Everyone reads a book the same way. Not everyone plays a game the same way. These things are not analogous in any way relevant to the conversation being had here.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Creative Director at Typhoon Studios, AC3 & FC4: "streamers should be paying the developers and publishers of the games they stream"
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
- Status
This is the same argument pirates use, though. They always cite "lack of demos" as justification. It's not looked on very kindly around these parts.
I'll just leave this here.
GeForce Now is now losing Xbox Games Studios, Warner Bros. Games, Codemasters and Klei Entertainment
https://www.theverge.com/platform/amp/2020/4/20/21228792/nvidia-geforce-now-microsoft-xbox-game-studios-warner-bros-remove-games?utm_campaign=theverge&utm_content=chorus&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true Sucks that was once a great serviced went to shit thanks to...www.resetera.com
That's different. That thread is about whether a customer has the right to play the game they purchased anywhere they want (including cloud). Not whether the customer is entitled to profit off of a creator's work without permission or without giving the creator some sort of kickback.
Maybe it is on Twitch and not the streamers? That's the point of this discussion... Why should Twitch get to keep their cut and not a dev of the game they're making their entire business off of?
This depends on A) the game in question, and B) the book in question. No blankets allowed in a nuanced discussion.
Ever heard of a choose your own adventure, etc? It is an obvious silly hypothetical, but it is not mine, and my counter argument is relevant, as that's the argument the poster was trying to make.
From a business and legal side he is right. But no way people would accept it. It is already a form of entertainment, and several publishers and games want the exposure. The difference between music and videos is that game is an interactive media, and it isn't just a watch experience. That is why people still buy that content.
But again, in legal terms, in a logical way, yeah, they can DMCA people's videos or ask for compensation for it.
Also: people taking every chance to bash on Stadia even when it isn't related to, news at 11
But again, in legal terms, in a logical way, yeah, they can DMCA people's videos or ask for compensation for it.
Also: people taking every chance to bash on Stadia even when it isn't related to, news at 11
While the use of work is different. The law that allows them to is the same.
No, because listening to a song on a stream isn't going to make literally anyone want to go out and purchase that. I mean, idk maybe if you're a hardcore music buff, but the vast majority of the time, you'd have more people listen to it in order to avoid paying for it.
With games it's completely different, which is why we even had a fucking Telltale person say that they viewed streamers as invaluable. Because streamers actively do move copies of video games. Because playing a video game is completely different.
Playing a song is not advertising the song, because once you've heard it, you've heard it. But watching a game is not the same as playing it, so playing it absolutely can be advertising.
You simply cannot compare the two.
Not really sure what you mean by "usually." Fair use is a thing after all. Im having really tough time believing in future where streaming wont be considered fair use.
Just because a pirate uses argument x doesnt make said argument invalid. My understanding is the the amount of devs/pubs willing to throw money/free games to popular streamers atm is off the roof. I dont imagine they would be doing that without a cost/benefit calculation.
Last edited:
That legal precedent is hamstrung however, by years of publishers providing streamers with copies of their games specifically to stream them. The majority of those deals didn't include financial considerations from the publisher - they gave copy and that's it. That would clearly indicate they were both fine with the game being streamed and understanding that the streamer would generate revenue from it.
If a music studio provided a streamer with music to play in the background, then tried to DMCA it - they'd wind up losing that case.
It's quite a leap to equate watching a stream with downloading an entire game for free to demo it yourself
I agree. Streamers make millions of dollars off of developers who earned 50 thousand a year developing the game
For sure with you there, generally. I guess I still just wonder about j random indie dev that theoretically has no way to monetize people streaming their games except nebulous conversion rates that may depend on game genre or whatever. I'd probably not feel great working super hard on a small game, seeing some people streaming it, but not getting a massive sales bump. Multiplayer games might fare way better here but people just watching the story on a lets play, who might otherwise have tried to play it come to mind. I know many people that do this.
They absolutely do not read a book the same way. There's a million different ways you could "perform" a book like that.
I think it is fair to say that a videogame's "rules" (i.e. its programming/design/art etc) are so sophisticated that they deserve protection beyond what is given to the rules of sports, but that the person playing the game still has considerable independent significance that is incomparable to, say, simply commenting on a film while it runs.
It's clear the only reason he's coming up with this take is because of a mindset setting in at Google that he's been privy to. Google wants to beat Twitch with YouTube. How do they do that? By attracting streamers to their platform, and ideally only their platform. They want a revenue source of some sort, whether from the streamer or viewers through adverts, whatever the means, that scales with the viewership.
Google has two issues:
1- They want the streamers (and gamers) to play on Stadia.
2- They want to beat Twitch/streaming competition.
To solve #1, they need to attract streamers to Stadia. To do that, they likely have to provide a financial incentive to the streamers to do so, at least in the near term. Google doesn't like the idea of paying people in per-streamer-deals, they want to offer a service and make money from it somehow. So they need to have a bridge between a revenue source and the streamer to attract the streamer to their platform. Ideally for them, all devs/publishers would want to get paid by the streamers, and this is where Google can step in as the intermediary to get their cut. If publishers/devs don't ask for money, then Google has to, and that is not ideal to their interest.
2- If they solve #1, they think their platform would be more competitive than Twitch, for whatever reason, be it by offering a bigger share of the revenue, Google's dominance of "the web" in general, whatever. If they don't solve #1, they probably have to just outright buy Twitch, something they likely would prefer avoiding.
I always saw a licensing fee or something similar as an inevitably as streaming grew more mainstream. As revenue grows publishers will want their cut and are legally entitled to it. In a world where MST3K can be bogged down and have episodes disappear into the ether because a niche studio doesn't want their movies riffed, there will come a time when a publisher does want a streamer making their game look bad infront of X-thousand people and pulls the plug.
Isnt one of the core features of his platform enabling fully integrated YouTube streaming for its games
Aside from all the other garbage he's said, this statement is in conflict with the supposed mission statement of his product
Aside from all the other garbage he's said, this statement is in conflict with the supposed mission statement of his product
Vast majority of streamers do not make "millions of dollars" or anything remotely close
If you actively perform a book aside from just reading it, that is, make a sufficiently transformative performance such as a play or a dance or something, then that is 100% legal and protected by law.
I'm not sure that the distinction between pointing something out and a bad take is quite as black and white as you think it is.
But, to be very clear, by all means say that this is a bad take, say it's a terrible idea, point out the flaws in his reasoning. There are plenty, go nuts, I actually agree with all of that, believe it or not. I don't consider that shitting on someone, and that wasn't what I was referring to in the first place.
We literally had a tweet from someone a few pages back from Telltale of all places saying they viewed streamers as invaluable.
Streamers literally do sell copies. Because fundamentally you aren't playing it. You are seeing someone play it and going huh, I want to play that as well. While a small amount of people will be content with that, there is actively an action left to be completed, that so many people will in fact complete, that publishers continue to allow for this because they know it's a huge number.
With pirating, none of that happens because you literally already have the damn game and are actively paying it. There's no action left to complete. You have the game. Any incentive now amounts to a tip. It's absolutely not the same situation.
Again, publishers and developers know this, which is why they not only allow for it to happen, but actively engage in it. Bungie actively courts streamers. They don't use them for curated add campaigns. They don't really do agreements with them. They just let them people play the game because it sells copies.
Wait what? Pirates may say lack of demos makes them pirate and not pay, but people watch streams and then go and buy games they never would have have before.
I'm honestly very amused by how Era believes licensing works.
Unless the license explicitly states its non-revokable, they can revoke the license to play the music in the background and DMCA it. And they wouldn't lose the case.
How can someone in the industry be this out of touch? This smudge ass comment is especially great:
"If they think they don't need to pay for the the game they're using then they can make a show without using games and see how it goes."
He's under the impression that streams would crash and burn without a game and yet...
"If they think they don't need to pay for the the game they're using then they can make a show without using games and see how it goes."
He's under the impression that streams would crash and burn without a game and yet...
I wonder if he means there should be a commercial licence for streamers vs a personal license for players. Like a movie theatre pays a different licence to a DVD but it's a dumb take regardless
I've been streaming about a year now and no one's handing me free games. Must be doing something wrong.
Why does he assume streamers don't pay for their games? Also, even if the bigger ones aren't, it's the publishers giving away these keys. Streamers also generate a TON of free publicity.
Why does he assume streamers don't pay for their games? Also, even if the bigger ones aren't, it's the publishers giving away these keys. Streamers also generate a TON of free publicity.
What's even weirder is that streaming was supposed to be a big selling point of Stadia so his stance is even at odds with his emplyer
Sure, but my point is showing the cover is not reading the book nor the equivalent of reading it aloud. Watching the game being played is not playing the game. There is no legal basis to say that a player broadcasting themselves playing a game is a copyright infringement.
Right, but the performance aspect plays a much more subdued role in the context of books versus most games (there's obviously a spectrum here). If I listen to someone read an entire book, its value is diminished considerably more than the value of rocket league is diminished by me watching someone play it. Indeed, the value of a game to me is apt to increase when I watch it, which is highly unlikely to happen with a book.
My statement is generally true and only becomes untrue when you stretch the argument to apply to the most interactive category of books and the least interactive category of games. A choose your own adventure book still involves about as much decisionmaking as the tutorial of most games.
He is right. You couldn't stream a movie and talk over it, or play music to your own video.
Games shouldn't be any different.
Games shouldn't be any different.
You were acting as if people were shitting on him for innocently pointing out. No, they were criticizing him for saying things should change. He literally has the word should in his tweet. As in, things ought to be a certain way.
Your phrasing of people shitting on him for merely pointing something out is false.
Let's say someone just said "it's really interesting from one point of view, you could argue streamers should pay for streaming licences for games, but companies likely won't go for that, cuz it'd be unwise to do so." Then his position would be clear, but he'd be pointing out a curiosity, and NO ONE would be shitting on him. So no, merely pointing it out wouldn't be earning him the shitting.
He not only brought it up, but he actively said it should be that way, not even that one could argue it. He actively holds that position. That is what he is getting shit on for. Full stop. Not for merely bringing it up like you originally said.
I don't think they'd be cool with elements of the game being separated from the main work. Valve specifically says don't do it.
They should be and they are, because there's an inherent difference between passive and interactive media.
I mean Youtube/Twitch is never going to do that unless forced. They would literally be sued by their shareholders.
And the industry is not yet concentrated enough for an oligopolistic play, and anyone unilaterally taking that path would also be cutting off their nose to spite their face.
In terms of fairness, can't say I agree. These companies are getting enormous benefits from streamers that result in brand exposure, increasing brand loyalty, and increased sales. This is why unlike with movies or music, it's not the sort of oligopolistic play many would want to even sign onto because of the benefits from allowing it far outweigh the risk(or the benefits) of trying to clamp down.
If you watch someone play rocket league, how similar is it to you playing rocket league?
If you watch someone watch a movie, how similar is it to you watching that movie?
I don't believe that is the case at all. Like, you couldn't adapt something just because it changes the format. Iirc, even though Hamilton is based on a public figure from 3 centuries ago the author of the biography that inspired it still receives royalties from the play. And I would imagine anyone without the rights would quickly be struck down trying to make a film, play, etc based on a best selling novel.
I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise to the Subnautica developers. I should never have paid 35 quid for your game after watching jacksepticeye play it, I should have paid you nothing when I thought the game sounded interesting, but too dense to learn.
I'm so sorry, I wish I'd never seen how appealing your game is :(
I'm so sorry, I wish I'd never seen how appealing your game is :(
Yes there is. And its already been spoken on by IP lawyers about the legality of it. How many times must this be said. https://www.pcgamer.com/lawyers-explain-why-campo-santos-takedown-of-pewdiepies-video-is-legal/
The equation wasn't about watching a streamer vs pirating a game. It is that in both cases, the creator of the game gets nothing. Streamers leading someone to buy more games maybe is not changing that any more than a cover band running a concert and not paying the original artist royalties leads people to buy more albums from the original artist. It's not their music. It's not their game. They shouldn't have the right to do it if the original creator doesn't want it to happen - reasoning why is irrelevant. It's their shit.
For me streaming story foccused sp games is like streaming movies. I also think Streamer are the reason that there less and less short aaa games. They are great for live games but no one could convince me that it hasnt a negative on sp games.
I dont think this guy did himself any favors today.
Should have stayed off twitter the entire day.
He is digging his hole deeper and deeper with every response.
Should have stayed off twitter the entire day.
He is digging his hole deeper and deeper with every response.
I get the logic behind wanting people who generate (significant) income from using someone else' product sharing their profits with said creators.
That being said that's a huge can of worms that has way too many edge cases and arbitrary potential scenarios that count or not. I think it's worth looking into for the big partnered streamers and taking the discussions up with the streaming platform holders.
Personally I think it's only a matter of time until a popular game has a feature that sabotages streamers and holds it hostage behind a paywall so they make sure they get back some of the preceived "lost" revenue
That being said that's a huge can of worms that has way too many edge cases and arbitrary potential scenarios that count or not. I think it's worth looking into for the big partnered streamers and taking the discussions up with the streaming platform holders.
Personally I think it's only a matter of time until a popular game has a feature that sabotages streamers and holds it hostage behind a paywall so they make sure they get back some of the preceived "lost" revenue
- Status