102 replies to this topic

[Shane]

But Nintendo had their own channel, I'm perfectly sure they knew that this was happening.

[Koh]

But Nintendo had their own channel, I'm perfectly sure they knew that this was happening.

Just because you have a channel, that doesn't mean you can't be ignorant about how the features of said site works.  I didn't even know exactly how the monetization worked, because I never bothered to use it.  I knew I couldn't make money off the stuff I record, because it's not my stuff (most of the time.  I have recorded my own works every now and then, but it's not worth trying to sell THAT stuff.)  Then I found out...every 1,000 views is $1.  So the extremely popular LPers who are monetizing, that net like 100,000 views per video upon initial upload, are already making hundreds of dollars that really shouldn't have been made in the first place, due to the content not being theirs, and not having a contract with the creators of that content.  Youtube even warns you about possible legal consequences of monetizing off of content that isn't yours before you even start using it if I'm not mistaken, so they knew full well what they were getting themselves into once they did.  It's like turning on the stove in the kitchen to a high temperature and expecting to not get burned once you've touched it.  How naive.

Edited by Koh, 23 May 2013 - 08:19 AM.

[Shane]

Pretty sure a company like Nintendo would have known about LP partnerships and LPers getting money.

[Koh]

Pretty sure a company like Nintendo would have known about LP partnerships and LPers getting money.

If they did, they probably would've done this a lot sooner, don't you think?  Why would they wait until a lot of the money that would normally have gone to them disappeared first?  Doesn't make sense from a business standpoint.

[Shane]

Not all of Nintendo would agree Koh. The world isn't one sided. They may have went through a lot of decisions and discussions. They may have acknowledged that most of their reputation might be destroyed or even worse; their fanbase.

[Koh]

I don't think it's as bad as people make it out to be.  All this does is prevent you from making money off of broadcasting an entire game you didn't make to the world without a contract first.  You can STILL make these videos like you normally would and have people watch them, you just won't be accruing money from it.  If all you really want to do is show off the game and talk about it while entertaining people, this shouldn't bother you in the slightest.  Nintendo isn't even as hurt from this as people make it sound.  Just watch the number of sales that'll happen once their fabled games are released.   It'll be like nothing ever happened.

Edited by Koh, 23 May 2013 - 08:38 AM.

[Nimono]

Okay really, I don't understand this at all. I read the article linked to in the first post, and what I took from it was "Nintendo is giving people who LP their games the option to make their ads only display Nintendo-related things". I don't understand how what the article says means "Nintendo is stabbing LPers in the back". THEY SUPPORT LPERS! Proof? The Runaway Guys! They did a mini-LP of NSMB2's Coin Rush mode BECAUSE NINTENDO ASKED THEM TO! This tells me that they support LPers and see them as a great way to market their games; let them make their videos, and people might get interested in their games. I mean, c'mon, it's solely because of them that I bought Fortune Street.

 

NoeL is correct about what LPs are like. They're not like movies where's it "see once and you never have to watch it again", but every person has a different experience with them because you actually decide what's done every frame outside cutscenes. Do you go left in this frame? Or do you go right? Perhaps you go down this ladder instead, or up into the clouds! Everyone has a different experience and seeing someone play the same game is nothing like playing it yourself.

 

Although, I do disagree with him that Nintendo is stabbing LPers in the back because it doesn't sound at all like they're even trying to shut them down, and instead would rather work with them.

[Avaro]

I never would have guessed you can earn money out of Youtube. I'm glad about what Nintendo did here, because I do not think that Lets Players should earn money, by just showing people content thats not even theirs.

[Koh]

"Your video is not eligible if it contains content that you didn't create or get permission from its creator to use. You need to be able to show written permission for the following video elements: Audio: recorded music, live performances, cover songs, background music, etc. Visuals: images, logos, software, video game footage, etc. Any other content you don't own worldwide commercial usage rights to."

 

So basically, they dug their own grave from the beginning.

Edited by Koh, 23 May 2013 - 01:38 PM.

[aaa2]

To sum everything up so far>

-Nobody watches a lets play to replace a game with it, so its a non-issue.

-Nintendo is very smart about getting cash from it (lets see if it will last)

-Nobody here honestly believes that nintendo just recently found out things in youtube can be monetized(even my grandmother knows this much, Nintendo has a lot of employees that do not live on the moon)

-Nintendo earned their share by the copy the LPers bought no need to be greedy but at the same time smart to be greedy

[grayswandir]

-Nobody here honestly believes that nintendo just recently found out things in youtube can be monetized(even my grandmother knows this much, Nintendo has a lot of employees that do not live on the moon)

Rather than saying Nintendo just found out about monetizing videos, I'd say that they just decided there was enough money moving around that it was worth their time stepping in. The amount of money being moved around isn't exactly immediately obvious, you actually have to do some work to get at it. I could see Nintendo thinking that the LPers were making around $5 a month and it really wasn't worth their time, until some employee actually bothered to check exactly how much was being made.

On the other hand, I'm hard pressed to ever dismiss stupidity or ignorance as the cause of something. (Occam's razor and all that.) I find it entirely believable that nobody in a position to do anything about it actually understood how monetization worked.

Edited by grayswandir, 23 May 2013 - 04:42 PM.

[aaa2]

Rather than saying Nintendo just found out about monetizing videos, I'd say that they just decided there was enough money moving around that it was worth their time stepping in. The amount of money being moved around isn't exactly immediately obvious, you actually have to do some work to get at it. I could see Nintendo thinking that the LPers were making around $5 a month and it really wasn't worth their time, until some employee actually bothered to check exactly how much was being made.

On the other hand, I'm hard pressed to ever dismiss stupidity or ignorance as the cause of something. (Occam's razor and all that.) I find it entirely believable that nobody in a position to do anything about it actually understood how monetization worked.

If you want to use Occams razor i would rather say Nintendo probably knew about all that(why wouldnt they they had a channel themselves thus must have know how much is paid?). I think they probably just had to decide with both marketing and lawyers. Probably before that either any of those wasnt done with the assessment or they just did not bother.

(i think this is much simpler because this is how any sane company that wants to make cash would act)

Edited by aaa2, 25 May 2013 - 04:24 AM.

[Nicholas Steel]

I've never seen an advertisement on Youtube for several years now, at least not one that can't be bypassed by simply turning off annotations.

Edited by franpa, 25 May 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[NoeL]

except for them gaining the knowledge of (almost) all the contents of the game, which they would have had to have PAID to see.

Again, people don't buy games to SEE them, they buy games to PLAY them. It's like someone posting a video of the interior of their new car and the car manufacturer saying "Hey, this video is showing OUR content - content we only intended owners of the car to ever see!". People don't buy cars to look at the leather seats, they buy them to drive them. LPers [b]are not[/i] duplicating the intended experience of the game.
 

that's still money lost by Nintendo that would normally have went towards getting the game in the first place for the person to actually see the whole game for themselves, rather than through an LP.  So ultimately, there is no "free advertising," because it's paid for by what would have normally been a part of Nintendo's sales.

The "lost sales" defense? Really? It was thin at best when applied to piracy, but this just goes one step further. You're trying to claim the mere absense of a LP of a particular game would result in a sale? That there are people out there who wouldn't be interested enough to purchase the game EVEN IF a LP existed, that would go ahead and fork out cash anyway because of... curiousity? Because they want to not play, but see what's in the game? I don't think so Tim.
 

They may lose respect from their customers, but that's not going to stop them from buying the games.  EA's respect level is probably down on the ground, yet they're still making a ton of money.  As long as the games are interesting and entertaining, people WILL buy them regardless of how great the company's reputation is (again EA, Square Enix, Sega).

You honestly don't believe a bad reputation translates to fewer customers... because EA is still afloat? Huh? All you're proving is that the barrage of negative attention isn't sufficient to sink them - it says nothing about how much MORE they could potentially be earning by not being so evil. Also, last I checked they - along with most of the AAA market - aren't doing too well.
 

I personally feel like the monetizing LPers got off way too easy; at least you're still able to KEEP your videos.  Many other companies like Microsoft and Square Enix would have just taken them down entirely.  Nintendo PR obviously decided that'd cause more trouble than it's worth, and decided to take it out a little easier.

I agree. Now let's all shake the hands and sing cheers of praise for child molesters, because at least they didn't murder the kids too.

[NoeL]

Okay really, I don't understand this at all. I read the article linked to in the first post, and what I took from it was "Nintendo is giving people who LP their games the option to make their ads only display Nintendo-related things". I don't understand how what the article says means "Nintendo is stabbing LPers in the back".

What Nintendo are doing is notifying Youtube that a non-Nintendo account is using their content without permission. Nintendo then has the option of removing the video from Youtube as it breaches copyright, but Youtube ALSO gives them the option to be recognised as the owners of the video in question (which is what they're doing). This not only allows Nintendo to control the advertising on said video, but they also get all the revenue generated from hosting those ads - revenue that would have otherwise gone to the person that posted the video in the first place.

 

So where before a person could upload a video of them playing a game and earn money from people viewing that video (because of the ads attached to it), now that money goes to Nintendo instead of the player. People (including myself) think this is wrong because the LPers that generate a lot of traffic do so because THEY are quality entertainers that people want to watch play games. They don't get a lot of hits just because they're showing a game - a LP with boring/no commentary very rarely gets a lot of views. Next to no one cares about seeing gameplay footage - if they're interested in the game it's because they want to play it. So the money that Youtubers make as entertainers is almost entirely due to them being entertaining, and as such are the ones that deserve the revenue generated by people watching - NOT the game publishers.