Poll of the Day > I Want Your Opinion on Today's Poll.

(+) Yeah! (+)

I was honestly surprised that the majority of people think that streaming anything from any game at any time is okay. I'm not sure why a lot of people think that and just want to know why.
---

Any company should be allowed to block other people from profiting from their own product. Especially if their profit comes largely from giving other people a copy of the product, which with story-based games is absolutely the case. For example, I never did buy Ultra Despair Girls, since I could just watch it instead.

At this point in the culture it'd be in pretty bad faith to enforce in the simple case of Let's Plays, but I don't see why they wouldn't have the right.
---

Why do folks think that game companies deserve special treatment?

If you were a race car driver and you won a race using Hoosier tires do you think that you should have to give them a cut of your winnings?

As far as letting folks see the story of a story based game, do you think that there shouldn't be public libraries where people can read just about any books for free? How about after I beat a game, do you think I shouldn't be able to tell a friend the entire story in detail if they asked me to because they don't want to play it?

Lets say you throw a party and you decide to put some music on that you bought, would you go around to everyone in earshot and ask them to kick in a buck for each song so you can send that money to whoever you bought your music from?

When I buy a game my obligation to a game company is complete. They created a product and I purchased it. That copy is now mine to practically do as I please with. No reason to insert your opinion about how I just bought a license to use said game, I'm not talking about reverse engineering it here. I now own a copy of game and now I feel like streaming, game company should have no say about that in any form what so ever.

newuser0x0 posted...

Why do folks think that game companies deserve special treatment?

If you were a race car driver and you won a race using Hoosier tires do you think that you should have to give them a cut of your winnings?

As far as letting folks see the story of a story based game, do you think that there shouldn't be public libraries where people can read just about any books for free? How about after I beat a game, do you think I shouldn't be able to tell a friend the entire story in detail if they asked me to because they don't want to play it?

Lets say you throw a party and you decide to put some music on that you bought, would you go around to everyone in earshot and ask them to kick in a buck for each song so you can send that money to whoever you bought your music from?

When I buy a game my obligation to a game company is complete. They created a product and I purchased it. That copy is now mine to practically do as I please with. No reason to insert your opinion about how I just bought a license to use said game, I'm not talking about reverse engineering it here. I now own a copy of game and now I feel like streaming, game company should have no say about that in any form what so ever.

Those examples are different. A video game is different from a tire because it provides copyrighted content beyond just a logo. People profit off of streaming games, and why should they be allowed to do that when it's not their product or IP?
---

newuser0x0 posted...

Why do folks think that game companies deserve special treatment?

If you were a race car driver and you won a race using Hoosier tires do you think that you should have to give them a cut of your winnings?

As far as letting folks see the story of a story based game, do you think that there shouldn't be public libraries where people can read just about any books for free? How about after I beat a game, do you think I shouldn't be able to tell a friend the entire story in detail if they asked me to because they don't want to play it?

Lets say you throw a party and you decide to put some music on that you bought, would you go around to everyone in earshot and ask them to kick in a buck for each song so you can send that money to whoever you bought your music from?

When I buy a game my obligation to a game company is complete. They created a product and I purchased it. That copy is now mine to practically do as I please with. No reason to insert your opinion about how I just bought a license to use said game, I'm not talking about reverse engineering it here. I now own a copy of game and now I feel like streaming, game company should have no say about that in any form what so ever.

Do you also believe that if you buy a movie you should be able to stream it? If not, why are games different than movies? If yes, lol.

nclrwntr posted...

newuser0x0 posted...

Why do folks think that game companies deserve special treatment?

If you were a race car driver and you won a race using Hoosier tires do you think that you should have to give them a cut of your winnings?

As far as letting folks see the story of a story based game, do you think that there shouldn't be public libraries where people can read just about any books for free? How about after I beat a game, do you think I shouldn't be able to tell a friend the entire story in detail if they asked me to because they don't want to play it?

Lets say you throw a party and you decide to put some music on that you bought, would you go around to everyone in earshot and ask them to kick in a buck for each song so you can send that money to whoever you bought your music from?

When I buy a game my obligation to a game company is complete. They created a product and I purchased it. That copy is now mine to practically do as I please with. No reason to insert your opinion about how I just bought a license to use said game, I'm not talking about reverse engineering it here. I now own a copy of game and now I feel like streaming, game company should have no say about that in any form what so ever.

Do you also believe that if you buy a movie you should be able to stream it? If not, why are games different than movies? If yes, lol.

Games are different than movies because they're usually highly interactive. Visual Novels don't really count as games, as there's no gameplay beyond choosing a certain dialogue option. If we call that gameplay, we might as well call choose-your-own-adventure books games as well, but those are books and not games. Video games and movies are completely different mediums, despite how developers these days are trying so hard to blur the lines. Thus, this question of "Do you also believe that if you buy a movie you should be able to stream it?" is irrelevant and not a good comparison.
---

My opinion is: I don't want to pay money for things sometimes
---

newuser0x0 posted...

Why do folks think that game companies deserve special treatment?

If you were a race car driver and you won a race using Hoosier tires do you think that you should have to give them a cut of your winnings?

As far as letting folks see the story of a story based game, do you think that there shouldn't be public libraries where people can read just about any books for free? How about after I beat a game, do you think I shouldn't be able to tell a friend the entire story in detail if they asked me to because they don't want to play it?

Lets say you throw a party and you decide to put some music on that you bought, would you go around to everyone in earshot and ask them to kick in a buck for each song so you can send that money to whoever you bought your music from?

When I buy a game my obligation to a game company is complete. They created a product and I purchased it. That copy is now mine to practically do as I please with. No reason to insert your opinion about how I just bought a license to use said game, I'm not talking about reverse engineering it here. I now own a copy of game and now I feel like streaming, game company should have no say about that in any form what so ever.

I would imagine that car racing is the same as any sport when it comes to agreements between participants and companies that makes equipment. Sometimes, money is involved in the agreement.

Legally there is an agreement between libraries and publishing companies. Most libraries are nonprofit, publishers are able to use the agreement as a tax right-off as a donation. (There have been legal battles between publishers and authors over this).

The music at a party is the same as playing a movie or video game around friends. In copyright laws this is a grey area, but hard to enforce so companies don't bother with it. However, there have been instances of sharing movies,music, video game play online that has gone to court. It is much easier for these companies to argue that it cuts into the profits they could make off their respective properties when they are mass shared.
---

A topic about the poll?!? What do you think this place is?
---

Simple, games are purchased to be played. Watching some one play it doesn't give you the ability to play it with out paying for it. The rights of the video game company to sell their product isn't impacted.

It would be like streaming a game of Monopoly.

"Games are different than movies because they're usually highly interactive. Visual Novels don't really count as games, as there's no gameplay beyond choosing a certain dialogue option. If we call that gameplay, we might as well call choose-your-own-adventure books games as well, but those are books and not games. Video games and movies are completely different mediums, despite how developers these days are trying so hard to blur the lines. Thus, this question of "Do you also believe that if you buy a movie you should be able to stream it?" is irrelevant and not a good comparison."

I was generally curious as to why a majority of people thought it is ok to stream a game no matter what. The argument quoted above doesn't really follow any logic then I can see. You say that games are ok to stream because they are highly interactive. However, "visual novels" aren't because there isn't gameplay, yet you say you choose dialogue options. That sounds interactive to me. The question, do you believe that if you buy a movie and should be able to stream it, sounds like a perfectly relevant comparison to me. Your argument why they are not because one is more interactive than another is really extremely paper thin and I don't see it holding up against any legal pushback. I mean if streaming a game is ok, why not go the next logical step and say it is ok for me to copy games and make money selling them on the street? I think it is obvious that if a game company says they don't want their owned property to be streamed it is totally within their legal right to do that.

Drews1315 posted...

"Games are different than movies because they're usually highly interactive. Visual Novels don't really count as games, as there's no gameplay beyond choosing a certain dialogue option. If we call that gameplay, we might as well call choose-your-own-adventure books games as well, but those are books and not games. Video games and movies are completely different mediums, despite how developers these days are trying so hard to blur the lines. Thus, this question of "Do you also believe that if you buy a movie you should be able to stream it?" is irrelevant and not a good comparison."

I was generally curious as to why a majority of people thought it is ok to stream a game no matter what. The argument quoted above doesn't really follow any logic then I can see. You say that games are ok to stream because they are highly interactive. However, "visual novels" aren't because there isn't gameplay, yet you say you choose dialogue options. That sounds interactive to me. The question, do you believe that if you buy a movie and should be able to stream it, sounds like a perfectly relevant comparison to me. Your argument why they are not because one is more interactive than another is really extremely paper thin and I don't see it holding up against any legal pushback. I mean if streaming a game is ok, why not go the next logical step and say it is ok for me to copy games and make money selling them on the street? I think it is obvious that if a game company says they don't want their owned property to be streamed it is totally within their legal right to do that.

You neglected to mention the bit where I say in regards to choosing a dialogue option: "If we call that gameplay, we might as well call choose-your-own-adventure books games as well, but those are books and not games." Was that line to inconvenient for you to debunk?
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

My opinion is: I don't want to pay money for things sometimes

theif, THEIF!!!!!!
---

darcandkharg31 posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

My opinion is: I don't want to pay money for things sometimes

theif, THEIF!!!!!!

someone stole your spelling skills! oooooooh
---

nclrwntr posted...

Do you also believe that if you buy a movie you should be able to stream it? If not, why are games different than movies?

Because you buy games to play them. You buy movies to watch them. Streaming is watching.
---

"You neglected to mention the bit where I say in regards to choosing a dialogue option: "If we call that gameplay, we might as well call choose-your-own-adventure books games as well, but those are books and not games." Was that line to inconvenient for you to debunk?"
If you put them on a medium like a game is, then yes you could call them a game. It depends on how you parse the definition of a game. I mean, those telltale "games" are to me a choose your own adventure novels more or less but people call them games. Heck you could call all video games choose your own adventure novels for the most part if you wanted to. So no, that wasn't to hard to "debunk" as you put it but i'm not debunking anything. I'm just arguing that if a company doesn't want their product to be streamed without prior consent (game, audiobook, novel, art piece, whatever) it is in their right to ask of that. I think it is odd as consumers to say, "well I bought this so I can do the whatever the hell I want with this medium", which, as far as I'm aware, has been shown not to be the case.

Drews1315 posted...

"You neglected to mention the bit where I say in regards to choosing a dialogue option: "If we call that gameplay, we might as well call choose-your-own-adventure books games as well, but those are books and not games." Was that line to inconvenient for you to debunk?"
If you put them on a medium like a game is, then yes you could call them a game. It depends on how you parse the definition of a game. I mean, those telltale "games" are to me a choose your own adventure novels more or less but people call them games. Heck you could call all video games choose your own adventure novels for the most part if you wanted to. So no, that wasn't to hard to "debunk" as you put it but i'm not debunking anything. I'm just arguing that if a company doesn't want their product to be streamed without prior consent (game, audiobook, novel, art piece, whatever) it is in their right to ask of that. I think it is odd as consumers to say, "well I bought this so I can do the whatever the hell I want with this medium", which, as far as I'm aware, has been shown not to be the case.

But you haven't debunked it. You've only proven that your definitions of "book" and "video game" are warped (saying that you can call all video games choose your own adventure novels? Lol), and want everyone to conform to them.

The Telltale games are indeed closer to books and Visual Novels, but they do have more gameplay than either with very brief minigames determining whether or not you are successful in carrying out an action at points. A straight up visual novel does not even have those minigames, and thus while the Telltale games are close to VNs, they are not VNs/books.
---

The publisher getting a cut of any revenue actually seems like it would be win-win for everyone, and I can't really think of a good reason why they shouldn't get that. A video game is not the same as a movie, but it's also not the same as a tire.
---

I have no issue if a publisher wants to block it, especially in games that are heavy on story. Don't like it? Tough shit.

If it's a competitive game then cool, as nothing is being spoiler and watching people play will likely lead to more people buying the game.

But streaming an RPG and allowing others see the whole game play out is more than likely to decrease overall sales.

It's their content, they created it so they should be able to control how it's distributed, especially if it loses them money.
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

My opinion is: I don't want to pay money for things sometimes

Then you can't have those things.
---

I'm not one for watching video game streams so my views may be incorrect but I'd figure streaming would be beneficial for a game with it being like an extended trailer that's publicized by someone playing it. I could understand why a company may have an issue since it is someone making money off it from their product but unless people are actually not buying a game because they can see someone else do the playthrough it seems more of a win win than anything.
---

I would say if the streaming companies didn't generate any revenue from the streamed content then Stream away. However if you make money off of copyrighted material then a fee should be set. I mean Music streaming services charge a fee so how is that any different than a video game
---

mrhappyguy12345 posted...

I have no issue if a publisher wants to block it, especially in games that are heavy on story. Don't like it? Tough s***.

That's about where I sit. I don't feel that it's generally a problem, for the most part, and I think that a number of publishers (*coughnintendocough*) could stand to be more lenient about it, but if a publisher doesn't want their game streamed, for whatever reason, I think that should be respected.
---

RCtheWSBC posted...

darcandkharg31 posted...

RCtheWSBC posted...

My opinion is: I don't want to pay money for things sometimes

theif, THEIF!!!!!!

someone stole your spelling skills! oooooooh

*lies Smackdowned*

I'll get you for this!

*shakes fist.*
---