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

(+) Yeah! (+)

Also, where does this leave roguelike games where the experience is different every time? Where someone might watch a stream of it and go "wow, that looks fun as fuck, I'm gonna get it too"?

---

@Darmik posted...

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.

It makes no sense.

People do not watch a stream for the game because there are tons of streamers playing the game with no views.

The big streamers he thinks need his content can do anything and pull in the same numbers. People literally

Watch them sleep.

What does his game have to do with the sleeping? Correct

Abso
Lutely
Nothing

Conclusion if using logic.

People are watching said streamer do literally anything and they just happen to want to play said game.

Big corps are greedy and devoid of logic aside from "please believe I need more money" and seeing users like you buy into total bs is hard to see

Eh. In the end kids these days are more loyal to their streamers than they are to gaming companies imo. If a company starts charging licensing, the streamer will move on to games that don't have that issue and their audience won't care. If this happens industry wide, it'll probably mean the death of "authenticity" in streaming as companies refuse licensing deals with streamers that "don't fit their brand" or something.

And what I'm willing to bet is that para social streaming would remain popular, but it would move away from gaming.

---

sktgamer_13dude posted...

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.

Thats true but I dont think it really changes much. The issue isnt so much that youre getting the experience of the game, its just that youre using someone elses intellectual property to make money.

Zikten posted...

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

I think it would probably be more of a royalties type of deal if this sort of thing were to ever actually be enforced, which I doubt it will anytime soon tbh.

As has been said streamers are basically advertising, especially for multiplayer ftp games like fortnight that just want to get people to play and maybe buy some skins

---

Greedy corporations. What's new?

---

Let'd look at it another way.

Irl streamers like yuggie go to a store or amusement park and use that as content.

Should they have to pay for the privilege at say a McDonalds because people are obviously watching her stream to see her in a McDonalds?

You know what?

I am glad twitch is owned by Bezos.

Tbh, people will buy into this stupid idea but it will never win in a court because Bezos will kill it.

Maybe they will sue this guy if it hurts their reputation.

To think corporate greed for once actually is sorta on the consumer and little guy's side.
Ironic

darkphoenix181 posted...

Let'd look at it another way.

Irl streamers like yuggie go to a store or amusement park and use that as content.

Should they have to pay for the privilege at say a McDonalds because people are obviously watching her stream to see her in a McDonalds?

It's private property so they have the right to ask them to leave if they don't stop filming/streaming. Whether they want to enforce that or not is up to them

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

Let'd look at it another way.

Irl streamers like yuggie go to a store or amusement park and use that as content.

Should they have to pay for the privilege at say a McDonalds because people are obviously watching her stream to see her in a McDonalds?

I think youre supposed to get permission before filming in businesses. So technically yes? If they want to ask for money.

darkphoenix181 posted...

You know what?

I am glad twitch is owned by Bezos.

Tbh, people will buy into this stupid idea but it will never win in a court because Bezos will kill it.

Maybe they will sue this guy if it hurts their reputation.

To think corporate greed for once actually is sorta on the consumer and little guy's side.
Ironic

Even big daddy bezos isn't above the law

---

Like damn, imagine simping for a hundred billion dollar industry like that. Imagine taking the word of a AAA developer, who's working on one of the most superfluous and anti-consumer gaming devices in gaming history, at face value against a practice that has helped drive sales for far smaller titles for years.

Millions of people around the world are still buying Borderlands and Grand Theft Auto despite the legions of people who stream those games. They're still making enough profit to make the gaming industry bigger than the movie and music industry combined. People are still buying Fallout and Assassin's Creed games to the point that they're massively successful.

Do you know who benefits the most from streaming? Indie developers. People like Jeff Bitner, who created A Robot Named Fight. Developers like Defiant Development, an Australian devteam who made Hand of Fate. Among Us has been around since 2018, and only now through streaming has their game blown the fuck up.

This take, to me, reads like a greedy game exec who's pissed off because they can't monetize something they have no right to. Even though people will buy these blockbuster games regardless of streamers and play it themselves, despite the fact that enough streamers having enough fun with their game will encourage their watchers to buy it themselves, and despite the positive effects streaming has on indie games - the narrative is now "you should pay for a game all over again and get a streaming license if you want to enjoy our game in front of a crowd". How is that different from EA's online passes, where you had to pay $10 to access their online services if you bought a game secondhand? It's greed, plain and simple.

And I think that's evidenced by the person pushing this idea being a Google stooge who graduated from Ubisoft's biggest AAA game franchise, as opposed to a smaller game dev. Fuck him.

---

Didn't Among Us only get popular because of streamers? I think Amnesia was also made popular by streaming.

---

MrMallard posted...

Like damn, imagine simping for a hundred billion dollar industry like that. Imagine taking the word of a AAA developer, who's working on one of the most superfluous and anti-consumer gaming devices in gaming history, at face value against a practice that has helped drive sales for far smaller titles for years.

Millions of people around the world are still buying Borderlands and Grand Theft Auto despite the legions of people who stream those games. They're still making enough profit to make the gaming industry bigger than the movie and music industry combined. People are still buying Fallout and Assassin's Creed games to the point that they're massively successful.

Do you know who benefits the most from streaming? Indie developers. People like Jeff Bitner, who created A Robot Named Fight. Developers like Defiant Development, an Australian devteam who made Hand of Fate. Among Us has been around since 2018, and only now through streaming has their game blown the fuck up.

This take, to me, reads like a greedy game exec who's pissed off because they can't monetize something they have no right to. Even though people will buy these blockbuster games regardless of streamers and play it themselves, despite the fact that enough streamers having enough fun with their game will encourage their watchers to buy it themselves, and despite the positive effects streaming has on indie games - the narrative is now "you should pay for a game all over again and get a streaming license if you want to enjoy our game in front of a crowd". How is that different from EA's online passes, where you had to pay $10 to access their online services if you bought a game secondhand? It's greed, plain and simple.

And I think that's evidenced by the person pushing this idea being a Google stooge who graduated from Ubisoft's biggest AAA game franchise. Fuck him.

This is totally a fair point.

But wont people stream and watch that content regardless?

If a streamer has to pay royalties to all companies equally what difference in incentive is there to play a AAA title or an indie game? Its like how Nintendo cracked down hard on streaming a while ago with more ad sense/content ID stuff so fewer people played their games on streams and videos. If that had applied to everyone equally then no one is necessarily at a disadvantage? If Im wrong here I wont cry myself to sleep but is that not accurate?

ssjevot posted...

Didn't Among Us only get popular because of streamers? I think Amnesia was also made popular by streaming.

Which is why you probably won't see this happen. It gives competition an easy leg up

---

Intellectual property was a mistake

---

harley2280 posted...

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.

EULAs don't hold up in court. The Supreme Court has already ruled that an EULA that makes you sign your rights away isn't valid. I don't know if there has ever been a court case over digital games and owning it vs just purchasing a license to play it, but I can't imagine publishers will win that one without having to make it extremely clear upfront its just a license and not buried in some user agreement that no one ever reads.

---

Damn_Underscore posted...

Intellectual property was a mistake

Im doubtful you'd feel that way if you owned any of significant value

---

MrMallard posted...

Millions of people around the world are still buying Borderlands and Grand Theft Auto despite the legions of people who stream those games. They're still making enough profit to make the gaming industry bigger than the movie and music industry combined. People are still buying Fallout and Assassin's Creed games to the point that they're massively successful.

League would be a dead game without streaming.

Streaming made it not only still a thing in 2020 but made it one of the premier games of the past decade.

The publishers would be the ones being paid anything.

Streamers and publishers have a symbiotic relationship

---

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 controlling the narrative yourself vs watching it unfold for somebody else does leave a different impression. In What Remains of Edith Finch, I had seen it before playing it. And for me, being in control for the Gregory segment had a much stronger impact than when watching it.

Even more dramatic was in Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons. Digging your own brother's grave and moving his body yourself wouldn't have the same impact as just watching it happen. And the unique mechanic of each stick controlling a brother was unusual to say the least. Especially when it came time to cross a river at the end of the game. Younger brother can't swim. Older brother is dead. He just gets stuck at the edge of the water. Until it clicks that using the older brother's control stick gives him the courage to do it himself.

---

What a fucking moron

---

Gamerguymass posted...

EULAs don't hold up in court. The Supreme Court has already ruled that an EULA that makes you sign your rights away isn't valid. I don't know if there has ever been a court case over digital games and owning it vs just purchasing a license to play it, but I can't imagine publishers will win that one without having to make it extremely clear upfront its just a license and not buried in some user agreement that no one ever reads.

