Nintendo To Begin YouTube Affiliate Program, Will Split Revenue with Youtubers
142 replies, posted
[quote=GameInformer]
Last year, Nintendo made waves by initiating YouTube “Content ID” matches on videos portraying the company’s games. This diverted monetization from the video creators to Nintendo, and was heavily criticized by the Let’s Play community.
At the time, Nintendo claimed its move to capture all video monetization was to ensure that that material “is shared across social and media channels in an appropriate and safe way.” Now, a two-part message via the company’s Japanese Twitter account signals a shift in policy.
A translation of the two tweets indicates Nintendo will be working with YouTube to create an affiliate program to share revenue with authorized content creators.[/quote]
[url=http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2014/05/27/report-nintendo-to-begin-youtube-affiliate-program.aspx]Source[/url].
The [url=https://twitter.com/Nintendo?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gonintendo.com%2F%3Fpage%3D1&tw_i=471260150494285824&tw_p=tweetembed]Tweets[/url] in question:
[img]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/Starmenclock/NintendoYoutube_zps766a0325.png[/img]
I'm glad they're changing their ways about this.
Now they just need to properly advertise the Wii U and fix up their third party relationships.
So they want money from people for buying the game in the first place, then want to take a cut of hard work and effort they've put in to videos essentially giving Nintendo free advertisement for their games?
Fuck off.
I suppose nobody can bitch about this anymore.
[editline]27th May 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Scotty.;44923708]So they want money from people for buying the game in the first place, then want to take a cut of hard work and effort they've put in to videos essentially giving Nintendo free advertisement for their games?
Fuck off.[/QUOTE]
You aren't sold the game to be able to cash in on the content further.
[QUOTE=Scotty.;44923708]So they want money from people for buying the game in the first place, then want to take a cut of hard work and effort they've put in to videos essentially giving Nintendo free advertisement for their games?
Fuck off.[/QUOTE]
It's not like they're reviewing the game. You're using somebody else's content to make money without giving them even a small portion. If you started uploading videos of you reading books or a facecam of you watching a movie, and tried to make money off of it, nobody would defend you then, so why is it ok with games?
Even though it is an improvement of the previous situation (Nintendo taking all the revenue), a lot of people are still mad about it:
[img]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/Starmenclock/TBNINTENDO_zpsf4eb9082.png[/img]
[img]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/Starmenclock/jimnintendo_zps6fc71181.png[/img]
Notch was tempted to make a deal with Youtube like this, but with virtually any Minecraft content on the site instead. Wouldn't surprise me if other companies and developers out there have done it already.
Either way, the cut taken will be unnoticeably minimal, and you'll actually be able to put up content without worrying.
Well, at least they're only stealing a cut as opposed to stealing the whole damn paycheck. It's still stealing, yes, but it's more "petty" than serious this time around.
It's not as much stealing as it is getting what you're legally allowed to
Let's Plays wouldn't exist without the game they're talking over, and games (surprise) need to make money
I still think this is bullshit. Nintendo gets nothing but free publicity from LPs, they really shouldn't be taking anything from these people.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44923852]I still think this is bullshit. Nintendo gets nothing but free publicity from LPs, they really shouldn't be taking anything from these people.[/QUOTE]
The "free advertising" argument doesn't really hold any water for one of the biggest video game companies of the world. Do you really think Mario needs free advertising?
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44923852]I still think this is bullshit. Nintendo gets nothing but free publicity from LPs, they really shouldn't be taking anything from these people.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter what they get out of it, if I upload a movie to Youtube, that movie gets publicity too. It's not your content to make money off of, you're taking somebody else's work and using it to make money for yourself.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;44923860]The "free advertising" argument doesn't really hold any water for one of the biggest video game companies of the world. Do you really think Mario needs free advertising?[/QUOTE]
On Wii U? He most certainly does.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44923864]It doesn't matter what they get out of it, if I upload a movie to Youtube, that movie gets publicity too. It's not your content to make money off of, you're taking somebody else's work and using it to make money for yourself.[/QUOTE]
But the LP IS your content. The game is merely the stage.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;44923841]It's not as much stealing as it is getting what you're legally allowed to
Let's Plays wouldn't exist without the game they're talking over, and games (surprise) need to make money[/QUOTE]
But then that comes to the question that who created the content of the let's play? The commentators or the company itself?
[QUOTE=mchapra;44923871]But then that comes to the question that who created the content of the let's play? The commentators or the company itself?[/QUOTE]
All the commentator is doing is talking over the game. That kind of thing is only acceptable when you're reviewing a product because you're doing an important service by telling people whether or not to spend their money on it. You playing a game and talking about your dog or what you did earlier today is not providing any useful service, it's just using somebody else's work to make a profit.
even if this is better than their previous policy, i still don't agree with it. content creators aren't going to want to invest time into making videos that will give them less revenue. less revenue is better than no revenue at all, yes, but there's still no reason for them to cover nintendo content over anything else. you may view that as selfish, but a lot of people make youtube videos as a job, and time is money.
i wish more companies would approach this like blizzard has. youtube and twitch have played an enormous role in the success of hearthstone. they understand how to form a symbiotic relationship with content creators and not fuck them over.
