91 replies to this topic

[Fabbrizio]

True, but they'd also never see the content that wasn't in a trailer either.  Get where I'm going?

If seeing that content would convince them to buy it, then clearly, the trailer is failing by not including it or pointing to it.

[Koh]

If seeing that content would convince them to buy it, then clearly, the trailer is failing by not including it or pointing to it.

This can be true, lol.  I've seen trailers that hardly show much of a game, and just show cinematics from the game.  

 

My point is, though, it's content they'd either have paid to experience by buying the game, or sat through an ad *cough*barring Adblocker* to see on a video site.  If Nintendo can't get the money from the sale that would have been needed for them to see the content in the first place, the next best thing is the ad revenue.  And now we've come back full circle =)~

Edited by Koh, 01 February 2015 - 09:49 PM.

[Fabbrizio]

My point is, though, it's content they'd either have paid to experience by buying the game, or sat through an ad *cough*barring Adblocker* to see on a video site.  If Nintendo can't get the money from the potential sale, the next best thing is the ad revenue.  And now we've come back full circle =)~

But now you're averting my point. If a person doesn't buy a game, it's either because the trailers were not convincing enough, or the person would literally get nothing out of the experience of playing it. Across an entire sub-market of video games, this essentially means that Nintendo doesn't deserve a single penny of revenue, because the purpose of a game is to be played. If a significantly large group of people decides en masse that they won't buy a game, there's probably a fundamental failure in the making of the game itself.

tl;dr, if Nintendo has earned the revenue, it will translate into sales. If sales do not come, either they are marketing the game wrong, or they are making the game wrong.

In addition: even if they are marketing the game wrong, this would then mean that they should welcome gameplay videos, which would show off the sides of the game that the trailer should have done.

Edited by Fabbrizio, 01 February 2015 - 09:54 PM.

[Mani Kanina]

Fair Use can't just be dropped as a sole defense though.  Fair Use takes into account "how much is too much," which can only be done on a case by case basis.  If you go to the case and only have Fair Use as your defense, your chances of coming out victorious are painfully slim.

Which I acknowledge in my post.

I'd also like to add that you never answered any other argumentation. I'll draw the conclusion that you're incapable to answer it with anything then.
 

 

True, but they'd also never see the content that wasn't in a trailer either.  Get where I'm going?

Not really, this line of argumentation makes no logical sense. For as much as you complain about people not reading your post, you seem to have no qualms with disregarding others.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

This can be true, lol.  I've seen trailers that hardly show much of a game, and just show cinematics from the game.  

 

My point is, though, it's content they'd either have paid to experience by buying the game, or sat through an ad *cough*barring Adblocker* to see on a video site.  If Nintendo can't get the money from the sale that would have been needed for them to see the content in the first place, the next best thing is the ad revenue.  And now we've come back full circle =)~

See, this is where you are wrong. While you can prove that these videos have often driven sales, there is no evidence that indicates they can take away from sales. I get your train of thought, somebody watches a playthrough of Phoenix Wright and then ends up not buying that game because they now know the story or whatever. The thing is though that this is nothing but an assumption, but it's not based on any actual numbers or anything like that. You can't prove that a view on a Let's Play of Phoenix Wright equals a lost sale of one copy of that game. There is no way you can say that it happens, there's not a shred of evidence that indicates it might be the case. That's why your entire argument is flawed. It just doesn't work, because you base your thoughts on things that are clearly not true. Yet you seem incapable of seeing the fact that these videos, or at least a lot of them directly influence and drive sales.

[Koh]

Which I acknowledge in my post.

I'd also like to add that you never answered any other argumentation. I'll draw the conclusion that you're incapable to answer it with anything then.
 

 

Not really, this line of argumentation makes no logical sense. For as much as you complain about people not reading your post, you seem to have no qualms with disregarding others.

Was there a portion I missed?  I read the whole thing, and responded to what I could...

