Of course there is case law covering music copyrights. What hasn’t been tried in court is what constitutes as tranformative art in this context. Traditionally music copyrights are very strict.
I’m saying that youtube is very much willing to drop content without due process from it’s platform to please the companies it has partnered with to create yt music.
And it really should be obvious that there is extensive case law on what constitutes transformative use of music. Likely not specifically in regard to streaming or online video, but in fields that make the decisions also applicable to that. Which is what I was arguing against when you said
The gaming part has been tried in court, so that is definitely the case. Music hasn’t
I mean, I don't even know where to start with the absurdity of that statement.
I highly doubt that. Over 60k copies sold - for a sad, epilepsy-inducing, badly voiced, niche game - that's more than good (that's just steam, not including >$100K backing from KS, and buyers from other platforms and OSes,or even failed Android port). I'm not sure what kind of sales they were expecting... mainstream doesn't buy "sad and depressing". And the ones that bought it, did it not really for the game itself, but for "emotional journey". Regardless of how many times they appear on game awards shows and how much media attention they get - if people aren't interested, they won't buy. That's a simple case of expecting more than deserving. Pretty sure without streamers and media attention that number would've been much-much lower.
And with that whole article - it's an opinion piece backed only by few words from a short interview of a single indie dev of a now defunct two-dude company (who's last game sold over 500k copies on PC alone, regardless of streaming arguments, btw). Just words, no facts, and very weak on arguments. E.g. who in their sane mind would compare any single-player title that costs any amount of money to the most popular AAA F2P multiplatform multiplayer game and based on this idiocy later suggest that this is an indicator of declining single player experience. And IGN are really confused as to why AAA studios and publishers focus on online games nowadays - it's not because SP is becoming less popular or in-demand, but because they can cling to rolling updates and DLC, and milk more cash off that singular cow. Better RoI, in other words.
1) So your opinion of a game is a definitive judgement on whether or not it can be seen as a good game, or whether it deserves to sell? I know that you're
trying to not say that, but you are failing at it. The first sentence of your post is essentially "hey, their game sucks and they sold more than I think they deserve to, they should stop complaining". Not only are you placing yourself as some sort of arbiter of what is a "good game", but the attitude you're expressing towards smaller developers is pretty terrible.
2) Speaking of "opinion [...] just words, no facts, and very weak on arguments" - your post above definitely qualifies. I mean, sad and depressing media don't sell? Have you heard of country music? Ballads? Romance novels? Romeo and Juliet? Titanic? Just like horror films are immensely popular, so are heaps of media genres where the main focus is intense feelings of loss, sorrow, etc.
3) You're casually grouping "streamers and media attention" as if it were the same thing. Isn't this
entire discussion about how streaming differs from other forms of media?
4) You're
essentially mistaking absence of evidence with evidence of absence. It is utterly impossible to reliably test the effect of these things - you can't do a blind a/b test of releasing and marketing a game, can you? As such, logically any evidence that streaming is hurting sales for anyone means that
it happens - it obviously doesn't tell us the scale of the issue, but again, that would be impossible to actually study in any reliable manner. We have (though imperfect, the best available kind of) proof that a relatively high profile indie game saw evidence of lost sales due to streaming. What, then, about lower profile games, that don't get asked for quotes by the media, or don't have the reach to get any kind of publicity?
5) In extension of that, you are essentially arguing that we should accept an imperfect system because
someone wins within that system, despite that being largely down to chance and connections. Is that really the gaming industry you want? It sure isn't the one I want.
I never said that that IGN article was great, nor that I agreed with its main points around SP games being a lower priority for AAA studios, I posted it as a source for what I said previously about some developers seeing lost sales due to streaming. There's been a decent resurgence in SP games since 2018 too. As to the rest of that "hey, making money is obviously the only goal anyone cares about" rant ... that's on you. I still have more hope for humanity than that.
