Topic: Unpopular Gaming Opinions

Rayman Origins was suppose to explain....well his origins. But instead, it ended up being a reboot that fails to capture everything about 1 and 2. The gameplay isn't solid as the originals, the level design while creative is too easy until you come to the parts where one hit and you start over and that same issue is apparent even in Legends. The stories are shallow for both ( I haven't beaten legends yet so don't spoil the ending for that game.) All the characters are dumb and even with their charm of their stupidity, it doesn't put a smile in my face one bit. Who asked them to make them look stupid? I'm happy Nintendo never does stuff like this and even then, its only a minor thing here and there(Although I'm a bit upset that they make Luigi more gullible and less smart.)

Honestly, these games feel like you're using emulators to ease the difficulty and the difficulty itself doesn't match that to the original titles. Yes, story doesn't mean everything but the fact that they made it so good in the originals just puts a scratch in your head wondering why this approach was necessary. Even getting the goodies in both of them feel like a chore to get them.

So I was reading a bit of this Nintendo Youtube thing today, because it totally went past my radar back then.
Whatever I read, people keep starting their articles with "Let me start by saying that Nintendo's Youtube practices are bullcrap".
For what I understand, Nintendo is asking a fee from people who make money using their content.
This is not bullcrap and youtube gamers would know if they knew anything about the world outside the videogame industry.

I'm sorry I always mention the music industry but it makes for a lovely comparison because it's much older than videogames and most of the stuff the VG industry is going through, the music industry has likely been through half a century ago...however:
say I write a good song and Mercedes Benz uses it for one of their commercials. Mercedes Benz owes me money.
a satellite radio plays my tune. The radio owes me money.
my song gets used as the soundtrack for a TV clip montage. I get a check everytime that clip is broadcast.

The point I'm trying to make is that in music everytime somebody uses your own creation to make a profit, you get a fee. People argue that youtubers mean "free advertising" but I don't see it that way.
Let's pretend that, say, youtuber "Ordinary Joe" (fantasy name) is streaming my content. All I know is that he's basically giving away my own content for his gain. There is no way for me to know if this "free advertising" will result in any sale at all. Furthermore, there is no way for me to know if this free advertising will present the product the way I wanted it to be presented (which is basically THE point of advertising). Third, I might not want my product to be associated with Ordinary Joe, the same way I wouldn't want my song to be associated with a lingerie commercial (see Bob Dylan, he didn't mind).
Many youtubers say that if they own the game, they own the rights to use that content. NOT for profit. I own a copy of The Name of the Rose, personally purchased, but that doesn't mean I can make a movie off it without giving Umberto Eco his royalties.
So why do people keep saying Nintendo's practices are bullcrap?! They just seem standard protocol to me.

Its not the problem with the program in general but the problem with the youtubers themselves. Majority of them just rely on Youtube as means to survive and they need every creative freedom inorder to do so. While Nintendo can tweak the program a bit and just allow any game to be recorded to get paid, the fact that youtubers get paid so little just proves that its not worth doing that job only and a part time job is required for such people. But that mindset that they can't afford to get themselves another job because of their long time posting videos to make money speaks to itself.

But seriously though, Youtube should be the one to be blamed here not Nintendo. Youtube started this copyright thing which caused a lot of companies to think of the opposite instead of free advertisement.

But honestly, youtubers neither advertise the game nor do they say good things about it. Sure, a let's play is better than a guide but unless commentary isn't added, it doesn't really motivate the player to buy the game or play it whatsoever. Infact, games with stories heavily focused on them lose more money if such a let's play were to happen.

"Immersion" is the dumbest, most irritating new buzzword in video game marketing. It's self-important and means absolutely nothing. And people who take it seriously are equally as irritating.

Would love to see some sources for your claim.
I'll start with this, proving the opposite: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/219122/Is_YouTube_killing_...

@nacho_chicken it's an interesting article, but it mentions one of the points I was trying to make - big companies are not sure what to do with youtubers.
For newcomers, or indies, I understand youtube can be a great launch platform - after all any newcomer would benefit from that kind of exposure, and there's usually a friendly "word of mounth" vibe around them. Indie games need youtubers as much as youtubers need indie games.
But for bigger companies...it's debatable. Probably Nintendo doesn't need youtubers as much as youtubers need Nintendo.
That's why I don't see the fee as illogical - it's standard procedure as far as I'm concerned.

ps. the article sometimes compares press coverage and journalism with youtubers/let's players, but the two are clearly different, both in modus operandi and in the way they make money based on somebody else's content.

Well, it is called the Unpopular Gaming Opinions Thread. I can't speak about the Rayman Origins thing... because I haven't played it yet. ;(

Just to nitpick, they technically don't need Nintendo, since they could just play other games, assuming they're going into it from the mindset of a business and not just playing the games they feel like playing.

The problem with Nintendo's method isn't the fee. The problem is that under their ad-revenue-sharing program, they have a pre-approved list of games they allow you to make a cut of the ad money from. Any other Nintendo game, and they make you take it down completely. This whitelist DOES NOT INCLUDE SMASH BROS, POKEMON, OR BAYONETTA. These are the most popular games to stream/LP, and you either give all the money to Nintendo, or they take it down by force.

There's also a very user-unfriendly method of "registering" your videos if your channel is not 100% dedicated to Nintendo content. It can take weeks for Nintendo to approve/reject your video, and that's time you could've spent making (more) money playing/reviewing some other game that's not from Nintendo.

@nacho_chicken showing the game in motion doesn't necessarily mean free advertisement. Lots of youtubers do not give courtesy for the footage they display so that doesn't bring so much of awareness and doesn't help the viewers to get the game.

Another example is modding. The youtuber shows off a game that is being modded but not the original game. It motivates the player to play the mod but not for the game but because you need to buy the game to play the mod, they will do so but they will only play the mods if they see that interesting and not the actual game.

While Minecraft became popular with youtube, it was because of it having no publisher and as a result, it was considered safe to upload the footage because of it not having a trademark.

Let's not forget that there are tons of videos that just rant about a game that viewers shouldn't buy. That's not advertising the viewer to buy the game but rather gives awareness to never play such games which is a bad thing even for a game that isn't mediocre.

Let's look at Rise of lyric. That game brought awareness as the worst game ever made instead of motivating viewers to buy the product. There is a HUGE difference between advertising the product and making either a parody or a rant about a product.

A commercial shows a game. That is advertising. A youtuber shows the same game. That is awareness and not advertisement because he has the potential to make viewers not buy the product and plus, he steals content to show not to buy it.

^ Every once in a while, you get that guy...

Can we change this thread's name to "Unpopular Gaming Opinions That You Actually Have"?

@nacho_chicken I still think what Nintendo is doing is very fair. As you know, youtubers get the money from youtube, but the money come from third party companies who advertise through youtube. So the company, say Redbull, gets its share in getting their ad across the way they wanted. Youtubers get their share in money. Youtube gets its share in clicks and views. The only one who wouldn't be making a sure fire profit and wouldn't have any control whatsoever on the content would be Nintendo, and yet all of this would be based on their own content!!
As for the three games you have mentioned, you have to know who owns what. Nintendo has published Bayo, but who owns the licence to the series, the character, the music etc?! The same goes for Smash Bros, which contains third party characters and music. The Pokémon licence, that I can tell you, is shared between Nintendo and two more companies. It's very tricky when there's money involved.
Nintendo is not doing anything out of this world - these practices have existed for ages in all fields of art/entertainment (incidentally, I got my first job in music making when a friend's short movie couldn't be screened because it contained unauthorized music).

I think Miiverse's new policy is overly strict to the point of absurdly. not sure how unpopular this is, but i do see people on the comments of the nintendo life article agreeing with nintendo. And it may or may not be just me and Nintendo didn't explain it very well, but i think this policy will end up hurting people who buy used Wii Us just because the previous owners got banned

That may be because whatever Nintendo does is fair to agree with for the most part. But not always does this happen. GBA on Wii U is something no one agrees with because its suppose to be for the 3DS.

Virtual Console's prices are reasonable, if not generous.

I agree.

Most people seem to say about how awesome Goldeneye is, but I much preferred playing Nightfire. I only played them both on PS2, I don't know if that makes a difference.

It's not that innovation never happens, it's that innovation has moved more to the hardware side of things.
Hardware Innovations in gaming, from 2005 to 2015:
Motion control
3D Imagery
High Definition
Augmented Reality
QR Code integration
Social Media integration
Touch Screen integration
Voice Chat

Are you saying you've only played Goldeneye on the PS2? Because if so, you're probably talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoldenEye:_Rogue_Agent

Rogue Agent is NOT the game people always praise...

Speaking of Goldeneye, The World Is Not Enough was a better game in every way.