Wii Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Nintendo have just announced the Nintendo Creators Program for Youtube. There's a beta website up. The program will launch on May 27th. It will give video creators an opportunity to earn some of the revenue generated from Nintendo related videos on Youtube. https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/ The full list of video games that qualify for the program are listed in the link below and of course due to future change. https://r.ncp.nintendo.net/whitelist/ Registration Rules You can register single videos or entire channels. When you register a channel, you will be eligible to receive a share of advertising revenue from Nintendo for all videos included in that channel, regardless of their content. If you only want some videos to apply to this program, please register each video individually. You can only use channels or videos that contain copyrighted content related to game titles specified by Nintendo, and they must be your original creations. Be sure your videos do not contain copyrighted material from third parties or content from unconfirmed game titles. See here for a list of Nintendo game titles specified for use with this program. It can regularly take up to three business days for your registered content to be reviewed and finalized. The advertisement revenue share is 70% for channels and 60% for videos. (This rate may be changed arbitrarily.) In order to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and as a condition to participating in the Nintendo Creators Program, you must include the following disclosure with any videos you create that contain Nintendo content: I have a license to use Nintendo’s content in this video through the Nintendo Creators Program. This video is not sponsored or endorsed by Nintendo, but any advertising revenue from this video will be shared with Nintendo. This disclosure may be spoken (e.g., in the YouTube video) or written (e.g., in the YouTube caption or as on-screen text in the video). Regardless of format, you need to make sure the disclosure is prominently presented, easy to understand, and clearly visible and/or audible to anyone who views your video. Advertising Revenue Payments Revenue shares will be calculated from the point that registration is complete. Revenue shares are calculated at the end of each month, and it will take up to two months for payments to be sent to your PayPal account. You can check the payment results on-screen just after you log in. Payments are made in US dollars. Payments may not be completed if - your PayPal account is not verified; - your account has been deleted; or - any other problem occurs with the PayPal account you registered to receive payments. Edited January 29, 2015 by Wii Automerged Doublepost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dcubed Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 That's a pretty small selection of games really, when you consider their whole back catalogue... That being said, it's pretty cool to see that of all of their games they could've started it off with, they picked Sin & Punishment on the N64 as one of them. Kudos for that at least! :awesome: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peeps Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 You can apparently only sign up if you're in the US or Japan? I was having a look and you have to select the country you live in but only those two options were available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wii Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Nintendo's New Partnership Program is HORRIBLE for Game Journalism It would be helpful if I posted the accompanying article. Nintendo's YouTube Plan Is Already Being Panned By YouTubers Nintendo launched a new affiliate program yesterday for YouTubers that, on paper sounds like a good thing. It's a way to let YouTubers make money off their Nintendo-related videos on YouTube, after all. But if you look at the finer details, things don't look so great. Called the "Nintendo Creator's Program," the scheme lets people earn advertising proceeds on any Nintendo-related stuff that uses gameplay footage of Nintendo games. Think Let's Plays, like the kind that Pewdiepie does. Or walkthroughs. Or the type of video that an average joe might upload to YouTube about their sick Mario platforming. All of this stuff would be eligible to make money from advertising. In order to earn the money, YouTubers can register specific videos or entire channels with Nintendo. Individual videos can earn 60% of advertising proceeds, and registered channels can earn a little more—70%. Unless Nintendo decides to change that. And they can. The Nintendo Creator's program says that this rate "may be changed arbitrarily." Presumably, Nintendo wouldn't be a jerk about this and wouldn't just change the rate to something ridiculous, but the fact that fine print exists at all does not inspire confidence. The other big problem with this policy is that it puts certain type of Nintendo content in an awkward position. In many cases, the idea that Nintendo would want to take a share of the money produced by video content of their products makes some sense: they made the game(s) in question, and want in on the action. Of course they do. But let's say a YouTuber decides to make a review of a Nintendo product. Should Nintendo be able to get a cut of the advertising revenue on such a video? When a review runs in a professional gaming outlet, chances are good that the outlet would not be paying a developer or publisher a certain percentage of money just because they use footage of a game. That'd be crazy. But on YouTube, it's going to be policy. Another aspect of this program that could potentially prove disadvantageous for YouTubers is the fact that it can "regularly take up to three business days" for registered videos to be reviewed and okayed. While it's unclear on whether or not an entire registered channel would have to wait that long, the problems with this system and individual Nintendo-related videos is clear. Again, let's use the example of a YouTuber producing a review of a game. Would the fact they have to get the video okayed by Nintendo influence what someone says? Is there a chance a policy like this could make people timid about criticizing Nintendo, or offering valid critique?Let's say a YouTuber get a game in advance, and they crunch on it so that they can get a review out on time, before embargo. Having to add in three day's worth of potential waiting time is absurd in that scenario: it's hard enough to get reviews out on time, when it's useful to someone who would like to make an informed purchasing decision. Adding rules that require Nintendo to okay a video before it can run does not serve the interest of the consumer, or the interests of a YouTuber: it only serves Nintendo. Now, that's not to say the current program is all bad. Certainly it's better than what existed before, where Nintendo-related content only let Nintendo and YouTube make advertising revenue. And Nintendo isn't fumbling YouTube as badly as companies like Sega, that have shut down entire channels just so that the company could get eyeballs on the videos they want, and not the videos that are produced by YouTubers. This new program by Nintendo at least lets YouTubers, who are actually making the original content, get some money out of their hard work too. But, in its current state, the program isn't well-constructed, either. As a result, some YouTubers aren't very happy about the new affiliate program. "This program further drives a wedge between video creators and game developers," YouTuber Zack Scott wrote on his Facebook page. "I've always felt our relationship was mutually beneficial, and most developers from large AAA studios to the smallest indies agree. I cringed when I heard about certain YouTubers demanding a percentage of game sales revenue in exchange for coverage. I feared that developers would adopt the same sentiment and demand a percentage of video ad revenue. With Nintendo's latest move, that time has come." "Not only do you have to essentially pay Nintendo to review their game, you have to review their game by their rules," YouTuber Geek Remix griped in a recent video. "You've signed a contract with them in order to be allowed to review their game." Last year, Nintendo promised that their affiliate program would be a mutually beneficial one, where content creators would be granted some sort of access to resources they might not otherwise have. And in the past, Nintendo has worked with certain YouTubers, like Mega64, to make Nintendo-related videos. In those cases, the usefulness of a partnership between Nintendo and YouTubers is clearer: they're both helping each other out, and the result is something that a viewer can enjoy. But, not every Nintendo-related video will work like this, nor should they. Part of the issue here is that Nintendo is clearly interested in molding YouTube coverage to their benefit. You see this in the way Reggie Fils-Aime described the plans to work with YouTubers last year. "The first thing we needed to do was make sure that the content that's out there was representative of the franchises," Fils-Aime said to Kotaku last year. "These are our lifeblood. These are our children. We needed to make sure that the content there was reflective of what these franchises are." Naturally Nintendo doesn't want their products to be misrepresented. But more than anything, it seems that Nintendo would like YouTube to be an extension of their marketing department. But a journalist, critic or YouTuber's interest is not necessarily to make sure their content is on-message, and acceptable to Nintendo. And the fact that content has to be reviewed by Nintendo means that videos can be shot down by Nintendo. While we don't know how much control Nintendo would exert here—can they shoot down a video if it says something negative, for example?—based on principle alone, the program has some problems. And then of course there's the whole dilemma of whether or not Nintendo is entitled to make money off original content that they did not make. That one is up for debate. For now, we've asked Nintendo for clarification on the review process for the program, and will update this story if we hear back. http://kotaku.com/nintendos-youtube-plan-is-already-being-panned-by-youtu-1682527904 Edited January 30, 2015 by Wii Automerged Doublepost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) People not understanding things as always. What gives them the right to profit by posting the entirety of a video game's developer's work anyway? They're whining like entitled children. Nintendo definitely deserves a portion of the profit, as do all developers for all games. You're not allowed to put a movie up and commentate over it and claim all the money, why should you be with games? You're not allowed to print merchandise with say Elsa from Disney and then profit from that without Disney's approval/paying Disney. It's the same damned situation. You also don't have to do this for reviews, contrary to what people seem to believe. Edited January 30, 2015 by Serebii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 How often do people post the whole game though? Plenty of places do this kind of thing for film and TV. Emergency Awesome springs to mind straight away. While you're right established outlets will be fine (as NDAs do allow for video with certain criteria), what about some 13 year old that wants video editing and reviewing experience? We live in a time where people can self learn and develop skills more easily than ever and it seems Nintendo want to ring fence that. Out of interest, what's their stance if you elect not to generate income from videos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) How often do people post the whole game though? Plenty of places do this kind of thing for film and TV. Emergency Awesome springs to mind straight away. While you're right established outlets will be fine (as NDAs do allow for video with certain criteria), what about some 13 year old that wants video editing and reviewing experience? We live in a time where people can self learn and develop skills more easily than ever and it seems Nintendo want to ring fence that. Out of interest, what's their stance if you elect not to generate income from videos? With Let's Plays, quite often and that's where the money is for Youtube gamers. It's not like you have to do this. If you're a 13 year old doing video and reviewing experience then there you go. You can put it on and nothing. This is just to curb people highly profiting from Nintendo's products, and the youtubers still get the majority of the money. Reviews are also not affected by this as are covered by fair use. Nintendo isn't trying to "ring the fence", they're try to get some of the money from people just showing the entire game they created on Youtube. People are over-reacting and/or misunderstanding this whole situation. Edited January 30, 2015 by Serebii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 With Let's Plays, quite often and that's where the money is for Youtube gamers. It's not like you have to do this. If you're a 13 year old doing video and reviewing experience then there you go. You can put it on and nothing. This is just to curb people highly profiting from Nintendo's products, and the youtubers still get the majority of the money. Reviews are also not affected by this as are covered by fair use. Nintendo isn't trying to "ring the fence", they're try to get some of the money from people just showing the entire game they created on Youtube. People are over-reacting and/or misunderstanding this whole situation. You're arguably also overacting and misunderstanding the counter argument. Can you show me numerous examples from AAA titles where videos show everything? Saying is one thing, it would be good to see substantial evidence. Fine, let's exclude reviews. But at the end of the day this material is easily available and if you want to learn video editing you might not have access to create your own material. Kind of like how Adobe know people pirate Photoshop but accept people buy it if they make a living from it. I've created video material from Nintendo games before. Hell, I created it for Nintendo. It just stinks a bit to me, but we'll see. It could be Nintendo covering their backs and they don't plan to be vigilant about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 You're arguably also overacting and misunderstanding the counter argument. Can you show me numerous examples from AAA titles where videos show everything? Saying is one thing, it would be good to see substantial evidence. Fine, let's exclude reviews. But at the end of the day this material is easily available and if you want to learn video editing you might not have access to create your own material. Kind of like how Adobe know people pirate Photoshop but accept people buy it if they make a living from it. I've created video material from Nintendo games before. Hell, I created it for Nintendo. It just stinks a bit to me, but we'll see. It could be Nintendo covering their backs and they don't plan to be vigilant about this. You honestly believe Let's Plays don't show the vast majority of the games? You honestly want me to link you to the countless Let's Plays that are there? Nintendo isn't saying you're not allowed to post videos. They're saying that if you intend to monetise the videos to gain profit, then they, rightly, want a small portion of said profits since it is their material people are profiting from. You're allowed to make videos with Nintendo content. They're not stopping this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 The main issue I see with this program is that it seems limited in scope (what with only considering certain games), and it also looks like it could become excessively bureaucratic, for something that's only supposed to show people leisurely playing games. Furthermore, most Let's Players I find are either from Germany or Brazil. If what The Peeps is saying is true, those guys won't be included in the program. The article that Wii posted seemed to point out a few other valid concerns (despite the accompanying overreaction video), but they're more along the line of "This could go wrong if they're not careful", instead of "This is inherently wrong". @Ashley: I've watched the Game Grumps play through Sonic Boom, Wind Waker HD, Super Mario Sunshine and, right now, Pokémon Fire Red (which is currently 1000+ minutes long and still counting, because they're not finished yet), and those are the ones I'm remembering right now. ProJared regularly makes Pokémon playthroughs. Just now, I typed "Let's play Hyrule Warriors" and I got multiple accounts doing extensive playthroughs, and clicking on them shows what other games are they doing (which often include other Nintendo games, and recent ones at that). Everything I'm reading about it concerns revenue, and nothing else (like Serebii says). I have not heard of any instance of Nintendo shutting down LPers, and this program certainly isn't indicative that they're going to start now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M_rock Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I can't seem to find a clear answer anywhere, but this is only for direct video game footage right? It doesn't apply to let's say a fanmade Super Mario animation or things like that? Well I guess it's a step in the good direction, if it is indeed intended for let's plays. As always with nintendo it needs work though, they need to support all of their game library. Maybe that will come eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 I can't seem to find a clear answer anywhere, but this is only for direct video game