Conquer Club

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:This has been on the news for a couple of days, but thought I would post it on our Off Topics: Nintendo grabs money, control from fans promoting its games on Youtube

In what's sure to be one of its most unpopular moves in recent memory, Nintendo has decided to claim ownership over many popular YouTube videos featuring its games. Specifically, they've targeted “Let's Play” videos, where online personalities play games and offer running commentary.

These videos serve as a sort of mega-hybrid between a livestream, a game review, and a walkthrough. Nintendo has decided that because the videos lean so heavily on their products for the visual element that they fall under their copyright. As of now, the advertising revenue from these videos will go to Nintendo instead of the YouTube creator.

...

Nintendo is using Youtube's Content ID system to make this happen. The service searches Youtube for video or audio that matches a company's content, and then gives them control over that Youtube submission. “Identify user-uploaded videos comprised entirely OR partially of their content, and choose, in advance, what they want to happen when those videos are found,” the official page states. “Make money from them. Get stats on them. Or block them from YouTube altogether.”

...

The real question that nobody seems able to answer right now is why Nintendo is bothering to legally pursue fans who are spreading the word about their games. YouTube ad revenue is famously low, and the earnings from Nintendo videos are virtually nil by the standards of an international corporation.

--Andy

What a bunch of shitheads (Nintendo, that is). Another example of how copyright laws reduce innovation and production.

For me, it's not even that...it's incredibly short-sighted on their part. These guys are MAKING NINTENDO MONEY by doing what they do. Why would they want to cut that out?

Aside from that, like thegreekdog, I'm rather "meh" as far as whether these guys get paid or not. I just think it's a dumb move.

Sure, there's that--from Nintendo's perspective, and yeah it doesn't make sense. I'm just responding to the typical argument I hear which supports patents and copyright law.

I'm miffed about their money being stolen by Nintendo because they provided a service which people demanded, and through that demand, some portion clicks on Ads at their YouTube channel. The ad revenue can serve as supplemental income for those who provide valuable services. When Nintendo and its swamp of lawyers bully YouTube and shove their USG-mandated laws in their face, then we should all be annoyed that a company + government laws is stealing revenue which was honestly made.

thegreekdog wrote: Does that not work the other way? These folks wouldn't be able to create their service which people demanded without Nintendo creating the games. That's why I'm meh.

muy_thaiguy wrote:For the amatuer LPers, this will have little to no effect on them. For the proffessional LPers though, like the Mindcrack guys (many of whom rely on ad revenue for a living), this sort of thing is very detrimental.

1. The LPers get no money from posting the videos.
2. The LPers will eventually stop posting the videos.
3. Fewer people learn about these games.
4. Following 3, that means fewer games sold.
5. Ad revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to what Nintendo already makes.

LPers have created a new job niche, but should other companies follow suit for some reason, LPs would still be put up, but only short videos and much more time between new uploads. A pro LPer even said should other companies follow suit, he be lucky to post 1 video a week, since he would be looking for a new job (he posts several videos daily).

Yes, Nintendo created the games, but the LPers have become a new way to advertise the games with no cost/risk to Nintendo, and they only get ad revenue. And LPs are 90% about the person talking and commentating during the video. The rest is about the game.

So, I don't really see how this is beneficial at all to Nintendo. They get a pittance compared to the rest of their money, and the lose people who freely advertise Nintendo games.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Woodruff wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

AndyDufresne wrote:This has been on the news for a couple of days, but thought I would post it on our Off Topics: Nintendo grabs money, control from fans promoting its games on Youtube

In what's sure to be one of its most unpopular moves in recent memory, Nintendo has decided to claim ownership over many popular YouTube videos featuring its games. Specifically, they've targeted “Let's Play” videos, where online personalities play games and offer running commentary.

These videos serve as a sort of mega-hybrid between a livestream, a game review, and a walkthrough. Nintendo has decided that because the videos lean so heavily on their products for the visual element that they fall under their copyright. As of now, the advertising revenue from these videos will go to Nintendo instead of the YouTube creator.

...

