Log in or sign up to comment
186 Comments
  • 186 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Edited by TheSouthernDandy

@hailinel said:

@thesoutherndandy said:

@hailinel: Dude, did you read what I wrote? I KNOW this isn't shady that's what I just said. I know Nintendo is within their rights that is not the point I'm making at all. Again, read that article. Or don't. Whatever floats your boat.

I misread what you wrote. I apologize.

But my point that people don't need to be paid to make these videos still stands. If you base your career on the use of copyrighted material without consent, you're asking for trouble, plain and simple.

No prob.

The thing is, these LPers will be totally fine, that's part of the reason arguing about the effect this will have on them is so not the point. They'll just play something else, continue to get paid and those games get free press. Nintendo will continue to make poor decisions based on old school thinking and fall further behind.

And to be clear, I do have a youtube channel but I don't do Lets Plays or anything remotely like them, don't plan on it, I don't even watch them.

Posted by TruthTellah

@hailinel: They could have sent a cease and desist, but they'd have been foolish to do so. Plus, it would have only been a request. They're within their rights to try to influence how their product is used, but just because they can make a request doesn't mean Giant Bomb or any Let's Players are automatically copyright violators. That's silly.

If a company wants to prove that Let's Play videos are inherently illegal, they're free to try, but they would be mistaken. Some Let's Play-like videos may turn out to violate copyright, but the format itself is in no way inherently illegal. And Giant Bomb and people who make Let's Play videos shouldn't be called copyright violators as though they're some kind of criminals. They're not, and in one's zeal to defend Nintendo's business decisions, making such allegations is inappropriate.

And I would reject the suggestion that this is somehow "common sense", as it quite clearly is not. It's a difference of opinion on an online business decision by a Japanese company. As with any other topic on Giant Bomb, we can discuss this respectfully without resorting to demeaning comments and random allegations.

Posted by Alekss

Sony seems to be the only company that will allow stuff like this on youtube seeing as they have that chip installed on the PS4

Posted by Hailinel

@hailinel: They could have sent a cease and desist, but they'd have been foolish to do so. Plus, it would have only been a request. They're within their rights to try to influence how their product is used, but just because they can make a request doesn't mean Giant Bomb or any Let's Players are automatically copyright violators. That's silly.

If a company wants to prove that Let's Play videos are inherently illegal, they're free to try, but they would be mistaken. Some Let's Play-like videos may turn out to violate copyright, but the format itself is in no way inherently illegal. And Giant Bomb and people who make Let's Play videos shouldn't be called copyright violators as though they're some kind of criminals. They're not, and in one's zeal to defend Nintendo's business decisions, making such allegations is inappropriate.

And I would reject the suggestion that this is somehow "common sense", as it quite clearly is not. It's a difference of opinion on an online business decision by a Japanese company. As with any other topic on Giant Bomb, we can discuss this respectfully without resorting to demeaning comments and random allegations.

I'm not arguing that the format itself is illegal. The format itself does not inherently violate copyrights. It's no different than MST3K in that regard; it's just people talking over someone else's work. The difference is that MST3K had to pay for the right to broadcast the films that they wished to use. When I buy a video game, I'm buying it with the expected purpose of playing it on a home console or handheld for my own personal use; not broadcasting myself playing it on the internet for profit.

Online
Posted by TruthTellah

@hailinel: And why are you badgering Darji? Why must you question his intentions while ignoring what he is saying?

I may not agree with Darji very much, but he's at least courteous-ish. He has shown a willingness to listen and try to hash out things even when they're contentious. So, even if I disagree with him, I am at least willing to hear him out and not treat him poorly. You're just being disrespectful to him and talking like he's a idiot, and that's not alright. That's not a credit to you. You're passionate, but you can still be reasonable and civil. I don't see why you can't be that in this situation as well.

Posted by Hailinel

@hailinel: And why are you badgering Darji? Why must you question his intentions while ignoring what he is saying?

I may not agree with Darji very much, but he's at least courteous-ish. He has shown a willingness to listen and try to hash out things even when they're contentious. So, even if I disagree with him, I am at least willing to hear him out and not treat him poorly. You're just being disrespectful to him and talking like he's a idiot, and that's not alright. That's not a credit to you. You're passionate, but you can still be reasonable and civil. I don't see why you can't be that in this situation as well.

I badgered him with that question because it's a simple one to answer, and yet he continually refused to even acknowledge it. He could say that he has no personal stake in any Let's Plays produced and that would be that, or he could say that yes, he does have a personal stake in them in some capacity and expand on that. Either way, It's not a difficult question or some meticulous trick.

Online
Posted by Landon

@hailinel said:

@darji: If their jobs revolve around exploiting copyrighted material without consent, they're asking for trouble.

Giant Bomb seems to be doing just fine.

Edited by TruthTellah

@hailinel: Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is wrong. And it's certainly not right to characterize them all as copyright violators. Giant Bomb are not copyright violators just because they aren't expressly asking for permission on every Quick Look they make, and the same for Let's Play creators.

I can understand why someone might defend Nintendo's business decision, but that's still no reason to attack the format itself as the OP did or attack those who dislike this decision as you have. Let's Play creators are not criminals, and they shouldn't be talked about as though they are. They're people like you and me trying to make a living doing something we don't make a living doing. And that can be okay. Because people are different and things we don't understand can be okay. I can't imagine a job doing what the Giant Bomb guys are doing, but I can respect that they've found a way to make it work for them.

I don't believe Nintendo is doing something illegal here, but I do think it is highly counter-intuitive. And I will continue to suggest that it is a mistake on their part. You are free to believe it is fine and dandy, but I hope they change their minds. Because while this may impact some Let's Play creators, it will mainly just give them bad press and sour a formerly good relationship with those who have been actively promoting their games for years through the content they make. Let's Plays are good for gaming, and I hope Nintendo will hear that from many gamers around the world and realize that it is true.

Posted by troll93

@casper_ said:

i wonder if this will have any effect on smash tournament streams.

also forgive my ignorance but how is this different than MST3K or quick looks for that matter where the material is being parodied or critiqued? does MST pay to use those films or is it covered by fair use?

As far as MST3K, they had to licence every single episode with the owner of the film. For this reason, you can't buy a complete collection of MST3K, they don't have the rights to release the videos on dvd/vcr. The new venture of those guys have managed to find a way around this by just releasing the mp3's that you then have to sinc up with your own copy of the video.

A lot of people also seem to be missing that this is Nintendo for Nintendo games. I would be more than confident that the number of people who bought super mario galaxy or Zelda after watching a let's play is so insignificant that it doesn't really hurt them that much to do something kinda retarted like this. When they realise a game they are able to spend millions on advertising and in truth, most people to would watch a let's play will end up seeing an add for the game anyway. So when you say that it is going to get rid of huge amounts of free publicity, I would say not really. That publicity is preaching to the converted you by far and away already know about the game being advertised.

Posted by DarthOrange

Giant Bomb is basically just "Let's Play the Website." This is very uncool of Nintendo.

Posted by TruthTellah

@hailinel said:

@truthtellah said:

@hailinel: And why are you badgering Darji? Why must you question his intentions while ignoring what he is saying?

I may not agree with Darji very much, but he's at least courteous-ish. He has shown a willingness to listen and try to hash out things even when they're contentious. So, even if I disagree with him, I am at least willing to hear him out and not treat him poorly. You're just being disrespectful to him and talking like he's a idiot, and that's not alright. That's not a credit to you. You're passionate, but you can still be reasonable and civil. I don't see why you can't be that in this situation as well.

I badgered him with that question because it's a simple one to answer, and yet he continually refused to even acknowledge it. He could say that he has no personal stake in any Let's Plays produced and that would be that, or he could say that yes, he does have a personal stake in them in some capacity and expand on that. Either way, It's not a difficult question or some meticulous trick.

You didn't have to be belligerent about it and you know it. Your question just came off as an attack more than a genuine curiosity. The suggestion being that you suspected he had ulterior motives for disagreeing with you. I'm sure you've ignored a dumb question someone has asked you before. And in this case, you just happened to incessantly ask him a dumb question while ignoring the rest of what he took the time to right in response to you. It was unkind and unnecessary.

Plus, I'm not completely sure English is Darji's first language; so, it was probably even less clear to him. Instead of attacking and demeaning him with a simple question that ignored his actual opinion, you could have just dropped the question or moved on. Just because you disagree here doesn't mean the exchange has to be made more and more hostile.

Posted by Hailinel

@hailinel: Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is wrong. And it's certainly not right to characterize them all as copyright violators. Giant Bomb are not copyright violators just because they aren't expressly asking for permission on every Quick Look they make, and the same for Let's Play creators.

I can understand why someone might defend Nintendo's business decision, but that's still no reason to attack the format itself as the OP did or attack those who dislike this decision as you have. Let's Play creators are not criminals, and they shouldn't be talked about as though they are. They're people like you and me trying to make a living doing something we don't make a living doing. And that can be okay. Because people are different and things we don't understand can be okay. I can't imagine a job doing what the Giant Bomb guys are doing, but I can respect that they've found a way to make it work for them.

I don't believe Nintendo is doing something illegal here, but I do think it is highly counter-intuitive. And I will continue to suggest that it is a mistake on their part. You are free to believe it is fine and dandy, but I hope they change their minds. Because while this may impact some Let's Play creators, it will mainly just give them bad press and sour a formerly good relationship with those who have been actively promoting their games for years through the content they make. Let's Plays are good for gaming, and I hope Nintendo will hear that from many gamers around the world and realize that it is true.

I never said that the format itself is wrong. Nor do I characterize all Let's Play producers as criminals. I've watched the occasional Let's Play in the past (as well as the GB ERs) and in general find them entertaining, (though Youtube content quality is always hit or miss). The problem I specifically have is with Let's Play producers and fans suddenly bristling with the notion that they're being wronged by not being allowed to profit off of them.

Let's Plays are content that are inherently dependent on the content of others. Not everyone whose content is subject to a Let's Play will object to its use, monetized or otherwise. But when rights holders do object, it's within their every right to do so. And if you've built your career on creating and monetizing web content based on the content of other people without the expressed consent of those people, I'm not going to feel very bad for you if that revenue suddenly starts to dry up.

Online
Edited by big_jon

I watch a fair bit of Nintendo LP's, so this bums me right out.

Posted by wjb

It stinks and maybe Nintendo shot itself in the foot, but I don't see a problem with this.

I suppose it depends on who Nintendo is targeting, though. If it's a 5-minute video review or an hour long impression, that's one thing, but if it's someone essentially recording a game from start to finish, that's another. Excuse my ignorance, but that's my experience with "Let's Play" walkthroughs, at least; that's what I associate with the term "Let's Play." I don't care either way, but "good PR" can be done without playing the entire game. If Nintendo is targeting anyone -- even a 10-second video to show how to get a star in Mario -- then yeah, that's a little too much. Playing devil's advocate here, but It could be argued that the money Let's Players don't make on Nintendo games can be "advertisement" for the ones they do.

People may buy games based on recommendations from YouTube, but sometimes there are also people who don't buy games because a walkthrough of it is on the Internet. Even if the former greatly exceeds the latter (and it probably does), that's all Nintendo cares about. They'll say the former is inconclusive (which it kind of is), and even though the latter is too, the idea is enough to take action.

Edited by StarvingGamer

People can be upset about this, I guess, but all this outrage is fucking stupid. This has been a long time coming. It has never been a matter of "if" and always a matter of "when", no matter how much people exploiting this content tried to make believe otherwise.

Also great writeup.

Posted by Fobwashed

I agree with the OP. They are doing it, and well within their legal rights to do so. And I don't believe it hurts them in the slightest.

Gamers will buy the games they want to play regardless of how they feel about the company's that publish them. Full stop. The easiest example to point at in regards to this is that boycott Modern Warfare thing that went down a while back. Even if I don't like certain things about Activision or EA, if they put out a game I want to play, I'll play it.

The people who say shit like "Now I'm gonna pirate it instead of buying!". Bullshit. This is just a better excuse than the original one which was prolly just "I just don't wanna pay because I can play it without doing so" and they can feel better about themselves even if they're still in the wrong both ways. So basically, everyone that wanted to play the game, will still play it and anyone who was going to pirate or pass, will still do so.

The advertising for big name games that are released from Nintendo by these Let's Play type things seem negligible. For smaller or indie titles, I can totally see these as being very helpful but new Nintendo games and specifically the one's they are going for, are already a known quantity. If anything, more ppl prolly watch these and decide to not buy and just watch than decide to go out and buy it themselves. I'm just armchairing it here but bottom line is. They can, and they did. Move on =D

The drum beating is prolly from the people who do Let's Play as a source of income and they see this as a threat to their current way of generating money but shit, being allowed to stream them is a privilege, not a right. You can't stream any other form of media whole hog and get away with it, so why would you expect to be able to do it with games? Meh.

Posted by JazGalaxy

Personally, I'm way into Nintendo, and other developers, doing this.

Nothing will shoot the "video games are movies you watch with a controller in your hand" trend in the womb faster than everyone just watching other people play the game for free on the internet. There's a growing number of those games that are almost no fun to play because the developers were too focused on the "Story". As a result, people are saying "why would I want to play it when I could watch it? Same thing."

Posted by Hailinel

@hailinel said:

@truthtellah said:

@hailinel: And why are you badgering Darji? Why must you question his intentions while ignoring what he is saying?

I may not agree with Darji very much, but he's at least courteous-ish. He has shown a willingness to listen and try to hash out things even when they're contentious. So, even if I disagree with him, I am at least willing to hear him out and not treat him poorly. You're just being disrespectful to him and talking like he's a idiot, and that's not alright. That's not a credit to you. You're passionate, but you can still be reasonable and civil. I don't see why you can't be that in this situation as well.

I badgered him with that question because it's a simple one to answer, and yet he continually refused to even acknowledge it. He could say that he has no personal stake in any Let's Plays produced and that would be that, or he could say that yes, he does have a personal stake in them in some capacity and expand on that. Either way, It's not a difficult question or some meticulous trick.

You didn't have to be belligerent about it and you know it. Your question just came off as an attack more than a genuine curiosity. The suggestion being that you suspected he had ulterior motives for disagreeing with you. I'm sure you've ignored a dumb question someone has asked you before. And in this case, you just happened to incessantly ask him a dumb question while ignoring the rest of what he took the time to right in response to you. It was unkind and unnecessary.

Plus, I'm not completely sure English is Darji's first language; so, it was probably even less clear to him. Instead of attacking and demeaning him with a simple question that ignored his actual opinion, you could have just dropped the question or moved on. Just because you disagree here doesn't mean the exchange has to be made more and more hostile.

To be honest, his responses repeatedly felt weak. His strongest argument (if you want to call it that) at one point was to post a Youtube video of a Let's Player explaining fair use (as if this is not a biased opinion in some way?). And even in the case of that video, the guys explanation of fair use is faulty. He asks how movie reviewers could exist. Well, most movie reviewers traditionally don't use footage of the films in their reviews (as film reviews have historically been a text-based medium), and those that are televised, such as on Ebert's television show, use promotional footage provided by the studios.

Online
Posted by wjb

@truthtellah: @hailinel: Not picking sides, but from another person's perspective, Darji did start off with this weird intensity to the conversation that was a little off-putting. OP made good points and was dismissed since he wasn't "famous" or whatever, like that matters.

I joked earlier, but I give OP credit for the points he made. He/she deserves more than "you don't know what you're talking about because you aren't a YouTube celebrity."

Edited by Sergio

@darji said:

Again FAIR USE..... Maybe you should read and watch the articles and videos we are giving to you.

You can write "fair use" in all caps, but this doesn't mean this is fair use. The guy in the video you posted doesn't know what parody means. Joking around while playing a game is not parody. Playing a game from beginning to end does not constitute a review that is protected by fair use. At the Movies would show clips of a movie provided by the studios, Ebert didn't show the entire movie as part of his review. Fair use allows for a portion of the source material to be used, not the whole thing, as part of criticism. I can't play an artist's song and follow it up with a review and claim fair use. His description of a game being different for everyone is somewhat correct, except when a game has a storyline with plot points that most, if not everyone, will hit. As much as he likes to claim this is a transformative work, it looks a lot more like a derivative work if they are playing from the beginning to the end while only providing their own commentary and feedback throughout.

Posted by BlazeHedgehog
@wjb said:

@darji said:

@hailinel said:

@darji said:

@hailinel said:

@darji: If their jobs revolve around exploiting copyrighted material without consent, they're asking for trouble.

Where are these common sense people you are talking about?^^

Also again most publishers are totally fine. As for example Indies have huge sales increases because of this. Square Enix gave 100 LP and streamer early copies of FFXIII-2 without any regulations. They just had to play this game and then tell what they think about it. Capcom does the same. Hell they even do their own LP's from time to time. Yes Nintendo has all the right to do it but they are stupid if they do it because they are losing a ton of coverage and free Pr and instead gaining a lot of negative PR. Not even EA and Co do this stuff. So yeah Nintendo is worst than EA XD

People like @blazehedgehog. Read this thread.

And who is this guy? Is he important? Famous? Does he have any influence?

He has 1000 posts. He's kind of a big deal.

Also: "YouTube celebrity," lolololololol.

What is this even supposed to mean?

Posted by stonepawfox

i am biased here because i have known people who became involved in the whole "talking over video games for money" scene and i will admit there is some measure of envy in my disdain for their choice of money gaining venture. especially when you watch the evolution of one who purportedly likes a game enough to produce videos because that is what makes them happy, to someone who is completely absorbed in the economic side of things and no longer really cares about the game itself. it makes me unhappy and has continuously made me hate youtube as everything has become more and more commercialized.

what i'm saying is, i don't feel bad about this at all. i don't care to see people profit from talking over playing video games. as much as i am loathe to admit it, i found AVGN funny at some point in the past, and although that is a similar affair, i feel like i have a lot more respect for that operation. sure he spliced in a lot of video game footage but the essence of the work was live action and had some semblance of a plot or joke buildup in the episode. i'd be ok with that making money i guess, though i still wouldn't complain about copyright owners putting an end to it (because that's just the way it is).

i don't know how right people are in this thread saying that LPers are doing a lot more work now on their videos but as far as i am concerned from what i've seen, they still are prettymuch just playing the goddamn videogame and being unfunny. how hard is it to get a bunch of teenagers to click your stupid video to see A VIDEO GAME BEING PLAYED with a soundtrack of lowest common denominator video game jokes? i thought the point was to do things because you enjoyed it, and maybe if you are being greedy, because you like the attention that youtube views get you. it's all part of the internet being homogenized into the greater commercial nature of this world and i'm so sick of it. seriously, watching people play games and sitting through ads all so they can be paid money? for unoriginal content that doesn't even really need to be good as long as it appeals to teenagers with an internet connection? it's entirely bullshit anyway. if they want to do it then they should do it without ads in the first place. legitimate video game websites and businesses like giantbomb don't exactly match up with 1 or 2 dudes in their late 20s getting money for posting on youtube. you realize that people at giantbomb are actually employed to do their jobs, right? sure video editing is hard, but do you want to equate what Vinny or Drew does with a fucking lets play video? who are you people?

so that's the end of my spiel about that.

other than that i think that people saying this is nintendo shooting itself in the foot are some kind of delusional armchair economics philosophers because in what universe do you think that this is really going to affect nintendo, whose company predates LP videos by uh, at least a couple decades? complaining about it being shitty is one thing. fabricating complete bullshit to justify your outrage is another.

Posted by Sergio

Giant Bomb is basically just "Let's Play the Website." This is very uncool of Nintendo.

With the exception of Endurance Runs, the original intent of Quick Looks would probably have been OK. TNT usually don't involve the story line of games, so that could be OK as well. If they were to play a whole game on Unprofessional Friday, then that would fall into the "Let's Play" model, but they generally do several things during the show and not a single whole game.

Posted by wjb

@blazehedgehog: I was poking fun at the other guy. He was dismissing you since you aren't a developer or celebrity.

Posted by TruthTellah

@hailinel: When badgering Darji, you stated that you were wondering why he would "go to these lengths to defend copyright violators." Which implies that Let's Play creators are all copyright violators, as they are the only ones he has been defending. You've been talking as though these people are criminals that no one should feel anything for, and I reject that notion. It is reasonable for some people to defend Let's Play creators and even have empathy toward people who feel like a corporation is trying to harm something they care about.

You may close your heart to these people who care about something you don't care about, but I can see how they would regard this as an attack on what they do. Consider how they might feel to have a company stripping away revenue that they've gotten used to. It's understandable that they might be bothered by that, and I think it makes sense for them to try to get people to pressure the company to change their mind. I do think it would be difficult for them to make some kind of legal challenge, as it's a murky area that generally does fall on the side of the big corporation, but right now, they're just trying to get people to express displeasure with this and make a case for why Let's Plays are actually good for the industry. That doesn't seem to me like something worthy of tearing down or demeaning. They have plenty of reason to want to push against a decision like this and convince Nintendo to go a different route. Just because a company can do something doesn't mean it should do something.

So, while you may relish or just not care that these people are losing some of their revenue from videos like this, I can relate to their concern over a company doing something like this to a fanbase, and I don't believe it even makes good business sense. I think this can only go poorly for Nintendo, and I hope that it does. Because I'd rather side with gamers and fans on this one, and I don't think it's crazy for others to feel for them and maybe even be unhappy about this. I'm not big into Let's Plays, but I know plenty of gamers who are. And if they're worried about an action threatening that, I'm willing to hear them out and respect their opposition to such a threat. You may think Nintendo is great to finally crack down on Let's Play creators, but I and many others will simply have to disagree. I hope they will hear people's concerns and change their mind on this.

Edited by TheSouthernDandy

@stonepawfox: You're right, Nintendo is totally fine sailing the course they've set, they haven't been losing money or under preforming or misjudging the direction the games industry is going. No sign of that juggernaut slipping anytime soon.

Nobody here is outraged or saying that this decision is going to bring the company crashing down. It is however, yet another decision that more then a few people have said is a bad one (and if you think it's only LPers saying it you're completely off base) in a line of bad or strange decisions that's put them where they are now.

Posted by Karkarov

@hailinel said:

To be honest, his responses repeatedly felt weak. His strongest argument (if you want to call it that) at one point was to post a Youtube video of a Let's Player explaining fair use (as if this is not a biased opinion in some way?). And even in the case of that video, the guys explanation of fair use is faulty. He asks how movie reviewers could exist. Well, most movie reviewers traditionally don't use footage of the films in their reviews (as film reviews have historically been a text-based medium), and those that are televised, such as on Ebert's television show, use promotional footage provided by the studios.

To add on to this statement I will also mention the Nintendo specific outrage is moronic to begin with. Do you really think this is just Nintendo people? If it is why do I have content matches submitted by Namco-Bandai on my Dark Souls let's play? Are let's plays free publicity? Sure they are. But do you honestly think Nintendo needs let's plays to sell a new Zelda or Mario? Does EA need let's plays to make money on Battlefield 4? Every dev coming out loving the free advertising is a small time indie dev for a reason. It is because they can't afford to advertise, aren't well known, and live or die on word of mouth. Nintendo does not have this problem, let's plays likely have little to no significant impact on their sales. They aren't the first real publisher to do this and they won't be the last.

As for the video games as work? No it isn't. The pointing at endurance runs doesn't work either because Giant Bomb staff also runs a podcast, goes to cons, does interviews, does actual reviews, does fun office/staff videos, community live streams, writes news stories, etc etc. It is a little more than a "let's play" going on here. As for the work it takes? Please. Most Let's Players do no more than point a web cam at themselves and capture the game and themselves talking while playing. Editing that together once you have done it a couple times is actually very, very, very easy. Just about no let's player I have ever seen has videos that would take more than 2-3 hours to cut together tops. Most wouldn't even take that long.

More power to Nintendo, was it a smart internet popularity move? No. But I am willing to bet it was a smart business move.

Posted by Slag

Unfortunately I think US law is pretty clear on this. Nintendo has every legal right to do this, that doesn't mean they should exercise it but they certainly can and apparently have. I personally wish they wouldn't as it stifles creativity in my opinion as well as potentially disenchants some of their most passionate fans. But I'm going to bet Nintendo has done the cost/benefit analysis of this and they have determined that this measure approach (Take the monies but still let people make their vids) is best for them.

I know the Movie companies are even crazier about it. It's been a while since I was in a movie club, but it routinely cost us 300-500 per movie to show them to a crowd of 20 or so and we didn't charge admission or take sales of any kind. Kinda surprised it took the Nintendo this long to crack down. If this works you can bet EA etc will soon follow suit.

Is what it is.

Never knew Egoraptor was that popular. What do people see in the guy?

Posted by stonepawfox

@thesoutherndandy: what a witty remark! however, i would say that -if- this is a bad decision in the vein of other bad decisions they've made, it's about 1/1,000,000th the severity. not even in the same plane of existence. so your charming and original sarcasm about nintendo's poor business decisions doesn't really fit for me.

frankly i think the amount of people who this will change any real opinions about is extremely minor. nintendo's fanbase is pretty large, wouldn't you say? probably composed of a lot of non english speakers and people who don't give a shit about lets plays? so that combined with the however sizeable proportion of lets play viewers and producers who really don't care probably constitutes a drop in a bucket for them.

so when you look at a product you've created and realize that product is being used in a three way split between the lion's share going to youtube, some money for the companies that advertise earning revenue, and some for the video producers, would you not be kinda pissed off about it? because it isn't for fun anymore on youtube, it's for straight up fucking money. and i think nintendo would be stupid not to treat it like what it is.

Posted by stonepawfox

@slag: i think people like egoraptor because yelling and butts are funny!

Posted by TruthTellah

@wjb said:

@truthtellah: @hailinel: Not picking sides, but from another person's perspective, Darji did start off with this weird intensity to the conversation that was a little off-putting. OP made good points and was dismissed since he wasn't "famous" or whatever, like that matters.

I joked earlier, but I give OP credit for the points he made. He/she deserves more than "you don't know what you're talking about because you aren't a YouTube celebrity."

As I said, I don't agree with Darji very much and I'm not going to claim to fully understand what or why he is saying what he is. He does seem to give a pretty intense initial impression. But I do think Hailinel was not helping the situation. And I disagree with the general demeaning tone toward those who might simply disagree with or be unhappy about this. It isn't just common sense to think Nintendo is right in doing this. People care about different things than we do, and it's alright for others to be upset about something even if we don't share their same level of concern.

And while I think the OP is considerably misguided, I do think it's a fine post that doesn't just deserve to be brushed off. While it's fair to possibly say the OP isn't the same as the top Let's Play creators, that doesn't make his opinion invalid. I think the issue here is with the difference between whether Nintendo -can- or -should- do this, and despite the level of arguing, I think most of us agree that they can do this. We just have our own opinions on whether they should do this. Personally, I feel it's a bad decision that they will hopefully reverse.

Posted by Levio

I've found 3 hour youtube videos of the entire story of BioShock Infinite and Injustice. That honestly feels like theft. Piracy comes with a big "hey this could be immoral, consider the consequences first" stigma, but youtube videos present the same content as if this is totally legitimate, which it isn't.

Of course LPs aren't necessarily that spoilery, but there's no way a publisher has the time to check each video for amount of game content being spoiled in the video.

It's too bad that there's no happy middle ground here, because LPs can be pretty fun to watch.

Edited by vince_kupo

I'll throw my two cents on there as well.

First: I bought Minecraft, Orcs must die, Symphony, Legend of Grimrock, Game Dev Tycoon and others because of let's plays. I started playing free to play games like League of Legends, Dragon nest, S4 League, Tera Online, Rayderz, Neverwinter, etc because of let's plays. I know I may not represent the majority of people, but I'm sure I'm not the only one that bought games and or/ spent money on F2P games because of Youtube videos.

Second: Yes editing is not easy. I made 2 mod trailers and it took me about 3 to 4 weeks to complete them. I also did some let's plays about a year ago, and that also was taking a good amount of time to do (from the recording to the editing).

Are Let's Play good for the industry? Yes, just look at the impact TotalBiscuit had in the indie scene. Game devs give him development build so he can cover their game. Should LP get payed for their work? Yes. Much like the game industry, the game journalist industry is changing. Youtubers have an increase impact on customer decision when it comes to buying games. Major gaming site have to change their approach on covering games or they close down. Simple as that. I think Nintendo is shooting itself in the foot by preventing LPers, who put time and effort in making videos, to make money out of their work. Youtube videos is like word of mouth; you get free advertisement for you products. Why cut off that free advertisement? Let's be honest, youtoubers will just cover other companies games and the one who will loose in all that is Nintendo.

Posted by Slag

@stonepawfox: is that what it is?

My first impression of him came from that god awful PSN reality show the Tester, so maybe I haven't the best he has to offer.

Edited by TheSouthernDandy

@stonepawfox: Well thanks :) I wasn't going for charming but I'm glad it came across that way.

I agree that this specific decision isn't a huge one and I'm not arguing against the legal ramifications of it. I do think you're misjudging the size of those communities though and how comfortable Nintendo is right now. They're struggling, the Japanese market isn't what it was and they can't afford to be pissing people off especially on the verge of the release of the other two boxes that are far more powerful, the 3rd parties are already leaving the WiiU and the new systems aren't even out yet. The days of the Wii selling a butt ton of units are long gone, the casual market isn't there, the core market is barely there, who's left? The 3DS is finally doing well but it doesn't have the competition that the WiiU is about to have (i'm setting aside mobile).

I'm not saying Nintendo is on the verge of collapse, or that this is a massive misstep, but it's more of the same troubling decision making that's put them here. A drop in the bucket isn't much but when you add up all those drops the bucket starts getting pretty full.

Edited by Icicle7x3

Maybe Nintendo doesn't want free advertisement from idiots that shout constantly and make rape jokes?

I know that doesn't apply to every LPer, but a few bad apples can spoil the bunch.

Posted by Sergio

@vince_kupo: I don't think anyone doubts that they're good for smaller developers and indy games. However, saying that this is bad for Nintendo is a dubious claim. They already advertise their games on television, print, and web sites. They already receive ample coverage from web sites and the few print publications that still exist. The number of Nintendo published games sold solely due to a Let's Play video where the viewer has zero knowledge of the game beforehand is significantly lower than many of these other games people list.

This is a bit of an overreaction followed by an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

Posted by stonepawfox

@thesoutherndandy: i think you're assuming a lot about things that haven't happened yet, like assuming the ps4 and xbox will be successful out of the gate and take business from the wiiu demographic, assuming the wiiu which has been out for not even a year won't recover, which they can, even without EA's involvement. if you want to set aside mobile then why even have a discussion about nintendo's overall success and public image? you also ignore that fact that the japanese economy is improving for consumers right now. but okay!

i honestly don't even think this would be a drop in whatever bucket they are accruing drops in. more like condensation on the outside.

mostly i just wanted to bitch about how i hate youtube money and the people who try to get it. aaaanyway

Posted by TheSouthernDandy

@stonepawfox: Yeah it's an assumption that those systems will sell more then the WiiU but I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption unless both companies just colossally screw up. I doubt that's gonna happen. The Wii was a huge success because of the casual market and it's pretty clear that market isn't there anymore, or they've moved on to something else.

I set aside mobile because I wanted to compare just what's available currently for handheld systems which is essentially Nintendo and Sony and the Vita isn't doing great. If you really wanna include the mobile market we totally can but that doesn't really help prove your point, that market is pretty soundly kicking everyones ass.

And yes the Japanese economy is definitely improving but that market has been less important then the western and european market for a long time, bad economy or no.

Like, I haven't made anything up here, I'm not pulling facts out of my ass and trying to pass them off to make myself feel better. I like Nintendo, I want Nintendo to do well. It doesn't change the fact that they've been pretty much boning up every decision they've made based around the internet since the launch of the Wii. That's another pretty well known fact.

As for hating people on youtube...I dunno dude. *shrug*

Edited by TruthTellah

@sergio said:

@vince_kupo: I don't think anyone doubts that they're good for smaller developers and indy games. However, saying that this is bad for Nintendo is a dubious claim. They already advertise their games on television, print, and web sites. They already receive ample coverage from web sites and the few print publications that still exist. The number of Nintendo published games sold solely due to a Let's Play video where the viewer has zero knowledge of the game beforehand is significantly lower than many of these other games people list.

This is a bit of an overreaction followed by an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

I think you have to look beyond just the basic advertising nature of it. This is not that bad for Nintendo from a purely advertising or awareness-based perspective; though, it's reasonable for Let's Play creators and their fans to play up that angle in trying to convince Nintendo to change their mind. The issue is less that this will genuinely hurt Nintendo as a functioning company and more that it hurts the brand a bit in a way that they shouldn't want. Nintendo can do this, and I think many Let's Play creators would agree that it is legal. They just don't agree that it's right or advisable, and they're using whatever arguments they can to possibly convince them to not do this. Not all of the arguments have much water behind them, but for someone who cares about this form of entertainment, it makes sense for them to be a bit upset by this and try to convince Nintendo to take a different course of action.

Obviously, what Nintendo is doing is not near as egregious as what SEGA has been doing with something like Shining Force, and Let's Play creators and fans have always been concerned that more companies might choose that level of draconian action. Yet, though this is -less- of a threat than systematically taking down any video that even mentions a game, Nintendo is still embracing a business decision that is likely to harm Let's Play creators, thus harming those who also enjoy those videos. Pretty much every Let's Play creator will be fine without Nintendo games, but if Nintendo continues on this path, people are well aware that it encourages other producers to do the same. Because if Nintendo can get away with it, they'll think it's a nice middle ground that won't draw as much of a backlash as simply taking down videos. Yet, that would ultimately harm the Let's Play community as a whole and pose a much bigger threat to something many gamers take for granted.

If people make a big push now, they can at least show that gamers will -not- just quietly accept corporations doing this, and if they can get Nintendo to back off of it, they might just help prevent other companies from trying to do the same. That's part of why this may be so important to some people, because it represents a bigger threat than just a few Nintendo videos. It could be something that inherently threatens a style of online video entertainment many gamers enjoy, and that's certainly worth getting into a bit of a fuss about.

So, while I'm not as uproarious as some, I feel for their concerns and hope that Nintendo will make the wise and considerate decision to back off of this.

Edited by Rapid

It's even worse with SEGA, they have not only made a copyright claim but have been known to totally block the videos from being viewed world-wide on YouTube.

Edited by vince_kupo

@sergio said:

@vince_kupo: I don't think anyone doubts that they're good for smaller developers and indy games. However, saying that this is bad for Nintendo is a dubious claim. They already advertise their games on television, print, and web sites. They already receive ample coverage from web sites and the few print publications that still exist. The number of Nintendo published games sold solely due to a Let's Play video where the viewer has zero knowledge of the game beforehand is significantly lower than many of these other games people list.

This is a bit of an overreaction followed by an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

I was about to write something to explain a little more what I meant, but I guess I'm gonna wait and see on that one. The only thing I'm gonna say is this, indies are direct competitors to Nintendo, because while people are playing indies or smaller studios games, they are not playing Nintendo games. If Nintendo wants to manage their own advertising by cutting LPers,fine, but they should be aware that they will have a tough competition with indies and the free advertisement they get from Youtubers, We are moving into really interesting times. I'm curious how the years to come will pan out..

Posted by Hailinel

@sergio said:

@vince_kupo: I don't think anyone doubts that they're good for smaller developers and indy games. However, saying that this is bad for Nintendo is a dubious claim. They already advertise their games on television, print, and web sites. They already receive ample coverage from web sites and the few print publications that still exist. The number of Nintendo published games sold solely due to a Let's Play video where the viewer has zero knowledge of the game beforehand is significantly lower than many of these other games people list.

This is a bit of an overreaction followed by an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

I was about to write something to explain a little more what I meant, but I guess I'm gonna wait and see on that one. The only thing I'm gonna say is this, indies are direct competitors to Nintendo, because while people are playing indies or smaller studios games, they are not playing Nintendo games. If Nintendo wants to manage their own advertising by cutting LPers,fine, but they should be aware that they will have a tough competition with indies and the free advertisement they get from Youtubers, We are moving into really interesting times. I'm curious how the years to come will pan out..

Indies are direct competitors in terms of software on the market, sure, but Nintendo has also been working with indies as of late to get more games on the eShop. The tone coming from indie devs, by and large, has been fairly positive, in terms of their relationship.

Online
Edited by vince_kupo

@hailinel:

I would like to see on which platform most indies make their money. I don't think it's on a Nintendo console, but I could be wrong. Like I said I'm really curious on how things will develop from now on.

Posted by Sergio

@sergio said:

@vince_kupo: I don't think anyone doubts that they're good for smaller developers and indy games. However, saying that this is bad for Nintendo is a dubious claim. They already advertise their games on television, print, and web sites. They already receive ample coverage from web sites and the few print publications that still exist. The number of Nintendo published games sold solely due to a Let's Play video where the viewer has zero knowledge of the game beforehand is significantly lower than many of these other games people list.

This is a bit of an overreaction followed by an over-inflated sense of self-importance.

