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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo has started to pick on Gamers on Youtube again - ProJared gets slammed

DerNebel said:
Xxain said:
DerNebel said:

There are more than enough game companies that actually seek these pre arranged deals, especially if you're making a living out of this then you're likely with a network .

Also what is your argument here other than that they didn't make the games? The Let's Players are still putting work into them and there's clearly a demand for that type of content, so why shouldn't they live off of making these videos? With the crushing majority of publishers actually embracing youtubers and streamers you can be pretty sure that they don't see any negative and much more positive effects in Let's Plays, to then say that those Let's Players should not be able to make money off of that reeks of nothing but one thing: jealousy.

And how did you come to that braindead conclusion? I didnt say YouTubers should not be make money, "just not off other peoples content". If your an animater/chef/car repair/crafts&arts and you want spread your work through YouTube and make a living by doing it, by god do it! But not off "others" content. 

I dont care that a "crushing majority" of developers support it. Does Nintendo support it? 

Uh, lol. I was specifically talking about Let's Players, you should really read my post before hurling insults at me.

Also that's quite the jump here, why is Nintendo suddenly the authority on if Let's Players should be able to make money with Youtube or not? Oh and btw. yes, their way is completely backwards but Nintendo does support Let's Players making a living off of their videos.

I read your post. You want to make a distinction between youtubers and lets players. I dont make that distinction. It doesnt matter to me what your focus is. This not about being mad somebody is making money off of playing video games or the value of the job and whether its real job or not, but off of somebody elses content then masking as advertisement. Was there a arrangement in place? Did I agree to that? 



Around the Network
Wyrdness said:

You are going off on a tangent as it's the only way to make your argument seem bigger then it is, you've done the exact same thing with your argument with someone else who has said exactly what I'm getting at in that it's not your own product so the excuse that it's advertising so you deserve to make money off it is laughable, the reason I'm ignoring some of your argument is because it's not worth addressing what isn't relevant to what I said. 

I think your brain is already turned off tbh, you're arguing how intended marketing doesn't guarantee this and that then turn around and try to argue a YT video increases sales etc... You do know what word of mouth means right? People talking to their friends, people recommending of forums, magazines and media outlets doing articles/blogs about the game etc... it's been going on for years before YT, I didn't ignore other examples as they fall into the same category you've just chosen to look at the replies in your own angle to tell yourself I've ignored them.

No the reason you're ignoring some of my stuff is because it doesn't fit your agenda that is so ridiculously unsupported already that it's completely laughable anyway, even the things you're responding to are completely missing the mark. The funny is that what you call "laughable" on my part is largely standard in the games industry, it is completely accepted and even wanted by the companies.

I mean seriously? You can't fathom that a hugely popular Youtuber can be better at selling a game than intended marketing? Are you so narrow-minded that you can't understand that professional marketing can completely miss the mark or that a company simply much rather uses Youtubers cause for them it's a much cheaper method of marketing? And do you know that word of mouth can ridiculously be fueled by a huge youtuber? Do you think kids didn't tell their friends how funny or whatever Skate 3 is after seeing Pewdiepie play it and that that was exactly what led to said word of mouth? Do you think the exact same thing didn't happen with something like Slenderman? Do you think companies like MS and EA and probably a lot more actually pay for people to make youtube videos of their games for shits and giggles? Have you ever wondered why there's such a huge focus on streaming with the PS4?

But hey I'm sure that armchair marketing genius Wyrdness knows better than all those companies.

 



Xxain said:
DerNebel said:

Uh, lol. I was specifically talking about Let's Players, you should really read my post before hurling insults at me.

Also that's quite the jump here, why is Nintendo suddenly the authority on if Let's Players should be able to make money with Youtube or not? Oh and btw. yes, their way is completely backwards but Nintendo does support Let's Players making a living off of their videos.

I read your post. You want to make a distinction between youtubers and lets players. I dont make that distinction. It doesnt matter to me what your focus is. This not about being mad somebody is making money off of playing video games or the value of the job and whether its real job or not, but off of somebody elses content then masking as advertisement. Was there a arrangement in place? Did I agree to that? 

Yes, there actually is. Do you think that shit isn't part of the user agreement, the terms of service? Of course it is.

Here's EA for example: https://help.ea.com/en/article/how-to-request-permission-for-ea-games-content/



DerNebel said:

No the reason you're ignoring some of my stuff is because it doesn't fit your agenda that is so ridiculously unsupported already that it's completely laughable anyway, even the things you're responding to are completely missing the mark. The funny is that what you call "laughable" on my part is largely standard in the games industry, it is completely accepted and even wanted by the companies.

