Or...you could just do let's plays of stuff that isn't Nintendo games

@zeforgotten: Man, I wouldn't want to know what you wish on people that want entire companies like EA to fail. Seriously though, I don't think anyone's saying that and I have a hard time believing that these people have essentially lost their jobs and they're now entirely screwed with no back-up plan. At the very least they still have their channels and subscribers.

Apart from a select few (mostly Pokemon where they're clearly very invested in the series and that's how they get their views) I don't think anyone has to strictly stick to Nintendo games and now cannot go on making videos.

As for "like and subscribe!" I think that phase has mostly passed by now. The click here to subscribe annotation at the end has probably replaced it.

@humanity: That's the thing though I don't think those "Cick the subscribe button and like my video also comment and tell me what you liked and tell your friends to like this video and then have them comment as well"-people are really the most popular. Also considering that likes, dislikes, favorites and subscribers really don't matter(popular comment sections that are active all the time do)

The only channel of people I know that are popular when it comes to "Don't forget to subscribe and like the video!"-videos are probably the Yogscast.
LP'ers I watch that are vastly more popular are just people doing what they do to have fun and not get kicked out of their house because they actually do do it for a living.

And I'm also not saying that Nintendo doesn't have the right to do this, they're totally in their right to do it.
But when little Johnny Sonofaslut comes out and basically goes "haha you lost your job" I think that's going a bit too far with the pathetic kid-anger issues that person might have

@zeforgotten: It's not jealousy really. A lot of these channels make a lot of money with very basic equipment. Guys like Seananners or Captain Sparkles who were pretty big household names for Call of Duty videos would get tons of views for simply playing Minecraft. No goals, nothing interesting, just wandering about for 10 minutes and then putting another number at the end of the episode count. They showed their home setups and guess what - it was a capture card and a probably pirated version of Vegas Video/Premiere/Final Cut because I doubt these 20-25 year old doods were buying $4000 software. It really isn't that hard and the bare minimum can get you just as many views as a meticulously edited video, depending on how popular the personality is.

It's a legitimate way of earning money, but I do feel with certain people it's a little gross as you can tell they don't give a shit apart from the clicks. I used to really like watching YouTubers and different commentary videos but with time that whole "and remember to like the video and subscribe!" mentality really drove me away from it. We slowly moved from people making Let's Plays because they had a genuine passion for the game and the creative process, to doods/gals shitting out daily vids just to get clicks with no interest or care for the projects.

As for Nintendo it's their right to call in copyright. YouTube's views on "fair use" are a complete joke anyway. Put up footage from a videogame that has no narration and it will get taken down and rejected for monetization. Put up the exact same video and include a voiceover detailing your latest trip to the supermarket and all of a sudden all the lights are green.

I probably could but here's a list that's easier to just go through and see who does Nintendo specific content.

But it's really obvious, with those channels and others like it, if that is their source of income(and trust me, some of them don't have two jobs. Because editing and stuff is not just done in a minute) then I think it's pretty pathetic to be a complete asshole and just go "haha, you can't support your family now, haha!" but maybe that's just me? I mean, I'm not exactly a saint since I wish that those types of people get cancer, but still.

Edit: Link didn't wanna go in the first time.
Stupid text editor

I don't see what the big deal is. The people who are making money off of it will reconsider their game of choice, people who aren't will keep playing whatever. That's all there is to it. AFAIK the good let's players are the Something Awful/LP Archive folk that aren't making big YouTube money anyway.

Can you link me a channel like that? I'm genuinely curious now. I realize the bigger channels have good equipment and do basic editing as one would hope but their commentary is godawful. To call it stressful and exhausting as darji did or that someone's life is screwed by this change seems like a stretch to me.

It's useless trying to make those people understand that Let's Plays aren't just downloading some free Video Recording software and then just uploading that video once you're done with your gaming session.
So I'm also with you on the jealousy part. "These guys do for a living what I can only do as a hobby! I HATE THEM" is pretty much the gist of it.
At least with all the rage coming out of these poor saps it seems to be the case. Could also be that they're still very very young kids and don't know how to respond without acting like dicks.

"HAH! THey lost their source of income! HAHAHAHAHAHA! What's that? You only played Nintendo games because those are the games you've dedicated your life too and know the mechanics of and can talk about for hours on end.. Well you're now stuck with games you know nothing about! HAHAHA LOSE YOUR HOUSE! LOSER!" is basically what many people are saying.

But I guess if you live in the stone age like that you have something in common with Nintendo

I guess its mostly jealousy because these people do not even earn more then they do but also made the hobby to their job. the other ones are just clueless. No one who is just recording stuff with his computer and talks to it has a lot of viewers. these guys actually purchased very expensive equipment to do what they love and to entertain people.

A lot of jealousy in this thread

Let's Plays are a bit overdone now. They are the angry game reviews of today, remember those? Remember how many people made those stupid reviews just to copy AVGN?

All I want to say is man, some of the hate toward Let's Players for making money is a little bit sad. So they have a job that revolves around them playing video games and posting videos, how does that make them lesser or undeserving of what they make? It's an entertainment job, so unless you launch a crusade against every animator, actor, screenplay writer, director, radio jockey, etc., then step off.

Video production is harder work than most people think. Just because many laptops and phones have cameras that allow easy uploading to YouTube doesn't mean that everyone on YouTube does video like that.

As mentioned in another thread (the thread which shall not be named), I know from someone who does "serious work" that they spend roughly 1 hour for every 1 minute of video. To get something that is more than 5 minutes basically takes them all day to do the physical setup, render, and push up to YouTube and this ignores the stuff like writing and editing scripts which is done between.

My take on the entire situation: "Let's Play" skirt the line of fair use where some are clearly fair use while some aren't. Something like "Two Best Friends Play" is clearly fair use while some one else who just hooks up capture on their video while they silently run through the game is really really really really pushing it.

Nintendo recently does not give a shit for almost everything but that does not mean it is a smart move. People who actually make videos because it has become their job and they make money from it will not waste hours and hours to create content they can not make money with. And no one really cares about these LP videos with 100 or 200 views. You only get exposure when people actually watch your videos.

@mystic_11: I am seeing Sony's approach as change in the attitude towards game play videos that might affect how the publishers look at the situation.

Man, douche move Nintendo. I've totally had Let's Plays sell me on a game. Those guys deserve credit.

@blazehedgehog Great blog, thanks for taking the time to write it! I'm with Nintendo on this one. They're not the devil in this scenario (and, for the record, neither are LPers, of course). It's just life. Some people, who's intentions are making money from YouTube, will stop making LP videos of Mario games. Boo hoo. I'm sure Nintendo couldn't give less of a shit. Others will continue and Nintendo will put some ads on their videos. They're entitled to do that and you accept that when you make an account with YouTube.

@charlie_victor_bravo: But you still can share nintendo gameplay just dont get money from it, and if publishers follow suit does sony get a say?

When next gen consoles offer inbuilt tools to record and share game play videos, Nintendo is left in the dust looking like a old relic from the past. Looking how the sales of the Wii-U are going, it seems pretty stupid to turn down the free marketing from the internet videos.

This does not only concern LP videos. It concerns everyone who post continuous footage of a Nintendo game. First it was only 10 minutes+ but now even under 7 minute videos get flagged. So if you do speedruns? Flag. If you do these advice videos like quicklooks. Flagged. Reviews? flagged.

@darji: I've been asking myself that very same question recently!

The podcast I guess? I kind of stopped paying attention to LPer stuff a while ago. And really what the guys here do is different. Isn't a let's play usually referring to a complete run through of the game? In that case I watched the persona 4 ER, then thought to myself "man, I'll never do that again".

GB provides more of a loose kind of consumer advice. I don't really think they're the same thing.

And then why are you a paid member of Giantbomb? These guys do basically the same^^

Surely it shouldn't matter, Lets Plays are about sharing your enjoyment of video games with others, right?... Right?

Most people come in to these live streams because of the streamer or the LP guy and not because of the game. People watch these videos to see his opinion on this game or just want to have a good time in the chats or whatever. Twitch streamers which also upload their stuff on youtube to get an extra revenue have build up a community. They have paying subscribers just like Giant Bomb has. They are entertaining people for 8 or more hours a day they have their own studios. And you think this is not hard work or not transformative work?

@hailinel

Finally I know what you mean... No I have no LP channel. In fact I only made a youtube account to get a steam badge back then. And no I do not streaming on twitch or whatever. I am just a guy who enjoys this stuff a lot and who bought several games because of LP or live streams. If that still does not answer your question please write it again maybe I don't understand it then....

I think people don't care because even if they do record LP videos, they do it as a hobby and not for monetary compensation. Honestly, aside from the biggest youtube personalities, how does this affect everyone else? I'm legitimately asking cause I have no idea how youtube partnerships work. Do you need more than 10000 subscribers to make youtube money? Do your videos need more than 10000 views to qualify? More than 1000 likes? Cause if so, that's a very small minority that is being affected, a small minority that is losing their only source of income. And on that point, how much is your average joe youtuber whose videos get 500 views or at most 5000views make from youtube partnerships?

I've always considered doing a let's play, but never because I wanted to make easy money doing something I like. The concept always interested me because I thought it would be fun and I would like to entertain people with my lame stupid jokes and commentary. Money is the last thing on my mind. And Nintendo isn't stopping anyone from doing that.

I think the main reason Giant Bomb is so wary of Endurance Runs is because they don't want to show an entire game and monetize it. There is something kinda weird about that prospect that makes me feel sleazy.

I think defending Nintendo is pretty stupid on this matter. Nintendo weren't losing anything from Let's Plays, most likely gaining. Let's Plays are good for the medium, and if people think the big name YouTubers that catch hundreds of thousands of views per video are still gunna play their games when they won't make jack shit off them, then they're wrong. They do that shit as a job, I don't mind them getting a little ad revenue to live off of.

And on top of this, if you defend this kind of action then shouldn't Nintendo be allowed to earn the ad money GiantBomb make off of Quick Looks? Where do you stop?

@landon: I don't think anything you've said invalidates anything I've said. Particularly the part where I said the law protects media up to a point. We're both correct in different circumstances. :) I'm not sure why you think permissions need to be on a per-game basis. It makes much more sense to have an understanding with individual publishers, thereby not singling out any one game. And now there's a track record, I was talking about years ago circa Time Trotters and then Whiskey Media. Does any marketer on the planet today NOT know what Giant Bomb is going to do with their game? I didn't think so either. The reason I don't think so, is MOST other game video sites followed GB's lead with long-form video content. Hour One on GameTrailers? Random Encounter et al on GameSpot? We're living in a post-Quick-Look world, son!

And keep in mind, the question is/was likely not "can we have permission to shit on your product", it is "can we show your product extensively, and our honest reactions to it." Look at Battleship. QL started with sphincters pre-clenched, and they actually appreciated it by the end. When publishers don't ship a game to a review site, most often it is a broad decision affecting ALL review sites, because the PUBLISHER knows that the game will not receive good day 1 reviews. They are in fact setting themselves up for a worse media response overall.

Atlus possibly kiboshing the Endurance Run is not merely a copyright issue, as there are PR/editorial reasons Atlus might have been uncomfortable, but thankfully weren't. It would simply be that copyright would be the strongest, most straightforward terms of a cease and desist, rather than "can you stop talking about visiting Chie's meat dimension?" Anyway, I have little doubt that the ER resulted in more profits for Atlus than it did for GB, and it was probably a healthy amount for both companies.

Jeff has also talked about how they weren't shipped a game for the site, and how he goes out to buy the game himself just to create content for the site. I also remember during the P4: ER there were jokes made about how any day Atlus was going to tell them to stop.

Or what about the Quick Looks that are dedicated to showing just how awful some games are? Did they get permission to shit on those games?

I could also point out how casually they ask each other what will be played during TNT or Unprofessional Fridays or how Jeff told Vinny to stop playing Bioforge and instead dedicate a series of videos to playing the whole thing (not exactly his words, but that is what he was getting at)

I sincerely doubt Giant Bomb has gotten permission to show every single game they have covered on this website.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying they didn't get consent to show a game before it came out, I'm sure there is a bit more complication to that, I'm saying that once a game hits store shelves, all bets are off.

More importantly, what does this mean for Endurance Runs? Giantbomb nowadays publishes all of its video content on Youtube and if this becomes a trend of the industry I fear we may never see an Endurance Run ever again. CBS won't risk a lawsuit especially for a little video game website. :(

@vince_kupo said:

I believe Gaijin Games has talked a fair bit about this if you want to check it out. They prefer Steam. :) Personally, I bought all the Bit.Trip games on WiiWare right as they released. Sooo... I'm happy to have done my part to help them become a multiplatform company. (Also, Super Meat Boy on Wii was cancelled.)

It is incorrect to presume Giant Bomb doesn't have consent. Quite the opposite. Jeff has talked at length about negotiating with publishers, bringing them around to the idea of "yes, we want to show, like, an hour of footage?" During a time just 6-7 years ago when the common assumption was: nobody watches videos more than 10 minutes long. It was a shift.

And this is what distinguishes fans from media. For fans it is easier to ask forgiveness than permission; for media the costs of not asking permission can be far higher than the potential benefit. The law protects media up to a point, whether they are being positive or negative, but after that it is a matter of maintaining good, professional relationships with the companies.

I really disagree with a lot of your points. Game grumps seems like a poor choice to research, they do don't do let's plays in the way that would be effected by this change at all. The fact they are losing popularity seems completely unrelated to let's plays 'losing popularity'. I in fact think they are just as popular if not growing in popularity still. And with Internet characters like Day[9] now doing a lets play every Friday then there must be still a reason to engage in that. Additionally your saying that because certain people might be doing let's plays for the money instead of the games then no one should be able to do them. That seems horrifically unfair. Some people really enjoy making that content. And those people are the ones who rise to the top and become the most popular. And then there the fact that you say Nintendo benefit completely from this action when hundreds of indies would say the complete opposite. The outcry from indies saying that let's plays are fantastic press for their games. I'll grant you that indies are a very different beast to Nintendo but I think Nintendo is also in a position right now where they need everything they can get.

Personally I think Nintendo is treating their games the same as other visual mediums like films and tv. When that is not what they are. When I watch someone else play through a game I haven't played i never feel like I've seen that game now so I don't need to play it. In fact if its a really cool looking game it always makes me want to play way more. That's my take on the situation, I think Nintendo has made a very ignorant mistake.

They're stopping people from making money on this stuff, not from doing it.

It IS kind of bullshit that you're making money from streaming something A HUNDRED PEOPLE MADE, OVER A FEW YEARS. Y'know, with the talents they've spent THEIR WHOLE LIVES DEVELOPING?

For you guys to run it, record it, and profit from a whole bunch of games in an afternoon is kind of undeniably bonkers, and to be crying so hard from what is just about the most blessed life I can even try to imagine is a little bit dramatic, if you ask me. It's not like you've been working at a coal mine for 30 years and finally got the sack; it's someone asking you to please stop capitalising on work you don't own.

And by the way it sounds like an alternative is to let NINTENDO advertise on the videos, so don't even.

Well on the brightside at least a lot of shit is going to be taken off YouTube.

Maybe Nintendo can target all the Gangnam Style remixes now.

Apply it to a movie I just bought and decided to put a video up of me watching it in its entirety. Nope, doesn't work. Apply it to a book I just bought and decided to put up a video of me reading it out loud from cover to cover. Nope, doesn't work. Apply it to an album I just bought and decided to put up a video of me listening to every track. Nope, doesn't work. The reason it doesn't work in these cases is because they are copyrighted works and are protected even if I provide commentary or criticism.

To be honest, it just seems like they're shooting an organically grown facet of gaming culture in the foot. And so what if people make money doing Let's Plays? More power to them. I rarely watch LP's, and even then the few LP's I do watch tend to be totally non-profit, but if someone is providing you with entertainment, I don't see why they don't deserve to make some money doing so. Remember that we come to Giant Bomb to watch people playing video games while they talk over them. Sure, there's some other stuff here, but that's the main draw. A lot of us give these people money to enable them to continue doing this, myself included, becuase it is entertaining and they deserve money for entertaining us.

Think of it in a similar way to musicians, while LP's aren't really artistic expression in the same way that music is, there's a difference between people who do stuff on the cheap in their bedrooms for fun vs people who actually put the effort in to put out something that is polished and professional, and when someone goes the extra mile to provide you with something that IS of a professional level of quality, I don't think it's at all wrong that they get paid for their work a bit.

Nintendo are totally within their rights to enforce copyright claims with LP-ers, but just because they can doesn't mean they should. LP is a legitimate part of gaming culture, for better or for worse and there are indeed people who work their asses off to provide quality content. In doing this Nintendo is screwing people out of a livelihood (or a hobby) that they have the right to. What's next, are we going to start firing games reviewers? Their livelihood is also based around playing games and talking about them, it's a different format but it's not really any different. We accept that reviews are a niche in the market that has been filled, and there's clearly a demand for LP videos, otherwise people wouldn't watch them.

