Hutchinson states that streamers are not allowed to stream the videogames of others without a written license. The same applies to streaming any movies or songs they wish.
Copyright protects a games artwork, sound effects, music, voice acting, and text. Its not fair to use to entertain an audience for hours by playing a game. Many developers and publishers feel they are better off being seen on streaming platforms like Twitch.
Among Us is a great case study. It was largely unknown for two years before streamers took it on and made it a huge hit.
The streamers and developers both won. It was a win-win situation for developers and streamers. There are some complications.
Read blog: Leveraging Golang - Game Development & Operations
For streamers:
What happens when big streaming platforms and publishers change their minds? If they wanted, Microsoft, Amazon and Google, EA, Ubisoft, and other streaming platforms could all change the rules.
This is scary news for streaming professionals, especially since Hutchinsons creative director tweets that "streamers should pay the developers and publishers" of the games they stream.
For developers:
How about stories-driven, short games? Streaming them is more likely to lower their value than encourage purchases.
Concerning the first question:
The agreement between live streamers, big publishers, has been steadily growing over the past decade. Many times, publishers offer a free license to live streamers.
Devolver Digital offers a website that explains how to stream and monetize games. Blizzard states that streaming is fine as long as theres no viewing fee. Twitch Prime, however, doesnt count as viewing fees.
Even Nintendo, a notoriously litigious company, has loosened up. Two years ago, it published an official policy that allows footage of Nintendo games to appear in videos as long as there is commentary.
These licenses can be revoked by Devolver, Blizzard, and Nintendo at any time, but its better than nothing. These agreements are not likely to be revoked on a whim.
Streamers can decide whether live streaming short stories-driven games is a good idea. Indie developers can issue a DMCA notice to stop their game from being streamed after the fact, but this doesnt prevent them from having streams in the first instance.
This could damage their reputation among streamers and video makers as well as their fans.
(It probably goes without saying, but no one has ever established the practice where streamers pay small developers to stream their games.
It doesnt happen.
A screen from That Dragon, Cancer, that was more viewed than it was actually played. Image credit: Numinous Games
Ryan Green, a cancer developer, wrote that "Lets Play Culture is vibrant, creative, and really cool" in a blog post from 2016.
However, he was unhappy because the millions of YouTube plays of his game did not translate into sales.
Green wrote that "Lets Play videos can be especially beneficial to those who make competitive or sandbox-style games, despite infringing upon developers copyrights." Green said that Lets Play videos of our content are a good way to satisfy millions of viewers who want a linear, short experience.
They dont allow them to interact in the same way we intended.
If the videos werent there, would those millions of people have bought That Dragon, Cancer? Of course, not all of them.
Perhaps some. Its impossible to know, but its difficult to blame Green for feeling hurt by the fact that his game was made into a video and available for millions of people to see, while very few actually bought it.
Hutchinsons suggestion to streamers that they pay developers and publishers for games they stream didnt get a negative response.
People want less money from the creators of That Dragon and Cancer. It is likely that many of the reactions are about the potential repercussions of a blanket policy if enforced. Hutchinson suggests that Twitch and YouTube be completely redesigned to effectively end game live streaming.
Other informal relationships have been formalized over time, such as modders becoming "Creators" by publishers in certain cases.
Hutchinson stated that streamers should behave like any business, but most streamers dont have businesses. They start with a computer, a webcam, and a headset.
Many streams for entertainment. While a few streamers are popular enough to make some money streaming, very few make a living streaming and get rich from it.
Ninja might be able to pay, but not all streamers. If they cant afford to pay the licensing fee, how would a streamer make enough money to stream popular games?
Epic Games is one company thats looking to make streamers happy while also promoting its store and keeping game developers happy is Epic Games.
Epic Games Support-A-Creator program will pay streamers and YouTubers a share of any game sales they influence. This gives them an incentive to not only increase their viewership and subscriber count but also to direct their viewers to the store page for the game they are streaming.
This arrangement will not work in every case and may not please all viewers. If YouTubers had been more motivated to make sure their viewers watched That Dragon, Cancer, would it have sold better? Its hard to say.
Get a Free Estimation or Talk to Our Business Manager
Another option:
Perhaps the streaming giants like Twitch or YouTube, who make more than any streamer, should pay out cash to game developers.
Twitch provides streamers with access to a large library of music that has been granted rights. However, this could also have unintended repercussions. It is possible to imagine streaming platforms competing for exclusive streaming rights to big games (exclusive streaming contracts for esports are already common).
There are other options. I can see platforms restricting how many small-fry streamers can stream or charging them to stream specific games. This is what Hutchinson suggests.
However, Twitch and Twitch will be the middlemen because streamers dont have the ability to act as businesses and negotiate individual contracts. Is it possible for developers to benefit, or just Jeff Bezos?
Its not impossible to imagine that we will face these questions in the next decade. Other informal relationships have been formalized over the years, such as modders becoming "Creators", which is recognized by publishers in some cases.
EAs Game Changers program shows how streamers and publishers are becoming closer, even though its mainly about training and access.
Streaming is big business. It shouldnt surprise that more people want a cut. This will not necessarily mean a larger cut for smaller streamers or indie developers who are the weakest parties in the equation.
