Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Nintendo decides it owns YouTube's Let's Play scene
Posts
Yeah I got that impression when he addressed the "get a job" argument (saying "nobody cares about your opinion" as his counter-argument).
Which I did say yesterday and was a total dick about, sorry everyone. But my point is about job security. Having 100% uncontested original content (or a traditional job) protects your income way better than having arguments about who owns video game footage on a site.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
That's something I thought was kinda dumb too, but I think he meant it in terms of actually discussing the law, as it is, and the nitty gritty details, as opposed to legality.
No it doesn't. And therein lies the biggest question.
People are using LPing and the games as a canvas for themselves to paint on, as a job, as a hobby, as something to do for other's enjoyment. Their personality brings in the audience moreso then the game, even if the game is important to the equation and makes the process possible. The games themselves however, though they bought them, are still the IP of Nintendo or whoever else owns the game and it's affiliated elements.
Where is the line of pros and cons between a company letting someone do this kind of thing to advertise their game, generate interest in a viral manner, and support the company's fanbase/community, versus loss of revenue from having people simply watch these things and then decide not to buy a game because hey, I watched it already. Not to mention the lower quality IPs.
Totalbiscuit is appealing to some more emotional things and making some thin arguments, most likely because he's arrogant and invested in the process as a commentator himself, but I still think his conclusion is correct in that companies will probably go for the latter prevention of loss of revenue and will crack down on this stuff, which will be to the detriment of everyone. It will hurt the consumer who wants more info on a game, it will hurt the publishers and devs and company side of things who want to advertise their games and show them off, and it will hurt people who are passionate about creating this free entertaining content (the good quality stuff at least), the most.
So should video games and their LPs have a similar system? I find that highly unlikely.
And in the future I might even try making some LPs of my own.
I don't want Nintendo to set a precedent that ruins that element of the video game community, LP laws or no. There has to be some kind of a middle ground that can be reached here. It's a discussion we need to have and now we are.
If there was a way, however unlikely it is to come about, where I could pay both the person making the LP and the people/company who owns the game and it's IP, I would find that perhaps an ideal middle. But that obviously has it's own can of worms in the form of incentivizing more people to go into this for money and not passion and it can be opened up to abuses by the companies involved. And who knows how much each individual element of it would cost.
Nintendo LPs can still be made is the thing. You can still view them, except in the cases where LPers (not Nintendo) decide you can't anymore.
Totalbiscuit brought up the fact that the content flag system on YouTube is scattershot and that is 100% accurate and a fair point. But it also is not the final straw, it is not a permanent decision. Right now a lot of people are going, "Ah HA! Official review content got flagged!" But I'm sure the official reviewers are already working to get their exemption.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
If I want to use my time and money to make reviews of Nintendo games, and those reviews recieve enough views where I'd be getting paid for it from ads, I don't see an issue with that.
Has Nintendo released any guidelines on what would and would not get flagged?
I imagine some of it is generated by people butthurt still over Nintendo not being hardcore gamerz material anymore or something, and looking for a chance to point and jab at Nintendo.
You can become official by issuing a challenge against flagging.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
Why is GCX Ok and Youtube LPs are not? What's the essential difference? Is nintendo getting a cut every time the Chief boots up his trusty Famicom? Doesn't it seem like there is the potential for a good PR middle ground if Nintendo simply sponsored some of the best American LPs and hosted their LPs on their youtube channel to create an unofficial GCX America? It would then be free publicity that could actually be arguably advertisment, LPers could benefit from a little more stability and the public gets quality LPs (perhaps even have a Miiverse channel for them.) I think being proactive about doing something like this would go a long way to mending Nintendo's PR loss here. Of couse, they probably don't care soooooooo.....
The Internet is full of cognitive dissonance and reactionary sentiments. It was inevitable that an action Nintendo views as protecting it's interests that involves blanket flagging and being less then concrete on what exactly they are trying to do here was going to leave open the door for Reddit and the like to explode in an orgy of Nintendo hate and a desire to cling all the more to the LP status quo, which is a tenuous proposition.
We need to figure this out collectively and find a middle ground. It can be done without hurting the bottom line.
Still, I don't doubt that some LPers will be discouraged from doing Nintendo LPs as a direct result. Even as a hobby, the small advertising compensation might be what makes it viable for them to subsidize their hobby, and removing it could prevent them from continuing the hobby, or at least limiting it to non-Nintendo games as a result. Most LPers aren't exactly bathing in money to begin with. In this case it would be Nintendo's fault and not the LPer's fault, as simple financial reasons might prevent them from doing LPs for Nintendo games.
