This is not so much flamebait but I do not want to be the one to start the first "GBAtemp vs/completely misunderstanding the concept of intellectual property" thread of 2015.
It was mentioned on IRC so I went looking
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/developers/rules
MS clarified the rules on usage of game footage of theirs, save for minecraft which is still governed by its own agreement for the time being (I am betting on it being brought into the fold in about 18 months, maybe with a "content published after this date/with this version*" aside). Nintendo's efforts however long ago were just the efforts of a lumbering stupid giant, this is something a bit more thought out and bit more likely to kneecap quire a few people (no footage from hacking** for instance, nothing lewd, obscene, vulgar.... does rather hurt the ability of many a comedy creator, though parody might help there).
*"oh look this is minecraft [v1.9] 2 - the sequelling, now follows the guidelines"
**hacking vs modding would be a debate I would like to see. Especially as I would definitely blur the lines so very heavily there if it came down to it, and even without someone like me doing that the mod makers pushing things to the limit of the "dev provided tools" (which I guess would be the starting point of a definition) can do some odd things.
"drug use or any illegal activity"
Do fags and booze count as drug use in US legal terms? I genuinely do not know and for many places that might be classified otherwise.
Can't be behind a paywall* or on the same page as you are advertising something**.
*I am drawn to wonder what goes for the "pay for HD" and "pay to get it a week before everybody else" crowds, even if I am not a fan of those models.
**with commission based adverts and sidebar adverts this could get odd.
"You cannot enter into any agreement with someone else to exclusively distribute your Item even if they don't pay you."
I wonder how that works for content distribution networks, leeches though they may be, work here.
"Distribution of your Item in any form constitutes a grant by you of a royalty-free, non-exclusive, irrevocable, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide, license to Microsoft and any of Microsoft's partners or users to use, modify and distribute that Item (and derivatives of that Item), and use your name if we choose to, for any purpose and without obligation to pay you anything, obtain your approval, or give you credit."
Now in part I can see this, and indeed the next line mentions (in rather informal language) it is to stop lawsuits for similar ideas, as there have been a few cases of fan fiction vs the original creator at times -- your wholly unoriginal and rather well worn concepts for a story but done relatively in keeping with the theme/tone/universe logic side story might well have been the next step for the franchise. On the other hand that is pretty broad.
They also mention sound effects and word it such that it implies they might not own everything they have such that they can license it onwards, whether this is just a restating of the "we don't own everything in games", going on to give the example of forza and car brands, tracks and licensed music bit from elsewhere or something more I do not know.
Interestingly at no point does it mention reviews, criticism or anything like that. Obviously that is part of the copyright exemptions but I would have at least though a "your statutory rights are not affected" type thing would have been in there.