Breaking Down The "Should Streamers Pay Developers" Controversy | The Escapist Show

  • Publisert Måned siden

    The Escapist

    Runtime: 29:31

    Join our NOsection Membership program for Early Access to videos, badges, emojis, bonus content and more. ►► nosection.info/goal/qg5FCR7NrpvlBWMXdt-5Vgjoin
    This week on The Escapist Show, Jack and Nick discuss the games they've been playing and then breakdown the big Twitter controversy from earlier in the week about whether or not streamers should pay developers for streaming their games.
    Timestamps
    The games we've been playing - 0:00 - 11:17
    Should streamers pay developers? - 11:18 - 29:30
    Subscribe to Escapist Magazine! ►► bit.ly/Sub2Escapist
    Want to see the next episode a week early? Check out www.escapistmagazine.com for the latest episodes of your favorite shows.
    ---

    ---

    Zero Punctuation Merch Store ►►teespring.com/stores/the-escapist-store
    Join us on Twitch ►► www.twitch.tv/escapistmagazine
    Like us on Facebook ►► EscapistMag
    Follow us on Twitter ►► EscapistMag

bananaempijama
bananaempijama

Ohhh now I realized Jack is Jack from redlettermedia lmao

9 dager siden
Scarlett Dale
Scarlett Dale

Google gives me all the music on Earth for 8 bucks, though for personal use. My guess is they'll sell Streaming Edition versions of games for 10-15 bucks more than base. Multiplied by the number of streamers and than multiplied again by the promotional. Personal scale licensing is probably the best model as it clarifies the economics without creating a major gate. There's no way they let this go minus any contract,so a shift is inevitable.

10 dager siden
Scarlett Dale
Scarlett Dale

Another possibility is an account subscription model. Problem is,which account? The obvious answer is Twitch, and it could happen. They would love it,cements their monopoly and they'll get a cut. I don't know if publishers would love it. It cedes a certain amount of control to a middle man. And one company could power move by acquiring Twitch and banning outside games. So Twitch execs are trying to convince everyone that they are both immutable and trustworthy enough to be a good middleman for the entire industry. I don't buy that argument at all, but gaming execs might. They do love monopolies, never imagining they'll be outside the structure.

9 dager siden
Nathaniel Robinson
Nathaniel Robinson

16:53 "The other part of Alex's thing that I think people really had a problem with is that once you start asking people that want to get into streaming to start paying licenses for all the games they want to play, that's a gatekeeping tactic, and only allows, you know, the bigger streamers to get bigger and the small streamers like don't have the capital to pay for these licenses." In software licensing, you often have tiered licenses. If it's just for personal use, sometimes it's free. If it's for 10 employees, that's a price. Then bigger and bigger licenses. The same idea could be applied here: Free or dirt cheap for up to 1,000 views or 10,000 hours of watch time for a game, then step up the pricing.

11 dager siden
Soren Ingraham
Soren Ingraham

I know some companies have in their terms of service or whatever contract you sign when you start playing that you can stream/make videos of the game, which is part of what led to the whole pewdie pie firewatch controversy

17 dager siden
Joshua Maurer
Joshua Maurer

I think you're giving Hutchinson too much credit. He sees streamers and content creators as parasites sucking away his money. This is about establishing publishers' rights, not creators' rights.

21 dag siden
Smart Smears
Smart Smears

I dont think anyone in the video or comments mentioned two things: Clearly revenue share/rules for streaming fails, the famously stingy Nintendo tried this and went back on it because it didn't even work for them. A lot of publishers actually pay people to stream their games, so clearly they see the value in it, trying to do the opposite almost seems counter productive, wanting to get paid to allow your game to be advertised

22 dager siden
Nudelaug Binideppat
Nudelaug Binideppat

I bought Dark Souls because of a speedrun I saw. And I will buy Resident Evil 2 Remastered, when I get a graphics card that can run it properly. But that's just me.

24 dager siden
Weekly Musical Shitposts
Weekly Musical Shitposts

The only way this will work is if Twitch shares the ad revenue with the publishers/developers. If streamers have to pay before they're able to stream, all of the small streamers will immediately leave the platform, and every big streamer was a small streamer at some point.

25 dager siden
KouriRyu
KouriRyu

Streamers should be paid by the companies for the free advertisement. Fortnite would have never been nearly as popular as it is now without streamers.

26 dager siden
Homer's Iliad
Homer's Iliad

Nick's sensitive.

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

20:50 if your game is such that a lets play being watched is the same as playing it, why not just sell a CD with the recording of the gameplay done by the developer? If the game is damaged by LPing then it is a waste of time effort and resources making it an actual object code game, just record the one true lets' play and send it out, cutting out all the bugs and patches and post-release support issues. Or are those actually experiences that are different when you watch a fixed recording, therefore the gameplay recording isn't actually the same as playing the game for yourself?

26 dager siden
vaen dryl
vaen dryl

big name streamers have been getting paid (really well!) by developers for a long time now. this whole argument is moot.

26 dager siden
tanner1ie
tanner1ie

In my view, if someone buys something legally (or plays something free to play) and then displays it, giving it more publicity and engages people in it, they ARE paying for it! I've certainly bought games i wouldn't have otherwise because i watched someone play them online 😃 .

27 dager siden
TheCreepypro
TheCreepypro

thanks for having a much more nuanced discussion on the topic of who should be paying who cause it is something that most people forget that there is no agreement in place and if you don't want someone to screw you over in the future legally you should have something in place even if that something takes a while to work toward

27 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

"Wrong" is not a nuance. There is nothing copyrighted being shown other than the performance of the player playing the game, nothing of the copyrighted game's copyrightable content is copied, copyright covers only some forms of copying and does NOT control your playing of the game, so you DO NOT need a license for it. You DON'T license the game, you BUY the game. EULAs are not a license, and don't even pertain to BE one, demanding as it does rights not controlled by copyright, making it a contract, but unlike a contract, has no consideration for the rights traded.

26 dager siden
MazeFrame
MazeFrame

To everyone argueing in favour of buying licenses: Go ahead. Buy a broadcast license for a handful of Sony music! Most copyright holders are not set up to license just a few songs to you, and you definetly do not have the budget to pay the fees. As for game publishers asking for license fees: Go ahead. Enjoy the PR costs. Wonder what that does to your 4.1 billion USD profit.

27 dager siden
Luminous Wings
Luminous Wings

Hey Jack, got a question here for you: What happened to the Slightly civil war episode on whether or not streamers should pay developers? It was on the escapist site a day or two ago and now it's vanished along with the accompanying podcast episode.

27 dager siden
The Escapist
The Escapist

There was no Slightly Civil War on that subject. This is the only video we made about it.

27 dager siden
Cameron Sours
Cameron Sours

I've purchased SOO many games that I discovered through streamers. 10+ at least. I think all of them were indy games.

28 dager siden
Broken Nose Boxing
Broken Nose Boxing

I like Jack

28 dager siden
Simon Singh
Simon Singh

Can we pitch to Twitter to change their character limit to a character minimum? So if you want to say something you have to actually explain yourself and attempt a good argument for it?

28 dager siden
Simon Singh
Simon Singh

@Mark Hackett Ur Right!

