Google Stadia manages to trend on Twitter on heels of employee's hot take
Google's game streaming service lands in the spotlight after an employee insists that gamers should have to pay licensing fees to stream their games.
There is no arguing that livestreaming has had a monumental impact on the way video games are consumed and created. Where you once had to have real-life friends willing to sit on your couch and watch you try to beat Mike Tyson in Punch-Out!!, streaming has opened up the entire world as a potential audience for one’s video game exploits. It can be used for fun or as a marketing tool that can make or break a game financially. As of now, most game publishers allow end-users to stream their games onto platforms like Twitch or Youtube without financial compensation. Alex Hutchinson, the former co-founder of Typhoon Games who is now under the Google Stadia umbrella, shared his opinion today that gamers should be directly paying developers and publishers for the games they stream, causing Google’s on-demand game streaming service to trend on social media.
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.
— Alex Hutchinson (@BangBangClick) October 22, 2020
Hutchinson’s sentiment came on the heels of streamer backlash directed at Twitch’s handling of the use of copyrighted music on live streams. In most other forms of media, content creators must pay to license copyright music or other content before it can legally be used in another medium. If the producers of Law and Order: SVU want to use a snippet of Smash Mouth’s All Star to play over a scene of an aggravated assault, they must first contact the publishers who own the rights to the recording and secure permission.
Many streamers and gamers did not agree with Hutchinson’s opinion on the matter, leading the discussion to gain traction on social media. Aside from the hype surrounding its original announcement and presumably at the undetermined time in the future when Google pulls the plug on the service, this is likely the only time the on-demand game streaming platform will reach such heights in social media metrics. Anyone versed in the art of hot takes understands that one will usually lead to another.
heartbroken that the guy who claimed that women were too much work to animate into games is loudly having more bad takes on twitter. don't meet your heroes i guess.
— abby russell (@ybbaaabby) October 22, 2020
Ouch. For more of the latest news on the world of livestreaming and all the other video game business you can handle, keep it tuned to Shacknews.
-
Shacknews
replyChris Jarrard posted a new article, Google Stadia manages to trend on Twitter on heels of employee's hot take
-
[deleted]
-
-
Alex Hutchinson and Giant Bomb have history.
-
[deleted]
-
Took me a while to remember that Stadia doesn’t work on Chromecast because lol
-
-
-
He is not wrong.
-
[deleted]
-
-
-
Games must be played to be fully experienced. Viewing and playing are vastly different.
A song really just has one form: hearing the song, so licensing makes some sense-
What about a movie- you have to experience the entire thing but what amount can I show before it crosse the line -80% ? 90?
-
The difference with a movie and a song vs games in my opinion is a song/movie can be viewed and shown without any input from the streamer. The movie / song is then consumed by the viewer. If a gamers streams a game a does zero input the game doesn't play itself.
When a streamer plays a game you're watching them play the game (their input and their personality) you're not consuming the product yourself.
When we buy a game ourselves we consume the product when we play the product ourselves.
-
-
-
even if every game developer agreed to do this, charge for streaming, one company will be like lets not charge, its free marketing. then another company will, and so on. and we're back to square 1 when everyone agrees, done. arguing for this leads to nothing
-
a truly moronic take made even worse by issuing it while Among Us blows up years after release because people can freely stream it
-
I mean, I can understand the thought process, but we're nowhere near that cycle to begin having the conversation.
Basically, the same as movies or sporting events etc, it's intended for home use, not commercial use.
Using movies and sports to generate more business and the license holder would want a greater part of the pie. I mean, is it their product or yours that is generating the meat of the establishment's money?
Applying that thought logic to games now is moronic since games benefit way more from free streaming and exposure than they are hurt by it. In a few years, when streamers are commoditized and replaceable, then game companies could have more leverage in the transaction, but not now.-
I dont think game companies will ever have leverage. more and more games will be made each year, getting eyeballs on your product will be more important and valuable than any royalties. I dont think streamers will be replaceable either too like these people spend a lot of work and effort creating their viewership, it also takes talent honestly not everyone can talk to thousands of people everyday for 8 hrs
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
I bet the Among Us devs are super pissed off that their dead game was revived due to twitch streamers.
-
