29 replies to this topic

[CUD]

 

 

Anyways... I get that he's mad that Content ID took his monies away, but what I don't get is why he doesn't just do Nintendo's creator program? That's, like, the only way to legally monetize YouTube videos of their games, right? Why did he blatantly monetize the video, despite not being in Nintendo's creator program, and despite knowing this would happen because of it? Also, it was super childish of him to take down the video. Can't you appeal Content ID flags? Couldn't he join Nintendo's creator program? Nah, just take the video down cuz Nintendo made me mad.

 

That's another thing about this whole ordeal... Was this even Nintendo's fault? As far as I know, Nintendo had nothing to do with the flag, other than that they uploaded footage of MP10 to their channel, which Content ID then uses to flag videos. AJ didn't even give Nintendo a chance to say anything or do anything about it, he just flipped out as soon as it happened. It would be like me making a fancy drink for someone ("someone" being Angry Joe), putting it on the table in from of them and saying, "Don't shake the table or it'll spill." They proceed to shake the table vigorously and, surprise surprise, it spills all over. Then they instantly get mad at me, even though they broke the rules, and I didn't even cause the incident.

 

Now, I haven't watched the MP10 video, so I don't know how much valuable input he provided, but it does sound like it was basically an excerpt from a casual stream from his Twitch, not the most riveting and insightful thing. But like I said, I didn't watch it, so I'm not sure on that. Not necessarily saying that should have bearing on whether it gets flagged or not, but I'd have a lot more sympathy for Joe if the video was like a 10-15 minute review or something.

 

Either way, It is Nintendo's decision to use Content ID (I think it is, right?) and to have the creator program, and it's perfectly fine and legal for them to do so. Just like it's fine for Joe to pull his video. I just don't have much sympathy for Joe when he blatantly broke the rules and got mad when he was punished for it.

 

I suppose it is likely that he knew about it, if that is the case then this strategy seems to have worked for him.

 

I don't disagree with his message though. Nintendo's YouTube policies, while of course completely up to Nintendo, aren't something any other gaming company does. Sure, YouTubers are lucky to be making money from what is mostly playing games but the way Nintendo feels entitled to take a cut of the money is just off putting. Why does Nintendo feel entitled to a cut of the ad revenue while all the other companies just enjoy the free promotion these YouTubers give their games?

 

It being flagged automatically is irrelevant. It doesn't negate the fact that it's Nintendo's policies that are what caused this.

 

Yeah, Angry Joe doesn't seem to make much Nintendo related content but it's not surprising when this is what I assume he does for a living. Nintendo's policies encourage less people to make Nintendo content, they want to make some extra money at the expense of increasing their online communities. If I were to monetise my YouTube account I would either do no or very few Nintendo videos because it would be much more beneficial for me to make content for other games. It's probably the way this discourages growth and creation of new Nintendo online communities and projects as well as how Nintendo is the only one doing this that makes this sit badly with me.

[NintendoReport]

I suppose it is likely that he knew about it, if that is the case then this strategy seems to have worked for him.

 

I don't disagree with his message though. Nintendo's YouTube policies, while of course completely up to Nintendo, aren't something any other gaming company does. Sure, YouTubers are lucky to be making money from what is mostly playing games but the way Nintendo feels entitled to take a cut of the money is just off putting. Why does Nintendo feel entitled to a cut of the ad revenue while all the other companies just enjoy the free promotion these YouTubers give their games?

 

It being flagged automatically is irrelevant. It doesn't negate the fact that it's Nintendo's policies that are what caused this.

 

Yeah, Angry Joe doesn't seem to make much Nintendo related content but it's not surprising when this is what I assume he does for a living. Nintendo's policies encourage less people to make Nintendo content, they want to make some extra money at the expense of increasing their online communities. If I were to monetise my YouTube account I would either do no or very few Nintendo videos because it would be much more beneficial for me to make content for other games. It's probably the way this discourages growth and creation of new Nintendo online communities and projects as well as how Nintendo is the only one doing this that makes this sit badly with me.

 

I think the issue is not about the ad revenue, but more so that Nintendo wants to protect it's IP and be able to control how it is delivered to the consumer. It could be argued that gaming media should be treated the same as the rest of the entertainment industry: tv, movies, music. Now I realize why Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary was only ever done over movies whose copyrights expired or where licensing was obtained.

 

Think of Nintendo's YouTube Partnership as a licensing opportunity. It could also be argued Nintendo's IP's have much greater overall value then any other gaming company. They just want to be in control of their own content. It's pretty simple.

 

It's pretty easy to create unique content, Joe's rant video is a good example. Unique content isn't full screening a video game while talking over it. No matter how talented or entertaining the person is. Also, the issue with the MP10 video, if Joe would not have "monetized" the video, it would probably still be up.

[Raiden]

http://www.grapheine...d57566ff95.html

[Bill Cipher]

 

 

Anyways... I get that he's mad that Content ID took his monies away, but what I don't get is why he doesn't just do Nintendo's creator program? That's, like, the only way to legally monetize YouTube videos of their games, right? Why did he blatantly monetize the video, despite not being in Nintendo's creator program, and despite knowing this would happen because of it? Also, it was super childish of him to take down the video. Can't you appeal Content ID flags? Couldn't he join Nintendo's creator program? Nah, just take the video down cuz Nintendo made me mad.

 

That's another thing about this whole ordeal... Was this even Nintendo's fault? As far as I know, Nintendo had nothing to do with the flag, other than that they uploaded footage of MP10 to their channel, which Content ID then uses to flag videos. AJ didn't even give Nintendo a chance to say anything or do anything about it, he just flipped out as soon as it happened. It would be like me making a fancy drink for someone ("someone" being Angry Joe), putting it on the table in from of them and saying, "Don't shake the table or it'll spill." They proceed to shake the table vigorously and, surprise surprise, it spills all over. Then they instantly get mad at me, even though they broke the rules, and I didn't even cause the incident.

 

Now, I haven't watched the MP10 video, so I don't know how much valuable input he provided, but it does sound like it was basically an excerpt from a casual stream from his Twitch, not the most riveting and insightful thing. But like I said, I didn't watch it, so I'm not sure on that. Not necessarily saying that should have bearing on whether it gets flagged or not, but I'd have a lot more sympathy for Joe if the video was like a 10-15 minute review or something.

 

Either way, It is Nintendo's decision to use Content ID (I think it is, right?) and to have the creator program, and it's perfectly fine and legal for them to do so. Just like it's fine for Joe to pull his video. I just don't have much sympathy for Joe when he blatantly broke the rules and got mad when he was punished for it.

Because Nintendo's Creator Program is bollocks. If you sign up for it, you get 60% per each video/70% if you dedicate your whole channel. Now, this isn't bad by itself(Though being fair, as I have said before Nintendo's Games are more stuff you watch for fun/the player, not the game, so Nintendo autoclaiming 40% is kind of absurd) but it's the fact that the Content Creator System is incredibly restrictive on what you CAN show. Yes, you can show some of the big games but there are several games that Nintendo has published/made that aren't part of the allowed games that have been done such as Xenoblade Chronicles, Kid Icarus Uprising, Super Smash Brothers, Golden Sun, etc.

 

Add to this limitations of what you can show with what the agreement means. If you sign your channel up for the full deal, you can ONLY have games from Nintendo that are approved. If you're someone like my Channel, where I'm working on a few PC games as ideas for Let's Plays, I can't do it because something like Dragon Quest IX because it's not approved Nothing else unless you want to make another channel. As well, if you choose individual videos, you effectively have to have Nintendo approve EVERY Video you do before you get any money from it. If they don't like something, congrats, you can't make that video.

 

It's also the fact that Nintendo is one of the few companies doing this. Several independent developers are perfectly fine with Let's Plays/Youtubers playing their games because they realize that Let's Plays are free advertising effectively. The Videos show the game and act as a way to reach an audience that traditional advertising can't. And guess what? It's been shown to actually WORK. Five Nights at Freddy's and Minecraft have growth that can be tied in part due to the Youtube promotion of their games. Xenoblade Chronicles has had several people become interested in it/picking up copies of the Wii Version due to a Let's Play done by one of the biggest Nintendo Focused Let's Players. For Nintendo to control what is effectively free marketing for the games they make(They put NOTHING into the Videos and they get all the profits from the games sold as a result of the videos) is baffling.

I think the issue is not about the ad revenue, but more so that Nintendo wants to protect it's IP and be able to control how it is delivered to the consumer. It could be argued that gaming media should be treated the same as the rest of the entertainment industry: tv, movies, music. Now I realize why Mystery Science Theater 3000 commentary was only ever done over movies whose copyrights expired or where licensing was obtained.

 

Think of Nintendo's YouTube Partnership as a licensing opportunity. It could also be argued Nintendo's IP's have much greater overall value then any other gaming company. They just want to be in control of their own content. It's pretty simple.

 

It's pretty easy to create unique content, Joe's rant video is a good example. Unique content isn't full screening a video game while talking over it. No matter how talented or entertaining the person is. Also, the issue with the MP10 video, if Joe would not have "monetized" the video, it would probably still be up.

They want to be in control of their content, yes, which I don't blame them at all for. However, what remains is that if you ask people what they like about Nintendo Games, it is almost always the gameplay. You can't get Gameplay from a video.

