| fleischr said: Wasn't Nintendo claiming 100% before? Seems like this should have been considered a step in the right direction. And it's a trial of the program, not necesssarily the final version so it could change. Sounds like Pewds cares more about the cash than the games |
Couldn't the same be said for Nintendo here?
Some of all yall are really upset for no reason. It isn't like Nintendo is stopping them from playing games. They are just stopping them from making money off of doing it. I mean is it silly yes, but I do understand where they are coming from. I mean they invest money in their own marketing and treehouse events for playthroughs, why let some random basement dweller step in there.
And if you guys think Nintendo is the only one who was doing this, you guys forgot about Activision and COD Ghosts.
| Shinobi-san said: It should'nt even be legal for Nintendo or any other publisher to claim profits from lets plays. The gamer has already purchased the game and the publisher has already received the money for the game sale. |
Why shouldn't be legal for the IP owner to retain control from it's IP??? He bought a license to play no to profit on it.
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."
| Conegamer said: Also the thread title is rather click-baity, but that's the title of the article I suppose. |
If you google Pewdiepie today, you'll see this is the far most baity article -DonFerrari managed to find- written about the news in question.
|
Multishanks said: I mean they invest money in their own marketing and treehouse events for playthroughs, why let some random basement dweller step in there. |
Nintendo "marketing" against the "basement dweller" that is Pewdiepie...
You are either trying too hard to defend a certain company or you have no notion what you are talking about.
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
If you google Pewdiepie today, you'll see this is the far most baity article -DonFerrari managed to find- written about the news in question.
Nintendo "marketing" against the "basement dweller" that is Pewdiepie... You are either trying too hard to defend a certain company or you have no notion what you are talking about.
|
Wasn't specifically talking about PewDiePie because he isn't even really talking about himself he is mention "other dedicated nintendo youtubers".
And I already said that it was silly what Nintendo is doing so....someone is trying....its just not me.
| Conegamer said: Yeah I've gotta say he sorta has a point here. And if he thinks it plenty of others will too, and that could (I stress could) hurt Nintendo. Also the thread title is rather click-baity, but that's the title of the article I suppose. |
Copied the article title... but no problem if you preffer me to edit.
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."
Does the guy even cover Nintendo stuff? He doesn't. So what's the big issue? It's not as if he made an Income (which is all HE AND Companies care about) through Nintendo stuff.
Look at it this way: You're in good standing in a class, here comes a group project. You do your work right, but the teammates didn't do crap, and then they get the credit for YOUR work when they don't deserve shit. It's similar to this, the guy feels that he has the right to claim the videogames on his videos as "his", and thus feels entitled to get profit off of them, but in reality someone else owns the game and went through handwork... Just to have an idiot make money off their work.
I'm all up for property owners to defend their rights, yes perhaps 40% might be too much for a bunch of people who play videogames and upload them to YouTube for a living, but once again... They're making money off someone else's work.
For those who don't know: Whenever you buy a game, song, video, etc. You don't buy the media itself, but a "permission" to use the media in a way that won't affect the IP owner = No renting, etc. You don't actually own the game, because it's not your property or patented under your name.
DigitalDevilSummoner said:
He believes.... http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/how-pewdiepie-fired-skate-3-back-into-the-charts/0137447 http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/images/13/nov/salestrends.png |
Yes I bet that equates a cientific study.
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."
| RolStoppable said: He doesn't sound like the brightest bulb in the room and probably also believes that it should be legal for him to charge an audience for watching a blu-ray movie at his home. As soon as you use someone else's work for commercial use, you not only need permission of the creator, but also have to share the money you generate. No idea why Youtube should suddenly be an exception. |
Right. If he was talking about Nintendo claiming his videos in a world where Youtube Partners didn't exist, that would be one thing. He's bitching about his ability to make money off of Nintendo's stuff, though. Entirely different.
I'm all for Intellectual Property reform, but more of the kind that doesn't involve other people making actual money on this sort of thing.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
| Kuksenkov said: Does the guy even cover Nintendo stuff? He doesn't. So what's the big issue? It's not as if he made an Income (which is all HE AND Companies care about) through Nintendo stuff. Look at it this way: You're in good standing in a class, here comes a group project. You do your work right, but the teammates didn't do crap, and then they get the credit for YOUR work when they don't deserve shit. It's similar to this, the guy feels that he has the right to claim the videogames on his videos as "his", and thus feels entitled to get profit off of them, but in reality someone else owns the game and went through handwork... Just to have an idiot make money off their work. I'm all up for property owners to defend their rights, yes perhaps 40% might be too much for a bunch of people who play videogames and upload them to YouTube for a living, but once again... They're making money off someone else's work. For those who don't know: Whenever you buy a game, song, video, etc. You don't buy the media itself, but a "permission" to use the media in a way that won't affect the IP owner = No renting, etc. You don't actually own the game, because it's not your property or patented under your name. |
Agreed I can see where Nintendo is coming from. It's petty since they honestly don't need the money, but they are also protecting the view of their products.
The free advertising argument may have some merit but it falls apart when you realize that advertising only is effective when it is regulated, so it really isn't that conclusively helpful per se.
Plus where was he when they were claiming ALL of the profits for videos......He just wants to stay relevant.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