What causes this is Nintendo's decision to take the advertising revenue, to which the LPers' decisions are reactions. Some will continue to LP Nintendo games, others will not. It is what Nintendo can do, yet it doesn't make it any less of flipping the LPers off.
Yeah, the more industry ties there are, the less objective reviews/first impressions/whatever tend to be. One reason I haven't given a shit about reviews and such for a long time; they just turned into another direct marketing tool that pretends to not be one.
Can you define the bottom line first? You mean people's incomes?
As it stands what people are saying is the 'right' answer is for LPers to make money from ad views but their argument (legally included) is that because there is wiggle room and lack of clear definition, that means it's okay!
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
Well, I'd be surprised if GCX hadn't actually secured the rights from Nintendo beforehand, yes
it probably also helps that Arino has never played a Nintendo game more recent than Super Mario 64
Either Nintendo Europe or America (I forget) already had official playthrough videos for... I want to say either Xenoblade or the Last Story? We can probably assume that didn't work so well.
Bah. Well, it sounded good on paper at least...
Looking through the information on the process of doing this makes it seem like it would be up to Nintendo to allow the reviews to be unaffected. As in you, the reviewer, would have to contact Nintendo, the copyright holder, and they would have to reverse the changes.
If the review isn't a glowing one, what motivation would Nintendo have to do this?
And in what world should Nintendo get the ad revenue from a review of a Nintendo game?
- split the ad revenue
- killed the ad revenue, but didn't take it
In all cases the LPers would still be making less money and I have a feeling they'd be thumping drums and riling up their fans.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
I meant in terms of games being bought by people. I think the biggest problem companies will have with this is that people can go and watch a game get LP'd start to finish rather then buy it from them, and they don't want that. We need to find a way around that problem.
People's incomes from this is also a concern but that's the bigger concern.
I am about 50/50 on LPs in this regard, in the sense 50% of the time I watch an LP, enjoy the game enough to buy it, and then play it myself even though I know what's going to happen; I wanna play it for the gameplay more at that point. 50% of the time, I watch a game like a horror game that I would hate playing or be too scared to play or which would most likely bore me gameplay wise, but which I still want to learn more about and understand why other people, namely the person who'se making the LP, enjoy the game.
Example: Helloween did a Nier LP; I don't like Nier but want to learn more about it so I go and watch his LP of it and listen to him gush on it's strengths and bring up it's less then stellar aspects.
I would like to have the capacity to choose for myself what games merit my money and which only merit my curiousity.
Nintendo is in a unique position in that they're financially invulnerable for at least the next decade, they could execute a nintendo fan in the name of kali and donate the ad revenue of the event to terrorism and be fine.
Not every other company is in that position so it'll be interesting to see how this plays out when EA does this, because they will
Most likely. Hobbyists would probably grin and bear it, especially people heavily invested in Nintendo. People doing it for a living would be up in arms.
Still, the negative impression is present regardless because the Internet as a whole is less then rational, and people would still be discouraged from creating Nintendo content.
The differences there probably just come down to slight differences between US and Japan IP law.
Which begs an even more interesting comparison - How exactly does Nintendo handle stuff that goes on Nicovideo? Presumably there'd be a wealth of material there that uses their IP.
Now I want to know what the difference in IP law actually is.
Also, I thought of something as I was walking home from my exam today.
Under IP protection law, aren't Replygirls basically the same thing as LPers, but "Better" in the sense that they very rarely use actual footage or audio from that which they're commenting on?
Because I see a lot of people very intensely disliking the Replygirl phenomenon, "They get money off the success of others", and though I don't particularly care for them myself, there is basically no legal distinction possible between a Replygirl and an LPer, right?
And lastly, a clarification where I personally stand on the issue:
- I think this type of behaviour has some very worrying implications for further tight-fisted corporate control over all kinds of media, and I'm not entirely sure I'm okay with that.
- There are a lot of established LPers currently that do derive money from their "Hobby", as it were, and I feel it's not quite right to take what may amount to a significant chunk of cash to them from under their feet.
