Nintendo's Creator's Program - Printable Version

Nintendo's Creator's Program - Printable Version

+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Thread: Nintendo's Creator's Program (/showthread.php?tid=6810)

Nintendo's Creator's Program - Dark Jaguar - 7th February 2015

By now I'm sure a lot of you have heard of this. News sites by and large all reported on it as something for those "Let's Players" on youtube. However, there's a whole angle missed, and that's that this applies just as well to reviewers who may need to actually show viewers what they are talking about when they criticize a game.

Frankly, I don't agree with this. Nintendo has come in and said "anyone who uses footage from our games is now an employee, and they can only say certain things about our games". It's true that we're talking about content Nintendo made, in part, but not in entirety. The way the user is playing the game, the specific exact video and sound being shown, is NOT created by Nintendo but by the player using Nintendo's product (aside from cut scenes, of course). To say a reviewer or "let's player" owes Nintendo money for their own recorded playing is no different than Lego demanding money from videos on someone's own Lego projects. Heck, the gameplay is the main thing, and none of these videos are letting viewers actually experience the gameplay for themselves, so how can it be said they come even close to illegally sharing the games?

I think this is a big mistake. Nintendo has built up a lot of good will, but they could lose a big amount of it if they proceed this way.

Nintendo's Creator's Program - Sacred Jellybean - 7th February 2015

I've never heard of this before now, but I agree with your assessment. C'mon Nintendo!

Nintendo's Creator's Program - Sacred Jellybean - 7th February 2015

[Image: IHkCyn2.png]

Nintendo's Creator's Program - A Black Falcon - 9th February 2015

Yeah, this is definitely tricky. On the one hand, companies do have the right to protect their IP... but on the other hand, I think that gameplay footage is different enough from something like showing a movie that companies probably shouldn't have the right to do this kind of thing. Gameplay is always going to be different, and people should be able to monetize gameplay footage videos.

Music in games can be a trickier issue, since that's not really transformative as gameplay is, but ideally it should be considered to be just a part of the game just like the graphics are.

Nintendo's Creator's Program - Dark Jaguar - 10th February 2015

Don't knock my collection of video game MIDI files. They sound ALMOST like the real thing!

Nintendo's Creator's Program - Weltall - 10th February 2015

I think we all need to have a serious conversation so as to suss out just what, exactly, constitutes a threat to intellectual property. If someone suggests that a gameplay video threatens intellectual property, the conversation stops being serious right away. If someone suggests that piracy threatens intellectual property, the question needs to be asked, how much, really?

Honestly, I think IP is far too protected. What you make should have your name on it. You should be the only one who decides who gets what, and how much, from selling that property. Past that point, I find it hard to accept that there exists any legitimate threat. You lose nothing when someone copies software, other than perhaps a sale to the copier--but that's too loose a hypothesis for me. How many Photoshop pirates would ever pay $600 for it?

When people make YouTube videos of Nintendo games, Nintendo only wins. It increases exposure of their property, property which nobody is going to think belongs to anybody but Nintendo, and if you sell one extra copy of a game because someone saw a video, then all that has happened to Nintendo as a result of this video is that they made money.

Nintendo's Creator's Program - Sacred Jellybean - 12th February 2015

Quote: You should be the only one who decides who gets what, and how much, from selling that property.

What about expensive and complex collaborations like film? You have investors that require a return on their risk, actors who demand exorbitant salaries, directors, cameramen, everyone down to the costume designer puts a piece of themselves into a film (to the magnitude that it impacts the art's subtext).

I don't like when people pirate movies because you should pay for the triumphant creation of even the worst of cinematic abortions. Even that small bit of money that Netflix takes from you gets trickled down. I know this post isn't about film but I had to get that rant out. I think IP issues are quite tricky in general. Photoshop requires the talent of software engineers. 600 is very pricey but perhaps that's the lowest they can license it and still make a decent profit.

I agree with everything else you said.