From our other sites
The story
A VTuber’s remark — “Why does game streaming even need permission? What was the point of buying it?” — sparked discussion on 5ch’s Hardware & Industry (Geha) board. Commenters repeatedly pointed out that what streamers buy is the “right to play” the software, not the “right to broadcast” it. The thread also brought up the Niconico era, when streaming in open defiance of terms of service was rampant, as well as the current system where rights holders are notified the moment a stream goes live, letting them demonetize or take it down almost instantly. Opinions were split on whether streaming hurts sales and on whether a permission system is justified in the first place.
What people said
So this is basically just jealousy.
Even back in the Niconico days, playing new releases got you complaints as a matter of course, no?
When FF11 launched, even posting screenshots of your own gameplay online was against the terms of service.
This is a courtesy they're turning a blind eye for — act humble about it.
Combattler V would never say something like that! (Combattler V — a classic giant-robot anime hero, riffing on "V" as in VTuber)
But what about Taekwon V? (another giant robot named "V," from a Korean anime — keeping the pun going)
Now that you mention it, all those short-film-style videos disappeared en masse, didn't they.
You can still find them if you look.
Back in the Niconico days people were strict about overlapping content too, it had that whole closed-village vibe, so yeah, pretty rough lol
Can't help it though, it was still the early days.
Back when everyone was fighting over just 50 streaming slots, people would coordinate over Skype to avoid overlapping.
There's no point unless you play it yourself, so it's not like streaming makes it lose any value.
A lot of people say "I watched the stream so I don't need to buy it," but…
are you sure nothing's really lost there?
"Oh I totally played it! …via the playthrough video."
People like that wouldn't buy the console or the game anyway, stream or no stream.
Followers who follow the streamer rather than the game itself won't buy anything no matter what the VTuber plays or does —
they only spend money on Super Chats and memberships.
No way.
Whether or not you already know what's going to happen completely changes how the game feels to play.
Playing it already knowing what happens just changes how you enjoy it — it doesn't mean the game's value is lost.
Judging by what's coming out of the White House lately, "fair use" as a concept doesn't exactly leave a good impression on me.
Anime watch-alongs need permission too, you know?
Exactly.
Or they should build a system where only people who bought the game can see the same screen as the streamer.
Is it really necessary when you're not even broadcasting the video or audio?
Even if there's no legal issue,
getting permission anyway leaves a better impression with the rights holder,
and it can lead to sponsored work down the line.
A permission system makes total sense — otherwise unrelated third parties just rake in profit without giving anything back to the publisher.
In B2B, a permission system is standard practice.
Setting aside tiny individual streamers, the popular ones run themselves as registered sole proprietors, and agency VTubers are backed by actual companies — so even more reason.
Even now there are people with a "if I don't get caught it's fine, I'll just delete it if I do" attitude, so they should crack down harder.
Nowadays, the moment you start streaming, the rights holder gets notified automatically.
So if they feel like it, they can zero out the stream's monetization or get it taken down almost instantly.
Squeeze the big earners and major companies for money, and go easy on small-time streamers who just do it for fun without ads.
At the end of the day, streamers have nothing left once you take away the "game commentary" card.
If anything, publishers are the ones paying streamers for promotion lol. Your thinking's completely backwards, it's hilarious — what era are you even living in?
Background and Key Points of This Discussion
Japan has no fair-use provision like the United States does, so the underlying premise is that game streaming is only permitted within the bounds of the individual “guidelines” each publisher sets. While many major publishers allow non-commercial use, a system is now in place where rights holders are notified the instant a stream begins, letting them demonetize or remove it almost immediately. The thread was split between the view that “people satisfied by watching a playthrough weren’t going to buy the game anyway” and the view that “whether or not a playthrough exists changes the publisher’s revenue opportunities.” Some commenters were also surprised to learn that even formats like screen-free watch-alongs are sometimes expected to get permission first.
※This article is compiled and summarized from the 5ch (Hardware & Industry / Geha) thread “VTuber: “Why does game streaming even need permission? What was the point of buying it?”“
Leave a Reply