Nintendo and YouTube's tumultuous relationship

I was thinking a little more about this earlier today & I realised something, you don't see a lot of Nintendo's new games getting full on LP's.......well to me it's seems significantly less compared to PC/xbox/playstation games.

Even the content on Nintendo only channels is mostly retro based.

Apart from trailers, natch, do you think they're afraid of spoilers?

The_Jaster wrote:

I was thinking a little more about this earlier today & I realised something, you don't see a lot of Nintendo's new games getting full on LP's.......well to me it's seems significantly less compared to PC/xbox/playstation games.

Even the content on Nintendo only channels is mostly retro based.

It's probably because their videos would get flagged immediately. I mean, I don't agree with full Let's Plays of fresh releases, but it's still coverage.

JayMoyles wrote:

The_Jaster wrote:

I was thinking a little more about this earlier today & I realised something, you don't see a lot of Nintendo's new games getting full on LP's.......well to me it's seems significantly less compared to PC/xbox/playstation games.

Even the content on Nintendo only channels is mostly retro based.

It's probably because their videos would get flagged immediately. I mean, I don't agree with full Let's Plays of fresh releases, but it's still coverage.

To me it always seemed this way long before Nintendo made their stance on youtube public though, also plenty other companies flag content as well but you don't see as much press for that, I just feel Nintendo are an easy target because of the "behind with the times" attitude people have towards them.

"Due to your enthusiasm for the program, we’re receiving a higher volume of applications to register channels & videos than expected," says Nintendo in a statement. "It is taking longer than we anticipated to confirm the applications. We appreciate your patience as we work through them as quickly as possible."

Wow. It seems that despite the controversy, a lot of people want to be part of it. I guess receiving some money is better than the current situation where they receive precisely none.

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2015/02/05/number-of-applications-to-nintendos-creator-program-are-higher-than-anticipated/

The biggest thing signing up to this could possibly do for some youtubers is possibly give them direct contact with Nintendo & build some form of business relationship then maybe down the road have special access to their games.

Now that would be a nice way to promote via youtube. (Yes, I know this already happens in some ways with other devs/publishers' games)

The_Jaster wrote:

The biggest thing signing up to this could possibly do for some youtubers is possibly give them direct contact with Nintendo & build some form of business relationship then maybe down the road have special access to their games. 

That was already happening before this scheme was introduced though - several YouTubers I follow talked about receiving games for coverage before release date from Nintendo.

This is a very good article in defence of the creators program which I completely agree with.

http://metro.co.uk/2015/02/08/in-defence-of-nintendos-creators-program-readers-feature-5053017/

Jas, I don't feel like anyone is arguing that Nintendo don't have the right, morally or legally, to do this: just that it's stupid. Several of us agree that Pewdie and the like are full of it, but unfortunately, they are in a position to dictate terms on this one.

The Nintendo Life article says pretty much the same thing; it just puts a different spin on it.

Aye my problem isn't with any of you guys or your opinions of it, it's the fact that the youtubers aren't willing to meet Nintendo in the middle on the matter that really fucking bugs me, they (Nintendo) don't have to be doing this yet they are but all they get back is "fuck you Nintendo! Get with this times it's 2015" in return. How does that help?

There's a lot of folk I really enjoy watching on youtube & I know how much work they can put into their videos as well but I lose a lot of respect for some of them with the way some are acting.

Also if they're morally and legally (especially that last one) in the right then for me there should be no debate on the matter as the other party don't have a leg to stand on.

I know they don't have a leg to stand on like you say but likes of Ubisoft have set a president which is now expected from game developers that you can do videos, let's plays etc.

That's the debate that almost everyone else lets you and Nintendo don't unless you want to split money with them.

So if I was Pewdie I would just be doing the ones that let me not the ones that don't.

Mas has got it. When something beneficial for Youtubers is widely done across the industry, there's no reason for them to expect less.

They are providing a form of entertainment though and are going to stick to what their fans enjoy, most of the well known Youtubers like Pewdie Pie are based around mainly PC content so would sharing that revenue if they did do LP's of Nintendo games really hurt them that much?

I don't think it would and they could make anything back in so many other ways, for example a lot of them have already switched to streaming full time on twitch because Youtube isn't a reliable source of income like it used to be.

The_Jaster wrote:

They are providing a form of entertainment though and are going to stick to what their fans enjoy, most of the well known Youtubers like Pewdie Pie are based around mainly PC content so would sharing that revenue if they did do LP's of Nintendo games really hurt them that much?

They just won't cover Nintendo then - imagine YouTube is your job, and let's say it takes 5 hours to record, edit, render and upload a video to YouTube. Would you upload a video on a game which is going to earn you £600 or a video on Nintendo which is going to earn you £200? You're going to take the £600. It's a sad fact that most of the biggest YouTubers aren't in it for the passion but for the money, but that's just a fact of life.

Nobody here is arguing that Nintendo don't have a legal right to claim anything from these videos - what most of us here are saying is that Nintendo is wrong to exercise that right. It's not really harming the big YouTubers because they'll just cover something else - they're not spoilt for choice, as even the gruesome twosome of EA and Ubisoft have given permission for Let's Plays of their games. It's harming Nintendo, who are severing ties with a huge and proven source of essentially free advertising. Sure, it's not really free if they're claiming revenue from their games, but it'll be a drop in the ocean compared to a more conventional advertising scheme, and YouTube will reach almost as many eyes.

To flip that the other way Jaster, would Nintendo stand to benefit more from the sheer exposure someone like Pewdie covering one of their games would bring than monetizing youtubers content?  

I happen to think it likely would, at least for the specific game in question, and quiet possibly be even more effective than any ad campaign Nintendo currently invests in, and a heck of a lot cheaper to boot given they will have spent absolutely no money on it.

Jay wrote:

They just won't cover Nintendo then - imagine YouTube is your job, and let's say it takes 5 hours to record, edit, render and upload a video to YouTube. Would you upload a video on a game which is going to earn you £600 or a video on Nintendo which is going to earn you £200? You're going to take the £600. It's a sad fact that most of the biggest YouTubers aren't in it for the passion but for the money, but that's just a fact of life.

I'd personally play/upload what I/my fans enjoyed the most but that's just me, also if they are that focused on the money then surely they can see (like I said before) that they can make than money back & then some through other means.

Just like it is a barely a drop in the ocean for Nintendo as you put it is equally the same for Youtubers if they shared the revenue.

Athrun wrote:

To flip that the other way Jaster, would Nintendo stand to benefit more from the sheer exposure someone like Pewdie covering one of their games would bring than monetizing youtubers content?

They possibly would benefit in terms of reputation but it's really tough to judge if it'd overly affect the sales of their games by a significant amount as they have done perfectly fine without that exposure before & will probably continue to do fine.

Word of mouth is pretty powerful, and that is exactly what Nintendos actions hamper. I do believe that positive exposure from big names on Youtube would lead to a noticeable sales increase. Just look at Xenoblade in the US, that was all people power, Nintendo of America outright didn't want to even know about Xenoblade. Yet the people power got it released, and to this day there is a sizable demand for it. The big names on yt command a far larger fanbase than what got Xenoblade brought over.

The_Jaster wrote:

Just like it is a barely a drop in the ocean for Nintendo as you put it is equally the same for Youtubers if they shared the revenue.

It's a pittance for Nintendo whereas its a sizeable chunk of revenue and time for the YouTubers. Nintendo's basically saying: "those three hours you worked on that video? Yeah, you're paying us for that time". That won't fly with the top YouTubers, so they'll cover other games.

It really is quite sad because barring the Nintendo-centric channels I'm subscribed to, Nintendo content has all but dried up in my subscriptions box.

I don't understand Nintendo's policy on the Internet - I don't think they understand the Internet, period. Remember when Super Smash Bros. Melee fans raised 100K to have their favourite game streamed at EVO? Remember when Nintendo inexplicably said "no, you're not streaming that"? They doubled back on that, thankfully, but both that and this YouTube thing made me realise something about Nintendo - they have no concept of how "new media" works. They're getting there in some regards - integrating with the fighting game community, using Twitch effectively, but they've still a very long way to go.

They've always been criticised as being behind the times (even when they're ahead of the times - see the Wii). Sadly, there are quite a few areas involving the Internet where it's been deserved. Such a struggle to get them to do anything online, then the Friend Code mess, the EVO blunder, and now this...

Balladeer wrote:

They've always been criticised as being behind the times (even when they're ahead of the times - see the Wii).  Sadly, there are quite a few areas involving the Internet where it's been deserved.  Such a struggle to get them to do anything online, then the Friend Code mess, the EVO blunder, and now this...

Ohh the Wii with it's motion controller which looks a lot like this Dreamcast prototype which was used with a Super Ball prototype

@Masofdas



Also I do see what you's are saying and agree Nintendo could be dealing with it better but again so could the youtubers.

Now that was ahead of the times.

That would only count if it were successful, Mas. Unfortunately, like everything else about the Dreamcast...

Still more successful then the Wii U

Based on the amount of time the DC was out and how long Wii U has been out and how much both sold, also the DC has a lasting legacy.

Given that after the Wii U, Nintendo is unlikely to have to jettison its entire console manufacturing business, I'm going to say...