Square's apparently pulling off a Nintendo with DQ Heroes

-

-

DRAGON QUEST HEROES®: The World Tree's Woe and the Blight Below™
gameplay video and live streaming guideline

The sharing, livestreaming and uploading of gameplay video ("game play video" includes in-game BGM) of the PlayStation®4 version of the DRAGON QUEST HEROES®: The World Tree's Woe and the Blight Below ("DQH") by Square Enix Co., Ltd., and Squre Enix, Inc. (collectively "Square Enix") through the share feature of the PlayStation®4 may be only used for personal use and in accordance to the guidelines below.Regarding the usage of images:All of the descriptive items including game content, imagery, video, character and music in DQH ("Content") are copyrighted works owned by Square Enix and any joint copyright owners. You may not duplicate, modify, copy, and distribute such Content without the prior written permission of Square Enix.An exception to this is posting such Content onto the Internet in a way that is allowed under the Conditions of Use. Please follow the Conditions of Use and do not post or transfer copyrighted material (video, voice, music, etc. in DQH) in ways that are not listed below.

Permitted Distribution Methods

Players may share the DQH Content in through the following methods:

1. PlayStation®4 share feature
   Use of DQH Content is allowed for personal use only through the online services available with the PlayStaion®4 share feature.
   1. The share feature may be unavailable for certain Content and game areas as designated by Square Enix.
2. Streaming of gameplay video
   Streaming (for example, including posting a link of the URL to the streaming video or posting a thumbnail of the video for personal use on personal blogs and miniblogs such as Twitter) of gameplay video (including the in-game BGM) on video share sites available through the use of the PlayStation®4 share feature is allowed.
   1. Such video share sites may include but are not limited to YouTube, niconico and Ustream.
   2. Streaming is limited to video share sites that have a consent agreement in place with the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers [JASRAC]).
   3. The share feature may be unavailable for certain Content and game areas as designated by Square Enix.

Conditions of Use

1. You must include credits
   1. Clearly show the following copyright information on all postings and distributions:
      © 2015 ARMOR PROJECT/BIRD STUDIO/KOEI TECMO GAMES/ SQUARE ENIX All Rights Reserved.
      © SUGIYAMA KOBO
      ※This info will be automatically included when using the PlayStation®4 share feature under a future game update. Until then, please include the information into the materials manually.
2. Do not create derivative materials using the DQH Content.
   1. For example, do not use the DQH Content to create brochures, T-shirts, other images. This applies whether you intend to distribute the DQH derivative materials for free or for sale.
3. Do not post the DQH Content onto sites or services that require others to pay a fee to browse / stream. An exception to this is the niconico premium service.
4. Do not post any DQH Content or materials that may lead to the abuse of a specifc user.
5. All content, including images or videos, must be removed without delay upon receiving a removal request from Square Enix. Furthermore, Square Enix may delete any videos or streams in its sole discretion.
6. Square Enix makes no warranty or representations regarding the DQH Content. Square Enix expressly disclaims that any such images or videos posted on the Internet will not violate any third party rights. Furthermore, Square Enix is not responsible for any disputes or conflicts that arise between any player and 3rd party from the use of the DQH Content.

https://archive.is/KtPdj#selection-3421.0-3545.354

-

Took this from a place I shouldn't mention. But man, these Japanese devs and their antiquated behavior is really something.

Its only right, seeing dweebs buying 4.5 million mansions in LA from playing your game on youtube must be annoying

Since this is Square, it'll be a-ok with a lot of users here... but not Nintendo.

Personally I think both companies have every right to forbid their own content from being streamed by other people who want to exploit it for personal gains.

Hopefully I understood this correctly, but it seems to me that they are allowing users to share as long as they give the proper credit to the developer and publisher. Isn't that how it's done with the majority of copyrighted material on places like YouTube?

Its ok, its Square, no one will cry like a baby. But if it was Nintendo, we would have 10 thousand haters descending to cast judgement. Youtube videos would fill to the sky with rants and the 100 year ritual of Nintendo doomed would commence.

