I'd be surprised TBH.

Yeah you did, although sarcastically.  "Yes, let's follow this line of though and prohibit Nintendo fans on here making arguments for Nintendo."

Sure it does.  It filters out all the low level partners.  The guys that can't follow direction from a business like Nintendo.  We've all heard the how strict they are with their employees.  A person can't even be on a podcast without nintendo going all crazy about what they said.  To keep that tight leash with people, it takes real dedication.  Like i said, they don't want people selling their games for them, they have thier own marketing.

Pardon me but it is not the job of any pundit, reviewer, or impressions giver to follow a corporation's instructions when doing their job, YouTube or otherwise.  And on top of that, I would say 95% of what Nintendo does isn't within their rights, it's a major overstepping.  Because they use content ID, which is a bs system that literally just takes money with no legal obligation by Nintendo to prove their claim of copyrighg infringement and no recourse whatsoever for the party harmed.  It's bull, it was always bull, and it will always be bull.  If Nintendo wants to be a prick with its copyrights, it should have to use the legal channels as intended and incur some risk.  

And as I pointed out earlier, this only filters out positivity since major negative videos WILL happen.  And it means some of the biggest reviewers and pundits don't bring them up.  And it pisses off the fanbases of those who are shafted by this.  It has done them no good whatsoever.

Nope... I was just being coherent... they shut down people talking their argument on youtube videos they could as well shut forum defenders.

Yet you find youtube with abundant amount of Nintendo speak and topic.  Clearly they have their targets.  If people really are turned off by their youtube policy, you wouldn't come to the conclusion with all the material about them.  Youtubers do not need to cover nintendo for profit.  Its off the market like if someone in the real world would sell drugs as their product.  Not a problem that people get arrested for selling meth, and shouldn't be a problem with youtubers getting their videos flagged for a no touchy subject.

Reviewers may still review to the honesty of their own merits.  That's never an issue.  Sure their video gets taken down, but again, they should already know no to cover Nintendo.  As for overstepping, don't cry over something someone has over you.  It's their right to do so and it is your right whatever actions you see fit for yourself.  Don't see why Nintendo has to be responsible for the outcry of people who can't cover their stuff.

Positive or not is never the issue.  It was about control.  They prefer control.  That was always their motive behind youtube.  What I see is a path and opportunity for Nintendo and Youtubers.  They prefer the ones that play ball.  Don't play ball, don't get in bed with Nintendo.  Simple as that.  The outcry for their product to use as a subject is in Nintendo's advantage just like any IP Nintendo owns and does not permit to be used by others.  Making a Nintendo video and expecting some sort of compensation(or even the feel good feeling of creating content just for the sake of content) is not Nintendo's problem.  If you were to make a Mario costume and make profit from their brand, Nintendo is surely within their right to shut you down.  And no, it doen't suck.  It kicks ass for Nintendo.  Not for you or I, but it is a good Nintendo sees for themselves.  If they change that policy, well rainbows and sugar, but at the moment, not happening. That's all.

As a writer, I know the authority copyright affords.  I know my rights, what I can control and I know what I can't.  I know - I don't think, I know - that the Content ID system and the use of it by Konami, Nintend, Activision, and many others is not ok, it is not ethical, and it is at times outright illegal. 

And selling a Nintendo branded costume is trademark infringement, totally different thing.  Covering a Nintendo game in punditry, parody, or review is universally, incontravertably covered in fair use.  It would be upheld in any court and they definitely have no right to take money from such through some back door YouTube put in.  If I write a Review of Nintendo's next game, I can have 50 screenshots to go with it for illustration and I could sell it.  And Nintendo could do nothing.  It is no different for a YouTuber using illustrative footage. 

So no, this is not OK, it is not ethical, in many cases it isn't even legal. 

I'm not gonna pretend to know the legal system reguarding what Nintendo is doing.  All I know is that Nintendo is able to do what they do to youtubers and so far they're doing it.  Youtube is not a rinkydink mom and pop business.  Yet here we are, people talking about ethics and fair use.  If it's illegal, why is it still happening?  Tell me that.  Apparently Nintendo is above the law now.  And if loopholes and other shenanigans are involved, well apparently if that option is there to choose, Nintendo chose it. 

It's still happening mainly because YouTubers have not sued YouTube or any of these companies yet. That's partly on the YouTubers, since that's kinda how copyright laws work, only very few intelectual property violations (like counterfeit goods) are enforced via police.  And Nintendo and others use it because the way it's all written up they have some measure of "protection" (not really) since they can claim YouTube provided the tools. And then YouTube will claim that Nintendo used the tools. 

And there's no denying that YouTube and the internet are still the wild west, a lot of crap happens that would never happen outside it because people can hide behind faceless avatars and companies can easily do things through backdoors that is not at all even possible in the real world.  And let's not forget that there's a lot of lawyers who don't rightly understand what YouTube is and what goes on there.

Edit:  To better illustrate the problem here, if someone took a book I wrote and photocopied it 50 times to sell at their own store, I could walk in and shut them down with no issue.  That's fine.  That's my right.  However, if I waited until they had sold the books and then mugged them outside the store and took their money, I'm going to get arrested and charged with theft.  Why?  Because even though my copyrights were violated, I don't have the right to circumvent the legal system and rob the person like some intelectual property vigilante.  And that's what Content ID on YouTube is.  They aren't enforcing their copyright, their robbing people without making their case through the proper legal channels.

No but there are certainly players who play games for the story.

Not kill their sales but what might their sales have been if people couldn't just YouTube the stories for themselves?