Streaming entire playthroughs of games must be super weird from a legal standpoint. Like, no one seems to be exactly sure where the line is but many big publishers (Microsoft, Ubisoft, and Sony) strongly encourage it while some others (Capcom, Nintendo, Atlus, or maybe that was Sega) place some pretty weird restrictions on it.
It's totally fair to stream something like Minecraft or Rainbow Six Siege, where every person is going to have a unique, individual experience, but for a super-linear story-thing that can be finished in a few hours (Firewatch was a big one here) it's kind of a shitty thing to do because a lot of people will just watch the stream, get everything they need from watching that stream, and not pay a dime for the game. How do you separate the two in a court of law? They're not two entirely different things, they both fall under the umbrella term "video game", but there are clear reasons why streaming one kind of game for a hundred hours is A-OK while streaming another for the four hours it takes to finish it is very definitely not. Is there a clear line separating what can be streamed and what can't?
Probably not, but it's worth thinking about. I don't think streaming is going away anytime soon, though - Microsoft and Sony consoles have built-in tools specifically for streaming and Sony even dedicated a button to sharing video game experiences. Nvidia has Shadowplay, but even without that a combination of OBS and a decent internet connection ensures that Let's Plays and streaming of PC games will probably always be a thing even if every publisher somehow turns against it.
Log in to comment