Should Streamers Pay to Game Developers for Their Use in Streams?
Yuriy SheremetIn October 2020, Alex Hutchinson, a creative director at Google Stadia of the Typhoon Studios 22 branch office, twitted his thought about an idea that streamers have to pay developers and game creators for the permit for streaming their games.
As it was expected, his words about streamers taking something and not writing out a check for this to creators did not find understanding from critics and commentators of the gaming industry. But even if the gamers-have-to-pay idea seems inappropriate, ethical and judicial aspects of the matter about streamers and their future as not everything is so simple here.
After his words caught hell, he declared that he is surprised to see that people may get furious when somebody thinks that authors of content have to be paid as other people use them for their own earnings.
Generally speaking, Hutchinson’s words have a rational kernel. Without a license, streamers don’t have rights to broadcast anybody’s game as well as films or songs. Games, sound effects, voice acting, texts and many other forms of content are protected by copyright and entertaining spectators with playing a game for several hours is definitely dishonest use. However, many developers and creators believe that they gain their benefit from platforms like Twitch and feel good due to this.
A great example here is Among Us that was unknown for two year until popular streamers dug it and turned it into mainstream making it a big hit. It was a win-win deal for both streamers and authors. Who gets worse from that?
What are the Nuances?
- Streamers. What is big creators and streaming services change their mind? Microsoft, Amazon, Google, EA, Ubisoft and others may change the rules in a jiff if they want. It is awful for those who make their living with streaming, especially when creative directors like Hutchinson write that streamers have to pay developers and creators for games they stream.
- Developers. What about short plot games? Streams with them are likely to spoil a desire to take the game.
As for the first question, this consensus between streamers and big developers started to cement in the previous decade. In the majority of cases, game creators make a free licence for streamers. Devolver Digital has a site devoted to the idea that streams and monetizing their games is normal.
Blizzard thinks that everything is fine until you have a payment for viewing (Twitch Prime does not count as a payment). Even Nintendo, known for its scandals, loosened its grip – two year ago the company published an agreement where they permitted footages with Nintendo games while they are commented. Devolver, Blizzard, and Nintendo may withdraw their licences when they want but this is better than nothing. They are unlikely to withdraw them on first whim.
When it comes to short plot games, streamers make the decision whether it is conscientious to make esports live streams with them. Indie-developers may use DMCA and submit a deletion request is they see that the game is streamed but streams themselves will not be stopped. Besides, it may do some harm to the reputation of streamers, game designers, and their fans. Say nothing about the fact that nobody could make streamers pay new developers for the right to stream their games. At least, hardly anyone could see it.
"Let's Play culture lives and creates and that’s really great" says Ryan Green, the developer of That Dragon, Cancer in his blog. However, he was disappointed with the fact that millions of views on Youtube with playing through his game were not converted into currency.
"Despite the violation of developer’s copyright, Let’s Play may be useful for those who make competitive games or sandboxes" – writes Green. "However, playing through little linear games like ours is really beneficial only for spectators. They can never buy our game and get to know it in the way we would like it to be".
Could it be real that millions of viewers would buy That Dragon, Cancer, if it was not for these videos? Of course, not all of them. Maybe some of them. We can only guess but in any case, it is difficult to blame Green that he feels peeved when he sees that somebody makes highlights of his game and gets millions of views when only several people play the game itself.
Yet, people did not like Hutchinson’s statement that “streamers have to pay” not because they don’t want to make the developers of The Dragon, Cancer poor. The matter is likely to lie in enormous consequences that may entail these policies and agreements. Hutchinson’s idea will demand to rebuild Twitch and Youtube and will remove the kinds of streams we remember. There will be just a few streamers that really can make money with it.
Streamers have to treat themselves as real businessmen. When they started, they had nothing except a computer, a camera, headphones, the Internet, and, of course, a game. Lots of them streamed just for fun. Only a few streamers became really popular to make serious sums of money with it. Just some of them make their living with streaming and only a handful managed to get rich. Maybe, streamers will have to pay as soon as they turn over a definite bar. But if we oblige everybody to pay, how will a newbie be able to become popular if they can't even afford a licence for streaming of popular games?
Other Options
Epic Games is looking for a way to pay streamers making developers pleased (and to promote its store). Support-a-Creator program that is being developed now will give streamers a discount for streamers when they choose a game that the company representatives promote. It gins up the streamers to use the store with the game and not only attract audience and subscribers. Of course, it will not work anywhere and will not satisfy the players that treat this idea skeptical. Will the game be sold better if Youtubers motivate their spectators to play it? It is hard to say.
Another option. Maybe, big platforms like Twitch and Youtube that make more money than any streamer must be those who will cough up on developers and creators? All in all, Twitch has already provided streamers with an access to the library with the rights to music. But it also has its consequences. It is easy to imagine a situation where streaming services fight with each other for the right to stream major projects (contracts on esports streaming are right on cue). It is also not so difficult to imagine how platforms to reduce freshmen’s time on streaming or even demand to stream the game they want which is suggested by Hutchinson. But he puts Twitch in the mediator position as it is impossible for streamers to be also businessmen who draw their own contracts. Will minor developers get some benefits from such an agreement or will such people like Jeff Bezos or Bobby Kotick be on velvet?
Streams are a huge business and it is not surprising that some sides have a way of gaining income apart from the one that creators gain for their work. However, it does not mean that minor creators and small Indie-developers –will get big checks – they are just a weak spot in the sphere.
Yuriy Sheremet – Expert in mobile gaming and esports among shooters and MOBA games.
At EGamersWorld, Yuriy, as in 2020 when he joined the portal, works with content, albeit with adjustments to his area of responsibility.