Goriginal Content

EoD - Instagram fun

GN Podcast #484

EoD - Happy release!

EoD - Too big & loud

Smash Wii U review

Adventure Time rev
 

Nintendo comments on YouTube 'Let's Play' situation, adding ads to certain videos

Nintendo sent over this statement to us just now...

As part of our on-going push to ensure Nintendo content is shared across social media channels in an appropriate and safe way, we became a YouTube partner and as such in February 2013 we registered our copyright content in the YouTube database. For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on YouTube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property. For more information please visit http://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/faq.html

In other words, Nintendo has ads running on fan-made Nintendo videos that hit a certain length or feature certain content. Thanks to Nintendo for the comment!

Update - Our friends at GameXplain bring up an interesting point. The blurb above from Nintendo 'doesn't mention that it cuts off all revenue to the creators of any claimed videos.' Apparently that's the situation, with GameXplain already being impacted. To clarify, 'it's only for the claimed videos' right now, but that could change.

Discussion Preview
108 total comments (View all)
No Avatar
16 May 2013 00:33

Nintendo can ban all youtube videos that use their content just simple as that, and is perfectly legal. Nintendo choice not to ban and go to add ads on those videos, perfectly normal and reasonable, you can't ague with that, you can still have your partners and making promos in your videos to gain money in the old way as many did in youtube early days, and still if you dont like it there is a lot of alternatives besides youtube.
User avatar
16 May 2013 00:41

huupawel wrote:Nintendo can ban all youtube videos that use their content just simple as that, and is perfectly legal. Nintendo choice not to ban and go to add ads on those videos, perfectly normal and reasonable, you can't ague with that, you can still have your partners and making promos in your videos to gain money in the old way as many did in youtube early days, and still if you dont like it there is a lot of alternatives besides youtube.


like twitchtv i am sure you can do full lets plays there with out worry of nintendo :D
No Avatar
16 May 2013 00:52

Devil_Rising wrote:
Gold_Ultima wrote:

Tell that to Siskel and Ebert. They had a TV show where they showed copywrited material while reviewing it. Are you telling me they weren't allowed to make money from it? I also doubt they asked everyone's permission first because they didn't just give positive reviews.



*sigh* I'm not sure that some of you folks have a firm grasp on the arguments you're trying to make. NO offense intended, honestly. But if I can be serious for a minute, if you have any idea how television and professional TV shows work, then you'd know it's very much a different beast than some people with Youtube channels who create cheaply done video segments of them playing games on their own computers, and having a Google AdSense/YouTube Partner deal going on. WAY different.

Siskel and Ebert got a show because they were already big, well known, long-since-established movie critics. They got a show on a network, produced by a studio, complete with television ad revenue and advertising partner deals, AND on top of all that, naturally OF COURSE their show had an "in" with the movie industry, aka Big Hollywood Studios, and had all the rights and regulations accounted for when showing clips of movies while giving film reviews for the public. Meaning the movie studios were (obviously) completely aware of Siskel and Ebert, and their TV show, on a big network, shown in primetime, and were JUST FINE with them using clips to give reviews.

In fact I'll go one better, and state that in that case, how do you think they GOT those clips to show for review? Certainly not ripped from DVDs, or off the internet. They got that material directly FROM the movie studios, specifically TO use in their reviews for their television program. It's the exact same concept as game companies sending well known professional game review sites FREE copies of games specifically for the purpose of reviewing. Comparing that to people getting footage themselves with no connection or communication with the property's originators, and still making ad revenue off of it on internet videos, as I said before, is a completely different thing.


So, again, sorry for the tone, but on the other hand, exactly what was your argument again?


Maybe if you read the comment I was replying to you'd understand that I was stating that people can make money off of fare use. (Contrary to the primary point of his comment.) I was stating that specifically when pertaining to review purposes, like with AVGN, Pat the NES Punk and the like, that their reviews should be protected by the rules of fair use. Also, you don't seem very sorry for your misdirected argument and condescending tone. It's like saying "I'm not racist, but" and then saying something racist. The whole thing just shouldn't have been said or should be rephrased completely to a tone you considered to be more respectful, if you really felt that way.
User avatar
16 May 2013 01:49

theimporter wrote:More proof why the game industry is not mature enough to be taken as serious as the movie industry. Look how many critics are doing movie reviews on the Internet, not to many complaints from the movie industry when it comes to showing footage from new or old movies. Then you look at the game industry, crying like babies over copyright material when in fact, it really should matter cause looking at a video it not like playing the game anyway.

With games becoming more like movies, believe it or not, people watch walkthroughs or cutscenes of a game rather than buying it. There aren't exactly the same thing but movies don't have a situation where people are providing their own commentary over entire movies on YouTube and monetizing it. It's a gray area that makes things more complicated.
No Avatar
16 May 2013 01:59

lockNES wrote:With games becoming more like movies, believe it or not, people watch walkthroughs or cutscenes of a game rather than buying it.

Yep, yet another reason why making games this way is a bad idea. The primary strength of games is their interactivity, their ability to unfold differently depending on the choices of the player. When you largely eliminate this, you've just made another movie, and why would people pay for a movie when they can watch it on the web for free?
User avatar
16 May 2013 02:20

It's good that Nintendo is not taking down videos but I'm siding with the YouTubers for now. It sounds like some videos that may be protected under fair use are getting caught up as well. Unfortunately, this sounds like a common way that YouTube allows corporations to broadly flag videos or claim videos when this clearly requires a case by case basis. I don't know if Nintendo or YouTube is more at fault here but if Nintendo is attempting to pull ad revenue off videos that people deserve a chance to make money on (like self produced content), that just sounds like a dick move.

There is definitely a lot of gray area with content on YouTube which makes it just as depressing whether YouTubers treat it like the wild west where anything goes or corporations claim and flag hundreds of videos for copyright just because they can, the abuse on both sides is ridiculous.

I am for YouTubers being able to make money on content they produce so hopefully Nintendo works out something with these people so only blatant abuses of copyrighted work get hit and everything else is on a case by case basis. Besides, with the mainstream press practically shunning all but the biggest Nintendo releases, Nintendo needs the coverage from people like the YouTubers, or should I say Nintendo fans need the coverage for reviews etc. It is more detrimental for them to screw over the only people in games media that give Nintendo adequate coverage.

I'm really hoping everything works out for the best.
User avatar
16 May 2013 03:59

nGen wrote:

Actually, Siskel and Ebert started their show on public television which was later sindicated. Everything else you got right



I forgot to add that in, but yeah, my point still stands. A television review format, or any kind of pro review medium, is a wholly different thing than people posting stuff on Youtube.



@everyone else

I enjoy YT walkthroughs and "Let's Plays". They can be entertaining. But we're not talking about video reviews, or retrospectives, or things of that nature. If Nintendo is literally just concerned about Let's Play videos, and those people getting ad revenue for simply posting footage of them playing a game, or even talking over that playthrough....really, they don't have a whole lot of ground to stand on. On the one hand, I can totally see the argument that Nintendo doesn't' actually need to be doing this, etc. I've even heard people say that "Oh Nintendo could lose money by doing this, because some people might to decide to buy a game based solely on someone's video of it"......but even that argument is shaky at best. In most cases, when it comes to "Corporation vs. People", I stand with the People. And I already think that since Google bought it up, Youtube has gotten progressively sh*ttier. But in this instance, I kind of see Nintendo's point, and also think that unlike most other big corporations, they aren't just taking videos down and getting accounts banned. Maybe them getting the ad revenue isn't the "Right answer", but then again....why should someone get paid for people to watch them just play through a game?

It's a whole lot of gray area, and I'm sure this isn't the final development on the issue.....
User avatar
16 May 2013 04:34

I hope that Nintendo can at least be talked into sharing some of the revenue. I'd hate to see the folks who get paid not get any money at all.
User avatar
16 May 2013 05:08

Sounds reasonable to me.

I presume ads at the beginning and end, along with taken ad revenue, is what the catch is for PS4's Live Streaming etc. features too.

And as much as I love watching numerous LPers, I've never been comfortable with the fact that you can get paid anything for talking over someone else's content - especially those who live off such funds [sorry NTom].

This was inevitable.
User avatar
16 May 2013 06:54

Well I admit I like watching Lets Play videos but I dont know why would one try to make profit out of them. But the tricky thing about this is that Sony is actually encouraging sharing with the PS4 while Nintendo seems to be going the other way. Sony will ride on that one fo sho.
User avatar
16 May 2013 07:48

Ok, that's not too bad but it is a bit of a sly way of getting free advertising from thousands of sources, Nintendo.
No Avatar
16 May 2013 09:28

Nintendo owns the games. Fair Use means Youtubers can use SOME clips, but not enough that it's a major portion of the original content....So for example...a movie reviewer can use about a few 30 second clips of a 2 hour movie to supplement their review, but can't just do a commentary over the whole movie and claim Fair Use or parody. Plus, this is a private company (Youtube) and they aren't subject to have to comply with Fair Use on their site. The youtubers can claim fair use if taken to cort by Nintendo, but Youtube as a service doesn't have to listen to any protests on what constitutes fair use...they can make the final call. Point being: If these let's play videos want to make a living or any money off these videos, they should host the videos themselves using their own servers on their own site (and risk being given a cease and desist or sued directly.
No Avatar
16 May 2013 09:36

I still think this is a crappy move on Nintendo's part. The Internet is about sharing things, so why try to SOPA-ise it? I'd reckon the vast majority of YouTube videos use copyright content in some way or another (i.e. music, art, logos, video footage, text, etc.). If other companies did this as well, it could very well spell the end of YouTube. People will not put up with having their videos interlaced with ads and/or taken down and just move on to another site.

I don't have a problem with Nintendo getting paid for their IPs, but it's not like they're recording their own Let's Play videos or anything like that. If Nintendo wants to do those, they can, they should just post them on their own channel. Back in the day with VCR footage, you could sell it back then too, but you didn't hear about Nintendo trying to stop that or dub commercials into it or anything like that. The only difference is that more people can see it online (in theory). Nintendo needs all the help they can get advertising-wise and these videos are free advertising. If they force people to stop posting them they will lose out on that free advertising AND the revenue they would've gotten from the new ad insertion policy.

This is just a dumb move all around and makes Nintendo look like a bunch of greedy vampires trying to leech onto anything and everything. This reminds me of the stories about Disney suing people who painted Disney characters in a school or nursery or something like that. There's defending your IP and defending your IP. Going after every little person is akin to patent trolling as far as I'm concerned.

What if next they target used games like some in the industry keep trying to do? You can't sell your used games on eBay, Amazon, to a pawn shop, at a yard sale, etc. anymore because "its their IP." What a load of crap. You don't see Honda, Toyota, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. demanding you pay them whatever you made when you sold your used car. You don't seem them demanding you put advertisements for their other products on the car while you're trying to sell it. It's the same concept. Those cars are the "IP" (for lack of a better phrase) of those companies, but they don't pull this crap. So why is it okay for Nintendo to do it?

I'm guessing the ad revenue LPers and the like make is so minuscule that it's not like Nintendo is missing out on a lot here. Unless you're a huge site (in which case you already have a deal directly with Nintendo or through a 3rd party), then you're getting fractions of fractions of fractions of fractions of a penny per view. It's not like you're getting a million dollars with every view or anything like that.

Either Nintendo needs to start their own LP channel or YouTube needs to defend its users and tell Nintendo to **** off and quit trying to be tools about this whole thing. I know if I were a LPer I would no longer be using Nintendo games to protest their idiocy. I love Nintendo and their games, but this policy is short-sighted and stupid and will do them more harm than good.
No Avatar
16 May 2013 09:58

destructor2012 wrote:I still think this is a crappy move on Nintendo's part. The Internet is about sharing things, so why try to SOPA-ise it? I'd reckon the vast majority of YouTube videos use copyright content in some way or another (i.e. music, art, logos, video footage, text, etc.). If other companies did this as well, it could very well spell the end of YouTube. People will not put up with having their videos interlaced with ads and/or taken down and just move on to another site.

I don't have a problem with Nintendo getting paid for their IPs, but it's not like they're recording their own Let's Play videos or anything like that. If Nintendo wants to do those, they can, they should just post them on their own channel. Back in the day with VCR footage, you could sell it back then too, but you didn't hear about Nintendo trying to stop that or dub commercials into it or anything like that. The only difference is that more people can see it online (in theory). Nintendo needs all the help they can get advertising-wise and these videos are free advertising. If they force people to stop posting them they will lose out on that free advertising AND the revenue they would've gotten from the new ad insertion policy.

This is just a dumb move all around and makes Nintendo look like a bunch of greedy vampires trying to leech onto anything and everything. This reminds me of the stories about Disney suing people who painted Disney characters in a school or nursery or something like that. There's defending your IP and defending your IP. Going after every little person is akin to patent trolling as far as I'm concerned.

What if next they target used games like some in the industry keep trying to do? You can't sell your used games on eBay, Amazon, to a pawn shop, at a yard sale, etc. anymore because "its their IP." What a load of crap. You don't see Honda, Toyota, Ford, GM, Chrysler, etc. demanding you pay them whatever you made when you sold your used car. You don't seem them demanding you put advertisements for their other products on the car while you're trying to sell it. It's the same concept. Those cars are the "IP" (for lack of a better phrase) of those companies, but they don't pull this crap. So why is it okay for Nintendo to do it?

I'm guessing the ad revenue LPers and the like make is so minuscule that it's not like Nintendo is missing out on a lot here. Unless you're a huge site (in which case you already have a deal directly with Nintendo or through a 3rd party), then you're getting fractions of fractions of fractions of fractions of a penny per view. It's not like you're getting a million dollars with every view or anything like that.

Either Nintendo needs to start their own LP channel or YouTube needs to defend its users and tell Nintendo to **** off and quit trying to be tools about this whole thing. I know if I were a LPer I would no longer be using Nintendo games to protest their idiocy. I love Nintendo and their games, but this policy is short-sighted and stupid and will do them more harm than good.



While I agree I wish Nintendo wouldn't put this policy into place, It's entirely within their right...and honestly not that big of a deal. I can tell you're not familiar with Youtube's video environment so let me be clear. THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. Videos are flagged and left up and ads are run for the content owners...It's what keeps Youtube both in business, and from being sued out of existence and keeps users able to upload their content. Youtubers are really well educated as to what kind of content this can happen to as Youtube has a whole program dedicated to educating Youtube uploaders on what constitutes copyright infringement and what can happen when a claim is made and why.

People who are surprised by this policy or reaction obviously don't spend a lot of time uploading, or they would know.
User avatar
16 May 2013 10:15

nGen wrote:
Tell you what. GameXplain has the entire ending of Luigi's Mansion 2 online as well as all of the boss battles. That game came out in March. Oz The Great and Powerful also came out in March. If you can show me where on that site I can find video of the entire ending of Oz as well as the big twist, I'll keep my mouth shut.


I see where you're trying to go with this. Yes, most sites will reviews of older movies but one of the main reason for it is that they can't just bring a camcorder to the movie theaters now can they? They need a DVD (or a blu-ray disc) in order to do so. But that's not really the point because if I try to go by your logic, then after a certain time, then the rules change and it's OK to show the ending? What about movies that are being re-released like Jurassic Park, the NC just reviewed it and showed the ending, does that count?

Games are an interactive media, meaning that all the recordings in the world can't substitute it's main function, which is to play them. Nintendo are being dicks about it, end of story. Stop trying to defend dick moves or the game industry will never change.

Also, we shouldn't forget another culprit in this, YouTube. They are so chickenshit when it comes to defending their users that it's pathetic. Do you think that the NC could upload all of his stuff on YouTube like he does on blip? Of course not, his YouTube page is practically empty, videos were either removed or he never bothered uploading them. Companies like Nintendo, SEGA and MS are just doing this because they know YouTube has no balls and will comply with whatever bullying demands they make.
User avatar
16 May 2013 10:52

Well, it's much better than taking them down... And if anything I'd prefer Nintendo commercials instead of unrelated ones. But there's such a thing as fair use, and I'd say most Let's Plays and similar videos goes under this.

Though I'm afraid this will affect the amount of Nintendo videos from people (and those are most of the games I care about...) ...Nintendo should make a deal with the Let's Players that make money of it so they could share the money or something...
User avatar
16 May 2013 11:08

Zanreo wrote:Well, it's much better than taking them down... And if anything I'd prefer Nintendo commercials instead of unrelated ones. But there's such a thing as fair use, and I'd say most Let's Plays and similar videos goes under this.

Though I'm afraid this will affect the amount of Nintendo videos from people (and those are most of the games I care about...) ...Nintendo should make a deal with the Let's Players that make money of it so they could share the money or something...


