Patreon LogoYour support makes Blue Moon possible (Patreon)

Should game developers be allowed to restrict streaming?

Nekrosilisk88

Nekrosilisk88

Wolf in the Shadows
Supporter
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Location
Beaverton, OR
Came across this article on Kotaku today. Now I'm wondering, should this be allowed. There's already a debate surround copyright infringement over people posting LPs, but they've been fairly consistent about siding either for not allowing it at all, or saying it's all good. what are your thoughts on restricting streaming in this manner?
 
I personally feel like it's their right. It seems like especially in this case there is really only one avenue for the game to take so it could deter sales if people would rather watch than play.
 
The games my nephews watch played online, they either A) end up buying themselves. or B) would never buy anyhow because they are too tough for their ages.

Personally no thanks heh

That said - whether or not its a good idea, it is their content that belongs to them. They have the _right_ to do it, but whether its a good idea to do so is another matter entirely. For example , i have the right to cut my hair short. That didn't go well lol
 
I don't have a problem with developers saying they don't want their content streamed, but I have an issue with them saying hey if you go past this much content we'll be pursuing legal action. I mean what happens if someone isn't paying attention and they accidentally go past the limit of what's allowed?
 
it's their right. if they wanna stream for a few select people or they wanna ban some ppl for whatever reason, that's their right.

I'm very anti-censorship, however it's not censorship when the one broadcasting chooses not to broadcast to some people or only to broadcast to a few people.
 
Yeah, it's their right. But many people won't buy if they can't try. Or if what they try isn't enough to get a good idea. An acquaintance bought the full Mario app. It has 3 free worlds, but apparently he was very underwhelmed with what he had to pay for... Not good. Because people talk, and now his own friends and acquaintances aren't touching it with a ten ft pole.
Nekrosilisk88 said:
I don't have a problem with developers saying they don't want their content streamed, but I have an issue with them saying hey if you go past this much content we'll be pursuing legal action. I mean what happens if someone isn't paying attention and they accidentally go past the limit of what's allowed?
Click to expand...

And that's absolutely atrocious.
 
I certainly don't see anything wrong with it. They do hold the rights to the product, so whatever they feel is appropriate use is appropriate use. Granted, it can be really annoying to LPers who bitch that they're giving the game "exposure," but exposure doesn't pay the bills. People usually just watch the LP and don't give buying the game another thought.
 
They can, however, there is still something missing in watching someone stream a game. The viewers aren't getting the full content. A lot of games have different paths the player can take. Not to mention, a lot of people rely on streamers to get a more accurate review or first impression of the game. I don't think it hurts game developers as much as they think it does. I've watched streams and decided to go out and get the game.
 
Atlus is trying to keep people from streaming Persona 5 because Atlus knows people don't want to play Persona 5.

It's a tedious, grindy game where the elemental system and RNG can quickly result in getting massacred by a random encounter because you didn't already know how to counter a group of enemies or they got to act before your characters. The visual-novel mechanics, as par for a Persona game, are monotonous and demand the use of a guide in order to complete all of the social content. And the game and plot are completely linear, giving the game absolutely no replay value.

Atlus is perfectly well aware that they've made a game few people actually want to pay full price for and even fewer would put up with the boring gameplay. Hence their attempt to prevent players from streaming the game. And let's face it: few of the people sticking up for Atlus would have the same attitude for any other developer.
 
http://www.polygon.com/2017/4/7/15223236/persona-5-sales-figures-worldwide

Anyway. I doubt it's that, there's a number of reasons they can deny streaming. I recall Dragon Quest Heroes: World Tree's Woe and the Blight Below had streaming with the sound off because Koichi Sugiyama is super, super anal about people listening to his music without buying the game first. I'd honestly just say it's sales and wanting the experience to be unique, it's a dumb reason, but I'd guess that's really all it falls on, it has nothing to do with people NOT wanting to play it, lots of people were hyped for it's release as the article above shows. Japanese companies are just super weird about this shit sometimes and claim it's so people can experience it themselves. I don't agree, but I also don't really have much of an opinion when they do this weird draconian stuff.
 