 

 

See, this is where you are wrong. While you can prove that these videos have often driven sales, there is no evidence that indicates they can take away from sales. I get your train of thought, somebody watches a playthrough of Phoenix Wright and then ends up not buying that game because they now know the story or whatever. The thing is though that this is nothing but an assumption, but it's not based on any actual numbers or anything like that. You can't prove that a view on a Let's Play of Phoenix Wright equals a lost sale of one copy of that game. There is no way you can say that it happens, there's not a shred of evidence that indicates it might be the case. That's why your entire argument is flawed. It just doesn't work, because you base your thoughts on things that are clearly not true. Yet you seem incapable of seeing the fact that these videos, or at least a lot of them directly influence and drive sales.

I don't deny they can help sales.  It's hard to prove the opposite with numbers, because the only people with those numbers are the companies theirselves.  That's exactly what these kinds of threads  need...numbers showing how they can also decrease sales for some games.

[Fabbrizio]

I don't deny they can help sales.  It's hard to prove the opposite with numbers, because the only people with those numbers are the companies theirselves.  That's exactly what these kinds of threads  need...numbers showing how they can also decrease sales for some games.

Your side of the argument could also use those numbers, if I may point out. Otherwise it is entirely invalid. We can't take it on merit that what you're saying is true, because the numbers don't exist to back it up. Not in our reach anyway. And the only appropriate conclusion to an argument is the one based on the information at hand. If information cannot be added to a discussion, it is an unknown. You cannot assume a default, you can only remove it from the problem until it has a determinable value.

Edited by Fabbrizio, 01 February 2015 - 10:15 PM.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Was there a portion I missed?  I read the whole thing, and responded to what I could...

 

 

I don't deny they can help sales.  It's hard to prove the opposite with numbers, because the only people with those numbers are the companies theirselves.  That's exactly what these kinds of threads  need...numbers showing how they can also decrease sales for some games.

You misunderstood. What I am saying is that there are no numbers that indicate that Let's Plays can or have decreased potential sales of a video game. This is not information Nintendo, or any company for that matter, is sitting on. They simply don't have it. It doesn't exist. Do you understand what I'm saying?

 

To put it simply: everything we know about this indicates that Let's Plays can be beneficial to a company that sells video games. As far as we, or anyone knows, they do not decrease the number of potential sold copies. Again, to say so is to assume that a viewer of a Let's Play was going to buy the game to begin with - and you simply can't do that, because there's nothing to back it up with. Nada. Please don't make any of us have to explain this yet again, so far all you've done is come up with the same argument, only to have us explain exactly why it doesn't work - at which point you seem to completely ignore everything that's being said to you, and you make the same exact argument again. Which, for the last time, is based on poorly thought out assumptions and straight up wrong information.

[Koh]

Then perhaps we're all misunderstanding each other?  My whole argument is just built around the "something for nothing" saying.

 

If Youtube never existed, the only way you'd be able to see anything from a game,, that's not in any commercials or trailers, is if you bought the game yourself, and played the game yourself.  No game, no content, no information, save for what's in the commercials, trailers and maybe word of mouth.

Edited by Koh, 01 February 2015 - 10:47 PM.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Then perhaps we're all misunderstanding each other?  My whole argument is just built around the "something for nothing" saying.

 

If Youtube never existed, the only way you'd be able to see anything from a game,, that's not in any commercials or trailers, is if you bought the game yourself, and played the game yourself.

This doesn't change anything though. Youtube exists, companies get free advertisement from Youtubers, and Nintendo thinks they're entitled to get paid by the people advertising their games. I don't know how I could make it any more simple than that. If you think that makes sense though, that's fine, but I think that's an unrealistic and unfair way to look at things.

[Koh]

It's the basis for my entire argument in this thread.  You agree with what it's saying right?  Now add Youtube to the layer.  The content that people would otherwise have had to pay to see is now available for free.

 

If they were never a customer, they shouldn't have been able to see what wasn't in the trailers and commercials in the first place.  Save for maybe a friend having a copy of the game or something extraneous like that.

 

But now, they can see it regardless of not having bought the game.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Yes, and so? For the thousand time; you can't prove that the fact that they can see it on Youtube equals a lost sale on Nintendo's part. And again, like I have explained, the numbers indicate that it's the opposite, that these videos have positive effect when it comes to the marketing of the games.

 

You're still operating under the assumption that it means people are buying less games, but all the evidence points to the contrary, that you are in fact completely wrong. You just said that's the basis for your entire argument, and like I have said way too many times already, that is why your entire argument is completely flawed. It doesn't work.

[Koh]

Forget the sales being benefited for a second.  I'm focusing on the implications of it all.

 

You agreed with everything I said up to that point right?  That they'd have had to pay to see the content?  But they see it anyway without paying (whether it happens eventually or not isn't what I'm talking about)....isn't that what we call stealing, or pirating?  Definitely distribution.

 

I'm trying to get you guys to understand how Nintendo could be looking at this whole thing.  Yeah the whole grand scheme of things shows that LPers can help bring in sales, but what about the legality of it all?

Edited by Koh, 01 February 2015 - 11:30 PM.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

I understand how Nintendo are looking at this, and I strongly disagree with them on it. That's what I've been saying in almost every single post I've made in this topic. No, I do not believe it is the same as stealing. Video games is an interactive medium, you're comparing this to uploading movies on Youtube. It's not the same thing. You act as if the work of content creators on Youtube is irrelevant, as if the game they're playing is the only thing that is giving them views and in return money. There's so much more to it than that, like I said, it has become a profession, for a lot of people it's a full-time job. It's what they do for a living. Let's Players is one thing, what about people like TotalBiscuit, who posts everything from first impression videos to news-related discussions with gameplay footage of various games in the background. Do you truly believe people watch those videos purely because it might have the gameplay of a Mario game in the background? Of course they don't, they want to hear what he has to say.

 

The same goes for Pewdiepie, who I believe mostly does Let's Plays. People don't watch his Amnesia-videos because they want to see Amnesia, they want to see Pewdiepie's persona react and scream like crazy, because they think that is funny. I'm not going to argue that there are a lot of Let's Plays that are little more than glorified walkthroughs with commentary pasted on top, that still doesn't change the fact that these news have consequences for a lot more people than those who do just that. And arguing about the legalities of something like Let's Plays is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion, because A) there's no reason to think it in any way affects sales negatively, and B) it's not illegal. Nintendo would like it do be, but that doesn't mean it should be. What it means, is that Nintendo is a bunch of old, traditional people who don't understand that times are changing.

 

Either way, this is irrelevant, this has nothing to do with piracy or stealing. Video games are not films. It is an interactive medium. Looking at someone playing a game is not the same as enjoying the product. There are a couple of grey areas when it comes to games like The Walking Dead and Phoenix Wright, considering they are pretty linear, story-driven games, but when the numbers in no way are saying that any money is being lost, then there really isn't an issue. We know some people end up buying the games even after watching these videos, because a lot of youtubers include links to store pages and so on that tracks where the buyer came from (meaning publishers can see approximately how many Pewdiepie-viewers ended up buying their game). So yeah, I do understand how Nintendo are looking at things. Let me explain their view: They see that Youtubers earn money off of videos that also give Nintendo free advertisement. Nintendo knows that right now the laws and regulations haven't caught up to the Internet and Youtube's quickly growing business, and they're taking advantage of that by making sure they get a cut without actually having to do any work.

 

The fact that the deal they're offering is so bad is not just a slap in the face, it's a nuke to the head of anyone hoping to create content centered around Nintendo's products. If you want to look at the grand scheme of things; Nintendo are kicking themselves in the butt. They're taking quick and easy money now, compared to the potential benefits of having people advertise their products (free of charge!) on what is quickly becoming the single biggest platform for entertainment we have ever seen. Youtube is the new TV, and Nintendo has no idea.

[MarinaraSauce]

One thing that really bothers me is the fact that this encompasses old games that Nintendo isn't making any money from anymore. Even if an LP were to prevent somebody from buying one of these games, Nintendo wouldn't lose any money from it. In this case, they're essentially trying to sell a single product twice.