May 16th, 2013

luigi's mansion

With the onset of the Internet and social media, a phenomenon known as “let’s plays” has taken off on popular video sites like YouTube. It’s essentially a full playthrough of any game with commentary from the person playing and it’s a good representation of what you can expect from a game before you purchase it. Many people, including myself, use let’s plays as a way to gauge whether a game is worth purchasing. Others use them as a way to relive their childhood, as people play through many retro titles.

Nintendo is now taking a piece of the pie according to YouTuber Zack Scott, who recently had his Luigi’s Mansion 2 let’s play videos content ID matched. What does content ID matching mean? It’s a form of copy protection afforded to copyright holders on YouTube. Instead of removing the video, ads that are displayed belong to the original copyright owner instead of the content producer. This means the person producing the content gets no ad revenue and instead, the revenue goes to the copyright holder.

As you can imagine, this has upset many YouTubers who rely on their channels and their videos to generate income for themselves. Scott recently posted about the content ID match on his Facebook page, stating:

I think filing claims against LPers is backwards. Video games aren’t like movies or TV. Each play-through is a unique audiovisual experience. When I see a film that someone else is also watching, I don’t need to see it again. When I see a game that someone else is playing, I want to play that game for myself! Sure, there may be some people who watch games rather than play them, but are those people even gamers?

Scott brings up a valid point, as there have been several games that I have been on the fence about purchasing and ultimately decided to buy after watching a YouTube personality have lots of fun with the title. They’re a great form of advertising and sadly, the way Nintendo is punishing people for playing their titles is going to do more harm than good, when it comes to exposure for their games. YouTube personalities will be less inclined to make let’s play series’ based on Nintendo games since they get no revenue, which decreases exposure. Word of mouth exposure has always been one of the most premium forms of advertising for games.

Even Zack Scott admitted that this decision has lead him stop featuring Nintendo games on his channel.

Since I started my gaming channel, I’ve played a lot of games. I love Nintendo, so I’ve included their games in my line-up. But until their claims are straightened out, I won’t be playing their games. I won’t because it jeopardizes my channel’s copyright standing and the livelihood of all LPers.

Because of how this has affected those doing let’s plays, GameFront got into contact with a Nintendo representative, who stated this change is official and will be the future for let’s plays featured on YouTube.

As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property.

As you can see, Nintendo believes they’re doing the right thing by continuing to allow the content to be published, but ultimately let’s players are not going to be interested in featuring Nintendo content if they’re not able to make revenue profits. What do you think? Is Nintendo right for doing content ID matches and leaving the content up? Or should they allow let’s players to have revenue from their content?

local_offer    Nintendo  wii u  YouTube  
  • Kamon

    Seems fine.

  • Yes, they are in the right. Boo Hoo you’re not making money off of their IP anymore. Guides and videos have been made for quite some time by fan boys before anyone made a dime off of them.

    • Ricardo de Lima Thomaz

      Most of games I’ve bought were because youtube channels that reviewed and made gameplays, every nintendo club points I get I report that I’ve bought because of this channel, and I believe I’m not alone here, most of us are influenced by this channels, so it was a Win Win for nintendo…

      • Good for you. If someone influences your purchasing decision, continue to let Nintendo know that. They deserve to know how much advertising power there is behind let’s play videos.

      • Steve

        That’s not the problem. The problem is the posters have no legal right to profit from the video containing Nintendo’s INTELECTUAL property.

        • tronic307

          If these videos are illegal, take them down! No one has the right to profit from an illegal act, not even the ‘victim’!

    • CharmanderRulz

      Sure the YouTube user gets some money of content thats never 100% there own creation no matter how much they mix it up but tell me the IP holder doesn’t get anything out of it. If I put lots of work into content that shows the masses that X game is fun don’t you think the maker of that game wins to? I can bet you next to all the time the YouTube user makes less then the gaming division.

      • Steve

        Welcome to business. The video maker has no right to make a single cent out of Nintendo’s INTELECTUAL property.

        • CharmanderRulz

          When did I say they did? My very first sentence was that the uploader was getting cash of something that could never be their content. “the YouTube user gets some money of content that’s never 100% there own creation no matter how much they mix it up” or was it not clear that I right from the start acknowledged what you feel needs to be in all caps?

  • Kuzon

    Sometimes you guys on here make me sad to be a Nintendo fan with how much you defend everything no matter what.

    • D.M.T

      I don’t really agree with Nintendo this time but at least they aren’t blocking the videos.

    • derty

      They’re not defending anybody their just stating the facts and then asking how u feel about it. Thats about it.

      • gamesplayswill

        Not exactly…

    • zajac1661

      They ask a question, and state the Nintendo reaction. Defense? what?

    • They have the right to do it BUT come on, the money is little for Nintendo, and it’s more bad mouthing and bad PR.

      • Wayne Beck

        The money is not that little. People become millionaires off YouTube add revenue. These people should have contacted Nintendo before doing this. The company would have been more than willing to do Shared Revenue because it is a massive amount of free advertising.

        • Magnus Eriksson

          Nintendo is greedy again.

          • Steve

            They’re greedy for claiming what is rightfullybtheirs?


    • Magnus Eriksson

      Wisdom! This is so true!

    • Nintedward

      There is bad people who support and follow everything everywhere you go.

      There is idiotic Sony and Microsoft fans. I support Man city and there is hooligans who smash bottles of ya head. Doesn’t make me sad to be a City fan. Just ignore the people that make you feel that way.

  • tronic307

    This is total BS! These videos give Nintendo games more exposure. What’s next, journalists having to pay for review copies? Gameplay is a collaborative work, unless you just want to stare at the attract mode!
    Want more money, Nintendo? How about Smash Bros. Cereal, or a 3D CGI Zelda cartoon?
    This is almost as bad as record companies taking down old school DJ mixes. If I can’t go crate digging on YouTube, how else will I know the titles when I want to BUY the songs?
    Keep the DMCA off YouTube!!!

  • Kamon

    Please make sure you read Nintendo’s statement about this.

    “As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property.”

    • Why would you re-quote the statement included in the article?

      • Kamon

        I saw it. It was just to make sure no one skips over it and jumps to conclusions.

      • Was just about to say that.

  • Cerus98

    Sorry but you can’t buy a movie on disc and play it for a group of people for which you’ve charged admission. This is no different. I had no idea people were using this as a way to make money. It’s Nintendos work, you are only licensing it and are not entitled to make money from it. Piss poor article defending a clear violation of copyrighted works.

    • Excuse me? The article doesn’t defend anything. It tells the story of what’s happened and asks you to draw your own conclusion.

      • Cerus98

        “They’re a great form of advertising and sadly, the way Nintendo is punishing people for playing their titles is going to do more harm than good, when it comes to exposure for their games.”

        There’s your defense of the uploaders. Nintendo never said they can’t post them as you pointed out. Only that they cannot profit from Nintendos intellectual property. If they want to be crybabies and stop uploading then they’re no different than pro athletes who piss and moan about only getting $10 million a year insisted of 12. How soon they forget that its about the game.

    • tronic307

      IGN gets ad revenue to show gameplay vids. Why should an individual be any different?

      • Steve

        Because IGN has legal authority, granted by the copyright holders themselves, to do so.

        • tronic307

          Unlike movies and music, video games are not protected against unauthorized public performance. Arcades and handhelds would be illegal if this were true.

          • Steve

            Public performance is one thing. But they are profiting from it, which completely changes the situation.

            I don’t understand your arcades and handhelds metaphor. Those arcades and such typically have a license that allows them to profit from it, with royalty fees of course.

    • Adrian

      Are they making money?

      • tronic307

        If they’re smart.

  • Lev M

    it’s not a big deal, lets plays don’t get watched like that anyways

    • Rob Lucci

      You’re wrong.

    • Then you haven’t been on the internet in the past two years. Let’s Plays for content is huge. There are YouTube personalities who make thousands of dollars a month just playing games to a personal audience. It’s why things like exist.

      • tronic307

        Am I right to assume that Nintendo wants ALL revenue from playthroughs? This is like the Post Office wanting to exact a surcharge for email. Seems like the corporate agenda seeks to annex all revenue streams that don’t involve punching a clock. This drives wages down because there are no longer enough jobs for all of us, and every alternative is either taxed to the point of futility or prohibited by the special interest groups.
        People who seem appalled at the notion that one can make a living on YouTube are sheep who deserve to have their freedom downsized.

        • Yes, Nintendo’s content ID matching means all the revenue generated from those videos automatically goes to them, not the person who created the video. Revenue sharing would make more sense in this case, since the video uploader put effort into creating something with the original work.

          • tronic307

            I admire your calm in all of this. I’m not a professional gamer, but I have friends who stand to lose their shirts over something like this. It’s so twisted that you can monetize videos of destroying game consoles, but not playing them.

          • My job here is to facilitate discussion between the community and moderate it so it doesn’t degenerate into a bunch of trolling. I’m really proud of our community for handling this discussion civilly, as there are people on both sides of the argument who make good points.

          • Daniel Gonzalez

            If they get all the revenue then that uploader should just disable ads. If they’re not really distraught about losing their revenue. Since the uploader to me really put work into those vids, they should get a fair amount.

            I just find it absurd that Nintendo is pulling this kind of a thing. That’s business I suppose, but I know for a fact i’d care less if someone was making some revenue off of me. I’d make far more with them advertising it on youtube and other video sharing sites.

        • The Clockwork Being

          THis is a bad decision made by Nintendo. Nintendo only made the game. The effort of the video has been put in by the creators. It says here

          ”For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips”

          So what about Smosh. A lot of their videos include Nintendo content as they love it. Nintendo has made a bad decision. Im all for what you say Tronic307

      • Lev M

        no, PC gaming & COD is why twitch exist, go check the numbers, that’s the reason why people in america are the most obese, get your ass up & get a REAL job, sitting at home & spoiling games for others just for afew dollars isn’t a real job

        • Daniel Gonzalez

          By your logic, you should get your ass up instead of wasting precious time posting comments. It goes both ways my friend. Also, gaming doesn’t make people obsese, they make the choice to be so. That’s always been a misconception. Get your facts straight.

        • tronic307

          Welcome to the NEW economy. We must MAKE our OWN jobs.

  • cardmeister

    Okay, so watching some gameplay may entice me to buy a game… I’ll grant you that.

    But to say that each play-through is a unique experience unlike a movie is a bit of a stretch. Yes, there are strategies and techniques to be gleaned. Sure, no two run-throughs are truly unique. But if the argument is that the poster should get *paid* to display somebody else’s IP, I think a line is being crossed.

    If I take a 2 hour movie and re-cut it to present it in a different fashion (perhaps in a way which exposes the ending up front and then work backwards through major sequences to explain how the characters landed at the ending)… should I be able to make money off of that? After all, a viewer may choose to buy and watch the movie in a its original form after watching the video… so the original IP owner wins out, right?

    What if I youtube a movie and then provide a unique commentary. What then?

    These videos benefit the community and benefit the game makers… and require some sort of effort by the posters. Perhaps if there is a clear benefit to Nintendo, the creator should pursue a relationship with Nintendo.

    Nintendo isn’t blocking the community from posting such content, they are simply making money off of their own content that somebody has chosen to publish without explicit permission to do do. In my opinion, that’s a step above the movie/music companies that simply pull videos featuring their content.

    Something else to think of… with video games struggling to be accepted as art and put on par with other forms of media, why would we argue for special rules which say that the content is less valuable than other forms of media?

    • These are all valid points and this deserves to be higher. The point Zack Scott tried to make with his Facebook post is that people watch his channel to see him react to the game, not the game itself. I’m not so sure that’s true.

      • cardmeister

        I’m not very familiar with the content he’s providing… does it focus on him with occasional flashes to the content or the other way around?

        In the same vein, it’s only a matter of time before somebody cries “fair use”, but there are very specific guidelines on something qualifying as fair use. INAL, but I’m pretty sure a video showing beginning-to-end content of copyrighted material falls outside of that range.

        This makes an interested read for anybody who wants to argue that these videos are protected under “fair use”:

        • Most let’s plays focus on showing the game, with the player giving commentary while they play. I’m not sure how he does it since this is a 3DS game and would require an outside camera. For PC and console games that can be captured, it’s usually little more than setting up a capture card and talking while playing.

          • Zombie Boy

            But most Let’s Players are actually paid for and protected by the companies that produce the games or someone similar (which is how they get the games ahead of time). I know people that upload such videos for the XBox 360, PC and PS3, and that’s how I know this. It just seems like it is Nintendo which have a problem, which is a shame, as a lot of games are sold this way. For example, I myself would not have bought Sonic Racing Transformed without watching a Let’s Play first. That would have meant a loss for me and for the company. And I know I’m not the only person who watches these videos. Let’s Play videos give us fans a chance to see whether we’d enjoy a game before we buy it better than any advertisement could, and Nintendo should be embracing these free adverts, not discouraging them from being uploaded.

          • That’s certainly true, as you can see I argue in comments further down. My personal opinion is that Nintendo is doing more harm than good when it comes to this.

          • cardmeister

            Pete Zombie-Boy Jarram

            Can you substantiate your claim that most Let’s Players have explicit permission to air the entirety of the video game, and make money off of doing so? I’m not saying that you are being untruthful, I’m just interested in the source of this information.

            Just because somebody gets the game ahead of time for review purposes does not mean they automatically have the right to air the game content in its entirety. Even proper video reviews use small portions of game play to make their point — presumably small enough to fall under “fair use” rights.

            To be clear, I’m not saying it was the best move by Nintendo. They need exposure and it would be wise to strike a formal deal with these guys. Rather, I’m saying that they are well within their rights and more to the point these guys should be subject to copyright laws the same way everybody else is. If they failed to go to Nintendo and ask for express permission to use Nintendo’s content, in total, then they are breaking the law. (At least it seems clear to my non-legal eyes.)

            Now, if they went to Nintendo (ahead of time) and tried to work out something which presented the content in a way that Nintendo was comfortable with and Nintendo gave them the finger… that’s something different. Of course, if that happened and they simply ignored Nintendo’s “no”… well… pretty sure that still makes it copyright infringement.

            Bottom line, these guys need to respect the creators of the content they use to make money. It would be wise for Nintendo to gain extra exposure by working something out with them. However, I can’t fault Nintendo for blocking revenue to people who either a) didn’t have that respect or b) ignored their request that their content not be used in this way.

          • Zombie Boy

            I agree with everything you’ve said, and in the case of a lot of Let’s Players, that is exactly what has happened. Most of them start out uploading videos off their own back, just for fun rather than monetary gain, but sooner or later approach companies for permission / sponsorship, or in turn, are approached themselves – the companies see it as a great advertisement and want to take advantage of the situation. That is why I’ve stated above that most are paid for and are protected by the producers of the games and such. But, unlike most companies, instead of approaching Let’s Players, Nintendo has just decided to penalise them instead. Not a good move.

            I obviously can’t name my sources as they are personal friends, but if you want proof, watch a walkthrough on YouTube by a guy going by the moniker of TheRadBrad. In a lot of his videos he talks about how he got to where he is today (as one of the most popular Let’s Players) in detail.

          • DragonSilths

            He doesnt use an outside camera to record 3DS gameplay. You mod your 3DS, take the back piece off and install a capture card into the system itself. Voids the warrenty obviously but thats how 3DS LPers record the 3DS.

      • invible

        It may be true I don’t care what dsp gaming is playing itt just his reactions that are funny and entertaining

    • tronic307

      When you watch someone else play a game, even an entire playthrough; it does not give you the full experience of playing. It’s not even on par with a demo; at least you get to play that.

      Should you give your ad revenue away when you post a review of any other product on YouTube, say a vacuum cleaner?
      Video games are toys; they are meant to be PLAYED.
      A toy demonstration does not stop anyone from wanting to play with it.

      • Adrian

        Tronic, video games are as much toys as books or movies are. They are very intricate pieces of artwork. If I watched somebody play through a whole game, I honestly wouldn’t have nearly as much desire to play the game myself. It would be like listening to a book reading, and then going to buy the book.

        • tronic307

          Books and movies are not interactive. If you cannot reproduce the game’s interactivity, you have in no way reproduced the game. If video games are art, all software is art. I suppose we should give Microsoft or Apple revenue when we show how to videos for Windows or iOS?

          Just because they employ art, doesn’t make them art. The artists and musicians are not paid royalties, and not protected by any creative union or guild. The playing of a video game is NOT a ‘performance’ under copyright law.

          • cardmeister

            I’m would never say playing a video game is a ‘performance’ by any definition… legal or otherwise.

            The “games as art” is a very controversial topic. Not something that I would want to try to debate here. (

            My point is more that the story of a game is valuable and often integral to modern games. In these games the story is the result of significant effort, creativity, and resources on the part of the creator. By exposing it, in total, you have given away something they produced with the intent to profit.

            I’ve said it elsewhere and I’ll say it again. If you sought and gained approval of the creator ahead of time because it was mutually beneficial then more power to you. If you do not, you are participating in copyright infringement; more importantly (imho), you are showing that their work is not as valuable as what you intend to do with it. That’s disrespectful at the very least. Because this came to pass, it seems apparent that these guys did *not* take that step of asking permission or went against Nintendo’s denial of permission. How is that okay?

          • tronic307

            I don’t mind video game publishers getting their fair share, or even the lion’s share but they want ALL revenue. I know people who do this on TwitchTV and Machinima and their equipment ain’t cheap, not to mention all the time and effort. The game may be the focus, but is nearly always the least expensive component. How would livestreamed tournaments be possible under these restrictions?
            What are we supposed to stream, weddings? Oh wait… the music.

          • cardmeister

            Still… why does everybody else need to ask for and get permission to use somebody else’s content to make money but some guys on you tube don’t?

            You are really okay with people just taking hours worth of other people’s content, doing a voice over and getting profit without the content owner’s permission? Or is it just okay when it is a big company’s intellectual property? Please answer… I’m truly interested in knowing.

          • tronic307

            Everyone knows the Let’s Players didn’t make the damn game. Why should we have to ask permission to critique or show gameplay for educational purposes? This is likely not even about money: Have you noticed that the YouTube channel on Wii U does not show comments? How about starting a topic on MiiVerse? Nintendo are trying to censor their image so tightly that there is no tolerance for public perception unless they specifically ask.
            Let them have their intellectual property; does that mean they also own our control inputs, our thoughts, commentary and experiences? If we’re not allowed to share experiences, they do not belong to us! We must draw the line somewhere and Nintendo just crossed it. No corporate entity should be permitted a louder voice than a sole, living, sentient individual.
            This needs to go to Capitol Hill.

          • cardmeister

            I think arguing that a walk-through is for “educational” purposes would be a tough sell. πŸ™‚

            Now if a level of Super Mario Brothers as being presented during a lecture on game theory or design that is a different story and true educational use is one of the things taken into consideration under fair use in the United States, (

            As far as your right to critique a game… well, that’s not being limited at all. Many outlets do this every day, including this one. They do so in a way which exists within the realm of “fair use” by limiting the amount of content used in contrast to the amount of original thoughts and ideas. This plays into “the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole” criteria as it applies to US Fair use law (

            There are provisions, set up by “Capitol Hill” which protect the freedom of speech rights of citizens, which you are alluding to and rules have already been set up to protect the interests of both parties involved.

            This isn’t a matter of how loud a corporate entities voice is. This isn’t about censorship. Nintendo is not telling you what you can and can not say about their games (nor could they, barring cases of slander and defamation). In contrast, saying that these individuals can use Nintendo’s content as a quite literal backdrop for their voice over and collect money in doing so.

            Just as your rights must be protected, so must those of business owners — small and large alike. πŸ™‚

          • tronic307

            Enjoy your captivity!

          • Adrian

            If you do not consider video games art, I honestly don’t even know how to have a conversation about this with you.

          • tronic307

            It’s a romantic notion at best. Not everything we enjoy is art, not even everything that has an impact on popular culture. Roger Ebert said it eloquently:

            “To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.”

          • cardmeister

            From the same Wikipedia article, “Ebert later amended his comments in 2010, conceding that games may indeed be art in a non-traditional sense…”

            Also of note in that article is this: “Ebert was being consistent by declaring video games to be without artistic merit inasmuch as Ebert had previously claimed that `Hardly any movies are art.`” (

          • Crystal Sinclair

            Now, you say that books and movies are not interactive. If you feel this way about those subjects, then really, you have not truly experienced either of them. Books require reader activity. You don’t just look at words. You picture them. You develop the image, you develop the worlds and you develop the characters in your head, based on the information the author has chosen to present you with. You don’t just look at words and recite them in your head, and if that’s how you’ve been doing it, then you’re doing it wrong.

            Films require audience participation as well. It’s up to the audience to understand the plight, take in the emotion, understand the story, sympathize for the characters. It’s up to the audience to understand what makes tension and suspense. Understand what makes the drama and what makes the comedy. If the audiences just wants to look at the visuals, then they’ll miss out on the story, the plot, the characters. Both literature and film are interactive, and if you haven’t seen that, then you’ve just been looking at it the wrong way.

            And then you say, “just because they employ art, doesn’t make them art.”

            Great… That can be said about films, literature and music as well.

          • tronic307

            I admire your imagination. I’m flattered that you’d create a Disqus account for the sole purpose of telling me off, but you’re a bit late to the party.
            Where were you when this discussion was in full swing?

          • Crystal Sinclair

            Actually, I created one because I’ve been viewing these comments for a long time, but never actually got involved with one, and decided that I should create one.

            I admire that you disregard any statement, and try to play the, “I’m done with it,” angle, so that you don’t have to make any kind of “argument,” or provide any facts for what you believe.

            And this “discussion,” was in “full swing,” merely two days ago. Don’t tell me you forgot already.

            And I also like that you insist that I’m “telling you off,” to avoid any needs of creating an argument. I’m not “telling you off.” I’m making judgement about you based on what you’ve decided to show everybody about yourself. You state that films and literature are not interactive. Meaning that the “audience” doesn’t take a part in it. Well, films and literature are interactive and the audience does need to take a part in it. If you haven’t, then that is something wrong with you.

            I look forward to your next response where you disregard everything in order to prevent yourself from having to prove that your opinion is anything more than an opinion.

          • tronic307

            An argument, for the sake of futility? I can’t say for certain, but it didn’t seem like many people were interested in anyone else’s view on the subject.
            Consider these OPINIONS:




            Yes, an opinion is an opinion, shocking as it may seem. I’d advise you to rephrase that inference, but why dispel your self-assumed entitlement to certainty?

            This is an informal forum for discussion. If I make an assertion without proof, feel completely free to dismiss it without proof; that comes with the territory when you’re playing devil’s advocate. I had hoped you might be able to see past the end of your nose and recognize that. I apologize for giving you too much credit.

            There is no burden of proof to shift to me. If you’re sincerely interested in scholarly work on the subject, seek a more formal venue.

            This is not our decision to make.

            Consensus is unnecessary.

      • cardmeister

        You are correct that it does not provide the full experience… And no, I do not think that every review should grant the product creator revenue.

        However, length of content is a major factor when it comes to “fair use”. Once you exceed the “fair use” standards, you are in the realm of copyright infringement. Again, I don’t know where those boundaries are, but I just skipped through a video on Zack Scott’s youtube page which is 40 minutes straight of him talking over gameplay footage. It seems pretty obvious that that exceeds anything that could constitute “fair use”.

        It’s also worth noting that this video included cut-scenes and non-interactive dialog — aspects of the game which are exactly the same regardless of how many times the game is experienced. Assuming an end-to-end presentation, then the full story of the game — a story which a company spent money on producing — has been shown. No, you didn’t experience the game, but you certainly experienced a major component of the game that represents a major financial investment for the original content producer. For some games it arguably carries a larger draw than the game-play mechanics.

        On demos… Have you ever noticed that demos are very specific about what content they provide? Often, this is not a matter of what content is completed but rather what content the IP holder wants to present. Some of them provide back story… Many of them even end with a cliff-hanger. Because they want you to buy the game in order to fully experience the story; very much like every other form of media.

        The original Pac Man is a toy. Video games, now, are comprised of a myriad of storytelling devices, including game-play, which all work together to produce a full range of emotions. Except for the ones which are still like the original Pac Man. πŸ™‚

      • GuardiansFan

        A review and a walkthough are two totally different things. One shows the entire product and the other shows an overview and is on par with news articles.

        • tronic307

          They don’t seem to be honoring that distinction.

          • cardmeister

            Who is not honoring that distinction? In what way?

          • tronic307

            Uploaders get flagged for journalism as well as walkthroughs.

          • cardmeister

            I’m not sure that is the case.

            From the original article: “…for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length…”

            Can you provide a source references a case where somebody who uploaded limited content for the purpose of journalism has been flagged?

          • tronic307

            Shift the burden of proof, much?

          • cardmeister

            I assume you are equating yourself to the “defense” in a court of law by stating that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution.

            A court of law this is not, but okay… I’ll play along. πŸ™‚

            The defense (you) are not allowed to just say “because leprechauns” and expect the prosecution to prove it wrong. Any statements made as part of defense must be substantiated through reliable means (legal precedence, witnesses, experts, etc). I mean… the defense _can_ just say “stuff”, but it becomes highly unlikely to be considered an adequate defense to the judge or jurors without supporting references or evidence.

            So, in the absence of evidence, they do not need to provide evidence of innocence. However, it is in their best interest to use evidenced facts to counter the evidence that the prosecution provides…..

            Otherwise, their arguments are likely to be dismissed as uneducated rhetoric.

            BTW, In case you aren’t familiar with the “because leprechauns” concept, it represents a claim which can not be proven as false. Here is an excellent article on the often misinterpreted “Occam’s razor” which references this idea:'s_razor#Testing_the_razor

          • tronic307

            That’s just like, your opinion, man

          • tronic307

            You’re quoting a press release? That’s a work of fiction.

      • Steve

        I disagree. In fact, I have actually deciding not to buy a game on the grounds that I’ve already seen everything there is to be seen, on an LP.

        The problem here is not that the Poster is advertising te game. To be honest, that’s actually a good thing. The problem is that they are profiting from someone else’s intellectual property without prior concent or approval.

        If one really wanted to this, a good way to avoid the legal issues would be to get prior concent and approval from the copyright holder. However, you will probably have to pay royalties to them (basically give them a percentage of your income).

    • Let’s play Waluigi’s game

      • Ony

        Waluigi, you need a job.

    • Potemkin

      Meh…trying to monopolize everything we do, from showcasing a Playthrough or simply lending/borrowing a game is something I will never support. Nintendo is really getting on my nerves with this new course of action they are taking.

  • MujuraNoKamen

    Not good Nintendo, a bit selfish to be honest. I don’t think they should get the ad-revenue for other peoples vids, a small percentage of it maybe but all of it no. The way I see it you’ve had your money for the game when these people buy them why should you take more from them just for showing some of it on youtube?

    • Magnus Eriksson

      Pure GREED

    • Steve

      Because the licensing agreement, which THEY AGREED TO, does not permit them to profit from it.

  • CharmanderRulz

    I do think Nintendo is handling this better then many that just delete the videos but I’m still not a fan of this technique. In many places the Wii U is not advertised at all so many (if not most) people With a Wii U found out about it of the internet, everyone viewing this has found out more about Nintendo on the web (because this is a news site n’ all) and this will limit advertising as regardless of what you think about YouTube-ers getting add money this will put them off from making videos that help Nintendo.

    • This is a very good point. Nintendo’s own marketing of the Wii U has been shoddy at best, and now they’re targeting people who already own Nintendo systems, showing it off to their audience that could entice that audience to become Nintendo customers.

    • Steve

      Nintendo isn’t putting limits on advertising, they are putting limits on profit that people, who don’t own them, are getting.

      • CharmanderRulz

        I didn’t say Nintendo is putting a limit on advertising, I’m saying this will limit advertising. I can see why you could think it’s the same thing but “regardless of what you think about YouTube-ers getting add money” it advertises what they are showing. All the Nintendo YouTube videos both good and bad inform the viewer about the product. Do you think all the Wii U’s sold was though Nintendo’s awesome (sarcasm) TV advertisement?

  • Rob Lucci

    What if they play two ads, 1 nintendo and a non-nintendo one will the uploaders get paid for the non nintendo ad?

    • Theoretically, but this content ID claim replaces all ads to those that directly benefit Nintendo. If it only replaced 50% of the ads, I don’t think LPers would have a problem with that at all.

      • Robknoxious1

        Right, some kind of compromise seems smart. I guess that Nintendo thinks they already are by not simply yanking the vids but really if they get all the money that’s not much of a compromise.

        • Steve

          From a business standpoint, that isn’t smart or logical at all. It is 100% Nintendo’s property. Why would they make a compromise with someone who has no rights to profit from it at all?

          • Daniel Gonzalez

            Compromising is in the best interest. Last thing they need is bad PR. I think a 50/50 partnership is probably the best of all solutions.

          • Steve

            That’s true. But since it’s Nontendo’s property, the decision to compromise rests in their hands. If they say no, that’s what goes.

            Besides, I don’t think the shareholders would approve of such a compromise.

          • Robknoxious1

            Yes it’s their property and their choice agreed. But they may wish to compromise to benefit THEMSELVES.

            How? As seen from the passion of these comments you can see many people (right or wrong) view this decision negatively.

            In much the way as I am considering avoiding EA titles on ANY console I own or may own because I find their attitude / actions / comments regarding Wii U offensive people may also consider avoiding Nintendo if this YT thing makes them angry.

            Second I agree with others here that many people will view a lets play to see if they want to buy a game. Sure Nintendo has started doing official vids but many people may have a favorite YT personality they watch. If that person stops doing Nintendo “let’s plays” then that could, conceivably cost Nintendo revenue.

            But again, to be clear, I agree it is their property and their choice.

          • Steve

            I am not understanding your arguments here. Nintendo is not taking down any of the videos that they claim to infringe their rights. They are simply claiming the profit that these Lets Players are unlawfully gaining.

            Additionally, they are not threatening to sue anyone who makes these videos.

            You and I can still share videos. We just can not profit from it.

            So this claim that it will negatively affect Nintendo is invalid.

            The only thing that is being affected is the YouTuber’s unlawful profit.

  • Robknoxious1

    I’m torn on this issue. I can see both sides.

    If nothing else though this seems like a bad PR move by Nintendo.

    • Your last statement is most definitely true. I can understand why Nintendo would do the content ID match instead of demanding the videos being taken down, but on the other hand, they’re only shooting themselves in the foot because people who rely on their revenue from their channel won’t feature Nintendo games.

    • tronic307

      First Nintendo says “F*** E3”, now this. It’s starting to seem like Nintendo is in stealth troll mode.

  • Super Buu

    As a Nintendo fan, I disagree with Nintendo’s decision here. Let’s plays alone are a way of advertising a game and it is free. You just open up Youtube, type in the name of the game you are looking for for (Part 1, 2, 3, etc) and that’s it. This decision is unnecessary and as fans, we have to correct Nintendo. They’re not always right, you know.

    • I think Nintendo believes that people who watch let’s plays are less likely to purchase the game, but that’s far from the truth. If I see someone having fun with a game, I want to purchase it myself.

      Let’s plays are just as valid as a demo for selling a game, in my opinion. Those content creators should be rewarded in some form, instead of punished.

      • Adrian

        Eh, Nintendo’s move may not be the “smartest” move, but I do think it is correct. Games are just as much as an art form (actually way more of an art form IMO) as movies/shows. If people want the content and experiences that come with a game, they should purchase it. A full play through youtube clip is letting somebody have that experience for free. Nintendo fully has a right to profit when people are enjoying the content it paid people to produce.

        Now, like I said, it may not be the “smartest” decision as these may be a driver of sales. I had actually never heard of these until this article, so I doubt it is too big of a deal, though I could be wrong.

      • Magnus Eriksson

        I always check out games im interested in. Im probably not the only one either. I think Nintendo doesnt seem to understand this.

        • Steve

          Posters don’t seem to realize that they have no legal authority to profit from Nintendo’s intellectual property.

          You don’t seem to understand this.

          • After doing a lot of reading on this I think Nintendo is in the right at least partially here. Video game content is copyrighted just like movies and music. I think it would be different if the person was showing short clips and giving a more step by step walkthrough but it seems the person recorded the entire game and just narrated over the top correct?

            I am sure there is something listed in the legal copyright of the game content stating that this cannot be done without permission.

            Unfortunately this makes Nintendo look like the bad guy. I would agree if any other game company did this by simply adding advertisements to the videos.

