Home » News » You’ll never silence us, Konami!
News

You’ll never silence us, Konami!

Microsoft versus Sony, Battlefield versus Call of Duty and Forza versus Gran Turismo. These are some of the rivalries that can get people talking about console wars. “Game On or Game Over” is your place to get inside the minds of Nicholas and Andy as they seek to find the true meaning of gaming and tackle some of gaming’s most controversial subjects. Both are award winning authors – although the awards haven’t been mailed or created yet — but trust them. Would they lie to you?

Andy: A couple weeks ago we talked about Microsoft’s heavy-handed approach, and rightfully so, to dealing with leaks surrounding a Gears of War remaster for the Xbox One. The vast majority of people I talked to about it were supportive of how Microsoft dealt with it. After all, there were legally binding non-disclosure agreements signed. The testers were being paid for their work, and for a host of other reasons Microsoft was in the right to act how they did. Being that we are fast approaching E3 there will invariably be more and more “leaks” about things that will be announced at the show. Those leaks will be followed by publisher notices to take down that content. It’s a rite of passage leading up to E3.

What I want to talk about this week is not when the process of removing leaked clips is used correctly, but when that process is used with malice and to basically censor content. That’s a pretty vague way to broach this topic, so let me zero in on the latest instance as an example. In early May, George Weidman published a video on YouTube titled “Kojima vs Konami: An Investigation”. In the video Weidman speculates on the inner workings of Konami and Kojima’s removal from all properties he has worked on. There’s not a lot of definitive Earth-shattering information, but it touches on a lot of things that many people have been talking about.

Here’s the thing though. Konami saw it in their best interests to hit the video with a copyright strike based on 27 seconds of Metal Gear Rising footage. 27 seconds from an almost nine minute video and Konami threw a strike at it. YouTube, responded by of course taking the video down as is required by a DMCA claim. As Polygon reported though, YouTube investigated the claim and found that the takedown notice was invalid. They actually sent a pretty firm response to Konami about it being baseless. It got me, and other people I’m sure thinking, how many time have companies thrown DMCA takedown notices at videos that are baseless? Sure, this one was caught and rescinded, but how many are missed? I don’t know about you, but to me that’s pretty troubling that a company is essentially able to censor opinions by stretching the facts, in this case focusing on 27 seconds of game footage, to further themselves. So, to start things off this week, did you hear about that happening? What’s your initial impression of it?

konamie3

Nicholas: This is the first I’ve heard of it, but when I was reading what you said initially I thought it was justified. Now before people jump the gun, what I mean is that I could understand where Konami were coming from – someone used unauthorised footage of their game in a YouTube clip, the uploader might be receiving revenue from ads and Konami didn’t want to allow it. I’m not suggesting it wasn’t a dick move by Konami trying to hush someone from speaking ill of their company though. That said, as I read on I changed my mind and thought it was pretty petty of them to do so.

I don’t own a lot of (if any) Konami titles so the news of Kojima leaving wasn’t a big deal to me, but I saw the chatter that was happening online when the news broke and I think it’s pretty ridiculous is the company didn’t expect the community to be asking questions and speculating around it. The release of this video by Weidman is to be expected from people and if Konami didn’t want things like this to happen then they should have come out with more information from the offset.

I wanted to focus on companies (specifically gaming ones) pulling content from YouTube because it features their games. Some are notorious for it (I’m thinking Nintendo and EA) while others seem to be a little more forgiving. There was a lot of discussion recently (and into last year too if I recall correctly) about Nintendo not wanting YouTubers to either stream or upload footage of their titles. What are your thoughts on this, especially when ad revenue comes into play? Are publishers in their right to demand that videos featuring their product are removed, or once a consumer buys a game, does that entitle them to stream or upload footage online?

Andy: Man, this is a question that I could literally argue both sides of. I can certainly understand a developer/publisher wants to have a framework in place to have some control over how their IP rights are used. Yet, logically I don’t see why companies try to be as restrictive as some of them are. If it’s footage before a game is announced, leaked levels or anything of that sort then I am 100% fine with the takedown notices and everything that goes along with them. Yet, I don’t understand the draconian measures some companies put on their games.

Sure, it’s easy to rag on Konami because it’s the most recent example but I’ve heard some horror stories about Nintendo’s policies as well. I know some people who have just said “screw it” in regards to Nintendo and no longer stream or make content for their games. I remember reading an article on Forbes about Nintendo changing their initial policy to where if you wanted to have videos with Nintendo content on your channel then you had to remove ALL other content so that Nintendo could monetize your content. To me it seems like they, and some of these other companies, are out of touch with how people consume video game information now.