I think I recall a federal court (not scotus) ruled that cutscenes or other gameplay segments that take no input from the user are copyrightable but the transformative nature of the Interactive portions means it falls under fair use as no two people playing the game can have the exact same experience.

Thus you'll see most copyright strikes are done based on background music or other ways they can weasel around the fair use restrictions.

And it's why games like Minecraft became super ridiculously popular for streaming.

---

I agree with the stance that while he's technically right, its way too late to change that now and the first dev/publisher to do that will be on the losing end.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

Thus you'll see most copyright strikes are done based on background music or other ways they can weasel around the fair use restrictions

I feel bad because I can't remember which recent game had the option, but it was a godsend for streams. The developers put a option in the menu to disable copyrighted music during gameplay. To me, it shows that this company, at the least, has no problem with people streaming their game. In fact, it indirectly shows they support them by making it harder for demonetization/video removal on youtube to happen.

---

darkphoenix181 posted...

@

It makes no sense.

People do not watch a stream for the game because there are tons of streamers playing the game with no views.

The big streamers he thinks need his content can do anything and pull in the same numbers. People literally

Watch them sleep.

What does his game have to do with the sleeping? Correct

Abso
Lutely
Nothing

Conclusion if using logic.

People are watching said streamer do literally anything and they just happen to want to play said game.

Big corps are greedy and devoid of logic aside from "please believe I need more money" and seeing users like you buy into total bs is hard to see

He doesn't care about streamers or what they do. He just wants to have games have the same streaming rights as music. Which makes logical sense. Doesn't mean I agree with it or think it would work out.

---

Stalolin posted...

Its like how Nintendo cracked down hard on streaming a while ago with more ad sense/content ID stuff so fewer people played their games on streams and videos. If that had applied to everyone equally then no one is necessarily at a disadvantage?

The streamers as a whole are at a disadvantage. By introducing a pay gate to everything, they're disincentivised from streaming altogether because they're being forced to pay a superfluous additional fee that makes their hobby more expensive.

Like I'm not even talking about people who consider streaming their job - people stream for fun, too. That fee would kill off streaming as a hobby, which it always fundamentally has been - no-one in their right mind is going to start from scratch, paying for streaming licenses to enter a highly competitive entertainment market for fun. It would effectively act as a barrier of entry, which imo would ultimately cause streaming as a source of entertainment to stagnate.

---

MrMallard posted...

The streamers as a whole are at a disadvantage. By introducing a pay gate to everything, they're disincentivised from streaming altogether because they're being forced to pay a superfluous additional fee that makes their hobby more expensive.

Like I'm not even talking about people who consider streaming their job - people stream for fun, too. That fee would kill off streaming as a hobby, which it always fundamentally has been - no-one in their right mind is going to start from scratch, paying for streaming licenses to enter a highly competitive entertainment market for fun. It would effectively act as a barrier of entry, which imo would ultimately cause streaming as a source of entertainment to stagnate.

To clarify something I didnt explain well, I think to pay to play model as whatshisface suggests it is dumb - it should be a royalties/percentage of profits thing.

https://twitter.com/jack_septic_eye/status/1319472114899030018

Lol.

---

Whats AC in this context

either way wouldnt Stadia dev be more appropriate for the topic title lol

---

He has no legitimate point unless you support further corporate control over your lives

---

Darmik posted...

He just wants to have games have the same streaming rights as music. Which makes logical sense.

It doesn't make logical sense. Games are not music.

But if we are making the case that we can compare apples and oranges than I would say it makes logical sense that if an artist paints a picture and sells it, whoever buys it cannot show it off to others without paying for more viewing licenses.

I mean, you buy music and can't play it to hundreds of people on twitch, why can a museum buy my painting, charge entrance fee and not pay me for a licenese?

Quick google

Do museums pay artists for exhibiting their works? ... Museums do not pay artists for exhibiting their works. The exhibit acts as a promotional event for the artist that generates publicity and public interest for the artist which may well in turn gain collectors for the artist, and turn into sales following the exhibit.Jul 31, 2015

Eab1990 posted...

https://twitter.com/jack_septic_eye/status/1319472114899030018

Lol.

hahahahaha

SerperiorThanU posted...

Apparently he's one of those "western games are superior, people give Japan a pass because of their fetish" type people too

https://archive.vn/uxu3T

"Japanese stories are trash. Anyways, journalists are being racist."

what a fucking chud lmfao

---