YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

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
May 13, 2009
7,082
1,849
118
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
Aug 4, 2011
6,468
923
118
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.