But getting paid to do such [when they aren't big gaming sites that follow Nintendo's rules, nor is anything but their commentary 'original']? Nah, I can't agree with that [despite following certain LPers].

People here really think Sony won't enforce similar rules with their Share and Live Stream etc. features on the PS4? :lol:
No Avatar
16 May 2013 11:24

Chosenoneknuckles wrote:
Zanreo wrote:Well, it's much better than taking them down... And if anything I'd prefer Nintendo commercials instead of unrelated ones. But there's such a thing as fair use, and I'd say most Let's Plays and similar videos goes under this.

Though I'm afraid this will affect the amount of Nintendo videos from people (and those are most of the games I care about...) ...Nintendo should make a deal with the Let's Players that make money of it so they could share the money or something...


But getting paid to do such [when they aren't big gaming sites that follow Nintendo's rules, nor is anything but their commentary 'original']? Nah, I can't agree with that [despite following certain LPers].

People here really think Sony won't enforce similar rules with their Share and Live Stream etc. features on the PS4? :lol:


What should happen for those who are not part of network programs is that YouTube puts in a revenue sharing program. Say for example Nintendo gets 60-80% of the revenue or whatever figure that favors them while still giving some to the LPer, that would be a more fair way of doing things for all involved. Nintendo gets to make money off of it and the LPers do and everybody wins. Despite the commentary being the only original thing in some videos, that doesn't mean Nintendo should be entitled to 100% of the revenue. That's why I suggested 60-80%. Now if it's only the game and game audio? Sure, give them 100%, that's fine.

People who want to monetize their LPs are just going to quit doing Nintendo ones or put them up somewhere else other than YouTube.

Of course this whole situation could've been avoided had YouTube never implemented ads and monetization of videos. Originally it was just about sharing videos, without regard for money.
User avatar
16 May 2013 12:00

destructor2012 wrote:
Chosenoneknuckles wrote:
Zanreo wrote:Well, it's much better than taking them down... And if anything I'd prefer Nintendo commercials instead of unrelated ones. But there's such a thing as fair use, and I'd say most Let's Plays and similar videos goes under this.

Though I'm afraid this will affect the amount of Nintendo videos from people (and those are most of the games I care about...) ...Nintendo should make a deal with the Let's Players that make money of it so they could share the money or something...


But getting paid to do such [when they aren't big gaming sites that follow Nintendo's rules, nor is anything but their commentary 'original']? Nah, I can't agree with that [despite following certain LPers].

People here really think Sony won't enforce similar rules with their Share and Live Stream etc. features on the PS4? :lol:


What should happen for those who are not part of network programs is that YouTube puts in a revenue sharing program. Say for example Nintendo gets 60-80% of the revenue or whatever figure that favors them while still giving some to the LPer, that would be a more fair way of doing things for all involved. Nintendo gets to make money off of it and the LPers do and everybody wins. Despite the commentary being the only original thing in some videos, that doesn't mean Nintendo should be entitled to 100% of the revenue. That's why I suggested 60-80%. Now if it's only the game and game audio? Sure, give them 100%, that's fine.

People who want to monetize their LPs are just going to quit doing Nintendo ones or put them up somewhere else other than YouTube.

Of course this whole situation could've been avoided had YouTube never implemented ads and monetization of videos. Originally it was just about sharing videos, without regard for money.


In an ideal world, sure.

... But YouTube [and Nintendo] are only getting on this first because they're among the most popular brands in their sectors, everyone else will follow suit soon enough [as aforementioned, I believe the PS4's Sharing features will involve such a catch].

Business is business. We'll just have to see how things unfold [hot heads don't all follow suit after a time - see Rayman Legends]; this is just the beginning.

Earning money for talking over games still feels wrong [and sad, even] to me.

Spoiler:
... And yes, I'm aware the fact I comment every other day on a game forum would be seen as such to the typical person.
User avatar
16 May 2013 13:19

Not sure if this has been posted but youtube's content ID system works automatically it is not overseen by Nintendo or a live person for that matter, that's why youtube lets you make counterclaims.
User avatar
16 May 2013 13:25

I don't really see why people are so bothered by this. Everyone is saying Nintendo is greedy for doing this but how? Its their IPs and I really don't understand how people can justify making money off the LP videos. I'm not bashing or anything but the only ones I see butt hurt are the ones that were trying to or making easy money off content thats not theirs. A lot will say it's free advertising, no it isn't, why would you want to buy a game after seeing a LP video that spoiled everything.
User avatar
16 May 2013 13:30

Also this is what you sign when you agree to become a youtube partner and monetize your videos

http://i.minus.com/iSxUi2ZSo9HE0.PNG

http://i.minus.com/ibnKQuDyp90gDg.PNG
No Avatar
16 May 2013 15:39

pit128 wrote:I don't really see why people are so bothered by this. Everyone is saying Nintendo is greedy for doing this but how? Its their IPs and I really don't understand how people can justify making money off the LP videos. I'm not bashing or anything but the only ones I see butt hurt are the ones that were trying to or making easy money off content thats not theirs. A lot will say it's free advertising, no it isn't, why would you want to buy a game after seeing a LP video that spoiled everything.


The same thing could be turned around, why bother watching a video game when you can play it? I think most people watching LPs are because of the people themselves being funny or they don't have the system or weren't going to buy it anyway. I might watch the cutscenes for Halo 4 because it might be interesting but I don't have a 360 and don't intend on getting one, so they were never going to get a sale to begin with. Even if it wasn't available for me to watch I wouldn't care, I haven't even bothered to watch now.

I totally understand the issue of making money off of them through LPs, but at the same time, how many people probably bought Sonic The Hedgehog 2006 because of Game Grumps? I'm definitely more inclined to buying it or at least trying it, same goes for Wario World. Nintendo should definitely get a cut but honestly, the only Nintendo games that would be "spoiled" by watching it are Zelda and Metroid because they have actual stories... and the people who don't want that spoiled were going to buy the game anyway.

The problem I have is that someone like GameXplain and TheBitBlock is getting hit with this, and they're a review sites, so they shouldn't have to deal with this kind of crap. Plus what about comedy shows that don't show the whole game like AVGN? Is he not going to be able to review any NES/SNES games anymore? Cuz that's bullsh*t! (lol reference).

It is free advertising though, think about the whole "mindshare" thing with PS4, people are excited for it, they know more about it and it's on gamer's minds. Except the difference with this is when it's on YouTube EVERYONE can see it, share it with their friends through social media, get a buzz going and the more Nintendo videos there are, the more people will talk about it, because more people are exposed to it. That's why Sony has that share button. The more videos that are created the more people will see it and it'll be on their minds a lot more. People don't even know that the Wii U exists and even then think it's a peripheral. The last thing Nintendo needs to do is cut that off and stop people from making videos. I don't really care about LP videos, though I think both should get a cut, but GameXplain and TheBitBlock doing analysis videos or reviews should NOT be getting hit, that's just stupid.
User avatar
16 May 2013 15:44

bomblord wrote:Also this is what you sign when you agree to become a youtube partner and monetize your videos

http://i.minus.com/iSxUi2ZSo9HE0.PNG

http://i.minus.com/ibnKQuDyp90gDg.PNG


I figured this was the case.

But then, I know a bunch of LPers who are partners. Does YouTube even know their own rules? :?
User avatar
16 May 2013 16:41

shmuga9 wrote:The problem I have is that someone like GameXplain and TheBitBlock is getting hit with this, and they're a review sites, so they shouldn't have to deal with this kind of crap. Plus what about comedy shows that don't show the whole game like AVGN? Is he not going to be able to review any NES/SNES games anymore?


Depends on how much of the games he shows. Nintendo's comment specifically outlines videos that feature audiovisual portions that extend past a certain length of time. LPs and video walkthroughs by definition feature extensive footage, which is why they are primarily the ones that seem to be getting zapped.

Assorted clips on their own in a review video should in principle be fine.

(And even if not, reviewing a videogame is not really something that automatically entitles you to monetary compensation regardless. It would not bother me in the slightest if things like Game Grumps and The Bit Block no longer got paid for their videos, Nintendo-related or otherwise.)

View the full discussion!

Quickie Search

"Advanced" Search

Anti-social Tendencies

Advertisements

RSS feed trough

News Feed
Top Stories
Console News
Portables News
Podcast Feed
GoNintendo Radio Feed
Twitter Feed

Affiliates + Friends

Destructoid
Gamersyde
Modojo
TheBitBlock
Anime Your Way