[QUOTE=Scotty.;44923708]So they want money from people for buying the game in the first place, then want to take a cut of hard work and effort they've put in to videos essentially giving Nintendo free advertisement for their games?
Fuck off.[/QUOTE]
yea how dare the person who made the video game get a cut on someone playing their video game
fuck their hard work.
seriously, Nintendo is doing the right move. LPers will finally get proper permission to LP instead of being leeches. Would be cool to see LPers get the game early and other cool things because of this.
I'm baffled that there are actually people in this thread that think it's okay that Nintendo is taking a cut of someone's pay just because they are using Nintendo products.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44923866]But the LP IS your content. The game is merely the stage.[/QUOTE]
Ok, well first of all, the game isn't your stage, Youtube is your stage. But even if we assume the game is the stage, when a stand up comedian does a show at a comedy club, they only get a portion of the ticket sales.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44923915]So if I buy Sony Vegas and use it to make a video which makes money, do I owe Sony a cut?
Or HP since I use an HP monitor?
Maybe Rosewell should get a cut too cause i'm using their keyboard.[/QUOTE]
No because when you buy Sony Vegas, its purpose is editing videos. You ARE paying Sony their cut when you buy the software. The price of video games doesn't include Nintendo's cut for making the original product used, or else there would be two different versions, one for Let's Plays and one for normal gamers.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44923887]All the commentator is doing is talking over the game. That kind of thing is only acceptable when you're reviewing a product because you're doing an important service by telling people whether or not to spend their money on it. You playing a game and talking about your dog or what you did earlier today is not providing any useful service, it's just using somebody else's work to make a profit.[/QUOTE]
You watch an LP for the experience of the player(s), not the game.
In fact a far more egregious example of this kind of thing is cover bands, and in many cases they do not pay royalties.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44923924]No because when you buy Sony Vegas, its purpose is editing videos. You ARE paying Sony their cut when you buy the software[/QUOTE]
Your choice of words here was really poor. You don't pay Sony a cut, you purchase your software license to make and use videos in any way you wish (at your own risk). Sony doesn't have any control or ownership of anything you make.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44923915]So if I buy Sony Vegas and use it to make a video which makes money, do I owe Sony a cut?
Or HP since I use an HP monitor?
Maybe Rosewell should get a cut too cause i'm using their keyboard.[/QUOTE]
There is a difference between using something in a video and using something to make a video.
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44923902]You can't use anything to make money because everything was created by someone else.[/QUOTE]
I can chop down a tree and make a table.
Checkmate
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44923927]You watch an LP for the experience of the player(s), not the game.
In fact a far more egregious example of this kind of thing is cover bands, and in many cases they do not pay royalties.[/QUOTE]
Would people watch a let's play if there was no game? Would they listen to the same commentary if it was just a facecam? If that was true, LPers wouldn't bother playing games. The game is the core of the content, that's why it's called a Let's PLAY.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44923927]You watch an LP for the experience of the player(s), not the game.
In fact a far more egregious example of this kind of thing is cover bands, and in many cases they do not pay royalties.[/QUOTE]
Or a video game related example would be LP's of horror games. Cool and all that they use X horror game in a LP, but you watch the LP to see them freak out.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;44923841]It's not as much stealing as it is getting what you're legally allowed to
Let's Plays wouldn't exist without the game they're talking over, and games (surprise) need to make money[/QUOTE]
Games make money from their sales. The creators of the game have no rights to the earnings of derivative works. They made money on the game sold, they had no part in the creation of a Let's Play.
Besides that Nintendo have aggressively removed videos which used footage of their games that weren't Let's Plays, such as news series, Top Tens, and compilations.
-snip-
[QUOTE=RenegadeCop;44923954]That was mother Earth's tree and now you owe her 50% of the table[/QUOTE]
Earth is not a person, if you cut down the tree yourself, it's yours. If you buy the wood from a store to make your table, then you ARE giving the person who made that wood their fair share.
Let's Plays also sell games. I never would have bought Resident Evil 4 if not for the Two Best Friend's Let's Play.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44923887]All the commentator is doing is talking over the game. That kind of thing is only acceptable when you're reviewing a product because you're doing an important service by telling people whether or not to spend their money on it. You playing a game and talking about your dog or what you did earlier today is not providing any useful service, it's just using somebody else's work to make a profit.[/QUOTE]
Unless I'm mistaken but shouldn't fair use guidelines cover use of works for commentary? Since let's plays are indeed commentary?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.