 

I feel like I'm the only one who is actually trying to understand where Joe/Youtube gamers are coming from.

 

[grahamf]

Maybe you are. The gist of it is that Nintendo keeps a very tight reign on their IP, which may or may not contribute to the company's financial stability. And the thing about these videos is that they are a means of experiencing the game Nintendo created without actually playing the game, and Nintendo has no control over that. It is entirely possible for a commentary to focus solely on a small fraction of the game which is kind of bad while ignoring the majority of awesomeness of the game. People can be basing their decision to buy the game on what they see, which the commenter may not be considering when he basis his entire video on a personal bias. Nintendo is in a sense simple trying to mitigate that.

[Bill Cipher]

Then why not stop reviews? There's been reviews of Nintendo Games that have completely focused on one negative aspect of a game to the determent of everything else(Kid Icarus: Uprising). And as I have said, you can Watch Nintendo Games, yes, but if anyone should be worried about YouTube eating up their sales it's companies like Telltale, who seemingly Now make movies with minimal gameplay. Nintendo's biggest Strength is gameplay, and you can not experience gameplay through a video.

[CUD]

Add to this limitations of what you can show with what the agreement means. If you sign your channel up for the full deal, you can ONLY have games from Nintendo that are approved. If you're someone like my Channel, where I'm working on a few PC games as ideas for Let's Plays, I can't do it because something like Dragon Quest IX because it's not approved Nothing else unless you want to make another channel. As well, if you choose individual videos, you effectively have to have Nintendo approve EVERY Video you do before you get any money from it. If they don't like something, congrats, you can't make that video.

 

I feel like I'm the only one who is actually trying to understand where Joe/Youtube gamers are coming from.

 

Really? I wonder how much Nintendo would restrict other videos from other games being on your channel if you signed that contract. I thought it would only apply to Nintendo videos but I suppose they could their contract with you if they deem your channel unsuitable for whatever reason.

 

You're definitely not the only one that understands where Joe is coming from as I have expressed in this thread also. Nintendo's YouTube policies are lame and hurt Nintendo's online communities, why anyone would support them is beyond me.

[Bill Cipher]

Really? I wonder how much Nintendo would restrict other videos from other games being on your channel if you signed that contract. I thought it would only apply to Nintendo videos but I suppose they could their contract with you if they deem your channel unsuitable for whatever reason.

 

You're definitely not the only one that understands where Joe is coming from as I have expressed in this thread also. Nintendo's YouTube policies are lame and hurt Nintendo's online communities, why anyone would support them is beyond me.

From the site itself:

 

1. You can register single videos or entire channels.
2. When you register a channel, you will be eligible to receive a share of advertising revenue from Nintendo for all videos included in that channel, regardless of their content. If you only want some videos to apply to this program, please register each video individually.
3. You can only use channels or videos that contain copyrighted content related to game titles specified by Nintendo, and they must be your original creations. Be sure your videos do not contain copyrighted material from third parties or content from unconfirmed game titles. See here for a list of Nintendo game titles specified for use with this program.
4. It can regularly take up to three business days for your registered content to be reviewed and finalized.
5. The advertisement revenue share is 70 for channels and 60 for videos.
   (This rate may change from time to time.)
6. In order to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and as a condition to participating in the Nintendo Creators Program, you must include the following disclosure with any videos you create that contain Nintendo content:
   
   I have a license to use Nintendo’s content in this video through the Nintendo Creators Program. This video is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, but any advertising revenue from this video will be shared with Nintendo.
   
   This disclosure may be spoken (e.g., in the YouTube video) or written (e.g., in the YouTube caption or as on-screen text in the video). Regardless of format, you need to make sure the disclosure is prominently presented, easy to understand, and clearly visible and/or audible to anyone who views your video.

 

From what I'm understanding, If it's games, it can only be from Nintendo's approved list of games if you do a channel wide partnership.

[GCD]

Yt reviewer, who is well aware of how the whole YT copyright system words, makes video a with copyright material in it, get's copyright notice, removes copyright video, makes new video to rant at said injustice, makes more money from rant video, job done.

[Marcus]

I think the issue is not about the ad revenue, but more so that Nintendo wants to protect it's IP and be able to control how it is delivered to the consumer.

 

I suspect this is likely correct.

 

I remember my young 5 year old cousin being a huge Mario fan and wanting to watch Mario on youtube because his parents wouldn't buy him a console. I remember them then complaining that they found what seemed like a good lets play video but the commentator started swearing a few minutes in (they're the type that really irrationally care about that).

 

I think it's probably a similar thing as to why they're not having voice chat in Splatoon. They're aware of what the internet is like and they want to do whatever they can to keep the brand identity constant. Of course I could be wrong. They could just be idiots and think this is better for business. Which it isn't.