footage right? It doesn't apply to let's say a fanmade Super Mario animation or things like that? Well I guess it's a step in the good direction, if it is indeed intended for let's plays. As always with nintendo it needs work though, they need to support all of their game library. Maybe that will come eventually. As far as we can tell, yeah. It's for Let's Plays and other large non-fair use content that feature the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wii Posted January 30, 2015 Author Share Posted January 30, 2015 I was thinking that list of games a lot of them Nintendo still make money from, I mean they are still available in one form or another either digitallty or at retail. With the exception of some of the Wii and Gamecube games. Perhaps these are the first Gamecube games they have in the pipeline if and when they ever get around to putting them on the eShop. Anyway, someone else has a problem with Nintendo's new program. Pewdiepie blasts Nintendo's YouTube affiliate program Coming from Pewdiepie... I also think this is a slap in the face to the YouTube channels that does focus on Nintendo game exclusively. The people who have helped and showed passion for Nintendo’s community are the ones left in the dirt the most. And finally, when there’s just so many games out there to play. Nintendo games just went to the bottom of that list. Even if more publishers starts implementing this idea of sharing revenue. Then fine, there’s always going to be plenty of games out there, ready to become the next “Mienkraft” – Sounds cheesy, but it’s true. http://www.gonintendo.com/s/246264-pewdiepie-blasts-nintendo-s-youtube-affiliate-program http://pewdie.tumblr.com/post/109571543425/nintendo-sharing-youtube-ad-revenue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Jesus Christ, PewDiePie... "Don't tax me! I'm actually helping you, can't you see?" "I have, like, so many subscribers, it's my awesomeness that's rubbing off on Nintendo. They watch my Nintendo videos because they're mine, not because they're Nintendo!" "Let's Players are going to stop playing Nintendo!...Not me, though, I have so much money." "I'm going to intentionally misspell Minecraft, now." Humble, my ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 You honestly believe Let's Plays don't show the vast majority of the games? You honestly want me to link you to the countless Let's Plays that are there? Nintendo isn't saying you're not allowed to post videos. They're saying that if you intend to monetise the videos to gain profit, then they, rightly, want a small portion of said profits since it is their material people are profiting from. You're allowed to make videos with Nintendo content. They're not stopping this. Not necessarily, but an answer more like Jonas' where he provided examples would have been helpful. You say "rightly" because yes, it's understandable and the law is on their side, but should we not be able to discuss flipping the existing model. Would the money they get be better than the exposure they might otherwise lose out on? Is chasing the dollar better than chasing the audience? It's not like Nintendo is putting out these kind of videos themselves (promotional and event-specific material aside). What harm is it if other people are advertising for them? Is the potential lost advertising revenue from YouTube going to be worse than the sales that come come out of good exposure? These are all genuine hypothetical. None of us have the knowledge needed to even begin to try and answer those. They're just floating quandaries. To me, on a very personal level, it just feels like Nintendo once again not really understanding how much the market has changed since they ruled it. But I stress, that's just personal feeling. As the old saying goes - "I don't know how to describe pornography, but I know it when I see it". I can't really hit the nail to explain why this whole thing is making me feel this way, it just feels unsavoury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choze Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 Wow Nintendo fans are idiots. Keep buying them Amiibos guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr_Master_X2 Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) People not understanding things as always. What gives them the right to profit by posting the entirety of a video game's developer's work anyway? They're whining like entitled children. Nintendo definitely deserves a portion of the profit, as do all developers for all games. You're not allowed to put a movie up and commentate over it and claim all the money, why should you be with games? You're not allowed to print merchandise with say Elsa from Disney and then profit from that without Disney's approval/paying Disney. It's the same damned situation. You also don't have to do this for reviews, contrary to what people seem to believe. Thank you Lord, someone has common sense! BUT...and I say this BUT as a "What if?" only... We get to the state you can't show ANY footage of Nintendo stuff on Youtube without Nintendo's approval? (copyrights and such) And the only way to get ANYTHING Nintendo related on Youtube is to go through Nintendo? And they only let through positive stuff? What then? Let's face it, we're heading that way for nearly EVERYTHING that's licensed. Factor in all other reasons for removing videos (like it not fitting the current political paradigm, political correct BS and other "don't think for yourself" stuff) Youtube of the future is going to be one very sterilised place, basically a mockery of its origins. But hopefully this is just Nintendo being nice (to itself and Nintendo fans), giving them an in to make money where they may have made nothing. Y'know, and not the first step in some nefarious endgame lockdown. Edited January 31, 2015 by Mr_Master_X2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hero-of-Time Posted February 2, 2015 Share Posted February 2, 2015 