Nintendo recently decided it would like to take a cut of revenue from anyone posting content on YouTube. Are Let's Plays in trouble or is Nintendo?
Why would let's plays be in trouble just because a copyright holder exercises their rightful right to the royalty? The video creator can still profit from it, and not all let's plays are done for profit.
The problem with Nintendo is that they are abusing their right. Take AngryJoe for example, go watch his video he posted recently about Nintendo and you'll see what I mean.
Nintendo is making a lot of mistakes that are costing them their good reputation, for sure. But Angry Joe is probably the worst example you could bring up to point that out, dude. Joe didn't even buy that Wii U of his. He waited until fans DONATED one to him, before he spent a single cent on anything in terms of games. HE ADMITS AS MUCH IN A VIDEO. And now that he can't have full ad revenue, he's refusing to do any videos of the games on the system. Which is literally him ›spitting in the face‹ of said donator JUST to protest against Nintendo. And the kicker, is that he didn't do many Nintendo videos even before this, meaning him dropping Nintendo games is going to have so little impact on his bottom line that he won't even FEEL it.
@wonderfulmonkeyman: In his pissed off rant at Nintendo, he said he actually spent around $900 on Nintendo hardware so he could do let's play videos with a couple of his friends. Which video did he say it was all donated?
As much as I think Nintendo's actions on Youtube videos will ultimately prove unsuccessful and counter-productive (unless the rest of the industry follows suit), they're perfectly within their rights. Nor does Nintendo take ALL of the ad revenue of the videos in question - just a portion, similar to Youtube and content networks. If Angry Joe wanted to do Nintendo videos and still get paid, he just wouldn't get paid 100% of the ad revenue. He'd get whatever was left after everybody else has had a slice, which is what his bugbear is. I like Angry Joe but I think he's making a bit of a straw man argument here, he could make and be paid for Nintendo content if he wanted to. By kicking up a stink he's getting loads of publicity, which is probably more valuable to him as it's views that count - Angry Joe aint stupid :)
No, the video creators can't profit from it. After youtube takes its 45% cut, Nintendo takes it's 40% and the studio helping the large content creators (such Maker Studios with Rooster Teeth and Pewdiepie) takes it cut, the profit is either negligible or there isn't any left at all.
The issue is that a lot of the people who this is affecting are full-time YouTubers. For them, this is so much more than a hobby. Nintendo taking that extra slice really hurts them. Of course Nintendo HAS the right, but maybe they aren't IN the right.
I love the way you put that. We'll said.
They can get real jobs & not make a living off of other peoples work. Especially without any permission
Just like the reviewer's (site based or YouTube) live off others work? Considering how big video games are on YouTube? Letting these people give us their opinions, experiences and entertainment is their job. If it works for them and it's in demand who the f*** are you to argue with capitalism, jobs and money for the economy? Any job that generates money is a real job in my opinion, and I would rather have the money which doesn't go to Google's ad revenue to go into their pockets, not Nintendo's greedy britches.
And in any other job in a capitalist economy, you still have to pay your suppliers. This is no different. You don't get to rant and rave that how dare they charge you for making stuff using their products and therefore somehow you should get it for free.
@BC Reviews are an accepted form of content that falls under fair use, but even reviews have to abide by the rules of fair use. A review can not show more than what it needed to illustrate the point a particular part of a review is trying to make. Playing a game from start to finish, and adding just a commentary is not a review, but a form of public display...which is not acceptable without permission. One big argument for LP's is that people tune in for the people who do them. They're the entertainment for them. Because of this, it's easy to say that these people are indeed using the content for their own gain, and that argument may actually hurt their cause should this ever go to court. I won't get into what is considered a real job or not, just that LP's and reviews are not the same thing. LP'ers and their supporters should be very careful about the arguments they use, and be very careful about which buttons they want to push. While many companies are willing to accommodate them for now, if they start to think that they are more important than they are, that right could easily be stripped away from them, and we all know YouTube will side with the console makers.
Exactly, get a real job, then you're allowed to bitch.
Nintendo needs to get with the times, they are a greedy, arrogant, backwards, POS company desperately in need of new management.
as someone who uploaded Wii U content. Mario related is the only one claimed out of Wii U amazing library. Why? because it's Mario. You don't see people complaing about Smash vids because Nintendo doesn't claim those.
Well, that's the risk they take by not going for a much more steady line of work, especially considering they're using, altering, then claiming revenue on copyrighted content. The irony of all this, is that most of the big names complaining about this, did not, and still do not, make much money off of LET'S PLAYS of Nintendo games. I can guarantee you that this hasn't had much, if any, effect on the bottom line of Angry Joe or Pewdiepie. They're not complaining because this is a huge hit to their bottom lines, they're complaining because they want all the money, and all the control, instead of just a cut.
Nintendo is totally in the right here. Their copyright, their rules. If professional youtubers really can't live with a smaller slice, they are under no obligation to cover Nintendo, someone else will.
Nintendo has such an inflated ego. They may have rights to their content but their policy is misguided. Free advertising by Youtubers would benefit Nintendo sales.That's clearly a legal department living in the past. Good bye Nintentdo. The 90's called they need you.
They have the right to do this but that doesn't mean they're *in the right*.
Well I think that's the problem... If Nintendo wants a cut of any let's plays of their games and other companies don't want a cut...well, I think we both know who's going to get more coverage. As the Wii U is Nintendo's slowest selling console ever, it might benefit them to loosen up on charging Youtubers so they can get some free press. Then again, Amiibos and the 3DS sales might let them continue on the way they do. Also, one shouldn't underestimate the power of Pokemon and endless IP rehashes that Nintendo can keep shoveling out.
Shiny - I'm going to make my job, commenting about your job. I'm going to make videos all about you doing your job, and I'm going to make money off of it. Off of YOUR hard work. Still cool with it ?
Would my job possibly benefit from the extra exposure of you doing your job commenting about my job? If so then...yes. I'd be pretty damn cool with it. When can you start, you're hired.
Why don't you go make something worth stealing, and have people profit off your hard work while making you lose sales and see what you think about it then.
I would be pretty greatful for the extra free exposure, like most of the other video game companies are.
"While making you lose sales"? Wtf are you talking about? Free press would only help sales.
Also another sign that Nintendo is sinking is that I've noticed that most kids today under 8 years old don't know what Nintendo is. Some know about Mario, but when I ask kids if they like to play Nintendo most of the time they stare at me confused as if I just said a bad word. Kids this days play on their parents smartphones and tablets, and when they learn about consoles usually is the Xbox or Playstation what calls their attention. I think this has become a huge problem for Nintendo.
right..... "don't believe everything you read on the internet"
I ACTUALY have asked kids in school. Didn't read it on the internet. Most kids know what an Xbox is, a little less also know what a Playstation is, but when I ask about the Wii U or Nintendo, most of them have no idea what I'm talking about. My conclusion: Nintendo has an urgent problem to solve. I still haven't seen one sigle add for the Wii U in cable channels like Discovery Kids, Nickelodeon, Disney XD. WTF Nintendo? And at the same time they are killing Youtube exposure to their games? It seems as if they intentionaly want to remain unknown. No wonder why their sales are so low.
@ uth11 And in any other job in a capitalist economy, you still have to pay your suppliers. This is no different. You don't get to rant and rave that how dare they charge you for making stuff using their products and therefore somehow you should get it for free. You pay your suppliers when you go to the store and drop $60 plus tax on their games. You should be able to do what you want after that.
In this case, It seems one does not own the product when bought. I wonder about professional reviewers though. Does Nintendo pay them to review their games? as it is considered free advertisement, or is Nintendo charging them for the clicks, as they are earning money on a review that is based on a Nintendo IP, and therefore should pay Nintendo?
Nintendo making bad decisions is by no means new. The world's full of games made by developers that aren't that dumb that youtubers can play.
I'm sure it's let's players by how much noise they are making.
I'll believe all this free advertisement malarky, when a big name Let's Player, or a group of such people, can do for the Wii U, and at least one of its non-first-party IP's (since they sell off of their brand names and Nintendo's ads), what they have done for minecraft, through Let's Plays. The proof is in the effect: until they can show that it's because of them that Nintendo is seeing any meaningful increase in profits, they're doing little other than getting money for spoiling gameplay content. Which only benefits THEM, until the sales prove otherwise.
I may get hate for this, but in a way what Nintendo is doing is what has been done forever now. A good example? Movies. You don't go and and buy a movie, then show it at your house and charge people $10 a seat to watch it. You are profiting from the work and marketing dollars already spent promoting that movie. If you go out and buy a projector and some fancy audio thinking you will make money on showing new movies somewhere in your house and charge for it, you can only get away with it for so long. Yes, EA, Ubisoft, Sony, Microsoft, etc are not doing this. Maybe they had it in the works, and Nintendo jumped in first. This is probably something Nintendo is experimenting with to see where it can get them. You cannot sit there though, slap a few effects on a video and add the content that has been created and call it your own. Kind of silly that it has taken this long, actually. I felt that it was only a matter of time before a publisher started doing this. This is free advertising? Depends on who you ask. Audi paid the creators of Transformers to feature their cars in the movie. But then you may ask, what if they just used the cars without permission? Well, think of it this way. They will ask for royalties. And ton's of it. Doesn't matter if you are "marketing" and you feel you that you did them a favor. Fact of the matter is, you used a product they created and did R&D on, in YOUR PRODUCT, without permission. Its like developing a game. You don't go out, get a license to Unity and then start creating a game with assets and music from lets say, Star Wars, and call it your own. You'd be in a world of legal hurt. Putting at the end of your game "You can buy this track here <link>" will not change that fact. Fact is, you used an asset that you deem necessary for your product to function, and that asset was created by another party. That party has every right to claim royalties, since they already have invested their time and energy creating it. If it wasn't for their content, you wouldn't have a product, get it? Unless you go out and create your own, this is business. Youtubers are using content that has been created for their PRODUCT. Yes, it is a product because they are making money off ad revenue. I've seen some go as far as selling merchandise as well. When that is the case, guess what? You're a business now.You may hate on Nintendo all you want, but they are a business too.