Is Nintendo Right to Demand Ad Revenue From YouTubers?

CraveOnline: "For all of their faults, it’s difficult to criticize Nintendo. After all this is a company which, for many of us, fueled our love of video games. They brought us Super Mario Bros. 3 and Metroid in our formative years, before opening our eyes with Ocarina of Time in the late ’90s, drastically improving our college hangovers with 4-player Smash Bros. Melee sessions and then bringing our family together in the living room for Wii Sports bowling sessions. It’s difficult to love a faceless corporation, but I’d wager that many of us share similar feelings for the Japanese gaming giant."

Read Full Story >>
Oculus Quest Giveaway! Click Here to Enter
The story is too old to be commented.
xHeavYx1752d ago

They have the right, but it doesn't mean they are right.

remixx1161752d ago

OK bro I need the secret to dem bubblez cuz DAMN red.

King-u-mad1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

They have the right to be greedy yes... But does it make sense... no. Essentially electric companies should start taking youtubers revenue also. Same with Internet Service Providers... I mean essentially youtubers don't own any of that either. They just pay for the right to use them... just like we do with video games...

HammadTheBeast1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

Here's the thing. Gaming companies are basically getting free advertising from having their games broadcasted to a wide audience WILLINGLY (not ads). So they should be grateful for having this content streamed or played for free. However, they demanded a cut from this free advertising, which is why Angry Joe decided that he didn't want to advertise for them anymore.

And yes, the games being streamed may result in lowered sales (with the Order 1886 or story focused games perhaps), but Nintendo is a company with games focused on GAMEPLAY, they should be fine with this, but they're not.

Pogmathoin1752d ago

It's a two way street, but common sense should prevail. Essentially it's free advertising, Nintendo should back off and let the status quo exist. These people have millions of subscribers, and could easily make this much more negative for Nintendo. They could have harnessed what was being done on YouTube, but in the end, it will back fire.

Rebel_Scum1751d ago

Seriously this "it's free advertising" argument needs to die.

A company has a right to control the use of its IP. What if radio stations stopped paying royalties to artists on that basis? What if television stations just stated playing movies that are still at the cinema without paying the studio?

I'm not saying that it is right, but they should be allowed to exercise that right if they feel they should.

miyamoto1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

Is Nintendo so desperate for cash they even put a toll bridge to pick up on little people for loose change?

That is the most utter greediness I have witnessed in my entire life.
They are merciless.
They have no mercy.
The Ebeneezer Scrooge of gaming.
This thing they are doing are gonna bite them in the ass...real hard!

Intentions1752d ago

Yeah this.

They can, but it will just hurt themselves tbh

Dir_en_grey1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

When you re-edit a movie or somebody else's music, can you resell them as your own without getting a OK or paying fee to the original creator? No.
If you want to bypass that simply just don't show their content.

People are so entitled to freeloading and crapping on other people's intellectual property rights in the gaming industry this whole thing is so messed up.
People are behind Youtubers because they like to watch free content more then anything else.
If people are REALLY there to watch the Youtuber then not having gaming footage would not be an issue at all.

Small game companies might benefit due to not having money to advertise for their games to begin with so it's a win/win for them, but for AAA games I've watched way more videos that I was interested in buying but then said "meh" after I watched a let's play.

Joe also sucks at games actually and watching him play something that I've also played before is especially frustrating. There were many times where he blames something on the game but the problem was actually due to his own incompetency.

How a company advertises their product is their call and a totally right one for the reasons I listed above.

People support Joe cuz they like to freeload.
Hey I like to watch Let's Plays too when I don't want to spend money on some particular ones. But if the whole play-though wasn't available I probably would've rent or buy bargain bin. Either of those the original creators will still get some money.
I'm not against Let's Plays but I also gotta be honest about it.

Games don't create themselves just because it's published by big companies, many many people work their ass off to make games. It's also not magic that keeps the big companies alive, they need money for to make future games too.

Anyway I just wish people would speak honestly w/o twisting logic to fit their own greedy cause.

_-EDMIX-_1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

The main issue with your post is that your using examples of them reselling content.

Thats not really the case bud. Games are played. They are not selling a copy of the game...

What they are doing is streaming the game...that its.

Other publishers have no issue with this based on its free advertising of their games. Nintendo is the only publisher out that seems very much out of the loop in terms of business.

They make soooooo many mistakes every gen, they always have the same hardware issues despite the entire gaming community being pretty vocal on what they should do, the don't buy enough teams yet are surprised they have a weak launch on both 3DS and Wii U.

They made the most last gen yet bought the LEAST teams last gen....yet they support 2 damn platforms....

Because of that, 3DS's launch suffered and Wii U's still currently suffering because of those bad choices.

I'm sorry but Sony and MS do a better job in terms of business for there consumers then Nintendo does. If they can't see that this is actually attacking there consumers and hurting their brand, they are just way, way too slow to get it.

Yet Sony and MS openly support streamers and even have it as a BUILT IN OPTION in both systems....

Sony and MS could care less and publishers love it as all it does is sell games for them. No demo needed, just watch the stream and make your choice to buy and take your time.

Nintendo is slowly digging itself into a grave doing this..

" I've watched way more videos that I was interested in buying but then said "meh" after I watched a let's play"

So should they also stop reviews from happening too? Your CHOICE was to NOT buy that game, that is based on you, not it being streamed. You could have read a review that made you change your mind, you could have played it at a friends house etc.

Should they make controllers with DNA inputs so that way ONLY the person who owns the game can play and see the game so that way you are likely to buy it? LMFAO! I that really a company you want to support? We don't want you to see how bad are game is so we don't want it being streamed? Soooo trick people into buying games sight unseen? lol um sure.

hellothere19771752d ago

You're wasting your breath, man. Much of the gaming community on the internet are low life thieves. I wish someone would simply rob their assed of the stuff they put hard work into and see what they say.

It's ok. Stupid crap like this will bleed the triple A developers to the point only a few studios are left. You can only steal and take so much before the well runs dry.

deathtok1752d ago

Yes! This.

Would people even debate this if someone started playing movies and albums on YouTube but adding commentary? I think not.

Be prepared for an onslaught of the following irrational arguments:

* Made up definitions of fair use
* Stating games are "played" not "consumed"
* Claiming copyright law doesn't apply because "it hasn't been updated in ages"
* Citing examples of broadcast shows that use clips (but apparently don't understand the "used with permission" concept)

Dir_en_grey1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

AngryJoe IS reselling content, though the medium of Youtube. Youtubers are basically freelance workers for Youtube. Provide content and we provide you w/ the ad money we earned for your content.
Youtube blew up at first because of illegal contents, they were legally forced to pay royalties, then they now make sure the royalties falls to the creator side if they chose to use somebody else's intellectual properties.

Reviews are different then let's plays, let's plays literally shows the whole game that most of the time people don't even need to play it to get the satisfaction that people need out of the game.

Like I said I like free entertainment too but at the same time I have to be honest and respect a company's rights to choose their advertising agency and say they don't want any smuck to just show their whole game and make money off some of their potential customers not buying the games.

We are in this situation because there are so many freeloaders in this particular industry that most companies are forced to give up their rights to survive.

There's a layer there that most people are missing because all they care about is their end getting the free content.

Either Youtube or the Youtuber need to pay their dues for using somebody else's intellectual properties because they are earning money though ads and view counts USING SOMEBODY ELSE's content. The argument of "it's free advertising" is only a twisted logic from the side of the looter.

Imagine tomorrow everybody starts printing video game characters on t-shirts and sell them on their own, then when they get caught they claim it's free advertising for the company. that is just stupid. And yes that is also illegal even if a videogame character is just one part of the whole product and doesn't provide you with the whole final experience just by seeing the character on a t-shirt.

There are many parts of a video game and every single part of that, however insignificant you might think that part is, somebody put in hours and hours of hard work in creating that content. It's why we have laws to protect intellectual properties even though most of you guys might not think anything of it. It's hard to grasp the concept because it's intangible, but somebody put in the hard work of creating that intangible thing nevertheless, and should be respected.

Just so we don't get confused, youtubers can show themselves all they want and say whatever they want, it's their own content. They don't have a right to just use other people's intellectual properties/content without permission. So just ask for permission. I think that's reasonable and easy enough to understand even coming from somebody who just wants to watch free videos right? (I hope)

_-EDMIX-_1752d ago

" most of the time people don't even need to play it to get the satisfaction that people need out of the game"

Thats like saying don't watch a friend play it at their house.....

I'm sorry but seeing a game is not the same as playing it, I'm not even going to slightly dignify that its even feasible. Clearly those that even do that are not even gamers as they had no interest in PLAYING the game in the first place.

The game was already bought by the user, that is like saying you can't review, lets place, stream etc despite the user already actually buying said product.