But how will losers make a living if they can't do it playing and talking over video games?

@Bigboi500: @mesome713: @Bread_or_Decide:

You guys are idiots. This is just as bad as Nintendo but of course sheep will cry victim and defend this bullshit

It's not as bad as Nintendo's ban all streams unless they give us money policy.

It's still OK for fans to put up a stream as long as you do not get any revenue from it, so in other words players can stream it, Youtube "creators" can't.

Seems fair to me. As for the music part, as long as there is a way in the game to disable music then no problem with that either.

The only point where I would disagree though is for review purposes.

Lol at the victim cries from the sheep in this thread. Done with Nintendo forcing you to buy two versions of the new Fire Emblem?

Ah well. Square, like Nintendo, will miss out on all the free publicity. They are idiots for doing this.

Don't care either way.

@a-new-guardian: At least both versions are fun.

But, but, but, dont they understand its free advertising,

@a-new-guardian: The persecution complex is so strong from the sheep. It's as if they haven't noticed anyone else coming under heavy criticism for anything before.

@mesome713: Don't worry about me, worry about you accepting two versions of a game that should be sold as one.

@a-new-guardian: No worries, ill tell you how fun they are after i play them. Ill even recommend which side to choice. Of course im going Nohr side.

@mesome713: have fun getting ripped off.

Two things need to change here, Nintendo's outlook on these matters and YouTube's system for blocking copyrighted content. It's a given. They're just pissing off more and more people.

@DocSanchez: they're paranoid at the moment. Wii U gets less games and third party support than even the vita which is pathetic hahaha.

Sheep will be hiding when the NX is revealed. Mark my words.

@a-new-guardian: Quality over quantity mate. Its why Wii U prints money.

I don't blame them for claiming simple let's play videos. The only problem with that is that they damage actual content creators with legitimate criticques/analysis/reviews in the process of their "sweep" system.

My current mgs review is pending for a copyright claim by konami because i used 56 seconds of footage from the launch trailer. They claimed it the instant i uploaded my video and they have until nov 10 to respond to my counterclaim before youtube waves their claim as ineligible.

Im personally not affected by this because i have a very small channel and i dont have an ad sense account, but for those youtubers that rely on videos to make a living, it can be a major pain. That's almost a whole month of lost ad revenue while your counter claim sits there waiting for an outcome.

Its a really horrible system. I dont mind them claiming lets play videos or putting conditions behind them. They just need a better way to claim content without affecting anyone or anything in the process

Nah, this is fucking sad.

I think this is why Nintendo set up their program, to give users a steady way to draw income from them and Youtube. Setting up a program helps solve these issues and lower your complaints. Its why people dont complain when Google takes a 50% cut, they signed up for it and understand it more. Its also why many will not complain with Square Enix, the guideline is right there, the program is in place.

Really dumb. Don't get the apparently

massive appeal of YouTube lets plays myself but it IS a thing and trying to block it just annoys the gamers who are into it. Don't see any benefit to doing it.

Lol at the sheep crying as usual though.

I don't plan on trying to make money on this game on Youtube so this doesn't bother me. Why is it bad that Square and Nintendo want to crack down on let's players? They sit on the couch and play video games all day while getting paid for advertisements from sponsors and Youtube without permission from the publisher. If there is permission that is one thing but not having it should follow the copyright law. Why should a let's play of a video game be treated differently than posting a full length movie or tv show?

inb4 free advertisement argument

Shit's lame, but it's a musou game. Go watch a Hyrule Warriors or Dynasty Warriors stream. Same stuff.

Because it's not a full length movie or TV show, people buy and play games for the interactive part. If someone is dissuaded from purchasing a game based on a lets play video then the game must not have been for them, and you can't claim that video game publishers would have made that money from youtube had the content creators not been there that's just stupid.

It's one of those areas where nobody is the loser and everyone has something to gain, and yes it's free publicity what else can you class it as.

This but entitled youtubers/gamers/internet folk don't get it. They want to make money off the hard work of others. To them the copyrighted content of others is a joke. The internet has birthed a generation where everything should be free for them to use, abuse, and steal. This is why music doesn't sell. Why movies don't sell and soon video games will be in the same boat if they don't put a stop to it now.

But whatever the free ads right?

This is a popular myth. Where's the proof that youtubers help game sales? The industry no longer has room for small fish. All the big fish publishers don't need any of this free advertising when they pay for actual real ad campaigns that reach a real audience. You really think big games like assassins creed and battlefront need the "free" youtube promotions? I never would have known about metal gear solid V if Angry Joe didn't play it on twitch...

@mesome713: Do you think that Nintendo should be getting a share of revenue created from critical, original or satirical content that addresses their content?

@verbalfilth: If they use Nintendos content for commerical gain not compliant with fair use, then yes. Personal use is fine, do as you please, at the end of the day, Nintendo owns their content and its in their best interest to control and regulate it. In this age today, you can lose your rights fast if you dont protect them. Just follow the fair use laws and all is well.

Google's claim to that content is that they are the platform, the outlet, the publication if you will. Nintendo in this context would have no claim when it comes to proper critiques, reviews, analysis, in any other space it would be considered fair use for said person to rip the product a new one or adulate or whatever, and yeah in the era where video reviews are a thing, still fair game to use footage.

There is also the matter of credibility, kind of hard to take someone who is on a Nintendo dime seriously when he/she is reviewing Nintendo stuff. It's no different than the ad revenue nature of gaming websites that bothers people and makes them questionable. Nintendo's program has more to do with them being control freaks down the letter than anything else.

actually no they're not considering there's gonna be a 3rd version of that game coming soon with the Neutral Path in it. (I swear that game is more SMTxFE than the ACTUAL SMTxFE.)

AJ did the review already before I know he did it on Twitch and after watching his review, I'll wait for a price drop. As for the myth about youtubers helping out other gaming companies. In someways, it's not really. Why, because most gamers nowadays would rather just watch someone play the game and not buy it just so they can watch the story how/what happen and it's not making that gamer go out and buy it. Youtubers are now just uploading the full gameplays and that right there won't encourage the gamer to go out and buy that game. But in another way, Youtube does sometimes help to see a gameplay and if that game is worth buying now that you seen what you needed to see. Having said that, there's really no answer to this myth. [better send this question to the Mythbuster lol]

Also remember the video game magazine era? They all got a free pass from Nintendo and other gaming companies with displaying images, details, and opinions cause video game magazines was a thing and it totally help Nintendo games in a way so mags got a free pass, internet videos today tends to ruin or help the gaming industry.

Edit: I honestly don't know about Twitch cause I haven't gotten into Twitch policies nor if they are safe to upload Nintendo content.

We went over this a year ago, you people don't get to play dense anymore.

The part where the Youtubers get review codes, early access, get invited to E3 as media, GDC, Gamescom, etc, while also getting their own separate partnering deals, and on top of that you have scenarios like the Shadow of Mordor stuff where Warner is strictly putting an embargo on people who don't have positive things to say about Mordor.

They clearly help game sales considering how much the publishers are willing to give them. Because if they had no impact, they wouldn't get shit.

@jg4xchamp: In todays world its pretty hard to fake reviews. It would hurt Nintendo and the reviewers if a review group got found out being wrong on a bunch of Nintendo reviews. Nintendo Power is a great example, they had good track records and were quite useful to fans. Sure fair use is and has always been protected, Nintendo has never tried to take this away. This is about people using Nintendo content that is not protected under law.

A: No it isn't

B: Irrelevant. It's a matter of how credible you are. Source that isn't getting paid by the creators of the product in question>Source getting paid by the creatores of the product in question.

The latter might not necessarily be influenced by the creators at all, who knows he/she might be able to be an adult and handle the job just fine, still doesn't change the notion that they are less trustworthy by virtue of their position.

There is a difference from posting a gameplay video/review video and posting an entire playthrough of a game. Its exactly the same as posting a movie or tv show on Youtube and thus should be considered copyright infringement. There is a South Park episode that shows how some people would rather watch playthroughs rather than play the game themselves. So why buy the game if they can just watch someone spoil it for them from beginning to end? Idk about conspiracies that the publishers are actually getting paid but if people aren't buying the product as a result of being able to watch Youtuber play the game than I would imagine the devs are not making money.

I am not a streamer and i already pre-ordered the game so i dont care

You're the idiot thinking it's ok to make money off of other's work. Hey, let me take a look at some of your creations so I can make money off them without cutting you in. You don't mind, right?

Where is the proof they hurt sales? If the net effect is nothing then who cares. You are acting like they are stealing something when there is nothing to steal. But what I do know is anyone who tries to censor their games from being shown gets some backlash, that must hurt sales.

I've seen plenty of youtubers bashing the hell out of games they play. How is that helping a product? A lot of subscribers are mindless drones that hang on every word these people say.

I know for damn sure I wouldn't want my products to be leaked to people who didn't purchase them, or berated and raked over the coals while they make money doing it.

Those guys need to find real jobs.

EDIT: derp, I see what you mean, let's see if we get any raging YouTubers

The Wii U is making Nintendo hemorrhage money and causing layoffs every single quarter.

So you like people out of jobs?

@Jaysonguy: I would love to see that.

Yep! Like Hyrule Warriors, DQH is a fantastic musou game. :)

Pulling a Nintendo? Any business' legal department would do the same when money is involved.

I'm no lawyer but I think all of the things I mentioned fall under the fair use doctrine. I also believe that people can make money off original content derived from an existing content; be it critical, analytical or satirical.

The biggest crime here is that people who are making content that falls under the fair use doctrine, are affected by the content match sweep that companies like Nintendo carry out. Holding these videos hostage for two weeks to a month before they release their claim not only denies people who are making legal content the revenue they would earn during that time, but some less forgiving people would view it as extortion since the only way to leave your work untouched is to join their partner system where they want a share of it.

I don't have to pay an author when I cite specific extracts that validate my points or criticize their work. There is no reason why gaming companies should be held to a higher pedestal. Now, if I'm reading the author's book word by word and the author is opposed to that, then I have no qualms if they want to monetize that for themselves or have it taken down.

@verbalfilth: Thats because Nintendo and other companies sometimes do not hold the rights to said content, like songs, etc. But again, Nintendo has never and will never go against fair use, they cant, theyre not above the law. What they can do is claim content that is illegal, owned by them, and not protected by fair use, which they do and so does everyone else.

You can critic Nintendo, but you cant slander them. Slander any company and the said slander would have to be destroyed in whatever form it is. Also one can be sued heavily for such slander on a company.

You do not and never will have to pay Nintendo to use their content under fair use. Its the same in any business. Use someone elses created content and you have to pay royalties. Use a singers song and boom, got to pay them. Remake a persons movie and boom, got to pay them. Expose Nintendos full content, boom, got to pay. If its not protected by fair use, you need permission to use it.

What's funny is that these youtubers call themselves "content creators" and yet they don't respect the content created by video game developers and released by publishers. I can go to youtube and watch an entire game played from start to finish. They claim it's not the same as movies because this is an interactive medium so watching a video game isn't the same as playing it yourself.

But, most games today are much like movies. You play in order to reveal more of the story, characters, and the ending. Why did I spend an entire month actively avoiding MGSV spoilers? I can watch an entire run through of Until Dawn right now, watch all the endings, and possible outcomes. This gives away the entire game, whether you're playing or not is inconsequential. Games that live and breath on gameplay alone cannot be "ruined" on youtube. But the new age of games as movies can indeed.

I love watching game reviews, discussions, and analysis. Watching someone play a game bores me out of my mind. I don't care how much they scream and yell on top of the gameplay, hell this can at times make it even worse if the youtube personality is annoying.

It is true that publishers have gotten into bed with youtube personalities but I feel this is a mistake and will bite them in the ass and in many ways it already has. It will hurt the industry. Just because they are temporarily dangling the carrot to the youtubers doesn't mean they can't switch on a dime, realize this gets them nothing, and find new avenues to spread the word about their games.