Sheikah

It's more that you wanted to paint this whole thing as a big "publicity stunt" (as in, the entire point of him ever covering Mario Party was to produce a monetised rant video) that I strongly disagree with. I think if you view this in terms of 'publicity' towards the message (ie. 'Nintendo plz don't do this') then I'd agree with you, but as it stands; no.

Ha! You haven't a clue what you're talking about: He couldn't have ended up getting paid for this video at all. It wasn't eligible for the Creators Program. Also, what an absurd statement, suggesting he did it for publicity. Why would you do it for publicity if your video is taken down so you can't make any money from it? Think about it Serebii - think long and hard! (Pst - answer is, you wouldn't.). God, you don't half talk a right load of sycophantic nonsense, Serebii.

Actually, he couldn't get any revenue for the Mario Party at all (due to when the game was released), so he removed the video. Despite the fact you said the cut was too high, you clearly weren't supporting this guy (in fact, most of your original post was in support of Nintendo and how he 'should have known'). I think people here are failing to realise that A) this is bad publicity and B) they don't stand to lose money by letting people stream their content. In fact, they'll probably gain money, because people see it being played and want to play it themselves. That's why other companies are paying people to cover their games. You guys have a point regarding "this is our content, we should get a cut" but ultimately this way of thinking is quite old fashioned and counter-productive. I could understand if they were losing money - for instance, curtailing illegal MP3 downloads as that's exactly the same thing as you'd get if you paid for it through a digital store. But here, if you charge people like this...why would people bother covering it? There's so many games to cover these days in which you won't be charged to do so. So why bother? It's just a totally daft approach, and anyone who thinks otherwise isn't seeing the bigger picture. This is yet another delightful focus on the fossil that is Nintendo and their policies in relation to everyone else. Forbes have typed a pretty good explanation about why this sucks:

Right, it's the same as a streaming a book or film, because it's not like you play the game as opposed to just watch the game when you buy it. Companies make more money from having people publicise their games; like he said, some companies are actively paying people to cover their content. The idea you should charge people when their actions cause you to make more money is fucking batshit. Funnily enough, taking 100% of the ad revenue for making a video about your game is likely to discourage well know personalities from ever covering your games ever again, don't you think?

I love that throughout his video he called out every argument fanboys will make in defence of Nintendo in response to his rant, all of which you pretty much just made here. The point is not whether he expected it or not, as then you're trying to put him down on a technicality. The point is what actually happened - Nintendo claiming all of his as revenue from the video, something other companies don't do because he's giving their games free publicity. Once again, it shows just how out of touch Nintendo are with the modern day. Utterly bananas decision.

The problem I had with DK64 was the amount of backtracking - you walk across the level and you'll see coins/bananas/barrels of different colours, meaning you have to keep going back to the character select barrel. Compared to Banjo Kazooie it is a bit of a mess. DKC is pure bliss though.

The thing is though, if people are noticing it and have seemingly never mentioned anything similar for other games then that suggests there may be some kind of lag associated with this game.

From what I've heard, the games are pretty weak. Not played them though.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me or are deliberately ignoring what I said. I'm saying that those examples do prove Nintendo don't always put gameplay first because they outsource development to other companies that don't necessarily hold the same values. In this case, they put time and resources above creating a game themselves so it has solid gameplay.

Nope, I too have been saying how I don't really care about/prioritise the ability to play VC games. I've replayed most of the greats now, and I seriously doubt this would have much of a draw for most gamers anyway. The future for Nintendo is not in the past.

Nintendo can hardly be putting gameplay first all the time if they leave Nintendo games in the hands of companies who don't put gameplay first, can they?

Fair enough. Here is a demo of the original game (not rebirth) that might give you a taster, although it's pretty limited. http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/581168

I don't understand this...surely any game you have not played might not be enjoyable to you after your purchase it? That is the risk of any game without a demo. I'm starting to see why only endless Nintendo sequels like Mario Kart 8/9 seem to do particularly well on Nintendo's consoles now. Games where you know exactly what you're getting. Binding of Isaac is super cheap relative to most games, well worth a punt.

Well I guess you could always buy it to find out.

Binding of Isaac is a brilliant indie game, if Nintendo fans don't support it then they have nobody else to blame when games don't reach Nintendo consoles!

Strongly disagree, the biggest problem with this series is that nothing changes; changing just visuals/aesthetic would not solve this. We'd still be trundling through the same world map style, the same boss structure, the same level themes, mostly the same power ups, same pretty much everything else. Such a stale franchise that continues to sell because it's Mario Bros.

I think he said he'll never buy it, sounded pretty convinced he'd never contemplate it either though.

Yep, he outright said it a few times that there's no way he ever will.

Damn that's rough. You tried the cannon?

IMO, the idea that the console would be the 'ultimate' Nintendo console based (primarily) on its ability to play old games kinda highlights the problems here; die hard fans often just want more of what they know. I'd much rather there were lots more new games and to be honest, VC doesn't really matter to me. I've had the chance to replay the best VC games over the past 2 consoles so it's hardly a pull for me. It really does shock me that people buy the same games again when they might already own the disc that they could put in that very console, despite next to no work having been put in on the digital release (ie. no/next to no remastering has taken place). But then again, people going mad for the flagrantly expensive amiibos is pretty shocking to me too. Getting a functional VC catalogue up in the background is a nice idea but ultimately old content isn't going to carve out a memorable history for the console. An account system, functioning online and treating their audience like adults unless otherwise specified will put them on a somewhat level footing but they'd really need to tap into the consciousness of the modern gamer with more game concepts and IPs designed this side of the century.

Splatoon is £22.95 to preorder at TheGameCollection. Just use the code 2off20. Also 2% Quidco.

mmm...this pretty much just looks like Animal Crossing, but you can't go outside. Kinda claustrophobic really!

Just click any old shit for the survey. They make a system that makes you do a survey every time and they should rightfully get back BS.