The debate over whether developers and publishers should pay royalties to video game streamers has been around for the better part of a decade. The comments made by the creative director at a studio in a building of Google Stadia rejected the argument, forcing Google to refrain from commenting.
Alex Hutchinson, creative director of the Montreal studio of Stadia Games and Entertainment, posts a thread of tweets about whether or not to present a business license for his ideas and games around streamers. Hutchinson believes that streamers generate revenue from games earned for free or for very little money, leading to the tendency that content creators would cut game developers.
The real truth is that streamers should pay developers and publishers of the games they stream. They should buy a license just like any real business and pay for the materials they use.
– Alex Hutchinson (bangbangclick) October 22, 2020
Hutchinson’s comments did not go down well with some critics firing shots at the Google Stadia employee. Google eventually released a statement on the issue, distancing itself from Hutchinson’s comments.
“Recent tweets by Alex Hutchinson, creative director of Montreal Studios for Stadia Games and Entertainment, do not reflect Stadia, YouTube or Google,” the company said in a statement to 9to5 Google.
Hutchinson also changed his Twitter bio to make it clear that he is the creative director of Stadia’s studio, rather than This Creative Director for the Stadia Project.
Out of Jabs and Damage Control, another example of constructive discussion came out. Michael Hartman, a developer with 30 years of experience, a Interesting crash How streamers are a part of marketing, but not as important to sales success as they were before.
Hartman explains that most stream viewers are now looking at entertainment content instead of buying advice, which has resulted in lower sales of streams outside of obvious viral outliers (such as between us and phasmophobia this year). Despite that, Hartman still believes he is an important part of the industry but expects there to be a deal in the future that will benefit both streamers and developers.
Viewer attitudes and expectations have changed and evolved. They are mainly there for entertainment by streamer and channel. They are not in “shopping mode” when they sit down to watch a stream. / 12
– Michael Hartman @ October 22, 2020
It will only change, and should only change, if it benefits both Streamer and Davis. I know of at least one “Twitch Rival” who shares the rave with Game Davis as part of the USP (unique selling point). However we have seen how difficult it is for anyone to compete with Twitch. / 17
– Michael Hartman @ October 22, 2020
Hartman mentions that about six years ago, the landscape was different – the streamers had a direct impact on sales of many games. But even then, the type of game is important. K Dragon, a developer of the heartfelt narrative adventure, wrote in Cancer in 2016 that he felt streaming had a negative impact on game sales. Phase developer Phil Fish had a similar vision to Hutchinson in 2014, saying streamers should pay game developers a portion of their revenue. Fish are no longer video games developers.
While both the Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 feature an expanded suite of options for sharing your gaming content directly from your console, it’s unlikely that the stringent rules on which content can be shared will soon become commonplace. But with all the recent DMCA strikes against music in thousands of Twitch videos, that’s not impossible.
