Boogie nails it, Nintendo can choose to take all the ad revenue and flag you if they don't like your video. Basically an angry video game nerd type for Wii U games could see his videos being flagged all the time.

How does that work?

if they dont approve the video then that means is not going to be shown to anyone, which means 0 people will watch the video and of course no money, neither for you not for nintendo. The two things i just dont like is that 30-40%(it applies to the money thats left once youtube cuts off 40% of the money) looks excesive if we account he 40% that youtube gts from the money generated by the video, i think they should reduce it to 15-25%. What i also dont like its that seems you cant give negative comments, which is understandable at certain point but also means there wont be 100% honesty from the one that does the review

Because better no video than a video from angry Joe who is hating a Nintendo game and kills a part of the games potential sales.

"unbiased youtuber"? That's a contradiction in terms to begin with, in this context. Nintendo is saying "we'll take a cut of your revenue because we're providing the base content", and that means the youtubers are going to get less money. Unsurprisingly, this is something those youtubers aren't in favour of, because it means they get less money.

But they're being childish. You don't get to buy a heap of CDs and start a radio station, broadcasting content from various musicians for free. Radio stations pay a significant amount of money to the various music companies to be able to broadcast their music, and then they (the radio people) get money from advertising on the station. It doesn't matter whether it's just straight playing of music or an extensive commentary on said music, they are using the music to make money, and thus the people who created the music get to profit off it, even if the playing of their music on the radio boosts their CD sales.

To be clear, the issue of how much of the music company's cut goes to the artist is a completely different one, and irrelevant to this discussion (I say this because I know somebody will try to turn it into that discussion if I don't say this).

All of the entertainment industries work exactly like this. It's just that the internet has made it easier to "broadcast" things, and allows the person to reach a larger audience. In 2012, 60% of Pandora's revenue went to the music companies (and onwards to the music creators themselves). Nintendo's only expecting 30-40%. In 2014, Pandora saw a significant decrease in the proportion being paid in these royalties... to 46.5%. Still more than what Nintendo is expecting. For Spotify, it's 70%.

These child-like people insist on being paid for playing video games, talking about video games, etc... and not even giving a cut to the company providing the bulk of their content. You can proclaim as much as you want that they're doing free advertising for Nintendo, but it's just not true. They're being paid for their advertising, through ad revenue. And they're getting that revenue whether they're praising or condemning Nintendo or the game. Nintendo is simply insisting that, since you're using their content to make money, they get a reasonable cut of it.

We can argue about what is a "reasonable cut", but anybody suggesting that Nintendo shouldn't be getting a cut at all is being childish.

As for the other details... it sounds more like they're restricting the list of content for the beta, rather than making it the standard. They need some way, after all, to compare in the beta between the various cases. I cannot see anything else on the list of details of the program that would be considered "beta".

The only other detail that is being focused on, from what I can see, is the idea that Nintendo will do censorship. But the only line that this possibly connects with is "It can regularly take up to three business days for your registered content to be reviewed and finalized", and that sounds to me like "we can't have third-party content or other such content, so we have to check your videos first." While there is some potential chance for censorship, there is no evidence, at this point, that such censorship will happen - they simply haven't explicitly ruled it out.

I'm not going to call this the greatest youtuber program ever, or anything, but all of the whinging about it so far is misguided at best.

What Nintendo did is not wrong tho. Its 100% correct. So why do a 180°?   Sony and Microsoft and everyone else should do the exact same thing.
Youtubers are NOT entitled to get any money at all unless they offer 100% own content.
I mean do you see youtubers complain about Youtube getting a share of their profit? I dont.

if a mosquito bites you and you want to get rid of it its certainly not amused.

Parasites complaining about not being able to  be parasites  is nothing I would call unexpected. The massive backlash came mostly from people that care more about their own wallet than about Nintendo. So there is no reason for them to "fake their sympathy with Nintendo" to begin with. The real fans started doing this as the pioneers of streaming etc. without the "ill make $$$ with this muahahah" mentality. Those are the real fans.

Dont get me wrong this here is not a PRO Nintendo reply. Its a ANTI parasite reply.
My opinion also applies to people playing MS or Sony games or whatever.

I cant go and stream e.g the movie Gravity while pausing. talking over it. rewinding. etc.   Playing a game is nothing else than presenting it. In a movie its 95% linear  with the option to show developer commentary or second camera angles or a different language or subtitles etc. A game gives you more freedom yes but its still always showing what the developers created.

Lets say you are in Germany and you visit a restaurant. The restaurant has to pay the MUSICIAN/LABEL a fee so the restaurant is allowed to play music for its customers. The restaurant uses the music to get more customers so it has to pay the creators of the music.

Youtubers do nothing else.


The people that say "its free marketing" also dont know what they are talking about. 
Lets say today is 2015 today is the first day DumbiePie starts playing games to upload his "hard work" to youtube.  How will people find the guy? Because they "google" DumbiePie? or because they google Mario?
They will see a "DumbiePie plays Mario" and the reason for them to watch it is Mario. (same reason Sony used Smash Bros as TAG in their PSASBR youtube videos. So people can actually stumble upon the stuff by accident.)

Just thanks to the games people started to become famous to begin with. And now instead of giving back they just refuse to share their profit. Because they feel entitled to it.

Seriously some people on youtube that review items or play games get the games FOR FREE! Today i just watched some ..... Wilson guy unbox his New Nintendo 3DS Majoras Mask edition he got for free and he also got a physical copy of the game etc. Yet I see no "Nintendo is so awesome they give away free stuff" threads. Btw the guy also has to give Nintendo some money..:

Some youtubers are little kids
others are adults that understand what fairness is and how business works.

Saying this is a bad business decision is one thing, but anyone arguing the legalities of this are misguided.


Licensing that limits number of uses, portion of use, length of time, or denies usage all together are all common place in every single form of media. EVERY media company on the planet does this (print, music, movies, games, etc).

It's fair to have an opinion that this is bad for business. However, no company would make such decisions lightly. I'm sure Nintendo has studied their options in far greater detail than anyone on this forum or on Youtube. Youtubers and gamers can complain all they want, but they can't expect companies to take them seriously about this 'advertising', unless they can provide real tangible DATA on their supposed effects on sales. That is how advertising works after all.

I for one wish Youtube adopts this as an own program. I know most people are playing COD, LOL and those things (Big publishers will make the most part of course), but smalls devs getting extra income is always good.

I bought the book, technically it is my book. So I'm going to read it on the internet and make money from it. 

What about Last Of Us? Sure there are parts of the game that are played but it's mostly a linear(ish) path. Sure you could spean time exploring more or different things will happen but then the cutscenes happen. Non-interactive set cutscenes which never change. 

Yet something else stood out from your post that made me smile:

"A video games' experience is tied to the direct interaction with it" 

And you think this is achieved from someone watching someone else play? Watching someone play a game on youtube, making comments on what they are doing is no different if they are doing it with any other entertainment medium. We as an audience are still just watching and not interacting at all.

Thing is, don't get me wrong. I understand the marketing benefits that youtube and in turn word of mouth has, I'm trying to highlight the idea that just because they are games, people should not automatically (no questions asked) give someone the right to make money off someone elses work. (I'm omitting reviews from this BTW, reviews are meant to be like that).

I'm with the people who think these youtubers need to get real jobs.

Well at least it's only in the beta phase right now and Nintendo has a chance to improve the program based off of feedback. But I do agree with those that say if EA, Ubisoft, Microsoft or any gaming publisher other than Nintendo decided to take a similar approach to YouTube, they would get unanimously blasted by all gamers. It'll be interesting to see if the other gaming publishers will follow Nintendo if they can get this right.