I mean seriously? You can't fathom that a hugely popular Youtuber can be better at selling a game than intended marketing? Are you so narrow-minded that you can't understand that professional marketing can completely miss the mark or that a company simply much rather uses Youtubers cause for them it's a much cheaper method of marketing? And do you know that word of mouth can ridiculously be fueled by a huge youtuber? Do you think kids didn't tell their friends how funny or whatever Skate 3 is after seeing Pewdiepie play it and that that was exactly what led to said word of mouth? Do you think the exact same thing didn't happen with something like Slenderman? Do you think companies like MS and EA and probably a lot more actually pay for people to make youtube videos of their games for shits and giggles? Have you ever wondered why there's such a huge focus on streaming with the PS4?

But hey I'm sure that armchair marketing genius Wyrdness knows better than all those companies.

 

The's no agenda I'm just telling you straight up you're going off on tangents that are irrelevant.

Nope not that I don't fathom YT having potential to help I just don't buy the constant marketing argument BS everyone throws around to try and defend the entitlement of using someone else's product/work to make money. You presented one article that does nothing else then make a claim as your back up, did the people who bought the games all say yeah I'm buying this because of YT? Fact is the advertisement claim is BS because at the end of the day if it was just that these clowns would be doing it for free no problems and amongst your claims you have nothing to prove the correlation of video views directly into sales but a claim with no real back up.

Word of mouth has been around for a lot longer then YT which is why I don't fully buy the whole argument either, if anything YT may not be making any difference at all and the effect of word of mouth may still be the same as any other period, you don't want to acknowledge this and many other factors because it is you yourself who has an agenda as your whole argument is built on the marketing argument BS. Funny you mentioned MS using this as marketing and they're getting destroyed by the PS4, but don't worry marketing prodigy Der Nebel says it rock solid.



DerNebel said:
Wyrdness said:
DerNebel said:

So Sega, SE and Atlus monetized your videos? And when did you get flagged? And did you try to get in contact with the companies about the videos?

Ok, I'm sorry but I surely don't have to explain to you that things change, right? I mean what you're essentially saying is that we should have never gotten TV commercials after all things sold fine before that. We're living in a changing society and the internet is one of its biggest current factors, I thought that would be clear by now.

And you've never seen another marketing campaign fail? I mean what kind of a rebuttal is that? Nobody is saying that a video with a lot of Youtube views instantly equals a lot of sales, just like a billboard that's seen by a lot of people doesn't instantly equal a lot of sales, but to dismiss Youtube as irrelevant in marketing is just willfully trying to ignore the current world we're living in.

Regarding the article, how about you tell me what prompted people to suddenly demand Skate 3 in these quantities again 4 years after its launch, if it wasn't Youtube.


Yes I did try and got no response, here's is a screen one of the videos that got flagged, the Sega videos are as recent as a few months ago while SE was a year ago.

You're going off on your own little trip here as the argument is about these videos being advertisement so people can profit off them not that marketing shouldn't change and either way a company can handle marketing themselves in that regard. The point is that if the so called exposure is valid marketing more of these games would be selling from the amount of views they get but obviously that's not the case because many viewers already own the games or know about them, most people who never had an interest in the games won't watch the videos even if they're subscribed to the channel.

Numerous games have had that happen in history, most of the time the games just develop a strong cult following that spreads the word as best as they can, Earthbound is one such series while ICO was another.

 

Oh and btw. you also expertly ignored all the other examples I gave, what about Slenderman or Amnesia? Five Nights at Freddy? P.T? Do you think LoL/Dota 2s ridiculous popularity aren't helped by the fact that they are huge with streamers? What about Minecraft? Or Garry's Mod?

Those are digital only indie-like games... Nintendo makes retail games. They benefit more from traditional advertising.

When I type in Nintendo on youtube I find 7 million videos... Activision only 500k videos. Ubisoft 900k... And before you mention Sony keep in mind they're active in a wide array of sectors. So let's not act like no one makes Nintendo videos on youtube.

Call of Duty: 1.3M results

Super Mario: 3.4M results (just Mario gives you 23M results)



Around the Network
Samus Aran said:
DerNebel said:

 

Oh and btw. you also expertly ignored all the other examples I gave, what about Slenderman or Amnesia? Five Nights at Freddy? P.T? Do you think LoL/Dota 2s ridiculous popularity aren't helped by the fact that they are huge with streamers? What about Minecraft? Or Garry's Mod?

