The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
We now return to our regularly scheduled PA Forums. Please let me (Hahnsoo1) know if something isn't working. The Holiday Forum will remain up until January 10, 2025.
Penny Arcade - Comic - Our Time Of Need
Dog
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
Penny Arcade - Comic - Our Time Of Need
Videogaming-related online strip by Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins. Includes news and commentary.
Unknown User on
+7
Posts
The full story goes into it. It usually does. But apparently there was a major social media storm in reaction to this:
https://9to5google.com/2020/10/22/gamers-condemn-stadia-creative-director-streamers-should-pay-publishers/
I mean the stadia guy already pushing a product gamers are leery of, basically admitted why gamers are leery of it, that without game ownership, people will be charged extra based on use.
pleasepaypreacher.net
The courage to trust the world will survive even if we don't argue on Twitter,
And the wisdom to take the whole damn site down and burn it.
-Tycho Brahe
Best part is that "Creative Director - Google Stadia" was a complete misrepresentation of his actual job (works for a company bought by Stadia), and nobody would've cared if he hadn't put that title on his Twitter account
If he wanted to argue some (wrong) business model, go for it. But when your start pissing on Alex, you've lost whatever your point was.
& these further replies (don't recognize the user names) were also good.
Sure, though the comic is more a commentary on social media missteps in general rather than this particular incident. He should have deleted, not tweeted.
I feel kind of privileged that it is not something I have to engage with in any capacity
I know corporations tend to value short term gain over long term growth, but the idea of charging content creators to play their games would be disastrous in even the short term.
Too many Alexes.
Stadia more like Shadia amirite?
Really depends on the game. Streaming is obviously a boon to anything with a multiplayer focus, but if we're talking about narrative-focused single player games with low replayability, I can totally see streaming being damaging to their bottom line. Because there's really not much gain from playing the game yourself once you've watched it streamed.
The value added by them playing it isn't something that owes anything to game publishers.
Next you're going to suggest that buying a ping pong table allows me to stream me playing it. Are you even hearing yourself?
That may be for some. For me, though, I don't buy new games as much as I used to, since I have less disposable income living on my own as I did when I was in my early 20s living with my parents. So I need to see a game and make a judgement on it before sinking any money into it. I watched a full play through of Ghost of Tsushima recently, and even though I saw the whole story, I now know it's a game I'd like to play someday.
Even if some people might not buy a game because they experienced it vicariously through a stream or a let's play, I'd argue the exposure the game gets is worth it for overall sales.
Maybe the answer is don’t make a game thats story is its only selling point
Something, something, David Cage joke.
Well not these days, 2020 and all
*slinks away in shame
Similarly there's games I'll never buy, because we live in a time where there's a glut of good games child me could never have dreamed of, butt I've watched streams of them. They didn't get anything from me, but they weren't going to anyway.
I've watched streams for games I own but just haven't gotten around to playing.
It's almost like watching someone play a game and playing a game are two different kinds of activity!
Counterpoint: Subnautica is in exactly that second catagory and the devs pretty much credit streamers for saving their game IIRC
Buying a DVD doesn't give you the right to play the movie in a public venue. The same thing applies to games. Whether the commentary and the viewers not actually playing the game, just watching it, is sufficiently transformative to constitute fair use is kinda up in the air.
Nah, there's plenty of great games that also wouldn't really have much left to experience after watching a let's play of it. Most adventure games, for example, lose very little from watching a let's play of them.
A DVD doesn't have an interactive part as the core feature of it. It's a passive, receptive art form. Games are not.
You wouldn't say that buying a guitar doesn't give you the right to play it in front of an audience.
Of course, if you try to analyze IP law based purely on logic, you're going to wind up arguing a lot of silly stuff. In the end, IP law is based on the desired of people with a lot of money. You only have to look at something like Happy Birthday for an example of that horseshit.
I almost wish it was made illegal without permission. Then all the idiot game makers who wouldn't give permission basically lose all their free advertising, and their games can languish in oblivion while streamers increase the non-idiot game makers sales.
Does buying a frisbee give you a license to play with it in a public venue?
How about some dice?
How about a checkers set?
How about a board game?
Where is this line being drawn where as soon as as someone sees me doing /x/ then someone else is entitled to charge me money for letting them?
Alongside that, just playing a game in public doesn't make for a public performance, like how you wouldn't automatically be charged for royalties just because you listened to music on your phone without using headphones. For another, a fancy chess set usually isn't art? Like, anything can be art, yeah, but not everything is art, and a fancy chess set is probably being sold not as art, but as a toy or something.
Though now we're getting into like, what are the actual specific of IP law, and I'm pretty sure neither of us are layers and we're both just guessing at this point.