• Welcome to ZD Forums! You must create an account and log in to see and participate in the Shoutbox chat on this main index page.

Should let's playing be a source of income for many?

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Hello,

recently on ZeldaInformer and Gamnesia, I have gotten into arguments over Nintendo's latest policy regarding videos and ad revenue on YouTube among other sites. I believe that let's playing shoudl not be a source of income at all; it's nothing more than posting one's voice over content that clearly does not belong to them. Beyond that, it already is not a stable source of income, so I feel Nintendo should still have a heavy handed approach to their content (i.e. no revenue can be granted to LPers).

but wbu
 
The whole concept of "free advertising" people like to throw around has little to do with this topic. Yes, perhaps Nintendo is being a bit too stringent with its regulations, but their games are copyrighted material. Buying a game means being able to use the software; the game itself is owned by the developer and publisher. People may be upset about this; however, Nintendo isn't overstepping its bounds.
 

Iridescence

Emancipated Wind Fish
Joined
May 11, 2014
Location
United States
Copyright laws protect social criticisms (like reviews, parodies, analyses, critiques). So if the let's play has commentary, they aren't violating any Copyrights.
 

Stitch

AKA Patrick
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Nintendo seems to be coming away from the dark side...at least to a point.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/29/7938333/nintendo-youtube-affiliate-program

Obviously I think that Let's Player's deserve to make what income they can, a lot of work goes into recording and editing the videos. People get paid for playing games all the time (sports, poker, etc) and I don't see why video games seem to be this taboo thing. Yes other people made the video game, but what about the people who made the football or the poker chips? I don't see why video games seem to be the one thing that is so different when it comes to this.
 

Mercedes

つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Location
In bed
Gender
Female
Yes, it should be. At the end of the day, someone's getting paid. Whatever the content, whatever a person's opinion on it, the videos make money, and so I don't think it's unreasonable for the content creator to see some of that money rather than Youtube just pocket 100% of it. It was a fair thing to do and then people discovered they could even earn a living from it. In a way they're giving back to the community who then give them more content to repeat this cycle with, it's a win for all parties involved. So I see no negatives nor any legitimate reason why these people shouldn't make money.

And the weird thing is, if all these Youtubers produced these exact videos for Kotaku, Destructoid, or some other gaming site, therefore earning money from doing so, no one would bat an eye-lid. No idea why the fact this stuff is on Youtube has made it such a hot topic for some.

As for Nintendo's policy, I'm indifferent on it. It's kind of like Dota 2 vs LoL's business model; sure, Dota 2 does it better, but just because it's better doesn't inherently make LoL's bad. So Nintendo's doing it worse than pretty much every single other gaming company, sure, but it's not an inherently bad thing for them to be doing. In comparison, yes. Inherently, no. Do I think it's stupid of them? Yes, but won't go there.
 

Iridescence

Emancipated Wind Fish
Joined
May 11, 2014
Location
United States
Youtube (aka Google) is a private company, so they have the legal right to restrict speech within their private establishment.

Youtube has the legal right to cut off their income, but it's a dick move.

Morally speaking, cmon Nintendo, just let them earn their little pittance. You're earning enough billions. It's just flat-out mean to snub someone who is working hard to promote your material.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
someone who is working hard to promote your material.
Who works hard to promote material for -any- video game creator? I'm genuinely interested. All I really can see is "get game, record voice over it, make cool intro, pls like and subscribe". But I know that that is merely my own experience and there are those who actually work hard - I just don't know who does it.
 

Iridescence

Emancipated Wind Fish
Joined
May 11, 2014
Location
United States
Who works hard to promote material for -any- video game creator? I'm genuinely interested. All I really can see is "get game, record voice over it, make cool intro, pls like and subscribe". But I know that that is merely my own experience and there are those who actually work hard - I just don't know who does it.

Nothing is entirely selfless. Yes, Youtubers are in it for the likes, subscribes and some money. No sin in that. But they're also giving the game exposure.

Let's just stop paying comedians. Entertaining should just be a hobby.

Unless someone does it so well that I want to pay for their time.
 

Ventus

Mad haters lmao
Joined
May 26, 2010
Location
Akkala
Gender
Hylian Champion
Nothing is entirely selfless. Yes, Youtubers are in it for the likes, subscribes and some money. No sin in that. But they're also giving the game exposure.
That's not what I was getting at -- I was trivializing the "promotion" process because that is really all that's required in the "free advertising" gig. What I wanted to know is who it is that actually works hard to promote these sorts of things and companies; I don't see people that work hard at all.
 

Salem

SICK
Joined
May 18, 2013
I think let's playing should be a source of income, I mean it takes people out of the 9 to 5 job market, meaning less competition for the rest of us. So I think it it a good thing.
 

Justac00lguy

BooBoo
Joined
Jul 1, 2012
Gender
Shewhale
I'm split on this.


Technically, Nintendo is very right, it's their game, they have the rights and so they should have control over whether their content is allowed on YouTube, and if it is, they have every right to take a share. YouTube is so big now that the income coming in from games being viewed by millions of people every day can actually be beneficial to the gaming companies.

Thing is, Youtubers make the content and I get the argument that it's the entertainment they provide which makes them so popular, but this is a mutual relationship. Without the games, they have no content. I think it's rather selfish and greedy of a YouTuber, who's getting a pretty nifty paycheck for filming and editing videos for a living to expect to reap all the awards. I could see if Nintendo and YouTube took all the money off them, but it's just a cut and not even a majority cut. The YouTuber is still making money, what do they need to be making so much money now? Why? I know they're involved in a popular industry, but it's a relativity simple job that pays extremely handsomely if you're racking in the subs and views.

I get the arguments for and against, but Nintendo has every right to do this as it's their content. Sure they may get free advertising, but since they produced the game for their to even be advertising, they should take a cut. YouTubers get a cut for making the videos and providing the entertainment, YouTube take a cut for providing the platform, and the game companies get a cut for actually providing the content for the video in the first place.

It's entirely fair of them to do this and YouTubers are lucky in that they've been receiving a range generous cut, but what's so detrimental about a cut of money being taken off them? They should be thankful that YouTube pays so well in the first place.
 
Joined
Oct 14, 2013
Location
Australia
Youtube (aka Google) is a private company, so they have the legal right to restrict speech within their private establishment.
The US constitution disagrees with you.
" Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
Realise this is just an excerpt but I have it as my signature on another forum. I am not from NA but I do like this part of your constitution. If your government can make no law prohibiting free speech, then no one has the legal right to prohibit free speech as the government can not make a low to prohibit it. That would be against the constitution.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom