Google Backs Slowly Away From Stadia Guy’s Very Bad Tweet

22
Google Backs Slowly Away From Stadia Guy’s Very Bad Tweet
Image: Google

Earlier today Alex Hutchinson, creative director at Typhoon Studios (bought by Google last year to make Stadia games), made a tweet suggesting that Twitch and YouTube users should be “paying the developers and publishers” of the games they stream.

It blew up, and the reaction went about as well as you’d expect.

It’s a Very Bad Tweet, and he was rightly roasted for it. What’s funny here beyond the replies though is that the tweet was so bad that Google had to issue a statement disowning it.

In a statement issued to 9to5Google, a company rep said “The recent tweets by Alex Hutchinson, creative director at the Montreal Studio of Stadia Games and Entertainment, do not reflect those of Stadia, YouTube or Google.”

Shortly afterwards, YouTube Gaming’s Ryan Watts also tweeted this:

Remember: if in doubt, never tweet.

Comments

  • He kind of has a point though.

    Streamers are making money off streaming things without a licence.

    And I have no doubt the vast majority of streamers don’t bring in anywhere near as much revenue for the game as themselves or even the cost of what a licence would be

    • He does have a point, it’s just a very flawed one.

      Licensed music is a revenue model that’s existed long before streaming so it’s a reality we have to live with.
      Game streaming is a whole new beast, that grew from a mutually beneficial marketing relationship between gamers and devs/publishers, eventually creating its own revenue model for streamers.

      • Gaming in of itself is something of a unique beast. Music and Movies are such that when streamed you get the full intended experience out of it. if the stream stays up there is no incentive to go out and buy the product.

        with games though you only get part of the experience. if the personal interaction with the game was irrelevant you’d just have a movie rather than a game. this means the only way to fully access that experience is to buy it yourself.

        there is also the whole USA copyright and trademarking law. which can have issues. one of those is that if your company has been allowing this stuff to happen and not done anything about it for years courts will take that into account if the company suddenly decides it want to take action now.

      • Well, licensed music is a thing that emerged after many, many years of constant moaning.

        This is after record producers started out by driving their music around from radio station to radio station begging each of them to play their music for free because the producers had worked out how much free publicity that airplay was worth in terms of sales.

        Then after radio stations became addicted to free music record producers started crying poor again and moaning to politicians about how much extra money they weren’t making while getting all that free publicity and eventually politicians started poking their fingers in to force music licensing because the average consumer didn’t have to personally pay the cost and all that shuffling cash could be kept largely kept invisible from the voting public.

        Seriously, rent seekers are going to keep seeking until people stop paying them.

    • Except the flaw here is just about every game has an actual license that allows you to stream and monetise these games. I forgot the legal term but if u check most games eula especially indies they give express permission for streaming and monetisation.

      And bigger pubs do actually give permission for these streams.

      Yes they *could* charge and the legally could (and several devs and pubs have asked ppl to take down streams) but its an ecosystem that works and anybody who decidss to rock that boat will be in for a lot of negative resctions from the consumer.

  • It’s amazing to me that he’s tried to equate the existing content licensing model to a mutually beneficial marketing model that grew organically.

  • The can of worms he kicked over in his own backyard 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 be YouTube and Twitch expensive job to rework content ID and revenue streams to make sure money flows and it won’t directly come from channels and streamers, and it will be from their Tips and Advert revenue… then they would have to absorb the cost or increase their commissions. The whole change process would be hostile and tortured.

  • If there is some kind of licence fee required to stream/upload games publicly – can you imagine if only the current big players are the only ones able to afford it. I wonder if they’ll be even bigger than they are today. The newer ones will have to start off with some money in the bank already.

    • You can bet many a bean counter has considered the idea and likely come to the conclusion that the current setup is at least more beneficial……for now.

    • The EULA on most games is the same as music/video/movies/tv etc, that forbids public broadcast without permission according to copyright and trademark. For example you still require permission before publicising an esports tournament since your using their copyright both in advertising and in a live venue.

      However most of the games industry has waived permission for Youtube Lets Plays and Twitch Streaming if they are transformative and have the personality of the player behind it… they will still take down streams/videos that are just plain gameplay, spoilers, music, or cutscenes, with no commentary.

      Nintendo is probably still the most heavy handed and requires streamers/youtubers seek permission by joining their little partnership clubs and have gone as far as removing streamers from their approvals.

      Most game critics still find they get copyright striked within minutes of posting a video if they have gameplay footage or sound thats detected by a vindictive robot.

      • Nintendo canned their partnership club a long time ago, almost precisely because it was not having a positive effect for them and you can bet they were getting less coverage on their titles.

    • Maybe it’s because I’m not really interested in streaming. But watching someone play a game doesn’t really make me want to go buy that game

      • That’s fine, right up until it does. Which is really the point.

        I don’t think most people watch streamers to see if they want to buy X game. But if the streamer is not even playing X game to begin with, then there’s NO chance anyone is going to buy it by watching.

        Streamers putting eyes on games have undeniably had massive influence over purchases in the past… Among Us and Fall Guys are prime recent examples of this.

  • Every now and then there’s an issue that brings everyone together with one voice.

    Dragging this arse clown for his supremely spicy take is about as good as any.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!