Companies can go after content creators if they want. Most won't tho because they know streamers do nothing but help them and it would be super bad PR for them if they did.
You have no idea about this industry...
There would be no streaming of anything if your posts are true.
Ninja, shroud or DrDisprespect are literally paid thousands of dollars to just play and promote games.
Even Google responded that this guy is full of shit:
The recent tweets by Alex Hutchinson, creative director at the Montreal Studio of Stadia Games and Entertainment, do not reflect those of Stadia, YouTube or Google.
Well... this person is probably one of the examples why Stadia is soo bad.
I would be perfectly fine if the DEVELOPERS got royalties from streamers.
However, we all know that money will go into the pockets of overpaid CEO's and their Shareholders.
Originally Posted by Crabby
Google has distanced themselves from the initial tweet said this is not their position or belief, it's was just one guy's opinion. So this is a bit of a dead talking point right now.
However, I do agree with the creative director who originally made the comment and I do think it will be a point of contention sometime in the future. Streamers are profiting and making an entire living in some cases off of sharing someone's work from the masses.
I cannot buy a movie and stream it to the internet and turn a profit just because I am in the lower third.
Distribution is an immensely powerful tool. I think it is merely the ubiquity of streamers and volume of games that keeps stream(er)s in the clear for now. So many streamers and cheap games. When the need for exclusivity comes about to stand out in the marketplace, a change to monetization w/r/t streaming for individual profit will be coming.
He's correct in a very technical sense, but the video game market doesn't work in this manner.
In the base sense, yes pubs/devs could pull their products from streamers. Using the radio/tv station example, it's somewhat reasonable that streamers should pay a broadcast fee for the games they play.
BUT
Unfortunately for this person he doesn't understand how the economics of radio vs the economics of video games actually works. With radio, music is the end product, the user simply listens to it. With video games, the end product is interacted with, which requires the user to own the game. There is also the issue of how the radio station makes money vs the streamer. The radio station is being paid directly by advertisers, where as the streamer receives this second hand. Ultimately with radio the end user hears the music, nothing more, its consumed. With videogame the streamer is essentially advertising the game to a potential end user who will buy it if they want to actually interact with it. The argument that the streamer usurps sales is ridiculous, simply because they can't duplicate what it is to play a game for an end user. Chances are if someone doesn't buy your game because they saw a streamer playing it, they were never going to touch your game anyway, probably never even hear of it.
There is a small argument here for treating Twitch as a radio station. You could make the case that Twitch should be required to carry a broadcast license for games that people who stream from their platform are streaming. You are putting twitch in the radio station role, where the streamers are more like DJs/show hosts.
Another big BUT here... streaming is the best free advertising these games get, Nintendo or Acti could pull their games and they'd still see millions of sales, making streamers charge to play their games wouldn't hurt large titles or studios at all in the sales/advertising market. But for little games like Among US that would be dead already without streamers, they would be foolish to pick up such a business practice.
Well, your post is a bit misleading. In the original tweet, he talks about those who stream a game they haven't bought. So if you've bought the game, you shouldn't have a problem streaming that game, but if you haven't bought it, and on top of that, you want to make a profit from it by streaming, well, I'm afraid I agree with Alex Hutchinson
And for everyone else, before giving an opinion, I recommend that you read well the source of what was said and the context, because it is not the first time someone's words have been taken out of context.
Greetings
You are a marketing exec who spent your life getting a degree in marketing, finding work, climbing the corporate ladder. Then one day, the CEO tells you that he is deeply slashing your pay because just hiring someone like pewdiepie is more effective than you are. You are going to have a HUGE axe to grind against pewdiepie. Now multiply that attitude by a legion of ad execs. pewdiepie is a target.
They already paid for the game. By buying it. Should I have to pay the Ford company royalties if I'm profiting from using a car they produced, like working as a taxi service?
They're not "profiting from someone else's copyright" because they're not creating something using someone else's copyright. Ninja is not creating a game using Fortnite's graphics, textures, names, game engine, etc. Markiplier is not creating a game using Five Nights at Freddy's graphics, textures, names, game engine, etc.
And on top of that, this entire line of reasoning of yours is nonsensical and illogical. Why? Do you think Fornite would be half the giant it is if players had to pay Epic Games to stream the game? And another example: Among Us was a game that was released in 2018, and its average players just barely break triple digits at the time. And now, suddenly, with all the streamers playing the game, the game has peaked at hundreds of thousands of players:
- - - Updated - - -
Among Us.
Case closed.
EDIT: And to further prove that this line of reasoning is nonsensical, game companies sometimes give free copies of their games to streamers so they would stream the game and showcase it to thousands of players. It's literally free advertisement.
Last edited by Ielenia; 2020-10-24 at 06:21 PM.
I would love to see actual research on this type of stuff rather than feely anecdotes. I'm sympathetic with the idea that, like piracy, exposure could be worth the loss in revenue. But without real research and studies the arguments seem pretty self-serving.