Non-Pewdiepie youtubers about the Nintendo Youtube program

[Mr Khan]

Yakuzaice said:

Mr Khan said:

News, yes. Reviews, yes. Let's Plays, no. I find the argument that the point of watching the let's plays is the commenters personality to be specious at best. To head off the counterexample, nobody would give a damn about John Madden if he were not commenting for the NFL, that's what brings the eyeballs. Minecraft, Metroid, or Medal of Honor is what brings the eyeballs, not Angry Joe, however much folks may feel otherwise.

With news and reviews, you're making an original contribution. With let's plays, you're presenting the work itself with some sort of thin veil that's supposed to make it "okay" to try to make money off of playing videogames.

As Lafiel may have mentioned earlier, if Nintendo is doing the same thing to news or reviews, then that is wrong.

Ignoring the differing laws between media and other products for a second and just focusing on the principle that you're espousing, let me ask you this.  When Jeremy Clarkson is flipping over a Robin in northern England, should he owe money to Reliant (or whoever owns their remains)?  Functionally it is pretty similar.  He is controlling a product put out by another company and talking over it.  Is that just a thin veil that's supposed to make it "okay" to try to make money off driving cars?  How many people would still watch Top Gear if they no longer drove cars?  Or a show about home improvement if they didn't use tools?

Now obviously there are different laws regarding the use of media, but laws could always be passed restricting the use of other products in profit making ventures.  Do you believe Top Gear should be able to make money off another company's product?  If so, why?

Also while I don't really watch Angry Joe much, I'd imagine a lot of his fans would still be interested in him without the video game aspect.  Giant Bomb is theoretically a site about video games, but their most popular feature (the podcast) is often about pennies, meatballs, sandals vs thongs,  llamas, babies, etc and not about games.  Also it looks like Angry Joe's most popular videos are his reviews, where people are presumable going for his opinion and not just footage of a game.

Quite. I'm after the let's plays here, if i'm not making myself clear, i apologize.

Although in the case of a car, it is primarily a tool. Watching one car being driven is much the same for the viewer, as opposed to a video game which has narrative content (yes, even if the game is not cinematic does not mean it can't qualify as a narrative whose unfolding is the arguable point, especially in single player games/modes)