Nintendo is using Youtube's Content ID system to make this happen. The service searches Youtube for video or audio that matches a company's content, and then gives them control over that Youtube submission. “Identify user-uploaded videos comprised entirely OR partially of their content, and choose, in advance, what they want to happen when those videos are found,” the official page states. “Make money from them. Get stats on them. Or block them from YouTube altogether.”

...

The real question that nobody seems able to answer right now is why Nintendo is bothering to legally pursue fans who are spreading the word about their games. YouTube ad revenue is famously low, and the earnings from Nintendo videos are virtually nil by the standards of an international corporation.

--Andy

What a bunch of shitheads (Nintendo, that is). Another example of how copyright laws reduce innovation and production.

For me, it's not even that...it's incredibly short-sighted on their part. These guys are MAKING NINTENDO MONEY by doing what they do. Why would they want to cut that out?

Aside from that, like thegreekdog, I'm rather "meh" as far as whether these guys get paid or not. I just think it's a dumb move.

Sure, there's that--from Nintendo's perspective, and yeah it doesn't make sense. I'm just responding to the typical argument I hear which supports patents and copyright law.

I'm miffed about their money being stolen by Nintendo because they provided a service which people demanded, and through that demand, some portion clicks on Ads at their YouTube channel. The ad revenue can serve as supplemental income for those who provide valuable services. When Nintendo and its swamp of lawyers bully YouTube and shove their USG-mandated laws in their face, then we should all be annoyed that a company + government laws is stealing revenue which was honestly made.

Does that not work the other way? These folks wouldn't be able to create their service which people demanded without Nintendo creating the games. That's why I'm meh.

thegreekdog wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:For the amatuer LPers, this will have little to no effect on them. For the proffessional LPers though, like the Mindcrack guys (many of whom rely on ad revenue for a living), this sort of thing is very detrimental.

1. The LPers get no money from posting the videos.
2. The LPers will eventually stop posting the videos.
3. Fewer people learn about these games.
4. Following 3, that means fewer games sold.
5. Ad revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to what Nintendo already makes.

LPers have created a new job niche, but should other companies follow suit for some reason, LPs would still be put up, but only short videos and much more time between new uploads. A pro LPer even said should other companies follow suit, he be lucky to post 1 video a week, since he would be looking for a new job (he posts several videos daily).

Yes, Nintendo created the games, but the LPers have become a new way to advertise the games with no cost/risk to Nintendo, and they only get ad revenue. And LPs are 90% about the person talking and commentating during the video. The rest is about the game.

So, I don't really see how this is beneficial at all to Nintendo. They get a pittance compared to the rest of their money, and the lose people who freely advertise Nintendo games.

Yeah, I would never argue that Nintendo is smart to shut these things down (albeit indirectly). That's incredibly stupid of them.

I'm just not going to get up on a soapbox to defend people who use someone else's video game to make money when the company that made the videogame wants a cut. I find it weird that BBS is so fired up about it. He gets fired up about little and never about stuff he's wrong about. You're wrong BBS. You read that right. You're wrong.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

muy_thaiguy wrote:For the amatuer LPers, this will have little to no effect on them. For the proffessional LPers though, like the Mindcrack guys (many of whom rely on ad revenue for a living), this sort of thing is very detrimental.

1. The LPers get no money from posting the videos.
2. The LPers will eventually stop posting the videos.
3. Fewer people learn about these games.
4. Following 3, that means fewer games sold.
5. Ad revenue is a drop in the bucket compared to what Nintendo already makes.

LPers have created a new job niche, but should other companies follow suit for some reason, LPs would still be put up, but only short videos and much more time between new uploads. A pro LPer even said should other companies follow suit, he be lucky to post 1 video a week, since he would be looking for a new job (he posts several videos daily).

Yes, Nintendo created the games, but the LPers have become a new way to advertise the games with no cost/risk to Nintendo, and they only get ad revenue. And LPs are 90% about the person talking and commentating during the video. The rest is about the game.

