Easy to do when you strip posts of (un?)needed context... :P

Hmmm... I can't help but hope they keep sticking their foot in their mouth and showing off to the world they don't actually care about gamers, games, or their own franchises, or the internet until some other system just zooms head and proves everything about them wrong... like... Minecraft? (Considering it sold for 2 Billion...)

There's that question if they're trying to automate uploads, but failing terribly, especially since Youtube actually has a push system. On the other hand, this is the sort of company where you suspect that they run departments with the minimum number feasible.

I heard an interesting discussion from a smaller channel that was being affected by the launch of this program, and one of the guys brought up the point that it takes months, or even years, to go from creating a new channel on Youtube to building up even a small subscriber-base. That subscribers are either there for the personality, or for the content, but if it's the latter, and that content happens to be very specific (like Nintendo videos), then whenever that content suddenly changes (like uploading a non-Nintendo series onto said-channel), they see a dramatic decrease in viewership, because that's not what their subscribers are there for.

So, he was in a position where he's living on his own, and makes just barely enough on ad revenue from his videos to support himself. His options are to either join the program, making the pay unsustainable and forcing him to look for a more traditional job before he runs out of money, or make non-Nintendo content only, which his subscriber base isn't there for and statistically doesn't even watch. So, either way, he's basically being forced to abandon his current job as a content creator, because this whole contract has made it unsustainable for him.

It's easy for us to say "Well, just don't do Nintendo videos, then", but for some people, it sounds like that means starting from day one of their channel's creation again.

Source video is here if you're interested in hearing the perspective of a smaller channel who is affected by this directly, rather than theorizing about it from us and the larger channels. It's a half-an-hour-long discussion, though, so if you don't like listening to podcasts in the background as you do other things, then no need to bother with it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb10upIzv18

Yeah it takes time, especially with the Google/Youtube Algorithm pushing more popular channels and obscure channels being otherwise unnoticed. I think i have 60 subscribers on mine (and i wasn't really trying), at least before the Google+ forced integration that made me drop trying to make any real content for it. I'd love to make more content but i refuse to use G+. Sure i don't need G+ to upload videos, but i can't talk with anyone otherwise. Makes it annoying.

I'll listen to the Podcast later, but i don't expect to be appending much to this.

Next we'll get clothing brands and car companies doing the same thing.

Got a video of you parking a car and walking to a field to play with your dog for 20 minutes.
Car company now owns your video for you using their property for 30 seconds in a 22 minute long video.

Sure the video SUBJECT matter is of their game, but the gameplay is all done by a human, created even.
No one will play the same game with the exact same putting presses like that ever again.

And I heard nintendo flagging videos, that don't actually have any video or sounds of their property, its just someone talking about how they view a game. (be it a reveiew or not).

edit: warning all graphic designers, all your created works now belong to the companies whos programs you used to create the work.
and for physical painters, your work now belongs to the companies which paint you used.
See, we are not billion dollar companies illegally and criminally strong arming people.

The video is more about seeing the raw frustration that it's causing for smaller channels first-hand than getting any new info beyond what has already been said. There probably isn't much else that we can say, at this point. We'll have to wait for new developments.

They've not only claimed things like top 10 lists, but also the Mario Kart 8 "highlight reel" videos that you can upload directly to your Youtube channel from a feature built into the game for that very purpose. They claim a lot of things unfairly.

I know what you mean. If your channel isn't a certain size or bigger, anyone can DMCA you 3 times on 3 items and you lose your entire channel and livelihood. Larger channels and networks try to protect you, but it's still a struggle to get large enough for that to matter.

Nintendo pretty much has 'Here's our bottom line, and if you aren't part of it, screw you' attitude.

Of course a large part of this lies on Google for not implementing a better system.

I say it lies more in Nintendo actually going along with Google's system, rather than raising the point that it is quite flawed. If enough corporations would say 'Oi!', then maybe Google might be inclined to change.

Millions of people have said 'OI!' and complained when they did the G+ integration... Google doesn't give a crap while they are making money through ads hand over fist.

