Nuvendil said:
Marketing isn't a "hard evidence" kinda business. They can only guess at the effects. The general premise is the more positive exposure the better. And YouTube brings lots of potential for positive exposure. Especially with reviewers. But this is beside the point. Nintendo is still behaving in an unethical way. Commentary, news coverage, critique, and parody are all explicitly covered under the Fair Use doctrine, meaning Nintendo has no right to flag such content, which they have. Now it is partly YouTube's fault for having the claim system set up in this way, but that doesn't excuse Nintendo. |
For your first point, this youtube 'marketing' is pretty much mute in my opinion. Most (if not all) of the people that are subscribed to Angry Joe and the likes are people like us, game enthusiast who spent a lot of time on gaming websites, new channels like IGN, forums, etc etc. People who watch Angry Joe already know about a game way before his review, and I will bet anything that most people will not take his only opinion to purchase a game or not; most will use a bunch of reviews that most will come from IGN, Gamespot, Kotaku, etc.
For your second point, the only shows I watch on Youtube are JonTron, PeanutButterGamer, ProJared and all those guys that come from NormalBoots; some of them do reviews or short reviews of plenty of Nintendo games, and I never heard any of them complaining about Nintendo's policies. So I think the answer is obvious, Nintendo asks for some cash (and its their content so its fair), and people like Angry Joe do not want to share any of their money so Nintendo takes it away. These other guys I mentioned seem to have no problem with Nintendo's policies, so in the end I think is just about the money.
Nintendo and PC gamer