So yeah, while the LP community is going to lose out a bit, the party that will be the most badly affected by this move is Nintendo themselves, some good will goes a long way and this isn't going to help build any when the current consensus about Nintendo amongst the gaming populace is as shaky as it is. But whatever, their loss.

They're completely within their legal right to do so. Is it sort of shitty? Yeah, it is. But Youtube has existed for almost a decade (which is unsettling in its own way) and the fact that this hasn't happened already is more baffling to me than the fact that it's happened at all. Of course, I also only watch LPers who have smarmy british accents and don't totally suck and they don't really play Nintendo games.

What I am most interested in seeing is the fallout from this. Will other publishers do the same as Nintendo? Will Let's Plays dry up as a way for vaguely "funny" individuals to make a living and just become something a guy does on the weekend? ONLY THE FUTURE WILL TELL.

Ads on videos, ads on websites posting videos, merchandising around their brand, donations, and magic. This blocks LP creators from making money from ads on videos featuring recent Nintendo games. They can still have ads on their own websites, sell brand merchandise, accept donations, and benefit from magic. They just object to ridding them of one of their consistent revenue streams and the possibility that this could lead to other corporations doing this with other game videos.

Nintendo is not in the wrong. They just do not quite understand why LP's do well. I'm sure some people watch them just to see a game, but a majority of the high viewing ones stay consistent because people return for the personalities of the commentators. It is the same with GB. Of course GB isn't showing entire games most of the time, but personality is the reason people enjoy their videos.

This will not really affect people who record LP's with high view counts because they will just find other games, and people will still enjoy their commentary. Also, not everyone just throws up footage and talks. Many put much effort into editing, so they can reduce the dull moments. Take RoosterTeeth's Achievement Hunter let's play channel "Let's Play" for example. Most sessions last over an hour, but they only post about a half hour of material because they care about quality, which in their case revolves around humor. Of course some people just abuse the LP format to make cash off of work Nintendo has done, but this is broad generalization that does not apply to most popular channels.

In the end, Nintendo might make a small amount off of existing videos, but not much will change, except there will be fewer videos of Nintendo games from people who use their personality, through the vehicle of video games, to make a living/side income.

People shouldn't be outraged, but Nintendo clearly misses the point and will not gain much from it, except some ill will from from some of their audience, whether deserved or not.

They should have no claim to ad money from videos other people have made. Nintendo made money off the sale of the game, that's it. Again, apply this to every other consumer good that people use in their videos on the internet. Many here would argue in favor of used game sales because Nintendo should not have control over the game post-sale. Copyright laws in this case are just a tool for them to interfere in post-sale use of the product.

Many people here seem to not care because they don't record LP videos. Apathy at its worse.

I'm a bit disconnected from it all, so how exactly do LPers make money off their videos? Ads? Sponsors? Magic?

I always figured it was something more akin to donations or merchandise, ala the Abridged Series folks -- keeping their revenue separate from the actual property they're leveraging. Are the LPers blocked from taking even this kind of route now?

Gotta agree with the original post. I'm not seeing why this is such a huge problem. If you're a LPer and you don't want to give your ad money to nintendo then just don't use their games for LP's. It's not like there's a shortage of non-Nintendo property to use. If you're in the boat of being a Nintendo fan and wanting to share your enjoyment of their games on youtube then why would it matter if they get the ad revenue for it. The only real issue is the possibility of this setting a precedent, but if these video makers believe so strongly in their free publicity argument then that shouldn't be a worry until there is actual evidence of it happening. I doubt this will catch on though. As others have said, many developers and publishers have had a chance to do this in the past, but didn't. Nintendo is just doing their thing like usual.

@believer258: @truthtellah: You both raise the perspective that the recording of gameplay could be legally interpreted as performance art. One through the uniqueness of the actions and decisions, one through the accompanying editorializing. I do study copyright law and I find this idea could have the most merit within the existing definitions of "works". (Gah, editing posts on iOS is a nightmare. Anyway to complete my thought...)

As has been mentioned already on the first page of this thread with overdubbing movies, it is the newly created performance that is applicable to be protected as original, in whatever way that performance may prove to be defensible as a new work (writing, audio, visual, etc.) Naturally it cannot apply to the broadcast of the copyrighted music or the art assets within the game. Music will always be the easiest takedown notice on Youtube. Talking over music doesn't make it not the same music.

But the concept that gameplay does not inherently exist on a chip or a hard drive, and it must be performed, uniquely, every time... that is some intriguing shit. That says that how Mario looks and moves is divorced from how he is made to move. That is the difference between watching MTV and Make My Video. :) It really does nothing to override the moral rights of the content owner (i.e. Nintendo), but it distinguishes every capture into a unique work. You couldn't say all Mario 64 speed runs ever recorded are legally identical, unless you say that all permutations of the rendering engine are also copyrighted the moment they exist. That seems so broad brush and technically imprecise, doesn't it? If that was the defence, nothing else would matter at all. The buck stops there with the video signal.

Think about a complete asset swap of SMB: New art, new music, new level design, but the same basic mechanics. Now record that new thing. The recording is the output of the game engine, not the engine itself, not its code, it's recording the player's decision to run left instead of right... If it looks and sounds nothing like the original, how can the raw mechanics of "Mario's jump" be stolen by recording when the player decides to jump... Fascinating.

But I'm still not going to turn on monetizing on my channel.

You still can...Nintendo isn't stopping you from doing either of these things.

I think this is total crap. Yes, people can argue that Nintendo has the legal right to do this, but does that make it right? I feel that this could have huge implications for other consumer goods. Once Nintendo sells me their product, I should be able to sell it to a friend or record a video of me playing it. I'm a little surprised at people defending Nintendo in this thread.

I completely understand what you're saying. While I don't agree with Nintendo's action, I'm not a consumer of Let's Play videos, so it's hard for me to really care one way or the other. I can only look at the issue as objectively as possible.

@hailinel:

I would like to see on which platform most indies make their money. I don't think it's on a Nintendo console, but I could be wrong. Like I said I'm really curious on how things will develop from now on.

Indies are direct competitors in terms of software on the market, sure, but Nintendo has also been working with indies as of late to get more games on the eShop. The tone coming from indie devs, by and large, has been fairly positive, in terms of their relationship.

I was about to write something to explain a little more what I meant, but I guess I'm gonna wait and see on that one. The only thing I'm gonna say is this, indies are direct competitors to Nintendo, because while people are playing indies or smaller studios games, they are not playing Nintendo games. If Nintendo wants to manage their own advertising by cutting LPers,fine, but they should be aware that they will have a tough competition with indies and the free advertisement they get from Youtubers, We are moving into really interesting times. I'm curious how the years to come will pan out..

It's even worse with SEGA, they have not only made a copyright claim but have been known to totally block the videos from being viewed world-wide on YouTube.

I think you have to look beyond just the basic advertising nature of it. This is not that bad for Nintendo from a purely advertising or awareness-based perspective; though, it's reasonable for Let's Play creators and their fans to play up that angle in trying to convince Nintendo to change their mind. The issue is less that this will genuinely hurt Nintendo as a functioning company and more that it hurts the brand a bit in a way that they shouldn't want. Nintendo can do this, and I think many Let's Play creators would agree that it is legal. They just don't agree that it's right or advisable, and they're using whatever arguments they can to possibly convince them to not do this. Not all of the arguments have much water behind them, but for someone who cares about this form of entertainment, it makes sense for them to be a bit upset by this and try to convince Nintendo to take a different course of action.

Obviously, what Nintendo is doing is not near as egregious as what SEGA has been doing with something like Shining Force, and Let's Play creators and fans have always been concerned that more companies might choose that level of draconian action. Yet, though this is -less- of a threat than systematically taking down any video that even mentions a game, Nintendo is still embracing a business decision that is likely to harm Let's Play creators, thus harming those who also enjoy those videos. Pretty much every Let's Play creator will be fine without Nintendo games, but if Nintendo continues on this path, people are well aware that it encourages other producers to do the same. Because if Nintendo can get away with it, they'll think it's a nice middle ground that won't draw as much of a backlash as simply taking down videos. Yet, that would ultimately harm the Let's Play community as a whole and pose a much bigger threat to something many gamers take for granted.

If people make a big push now, they can at least show that gamers will -not- just quietly accept corporations doing this, and if they can get Nintendo to back off of it, they might just help prevent other companies from trying to do the same. That's part of why this may be so important to some people, because it represents a bigger threat than just a few Nintendo videos. It could be something that inherently threatens a style of online video entertainment many gamers enjoy, and that's certainly worth getting into a bit of a fuss about.

So, while I'm not as uproarious as some, I feel for their concerns and hope that Nintendo will make the wise and considerate decision to back off of this.