Quantcast
Pewdiepie Complains against Nintendo Youtube Policy

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Pewdiepie Complains against Nintendo Youtube Policy

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.



Around the Network
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.

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. 



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? 



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. 



Around the Network

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?



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.

Multishanks said:

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. 

https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html



Mythmaker1 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?


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.

It is more similar to covering a famous song. 



Mythmaker1 said:
sc94597 said:

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.

Out of fear of a lawsuit. Plenty of people in the music/video industry have already sued Youtube. Most of them didn't win, but if it were to be shown that Youtube had the ability to remove such videos, per request of the IP owner, and they chose not to they certainly would lose in court. There doesn't need to be a precedent for this. It is simple logic based on the law.