PewDiePie Against Nintendo's Cash Share Plan

[Koopaul]

Making money off of Let's Plays never sat right with me to begin with. If it's a parody, a skit or something more original, then I could understand. I remember back in the day when people did LPs for fun and it wasn't about money. Things are more complicated now.

But times are different. Nintendo should just go along with the whole Let's Play monetization. I think its stupid too, but it's here to stay, so they should just accept it.

[Helmo]

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.

Please watch the videos I posted, or read their actual affiliate program.

You automatically lose 50% of your ad money to Google, than Nintendo takes like 30%. Also Nintendo states its arbitrary they can just take it ALL when they feel like it.

If we ignore let's players it completely screws game reviewers, game journalism, news, etc. all that shit. You shouldn't have to fucking pay them to use footage for fair use related things that's ludicrous.

Nintendo is literally the only fucking company pulling this shit.

[Gwen]

Not saying that this is any better but with a music label, where you usually CREATE your own content, you have to not only make back in sales studio costs, but after that you get 10-15% back from profits. Similarly, if you put your music up on Bandcamp as an indie artist for example, you get 10% of the profits, or 15% if you exceed $5000 in sales in a year.
These people are making money off of somebody else's content, I just don't get how you can argue that Nintendo shouldn't get a cut, just because they're big that doesn't mean they don't deserve anything.
Also reviewers are completely different from LPs, please don't fucking lump Game journalism together with Lp'ers. With game journalism, these people are usually sent press kits to review. Same with music. Established reviewers are sent stuff to review, they make money off of giving their opinions and showing a few clips, not playing through an entire game and showing it's audience.
You're also naive to think Nintendo will remain to be the only one doing this.

[puggsoy]

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.

What's greedy is that they're already huge, ultra-rich and one of the biggest and most successful gaming companies, and that the money they would be getting from this is mere peanuts to them, yet they still act as if it's necessary. It does literally nothing but reduce the income of LPers, reviewers, etc, many of which rely on this source for living costs. Other companies just let it go.

Even from a business standpoint, this seems like a dumb (or at least risky) move. Look at it this way; if this is mandatory for anybody using Nintendo game footage in their videos (LP or reviews or whatever), then it's reasonable to expect that about half of these people might exclude Nintendo games from now on. The money Nintendo would receive from those who remain, seems to me like it would be less than enough to produce advertisements that are equal to the publicity lost from those people who left.

Not sure if that made sense, and my estimations might be way off, but that's how I see it. Like really, what would Nintendo be losing if they just acted like the companies that let it be?

[Helmo]

Not saying that this is any better but with a music label, where you usually CREATE your own content, you have to not only make back in sales studio costs, but after that you get 10-15% back from profits. Similarly, if you put your music up on band camp as an indie artist for example, you get 10% of the profits, or 15% if you exceed $5000 in sales in a year.
These people are making money off of somebody else's content, I just don't get how you can argue that Nintendo shouldn't get a cut, just because they're big that doesn't mean they don't deserve anything.
Also reviewers are completely different from LPs, please don't fucking lump Game journalism together with Lp'ers. With game journalism, these people are usually sent press kits to review. Same with music. Established reviewers are sent stuff to review, they make money off of giving their opinions and showing a few clips, not playing through an entire game and showing it's audience.
You're also naive to think Nintendo will remain to be the only one doing this.

I kind of thought that's what "ignore" meant. 

This system affects them both. Even reviewers who get sent free games still get content ID matched all the time. They will have to give Nintendo their money to review their games on their terms. It's bad for everyone was my point.

Also does this site owe Nintendo (among other companies) money? We take their models, sprites, textures, sounds, etc. and make money off of them.

[Gwen]

What's greedy is that people think they should get to keep all of the profits off of using somebody else's product.

With anything else, you either have to share profits, or pay for the rights to use material. Don't see why this should be any different. It doesn't matter that it's peanuts for Nintendo. Quite frankly it's their product that's being used to make money and they should be compensated. They're fully within their rights to shut these people down but instead they want to at least try working together. If I were an LP'er I'd be extremely grateful they're fine with me making any profits off of their content.
Also I don't get why we're lumping Game Journalism in with this. Most respectable places that review stuff get press kits, and aren't showing off the entire game. They may show a few clips but most of what they have to say is their opinion on the game itself.

EDIT: To answer that last point Helmo, if Nintendo wanted to I'm sure they could ask for this place to pay a fee for rights to use all of that. As it stands, most people use it for fan projects which aren't based around making money.

[Helmo]

What's greedy is that people think they should get to keep all of the profits off of using somebody else's product.

