Nintendo being anti-consumer again, Deletes all MAPS/STARS/MEDALS of Popular Speed Runner:

Nintendo Deleted Every Super Mario Maker Course by a Popular Speedrunner Without Explanation

Not just his videos, but the maps he created, his stars, and medals were deleted.

http://www.gamnesia.com/news/nintendo-deleted-every-super-mario-maker-course-by-a-popular-speedrunner-wi

https://twitter.com/GrandPOOBear/status/711955852639375361?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

The dicks of the gaming industry.

UPDATE:

A popular speedrunner has found himself the victim of a mass level deletion inSuper Mario Maker. David "GrandPOObear" Hunt was preparing for Californithon—a speedrunning event being held this weekend—when he noticed that every single level he had ever uploaded to Super Mario Maker had vanished, along with all of his stars and medals. Because of the way deleting levels works, in order for these levels to be re-uploaded, they would have to be recreated from scratch. Hunt has reached out to Nintendo to try and resolve the matter, but so far, there hasn't been any resolution, despite Nintendo's support saying that there was no indication of the levels being flagged for anything.

I dont know if this was on purpose or not on Nintendo's part, but I wouldnt put it past them. They really need to fix their relations with streamers especially with NX on the way

Best analogy so far:

How many times will Nintendo fans have to be fucked over before they learn their lesson?

At this point they're the videogame equivalent of housewives who stay with abusive husbands

They have that kind of power?

Seems counterproductive and out of touch. Having said that, many youtubers are chancers making easy money out of others peoples work.

I agree It should only be alright if Nintendo gets all the money, that way it's a hobby with genuine enthusiasm rather than TotalBiscuit, Angry Joe or any numbers of users acting like a flea taking a dogs blood supply.

I'm with Nintendo on this one. Why should people make money off of broadcasting Nintendo's games? And why should Nintendo worry about those people who don't buy games but watch them on YouTube and Twitch instead? Catering to people who don't buy games anyway is a bad business move.

@uninspiredcup: Thats totally counter productive though. Its essentially advertising for Nintendo, the enthusiast stuff will always be there, but it doesnt rake in the amount of views that a lot of these people do. Its really outdated of Nintendo at this point

@GoldenElementXL:

1. It influences prospective buyers
2. streamers arent just playing a game, they usually add commentary. People arent there for the game, but for the opinion or personality of the person
3. Nintendo doesnt have to pay a dime most of the time, unless they actively pursue like ubi
4. people who watch games, usually play games
5. its 2016, other companies seem to get and encourage streamers because they know how much it influences people

So you are saying they should remove all gaming content from youtube + shutdown twitch?

It's a very lazy way of making money (Chancers)

1. Be a girl with breasts

2. Pretend you're a pretentious interlectuasz, make gaming sound deep and nuanced

3. Shout

4. Make a wacky voice

5. Reaction video, look at the screen.

If I, or any decent person was Nintendo, maker of masterpieces the likes of Zelda and Mario, with hundreds of the thousands of manhours just to be piggybacked by these lecherous entities racking in thousands and millions, dam right those would be getting blocked.

I'd not rule them out yet. The truth is that, despite the failure of the Wii U, Nintendo seems to be the only platform builder with a serious interest in selling actual games to people. Considering how awful most Let's Play on youtube videos are, I don't see why anyone would want to advertise on them but I will say this. Two things need to change here, Nintendo's outlook on these matters and YouTube's system for blocking copyrighted content. It's a given.

This is ridiculous lol.........nintendo is a joke.

I usually figure its for exposure. Having someone you like play a game would at least raise your interest in it. Having a fond memory of someone that is playing a game is pretty much like having a fond memory of playing a game with a friend and your attitude towards the game is influenced. But Nintendo really should drop the creators partnership system, they need to generate some momentum.

@davillain-: Nintendo seems to be the only platform builder with a serious interest in selling actual games to people

Joke statement

If they dont, I think it would be a huge mistake. These people are helping you, its not a question of quality, but of exposure. These people get the hype train rolling to millions of people most of the time. Sure you have your dumb streamers like pewdiepie, but at the end of the day they have a following that they can tap into. Suppressing them is shooting yourself in the foot most of the time, there really is no other way to look at it.

@aigis: Let them make whatever they like, as long as Nintendo (rightfully) gets it's AD revenue.

Their sitting in front of a computer for 10-15 minutes. It's not Citizen Kane, they don't deserve shit.

It will be a good way to weed out who actually does care about the games without a massive paycheck attached.

AngryJoe was almost weeping like a child when his pay-checks came under threat, one pathetic things ever witnessed Not only that, he actually attempted to dictate terms to Nintendo. What a cheek.

