Editorial: Nintendo's YouTube Creators Program 'Beta' Provides Vital Feedback - It Won't Work

The only part of this program I hate is the only first party Nintendo titles rule and the stupid, unreasonable game list.

This is a really stupid system

Yeah...I'd give it a try, but the stupid 1st party only rule and weird list. (that and my channel is a ghost town)

This article hit the nail on the head. Even though Nintendo can do it, that doesn't mean they should, because in the long run, this is only going to hurt them with loss of potential sales. Take for example, Kirby and the Rainbow Curse (or Paintbrush if you will), I wasn't sold on buying the game at all because I was unsure, but when I watched some videos of people playing it, that's what really sold me on it, and now it's a day-one purchase. So really this policy Nintendo is taking is not wise, and the worst part of it all is that they're the only publisher doing this nonsense, as pretty much all other dev endorse YouTube.

TotalBiscuit's video on it perhaps makes the most valid point:
http://youtu.be/t-67CvWTQ0I

Nintendo, I love you and all, but come on, you're better than this.

Truthfully, I think Nintendo should let anyone play their games and have the free publicity, as money is NOT being stolen from them in any way. Now, if they feel the game is not being represented how they want, then they should be able to take the video down, but if it's harmless and free advertisement for them, they should be THANKFUL they don't have to pay for it. I've decided to buy a lot of games through watching someone's playthrough. If a company is so unwilling of letting its content be shown, then that gives me immediate doubts about the game's quality.

I do think people should have to put work and quality into their videos in order to monetize though. Cryaotic is a good example, and he is genuinely about experiencing the game with his viewers, instead of yelling at the top of his lungs, not to mention he doesn't JUST rely on games, he makes his own quality content with Cry Reads, where he asks people for permission, then uses voice acting to read psychological horror stories that can be found on the internet. I fell like all YouTubers need something they have to put time and effort into in order to justify monetization.

I don't remember from where, but I read something about Nintendo's corporate structure a while back. It's archaic, even by Japan's strictest standards. Only the higher-ups really get to decide anything, and those higher-ups are the ones who have been around the longest. They're unfamiliar with the way the industry works nowadays, which explains why American companies have gained such an edge over them recently.

Nintendo's been making a bit of progress, but this is a huge step back. Unfortunately the way the company works this might not change unless Iwata and Miyamoto go on a vision quest and have an epiphany and smell all the colors of modern communications.

"If channels are registered they must only feature Nintendo first-party content, otherwise videos must be registered one at a time."

There goes 99.9995% of the youtube people that actually make money off youtube.

@Phantom_R Hahaha, when the sun and the moon are in perfect alignment, their old master shall appear before them and take them deep within a forest, where they shall become lost and meditate for 5 days.

Nintendo makes such good games but as a company they can be absolutely ridiculous. Youtube is a big place where games gain momentum and popularity. Making a program like this will lose Nintendo money - not make them anything.

This comment section will go ...

Anyway, Nintendo just need to revise some of the restrictions and speed up the uploading process. Maybe take a lesser cut (20-30%) I still think Nintendo should go forward with this program. They shouldn't let these YouTubers go out of hand.

The amount of ad revenue Nintendo would get from this program would dwarf in comparison to the amount of sales they'd get for games and consoles if they just let content creators do whatever they wanted and sell their products for them with all manners of creative content. I'm guessing Nintendo is trying to do its best to safe-guard its image as a family friendly business, but after you promote yourself as a "big boy" game company and publish a game like Bayonetta 2 and get a spread in Playboy, that's out the window

I plan on extensive Splatoon video cover (and every other Wii U title out this year for that matter), if Nintendo doesn't want me to make money from the free publicity I am providing, I must comply with their wishes. But that does not mean I agree with them on this, and I am sure having people who live off YouTube earning from their videos will be many times more upset than me. It's just not easy producing quality video material and people should be rewarded for their efforts. That's how YouTube go to be what it is today, Nintendo needs to keep up with the times on this one.

@Phantom_R
Maybe it's from here:
https://www.nintendolife.com/news/2015/01/former_nintendo_indie_champion_discusses_the_companys_decision_making_and_the_eshop_gender_divide

@juliobrand Yes! Thank you, that's exactly the article I was thinking of!

Nintendo needs to BACK. OFF.

Nintendo, please. You're killing yourself out there, you NEED to change some of your old ways.

But I have a bad feeling they won't, and they'll eventually pay the ultimate price for failing to adapt with the times...

The exposure Nintendo stands to gain seems a lot more valuable than the minor profits it would get off a cut of the advertisements fees. They desperately need more exposure, especially for it's newer games. Whether this is through careful collaborations or videos they wouldn't even want to associate with like "Why Every Guy Should Get His Girlfriend Wii Fit". Some of the most successful ways Nintendo generated interest in their games in the Wii era was just showing people playing them.

Well... I'm glad I don't do this kind of thing. Too complexicated.

First Nintendo doesn't want to advertise the Wii U, and now they're discouraging people to give them free advertising. Does Nintendo NOT want their console to sell?

it wouldnt hurt for nintendo to get some more exposure but they shouldnt just give in to the whining of youtubers wanting more things to stream and nab viewers. But nintendo should just use their own resources to advertise, like nintendo direct. But if you like nintendo then why would you want them to change? Why not trust Nintendo to make decisions for themselves they aren't stupid and have lasted thus far.

Or....perhaps this crazy, wonderful Nintendo is about to unveil something new and different, with a fresh idea up their sleeve. Remember how upset people were when Nintendo opted not to hold a big press conference at E3, and went with a video presentation instead. I got tired of listening to ceo's and celebs babble on about the next unveil at the big E3 conferences, and find Nintendo's straight to the point video much more appealing. Maybe Nintendo is tightening their grip on Youtube, because it has a new video program of its' own coming up. Nintendo saw how successful the Mario Kart Luigi Death Stare videos were, and perhaps saw an opportunity to do something new, unexpected, something gasp that isn't youtube. I'm down for something new!

Heh, good thing this is a beta Because there's no way treasure tracker be excluded from this..program

I'm all for messing with GoogleAds moneygrubbers, but Nintendo is making this pointlessly complicated, even for those who are honorable enough to simply ask for money (instead of contributing towards data collecting) via patreon.

But that's the general thing: if you're making your LP's dependant of the money you make with them, you're a terrible YouTuber by default - no exceptions.

By the way guys, you do realize this is beta, right?

Huh, look at the power of perceived authority. In the other article on this, the fanboy fervor took off as the acrobatic apologetic comments in favor of "can never do wrong Nintendo" dominated. Nice to see a, thus far, more rational understanding of how badly Nintendo screwed up this time--potentially well helped by this article.

Last time, way too many commenters couldn't be bothered to understand the issue outside of blindly bashing PewDiePie. He even stated, quite clearly, that this move doesn't affect him as he can afford to simply never bother with Nintendo again, but noted that for a lot of YouTubers, Nintendo had just made themselves the opposite of a priority, and that Nintendo-centric YouTubers are now rather screwed.

Essentially, this article did a fantastic job laying out the facts and the issues with this doomed-to-fail program.

Nintendo is well within their rights, but at a time when their popularity and PR are falling to an all-time low (let's face it, the 3DS isn't just selling below the DS, but also appears to be below the GBA, which sold 80 million in about 5 years), this is a potentially catastrophic decision.

I think this all goes back to the interview with Dan Adelman, when he noted how stuck-in-their-ways this company is, as the most conservative company from the most conservative city in the most conservative province in Japan. This just further highlights how far removed Nintendo is from the reality of modern gaming.

They need to ditch this or drastically change it to something else, or the UK won't be the only country seeing stores desperately slashing prices of the Wii U just to get rid of it.

Another thing for people to be aware of if they're STILL thinking of joining this stupid program: Let's say you make $/£1 off of every view you get. Before Nintendo take THEIR cut, Google/Youtube ALSO take a considerable cut of their own (what other reason would they do it in the first place of course)...
Nintendo THEN take the percentage cut from what Google/Youtube has left you and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be too happy with the result in the end (if you plan to make a living off of it I suppose).

2 videos I recommend people watch for a much better understanding:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cEU51PbTw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ud0j9q7pk0

@Kaze_Memaryu

Or maybe they're great YouTubers as they've found a way to make money doing something they love.

Frankly, these guys are living the dream of any person--do what you love, get paid for it. Who among us would not want that in our lives? I see no reason to be against these guys and gals just for that. Good for them. Damn good for them.

Everybody is fine with copyright and protecting their own wealth, well welcome to the double edged sword YouTubers.

@Captain_Toad

If you're talking about Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker, you're wrong--it's already excluded from the program, beta or not. It's right in the article.

@DiscoGentleman

Unfortunately, I think Nintendo's big picture mode is about strict control over all aspects of their IPs and business, ironically to the detriment of their public image and the company as a whole.

They're also stuck in a position now where, even if they amend the program during this beta phase, it may not be enough to repair the negative press and public image they've earned with this early version. Like starting a race half a mile behind everyone else. That is Nintendo's PR right now.

@BLPs

I think you may be going to an overly dramatic route about this. Everything has to end, but as we've seen, YouTubers are a completely new medium, which may lead to a new branch in our entertainment and media. Who says it has to end? Video production is still a job, after all. And these successful guys are doing it in a entrepreneurial sense. You don't think that looks good to an employer, if they do need to get a different job or move to a different one at some point?

The biggest guarantee that these guys will end is that one day, like everyone but me (I have "plans!"), they will die and that is the only guarantee of their end. PewDiePie could very well make an entire career out of this, and then retire on a bed of money and be happy with that, leaving a vacancy for the next big YouTube sensation.

We need to get over this bizarre 1950's-esque notion of what defines a job or that people doing something that makes some people uncomfortable or jealous are still earning their money. If they want to make money as a YouTuber, f**king let them. What do any of us care, who aren't jealous of their ability to do it?

By the way, I am also doing what I love--making games and the like. My team will be attending a local Con in about two months, and we're almost out of lotcheck. It's not my place to be angry or bitter or jealous or to judge these guys for making money doing what they love. Good for them!

And if Nintendo's program is unfriendly to them, then they have every right to turn their back on Nintendo until the company learns to adapt to the modern world.

Who says they have to "grow up" or "get a real job?" Jealous people, that's all. Bitter, angry people who want to judge others for being successful in ways they are not, or simply because they are not. YouTube has done well for young and old alike, created a new media branch, and is used by millions of people every day, for a variety of uses. If you can make money there, and love doing it, more power to you.

The reason the list is limited is pretty obvious, when it's not all Nintendo's work they can't ensure it won't be claimed. Note Pikmin 2 isn't on the list even though 1 and 3 are, this is due to the product placement from other companies.

This doesn't mean you can't do a LP of them though, you could probably do Pikmin 2 under this programme because I doubt Duracell is going to claim your video.

@BinaryFragger

As part of the youtube guidelines you're only allowed a 60 seconds of game footage within any kind of review. Any more and you're liable for copyright claims. People like gamester81 didn't read the youtube guidelines otherwise they'd understand before they even considered making the video.

As long as we are talking about people who make money by doing exactly nothing, i dont really care how complicated this system is or even gets.
Were not really talking about people being boycotted from showing their special arts and talents.

They really do run back to being ol' conservative Nintendo a lot. I hope they get with it before it's too late to build a marketing path into the marketplace.

@BinaryFragger

I think they may have made an error with their other article on this topic, which allowed rampant fanboyism to spread and defend Nintendo to such a point, many of them did the internet version of covering their ears, closing their eyes, and screaming "I CAN'T HEAR YOU BLAH BLAH BLAH." That other article ignored some of the points made by PewDiePie and allowed the comments section to turn into a rampant clusterf**k of bitter rage at YouTubers. I don't care about PewDiePie one way or another, but I found his actual comments on the situation on another site, and they were not nearly as one-sided and they were not deliberately slamming Nintendo. He made note about how "Nintendo-centric" YouTubers were now likely screwed, and for all others, Nintendo went to the bottom of the priorities list--his own opinion was merely that he didn't agree with the policy, but that he wasn't going to be hurt by it as he would just ignore Nintendo games from that point on.

This article does a wonderful job actually laying out the facts and pointing out Nintendo's unfortunate gaffe therein.

These arguments always come down to one side saying "they shouldn't be doing this." and the other side saying "they have every right to do this." These stances aren't directly against each other.

Personally I think there should be more structure for YouTube videos. There are to many out there that add nothing and become popular by people not playing/buying those games or for how the YouTuber looks. More structured YouTubers (such as ProJared) are obviously different but the majority aren't. I think Nintendo also wants to make it more like a business partnership which may give YouTubers less freedom but it may make them even bigger (like those YouTubers that got to meet Miyamoto) But this is just a personal opinion.

Yeah....I guess my website will have to continue holding off on those video features. It's ridiculous, even other heavy-handed companies still allow the press to use content for reviewing and video features, but not Nintendo. Let's hope that Nintendo won't prevent the discussion of their games on "unaffiliated websites" next.

@Vineleaf In this case "with it" is letting a group use their IP however they wish without permission due to fear of backlash, when this group never had a right to use it in the first place. It's just pathetic letting people who have nothing to do with these things walk all over the companies like they own their IP.

I hope Nintendo finds success with this programme because it will probably convince other companies to follow suit while deflating the ego of some off these overblown windbags blowing hot air the moment their "free advertising" crying bloody murder the moment they have to share revenue with the rightul owner of the content.

@SanderEvers

Actually, if you bought it, you own it.

You don't own the IPs, but you do own the game you bought.

@Dr_Lugae That's kind of the way culture works, though. Yes this is a more direct form of presenting the original IP, but locking up content and still wanting it to spread far and wide doesn't work in the social media era.

I would have found it simpler for Nintendo to leave fairly big windows open, but make it clear that certain conduct would result in a copyright claim. They get their brand awareness while still maintaining the integrity of that brand.

@Yorumi "some companies like EA are outright paying people to play their games."

Since when was a that a good thing? Are you suggesting Nintendo should have slipped some youtubers a little green to make Yoshi's New Island get some positive coverage/buzz?

@Dr_Lugae I'm with you on this one. Payola is a serious concern, but I don't know what rules there can be. The consumer is also the producer in media like YouTube, and companies are taking advantage of a lack of common ethics to have a louder voice.

On this matter , Nintendo can IMO go l itself.

It's absolutely absurd what it's trying here and I really don't care what the law says in this case. Nintendo could charge $500 for each of its games if it really wanted to, that's also well within it's legal rights, but that doesn't make it right.

This is the kind of stupid pure greed based corporate decision that makes me sometimes hate a company I once loved without hesitation. I honestly hope this kind of things comes back to bite Nintendo in the *onkey in a major way, financially basically, because that's the only thing that companies like this respond to.

In saying that; it's probably just one or two stuffy corporate twits somewhere at the top of the company structure that are making these seriously idiotic decisions and I seriously wish all these kinds of plonkers were wiped of the face of the planet because they're the types of people that turn everything to crap.

Seriously, Nintendo, go suck a duck no this one!

PS. I STILL think there's a legal challenge to be made against the way these companies, companies like Nintendo and Microsoft, are trying to dictate basically every single facet of how YouTube's content creators can use and portray any of their games in basically all possible scenarios. Yes; copyright law means they can dictate much of the rules regarding use of their intellectual properties but I just get that gut feeling that they're actually going far above and beyond what the law really entitles them too. This becomes a bit more apparent if you think beyond just how this is working with monetised YouTube videos specifically and look at the broader picture; say when someone tries to feature one of their non-monetised and approved YouTube Nintendo related videos on their own website at some point down the line, in among hundreds of other games related videos they also show on their site, that just happens to have adverts and sponsorship as part of its core design. A site like Nintendo Life for example...

I don't get Let's Play videos at all. First, if you like video games so much why not just go play them? Who has time to simply watch someone else play a game? Personally it bores me to tears.

Secondly there are far better ways to find out if you like something. Watch trailers, read impressions and be a generally more informed consumer. Besides that 90 percent of the ones I have seen (not many to be fair) seem to be kids who consider theirselves comedians and spend an hour long video making fart jokes or making a character hump a wall during a glitch or something all while telling jokes (usually vulgar) and making annoying sound effects. Watching PewdiePie videos I could see why Nintendo wouldn't want something like that representing them. Some kid is watching a video with someone cursing over a clip of Mario and Mom sees it she's going to think the worst.

In addition sounds like the types of games people love watching aren't the games Nintendo makes anyway so really they wouldn't be affected anyway. I don't question with trends it is still a poor choice marketing wise, but I get it.

Lastly it sounds like a bunch of entitled whiny people who got used to making money off something they really shouldn't be making money off anyway.

I'm posting these videos by Totalbiscuit again because they are still relevant.

Totalbiscuit on Nintendo's affiliate program.

Totalbiscuit on Nintendo's targeting of Let's Plays in 2013.

For the people who think people who make Let's Plays shouldn't be able to make a living that way, Totalbiscuit discusses that in the 2nd video (in the order I posted them, he made that one 1st in 2013).

@BLPs

SWEARS%&^&$^^&(&(&%^&$&( AND SUCH!

Erm, sorry about that. To my ranting: I'm simply annoyed by this immature and pathetic notion that these guys are "just in it for the money" as if YouTube is a river of cash flowing straight into their wallets, or that they "don't have real jobs." Some buffoon said that in the other article and when I asked him to define a "real job," he basically went on a tirade that had to have been fueled by petty jealousy that these people are making money that he isn't.

I can think of something else that was once considered "not a real job": Making video games. Hell, my girlfriend found a niche where she dyes yarn (overtaking our entire kitchen) and sells it online in an Etsy shop--and she's doing great at it. But she gets constantly bombarded by jackasses assuming she just sits on her ass all day watching TV, never getting dressed, or some crap like that as if having a successful home business is somehow "beneath them."

No one here, absolutely no one, has any right to look down their nose at these YouTubers, and I find it annoying. I'll say it, harsh as it may be, but if you (general use) are just sitting there badmouthing YouTubers for making money, maybe you're a loser who's jealous that you can't do it yourself. No one here has any right to look down their nose at, say, PewDiePie just because he's making a helluva living on this. I mean what is this crap? Success shaming?

Boo! Someone found success doing something I don't understand or agree with or can't do or didn't think of! Boo the success of others!

Honestly now, we as a society used to celebrate the entrepreneurial spirit and the "rags to riches" success of people who worked hard, found a niche, or made it rich. YouTubers aren't hurting anyone, they aren't ripping anyone off, and they aren't breaking any laws. They may be in a gray area concerning some copyright use, but outside of Nintendo and some rare specific cases, the rest of the gaming industry has found a great relationship with these people.

I just find this mentality annoying, not that you demonstrated it, per se, but there was a trigger to set me off. There is no reason to hate the YouTubers or to blindly support Nintendo who, very clearly, have made quite the error in their PR. I'm not a fan of YouTube personalities, but I use YouTube occasionally for a variety of gaming things--usually in the vein of walkthrough videos if I'm particularly stumped on something--like where the hell the Playstation Trophies are for The Swapper. The YouTube video I watched to show me just one trophy completely changed how I'm going to be viewing that game from this point on.

I do agree with you, people should be working with Nintendo during this Beta phase, and I would hope that the YouTubers they are targeting are indeed doing exactly that. At the same time, I hope Nintendo is paying attention to the PR collapsing all around them.

/rant

Don't see what all the fuss is about. If you make money doing this kind of stuff on youtube then just dont do it with Nintendo games.

It is not like the Wii U is a top selling console. There is far more games and options with the PS4 and XBone.

If you like doing this kinda thing with Nintendo games then get a PS4 or whatever and carry on.

YouTubers like GameXplain etc., would have far more subscribers if they switched to MS or Sony and don't have to pay a penny.

lol i dont give a single poopitypoop for this really, im not a youtuber, and no one should be foolish enough to think they can live of it the rest of there lives, and also if i do niintendo videos its for pure passion towards those games. like i hate pewdiepie who just scream into his mic and gets millions of dollars of it, thats what i think nintendo wants to go against, and i dont care if pewdiepie gives to charity, thats not an excuse at all. Nintendo made these games with there money and man power, not some random guy should make millions of dollars just playing those games and even if he has buyed there games ( wich i doubt) it doesnt matter. Stop complaining and be glad you get something atleast!

@BLPs

I don't think there should be a ceiling. That, to me, smacks of "let's bring the successful people down to our level." That, and I mean no offense, sounds like "a group of losers trying to take down the winner." Like creating a smear campaign against someone you don't like.

If someone like PewDiePie (I really find writing that annoying, it just does not flow smoothly from a keyboard) can make or generate a huge amount of revenue for him, YouTube, etc, then more power to him. If you were at the top, would you want the angry villagers storming your castle with their torches and pitchforks? You worked for that. Who are they to come take it away?

All that does is create an environment where being successful or different is to be punished by the rabble, if you catch my meaning. What reason does anyone have to better themselves or succeed if they're just going to be dragged down in the end anyway?

@Quorthon No, every YouTuber who only plays what makes the most money is terrible because they don't play what they like, and I don't support the awful moneygrubber system. Not as long as they live off of my data security, which I enforce by blocking anything that tries to collect them (especially Google systems).
If they want money, they should work in a regular job, or ask openly for money via Patreon or similar systems, instead of sneaking their way to it through endangering user security.

@DarkKirby

This video is also very good, and he covers a few points your video missed. Excellent post, by the way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ud0j9q7pk0

@Kaze_Memaryu

How do you know they don't play what they like?

Sorry, but this is sounding like inventing personality aspects in someone simply not to like them.

And again, by all means, define a "regular job."

I'm pretty sure this very site recently spoke with a former Nintendo Game Counselor, and no doubt, he played games he didn't like at times, and he got paid to play games. Is that a "regular job?"

WII don't need WHINE

@Quorthon "define a "regular job.""

A regular job doesn't rely on a company overlooking a copyright violation to make a consistent living. LPing without a companies permission would be like Rifftrax expecting to survive while including the movies with their commentary.

This is rapidly spiraling towards a free speech issue and when it get's there Nintendo is is going to have a serious wake up call.

@thomasbw84. There's only one thing you're not seeing here. Just because Pewdiepie doesnt like doesnt mean that no one will rise to fill the void. More than likely someone will bend to the terms to take uncompeted profits through this program. People want youtube coverage of Nintendo games, someone will settle for 70% and if the rest of these predictions are correct will do so uncontested.
More likely than failure we should expect dedicated Nintendo channels that will succeed.

@DarkKirby I forgot how good that second TotalBiscuit video was, he just goes over so much.

Here's hoping the system falls right on its face before it gets definitely implemented.

@Kaze_Memaryua Here you go:

This program is beyond awful, I'm really hoping Nintendo fixes it with the beta and makes it more reasonable. This is a perfect example of Ninty being stuck in the conservative ways and it driving me up a wall. I mean they did an awful job at advertising the Wii U and now they want to punish people for giving them free advertising? Well that seems more than a little backwards if you ask me. Not even mentioning that this program punishes those who have been the most loyal and supportive of Nintendo. Those who have Nintendo only channels will probably want to start thinking of doing other games. It's just sad to see Nintendo continue to shoot themselves in the foot like this. The only way this could get any worse is if they start to flag review content. This just means Nintendo will have a minimal presence on YouTube, but I suppose they made their bed on this one.

Is there any data on how much of a difference the "free advertising" makes on Nintendo sales?

I also wonder if Nintendo is behind the curve or ahead of the curve on this one. In other words, how soon until someone else decided that it wants a piece of PeweDeePie's action?

There needs to be some tweeking. There needs to be some expansion of content. Or it may never work. But I can't imagine the free ride of free reign lasting forever. Nothing like that ever has.

I've always wanted to make gaming videos on YouTube... You know, with the way Nintendo is handling things, I don't think I would be doing anything with their games. This is just pointlessly complicated. I guess if I ever get enough money in the future, I'll start LP's of PC games.

@mike_intv This is the closest thing I can find:
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/219122/Is_YouTube_killing_the_traditional_games_press.php

Also on to your further remarks....have you been on YouTube lately? There are so many PDP clones, some good, most...ehh....

@jakysnakydx I guess I'm concerned that such a move would result in Nintendo being further walled off from the rest of the video game industry. We'd be back to people who hear about Nintendo are the ones who search them out.

@Ninty4thewin Oh please CoD, GTA would sell well without youtube and they did before it. Near release you could GTAV advertised on the side of buses and billboards. CoD had already established it as the flagship FPS game before LPers covered it.

It was the combined focus of thousands of youtube channels that sold Minecraft and no paid software has had that level of success repeated in 6 years now. So anyone trying to claim responsibility for anything but minor sales successes are purely delusional

@Anyone that says this is going to stop people from making Nintendo YouTube videos

How is this worst than Nintendo just making a copyright claim? That is what they were doing. This way you can make Nintendo videos while making money and not receiving claims against your account. I understand how this isn't good compared to other companies (from your perspective) but isn't this better than what they were doing? So if you were already making Nintendo videos, how does this stop you? If you aren't making Nintendo videos then how does this negatively affect you?

Nintendo can kick rocks.

@Kirk
LOL where did the hate come from? Nintendo ... greedy? Yeah, because releasing a complete, content-filled games is being greedy. Selling DLCs at a cheap price with so much content is being greedy. Rewarding loyal club Nintendo members is being greedy. Because Nintendo going after YouTubers and other companies for infringement while protecting the interests of the gamers is being greedy! /s

And what about other publishers? Go day one DLC! Go rampant cash grab DLCs and microtransactions! Go pay to win/continue mobile/console/pc games! Go annualized games! (Nope, pokemon is not fully/owned by Nintendo).

You should leave Nintendo for good man. Shame on you for wishing them go "bankrupt" by saying "I honestly hope this kind of things comes back to bite Nintendo in the *ss in a major way, financially basically,"

I think Nintendo should just leave Youtube alone.

This idea is shady and poorly written. No one with any influence is going to accept this program.

Nintendo is doing nothing but hurting themselves at this point. Just leave youtube alone, you know, like Sony and Microsoft, your competitors do.

It doesn't really matter what the big names on the youtube channels think. When you boil it down, they make money off other people's work, by abusing the other people's work if they don't give them a share of the profit. It isn't a right to be able to use copyrighted materials to make money without the permission of the people who own the copyright.

People can moan and groan about it all they want, but just because many folks let them get away with it doesn't make it right, or the way things should be done.

How would you like it if you made a game and before it even had a chance to really sell and Let Play fella blew open your entire game? No, that won't make your sales stop, but many folks play games for the story, and if they can get past having to play the game, they will, especially when its free.

I think people shouldn't get paid to post videos on Youtube of them playing video games. I also think that if Nintendo wants this plan to work it needs to include the games people actually want to see.

Overall, I think Nintendo should absolutely be making money if Youtubers are making money. They just need to make the system better.

@Yorumi
They are toys that gives small bonus contents on MULTIPLE content-filled and complete games that's been patched later on to add those bonus features. Now until Skylanders works with other Activision games and DI working with multiple Disney games, then it's not comparable.

As for the upcoming free to play games, have you compared them already in terms on how you are forced to buy in-game currency? Are there paywalls to continue progressing? I've stupidly played free-to-play pay-to-win games (EA's BFP4F, Ubi's Ghost Recon Online/Phantoms, and some Asian MMOs) and spent hundreds of euros each because I was forced to when I got hooked on these games. Pokemon Shuffle is yet to be seen if it has the same level of cash grab. And besides, Pokemon isn't owned by Nintendo.

Can I suggest that everyone go read http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html#yt-copyright-four-factors before commenting on Let's Play makers claim to "Fair Use".

Factors 3 and 4 are the issues here. Let's Play videos are most likely not Fair Use in the US. It doesn't matter how much voice-over you do, if you put the entire game online you are showing the "heart" of the content. That can and does have an impact on the market.

@Superstick
So you're planning on making YouTube videos for the money? Okay. Good luck! You just lost a viewer in me though as I'm only interested on Nintendo-related gaming videos.

@64supermario I meant the content providers wanting a piece of the action.

Given that so many sites used to be completely free now have pay walls or viewing limits (or both), I think this is the beginning of the end of the unfettered access to video game materials.

It really is a half measure. We all know half measures don't work. You have to go all in. Either fully support youtubers doing what they want, or put pressure on YouTube to take nintendo stuff down. These ways are the only ones that are viable. Considering the tarnished image that would result, I think leaving fans to create what they want, would be the best option.

Hmm well that figures. Not taking on the the legal part, the cultural landscape simply does not compute with Ninty's vision. Publishers are paying lots of money to let popular Youtubers play games and Nintendo asks money for the same. Even an idiot can figure out where that leads to, regardless of what the law states (which is nothing specific at the moment).

I have to ask how is it "Nintendo needs to evolve." Rather than "The free ride is over."

Granted this is only the beta so it will change overtime, I am also thinking that Nintendo wants to watch out for comments that are negative to the brand. "Bayonetta 2 should be on a real console like the PS4."

@Yorumi Football is a bad argument. The game "football' is not under copyright just like the rules and mechanics for any game. "NFL Football" is copyrighted and if someone ran a live feed of NFL Football with their random comments over it, they would quickly find themselves in legal trouble.

Their program is intended to deal with "Let's Play" style videos. Walkthrough guides (teaching), criticisms, remixes, true commentary (most let's plays fail in this regard), and industry news would not be effected by this. Except to do what they already are required to do, use the "Fair Use" defense in court if they believe that what they did is "Fair Use".

The Let's Play video makers are making this into a tempest in a teapot because it directly effects their gravy train. For most people out there, it will have zero impact.

@Yorumi
I've played some mobile games. I don't find Candy Crush a cash grab at all. I just wait for the tries to fill up and I do so by playing other games. So if Pokemon shuffle will be the same then, I think it's fine for a free-to-play game. Also, don't throw that "it's because Nintendo so it's not that bad" at me. FYI, my opinion isn't biased on Pokemon shuffle because IDGAF about Pokemon and I have yet to play one. I did like the cartoon show though.

Come on Nintendo...

It's like Nintendo's trying to fail in every possible department...

@Chubblings Agreed. The only thing nintendo is getting from this is negative pr. Time will tell on how much of a impact this program has, but regardless,nintendo needs to improve marketing their products so that they can reach people outside the fan base.

@BensonUii

The hate comes from stuff just like this.

Didn't I make that abundantly clear?

@Yorumi Again, "Fair Use" isn't a right, it is a legal defense. You don't have "Fair Use" rights, but you can argue a "Fair Use" defense in court. Nintendo asserts that they own their copyrighted material because they do. The burden is on the content creator to prove their use was actually "Fair Use".

Now we can debate the merits of the solution (which I thin is short-sighted), but Nintendo is well within their "rights" as the copyright holder. As I said in the last post on the topic, there is a lot of nuance to the problem. Games are most based in player skill vs a game that is mostly a story. Live tournaments vs eternally living full playthroughs.

My general rule of thumb is that if you are giving away key story elements (such as cut-scenes) then you have crossed the line. It is one thing to show how to beat a boss, it is another to show the ending to the game.

@Kirk
Does that imply that you are one of these directly affected YouTubers who make profits out of Nintendo-related videos? Or you are PewdiPie's biggest fan that it/they matter more than Nintendo giving you great games to play? It's not that you can't upload or watch Nintendo videos anymore. Someone else will fill the absence of these boycotters. I'm just trying to understand the hate.

@Quorthon A contracted job that offers a clear wage is a regular job. The system YouTube employs is neither secure, nor does it guarantee anything, regardless of how much work was put in the video. Not to forget that Google does not employ YouTubers, but simply contracts them into a dangerous system of massive data collection that YouTubers just so happen to benefit from.

@Yorumi When the hell did I ever say anything like that? I'm saying a YouTuber is only doing good videos if he does what he likes to do, because it's VERY easy to notice if it's fun to the YouTuber or not. Passion cannot be imitated.

@64supermario I already know about TotalBiscuit's view on it, and I feankly don't agree at all. It's almost impossible to determine whether a Let's Play of a particular game really did boost sales, and even then, a complete playthrough is simply unnecessary. A proper video review is more than enough if properly done.

As some NLifers have pointed out, I think the exclusion of some games have something to do with securing permissions from copyright owners. Pikmin 2 have other "brands" in-game, Smash have 3rd-party characters/stages/trophies. As for Captain Toad, I'm not sure. Probably because it just came out that they may have a rule on it (potential 3rd-party DLCs).

On MK8's inclusion, maybe Mercedes approved the usage of their brand on YouTube. Same with Google's app on the Wii U.

Man, this whole program sounds CUMBERSOME as hell.

In it's current form it just won't take off.

@BensonUii

I'm working with someone who makes YouTube content and I know they'd love to post Nintendo related videos but at the same time they actually want to monetise them and at the same time again I don't think it's fair they only end up getting a tiny portion of the money for their creations; irrespective of them using footage of Nintendo's games. I'd also maybe like to make Nintendo-centric YouTube videos myself at some point but almost certainly won't now because I'm not doing it for free and I resent having to give the majority of ad revenue to the combination of YouTube and Nintendo. On top of that I'm also an indie video game developer, who allows people make any videos they want of my games and monetise them all they want (not that anyone cares enough to make videos of my games but still), and I just think Nintendo's attitude regarding this particular matter absolutely stinks. Lastly; I just don't like when companies place pure greed and profit above creating a good relationship with their various fans, consumers and whoever else. As a once totally passionate Nintendo fan (Nintendo was in fact the company that got me into game development and I even used to work for Rare) I'm disgusted with some of the stupid corporate decisions Nintendo has made of late; that have direct negative consequences on the very people that are often some of it's most passionate and most loyal fans and customers.

Even I have to admit that Nintendo really should ease off people who want to use Nintendo content in their videos. This will just be bad publicity for them.

Yeah like i said before, Nintendo technically has the right to do this, but at the same time, this is going to end badly for them in the long run. Nintendo is going to look foolish while the Youtubers go to the other developers that are much more willing to let them stream their work with no problems.

@Yorumi Nintendo is free to claim that anything that uses their copyrighted material needs be taken down. It is well within their right as the copyright holder to do so. They have exclusive rights to that property with a few exceptions, of which "Fair Use" is one.

There is a tech news podcast I listen to that does video and they are subjected to multiple copyright takedown requests per episode, ironically sometimes due to someone else using their video under "Fair Use". The videos get restored because they have a "Fair Use" defense (or are the rights holder) of the content in question. But they have to go through the process for each episode, even if it is the same copyright holder (and sometimes because it is the same one).

So Nintendo can claim any appearance of their products within any YouTube video is a copyright infringement. The video uploader can then make a counter-claim that their infringement was actually "Fair Use". The law is on their (Nintendo's) side, public opinion is definitely not.

I seriously doubt that Nintendo would care either way if there were not people out there showing the gameplay in it's entirety, or posting the cut-scenes to games. All the other stuff I previously mentioned easily defended under a fair use argument. They would most likely pass the four factors, but the two above will have difficulty getting over the third and fourth factor. They show the "heart" of the work and they have an impact on the market for the work.

EDIT: This is a tempest in a teapot because it effects a small group of people that is monetizing a cult of personality played over someone else's copyrighted material. Ever notice that there is no Let's Watch videos on YouTube where someone does that over a television show or movie? So how is it different and okay to do that with a video game?

@Kirk
Ah... So now I understand why. Still, you need to give where credit is due. You don't own their IPs and you want to make money out of it. Nintendo is well within their rights and I'm not gonna argue with you anymore after this. It's been pointed out already. IMO, this is one of YouTube's flaw and was exploited. I think Nintendo is stepping in to protect their IPs while formally giving incentives to Nintendo YouTubers and it's not about making profit out of your ad revenues.

Still, I'm gonna say shame on you for wishing Nintendo go bankrupt. They are one of the few publishers (Projekt CD Red is awesome as well) who wants to make a profit but at the same time giving their gamers their money's worth. I don't think Nintendo was being greedy on their consumers/customers, so I don't know where the hell did you pull that BS out.

They are basically telling people to be as popular as IGN, otherwise your videos aren't good enough. A single website dedicated to video games blows a entire flock of YouTube channels out of the water.

All of this is probably in the mix, as well.

This deal, it's kind of like 'bribed exposure'.

NINTENDO: Here, take a little money and show us lookin' good!
YOUTUBER: Sounds like a deal, "Friend"!
NINTENDO: Now, you must follow these strict rules. Also, you have to be original.
YOUTUBER: What the... Original? I don't understand!

This bribed exposure will only create a strongly biased outlook on anything submitted, though this program. So, It's not going to help out Nintendo out.

Nintendo PLAY, on their website, seems to be exactly what these "Pewdiepie kids" want.

My solution? Make a web series starring Reggie. His Kick-ass 'tude will get some internet attention. This is marketing money spent much better. An even better idea is Animation. Nintendo's characters look great as cartoons. Create a short series in the same simulated claymation as Kirby's Rainbow curse, to tell people ABOUT the game, and the story. This same idea could work for any series. As long as they don't Sonic-Boom it.

@steamtrain Well Said, steamtrain. Well said. People will find something to complain about, no matter what happens. If there isn't something to complain about, then a problem may be created.

But yes, to continue on from my previous post, this is unfortunately where Nintendo have to lower themselves to dealing with so-called "content creators" for the sake of avoiding negative impaction to business. I don't have to like it, but that's the way it goes when public influence is handed to the entitled. Game Theory was right on the money with the "word of loudmouth" theorem.

It may be akin to supporting criminal behaviour, but in the long run it's just not worth the potential damage it could cause to your brand name. It's sure a complex world we live in.

@Williaint
That's kind of what I'm saying. These YouTube people that are posting Nintendo videos are making weak sauce videos and want to get paid. I've seen some PewDiePie videos and they're more boring than IGN. Nintendo steps in and takes their cash. Sites like Nintendo Life and IGN are probably doing fine with all this YouTube stuff, because they are already basically internet partners, as far as I can tell.

I honestly don't care one way or the other about this, but I will not deny that I have gotten many good laughs out of YouTubers saying that Nintendo is "doomed" without their support.

I'm beginning to think that this generation will be remembered as the worst when it comes to Nintendo's business decisions. They are awesome developers, but horrible at pro-consumer business

@Knux - The funny part about your post on this topic, is that these are people making money from Nintendo's IPs. This doesn't have anything to do with consumers, except the people making Nintendo videos on YouTube.

Angry Joe got a Wii U, Mario Kart 8, Super Mario 3D World, and I think Super Smash Smash Bros; FOR FREE, from his followers, and he's still b****ing about making reviews for Wii U games. It's pretty childish, honestly.

The more I think about it, the more I realize the copyright claim system on YouTube is kind of BS as a whole.

Like, it's one thing if companies don't want you to upload and monetize content featuring their games/movies/music at all, then they could have the entire video shut down (and some do). But instead, most allow you to upload their content and they take all the money, no matter how much/little actual content you use.

While the user may have infringed on copyright(s), they should still rightfully be able to claim revenue for the work they DID make. And it's not impossible for there to be a system that can reflect that.

For example: If I made a fully animated music video to, say, the song, "Single Ladies" by Beyonce, and there's a copyright claim but no video takedown, I think I should still be able to get SOME money for the animation I painstakingly spent weeks/months to make it, based on the views it received. And I'd have absolutely no problem with whoever the song's publisher is getting a cut of it. Let's Plays or even game related anything should be able to work the same way: Take a cut for the length/amount of gameplay, but leave some to the uploader for whatever voice work/editing they've done.

As it currently stands, the system sits on 100% of the companies' side, leaving very little on the side of the "little guys". And even if we wanted to pay most of these guys for the right to use their content, it's darned near impossible to get a response from these companies unless you're big or famous.

The internet space, creatively and commercially, is completely different from radio/audio, TV, and film. It's the first REAL place where individuals that don't have the money or man power that the other industries require to do ANYTHING and still reach a lot of people actually have a chance. It's never too late to be able to give the "little guys" a bit more leeway in the things they can create, rather than push the whole "My way or the highway" that Nintendo and others are doing by the day. Even if it's something like sitting in front of a mic and playing video games.

@mjc0961 From personal experience, I got a copyright claim from Capcom for LPing Asura's Wrath. I also got a CC from EA when doing SSX 2012 and Ubisoft/Universal when playing Scott Pilgrim. So Nintendo isn't the only one, only the biggest "offender" right now.

I'm sorry, I just can't muster any empathy for people who want to make videos on YouTube with copyrighted content and then complain they can't keep all the money. Before, they had an argument. Not legally, but perhaps morally. But now that the majority slice is being offered to them, they don't have a leg to stand on. Oh well, the newest game that released is excluded. Looks like you'll just have to deal with it then, won't you?

It turns me off to see people so obsessed with money on YouTube.. If I ever find out a Yutuber I subscribe to is only concerned about profiting, I'll unsub. YouTube was designed a community for home videos. Content for fun and entertainment. But greed has crept in and now it's become nothing more than a source of income to many people. They saw they could make a buck and now that's all they care about.

It's just a huge turnoff to see "this" become an issue. Money should have never been part of the equation. In fact, I vote they ban advertisement revenue for users- not only would that solve this issue, it would ensure I'm not getting biased reviews based on how much a monetary cut they're getting, AND it would make YouTube a heck of a lot more enjoyable on the viewer end.

And it's not just because it's Nintendo. I stand by my opinions whether it's Nintendo, Unisoft, EA or the Queen of England. I'm 100% against money being a deciding factor in YouTube content creation.

Great Article Nintendolife, it really sums up the problems with the program, and I'm glad to see this site goes with the facts and criticises Nintendo when they mess up. Hopefully those who still support this system can come to understand how stupid it is.

There will however, always be those who stand by it, if only because of their jealousy of popular YouTubers or their inability to acknowledge flaws from Nintendo. Its unfortunate, but in the end this decision hurts Nintendo more than anyone else, and they will have to pay for their blunder.

@BensonUii No that's not what I plan on doing. I meant that I may have to avoid making Nintendo videos cause I'm afraid they might take them down. Lol.
Edit: Although making money would be nice too... 😁

Fun fact; there was no real court hearing about this entire situation. What happened was nintendo got their lawyers together and got pissy with youtube, the whole 'you have to give us money for using footage from our games' argument is not only unconstitutional, its criminal.

It'd be like me being a paint maker, you buy the paint, paint your house, then sell it-- then me coming along down the line and saying I deserve a profit from your house sales because you used my paint to sell it.

What someone does with a nintendo product after the sale is their business. So many youtubers playing games actually help the games sales, nintendo should look at it as free advertising.

I find this particularly annoying because I review toys and what happens when I review a nintendo toy on youtube, are they going to want profits from my reviews? Even though I'm giving their toy free advertisement and possible endorsement. This is just wrong.

Might be time to start a thread on religion; probably be less contentious. Tho there would just as many telling others how they should live their lives.

So many comments. Amazing people care about this.

Folk, play your games. Don't watch other people play them.

@SCAR392
I was actually going to agree with you about that "As professional as IGN". But yeah, I agree with that!

@steamtrain Not a bad idea. Similar to the Super Mario Super show 'hosts'

So Nintendo is still living in the past?Nice!Nothing new here

@Sanya Yay! My channel is a ghost town too! What's your channel's name?

I would say Nintendo should opt for a fair compromise. They should get more involved, yes, they should moderate content that does not give the proper credit, yes, and they should opt to take a small cut from those who monetize from their products, yes.

However, they should otherwise let the community be as expressive as they wish, with any game one desires, without limits or delays, as soon as it becomes available for play in a "gone gold" release version- especially in cases where there is no monetization. Whether it be glowing praise or scathing criticism, Nintendo should not censor it.

After all, it is in Nintendo's (and everyone's) favor for their products to be focused on and shared, than not at all.

@Dark-Link73 https://www.youtube.com/user/2012Eureka/featured
Have fun...lol

@PlywoodStick

That sounds like what they are doing

@DefHalan I edited my post a few times to include things they're missing from their current program.

@PlywoodStick

Well Nintendo isn't stopping the community from being expressive. The only issue currently (in the beta) is the list of games. I hope YouTubers can calm down and follow these rules. It isn't like they will be missing out on that much. I heard Nintendo is only taking 30%

@DefHalan It's a 30% cut if the channel exclusively features Nintendo content, such as Nintendo Life. For anyone else, it's 40% per video. I would argue these amounts need to be at least halved. This is a source of revenue Nintendo previously did not have access to, and I think they would be wise to make their newfound presence seem more like a tithe than a tax.

There is also the issue of the vetting process, of which we have little to no information. Putting aside the delays it causes, it raises the specter of possibility that the determination of what Nintendo would consider "acceptable content" could enter a slippery slope. I would argue that any implemented vetting process should occur after the release of a video, without interfering with or delaying it's release, then only pulling the video if it's content is truly objectionable or heinous.

@PlywoodStick

The vetting process will most likely just be like Nintendo's Lot-Check for games. They don't make sure the game (video) is good or delivers a positive message. They just make sure it passes all their legal standards. A lot of people are putting words in Nintendo's mouth about that part.

If the cut is 40% then I recommend that some YouTubers might want to make a second account that host just their Nintendo content, that way the cut is only 30%. It would also be interesting to see how views and subscribers are interested in Nintendo only channels and if it is negative might be good evidence that Nintendo should cut back on the individual video stuff.

It is currently in beta, both Nintendo and YouTubers should take advantage of this to prove how things need to change. Ignoring them isn't going to fix the problem. You need to have proof on how this won't work. So I encourage YouTubers to try this out, even if it is only with 1 or two videos.

@BinaryFragger The problem is... depending on Nintendo's vetting process, for all we know, ANY game footage could mean "raw footage"- including the game footage scenes on AVGN.

@Quorthon although we do disagree this time... Remember, we generally agree. Problem with your comment about people doing what they love is silly... If people only did what they loved, no one would clean public restrooms or shovel garbage at the dump... Also, the game designers are doing what they love, why should they not receive just as much as a you tuber that just whines, screams and yells for 22 minutes? C'mon, 4 million a year?! And he's standing up for the rights of you Tubers?! You tubers need a more realistic voice, as his comes off as entitled.

@DefHalan "If the cut is 40% then I recommend that some YouTubers might want to make a second account that host just their Nintendo content, that way the cut is only 30%."

Anyone who knows how Youtube's monetization system works knows that this would split a channel and it's organization apart, thereby undermining their revenue and survivability. No one would willingly agree to this unless: 1) they don't know the ramifications of the terms, 2) were forced to accept the terms, or 3) don't care about losing consolidation of their base. The first instance is unfortunate, the second instance raises the specter of Nintendo entering a slippery slope of questionable activity, and the third instance is not what most career Youtubers would consider a desirable course of action.

" It would also be interesting to see how views and subscribers are interested in Nintendo only channels and if it is negative might be good evidence that Nintendo should cut back on the individual video stuff."

That might make for an interesting social experiment if there was no money involved, but since money is involved, I don't think it makes good business sense.

Yeah, this is not going to end well.

@PlywoodStick

I don't see the problem honestly. Before this you couldn't upload a Nintendo video without facing a copyright claim. So all they would be doing is making a second channel that is purly Nintendo. I don't see how it would affect your first channel (which most likely doesn't have any Nintendo videos or the videos you do have wouldn't be affected) The only negative I see is them spending their time making a video that may not make them money (which is already a possibility on their own channel, just more of a risk on their Nintendo only channel)

Nintendo really shot themselves in the foot. It amazes me a company that makes such great games can be run by people who make idiotic decisions like this.

@DefHalan It's true that there's nothing wrong with being vetted as an approved monetizing content creator by the copyright holders. However, forcing people to split their channels if they don't want to incur an extra tax (on top of an already heavy tax), or even possibly being denied the ability to host shows of Nintendo products if they object, is probably a bit too much Machiavellian behavior for most people's tastes.

@Platypus101

Obviously if people only did what they loved, then we'd have cool robots to do the dirty work. Believe it or not, there are people who love, say, being carpenters or working construction. Hell, there are even people that love retail, which I will never understand as I hated retail more than anything. There will probably always be people who do the jobs we don't want to do, and those of us with endurance will get through the crap jobs when we need to. I certainly didn't want to be in the military, but I sucked it up and signed away years of my life because it was what I needed to do. And it's worked out for me--wonderfully.

I think it's a fallacy to be angry that some YouTubers make crazy money to be ridiculous people and expect developers to be upset by it. I'm not upset by it at all, and I'm the definition of a struggling developer, except that my day job pays decently. I have very little clout, it's very difficult to be noticed, and I'm at risk of just being cast-aside as another micro-indie with a "me-too" dream.

It's not for me to be angry at them--as I said, good for them. They found a niche, they made it work, and it's paying off for them--that tiny micro minority that makes the megabucks that is. It doesn't harm me and for me to be angry with them would be nothing but abject jealousy.

Saying, "oh look how much money he makes doing that! That makes me angry!" That's jealousy and nothing more. It would be a considerable waste of my time and energy being jealous of someone like that or upset that he makes a lot of money for it, and all that's going to do is risk me clouding my judgement and view of my own life.

I see these people online angry that PewDiePie makes a lot of money, and I can't help but think about how sad their lives must be. Why the hell should this bother them? He puts up videos and makes ad revenue. He's no different than anyone on TV or in magazines or hell, even running a website just like this one in that regard--people whose paychecks come from ad revenue. I'm not going to be angry at PewDiePie any more than I will at Mike Futter at GameInformer or Thomas Whitehead here. I may not agree with his personality or his attitude, and I may not give two poopitypoops about his channel, but I see no reason to be upset or angry about it. What kind of loser would that make me out to be? Should I be so petty? My team's game made no money on Android, and hopefully the console upgrade we've worked so hard on at least gets noticed. Them's the breaks, as it were. We're learning and we're improving every step of the way, and we're smart enough (I hope), to build upon our baby steps into something great one day.

And hey, if you guys feel that developers deserve that support, by all means, spend your money on them. This decision (by Nintendo) is not going to make things easy on developers working on Nintendo's hardware--so they're going to need your support more than ever because Nintendo may very well have blackballed a whole lot of them by mere association with the negativity that abounds in this program.

@UntoldLegend Thats because they dont sit down in the meeting room and think about the bad things and what can actually benefit them. Like these youtubers are doing free advertizing for them. What company wouldnt love that?

Whoever compared this to Rifftrax was smart, because that's basically the issue here. If you're going to make money using large amounts of other people's IPs, you should have to pay a license fee to do so. Yes, you own your commentary and the material you bring, but the question is public broadcast of someone else's material. When you buy a movie, it specifically states that you are not allowed unauthorized public broadcast or reproduction. A game may not have that warning (or it may in the legal fine print) but it's likely that in a court, it would be viewed the same way.

That said, I think the way Nintendo is managing the system is too strict and will likely damage their internet reputation. The financial cut is maybe 10% too high, but the guidelines are the real issue. It's an unmanageable system that nobody will want to mess with.

That also said, Youtubers do need to recognize that they don't own the content they are commenting on, and the "you'll get publicity!" argument doesn't entitle them to freebies. Neither does "free speech" because while their speech is protected, the videos aren't a part of their speech. Legally they must either take the MST3k route (only making videos of Public Domain movies or paying license fees) or the Rifftrax route (Only releasing and making money off of the commentary). Clearly, Nintendo needs to revise their policy, but I don't see why any big company would like other people making money off their products without compensation.

(All those things said, Nintendo isn't likely to do anything, as they're a company stuck in a traditional Japanese business structure that is largely dying in the global market.)

