Bigtime YouTuber, AngryJoe, says enough is enough with Nintendo

[Snickerzz]

@GoodBytes I think you meant "views" 

[Misanthrope]

It's kind of his fault though, he knows Nintendo dos this sort of crap but still did Nintendo stuff. Total Biscuit and many other You Tuber's don't do Nintendo stuff for this very reason. 

 

Actually no: Provided sufficient time and money (things I'm sure Joe doesn't have) despite of what he thinks he is entitled to use the content under fair use.

[GoodBytes]

@GoodBytes I think you meant "views" 

Capture.PNG

Nope. Almost 2 million subscribers and more than 300 million views (that is in total, not per video)

https://www.youtube.com/user/AngryJoeShow/featured(look at the subscriber count next to the red subscribe button). It is currently at 1,958,525. Sorry for not being exact however.

[Snickerzz]

Nope. 2 million subscribers and more than 300 million views (that is in total, not per video)

but you said videos reaching over 2 million subscribers, videos don't have subscribers

[sgloux3470]

I really have no sympathy for streamers/let's players in this situation.

 

They're making money through third party services paying them ad revenue for streaming/uploading content that they have no ownership of while still begging fans for money via shit like Patreon so they can buy all the new games that come out.

 

I love that people are passionate about video game content.  But none of these chucklefucks are entitled to any money for it.  It's the same deal as back in the day when people would try and sell mods.  You don't own it, you can't sell it.  Doesn't matter how much work you put into it because the license agreement you agreed to when you bought the game says you don't own it.  (You could however contract out work to clans and stuff, I knew a guy that made quite a bit of money making personalized maps for people with the money.)

 

 

 

...and any others are off-limits for content creators entirely.

You can stream as much Nintendo content as you want.  Just don't try to make money off of it without being a professional and actually forming an agreement with them to do it.  

 

 

 

 

 

His argument is pretty flawed. They're not doing it because he recommended the game, they did it because he monetized that recommendation and they feel like they're owed part of that. I don't agree with Nintendo though, they're greedy and they're only shooting themselves in the foot. Nintendo might have the most loyal, idiotic, unreasonable fanbase, but god knows they could do with attracting a few more customers. Their stupidity has lost them so much money.

 

Why shouldn't Nintendo get a cut?

 

They're the ones that spent millions making the game, marketing it, localizing it, publishing it etc.  All he's doing is yapping over footage from the game.  There's no script, there's no real production going on.  It's just him pressing record while talking while he plays the game.  He shouldn't get a dime from it.

 

 

[Faceman]

I like Angry Joe a lot.  Shame on Nintendo.

[Misanthrope]

I really have no sympathy for streamers/let's players in this situation.

 

They're making money through third party services paying them ad revenue for streaming/uploading content that they have no ownership of while still begging fans for money via shit like Patreon so they can buy all the new games that come out.

I'm not gonna say you're wrong, but you're really over simplyfing streaming and reviewing: Not just anybody "plays" the game and that's it. By simply commenting on you're already doing transformative job which is covered under fair use and it has been done for decades: From people "rifting" movies to djs remixing music and even musicians covering songs.

More over gaming it's even more open to this kind of transformative work due to the fact that the interactivity and in many cases openness of the game lends itself to a lot of creative endeavours. People don't just like any random jackass that plays a game for 2 hours, they like people that interacts, people that have a good sense of humor, etc.

Regardless, let's say that you completely disagree with my views on streaming and let's players: the matter should be up to a court of law to decide since we're talking about legal implications. And by law, this should be covered by fair use.

[GoodBytes]

but you said videos reaching over 2 million subscribers, videos don't have subscribers

Oh! haha! Thanks, will fix.

[Camul]

Why shouldn't Nintendo get a cut?

 

They're the ones that spent millions making the game, marketing it, localizing it, publishing it etc.  All he's doing is yapping over footage from the game.  There's no script, there's no real production going on.  It's just him pressing record while talking while he plays the game.  He shouldn't get a dime from it.

 

They'll also make millions more by selling the game. Anything that content creators do to show off the game only benefits Nintendo, because a great review means that people are more likely to buy it. If a game gets a bad review, then fuck it, the dev doesn't deserve the sales anyway. It's not surprising though, Nintendo is run by a pack of retards.

 

Of course, they're well within their right to do it, and I never argued against that. I'm just not greedy enough to feel like the world owes me. I'll make my rewards for the work I put into the things I create, and not by taking it off other people.

 

Also, to say that these people deserve no money for their work makes no sense, since a lot of work can go into making a video.

[TetraSky]

I don't agree with Nintendo doing this... But they have all the rights to do so. It's their games after all. Others devs and publishers could totally do this as well and you wouldn't be able to prevent them. Sure it's free publicity for them, but Nintendo doesn't care, they don't need that free publicity to sell Mario, Zelda, Metroid, etc...

 

Being able to live off making videos of you playing games on youtube is a privilege, not a right. It can be taken away at any time. Never forget that.

[sgloux3470]

I'm not gonna say you're wrong, but you're really over simplyfing streaming and reviewing: Not just anybody "plays" the game and that's it. By simply commenting on you're already doing transformative job which is covered under fair use and it has been done for decades: From people "rifting" movies to djs remixing music and even musicians covering songs.

More over gaming it's even more open to this kind of transformative work due to the fact that the interactivity and in many cases openness of the game lends itself to a lot of creative endeavours. People don't just like any random jackass that plays a game for 2 hours, they like people that interacts, people that have a good sense of humor, etc.

Regardless, let's say that you completely disagree with my views on streaming and let's players: the matter should be up to a court of law to decide since we're talking about legal implications. And by law, this should be covered by fair use.

 

Fair use laws are very complicated, and one of the most important deciding factors in determining whether or not a particular case of usage was fair is "Were they making money off of it?".  

 

You can't go make a movie commentary and upload the movie along with the commentary, it isn't considered fair use.  (For example)

 

They'll also make millions more by selling the game. Anything that content creators do to show off the game only benefits Nintendo, because a great review means that people are more likely to buy it. If a game gets a bad review, then fuck it, the dev doesn't deserve the sales anyway. It's not surprising though, Nintendo is run by a pack of retards.

 

Of course, they're well within their right to do it, and I never argued against that. I'm just not greedy enough to feel like the world owes me. I'll make my rewards for the work I put into the things I create, and not by taking it off other people.

You can review games without excessive gameplay footage.  The way movie reviewers tend to do this is to use trailer footage or short ~30 second clips to fall within fair use guidelines.  Or you know, written reviews could be a thing again...  Likewise with impression videos.  If people are coming just to listen to your commentary, then why not make sure your visual content adheres to fair use guidelines?  Animated content like Yahtzee does for example.  There are a ton of ways to make interesting video game content that isn't just "Play the game and talk over it".  

 

Nintendo long ago decided they don't need to give a fuck about the gaming press.  This is why they stopped having a conference at E3 and started to instead do Nintendo Direct's where they advertise directly to the people who are going to buy their games.  They don't have to give a fuck about youtube.  This is incidentally largely why the gaming press has shunned the Wii U despite everyone who has ever fucking played one says it's the best console to own right now.  

 

 

I'd have more respect for streamers if they actually worked WITH companies rather than independently.  Get in talks with the PR guys, work out deals and that sort of thing.  As it is right now, it's amateurs trying to cash in on a legal wild west situation.  The law is catching up, however.  This is why Patreon is rising in popularity, as they're slowly realizing that they're going to have to beg their fans for money rather than producing anything worth actually spending money on.

[typographie]

But none of these chucklefucks are entitled to any money for it.

 

That goes out the window when you consider critique and opinion. They aren't just showing Nintendo trailers and expecting to be paid for putting it up on Youtube, they are doing their own work. Legitimate critique generally requires some degree of demonstration, and so it often includes gameplay. Nintendo getting to control what gets said about their products is utterly absurd.

[bcredeur97]

Nintendo is a problematic coorperation.

 

We all want them to be good, because they are different and offer games that very unique for us, but they have policies like that that drive us angry. And some of their product lineups are /unnecessary/ i.e. the 3DS revions that at the end of the day, end up being too close to being the same exact products. 

[Misanthrope]

Fair use laws are very complicated, and one of the most important deciding factors in determining whether or not a particular case of usage was fair is "Were they making money off of it?".  

 

You can't go make a movie commentary and upload the movie along with the commentary, it isn't considered fair use.  (For example)

Then explain this sindicated tv show:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094517/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

[bob345]

Nintendo needs to get with the times if they still want to be relevant. I hate to say it, but if Nintendo does not start to change some of their problematic business practices they may just fade away.

[Camul]

You can review games without excessive gameplay footage.  The way movie reviewers tend to do this is to use trailer footage or short ~30 second clips to fall within fair use guidelines.  Or you know, written reviews could be a thing again...  Likewise with impression videos.  If people are coming just to listen to your commentary, then why not make sure your visual content adheres to fair use guidelines?  Animated content like Yahtzee does for example.  There are a ton of ways to make interesting video game content that isn't just "Play the game and talk over it".  

 

Nintendo long ago decided they don't need to give a fuck about the gaming press.  This is why they stopped having a conference at E3 and started to instead do Nintendo Direct's where they advertise directly to the people who are going to buy their games.  They don't have to give a fuck about youtube.  This is incidentally largely why the gaming press has shunned the Wii U despite everyone who has ever fucking played one says it's the best console to own right now.  

 

 

I'd have more respect for streamers if they actually worked WITH companies rather than independently.  Get in talks with the PR guys, work out deals and that sort of thing.  As it is right now, it's amateurs trying to cash in on a legal wild west situation.  The law is catching up, however.  This is why Patreon is rising in popularity, as they're slowly realizing that they're going to have to beg their fans for money rather than producing anything worth actually spending money on.

 

It seems you're looking at it from a legal perspective. You're not wrong in that regard, but I don't believe that the legal thing is necessarily the right thing. Whether the footage is the game being played, a trailer or even entirely original content, what does it matter? If you made a game and people did let's plays, what harm would it really do to you? Why would you feel the need to go out of your way to take money off these people making their own content, admittedly with help of your own creation? You already made your money from selling your game. What they do does no harm to you, or your property.

 

There's nothing that Nintendo has produced in the last couple of decades that I've used that hasn't been riddled with stupid choices or design decisions. They're idiots.

[Camul]

Nintendo needs to get wit the times if they still want to be relevant. I hate to say it, but if Nintendo does not start to change some of their problematic business practices they may just fade away.

 

I hope they do. I'm sick of having to buy shitty consoles, to play their overpriced games.

[GoodBytes]

I hope they do. I'm sick of having to buy shitty games consoles, to play their overpriced games.

Nintendo games are jam pack with content and generally super fun. You do get your money worth.

Despite all what happened to Angry Joe, even he admitted that he had the most fun and highly recommends the console (well want to). Shows you how the games are.

Anyway, Nintendo has contributed A LOT in the gaming world we face, and I don't want to see them gone, because I want to see what else they can contribute later on. Nintendo has crazy talent. Shame about their executives.

[Camul]

Nintendo games are jam pack with content and generally super fun. You do get your money worth.

Despite all what happened to Angry Joe, even he admitted that he had the most fun and highly recommends the console (well want to).

Before all this mess, Nintendo console + PC was the best gaming combo. Nintendo console isn't expensive per se compared to the others, sure the graphics aren't PC like, but you are playing it for the unique experience and game play. And the off schedule from Nintendo allows you to play games with little conflict from big PC titles. At worst you can wait on the console side, as they aren't games so often like on the PC side.

 

They are fun, but I never feel like I'm getting my moneys worth content wise. They usually never differ that much from the previous game, and I always finish them feeling kinda ripped off. That being said, I don't feel like most games are worth the £40 asking price, but the difference is that Nintendo games never seem to drop in price like other games.

[sgloux3470]

That goes out the window when you consider critique and opinion. They aren't just showing Nintendo trailers and expecting to be paid for putting it up on Youtube, they are doing their own work. Legitimate critique generally requires some degree of demonstration, and so it often includes gameplay. Nintendo getting to control what gets said about their products is utterly absurd.

 

There are confines in how much gameplay you can show.  Generally the rule is 30-60s.  Show a relevant clip to a talking point, then fill the rest with generic footage that you have the rights to actually use.  It's not hard.

 

 

Then explain this sindicated tv show:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094517/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

 

They got permission from the rights holders to do it, obviously. (Something youtubers could do if they actually behaved like professionals.)

 

 

Q: Were fans able to suggest movies the series could feature?

A: BBI did not accept fan suggestions for movie choices. Complicated legal issues surrounding the rights to individual movies prevented this.

 

Q: How come they never riffed on a recent, big-name theatrical bomb?

A: For financial reasons. MST3K would have loved to do a big-budget movie, but gaining the rights to such a movie would have been too expensive.

http://www.mst3kinfo.com/mstfaq/basics.html

 

 

 

It seems you're looking at it from a legal perspective. You're not wrong in that regard, but I don't believe that the legal thing is necessarily the right thing. Whether the footage is the game being played, a trailer or even entirely original content, what does it matter? If you made a game and people did let's plays, what harm would it really do to you? Why would you feel the need to go out of your way to take money off these people making their own content, admittedly with help of your own creation? You already made your money from selling your game. What they do does no harm to you, or your property.

 

 

 

 It spoils game content.  Nintendo in particular is very strict with review embargoes about what reviewers can and cannot mention in their reviews because they care a lot about maintaining the user experience. (They're not into the whole "THE JOKER DIES" type bullshit sites like Kotaku pull for new games.)  likewise, if your game is a very narrative focused game maybe people will, instead of buying your game, choose to experience the story by watching someone else play it.  This is why the PS4 (and I presume the xbone) allow developers to set up "blocked scenes" for the streaming and video recording functionality.  I know more than a few people who didn't buy games because they saw the story on youtube. (Not that I think games that are so reliant on their story are necessarily good anyway, but it's a valid concern for publishers.)

 

You also have to worry about people portraying your game in an unrealistic way.  For example if someone were to make a video about how your game is super buggy and crashes all the time, even if it doesn't, this could hurt your games image in the market.  This is why people who attend pre-release functions aren't allowed to record footage more often than not.  It drives PR people nuts everytime someone uploads a "CHECK OUT THIS CRAZY CALL OF DUTY GAMEBREAKING GLITCH".  

 

Anyway in general I'm not taking issue with people making content.  I take issue with people thinking they are entitled to money for it. Sites like Rooster Teeth and Giantbomb make their money off of subscriptions and merchandise, although I'm sure they dip into the adsense revenue like everyone else.  They built a business, established business relationships to let them keep doing what they are doing etc.  They're truly self-employed.  If you want to quit your job to make youtube videos, then you should behave like a small business and not like a kid in a basement.  Get **permission from the rights holder**, maybe even get paid directly for your videos by the publisher's PR firm.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Camul]

 It spoils game content.  Nintendo in particular is very strict with review embargoes about what reviewers can and cannot mention in their reviews because they care a lot about maintaining the user experience.  likewise, if your game is a very narrative focused game maybe people will, instead of buying your game, choose to experience the story by watching someone else play it.  This is why the PS4 (and I presume the xbone) allow developers to set up "blocked scenes" for the streaming and video recording functionality.  I know more than a few people who didn't buy games because they saw the story on youtube. (Not that I think games that are so reliant on their story are necessarily good anyway, but it's a valid concern for publishers.)

 

You also have to worry about people portraying your game in an unrealistic way.  For example if someone were to make a video about how your game is super buggy and crashes all the time, even if it doesn't, this could hurt your games image in the market.  This is why people who attend pre-release functions aren't allowed to record footage more often than not.  It drives PR people nuts everytime someone uploads a "CHECK OUT THIS CRAZY CALL OF DUTY GAMEBREAKING GLITCH".  

 

Anyway in general I'm not taking issue with people making content.  I take issue with people thinking they are entitled to money for it. Sites like Rooster Teeth and Giantbomb make their money off of subscriptions and merchandise, although I'm sure they dip into the adsense revenue like everyone else.  They built a business, established business relationships to let them keep doing what they are doing etc.  They're truly self-employed.  If you want to quit your job to make youtube videos, then you should behave like a small business and not like a kid in a basement.  Get **permission from the rights holder**, maybe even get paid directly for your videos by the publisher's PR firm.  

 

It doesn't always spoil game content. I've never looked at a Pokemon or Mario Kart game video and worried about potential spoilers of the non-existing story. Do you think that Nintendo are so worried that people might find out that Princess Peach got her dumb ass locked up again before playing the game? Do you think AngryJoe's video was guilty of spoiling game content in Mario Party?

 

If someone was to portray the game as something it's not then the content creator would loose credibility, and they would hurt far more than the game sales would. This is the internet, you can't lie to it.

 

RoosterTeeth isn't a very good example. They do have some relationships with game devs, but their entire Let's Play channel is built off of everything that you complained about. Also, you complained about people using Patron, but you're fine with RT using their own subscription service? 

[typographie]

There are confines in how much gameplay you can show.  Generally the rule is 30-60s.  Show a relevant clip to a talking point, then fill the rest with generic footage that you have the rights to actually use.  It's not hard.

 

Whose rule is that, exactly?

[Equlix]

Its 2015 and people still don't seem to understand why Nintendo does things differently. Nintendo is not a game company, they are a toy company that deals in electronic experiences and exploiting the minds of children. Being popular with people 18+ was never part of their plan. Hopefully one day they will change but as they are making plenty of money I don't see that happening. 

[sgloux3470]

 

 

RoosterTeeth isn't a very good example. They do have some relationships with game devs, but their entire Let's Play channel is built off of everything that you complained about. Also, you complained about people using Patron, but you're fine with RT using their own subscription service? 

 

I haven't kept up with them.  Not surprised they jumped on the Let's Play bandwagon because it's low effort + easy cash.  I'm mainly referring to their machinima and live action shorts and podcast content they were doing ~4-5 years ago.

 

 

It doesn't always spoil game content. I've never looked at a Pokemon or Mario Kart game video and worried about potential spoilers of the non-existing story. Do you think that Nintendo are so worried that people might find out that Princess Peach got her dumb ass locked up again before playing the game? Do you think AngryJoe's video was guilty of spoiling game content in Mario Party?

 

 

It's obviously not applicable to every game, but there any many games where player discovery is important.  Stuff like secret playable characters, items, locales etc Nintendo sometimes likes to keep under wraps as much as they can.  I'm also not strictly talking about Nintendo games. I haven't watched Angry Joe's video.

 

 

Whose rule is that, exactly?

 

Fair use law.  Youtube even fucking explains this shit.

https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html

 

"Criticism is one of the core areas of fair use. Here, the host criticizes the game using short gameplay clips to illustrate specific points of his argument."

 

Notice that he doesn't just show uninterrupted gameplay and cuts back and forth between facecam and relevant gameplay (which isn't continuous footage anyway).  

[Biased Opinion]

Ya Nintendo can go deep within the earth and burn in black flames... Releasing a "Special" 3DS so that my previus 3ds XL is complete mud and dirt....

In what way is it complete mud and dirt. To my knowledge there is on game that cant be played on it and the lack of amibo support (I hardly think that this was intentional). Other than that it works just as well as the 3DS LL