Who Gets The Right To Live Stream Games? (The Jimquisition)




The ancient debate over content creation and copyright has flared up again, this time with a wannabe Stadia director claiming Twitch streamers should pay a fee to broadcast gameplay.

It was part of a larger claim that recent DMCA takedowns of Twitch videos are deserved, because apparently it’s good when record labels have content scrubbed from the Internet over alleged music rights violations that nobody’s been informed about.

Should be fun to tear into that ridiculous assertion, so let’s do that. Happy Halloween, etcetera!

20 Comments:

  1. “Unlike consoles, stadia doesn’t take up any space”

    because you’ll throw it in the garbage when the lag becomes unbearable.

  2. Corporations wanting to wring every single penny out of consumers? Oh “Triple A” industry, never change.

  3. “Welcome Travelers.. To the Well of Lost Services.”

    Oh Jim, you cheeky… Lmao.

  4. “Stadia Creative Director” kind of a contradiction in terms isn’t it? At least this explains why Stadia was such a failure. Ironically this has probably done more to remind people it still exists over the actual 1 year birthday PR material!

  5. The tweet came from someone at Google. Of course it’s out of touch…

  6. Thankfully there is a fee for streaming games

    It’s called buying the game with money

  7. Trusty Vault 13 Canteen

    I cant wait for him to talk about the PS exclusive CoD gamemode. I can almost hear him say “Bobby Kotick”

  8. I work shit hours doing overnight work at a restaurant, pretty much since the start of pandemic and I’m slowly starting to lose my mind this literally is cheering me up so much right now.

  9. I made the “March of The Sterling(Eerie Remix)” just randomly one day…Hadn’t dreamed of the day “Grim Sterling” would use it haha. I may need to make more holiday-themed versions xD

  10. Yes, the Jimreaper would have a Boglin at the tip of his scythe.

  11. Stadia executive did kick over a can of worms in his own backyard which is hilarious, there is probably both Copyright, Content ID, Advertising and YouTube executives screaming at him to keep his mouth shut. Cause in the end it would cost Google and Amazon a lot of money, its an expensive job to rework content ID and revenue streams to make sure money flows and it won’t directly come from channels and streamers, Youtube/Twitch would have to pay Game Devs from their revenue… then they would have to absorb the cost or increase their commissions. The whole change process would be hostile and tortured.

    And how would a system like that work, broadcast a game without permission and LIVE ON AIR the streamer channel is blocked by Content ID…
    well that will be brilliant advertising wouldn’t it “Buy our game and we will destroy your channel?”.

    Game play has evolved to the point publishers have metric proof that streams = advertising, and now have partnership and sponsorship programs to get their games in front of streamers and their audiences. Like EA started putting Star Wars youtubers on their gaming partnership program to promote their games! cause it works!

  12. Jan-Michael Christensen

    I have literally bought games because I watched you, or someone, stream them. Most notably, A Plague Tale and CodeVein… Thank god for you!

  13. I’ve honestly had some let’s players and streamers to thank for a lot of my more obscure gaming purchases over the years. In an age where demos are just not a thing anymore, seeing a preview of a game that isn’t splashed with advertisement and fluff is a nice thing; and yes, sometimes I’m also watching for the personality of the let’s player/streamer.

  14. Imagine if paying a fee to stream a game obligated the game’s copyright holder to ensure you don’t get DMCA’d for the stream. Imagine how quickly they’d be trying to get rid of the fee.

  15. The worst part with this concept.
    “We don’t like the way your stream has been criticizing our game. Your license to stream it has been revoked, and we will not be allowing you to license any of our other games in the future.”

  16. That’s like saying a guy explaining the plot of a film to a friend who’s never seen it should pay a licence fee.

  17. Considering the bloke is “working” on the Google Stadia, by his own logic, they should be paying us to actually play the Stadia.

  18. “Games they didn’t pay for”? Where does this dude think the streamers got their games from?
    They either bought them, meaning they also payed for them or they received the games from the publishers themselves to stream, in which case you can hardly argue that they didn’t have the publishers’ approval to play and stream those games.

  19. “You can’t stream music for free, you can’t stream movies for free. Why games?”

    Good point. You should be able to stream music and movies for free.

  20. Welcome to a future where the only game-play that are streamed will come from those who are paid by the game publishers. The only voice of dissent in a sea of positivity will be Jim Fooking Sterling’s pumpkin android clones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *