Nintendo should sue Pewdiepie for millions for playing Nintendo games on emulators. And destroy his channel, I'm sure they have the legal team to destroy Pewdiepie. He plays a lot of emulated games on his channel, which is piracy.

And I looked at the channels you posted and none of them did Nintendo games (or barely), therefor I won't take them serious on this matter. If GameXplain, Cobanermani456 (he practically lives of Nintendo let's play videos), the Game Theorists (most of his vids are about Nintendo), WiifolderJosh, SomecallmeJohnny, the Completionist, etc. speak out against it then I'll take it serious.

That's quite the conspiracy theory you got there. I'm sure my favorite Nintendo channels will still criticize Nintendo when it is fair to do so. I expect nothing to change in their behavior and I doubt we'll be getting only "10/10 reviews". First test will be WIifolderJosh with Mario Party 10, I'm fairly sure he'll give it a low score. ;) 

Besides, it has been proven Microsoft paid off youtubers to give them good publicity. That's far worse and I hear no one complain about it. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ayk-z0nY40

That's absolutely crazy. Incase you forgot, Nintendo already did "worse" last year, and absolutely none of that happened. That's just jargon that these guys want to spit to make people side with them. In reality, this isn't going to effect the review integrity of anyone who had integrity before all of this.

Even if EA did this, the result would be exactly the same. Youtubers would bitch about it for a week, and then everyone would forget about it and barely anything would change. There would still be honest reviews of there games, like there always is, there would still be let's plays, there would still be commentairy, and the world would continue spinning. They are whining about a non-issue. They don't own the content, they just own the license to play it. That's copy right. That's how it works. It's within the rights of the copy right holder to excercise their right as they see fit, within the realms of the law. Nothing unlawful is being done, at all. If a couple little youtubers want to protest Nintendo, that's fine, but it won't effect Nintendo at all, because there are a million others who won't.

So when people say Nintendo "needs" them, I laugh. They don't.

Youre completly missing the point where free publicity is free. If I come up to you and  say here have 100 bucks, would you have any reaosn to say no ? Nintendo dont need it but theres no reason to actively deny it either its stupid and generate bad publicity instead, wich wont kill Nintendo either but is also not the best idea.

First of all I have no idea what the Ms thing has to do with anything, if thats a fact than thats terrible.

Now these youtube channels basicaly depend on Nintendo validating theyre videos to operate from now on, remember that under this new "deal" Nint reviews every video before aproving them or not (and takes 3 days in the process of doing so acording to the contract), so if they decide they dont like you they can essentialy bring your channel under, if they decide you dont praise theyre games enought they can demolish you, not allow you to publish any videos or only allow you to publish what they think shines a good light on Nintendo games. While theres no way to prove this will happen and Im not saying Nintendo is going to do this, it does stabilish a precedent and gives Nintendo the power to do it if they so desire.

No youtuber on theyre right mind with a full Nintendo channel walking into a deal like this would ever complain about Nintendo right now, they simply dont have any guarantees Nint wont simply screw them over.

Its not ilegal to play stuf in an emulator if you own a copy of the game, not saying Pewdiepie has a copy of the games he played on an emulator but theres that. And youre obviuosly a crazy fan if youre wishing someone whos completly harmless bad for the sake of a videogame company.

Again Nintendo channels wont complain about a police that pretty much ties theyre hands and relinquish controll of theyre channels over to Nintendo, unless theyre realy brave. Even if Nintendo acts super right here and dont disalow videos based on how good or bad theyre talking about Nintendo the possibility of having your channel murdered because you spoke ill of "your boss" is enought to make ppl not say anything at all. 

I'm not missing anything. I already addressed that. The publicity is fleeting, and what they gain long term is a way to literally make money off of other people advertizing for them, as opposed to the "free advertizing" they'd get otherwise. That is their reason to say no.

The Last of Us is actually a good example. It's one of the most linear games you could play, yet every playthrough is different. One player may completely sneak through an area whilst another may create their own weaponry and fight through. Some players may miss sections of levels where they could have gotten bonus items. Another player may find an alternate route into a building. Even though it's a linear game the actual playthrough experience can be quite different from player to player (unlike the comic example where the experience is the same whether you read it or have it read/shown to you).

@ bolded

Watching people playing on youtube isn't really something I'm a fan of, but obviously other people are. Perhaps it's the commentary, or maybe they want to see enough footage to determine whether they would enjoy playing the game themselves (and help to determine whether or not to purchase). In the past this same passive experience would be limited to going round a friends house and watching them playing through part of a game. Now it can be broadcast around the world providing plenty of "word of mouth" advertising.

The fact that they're passively watching the game instead of directly participating is what makes this OK (and actually a positive) compared to other media. They're not getting the intended and full experience of the video game, just some extra details of the experience that reading reviews can't really give. They have to purchase the game before they can get the direct and intended experience.

Coming back to The Last of Us, my nephew decided to purchase the game after seeing youtube videos of game footage (and he happily watches clips of game playthroughs and random commentators). So for at least one person, with a pretty linear game, a purchase was made based on passively watching youtube vids.

You actually can't make that claim anymore than people saying it's giving them lots of free publicity. The data isn't in the public domain. The fact that other publishers have decided to leave youtuber alone suggests that other publishers internal marketing data has suggested leaving them to their own devices is better than trying to regulate them.

The money Nintendo make from this is likely to be a drop in the ocean for their bottom line. Especially if it leads to less youtubers supporting Nintendo content. I honestly think this is more likely a ploy to protect their IP rather than to seriously make money.

It's a drop more than they'd be making without it. You don't need sales data to figure that out. I never said it wasn't them protecting their IP, but when people say that Nintendo should be thankful to these guys because of all the "free advertizement" they get, it's bullshit. They'll get 99% of the same exact "free advertizement" by doing this, because the internet will always and forever make Nintendo videosm, only they'll actually make money off of it. "Drops" or not, it's still more than they made before.

But that's just it, it's different from player to player experience but it's people watching 1 person playing. Which brings us on to the second point. If I watch a gameplay video of someone play a game to get an idea of how it play, I won't continue to watch the entire series of their gameplay, I'll watch the first video, then decide if the game looks good or not.  I too have seen videos from people playing on youtube and because of their word of mouth review bought and enjoyed the game (only really once and that was Borderlands 2... I bought it used so...). Yet there are people who do, they watch all the cutscenes, all the gameplay.

Yet, it still doesn't excuse the fact they are making money from other people's work. You say people are passively watching, but I listen to music on youtube, more so than in the real world and I know adverts pay for much of that. If someone else took that music and did a video of it, they wouldn't be able to advertise on it, infact adverts may appear but proceeds going to the musician not that person. Taking books as example again, I could read a book out loud on camera in video form and claim money for this with not a penny going to the writer and it would not be seen as okay to do this. 

I wonder what in game player's minds make them privileged enough to be above that obvious copyright infringment just for the sake of 'word of mouth' advertising. I also, wonder why it matters to them so much that Nintendo has a policy such as this, if they don't want to sign up to it, just don't do Nintendo videos or just don't advertise on those videos. To complain that they can't is being greedy.

Is any of these youtubers talking about the consequences for youtubers not protected by a network ? 

I didn't read Nintendo's documentation so maybe it's part of it.