What does watching a stream of a 10 year old game really have to do with the potential financial ramifications of streaming a just-released game?

...and you’ve yet to show how companies will make more money by banning streaming.

And like I’VE said before, protecting their IP is good business, and inconveniencing a streamers is minor compared to the risk they open themselves up to for failing to take action to at least look like they’re trying to protect their copyright. I wish i could remember the name of the case or the parties involved, but…

Weird, numerous other companies allow and even embrace streaming, and they haven’t lost their IP’s. Blizzard hasn’t lost Warcraft or Starcraft for allowing streams of those games, Riot hasn’t lost League of Legends for allowing streaming of that.

You obviously haven’t bothered to look. Googling “Twitch” “Stream” and “DMCA” brings up quite a few examples.

So, whether the streamers are actively hurting Square Enix or anyone else is irrelevant? WHat does it matter if they make a buck off of Square Enix unless it somehow comes at the expense of Square Enix? How is what they’re doing resulting in fewer sales?

Completely in the same boat. It’s hard to care for any characters when their history has been rewritten a half dozen times and will likely be rewritten in a year or two, anyway.

This is a large part of why i stopped reading DC, for the most part. My comics days are largely behind me, but when i do get the itch to revisit, i avoid DC like the plague because my reaction to finding out what’s happened during my absence tends to be in the “WTF?” category with an incredulous shake of my head.

Exactly. The fact that Square isn’t even fighting the streams and allowing streamers to earn money off of it is pretty generous considering the streams could potentially cost them sales. They’re just banking on the streams acting more as advertising then as a game-play replacement.

They absolutely can enforce this. Mass takedown orders happen all the time. Naturally, the game companies will come off as the bad-guys because overly-entitled streamers think that the rules don’t apply to them. Square and the other game companies are protecting their IP and have a legal obligation to do so.

Because they own the IP and have to show that they’re actively protecting it....that’s part of the responsibility of an IP owner, or they run the risk of losing future IP infringement litigation.

Exactly. The gaming community as a whole has a pretty well deserved reputation for a rampant sense entitlement. Just because you paid for a game doesn’t mean you own the IP. Game companies have an obligation to protect their intellectual property or they run the risk of losing it (since actively protecting your IP is…

The long and the short of it is that it’s copyrighted content. Streamers are trying to make money off of content copyrighted by another entity. The fact that Square, or ANY game company, allows streamers to post footage of their copyrighted material and make money using that material and not demand a cut is generous…

People keep saying this, but no one can ever really provide a road map for how developers should do this? Development teams have no leverage on their own. Studios can replace entire teams of developers relatively quickly. It’d be costly in the short term, but as far as the large publishers are concerned, not something…

Quite the opposite. It just proves that developers need a union themselves in order to ensure that they’re fairly compensated when publishers rake in millions in profit only to supply bonuses to execs, exclusively. The problem is finding a way of establishing a union in an industry that is in such demand that…

The problem is leverage. Developers obviously don’t have any because the demand for their positions is so high that studios have little to no trouble replacing individual developers. Have an entire team walk off? Sure, it’s an inconvenience that will likely cost a bunch of money, but the studio will eventually find…

All you crapping all over devs for not unionizing make it sound like creating a union in an already established field where the number of positions is far outstripped by the number of job seekers is as easy as checking a box off on a post card and sending it in. Seriously, what is wrong with you guys?

Here's my question. When was the last time someone got in contact with the police letting them know the user name of the people they think are responsible? Could still be ridiculously difficult to track them down, even then, but it's a start. Everyone just saw a crime happen, and it's hard to believe no one…

This is the entire point. The second someone is negatively effected, they decry the business tactic as evil, but if it only affects someone else, it's perfectly acceptable. The number of people negatively affected is irrelevant. The point stands that there were people pissed at Crystal Dynamics (who likely had no say…