Nintendo Creators Program - 1-2 Switch, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild white-listed

Well here's a bit of good news for people in the Nintendo Creators Program. Both 1-2 Switch and The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild are white-listed, meaning they can be used to create videos. A lot of people making Nintendo-related video content will be happy to see their content won't get flagged.


or... you know. Disabling the program entirely would be quite nice.

Not with Kimishima (A Banker) in charge.

Pssh. As if Iwata (the creative type) would have ever done away with it. But yea stereotypes. Fun.

Iwata was the one who made the program in the first place, and Nintendo was in the process of rolling it out to other countries before he passed. Afterwards, it's still not out in any new countries besides the ones it came out in after launch, and I don't think Kimishima/NCL have any interest in putting an aggressive focus on it. The only reason I think its still around is exactly because of his banker background: It makes free money for NCL, so why wouldn't they keep up the (incomplete) version they have now? Like with the VC, it's nothing more than a minor bonus feature they do.

There was a point in time where I seriously considered trying to be a video game YouTuber. But alas. Nintendo killed that dream.

Nintendo, just kill the program already. You are throwing free advertisement away.

Nintendo won't block your video regardless of whether or not you join the program. Not joining it just prevents the video owner from making ad revenue, so technically the auto claiming is giving them free advertisement money whether people want to admit it or not.

The chances of NCL killing this program are almost zero considering their annoying "Japan first" behavior and over in Japan a ton of Japanese publishers prefer niconico over youtube (Treating people on the latter site even worse than how NCL does it as a lot of them actually go and make videos unwatchable to those outside of Japan. I've had a few do that on some of my gameplay videos and its annoying.)

By losing free advertisement, I meant that because they are claiming videos, many will simply choose not to cover Nintendo games.

Fri Feb 17 17 11:41pm
Rating: 2

To be fair, most people on youtube aren't worth watching. Let alone the kind who only make videos purely for money, and don't have a real interest in what they're doing. Those are the kinds of people want you to believe that claims are the same as strikes. (Which they aren't.)

I think many are worth watching. Of course, in every field, there are some that are better than others. By your logic, most television shows aren't worth watching and most games aren't worth playing. That doesn't mean that there aren't many worth experiencing still.

Claiming people's videos is essentially theft. It is stealing their transformative work.

Sat Feb 18 17 07:48am
Rating: 1

Claiming people's videos is essentially theft. It is stealing their transformative work.
Why does this argument not work the other way around for you? People using Nintendo's IP in their work to make money is essentially theft. It is stealing their creative work
This creator's program seems like the perfect middle way to me. Both parties who own rights to the video (Nintendo for the use of IP and the video creator for, well, the video) will earn money that way. That's how it should be

By law, it is fair use. Nintendo has no business taking the hard-earned money of normal working citizen. Nintendo is not entitled to make money off the backs of people who legally use their work.

Sorry, what are you referring to when you say "it"? Because fair use is a case-to-case thing. Or are you claiming all Youtube videos fall under fair use and are thus legal? Because that's just nonsense

Let's plays and reviews fall under fair use basically as they are transformative works, not like just ripping a soundtrack and putting them online for example.

Sat Feb 18 17 01:58pm
Rating: 1

Do you have a source that says specifically these fall under fair use, preferably with legal precedent? Or are you just assuming this?

I think he explains it well: https://iplsrutgers.wordpress.com/2014/01/26/do-lets-play-videos-constitute-fair-use/

It is a performance, commentary, and every play-through is a completely different experience.

...Except in Japan (Where NCL operates and where the program is used from) Fair use doesn't even work the same way as it does over here. NCL is in charge of NOA/NOE, and while those two can treat youtubers as nicely as they want it doesn't affect what NCL decides to do in the end. Therefore NCL has every (annoying) right to do this regardless of what the video actually is and honestly i think people should be more relieved they aren't blocking videos like other Japanese companies do.

Nintendo heard our pleas... sort of Smile

The content will still be flagged, Nintendo just shares the revenue with you.

"shares" is more like "steals"

I mean, they made the game. I didn't. They deserve credit in my opinion.

They are not taking credit for making the game. However, they deserve credit for their reviews, let' splay commentaries, etc...

And they get it! Creators get a split of the revenue (70%). Not to mention, if you are actually a large influencer, you get the games free for review as well as better revenue splits if not the entire pie.

I still don't see why it's so unfair.

You can actually be an influencer and NOT get the games for free. Being an influencer only allows you to use Nintendo material. Furthermore, it also discourages any and all negative coverage (e.g. Oh, you didn't like out game? They you're not getting review copies or allowed to even post monetized videos at all), essentially controlling the message. It is anti-consumer.

Basically, the influence program serves only one extremely specific purpose: weed out negative coverage.

Even so, you still didn't address how you feel that 70% of revenue isn't fair for content creators.

My original point was that I felt it was fair that Nintendo take some of the credit (not all!) for others who are profiting off their games

Sun Feb 19 17 12:59pm
(Updated 1 time)

Any taken revenue is stolen revenue. These people are creating something new out of the games they play. They are not streaming the game per se, they are streaming their play through of the game. So long as they are not distributing the game in end of itself, then the company has no business taking money from it. The only situation where I could see a gray area are David Cage "games", but then again, you know how I feel about weak movies with button prompts.

