Developers want streamers to pay for gaming... Are they INSANE?

Alex Hutchinson, the creative director of Stadia's Montreal studio, set the web on fire after tweeting that streamers should pay publishers and developers to use their games. And while, he does make a valid point... Nowadays, streamers are the best way to promote a game.

Today, more than ever, we what to know what you think! This is a pretty controversial topic and what Alex says could endanger a lot of games that would be nothing without streamers (case and point: Among Us).

Let us know what you think in the comments! We love reading them. And don't forget to like this video if you enjoyed it and to subscribe to our channel... Because next-gen consoles are fast approaching, and we want to tell you EVERYTHING about them!

[lliamclifton]

Nobody uses stadia thats why he wants to get paid for it haha

[ajbgaming]

game companies get free unpaid advertising from streamers. but this statement from a Stadia development shouldn't have weight, Stadia is a failed experiment and everyone tied to it is desperate to stay afloat and relevant.

[jasonmaier]

If a consumer purchases a game they are free to do with it as they please, they already paid!

[Horizons-Lionheart]

By purchasing the consoles and games that are being used for said streaming... devs should consider THAT payment for license to stream it, since the streamer/buyer PAID for THIER now OWNED product. if they wanted to burn a game disk on live stream they could sure as well do so... and they wouldnt be able to do anything about it. not morale but still... the fact that this is coming up again is just... senseless in an already pretty bad year.

[kakyoinnoriaki]

The same thing almost happen in my country, but rather than game it was Live streaming at general in any online platform, a local tv station asked the goverment to make a law that every people who want to live streaming, must have a license, they said this was suppose to protect public "moral".

Personally, i think they did this in order for people to watch tv more while saying that streamers are immorals.

[Darksilverjesse]

1) streamers either pay, or are gifted the the game (they pay for the content)
2) a streamer is essentially advertising the game (if a streamer must pay to play the game, the dev should pay the streamer for playing the game)
3) not all streamers are paid by platform/viewers (protected under the "public artists protection act" of 1983 "Any artist doing public works for little to no pay is devoid of taxation or persecution for the content created)(<- originally directed at musicians and painters who presented on sidewalks, but can be interpreted to modern day)
4) streamers can make or break a game depending on their opinions of the game, from 100's to millions of potential customers can be swayed by a single streamer's opinion.

Developers should use streamers as a resource rather than looking at us like pirates. Sony, Disney, and Nintendo already give us enough grief over use of their CPC (copyright protected content), (ex: a streamer put 3 circles together while drawing a wheel design for an off-road vehicle. Disney claimed their video as using "a likeness of the CPC Mickey Mouse"). This kind of abuse is why 230 protection is going to go away, forcing right holders to have to file legal claims against us rather than just threaten our livelihoods with a couple clicks. If a CH wants to spend $5000 to sue a CC for the <$100 they made from use of a character or likeness, then the judges will have to get their heads ready for the facepalming at the evidence against the CH claim. With over 1 million various streamers, it could cost CH Billions in legal battles that will be tossed out as frivolous. And if enough suites come of a CH then the CC could turn around and file a harassment lawsuit against the CH to which could pay out up to $100, 000. if that happened to every streamer, it could run the CH Trillions of dollars paid out to CC.

In short, for the financial future of developers, stop harassing the Content Creators before they bankrupt your companies. Just sit back and enjoy the free advertising and use the money saved to polish up the games that are still in the grey of good/bad.

[scarmercer]

The difference between why restaurants have to pay to show football is because you dont normal pay 10-70 dollars to just watch one football game, while you pay for to play a video game.

[UnmitigatedRandomness]

This is like saying that an advertiser should be paying a developer for promoting the developer's game...

[darkgotit]

Great content as always. I missed your vids

[JohnSmith-xqpz]

Place your bets Evil Arts trys this in the near future

[Codemantic]

I don't even make money streaming I'm too small at the moment to even get bits right now so he's not getting a dime from me.

[AngellusRavenix]

The entire argument is B.S. In a situation that someone is streaming their game, but didn't pay for it, they need to prove the game wasn't bought be the streamer or a fan. Hell, depending on the size of the streamers audience, they could have gotten a copy from the company itself. So I feel that part of the argument is crap. As for "you can't broadcast music or movies online without a license" again doesn't hold up. The game without you playing it, just sits there. If you start it and don't press anything, you sit on the start screen or maybe it'll play intended gameplay footage. It'll do nothing. The gamer will DIRECTLY make choices and interact with the game, thus making it unique and transformative. They are engaging with the property and it is now unique. Basically now, fair use in a manner of speaking.

But my question is, this guy is saying they need a license to stream the game. He can have his opinion, but the question I've had this entire time since the question on whether or not streamers/ let's players are infringing on copyright by playing it online is, if a person views the streamer or LP'er play a game and they then decide to BUY the game off of their gameplay, how much money are you, the dev/ publisher, paying that streamer or LP'er? After all, you can't prove that this copy of the game would have been purchased HAD the entertainer not played your game and made it, ya know, look entertaining. Strange how they keep asking for money, but want to ignore compensation for the free advertising. But did anyone notice it was Stadia's guy making the statement? Not say, a Sony exec, or a MS exec, or a game dev or publishing company. Kind of like how successful entities tend to not whine openly about their need for money since they didn't back the wrong horse in the derby. But I'm sure Stadia's player base had nothing to do with the tweets.

[nchlsjohn]

If they want to charge then there goes their free advertisements. I would play their competitors games

[smartjak]

Streaming is not a business. Streamers are not companies. They're consumers. Consumers who paid to play the game in the first place. People watch streamers for the personality of that streamer, regardless of the game they play.

[dominictrujillo]

I don't stream any games, so I don't know how to answer this debate on whether streamers should pay the game developers a fee for streaming their games or not?

I can see the logic in having to pay, but also I can see the logic in not having to pay because it's free promotion for that game developers game and when a streamer, for like example on YouTube says that it's a good or bad game to play. The public will respond to that streamer's opinion of that game? Because I know that I sure have. 🎮

[mostafaalghalibi]

Man I loved this video. Glad see u guys coming back. Anyways, these companies are greedy as hell

[TheMccaleb]

A developer wanting money for games being streamed is akin to that jerkoff wanting money for the word edge. Or trump trying ( AND SUCCEEDING FOR AWHILE MIND YOU) to copyright "Youre fired".

Or that brief period of my life when the birthday song was infact copyrighted and some restaurants actually stopped some people from singing it. We get these creators who believe they wholly own the product they make in every kind of respect. Kinda like the drm fiasco where they were trying to prevent you from being able to sell or loan out your games. They want to control every aspect from initial design to even when it's in your hands. Its gross and also immature. I really hope giving heat to this new trashfire doesn't spread bad ideas throughout the community.

[natejoe]

Now he's getting crapped on and I got to say well deserved

[bryonyamada]

I see it as FREE ADVERTIZMENT. Also it lets Gamers who are on the FENCE about buying a game. If they see the game play and like it, then they will buy the game.

[a-drewg]

You tried using bars as an example as to why streamers should pay to stream games, but a better example would be saying the sport's players themselves have to buy a license in order to wear a teams jersey and play in a game. This is because the streamers are the players. They either buy the game or have it given to them and then play the game to provide entertainment to others.