Nintendo and Youtube.

Honestly, how much money do you think the average LPer makes on their videos in a given month? Somewhere in the 10s range? I can likely count the number of people that make a living off LP bux on one hand.

Also, there's this

 Picture

People that are partnered through networks (such as TGS and Machinima) follow a different set of rules though. Most (if not all) of the people that make money of game related videos on youtube are partnered through such a network. Considering there are people that make a living of channels featuring exclusively Nintendo games and Nintendo is basically saying "We're taking most if not all of your income so you're fucked lol", which, as far as I know, came out of nowhere, shows that they haven't really thought this through. I hope the backlash is big enough for them to reconsider, or else some of the best let's players will have to find another job.

Honestly, how much money do you think the average LPer makes on their videos in a given month? Somewhere in the 10s range? I can likely count the number of people that make a living off LP bux on one hand.

$10 a month? Really? A single video a month can still easily make you more than that, unless you get absolutely zero people watching your videos. Hell, I haven't uploaded a single video in months, yet up until last month, my average Adsense income was $30 a month. The average Let's Play-er, who uploads videos regularly and gets a decent amount of views, probably makes at least double that. Anyone who has a steady viewer base will make hundreds easily.

Now, while that's not a great amount of income - certainly not something one can live off of - it does make a huge impact on livelihood, as well as the ability to maintain one's channel for the purpose of supplying future content.

Also, there's this
-snip-

While that has been there since forever, Google's Adsense service, the one Youtube provides by default, contradicts that, as you can see in my previous post, where I liked to that rule. Video game footage is not in the red, unless you're not doing it right.

$10 a month? Really? A single video a month can still easily make you more than that, unless you get absolutely zero people watching your videos. Hell, I haven't uploaded a single video in months, yet up until last month, my average Adsense income was $30 a month. The average Let's Play-er, who uploads videos regularly and gets a decent amount of views, probably makes at least double that. Anyone who has a steady viewer base will make hundreds easily.

Now, while that's not a great amount of income - certainly not something one can live off of - it does make a huge impact on livelihood, as well as the ability to maintain one's channel for the purpose of supplying future content.



While that has been there since forever, Google's Adsense service, the one Youtube provides by default, contradicts that, as you can see in my previous post, where I liked to that rule. Video game footage is not in the red, unless you're not doing it right.

Oh, what, you mean this?

What can I monetize?

Video game content may be monetized depending on the commercial use rights granted to you by licenses of video game publishers. Some video game publishers allow you to use all video game content for commercial use and state that in their license agreements. Likewise, videos showing software user interface may be monetized only if you have a contract with the publisher or you have paid a licensing fee.

This thing, that says that you can only monetize video game footage with the express permission from the copyright holder? And makes it even more express when it points out it "may only be monetized only if you have a contract with the publisher or you have paid a licensing fee."? Which completely contradicts the point you made?

Nintendo specifically retracted their permission for people to monetize their videos. If the idea that you can't make money off your Nintendo videos discourages you from doing them, then, well, have fun on your 360 I guess.

Oh, what, you mean this?



This thing, that says that you can only monetize video game footage with the express permission from the copyright holder? And makes it even more express when it points out it "may only be monetized only if you have a contract with the publisher or you have paid a licensing fee."? Which completely contradicts the point you made?

Nintendo specifically retracted their permission for people to monetize their videos. If the idea that you can't make money off your Nintendo videos discourages you from doing them, then, well, have fun on your 360 I guess.

I wish I could explain it better, but unfortunately, I'm not smart enough.

Basically, it has to deal with the rights gained when buying software. You now own that specific software. You can do whatever you want with it, barring redistribution (as that's specifically against the law). When it comes to uploading videos of recorded footage onto Youtube, it's not against your inherited rights from buying the software in question, so long as it doesn't fall under the aforementioned circumstances.

Up until now, uploading YOUR footage of Nintendo software, with your own work put into it, with your own twist on the content in question is not against the law for making money off of it. Now that Nintendo has a copyright ID partnership with Youtube, it is now against their rules to make money off of Nintendo videos under certain parameters.

The issue with this is that it conflicts with a lot of peoples' livelihoods. Some people require that money earned from their hard work in order to continue content flow. Some others even require that money for their real lives. It's a big deal for some and it sucks majorly for others. Hardcore fans may still upload their videos, because money isn't really the most important part, but it's still a huge hit to those people.


Now, what I am in agreement with you on are those who say Nintendo is going to pay majorly for this, or those people who are saying they're no longer ever going to buy Nintendo software/hardware again because of this. Now, that is just plain moronic. The true fans will not be influenced to no longer support Nintendo over this. Those who do are shallow.

I wish I could explain it better, but unfortunately, I'm not smart enough.

Basically, it has to deal with the rights gained when buying software. You now own that specific software. You can do whatever you want with it, barring redistribution (as that's specifically against the law). When it comes to uploading videos of recorded footage onto Youtube, it's not against your inherited rights from buying the software in question, so long as it doesn't fall under the aforementioned circumstances.

Up until now, uploading YOUR footage of Nintendo software, with your own work put into it, with your own twist on the content in question is not against the law for making money off of it. Now that Nintendo has a copyright ID partnership with Youtube, it is now against their rules to make money off of Nintendo videos under certain parameters.

The issue with this is that it conflicts with a lot of peoples' livelihoods. Some people require that money earned from their hard work in order to continue content flow. Some others even require that money for their real lives. It's a big deal for some and it sucks majorly for others. Hardcore fans may still upload their videos, because money isn't really the most important part, but it's still a huge hit to those people.


Now, what I am in agreement with you on are those who say Nintendo is going to pay majorly for this, or those people who are saying they're no longer ever going to buy Nintendo software/hardware again because of this. Now, that is just plain moronic. The true fans will not be influenced to no longer support Nintendo over this. Those who do are shallow.

Well, now I understand where we disagree. In your interpretation, you are filming your software and that means it is yours and you can do what you want with it. The way I see it is you own a copy of their software, and the footage is your footage of their game. Everything you're showing is still their IP, and to use it for for-profit use is off-limits since you don't own that IP.

I guess I find it kind of hard to sympathize with most super-huge LPers because, well, it seems like they don't put a ton of effort into their LPs. The majority that I've seen are people that slap their talking over them playing a game with jokes that appeal to the lowest common denominator to get the most viewers. I'm not saying that every LPer is like this, but so many I've seen do this. I feel that anybody who cares little enough about their content to abandon it / never start it because it doesn't turn a profit didn't care very much in the first place!

Well, now I understand where we disagree. In your interpretation, you are filming your software and that means it is yours and you can do what you want with it. The way I see it is you own a copy of their software, and the footage is your footage of their game. Everything you're showing is still their IP, and to use it for for-profit use is off-limits since you don't own that IP.

Well, not quite. There's a difference between the actual software and footage of a software. See, Youtube calculates the difference as well. It's not like you can put a video up on Youtube and tell it to monetize and it puts up ads instantly without outside confirmation. When you're partnered with Youtube/Adsense, Youtube's system scans your video(s) for any kind of audio or video that goes against their policies. They check for copyright infringement and all sorts of things. They can catch the slightest fart in the wind in your video and if it's to the tune of a copyrighted song, you're declined monetization for that video. However, they allow video game videos to be monetized. If video games were against their monetization policies, they wouldn't allow those to go through at all. They'd be blocked at the checking process.

I guess I find it kind of hard to sympathize with most super-huge LPers because, well, it seems like they don't put a ton of effort into their LPs. The majority that I've seen are people that slap their talking over them playing a game with jokes that appeal to the lowest common denominator to get the most viewers. I'm not saying that every LPer is like this, but so many I've seen do this. I feel that anybody who cares little enough about their content to abandon it / never start it because it doesn't turn a profit didn't care very much in the first place!

I can't disagree with you here, though I've never been one to watch Let's Plays myself.

Well, not quite. There's a difference between the actual software and footage of a software. See, Youtube calculates the difference as well. It's not like you can put a video up on Youtube and tell it to monetize and it puts up ads instantly without outside confirmation. When you're partnered with Youtube/Adsense, Youtube's system scans your video(s) for any kind of audio or video that goes against their policies. They check for copyright infringement and all sorts of things. They can catch the slightest fart in the wind in your video and if it's to the tune of a copyrighted song, you're declined monetization for that video. However, they allow video game videos to be monetized. If video games were against their monetization policies, they wouldn't allow those to go through at all. They'd be blocked at the checking process.



I can't disagree with you here, though I've never been one to watch Let's Plays myself.

Well, the IP holders have to request for their content IDs to be matched before YouTube will do anything. For example, I watched a FF13-2 LP where the LPer had to scramble the video on youtube in videos with an ending scene or YouTube would recognize that it matched SE's content and then remove the video. There's far too much video uploaded to manually scan through all of it, so while their policy exists they have a hard time enforcing it. They would have to find content IDs for every piece of art or music in every game to fully enforce it, so instead they just wait until a company requests they match content IDs and they oblige. Essentially, a company's consent is implied until it isn't.

