I know, right? Why should they, for example, allow reviewers to make money when they review Nintendo games... 

-__-

Speaking of said copyrighted material, you have some in your sig. How much do you estimate you owe Nintendo for the privilege of using it?

Can anyone please tell me why any consumer supports a policy that will constrict information and decrease objectivity about its products?

Please don t say because Nintendo can do it- we all know that and no one is arguing that fact and don t say because you do t like Angry Joe- again that has nothing to do w the topic (or at the very least is a separate unrelated topic

This is not surprising, seeing how you don't watch youtube. Because you obviously have no clue what the most popular youtubers actually do.

The games they play are not their product. The product is their commentary. Saying that they don't deserve the proceeds of the content they create is like saying reviewers shouldn't be paid because they're only talking about games other people made.

Most good channels go way beyond just LPs and reviews and deliver news and opinion pieces, basically doing critique and journalism(the good ones at least). So no, they're not just doing some videos on the internet and profiting of other people's material. They're just using it as a stepping stone to create their own material.

That being said, I don't think Nintendo needs any defending in this matter. They are on the right side of the law. But that doesn't omit criticism.

It could still be just as easy to upload your video just that they could make money out of it with every video

Lol i don't know if it's more fun this or people defending that multimillion-dollar companies need what they charge to play online to "pay the servers" while steam offers them for free.

Poor Nintendo they will bankrupt without the money they want to take from fans or youtubers using their content : (

The only normal way to justify this is to go straight and say is their copyrighted material and they do with it what they want (which doesn't spare them from being such jerks with all this youtube thing).

How come there's a bunch of fat slobs in youtube making tons of money playing videogames and posting videos pf that, do people actually watch that?

I guess one day we'll be watching people eating junk food and farting and they'll call it entertaintment.

Compare too different medias in never a good idea.

So you haven't got a clue what you're talking about but you're going to venture an opinion anyway.

Youtubers who only do let's plays and make millions you can probably count on one hand. So you are labouring under a hopelessly false assumption right there. Let's plays for someone like Angry Joe are a sideline not his main thing. All of the most financially successful youtubers are putting many hours of production planning and effort into their videos. And there are very few youtubers who are making millions unless they have their own merchandising or live acts.

The movie analogy is terrible and also demonstrates a fundamenatl lack of understanding. Movies are watched on screen / in theatres. Movie comppanies can only make money if people pay them to be able to watch the movie. Therefore the main way a movie studio makes money is through cinema revenue and TV broadcasting rights. They also make some money through DVD sales. A movie broadcast on TV is not an advertisement for the movie, it is providing the consumer with the entire movie experience, there is nothing more to be had other than watching the movie. Therefore the watching of a movie on TV is an end point for the consumer. Watching a let's play is not a consumer end point, because the consumer end point is the actual playing of the game to some degree of completion, and that cannot be achieved by watching Youtube. Sure you can watch 100% of a game's play through on Youtube, but that still is not the complete game experience, and if it's a game like Mario Party, or Mario Kart watching a let's play is entirely inadequate compared to actually playing, as opposed to say The Order or The Last of Us, which being very heavily story driven means watching a Let's play pretty much provides about 70% of the experience of playing.

Game companies make all of their revenue by selling (or renting) their games (and gaming hardware) to people (and selling hardware in the case of Nintendo). If they can't convince people to buy their games they're screwed as a company and no amount of revenue collection through Youtube content will keep them alive. So the ONLY moral justification for demanding a cut of the Youtube pie is if there is evidence to show that Youtube videos are reducing game sales (i.e. there is finanancial harm being done to the producer/publisher of the game). All evidence points to youtube videos having either no effect or a beneficial effect. If there is generally a marginally beneficial effect then youtube videos consitutes informal advertising.  If the youtuber=the advertiser then it is a completely deranged concept that the advertiser should pay the product owner.

Nintendo does have a legitimate interest in trying to make sure its games are given positive coverage. And having no control over youtubers means there is a risk that the Angry Joes of this world will pour scorn on a game and tell everyone it's a PoS and don't buy it, or play it. If Nintendo wants to control the social media narrative to minimise negitivity about a game, then that is an entirely different matter. But they should not be hiding that sort of control behind a revenue sharing programme. And arguably instead of making games that prominant youtubers will shit on, they should make games that prominant youtubers will love, which is generally what Nintendo does, so social media negativity towards a game is rarely Nintendo's problem.

If there is one place Nintendo should go for revenue associated with let's plays and other forms of Youtube content it's Google. Google makes money from Youtube and makes passive money from Youtubers putting up videos of game content. The problem is Google has loads of money and expensive laywers on tap and they will be able to tell Nintendo to feck off with their petty moneygrabbing ideas.

The fact that Nintendo is the only gaming company Angry Joe has a problem with in this regard is proof enough that Nintendo's policy here is backwards thinking.

Hasn't this horse been beat enough already? Just let the poor thing be laid to rest. All I'll say on the matter is that nintendo in general is falling out of touch with modern gamers and should adapt to the gaming market of today.