Those are digital only indie-like games... Nintendo makes retail games. They benefit more from traditional advertising.

When I type in Nintendo on youtube I find 7 million videos... Activision only 500k videos. Ubisoft 900k... And before you mention Sony keep in mind they're active in a wide array of sectors. So let's not act like no one makes Nintendo videos on youtube.

Call of Duty: 1.3M results

Super Mario: 3.4M results (just Mario gives you 23M results)

Even if that is true that still doesn't mean that Youtube marketing through Let's Plays can't be valuable to those titles as well.

Also then don't type Sony, type Playstation and you get (or I did at least) 11 million hits. Also Nintendo (in gaming) spans a history of over 30 years, Playstation over 20. So simply comparing numbers of Youtube videos without any sort of knowledge what these videos are actually about is pretty useless.



Wyrdness said:
DerNebel said:

No the reason you're ignoring some of my stuff is because it doesn't fit your agenda that is so ridiculously unsupported already that it's completely laughable anyway, even the things you're responding to are completely missing the mark. The funny is that what you call "laughable" on my part is largely standard in the games industry, it is completely accepted and even wanted by the companies.

I mean seriously? You can't fathom that a hugely popular Youtuber can be better at selling a game than intended marketing? Are you so narrow-minded that you can't understand that professional marketing can completely miss the mark or that a company simply much rather uses Youtubers cause for them it's a much cheaper method of marketing? And do you know that word of mouth can ridiculously be fueled by a huge youtuber? Do you think kids didn't tell their friends how funny or whatever Skate 3 is after seeing Pewdiepie play it and that that was exactly what led to said word of mouth? Do you think the exact same thing didn't happen with something like Slenderman? Do you think companies like MS and EA and probably a lot more actually pay for people to make youtube videos of their games for shits and giggles? Have you ever wondered why there's such a huge focus on streaming with the PS4?

But hey I'm sure that armchair marketing genius Wyrdness knows better than all those companies.

 

The's no agenda I'm just telling you straight up you're going off on tangents that are irrelevant.

Nope not that I don't fathom YT having potential to help I just don't buy the constant marketing argument BS everyone throws around to try and defend the entitlement of using someone else's product/work to make money. You presented one article that does nothing else then make a claim as your back up, did the people who bought the games all say yeah I'm buying this because of YT? Fact is the advertisement claim is BS because at the end of the day if it was just that these clowns would be doing it for free no problems and amongst your claims you have nothing to prove the correlation of video views directly into sales but a claim with no real back up.

Word of mouth has been around for a lot longer then YT which is why I don't fully buy the whole argument either, if anything YT may not be making any difference at all and the effect of word of mouth may still be the same as any other period, you don't want to acknowledge this and many other factors because it is you yourself who has an agenda as your whole argument is built on the marketing argument BS. Funny you mentioned MS using this as marketing and they're getting destroyed by the PS4, but don't worry marketing prodigy Der Nebel says it rock solid.

No I did not only present only one article, I presented one article and several other games as examples which apparently simply didn't fit your agenda. And I can't help you if you aren't willing to use the slightest bit of logic here and see the connection between the uptake of a certain game by a huge Youtuber and a spike in its demand.

Also what in the world is the bolded even supposed to mean, since when is advertisement done for free?

And how about instead of talking about me giving proof for something that should be deductable via logic, how about you give me proof for the sales to billboard view correlation that you apparently simply lying around?

Finally let me try a little mind experiment here: What do you think is better word of mouth?

1. Someone telling his 10 friends about this awesome game he's been playing

2. A person on Youtube with 30mil+ subscriber base telling that base about this awesome game he's playing and showing them this game?

Don't rush your answer, really think about this.

Yup, they are getting destroyed by the PS4, which is also using Youtube as a promotion platform as well as Youtubers. What about EA? Is the biggest third party publisher in the world also getting destroyed?



DerNebel said:
Samus Aran said:
DerNebel said:

 

Oh and btw. you also expertly ignored all the other examples I gave, what about Slenderman or Amnesia? Five Nights at Freddy? P.T? Do you think LoL/Dota 2s ridiculous popularity aren't helped by the fact that they are huge with streamers? What about Minecraft? Or Garry's Mod?

