Well, rather than sit here and work on any of my three (read: four) papers I will instead try to do the impossible. That is, as I eat my lunch on a Tuesday afternoon—being thankful there was no class today—I will attempt to make sense out of nonsense. I am not the smartest cookie in the pickle-jar, that I admit, but I am seemingly the only one, save for Nintendo fanboys of course, who is confused by the YouTuber outrage against Nintendo. At the very least, I represent the minority.
But where does my problem rest, you ask? Surely, you are saying to yourself, it is even more nonsense to support the stupid practices of a company who carry the thorny baton of consumer destruction passed down from EA (Electronic Arts). But let me stop your strange, possibly disanalogous, imagery there. Yes, Nintendo is in full-blown nonsense mode, but they are not the target of my confusion in this instance. Nor in fact is the group of YouTube cool-kids who band together like they are part of some popular high-school click and say, "No Nintendo, no more!"
So what is the officer, problem?
THE GREED ARGUMENT:
It is the chief argument those YouTubers and their acolytes are putting forth that puzzles me so. (OK, so maybe it is them.) "Nintendo is being greedy. This is very greedy of Nintendo." Does anyone else sense the irony here? There are numerous arguments a person could make against Nintendo here. Let me try one: Nintendo making money off of people showing off/playing their products is like John Deer wanting profits for every lawn some thirteen-year-old cuts during Summer vacation assuming of course that he or she uses a John Deer product (and they'd be stupid not to). Disanalougs again? Or how about part of my paycheck having to go to Subaru because I used their car to get to work and without that car I wouldn't have been able to make money in the first place. OK this seems more disanalgous. At any rate this is wrong. This is unethical. We could have this discussion, we could even turn this discussion into something greater, something more mature. But we're not. I don't care to do it either so I don't blame anyone. In the end, it comes down to complaining. The problem for both parties is this: instead of making enough money that would give Scrooge McDuck a feathery hard-on they are making enough money that would give Scrooge McDuck a feathery hard-on. See what I did there?
And yet, there exists the "greed argument." To my knowledge Nintendo allows certain games to be on display in YouTube videos, but they take 40% of the profit that particular video makes. Rather than "share" the profits with a company one supports and wants to see flourish—especially when they haven't been—YouTubers want all of it. "Nintendo doesn't need the money, this is blatant corporate greed." But here's the thing, do you Mr. Youtube Gamer? You are already making astronomically more than the general world population. And for what? Effectively being a dolt and catering to dolts. You're not contributing to society contra to your belief (so maybe just Capitalism) and in most cases you tarnish the image of a fandom you so proudly wish to defend. Oh, ad-hominem attack; this just got real. Let's be honest you are in this for the money. Say what you will, but you will not convince me otherwise. Does this upset me? Nope. I like money, too.
Are they entitled to it all? Yes, absolutely. Is Nintendo being greedy? I think the problem is with the words we are using, dear Brutus. It is obvious the reason they, Nintendo, want revenue from YouTube videos is because they want to make more money. I guess Nintendo has the understanding that they will make money from YouTube videos and even more when people go and buy their products, but when no one is buying their products because no one is posting Nintendo-based videos the whole thing seems self-defeating. But I digress. If one is going to make the "greed argument" then it only makes sense for that very YouTube Gamer to liken him or herself to Nintendo. You are both businesses and you both want your money. The only way this argument makes sense in the end is if YouTube gaming personalities just admit this. Perhaps the nonsensical nature of this whole situation is two-fold; it is shrouded in quasi-ethical (i.e. distracting) diction and the underlying argument is circular. If someone would come out and say, "Nintendo's policy bothers me because it hurts my revenue," I would understand. If someone would release an estimate of just how much this hurts that revenue I would absolutely be interested. Hint. Hint.
In closing and to end rather inconclusively since my food is getting cold, don't be a hypocrite. Make better arguments. I leave with some questions: Why is it seemingly acceptable for individuals to be greedy, but not corporations? Maybe I am being a pessimist, but most people are not philanthropists, most people do not care about others. Why is it common to pretend that YouTube personalities that we follow (who are a business) are the exception—do we not want to admit that we ourselves are also no different? I understand that it is 2015. That there is a media craze going on. I understand that being a YouTube Gaming personality is now a full-time job; it is work. People have to get paid. But are they making too much money for doing too little? Most just sit around, play, and talk (read: yell, shout profanity, etc.) and they get paid. They get paid a lot.