I seriously hope they look more into what they're doing — that is all. Initially hearing this, I thought it wouldn't hurt to try it out. Reading over their terms of service, I would never even want to try this. I'd rather stay with my current network, and I don't even like them that much. There are two things that were brought to my attention, and they bother me:

"In the event this agreement is terminated for any reason. . .you must immediately take down any Video and text related thereto."

Whoa. Even if we won't be receiving any revenue? All of that hard work would just be gone? You have a gameplay video that probably won't be monetized freely. What kind of reason is there for removal?

The list of specific games that may be used is a bit disappointing. There are many other games that are quite good, and it would be nice to upload gameplays on them and whatnot. Why not have them?

"[Do not] engage in any. . .objectionable conduct in relation to the Content or the Nintendo Creators Program"

That one kind of slightly irks me. I'd fear if it could ever become a silly case of "I'm offended! I don't like this!".
I'm just going to continue to observe people's take on this program. They have all the right to do this, but is this necessary? Think about all the other companies that allow things like this.

@Yorumi YouTube is bound by a very poorly written law (DMCA). In order to keep their safe harbor protection status they have to react quickly to takedown requests. It is the bad law that creates a "guilty until proven innocent" stance, but it is also copyright itself that does that. Nintendo has a copyright on their material, which is an exclusive and supposedly temporary monopoly on their creation for the sake of promoting the arts. Since it is Nintendo's property, we (and YouTube) gets to play by their rules.

I think Nintendo needs to bring a lot of clarity to their rules. Explain what is okay without being a partner and what the threshold is to require partner status. I think those four factors is a good starting point for them to start the conversation, but remember they don't have to have the conversation. Legally, the game is rigged in their favor.

The best Let's Play videos I've seen are the ones that have developers involved doing commentary about their thought/design processes, or have someone digging into the history and facts of the game and of those that created it. I think those should survive and be allowed to thrive. Just like the best gaming podcasts generally aren't just about the games.

@BinaryFragger
I suppose I should rephrase to clarify. I'm not against people making money on YouTube, as long as it's an "I'm thankful for anything I make on the side, but I make what I make and I'm not gonna stress it if I don't get paid for a video" kind of ordeal. But when it's an "I expect to make money, I demand to make money, I better make money or I'm gonna throw a fit and rage against publishers for not letting me keep their dime because I say they should" kind of ordeal, I strongly disapprove.

@BinaryFragger I'm self employed (semi-retired) please... You're making me laugh! I love what I do. It's all I have ever done. but you're missing the point... We cannot all do what we love, some people have to sweep up garbage and clean sewers... Its ok, you were wrong.

Good thing I didn't get around to buying into a capture card for my PC. I was going to try a multiplayer oriented review show with three other people for mostly Nintendo games, very few of them were to be first party since we wanted to look into the more obscure multiplayer games.

@Quorthon again... Well stated I'm not angry, I just feel that a more realistic voice should speak for the YT community.. It's like having Hugh Hefner be the face of all guys who have dumped their girlfriends. Inadvertently he would make us all look like jerks to the common person.

@JaxonH yeah. What you said!

@Quorthon Yeah, im sure most of the lol users on the past article were jelly they weren't getting money by playing and/or mindless bashing certain youtubers.

I have to wonder though, how you could keep up replaying to all of those fanboys.
Sometimes it appeared as you were talking to a wall in some cases lol.

Siphoning pennies off of broke college students will surely save Nintendo.

I mostly find it strange that people take YouTube so seriously. And not just the people trying to make a profit off of it. I wonder if I had been born ten years later if I would actually care whenever I saw a link to a YouTube video. Or if I would subscribe to channels and actually watch them.

Someone please tell Nintendo that this is stupid and greedy beyond belief

Nintendo continues its trend of bad advertising and conveying a negative image. There is a reason why a lot of game publishers encourage youtubers to cover their games. Its mass advertising and hype that can nail several key markets. A company like Nintendo NEEDS all the marketing it can get. They have a lot of titles that sell like crap because people have no idea they exist or haven't seen enough of them to really care about buying. It is a shame that Nintendo refuses to change with the times and learn how it can use situations like this to a greater advantage.

@darthllama Make's perfect sense to me. Cue the legal citation's.

It's a good thing Nintendo has enough money to be failing this hard.

@njblair143 Yeah, but how much longer can Nintendo continue bumbling around relying on their cash reserves?

Don't get me wrong, Nintendo make awesome games, but their activities outside the game-making have a disturbing number of "WTF are they thinking?"-moments in them...

Wow that's a lot of Blar, Blar, Blar.

Nintendo had better not sit on their ass on this. Just realise already that doing this will not benefit anyone and leave Youtubers alone... seriously.

@Yorumi You are correct, that is what was intended. It is not the reality as sites like YouTube are over-reacting in order to protect their "Safe Harbor" status. In effect the bad law has created bad behavior.

Again, I think clarity on Nintendo's part would go a long way. I would prefer that the DCMA be scrapped and a better law written to do what the DCMA was actually supposed to do. But the odds of the first are more likely than the second since Nintendo is somewhat effected by customer pressure. Unfortunately, the US Congress is apparently only effected by large donations to their campaigns.

@XCWarrior
People care because this can have HUGE consequences. It's about Nintendo footage, so letś play videos are just 1 of the applications. Imagine this actually works: You'll not be able to view ANY professional footage or sounds: reviews, analysis, letś play, study material, and more. Nintendo is the first modern company ever to try and censor ALL forms of critique by professionals so openly. Nintendo is gonna to aprove all video items personally remember.

Interesting claim, this free advertising one... I keep thinking, Nintendo didn't have any video policies like one year ago, but the Wii U was struggling, even with said "free advertising". Now that Wii U is managing to rise a little bit (also without said "free advertising"), people are trying to teach Nintendo how to do business, or how they should manage their IPs. Really interesting. Actually, Nintendo was being badly advertised because of their policies last year, and Wii U managed to see two (or more) games hit the million threshold. I don't know man, I think Nintendo isn't really concerned with said "free advertising" (you are making money out of other people's creative work and call it free? ok then...). And, let's face it, they're kind of doing fine, especially with the 3DS over the 50 million mark.

And please correct me if I'm wrong, but Minecraft was a free game when all those Let's Play videos started, right? People started making money out of it, so more people got the game and started playing it and started making money out of it because people got the game and started... See my point? I really don't fall for this "free advertising" crap, honestly. Call it whatever you want, but don't act like you're Nintendo's savior, they're doing fine without you guys making money out of them.

@Reusinck Stop saying things you CLEARLY don't understand, please. there's no censorship. You can record videos trashtalking Nintendo and their policies WHENEVER you want, you just can't make money with THEIR IPs without their consent. There's no censorship here.

@MagusDiablo "And please correct me if I'm wrong, but Minecraft was a free game when all those Let's Play videos started, right?"

No it wasn't. In alpha it was €10, in beta it was €15 and full release it was €20. There was a "free version" but I think you can only play that on the web browser.

If we continue to let injustices like this exist, soon you'll have to share your profits if you're a home builder with the material providers long after the initial sales has closed.

This is unconstitutional, this is criminal, and it should be abolished. In the end, its just going to hurt Nintendo more than help them. Stop bending the rules corporations, it will eventually bite you in the ass.

@Inkling Ya get paid for ads

@MagusDiablo exactly.

@Steel76 what's with the cursing? Not bright enough to make a comment without swearing? And don't give me that "I'm passionate" speech... It's a bunch of carp. (You know what carp are? Fish.) remember, we are not privy to most corporate information, we don't truly know what these companies spend millions of dollars to know (and in some cases keep secret)... Being upset is all well and good, but why take it out on us? Nintendo has a site where you can bash on them directly.... Also, they gave you surveys with each and every game, I made my voice heard there.

Great article.

I wish Nintendo would encourage YouTubers to promote their games for free. Adverting makes a tiny amount of money unless you get millions of views per month and it takes effort to record and upload videos in the first place.

@MagusDiablo : That's an intelligent take. How many games and consoles actually are being sold because of YouTube. Not too many I gather. It's probably a hardcore Nintendo fan who's already decided if they are going to purchase the game or not. It might even detract someone from buying the game. How much did it help Bayonetta? I bet Nintendo just doesn't want future customers seeing men in ski hats and beards, or dudes that are stuck to their couch playing their games. It might not be the vibe they want to put out there.

@MagusDiablo : That's an intelligent take. How many games and consoles actually are being sold because of YouTube. Not too many I gather. It's probably a hardcore Nintendo fan who's already decided if they are going to purchase the game or not. It might even detract someone from buying the game. How much did it help Bayonetta? I bet Nintendo just doesn't want future customers seeing men in ski hats and beards, or dudes that are stuck to their couch playing their games. It might not be the vibe they want to put out there.