Some companies see YouTube videos as a slot machine just waiting to be pulled so they can sit back and watch the ad revenue flow in. Others, Deep Silver comes to mind, encourage gamers to make videos, stream content and essentially get people talking about their games. There are a couple games in the past where I have went to YouTube, looked up a couple videos, watched them, then went and bought the game. Whether these companies want to admit it or not, YouTube videos like the Lets Play series help sell games. It gets people talking, it’s real gameplay and not the ”simulated gameplay” footage found in some trailers. Sure, many of those channels get some money from ads – but considering the time and effort put into playing and editing a video is that really a bad thing? What do you think, should the people that put the effort into making those videos have the right to make money from those videos? At the end of the day is it really that big of a deal for those companies?

nintendodirect

Nicholas: They say any publicity is good publicity, and I think this is certainly the case when it comes to video game coverage from YouTube videos. Like the example you provided, I wonder how many other gamers have watched someone playing a game online, thought it looked interesting and decided to try it out for themselves. We recently spoke about people creating mods for games like Skyrim and Grand Theft Auto, and there certainly has to be gamers who have seen videos online and wanted to try it for themselves. Surely some segment of total sales have come about because of online videos that pulled others in. Hell, if I was a PC gamer I know I would be in that camp. You used the word ‘draconian’ and I think that’s exactly the way to describe some of these companies. Word isn’t spread about these games via television and magazines anymore, it’s all online and it’s all through mediums like YouTube. To stamp this out only hurts their sales potential I think.

On the flip-side though, how many times do we hear about copyright issues when it comes to people using music and TV/film footage. Almost on every episode of the Joe Rogan Experience, Rogan talks about how he can’t show certain videos because he’ll be pulled from YouTube/Ustream. I never hear people complain about that, it’s just accepted as the norm. Is there not a degree of hypocrisy that we are being harsh on video game companies, yet find it acceptable for music and film companies to enforce the same strict (if not stricter) rules? If not, why do you think this is – or do you think all kinds of multimedia should be shared online based on the ‘publicity’ argument?

Andy: Right or wrong, there seems to be a pretty good correlation between certain companies having more strict policies on user created content and how much they want to monetize their games. After all, the only real reason I can think of for a publisher/developer to have those overly strict policies is so they can get their cut of the ad revenue. I don’t think it has anything to do with protecting their IP, allowing gamers to experience the game themselves, avoiding spoilers or whatever other reason they try to cite. It’s all about the money and some companies feel offended that gamers can make some money by – for all intents and purposes – playing their games.

The whole thing seems disingenuous to me. Companies want us, as gamers, to buy their games, buy their season passes, DLC and all their micro-transactions. To some companies as long as it’s a one-way street they are happy, but when those companies think that there’s yet more money to be had, they want a piece of that too. Instead of a symbiotic relationship where both sides benefit, some of the more greedy companies just seem to be going out of their way to make it so they squeeze every drop they can from every avenue they see as a revenue source. You’re right on the nose with the idea that the way news is spread about games isn’t TV/magazine anymore. Sure, they still advertise that way but bang for their buck it can’t be that profitable. Yet, the cost of letting games do videos/streams/Lets Play videos it… zero. In fact they actually come out ahead because the gamer paid them to buy the game in the first place.

I think the reason we don’t hear much about other industries is more about the uniqueness of the video game industry than it is about anything else. Think of it this way, no-one is going to make a video of themselves watching a movie, reading a book or listening to music. I see what you are saying about it appearing to be hypocritical but at the same time, I don’t think I agree with it. Therein lies the issue with some of these companies though. They want to offer an experience that is fundamentally different than any other industry. Yet, at the same time, they want the same “rules” that those other industry have. I can understand why TV/Movies aren’t on sites like YouTube because you see it once and you’re done. Whereas a Lets Play video the experience I see someone else have doesn’t mean that’s the experience I would have when I play it. Are we at a point now with gaming that we basically need new and different laws regarding DMCA to better translate the difference? I think we can all agree that gaming is much different than any other industry right?

saintsrowiv

Nicholas: You know what, I think you’re making a lot of sense there. Gaming really isn’t like other medium where you can experience it from a distance and you still receive as much from it as the first person. What I mean is, if you listen to an album that someone has recorded and uploaded to YouTube, assuming the quality isn’t horrid, both people have fully experienced what that album offers. If someone takes a book and uploads a PDF version of that book, you both read it the same and you both experience fully what it has to offer. Same with television shows and movies. With games though, the entire point of a game is to play it ourselves. No-one is spending $100AUD on a game to hand it to a friend and watch them play it. It’s not to say it isn’t enjoyable, but it’s the same as buying a new music album and asking your friend to listen to it and tell you what he thought of it.

In that regard, I really do think that these companies need to ease off a bit with their strictness on calling copyright when someone uploads some footage. If a company like Rockstar can allow gamers to stream Grand Theft Auto then there’s no reason why Nintendo can’t do the same. It really does seem like another gross example of the gaming industry trying to earn that last dollar by any means necessary.

I think about the cult following that Rooster Teeth have had with the ‘Red vs. Blue’ series. Imagine if Microsoft told them that they couldn’t upload footage of Halo all those years ago. We’ve spoken about free publicity in this article and undoubtedly Rooster Teeth have played a part in Halo’s success to date. Surely cases like this should give companies like Nintendo rise to relax their current views of online streaming? Too often we speak about the money-hungry practices of the video game industry. Do you see this changing at all anytime soon, or is this just the way the industry now is? I’m not suggesting all companies, but there are some noticeable examples – or is that just like any industry?

Andy: This is something I actually do see changing to be honest. Granted it may not be right away, in fact I think the select few companies that are making this bigger than what it needs to be will put up a hell of a fight, but when the dust settles my gut says they will see the benefit of having gamers on their side. That’s an intentional phrasing on my part there too. There are some companies like Rockstar and Deep Silver that really embrace their gamers. They are about inclusion and wanting them to be a part of the entire experience. It’s really a two-way street with them. On the flip side you have a company like Nintendo that seems to go out of their way to throw up as many roadblocks as they can so that the street is only one way, in favour of them.

The fact is, the landscape of how people consume games; how they look for information and the avenues they get that information from are different. We aren’t in the 80’s anymore where we looked for print advertising in stores or in magazines, we aren’t in the 90’s anymore where we relied on TV commercials and we aren’t in 2000 anymore where online ads were how we found out about stuff. We are in an age where word of mouth and watching actual gameplay are two of the biggest influencers of getting gamers on board for games they aren’t sure about. Those companies that embrace that and use it to their advantage will reap the rewards from it. Those who push back and actively fight against it are only hurting themselves.

I’m looking at it this way; if a company actively looks for ways to limit then gamers will gravitate towards other games where they feel more appreciated. To bring this week’s discussion to a close; if we look at Konami and Nintendo as examples of those companies who are seemingly out of touch with today’s gaming culture. Konami has stated they want to move away from the console market and Nintendo has been in a funk sales wise maybe there is some relation to being how they treat their customers and business practices. In an industry that is worth billions of dollars annually, is it really a smart business decision to use practices that discourage those very gamers to share their experiences? Do you think that those who don’t accept the change in marketing and word of mouth with regret their decisions?

bowser

Nicholas: Konami perhaps, but that’s not the case with Nintendo in my opinion. Yes they were in a slump for a little while, but they’ve been killing it recently with both the Wii U and the 3DS. Nintendo is that unique case that seems to be able to do things differently and still manages to do well. I spoke to someone in the past about whether Nintendo was losing the race against Microsoft and Sony, but the fact is, Nintendo is running its own race entirely. Do I think that those companies which refuse to move with the times will ultimately regret their decisions? Yes. That said, there will always be those rare exceptions that manage to prove that wrong – Nintendo being a prime example.

I think you’re right though, eventually we’re going to see these restrictions about streaming certain publishers games be a thing of the past, and when that day comes, I’ll be looking forward to watching Need For Speed in one tab, and Mario Bros. in another.

Tune in next time for the next instalment of Game On or Game Over. If you have any ideas for our next article, feel free to contact Andy or Nicholas on Twitter.


This article may contain affiliate links, meaning we could earn a small commission if you click-through and make a purchase. Stevivor is an independent outlet and our journalism is in no way influenced by any advertiser or commercial initiative.

About the author

Nicholas Simonovski

Events and Racing Editor at Stevivor.com. Proud RX8 owner, Strange Music fan and Joe Rogan follower. Living life one cheat meal at a time.

About the author

Andy Gray

From the frozen land of Minnesota, I was the weird kid that begged my parents for an Intellivision instead of an Atari. My love for gaming has only grown since. When I’m not gaming I enjoy ice hockey and training dogs. I’m still trying to get my Elkhound to add to my Gamerscore though, one day this will happen.