Hello, Profile Stalker

AKR

Contributor
CRank: 20Score: 184470

The NintenTube Fiasco ~ A Slap In The Face or a Fair Step to the Future?

AKR|4038d ago |Blog Post|25|

Unless you've been living under a rock these past few weeks, then you more than likely have already heard that Nintendo has introduced a brand new YouTube program that allows YouTubers to register single videos or their entire channel with Nintendo, whereby they can upload videos that feature (approved) Nintendo content and receive a percentage of the generated ad-revenue.

From since its inception, many have called-out Nintendo on this move, from various users across several websites, to big-time YouTubers like PewDiePie. The general comments paint the picture that many are not happy with this program, not even the seemingly always happy and cheerful "Pewds". Despite the outcry, however, Nintendo has continued with the program, and has even reported that they're having trouble keeping up with all the applications that are being sent in. With that said, it seems quite obvious that despite the general "thumbs down" towards this, it's flourishing.

Now then, despite being such a touchy topic, I wanted to give my two cents on the situation, and let me start by saying this:

You people are looking at this the wrong way.

▶ The Legal Leaps

I've found it quite interesting how with all the complaints that have been thrown at Nintendo over this, it seems that (generally speaking) - everyone has a case of "convenient amnesia". I say that because it seems that hardly anyone remembers the fact that all Nintendo is doing is controlling the creation of content that features games with characters that they, oh, you know, own? (Shocker!)

Seeing that Nintendo are the creators and publishers of the games in question, is it really all that bad that they want a cut of the profit that people are making from THEIR games? I mean, by that logic, I guess companies like Disney and Sony Music should just sit quietly when someone decides to use one of their movies or songs and make money off of them.

Here's a fun fact people; when you buy a game, you're simply doing the same thing you do when you buy a DVD or music album; buying a piece of entertainment. You own your own copy for you to, well, *entertain* yourself with. Isn't that interesting?! So then, where does, recording footage of said entertainment-piece fit into that little situation?

Oh, right, it doesn't.

You see, what the Let's Play community has been doing (which people don't seem to realize), is that they're making money from content they don't own. Yes, they may have bought the game, and if they're really big - they were probably GIVEN the game - but at the end of the day, the game doesn't BELONG to them. With that said, when they record footage of the game, regardless of which, and upload it to YouTube and receive ad-revenue from it, they're technically in the same boat as someone who records a movie and burns copies and sells them, or someone who buys a music album, dumps the songs, and burn copies and sells them.

Now how, exactly? I mean, it's not like Let's Players are selling copies of the games they're playing, right? No, they're not, but, they're still making money off of them.

But what about the free advertising?! - True, when a YouTuber uploads footage of a game, he's sharing a hands-on experience with thousands of people. That experience can effectively drive people who may not heard of the game, or people who weren't sure, to go ahead and make the purchase. Yet even so, for every view he gets, that's also another drop of revenue getting forwarded to the YouTuber's bank account.

What Nintendo is doing is simply gaining revenue from their own content. Forget the free advertising; it's still their game. If they didn't make the game, the YouTuber wouldn't have any footage, and without any footage, there would be no video, and if there's no video, then what about the YouTube Channel? Oh yeah, right, *POOF*!

▶ The Civil Complaints

Now then, let's get to the people who are complaining. Another interesting point I've picked up on is that while their may be a lot of people who are downing this program, I have to ask; exactly how many of you are active YouTubers, and more importantly, how many of you run a Let's Play YouTube channel?

I mean, don't mind me, but, I thought that if it's anyone who should be upset, it's you know, people who are ACTUALLY being AFFECTED by this?
But hey, that's just me!

Speaking of which - let's get to you Let's Players. Now, I already made mention of the fact that you're getting money from content that's not yours, but I have a question for you; is this REALLY your day-job?

Now don't get me wrong, making videos is no easy task. I would know; I've been doing it since I was 9. Yet even so, I can't seem to grasp the idea of actually doing this as a living. I mean, movie producers and music video directors - yes, they can do that. But, a YouTube channel where you're just playing games and doing commentary as a job? That's, well, crazy.

Now, I'm sure you're probably thinking: "Look at PewDiePie! That dude is loaded!" Yes, he is. He makes about $4 million a year; a number many of us can't obtain in 5 years, and probably never will. He's a very fortunate fellow, but, just because he can pull a high-score like that, doesn't mean anyone with a camera, mic and game controller can.

At the end of the day, doing LPs as a living is rather crazy. Not to mention that should any publisher decide it's time to get a fair share (or all-share) of the revenue from their own product, then, there goes your 'day-job'. What Nintendo is doing may seem mean to some, but, they're only doing what they have the right to do. Just like how you can't upload a movie, or TV show or music video without permission, then neither can you expect to make money off of a video game that you didn't make without some consequence. Sure, the gaming industry is more laid back on the matter than the TV, movie and music industry; but, that doesn't mean that Nintendo (or any other publisher that decides to step up to the plate) is wrong for doing this. Sure, I do agree that they need to make some improvements to the rules that they currently have, but still, it's not a completely terrible start.

To be honest, I think that any LPers who are being affected by this should be HAPPY that Nintendo is actually willing to SHARE the revenue, and not just that, they're giving you the BIGGER half. That's generous. While some may say its less than what similar programs offer; it's still better than what they were previously offering. In case you didn't know, let me give you a hint (DMCA).

PiNkFaIrYbOi4038d ago

Good read, agree with you. People that aren't directly affected by this should shut up.

Even those that are affected by this, shouldn't complain too much as you said they don't own the material that they are using in their videos. Should just be happy that Nintendo is willing to do this.

We wouldn't be surprised that most other publishers start doing the same thing any time now.

SilentNegotiator4038d ago

https://iplsrutgers.wordpre...

Let's Play videos are fair use. This is extortion, plain and simple.

randomass1714038d ago (Edited 4038d ago )

If this is all true then Nintendo should be taken to court so as to set a legal precedent that Let's Plays are fair use. The issue is that fair use has clauses that do lean toward LPs but they have not officially been recognized as fair use the way parody and commentary are supposed to be.

garrettbobbyferguson4037d ago (Edited 4037d ago )

The first point given is that "most let's plays have the people talking about the game"

That is already false. Many let's players do not talk about the game at all. Instead they attempt to add in their own comedy. Within that same paragraph "let's plays are not for profit". Also false. Let's plays are definitely for profit, which is how many of these youtubers have built themselves up.

They already do not fall under fair use if we're judging by the definitions given in that link. So what you say is wrong.

DragonKnight4037d ago

"Many let's players do not talk about the game at all. Instead they attempt to add in their own comedy."

First of all, citation needed. Second of all, assuming that that's true that would fall under transformative work which DOES fall under Fair Use.

"Let's plays are definitely for profit, which is how many of these youtubers have built themselves up."

Profit is irrelevant as if it were relevant than parody and critique wouldn't be allowed because parodists and critics make money off of their work. That falls under a transformative work, which falls under fair use.

LPs are definitely fair use. The one and only argument that can be made against LPs is in the case of heavily story driven games. The case can be made that an LP would then take away any incentive for people to actually buy the game and experience the story for themselves. So for example a game like Heavy Rain being LP'ed can be very damaging as people would then have no reason to actually play the game themselves. But something like Super Smash Bros. has to be played in order to understand the experience. You can't watch someone playing it and really experience what it's like.

garrettbobbyferguson4037d ago

"Citation needed"

See any gamegrumps, roosterteeth or pewdiepie video. It can be argued that Roosterteeth provide hints with their achievement hunter guides. Their let's play channel however; as entertaining as it is, is simply playing a game while having banter with each other. GameGrumps from what I've watched is the more of the same, with there being less relevance to the game and just crude jokes. But we're not here to discuss quality.

"Profit is irrelevant"

I'll stop you right there. Profit is entirely relevant. Because the entire point of let's plays is to generate profit. This profit is being generated using someone else's content and advertisements. You bring up the topic of parodies, but let's plays aren't parodies. They aren't transformative work either; they shouldn't be at least. Because the original work isn't being altered in any way shape or form.

SilentNegotiator4036d ago

You obviously don't watch "many let's players" if you think that "most" of them don't talk about the game "at all".

DragonKnight4036d ago

"See any gamegrumps, roosterteeth or pewdiepie video. It can be argued that Roosterteeth provide hints with their achievement hunter guides. Their let's play channel however; as entertaining as it is, is simply playing a game while having banter with each other. GameGrumps from what I've watched is the more of the same, with there being less relevance to the game and just crude jokes. But we're not here to discuss quality."

I don't watch any of them so I guess I wouldn't know. But I do know of Pewdiepie and the point of his videos is not the game, it's his reactions to the game. That's what's making the money for him, not the game itself. That's why it's considered commentary, that's why it's a transformative work. In fact if PewDiePie were discussing only the game, he'd in fact be making money off the game and not his own commentary.

"I'll stop you right there. Profit is entirely relevant. Because the entire point of let's plays is to generate profit. This profit is being generated using someone else's content and advertisements. You bring up the topic of parodies, but let's plays aren't parodies. They aren't transformative work either; they shouldn't be at least. Because the original work isn't being altered in any way shape or form."

Profit is irrelevant to the definition of Fair Use. I repeat, if it were relevant then parody and critiqued wouldn't be allowed any more than anything else. The fact that these people bring their personalities, their unique takes on experiencing something, and their own brand of entertainment makes it a transformative work as no two people will experience a game in the same way. You've fallen into the "Let's Plays aren't really work because all you're doing is playing a game" trap that ignores a lot of the work the more successful LP'ers put into their videos. That work is real, quantifiable, and in this case in demand. Therefore because it is in demand, it's worthy of being paid for doing. The game is just a tool, the person is the sale.

caseh4035d ago (Edited 4035d ago )

I figure i'll chime in and add that if this entire topic wasn't truly about profit, then why would anyone object to Nintendo or any other company gaining royalties from monies gained?

This clearly isn't a matter of ethics, morals or rights, it's greed regardless of which side of the fence you're sitting on.

DragonKnight4034d ago

I think too many are misunderstanding my point about profit.

I'm not saying that profit, in general, doesn't matter. I'm saying that in terms of what is or is not fair use, profit is irrelevant. I'm saying that if profit were relevant to what is or is not fair use, then parodies and criticisms wouldn't be any more allowed than commentary. Fair Use is more about the right to use something than it is the right to make money off it at its base, but the right to make money enters when people are there for what is added (the commentary, critique, or parody), not what is just there (the game).

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 4034d ago
UnwanteDreamz4036d ago (Edited 4036d ago )

Lets play are not protected under fair use. Lets plays are copyright infringment especially when the entire game is shown.

You couldn't do it with a football game or a movie but it should be okay to make money off of copyrighted materials you don't own and without the expressed approval of the owner.

One day leaches who do not creat anything but comentary will drive true artists away. All those lets players would drown in their mediocrity of not for the copyrighted material they use.

Anyone who thinks that it is fair use has absolutely no umderstandimg of copyright laws. Lets play videos are made up of more that 50% copyright ed material. Making money off of them is copyright infringement. Plain and simple. The only thing keeping lets players out of court is public opinion and popularity. Make no mistake laws are being broken and intellectual property stolen.

DragonKnight4036d ago

Mojang would like to have a word with you. As would pretty much any successful indie developer.

garrettbobbyferguson4038d ago

I'm actually working on a blog regarding this subject also. Glad to see other people's opinions that aren't just "BOO NINTENDO GIVE ME MONEY FOR MY VIDEOS"

rambi804037d ago

Nintendo is free to do what they want with their property, that much is true. But the path they have chosen with this does not do them any favors at a time when they are struggling for relevance. There are so many other platforms for LPs that i don't see why anyone would bother.

OmegaShen4037d ago

It's just a dumb idea, just another nail in Nintendo's coffin and did anyone see the list of Nintendo games they don't want videos of? That this program is only for select titles.

Its pretty dumb and is keeping me from doing Nintendo videos on my YouTube channel.

randomass1714037d ago

Actually I think that is a list of games you are allowed to do with Nintendo's approval? And that is only if you dedicate your whole channel to Nintendo I think. Nintendo has not really communicated the whitelist all that well and it is way too small. How can they allow Wii Play but not any of the Smash games?

AKR4037d ago (Edited 4037d ago )

Because the Smash games are made by various developers, and not to mention Brawl and 3DS/Wii U feature stages, characters and music that all belong to third-party companies. That's the same reason why they can't put a soundtrack up for sale; too much licencing hoops.

Show all comments (25)
20°

Ninja Gaiden 4: The Two Masters DLC Arrives on March 4

Tom Lee, Creative Director, Team Ninja: "We’re excited to announce that The Two Masters DLC for Ninja Gaiden 4 will be released to ninjas of all skill levels on March 4, 2026! This story-driven expansion continues Yakumo and Ryu’s battle against fiends that once again threaten to take over the world. After completing the main story, players will unlock new story chapters that push both characters into battles against even deadlier enemies, challenging bosses, and new trials that will test the skills of even the most seasoned master ninja."

Read Full Story >>
news.xbox.com
40°

Metacritic Removes Resident Evil 9 Review From Fake AI Writer

Kotaku writes: "A Resident Evil Requiem review published by long-standing UK gaming news site Videogamer has been removed from Metacritic after readers pointed out it was written by a fake AI journalist who doesn’t actually exist. Videogamer‘s human masthead was gutted last week, sources tell Kotaku, and the site has been publishing apparent genAI slop ever since."

1nsomniac50m ago(Edited 49m ago)

Genuinely well done on metacritic for taking such an immediate hard stance. Not often, if at all, you see that these days. Credit where it’s due.

20°

Report: New York sues Valve over loot boxes

New York attorney general Letitia James called loot boxes 'quintessential gambling.'

Read Full Story >>
gamedeveloper.com