Microsoft isn't the only company targeting Youtube partners

A few days it came to light that Microsoft had changed it’s Content Usage Policy, basically forbidding anybody to make money using footage of their games, but they aren't the only game company taking earning from Youtube partners...

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
majiebeast2015d ago

Dont get this dont streamers and youtube vids just promote,advertise a game with no costs to the publisher so what if those people make some money of that doesnt cost em a thing.

DragonKnight2015d ago

You know these companies. They have to be the only ones making any money and even though youtube partners aren't cashing in the big bucks with these vids, these companies think that it's money that THEY could be making. What I wonder is, if they want to make money off this stuff so bad, why don't the companies make their own youtube channel do these let's plays and walkthroughs themselves. Win/win if they do it that way. But you know, that would give them credit for being smart and we all know corporations are frickin' retarded.

ChronoJoe2015d ago

The money they'd earn from doing so would be so miniscule it really wouldn't be worthwhile. It's not a particularly profitable endeavour for a business, 99% of yt partners have a day job.

DragonKnight2015d ago

Money is money. They have a problem with people making that miniscule amount after all.

TheRealSpy2014d ago

They are going after a community of people who do what they do because they love it. It's such a shame because without the tiny compensation that they do get, they may not bother at all. Maybe they'll even grow to not love it quite so much...

TheFinalEpisode2015d ago

Exactly! If I recall correctly Minecraft and Slender own most their success to youtube.

A-Glorious-Dawn2015d ago

Yeah if it wasn't for Youtube I would have no clue about slender.

I guess I know who to blame for the nightmares, curse you, youtube!!

vortis2015d ago

DayZ is in the same boat.

Literally, that game would not have sold as much as it did if it weren't for YouTube.

Pushagree2015d ago (Edited 2015d ago )

Because you can't make a profit off of something that is not yours to begin with. MS games are branded ant patented, so that means that every cent their intellectual property creates has to go to the people who created it and own the patent for it. You can't advertise a MS product and expect to pocket the money the you get from it when you don't own the rights to it in the first place.


Surely publicity leading to game sells is more important than youtube money. This is like that pissy kid next door that had all thegreat toys but wouldnt let you play with them, you had to watch the kid play with them...

CockSplash2015d ago

By this same logic, any editing software used to create videos should make the videos belong to the company that made the editing software. You purchase an ability to use it in any way you see fit, including games. It's not like a company can own the rights to how you play the game just because it happens to be uploaded to YouTube.

admiralvic2015d ago

The sad thing is that video game footage isn't eligible for monetization on youtube. It really doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with what anyone says, if it's against the terms you agree to... where exactly are the rights you claim? I mean sure it sucks, but thats how it goes.

DragonKnight2014d ago

@Pushagree and admiralvic: That mentality could extend far beyond what you posted. By that logic a person could not go outside and film their day to day life because it would inevitably show clips of stores, car lots, etc.. with products they do not own the rights to and thus they wouldn't be allowed to make video blogs without censoring out the names of those places. It also means that all videos would have to center directly on the face, be shot with a one color background, and could in no way contain any logo unless it was self-made because then companies would state that the views on that video were from their product and they don't want anyone making money off that but themselves.

Game videos are completely legal under fair use laws, and the money being made is off of clicks and can be argued as such.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2014d ago
Blaze9292015d ago

this article is very, uninformed. That's all I'll say

admiralvic2015d ago

I didn't see anyone mention this, but it's against Youtubes terms to even make money off these videos.

"Your video is not eligible if it contains content that you didn't create or get permission from its creator to use. You need to be able to show written permission for the following video elements:

Audio: recorded music, live performances, cover songs, background music, etc.
Visuals: images, logos, software, video game footage, etc.
Any other content you don't own worldwide commercial usage rights to."

Thats straight from the monetization page. So if you're violating the terms to begin with, why should this matter in any way?

r1sh122014d ago

I got offered YT partner ages ago.
I monetised all my videos, but after a while each just started dropping off.
Activision actively started asking for videos to be removed, or for monetisation to be halted, EA did the same on the few BF3.
Rockstar tried to do the same, but I contacted them and they were cool about it.
The craziest thing about it, Im literally getting minuscules amount of money, its not even worth calling it pocket change.
I pretty much gave up a long time ago, but its too unfair.
The rights of these companies to claim copyright is a little too unfair, I created the 'content' and the events in which they occurred because I played their game like that.
@ChronoJoe - Youre 100% right, when I last checked I had £3.61 or so after having like 3000+ hits with a few clicks on the ads, it just makes no sense for them to chase such small amounts of money.

THey are literally targeting their own communities, how on earth is that even allowed, let alone being very unethical?

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 2014d ago
ZeroChaos2015d ago

I must have missed this but why was Sony/PlayStation used in the tags when there is no mention of them in the article?

bubblebeam2014d ago

I think the flames were already in existence, thus no further spark was needed. I'd say it was more like dropping a can of kerosene onto the flame.

Amazing what they will do for hits, however 'subtle' it is. Just waiting for someone to say "Sony does it too though!!" without reading the article.

Now THAT would be a spark.

Mocat2015d ago

Goodbye red versus blue

Summons752015d ago

RVB will be fine, they are partnered with MS and 343I. RVB is a huge part of the Halo community, they aren't just going to let that die.

psvitamanfan2015d ago

I read the same thing somewhere. apparently you can get a license to use their stuff, but its only going to be the people with the big money who can afford to do it

bubblebeam2014d ago

The Red Vs Blue case is interesting. When they started off, they slowly got more attention, eventualy leading to Bungie contacting them. They said they were scared to contact back, as they were expecting a law suit with them or Microsoft.

When they contacted, Bungie pretty much said it was hilarious and they would love for it to be continued. So they are perfectly safe, and if hypothetically they weren't safe, there would be a huge backlash, affecting the Halo community. Though that is like saying what if hypothetically 2+2 isn't 4?

Sucitta2015d ago

greed greed greed. when will the useless eaters have had enough?

Straightupbeastly2015d ago

You knew it was only a matter if time. When random youtubers make more than the ones that make the game, you know dam well something is going to be done.

And no youtuber should bank on YouTube as their full income because they have no control like they would with their own website, so at any moment they can have their shit shutdown out if their control.

Show all comments (43)
The story is too old to be commented.