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

twitter.com/BangBangClick/status/1319305552560836609

So the guy running Stadia's creative output (remember Stadia) thinks it's streamers who benefit unfairly from streaming games to their audiences and that the poor, impoverished game devs should be charging a licence.

twitter.com/maplecocaine/status/1080665226410889217

This is the same guy who once suggested that reviewers favouring Japanese developers was racist. Talk about failing upwards.

twitter.com/GenePark/status/1319355701861515265

Is anyone here a Stadia sub by the way?

Damn. And to think Stadia’s PR up until this point was going so well, too...

Stadia; it's all gone as soon as publishers decide to ignore it.

I mean...there are Devs and Publishers that literally pay streamers to play their games, and far more that give streamers free keys to get publicity for the game.

@BangBangClick? @WompWompDick.

I mean, I get where he's coming from.

You wouldn't be allowed to get away with just streaming a film or TV series on twitch, or playing out someone's album in full. Why is it OK to broadcast someone else's creative work to the world for free, when they're otherwise trying to sell it?

It does sort of feel like games are only allowed to be streamed because it's currently seen as good marketing by so many publishers, and it would currently only harm any devs who tried to crack down on streaming of their games if they didn't want it. The framework to go after streamers is definitely there, like when Campo Santo got all the footage of Firewatch taken off of pewdiepratt's channel, but I can't think of many other cases where that's happened.

I think he's right. But game developers already get paid. They get free publicity for their game. And that translates to sales. It is a mutually beneficial relationship and not comparable to say, using someone's music in a film which has much less impact for the copyright owner.

to play devils avocado its not really the same is it? when you stream a game you are showing your playing of it, which will be different to anyone elses. you might also be showing your voice or your face or both - both additive.

its more akin to if i did a live review of a new album, where i played some of it, then talked about it throughout. i guess yes you could be hearing the music but its not like actually sitting down and listening yourself.

This is really just pointing out the outdated way music is dealt with online. Artists could benefit from streamers in the exact same way games do, it's just free exposure.

twitter.com/mrfeelswildride/status/1319339865289338880

I've been laughing at this for a good while today. Imagine being such a dinosaur as to hate the idea of free advertising.

And yeah, about the people going "Well you can't do it for TV": TV and music, etc aren't interactive. It's apples to oranges. There's a case to be made for extremely linear, narrative styled games, but anything with any significant level of gameplay laughs at this claim.

<]:^D wrote:to play devils avocado its not really the same is it? when you stream a game you are showing your playing of it, which will be different to anyone elses. you might also be showing your voice or your face or both - both additive.

its more akin to if i did a live review of a new album, where i played some of it, then talked about it throughout. i guess yes you could be hearing the music but its not like actually sitting down and listening yourself.

Debatable.

I get that games aren't films, and you don't experience a game in the same way as watching someone play it, but it's more the point around there being a team of people who have worked to make a piece of creative entertainment, and chosen that the way they want to distribute that creation to is by selling it to people.

What makes it OK for someone else to take their work, and broadcast it for free? Even more so when streamers get money for showing off other people's creative efforts.

Knoyleo wrote:

<]:^D wrote:to play devils avocado its not really the same is it? when you stream a game you are showing your playing of it, which will be different to anyone elses. you might also be showing your voice or your face or both - both additive.

its more akin to if i did a live review of a new album, where i played some of it, then talked about it throughout. i guess yes you could be hearing the music but its not like actually sitting down and listening yourself.

Debatable.

I get that games aren't films, and you don't experience a game in the same way as watching someone play it, but it's more the point around there being a team of people who have worked to make a piece of creative entertainment, and chosen that the way they want to distribute that creation to is by selling it to people.

What makes it OK for someone else to take their work, and broadcast it for free? Even more so when streamers get money for showing off other people's creative efforts.

Because if they streamed themselves watching a movie you are getting the exact same experience that they are. If they streamed themselves playing a game, outside of some few examples, you are going to have a different experience to them. Therefore they are not offering the same experience for free.

Wouldn’t be surprised if this bloke get’s a nice bollocking from his bosses at some point in the next, ooooh, 24 hours.

How would you decide what fees people pay? Would Mafro have to pay the same as Ninja? How do you administer that? How do you police it?

I also like the idea that he's trying to push this as "for the little guy" when everyone and their mother knows the devs wouldn't get a penny of it and it'll just go right into EA's already bursting bank account.

Edit:

KK wrote:Wouldn’t be surprised if this bloke get’s a nice bollocking from his bosses at some point in the next, ooooh, 24 hours.

twitter.com/RonAmadeo/status/1319373260782436354

Looks it.

Even if streaming is stealing, stealing from corporations is good.

Met wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:

<]:^D wrote:to play devils avocado its not really the same is it? when you stream a game you are showing your playing of it, which will be different to anyone elses. you might also be showing your voice or your face or both - both additive.

its more akin to if i did a live review of a new album, where i played some of it, then talked about it throughout. i guess yes you could be hearing the music but its not like actually sitting down and listening yourself.

Debatable.

I get that games aren't films, and you don't experience a game in the same way as watching someone play it, but it's more the point around there being a team of people who have worked to make a piece of creative entertainment, and chosen that the way they want to distribute that creation to is by selling it to people.

What makes it OK for someone else to take their work, and broadcast it for free? Even more so when streamers get money for showing off other people's creative efforts.

Because if they streamed themselves watching a movie you are getting the exact same experience that they are. If they streamed themselves playing a game, outside of some few examples, you are going to have a different experience to them. Therefore they are not offering the same experience for free.

Not the experience, but you're still getting the same content that people worked on for free. Regardless of whether you play the game or watch someone else play it, some poor art team member at Rockstar still had to 3D render those horse balls.

Knoyleo wrote:I mean, I get where he's coming from.

You wouldn't be allowed to get away with just streaming a film or TV series on twitch, or playing out someone's album in full. Why is it OK to broadcast someone else's creative work to the world for free, when they're otherwise trying to sell it?

I tried writing some of my opinions on the matter before realizing I was basically paraphrasing this:

twitter.com/Campster/status/1319341497045614593

(5-tweet thread, so click through for the whole thing)

Don't understand this. It's really not the same as other media. It's free game advertisement.

OldSoulCyborg wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:I mean, I get where he's coming from.

You wouldn't be allowed to get away with just streaming a film or TV series on twitch, or playing out someone's album in full. Why is it OK to broadcast someone else's creative work to the world for free, when they're otherwise trying to sell it?

I tried writing some of my opinions on the matter before realizing I was basically paraphrasing this:

twitter.com/Campster/status/1319341497045614593

(5-tweet thread, so click through for the whole thing)

This is the correct reaction. All the tussling about legality is missing the greater context: the current situation benefits everyone.