ReimTime said:
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. |
So my understanding is that its ok for Youtube and youtubers to protect their interests because its beneficial for them, but its not ok for Nintendo to protect their interests because it isn't in the best interests of the youtubers or youtube? Youtube is owned by Google so its not like Youtube is some small company. Youtube could easily lower their cut to 35% or 40%. But you know why they don't? They want to protect their interests, just like youtubers and like Nintendo. This is why I have no issue with Nintendo protecting their IPs and any other company that does.