I think you have to look beyond just the basic advertising nature of it. This is not that bad for Nintendo from a purely advertising or awareness-based perspective; though, it's reasonable for Let's Play creators and their fans to play up that angle in trying to convince Nintendo to change their mind. The issue is less that this will genuinely hurt Nintendo as a functioning company and more that it hurts the brand a bit in a way that they shouldn't want. Nintendo can do this, and I think many Let's Play creators would agree that it is legal. They just don't agree that it's right or advisable, and they're using whatever arguments they can to possibly convince them to not do this. Not all of the arguments have much water behind them, but for someone who cares about this form of entertainment, it makes sense for them to be a bit upset by this and try to convince Nintendo to take a different course of action.

Obviously, what Nintendo is doing is not near as egregious as what SEGA has been doing with something like Shining Force, and Let's Play creators and fans have always been concerned that more companies might choose that level of draconian action. Yet, though this is -less- of a threat than systematically taking down any video that even mentions a game, Nintendo is still embracing a business decision that is likely to harm Let's Play creators, thus harming those who also enjoy those videos. Pretty much every Let's Play creator will be fine without Nintendo games, but if Nintendo continues on this path, people are well aware that it encourages other producers to do the same. Because if Nintendo can get away with it, they'll think it's a nice middle ground that won't draw as much of a backlash as simply taking down videos. Yet, that would ultimately harm the Let's Play community as a whole and pose a much bigger threat to something many gamers take for granted.

If people make a big push now, they can at least show that gamers will -not- just quietly accept corporations doing this, and if they can get Nintendo to back off of it, they might just help prevent other companies from trying to do the same. That's part of why this may be so important to some people, because it represents a bigger threat than just a few Nintendo videos. It could be something that inherently threatens a style of online video entertainment many gamers enjoy, and that's certainly worth getting into a bit of a fuss about.

So, while I'm not as uproarious as some, I feel for their concerns and hope that Nintendo will make the wise and considerate decision to back off of this.

I completely understand what you're saying. While I don't agree with Nintendo's action, I'm not a consumer of Let's Play videos, so it's hard for me to really care one way or the other. I can only look at the issue as objectively as possible.

Edited by ManMadeGod

I think this is total crap. Yes, people can argue that Nintendo has the legal right to do this, but does that make it right? I feel that this could have huge implications for other consumer goods. Once Nintendo sells me their product, I should be able to sell it to a friend or record a video of me playing it. I'm a little surprised at people defending Nintendo in this thread.

Edited by Icicle7x3

I think this is total crap. Yes, people can argue that Nintendo has the legal right to do this, but does that make it right? I feel that this could have huge implications for other consumer goods. Once Nintendo sells me their product, I should be able to sell it to a friend or record a video of me playing it. I'm a little surprised at people defending Nintendo in this thread.

You still can...Nintendo isn't stopping you from doing either of these things.

Edited by Brackynews

@believer258: @truthtellah: You both raise the perspective that the recording of gameplay could be legally interpreted as performance art. One through the uniqueness of the actions and decisions, one through the accompanying editorializing. I do study copyright law and I find this idea could have the most merit within the existing definitions of "works". (Gah, editing posts on iOS is a nightmare. Anyway to complete my thought...)

As has been mentioned already on the first page of this thread with overdubbing movies, it is the newly created performance that is applicable to be protected as original, in whatever way that performance may prove to be defensible as a new work (writing, audio, visual, etc.) Naturally it cannot apply to the broadcast of the copyrighted music or the art assets within the game. Music will always be the easiest takedown notice on Youtube. Talking over music doesn't make it not the same music.

But the concept that gameplay does not inherently exist on a chip or a hard drive, and it must be performed, uniquely, every time... that is some intriguing shit. That says that how Mario looks and moves is divorced from how he is made to move. That is the difference between watching MTV and Make My Video. :) It really does nothing to override the moral rights of the content owner (i.e. Nintendo), but it distinguishes every capture into a unique work. You couldn't say all Mario 64 speed runs ever recorded are legally identical, unless you say that all permutations of the rendering engine are also copyrighted the moment they exist. That seems so broad brush and technically imprecise, doesn't it? If that was the defence, nothing else would matter at all. The buck stops there with the video signal.

Think about a complete asset swap of SMB: New art, new music, new level design, but the same basic mechanics. Now record that new thing. The recording is the output of the game engine, not the engine itself, not its code, it's recording the player's decision to run left instead of right... If it looks and sounds nothing like the original, how can the raw mechanics of "Mario's jump" be stolen by recording when the player decides to jump... Fascinating.

But I'm still not going to turn on monetizing on my channel.

Edited by MentalDisruption

Gotta agree with the original post. I'm not seeing why this is such a huge problem. If you're a LPer and you don't want to give your ad money to nintendo then just don't use their games for LP's. It's not like there's a shortage of non-Nintendo property to use. If you're in the boat of being a Nintendo fan and wanting to share your enjoyment of their games on youtube then why would it matter if they get the ad revenue for it. The only real issue is the possibility of this setting a precedent, but if these video makers believe so strongly in their free publicity argument then that shouldn't be a worry until there is actual evidence of it happening. I doubt this will catch on though. As others have said, many developers and publishers have had a chance to do this in the past, but didn't. Nintendo is just doing their thing like usual.

Posted by Superkenon

I'm a bit disconnected from it all, so how exactly do LPers make money off their videos? Ads? Sponsors? Magic?

I always figured it was something more akin to donations or merchandise, ala the Abridged Series folks -- keeping their revenue separate from the actual property they're leveraging. Are the LPers blocked from taking even this kind of route now?

  • 186 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4