25 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

Yes this. (thereby proving your comment is wrong, sufficient discourse can be done in 9 characters)

25 dager siden
Daemonworks
Daemonworks

Also, for the most part streaming is transformative, and thus fair use. Viewers aren't just there to see the game, they're there for the streamers responces, commentary, etc.

28 dager siden
hussam abdelalim
hussam abdelalim

i get the music and movies because listening to the music is "consuming the product" watching the movie is "consuming the product" so it makes sense to be paying or getting payed to view or listen to it, but for games the main method of consuming the product is playing it so is vowing the game being played counts as "consuming the product" ?

28 dager siden
Andrew Hickinbottom
Andrew Hickinbottom

14th annual spider parade? I wanna know what Jack's tshirt says! PS, where's that supercut of the saturday spooky stream screams? PPS - those cringey 'streamer' stock video footage clips haha As for the hot topic, its tricky. Ive bought some games on the strength of watching streams, whereas many times, streams have prevented me from buying those games because i either didnt like the look of it, the game was badly recieved, or that i feel like ive seen everything it has to offer and dont want to play it myself.

28 dager siden
Quentin Melis
Quentin Melis

slightly civil war: Is Sekiro a soulsborne game?

28 dager siden
MrDalisclock
MrDalisclock

As a related question: Is SSI in Sekiro a dirty cheater and where did he get a Glock from in that time period?

25 dager siden
Jonathan Rodd
Jonathan Rodd

Can I say something? I am tired of game lore being on written tablets and scrolls that you collect. I never find that conducive to good storytelling. Anything that is story essential should not be told that way in this day and age. Not on a medium like gaming where you can have voice acting and stories told visually.

28 dager siden
ComGoBoo
ComGoBoo

So if I buy a hammer and make a video where I use that hammer, I should also pay the Hammer company a license fee, because their hammer happens to be in my video? And of course all of that profit would go to the guy in the factory in China who built that hammer, right? The company would do that, right? If you bought a product, it is yours to use and do with as you see fit. A building company doesn't have to pay the manufacturer of their equipment a fee when they charge a customer they built a house for. This is bullshit in my humble opinion.

28 dager siden
gameman876
gameman876

So I want to go on the record and say I don’t agree with Alex Hutchison but I see what he’s talking about. There are a few streamers who get free keys or codes from devs and publishers for far more of them a buying the actual game.

28 dager siden
gameman876
gameman876

@Mark Hackett I 100% agree with you.

20 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

I see what he's talking about. But it is BS. The playing of a game is a performance, and the recording of that performance is copyright to the one making the recording, NOBODY ELSE.

26 dager siden
\WooT
\WooT

Is youtube still losing money though? The article you show in the video is from 2015, I thought that in the recent years youtube have actually got to the turning point and is now making profit.

28 dager siden
patrick rocheleau
patrick rocheleau

Pro for permissions Ez protection from youtube copyright strikes Con smacks small time streamers down, promotes lack of variety in big streamer list Easy soloution- individual devs just say plz dont stream my game

28 dager siden
Gameplay Twist
Gameplay Twist

YouTube as you suggest should write rules down, should not do that.

28 dager siden
Larowyn
Larowyn

The funny thing about this argument is that the reverse situation (publishers paying streamers) has much more precedent. Remember Valorant and Apex Legends, when Riot and EA paid streamers to play their games for a couple of weeks? Two of the biggest names in gaming have already tacitly admitted that streamers are an invaluable avenue of advertising, not freeloaders getting rich off others' work. Gaming as a hobby is only growing year over year. If developers are not getting the money they deserve, that's a problem with the industry, namely publishers. Kinda convenient that this argument is demanding money from the people at the bottom of the industry, and not the people at the top...

28 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

The only reason why these companies can afford to make the games is because we gave them money for their previous release, therefore we, the customers, deserve a cut of the revenue from future sales that we helped them make a profit from!

26 dager siden
Ono matopoeia
Ono matopoeia

In a legal sense he's correct but if they exercised their rights, people would get their feelings hurt and that's omgterribad. Who needs rights when we would be preventing people from getting their jimmies rustled?

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

He is legally making crap up. They DON'T have that legal right. They can bring a lawsuit, but that doesn't require they have a legal right to money. You can sue EA for copyright infringement on things you don't own. You'd lose, but only because EA can outspend you.

25 dager siden
MonarchRigel
MonarchRigel

thanks for all the soup images Omar! keep up the hard work and thanks for the laugh!

29 dager siden
NekoiNemo
NekoiNemo

4:20 Jack on games that have absolutely nothing in common with Rogue: "No, i think they are definitely rogue-like and not rogue-lite". Jack on a game that is almost identical to DS: "there is a bit of an argument on whenever or not Sekiro is souls-like". Make you goddamn mind, Jack! XD 12:30 Twitch may make it pretty clear in the ToS, but since, unlike YouTube, they have never enforced it - literally nobody on the platform cared and most streamers turned their broadcasts in effectively pirate radios. Hence all the screeching you hear now that Twitch actually started enforcing the rule. 21:10 Why dogpiling? Jack's right. If your "game" has very little or no gameplay - you shouldn't classify it as "game". And if you still did - you have no right to complain about people stealing your revenue by playing it on video. 26:10 YouTube is actually barely taking anything from your ad income, when you you see the service they provide. Don't forget, YouTube has just barely got into the black in the last 3-4 years. Because turns out, running a service like that that is free to watch and open to everyone is a money black hole. Take a look at the competition - they are all of "no free viewing, subscription only, and you have to subscribe to each individual creator" model, and even with that, afaik, LMG's Floatplane barely breaks even and, what was it, "Weasel" went bankrupt after operating for merely 2-3 years. And those platforms have 0 discoverability, relying on the free-to-watch catalogue on YT to attract new users to the platform.

29 dager siden
Richard Mohan
Richard Mohan

Critic says nice thing about a video game: Publisher ignores it. Critic says bad thing about video game: We have to stop this! They shouldn't even be allowed to say the name of our game on video!! This has a decided greed and dishonest approach from the Publishers. They simply want the true advertising that people do about their games not to get out. And silly me, I assumed that this all fell under the Fair Use laws that were already in existence. Edit: I've seen some interesting things about this on books recently to, are we returning to a sue happy society or just making new leaps and bounds in the "you aren't allowed to give negative reviews" society?

29 dager siden
Xander Fulton
Xander Fulton

So if I were a streamer and I blew up playing an indie game, I absolutely would donate to the devs. Idk if it should be a law, but knowing now storefronts and publishers ripoff devs, I'd do it.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

That isn't what the problem is. You can donate to a charity helping out abused women, but do you want to be required by law to donate to that charity?

25 dager siden
zeophen
zeophen

It has been over a month since I have watched it, but every time I see Jack I still hear him singing "Hoo hoo, hee hee, I poopoo and peepee!"

29 dager siden
wettymeister
wettymeister

here is may take: why not have streamers pay for a license to stream a game over the internet? it's free real estate ;)

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@wettymeister No, we aren't back in 2010 fighting youtube. Not only is the direction of time going in the other direction, nothing in "there is no requirement for people to pay to stream over the internet" would make any need to fight youtube over video game playthrough, etc. That can only happen because youtube wants to kick that stuff off, NOTHING to do with copyright, indeed if they kick your stuff off, you can demand that they lose the dual license right to your work and must delete it entirely or they would be infringing to the tune of $150k per infringed work of yours.

26 dager siden
wettymeister
wettymeister

@Mark Hackett and that's when the copyright strikes start and we're back in 2010 fighting youtube over video game playthrough videos and twitch streaming spoiler content. it's best the way it is now for both parties

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@wettymeister So what? Doesn't mean that they have to do any such payment to stream a game over the internet.

26 dager siden
wettymeister
wettymeister

@Mark Hackett true, but the fact that they haven't done so in 10 years doesn't mean they will. when they do, the backlash from the gamers will probably make them revert. just like how they tried putting adds in 2k games, then patching them out due to the outrage

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@wettymeister They can do so. Nothing about that changes the facts that the companies have no legal right or power to demand payment from streamers.

26 dager siden
Michael-Paul Thompson
Michael-Paul Thompson

Thing about this ridiculous copyright aryument is that we've already had this entire argument a decade ago. Youtube literally did this and if we have to do this with every service it's just gonna become another pathetic and tired part of being an internet critic that never becomes a serious thing for anyone except the new people.

29 dager siden
dynomar
dynomar

That NFL comment is way off the mark.

29 dager siden
WideVeed
WideVeed

I don't know how but for the last few months you guys have created a community that is willing to talk and discuss these topics with the civility they deserve. As to the drama at hand it doesn't really seem a drama to me, all the arguments are there, most people believe it's fair use and there's no good reason to put the burden on the streamers... I think the burden should always be put on the platforms but they just pass the responsibilities down and the content creators are the ones who always get the worst part of the deal

29 dager siden
The Escapist
The Escapist

Lots of moderation and we also don't create content that's intent on stirring up more drama, but breaking it down and actually talking about it if it's worth talking about. You have to cultivate a community to get these discussions and a lot of people are more than happy to just anything fly for bigger numbers and more engagement. That's not something I'd be happy running, personally. - Nick

29 dager siden
exarkann
exarkann

Shazbot!

29 dager siden
kilroy987
kilroy987

Nobody is interested in watching someone listen to music. But watching someone play a game, there's a real social element to that, and without the personality of the streamer to add to it, they wouldn't be popular. And it exposes people to the games, which might make people more likely to buy them. It's free advertising.

29 dager siden
Harm Geerts
Harm Geerts

Ah, the good old lost sale argument. I've bought games I've never played myself to show my support. I've also seen games online that I couldn't care less about but still watched because someone interesting was playing it. Without that person that game wouldn't even be on my radar.

29 dager siden
Night Cat
Night Cat

Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I watch the streamers I watch for the streamers, not for the games they happen to be playing. I've watched so many hours of Among Us now, despite it being an AS nightmare, because I enjoy watching the people who are streaming it. I've watched a great many streams of truly terrible games because the streamers playing them make them funny. The streamers are worth more to me than the games I'm seeing them play, & for the few games that do appeal enough for me to invest in them monetarily, I'd often not have known of their existence without having seen them being streamed. This is especially extra true of smaller indie titles that don't have the marketing budget to get chatter going about them. If I really like them, I will also recommend them in stream chats & comments so that others can buy them & enjoy them too. Streamers already buy the game, the bigger ones also already buy things like DLC & microtransactions to show off (often paying in a lot more than your average gamer), the big publishers don't lose any sales from streaming (not that any money would go to devs under them anyway), & the smaller studios gain a lot of free advertising from streams of their games, & experiencing a game for yourself is a fundamentally different experience to watching somebody else experience it (unlike with films, music, & other passive media). Every cogent argument out there goes against the idea that streamers should have to pay to play games &, quite frankly, the idea that this issue is worth discussing is a bit stupid, given the state of the games industry & its already out of control avarice.

29 dager siden
Rudeboy John
Rudeboy John

I owned 2 companies for a total of 8 years. Both successful. Let's apply the gaming industry's logic: I made shirts with my company logo. I designed it. I wore them. Employees wore them. Customers liked them, so they wore them. That was advertising and word of mouth that generated thousands in sales. Game Industry logic then tells me to charge customers for these shirts. Then charge them again for a license to show the logo on said shirts Suuuuure... Seems like a winning plan that customers will go out of their way to adopt

29 dager siden
Parscuit
Parscuit

Read the lore in a fuckin voice, you dunces. If you're streaming, you are offering your personality tied to playing games for people who might enjoy to watch your personality comment and react to a game, INCLUDING reading the lore. Maybe in a silly voice, or just narrating it? Viewers CAN handle sitting for a minute or two listening to some lore being read. Or they wouldn't want to watch the stream in the first place if they don't want to hear the personality and game go hand in hand. As a streamer you don't just sit and silently stare at the gameplay and silently read the lore. You could play the whole game that way too, but you don't. Or you might as well just not stream it. I hate that damn argument that you can't read lore on a stream. I hate the pressure on streamers and let's players to rush past lore and rush through everything that isn't just straight gameplay. I don't watch streamers and let's players for just the gameplay, I could just play it myself. I love hearing commentary and thoughts from the people I admire.

29 dager siden
StuRoRo
StuRoRo

Software which is used to generate money is normally more expensive than the home version. For example MS Office for the home can be got for about £100 while a corporate licence isn't just a little more but but several times more. The reason behind this is a corporation will use the software to make money,

29 dager siden
StuRoRo
StuRoRo

@Mark Hackett This is from a government website You automatically get copyright protection when you create: original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic work, including illustration and photography original non-literary written work, such as software, web content and databases How copyright protects your work Copyright prevents people from: copying your work distributing copies of it, whether free of charge or for sale renting or lending copies of your work performing, showing or playing your work in public making an adaptation of your work putting it on the internet A game is an original piece of work. Streaming the game is "performing, showing or playing your work in a public place" And yes, comedians have been sued for stealing even a single joke.

25 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@StuRoRo So as well as not knowing how copyright works, you don't know anything about comedians or the stand up circuit. Got it. A book of jokes is copyrightable. Telling that joke is not, nor does it require a license to do so. Same for playing games.

25 dager siden
StuRoRo
StuRoRo

​@Mark Hackett If you tell one joke you heard from another comedian, you're just a crap comedian who cant create original content. If you use jokes written in a book, which the copyright is owned by a person or company, performing any part of it (ie a unique joke) without permission is copyright infringement. Your analogy is the same as a band do all their own songs but then do one cover and saying that isn't copyright infringement. It is. That band needs permission to perform that song, but its up to the copyright owner whether they wish pursue the copyright infringement legally. Two theatres can put on the same play. Both can result in completely different performances due to different approaches in artistic and directorial interpretations of the text. Even though both a separate performances, they are using the same copyright source material, which they need permission to perform to an audience. Permission is granted through royalties. That is why I can buy the script of a play for a few $, but if I wish to perform the play it could cost thousands, and costs all depends on how big the theatre is and how many performances, time of performances and even where in the country it is. The fact is, if you want to publicly show the play and make money from it, the copyright owners want a slice of it too. If streaming gameplay is classed as a performance one streamer's performance is different to the next, but it is a performance based on source material, the world, environment, characters, storyline, lore, sound, music and vision owned and copyright owned by someone or something and again it is up to the copyright owners if they wish to pursue infringement. Read the terms and conditions of a game. If you buy the game, you do not OWN the game. The game is owned by the publishers. You are granted a licence to use/play the game within their terms and conditions.