So, I don't really see how this is beneficial at all to Nintendo. They get a pittance compared to the rest of their money, and the lose people who freely advertise Nintendo games.

Yeah, I would never argue that Nintendo is smart to shut these things down (albeit indirectly). That's incredibly stupid of them.

I'm just not going to get up on a soapbox to defend people who use someone else's video game to make money when the company that made the videogame wants a cut. I find it weird that BBS is so fired up about it. He gets fired up about little and never about stuff he's wrong about. You're wrong BBS. You read that right. You're wrong.

Uh, dude, did Nintendo even bring them to the negotiating table? If not, then it's outright confiscation. If you post a blog about a few games from ConquerClub, does this mean that CC owns your blog? (No, of course not).

And this goes back to IP rights.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: Uh, dude, did Nintendo even bring them to the negotiating table? If not, then it's outright confiscation. If you post a blog about a few games from ConquerClub, does this mean that CC owns your blog? (No, of course not).

And this goes back to IP rights.

Did my blog show video of me playing Conquer Club? If the answer is yes, then I'm fucked.

rdsrds2120 wrote:I've played LoL for the first time. What's that all about?

BMO

john9blue wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:I've played LoL for the first time. What's that all about?

BMO

what do you mean? you're asking how it's played?

it's pretty grindy/expensive if you want to have a large roster of champions, but the game itself is super addictive.

rdsrds2120 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:I've played LoL for the first time. What's that all about?

BMO

what do you mean? you're asking how it's played?

it's pretty grindy/expensive if you want to have a large roster of champions, but the game itself is super addictive.

A friend of mine urged me to get it and further insisted that I would like playing as Rumble after I tried a few other and didn't like them. Admittedly, Rumble was pretty fun!

BMO

john9blue wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:

john9blue wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:I've played LoL for the first time. What's that all about?

BMO

what do you mean? you're asking how it's played?

it's pretty grindy/expensive if you want to have a large roster of champions, but the game itself is super addictive.

A friend of mine urged me to get it and further insisted that I would like playing as Rumble after I tried a few other and didn't like them. Admittedly, Rumble was pretty fun!

BMO

yeah, just keep trying free champions and only unlock them if you really like them. better to master a few champions than be mediocre at a bunch of them. and the game is fairly well balanced now (compared to the old days, lol) so you can succeed with pretty much any champion if you get good enough.

i'm not sure what level you are right now, but after you get a bit of experience in league, you'll notice that people start following a "metagame" of 1 champion top and mid, 2 champions bot, and 1 jungler. right now you will probably be fine putting your champion in any lane, but eventually people are going to expect you to take your champion to the lane that they perform best in (rumble, for example, usually goes top, and occasionally mid).

then when you get even MORE experienced, it might be a good idea to pick which lane/role you want to specialize in, and learn that as thoroughly as possible.

john9blue wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: Uh, dude, did Nintendo even bring them to the negotiating table? If not, then it's outright confiscation. If you post a blog about a few games from ConquerClub, does this mean that CC owns your blog? (No, of course not).

And this goes back to IP rights.

Did my blog show video of me playing Conquer Club? If the answer is yes, then I'm fucked.

what's the difference between video and (say) text + images?

what if i put a video review + commentary on youtube and used images from the game?

i think you are too caught up in what is legal instead of what is profitable or what is morally right.

thegreekdog wrote:I just installed Neverwinter Nights 2 and the two expansions.

YEAH WEEKEND!

Andy - Any review on Crusader Kings 2? I'm thinking of finally making the purchase.

AndyDufresne wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I just installed Neverwinter Nights 2 and the two expansions.

YEAH WEEKEND!

Andy - Any review on Crusader Kings 2? I'm thinking of finally making the purchase.

Steam is having a mid-week madness sale on CK2. Not as cheap as I've seen it at other times, but at 9.99 that is a nice step down from $39.99. Ends on Thursday I think.

Edit: You can also get the base game + expansions for $19.99. Again, not as cheap as I've seen it before, but better than what they've been asking.


--Andy

rdsrds2120 wrote:ITT: crispybits is bad at video games .

BMO