The only reason Nintendo is taking money form these people is because they know they can't fight back and they can control their message by holding their career at ransom.

Furthermore, Youtube already takes 50% of the revenue.

So Youtube takes 50%
Nintendo takes 30% of that remaining 50%.
You must go through paypal to get your money, so they take a cut.
If you are not american, you must pay extra fees to convert into your dollar currency.

You essentially loses more than 30% from Nintendo actually.

You say stolen, I say, rightfully paid for their content/platform. YouTube takes money because it's their platform. They host the video which costs them money. They setup the ad deals which saves content creators from having to negotiate themselves if desired. Nintendo made the game, they deserve credit for money earned for letting you use their copyrighted content instead of, you know, sending YouTube a dmca notice and having the video taken down.

The content creator does the least amount of work. Takes on the least amount of cost, and therefore gets a smaller cut.... But they actually still get a bigger cut than Nintendo. You just want something for next to nothing.

Nintendo made money, therefore, they deserve money on sales..., nothing more. A let's play is a performance, and thus falls under fair use. Taking a cut is theft.

Making the let's play using more than a small portion of the original work without first getting written permission from the copyright holder is theft.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one it seems.

Kinda strange NIntendo has never gotten into any trouble with all the stealing they're doing...

That doesn't mean anything. In fact, a game not being on the list at all means it won't get claimed. This just means that those games were put into the Youtube auto ID system by NCL and they will be auto claimed (but not blocked or unwatchable contrary to popular belief.)

This is really no big deal overall as whitelisted or not you can still play Nintendo games on youtube. You just may not be able to make money off of those videos without going through the program if they're whitelisted.

I find it amusing how a lot of people throw fits over NCL's stubbornness over youtube when NOA/NOE is rather friendly with youtubers/there are a ton of Japanese companies who treat you a lot worse than NCL. Victor Interactive Software is one of those companies and their content ID claims actually block your gameplay videos entirely in all major regions, and most of the time they do it to videos for games they don't even own. Alas, I assume Angry Joe's attention seeking move from a few years ago was the trigger for this.

I know right? I mean, Nintendo could have done worse and yet, they don't.

Atleast they are kind to let people upload videos so long as they don't make money out of it.

It doesn't mean the videos won't get flagged.

Nintendo will still claim aid revenue on both games.

Being whitelisted means they are eligible to be submitted for revenue-share with Nintendo after they claim the video.

This is partly Youtube's fault since they had to think of something to avoid piracy.

I get this idea but its only making it worse since youtube makes money out of people since they are the ones that make youtube what it is now.

Adding more policies to worsen the life of youtubers is only making youtube suffer more than the youtubers.

This is nice. I really hope it means Jackcepticeye and/or Markiplier will play Zelda. I feel that would be amusing~

I was about to say "but don't they generally stick to PC games?" but then I remembered "oh yeah that's right, they both did a series on Super Mario Maker."

Indeed. XD They do mostly play PC, sadly, but Jack at least played Mario Kart 8 and Mario Maker, and I really hope to see at least one of them play Zelda. They are entertaining, and I am sure they'd have lots of fun with the ragdoll physics in Breath of The Wild. ^^

The only reason these have been white listed is because Nintendo want them advertised across Youtube, thus saving them money. Nintendo have p1$$ed of a lot of people with their Youtube shenanigans and I'd say it's too little, too late. Besides, the majority of Youtube clip creators aren't going to know that these 2 specific clips won't get hit with a revenue claim.

Oh no, BOTW will get spoiled by GameXplain at launch day then and by other later, so time to hide under a rock all the way to winter

I swear the ad revenue split was greater to the youtuber VS Nintendo [who did make the content they're using] anyway, so... :? Has that changed since it's launch?

The YouTuber does get more of the revenue but frankly that seems to not matter, for some YouTubers like Angry Joe it's like "either I get all the ad revenue or f*** you I'm not playing your games." Ironic given one of his own characters, Corporate Commander, is a parody of "corporations who want all the money" and essentially he follows this very mindset with his YouTube videos where it's like "either I get all the money or f*** doing a video altogether, who cares what my fans want."

Sat Feb 18 17 11:40am
(Updated 1 time)

Don't forget Angry Joe made a Mario Party 10 video with friends, having fun only to make a scene when NCL auto claimed it, which he did by choosing to remove his own gameplay video while claiming Nintendo made him do it, pretty much proving he only made that gameplay video for the money instead of leaving it up for his fans to enjoy and making a whole big scene where he grouped anyone who disagreed with him/didn't care as an "Nintendo Fanboy" even though people can have differing opinions or just be more aware of facts.

The whole dramatic video he made in turn probably had him make more money than the MP10 video would have ever made, which basically proved it was an attention grabbing thing and nothing more. Pat the NES Punk (More specifically his friend Ian) made a good video on the situation when it was going down, pointing out how he did little to actually bring awareness to a "problem".

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!