A quick and easy way to piss off gamers and the internet

[JSimenhoff]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1319305553454288896

View: https://twitter.com/BangBangClick/status/1319305553454288896?s=20


I stand firmly against this idea. What's next? Licensing fees to stream to our friends on discord? Give me a break!

No surprise Stadia is a big loser if this is their creative director.

 

[drunkpunk]

Pretty sad to see the creative director for such a rising company be so tone deaf to the industry. There's a reason why publishers and developers are recruiting streamers to showcase their games. The last year I did community management for a particular publisher there was a huge push to recruit streamers into our influencer program, because it was free marketing. At this point it's becoming an industry standard. I saw him mention in another tweet that streaming by itself isn't sufficient or good marketing, but I disagree and the data on this topic seems to also disagree.

 

[JSimenhoff]

At this point it's becoming an industry standard. I saw him mention in another tweet that streaming by itself isn't sufficient or good marketing, but I disagree and the data on this topic seems to also disagree.

I think he's just upset that no one will stream on a Stadia.

 

[drunkpunk]

Which is funny considering Baldur's Gate 3 has a feature exclusive to stadia, where streamers can integrate their chat into the game by allowing them to vote on dialogue decisions.

 

[JSimenhoff]

Which is funny considering Baldur's Gate 3 has a feature exclusive to stadia

This is cool and I actually didn't know that. My philosophy for games flip flops. Streaming games and library services such as Xbox Game Pass are good in the sense that it allows more gamers to play more games at an affordable price, but I do worry about ownership. Stadia could be cool, but I don't think it has a good core philosophy as demonstrated by the tweet above.

 

[Frindis]

This just reeks of nothing else than greed and the lack of understanding of what gaming is all about. Perhaps he should actually try playing a game first.

 

[McStabStab]

Can't tell you how many games I've purchased after seeing someone stream it and then went, "well that seems fun, guess I'll throw some money at it."

I get his point but gaming is just a different animal.

 

[drunkpunk]

Can't tell you how many games I've purchased after seeing someone stream it and then went, "well that seems fun, guess I'll throw some money at it."

I get his point but gaming is just a different animal.

yeah any game I'm on the fence about, I'll watch stream to decide if I want it or not. It's better than youtube because you see it unedited for what it is. And it's sold me on games I had never even considered buying myself. It's such a great tool for getting people interested.

 

[Zloth]

It's the game company's game. They can decide how to deal with streamers. I expect it will change a lot depending on the game. If it's something with lots of options and/or action, they're likely to encourage it. If it's more of a visual novel, they're much more likely to block it - just like a movie publisher won't let you stream a movie you bought and a book publisher won't let you stream a book you bought.

 

[Dakkon]

It's his right to voice his opinion, whatever we think about it.
I for one disagree with him and as @McStabStab said, streamers generate revenue and are actually promoting games to a wide audience.

 

[Lutfij]

Yeah, greed, selfishness and thinking that you can impose any form of copyright onto material that effectively kills all forms of exposure to the masses only stifles a brands development or the essence behind the brand's formation. At the very least, you don't create diversity, you're only creating a niche if you have rules that a handful will agree upon.

If anything, have a secret handshake with the game dev's and iron things out if revenue needs making. You don't slaughter the cow that gives you milk.