• Nintendo To Begin YouTube Affiliate Program, Will Split Revenue with Youtubers
    142 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Durrsly;44925321]Minecraft, Amnesia, Happy Wheels, and a bunch of other games exploded because of let's plays.[/QUOTE] Happy Wheels is free and the other two are pirated rather frequently. Regardless, none of them are Nintendo games, so they don't really apply in this case.
[QUOTE=Manibogi;44925342]Happy Wheels is free and the other two are pirated rather frequently. Regardless, none of them are Nintendo games, so they don't really apply in this case.[/QUOTE] The Wii U is doing the exact opposite of selling well, and there is very little advertising for anything Wii U.
I don't like how they would be making money off my reports of Nintendo news. I mean, I'm not a LPer so what I do in terms of journalism falls well into fair use
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;44926278]I don't like how they would be making money off my reports of Nintendo news. I mean, I'm not a LPer so what I do in terms of journalism falls well into fair use[/QUOTE] Then this doesn't affect you, although you will still have to deal with the same content ID bullshit that was there before. But if you claim fair use you're fine because you're covered under it.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44926328]Then this doesn't affect you, although you will still have to deal with the same content ID bullshit that was there before. But if you claim fair use you're fine because you're covered under it.[/QUOTE] Everytime I do claim fair use they come up with some bullshit and reject the claim
[QUOTE=Map in a box;44925306]God forgive a company wants to get a few cents especially now that they're allowing people to LP nintendo stuff now WITH REVENUE. You guys don't realise that a lot of people that watch LPs dont end up buying the game so its the least they could do.[/QUOTE] What would say if this was activision taking down and requiring 50% of the ad revenue of some Modern warfare video? Would you think that was all good and fair?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;44926391]What would say if this was activision taking down and requiring 50% of the ad revenue of some Modern warfare video? Would you think that was all good and fair?[/QUOTE] First of all, I don't know where you're pulling 50% out of. And second, Activision already do worse than this, posting videos of their games will get you a strike all the same, in fact, according to their policy, it doesn't even matter whether you monetize it or not.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;44924056]It would actually an improvement if this were a native feature of YouTube, because right now, it's either 100% to you, or 100% to the people claiming the video. I think this must actually be part of the ContentID back-end because sometimes several companies can claim the same video... so surely there must be a split determined at some point down the line.[/QUOTE] I think if you put it that way, it seems somewhat better.
I still don't understand why people who sit there filming themselves playing a game someone else made feels entitled to 100% of the money.
So many strawmen in this argument. This is the same reason rifftracks or whatever it's called became a thing. "OH NO SOMEONE BOUGHT A CAR I BET THAT UPLOADING THE CAR TO YOUTUBE MAKES THE COMPANY LEGAL TO YOUR MONEY" doesn't hold water because that's something that doesn't have a defined outcome- the person can crash and explode but that's something that happened to that person and no one else (hopefully). It also helps that you're buying a product, where with video games you're buying a license With video games and movies you can navigate the game a slightly different way but the conclusion is always the same. The cutscenes will always be the same and once it's done it's not like the game is endless. It's as if I bought a copy of the original starwars trilogy and thought that my meager 15 dollars would entitle me to FREE MONEY THEY SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR MY ADVERTISING. I dunno, I'm getting a sense of Deja Vu here, Nintendo's in the right to do what they want with their property and IP. People can say that "LP's help advertise!" but at the same time they can really damage a game if the person is someone akin to DarkSydePhil, Nintendo should get a say in what happens with their properties because of people like him alone.
[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44924136]There's a huge difference between uploading a movie unchanged and uploading a video of you commenting on gameplay.[/QUOTE] Is there though? Isn't this exactly the reason why Rifftrax will sell commentary tracks on itunes, but you have to provide the video yourself? They may be commenting over the video, but they themselves don't own the rights to stream/distribute said video, so their way around it is to sell their commentary and let users obtain the video themselves. Let's Plays really aren't all that different, length aside, so I don't see why they should be treated any differently.
[QUOTE=Sift;44926575]Verds[/QUOTE] The let's players should really just go the MST3000 way and get permission from the copyright holders.
