The thing that bugs me about this is how Youtubers argue that Let's Plays should be allowed despite the fact that they're making money off of other people's copyrighted content because "we're marketing your games for free!"
But then if they turn around and ask for a cut of revenue, that argument evaporates, so why exactly should game publishers allow Let's Plays again?
Because when you purchase a game, you should be able to share your experiences with people.
Consider two scenarios:
Scenario 1: You can invite a bunch of friends over and they watch you play a single player game. Here, you are showcasing the game to your friends.
Scenario 2: You host a local game tournament with 20 friends where they all participate. In this tournament, each person pays $2 to the host. The winner gets $20 and the host pockets the other $20. You're showcasing the game to your friends and pocketing a bit of money at the same time.
These are both scenarios which I would assume that most people would have no problem with. Now extend this to YouTube. You have an individual channel where you showcase a game you purchased and friends and strangers watch you present. You earn a little bit of money from ads you decide to incorporate into this showcase.
Here, the focus point is a game's unique experience. When you share a movie online you are duplicating that exact experience. But when you share a game online, you are showing people one possible experience. Why is any share of money you get from showing people things...payable to the company? Do you owe anything when you show a bunch of friends a single player game? So why should it apply to a bunch of random people on the Internet?
Conversely, why does the company owe you any money? You're just showing it off to friends (virtual friends in this case). The company has absolutely no obligations when they didn't agree to any kind of oral or written contract. Frankly, the fact that YouTubers are requesting even MORE money is outright abhorrent. It's disgusting.