5 ms·

I don't disagree on the sales impact - if you're spending a sufficient portion of your day watching videos of people playing a game, and that game isn't streame

I don't disagree on the sales impact - if you're spending a sufficient portion of your day watching videos of people playing a game, and that game isn't streamed, you're FAR more likely to watch a different game than actually go and buy a copy and play it. That said, the irony is strong here when streamers are complaining about not being able to monetize their stream of someone else's work without restriction.

Nadya 11y ago
>That said, the irony is strong here when streamers are complaining about not being able to monetize their stream of someone else's work without restriction. They are monetizing their time spent/interaction with viewers which is a very different thing and something people do monetize (see: speaker's fees, counseling fees, adviser fees) That's the idea behind monetizing streams/streamers accepting donations. It's a way the viewers can support the person to stream for X hours a day and have it be something they can routinely do because they are being paid for their time. It just so happens that time is being spent playing a game that is the result of someone else's work. I think it is stupid to deny free publicity - but maybe there's a reason why I'm not in marketing/advertising. Not sure if necessary, but possible bias: I don't monetize through ads and prefer to accept donations, but I have streamed on occasion and have received donations for doing so.
- stcredzero 11y ago
  That's the idea behind monetizing streams/streamers accepting donations. It's a way the viewers can support the person to stream for X hours a day and have it be something they can routinely do because they are being paid for their time. It just so happens that time is being spent playing a game that is the result of someone else's work. To me, the position of enlightened self interest would have the Let's Play creators offering their support by urging their viewers to give Patreon donations or buy the game. Given that is happening, then it's time for the game creators to start rethinking their business model.
- greggman 11y ago
  Share the revenue? Don't know what the correct split is. As a game creator who spends 2+ years per game on a team of 20 (so 40 man years) and then some one spends 4 to 80 hours recording themselves playing and then editing I'd tend to think the game creators deserve the lion's share of the revenue but maybe I could be convinced otherwise. Youtube already does this for music (not sure they actually share revenue) but they do at least provide a way for the music creator (or the creator's representatives) to get revenue when someone else uses the music. A better sharing arrangement sounds like mostly a win/win --- Let me add, while the Let's Player can certainly be entertaining if people are really watching for their entertainment value then they shouldn't need the game to get viewers. In other words, it seems arguable viewers view for the games more than the Let's Player. If people would tune in without the games then there's no reason for the Let's Player to have the games at all. Just be an entertaining person like a some of the more popular youtubers.
  - thedufer 11y ago
    You're significantly devaluing the streamer's contribution. The streamers who make money have spent years cultivating a following. That network effect is hard to value, but I'm pretty sure 0 isn't quite right.
  - Nadya 11y ago
