Google Stadia director says streamers should pay companies.
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
I think there's also an issue with how you describe fair use as far as a stream being "transformative". If you just play a movie or song online then yeah you're distributing it without giving the creators a cut, but if you're actively commenting on it, pausing to talk about things or showing clips then suddenly its a review which is covered. But games work differently - no two playthroughs of a game (I guess barring really crappy rail shooters?) would ever be the same, so the streamer is automatically transforming the experience so its a hard call off the hop. If they comment and make jokes now its a performance based around the game which could also be fair use the same way reviews are.
I guess the easy way to call it is, if a huge youtuber/streamer like Markiplier is playing a game, are people watching for the game, or for the performer? If you want to start up that fight you have to go in knowing that if you're banking on people being there to watch your game instead of the performer you could end up humiliated and that's never good for a company.
Thing is the transformative argument has never been tested in court. It's just thought that would be the best argument but no-one has wanted to pull the trigger on such a case as such.
True, but nobody wants to start the fight because there isn't an obvious answer to who would win which is what I was getting at. Plus, the penalties for failure are bad enough that it makes it a bad call to get into it.
Ah yes, the eternal circle of "I made the game, you should pay me royalties" and "Im basically giving you free advertising for your game, which has no doubt resulted in additional sales".
My stance on the matter is firmly in favour of the latter.
If Streamers/YouTubers didn't exist, I would probably argue that literally none of the games that have risen to extreme popularity over the past 10 years, would have been nearly as popular as they are.
My stance on the matter is firmly in favour of the latter.
If Streamers/YouTubers didn't exist, I would probably argue that literally none of the games that have risen to extreme popularity over the past 10 years, would have been nearly as popular as they are.
Last edited:
Random thought, but I saw a Stadia ad the other day and it looked TERRIBLE. As if it was some kind of locally made product, instead of what I'm sure they're hoping is the future of video games.
Anyway, on topic. One thing's for sure, whether or not he actually has a point, dude's off his fucking rocker. How'd a guy like him get verified on Twitter? Not that I think he has a point though. Games are so insanely different from movies and music, streaming your playthrough of the latest Assassin's Creed game is not even remotely similar to just streaming the NBA finals.
Anyway, on topic. One thing's for sure, whether or not he actually has a point, dude's off his fucking rocker. How'd a guy like him get verified on Twitter? Not that I think he has a point though. Games are so insanely different from movies and music, streaming your playthrough of the latest Assassin's Creed game is not even remotely similar to just streaming the NBA finals.
I was actually just wondering in a similar realm on thought. I watched some popular Minecraft streamers (Timmyinnit, Dream, jSchlatt, etc...) discuss their thoughts on people who record their VOD's, cut them up, splice them together, and upload them on a separate channel. Timmyinnit had a very staunch belief that those VODs were *his* content, and he has every right to take down these channels videos that splice together his VOD clips.
It made me wonder, isn't Minecraft, Mojangs content? And should Mojang be allowed to disallow him from streaming/recording it? At least, according to his logic, right? I don't really have a dog in the fight, but it just made me think.
It made me wonder, isn't Minecraft, Mojangs content? And should Mojang be allowed to disallow him from streaming/recording it? At least, according to his logic, right? I don't really have a dog in the fight, but it just made me think.
Google distances itself from Stadia creative director Alex Hutchinson
Google has distanced itself from a key individual in its Stadia games business following backlash against his views on …
www.gamesindustry.biz
Because it's a stance that just clearly doesn't reflect the business world. They make money by people playing those games for them, and giving them free exposure. And those people are able to make a living doing that, because their position gives them access to the games for free (at least an early build version if nothing else), and permission to play it ahead of everyone else. So they get traffic, which makes them money, which lets them do it as a profession, which gets people watching.Seems Google doesn't quite hold the same opinions. At least, not publicly.Google distances itself from Stadia creative director Alex Hutchinson
Google has distanced itself from a key individual in its Stadia games business following backlash against his views on …
It's a pretty simple setup that works for everyone, this guy just doesn't seem to have a functioning brain, or at least not when he typed up that tweet
That would come under laws similar play / performance licences etc I'd guess.
I.E. Mojang own Minecraft but the Steamer owns the performance of it. So if you were to record a licenced play the company putting on the performance could take it down as they own their own performance of the play just not the play itself.
Yep.
It's all very simple - companies that host streams benefit from the more the merrier - more streamers, more "talent" to emerge, chances are more viewers. The minute streamers start paying for games, fewer streamers, fewer clicks.
I can't help but note the irony that Google is benefitting here from the concept that easy access for lots of people to create high competition and drive quality up. Whereas Google operates by attempting to wipe out the existing competition and making it extremely hard for new market entrants to get a foothold.
Yeh, I know. I'm just a little bemused by how Google threw this guy under the bus. And yeah, given everything presented here and elsewhere, dude definitely has a knack for saying everything in the most dickish way possible. It would almost be praiseworthy if it also weren't so sad and obnoxious.
I watched Jim's video and I thought he made great points, right until the end when he basically conceded the entire debate. To paraphrase he said that the debate over streaming rights is over, only because publishers have allowed it to be over. That at any point the publishers can step in and claim all revenue from streaming and there is nothing stopping them, except they're being 'generous' enough no to. And if your argument is predicated on the other side not winning the debate at any time and both sides know they can, you haven't won the debate. That's like saying a junior school basketball team beat the entirety of the NBA. I'm willing to bet in a serious rematch we all know who wins.
Meanwhile, lesser known streamers get happy when they are part of a compilation in a more visited channel. It's the big names who tend to see such actions as a loss, instead of a win-win situation.
Jimmy boy ain't exactly wrong. He does have a point. One day they could just arbitrarily decide and do what they do best: claim money that is not theirs. it wouldn't be immediate, but they can build up slow stepping stones to achieve that. Sure, they get all the free advertising they want, but give these guys an inch and they'll take a million miles away taking all your stuff as soon as you look the other direction.
I know that, but my point is the "claim money that is not theirs" if its not theirs they can't claim it, meaning you can sue to have it and any other revenue returned. And Cucumber95 can't, he doesn't have the money, but larger streamers certainly can. And once one streamer does and a ruling is made, the whole thing cascades and Cucumber95 gets his money.
Unless there is no legal repercussion, no legal response. As in "You can't sue them to get your money back, it was their money the whole time and they were just being nice" and that's what I worry about. That the argument isnt publishers are stealing streamers money, but streamers were basically charity cases the entire time and publishers are done being nice. and the law will agree with them. That's at least what I took away from Jim video and what I fear for. That in their hearts everyone knows who owns the money and streamers are just hoping to sneak by.
I don't know how you even jump to that interpretation but whatever. I see where you're coming from, but that's why it's best to unionize, get together, or something. Prevent crap like this from happening. Streamers big and small can unite together if they wanted to. They have that power.