That bait and switch was beautiful. Man, I love Jim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wii Posted February 2, 2015 Author Share Posted February 2, 2015 Yep, had this been EA the pitchforks would be out and I know certain members tune would be different. As Jim says and I've said in another thread, they should have left well enough alone. When Nintendo won't spend money on advertising, taxing the people that give them free advertising of their products is just a smidgen ironic. And it will result in people just not bothering with Nintendo videos anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wii Posted February 3, 2015 Author Share Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Editorial: Nintendo's YouTube Creators Program 'Beta' Provides Vital Feedback - It Won't Work Copyright is one thing, but YouTube power resides with the creators Last week Nintendo launched its YouTube Creators Program, which had been long promised as a compromise between simply preventing monetisation of videos featuring its content and the alternative of leaving video creators with free rein. What's happened since is a typical clash of sensibilities, where Nintendo is arguably both in the right and conversely getting it wrong. Let's kick off by summarising the deal, as the program is in beta in North America and Japan - the following is updated from our original article for the scheme: Interested YouTube creators can register for the program with their Google details, and they'll also need to use a PayPal account to receive their shares of revenues. If channels are registered they must only feature Nintendo first-party content, otherwise videos must be registered one at a time. There can be a wait of "up to three business days for your registered content to be reviewed and finalized". Once registered, all video advertising revenues initially go to Nintendo, but then (within two months of the video kicking off in the program) 70% (channels) or 60% (individual videos) of revenue will go back to the creator. Revenue is calculated after a month, with money taking two months to be passed to the creator's PayPal account. Only specified games are eligible for the program. A clear message must be read out or displayed in all registered videos. Starting with the arguments for this promotion, Nintendo is offering a share of revenue on its copyrighted footage and audio, which it is perfectly entitled to do. There are some publishers that simply shut down unofficial footage with copyright claims, while Nintendo is opening a door to those previously excluded and lifting some restrictions. In the eyes of copyright law - and YouTube's own rules - Nintendo seems to be on incontrovertible ground. Those are about the only positive comments we can muster - we think an applicable principle is that just because you can do something and have rules on your side, doesn't make it the right course of action. Not currently included in the program Even assuming agreement to the principle of the program, the execution in this beta stage has flaws - the list of permitted games excludes the biggest titles of the past Holiday season, such as Super Smash Bros. for Wii U, Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire and Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker. Right off the bat content creators are being told that the hottest Wii U and 3DS games of the moment are off-limits, which is a poor idea in the internet age when trends move on rapidly. Another issue is the fact that Nintendo is checking each submission and allowing three days to do so - if you want to take part, your channel or individual videos must fit an undefined set of rules. We understand the defences that are raised for this program, but the problem lies in the overtly negative reactions from prominent YouTubers. It is these channels, these Creators, that are the trend-setters on the platform. As we reported last week, prominent YouTubers, including the most subscribed channel on the whole platform, came out against the program. More have jumped in besides, so when we add up the influential voices of Pewdiepie, TotalBiscuit, Jim Sterling and many more besides, there are millions of people reading words or watching videos that denounce the program. The concerns raised are valid, too. Anyone who considers themselves a 'critic' will instinctively feel uncomfortable when their videos go through an authorisation process, while limits on the available games immediately introduces a tiered system, where directly approved channels - such as Smosh Games - produce weekly Super Smash Bros. for Wii U content while others can't. YouTube played a role in Minecraft's rise to prominence, and vice-versa The fact is - uncomfortable as it is for Nintendo and all with its interests at heart - that the biggest names on YouTube don't need the big N's games. Titles that dominate the trending category for gaming include Minecraft, League of Legends, Five Nights at Freddy's, GTA V, Call of Duty and various others. These are the sorts of games that draw big numbers, and videos that go viral or grab attention are typically those - unsurprisingly - with publishers that take all the free marketing and exposure they can get. It's certainly not our intention to portray the YouTube creative community as above all reproach, as like any media there are plenty of strengths but also weaknesses; in recent months there have been some grubby deals emerging in which some of the biggest corporations try to pay underhandedly for exposure, for example. It's understandable that Nintendo doesn't want to be seen to pay off channels - without proper recognition of the deal in place - in return for videos, yet it could quite easily raise its hands and leave YouTubers to try and make a living with its games if they so please. Like in all media, whether conventional print, web-based games writing or increasingly powerful video content, there's a balance to be found. Splatoon could benefit from extensive YouTube play Regardless of the rights and wrongs and whether you agree with the principles of the Creators Program or not, it seems doomed to failure and may well benefit from being ditched after - or during - its beta stage. If the biggest names on YouTube aren't happy with it, then hopes to get Nintendo trending on a daily basis on YouTube are very unlikely to succeed. Nintendo can continue to grow its conventional efforts, which it has done well with Nintendo Direct videos and regular trailers, but it'll struggle to get Splatoon user videos generating heat alongside CoD online matches. For any YouTube channel making real money and paying salaries, the idea of committing much effort to Nintendo products only to jump through hoops and lose 30-40% of revenue isn't exactly tempting, especially when other major and indie publishers impose no restrictions at all. At the start of this year we said Nintendo was wise to embrace the YouTube audience, citing high-profile channel appearances and general progress in 2014. We also said there was "room for improvement... more gamers seeing what it has to offer will bring improved chances of Nintendo returning to rule the roost in years to come." This Creators Program damages those prospects. Nintendo's improved efforts in 2014 still demonstrated that it wanted to control the message, to ensure that positivity was the emphasis when its content was featured. This doesn't tally with the way YouTube works on a broader sense. To progress from staged videos to genuinely trending needs Nintendo to change its outlook, to cede control; it should have no fear in this, it should back the quality of its games to do the talking. Yet it isn't doing that, not yet. Until Nintendo truly understands that YouTube's power-brokers and trend-setters are those with millions of subscribers, not publishers, it'll fail to reach its potential on the platform. http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2015/02/editorial_nintendos_youtube_creators_program_beta_provides_vital_feedback_-_it_wont_work Edited February 3, 2015 by Wii Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnas Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Oh, so it was a Beta, and Nintendo aren't actually implementing the thing yet? That's good to hear. Even though they have a right to do something about it, it's good to know they're not going to jump the gun. Also, could the people who write those articles stop mentioning Minecraft so much? What I keep hearing is "Youtube was great for a game's success, that one time, five years ago. Once." Surely, if Youtube is so good at publicity, there are other examples of success? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wii Posted February 6, 2015 Author Share Posted February 6, 2015 Nintendo Excludes Smash Bros From YouTube Partner Program Pokemon and Bayonetta also banned from ad revenue sharing scheme. Nintendo has excluded the entire lineage of Super Smash Bros games from its Content Creators Program, meaning that YouTube personalities who wanted to upload videos of the series will not be eligible for a cut of Nintendo’s ad revenue. Also blocked are third-party games licenced by Nintendo, such as Pokemon and Bayonetta. The surprise omission comes just days after Nintendo launched its YouTube revenue-sharing initiative, which gives a slice of ad revenue to people who upload videos of certain Wii U, 3DS and legacy console games. However, the scheme itself triggered controversy upon its announcement, specifically because it benefits those who create positive Nintendo coverage, and due to Nintendo's unusual decision to regulate its YouTube ad revenue. Although copyright holders have default control over the distribution of ad revenue on videos featuring their games, most publishers and developers take a hands-off approach, allowing the YouTube channel owner to take the ad royalties. Yet Nintendo’s new Content Creators scheme means it will take all ad revenue (after Google’s mandatory cut), and only split the earnings with videos that it approves. While the approval process itself could take up to 72 hours, Nintendo also notes that videos will need to be free of characters and IP that it does not own. Now the publisher has published a “white List” of games it will approve, with Super Smash Bros for Wii U being the most glaring omission. Felix Kjellberg, the creator of the most subscribed channel on YouTube, recently published a blog listing his concerns with Nintendo's entire approach to video monetisation. "What Nintendo are missing out on completely is the free exposure and publicity that they get from YouTube," he wrote. "What better way to sell or market a game, than from watching someone else (that you like) playing it and enjoying themselves?" He concluded: "I think this is a slap in the face to the YouTube channels that does focus on Nintendo game exclusively. The people who have helped and showed passion for Nintendo's community are the ones left in the dirt the most. There’s just so many games out there to play. Nintendo games just went to the bottom of that list." http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-excludes-smash-bros-from-youtube-partner-/1100-6425131/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 Also blocked are third-party games licenced by Nintendo, such as Pokemon and Bayonetta. Ahahahahahahaha. Love the research that went into that article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 It's almost as laughable as the scheme itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serebii Posted February 6, 2015 Share Posted February 6, 2015 It's almost as laughable as the scheme itself. Nintendo, and all developers, deserve a portion of the money being made off their intellectual property being completely uploaded to youtube. Nintendo just went the wrong way about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts