"Streamers should pay game companies a licence fee": Stadia creative director

Knoyleo wrote:

Squinty wrote:

Trelliz wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:What I have really enjoyed on twitch are art streams, watching purple make stuff, paint pictures, and mini painting streams as well, which are fun to watch and see what people are doing, then try that out in my own mini painting.

I used to watch a few of those, but they are just as para-social as other streams, I realised I was just sitting at my painting desk watching them do it, with every other sentence being "hey [internet person] how's it going?" or "thanks for the follow/subscription" with popups and annoying sounds. That epiphany made me shun the whole thing and now I listen to audiobooks or put on old documentaries while painting instead.

I have never been interested in watching it, for some the reasons you just stated.

I'd rather just play the game myself, and I'm slightly anti social so the parasocial nature of it kinda weirds me out.

Me, the first time I followed someone on twitch because I found their stream interesting :

"I'll follow this person, that's clearly twitches equivalent of bookmarks/favourites."

*clicks button*

*Seconds pass*

*unexpected fanfare plays, my name is splashed up on screen, person streaming stops what they're doing to specifically address me by name and say thanks*

"How do I undo? I didn't consent to this."

I think you're very much in the minority of that one - the whole point of the follow mechanic is, I would imagine, to try and personalise the experience for users and make the relationship a little less parasocial. It acknowledges the existence and support of the person hitting the follow button and interacting with the streamer.

With that said I certainly appreciate the irritation, especially if you weren't aware of how following on Twitch works. And for what it's worth, I think that larger streams where you have hundreds of people vying for the attention of the streamer are wildly unhealthy. The platform is at its best with smaller communities of people who all do a bit of streaming, and who support/encourage one another in their endeavours. I think GR's streamers work well in that capacity.

Knoyleo wrote:

Tafdolphin wrote:Remember that streamer who linked their vibrator to Fall Guys, so every time another player grabbed her avatar it buzzed her?

twitter.com/acvalens/status/1301504411160764416

What the strawberry float?

She's apparently got a real history of being an insufferable creep but even then... that gooseberry fool is borderline abusive.

Are people treating the parasocial stuff as inherently negative then? I get there's a power dynamic at play but I'm not sure it's wholly a bad thing.

Surely parasocial relationships are bad, though. They're just pretend friends for money. Unless there's another context parasocial relationships exist in where they're fine.

I don't engage with any big streamers really so I don't approach the whole situation from the point of parasocial relationships. Like others have said most of my time on Twitch is either watching others from hear stream and chatting to each other, or streaming myself and chatting to people from on here, there's no real power imbalance in the relationships. Even if there are the occasional follows and subs for a few quid being chucked around it's more just a nice "cheers for streaming" nod which is genuinely appreciated than any kind of fawning relationship that the bigger streamers seem to yearn for and cynically manipulate their followers into engaging with

As long as the original creator of a work receives the initial compensation for selling it anyone should be free to do anything creative with that work for their own gain without having to further reimburse the original creators, within reason and fair use - so don’t just repackage something wholesale and call it your own work. The most important part is the initial sale because without it, and the ongoing attempts to replace it with "free exposure", you risk pushing art as a professional career further into the realm of the wealthy than it already is.

So a musician should be free to take a music sample of a recording they bought, give some credit somewhere, and use it in their own work.

With films, people should be free to create parody without being caught up in legal trouble and create critiques using clips without fear of DMCA takedowns.

And games should fall into a similar category with streaming. If I legally and morally obtained a game I should be able to use my own gameplay and interaction with it however I please and if I want to, make money off it at the same time. I think there’s something of a limit with streams that have zero commentary as, while they can act as elongated trailers for marketing, that’s acting much less as an intermediate between the audience and the original creator.

OrangeRKN wrote:

Karl_ wrote:I disagree that "creators should have the right to control how their works are used" even in principle. Once you send a piece of art into the world you can't control what people do with it.

In our society you need to make money to live, so artists who want to create art as their vocation need some control over their art in order to make money from it.

I also don't agree with the control over art in principal, but I think it unfortunately necessary and the best approach within the confines of capitalism.

(Which is also why I've been talking about indie devs, not big publishers where the correlation is not direct)

I want salaried and small independent artists to make a living wage in comfortable working conditions too. They should probably follow the lead of other labour movements and unionise, since copyright law is doing nothing to facilitate that.

Knoyleo wrote:Surely parasocial relationships are bad, though. They're just pretend friends for money. Unless there's another context parasocial relationships exist in where they're fine.

For me it's more like when you watch a TV show and grow to like the characters. I'm never going to give any money to anyone, so it's just nice sometimes watching someone you recognise be funny or charming.

Again, I do understand there's a dark side to it. But streamers like Limmy or ChristopherOdd manage to make a living without being predatory.

Knoyleo wrote:Surely parasocial relationships are bad, though. They're just pretend friends for money. Unless there's another context parasocial relationships exist in where they're fine.

I’m not sure that the parasocial thing is inherently bad. I’m also not sure it is completely at play here, either. My understanding is that a paradoxical relationship is where one side of the coupling either doesn’t realise the other exists, or doesn’t care about the other person(s). I’d argue that the majority of streamers - at least the ones I watch - actually take time to cultivate and care about the communities they are part of, and engage positively with the viewers.

There are plenty of people and Twitch users who understand that the streamer offers a service and wish to support said streamer in continuing this endeavour, rather than it being people throwing money at a faceless personality because they have an imagined relationship with them. Most importantly, there is absolutely no requirement to provide a financial incentive, and nor should there be.

Like all social media endeavours I think there is real potential for it to be commodified and turned into something grotesque, but with the proper guidance and rules it could, and potentially should, be a good experience for all involved.

I used to think - a few years ago - that watching streams wasn't up my street; and I still never watch the "big" streamers. But, like all things, there are different ways of approaching it. I started watching GRcade streams and they're smaller shows with anything from one to twenty viewers. They're - for me - much more fun; you chat and feel a part of the group; it's almost like hanging out around someone's house or whatever. It's not gonna replace that face-to-face experience but it's it's still a decent form of communication.

I watch a handful of slightly bigger streamers quite frequently such as Octavius, Wee Claire and Dominik Diamond but none of the crazy popular ones you see playing Fortnite to 20,000+ people. I mostly watch folk from here or guys I've been recommended based on the type of content I stream myself.

Yeah I'm kind of over the idea of streaming being an inherently parasocial nightmare for socially isolated humans, being someone with both 43,000 posts on an internet forum and actual real world interests.

I actually found a Glasgow based arcade which has a thriving community around it via Twitch just the other day, through which I’ve also found a fairly strong West of Scotland streaming community which is like to get involved in. There are definitely advantages to the system as it currently is.

Cuttooth wrote:Yeah I'm kind of over the idea of streaming being an inherently parasocial nightmare for socially isolated humans, being someone with both 43,000 posts on an internet forum and actual real world interests.

... .

But, err... I'm not quite sure which angle you're supporting, Cut .

Cuttooth wrote:Yeah I'm kind of over the idea of streaming being an inherently parasocial nightmare for socially isolated humans, being someone with both 43,000 posts on an internet forum and actual real world interests.

Yeah. It isn’t, and I get that this is what it looks like to people on the outside(as must this place!), and I completely understand why as well - I used to have a similar view on it - but I genuinely haven’t found that to be the case.

Small streams with friends and communities are fine, of course. I enjoy hanging out on GRcade streams sometimes, or watching my IRL friends play a game while chatting. I streamed a few times before to people on here and it was a fun way to spend a couple of hours.

I think larger streams, where the goal is explicitly for a career streamer to make money, are inherently exploitative. Some much more insidiously than others, but the pressure to build easily monetisable parasocial connections is baked in.

But then, all capitalism is inherently exploitative, and all culture in capitalist societies is poisoned by it. I personally still enjoy a few big streams (I kind of think of them as comedy shows!) despite being very aware of the constant attempts to psychologically connect me to the streamer in order to monetise my watching.

I don't take any issue with the monetary side of it. It's like busking, if I'm enjoying the content I'm watching why shouldn't I chuck the streamer a few coppers?

Turning things around as I have a full time job I would never ask for the same in kind, in fact since my channel is so amateurish I actually discourage it but if people do want to throw a few coins my way I certainly won't say no.

Cumberdanes wrote:I don't take any issue with the monetary side of it. It's like busking, if I'm enjoying the content I'm watching why shouldn't I chuck the streamer a few coppers?

I think it's worthwhile to be able to articulate how the (high-end) streaming business model bakes in the fetishisation of friendship in order to facilitate the monetisation of parasocial interactions between the entertainer and viewer; that makes it different to donating to a busker.

I'm not saying any individual is "wrong" for giving money to a stream. I'm talking about understanding the motivations and operation of streaming as a capitalist system.

I like watching an anime dog-girl play Nintendo games on YouTube Live, so I'm really not calling anyone out - I don't have a leg to stand on! - I just think it's good to be aware how profit is made from viewership.

I gotta admit that I rarely pay streamers. Mainly 'cos money is tight right now, but I also prefer to just contribute with chat. I've got nothing against the generosity of those folk that do pay, of course!

That's a pretty crap comparison. Music is music regardless of where you hear it but the value of a game comes from playing it, not watching otherwise all your PS4 would play is Netflix.

Streamers are giving out free advertising, not mooching off developers.

Carlos wrote:That's a pretty crap comparison. Music is music regardless of where you hear it but the value of a game comes from playing it, not watching otherwise all your PS4 would play is Netflix.

Streamers are giving out free advertising, not mooching off developers.

This is the bit I keep coming back to. In almost any other creative industry, people are fighting tooth and nail to get away from people using their work without payment and offering advertising or exposure as compensation, and quite rightly. But when it comes to video games, ultimately an amalgamation of so many other creative mediums, it's suddenly treated as a totally legitimate form of compensation.

I still don't get it.