TheFlyingGerbil Posted December 28, 2014 Author Report Share Posted December 28, 2014 I had £10 of free vouchers so it's worked out well for me. what's cool is every time Nintendo gave you a free game it's eshop value counted toward your total about half of that free money has come from free games so not bad! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Heat Posted January 7, 2015 Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 http://www.destructoid.com/miyamoto-thinks-f-zero-needs-a-new-type-of-controller-interface--285819.phtml No. Stop that shit right now, Miyamoto. F-Zero is plenty game-y as it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted January 7, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Miyamoto said before Mario Kart 8 came out that because that now has anti gravity they'd have to come up with something new to justify another f-zero so I'm not holding my breath for it. The quote about making it more gamey sounds like he's talking about MK8, and they're not making f-zero as they don't want to make a plain racer. Thing that bothers me is I believe racers aren't too expensive to make so it seems like a low risk easy win to release an standard continuation of the series but Nintendo seems so loathe to just do anything straight forward and obvious it's really frustrating. Anyway, got this email from Nintendo a couple of days ago for a New 3DS ambassador edition (comes with an exclusive ambassador shell (top) and smash shell (bottom) - if it was the New XL I probably would have bitten. It shows as in stock and dispatched in 24hrs. Wonder if that means the full UK release is imminent as I don't think they've set a solid date. As it is I will hope they release an XL with swappable faceplates or wait until a special edition XL I like comes out. Maybe they will time the release of the console with a special edition Majora's Mask console. My worry now though is that special editions will only be on the small one as that's the one they can just shove a faceplate on. It still annoys me that's they're fixed on the XL. I just can't work out any logical reason for for it - even using nintendo logic Edited January 7, 2015 by TheFlyingGerbil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. GOH! Posted January 10, 2015 Report Share Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) That "Nintendo" branded 3DS looks really good. It makes me think of 70's and 80's sci fi movies, like Alien or the Abyss. I like it. Edited January 10, 2015 by Mr. GOH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 30, 2015 Report Share Posted January 30, 2015 Well Nintendo just rolled out a revenue sharing program for youtube channels where they take 30% of the ad revenue for any monetized channel that uses footage of their Wii U games, proving once again that Nintendo just does not fucking get how new media works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Well Nintendo just rolled out a revenue sharing program for youtube channels where they take 30% of the ad revenue for any monetized channel that uses footage of their Wii U games, proving once again that Nintendo just does not fucking get how new media works. People getting 70% is a lot better than getting 0%. I'm amazed at the reaction to this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Well considering they very likely don't actually have the legal right to issue takedowns in the first place, it's pretty shitty. It'd be like saying the mob charging you 30% for protection is fine because it's better than them just not letting you have your business at all. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Even if they did have the right, it's just plain bad business. PewDiePie has already come out and said that Nintendo games are now on the bottom of his Let's Play list. Regardless of how you feel about PewDiePie, his channel has over 35 million subscribers. That's 35 million people he could have promoted Nintendo games to and now he won't. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 A fantastic way to get less people covering your games, good job Nintendo! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Even if they did have the right, it's just plain bad business. PewDiePie has already come out and said that Nintendo games are now on the bottom of his Let's Play list. Regardless of how you feel about PewDiePie, his channel has over 35 million subscribers. That's 35 million people he could have promoted Nintendo games to and now he won't. So this changes... nothing then? That's my point here. This is better than it was before. Yet, in classic video game fan fashion, it's not good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Jack Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 No. It's not good enough. That's exactly it. It's NOT good enough because Let's Players have no reason to agree to this when they can stream or record literally thousands of non-Nintendo games without having to give up 30% of the ad revenue. Nintendo has no leverage here. They need the youtubers more than the youtubers need Nintendo. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 How is it good enough to illegally extort only 30% of profits? IT'S STILL ILLEGAL! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TCP Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 This is perfect! For now on I'm going to take 40% of FDS' paycheck. FDS, if you're not happy about this don't worry, you still get 60% of your paycheck which is more than the 0% you could be getting. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted January 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Why is it illegal? Don't Nintendo have a right for people to not publicly show their copyrighted work, or is it different because a person is playing and commenting on it rather than, say just uploading a movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 or is it different because a person is playing and commenting on it rather than, say just uploading a movie. This. In the US fair use allows you to redistribute work, even for profit, as long as that work is somehow transformed by your additions/modifications/commentary. It's more complicated than that, as most things are, but that's the gist of it. The problem is that the person having their shit taken down has to have the resources to be able to challenge that, and Nintendo still has lots of money for lawyers. Now something they almost certainly would have the right to have taken down would be cutscene uploads, since those are more like a movie and just the straight copyrighted material with no modification. Game/Show has a pretty good video that goes into more detail on the subject: 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Which is why the most successful Let's Plays are part of a media group/business, i.e. Polaris, which in turn is part of Maker Studios. So that's why I don't see why the BIG Let's Players out there would care about the ad revenue off Nintendo games. Their paycheck comes from larger sources than just YouTube ads. Thus, people like Game Grumps still play Nintendo games. Of course, this beta program (or whatever) isn't that good simply because you only get revenue off a selection of Nintendo games. That's it. YouTube ad revenue will never be enough on its own for the millions of kids trying to be PewDiePie to make a living. Ya gotta kinda sell your soul to someone for that kind of money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 To me it just sounds like a bunch of spoiled children not getting what they want. I'm sorry you're going to make slightly less money for your shitty commentary over a game you don't have anywhere near the talent or skills to produce yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Well you're wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 I honestly don't get why Nintendo would make a big deal out of Let's Plays, except for how much they're paranoid about their brands now compared to the 80's. The best analogy you could come up with is that people who make LPs (or what have you) are like waiters at the YouTube restaurant. Sony and Microsoft don't mind giving you a tip (allowing ad revenue on YouTube) because that's part of the experience. Nintendo will give you a tip, but only if you bring them the daily special or their favorite appetizer, and then they'll give you a slightly smaller tip. If you live for tips, then I can see why you're miffed at Nintendo only meeting you part of the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFlyingGerbil Posted January 31, 2015 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 aren't Nintendo, MS and Sony more like the people in the back cooking the food and Nintendo wants the waiters (LPers) to share the tips they're earning as they're the ones making the food the customers are enjoying enough to leave a tip. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Yeah I would say that sounds much better of an analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 Except that's a terrible analogy. Nintendo is producing games. LPers are not delivering games, they are delivering visual/audio recordings of those games along with commentary on them. What is happening here is Nintendo is making food, LPers are taking pictures of that food and putting them in the newspaper along with their thoughts as they consume the food, and Nintendo is demanding a cut of the newspaper's advertising revenue. LPers have a legal right to produce, distribute, and profit from their content, and Nintendo has no right to stop them, or to demand a cut. Nonetheless, they issue takedowns, and then say that they'll generously allow you to do something they have no right to stop you doing, if only you'll agree to do it the way they want and to give them a cut. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faiblesse Des Sens Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 So why isn't anyone suing them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMightyEthan Posted January 31, 2015 Report Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) Because that's expensive and it's easier to just make LPs of different games. *Edit* - And because of the fucked-up way the DMCA is set up, it puts the burden on the supposed transgressor to sue. All Nintendo has to do is issue a takedown notice to Youtube and Youtube has to take the shit down unless the person who put it up starts a lawsuit to challenge it, whereas in the analogy I made above the burden would be on Nintendo to sue the newspaper to try to get them to pay up or stop publishing the stuff. This set up really encourages frivolous/borderline claims, because there's basically no downside. Edited January 31, 2015 by TheMightyEthan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CorgiShinobi Posted February 1, 2015 Report Share Posted February 1, 2015 I'm trying to understand the arguments, so I hope you don't think I'm directly opposing you here. I'm still in agreement it's a foolish concept that a company would have something so unnecessary where the alternative is to do nothing and let the LPers do what they do with the website they publish their material on. The only catch for myself is that I've seen LPs request takedowns, very rarely mind you, where their content that heavily relies on an original content now becomes new original content. It's a weird practice is all I'm saying, not that they don't have any legal right. Like, we've gone from a form of individual commentary to brands and communities revolving around watching video games. As I type that, I get deja vu to the Abridged Series era of YouTube and how now some have converted over to LPs. Strange times I tell ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.