Google Stadia director says streamers should pay companies.

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,834
551
118
Corner of No and Where
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.
Well Jim said it in his video. That the debate is only 'over' because publishers have allowed it to be over. That they can just claim all the revenue tomorrow, and there's nothing stopping them. The big take away is the 'nothing stopping them'. If the law is written that yes the publisher owns the money, then yeah streamers are legally in the wrong.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,805
581
118
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.
The problem with unionizing is that they aren't actually employees of anything, therefore they can't unionize for any sort of regulation.

Unless you mean just ban together and refuse to stream or do content until publishers let up, in which case is only viable for the millionaire streamers. Any medium to small time streamer will not be able to hold out with bills to pay. The only hope would be that the gaming public would see this is a terribly bad look and cause a lot of problems for the publishers. Though boycotts rarely work, as people are fickle and don't hold up to boycotts very often. What is likely is you see a lot of protest against it while the public still buys the games they want to play.

Streaming in general is one of those things that i can't fathom anyone doing for a "career" unless they've reached a level of support that can sustain them forever if it all vanished in an instant. So many streamers with less than 1000 viewers who do this for a living are crazy to lean so heavily into it. Hell think about all the girls that have no personality or life skills beyond looking good for a camera who are on a incredible short timescale of support from the crowd. Once the audience starts to fade, there is no talent or potential to keep things afloat. Only hope that they make enough money to retire off of quickly otherwise where does a streamer go?

Look at DarksydePhil for example. He is managing to barely squeak by with an audience who essentially hates him and a limited number of whales that keep him going. He has been teetering on collapse for ages now and it's only a matter of time before the streaming well dries up. At which point this almost 40-year-old man has no job skills, no savings, no talent, no hireability, and is screwed when the stream dies. Many many many many other streamers of middling success are in the same boat.

Stream as a hobby and make what you can off it, but do so with another job until you are absolutely sure your audience has blown up to the level in which you can retire when it all goes away, because it will. Nobody is popular forever.
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,431
1,136
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Well Jim said it in his video. That the debate is only 'over' because publishers have allowed it to be over. That they can just claim all the revenue tomorrow, and there's nothing stopping them. The big take away is the 'nothing stopping them'. If the law is written that yes the publisher owns the money, then yeah streamers are legally in the wrong.
I thought it was mainly hyperbole and him just saying the worst case scenario on his part. I'm not saying legal issues wouldn't exist, but you bet your ass that they will trying to find loopholes to exploit this.

The problem with unionizing is that they aren't actually employees of anything, therefore they can't unionize for any sort of regulation.

Unless you mean just ban together and refuse to stream or do content until publishers let up, in which case is only viable for the millionaire streamers. Any medium to small time streamer will not be able to hold out with bills to pay. The only hope would be that the gaming public would see this is a terribly bad look and cause a lot of problems for the publishers. Though boycotts rarely work, as people are fickle and don't hold up to boycotts very often. What is likely is you see a lot of protest against it while the public still buys the games they want to play.

Streaming in general is one of those things that i can't fathom anyone doing for a "career" unless they've reached a level of support that can sustain them forever if it all vanished in an instant. So many streamers with less than 1000 viewers who do this for a living are crazy to lean so heavily into it. Hell think about all the girls that have no personality or life skills beyond looking good for a camera who are on a incredible short timescale of support from the crowd. Once the audience starts to fade, there is no talent or potential to keep things afloat. Only hope that they make enough money to retire off of quickly otherwise where does a streamer go?

Look at DarksydePhil for example. He is managing to barely squeak by with an audience who essentially hates him and a limited number of whales that keep him going. He has been teetering on collapse for ages now and it's only a matter of time before the streaming well dries up. At which point this almost 40-year-old man has no job skills, no savings, no talent, no hireability, and is screwed when the stream dies. Many many many many other streamers of middling success are in the same boat.

Stream as a hobby and make what you can off it, but do so with another job until you are absolutely sure your audience has blown up to the level in which you can retire when it all goes away, because it will. Nobody is popular forever.
I meant more so to band together, but they're able to unionize, shoot, more power to them. That way they can prevent themselves from being screwed over. Even if they are the middle or a little guy. I don't blame them if they can't stop working. Hopefully they have another job aside from what they're doing.


DSP is such a loser it's not even funny. The fact that people still follow him either out of hate or so much pity is even more pathetic. Nothing is ever his fault. I can't believe I subscribed to that guy on YouTube for about 6 months back in 2012. Once I learn more about them, I dropped him instantly. The streaming ever dies as a business (most likely not), I sure as hell would not miss him.
 
Last edited:

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,805
581
118
I meant more so to band together, but they're able to unionize, shoot, more power to them. that way they can prevent themselves from being screwed over period even if they are the middle or a little guy. though I don't blame them if they can't stop working, hopefully they have another job aside from what they're doing.
It would be hard to stop from getting dicked over even if they banded together because they are not technically a workforce under any particular entity. I believe there has to be some sort of employer relationship even if they all technically fall under "Contractors" because there is no real payroll. Maybe twitch partnershipthat provides income from ads, but subs, bits, and donations are all from crowd funding.

If they did band together to try and stop against publishers pull back, I'm sure their audience will support them for a short time, but it would be hard to keep content coming when their content is essentially cut off.

the real talented people will find a way to stream without actually using the game while still playing the game. Maybe with some sort of chat-sync system in which they play a game off camera and commentate while chat also plays the game on their own screens with them.
 

Bedinsis

Elite Member
Legacy
Escapist +
May 27, 2020
108
48
33
Country
Sverige
In theory I could agree. The developer has put in the effort to create all the art and the assets, it could be argued that a video of someone playing the game is not transformative enough to warrant a protection.

In theory.

In practice, the developers have apparently reached the conclusion that it is not worth the effort to fight streaming, and in fact seems to mostly encourage it. So this seems to be the statement of someone that is out of touch.

I am mostly reminded of that buried EU report that stated that pirating video games seems to counter-intuitively lead to more game purchases, and pirating is a bajillion times more thorny of an issue. I am also reminded of the time Steam tried to introduce monetized mods and how quickly that fell down. Another instance of an entity trying to monetize transformative works based on their output.
 

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,834
551
118
Corner of No and Where
I thought it was mainly hyperbole and him just saying the worst case scenario on his part. I'm not saying legal issues wouldn't exist, but you bet your ass that they will trying to find loopholes to exploit this.
Well Jim said that is old, established issues from 10 years ago. That publishers decided 10 years ago it wasn't worth the effort to bring each streamer and lets player to court. But that was 10 years ago. Now a days it very well might be worth it, and if there is no case law from back when then its wide open for publishers to absolutely claim ownership of all streaming profits and a case like that would take years if not longer and cost millions to hear, and you better believe it'll get appealed faster than you can spit regardless of the outcome. Basically there is nothing stopping any and all publishers from just coming out tomorrow and saying "Yeah all that money was all the entire time and the law agrees."
 

BrawlMan

Lover of beat'em ups.
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,431
1,136
118
Detroit, Michigan
Country
United States of America
Gender
Male
Well Jim said that is old, established issues from 10 years ago. That publishers decided 10 years ago it wasn't worth the effort to bring each streamer and lets player to court. But that was 10 years ago. Now a days it very well might be worth it, and if there is no case law from back when then its wide open for publishers to absolutely claim ownership of all streaming profits and a case like that would take years if not longer and cost millions to hear, and you better believe it'll get appealed faster than you can spit regardless of the outcome. Basically there is nothing stopping any and all publishers from just coming out tomorrow and saying "Yeah all that money was all the entire time and the law agrees."
Okay, then what the heck are we arguing about then? I still remember what happened 10 years ago and it's still fresh in my mind. I agree with you and we're both talking about the same thing. There's really not much else to add.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 7, 2020
2,283
1,154
118
Well Jim said that is old, established issues from 10 years ago. That publishers decided 10 years ago it wasn't worth the effort to bring each streamer and lets player to court. But that was 10 years ago. Now a days it very well might be worth it, and if there is no case law from back when then its wide open for publishers to absolutely claim ownership of all streaming profits and a case like that would take years if not longer and cost millions to hear, and you better believe it'll get appealed faster than you can spit regardless of the outcome. Basically there is nothing stopping any and all publishers from just coming out tomorrow and saying "Yeah all that money was all the entire time and the law agrees."
Given how often the "ownership" is left up to things like the YT algorithm, something that is easily exploited, yeah this could become a bigger problem, depending on the platform.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dwarvenhobble

Is on the Gin
May 26, 2020
2,112
168
68
Country
United Kingdom
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.
Compilations are a bit different to ripped VODs etc.
 

EvilRoy

The face I make when I see unguarded pie.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
97
42
23
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 dug into this a bit and it turns out he doesn't work for google, he works for some kind of small studio out of Montreal. I'd tell you what studio but when I searched "Alex Hutchinson" I didn't find a thing about him. Instead I found out about a pretty cool author who focuses a lot on exercise science and used to be a physicist. So, all in all, I think I've come out ahead in this matter.

The dude, if you're curious:
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Chimpzy

Professor of Monkey Business
Legacy
Escapist +
Apr 3, 2020
7,255
1,086
118
I dug into this a bit and it turns out he doesn't work for google, he works for some kind of small studio out of Montreal. I'd tell you what studio but when I searched "Alex Hutchinson" I didn't find a thing about him. Instead I found out about a pretty cool author who focuses a lot on exercise science and used to be a physicist. So, all in all, I think I've come out ahead in this matter.
Yeah, I know. There are two Alex Hutchinson. One Alex co-founded Typhoon Studios, who made Journey to the Savage Planet. A studio that was acquired by Stadia in december last year (so he kind of does work for Google). This Alex seems to live with his foot perpetually in his mouth. The other Alex is the one you found, who by all accounts comes across a lovely human being.

Maybe Google should've gotten the latter Alex. They seem about equally in touch with live game streaming, but one Alex is a dickbag, the other is not.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,076
118
The problem with unionizing is that they aren't actually employees of anything, therefore they can't unionize for any sort of regulation.

Unless you mean just ban together and refuse to stream or do content until publishers let up, in which case is only viable for the millionaire streamers. Any medium to small time streamer will not be able to hold out with bills to pay.
You can still unionise as self-employed. One of the things a union can do is use its membership dues as hardship support for its members to help them through strike actions.
 

CriticalGaming

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
3,805
581
118
You can still unionise as self-employed. One of the things a union can do is use its membership dues as hardship support for its members to help them through strike actions.
Yeah but again, what can the union protect against? If publishers said no streaming video games anymore, their careers are dead full stop. The streamers that do music and dungeons and dragons might still be fine, and also the body painting girls. But everyone who's built an audience on video games will be boned. Regardless of union backup.

Hell even the music streamers could be screwed if they couldnt play cover songs ever.

Thankfully it is a dead point because it wont happen. The free marketing is too good and most publishers wouldnt want the bad press that comes from trying to make it happen. If they had any interest in putting a stop to it, they would have done it years ago.
 

hanselthecaretaker

My flask is half full
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,741
735
118
Let’s wait and see holiday sales figures - let alone user opinions - on Stadia to-date vs the new consoles. That should tell us all we need to know about who’s who and what’s what in the industry.
 
Last edited: