reviews of games are also the same because those are educational.

Let's Plays do not fall under that. They are neither educational or satirical and no amount of unscripted commentary is going to change that.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
MatParker116 said:
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.
Damn skippy. Not to mention that the money Nintendo could conceivably get from Tubers is paltry compared to potential revenue each video could generate through sales alone.

I mean, on average, a Tuber will earn about $2 per thousand views. Joe has ~2M subcribers so even if every single one of his subs watched his video, the MOST he could walk away with is $4,000 which means Nintendo would bogart a cool $1,600... which isn't enough to so much as pay a single QA Tester for a month (but it IS enough to cover the rent for most people).

However, if just 1% of Joe's subscriber base decided they were convinced by his video and bought Nintendo's game -even assuming they already have a Wii U- Nintendo just made $120,000 AT LEAST for zero work and zero expense.

It's not hard to figure out why Joe is frustrated.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
Aiddon said:
Mortuorum said:
Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.
No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.
Or for purposes of Review or Commentary.
 

OldNewNewOld

New member
Mar 2, 2011
1,494
0
0
Now, while Nintendo is being retarded about this, I don't see this as anything of value being lost.
Angry Joe is neither fun nor interesting and combined with the fact that everyone and their grandmother saw a copyright notice comming... yeah. Good luck.
 

mad825

New member
Mar 28, 2010
3,379
0
0
Lightspeaker said:
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".
Yeah okay, whatever. I suppose the whole him pointing out the fact of him spent $900 on Nintendo goodies, preaching to the choir and how he's trying to save Nintendo from themselves. Yeahh, okay, "testing the waters".

Oh, then blames Nintendo in the end. Are we watching the same video?
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
Aiddon said:
Mortuorum said:
Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.
No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical. James Rolfe for instance reviews games and sets them up as comedy sketches. Both educational AND satirical. Joe's reviews of games are also the same because those are educational.

Let's Plays do not fall under that. They are neither educational or satirical and no amount of unscripted commentary is going to change that.
Has that actually been ruled in a court of law? I'd be interested to see a court case decided one way or the other on "Let's Play." And under U.S. copyright law, fair use does not only apply to educational or satirical use, so I'm not sure where you get that from. You seem to be including "criticism" under educational use, but that's not always the case. Some criticism is academic and some is not but both are protected under fair use. What's more, the law provides the fair use umbrella for educational purposes, news reporting, criticism, limited restoration of a damaged copy and comment. "Let's Play" may or may not fall under that last bit, so unless you've seen a court case stating that they don't, I can't see how your assertion stands up. You may be right, but it's not up to you, or I, or Nintendo, or Google to make that legal determination, it's up to the courts.

I've seen articles arguing both ways on this from people who quote the copyright laws verbatim. It is hardly a clear matter; unless of course you can show that it is. I'd be happy to see that sort of clarification if you can provide it.
 

Carrots_macduff

New member
Jul 13, 2011
232
0
0
quote from the creators program website

"The Nintendo Creators Program is a service through which Nintendo gives you part of the advertising proceeds it receives from YouTube for your Nintendo-related YouTube videos."

that money your videos are generating, thats ours, but you can have some if you get down on your filthy peasants knees and suck my dick
 

Mortuorum

New member
Oct 20, 2010
381
0
0
senordesol said:
Aiddon said:
Mortuorum said:
Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.
No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.
Or for purposes of Review or Commentary.
Correct. While most of the conversation on the Internet is - for reasons obvious to anyone who's spent any time on the Internet - biased against content producers and towards content consumers (and effectively meaningless), a quick Google search did turn up several scholarly articles that argue convincingly that Let's Plays are (or at least should be) protected under Fair Use:

https://iplsrutgers.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/do-lets-play-videos-constitute-fair-use/
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MonaIbrahim/20131212/206912/Deconstructing_Lets_Play_Copyright_and_the_YouTube_Content_ID_Claim_System_A_Legal_Perspective.php

I am not a lawyer, but Craig Drachtman is a published Juris Doctor candidate at Rutgers and Mona Ibrahim is a practicing attorney. I trust that their interpretations have more than a modicum of validity.
 

loa

New member
Jan 28, 2012
1,716
0
0
NoShoes said:
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.
What the hell?
So they take 40% of what's left of your ad revenue but if you want to play jet force gemini, majoras mask, goldeneye or any other game that isn't one of the 7 mentioned n64 games, tough luck?
Why would they do that?

Also wtf are the game grumps doing that allows them to lets play pretty much whatever nintendo game they want?
Are they just lucky? Cause I don't think they do it for free nor do they adhere to that ridiculously short whitelist.
 

Scrythe

Premium Gasoline
Jun 23, 2009
2,368
0
0
Before I get to the topic, I'm going to preface that I agree with the opinion that what Nintendo has been doing with their YouTube dealings is pretty stupid. I just don't want this next part to make it sound like I'm defending Nintendo.

This is the kind of arrogance I can't stand with YouTube "content creators" and their bizarre entitlement that they, and only they, deserve 100% of the money they make recording someone else's IP. I mean, their entire fucking job would not exist if it wasn't for the games, and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked", everyone's acting like they're all evil greedy overlords who don't want people to spread the fun these games provide for people.

And Angry Joe is King of Arrogance Mountain.

The biggest slap in the face is that he just got his Wii U after pulling the "TGWTG doesn't pay me, and I can't pretend to be furious at Wii U games unless you fans buy me one" song and dance, and after realizing he can't win Google Dollars for this, he's taking his ball and going home. Thanks fans, for the Wii U! Now go fuck yourselves.

tl;dr Nintendo are being idiots and Joe is being a whiny *****. Also, the sky is blue.
 

Kaimax

New member
Jul 25, 2012
422
0
0
My question is "Why is Joe feels like the only one getting this?
Gamegrumps plays more Nintendo games than him and they're fine, PBG mostly plays Nintendo games with his latest Pokemon OR&AS series still ongoing and is not covered in the Creators Program.

I feel like Joe is always the odd one out, with his previous Content ID strike, like the Street Fighter one before this.
 

loa

New member
Jan 28, 2012
1,716
0
0
Scrythe said:
This is the kind of arrogance I can't stand with YouTube "content creators" and their bizarre entitlement that they, and only they, deserve 100% of the money they make recording someone else's IP. I mean, their entire fucking job would not exist if it wasn't for the games, and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked", everyone's acting like they're all evil greedy overlords who don't want people to spread the fun these games provide for people.
The gameplay and commentary are transformative. It's not nintendos creation.
Adobe won't come to me, wanting a "slice of the pie it baked" if I publish a picture made with photoshop and sell prints or a photoshop video tutorial with ads on it. Because that would be ridiculous after adobe already has its slice and the rest of the pie on top of a mountain of pies from their licensing fees.
 

Qitz

New member
Mar 6, 2011
1,276
0
0
Mortuorum said:
senordesol said:
Aiddon said:
Mortuorum said:
Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.
No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.
Or for purposes of Review or Commentary.
Correct. While most of the conversation on the Internet is - for reasons obvious to anyone who's spent any time on the Internet - biased against content producers and towards content consumers (and effectively meaningless), a quick Google search did turn up several scholarly articles that argue convincingly that Let's Plays are (or at least should be) protected under Fair Use:

https://iplsrutgers.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/do-lets-play-videos-constitute-fair-use/
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MonaIbrahim/20131212/206912/Deconstructing_Lets_Play_Copyright_and_the_YouTube_Content_ID_Claim_System_A_Legal_Perspective.php

I am not a lawyer, but Craig Drachtman is a published Juris Doctor candidate at Rutgers and Mona Ibrahim is a practicing attorney. I trust that their interpretations have more than a modicum of validity.
Yeah but until it's goes to a court room, it won't be ruled on, which I wouldn't expect anytime soon. Not just because its insanely expensive to do so but also if the court rules in favor of the game studio, you just set a precedent for everyone else.

A lot of it makes me wonder if Nintendo is thinking that Youtube search = Google search. Sort of like what Sega did with Shining Force, something you may remember TotalBiscuit bringing up a few times, where they went through and copyright struck a bunch of videos to push their own further up the ladder. They're figuring that if someone with a large audience gets more views than them, then they're entitled to some of the profit.

Personally, if I was in the same boat, I wouldn't cover Nintendo games either. They've got some great stuff but not enough to give them 40% of the ad revenue left over after Google takes 50% (or so) and the MCN takes whatever they take.
 

WeepingAngels

New member
May 18, 2013
1,722
0
0
Scrythe said:
and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked"
The pie they just baked is the game itself and they got their slice when the game was bought. A Let's Play is not like an unaltered public broadcast. By it's nature a game can be played differently by different people and the commentary by those people is unique. The video equipment, editing and electricity is not provided by Nintendo and is a cost to the YouTube content creator.

I get that you think Nintendo is being stupid so don't think that I am accusing you of defending Nintendo. I just think you need to not see reviews and Let's Plays the same as an unaltered public broadcast.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
loa said:
The gameplay and commentary are transformative. It's not nintendos creation.
Adobe won't come to me, wanting a "slice of the pie it baked" if I publish a picture made with photoshop or a photoshop video tutorial.
That's not a good comparison. Adobe Photoshop is a legit tool used in professional work places that have paid for the license to use it to create works. Just recording what you've played of a game and slapping it on Youtube is not no matter how much unscripted commentary you put on it. The closest you can use is a walkthrough; like if you did a video showing how to find a certain object in a game or a strategy to defeat a boss.

What LPs are clearly trying to be is MST3K....but MST3K actually got the rights to use the films it was riffing, either because they were public domain or because they were so cheap it didn't matter.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
It does seem Nintendo is losing a lot of free publicity for this. Especially as Joe was giving the WiiU glowing praise. Granted Nintendo can do what they want with their IP but I think a clever company would weigh up the pros and cons and leave those vids to help promote their console. Because now, there will be no more vids for Nintendo to get money from but also they have lost a massive amount of free advertising. So blocking it wasnt worth their while.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
Scrythe said:
This is the kind of arrogance I can't stand with YouTube "content creators" and their bizarre entitlement that they, and only they, deserve 100% of the money they make recording someone else's IP. I mean, their entire fucking job would not exist if it wasn't for the games, and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked", everyone's acting like they're all evil greedy overlords who don't want people to spread the fun these games provide for people.
It's not so much a 'piece of the pie' as it is a piece of crust that broke off in the box.

As I pointed out before; a single video monetized might make a few thousand dollars for the creator, but a few thousand subcribers who watched the video stand to make a company MILLIONS if they decide to buy a copy of the game. That seems like a pretty equitable trade.

True, the Tuber's job may not exist if not for the content; but if not for the Tuber, that avenue for the company to earn additional revenue based on sub action wouldn't exist either.

It's a mutually beneficial relationship is what I'm saying. By drying up a Tuber's revenue stream, no one's really being helped. Not the Tuber and not the company. The $1,600 Nintendo might pull in "taxes" does exactly NOTHING for them, but does a damn sight to pay for equipment, rent, food, power, water, and additional games (maybe even NINTENDO GAMES) for a content creator. Whereas the creator won't see a DIME of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of dollars he convinced his audience to spend on a particular company, but can at least be kept afloat through views alone.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Angry Joe is right here, Nintendo is being dumb. They do have a right to do this but it's insane to do this. Angry Joe and other youtubers are free marketing for Nintendo. It's crazy of them to do this.

At least this came from a fan of the system.

mad825 said:
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.
Yep, one of the most influential youtubers has decided not to cover the most famous video game publishers due to a very controversial copywrite campaign.

It's highly relative to this site and its fans.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,766
0
0
I'm sorry, but I don't think Nintendo will consider this a big deal. Joe and his fans might, but Nintendo is soooo much bigger than Joe realizes. Sure they may act petty, but they aren't going to lose more than a single sale(that of Joe himself) with this. The Nintendo fan base is so enthralled with that company that there is nothing, nothing they could do or critics could say that would stop sales.

Props to Joe for drawing a line in the sand, but it'd be about as effective as you or I telling Nintendo we're gonna stop talking about their new games of drinks with the guys over the weekend. They could not care less.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
Silentpony said:
I'm sorry, but I don't think Nintendo will consider this a big deal. Joe and his fans might, but Nintendo is soooo much bigger than Joe realizes. Sure they may act petty, but they aren't going to lose more than a single sale(that of Joe himself) with this. The Nintendo fan base is so enthralled with that company that there is nothing, nothing they could do or critics could say that would stop sales.

Props to Joe for drawing a line in the sand, but it'd be about as effective as you or I telling Nintendo we're gonna stop talking about their new games of drinks with the guys over the weekend. They could not care less.
Nintendo is exactly as big as Joe realized.

Maybe Joe and the marketing power of youtubers aren't as big as Nintendo realizes.
 

loa

New member
Jan 28, 2012
1,716
0
0
Aiddon said:
What LPs are clearly trying to be is MST3K....but MST3K actually got the rights to use the films it was riffing, either because they were public domain or because they were so cheap it didn't matter.
Well games, no matter how "cinematic" are not in fact so passive that they are indistinguishable from movies since the whole thing about them is interactivity so that's another bad comparison.
 

Soulrender95

New member
May 13, 2011
176
0
0
I love Nintendo games but damn Nintendo just doesn't get it, it really is a company of old men unsure how to act in the modern world, they've already put me off buying any more systems of theirs with really shoddy customer service on a return for which I'm still waiting on a refund for six weeks later.

I honestly don't know they think the NX will fix anything when they've already driven off third party support and the overly restrictive Nintendo youtube network means that anyone who could make a video about the system will have a pro-Nintendo bias towards it that I cannot trust.
 

rcs619

New member
Mar 26, 2011
627
0
0
loa said:
Aiddon said:
What LPs are clearly trying to be is MST3K....but MST3K actually got the rights to use the films it was riffing, either because they were public domain or because they were so cheap it didn't matter.
Well games, no matter how "cinematic" are not in fact so passive that they are indistinguishable from movies since the whole thing about them is interactivity so that's another bad comparison.
Exactly. As someone who watches LP's and still plays the actual games, it is two completely different experiences. If I wanna play Dark Souls and enjoy the depth, and lore, and atmosphere... I'll just play Dark Souls. I watch SuperBestFriends play Dark Souls because I enjoy their personalities and commentary. I still bought, and still play, Dark Souls either way because I like the game, but I watch the video on youtube for the youtubers.

You could *maybe* make an argument about commentary-less walkthroughs being less than legit. They are, basically, showing off the whole game without any original input of their own. But with Jim Sterling, BestFriends, GameGrumps, whoever... the videos are about them. The games they play are largely secondary.

Also, being totally honest, I don't buy *any* games sight-unseen any more. Rental is basically dead, reviewers and metascores can be hit or miss, and I've been burned too many times by modern games. So, unless I watch a Let's Play, and see it in motion with some honest opinions, I don't buy it. I would be really interested to see some actual numbers on whether or not Let's Plays increase sales or not (I am almost certain they do. I know indie sales skyrocket when a big name plays a game). Because, unless there is verifiable proof that these videos hurt the industry, Nintendo, or any other million or billion-dollar company doesn't have a leg to stand on trying to legally silence them.
 

Li Mu

New member
Oct 17, 2011
552
0
0
mad825 said:
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.
Indeed. While I understand that he is upset, he does come across as a whiny kid. If I uploaded a video of myself bawwwing I should expect people to frown and call me up on it, even if I am justified.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
loa said:
Well games, no matter how "cinematic" are not in fact so passive that they are indistinguishable from movies since the whole thing about them is interactivity so that's another bad comparison.
No, you're still putting the content on up despite not having the rights to do it. That LP needs the game, it is derivative work of an IP you do not own. In fact, if I remember right, the Youtube Partners EULA prohibits the use of LPs. The only reason more of them haven't been taken down is because Youtube is simply to huge to scour on a daily or even weekly basis.
 

Adam Jensen_v1legacy

I never asked for this
Sep 8, 2011
6,652
0
0
Yeah, Nintendo's policies suck. And it took him long enough to do this. I don't like Angry Joe. Not only is he too emotional and downright whiny, but he's also not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Hell, I can't just leave it at that. It doesn't paint the accurate picture. Angry Joe is stupid. Maybe that's why he's so popular. He caters to a very large demographic because of his inferior intelligence.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
Aiddon said:
loa said:
Well games, no matter how "cinematic" are not in fact so passive that they are indistinguishable from movies since the whole thing about them is interactivity so that's another bad comparison.
No, you're still putting the content on up despite not having the rights to do it. That LP needs the game, it is derivative work of an IP you do not own. In fact, if I remember right, the Youtube Partners EULA prohibits the use of LPs. The only reason more of them haven't been taken down is because Youtube is simply to huge to scour on a daily or even weekly basis.
Mmmm...no. Maybe not "every LP ever" and maybe not lesser-known titles, but people with subs of 10K+ playing AAA titles are fairly noticeable even if it's just one guy checking for it.
 

Meinos Kaen

New member
Jun 17, 2009
200
0
0
Sadly, Nintendo has never evolved past the limits of Japan, and it shows.

Japan as a nation is decades behind most of the world when it comes to marketing, and it shows in how most of its corporates are performing -most don't have a marketing team, it's not studied in universities, hell Japanese doesn't have a WORD for marketing-. Nintendo are content with thinking of themselves and themselves only, thinking that they only need to make a good product to sell. It doesn't matter how you treat your customers in the process or how you talk about it.

From region locking consoles to artificially rising up product prices by keeping them scarces -first WiiU and then Amiibos-, to making consoles that are the bane of third parties, to their relationships with Youtubers... Nintendo has had one year over Microsoft and Sony to build their library, they have the strongest lineup right now, and yet they haven't broken the ten millions WiiU sales. They're dead last in the home console race.

Sony has only now starting to pull out some great games, and yet it's leading the race. Why? Because they capitalized on that E3 of 2013. When Nintendo was being Nintendo and Microsoft went out bat swinging saying 'We're going to screw you all over', they changed the script for their conference overnight to go: we're doing the complete opposite of that. We think of you the customer first. That's the message they were sending, that's what they got the standing ovations for, that's what kept the system afloat and keeping its demand bigger than its offer for more an year and a half, now.
 

loa

New member
Jan 28, 2012
1,716
0
0
Aiddon said:
loa said:
Well games, no matter how "cinematic" are not in fact so passive that they are indistinguishable from movies since the whole thing about them is interactivity so that's another bad comparison.
No, you're still putting the content on up despite not having the rights to do it. That LP needs the game, it is derivative work of an IP you do not own. In fact, if I remember right, the Youtube Partners EULA prohibits the use of LPs. The only reason more of them haven't been taken down is because Youtube is simply to huge to scour on a daily or even weekly basis.
The "content" would be the game binaries.
Lets players don't upload that, people at piratebay do. Big difference.
A video record of a 3d model is not equal to the source files of the 3d model.
You think its derivative I think it's transformative.

Bottom line is, it is a huge and muddy gray-ish area the law hasn't caught up with yet and is in no hurry to do so any time soon.
 

killerbee256

New member
Aug 14, 2014
76
0
0
If nintendo wants to shoot themselves in the foot then so be it. But it's funny, as angry joe says, EA is smart about this while Nintendo is messing up.
 

Sleepy Sol

New member
Feb 15, 2011
1,831
0
0
Surprised he didn't take a stance like this sooner. The writing was on the wall for Nintendo to start doing this sort of crap.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Waitwaitwait, how is this news? Like seriously, how?

OT: I'll say what I said in other forums: as much as I like Joe, he's honestly just a drop in the bucket here. Yes, 2 million subscribers sounds like a lot, but when you look at how many views any Nintendo video will get, from people who are more than willing to comply to Nintendo's wants, he honestly doesn't matter here.
 

KDR_11k

New member
Feb 10, 2009
1,013
0
0
Basically Nintendo is saying "we're going to run ads on the ad you made for us and if you bend over we might give you a bit of the revenue we make from the video itself while the video drives sales towards us that you're seeing zilch of".

Let's Plays are a modern form of word of mouth. Sure, Youtube's systems allow suppressing that but what good does it do you?

As far as getting Youtube's systems to be more fair, forget it. That stuff is dictated by the movie and music industry who have no interest in letting anybody else have any money or rights.
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
Aiddon said:
In fact, if I remember right, the Youtube Partners EULA prohibits the use of LPs. The only reason more of them haven't been taken down is because Youtube is simply to huge to scour on a daily or even weekly basis.
That cant be right, or the likes of PewDiePie and DarkSydePhil would have been shut down the moment they gained notoriety.

xaszatm said:
OT: I'll say what I said in other forums: as much as I like Joe, he's honestly just a drop in the bucket here. Yes, 2 million subscribers sounds like a lot, but when you look at how many views any Nintendo video will get, from people who are more than willing to comply to Nintendo's wants, he honestly doesn't matter here.
Considering that WiiU sales apparently havent surpassed 10m (most recent figure i can find dates to 31/12/2014) thats a potential 20% increase in buyers that wont be seeing anything Nintendo puts out.

Even if we were to assume that even only a quarter of Joes 2m subscribers dont already have a WiiU, theyre certainly not going to be getting one based on what Joe says now.
 

KoudelkaMorgan

New member
Jul 31, 2009
1,365
0
0
The "Youtubers" have every right to freedom of press/speech etc. but until the law says otherwise, they have to respect that the people that make the things they are shamelessly piggybacking off of have a say in who gets to make money off their IPs.

To make a rediculous analogy, imagine you wrote a best selling book. Now imagine that there were thousands of people on Youtube doing "let's reads" and holding the pages up to the camera while making jokes/reading it in character etc. and demanding 100% of the ad revenue to go in their pockets.

You can argue that people watch them for the person on camera, and that the book is merely a prop for their content creation. But when you take the book away, they have absolutely nothing to offer by way of content.

A "let's read" is different from a book review. In a review you aren't literally showing every page to the camera and reading it out loud for everyone, just like in a game review you aren't showing an entire playthrough. But in a LP, that is EXACTLY what some people do sometimes without a face cam or any post commentary.

The grey area where the stupid analogy I just created falls apart is in the mediums themselves. There may be many ways to interpret a book, but in general there is only one way to read it. A game can by definition be played many different ways. Unless the LR's decide to start at a random page and then black out every other word or something, they lack the built in copyright skirting that LPs get away with.

But, can a Youtuber copyright their LP? Can someone claim to own the rights to a particular playthrough of a game? They claim that it is THEIR content right? Can you see how this entitlement quickly breaks down when held under any kind of scrutiny other than public opinion?

Do I want to see LPs die? Not at all.

I watch Caddicarus, Northernlion, Dodger, Projared, Cinemassacre, KineticGTR, VideogameCarnage, ChristopherOdd, Jontron, Continue, and PeanutbutterGamer to name a few. Aside from Jontron who is currently shutting himself down for whatever reason, I'd hate for any of them to suddenly go away but I would certainly understand it.

They are all great people, and if I thought I had enough to contribute to the industry that they haven't already I'd probably have my own channel.

But the only real reason any of them are ALLOWED to showcase other people's work in pretty much all of their videos is that the owners let them. They believe, accurately or not, that letting everyone with an internet connection have unrestrained access to their IP being broadcast to their eye and ear holes is good for their bottom line. Probably in reality its better than taking everyone around the world to court over it.

So when Nintendo actually gives a damn about their IPs and says, nuh uh, I respect them for it. I'm only surprised that THEY are the ones drawing the line in the sand and not say EA, Ubisoft, etc.

Because if any company would stand to benefit from their games NOT being played for everyone to see, its probably going to be one of the ones trying to hide the fact that their games are horrible, glitchy, grade AAA shovelware and Nintendo doesn't really belong on that list quite yet.

As for Joe, I'll probably wait to see his reaction to Batman V Superman, but I honestly don't care about his channel aside from that. Its been at least a year since I've even thought about him tbh.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Apr 10, 2020
16,682
731
118
Country
Argentina
Of all the nonsense the company is on about lately, I think Nintendo's stupid YouTube policies takes Peach's proverbial cake.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Kaimax said:
My question is "Why is Joe feels like the only one getting this?
Gamegrumps plays more Nintendo games than him and they're fine, PBG mostly plays Nintendo games with his latest Pokemon OR&AS series still ongoing and is not covered in the Creators Program.

I feel like Joe is always the odd one out, with his previous Content ID strike, like the Street Fighter one before this.
Honestly? It's because he isn't playing by their rules. Nintendo either will work with people directly (see: game explain, polaris, Smosh, etc) or has a Nintendo's creators program for people who don't have the clout or desire to deal with Nintendo directly. This is kind of what most other people do with game companies. Heck, I think Polaris, which Joe I believe Joe is apart of, has Let's Players who do Nintendo content and they get along fine with Nintendo. Joe, however, seems to want to play by his own rule and gets mad when people tell him he can't.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
gigastar said:
Aiddon said:
In fact, if I remember right, the Youtube Partners EULA prohibits the use of LPs. The only reason more of them haven't been taken down is because Youtube is simply to huge to scour on a daily or even weekly basis.
That cant be right, or the likes of PewDiePie and DarkSydePhil would have been shut down the moment they gained notoriety.

xaszatm said:
OT: I'll say what I said in other forums: as much as I like Joe, he's honestly just a drop in the bucket here. Yes, 2 million subscribers sounds like a lot, but when you look at how many views any Nintendo video will get, from people who are more than willing to comply to Nintendo's wants, he honestly doesn't matter here.
Considering that WiiU sales apparently havent surpassed 10m (most recent figure i can find dates to 31/12/2014) thats a potential 20% increase in buyers that wont be seeing anything Nintendo puts out.

Even if we were to assume that even only a quarter of Joes 2m subscribers dont already have a WiiU, theyre certainly not going to be getting one based on what Joe says now.
Except we are trying to correlate potential customers with actual customers, which is kind of putting the cart before the horse. Besides, Nintendo does do videos with people who don't associate themselves with Nintendo usually. Miyamoto did that stint where they visited non-gaming channels (and Smosh) to play Nintendo games and talk. This really didn't affect sales in any positive or negative way. So to say that Nintendo just lost 2 million customers is rather...well, foolish.
 

Hairless Mammoth

New member
Jan 23, 2013
1,595
0
0
I know this last video he made was a test, but he should have made a quick review (something that would only take a spare weekend, if Joe even has one, to make) to see what Nintendo would have done to it. They've especially been out for Joe for a while, when I haven't heard much about some other LPers. *crosses fingers so they don't touch Brainscratch or Hellfire Comms* It's one thing to take down raw footage, but another to attack a critical response.

They might have the right to do this, but no other game company has went this Content ID match happy. Sure, some have pulled low profile copyright claims for things like getting their own videos higher on the search results, or the rogue developer, who can't take criticism, have gone after Jim Fuckin' Sterling, son and TotalBiscuit. Almost the entire non-Nintendo side of the industry accepts, or even embraces, what is going on with Youtube.

I think Chuggaconroy even vocalized against the Nintendo MCN program, guys like him, who mostly or only do Nintendo stuff and don't want to be coerced into a subpar deal compared to other MCNs, will have to move on from Nintendo. I can't wait for the chance to register a game on the new Club Nintendo (whenever it starts) and fill in where ever I can that I either already bought the game I'm watching an LP of and watching guys enjoy their games makes me want to try them, too. I might even boycott any content creator that is a part of their shitty program.

It's not the money issue I'm worried about, necessarily. It's the big list of forbidden and restricted content they have in the program's terms. I don't want their control freak, money grubbing ways spreading to other companies. If they show signs the program is successful, it might cause an avalanche of shit, a shitalanche. Just fuck off and let the internet do its own thing, Nintendo. You won't look like a raving jackass if you let this go, or drastically improve many things in your MCN program.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Hairless Mammoth said:
I know this last video he made was a test, but he should have made a quick review (something that would only take a spare weekend, if Joe even has one, to make) to see what Nintendo would have done to it. They've especially been out for Joe for a while, when I haven't heard much about some other LPers. *crosses fingers so they don't touch Brainscratch or Hellfire Comms* It's one thing to take down raw footage, but another to attack a critical response.

They might have the right to do this, but no other game company has went this Content ID match happy. Sure, some have pulled low profile copyright claims for things like getting their own videos higher on the search results, or the rogue developer, who can't take criticism, have gone after Jim Fuckin' Sterling, son and TotalBiscuit. Almost the entire non-Nintendo side of the industry accepts, or even embraces, what is going on with Youtube.

I think Chuggaconroy even vocalized against the Nintendo MCN program, guys like him, who mostly or only do Nintendo stuff and don't want to be coerced into a subpar deal compared to other MCNs, will have to move on from Nintendo. I can't wait for the chance to register a game on the new Club Nintendo (whenever it starts) and fill in where ever I can that I either already bought the game I'm watching an LP of and watching guys enjoy their games makes me want to try them, too. I might even boycott any content creator that is a part of their shitty program.

It's not the money issue I'm worried about, necessarily. It's the big list of forbidden and restricted content they have in the program's terms. I don't want their control freak, money grubbing ways spreading to other companies. If they show signs the program is successful, it might cause an avalanche of shit, a shitalanche. Just fuck off and let the internet do its own thing, Nintendo. You won't look like a raving jackass if you let this go, or drastically improve many things in your MCN program.
When did Nintendo attack a critical response? They monetize Joe's video of Mario Party 10. Joe took down the video himself then posted a rant. Twice.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
KoudelkaMorgan said:
The "Youtubers" have every right to freedom of press/speech etc. but until the law says otherwise, they have to respect that the people that make the things they are shamelessly piggybacking off of have a say in who gets to make money off their IPs.

To make a rediculous analogy, imagine you wrote a best selling book. Now imagine that there were thousands of people on Youtube doing "let's reads" and holding the pages up to the camera while making jokes/reading it in character etc. and demanding 100% of the ad revenue to go in their pockets.

You can argue that people watch them for the person on camera, and that the book is merely a prop for their content creation. But when you take the book away, they have absolutely nothing to offer by way of content.

A "let's read" is different from a book review. In a review you aren't literally showing every page to the camera and reading it out loud for everyone, just like in a game review you aren't showing an entire playthrough. But in a LP, that is EXACTLY what some people do sometimes without a face cam or any post commentary.
That happens all the time, though. Ever take a literature course? You're required to go through the entire book point-by-point. Sure the school has to pay for the book(s), but the authors don't get a dime of tuition revenue devoted to the reading of their work. So long as the original copy of the book was paid for, they've no say.
 

Fdzzaigl

New member
Mar 31, 2010
822
0
0
Knowing how much ad space actually costs, even in local media, you have to just /facepalm at Nintendo.

For how many people who watch a let's play exclusively for a game, how many others will actually buy or at the very least follow that company or product because they want to experience the thing themselves?
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
xaszatm said:
gigastar said:
xaszatm said:
OT: I'll say what I said in other forums: as much as I like Joe, he's honestly just a drop in the bucket here. Yes, 2 million subscribers sounds like a lot, but when you look at how many views any Nintendo video will get, from people who are more than willing to comply to Nintendo's wants, he honestly doesn't matter here.
Considering that WiiU sales apparently havent surpassed 10m (most recent figure i can find dates to 31/12/2014) thats a potential 20% increase in buyers that wont be seeing anything Nintendo puts out.

Even if we were to assume that even only a quarter of Joes 2m subscribers dont already have a WiiU, theyre certainly not going to be getting one based on what Joe says now.
Except we are trying to correlate potential customers with actual customers, which is kind of putting the cart before the horse.
Unfortunately, in the absence of up to date statistics on everyone everywhere, i have to interpret things and come up with assumptions based on a theoretical maximum, and a realistic minimum.

xaszatm said:
So to say that Nintendo just lost 2 million customers is rather...well, foolish.
Except thats not what i said. I said thats about 2 million people, whom apparently put some value in what Joe has to say, who wont be making thier decision to buy Nintendo based on what Joe says.
 

gigastar

Insert one-liner here.
Sep 13, 2010
4,419
0
0
senordesol said:
That happens all the time, though. Ever take a literature course? You're required to go through the entire book point-by-point. Sure the school has to pay for the book(s), but the authors don't get a dime of tuition revenue devoted to the reading of their work. So long as the original copy of the book was paid for, they've no say.
But that is covered by fair use as an educational thing. And even then, most schools only examine classical works.
 

senordesol

New member
Oct 12, 2009
1,302
0
0
gigastar said:
senordesol said:
That happens all the time, though. Ever take a literature course? You're required to go through the entire book point-by-point. Sure the school has to pay for the book(s), but the authors don't get a dime of tuition revenue devoted to the reading of their work. So long as the original copy of the book was paid for, they've no say.
But that is covered by fair use as an educational thing. And even then, most schools only examine classical works.
Schools tend to focus on Classical works, but aren't required to (hell, I got my book picked up by a community college). The reason for it is because classics tend to become classics because they have particular literary value (and are thus worth studying).

Same arguments apply to a degree, however. A Let's Play can be argued as a critique on game design. Whether or not it's a 'good' one is irrelevant so far as the law is concerned. The thing is, if it's being used for review, commentary, or education; it's fair game under fair use -regardless as to whether it's coming from an actual educational institution.
 

The Bandit

New member
Feb 5, 2008
967
0
0
mad825 said:
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.
hahahaha OMG WHINING JOE HAHAHAHA

Grade A post, friend.

It made the news because it is news. Just because it's "the rules," doesn't mean everyone agrees that it should be the rules, and reporting on this encourages discussion on an issue. ITS ALMOST LIKE THIS IS REAL JOURNALISM OR SOMETHING
 

RavenTail

New member
Oct 12, 2010
55
0
0
rcs619 said:
loa said:
Aiddon said:
What LPs are clearly trying to be is MST3K....but MST3K actually got the rights to use the films it was riffing, either because they were public domain or because they were so cheap it didn't matter.
Well games, no matter how "cinematic" are not in fact so passive that they are indistinguishable from movies since the whole thing about them is interactivity so that's another bad comparison.
Exactly. As someone who watches LP's and still plays the actual games, it is two completely different experiences. If I wanna play Dark Souls and enjoy the depth, and lore, and atmosphere... I'll just play Dark Souls. I watch SuperBestFriends play Dark Souls because I enjoy their personalities and commentary. I still bought, and still play, Dark Souls either way because I like the game, but I watch the video on youtube for the youtubers.

You could *maybe* make an argument about commentary-less walkthroughs being less than legit. They are, basically, showing off the whole game without any original input of their own. But with Jim Sterling, BestFriends, GameGrumps, whoever... the videos are about them. The games they play are largely secondary.

Also, being totally honest, I don't buy *any* games sight-unseen any more. Rental is basically dead, reviewers and metascores can be hit or miss, and I've been burned too many times by modern games. So, unless I watch a Let's Play, and see it in motion with some honest opinions, I don't buy it. I would be really interested to see some actual numbers on whether or not Let's Plays increase sales or not (I am almost certain they do. I know indie sales skyrocket when a big name plays a game). Because, unless there is verifiable proof that these videos hurt the industry, Nintendo, or any other million or billion-dollar company doesn't have a leg to stand on trying to legally silence them.
All of this.

The games themselves are just platforms for the LPers to display themselves. Markiplier doesn't have 7 million subs because people just want footage of Five Nights At Freddy's. He has 7 million because people like him and what he has to say and his reaction to the games.

Also I'm in the same mindset. I want to see a game being played before I buy it. I want uncut, raw, first hand footage these days in order to make an informed choice.

EA, Ubisoft, Activision are notorious for their greed... yet even they don't try and squeeze out every single cent from videos relating to their product like Nintendo is trying to do.
 

thehorror2

New member
Jan 25, 2010
354
0
0
Nintendo really doesn't seem to like youtubers getting money for showing off their games, even though that's one of the strongest platforms for getting modern gamers interested in their products. (speaking anecdotally, 4 of the last 5 games I've bought have been spurred by watching people playing them and having a blast on the internet)
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
xaszatm said:
When did Nintendo attack a critical response? They monetize Joe's video of Mario Party 10. Joe took down the video himself then posted a rant. Twice.
Never. Seriously, they've NEVER tried to take down critical responses or reviews in their entire history. Why? Because they're more professional than that. In fact, that is the ultimate reason I side with Nintendo over Joe: because they're acting like adults. They're pros, they're not going to hold their breath and stamp their feet over nonsense unlike Joe. Maybe if Mr. Vargas had articulated himself better I might sympathize with him, but he had to throw a tantrum and destroy any chance he had at good will. I save my sympathies for the intelligent and logical.

And at the end of the day, this is all they took issue with: a Let's Play. He's getting pissy...OVER A LET'S PLAY. Really? Not even a review, a preview, or any content that could be educational or satirical, but just video of him playing a game. Dear. Freaking. BUDDHA is that petty.
 

RavenTail

New member
Oct 12, 2010
55
0
0
Aiddon said:
xaszatm said:
When did Nintendo attack a critical response? They monetize Joe's video of Mario Party 10. Joe took down the video himself then posted a rant. Twice.
Never. Seriously, they've NEVER tried to take down critical responses or reviews in their entire history. Why? Because they're more professional than that. In fact, that is the ultimate reason I side with Nintendo over Joe: because they're acting like adults. They're pros, they're not going to hold their breath and stamp their feet over nonsense unlike Joe. Maybe if Mr. Vargas had articulated himself better I might sympathize with him, but he had to throw a tantrum and destroy any chance he had at good will. I save my sympathies for the intelligent and logical.

And at the end of the day, this is all they took issue with: a Let's Play. He's getting pissy...OVER A LET'S PLAY. Really? Not even a review, a preview, or any content that could be educational or satirical, but just video of him playing a game. Dear. Freaking. BUDDHA is that petty.
Except this is his livelihood. His job depends on putting up videos and earning venue from those videos. You clearly don't respect LPers and that is your opinion. But it doesn't change the fact these people are paying rent and getting food on the table because of these LPs.
 

Mikeybb

Nunc est Durandum
Aug 19, 2014
862
0
0
I've enjoyed some of angry joe's work in the past, but haven't watched him for a long while.

As to this, I can't say I'm surprised nor do I think he'll be the last of the 'lets play' youtube broadcasters to do this.

My initial response to this is that Nintendo are making a bad move, as when I think back to the amount of games I've purchased over the past year, a high percentage of those purchases have been a result of youtube coverage or specifically an entertaining lets play of a game and I'm quite sure my purchasing trend isn't a lone aberrant quirk.
It seems foolish to give up.
That said, how much damage do lets plays of bad games do to sales?
Perhaps, given the inclusion of a 'whitelist' of games, they intend to control that kind of exposure too.
If this is the case, it certainly will backfire also.
 

Hairless Mammoth

New member
Jan 23, 2013
1,595
0
0
xaszatm said:
When did Nintendo attack a critical response? They monetize Joe's video of Mario Party 10. Joe took down the video himself then posted a rant. Twice.
They never did. I just wanted to see what they would do, since Angry Joe seems to be one of the top people on their radar. I haven't seen Joe review a Nintendo game in a long time. They probably wouldn't have done anything themselves, but the automated content ID system could have found something to claim in the video. I've heard of people giving reviews or even previews/opinion pieces on upcoming games, only to have their video flagged for an official still image. That's right, a still image that was released to journalists to promote the game.
 

skyn3t

New member
Mar 29, 2015
4
0
0
Bob_McMillan said:
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,

Actually, Nintendo doesn't flag your account/put a CR claim on that video or anything of the tradtional nature.
In fact, the video doesn't even get taken down.
And unless you go into your anyitics and look up the money earned on each video, you wouldn't even notice that Nintendo has put any action forth on your content...why you may ask?
Because Nintendo simply claims 100% of the profits of the video and allows it to stay up, earning them more money.

That's why Smosh doesn't have their video down.
Either because they're too stupid to realize that they're giving Nintendo free money, or they simply don't care (because they know it could attract other people to their other videos).


So in a short answer; listen to the god damn video before giving your 2 cents worth of feedback on something.
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
Just another case of a company shooting themselves in the foot. They have the right to deny using their content for videos unless they take a cut but in doing so are alienating the very same people who promote those games. Honestly I fully side with online personalities like Joe in boycotting Nintendo, in his shoes I would do the exact same thing.
 

marioandsonic

New member
Nov 28, 2009
657
0
0
Let me just state for the record that I love Nintendo, and they've built up a lot of good will with me, so I'm willing to let a lot slide with them. I also feel that they have every right to pull any Youtube video that contains their content.

That said, their recent Youtube policies are a joke. I guess this is because they are a company that's slow to adapt to the changing times, but they really should be working harder to build up good will with Let's Players and other reviewers, since it give them a lot of publicity.

And more marketing would be the best thing for the Wii U right now.
 

SweetShark

Shark Girls are my Waifus
Jan 9, 2012
5,147
0
0
This is very strange. Why Angry Joe is so important? I see this news in at least 4 other gaming sites.
Also yes, Nintendo have any right about that if it want. I know it sucks for the Youtubers, but this is the reality with the copyrights: If you own it, you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT.
Even if Nintendo decided to delete every fanart of its characters, it CAN.
 

Ishigami

New member
Sep 1, 2011
830
0
0
Aiddon said:
Never. Seriously, they've NEVER tried to take down critical responses or reviews in their entire history.
Who said anything about take downs? It's about the monetization! Nintendo will leave your video up sure no problem? but they will take any money it may make. Unless you are in their program then they only take 30 to 40% of the money it may make and dictate what you can do and what not?
Since this is Joes sole job that?s a big deal for him.

Hairless Mammoth said:
They never did. I just wanted to see what they would do, since Angry Joe seems to be one of the top people on their radar. I haven't seen Joe review a Nintendo game in a long time.
You don?t see Nintendo content because he can?t monetize it as Nintendo would claim it! No money, no video.

Aiddon said:
KoudelkaMorgan said:
Mikeybb said:
LP this and LP that but this is not about LP!
It's about the monetization of videos on YouTube that include gameplay footage of Nintendo games in general.
Nintendo will claim the monetization or if you?re in their program they will claim a large part of it and you need to get your video authorized.
So if you want to make money of a YouTube video review of a game made by Nintendo including gameplay footage it needs to be green light by Nintendo.
Now that suspiciously sounds like a case for GamerGate doesn't it?

