YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

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.