Google Stadia director says streamers should pay companies.
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,122
- 3,982
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
His Twitter profile used to say "Creative Director @ Google Stadia!"
Now it does not.
Also:
He (Alex) is good for a laugh, but nobody in the industry cares what he thinks.
Now it does not.
Also:
He (Alex) is good for a laugh, but nobody in the industry cares what he thinks.
Which seems odd considering how many devs happily send codes to the game to streamers, specifically to get their product out there to the market, to drum up sales. I mean I have zero drive to actively seek out "gaming news", as I frankly have other shit in my life to deal with. But I do have a few YTers that do let's plays, that I enjoy watching, and have similar gaming interests to. I've lost count of the number of games I've bought BECAUSE they were playing them. Games I would've never heard of, much less checked out to see if I liked it. But after a 30 minute video of theirs I'll often be like "yep, I can tell I'd enjoy that game." *go to steam and buy it put it on wishlist for sale*
Like half my library is probably from YT streamer content.
Is the implication that the streamers need a license to stream the game? In the same way you need to pay if you sample music in a song of yours? I mean its interesting. From a convention stand point you can't just play a movie or music, you need to license it, and simply purchasing it isn't enough. I don't know streaming/broadcasting laws, and ownership in that regard.
Or is he implying a lot of streamers are pirating popular games? 'cause I could believe that.
Or is he implying a lot of streamers are pirating popular games? 'cause I could believe that.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,122
- 3,982
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
Initially I was thinking he was saying that people who watch streams are stealing content (which is a dumb argument), but from his post hes literally thinking streamers are pirating games and streaming them.
I found this tweet in the comments.
Not quite sure, but feels like what he's implying here is that companies should be able to control who can or cannot stream their games. "Pay up and you can stream our games, and if you're too small-time to afford it, then fuck you. Also, we reserve the right to arbitrarily joink the license if we feel you're not toeing the line." I mean, that so sounds like a thing game publishers would do. Basically, weed out everyone but the big professional streamers that bring in the big numbers.
Just speculation tho.
Not quite sure, but feels like what he's implying here is that companies should be able to control who can or cannot stream their games. "Pay up and you can stream our games, and if you're too small-time to afford it, then fuck you. Also, we reserve the right to arbitrarily joink the license if we feel you're not toeing the line." I mean, that so sounds like a thing game publishers would do. Basically, weed out everyone but the big professional streamers that bring in the big numbers.
Just speculation tho.
Classic narrow-mindedness. Is he actually somebody important though?
Plus, Stadia was a total bust. Dead on arrival.
Plus, Stadia was a total bust. Dead on arrival.
In case we were wondering why the Stadia is failing so badly. Also:
Whoa, Sean dropping some steel-clad truth on the boy.
I thought this was about something completely different at first, like google wanting streamers to pay for streaming Stadia content on top of the monthly service fee. Didn’t read more than the tweet, but if it’s pirated content then of course they should be paying for it like everyone else. Especially if they’re making money off of it.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,122
- 3,982
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
The initial post that was linked really did sound like it was talking about piracy, but a later post that Chimpzy linked made it clear he was taking the stance that someone watching a stream was stealing content. Which is moronic.
I've never really understood why people watch streams - I wouldn't enjoy that. But restricting someone from broadcasting their hobby is a nonsense, surely. I mean, if their hobby was watching films, and you just watched the film over their shoulder, maybe he'd have a point. But not here.
apparently this guy has a history of being an asshat:
www.gamesindustry.biz
Xenophobic fuck
Alex Hutchinson: Game journalists exhibit "subtle racism"
Alex Hutchinson, the creative director of Assassin's Creed 3, has said that he believes games journalists give Japanese…
www.gamesindustry.biz
Xenophobic fuck
- Apr 1, 2009
- 15,122
- 3,982
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
There are some games I have no interest in playing but I find fun to watch. Such as starcraft 2 or that blizzard card game. Although part of that is because fuck blizzard and I will never give them money again. There are other games though that I find fun to play and watch, such as PUBG and CSGO. Although, I'm probably not the best person to answer this since while I do occasionally watch streams, I don't do it much.
A take so fresh and hot Kelvin had to invent a whole new unit of measurement for to ensure it never recorded as a negative again.
The stupid thing is from a legal perspective he's kind of right. It's never been tested in court how much gameplay needs to be changed or if lets Plays count as transformative.
From what I'd call a common sense perspective he's in the wrong because so far it exists in a legal grey area where both sides have a truce basically because they know they can and will end up destroying one another if they take it to that level of being petty and asking for money. I.E. Developers don't charge a streaming licence because it's free publicity and can grow to be bigger and get big name Streamers trying it and helping the game grow by showing off it's potential just like most streamers don't charge for them to play said games as that would mean high expenses to pay for the top streamers.
The best example being the clip of Point Blank in the film Hot Fuzz for which Edgar Wright got permission to use without a fee but he had to get the studio and every person in the clip to agree to it's usage. Which is why that single clip of them watching TV was apparently one of the most expensive scenes in the entire film because they had to chase down permissions including from a Stuntman who they basically had to hire people to track down because he'd left the industry and there was no clear easy trail to find him.
Even with music while there's venue licenses where they a portion of what's played goes back to the artists there will always be stuff like cover songs done live that aren't licenced E.G. the heavy metal cover of 99 Red Balloons I got to hear once.
Hell super weird recent thing is Amazon basically letting Streamers do Watch Parties of certain Amazon Prime shows and movies on Twitch and it's literally Amazon allowing it for certain streamers.
From what I'd call a common sense perspective he's in the wrong because so far it exists in a legal grey area where both sides have a truce basically because they know they can and will end up destroying one another if they take it to that level of being petty and asking for money. I.E. Developers don't charge a streaming licence because it's free publicity and can grow to be bigger and get big name Streamers trying it and helping the game grow by showing off it's potential just like most streamers don't charge for them to play said games as that would mean high expenses to pay for the top streamers.
See this is one of those messy areas as technically you can under various agreements etc. Generally though licence fees are a way to cut through all the trouble and have some-one else organise that stuff.
The best example being the clip of Point Blank in the film Hot Fuzz for which Edgar Wright got permission to use without a fee but he had to get the studio and every person in the clip to agree to it's usage. Which is why that single clip of them watching TV was apparently one of the most expensive scenes in the entire film because they had to chase down permissions including from a Stuntman who they basically had to hire people to track down because he'd left the industry and there was no clear easy trail to find him.
Even with music while there's venue licenses where they a portion of what's played goes back to the artists there will always be stuff like cover songs done live that aren't licenced E.G. the heavy metal cover of 99 Red Balloons I got to hear once.
Hell super weird recent thing is Amazon basically letting Streamers do Watch Parties of certain Amazon Prime shows and movies on Twitch and it's literally Amazon allowing it for certain streamers.
I see his point that the game images are the rights of the publisher. And indeed there are controversies where publishers have demanded people remove their content from YouTube etc. because it paints their game negatively or there's been some sort of falling out.
However, the flipside is that streaming etc. is free advertising for games. It's potentially in the publishers' best interests not to screw with it, because that's inviting streamers to play other games that won't bill them instead, and their viewers will be inspired to play those games instead.
However, the flipside is that streaming etc. is free advertising for games. It's potentially in the publishers' best interests not to screw with it, because that's inviting streamers to play other games that won't bill them instead, and their viewers will be inspired to play those games instead.
See the flipside seems to be the more common situation, because I've seen a few small scale devs comment about how the hits for their game would spike significantly after allowing certain YTers to run a video on it, to the point where the game got enough interest to keep developing, or make a profit, etc.
I mean it's clearly a valid marketing strategy, as big companies like bethesda and...the dudes who make crusader kings, I forget the name, paradox interactive! those guys, consider it good money spent for advertisement. I mean bethesda FLEW an entire group of YTers from various places across the planet back when they were about to launch FO 76, to let them play it there, on site, live, and stream it. You just don't do that kind of thing if you don't think it's going to have a positive impact on sales.
P.I. regularly pays YTers to do videos on their upcoming games, giving them free codes, AND a paycheck for the video saying "Please play it, show off this stuff." etc. And they send it to people who actively love their games, and who have made a name for themselves by doing let's play runs of those titles.
So I mean, it seems pretty obvious, just from the behavior of these companies, that it's profitable for them to work this way. So I think this dude is pretty fucking high, and considering a thumbnail I saw indicated that Stadia are trying to distance themselves from his comment as much as possible, clearly they don't agree either.
Don't forget this little gem.apparently this guy has a history of being an asshat:
Alex Hutchinson: Game journalists exhibit "subtle racism"
Alex Hutchinson, the creative director of Assassin's Creed 3, has said that he believes games journalists give Japanese…
Xenophobic fuck