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@StuRoRo And if you perform all your own work???? Your starting exclamation has no more relevance to this situation than does mine. The material you are performing is your own, you bought the game. IF you record you playing a pirated game, THEN it would be "perform someone else's (well, not YOUR) material". But this too is covered in copyrights (as in not part of copyright). If I tell a joke heard from another comedian and record my stand up routine, I have not broken any copyrights owned by the "original comedian".

26 dager siden
StuRoRo
StuRoRo

@Mark Hackett and if you perform someone else's material???? Put some videos if you doing Beatle covers and see how long they last.

26 dager siden
lostfan10000
lostfan10000

Pretty sure the publishers haven't pulled the trigger on this is because no one really wants to lawyer up for an outcome that will be unsatisfying for everyone. So long as the big publishers keep making money, they aren't going to resort to this... yet.

29 dager siden
Zenn Exile
Zenn Exile

If you are making profit through the use of ANY media, you should be paying at minimum a commercial license. It should be like a Movie Theater pays for a license to show a new movie that costs more based on how many viewers there are. All streamers should be in a similar contract. The bigger they are, the more they should pay to profit from broadcasting media they don't own. By no means should publishers be going after streamers who have a small audience, but the ones making decent money should definitely be paying a license. Maybe something like an amateur license that costs like twice as much as a normal user license and a professional version of the license that has to be negotiated. That would work out well for everyone. People who "watch" other people streaming games are potential customers and streaming does increase exposure within the streamer's demographic, but a significant portion of people watch streamers *instead* of buying the game and playing it. That should all be considered and negotiated by large streamers like PewDiePie for instance. Weird AL Yankovic is a case study in how streamers should behave. He does music parodies that are absolutely transformative and could never be confused with plagiarism or copyright violations, but he buys a license and gets permission directly from other artists to use their music in this way. Big streamers should take the initiative and negotiate licensing in a similar fashion. If we let publishers take this to court, it will cost far more and result in small streamers being edged out of the market by license cost.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@Zenn Exile Nope, no difference. Recording for yourself, you own the copyrights, and are the sole owner of those copyrights. Therefore you can do as you wish with them, including stream them. For profit, licensed CC-CA, whatever. You are 100% absolutely wrong in every possible way.

26 dager siden
Zenn Exile
Zenn Exile

@Mark Hackett recording that for personal use or to share with friends is not the same as recording it to make a profit off of people viewing it. You could not be more wrong.

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

Wrong. There is no such requirement. Buying the game buys the ability to play the game. Recording that involves the original product's copyrights not at all. Movies are NOT games.

26 dager siden
johnnylancenese
johnnylancenese

I do construction and I don't have to pay to run my Makita drill or to install Tyvek house rap. I dont understand why someone taking the work of someone else that they payed for, then combining it with other things to create a bigger product. I get that music is not a solid object, but still, I think that the licensing shenanigans goes to far sometimes.

29 dager siden
Simon Grey
Simon Grey

Problem with ban/revenue share on narrative based games, is the fact that it will simply result in streamers not streaming said games. Its the same moronic argument as with piracy - if you pirate the game, then it means we are loosing money. Completely ignoring about 90% of the issue, like the fact that many people that pirate games, would not buy them anyway. Or that they may buy it afterwards, if it turns out to be good. Or that they may suggest this game to their friends, if they liked it. In the same manner, ban on narrative-based games will result in any exposure those games get thru streamers to disappear, as streamers will be all like "fuck that, i have plenty of other games to stream and i have no intention to pay extra, aside of me already paying for full game, to those greedy shitheads". Revenue share also wont work, as streaming platforms will just find a way to shift those expenses on streamer anyway, so we are back to my previous argument. what that moron fails to understand is the fact that there is so many games out there, that some will continue to offer streamers "free of charge" option, where streamer do not have to pay any moronic streaming free, because this is a mutually beneficial coexistence - streamers get content, publishers get free publicity. And those who will ask for money will be told to fuck off and simply get far less exposure, resulting in lower sales.

29 dager siden
elux lucis
elux lucis

By that logic developers should be paying us to play their games on release since we're basically their unpaid beta testers.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@elux lucis And if they remove the game so it won't work, they should give us back the money. Sure we got to play the game, but they got to invest the money. They take back the ability to play the game, we take back the money.

25 dager siden
elux lucis
elux lucis

Not to mention the whole games as a service crap. If people wouldn't pay a contractor to half do their job and maybe come back a year later to finish it why should we pay game devs to do the same thing?

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

They should pay us because they can only go live services and digital downloads because we bought the internet connection that allows it.

26 dager siden
elux lucis
elux lucis

@Nom Blob And despite that they still release unfinished messes and use data from us playing the game to find the problems the people they're paying didn't. My point is if they paid us to play the games on release then they might pull their heads out of their collective asses and start releasing games that are actually finished.

28 dager siden
Nom Blob
Nom Blob

elux lucis That logic fails considering they have actual paid beta testers (although there are exceptions)

29 dager siden
WDeranged
WDeranged

No of course they bloody shouldn't. Streamers are free advertising, They sell games.

29 dager siden
Mythbuster
Mythbuster

I've never not bought a game because I watched a video or stream on it. I have bought a few games only because I watched videos on it, games that I otherwise wouldn't have bought... Only a few though: Planet Coaster, Wreckfest, Kerbal Space Program, Max Payne 3, Far Cry 3, Driver San Francisco, Skyrim, Just Cause 2 & 3... Actually... I've bought 90% of my 33 Steam games after watching videos on it.

29 dager siden
Fogel88
Fogel88

in the cases of music and movies it is straight up piracy to stream them. but if you stream games you cant stream the interaction of a player with the game so it becomes more of an advertisement. especially in the case of multiplayer games like among us or some dota counterstrike stuff where there is basicly no story you are trying to sell. so for all these "games" that are kind of only about their story telling and dont really have interesting gameplay or choices to be made it goes right back to piracy. so i think studios should be able to sell licences for their games but in alot of cases it wouldnt be wise to do so.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

In fact playing the game is a performance, and the copyrights of a recording of that is fully settled in case law and written law: there is no copyrights other than that of the one doing the recording.

26 dager siden
misomiso
misomiso

This video was great, but it felt very weird as it didn't seem you guys were talking to each other. I don't know if it was the editing, or the fact that one person was looking into camera and the other wasn't, but it just seemed very weird. Please try either both staring to camera or neither! ty though interesting discussion.

29 dager siden
DeebZ Scrub
DeebZ Scrub

Hey Nick, random question in case you see this: are you guys working on any more documentary videos? The Darkest Dungeon one was just fantastic and I'd love to see more.

29 dager siden
DeebZ Scrub
DeebZ Scrub

@The Escapist I totally should have realized that would be a limiting factor. Glad to hear there will be more eventually.

29 dager siden
The Escapist
The Escapist

We've got a couple planned yes, but haven't been able to travel obviously, so next couple will be a bit smaller-scale in scope. Hoping to get back to normal doc shoots in 2021.

29 dager siden
DeebZ Scrub
DeebZ Scrub

On whether you should be able to stream walking simulator type games: If someone is watching a stream of one of those types of games that are always going to be the roughly same experience no matter who plays it's because they've already decided they're not going to buy it.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

Indeed if it is so easily ruined by watching a performance of the "game" it isn't a game either and so loses copyright.

