Slowly but surely Nintendo is becoming you know who

I agree with the video in the OP 100%. Rules are simple, he knew about them, wanted to be greedy, and was punished for it. The best part is his 11 minute rant where he says Nintendo is greedy when in fact its him being greedy. Channels like GameXplain seem to do fine and are able to support multiple people off of one channel, covering almost exclusively Nintendo products, with less subs.

I posted some math in the other thread about this jokers rant, after all is said and done if 10% of his content(which it would be less) is Nintendo content, he would lose a grand total of 4.1% of his income from Youtube. Works out to be a little over 2 grand a year. Small price to pay if you ask me, especially when its someone as well off as he is. Of course theres always the easiest option of just not covering Nintendo in the first place.

http://socialblade.com/youtube/user/angryjoeshow if you'd like to do the math yourself, keep in mind Socialblade doesn't track Twitch revenue or direct donations via paypal, so that $53.4k/yr is more than likely 20k higher. I don't know how many subs he has on Twitch, but I would assume its close to 1000 which would put his yearly Twitch revenue at $30k gross. That still doesn't cover donations which I would assume more than likely average $500/month for another $6k/yr gross.

TBH I really don't even get why this is even a discussion... Whats the difference between someone playing an entire game and commenting on it while you play it and someone watching an entire movie and commenting on it while they watch it? Nothing. Inb4 someone says 'well in a vidya game the player directly influences the content!', so does the person who views a movie by choosing to talk to someone, get a drink or snack/use the bathroom.

and now all the flack and criticism MS got for charging for XBL for the past 2 generations never happened? they always got flack for it. and Sony got criticized for it as well, to a lower extent because A) MS did it for the past 2 gens before it B) it was announced right at the same time as the MS DRM fiasco, which made it seem like less of an issue and C) Sony already showed that they offer way more value then what you pay for in the PS+ instant game collection. yet they still got some flack for it.

whats baffling here is that you got a bunch of blind fans defending nintendo's greediness and complete lack of anti consumer behavior, just because they are nintendo.

read my post above.

and ohh, i dont give two shits about angry joe, im not here to defend him, im here to criticize nintendo. 

they agree with Joe, and then insult him.

They are insinuating that he did it on purpuse, just to create a polemic. And that´s written on the walls. He did it knowing that he cant. Expecting exactly what is happening now. Is just a Diva thinking on his money and saying all Nintendo fans "this is not your channel", even if they bought him a WiiU.  But of course, a 18% of revenue for Nintendo is tooo much for him. Of course. He cares a lot about his fans. HA!

trying to please or upset both sides. either works for them. as long as they create controversy to gain more hits. 

That is not even close to being my point and I think you know very well. Anyway; I'm out, this thread has gone overboard.

Should you be interested in having an actual discussion, feel free to post on my wall and I can show what it is really about.

Still don't get what is anti-consumer about this.

They are just charging for the use of their IP/images/creations, something that the whole society agreed about for the last 80 years.

I suppose it's because you don't identify at all with Nintendo fans that you see it that way.  You're making it seem like "Nintendo never gets flack for anything wrong they do, but Sony and Microsoft would because they have normal fans and Nintendo fans are crazy."  Nintendo constantly gets flack for things they do, just as Sony and Microsoft would.  At the same time, there are plenty of Sony and Microsoft fans that defend everything they do.  It's a matter or perspective, so this isn't a "Nintendo" thing or a "Sony" or "Microsoft" thing.

Also, you worded your last sentence incorrectly.  You mean "lack of pro-consumer behavior" becaus a lack of anti consumer behavior would mean that they don't do this often.  I will also point out to you, and to others who are saying this is anti-consumer, it isn't anti-consumer for Nintendo.  The freedom someone has to post Nintendo's content online has nothing to do with the actual consumer-base.  If you want to go with the indirect route, you can then go off and say that Nintendo's partnership with DeNA is anti-consumer.