Ninjas wife is his manager so She probably was also in on the decision, even if Ninja didn't want to out her. Thinking about being in her position, it may be uncomfortable seeing so many strangers trying to "ship" your husband with someone else. *shrug*
I'd like to think Shibata and Reggie fought against the original program decisions in the background.
Oh I remember this. I dont see what the problem is personally. Look like he doesnt want it to interfere with his wife.
This is specifically a youtube monetization thing. Patreon is legally separate.
It's a common monetization method used by many video creators and streamers, and it's disallowed by these new rules. Nintendo explicitly says "other forms of monetization of our intellectual property for commercial purposes are not permitted." It doesn't say video hosts or streaming services, it says forms of monetization. Patreon is a form of monetization, it's not on the list of permitted forms, so it's not permitted.
Would you consider it a form of monetization that is not legally affiliated with Nintendo licensed content in video form on other platforms if the Creator's Patreon page and reference does not explicitly say it is?
But they don't because by they're very nature, they're extended runs of a game, with story bits and cutscenes included.
That's complex enough to be a question for a lawyer, and I'm not one. I do have a couple thoughts on the matter though. First: the most common reward I see in video Patreons is early access to videos. It would be hard to argue that you're not monetizing a video if someone gives you money to see said video early. Second: in addition to the common pay-per-month model Patreon supports a pay-per-creation model. If I've signed up to send a creator a buck every time they post a video, and they post a video with Nintendo content, I've just sent them a buck for a video with Nintendo content. These are common enough parts of the YouTube economy that Nintendo ought to address them as soon as possible and remove the ambiguity.
It still counts as a funding source for a lot of people on YouTube. some clarification would be nice is all.
I think that is probably aimed at channels like ProSafia gaming, which has an "All bosses all cutscenes true ending" video for every Nintendo game(and some Sony games as well) hours after release. Something like that isn't transformative in the slightest and absolutely should be monetized by the IP holder.
After his game of the year 2017 video, he lifted his stance on not reviewing Nintendo games.
So you want 5-10 mins of straight gameplay and no commentary? What exactly are you trying to see? Im pretty sure IGN or somebody do that. That said they can make those videos all they want, just cant monetize it so it shouldnt bother you.
Aside from a few major titles, it's hard to get decent footage, and sites like IGN never really do decent gameplay videos where it's pure gameplay these days; they always have someone talking over. And if they're not talking over, they suck ass at playing the game.
LGPE has been quite popular on Twitch, still in Top 5 often and peaking at well over 100K viewers IIRC.
That's not what it's saying, though.
Pokémon Let's Go has garnered 17.6 million hours of viewing time as of launch, which is higher than BOTW did during the whole of March 2017 by 3 million hours, and they had only half the time to gather that compared to BOTW.
You'd think corporate cheerleaders would actively want their company of choice to go back on a decision that actually limits their outreach, but apologetic impulses prevailed I guess.
I suppose it may not be obvious, but I'm talking about the minority that DID defend it, and there were more than enough of them back when the news first hit.
For real, how big did they get? I don't browse Twitch, but was curious as to how many maximum viewers the games attracted.
Doesn't change a thing for us but we're happy that others aren't going to suffer from older guidelines
