I feel that Nintendo should have tried to make a policy similar to other game companies. Videos of games on the internet help boost their popularity and Nintendo seems to have trouble realizing this. I hope that they don't use this to censor honest criticism on their games though because then I would no longer support them at all.

I disagree. I watch Angry Joe's videos because I like that youtuber, he's a funny guy and I respect his opinion and unbiasedness. That's the whole point, though, isn't it? Your definition of "original contribution" may be different from mine...maybe I think that what these youtubers say or do during the videos is "original contribution". After all, if some youtubers have a lot of subscriptions, that must mean that their contribution is somehow relevant...either way every channel should have roughly the same amount of subscriptions.

That's dodger, and yes there are nudes

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.

I'm 90% sure Nintendo is going to revise this, as it is in beta form, so Youtubers should just keep complaining until they do.

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)

I can see the anti-let's play argument being made for heavily narrative driven games, but I don't think Nintendo has many of those so I don't think it really works as an excuse to them.

Just seems like a case of Nintendo being behind the times and doing something not so consumer friendly because of it. Many youtubers won't even bother and they'll only be left with the nintendo apologists which I guess you could view as a benefit for them if you think that public opinion needs to be managed in this way, but overall a detriment to their image that I think far outweighs whatever benefits they will get.

Is this is true, then why they are some expotentially more popular than others. To say that people don't watch for the individual and their commentary are not believable. If Pewdiepie can get millions of people to watch him play a horror visual novel (corpse party on PSP), then your statement doesn't hold a lot of weight.

Nintendo throws everything under one umbrella and it's disingenious. I don't even like Let's Play, but I don't understand why Nintendo has taken such a hostile position to something generally loved and accepted.

So you'd watch AngryJoe giving his opinion on the Australian Open final?

It's weird that gaming is seemingly different to any other entertainment medium on youtube, why is it okay for people to make money of someone elses work when it comes to games but nothing else? Because they put effort in to play and upload it?

I wonder if there would be as big of an issue if I started reading well known novels on youtube, word for word, literally from the book, with adverts and then not given a single penny to the writer.

Jim Sterling said they are PewDiePie's subscribers but they are not his games.