YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

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).
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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.
 

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).