
It's fair to say that the Nintendo Creators Program hasn't had the most stellar of reputations - it's designed to allow Nintendo to review and share revenue on YouTube content based upon its games. It's an alternative to Nintendo simply claiming full revenues or issuing copyright strikes, but it also introduces awkward limitations and the very idea of registering and awaiting approval for content is contradictory to what makes YouTube tick. On top of that it's all rather tiered; channels with huge fanbases or that are part of networks seem to manage just fine, but smaller or independent channels have to jump through Creator Program hoops.
At the start of the last weekend the program got even more restrictive, and also hit at the heart of one of YouTube's most vital content types - live streaming. It's now considered outwith the scope of the program, leaving those that want to do it with a couple of limited options. This is certainly unhelpful, as YouTube often encourages creators to live stream as a means to boost their presence on the platform.
Live streaming on YouTube falls outside the scope of the Nintendo Creators Program. You cannot broadcast content on YouTube Live from the account you have registered to the Nintendo Creators Program. If you plan to broadcast content on YouTube Live, you have a couple of options. First, you can broadcast content on YouTube Live from a channel that is not registered to the Nintendo Creators Program. Or, you can cancel your channel's registration to the Nintendo Creators Program and instead, register your videos containing Nintendo’s IP to the program separately. Videos which had previously been registered through your channel would need to be reregistered individually.
It's yet another limitation that means many small-to-medium channels simply won't bother streaming Nintendo content, which is more the pity with the Switch being undeniably popular right now. Some fully committed to devoting their channel almost solely to Nintendo content may be able to make it work with the Creator's Program, but for others that aren't in that position it's a hindrance that simply isn't encountered with other publishers. This is particularly the case with Indie games or major third-parties that simply want as many eyes on their games as possible - games like Overcooked: Special Edition even go as far as to encourage the sharing of gameplay in a loading message.
With Nintendo on a bit of a roll right now with Nintendo Switch, in particular, it would perhaps benefit from relaxing its attempt to 'control' YouTube content. We'll see whether that eventually happens.
[source r.ncp.nintendo.net, via kotaku.com]
Comments 102
Boo.
Can you just let your fans be, Nintendo? Content creation works for YOUR benefit. It's free advertising. You're taking fan contributions for granted, just like you do with fan games.
My poor Switch capture button is filled with woe over opportunity lost.
The timing of this might not be coincidence, but brought on because of what happened with PDP on live. Which kind of makes sense from a Nintendo standpoint. They realized the scope of live was too wide an avenue.
It sucks, but it is Nintendo alas.
@JHDK
I reeeeeally hope this doesn't stop the capture button from gaining some video outputs in the future.
Looking forward to learning how to run a multi-billion yen company from the commenters here. Because undoubtedly we here know better than people who have been doing it for decades for a company more than a century old.
@PanurgeJr I am as big of a Nintendo fan as the next person but even I have to say they are not exactly with the times.
Given how what can be said live and how its been shown that's a huge liability to a brand as it cant be prevented, you have to appreciate that while its an over-reaction, it's logical.
And furthermore, and the article would be good to highlight this @ThomasBW84 is that this only impacts you if you link your entire channel to the program, and not just submit individual videos.
If you just submit individual videos as and when relevant to do so, this doesn't matter in the slightest.
Nintendo is salty
Ah well.
@PanurgeJr Yes, but will they "finally listen?"
I hear this is all Nintendo of Japan. I think Nintendo of America would be fine with not having the creators program.
You do realize the issue with people such as Pewdiepie, I don't follow him so I probably got the spelling wrong, is probably want helped push this forward. They can't have their brand harmed with such words being said. It is Nintendo's brand so they should have a say in how it is represented.
Nintendo being overprotective as usual...
If only that one person didnt blurt out that one word...
Oh God dang it
@Smash_kirby I will never understand this rhetoric. In a hit and run accident, does the manufacturer of the car that was used in the accident suffer any brand damage? Of course not, only the driver themselves get blamed.
Why would this be any different for streamers? They don’t represent Nintendo in any way, nor would any sensible person ever relate them to Nintendo or any other studio.
@PanurgeJr Dude is your icon from Atari Adventure?
Nintendo is in touch and this makes perfect sense. This is old news.
In all seriousness, this move is fine, it only affects certain people and they need to protect their image.
@Kalmaro @Yorumi Glad to see a diversity of views here haha.
I haven't watched YouTubers in ages due to multiple factors like being busy with contract work and lack of interest in such videos, but from what I gather this may have partially resulted from some Sailor mouth during a live stream or two?
@Snebbu It actually depends to be honest. If you have 10 hit and run accidents and the same model of car happened to be used each time. Eventually that car would start to be known as the "hit and run car" would it not?
@Nintendoforlife I try!
I don't agree with this view of streaming content, but at the end of the day nintendo calls the shots. What good is the share button if I have to get clearance to use it. Just seems to much of a hassle to stream content.
@zionich Nintendo is not with the times and never has been, honestly. This does have it’s ups and downs though.
@Snebbu In a world where people want to sue the manufacturer of guns for gun related crimes, Nintendo can be an easy target for wacky groups. Nintendo has been conservative in the past as well. If you are in their Program you are a face of Nintendo, like it or not.
Can’t believe Nintendo still keeps this going in 2017. Get with the times already!
Once again, Nintendo as a business is making questionable decisions
@Desa Could you please elaborate? What happened?
They do not understand any part of online when it comes to gaming. Why it is good they not really dominant anymore.
Nobody will deal with this. Tons of other things to live stream from publishers/companies that live in 2017 not in the 90s like Nintendo.
But see, they'd didn't say you can't stream Nintendo content, they just said you can't stream while part of the creator's program!
You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves, so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could, and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, and packaged it, and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox, and now you're selling it!
@Smash_kirby Are people freaking out over A Hat In Time because JonTron is a voice actor for the game? No one is so I highly doubt anyone would somehow connect whatever a streamer would say to Nintendo. This is clearly about money plain and simple.
@Smash_kirby Which game company had their brand harmed because PDP was playing their game?
Don't make excuses for Nintendo being too controlling.
@ecco6t9 Is a direct quote from Jurassic Park considered Fair Use?
@frogopus I don't know man. From my understanding the game industry in Japan do not care for these controversies. If anything it would be Nintendo of America who would care (look at some of their questionable localization changes) but I don't think they have the last say for the Creators Program. It is clearly money related since they have been using the content ID system to claim monetization for quite a while now.
My guess is that many streamers tend to be rude or curse online and there's zero control to the outcome so they don't want to get related directly to them.
I don't know
@ALinkttPresent Yes it is. It was my favorite game when I was in grade school, and when we got an NES for Christmas in 1988 and went shopping the next day so we'd have more than just Mario and Duck Hunt to play, there was a game I made my parents buy specifically because it reminded me of Adventure (and had a really cool gold cartridge instead of grey). It might not be my favorite game anymore, but it's easily the most important in terms of setting my tastes in gaming, and indeed entertainment in general.
If your YouTube channel is all about talking smack about Nintendo or any other company on this planet then you're alright. Live streaming contents is just a lazy way to earn free money. With Nintendo taking that away, at least now is the time to find another hobby.
Rip all YouTube Nintendo streamers, some have begun to stream on Twitch as they don’t have any of these restrictions in place.
I get where Nintendo is coming from with this, as anything could potentially happen during a livestream, some of which could potentially hurt the way people see their brand, but I still think content creators should be allowed to still livestream, or that Nintendo should embrace YouTube creators better, as its almost impossible to souly live off of a Nintendo YouTube channel.
@NintenNinja16
Not the case. This only affects people who have linked their entire channel to the creator's program. And nobody links their entire channel because Nintendo then claims royalties from every single video, regardless of whether or not it has anything to do with Nintendo. The vast majority of Youtubers simply do it on a video by video basis, and those Youtubers are exempt from this.
Anyone whose entire channel is linked to Nintendo is seen as an affiliate, and Nintendo wants to ensure they prevent any unforeseen circumstances from their affiliates which arise from the nature of unfiltered live streams. Those who submit content through the Creators Program on a per video basis are not seen as affiliates, and as such are not subject to this clause.
Thanks Pewdiepie, you [removed].
@EVIL-C The irony, mind your language please - Octane
EDIT: Irony? I censored myself in the first place. NL staff needs to chill, seriously. It's true though, Pewds is a scummy little dirt bag.
Never watch let's plays or a live stream. Back in the day we called it sitting on the floor and watching your older sibling or friend play a game.
@Phin68 as much as I wish that were the case, I know too many people who just watch Let's Plays instead of buying games.
Not saying they would have bought the games had there been no Let's Plays, but many have told me that they have less desire to buy games because they've "already seen the ending."