    >Share the revenue? Don't know what the correct split is. As a game creator who spends 2+ years per game on a team of 20 (so 40 man years) and then some one spends 4 to 80 hours recording themselves playing and then editing I'd tend to think the game creators deserve the lion's share of the revenue but maybe I could be convinced otherwise. A game nobody has heard of and never will hear of vs any popular streamer who has spent 3+ years streaming and has 1,000's if not 10,000's of followers. Some of those followers will buy the game. That's the dev's split. Even a no-name streamer (like myself) who pulls in 10-20 people tops during a good hour can still manage to sell some copies of the game merely by playing it (assuming they're enjoying it/it's a decent game worth buying). The dev still get's their split: free advertisement. Dev's are, of course, free to not let streamers stream their game. I think it's stupid and wouldn't buy their game on principle: largely I assume the worst. Is the game so bad they want people purchasing it without seeing any gameplay? Well, I'll pass. Myself and 100,000's of others who have changed their purchasing decisions from "game reviews" to "someone who's gaming taste is similar to mine enjoys it and it looks fun". Game development is a business. Fail to keep up with the times and find yourself using an outdated business model and you will go out of business. It's just a matter of how long it takes. For better or worse, many people make their game purchasing decisions based on streamers and seeing live gameplay so judge if a game looks fun or not before purchasing. I think a dev is free to not allow people to stream their game or to profit from streaming their game. But I will point out to them that they're shooting themselves in the foot and that I think they should reconsider. The only games that I've ever seen hurt by free advertisement are games which are awfully bad. Which I consider a win for the consumer, even if the dev loses out on. Just like any other business: it doesn't matter how hard you worked on something if the end product was bad. It's sucks for the creator/people who spent so much time on it, but that's how business works and I'll side with the consumers every time.
Spivak 11y ago
Let's consider another market. Gag gifts. Suppose a streamer made their living by producing funny videos of entertaining or awkward situations where the gag gift is used. People on YT watch the stream, have a laugh, and then don't buy the actual product because it's only shocking/funny a few times before it gets old. Arguably you're paying for the experience of a gag gift rather than the actual product. Should the manufacturer be able to demand the videos be taken down? You could do this all day with products which sell themselves on an experience. You could have a streamer buy expensive clothes, wear them with a secret camera and record the (or produce) reactions they get from a first person perspective. After you watch the video, why buy the clothes since you've lived vicariously through them? How about food shows, guy goes to diners, drive-ins, or maybe some dives, interviews the chef, orders their specialty and then films their reaction. Is he not literally making money on someone else's work by this reasoning? Without the restaurants he's got no show. Sure you could argue he needs permission to film on private property and the show is better with their consent but there's nothing really stopping him from ordering take-out and then eating it somewhere else. Edit: Since I predict responses might be something like, "in these specific instances here's why a person would still pay for the product" you've got to do better than that -- doing something legally that costs someone sales doesn't suddenly make it illegal, and I could make the same point back at you about games.
- sp332 11y ago
  The owners on that show still get paid though. And every one of them gets the location printed in big letters on the screen, which is more than some of these streamers are doing.
fenomas 11y ago
> if ... that game isn't streamed, you're FAR more likely to watch a different game than actually go and buy a copy and play it Surely the relevant question is whether people would be more likely to buy if the game is streamed, but a few more streamers posted a link and refrained from spoiling the ending? That's what the article is asking for, not for everyone to stop streaming.

Nadya 11y ago

>That said, the irony is strong here when streamers are complaining about not being able to monetize their stream of someone else's work without restriction. They are monetizing their time spent/interaction with viewers which is a very different thing and something people do monetize (see: speaker's fees, counseling fees, adviser fees) That's the idea behind monetizing streams/streamers accepting donations. It's a way the viewers can support the person to stream for X hours a day and have it be something they can routinely do because they are being paid for their time. It just so happens that time is being spent playing a game that is the result of someone else's work. I think it is stupid to deny free publicity - but maybe there's a reason why I'm not in marketing/advertising. Not sure if necessary, but possible bias: I don't monetize through ads and prefer to accept donations, but I have streamed on occasion and have received donations for doing so.

stcredzero 11y ago
That's the idea behind monetizing streams/streamers accepting donations. It's a way the viewers can support the person to stream for X hours a day and have it be something they can routinely do because they are being paid for their time. It just so happens that time is being spent playing a game that is the result of someone else's work. To me, the position of enlightened self interest would have the Let's Play creators offering their support by urging their viewers to give Patreon donations or buy the game. Given that is happening, then it's time for the game creators to start rethinking their business model.
greggman 11y ago
Share the revenue? Don't know what the correct split is. As a game creator who spends 2+ years per game on a team of 20 (so 40 man years) and then some one spends 4 to 80 hours recording themselves playing and then editing I'd tend to think the game creators deserve the lion's share of the revenue but maybe I could be convinced otherwise. Youtube already does this for music (not sure they actually share revenue) but they do at least provide a way for the music creator (or the creator's representatives) to get revenue when someone else uses the music. A better sharing arrangement sounds like mostly a win/win --- Let me add, while the Let's Player can certainly be entertaining if people are really watching for their entertainment value then they shouldn't need the game to get viewers. In other words, it seems arguable viewers view for the games more than the Let's Player. If people would tune in without the games then there's no reason for the Let's Player to have the games at all. Just be an entertaining person like a some of the more popular youtubers.
- thedufer 11y ago
  You're significantly devaluing the streamer's contribution. The streamers who make money have spent years cultivating a following. That network effect is hard to value, but I'm pretty sure 0 isn't quite right.
- Nadya 11y ago
  >Share the revenue? Don't know what the correct split is. As a game creator who spends 2+ years per game on a team of 20 (so 40 man years) and then some one spends 4 to 80 hours recording themselves playing and then editing I'd tend to think the game creators deserve the lion's share of the revenue but maybe I could be convinced otherwise. A game nobody has heard of and never will hear of vs any popular streamer who has spent 3+ years streaming and has 1,000's if not 10,000's of followers. Some of those followers will buy the game. That's the dev's split. Even a no-name streamer (like myself) who pulls in 10-20 people tops during a good hour can still manage to sell some copies of the game merely by playing it (assuming they're enjoying it/it's a decent game worth buying). The dev still get's their split: free advertisement. Dev's are, of course, free to not let streamers stream their game. I think it's stupid and wouldn't buy their game on principle: largely I assume the worst. Is the game so bad they want people purchasing it without seeing any gameplay? Well, I'll pass. Myself and 100,000's of others who have changed their purchasing decisions from "game reviews" to "someone who's gaming taste is similar to mine enjoys it and it looks fun". Game development is a business. Fail to keep up with the times and find yourself using an outdated business model and you will go out of business. It's just a matter of how long it takes. For better or worse, many people make their game purchasing decisions based on streamers and seeing live gameplay so judge if a game looks fun or not before purchasing. I think a dev is free to not allow people to stream their game or to profit from streaming their game. But I will point out to them that they're shooting themselves in the foot and that I think they should reconsider. The only games that I've ever seen hurt by free advertisement are games which are awfully bad. Which I consider a win for the consumer, even if the dev loses out on. Just like any other business: it doesn't matter how hard you worked on something if the end product was bad. It's sucks for the creator/people who spent so much time on it, but that's how business works and I'll side with the consumers every time.

Spivak 11y ago

Let's consider another market. Gag gifts. Suppose a streamer made their living by producing funny videos of entertaining or awkward situations where the gag gift is used. People on YT watch the stream, have a laugh, and then don't buy the actual product because it's only shocking/funny a few times before it gets old. Arguably you're paying for the experience of a gag gift rather than the actual product. Should the manufacturer be able to demand the videos be taken down? You could do this all day with products which sell themselves on an experience. You could have a streamer buy expensive clothes, wear them with a secret camera and record the (or produce) reactions they get from a first person perspective. After you watch the video, why buy the clothes since you've lived vicariously through them? How about food shows, guy goes to diners, drive-ins, or maybe some dives, interviews the chef, orders their specialty and then films their reaction. Is he not literally making money on someone else's work by this reasoning? Without the restaurants he's got no show. Sure you could argue he needs permission to film on private property and the show is better with their consent but there's nothing really stopping him from ordering take-out and then eating it somewhere else. Edit: Since I predict responses might be something like, "in these specific instances here's why a person would still pay for the product" you've got to do better than that -- doing something legally that costs someone sales doesn't suddenly make it illegal, and I could make the same point back at you about games.

sp332 11y ago
The owners on that show still get paid though. And every one of them gets the location printed in big letters on the screen, which is more than some of these streamers are doing.

fenomas 11y ago

> if ... that game isn't streamed, you're FAR more likely to watch a different game than actually go and buy a copy and play it Surely the relevant question is whether people would be more likely to buy if the game is streamed, but a few more streamers posted a link and refrained from spoiling the ending? That's what the article is asking for, not for everyone to stop streaming.