- Furthermore, it has some unsavoury implications for people who might want to get into LPing. The pressure is particularly huge right now to sign up with a company like TGS or Machinima to handle licensing deals for you, shit you wouldn't be able to do as an unaffiliated person but would be forced to get into if you don't want your LPs to keep getting autoflagged. This would only aggravate this issue, and as I do genuinely enjoy the LP scene, (though I have to admit watching videos of Nintendo games isn't that big a part of my daily routine), I do feel like people should not be forced to partner up with a licensing network to do what they enjoy undisturbed.
I'm sure the backlash would not be as extreme, but you are of course correct that those directly effected would probably still be complaining and their fans still complaining with them.
I'm shocked it's taken this long for LPs to come under fire, honestly. When I first encountered LPs years ago, my first gut reaction was, "There is no way this could be legal." Because for me, experiencing the whole game from beginning to end is the whole experience. I don't have to play to feel involved in a game. I am not everyone, but my gut reaction was that something shady was going on there. Monitization of it...that was something I wasn't even aware was going on until Game Grumps. That's...dude, I dunno. That's kind of mind-blowing to me. I think it's kind of cool, but I could totally understand how it could make the IP holder uncomfortable.
I'm still not sure if it's right or not, all I know is that the conflict over the issue was coming and here it is, and some people are surprised by it. I question that surprise is all.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/developer/rules
It's not like they are producing unique content that they spent a lot of energy into producing, they are just having fun playing games right?
*shields up*
Effort isn't the only qualifier for making money.
And making money isn't the only qualifier for putting in effort.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
I think some people have more of an issue not with the LPers profiting, but with Nintendo profiting off the work LPers have put in, leaving the LPers nothing. The difference with Microsoft's stance is that in Microsoft's case neither party is making money, which is in a sense equivalent to both parties making money. That only applies, of course, if you consider an LP to be a combination of efforts of the game producer and the LPer, and not the sole property of one party or the other. Nintendo is claiming ownership of content they've had no hand in making, while Microsoft is essentially stipulating a form of open source philosophy in that their material can be used as long as you don't profit from it, as Microsoft doesn't stand to profit from it either. There is a subtle difference.
That's just my understanding of it however.
I didn't say it was. You asked if they would still be upset. I think they would be.
Agreed. I don't think I'd have any issue with this if Nintendo would just outright block ads on videos that are flagged.
It's the fact they think they should profit off of their fans' work that is the issue for me.
There are just so, so many. People that actually sit there and watch an entire game played just because they're too lazy to play it themselves is just another indicator that humanity is doomed. When you feel like you don't have enough time to play a video game, but then you sit there watching 30+ hour long videos on YouTube of someone else doing it, you've basically reduced the entire act of gaming to a sad caricature of its former self.
Personal story: My brother watched a Let's Play of Bioshock: Infinite. I still to this day struggle to cope with this wanton act of moral decay.
Nintendo should have just removed them all from YouTube and banned everyone making them. Get a jerb, nerds! Stop wasting YouTube's server space!
And stay off my lawn!
*I also feel the same way about streamers, and people that sit there watching game streamers all day instead of just playing the game themselves. They're not people to idolize! They're just regular dicks with webcams and no obligations!
Stable emulators exist for literally every single console except the current generation. Combined with you watching entire playthroughs of games you own and have played through yourself, you've basically encapsulated everything that makes me go:
...concerning rebroadcasting video game content.
But if someone is putting effort into their video and not claiming it for ad money, what reason do they have to be upset? Literally they are not affected.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013
Anyone complaining about this has been acting in violation of youtube's rules for a while now. guess people should actually read the legal notes when they're, y'know, trying to make money.
http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=138161&topic=1115890&ctx=topic
People generally don't like it when someone else makes money off of their work.
Uh..did it never occur to you that not everyone can afford all of the games / systems they want? Or maybe they're not very good at a certain type of game, but nonetheless want to experience the story or atmosphere?
Condemning LPs as a whole as stupid is..well, stupid.
Steam | Origin: MazPA | 3DS: 1848-2888-3654
Wii U and 3DS Codes
When I become a YouTube partner I saw all of that, it was kind of a big deal. I was so surprised to see so many people not paying attention to it.
Well yeah, but Microsoft also reserves the right to profit from your work should it ever become profitable
I guess they might not have ever actually done it but this is basically the same policy?
Take that, Long Plays.
Unmotivate - Updated May 17th - "Let's Complain About Nintendo"
The PA Forumer 'Lets Play' Archive - Updated March 25th, 2013