Should Streamers Pay Game Developers? Google Responds After Stadia Dev Resurfaces The Debate

[Fulcrum29]

Should Streamers Pay Game Developers? Google Responds After Stadia Dev Resurfaces The Debate

Alex Hutchinson believes that streamers should be cutting in game developers on revenue, but Google isn't adhering to that stance.

www.gamespot.com

Alex Hutchinson believes that streamers should be cutting in game developers on revenue, but Google isn't adhering to that stance.

The debate surrounding whether video game streamers should pay royalties to respective developers and publishers has been around for the better half of a decade. Comments made by a creative director at one of Google Stadia's in-house studios has reignited the argument, forcing Google to distance itself from the remarks.

Alex Hutchinson, creative director at the Montreal Studio of Stadia Games and Entertainment, posted a thread of tweets breaking down his views surrounding streamers and whether business licenses for games should be introduced. Hutchinson believes that streamers generate revenue from games they've either obtained for free or very little money, motivating his stance that content creators owe game developers a cut.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1319305553454288896

Hutchinson's views didn't go down well, with several critics taking shots at the Google Stadia employee. Google eventually released its own statement on the matter, distancing itself from Hutchinson's remarks.

"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," said the company in a statement to 9to5Google.

Hutchinson also changed his own Twitter bio to clarify that he's the creative director of a studio at Stadia, rather than the creative director for the Stadia project.

Outside of the jabs and damage control, another instance of constructive discussion on the matter emerged. Michael Hartman, a developer with 30 years of experience, shared a fascinating breakdown of how streamers are one part of marketing, but not as vital to sales success as they used to be.

Hartman explains that most stream viewers are now watching the content for entertainment rather than purchasing advice, which has resulted in fewer sales from streams outside of the obvious viral outliers (like Among Us and Phasmophobia this year). Despite that, Hartman still believes that it's a vital part of the industry but expects there to be a deal in the future that benefits both streamers and developers alike.

Odd,

The real truth is the streamers should be paying the developers and publishers of the games they stream. They should be buying a license like any real business and paying for the content they use.

you know, unless pirated, they are already in a commercial agreement. It is people like this Hutchinson who wants to change the rules in regard to use and consumption. I have to ask whether this is in Google's ethos, because the true reason behind them distancing themselves are due to the public outrage and not Hutchinson's views which may very well also be their own. They appointed Hutchinson, and I am sure they have these discussions at their round table.

I strongly support IP, but I understand usage. Silly argument to have in today's time.

Dr. Disrespect probably earns more than Hutchinson

 

[Fulcrum29]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1319339329517424641

Seeing this post he made, I am sure the team at YouTube told corporate that Hutchinson is smoking some Apple.

Typical reply to the criticism he received throughout the day,

https://twitter.com/x/status/1319356463391903748

so... how does 'streaming' work on Google Stadia?

 

[SauRoNZA]

Surely they’ve already paid for it?

So others mediums doing reviews and such pay royalties? Not that I’ve ever heard of. In fact the devs give them the games in the first place.

 

[Johnatan56]

Guess I should pay Adobe some extra money because people saw the add that made money for me.

 

[Fulcrum29]

Surely they’ve already paid for it?

So others mediums doing reviews and such pay royalties? Not that I’ve ever heard of. In fact the devs give them the games in the first place.

Not everyone is even as privileged. What Hutchinson is suggesting, commercially, is to keep the popular streamers in the race whilst 'denying' others entry to market. Some have the means and other don't have the means, and I'm not even talking about the ethics, standards and practices here, I'm simply elaborating on the impact it will have on streamers in general.

I actually want to see Google Stadia’s use agreement now, and the license agreements by their marketplace sellers (or publishers). I don’t believe that Stadia have any current integration with any third-party streaming ecosystems.

 

[My_King]

I'm sure "Among us" can answer that question. Pretty sure their sales increased.

Ask Minecraft, wonder why their sales went up.

 

[SauRoNZA]

It’s a very slippery slope.

While not all streams are necessarily reviews it’s an indirect form of free marketing.

To now want to monetise that is first going to kill that industry but in the process also have people revolting against publishers/developers who want to implement such arcane business practises.

 

[Fulcrum29]

I'm sure "Among us" can answer that question. Pretty sure their sales increased.

Ask Minecraft, wonder why their sales went up.

There is a strong case, the more active viewers you have the more active players you have. Twitch and other gaming networks also serve a sales channel. Funnel, as simple as that. Streamers are sellers. Correlations are easily drawn.

For publishers (and developers) it can even be viewed as a managed CRM.

Hutchinson has seen a problem, these sellers aka streamer 'commissions' are too high, so they need to cut it down and put that cut back into their own pocket.

 

[The Voice]

Hey streamers, we've just released this awesome game - you've bought it, and we'd love for you to advertise it for us by playing it on your stream for your thousands of viewers. Er, what was that? Payment? A little something under the table? Oh no, no, we're going to need you to pay US to advertise it for us. Wait what do you mean "go **** yourself"? Do you know who we are?! Er, hello? Hello?!

 

[The Voice]

There is a strong case, the more active viewers you have the more active players you have. Twitch and other gaming networks also serve a sales channel. Funnel, as simple as that. Streamers are sellers. Correlations are easily drawn.

