Support NeoGAF

[mikefrails]

I still don't get the near cry-baby complaints that surround Nintendo's youtube policies. They have a perfectly reasonable program set up if you want to make money off their games. It's just the greed fueling the average youtube personality prevents them from taking the deal. So they sit back and complain as if Nintendo is straight up denying them any opportunity to profit from videos featuring their content.

 

[zephervack]

So the key is identifying what clips have the digital fingerprint to trigger automatic content ID of 2 or more companies....

No way this will last, but might as well abuse it while it does.

 

[oneils]

I still don't get the near cry-baby complaints that surround Nintendo's youtube policies. They have a perfectly reasonable program set up if you want to make money off their games. It's just the greed fueling the average youtube personality prevents them from taking the deal. So they sit back and complain as if Nintendo is straight up denying them any opportunity to profit from videos featuring their content.

What is the deal? I don't think ive ever heard of it. I've only ever seen the complaints.

 

[mrklaw]

the thing is, Jimquisition videos nearly always only use stock games footage that repeats over and over as a backdrop to what he is talking about - the video isn't a 'lets play' nor is it giving anything away - the content is him talking. So even if you felt that content owners should get some revenue, I don't think it'd apply to his videos.

 

[mikefrails]

What is the deal? I don't think over ever heard of it. I've only ever seen the complaints.

• You can register single videos or entire channels.
• When you register a channel, you will be eligible to receive a share of advertising revenue from Nintendo for all videos included in that channel, regardless of their content. If you only want some videos to apply to this program, please register each video individually.
• You can only use channels or videos that contain copyrighted content related to game titles specified by Nintendo, and they must be your original creations. Be sure your videos do not contain copyrighted material from third parties or content from unconfirmed game titles. See here for a list of Nintendo game titles specified for use with this program.
• It can regularly take up to three business days for your registered content to be reviewed and finalized.
• The advertisement revenue share is 70% for channels and 60% for videos.
• (This rate may change from time to time.)
• In order to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and as a condition to participating in the Nintendo Creators Program, you must include the following disclosure with any videos you create that contain Nintendo content:
  
• I have a license to use Nintendo’s content in this video through the Nintendo Creators Program. This video is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, but any advertising revenue from this video will be shared with Nintendo.
  
• This disclosure may be spoken (e.g., in the YouTube video) or written (e.g., in the YouTube caption or as on-screen text in the video). Regardless of format, you need to make sure the disclosure is prominently presented, easy to understand, and clearly visible and/or audible to anyone who views your video.

https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/guide/

 

[geordiemp]

I still don't get the near cry-baby complaints that surround Nintendo's youtube policies. They have a perfectly reasonable program set up if you want to make money off their games. It's just the greed fueling the average youtube personality prevents them from taking the deal. So they sit back and complain as if Nintendo is straight up denying them any opportunity to profit from videos featuring their content.

Not having so many you tube personality free advertising for your games is a company choice.

Seems to be working well for WiiU.

 

[GoaThief]

The time has come for YouTube alternatives, anyway. Forced, unskippable 6s commercials embedded in the video stream? Screw you.
This is what happens when you give too much power to a single company.

Or too much power to the users?

I stream on YouTube, and have some videos monetised... you will definitely not see an unskippable ad of any kind on them. Why is this? Because it is up to the channel owner(s)/managers to enable it. If you're seeing them take it up with the individual channel, they're not forced upon YouTube partners.

 

[Rats Off To Ya]

I still don't get the near cry-baby complaints that surround Nintendo's youtube policies. They have a perfectly reasonable program set up if you want to make money off their games. It's just the greed fueling the average youtube personality prevents them from taking the deal. So they sit back and complain as if Nintendo is straight up denying them any opportunity to profit from videos featuring their content.

Jimquisition videos are a perfect example of fair use. They're not just Let's Plays; he's offering commentary and criticism about the industry while using video game footage to illustrate his point. Nintendo has no right to make money off something like that.

 

[mikefrails]

Not having so many you tube personality free advertising for your games is a company choice.

Seems to be working well for WiiU.

Can you prove the two correlate?

 

[BlackJet]

I still don't get the near cry-baby complaints that surround Nintendo's youtube policies. They have a perfectly reasonable program set up if you want to make money off their games. It's just the greed fueling the average youtube personality prevents them from taking the deal. So they sit back and complain as if Nintendo is straight up denying them any opportunity to profit from videos featuring their content.

My understanding is that they have to approve whatever content that you upload.

Then they also take a certain percentage of money generated from the created content in addition to however much is being taken by Google.

 

[Majukun]

I think so. The only thing I'm not sure of is that if a copyright holder monetizes your video and inserts ads... Do you actually get a piece of the revenue? I don't think you do.

you don't.

nintendo offered a program where they share a bit of that sweet money with you,but they also must review your content beforehand for what i know,someone corrects me if i'm wrong

 

[crazygambit]

I still don't get the near cry-baby complaints that surround Nintendo's youtube policies. They have a perfectly reasonable program set up if you want to make money off their games. It's just the greed fueling the average youtube personality prevents them from taking the deal. So they sit back and complain as if Nintendo is straight up denying them any opportunity to profit from videos featuring their content.

Yeah, it's like those cry baby business owners, where their greed prevents them from forking over between 30% and 40% of revenues from their business to the mob for protection.

Like why would they not just roll over and pay that? Their greed and entitlement is off the charts.

 

[mikefrails]

Yeah, it's like those cry baby business owners, where their greed prevents them from forking over between 30% and 40% of revenues from their business to the mob for protection.

Like why would they not just roll over and pay that? Their greed and entitlement is off the charts.

If I own something, and you want to profit from it, you're damn skippy I'm going to set the terms as I see fit. It's my content you're working with. They can take it or kick rocks. The entitlement from the youtube gaming community is crazy.

 

[Sad Affleck]

Pretty clever!

 

[MegaManTrigger]

Not having so many you tube personality free advertising for your games is a company choice.

Seems to be working well for WiiU.

Is there hard data proving that youtube personalities and sales correlate? Especially when LP culture is pretty summarized into "I'm happy watching someone else play the game, not actually playing game" (of course that depends on what's being LP'd). Also, let's not act like that's really "free advertising" considering personalities are making money off of the IP that developers made, without seeing a single cent.

I always see people pull the "free advertising" card, but have absolutely nothing to back up the claim. Furthermore, if you're going to make that argument, don't just hone-in on the Wii U for an easy target, since it's such a flimsy argument. You include all Nintendo consoles since YouTube exploded, and that's where your conclusion falls apart the hardest.

 

[dragonelite]

Not having so many you tube personality free advertising for your games is a company choice.

Seems to be working well for WiiU.

Pretty much this..

 

[Cess007]

Is there hard data proving that youtube personalities and sales correlate? Especially when LP culture is pretty summarized into "I'm happy watching someone else play the game, not actually playing game" (of course that depends on what's being LP'd). Also, let's not act like that's really "free advertising" considering personalities are making money off of the IP that developers made, without seeing a single cent.

I always see people pull the "free advertising" card, but have absolutely nothing to back up the claim. Furthermore, if you're going to make that argument, don't just hone-in on the Wii U for an easy target, since it's such a flimsy argument. You include all Nintendo consoles since YouTube exploded, and that's where your conclusion falls apart the hardest.

Didn't Skate 3 charted again when Pewdiepiew uploaded his videos of playing it (and messing around with atll the glitches) years after the initial launch? It's the only example i can remember at all

 

[mikezilla2]

neat, do you not get a copyright strike for this tho ?

 

[davepoobond]

You think you can fuck with the google?

No one fucks with the google

 

[tuxfool]

You think you can fuck with the google?

No one fucks with the google

Google doesn't really give a shit. Unless somebody complains to google, they won't do anything.

 

[Handy Fake]

 

[crazygambit]

If I own something, and you want to profit from it, you're damn skippy I'm going to set the terms as I see fit. It's my content you're working with. They can take it or kick rocks. The entitlement from the youtube gaming community is crazy.

But you see, fair use was created exactly for this type of situation, so corporation can't set whatever crazy terms they want for other works that make fair use of their copyrighted works.

The problem is that even if youtubers are in the right, they can't possibly challenge the army of lawyers of these corporations in court to assert their rights. And that is a problem.

 

[MrTroubleMaker]

lol that's great the way he's doing this stuff

 

[Rakthar]

I'm also confused, maybe OP should explain better .

This is what I'm getting:

* You create a video with copyright content but don't monetize: Youtube will throw in ads.

* You create a video with copyright content and monetize: depends on the company. Nintendo will split your earnings, others might just take your video down. YouTube doesn't thrown in ads.

To avoid ads in the first, you throw in so much copyright content that companies don't know what to do and YouTube simply doesn't throw in ads.

Is this right?

A video can only be set to two status:

Monetized, which means that it shows ads
Not monetized, which means it doesn't.

If you upload a video as not monetized, but it contains a monetized clip, the entire video is forced to be monetized. So you could have a 30 minute video and use a 5 second monetized clip, and now the entire 30 minute video is monetized.

However, Nintendo has clips that are forced to not monetized. What that means is that if you use them in a video, you cannot monetize it, even if you want to. So in the above example of a 30 minute video and a 5 second clip, if I want to use that clip I can't monetize the 30 minute vid.

So what happens is that people have 30 minute vids, use 5 second clips, and the rights owner for the 5 second forces the entire video to be not monetized.

However, if you use two contradictory clips - one that forces monetized, and one that forces not monetized, then you can retain your not monetized status.

So, if you want to upload a not monetized video, you can use monetized clips without the video becoming monetized, if you also include not monetized clips in your not monetized video.

 

[Jamie OD]

Didn't Skate 3 charted again when Pewdiepiew uploaded his videos of playing it (and messing around with atll the glitches) years after the initial launch? It's the only example i can remember at all

It did in the UK.

 

[Vampirolol]

Dude can't play Star Fox Zero but sure can fuck the system with its own weapons. Props to him!

 

[crazygambit]

A video can only be set to two status:

Monetized, which means that it shows ads
Not monetized, which means it doesn't.

If you upload a video as not monetized, but it contains a monetized clip, the entire video is forced to be monetized. So you could have a 30 minute video and use a 5 second monetized clip, and now the entire 30 minute video is monetized.

However, Nintendo has clips that are forced to not monetized. What that means is that if you use them in a video, you cannot monetize it, even if you want to. So in the above example of a 30 minute video and a 5 second clip, if I want to use that clip I can't monetize the 30 minute vid.

So what happens is that people have 30 minute vids, use 5 second clips, and the rights owner for the 5 second forces the entire video to be not monetized.

However, if you use two contradictory clips - one that forces monetized, and one that forces not monetized, then you can retain your not monetized status.

So, if you want to upload a not monetized video, you can use monetized clips without the video becoming monetized, if you also include not monetized clips in your not monetized video.

This is probably the best explanation of this thing I've read yet. The article wasn't all that clear for those of us that don't know the inner workings of youtube,

 

[TsunamiOfSwagger]

You don't fuck with Jim Fucking Sterling Son...

He fucks with you.

 

[Rudiano]

So basically it stops Nintendo from monetizing the video because other parties have already claimed it? So how does this benefit the Youtuber? are they still losing out on monetization?

edit: nevermind I read the above lol great thinking, but Youtube will now update their system to block this flaw

 

[5taquitos]

So basically it stops Nintendo from monetizing the video because other parties have already claimed it? So how does this benefit the Youtuber? are they still losing out on monetization?

It doesn't benefit the YouTuber, as they lose out on monetization. It only works for Jim because he rakes it in on Patreon. This won't work for the average YouTuber that relies on ad revenue.

 

[riskVSreward]

Is there hard data proving that youtube personalities and sales correlate?

There definitely is data with retro games if you count the second hand market.

 

[DSix]

it's simple

have two channels

do copyright claims on one channel with the other channel

YOU CAN'T LOSE

Man, I was thinking about this, it could actually work. When the system is broken, game the system.

 

[LordRaptor]

There definitely is data with retro games if you count the second hand market.

ie games that have zero current marketing.

Modern games that do have marketing (or in fact any modern product that has its own actual marketing) don't automatically benefit from 'the exposure', especially where they have no control over the message contained within that 'exposure'.

 

[Pantaghana]

I still don't get the near cry-baby complaints that surround Nintendo's youtube policies. They have a perfectly reasonable program set up if you want to make money off their games. It's just the greed fueling the average youtube personality prevents them from taking the deal. So they sit back and complain as if Nintendo is straight up denying them any opportunity to profit from videos featuring their content.

Vast majority of YouTubers earn just enough money to scrape by, the moment anyone starts taking a cut of their income they lose the ability to pay rent and buy food. So why compromise your own livelihood by giving Nintendo money when you can just make content that won't get flagged?

But the issue isn't just with Nintendo ContentID'ing let's plays, they do the same for material that should be covered by Fair Use and they under no circumstances deserve a cut.

 

[riskVSreward]

ie games that have zero current marketing.

Modern games that do have marketing (or in fact any modern product that has its own actual marketing) don't automatically benefit from 'the exposure', especially where they have no control over the message contained within that 'exposure'.

Do you have any hard data to back up your claim? ;-)

 

[Handy Fake]

ie games that have zero current marketing.

Modern games that do have marketing (or in fact any modern product that has its own actual marketing) don't automatically benefit from 'the exposure', especially where they have no control over the message contained within that 'exposure'.

Sorry if I've misunderstood, but surely as soon as a company puts a game out into the public domain for a fee, that game is open to criticism?

 

[LordRaptor]

Do you have any hard data to back up your claim? ;-)

well, there's this thread about a developer specifically unhappy with Lets Plays of his game.

Sorry if I've misunderstood, but surely as soon as a company puts a game out into the public domain for a fee, that game is open to criticism?

I'm talking about "Lets Plays" which aren't criticism, but the common defence for why they should be free to use as much footage as they want as 'fair use' is because they are 'marketing' and 'exposure'.

e: I'm not saying this particular example is an example of this, its addressing a wider topic about Lets Plays, Youtube, Monetisation of game footage and all sorts of other issues

 

[TylerDurden4321]

well, there's this thread about a developer specifically unhappy with Lets Plays of his game.

Thanks for the link, must have missed that thread back then, good read.

 

[riskVSreward]

well, there's this thread about a developer specifically unhappy with Lets Plays of his game.

That thread doesn't appear to be on the same topic, sorry but I only skimmed it. How exactly does a devs disposition on the matter affect exposure? The person I responded to initially claimed there's no data correlating youtube vids and sales which I would say falls somewhere between contentious and outright false.

 

[LordRaptor]

That thread doesn't appear to be on the same topic, sorry but I only skimmed it. How exactly does a devs disposition on the matter affect exposure? The person I responded to initially claimed there's no data correlating youtube vids and sales which I would say falls somewhere between contentious and outright false.

That dev was specifically saying that Lets Plays hurt his sales

 

[TylerDurden4321]

How could you even design a study proving/disproving that LPs hurt sales of certain games? I mean design it in a way that meets scientific demands and could survive a process like a PhD thesis defense.
(are we derailing?)

 

[Mindlog]

I still don't get the near cry-baby complaints that surround Nintendo's youtube policies. They have a perfectly reasonable program set up if you want to make money off their games. It's just the greed fueling the average youtube personality prevents them from taking the deal. So they sit back and complain as if Nintendo is straight up denying them any opportunity to profit from videos featuring their content.

This is adorable. Thorough take-down of 'Big Youtube Personality' friend.

 

[DrFurbs]

Thank God for Jim (and Erasure)

 

[MUnited83]

That dev was specifically saying that Lets Plays hurt his sales

A shame that dev forgot to back up his statements with actual data though.

 

[xVodevil]

The BEST!!!

 

[TylerDurden4321]

A shame that dev forgot to back up his statements with actual data though.

But what data COULD you show that would not just be a mere "possible hint"?

 

[Pantaghana]

Is there hard data proving that youtube personalities and sales correlate? Especially when LP culture is pretty summarized into "I'm happy watching someone else play the game, not actually playing game" (of course that depends on what's being LP'd). Also, let's not act like that's really "free advertising" considering personalities are making money off of the IP that developers made, without seeing a single cent.

I always see people pull the "free advertising" card, but have absolutely nothing to back up the claim. Furthermore, if you're going to make that argument, don't just hone-in on the Wii U for an easy target, since it's such a flimsy argument. You include all Nintendo consoles since YouTube exploded, and that's where your conclusion falls apart the hardest.

This varies greatly between YouTubers and depends on the audience and type of content.

PewDiePie's audience is mostly 12 year old children without a disposable income, while it's not unheard of, he very rarely generates enough interest in a game to cause a spike in sales (like he did with Skate 3).
His viewers don't go to his channel to get information on games to make a better purchasing decision, they go there to be entertained by his antics.

TotalBiscuit on the other hand has an audience that is mostly 25+ so likely has a job and therefore disposable income.
His videos are made as a buyers guides, people go to his channel to get information on games.

This is what is important, audience. PDP has 43million+ subscribers but his impact on sales is negligible, TB has 2.2million, twenty times less, but there are several games that had 0 marketing budget and managed to sell on his video alone.
One example of the top of my head is AntiChamber. The only noteworthy coverage the game had at release was TB's video (and I think there was an article on RockPaperShotgun). The developer said in a Polygon interview the sales in the first 24 hours blew peoples expectations.

 

[MUnited83]

But what data COULD you show that would not just be a mere "possible hint"?

If he was even remotely correct, Firewatch wouldn't have sold over 260K copies on Steam alone.

 

[Tecnniqe]

Praise the Jim!

 

[LordRaptor]

If he was even remotely correct, Firewatch wouldn't have sold over 260K copies on Steam alone.

Its not a case of absolutes though, much like piracy numbers are never a case of one torrent = one guaranteed lost sale.

For narrative focussed games, its not difficult to see that a youtube playthrough showing all narrative paths could equate to lost sales.
Does every view count as a lost sale? Almost certainly not.
Do some of them? Almost certainly.

Does 'exposure' offset potential lost sales? I don't know. So I'm conceptually fine with how much 'exposure' being a thing that is controlled by the maker of the product in question, not by the makers of Lets Plays

e: again, this isn't referring to the subject of the topic, more about larger issues that were raised by others