26 dager siden
DeebZ Scrub
DeebZ Scrub

Among Us with randos can be a lot of fun, but what you need is to find a lobby where a bunch of people keep re-joining for it to really pick up.

29 dager siden
petwisk
petwisk

Gonna quote appabend, there's a diference between watching a game and watching a Movie, If you watch a game you Didn't played that and didn't got the Full experience for It, unless your game is so devoid of Gameplay that It can bê enjoyed like a Movie, but the rules for games Being broadcast are the Same, so at the end IS not the fault of the one watching that a certain game can be enjoyed like a move, nor the content creator, not even YouTube or Twitch, but only the devs thenselves, so heres the quote for devs: "If you Don't want your game to be watched like "a Movie", Don't make a game that "plays" like..A MOVIE"

29 dager siden
GeorgeNoiseless
GeorgeNoiseless

In relation to That Dragon, Cancer: I don't know if I'm in the minority on this, but I don't want to see or play that game, or even just pay for it -- my money would rather straight go to a cancer charity. I'm saying this as someone who lost family members to cancer and who has an increased risk in a certain category myself. 20:11 The "Sharing/Pirarting" networks of various varieties still exist, but they've been driven further underground -- the boundary between people an quick music/TV/Games online has become thinner, selection much wider, while the boundary between a casual PC user and pirating software has become thicker -- partly due to extra anonymity cost and partly due to increased IT competency requirements.

29 dager siden
Timo Kampwerth
Timo Kampwerth

Streaming is free advertisement, it's as simple as that. Hell, Companies have payed streamers to play therir games, that's how effective it is. It's not a mess, it's not a controversy, it's a tweet that got blown way out of proportion just because of how dumb it was. Most streamers won't pay license fees for streaming, they'll stop the games that require fees and stream the free ones instead. If the devs really want to enforce DMCA, they can always send the claims. They could do so from day one. So I wonder why they don't... maybe becuase they massively profit from the free advertisement?

29 dager siden
Timo Kampwerth
Timo Kampwerth

@OurayTheOwl If it comes to the revenue + advertisement model and it's broadly implemented by the boys and girls who brought us 120$ AAA Games with ingame shops and Microtransactions, then there will always be the ones who won't do it. And I won't even mention Devolver Digital or Coffee Stain Studios by name here. This is one of those situations where it's either done by everyone or it's not gonna work. Because the second 2K, EA and Companions jump on the Bandwagon, not doing so will become a big positive publicity boost.

25 dager siden
Rudeboy John
Rudeboy John

Never underestimate the power of stupidity when its fueled by greed

29 dager siden
OurayTheOwl
OurayTheOwl

What if twitch turns to a different model and its not a "some" but an "all" situation? Where streamers don't get to pick and choose but have to get a license for everything if they want to stream on that platform? IF the people crunching the numbers finds that the added revenue more than makes up for the difference, THEN why wouldn't they do it? If its a money thing and businesses follow the money, what happens to streamers if they are more profitable as sources of revenue + advertising, instead of just free advertising? Not saying there's an answer, but economic pressures change and streamers exist by the graciousness of publishers not being complete money grubbing assholes. But I'm sure Activision and EA are standup companies that would never deliberately screw over their player base to help their bottom line, then get away with it and still be successful.

29 dager siden
Aly Cat Archives
Aly Cat Archives

I already pay so much just to stream in general, adding yet ANOTHER charge to that just for playing a game I already bought is ridiculous.

29 dager siden
ardias
ardias

so regarding streaming, music and movies dos have strict clauses prohibiting public broadcasting. Do game licenses have any clause like that? (never read a eula) If I buy a game, which is only a license to play it it, and stream myself playing it, is it strictly prohibited in the license? wouldn't that need to be declared in the license?

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

Such things do not make your recording of a performance an infringement of the copyrights of the licensed music being played. That recording of the live performance is copyright YOU. You do NOT buy a license, you buy a game. In doing so, you get all rights required to USE that game, including all and every necessary copy to use it, copyright DOES NOT control USE of a copyrighted work, only certain types of copying (and nowhere near all of those).

26 dager siden
Thorin
Thorin

Music, film, movies, live events have strong and clear license system, since they are single use items, if you watched the movie, you only watch it again if it was really great, an ok movie is a single event, if you watched a game in a pub, you will not watch it again at home, ever (rare cases may also apply, but not generally.) But games are different, good games are replayable, so you watching someone else won't stop you from playing, and even non replayable games are different to watch and play (and if not, that it is not a game, it is an interactive movie.) Also you make guides, tutorials and all other stuff, that use the game as material, but not even actual plays, just help others to play later on their own, should a piano teacher pay the piano maker for using its piano for teaching someone else play piano? (and really hope this is not an actual stuff, since music bs may turn it into reality)

29 dager siden
Andy P.
Andy P.

Buttery-smooth soup

29 dager siden
Shenovy Fleu
Shenovy Fleu

Streaming has helped a few games- I would have never gotten into dragon dogma. If it wasn’t for YouTube.

29 dager siden
Shenovy Fleu
Shenovy Fleu

We need more protection, and written rules.

29 dager siden
eduardo
eduardo

when viewers talk about watching streamers read, they mean out loud, and reacting to it.

29 dager siden
Shenovy Fleu
Shenovy Fleu

Even tan arts are illegal. In a legal sense he is right.

29 dager siden
Shenovy Fleu
Shenovy Fleu

Mark Hackett legally speaking they could make a case- my issue with people in your camp is how you consider this fact absurd. You need real written rules as a streamer. Get of your asses (me included) and get some legislation or whatever going that protects people if publishers decides to be dicks. It really does not matter if you think this kind of thought coming from a person working in the game industry is :”Bs”. The minute streamers (unpaid ones) start being less useful to the publishers , they will flip. This is an unacceptable position for a self employed person to be in.

23 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@Shenovy Fleu Also thanks for proving by your squirrel assertion that your OP was BS.

24 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@Shenovy Fleu If we don't buy games, publishers are fucked.

24 dager siden
Shenovy Fleu
Shenovy Fleu

Mark Hackett well if you say so- if the gaming industry ever decide to go after streamers for using their games. We are fucked .

25 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

It is a performance, in a legal sense, he is 100% wrong.

26 dager siden
Shenovy Fleu
Shenovy Fleu

The first sane conversion I have watched in a while about this controversy. No name calling , no dog pilling.

29 dager siden
Thorin
Thorin

It is funny, while it is true, tehcnicaly the developers (or publishers or whatevers) own the game, and so they could simply declare, this game cannot be streamed or made videos of for yt and similar, and probably the current law would be on their side, BUT most streamers and such are either got their games or codes from the developers and publishers directly or many game directly contains the statement form the creators to use it freely to create videos and streams, exactly to make it clear, it is ok. And for a good reason, even a small yt channel is better advertisement than actual advertisement, and it cost literally nothing for the creators, a free code cost nothing (yes, in theory the yt-r would buy the game, but that is peanut), and generates some publicity, which is way more honest than any advertisement or such. Yes, you can pay stupid amount of money for yt-rs to say, raid shadow shit is good, but not to actually play that game and still look like you love it.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@Thorin "the story of the game, the lines and the scenes of the game" Nope, they can be copyrighted. However when playing, the copies made on the screen are NOT "the story", nor "the lines" nor "the scenes of the game". They are the performance of "playing the game", and anything recorded is not a copyrightable copy and therefore does NOT require a further license. You aren't making a derivative work. You're performing.

26 dager siden
Thorin
Thorin

@Mark Hackett yep, the story of the game, the lines and the scenes of the game, those are 100% not copyrighted, if you know nothing about copyright. Yes, the actual gaming of the game is your own creation, but it would be hard to determine what is more important in a lets play, the gaming, or the story and all its accessory of the game, not to mention it is very clearly not same for different games, a story riven adventure game, with mostly linear gameplay, it is almost nothing, for a strategic or building type game, the story is almost nonexistent, so it is mostly gameplay. Or the judge will just say it is same as movies and music and done, no more consideration needed.

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

The current law is not on their side. The playing of the game is a performance, and the copyright rules are QUITE clear on that: whoever makes a recording of a performance owns the copyright to that recording, there is no infection of copyrights, since no copyright controlled elements are copied.

26 dager siden
Shenovy Fleu
Shenovy Fleu

Nintendo been doing this for years on YouTube, and u put up with it.

29 dager siden
Phenixdwn
Phenixdwn

People who own licenses to play music, still get DMCA take downs on music they have a legal right to play. If you don't see the same thing happening with gaming licenses... I really don't know what to tell you. The argument that free advertising is not a good enough "payment" is completely mute because you already talked about Among Us. A 2 year old dead game that was literally brought back to life by free advertisement. If a game like Among Us has a license fee to play on stream it would still be dead.

29 dager siden
Phenixdwn
Phenixdwn

@Nom Blob Never heard of it. Maybe streamers should glom on to that game too. The only reason Among Us got big is because groups of people with well rooted connections played together. Multiplayer means nothing in a game like Among Us without a connection. Which is why everyone hates public lobbies. The game is shit unless you have friends to play with. Also has nothing to do with my argument.

22 dager siden
Shenovy Fleu
Shenovy Fleu

Phenixdwn well greedy devs and publishers will turn on streamers when it’s in their interest.

25 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@Nom Blob CDPR was a tiny B level company. A single person making one thing is no more guaranteed profit than a single lone author writing books, and pointing to JK Rowlings does not make a case that F D Hartley's book didn't sell therefore piracy was at fault. Copyrights are NOT a guarantee of profit. A potential lost sale is NOT a theft. NOTHING was stolen.

25 dager siden
Nom Blob
Nom Blob

Mark Hackett CDPR is a massive AAA company compare to just 1 guy who made Presentable Liberty, how is that even a comparison? At least Among Us comparison makes sense because Puffballs is a small indie team comparing to CDPR

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@Nom Blob Witcher 3. Massively lets played. Held up as the Ultimate story-driven RPG single player game. Should have sold bupkis if the arguments were valid. CDPR became bigger than EA or whatever in Europe off the back of it.

26 dager siden
Paul Hankin
Paul Hankin

Streaming gameplay is analogous to hiring a theatre with pre-existing scenery in which to stage your performance. You could pay them up front. They could take a share of the box office. They could let you perform for free and make their money selling drinks and ice cream. Or some mix of all of these. It would be great if streamers had clarity on the terms (and a contract!) but I don't think right holders will give up the ability to pull your content down if they don't like it.

29 dager siden
Ck ?!
Ck ?!

Love this show guys! Its become a Sunday treat for me. Thank you for the hard work. 💙

29 dager siden
Xensonar
Xensonar

Publishers should pay streamers. Change my mind.

29 dager siden
NieOrginalny
NieOrginalny

Many already have in order to have their popularity boom. It can be really effective if applied well, and the fact that some publishers try to pull the money literally the opposite way is an incredible display of unbrindled greed.

28 dager siden
Crow Nagla
Crow Nagla

hm... assume payment is an option. and if "among us" decides to cash in... well, good luck for them. will this hurt them more than help? its their business. its their decision. and they have all numbers to make this decision. the only real problem I see, is that people will still seek "among us" content. and some streamers will decide to capitalize on that. and sadly only top 1% will be able to afford such move. eventually you end up with hierarchy of streamers tied to hierarchy of content.

29 dager siden
Novad selir
Novad selir

That take is ridiculous Streamers literally bring life to games Fortnite, Among Us etc

29 dager siden
Ad Astra Magdalene
Ad Astra Magdalene

Streamers are free advertising, aren't they? If your game is good, people who are watching a streamer are certainly more likely to buy a game if it is obviously fun and fairly bug-free. Of course, the AAA companies are more than ready to shoot themselves in the foot yet again. Let's add more micro-transactions but streamers expose that sh*t so don't love that, do they?

29 dager siden
Lurkinster
Lurkinster

Developers should take some of twitch's cut.

29 dager siden
Sbdcx Hdhhx
Sbdcx Hdhhx

Jack u gotta get back on RLM and have u guys all play. I can just imagine Mike lying to everyone saying he’s not the imposter

29 dager siden
William Sternritter
William Sternritter

So a streamer would not have to buy the game, just pay a streaming license? Also, developers just straight up pay streamers to promote their games. Would be that forbidden then? :) If z game raises to popularity, will streamers get a cut of increased sales? I really don't think that guy thought it through even a bit beyond, we want more money from gamers.

29 dager siden
Shiknobi
Shiknobi

Dang, Jack was spot on with among us, use those pennies however you like good sir

29 dager siden
King Steve
King Steve

Its more controversial to give a tweet made an abject nobody this much attention.

29 dager siden
OurayTheOwl
OurayTheOwl

Streamers should also recognize the generosity of developers for allowing this streaming culture to flourish despite having a very strong incentive and legal backing to pursue licensing agreements. In the absence of rights game developers have set up a precedent that acts as if you do, when in fact you are at any time at their mercy, which is exactly what the tweet said. Saying you're upset that a dev is reminding you of that fact is sort of like getting mad at your parents for reminding you they feed you.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@OurayTheOwl Streamers bought the games, this makes them customers.

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

There is no legal backing to pursue licensing agreements. No copyright controlled copying is involved in playing the game and recording it.

26 dager siden
GeorgeNoiseless
GeorgeNoiseless

@OurayTheOwl Well another point in the video was that a system that clearly states how game videos may or may not be monetized would be beneficial for everyone and there was also the point that narrative-focused games would benefit most. As for Streamer. Tuber, eAthelete contribution vs direct payment amount from companies, well that's an older question than streaming: How much a celebrity endorsement of any sort contribute to sales? Surely if people keep buying celebs some sort of cost-benefit analysis has been run at this point and if anything the Gaming Industry can provide more metrics, not less. Every Steam game I Install phones somewhere with some sort of metrics and some are even upfront about data gathering. (If cost-analysis never been done even approximately, we can only wait for the age of cranial implant integration and total neurological data access, I guess.) I've no real position to take here -- I don't care if big game companies choose to limit their coverage or add another revenue stream to their income, while small indie devs who I'm mostly interested who often survive only on good will and word of mouth, and often have issues getting free coverage as it is, would seldom risk using this hypothetical licence system. You know what would more people be on board with? Forcing streaming platforms to pay game devs a share of the revenue. No less of a conflict of interest mine-field, mind you.

29 dager siden
OurayTheOwl
OurayTheOwl

​@GeorgeNoiseless The point the video made was that streaming has become so integral to the marketing experience of many pub/devs that altering it now would be upsetting the status quo negatively for everyone. Which I agree with. However, streamers are just a tiny percentage of their customers. So they are only indirectly responsible for their advertising, and as you pointed out its not always free either. Games still make money on sales, and how much a streamer contributed vs how much they personally benefitted is an analysis that has yet to be performed. IF (big if )streamers end up not being cheap, by actually reducing game sales or just not bringing in enough revenue, OR pigeonholing devs into twitch marketable genres, what would stop devs from finding alternate funding to supplement their already narrow margins? Legally, nothing. Streamers have no power, only economic worth, for now. It is in everyone's best interest to not dismiss the issue as a forgone conclusion that devs who try to monetize their IP by enforcing copyright that the didn't have reason to before must be out of touch, or not understanding their audience.

29 dager siden
OurayTheOwl
OurayTheOwl

@yanipheonu Streamers aren't customers. Gamers are customers. Streamers just happen to also be customers, just higher profile ones, like influencers. Games sold before streaming, and many still do without a huge twitch following. So no, the "need" is one sided.

29 dager siden
Maya Posch
Maya Posch

The streaming thing is rather silly. Nobody streams a game. People stream gameplay. Gameplay does not exist without the streamers actively performing said gameplay. Ergo, streamers are creating a unique experience. Something which the creators of the game cannot claim any rights to, just like how the makers of fancy gamer gear do not demand a license fee the moment their products are featured in a stream. In copyright, it's quite clear that by creating a transformative work, the original copyright holder has no claim on the transformative work. To me the video of the gameplay is a transformative work. This is unlike with music. Music being played in a video isn't being transformed into something new, it's only made part of a new work, but is not transformed. If you make a cover of it, however, it is legal. Then it's yours and you can do with it whatever you want to do.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

Correct. The playing is a performance. Law and case law 100% refute the claims by Alex. No license is needed. If he thinks there should be, he will have to get the law changed. Just because Alex makes money because he can use the crapper to poop in and therefore concentrate on something OTHER than keeping the poop in, and he can flush the turds away without being distracted by the pong does NOT give the plumber the right to demand a cut of his wages.

26 dager siden
ukgareth316
ukgareth316

What about old games were the copyright holder is either unknown or held by an company that is by someone who doesn't even know it.

29 dager siden
Mese Ktet
Mese Ktet

You know, we already have a game industry so aggressive it fires it creatives and bans them from accepting fan accolades, where writers are scrubbed from credits, and studios are bought off and disbanded by IP giants, to the point said businesses are actually being abandoned as viable platforms for workers. When it gets to that point with turning on live-streamers, fans, and anyone who would give you good PR, does that mean the advertising part of the industry teeter into a state so predatory it defeats it's own purpose? Hope Hutchison lives to see his Monkey Paw wish come true.

29 dager siden
JombilyWobbily
JombilyWobbily

It's also amazing to me how many spokespeople/higher ups at these big platforms keep Twitter accounts and put in their bio "opinions my own", forgetting the misleading "Creative Director @ Google Stadia" bit Hutchinson had for a bit. Like, yeah, that's how opinions work, but not how people work. If a journalist at WaPo uses Twitter to post about their dogs, fine, but if they shittalk Jeff Bezos all day, "opinions" are going to be interpreted a bit differently. Build goodwill, don't talk shit about your costumers, how hard is that?

28 dager siden
Angela Cavanaugh
Angela Cavanaugh

This line of thinking is no different from the "influencer" demanding a free dinner because it gives a restautant "exposure". But they'll buy a soda so they technically are a customer. (The soda is buying the game, the dinner is streaming it). I never comment on anything, but I found this video so offensive and dismissive. There needs to be a collaboration between gamemakers, streamers, and platforms. Streamers have built an audience and because of that can amplify a title, but what'd they build that platform on? The work of gamemakers. Some streamers would be nothing without them. You claim that licenses make gatekeepers and that there's always another streamer, but you don't think that applies to gamemakers as well? They are forced to let streaming happen because if they don't, you'll find another game and there is so much competition out there that what little benefit streamers give is a gamble they have to take. And yes, sometimes a game being streamed is harmful or neutral, it's not just "anecdotal" as you said repeatedly, do some research. It's not 2010 anymore. You also seem to think game makers are not creators? You keep calling them "big corporations", and while there certainly are those, so, so much of what is streamed is made by small indie teams. You're casually dismissing the people who put their lives into their games. Would you call Ready Player One or The Martian or any other book you may like just a creation of a corporation so who cares? Doubtful. Games are no different. Also, calling single narrative stories "not games"??? It's a strange and narrow view, probably just designed to give yourself an excuse. Most games are stories first. You kept saying "we're having a conversation", but who are you having this conversation with? Unsubscribe.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@The Escapist Witcher 3 should have crashed, then, if the argument about single player games. And if a walking game is ruined by watching someone play the game, then why not cut out the bug testing and compatibility work and update support and just have the publisher make a recording of one of the devs playing the game and sell that fixed recording? Streaming THAT *would* be copyright infringement.

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@Aaron Hackett Nope, the publishers have no right to do so. First Sale Doctrine. Playing the game is a performance, and the copyrights of the stuff played DO NOT infect the recording of the performance. Settled copyright law for over 80 years.

26 dager siden
Aaron Hackett
Aaron Hackett

Of course streamers are a net benefit, that's why they exist at all. Publishers big and small have every legal right to blast every last one of them off the internet overnight. They don't, because they have run that cost benefit analysis with data that will never be publicly available. Your analogy is just ludicrous to boot. Games are the meal, the stream is an Instagram post -and publishers have been much happier than restaurants to give out those free meals.

29 dager siden
OurayTheOwl
OurayTheOwl

@The Escapist Since Streamers are already a net benefit then it doesn't matter the conversion rate, because the developers are still coming out ahead. If conversion rate is the issue, its people trying to maximize sales not stem losses. I appreciate the clarification, (this makes me feel like whiney internet troll) but if there's any question if certain genres like single player narratives might not follow that general rule, that streaming is good for devs, then its not an obvious conclusion. I believe that all genres benefit from streamers, albeit not equally, however it felt weird to me to consign people who might have genuine concerns for their bottom line as people who don't understand their audience, or that devs somehow have a social obligation to people who don't buy their product.

29 dager siden
The Escapist
The Escapist

​@OurayTheOwl Streamers ARE a net benefit for developers, the only difference is whether you pay for the exposure, or it just happens organically. That is a known fact amongst developers that streaming brings a higher-level of exposure and engagement for their games. The controversial part of that is the conversion rate of people that watch a game and are eventually turned into a paying customer, and yea, outside of high profile cases like Among Us, Fortnite, etc, there's not a lot of data looking at a lot unknown indie developers and how it has benefited or hurt them in the longrun. Which is specifically why I brought up single player linear narrative titles, I don't see a lot of benefit for the devs for those being streamed. And to @Angela OF COURSE we think game makers are creators, that's a silly and bad-faith comment to make when we were specifically talking about someone that runs a studio for Google Stadia and focusing on larger publishers which control these conversations.

29 dager siden
Labrn Mystic
Labrn Mystic

Thats a hell of an opening, Jack. XD

29 dager siden
Krushak8888
Krushak8888

I watch YouTube lets play or twitch streamer for new games, indie games and etc that i was interested in or steam game I want, i watch no more to 20 to 40 minutes depending on how big the game is. That way I don't spoil the story and buy the game. I use lets play to see the game played that isn't a critic. A gamer whose playing a game without scrutinizing it too much.(still love civil war, Yathzee and Jack) but ya, i never watch enough to spoil.

29 dager siden
Ren Cen
Ren Cen

Some of those Developers doesn't seen to get the power of "word of mouth".

29 dager siden
NekoiNemo
NekoiNemo

Some of those developers produce games that have little to no gameplay value and are a chore to play. Games that are literally more enjoyable to watch rather than play yourself.

29 dager siden
Pixel Trash
Pixel Trash

not sure if the issue of revenue sharing should be raised by the creative director at a studio owned by google. Just kind of stinks of corporate greed.

29 dager siden
Fancy Skelleboy
Fancy Skelleboy

"a little bit"

29 dager siden
Alice Wolf
Alice Wolf

Alex is 100% correct concerning Lets Plays.

29 dager siden
Vicimus Knox
Vicimus Knox

If people have to pay twice to stream indie games then the indie devs will lose free advertising, and possibly sales, if people have to pay twice to stream AAA games then the publishers will pocket the money same as always. So either way developers lose and so do fans and streamers.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@OurayTheOwl It would also be highly dependent on getting the law changed so that they have the right to charge for such a license, because current copyright laws do not.

26 dager siden
OurayTheOwl
OurayTheOwl

This is also highly dependent on the cost of licensing. If they can make enough money in licensing agreements to streamers to offset the loss in sales, they aren't sacrificing anything in terms of their bottom line.

29 dager siden
Vicimus Knox
Vicimus Knox

@MrShukaku1991 I was talking from a worst case scenario point of view, but I agree with your analysis, realistically most indie devs wouldn't try to extort money from streamers, but AAA would and if that happened then something like what you said would play out.

29 dager siden
MrShukaku1991
MrShukaku1991

I think you're looking at it wrong. Indie Devs with no publishers can and would allow streamers to stream their games for free, where AAA titles under the greedy Publishers would be competing against them to try and get streamers to pay them to stream their game. Put simply, why would a streamer pay say, $1000 to stream a new AAA game, when they could stream an Indie game for free, with basically the same audience. Indie Devs would only benefit from AAA companies forcing streamers to pay to stream.

29 dager siden
Paul O'Sullivan
Paul O'Sullivan

Its not controversial in the least, just because microsoft makes word doesnt mean they own a document you create, just because a manufacturer makes a canvas doesnt mean they own the painting you put on it and just because a dev makes a game doesnt mean they own your gameplay. Its not controversial its just obviously fine to stream games.

29 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

@Y V I would need to see proof of this claim about "Eiffel Tower at Night". The ONLY places where copying an image available as you stand in the public space or a space owned by you is in cases of fraud, which has NOTHING to do with copyright. Are you confusing the idea of taking a photo of a photo so that the image is 100% identical in form? Because that would not be a copyright infringement, but a deceptive practice one.

25 dager siden
Y V
Y V

@Mark Hackett Not 100% true. Case by case and country by country but there are cases such as the "Eiffel tower at night", you can't take photos of it and sell it. It's illegal, If you did, you'd be open to a lawsuit if ever discovered.

26 dager siden
Mark Hackett
Mark Hackett

You can take a photo of a work of art in a museum or gallery and the ownership of that photograph is yours, the artist does NOT get to demand payment if you sell copies of your photograph. Same for buildings or concert recordings, etc. Including playing a game you bought.

26 dager siden
megakiller999
megakiller999

I buy games because of what I see on YouTube and twitch, so developers should pay streamers

29 dager siden
Hawk Unleashed
Hawk Unleashed

Honestly the best relationship is where devs can do what they want, if they want to hurt their own product by not allowing playthroughs go ahead. But these industries need to understand thst exposure is good for them

29 dager siden
OurayTheOwl
OurayTheOwl

they do by giving free copies of games

29 dager siden
Erik Brown
Erik Brown

This literally isn't a controversy. Publishers should pay devs more, that cost is not on the streamers who act as free ad space. Think about it, does anyone really believe that a publisher would see all that free advertising disappear and then magically pay devs more? Or would they just source more of that income into the advertisement they suddenly have to pay for? If people actually cared about devs, they would ask for more accountability from the publishers, and would ask that devs actually get a cut of the royalties.

29 dager siden
cixlo
cixlo

Any smart developer worth their salt will move on to a better job if the publisher is being to greedy. The way i see it. Horrible game devs jobs are la coffee boys

28 dager siden
delusionnnnn
delusionnnnn

@Shaun Roberts I'm reminded of AdWatch, which was a great place in the late 90s to watch famous advertisements (mostly modern, some classic - think "what advertisements played during the Superbowl this year" in the era before YouTube). The rightsholders complained, fussed, and sued until it was taken down. Rightsholders for COMMERCIALS demanded a site re-hosting COMMERCIALS demanded COMMERCIALS be taken down. Never underestimate the stupidity of rightsholders and the ferocity of their copyright defenses.

28 dager siden
Shaun Roberts
Shaun Roberts

The whole idea of shutting down free advertising is just insipid, as someone who wants to make games, I wont complain if it gets that free publicity, hell, I'd try and encourage it How many extra sales has among us gotten from the explosion on streams and vids just as a recent example

29 dager siden
xLord _Anubis
xLord _Anubis

Seeing anyone play a game and improve over time is really fun to see. It goes from rough and painful for the player to smooth and brutal to the AI and viewers love that. As for Streamers paying the Developers or Developers paying Streamers? No. Neither is a good option. Budding and hobby streamers cannot grow if they have to pay anything and developers do not make enough to warrant them paying Streamers. The Streams are what sell the games. Streamers get revenue from people just following their content. Developers make money from games bought in stores. To try and intertwine them in either direction would destroy the one paying.

29 dager siden
GeorgeNoiseless
GeorgeNoiseless

Well developers paying streamers already exists and has existed for some time, formally (with the Twitch bounty system) and informally (see the old controversy of YouTubers requesting payment from devs to feature their games). There's of course also sponsorships and exclusivity deals (with embargoes) -- but that is mostly the domain of publishers. Streamers are getting paid because they provide a part of the marketing service that publishers and developers would have to conduct themselves -- and some devs do, from time to time. There's a good reason Steam now has "Dev stream" integration for product pages.

29 dager siden

Neste

The Mystery of the Druids: A Bizarre Adventure Game

1:14:17

Every 2018 Zero Punctuation with No Punctuation

4:05:52

2020 Bahrain Grand Prix: Race Highlights

6:32

Every Zero Punctuation 2008

2:51:16

Every Zero Punctuation 2008

The Escapist

Ganger 821 k

Vampyr (Zero Punctuation)

05:42

Vampyr (Zero Punctuation)

The Escapist

Ganger 1,3 mill

Is E3 Still Relevant? | Slightly Civil War

47:41

The Escapist Team Plays Among Us | Game Night

2:07:32

2020 Bahrain Grand Prix: Race Highlights

6:32

Popbob's FINAL Secret on 2b2t

12:27

ICON & RECORD BREAKER PACKED!! FIFA 21

15:05

Among Us, Men Det Er i Minecraft

24:24

Reviewing Memes With KSI

31:38

Reviewing Memes With KSI

PewDiePie

Ganger 10 mill