SweetShark said:
Also yes, Nintendo have any right about that if it want. I know it sucks for the Youtubers, but this is the reality with the copyrights: If you own it, you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT.
Even if Nintendo decided to delete every fanart of its characters, it CAN.
I actually doubt that.
You see if you take Nintendo to court in the USA about a video review in the lines of let's say Joe's Angry Review or GameTrailers there is a good chance they lose due to fair use.
The thing is no small YouTuber like Joe can afford to take Nintendo to court over a video. It takes years and it costs you upfront since no legal protection I know of covers copyright cases (tells you everything you need to know about the copyright).
So in term of LP maybe? in case of reviews maybe too depends on the review but there is certainly a good chance to get away too.
And no matter them having the right it is still a dick move.
 

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
mad825 said:
Lightspeaker said:
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".
Yeah okay, whatever. I suppose the whole him pointing out the fact of him spent $900 on Nintendo goodies, preaching to the choir and how he's trying to save Nintendo from themselves. Yeahh, okay, "testing the waters".

Oh, then blames Nintendo in the end. Are we watching the same video?
I could ask you the same thing honestly because you seem to be watching something totally different.

He pointed out that he spent $900 on Nintendo stuff to produce the content, sure. What's your point? He also points out that he's had a ton of fun with the Wii U, and that he's recommended the console to people on a personal basis. Which he can't do as part of his reviewing because if he tries Nintendo will screw over his livelihood; so his time is better spent producing videos which he can actually live off. This is very much an either/or thing. EITHER he can spend his time on videos that he'll make all the money off OR he can spend his time on videos that he'll lose a massive chunk of revenue from. He doesn't have infinite time to do both. Which would you choose? Bearing in mind that if you can't afford to keep living off the videos you'd have to find a new job rather than continuing to do what you love.

And I don't think that calling out their policies as stupid and self-destructive is preaching about saving Nintendo from themselves. I mean...its not like he's wrong here. Its an extremely backwards policy. And its self-destructive to screw over free advertising.

Of course he blames Nintendo. Who else is to blame for their crappy policies? Nobody MAKES them do this you know? There's not some guy sitting there forcing company directors to make these choices. They manage to achieve this kind of silliness all on their own.
 

Kittyhawk

New member
Aug 2, 2012
248
0
0
Good luck to him. Like many upset by or moving from Youtube, he'd be better off covering those games that deserve it.

I think Nintendo need to move to our 21 century island, but then again....maybe not so much.
 

Recusant

New member
Nov 4, 2014
699
0
0
Aiddon said:
Criminy, there is nothing more pathetic than watching a grown man throw a hissy fit.
Now this is just silly. If it were true, the whole "screeching cultural critic" archetype never would've been created- no Angry Video Game Nerd, no Nostalgia Critic, no Yahtzee. They may annoy you (they certainly do me), but the facts belie your "nothing is more pathetic" statement; and on this very site, no less.

That said, while Nintendo is well within its rights here, it's totally shooting itself in the foot. They evidently don't quite realize that the days of only having to do well enough to outperform a clumsy rival are long over.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
The mental gymnastics being used to give Nintendo a free pass on this is the most entertaining thing I've seen this week. Please, do carry on.



Captcha - miles to go

Gads, I hope so Captcha. This is comedy gold.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
skyn3t said:
Bob_McMillan said:
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,

Actually, Nintendo doesn't flag your account/put a CR claim on that video or anything of the tradtional nature.
In fact, the video doesn't even get taken down.
And unless you go into your anyitics and look up the money earned on each video, you wouldn't even notice that Nintendo has put any action forth on your content...why you may ask?
Because Nintendo simply claims 100% of the profits of the video and allows it to stay up, earning them more money.

That's why Smosh doesn't have their video down.
Either because they're too stupid to realize that they're giving Nintendo free money, or they simply don't care (because they know it could attract other people to their other videos).


So in a short answer; listen to the god damn video before giving your 2 cents worth of feedback on something.
...or because Smosh was willing to talk to Nintendo about their videos and worked out something for their troubles...I mean, its been a while since I was in Youtubing but I don't think that's changed.

Really the solution is already being done, both parties will have nothing to do with each other. Angry Joe will review games that don't require him to bend to Nitnendo's will while Nintendo will continue to ignore Angry Joe and not bend to his will. Both have other resources available to them (games for Joe, LP's for Nintendo) and both don't need the other. The only reason why we're even talking about this is because Angry Joe posted a ranting video online sparking controversy where there really is none.
 

IceStar100

New member
Jan 5, 2009
1,173
0
0
Yes I like Joe. Watch him alot a work when it's slow.

Sadly I also feel nintendo has not matter in some time. We all tell the jokes of all it does is copy paste the games it already makes. Zelda, Mario, ect unless it's it hand held there console if it where to vanish tomorrow a few kiddo and some casuals might notice for a few moment before they move onto the ipad or phone. So no big lose here.
 

MazokuRanma

New member
Oct 29, 2009
52
0
0
Mortuorum said:
senordesol said:
Aiddon said:
Mortuorum said:
Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.
No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.
Or for purposes of Review or Commentary.
Correct. While most of the conversation on the Internet is - for reasons obvious to anyone who's spent any time on the Internet - biased against content producers and towards content consumers (and effectively meaningless), a quick Google search did turn up several scholarly articles that argue convincingly that Let's Plays are (or at least should be) protected under Fair Use:

https://iplsrutgers.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/do-lets-play-videos-constitute-fair-use/
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MonaIbrahim/20131212/206912/Deconstructing_Lets_Play_Copyright_and_the_YouTube_Content_ID_Claim_System_A_Legal_Perspective.php

I am not a lawyer, but Craig Drachtman is a published Juris Doctor candidate at Rutgers and Mona Ibrahim is a practicing attorney. I trust that their interpretations have more than a modicum of validity.
It comes down to whether the final product is trans-formative or not. If you recorded commentary of a movie and posted the entire movie with commentary online, you would never win a Fair Use case, regardless of whether or not you have the money to follow the case through the court system. Let's Plays fall into a greyer area since the act of playing that game arguably transforms the game itself. On the other hand, it is transformed in ways allowed and programmed by the game creator. Currently they are very much -not- covered by Fair Use, but it would take a proper court case to see it through to a final determination, and currently no one has that sort of money.

I fall on the side that they should be Fair Use myself, but until it is actually a legal ruling, companies will be able to continue issuing copyright strikes as they desire. Even if it isn't strictly Fair Use, though, it's poor publicity and likely to negatively influence opinions of Nintendo. If there's one thing Nintendo is terrible at, it's getting with the times. See: Hardware locked digital purchases, Amiibo availability, the amount of time it took to embrace HD, the amount of time it took to build a proper online network (ages after Sony and Microsoft had both provided proper examples of how to do things right), and, of course, the Content Creator program.

I have a Wii U and a new 3DS. I have more games for my Wii U than my XB1 and PS4 combined currently. They make great games. They make solid hardware, even if it is a bit dated power-wise. They do not make smart PR decisions. I love you Nintendo, but you need to improve on that front immensely.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
Recusant said:
Now this is just silly. If it were true, the whole "screeching cultural critic" archetype never would've been created- no Angry Video Game Nerd, no Nostalgia Critic, no Yahtzee. They may annoy you (they certainly do me), but the facts belie your "nothing is more pathetic" statement; and on this very site, no less.
Difference: Those guys are playing as exaggerated characters for comedic effect, often pulling absurdist routines or whacky antics. Which is how a lot of comedians are. For instance, Lewis Black plays a screechy, perpetually irritated man in his standup gigs, but offstage he's completely different as he admits most of his venting is through his standup.

Vargas is completely straight in doing this so he doesn't pass that test and it is completely fair to call him out on what he's acting like: a whiny, spoiled brat.
 

Recusant

New member
Nov 4, 2014
699
0
0
Aiddon said:
Recusant said:
Now this is just silly. If it were true, the whole "screeching cultural critic" archetype never would've been created- no Angry Video Game Nerd, no Nostalgia Critic, no Yahtzee. They may annoy you (they certainly do me), but the facts belie your "nothing is more pathetic" statement; and on this very site, no less.
Difference: Those guys are playing as exaggerated characters for comedic effect, often pulling absurdist routines or whacky antics. Which is how a lot of comedians are. For instance, Lewis Black plays a screechy, perpetually irritated man in his standup gigs, but offstage he's completely different as he admits most of his venting is through his standup.

Vargas is completely straight in doing this so he doesn't pass that test and it is completely fair to call him out on what he's acting like: a whiny, spoiled brat.
Well, no, that doesn't matter. I don't know Vargas in either real life or online, but that's not actually relevant. If it's annoying, it's annoying; if it's pathetic, it's pathetic. Whether a it's genuine or just a "character" doesn't matter at all.
 

Slegiar Dryke

New member
Dec 10, 2013
124
0
0
ya know, I'll admit that while Joe used to be okay to watch for some of his review stuff, the gag kinda wears off after a while and is more annoying lately than it used to be.

but.....stop me if I'm missin something major here........but, don't the game grumps put loads of Nintendo stuff up? and they don't seem to be running into any troubles.....sssooooooooo what's the catch?

honestly I could care less, down to zero, but mostly that's cause I've learned to tune out all the people ranting and jeering about how Nintendo is goin downhill and "shooting themselves in the foot".....face it guys, they ARE the only video game company that still relies primarily on 1st parties, their own hardware, and have the money to spare for at least a few more risks like the Wii U, which, by "hardcore" gamers stats, is the best console this generation with 1080p/60fps stuff.

now excuse me, I need to go bleach my fingers for typing about resolutions and fps
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
Recusant said:
Well, no, that doesn't matter. I don't know Vargas in either real life or online, but that's not actually relevant. If it's annoying, it's annoying; if it's pathetic, it's pathetic. Whether a it's genuine or just a "character" doesn't matter at all.
Yes it does. Why? Context. Nothing exists in a vacuum and the context completely changes how the video comes off. The reason the characters that James Rolfe, Doug Walker, Lewis Lovhaug, and Yahtzee are funny are because they're inherently ridiculous and stupid (and admittedly also shows that it is indeed pathetic to get so wound tight over such things). The idea of grown, independent men getting wound up to the point of fury or violence over something as trivial as a game, a movie, a comic, or music is freaking ridiculous. Normal people would just say "dude, chill out and move on" which is why it's funny to watch them lose it especially since it's clear they're doing it to its parodic conclusion. If someone is playing a character it can be funny and you criticize them for execution of performance or writing. If someone is playing it straight it's not funny and you can criticize them DIRECTLY.

Joe is not playing a character in that vid. He's being completely straight and as such I can call him pathetic, whiny, spoiled, and most of all privileged. The dude has had to want for NOTHING and the second Nintendo tells him to get over himself via sharing revenue on one video (which is more due to Youtube's clumsy handling of copyright claims) he acts like he's emperor of the universe and that they're a bunch of meanyheads for doing something well within their legal rights. He could have been the bigger man and said "whatever, guess I'll just stop doing Nintendo videos" like an adult but instead he had to act like a petulant brat and make himself the lesser one.
 

Shadow-Phoenix

New member
Mar 22, 2010
2,289
0
0
I've learned something today from most of this and Joe's bitching (I watch and like his show btw so get the hell off my back for starters).

People who make promsies, that something is guaranteed to happen but won't eat crow or admit they were wrong and put a stake in to suffer for being wrong can seriously go fuck themselves, I despise people like that who make a fake promise they know won't happen or they cannot deliver on but make it up to excuse their actions or to get something that benefits them more than it benefits the eprson they make the promise to.

The whole "it;s free advertisement" is bullshit, before LP's regular advertisement worked well and still does to this day, newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, music etc, all those methods have worked before and will always work, an LP does not in any way cripples all previous advertisement methods, don't compare it as being equal to all of them, it is but a small part, like all the other parts that make up advertisement.

Another thing is that Nintendo have already done with with others before their policy, they also worked with Smosh and others, GG/AVGN show Nintendo stuff all the time, why isn't Nintendo rolling in sales money from all the "potential" customers those vids "surely" would have gotten them?, why isn't Nintendo the leader of this gen thanks to all the "free advertisement" that's been going around since 2012, since before their recent YT program?.

it's not all down to LP's and their form of "free advertisement" it's down to the games, it's down to how Nintendo showed themselves, how 3rd parties reacted and treated them, how their current hardware is and performs.

You can make a bullshit promise about how if they drop their program that they'll make millions if not billions but at the end of the day they won't, they haven't since 2012 and they suddenly won't now, before the program's existence they hardly generated goodwill or massive overflowing sales from YT, look at how Sony won this gen in the bag, their E3 revolved around dancing around MS and played everything normal while taking jabs and they won, Nintendo tried doing their own thing and got nothing to show for it because trying to be yourself gets you nothing, you have to be exactly like Sony, you have to bow down and sacrifice everything, your image, sell at a loss, fuck over your IP's, hell why even be a business the way folk react to Joe then Nintendo may as well call it quits because I hardly doubt them dropping their program is somehow going to make Nintendo top dog, don't give me the old "well they'll still make money from potential sales", they already make money from sales normally, the promise factor is like trying to get a "I'm right by default and we'll never know and I'll never be wrong either way" bullcrap excuse, but of course we'll never find out in the future because muh privacy when people don't like having their data recorded. If viewers were recorded as watching a video, having their leading to purchase factored into what they bought as having worked 100% thanks to taking in their data of how they went from step 1-3 then we'd have concrete proof that it works, sadly that won't because people think it's invading privacy yet they'll use a fake promise they'll never deliver on because they don't want to give up important data that factors into delivering their promise in the first place.

Either way those who make up weak promises to get what theyw ant or to prove something without delivering on it let alone the data have no value, you either deliver and do the job to the note or you don't and admit being wrong, no ifs or buts.
 

Travis Fischer

New member
Feb 1, 2012
126
0
0
major_chaos said:
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.
That's not what it seems like. That's what Nintendo literally is.
 

bug_of_war

New member
Nov 30, 2012
887
0
0
Laggyteabag said:
Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?
YUP.

Aiddon said:
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.
While I don't agree with Angry Joe a lot, in this instance he has a right to be pissed. After dropping $900 on Nintendo gear, they're still dogging him for more money. Yet pretty much every other AAA developer/publisher leave him be, so why would he NOT be angry?

At least he has the decency to let his fans know, "Nintendo fucked me, I'm not covering their shit any more".


Chaos James said:
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.
So after 40/50/60+ hours of playing a game, capturing the footage, writing the review, filming the review, sifting through footage, editing the footage and then uploading the final video, Nintendo deserves money for it? 40% of his revenue? And even if he did opt in, the game that he used to see if Nintendo were actually serious isn't even on the list of approved games that Nintendo will allow people to upload.

Scrythe said:
This is the kind of arrogance I can't stand with YouTube "content creators" and their bizarre entitlement that they, and only they, deserve 100% of the money they make recording someone else's IP. I mean, their entire fucking job would not exist if it wasn't for the games, and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked", everyone's acting like they're all evil greedy overlords who don't want people to spread the fun these games provide for people.

And Angry Joe is King of Arrogance Mountain.
So by that logic people who make furniture should then pay the person who sold them the wood again? Or a musician should pay the maker of their instrument every time they make a song? Or if a parent posts a video of their kids playing a sport, should the NBL, NBA, NRL, AFL, FIFA etc. then demand that they be compensated for you showing the sport? Or should Logitech/Canon/Sony be paid every time someone films something using their cameras and uploads it to youtube?

Lets plays, joke videos, guides, reviews etc. are all free advertisement that the creators have to actually put effort into uploading. Yes, they're using the game to make content, but they already paid for the game and are now using their own time to upload a video that generally will make people go out and buy the game. Video games are fun to watch, but they're more fun to play, and when someone shows you 30 minutes of a game and that footage gets you interested, you'll probably end up buying the game and playing it for yourself because in the end that is the fun part.

While I'm not a youtube content creator, I can't imagine it's easy making that your primary source of income. You've gotta work for it. You have to buy all the gear, build up/maintain a fan based, produce a consistent stream of content all while hoping that enough people who watch your videos don't have some sort of an ad blocker. So I very much believe that if someone is going to put upwards of 40+ hours of work a week into being a youtube gamer then they deserve 100% of the money.

...Angry Joe can be super arrogant at times though...
KoudelkaMorgan said:
The "Youtubers" have every right to freedom of press/speech etc. but until the law says otherwise, they have to respect that the people that make the things they are shamelessly piggybacking off of have a say in who gets to make money off their IPs.

To make a rediculous analogy, imagine you wrote a best selling book. Now imagine that there were thousands of people on Youtube doing "let's reads" and holding the pages up to the camera while making jokes/reading it in character etc. and demanding 100% of the ad revenue to go in their pockets.
Except that video games aren't passive experiences, they're interactive ones. The main appeal of a video game is playing it, not watching it.

xaszatm said:
Really the solution is already being done, both parties will have nothing to do with each other. Angry Joe will review games that don't require him to bend to Nitnendo's will while Nintendo will continue to ignore Angry Joe and not bend to his will. Both have other resources available to them (games for Joe, LP's for Nintendo) and both don't need the other. The only reason why we're even talking about this is because Angry Joe posted a ranting video online sparking controversy where there really is none.
But if Nintendo acted like every other company, they still wouldn't be bending to his will. They're in no way poorly effected by having someone throw up a video of people having fun playing their game. They want money because they can get money, and while AJ no longer showing Nintendo vids will probably have nill effect on Nintendo's current income, him showing their vids would very likely increase their income from people buying it from his recommendation/lets plays.

Shadow-Phoenix said:
The whole "it;s free advertisement" is bullshit, before LP's regular advertisement worked well and still does to this day, newspapers, magazines, radio, TV, music etc, all those methods have worked before and will always work, an LP does not in any way cripples all previous advertisement methods, don't compare it as being equal to all of them, it is but a small part, like all the other parts that make up advertisement.
But it's not bullshit. There are a lot of games that My friends and I have all bought because we saw lets plays. I would have never played Shadow of Mordor had I not seen a lets play of it. All it took was an hour of watching the game for me to say, "sold" and then also buy all the DLC for it. But the trailers and advertisements that WB paid for did not get a rise out of me in any way. Had it not been for a lets play, I wouldn't have spent $100 on the game.


OT:Nintendo is becoming worse than EA, Activision, Ubisoft and more. And the scary thing is people are still under the belief that they're a good company.
 

PMAvers

New member
May 27, 2009
69
0
0
Slegiar Dryke said:
but.....stop me if I'm missin something major here........but, don't the game grumps put loads of Nintendo stuff up? and they don't seem to be running into any troubles.....sssooooooooo what's the catch?
I'd assume it's because they have Polaris backing them handling all the legal paperwork to make sure everything's kosher.
 

gyrobot_v1legacy

New member
Apr 30, 2009
768
0
0
gamegod25 said:
Just another case of a company shooting themselves in the foot. They have the right to deny using their content for videos unless they take a cut but in doing so are alienating the very same people who promote those games. Honestly I fully side with online personalities like Joe in boycotting Nintendo, in his shoes I would do the exact same thing.
If the Japanese music industry can be the second biggest without digital or oversea sales then you realize they never needed people like Joe. You want backwards try Sega
 

Lunar Templar

New member
Sep 20, 2009
8,225
0
0
mad825 said:
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.
It's not just Joe, Nintendo is doing this to every one.

Nintendo might have the legal right to do this but the thing is, in doing this, in filing copy right strikes against videos and taking money out of peoples pockets, they are actively hurting them selves. No one is going to go near Nintendo anything after a while because it will not be worth their time to do so. And I'm not talking about JUST lets plays ether, reviews of games will go away along with the lets plays.

In given we're living in an age where Youtubers like Joe or Total Biscuit are just as much as a 'go to' source as IGN or Kotaku, (or where ever people go, I don't trust any of those sites enough to visit them) Nintendo is costing them selves a lot of free advertising.

So it's not so much senseless whining as it is yet more proof Nintendo needs to get with the fucking times.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
bug_of_war said:
Laggyteabag said:
Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?
YUP.
No it doesn't. You have better legal and moral stances on you side. Stop using the untrue one in your arsenal. You can do better than this.

Aiddon said:
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.
While I don't agree with Angry Joe a lot, in this instance he has a right to be pissed. After dropping $900 on Nintendo gear, they're still dogging him for more money. Yet pretty much every other AAA developer/publisher leave him be, so why would he NOT be angry?

At least he has the decency to let his fans know, "Nintendo fucked me, I'm not covering their shit any more".
Except he didn't drop $900 on Nintendo gear, his fans did. And even if he DID drop that money himself, Nintendo is under no obligations to cater to him. If he wants to do a Let's Play, he needs to follow the same rules as anyone else. We can argue of how effective Nintendo's "strategy" is (I have problems with the creator's program myself) but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't have a right to do this.

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it. You want to know why we don't have any complaints? Because these companies cut deals with the handlers of these Let's Players. Same as Nintendo. It's just that Nintendo does it per a Let's Player basis while most other companies just deal with the handlers instead. And this isn't the creators program, this is how an MSRP works.

Chaos James said:
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.
So after 40/50/60+ hours of playing a game, capturing the footage, writing the review, filming the review, sifting through footage, editing the footage and then uploading the final video, Nintendo deserves money for it? 40% of his revenue? And even if he did opt in, the game that he used to see if Nintendo were actually serious isn't even on the list of approved games that Nintendo will allow people to upload.
1. It wasn't a review of Mario Party 10 that got the monetization thing. It was a Let's Play.

2. I head the exact same excuses for bootleggers in the 90's. Now, are Let's Players the same as bootleggers? Of course not, so stop using their excuses.

Scrythe said:
This is the kind of arrogance I can't stand with YouTube "content creators" and their bizarre entitlement that they, and only they, deserve 100% of the money they make recording someone else's IP. I mean, their entire fucking job would not exist if it wasn't for the games, and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked", everyone's acting like they're all evil greedy overlords who don't want people to spread the fun these games provide for people.

And Angry Joe is King of Arrogance Mountain.
So by that logic people who make furniture should then pay the person who sold them the wood again? Or a musician should pay the maker of their instrument every time they make a song? Or if a parent posts a video of their kids playing a sport, should the NBL, NBA, NRL, AFL, FIFA etc. then demand that they be compensated for you showing the sport? Or should Logitech/Canon/Sony be paid every time someone films something using their cameras and uploads it to youtube?

Lets plays, joke videos, guides, reviews etc. are all free advertisement that the creators have to actually put effort into uploading. Yes, they're using the game to make content, but they already paid for the game and are now using their own time to upload a video that generally will make people go out and buy the game. Video games are fun to watch, but they're more fun to play, and when someone shows you 30 minutes of a game and that footage gets you interested, you'll probably end up buying the game and playing it for yourself because in the end that is the fun part.

While I'm not a youtube content creator, I can't imagine it's easy making that your primary source of income. You've gotta work for it. You have to buy all the gear, build up/maintain a fan based, produce a consistent stream of content all while hoping that enough people who watch your videos don't have some sort of an ad blocker. So I very much believe that if someone is going to put upwards of 40+ hours of work a week into being a youtube gamer then they deserve 100% of the money.

...Angry Joe can be super arrogant at times though...
Do you get how copyright works? How derivative nature works? You do know that, in the music industry, you are not allowed to do your own cover of a song and sell it without paying a fee first? Or that the biggest reasons why MST3K is so hard to get is because, despite their commentary (not unlike a Let's Play), the movie itself is still considered its own work. Or why Rifftrax is bought separately from the movie. The "it's hard work" excuse doesn't cut it here.

I once tried to dabble in Let's Plays. Is it hard work? Oh yes, absolutely. It is hard, tiring work that you have to make LOOK effortless. But you want to know the biggest part of doing Let's Plays? Knowing where you stand with developers/publishers. If you don't have an MRSP, you better take the time and effort to know which developers will be understanding and which developers you stay away from. This applies to so many more companies than just Nintendo. Once you get to MRSP standing, then you can relax but you still need to be able to talk, negotiate, and explain to these people all the goddamn time. What Joe's doing right now is the exact opposite of that and he still wants his cake and eat it.

KoudelkaMorgan said:
The "Youtubers" have every right to freedom of press/speech etc. but until the law says otherwise, they have to respect that the people that make the things they are shamelessly piggybacking off of have a say in who gets to make money off their IPs.

To make a rediculous analogy, imagine you wrote a best selling book. Now imagine that there were thousands of people on Youtube doing "let's reads" and holding the pages up to the camera while making jokes/reading it in character etc. and demanding 100% of the ad revenue to go in their pockets.
Except that video games aren't passive experiences, they're interactive ones. The main appeal of a video game is playing it, not watching it.
So the Order 1866 isn't a video game, got it. :p (I actually enjoyed that game for what it is, btw)

xaszatm said:
Really the solution is already being done, both parties will have nothing to do with each other. Angry Joe will review games that don't require him to bend to Nitnendo's will while Nintendo will continue to ignore Angry Joe and not bend to his will. Both have other resources available to them (games for Joe, LP's for Nintendo) and both don't need the other. The only reason why we're even talking about this is because Angry Joe posted a ranting video online sparking controversy where there really is none.
But if Nintendo acted like every other company, they still wouldn't be bending to his will. They're in no way poorly effected by having someone throw up a video of people having fun playing their game. They want money because they can get money, and while AJ no longer showing Nintendo vids will probably have nill effect on Nintendo's current income, him showing their vids would very likely increase their income from people buying it from his recommendation/lets plays.
1. As explained above, Nintendo already acts like every other company, it's just that Angry Joe likes the deals the other companies give Polaris over Nintendo's way, so yeah, it's still Joe's will against Nintendo's apathy.

2. And once again, we fall into the trap of assuming that Let's Plays = sales. You want to know something interesting? I, for fun, typed up Mario Party 10 to see what videos popped up? You want to guess how many of them were Let's Plays? You want to guess the viewer counts on them? At the bare minimum, 146k. The highest? 3 million views. That's right, 3 million. For a game that, quite frankly, is doing poorly in reviews, it seems to be doing swimingly for potential viewers. That 3 million guy isn't even a Nintendo Let's Player. How much you want to be that these people didn't really influence the sales chart of this game at all? Because I'd bet pretty high. Let's Players on their own don't sell games, or at the very least, don't contribute meaningfully in AAA sales, so to say that Joe is free advertisement is folly.

OT:Nintendo is becoming worse than EA, Activision, Ubisoft and more. And the scary thing is people are still under the belief that they're a good company.
Yeah, sure. "worse" I disagree with how we've made those companies the devil to begin with. They're corporations, not people. I know that some republicans like to think otherwise, but a corporate mindset has always been different than a human one. What are you expecting? That Valve, Sega, Sony, and Microsoft actually care for their customers? They care for them inasmuch as they want them to buy their products. The second they feel their money train is threaten, they become just as nasty as any other company.

Travis Fischer said:
major_chaos said:
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.
That's not what it seems like. That's what Nintendo literally is.
Remind me again which company is capable of getting its competition begging on its knees to advertise their exclusive games on their exclusive titles with the words "Smash Ballot"? Which company can dominate the entire internet with minimum effort? I might disagree on Nintendo on a lot of things, but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't know how to work the crowd up to a stupefying frenzy whenever it damn well pleases.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
I know right? I mean how fucking dare Nintendo do something to protect their copyrights when someone monetizes a broadcast of the output of their code? The nerve of those greedy bastards is something else.
 

Phlap

New member
Jun 1, 2011
55
0
0
He's entirely in the right of course, and if baiting Nintendo to issue a copyright claim was Joe's goal then he has succeeded. Anything that draws more attention to Nintendo's anti-consumer Youtube policies should be commended.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Phlap said:
He's entirely in the right of course, and if baiting Nintendo to issue a copyright claim was Joe's goal then he has succeeded. Anything that draws more attention to Nintendo's anti-consumer Youtube policies should be commended.
Except he hasn't. No copyright claim was made. A monetization claim was. It was Joe who took down the video himself when he realized that he couldn't make money off of it and posted a rant video instead so he could get his pay.
 

Kaimax

New member
Jul 25, 2012
422
0
0
Angry Joe is making it worst by the minute.
Roosterteeth's The Know made a video about it, in which they're basically saying that Joe is being ignorant when he knows that it's against Nintendo's policies. But they also said that while dumb it's still within Nintendo's right to do that.

But Joe decided to make them his enemies by posting his tweets on facebook basically asking his fans to ridicule the video. Which is ironic in the end since then Achievement Hunter made a video that basically said that they're on his side.

The video (forgot the BBcodes for this site)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bL3kxtvin4

He's now calling all that's against him haters...
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Ahh, Youtube, derivative works, and copyright; an ol' chestnut-clusterfuck of topics.
SHORT VERSION: The ideological debate starts and ends with whether you believe current copyright practices (or the current evaluation and value of "unique" information as private property) are fair or not.

Some say there's no evidence that Lets Plays help game sales with exposure, but by the same token there's no evidence that they actively harm game sales either. So spare me the bullshit semantics about why Nintendo is only doing what's "right", or for that matter, any assertions about them being "in their right" because the law agrees with them.

(protip: Outside of ideological semantic rambling, "the law" means very little on Youtube. Definitely much less than most people think. Youtube is massive and carries correspondingly massive public appeal, but ultimately is still a private entity. Consequently, virtually all of their DMCA policing and takedowns are done PURELY INTERNALLY and not via actual law enforcement or courts.)

Personally, I doubt LPs harm companies (especially monoliths like Nintendo) in any significant way and knowing what I know about business, exposure and brand loyalty is generally worth more than any short term revenue. (there's always the risk of misinterpretation and BAD exposure, but unless your company makes a habit fucking with your customers or producing shitty products, that's an extremely unlikely event)

As for Angry Joe...he's all about the business here; he's definitely been around long enough to know better.
So forgive me if I'm not completely buying into his cheese-and-whine act.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Nintendo's policy either, just as I don't like the current state of international copyright law. But that doesn't mean I'm automatically going to feel sorry for the guy that openly admitted he knew this could (and likely would) happen; especially when he knew, going in, that the worst possible outcome wasn't going hurt him or his business significantly either.

Joe will be fine, and that's just fine. But I didn't need to hear him whine to come to that conclusion.
 

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
SweetShark said:
This is very strange. Why Angry Joe is so important? I see this news in at least 4 other gaming sites.
Also yes, Nintendo have any right about that if it want. I know it sucks for the Youtubers, but this is the reality with the copyrights: If you own it, you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT.
Even if Nintendo decided to delete every fanart of its characters, it CAN.

Well the people have the full freedom to ***** and moan and call out a stupid company doing stupid things :p

I never will get these "It is their right!!!11!!" arguments. No one is protesting that, really. Else the law (something with REAL power) would have already decided instead of Nintendo.
People are moaning because a stupid company does stupid things. It is their right to be stupid and not think of your long term future. Does not mean we should not just call them stupid :p
In fact that might help Nintendo...
 

SweetShark

Shark Girls are my Waifus
Jan 9, 2012
5,147
0
0
Ishigami said:
SweetShark said:
Also yes, Nintendo have any right about that if it want. I know it sucks for the Youtubers, but this is the reality with the copyrights: If you own it, you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT.
Even if Nintendo decided to delete every fanart of its characters, it CAN.
I actually doubt that.
You see if you take Nintendo to court in the USA about a video review in the lines of let's say Joe's Angry Review or GameTrailers there is a good chance they lose due to fair use.
The thing is no small YouTuber like Joe can afford to take Nintendo to court over a video. It takes years and it costs you upfront since no legal protection I know of covers copyright cases (tells you everything you need to know about the copyright).
So in term of LP maybe? in case of reviews maybe too depends on the review but there is certainly a good chance to get away too.
And no matter them having the right it is still a dick move.
Yes, but I don't think the "fair use" policy cover Joe if he made money out of it. And if I remember right, Joe charge you to see him playing Nintendo games when he streaming [I think, I don't know how it work]. Plus the money he get from Youtube.
For me without know a lot about the laws of copyrights, if someone use the work of other person to make money, well, he must pay.
 

unacomn

New member
Mar 3, 2008
974
0
0
Not really sure how to feel about the Vargas/Nintendo situation.
But I'll tell you how I feel about the Me/Nintendo situation.

I used to do a news show, like ENN, and on occasion there would be Nintendo stories. It didn't matter if they were 30 seconds or 8 seconds, out of a 10 minute show. Nintendo would claim it all, like my work meant nothing compared to their 8 second video.
What the funk kind of law is there that gives Nintendo the right to invalidate all the time and effort I spent on the entire show, because of those 8 freeking seconds?
After that I resorted to using speeddrawings made in paint about Nintendo games, instead of game footage or images relating to Nintendo. Horrible speeddrawings, because I can't draw. But you could see the message, with Bowser making Mario soup. Samus punching a hole in Mario. Luigi shooting Mario. Basically everyone killing Mario. This went on for about a year. It was cathartic. Still can't get back the money from the videos I made prior to the change, I hope those 10 bucks stick in their throat.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
I don't know what to think.

Irony is, I have 3 different 'nintendo' games on my channel, and one of them doesn't appear on Nintendo's whitelist.

I haven't had so much as a content ID match on my channel for any of it.

Yes, I know my videos aren't monetised, and I'm so tiny it's not like anyone really knows I exist, but it's still interesting to see how arbitrary this can get...

Every time I hear this stuff I keep wondering if I should reconsider what I do on my channel...
The thing is, when I started doing videos I didn't actually have that many options.
It was basically games I could play on a Wii U, or nothing.

Just recently I've gotten my PC back, and I have a viable option of playing PC games instead...

But still, this dissapoints me greatly.


I am curious what the distinction actually is...
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
NoShoes said:
How do you feel about Nintendo/Vargas situation?
What Nintendo does is illegal and the sooner everyone drop Nintendo coverage the better. No need to support criminals.

mad825 said:
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.
No, genting a false copyright strike was nintendos fault and they should be made to pay up for the damaged caused to Vargas.

Aiddon said:
No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.
Lets plays are fair use. There will be no argument here - it is a fact. Fair use is also much wider than education or satire. Fair use law is far more complicated than that. i suggest you read it.

Silentpony said:
but Nintendo is soooo much bigger than Joe realizes.
heres the thing - nintendo isnt big. yes, people talk about it to no end, but Nintendo is actually very small company comapred to other gaming giants. its the smallest console manufacturer. Its smaller than many publishers without their own console. it puts all its eggs in one basket. it cannot afford to anger the internet. The internet is far stronger than many people give it credit for.


Aiddon said:
No, you're still putting the content on up despite not having the rights to do it.
Lets plays are transformative work protected under fair use. the content Lets player protect is copyrighted to that lets player.

xaszatm said:
...or because Smosh was willing to talk to Nintendo about their videos and worked out something for their troubles...I mean, its been a while since I was in Youtubing but I don't think that's changed.
Smosh owners are big. really big. one of the largest internet entertainment conglomerate. much larger than Nintendo. Nintendo would have every reason to be afraid to enter legal battle with them.

SecondPrize said:
I know right? I mean how fucking dare Nintendo do something to protect their copyrights when someone monetizes a broadcast of the output of their code? The nerve of those greedy bastards is something else.
Nintendo is not protecting their copyright - their copyright is not being challenged here. A person monetizes a trasnformative work protected under fair use. They decide to use their bully tactics and extort his revenue from him.
 

Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)

Get the point
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
2,518
79
53
Cretaceous
Country
USA
Gender
Dinosaur
so I was reading joe's twitter and I found something very interesting
[tweet t=https://twitter.com/AngryJoeShow/status/585300183270830080]

My question is why is Nintendo of Japan calling the shots with this, they're in japan why are they telling Nintendo of America how to do their job?
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
xaszatm said:
Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it.
That isn't true and you know it. Many companies give blanket permission to content creators because they understand free advertising. And I severely doubt people like, say, TB would be making videos of games from big names like Blizz and EA if those companies were kicking in the door and demanding 40% of the revenue. And even if they somehow were I don't believe for a second someone as ethics centric as TB wouldn't disclose that his content was being controlled by a publisher.

And its not just lets plays affected by this anyway. In the Jimqusition someone linked earlier Jim specifically said he wasn't using any Nintendo clips because if he did the video would get claimed (not the same thing as a takedown), whereas Devolver Digital had zero problems with youtube use of their content.
Remind me again which company is capable of getting its competition begging on its knees to advertise their exclusive games on their exclusive titles with the words "Smash Ballot"? Which company can dominate the entire internet with minimum effort? I might disagree on Nintendo on a lot of things, but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't know how to work the crowd up to a stupefying frenzy whenever it damn well pleases.
Having a rabid fanbase willing to bend over backwards to justify everything they do and breathlessly hanging off their every word does not make them not tragically behind the times, it just shows how powerfully it is to have a longtime fans who instinctively link you with childhood memories. A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.

Also "dominating the entire internet with minimum effort" apparently doesn't translate to sales, seeing as they apparently cant afford to make more then 100 copies of their products any more and might as well be marketing directly to scalpers.
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
major_chaos said:
A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.
But that's enough to keep Nintendo in business, so I don't see them budging for another decade to come. Their loyal fanbase is certainly not going anywhere.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Yuuki said:
major_chaos said:
A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.
But that's enough to keep Nintendo in business, so I don't see them budging for another decade to come. Their loyal fanbase is certainly not going anywhere.
Im still surprised that there are so many of them left... after nintendo all but abandoning their loyal fanbase during the Wii and taking a huge shit on them saying they are simply "not their market" anymore.

Boy it must be frustrating to work for nintendo america right now....
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
tf2godz said:
My question is why is Nintendo of Japan calling the shots with this, they're in japan why are they telling Nintendo of America how to do their job?
Because they're the ones in charge. NoA is not somehow a separate company, they're a branch of Nintendo thus they listen to the guys in charge in Japan
 

Coruptin

Inaction Master
Jul 9, 2009
258
0
0
ITT: Forum posters in a Native American hooping rolling enthusiasts website believe they are superior to content creators.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Strazdas said:
xaszatm said:
...or because Smosh was willing to talk to Nintendo about their videos and worked out something for their troubles...I mean, its been a while since I was in Youtubing but I don't think that's changed.
Smosh owners are big. really big. one of the largest internet entertainment conglomerate. much larger than Nintendo. Nintendo would have every reason to be afraid to enter legal battle with them.
Um...Nintendo's worth around 15-20 billion dollars. Smosh is only worth 58 million dollars. If you perhaps mean Defy Media, who owns Smosh as well as many other websites, I'd like to see your sources because I could not find anything related to their net worth. In either case, I just used Smosh because it was the example given. All the people who do Nintendo videos and get enough hits to get noticed (GameXplain, SullyPwnz, Coberman143, etc.) have special deals with Nintendo that turns that 30/40% into around the same price as an MSRP or just gets rid the cost altogether due to their handlers taking care of it. Either that, or they're willing to take the risk of the monetization being taken away because they know how many more views it will achieve.

Also, what Vargras situation?

major_chaos said:
xaszatm said:
Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it.
That isn't true and you know it. Many companies give blanket permission to content creators because they understand free advertising. And I severely doubt people like, say, TB would be making videos of games from big names like Blizz and EA if those companies were kicking in the door and demanding 40% of the revenue. And even if they somehow were I don't believe for a second someone as ethics centric as TB wouldn't disclose that his content was being controlled by a publisher.

And its not just lets plays affected by this anyway. In the Jimqusition someone linked earlier Jim specifically said he wasn't using any Nintendo clips because if he did the video would get claimed (not the same thing as a takedown), whereas Devolver Digital had zero problems with youtube use of their content.
Many developers give blanket permission for people under an MSRP. If you aren't under such a system, though luck. Hell, at least Nintendo is honest in its assholery compared to all other developers. If you're a rising Youtube star and you aren't under protection of an MSRP? Well good fucking luck as your channel will be immediately deleted at the whims of a thousand sharks.

Furthermore, TB HAS disclosed this. He is part of an MSRP, which takes around 20% of his ad revenue. In return, the MSRP is supposed to protect him against monetization claims and takedown notices. Do YOU watch his videos? He's made that clear plenty of times in the past. The current problem with Nintendo (which is something I myself have a problem with) is that Nintendo's program adds on top of the MSRP tax unless you deal with them directly. Is it a problem? Yes it is, but let's not pretend that the other companies are angels who just love Let's Players. They already got their fair cut of the Let's Players money, so no one complains about them.

Remind me again which company is capable of getting its competition begging on its knees to advertise their exclusive games on their exclusive titles with the words "Smash Ballot"? Which company can dominate the entire internet with minimum effort? I might disagree on Nintendo on a lot of things, but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't know how to work the crowd up to a stupefying frenzy whenever it damn well pleases.
Having a rabid fanbase willing to bend over backwards to justify everything they do and breathlessly hanging off their every word does not make them not tragically behind the times, it just shows how powerfully it is to have a longtime fans who instinctively link you with childhood memories. A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.

Also "dominating the entire internet with minimum effort" apparently doesn't translate to sales, seeing as they apparently cant afford to make more then 100 copies of their products any more and might as well be marketing directly to scalpers.
And yet Nintendo can be the top of the twitter charts in just two words. Like I said, I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing. I'm saying that Nintendo is the master of manipulating an audience. I'm sorry that you seem to automatically think that makes me a "rabid Nintendo fanboy" but its true. And of course I know that doesn't translate in sales. So I'd appreciate it if you could talk better without throwing petty insults. It makes your argument look better. Especially since I disagree with Nintendo here as much as I disagree with Angry Joe (what a surprise, you can think both has problems.)
 

bug_of_war

New member
Nov 30, 2012
887
0
0
xaszatm said:
No it doesn't. You have better legal and moral stances on you side. Stop using the untrue one in your arsenal. You can do better than this.
I went straight to the Nintendo website that talks about their new program and couldn't find anything saying it excluded youtube reviews. Could you point me in the direction or link me to your source?

xaszatm said:
Except he didn't drop $900 on Nintendo gear, his fans did. And even if he DID drop that money himself, Nintendo is under no obligations to cater to him. If he wants to do a Let's Play, he needs to follow the same rules as anyone else. We can argue of how effective Nintendo's "strategy" is (I have problems with the creator's program myself) but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't have a right to do this.

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it. You want to know why we don't have any complaints? Because these companies cut deals with the handlers of these Let's Players. Same as Nintendo. It's just that Nintendo does it per a Let's Player basis while most other companies just deal with the handlers instead. And this isn't the creators program, this is how an MSRP works.
No, he didn't drop $900 of his own money on the Wii U and all the accessories/games, I didn't mean to insinuate that he did. What this does show though is that to get a good Wii U experience (4 controllers, game pad, games to play (It is advertised mostly as a party/multiple people come over to play it console)) You've gotta be able to cough up $900. But lets say they're gonna buy the console with 2 controllers and 1 game (right now I'm using Aus prices) it still costs $647.85 for the average person. As of January 28th 2015 they've sold 9.2 million consoles, which means if we're to assume that most people spent the above amount, Nintendo have gained $5,960,220,000. So why does Nintendo need 40% of the add revenue? When you have almost gained 6 billion dollars why do you need an extra $1,000 at most?

Just because Nintendo CAN do this, doesn't mean they SHOULD. The law isn't perfect, and just because you're allowed to be a dick doesn't mean I can't still call you a dick for doing it. They're greedy, they're abusing an imperfect system to get more money for the sake of having more money when it was announced a while ago that Nintendo had enough money to stay afloat even if everything they made bombed for the next decade or so.

Furthermore, it shouldn't matter if a youtube content creator who normally doesn't do lets plays makes a lets play. They've already got a fan base, they're providing content to said fan base, and if fuck all people watch it then they'll stop doing LPs. If you're gonna take the time to buy a console, get some games for it, get video capture software, editing software, learn how to use it, apply those skills, and then make a 30 minute video of you playing the game speaking some shit and having a good time then you deserve the couple a hundred bucks you get for that video. 30 minutes of footage does not equate to a game being spoiled or ruined because games are (generally) long and the part that people enjoy and shove money towards is the actual game play, which a video simply can't give you the full experience of.

As a consumer, you have the right to do WHATEVER you want with the product after purchasing it. It belongs to you, you own it, it's yours now, not theirs.
 

Lightspeaker

New member
Dec 31, 2011
934
0
0
xaszatm said:
bug_of_war said:
Laggyteabag said:
Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?
YUP.
No it doesn't. You have better legal and moral stances on you side. Stop using the untrue one in your arsenal. You can do better than this.
unacomn said:
I used to do a news show, like ENN, and on occasion there would be Nintendo stories. It didn't matter if they were 30 seconds or 8 seconds, out of a 10 minute show. Nintendo would claim it all, like my work meant nothing compared to their 8 second video.
Perhaps you missed the extremely relevant quote by unacomn here. Its not just LPs that get hit. Its ANYTHING with Nintendo in it. Including news and reviews.


Anyway, its pretty absurd how people are conflating it with films or books because that's just not how it works. Experiencing a book is just reading the book. Experiencing a film is just watching the film. They're both passive experiences and, rightfully, putting it up with commentary is a breach of fair use.

Experiencing a game is NOT watching a game. Its playing it. So lets take more appropriate similar circumstances. Someone takes a video of them and some friends playing a game of Cluedo or Warhammer. I think most people would agree that it'd be totally unreasonable for Hasbro or Games Workshop respectively to claim monetisation of that video on the basis that its their product and they should be paid as such. Or as an even more off the wall one someone takes a video of themselves riding a bike. Does Raleigh have the right to claim money for that video?
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
bug_of_war said:
xaszatm said:
No it doesn't. You have better legal and moral stances on you side. Stop using the untrue one in your arsenal. You can do better than this.
I went straight to the Nintendo website that talks about their new program and couldn't find anything saying it excluded youtube reviews. Could you point me in the direction or link me to your source?
http://www.nintendo.com/corp/faq.jsp

I remember there being a more clear link on the matter, but I can no longer find it. Either the page was taken down or it has moved but either way since I value solid evidence I guess I can't say this in as much confidence as before.

xaszatm said:
Except he didn't drop $900 on Nintendo gear, his fans did. And even if he DID drop that money himself, Nintendo is under no obligations to cater to him. If he wants to do a Let's Play, he needs to follow the same rules as anyone else. We can argue of how effective Nintendo's "strategy" is (I have problems with the creator's program myself) but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't have a right to do this.

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it. You want to know why we don't have any complaints? Because these companies cut deals with the handlers of these Let's Players. Same as Nintendo. It's just that Nintendo does it per a Let's Player basis while most other companies just deal with the handlers instead. And this isn't the creators program, this is how an MSRP works.
No, he didn't drop $900 of his own money on the Wii U and all the accessories/games, I didn't mean to insinuate that he did. What this does show though is that to get a good Wii U experience (4 controllers, game pad, games to play (It is advertised mostly as a party/multiple people come over to play it console)) You've gotta be able to cough up $900. But lets say they're gonna buy the console with 2 controllers and 1 game (right now I'm using Aus prices) it still costs $647.85 for the average person. As of January 28th 2015 they've sold 9.2 million consoles, which means if we're to assume that most people spent the above amount, Nintendo have gained $5,960,220,000. So why does Nintendo need 40% of the add revenue? When you have almost gained 6 billion dollars why do you need an extra $1,000 at most?

Just because Nintendo CAN do this, doesn't mean they SHOULD. The law isn't perfect, and just because you're allowed to be a dick doesn't mean I can't still call you a dick for doing it. They're greedy, they're abusing an imperfect system to get more money for the sake of having more money when it was announced a while ago that Nintendo had enough money to stay afloat even if everything they made bombed for the next decade or so.

Furthermore, it shouldn't matter if a youtube content creator who normally doesn't do lets plays makes a lets play. They've already got a fan base, they're providing content to said fan base, and if fuck all people watch it then they'll stop doing LPs. If you're gonna take the time to buy a console, get some games for it, get video capture software, editing software, learn how to use it, apply those skills, and then make a 30 minute video of you playing the game speaking some shit and having a good time then you deserve the couple a hundred bucks you get for that video. 30 minutes of footage does not equate to a game being spoiled or ruined because games are (generally) long and the part that people enjoy and shove money towards is the actual game play, which a video simply can't give you the full experience of.

As a consumer, you have the right to do WHATEVER you want with the product after purchasing it. It belongs to you, you own it, it's yours now, not theirs.
I'm not saying that Nintendo (or the other companies that do this like Sega) is in the right here. I'm just saying that this is the reality we currently live in. Is it right or even fair? Hell no! I'm just as pissed with Nintendo for having such a program and using such a shotgun method of dealing with it as I am with Joe who seems to be demanding that the rules be different for him. Did you not read my long ass response to you? I know that making Let's Plays are hard work. How much time and effort goes into making them. The research, talks, and deals you have to make with these developers in order to not get smacked with a copyright strike.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,164
153
68
Err... maybe I'm wrong, but, doesn't "to be done reviewing Nintendo Games" require to make at least one Nintendo review?


EDIT: Title editor. We just have to love him.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,164
153
68
OoT: The first minutes of his video make no sense to me. I mean, I can't believe Angry Joe bought all that crap and uploaded the video without knowing about Nintendo policies. It's just that, he is an experienced Youtuber! And the Nintendo policies didn't come up just yesterday with nobody noticing them! I agree that they suck harder than an industrial grade vacuum cleaner; but I don't believe Angry Joe is that careless.

PS captcha: am I happy? ...
 

Qitz

New member
Mar 6, 2011
1,276
0
0
tf2godz said:
so I was reading joe's twitter and I found something very interesting
[tweet t=https://twitter.com/AngryJoeShow/status/585300183270830080]

My question is why is Nintendo of Japan calling the shots with this, they're in japan why are they telling Nintendo of America how to do their job?
Because they (Nintendo of Japan) are the HQ and have the full control over the whole brand of Nintendo and all their IP / Trademark / Copyright. NoA can try to persuade them but if NoJ says "No" you get No. You're still beholden to the Parent Company even if you're in a whole different country, because they call the shots 100%.
 

Lightknight

Mugwamp Supreme
Nov 26, 2008
4,860
0
0
What's terrible is that Nintendo is incredibly bad with marketing and PR. Years after the WiiU was released people still thought it was an expensive peripheral to go with their Wii.

That they are harming more PR and Marketing that most companies would pay for is ridiculous. They need to seriously evaluate their PR and Marketing departments as I'm guessing they've got some really under qualified or out of touch employees there. Those are usually the departments you throw your troublesome nephew in if the organization is OK with nepotism (and Nintendo is).

Look, if you love something, you need to acknowledge its flaws and encourage its improving those areas. Giving a blanket pass to all their mistakes only exacerbates the issue. Nintendo screwed up this generation. We need to make sure they don't screw up next generation.

Qitz said:
tf2godz said:
so I was reading joe's twitter and I found something very interesting
[tweet t=https://twitter.com/AngryJoeShow/status/585300183270830080]

My question is why is Nintendo of Japan calling the shots with this, they're in japan why are they telling Nintendo of America how to do their job?
Nintendo is a 100 year company from Japan. The Japan branch is THE branch.

Imagine a European Microsoft office trying to tell the American Microsoft branch what to do if the American Microsoft branch doesn't think it's the right action.

However, this is extremely heartening that the American Nintendo branch understands how ridiculous this is.
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
xaszatm said:
Many developers give blanket permission for people under an MSRP. If you aren't under such a system, though luck. Hell, at least Nintendo is honest in its assholery compared to all other developers. If you're a rising Youtube star and you aren't under protection of an MSRP? Well good fucking luck as your channel will be immediately deleted at the whims of a thousand sharks.
Care to back that up? The internet loves nothing if not hating big publishers, so if more of them had draconian polices like this I think a kerfuffle would have occurred. Also you are leaving out indie and middle of the road (single A?) devs that make up a fair portion of quality game output, almost none of whom are stupid enough to try and pull this shit. You think Devolver is trying to squeeze people? The Darkest Dungeon guys? Or for that matter, I don't think Jim is working under any network, and I seriously doubt he has to fight tooth and nail for those clips he uses in Jimquistion.

Furthermore, TB HAS disclosed this. He is part of an MSRP, which takes around 20% of his ad revenue. In return, the MSRP is supposed to protect him against monetization claims and takedown notices. Do YOU watch his videos? He's made that clear plenty of times in the past.
What I said was that he wasn't working under publisher influence. I know what Polaris is. Can you provide any evidence that his 20% is going to publishers, not the Polaris legal/operating budget?


And yet Nintendo can be the top of the twitter charts in just two words.
WWE pulls this off at least once an episode, doesn't make them any less moronic.
Like I said, I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing. I'm saying that Nintendo is the master of manipulating an audience. I'm sorry that you seem to automatically think that makes me a "rabid Nintendo fanboy" but its true.
I didn't call you anything. I was saying Nintendo can manipulate their audience because they have an audience uniquely ready and willing to be manipulated, not because they have some kind of PR mastery.

And of course I know that doesn't translate in sales.
Well it isn't worth much then, is it?
So I'd appreciate it if you could talk better without throwing petty insults.
I made a general statement "Nintendo has fanboys" I don't know how you warped that into "you are a fanboy" but it wasn't my intention.
 

Zefar

New member
May 11, 2009
485
0
0
It's fun reading people defending Nintendo on this. Imagine if EA where to do this. Good lord the amount of out cry there would be. It wouldn't stop for a decade. Hell people are still mad about WestWood even though no Game developer have ever been able to produce the same games over and over without making it bad.


But I guess it's because it's Nintendo it's fine and they are allowed to do whatever they want.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,164
153
68
RavenTail said:
EA, Ubisoft, Activision are notorious for their greed... yet even they don't try and squeeze out every single cent from videos relating to their product like Nintendo is trying to do.
I think that those publishers are still worse than Nintendo, as their greed is targeted directly towards their audience (the gamers). I'm not sure, but I think there are more people who play games than people who make videos about games. Towards which group does the greedier focus their greedy deeds?
 

Methodia Chicken

New member
Sep 9, 2014
136
0
0
CaitSeith said:
RavenTail said:
EA, Ubisoft, Activision are notorious for their greed... yet even they don't try and squeeze out every single cent from videos relating to their product like Nintendo is trying to do.
I think that those publishers are still worse than Nintendo, as their greed is targeted directly towards their audience (the gamers). I'm not sure, but I think there are more people who play games than people who make videos about games. Towards which group does the greedier focus their greedy deeds?
I agree that that lot are greedier than Nintendo, they grab at every penny they can and have terrible practices as a result generating worse games. Nintendo tends to treat the people who play it's games with some respect and make some decent products (even if they are a bit... repetitive) so I'm not too upset about them.

On the other hand as someone who exists by making videos about games Joe is the group being directly targeted by this and their greed is a source of misery to him shutting down his content (or stopping him from doing so). So he is perfectly reasonable in his rage at them, and him calling out and boycotting for better practices and treatment of his demographic is exactly what he should do.

Nintendo is still one of my favorite companies for what they do for me, and for Joe they can be a greedy uncaring devil for what they do for him.
 

NoDamnNames

New member
Feb 25, 2009
374
0
0
mad825 said:
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.
I agree with you. I'm not siding with nintendo's choice to go on a witch hunt, people can argue the ethical stance nintendo is taking on the issue but at the end of the day they ARE in the right on this one as far as the books are concerned. I feel like there must be more productive ways to try and change the policies surrounding this than making videos you as a content creator know will be flagged and then being surprised when they are flagged and then complaining about it. it alienates sympathy.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
tf2godz said:
My question is why is Nintendo of Japan calling the shots with this, they're in japan why are they telling Nintendo of America how to do their job?
Nintendo America is just a branch, Nintendo Japan is the mother company. Japan calls all the shots and while some companies allow branches to be more autonomic, Nintendo obviously dont.

xaszatm said:
Um...Nintendo's worth around 15-20 billion dollars. Smosh is only worth 58 million dollars. If you perhaps mean Defy Media, who owns Smosh as well as many other websites, I'd like to see your sources because I could not find anything related to their net worth. In either case, I just used Smosh because it was the example given. All the people who do Nintendo videos and get enough hits to get noticed (GameXplain, SullyPwnz, Coberman143, etc.) have special deals with Nintendo that turns that 30/40% into around the same price as an MSRP or just gets rid the cost altogether due to their handlers taking care of it. Either that, or they're willing to take the risk of the monetization being taken away because they know how many more views it will achieve.
No, i mean the guys that own Defy. they more or less own a third of internet entertainment. they arent talked about much because they are more of "shareholders" and less of "owners" type of company. basically they buy you and leave you to your own devices as long as your profitable.

And yeah, i have no doubt some channels have made a deal with Nitendo and paid the extortion money.

Furthermore, TB HAS disclosed this. He is part of an MSRP, which takes around 20% of his ad revenue. In return, the MSRP is supposed to protect him against monetization claims and takedown notices. Do YOU watch his videos? He's made that clear plenty of times in the past. The current problem with Nintendo (which is something I myself have a problem with) is that Nintendo's program adds on top of the MSRP tax unless you deal with them directly. Is it a problem? Yes it is, but let's not pretend that the other companies are angels who just love Let's Players. They already got their fair cut of the Let's Players money, so no one complains about them.
the fact alone that MSRP needs to exist for this shows how utterly broken youtube is.

Also, quite to the contrary - A lot of developers allow monetization of their game videos without any conditions at all [http://letsplaylist.wikia.com/wiki/%22Let%27s_Play%22-friendly_developers_Wiki]. 4 out of 227 companies have said no to monetized lets plays.

And yet Nintendo can be the top of the twitter charts in just two words.
like thats an achievement. anyone can be the top of twitter charts. do you remmeber #killallmen? that got to the top.


Zefar said:
It's fun reading people defending Nintendo on this. Imagine if EA where to do this. Good lord the amount of out cry there would be. It wouldn't stop for a decade.
ive seen people defend Microsoft based on what was said on nintendo website.

NoDamnNames said:
but at the end of the day they ARE in the right on this one as far as the books are concerned.
they are not. This is illegal in US. WOrth noting that illegal is not equivalent of they cant do it. Steam breaks A LOT of laws in European union, for some of whom they paid huge fines, and continue to break them.
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Vigormortis said:
The mental gymnastics being used to give Nintendo a free pass on this is the most entertaining thing I've seen this week. Please, do carry on.



Captcha - miles to go

Gads, I hope so Captcha. This is comedy gold.
Agreed.

I used to argue with people who'd defend Nintendo til they were blue in the face. Now I realize how pointless it is to do. You always see the same names pop up to defend Nintendo from reasonable criticism for years. Now I just sit back and let them keep going.

While laughing heartily.

I don't get defending a company based on nostalgia.
 

Nazulu

They will not take our Fluids
Jun 5, 2008
6,242
0
0
I'm going for anyone other than Nintendo on this. The more this gets out the better. This move by Nintendo is sick and I hope it costs them big time.

Any move that makes EA look better in some way is retarded. Go fuck yourself Nintendo, if you haven't already.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
AzrealMaximillion said:
Agreed.

I used to argue with people who'd defend Nintendo til they were blue in the face. Now I realize how pointless it is to do. You always see the same names pop up to defend Nintendo from reasonable criticism for years. Now I just sit back and let them keep going.

While laughing heartily.

I don't get defending a company based on nostalgia.
Personally, I don't get defending a company at all.

The devs and publishers we routinely talk about around here are multimillion and multibillion dollar corporations. They really don't need some random fan on the internet 'defending' them from criticism.

Now, I'm all for countering bad arguments, illogical criticisms, double standards, and misinformation - even when these things are levied towards the more egregious publishers and developers. I prefer everyone operate under the truth and make judgement calls appropriately. But, actively defending these companies?

Find something more productive to do with your time, people. Sheesh.
 

UberFische

New member
Mar 31, 2009
7
0
0
senordesol said:
MatParker116 said:
Let's Plays do not fall under that. They are neither educational or satirical and no amount of unscripted commentary is going to change that.
To quote section 107 of the copyright law (title 17, U. S. Code): "...for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research."

As long as there is a commentary about the game, they actually do fall under fair use.
 

bug_of_war

New member
Nov 30, 2012
887
0
0
xaszatm said:
I'm not saying that Nintendo (or the other companies that do this like Sega) is in the right here. I'm just saying that this is the reality we currently live in. Is it right or even fair? Hell no! I'm just as pissed with Nintendo for having such a program and using such a shotgun method of dealing with it as I am with Joe who seems to be demanding that the rules be different for him. Did you not read my long ass response to you? I know that making Let's Plays are hard work. How much time and effort goes into making them. The research, talks, and deals you have to make with these developers in order to not get smacked with a copyright strike.
So because it's the reality we live in we can't complain that bullshit is bullshit? Angry Joe is one of the worst at expressing distaste and he does take things personally, but I believe the dude would get behind anyone else who experienced the same situation. He seems genuine in putting anyone before corporations, and while his video is somewhat personal I don't think that he's demanding the rules change for him. He's pissed because almost every other developer and publisher allow him to do his work, as well as tons of other people, so why does Nintendo think it can be the big dog?

If you know how long it takes to do all the shit that a youtube content creator has to do, then how can you just sit back and say, "Well, you knew that the company were going to be shitty even though others never/rarely are. You deserve it"? Just cause the world is shit doesn't mean you have to sit down and put up with shit.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Hmmm, well I see where things are going to be honest. The bottom line is that a lot of companies like Nintendo are so entrenched and have their own advertising and fanatic base so heavily set that they don't see much benefit to the coverage by third parties they don't control, and indeed tend to take more of a hit when said coverage is bad than they receive as a boost when it's good.

A lot of these "voices from the dark" are making enough money and have become well known enough as have their platforms that they can now be effectively targeted as well. Someone like "Angry Joe" finds it more in their interest to back down and keep making money from other things than to seriously fight. After all they need platforms like Youtube for the revenues, and what's more had become arrogant enough to be well known under their real names. Now such people are able to be hammered by the corporate establishment due to having made themselves vulnerable.

Stuff like what he does worked years ago because it wasn't as well known, and the legality needed to go after such people was being established one precedent at a time. Not to mention that youtubers have as a group become less of a bohemian group of loose cannons than fairly serious businessmen in their own right, despite the role they play. Both Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn for example have managers (and I believe it's actually the same guy, I'd have to look it up to be sure), I'm not sure about others in particular but the bottom line a lot of Youtubers effectively wind up running their own brand name.

To prevent something like this you sort of need an "Encyclopedia Dramatica" or "Pirates Bay" of geek commentary. Anonymous contributors, or at least those hiding behind masks and a role operating off of sites the location of which might change or not be well known making them impossible to really target except in the long run (damage can be done when one is caught, but it always comes back somewhere else. Granted there wouldn't be much money into it for those doing this kind of stuff, but then again to begin with it was more of a hobby to begin with (especially when it was most effective) rather than a business with people setting out to generate hundreds of thousands or millions of hits monthly so they can get a cut of advertising revenue.

I can't speak for "Angry Joe" but I'd wonder if he has a job for example, or if he's become so well known where his "job" has literally become being "Angry Joe" on the internet. Even if he does, think about how many people doing Youtube videos or "Let's Plays" likely do this for their primary source of income now. That allows companies like Nintendo to dictate terms, demanding a cut or their products not be used (which is quite possible as long as not every company is doing this and they can compensate for the loss of one brand by covering others). It's not like "Angry Joe" retiring over something like this is likely because at the end of the day he's getting $$$ and probably too much of it to want to give it up, his own livelihood, or a portion of it, pretty much means the industry he makes money off of now has him by the short and hairys due to having finally gotten towards the end of the glacier-like legal crawl and precedents that have slowly been overcoming the protections on which such people relied and/or brought the platforms people like this need into line with them.
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
gyrobot said:
gamegod25 said:
Just another case of a company shooting themselves in the foot. They have the right to deny using their content for videos unless they take a cut but in doing so are alienating the very same people who promote those games. Honestly I fully side with online personalities like Joe in boycotting Nintendo, in his shoes I would do the exact same thing.
If the Japanese music industry can be the second biggest without digital or oversea sales then you realize they never needed people like Joe. You want backwards try Sega
Nintendo may not NEED them but they really don't gain anything by pushing them away either. If people like Joe really are that insignificant to Nintendo then what do they care if they make money making videos featuring their games? Either they don't need those youtubers so this is wielding a sledgehammer to kill some ants, or they do need them in which case you would want to work with them instead of shaking them down for cash. They have been making money just fine for years, why the sudden hair up their ass about people making game videos?
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
Therumancer said:
Someone like "Angry Joe" finds it more in their interest to back down and keep making money from other things than to seriously fight.
Uhh and just how else exactly is he supposed to "fight" back? It's not like he can take legal action since, while a shitty thing to do, Nintendo does have the legal right deny using their content. All Joe can do is either take a hit and surrender part of the video revenue (and/or effectively work for Nintendo) or to boycott the games entirely. He can raise awareness and call Nintendo out for it (which he and others have already done) but that's pretty much all that can be done about it. I suppose they could makes signs and protest outside of NOA or something but I doubt that would be any more effective.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Strazdas said:
NoShoes said:
Nintendo is not protecting their copyright - their copyright is not being challenged here. A person monetizes a trasnformative work protected under fair use. They decide to use their bully tactics and extort his revenue from him.
They own the rights to control the broadcast of the output of their code. Those rights are most certainly being infringed upon. Press right and making mario go to the right while providing an audio commentary does not a game transform. You went right because their code allows for it. You did nothing new to change it.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
SecondPrize said:
Strazdas said:
NoShoes said:
Nintendo is not protecting their copyright - their copyright is not being challenged here. A person monetizes a trasnformative work protected under fair use. They decide to use their bully tactics and extort his revenue from him.
They own the rights to control the broadcast of the output of their code. Those rights are most certainly being infringed upon. Press right and making mario go to the right while providing an audio commentary does not a game transform. You went right because their code allows for it. You did nothing new to change it.
Aslong as there is commentary it is covered under fair use.

The passage of the law was actually quoted here, i do not see how much clearer it can get.

What you or anyone else think is not of importance. The only reason why nintendo gets away with it is because they have more money then some guy on youtube and could drag on any legal process for years and simply outlast it.

Just because youre in the right doesnt mean you win sadly.

And nintendo knows that.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
gamegod25 said:
Therumancer said:
Someone like "Angry Joe" finds it more in their interest to back down and keep making money from other things than to seriously fight.
Uhh and just how else exactly is he supposed to "fight" back? It's not like he can take legal action since, while a shitty thing to do, Nintendo does have the legal right deny using their content. All Joe can do is either take a hit and surrender part of the video revenue (and/or effectively work for Nintendo) or to boycott the games entirely. He can raise awareness and call Nintendo out for it (which he and others have already done) but that's pretty much all that can be done about it. I suppose they could makes signs and protest outside of NOA or something but I doubt that would be any more effective.
Well, he could do pretty much what I suggested and find ways to do his show extra-legally by moving off Youtube or other sites and doing whatever he can to otherwise stay off the grid IRL. For an established personality this is difficult of course, but not entirely impossible. The big reason you won't see that happen is because of the money and the fact that he, like a lot of other similar personalities, have become almost mainstream and complacent which is what has made them vulnerable to these kinds of tactics to begin with. Due to making money he'll of course wind up capitulating to whatever Nintendo demands like he's doing now, they gave him one of two choices, do things on their terms or not cover them, he chose not to cover them. If he was of course to go back to doing this kind of thing as a hobby like when he first started he'd be much harder to target. He could say put his videos up on torrent sites or anyone willing to host him from outside the country, move to Mexico or Europe or someplace where it will likely to be a pain in the arse to extradite him (basically I don't see Nintendo pushing things that far, and if they did he could always go someplace where there isn't an extradition treaty) he could of course perhaps make some revenue through something like Patreon or other donation sites, but it wouldn't be as reliable as being paid for X number of hits by advertisers through a well known site.

Yes, what I am describing is kind of extreme but the point is that it could be done. At the end of the day Joe wants an easy time of things (like most people) which is what Nintendo is relying on. He's pretty much bending over and spreading his cheeks for them despite the defiant smack he talks. After all he's not stopping his coverage on his own terms, he's doing what they tell him to do on their terms so as to minimize how much it effects the rather sweet deal he's got right now by pretty much supporting himself talking smack about geekly topics. He'd rather bend over for Nintendo and take it than compromise that, and no amount of smack talking is going to change what he's doing, it's almost guaranteed Nintendo expected this kind of response when it put these policies into force. At the end of the day even if people don't like what Nintendo does, they are still going to line up for the new Mario or Zelda. That's one of the big problems with dealing with the gaming industry as a whole, it can be nearly impossible to influence because as "toxic" as gamers might get they still buy the product. Of course it also helps that the only way to genuinely tell if a game is good or not is to buy it, by which point the industry has your money so it doesn't much matter if they handed you crap. This is especially true of brand name franchises where they can usually turn out multiple bad installments without any long term effects since it only takes a good, or mediocre one, to redeem any bad blood they might generate. At this point a company like Ubisoft can poop out the same games much like Nintendo does and guarantee a revenue stream even if some of them wind up lacking. I've honestly wondering if Nintendo could REALLY kill it's flagship brands if it tried, since even if they literally had people with Irritible Bowel Syndrome pooping in boxes, there would be die hard fans still following it just in case it gets good again. Look at Sonic for example, it's like an undying zombie, no matter how bad it gets there is enough of a fan base holding on "just in case", deviant art alone probably shows an unspeakably entrenched fan base despite some of the games being borderline insults.... the point I'm getting at is Nintendo doesn't care what Angry Joe or fans think of them. Mostly I imagine they are POed because they see someone making money they don't have a cut or control of, and really at this point they get nothing positive from it, merely some slight tremers of annoyance if he costs them a few sales, but it's borderline impossible for anyone to do enough damage.
 

Glaice

New member
Mar 18, 2013
577
0
0
He should have known and turned monetization OFF for his Nintendo videos. This happened before and before the "Content Creators" stuff came to light that Nintendo is not very nice when it comes to monetizing their content.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
Karadalis said:
SecondPrize said:
Strazdas said:
NoShoes said:
Nintendo is not protecting their copyright - their copyright is not being challenged here. A person monetizes a trasnformative work protected under fair use. They decide to use their bully tactics and extort his revenue from him.
They own the rights to control the broadcast of the output of their code. Those rights are most certainly being infringed upon. Press right and making mario go to the right while providing an audio commentary does not a game transform. You went right because their code allows for it. You did nothing new to change it.
Aslong as there is commentary it is covered under fair use.

The passage of the law was actually quoted here, i do not see how much clearer it can get.

What you or anyone else think is not of importance. The only reason why nintendo gets away with it is because they have more money then some guy on youtube and could drag on any legal process for years and simply outlast it.

Just because youre in the right doesnt mean you win sadly.

And nintendo knows that.
What makes you think providing a dialogue track on top of gameplay counts as commentary in the legal sense?
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
Therumancer said:
gamegod25 said:
Therumancer said:
Someone like "Angry Joe" finds it more in their interest to back down and keep making money from other things than to seriously fight.
Uhh and just how else exactly is he supposed to "fight" back? It's not like he can take legal action since, while a shitty thing to do, Nintendo does have the legal right deny using their content. All Joe can do is either take a hit and surrender part of the video revenue (and/or effectively work for Nintendo) or to boycott the games entirely. He can raise awareness and call Nintendo out for it (which he and others have already done) but that's pretty much all that can be done about it. I suppose they could makes signs and protest outside of NOA or something but I doubt that would be any more effective.
*snip*
haha wow I wasn't expecting a rambling wall of text this morning. Anyway I think I get the gist of it.

Sure he could do all that but as you admitted it would be very extreme to say the least. The question is doing all that shit really worth the trouble? Would going through all those hoops and bullshit be worth it just to get around Nintendo's policies? Probably not. Call it taking the easy way out but I say it's the most practical way. Doing it your way would just make things tougher for Joe and do nothing to Nintendo to change their minds.
 

onard

New member
Apr 8, 2015
9
0
0
It's kinda strange to see so many people call themselves "gamers" when they don't actually care about "games" or "gaming". They just care to watch the game's footage, or are trying desesperately to make a living just by showing a game's footage.

Nintendo is a gaming company first and foremost. They make games to be played. Not for you to try to turn them into money making machines of replacement social hubs.


You want to show your mad gaming skillz in youtube? Nintendo's fine with that. What Nintendo isn't fine with is you thinking you can just attach themselves to their products to suck your own sustenance out of their hard earned success. New indie companies may be desesperate for attention, and Sony was pretty desesperate after their vita and PS3 fiasco combo to bend backwards for people to buy the PS4 (they're still bleeding money despite being in the "lead", funny that), but Nintendo's better than that.

I gotta give it to Joe, though, this was a master marketing move from his side. This rant of him is all over the place and is bringing him plenty of publicity to his channel.

Funny though how it's an anti-Nintendo rant that will probably end up being his most popular video ever. That alone shows how much Nintendo matters. You just whisper Nintendo and people start listening. Joe has never got and will never again get so much attention as now. Except if he makes another Nintendo rant. And then a fourth. And a fifth. More easy money for him I guess.
 

gorfias

Unrealistic but happy
Legacy
Apr 6, 2020
4,746
371
88
Country
USA
Reminds me of Star Trek conventions of old. People would be selling things without a license and, sure, the powers that be had the right to come down on them like a hammer. They ultimately backed off as they didn't want their own "Angry Joe" situation. They didn't want to destroy people that were helping keep the brand alive.

Stupid Nintendo.
 

Falling_v1legacy

No one of consequence
Nov 3, 2009
116
0
0
onard said:
It's kinda strange to see so many people call themselves "gamers" when they don't actually care about "games" or "gaming". They just care to watch the game's footage, or are trying desesperately to make a living just by showing a game's footage.
Not really sure where you've been, but we've had competitive gaming for quite some time- and one recent method that has been used to support themselves is attracting stream viewer and either get additional money either from ad revenue or directly from their live stream audience. But the main thing is competitive gaming is heavily tied to watching other people game. So it makes little sense to scare quote gamers, games, and gaming, when watching other gamers is tied directly into some of the most hardcore gaming communities.

onard said:
You want to show your mad gaming skillz in youtube? Nintendo's fine with that. What Nintendo isn't fine with is you thinking you can just attach themselves to their products to suck your own sustenance out of their hard earned success. New indie companies may be desesperate for attention, and Sony was pretty desesperate after their vita and PS3 fiasco combo to bend backwards for people to buy the PS4 (they're still bleeding money despite being in the "lead", funny that), but Nintendo's better than that.
Except from this thread alone it seems that Nintendo is NOT fine at all with hardly any content that has not been pre-approved by their company. People have posted examples where Nintendo has claimed news, reviews, and whatever the hell else they wanted, no matter how transformed the product it was- just so long as somewhere in the video there was a PR released image, or publicly released trailer. Stuff that is SUPPOSED to be used for review purposes and Nintendo claws back and monetizes the entire video. That's indefensible. I can understand a personal dislike of Angry Joe. I cannot understand defending Nintendo's overreaching and draconian policies.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
gamegod25 said:
Therumancer said:
gamegod25 said:
Therumancer said:
Someone like "Angry Joe" finds it more in their interest to back down and keep making money from other things than to seriously fight.
Uhh and just how else exactly is he supposed to "fight" back? It's not like he can take legal action since, while a shitty thing to do, Nintendo does have the legal right deny using their content. All Joe can do is either take a hit and surrender part of the video revenue (and/or effectively work for Nintendo) or to boycott the games entirely. He can raise awareness and call Nintendo out for it (which he and others have already done) but that's pretty much all that can be done about it. I suppose they could makes signs and protest outside of NOA or something but I doubt that would be any more effective.
*snip*
haha wow I wasn't expecting a rambling wall of text this morning. Anyway I think I get the gist of it.

Sure he could do all that but as you admitted it would be very extreme to say the least. The question is doing all that shit really worth the trouble? Would going through all those hoops and bullshit be worth it just to get around Nintendo's policies? Probably not. Call it taking the easy way out but I say it's the most practical way. Doing it your way would just make things tougher for Joe and do nothing to Nintendo to change their minds.
The point I'm sort of getting at is that if Joe is going to let Nintendo lay down the law he might as well be a good little lap dog about it. Spouting off righteous indignation as you do exactly what someone else tells you to do is kind of ridiculous. He's basically trying to retain dignity and still seem like a rebel while he's very much in the herd with the other sheep. To me this makes him a hippocrite given his entire persona which has lead to his success. Nintendo lays down the law and says "comply or quit" and he chooses one of those options and quits.... that's fine, but if he's doing that he can drop the pretensions and be blunt that he's not a rebel and doesn't believe what he's saying enough to actually do anything, he's going to fall into line to protect the cushy little corner he's built as long as possible.

I guess what I'm saying is if your a former loudmouthed independent who makes their bones by sticking it to some form of establishment, and then you sell out completely, the least you can do is be honest about selling out, instead of insulting everyone by trying to present yourself as something you no longer are.

Can Angry Joe back down here and still be Angry Joe? The man whose famously unbridled rage only applies as long as it's not a Nintendo product due to fear of corporate retaliation and possible loss of revenue.... which means it's not unbridled rage anymore and he's not an unpredictable loose cannon, he's working within some pretty clearly defined boundaries someone else put there. He can't be the angry voice of opposition towards a game industry when he allows the very force he's supposed to be angry at (so to speak) to dictate what he can and will do. If he's going to sell out he should admit it, I don't know, change his name to "Joe who is mildly annoyed, but only so long as nobody threatens him".
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
onard said:
It's kinda strange to see so many people call themselves "gamers" when they don't actually care about "games" or "gaming". They just care to watch the game's footage, or are trying desesperately to make a living just by showing a game's footage.

Nintendo is a gaming company first and foremost. They make games to be played. Not for you to try to turn them into money making machines of replacement social hubs.


You want to show your mad gaming skillz in youtube? Nintendo's fine with that. What Nintendo isn't fine with is you thinking you can just attach themselves to their products to suck your own sustenance out of their hard earned success. New indie companies may be desesperate for attention, and Sony was pretty desesperate after their vita and PS3 fiasco combo to bend backwards for people to buy the PS4 (they're still bleeding money despite being in the "lead", funny that), but Nintendo's better than that.

I gotta give it to Joe, though, this was a master marketing move from his side. This rant of him is all over the place and is bringing him plenty of publicity to his channel.

Funny though how it's an anti-Nintendo rant that will probably end up being his most popular video ever. That alone shows how much Nintendo matters. You just whisper Nintendo and people start listening. Joe has never got and will never again get so much attention as now. Except if he makes another Nintendo rant. And then a fourth. And a fifth. More easy money for him I guess.
That is the thing; Nintendo didn't even take down a review, a preview, or just some goofy video, they took down a Let's Play, the most creatively bankrupt and boring of all video game videos. And he was just whining because he couldn't monetize it. Considering how much money he makes already and how many of his videos are monetized, it'd be a drop in the bucket. Any potential loss from not being able to monetize it would be peanuts.
 

MajorTomServo

New member
Jan 31, 2011
930
0
0
Angry Joe still reviews games? I thought he just did streams and terrible LPs now...

For real though, as much as I love Nintendo, they need to get with the times about a lot of things, and this is one of them. The big N seems to be one of the slowest-moving companies in history.
 

Davroth

The shadow remains cast!
Apr 27, 2011
679
0
0
What I'm curious about, how do the other youtube channels that review and LP Nintendo games did it, even way before there was a partners program.

The Completionist has monetised Nintendo game reviews, and monetised Let's Plays of Nintendo games.

PeanutButterGamer has monetised Nintendo game reviews (?) and random stuff videos.

There's others, those two are just off the top of my head. I mean, if they can do it, why can't he? Again, they have been doing that stuff and monetising it for /literally/ years. Something doesn't add up here. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it.

And frankly, that whole thing with his fans giving him money to buy a WiiU for review, and now this... that's just disgusting. He /knew/ that LP content was almost guaranteed to be claimed. Yet he "tested the waters" with that? I have trouble not laughing at that. Gee, maybe if he had made an actual review, it wouldn't have been taken down.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Aiddon said:
onard said:
It's kinda strange to see so many people call themselves "gamers" when they don't actually care about "games" or "gaming". They just care to watch the game's footage, or are trying desesperately to make a living just by showing a game's footage.

Nintendo is a gaming company first and foremost. They make games to be played. Not for you to try to turn them into money making machines of replacement social hubs.


You want to show your mad gaming skillz in youtube? Nintendo's fine with that. What Nintendo isn't fine with is you thinking you can just attach themselves to their products to suck your own sustenance out of their hard earned success. New indie companies may be desesperate for attention, and Sony was pretty desesperate after their vita and PS3 fiasco combo to bend backwards for people to buy the PS4 (they're still bleeding money despite being in the "lead", funny that), but Nintendo's better than that.

I gotta give it to Joe, though, this was a master marketing move from his side. This rant of him is all over the place and is bringing him plenty of publicity to his channel.

Funny though how it's an anti-Nintendo rant that will probably end up being his most popular video ever. That alone shows how much Nintendo matters. You just whisper Nintendo and people start listening. Joe has never got and will never again get so much attention as now. Except if he makes another Nintendo rant. And then a fourth. And a fifth. More easy money for him I guess.
That is the thing; Nintendo didn't even take down a review, a preview, or just some goofy video, they took down a Let's Play, the most creatively bankrupt and boring of all video game videos. And he was just whining because he couldn't monetize it. Considering how much money he makes already and how many of his videos are monetized, it'd be a drop in the bucket. Any potential loss from not being able to monetize it would be peanuts.
They didn't even take it down. Angry Joe did that himself. What they took was the monetization. He could have kept the video up but he didn't because he refused to have any videos on his channel because he refused to have any videos that didn't give him money.
 

StreamerDarkly

Disciple of Trevor Philips
Jan 15, 2015
193
0
0
Therumancer said:
The point I'm sort of getting at is that if Joe is going to let Nintendo lay down the law he might as well be a good little lap dog about it. Spouting off righteous indignation as you do exactly what someone else tells you to do is kind of ridiculous. He's basically trying to retain dignity and still seem like a rebel while he's very much in the herd with the other sheep. To me this makes him a hippocrite given his entire persona which has lead to his success. Nintendo lays down the law and says "comply or quit" and he chooses one of those options and quits
I agree. Angry Joe is such a sellout for not taking the 3rd option, known as 'full Snowden', that you allude to in your previous post.

It's hard to understand what point you're trying to make here. Rolling over for Nintendo would have been agreeing to their demands of 40%, leaving the video up, and continuing to cover their other titles. Instead, he forfeited the potential earnings, took the video down, and vowed not to bother with their games going forward. I can't imagine how you interpret this as being Nintendo's *****. Even if the principle he's actually defending is "I want all the money" instead of the more noble "this is a bad precedent for youtubers", at least he's standing up for it.

It's indeed cringeworthy watching Joe go through another copyright related rant video where it looks like he's going to burst into tears any second. However, I disagree with those who say uploading the video was a stupid decision or, even worse, naked attention whoring. Sometimes you have to go through the motions of inevitable failure just to move the debate forward. Kind of like getting arrested at a protest - a predictable outcome but nevertheless mandatory for street cred. A couple million subscribers plus the support generated on gaming news sites (that he knew would cover the ensuing shitstorm) might have been enough to whip up a serious backlash against Nintendo. Unfortunately, the result is clear: most gamers are either so apathetic about copyright abuse that they just can't be arsed to care, or they're so far up on big N's ballsack that they're more inclined to defend them.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
xaszatm said:
They didn't even take it down. Angry Joe did that himself. What they took was the monetization. He could have kept the video up but he didn't because he refused to have any videos on his channel because he refused to have any videos that didn't give him money.
And of course it isn't the first time this happened. And he COULD have gotten some monetization anyway through the Creator's Program. At best what would be taken is minuscule compared to what he makes through his views anyway. The guy is doing fine, losing a chunk of potential money on one video wouldn't make a dent in his revenue.

StreamerDarkly said:
Unfortunately, the result is clear: most gamers are either so apathetic about copyright abuse that they just can't be arsed to care, or they're so far up on big N's ballsack that they're more inclined to defend them.
Or they just have better things to do with their time than listen to a grown man cry about one. Freaking. Video. That's ultimately the clincher; he's acting like a brat and resorting to childish insults and hissy fits. I'd rather side with the guys who act like pros than the guy who has the argumentative skills of a monkey.
 

Malpraxis

Trust me, I'm a Doctor.
Jul 30, 2013
138
0
0
So Nintendo made them a bad deal, and he decided not to take it. People making choices. How is this news?

To be honest, I wouldn't want him covering my works in any way, I find him cringeworthy. And Nintendo is the one company I think doesn't overlap with the demographic that watches youtube videos to influence their purchases anyway.
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
SecondPrize said:
Strazdas said:
Nintendo is not protecting their copyright - their copyright is not being challenged here. A person monetizes a trasnformative work protected under fair use. They decide to use their bully tactics and extort his revenue from him.
They own the rights to control the broadcast of the output of their code. Those rights are most certainly being infringed upon. Press right and making mario go to the right while providing an audio commentary does not a game transform. You went right because their code allows for it. You did nothing new to change it.
no. They own the rights to control the broadcast of their code. That is not what is happening here, as the end result of the code output mixed in with user input is not equivalent to output of the code itself. thus, no rights are being infringed upon.

Would mario go right based on the code if the game was not trasnformed by player input? no? then it does transform the game.

The problem with what you are arguing is that if it was true, every image made in Photoshop were copyrighted to adobe because it was output of their code based on player input. Obviously - this is nonsense.

Glaice said:
He should have known and turned monetization OFF for his Nintendo videos. This happened before and before the "Content Creators" stuff came to light that Nintendo is not very nice when it comes to monetizing their content.
no he should not have. What should happened is Nintendo should have not stolen his income.

Davroth said:
What I'm curious about, how do the other youtube channels that review and LP Nintendo games did it, even way before there was a partners program.
Most channels dropped Nintendo content completely when Nintendo went insane.

Malpraxis said:
To be honest, I wouldn't want him covering my works in any way, I find him cringeworthy.
Thats not up to you to decide. Anyone can review anyones work.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,789
335
88
Country
USA
Gorfias said:
Reminds me of Star Trek conventions of old. People would be selling things without a license and, sure, the powers that be had the right to come down on them like a hammer. They ultimately backed off as they didn't want their own "Angry Joe" situation. They didn't want to destroy people that were helping keep the brand alive.

Stupid Nintendo.
It's almost like that, I think, but not quite. Nintendo going into youtube and stopping people from selling unlicensed things isn't like Star Trek people going into a star trek convention and stopping people from selling unlicensed trek merchandise. It'd be like George Lucas going into a star trek convention and stopping people from selling star wars merchandise. Youtube is not the Nintendo console fan base keeping Nintendo alive. Youtube is a great fan base for PC games and/or indie games, but I don't think Nintendo suffers by offending youtubers.
 

onard

New member
Apr 8, 2015
9
0
0
Strazdas said:
Davroth said:
What I'm curious about, how do the other youtube channels that review and LP Nintendo games did it, even way before there was a partners program.
Most channels dropped Nintendo content completely when Nintendo went insane.
Citation needed. Because there's countless Nintendo reviews and LPs videos in youtube last time I checked, with countless more being added every day.

Unless by "Most" you actually meant "Some of the greediest youtube channels" of course. Those were the only ones who dropped Nintendo videos, and they were pretty few. Plenty of big channels decided "Ok, Nintedo's pretty damn popular, any videos we do about them are sure to get a crapload of views, so ok we'll share the ad money with the content creators".

Meanwhile the little dudes who don't monetarize their videos weren't affected at all. If anything, they got a chance to shine now that they don't have to compete with the greedy Joes of youtube.

I'm actually fine with this situation. It means people doing Nintendo LPs and reviews are doing it because they actually enjoy gaming, not just because they want easy money.
 

SuperSuperSuperGuy

New member
Jun 19, 2010
1,200
0
0
I realize I'm a little late to the party, but that whitelist is really really small. Like, disconcertingly so. Star Fox 64 is missing. There's no Fire Emblem. No Pokemon. No Earthbound. No Mario & Luigi RPGs besides before Bowser's Inside Story. No Mario RPG (though that one was developed by Squaresoft, so I'm not sure it counts). No Kirby games, at all. There are no Mario Parties there, either. There are so many amazing games that are not on that list, and I can't for the life of me think of why they wouldn't be there.

I have no opinion on Angry Joe himself, but that whitelist is bafflingly small.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
StreamerDarkly said:
Therumancer said:
The point I'm sort of getting at is that if Joe is going to let Nintendo lay down the law he might as well be a good little lap dog about it. Spouting off righteous indignation as you do exactly what someone else tells you to do is kind of ridiculous. He's basically trying to retain dignity and still seem like a rebel while he's very much in the herd with the other sheep. To me this makes him a hippocrite given his entire persona which has lead to his success. Nintendo lays down the law and says "comply or quit" and he chooses one of those options and quits
I agree. Angry Joe is such a sellout for not taking the 3rd option, known as 'full Snowden', that you allude to in your previous post.

It's hard to understand what point you're trying to make here. Rolling over for Nintendo would have been agreeing to their demands of 40%, leaving the video up, and continuing to cover their other titles. Instead, he forfeited the potential earnings, took the video down, and vowed not to bother with their games going forward. I can't imagine how you interpret this as being Nintendo's *****. Even if the principle he's actually defending is "I want all the money" instead of the more noble "this is a bad precedent for youtubers", at least he's standing up for it.

It's indeed cringeworthy watching Joe go through another copyright related rant video where it looks like he's going to burst into tears any second. However, I disagree with those who say uploading the video was a stupid decision or, even worse, naked attention whoring. Sometimes you have to go through the motions of inevitable failure just to move the debate forward. Kind of like getting arrested at a protest - a predictable outcome but nevertheless mandatory for street cred. A couple million subscribers plus the support generated on gaming news sites (that he knew would cover the ensuing shitstorm) might have been enough to whip up a serious backlash against Nintendo. Unfortunately, the result is clear: most gamers are either so apathetic about copyright abuse that they just can't be arsed to care, or they're so far up on big N's ballsack that they're more inclined to defend them.

Rolling over is when someone gives you two options like that, "Do what we say, or quit so we don't have to deal with you" and you take one of those two options either backing down out of fear or doing what they say out of fear. Not rolling over is making a third option which you take that is in your interests instead of theirs. Joe is pretty much taking the safe and easy path and saying "Yessir, can I have another?" as he backs down and chooses to not cover Nintendo products as opposed to giving them a 40% cut and the ability to dictate what he can talk about (wise, since it's doubtful Nintendo accounts for 40% of his revenue). Indeed given the extent of Nintendo's demands it seems their real point was "stop covering our stuff" but they wanted to try and make it look like they were giving an option for PR purposes.

Nintendo just gagged Joe, and he let it happen willingly, so really ranting about it at this point strikes me as being a bit hypocritical. It's pretty much saying "hey, I'm the same fearless, irreverent, Angry Joe you've been following" when really he's not, and he simply cannot be as long as he allows the industry he's one of the watchdogs on dictate terms to him. It's like if Consumer Reports agreed to only publish what company PR departments wanted them to, or refused to say tell you when products were dangerous because those making the dangerous products told them to stop while keeping them on the market. "General Motors release a car 96% likely to explode in a fireball and kill everyone in a 40' radius with flying shrapnel, within 4 weeks of operation due to fundamental design flaws in the fuel system, but we're not going to cover this because either we have to do what he PR department says, and only review the cars they want us to talk about, OR not cover their products at all". Okay granted that is extreme, but it should convey my point. Guys like Angry Joe are still sort of one of the buffers between the users (despite Nintendo's rabid fan base) and the companies and despite his alleged dedication he's going to allow himself to be shut out, yet continue to act like he's the rabid pit bull of an angry consumer culture that made him popular.

I guess what I'm saying is that he should either go "Full Snowden" as you put it, or just flat out retire at this point. If he allows this to stand he's not "Angry Joe" anymore and shouldn't continue to present himself as something he is not because he's lying to both himself and his viewers. It's fine to complain about Nintendo making the policies, but to keep doing your show while complying and pretending nothing happened? To me that smacks of deception.

Of course there is a bigger issue at stake here, if the corporate culture can get Angry Joe, they can in theory get anyone else, since he rolled over so easily, it just means they are going to keep pushing. It can be argued this is the first big name domino (at least as far as I know) in a chain that can very well bring down this entire form of much needed criticism. Those who survive are going to simply be liars who play a role but ultimately answer to corporate overlords on anything they still bother to cover since anything being covered is something they needed permission to handle. One can say "well it's only Nintendo" but really, that's not where this is going, if they did it, anyone can do it, and apparently guys like Joe aren't going to fight back and ride it down until they are eventually shut down one company at a time.
 

Falling_v1legacy

No one of consequence
Nov 3, 2009
116
0
0
@Theramancer

I'm not really sure that what your advocating that Joe do does anything more than what he's doing. He's supposed to leave his current platform and critique anonymously, hiding in the shadows? Who is exactly is going to pay attention to wherever he vanishes to (unless he's trying to pull a Who is John Galt?) The internet is a vast place, and if you just vanish and critique from the shadows, there's no guarantee your message against Nintendo is going to have any views at all, never mind have an actual effect on Nintendo.

What he is doing now is using his current platform to shake a finger or a fist at Nintendo and give them a cold shoulder. I think that is far more effective and not hypocritical at all.
 

gamegod25

New member
Jul 10, 2008
863
0
0
Therumancer said:
gamegod25 said:
Therumancer said:
gamegod25 said:
Therumancer said:
Someone like "Angry Joe" finds it more in their interest to back down and keep making money from other things than to seriously fight.
Uhh and just how else exactly is he supposed to "fight" back? It's not like he can take legal action since, while a shitty thing to do, Nintendo does have the legal right deny using their content. All Joe can do is either take a hit and surrender part of the video revenue (and/or effectively work for Nintendo) or to boycott the games entirely. He can raise awareness and call Nintendo out for it (which he and others have already done) but that's pretty much all that can be done about it. I suppose they could makes signs and protest outside of NOA or something but I doubt that would be any more effective.
*snip*
haha wow I wasn't expecting a rambling wall of text this morning. Anyway I think I get the gist of it.

Sure he could do all that but as you admitted it would be very extreme to say the least. The question is doing all that shit really worth the trouble? Would going through all those hoops and bullshit be worth it just to get around Nintendo's policies? Probably not. Call it taking the easy way out but I say it's the most practical way. Doing it your way would just make things tougher for Joe and do nothing to Nintendo to change their minds.
The point I'm sort of getting at is that if Joe is going to let Nintendo lay down the law he might as well be a good little lap dog about it. Spouting off righteous indignation as you do exactly what someone else tells you to do is kind of ridiculous. He's basically trying to retain dignity and still seem like a rebel while he's very much in the herd with the other sheep. To me this makes him a hippocrite given his entire persona which has lead to his success. Nintendo lays down the law and says "comply or quit" and he chooses one of those options and quits.... that's fine, but if he's doing that he can drop the pretensions and be blunt that he's not a rebel and doesn't believe what he's saying enough to actually do anything, he's going to fall into line to protect the cushy little corner he's built as long as possible.

I guess what I'm saying is if your a former loudmouthed independent who makes their bones by sticking it to some form of establishment, and then you sell out completely, the least you can do is be honest about selling out, instead of insulting everyone by trying to present yourself as something you no longer are.

Can Angry Joe back down here and still be Angry Joe? The man whose famously unbridled rage only applies as long as it's not a Nintendo product due to fear of corporate retaliation and possible loss of revenue.... which means it's not unbridled rage anymore and he's not an unpredictable loose cannon, he's working within some pretty clearly defined boundaries someone else put there. He can't be the angry voice of opposition towards a game industry when he allows the very force he's supposed to be angry at (so to speak) to dictate what he can and will do. If he's going to sell out he should admit it, I don't know, change his name to "Joe who is mildly annoyed, but only so long as nobody threatens him".
Guess the difference is I don't see it backing down, just taking the best possible path. To me being a "good little lapdog" would be joining their program and being told what he can and can't produce. Even if he didn't sign up and just surrendered part of the revenue I could see that as selling out. Even if he went all "underground rebel" with his videos to "stick it to Nintendo" they aren't going to give any more of a fuck. All Nintendo did was see big names like Joe as easy targets to shake down for a part of their revenue, thinking they would just roll over and do it without a fight. The best youtubers like Joe can do is refuse to give them that money (even if it means not covering their gamesat all) and spread the word how bullshit it is.

I look at it like when buying games, if a game/company does something you don't like the only recourse you have is to vote with your wallet and not give them your money.
 

Hyrist

New member
Apr 5, 2005
37
0
0
Outsider looking in, admitting low awareness level on the topic.

But surface level high discussion here - I don't think its inherantly wrong for the publishers to gain some revenue over content that's being created using content that they created/published.

To me, its as if someone read a book aloud on you tube, and then commentated at parts. They didn't write the book. Sure, it's their voice, it's 'free advertising' but it's also their content, right out in open. Sure, the person watching does not get to hold the book in their hands and turn the pages themselves, but the content of the book is exposed in its full in front of them - enabling the viewer to not have to purchase the book if they decide, hey, it's not enough.

The Publisher gets nothing but the inital purchase, the creator gets nothing. This guy reading a book and interjecting his opinion on it gets money that could have gone into an initial purchase. I see the problem from the Company's standpoint.

That said, content creators on You Tube, especially let's players, should have some means of having a stronger overall representation. Some way to jointly haggle for the Publisher's cut of content. Nintendo just arbitrarily choosing their own just... doesn't feel right.

Can't talk one way or another about Angry Joe. He's got a right to what he says, he's got notoriety to be covered on gaming news. That said, I'm not a fan of his advertising style. Too... 90's grunge. I don't meant to insult, but he just... he doesn't resonate with me. Like I'm putting my hand in a package of cold slimy hot dogs... I donno. It's a weird sensation.
 

Havokchomp123

New member
Apr 10, 2015
1
0
0
I'm with joe on this one. Granted, I wouldn't go so far as to call Nintendo "greedy" or "f#@$ing idiots," but I think that Nintendo needs to stop with these policies. The worst part about it is that they are hurting themselves. If Nintendo removed their copyright policies, more people would talk about Nintendo games. If any of you have seen the game theorists video about what gamers want, you'll know what I'm talking about. Basically, youtube acts as free marketing for Nintendo and their games. If Popular youtuber's such as Pewdiepie and Angry joe, did more videos about Nintendo, then people would be more interested in buying Nintendo's games.

One common argument that I've heard about copyright policies on videogames (this doesn't just apply to Nintendo) is that posting gameplay for a certain game is just like posting a full length movie or an episode of a TV show to the internet. I can see how they drawed to that conclusion, but I think there argument is uder garbage. Film's and TV show's don't change and there an art form that is meant to be "viewed." It doesn't matter if I see it on Netflix, the theater, On cable, or on youtube because I'm seeing the show/film. It hasn't changed. Games, however, do change and are meant to be played. I could watch someone play a game, but it's better for me to play that game for myself, especially if the game looks really good. Now, as for posting soundtracks of a game is a debate for another day, but I think that this argument is a very poor one.

I wish Nintendo would stop with their policies, it's just getting old at this point.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
I'm sure Nintendo will be fine hearing that a smark isn't going to reviewing their matches on the internet.
People really think this will lower Nintendo's profile, really? Nintendo has been main eventing for decades and their current time in the mid card is not proof of anything. Nintendo spends time there now and than to be fresh when they get inserted into the main event again, simple.

Of course this could be little movements to show sign of a heel turn... which would be money as nobody in this business can heel it up like Nintendo.
 

V4Viewtiful

New member
Feb 12, 2014
721
0
0
BiH-Kira said:
Angry Joe is neither fun nor interesting
To you, Fun nor interesting to you.


Jeez, people hate-on for Angry Joe is more annoying than they think he is.

Saying that even Joe should have followed their rules (he's an overall smart guy) or at the very least let the money slide (but that's the equivalent of working for free, so no) but the fact is Nintendo's rules are stupid. I agree Nintendo has right to do what they do but I don't agree with them doing it.
Why is everyone defending rights like every right by the virtue of the word is "good" or "well intentioned"? That's a lazy way to think.

Oh, I know this is a monetization issue rather than copyright however both are unreasonable or at least dickish (in what is considered "copyright" and claiming more around 40% of an interactive experience already paid for, maybe overly broad).
 

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
I'm sure Nintendo will be fine hearing that a smark isn't going to reviewing their matches on the internet.
People really think this will lower Nintendo's profile, really? Nintendo has been main eventing for decades and their current time in the mid card is not proof of anything. Nintendo spends time there now and than to be fresh when they get inserted into the main event again, simple.

Of course this could be little movements to show sign of a heel turn... which would be money as nobody in this business can heel it up like Nintendo.
Little things lower profiles...
Little by little. They seem to be falling in the mind of an average person.

Subjectively, of coarse (no statistics) I have noticed the Nintendos profile in my homeland is steadily getting weaker among the average gamer. They used to be popular and held as an elite developer. Now they are second rate... in both games and hardware.

... If I understood you correctly that is... I often cant...
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Charcharo said:
Little things lower profiles...
Little by little. They seem to be falling in the mind of an average person.

Subjectively, of coarse (no statistics) I have noticed the Nintendos profile in my homeland is steadily getting weaker among the average gamer. They used to be popular and held as an elite developer. Now they are second rate... in both games and hardware.

... If I understood you correctly that is... I often cant...
Nintendo is "synonymous" with gaming. The first ever Undisputed champion of the World, multi time World championship holder, multi time United States championship holder, multi time Japanese championship holder, multi time European championship holder, receiver of numerous other accolades, and the greatest superstar of this or any era. Such a legend does not just fall out of view... they are remembered for all time. Even if they were to disappear today, 50 years from now anyone who doesn't know of the legendary Nintendo will not be a true fan of the product.

Second rate in hardware is one thing, second rate in games is another. Not only is the matter of games subjective, but the majority opinion outside "smarks" who seemingly hate anything that isn't western/indie is that Nintendo puts out some of the best games of all time.
 

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
Charcharo said:
Little things lower profiles...
Little by little. They seem to be falling in the mind of an average person.

Subjectively, of coarse (no statistics) I have noticed the Nintendos profile in my homeland is steadily getting weaker among the average gamer. They used to be popular and held as an elite developer. Now they are second rate... in both games and hardware.

... If I understood you correctly that is... I often cant...
The first ever Undisputed champion of the World, multi time World championship holder, multi time United States championship holder, multi time Japanese championship holder, multi time European championship holder, receiver of numerous other accolades, and the greatest superstar of this or any era. Such a legend does not just fall out of view... they are remembered for all time. Even if they were to disappear today, 50 years from now anyone who doesn't know of the legendary Nintendo will not be a true fan of the product.

Second rate in hardware is one thing, second rate in games is another. Not only is the matter of games subjective, but the majority opinion outside "smarks" who seemingly hate anything that isn't western/indie is that Nintendo puts out some of the best games of all time.
"Nintendo is "synonymous" with gaming. "

Arguable where I live. id is. Rockstar too. Though they USED to have been there too. As a synonym.

Eastern Europe PC Master Race Land is not Japan, nor the US nor Western Europe.

I am not saying for their name to stop being associated with the GOOD they have done. But for it to catch on negative connotations. It has happened before in other spheres. The mightiest have fallen.
There is a reason why even Coca-Cola NEVER stops advertising. And trying to be up with the times...

Also lol @ "smarks" :p
I see the opposite really. People loving Japanes games and giving Western games bad press.
As for me... well... Eastern Europe is Great Game Land :p le best :p
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Charcharo said:
"Nintendo is "synonymous" with gaming. "

Arguable where I live. id is. Rockstar too. Though they USED to have been there too. As a synonym.

Eastern Europe PC Master Race Land is not Japan, nor the US nor Western Europe.

I am not saying for their name to stop being associated with the GOOD they have done. But for it to catch on negative connotations. It has happened before in other spheres. The mightiest have fallen.
There is a reason why even Coca-Cola NEVER stops advertising. And trying to be up with the times...

Also lol @ "smarks" :p
I see the opposite really. People loving Japanes games and giving Western games bad press.
As for me... well... Eastern Europe is Great Game Land :p le best :p
Listen mate your Eastern European indie performers are all very nice and all... but while they can main event there they'd be little more than jobbers in the big leagues.

Plenty of examples prove you wrong there. For example Hulk Hogan is a terrible human being with numerous negative incidents... still held up as a legendary figure and that is all not mentioning the fact that outside of his ability to rile up the crowd (his charisma) he was a pretty poor performer. He could get a bigger reaction posing on a throwaway show than technical wrestlers doing the craziest moves possible got across their career on the biggest stages. Though that is merely an example not a direct comparison as Nintendo actually has really good workrate whatever people on the internet say.

Than you're seeing what you want to see. People giving Western games bad press are a minority, not the majority.
 

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
Charcharo said:
"Nintendo is "synonymous" with gaming. "

Arguable where I live. id is. Rockstar too. Though they USED to have been there too. As a synonym.

Eastern Europe PC Master Race Land is not Japan, nor the US nor Western Europe.

I am not saying for their name to stop being associated with the GOOD they have done. But for it to catch on negative connotations. It has happened before in other spheres. The mightiest have fallen.
There is a reason why even Coca-Cola NEVER stops advertising. And trying to be up with the times...

Also lol @ "smarks" :p
I see the opposite really. People loving Japanes games and giving Western games bad press.
As for me... well... Eastern Europe is Great Game Land :p le best :p
Listen mate your Eastern European indie performers are all very nice and all... but while they can main event there they'd be little more than jobbers in the big leagues.

Plenty of examples prove you wrong there. For example Hulk Hogan is a terrible human being with numerous negative incidents... still held up as a legendary figure and that is all not mentioning the fact that outside of his ability to rile up the crowd (his charisma) he was a pretty poor performer. He could get a bigger reaction posing on a throwaway show than technical wrestlers doing the craziest moves possible got across their career on the biggest stages. Though that is merely an example not a direct comparison as Nintendo actually has really good workrate whatever people on the internet say.

Than you're seeing what you want to see. People giving Western games bad press are a minority, not the majority.
So... STALKER and Witcher, Tropico and Metro are jobbers (what is that?)? OK...
I mean... technological masterpieces far beyond ANYTHING Nintendo has ever done...
On smaller budgets at that.

Some games in genres Nintendo has NEVER put out anything in...

Yeah. Of coarse...

I know nothing about wrestlers. Give an example with literature, marketing or something else.

I am seeing "elitists" (how can they be, when they play less complex games then Strategy or Tycoon games I dont understand) or weabos as they are called more then the opposite.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Charcharo said:
So... STALKER and Witcher, Tropico and Metro are jobbers (what is that?)? OK...
I mean... technological masterpieces far beyond ANYTHING Nintendo has ever done...
On smaller budgets at that.

Some games in genres Nintendo has NEVER put out anything in...

Yeah. Of coarse...

I know nothing about wrestlers. Give an example with literature, marketing or something else.

I am seeing "elitists" (how can they be, when they play less complex games then Strategy or Tycoon games I dont understand) or weabos as they are called more then the opposite.
Which is why wrestling is most apt to be used. They can be as technical as they like, they can do every single flippy move out there... and it matters for nothing if they can't draw. Nintendo has more variety of work than them actually and their execution... so smooth.

You don't need to know a single thing about it to understand the point. Its really quite simple.

Than you are simply wrong as anyone who has spent any time on the internet should know the common attacks sent in that direction. Also your games have to be complex to be an elitist? Reminds me of those NJPW marks who think unless you pull out the most dangerous stiff moves around you're not any good. Don't play that game you're trying, it isn't very beautiful.
 

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
Charcharo said:
So... STALKER and Witcher, Tropico and Metro are jobbers (what is that?)? OK...
I mean... technological masterpieces far beyond ANYTHING Nintendo has ever done...
On smaller budgets at that.

Some games in genres Nintendo has NEVER put out anything in...

Yeah. Of coarse...

I know nothing about wrestlers. Give an example with literature, marketing or something else.

I am seeing "elitists" (how can they be, when they play less complex games then Strategy or Tycoon games I dont understand) or weabos as they are called more then the opposite.
Which is why wrestling is most apt to be used. They can be as technical as they like, they can do every single flippy move out there... and it matters for nothing if they can't draw. Nintendo has more variety of work than them actually and their execution... so smooth.

You don't need to know a single thing about it to understand the point. Its really quite simple.

Than you are simply wrong as anyone who has spent any time on the internet should know the common attacks sent in that direction. Also your games have to be complex to be an elitist? Reminds me of those NJPW marks who think unless you pull out the most dangerous stiff moves around you're not any good. Don't play that game you're trying, it isn't very beautiful.
It is not a beautiful game as it is unreasonable. Gaming is an art form. But it is the one you want to play it seems.

Wrestling is not good as I dont understand the lingo. Nor the comparisons. No idea what "draw" is.

Nintendo never has been technologically ambitious. Not for AI, not for graphics nor physics. The comparison is like comparing a T-72M2 to a Leopard 2A7... One is serviceable, the other is a monster.

Variety of work... I dont think a single company, even a big one can match an entire region of the world (with smaller comapnuies). Neither in themes, nor in genres. It is impossible.

New Japan Pro Wrestling???? What???
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Charcharo said:
It is not a beautiful game as it is unreasonable. Gaming is an art form. But it is the one you want to play it seems.

Wrestling is not good as I dont understand the lingo. Nor the comparisons. No idea what "draw" is.

Nintendo never has been technologically ambitious. Not for AI, not for graphics nor physics. The comparison is like comparing a T-72M2 to a Leopard 2A7... One is serviceable, the other is a monster.

Variety of work... I dont think a single company, even a big one can match an entire region of the world (with smaller comapnuies). Neither in themes, nor in genres. It is impossible.

New Japan Pro Wrestling???? What???
I am of course refering to you throwing out insults and talk of "better than you" because you play strategy games. First you playing those games don't make you better, secondly I play them myself so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_professional_wrestling_terms + that command that you have told me you should be explaining to me.

Like I said they can be as technical as they like... matters little. A vanilla midget who do flips is still a vanilla midget.
Nintendo have been selling out arenas for decades, and people will even buy consoles just to see their work.

You mentioned individuals which was what I was responding to. None of those individuals can compare with Nintendo in any category.

Strategy game elitist (which is what you seem to be going for considering your comment), is comparable to believing you got to throw 100 stiff kicks and drop someone on their head 10 times per match for it to be any good. A bit of a stereotype admittedly but its an apt comparison of the gamer subdivision that believes everything has to be super technical for things to be any good... not quite. Simple works just grand.
 

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
Charcharo said:
It is not a beautiful game as it is unreasonable. Gaming is an art form. But it is the one you want to play it seems.

Wrestling is not good as I dont understand the lingo. Nor the comparisons. No idea what "draw" is.

Nintendo never has been technologically ambitious. Not for AI, not for graphics nor physics. The comparison is like comparing a T-72M2 to a Leopard 2A7... One is serviceable, the other is a monster.

Variety of work... I dont think a single company, even a big one can match an entire region of the world (with smaller comapnuies). Neither in themes, nor in genres. It is impossible.

New Japan Pro Wrestling???? What???
I am of course refering to you throwing out insults and talk of "better than you" because you play strategy games. First you playing those games don't make you better, secondly I play them myself so...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_professional_wrestling_terms + that command that you have told me you should be explaining to me.

Like I said they can be as technical as they like... matters little. A vanilla midget who do flips is still a vanilla midget.
Nintendo have been selling out arenas for decades, and people will even buy consoles just to see their work.

You mentioned individuals which was what I was responding to. None of those individuals can compare with Nintendo in any category.

Strategy game elitist (which is what you seem to be going for considering your comment), is comparable to believing you got to throw 100 stiff kicks and drop someone on their head 10 times per match for it to be any good. A bit of a stereotype admittedly but its an apt comparison of the gamer subdivision that believes everything has to be super technical for things to be any good... not quite. Simple works just grand.
Why not just use standard British English (you are from the UK)? Wont it be easier.

I dont CLAIM to be superior due to playing such games... it is an example. Read it again. And once more. Till you understand what I wrote.

So... the technological prowess, the fact that they push tech forward means so little to you?
Also... midget? There are more people playing World of Tanks at this moment then there are sold Wii U's . One has made non-gamers here (in this region) PLAY games and love games and gaming. The other is ... unknown... in comparison that is for the average 30-40 year old person.
Might be hard for you to take it in of coarse... but... hey...

They sure as hell can. Better games (IMHO) is not a category, it is subjective. But... I dont know, technology, ambitions of given projects, storylines, atmosphere... possibly "fun" factor (subjective)...

I am not going for that. Re-learn your native language :p . But what extreme social positions do you have that no one is EVER superior to anyone else and can never be "elitist" :p ???
Also, again, use normal language :( ... please...
I got nothing.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Charcharo said:
Why not just use standard British English (you are from the UK)? Wont it be easier.

I dont CLAIM to be superior due to playing such games... it is an example. Read it again. And once more. Till you understand what I wrote.

So... the technological prowess, the fact that they push tech forward means so little to you?
Also... midget? There are more people playing World of Tanks at this moment then there are sold Wii U's . One has made non-gamers here (in this region) PLAY games and love games and gaming. The other is ... unknown... in comparison that is for the average 30-40 year old person.
Might be hard for you to take it in of coarse... but... hey...

They sure as hell can. Better games (IMHO) is not a category, it is subjective. But... I dont know, technology, ambitions of given projects, storylines, atmosphere... possibly "fun" factor (subjective)...

I am not going for that. Re-learn your native language :p . But what extreme social positions do you have that no one is EVER superior to anyone else and can never be "elitist" :p ???
Also, again, use normal language :( ... please...
I got nothing.
"I am seeing "elitists" (how can they be, when they play less complex games then Strategy or Tycoon games I dont understand) or weabos as they are called more then the opposite".

Deny it if you like its there.

Its a non factor in the matter we're talking about. In terms of game quality the amount of high flying or flippy moves you can do is simply irrelevant. If your match has no flow and you mechanically go from one high spot to the next than its crap.
Nintendo may not be the flashiest competitor, but they know how to build a match, get the audience into it, and their execution is perfect (unlike many performers these days who are shamelessly sloppy).

Nintendo is bigger than those companies in every way. Those companies will be quickly forgotten about when they retire unlike a true icon. They can develop as many technical moves as they like, won't matter.

No your angle is that I am being elitist or that I am actually part of a majority elitist group (the weabos as you referred to it as). That even if true (in me being an elitist would be incorrect on the majority part).
 

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
Charcharo said:
Why not just use standard British English (you are from the UK)? Wont it be easier.

I dont CLAIM to be superior due to playing such games... it is an example. Read it again. And once more. Till you understand what I wrote.

So... the technological prowess, the fact that they push tech forward means so little to you?
Also... midget? There are more people playing World of Tanks at this moment then there are sold Wii U's . One has made non-gamers here (in this region) PLAY games and love games and gaming. The other is ... unknown... in comparison that is for the average 30-40 year old person.
Might be hard for you to take it in of coarse... but... hey...

They sure as hell can. Better games (IMHO) is not a category, it is subjective. But... I dont know, technology, ambitions of given projects, storylines, atmosphere... possibly "fun" factor (subjective)...

I am not going for that. Re-learn your native language :p . But what extreme social positions do you have that no one is EVER superior to anyone else and can never be "elitist" :p ???
Also, again, use normal language :( ... please...
I got nothing.
"I am seeing "elitists" (how can they be, when they play less complex games then Strategy or Tycoon games I dont understand) or weabos as they are called more then the opposite".

Deny it if you like its there.

Its a non factor in the matter we're talking about. In terms of game quality the amount of high flying or flippy moves you can do is simply irrelevant. If your match has no flow and you mechanically go from one high spot to the next than its crap.
Nintendo may not be the flashiest competitor, but they know how to build a match, get the audience into it, and their execution is perfect (unlike many performers these days who are shamelessly sloppy).

Nintendo is bigger than those companies in every way. Those companies will be quickly forgotten about when they retire unlike a true icon. They can develop as many technical moves as they like, won't matter.

No your angle is that I am being elitist or that I am actually part of a majority elitist group (the weabos as you referred to it as). That even if true (in me being an elitist would be incorrect on the majority part).
I suggest you do RELEARN certain types of expression. As is right now... you are comically missing the point.

Nintendo's fanbase is actually smaller then World of Tanks's fanbase. By a VERY big margin. Considering WG's ability to lie like a pro with their money and the fact that they have their own bank, skyscraper and fleet of military vehicles AND a space program (a video game developer...) I dare say they might even make more money.

Some of these games are 15 years old and still have competition. Still have their own festivals. Their community content STILL sets records (250 000 unique downloads in a day for a simple mod for a 7 year old game). The books on the games get actual awards and the books the games were based on are classics of their genres :p
In your strange world probably the Strugatsky's and Andrzej are also unknown...

The entire argument, was that Nintendo is SLOWLY damaging their (earlier) near spotless reputation. That they have no idea what they are doing and that this will bite them years from now.

As I said, there is a reason why companies that can buy Nintendo's collective organs and their family's organs still do advertise. Still try to engage community work. Cause they are smarter in this case.

As for the Weabos, well I try not to enter such .... circles at all.
Once I saw this:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Anime_vs_Cartoon

And had the bad luck to see some terrible stuff in YT comments... and people like Movie Bob that slobber all over Nintendo... so that shaped my world view.
Did you know there is some unfounded elitism from Western Tank fans AGAINST Russian armor? Now you do... I just hope to God they never get to see how wrong they are...
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Charcharo said:
I suggest you do RELEARN certain types of expression. As is right now... you are comically missing the point.

Nintendo's fanbase is actually smaller then World of Tanks's fanbase. By a VERY big margin. Considering WG's ability to lie like a pro with their money and the fact that they have their own bank, skyscraper and fleet of military vehicles AND a space program (a video game developer...) I dare say they might even make more money.

Some of these games are 15 years old and still have competition. Still have their own festivals. Their community content STILL sets records (250 000 unique downloads in a day for a simple mod for a 7 year old game). The books on the games get actual awards and the books the games were based on are classics of their genres :p
In your strange world probably the Strugatsky's and Andrzej are also unknown...

The entire argument, was that Nintendo is SLOWLY damaging their (earlier) near spotless reputation. That they have no idea what they are doing and that this will bite them years from now.

As I said, there is a reason why companies that can buy Nintendo's collective organs and their family's organs still do advertise. Still try to engage community work. Cause they are smarter in this case.

As for the Weabos, well I try not to enter such .... circles at all.
Once I saw this:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Anime_vs_Cartoon

And had the bad luck to see some terrible stuff in YT comments... and people like Movie Bob that slobber all over Nintendo... so that shaped my world view.
Did you know there is some unfounded elitism from Western Tank fans AGAINST Russian armor? Now you do... I just hope to God they never get to see how wrong they are...
You're not being completely honest there. I thought Witcher books came out before the games? If so than it isn't comparable to other games that later get books like Halo and the like.

Did I say Nintendo shouldn't advertise? Its good business to do so yes, however they are not so irrelevant like some companies to simply disappear if they were to actually stop be it through no longer advertising or shutting down.

I'm sorry but are you referring to the article itself which I didn't read fully but seems to be trying to be a factual comparison of the two which is perfectly fine... or the facebook comments? If its the comments than you open one hell of a can of worms. I could fetch with little issue youtube comments that'd make "you look bad" by association... the point is pointing at comments is evidence of nothing as you'll have to do better than that to highlight a problem.

I am aware of the whole tank thing actually.
 

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
Charcharo said:
I suggest you do RELEARN certain types of expression. As is right now... you are comically missing the point.

Nintendo's fanbase is actually smaller then World of Tanks's fanbase. By a VERY big margin. Considering WG's ability to lie like a pro with their money and the fact that they have their own bank, skyscraper and fleet of military vehicles AND a space program (a video game developer...) I dare say they might even make more money.

Some of these games are 15 years old and still have competition. Still have their own festivals. Their community content STILL sets records (250 000 unique downloads in a day for a simple mod for a 7 year old game). The books on the games get actual awards and the books the games were based on are classics of their genres :p
In your strange world probably the Strugatsky's and Andrzej are also unknown...

The entire argument, was that Nintendo is SLOWLY damaging their (earlier) near spotless reputation. That they have no idea what they are doing and that this will bite them years from now.

As I said, there is a reason why companies that can buy Nintendo's collective organs and their family's organs still do advertise. Still try to engage community work. Cause they are smarter in this case.

As for the Weabos, well I try not to enter such .... circles at all.
Once I saw this:
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Anime_vs_Cartoon

And had the bad luck to see some terrible stuff in YT comments... and people like Movie Bob that slobber all over Nintendo... so that shaped my world view.
Did you know there is some unfounded elitism from Western Tank fans AGAINST Russian armor? Now you do... I just hope to God they never get to see how wrong they are...
You're not being completely honest there. I thought Witcher books came out before the games? If so than it isn't comparable to other games that later get books like Halo and the like.

Did I say Nintendo shouldn't advertise? Its good business to do so yes, however they are not so irrelevant like some companies to simply disappear if they were to actually stop be it through no longer advertising or shutting down.

I'm sorry but are you referring to the article itself which I didn't read fully but seems to be trying to be a factual comparison of the two which is perfectly fine... or the facebook comments? If its the comments than you open one hell of a can of worms. I could fetch with little issue youtube comments that'd make "you look bad" by association... the point is pointing at comments is evidence of nothing as you'll have to do better than that to highlight a problem.

I am aware of the whole tank thing actually.
Yes they have been 20 years before the games. Wikipedia is your friend mate.
I am not talking ABOUT those books though... is it not OBVIOUS?
Here is a small example:
http://litstalker.ru/index.php?option=com_books&view=books&Itemid=55

It is good bussiness to advertise. As is, the best advertisement money can buy is through YouTube celebrities.

The article itself is dog shit. The one I linked. So are its comments.

I am surprised you are aware of the tank thing.
That would require some unbiased knowledge on tanks... and the way different militaries work.
 

Rozalia1

New member
Mar 1, 2014
1,095
0
0
Charcharo said:
Yes they have been 20 years before the games. Wikipedia is your friend mate.
I am not talking ABOUT those books though... is it not OBVIOUS?
Here is a small example:
http://litstalker.ru/index.php?option=com_books&view=books&Itemid=55

It is good bussiness to advertise. As is, the best advertisement money can buy is through YouTube celebrities.

The article itself is dog shit. The one I linked. So are its comments.

I am surprised you are aware of the tank thing.
That would require some unbiased knowledge on tanks... and the way different militaries work.
I don't need to go to wikipedia for something I know and you have yourself told me before.
What awards did those Stalker books get exacttly?

I wouldn't say that. Many types of games do not lend themselves well to lets plays and they don't need youtubers to be featured in reviewers as you know... review sites exist.

Your point? I saw nothing completely outrageous from the little I read, and the comments are facebook comments. I could whip out some comments saying outrageous things whenever you argue something... it'd mean nothing.

Why would I be biased over tanks or military?
 

NoShoes

New member
Aug 15, 2013
171
0
0
Rozalia1 said:
Charcharo said:
Yes they have been 20 years before the games. Wikipedia is your friend mate.
I am not talking ABOUT those books though... is it not OBVIOUS?
Here is a small example:
http://litstalker.ru/index.php?option=com_books&view=books&Itemid=55

It is good bussiness to advertise. As is, the best advertisement money can buy is through YouTube celebrities.

The article itself is dog shit. The one I linked. So are its comments.

I am surprised you are aware of the tank thing.
That would require some unbiased knowledge on tanks... and the way different militaries work.
I don't need to go to wikipedia for something I know and you have yourself told me before.
What awards did those Stalker books get exacttly?

I wouldn't say that. Many types of games do not lend themselves well to lets plays and they don't need youtubers to be featured in reviewers as you know... review sites exist.

Your point? I saw nothing completely outrageous from the little I read, and the comments are facebook comments. I could whip out some comments saying outrageous things whenever you argue something... it'd mean nothing.

Why would I be biased over tanks or military?
Science Fiction awards for local or emergent authors.
So such an amount of dedicated, fan-made literature, festivals and generally being a great game whose MODS alone eclipse many other titles... are nothing? Pushing technology in a way it has not been before (or since), creating an entire world, trying to honor one of the worst disasters in human history and some of the greatest works of literature ever made ... is weak ?
I... am speechless...

I dont watch Lets Plays for the games. I dont watch reviews (reasons for that are admittedly, "elitist", no need to go there). The VERY few times I watch Lets Plays... those are of usually VERY skilled players and for games I already play.
But the only reason I even KNOW some of the Wii U games were not due to some ... reviewer... but due to LPers or communities.

FFS, I visit this site and I even LEARNED of a Wii U existing 1 year AFTER it came out... that is shit marketing right there.

I saw, what can best be described, as uninformed gibberish and stupidity. Comparing two equal things and making one come out on top... is an exercise in stupidity IMHO.
I dont even check the comments...

Because MANY people ARE biased. Just the other day I had some stupid British tank fanboy start talking shit about Smoothbore and Rifled cannons...
How stupid the rest of the world is and how glorious British rifled cannons are... and when I requested a source (for example the Chinese weapon tests of 2014) he could produce nothing...
Then he went on to badmouth the American Abrams and said it was destroyed by a [email protected]#$!$*R**???
No source, of coarse, cause his friend who was in the US armed forces told him that... WTF...
And he then said HEAT was an anti-infantry round... I could not recover from that.