Edge:Last week’s Xbox One reveal event was for shareholders and the mainstream, but E3 will be all about games, says Ubisoft Montreal’s Alex Hutchinson.
Google Stadia has provided Gamerheadquarters a statement on the comments made by Alex Hutchinson in regards to game streaming, noting that they do reflect the opinions the company.
No lol. But I know Google Stadia has come out and disavowed this man's comments about streamers and thinking they should pay for a license to stream the games. They don't agree with his comments.
I guess I don't think highly of google these days, in fact I almost despise them. So I was just saying that I hope MS can destroy Google's attempt at trying to breach the games industry.
But yes, I should have read the article.
EDIT: Turns out I didn't need to because I already knew the information contained therein. I just really dislike google.
I mean he’s not wrong. It sucks to hear, especially if you’re a streamer, but think of it this way how would this fly for a movie or even music? The streamer didn’t make the game, yet profit off it.
Also, I’ve recommended games to friends before and they told me they’ll just watch a stream and pass on buying it. So, there are potential sales loss for developers.
what about potential sales gain. i wouldnt have gotten fall guys if i didnt see it streamed prior
There are those, but I think the point here is profiting off another’s work without any compensation to the creators. Of course, nobody wants their hobby nickel and dimed in that sense, but I can’t argue with what the guy’s saying.
@crimsonwings69
They profit by people purchasing the game and those you play it and then buy MT, season passes and a host of other cash grab systems in full prices games these days.
I think the problem is that the IP holders have let it go for so long, that it would seem like an arbitrary action out of nowhere if they started enforcing their copyrights in this manner now. If they were going to shut down streamers, they should have done it a lot sooner.
Oh I’m not disagreeing with that, but the thing is I see everyone flipping their lid at what he’s saying and my whole thing was he’s actually kind of right. But yea, I mean this has been a thing for a while with YouTube let’s plays I remember Nintendo being extremely difficult with letting people put full play-through up on YouTube. And I mean I get why, that’s the product, and while watching isn’t the same as playing for some, it’s enough to just watch it and not play it for others... which leads to not buying, but on the flip it also gets people to buy it.
I am curious on the ratio of purchases to non-purchases based on watching streams. I just know from personal experience that people have decided to just watch a stream over buying a game and I’ve never had the discussion with the opposite of that.
There's no single solution here. Some games are only as popular as they are due to streaming. Even RDR2 made millions in sales by people watch others stream the game. Sure, it already would sell well, but the streamers brought in a ton of extra sales. That's pretty good free marketing. Same with Fortnite, Overwatch, Apex, and similar games.
Any developer who complains about streamers ignores the millions of gamers that get interested in their game from streamers real fast. The youth market isn't watching commercials, they're watching streamers.
But, games like Among Us? They are literally saved by streamers.
Let's flip that argument for a moment...
Let's say a streamer takes donations and their channel doesn't require subs. Now let's say someone streams a game for 8+ hours and no one donates, but the sales of the streamed game skyrockets.
The developer/ publisher has benefited, the streamer has not.
The current arrangement is actually pretty sweet when you think about it. The streamer might make some money, but this is more than anything free advertising. You do understand that if you have a very popular streamer playing a game, it goes a very long way, right? If they're streaming it for hours and having a great time, that's effectively an endorsement for their community to buy it.
It can also effectively be an anti- endorsement, which I believe is fair. Imagine streaming Fallout 76 and Bethesda complaining that their sales tanking is due to streamers bashing it and, dare I say, *showing people* how flawed of a product it is?
Streamers actually inject a lot of personality in the games they're playing. And if it's a streamer the audience really likes and trusts the opinion of, you're probably going to see a spike in sales.
Developers and publishers are not getting cut out of the equation—they're being placed under a spotlight; if the community likes what they see, they'll probably buy it, and if it's a multiplayer experience, you can bet their friends will buy it too.
The fact if the matter is, it's the natural evolution of the common gameplay trailer. The issue with a gameplay trailer is that it is very scripted and in controlled settings, so you are seeing the game under controlled circumstances. Conversely, a streamer is showing games under real world conditions.
If anything, it should motivate developers and publishers to take their craft seriously. If you don't want to get roasted, do it right. And now that streaming is baked into every piece of gaming hardware these days, the devs have a lot of opportunity to get the exposure and publicity they want and don't have to pay for.
I get what you’re trying to say, but again we can flip flop between the argument all day long. Free advertising has benefits for sure, but you also have to take into account that people who watch the full stream there’s probably a % of individuals that A) can’t buy the game and play it vicariously through the streamer, B) will eventually get the game but probably at a lower price, C) may go out and buy the game immediately, or D) won’t buy the game because they realize it’s not a game they’re interested in.
Now, you’re “cutting the developers and publishers out of the equation” part I’m assuming is based off the notion that they have indeed won sales due to the stream, but what about the loss of sales? I think in some form the “free advertising” could also be considered to have a negative impact. One could even say pirating is in a sense “free advertising” because there is that off chance that someone could like the game so much that they’d want to support the developer and buy a copy.
I don’t buy streams being the “evolution of the trailer” only due to the fact that I’d equate that logic to watching a movie being considered the evolution of the trailer. Trailers are simply a means to sell, I wouldn’t go as far as to say watching a stream is purely a way to sell the product nor would I say watching a tv show is a way to sell the Blu Ray Complete Season pack.
The other thing is you’re approaching this as someone who doesn’t have any “skin in the game”. Would you feel the same way if you lost out to maximized sales due to a stream?
My position on this is simply what this guy said isn’t some absurd statement. However, it’s like what @JEECE said, it’s gone on so far that if Publishers/Developers act now it would be an arbitrary action.
***A) can’t buy the game and play it vicariously through the streamer, B) will eventually get the game but probably at a lower price, C) may go out and buy the game immediately, or D) won’t buy the game because they realize it’s not a game they’re interested in.***
Absolutely none of this changes just because streamers exist.
A still can't buy the game.
B will still wait for a sale.
C will find out if they want to go and immediately buy it from reviewers (who, btw, post videos of gameplay to sell their reviews).
D will not buy it because they found out they didn't like it from reviewers (who, btw, post videos of gameplay to sell their reviews).
And, furthermore, have developers lost money due to streaming when the ones complaining are billion-profiting companies? Indie developers love streamers because it's free advertising they can't afford. Billion-dollar publishers complain about streamers because it's not marketing they control and they are greedy SOBs who feel they should make even more money off their game because someone else is making money off of it.
What's next, do these same companies need to make money off esports players? Should journalists be able to make money off of a review of the game? Why aren't gaming news sites kicking back some of their profits to the game developers who are creating the games they talk about?
The people complaining already make a ton of money off of games. They're just greedy arseholes.
So, I’m not privy on how game media works but are there not deals in place?
I remember a long time ago the Kayne and Lynch fiasco and Jeff Gerstmann incident happened because of advertising for the game on the site. I can’t speak for sure on how coverage and previews work or how one game gets it over another on game media sites. This is also one of the reason I trust them as far as I can throw them.
But also you make mention of game reviews and the footage they show. I’m not sure how that’s anywhere near the same as showing the entire game from start to finish on a stream. Also, I don’t believe reviewers show the game to “sell” their reviews. I think that’s more like empirical evidence or like trying to show examples to juxtapose criticism or praise. I’m not sure what reviewers really sell to be honest, but the gameplay video is more to drive home bullet points from the reviews.
“ And, furthermore, have developers lost money due to streaming when the ones complaining are billion-profiting companies?”
I’m not sure I get what you’re asking here. Are you talking about devs losing money when publishers complain? I mean, a sale loss I’m sure effects both parties.
Also, I’m not sure what the hang up is on marketing. I don’t think anyone is upset with streamers and marketing. I think this is all about sales and people making money off other peoples’ work. The Stadia guy wasn’t against streaming, btw. It stemmed from people getting banned due to “licensed” music showing up on their stream... because it’s not their work and they’re profiting off it, well Y’know, in the sense that all the elements make-up the product being watched by streamers. Which led him to the point of paying devs/publishers a licensing fee to monetize their works on the streamer’s stream.
It’s kind of like if you make something in Maya or Photoshop. You’re paying a fee to use a product to create your work. None of the other money you make off said “work” would go to them. I think in a sense this is what is being said. Streamer pays licensing fee to use another’s work and then makes the profit from their stream, which is an original work created by the streamer.
How does esports work? Is it like regular sports because I’ll tell you this there’s a whole lot of deals and licensing going on in regular sports and the players get the least amount.
As for journalists making money off their reviews, again, I’m not familiar with how it all works with something like IGN or a Gamespot. I’d assume there is some kind of deal to get coverage.
Anyways, the whole thing without getting too far in the weeds over this is streamers aren’t allowed to stream movies and music, regardless of the “free advertising” it can give. This guy is saying the same for games if you aren’t paying a licensing fee. Do you ever wonder why some can show movie clips or music on some YouTube channels and others can’t? It’s pretty much due to licensing.
They pay for the content they stream a$$ hat when they buy the game. They don't need to pay you every single time they stream the game this isn't the damn movies or music industry.
There's a difference in copyright law between paying for something for personal private use and paying for it for public exhibition. For instance, if you pay to download a song, that doesn't give you the right to play it at a public event (although people frequently violate this).
However, I think most game publishers probably realize they are getting a lot of free exposure from streamers, so they aren't going to enforce their rights, even if they could.
A chat with Alex Hutchinson about his legendary career. He is the game designer of The Sims, Spore and the director of Assassin's Creed 3, Far Cry 4 and the recent Journey to the Savage Planet
Journey to the Savage Planet is a wonderful sci-fi romp, with a sharp, acerbic sense of humour and exquisitely well realised creature design. We caught up with Alex Hutchinson, Creative Director on the game, to discuss Typhoon Studios' iterative process to development.
Hope so, my 360 been dying for a new exclusive.
For MS's sake, the games better be absolutely mind blowing.
Man the media is soooo biased. If Sony released that fail of a reveal the media would be KILLING them. instead the fans are killing the xbox and the media is loving this big ass DVR box. lmao!
The fans are loving the ps4 yet all the media cares about is seeing the box......
Man Gaming is for kids run by kids andthats just sad
I thought the "why" was pretty self explanatory, Microsoft said E3 would be all about the games, why is this even still in doubt that we need someone from Ubisoft telling us what we already know? As long as they don't all look as terrible as CODGhosts, and those new IP's arent mostly Kinect titles, I think microsoft might recover from last weeks fiasco. All I'm saying is they have a lot of convincing to do if they're going to see a penny from me next gen.