            Just to keep things in perspective if I were to record myself showing how to use a program on my computer I would be subject to the same copyright regulations. This is why you see ads on training videos showing how to use software. It is copyrighted content.

          • tronic307

            This smacks of a legal grey area. If the videos in question are illegal, simply remove them. Nintendo or EA(because they do this too) don’t get to decide that they are legal enough to allow, but illegal enough to take the profit. Grey area. Let’s see a lawsuit.

      • Wayne Beck

        I don’t think this has anything to do with the Idea that people who watch might not buy the game. Nintendo is very keen on Social Media Advertising. They use micro-targeting quite effectively.

        This is most likely an indirect result of Nintendo trying to bolster it’s official presence on YouTube. By become a partner, they have a lot more access to YouTube for their Company needs. Submitting their copyrights is a requirement of that. Not an option.

        If this was an intentional act, it still probably has a lot less to do with the Money and more to do with stopping a slight drip before it becomes a deluge. People have a tendency to take a mile when you give an inch. If Nintendo didn’t respond to something like this in an Official capacity who knows what could have been born out of it. Let’s play is just the beginning then it becomes Red Vs. Blue, Then Merchandising and it goes on and on.

        I’m sure Nintendo will work out some kind of deal with people who want to create this kind of content, but it is much easier to draw your lines and set up the process before everything spirals out of control.

      • greengecko007

        Maybe, but these so called “content creators” put much less effort into playing a game than developers do into creating a game. If the money from adds can go to developers, then they can continue to pump out games. The fanbase and popularity youtubers get should be the only reward they need.

    • Tecpedz94

      Ya its kinda a weird move on Nintendo’s part, its because of these walkthrough’s that i buy the games to see if i like it or if im stuck somewhere thy can help. Besides im not to worried, i normally like Nintendo’s games like Zelda for example so ill purchase it nonetheless, its not like 3rd party developers are complaining…. well at least at the moment it int all that big of a deal for them???

    • Erik

      I agree Buu.. Besides there are other players too that might have got stuck on a certain level and needs to know HOW to get it done, out, etc. Without it, its like… we are stuck at the same place for like MILLIONS of years and still don’t know how to get an item, key, etc.

    • Alex

      Is because the Playthroughs and Walkthroughs cantain a lot of “Spoiler Alert” that makes people not to buy the game especially the story mode.

    • Trevin

      Yeah,Nintendo kinda lost some respect from me for trying to change something that’s actually helping them.

      • Steve

        How is it helping tem? Posters are profiting FROM THEIR (NINTENDO’S) INTELECTUAL PROPERTY.

        • Daniel Gonzalez

          To be fair, they profit on us far more than we profit on them. That is a fact. I consider Let’s Plays under fair use.

          • Steve

            “In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and β€œtransformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work.”

            “Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.”

            “If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work — for instance, writing a book review — fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes.”

            Here are examples of commentary:
            “quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
            summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
            copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
            copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.”

            “A parody is a work that ridicules another, usually well-known work, by imitating it in a comic way. Judges understand that, by its nature, parody demands some taking from the original work being parodied. Unlike other forms of fair use, a fairly extensive use of the original work is permitted in a parody in order to β€œconjure up” the original.

            Source: fairustanford[dot]edu

            Sorry, according to this source, uploading footage of an entire game does not fall under fair use.

          • tronic307

            But plagiarism is okay? Your source is improperly cited.

          • cardmeister

            @tronic307, you haven’t cited a single source for any of your “facts” about how game content is not protected in the same way as other media. In an earlier post you quoted Ebert without citing the source of the information at all. In contrast, @Steve has provided the site from which this information originated.

            @tronic307, Are you just trolling at this point? πŸ™‚ I’ll assume you were generally interested in reading the original article and were just disappointed by the missing source. After a quick google search, I’m happy to present you with the full source URL for Steve’s post:

          • tronic307

            Ebert, Roger J. “Why Did the Chicken Cross the Genders?” Chicago Sun-Times, 27 Nov. 2005. Web. 17 May 2013.

            And your smilies are smug and creepy.

          • Steve

            First of, I’m not claiming this is information came from me. And this in an informal medium, I’m not going to waste my time creating a work cited page to along every comment. Its a comment, not a research paper. And all this should be considered common sense (how fair use works).

          • Daniel Gonzalez

            Do you know how to read? I said in I “consider it” it under fair use. I know the laws of fair use. Regardless of the law however, it’s not that enforced. I find it funny that Nintendo is the only company that does this more often than the other two.

            Besides, most of these people who do Let’s Plays don’t really get their videos monetized often due to the law.

          • Steve

            That’s probably why only a few companies take such actions β€” not many do it.

            Well, if you know the laws of fair use, why were you trying to justify an action that neither fell in the category of critiques or parodies?

            Under which category do you believe lets plays fall under and why?

        • Daniel Gonzalez

          Most barely do since they get rejected often do to the law. Also, yes they are helping them cause the footage acts like an advertisement. If I saw a game that someone was playing and I really liked what I saw, I’d wanna buy it.

          So, I don’t see the harm in it. Even if they do make some profit. It’s really pennies compared to what Nintendo makes off of gamers.

    • greengecko007

      It’s not like they are stopping let’s plays from happening, but rather that they will be making money off of them, and at no expense of the viewer. I do not believe that you can legitimately argue in any way that a person should make money from posting video’s of themselves playing a videogame.

    • GuardiansFan

      people would still do walkthoughs even if they knew they werent going to profit for it. there is no place for people trying to make money off of something they own 0 rights to.

    • Steve

      The problem is you have no right to profit from the content. PROFIT is the keyword in this issue. Many folks don’t understand that.

      If I cheat on a test by copying my classmate. Can I justify my action by saying I wrote down the answers? No, I may have wrote it down, but its still my classmate’s knowledge I used.

      Same here, you may have created the video. But the content (test answers) are still did not come from you.

  • Ducked

    Why would Nintendo sue something that advertises them? C’mon Nintendo don’t act like Disney. Then again they are making money…

    • Steve

      It’s all about the money my friend. Welcome to the dumpster known as business.

  • jjmesa14

    I agree that Nintendo shouldn’t do this but it is their property. People are making money off of products that they own. Of course this is great advertising for Nintendo, since they aren’t advertising at all, but Nintendo has the right to protect/copyright their products.

  • I think it’s pretty fair. I dont get why people are so upset. it is NINTENDO’s content and NINTENDO’s work that people are showing, so they deserve to get at least something from it.

    • Rob Lucci

      Because Nintendo is taking money from the people who upload LP’s.There are people who make a living on doing Nintendo LP’s and if this is right the uploader won’t make a dime and will be stuck with only Call Of Duty vids on youtube.

      • but still… they cant possibly make THAT much off of ad revenue. Not enough to support a living, can they? If they can, props to them, but they should’ve known they were dealing with copywritten materials.

        • They very much can make enough to make a living for several people, in fact. The entirety of the YOGSCast, started with Minecraft and branched out. Now they all do LP videos all the time. TotalBiscuit is the same way.

          • cardmeister

            But if they are making enough to make a living off of, then they should have to do so legally.. by obtaining explicit rights from the content owners to do so. Other people are held to this standard every day… why should these guys be the exception?

            If this is their livelyhood and they are doing it by hoping that the content owners don’t complain then that’s just a bad plan. They should be creating the relationships necessary to make this money without relying so heavily on somebody else’s content without their consent.

          • I suppose, but they still should’ve known the risks of uploading copywritten content.

          • Steve

            I believe it is implied that you (the uploader) are aware of the risks.

          • then they have nothing to be upset about. they knew the risks, they should know to deal with the consequences

        • DragonSilths

          Tobuscus makes $2 million a year playing games and goofying off lol. He has more then 4 million subscribers on his gaming channel.

        • Steve

          You will surprised how big the advertising industry is. The more fame and views you have, the more money you’ll make.

          Say on Facebook. It’s a really popular site. Want to post an ad? Purchase some space, which is probably just as big as the comment box I’m typing in, for $300000.

          Same on YouTube. The more popular you are the more you’ll get. Of course, it isn’t that much on the partnership side. If it was your own site, perhaps.

    • DragonSilths

      In a way this is us working for Nintendo and advertising for them but we get no paycheck from Nintendo. Were are like interns…

  • Ony

    They could also divide the benefits for both, no ?

    • tronic307

      They want it ALL.

      • cardmeister

        This does not necessarily block off all revenue streams. It seems that this feature of You Tube allows the original content owner to gain ad revenues and prevents the poster from doing so. So it effectively shifts the ad revenue stream over to the owner of the copyrighted material.

        In theory, there are still opportunities to gain revenue though other mediums, including directly from the copyright owner.

        I’m not sure when the Internet became an excuse to circumvent copyright law and the process of gaining permission and creating business partnerships.

        • tronic307

          For the umpteenth time: VIDEO GAME CONTENT IS PROTECTED FROM DUPLICATION ONLY, NOT PUBLIC PERFORMANCE. It doesn’t have the same protections as movies and music, UNDER COPYRIGHT LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          • cardmeister

            Easy there champ. πŸ™‚

            Copyright law does not only exist to protect copying media. Using imagery that is the intellectual property of somebody else can qualify as copyright infringement.

            Mario was created by Nintendo. The assets (visuals and sounds) used in the game are the intellectual property of Nintendo. Nobody has the right to use them without Nintendo’s permission for any reason outside of the uses permitted under “fair use”. Nobody copied their game, but their intellectual property (imagery and original audio) are being used to turn a profit and seemingly without permission to do so.

            I can not take somebody’s original photograph, published on a website, take it and put it on my website without their permission. It is their intellectual property and I am not allowed to use it. They can request that I take it down and my failure to do so can warrant legal action. The original content of a video game is no different.

            It isn’t that they are publicly playing the game. It isn’t the “performance”. It is the fact that they are using Nintendo’s intellectual property in a broadcast as a means to make money beyond the rights granted by “fair use.”

          • tronic307

            Recordings of movies and music is theft; the copies serve the same function as the original. The same cannot be said of audiovisual recordings of programs. There is no facsimile of a functional program; the audiovisual elements merely serve the interactive experience, and a recording cannot possibly preserve this.
            Interactive content providers have made great legal strides by forming alliances with other entertainment lobbyist groups but still lack the full level of copyright protection of non-interactive media, and neither should they.

          • Steve

            Nintendo’s lawyers, who know the law better than you and I, beg to differ.

          • tronic307

            This is legal bait to set precedent. The only potential infraction here is the misappropriation of ad revenue. You don’t get to make deals with criminals, you can’t just take their money because you claim it’s stolen; that tells us this is a civil action, not a criminal one.
            Public performance of a video game is perfectly legal, unlike movies and music. Games do not have every protection the others have, and in no way deserve such.
            Games, by definition are interactive, videos are not. Remove interactivity and you do not have a functional facsimile. The only reason the PlayStation 3 has HDCP protection is because it plays Blu Rays. The Xbox 360 and Wii U do not have HDCP.

          • Steve

            Well, a game still has music, video clips (cut scenes and such), complex programming algorithms, and trademarked symbols and iconic characters and symbols, like Mario’s M, and the title “Super Mario Bros.” These are all considered intelectual property and are protected by copyrights, patents and trademarks.

            So, your claim that games are not protected is invalid. Nintendo even says so on their website.

          • tronic307

            I never claimed that games have NO legal protection. Happy strawmanning!

          • Steve

            Okey, perhaps I should have been more precise on my wording.

            “Games do not have every protection the others have, and in no way deserve such.”

            Yes they do.

            Not sure if DISQUS allows links. But watch this video:

          • Steve

            Okey good, it does.

          • tronic307

            Of course, lawyers get paid to twist fallacies into law.

          • Steve

            That comment had no logic of any sort behind it.

          • tronic307

            Are you a kid, or just insufferably naΓ―ve for your age?

          • Steve

            Are you a kid? Or are you just ignorant of how reality is?

          • tronic307

            That answered my question.
            I saw no Steve before today. What prompted you belligerent corporate shills to crawl out of the woodwork?

          • Steve

            Dude, I’ve been on here for about a year. Perhaps you need to grow up and get a clue about what The topic at hand is. First you try to justify that profiting from other people’s intellectual property is perfectly fine. Then, you try and argue that lawyers are the problem. Then now, you are trying to prove I’m some kid… I’m in my 20s you fool. And even if I were a kid, what difference would that make? I was still able able to disprove this illogical idea, that god knows where it came from, that you have a right to profit from other folks intellectual property. What, did you run out of arguments? Because we are way off topic…

            So, would it even matter if I was a kid? Bottom line is, I can prove my point, you have only brought to attention a claim that completely avoided the point β€” You can’t profit from it.

            No one ever said that public performances was wrong or against the law.

          • tronic307

            Congrats! It’s a wonder you’ve lived THAT long, sport. Now take your downvote and piss off.

          • Steve

            Congrats. You’ve shown what an illogical and uninformed individual you really are. I understand you weren’t educated, so no need to hide it anymore.

            Just take your food stamps and get yourself a fruit basket. You deserve deserve it. While your at it, go learn about what exactly is legitimate and what isn’t. You don’t seem to have a clue!

            I’ll help you out, I shared a link with you on another comment. It’s a good starting point.

          • tronic307

            Nice. You’re getting paid for this, aren’t you? Is Steve your real name? How many accounts do you have? How long do you plan on being a virgin?

          • Steve

            Why don’t you answer that… Tronic your real name?

            Did you even watch the video? Truth hurts, doesn’t it?

            No, I’m not getting paid for this. Someone paying you to justify invalid arguments?

          • tronic307

            I do apologize, Sir. I must now disengage this call. *CLICK*

          • Steve

            About time πŸ™‚ I was getting tired of this thing dragging on for so long.

          • MTGSWE

            Damn, The war ended. I had such a great time πŸ˜€

            But seriously, you’re right Steve πŸ˜›


    wtf nin wtf just fuck offffff

  • John Andalora

    Yeah! Nintendo’s absolutely right!
    I mean think about it…
    A multi-million dollar organization taking a couple dollars of money from people posting free advertisements online of their games for the sake of having more money.

    Am I the only one who sees the logic of that?

    • Daniel Gonzalez

      I tend to agree.

  • I do not even have to read the comments yet to predict what most will say. They will agree with Nintendo because they are told to. Now if this were EA or someone else, they would be called greedy and tyrannical.

    • Super Buu


    • tronic307


    • You would get along a lot better around here if you wouldn’t always assume the worst of people just because they like Nintendo. Certainly some of your arguments make sense when it comes to Nintendo’s marketing, but present your ideas in a more intelligent manner instead of just trying to stir up trouble. I can guarantee you’ll get a better response.

      • I don’t try to start trouble, I just come to preach the word. No matter what I or anyone else writes, if it does not praise Nintendo they don’t like it. If it does praise Nintendo, they do like it. This may be shocking to you, but I used to be a Nintendo nut – back in the day.

        • Consoles aren’t something that need evangelism.

        • Super Buu

          Sorry, but a troll is the last thing we need especially one who is ready to throw in an assumption that ends up being wrong, like you just did. And you’re on a Nintendo website. Seeing Nintendo fans praising them should NOT come as a surprise to you. Your problem is purely personal for thinking that everyone is the same as the microscopic fraction of Nintendo fans (Of a fanbase that is in the millions) you’ve met. You should consider what Ashley just said. There is a way of communicating criticism without being a total ass and there’s always a solution to problems, something trolls, haters and fanboys constantly fail to realize.

          • The problem is, if a Nintendo exec wipes his ass the wrong way, the trolls will praise it. If a Sony exec wipes his ass the right why, the Nintendo trolls will find something wrong with it. It is blind praise which results in hype. Nintendo does have paid posters you know.

          • tronic307

            Why don’t you tell us how you feel about this travesty against gamers Instead of veering off topic.

          • Daniel Gonzalez

            There’s good and bad in every community. That’s life for you. Just don’t include us into the same group of ignorant gamers.

        • tronic307

          A Nintendo nut, until you witnessed the power of the Dark Side? Oh puh-lease, spare us the drama!

          • Lol. Yeah, I used to dream Nintendo and like most kids, I did not want to sleep because I would be missing playing Nintendo. I like technology and progress, so this is why I can do without Nintendo. I will still wait until E3 and IF they can do something, I will give them credit.

          • Daniel Gonzalez

            If that’s your reasoning behind it all, then don’t bother with Nintendo anymore. Which make me scratch my head sometimes as to why you even bother commenting here if you’re so against their business practices? If I didn’t like Nintendo at all, wouldn’t even bother reading anything, let alone commenting here. The fact that you’re still here in my opinion is cause deep down you’re still a Nintendo fan in some sense that is hoping they’ll do exactly what you’ve been wanting them to do.

            Makes sense to me. As said before, it’s how I see it.

          • I will wait until E3, then after the other two reveal all, then I may leave for good if Nintendo is predictable and stays behind the times. Now IF they happen to get me interested, I will stick around and give them the credit.

          • Daniel Gonzalez

            Fair enough. Though, times have changed you know and so has Nintendo. They’ve always done their own thing which is be different from the competition.They may or they may not have what you’re looking for. No good thing lasts forever. Even I moved on from Nintendo for a short time when I decided to buy a psone instead of a N64. Only because psone had the games I was looking to play, but I did eventually get an N64 and honestly it had some good games on it.

            For now, I’m just sticking to PC for the time being this generation.

          • If the other two are priced too high or don’t offer what I expect (standard 1080P, expanded color, larger storage etc) then I will deal with the PC. Madden not coming on PC and PC games being priced the same as console games kid of turned me away from the PC. The PC”s biggest advantage was always the lower priced games.

          • Daniel Gonzalez

            Well they’re about 10 bucks less. Course some games like Skyrim were a full 60. Only disadvantage I saw for PC was the fact that games aren’t optimized. That could be a problem if your PC isn’t fully upgraded to at least the minimum requirements.

        • Daniel Gonzalez

          No one likes a preacher. We don’t mind your opinion and it’s fine if you don’t like what Nintendo does, but preaching it and going with the doom and gloom routine falls under stirring up trouble. Perhaps if you chose your words carefully, you’d most likely get less negative responses. Less drama, the better.

    • Nintendude

      You were way off, bud.

    • LopsidedPasta

      It’s funny because you’re completely wrong. We’re all pissed.

  • Having a gaming channel myself on YouTube that features Nintendo content, a few things come to mind. Brace yourself if you don’t have the capacity to read long passages of text…

    Nintendo receiving all ad revenue on these uploads takes away any incentive for Let’s Play channels to upload Nintendo content. As mentioned, people make a living off of LP content. If they can’t receive any revenue from showcasing Nintendo titles, they most likely won’t upload it, which in turn lowers the reach and exposure of Nintendo published games on not only the channels of LP content creators, but across other social media outlets as well. Minecraft is an example of a game that wouldn’t have seen much success without social media, and there are many games that I know I wouldn’t of purchased if it wasn’t for a YouTube video here and there.

    Not saying this is wrong of Nintendo, and I’m all for companies receiving money for their work (not sure if YouTube money is that significant for large companies such as Nintendo), as they should. I also approve of them not taking down YouTube videos feature their material. It’s certainly a better option than what Viacom or Warner Bros does in regards to filing claims on YouTube. Still, It doesn’t seem wise for them to pursue this route. Sony is utilizing the PS4 Share button pretty heavily. PS4 users may not profit off of the Share functionality, but they aren’t suffering any penalties from using it. Microsoft also seems to be creating their next XBOX to be that one media device for all or most of your needs. If both consoles have decent sharing capabilities with next to no downsides, the visibility rate of PS4 and NextBox titles increases.

    However, the commentary and personality is something Nintendo doesn’t own when it comes to the videos of content creators. For large channels that reach large audiences like PewDiePie and Game Grumps (doesn’t matter if you enjoy them or not), most people will watch their videos for their antics first, gameplay second. In this aspect, it seems unfair to me for Nintendo to profit entirely off of the efforts of the content creator, especially if a gaming video goes viral for something besides the gameplay. Some may watch these videos for the gameplay, but when these channels play terrible games and still get many views, I would argue that people aren’t watching for the gameplay, especially if multiple videos of the same terrible game are released. If anything, these content creators should receive some compensation, even if it is a smaller than usual amount (even under fair use, commentaries and facecams aren’t as big as the game assets demonstrated in the video).

    TL;DR This move will do more harm than good for Nintendo, as it cuts down the exposure and visibility of Nintendo games across YouTube significantly. Let’s Play videos are great for marketing, something that Nintendo needs to fix. This ad revenue chase isn’t helping that.

    • Your point about visibility is a huge one. If someone interested in a game they saw on TV goes to YouTube and sees lets plays or shared content from Xbox and PS4, they’re not even going to realize the Wii U exists.

    • tronic307

      Exactly! The first thing I thought was this is the anti-Share button. Where’s the revenue for Nintendo if they discourage the practice entirely.

  • timehacker11

    People were actually placing ads on IP they don’t own? Am I the only one who agrees with Nintendo? I mean, YouTube explicitly has a section telling creators to only put ads on videos where the content is original; not someone else’s work.

    Though I’m proud that Nintendo isn’t blocking gaming vids AND is encouraging gameplay vids. However, for me, I’ll be using my own website to have greater control over the content and the ability to use the latest web video technologies. (Not to mention YouTube’s “selective bandwidth” crap.)

    • Petri

      I agree with this.
      Making review video, with short clips of the game is ok, and should be allowed to make ad revenue.

      But if you make a full down gameplay video, only adding few “witty” remarks of your own, well then you’re making money out of someone else’s work.

    • Steve

      Unfortunately, I doubt very many of those guys read the terms of use. Then they complain when their (stolen) income is taken away.

  • cardmeister

    For those of you who are opposed to this…

    How do you feel about the makers of Nyan Cat and Piano Cat suing Warner Brothers? After all, they are presenting the characters in a unique way… and having them show up in the game and marketing materials surely raises awareness and curiosity of the characters and reminds those who have long since lost interest in these icons.. and that, in turn, surely drives consumers to their respective you tube channels, websites, etc where the creators undoubtedly make various forms of revenue.

    It’s interesting to see how opinions change when it is the “little guy” going after the “big guy” vs. the other way around… I wonder how many people who sway their opinions in these matters also cry out for equality between small businesses and big businesses.

    • tronic307

      I thought they were trolling. Parody is fair use.

      • cardmeister

        Parody is fair use within certain boundaries.

        Take RiffTrax for example. The stars of Mystery Science Theater 3000 went on to produce audio tracks which continue to make fun of movies. However, to avoid the need to obtain permission to do so they do not include the movie content in their productions. The expectation is that their audio tracks are simply synced with the DVD by the end user.

        In contrast, LPers provide their commentary and the original content. I don’t think you could ask for a clearer case of precedence in this matter.

        Sorry for the long source reference, but it is all relevant to the point.

        `The movies chosen for Mystery Science Theater 3000 were predominantly low-budget B-movies because the show itself was low-budget and producers could only afford films with expired copyright or had otherwise cheap licenses. The idea of RiffTrax came about after Mystery Science Theater 3000 was canceled and Nelson had researched and consulted a lawyer about the possibility of directly releasing DVDs of films with the commentaries included. But Nelson realized this initial idea was not feasible since he would be “sued out of existence.” Instead, the best way to distribute the commentaries would be to sell them independently of the films, to avoid having to obtain the rights to distribute the movies themselves.There would be no legal or monetary restrictions to prevent Nelson from producing them,though viewers would have to provide the movies themselves.` (

        • tronic307

          Your analogies will always fall apart when you cite non- interactive media. The logic is completely different: We merely put up with the more unpleasant aesthetics of video games for the sake of the interactive experience. Take the controller out of our hands and the experience vanishes. This is why protection against audiovisual recording is ludicrous and unnecessary. This will not change until games look like real movies and sound like real music. The fact that legal strides have been made only highlights the importance of good lawyers and lobbyists.
          Anyone who equates video games to film, literature, music and art does so out of fondness.

          • Crystal Sinclair

            I’ve seen games that looked better than real movies, and sounded better than real music.

            And then your comment at the end is very insulting. Especially the part about equating games to art. Even worse, you are stating that any film, piece of literature or artwork is instantly better than any videogame.

            Really, you come off as ignorant and uninformed.

  • Volkstimme

    Don’t just stop making LP videos, take down the ones you’ve already uploaded.

    • tronic307


  • Morits Lian

    This is gonna be big for GameGrumps

    • Kamon

      I hope not. πŸ™

  • Fred

    How many other video game companies just have the videos removed?

    • DragonSilths

      Some specific developers block their games.

      • Game Master

        This only applies to lets plays videos right? As in someone plays the in tier stage or game?

  • Sidney Majurie

    Big Nintendo fan here and I say this is stupid Nintendo. This pushes you into Microsoft territory. Even they aren’t doing this. At least not yet…

  • rulqua

    Don’t fight this fight Nintendo. You won’t win.

    • DragonSilths

      Gotta agree with this. The only force Nintendo cannot defeat is its own fanbase lol.

  • Ray01x

    I’m neutral on this.

  • Dominic Coradazzi

    Nintendo, that was a dick move.
    Chuggaconroy’s gonna go broke

  • QuizmasterBos

    I find this strange. Let’s Players nowadays are usually partnered to GameStation or Machinima (or similar videogame YT accounts), which have lawyers that talk to Nintendo’s (or any other videogame company for that matter) lawyers to come to a mutual agreement. The videogame company gets some of the ad revenue and in turn, let’s players can advertise the games.

    Yes, that’s right, advertise. Do you really think videogames (especially indie) would sell/be played as much if LPs didn’t exist? I find it an incredibly dumb move on Nintendo’s part for not allowing free publicity. Heck, Nintendo isn’t even paying people for publicity. What’s the last time you saw an ad for the Wii U?

    Nintendo needs to rethink their stance on their players. They become increasingly more strict with us. They’re biting the hands that feed them and that only leads to less income. I’ve played Nintendo all my life and they sure do great things, but I’m always so embarrassed for saying I am. Please, Nintendo, play nice.

    • cardmeister

      I think it would be wise for Nintendo to approach these guys and come to some sort of agreement over content such as this. However, the original responsibility to do so does not lie with Nintendo.

      It is the responsibility of those who are trying to profit off of somebody else’s content to seek out permission to do so. This is exactly why the Nyan Cat and Piano Cat creators are suing Warner Brothers — use of their content without WB even making an attempt to gain consent.

      If there were to be revenue sharing (which again, would be wise), it would be the responsibility of the person wanting to use the copyrighted material to go to the owner of said material and say “Hey, I want to use your stuff to make some money and I’m willing to give you some of it or at least some free publicity”.

      • Wayne Beck

        You are absolutely right. If these people approached the owners, in this case Nintendo, the Company would be more than willing to do shared revenue. This is more or less free advertising for Nintendo, but it’s not fair of these LPs to think they can just take a companies Property and make a living off it free and clear.

        Of all the companies in the world, I can guarantee you Nintendo would be open to the Idea of coming to a Contracted Business agreement on letting these people continue their work and make a profit.

  • Lophs

    Nintendo is keeping it real, real gangsta. Shaking down a couple of youtube LPs. Yep, days like this makes me proud to be a Nintendo fan…*sarcasm*

  • BeanThere

    Watching ‘Let’s Play’ videos of New Super Mario U is what convinced me to buy the Wii U. And this is my first gaming console since the Super Nintendo! I think this is a bad move on Nintendo’s part.

    • garf02

      did you watched the whole play tru?

  • john

    Come on, Nintendo, don’t be that guy. I could see this from Microsoft, maybe even Sony, but I thought you were better than that. What are you doing? Get it together, Nintendo?

    • garf02

      imagine, you make a game, and people dont buy it, cause why go tru the problems to buy and play it (for those less skilled)when they can just watch it?
      on top of that the guy who upload the video, gets a money from it. he is paying himself to play videogames

      • john

        I agree with what Zack Scott said; If it’s a game worth playing then watching someone else play it would only make a person want to get it so they can play it themselves; it definitely wouldn’t hinder my desire to play it. In fact, letsplays are sometimes my reason to buy a game; for example, the Yogscast is the reason I bought Minecraft, a game I knew nothing about before I saw them playing it.

        Besides, there’s more to LPing than just buying the game and recording yourself playing it. You need to have good commentary, a fun personality, and a bit of humor, and you need to give that energy while still being good at the game. That’s the reason Zack Scott, the Yogscast, Game Grumps, Chuggaaconroy, and others are more popular than those nobodys who aren’t good at commenting.

        I don’t see any evidence the Letsplayers are discouraging anyone from buying games. Good games still sell well, even with lots of people letsplaying them. Bad games sell poorly, and there aren’t many letsplays of them at all.

    • Steve

      They just did. Lol. They are taking back what is rightfully theirs.

  • Mr. blobby

    Goddammit Nintendo

  • Sam Muir

    Nintendo does have rights here as they do own all copyright to the audio/visual content being viewed in LP on YT, very much like the record companies, and film industry. YouTube’s terms clearly state that all uploads should have the permission of the copyright holders. Nintendo have rights here to the ad revenue. I’ve got a music YT channel, and in no way do I take any revenue from the uploads. It’s one of my many hobbies, which also include video games, and should be treated as such. Nintendo is not forcing people to stop LPs, but if you personally wanna make a living on YT, you should be creating original content in my opinion.

    • tronic307

      Video games do not have the same public performance restrictions as music and movies–yet. Please, we don’t need another RIAA.

      • Sam Muir

        There are going to be no restrictions on the uploads like they do with music videos though.

    • GuardiansFan

      i have 4 videos uploaded to youtube….the video game one i have which is only 30 seconds long does not have ad revenues…and thats exactly for the reason you mentioned here….i never got the permission from the copyright holders. These guys are lucky they aren’t being sued.

  • Zizo47
    • MTGSWE

      He is right. I can’t understand the outrage on this site.

    • Rob Lucci

      Hey im in that pic!

    • tronic307


    • greengecko007

      They are exactly right, thanks for sharing!

    • Michael Jurado

      thank you sir for clearing up this topic πŸ™‚

    • Steve

      “Then the uploader does not make money. That’s the problem” lol. The most illogical and uninformed argument I’ve seen lol.

    • That does make sense.. There are a lot of comments here but it was not mentioned in the article if other gaming companies act the same way. Do other companies force the content to be removed or do they ask for payment for their content being displayed.

      It is a double edged sword but if a person is making money of displaying content from another company then the company that owns that content should be compensated. Many other companies do this with their content.

  • DragonSilths

    So…Nintendo doesnt want people to watch a game to see if they like it 1st? What if someone watches a game then says oh glad I didnt buy it cause it was terrible…Nintendo wants them to buy a game then find out its terrible but Nintendo got their money? Come on Nintendo, dont become Greedysoft, dont become Greedendo. We all know you have way more then enough money. You could never make money again and lose $257 million a year…you still last till 2075…So just let Youtube be what its always been. People entertaining people and getting payed for their troubles if they put in a full time job amount of time for quality content they deserve it.

    • flamingfeenix

      Never have I ever… bought a Nintendo game and thought it was terrible and/or wanted my money back.

      • DragonSilths

        I was talking about games published by Nintendo not made by them. Cause this effects those as well. And I have unfortunatly. Mario Party 9…TERRIBLE, complete trash. Majora’s Mask that was a big mistake just to name 2.

    • Steve

      Please read Nintendo’s statement again, carefully!

  • garf02

    if they do this videos for fun, its good, but to some degree, doing a paythru and claiming its legal jsut cause you add your opinion during the games is like streaming a movie, getting money for that and claiming that is not the same cause you are adding your opinion.

    the best alternative should talk to nintendo and split the earnings 50/50, or something.

  • Nicolas Dorion

    god damnit even peanutbuttergamer got ID striked

    • Any LPer who has a YouTube video of Nintendo games is going to get content ID’d. Nintendo’s statement means they’re going to continue to do this with all videos in the future and those they find.

      • garf02

        but will this for anything even portions or just full PT ?

        • cardmeister

          It mentions “of a certain length” in Nintendo’s official reply.

          There are certain legal provisions under “fair use” that allow limited use of content without permission or payment to the content creator. Context in which the content is used is also a factor. That’s why shows like the “The Daily Show” can show small clips or radio shows using sound bytes without special permission.

          I couldn’t say where the threshold lies… I’m by no means an expert.

  • Nathan Eyre

    Let’s Plays are pointless. Why would I want to watch someone play a game when I can just go out, buy it, and play it for myself? Witty commentary? Laughing at how mad they can get? I honestly don’t care that Nintendo is doing this. The people that make let’s plays are already making a lot of money off of it anyway, so I have no sympathy for them. It’s their choice if they want to upload stuff. They are not contractually obligated to do them. And If you can pay for the internet service necessary to watch these let’s plays, You should just get the games yourself. That’s MY two cents anyway…

    • Starfoxguy

      What if you’re stuck on a level or puzzle and need help?

      • Nathan Eyre

        There are like a million online strategy guides, FAQs, and message boards for that.

        • tronic307

          SEEING how to beat a boss is much more efficient than trying to follow a description.

          • greengecko007

            I wouldn’t put short video’s showing how to beat a specific boss in the same category as full game walkthroughs.

      • Steve

        That’s what Game Guides are for. Additionally, IGN, and others, who most likely have obtained legal rights to profit from the content (views) have a ton of resources.

    • DragonSilths

      And the new Lets Players who didnt get a chance to be successful? The ones who did get a free ride before just get a free pass and say oops sorry it was fun guess no more for me. People like me who just started recently after spending alot of money to get the equipment just got bitch slapped.

      • cardmeister

        That’s an unfortunate side effect, but not unprecedented. There are many fraud techniques which went undetected for a number of times and people certainly profited from those; since detected, countermeasures have been put in place to prevent it resulting in the inhibited ability for anybody to make money off of them.

        Please understand I am not equating your efforts to start up as a Let’s Player to a fraud technique. I have no doubt that you went down that path after seeing other groups profiting from it and it is understandable. However, there is always risk when attempting to start any sort of business and due-diligence in regards to information gathering is important to protect against loss of investment.

        Just think about pyramid schemes and how many people have become involved in those over the years. Such schemes turn everyday people who are looking to make some money “the same way somebody else did” into unwitting scam artists as they pass the “secret” on to the next level of the pyramid.

        Perhaps you could reach out to the game creators and try to partner up with them. With many, it might simply take an email and they may great rewards in terms of partnerships for you. πŸ™‚

  • Guhtere

    But it’s not like they’re using a song or using a moment from a movie or TV show, they posting a video of them playing a game. They’re not letting other people play the game illegally on Youtube videos, since that’s not possible.

    • Steve

      Doesn’t a game consist of music, video clips, and other copyrighted material? What do you think the Mario theme is?

  • Myles Rodriguez

    So, this means that, say, my Super Mario 3D Land videos won’t give me MY revenue anymore?

    • MTGSWE

      Yes, It does.

    • That’s exactly what it means.

    • cardmeister

      Well, I think that depends on how much content you show. There appears to be a margin of acceptable use before this stuff kicks in.

  • Does Nintendo make the right choice here, honestly I don’t know. It’s their good right to do it as it’s their property. Perhaps they are doing the right thing, I know on certain “music video’s” which contains music from Sony, then sony will block the whole video (happened to me some times as well)

    Nintendo’s step isn’t all that bad I think, but maybe they should do it once every 10 let’s play videos of that specific user? So that way the user earns his income and Nintendo gains a bit from it as well. Probably it has happened to one of my videos as well (got a bunch on Metroid Zero Mission and the Prime series) I’m not earning money with it, atleast I have not activated it. But I’ll take a look at it in the weekend.

    Perhaps the users can trick nintendo’s spider bots by changing “Let’s play” to something else?

    • The algorithms for content ID match are more than just the title of the game. Certain clips of a game can be uploaded and if those clips are within any video on YouTube, the content is ID matched. It’s how Sony and other companies find music videos that have been uploaded almost instantly.

      • I see. I guess their really is no way to trick them then.

        Atleast they’re not blocking all together. But still, I really feel sorry for those who use it for their income, almost makes N sound greedy. o_0

        • tronic307


          • I didn’t want to sound like a hater so I wrote almost but fact is it IS greedy, yes give the downvotes if you need to guys and girls, but it’s the truth, N has so much money, seeing them become greedy like this, not good N, not good at all.

    • Steve

      If the user has no rights to profit from the content, why let them? They are basically stealing from you.

      • I have to disagree with you on that statement. In most cases when people make these kind of video’s they also own the game (take note as I said in “most” cases), and therefor they have already paid for the game 44,99 for 3DS and between 54,99 and 59,99 for WiiU titles so Nintendo already earns money on their behalf.

        These let’s play kinda videos are good advertising for Nintendo and it doesn’t cost them a dime, while YouTube has millions and millions of video views a day.

        In case of the DS and Wii it likely “is” stealing as both those systems have software to allow illegal games to be played on, so far that is not the case for Wii U and 3DS as far as I know.

        • Steve

          No, you miss understand how sales of media, like video games, work. There is a difference between “buying” and “licensing”. In this industry, when you buy a game, you are surrendering all ownership of the product to the buyer. Meaning that if you “bought” the game from Nintendo, you would now have complete ownership of the product. This means Nintendo no longer has rights to distribute that product, because they sold all ownership rights (typically ranging from the price of a few thousand dollars to a few million is the cost of “buying” a game).

          Licensing, on the other hand, means that. The buyer is only buying permission to use the game. This type of purchase is cheap, and you are limited on what yo may do with your copy, typically outlined in th User Agreement documentation which the buyer agreed to upon purchasing the license.

          With that said, that’s what we buy when we pay that $59.99, $39.99, etc. we are only buying permission to play the game. All ownership rights remain with Nintendo. Additionally, profiting from it, in such ways like these Lets players do, is not included in the permissions we bought.

          Based on these facts, the free advertisements you speak of are not really “free”. Since the poster is profiting from these videos, containing content that is owned by Nintendo, they are actually having to pay for these advertisements… because you are profiting from it, when you never had authority to do so in the first place. So, while these YouTubers are profiting from someone else’s property, without prior approval, it isn’t free.

          And, since Nintendo never agreed to pay them that amount, nor are there any evedince you can use to make a case, they have every right to claim all incomes from these so called “ads”.

          • Reading this I do get your point and you are right. But I still think this goes a bit to far, might just aswell be me though. It’s their good right (Nintendo’s) to do so, only makes them sound greedy towards their fanbase, not sure if that is a good thing tbh.

  • ronin4life

    This was a MUCH better explaination of what the situation is than I have seen elsewhere…
    Thanks. ^,^;;

  • di g

    this whole thing sounds like showrooming to me.

    • tronic307

      You mean like, “Let’s make an outrageously unpopular decision on the eve of E3 for Google rankings and free buzz”? Nintendo has been dropping huge negative Google bombs lately, and people say they aren’t marketing the Wii U lol.
      If you just Google Nintendo right now, news of this latest fiasco will likely be among the first hits, along with snubbing E3, and all roads lead back to Nintendo’s website! Stealth guerilla marketing at its finest. We’re being played.

      • di g

        yup like a fiddle

  • I don’t often make any comments to these discussions because it doesn’t matter at all what we say, big companies like Nintendo will always be rich no matter what. However, I think this is all dumb anyways, because I thought that once we buy the games, Nintendo and other developers got the money they wanted from the game. The have already been paid. They aren’t stopping us from selling our used games to friends or stores for less money, and in turn them missing out on the full retail prices. They aren’t having a fit about us loaning out our games or playing them at a friends house, where they miss out on the money there, too. I think it is just something (on the internet) that they can control, so they are going to. Just like I saw in some of the other comments, I was thinking the same thing, by watching a video, we are not getting the experience at all. Watching a video of someone riding a motorcycle doesn’t allow us to feel the wind on our face, watching someone catch a huge fish doesn’t give us the thrill of trying to land the monster, we certainly don’t feel the rush of someone base jumping or even bunjee jumping off a bridge. We have to do these things ourselves to enjoy the experience. I myself would much rather watch a video first, then make a good decision with my money before wasting it on a crappy game or other experience. Does the new Aliens game ring a bell? Look at all the people who got screwed buying that game only to find out it was terrible. Did they get their money back? Nope, not at all. They got shafted. Watching a video might have saved them from a bad purchase. Even with older games, bringing back old memories certainly makes me what to play them. I just don’t think Nintendo should have made this move, they already got paid once (if not more) and it has made them the company they are today. Obviously people are still buying their products and a video isn’t going to hurt that at all. If nothing else, the video in itself will make them more money. They should pay the consumer for advertising for them. And besides, the consumer is the one playing the game and taking the time to record and post the video, not Nintendo.

  • LopsidedPasta


  • Dez

    I really don’t like how close-minded people are on the issue. It is Nintendo’s property, they can do what they want with it, besides I doubt any of you even know about Twitch.Tv or eSports. What really pisses me off is that Scott’s comments, his ignorance is helping hold back eSports from breaking into the mainstream.

    People stream Nintendo content on Twitch all the time, just move to Twitch and do the same thing. As far as I know, Nintendo really doesn’t know about or is interested in Twitch. Just become a broadcaster on Twitch and your good to go.

    • tronic307

      This kills eSports, at least if they’re livestreamed. What are you talking about?

  • TheFarmboy

    I feel this is a mixed bag, Sure it’s shady on Nintendo’s part to get that money, and pointless. Then again, they’re not blocking the videoes. Not to mention that it’s their property, and that the LPers are profitting off of someone elses property which doesn’t fall under fair-use. I can understand that it takes awhile to make a video (days to weeks), but it take even longer to make a game (months to years).

    I remain neutral on this and hope that they would agree to something. Maybe they can keep the vidoes and Nintendo will recieve a cut.

  • liamdawe

    Nintendo have made such a moronic decision here.

  • While I like Nintendo alot and don’t see many faults with alot of what decisions they make as a company this decision by Nintendo I do not back. It is a poor business decision to basically deny a person revenue for posting video’s of the companies product. Lets Play videos really do much more good than bad for companies like Nintendo, showing what you get with there products, if it is good/worth it etc. I have alot of games I would have never even thought about getting had I not seen how the game plays/looks. It is truely a shame Nintendo is harming those who wish to promote a product, get a revenue, and show how much fun a game is. Hopefully Nintendo rethinks this strategy as it is a poor decision by them.

    • Steve

      That comment has no logic in it.

      You are basically saying that I can profit from your creation because I showed it to a few thousand people. It is still your creation. We never had a legal agreement that you would pay me to show off your creation.

      • Well if you bought my creation you have a right to show it off, and really i see no problem with you showing of my creation and make money doing so. Why? Because you showing off my creation brings in more customers to buy my product.

        • Steve

          Okey, first, bought isnt really te right word when it comes to games. I’d say “license” would be more appropriate.

          But putting that aside… I agree with you. But, that’s how business is. You want to make as much money as possible. You see these these guys making money by showing off your work, and at the arm time advertising it. That is great. Free advertisement. But then, you never really gave them permission to profit from it Yea, you could just let ten have as a Rockne of gratitude.

          But then again, it is your legal property, you don’t have any legal agreement explicitly saying “you have to pay them”.

          Let’s see, I have legal evidence that this is mine. You have no legal evidence saying you have rights to profit from that… Can you prove a case in court? No evidence? Okey… I’ll take your income now.

          Thank you πŸ™‚

          • I agree now that you lay it out like that(and after further researching it) I guess what I was getting at is the way Nintendo is cutting youtubers completely out of the picture. I understand it is Nintendo’s legal right to do so I just feel this will leave a bad taste in alot of peoples mouth’s. I believe a more friendly(less rage inducing to some) way of doing it would work out a system with Google to where advertisements on Let’s plays would be split 90/10, 90% of ad revenue goes to Nintendo, 10% to the maker of the video( or even less 95% to 5%). I believe this would leave people without feeling this anger towards Nintendo for taking “there way of making money” away completely while still making money off the video’s.

            I understand legally they don’t have to do anything I just see bad repercussions coming from the decision to cut out the poster of lets play video’s completely.

        • Steve

          To that would be fine. But to others, specially businesses, it is not. It even says so on the terms of use.

  • Sabrina

    I am a Nitendo fan. I am not a let plays either but I think Nintendo is wrong because

    Nintendo filing claims to ad revenue on YouTube Let’s Plays.


  • Jeovany

    I think this is a bad idea from Nintendo. Nintendo isn’t trying to be dick and thinks there doing the right thing by not removing. I mean is easy to take Nintendo side by saying that its there content and by adding in some interesting commentary doesn’t give a valid reason to justify. But Nintendo is hurting themselves here. There losing free publicity for there game and making so that no one will do Nintendo brand game anymore. Plus alot of the people doing lets play don’t have alot of money and can’t afford to play the game, take the time to edit it, and not receive any profit. In the end I think this hurt Nintendo more than it helps them.

    • Steve

      They technically can live without it. It’s just nice to have. But it’s hurting their profits.

  • GuardiansFan

    i would love to know why these people think have earned the right to make money off of them tapping their walkthroughs for a game in which they own 0 copyrights. Either there should be no ad revenues or yes i see nothing wrong with the publisher of the game making the money. These people are lucky the publisher doesnt decide to go one step further and sue them.

  • Michael Jurado

    omg everyone quit your bitching and just use gamefly play the game your self if you dont like it send it back and get a new game get on your ass and play games see this is why people suck at video games now >__<

  • Siu Leung

    It’s pretty much cut and dry from a law stand point. Nintendo is going by the law. Sure you can claim “fair-use” but if you do, then the person using it can’t profit from it. “Fair-use” pertains to the person not making any profit from using other’s properties, and the Let’s Play group definitely are making money from it. So by law, that’s illegal, but Nintendo isn’t stopping all profits from the Let’s Play group, they are just inserting ads and getting a portion of that money.

    • tronic307

      ALL money.

  • tronic307

    To all YouTubers reading this: Take down your Let’s Plays NOW!! Don’t let ’em get a red CENT!!!
    Downvote me and be cursed, you lifeless corporate shills!!!

    • TaintedXGamer

      go on curse me…I dog Dare you! >:P

  • Nintega010

    Youtube puts ads on videos and makes money from displaying those ads. If you are partnered with Youtube, you get a cut of that ad money because it’s content you created.

    Instead, Nintendo is stepping forward to say they own the copyright on the game footage and therefore Youtube should share the ad money with them, not with the person who produced the LP

    Got this from somewhere else.

    • I do think that is a legit argument but I think this was executed wrong. It’s not like LP’ers don’t put work into those videos. A lot of time and possibly money is spent and now Nintendo games have suddenly been dropped from everyone’s LP list.

      • Steve

        They have not been dropped. You just can’t profit from them, that’s all.

        • What I meant was that people won’t make them now if they can’t profit off of them like other titles.

  • Andrew Longo

    Let’s Plays are an excuse for people to not buy games and just watch them on YouTube, of course it benefits you people but think of how much that impacts a business like Nintendo who is already struggling. Get over it.

  • Jonn McNally

    I find absolutely nothing wrong with this.

  • Daniel Gonzalez

    Nintendo, as much as you’re one of my favorite gaming companies, you also make the dumbest mistakes. Is it really a big deal for Let’s Play uploaders to make a small profit compared to the huge profit you make off us gamers each and everyday? I think these gamers deserve a little reward for supporting you over the years. Poor move Nintendo, poor move. I don’t see how it is really that bad considering it’s under fair use. All we make is small money on those kinds of videos vs. your money-filled pockets. Hopefully this company learns to worry more about selling hardware and pushing out software and less on what people upload.

    True story.

  • Think it’s a fair move there not saying you shouldn’t do it there saying its not fair for you to do it for a extensive time and yes the play threw does help game sales but on the other hand people watch the play threw because of the featured game’s popularity also and making money on that doesn’t seem fair just like me posting a complete movie and talking a bunch of crap while the movie plays that all fun and games till you start making money then its theft. I kinda know where there coming from I play in a local band and even though im either famous or that good if someone made a video with one of our songs in the background without our consent and makes a profit off of it I wouldn’t be to pleased either they can do it for free but if they cash in I feel like I should get a cut also with piracy as big as it is and as easy as it is to get and distribute at will companies need to draw a line but im a hippie what do I know πŸ™‚

  • val berger

    It’s a never ending discussion. prince sued everyone who put a homevideo conatining any of his music somewhere in the background. It’s something where it may be correct in the eye of a judge, but not in the big picture. companies acting like that are usually shitting on their own image in a way that causes much more damage than those videos would. especially if it’s about such a huge company going after common people it just doesn’t feel right. Nintendo should really take more care about their image these days.
    On the other hand I kinda understand what they are thinking. Indeed it may not really support a videogame if you’re able to get totally spoiled about everything on the web, watching a complete playthrough. But 1. what amount of the target audience really watches Let’s plays on a regular basis? 2. how many of them reconsider their plan of buying a game after watching that? and as I said 3. is this really worth setting free such a shit storm about their ethics?
    I would have guessed that Sony or Microsoft would go down that path, not Nintendo. And even if they argue of those videos damaging their business then they should ask themselves if they aren’t the company that claims that it’s all about gameplay and experiencing a game yourself? A let’s play would take away my wish of buying something like uncharted or heavy rain, games that play like interactive movies. But something like Mario or Zelda? No way! I woud even go that far to say that they would be free advertising for Nintendo as you can’t really show a WiiU game like it really feels in a video. But it definitely makes watchers want to play it. And if not, then here we go, it would have the same effect with a demo. If ppl don’t like it, then not because they git teased but because they wouldn’t like it anyway.

  • Maybe Nintendo needs to rethink their approach on this. They should think about sponsoring games for this person/organization and working with getting more ad revenue if they want to take part of the cake.

    Of course this person seems to be showing the game in it’s entirety or at least the majority of the game and I would think that other companies would react the same way if their content is being displayed. If the big argument is that the person that uploads this content is NOT making any money then I have to say they shouldn’t be making any money without permission from the copyright holder.

    How does NIntendo and other gaming companies deal with the big sites like IGN when it comes to showing videos of their content? Has anyone looked up the copyright disclaimer on video games and their content. I would assume that it is very similar to movies and other visual content.

  • RonnieMexico

    smokin mi blunt…youtub3 is so old fukin n3ws…no on3 go3z d3r anymor3. all dez catz go and uz VINE. fuk youtub3 VINE datz wh3r3 mi niggaz ar3 at

  • Arthur Jarret

    They’re just targeting let’s plays – so if you call them – Letsa game – videos, you’re good to go ^_^

  • Justin Gray

    People who make lets plays for the money and no other reason: are they even real gamers?

  • This is the worst PR move that Nintendo could possibly be doing right now. Yes I understand protecting their “IP,” but this isn’t the way to do it. Believe it or not, some Let’s Players have a huge impact on some people when purchasing a game.

    • Kirzan

      Exactly. More and more people are aware, when buying games. And a bullshit cinematic trailer with quick cuts of gameplay just doesn’t cut it. LPs are the perfect trailer that the company doesn’t have to spend money on. It’s free, awesome advertisement!


    What it really comes down to is this. Nintendo has the right to claim it. However, let’s plays are done in most part free of charge and are a great form of free advertisement for Nintendo. Considering that the wii u is struggling and a lack of a proper E3 I think Nintendo is showing itself to be out of touch. Again both sides have valid points but does Nintendo have nothing more important to do. I think they would be better off without this bad publicity. Regardless of right or wrong.

  • Daniel Gonzalez

    If Nintendo gets all the money from Let’s Plays, then uploaders should just take them down if that’s the case. Or, you just disable ads so they don’t make anything if you can’t at all. I mean really, why pay Nintendo more when you already purchased the licenses to play their games? I’d never sit around playing a game while the content creator got all the profits. For me it’s either I get a fair share or I won’t monetize at all.

    Best solution to all of this is to disable ads or just don’t upload anymore Nintendo game LP’s.

  • lolnou

    This is bullshit, the person who made the video should get the money. not nintendo.

  • Joey Sandlin

    Let’s Players are huge faggots

  • LopsidedPasta

    A YouTube video I made talking about why this is a stupid move for Nintendo. Don’t expect this to be a very MIND BLOWING video as far as quality is concerned. It’s a slideshow

  • John Madsen

    there is a problem in this the ad’s i don’t mind at all but this also will be challenged in court because you are placing ad’s on peoples videos without permission of the owner which violates freedom of speech in the u.s of which someone will sue nintendo over

  • Takarashi282

    I am kind of in between on this one. If LP’s result in a loss for Nintendo, then sure, it would make sense to do that sort of thing. But if it results in no loss, they shouldn’t.

    Here’s the thing. LP’s can help advertise a product from this company, so it shouldn’t result in a loss. But again, if most people watch LPers play the game rather than buying it themselves, that can result in a loss. I’ll have to look at a statistic.

    But away from the financial side, LPers don’t only play games for the ad revenue, they play it for the fun of it. It feels kind of unrewarding to not have that revenue however, which may, like the article says, shy some of them away from playing and featuring their games.

    Then again, they are posting their content on a public site, but they’re not precisely claiming it as their’s, which most of these copyright notices are based off of. They would credit the owners, hell, even buy rights to feature the games on their LP list. Overall, there’s no significant reason to take the revenue away.

    I guess that I’m leaning toward the opposing side, that they shouldn’t take away revenue from LPers who play their games.

  • Tommy McMahon

    They are being foolish as usual. The world of retail is not like the world of politics, people do not just become apathetic and get on with their lives, they stop buying your games! It doesn’t sound like a Nintendo-esque move to me, it sounds like typical EA behaviour, always grasping for as many pieces of the pie as they can.

    Don’t be like EA Nintendo, let us have a break for once!

  • bradlee donahue

    Microsoft makes you pay to play online and people do it.

  • TheFarmboy

    I never even heard of Zack Scott before……

  • Danny

    I do think this is a bad idea for Nintendo to go though and i hope they do rethink this abit or at least explain more of it but they could’ve gone one step further and took down the videos or even sue.