Nintendo taking youtubers profit. (Also Youtubes contentid)

[Lordieth]

They're already advertising Nintendo by playing the game. Call it what you like, but this is nothing more than corporate greed, and given Nintendo's recent profits, I can certainly see why they're doing it.

Sega have been at it for some time. Never thought Nintendo would stoop that low.

The thing is though that some people just watch playthroughs with no intent of buying the game. This is why (I assume) Nintendo did this.

So what? It's free advertising. Even paid advertising is no guarantee of a sale. These people are willing to advertise Nintendo for free, and Nintendo wants to make money out of them. I think it's disgusting. You know what will happen? Less people will want to do Nintendo playthroughs. How could that possibly be of benefit? Nintendo may have lined their pockets, but at the cost of losing their credibility of being the underdogs who were meant to be distancing themselves from the competition.

They should be sending these people more games, not squeezing ad revenue out of their content.

[Condunum]

No, it's literally all about the money. Corporations do this all the time. If there is any legal path they can use to take profits and make it theirs, they'll do it and you'll be damn sure they'll make sure it happens until they won't see a positive gain.

Corporations are about money shock?

So what?

Missing the point 101

No, it's literally all about the money. Corporations do this all the time. If there is any legal path they can use to take profits and make it theirs, they'll do it and you'll be damn sure they'll make sure it happens until they won't see a positive gain.

This is good though, pretty much everyone who makes a living off these things doesn't deserve it. Unfortunately they also tend to focus more on steam games but hopefully they won't be able to profit off that eventually either.

Why don't they deserve it? Are you the master of who does and doesn't "deserve" their earnings? As far as I'm concerned, the copyright laws as they are are immoral and in need of severe revision, or for partnerships to be a requirement. Nintendo shouldn't have the right to strip profit away from people because their "invention" was used to make the profits. At best, they deserve a share.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

The thing is though that some people just watch playthroughs with no intent of buying the game. This is why (I assume) Nintendo did this.

So what? It's free advertising. Even paid advertising is no guarantee of a sale. These people are willing to advertise Nintendo for free, and Nintendo wants to make money out of them. I think it's disgusting. You know what will happen? Less people will want to do Nintendo playthroughs. How could that possibly be of benefit? Nintendo may have lined their pockets, but at the cost of losing their credibility of being the underdogs who were meant to be distancing themselves from the competition.

They should be sending these people more games, not squeezing ad revenue out of their content.

No, they won't. Content providers want page views on the channels that they pay to keep up, right?

If you can get viewers to your channel with a LP, which you don't make money from, then you have an avenue to funnel people to content that you've created that you CAN make money off of. Simple as that.

[Forsakia]

The thing is though that some people just watch playthroughs with no intent of buying the game. This is why (I assume) Nintendo did this.

So what? It's free advertising. Even paid advertising is no guarantee of a sale. These people are willing to advertise Nintendo for free, and Nintendo wants to make money out of them. I think it's disgusting. You know what will happen? Less people will want to do Nintendo playthroughs. How could that possibly be of benefit? Nintendo may have lined their pockets, but at the cost of losing their credibility of being the underdogs who were meant to be distancing themselves from the competition.

They should be sending these people more games, not squeezing ad revenue out of their content.

That's Nintendo's decision to make. Clearly they think they'll be better off getting revenue from the ads (and I'm sure they thought about the cost/benefits of that). Some companies give out free samples, some don't. What's there to be disgusted about?

[Charmicarmicat]

The thing is though that some people just watch playthroughs with no intent of buying the game. This is why (I assume) Nintendo did this.

So what? It's free advertising. Even paid advertising is no guarantee of a sale. These people are willing to advertise Nintendo for free, and Nintendo wants to make money out of them. I think it's disgusting. You know what will happen? Less people will want to do Nintendo playthroughs. How could that possibly be of benefit? Nintendo may have lined their pockets, but at the cost of losing their credibility of being the underdogs who were meant to be distancing themselves from the competition.

They should be sending these people more games, not squeezing ad revenue out of their content.

"Will you advertise for us?"
"Okay, pay me first."
"Here you go."
[advertisement ensues]

"I'm going to advertise for you."
"What?"
"Well, when I say advertise, I mean spout moronic failed comedian's gibberish, make some disparaging remarks and associate your game with the lowest common denominator. I will make money off of this."
"But I don't wa-"
"HEY IT'S FREE WOW YOU'RE SO GREEDY"

advertising

[Cetacea]

The thing is though that some people just watch playthroughs with no intent of buying the game. This is why (I assume) Nintendo did this.

No, it's literally all about the money. Corporations do this all the time. If there is any legal path they can use to take profits and make it theirs, they'll do it and you'll be damn sure they'll make sure it happens until they won't see a positive gain.

Your point being what?

Corporations exist to make money from their products?


If people want to be paid for their youtube clips then make something original not just a game playthru

[Graknopia]

How about them just taking the videos down then taking profit?

[Charmicarmicat]

Why don't they deserve it?

Because they:
1) had no involvement in producing the content
2) produce absolutely minimal content
3) are generally undeserving of financial reward for their horrible "talents"

[Graknopia]

Why don't they deserve it?

Because they:
1) had no involvement in producing the content
2) produce absolutely minimal content
3) are generally undeserving of financial reward for their horrible "talents"

Some peope go through great length editing these videos, actually.

[Condunum]

Why don't they deserve it?

Because they:
1) had no involvement in producing the content
2) produce absolutely minimal content
3) are generally undeserving of financial reward for their horrible "talents"

Don't cherrypick my posts when the rest is relevant.

No, it's literally all about the money. Corporations do this all the time. If there is any legal path they can use to take profits and make it theirs, they'll do it and you'll be damn sure they'll make sure it happens until they won't see a positive gain.

Your point being what?

Corporations exist to make money from their products?


If people want to be paid for their youtube clips then make something original not just a game playthru

Oversimplifying what someone is saying is not an argument.

[Charmicarmicat]

Because they:
1) had no involvement in producing the content
2) produce absolutely minimal content
3) are generally undeserving of financial reward for their horrible "talents"

Some peope go through great length editing these videos, actually.

Which is comparable to producing a AAA title, how.

Because they:
1) had no involvement in producing the content
2) produce absolutely minimal content
3) are generally undeserving of financial reward for their horrible "talents"

Don't cherrypick my posts

It would be relevant if this was a "cry over copyright" thread, it's a "cry over my failed comedians not getting paid for their shitty comment track tape" thread.

[Lordieth]

So what? It's free advertising. Even paid advertising is no guarantee of a sale. These people are willing to advertise Nintendo for free, and Nintendo wants to make money out of them. I think it's disgusting. You know what will happen? Less people will want to do Nintendo playthroughs. How could that possibly be of benefit? Nintendo may have lined their pockets, but at the cost of losing their credibility of being the underdogs who were meant to be distancing themselves from the competition.

They should be sending these people more games, not squeezing ad revenue out of their content.

"Will you advertise for us?"
"Okay, pay me first."
"Here you go."
[advertisement ensues]

"I'm going to advertise for you."
"What?"
"Well, when I say advertise, I mean spout moronic failed comedian's gibberish, make some disparaging remarks and associate your game with the lowest common denominator. I will make money off of this."
"But I don't wa-"
"HEY IT'S FREE WOW YOU'RE SO GREEDY"

advertising

Reputation counts for a lot. Game companies acting like this hardly seems to benefit the company in question. There was that huge uproar not long ago over a small developer who tried to claim TotalBiscuit was infringing on their copyright just because he gave a less than favourable review of their game.

Seeing someone play a game is advertising. Playing a game and watching a game are two different things. It's not like watching someone watch a movie.

[Multifarity]

Why don't they deserve it?

Because they:
1) had no involvement in producing the content
2) produce absolutely minimal content
3) are generally undeserving of financial reward for their horrible "talents"

You just described every single tertiary occupation.


Seems like losing a whole lot of advertising in return for what must be a mathematically insignificant amount of money to a company the size of Nintendo...
Well within their rights of course, but as Aristotle once said:

"Try and milk a cow too many times in a day... And it will kick you in the cunt."

I think that's what he said... I don't speak Ancient Greek.

[Graknopia]

Some peope go through great length editing these videos, actually.

Which is comparable to producing a AAA title, how.

Don't cherrypick my posts

It would be relevant if this was a "cry over copyright" thread, it's a "cry over my failed comedians not getting paid for their shitty comment track tape" thread.

Its not at all, but they also make a pittance compared to AAA titles

[Condunum]

Some peope go through great length editing these videos, actually.

Which is comparable to producing a AAA title, how.

Don't cherrypick my posts

It would be relevant if this was a "cry over copyright" thread, it's a "cry over my failed comedians not getting paid for their shitty comment track tape" thread.

pardon me for being able to see past the one specific instance and notice that this is a trend which needs attention.

[Charmicarmicat]

Reputation counts for a lot. Game companies acting like this hardly seems to benefit the company in question.

As opposed to having Pewdiepie screaming rape rape rape over their games? Gets me in the mood to play some Amnesia.

There was that huge uproar not long ago over a small developer who tried to claim TotalBiscuit was infringing on their copyright just because he gave a less than favourable review of their game.

A review isn't a let's play.

Seeing someone play a game is advertising. Playing a game and watching a game are two different things. It's not like watching someone watch a movie.

But there's a difference between a company consenting to let a bunch of amateurs run amok with their brand, characters and work and paying millions to get their products to people.

You just described every single tertiary occupation.

How is that in any way comparable at all.

Which is comparable to producing a AAA title, how.

It would be relevant if this was a "cry over copyright" thread, it's a "cry over my failed comedians not getting paid for their shitty comment track tape" thread.

Its not at all, but they also make a pittance compared to AAA titles

And yet enough to live on.

[Graknopia]

Reputation counts for a lot. Game companies acting like this hardly seems to benefit the company in question.

As opposed to having Pewdiepie screaming rape rape rape over their games? Gets me in the mood to play some Amnesia.

There was that huge uproar not long ago over a small developer who tried to claim TotalBiscuit was infringing on their copyright just because he gave a less than favourable review of their game.

A review isn't a let's play.

Seeing someone play a game is advertising. Playing a game and watching a game are two different things. It's not like watching someone watch a movie.

But there's a difference between a company consenting to let a bunch of amateurs run amok with their brand, characters and work and paying millions to get their products to people.

You just described every single tertiary occupation.

How is that in any way comparable at all.

Its not at all, but they also make a pittance compared to AAA titles

And yet enough to live on.

Thats not most youtubers. Most use it as a side job

[Multifarity]

You just described every single tertiary occupation.

How is that in any way comparable at all.

Your 3 accusations:

1) had no involvement in producing the content
2) produce absolutely minimal content
3) are generally undeserving of financial reward for their horrible "talents"

Estate Agent:
1) Did not build the house.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Very well paid, viewed by most outsiders to be charlatans.

Supermarket Worker:
1) Did not grow the food.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Viewed by most outsiders to be morons.

Telemarketer:
1) Did not make the product.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Viewed by most outsiders to be annoying.

I could go on...

[Condunum]

As opposed to having Pewdiepie screaming rape rape rape over their games? Gets me in the mood to play some Amnesia.
A review isn't a let's play.
But there's a difference between a company consenting to let a bunch of amateurs run amok with their brand, characters and work and paying millions to get their products to people.
How is that in any way comparable at all.

And yet enough to live on.

Thats not most youtubers. Most use it as a side job

Often not even that. It's really only the big names who can use it as a primary income, whereas most just use it as a way to fund improving their youtube channels. Equipment cost greens, sadly.

[Graknopia]

How is that in any way comparable at all.

Your 3 accusations:

1) had no involvement in producing the content
2) produce absolutely minimal content
3) are generally undeserving of financial reward for their horrible "talents"

Estate Agent:
1) Did not build the house.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Very well paid, viewed by most outsiders to be charlatans.

Supermarket Worker:
1) Did not grow the food.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Viewed by most outsiders to be morons.

Telemarketer:
1) Did not make the product.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Viewed by most outsiders to be annoying.

I could go on...

They were all given permissionto advertise/represent

[Multifarity]

Your 3 accusations:


Estate Agent:
1) Did not build the house.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Very well paid, viewed by most outsiders to be charlatans.

Supermarket Worker:
1) Did not grow the food.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Viewed by most outsiders to be morons.

Telemarketer:
1) Did not make the product.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Viewed by most outsiders to be annoying.

I could go on...

They were all given permissionto advertise/represent

Which interestingly wasn't any of Charmander's 3 points.

[Charmicarmicat]

Estate Agent:
1) Did not build the house.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Very well paid, viewed by most outsiders to be charlatans.

Values property, finds accommodation for those looking for homes.

Supermarket Worker:
1) Did not grow the food.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Viewed by most outsiders to be morons.

Stacks shelves, brings customers to product they desire, maintains hygiene standards, mans tills.

Telemarketer:
1) Did not make the product.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Viewed by most outsiders to be annoying.

Borderline non existent. Does not shriek loudly when the phone is answered

I could go on...

You could but your point is fucking stupid and it'd be a bit futile.

In the "worst economic recession in history" we should still be looking at people in untrained labour as "morons", yes. Good ideas. Good attitudes.

[Graknopia]

They were all given permissionto advertise/represent

Which interestingly wasn't any of Charmander's 3 points.

Ok, then those people by the company to sell the pruducts. Youtubing a product wasnt reques nor is it necesarry

[The Republic of Llamas]

I'm fine with this. They made the game, after all, and I assume they're only taking a cut of the revenue, not all of it.

[Multifarity]

Estate Agent:
1) Did not build the house.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Very well paid, viewed by most outsiders to be charlatans.

Values property, finds accommodation for those looking for homes.

Supermarket Worker:
1) Did not grow the food.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Viewed by most outsiders to be morons.

Stacks shelves, brings customers to product they desire, maintains hygiene standards, mans tills.

Telemarketer:
1) Did not make the product.
2) Do the least possible to earn their living.
3) Viewed by most outsiders to be annoying.

Borderline non existent. Does not shriek loudly when the phone is answered

I could go on...

You could but your point is fucking stupid and it'd be a bit futile.

It was a throwaway comment regarding the irrelevancy of your list...
What I said was: 'You just described every tertiary job.'
What you read was: 'You just described every tertiary job and therefore you are wrong.'