Nekrosilisk88 said:
Came across this article on Kotaku today. Now I'm wondering, should this be allowed. There's already a debate surround copyright infringement over people posting LPs, but they've been fairly consistent about siding either for not allowing it at all, or saying it's all good. what are your thoughts on restricting streaming in this manner?
Click to expand...

its free advertising. hell I bought games I never would have heard of when LPers drew my attention to it.
 
Developers should be allowed to restrict streaming. It is their game after all. But why would they want to? Streamers or lets players give them free advertisement and get people interested in buying the product for themselves. I can see the fear for single player story games because some people are only interested in the story and don't want to pay to see it. But that's a risk they can choose to take.
 
My roomie is a game developer and he said one of the biggest issues with streaming is when people are making money from your game but then fuck things up by giving it a negative connotation. He pointed to folk like pewdiepie and Jontron where some parents actually shot down their suggestions after their controversies. Also there can be a weird push back when people disparage folk or make things seem easy and people get discouraged.

This isn't even covering the negative streams, people who play a game poorly, give negative reviews for drama ratings or purposefully spoil certain things on purpose to dissuade others. He thinks if you're gonna pro stream at least be upfront about it and don't be cocky like someone who not too long ago sent an email saying that he "made" a company because he streamed their games.

However it can also drum up interest in old games, keep games relevant, help jumpstart communities, and even push people in new directions and give folk ideas so all in all a double edged sword. He said depending on the EULA some companies can smack you with a cease and desist if they choose to but most just don't care so legally anyone could come after you for streaming if they have the right EULA.(Which most of us don't read anyway.)
 
I feel like it isn't. Video games fall into this strange area of media. All in all any developer who wishes to stop streaming feels like they are ashamed of their product or just too overly protective for all the wrong reasons. Sure, a streamer is making money off of playing your game. So? As a developer that really isn't your money to be making, so halting or regulating the streaming of your game seems petty. Wouldn't that be like an author getting pissed you read their book at the library to an audience for story time? (Sure, smaller scale but the idea is the same). Furthermore, Streamers can be highly influential. Yes, sometimes in a negative way but welcome to the WORLD. EVERYTHING can receive negative press. People often seek Streamers/Youtubers to get their insight on a game or just to see how the game looks/plays to make a decision on if they want to buy the game or not. If people LIKE what they see, regardless of the person who is playing's opinion, they'll buy the game...or they won't because they never had the intention of doing so anyway but watched just to see what the fuss was about or just to support the Streamer.

I dunno, I don't see a fault in it. Once someone buys your game it feels bizarre for the developer to start dictating exactly what you can and can't do with the item they purchased. What's next? Telling us we can't show our friends the game because it might possibly influence them to avoid buying the game? Feels too 'dictator' like to me.

I feel developers should be happy people want to give their game exposure at all. People typically stream a game they LIKE which generally means good press, more interest and more potential sales. It's really only 'review' videos that tend to start spewing the negative stuff. Streamers will move on from a bad game without much of a fuss because their income/audience retention banks on them having something people WANT to watch them play. At most I'd imagine streamers might riff on a game for a short time and just move on to something else.
 
Just going to throw in my two cents here, skimmed over a lot of things that were brought up. Concerning Persona 5 and Atlus their case is much more understandable in my opinion, their game, while their gameplay is very copy and paste from their prior games, is a JRPG in the classic style and derives much of it's popularity in the series for it's Story. Atlus acting to keep players from streaming beyond a certain point is understandable for the preservation of their art and their ability to continue making that art. Is it against the law for them to do so, no. Is it against the law to enforce it, technically no, since they can claim to have the video taken down for using their Animated clips that have not been publicly released.

Personally speaking, when I am looking into buying a popular game, I look at several streamers and YouTubers, from TotalBiscuit, Super Best Friends, Angry Joe, Achievement Hunter and anyone else that may be taking part in the game to see if it's something that I would enjoy or have fun playing, looking primarily for solo play or trying in public lobbies. Most of these give me a very good idea as to if I would be interested in the game, and if I would enjoy it for a longer period of time.
 
Devs can do whatever they want with their product - Some companies don't want anything streamed until they have a finished product, like in the case of when Eternal Card Game was in Closed Beta - They only wanted their beta testers to see the product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom