YouTube and gaming: is streaming bad for gaming?

Founded in 2005 and protagonist in the first person of the "social revolution" of the web, during its fifteen years of life YouTube was, among other things, also promoter of the diffusion of the videogame and its culture.

In a social network where only the careful creation of original content could bring out fully, Streaming games and opening critical-focused vlogs has been a tremendous opportunity for many creators, so much so that YouTube has now become one of the most important gamer communities, not without controversy and conflicts with the world of "traditional" gaming.

A situation which, in the light of some recent episodes, it shows no sign of changing.

Case of the day: "YouTube has to pay developers and publishers!"

It all starts with a tweet from Alex Hutchinson, creative director di Typhoon Studios (Journey to the Savage Planet), from December 2019 acquired by Google Stadia, in which the developer launched a real hand grenade with a provocative question and immediately attacked by journalists and influencers:

In practice: given the billions of dollars generated by YouTubers specializing in video games, YouTube itself should pay the developers and publishers of the games streamed in the name of the good fortune of this kind of "show". The reactions were not long in coming, with responses from key figures in videogame journalism such as the influencer Jason Schreier of Bloomberg, all negative with respect to the idea promoted by Hutchinson.

What perhaps started - perhaps - as a kind of outburst has therefore generated a real wave of indignation from various commentators who see Hutchinson's claim as a kind of insult, if not a unique nonsense, and the noise has grown so much that it even reaches the ears of Google, owner of Stadia, Typhoon Studio and even YouTube, or rather the protagonists of the story.

And the response to the developer was so dry that it sounded alarmed. In a statement issued to 9to5Google, site close to Google, a representative of the giant commented that "Recent tweets from Alex Hutchinson, creative director of the Montreal Studio of Stadia Games and Entertainment, do not reflect those of Stadia, YouTube or Google".

Apparently, someone didn't like it.

A new scenario

Hutchinson's point of view is, if we look closely, not at all trivial, as well as being able to ask a series of side questions.

Beyond the provocation, beyond the reactions of Google or commentators, the question touched upon is simple: in fact, at present many YouTubers are using and probably will use video games as the material to build real "web-series" made simply by streaming or recording and transmitting your bets at a later time. A situation that, in fact, it could lead several YouTubers to monetize with videos built from the work of programmers, musicians, screenwriters and others creatives who instill their talent in creating videogame blockbusters.

Now, there would be a first and indeed evident note to do to Hutchinson, and that is that like other social networks and more than others YouTube is based on very particular logic of dissemination and use of intellectual property, structured on the construction of cross promotional assists between different brands from which they are born real promotion campaigns. Moreover, these may well arise from the spontaneous will of a creative to make content through a run to a game, but on the other hand there are many cases of successful collaborations between publishers and YouTubers who agree and plan a real social campaign consisting of a stream.

On a deeper level, however, however, a couple of theoretical problems arise, and they are both related to the conception of YouTuber videogame.

If we think about it, the phenomenon of video game streaming is something that had never been seen in the history of the medium, and in fact also in the history of other media. Not only because, as mentioned, he is a creative who monetizes quietly using other people's creations (a notion to be taken with a grain of salt, of course), but above all because for the first time since its advent, the video game has lost its fundamental characteristic - interactivity - to become a passive spectacle object.

And here, perhaps, we get to the heart of the matter.

From players to spectators?

Let me be clear: all players, even those who are really lucky enough to play two / three titles a month (we are talking about long games) go to YouTube every day, they follow influencers to hear their opinion, dig into the net in search of unobtainable gameplay and obviously throw a few glances at the walkthrough of the game of the moment. 

Anyone does it, I myself get lost for at least one or two hours a week (in full, mind you) a take a look at this or that series, if only to relive a good game just finished.

The impression, however, is that among the many changes of the video game its diffusion through YouTube has made many fans shift from the role of players to that of spectators. And this, as I said above, is normal and also interesting, even in theory it increases the videogame culture of the players allowing them to have knowledge of games that they would not touch in the first person even with a finger (an example: me with a soulslike).

However, if we put this practice in an almost massive perspective, with thousands of small / medium channels at work to emerge and build a following by playing someone else's creation, moreover, managing to monetize, we realize how yes, maybe the words of Hutchinson may seem like complaints of a person involved in the first person who sees his work at times damaged by people who attend the games of others and who do not buy the product, but there is some distortion of the "game" as a medium.

YouTube has therefore certainly not "ruined the video game" bringing it to a passive dimension (saying it would be stupid at least), and maybe saying that no one plays games anymore to see them because they are lazy (great cliché) is perhaps too much. 

But what it looks like is that alongside that of the played game, the sub-industry of the seen game has also been created, complete with “performers” (the YouTubers) and dedicated distribution channels (YouTube itself).

And the question remains: Are developers and publishers going to this party or are they staying out to see?