81–90 of 175 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple concept. You get the benefit of playing through the game without the drawbacks.
What's the drawbacks?
- Purchasing
- Downloading
- Installing
- Patching
- Commitment
- Mechanical Skill
It allows you to experience the story of a game or the experience of high skill play with little up-front cost or long-term commitment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's funny that people downvote because they don't like what they read even if its true. Put yourself in the shoes of the game developer who puts everything on the line to develop a game that thousands of people watch but the developer gets no revenue for.
>Put yourself in the shoes of the game developer who puts everything on the line to develop a game that thousands of people watch but the developer gets no revenue for. Has this _ever_ happened?
This whole industry of game streaming is operating in a gray zone. It's a matter of time before we see some big lawsuits against the streamer and streaming platforms which make a lot of money by publishing the whole content, without any royalties to game developers /publishers. For certain games. it doesn't spoil or ruin the fun factor for viewers, but some others it just removed the incentives to buy a copy of the g…
That's going to be interesting litigation. There's a legal analysis under UK law here.[1] It's not too helpful. WIPO suggests that legislation may be desirable to give game developers control over videos of games.[2] Their country-by-country analysis is all over the place. It's a tough call. Arguably, the player is the performance, against the game as a backdrop. That could be argued as a transformative use. If you m…
I'd say that's absolutely the case for a lot of the most popular streamers and Lets Players. Jacksepticeye is an easy example: the distinctive parts of his videos aren't the games, they're his exaggerated reactions to whatever's going on in them. You could replace the actual game video and sound with a black screen, leaving just his voice, and people would still tune in to giggle at his silly behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Two additional aspects: 1) Twitch can leverage the core support network that amazon can build Starting from aws - to prime video subscriptions 2) amazon will go strong into tv top as soon as apple and google take it more serious. at that point the got one of the bigger kinds of content under control - similar w/ google and youtube
What makes you think appletv will ever support Amazon video? The iOS app definitely needs chrome cast support.
This whole industry of game streaming is operating in a gray zone. It's a matter of time before we see some big lawsuits against the streamer and streaming platforms which make a lot of money by publishing the whole content, without any royalties to game developers /publishers. For certain games. it doesn't spoil or ruin the fun factor for viewers, but some others it just removed the incentives to buy a copy of the g…
If the publisher doesn't want their game on twitch it isn't there: but the reverse tends to happen (publishers pay people to stream their game, and for their game to be featured on the twitch sidebar).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct, and Nintendo already puts the lockdown on that hardcore.
Since when? I've never had a problem finding Mario play throughs. EDIT: Just did a sanity check search, Mario Kart 8 playthrough, been up for 2 years, a million and a half views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR0l84gjEXg
Last year Nintendo made a program[1] where Youtubers could sign up to be Nintendo partners, and in return they could keep somewhere around ~70% of the video ad revenue, but they also had some weird clauses.
Most people who do Nintendo game content do so while knowing that they are not going to be able to make ad revenue off of it. That is very well and fine for people who do it as a hobby, but some others do Youtube content for a living, and it's nonviable for them.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the subject, just wanted to let you know that it _is_ a thing.
Game developers don't have any option except to restrict public display of their games in some way. There are now plenty of people who enjoy watching but not playing games. Game developers need revenue for this firstly because they deserve it, having made the entertainment, but secondly because former players are now just watchers and not paying money, reducing revenue. My guess is that games developers will permit p…
Restricting free expression isn't going to bring game developers more revenue, it's just going to increase piracy and damage the developers' reputation. Like it or not, this isn't something developers have any say in or control over.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think content owners would see this as IP theft rather than free advertising? Are people watching play throughs rather than playing it themselves?
Depends on the game. Many games are only remarkable for their combination of story and aesthetics, with the minute-to-minute play being fairly mundane. In that case I can see a bunch of people just watching a stream and not bothering to play the game themselves. How many of them would have been so pushed as to play the game for themselves anyway... an open question.
I watched Let's Plays of both because I wanted to see the story, and because the players were entertaining. I don't think I'd have enough time or patience to play through either game, but I definitely got value out of the game itself without having played it.
It does seem like a gray zone - I experienced content without paying for it, but I didn't experience it the way it was truly meant to be. Did I come by it unfairly?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube's interface (both broadcasting and viewing) is terrible compared to Twitch for the kind of programming people watch on it, and the "community" on Youtube is infinitely worse in every way possible to boot.
That's not entirely true. On Youtube, you can instantly rewind the video like you do on a video where as on Twitch, you have to go to the videos section, wait for that section to be uploaded before rewinding. There's also 60 fps on Youtube which beats Twitch's 30 fps.
the only limiting factor is the bitrate limit of 3500 https://help.twitch.tv/customer/portal/articles/1253460-broa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Youtube's interface (both broadcasting and viewing) is terrible compared to Twitch for the kind of programming people watch on it, and the "community" on Youtube is infinitely worse in every way possible to boot.
That's not entirely true. On Youtube, you can instantly rewind the video like you do on a video where as on Twitch, you have to go to the videos section, wait for that section to be uploaded before rewinding. There's also 60 fps on Youtube which beats Twitch's 30 fps.