They dont have a right for most cases though, its protected under fair use

He should dictate terms, its his audience Nintendo is tapping into, not theirs

How many do you think dont care about games? I think you underestimate how difficult it is to get traction for an audience. For every semi-successful streamer there are probably hundreds of not successful ones

His first mistake was wasting time on nintendo

It should be up to Nintendo, or the publisher of the game to allow the broadcast of their material. And I feel like we shouldn't make a dev out to be the bad guy if they decide against it. But if they say it's ok, I have no issue with that either. It's their product.

1. 7 of the top 12 viewed Twitch categories right now are of free games, betas or "poker" and "creative". The 6th most viewed game on Twitch right now is Bloodborne. A game that was outsold by Splatoon and many others. Call of Duty, WoW and Counter Strike are 3 of the others. Games that don't need any help for sales.
2. Their "personality?" Yeah, OK.
3. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here.
4. I'm not buying that one. The majority of the comments on those streams are "I was gonna buy this but now I'm not." Yeah right. This board says that stuff too but look at threads like "How much money have you spent on games so far this year?" A good chunk of the answers were $0-$60.
5. Game companies don't need streamers, it's the other way around. We wouldn't know most of these streamers if they couldn't stream the blockbuster titles online.

My issue is with the fact that gamers think they are entitled to this stuff. What other entertainment medium allows streaming of their products? What would happen if I boradcasts a UFC pay-per-view or an NFL game? The stream would be shut down and I would be fined/jailed. Twitch actively searches this stuff out and shuts it down. Same with Youtube and pirated music/TV/movies. But video games should be allowed? Why?

@aigis: He's achieved that audience primarily through other people's work. It's questionable a company of such high caliber would even want to have him associated with their product.

The BBC have David Starkey, who studied in Cambridge to get a PHD under the tutelage of Sir Geoffrey Elton, became a teacher and wrote several critially acclaimed book's on his profession. He's also gay.

Nintendo has Angry Joe who screams "****" and "Shit" at the camera, occasionally calling publishers an "asshole".

Nintendo's target audience is generally family orientated. Angry Joe seems more suited for the Dota community's who actively roll around in bile like a well satisfied pig.

@GoldenElementXL:

1. I dont get your point there
2. I said or opinion too (and they dont have to have a good personality, I hate pewdiepie, but he still rakes in views) :3
3. Its essentially free exposure, unless you are someone like ubisoft who pay streamers to cover their stuff
4. Ya they just watch people cause they hate games cause its so hard to get into
5. Its mutually beneficial

Video games are a different beast than movies or tv, you cant compare them. You honestly cant say that watching and playing a game are the same

I... don't care. I can see the pros and cons on both sides of the argument, but I just don't care enough to pick a side.

This has nothing to do with Nintendo stopping someone over they think is their content, this comes off more in response to how shitty Mario Maker handles its backlog of levels and begins deleting levels. One it's not particularly transparent about which levels and why they are taken down all the time, and two it shouldn't be taking down levels that aren't flagged in the first place.

@aigis:

Read about intellectual properties. Whether or not it's free exposure, a line has to be drawn. That is just a general statement. I don't know what happened in the given situation, but most here fail to understand some of the reasoning behind Nintendo and youtubers/etc.

You make it sound like Angry Joe is the only streamer. There are pg youtube shows out there for you. Its like saying all radio is r rated because Howard Stern has a show, listen to something else if thats not your thing, you can hear news elsewhere.

Its not about association, Nobody thinks that Angry Joe and Nintendo are associated when he plays mario party. Its like saying Gamespot is associated with Nintendo when they review a wii u game. The creators program isnt about filtering undesirables though, but controlling their opinions. All material runs through Nintendo and they will pull anything that criticizes their games, its intimidation.

Anybody can play a game on youtube, it takes a different kind of person to gather an audience. Its like following a critic after you read one of their reviews in a paper. Are you going to complain that he makes a living off of that studio?

Update:

They also deleted every map he ever made, every single star, and every single medal he earned.

LMAO.

That's kind of shitty.

Wow OP, took you a while to change the title.

This one I dont really blame Nintendo for, it could be an accident, I dont know if they had any malicious intent. A line has been drawn though, its not illegal what these streamers are doing. Companies just abuse youtubes copyright policy because there are no repercussions, they drag their heals responding to claims to get the videos back up to attack streamers, but they eventually get back up because they have no case... only to be claimed again and again. Its really just Nintendo bullying people who talk bad about their games and controlling opinions. Really it just goes against freedom of speech

Honestly, it all comes back down to Google and Youtube.

They accept automated claims and have the horrific content id system when they simply shouldn't. There's no legal need or real justification to pander to the big businesses so much nor should it be so hard to get a dispute put through Youtube. I've been saying it for years now, but Google needs to get their act together and start charging $1 per false DMCA takedown notice. Stop companies using automated shit, then fix the content id system so it needs goddamn verification before it takes videos down or bans accounts. Both Angry Joe and Jim Sterling found out the hard way.

I guess that has to go for larger entities as well such as IGN, Gamespot, Giant Bomb etc. as well. After all they all do videos of their presenters playing new and old games. The only difference between internet gaming sites and individual Youtubers is the size on the company behind them.

You could expand that out into the larger world outside of gaming, to just about any form of information media. Should programmes such as Top Gear be banned? All they're doing is making money from car companies by having presenters driving around in cars the majority of us will never be able to afford.

Its youtube who make the bad system, but then its companies like Nintendo who abuse it. Both need fixing

@aigis:

Again, read about intellectual properties and trademarks. Nintendo's brand IS the company. Letting things run wild and not putting a foot down can run the risk of losing such. This is why they do it.

@GarGx1: Top Gear was hosted by racist, abusive millionaires who mocked the disabled. Tax payers money was involuntary paying for them.

Very bad example to use my friend. horrid people.

@uninspiredcup: Don't focus on the example, reply to the content. In what way are Youtubers any different to other forms of information media when larger companies do exactly the same thing?

@GarGx1: I have to go to bed, I'll answer this later.

Bye.

Why doesnt Nintendo sue for damages then? The reason is that they are in the wrong in most instances. The only reason people are pissed is because they abuse the youtube copyright system and by the time two months are gone the video probably isnt as relevant anymore. Youtubers successfully fight off these claims, but a lot of them just move on to other things to avoid the headache. Putting your foot down is one thing, but you should have to be in the right which Nintendo is not in most cases. Its really big corporations bullying the little guys.

The big question here is why does Nintendo let some people, but not others use their games?

@aigis:

That doesn't change my point, which is the law.

I dont claim to be lawyer or anything, but I believe fair use is part of the law too

@aigis:

Fair use. making money off of someone elses product. That isn't fair use without consent of the owner. The trademark and IP owners can do with what they see fit for the brand. You wont see Disney animated previews at films centered strictly at adults.

Striking difference between between pc gamers and console gamers. I'd love to see Valve ever take money from streamers streaming CS:GO or Dota. It's never going to happen, it's free advertising.

The fact that people are supporting Nintendo in here is hilarious.

Seeing Nintendo trying to take ad revenue from streamers/recorded videos is one of the most petty things I've seen from a company.

Well if Nintendo really wants to stand out as the asshole they are entitled to do it. I cba scrolling through their EULA for their games to see whats there considering streaming etc

Others allow/encourage it and Nintendo doesnt -> makes Nintendo look like shit, but that's not exactly something new

Obviously Nintendo are allowed to what ever they want with their products and see where that takes them

Not at all. It's quite the opposite; PewDiePie has done wonders for Minecraft. You'd have to be blind and deaf to not notice that.

lol what? Nintendo is the most successful gaming company ever. who is fat Joe 2.0 to dictate terms with them.

@93BlackHawk93: PewdiePie.... He did wonders for south park.

Bad for him but no1 else care

No company has the right to control their image to that extent. They can use marketing, advertising or PR campaigns or build clauses into agreements for licensing their IP (this would be like the cinema example where previews/films are lent out with certain stipulations) etc; But stretching into the content creation of other people is an ethically black area. If the streamer is buying their own games then they have the right to make content about it and Nintendo isn't owed a penny because that wasn't part of the deal.

If Nintendo want a cut then they have to answer 'why'? Why on Earth are they seeing money? It makes no sense. Nintendo didn't subsidise the purchase or offer anything in exchange. Nor do they offer competing products that would be threatened by the stream (in fact they CAN'T offer a competing product because the whole point of internet criticism is that it ISN'T from the marketing body).

Nintendo is yet another in a long line of companies that seem to think they have the right to control everything about their product after it has been purchased. If they had it their way every game disc would explode after a set amount of time forcing you to buy the game again.

The whole 'people won't play it because they saw it' argument is flawed because i. Nintendo don't make story-focused games for the most part ii. People play games to actually play them, not watch other people play them. These aren't movies/music we are talking about where broadcasting the content is essentially piracy: you simply do not get the experience of the game from watching it.

And yes, fair use does exist without consent of the owner because consent isn't needed because the use is 'fair' (i.e. any attempt to shut down consent would be unreasonable in the first place and so no one need listen to it).

You keep saying companies have the right to control their image. But answer this: Why is it that no other company other than Nintendo does this? If it was a totally fair, reasonable position surely every company would be doing it? It's because it's not. It's an overreaching, draconian attempt to control their image beyond where they have any right to meddle. Nintendo is in a position to control its image all it wants: within the confines of its own autonomy, not that of others.

Nintendo's been by far the greediest VG console/game maker ever and I mean.... Evah !! :P

The creator of the content that Nintendo is attempting to monetise and (let's be honest) curate. Doesn't matter if its Nintendo or some indie developer: They have no leg to stand on butting into the monetisation and curation of other people's content.