Current Events > Ex AC dev says Streamers need to pay DEVs.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://twitter.com/BangBangClick/status/1319305553454288896

---

This guy's a dumbass

---

streaming games they didn't pay for

???

---

Content transformation is a settled subject

---

That guy is a creative director at Stadia if anyone was curious

---

I mean it makes logical sense.

And yet those streamers are playing it for free because PR gave them copies for publicity.

So it's kinda way too little too late to try and change this now.

---

He has a point

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

He has a point

No he doesnt.

They either buy the game or the developers give them the game for free for publicity purposes. Its free advertising.
---

he does actually have a point

---

Gwynevere posted...

streaming games they didn't pay for

???

As in they didn't pay for the rights to use it for their content.

If I buy a drake album that doesn't mean I can use his music in my videos or streams without getting a copyright strike

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

That guy is a creative director at Stadia if anyone was curious

this is not quite true

https://twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/1319367395723649024

but also this lol https://twitter.com/Whatleydude/status/1319420750768517121

---

He's probably only had 3 sex partners

---

Guerrilla Soldier posted...

he does actually have a point

Nah he doesn't really. Game streaming is literally free advertisement. Saying the publishers aren't getting anything from streamers is a blatant lie.

---

I hate when people I disagree with are right!

---

Go to a different company if you don't feel you're being compensated. These people bought the game at a fair price (dictated by their boss), and feel entitled to more.. maybe stream it yourself?

---

I mean, he has a point. You have to pay a licensing fee for damn near any other kind of media if you want to stream it legally.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

As in they didn't pay for the rights to use it for their content.

If I buy a drake album that doesn't mean I can use his music in my videos or streams without getting a copyright strike

Its not like the streamers are giving people the game for free or letting people play the game for free. The streamer is the only one actually consuming the media.

With movies and music, you consume by watching/listening. Youre not actually playing the game when you watch a streamer.

He doesnt have a point unless you love big government and want to restrict everything.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

No he doesnt.

They either buy the game or the developers give them the game for free for publicity purposes. Its free advertising.

Sure, which is probably why this hasn't already been clamped down on(which he said)

That doesn't really invalidate anything he said though

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

No he doesnt.

They either buy the game or the developers give them the game for free for publicity purposes. Its free advertising.

I think this developer is probably looking towards the music model. Every time a song is played on a radio station, that radio has to pay royalties to the artist because that station is making money through the use of that song. A TV station can't air episodes of a show without buying syndication rights and paying the creators for the right to broadcast it.

Similarly, streamers are making money off of broadcasting media developed by other people, but they don't have to pay the royalties that a radio station does, or buy a license to use a song like a TV show might for a scene.

The argument is basically that if your profit is derived from broadcasting somebody else's entertainment media, then you should probably be paying royalties towards that creator.

The reality is that none of the laws and regulations surrounding traditional media like radio or television have been updated to account for the internet, so it's all up in the air.

---

16-BITTER posted...

He doesn't mean they didnt pay for a copy of the game, he means they should have to pay an additional licensing fee to record themselves playing a game, the way you need a license to screen a movie or play a song on the radio or record a cover, use a sample etc.

More greedy red tape tbh

True. But PR still often give these games for free to big streamers. Which is also unique to video games. I don't inherently disagree with him really but I think it's too late and the market has spoken already.

---

There's a huge difference between streaming a game and streaming song or movie that I feel like some of you aren't quite grasping lol
---

What a fuckwit.

---

Other kind of media isn't controlled by the streamer. You can't just pop in Mario Maker and expect your audience to be entertained like you can with Lord of the Rings. The streamer has to control the content themself and their play session will be unique as media content from any other streamer's. This is content transformation and fair use.

---

smoke_break posted...

I mean, he has a point. You have to pay a licensing fee for damn near any other kind of media if you want to stream it legally.

Other media isn't interactive. I don't have to pay royalties to Yamaha for playing instruments on stream.

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Its not like the streamers are giving people the game for free or letting people play the game for free. The streamer is the only one actually consuming the media.

With movies and music, you consume by watching/listening. Youre not actually playing the game when you watch a streamer.

He doesnt have a point unless you love big government and want to restrict everything.

If I play a 30 second clip from a two hour movie or a 4 minute song on my video did my audience really get to consume that media?

I'm not saying i'm for copyright striking streamers. But he's right about there being a double standard when it comes to games

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Other media isn't interactive. I don't have to pay royalties to Yamaha for playing instruments on stream.

lol

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

If I play a 30 second clip from a two hour movie or a 4 minute song on my video did my audience really get to consume that media?

I'm not saying i'm for copyright striking streamers. But he's right about there being a double standard when it comes to games

I thought it's free game (lol I'm funny) if you actively comment on it?

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

If I play a 30 second clip from a two hour movie or a 4 minute song on my video did my audience really get to consume that media?

I'm not saying i'm for copyright striking streamers. But he's right about there being a double standard when it comes to games

Copyright striking is fucked, but we should be tilting it in FAVOR of the streamers, not the megacorps lmao.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

As in they didn't pay for the rights to use it for their content.

If I buy a drake album that doesn't mean I can use his music in my videos or streams without getting a copyright strike

Stupid comparison. Watching a game isn't playing a game. You can't use music because listening to music is listening to music. A more apt comparison would be that you can post the lyrics to a song wherever you want, which is part of a song but not listening to a song, just like you can show people a game as much as you like but you can't let them play it as much as you like.

---

s0nicfan posted...

I think this developer is probably looking towards the music model. Every time a song is played on a radio station, that radio has to pay royalties to the artist because that station is making money through the use of that song. A TV station can't air episodes of a show without buying syndication rights and paying the creators for the right to broadcast it.

Similarly, streamers are making money off of broadcasting media developed by other people, but they don't have to pay the royalties that a radio station does, or buy a license to use a song like a TV show might for a scene.

The argument is basically that if your profit is derived from broadcasting somebody else's entertainment media, then you should probably be paying royalties towards that creator.

The reality is that none of the laws and regulations surrounding traditional media like radio or television have been updated to account for the internet, so it's all up in the air.

Thats dumb af.

The people watching the streamer arent consuming the game. Theyre consuming the streamers charisma and them playing the game. Streaming is just free advertising for games anyway.

Hey that game looks fun, I should buy it myself or hey I wanna play Fortnite like Ninja, mommy/daddy I want CC info for skins/battle pass is free marketing for games that developers literally have to either do nothing for or give out a copy of the game to said streamer. Who usually spend money on skins and whatnot themselves, so theyre still paying the developers somewhat.

Maybe if the game was strictly CYOA with only cutscenes or something like that, you might have some point, but thats not the majority of games in the slightest.
---

Personally my only real issue with streaming is that it's way more beneficial for multiplayer games than single player games and it's yet another advantage that multiplayer games have so I wouldn't be opposed to single player games getting a cut of game streams to support more types of games that personally appeal to me more.

But it's not realistic and it is what it is.

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

If I play a 30 second clip from a two hour movie or a 4 minute song on my video did my audience really get to consume that media?

I'm not saying i'm for copyright striking streamers. But he's right about there being a double standard when it comes to games

Generally shit like that has copyright/trademark laws already so yes, you consumed the media.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

Thats dumb af.

The people watching the streamer arent consuming the game. Theyre consuming the streamers charisma and them playing the game. Streaming is just free advertising for games anyway.

Hey that game looks fun, I should buy it myself or hey I wanna play Fortnite like Ninja, mommy/daddy I want CC info for skins/battle pass is free marketing for games that developers literally have to either do nothing for or give out a copy of the game to said streamer. Who usually spend money on skins and whatnot themselves, so theyre still paying the developers somewhat.

Maybe if the game was strictly CYOA with only cutscenes or something like that, you might have some point, but thats not the majority of games in the slightest.

I agree that the work a streamer does in generating enterainment is a factor, but "free PR" isn't a good argument. Just ask any band or artist that had to take unpaid gigs "for the exposure". An artist deserves compensation for their work, regardless of how much taking it and using it without paying them to make a profit "gives them free marketing."

---

If I hadn't watched Vinesauce stream Hyrule Warriors, A Robot Named Fight and Hand of Fate 2, I never would have picked up those games. And fuck, I probably never would have gotten into Blur or King Gizzard and the Lizard Wizard either - since Vinny flauts the copyrighted music rule and lets his VODs get muted.

Streamers can be effective tastemakers. If you like the personality and you like the look of the game they're playing, or if you've found a streamer with similar tastes to yourself and you trust their judgement enough to follow their purchasing habits, streamers can boost game sales by exposing their audience to things they might have never taken a chance on otherwise.

I bet this guy would say that buying secondhand games is akin to piracy, too.

---

He's technically right, however I think publishers are well aware of the effect streamers have on sales and how bad it would make them look if they tried to collect

---

Kind of agree with him tbh.

Well Alex Hutchinson owes me 5 million dollars for wasting my valuable time.

---

s0nicfan posted...

I agree that the work a streamer does in generating enterainment is a factor, but "free PR" isn't a good argument. Just ask any band or artist that had to take upaid gigs "for the exposure". An artist deserves compensation for their work, regardless of how much taking it and using it without paying them to make a profit "gives them free marketing."

They did get compensated; by the streamer buying the game/in-game items. Only time they dont is when they give the streamer the game for free. And thats not the streamers fault.

Again, music and movies are different than games. You consume that media by listening and watching those. You consume games by playing them. Youre not playing them when you watch the streamer.

I dont know how this nuance is so hard for people to understand.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

That guy is a creative director at Stadia if anyone was curious

Lmao

---

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

Stupid comparison. Watching a game isn't playing a game. You can't use music because listening to music is listening to music. A more apt comparison would be that you can post the lyrics to a song wherever you want, which is part of a song but not listening to a song, just like you can show people a game as much as you like but you can't let them play it as much as you like.

Are we just going to pretend the story being told through a single player experiance isn't a huge draw to some games?

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Are we just going to pretend the story being told through a single player experiance isn't a huge draw to some games?

It is but there's still the whole GAME part of it. Let's take Life is Strange for example. If I watched someone else stream it, they'd likely make different decisions than me and even if they didn't, their reasoning could be completely different than mine.

---

A huge difference between a game or movie/song is games are literally already just a license to use it. They all include a EULA.
---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

They did get compensated; by the streamer buying the game/in-game items. Only time they dont is when they give the streamer the game for free. And thats not the streamers fault.

Again, music and movies are different than games. You consume that media by listening and watching those. You consume games by playing them. Youre not playing them when you watch the streamer.

I dont know how this nuance is so hard for people to understand.

There's plenty of nuance here. For example, if you 100% believed in your own position you should theoretically have no issue with someone spoiling a game's plot because you didn't yet play it yourself. But my guess is someone spoiling a game's ending pisses you off even though you can still play it. Because you recognize the value of the story outside of the gameplay.

And again, broadcasting something is distinctly different from simply buying it and consuming it as an individual. That's literally why broadcast rights exist. The key difference is in someone making a profit using someone else's works. A radio song playing in the background of a TV show still requires royalties even though the TV show itself is derivative media, even if you only use a clip. There's an entire market for "sound-alike" royalty free stock music specifically to get around this issue.

So yes, this is a more nuanced issue than "lol guys the streamer leads to kids buying cosmetics".

---

Lol at this being the most talked about Stadia thing despite their three day event this week. Stadia just can't catch a break.

---

it's not really about the experience, it's about the use of someone else's content to make money off of.

if a big budget movie includes clips of a game, no matter who's playing it or what, they need to pay money to have that shown. how is this any different for streaming?

---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Are we just going to pretend the story being told through a single player experiance isn't a huge draw to some games?

No of course not. If you're playing a game like firewatch or phoenix wright you should absolutely not get to just stream the whole thing but games like this are an extreme minority and almost no one ever tries to stream them in the first place.

---

dave_is_slick posted...

It is but there's still the whole GAME part of it. Let's take Life is Strange for example. If I watched someone else stream it, they'd likely make different decisions than me and even if they didn't, their reasoning could be completely different than mine.

Those games are pretty linear with a thin superficial illusion of choice. You'd still get the over arching story from watching someone else play it.

Look, I understand your point but game publishers still own the creative license to their publications. Im definitly not a copyright lawyer but I doubt there's a clause that negates that for interactive media.

---

s0nicfan posted...

There's plenty of nuance here. For example, if you 100% believed in your own position you should theoretically have no issue with someone spoiling a game's plot because you didn't yet play it yourself. But my guess is someone spoiling a game's ending pisses you off even though you can still play it. Because you recognize the value of the story outside of the gameplay.

And again, broadcasting something is distinctly different from simply buying it and consuming it as an individual. That's literally why broadcast rights exist. The key difference is in someone making a profit using someone else's works. A radio song playing in the background of a TV show still requires royalties even though the TV show itself is derivative media, even if you only use a clip. There's an entire market for "sound-alike" royalty free stock music specifically to get around this issue.

So yes, this is a more nuanced issue than "lol guys the streamer leads to kids buying cosmetics".

Spoiling a game is different than watching a streamer. If youre actively watching the streamer and get mad because you got spoiled, thats on you. Thats different than if someone walking down the street spoils the game out of nowhere. Again, thats a shitty comparison.

Movies and music you consume by just listening and watching. Youre not playing the game when you watch a streamer. Get this though your skull.
---

This would kill small time Lets Players who can't afford licenses. We would just have the major people left