Agreed, whenever I see a video review of a game I get really mad at the reviewer because I know they won't be sharing their profit with the developers. sites like gamespot, ign and so on shouldn't be allowed to make money of of content that they didn't produce. Video reviews should be gone, unless they pay a percentage of the money they get from advertisement on the page that feature such reviews. I can't wait for Sony, Microsoft, EA and all the rest grow so balls and stop reviwers from using their content to make money. In game pics also should be banned if their produce money for the website where they are hosted like vgchartz, unless of course they are pics produced by the game developers and given to the public.

LOL.

Sony let's people play their games FOR FREE(providing both parties have PS+) via Shareplay whilst Nintendo wants a cut of Youtuber's revenue for simply doing a "let's play". Comparing it to movies is erroneous because the main pleasure of a movie is to VIEW it so of course the studio gets movie from the channel/Netflix/Crackle etc when they display it. The main pleasure of a video game is PLAYING it, guys like Angry Joe are not allowing Youtube viewers to play the game, they are merely commentating on the game as THEY(in this case, Angry Joe) plays it.

But hey, don't let logic ruin anything....

Please tell me you are joking.  Seriously, please.  That is fair use and is the single most crucial aspect of it, to maintain a wall of separation between companies and the groups reviewing them.  Any critic should be able to use appropriate samples from the created content to criticize it.  This is crucial to the health of creative media and to consumers.  When companies can bully the media through restricting revenue or resources, something is very, very wrong.

MS and Sony already chose their side and they do not care.  Actually I would say they promote it.  Nintendo is definitely within their right to ask for revenue for game streaming.  It the same as saying MS is in the right demand that games made for their console release at the same time as they do on the others.  The thing to consider is the popularity of those decisions the impact that it can have.  Will Nintendo policy make a difference to the company.  Who knows but if all streams decide to go somewhere else, we might or might not see an impact.  In either case, 40% of the revenue seems pretty steep and you have to say that its priced so high to actually deter game streaming.

For anyone still unsure about the real motivations at play here I suggest creating your own YouTube channel that just copies a bunch of this Angry Joe character's videos and interspace some jokes or whatever of your own in there, maybe some critiques of the episode and see how deeply he will appreciate all the 'free publicity'.

Just another hypocrite in the world who wants to make money off others work and whines when the owner wants to profit from their products. What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.

That is delusional.

Agreed! Let Nintendo lead us into the future...... The bleak bleak future XD

The difference is publicity does not get him any money...... Nintendo has virtually zero publicity now days and they need to be thanking the few people giving it to them

I agree. But times are changing and Nintendo needs to move on with this, It would be better for them. But they are not being anti-consumer for this, they are being anti-some-youtubers, so a 0.000001% minority, but a minority with a lot of power that they dont deserve at all.

Plently of youtubers are millionaires