questionsdid you guys see the crap nintendo just pulled?






-- Nintendo


Much ado about nothing.
It's pretty childish to get so upset over Nintendo choosing to enforce their copyrights. They could have just done so by pulling LPs from YouTube entirely, as other companies do with their IP (not necessarily game footage). Instead, they allow LPs to remain and are just monetizing them. They aren't giving anyone a "giant foam middle finger," they're just claiming ad revenue instead of the creators of the (mostly horrible) LPs. This really isn't any different than, say, having to pay for a license to play covers of songs for the general public in a live performance, or to have a jukebox or radio playing in a bar.
It's also pretty ridiculous to claim Nintendo is "failing." One year of posting a loss does not a failing company make. Especially when said company is a giant like Nintendo.


Further, the only people whining about this seem to be the self-entitled creators of LPs, who are now upset that they can no longer get paid to play Nintendo's content for people.
It's also Google who is the one taking ad revenue from the videos, just as they do for EVERY bit of matched content they have. Copyright holders register their content on Google's database, Google matches uploads with its database, then inserts ads and collects revenue for it, forwarding a percentage of the revenue to the matched copyright holder. It's not like YouTube was ever a free ride in the first place, ESPECIALLY when the content you're uploading isn't even your own.
Sorry guys, maybe you shouldn't expect to get paid for being fans of certain games. The easy money for it appears to be over with.


Smooth McGroove's stuff is still there. This is good.


@stryker4526: I just think its kinda fugged up that they went after the people doing their dirty work for them. I understand its their property and they are entitled to the profits from it but its like how low can you go? I mean these people spent their own time/resources in purchasing/reviewing/critiquing a product and for the company to then go back and say no your hard work and the fraction of ad revenue your video generated are now belong to us, I dunno it just seems like a bad business practice if you ask me...


@andrewhallze: What dirty work, exactly, are people who expect to get paid to play video games doing for the game companies?
Oh right, none.
Besides that, LPs existed before revenue from YT vids was even a thing, and they'll continue to exist. As long as this gets rid of all the crappy LPs from people just in it because they think they can make a living playing games, I support it 110%.
Why should video games be specifically exempt from copyright law? If you display anyone else's work for the general public, you have to pay to do so. This is no different.


Nintendo has been making money hand over fist with the Wii. This is not a desperate plea for more money--rather this is Nintendo trying to "control their brand".

If you read the article, it is clear that this only affects 2 sets of people: 1) Those making ad revenue money off of Youtube through ad money and 2) Those who are using Nintendo owned-content in their videos. They aren't preventing people from posting videos at all, you just have to comply to the new ad-rules.

I am curious how Fair Use factors into this, however. I supposed if the actual game (level design, gameplay, graphics, etc.) was critically analyzed or commented on (as opposed to most LPs which are just strict recordings of progression,) it would probably qualify under Fair Use. Another few things for fair use: Editing the gameplay footage/images so that they convey something other than a strict linear story progression; and whether or not the videos are making money for the uploader.


I'm not sure where the outrage is here. I will admit, I had to look up this "Let's Play" (LP) thing to figure out what was being discussed. From my understanding (as in, I read the wikipedia page) it looks like an LP is a video someone makes of playing through a game, which they post online with their own comments of the experience of playing through.

From my understanding, Nintendo is now asking for a share of the ad revenue for LPs that are posted to YouTube. It doesn't seem that they are actually saying people can't post them, just that they want a share of the ad revenue when they are posted.

Am I missing something? If not, then how many people really make money off of these? The people who post the LPs only make money when the ads are clicked on, right? It doesn't appear to be a lucrative source of income, from my vantage point. I could be wrong but I don't see how you could support yourself with revenue from such a video, so I'm not sure why we should be so upset.


Somewhere, Princess Peach is crying,,,,,


is how a company that values its fans approaches the problem.

Edit: Doh. Sorry for the big image in the middle of the thread, but woot is automatically changing my link to an inline image.


i was always a big fan on nintendo, and this move doesn't actually bother me much.. it does a bit, as a casual viewer, but it doesnt REALLY make or break my opinion of them.

What does break it is their latest console. They've always had a less is more approach to consoles, without getting into the high horse-power wars of sega and sony, or later, sony and microsoft... but the wii-u... it just feels nuetered out of the gate - they simply don't have the content they were famous for even up to and with the wii. Their current console doesn't even compete well with the hardware being retired by the other two, and their implementation of the porta-screen controller is clumsy and could (and should) be done much better. They also missed the opportunity of offering some REAL synch options for their portable console

At this point, i'm in a "we'll see" boat... if i don't start seeing something that makes it stay a must-have console, i'll be selling mine while the money is still good.


This doesn't sound underhanded it is a plain simple greedy money grab. All of this sounds perfectly legal even if it makes a few fans unhappy, They can afford to lose fans/customers it isn't as if they are selling anything, OOPS they are! sorry.


I guess I hit a nerve with the comment. was it N that objected or a fan. It was meant to be sarcastic about business practices that cause companies to lose sales, not a complaint on actions taken by the company. Vote with your dollars.


@samstag: That's why I love paradox. And Europa Universalis III, though that would be a pretty boring let's play unless it's incredibly heavily edited.


@triplebud: Curious why you are glad. Other than the spoiler factor or the unauthorized use of copyrighted material that benefits the makers of the game. Any publicity for the games benefits the N company as long as it doesn't alienate the fans. This action is counter intuitive and will only damage the company in return for a small revenue stream that some fans probably needed.. If N is in such dire straits then a small revenue stream is not going to help.


People think they're entitled to everything. Maybe Nintendo does not think "your" voice, face or bad grammar is a good spokesperson for their company. If I dumped millions of dollars into a product and instead of having a customer buy and love my game they go and watch a YouTube video of the entire thing. Then somewhere they decide to not buy it because of one thing some 13 year old says...

I don't know. Because I hate everyone?


I guess the issue becomes, how far will it go? Will they go after someone that has a Legend of Zelda t-shirt on in a video or someone that shows up in a youtube video playing in the background? Where is the line on what is allowed?


@wisenekt: You said the name of one of their products online so they will probably contact You about payment to them for their intellectual property being used. Why do You think I don't use their name or the name of their products.