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

Forums - Gaming - Pewdiepie Complains against Nintendo Youtube Policy

sc94597 on 02 February 2015
Itsworthit said:

<snip>

 


Again you're assuming that he can boost sales A LOT. He boosted the sales of an already popular game by 160k +, or 4-6% of the total sales. That's all. It is silly to believe that PewDiePie could change Nintendo's situation. Also, for the WIi U's install base the sales of its games are pretty decent. We see attach rates of 10%-50% most of the time. 



Around the Network
Shinobi-san on 02 February 2015
DonFerrari said:
Shinobi-san said:


Thats the grey area though, because the money generated is not solely generated because of their content. Anyone can put up a lets play video, but not anyone can do it and make money off of it.

Ultimately thats what we debating here.

And it isn't generated solely because of the guy talking as he needs the content. So he have to pay a share because of the content. Even the guy complaining says Nintendo is in their right so I don't know why this part would be the discussion.

 

I don't think anyone here have someone making profits based on his hardwork to be able to complain.

 

If I used that guy video and audio and Just re-recorded with my face would I be in the right to collect 100% of the profit I made? I am artistically making faces while using his dub and ninty raw material.

I'd argue that the main reason people watch certain youtubers is because of their personality and not because of the game itself. Thats my opinion on it, im not sure what your viewpoint is...you are kinda just saying im wrong.

Err if you took his audio and his video? That would be pretty dumb since thats the entire video :) That analogy is pretty silly and has no bearing on this.



Intel Core i7 3770K [3.5GHz]|MSI Big Bang Z77 Mpower|Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 2 x 4GB|MSI GeForce GTX 560 ti Twin Frozr 2|OCZ Vertex 4 128GB|Corsair HX750|Cooler Master CM 690II Advanced|

sc94597 on 02 February 2015
KylieDog said:
sc94597 said:
KylieDog said:
People should read this to see why discouraging youtubers to play your games is a bad thing.

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/how-pewdiepie-fired-skate-3-back-into-the-charts/0137447

While it is definitely something which supports your claim, when taken in context it isn't a huge deal.

For the following reasons:

-  The total difference in sales for the XB 360 version from the 2013 -> 2014 was 466,193(2014) - 334,446 (2013) = 131,727 and PS3 version 340,240 (2014) -303,766(2013) = 36,474. Which is a total net gain of  168,201 copies or 4% of total sales. 

- The price for a new copy at this point is $20, not $50 - meaning these sold copies are less profitable. 

- This is one isolated case. There are many games that haven't greatly benefited from sales because of PewDiePew's gameplays. Notice that this video had 12 million hits (at the time of the article) and most of his videos only get 3-5 million. Which games this benefit is very unpredictable and almost like winning the lottery. 

- PewDiePie is the most popular let's player, youtuber, and has celebrity level appeal. Certainly he  can affect sales sporadically like any other celebrity. I wouldn't call most let's players celebrities though. 

- Celebrities can play games on non Youtube platforms too and affect sales. Ellen and Oprah sold plenty of Wii's, for example. However, there are many instances where a celebrity's endorsement doesn't affect sales too much. This is true for both these mega-celebrities and gaming centric ones (PewDiePie.) 

So considering how the potential gain in sales and profit is miniscule, and the risks can be high (Intellectual Property damage) it can possibly not be in the interest of a profit-seeking firm to have let's plays (look at the demo argument, often demos hurt sales and damage IP's, so many companies don't take the risk.) The overall opportunity cost could be less than the real-world costs, meaning profit was not maximized. 

Skate 3 was an old game, those sorts of sales are really impressive.  EA printed new copies, trying to downplay it is silly.  Pewdiepie wasn't the only one playing the game.

Also there are lots of examples of youtube influence.  From games like Flappy Bird to Minecraft, to things like Garry's Mod.  Is a reason publishers are sending free copies of games to popular youtubers.

The article you posted was specifically on the connection between Pewdiepie and higher sales. Also I accomodated for the difference between consecutive years in my analysis. So the age of the game doesn't matter since we are comparing to the previous year. Nobody is arguing that youtube doesn't influence sales. The argument is that no single youtuber influences sales at a huge level, and the overwhelming majority of videos that influence sales are not let's plays. Minecraft and Flappy Bird would've been popular without youtube. I'm not downplaying anything. I'm combating the hyperbole and exaggeration found by some people. 



DonFerrari on 02 February 2015
Shinobi-san said:
DonFerrari said:
Shinobi-san said:


Thats the grey area though, because the money generated is not solely generated because of their content. Anyone can put up a lets play video, but not anyone can do it and make money off of it.

Ultimately thats what we debating here.

And it isn't generated solely because of the guy talking as he needs the content. So he have to pay a share because of the content. Even the guy complaining says Nintendo is in their right so I don't know why this part would be the discussion.

 

I don't think anyone here have someone making profits based on his hardwork to be able to complain.

 

If I used that guy video and audio and Just re-recorded with my face would I be in the right to collect 100% of the profit I made? I am artistically making faces while using his dub and ninty raw material.

I'd argue that the main reason people watch certain youtubers is because of their personality and not because of the game itself. Thats my opinion on it, im not sure what your viewpoint is...you are kinda just saying im wrong.

Err if you took his audio and his video? That would be pretty dumb since thats the entire video :) That analogy is pretty silly and has no bearing on this.


My instance is that the content and subject is as important as the presenter as he wouldn't have anything to present without games and couldn't make it by himself or with nothing at all. So it is fair Nintendo ask for a share (the amount is debatable).

 

The video is Nintendo IP, the face would be mine and voice would be his. Why is that completely different? He took some hours to play it and you see a problem, but on Nintendo thousand hours you are ok? His voice is equivalent to actors voice over  or soundtrack and since I'm artistically showing facial expreSions of my own that is fair use. So why not comparable.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

fps_d0minat0r on 02 February 2015
DonFerrari said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
DonFerrari said:
Shinobi-san said:

1. Yes well aware of that. I still feel that they are not entitled to any of the revenue.

2. When i say long ago...i mean well before any youtuber was bringing in significant revenue. I can assure that had these youtubers been earning peanuts, Nintendo would not care.

Songs and Movies are different entertainments mediums to games, i think ive exaplined this in my previous post. Also, i know i make this seem like a black and white topic but really theres two sides here...and its a very grey subject. In my opinion though i dont feel its right for gaming publishers to claim revenue from the lets players, but i can understand how others would feel they should.

2. That is exactly the reason why Nintendo and others should do it... have you ever saw any songmaker or record company trying to pass law or hunt down people who sing and perform on street??? Nope... but if you use someones song in a venue then you have to pay... so if you are using the share function a console offer to exchange experience with your friends none will care, but if you are making good money out of it them you should pay..

Are we all comunists in here to think Nintendo and the other companies aren't allowed the money generated by their IPs?

You cant compare it with singing though because you cant commentate and have the song playing at the same time.

Secondly, music is created with the purpose of the end consumer 'listening' to it, whereas the purpose of video games is to be played.

A fairer comparison would be cars. Every youtuber who reviews their car doesnt pay the manufacturer because they only money they are entitled to is the money they get when they sold the car. Yes the manufacturer may not consider it a large amount to bother, but if they did, they still wouldnt have a chance at getting that money because the video is not their 'content', even though their car is in the video.

Try uploading raw gameplay, youtube wont give you a dime for it because nintendo's raw gameplay is worth nothing. Youtubers get paid ad revenue for original content like commentaries, how to's and other stuff.


So now car market is closer to videogame than movies??? That is certainly new for me.

You don't buy a license to use the car, you buy the car. But even so if you use a brand of cars to promote yourself you'll have to pay if the brand onwer demands it. Any movie that have a car on it if they desire to show the name, or brand of it.

Well let's see how good they can do without the games and just their comments on any other subject, shall we?


Thats because if you fail at reading, you will fail at understanding.

I wasnt comparing the markets, I was comparing the nature in which the products are used by the end consumer. There is a greater purpose to a car and video games then watching/listening to the end consumer but for music/movies, theres is not... because thats ALL there is.

As I mentioned, its not possible to commentate over music, but for movies, plenty of youtubers are showing the best clips from movies and commentating over it. They are not paying anything to the publishers of those movies, since the content overall is unique.

You cant go around acting smart when you dont even understand the basics of copyright and cant even identify what counts as fair use.



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 02 February 2015
fps_d0minat0r said:
DonFerrari said:


So now car market is closer to videogame than movies??? That is certainly new for me.

You don't buy a license to use the car, you buy the car. But even so if you use a brand of cars to promote yourself you'll have to pay if the brand onwer demands it. Any movie that have a car on it if they desire to show the name, or brand of it.

Well let's see how good they can do without the games and just their comments on any other subject, shall we?


Thats because if you fail at reading, you will fail at understanding.

I wasnt comparing the markets, I was comparing the nature in which the products are used by the end consumer. There is a greater purpose to a car and video games then watching/listening to the end consumer but for music/movies, theres is not... because thats ALL there is.

As I mentioned, its not possible to commentate over music, but for movies, plenty of youtubers are showing the best clips from movies and commentating over it. They are not paying anything to the publishers of those movies, since the content overall is unique.

You cant go around acting smart when you dont even understand the basics of copyright and cant even identify what counts as fair use.

You said it all... clips, not the entire thing... please entertain me on the basics of copyright and fair use on presenting 100% of someones property and just having your comments over it.

And also please show how driving the car around is similar to end user as playing VGs, and also why automakers will get money (or pay for advertsment depending on the case) when any tv production shows their car with name or brand/logo if it only show a glimpse of the car...



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

fps_d0minat0r on 02 February 2015
DonFerrari said:
fps_d0minat0r said:


Thats because if you fail at reading, you will fail at understanding.

I wasnt comparing the markets, I was comparing the nature in which the products are used by the end consumer. There is a greater purpose to a car and video games then watching/listening to the end consumer but for music/movies, theres is not... because thats ALL there is.

As I mentioned, its not possible to commentate over music, but for movies, plenty of youtubers are showing the best clips from movies and commentating over it. They are not paying anything to the publishers of those movies, since the content overall is unique.

You cant go around acting smart when you dont even understand the basics of copyright and cant even identify what counts as fair use.

You said it all... clips, not the entire thing... please entertain me on the basics of copyright and fair use on presenting 100% of someones property and just having your comments over it.

And also please show how driving the car around is similar to end user as playing VGs, and also why automakers will get money (or pay for advertsment depending on the case) when any tv production shows their car with name or brand/logo if it only show a glimpse of the car...


Well even for games, its not the entire thing.

If you think it is then send me one video where an entire game has been shown. Its always just clips from certain modes, certain characters, certain levels and so on.

Yes there are videos of speedruns which show a game being completed (still not 100%), but they are not the videos taking in money because as I mentioned already, raw gameplay is worthless. Its the extra content youtubers add to gameplay that makes it worth something.

I already told you cars and games are not designed with the purpose of watching/listening, whereas music and movies are. If you are still unable to figure out how that relates to copyright, I cant help you.



DonFerrari on 02 February 2015
fps_d0minat0r said:
DonFerrari said:

You said it all... clips, not the entire thing... please entertain me on the basics of copyright and fair use on presenting 100% of someones property and just having your comments over it.

And also please show how driving the car around is similar to end user as playing VGs, and also why automakers will get money (or pay for advertsment depending on the case) when any tv production shows their car with name or brand/logo if it only show a glimpse of the car...


Well even for games, its not the entire thing.

If you think it is then send me one video where an entire game has been shown. Its always just clips from certain modes, certain characters, certain levels and so on.

Yes there are videos of speedruns which show a game being completed (still not 100%), but they are not the videos taking in money because as I mentioned already, raw gameplay is worthless. Its the extra content youtubers add to gameplay that makes it worth something.

I already told you cars and games are not designed with the purpose of watching/listening, whereas music and movies are. If you are still unable to figure out how that relates to copyright, I cant help you.


A 3 min clip of a movie compared to more than 1h footage of the game recorded is equivalent to you?

Speedruns normally aren't 100%, just the bare minimun to finish the game... raw gameplay is worthless, and no game included and just the comments about anything not game related?

I understood your point, but you still didn't answered why if someone wants to portray the car they must pay, receive or at least have permission. And copyright pretty much states you aren't allowed to broadcast it without authorization.



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

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

sc94597 on 02 February 2015
KylieDog said:
sc94597 said:

The article you posted was specifically on the connection between Pewdiepie and higher sales. Also I accomodated for the difference between consecutive years in my analysis. So the age of the game doesn't matter since we are comparing to the previous year. Nobody is arguing that youtube doesn't influence sales. The argument is that no single youtuber influences sales at a huge level, and the overwhelming majority of videos that influence sales are not let's plays. Minecraft and Flappy Bird would've been popular without youtube. I'm not downplaying anything. I'm combating the hyperbole and exaggeration found by some people. 


@first bold, no.  To quote my link "If you head over to YouTube and put in 'Skate 3', you'll find tonnes of comedy videos from prominent YouTubers playing Skate 3. And these videos have been watched by millions."  It was NOT about pediepie only.

@second bold - Evidence?  Flappy Bird was nothing before youtube and Minecraft only exploded after being featured on youtube so much.


1. One small sentence hidden within the article does not change the article's thesis. 

"How PewDiePie fired Skate 3 back into the charts"

2. Where is your evidence that the games were popular because of youtube? Correlation =/= causation. 



Dusk on 02 February 2015
Scoobes said:
Dusk said:
Intrinsic said:

And you fail to see the big picture. How much do you think Nintendo stands to make from youtubers showing parts of their game? 

How much do you think they have to make from people buying a WiiU and games from having watched one of such videos? 

What I am saying is simple, YouTube and someone playing my console is free marketing as far as I am concerned. I would rather have as many people see my games and hopefully end up buying my console, than they see more of my competitions games.


I think it's you that fails to see the big picture. This is not hypotheticals. It's IP's used without consent, that is the bottom line. It's copywritten materials used without permission. You may own the material for use, but not for distrobution in any form. 

The same could be said of Sony, Microsoft or any big name publisher. Yet I'm not aware of any other publisher that has implemented a system like this. When youtube identified all these videos as copyrighted material, the big publishers asked video makers to contact them about any problems and they'd get them sorted (no financial penalty involved).

Nintendo are fully in their rights to introduce this system and to protect their IP. However, that doesn't mean it's a good idea, and the fact that other publishers haven't introduced this is telling. All Nintendo is achieving with this is to reduce the online "word of mouth" marketing that youtubers provide.

Pretty sure MS and EA have actually. Not exactly the same, but quite close. With MS, with the exception of Youtube, content creators cannot make any money from it that uses any of MS's stuff and even allows MS to use this created content without consent. So if someone comes up with a great idea on a youtube video or anything like that, MS is fully able to take it and use it for thier own gain. 

Give it time, more will follow suit.



Gotta figure out how to set these up lol.