I'm sorry but its not a movie, its not music....its something you physically actually play and can't just be fully conveyed through streaming. If one even does fully convey games through streams and doesn't play them....they are not even consumers to begin with.

Nintendo is just being greedy, bottom line. Sony and MS clearly don't care about this as they even support streams on their systems natively, they welcome the free advertising and publishers are free to even block content or not support the streams if they feel just.....i can't even name a developer or publisher right now that currently doesn't allow streaming.

This same company your talking about again also bought the least teams despite making the MOST money last gen.

Sounds like they are more interested in making money then supporting their own fan base. They don't supply them with more teams and they are now attacking the users that are showing their games....

...again...yet Nintendo is the only one doing this.

Those streamer are not making games, thus they are not talking anything away from Nintendo, in fact they are helping them sell games and clearly bought the product to freely show to other consumers.

Are they scared that people will see if some games coming up are as good as they hoped? What does it matter, a review or even someone else owning a copy will just reveal that anyway, Sounds like they are trying to silence the voice of users who will confirm features and quality of their products after release. I question who supports a company that is worried about that. They should be confident with their products day 1..

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1752d ago
pcz1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

this is merely another thing in the catalogue of things nintendo are getting wrong

Gamer19821752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

There right its there properties at the end of the day but in doing so they are stabbing them selves in the back as its basically free advertising. Nowadays if i'm unsure if I want a game I go on youtube and look at gameplay videos and if i like the look of it I will go out and buy it. Youtube now influences my buys and thats a new thing. Nintendo asking for revenue means youtubers will showcase others games instead meaning less nintendo videos.

At least in theory anyway but there will always be a few channels out there nitnendo only that dont mind sharing revenue with them and they don't mind these new rules so Nintendo will think everybody is okay with these new rules because they will keep it and i can still get my gameplay vids.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1751d ago
OpieWinston1752d ago

Is Nintendo right? Well aslong as big youtuber names like Rooster Teeth are boycotting them, it's just hurting them in the long run.

OtakuDJK1NG-Rory1752d ago

so a big youtuber who just recently started playing Nintendo games is hurting them?

Aloren1752d ago

When a million people watch him explain how they're greedy because they want him to pay them to share the great gaming experience he had with their game, I think he does hurt them.

OtakuDJK1NG-Rory1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )


But who are his audience?
Do his audience like Nintendo?

I am pretty sure his audience whencome to liking Nintendo is extremely small.

OpieWinston1752d ago

IDK how big of a fraction Angry Joes audience is for Nintendo.

But Roosterteeth is A BIG chunk of Nintendo gamers.

There "Lets Play" youtube channel has over 3 Million viewers and they do tons of co-op games which is where Nintendo can get lots of publicity for Mario Kart/Mario Party/Super Smash Bros/Etc...

The Rooster Teeth channel has over 8 million subscribers and they do tons of cool things like "Fails of the weak" and I've played lots of Wii U games, there's some funny fails that give FREE publicity.

Angry Joe may not be a big hit to Wii U but Rooster Teeth is a big hit.

Aloren1752d ago

Well, he's obviously not gonna hurt them with people who like nintendo, they're gonna like nintendo anyway, even if some hate the policy.

However, what's hurting nintendo is the million neutral viewers. Dunno how many would have bought a wii U after seeing an insanely fun gameplay session with their favorite youtuber, but I'm pretty sure it would have been a lot more than after seeing a rant about the company with their favorite youtuber.... not to mention that video got a lot of coverage in gaming media. That's a lot of bad press for a few hundred bucks...

N4g_null1752d ago

It is not part of nintendo revenue projection. It is part of rooster teeths.

You guys can only see things from the point of view of a you tuber fan it seems if you believe that it hurts nintendo.

They actually dont want any unauthorized commercials and people making money off their content. It is that simple.

this may change one day like everything else but right now the youtubers just have to share. If you notice they where the one up in arms about it, taking their money away. Real professionals will keep on making content and add other game types are segments to their show.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1752d ago
SnakeCQC1752d ago

If people bought the console and the game and then spent the time to make and edit a video, hell no. Nintendo can go to hell.

nucky641752d ago

I agree with you....UNTIL those people start receiving money for their vids - THEN, they need to pay some of that cash to the game-maker - BECAUSE, without the games, these fools on youtube are nobodies without those games - and having to work REAL jobs.

no_more_heroes1752d ago

A lot of these guys do have real jobs though. They just do this as a side project.

Aloy-Boyfriend1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

They don't have to give Nintendo anything. They already gave money to them by buying their game and promoting their product, which is even more than what Youtubers earn a day or even a month

and if you think doing Let's plays isn't a real job, then do it yourself. It's not as easy at it looks.

SageShinigami1752d ago

What a joke. The gaming industry didn't even exist 50 years ago. Where'd those jobs come from? We made them up. "Real jobs"? Outside of...what, farmers and doctors, law people and maybe butchers, there ARE no "real jobs".

I feel like this "real job" sentiment exists because these people have figured out how to make money doing something they love, instead of working some trash job they don't even enjoy.

Bhuahahaha1752d ago

so you think they're fools huh why not make some vids yourself and see if you get 10k+ heck make it 100o .its really not that simple.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1752d ago
GdaTyler1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

It IS free advertising though. If I were them I would gladly accept it with open arms as it draws in more potential buyers. The big fuss they are making now is going to bite them in the ass later as it will only make their reputation worse.

nucky641752d ago

games, along with many other products were routinely sold BEFORE the internet came along.

eldingo1752d ago

yes but once the internet came along many things drastically changed for better or worse and with what nintendo has done with it's creator program i can't help but chuckle at the fact they have essentially shot themselves in the foot(figuratively of course) i respect nintendo because it almost never makes a crap game (i'm looking at you Metroid other m) but at the same time even EA and Ubisoft aren't dumb enough to pull this crap so its safe to say while nintendos games are solid what they are doing in regards to youtube and youtubers is a really dumb idea.

Spotie1752d ago

Your arguments are weak.

Remember Siskel and Ebert? They sold a lot of movie tickets, a lot of DVDs and VHS cassettes. You think they had to pay the studios every time they talked about a given movie?

No, because that would be stupid.

The point is: this is free advertising. Nintendo doesn't have to pay a penny, and their games will get exposure to an audience of (potentially) millions. Sadly, that won't always be positive, and it shouldn't: if a game is bad, people deserve to be told about it, right? But that's a risk you take when you're in such a business.

Legally, I GUESS Nintendo might have a case. That said, the difference between games and everything else is that you only experience everything else, while you INTERACT with games. Watching someone play it online is not the same as playing it yourself, and so it'll never be the same as someone streaming a movie or music online.

Let's get rid of that argument, shall we?

hellothere19771752d ago

Spotie, you seriously think Siskel and Ebert didn't have to get clearance to display clips of trademarked footage they used on their show? LMAO.

BTW, these internet thieves are no Siskel & Ebert. S&E were smart, witty, articulate, and fair. They were even smart enough to consult their lawyers about getting rights to play footage from other people's property.

Spotie1752d ago

A) They were just an example. Certainly not every reviewer is smart and witty, regardless of medium. I chose a duo I thought would be recognizable by most.

B) Getting clearance is one thing. Paying for said clearance? That's quite another. And I can pretty well guarantee you that ALL critics do not do this, nor do they- or should they- need to. To do so would invite companies to only allow critics that would praise their works, and I don't think I need to explain what's wrong with that.

N4g_null1752d ago

Its clear that guide lines come with clearance. Even showing footage has to be paid for. This is actually standard practice in entertainment. The only ones mad about it are youtubers. I mean really they think they can scare nintendo in to letting them miss use their ip how ever they please. If they want to protest then do the video for free or just make other videos. That would work for nintendo and them. They get to freeload on some one else and nintendo gets to suprise people again. Plus playing a nintendo game is not the same as watching it.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1752d ago
wonderfulmonkeyman1752d ago (Edited 1752d ago )

It's free advertising that is not having the same effect on Nintendo as it did on Minecraft.
If it were making Nintendo's games into multimillion sellers, Youtubers would have a stronger case.
But it's not. Despite people as awesome as Game Grumps still playing Nintendo games.
That means the more likely scenario is that people are watching Let's Plays instead of actually purchasing the games or the system

The Creator's Progrsm has a lot of flaws, but imo, the split of revenue where the bigger chunk goes to the content creator is the most fair thing it has going for it.
I find the people complaining about that split to be equally as greedy as they claim Nintendo to be.

And as to Angry Joe...
I'd have more empathy for his plight if he had not outright lied about where he got his Wii U.
He said he went out and bought it.
What he neglects to mention is that the money for it was all donated to him.
His FANS bought it FOR him.