Even Google Know Where To Draw The Line

[killamch89]

As a follow-up to my previous post, the Google Stadia brand has distanced them from the idiotic comments of one of their creative directors. Some of these individuals in the gaming industry are absolutely delusional and that's why their efforts usually don't get very far.

 

[skyfire]

I guess reputation management with google is so far going good. 

[m76]

When you think aboout it's not that stupid.

You want to play a movie in public -> you have to pay royalties

you want to play someone's music in public ->you have to pay royalties

You want to use someone's dance moves -> you have to pay royalties

So why shouldn't you pay royalties if you are going to play games in public with the sole purpose of making money off of it?

[Crazycrab]

43 minutes ago, m76 said:

When you think aboout it's not that stupid.

You want to play a movie in public -> you have to pay royalties

you want to play someone's music in public ->you have to pay royalties

You want to use someone's dance moves -> you have to pay royalties

So why shouldn't you pay royalties if you are going to play games in public with the sole purpose of making money off of it?

 

It's a ridiculous take becuase, unlike film or music piracy and/or public performace that your describing, video games streaming something that developer's and publishers actully benefit from!

 

Games are an interactive media, you can't experience the full product by just watching somone else play it.  Also streamers and content creators who make let's plays or reviews activly promote the games they cover.  This is why publisher's and developer's (for the most part) don't mind and even encourage people to stream or make videos and monetize them, it's a win win. 

 

Games like Fall Guy's, Minecraft, Amoung Us and many more would never have found the success that have without streamers and content creators.

 

The idea that a publisher would want a system in place that active discourages people from doing something that actully helps them make money is ludicrous.

Edited October 26, 2020 by Crazycrab

[Kane99]

3 hours ago, m76 said:

When you think aboout it's not that stupid.

You want to play a movie in public -> you have to pay royalties

you want to play someone's music in public ->you have to pay royalties

You want to use someone's dance moves -> you have to pay royalties

So why shouldn't you pay royalties if you are going to play games in public with the sole purpose of making money off of it?

The difference is that most of the time someone streams a game, it helps sell that game even more. If you can get a famous twitch streamer streaming your game, that could potentially sell your game right there. It's partly why so many games become popular, like Among Us, which came out in 2018. Before that, it was just a forgotten game. But, people streaming it brought it back to life, literally. Without streamers showcasing it, no one would have ever given Among Us another look. 

The same can be said for that new ghost game Phasmophobia, which to me looks like a cheaply made game with low replay value, but people are streaming the hell out if it, in turn increasing the sales of the game. 

I get the point that it's the same as playing a movie, but in reality, it also sells the game in the process. Lets me honest, do you think Phasmophobia would be popular if no one was streaming it? Hell, I think if most video games stopped streaming, we would hear a lot less about them, especially the indie games that thrive because of streaming.

 

I would understand if the streamer was just playing the game all the way through without any commentary. If it was just the whole game + story uninterrupted, than I believe that is wrong. But, I think for the most part, most people who stream, do help sell the games in the process. 

[m76]

13 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

 

It's a ridiculous take becuase, unlike film or music piracy and/or public performace that your describing, video games streaming something that developer's and publishers actully benefit from!

So you think musical performances don't help sell music? Nowadays almost all producers have learned that having people play / post their music on youtube actually helps and not hurts them.

And I didn'T mean piracy, I meant public performances, eg: showing a movie in your public venue, is exactly the same thing as showing a game in a stream.

13 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

 

Games are an interactive media, you can't experience the full product by just watching somone else play it.  Also streamers and content creators who make let's plays or reviews activly promote the games they cover.  This is why publisher's and developer's (for the most part) don't mind and even encourage people to stream or make videos and monetize them, it's a win win. 

Many people would argue differently. There are more people now who just watch let's plays who will never actually play the games themselves.

I'd draw a line between content creators and streamers. A streamer adds nothing of their own, they literally just play a game in public.

13 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

 

Games like Fall Guy's, Minecraft, Amoung Us and many more would never have found the success that have without streamers and content creators.

I'm surprised those are a success at all. The taste of people today is just beyond my reasoning.

13 hours ago, Crazycrab said:

 

The idea that a publisher would want a system in place that active discourages people from doing something that actully helps them make money is ludicrous.

Who said anything about discouraging? It's just a share of revenue. Streamers make big bucks using someone else's product. Some sort of revenue sharing would be fair in my opinion. Having to pay 10c to the devs over every dollar you make by streaming a game wouldn't exactly discourage anyone from streaming.

[m76]

11 hours ago, Kane99 said:

The difference is that most of the time someone streams a game, it helps sell that game even more. If you can get a famous twitch streamer streaming your game, that could potentially sell your game right there. It's partly why so many games become popular, like Among Us, which came out in 2018. Before that, it was just a forgotten game. But, people streaming it brought it back to life, literally. Without streamers showcasing it, no one would have ever given Among Us another look. 

I think streaming has a wider audience than the games themselves. Sure to a point streaming a game can increase its sales, but the same way playing music also increases sales of said artist. BtW I still don't know what among us is.

11 hours ago, Kane99 said:

The same can be said for that new ghost game Phasmophobia, which to me looks like a cheaply made game with low replay value, but people are streaming the hell out if it, in turn increasing the sales of the game. 

I'd say that's a negative thing then, if streaming can make bad games successful.

11 hours ago, Kane99 said:

I get the point that it's the same as playing a movie, but in reality, it also sells the game in the process. Lets me honest, do you think Phasmophobia would be popular if no one was streaming it? Hell, I think if most video games stopped streaming, we would hear a lot less about them, especially the indie games that thrive because of streaming.

And since it's apparently a bad game we'd be better off if it wasn't popularized by streaming. I'd argue that minecraft, fall guys, etc are all terrible low quality low effort games. So them becoming popular actually is a bad thing in my opinion.

11 hours ago, Kane99 said:

 

I would understand if the streamer was just playing the game all the way through without any commentary. If it was just the whole game + story uninterrupted, than I believe that is wrong. But, I think for the most part, most people who stream, do help sell the games in the process. 

If we talk about right and wrong, I think making money using someone's creative work and not sharing the revenue is wrong.

[Reality vs Adventure]

That's like saying singing in Karaoke you have to pay royalties. They haven't changed any instruments or sounds, just word for word. A streamer also hasn't changed anything, just built in gameplay. 

 

[Kane99]

All Quotes below from @m76

Quote

I think streaming has a wider audience than the games themselves. Sure to a point streaming a game can increase its sales, but the same way playing music also increases sales of said artist. BtW I still don't know what among us is.

To some extent yes. Some games gain more popularity because of streaming. As for playing music, that's a tad bit different, because you're not advertising the music like a streamer would a game. Among Us is like a murder mystery game. You can play a max of 10 players per game, there are crewmates and impostors. Impostors are tasked with killing the crewmate, and can also sabotage areas on the map. Once a body is found, you're brought into an emergency meeting, where each surviving players have to discuss who they think the impostors are. This game came out in 2018 without much fanfare. But, due to some streamers showcasing it recently, it blew up and now the dev is working on adding to the game again. Watch a stream of it if you can, it's pretty much made for streaming. 

Quote

I'd say that's a negative thing then, if streaming can make bad games successful.

I'm just going off of gameplay I've seen. People seem to really enjoy it though, so maybe it's a fine game. But my point still stands, it's helping these unknown games become a lot more popular. Developers know full well about it and happily go for it. Because it helps that game sell. 

Quote

And since it's apparently a bad game we'd be better off if it wasn't popularized by streaming. I'd argue that minecraft, fall guys, etc are all terrible low quality low effort games. So them becoming popular actually is a bad thing in my opinion.

Even so, bad games can be good depending on who the person is. Minecraft and Fall Guys are well made games that take minimal effort to get into. You may find them to be terrible games, that doesn't mean it's so. I've played a lot of games I thought to be bad, but a lot of people end up enjoying them. It's all subjective. One bad game, could be a fun time for a group of friends. As long as people enjoy it, who cares. 

Quote

If we talk about right and wrong, I think making money using someone's creative work and not sharing the revenue is wrong.

And that's fine. Keep in mind though, a streamer can still stream a game, as long as they add commentary and make it transformative. What this means, is that they have to build upon the original content and add to it. Add their opinions, such as a review, or add their thoughts on the game, etc. That's considered fair use, since they're discussing it, making it transformative. I would understand if a streamer just streamed the entirety of a game without adding any commentary around it, but most streamers don't do this. 

Keep in mind though, that most developers and publishers want people to stream their games. It does help sell games a lot more than standard marketing does these days. And sure, some bad games might be in the mix, but that's to be expected.  

Quote

 

I'd draw a line between content creators and streamers. A streamer adds nothing of their own, they literally just play a game in public.

 

I have to disagree. Most streamers I've watched add a lot to the table, either it be from fan interaction, commentary, and free promotion of course. Streamers don't just sit there and play a game. If they did that, no one would be watching their streams. 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Kane99

[skyfire]

I think this thirsty attitude from the game developer studios is why people move towards the indie gamers more these days.