YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

Due to their content-sharing policies, YouTuber Angry Joe is done with Nintendo.

With nearly 2 million subscribers on YouTube, Joe "Angry Joe" Vargas certainly has some weight to throw around. He's also apparently fed up with Nintendo's rigid policies on the sharing of their content online, specifically where it involves YouTubers, so much so that he's vowed to stop reviewing Nintendo titles for good.

After posting a Let's Play video of Mario Party 10, Angry Joe received a copyright infringement notice. Unlike other copyright infringement claims, Vargas states that "what's interesting here is that it's not matching on a particular song, it's just the whole...thing. Because there are Nintendo characters in it, the whole...thing is claimed." According to Angry Joe, he's spent over $900 on Nintendo-related products in order to produce his Let's Plays and video reviews, but "that's not enough for Nintendo. What's enough for Nintendo is also monetizing anytime you share your content with anybody else."

Nintendo recently launched a beta version of their Nintendo Creators Program (with a full launch in May of this year), and with it some strict guidelines on how Let's Play videos of Nintendo content could be shared. According to Polygon, the Nintendo Creators Program allows "YouTubers [to] still realize ad revenue under the program, [but] Nintendo takes a 40 percent cut of it." Another restriction? YouTubers in the Creators Program can only use approved games from this whitelist, and Mario Party 10 is absent from said list.

You can watch Angry Joe's full video on his stance below.

How do you feel about Nintendo/Vargas situation?

Source: Polygon, via Angry Joe's Twitter

Permalink

This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

His reaction makes his channel seem like Whining Joe.

It's not just Joe either. If Nintendo keeps this shit up, they'll be missing their entire lower body from shooting themselves in the foot.

Even if Nintendo is in the wrong I still don't like Angry Joe.

mad825:
This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

His reaction makes his channel seem like Whining Joe.

If you actually watch the video he points out at 9:50 that he was effectively testing the waters with Let's Play videos rather than spending thirty to sixty hours actually producing a proper review as he does for other games because he thought this might happen. The video linked in the OP is basically "yup, so you went and actually went through on those threats. Well, screw you, Nintendo".

He's not really surprised, he just thinks its bloody stupid. Much like Jim Sterling said in the video linked by RatGouf, although to my knowledge Jim never actually decided to try testing himself against their policies.

Lightspeaker:

mad825:
This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

His reaction makes his channel seem like Whining Joe.

If you actually watch the video he points out at 9:50 that he was effectively testing the waters with Let's Play videos rather than spending thirty to sixty hours actually producing a proper review as he does for other games because he thought this might happen. The video linked in the OP is basically "yup, so you went and actually went through on those threats. Well, screw you, Nintendo".

He's not really surprised, he just thinks its bloody stupid. Much like Jim Sterling said in the video linked by RatGouf, although to my knowledge Jim never actually decided to try testing himself against their policies.

This

Nintendo is really screwing themselves over by doing this.

Well... sucks for Nintendo.
This is a bad thing they are setting themselves up for in the long run.

They dont need Joe... but constant exposure, POSSITIVE exposure is what helps in the long run.
If you dont want it ... well your choice.

*now if they also could make hardware worth a damn*

Uploading the video on YouTube was very silly of Joe. Just because he has 2 million subscribers doesn't suddenly make him an exception. That doesn't mean I am defending Nintendo, their YouTube policy is just stupid, and there is nothing positive about it, but I don't really know what Joe was expecting.

That being said though, I completely understand why Joe doesn't want to make a Nintendo YouTube video again.

Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?

What's funny is that Smosh Games just put out an Honest Trailer for Mario Party 10, and I sincerely doubt they are part of Nintendo's program. The videos is still up, I guess Nintendo doesn't have the balls to go up against people like Smosh Inc,

mad825:
This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

His reaction makes his channel seem like Whining Joe.

When they last took down a video of his, it was an unedited private gameplay video of several hours. Nintendo claimed that it was because of the soundtrack.

This video, which was public, edited, and had no soundtrack in it to avoid repeating the same situation got taken down and this time no reason was given.

Nintendo can make up whatever ridiculous rules they want, and Joe can just ignore them and play games from companies who don't treat YouTubers like crap.

Nintendo frequently seems like a company run by old men, behind the times and convinced this whole "inter-nets" thing is a passing fad that needs to be stomped out, not invested in. See also: one of their big names be so shocked and wounded over people uploading the cutscenes from brawl that he swore the next game wouldn't have them, their continued refusal to institute a unified functional online identity like the competition has had for two generations, friend codes, ect. Good on Joe for boycotting this bullshit.

Joe thinking way too highly of himself. Furthermore, he never reviewed any Nintendo games. Period. He just put up lazy LP's. That is it. And let's not get into the fact that his fans donated money to him so he could buy a damn Wii U in the first place. Criminy, there is nothing more pathetic than watching a grown man throw a hissy fit.

Laggyteabag:
Uploading the video on YouTube was very silly of Joe. Just because he has 2 million subscribers doesn't suddenly make him an exception. That doesn't mean I am defending Nintendo, their YouTube policy is just stupid, and there is nothing positive about it, but I don't really know what Joe was expecting.

That being said though, I completely understand why Joe doesn't want to make a YouTube video again.

Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?

Joe acknowledged in the video that it's Nintendo's right to do this. I think he's frustrated that, as a content creator; Nintendo is limiting his ability to create (and monetize) content for stupid reasons.

In truth, however, I don't think he made this video on his own behalf but as a tacit encouragement for other creators to shun Nintendo coverage because (A.) they're being dicks for no reason and (B.) the last thing we want is for other companies to start doing this too.

40% of revenue is an insane chunk to excise from Youtubers (particularly when the results of their coverage should mean more money for Nintendo anyway). If tubers only get to keep 60% of what they earn across all content (and that's BEFORE taxes), the games industry could conceivably strangle the independent commentator industry in its crib. I don't think any of us want that.

While I don't agree with Nintendo's business decisions concerning Youtube, and feel it would serve them better to let content creators make videos freely, I'm aware that they have a program in place to facilitate those who DO wish to make content. I'm quite sure that Angry Joe knows this as well, and uploaded the video anyways. To have it taken down was expected.

All his video rant has done is make me lose some of the respect I had for Joe, and I feel less inclined to watch his videos now. As far as I know, he wasn't doing Nintendo reviews before, and I won't miss them now either.

I *am* surprised that this is making news anywhere though. I don't remember his previous rants being published about like this, but perhaps I just missed those ones.

RatGouf:

Even if Nintendo is in the wrong I still don't like Angry Joe.

Yeah, I actually like Jim's stance on this, at least more than others.

I do sincerely think Nintendo is in the right for some of this as an unpopular opinion that might be.

Though I do wonder how certain channels like GameXplain and JWittz handles things like this.

senordesol:
Joe acknowledged in the video that it's Nintendo's right to do this. I think he's frustrated that, as a content creator; Nintendo is limiting his ability to create (and monetize) content for stupid reasons.

[...]

40% of revenue is an insane chunk to excise from Youtubers (particularly when the results of their coverage should mean more money for Nintendo anyway). If tubers only get to keep 60% of what they earn across all content (and that's BEFORE taxes), the games industry could conceivably strangle the independent commentator industry in its crib. I don't think any of us want that.

Actually, I don't think Nintendo has a right to monetize content like Angry Joe's. Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use. One of these days, someone with deep pockets will take on both Nintendo and YouTube on this issue and score a big win.

I don't think Nintendo understands how the internet works... or what Youtube is... or why Youtubers are the best advertising venue they could possibly get these days.

Nintendo being stupid and forgetting it's not 1987? What else is new?

senordesol:

Laggyteabag:
Uploading the video on YouTube was very silly of Joe. Just because he has 2 million subscribers doesn't suddenly make him an exception. That doesn't mean I am defending Nintendo, their YouTube policy is just stupid, and there is nothing positive about it, but I don't really know what Joe was expecting.

That being said though, I completely understand why Joe doesn't want to make a YouTube video again.

Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?

Joe acknowledged in the video that it's Nintendo's right to do this. I think he's frustrated that, as a content creator; Nintendo is limiting his ability to create (and monetize) content for stupid reasons.

In truth, however, I don't think he made this video on his own behalf but as a tacit encouragement for other creators to shun Nintendo coverage because (A.) they're being dicks for no reason and (B.) the last thing we want is for other companies to start doing this too.

40% of revenue is an insane chunk to excise from Youtubers (particularly when the results of their coverage should mean more money for Nintendo anyway). If tubers only get to keep 60% of what they earn across all content (and that's BEFORE taxes), the games industry could conceivably strangle the independent commentator industry in its crib. I don't think any of us want that.

To put it another way youtubers are giving publishers millions of dollars of free advertising. A national network commercial in the US would cost Nintendo around $350,000 allowing LP's could save them money.

Trishbot:
I don't think Nintendo understands how the internet works... or what Youtube is... or why Youtubers are the best advertising venue they could possibly get these days.

They don't. I'm sure their boardroom is filled with men 60+ who still think this is 1990.

Personally, I blame Google's policies and perhaps Internet law in general for this. Takedowns are serious business for YouTube indie content producers, they can get the door shut in their face just because somebody did that to them.

Sometimes it happens just because they are trying to censor conflicting opinions, other times it happens because it's just some 14-year-old asshole who wants to be noticed trolling them.

That's more than not right. It's straight-up, no-brainer wrong.

There needs to be some clearly defined fair use laws that Google is beholden to that allows legitimate content producers like Angry Joe to know where it's safe to tread.

Polaris just needs to make this a standard rule for all of their contributors. You get TB, Angry Joe, Pewdiepie, Markiplier, Game Grumps and all the rest to just stop uploading Nintendo content, maybe some sort of message will be sent. Because, let's be real, that is who this system is for. Nintendo is banking on the assumption that the really big youtube names make enough money to where they can just take a hit on Nintendo content and move on. They don't give a shit about nickel and diming Mom and Pop youtuber with their fifty subscribers. They want a cut of the big time.

It's just crazy though. You buy their product, you by all of the accessories, and short of pirating their product, a huge, multinational corporation should have *zero* right to come into your home, or your work, and tell you how you get to use the thing you bought. Buying a game isn't some lingering contract where you only get to enjoy it in ways *they* approve of. As long as nothing illegal is being done (and there is a strong legal argument for Let's Plays being protected under Fair Use), what Nintendo thinks of it should mean shit-all.

I wonder how long it'll take before they try and take down the GamesDoneQuick youtube channel. Let them deal with the media fallout of trying to shutdown a group that's raised millions for charity and is almost universally popular.

what I didn't know was about the white list of games that they allow you to cover even after the 40% cut they take. There are some really conspicuous titles left out of the list, like every smash bros game and the pokemon games. Almost no 64 games are on the list either.

And do they allow for speed runs? They could get some srsly bad press if they started blocking videos for things like awesome games done quick which always has a huge number of nintendo games in their line up.

But hey, at least they have Link's Crossbow Adventure...

mad825:
This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

Wasnt a copyright strike, its content ID. One is progress to getting your channel deleted, the other is a 3rd party claiming ad revenue off that video.

The only reason hes making a big deal out of this is to raise awareness of Nintendos flagrant disregard for fair use, and how YT's content ID system can essentially destroy someone who makes a living from YT ad revenue.

Aiddon:
Joe thinking way too highly of himself.

image

Aiddon:
Furthermore, he never reviewed any Nintendo games. Period.

Because he was well aware of the situation and tested out the waters with low effort content.
Would you like to go work for a 40 to 60 hour week only that by the end some random dude walks up to you and say: "Nice man and now I take 40% of what you earned, bye."
No you fucking wouldn't.

Aiddon:
He just put up lazy LP's. That is it.

Fair enough to test how it goes.

Aiddon:
And let's not get into the fact that his fans donated money to him so he could buy a damn Wii U in the first place.

And what is wrong with that?
People apparently wanted him to make Nintendo content and he never denied havening received donations. And he bought that Nintendo gear that people donated for (and more by his own money) and tried to produce content so no fraud involved at all.
It still turns out that he can't make Nintendo content either under the Nintendo system as it is not profitable nor independent as videos still get claimed.
Why make a video that only earns you 60% of what a video for a product of different company would have made?
Yes there are Youtubers out there that can shit all over that system like Pewdiepie who if he loses some money on a video couldn't care much but Joe isn't among them.
He can live of Youtube, great. But he isn't fucking rich.

Aiddon:
Criminy, there is nothing more pathetic than watching a grown man throw a hissy fit.

Ah right complaining about being treated unfairly and informing your community that producing any content under given circumstances is uneconomically and therefore not happening is unmanly... this is not only some random hobby dude that is his damn fucking job!

Mortuorum:
Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.

No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical. James Rolfe for instance reviews games and sets them up as comedy sketches. Both educational AND satirical. Joe's reviews of games are also the same because those are educational.

Let's Plays do not fall under that. They are neither educational or satirical and no amount of unscripted commentary is going to change that.

MatParker116:

To put it another way youtubers are giving publishers millions of dollars of free advertising. A national network commercial in the US would cost Nintendo around $350,000 allowing LP's could save them money.

Damn skippy. Not to mention that the money Nintendo could conceivably get from Tubers is paltry compared to potential revenue each video could generate through sales alone.

I mean, on average, a Tuber will earn about $2 per thousand views. Joe has ~2M subcribers so even if every single one of his subs watched his video, the MOST he could walk away with is $4,000 which means Nintendo would bogart a cool $1,600... which isn't enough to so much as pay a single QA Tester for a month (but it IS enough to cover the rent for most people).

However, if just 1% of Joe's subscriber base decided they were convinced by his video and bought Nintendo's game -even assuming they already have a Wii U- Nintendo just made $120,000 AT LEAST for zero work and zero expense.

It's not hard to figure out why Joe is frustrated.

Aiddon:

Mortuorum:
Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.

No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.

Or for purposes of Review or Commentary.

Now, while Nintendo is being retarded about this, I don't see this as anything of value being lost.
Angry Joe is neither fun nor interesting and combined with the fact that everyone and their grandmother saw a copyright notice comming... yeah. Good luck.