For publishers (and developers) it can even be viewed as a managed CRM.

Hutchinson has seen a problem, these sellers aka streamer 'commissions' are too high, so they need to cut it down and put that cut back into their own pocket.

I think EA paid Shroud and a couple of others $1mil EACH when they launched Apex. It had zero marketing before launch, and they made sure millions started playing it after the opening weekend.

 

[Aluroth]

I'm pretty sure there is something in the T&C that allow publishers to DMCA claim streamers if they stream the game without approval, it's just that no one does it as it is free advertising.

 

[AlphaJohn]

I'm pretty sure there is something in the T&C that allow publishers to DMCA claim streamers if they stream the game without approval, it's just that no one does it as it is free advertising.

Falls under Fair Use clause... they can copyright on music (which is where this whole debate started) but not for streaming yourself playing a game.

The problem is that I listen to music for entertainment, I dont watch a video on how to enjoy music, I just do.

On the other hand I do watch a video on how to do certain actions in a game, ie for help on how to enjoys it myself. Very similar to reading a how-to book I get from the library or news agents. Those have already been trailed and ruled as fair use back in the 70's.

The real question is does watching streamers take money away from publishers? I have a youtube.music subscription and dont find the need to buy any music as I get all I want from it. I do also subscribe to game streamers like xHOUNDISHx and fallout plays but watch them for updates and reviews on weapons and such that so that I can get most out of my game I paid for.

I also do watch others like Dunkey, IGN or Gameplay streams on games that I am interested in to see if its worth my money. So falls under reviews and I do not see reviewers paying a licence to erm like review a game.....

 

[Cius]

A major way I research games and make purchasing decisions is via streamers. If a game house demanded that I would boycott them on principle. The vast majority of streamers are not professional and barely earn anything from the games they stream. They get excited when their streaming earnings give them enough to upgrade to a slightly better camera or set of headphones. Charging them to stream would be idiotic.

 

[ArmatageShanks]

I've never heard such rubbish. You pay for the product, thereafter it's supposed to be yours to do with as you please.

Apple is brilliant at showing us just how much you are not allowed to do that.

 

[YoungSandwich]

That sad reality of the situation is that what the dude is saying, isn't wrong. Just stupid. And any developers who would do this would also be stupid. Like Nintendo. Who did do something like this 2 or 3 years ago. People just stopped promoting their games.

Falls under Fair Use clause... they can copyright on music (which is where this whole debate started) but not for streaming yourself playing a game.

The way I understand Fair Use is like this: if you are playing a game live on Twitch, they can DMCA it. But as soon as you turn your mic on and start adding your own commentary, its fine.

Music has always been a problem tho.

 

[rietrot]

Game developers should pay streamers for the marketing.

 

[AlphaJohn]

The way I understand Fair Use is like this: if you are playing a game live on Twitch, they can DMCA it. But as soon as you turn your mic on and start adding your own commentary, its fine.

Streaming game play falls under transformation clause. I'm not playing the game, I am watching you play the game so its already transformed from the basic intended purpose.

 

[Aluroth]

Falls under Fair Use clause... they can copyright on music (which is where this whole debate started) but not for streaming yourself playing a game.

Streamers should pay game developers royalties, argues Stadia creative director | VGC

‘Stadia’ trends worldwide following developer’s comments over content licensing…

www.videogameschronicle.com

“Streamers worried about getting their content pulled because they used music they didn’t pay for should be more worried by the fact that they’re streaming games they didn’t pay for as well,” he wrote. “It’s all gone as soon as publishers decide to enforce it."

You pay for access to the game. The game and content still belong to them, just like they can ban and sue you for using/making hacks.

If they start doing this though I will also start boycotting them. This music debate is also stupid to me as no one goes on Twitch to listen music, and it's free exposure. But yeah, I'm not really an expert in that area.

 

[YoungSandwich]

Streaming game play falls under transformation clause. I'm not playing the game, I am watching you play the game so its already transformed from the basic intended purpose.

Fair enough, I agree with you there.

What about cutscenes tho? What if you're streaming Death Stranding without your own commentary? Realistically, what is the difference between streaming a cutscene in Death Stranding and streaming a episode of The Boys of instance. The player doesn't have any input on what happens there, nor do you as the watcher. It's honestly a muddled mess this whole thing. Really the smart thing for everyone to do is just view streamers as a source of advertising.

 

[AlphaJohn]

Streamers should pay game developers royalties, argues Stadia creative director | VGC

‘Stadia’ trends worldwide following developer’s comments over content licensing…

www.videogameschronicle.com

You pay for access to the game. The game and content still belong to them, just like they can ban and sue you for using/making hacks.

If they start doing this though I will also start boycotting them. This music debate is also stupid to me as no one goes on Twitch to listen music, and it's free exposure. But yeah, I'm not really an expert in that area.

You can not DMCA on just game play...

Like I said, if you follow the whole story its what started the whole debate. Streamers where complaining about False copyright strikes. Some publishing houses do this with partners when you talk bad about their games or show things they don't want the viewers to know like say Apex loot bug.

Thats where Google erm in mean Alex said Streamers should pay Publishers to streams...

Its Just WRONG.