Google is just another money hungry corporation, it just didn't seem like an evil until we become addicts, dependent on what they provide. Namely email, Google search, and YouTube...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GYQRP_dhjU

Just for a laugh. :P

Uggg, put the camcorder on a tripod or something! God.... Immediately makes my head hurt from car-sickness...

Walk/playthrough gamers should split the income, they don't make the games they only show them.
They are not creating anything, there's no such things as "content creator" when you are just showing something.
In my opinion its a bogus term invented to justify taking money by 'doing nothing'.

Imagine if Spotify or Netflix would show music, films and tv-shows for free...and without paying the publishers and creators anything at all.

That is what playthrough gamers are doing, they are exposing other peoples' products for free to a large audience and cashing in on the add-revenues. What they are doing is highly unethical. They should give some of their income to the game publishers.

When it comes to reviews and "quick looks" my opinion is very different, because their purpose is different and their exposure of the game highly limited.

That's a bit harsh... You can't compare showing a game with showing a film. Watching a film is watching a film, but watching a game is not playing a game. I play games because I like playing games. I didn't stop to play games just because I could watch someone playing them.

But I agree with the other things you said. If you just upload a walkthrough (with or without comments - doesn't really matter), you're not "creating" anything. That's not "fair use". You're just playing the game and hope to grab some money on the way. I think it's perfectly fine when publishers want to have a piece of this cake (Nintendo's 30-40% seem a bit too much).

Reviews and videos like Total Biscuit's "WTF is..." series, are an entirely different thing. They're work, similar to the stuff that established gaming magazines and websites do. A publisher should not be allowed to "steal" money from the creators of such videos. They don't ask for a share from gaming magazine sales either (quite the contrary...). Charging youtubers for reviewing their games should be illegal. In my eyes, it's a borderline case of suppressing freedom of press/speech! Let me explain this...

Just imagine you're part of a network (most successful youtubers are)... They want about 30% from your revenue, because they support you and promote your channel. That's still 70% of ad revenue for you. Now, Nintendo comes and takes 40% of the whole revenue, before your partner network comes and takes a 30% of what's left. You're left with 42% of the original revenue. Some people might not be (financially) able to review Nintendo games anymore. Last time I checked, supermarkets didn't offer a special discount for Nintendo games reviewers ;) On the other hand, we have big websites, people who publish their video reviews on their ad-laden websites and people who write reviews. They don't have to pay Nintendo. That's why I think that it is a borderline case of suppressing freedom of press/speech...

That is because the medium they sell is visual and or auditory in nature. Games are interactive and with open ended levels. In a pirated copy of a TV show or music track, you can get the experience you get with the original. But games on youtube aren't like that. You can't get the experience you would've got from the game if you watch a playthrough of it on youtube. In addition to audio and video, games have the added elements of choice and mechanics. And choice and mechanics can't be experienced in a YT vid.
Then; you have the fact that they are watching the youtuber play the game; not playing the game.That is why the majority of people watching lets plays always watch a particular person's LPs. They don't care as much as if its Far Cry 4 as long as its Far Cry 4 BY their favorite youtuber.
Saying developers are entitled to LP ad revenue is the similar to saying you can buy bricks and cement to build a house but never sell the house; and if they want to sell it; the brick manufacturer is entitled to a cut of the money made by selling the house.

I call that into question. Because you imply every game yields a different playthrough. Well let me tell you. I have played many kinds of games in my lifetime and I came to the conclusion that no most games still yield the same playthrough. I have played games like Resident Evil 4 for so long that everytime I play it its the exact same playthrough. A Call of Duty campaign the same playthrough. A point and click adventure, depending on the kind it can result in the same playthrough.

I also call into question that people says Let's plays are free advertisments that makes people want to purchase the game if they like it enough. You imply that no one watches a let's play so that they don't need to buy a game? Thats to good to be true I am certian people these days only just watch let's plays and not bother buying games at all.
Whatt I said.