What I want to know is:
What about fan sites? Southperry for example is oriented around Maplestory yet it runs ads to sustain itself. Could Nexon take action against Southperry as it's essentially profiting from Maplestory?

What about review websites? They run ads to help sustain themselves yet use other products on the site itself, whether they're games or otherwise, for their reviews in the first place.

A Youtube channel is essentially a small, personal website. It isn't the product itself that's making the money. It isn't being sold, or distributed in any way, shape or form. The ads are necessary to continue producing coverage to begin with. The ads are for the ''coverage'' not the product that may be present IN that coverage.

The thing about Let's Plays is that they aren't any different from reviews, at all, especially from in-depth reviews that go over many of the product's ''inner workings''. If anything Let's Plays honestly have more pull than any review website you can find anywhere on the internet. Let's Plays rake in millions of views per month. Many millions. Every one of these views is a potential sale, and for ANY business this should appeal to you. The more eyes on your product the better, ESPECIALLY when it costs you nothing. And again, just like those review sites these people need ad revenue unless you're saying YOU want to help cover costs, which let's face it... you probably couldn't afford paying all these people yourselves.

There's a reason not many companies, if any, are going after Let's Players, or any online content for that matter. Nintendo doing this doesn't mean this is some ''standard'' in this industry. It honestly isn't. They did it out of the blue because they honestly have no clue what this type of content does for them. If they DID know they WOULDN'T do anything. The opposite actually; they would encourage it. ALL of this content helps raise awareness for you and your products at no expense to you whatsoever. As a business you want to support this. As ANY business. It boggles my mind how some big companies spend MILLIONS to promote their own products and don't realize that these days people are more than willing, and capable, of promoting your content FOR you for FREE. We do YOUR work. We make YOUR lives just a little easier. The people just need that ad revenue to CONTINUE doing this for you.

Nintendo's decision has them double-dipping. They didn't have to create ANY of this free content yet are the ONLY ones profiting from it at the same time. It's honestly suspicious. They go on about how they could have taken down each and every video but out of the goodness of their hearts they didn't, yet they may as well have because now the creator doesn't get jack pomegranate. So WHY keep the videos up, Nintendo? Because you realize that that content helps you. You don't think any of these people deserve SOMETHING for their support of your name and products? It doesn't even cost YOU anything so why not?

It's odd that the company who's struggling to sell their own product THEMSELVES are going after people who help sell their product for them. Did I mention at no expense to them? Just making sure.

And none of this is even about archaic legal ''rights'' but more so a questioning of LOGIC and common sense. Business? Public relations? Does anybody believe Nintendo even knows what year it is right now? Because, I mean at the end of the day, sure they have the right to take everything down I guess. Them and every other company. But there is a reason why many don't dare to do so. It isn't about ''rights''. You don't disrupt balance. You don't remove one half of a symbiotic relationship. It's the people who make or break virtually any business. Nintendo would have gone bankrupt in the 90's or so had their support not been there, so why attack the communities who help keep the lights on in your offices? Your homes?

Watching a Let's Play is LESS damaging to you than an official demo is. Heck, when I was a kid me and my friends used to mooch games off each other. That's real life PIRACY. At least with Let's Plays -- mere footage -- you can't actually experience the game without getting your own copy. You experience more of a game in a dinky-ass demo than any footage since you're actually PLAYING it at that point. When you were at your friends house as a kid, watching him play the latest game, did you experience it then? No. It wasn't until he passed you that controller that you actually experienced the game.

And a fact is that anybody who would rather WATCH gameplay than PLAY it means they weren't ever going to buy the game to begin with. You lost nothing in potential sales because that person WASN'T a potential customer. If watching a Let's Play changes somebody's mind from playing it (It can work both ways, but for this example I state the worst case scenario) that is no different than when you'd go to a review website, see a bad review, and decide you no longer want that product.

As a let's player and Youtube Pokemon Battler, Nintendo's actions make me consider boycotting their games.

As a let's player and Youtube Pokemon Battler, Nintendo's actions make me consider boycotting their games.

Why? You're still allowed to play them. People can still watch and enjoy your content. It's just you can't make money off your nintendo videos.

Besides, if you're one of the billion pokemon let's players don't worry about it, that IP is held by the pokemon company and this doesn't apply to anything pokemon.

Why? You're still allowed to play them. People can still watch and enjoy your content. It's just you can't make money off your nintendo videos.

Besides, if you're one of the billion pokemon let's players don't worry about it, that IP is held by the pokemon company and this doesn't apply to anything pokemon.

Sometimes the making money of videos is required to maintain the quality, especially if you use expensive equipment or recording software. If someone recently purchased something really expensive, like a high end capture card to record Wii U games (like the upcoming Pikmin 3 and Super Luigi U), they were probably expecting to make their money back at the very least. Which they're not going to now.

I wish I could explain it better, but unfortunately, I'm not smart enough.

Basically, it has to deal with the rights gained when buying software. You now own that specific software. You can do whatever you want with it, barring redistribution (as that's specifically against the law). When it comes to uploading videos of recorded footage onto Youtube, it's not against your inherited rights from buying the software in question, so long as it doesn't fall under the aforementioned circumstances.

Ah, but you are redistributing parts of it. Specifically the images (and probably music). This is in part why most Nintendo games (and probably nearly every game) at the end of the credits say something along the lines of "All rights, including copyrights of Game, Scenario, Program, Music are property of nintendo".

Simply uploading a rip of the game files isn't the only way to redistribute parts of the game which (Apparently) legally belong to nintendo, whether you own a copy of the disc or not.

I'm not arguing it isn't a plantain move (absolutely is), but still, like everything, the goal of a publisher is to get as much of your money as possible while actually given you as few rights as possible.

Sometimes the making money of videos is required to maintain the quality, especially if you use expensive equipment or recording software. If someone recently purchased something really expensive, like a high end capture card to record Wii U games (like the upcoming Pikmin 3 and Super Luigi U), they were probably expecting to make their money back at the very least. Which they're not going to now.

That's a risk with stuff like this, whether anyone realized it or not. It's within the ToS that for videos to be monetized, they need permission from the copyright holder. Did they ask Nintendo if it's okay for them to make money using their content? Or did they assume that Nintendo would just keep going with implied consent? That's the thing - there's zero job security with stuff like this. It sucks if someone is a loss because of this, but if they are running their videos as a business then they should be thinking of them like a business. A company can decide on a whim that you no longer have permission to use their game for your videos. It's completely within YouTube's rules and copyright policy to do so. If an LPer needs to make videos to make money, there are companies that declare publicly that footage of their game can be monetized. Blizzard has said you can use their footage and Mojang is fine with Minecraft. If someone's whole schtick is Nintendo stuff, they can always Rifftrax it. Put the footage as a different video on youtube that Nintendo can run ads on if they want, and then make your own video that is completely your own content that you can run ads on however you want.

Whether or not they should? Something I don't want to delve into because it's a murky area.

Ah, but you are redistributing parts of it. Specifically the images (and probably music). This is in part why most Nintendo games (and probably nearly every game) at the end of the credits say something along the lines of "All rights, including copyrights of Game, Scenario, Program, Music are property of nintendo".

Simply uploading a rip of the game files isn't the only way to redistribute parts of the game which (Apparently) legally belong to nintendo, whether you own a copy of the disc or not.

I'm not arguing it isn't a plantain move (absolutely is), but still, like everything, the goal of a publisher is to get as much of your money as possible while actually given you as few rights as possible.

But it is plausible that at the end of the day they turn out with less money because they lost this free advertising of let's play. Therefor attempting to gather more money, yields them with less.

But it is plausible that at the end of the day they turn out with less money because they lost this free advertising of let's play. Therefor attempting to gather more money, yields them with less.

Maybe. But I seriously doubt it. I'm probably a bit biased because I've never watched a lets play and then gone out and bought the game, while I have been prevented from buying a game BECAUSE i've already watched a lets play of it.

Maybe. But I seriously doubt it. I'm probably a bit biased because I've never watched a lets play and then gone out and bought the game, while I have been prevented from buying a game BECAUSE i've already watched a lets play of it.

ah true enough. honnestly I never even seen a let's play, but I watched that 30minute video and it seemed that it was just a gameplay review. Just is nice but your right that it is more likely to turn players away than to get them invested. Simply because other forms of advertising can lie about the actual experience. They are great though for getting developers to not make crappy/ boring games.

By any chance is there an easy way to find these lets play videos. Part of me feels that its something you view through the Wii U. Like the MiiVerse

By any chance is there an easy way to find these lets play videos. Part of me feels that its something you view through the Wii U. Like the MiiVerse

Lets play just really refer to watching someone play a game through, while doing commentary. Any big (or even most small games now) will have quite a few of them on youtube. Just do a youtube or google video search for Lets play: *game title here*