YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

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
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
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
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
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
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
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?