@Gridatttack

Sometimes all that is necessary for some people is to see someone else with similar sentiments. There are no doubt other Nintendo fans like me who have grown up with the company, loved the company, but are increasingly frustrated by counter-productive decision-making from them, as well as a seeming disinterest in being strong and competitive or appealing to adult gamers.

Going up against the fanboy wall is no easy task, to be sure, but for those afraid to speak up due to the backlash of fanboy drones, this at the very least shows them they aren't alone--I hope. It's not like I hate Nintendo--I signed on here initially to finally vent towards developers I feel are damaging the console as bad as Nintendo is.

It's like being an atheist in the military or female in an online lobby--sometimes they just need to know they aren't alone.

@Platypus101

Ha, I really don't know much about the YouTube community. I noted at some point that I personally only use it for the occasional "how the hell do I get this Trophy?" video. PewDiePie clearly has a lot of followers and understanding of how this stuff works, so to the press, I'm sure, he's an easy go-to figurehead for opinions on this subject.

Nintendo Life botched the original article on this and selected a picture of PewDiePie that was probably not the smartest. I read his thoughts on this on another site, and he never said that he was putting Nintendo at the "bottom of the list," he said that for YouTubers in general, Nintendo's importance went to the bottom. He noted that it doesn't really affect him except that now he's pretty much guaranteed never to play a Nintendo game for his channel.

I think we need to remember that it doesn't matter who is saying something, but that the argument or point itself is to be addressed. People focusing on PewDiePie means they ignored his point, and some sites seemed to report his point rather selectively either by accident or for page views.

If a man in a gorilla suit is making a valid point, it's still a valid point. Who says it doesn't matter, though yes, it is apparently a common human foible--that appeal to authority or perceived authority. We want someone speaking for us that appears respectable. It does have a way of muddying a message at times--when we focus on the person, and not the message.

A good breakdown of this would have been to ask for soundbites from a wide variety of YouTubers, not just PewDiePie. This is one case where a group opinion would have meaning (whereas it doesn't in, say, global warming, global warming is evidenced by science, and the contradictory opinions of those who don't understand the science don't matter). Nintendo is well within their right, but they need to understand how this will affect them as a whole.

Their recent "visits to YouTubers" now looks rather shady, as if they did it just to make friends with people before dropping this program on them. As if Nintendo knew they were going to do something unpopular, and wanted to make friends ahead of time. That's a little like forming a non-aggression treaty with another country, then moving your navy to embargo them.

Sorry, I don't mean to sound like I'm disagreeing with you. Your posts evidently have a way of inspiring my responding.

@Quorthon fair enough... But remember, we're dealing with people and PERCEPTION.... That is what I am getting at. For example, when presidents go out on campaign, their BIG media coverage is when they go to "joe six-pack" townhall style meetings. There's full coverage, sound bites, etc. When they go to big corporate sponsored events, they simply mention that he is town. Point being, if all people see is a rich guy who makes 4 million a year, is now only going to make 3.8 million a year, then they would like to see him lose that money, BUT had they shown the average YT'r and quoted them saying what PewDiePie stated, it would have held weight. I guess what I'm trying to say is: no one cares if rich/famous people will be affected, they will always be rich/famous. Let's work on the average person... I know we may not be as interesting, but we still have value.

@Platypus101

I know. Perception is a problem, and we need to just remember not to have knee-jerk reactions without addressing the message, point, or details.

Up-front perception is a necessary tool to dealing with or molding the masses to your view. Politicians have teams of speech writers and people behind them to help mold their public image from the trolls that 99% of them are to something you want to waste a vote on. The more eloquent the troll, the more votes it gets.

It pays to be skeptical. Of all things.

Nintendo is stupid. Youtubers using their games is free advertisement. I personally knoe several peoplr who purchased games like Minecraft, GTAV, and Worms games simply because they saw people doing Let's Plays of them on Youtube. Don't be dumb, Nintendo. Let it go already. You'll probably be glad that you did in the long run.

I can't make money off of other people music without giving them a cut and getting their permission.

I can't make money off of the NFL, NBA, MLB or NHL without giving them a cut and getting their permission.

I can't make money off of other peoples movies without giving them a cut and getting their permission.

But when it comes to Nintendo I should be able to make money off their products without giving them a dime and without their permission?

@Reusinck So....? If it doesn't come from Nintendo, it's best to assume the footage is faked/doctored. After all, it's the Internet, where everything is a lie. When I'm interested in a game, I need 1 trailer, maybe 2. Beyond that, it's just overkill.

@Yorumi I'd rather people not spend time caring about watching videos when they should be playing video games.

@Yorumi At work ATM, so can't play video games. Don't tend to comment on stories when I'm at home PLAYING my video games.

I get what you are saying, but guess what, all professional sports don't let you use their material for your own profit. At the end of every NFL game, this is played, "This copyrighted broadcast is the property of the National Football League. Any rebroadcast or reproduction without the consent of the NFL is strictly prohibited." The NFL is extremely protective of its product, which is a multibillion dollar industry.

All the major sports do it. Nintendo is following suit. So your argument is INVALID. NFL makes billions of dollars and you can't stream their stuff. Guess what? Doesn't hurt their bottom line.

So GET OVER IT.

@Yorumi I like how you ignored the whole part of the NFL's policy and that's how video games are going. Nintendo doesn't want amateur hour showing off its games. And I don't blame them.

@Yorumi You make a couple of nice points, but at the end of the day, when this goes to court, the big guy can pay off the judge, the little guy can't. So yeah.. Nintendo is going to win out because that's the way the world works.

@Yorumi Rich people almost never go to jail when they commit murder/do other bad things and almost always magically get off or receive light punishment. Those rules about bribery and what not only apply to those who can't bribe with a high enough amount.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper_%26_Row_v._Nation_Enterprises
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Video_Pipeline_v._Buena_Vista_Home_Entertainment

The first involves review/criticism, in that the usage was too substantial to be considered fair-use. The second had a response by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

"It is useful to compare the clip previews with a movie review, which might also display two-minute segments copied from a film. The movie reviewer does not simply display a scene from the movie under review but as well provides his or her own commentary and criticism. In so doing, the critic may add to the copy sufficient 'new expression, message, or meaning' to render the use fair."

Regarding "free advertising"....

"Judge Simandle ruled in Buena Vista’s favor in connection with its trademark claim, finding that there was a likelihood that consumers would mistakenly believe that Buena Vista created or authorized Video Pipeline’s clip previews. And he granted Buena Vista’s summary judgment motion on its breach of contract, unfair competition, replevin and conversion claims as well. (The replevin and conversion claims asserted that Video Pipeline failed to return trailer materials BuenaVista had once given Video Pipeline.)"

This is why you need to sign up and be approved. A company holding copyright has EVERY RIGHT to control the advertisements of it products. It is not someone else's right to take something, call it advertising, and send it off if they don't own the content they are advertising.

@XCWarrior

Bernie Madoff will die in prison.

I guess rich people do get theirs when they've done wrong.

I just want to add to the long list of negative comments in hopes that that the shear number will help Nintendo understand how bad of an idea this is.

Well, it's a bad idea. It's hurting your more than its helping--your purposefully blocking some of the best free advertising you could ask for.

Nintendo is from another galaxy after all.

@Quorthon Every now and then they do... but most of the time, the rich people get off with slap on the wrist. Obviously we are WAY off topic at this point.

The bottom line is that Nintendo is making the rules. The little people can complain all they want, but every time you go buy an amiibo, which cost them $1 to make costs you $13-$50 to buy, you are telling Nintendo you like how they do things.

@Quorthon But will the Koch Brothers or Monsanto executives die in prison, as well? Probably not, at this rate...

It is an everyday reality that big companies can in fact have a hand in writing and rewriting laws in their favor, or in government revolving doors and collusion. The American justice system has been built specifically to cater to those with the most wealth. (I refer you to the Environmental Protection Agency for some of the most egregious examples.)

It's easy to target rogues like Bernie Madoff who plainly display their misdeeds. It's not so easy to go after people who not only have the law on their side, but ARE the law. If all of the American government representatives and appointees who collude between both lawmaker and industry roles were actually punished appropriately, we probably wouldn't have much of a government left to speak of.

Granted, Nintendo doesn't operate on that level, and they have very little involvement in our politics, so I don't foresee them being given special treatment for this Youtube case. I doubt they have much interest in such heavy stuff, anyways.

@Yorumi Bribery is only against the law if you aren't the top lawmaker yourself... Checks and Balances are dead and buried in the top ranks, if recent events, PAC's, and shadow money have been any indication. All it takes is writing a law to change an interpretation of money changing hands from "bribe" into "support" or "donation."

I'm not sure if Nintendo is interested in any of that stuff, though... That stuff is hitting way above their batting range, within a completely different ballpark; I don't think it can be correlated with the Youtube issue at hand.