@ThomasBW84 "Some fully committed to devoting their channel almost solely to Nintendo content may be able to make it work with the Creator's Program"
Isn't it the opposite? I think this directly affects those people. Aren't people who don't register their channel to the Nintendo Creators Program unaffected by this? Or do I misunderstand something?
@JaxonH Ah, okay, thanks for clearing it up, I had originally thought this impacted channels even if they hadn't fully registered their entire channel as a Nintendo channel
@Hikingguy
Don't think this will affect him. This only applies to people who have linked their entire channel to the Nintendo Creator's Program. And very few people do that because it means Nintendo gets a cut of every single video made regardless of whether or not it's even about Nintendo. I'd say 99% of YouTubers do not link their entire channel. Most submit content on a video by video basis.
I don't really think anyone will be affected by this as far as I'm aware. I mean, obviously somebody somewhere will be affected but, I don't think it's anything you have to worry about. That guy mainly does Minecraft and stuff right? I imagine that's done playing on Xbox or PC... and I can't imagine this person would link their entire channel and let Nintendo take a percentage of every video made for games played on an Xbox
Just buy the game ya dingus!
As a few others have pointed out a lot of it may have had to do with what happened with PewDiePie recently. Lets not forget Nintendo is a company that is highly protective of its brands as well as dedicated to controlling its message. From a company like Nintendo's standpoint a livestream filled with swearing and profanity can be become an easy PR liability. From what I hear Youtube is kinda dying and many are actually migrating over to Twitch
@SomeWriter13 I can definitely relate to that feeling. But I wouldn't say that's only limited to Let's Plays' though.
When it comes to demos, they can either motivate me to buy a game or tire me out of the gameplay quickly. Nintendo tries to negate this feeling by setting trial limits, but that doesn't do the trick all the time.
@Hikingguy
I think instead of getting 60% ad revenue per video, they get 70% for all videos as a channel. So 10% more ad revenue, but, Nintendo gets a cut of every single video, no matter what it is. Not really worth it, unless your channel exclusively deals with Nintendo gameplay that will be claimed 90% of the time.
@JaxonH Since you seem to be well informed, do you know if
GameXplain is affected by this?
Yeah it seems kinda stupid limiting live streams. Don’t they want more exposure for their games? I tend to watch live streams on Twitch anyway.
Just in time for the release of Mario Odessey. Coincidence? Probably...
GameXplain will be having some trouble, they usually do a few Livestreams
Nintendo must really hate money and free publicity.
@PanurgeJr
Being around a long time doesn't mean they're always right. Being a business doesn't mean they're always right.
I'm sorry, but this is just sad. Good thing they have hardcore fans who run sites like this one. I'd never know about a new IP from Nintendo.
They should just open the flood gates and let everyone monetize Nintendo videos and livestreams. The creator program sucks. It's not even available in every country.
This is sensible from Nintendo. Can you imagine how bad the Nintendo would look if certain YouTubers went on an anti-Jew rant or used the N-word while livestreaming Mario Kart or Splatoon 2 (something which they have no control over)? And then it gets reported that the livestreamer has a "Nintendo partner channel"... Whether you like it or not that's a PR disaster.
Also, I think some of the language above is slightly loose. A Youtube "strike" is very serious and as far as I know Nintendo don't do this - they simply claim copyright.
@GamePerson19 no. This is a clear response to a certain YouTuber using the N-word on a livestream and that story making the media.
What about people not in the program who then proceed to stream a Nintendo game? Won't Nintendo simply claim 100% ad revenue? Or am I misunderstanding this?
Nintendo need dragging into the 21st century
When they are doing well again, Nintendo decides to bring in their draconian ruling again. This is just ridiculous now.
@electrolite77 I never said Nintendo was always right. I merely wanted to ridicule the notion that twenty-somethings anonymously commenting on a fan site were better equipped to make business decisions than professionals who have spent decades maximizing shareholder value and who were hired by a board of directors for a company that has been in business since the 19th century. Nintendo measures profit in Yen, not YouTube cred.
@PanurgeJr Not every company is perfect. If you're no good at spotting when a large company is making a mistake, then that's your problem.
Wait, so, the only people who are affected by this, are the people who linked their channel to the Nintendo Creator's Program? Isn't that weird?
@PanurgeJr
There's a several people round here that would do an amazing job of running Nintendo!!!!!!
Do I stand alone with regard to the respect I have for Nintendo's morals with regards to their content and how it is used. maybe!
@PanurgeJr
Just read a couple of the replies you got. I have been chastised for similar comments too. Opinions very funny things round here!!!!
Why, Nintendo? Just why? How do you gain anything from this?
Nintendo are smart cookies. They have probably deemed it unprofitable.
Boo!
@G-Boy Because they want people to buy their products and play their games, not watch them on YouTube, not buy them and therefore not give Nintendo money.
I would love to see some solid figures which prove that live streaming is profitable to most games, excluding Minecraft.
@SLIGEACH_EIRE HISS! Take your salty tomatoes elsewhere, Mr Moany.
@dew12333 I am also of the opinion that Nintendo probably know better than the average YouTube bottom feeder.
Nintendo will get a lot of bad press from this. It’s bad enough that to put videos that you’ve created with Nintendo games you have to be part of the program with them taking a slice of it. No other developers/publishers are like this.
So thats why they arent making streaming options for switch on the system itself
This accomplishes nothing Nintendo, just stop it
If they were banning live streaming altogether, then that would seem out of line... but they're not.
I get the feeling this is actually on YouTube's side of things... and is likely related to the fact that you cannot include non-Nintendo content on a channel registered to the Creators Program.
Recorded content is easy to tailor advertising to match the content of the videos, so they can guarantee that Nintendo only channels will only contain Nintendo advertising, which Nintendo can claim revenue for and then share that with the content creators.
Live streamed content is far more difficult to tailor advertising for... YouTube probably doesn't have a system in place to tailor advertising to live streamed content yet, so they could show non-Nintendo adverts on a Nintendo live stream, which Nintendo cannot claim revenue from... which could cause legal problems if the Creators Programs automated system attempts to.
This therefore just seems to be a temporary solution from Nintendo to avoid the problem until YouTube can get a proper system in place for tailoring advertising on live streams to the content.
They actually seem to be being quite considerate to content creators, with this solution, as their only other real option would be to just suspend the Creators Program entirely until the issue had been dealt with by YouTube.
It is live streaming what they're restricting. Only "live" streaming... So is not that big of a deal.
Do any of you actually watch YouTube videos live? I've never had...
@PanurgeJr
My point still stands. You can ridicule whichever alternative opinions you like, they may be right and the businessmen wrong. Nintendo's hired 'professionals' have been wrong many times, there are many examples in recent years. Same way hired professional politicians, football managers, CEOs get it wrong all the time. Just because someone has been hired to make a decision doesn't out them above questioning and doesn't make their decision right
This may be such an instance as lack of exposure and bad press can harm profitability. Nintendo may have calculated correctly, they may be aware of the risks, or they may have failed to make that connection....
@HappyMaskedGuy
Yeah, I've yet to see proof/figures on a large scale that live streaming and let's plays for that matter, are profitable. People claim it's "free advertising", but I've never seen proof of that.
Im surprised Nintendo hasn't started doing this kinda stuff with Twitch.
I don't care for livestreaming, so this doesn't really bother me. When I was a kid, seeing screenshots of a game in a magazine was exciting, seeing video footage was an incredibly rare treat. So when we got a new game it was hugely exciting, rather than just "here's that thing that you've already been shown 90% of..." Nowadays you can just watch the entire game from start to finish online for free. Everything is so overexposed now. Good on Nintendo for saving people from themselves I say (though I'm sure that's not their reason).
Good to see that Nintendo is still completely out of touch with the rest of the world!
This is just dissapointing and reaffirms my disdain for any Nintendo Corporate/Business related decisions. I have spent money on games I normally wouldn't buy because I thuoght it looked cool from a livestream. At least in my opinion the youtubers experiences and reactions are the original content that warrent livestreaming, but obviously Nintendo doesn't want anyone saaying anything bad about their games
I'm so glad I'm too old to care about this stuff; I'd imagine it would be quite annoying.
Weird that you can still live stream, just not on your connected account. And you can still upload every individual video from a non-connected account. Seems like that creates more work fro streamers and for Nintendo but still means everything they make could be put up.
I get it but don't get it. Protecting brand image, sure understood and Nintendo do a good job of it. Then again, they want to build brand awareness and appearl to more gamers. They need to get their games out there and talked about. Nowadays, a big part of that is on platforms like Youtube. While I get that this particular ruling may not affect too many content creators, I am sure this won't be the last move.
This decision was made in order to achieve perfect balance: promosing to make more Classic NES and SNES units made so much sense from a business point they just had to do something stupid too to keep perfect balance.
