So review sites can publish written reviews 2 weeks before a game is out, but not show any video footage of it? I know Nintendo's trying to avoid Lets Plays being completed before the game's out, but Nintendo should:

1. Make written reviews coincide with video footage NDAS (so day of release)

2. Or only give video creating permission to top game corporations like CBSi and IGN (so not Youtubers) to avoid Lets Plays showing up. If Nintendo gives "exclusive" early video publishing rights to the biggist corporations (and maybe a couple of the huge Youtube game related channels like Total Biscuit), then they could easily narrow down any possible leaks (like if Jeff gave Bayonetta 2 to Chie and then she published the whole game online)

It would be a terrible idea for NDAs to distinguish between parties (ex: Professional sites versus Youtubers). Showing preference for one side over another does not help.

There is no reason to get up in arms about the fact that video footage can't be aired on the same date that the review embargo lifts when it's still two weeks before release. And even then, if you're really had up for footage of the game, it's been out in Japan for weeks and there's already footage of the game on Youtube.

If you want footage of the game it's all over Youtube. It has been out for weeks in Japan, tons of full playthroughs. They're probably just worried about some incredible spoilers getting out there... some really, really incredible things.

I just want a QL.

And professional games sites are better at avoiding spoilers in video, as they are worth more then random Youtubers who likely invest very little in their channels/videos with a few exceptions (Biscuit)

Also who cares about discrimination for Youtubers? Some publishers like EA pay them for promo ads (like with BF4, the big Battlefield Youtubers actually said the game was great until that deal expired). Nobody takes them seriouly except for the ones who are really anal about being "credible".They aren't the same as massive publicly traded companies like CBS that know that spoiler-conscientious people may stop coming to their sites if they mess up their video coverage.

You'd get the same effect of a Quick Look by watching one episode of a Let's Play on Youtube. And given how many professionals and professional outlets use Youtube for their video content these days, you can't just give people on Youtube a different set of rules to go by, as you'd just be giving an advantage to competition. Not to mention the inevitable shitstorm that would ensue when Youtubers start complaining about being treated unfairly.

The NDA is fine as is.

@hailinel:

Nobody would care. It's not like people think highly of game development/journalism anyway. Youtubers ARE different from established press, even if they're competing for the same market.

@mcfart: Are they? Really? A lot of people who were in the games press are doing Youtube videos now (i.e. Jim Sterling, all the people at Rev3Games, just to name a few). Should they get the same treatment as the 'established press'? Were would you draw the line? What about other video platforms? Should the 'established press' be allowed to put their video content on the Youtube?

Meh, this isn't worth "fighting" for. Nintendo should be free to make up whatever rules it wants while others should be free to accept or reject it.

ps. Youtube-ers are more valuable than "established press".

I'd say Bungie and Monolith are 10x worse.

Bungie held reviews because "social features" that are completely unessential to the experience. There is no reason that the press needed to play with everyone else because the only thing you can do with strangers is fucking point at and dance with them. That was complete trashy bullshit that just staved off mediocre reviews until that unfinished game came out.

Monolith seems to think that Youtube is their bitch and forced a "brand deal" on anyone who wanted to play their game on Youtube. They basically claimed that no one could say anything bad about their game if they wanted to receive a review copy. Another deplorable practice that has mired the game in my eyes. I know I'm not paying full price for it and will probably end up just renting it. That takes a lot of nerve to pull a fast one on people like that. At this point I don't believe any of the coverage.

What Nintendo is doing here doesn't matter at all unless you're Jeff Gerstmann. I like written reviews and I'm sure next week we'll get a quicklook. I have even played the game. There is a playable demo of the game available before release. That is fucking incredible. So honestly, not being allowed to show video footage is trivial at best. I think it's totally fine. YOU CAN LITERALLY PLAY IT YOURSELF.

NDA's are just dumb in general when it comes to video games. Why not allow the reviewer 30 minutes of gameplay video to further establish their point? Nintendo needs to pull its head out of 2004 and get with the times on this kinda thing, especially since we live in a world where video content gets more clicks than text

Strangely enough, thirty minutes seems to be a fairly standard time limit on gameplay footage. USGamer had to cut their Hyrule Warriors stream at thirty minutes and Gamespot was limited to thirty minutes for Drive Club.

The only problem is that for most games, thirty minutes isn't really enough time to show most aspects of the gameplay, some features and have an off-the-cuff discussion about preliminary impressions. Fine for a solo walkthrough of one level, but that's not really enough to show off a game.

Youtube reaches a lot more people than "professional" sites do, hence it makes no sense to prioritize the sites anymore except for written articles.

There's an embargo on video? So I guess that's a "can only show 30 second chunks" type deal, since many sites have published video reviews?

After watching the E3 Treehouse streams, the Nintendo Direct focused on Bayonetta 2, and the recent Treehouse stream a few weeks ago, I hadn't even realized there was some strange video embargo for press people. There's a ton of info and video footage for the game, along with a demo on the eShop. I mean, I guess its a little strange, but we're still nearly two weeks away from the game actually coming out. I don't really see an issue here.

Bethesda is the one who needs to get their heads out of their asses, I had seen 0 press coverage for the last gen versions of The Evil Within until just last night, where some random youtube people had uploaded PS3 footage of the game. None of the reviews I read even mentioned it was on anything other than PS4 or PC. Tie that with day of release review embargoes, and its way less consumer friendly than how Nintendo is handling their stuff.

So wait, did Rev3 break the NDA yesterday, then? Nick Robinson streamed the game for a while last night. And that stream isn't actually archived on their channel yet.

What is their exact policy? Nick from Rev3Games did a livestream of it yesterday for an hour and a half...