Topic: Question About Japanese Companies re: streaming & Persona 5 Restrictions

I recently bought a PS4 (in significant part to play Persona 5), and came across several articles regarding restrictions on streaming parts of it. I don't do any streaming, so these restrictions don't affect me, but I was curious about something these articles indicated, namely, that these restrictions were due to Japanese parent companies not understanding YouTube and how the streaming media works. It's not just the Atlus parent, but also Nintendo and Square Enix that have apparently had this problem in the past.

Is there a cultural reason or something why this is so? Most video game companies elsewhere in the world have had little problem with accepting the streaming media (absent certain exceptions, like streams that reveal exploits), so I'm a little curious.

@Kogorn733 There's an ongoing battle between youtube stream rights and protection of a games intellectual property. It's difficult to control when there are millions of videos uploaded daily so Nintendo to a degree have taken the most aggressive approach that I'm aware of, they use an algorithm to find content and shut it down. There are many reasons they do this, primarily they are a business and want to have more control over what is and isn't showcased. This approach has drawn massive criticism from youtubers who make money from the adverts from the content.

But the reality is the content isn't theirs to begin with. What they are streaming doesn't belong to them. Most western developers encourage youtubers in many cases paying for their game to be streamed. This has both positive and negative effects. It's a great tool to advertise multi-player games. But on the other hand in a story heavy single player game you could potentially just watch the game for free on YouTube.

It's a real Grey area and some of the most vocal critics I'm aware of in Angry Joe and Jim Sterling do have a point that the videos being taken down do stop those guys publishing more Nintendo stuff online. Which is a pity. Maybe the answer is to have higher end online game shows similar to Top Gear or the Gadget Show, rather than a dude in his bedroom on a badly animated background. Then Nintendo may engage with the content publishers.

Bottom line and this is what it comes down to. Companies can contest that streams cut into their profits.

Why by a game for $60 when I can watch for free on Youtube someone play the game especially a heavy story based like Persona and get the same enjoyment out of it.

@themcnoisy I was listening to the Easy Allies podcast yesterday, and I was kinda surprised when they mentioned Nintendo even ID claims their reviews of Nintendo games, basically any Nintendo-related video. They don't really care because they're Patreon supported, but I can definitively understand why people would prefer not to review or let's play a Nintendo game. Especially the smaller channels that are more dependent on the ad revenue.

@Octane it is difficult, and to be fair I don't have much sympathy for youtubers or streamers. A large proportion of the most successful are still cheaply made by egotists. Why should Nintendo bow to them? I've listened to 3 or 4 large scale rants from buggy235, angry Joe and Jim sterling, It affects them massively but so what? If I had a YouTube account I couldn't use Rhiannas latest track for free, I couldn't nick snippets of Tom Cruise for my opening sequence. Why are games treated differently? The patients are trying to run the asylum and let's be clear all 3 of those people mentioned make money piggy backing on other people's hard work and Nintendo stance is known. This isn't as Grey an area like the youtubers want us to believe as I did a bit of digging since my last comment. They get upset when one or two days work is taken offline, yet no counter argument about the hundreds of Nintendo employees or years of development time.

This is a huge issue as I witnessed in the Persona 5 article last night. A now banned push square member who is obviously easily led has been listening to the youtubers crazy self motivated mootings for too long and has decided to jump on the band wagon.

I do want impartial guidance on what to buy next, of course I do. But I stick with Push square, then browse Nintendo Life, Eurogamer, Polygon and developer sites and occasionally dabble in YouTube only if I have the game and to fill out back stories and Lore. I rarely use YouTube or other sites if I don't own the game as it's just spoiling the game for myself.

I don't mind streamers, I don't see the interest myself but I can see why people would rather watch people play some games. Certainly I don't think you can be for the used games market but against streamers since they both arguably cause developers to lose out.

At any rate it's not my problem to worry about fortunately

@themcnoisy I'm not specifically talking about Let's Plays. Nintendo also claims video reviews. Reviews. That would be similar if all the ad revenue on NintendoLife got claimed by Nintendo because they're using screenshots of Nintendo games in their reviews and articles. I've even seen examples of entire podcasts being claimed for using a few seconds of footage from a Nintendo game, or a video being claimed for using the concept image of Zelda in their video. That's just greedy and it doesn't help that YouTube allows these kind of practises to exist.

@Octane 'I've even seen examples of entire podcasts being claimed for using a few seconds of footage'

This is unfortunate and I do feel a touch of sympathy here.

But the streamers should know the risks of using said material, but many are unwilling to put in the groundwork. This is the problem with youtubers. They are happy to take content and publish it as their own without seeking permission. If they had been given permission by Nintendo before hand then that's a separate issue.

Wherever Nintendo is heavy handed in its dealing of material used without permission is imo entirely up to them.

Maybe approaching Nintendo is what the youtubers should do. But as we both know and the evidence is online. it's easier to knock up a video today and take your chance, and cry about it when the video gets taken down rather than do the right thing in the first place.

@themcnoisy You know too that doesn't work in practice. Let's take a 2-hour long podcast, they cover several dozens of topics during that time frame, including multiple games, should they contact each and every publisher to ask for permission to talk about their games and use a screenshot or footage in their video? That's just ridiculous.

Anyway, remember that I wasn't talking about streamers (in fact, many people opt for streaming Nintendo games instead of uploading it to YouTube, because Nintendo can't take streams down (yet)). Nor was I talking about ''Let's Players'', I'm talking about reviews, and game enthusiasts in general. When people are discouraged to talk about your products, I think it's a bad thing.

I'm going to ask you the following question; When PushSquare reviews a game, people read their reviews and the ad revenue keeps the site up and running. Do you think it's fair when a publisher steps in and says; ''That's our game, you're making money off of our products and claiming it as your own, we're going to take your ad revenue you earn from this review.'' Is that fair? No. It's fair use of the material in question (and one could also argue free marketing).

Is Nintendo in their right to do this? Apparently yes, but that doesn't mean I agree with their decisions.

@KratosMD That whitelist... You can't even play Xenoblade Chronicles X if you're part of Nintendo's backwards program. I have honestly no idea why they thought this was acceptable.

@KratosMD I don't disagree, but the youtubers have to approach Nintendo which they rarely do. There's always room for negotiation. Although we view Mark Plied and Pewdipie with some measure of marketing clout, maybe Nintendo don't want these people marketing their games.

Here's a boss little website, it's really small but the owner has taken his time to cover most of the bases. Maybe the streamers should read it first.

http://www.gamerlaw.co.uk/2013/a-legal-guide-to-lets-play-and...

As you pointed out I'm coming from a logical sense, and yes some instances seem insane. The youtubers / streamers can take Nintendo to court over fair use. But they won't. They will make a rhetorical video moaning about the video being taken down instead so we are left in this deadlock with people unable to upload content.

@octane I think the laws on written reviews are different and fall under fair use in most countries.

@themcnoisy You know how expensive it is to take a case to court, right? Making a video and ''moaning'' about it sounds like a cry for attention, but it generally works. The more people are aware of these ludicrous practices, the more likely the company will realise they're probably better off to change them.

And approaching Nintendo, how would they do that? Send them an e-mail and await an automated reply or a standard PR mail? That's not going to help either. Nintendo will probably point them toward their Creators Program, but that's so restricted, it's a joke. I can't see much people using that to begin with.

I don't about anyone else but I sure as heck wouldn't want PewDiePie marketing my game.

@Octane how do you approach anyone? A phone call, meet with them etc. That's how. Business is business and if I want to sell cars directly for Jaguar I would contact Jaguar and arrange a meeting. I wouldn't presume they would be fine with it. Why would I? I would cover the bases.

