News Article

Nintendo Japan Announces Plans for YouTube Affiliate Program

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

Nintendo provides a statement


Nintendo has provided us with the following statement, largely reiterating what's been suggested in Nintendo Japan's tweets.

Nintendo has been permitting the use of Nintendo copyrighted material in videos on YouTube under appropriate circumstances. Advertisements may accompany those videos, and in keeping with previous policy that revenue is shared between YouTube and Nintendo. In addition, for those who wish to use the material more proactively, we are preparing an affiliate program in which a portion of the advertising profit is given to the creator. Details about this affiliate program will be announced in the future.

Original Article:

As you may recall, YouTube was at the core of some controversy throughout 2013. A change to the Content ID system late in the year (December) led to a flurry of claims and various channels seeing their revenues put on hold as blocks mounted up; it was a logistical problem for channels as even frivolous claims could halt income. Nintendo, more directly, reportedly started aggressively claiming ad revenues on videos earlier in 2013, with a negative backlash seemingly prompting the company to ease off in claiming Let's Play funds, for example.

Such was the reaction last May / June that Nintendo's been largely staying away from Content ID claims — in other words seeking the revenues from videos showing content from its games; in the most recent controversy at the end of the year companies such as the big N and Sony notably steered clear of joining in the aggressive claims. It seems the company has been considering how to monetise videos featuring its content, however, with its official Twitter account in Japan stating that it's preparing an 'affiliate' program for YouTube.

Translated, these tweets explain that the company has already begun the process of tagging videos showing Nintendo content to display the company's adverts. Of greater importance, however, is that Nintendo is planning an affiliate program in which content producers can have permission to use Nintendo game footage, with ad revenue then distributed by Nintendo and Google to the content channel. Details on how this will work will be forthcoming, with wording suggesting there may be multiple tiers in the royalty agreements.

We'll need to wait for full details to be officially unveiled; this seems like an attempt for Nintendo to make advertising revenue from YouTube content showing its games — which prompted the controversy last summer — but with a formal agreement in place and some revenue still going to the content creator. It may still prompt a backlash, if Nintendo seeks to make money from what some may consider free advertising on YouTube, and could still deter some popular channels from covering Nintendo games if they can produce other content where all ad revenue is retained. It's also unclear whether such a program will be utilised wholesale across videos uploaded from Mario Kart TV in Mario Kart 8, for example.

We'll see how this develops in the coming days and weeks.


From the web

User Comments (105)



HylianJowi said:

This isn't going to go over well. Obviously nothing formal has been announced yet, but no doubt this alone will cause some rage.



2Sang said:

DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB DUMB. I thought nintendo was getting their crap together. Why would they do this? It's just bad business decision and a waste of time and resources.



unrandomsam said:

Seems fair enough to me. Especially if there is a way to split the junk from the stuff worth having.



erv said:

Sounds more like all the automatic stuff from mario kart 8, nothing much else.



9th_Sage said:

Better than the alternative, though I don't think I agree with them claiming the videos in a lot of cases.



Corleonis88 said:

Sounds fair to me. I was ok when I heard that nintendo was claiming ad money for chanels that use their content, free advertising or not you can´t make money with other people´s work



TheHumbleFellow said:

Sorry, but I'm an idiot when it comes to politics. How would this affect people like Chuggaaconroy, who make videos of Nintendo games for a living?



Zach777 said:

Flex that corporate muscle on the little guys, Nintendo. You might as well since you don't have anything to show for the rest of 2014 until Smash comes out in December (ATM). Generate that income somewhere so little Iwata won't have to post losses for three years running.



Wolfgabe said:

I don't see what's so bad about this. They are actually sharing revenue rather than keeping all to themselves. its a win win for both



Tops said:

I think it's fair. Let Nintendo make money back on content featuring their products. Putting an entire film online is illegal without permission, why should video game companies not be protected in the same way?



Dreamz said:


I agree fully. I've never really gotten the stance that Youtubers should be able to make money from streaming a product created from somebody else. It's non-nonsensical.

And before somebody comes in and counters with "But it's their commentary/additions that people come to watch, not just the game!" keep in mind that that is exactly why people watch Zero Punctuation's reviews, and he does it without so much as a screenshot. If you're really that entertaining, you can do it on your own merits (like Yahtzee, though some may disagree).



ToniK said:

Not too happy about this kind of decisions :/ Bad rep for Nintendo.



DualWielding said:


Its not a matters of legal rights, of course Nintendo has the legal rights to claim this... is just bad policy as free publicity and good will from youtubers can do more to help to them than the few bucks they can make from sharing advertising revenue....... and as some people have noted, if Microsoft and Sony don't take your revenue away that's an incentive to cover their games over Nintendo's



Azooooz said:

If I were you, I would go outside of house, and apply for a real job that makes more money than making views on YouTube.



Transdude1996 said:

Being an LPer myself, though still starting out, I don't really have anything to say against this. The only thing I'm worried about is if Nintendo will allow us to monetize videos containing their content. The reason why is because I'd be more likely to play a game from a publisher that allows us to monetize rather than a publisher that doesn't.

As people have said above, we're making money off of their content, so we have to play by their rules.



absuplendous said:

@Dreamz Maybe sites that review Nintendo games should be shut down, too, or a cut of their ad revenue should be handed over to Nintendo. Or perhaps these sites should write reviews without a single screenshot. If they're good at what they do, they shouldn't need those, right? They shouldn't be allowed to make a living on the backs of other people's work, right?

Yeah, I don't like where this is going.



Zatioichi said:

How is this bad? It looks like NIntendo is working with YTers instead of just denying them the use of the content. I might be misreading but it's better to set this up than to just outright remove the videos...



Corleonis88 said:

@unrandomsam would you care to elaborate? I think you mean when disney makes movies out of classic tales, which are public domain. And they protect only (I assume) the parts that they add by themselves, like the names of the 7 dwarves etc. If you are talking about something else, please go on

@absuplendous well, you see, review sites actually get free copies of games from nintendo and other materials for them to use. I doubt they would be against them using them. they also have rules, I´ve watched mario kart 8 videos on youtube where the narrator says something along the lines of "I´m only allowed to upload a 5 minute clip, not the whole game"



Gate_Shikimuri said:

I don't get why people are saying Nintendo shouldn't claim money from THEIR products just because someone else is Let's Playing THEIR stuff. Y'all sound like a bunch of idiots. If someone's using and making money from MY stuff, I deserve to get that money, too.



RedYoshi999 said:

I don't see playing video games and uploading them to youtube as a real job though. Do it as a hobby by all means, but not as a primary source of income. Besides, as plenty of people use adblock, how much money do you really make?



Splashman said:

@Azooooz Yeah, just like those crazy folks in the 80s who decided to make their living with pixel figures on TVs, instead of getting a "real job".



Socar said:

@2Sang Why do you think this is dumb? Its now possible to get profit from youtube by uploading Nintendo stuff. The only thing is that Nintendo can make profit out of this which is fair seeing that the videos themselves are being posted by people who use emulators to play old games and still getting paid for it afterall.



ProudasaPeacock said:

You`ve got to be kidding me.
This is going to cause a lot of controversy. Popular youtubers have a lot of weight in the gaming community so this isn't going to go over well for them at all. Hardly any big youtubers cover Nintendo games anyway, this might get rid of the few who do.
Youtube videos of Nintendo games are essentially free advertising for Nintendo. I don't know why they keep doing stuff like this, they just keep dragging their name in the mud at the worst possible time.
I love Nintendo games but sometimes the company just really peeves me off.
Hopefully they'll realise this is a stupid idea and stop it before it gets too many people angry, but somehow I doubt it.



yuwarite said:

The sad part is the Youtubers we respect the most will be the most affected, while the PewdiePie's of the world won't.



Azooooz said:

@Kodeen The sad part about it is that you're not guaranteed to make this amount of money on Youtube, where working in the office may not give you the same amount of money, but you'll be getting enough money to justify your job.



Nintenjoe64 said:

I don't see any value in this for Nintendo unless they can make more money for the youtubers and get more people wanting to do it for their games. If they over-regulate it will just become a bit of a mess for them to deal with. I can see why they don't want people uploading the entire story and gameplay of their games but they must also want their better games to receive more promotion.

Right now they have a load of games that I think are half decent but they haven't bothered to tell anyone about them such as Wii Fit U and Wii Sports Club. They need hundreds of people showing the features of Wii Fit helping them transform their bodies or just pointing out that Wii U Tennis is incredibly addictive.



rjejr said:

I think I'm agreeing w/ Nintendo on this one, as much as that shocks me - I have a bit of a pirate past. Nintendo could just shut this stuff down if they wanted to w/ cease and desist letters, which would really suck and I would be totally against. But if somebody is making a living off of Nitnedo's games I think Nintendo should get a cut. Apple takes 30% of every app on its store.

Now I would make the distinction between people who seem to do this for a living like Chuggaconroy who has been doing this for at least 5 years - my kids watch him and his Animaniacs or whatever they call themselves - and some middle schooler who has 1 or 2 vids for his friends and family to see. That's why I said "cut" earlier. If Nintendo wants 10% of the revenue it seems fair. Though I really would like to think this is only for them to go after the big fish and not start going after any kid making a few $.



GN004Nadleeh said:

can't make money from games so they gotta hit you up for your old let's play of blaster master



Angelic_Lapras_King said:

Hey it could be worse, the creators could get nothing at all. Whether its the same or lower amount, you're still get some money off of Youtube/Nintendo instead of nothing and/or having your vids taken down.



rjejr said:

@Nintenjoe64 - "Wii Fit U and Wii Sports Club"

Do people make walk thru's of games like that or Just Dance or Zumba? My kids have been watching a lot of these since Minecraft released on the PS3 late last year but all I see are Minecraft mods and games like SMG and the Mario RPGs. Though I suppose somebody somewhere is editing a tennis tournament as we speak. Cant imagine a lot of people watching it though.



ManateeBlubber said:

@TopLaytonsHat I mean, really. Why do people get so angry? It's not a copyright claim, they're just using the Nintendo game videos to post advertisement. I understand some people make a living off of YouTube, but I don't think playing video games on YouTube for a living pays that much anyway.



XCWarrior said:

People, in the end, who would you rather see make money?

A) Nintendo, whose posted a loss the last 3 years...

B) Some dude in his basement trying to make money off of playing a game.

Remember that A will only continue to make games if they make money. B on the other hand can be replaced by other guys in their basement playing some games.



Gravedigga13 said:

I bought my wii u BECAUSE of youtube users posting let's play videos!!! i chose their console because of those people's videos!!! i would have bought an xbone to play forza, but after watching videos of dktf and sm3dw or wwhd, i changed my mind! doesn't nintendo aknowledge that those types of videos are in fact free adds?! the difference between movies and games is that just by watching the let's play you dont get the full experience, you need to buy it, and play it for yourself. its not like nintendo is doing bad games, and these users have a negative effect on the potential costumers, on the contrary, they repeatedly say through out the lets play positive aspects about the game, thus encouraging people to buy the game!



Nintenjoe64 said:

@rjejr I haven't really seen any but I think there must be people doing high scores for some of them.

Nintendo need a Wii Fit Girl for this decade. It could be me



absuplendous said:

@XCWarrior You make it sound like (a) this is Nintendo's only means of making money, (b) the amount of money gained would "save" Nintendo, (c) quibbling over Youtube videos and not producing great hardware & software is how Nintendo should save itself, (d) the money "some dude" earns is taken directly from Nintendo's pocket, (e) "some dude" who puts out content people enjoy deserves nothing, (f) big companies are more deserving/entitled to profit and we should choose one or the other, even when they're offering entirely different things, and (g) while "dudes in their basements" can be replaced, Nintendo is irreplaceable. All of these are incorrect.



JustAnotherUser said:

insert another comment about how bad Nintendo is for doing this because I saw "Nintendo" and "YouTube" in the same article headline and didn't read and / or understand it.



Wonky_Kong said:

@XCWarrior wow...just wow...That "guy sitting in the basement" relies on his videos to make a sufficient income. For people who primarily make Nintendo videos this will leave them even more poor.

I don't understand why Nintendo feel they deserve money for others peoples creative content. If it's an un-commentated let's play i can sort of understand, but people don't watch Youtube videos for the footage, but rather the comical touch over the footage. They need to understand the Youtube videos build up more hype than a lot of other formats, Goat Simulator for example, was a bad game that scored lucky because of Youtube



tysonfury said:

99% of you do not know what you're talking about.

Twitch feeds have adverts at the beginning, I don't see the controversy here at all. It's a good thing that Nintendo are allowing people to upload their content at all rather than blocking it, and of course they have the right to tag their intellectual property for profit - they created it - the tag is about so much more than ad revenue by the way, but about claiming ownership of the owners work.

The ads that appear will most likely be for other nintendo games anyway. As if that's not enough, an affiliate programme is being announced to SHARE BACK THE PROFITS with the uploader. So who's complaining?

I only hope this is being announced because there's going to more Youtube integration into Wii U and 3DS games!



Kaze_Memaryu said:

To be honest, the entire idea of people making money with their hobby (in this case, playing games) is just ridiculous. If you can't cover your costs with your hobby, time to get a job.
And no, making LP's is not a job. If I block your ads, you get no money through me, and if all viewers do so, tough luck. I'm not feeling bad about it.

If LP'ers really want money for playing games, ask the viewers.



Wonky_Kong said:

@tysonfury But no doubt users will not be able to upload Nintendo content without an affiliate license. The profits are 'shared' which basically means that Nintendo will just nab some of the profits the content creator would normally get without the affiliate programme.

I just feel that, i go home and i watch youtube videos that make me laugh (like Dunkey), vids that are very informative (totalbiscuit, gamexplain) and i enjoy those videos, so why shouldn't the people that make them make money



JustAnotherUser said:

@Captain-Falcon I completely agree. It's not like Lets Players are part of a affiliate program already or anything.
I think Nintendo should be ashamed of themselves to start being the man in the middle to compete with those who are already the man in the middle.

They should also drop that policy of advertising Nintendo games on Nintendo videos.
Nintendo has so lost their touch.



tysonfury said:


Well I'm a youtube affiliate with a music video site I run - it's really easy to do - and sites like Let's Play and all the others who have lots of views will be able to apply easily, get accepted hopefully, and get a legitimate share of the profits. I think that's win-win.



SetupDisk said:

Get with reality. If people want to make videos that make them revenue, let them make their own game on a PC. Oh wait that would be their own product and might not get as many clicks.

Not that some people don't put effort into this stuff but come on. Grow the **** up.



Csaw said:

While I feel bad for people like chuggaaconroy who actually puts effort into their lets plays, the vast majority of YouTube is filled with crappy playthroughs with no effort on the uploader's part and where instead of focusing on making a good playthrough the main focus is now saying the stupidest things that are going to attract you the most 12 year old viewers. Unfortunately as someone above mentioned the youtubers that make crap videos aren't really going to be affected by this decision.



Dragoon04 said:

Like it or not Youtube is a powerful marketing tool.

Getting games in the hands of youtubers like Pewdiepie which has something like 25 million subscribers and counting is important marketing strategy.

Even if the system is flawed that is the way it is going.

So I think this is a good move by the Big N. It is a step in the right direction.



Remisio said:

@Kodeen $200,000?! Wow, I find the fact that people playing a game on the internet have a higher yearly income than the estimated yearly income of a game developer, (or at least one working at Ubisoft from what I've researched) and a "moderately" popular makes more than twice as much. It is an estimate and it is also subject to change depending on game sales but: the yearly salary is between 65,000 - 85,000 for someone at Ubisoft, most of the money from games usually goes into the development of future games, and other things such as advertisement, distribution, etc. the fact that a popular you tuber can be a millionaire from playing games, while the people making the game can't is rather depressing. The research may be outdated or incorrect, but from the people I know who work at Ubisoft, none are millionaires, and none have all that much money unless they are higher ups. And they spend gruelling months-years working in games. Eh, whatever.



JusticeColde said:

This is actually a great alternative to what Nintendo did when the Content ID switch was flipped.

Everyone get a fair cut of profits for their involvement in the video's content/creation without a major snag, it's very fair and I can see this going over very well amongst YouTubers though I wonder if Google might mess it up by taking more money than they deserve.



devilwaffle said:

While this is a step in the right direction, I still don't like it. Ad revenue from these videos is already really tiny. And there's no saying how much of it Nintendo will share. I know the work that goes into these videos and I believe the creators of the videos deserve the revenue. Many people's negativity towards these people are biased or they're acting like dumb parents who can't appreciate what their childeren are into. "Stop playing those dumb games, do something in real life." "Stop making those dumb videos, make some money with a real job." It can be a real job, and it benefits the company. Hell, one guy (gaijin goombah) made a video that towards the end promoted an indie game because it's mechanics and story were accurate to ninja history and not ninja stereotype. And the sales of that game skyrocketed. The company REWARDED him with a signed figure-stague thing of their game protagonist. Because people who watched his video became interested in a game they were previously unaware of or didn't have any interest in at the time. These people matter and their opinions matter to their viewers, whether or not you believe they are stupid, they have impact and they do matter. And I guarantee you that video did a LOT of research and time carefully taken to find real facts about ninjas under the large pile of stereotype we have today. He put work and effort into his video and he deserved the revenue he earned from it. Heck, the company believed he deserved more then the revenue.



0utburst said:

People who are complaining on this issue doesn't know what they're complaining about. Or at least doesn't have any idea what copyright is.



JusticeColde said:

@Remisio Are you counting the full revenue of the video or the estimated revenue? Google and whatever partnership takes more that half of the full revenue per video leaving a rather small amount for just the creator per 1000 views.

A lot of videos would have to be popular for one person to make a lot of money (i.e. PewDiePie) and a lot of people don't even break 500,000 per day or week.



DualWielding said:


As I said is two different things, yes, copyright gives NIntendo the legal right to do this..... but no, that doesn't mean that it is a good business decision to do this, especially as its competitors don't



DarkKirby said:

Nothings changed, at all. This is just Nintendo saying they will make it a little easier for channels personally approved by them on a selective basis to be able to make revenue from videos with Nintendo games in which Nintendo will still be taking a share of.

And I have not heard of Nintendo suddenly being looser with copyright claims. A few of the more popular youtubers who can have their voice heard more clearly got the revenue for their videos back after making public complaints, but the majority consensus on youtube is still, "if you plan to make revenue off of your videos, don't do Nintendo games", if Nintendo wanted to change that image, they should say something about it, which they haven't.



Bulbousaur said:

I'm going to hold off judgement until we hear from the content creators and their viewpoints, since it's them that this really affects, not us. This could be anything from Nintendo taking 5% to 90% of the ad revenue, we just don't know any of the details of this policy yet.



ghosto said:

Nintendo are suckers for listening to their lawyers, the only people who benefit from this is the Nintendo legal team. This already hurt sales and damaged the brand yet they are going to spend millions of dollars to prevent somebody on youtube from making a few bucks.



123akis said:

look lets hope this turns out good, so what if a bit of money goes to Nintendo, it gives them more money to advertise the Wii U and for game development!



TingLz said:

It's just controversy because LPers have developed a sense of entitlement for the revenue, and Nintendo is flexing its legal power to take a cut. I understand that some do this for a living, but they were never guaranteed this income fully.



ledreppe said:

I hope Ninty see sense and don't pursue small channels like mine. I've only made $80 in 2 1/2 years, so it would seem rather stingy.



Sceptic said:

They sure don't leave out any single chance to shoot themselves in the foot. It's like a Laurel and Hardy strip, lol

The tragedy of their failure is that the way they are acting, they don't deserve to succeed. So now they want royalties for sharing your enthusiasm for their games. Now? While nobody at all is buying their stuff and they need every little shred of publicity? I mean what ingorant jerks, really.



AJ_Lethal said:

Frankly, I don't see any reasons why people would be upset at this, since Nintendo will provide an affiliate program for those who want to make money through LPs. We only need further details to decide wherether it's a good or bad deal.



absuplendous said:

@Corleonis88 That's all well and good for whatever media outlets Nintendo graces with its material, but that doesn't apply to a smaller site or a blogger or a Youtube personality or any other "basement dude" who wants to put in his two cents on a game he played. Their voices shouldn't be diminished just because they didn't get Nintendo's blessing.



Sceptic said:

I guess that MK8 video sharing feature was just a ploy to harvest a bit more cash off their fans? Well played, Nintendo.



Clockwerk said:

Though this is a somewhat step forward, its too little too late. Nintendo screwed up big time in 2013 and its not getting any better.



64supermario said:

For those saying people shouldn't make money off it....really? You know some people put entire production values into this kind of thing and have to do a poopoodoodoocacapooedoople load of work, they work late nights too you know. Also the fact that people like Sony and Activision are supporting show that they aren't losing money from letting people do this. Nintendo needs to be embracing not scorn the LPers.



64supermario said:

@BLPs I support the industry when I BUT THEIR GAMES. What I do with it afterwards shouldn't be anyone else's decision. Video games are not like movies, well most anyways, I sure as hell won't get the same feeling as playing Mario Kart as someone watching it. Letting LPers make videos of your game is great advertisement and putting together videos as a hobby is nice, but some people do do it for their livelihood and I honestly see nothing wrong with it. If roles were reversed would you say the same thing. I think they DO have the right to make some money of this, putting together videos isn't always as easy as it seems.



64supermario said:

@Unca_Lz If LPers can't make money of recording games, then why should the bigger companies with money make revenue from it too. Its either everyone gets a little or nobody gets it. You can say they are using Nintendo's footage all you want, but Nintendo making money of THEIR videos is in the wrong too then.



Arminillo said:

Im in the opinion that no youtuber is ENTITLED to content from posting to a public video sharing website. Im not against them making money by any means, but if YT decided to stop giving revenue that would be that and they'd have to deal with it.



ryanator008 said:

Nintendo is just being fair, but I'm sure a bunch of stuck-up brats will through a fit over this because they can no-longer profit off of other people's work.



Taikasieni said:

What can you expect from hundred years old company? That they are really oooold. I wonder what will happen if some of these "authorized" youtubers says something bad about their game.



Remisio said:

@JusticeColde I'm using an amount presented by the person's comment I replied to. I also have friends who gain revenue from YouTube, it's hardly anything and they make their own content. They're not Lets Players, though I understand that to make a lot of money like PewdiePie you'd need a lot of videos (which he certainly has) lots of viewers, (again... He has this) the combination of which thanks to playlists makes it so that all these viewers watch almost all his videos. The 200,000 and "millionaire" ranges were presented by the person I replied to. Though I can see that with partnerships and popularity it's in the range of possibility to be a millionaire through YouTube. Though it'd hopefully take some saving up. I wouldn't like to even imagine that someone could make millions a year from posting stuff made by others with a little commentary on the internet. Long ago I remember some of my friends saying it was $0.01 per view... Which in a vid with millions of views would be approx $10,000 per vid and take away from that what you will: taxes, google, YouTube, partners. Though I doubt that's true anymore. That was ages ago when I had that conversation. At the beginnings of YouTube monetizing or whatever. I've never been that interested myself even though some of my friends have been.



XCWarrior said:

@Captain-Falcon @absuplendous My main point, and I know I didn't get it across very clearly, is that this is not a battle worth fighting over, cause the youtubers are in the wrong.

All sports that air on TV say you cannot retransmit the game without their permission and consent. Guess what? Same goes for video games. If Nintendo says you can't do it, it's within their copyright ability.

The fact that Nintendo is saying, "Yeah you have permission, but we want a cut," is within their rights, because they made the game, just like its the sports industry's games.



absuplendous said:

@XCWarrior Perhaps so, but SHOULD Nintendo pursue it? Maybe they should go after school marching bands that play the Super Mario theme, or tattoo parlors that ink Hylian insignia. Maybe they should bust you and me for using their copyrighted characters as our avatars--copyright isn't violated solely when money is made from it. I'm sure the public's response will be "it's their right to do so" and not "wow, what kind of company goes out of its way to smack the fans that wish to pay them tribute?"

Between free publicity and public backlash, there's a pretty compelling argument NOT to go litigious, even if you technically can. I don't remember Disney shutting down "Let It Go" videos left and right (though in a way, I wouldn't have minded!) because not only did it spread the Frozen craze, they would have looked like monsters in the court of public opinion.

Whether you're reviewing a game or showing how to pull off certain tricks or just bragging about your in-the-park home run, there are a lot of reasons for recording game footage and most of them aren't malevolent--and most of them fall under "fair use" (commentary, analysis, criticism, reporting, etc). It's absolutely a battle worth fighting over because, at minimum, it's not the black-and-white issue you suggest it is.



XCWarrior said:

@absuplendous Marching bands don't make money on songs. Not sure on legality of tatoos. Avatars we make no money.

Websites that do reviews and previews and what not have Nintendo's permission. Youtubers never asked.

Yeah, it's pretty black and white actually.



MadAdam81 said:

@ferthepoet the free advertising clearly isn't helping. Putting in ads for Nintendo products and getting paid for it will work much better for Nintendo than keeping some lightly watched mediocre YouTube reviewers happy. If they were any good, they wouldn't be on YouTube, relying on YouTube advertising.



absuplendous said:

@XCWarrior Copyright still says you can't publicly perform the work. "Copyright" doesn't mean "you can't make money from my work," it means "you can't copy/use my work without permission, profit or no." Did you ask Nintendo to use your picture of R.O.B.? Did you ask Nintendo if you could /photograph/ R.O.B.?

Not all reviewers have Nintendo's permission, nor should they. If the only people allowed to critically review a work are those given permission from the publisher, something's very wrong, and I'm surprised you seem to be okay with that notion. If the only reviews out there are Nintendo-approved, then they're kind of meaningless. Again, I reference Fair Use--which is not only not black-and-white, but /purposefully/ gray.



XCWarrior said:

@absuplendous Nintendo is not going to go after things where the 3rd party isn't making money. Nintendo is still letting them make money. They are just taking a cut. You are acting like they won't let them make any money.

At least Nintendo made a policy. Still waiting on the other companies to make a move. You think this is bad, just wait if the end of net neutrality hits. This will be nothing in comparison. That's the fight worth focusing on.



absuplendous said:

@XCWarrior My concern has never been on how much money Nintendo or Youtubers make/don't make. I've been concerned with the granting of rights/permissions, which suggests that they can also be denied.

While you're right that the net neutrality crisis is far worse, this isn't really the best venue to worry about it, while this site is perfect for the topic we've been discussing--and I don't know about you, but I can contemplate more than one problem at a time.



Mega719 said:

I don't really care about sharing profits with Nintendo if i start my own videos, it's their properties we all should respect that



XCWarrior said:

@absuplendous I can handle more than 1 problem at a time, but I don't see this youtube thing as one.

The annualization and basically "restamp, reskin and ship it out again" attitude the gaming industry as a whole is taking right now is a far bigger problem as well.



Zombie_Barioth said:

Nintendo's marketing as a whole isn't working, free advertising can help but it won't turn the tides. If Nintendo wants to work out an agreement that allows for a symbiotic relationship thats all well and good, but they shouldn't go stepping on toes just because they can. Even the best attempt at co-existence can go sour if handled carelessly.

As far as "If they were any good, they wouldn't be on YouTube, relying on YouTube advertising."

Theres a lot of talent on Youtube. It allows for people to get a foot in the door, and for things that'd otherwise not exist because some company doesn't see merit in the idea. The only fools are the ones without a backup plan, because its as stable as any other form of media (i.e not very).



datamonkey said:

This is pure greed on Nintendo's part. They want to get paid for other people to promote their products!

I think it completely stinks.



Geonjaha said:

For all of you who blindly follow Nintendo on this one, I'm going to give an example to point out how flawed this system and method is:

A popular 2-3 hour long video podcast uploaded onto Youtube played a Nintendo trailer for 1 minute and talked about it, amongst many others from companies that weren't Nintendo. It got claimed and all the revenue went to Nintendo. Should they have gotten the revenue for a 3 hour show based on one minute where they played a trailer? ie. Free Advertising?

I know there are people who, instead of trying to understand the situation, will automatically take Nintendo's side and assume they're right - but seriously people open your eyes for once. Stop being a chump.



Dreamz said:

You don't have support everything someone does to support one facet or stance. This sort of all or nothing approach is why the US government is so stupidly polarized and more akin to rooting for football teams than reasoned discourse. That we see the same thing in something as innocuous as video games is incredibly disheartening.



Klobb said:

Good job, Nintendo. Trying to get rid of as much free advertising as you can.
Seriously, Nintendo dedicated channels are going to die out if they don't get monetised. Even popular game journalists and reviewers will just focus more on Sony and Microsoft.

And yes let's play counts as free advertising, when I see a fun game played I want to play it immediately



Wonky_Kong said:

@TwilightPoint Good job on being an arse for no reason, i'm sorry for having an opinion. My opinion makes sense enough to me, so perhaps if you wish to take the mic then provide some kind of reason. I never said anything along the lines of "nintendo have lost their touch" or that they should drop their ad campaign. I just happen to listen to a lot of gaming podcasts (co-optional podcast) that shed some light (to me anyway) on this topic. Maybe next time give some reasons, other than potshot sarcasm.



JustAnotherUser said:

@Captain-Falcon I'm sorry.
I shouldn't have said what I said.
Though I never stated you said "nintendo have lost their touch".
There was a line break to show it was a separate comment.

I still find it hard to believe anyone can think this is a bad thing.
There are already affiliate programs offered by others but Nintendo isn't allowed to do it and if they do it's a bad thing?



Wonky_Kong said:

@JustAnotherUser It's not that they have a programme, it's that if somebody wants to post anything with Nintendo in it then they will most likely HAVE to use it.

If Nintendo make it optional then fair-do's but that wont happen

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...