With anything else, you either have to share profits, or pay for the rights to use material. Don't see why this should be any different. It doesn't matter that it's peanuts for Nintendo. Quite frankly it's their product that's being used to make money and they should be compensated. They're fully within their rights to shut these people down but instead they want to at least try working together. If I were an LP'er I'd be extremely grateful they're fine with me making any profits off of their content.
Also I don't get why we're lumping Game Journalism in with this. Most respectable places that review stuff get press kits, and aren't showing off the entire game. They may show a few clips but most of what they have to say is their opinion on the game itself.

They do, the networks they sign up for take a share of their ad revenue and in return they get a license to play Nintendo/Sega/Whatever games. Even the ones who have a Nintendo license still get content ID matches do to youtube's system. Now Nintendo is gonna make that even worse...

It's a shitty system. Also did you watch the vids? If you didn't see the original post atleast watch this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzeULO59hG0

[Kriven]

"Most respectable...", "...established reviewers..."

And independent reviewers deserve to be shut down because they give a low score to a Nintendo game and dare to use footage in their review to make a point?

[Gwen]

Where did I ever say that? Nintendo's not saying you can't have your own opinions, nor are they threatening reviewers to give them good reviews or else. They're asking that they get a little slice of the pie from LP's since those people make money by playing their games and broadcasting entire games to people.
Unless you're just outright throwing shit on their game, Nintendo's a big enough boy to handle some negative reviews. Also even if they wouldn't let you use footage, you could still make note of it perfectly fine in a review.
Y'all are acting like they're silencing opinions which is fucking hilarious.

[Kriven]

You're acting like the only thing at risk here is LPs despite the number of posts here telling you otherwise, that Nintendo has and will continue to flag any instance of their trademark appearing in an unlicensed work (even reviews and parody videos), and that this program gives them the ability to reject YouTube videos or steal the entire royalty of an uploader regardless of content so long as it bears a passing resemblance to Nintendo product.

There is a very concerning conflict of interest here.

[Gwen]

Reviews fall well safely under the umbrella of Fair Use (criticism) and you're also leaving out the convenient fact that they don't show an entire game's worth of material, nor is it just somebody playing a game and chatting along with it. Sure it's possible Nintendo could try that, and if they do then yeah that's a bit shitbaggy but as it stands, ACTUAL reviewers are pretty safe. And where does it specifically state Anywher that it gives them the ability to steal the entirety of one's royalties? Sounds like fear mongering at best.

[puggsoy]

What's greedy is that people think they should get to keep all of the profits off of using somebody else's product.

Exactly, they're using it. It's a tool for their job. It's not "I'm playing this game, gimme money". People actively give opinions and views and thoughts about games (and make jokes and whatnot) and thus the quality of the content is where the views and money come from.

Even if this isn't technically Fair Use in legal terms, I personally think it's pretty fair. Especially since, again, it publicises the game. Nintendo has a legal right to do this, I just think that it's completely unnecessary and annoying.

[Maxpphire]

I agree that Nintendo should get some of the money, but at the same time I also think that the youtuber should also get some of the cash. After all it is their own voice, and their own commentary. The problem is that 100% of the content in the video doesn't belong to Nintendo but they are getting 100% of the profits.

Even after Nintendo said "Yea you can use our stuff in your own things, doesn't matter what have fun with the perler beads and shit" It feels kinda contradictory to me.

[Koh]

What's greedy is that people think they should get to keep all of the profits off of using somebody else's product.

With anything else, you either have to share profits, or pay for the rights to use material. Don't see why this should be any different. It doesn't matter that it's peanuts for Nintendo. Quite frankly it's their product that's being used to make money and they should be compensated. They're fully within their rights to shut these people down but instead they want to at least try working together. If I were an LP'er I'd be extremely grateful they're fine with me making any profits off of their content.
Also I don't get why we're lumping Game Journalism in with this. Most respectable places that review stuff get press kits, and aren't showing off the entire game. They may show a few clips but most of what they have to say is their opinion on the game itself.

EDIT: To answer that last point Helmo, if Nintendo wanted to I'm sure they could ask for this place to pay a fee for rights to use all of that. As it stands, most people use it for fan projects which aren't based around making money.

I think calling it a royalty fee is actually quite the best way to describe this.  I wish I had thought about it from that angle before, because now it makes even more sense.

[Iceman404]

I think people hear the words "Let's Play" and begin bawwing at boring shit like Game Grumps, when there's seriously well done ones like NintendoCaprison and Chuggaconroy who I think well deserve what they've been making their profits off of. Nintendo may own the literal video content of their game, but there's a reason people subscribe to specific YouTubers. A good deal of these guys have charismatic talent at making you want to watch them play a game and sucking you in, they're not going to watch just anyone.

When I hear people asking "why should they get paid for playing a game lol do it for free nerds" I cringe pretty hard.