Jonnas Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Oh, so it was about the "Limited List of games" business. That's something Nintendo should correct ASAP, but these badly made responses (such as that rant video) aren't making it clear what the real issue is. (Also, I can forgive Forbes for doing it (they're not a dedicated games magazine), but dammit, does everyone need to mention Minecraft regarding this issue? The fact that writers can't seem to think of any example besides Minecraft makes it sound like Youtube publicity benefited only one game ever)
Sheikah Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 The reason they mention Minecraft is because it's by far the most successful one. Why mention other games when only one is needed to show how well a free system works? Keep the article short and sweet and to the point, I say. I'd also say if you watch the rant video then it's wonderfully clear what the problem is. Unless you don't speak English?
Rummy Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 The free publicity argument is a complete fallacy. It's not free publicity. Then how much is it costing them?
Zechs Merquise Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) I don't think developers do deserve a cut of money from Youtubers or Twitch users. With movies and music it's different. The benefit derived from a movie is gained from watching it - so uploading a movie and having others watch it does diminish the worth of the movie to those who have viewed it - the same applies to music, as the point of music is to simply listen. However with games, the point of a game is to play it. Gameplay and user input is the point. So simply watching a game being played is not diminishing its worth in the same way that watching a movie diminishes its worth. By uploading a movie to Youtube, all those who watch it get exactly what they would have done had they bought the movie and paid for it. By uploading footage of a game, all those who watch it don't get anything other than the ability to watch someone else enjoying it. They don't get the challenge, the feeling of accomplishment or mastery and they don't get fun. Just for the record - I am also against the shitty practice of online codes that Sony and EA use to ensure that people can't resell their copies of games and put a stranglehold on the second hand market. I don't know why gamers and game developers think that the 'industry' should profit off second hand games or from people watching others play games. It's bizarre. Once you own a game, it is yours and if you want to resell it, or film yourself playing it you should be able to. Edited April 7, 2015 by Zechs Merquise
markderoos Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 I don't think it's totally different from music and movies. Watching someone play Zelda for example can massively spoil story, sense of amazement, hearing music for the first time, encountering new inhabitants/scenery for the first time. That alone could put off some potential buyers. But yeah, I too find that Nintendo should loosen up a little on this front. 10/20% seems more fair.
Jonnas Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 The reason they mention Minecraft is because it's by far the most successful one. Why mention other games when only one is needed to show how well a free system works? Keep the article short and sweet and to the point, I say. Every single article mentions Minecraft, and most don't mention any other example. They should feel free to mention one or two extra examples, but that rarely happens. Or better yet, games released in the past year. It's like claiming "Motion controls are a highly successful business model due to games such as Wii Sports". Simply mentioning the most successful example without any context and making it sound like the norm makes for a bad argument. I'd also say if you watch the rant video then it's wonderfully clear what the problem is. Unless you don't speak English? He doesn't bring up the "limited list" issue. If he did, it must've been very briefly inside that 10 minute video filled with swearing and emotional outbursts. He spends more time insulting fanboys (irrelevant to the issue), or saying "Beanie Babies", than he does bringing up the limited list. Or any particular aspect of the program. He could propose a compromise, but he didn't. He could argue that reviews fall under "fair use" so Nintendo have no right to monetise them, but he didn't. He doesn't even get the number right (there is a significant difference between 20% and 40%). What he proposes is "You should do what EA does and pay us, instead!". The message I get from the video is "Nintendo taxing us isn't cool, and anybody who defends their actions is a fanboy!". It falls under "badly made" criticism.
Sheikah Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Every single article mentions Minecraft, and most don't mention any other example. They should feel free to mention one or two extra examples, but that rarely happens. Or better yet, games released in the past year. It's like claiming "Motion controls are a highly successful business model due to games such as Wii Sports". Simply mentioning the most successful example without any context and making it sound like the norm makes for a bad argument. That's a pretty tenuous example; the flawed argument that motion controls are some kind of 'success template' based on one fairly untranslatable game is not the same as putting forward a popular example that proves a concept. Minecraft proves the concept works; a concept that can be applied to other games. It's not the same as a gameplay element that may only work well with only one type of game. He doesn't bring up the "limited list" issue. If he did, it must've been very briefly inside that 10 minute video filled with swearing and emotional outbursts. He spends more time insulting fanboys (irrelevant to the issue), or saying "Beanie Babies", than he does bringing up the limited list. Or any particular aspect of the program. His main argument is with Nintendo and their attitude to skimming the top off broadcaster's profits. It's not normal practice, and I think he gets the message across with regards to that pretty well. He could propose a compromise, but he didn't. He could argue that reviews fall under "fair use" so Nintendo have no right to monetise them, but he didn't. He doesn't even get the number right (there is a significant difference between 20% and 40%). What he proposes is "You should do what EA does and pay us, instead!". The message I get from the video is "Nintendo taxing us isn't cool, and anybody who defends their actions is a fanboy!". It falls under "badly made" criticism. Because why struggle to battle people that are behaving like dicks? I totally get why he just removed it. Not worth the fuss, really. Why keep it around to promote their game?
Jonnas Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 That's a pretty tenuous example; the flawed argument that motion controls are some kind of 'success template' based on one fairly untranslatable game is not the same as putting forward a popular example that proves a concept. Minecraft proves the concept works; a concept that can be applied to other games. It's not the same as a gameplay element that may only work well with only one type of game. Out of curiosity, can you name any other game that benefited significantly from the publicity of Let's Players? Bonus points if it was released recently. His main argument is with Nintendo and their attitude to skimming the top off broadcaster's profits. It's not normal practice, and I think he gets the message across with regards to that pretty well. The message of "I'm unhappy with the principle of taxing LPers"? Sure, I guess. But that's like saying "U suk" has the same weight as "I disagree with you". Because why struggle to battle people that are behaving like dicks? I totally get why he just removed it. Not worth the fuss, really. Why keep it around to promote their game? I mean, make those points within the rant video. Surely, if he's bothering to film himself making an official response, he'd also bother to come up with arguments to support his point? But you bring up a good question: why should he struggle? My response is, if Nintendo is the first company to tax LPers (because I'm sure others will eventually follow the example, with different models and rates), he could actually propose specific changes to the system, and make it more reasonable. Be a part of this new process. Now, by his own admission, he doesn't play Nintendo games, so this doesn't affect him. Maybe he'll struggle when his favoured companies decide to follow suit.
Serebii Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 His main argument is with Nintendo and their attitude to skimming the top off broadcaster's profits. It's not normal practice, and I think he gets the message across with regards to that pretty well. You're right. It's not normal practice. Normal practice in the entertainment industry is to just kill the video. Other developers do this too, you know.
Happenstance Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 I think the thing as well is that this is just the way the industry is going. Both Sony and Microsoft and literally built the ability to stream and record gameplay into their consoles.
Sheikah Posted April 7, 2015 Posted April 7, 2015 Out of curiosity, can you name any other game that benefited significantly from the publicity of Let's Players? Bonus points if it was released recently. All of them! Seeing a fun game makes me want to play them. How would you measure success with this anyway? Here's a better question to you - can you find an example of damaged profits due to Let's Plays? If you can't answer that question, perhaps you should ask why you're taking the defensive stance in this corporate dick move? If it's not harming them, why damage their image and reputation over it? The message of "I'm unhappy with the principle of taxing LPers"? Sure, I guess. But that's like saying "U suk" has the same weight as "I disagree with you". I ges wen u write it liek dat... Honestly though, if you watch a film, how often do people deliver passion in boring monotone? His goal was to get a point across, which he did rather well (seriously, if you sit back after watching it and not know what his message was, you just weren't listening or don't speak the language). And second to that, he did it while appearing appropriately annoyed. Delivering a list of arguments is one thing, delivering them like you actually give a fuck does more to show that you're not just a spokesperson. Do you just take issue with manners and rude language or something? But you bring up a good question: why should he struggle? My response is, if Nintendo is the first company to tax LPers (because I'm sure others will eventually follow the example, with different models and rates), he could actually propose specific changes to the system, and make it more reasonable. Be a part of this new process. He doesn't need to be part of a new process. There doesn't need to be a new process, this is plain old Nintendo not gauging modern reality again. He just needs to be part of the "I'm calling out bullshit as I see it" movement, which both he and PewDiePie are in regards to Nintendo.
Rummy Posted April 8, 2015 Posted April 8, 2015 Did you accidentally miss or just choose to intentionally ignore my post @Serebii?
Serebii Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Did you accidentally miss or just choose to intentionally ignore my post @Serebii? http://www.serebii.net/rumbleworld I'll get to it when my plate isn't so filled
Recommended Posts