Those are digital only indie-like games... Nintendo makes retail games. They benefit more from traditional advertising.

When I type in Nintendo on youtube I find 7 million videos... Activision only 500k videos. Ubisoft 900k... And before you mention Sony keep in mind they're active in a wide array of sectors. So let's not act like no one makes Nintendo videos on youtube.

Call of Duty: 1.3M results

Super Mario: 3.4M results (just Mario gives you 23M results)

Even if that is true that still doesn't mean that Youtube marketing through Let's Plays can't be valuable to those titles as well.

Also then don't type Sony, type Playstation and you get (or I did at least) 11 million hits. Also Nintendo (in gaming) spans a history of over 30 years, Playstation over 20. So simply comparing numbers of Youtube videos without any sort of knowledge what these videos are actually about is pretty useless.

Youtube only exists since 2005, so it doesn't really matter how long of a history they span really. Playstation sells more than Nintendo consoles (and Nintendo consoles aren't called Nintendo), so it's normal that it gets more hits. But Nintendo still beats most companies on youtube with videos related to them.

And no, it's far from useless.

Wii has over 10 million videos on youtube. Saying Nintendo consoles are failing to sell because they have no presence on youtube is quite ignorant (not saying you said that though).



DerNebel said:

No I did not only present only one article, I presented one article and several other games as examples which apparently simply didn't fit your agenda. And I can't help you if you aren't willing to use the slightest bit of logic here and see the connection between the uptake of a certain game by a huge Youtuber and a spike in its demand.

Also what in the world is the bolded even supposed to mean, since when is advertisement done for free?

And how about instead of talking about me giving proof for something that should be deductable via logic, how about you give me proof for the sales to billboard view correlation that you apparently simply lying around?

Finally let me try a little mind experiment here: What do you think is better word of mouth?

1. Someone telling his 10 friends about this awesome game he's been playing

2. A person on Youtube with 30mil+ subscriber base telling that base about this awesome game he's playing and showing them this game?

Don't rush your answer, really think about this.

Yup, they are getting destroyed by the PS4, which is also using Youtube as a promotion platform as well as Youtubers. What about EA? Is the biggest third party publisher in the world also getting destroyed?


Yawn advertisement is done for free if you do it with out any agreement, why should you get paid for their product if you weren't asked to do it? That's why the whole argument is nothing more then BS as to why they should be paid, they should just come out and admit it's all about the money and they're upset that the games that could pull in the most views won't be monetized. Again I see the potential in it but I don't buy that all those views translate to sales like you're trying to sell, you yourself are refusing to acknowledge this flaw because it's your own agenda.

The YT may speak to more people but then that's ignoring factors and here is how you're struggling to understand the factors in play, that person can tells 10 of their friends and 7 of them buy the game, on a YT channel of that 30m subs 100k may watch the video with non of them ending up buying the game, a number of views on a video are also repeat views from the same users. Some users also don't tune into these videos for the games but just for the personality playing them like a number of YTs play a game throwing around crude humour or just plain raging which some just tune in solely for that. These are some of the factors in why I don't buy the advertisment excuse when it's thrown around, I can see the potential but I think we're still a way off until YT can rival traditional marketing.

EA have been the third biggest publisher long before YT but guess who the biggest publisher are, Nintendo, you know the guys who don't do what you're saying go figure.



Samus Aran said:
DerNebel said:

Even if that is true that still doesn't mean that Youtube marketing through Let's Plays can't be valuable to those titles as well.

Also then don't type Sony, type Playstation and you get (or I did at least) 11 million hits. Also Nintendo (in gaming) spans a history of over 30 years, Playstation over 20. So simply comparing numbers of Youtube videos without any sort of knowledge what these videos are actually about is pretty useless.

Youtube only exists since 2005, so it doesn't really matter how long of a history they span really. Playstation sells more than Nintendo consoles (and Nintendo consoles aren't called Nintendo), so it's normal that it gets more hits. But Nintendo still beats most companies on youtube with videos related to them.

And no, it's far from useless.

Wii has over 10 million videos on youtube. Saying Nintendo consoles are failing to sell because they have no presence on youtube is quite ignorant (not saying you said that though).

Even if Youtube hasn't been a thing before 2005 that still doesn't mean that people can't make videos about things older than that, there are tons of nostalgia videos or playthroughs, speedruns etc. of old games on Youtube, it doesn't tell us much about how many people are talking about the current side of things.