[t]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b196/Starmenclock/TBNINTENDO_zpsf4eb9082.png[/t] I think TB makes a good point here. Nintendo has been losing the PR battle lately when it comes to this issue. This is a compromise, but I think in the bigger picture it's such a small amount of money they should just leave it alone and grant them permission. Maybe they should do some sort of featured system, that way when you start making serious cash and the companies start drooling, you exchange a bit of your profits for a spot on their website or something and everyone's happy. I don't see why they would be so shitty to their obviously adoring customers about a few hundred bucks a month in most cases :/ Most LPers don't make very much money, and those that do usually depend on their income. I will wait to see how much they want to take before I completely make a judgement here tho
One thing I don't get is why TB is chiming in when I've never seen him at all do any Nintendo content, unlike Jwittz and Chuggaconroy who 100% focus on Nintendo
Knowledge and culture is cummulative, their LPs wouldn't exist without Mario or some bullshit, but Mario wouldn't exist if it wasn't for pong, which in turn wouldn't exist if nobody researched computers, etc. [QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;44927442]One thing I don't get is why TB is chiming in when I've never seen him at all do any Nintendo content, unlike Jwittz and Chuggaconroy who 100% focus on Nintendo[/QUOTE] Because what Nintendo is doing opens a door for a load of bullshit. It's much easier to do something when people simply accept it.
Nintendo is like a backwards country where dancing in public is illegal, but then they start allowing it as long as you pay 1$ to them after hugging. "We're cool company now, right guys?"
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;44927564]Nintendo is like a backwards country where dancing in public is illegal, but then they start allowing it as long as you pay 1$ to them after hugging. "We're cool company now, right guys?"[/QUOTE] it's more like dancing has always been illegal and instead of just putting you in jail, they say "just give us a buck" because it's never been legal to monetize game footage on youtube which has been established SEVERAL TIMES in this thread alone and nintendo would be will within their rights to just take 100% of the cut
[QUOTE=Frisk;44926682]Is there though? Isn't this exactly the reason why Rifftrax will sell commentary tracks on itunes, but you have to provide the video yourself? They may be commenting over the video, but they themselves don't own the rights to stream/distribute said video, so their way around it is to sell their commentary and let users obtain the video themselves. Let's Plays really aren't all that different, length aside, so I don't see why they should be treated any differently.[/QUOTE] Because video games are all about interactivity. If someone did a rifftrax of a film, you would still would have seen the film, so I get the argument there, but watching someone play a game is very different to actually playing a game yourself (especially if they have things like branching storylines, talent trees, etc), and I've bought games after watching a Let's Play because the LP made it look fun to play.
[QUOTE=Camundongo;44927671]Because video games are all about interactivity. If someone did a rifftrax of a film, you would still would have seen the film, so I get the argument there, but watching someone play a game is very different to actually playing a game yourself (especially if they have things like branching storylines, talent trees, etc), and I've bought games after watching a Let's Play because the LP made it look fun to play.[/QUOTE] Games still have a huge baseline experience, it's not like each playthrough will be super amazingly different for your average AAA game (especially a Nintendo one). For a game like Minecraft it's a bit different.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;44927717]Games still have a huge baseline experience, it's not like each playthrough will be super amazingly different for your average AAA game (especially a Nintendo one). For a game like Minecraft it's a bit different.[/QUOTE] I would say that it would still apply to many linear games though. If there is little actual skill involved (like the Telltale Games, which are probably closer to interactive stories) then sure, I agree with you. But a huge part of gameplay for me (maybe not for you) is actually defeating the challenge set in front of me, something you can't capture in a video. I watched videos of the first two Modern Warfare games (aka your typical linear AAA game) before playing it - and it was different to watching the video, due to the person playing it being me.
[QUOTE=l337k1ll4;44923731]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?[/QUOTE] but watching a game isn't even nearly the same experience as playing one a video game and books/movies are [B]totally different[/B], it's not even comparable to say that not saying this is good or bad either. of course, merchandise is a little different
[QUOTE=Fangz;44923751]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][/QUOTE] Is he seriously mad that he can't make profit from other peoples content? Maybe making Youtube your main source of income was a bad idea
Here comes me again with an obligatory biased LPer rant: It may be legally alright for Nintendo to do whatever they want with their game IPs, but morally and personally, I still think its reprehensible for them to be trying so hard to jam their hands into every gaming YouTuber's back. I think the language, culture, and money barriers are preventing the Nintendo heads from seeing that people don't like being mass vindicated for a profit, and its really confusing that anyone can miss that. They're continuously pinning a massive target on their head for bad PR...especially from all the YouTubers with collectively millions of viewers across the world...and I don't understand how a company that pretty much embraces the idea of casual fun games winds up being so straight forward greedy about this stuff. YouTubers don't share income with each other, everyone has to make it out on their own with their own views...yet here comes Nintendo, a multi billion company, to say to every single one of them: "Konichiwa, we would like your pay." And its not even like we're actually getting half of the revenue, gaming YouTubers (at least a majority of them) are all under gaming networks. This means that before we even get paid, YouTube and our gaming networks take a cut before we even get a percentage of whats left over (if you have a rev share contract which most people do now a days). So with this change people are praising? Now Nintendo takes HALF OF THE CUT before it even reaches that process, so when YouTube takes a cut of the 50% remaining, and the gaming network still takes a cut of that, you get a percentage of...whats barely left over. Let's get theory crafting here (and note that these are just numbers off the top of my head based on looking at my own analytics): Say you make $100 gross revenue on a gaming video (this would take a good amount of views to get, so hey, screw you lower youtuber!). First, Nintendo takes half of that (assuming YouTube even supports a system that can divert resources like that), since they get first dibs, for $50...(they pretty much just took a full game or a good amount of groceries from you)...now YouTube takes a slice off of that $50, leaving you at $10-$20. Afterwards, depending on your contract, your gaming network siphons a little bit and only get a certain % of those $10-$20. Since its common for people to have a 70%/30% rev share, we'll say you now get $7-$14...in comparison to the $50-$70 you would've gotten before. Seriously, imagine losing $50-$70 every day on your paycheck, not because you're doing less work, but because one of your boss' clients said they want a cut of it, and well, since they can do whatever they want your only option is to either veto with your work or...continue to lose hundreds to thousands of dollars a month without saying anything. Seriously, the only people this benefits is Nintendo, people who aren't under gaming networks, and maybe some of the people who cold turkey quit Nintendo videos after last year's incident. They're not getting a small cut of the profit, they're slicing the cake in half and telling you to deal with it since they couldn't just take the whole cake with them like last time. Its like SOPA (bare with me here) in that the first proposal was absolutely awful and so it slunk back down for a while, only to try to come back later with slight tweaks hoping people won't care. Its a shinier shit, but its still pretty awful. No one should have their income dipped into by a company that could lose millions of dollars a year and still be fine. At the least, from what I've seen in this thread, the people who are praising them for being so kind to split "half of the revenue" are almost the same exact people who were praising them for copyright striking LPers last year anyways. Its the same dance of "YouTubers should get real jobs" yadda yadda "Oh no you can't get money off of other people's work!" yadda yadda "Its their legal right to do this!" yadda. So who knows, the outcry seems like it'll still be the same as it was last time and maybe Nintendo will get that. Now on a slightly different note, in a few days Mario Kart 8 is going to come out with an upload replay to YouTube feature. These videos, under Nintendo's "WE GET HALF YOU GET HALF! ONLY US HAPPY!" system, are going to be automatically generating revenue for them. They tried to make it so that every video ever gave them 100% of the revenue pretty much exactly a year ago, so I'm sure its no coincidence that they're rolling this out now so they can bank on the surge of videos that people just wanted to put out for fun. Smart business move Nintendo, you've literally created a free money generator out of your consumers. [QUOTE=SpartanXC9;44928347]Is he seriously mad that he can't make profit from other peoples content? Maybe making Youtube your main source of income was a bad idea[/QUOTE] What? 1) He doesn't do Nintendo videos and 2) He makes hundreds of thousands of dollars off of YouTube. Why is it a bad idea just because you (seemingly) don't agree with it?
Thing about the content ID matches was less "it's evil and hurting the lpers :(" but more the fact unrelated shit was striking [b]everything[/b] Music companies were claiming video game videos, and even if say, Capcom said "yo this is fine by us." the musicians who don't care just opened their wallets and let it flow in saying "fuck off nerds this is ours." As stated before this is "Hey we're allowing you to make money off our product. It's now legal. BUT you have to give us a buck." which is way more then what other companies do, when LPers have to trick the search engine to avoid being found then maybe they aren't in the right? (DSP, among others for example would call LA Noire "Detective game by rockstar" or "Dicks with Guns." or whatever came to mind to avoid being found) LPers have no grounds to stand on if they didn't get the official okay to do it, they can cry and strawman all they want- this isn't about free advertising or anything but them breaking the rules and sticking their hand in the cookie jar only to throw a tantrum when their hand gets slapped. This was a volatile "job" in the first place, if it crumbles in any way it's because it wasn't very well thought out. Getting pissy at Mario Kart 8 just because you can't make money off it or as much money as usual is childish as all hell too by the way.
This isn't too bad actually, there's heaps of people nowadays that would rather watch someone else play an entire video game instead of playing it themselves, which I think is retarded. Game companies should do this more
[QUOTE=Sift;44928870]Thing about the content ID matches was less "it's evil and hurting the lpers :(" but more the fact unrelated shit was striking [B]everything[/B] Music companies were claiming video game videos, and even if say, Capcom said "yo this is fine by us." the musicians who don't care just opened their wallets and let it flow in saying "fuck off nerds this is ours." As stated before this is "Hey we're allowing you to make money off our product. It's now legal. BUT you have to give us a buck." which is way more then what other companies do, when LPers have to trick the search engine to avoid being found then maybe they aren't in the right? (DSP, among others for example would call LA Noire "Detective game by rockstar" or "Dicks with Guns." or whatever came to mind to avoid being found) LPers have no grounds to stand on if they didn't get the official okay to do it, they can cry and strawman all they want- this isn't about free advertising or anything but them breaking the rules and sticking their hand in the cookie jar only to throw a tantrum when their hand gets slapped. This was a volatile "job" in the first place, if it crumbles in any way it's because it wasn't very well thought out. Getting pissy at Mario Kart 8 just because you can't make money off it or as much money as usual is childish as all hell too by the way.[/QUOTE] Basing your income off of Youtube just seems like a bad idea. I'd lose my mind if a couple of videos in succession didn't get as many views as the ones that were released before.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;44929709]Basing your income off of Youtube just seems like a bad idea. I'd lose my mind if a couple of videos in succession didn't get as many views as the ones that were released before.[/QUOTE] It's hard to believe some people saying "get a real job" aren't just saying it to be mean, but instead because this "job" is extremely volatile and small things like that can wind up fucking you up pretty hardcore. Then again you can be a total scumbag and try emotionally manipulate your fans like DSP or Angry Joe or something.
[QUOTE=Sift;44930076]It's hard to believe some people saying "get a real job" aren't just saying it to be mean, but instead because this "job" is extremely volatile and small things like that can wind up fucking you up pretty hardcore. Then again you can be a total scumbag and try emotionally manipulate your fans like DSP or Angry Joe or something.[/QUOTE] The problem with basing your income off of Youtube is that there aren't really any guarantees for income. In fact, you could end up loosing everything and even more. [editline]n[/editline] You could also be like Critical where you make the Let's Plays as a hobby.
I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that Let's Play youtubers should pay companies for playing their games online. The game is not the focus, the youtuber is the focus. People watch these videos because they enjoy the personality that is playing them. Whether it be people that enjoy watching Pewdipie, the Yogscast, Jesse Cox or one of the thousands of other popular Let's Players. It doesn't really matter. People watch them do zany stuff, and it doesn't really matter if they do it in a Valve, Nintendo, Blizzard or some indie game. Furthermore, where does this stop? It's all of youtube, not just Let's Players. Will youtube reviewers have to pay Nintendo to review the game (that they already paid for, mind you)? Will people have to pay Nintendo to play their games on twitch.tv (which also belongs to youtube, now) either casually or in tournaments. And why stop at videos? Will artists and fiction writers have to pay Nintendo when they write some fanfic in the Metroid universe or draw a picture of Mario? Will forums eventually receive cease & desist letters for having in depth discussions about a Nintendo game? This is a scary fucking slippery slope, and what's even scarier is that people don't seem to understand it or care. Companies [b]should not[/b] have a say in how you are allowed to enjoy a product that you bought. The product is [b]yours[/b]. You should not be forced to pay a subscription if you aren't receiving any service. If anything, you are providing [i]them[/i] a service by keeping their product relevant and in the public eye. It's free marketing.
[QUOTE=V12US;44930193]Will artists and fiction writers have to pay Nintendo when they write some fanfic in the Metroid universe or draw a picture of Mario?[/QUOTE] Nothing is stopping them from making it, but something is from selling it. [QUOTE=V12US;44930193]It's free marketing.[/QUOTE] Free marketing for the most well known game company?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.