Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)
PewDiePie Against Nintendo's Cash Share Plan
#16
Also, Nintendo isn't partnered with Robot Chicken. They're literally trying to partner with these LPers, and as such, they'd rather not partner with, or be associated with someone who puts not-so-family-friendly content up.
[Image: tamerkoh.gif?9][Image: DevBanner.png][Image: Youtube.gif]DLBROOKS33
Reply
#17
Pewdiepie's name really shouldn't be in the topic, most all youtubers are opposed to this. If you've read their terms it's an absolutely horrible deal they have going on. One of the biggest possible issues is that due to youtube's content ID system they will tag any video with Nintendo footage even reviews, and in order to avoid this you're supposed to register your videos with Nintendo... which takes 3 days and gives them the potential to censor your reviews..

Watch these, Total Biscuit pretty much sums up my thoughts pretty well.

edit:
Quote:Gwen Wrote:  
the only scenario you can really argue for free advertisement is small indie games.

Horse shit. Let's plays drive sales phenomenally for indie titles, but they definitely drive sales for AAA titles too. Watch video 3 I posted, It mentioned pretty much everything itt.
Reply
Thanked by: Tellis
#18
After taking a look at what Total Biscuit had to say, this whole deal Nintendo is making is starting to mess with my head. I thought having them just take money was relatively innocent enough, but I didn't take into account the additional strings attached with YouTube revenue. I was hoping that I'll get support from Nintendo once I finally create popular content that celebrates everything they accomplished, but if it turns out that even Chuggaaconroy is nothing more than a number to them, then I don't know what I'll do.

It's even worse if I'm supposed to only use Nintendo content and nothing else. I want to work with other IPs for animations (i.e. any of Rare's titles), so running into this limitation will be a large pill to swallow.
(02-27-2014, 07:31 PM)Gors Wrote: DO NOT BE AFRAID TO SUCK. DO NOT BE AFRAID TO SHOW YOUR SUCKY ART. I think this needs to go noticed to everyone, because sucking is not failing. Sucking is part of the fun of learning and if you don't suck, then you won't own at pixelart

it's ok to suck, sucking is not bad, just try and aim to always do your best!
Reply
Thanked by:
#19
(02-01-2015, 04:16 PM)Helmo Wrote:
Quote:Gwen Wrote:  
the only scenario you can really argue for free advertisement is small indie games.

Horse shit. Let's plays drive sales phenomenally for indie titles, but they definitely drive sales for AAA titles too. Watch video 3 I posted, It mentioned pretty much everything itt.

LP's probably make a bit of a difference, but it's more than likely a drop from the faucet. These companies already have advertising campaigns for everything that follows the vision they're setting out for whatever they're releasing, and they most definitely do not need LP's to spread word of mouth. Not to mention all of the insane online advertising these companies do now. I also said that LP's do help indie titles. The fact of the matter is that these mega companies don't need the big LP'ers like PewDiePie, nor do they need the small ones to spread word of their games. They do that just fine themselves and in Nintendo's case, you'd be hard pressed to find somebody who doesn't at least know of their IPs.
[Image: b6Bqjzn.gif]
Reply
Thanked by:
#20
I think you're really underestimating Let's Players here... they are a big factor to a lot of people. If the Game Grumps play something you can expect the fanbase to buy plenty of copies.

Those huge companies don't need them sure, they have plenty of money to advertise. But it's definitely a boost when everyone on youtube is making your game look like a blast to play versus an ad that's obviously bias. Even Microsoft who was opposed to Let's Plays has caught on that they're beneficial.

I know that I've been convinced to try certain AAA titles because of Let's Players and certainly not the advertisements.
Reply
Thanked by: E-Man, Tellis
#21
You could also argue they could potentially lose sales, especially for the more story based games because once you've seen it played through, why pay for it? Like I said, I'm sure it makes a difference, but I would be willing to bet it's not a big enough of one for Companies to need it other wise you wouldn't see Nintendo doing this, and I'm willing to bet you'll see the other companies follow suit soon. LP'ers should be happy Nintendo's willing to let them profit.
[Image: b6Bqjzn.gif]
Reply
Thanked by:
#22
(02-01-2015, 05:46 PM)Gwen Wrote: You could also argue they could potentially lose sales, especially for the more story based games because once you've seen it played through, why pay for it? Like I said, I'm sure it makes a difference, but I would be willing to bet it's not a big enough of one for Companies to need it other wise  you wouldn't see Nintendo doing this, and I'm willing to bet you'll see the other companies follow suit soon. LP'ers should be happy Nintendo's willing to let them profit.