Lightspeaker:

If you actually watch the video he points out at 9:50 that he was effectively testing the waters with Let's Play videos rather than spending thirty to sixty hours actually producing a proper review as he does for other games because he thought this might happen. The video linked in the OP is basically "yup, so you went and actually went through on those threats. Well, screw you, Nintendo".

Yeah okay, whatever. I suppose the whole him pointing out the fact of him spent $900 on Nintendo goodies, preaching to the choir and how he's trying to save Nintendo from themselves. Yeahh, okay, "testing the waters".

Oh, then blames Nintendo in the end. Are we watching the same video?

Aiddon:

Mortuorum:
Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.

No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical. James Rolfe for instance reviews games and sets them up as comedy sketches. Both educational AND satirical. Joe's reviews of games are also the same because those are educational.

Let's Plays do not fall under that. They are neither educational or satirical and no amount of unscripted commentary is going to change that.

Has that actually been ruled in a court of law? I'd be interested to see a court case decided one way or the other on "Let's Play." And under U.S. copyright law, fair use does not only apply to educational or satirical use, so I'm not sure where you get that from. You seem to be including "criticism" under educational use, but that's not always the case. Some criticism is academic and some is not but both are protected under fair use. What's more, the law provides the fair use umbrella for educational purposes, news reporting, criticism, limited restoration of a damaged copy and comment. "Let's Play" may or may not fall under that last bit, so unless you've seen a court case stating that they don't, I can't see how your assertion stands up. You may be right, but it's not up to you, or I, or Nintendo, or Google to make that legal determination, it's up to the courts.

I've seen articles arguing both ways on this from people who quote the copyright laws verbatim. It is hardly a clear matter; unless of course you can show that it is. I'd be happy to see that sort of clarification if you can provide it.

quote from the creators program website

"The Nintendo Creators Program is a service through which Nintendo gives you part of the advertising proceeds it receives from YouTube for your Nintendo-related YouTube videos."

that money your videos are generating, thats ours, but you can have some if you get down on your filthy peasants knees and suck my dick

senordesol:

Aiddon:

Mortuorum:
Admittedly, YouTube's policies are somewhat draconian, but Let's Plays fall pretty solidly under the umbrella of Fair Use.

No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.

Or for purposes of Review or Commentary.

Correct. While most of the conversation on the Internet is - for reasons obvious to anyone who's spent any time on the Internet - biased against content producers and towards content consumers (and effectively meaningless), a quick Google search did turn up several scholarly articles that argue convincingly that Let's Plays are (or at least should be) protected under Fair Use:

https://iplsrutgers.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/do-lets-play-videos-constitute-fair-use/
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MonaIbrahim/20131212/206912/Deconstructing_Lets_Play_Copyright_and_the_YouTube_Content_ID_Claim_System_A_Legal_Perspective.php

I am not a lawyer, but Craig Drachtman is a published Juris Doctor candidate at Rutgers and Mona Ibrahim is a practicing attorney. I trust that their interpretations have more than a modicum of validity.

NoShoes:
According to Polygon, the Nintendo Creators Program allows "YouTubers [to] still realize ad revenue under the program, [but] Nintendo takes a 40 percent cut of it." Another restriction? YouTubers in the Creators Program can only use approved games from this whitelist, and Mario Party 10 is absent from said list.

What the hell?
So they take 40% of what's left of your ad revenue but if you want to play jet force gemini, majoras mask, goldeneye or any other game that isn't one of the 7 mentioned n64 games, tough luck?
Why would they do that?

Also wtf are the game grumps doing that allows them to lets play pretty much whatever nintendo game they want?
Are they just lucky? Cause I don't think they do it for free nor do they adhere to that ridiculously short whitelist.

Before I get to the topic, I'm going to preface that I agree with the opinion that what Nintendo has been doing with their YouTube dealings is pretty stupid. I just don't want this next part to make it sound like I'm defending Nintendo.

This is the kind of arrogance I can't stand with YouTube "content creators" and their bizarre entitlement that they, and only they, deserve 100% of the money they make recording someone else's IP. I mean, their entire fucking job would not exist if it wasn't for the games, and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked", everyone's acting like they're all evil greedy overlords who don't want people to spread the fun these games provide for people.

And Angry Joe is King of Arrogance Mountain.

The biggest slap in the face is that he just got his Wii U after pulling the "TGWTG doesn't pay me, and I can't pretend to be furious at Wii U games unless you fans buy me one" song and dance, and after realizing he can't win Google Dollars for this, he's taking his ball and going home. Thanks fans, for the Wii U! Now go fuck yourselves.

tl;dr Nintendo are being idiots and Joe is being a whiny bitch. Also, the sky is blue.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here