New 'Guardians Of The Galaxy' Game Has Game Streamers Worried Over Integral Music In The Game
from the ooga-chaka dept
With streaming games and "let's plays" becoming a dominant force of influence in the gaming world, one of the sillier trends we've seen is video games coming out with "stream safe" settings that strip out audio content for which there is no broadcast license. We've talked already about how this sort of thing is not a solution to the actual problem -- the complicated licenses surrounding copyrighted works and the permission culture that birthed them -- but is rather a ploy to simply ignore that problem entirely. That hasn't stopped this from becoming a more regular thing in the gaming world, even as we've seen examples of "stream safe" settings fail to keep streams from getting DMCA notices.
Well, if there were a perfect example of a video game that highlights the absurdity of all of this, it may well be the forthcoming Guardians of the Galaxy title. If you're not familiar with the GotG movies, you should know that retro music plays a major role in the films. The game promises that retro music will be just as important as in the films. And that's what immediately set off concern for game streamers.
One group that is wary of this heavy emphasis on pop music is the livestreaming crowd, who are concerned that it could make the game near-impossible to broadcast. This is because Twitch and YouTube creators are regularly hit with what are known as Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices.
As such, a number of social media users have expressed hesitancy to livestream Guardians of the Galaxy when it comes out in October, as they are worried that the game's licensed soundtrack might cause them to receive a DMCA strike.
The new Guardians of the Galaxy game is a streamer's worst nightmare...
If they want people to stream it they need to implement a "DMCA friendly" mode.
All the classic songs that will play during battles are a quick path to getting DMCA banned#E32021 pic.twitter.com/EKHW7Crjqt
— Ovilee May (@OvileeMay) June 13, 2021
This seemed to be the general reaction to the game among streamers. The game publisher of course secured the rights to the songs to be included in the game, but did not license the songs for rebroadcast. Because the world is an extremely stupid place, streaming a game equates to a rebroadcast of any music within it. And, also because the world is an extremely stupid place, Eidos-Montreal's solution to this is once again to mute licensed music.
Newsweek contacted Eidos-Montréal to ask if they had made any considerations for Twitch streamers in respect to Guardians of the Galaxy's music. Over email, a spokesperson confirmed that there will actually be an option to mute licensed tracks, if players want to be absolutely safe from potential DMCA takedowns.
And so a major thematic element for the franchise will be nixed in any live-streams of the game. That is immensely frustrating. Yes, "dad rock" is an important component of the franchise and will be likewise in the game, but nobody is buying the game in order to listen to the music. By the same token, nobody is going to watch a stream of the game for that music, either. The music is important to the franchise, but its appearance in a live-stream of the game is certainly not a replacement for buying it in the marketplace.
But here we are, because permission culture demands it.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, guardians of the galaxy, let's play, music, streaming
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Personally I think things like this are a good thing. Making the whole copyright mess cause actual financial damage to large corporations (by eg. having a triple-A mainstream game title flop because gamers can't safely promote it to others) may be the only way to get the mess fixed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Making the whole copyright mess cause actual financial damage to large corporations (by eg. having a triple-A mainstream game title flop because gamers can't safely promote it to others) may be the only way to get the mess fixed."
Your mistake here is assuming that they will correctly identify and address the real cause of their losses. More likely, they will whine about piracy causing their problems, even if there's no evidence of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Something to note:
In its rebroadcast of the Square Enix E3 presentation, Twitch’s /twitchgaming channel aired a version of the trailer and the gameplay footage for Guardians with the original licensed music removed. (Funny thing is, the replaced music kinda worked better for the trailer than did the licensed song, which was “Holding Out for a Hero” by Bonnie Tyler.) Squenix had to put that together with Twitch before the broadcast, so they are definitely aware of the DMCApocalypse and are willing to work around it somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Something to note:
Maybe trailers that use replacement music should use music that mercilessly mocks permission culture and Amazon's complacency and complicity. Assuming developers have any interest in changing this state of affairs, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cover Versions?
Yes, those holy broadcast cash cow licenses. Can cover versions work?
I quit uploading video because every broadcast network, catalogue distribution rights agent hit me with copyright notices - even 5 seconds of Ironman on a commentary.
