bunchanumbers said:
ReimTime said:
What if Dell started taking profit margins because of YouTubers using their computers to record, edit and upload videos? You know, on top of charging money for their product, which once the money has passed over, means that the product belongs to the consumer in its entirety?
"If youtubers really cared about the games or developers like they claim they would be donating half of their advertising revenue to the developers."
Playing the games and uploading videos to YouTube is free advertising. Nobody watches PewDiePie because of the games he plays; they watch for his super-annoying personality (and, well it snowballed). But thanks to PewDiePie, small horror games and indies that would have never seen more than a sliver of daylight actually made a few more sales than they would have otherwise. In terms of money made, YouTube already takes 55% of advertising profit from every video. On top of that, nobody is leeching; it is a symbiotic relationship. Both parties are benefiting. Why do you think Call of Duty pays for YouTubers like Alia to fly to LA to play their games early? They wouldn't do it for nothing, and Alia wouldn't agree to it for nothing.
Video Games are different from music and movies, which I think have a right to be copyrighted and monetized on YouTube. You pay to watch movies or listen to music, and being on YouTube allows many to skip out on shelling the dollars. You pay to play video games, not watch them.
It may seem virtually harmless to many to have Nintendo (for the sake of familiarity) copyright and monetize content on YouTube, but I believe that is another step towards Corporate territory expansion. This is a Corporation jumping on a technological bandwagon, not protecting their "hard-earned money".
|
Sounds to me like the youtubers need to rebel against youtube for taking such a big cut. They're taking far more than Nintendo and others who only want to protect their work. Where is the outrage against youtube?
|
I think it was because YouTube drew up and offered the deal; they saw an oppurtunity for advertising profit from all the web traffic they received, but they knew they couldn't generate that income without the help of the YouTubers. Same old symbiotic relationship, where YouTube is both the host and the middleman. I imagine there is no outrage because both parties are happy.
Sometimes YouTubers make an investment, where they pay YouTube to give "video suggestion" priority to their videos and channel, in hopes of a bigger return. That is more proof of a symbiotic relationship; both parties only stand to gain in that specific transaction (or hope to at least).
nintendo does stuff like the World Championships, and I remember a friendly Smash battle between Reggie and a YouTube personality, so I think the intention is there but they have the wrong idea when it comes to copyright. I don't even think they are the worst gaming company when it comes to YouTube! I seem to remember Sega, and a smallish Indie developer as well, taking down some of TotalBiscuit's video coverage of their games because they had the most views, and would thus appear first in YouTube search and be viewed more often as a result. They wanted their more "positive coverage" to be seen and not TB's "critical analysis".
Sorry I went off on a tangent haha but there is a lot of discussion to be had surrounding YouTube and video games.
