https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html

It is more similar to covering a famous song. 

Out of fear of a lawsuit. Plenty of people in the music/video industry have already sued Youtube. Most of them didn't win, but if it were to be shown that Youtube had the ability to remove such videos, per request of the IP owner, and they chose not to they certainly would lose in court. There doesn't need to be a precedent for this. It is simple logic based on the law. 

I kind of doubt that showing the entire game counts as "free advertising." If anything, it counts as a walk through of the entire game which is filled with spoilers. The point of an ad is to show just enough footage so that it will tease the consumers enough for them to be curious about the rest of the game, not to show the entire game. And I dont believe that, outside of multiplayer centric games and esports, that lets plays have ever helped a fully priced AAA game. Of course it helps indie games cause a) they are cheap to buy b) they dont have really any marketing budget but AAA games are expensive by comparison and already have a marketing budget.

So overall, I think its nonsense that people are whining about it but of course they will whine since its the only way they will make money

Done... also loves you... will that save me from future bans??? =]]]]]]

When you cover a song, you play the notes someone else wrote. In gaming that's the equivalent of fans recreating Mario 64 with a new engine.

You are still wrong, try again.

Make your point if you have one. But I would also like a response to being caught red handed 100% distorting what PDP said.

I REALLY hate saying this and it is mustering a lot of tension in me, but he is in a sense right. Nintendo definitely underestimates the power and influence YouTubers have on culture both now and in the future. As much as I despise many aspects of said culture, angering them is not good business practice. Also, Nintendo isn't nickel and dining at the same level as EA AND Activision. Their games are still the same level of lowered priced for gamers and with minimal DLC. The only place they are stingy is on the people that profit from simply playing their games.

Similar, though the circumstances are a bit different.

Managed to find? Nope, it was on the front page of this site.

How can it be one sided if his own point is in the link provided in the opening?

I refuse to aknowledge? Nope, I just said it isn't cientific study to be used to prove this and other guys do more good to Nintendo then they are doing themselves. And you are doing even less by the forum by being unecessarily unpolite towards others.

And about your answer to PwerlvlArmy, please respect other people point of view and say the person is talking nonsense after complaing I shoot down your point.

That case is extremely settled. Video games are not - a court could easily come down on - videos are original works and fair use for commentary reasons (Nintendo has no claim) OR substantial reproduction of content (Nintendo has full claim).