Yes, DMCA notices will fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well they will be able to stream it as a retro game in another ~50 years or so, unless governments extends copyright terms to when works of dead authors move to public domain again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
50 years? Sadly not, even the current rules mean that virtually nobody alive when a work is released will live to see it enter the public domain, and that's if every copyright holder dies on the day of its release.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You won't even be able to get a copy of the game with the licensed music by then, it will gradually be stripped out in future releases and updates (which will actually remove songs that were included when you bought the game) because "the licensing ran out".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute
Isn't everyone going to get DMCA'd by the estate of John Cage for having 4'33'' on endless replay during the streams?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streamer entitlement?
I was a bit taken back by the idea that every game must be streamable, and the designers should optimise their game for that? Is that healthy, or shouldn't there be a range of games- some for streaming, others just focused on the players individual experience rather than a third party audience?
Basically- entitled streamers weep because they can't make money off clicks for new game. But people who actually just want to play the game (and can learn about it through reviews still) can still rock on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Streamer entitlement?
"I was a bit taken back by the idea that every game must be streamable, and the designers should optimise their game for that?"
Streaming games is not a feature in the game, it's something that takes the video being displayed on the TV/monitor and rebroadcasts it. If you can play the game then it's streamable. Some games have features to make this easier, but it's not a feature of the game allowing you to do it in the first place.
"people who actually just want to play the game (and can learn about it through reviews still) can still rock on"
...and the people who don't want to play it, or enjoy watching people better at it than they are so they can pick up tips, or who are interested in maybe buying it but would rather see what actual gameplay is like before doing so can do what, exactly? Streaming is an additional, complimentary market for games, not a replacement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Streamer entitlement?
Clearly optimising for streaming is a feature because that's what the article is about. The choice to make the licensed music unmissable makes it un-streamable according to the article. Being able to switch it off would make it streamable (and so be a pro-streaming feature) but the designers haven't chosen to do that. Maybe it's an artistic decision (they feel the music adds that much to the game experience) or an oversight, but the entitlement comes from the expectation that every game can be streamed. And in fairness, it probably can be streamed, you just need a streaming service (maybe something in Russia or China?) which won't take you down for playing licensed music in the background.
As for the people who don't want to play it or just want to watch, then why should the designers create a game for them? They are literally not buying the game, but rather voyeuristically sharing in the streamers experience. Indeed perhaps the producers would sell more copies if they make it unstreamable so everyone who wants to experience the game needs to buy it instead of watching it on YouTube. (appreciate that streamers argue they are do free advertising for good games and their fans may purchase a copy- but I've seen very little statistical backup for that assertion- happy if anyone can point me to that. Plus what happens if this ISNT a good game and streaming would deter people from purchasing it because of the flaws they see- in that case making it non-streamable would also be a logical economic choice)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streamer entitlement?
"Clearly optimising for streaming is a feature because that's what the article is about"
Yes, optimising for all sorts of usages of a product is a good thing. But, streaming is always an option no matter what the makers of the game do, or don't do, in that space. In this case, it would be beneficial if the developers gave an option that didn't get them banned from popular streaming platforms, but there are workarounds and alternatives.
"the entitlement comes from the expectation that every game can be streamed"
...for which there's no argument I've ever heard, except from people who don't understand why people would watch a stream. Some people play poker, some people watch people play poker in tournaments. That doesn't mean that the tournaments are freeloading off card manufacturers.
"As for the people who don't want to play it or just want to watch, then why should the designers create a game for them?"
Because they make sales to the streamers who provide that service, who might not buy copies aside from the fact that they're popular streaming titles, and a non-zero number of people who watch the streams go on to buy the game and play it themselves.
"perhaps the producers would sell more copies if they make it unstreamable"
Perhaps they'll sell less because they cut off a free marketing outlet. Unless you have studies to point to, your assumption here is meaningless.
"Plus what happens if this ISNT a good game and streaming would deter people from purchasing it because of the flaws they see"
So, your argument here is that people who make bad games need to be allowed hide them from people so they can trick people into buying a bad game instead of being able to view everything that interests them and making a value judgement? I don't think you're helping your case here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, it worked for Atari (until it didn’t).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streamer entitlement?
But you literally just argued that these people who want to watch streamers play the game to experience it wouldn't be playing the game to start with. If a ban on streaming a game was actually enforced, why would people who'd rather watch a streamed game than play it buy the game to play it?
Gotta love these "potential lost sales" arguments. You know what might deter people from purchasing a game? A good friend buying the game, being disappointed, and making a post on social media encouraging people not to buy it. Or posting a negative review. Or making a video and posting it to YouTube. Unfortunately for you, none of those things are illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streamer entitlement?
There is an option to mute the music (just like in every other game). The point is that is a stupid solution to a stupid problem that shouldn't exist in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streamer entitlement?
Holy cow, why wouldn't a huge chunk of the direct target audience - the game's purchasers - not want to be able to turn off (or adjust the volume) of various bits of game audio? That was available in the 90s, i don't know why we think this is such a huge financial drain on game companies, requiring oh so much new and difficult code.
Seriously, it's the dumbest thing when you can't independently turn off or adjust BGM in a game - licensed or production. (But also environmental and incidental sounds.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Streamer entitlement?
From the publisher’s perspective, streaming is free advertising. Hours upon hours of free advertising, without any work from the publisher. So why wouldn’t you put a little thought into optimizing for streaming during game development?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Streamer entitlement?
I was a bit taken aback by the idea that the marketing departments of game houses don't want all the sweet, sweet, free (and sometimes constant) exposure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
unpopular opinion, but you're not entitled to perform a game
There is no right to be able to perform a game to an audience. Game makers allow it commonly, but it is an allowance and it can be disallowed.
When you buy the game you are not buying a license to perform the music in the game.
This doesn't seem all that weird.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having a right to do a thing (e.g., enforce copyright at the most strict levels possible) doesn’t make it the right thing to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It also isn't a set performance of an entirely predetermined work. I rather think there are very good arguments to be made that streaming gameplay is not a traditional infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's certainly something that needs to be stressed. It's not like streaming and album or a movie, where the content is essentially the same as if you were viewing/listening directly. The experience of watching a stream and playing a game are by definition different things. Sometimes a stream is interactive (for example, streamers might ask viewers to participate in order to help solve puzzles or discuss tactics). Sometimes games are built so that you will never see the same level being played twice (e.g. roguelikes).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unpopular opinion, but you're not entitled to perform a game
You are correct, of course, under the current legal structure, but that's the problem.
I don't think copyright licensing should be so specific. If a song is licensed for inclusion in another work, that should be all-encompassing. If I can stream a video game that includes the song, then the song can play on the stream when it appears in game. If a song is used in a TV show, it can automatically be included when the show is released on DVD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, what you're doing is you're buying a license to play the game. The sounds that come out of the audio output of my device as a result is purely incidental.
The legal definition aside, nobody reasonable would consider a sample of game footage to be remotely the same as a performance of the audio attached to it. Would you pay for a sample of game footage for the same amount of money you'd pay for the a performance of a song?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: unpopular opinion, but you're not entitled to perform a game
"There is no right to be able to perform a game to an audience"
There's no right to do a lot of things people enjoy doing in their daily lives, but they commonly do them anyway.
"Game makers allow it commonly, but it is an allowance and it can be disallowed."
There's no way that a stream can be completely disabled. Made more difficult for no reason, but not made impossible.
"When you buy the game you are not buying a license to perform the music in the game."
OK, so allow people to turn off that unnecessary part of the game, problem solved both for streamers and for solo players who want to listen to something else but still want to be able to hear the dialogue/effects in game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streaming a game, including its music, of course involves rebroadcasting the music. (Just as streaming the game in silence would not.) That's not even a little stupid. What's stupid is that this requires permission. And that people keep giving money to the music and film (and game) companies who forbid them from doing anything interesting with it. These restrictions run counter to millenia of music and storytelling history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it seems every game will need a option, disable music for streamers unless its original music composed for the game.
youtube pays billions to music companys maybe they could get a license for music in games in general .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It needs to be an option all the time, whether or not streamers ever existed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
youtube pays billions to music companys maybe they could get a license for music in games in general .
Alternatively and I'd argue better have a option to mute the built-in soundtrack and replace it with public domain music or music by artists that are fine with getting the attention a bunch of people hearing their music would bring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Streamers to become a more cohesive industry (not centralized, but more of a community) and fight back against this sort of thing. Despite what the music and game industry might think, streaming is a huge purchasing driver and wields significant power. Boycotting a AAA title can have significant influence on the success or failure of a game.
Younger buyers want to play what streamers are playing, money-smart buyers want to see if a game is garbage before buying it. This is not the movie industry where people will drop 30 bucks just to see the movie for themselves even though critics give it a bad review. Gamers are smart today, they don't trust the critics at all anymore because of the fact that reviews are bought and paid for and have been for over 3 decades now. They know already things like E3 are showcases and nothing more, and that what they see there is fluff and wind.
Streamers need to come together and start punching back in this fight.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Won't someone please think of the artists? Marvin Gaye would never have performed Ain't No Mountain High Enough if he had known people would be listening to the song for free in the background of a livestream of a video game. Where's the incentive to create if people are just going to be incidentally hearing short clips of your music in the background of a video game in the background of someone talking 37 years after your death?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I typically turn the music off on games I play, or turn it way down. I find it distracts me and makes it harder for me to hear effects that clue me in to game events (especially when the signal danger).
It may be an issue unique to me, though I don't think it is. A lot of people feel the music is important to the atmosphere. I don't disagree, it's just not my priority.
That said, I think I'll avoid DMCA complaints on this game by not playing it.
"...if players want to be absolutely safe from potential DMCA takedowns." Well, yeah. Turning the music off will make you absolutely safe from DMCA takedowns, until you aren't. Because the fucking system is broken and gets abused all the time and if somebody wants to hurt you they can just make bogus claims. coughsupmattocough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
Just out of curiosity, why do people watch someone else playing a game?
I know it’s not the point of the article but I never understood it.
I mean is it like how some people watch sports? Because watching a person play a game always struck me as being as exciting as watching someone else fish. Or watching the toaster as I wait from it to finish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
"Just out of curiosity, why do people watch someone else playing a game?"
There's many reasons, but one of the first things to realise is that you have to get out of the false assumption that the streams themselves are not interactive. Many times, it's a group effort to try and solve puzzles, or just shoot the shit during gameplay. Hell, one horror movie channel I subscribe to has an interactive stream where he chats with people while he edits the next episode of his YouTube feed.
Even if not directly interactive, there's many reasons. Maybe the guy streaming is way better than you and you want to pick up tips on how to get better. Maybe you're stuck on a part of the game and you need to get hints on how to get further. Plenty of kids don't have the money to buy new games, so they live vicariously through the stream until they can afford the game. Some games are designed so that no matter how many times you play them, you will never have the same experience twice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
I got that point on co-op, just was sorting interactive play from those who watch. I still use NuDwad. To play Doom (the original) matches.
Didn’t dawn on me about the chat aspect of it. Which makes more sense than watching someone else play. For hours and hours. Lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Why?
Even if people are watching for hours, so what? You not personally agreeing with or understanding a pastime doesn't make it bad or wrong.
The other thing I forgot to mention is the added value given by the streamer themselves. They're not sitting there in silence for the most part, they'll often add value, which might be in the for of audience interaction, sometimes for other things. A couple of examples that come to mind are a guy who runs a channel showing people how to get achievements/trophies in games, and when he's going for a particularly challenging one (say, complete the game in hard mode in under 3 hours), audience feedback is a large part of that to keep him focussed. His commentary on non-intensive streams can be used to help people locate other achievements, or get edited later to form a compact guide to some collectables, etc.
The other example that comes to mind is that the host of a couple of non-video game podcasts I listen to is famously a wimp when it comes to horror games. So, occasionally they'll do a stream where he's forced to play through a scary game. Nobody's watching his Resident Evil 8 playthrough to replace their own playthrough, they're watching it laugh at his exaggerated (and often very genuine) reactions to what happens in the game.
The point is, to answer your original question, there's a lot of reasons why people watch game streams, and the majority of people are doing it to complement their own gaming, not as a replacement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
Only asking what the premise was. Didn’t have an actual opinion either way.
It’s become such a commercial venture now I wonders what the attraction was.
I like watching/Copley with Blood mods the most.
Get six people together and you can play football (soccer) with the dead heads for a while. Or blast ball, where a player kicks the head up and you shoot it and see how far you can get it before it breaks or explodes! You get fragged a lot though.
I guess we could be interesting to watch too.
Think our games are too gritty for most streaming services. Not much from Blood or Dungeon Of Gore on YouTube.
Just asking. Never put much thought into it. Need to check it out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
Sure, it's certainly a positive thing to delay judgement on a thing until you've tried understanding it properly. It will vary between audiences, but streaming is just another form of entertainment for many now. I've seen lots of kids using what would have been their veg out in from of cartoons time in previous generations watching endless hours of people doing things in Minecraft. Not my preferred form of entertainment, but it has value for people who want to do it.
"Not much from Blood or Dungeon Of Gore on YouTube."
I'm not familiar with DoG and a quick search doesn't reveal much, so maybe it's just not popular enough? Also, while YouTube does have a streaming option it's not the most popular one. A quick search on Twitch shows plenty of streams of Blood though (assuming you mean the 90s shooter). Whether or not they fit into the categories I mentioned or if they are just people recording their attempts as speed runs I can't say, but they're there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
Dungeon of Gore was a heavily modified version of Final Doom with custom wad file and a total conversion set; plus a randomiser.
You never got the same levels twice, and it was a pain in the arse. It’s still out there via older zdoom collections.
It was/is basically Shining in the Darkness with a crap load of blood. And since it ripped off so much of the old Sega game it’s technically illegal. But hey, who doesn’t like watching a slime turn into rainbow mist via rocket blast. And the lowly skeletons lost one bone at a time.
And yes, the 90s FPS Blood.
We still get together once a month, same group as day one, to play football with heads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
Ah, OK I've learned something today then, thanks!
But, yeah, I'd say it's more likely that it's an obscure title that's not going to get much traction on a mainstream platform like YouTube, rather than it being because the game's too gritty or edgy for YouTube to handle. Even the vanilla Final Doom only has 10 recent streams listed on Twitch, so I imagine people playing an obscure mod isn't going to feature heavily anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
“ Even the vanilla Final Doom only has 10 recent streams listed on Twitch,…”
Too bad. Can’t say Ali agree with modern tastes. But I think every generation looks at the next and shakes their head at whatever game become popular. Minecraft? Yawn. Lol.
Where’s my slinky. That’s hours of fun. Watching the cats and dog try to get out of it. 😀
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
Again, your personal tastes don't really matter. Minecraft doesn't appeal to you personally? OK, but I don't see what that has to do with whether or not it's a valid entertainment form for my 14 year old nephew... It's not even the most popular game, things like Fortnite, GTAV, League Of Legends and Valorant seem to be the current popular titles, but the cool thing about such services is that you can dive into your niche old school games as well if you want. You'll have a smaller community, but that's not a problem unless you try reading something into that situation that's not supported by facts.
You keep on with your 90s era gaming, and nobody's going to argue with you. But, that doesn't make your taste any more or less valid that others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why?
“ Can’t say [I] agree with modern tastes. But I think every generation looks at the next and shakes their head at whatever game become popular.?”
Yep. To each their own.
I just never put any effort into watching this nature so I didn’t understand what the attraction was.
I went looking, I found people speed running Gauntlet, the think and your dead DM wad!
That’s a side question. How do you speed run a speed run wad when you can only go one direction at full speed in the first place. My record is 38 seconds before death. Lol. Someone actually made it over a minute? Wow
hey, people post, and people watch.
I may actually come to enjoy this stuff! Who’d of known.
You made me realise the “best” games aren’t dead!
So thanks!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I think the bigger question for this game is why do ALL characters look nothing like their movie counterparts? Not even Vaguely. Different hair colors, faces, even drax has weird red blobs on his exposed skin etc...
Even Rocket and Groot are completely different. There's some sort of licensing screw up going on somewhere, since Groot is 100% CGI as is Rocket....so it's not that the actors refused to license their faces...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It’s not a licensing screw-up. See, Squenix caught a fair bit of shit for the “stunt double” versions of the Avengers in its Avengers game — i.e., for trying to replicate the general look of the MCU!Avengers without actually casting the MCU!Avengers. (And judging from the dialogue, they also wanted to replicate the feel of MCU writing.) My guess is that after hearing all those criticisms, Squenix took them to heart and decided to give this version of the Guardians some distance from their MCU counterparts.
A similar issue happened with Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite, in that Marvel apparently wanted the game to draw inspiration more from the MCU than from any other influence (including past MvC games). That led to similar “stunt double” issues and the exclusion of popular recurring characters (e.g., X-Men characters such as Wolverine). Those issues, in concert with several others, kept MvC:I from becoming as successful as its predecessors.
I get that people might want to play as the MCU versions of Iron Man, Captain America, etc. But unless a company has the money to cast Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, etc., that company is better off not trying to do Great Value versions of those characters. Squenix learned that the hard way. Apparently, so did Marvel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"why do ALL characters look nothing like their movie counterparts?"
It's based on the comic version of the characters, not the MCU version.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]