Streamers RUINING Games?

Game News: Streamers RUINING Games?

Are streamers and let's players RUINING games? One publisher is taking a stand and it's... Atlus? Yep. In a very Japanese move, the Persona 5 publisher is putting restrictions on what can be streamed, and they're threatening copyright strikes against anyone who doesn't comply.

Binge Mode

More Game News

See All Game News Videos

Other Videos You'll Like

Comments (16)

  • Anti-Machinima

    1 month ago

    Look I was damn right. Persona 5 blocked the live stream by ATLUS. This is why you don't live stream or pre-order the game. I just avoid buying Persona 5 game just like avoiding purchased EA games, Activision Blizzard games, CAPCOM games, Ubisoft games, Konami games, and the other games from different video game publishers. ATLUS is like their parent company, SEGA. Remember Batman: Arkham Knight game? The PC version is broken after the first launch. But PS4 and Xbox One is now (nearly perfect) fixed after the launch. But for PC version, no. Still not working and taking too much ever to fix the patch issues. Now, I'm still not buying ATLUS games since 2012 due to reasons.

  • EricHVela FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold is on Gangstagram.

    6 months ago

    I'm sure people could just go read a Wiki or guide with the whole plot thing. People get to decide whether they want to be spoiled or not. If people start watching a game and decide they like it, they get to decide to keep watching or go play it themselves (or both).


    I watched some people play GTA5 SP for a bit and decided to play myself with no further story information. $ale. Would I have bought it otherwise? Until I saw what I did, absolutely not. I was a staunch "GTA doesn't sound interesting" person. A sale was made because I saw someone whose style is familiar to me play it.


    I favor letting people stream/comment games because I have found several games that I wouldn't have otherwise given a chance thanks to streamers/commentary. When I was convinced, I stopped myself from any further spoilers. When I wasn't convinced, I either stopped watching or kept watching but a sale was not going to be made regardless.


    The question is, though: By seeing someone play a game all the way through that I don't intended to buy, am I responsible for compensating the creators for that? If I'm continuing to watch a game I do not wish to play, it's because of the player and not the game. I favor supporting the player instead, but one might ask if I'd still watch without the game. I've watched people who don't always game. Sometimes, it's not about the game. The game doesn't necessarily make the streamer.

  • MartyGras2 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    6 months ago

    Too bad the term fair use is broadly and vaguely defined. 

    • Quizzical_Quark FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      6 months ago

      That's intentional, because a hard define would make it too easy to circumvent, by both parties. This way common sense has a chance to rule by the word of a judge if it comes to that.

  • Rainmaker709 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    6 months ago

    To be clear, I am not a fan of this policy and I think there are a lot of good arguments to be made however, "You are messing with my livelihood" is utter bullshit. To say that they don't have the right to control their IP in any way simply because you are making a buck off of them is absurd. You pay the IP holder absolutely nothing in the way of royalties and monetize a video of you engaged with said IP. You add commentary and then try and claim that it is so original that they deserve nothing from you? Now arguments could be made on how much and I certainly think that there it a lot of added value in that commentary but it is still their IP. 


    We as gamers are extremely fortunate that the people in the industry are as accepting of our culture as they are because our industry is run by people who, for the most part, are gamers themselves as opposed to other entertainment media such as TV and movie. Take something like Theater Mode. Even though the commentary is by far the greater part of any given show, there is still licencing and some small amount of the profit goes back to the creator. Up until now we have gotten away with a pretty sweet deal but I think that will not last forever. Eventually a compromise will have to be made.

    • Shmittles FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      6 months ago

      well said

    • RiverRunning

      6 months ago

      I would love to see thieves and other people who break the law try to use the "you are messing with my livelihood" argument in court... who in the universe thinks that this argument is really the be all and end all, it's the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. You making money does not give you the right to make money from anything other than your own work - if you play a game which you bought a personal license for then you have ZERO right to stream that work; that publishers and devs have allowed it on twitch and the like for so long is not because they can't enforce it, it's because they see some positive side to it - HOWEVER that is their legal prerogative and for a company like Atlas who create primarily story driven games (along with all other devs who create primarily story driven games) the streaming of games has been shown time and again to destroy their revenue stream - this is why so many of the old point and click adventures had demos that only let you play to a certain point and why Atlas only wants to allow streamers to play to a certain point... pretty simply really, they paid for the creation of the game so they get to decide how it is used... you paid for a personal license for the game, you don't get to decide how it is used publicly... just like films and music...

  • Shmittles FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    6 months ago

    Ok, so this is primarily about story-heavy games. I assume their mentality is: 

    1) people want to know the story

    2) people can get the story by buying the game and playing it OR can get it for free by watching it online.


    It's a reasonable concern to consider. The devs and writers might be legitimately concerned about spoilers, but we all know that anyone watching these streams are opting into it themselves. No, what really matters here is what the publishers care about, and it all comes down to one thing: 

    How many people are actually watching these streams INSTEAD of buying the games? 


    I don't know the answer, and it's nearly impossible to determine it. But they THINK they know better, and that's what's causing these kinds of restrictions. It's interesting how many parallels can be drawn between this and game piracy (with the whole, "how many pirates would actually buy the game if they couldn't pirate it?). What's happening now is just another flavor of DRM.


    Personally, I don't watch a stream of a story-heavy game before I play it. I'd much rather experience it, given the option. But that's easy for me to say, since I have some expendable income.

    • RiverRunning

      6 months ago

      If this were news about a book publisher complaining about people reading aloud their books in their entirety on twitch streams you can be sure that people would be happy to assume that sales are being lost... why not so for games that are 95% story. I know there is a line to be drawn but to draw it anywhere north of 80% is offensive to the authors of the story... I'd argue that it should be at least 50% but I don't matter legally speaking, legally speaking the line has already been drawn, streaming is a public display of the work and therefore unlicensed by the dev so the legal line is 0% (give or take a little for fair use)


      P.S. Note on "fair use"; only in the USA is it as broadly interpreted by the law; the public seems to interpret it even more broadly but in the UK it is generally considered that no more than 5% of a work may be reused to be fair use and then it can not be more than 5% of the final work either... and that is the hard limit assuming you are actually doing something that is covered under fair use.... this limit is not unusual in the rest of the world so don't be surprised if non-Americans have little sympathy for upwards of 50% use in a new work (transformative or not).

  • DarkTempler7 FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    6 months ago

    I don't get it, but then again I don't care about spoilers. Hell, when I know I won't play a game or watch a movie for a while I activally seek out spoilers.

  • manlytorchic FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    6 months ago

    I watch a streamer play a game to see if it is a funny game or if that game is something I would play they do their thing either way if I risk getting spoiled I should of known that coming into a stream it seems that Atlus is kinda uptight but hey more power to them I mean sure some people want to see someone they enjoy play a game no matter if it's crap or a new game that I might get some spoilers from watching... I watched BrownMan/ aka Ray stream new games all the time I feel like I am entertained more then I would be spoiled on story aspects... Persona 5 might be your big game but you can't possibly think people are not aware that going into a game of Persona someone is streaming cause they might be there for the streamer I definitely would watch someone play it all the way through cause I enjoy them streaming  michael

  • BoringMoose FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    6 months ago

    It should not be the streamers responsibility to avoid playing parts of a game. People should act like adults and realize that if they watch a streamer play a game, that they haven't, parts could be "spoiled" for them. The people watching need to be held accountable for their actions, and not get mad if some part of the plot is "spoiled".

    • DavidtheWavid FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      6 months ago

      I feel like people are just way too sensitive to spoilers nowadays. Someone got mad at me for spoiling that Mass Effect Andromeda takes place in Andromeda. I also saw someone mad that someone spoiled Rogue One was before A New Hope. Honestly it's getting infuriating. 


      Meanwhile The Walking Dead's official facebook page spoiled a character's death 2 years ago while the episode was still airing. 

    • RiverRunning

      6 months ago

      It's not about the spoilers, it's about the loss of income to the publisher and therefore their decision to make that type of game again or more games... have you not noticed the rise in the clicker game (zero story so it's all about the experience) and the almost complete collapse of the adventure game? (Persona is one of the few to be so purely that).

  • Gohankuten FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

    6 months ago

    Is Adam's shirt on inside out?

    • Gingerzilla FIRST Member Star(s) Indication of membership status - One star is a FIRST member, two stars is Double Gold

      6 months ago

      yes