Non-Pewdiepie youtubers about the Nintendo Youtube program

[Scoobes]

The Fury said:

Scoobes said:

The Last of Us is actually a good example. It's one of the most linear games you could play, yet every playthrough is different. One player may completely sneak through an area whilst another may create their own weaponry and fight through. Some players may miss sections of levels where they could have gotten bonus items. Another player may find an alternate route into a building. Even though it's a linear game the actual playthrough experience can be quite different from player to player (unlike the comic example where the experience is the same whether you read it or have it read/shown to you).

@ bolded

Watching people playing on youtube isn't really something I'm a fan of, but obviously other people are. Perhaps it's the commentary, or maybe they want to see enough footage to determine whether they would enjoy playing the game themselves (and help to determine whether or not to purchase). In the past this same passive experience would be limited to going round a friends house and watching them playing through part of a game. Now it can be broadcast around the world providing plenty of "word of mouth" advertising.

The fact that they're passively watching the game instead of directly participating is what makes this OK (and actually a positive) compared to other media. They're not getting the intended and full experience of the video game, just some extra details of the experience that reading reviews can't really give. They have to purchase the game before they can get the direct and intended experience.

Coming back to The Last of Us, my nephew decided to purchase the game after seeing youtube videos of game footage (and he happily watches clips of game playthroughs and random commentators). So for at least one person, with a pretty linear game, a purchase was made based on passively watching youtube vids.

But that's just it, it's different from player to player experience but it's people watching 1 person playing. Which brings us on to the second point. If I watch a gameplay video of someone play a game to get an idea of how it play, I won't continue to watch the entire series of their gameplay, I'll watch the first video, then decide if the game looks good or not.  I too have seen videos from people playing on youtube and because of their word of mouth review bought and enjoyed the game (only really once and that was Borderlands 2... I bought it used so...). Yet there are people who do, they watch all the cutscenes, all the gameplay.

Yet, it still doesn't excuse the fact they are making money from other people's work. You say people are passively watching, but I listen to music on youtube, more so than in the real world and I know adverts pay for much of that. If someone else took that music and did a video of it, they wouldn't be able to advertise on it, infact adverts may appear but proceeds going to the musician not that person. Taking books as example again, I could read a book out loud on camera in video form and claim money for this with not a penny going to the writer and it would not be seen as okay to do this. 

I wonder what in game player's minds make them privileged enough to be above that obvious copyright infringment just for the sake of 'word of mouth' advertising. I also, wonder why it matters to them so much that Nintendo has a policy such as this, if they don't want to sign up to it, just don't do Nintendo videos or just don't advertise on those videos. To complain that they can't is being greedy.

With music it's exactly the same as all the other media you've mentioned; the enoyment stems from the listening. It's passive entertainment (like reading or vewing films/TV) as opposed to directly interactive. The laws were made when gaming wasn't a mainstream hobby, so you could argue that the laws for this particular case/entertainment media are dated. As I said in my previous post, people have been sharing these types of experiences for years, only now it's also online.

On your point about youtube viewers who only watch the cutscenes and gameplay, you could also argue that those people were highly unlikely to have purchased the game if that was their only motivation.

As for your last point, I think most people, myself included, aren't arguing that Nintendo can't do this. By current law and by rights, they can protect their IP. However, it doesn't necessarily make good business sense, especially as other publishers haven't implemented anything quite as stringent as this. The fact that this is a beta program suggests that Nintendo aren't too sure either.