Some youtubers are millionaires. Maybe they should put their money where their mouths are. Until a case is won in court this is going to happen for years to come. I may be coming across a little heavy handed here as Im only defending Nintendo from the perspective of the law and understand you are happy to see more content and don't see a problem with certain isolated instances. I agree the instance on the podcast is wrong, but how can Nintendo monitor millions of videos everyday?

Should the laws change? I don't know. But someone needs to standup to Nintendo on fair use so a court example can be made. Then there will be clarity on the subject.

@KratosMD the conan O'Brian example is perfect. I had a colleague refer to that very same video at release and say he wasn't buying it. It was obviously meant tongue in cheek but the negative messages do get through.

Okay, so a few things.

1 - For those saying what about smaller guys who rely on ad revenue. That ad revenue is pitiful. It is loaves of bread per month, pitiful.

2 - For those saying Nintendo has videos removed. They don't. They claim ad revenue. What is happening with Persona and now Puyo Puyo Tetris is SEGA saying you will be given a Strike. A YouTube enforced restriction on your channel.

3 - You don't pay Nintendo to review their games. Nintendo takes the ad revenue and then gives some to you. Know what that is? Every YouTube partnership. I don't see any money for two months for the relevant month, and it's 60% of the total, while the network works out what they keep first.

That's how it works. But YouTubers won't talk about the backend of how ad revenue is dished out. It's a messy grey area in of itself now with advertisers pulling out because YouTube cannot possibly police all the content to ensure it's all safe. It's not humanly possible. So what do they do to keep their ad sustained platform alive? Use algorithms. Do they always work? No, it's a computer, and the problem has been YouTube itself is in a corner. It has to bend to the will of the advertisers, but cant do it in a way that benefits the creators.

I get 60% of my ad revenue, which comes two months after its gone through. I only just got paid for January. I don't see a penny of it until then, and it goes to the network first to dish back out. So in a way, I end up paying them first and getting whats left.

Since you're a streamer I'm curious to hear more about your perspective on this. Although some review videos do get "claimed" by developers/publishers, I think most people are in agreement that a review is fair use because its "transformative." In other words, people watch a review primarily to hear the critique, rather than to experience the game itself.

Let's plays do strike me as a bit of a grey area though. I'm sure plenty of people enjoy let's plays in part due to the commentary and personality of a specific Youtuber, but would that be the primary purpose of a let's play? Or is the primary purpose to experience the game, with the commentary being a side perk? I can see arguments for both. Would a let's play be more likely to be transformative if the youtuber is expressing his opinion about different parts of the game while playing it, as opposed to just providing descriptive commentary about what's happening? Does the fact that let's play commentary is typically unscripted make it less likely to be transformative?

As an attorney myself (though I don't practice copyright law), I find it all very interesting to read about/discuss

@Kogorn733 Openly?

Reviews I feel can walk a fine line.

The reason I say this is because of pre-paid reviews. That's become a norm sadly. Some creators are setting a precedent that they want the product for free/paid to do so in advance. Companies, in response, aren't happy about having to flat out pay some folk to even give them the time of day. But that's just how it is. I never take payment for anything, because I don't care. If I want to review or cover something I don't need an incentive for it.

I don't know what makes LPs fun for people. I'm changing how I personally approach them because doing it the way that people seemed to like wasn't fun.

Unfortunately, I don't know how transformative an LP is. It's weird. Its basis is entirely copyrighted content, and just talking over something doesn't really change it in anyway or judge it.

I don't know, but I also know I'll never make enough money to properly give a rats ass, just look from the outside in. I've been at it for 8 years. After a while the money is pointless.

@BLP_Software Good to hear your perspective. Do you run your streams as your main source of income or as a hobby?

@themcnoisy It could never be a main source of income.

Either most people don't get enough, and never will, or the way YouTube works being in constant flux makes gambling more secure.

It's a hobby, all the streams and videos. My main job is...err....cant really mention that on this particular site. Let's just say it involves a certain thing.