For the people who are trying to make the ''free advertisement'' argument, I think it's interesting if you first read this post from an actual game developer
http://askagamedev.tumblr.com/post/158154958373/youve-talked-about-lets-plays-before-but-one
I think people are forgetting the Creator's Program is purely about making REVENUE from these videos. If you want your own video featuring Nintendo content, you can do it as much as you want. This only affects those that seek to make money by "adding value" to Nintendo content, and only denies them the "one click registration" of their entire single channel to the program. It's some red tape, but basically the point is Nintendo saying they're unwilling to be an "official partner" of live content where they can't pre-screen what happens. Which is a fair position to take from a brand management perspective. Heck their own internal Treehouse live videos likely make the brass uncomfortable at times, let alone uncontrolled 3rd parties.
I see where some might get annoyed but in general, it's not unreasonable to not want to be associated with live events without recourse.....there's a reason the Oscars have a 5 minute delay.
I wonder what N-word spouting #1 YouTuber that constantly undermines the rest of the site but the rest of the youtubers defend triggered this? I think that's something youtubers can ponder while their monetization and ad revenue steadily shrinks for some certainly unrelated reason.
Google have no intention on policing their streamed content so it's no surprise the likes of Nintendo would pull back from supporting streaming.
WHAT?! Are they stupid?
Nintendo is at it again. These kind of dumb decisions were partly to blame for the Wii U's commercial failure.
After all these years, Nintendo still doesn't get how much influence livestreamers have. It's basically free advertisement for their products.
Someone please take the marketing responsibility away from Nintendo before thew screw up again...
I though Nintendo finally got it when they included a screen capture button into the Switch.
Instead, they are showing a lack of vision again, just like the did with leaving out the browser, apps and Bluetooth audio.
Somewhere someone cares.
@electrolite77 I'm not ridiculing any opinions; I'm ridiculing the mindset behind them, which doesn't consider that Nintendo is a corporation whose primary responsibilities are to earn value for its shareholders and to remain stable into the future. Of course Nintendo, as any corporation, can get things wrong; but too often I've seen people deny Nintendo has reasons for its actions, and that simply isn't true. Nintendo, as any corporation which has stayed in business since the 19th century, has reasons for every decision it makes and every action it takes. Your point may stand, but it doesn't actually speak to my point.
@FinalFrog Not necessarily but they put themselves at much greater risk of having someone incredibly dodgy associated with their games and sullying one of their series purely due to them enabling certain peple blowing up in their faces.
With the type of family friendly games Nintendo specialise in. There is a very real threat of something like that happening I'd imagine they'd want to avoid enabling have the likes of this being associated and making a living off their games:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bmvnmz/youtube-celebrities-uses-minecraft-to-prey-on-underage-fans
With the careful managing of their IP over the years I don't understand why you'd think they'd throw caution to the wind for the convenience of youtubers and just let anyone do whatever they want.
@FinalFrog They're not safe/immune considering the link I posted shows how a multi-platform but child friendly game can be used by unsavoury characters to become e-celebreties, make a living through a game while earning the trust of children.
I think most companeis should be considering who exactly they're letting be associated with their game and how, especially if the game's audience includes children. And even if it inconveniences certain youtubers Nintendo's approach will prevent something truly awful from happening.
@Phin68 hear hear. Sadly a black and white solution doesn't exist. I do love it when Nintendo gets exposure, though I'm not quite sure how much (and what type) of it really helps.
@Snebbu Nice way to put it. I agree. This is a weird decision.
Pfffft. Live Streaming. I remember when 'Live Streaming' meant viewing consecutive screenshots in the pages of your favourite magazine, printed on paper, available once a month, and you were lucky if they decided to 'stream' the game you wanted.
But in all seriousness you have to wonder about Nintendo's motives for this stance. Personally I couldn't give a rat's bottom, as I cannot stand listening to annoying people rant about rubbish when they're playing a game, but it's clearly popular amongst the 'kids'. This just means less exposure of Nintendo games to this young audience, the audience who could be the Nintendo fanatics of the future spending hundreds of pounds on Nintendo products. Strange.
I love Nintendo but they are so prehistoric when it comes to their IP being used. I know it's their prerogative but this all amounts to FREE promotion for them.
I can imaging Reggie sitting in his office scratching his head about this as he listens to these latest executive decisions coming out of Japan...
Lol. Nintendo are regressing quickly - the Wii U took massive strides forward with a sublime online service.
The Switch online service doesn't even touch what Wii U offered, and judging by Nintendo's plans the subscription service won't either.
Only Nintendo wouldn't want free advertising.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...