Quantcast
Pewdiepie Complains against Nintendo Youtube Policy

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Pewdiepie Complains against Nintendo Youtube Policy

I kind of doubt that showing the entire game counts as "free advertising." If anything, it counts as a walk through of the entire game which is filled with spoilers. The point of an ad is to show just enough footage so that it will tease the consumers enough for them to be curious about the rest of the game, not to show the entire game. And I dont believe that, outside of multiplayer centric games and esports, that lets plays have ever helped a fully priced AAA game. Of course it helps indie games cause a) they are cheap to buy b) they dont have really any marketing budget but AAA games are expensive by comparison and already have a marketing budget.

So overall, I think its nonsense that people are whining about it but of course they will whine since its the only way they will make money



             

                               Anime: Haruhi                                                                                      Anime: Love Live
                              Nsfw Anime Thread                                                                             Join our Anime Threads!
                             Sfw Anime Thread                                                                                VGC Tutorial Thread

Around the Network
Conegamer said:
DonFerrari said:


Copied the article title... but no problem if you preffer me to edit.

If you could be a dear and do that I'd love you forever.


Done... also loves you... will that save me from future bans??? =]]]]]]



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Multishanks said:
Mythmaker1 said:


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. 

When you cover a song, you play the notes someone else wrote. In gaming that's the equivalent of fans recreating Mario 64 with a new engine.

You are still wrong, try again.

sc94597 said:

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

Make your point if you have one. But I would also like a response to being caught red handed 100% distorting what PDP said.



I REALLY hate saying this and it is mustering a lot of tension in me, but he is in a sense right. Nintendo definitely underestimates the power and influence YouTubers have on culture both now and in the future. As much as I despise many aspects of said culture, angering them is not good business practice. Also, Nintendo isn't nickel and dining at the same level as EA AND Activision. Their games are still the same level of lowered priced for gamers and with minimal DLC. The only place they are stingy is on the people that profit from simply playing their games.



Multishanks said:
Mythmaker1 said:


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. 


Similar, though the circumstances are a bit different.



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

Around the Network
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
DonFerrari said:
Yes I bet that equates a cientific study.

You managed to find an  extremely obscure article on the matter, you made one sided remarks taking Pewd's position out of contenxt, you refuse to aknowledge the gamasutra article which calls your biased bs. You are doing this forum a disservice.

PwerlvlAmy said:
Dude makes like 4 million a year, yet he's crying that he can't get the extra change from Nintendo

aww poor baby lol

 


please watch Boogie explain this shit more clearly before talking nonsense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5cEU51PbTw

 


Managed to find? Nope, it was on the front page of this site.

How can it be one sided if his own point is in the link provided in the opening?

I refuse to aknowledge? Nope, I just said it isn't cientific study to be used to prove this and other guys do more good to Nintendo then they are doing themselves. And you are doing even less by the forum by being unecessarily unpolite towards others.

And about your answer to PwerlvlArmy, please respect other people point of view and say the person is talking nonsense after complaing I shoot down your point.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Multishanks said:
Mythmaker1 said:


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. 

That case is extremely settled. Video games are not - a court could easily come down on - videos are original works and fair use for commentary reasons (Nintendo has no claim) OR substantial reproduction of content (Nintendo has full claim).



sc94597 said:
Mythmaker1 said:

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. 

Pretty sure none of them did.

That's not really relevant, though. You're saying that Youtube allows this to stay in step with the law, which is true. However, the question of fair use as pertaining to video games hasn't made it to court, so it's a gray area. A lot of the laws being cited don't pertain specifically to interactive media.



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

DigitalDevilSummoner said:

ohmylanta1003 said:
So before we comment, according to you, we should read the OP, read everything else in this thread, read Pewdiepie's blog, and watch a video made by Boogie. Anything else I'm missing?

Are you admitting you posted without reading the OP ?


Nice response. No. I read the OP. Most people do when they post. I'm just pointing out that you're asking everyone to do a lot ON TOP OF THAT in order to properly post. I'm glad you understand how ridiculous you're being!



I bet the Wii U would sell more than 15M LTD by the end of 2015. He bet it would sell less. I lost.

DigitalDevilSummoner said:
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


Ooo ooo ooo! Do we have to watch this too!?



I bet the Wii U would sell more than 15M LTD by the end of 2015. He bet it would sell less. I lost.