Nintendo Suddenly Claims Ownership Of Many YouTube Videos

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Okay the people quoting me are just picking out what the choose to respond to and crying about it merely from a 'I believe it works this way and not a combination of both with different weights of pro's and cons'. You didn't respond to: Time investment, the example I provided that clearly outlined an example of a positive result from a lets play, and are just blindly frothing at the mouth to defend the indefensible dickswinging. They are not working this out in a diplomatic way, therefore, this is still bad publicity.

And they aren't just taking down videos posted by people who are taking in revenue now either. (Personally I adblock these people unless it's a review since, I agree it should not be a paid experience) Amateur reviewers and lets players are receiving violations as well.

And Sega are still on the naughty step too. I don't let companies off the hook that easily, tons of high profile reviewers are STILL boycotting them exposure. As they should.

An extremely small percentage of people are going to sit through a 50+ parter of a story based game. (If that is truly their only selling point) If they do, I Must ask again, where is the niche for this that has been overlooked? I think more people I've talked to go out and get the game second hand (I Have a small group to work with, but doing a study might be the way to find this out, a couple of posts on reddit does not a good argument make, if you feel the need to devalue my example from the playgrounds of this earth, namely my brother and his 8 or so friends, so then we are at an impasse.)

And statistically weighing commentaries over game play views over 'silent gameplay' veiws. The commentary versions of each usually win out. Often. People absolutely are attracted to commentary over gameplay. There are even a entire strain of commentary channels. Alot of them reporting violations now.

The people doing 'silent game play runs' to me, are not lets plays. And need to be slapped down.

But some people here are determined. I will leave you now to your views, and continue what I need to be doing which is working/watching (listening to) a lets play that isn't from a nintendo game.

I hope the next time your creations need exposure you're only granted it through paid advertising as well. I rely on people circulating my shit through tumblr, youtube and twitter personally, and I encourage the hell out of it as long as my name remains on it. Otherwise I'd be sunk for spare cash.

Ilikemilkshake:
This is incredibly short sighted... I've bought many games because I saw people playing them on youtube, games I would never even heard of or even considered buying and I'm sure I can't be the only one.

Youtube is basically free marketing but now Nintendo actually wants to be PAID for the privilege of doing marketing for them? Fuck 'em

I'm glad their games are of virtually no interest to me.

The average nintendo customer doesn't browse youtube.

Reflect on that; this is a drop in the pond for sales. If there was a serious backlash about this (there isn't, yet) on many major sites, then MAYBE they may stop, but nintendo's average customer has no idea what an LP is besides a storage media.

Griffolion:
They'll regret it when nobody is bothering to upload footage of their games in 12 months time. Being a dick will always come back to bite you in the ass, Nintendo.

Except fans of the game will still be uploading LPs, and Nintendo will still be saying it's absolutely fine to do so.

Starke:
[

The catch is, as much as developers and publishers want them to be, games aren't movies. This falls under the transformative clause of Fair Use. If a game is nothing but a non-interactive ten hour movie, then sure, whatever, it's infringement, but the thing is, games aren't.

Except that the interactivity of games happens within the very strict parameters already set up by the developers. To elaborate on your remix analogy mentioned below, remixing an album means changing it in entirely new ways the original artist couldn't have forseen. Playing a game is interacting withing the script, the rules and the mechanics already set up by the developer to be followed. Unless you're playing Dward Fortress, you're not creating anything new, you're reading from a script the developers wrote.

If we go back to your Daft Punk analogy, if you take the entire album and remix it, it is, or at least, should be, Fair Use. Of course, we live in an era when the RIAA and MPAA go fucking batshit at the very prospect of Fair Use existing as a concept.

And if I then tried to profit from that remix album without giving the original artist his royalty and writing fee, I would end up in a shitload of legal trouble.

Desert Punk:
Leave it to Jeffers to pop in and defend Nintendo to the death, fanboys unite ect ect...

At your service.

Fucking douchebags. Edit: Then again, Nintendo turns out shit games anyway, so nothing really of value lost if LPers do LPs of better games.

Oh wow... not sure if serious, or just...

rapidoud:

Ilikemilkshake:
This is incredibly short sighted... I've bought many games because I saw people playing them on youtube, games I would never even heard of or even considered buying and I'm sure I can't be the only one.

Youtube is basically free marketing but now Nintendo actually wants to be PAID for the privilege of doing marketing for them? Fuck 'em

I'm glad their games are of virtually no interest to me.

The average nintendo customer doesn't browse youtube.

Reflect on that; this is a drop in the pond for sales. If there was a serious backlash about this (there isn't, yet) on many major sites, then MAYBE they may stop, but nintendo's average customer has no idea what an LP is besides a storage media.

Then why even bother with this whole stunt if their customers don't even watch these LPs?

CpT_x_Killsteal:

They already do profit from their games. They SELL them for crying out loud.

And when people elect to watch an LP instead of buying a game, that's one less game that ends up selling.

And why do you feel that people should not be paid for putting out content that there is a demand for?

There's a demand for pirated movies. There's a demand for leaked albums. Christ, there's a demand for people trafficking, slave labour and heroin. Saying there's a demand for something doesn't mean that makes it automatically alright to provide it. Not when the copyright laws are far from clear on the subject.

It's not about Reviewers being more original, never was, but you've brought it up for no apparent reason.

Reviewers use game footage, but intersperse it with their own original content. Check out this or this for example. They use short snippets of footage, generally from different parts of the game. Moreover, the actual meat of the video is the review they provide, which is entirely their own work. They deserve to get paid for that. LPers, on the other hand, just post straight footage of the entire game. I find it much harder to sympathise with that, given that less original work has gone into the creation of the content. Adding your random stream-of-consciousness thoughts on a game is not the same as writing something original, that's just hitting record on otherwise regular game banter. I brought up reviews to offer a valid comparison where people should be able to profit from game footage.

Nintendo did create the games and the LP authors created the videos based on those games.

I think the most fair way would be to share the revenue.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Desert Punk:
Leave it to Jeffers to pop in and defend Nintendo to the death, fanboys unite ect ect...

At your service.

Fucking douchebags. Edit: Then again, Nintendo turns out shit games anyway, so nothing really of value lost if LPers do LPs of better games.

Oh wow... not sure if serious, or just...

I am curious, how much do you get payed by Nintendo? Because wit hthe arguments you make in their defence you really should be billing them. Hell, in all earnestness their PR department could use you to keep them from putting their foot in their mouth.

But yeah serious. I don't care in the slightest for Nintendo games. I can see how some people would enjoy 'Game involving 20 year old character number 137' but I am not those people. I also roll my eyes at Resident Evil, Halo, and other such games, but that is neither here nor there.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
didn't feel the need to then buy it having seen the story play out.

By that logic are you against wiki pages? If all I care about is how it plays out I can wiki the story and just read it.

Also what about non-story based games like fighters. The appeal of walking dead was the writing but BlazBlue or Mortal Kombat are all about the gameplay, that can be shown in a video, but it is not the same. Watching someone have fun =/= having fun. It can result in a different kind of fun but not the same fun; thus there is still a reason to buy the product.

alrekr:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
didn't feel the need to then buy it having seen the story play out.

By that logic are you against wiki pages? If all I care about is how it plays out I can wiki the story and just read it.

No, because Wikis don't use the actual assets created by the developers themselves. They rely on users doing their own write ups, composing their own summaries of the story thereof.

This is all irrelevant anyway, as it now turns out that Nintendo are only doing what every single other gaming company bar Valve already does. You need licensing agreements to monetize any LP of a game. Other publishers have already done this. I refuse to berate Nintendo for doing what every other publisher does, when there is valid reason to.

Networks like Machinima have already got licensing agreements in place for this sort of thing. What Nintendo is doing is no different to the agreements made by the likes of Ubisoft or Capcom with those networks.

i just see LP's as another form of reviewing a game, so yeah, this is some pretty big bull shit.

Nintendo, you didn't really need another nail in the Wii U coffin, did you?

& LP'ers? start making a mass exodus to Blip or something. Make a statement

The people putting out Let's Play videos do deserve to get paid for their videos: at least the ones that know what they are doing and not just putting videos of themselves playing games. It takes practice to make Let's Play videos that are entertaining, and in many ways they are like a news feed. On the other hand, they are profiting using someone elses property in order to do so without direct permission from the company in question, so Nintendo does reserve the rights to collect revenue from Let's Play videos using their games. This isn't one of Nintendo's smartest moves, though.

thaluikhain:

Steven Bogos:
although it is true that Scott is uploading gameplay from its games, his viewers watch his gameplay videos to hear his commentary and review, and it seems unfair that Nintendo should simply take all the ad revenue when he's the one putting in the hard-yards maintaining a fanbase.

Yeah...no. He's using their stuff. Just because someone works hard to get a fanbase using someone else's stuff doesn't mean they are entitled to it. You can't say the fans are just interested in his ramblings, otherwise he could just as easily make them without gameplay footage.

Ever see a game review with no screenshots? How about a walkthrough with no game assests (maps ECT)? A preview with no video?

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
SNIP

So that is why Nintendo did not just say all commercially operated channels or took just half of the ad revenue... but imposed it on all channels featuring their products, even reviews and also took all the ad money, right?

Yeah no, mate, no nintendo dick sucking from you in public please. When even review channels are hit, who even under your application of fair use should have been protected, then no it is not okay or alright or fair. Even those non-profit LPers, the ones who just play for fun and don't want to put adds in their videos? They will automatically have adds put in them to give money to Nintendo.

Not to mention the fact that a recording of me playing the game should be about as much property of Nintendo as "A Song of Ice and Fire" should be the property of the manufacturer of the Laptop it was written on, or if that one is to far out there, think of a street performer using music to dance on, all he earns now automatically goes to the record company, not the actual artist of the song, because without the music he would just be flailing around. In the end this will not even help the developers, which I might support if they were reasonably in their demands, but the only one getting rich here is Nintendo shoveling the cash into their money vault.

I don't think we give the person playing the game enough credit for the audience they have. I don't think many people actually watch LP's to see the game but instead see the LPer play the game, the main attraction is the LPer. Not to mention all the work that actually goes into making good LP videos. I would very much like to see what would happen if we took away the LPer, I hope you enjoy mario standing at the start of world 1 for 24 hours a day. If it was a movie or a comic or anything else that did not involve a player to actually make things happen you would be correct, games however? Nintendo made them, Nintendo sold them, the people are the ones that play them, whatever footage of people playing them is almost always wholly unique to the person playing it so really what are you copyrighting claiming here? All the different ways people could play your game?

It sounds to me like you have some kind of idea that these people are lazy bums mooching off of other people's hard work, which says quite allot about you, and that Nintendo is somehow some white knight riding in to defend the fair copyright princess from infringement. LPers don't get paid to play Nintendo's games, Nintendo indirectly profits from advertisement and basically what amounts to live demonstrations of gameplay. If Nintendo was hiring LPers and then pocketing the ad revenue that'd be fine, but they aren't, they are basically muscling in like a bunch of mobsters into people's channels and demanding they hand over ALL ad revenue. Regardless of the content or style of the video. If it shows Nintendo, Nintendo demands to be paid.

Now if Nintendo wants to piss all over that and just take the whole advertisement pie, it can just go ahead and do that, but let's not pretend it is out of some noble justified reason, it's just to grab all the ad money. So the CEO's don't have to go RoboCop because of the WiiU's sales.

Again, I will link you to Youtube's user agreement which talks about standard monetization policy

image

Link

Can you show me where in this news story Nintendo follow anything other than regular Youtube policy?

The only reason this is news is because Nintendo are doing it a couple of years later than everyone else.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

alrekr:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
didn't feel the need to then buy it having seen the story play out.

By that logic are you against wiki pages? If all I care about is how it plays out I can wiki the story and just read it.

No, because Wikis don't use the actual assets created by the developers themselves. They rely on users doing their own write ups, composing their own summaries of the story thereof.

But they tell you exactly what happens. If you don't give a fuck about the gameplay and only the story a wiki is just as damaging. You could just read a wiki and be done, why give a shit what happens in the game when you can read what happens in it? By watching an LP you destroy the need to buy it because you know the story, same thing with the wiki.

Which makes me wonder why you watched an LP, all the way to the end, for a game you wanted to buy? I think you didn't really WANT to buy it. Also really? That is you argument that it takes effort to write the story down? How do you think things get recorded with proper audio? By magic fucking eyeballs every LPer has?

I think I would rather take down my videos and give them the finger rather than just give them the revenue.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Again, I will link you to Youtube's user agreement which talks about standard monetization policy

image

Link

Can you show me where in this news story Nintendo follow anything other than regular Youtube policy?

The only reason this is news is because Nintendo are doing it a couple of years later than everyone else.

Actually by that reading 'simply' means 'only'

When you are adding narration and the like you are providing original content along with the playing of the game, thus by Youutube's standards it can be monetized.

This is supported by...all the LPers who narrate and get paid for it.

And this is why the copyright "laws" are broken, unusable and inappropriate in today's age. Thanks Disney!

Looks like the Wii U is floundering even worse than we thought if it has Nintendo beating up Let's Players for their lunch money.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Again, I will link you to Youtube's user agreement which talks about standard monetization policy

image

Link

Can you show me where in this news story Nintendo follow anything other than regular Youtube policy?

The only reason this is news is because Nintendo are doing it a couple of years later than everyone else.

Did I say it was against the rules?

No, what I said was that youtube sucks at defending the people posting content, when SEGA went around DMCAing EVERYTHING they even took down reviews. However where does it say "Any company can come in and siphon all revenue from your channel"?

It doesn't say that. It says you MAY be refused for monetization, so what SHOULD have happened is that those channels should have been notified that any Nintendo videos will NOT be allowed to run adds. Also it quite clearly mentions right there "videos that just show a user playing....." an LP is not silent. It's not just someone playing the game with nothing else added. So even by youtube standards there is a giant loophole there for LP's who fall in between categories.

So to get back on that. Did Nintendo just take away the adds or take down the videos? That's not what happened is it? That's strange because why would they want videos that harm their business (like you claimed) operating? Maybe it is because Nintendo wanted money? Instead of just removing adds, taking down infringing videos or just straight up blocking the users, they instead put more ads on things that didn't have ads before this so to me it still looks like a big fat money grab.

A legal big fat money grab, but then again not all things that are legal are good. See American politics for an example.

1337mokro:
[

But they tell you exactly what happens. If you don't give a fuck about the gameplay and only the story a wiki is just as damaging. You could just read a wiki and be done, why give a shit what happens in the game when you can read what happens in it? By watching an LP you destroy the need to buy it because you know the story, same thing with the wiki.

Which makes me wonder why you watched an LP, all the way to the end, for a game you wanted to buy? I think you didn't really WANT to buy it. Also really? That is you argument that it takes effort to write the story down? How do you think things get recorded with proper audio? By magic fucking eyeballs every LPer has?

Missing the point?

Yes, Wikis tell you what happens. So does talking about a game with a friend who hasn't played it, but that's not illegal either.

And my argument is sound: when you use words and compose sentences, you are creating original content. Games are a visual medium. Words are not visual, they are literate. When people describe what happens in a Mario or Zelda game, they are not doing so using the direct assets created by Nintendo, they are doing so using their own words and sentences to describe what happens. While the game is Nintendo's, the summary of the story is the creation of the Wiki editor creating that article.

Recording gameplay footage, however, is different, because you are directly capturing the assets created by Nintendo's development team. Your are directly filming their work.

If I summarise Mario Bros by saying "Mario saves Princess in another castle from a giant dragon-tortoise" Nintendo didn't create that summary. I did. That summary is my selection of words put together to create meaning.

If I set up a capture device, however, I am directly filming the assets and work created by Nintendo. I am not summarising anything in my own words, I am directly filming the stuff they created. The graphics, the gameplay, none of that had anything to do with me. That's Nintendo's work.

I hope the difference between the two is as clear as day to you, otherwise discussing the finer points of legalese is just going to be impossible.

Desert Punk:

Actually by that reading 'simply' means 'only'

When you are adding narration and the like you are providing original content along with the playing of the game, thus by Youutube's standards it can be monetized.

Nope, as this is where the debate comes in. Does adding rambling stream-of-consciousness narrative count as adding original content? I doubt it, otherwise people who talk in the cinema could claim the same.

This is supported by...all the LPers who narrate and get paid for it.

The majority of whom are affiliated with networks like Fullscreen or Machinima who have licensing agreements already set up publishers and developers.

This is a scare-suit. Plain and simple. They have no claim on the videos, no more than Coca-Cola and mentos can have claim on the Soda+Mentos videos. The games shown are nintendo games yes, but there is nothing explicit or implied in the terms of service that prohiibits the use as part or the subject of performance.

This is due to the fact that unlike movies the intrinsic value of games is in the first hand experience, which in this case.. is playing the game and even then once the game is purchased there is nothing preventing the purchaser from charging cash from the kids in the neighborhood to come and play the game.

So Nintendo has no legal leg to stand on here. It is simply a scare-suit. Theyknow it, but the know the vid makers don't have the cash to hire lawyers to prove such and even if they did, nintendo would just file counter claims and injunctions, basically turning the suit into a contest of 'who has the most money'.

YouTube however should not allow this. Otherwise next thing you know anyone who reviews a game is liable to asimilar suit and then they'll go after all those dirty walkthrough posters because they're walkthroughs to their games.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

CpT_x_Killsteal:

And when people elect to watch an LP instead of buying a game, that's one less game that ends up selling.

OR people like what they see and then buy the game. It can go either way. Kinda like REVIEWS. Funny that isn't it?
And people don't play or watch LPs of Trials Evolution for it's story content.

There's a demand for pirated movies. There's a demand for leaked albums. Christ, there's a demand for people trafficking, slave labour and heroin. Saying there's a demand for something doesn't mean that makes it automatically alright to provide it. Not when the copyright laws are far from clear on the subject.

Let's Plays aren't illegal.
The things you listed are.
That was a terrible point.

snip

Once again, this has nothing to do with reviewers, and yes reviewers generally do get paid, and yes reviewers generally have to put more effort into their reviews

1337mokro:

Really so your bullshit reasoning amounts to because I put together in my own words what someone else already wrote down in a script, it makes my own content? Not to mention it also features names, worlds, characters, moves, whatever else taken from the game in the form of words.

Exactly, which is why certain character names and place names and their likenesses are trademarked meaning you can't use them in a commercial product without paying the appropriate license fee. When Bowser had a cameo in the Wreck-It-Ralph film, Disney would have paid Nintendo a license fee for that. That's how copyright works.

For example in your text you will have to use Mario at least one, which is referring to a specific copyrighted character and thus Nintendo can now own your work, if that's not enough take an actual copyrighted word, maybe Koopa or Goomba or whatever, the second you use a word they made up your logic fails, it already did from the start though mate.

A wiki is not sold for profit. It counts as free educational material, and is thus exempt. The minute people start selling wiki summaries for profit (what a weird fucking day that will be), Nintendo can demand they get a license fee for including names and descriptions of copyrighted characters.

How the fuck does this then not apply to my Original Content created by me playing a game? I stop at different intervals,

In levels created by the developers.

point at different things

Made by the developers.

and make fun of it at different points. I die at different stages

Stages created by the developers.

and show a different style of gameplay.

Gameplay programmed and scripted by the developers.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Desert Punk:

Actually by that reading 'simply' means 'only'

When you are adding narration and the like you are providing original content along with the playing of the game, thus by Youutube's standards it can be monetized.

Nope, as this is where the debate comes in. Does adding rambling stream-of-consciousness narrative count as adding original content? I doubt it, otherwise people who talk in the cinema could claim the same.

This is supported by...all the LPers who narrate and get paid for it.

The majority of whom are affiliated with networks like Fullscreen or Machinima who have licensing agreements already set up publishers and developers.

Downplaying things does not a good argument make.

Why does a studio pay the cameraman? All he did was point the camera at what he was told to point the camera. Why does the guy adding music to a movie get paid? All he did was put music tracks he probably didn't even make himself on top of the footage. Fuck why do we even pay for a movie we see? All it did was play when I sat in a chair. It's their fault for playing it on the wall the chair was facing, I'm not paying for that shit.

Heck why does anyone get paid we could break down anything anyone does into something that adds nothing if we wish to describe it that way. However when we get right down to it the sum of parts is greater than it what it started with, so even if you regard commentary as that weird bumpersticker it's still there, the irony being that often people will come just to watch the bumpersticker rather than the car it's on.

It also good to know that you basically dissed MST3K by calling them incoherent stream on consciousness ramblers. Should earn you allot of fans on the internet :)

Now again yes MST3K did have the rights, the LPers don't, without the rights, MST3K could not broadcast, the LPers just get all the money they make, or would have made because some of them did not run ads before this, and it gets funneled to Nintendo. See the amazing difference?

Nintendo had multiple options, they picked the scummiest bottom-feeding one there was. Is it legal what they did? Yes, I am not disputing that. Is it fair? Good for PR? Fuck no!

Adam Jensen:
Wow, what a dick move. Nice job harvesting hatered from your fans you idiots.

Nope. Not a dick move. This is a standard industry practice nowadays. Nintendo has just finally started to do it.

Regardless, if someone is making money off of YOUR work, wouldn't you get kinda peeved and want to get that money that rightfully belongs to you?

I made my entire point on the subject in the thread in Gaming discussion about this.

So all I will say here is that copyright law is inherently stupid at the moment and just because what Nintendo does is legally right it is morally wrong and that is why it should be opposed.

Laws should not always be followed, because in some cases some laws are flawed.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
A wiki is not sold for profit. It counts as free educational material, and is thus exempt. The minute people start selling wiki summaries for profit (what a weird fucking day that will be), Nintendo can demand they get a license fee for including names and descriptions of copyrighted characters.

Which is why some wiki's have ads right? It is also why Nintendo just removed ads right? Oh wait no they funneled the revenue from ads on those videos to themselves... Ouch... It's hard to see someone break his own side of the fence in half. It's good to know though that your Virtual Boy goggles are set to denial at full strength. Should probably make it quite easy for you to ignore the blatantly obvious. Mainly that if it was about people making money off of their products, they could have just taken down the videos and ads, but no, they wanted more money, so they kept the ads and funneled it all to themselves.

Also wiki's for profit? They are called walkthroughs, several sites that have them also run ads.

However it is nice that you just sidestepped the issue in favour of beating a strawmen. I would still like you to address your statement that videos are directly harmful to sales because they reveal the story but wiki's somehow are not when they do exactly the same. Sometimes even in greater detail because they go into backstories and lore.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Gameplay programmed and scripted by the developers.

Which you describe using words which still means your basically repeating what the devs did, copying, even in your own words, is not new content, it's funny that you seem to have a giant double standard here. Not to mention copyrighted or trademarked words, which basically equal copyright infringement when used.

Mario TM.

Capitano Segnaposto:

Adam Jensen:
Wow, what a dick move. Nice job harvesting hatered from your fans you idiots.

Nope. Not a dick move. This is a standard industry practice nowadays. Nintendo has just finally started to do it.

Regardless, if someone is making money off of YOUR work, wouldn't you get kinda peeved and want to get that money that rightfully belongs to you?

I wouldn't care about the money enough, unless I am so poor that I can't allow myself even the tiniest of luxuries nor basic needs. Money is just an abstract thing we created and then gave value. Money is a means to an end not an end itself.

If I created something and someone made money off my work with something like a LP, I would be proud that I made something, someone could make money off of like that. Same way if I made a game and another game dev made a carbon copy with only a few changes, I would feel proud that I am worth copying.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Desert Punk:

Actually by that reading 'simply' means 'only'

When you are adding narration and the like you are providing original content along with the playing of the game, thus by Youutube's standards it can be monetized.

Nope, as this is where the debate comes in. Does adding rambling stream-of-consciousness narrative count as adding original content? I doubt it, otherwise people who talk in the cinema could claim the same.

This is supported by...all the LPers who narrate and get paid for it.

The majority of whom are affiliated with networks like Fullscreen or Machinima who have licensing agreements already set up publishers and developers.

Well Bob rambles incoherently over on Screw Attack pretending to know what hes talking about when it comes to video games, so I would assume yes, it counts as original content.

And...I am not sure I follow you, people dont exactly get paid for talking in the cinema, though a good commentary can add a LOT to a bad movie see, mystery science theater 3,000. Also once the studio owned those films to air them, they didnt have to pay anything extra to dub over them with commentary and air them as something new and rebranded..

I will grant your second part about the majority, as I have only looked into a few LPs like two saiyans play, so I am not sure who all are associated with who.

Why are you guys jumping on each other? Honestly, I don't know too much about this community but it really seems like Jeffers is just trying to explain that everyone else already does this...and everyone willfully ignores that because of his alleged "fanboyism." Yeah...I'm not doing VG forums anymore.

Capitano Segnaposto:

Adam Jensen:
Wow, what a dick move. Nice job harvesting hatered from your fans you idiots.

Nope. Not a dick move. This is a standard industry practice nowadays. Nintendo has just finally started to do it.

Regardless, if someone is making money off of YOUR work, wouldn't you get kinda peeved and want to get that money that rightfully belongs to you?

Shouldnt they be suing Gamestop over preowned games and their profiting from the hard work that rightly belongs to them?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 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
Registered for a free account here