YouTuber Angry Joe Says He's Done Reviewing Nintendo Games

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
bug_of_war said:
Laggyteabag said:
Quick question, though: Does this policy apply to review content too?
YUP.
No it doesn't. You have better legal and moral stances on you side. Stop using the untrue one in your arsenal. You can do better than this.

Aiddon said:
Joe thinking way too highly of himself. Furthermore, he never reviewed any Nintendo games. Period. He just put up lazy LP's. That is it. And let's not get into the fact that his fans donated money to him so he could buy a damn Wii U in the first place. Criminy, there is nothing more pathetic than watching a grown man throw a hissy fit.
While I don't agree with Angry Joe a lot, in this instance he has a right to be pissed. After dropping $900 on Nintendo gear, they're still dogging him for more money. Yet pretty much every other AAA developer/publisher leave him be, so why would he NOT be angry?

At least he has the decency to let his fans know, "Nintendo fucked me, I'm not covering their shit any more".
Except he didn't drop $900 on Nintendo gear, his fans did. And even if he DID drop that money himself, Nintendo is under no obligations to cater to him. If he wants to do a Let's Play, he needs to follow the same rules as anyone else. We can argue of how effective Nintendo's "strategy" is (I have problems with the creator's program myself) but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't have a right to do this.

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it. You want to know why we don't have any complaints? Because these companies cut deals with the handlers of these Let's Players. Same as Nintendo. It's just that Nintendo does it per a Let's Player basis while most other companies just deal with the handlers instead. And this isn't the creators program, this is how an MSRP works.

Chaos James said:
While I don't agree with Nintendo's business decisions concerning Youtube, and feel it would serve them better to let content creators make videos freely, I'm aware that they have a program in place to facilitate those who DO wish to make content. I'm quite sure that Angry Joe knows this as well, and uploaded the video anyways. To have it taken down was expected.
So after 40/50/60+ hours of playing a game, capturing the footage, writing the review, filming the review, sifting through footage, editing the footage and then uploading the final video, Nintendo deserves money for it? 40% of his revenue? And even if he did opt in, the game that he used to see if Nintendo were actually serious isn't even on the list of approved games that Nintendo will allow people to upload.
1. It wasn't a review of Mario Party 10 that got the monetization thing. It was a Let's Play.

2. I head the exact same excuses for bootleggers in the 90's. Now, are Let's Players the same as bootleggers? Of course not, so stop using their excuses.

Scrythe said:
This is the kind of arrogance I can't stand with YouTube "content creators" and their bizarre entitlement that they, and only they, deserve 100% of the money they make recording someone else's IP. I mean, their entire fucking job would not exist if it wasn't for the games, and now that companies are saying "You know, I would also like a slice of the pie I just baked", everyone's acting like they're all evil greedy overlords who don't want people to spread the fun these games provide for people.

And Angry Joe is King of Arrogance Mountain.
So by that logic people who make furniture should then pay the person who sold them the wood again? Or a musician should pay the maker of their instrument every time they make a song? Or if a parent posts a video of their kids playing a sport, should the NBL, NBA, NRL, AFL, FIFA etc. then demand that they be compensated for you showing the sport? Or should Logitech/Canon/Sony be paid every time someone films something using their cameras and uploads it to youtube?

Lets plays, joke videos, guides, reviews etc. are all free advertisement that the creators have to actually put effort into uploading. Yes, they're using the game to make content, but they already paid for the game and are now using their own time to upload a video that generally will make people go out and buy the game. Video games are fun to watch, but they're more fun to play, and when someone shows you 30 minutes of a game and that footage gets you interested, you'll probably end up buying the game and playing it for yourself because in the end that is the fun part.

While I'm not a youtube content creator, I can't imagine it's easy making that your primary source of income. You've gotta work for it. You have to buy all the gear, build up/maintain a fan based, produce a consistent stream of content all while hoping that enough people who watch your videos don't have some sort of an ad blocker. So I very much believe that if someone is going to put upwards of 40+ hours of work a week into being a youtube gamer then they deserve 100% of the money.

...Angry Joe can be super arrogant at times though...
Do you get how copyright works? How derivative nature works? You do know that, in the music industry, you are not allowed to do your own cover of a song and sell it without paying a fee first? Or that the biggest reasons why MST3K is so hard to get is because, despite their commentary (not unlike a Let's Play), the movie itself is still considered its own work. Or why Rifftrax is bought separately from the movie. The "it's hard work" excuse doesn't cut it here.

I once tried to dabble in Let's Plays. Is it hard work? Oh yes, absolutely. It is hard, tiring work that you have to make LOOK effortless. But you want to know the biggest part of doing Let's Plays? Knowing where you stand with developers/publishers. If you don't have an MRSP, you better take the time and effort to know which developers will be understanding and which developers you stay away from. This applies to so many more companies than just Nintendo. Once you get to MRSP standing, then you can relax but you still need to be able to talk, negotiate, and explain to these people all the goddamn time. What Joe's doing right now is the exact opposite of that and he still wants his cake and eat it.

KoudelkaMorgan said:
The "Youtubers" have every right to freedom of press/speech etc. but until the law says otherwise, they have to respect that the people that make the things they are shamelessly piggybacking off of have a say in who gets to make money off their IPs.

To make a rediculous analogy, imagine you wrote a best selling book. Now imagine that there were thousands of people on Youtube doing "let's reads" and holding the pages up to the camera while making jokes/reading it in character etc. and demanding 100% of the ad revenue to go in their pockets.
Except that video games aren't passive experiences, they're interactive ones. The main appeal of a video game is playing it, not watching it.
So the Order 1866 isn't a video game, got it. :p (I actually enjoyed that game for what it is, btw)

xaszatm said:
Really the solution is already being done, both parties will have nothing to do with each other. Angry Joe will review games that don't require him to bend to Nitnendo's will while Nintendo will continue to ignore Angry Joe and not bend to his will. Both have other resources available to them (games for Joe, LP's for Nintendo) and both don't need the other. The only reason why we're even talking about this is because Angry Joe posted a ranting video online sparking controversy where there really is none.
But if Nintendo acted like every other company, they still wouldn't be bending to his will. They're in no way poorly effected by having someone throw up a video of people having fun playing their game. They want money because they can get money, and while AJ no longer showing Nintendo vids will probably have nill effect on Nintendo's current income, him showing their vids would very likely increase their income from people buying it from his recommendation/lets plays.
1. As explained above, Nintendo already acts like every other company, it's just that Angry Joe likes the deals the other companies give Polaris over Nintendo's way, so yeah, it's still Joe's will against Nintendo's apathy.

2. And once again, we fall into the trap of assuming that Let's Plays = sales. You want to know something interesting? I, for fun, typed up Mario Party 10 to see what videos popped up? You want to guess how many of them were Let's Plays? You want to guess the viewer counts on them? At the bare minimum, 146k. The highest? 3 million views. That's right, 3 million. For a game that, quite frankly, is doing poorly in reviews, it seems to be doing swimingly for potential viewers. That 3 million guy isn't even a Nintendo Let's Player. How much you want to be that these people didn't really influence the sales chart of this game at all? Because I'd bet pretty high. Let's Players on their own don't sell games, or at the very least, don't contribute meaningfully in AAA sales, so to say that Joe is free advertisement is folly.

OT:Nintendo is becoming worse than EA, Activision, Ubisoft and more. And the scary thing is people are still under the belief that they're a good company.
Yeah, sure. "worse" I disagree with how we've made those companies the devil to begin with. They're corporations, not people. I know that some republicans like to think otherwise, but a corporate mindset has always been different than a human one. What are you expecting? That Valve, Sega, Sony, and Microsoft actually care for their customers? They care for them inasmuch as they want them to buy their products. The second they feel their money train is threaten, they become just as nasty as any other company.

Travis Fischer said:
major_chaos said:
Nintendo frequently seems like a company run by old men, behind the times and convinced this whole "inter-nets" thing is a passing fad that needs to be stomped out, not invested in.
That's not what it seems like. That's what Nintendo literally is.
Remind me again which company is capable of getting its competition begging on its knees to advertise their exclusive games on their exclusive titles with the words "Smash Ballot"? Which company can dominate the entire internet with minimum effort? I might disagree on Nintendo on a lot of things, but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't know how to work the crowd up to a stupefying frenzy whenever it damn well pleases.
 

SecondPrize

New member
Mar 12, 2012
1,436
0
0
I know right? I mean how fucking dare Nintendo do something to protect their copyrights when someone monetizes a broadcast of the output of their code? The nerve of those greedy bastards is something else.
 

Phlap

New member
Jun 1, 2011
55
0
0
He's entirely in the right of course, and if baiting Nintendo to issue a copyright claim was Joe's goal then he has succeeded. Anything that draws more attention to Nintendo's anti-consumer Youtube policies should be commended.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Phlap said:
He's entirely in the right of course, and if baiting Nintendo to issue a copyright claim was Joe's goal then he has succeeded. Anything that draws more attention to Nintendo's anti-consumer Youtube policies should be commended.
Except he hasn't. No copyright claim was made. A monetization claim was. It was Joe who took down the video himself when he realized that he couldn't make money off of it and posted a rant video instead so he could get his pay.
 

Kaimax

New member
Jul 25, 2012
422
0
0
Angry Joe is making it worst by the minute.
Roosterteeth's The Know made a video about it, in which they're basically saying that Joe is being ignorant when he knows that it's against Nintendo's policies. But they also said that while dumb it's still within Nintendo's right to do that.

But Joe decided to make them his enemies by posting his tweets on facebook basically asking his fans to ridicule the video. Which is ironic in the end since then Achievement Hunter made a video that basically said that they're on his side.

The video (forgot the BBcodes for this site)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bL3kxtvin4

He's now calling all that's against him haters...
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
Ahh, Youtube, derivative works, and copyright; an ol' chestnut-clusterfuck of topics.
SHORT VERSION: The ideological debate starts and ends with whether you believe current copyright practices (or the current evaluation and value of "unique" information as private property) are fair or not.

Some say there's no evidence that Lets Plays help game sales with exposure, but by the same token there's no evidence that they actively harm game sales either. So spare me the bullshit semantics about why Nintendo is only doing what's "right", or for that matter, any assertions about them being "in their right" because the law agrees with them.

(protip: Outside of ideological semantic rambling, "the law" means very little on Youtube. Definitely much less than most people think. Youtube is massive and carries correspondingly massive public appeal, but ultimately is still a private entity. Consequently, virtually all of their DMCA policing and takedowns are done PURELY INTERNALLY and not via actual law enforcement or courts.)

Personally, I doubt LPs harm companies (especially monoliths like Nintendo) in any significant way and knowing what I know about business, exposure and brand loyalty is generally worth more than any short term revenue. (there's always the risk of misinterpretation and BAD exposure, but unless your company makes a habit fucking with your customers or producing shitty products, that's an extremely unlikely event)

As for Angry Joe...he's all about the business here; he's definitely been around long enough to know better.
So forgive me if I'm not completely buying into his cheese-and-whine act.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like Nintendo's policy either, just as I don't like the current state of international copyright law. But that doesn't mean I'm automatically going to feel sorry for the guy that openly admitted he knew this could (and likely would) happen; especially when he knew, going in, that the worst possible outcome wasn't going hurt him or his business significantly either.

Joe will be fine, and that's just fine. But I didn't need to hear him whine to come to that conclusion.
 

SweetShark

Shark Girls are my Waifus
Jan 9, 2012
5,147
0
0
Ishigami said:
SweetShark said:
Also yes, Nintendo have any right about that if it want. I know it sucks for the Youtubers, but this is the reality with the copyrights: If you own it, you can do WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT.
Even if Nintendo decided to delete every fanart of its characters, it CAN.
I actually doubt that.
You see if you take Nintendo to court in the USA about a video review in the lines of let's say Joe's Angry Review or GameTrailers there is a good chance they lose due to fair use.
The thing is no small YouTuber like Joe can afford to take Nintendo to court over a video. It takes years and it costs you upfront since no legal protection I know of covers copyright cases (tells you everything you need to know about the copyright).
So in term of LP maybe? in case of reviews maybe too depends on the review but there is certainly a good chance to get away too.
And no matter them having the right it is still a dick move.
Yes, but I don't think the "fair use" policy cover Joe if he made money out of it. And if I remember right, Joe charge you to see him playing Nintendo games when he streaming [I think, I don't know how it work]. Plus the money he get from Youtube.
For me without know a lot about the laws of copyrights, if someone use the work of other person to make money, well, he must pay.
 

unacomn

New member
Mar 3, 2008
974
0
0
Not really sure how to feel about the Vargas/Nintendo situation.
But I'll tell you how I feel about the Me/Nintendo situation.

I used to do a news show, like ENN, and on occasion there would be Nintendo stories. It didn't matter if they were 30 seconds or 8 seconds, out of a 10 minute show. Nintendo would claim it all, like my work meant nothing compared to their 8 second video.
What the funk kind of law is there that gives Nintendo the right to invalidate all the time and effort I spent on the entire show, because of those 8 freeking seconds?
After that I resorted to using speeddrawings made in paint about Nintendo games, instead of game footage or images relating to Nintendo. Horrible speeddrawings, because I can't draw. But you could see the message, with Bowser making Mario soup. Samus punching a hole in Mario. Luigi shooting Mario. Basically everyone killing Mario. This went on for about a year. It was cathartic. Still can't get back the money from the videos I made prior to the change, I hope those 10 bucks stick in their throat.
 

CrystalShadow

don't upset the insane catgirl
Apr 11, 2009
3,829
0
0
I don't know what to think.

Irony is, I have 3 different 'nintendo' games on my channel, and one of them doesn't appear on Nintendo's whitelist.

I haven't had so much as a content ID match on my channel for any of it.

Yes, I know my videos aren't monetised, and I'm so tiny it's not like anyone really knows I exist, but it's still interesting to see how arbitrary this can get...

Every time I hear this stuff I keep wondering if I should reconsider what I do on my channel...
The thing is, when I started doing videos I didn't actually have that many options.
It was basically games I could play on a Wii U, or nothing.

Just recently I've gotten my PC back, and I have a viable option of playing PC games instead...

But still, this dissapoints me greatly.


I am curious what the distinction actually is...
 

Strazdas

Robots will replace your job
May 28, 2011
8,407
0
0
NoShoes said:
How do you feel about Nintendo/Vargas situation?
What Nintendo does is illegal and the sooner everyone drop Nintendo coverage the better. No need to support criminals.

mad825 said:
This really made it to the news? Getting a copyright strike was his own damn fault, he starts sobbing after not following the rules that he knew that was in effect. Either that or I underestimate Joe's PR.

His reaction makes his channel seem like Whining Joe.
No, genting a false copyright strike was nintendos fault and they should be made to pay up for the damaged caused to Vargas.

Aiddon said:
No they don't. Fair Use has to be something either educational or satirical.
Lets plays are fair use. There will be no argument here - it is a fact. Fair use is also much wider than education or satire. Fair use law is far more complicated than that. i suggest you read it.

Silentpony said:
but Nintendo is soooo much bigger than Joe realizes.
heres the thing - nintendo isnt big. yes, people talk about it to no end, but Nintendo is actually very small company comapred to other gaming giants. its the smallest console manufacturer. Its smaller than many publishers without their own console. it puts all its eggs in one basket. it cannot afford to anger the internet. The internet is far stronger than many people give it credit for.


Aiddon said:
No, you're still putting the content on up despite not having the rights to do it.
Lets plays are transformative work protected under fair use. the content Lets player protect is copyrighted to that lets player.

xaszatm said:
...or because Smosh was willing to talk to Nintendo about their videos and worked out something for their troubles...I mean, its been a while since I was in Youtubing but I don't think that's changed.
Smosh owners are big. really big. one of the largest internet entertainment conglomerate. much larger than Nintendo. Nintendo would have every reason to be afraid to enter legal battle with them.

SecondPrize said:
I know right? I mean how fucking dare Nintendo do something to protect their copyrights when someone monetizes a broadcast of the output of their code? The nerve of those greedy bastards is something else.
Nintendo is not protecting their copyright - their copyright is not being challenged here. A person monetizes a trasnformative work protected under fair use. They decide to use their bully tactics and extort his revenue from him.
 

Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)

Get the point
Legacy
Aug 1, 2011
2,895
444
88
Cretaceous
Country
USA
Gender
Dinosaur
so I was reading joe's twitter and I found something very interesting
[tweet t=https://twitter.com/AngryJoeShow/status/585300183270830080]

My question is why is Nintendo of Japan calling the shots with this, they're in japan why are they telling Nintendo of America how to do their job?
 

major_chaos

Ruining videogames
Feb 3, 2011
1,314
0
0
xaszatm said:
Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it.
That isn't true and you know it. Many companies give blanket permission to content creators because they understand free advertising. And I severely doubt people like, say, TB would be making videos of games from big names like Blizz and EA if those companies were kicking in the door and demanding 40% of the revenue. And even if they somehow were I don't believe for a second someone as ethics centric as TB wouldn't disclose that his content was being controlled by a publisher.

And its not just lets plays affected by this anyway. In the Jimqusition someone linked earlier Jim specifically said he wasn't using any Nintendo clips because if he did the video would get claimed (not the same thing as a takedown), whereas Devolver Digital had zero problems with youtube use of their content.
Remind me again which company is capable of getting its competition begging on its knees to advertise their exclusive games on their exclusive titles with the words "Smash Ballot"? Which company can dominate the entire internet with minimum effort? I might disagree on Nintendo on a lot of things, but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't know how to work the crowd up to a stupefying frenzy whenever it damn well pleases.
Having a rabid fanbase willing to bend over backwards to justify everything they do and breathlessly hanging off their every word does not make them not tragically behind the times, it just shows how powerfully it is to have a longtime fans who instinctively link you with childhood memories. A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.

Also "dominating the entire internet with minimum effort" apparently doesn't translate to sales, seeing as they apparently cant afford to make more then 100 copies of their products any more and might as well be marketing directly to scalpers.
 

Yuuki

New member
Mar 19, 2013
995
0
0
major_chaos said:
A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.
But that's enough to keep Nintendo in business, so I don't see them budging for another decade to come. Their loyal fanbase is certainly not going anywhere.
 

Karadalis

New member
Apr 26, 2011
1,065
0
0
Yuuki said:
major_chaos said:
A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.
But that's enough to keep Nintendo in business, so I don't see them budging for another decade to come. Their loyal fanbase is certainly not going anywhere.
Im still surprised that there are so many of them left... after nintendo all but abandoning their loyal fanbase during the Wii and taking a huge shit on them saying they are simply "not their market" anymore.

Boy it must be frustrating to work for nintendo america right now....
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
tf2godz said:
My question is why is Nintendo of Japan calling the shots with this, they're in japan why are they telling Nintendo of America how to do their job?
Because they're the ones in charge. NoA is not somehow a separate company, they're a branch of Nintendo thus they listen to the guys in charge in Japan
 

Coruptin

Inaction Master
Jul 9, 2009
258
0
0
ITT: Forum posters in a Native American hooping rolling enthusiasts website believe they are superior to content creators.
 

xaszatm

That Voice in Your Head
Sep 4, 2010
1,146
0
0
Strazdas said:
xaszatm said:
...or because Smosh was willing to talk to Nintendo about their videos and worked out something for their troubles...I mean, its been a while since I was in Youtubing but I don't think that's changed.
Smosh owners are big. really big. one of the largest internet entertainment conglomerate. much larger than Nintendo. Nintendo would have every reason to be afraid to enter legal battle with them.
Um...Nintendo's worth around 15-20 billion dollars. Smosh is only worth 58 million dollars. If you perhaps mean Defy Media, who owns Smosh as well as many other websites, I'd like to see your sources because I could not find anything related to their net worth. In either case, I just used Smosh because it was the example given. All the people who do Nintendo videos and get enough hits to get noticed (GameXplain, SullyPwnz, Coberman143, etc.) have special deals with Nintendo that turns that 30/40% into around the same price as an MSRP or just gets rid the cost altogether due to their handlers taking care of it. Either that, or they're willing to take the risk of the monetization being taken away because they know how many more views it will achieve.

Also, what Vargras situation?

major_chaos said:
xaszatm said:
Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it.
That isn't true and you know it. Many companies give blanket permission to content creators because they understand free advertising. And I severely doubt people like, say, TB would be making videos of games from big names like Blizz and EA if those companies were kicking in the door and demanding 40% of the revenue. And even if they somehow were I don't believe for a second someone as ethics centric as TB wouldn't disclose that his content was being controlled by a publisher.

And its not just lets plays affected by this anyway. In the Jimqusition someone linked earlier Jim specifically said he wasn't using any Nintendo clips because if he did the video would get claimed (not the same thing as a takedown), whereas Devolver Digital had zero problems with youtube use of their content.
Many developers give blanket permission for people under an MSRP. If you aren't under such a system, though luck. Hell, at least Nintendo is honest in its assholery compared to all other developers. If you're a rising Youtube star and you aren't under protection of an MSRP? Well good fucking luck as your channel will be immediately deleted at the whims of a thousand sharks.

Furthermore, TB HAS disclosed this. He is part of an MSRP, which takes around 20% of his ad revenue. In return, the MSRP is supposed to protect him against monetization claims and takedown notices. Do YOU watch his videos? He's made that clear plenty of times in the past. The current problem with Nintendo (which is something I myself have a problem with) is that Nintendo's program adds on top of the MSRP tax unless you deal with them directly. Is it a problem? Yes it is, but let's not pretend that the other companies are angels who just love Let's Players. They already got their fair cut of the Let's Players money, so no one complains about them.

Remind me again which company is capable of getting its competition begging on its knees to advertise their exclusive games on their exclusive titles with the words "Smash Ballot"? Which company can dominate the entire internet with minimum effort? I might disagree on Nintendo on a lot of things, but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't know how to work the crowd up to a stupefying frenzy whenever it damn well pleases.
Having a rabid fanbase willing to bend over backwards to justify everything they do and breathlessly hanging off their every word does not make them not tragically behind the times, it just shows how powerfully it is to have a longtime fans who instinctively link you with childhood memories. A portion of Big N's fanbase seems to be stuck in 1990 with them.

Also "dominating the entire internet with minimum effort" apparently doesn't translate to sales, seeing as they apparently cant afford to make more then 100 copies of their products any more and might as well be marketing directly to scalpers.
And yet Nintendo can be the top of the twitter charts in just two words. Like I said, I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing. I'm saying that Nintendo is the master of manipulating an audience. I'm sorry that you seem to automatically think that makes me a "rabid Nintendo fanboy" but its true. And of course I know that doesn't translate in sales. So I'd appreciate it if you could talk better without throwing petty insults. It makes your argument look better. Especially since I disagree with Nintendo here as much as I disagree with Angry Joe (what a surprise, you can think both has problems.)
 

bug_of_war

New member
Nov 30, 2012
887
0
0
xaszatm said:
No it doesn't. You have better legal and moral stances on you side. Stop using the untrue one in your arsenal. You can do better than this.
I went straight to the Nintendo website that talks about their new program and couldn't find anything saying it excluded youtube reviews. Could you point me in the direction or link me to your source?

xaszatm said:
Except he didn't drop $900 on Nintendo gear, his fans did. And even if he DID drop that money himself, Nintendo is under no obligations to cater to him. If he wants to do a Let's Play, he needs to follow the same rules as anyone else. We can argue of how effective Nintendo's "strategy" is (I have problems with the creator's program myself) but let's not pretend that Nintendo doesn't have a right to do this.

Furthermore, I'd appreciate it if people who don't do Let's Plays don't pretend to know how to do Let's Plays. You really think that Nintendo is the only company that does it? Every company does it. You want to know why we don't have any complaints? Because these companies cut deals with the handlers of these Let's Players. Same as Nintendo. It's just that Nintendo does it per a Let's Player basis while most other companies just deal with the handlers instead. And this isn't the creators program, this is how an MSRP works.
No, he didn't drop $900 of his own money on the Wii U and all the accessories/games, I didn't mean to insinuate that he did. What this does show though is that to get a good Wii U experience (4 controllers, game pad, games to play (It is advertised mostly as a party/multiple people come over to play it console)) You've gotta be able to cough up $900. But lets say they're gonna buy the console with 2 controllers and 1 game (right now I'm using Aus prices) it still costs $647.85 for the average person. As of January 28th 2015 they've sold 9.2 million consoles, which means if we're to assume that most people spent the above amount, Nintendo have gained $5,960,220,000. So why does Nintendo need 40% of the add revenue? When you have almost gained 6 billion dollars why do you need an extra $1,000 at most?

Just because Nintendo CAN do this, doesn't mean they SHOULD. The law isn't perfect, and just because you're allowed to be a dick doesn't mean I can't still call you a dick for doing it. They're greedy, they're abusing an imperfect system to get more money for the sake of having more money when it was announced a while ago that Nintendo had enough money to stay afloat even if everything they made bombed for the next decade or so.

Furthermore, it shouldn't matter if a youtube content creator who normally doesn't do lets plays makes a lets play. They've already got a fan base, they're providing content to said fan base, and if fuck all people watch it then they'll stop doing LPs. If you're gonna take the time to buy a console, get some games for it, get video capture software, editing software, learn how to use it, apply those skills, and then make a 30 minute video of you playing the game speaking some shit and having a good time then you deserve the couple a hundred bucks you get for that video. 30 minutes of footage does not equate to a game being spoiled or ruined because games are (generally) long and the part that people enjoy and shove money towards is the actual game play, which a video simply can't give you the full experience of.

As a consumer, you have the right to do WHATEVER you want with the product after purchasing it. It belongs to you, you own it, it's yours now, not theirs.