By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Pewdiepie Complains against Nintendo Youtube Policy

HintHRO on 31 January 2015

Why is the internet going crazy about the opinion of a single boring guy who talks to his computer all day. Please keep this thread away from the front page I don't give the slightest fudge.



Around the Network
Mythmaker1 on 31 January 2015
Hiku said:

"Free advertising" is often quoted, but it can also mean loss in sales at the same time.
I can name a few games I've initially considered likely to buy, only to be 'satisfied' with it after watching a playthrough, and no longer felt that I wanted to play through it myself.
Of course, the opposite can also be true, but I find that this aspect is always left out by the youtubers in their arguments.

Also to be honest, for me it's sad to see how obsessed certain youtubers are with getting full revenue off of EVERY single video. I get that "if every company acted like this, we'd get nothing". But often times that doesn't seem like it's the main concern. Because if they don't have any other choice than to let the video be as it is, they prefer to take it down completely rather than let the company get a share of it. So basically, what comes first for them is the revenue. The viewers come in second.

And I find that sad. I'd prefer a youtuber who releases fewer vids, but with actual passion behind every one, rather than making it their livelihood and getting so focused on the revenue aspect.
It's not that I'm against it as a profession. I just feel that as a viewer, it's not preferable.

Everyone wishes that it wasn't about the money. But there is a limit, especially given how little money there actually is in that business.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

Slicey on 31 January 2015

Somebody explain to me why music, sports, movies, tv shows and information from behind a paywall don't allow this but games should because of "the free advertising"? Wouldn't all the other companies allow this if it was such a boon?



DigitalDevilSummoner on 31 January 2015
sc94597 said:
Intrinsic said:

And its thinking like that that's got Nintendo in the hole they are in today.

A lot of good Nintendo fans have done for the WiiU so far, if I were Nintendo u would be doing everything I can to get as much eyes on my products as possible.

My point was that PewDiePie does not advertise Nintendo products. He's scared that the companies whom he does advertise products for will follow suit. He has no interest in Nintendo products.

Following the suit of a missleading OP, you are -intentionally ?- wrong.

He DOES Nintendo games, he just doesn't have to. Just like he doesn't have to play the game of ANY company that follows Nintendo's tactic:

PewDiePie said:

And finally, when there’s just so many games out there to play. Nintendo games just went to the bottom of that list. Even if more publishers starts implementing this idea of sharing revenue. Then fine, there’s always going to be plenty of games out there, ready to become the next “Mienkraft” - Sounds cheesy, but it’s true.

So, you should reconsider this decision Nintendo. (◕‿◕✿)

Added note: I’ll still play Nintendo games that I want to play on my channel as usual. I’m lucky to be in a situation where losing ad revenue on a few videos wont matter. However, many people on YouTube are not in that situation.

Everyone loses in this scenario that Nintendo has created, that’s why I’m against it.

 

Yep, that is tha man PISSED at nintendo, raging and ranting with furry.

Slicey said:
Somebody explain to me why music, sports, movies, tv shows and information from behind a paywall don't allow this but games should because of "the free advertising"? Wouldn't all the other companies allow this if it was such a boon?

 

Passive entertainment / interactive entertainment. Everyone watches the same movie, the movie will be the same for everyone. But every gamer's experience with a game will be different.



Mythmaker1 on 31 January 2015
Slicey said:
Somebody explain to me why music, sports, movies, tv shows and information from behind a paywall don't allow this but games should because of "the free advertising"? Wouldn't all the other companies allow this if it was such a boon?


False equivalency there. Watching a video of someone driving a car and actually driving a car are not the same. Likewise with watching/playing a video game. Watching a video on Netflix and watching a video on Youtube are functionally the same.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.

Around the Network
sc94597 on 31 January 2015
Slicey said:
Somebody explain to me why music, sports, movies, tv shows and information from behind a paywall don't allow this but games should because of "the free advertising"? Wouldn't all the other companies allow this if it was such a boon?

To be fair, video games are meant to be played, so watching a video of it doesn't entail consumption of the full product. It would be like watching movie, tv show, or sports game with no sound. Still, it is Nintendo's property and they have a right to determine how to use it. People are arguing that Nintendo benefits from this third party let's play use, and in some cases that might very well be true. 



sc94597 on 31 January 2015
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
sc94597 said:
Intrinsic said:

And its thinking like that that's got Nintendo in the hole they are in today.

A lot of good Nintendo fans have done for the WiiU so far, if I were Nintendo u would be doing everything I can to get as much eyes on my products as possible.

My point was that PewDiePie does not advertise Nintendo products. He's scared that the companies whom he does advertise products for will follow suit. He has no interest in Nintendo products.

Following the suit of a missleading OP, you are -intentionally ?- wrong.

He DOES Nintendo games, he just doesn't have to. Just like he doesn't have to play the game of ANY company that follows Nintendo's tactic:

 

Can you provide me a link to a let's play of his that is a Nintendo game that isn't through an emulator? 



Multishanks on 31 January 2015
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
Multishanks said:

Wait a minute. Are you implying that these guys should only make video (content) that they can profit off of.....hmmmm.

What if Nintendo took their let's plays and dub over them/editted them. Should they get profit from those videos or nah?

They have no right to dub over them or edit them because that would be the analogy of "reverse engineering" (altering the content of) the game. Which is illegal in the first place.

Gamer's are playing the games as intended.

Multishanks said:

The problem is that youtube/google should have made a policy from the get go that outlines and protects content, but I think they were afraid.

 

You reallly should look into that. Some mean spirited fella might even call you ingorant.

ps. not me  !

 

If the hypothetical video falls under fair use they could totally do it. Obviously, it is a ton of hyperbole behind this situation, I am just pointing out how easily it could be turned on its head. 

 

I would tell that mean spirited person to enlighten me. Obviously they are following fair use law which is admittedly vague and malleable, however, they don't seem to have made any headway on their own site to minimize this issue for content creators and they clearly are still getting their cut. 



Slicey on 31 January 2015

I remember growing up buying a game with my bro and staying up all night watching him play. That was the experience I paid for. Furthermore games are becoming so cinematic these days just watching them gives away a huge lump of the overall experience that the developers created. Would you really feel the need to play heavy rain after watching someone beat it?



Mythmaker1 on 31 January 2015
sc94597 said:
Slicey said:
Somebody explain to me why music, sports, movies, tv shows and information from behind a paywall don't allow this but games should because of "the free advertising"? Wouldn't all the other companies allow this if it was such a boon?

To be fair, video games are meant to be played, so watching a video of it doesn't entail consumption of the full product. It would be like watching movie, tv show, or sports game with no sound. Still, it is Nintendo's property and they have a right to determine how to use it. People are arguing that Nintendo benefits from this third party let's play use, and in some cases that might very well be true. 

It's not really that simple. Yes, it's Nintendo's property, but they can do this sort of thing because Youtube allows them to. There isn't a clear precedence for this because it hasn't gone to court.



I believe in honesty, civility, generosity, practicality, and impartiality.