@Dr_Corndog I mean, he's not often right, and there's no direct correlation between him being wrong and it negatively impacting him. So it's not surprising people have a consistent view of him. This is a classic Pachter take: "Nintendo dumb" as they take in money.
This is rather silly of Nintendo for several reasons.
Firstly, this really is free advertising, basically. My generation has found a real TV-alternative in YouTube, and many of us discover all sorts of gaming experiences we'd have never otherwise considered. The money that Nintendo makes off of this program will largely be crap, considering how few people actually make gaming videos, and those who do are not anywhere near PDP's level of popularity, so there's not much coming in anyway. All this will really accomplish is in stopping YT content producers from covering Nintendo games. Especially considering that Nintendo has restrictions on what games can be covered by those who join this program, which is mind-numbingly stupid.
Secondly, many rightly fear that in many ways this will simply be a way for gaming companies to control the public perception of their games, as if said companies don't like what you have to say about your product, they'll not be so keen to let you join their service (cutting off your voice), leaving the majority of the relevant videos being praiseworthy of their products, or else just flag your video for infringement. It's just a no-win situation for content-creators: Either they join and are structurally coerced to tend towards positive reviews if they want to see any money for their work/time, or else they cannot put their work out for public consumption and receive a tiny reimbursement.
Now, I don't like PewDiePie or his content. However, having this sort of system makes little sense to me, and claiming that those against this can only be entitled is a bit silly. Investment of time and energy naturally lends one to want any money they'd earn from said investment.
At best, this sort of system might make sense for LPs, since a large portion of the game's content is being shown. However, those (like @OnionOverlord) who called this piracy - akin to filming a movie with a camera in a theater - are talking utter nonsense. The entire experience of watching a movie is effectively captured by distributing them in that manner.The primary, defining aspect of a video game is their interactivity and player agency. That cannot be captured on film, because it's something you do, not merely see.
Comments 3
Re: "Nintendo Isn't That Smart": Pachter Says Nintendo Should Scrap Switch And 'Only Have Switch Lite'
@Dr_Corndog That's fair.
Re: "Nintendo Isn't That Smart": Pachter Says Nintendo Should Scrap Switch And 'Only Have Switch Lite'
@Dr_Corndog I mean, he's not often right, and there's no direct correlation between him being wrong and it negatively impacting him. So it's not surprising people have a consistent view of him. This is a classic Pachter take: "Nintendo dumb" as they take in money.
Re: YouTube Stars Aren't Happy With Nintendo's Revenue-Sharing 'Creators Program'
This is rather silly of Nintendo for several reasons.
Firstly, this really is free advertising, basically. My generation has found a real TV-alternative in YouTube, and many of us discover all sorts of gaming experiences we'd have never otherwise considered. The money that Nintendo makes off of this program will largely be crap, considering how few people actually make gaming videos, and those who do are not anywhere near PDP's level of popularity, so there's not much coming in anyway. All this will really accomplish is in stopping YT content producers from covering Nintendo games. Especially considering that Nintendo has restrictions on what games can be covered by those who join this program, which is mind-numbingly stupid.
Secondly, many rightly fear that in many ways this will simply be a way for gaming companies to control the public perception of their games, as if said companies don't like what you have to say about your product, they'll not be so keen to let you join their service (cutting off your voice), leaving the majority of the relevant videos being praiseworthy of their products, or else just flag your video for infringement. It's just a no-win situation for content-creators: Either they join and are structurally coerced to tend towards positive reviews if they want to see any money for their work/time, or else they cannot put their work out for public consumption and receive a tiny reimbursement.
Now, I don't like PewDiePie or his content. However, having this sort of system makes little sense to me, and claiming that those against this can only be entitled is a bit silly. Investment of time and energy naturally lends one to want any money they'd earn from said investment.
At best, this sort of system might make sense for LPs, since a large portion of the game's content is being shown. However, those (like @OnionOverlord) who called this piracy - akin to filming a movie with a camera in a theater - are talking utter nonsense. The entire experience of watching a movie is effectively captured by distributing them in that manner.The primary, defining aspect of a video game is their interactivity and player agency. That cannot be captured on film, because it's something you do, not merely see.