That last part kills me. This is not a popular stance among game developers and all it's going to do is discourage people from playing Nintendo games. Chances are almost no one is going to follow in Nintendo's stance. Nintendo is fucking them over pretty hard, considering the HUGE amount of companies who are totally LP friendly.

Also no one is going to lose any sales unless: 
Your game is terrible (which is good because the consumer is informed) 
Your game is literally a movie

You do not get the full experience of a game unless you PLAY a game.


again watch Video 3
Reply
Thanked by: E-Man, Kriven
#23
I brought up Robot Chicken specifically because this decision is not exclusive to LPs (which are protected as reviews in the same law that protects parodies, btw). Anybody that so much as breathes the word "Mario" is going to need their video screened.
[Image: Dexter.png]  [Image: Bubbles.png]  [Image: SNWzHvA.png]   [Image: SamuraiJack2.png] [Image: kQzhJLF.png]  [Image: Pikachu.png] [Image: tSCZnqw.png]
Reply
#24
^ Video 2 of mine covers that. It's a load, you have to pay Nintendo to review their game and review it by their rules.
Reply
Thanked by: psychospacecow, E-Man, Kriven
#25
Yes, it's not just let's players that are going to feel the burn, but also the reviewers, analysts, and gaming news channels. They generally need Nintendo's IP to create their videos, so the fact that Nintendo might be after those could affect additional sources of publicity. If it wasn't for Nintendo being a little anti-YouTube from the beginning, I think the Wii U would sell just a little bit better when it first came out.
(02-27-2014, 07:31 PM)Gors Wrote: DO NOT BE AFRAID TO SUCK. DO NOT BE AFRAID TO SHOW YOUR SUCKY ART. I think this needs to go noticed to everyone, because sucking is not failing. Sucking is part of the fun of learning and if you don't suck, then you won't own at pixelart

it's ok to suck, sucking is not bad, just try and aim to always do your best!
Reply
Thanked by: Helmo
#26
I think people are totally sidestepping the fact that this really only affects those who are trying to make money by just playing through a Nintendo game. If you aren't even monetizing your videos, and are just doing it for fun, which is what this whole shebang started as before monetization was invented, you'd be fine. All Nintendo is saying is "If you're going to make money off of showing our product, the least you can do is give us a cut." Big or small, at least they're working to have both, instead of just prohibiting them completely from being monetized.

People are calling Nintendo money-grubbing...but the opposers are the ones who are moneygrubbing, for wanting to keep all the money to theirself, even though their content in the video is well over 60% not theirs.
[Image: tamerkoh.gif?9][Image: DevBanner.png][Image: Youtube.gif]DLBROOKS33
Reply
Thanked by: Gwen, BullockDS
#27
I think you're totally sidestepping that the three posts literally just before yours were all adressing that issue and the fact that your opening statement is wrong.
[Image: Dexter.png]  [Image: Bubbles.png]  [Image: SNWzHvA.png]   [Image: SamuraiJack2.png] [Image: kQzhJLF.png]  [Image: Pikachu.png] [Image: tSCZnqw.png]
Reply
Thanked by: Iceman404
#28
I don't watch PewDiePie, the only video on his channel I've actively watched is a songification by Schmoyoho. The only real reason him speaking out is significant is because he's a significant Youtuber.

But anyway. While Nintendo do have a right to do this, I think it's pretty stupid of them. I would think that the free advertising they get from this would be more than enough compensation for the money Youtubers make - which, as TotalBiscuit said in the video Helmo posted, is already usually around 30-20% of the actual revenue generated. It's really just a dumb and greedy thing that I personally think might even decrease their sales.
You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing that we call "failure" is not the falling down, but the staying down. -Mary Pickford
Reply
Thanked by: Kriven
#29
edit: blegh let me get back to this
[Image: b6Bqjzn.gif]
Reply
Thanked by:
#30
(02-01-2015, 09:30 PM)puggsoy Wrote: I don't watch PewDiePie, the only video on his channel I've actively watched is a songification by Schmoyoho. The only real reason him speaking out is significant is because he's a significant Youtuber.

But anyway. While Nintendo do have a right to do this, I think it's pretty stupid of them. I would think that the free advertising they get from this would be more than enough compensation for the money Youtubers make - which, as TotalBiscuit said in the video Helmo posted, is already usually around 30-20% of the actual revenue generated. It's really just a dumb and greedy thing that I personally think might even decrease their sales.

What exactly is greedy about Nintendo wanting to get some profit from people using their content to make money? Nintendo's still okay with them making money, they just stand to make some themselves.
[Image: b6Bqjzn.gif]
Reply
Thanked by:


Forum Jump: